[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1105-1114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-105]
[[Page 1105]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 973
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-4968]
RIN 2125-AE53
Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Reservation Roads Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of each
appropriate Federal land management agency to develop, to the extent
appropriate, safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management
systems for roads funded under the Federal Lands Highway program
(FLHP). The Secretary of Transportation has delegated the authority to
the FHWA to serve as the lead agency within the U.S. DOT to implement
the FLHP. The roads funded under the FLHP include Park Roads and
Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, and Indian Reservation Roads.
This rulemaking proposes to provide for the development and
implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion management
systems for transportation facilities providing access to Indian lands
and funded under the FLHP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and copying 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 postcard or you may print the
acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Bini, Federal Lands Highway,
HFPD-2, (202) 366-6799, 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. For legal questions, Ms.
Vivian Philbin, HFL-16, (303) 716-2122, FHWA, 555 Zang Street,
Lakewood, CO 80228. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., m.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS): http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day,
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document 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
Section 1115(d) of the TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 156
(1998)) amended 23 U.S.C. 204 to require the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land
management agency, to the extent appropriate, to develop safety,
bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded
under the FLHP. A management system is a process for collecting,
organizing, and analyzing data to provide a strategic approach to
transportation planning, program development, and project selection.
Its purposes are to improve transportation system performance and
safety, and to develop alternative strategies for enhancing mobility of
people and goods.
The roads funded under the FLHP include, but are not limited to,
Park Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, and Indian
Reservation Roads. The Secretary of Transportation delegated to the
FHWA the authority to serve as the lead agency within the U.S.
Department of Transportation to administer the FLHP (see 49 CFR 1.48
(b)(29)). This rulemaking action addresses the management systems for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Reservation Roads
(IRR) program.
On September 1, 1999, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comments concerning development of
this proposed rule pertaining to the BIA and the IRR program (64 FR
47746). The ANPRM requested comments on the feasibility of developing a
rule to meet both the transportation planning and management systems
requirements of the TEA-21. Therefore, comments made to the docket
addressed both transportation planning and management systems issues.
However, the FHWA has decided to publish separate NPRMs for
transportation planning and management systems. For this reason, this
NPRM concerns only the development of the management systems. This NPRM
includes responses to the comments submitted to the docket on the ANPRM
that addressed the proposed development of the four management systems.
Those comments on the ANPRM that addressed transportation planning will
be addressed at a later date. The FHWA received comments addressing the
management systems from various State DOT's, Tribal representatives
from the Indian Reservation Roads Program Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee (Committee), the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.
(USET), and an intertribal council of twenty-three federally recognized
Tribes (Council). These comments are summarized in the following
section. Specific comments may be obtained by reviewing the materials
in the docket.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation), the FHWA
has participated in a number of consultation sessions on this
rulemaking with numerous Tribal government representatives. The purpose
of these sessions was to explain the FHWA's intent in developing the
NPRM, as well as to seek input and feedback. To the extent feasible,
the FHWA will continue to use the Committee and other key Tribal
transportation meetings to consult and coordinate with the (Indian
Tribal Governments) ITGs on this rulemaking throughout the remainder of
the process. In addition, the FHWA will hold seven informational
meetings during the comment period in the following locations at a date
and time to be announced in the Federal Register: Albuquerque, NM;
Anchorage, AK; Minneapolis, MN; Nashville, TN; Portland, OR; Las Vegas,
NV; and Tulsa, OK. These meetings will be used to provide an overview
of the rulemaking
[[Page 1106]]
process and describe FHWA's purpose and intent in developing the rules.
Tribal representatives are encouraged to attend these meetings and to
provide suggestions and comments.
Based on the comments we received on the ANPRM and during Tribal
consultations, the FHWA has developed this NPRM to provide for the
development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and
congestion management systems for transportation facilities providing
access to Indian lands and funded under the FLHP. Separate NPRM's on
management systems have also been developed for the National Park
Service (NPS) and the Park Roads and Parkways program, the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Refuge Roads program, and the Forest
Service (FS) and the Forest Highway program. The other three related
NPRM's are published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
On April 21, 2000, then President Clinton issued Executive Order
(EO) 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental
Management. This EO requires all Federal agencies to implement an
environmental management system (EMS) to ensure that agencies develop
strategies to support environmental leadership in programs, policies,
and procedures and that senior level managers explicitly and actively
endorse these strategies. The EO requires that agencies implement an
EMS no later than December 31, 2005. Furthermore, in an April 1, 2002,
letter, the Bush Administration encouraged all agencies to promote the
use of EMS in Federal, State, local, and private facilities and
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report annually
on how well each agency has done in promoting EMS.
The FHWA has already begun working toward establishing an EMS.
Additionally, the FWHA is working with the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Center for
Environmental Excellence to include EMS as part of an environmental
stewardship demonstration project. The FHWA is currently providing
technical and financial assistance to the Center, which in turn
supports States that have initiated EMSs.\1\ Furthermore, the FHWA
continues to demonstrate environmental stewardship by encouraging the
use of EMS in the construction, operation, and maintenance of
transportation facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ More information on how EMS applies to transportation
organizations can be found on the AASHTO's Center for Environmental
Excellence Web site at the following URL: http//itre.ncsu.edu/AASHTO/stewardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although an EMS may have some overlap with the four management
systems that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking, the FHWA has
decided not to incorporate the EMS in this rulemaking. The FHWA
believes that great progress has been made on the EMS and promoting the
use of EMS by the States. In addition, the FHWA has a long-standing
working relationship with the Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs)
through the Federal Lands Highway Program. The natural resource
conservation and preservation missions of these agencies have led to
the development of a jointly held environmental ethic that pervades
transportation project decision-making through the use of context
sensitive design, best management practices, and a heightened
sensitivity to environmental impacts. This relationship provides a
strong foundation for the FHWA to encourage the use of environmental
management systems by the FLMAs. For example, the National Park Service
currently has an initiative underway to implement a service-wide EMS
approach. The FHWA and the NPS can evaluate ways to coordinate the use
and development of the EMS with the transportation management systems
through the joint development of the management system implementation
plan called for in this rulemaking. A similar approach can be used with
all of the FLMAs.
Any EMS developed by the FHWA, or by a FLMA, will not have an
adverse effect on any of the management systems in this proposed
rulemaking. Instead, such an EMS may help foster a movement toward the
use of a comprehensive asset management system that incorporates EMS,
along with the transportation management systems proposed in this
rulemaking, and others not covered in this proposed action, such as a
maintenance management system. The role of the EMS in a more
comprehensive approach would demonstrate a commitment to environmental
stewardship that goes beyond the individual project level or the
development of a multi-project transportation program. The EMS should
be a fundamentally important business tool that pervades all aspects of
FLMA transportation decision-making. The FHWA will continue to advance
its EMS and promote the EMS initiatives of the FLMAs through
implementation planning for the transportation management systems. In
addition, the FHWA will continue to promote the use of EMSs in the
construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities.
In developing the management system implementation plans, the need
for data elements that address the environmental performance measures
can be evaluated in relationship to individual agency plans to
implement an EMS. This could provide an opportunity for the ongoing
collection of environmental information, if appropriate and necessary.
At a minimum, this would provide an opportunity to link existing
environmental data to the transportation management systems using a
geographic information system common to both systems.
From the FHWA's stewardship perspective regarding the Federal Lands
Highway Program, EMS is most appropriately pursued as part of sound
FLMA business management planning. Thus, the FHWA has decided not to
address the EMS requirement in this proposed rulemaking action.
Summary of Comments Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the BIA and the
Indian Reservation Roads Program
The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the
ANPRM and the FHWA's response to these comments. This discussion
provides the public a general sense of the issues addressed in the
comments. As previously stated, this NPRM is intended for the
development of management systems. Therefore, this summary contains
only comments and responses related to the management systems. There
are instances where reference is made to transportation planning issues
because the management systems serve as a guide to planning activities.
Rule Development
Comments: The majority of comments supported the FHWA's proposal to
develop ``separate rules'' pertaining to the BIA and the Indian
Reservations Roads program, the FWS and the Refuge Roads program, the
NPS and the Park Roads and Parkways program, and the FS and the Forest
Highway program. The commenters in favor of this proposal pointed out
the fact that transportation planning functions for the different
Federal lands highways are performed by various Federal, State, and
local entities, depending on ownership of the roadways and
responsibilities for constructing and maintaining the facilities.
The Wisconsin DOT and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet offered
an opposite view. These two State Transportation Departments requested
that we develop only one
[[Page 1107]]
general rule applicable to all four agencies. The Wisconsin DOT
suggested that this rule be flexible so that it recognizes the
different approaches used by the States. The Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet recommended that the rule should require the Federal land
management agencies (FLMAs) to develop Memoranda of Understanding or
Agreements that would address the consistency between the Federal land
transportation planning procedures and those required under 23 U.S.C.
134 and 135. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was concerned that the
additional rules might jeopardize existing procedures already in
effect.
Response: Following the recommendations from the majority of
commenters, the FHWA, in consultation with each appropriate Federal
land management agency, developed a separate rule pertaining to each
agency: the BIA, the FWS, the NPS, and the FS. The variance among the
rules allows for the significant differences in the ownership,
jurisdiction, and maintenance responsibilities that the FLMAs exercise
over the subject roadways addressed in the rule. To ensure uniformity,
the FHWA coordinated the development of each NPRM, so that similar text
and format are contained in each of the rules.
Comments: Tribal representatives from the Committee, the USET, and
the Council recommended against the proposed development of a rule
relating to transportation planning and management systems for the IRR
program in a process separate from the one presently underway through
the Committee. In addition, they stated that the Committee would
utilize the Indian Reservation Roads Program Transportation Planning
Procedures and Guidelines (Guidelines),\2\ that had been developed with
Tribal consultation and implemented by the DOT in October 1999, to
develop regulations that address transportation planning and management
issues. These commenters believed that the proposed rule and the rule
derived from the Guidelines would be inconsistent with each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Indian Reservation Roads Program Transportation Planning
Procedures and Guidelines,'' October 1999, is available at the URL:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/flh/reports/indian/intro.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: This proposed rule was developed to fulfill the
requirement set forth by the TEA-21. This requirement was separate and
apart from the negotiated rulemaking requirement for the IRR program.
The language set forth in this NPRM is, with the exception of proposed
funding sources, consistent with the draft language on management
systems set forth in the IRR negotiated rulemaking. While the
Guidelines help the Indian Tribal Governments (ITGs) address
transportation planning and management system requirements, the
Guidelines do not meet the requirements for rulemaking set forth in the
TEA-21.
Addressing the Management Systems Requirements
Comments: Many States believe that the management systems should
only be developed as needed and should relate to systems that are
already implemented by States and local agencies. It was recommended
that the FHWA encourage the Federal agencies to explore and use the
States' existing systems. The States also recommended the systems be
tailored to fit local conditions, and be applicable solely to the
portion of the Federal lands highways owned and maintained by Federal
agencies. Many of the States are concerned that the implementation of
the management systems may affect the current working relationships
among State, local, and Federal agencies. The Wisconsin DOT encouraged
the FHWA to work with the FLMAs and State Transportation Departments to
clarify ownership discrepancies between Federal and State data. They
suggested that the FLMAs have accurate data reflecting the amount of
mileage the agencies own by location. Further, these data have to agree
with data reported by States in the Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) database.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway
transportation system datanbase. It includes limited data on all
public roads, more detailed data for a sample of the arterial and
collector functional system, and certain summary information for
urbanized, small urban and rural areas. Additional information about
this database is available online at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The stakeholders' concerns presented above were
considered in the development of this NPRM. Each of the proposed
management system rules calls for the FHWA, in cooperation with the
FLMA, to develop an implementation plan or implementation procedures
for each of the management systems. In addition, flexibility is
provided to determine criteria for the need and applicability of each
of the FLMA's management systems. These implementation plans will
provide the opportunity to relate the FLMA management systems to
systems already implemented by States and local agencies. It will also
allow the management systems to be tailored to fit a broad range of
local conditions, and to avoid inefficient duplication of management
systems already in use by the States. Development of the implementation
plans will provide an opportunity to strengthen the working
relationships among Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies, as well
as define responsibility for and ownership of data.
Comments: The Wisconsin DOT also stated that the FHWA should
clarify that this rule and the National Highway System (NHS)
Designation Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59, 109 Stat. 568, do not make
the implementation of management systems mandatory.
Response: While it is correct that the Public Law 104-59 made the
management systems optional for States and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), except for the congestion management systems in
MPOs with a population of greater than 200,000, section 1115(d) of TEA-
21 applies to the Federal land management agencies, not directly to the
States; however, the States may be requested to provide information.
The TEA-21, enacted on June 9, 1998, amended 23 U.S.C. 204 to specify
that ``The Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land
management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule
safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads
funded under the Federal lands highways program.'' Therefore, the
development and implementation of the management systems, where
appropriate, is mandated by law for the Federal land management
agencies.
Approach to Structure of Proposed Regulation
In the development of this proposed rule, the FHWA has attempted to
minimize the level of data collection and analyses required. The FHWA
now solicits comments on the extent to which this strategy has been
achieved. Any comments suggesting that the strategy has not been
successful should identify specific reasons why the requirements and/or
provisions are burdensome. Suggestions to lessen burdens are welcome.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Subpart A
Section 973.100 Purpose
This section states that subpart A provides definitions for terms
used in this rule.
Section 973.102 Applicability
This section states that the definitions in subpart A are
applicable to this rule.
[[Page 1108]]
Section 973.104 Definitions
This section incorporates the terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 49
U.S.C. 5302, and 23 CFR part 450; and also includes additional
definitions for terms used in this part.
The phrase ``Indian lands'' would be added to the definitions of
``bridge management system (BMS),'' ``congestion management system
(CMS),'' ``pavement management system (PMS),'' and ``safety management
system (SMS)'' to indicate the distinction between the Indian lands,
Federal lands and Federal-aid management systems (refer to 23 CFR part
500 for definitions of the Federal-aid management systems). The NPRMs
for the FS, FWS and NPS would use the phrase ``Federal lands'' to
indicate the distinction between the Federal lands, Indian lands and
Federal-aid management systems. The management system definitions also
specify their applicability to the BIA, FS, FWS and NPS, as
appropriate.
Subpart B
Section 973.200 Purpose
This section states the purpose of this proposed rule, which is to
fulfill the requirements set forth by the TEA-21.
Section 973.202 Applicability
This section defines the applicability of the management systems.
Section 973.204 Management Systems Requirements
This section sets forth general requirements for all four
management systems. Additional requirements applicable to specific
systems are in Sec. Sec. 973.208 through 973.214.
Paragraph (a) states that the BIA shall develop, establish, and
implement the nationwide management systems. Paragraphs (a) and (h)
provide flexibility in the development of the nationwide management
systems. Paragraph (b) requires the FHWA and the BIA to develop
implementation plans for the nationwide management systems.
Paragraph (c) states that a Tribe may develop, establish, and
implement Tribal management systems.
Paragraph (d) directs the BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, to
develop criteria for cases in which Tribal management systems are not
appropriate.
Paragraph (e) directs the BIA or Tribes, as appropriate, to
incorporate data provided by States and local governments in the
nationwide or Tribal management systems for State and locally owned
IRRs.
To ensure the management systems are developed, implemented, and
operated systematically, paragraph (f) requires the development of
procedures that will include the following: Consideration of management
system results in the planning process; system analysis; a description
of each management system; operation and maintenance of management
systems and databases; and data collection, processing, analysis, and
updating. Paragraph (g) ensures that the database has a geographical
reference system so that information can be geolocated. Paragraph (h)
encourages the use of existing data sources to the maximum extent
possible.
Paragraph (i) states that a nationwide congestion management system
is not required. The BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the Tribes,
will develop criteria to determine when congestion management systems
are required for specific BIA transportation facilities. The BIA or the
Tribe may develop, establish and implement the congestion management
systems when they are required.
Paragraph (j) requires a periodical evaluation process of the
effectiveness of the management systems, preferably as part of the
transportation planning process. Paragraph (k) ensures that
transportation investment decisions based on management system results
would be used at the BIA region or Tribal level and can be used
throughout the transportation planning process.
Section 973.206 Funds for Establishment, Development, and
Implementation of the Systems
This section provides that the funds available for the IRR program
can be used for development, establishment, and implementation of the
nationwide and required congestion management systems in accordance
with legislative provisions for the funds.
Section 973.208 Indian Lands Pavement Management System (PMS)
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the PMS. Paragraph (b)
requires Tribes that collect data for a PMS to provide the data to the
BIA to be used in the nationwide PMS. Paragraph (c) recommends the use
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials' (AASHTO) ``Pavement Management Guide'' \4\ as a guide for
the development of the PMS. Paragraph (d) provides flexibility for the
development of the PMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Pavement Management Guide,'' AASHTO, 2001, is available
for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased
online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf
or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box
96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section further sets forth processes and procedures that must
be included in a PMS. They include requirements for a basic framework
composed of data collection and maintenance, network level analysis,
and reporting procedures.
Section 973.210 Indian Lands Bridge Management System (BMS)
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the BMS. Paragraph (b)
requires Tribes that collect data for a BMS to provide the data to the
BIA to be used in the nationwide BMS. Paragraph (c) recommends the use
of the AASHTO's ``Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems'' \5\ as a
guide for the development of BMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems,'' AASHTO, 1993,
is available for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may
be purchased on line at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf or mail addressed to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order
Dept., P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The section sets forth components that must be included in a BMS.
They consist of data collection and maintenance, analysis procedures,
and reporting procedures.
Section 973.212 Indian Lands Safety Management System (SMS)
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the SMS. Paragraph (b)
requires Tribes that collect data for a SMS to provide the data to the
BIA to be used in the nationwide SMS. Paragraph (c) encourages the use
of the FHWA publication entitled ``Safety Management Systems: Good
Practices for Development and Implementation.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development
and Implementation,'' FHWA and NHTSA, May 1996, may be obtained at
the FHWA, Office of Safety, Room 3407, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, or electronically at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/documents.htm. It is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the strong emphasis the TEA-21 has on safety, paragraph
(d) requires the SMS to be used to ensure that safety is considered and
implemented as appropriate in all phases of transportation planning,
programming and project implementation. Paragraph (e) states that the
level of complexity of the nationwide and Tribal SMS's depends on the
nature of the facilities involved.
The section sets forth the components that must be included in a
SMS. They include data collection and maintenance, identification and
[[Page 1109]]
correction of potential safety problems, communications, public
education, training needs, and reporting.
To provide flexibility, paragraph (g) states that the extent of SMS
requirements set forth in this proposed rule for low volume roads may
be tailored to be consistent with the functional classification of the
roads. However, each functional classification should include adequate
requirements to ensure effective safety decisionmaking.
Section 973.214 Indian Lands Congestion Management System (CMS)
Paragraph (b)(1) requires the BIA and the FHWA, in consultation
with the Tribes, to develop criteria for determining when a CMS will be
required for a specific transportation system.
Paragraph (b)(2) further sets forth the components to be included
in a CMS. They include the following: Identification and documentation
of measures for congestion; identification of the causes of congestion;
development of evaluation processes; identification of benefits;
determination of methods to monitor and evaluate performance of the
overall transportation system after strategies are implemented; and
consideration of example strategies provided in the proposed rule.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this
document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file
comments received after the comment closing date in the docket and will
consider late comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late
comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant
information becoming available after the comment closing date, and
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new
material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the
comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined preliminarily that the proposed rule would
be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive
Order 12866, and under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, because of the substantial public
interest anticipated in the transportation facilities of the Indian
lands. The FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of any action
taken in this rulemaking process will be minimal. The FHWA anticipates
that the proposed changes will not adversely affect any sector of the
economy in a material way. Though the proposed action will impact the
BIA, it will not likely interfere with any action taken or planned by
the BIA or another agency, or materially alter the budgetary impact of
any entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
Based upon the information received in response to this proposed
action, the FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits
associated with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information,
and data are solicited on the economic impact of the proposal described
in this document or any alternative proposal submitted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on
small entities and has determined that the proposed action would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Commenters are encouraged to evaluate any options addressed
here with regard to the potential for impact.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose a mandate that requires further
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not
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 (2 U.S.C. 1532). This rulemaking proposes to provide for the
development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and
congestion management systems for transportation systems providing
access to and within Indian lands. These roads are funded under the
FLHP; therefore, the proposed rule is not considered an unfunded
mandate. Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be
proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects
on State, local, and Tribal Governments and the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated
August 4, 1999. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action would
not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that the
proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions. However, commenters are encouraged to consider these issues,
as well as matters concerning any costs or burdens that might be
imposed on the States as a result of actions considered here.
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 (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
proposed rule contains a requirement for data and information to be
collected and maintained in the four management systems that are to be
developed. In order to streamline the process, the FHWA intends to
request that the OMB approve a single information collection clearance
for all of the data in the four management systems at the time that the
requirements in this proposal are made final. The FHWA is sponsoring
this proposed clearance on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The FHWA estimates that a total of 5,600 burden hours per year
would be imposed on non-Federal entities to provide the required
information for the BIA management systems. Respondents to this
information collection include State Transportation Departments,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Tribal governments, regional
transportation planning agencies, and county and local governments. The
BIA would bear the burden of developing the management systems in a
manner that would incorporate any existing data in the most efficient
way and without additional burdens to the public. The estimates here
only include burdens on the respondents to provide information
[[Page 1110]]
that is not usually and customarily collected.
Where a substantial level of effort may be required of non-Federal
entities to provide BIA management system information, the effort has
been benchmarked to the number of miles of State, local or Tribally
owned roads or the number of State, local or Tribally owned bridges
within the BIA's jurisdiction. This approach has been applied to the
PMS, BMS and SMS. For BIA implementation of the PMS, BMS, and SMS, the
total annual burden estimate is 3,600 of the 5,600 hours per year. The
level of burden on non-Federal entities for these management systems is
modest since the agency will incorporate existing data into the system.
Of these three systems, the most substantial burden is associated with
the collection of data to implement the BMS. The BMS burden is
estimated at 1,400 hours per year. The PMS and SMS burdens are
estimated at 1,100 hours per year for each of these management systems.
For the CMS, the non-Federal burden, if applicable, would likely
fall to the MPOs, and represents the need for the BIA to coordinate its
management system with the MPOs, for those limited instances when a
portion of its transportation system is within an MPO area. For
estimating purposes, approximately 50 MPOs nationwide may be burdened
by the proposed regulation. Forty hours of burden were assigned to each
of the 50 MPOs, resulting in a total burden of 2000 hours attributable
to the CMS.
The FHWA is required to submit this proposed collection of
information to OMB for review and approval, and accordingly, seeks
public comments. Interested parties are invited to send comments
regarding any aspect of these information collection requirements,
including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the
FHWA, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to
minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the
information collected.
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 proposed action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment. An environmental impact statement is,
therefore, not required.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposal will have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes.
Section 5 (b) of Executive Order 13175 states:
To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall
promulgate any regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments,
and that is not required by statute, unless:
(1) Funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the
Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with the
regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or
(2) The agency, prior to formal promulgation of the regulation,
(A) Consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
The Executive Order states similar requirements for any regulation
that has Tribal implications and preempts Tribal law.
As stated previously, this rulemaking is statutorily required under
section 1115(d) of the TEA-21. While there are no specific additional
dedicated funds for implementing this regulation, funds already
available under the IRR program can be used for the development,
establishment, and implementation of the management systems. The FHWA
has utilized key Tribal transportation meetings to consult and
coordinate with Indian Tribal Governments on this rulemaking since its
inception. At these meetings, the FHWA advised the Tribes of the ANPRM
and encouraged them to submit comments and suggestions to the docket.
In addition, after the docket was closed, the FHWA shared with them all
comments submitted to the docket, including those from State
Transportation Departments questioning provisions of the IRR statute.
Tribal Summary Impact Statement
As stated earlier, the FHWA published an ANPRM on September 1,
1999, to solicit public comments concerning development of this
proposed rule pertaining to the BIA and the IRR program (64 FR 47746).
Among the comments the FHWA received are the comments from the Tribal
representatives to the Indian Reservation Roads Program Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee, the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., and an
intertribal council of twenty-three federally recognized Tribes. These
comments are summarized in the section entitled ``Summary of Comments
Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the BIA and the Indian Reservation
Roads Program.'' Specific comments may be obtained by reviewing the
materials in the docket.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, during the development process
of this NPRM, the FHWA participated in a number of consultation
sessions on this rulemaking with numerous Tribal government
representatives. The purpose of these sessions was to explain the
FHWA's intent in developing the NPRM, as well as to seek input and
feedback. These discussions were scheduled agenda items with time
provided for questions and answers and took place at the following
events: The ``Transportation Improvements: Experiences Among Tribal,
Local, State, and Federal Governments Conference,'' Albuquerque, NM,
October 2000; the ``Annual Providers Conference,'' Anchorage, AK,
November 2000; the ``Intertribal Transportation Association Annual
Meeting,'' Las Vegas, NV, December 2000; and the ``Northern Plains
Transportation Exposition,'' Aberdeen, SD, March 2001.
During these discussions, the Tribes addressed two major concerns.
The first concern dealt with the funding for the establishment,
development, and implementation of the management systems. As a
response, Sec. 973.206 of this proposed action states that the IRR
program management funds may be used to conduct nationwide management
systems activities. Additionally, the IRR two-percent Tribal
transportation planning or construction funds may be used for Tribal
management systems activities.
The second concern surrounded the Tribes' desire to utilize the IRR
Negotiated Rulemaking in lieu of this proposed rule. This comment also
was addressed to the ANPRM published on September 1, 1999. The FHWA
responds to this comment in this NPRM in the ``Summary of Comments
Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the BIA and the Indian Reservation
Roads Program'' section. As the response indicates, the requirements
for the management systems and the requirements for the IRR program are
separate. However with the exception of funding, the language set forth
in this NPRM is consistent with the draft language on management
systems set forth in the IRR Negotiated Rulemaking Notice.
[[Page 1111]]
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed 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 proposed action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant and does not
concern an environmental risk to health and safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rule will not affect 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 13211 (Energy Effects)
We have analyzed this proposed 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, although this proposed action
is considered to be a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
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 973
Bridges, Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Highways
and roads, Indians--Lands, Public lands. Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below.
Issued on: December 20, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
1. Add part 973 to read as follows:
PART 973--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Subpart A--Definitions
Sec.
973.100 Purpose.
973.102 Applicability.
973.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Bureau of Indian Affairs Management Systems
973.200 Purpose.
973.202 Applicability.
973.204 Management systems requirements.
973.206 Funds for establishment, development and implementation of
the systems.
973.208 Indian lands Pavement Management System (PMS).
973.210 Indian lands Bridge Management System (BMS).
973.212 Indian lands Safety Management System (SMS).
973.214 Indian lands Congestion Management System (CMS).
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 204, 315, 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 CFR
1.48.
Subpart A--Definitions
Sec. 973.100 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms
used in this part.
Sec. 973.102 Applicability.
The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except
as otherwise provided.
Sec. 973.104 Definitions.
Alternative transportation systems means modes of transportation
other than private vehicles, including methods to improve system
performance such as transportation demand management, congestion
management, and intelligent transportation systems. These mechanisms
help reduce the use of private vehicles and thus improve overall
efficiency of transportation systems and facilities.
Elements means the components of a bridge important from a
structural, user, or cost standpoint. Examples are decks, joints,
bearings, girders, abutments, and piers.
Federal Lands Highway program (FLHP) means a federally funded
program established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to address transportation needs of
Federal and Indian lands.
Indian lands bridge management system (BMS) means a systematic
process used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or Tribal
governments for analyzing bridge data to make forecasts and
recommendations, and provides the means by which bridge maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement programs and policies may be
efficiently considered.
Indian lands congestion management system (CMS) means a systematic
process used by the BIA or Tribal governments for managing congestion
that provides information on transportation system performance and
alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the
mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet Federal, State and
local needs.
Indian lands pavement management system (PMS) means a systematic
process used by the BIA or Tribal governments that provides information
for use in implementing cost-effective pavement reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance programs and policies, and
that results in pavement designed to accommodate current and forecasted
traffic in a safe, durable, and cost-effective manner.
Indian lands safety management system (SMS) means a systematic
process used by the BIA or Tribal governments with the goal of reducing
the number and severity of traffic accidents by ensuring that all
opportunities to improve roadway safety are identified, considered,
implemented and evaluated, as appropriate, during all phases of highway
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance by providing
information for selecting and implementing effective highway safety
strategies and projects.
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 that 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 Roads (IRR) program means a part of the FLHP
established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to address the transportation needs of
federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments (ITG).
Indian Reservation Roads transportation improvement program
(IRRTIP) means a multi-year, financially constrained list by year,
State, and Tribe of IRR-funded projects selected by ITGs from Tribal
TIP's, or other Tribal
[[Page 1112]]
actions, that are programmed for construction in the next 3 to 5 years.
Indian Reservation Roads transportation plan means a document
setting out a Tribe's long-range transportation priorities and needs.
The IRR transportation plan, which can be developed by either the Tribe
or the BIA on behalf of that Tribe, is developed through the IRR
transportation planning process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
Indian Tribal Government (ITG) means a duly formed governing body
of an Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, Band, Nation, Pueblo, Village, or
Community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as
an Indian Tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List
Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
Life-cycle cost analysis means an evaluation of costs incurred over
the life of a project allowing a comparative analysis between or among
various alternatives. Life-cycle cost analysis promotes consideration
of total cost, to include maintenance and operation expenditures.
Comprehensive life-cycle costs analysis includes all economic variables
essential to the evaluation: Safety costs associated with maintenance
and rehabilitation projects, agency capital cost, and life-cycle
maintenance costs.
Operations means those activities associated with managing,
controlling, and regulating highway traffic.
Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation.
Serviceability means the degree to which a bridge provides
satisfactory service from the point of view of its users.
State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia,
or Puerto Rico.
Transportation facilities means roads, streets, bridges, parking
areas, transit vehicles, and other related transportation
infrastructure.
Subpart B--Bureau of Indian Affairs Management Systems
Sec. 973.200 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 204 which
requires the Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal
land management agency to develop, to the extent appropriate, safety,
bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded
under the FLHP.
Sec. 973.202 Applicability.
The provisions in this subpart are applicable to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Tribal Governments (ITGs) that are
responsible for satisfying these requirements for management systems
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
Sec. 973.204 Management systems requirements.
(a) The BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall develop,
establish and implement nationwide pavement, bridge, and safety
management systems for Federally and Tribally owned IRR. The BIA may
tailor the nationwide management systems to meet the agency's goals,
policies, and needs.
(b) The BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall
develop an implementation plan for each of the nationwide management
systems. These plans will include, but are not limited to, the
following: Overall goals and policies concerning the nationwide
management systems, each agency's responsibilities for developing and
implementing the nationwide management systems, implementation
schedule, data sources, and cost estimate.
(c) Tribes may develop, establish, and implement Tribal management
systems under a self-determination contract or self-governance annual
funding agreement. The Tribe may tailor the management systems to meet
its goals, policies, and needs.
(d) The BIA, in consultation with Tribes, shall develop criteria
for cases in which Tribal management systems are not appropriate.
(e) The BIA, in consultation with Tribes, or the Tribes under a
self-determination contract, shall incorporate data provided by States
and local governments into the nationwide or Tribal management systems,
as appropriate, for State and locally owned IRRs.
(f) The BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall develop and
implement procedures for the development, establishment, implementation
and operation of nationwide management systems. If a Tribe develops
Tribal management systems, the Tribe shall develop and implement
procedures for the development, establishment, implementation and
operation of Tribal management systems. The procedures shall include:
(1) A description of each management system;
(2) A process to operate and maintain the management systems and
their associated databases;
(3) A process for data collection, processing, analysis and
updating for each management system;
(4) A process for ensuring the results of the management systems
are considered in the development of IRR transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs and in making project selection
decisions under 23 U.S.C. 204; and
(5) A process for the analysis and coordination of all management
systems outputs to systematically operate, maintain, and upgrade
existing transportation assets cost-effectively;
(g) All management systems shall use databases with a common or
coordinated reference system that can be used to geolocate all database
information.
(h) Existing data sources may be used by the BIA and Tribes to the
maximum extent possible to meet the management system requirements.
(i) A nationwide congestion management system is not required. The
BIA and the FHWA shall develop criteria for determining when congestion
management systems are required for BIA or Tribal transportation
facilities providing access to and within the Indian reservations.
Either the Tribes or the BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall
develop, establish and implement congestion management systems for the
transportation facilities that meet the criteria.
(j) The BIA shall develop an appropriate means to evaluate the
effectiveness of the management systems in enhancing transportation
investment decisions and improving the overall efficiency of the
affected transportation systems and facilities. This evaluation is to
be conducted periodically, preferably as part of the BIA planning
process.
(k) The management systems shall be operated so investment
decisions based on management system outputs can be accomplished at the
BIA region and Tribal level and can be utilized throughout the
transportation planning process.
Sec. 973.206 Funds for establishment, development, and implementation
of the systems.
The IRR program management funds may be used to accomplish
nationwide management system activities. For Tribal management system
activities, the IRR two percent Tribal transportation planning or
construction funds may be used. (Refer to 23 U.S.C. 204(b) and 204(j)).
These funds are to be administered in accordance with the procedures
and requirements applicable to the funds.
Sec. 973.208 Indian lands Pavement Management System (PMS).
In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 973.204, the PMS
must meet the following requirements:
[[Page 1113]]
(a) The BIA shall have a PMS for all federally and Tribally owned
IRRs included in the IRR inventory.
(b) Where a Tribe collects data for the Tribe's PMS, the Tribe
shall provide the data to the BIA to be used in the nationwide PMS.
(c) The nationwide and Tribal PMSs may be based on the concepts
described in the AASHTO's ``Pavement Management Guide.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Pavement Management Guide,'' AASHTO, 2001, is available
for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased
online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf
or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box
96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The nationwide and Tribal PMSs may be utilized at various
levels of technical complexity depending on the nature of the pavement
network. These different levels may depend on mileage, functional
classes, volumes, loading, usage, surface type, or other criteria the
BIA and ITGs deem appropriate.
(e) A PMS shall be designed to fit the BIA's or Tribes' goals,
policies, criteria, and needs using the following components, at a
minimum, as a basic framework for a PMS:
(1) A database and an ongoing program for the collection and
maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data
needed to support the PMS. The minimum PMS database shall include:
(i) An inventory of the physical pavement features including the
number of lanes, length, width, surface type, functional
classification, and shoulder information;
(ii) A history of project dates and types of construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance. If some of
the inventory or historic data is difficult to establish, it may be
collected when preservation or reconstruction work is performed;
(iii) A condition survey that includes ride, distress, rutting, and
surface friction (as appropriate);
(iv) Traffic information including volumes and vehicle
classification (as appropriate); and
(v) Data for estimating the costs of actions.
(2) A system for applying network level analytical procedures that
are capable of analyzing data for all federally and Tribally owned IRR
in the inventory or any subset. The minimum analyses shall include:
(i) A pavement condition analysis that includes ride, distress,
rutting, and surface friction (as appropriate);
(ii) A pavement performance analysis that includes present and
predicted performance and an estimate of the remaining service life
(performance and remaining service life to be developed with time); and
(iii) An investment analysis that:
(A) Identifies alternative strategies to improve pavement
conditions;
(B) Estimates costs of any pavement improvement strategy;
(C) Determines maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation strategies
for pavements using life-cycle cost analysis or a comparable procedure;
(D) Performs short and long term budget forecasting; and
(E) Recommends optimal allocation of limited funds by developing a
prioritized list of candidate projects over a predefined planning
horizon (both short and long term).
(f) For any roads in the inventory or subset thereof, PMS reporting
requirements shall include, but are not limited to, percentage of roads
in good, fair, and poor condition.
Sec. 973.210 Indian lands Bridge Management System (BMS).
In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 973.204, the BMS
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The BIA shall have a nationwide BMS for the federally and
Tribally owned IRR bridges that are funded under the FLHP and required
to be inventoried and inspected under 23 CFR part 650, subpart C,
National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).
(b) Where a Tribe collects data for the Tribe's BMS, the Tribe
shall provide the data to the BIA to be used in the nationwide BMS.
(c) The nationwide and Tribal BMSs may be based on the concepts
described in the AASHTO's ``Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems.''
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems,'' AASHTO, 1993,
is available for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may
be purchased online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf or mail addressed to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order
Dept., P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) A BMS shall be designed to fit the BIA or Tribe's goals,
policies, criteria, and needs using the following components, as a
minimum, as a basic framework for a BMS:
(1) A database and an ongoing program for the collection and
maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data
needed to support the BMS. The minimum BMS database shall include:
(i) The inventory data described by the NBIS (23 CFR 650.311);
(ii) Data characterizing the severity and extent of deterioration
of bridge components;
(iii) Data for estimating the cost of improvement actions;
(iv) Traffic information including volumes and vehicle
classification (as appropriate); and
(v) A history of conditions and actions taken on each bridge,
excluding minor or incidental maintenance.
(2) A systematic procedure for applying network level analytical
procedures that are capable of analyzing data for all bridges in the
inventory or any subset. The minimum analyses shall include:
(i) A prediction of performance and estimate of the remaining
service life of structural and other key elements of each bridge, both
with and without intervening actions; and
(ii) A recommendation for optimal allocation of limited funds by
developing a prioritized list of candidate projects over a predefined
planning horizon (both short and long term).
(e) The BMS may include the capability to perform an investment
analysis (as appropriate, considering size of structure, traffic
volume, and structural condition). The investment analysis may include
the ability to:
(1) Identify alternative strategies to improve bridge condition,
safety and serviceability;
(2) Estimate the costs of any strategies ranging from maintenance
of individual elements to full bridge replacement;
(3) Determine maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation strategies
for bridge elements using life cycle cost analysis or a comparable
procedure; and
(4) Perform short and long term budget forecasting.
(f) For any bridge in the inventory or subset thereof, BMS
reporting requirements shall include, but are not limited to,
percentage of non-deficient bridges.
Sec. 973.212 Indian lands Safety Management System (SMS).
In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 973.204, the SMS
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The BIA shall have a nationwide SMS for all federally and
Tribally owned IRR and public transit facilities included in the IRR
inventory.
(b) Where a Tribe collects data for the Tribe's SMS, the Tribe
shall provide the data to the BIA to be used in the nationwide SMS.
(c) The nationwide and Tribal SMS may be based on the guidance in
``Safety Management Systems: Good Practices
[[Page 1114]]
for Development and Implementation.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development
and Implementation,'' FHWA and NHTSA, May 1996, may be obtained at
the FHWA, Office of Safety, Room 3407, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, or electronically at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/documents.htm. It is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The BIA and ITGs shall utilize the SMSs to ensure that safety
is considered and implemented as appropriate in all phases of
transportation system planning, design, construction, maintenance, and
operations.
(e) The nationwide and Tribal SMSs may be utilized at various
levels of complexities depending on the nature of the IRR facility
involved.
(f) A SMS shall be designed to fit the BIA or ITG's goals,
policies, criteria, and needs using, as a minimum, the following
components as a basic framework for a SMS:
(1) A database and an ongoing program for the collection and
maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data
needed to support the SMS. The minimum SMS database shall include:
(i) Accident records;
(ii) An inventory of safety hardware including signs, guardrails,
and lighting appurtenances (including terminals); and
(iii) Traffic information including volume and vehicle
classification (as appropriate).
(2) Development, establishment and implementation of procedures
for:
(i) Routinely maintaining and upgrading safety appurtenances
including highway-rail crossing warning devices, signs, highway
elements, and operational features where appropriate;
(ii) Routinely maintaining and upgrading safety features of transit
facilities;
(iii) Identifying and investigating hazardous or potentially
hazardous transportation system safety problems, roadway locations and
features; and
(iv) Establishing countermeasures and setting priorities to correct
the identified hazards and potential hazards.
(3) A process for communication, coordination, and cooperation
among the organizations responsible for the roadway, human, and vehicle
safety elements;
(4) Development and implementation of public information and
education activities on safety needs, programs, and countermeasures
which affect safety on the BIA's and ITG's transportation systems; and
(5) Identification of skills, resources and training needs to
implement safety programs for highway and transit facilities and the
development of a program to carry out necessary training.
(g) While the SMS applies to all IRRs in the IRR inventory, the
extent of system requirements (e.g., data collection, analyses, and
standards) for low volume roads may be tailored to be consistent with
the functional classification of the roads. However, adequate
requirements should be included for each BIA functional classification
to provide for effective inclusion of safety decisions in the
administration of transportation by the BIA and ITGs.
(h) For any transportation facilities in the IRR inventory or
subset thereof, SMS reporting requirements shall include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Accident types such as right-angle, rear-end, left turn, head-
on, sideswipe, pedestrian-related, run-off-road, fixed object, and
parked vehicle;
(2) Accident severity per year measured as number of accidents with
fatalities, injuries, and property damage only; and
(3) Accident rates measured as number of accidents (fatalities,
injuries, and property damage only) per 100 million vehicle miles of
travel, number of accidents (fatalities, injuries, and property damage
only) per 1000 vehicles, or number of accidents (fatalities, injuries,
and property damage only) per mile.
Sec. 973.214 Indian lands Congestion Management System (CMS).
(a) For purposes of this section, congestion means the level at
which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to
traffic interference. The BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the
Tribes, shall develop criteria to determine when a CMS is to be
implemented for a specific Federally or Tribally owned IRR
transportation system that is experiencing congestion. Either the Tribe
or the BIA, in consultation with the Tribe, shall consider the results
of the CMS in the development of the IRR transportation plan and the
IRRTIP, when selecting strategies for implementation that provide the
most efficient and effective use of existing and future transportation
facilities to alleviate congestion and enhance mobility.
(b) In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 973.204, the
CMS must meet the following requirements:
(1) For those BIA or Tribal transportation systems that require a
CMS, consideration shall be given to strategies that reduce private
automobile travel and improve existing transportation system
efficiency. Approaches may include the use of alternate mode studies
and implementation plans as components of the CMS.
(2) A CMS will:
(i) Identify and document measures for congestion (e.g., level of
service);
(ii) Identify the causes of congestion;
(iii) Include processes for evaluating the cost and effectiveness
of alternative strategies;
(iv) Identify the anticipated benefits of appropriate alternative
traditional and nontraditional congestion management strategies;
(v) Determine methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of
the multi-modal transportation system; and
(vi) Appropriately consider the following example categories of
strategies, or combinations of strategies for each area:
(A) Transportation demand management measures;
(B) Traffic operational improvements;
(C) Public transportation improvements;
(D) ITS technologies; and
(E) Additional system capacity.
[FR Doc. 03-105 Filed 1-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P