[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9476-9483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4053]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 971

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-4969]
FHWA RIN 2125-AE55


Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to 
the Forest Service and the Forest Highway Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule provides for the development and 
implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management 
systems for transportation facilities providing access to and within 
the National Forests and Grasslands and funded under the Federal Lands 
Highway Program (FLHP) as required by the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century (TEA-21). The roads funded under the FLHP include Park 
Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, Indian Reservation 
Roads, and Public Lands Highways. These management systems provide a 
strategic approach to transportation planning, program development, and 
project selection.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 2004.

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

    This final rule, the ANPRM, the NPRM, and all comments received by 
the U.S. Docket Facility, Room PL-401, may be viewed through the Docket 
Management System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov. 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 this 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.archives.gov and the Government Printing 
Office's Web site 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 by rule 
safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads 
funded

[[Page 9477]]

under the FLHP. The roads funded under the FLHP include, but are not 
limited to, Park Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, 
Indian Reservation Roads, and Public Lands Highways. 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 Forest Service (FS) and the Forest Highway 
(FH) program. Separate final rules on management systems have also been 
developed for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Refuge Roads 
program, the National Park Service (NPS) and the Park Roads and 
Parkways program, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian 
Reservation Roads program. The other three related final rules are 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    On September 1, 1999, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comments concerning development of 
this proposed regulation pertaining to the FS and the FH program (64 FR 
47744). 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. 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. Subsequently, the FHWA decided to publish a separate rule 
for the management systems, and address transportation planning at a 
later date.
    On January 8, 2003 (68 FR 1088), the FHWA issued the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comments on its proposal to develop 
and implement management systems. These comments are summarized in the 
``Summary of Comments'' section. Based on the comments received to the 
docket, the FHWA has developed this final rule to provide for the 
development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and 
congestion management systems for transportation systems providing 
access to and within the National Forests and Grasslands, which are 
funded under the FLHP. There are instances where reference is made to 
transportation planning because the management systems serve as a guide 
to planning activities; however, this final rule only implements the 
development of management systems.
    During the rulemaking process, other elements were considered 
because of their relationship to the management systems, including the 
need for an environmental management system (EMS). The FHWA is 
supporting and participating in the development of the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' Center for 
Environmental Excellence in which EMSs, particularly as they relate to 
transportation, are a major component. This is consistent with the 
FHWA's priority on environmental stewardship and streamlining. The FHWA 
continues to demonstrate environmental stewardship by promoting the use 
of EMSs in the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
transportation facilities. As implementation plans are developed for 
the management systems, the FHWA will promote coordination of the 
transportation management systems with individual agency plans to 
implement an EMS. At a minimum, this would provide an opportunity to 
link existing environmental data to the transportation management 
systems using a common geographic information system. The FHWA decided 
not to address EMSs as part of this rulemaking action, but recognizing 
the importance of EMS initiatives, the FHWA believes EMSs are most 
appropriately pursued as part of sound business planning of each 
individual agency.

Summary of Comments

    The FHWA received three comments to the docket on the NPRM. Of 
these three, two were individual submissions from the California 
(Caltrans) and Wyoming (WYDOT) State Departments of Transportation 
(State DOTs). The other was from a five-State coalition that included 
the State DOTs from Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and 
Wyoming (the State DOT coalition). The following discussion summarizes 
the specific comments received on the NPRM and the FHWA's response to 
the comments.

Rule Development

    Comment: Caltrans, the WYDOT, and the State DOT coalition provided 
supportive comments. Caltrans supports the FHWA's efforts to develop 
management systems for transportation facilities on Federal lands.
    WYDOT proposed that State DOTs serve as advisors in the development 
and implementation of the database that will support the management 
systems.
    The State DOT coalition expressed support for the use of the 
existing tri-party partnership, consisting of the Forest Service, the 
FHWA, and the applicable State DOT, for the development and 
implementation of the management systems. The State DOT coalition 
specifically requested that the final rulemaking notice confirm that 
the States have such a role in implementing the rule.
    Response: The FHWA is committed to the continued success of the 
tri-party partnership in delivering the FH program and to the use of 
the partnership in determining how the management systems will be 
developed and implemented. The tri-party partnership is specifically 
defined in the rule. Section 971.204 of the final rule, entitled 
``Management system requirements,'' delegates several responsibilities 
for the implementation of the management systems to the tri-party 
partnership. The States are given an integral role in the 
implementation of the management systems as reinforced in 23 CFR 
660(b), which indicates that a State's existing management systems 
shall fulfill the requirements of this rule, to the extent that they 
are applicable. The FHWA also supports efforts of State DOTs to serve 
as advisors to the process and encourages all State DOTs to provide 
assistance, if requested.

Implementation--Process and Coordination Issues

    Comment: Caltrans and the State DOT coalition suggested that 
Federal agencies should use existing systems to avoid redundancy and 
assure compatibility with existing State systems.
    The WYDOT expressed concern that the proposed rule did not clearly 
identify the role of each tri-party agency in developing and 
implementing the management systems. The WYDOT also suggested that the 
FS maintain and update the database, and have personnel, as required, 
to oversee the data to make the management system a viable decision-
making tool.
    The State DOT coalition further suggested options to achieve this 
by either coordinating with the State DOTs that currently have 
management systems in place or pooling resources with other Federal 
land management agencies. The State DOT coalition also indicated that 
management systems should be implemented efficiently to control costs. 
This could include limiting the data collected to the minimum amount 
necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of the FH program. They 
further noted that the judicious determination of the extent of the 
requirements for the new management systems could preserve program 
funds for actual projects. Additionally, the State DOT coalition 
suggested including a provision in the rule that excludes from the 
management

[[Page 9478]]

system any roads that are already the responsibility of a State.
    Response: Section 971.204 of the final rule, entitled ``Management 
system requirements,'' calls for the tri-party partnership to develop 
implementation procedures for each of the management systems. In 
addition, flexibility is provided in the final rule to determine 
criteria for the need and applicability of each of the management 
systems. These implementation plans will provide the opportunity to 
relate the FH 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 procedures and resulting 
management systems will provide an opportunity to strengthen the 
working relationship of the tri-party partnership, as well as define 
the roles for each agency and the responsibilities for data. The tri-
party partnership is responsible for determining an appropriate role 
for the FS in maintaining and updating the databases, and assuring that 
they are used as effective tools to improve the FH program. The results 
of this process can then be used to update existing memorandums of 
understanding that govern the tri-party process for administering the 
FH program in each State. This process will provide States with the 
ability to directly influence how the final rule is implemented, and 
avoid undue burden.

Implementation--Management System Structure and Data Standards

    Comment: The WYDOT expressed concern that the proposed rulemaking 
is more prescriptive than 23 CFR Part 500, Subpart F in terms of the 
guidance under which the WYDOT is presently operating its management 
systems. Other concerns expressed by the WYDOT included uncertainty 
about the accuracy and completeness of bridge data currently collected 
by the Federal land management agencies, uncertainty about the number 
of additional bridges to be inventoried, and difficulty in coordinating 
databases due to dissimilar formats. Because of this, the WYDOT 
suggested that the Federal Lands bridge management system should be 
operated completely independently of State systems.
    The State DOT coalition indicated that the inclusion of unpaved 
roads might make the development of a pavement management system for 
all roads too costly.
    Response: The definitions of management systems in the final rule 
mirror very closely the definitions of management systems in 23 CFR 
Part 500. In addition, the management system requirements in the rule 
further enumerate the types of information and processes necessary to 
create effective management systems as anticipated by 23 CFR Part 500, 
consistent with FHWA and AASHTO guidelines. The tri-party partnership 
has considerable latitude to tailor the management systems to meet FH 
program goals, policies, and needs under the rule, by using 
professional engineering and planning judgment in determining the 
required nature and extent of the management systems. In that regard, 
concerns over the accuracy and completeness of Federal land management 
agency data, problems with data format, and the effective interface 
between systems can be resolved through the cooperative development of 
the management system implementation processes and procedures by the 
tri-party partnership.
    The rule anticipates that, by definition, all paved roads would be 
included in the pavement management system. The choice of including 
unpaved roads in the system for future planning purposes would be at 
the option of the tri-party partnership.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    After careful consideration of the comments received, the FHWA has 
modified the final rule to address the concerns of the commenting 
States for flexibility in implementation of the management systems. 
This section-by-section analysis describes the change.

Section 971.204

    Comment: The WYDOT and the State DOT coalition indicated a need for 
the tri-party partnership to have flexibility in determining how to 
best structure the management systems to meet the intent and 
requirements of the rule, yet implement the systems in a cost effective 
and efficient manner. In addition, the WYDOT and the State DOT 
coalition expressed uncertainty regarding the data requirements for the 
management systems and the roles of the tri-party partnership agencies 
in implementing the management systems.
    Response: The FHWA supports the need for the tri-party partnership 
to have flexibility in developing and implementing procedures for the 
development, establishment, implementation and operation of the 
management systems. In addition, the FHWA has attempted to clarify and 
reinforce the role of the States in developing, implementing and 
operating management systems as a member of the tri-party partnership. 
To do this, the FHWA has amended Sec.  971.204(a) by adding a new 
sentence that reads, ``If a State has established a management system 
for FH that fulfills the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 303, that management 
system, to the extent applicable, can be used to meet the requirements 
of this subpart consistent with 23 CFR 660.105(b). In addition, to 
provide the necessary flexibility for the tri-party partnership in 
implementing the management systems, the FHWA has modified the third 
sentence of Sec.  971.204(a) by inserting the following after the word 
needs ``* * * using professional engineering and planning judgment to 
determine the required nature and extent of systems coverage consistent 
with the intent and requirements of this rule.''
    Additionally, the FHWA is revising the definition of ``Forest 
highway'' to be consistent with definition of Forest highway in 23 
U.S.C. 101. The definition in the NPRM was drafted to recognize the 
substantial role of the States in developing, establishing, and 
implementing the Forest highway program management systems and in the 
designation of Forest highways. Although the definition in the NPRM was 
accurate, the FHWA reconsidered the use of a definition of ``Forest 
highway'' that was different from the statutory definition. To avoid 
confusion and for consistency, the definition of ``Forest highway'' is 
changed to the definition that appears in 23 U.S.C. 101.

Conclusion

    The FHWA anticipated public interest in this rulemaking and the 
comments to the docket have helped raise awareness about the roles and 
responsibilities of all of the entities involved in the implementation 
of the final rule, which will be important to consider in the 
development of the implementation procedures by the tri-party 
partnership. These implementation procedures can be an effective tool 
in avoiding duplication and redundancy, minimizing the burden on States 
and other non-Federal entities, and determining the required extent of 
management systems coverage. The FHWA believes that the resulting 
change in the final rule addresses the commenting States' concerns, as 
members of the tri-party partnership, for flexibility and will yield 
enhanced cooperation and coordination in its implementation.

[[Page 9479]]

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this final rule is 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 in the 
transportation facilities of the National Forests and Grasslands. The 
FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of any action taken in this 
rulemaking process will be minimal, and that the final rule will not 
adversely affect any sector of the economy in a material way. Though 
this action will impact the FS, it is unlikely that it will interfere 
with any action, taken or planned, by the FS or another agency, or 
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlement, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs.
    The FHWA has considered the costs and benefits associated with this 
rulemaking and the information provided in response to the proposed 
rule and believes that the benefits outweigh the costs. Information 
provided by the management systems will enhance transportation 
investment decisions for the FH program and improve the overall 
efficiency of the FS transportation system. In addition, management 
system information will assist the FHWA in its stewardship and 
oversight roles. The benefits of this information will be significant 
in relationship to the costs of implementation.

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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not impose a mandate that requires further 
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 
March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This final rule will not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and Indian 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 final rule provides for the development and 
implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion management 
systems for transportation systems providing access to and within the 
National Forests and Grasslands that are funded under the FLHP. 
Therefore, this action is not considered an unfunded mandate.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final 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 action will not have sufficient 
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this final action will 
not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' 
ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

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 final 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 requested that the OMB approve a single information collection 
clearance for all of the data in the four management systems at the 
time the final rule is published. The FHWA is sponsoring this clearance 
on behalf of the Forest Service.
    The FHWA estimates that a total of 8,900 burden hours would be 
imposed on non-Federal entities to provide the required information for 
the FS management systems. Respondents to this information collection 
include State Transportation Departments, Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPOs), regional transportation planning agencies, and 
county and local governments. The tri-party partnership has a 
responsibility to develop 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 that is not usually 
and customarily collected.
    Where a substantial level of effort may be required for non-Federal 
entities to provide management system information, the effort has been 
benchmarked to the number of miles of State or locally owned roads or 
the number of State or locally owned bridges within the jurisdiction of 
the FS. This approach has been applied to the pavement management 
system (PMS), bridge management system (BMS), and safety management 
system (SMS). Since a substantial portion of the FS system is State or 
locally owned roads, considerable effort may be required of States, and 
county and local governments in providing pavement, bridge, and safety 
information. The total annual burden estimate for these three systems 
is 6,100 hours. Burden estimates are 2,200 hours per year for the PMS; 
1,700 hours per year for the BMS; and 2,200 hours per year for the SMS.
    For implementation of the congestion management system (CMS), the 
non-Federal burden, if applicable, would likely fall to the MPOs. The 
burden represents the need for the FS to coordinate its management 
systems with the MPOs for that portion of its transportation system 
within an MPO area. This results in a total annual burden estimate of 
2,800 hours for the FS CMS.
    The State DOT coalition and WYDOT provided comments on the proposed 
data collection indicating that the management systems should be 
implemented in a way that does not burden States or adversely affect 
the funding or other resources available for the State programs. The 
State DOT coalition's comments encouraged a cooperative process using 
approaches that would avoid redundancy and duplication in implementing 
the management systems.
    WYDOT also expressed concern about the uncertainty of the number of 
additional bridges to be inventoried due to previous problems in 
effectively including federally owned bridges in the WYDOT bridge 
inventory system.
    The FHWA anticipated some burden on States and MPOs in the burden 
estimates prepared as part of the rulemaking. The State DOT coalition 
or WYDOT did not question the need for management systems or the FHWA's 
burden estimates. The FHWA believes that the value of the management 
systems information for transportation decision-making outweighs the 
burden of collecting it. The FHWA has tried to

[[Page 9480]]

keep the data collection burden to the lowest level possible, while 
providing for the necessary data and the FHWA believes the burden 
estimates to be fair and equitable. The tri-party partnership has the 
responsibility to develop the management systems in a manner that would 
incorporate any existing data in the most efficient way and without 
additional burdens to the public.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA 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 final rule will 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 action under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and concluded that this final rule will not 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal government; 
and will not preempt tribal law. The requirements set forth in the 
final rule do not directly affect one or more Indian tribes. Therefore, 
a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule 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)

    Under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, this final rule is not 
economically significant and does not involve an environmental risk to 
health and safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This final 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)

    This final rule has been analyzed under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a 
significant energy action under that order because, although this 
proposed action is considered a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, the final rule 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 971

    Bridges, Congestion management, Grant program--transportation, 
Highways and roads, Management systems, National forests, Pavement 
management, Public lands, Safety management, Transportation.

0
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway 
Administration amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below.

    Issued on: February 18, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.


0
1. Add a new part 971 to subchapter L to read as follows:

PART 971--FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Subpart A--Definitions
Sec.
971.100 Purpose.
971.102 Applicability.
971.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Forest Highway Program Management Systems
971.200 Purpose.
971.202 Applicability.
971.204 Management systems requirements.
971.206 Funds for establishment, development and implementation of 
the systems.
971.208 Federal lands pavement management system (PMS).
971.210 Federal lands bridge management system (BMS).
971.212 Federal lands safety management system (SMS).
971.214 Federal 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.  971.100  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms 
used in this part.


Sec.  971.102  Applicability.

    The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except 
as otherwise provided.


Sec.  971.104  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 mean the components of a bridge that are important from a 
structural, user, or cost standpoint. Examples are decks, joints, 
bearings, girders, abutments, and piers.
    Federal lands bridge management system (BMS) means a systematic 
process used by the Forest Service (FS), the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS) for collecting and analyzing 
bridge data to make forecasts and recommendations, and that provides 
the means by which bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement 
programs and policies may be efficiently and effectively considered.
    Federal lands congestion management system (CMS) means a systematic 
process used by the FS, FWS, and NPS 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.
    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.
    Federal lands pavement management system (PMS) means a systematic 
process used by the FS, FWS, and NPS 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.
    Federal lands safety management system (SMS) means a systematic

[[Page 9481]]

process used by the FS, FWS, and NPS 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.
    Forest highway (FH) means a forest road under the jurisdiction of, 
and maintained by, a public authority and open to public travel.
    Forest Highway program means the public lands highway funds 
allocated each fiscal year, as is provided in 23 U.S.C. 202, for 
projects that provide access to and within the National Forest system, 
as described in 23 U.S.C. 202(b) and 23 U.S.C. 204.
    Forest Highway program transportation improvement program (FHTIP) 
means a staged, multiyear, multimodal program of transportation 
projects in a State area consistent with the FH transportation plan and 
developed through the tri-party FH planning processes pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 204, and 23 CFR 660 subpart A.
    Forest Service transportation plan means the official FH 
multimodal, transportation plan that is developed through the tri-party 
FH transportation planning process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
    Highway safety means the reduction of traffic accidents on public 
roads, including reductions in deaths, injuries, and property damage.
    Intelligent transportation system (ITS) means electronics, 
communications, or information processing, used singly or in 
combination, to improve the efficiency and safety of a surface 
transportation system.
    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, including maintenance and operation expenditures. 
Comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis includes all economic variables 
essential to the evaluation including user costs such as delay, safety 
costs associated with maintenance and rehabilitation projects, agency 
capital costs, and life-cycle maintenance costs.
    Metropolitan planning area means the geographic area in which the 
metropolitan transportation planning process, required by 23 U.S.C. 134 
and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306, must be carried out.
    Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the forum for 
cooperative transportation decision-making for the metropolitan 
planning area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
    National Forest System means all the lands and waters reported by 
the FS as being part of the National Forest System, including those 
generally known as National Forests and National Grasslands.
    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 50 States, the District of Columbia, or 
Puerto Rico.
    Transportation facilities mean roads, streets, bridges, parking 
areas, transit vehicles, and other related transportation 
infrastructure.
    Transportation Management Area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a 
population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census) 
or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the 
MPO (or affected local officials). It also must be officially 
designated by the Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The TMA 
designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area(s).
    Tri-party means the joint, cooperative, shared partnership among 
the Federal Lands Highway Division (FLHD), State Department of 
Transportation (State DOT), and the FS to carry out the FH program.

Subpart B--Forest Highway Program Management Systems


Sec.  971.200  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 the extent appropriate, to develop by rule 
safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads 
funded under the FLHP.


Sec.  971.202  Applicability.

    The provisions in this subpart are applicable to the FS, the 
Federal Highway Administration, and the State DOTs that are responsible 
for satisfying these requirements for management systems pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 204.


Sec.  971.204  Management systems requirements.

    (a) The tri-party partnership shall develop, establish, and 
implement the management systems as described in this subpart. If the 
State has established a management system for FH that fulfills the 
requirements in 23 U.S.C. 303, that management system, to the extent 
applicable, can be used to meet the requirements of this subpart 
consistent with 23 CFR 660.105(b). The management systems may be 
tailored to meet the FH program goals, policies, and needs using 
professional engineering and planning judgment to determine the nature 
and extent of systems coverage consistent with the intent and 
requirements of this rule.
    (b) The tri-party partnership shall develop and implement 
procedures for the acceptance of the existing, or the development, 
establishment, implementation, and operation of new management systems. 
The procedures shall include:
    (1) A process for ensuring the output of the management systems is 
considered in the development of the FH program transportation plans 
and transportation improvement programs, and in making project 
selection decisions under 23 U.S.C. 204;
    (2) A process for the analyses and coordination of all management 
systems outputs to systematically operate, maintain, and upgrade 
existing transportation assets cost-effectively;
    (3) A description of each management system;
    (4) A process to operate and maintain the management systems and 
their associated databases; and
    (5) A process for data collection, processing, analysis, and 
updating for each management system.
    (c) All management systems will use databases with a common or 
coordinated reference system, that can be used to geolocate all 
database information, to ensure that data across management systems are 
comparable.
    (d) Existing data sources may be used by the tri-party partnership 
to meet the management system requirements.
    (e) The tri-party partnership shall develop an appropriate means to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the management systems in enhancing 
transportation investment decision-making and improving the overall 
efficiency of the affected transportation systems and facilities. This 
evaluation is to be conducted periodically, preferably as part of the 
FS planning process.
    (f) The management systems shall be operated so investment 
decisions based on management system outputs can be accomplished at the 
State level.

[[Page 9482]]

Sec.  971.206  Funds for establishment, development, and implementation 
of the systems.

    The FH program funds may be used for development, establishment, 
and implementation of the management systems. These funds are to be 
administered in accordance with the procedures and requirements 
applicable to the funds.


Sec.  971.208  Federal lands pavement management system (PMS).

    In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  971.204, the PMS 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The tri-party partnership shall have PMS coverage of all FHs 
and other associated facilities, as appropriate, funded under the FLHP.
    (b) The PMS 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 is also available 
from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box 96716, 
Washington, DC 20090-6716 or online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The PMS may be utilized at various levels of technical 
complexity depending on the nature of the transportation network. These 
different levels may depend on mileage, functional classes, volumes, 
loading, usage, surface type, or other criteria the tri-party 
partnership deems appropriate.
    (d) The PMS shall be designed to fit the FH program 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 FHs and other appropriate 
associated facilities 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 may 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) Provides for 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).
    (e) For any FHs and other appropriate associated facilities 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.  971.210  Federal lands bridge management system (BMS).

    In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  971.204, the BMS 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The tri-party partnership shall have a BMS for the FH bridges 
funded under the FLHP and required to be inventoried and inspected 
under 23 CFR 650, subpart C, National Bridge Inspection Standards 
(NBIS).
    (b) The BMS 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 is 
also available from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box 
96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716 or online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The BMS shall be designed to fit the FH program 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 required by the NBIS (23 CFR 650, subpart 
C);
    (ii) Data characterizing the severity and extent of deterioration 
of bridge elements;
    (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 system for applying network level analytical procedures at 
the State or local area level, as appropriate, and 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 
through development of a prioritized list of candidate projects over 
predefined short and long-term planning horizons.
    (d) 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:
    (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) Provide short and long-term budget forecasting.
    (e) 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.  971.212  Federal lands safety management system (SMS).

    In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  971.204, the SMS 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The tri-party partnership shall have an SMS for transportation 
systems providing access to and within National Forests and Grasslands, 
and funded under the FLHP.
    (b) The SMS may be based on the guidance in ``Safety Management

[[Page 9483]]

Systems: Good Practices 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The tri-party partnership shall utilize SMS to ensure that 
safety is considered and implemented, as appropriate, in all phases of 
transportation system planning, design, construction, maintenance, and 
operations.
    (d) The SMS may be utilized at various levels of complexity 
depending on the nature of the facility and/or network involved.
    (e) The SMS shall be designed to fit the FH program goals, 
policies, criteria, and needs and shall contain the following 
components:
    (1) An ongoing program for the collection, maintenance, and 
reporting of a database that includes:
    (i) Accident records with detail for analysis such as accident type 
using standard reporting descriptions (e.g., right-angle, rear-end, 
head-on, pedestrian-related, etc.), location, description of event, 
severity, weather, and cause;
    (ii) An inventory of safety appurtenances such as signs, 
delineators, and guardrails (including terminals);
    (iii) Traffic information including volume and vehicle 
classification (as appropriate); and
    (iv) Accident rates by customary criteria such as location, roadway 
classification, and vehicle miles of travel.
    (2) Development, establishment, and implementation of procedures 
for:
    (i) Where appropriate, routine maintenance and upgrading of safety 
appurtenances including highway rail crossing safety devices, signs, 
highway elements, and operational features,
    (ii) Identifying, investigating, and analyzing hazardous or 
potentially hazardous transportation system safety problems, roadway 
locations, and features;
    (iii) Establishing countermeasures and setting priorities to 
correct the identified hazards and potential hazards.
    (3) Identification of focal points for all contacts at State, 
regional, tribal, and local levels to coordinate, develop, establish, 
and implement the SMS among the agencies.
    (f) While the SMS applies to appropriate transportation systems 
providing access to and within National Forests and Grasslands funded 
under the FLHP, 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 
roadway to provide for effective inclusion of safety decisions in the 
administration of the FH program.


Sec.  971.214  Federal 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. For portions of the FH network outside the 
boundaries of TMAs, the tri-party partnership shall:
    (1) Develop criteria to determine when a CMS is to be implemented 
for a specific FH; and
    (2) Have CMS coverage for the transportation systems providing 
access to and within National Forests, as appropriate, that meet 
minimum CMS criteria.
    (b) The tri-party partnership shall consider the results of the CMS 
when selecting the implementation of strategies that provide the most 
efficient and effective use of existing and future transportation 
facilities.
    (c) In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  971.204, the 
CMS must meet the following requirements:
    (1) For those FH transportation systems that require a CMS, in both 
metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, consideration shall be given 
to strategies that reduce private automobile travel and improve 
existing transportation efficiency. Approaches may include the use of 
alternative 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 to manage congestion;
    (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. 04-4053 Filed 2-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-U