[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9483-9490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4054]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 972

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-4970]


FHWA RIN 2125-AE54

Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge Roads 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 serving the National Wildlife 
Refuge System (Refuge System) 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 will 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.

[[Page 9484]]

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 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 
Refuge Roads program. Separate final rules on management systems have 
also been developed for the National Park Service (NPS) and the Park 
Roads and Parkways program, the Forest Service (FS) and the Forest 
Highway 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 
a proposed rule pertaining to the FWS and the Refuge Roads program (64 
FR 47741). 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 issue a separate 
rulemaking document for the management systems and address the planning 
systems at a later date.
    On January 8, 2003, (68 FR 1096) the FHWA issued the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comments on the proposal to 
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 facilities providing 
access to the Refuge System and 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, the FHWA considered other elements 
for their relationship to the management systems. Among these was the 
need for an environmental management system (EMS). The FHWA is 
currently supporting and participating in the development of the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' 
Center for Environmental Excellence in which EMSs, 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 EMS as part of this rulemaking action, but recognizing 
the importance of EMS initiatives, the FHWA believes that 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, one was from a five-State coalition of State Departments 
of Transportation (State DOTs), comprised of the State DOTs of Idaho, 
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming (the State DOT 
coalition), and the other two were from the California (Caltrans) and 
Washington (WSDOT) State DOTs. The following discussion summarizes the 
specific comments received and the FHWA's response to the comments.

Rule Development

    Comment: Caltrans and the WSDOT provided supportive comments. 
Caltrans indicated general support for the FHWA's efforts to develop 
management systems for transportation facilities on Federal lands.
    The WSDOT stated the application of management systems for 
transportation facilities on Federal lands was a good business 
practice, and the agency offered to provide technical assistance to the 
Federal land management agencies (FLMAs).
    Response: The FHWA supports efforts by the WSDOT to provide 
technical assistance in the development of the management systems, and 
encourages all State DOTs to provide technical assistance, if 
requested. In addition, the FHWA appreciates recognition by Caltrans 
and the WSDOT of the importance of the management systems to the FLMAs.
    Comment: The FWS inquired about the feasibility of broadening the 
definition of the term Refuge road to include National Fish Hatchery 
roads, to allow for any future expansion in eligibility in the event 
that the Congress should add this category of roads to the Refuge Road 
program.
    Response: The FHWA believes that it would be speculative to attempt 
to draft a definition broad enough to cover the addition of this 
category of roads, and any details that may accompany such a change, 
until the Congress takes such action. However, the FWS can elect to 
collect data for National Fish Hatchery Roads for inclusion in the 
management systems using their own funds. The FHWA would support such 
an effort as useful to overall system management in the future.

Implementation--Process and Coordination Issues

    Comments: The State DOT coalition and Caltrans suggested Federal 
agencies should use existing systems to avoid redundancy and assure 
compatibility with existing State systems.
    The State DOT coalition further suggested that two methods to 
achieve this are coordinating with the State DOTs that currently have 
management systems in place to assure compatibility, or pooling 
resources with other Federal land management agencies. The State DOT 
coalition also indicated

[[Page 9485]]

management systems should be implemented efficiently to control costs, 
by limiting the data collected to the minimum necessary to achieve 
goals and objectives for the Refuge Road program. The State DOT 
coalition further indicated that judicious determination of the extent 
of the requirements for the new management systems could preserve 
program funds for actual projects. The State DOT coalition suggested 
including a provision in the rule that excludes from the management 
systems any roads that are already the responsibility of a State.
    Response: Section 972.204(b) of the final rule, ``Management 
systems requirements,'' includes a requirement for the FWS and the FHWA 
to develop an implementation plan for each of the management systems. 
The plans will include, but are not limited to: Overall goals and 
policies concerning the management systems; each agency's 
responsibilities for developing and implementing the management 
systems; implementation schedule; data sources; and cost estimate. 
Other process issues, such as avoiding redundancy, coordination for 
data sharing, compatibility of data and systems, and specific data 
required to support the management systems can also be addressed in the 
implementation plans.
    The implementation plans will also provide an opportunity to 
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the FWS, the FHWA and the 
States. Nothing in the rule is intended to affect a State's or MPO's 
role in providing accident or congestion data for its facilities 
covered by the management systems. The plans are intended to develop 
effective means of collecting and using information to improve 
decision-making for the Refuge Road program, and to promote data 
sharing. Inclusion of State or MPO data in the management systems does 
not assume that the FWS would duplicate the data collection effort 
already undertaken by a State or MPO. Emphasis is on the importance of 
cooperation and coordination in understanding responsibilities, and 
sharing data.
    While the FHWA has acknowledged part of the data collection burden 
will be a State responsibility, minimizing that burden is a 
responsibility of the FWS in its role of establishing and maintaining 
the management systems. States will have the opportunity to help 
determine how the information is collected and used during the 
development of the implementation plans. One important component of the 
management systems will be compatibility with existing State systems, 
as a means to minimize any additional data collection burden or 
duplication of effort.

Implementation--Management System Structure and Data Standards

    Comment: The FWS requested clarification of the meaning of the 
term, ``as appropriate'' in Sec.  972.212(c) regarding the 
consideration and implementation of safety in development and 
application of the management systems. The FWS interpretation of the 
term would provide for some flexibility in judgment for designing the 
management systems to meet the goals, policies and needs of the Refuge 
Road program consistent with the intent and requirements of the 
proposed rule, as opposed to a rigid application of a one-size-fits-all 
approach.
    Response: The FHWA agrees with the FWS comment about the need to 
clarify the meaning of the term, ``as appropriate'' as applied in the 
rule, since it appears numerous times in the rule, in addition to the 
section referenced by the FWS. The term, ``as appropriate'' is intended 
to provide a certain amount of flexibility for the FWS and the FHWA to 
plan for management systems that meet program needs, but also are cost 
effective and efficient to implement. To reinforce the need for such 
flexibility, the FHWA has revised Sec.  972.204(a) to provide for 
professional engineering and planning judgment in determining the 
nature and extent of the required management systems coverage.
    Comment: The State DOT coalition indicated that it might be unduly 
costly to develop a pavement management system for all roads by 
including unpaved roads.
    Response: For clarification, the FWS pavement management system 
limits coverage to paved RR and other associated transportation 
facilities.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    After careful consideration of the comments received, the FHWA has 
modified the final rule to address the FWS concern over the term ``as 
appropriate'' in meeting the intent and requirements of the rule. This 
section-by-section analysis describes the change.

Section 972.204--Management System Requirements

    Comment: The FWS inquired about the intended meaning of the term, 
``as appropriate'' as applied in Sec.  972.212(c), since the term was 
seemingly applied to this management system, but not all of the others.
    Response: The FHWA supports the need to clarify the intended 
meaning of the term, ``as appropriate'' as applied, not only in Sec.  
972.212(c), but also throughout the FWS management system final rule, 
since the term does appear in numerous subsections of the rule. The 
term allows some flexibility in designing the management systems to 
meet the goals, policies and needs of the FWS for the Refuge Road 
program. In addition, the FHWA supports the need and desire for 
flexibility in developing and implementing the management systems. To 
provide the necessary flexibility, the FHWA has modified the second 
sentence of Sec.  972.204(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.''

Conclusion

    The FHWA anticipated public interest in this rulemaking and the 
comments to the docket have helped to raise awareness about roles and 
responsibilities of all entities involved in the implementation of this 
rule that will be important to consider in the development of the 
implementation plans and the resulting management systems. These 
implementation plans 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 changes in the final 
rule address the questions raised by the FWS and the States, and will 
yield enhanced cooperation and coordination in its implementation.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    The FHWA has determined 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 anticipated 
in the transportation facilities of the Refuges. The Office of 
Management and Budget has reviewed this document under E.O. 12866. The 
FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of any action taken in this 
rulemaking process will be minimal. The FHWA anticipates that this 
final rule will not adversely affect any sector of the economy in a 
material way. Though this

[[Page 9486]]

final action will impact the FWS, it will not likely interfere with any 
action taken or planned by the FWS 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 the benefits outweigh the costs. Information 
provided by the management systems will enhance transportation 
investment decisions for the Refuge Road program, and improve the 
overall efficiency of the FWS transportation system. In addition, the 
management systems will assist the FHWA in its stewardship and 
oversight roles. The benefits of the management system 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 action on small 
entities and has determined that this final rule will 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 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 facilities serving the Refuge System roads 
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 Fish and Wildlife Service.
    The FHWA estimates that a total of 3,700 burden hours will be 
imposed on non-Federal entities to provide some of the required safety 
and congestion management information. Respondents to this information 
collection may include State transportation departments, Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations (MPOs), regional transportation planning 
agencies, and county and local governments.
    A measurable level of effort may be required of non-Federal 
entities to provide management system information for the safety and 
congestion management systems. A similar level of effort is not 
anticipated for the pavement and bridge management systems, since the 
entire RR system is under the jurisdiction of the FWS. The burden on 
States will be measurable at a level commensurate with the relatively 
modest extent of the RR system. For estimating purposes, each State has 
been assigned 26 hours of burden in providing safety information. Thus, 
the total annual burden estimate for the safety management system is 
1,300 hours.
    For implementation of the congestion management system (CMS), the 
non-Federal burden, if applicable, would likely fall to the MPOs, and 
represents the need for the FLMAs to coordinate their management 
systems with the MPOs for that portion of their transportation system 
that is within the MPO area. This results in a total annual burden 
estimate of 2,400 hours for the FWS CMS.
    The State DOT coalition 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.
    The FHWA anticipated some burden on States and MPOs in the burden 
estimates prepared as part of the rulemaking. The State DOT coalition 
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 keep the data collection burden to 
the lowest level possible, while still providing for the necessary 
data, and believes the burden estimates to be fair and equitable. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service has 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.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and concluded that the 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 this 
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,

[[Page 9487]]

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, 
Distributions, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a 
significant energy action under that order because, although this final 
rule 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 972

    Bridges, Congestion management, Grant program--transportation, 
Highways and roads, Management systems, Pavement management, Public 
lands, Safety management, Transportation, Wildlife Refuge roads.
    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.
    1. Add a new part 972 to subchapter L to read as follows:

PART 972--FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Subpart A--Definitions
Sec.
972.100 Purpose.
972.102 Applicability.
972.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Fish and Wildlife Service Management Systems
972.200 Purpose.
972.202 Applicability.
972.204 Management systems requirements.
972.206 Funds for establishment, development and implementation of 
the systems.
972.208 Federal lands Pavement Management System (PMS).
972.210 Federal lands Bridge Management System (BMS).
972.212 Federal lands Safety Management System (SMS).
972.214 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.  972.100  Purpose.

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


Sec.  972.102  Applicability.

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


Sec.  972.104  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 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 analyzing bridge data to 
make forecasts and recommendations, and provides the means by which 
bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement programs and 
policies may be 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 
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.
    Fish and Wildlife Service transportation plan means the official 
Fish and Wildlife Service-wide multimodal transportation plan that is 
developed through the Fish and Wildlife Service transportation planning 
process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
    Highway safety means the reduction of traffic accidents, and 
deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom, on public 
roads.
    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, to include maintenance and operation expenditures. 
Comprehensive life-cycle costs analysis includes all economic variables 
essential to the evaluation: User costs such as delay and safety costs 
associated with maintenance and rehabilitation projects, agency capital 
cost, and life-cycle maintenance costs.

[[Page 9488]]

    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 Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) means all the lands 
and waters reported by the FWS as being part of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System in the annual ``Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. 
FWS.'' \1\ Included in the Refuge System are those lands that are 
generally known as refuges, waterfowl production areas, wetland 
management districts, and coordination areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Report of Lands under Control of the U.S. FWS,'' U.S. FWS, 
(published annually on September 30). A free copy is available from 
the U.S. FWS, Division of Realty, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 622, 
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone: (703) 358-1713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operations means those activities associated with managing, 
controlling, and regulating highway traffic.
    Refuge road means a public road that provides access to or is 
located within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System and for 
which title and maintenance responsibilities are vested in the United 
States Government.
    Refuge Roads program means the funds allocated each fiscal year, as 
described in 23 U.S.C. 202(e) and 23 U.S.C. 204(k).
    Refuge Roads transportation improvement program (RRTIP) means a 
staged, multiyear, multimodal program of transportation projects for 
the Refuge Roads Program consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service 
transportation plan and planning processes pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204(a) 
and (k).
    Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation.
    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.
    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), and officially designated by the 
Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal 
Transit Administration. The TMA designation applies to the entire 
metropolitan planning area(s).

Subpart B--Fish and Wildlife Service Management Systems


Sec.  972.200  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.  972.202  Applicability.

    The provisions in this subpart are applicable to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
that are responsible for satisfying these requirements for management 
systems pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.


Sec.  972.204  Management systems requirements.

    (a) The FWS shall develop, establish and implement the management 
systems as described in this subpart. The FWS may tailor the management 
systems to meet the FWS goals, policies, and 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.
    (b) The FWS and the FHWA shall develop an implementation plan for 
each of the management systems. These plans will include, but are not 
limited to, the following: Overall goals and policies concerning the 
management systems, each agency's responsibilities for developing and 
implementing the management systems, implementation schedule, data 
sources, and cost estimate. The FHWA will provide the FWS ongoing 
technical engineering support for the development, implementation, and 
maintenance of the management systems.
    (c) The FWS shall develop and implement procedures for the 
development, establishment, implementation and operation of management 
systems. The procedures shall include:
    (1) A process for ensuring the results of any of the management 
systems are considered in the development of FWS 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 
system 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.
    (d) All management systems will use databases with a geographical 
reference system that can be used to geolocate all database 
information.
    (e) Existing data sources may be used by the FWS to the maximum 
extent possible to meet the management system requirements.
    (f) The FWS shall develop an appropriate means to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the management systems in enhancing transportation 
decision-making and improving the overall efficiency of the affected 
federally owned transportation systems and facilities. This evaluation 
is to be conducted periodically, preferably as part of the 
comprehensive resource conservation planning process.
    (g) The management systems shall be operated so investment 
decisions based on management system outputs can be accomplished at the 
regional level.


Sec.  972.206  Funds for establishment, development, and implementation 
of the systems.

    The Refuge Roads 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.  972.208  Federal lands pavement management system (PMS).

    In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  972.204, the PMS 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The FWS shall, at a minimum, have PMS coverage of all paved 
refuge roads 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.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``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 pavement network. These 
different levels may depend on mileages,

[[Page 9489]]

functional classes, volumes, loadings, usage, surface type, or other 
criteria the FWS deems appropriate.
    (d) The PMS shall be designed to fit the FWS 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 are 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 FWS managed transportation 
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 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) Provides 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 FWS managed transportation 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.  972.210  Federal lands bridge management system (BMS).

    In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  972.204, the BMS 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The FWS shall have a BMS for bridges which are under the FWS 
jurisdiction, 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 shall be designed to fit the FWS 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) Analytical procedures that are capable of analyzing data for 
all bridges in the inventory or any subset. These procedures include, 
as appropriate, such factors as bridge condition, recommended repairs/
replacement and estimated costs, prediction of the estimated remaining 
life of the bridge, development of a prioritized list of candidate 
projects over a specified planning horizon, and budget forecasting.
    (c) 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.  972.212  Federal lands safety management system (SMS).

    In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  972.204, the SMS 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The FWS shall have an SMS for all transportation facilities 
serving the Refuge System, as appropriate, funded under the FLHP.
    (b) The FWS SMS may be based on the guidance in ``Safety Management 
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 FWS shall utilize the 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 transportation facility involved.
    (e) The SMS shall be designed to fit the FWS goals, policies, 
criteria, and needs using, as a minimum, the following components as a 
basic framework for a SMS:
    (1) An ongoing program for the collection, maintenance and 
reporting of a database that includes:
    (i) Accident records with sufficient 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 volumes 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) Routinely maintaining and upgrading safety appurtenances 
including highway-rail crossing warning devices, signs, highway 
elements, and operational features where appropriate; and
    (ii) Identifying and investigating hazardous or potentially 
hazardous transportation system safety problems, roadway locations and 
features, then 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; and
    (4) Development and implementation of public information and 
education activities on safety needs, programs, and

[[Page 9490]]

countermeasures which affect safety on the FWS transportation systems.
    (f) While the SMS applies to appropriate transportation facilities 
serving the Refuge System 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, sufficient detail should be 
included for each functional classification to provide adequate 
information for use in making safety decisions in the RR program.


Sec.  972. 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 those FWS 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 system efficiency. Approaches may 
include the use of alternate mode studies and implementation plans as 
components of the CMS. The FWS 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, and alleviate congestion.
    (b) In addition to the requirements provided in Sec.  972.204, the 
CMS must meet the following requirements:
    (1) For portions of the FWS transportation system within TMAs, the 
FWS transportation planning process shall include a CMS that meets the 
requirements of this section. By agreement between the TMA and the FWS, 
the TMA's CMS coverage may include the transportation facilities 
serving the Refuge System, as appropriate. Through this agreement(s), 
the FWS may meet the requirements of this section.
    (2) If congestion exists at a FWS facility within the boundaries of 
a TMA, and the TMA's CMS does not provide coverage of the portions of 
the FWS transportation facilities experiencing congestion, the FWS 
shall develop a separate CMS to cover those facilities.
    (3) For portions of the FWS transportation system outside the 
boundaries of TMAs, the FWS shall:
    (i) Develop criteria to determine when a CMS is to be implemented 
for a specific transportation system; and
    (ii) Have CMS coverage for all transportation facilities serving 
the Refuge System, as appropriate, funded through the FLHP that meet 
minimum CMS needs criteria.
    (4) 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;
    (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;
    (E) Additional system capacity; and
    (vii) Provide information supporting the implementation of actions.

[FR Doc. 04-4054 Filed 2-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-U