Transportation Asset Management Plan Development Processes Certification and Recertification Guidance; Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim Guidance, 7835-7839 [2018-03618]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Public Notice for Waiver of
Aeronautical Land Use Assurance;
Great Falls International Airport, Great
Falls, MT
Federal Aviation
Administration, (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is being given that the
FAA is considering a proposal from the
Great Falls International Airport
Authority to change certain portions of
the airport from aeronautical use to nonaeronautical use at the Great Falls
International Airport, Great Falls, MT.
The proposal consists of 5 acres of
surplus property shown on the Airport’s
Exhibit ‘‘A’’ as the portion of Parcel 4
east of the airport’s access road.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 26, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this
application may be mailed or delivered
to the FAA at the following address: Mr.
William C. Garrison, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Airports Division,
Helena Airports District Office, 2725
Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, Montana
59602.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Joe Nye, Civil Engineer, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Helena Airports
District Office, 2725 Skyway Drive,
Suite 2, Helena, MT 59602–1213.
The request to release deed
restrictions may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at the same
location.
SUMMARY:
The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to release the aeronautical use
restriction of 5 acres at the Great Falls
International Airport under the
provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section
47153(c) and 47107(h)2.
The Great Falls International Airport
Authority, referred to herein as the
Authority, has requested release from
the aeronautical use restrictions
assigned to 5 acres donated by the U.S.
Government as surplus property in
1948.
The 5 acres are a fragment of a larger
780-acre parcel identified on the
Airport’s Exhibit A as Parcel 4. The 5
acres proposed for non-aeronautical use
are isolated from the airfield by the
airport entry road to the south and west.
The Authority has identified these 5
acres as no longer needed for
aeronautical purposes.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
The Authority proposes to lease the
property for the construction and
operation of a fueling station and
restaurant. The revenue from the lease
of this property will be used for airport
purposes. The proposed use of this
property is compatible with other
airport operations and is in accordance
with FAA’s Policy and Procedures
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue,
published in Federal Register on
February 16, 1999.
Any person may inspect the request
in person at the FAA office listed above
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Issued in Helena, Montana, on February
14, 2018.
William C. Garrison,
Manager, Helena Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2018–03658 Filed 2–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2017–0018]
Transportation Asset Management
Plan Development Processes
Certification and Recertification
Guidance; Transportation Asset
Management Plan Consistency
Determination Interim Guidance
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The FHWA is finalizing one
guidance document and issuing one
interim guidance document:
Transportation Asset Management Plan
Development Processes Certification
and Recertification Guidance, and
Transportation Asset Management Plan
Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance. These documents provide
implementation guidance on provisions
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21) and the
Asset Management Final Rule, which
requires a State department of
transportation (State DOT) to develop
and implement a risk-based asset
management plan. Under these
authorities, FHWA must certify that
Transportation Asset Management Plan
(TAMP) development processes
established by a State DOT meet
applicable requirements, and make an
annual consistency determination,
evaluating whether a State DOT has
developed and implemented a Stateapproved TAMP that meets all
applicable requirements. This notice
finalizes the Transportation Asset
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7835
Management Plan Development
Processes Certification and
Recertification Guidance, issues interim
guidance on transportation asset
management plan consistency
determinations, and summarizes the
comments received on the drafts of both
guidance documents, FHWA’s response
to those comments, and any changes
that were made to the guidance
documents issued with this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this notice contact Mr.
Stephen Gaj, FHWA Office of
Infrastructure, (202) 366–1336, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590,
or via email at Stephen.Gaj@dot.gov. For
legal questions, please contact Ms. Janet
Myers, FHWA Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366–2019, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590–
0001, or via email at Janet.Myers@
dot.gov. Business hours for FHWA are
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Copies of the proposed Transportation
Asset Management Plan Development
Processes Certification and
Recertification Guidance; and
Transportation Asset Management Plan
Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance are available online for
download and public inspection online
under the docket at the Federal
eRulemaking portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. An electronic
copy of this notice may be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register’s
home page at: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register and the Government
Publishing Office’s web page at: https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Background
Under the asset management
provisions enacted in MAP–21, codified
at 23 U.S.C. 119, State DOTs must
develop and implement a risk-based
TAMP. This TAMP must include all
National Highway System (NHS)
pavements and bridges, regardless of
whether the State or some other entity
owns the relevant NHS facility.
The FHWA Division Offices
(Divisions) must take two actions with
respect to State DOT asset management
activities. The first is TAMP
development process certification/
recertification. Under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6), FHWA must certify at least
every 4 years that the State DOT’s
processes for developing its TAMP are
consistent with applicable
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
7836
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
requirements. The FHWA also must
recertify whenever the State amends its
TAMP development processes, in
accordance with 23 CFR 515.13(c). The
Transportation Asset Management Plan
Development Processes Certification
and Recertification Guidance
(Development Processes Certification
Guidance) provides a framework for
Divisions to undertake and complete
this process certification. The second
FHWA action, under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(5), is an annual consistency
determination, which evaluates whether
the State DOT has developed and
implemented a TAMP that is consistent
with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119.
The Transportation Asset Management
Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance (Consistency Determination
Interim Guidance) assists Divisions on
evaluating whether a State DOT has
developed and implemented its TAMP
in accordance with provisions in 23
CFR 515.13(b). Note that best practices
in guidance may be revised as the state
of asset management practices advance
and the asset management rule is further
implemented.
Draft versions of guidance were made
available for public review and
comment June 6, 2017, at 82 FR 25905.
The FHWA received seven comment
letters from the following organizations:
Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, Georgia DOT,
Maryland DOT, Michigan DOT, New
Jersey DOT, Wyoming DOT, and joint
comments from the DOTs of Idaho,
Montana, New York, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming. A
summary of the comments received and
FHWA’s response, including any
changes made in response to comments,
is provided below. Based on the
comments received, as well as FHWA’s
experience to date as it implements the
certification and consistency
determination requirements, FHWA
concluded it is appropriate to issue final
certification guidance. However, FHWA
believes that issues that may affect
FHWA consistency determinations are
less well-defined at this time.
Accordingly, FHWA is issuing the
guidance on consistency determinations
as interim guidance, with the
expectation of finalizing that guidance
later in 2018.
Concern That the Guidance Would
Impose New Requirements
Several commenters (Alaska,
Wyoming, and the joint commenters)
expressed concern that these guidance
documents would impose new
requirements without undergoing the
required notice and comment
procedures. In response to these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
concerns, FHWA notes that the
guidance does not impose any new
requirements. Any requirements
discussed in the guidance are imposed
by existing statute or regulation, and
those requirements can be changed only
by revising these underlying authorities.
Recommended best practices are clearly
described as not required, and may be
revised as practices advance and asset
management is further implemented.
The FHWA revised the introduction of
both documents to clarify this point.
TAMP Consistency Determination
Requirements
Alaska asked for more information on
the factors that Divisions will use to
determine that State DOT funding
allocations are ‘‘reasonably consistent’’
with 23 U.S.C. 119. Under that section,
the Secretary must determine annually
that a State has developed and
implemented an acceptable TAMP. As
indicated in 23 CFR 515.13(b)(2), each
State DOT may determine the most
suitable approach for demonstrating
implementation of its TAMP, so long as
the information is current, documented,
and verifiable. The FHWA considers the
best evidence of plan implementation to
be that, for the 12 months preceding the
consistency determination, the State
DOT funding allocations are reasonably
consistent with the investment
strategies in the State DOT’s TAMP.
This demonstration takes into account
the alignment between the actual and
planned levels of investment for various
work types (i.e., initial construction,
maintenance, preservation,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction (CFR
515.13(b)(2)(i))). The FHWA believes the
draft guidance (page 2, third paragraph)
discussion of ‘‘reasonably consistent’’ is
sufficiently detailed to inform FHWA
Divisions and stakeholders about this
issue.
Alaska also asked for more
information about how the Division will
communicate its consistency
determination to the State DOT. As
provided in 23 CFR 515.13(b), FHWA
will notify the State DOT, in writing,
whether the State DOT has developed
and implemented a TAMP consistent
with applicable requirements. The
FHWA does not believe it is necessary
to further specify how the notice is
delivered to the State DOT.
Declining Targets and Asset Conditions
Joint commenters and Wyoming noted
that the performance management
regulations in 23 CFR part 490 allow a
State DOT to adopt targets for NHS
bridge and pavement conditions that
reflect conditions that decline at faster
rates than previously was the case. The
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FHWA recognizes that, due to the fiscal
conditions and the need for trade-offs
across assets, conditions of an asset may
improve, stay constant, or decline. In
response to this comment, FHWA added
clarifying language to the Consistency
Determination Interim Guidance
regarding such declining targets and
asset conditions. However, the State
DOT should explain in its TAMP how
these improvements or declines affect
long-term goals of achieving and
sustaining a state of good repair. The
TAMP investment strategies must,
during the life of the long-term TAMP,
be designed to support or make progress
toward (1) achieving and sustaining a
desired state of good repair over the life
cycle of the assets, (2) improving or
preserving the condition of the assets
and the performance of the NHS relating
to physical assets, and (3) achieving the
national goals identified in 23 U.S.C.
150(b).
Relationship Between TAMP and
Existing Transportation Planning
Processes
Michigan asked for clarification on
the relationship between existing
transportation processes and TAMP
requirements, specifically on page 20 of
the draft Development Processes
Certification Guidance. The requirement
to integrate the State-approved TAMP
into the transportation planning process
calls for consideration of TAMP
information and investment strategies
when making programming and project
selection decisions during
transportation planning. The asset
management rule, at 23 CFR 515.9(h),
clearly describes the interaction
between the TAMP and STIP: ‘‘the State
DOT must integrate its TAMP into the
State DOT’s planning processes that
lead to the STIP, to support the State
DOT’s efforts to achieve the goals in 23
CFR 515.9(f).’’ The FHWA encourages
(but does not require) that such
integration extend to including, in the
STIP performance management target
achievement discussion under 23 CFR
450.218(q), information about how
TAMP investment strategies have been
used when programming projects into
the STIP. In contrast, the draft
Development Processes Certification
Guidance addresses the appropriate role
of STIPs when State DOTs are
developing their TAMPs.
The statement noted by the
commenter does not contradict 23 CFR
515.9(h). The TAMPs are the product of
analyses and data requirements that do
not necessarily apply to other
documents, such as STIPs. The
guidance emphasizes the long-term
nature of the TAMP. A short-term
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
program, like the STIP, should be used
only as background information given
this difference in relevant time periods.
For example, hard coding STIP projects
into Bridge Management Systems to
impact development of investment
strategies for bridge assets is not
considered the use of STIP as
background information. However, if a
major project with significant amount of
funding is delayed for some reason, then
the State DOT needs to determine if this
delay could have any impact on their
TAMP and if so, whether the impact is
significant enough to require an update.
For these reasons, importing a STIP
directly into a TAMP as a substitute for
TAMP analysis and investment
decision-making does not fulfill TAMP
requirements. The FHWA concluded no
change is needed to the Development
Processes Certification Guidance.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
TAMP Life Cycle Planning (LCP) Process
and Modeling Requirements
Georgia asked for clarification on the
extent and detail it should include in its
TAMP submission regarding the LCP
process and modeling. In response,
FHWA clarifies that States do not need
to include their deterioration models in
detail in their TAMPs. However, the
deterioration models are required to
perform the required analysis, and a
State DOT must identify the model(s)
that are part of the State DOT’s process
for developing its TAMP. The State
DOTs should include, as part of their
process description, an explanation of
how the selected model(s) provide
insight into LCP, and why a certain type
of management strategy is the most
appropriate strategy at the time of
TAMP development.
The asset management rule does not
specifically require State DOTs to break
assets into sub-groups; however, asset
inventories normally break assets into
sub-groups (for example a pavement
inventory distinguishes between asphalt
and concrete pavements), including
appropriate condition data for each
asset sub-group that are used to predict
how each sub-group deteriorates. The
State DOTs typically have agencyspecific deterioration curves for
different pavement types and
components/elements of bridges by
bridge type. The FHWA believes the
Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance, the interim document ‘‘Using
a Life Cycle Planning Process to Support
Asset Management,’’ and the final asset
management rule adequately cover this
information. No change was made to the
guidance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
Update or Amendment of TAMPs
Georgia and Maryland requested
clarification on the TAMP update and
amendment timelines. The State DOTs
must update or amend TAMPs at least
every 4 years (23 CFR 515.13(c)). The
State DOTs are otherwise free to update
or amend plans whenever such revision
is warranted.1 The FHWA will consider
annually the most recent TAMP
submitted by the State DOT, along with
any separate documentation submitted
by the State DOT to demonstrate
implementation of the plan. Thus, the
State DOT should consider updating its
plan whenever there is a change that has
material impact on the accuracy and
validity of the processes, analyses, or
investment strategies in the plan. If the
State DOT amends its TAMP, including
any amendments to TAMP development
processes, the State DOT must submit
the amended document to FHWA for
review. The FHWA will make the
applicable determination(s) (a new
process certification, consistency
determination, or both). The State DOT
must make such submissions at least 30
days prior to the deadline for the next
FHWA consistency determination,
except in the case of non-material
revisions as defined in 23 CFR
515.13(c). The FHWA believes the
Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance and the final asset
management rule adequately cover this
information; thus, no change was made
to the guidance.
Initial TAMP Requirements
Michigan and Maryland requested
further information on the requirements
for the initial TAMP. The initial TAMP
must include a description of all the
required TAMP development processes
described in 23 CFR 515.7. The scope of
this requirement includes policies,
procedures, documentation, and an
implementation approach that satisfy
the requirements of 23 CFR part 515.
The FHWA process certification is
based on those aspects of the initial
TAMP. Separate from the information
required for the TAMP development
process certification, there are
requirements for additional types of
information in the initial TAMP. Those
requirements are discussed in Question
and Answer #1 in FHWA’s ‘‘Asset
Management Initial Plan Guidance,’’
available on FHWA’s Asset Management
web page (Initial TAMP Q&A #1), at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/.
Specifically, Maryland asserts that the
Development Processes Certification
1 Note that there are provisions in 23 CFR part
490 that affect the timing and procedures for
amending 23 U.S.C. 150(d) targets.
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7837
Guidance contains requirements for the
initial plans that falls outside the scope
of the asset management rule. The
FHWA does not agree with the
commenter’s interpretation. Section
515.11(b) of the rule establishes
flexibility for State DOTs, when
preparing their initial TAMPs, to
deviate in certain respects from 23 CFR
515.7 and 515.9 requirements by
eliminating certain analyses from the
plans. In response to the comment,
FHWA added language to the
Development Processes Certification
Guidance clarifying that (1) certification
of the State DOT’s TAMP development
processes is based on meeting the
process requirements described in 23
CFR 515.7; and (2) the initial TAMP
must provide all the information
specified in 23 CFR 515.7 and 515.9,
except the analyses in the three areas
listed as exclusions under 515.11(b). For
a detailed discussion of the initial
TAMP requirements, see Initial TAMP
Q&A #1, discussed above.
Further, Michigan requested that
FHWA add a list of processes required
for the initial TAMP to the Development
Processes Certification Guidance.
Because this information goes beyond
the scope of the guidance documents
that are the subject of this notice, FHWA
did not revise the documents based on
this comment. The requested
information appears in the Initial TAMP
Q&A #1, discussed above.
Performance Gap Analysis
Georgia and Michigan requested
clarification on how to conduct the
performance gap analysis, particularly,
whether to use current asset condition
targets given that the targets required
under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) are not due until
May 20, 2018.
In response to the commenter’s
specific questions about the use of
targets in initial TAMPs, pursuant to 23
CFR 515.11(b), State DOTs are not
required to include 23 U.S.C. 150(d)
targets in the Initial TAMPs because the
deadline for setting those targets is less
than 6 months before the deadline for
submission of the initial TAMP on April
30, 2018. However, FHWA encourages
(but does not require) State DOTs that
have performance targets, whether
developed to meet 23 U.S.C. 150(d)
requirements or for other reasons, to
include those targets if possible. This
will provide the State DOT with more
experience in analysis and
implementation. A State DOT that
includes targets can test the
effectiveness of its proposed TAMP
development processes. The State DOTs
may wish to establish ‘‘temporary
targets’’ for use in the initial TAMP. For
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
7838
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
example, State DOTs may use the
minimum condition requirements for
NHS bridges and Interstate pavements,
as established under 23 CFR part 490.
Also, States are encouraged to set targets
for non-Interstate pavements to get full
coverage for NHS pavements. The State
DOT can use various sources of
information for temporary targets, such
as strategic plans and other State plans.
As discussed above, State DOT may
amend its TAMP at any time to add
section 150(d) targets, or to revise or
remove any other targets. Procedures
applicable to TAMP amendments
appear in 23 CFR 515.13(c). Note,
however, that 23 CFR part 490 contains
separate procedures that govern the
amendment of part 490 targets.
The FHWA believes this information
is adequately addressed in the guidance,
the final asset management rule, and
FHWA’s ‘‘Asset Management Initial
Plan Guidance,’’ available on FHWA’s
Asset Management web page, at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/.
Michigan noted that the examples of
good practices for the performance gap
analysis would be better suited for the
portion of the Development Processes
Certification Guidance entitled ‘‘Process
for Ensuring Use of Best Available Data
and Use of Bridge and Pavement
Management Systems’’ on page 20. The
FHWA agrees, and revised the final
guidance as suggested.
Long-term Targets, Vision, and State of
Good Repair (SOGR)
Michigan and Georgia requested
additional guidance on the role of longterm targets and the State DOT’s longterm vision. Michigan commented that
the Consistency Determination
Guidance should be expanded to clarify
how the long-term vision under the
performance gap analysis should fit
with other TAMP requirements.
Michigan is concerned that Federal and
some States’ performance management
pavement categories may not be in
alignment, and that the 10-year period
for the financial plan may not align with
time periods some States use for asset
management.
In response to the comments
concerning the use of ‘‘long-term
targets’’ and ‘‘long-term vision,’’ FHWA
notes that neither the rule, nor the
Development Processes Certification
Guidance, specifically requires the State
DOT’s performance gap process to
include identification of long-term
targets. However, it is good practice for
a State DOT’s performance gap process
to include identification of long-term
targets and performance goals. The
purpose of the TAMP is to achieve or
maintain the State DOT’s desired SOGR,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
which is a long-term goal and typically
will look forward more than 10 years.
Identification of long-term targets is
inherent in defining SOGR.
Each State DOT is required to define
asset management objectives and SOGR
for itself. The asset management
objectives of the State DOT’s TAMP
should align with the State DOT’s
mission. The objectives must be
consistent with the purpose of asset
management, which is to achieve and
sustain the desired SOGR over the life
cycle of the assets at minimum
practicable cost (23 CFR 515.9(d)(1)). In
fact, to achieve this goal, the
performance gap, life-cycle plan, and
risk management analyses should cover
periods longer than 10 years. For
example, life cycle plans for bridges
may cover a period of 70–100 years;
however, the TAMP must include the
information that covers the immediate
next 10 years, not the entire 70–100
years (see 23 CFR 515.9(e)). The
minimum 10-year period was
established to acknowledge the
uncertainty surrounding the validity of
the assumptions that State DOTs must
make to conduct analyses for periods
longer than 10 years. The FHWA
concluded the draft Development
Processes Certification Guidance
already reflects this link between the
State DOT’s long-term vision for SOGR
and the TAMP process for performance
gap analysis. No change was made in
response to this comment.
Michigan specifically noted that it
uses freeway and non-freeway
categories for its long-term vision, rather
than Interstate and NHS (excluding the
Interstate) categories. The State DOT
TAMPs must specifically address the
Interstate and NHS (excluding the
Interstate) as required under the
performance management and asset
management rules. State DOTs have
flexibility in how they make the needed
adjustments. For example, if the State
DOT is managing all its freeways and
the Interstate the same way, with the
same SOGR goals, the State DOT should
explain this in its asset management
plan. No change was made in response
to this comment.
Michigan also asked how it should
treat assets other than NHS pavements
and bridges in its long-term vision,
specifically, whether it could include
other assets without making those other
assets subject to all TAMP requirements.
If the State DOT wants to address other
assets without subjecting those assets to
section 515.7 or 515.9(l) analyses, the
State DOT can group such assets and
identify them as assets outside the
TAMP (e.g., ‘‘other assets,’’ ‘‘non-TAMP
assets’’, ‘‘other safety related assets,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
etc.). A State DOT may identify these
other types of assets with its respective
funding needs in a separate table or
general discussion, but must clearly
note that the TAMP framework was not
used to arrive at the estimated funding
needs/allocations for those non-TAMP
assets. This issue is addressed in
Question #11 of FHWA’s ‘‘Asset
Management Initial Plan Guidance,’’
available on FHWA’s Asset Management
web page, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
asset/. In response to this comment,
FHWA added information to the
Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance.
Deviation From the TAMP Under
Extenuating Circumstances
Michigan asked FHWA for
clarification or examples of
‘‘extenuating circumstances’’ that would
allow a State to deviate from its TAMP
investment strategies, pursuant to 23
CFR 515.13(b)(2)(ii). In response to
these comments, FHWA revised the
Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance, to better describe the case-bycase, extenuating circumstances
determination and the information that
the State DOT should provide to
support deviation from the TAMP.
The FHWA may find that a State DOT
has implemented its TAMP even if the
State DOT has deviated from the TAMP
investment strategies (23 CFR
515.13(b)(2)(ii)). To support such
finding, the State DOT’s deviation from
its TAMP investment strategies must be
the result of circumstances beyond its
reasonable control. If major changes in
available funding or program costs are
due to natural disasters or third party
(non-State) actions, those circumstances
likely will qualify.2 Circumstances
caused by State action outside the State
DOT, such as major State funding
changes or changes in State program
priorities due to State legislative or
executive leadership action, may qualify
as extenuating circumstances if the State
DOT shows it was unable to either
prevent those changes, or to offset their
effects on achievement of the TAMP
investment strategies. Changes in plans
or priorities produced solely as a result
of the transportation planning process
would not typically be considered
extenuating circumstances due to the
State DOT’s role in transportation
planning and the regulatory
requirements that call for integration of
2 In the asset management final rule preamble (81
FR 73245), FHWA provided the following example
of extenuating circumstances: A sudden increase in
material prices that has an impact on delivery of the
entire program, forcing the State DOT to divert
more funds to projects already underway.
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
the TAMP into the transportation
planning process.
If the State believes extenuating
circumstances apply, it should provide
an explanation of the extenuating
circumstances, the impacts, the State
DOT’s efforts to avoid or offset the
changes and impacts, and program
changes that will be undertaken to
account for the changed conditions. In
addition, State DOT should consider
updating or amending its TAMPs
whenever there is a material impact on
the accuracy and validity of the
processes, analysis, or investment
strategies in the plan. Updates and other
amendments may require FHWA review
(see 23 CFR 515.13(c)).
Best Available Data
New Jersey asked whether State DOTs
could use adjusted historical data to
analyze NHS bridge and pavement
conditions. The State DOT must use the
best available data (23 CFR 515.7(g)). If
changes are made to historic data, the
State DOT needs to explain what it has
done, and why the State DOT believes
that the quality of the historic data is
improved by the changes. However, any
changes in historical data will not be
used to revise reporting submitted
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e) or to
change determinations made under 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7) or 119(f). No change
was made to either document based on
this comment.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 119; 23 CFR part 515;
49 CFR 1.85.
Issued on: February 14, 2018.
Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018–03618 Filed 2–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2017–0006]
Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act; Equal
Access for Over-the-Road Buses
Guidance
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
This Notice announces and
outlines the final guidance for
requirements contained in Section
1411(a) and (b) of the FAST Act
regarding the treatment of over-the-road
buses (OTRBs).
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
This guidance is effective
February 22, 2018.
Electronic Access: This document, the
request for comments, and the
comments received may be viewed
online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: https://www.regulations.gov.
Electronic submission and retrieval help
and guidelines are available on the
website. It is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. Please follow
the instructions. An electronic copy of
this document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register’s
website at: https://www.archives.gov/
federalregister and the Government
Publishing Office’s website at: https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Cynthia Essenmacher, Federal Tolling
Program Manager, Center for Innovative
Finance Support, Office of Innovative
Program Delivery, Federal Highway
Administration, 315 W. Allegan St., Ste.
201, Lansing, MI 48913, (517) 702–1856.
For legal questions: Mr. Steven Rochlis,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366–1395. Office hours are
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E.T.,
Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Table of Contents
A. Background
B. Summary Discussion of Comments
C. Applicable Definitions for Implementing
Section 1411 of the FAST Act
D. Covered Facilities Subject to OTRB Equal
Access
E. Compliance
F. Effective Date
A. Background
The FHWA published a Federal
Register Notice on April 28, 2017, at 82
FR 19784, seeking public comment for
the FAST Act OTRB provisions related
to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
facilities and toll highways. In preparing
this guidance to assist in the
implementation of Section 1411 of the
FAST Act, FHWA considered all public
comments submitted to the Federal
Register Notice.
Section 1411(a) and (b) of the FAST
Act contained new requirements
regarding the treatment of OTRBs that
access toll highways and HOV facilities.
Specifically, the FAST Act amended 23
U.S.C. 129 and 23 U.S.C. 166 to address
equal access to toll or HOV facilities for
OTRBs. The FAST Act amendments
defined certain key terms but did not
define other terms. The FHWA
considered how to define the terms that
were not defined under Section 1411
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7839
(Section C) as well as enumerating the
toll facilities subject to the OTRB
requirements (Section D), as the OTRB
amendment related to toll facilities that
received or will receive Federal
participation under 23 U.S.C. 129. In
addition, FHWA believes that Congress
intended that the OTRB equal access
provisions be effective beginning on
December 4, 2015, the enactment date of
the FAST Act, in contrast to the FAST
Act effective date of October 1, 2015, as
noted further in Sections B and F.
Application of the OTRB requirements
retroactive to the FAST Act enactment
date raised potential constitutional
implications associated with the
application prior to the enactment date,
particularly for those toll facilities
operated by private taxpayers under
agreement with a public authority that
may have assessed different toll rates to
OTRBs during this period between
October 1, 2015, and December 4, 2015,
without notice of the change in law.
For HOV facilities, 23 U.S.C. 166
(b)(3) was amended by the FAST Act,
adding subparagraph (C) to grant HOV
authorities an exception to allow public
transportation vehicles (which FHWA
interprets to include all public
transportation vehicles, including
public transportation buses) that do not
meet the minimum occupancy
requirements to use HOV lanes, but only
if the HOV authority also gives equal
access to OTRBs that serve the public.
Under this exception, HOV authorities
may allow all public transportation
vehicles to use HOV lanes, whether they
meet the minimum occupancy
requirements or not, if they provide
equal access to OTRBs serving the
public, under the same rates, terms, and
conditions as all other public
transportation vehicles.
Additionally, 23 U.S.C. 166(b)(4)(C)
was amended by the FAST Act, adding
subparagraph (iii), to grant HOV
authorities the alternative to toll
vehicles not meeting the minimum
occupancy requirements in HOV lanes.
In that case, HOV authorities are
required to provide access to OTRBs
that serve the public under the same
rates, terms, and conditions as public
transportation buses (which FHWA
interprets to exclude other types of
public transportation vehicles, which
may be treated differently by the HOV
authority). Similarly, on toll facilities
subject to 23 U.S.C. 129, the FAST Act
amended 23 U.S.C. 129(a) by adding
paragraph (9) to also require that OTRBs
that serve the public be provided access
to the toll facility under the same rates,
terms, and conditions as public
transportation buses.
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7835-7839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2017-0018]
Transportation Asset Management Plan Development Processes
Certification and Recertification Guidance; Transportation Asset
Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim Guidance
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is finalizing one guidance document and issuing one
interim guidance document: Transportation Asset Management Plan
Development Processes Certification and Recertification Guidance, and
Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance. These documents provide implementation guidance on provisions
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and
the Asset Management Final Rule, which requires a State department of
transportation (State DOT) to develop and implement a risk-based asset
management plan. Under these authorities, FHWA must certify that
Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) development processes
established by a State DOT meet applicable requirements, and make an
annual consistency determination, evaluating whether a State DOT has
developed and implemented a State-approved TAMP that meets all
applicable requirements. This notice finalizes the Transportation Asset
Management Plan Development Processes Certification and Recertification
Guidance, issues interim guidance on transportation asset management
plan consistency determinations, and summarizes the comments received
on the drafts of both guidance documents, FHWA's response to those
comments, and any changes that were made to the guidance documents
issued with this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice
contact Mr. Stephen Gaj, FHWA Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-1336,
Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20590, or via email at [email protected]. For legal questions, please
contact Ms. Janet Myers, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-
2019, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, or via email at [email protected].
Business hours for FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Copies of the proposed Transportation Asset Management Plan
Development Processes Certification and Recertification Guidance; and
Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance are available online for download and public inspection online
under the docket at the Federal eRulemaking portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this notice may be
downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Publishing
Office's web page at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Background
Under the asset management provisions enacted in MAP-21, codified
at 23 U.S.C. 119, State DOTs must develop and implement a risk-based
TAMP. This TAMP must include all National Highway System (NHS)
pavements and bridges, regardless of whether the State or some other
entity owns the relevant NHS facility.
The FHWA Division Offices (Divisions) must take two actions with
respect to State DOT asset management activities. The first is TAMP
development process certification/recertification. Under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6), FHWA must certify at least every 4 years that the State
DOT's processes for developing its TAMP are consistent with applicable
[[Page 7836]]
requirements. The FHWA also must recertify whenever the State amends
its TAMP development processes, in accordance with 23 CFR 515.13(c).
The Transportation Asset Management Plan Development Processes
Certification and Recertification Guidance (Development Processes
Certification Guidance) provides a framework for Divisions to undertake
and complete this process certification. The second FHWA action, under
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5), is an annual consistency determination, which
evaluates whether the State DOT has developed and implemented a TAMP
that is consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119. The
Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance (Consistency Determination Interim Guidance) assists Divisions
on evaluating whether a State DOT has developed and implemented its
TAMP in accordance with provisions in 23 CFR 515.13(b). Note that best
practices in guidance may be revised as the state of asset management
practices advance and the asset management rule is further implemented.
Draft versions of guidance were made available for public review
and comment June 6, 2017, at 82 FR 25905. The FHWA received seven
comment letters from the following organizations: Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Georgia DOT, Maryland DOT,
Michigan DOT, New Jersey DOT, Wyoming DOT, and joint comments from the
DOTs of Idaho, Montana, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming. A summary of the comments received and FHWA's response,
including any changes made in response to comments, is provided below.
Based on the comments received, as well as FHWA's experience to date as
it implements the certification and consistency determination
requirements, FHWA concluded it is appropriate to issue final
certification guidance. However, FHWA believes that issues that may
affect FHWA consistency determinations are less well-defined at this
time. Accordingly, FHWA is issuing the guidance on consistency
determinations as interim guidance, with the expectation of finalizing
that guidance later in 2018.
Concern That the Guidance Would Impose New Requirements
Several commenters (Alaska, Wyoming, and the joint commenters)
expressed concern that these guidance documents would impose new
requirements without undergoing the required notice and comment
procedures. In response to these concerns, FHWA notes that the guidance
does not impose any new requirements. Any requirements discussed in the
guidance are imposed by existing statute or regulation, and those
requirements can be changed only by revising these underlying
authorities. Recommended best practices are clearly described as not
required, and may be revised as practices advance and asset management
is further implemented. The FHWA revised the introduction of both
documents to clarify this point.
TAMP Consistency Determination Requirements
Alaska asked for more information on the factors that Divisions
will use to determine that State DOT funding allocations are
``reasonably consistent'' with 23 U.S.C. 119. Under that section, the
Secretary must determine annually that a State has developed and
implemented an acceptable TAMP. As indicated in 23 CFR 515.13(b)(2),
each State DOT may determine the most suitable approach for
demonstrating implementation of its TAMP, so long as the information is
current, documented, and verifiable. The FHWA considers the best
evidence of plan implementation to be that, for the 12 months preceding
the consistency determination, the State DOT funding allocations are
reasonably consistent with the investment strategies in the State DOT's
TAMP. This demonstration takes into account the alignment between the
actual and planned levels of investment for various work types (i.e.,
initial construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction (CFR 515.13(b)(2)(i))). The FHWA believes the draft
guidance (page 2, third paragraph) discussion of ``reasonably
consistent'' is sufficiently detailed to inform FHWA Divisions and
stakeholders about this issue.
Alaska also asked for more information about how the Division will
communicate its consistency determination to the State DOT. As provided
in 23 CFR 515.13(b), FHWA will notify the State DOT, in writing,
whether the State DOT has developed and implemented a TAMP consistent
with applicable requirements. The FHWA does not believe it is necessary
to further specify how the notice is delivered to the State DOT.
Declining Targets and Asset Conditions
Joint commenters and Wyoming noted that the performance management
regulations in 23 CFR part 490 allow a State DOT to adopt targets for
NHS bridge and pavement conditions that reflect conditions that decline
at faster rates than previously was the case. The FHWA recognizes that,
due to the fiscal conditions and the need for trade-offs across assets,
conditions of an asset may improve, stay constant, or decline. In
response to this comment, FHWA added clarifying language to the
Consistency Determination Interim Guidance regarding such declining
targets and asset conditions. However, the State DOT should explain in
its TAMP how these improvements or declines affect long-term goals of
achieving and sustaining a state of good repair. The TAMP investment
strategies must, during the life of the long-term TAMP, be designed to
support or make progress toward (1) achieving and sustaining a desired
state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets, (2) improving
or preserving the condition of the assets and the performance of the
NHS relating to physical assets, and (3) achieving the national goals
identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b).
Relationship Between TAMP and Existing Transportation Planning
Processes
Michigan asked for clarification on the relationship between
existing transportation processes and TAMP requirements, specifically
on page 20 of the draft Development Processes Certification Guidance.
The requirement to integrate the State-approved TAMP into the
transportation planning process calls for consideration of TAMP
information and investment strategies when making programming and
project selection decisions during transportation planning. The asset
management rule, at 23 CFR 515.9(h), clearly describes the interaction
between the TAMP and STIP: ``the State DOT must integrate its TAMP into
the State DOT's planning processes that lead to the STIP, to support
the State DOT's efforts to achieve the goals in 23 CFR 515.9(f).'' The
FHWA encourages (but does not require) that such integration extend to
including, in the STIP performance management target achievement
discussion under 23 CFR 450.218(q), information about how TAMP
investment strategies have been used when programming projects into the
STIP. In contrast, the draft Development Processes Certification
Guidance addresses the appropriate role of STIPs when State DOTs are
developing their TAMPs.
The statement noted by the commenter does not contradict 23 CFR
515.9(h). The TAMPs are the product of analyses and data requirements
that do not necessarily apply to other documents, such as STIPs. The
guidance emphasizes the long-term nature of the TAMP. A short-term
[[Page 7837]]
program, like the STIP, should be used only as background information
given this difference in relevant time periods. For example, hard
coding STIP projects into Bridge Management Systems to impact
development of investment strategies for bridge assets is not
considered the use of STIP as background information. However, if a
major project with significant amount of funding is delayed for some
reason, then the State DOT needs to determine if this delay could have
any impact on their TAMP and if so, whether the impact is significant
enough to require an update. For these reasons, importing a STIP
directly into a TAMP as a substitute for TAMP analysis and investment
decision-making does not fulfill TAMP requirements. The FHWA concluded
no change is needed to the Development Processes Certification
Guidance.
TAMP Life Cycle Planning (LCP) Process and Modeling Requirements
Georgia asked for clarification on the extent and detail it should
include in its TAMP submission regarding the LCP process and modeling.
In response, FHWA clarifies that States do not need to include their
deterioration models in detail in their TAMPs. However, the
deterioration models are required to perform the required analysis, and
a State DOT must identify the model(s) that are part of the State DOT's
process for developing its TAMP. The State DOTs should include, as part
of their process description, an explanation of how the selected
model(s) provide insight into LCP, and why a certain type of management
strategy is the most appropriate strategy at the time of TAMP
development.
The asset management rule does not specifically require State DOTs
to break assets into sub-groups; however, asset inventories normally
break assets into sub-groups (for example a pavement inventory
distinguishes between asphalt and concrete pavements), including
appropriate condition data for each asset sub-group that are used to
predict how each sub-group deteriorates. The State DOTs typically have
agency-specific deterioration curves for different pavement types and
components/elements of bridges by bridge type. The FHWA believes the
Consistency Determination Interim Guidance, the interim document
``Using a Life Cycle Planning Process to Support Asset Management,''
and the final asset management rule adequately cover this information.
No change was made to the guidance.
Update or Amendment of TAMPs
Georgia and Maryland requested clarification on the TAMP update and
amendment timelines. The State DOTs must update or amend TAMPs at least
every 4 years (23 CFR 515.13(c)). The State DOTs are otherwise free to
update or amend plans whenever such revision is warranted.\1\ The FHWA
will consider annually the most recent TAMP submitted by the State DOT,
along with any separate documentation submitted by the State DOT to
demonstrate implementation of the plan. Thus, the State DOT should
consider updating its plan whenever there is a change that has material
impact on the accuracy and validity of the processes, analyses, or
investment strategies in the plan. If the State DOT amends its TAMP,
including any amendments to TAMP development processes, the State DOT
must submit the amended document to FHWA for review. The FHWA will make
the applicable determination(s) (a new process certification,
consistency determination, or both). The State DOT must make such
submissions at least 30 days prior to the deadline for the next FHWA
consistency determination, except in the case of non-material revisions
as defined in 23 CFR 515.13(c). The FHWA believes the Consistency
Determination Interim Guidance and the final asset management rule
adequately cover this information; thus, no change was made to the
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that there are provisions in 23 CFR part 490 that
affect the timing and procedures for amending 23 U.S.C. 150(d)
targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial TAMP Requirements
Michigan and Maryland requested further information on the
requirements for the initial TAMP. The initial TAMP must include a
description of all the required TAMP development processes described in
23 CFR 515.7. The scope of this requirement includes policies,
procedures, documentation, and an implementation approach that satisfy
the requirements of 23 CFR part 515. The FHWA process certification is
based on those aspects of the initial TAMP. Separate from the
information required for the TAMP development process certification,
there are requirements for additional types of information in the
initial TAMP. Those requirements are discussed in Question and Answer
#1 in FHWA's ``Asset Management Initial Plan Guidance,'' available on
FHWA's Asset Management web page (Initial TAMP Q&A #1), at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/.
Specifically, Maryland asserts that the Development Processes
Certification Guidance contains requirements for the initial plans that
falls outside the scope of the asset management rule. The FHWA does not
agree with the commenter's interpretation. Section 515.11(b) of the
rule establishes flexibility for State DOTs, when preparing their
initial TAMPs, to deviate in certain respects from 23 CFR 515.7 and
515.9 requirements by eliminating certain analyses from the plans. In
response to the comment, FHWA added language to the Development
Processes Certification Guidance clarifying that (1) certification of
the State DOT's TAMP development processes is based on meeting the
process requirements described in 23 CFR 515.7; and (2) the initial
TAMP must provide all the information specified in 23 CFR 515.7 and
515.9, except the analyses in the three areas listed as exclusions
under 515.11(b). For a detailed discussion of the initial TAMP
requirements, see Initial TAMP Q&A #1, discussed above.
Further, Michigan requested that FHWA add a list of processes
required for the initial TAMP to the Development Processes
Certification Guidance. Because this information goes beyond the scope
of the guidance documents that are the subject of this notice, FHWA did
not revise the documents based on this comment. The requested
information appears in the Initial TAMP Q&A #1, discussed above.
Performance Gap Analysis
Georgia and Michigan requested clarification on how to conduct the
performance gap analysis, particularly, whether to use current asset
condition targets given that the targets required under 23 U.S.C.
150(d) are not due until May 20, 2018.
In response to the commenter's specific questions about the use of
targets in initial TAMPs, pursuant to 23 CFR 515.11(b), State DOTs are
not required to include 23 U.S.C. 150(d) targets in the Initial TAMPs
because the deadline for setting those targets is less than 6 months
before the deadline for submission of the initial TAMP on April 30,
2018. However, FHWA encourages (but does not require) State DOTs that
have performance targets, whether developed to meet 23 U.S.C. 150(d)
requirements or for other reasons, to include those targets if
possible. This will provide the State DOT with more experience in
analysis and implementation. A State DOT that includes targets can test
the effectiveness of its proposed TAMP development processes. The State
DOTs may wish to establish ``temporary targets'' for use in the initial
TAMP. For
[[Page 7838]]
example, State DOTs may use the minimum condition requirements for NHS
bridges and Interstate pavements, as established under 23 CFR part 490.
Also, States are encouraged to set targets for non-Interstate pavements
to get full coverage for NHS pavements. The State DOT can use various
sources of information for temporary targets, such as strategic plans
and other State plans.
As discussed above, State DOT may amend its TAMP at any time to add
section 150(d) targets, or to revise or remove any other targets.
Procedures applicable to TAMP amendments appear in 23 CFR 515.13(c).
Note, however, that 23 CFR part 490 contains separate procedures that
govern the amendment of part 490 targets.
The FHWA believes this information is adequately addressed in the
guidance, the final asset management rule, and FHWA's ``Asset
Management Initial Plan Guidance,'' available on FHWA's Asset
Management web page, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/.
Michigan noted that the examples of good practices for the
performance gap analysis would be better suited for the portion of the
Development Processes Certification Guidance entitled ``Process for
Ensuring Use of Best Available Data and Use of Bridge and Pavement
Management Systems'' on page 20. The FHWA agrees, and revised the final
guidance as suggested.
Long-term Targets, Vision, and State of Good Repair (SOGR)
Michigan and Georgia requested additional guidance on the role of
long-term targets and the State DOT's long-term vision. Michigan
commented that the Consistency Determination Guidance should be
expanded to clarify how the long-term vision under the performance gap
analysis should fit with other TAMP requirements. Michigan is concerned
that Federal and some States' performance management pavement
categories may not be in alignment, and that the 10-year period for the
financial plan may not align with time periods some States use for
asset management.
In response to the comments concerning the use of ``long-term
targets'' and ``long-term vision,'' FHWA notes that neither the rule,
nor the Development Processes Certification Guidance, specifically
requires the State DOT's performance gap process to include
identification of long-term targets. However, it is good practice for a
State DOT's performance gap process to include identification of long-
term targets and performance goals. The purpose of the TAMP is to
achieve or maintain the State DOT's desired SOGR, which is a long-term
goal and typically will look forward more than 10 years. Identification
of long-term targets is inherent in defining SOGR.
Each State DOT is required to define asset management objectives
and SOGR for itself. The asset management objectives of the State DOT's
TAMP should align with the State DOT's mission. The objectives must be
consistent with the purpose of asset management, which is to achieve
and sustain the desired SOGR over the life cycle of the assets at
minimum practicable cost (23 CFR 515.9(d)(1)). In fact, to achieve this
goal, the performance gap, life-cycle plan, and risk management
analyses should cover periods longer than 10 years. For example, life
cycle plans for bridges may cover a period of 70-100 years; however,
the TAMP must include the information that covers the immediate next 10
years, not the entire 70-100 years (see 23 CFR 515.9(e)). The minimum
10-year period was established to acknowledge the uncertainty
surrounding the validity of the assumptions that State DOTs must make
to conduct analyses for periods longer than 10 years. The FHWA
concluded the draft Development Processes Certification Guidance
already reflects this link between the State DOT's long-term vision for
SOGR and the TAMP process for performance gap analysis. No change was
made in response to this comment.
Michigan specifically noted that it uses freeway and non-freeway
categories for its long-term vision, rather than Interstate and NHS
(excluding the Interstate) categories. The State DOT TAMPs must
specifically address the Interstate and NHS (excluding the Interstate)
as required under the performance management and asset management
rules. State DOTs have flexibility in how they make the needed
adjustments. For example, if the State DOT is managing all its freeways
and the Interstate the same way, with the same SOGR goals, the State
DOT should explain this in its asset management plan. No change was
made in response to this comment.
Michigan also asked how it should treat assets other than NHS
pavements and bridges in its long-term vision, specifically, whether it
could include other assets without making those other assets subject to
all TAMP requirements. If the State DOT wants to address other assets
without subjecting those assets to section 515.7 or 515.9(l) analyses,
the State DOT can group such assets and identify them as assets outside
the TAMP (e.g., ``other assets,'' ``non-TAMP assets'', ``other safety
related assets,'' etc.). A State DOT may identify these other types of
assets with its respective funding needs in a separate table or general
discussion, but must clearly note that the TAMP framework was not used
to arrive at the estimated funding needs/allocations for those non-TAMP
assets. This issue is addressed in Question #11 of FHWA's ``Asset
Management Initial Plan Guidance,'' available on FHWA's Asset
Management web page, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/. In response to
this comment, FHWA added information to the Consistency Determination
Interim Guidance.
Deviation From the TAMP Under Extenuating Circumstances
Michigan asked FHWA for clarification or examples of ``extenuating
circumstances'' that would allow a State to deviate from its TAMP
investment strategies, pursuant to 23 CFR 515.13(b)(2)(ii). In response
to these comments, FHWA revised the Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance, to better describe the case-by-case, extenuating
circumstances determination and the information that the State DOT
should provide to support deviation from the TAMP.
The FHWA may find that a State DOT has implemented its TAMP even if
the State DOT has deviated from the TAMP investment strategies (23 CFR
515.13(b)(2)(ii)). To support such finding, the State DOT's deviation
from its TAMP investment strategies must be the result of circumstances
beyond its reasonable control. If major changes in available funding or
program costs are due to natural disasters or third party (non-State)
actions, those circumstances likely will qualify.\2\ Circumstances
caused by State action outside the State DOT, such as major State
funding changes or changes in State program priorities due to State
legislative or executive leadership action, may qualify as extenuating
circumstances if the State DOT shows it was unable to either prevent
those changes, or to offset their effects on achievement of the TAMP
investment strategies. Changes in plans or priorities produced solely
as a result of the transportation planning process would not typically
be considered extenuating circumstances due to the State DOT's role in
transportation planning and the regulatory requirements that call for
integration of
[[Page 7839]]
the TAMP into the transportation planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the asset management final rule preamble (81 FR 73245),
FHWA provided the following example of extenuating circumstances: A
sudden increase in material prices that has an impact on delivery of
the entire program, forcing the State DOT to divert more funds to
projects already underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the State believes extenuating circumstances apply, it should
provide an explanation of the extenuating circumstances, the impacts,
the State DOT's efforts to avoid or offset the changes and impacts, and
program changes that will be undertaken to account for the changed
conditions. In addition, State DOT should consider updating or amending
its TAMPs whenever there is a material impact on the accuracy and
validity of the processes, analysis, or investment strategies in the
plan. Updates and other amendments may require FHWA review (see 23 CFR
515.13(c)).
Best Available Data
New Jersey asked whether State DOTs could use adjusted historical
data to analyze NHS bridge and pavement conditions. The State DOT must
use the best available data (23 CFR 515.7(g)). If changes are made to
historic data, the State DOT needs to explain what it has done, and why
the State DOT believes that the quality of the historic data is
improved by the changes. However, any changes in historical data will
not be used to revise reporting submitted pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e)
or to change determinations made under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) or 119(f).
No change was made to either document based on this comment.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 119; 23 CFR part 515; 49 CFR 1.85.
Issued on: February 14, 2018.
Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-03618 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
