Asset Management Plans; Management and Monitoring Systems, 89506-89519 [2024-26200]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89506-89519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 500 and 515

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2024-0048]
RIN 2125-AG00


Asset Management Plans; Management and Monitoring Systems

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to 
amend its regulations governing risk-based Asset Management Plans 
(AMP). State departments of transportation (State DOT) are required to 
develop and implement a risk-based AMP for the National Highway System 
(NHS) to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and the 
performance of the NHS. Through this notice, FHWA is proposing to amend 
its AMP regulations to add and revise definitions in the rule and 
update the processes State DOTs are required to use in developing an 
AMP, the required content of the AMP, procedures for State DOTs to 
submit AMPs to FHWA to ensure that State DOTs are implementing AMPs 
consistent with law, and procedures for State DOTs to recertify their 
processes for developing the AMP. The FHWA is proposing these revisions 
to implement changes in law, advance current policies, and increase the 
flexibility for State DOTs to comply with AMP regulations. The FHWA is 
also making minor technical corrections and changes to the rule to 
improve readability. Finally, FHWA proposes to remove obsolete 
regulations governing transportation management and monitoring systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that 
appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be 
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must 
include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the 
acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments 
electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tashia J. Clemons, Office of 
Infrastructure, 202-493-0551, [email protected]; or Mariya 
Tikhonova, Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1356, 
[email protected], Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 89507]]

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or access all comments received by the DOT online 
through: 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 Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov.

Background and Legal Authority

Asset Management Plans

    The term ``asset management'' means a strategic and systematic 
process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with 
a focus on both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality 
information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, 
preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will 
achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle 
of the assets at minimum practicable cost. The Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) amended 
section 119(e) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), to establish a 
requirement for States to develop and implement risk-based AMP to 
improve or preserve the condition of NHS assets and the performance of 
the system. 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(1). Section 119(e)(4) of Title 23, U.S.C., 
establishes the minimum requirements for the contents of a State's AMP 
and clearly delegates to FHWA the authority to determine the 
appropriate form of the AMP.\1\ On October 24, 2016, FHWA published a 
final rule (81 FR 73196) that implemented requirements established by 
MAP-21 and codified at 23 U.S.C. 119(e) for States to develop and 
implement AMPs to improve or preserve the condition of NHS assets and 
the performance of the system in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(1). 
The 2016 final asset management rule implements AMP requirements, 
including the processes State DOTs must use to develop their plans and 
meet Federal requirements, and is codified at title 23, Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), part 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 49 CFR 1.85(a)(1), the FHWA Administrator is delegated 
the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to administer 
Chapter 1 of Title 23, U.S.C., which includes section 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and 23 CFR part 515 require FHWA 
to certify, and periodically recertify, the processes a State DOT uses 
to develop an AMP and to evaluate a State DOT's development and 
implementation of its AMP. The first step is for FHWA to certify/
recertify a State DOT's AMP development process. See 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(6); 23 CFR 515.13(a). The FHWA must certify at least every 4 
years, and whenever the State DOT amends its AMP development processes, 
that the State DOT's processes for developing AMP meet applicable 
requirements. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6)(B); 23 CFR 515.13(c). The second 
step is for FHWA to conduct an annual consistency determination, which 
evaluates whether the State DOT has developed and implemented an AMP 
that is consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119. See 23 
U.S.C. 119(e)(5); 23 CFR 515.13(b). If a State DOT has not developed 
and implemented an AMP consistent with the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 
119(e) and 23 CFR part 515, the State receives a reduced Federal share 
for National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) projects and activities 
carried out during the fiscal year in which the State DOT did not meet 
the AMP requirements. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A); 23 CFR 515.15(a).
    In 2018, State DOTs submitted their first AMP for review and 
approval according to the requirements of the 2016 final rule. Since 
then, FHWA has developed training, hosted regional workshops and 
Webinars, developed guidance documents, and produced a number of 
resource documents to prepare State DOTs for recertification. State 
DOTs have also undergone, on an annual basis, a consistency evaluation 
to ensure certified AMPs are developed and implemented consistent with 
23 U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515.
    Events following the promulgation of the asset management rule in 
2016 require updating 23 CFR part 515. On November 15, 2021, President 
Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 
117-58, also known as the ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'') (BIL) into 
law. The BIL amended the minimum requirements for an AMP, by requiring 
that the AMP's life-cycle cost and risk management analyses take into 
consideration extreme weather and resilience.\2\ In addition, Executive 
Order (E.O.) 14008 of January 27, 2021, Tackling the Climate Crisis at 
Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619), directs Federal Agencies to take action 
addressing the crisis of climate change by, among other activities, 
increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change, including 
through the delivery of sustainable infrastructure. See E.O. 14008, 
Sec.  201. The FHWA has identified the AMP rule as an opportunity to 
advance current policies to address impacts of the present climate 
crisis through planning for a transportation system that is more 
resilient to the effects of sea level rise, extreme weather events, 
flooding, wildfires, or other natural disasters.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See BIL, Sec.  11105(3) (codified at 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(4)(D)).
    \3\ See 23 U.S.C. 119(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development and updating of the AMP is also an opportunity to 
advance the policies of E.O. 13985 of January 20, 2021, Advancing 
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the 
Federal Government (86 FR 7009), which directed Federal Agencies to 
assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies 
perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for 
underserved communities and to use this information to develop policies 
and programs that deliver resources and benefits equitably to all. See 
E.O. 13985, Sec.  1. Consistent with the goals of E.O. 13985, State 
DOTs are encouraged to consider how the processes for developing an AMP 
and the content of the AMP can promote equity for users of assets 
included in the AMP and the communities impacted by the management of 
those assets, particularly with respect to the AMP's investment 
strategies. The FHWA requests comments on the consideration of equity 
in the AMP, including information from State DOTs that are already 
considering equity in the development of their AMPs and in particular, 
their AMP's investment strategies.

Management and Monitoring Systems

    In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (Pub. L. 102-240), which added section 303 to 23 U.S.C., 
requiring the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations for 
State development, establishment, and implementation of systems to 
manage highway pavements and bridges, highway safety, traffic 
congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and 
intermodal transportation facilities and systems. Section 303 also 
required the Secretary to issue guidelines and requirements for the 
State development, establishment, and implementation of a traffic 
monitoring system for highways and public transportation facilities and 
equipment. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
subsequently promulgated a final rule to implement 23 U.S.C. 303 (61 FR 
67166, Dec. 19, 1996) and codified the regulations at 23 CFR part 500. 
Section 303 was subsequently repealed by MAP-21, Sec.  1519(b)(1)(A), 
and FHWA and FTA no longer use the regulations

[[Page 89508]]

governing the management and monitoring systems at 23 CFR part 500.

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    Through this NPRM, FHWA is proposing to implement the amendments to 
23 U.S.C. 119(e) in BIL to require that an AMP's risk management and 
life-cycle planning analysis take into consideration extreme weather 
and resilience. The incorporation of resilience considerations into the 
AMP is also consistent with the policy of E.O. 14008. In addition, FHWA 
is proposing several updates to the AMP rule, which has not been 
revised since its initial promulgation in 2016. These updates will 
remove outdated references, increase flexibility for State DOTs, and 
clarify and streamline the process for State DOTs to submit, and for 
FHWA to review, AMPs for the annual consistency determination and AMP 
processes for periodic recertification. Finally, as part of its ongoing 
efforts to ensure its regulations are up to date and do not contain 
unnecessary information, FHWA is proposing to remove outdated 
regulations in 23 CFR part 500. The regulations in 23 CFR part 500 
would be removed and part 500 would be reserved for future use.

Section-by-Section Discussion

23 CFR Part 500

    As discussed above, FHWA is proposing to remove and reserve 23 CFR 
part 500, management and monitoring systems, because the underlying 
statutory authority for promulgating part 500 has been repealed and 
neither FHWA nor FTA rely on part 500 for regulating management systems 
under their respective jurisdictions.

23 CFR Part 515

Section 515.1 Purpose
    In Sec.  515.1, FHWA is proposing to change ``State transportation 
department'' to ``State department of transportation.'' This change is 
nonsubstantive and is being proposed so that FHWA uses consistent 
terminology throughout title 23, CFR.
Section 515.3 Applicability
    The FHWA proposes to remove the language ``and effective date'' 
from the section heading and related language from the text of Sec.  
515.3. This language is no longer needed because all State DOTs are 
fully in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
develop and implement their AMPs.
Section 515.5 Definitions
    The FHWA proposes to add definitions for five terms specific to the 
process for developing AMPs and revise existing definitions to 
implement statutory requirements and policy priorities.
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for climate change. This 
definition is taken from FHWA Order 5520, Transportation System 
Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather 
Events (December 15, 2014).\4\ Climate Change would mean ``any 
significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended 
period of time. Climate change includes major variations in 
temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other environmental 
conditions, that occur over several decades or longer. Climate change 
may manifest as a rise in sea level, as well as increase the frequency 
and magnitude of extreme weather events now and in the future.'' Given 
the connection between climate change and the potential for the 
increased frequency of extreme weather events, and in light of the new 
requirement in BIL that an AMP's lifecycle cost and risk management 
analyses must take into consideration extreme weather and resilience, 
it is appropriate to include a definition for climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for extreme weather events, 
which would be defined as ``events that can include significant 
anomalies in temperature, precipitation, and winds and can manifest as 
heavy precipitation and flooding, heatwaves, drought, wildfires, and 
windstorms (including tornadoes and tropical storms). Consequences of 
extreme weather events can include safety concerns, damage, 
destruction, and/or economic loss. Climate change can also cause or 
influence extreme weather events.'' This definition is also found in 
FHWA Order 5520, and it highlights the connection between climate 
change and changing temperature, precipitation, and winds, and 
intensification of precipitation, flooding, heatwaves, drought, 
wildfires, and windstorms. Adding a definition for extreme weather 
events to Sec.  515.5 is necessary to implement the requirement in BIL 
that an AMP's lifecycle cost and risk management analyses take into 
consideration extreme weather and resilience.
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for implementation period to 
assist State DOTs in gathering information to demonstrate 
implementation of the AMP for a 12-month period as required by 23 
U.S.C. 119(e)(5) and 23 CFR 515.13(b). Implementation period would mean 
the 12-month period, beginning on June 1 and ending on May 31 of the 
following year, covered by an AMP for purposes of plan implementation 
and the annual consistency determination.
    Because FHWA is proposing to include references to the long-range 
statewide transportation plan in part 515 (see the section-by-section 
discussion for Sec. Sec.  515.9 and 515.19 below), FHWA proposes to add 
a definition for long-range statewide transportation plan, which would 
have the same meaning as the term is defined in 23 CFR 450.104.
    The FHWA proposes to define the term resilience to help State DOTs 
incorporate resiliency as part of their AMP's system-level evaluation 
and to meet the statutory requirement for State DOTs to consider 
resilience as part of lifecycle planning and risk management analysis. 
The definition proposed here has the same meaning as defined in 23 
U.S.C. 101(a)(24) except that under this part, resiliency is evaluated 
on the system level rather than with respect to a project.
    In addition to the definitions proposed to be added to 23 CFR 
515.5, FHWA is proposing changes to existing definitions to implement 
BIL, advance current priorities, and improve the rule.
    The FHWA proposes to amend the definition of Asset class so that 
the example asset class of ``Intelligent Transportation (IT)'' would 
read ``Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).'' This is a technical 
change that is not intended to have any substantive impact.
    The FHWA proposes to amend the definition for life-cycle planning 
to mean ``a process to analyze strategies for managing an asset class 
or asset sub-group over their whole life with demonstrated 
consideration for extreme weather events and resilience, minimizing 
cost while preserving or improving their condition, and extending the 
life of the assets. It includes analyzing life-cycle cost, condition, 
and other life-cycle benefits of alternative strategies that vary by 
work type and timing.'' The FHWA proposed change reflects the 
requirements in 23 U.S.C 119(e)(4)(D) for State DOTs to consider 
extreme weather and resilience when analyzing estimated cost for the 
whole life of an asset class or asset sub-group.
    The FHWA proposes to edit the definition of risk management to 
reflect the requirement 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) for State DOTs to 
consider extreme

[[Page 89509]]

weather and resilience for risk management analysis. Currently, risk 
management means the identification, analysis, evaluation, and 
management of risks to assets and system performance. The FHWA proposes 
to revise the definition to mean ``the processes and framework for 
managing potential risks, such as adverse impacts associated with 
extreme weather events and other risks to system resilience. Risk 
management includes the identification, analysis, evaluation, and 
management of risks to assets and system performance.''
    Finally, FHWA proposes to edit the definition of work types to 
provide additional flexibility for States to improve physical assets. 
Work types would be defined as ``the categories of work utilized by a 
State DOT to strategically and systematically operate, maintain, and 
improve physical assets. Work type categories may include initial 
construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and 
reconstruction.'' This proposed change would make the specified work 
types included in the original definition examples for consideration 
rather than an exclusive list. It would allow State DOTs to categorize 
the work in their AMPs in a way that is appropriate for their 
particular circumstances, so long as the categories allow the State 
DOTs to describe how they will use the categories to strategically and 
systematically operate, maintain, and improve the physical assets that 
are included in the AMP.
Section 515.7 Process for Developing the Asset Management Plan
    Section 515.7 describes the processes State DOTs are required to 
use in developing their AMPs and that are subject to certification by 
FHWA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). State DOTs use their certified 
processes to produce information it needs to develop the contents of 
the AMP required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4) and part 515. The FHWA is 
proposing changes to Sec.  515.7 that implement updates to 23 U.S.C. 
119 made by BIL, advance current priorities, and clarify rule language.
    The FHWA is proposing several changes to improve the clarity and 
readability of Sec.  515.7. First, FHWA proposes to remove the first 
sentence of Sec.  515.7's introductory text, which describes in general 
terms the overall requirement for State DOTs to develop risk-based 
AMPs. This language is unnecessary because the precise requirements for 
the processes State DOTs must use to develop their AMPs is enumerated 
in the paragraphs of Sec.  515.7. Second, FHWA proposes to revise 
language in Sec.  515.7 to reflect that State DOTs have already have 
processes for developing the AMP and have already established targets 
for the condition of NHS pavements and bridges. In particular, this 
NPRM would remove language in the introductory text of paragraphs (a) 
through (e) requiring State DOTs to ``establish'' processes for 
developing the AMP and language in paragraph (a)(1) relating to 
establishing targets ``once promulgated.'' Third, FHWA is reorganizing 
the contents of paragraphs (a) though (e) and making changes to rule 
language to improve the clarity of the rule. Except as specified 
herein, FHWA does not intend for these changes to have substantive 
impact on the requirements for the processes that State DOTs use to 
develop their AMPs.
    The FHWA is also proposing to amend the requirements for processes 
to develop the AMP to implement the requirement from BIL that the AMP's 
life-cycle cost and risk management analyses must include consideration 
of extreme weather and resilience. Thus, FHWA is proposing the 
following changes:
     Including ``cost impacts related to the presence or 
absence of resilience'' among the factors in paragraph (b) introductory 
text that a State DOT should include in developing the process for 
conducting life-cycle planning;
     Revising paragraph (b)(2) so that deterioration models 
used for each asset class or asset sub-group of NHS pavements and 
bridges demonstrate consideration of resilience and extreme weather 
events; and
     In paragraph (c), including resilience as a risk that a 
State DOT's process for developing a risk management analysis must be 
able to identify and, in paragraph (c)(3), requiring a State DOT to 
treat risks to resilience as top priority risks if such risks are 
identified.
    The FHWA is also proposing several changes to improve the operation 
of Sec.  515.7. In paragraph (a)(3), FHWA is proposing that a State 
DOT's process for conducting a performance gap analysis must give 
consideration to strategies for closing or addressing gaps that are 
identified in the State DOT's performance-based plans, such as the 
State Freight Plan or Highway Strategic Safety Plan. Performance-based 
plans can be important sources of information for identifying gaps in 
current condition of NHS pavements and bridges and the State DOT's 
targets.
    In the introductory text of paragraph (c), which currently requires 
a State DOT to establish a process for developing a risk management 
plan, FHWA proposes to use the word ``analysis'' instead of ``plan'' to 
more closely align with the text of 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D). In 
paragraph (c)(1), FHWA proposes to provide additional information in 
the discussion of example risk categories, but this is not intended to 
create any additional requirements.
    Paragraph (e) requires a State DOT shall establish a process for 
developing investment strategies for an AMP that meet the requirements 
in Sec.  515.9(f). Currently, this process must result in a description 
of how the investment strategies are influenced, at a minimum, by the 
following: (1) Performance gap analysis required under Sec.  515.7(a); 
(2) Life-cycle planning for asset classes or asset sub-groups resulting 
from the process required under Sec.  515.7(b); (3) Risk management 
analysis resulting from the process required under Sec.  515.7(c) of 
this section; and (4) Anticipated available funding and estimated cost 
of expected future work types associated with various candidate 
strategies based on the financial plan required by Sec.  515.7(d).
    The FHWA is proposing to revise the structure and content of Sec.  
515.7(e). The FHWA proposes to make changes to paragraph (e) to show 
how investment strategies selected by State DOTs are influenced by 
strategies identified as a result of the processes required to develop 
the performance gap, lifecycle planning, and risk management analyses 
described in paragraphs (a) through (c)). Therefore, FHWA proposes to 
revise the existing requirement that the process produce a description 
of how the investment strategies are influenced by the processes for 
generating the AMP's performance gap, lifecycle planning, and risk 
management analyses to require that the process result in a description 
of how the investment strategies are influenced by the strategies that 
are identified as a result of those analyses (proposed paragraphs 
(e)(1)-(3)). The FHWA is also proposing to require that the process for 
developing investment strategies include a description of how the 
selected investment strategies are influenced by consideration for how 
the selected investment strategies would sustain and maintain a state 
of good repair over the life-cycle of the assets, leading to an 
improvement in the performance of the NHS and improved travel times 
(proposed paragraph (e)(4)); and consideration for how the selected 
investment strategies would sustain and maintain a state of good repair 
over the life-cycle of the assets, resulting in deferred replacement of 
assets at minimum practicable cost (proposed

[[Page 89510]]

paragraph (e)(5). A deferred replacement of assets may result in lower 
carbon emissions that would otherwise result from more frequent 
replacement. Finally, FHWA is proposing to require in paragraph (e)(6) 
that the process for developing the AMP's investment strategies 
identify anticipated available funding and the estimated cost of 
expected future work types by asset class identified as a result of the 
process for developing the AMP's financial plan required under 
paragraph (d) and associated with selected strategies identified as a 
result of the processes to develop the AMP's performance gap, lifecycle 
planning, and risk management analyses required under paragraphs (a)-
(c). The FHWA is proposing to use the term ``selected strategies'' to 
clarify that analysis conducted for investment strategies would only be 
necessary for those strategies that are going to be implemented.
Section 515.9 Asset Management Plan Requirements
    Section 515.9 sets forth minimum content requirements that apply to 
a State DOT AMP. In paragraph (a), FHWA is proposing to add a reference 
to 23 U.S.C. 119 to clarify that the AMP must comply with the statutory 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(e) as well as the regulations at 23 CFR 
part 515. The FHWA is also proposing minor technical changes to Sec.  
515.9, including in paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) to update references to 
other regulations in 23 CFR that had not been promulgated at the time 
of the 2016 final rule.
    The FHWA proposes several revisions to the required contents of an 
AMP set forth in paragraph (d). In paragraph (d)(4), FHWA is proposing 
to clarify that the AMP must include performance gap analysis results, 
including strategies to close identified gaps. These strategies would 
be produced as a result of the process required by proposed Sec.  
515.7(a)(3)-(4), although FHWA notes that existing Sec.  515.7(a)(3) 
requires the performance gap analysis process to produce strategies to 
close or address gaps identified by this process.
    In paragraph (d)(5), FHWA proposes that the requirement for the 
life-cycle planning element be revised to require life-cycle planning 
analysis results that demonstrate consideration of extreme weather 
events and resilience and include strategies for managing each asset 
class or asset subgroup. The addition of the requirement that the life-
cycle planning analysis demonstrate consideration of extreme weather 
event and resilience implements the change to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) 
made by BIL. As with the proposed change to paragraph (d)(4), the 
proposed requirement to include strategies for managing each asset 
class or subgroup is intended to emphasize that the strategies required 
to be developed as a result of the life-cycle planning process set 
forth in Sec.  515.7(b)(4) are required to be included in the AMP 
itself.
    In paragraph (d)(6), FHWA proposes that the requirement for the 
risk management analysis element be revised to require risk management 
analysis results that demonstrate consideration of extreme weather 
events and resilience and include strategies to eliminate or reduce top 
priority risks. As with the proposed change to paragraph (d)(5), the 
proposed changes in paragraph (d)(6) implement new language in 23 
U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) and emphasize that the strategies required to be 
developed as a result of the risk management analysis process set forth 
in Sec.  515.7(c)(4) are required to be included in the AMP itself.
    In paragraph (d)(8), FHWA proposes to require that the AMP's 
investment strategies element include sufficient detail to demonstrate 
that the State DOT's selected investment strategies align with the 
various levels of funding to achieve targets for asset condition and 
system performance effectiveness at a minimum practicable cost while 
managing risks. This is consistent with the proposed revisions to the 
process for developing the AMP's investment strategies in Sec.  
515.7(e)(2) that would require a State DOT to describe how its selected 
investment strategies are influenced by the AMP's performance gap, 
life-cycle planning, and risk management analyses.
    In paragraph (f), FHWA proposes to add a new paragraph (f)(5) that 
would require an AMP to discuss how its investment strategies would 
collectively make or support progress toward addressing risks from 
extreme weather events and risks to system resilience described in 
Sec.  515.7(c)(1). This change would support the BIL's amendment to 23 
U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) requiring lifecycle cost and risk management 
analyses to consider extreme weather and resilience, and it supports 
the policies of E.O. 14008, which directs Federal Agencies to take 
action addressing the crisis of climate change by, among other 
activities, increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change, 
including through the delivery of sustainable infrastructure.
    In paragraph (h), FHWA proposes to require a State DOT to integrate 
its AMP into the transportation planning processes that lead to the 
long-range statewide transportation plan described in 23 CFR 450.216, 
along with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 
which is already included in paragraph (h). This aligns with two 
requirements in 23 CFR 450.206(c): the requirement in Sec.  
450.206(c)(4) that the State ``shall integrate into the statewide 
transportation planning process, directly or by reference, the goals, 
objectives, performance measures, and targets described in this 
section, in other State transportation plans and transportation 
processes'' including the AMP; and the requirement in Sec.  
450.206(c)(5) that the State shall ``consider the performance measures 
and targets established under this paragraph when developing policies, 
programs, and investment priorities reflected in the long-range 
statewide transportation plan'' along with the STIP.
    In paragraph (l), FHWA proposes to amend the introductory text to 
clarify that if a State DOT decides to include assets in addition to 
NHS pavement and bridge assets in its AMP, the State DOT shall address 
the items in paragraphs (l)(1) through (7) to the extent practicable, 
consistent with the State DOT's needs and resources. This amendment is 
intended to clarify the intent of paragraph (l) that a State DOT should 
have the flexibility to address how optional assets are included in its 
AMP, consistent with the State DOT's needs and resources regarding 
those assets.
Section 515.11 Annual Consistency Determination
    Section 515.11 currently describes the deadlines and process for 
phasing in the requirement for each State DOT to develop an AMP. These 
deadlines have all passed, and all State DOTs now have approved AMPs 
certified processes in place for developing updated AMPs. Therefore, 
FHWA is proposing to revise Sec.  515.11 to cover the process for the 
annual determination by FHWA, required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5), that 
a State DOT has developed and implemented an AMP consistent with 23 
U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515 (``the annual consistency 
determination''). The annual consistency determination is currently 
discussed in Sec.  515.13 alongside the requirements governing the 
certification and recertification of the State DOT's processes for 
developing the AMP, as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). As discussed 
in greater detail below, Sec.  515.13 would continue to cover the 
requirements for certification and recertification of the State DOT's 
processes for developing the AMP. As part of this reorganization, FHWA 
proposes to change the title of

[[Page 89511]]

Sec.  515.11 from ``Deadlines and phase-in of asset management plan 
development'' to ``Annual consistency determination,'' and the title of 
Sec.  515.13 would change from ``Process certification and 
recertification, and annual plan consistency review'' to ``Process 
certification and recertification.'' Separating the requirements for 
the annual consistency determination and the requirements for process 
certification and recertification into separate sections will improve 
the readability of the rule.
    The FHWA is also proposing changes to the process by which a State 
DOT submits, and FHWA reviews, an AMP for the annual consistency 
determination. First, FHWA is proposing to update the current schedule 
for State DOTs to submit required documents for the annual consistency 
determination review. In Sec.  515.11(a), FHWA proposes that a State 
DOT shall submit the materials necessary for FHWA to make its annual 
consistency determination no later than July 1 of each year. 
Specifically, a State DOT would be required to submit its State-
approved AMP that it intends to implement during the current 
implementation period (proposed paragraph (a)(1)) and documentation 
that demonstrates implementation, during the prior implementation 
period, of the State-approved AMP that FHWA previously determined to be 
consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515 
as part of the annual consistency determination (proposed paragraph 
(a)(2)). The FHWA notes that although the timing of when a State DOT is 
required to submit information for the annual consistency determination 
would change under this proposed rule, the requirements for what a 
State DOT must submit for FHWA to make its annual consistency 
determination remain the same.
    The FHWA is proposing an implementation period approach for the 
requirement that FHWA annually determine that a State DOT has developed 
a plan consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(e). As 
discussed in the section-by-section analysis for Sec.  515.5, the 
implementation period means the 12-month period, beginning on June 1 
and ending on May 31 of the following year, covered by an AMP for 
purposes of plan implementation and the annual consistency 
determination. Using an implementation period that runs from June 1 to 
May 31 of the following year will allow States to have a full 12 months 
of data to process when preparing appropriate documentation needed to 
show full implementation that would need to be submitted to FHWA by 
July 1. Under proposed Sec.  515.11(c)(1), FHWA would have until July 
31, or 30 days, to make an annual consistency determination. This 
schedule is designed to provide adequate time for State DOT to take 
corrective action, if required due to a negative FHWA determination, 
before the September 30 statutory deadline for FHWA to complete the 
annual consistency determination. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(B). The FHWA 
believes using a submission date later than July 1 would not provide 
adequate time for a State DOT to cure any deficiencies that FHWA may 
identify in the State DOT submission. In such case, the State could be 
found not to have complied with applicable requirements and be subject 
to penalty in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A).
    The FHWA is aware some State DOTs update their AMPs after July 1, 
obtain a determination from FHWA that the updated AMP is consistent 
with 23 U.S.C 119 requirements governing plan development and content, 
and begin to implement that updated AMP in the middle of an 
implementation period. When that happens, the State DOT is still 
required to submit documents on the next July 1 for a full consistency 
determination. Those documents, and FHWA's determination, will have to 
account for the two plans the State DOT used during the Federal fiscal 
year: the AMP determined consistent prior to the beginning of the 
Federal fiscal year and the updated version. To address this scenario, 
proposed paragraph (b) provides the State DOT implementation 
documentation must describe any material changes to the State DOT's 
investment strategies adopted in the updated AMP and explain any 
effects of the updates on the State DOT's AMP implementation during the 
current Federal fiscal year.
    Proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) describe the process that FHWA will 
use to conduct the annual consistency determination required by 23 
U.S.C. 119(e)(5) and the scope of the annual consistency determination. 
Except as described below, these provisions are largely unchanged from 
what is currently required in Sec.  515.13, except that the proposed 
rule provides that the annual consistency determination will be 
measured based on the June 1 to May 31 timeline. That is, FHWA must 
determine whether a State DOT has developed an AMP that is consistent 
with 23 U.S.C. 119 and part 515 for the current implementation period 
(i.e., June 1 of the current year to May 31 of the following year) and 
whether the State DOT has implemented an AMP consistent with 23 U.S.C. 
119 and part 515 for the prior implementation period (i.e., June 1 of 
the previous year to May 31 of the current year).
    In Sec.  515.11(d)(2), FHWA proposes to clarify that State DOTs 
must show as part of the documentation that demonstrates implementation 
of the AMP, that State DOTs used investment strategies that are 
applicable to make progress toward achievement of its targets for asset 
condition and performance of the NHS to support progress toward the 
national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b), to improve or preserve 
asset conditions, increase system resiliency, and reduce or mitigate 
high priority risks.
    In Sec.  515.11(d)(2)(ii), the FHWA is proposing that a State DOT 
may also demonstrate plan implementation without addressing funding 
allocations by work type. In such case, the State DOT would show how, 
in the 12 months preceding the FHWA implementation determination, that 
the State DOT used the applicable AMP's investment strategies for NHS 
pavement and bridge assets to meet the requirements in Sec.  
515.11(d)(2). In addition, FHWA is proposing under Sec.  
515.11(d)(2)(ii) that State DOT must describe how the actual total 
pavement or bridge expenditures were consistent with the investment 
strategies in the State DOT AMP even though the expenditures are not by 
work type.
    In proposed paragraph (e), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT may 
update its AMP as often as it considers necessary, but it must review 
and update its AMP at least every 4 years as measured from the most 
recent FHWA recertification of the State DOT's processes for developing 
the TAMP. The State DOT would have to submit AMP changes to FHWA for a 
determination that the updated AMP is consistent with the requirements 
in 23 U.S.C. 119 and part 515 except when the changes are minor 
technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable material impact 
on the accuracy, adequacy, or validity of the analyses or investment 
strategies in the AMP. For example, a State DOT would not need to 
submit changes in the format of the AMP or a change to a point of 
contact for the plan before the annual consistency determination.
Section 515.13 Process Certification and Recertification
    The FHWA proposes to rename Sec.  515.13 ``Process certification 
and recertification'' because requirements governing the annual 
consistency determination would be moved to Sec.  515.11, and Sec.  
515.13 would be revised to focus on the processes by which the

[[Page 89512]]

State DOTs will submit to FHWA their AMP development processes for 
recertification pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). In proposed paragraph 
(a), FHWA is proposing to require a State DOT to submit its AMP 
development processes to FHWA for recertification not later than 4 
years after the date that FHWA initially certified or subsequently 
recertified the State DOT's processes. This is consistent with the 
existing requirement that a State DOT update and resubmit its processes 
at least every 4 years, beginning on the date of FHWA's certification 
of the State DOT's processes. See 23 CFR 515.13(c). A State DOT would 
also be required to resubmit its processes for recertification whenever 
it makes changes to a process except when the changes are minor 
technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable material impact 
on the accuracy, adequacy, and validity of the processes. A State DOT 
would have the option to submit its processes for recertification as a 
standalone document or as part of an updated TAMP.
    In addition, FHWA is proposing in paragraph (b) to reduce the time 
by which FHWA provides a decision whether to recertify a State DOT's 
processes from 90 days to 60 days. State DOTs and FHWA regularly 
discuss updates to State DOT processes as the updates are in progress 
and while State DOTs work to develop their AMPs. Consequently, FHWA is 
often aware of these updates prior to receiving a formal request, which 
tends to reduce the time to review certify amended processes. Therefore 
a 60-day review time for FHWA would be appropriate. Similarly, in 
proposed paragraph (d), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT would have 
60 days to address any minor deficiencies that FHWA identifies instead 
of the 90 days as currently provided. Except for minor technical 
changes and the proposed changes described above, the procedures for 
FHWA to recertify a State DOT's processes, including the procedure for 
curing deficiencies, would remain the same.
    The FHWA intends for this proposal to provide State DOTs with 
flexibility on the timing of their requests for certification or 
recertification of TAMP development processes under 23 CFR 515.13(a). 
However, FHWA encourages State DOTs to consider possible impacts on the 
annual consistency review when they choose to submit their AMP 
processes to FHWA. For example, a State DOT might submit as a package 
on July 1 updated processes together with an updated AMP developed 
using the updated processes. In that scenario, the State DOT would ask 
FHWA for both a process recertification under 23 CFR 515.13(a) and a 
consistency determination under 23 CFR 515.11(c). If FHWA finds both 
the updated processes and the updated AMP comply with applicable 
requirements, this approach could work well. However, if FHWA finds it 
is unable to recertify the State DOT's updated processes as submitted, 
the State DOT would need to correct the cited deficiencies in its 
processes, revise its AMP to reflect the changes, resubmit the 
processes and AMP for FHWA review, and receive FHWA's final decisions 
on process recertification and the consistency determination. If the 
time required to accomplish these steps extends beyond October 1, then 
the State DOT's AMP would not meet the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(5)(A) that the AMP be developed consistent with requirements in 
23 U.S.C. 119(e) and 23 CFR part 515, the State DOT AMP would receive a 
negative consistency determination, and the State DOT would be subject 
to the penalty described in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A). Although there are 
cure periods in regulation for addressing deficiencies found during the 
TAMP process certification reviews, there is a risk that the State will 
incur a penalty under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A). Some States may find the 
risks of receiving a negative consistency determination or incurring a 
penalty outweigh the convenience of a consolidated submission of the 
State DOT's updated processes simultaneously with an AMP developed 
using those processes.
Section 515.15 Penalties
    This section discusses the statutory penalties for State DOTs that 
do not develop and implement an AMP consistent with the requirements of 
23 U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515. The penalties that the FHWA is 
proposing in this section are penalties required by law. See 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(5)(A). The FHWA is proposing several revisions to this section.
    The FHWA proposes to clarify that on October 1 of each Federal 
fiscal year, instead of each fiscal year, that if a State DOT has not 
developed and implemented an AMP consistent with 23 U.S.C 119, the 
State DOT would be subject to the statutory penalty described at 23 
U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A), specifically, that the maximum Federal share 
payable on account of any project or activity for which funds are 
obligated by the State in that fiscal year under the NHPP shall be 65 
percent. The current rule language references October 1, 2019, but a 
reference to a specific year is no longer needed because the 
requirement to develop and implement an AMP has been fully phased in. 
The proposed updates to this section also more clearly reflect the 
language in the statute. In addition, FHWA is proposing to revise 
section 515.15 to align this rule with newly written language in 
sections 515.7 and 515.9. The FHWA proposes to delete paragraph (b) 
because the deadline in paragraph (b) has passed and FHWA is not aware 
of any instances in which State DOTs have not established performance 
targets for pavements and bridges in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150.
Section 515.17 Minimum Standards for Developing and Operating Bridge 
and Pavement Management Systems
    In the introductory text to Sec.  515.17, FHWA proposes to amend 
the reference to ``States'' to read ``a State DOT'' for consistency 
with the rest of part 515. No other changes are proposed for Sec.  
515.17.
Section 515.19 Organizational Integration of Asset Management
    In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to add the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan alongside the STIP to the items 
that a State DOT should consider when conducting a periodic self-
assessment of its capabilities to conduct asset management and its 
current efforts to implement an AMP. As discussed above regarding a 
similar proposed change to Sec.  515.9(h), the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan contains important connections to 
asset management, so it is reasonable to include this as a 
consideration when the State DOT conducts a periodic self-assessment of 
its asset management capabilities. This proposed revision is intended 
to improve the capacity of State DOTs to integrate asset management 
into their organizational missions, cultures, and capabilities. As 
stated in paragraph (a), these activities are not requirements, and the 
proposed change to paragraph (c) does not create any new requirements 
for State DOTs.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has considered the impacts of this rule under E.O. 12866 
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended 
by E.O. 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review (88 FR 21879, April 11, 
2023), and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule 
complies with E.O. 12866 and E.O.

[[Page 89513]]

13563 to improve regulation. The Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined 
that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under 
that E.O.
    It is anticipated that the proposed rule would not be economically 
significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. The proposed rule would not 
have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. The 
proposed rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, 
any sector of the economy, productivity, competition, or jobs. In 
addition, the proposed changes would not interfere with any action 
taken or planned by another Agency and would not materially alter the 
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs.
    The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new 
requirements in the proposed rule that represent a change to the 
current practices of State DOTs in developing their AMPs. The FHWA and 
FTA derived this estimate by assessing the expected increase in the 
level of effort and costs associated with implementing the changes to 
AMP procedures in this proposed rule. Based on this analysis, FHWA 
estimates that this proposed rule would have an annual cost impact to 
States ranging from $3 million to $7 million. These costs are 
attributable to the proposed rule's requirement that an AMP's risk 
management and lifecycle planning analyses consider extreme weather and 
resilience. The FHWA presents this estimated cost increase as a range 
because variation among State DOTs is expected in the nature of the 
resilience analysis given differences in risk profiles, the quantity of 
bridge and pavement assets, local variation in costs, and general 
variation in costs from year-to-year to include in their AMPs.
    The FHWA estimates that this proposed rule will generate various 
benefits to State DOTs and the public resulting from improvements to 
the provision of transportation infrastructure. Because these benefits 
are difficult to quantify, FHWA discusses the potential benefits of 
this proposed rule qualitatively. For example, States may realize cost 
savings from considering extreme weather and resilience in the context 
of risk management and lifecycle planning analyses if the analyses 
conducted for the AMP result in greater State investment in resilient 
infrastructure that is less vulnerable to the impacts of sea level 
rise, extreme weather events, flooding, wildfires, or other natural 
disasters. A supporting statement in the rulemaking docket (FHWA-2024-
0048) contains additional details on FHWA's economic analysis of this 
proposed rule. The FHWA requests data and comments that could inform 
the economic analysis for this proposed rule, including any estimates 
of resulting benefits.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule 
on small entities and has determined that the action is not anticipated 
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed rule affects State governments, and State 
governments do not meet the definition of a small entity. Therefore, 
FHWA certifies that the action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule for unfunded mandates as 
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). 
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us 
to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated 
impacts, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate 
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 
million, using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the 
Gross Domestic Product. As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined 
that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of greater than $183 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 
1532).
    Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed 
in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. In addition, the 
definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or 
Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the 
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal 
Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of 
flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has 
determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed rulemaking 
would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the 
States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under E.O. 13175, dated 
November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and 
would not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact 
statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under E.O. 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a 
significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211 is 
not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each 
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through 
regulations. A 60-day notice to approve the collection of information 
relating to AMPs was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2024 
(89 FR 46985). A 30-day notice to approve the collection of information 
relating to AMPs was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 
2024 (89 FR 67705).
    The FHWA is required to submit the proposed collection of 
information to OMB for review and approval and, accordingly, seek 
public comments. Interested parties are invited to comment regarding 
any aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but 
not limited to: (1) whether the collection of information is

[[Page 89514]]

necessary for the performance of the functions of FHWA, including 
whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the 
estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the collection of information; and (4) ways to minimize the 
collection burden without reducing the quality of the information 
collected.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect 
a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications 
under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23 
CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of regulations, 
and that no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    The E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has 
determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental 
justice issues.

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

23 CFR Part 500

    Bridges, grant programs--transportation, highway traffic safety, 
highways and roads, mass transportation, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

23 CFR Part 515

    Asset management, highways and roads, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, transportation.

Kristin R. White,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 
23 U.S.C. 315, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR parts 500 and 515 as 
follows:

PART 500--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
1. Remove and reserve part 500, consisting of Sec. Sec.  500.101 
through 500.204.
0
2. Revise part 515 to read as follows:

PART 515--ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS

Sec.
515.1 Purpose.
515.3 Applicability.
515.5 Definitions.
515.7 Process for developing the asset management plan.
515.9 Asset management plan requirements.
515.11 Annual consistency determination.
515.13 Process certification and recertification.
515.15 Penalties.
515.17 Minimum standards for developing and operating bridge and 
pavement management systems.
515.19 Organizational integration of asset management.

    Authority:  Sec. 1106 and 1203 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 
405; 23 U.S.C. 109, 119(e), 144, 150(c), and 315; 49 CFR 1.85(a).


Sec.  515.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to:
    (a) Establish the processes that a State department of 
transportation (State DOT) must use to develop its asset management 
plan, as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(8);
    (b) Establish the minimum requirements that apply to the 
development of an asset management plan;
    (c) Describe the penalties for a State DOT's failure to develop and 
implement an asset management plan in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119 and 
this part;
    (d) Set forth the minimum standards for a State DOT to use in 
developing and operating highway bridge and pavement management systems 
under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).


Sec.  515.3  Applicability.

    This part applies to all State DOTs.


Sec.  515.5  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Asset means all physical highway infrastructure located within the 
right-of-way corridor of a highway. The term asset includes all 
components necessary for the operation of a highway including 
pavements, highway bridges, tunnels, signs, ancillary structures, and 
other physical components of a highway.
    Asset class means assets with the same characteristics and function 
(e.g., bridges, culverts, tunnels, pavements, or guardrail) that are a 
subset of a group or collection of assets that serve a common function 
(e.g., roadway system, safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems 
(ITS), signs, or lighting).
    Asset condition means the actual physical condition of an asset.
    Asset management means a strategic and systematic process of 
operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on 
both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, 
to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, 
rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a 
desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at 
minimum practicable cost.
    Asset management plan means a document that describes how a State 
DOT will carry out asset management as defined in this section. This 
includes how the State DOT will make risk-based decisions from a long-
term assessment of the National Highway System (NHS), and other public 
roads included in the plan at the option of the State DOT, as it 
relates to managing its physical assets and laying out a set of 
investment strategies to address the condition and system performance 
gaps. This document describes how the highway network system will be 
managed to achieve State DOT targets for asset condition and system 
performance effectiveness while managing the risks, in a financially 
responsible manner, at a minimum practicable cost over the life cycle 
of its assets. The term asset management plan under this part is the 
risk-based asset management plan that is required under 23 U.S.C. 
119(e) and is intended to carry out asset management as defined in 23 
U.S.C. 101(a)(2).
    Asset sub-group means a specialized group of assets within an asset 
class with the same characteristics and function (e.g., concrete 
pavements or asphalt pavements.)
    Bridge as used in this part, is defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the 
National Bridge Inspection Standards.
    Climate change means any significant change in the measures of 
climate lasting for an extended period of time. Climate change includes 
major

[[Page 89515]]

variations in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other 
environmental conditions, that occur over several decades or longer and 
poses adverse impacts to the condition of assets. Climate change may 
manifest as a rise in sea level, as well as increase the frequency and 
magnitude of extreme weather events now and in the future.
    Critical infrastructure means those facilities the incapacity or 
failure of which would have a debilitating impact on national or 
regional economic security, national or regional energy security, 
national or regional public health or safety, or any combination of 
those matters.
    Extreme weather events mean events that can include significant 
anomalies in temperature, precipitation, and winds and can manifest as 
heavy precipitation and flooding, heatwaves, drought, wildfires, and 
windstorms (including tornadoes and tropical storms). Consequences of 
extreme weather events can include safety concerns, damage, 
destruction, and/or economic loss. Climate change can also cause or 
influence extreme weather events.
    Financial plan means a long-term plan spanning 10 years or longer, 
presenting a State DOT's estimates of projected available financial 
resources and predicted expenditures in major asset categories that can 
be used to achieve State DOT targets for asset condition during the 
plan period, and highlighting how resources are expected to be 
allocated based on asset strategies, needs, shortfalls, and agency 
policies.
    Implementation period means the 12-month period, beginning on June 
1 and ending on May 31 of the following year, covered by an asset 
management plan for purposes of plan implementation and the annual 
consistency determination.
    Investment strategy means a set of strategies that result from 
evaluating various levels of funding to achieve State DOT targets for 
asset condition and system performance effectiveness at a minimum 
practicable cost while managing risks.
    Life-cycle cost means the cost of managing an asset class or asset 
sub-group for its whole life, from initial construction to its 
replacement.
    Life-cycle planning means a process to analyze strategies for 
managing an asset class, or asset sub-group, and the included assets 
over their whole life with demonstrated consideration for extreme 
weather events and resilience, minimizing cost while preserving or 
improving their condition, and extending the life of the assets. It 
includes analyzing life-cycle cost, condition, and other life-cycle 
benefits of alternative strategies that vary by work type and timing.
    Long-range statewide transportation plan has the same meaning as 
defined in Sec.  450.104 of this title.
    Minimum practicable cost means lowest feasible cost to achieve the 
objective.
    NHS pavements and bridges and NHS pavement and bridge assets mean 
Interstate System pavements (inclusion of ramps that are not part of 
the roadway normally traveled by through traffic is optional); NHS 
pavements (excluding the Interstate System) (inclusion of ramps that 
are not part of the roadway normally traveled by through traffic is 
optional); and NHS bridges carrying the NHS (including bridges that are 
part of the ramps connecting to the NHS).
    Performance of the NHS refers to the effectiveness of the NHS in 
providing for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods where 
that performance can be affected by physical assets. This term does not 
include the performance measures established for performance of the 
Interstate System and performance of the NHS (excluding the Interstate 
System) under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(ii)(A)(IV)-(V).
    Performance gap means the gaps between the current asset condition 
and State DOT targets for asset condition, and the gaps in system 
performance effectiveness that are best addressed by improving the 
physical assets.
    Resilience has the same meaning as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(24), 
except that, under this part, resilience is evaluated at the system 
level.
    Risk means the positive or negative effects of uncertainty or 
variability upon agency objectives.
    Risk management means the processes and framework for managing 
potential risks, such as adverse impacts associated with extreme 
weather events and other risks to system resilience. Risk management 
includes the identification, analysis, evaluation, and management of 
risks to assets and system performance.
    Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has the same 
meaning as defined in Sec.  450.104 of this title.
    Work type means the categories of work utilized by a State DOT to 
strategically and systematically operate, maintain, and improve 
physical assets. Work type categories may include initial construction, 
maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.


Sec.  515.7  Process for developing the asset management plan.

    A State DOT shall develop and use, at a minimum, the following 
processes to prepare its asset management plan:
    (a) A process for conducting a performance gap analysis to identify 
deficiencies hindering progress toward improving or preserving the NHS 
and achieving and sustaining the desired state of good repair. The 
State DOT's process must produce, at a minimum, the following 
information:
    (1) The gap(s) between the existing asset conditions of NHS 
pavements and bridges and:
    (i) The state of good repair (as defined by the State DOT); and
    (ii) The State DOT's targets for asset condition of NHS pavements 
and bridges as established by the State DOT.
    (2) The gaps, if any, in the performance-of the NHS that affect NHS 
pavements and bridges regardless of their physical condition; and
    (3) Alternative strategies to close or address the identified gaps. 
The strategies for closing or addressing gaps identified pursuant to 
paragraph (2) must consider strategies identified in the State DOT's 
performance-based plans.
    (b) A process for conducting life-cycle planning for an asset class 
or asset sub-group at the system level. As a State DOT develops its 
life-cycle planning process, the State DOT should include future 
changes in demand; information on current and future environmental 
conditions including extreme weather events, climate change, and 
seismic activity; cost impacts related to the presence or absence of 
resilience; and other factors that could impact whole-of-life costs of 
assets. The State DOT may propose excluding one or more asset sub-
groups from its life-cycle planning process if the State DOT can 
demonstrate to FHWA that the exclusion of the asset sub-group would 
have no material adverse effect on the development of sound investment 
strategies due to the limited number of assets in the asset sub-group, 
the low level of cost associated with managing the assets in that asset 
sub-group, or other justifiable reasons. The State DOT's life-cycle 
planning process must produce, at a minimum, the following information:
    (1) A description of the State DOT targets for asset condition for 
each asset class or asset sub-group;
    (2) The deterioration models used for each asset class or asset 
sub-group of NHS pavements and bridges, which shall demonstrate 
consideration of resilience and extreme weather events;

[[Page 89516]]

    (3) Potential work types across the whole life of each asset class 
or asset sub-group with their relative unit cost; and
    (4) A strategy for managing each asset class or asset sub-group by 
minimizing its life-cycle costs, while achieving the State DOT targets 
for asset condition for NHS pavements and bridges under 23 U.S.C. 
150(d).
    (c) A process for developing a risk management analysis. The State 
DOT's process must produce, at a minimum, the following information:
    (1) Identification of risks that can affect the condition of NHS 
pavements and bridges and the performance of the NHS, including 
resilience. Risks to resilience include risks associated with current 
and future environmental conditions, such as extreme weather events, 
climate change, seismic activity, and risks related to recurring damage 
and costs as identified through the evaluation of facilities repeatedly 
damaged by emergency events carried out under part 667 of this title. 
Examples of other risk categories include financial risks such as 
budget uncertainty; operational risks such as asset failure; and 
strategic risks to achievement of State DOT objectives and goals, such 
as compliance with environmental requirements or meeting organizational 
needs.
    (2) An assessment of the identified risks in terms of the 
likelihood of their occurrence and their impact and consequence if they 
do occur;
    (3) An evaluation and prioritization of the identified risks. A 
State DOT must treat risks to system resilience as top priority risks 
if the State DOT identifies such risk(s) under paragraph (c)(1);
    (4) A mitigation plan for addressing the top priority risks;
    (5) An approach for monitoring the top priority risks; and
    (6) A summary of the evaluations of facilities repeatedly damaged 
by emergency events carried out under part 667 of this title that 
discusses, at a minimum, the results relating to the State's NHS 
pavements and bridges.
    (d) A process for developing a financial plan that identifies 
annual costs over a minimum period of 10 years. The State DOT's process 
must produce, at a minimum, the following information:
    (1) The estimated cost of expected future work to implement 
investment strategies contained in the asset management plan, by State 
fiscal year and work type;
    (2) The estimated funding levels that are expected to be reasonably 
available, by fiscal year, to address the costs of future work types. A 
State DOT may estimate the amount of available future funding using 
historical values where the future funding amount is uncertain;
    (3) Anticipated funding sources; and
    (4) An estimate of the value of the State DOT's NHS pavement and 
bridge assets and the needed investment on an annual basis to maintain 
the value of these assets.
    (e) A process for developing investment strategies meeting the 
requirements in Sec.  515.9(f). The State DOT's process must produce a 
description of how the selected investment strategies are influenced, 
at a minimum, by the following:
    (1) Strategies identified through the performance gap analysis 
resulting from the process required under paragraph (a) of this 
section;
    (2) Strategies identified through the life-cycle planning analysis 
resulting from the process required under paragraph (b) of this 
section;
    (3) Strategies identified through the risk management analysis 
resulting from the process required under paragraph (c) of this 
section;
    (4) Consideration for how the selected investment strategies would 
sustain and maintain a state of good repair over the life-cycle of the 
assets, leading to an improvement in the performance of the NHS and 
improved travel times;
    (5) Consideration for how the selected investment strategies would 
sustain and maintain a state of good repair over the life-cycle of the 
assets, resulting in deferred replacement of assets at minimum 
practicable cost; and
    (6) Anticipated available funding and estimated cost of expected 
future work types identified as a result of the process required under 
paragraph (d) of this section and associated with selected strategies 
identified as a result of the processes for performance gap, life-cycle 
planning, and risk management analyses described in paragraphs (a)-(c) 
of this section.
    (f) The State DOT's processes shall include a provision for the 
State DOT to obtain necessary data from other NHS owners in a 
collaborative and coordinated effort.
    (g) A State DOT shall use the best available data to develop their 
asset management plans. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i), each 
State DOT shall use bridge and pavement management systems meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  515.17 to analyze the condition of NHS pavements 
and bridges for the purpose of developing and implementing the asset 
management plan required under this part. The use of these or other 
management systems for other assets that the State DOT elects to 
include in the asset management plan is optional (e.g., Sign Management 
Systems, etc.).


Sec.  515.9   Asset management plan requirements.

    (a) A State DOT shall develop and implement an asset management 
plan to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and improve the 
performance of the NHS in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 
119 and this part. Asset management plans must describe how the State 
DOT will carry out asset management as defined in Sec.  515.5.
    (b) An asset management plan shall include, at a minimum, a summary 
listing of NHS pavement and bridge assets, regardless of ownership.
    (c) In addition to the assets specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section, State DOTs are encouraged, but not required, to include all 
other NHS infrastructure assets within the right-of-way corridor and 
assets on other public roads. Examples of other NHS infrastructure 
assets include tunnels, ancillary structures, and signs. Examples of 
other public roads include non-NHS Federal-aid highways. If a State DOT 
decides to include other NHS assets in its asset management plan, or to 
include assets on other public roads, the State DOT, at a minimum, 
shall evaluate and manage those assets consistent with paragraph (l) of 
this section.
    (d) The minimum content for an asset management plan under this 
part includes a discussion of each element in this paragraph (d).
    (1) Asset management objectives. The objectives 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 state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at a 
minimum practicable cost.
    (2) Asset management measures and State DOT targets for asset 
condition, including those established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150, for 
NHS pavements and bridges. The plan must include measures and 
associated targets the State DOT can use in assessing the condition of 
the assets and performance of the highway system as it relates to those 
assets. The measures and targets must be consistent with the State 
DOT's asset management objectives. The State DOT must include the 
measures established under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I)-(III), as 
promulgated in part 490 of this title, for the condition of NHS 
pavements and bridges. The State DOT also must include the targets the 
State DOT has established for the measures required by 23 U.S.C. 
150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I)-(III) and report on

[[Page 89517]]

such targets in accordance with part 490 of this title. The State DOT 
may include measures and targets for NHS pavements and bridges that the 
State DOT established through pre-existing management efforts or 
develops through new efforts if the State DOT wishes to use such 
additional measures and targets to supplement information derived from 
the pavement and bridge measures and targets required under 23 U.S.C. 
150.
    (3) A summary description of the condition of NHS pavements and 
bridges, regardless of ownership. The summary must include a 
description of the condition of those assets based on the performance 
measures established under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii) for condition. 
The description of condition should be informed by evaluations required 
under part 667 of this title of facilities repeatedly damaged by 
emergency events.
    (4) Performance gap analysis results, including strategies to close 
identified gaps.
    (5) Life-cycle planning analysis results that demonstrate 
consideration of extreme weather events and resilience and include 
strategies for managing each asset class or asset subgroup.
    (6) Risk management analysis results that demonstrate consideration 
extreme weather events and resilience, and that include strategies to 
eliminate or reduce top priority risks.
    (7) Financial plan.
    (8) Investment strategies that demonstrate alignment with the 
various levels of funding evaluated by the State DOT to achieve targets 
for asset condition and system performance effectiveness at a minimum 
practicable cost while managing risks.
    (e) An asset management plan shall cover, at a minimum, a 10-year 
period.
    (f) An asset management plan shall discuss how the plan's 
investment strategies collectively would make or support 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;
    (3) Achieving the State DOT targets for asset condition and 
performance of the NHS in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(d);
    (4) Achieving the national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); 
and
    (5) Addressing risks from extreme weather events and risks to 
system resilience described in Sec.  515.7(c)(1).
    (g) A State DOT must include in its plan a description of how the 
analyses required using processes developed in accordance with Sec.  
515.7 (such as analyses pertaining to life-cycle planning, risk 
management, and performance gaps) support the State DOT's asset 
management plan investment strategies.
    (h) A State DOT shall integrate its asset management plan into its 
transportation planning processes that lead to the long-range Statewide 
transportation plan and the STIP, to support its efforts to achieve the 
goals in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (i) A State DOT is required to make its asset management plan 
available to the public, and is encouraged to do so in a format that is 
easily accessible.
    (j) Inclusion of performance measures and State DOT targets for NHS 
pavements and bridges established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150 in the 
asset management plan does not relieve the State DOT of any performance 
management requirements, including 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting, 
established in other parts of this title.
    (k) The head of the State DOT shall approve the asset management 
plan.
    (l) If the State DOT elects to include other NHS infrastructure 
assets or other public roads assets in its asset management plan, the 
State DOT shall address to the extent practicable the following with 
respect to such assets, using a level of effort consistent with the 
State DOT's needs and resources:
    (1) Summary listing of assets, including a description of asset 
condition;
    (2) Asset management measures and State DOT targets for asset 
condition;
    (3) Performance gap analysis;
    (4) Life-cycle planning;
    (5) Risk analysis, including summaries of evaluations carried out 
under part 667 of this title for the assets, if available, and 
consideration of those evaluations;
    (6) Financial plan; and
    (7) Investment strategies.
    (m) An asset management plan may include consideration of critical 
infrastructure from among those facilities in the State that are 
eligible under 23 U.S.C. 119(c).


Sec.  515.11   Annual consistency determination.

    (a) State DOT submission deadline. Not later than July 1 of each 
year, a State DOT shall submit to FHWA:
    (1) The State-DOT approved asset management plan that State DOT 
intends to implement during the current implementation period and that 
includes all information required under Sec.  515.9 and that is 
developed using processes described in Sec.  515.7 that have been 
certified by FHWA; and
    (2) Documentation that demonstrates implementation, during the 
prior implementation period, of the State-DOT approved asset management 
plan that FHWA previously determined to be consistent with the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part as part of the annual 
consistency determination as provided in this section.
    (b) Updates during current implementation period. If, during the 
current implementation period, a State begins implementation of an 
updated asset management plan adopted in compliance with paragraph (e) 
of this section, the State DOT documentation under paragraph (a) must 
describe any material changes in investment strategies in its updated 
plan and explain any effects of the updated plan on its implementation 
during the current implementation period.
    (c) Annual determination of plan consistency and implementation 
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5).
    (1) Based on the State DOT submissions pursuant to paragraph (a), 
and not later than July 31 of each year, FHWA will notify the State DOT 
whether:
    (i) The asset management plan submitted under paragraph (a)(1) 
covering an implementation period beginning on June 1 and ending on May 
31 of the following year is consistent with the requirements in 23 
U.S.C. 119 and this part; and
    (ii) The documentation submitted under paragraph (a)(2) 
demonstrates that the State DOT has implemented an asset management 
plan consistent with 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part during the prior 
implementation period.
    (2) The notice will be in writing and, in the case of a negative 
determination, will specify the deficiencies the State DOT needs to 
address. In the event FHWA notifies a State DOT of a negative 
determination under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2), the State DOT will 
have 30 days to address the deficiencies. The State DOT may submit 
additional information showing the FHWA negative determination was in 
error or demonstrating the State DOT has taken corrective action that 
resolves the deficiencies specified in FHWA's negative determination.
    (d) Scope of annual plan consistency and implementation 
determinations.
    (1) Plan consistency. The FHWA will review the State DOT's asset 
management plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) to ensure that 
it was developed with FHWA-certified

[[Page 89518]]

processes, includes the required content, and is consistent with other 
applicable requirements in 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part.
    (2) Plan implementation. The State DOT must demonstrate 
implementation of an asset management plan during the prior 
implementation period that FHWA previously determined to be consistent 
with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part. The State DOT's 
submission under paragraph (a)(2) must show that the State DOT used the 
investment strategies in the applicable asset management plan to make 
progress toward achievement of its targets for asset condition and 
performance of the NHS, to support progress toward the national goals 
identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b), to improve or preserve asset 
conditions, increase system resiliency, and reduce or mitigate high 
priority risks. A State DOT may determine the most suitable approach 
for demonstrating implementation of its asset management plan, so long 
as the information submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) is 
documented, verifiable, and covers the prior implementation period.
    (i) FHWA considers the best evidence of plan implementation to be 
that, for the prior 12-month implementation period, the State DOT 
funding allocations were reasonably consistent with the investment 
strategies in the applicable State DOT asset management plan. This 
demonstration takes into account the alignment between the actual and 
planned levels of investments for various work types (i.e. initial 
construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and 
reconstruction).
    (ii) A State DOT may also demonstrate plan implementation without 
addressing funding allocations by work type. In such case, the State 
DOT would show how, during the prior 12-month implementation period, 
the State DOT used the applicable asset management plan's investment 
strategies for NHS pavement and bridge assets to meet the requirements 
in paragraph (d)(2).
    (iii) FHWA may find a State DOT has implemented its asset 
management plan even if the State has deviated from the investment 
strategies included in its asset management plan, if the State DOT 
shows the deviation was necessary due to extenuating circumstances 
beyond the State DOT's reasonable control.
    (3) The FHWA determination. The FHWA determination under this 
section is made only with respect to the consistency of the State DOT 
asset management plan with applicable requirements and State DOT 
implementation of its asset management plan. The FHWA determinations 
are not an approval or disapproval by FHWA of strategies or other 
decisions contained in the asset management plan.
    (4) Additional assets. With respect to any assets the State DOT may 
elect to include in its asset management plan in addition to NHS 
pavement and bridge assets, the FHWA consistency determination will 
consider only whether the State DOT has complied with Sec.  515.9(l) 
with respect to such discretionary assets.
    (e) Plan update. The State DOT may update its asset management plan 
as often as it considers necessary, however, the State DOT must review 
and update its asset management plan at least every four years as 
measured from the most recent FHWA recertification of the processes 
used by the State DOT to develop the State asset management plan. The 
State DOT must submit asset management plan changes to FHWA for a 
determination that the updated asset management plan is consistent with 
the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part except when the changes 
are minor technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable 
material impact on the accuracy, adequacy, or validity of the analyses 
or investment strategies in the asset management plan.


Sec.  515.13   Process certification and recertification.

    (a) Not later than 4 years after the initial FHWA certification or 
subsequent recertification that a State DOT's processes meet the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, the State DOT must submit 
its asset management plan development processes for recertification. A 
State DOT also must submit its processes for recertification whenever 
it makes changes to the process(es) except when the changes are minor 
technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable material impact 
on the accuracy, adequacy, and validity of the processes. A State DOT 
may submit its processes as a stand-alone document or as part of an 
updated State-approved asset management plan.
    (b) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the FHWA 
Division Office receives a State DOT's processes and request for 
recertification, FHWA shall determine whether the State DOT's processes 
for developing its asset management plan meet the requirements of 23 
U.S.C. 119 and this part. If FHWA determines that the processes do not 
meet the requirements established under 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, 
FHWA will send the State DOT a written notice of the denial of 
recertification that includes a listing of the specific deficiencies.
    (c) Upon receiving a notice of denial of recertification, the State 
DOT shall have 90 days from receipt of the notice to address the 
deficiencies identified in the notice and resubmit the State DOT's 
processes to FHWA for review and recertification. The FHWA may extend 
the State DOT's 90-day period to cure deficiencies upon request. During 
the cure period established, all penalties and other legal impacts of a 
denial of recertification shall be stayed as provided in 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(6)(C)(i).
    (d) If FHWA finds that a State DOT's asset management processes 
substantially meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part 
except for minor deficiencies, FHWA may recertify the State DOT's 
processes as being in compliance, but the State DOT must take actions 
to correct the minor deficiencies within 60 days of receipt of the 
notification of recertification. The State DOT shall notify FHWA in 
writing when corrective actions are completed.


Sec.  515.15   Penalties.

    Beginning on October 1 of each Federal fiscal year, if a State DOT 
has not developed an asset management plan consistent with the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part and has not implemented an 
asset management plan determined to be consistent with the requirements 
of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, the maximum Federal share for National 
Highway Performance Program projects or activities for which funds are 
obligated by the State in that fiscal year shall be reduced to 65 
percent.


Sec.  515.17   Minimum standards for developing and operating bridge 
and pavement management systems.

    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i), this section establishes the 
minimum standards a State DOT must use for developing and operating 
bridge and pavement management systems. State DOT bridge and pavement 
management systems are not subject to FHWA certification under Sec.  
515.13. Bridge and pavement management systems shall include, at a 
minimum, documented procedures for:
    (a) Collecting, processing, storing, and updating inventory and 
condition data for all NHS pavement and bridge assets.
    (b) Forecasting deterioration for all NHS pavement and bridge 
assets;
    (c) Determining the benefit-cost over the life cycle of assets to 
evaluate alternative actions (including no action decisions), for 
managing the condition of NHS pavement and bridge assets;
    (d) Identifying short- and long-term budget needs for managing the 
condition of all NHS pavement and bridge assets;

[[Page 89519]]

    (e) Determining the strategies for identifying potential NHS 
pavement and bridge projects that maximize overall program benefits 
within the financial constraints; and
    (f) Recommending programs and implementation schedules to manage 
the condition of NHS pavement and bridge assets within policy and 
budget constraints.


Sec.  515.19   Organizational integration of asset management.

    (a) The purpose of this section is to describe how a State DOT may 
integrate asset management into its organizational mission, culture and 
capabilities at all levels. The activities described in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section are not requirements.
    (b) A State DOT should establish organizational strategic goals and 
include the goals in its organizational strategic implementation plans 
with an explanation as to how asset management will help it to achieve 
those goals.
    (c) A State DOT should conduct a periodic self-assessment of the 
agency's capabilities to conduct asset management, as well as its 
current efforts in implementing an asset management plan. The self-
assessment should consider, at a minimum, the adequacy of the State 
DOT's strategic goals and policies with respect to asset management, 
whether asset management is considered in the agency's planning and 
programming of resources, including development of the long-range 
statewide transportation plan and the STIP; whether the agency is 
implementing appropriate program delivery processes, such as 
consideration of alternative project delivery mechanisms, effective 
program management, and cost tracking and estimating; and whether the 
agency is implementing adequate data collection and analysis policies 
to support an effective asset management program.
    (d) Based on the results of the self-assessment, the State DOT 
should conduct a gap analysis to determine which areas of its asset 
management process require improvement. In conducting a gap analysis, 
the State DOT should:
    (1) Determine the level of organizational performance effort needed 
to achieve the objectives of asset management;
    (2) Determine the performance gaps between the existing level of 
performance effort and the needed level of performance effort; and
    (3) Develop strategies to close the identified organizational 
performance gaps and define the period of time over which the gap is to 
be closed.

[FR Doc. 2024-26200 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P