Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31013 

(5) Evaluation requirements. In order 

to ensure the quality of student 

internship programs, sponsors must 

develop procedures for evaluating all 

student interns. All required evaluations 

must be completed prior to the 

conclusion of a student internship 

program, and the student interns and 

their immediate supervisors must sign 

the evaluation forms. For programs 

exceeding six months’ duration, at a 

minimum, midpoint and concluding 

evaluations are required. For programs 

of six months or less, at a minimum, 

concluding evaluations are required. 

Sponsors must retain student intern 

evaluations (electronic or hard copy) for 

a period of at least three years following 

the completion of each student 

internship program. 

(6) Employment, wages, or 

remuneration. A student intern is 

permitted to engage in full-time 

employment during the student 

internship program as outlined on their 

T/IPP, with or without wages or other 

compensation. Employment is not 

required for participation in the 

program. In those cases where the 

student intern is employed, all 

employment activities must be 

approved by the home institution’s dean 

or academic advisor, and the 

responsible officer. 

(7) Training/Internship Placement 

Plan (Form DS–7002). (i) Sponsors must 

fully complete and obtain requisite 

signatures for a Form DS–7002 for each 

student intern before issuing a Form 

DS–2019. Sponsors must provide each 

signatory an executed copy of the Form 

DS–7002. Upon request, student interns 

must present their fully executed Form 

DS–7002 to a Consular Official during 

their visa interview. 

(ii) To further distinguish between 

work-based learning for student interns, 

which is permitted, and ordinary 

employment or unskilled labor which 

are not, all T/IPPs must: 

(A) State the specific goals and 

objectives of the student internship 

program (for each phase or component, 

if applicable); 

(B) Detail the knowledge, skills, or 

techniques to be imparted to the student 

intern (for each phase or component, if 

applicable); and 

(C) Describe the methods of 

performance evaluation and the 

frequency of supervision (for each phase 

or component, if applicable). 

(8) Program Exclusions. Sponsors 

designated by the Department to 

administer student internship programs 

must not: 

(i) Place student interns in unskilled 

or casual labor positions, in positions 

that require or involve child care or 

elder care, positions in the field of 

aviation, or in clinical or any other kind 

of work that involves patient care or 

contact, including any work that would 

require student interns to provide 

therapy, medication, or other clinical or 

medical care (e.g., sports or physical 

therapy, psychological counseling, 

nursing, dentistry, veterinary medicine, 

social work, speech therapy, or early 

childhood education); 

(ii) Place student interns in positions, 

occupations, or businesses that could 

bring the Exchange Visitor Program or 

the Department into notoriety or 

disrepute; or 

(iii) Engage or otherwise cooperate or 

contract with a staffing/employment 

agency to recruit, screen, orient, place, 

evaluate, or train student interns, or in 

any other way involve such agencies in 

an Exchange Visitor Program student 

internship program. 

(iv) Designated sponsors must ensure 

that the duties of student interns as 

outlined in the T/IPPs will not involve 

more than 20 percent clerical work, and 

that all tasks assigned to student interns 

are necessary for the completion of 

student internship program 

assignments. 

(v) Sponsors must also ensure that all 

‘‘Hospitality and Tourism’’ student 

internship programs of six months or 

longer contain at least three 

departmental or functional rotations. 

Dated: May 18, 2007. 

Stanley S. Colvin, 

Director, Office of Exchange Coordination 

and Designation, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7–10606 Filed 6–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 661 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2007–27536] 

RIN 2125–AF20 

Indian Reservation Road Bridge 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Section 1119 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59, 

119 Stat. 1144) makes changes to the 

Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program 

(IRRBP). It amends the existing IRRBP 

by establishing new policies and 

provisions. In addition, it authorizes 

$14 million of IRRBP funds per year for 

the replacement or rehabilitation of 

structurally deficient or functionally 

obsolete Indian Reservation Road (IRR) 

bridges. In accordance with these 

changes, the FHWA, with input and 

recommendations from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian 

Reservation Roads Coordinating 

Committee (IRRCC), is proposing 

funding distribution procedures for BIA 

owned and non-BIA owned IRR bridge 

projects. The proposed changes allow 

funding for preliminary engineering 

(PE), construction engineering (CE), and 

construction for the replacement or 

rehabilitation of structurally deficient or 

functionally obsolete IRR bridges. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 6, 2007. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or 

submit electronically at http:// 

dms.dot.gov/submit or fax comments to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://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 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments in 

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, or 

labor union). 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 http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Sparrow, Federal Lands 

Highway, (202) 366–9483; or Ms. Vivian 

Philbin, Federal Lands Highway 

Counsel, (720) 963–3445; Federal 

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31014 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through the Document 

Management System (DMS) at: http:// 

dms.dot.gov/submit. It is available 24 

hours each day, 365 days each year. 

Please follow the instructions online for 

more information and help. 

An electronic copy of this document 

may also be downloaded by accessing 

the Office of the Federal Register’s home 

page at: http://www.archives.gov and the 

Government Printing Office’s Web page 

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. 

Background 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105–

178, 112 Stat. 107), established the 

IRRBP, codified at 23 U.S.C. 

202(d)(4)(B), under which a minimum 

of $13 million of IRR Program funds was 

set aside for a nationwide priority 

program for improving deficient IRR 

bridges. On May 8, 2003, the FHWA 

published a final rule for the IRRBP at 

68 FR 24642 (23 CFR 661). This present 

rulemaking is necessary due to recent 

legislative changes in section 1119 of 

SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 

1144). 

Section 1119 of SAFETEA–LU 

authorizes $14 million per year for fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009 from the 

Highway Trust Fund for the IRRBP to 

carry out PE, CE, and construction to 

replace or rehabilitate structurally 

deficient or functionally obsolete IRR 

bridges. Pursuant to these new statutory 

requirements, the FHWA developed 

proposed amendments to the existing 

IRRBP regulation. These amendments 

were distributed to the IRRCC for its 

review and comment prior to this 

publication. The IRRCC was established 

under 25 CFR part 170 by the 

Secretaries of the Interior and 

Transportation, to provide input and 

recommendation to BIA and FHWA in 

developing IRR Program policies and 

procedures and to supplement 

government-to-government consultation 

by coordinating and obtaining input 

from Tribes, BIA, and FHWA. The 

IRRCC consists of a primary and 

alternate Tribal representative from each 

of the 12 BIA Regions, along with 2 nonvoting Federal representatives (one each 

from BIA and FHWA). The proposed 

changes were discussed at several 

IRRCC meetings and in detail with the 

IRRCC Funding Workgroup. 

The following information highlights 

the major issues in the discussion at 

several IRRCC meetings: 

1. First Come, First Serve Basis—This 

is the present funding methodology of 

the IRRBP. The IRRCC’s position is that 

this method only works if there are 

sufficient funds. The IRRCC 

recommends using the scoring matrix 

method similar to the IRR High Priority 

Project (HPP) program in prioritizing the 

applications for bridge funding as an 

alternate method. Although the IRRCC 

believes this method would provide 

IRRBP funds to the project that has been 

rated as having the greatest need, the 

FHWA believes that its current practice 

has worked well in equitably addressing 

bridge rehabilitation and replacement 

projects in the past. 

2. PE and Construction Costs—The 

IRRCC recommends that the set-aside 

for PE funds should be up to 15 percent 

of the annual IRRBP allocation. It 

further recommends that the cost 

contribution for BIA owned and nonBIA owned IRR bridges should be up to 

$150,000 for each project. The FHWA 

agrees with this recommendation, and 

proposes to make these changes. 

For construction, the IRRCC 

recommends that the funding ceiling for 

non-BIA owned bridge projects should 

be retained at $1,500,000 per project to 

meet the rising cost of construction. 

After reviewing the regulations and the 

past history and project size of non-BIA 

owned bridge projects funded under 

this program, the FHWA proposes to 

limit the funding for those construction 

projects to $1,000,000 in order to 

maximize the number of bridge projects 

funded. 

3. The use of IRR Construction Funds 

on IRRBP Projects—The IRRCC requests 

a clear explanation as to how a Tribe 

may reimburse its IRR construction 

funds if said funds are used to finance 

IRRBP projects in advance of receipt of 

IRRBP funds. This has been included in 

the proposed changes to the regulation. 

4. Removal of historic bridges—The 

FHWA proposes to clarify that existing 

IRR bridges replaced under the IRRBP 

must be taken completely out of service 

and removed from the IRR inventory. 

This is done so that in the future only 

the new bridge will be eligible for 

IRRBP fund consideration. However, the 

IRRCC requests and the FHWA agrees to 

propose to allow a Tribe the ability to 

request a special exemption, from 

BIADOT, regarding the ‘‘removal from 

service’’ requirement if the bridge is 

considered historic. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

Proposed Amendments 

Descriptions of the regulatory changes 

proposed in this part are set forth below. 

All members of the public who are 

affected by the amendments to the 

regulation are encouraged to submit 

comments in writing. Comments from 

interested Tribal members are 

particularly requested. We have made 

several minor grammatical changes, 

such as shortening sentences for clarity, 

which will not change the meaning or 

intent of the regulation. These minor 

changes are not addressed in the 

Section-by-Section discussion. 

Who must comply with this regulation? 

(661.3) 

The requirement for a set of plans, 

specifications, and estimates from a 

public authority has been moved to 

661.27 for clarification purposes. We 

propose to include preliminary 

engineering (PE) as an eligible activity, 

as established in the section 1119(g) of 

SAFETEA–LU. 

What definitions apply to this 

regulation? (661.5) 

We propose to add the following 

definitions in this section: 

Approach Roadway—the FHWA 

proposes to add this definition in 

order to clarify what is eligible in 

section 661.51. 

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)—the 

FHWA proposes to add this definition 

in order to clarify eligibility for 

rehabilitation in section 661.21. 

National Bridge Inventory (NBI)—the 

FHWA proposes to add this definition 

in order to clarify eligibility 

requirements in section 661.17. 

Plans, Specifications, and Estimate 

(PS&E)—the FHWA proposes to add 

this definition in order to clarify what 

is required for a complete application 

package as set forth in section 661.27. 

Preliminary Engineering—the FHWA 

proposes to add this definition 

because this is now an eligible 

activity for this program as set forth 

in section 1119(g) of SAFETEA–LU. 

Structure Inventory and Appraisal 

(SI&A)—the FHWA proposes to add 

definition in order to clarify what is 

required for a complete application 

package as set forth in sections 661.25 

and 661.27. 

What is the IRRBP? (661.7) 

This section has been modified to 

delete obsolete language about the 

annual funding of the IRRBP program. 

Section 1119(g) of SAFETEA–LU 

changed the annual funding amount 

provided to this program. However, the 

FHWA proposes to delete mention of 

specific funding amounts in this 

section, and has instead stated the total 

funding available in section 661.9. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31015 

What is the total funding available for 

the IRRBP? (661.9) 

The FHWA proposes to modify this 

section to reflect the most recent 

funding amounts authorized by section 

1119(g) of SAFETEA–LU. 

What are the eligible activities for IRRBP 

funds? (661.15) 

The FHWA proposes to consolidate 

the eligibility activities for IRRBP funds 

into one section. This section also 

proposes to add preliminary engineering 

and the demolition of old bridges as 

new eligible items. 

What are the criteria for bridge 

eligibility? (661.17) 

The FHWA proposes to modify this 

section to eliminate physical 

deterioration as a criteria for eligibility 

for this program. This term does not 

appear in section 1119(g) of SAFETEA–

LU and as such we are proposing to 

delete it from the regulation. 

When is a bridge eligible for 

replacement? (661.19) 

The FHWA proposes to clarify in this 

section that existing IRR bridges 

replaced under the IRRBP must be taken 

completely out of service and removed 

from the IRR inventory. This is done so 

that in the future, only the new bridge 

will be eligible for IRRBP fund 

consideration. However, the IRRCC 

requests and the FHWA agrees to 

propose to allow a Tribe the ability to 

request a special exemption, from 

BIADOT, regarding the ‘‘removal from 

service’’ requirement if the bridge is 

considered historic. 

When is a bridge eligible for 

rehabilitation? (661.21) 

The FHWA proposes to remove the 

word ‘‘would’’ from the criteria to 

clarify eligibility for bridge replacement. 

How will a bridge project be 

programmed for funding once eligibility 

has been determined? (661.23) 

This section explains the priority 

process for both BIA and non-BIA 

owned bridges as well as the separate 

queues for both construction and 

preliminary engineering within both 

categories of bridges. 

What does a complete application 

package for PE consist of and how does 

the project receive funding? (661.25) 

This is a new section that we propose 

to include in the regulation, which 

describes the requirements for 

submitting a complete application 

package for PE. The complete 

application packages would be placed 

in the queues (BIA or non-BIA owned 

bridges) after receipt by FHWA. 

Incomplete application packages would 

be disapproved and returned for 

revision and resubmission along with a 

notation providing the reason for 

disapproval. 

Funding for the approved eligible 

projects on the queues will be made 

available to the Tribes or the Secretary 

of the Interior upon availability of 

program funding at FHWA. 

What does a complete application 

package for construction consist of and 

how does the project receive funding? 

(661.27) 

We propose to include in this section 

that all complete application packages 

would be placed in the queues (BIA or 

non-BIA owned bridges). All 

environmental and archeological 

clearances and complete grants of 

public rights-of-way must be acquired 

prior to submittal of the construction 

application package. Incomplete 

application packages would be 

disapproved and returned for revision 

and resubmission along with a notation 

providing the reason for disapproval. 

Funding for the approved eligible 

projects on the queues will be made 

available to the Tribes or the Secretary 

of the Interior upon availability of 

program funding at FHWA. 

How does ownership impact project 

selection? (661.29) 

The FHWA proposes to maximize the 

use of IRRBP funds for BIA owned 

bridges. Up to 80 percent of the 

available funding made available for PE 

and construction in any fiscal year will 

be eligible for use on BIA owned IRR 

bridges. The remaining 20 percent of 

IRRBP funding in any fiscal year will be 

made available for PE and construction 

for use on non-BIA owned IRR bridges. 

Each fiscal year the FHWA will review 

the projects awaiting funding and may 

shift funds between BIA owned and 

non-BIA owned bridge projects so as to 

maximize the number of projects funded 

and the overall effectiveness of the 

program. 

Do IRRBP projects have to be listed on 

an approved IRR TIP? (661.31) 

The FHWA proposes to change the 

language of this section to properly 

identify which Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) is used for 

the approved bridge projects. 

What percentage of IRRBP funding is 

available for PE and construction? 

(661.33) 

FHWA proposes to include this 

section in order to identify the amount 

of funding that will be made available 

for the new eligible item of preliminary 

engineering. The amount recommended 

was developed in consultation with the 

IRRCC and represents the average costs 

of preliminary engineering on bridge 

projects. The remaining funding is made 

available for construction. 

What percentage of IRRBP funding is 

available for use on BIA owned IRR 

bridges and non-BIA owned IRR 

bridges? (661.35) 

The FHWA proposes to utilize the 

same funding distribution, i.e., up to 80 

percent of the available annual funds, 

for BIA owned bridge projects with the 

remaining funds utilized for non-BIA 

owned bridges. After consultation with 

the IRRCC, FHWA is proposing that the 

FHWA have the ability to review the 

queue of projects awaiting funding at 

various times during the fiscal year, and 

shift funds between BIA owned and 

non-BIA owned bridge projects in order 

to maximize the number of projects 

funded. 

What are the funding limitations on 

individual IRRBP projects? (661.37) 

The FHWA proposes to reduce the 

funding ceiling for construction on nonBIA owned bridge projects to 

$1,000,000. The FHWA reviewed the 

history of the IRRBP and determined 

that since 1998, over 100 non-BIA 

owned bridge projects have been funded 

with this program. For these non-BIA 

owned bridge projects, the average 

project size was less than $600,000 and 

more than 75 percent were funded at a 

level below the proposed $1,000,000 

threshold. In addition, other sources of 

funds are available for non-BIA owned 

bridge projects. 

Additionally, FHWA proposes to limit 

the amount of funding available for 

preliminary engineering to $150,000 per 

project. This recommendation is based 

on the historical size of the bridge 

projects previously funded under this 

program and assumes a typical PE cost 

of around 15 to 20 percent of a project’s 

construction cost. 

The IRRCC recommends, and FHWA 

is proposing, a revision that allows a 

Tribe to request additional funds above 

the referenced thresholds by submitting 

a written justification for consideration 

to FHWA. The approval of the requests 

would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

How are project cost overruns funded? 

(661.39) 

The FHWA proposes that if a request 

for additional funding is approved by 

the FHWA, the request would be placed 

at the top of the appropriate queue. 

Because an ongoing construction project 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

would be costly to stop and then 

remobilize, a request to fund a contract 

modification will have a higher priority 

than a request for additional funding for 

a project award. Additional funds could 

also be made available from a Tribe’s 

existing IRR Program share. 

Can other sources of funds be used to 

finance a queued project in advance of 

receipt of IRRBP funds? (661.43) 

The FHWA proposes to change the 

phrasing of this section for clarification 

purposes and to identify that if IRR 

Program construction funds are used for 

this purpose, the funds must be 

identified on an FHWA approved IRR 

TIP prior to their expenditure. 

What happens when IRRBP funds 

cannot be obligated by the end of the 

fiscal year? (661.45) 

In this new section we propose that 

IRRBP funds provided to a project and 

not obligated at the end of the fiscal year 

must be returned to the FHWA. The 

funds will be re-allocated to BIA the 

following fiscal year and would require 

a justification for the failure to obligate 

in the previous year. 

Can IRRBP funds be spent on Interstate, 

State Highway, and Toll Road IRR 

bridges? (661.49) 

The FHWA proposes to add this 

section in order to clarify that bridges 

on all types of routes that are included 

in the IRR Inventory are eligible for 

funding under this program. 

Can IRRBP funds be used for the 

approach roadway to a bridge? (661.51) 

The FHWA proposes to include the 

cost associated with the approach 

roadway work to be eligible for IRRBP 

funds. The limit of approach roadway 

work would be limited to a nominal 

amount of work, sufficient to connect 

the new facility to the existing roadway 

or to return the gradeline to an 

attainable touchdown point in 

accordance with good design practice. 

Long approach fills, causeways, 

connecting roadways, interchanges, 

ramps, and other extensive structures, 

when constructed beyond an attainable 

touchdown point, would not be eligible 

for IRRBP funds. 

What standards should be used for 

bridge design? (661.53) 

The FHWA proposes to include this 

new section in order to clarify the 

design standards that must be met in the 

design of bridges being funded under 

this program. 

How are BIA and Tribal owned bridges 

inspected? (661.55) 

The FHWA proposes to include this 

new section in order to clarify the 

procedures that must be followed when 

formal bridge inspections are carried 

out. 

What should be done with a deficient 

BIA owned IRR bridge if the Indian 

Tribe does not support the project? 

(661.59) 

The FHWA proposes to include this 

new section in order to clarify the 

actions that should be taken when a 

deficient bridge is identified and not 

scheduled for improvement. 

Distribution Table 

For ease of reference, distribution and 

derivation tables are provided for the 

current sections and the new sections, 

as follows: 

Old section New section 

661.1 .................. 661.1. 

661.3 .................. 661.3—Revised. 

661.5 .................. 661.5—Revised. 

661.7 .................. 661.7—Revised. 

661.9 .................. 661.23—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.11 ................ 661.41—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.13 ................ Removed. 

661.15 ................ 661.9—Redesignated. 

661.17 ................ 661.11—Redesignated. 

661.19 ................ Removed. 

661.21 ................ 661.13—Redesignated. 

661.23 ................ 661.15—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.25 ................ 661.17—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.27 ................ 661.19—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.29 ................ 661.21—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.31 ................ 661.29—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.33 ................ 661.31—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.35 ................ 661.35—Revised. 

661.37 ................ 661.37—Revised. 

661.39 ................ Removed. 

661.41 ................ 661.27—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.43 ................ Removed. 

661.45 ................ 661.57—Redesignated. 

661.47 ................ 661.39—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.49 ................ 661.43—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

661.51 ................ 661.47—Redesignated 

and Revised. 

None ................... 661.25—Added. 

None ................... 661.33—Added. 

None ................... 661.45—Added. 

None ................... 661.49—Added. 

None ................... 661.51—Added. 

None ................... 661.53—Added. 

None ................... 661.55—Added. 

None ................... 661.59—Added. 

Derivation Table 

New section Old section 

661.1 ......................... 661.1. 

661.3 ......................... 661.3. 

661.5 ......................... 661.5. 

661.7 ......................... 661.7. 

661.9 ......................... 661.15. 

661.11 ....................... 661.17. 

661.13 ....................... 661.21. 

661.15 ....................... 661.23. 

661.17 ....................... 661.25. 

661.19 ....................... 661.27. 

661.21 ....................... 661.29. 

661.23 ....................... 661.9. 

661.25 ....................... None. 

661.27 ....................... 661.41. 

661.29 ....................... 661.31. 

661.31 ....................... 661.33. 

661.33 ....................... None. 

661.35 ....................... 661.35. 

661.37 ....................... 661.37. 

661.39 ....................... 661.47. 

661.41 ....................... 661.11. 

661.43 ....................... 661.49. 

661.45 ....................... None. 

661.47 ....................... 661.51. 

661.49 ....................... None. 

661.51 ....................... None. 

661.53 ....................... None 

661.55 ....................... None. 

661.57 ....................... 661.45. 

661.59 ....................... None. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above will be 

considered and will be available for 

examination in the docket at the above 

address. Comments received after the 

comment closing date will be filed in 

the docket and will be considered to the 

extent practicable. In addition to late 

comments, the FHWA will also 

continue to file relevant information in 

the docket as it becomes available after 

the comment period closing date, and 

interested persons should continue to 

examine the docket for new material. A 

final rule may be published at any time 

after close of the comment period. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and USDOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has determined 

preliminarily that this action would not 

be a significant regulatory action within 

the meaning of Executive Order 12866 

and would not be significant within the 

meaning of U.S. Department of 

Transportation regulatory policies and 

procedures. It is anticipated that the 

economic impact of this rulemaking 

would be minimal. These proposed 

changes would not adversely affect, in 

a material way, any sector of the 

economy. In addition, these changes 

would not interfere with any action 

taken or planned by another agency and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31017 

would not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of any entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a 

full regulatory evaluation is not 

required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612) the FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this proposed action on small 

entities and has determined that the 

proposed action would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed action would amend the 

existing regulations pursuant to section 

1119 of SAFETEA–LU and would not 

fundamentally alter the funding 

available for the replacement or 

rehabilitation of structurally deficient or 

functionally obsolete IRR bridges. For 

these reasons, the FHWA certifies that 

this action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule would not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48). This 

proposed rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $128.1 million or more 

in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, 

in compliance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the 

FHWA will evaluate any regulatory 

action that might be proposed in 

subsequent stages of the proceeding to 

assess the effects on State, local, tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

This proposed action has been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA 

has determined preliminarily 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 action 

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 met with the IRRCC at 

three separate meetings in; Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, in February 2006; Denver, 

Colorado, in March 2006; and Hinckley, 

Minnesota, in August 2006, to jointly 

review this proposed regulation and 

provide the IRRCC with the opportunity 

to ask questions and make 

recommendations. The IRRCC was 

established under 25 CFR part 170 by 

the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Transportation, to provide input and 

recommendation to BIA and FHWA in 

developing IRR Program policies and 

procedures and to supplement 

government-to-government consultation 

by coordinating and obtaining input 

from Tribes, BIA, and FHWA. The 

IRRCC consists of a primary and 

alternate Tribal representative from each 

of the 12 BIA Regions, along with 2 nonvoting Federal representatives (one each 

from BIA and FHWA). 

The proposed regulation was first 

distributed to the IRRCC at the Tulsa 

meeting referenced above. The IRRCC 

then met in a special meeting in Denver, 

Colorado, specifically to review the 

regulation and develop 

recommendations for the FHWA 

rulemaking. The funding workgroup of 

the IRRCC was assigned the task of 

carrying forth the recommendations to 

FHWA. In Hinckley, Minnesota, the 

FHWA met with the funding workgroup 

and together they reviewed the 

comments. This regulation reflects the 

results of the IRRCC input. All aspects 

of the regulation were reviewed by the 

IRRCC and the major items of 

discussion are listed in the background 

section of this regulation. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

We have analyzed this action under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use, dated May 18, 

2001. We have determined that it is not 

a significant energy action under that 

order since it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number 20.205, 

Highway Planning and Construction. 

The regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to 

this program. Accordingly, the FHWA 

solicits comments on this issue. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

has determined that this proposal does 

not contain collection of information 

requirements for the purposes of the 

PRA. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This action meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA 

certifies that this proposed action would 

not cause any environmental risk to 

health or safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interface with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. The FHWA 

does not anticipate that this proposed 

action would affect a taking of private 

property or otherwise have taking 

implications under Executive Order 

12630. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed this 

proposed action for the purpose of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has 

determined that this proposed action 

would not have any effect on the quality 

of the environment. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross-reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 661 

Indian Reservation Road Bridge 

Program. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Issued on: May 15, 2007. 

J. Richard Capka, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code 

of Federal Regulations, by revising part 

661 to read as set forth below: 

PART 661—INDIAN RESERVATION 

ROAD BRIDGE PROGRAM 

Sec. 

661.1 What is the purpose of this 

regulation? 

661.3 Who must comply with this 

regulation? 

661.5 What definitions apply to this 

regulation? 

661.7 What is the IRRBP? 

661.9 What is the total funding available for 

the IRRBP? 

661.11 When do IRRBP funds become 

available? 

661.13 How long are these funds available? 

661.15 What are the eligible activities for 

IRRBP funds? 

661.17 What are the criteria for bridge 

eligibility? 

661.19 When is a bridge eligible for 

replacement? 

661.21 When is a bridge eligible for 

rehabilitation? 

661.23 How will a bridge project be 

programmed for funding once eligibility 

has been determined? 

661.25 What does a complete application 

package for PE consist of and how does 

the project receive funding? 

661.27 What does a complete application 

package for construction consist of and 

how does the project receive funding? 

661.29 How does ownership impact project 

selection? 

661.31 Do IRRBP projects have to be listed 

on an approved IRR TIP? 

661.33 What percentage of IRRBP funding 

is available for PE and construction? 

661.35 What percentage of IRRBP funding 

is available for use on BIA owned IRR 

bridges and non-BIA owned IRR bridges? 

661.37 What are the funding limitations on 

individual IRRBP projects? 

661.39 How are project cost overruns 

funded? 

661.41 After a bridge project has been 

completed (either PE or construction) 

what happens with the excess or surplus 

funding? 

661.43 Can other sources of funds be used 

to finance a queued project in advance 

of receipt of IRRBP funds? 

661.45 What happens when IRRBP funds 

cannot be obligated by the end of the 

fiscal year? 

661.47 Can bridge maintenance be 

performed with IRRBP funds? 

661.49 Can IRRBP funds be spent on 

Interstate, State Highway, and Toll Road 

IRR bridges? 

661.51 Can IRRBP funds be used for the 

approach roadway to a bridge? 

661.53 What standards should be used for 

bridge design? 

661.55 How are BIA and Tribal owned IRR 

bridges inspected? 

661.57 How is a list of deficient bridges to 

be generated? 

661.59 What should be done with a 

deficient BIA owned IRR bridge if the 

Indian Tribe does not support the 

project? 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 120(j) and (k), 202, 

and 315; Section 1119 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59, 119 

Stat. 1144); and 49 CFR 1.48. 

§ 661.1 What is the purpose of this 

regulation? 

The purpose of this regulation is to 

prescribe policies for project selection 

and fund allocation procedures for 

administering the Indian Reservation 

Road Bridge Program (IRRBP). 

§ 661.3 Who must comply with this 

regulation? 

Public authorities must comply to 

participate in the IRRBP by applying for 

preliminary engineering (PE), 

construction, and construction 

engineering (CE) activities for the 

replacement or rehabilitation of 

structurally deficient and functionally 

obsolete Indian Reservation Road (IRR) 

bridges. 

§ 661.5 What definitions apply to this 

regulation? 

The following definitions apply to 

this regulation: 

Approach roadway means the portion 

of the highway immediately adjacent to 

the bridge that affects the geometrics of 

the bridge, including the horizontal and 

vertical curves and grades required to 

connect the existing highway alignment 

to the new bridge alignment using 

accepted engineering practices and 

ensuring that all safety standards are 

met. 

Construction engineering (CE) is the 

supervision, inspection, and other 

activities required to ensure the project 

construction meets the project’s 

approved acceptance specifications, 

including but not limited to: additional 

survey staking functions considered 

necessary for effective control of the 

construction operations; testing 

materials incorporated into 

construction; checking shop drawings; 

and measurements needed for the 

preparation of pay estimates. 

Functionally obsolete (FO) is the state 

in which the deck geometry, load 

carrying capacity (comparison of the 

original design load to the State legal 

load), clearance, or approach roadway 

alignment no longer meets the usual 

criteria for the system of which it is an 

integral part. 

Indian Reservation Road (IRR) means 

a public road that is located within or 

provides access to an Indian reservation 

or Indian trust land or restricted Indian 

land that is not subject to fee title 

alienation without the approval of the 

Federal government, or Indian and 

Alaska Native villages, groups, or 

communities in which Indians and 

Alaska Natives reside, whom the 

Secretary of the Interior has determined 

are eligible for services generally 

available to Indians under Federal laws 

specifically applicable to Indians. 

Indian reservation road bridge means 

a structure located on an IRR, including 

supports, erected over a depression or 

an obstruction, such as water, a 

highway, or a railway, and having a 

track or passageway for carrying traffic 

or other moving loads, and having an 

opening measured along the center of 

the roadway of more than 20 feet 

between undercopings of abutments or 

spring lines of arches, or extreme ends 

of the openings for multiple boxes; it 

may also include multiple pipes, where 

the clear distance between openings is 

less than half of the smaller contiguous 

opening. 

Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) means 

a process for evaluating the total 

economic worth of a usable project 

segment by analyzing initial costs and 

discounted future costs, such as 

maintenance, user costs, reconstruction, 

rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing 

costs, over the life of the project 

segment. 

National Bridge Inventory (NBI) 

means the aggregation of structure 

inventory and appraisal data collected 

to fulfill the requirements of the 

National Bridge Inspection Standards 

(NBIS). 

Plans, specifications and estimates 

(PS&E) means construction drawings, 

compilation of provisions, and 

construction project cost estimates for 

the performance of the prescribed scope 

of work. 

Preliminary engineering (PE) means 

planning, survey, design, engineering, 

and preconstruction activities 

(including archaeological, 

environmental, and right-of-way 

activities) related to a specific bridge 

project. 

Public authority means a Federal, 

State, county, town, or township, Indian 

tribe, municipal or other local 

government or instrumentality with 

authority to finance, build, operate, or 

maintain toll or toll-free facilities. 

Public road means any road or street 

under the jurisdiction of and 

maintained by a public authority and 

open to public travel. 

Structurally deficient (SD) bridge 

means a bridge that has been restricted 

to light vehicles only, is closed, or 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31019 

requires immediate rehabilitation to 

remain open. 

Structure Inventory and Appraisal 

(SI&A) Sheet means the graphic 

representation of the data recorded and 

stored for each NBI record in 

accordance with the Recording and 

Coding Guide for the Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s 

Bridges (Report No. FHWA–PD–96–

001). 

Sufficiency rating (SR) means the 

numerical rating of a bridge based on its 

structural adequacy and safety, 

essentiality for public use, and its 

serviceability and functional 

obsolescence. 

§ 661.7 What is the IRRBP? 

The IRRBP, as established under 23 

U.S.C. 202(d)(4), is a nationwide 

priority program for improving 

structurally deficient and functionally 

obsolete IRR bridges. 

§ 661.9 What is the total funding available 

for the IRRBP? 

The statute authorizes $14 million to 

be appropriated from the Highway Trust 

Fund in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. 

§ 661.11 When do IRRBP funds become 

available? 

IRRBP funds are authorized at the 

start of each fiscal year but are subject 

to Office of Management and Budget 

apportionment before they become 

available to FHWA for further 

distribution. 

§ 661.13 How long are these funds 

available? 

IRRBP funds for each fiscal year are 

available for obligation for the year 

authorized plus three years (a total of 

four years). 

§ 661.15 What are the eligible activities for 

IRRBP funds? 

(a) IRRBP funds can be used to carry 

out PE, construction, and CE activities 

of projects to replace, rehabilitate, 

seismically retrofit, paint, apply calcium 

magnesium acetate, sodium acetate/ 

formate or other environmentally 

acceptable, minimally corrosive antiicing and deicing compositions, or 

install scour countermeasures for 

structurally deficient or functionally 

obsolete IRR bridges, including multiple 

pipe culverts. 

(b) If a bridge is replaced under the 

IRRBP, IRRBP funds can be also used for 

the demolition of the old bridge. 

§ 661.17 What are the criteria for bridge 

eligibility? 

(a) Bridge eligibility requires the 

following: 

(1) Have an opening of 20 feet or 

more; 

(2) Be located on an Indian 

Reservation Road that is included in the 

IRR inventory; 

(3) Be unsafe because of structural 

deficiencies or functional obsolescence; 

and 

(4) Be recorded in the NBI maintained 

by the FHWA. 

(b) Bridges that were constructed, 

rehabilitated or replaced in the last 10 

years, will be eligible only for seismic 

retrofit or installation of scour 

countermeasures. 

§ 661.19 When is a bridge eligible for 

replacement? 

To be eligible for replacement, the 

bridge must be considered structurally 

deficient or functionally obsolete and 

have a sufficiency rating less than 50. If 

bridge replacement occurs under this 

program, it is required that the original 

bridge be taken completely out of 

service and removed from the inventory. 

If the original bridge is considered 

historic, it must still be removed from 

the inventory, however the Tribe is 

allowed to request an exemption from 

the BIA Division of Transportation 

(BIADOT) to allow the bridge to remain 

in place. 

§ 661.21 When is a bridge eligible for 

rehabilitation? 

To be eligible for rehabilitation, the 

bridge must be considered structurally 

deficient or functionally obsolete and 

have a sufficiency rating less than or 

equal to 80 and greater than 50. The 

work eligible for a bridge rehabilitation 

project includes the activities required 

to improve the sufficiency rating to 80 

or greater. A bridge eligible for 

rehabilitation is eligible for replacement 

if a life cycle cost analysis shows the 

cost for bridge rehabilitation exceeds the 

replacement cost. 

§ 661.23 How will a bridge project be 

programmed for funding once eligibility has 

been determined? 

(a) All projects will be programmed 

for funding after a completed 

application package is received and 

accepted by the FHWA. At that time, the 

project will be acknowledged as either 

BIA or non-BIA owned and placed in 

either a PE or construction queue, listed 

by date received. These queues form the 

basis for prioritization for funding. After 

the IRRBP funding for the FY is used 

up, a queue for the following FY would 

be established. 

(b) In those cases where application 

packages have arrived at the same time, 

the packages will be ranked and 

prioritized based on the following 

criteria: 

(1) Bridge sufficiency rating (SR); 

(2) Bridge status with structurally 

deficient (SD) having precedence over 

functionally obsolete (FO); 

(3) Bridges on school bus routes; 

(4) Detour length; 

(5) Average daily traffic; and 

(6) Truck average daily traffic. 

§ 661.25 What does a complete application 

package for PE consist of and how does the 

project receive funding? 

(a) A complete application package 

for PE consists of the following: The 

certification checklist, IRRBP 

transportation improvement program 

(TIP), project scope of work, detailed 

cost for PE, and SI&A sheet. 

(b) For non-BIA IRR bridges, the 

application package must also include a 

tribal resolution supporting the project 

and identification of the required 

minimum 20 percent local funding 

match. 

(c) The IRRBP projects for PE will be 

placed in queue and determined as 

eligible for funding after receipt by 

FHWA of a complete application 

package. Incomplete application 

packages will be disapproved and 

returned for revision and resubmission 

along with a notation providing the 

reason for disapproval. 

(d) Funding for the approved eligible 

projects on the queues will be made 

available to the Tribes or the Secretary 

of the Interior upon availability of 

program funding at FHWA. 

§ 661.27 What does a complete application 

package for construction consist of and 

how does the project receive funding? 

(a) A complete application package 

for construction consists of the 

following: A copy of the approved 

PS&E, the certification checklist, SI&A 

sheet, and IRRBP TIP. For non-BIA IRR 

bridges, the application package must 

also include a copy of a letter from the 

bridge’s owner approving the project 

and its PS&E, a tribal resolution 

supporting the project, and 

identification of the required minimum 

20 percent local funding match. All 

environmental and archeological 

clearances and complete grants of 

public rights-of-way must be acquired 

prior to submittal of the construction 

application package. 

(b) The IRRBP projects for 

construction will be placed in queue 

and determined as eligible for funding 

after receipt by FHWA of a complete 

application package. Incomplete 

application packages will be 

disapproved and returned for revision 

and resubmission along with a notation 

providing the reason for disapproval. 

(c) Funding for the approved eligible 

projects on the queues will be made 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

available to the tribes or the Secretary of 

the Interior upon availability of program 

funding at FHWA. 

§ 661.29 How does ownership impact 

project selection? 

Since the Federal government has 

both a trust responsibility and owns the 

BIA bridges on Indian reservations, 

primary consideration will be given to 

eligible projects on BIA owned IRR 

bridges. A smaller percentage of 

available funds will be set aside for nonBIA IRR bridges, since States and 

counties have access to Federal-aid and 

other funding to design, replace and 

rehabilitate their bridges and that 23 

U.S.C. 204(c) requires that IRR funds be 

supplemental to and not in lieu of other 

funds apportioned to the State. The 

program policy will be to maximize the 

number of IRR bridges participating in 

the IRRBP in a given fiscal year 

regardless of ownership. 

§ 661.31 Do IRRBP projects have to be 

listed on an approved IRR TIP? 

Yes. All IRRBP projects must be listed 

on an approved IRR TIP. The approved 

IRR TIP will be forwarded by FHWA to 

the respective State for inclusion into its 

State TIP. 

§ 661.33 What percentage of IRRBP 

funding is available for PE and 

construction? 

Up to 15 percent of the funding made 

available in any fiscal year will be 

eligible for PE. The remaining funding 

in any fiscal year will be available for 

construction. 

§ 661.35 What percentage of IRRBP 

funding is available for use on BIA owned 

IRR bridges and non-BIA owned IRR 

bridges? 

(a) Up to 80 percent of the available 

funding made available for PE and 

construction in any fiscal year will be 

eligible for use on BIA owned IRR 

bridges. The remaining 20 percent of 

funding in any fiscal year will be made 

available for PE and construction for use 

on non-BIA owned IRR bridges. 

(b) At various time during the fiscal 

year, FHWA will review the projects 

awaiting funding and may shift funds 

between BIA owned and non-BIA 

owned bridge projects so as to maximize 

the number of projects funded and the 

overall effectiveness of the program. 

§ 661.37 What are the funding limitations 

on individual IRRBP projects? 

The following funding provisions 

apply in administration of the IRRBP: 

(a) An IRRBP eligible BIA owned IRR 

bridge is eligible for 100 percent IRRBP 

funding, with a $150,000 maximum 

limit for PE. 

(b) An IRRBP eligible non-BIA owned 

IRR bridge is eligible for up to 80 

percent IRRBP funding, with a $150,000 

maximum limit for PE and $1,000,000 

maximum limit for construction. The 

minimum 20 percent local match will 

need to be identified in the application 

package. IRR construction funds 

received by a tribe may be used as the 

local match. 

(c) Requests for additional funds 

above the referenced thresholds may be 

submitted along with the proper 

justification to FHWA for consideration. 

The requests will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. There is no guarantee 

for the approval of the request for 

additional funds. 

§ 661.39 How are project cost overruns 

funded? 

(a) A request for additional IRRBP 

funds for cost overruns on a specific 

bridge project must be submitted to 

BIADOT and FHWA for approval. The 

written submission must include a 

justification, an explanation as to why 

the overrun occurred, and the amount of 

additional funding required with 

supporting cost data. If approved by 

FHWA, the request will be placed at the 

top of the appropriate queue (with a 

contract modification request having a 

higher priority than a request for 

additional funds for a project award) 

and funding may be provided if 

available. 

(b) Project cost overruns may also be 

funded out of the tribe’s regular IRR 

Program construction funding. 

§ 661.41 After a bridge project has been 

completed (either PE or construction) what 

happens with the excess or surplus 

funding? 

Since the funding is project specific, 

once a bridge design or construction 

project has been completed under this 

program, any excess or surplus funding 

is returned to FHWA for use on 

additional approved deficient IRR 

bridge projects. 

§ 661.43 Can other sources of funds be 

used to finance a queued project in 

advance of receipt of IRRBP funds? 

Yes. A tribe can use other sources of 

funds on a project that has been 

approved for funding and placed on a 

queue and then be reimbursed when 

IRRBP funds become available. If IRR 

Program construction funds are used for 

this purpose, the funds must be 

identified on an FHWA approved IRR 

TIP prior to their expenditure. 

§ 661.45 What happens when IRRBP funds 

cannot be obligated by the end of the fiscal 

year? 

IRRBP funds provided to a project 

that cannot be obligated by the end of 

the fiscal year are to be returned to 

FHWA during August Redistribution. 

The returned funds will be re-allocated 

to the BIA the following fiscal year after 

receipt and acceptance at FHWA from 

BIA of a formal request for the funds, 

which includes a justification for the 

amounts requested and the reason for 

the failure of the prior year obligation. 

§ 661.47 Can bridge maintenance be 

performed with IRRBP funds? 

No. Bridge maintenance repairs, e.g., 

guard rail repair, deck repairs, repair of 

traffic control devices, striping, cleaning 

scuppers, deck sweeping, snow and 

debris removal, etc., are not eligible uses 

of IRRBP funding. The Department of 

the Interior annual allocation for 

maintenance and IRR Program 

construction funds are eligible funding 

sources for bridge maintenance. 

§ 661.49 Can IRRBP funds be spent on 

Interstate, State Highway, and Toll Road 

IRR bridges? 

Yes. Interstate, State Highway, and 

Toll Road IRR bridges are eligible for 

funding as described in § 661.37(b). 

§ 661.51 Can IRRBP funds be used for the 

approach roadway to a bridge? 

(a) Yes, cost associated with approach 

roadway work, as defined in § 661.5 are 

eligible. 

(b) Long approach fills, causeways, 

connecting roadways, interchanges, 

ramps, and other extensive earth 

structures, when constructed beyond an 

attainable touchdown point, are not 

eligible uses of IRRBP funds. 

§ 661.53 What standards should be used 

for bridge design? 

(a) Replacement—A replacement 

structure must meet the current 

geometric, construction and structural 

standards required for the types and 

volumes of projected traffic on the 

facility over its design life consistent 

with 25 CFR part 170, Subpart D, 

Appendix A and 23 CFR part 625. 

(b) Rehabilitation—Bridges to be 

rehabilitated, as a minimum, should 

conform to the standards of 23 CFR 625, 

Design Standards for Federal-aid 

Highways, for the class of highway on 

which the bridge is a part. 

§ 661.55 How are BIA and Tribal owned 

IRR bridges inspected? 

BIA and Tribal owned IRR bridges are 

inspected in accordance with 25 CFR 

170.504–507. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31021 

§ 661.57 How is a list of deficient bridges 

to be generated? 

(a) In consultation with the BIA, a list 

of deficient BIA IRR bridges will be 

developed each fiscal year by the FHWA 

based on the annual April update of the 

NBI. The NBI is based on data from the 

inspection of all bridges. Likewise, a list 

of non-BIA IRR bridges will be obtained 

from the NBI. These lists would form 

the basis for identifying bridges that 

would be considered potentially eligible 

for participation in the IRRBP. Two 

separate master bridge lists (one each for 

BIA and non-BIA IRR bridges) will be 

developed and will include, at a 

minimum, the following: 

(1) Sufficiency rating (SR); 

(2) Status (structurally deficient or 

functionally obsolete); 

(3) Average daily traffic (NBI item 29); 

(4) Detour length (NBI item 19); and 

(5) Truck average daily traffic (NBI 

item 109). 

(b) These lists would be provided by 

the FHWA to the BIADOT for 

publication and notification of affected 

BIA regional offices, Indian tribal 

governments (ITGs), and State and local 

governments. 

(c) BIA regional offices in 

consultation with ITGs, are encouraged 

to prioritize the design for bridges that 

are structurally deficient over bridges 

that are simply functionally obsolete, 

since the former is more critical 

structurally than the latter. Bridges that 

have higher average daily traffic (ADT) 

should be considered before those that 

have lower ADT. Detour length should 

also be a factor in selection and 

submittal of bridges, with those having 

a higher detour length being of greater 

concern. Lastly, bridges with higher 

truck ADT should take precedence over 

those which have lower truck ADT. 

Other items of note should be whether 

school buses use the bridge and the 

types of trucks that may cross the bridge 

and the loads imposed. 

§ 661.59 What should be done with a 

deficient BIA owned IRR bridge if the Indian 

tribe does not support the project? 

The BIA should notify the tribe and 

encourage the tribe to develop and 

submit an application package to FHWA 

for replacement of the bridge. For safety 

of the motoring public, if the tribe 

decides not to pursue the replacement 

of the bridge, the BIA shall work with 

the tribe to close the bridge, demolish 

the bridge and remove it from the IRR 

inventory in accordance with 25 CFR 

part 170 (170.813). 

[FR Doc. E7–9869 Filed 6–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–123365–03] 

RIN 1545–BC94 

Guidance Regarding the Active Trade 

or Business Requirement Under 

Section 355(b); Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–123365–03) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26012) 

providing guidance on issues involving 

the active trade or business requirement 

under section 355(b), including 

guidance resulting from the enactment 

of section 355(b)(3). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Russell P. Subin, (202) 622–7790 (not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The correction notice that is the 

subject of this document is under 

section 355(b) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–123365–03) contains 

errors that may prove to be misleading 

and are in need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of 

proposed rulemaking (REG–123365–03), 

which was the subject of FR Doc. 07–

2269, is corrected as follows: 

1. On page 26014, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘1. SAG Rule Applicable During the 

Pre-Distribution Period’’, second 

paragraph of the column, fourth line, 

the language ‘‘members are disregarded 

and all assets’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘members is disregarded and all assets’’. 

2. On page 26014, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘1. SAG Rule Applicable During the 

Pre-Distribution Period’’, second 

paragraph of the column, eleventh line, 

the language ‘‘a five-year active trade or 

businesses.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘a fiveyear active trade or business.’’. 

3. On page 26015, column 1, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘3. Acquisitions of Stock in Subsidiary 

SAG Members’’, fifth line of the column, 

the language ‘‘in sections B.4 and 

C.3.a.ii. of this’’ is corrected to read ‘‘in 

sections B.4. and C.3.a.ii. of this’’. 

4. On page 26015, column 1, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘C. Acquisitions of a Trade or 

Business’’, second line of the paragraph, 

the language ‘‘provide that a trade or 

business’’ is corrected to read ‘‘provides 

that a trade or business’’. 

5. On page 26015, column 3, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘1. Purpose of Section 355(b)(2)(C) and 

(D)’’, second paragraph of the column, 

fourth line, the language ‘‘using it 

assets—instead of its stock, or’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘using its assets—

instead of its stock, or’’. 

6. On page 26016, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘i. Certain Acquisitions by the DSAG or 

CSAG’’, last line of the first paragraph, 

the language ‘‘assets to acquire the trade 

or business’’ is corrected to read ‘‘assets 

to acquire the trade or business.’’. 

7. On page 26016, column 3, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘ii. Certain Acquisitions by a 

Distributee Corporation’’, tenth line of 

the paragraph, the language ‘‘section A.1 

of this preamble, section’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘section A.1. of this preamble, 

section’’. 

8. On page 26017, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘i. Acquisitions in Exchange for 

Assets’’, third paragraph of the column, 

first line, the language ‘‘As discussed in 

section C.1 of this’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘As discussed in section C.1. of this’’. 

9. On page 26018, column 1, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘i. Acquisitions in Exchange for 

Assets’’, fourth paragraph of the 

column, sixth line, the language ‘‘and 

(D) are satisfied. Such an’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘and (D) is satisfied. Such an’’. 

10. On page 26019, column 3, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘c. Application of Section 355(b)(2)(C) 

and (D) to Predecessors’’, second 

paragraph of the column, third line, the 

language ‘‘singly-entity for purposes of 

section’’ is corrected to read ‘‘singleentity for purposes of section’’. 

11. On page 26025, column 1, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘J. Additional Requests for Comments’’, 

eleventh line of the column, the 

language ‘‘sections D.1.b. and D.2.c of 

this’’ is corrected to read ‘‘sections 

D.1.b. and D.2.c. of this’’. 

12. On page 26025, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘J. Additional Requests for Comments’’, 

fourth line from the bottom of second 

paragraph, the language ‘‘example, 

§ 1.355–3(c) Example (9)’’ is corrected to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS