89506 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated 

July 31, 2024, and effective September 

15, 2024. These updates would be 

published subsequently in the next 

update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That 

order is publicly available as listed in 

the ADDRESSES section of this document. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, 

B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic 

service routes, and reporting points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class 

E airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of Faith Municipal Airport, Faith, 

SD. 

This action is supports the 

development of new public instrument 

procedures at this airport and to support 

IFR operations. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 

the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended]

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11J,

Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, dated July 31, 2024, and

effective September 15, 2024, is

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Faith, SD [Establish]

Faith Municipal Airport, SD

(Lat 45°02′07′′ N, long 102°01′14′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of the Faith Municipal Airport. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 

7, 2024. 

Steven T. Phillips, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26205 Filed 11–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 riskbased 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 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 9:00 

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 selfaddressed, 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 http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Tashia J. Clemons, Office of 

Infrastructure, 202–493–0551, 

tashia.clemons@dot.gov; or Mariya 

Tikhonova, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

202–366–1356, mariya.tikhonova@

dot.gov, 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: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 89507 

1Under 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. 

2See BIL, § 11105(3) (codified at 23 U.S.C. 

119(e)(4)(D)). 3See 23 U.S.C. 119(b)(4). 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or access all 

comments received by the DOT online 

through: http://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: http://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. 

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, § 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

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, § 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, § 1519(b)(1)(A), and FHWA 

and FTA no longer use the regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89508 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/ 

orders/5520.cfm. 

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 § 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 § 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. 

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 § 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 §§ 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 subgroup 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 515.7. First, FHWA 

proposes to remove the first sentence of 

§ 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 

§ 515.7. Second, FHWA proposes to 

revise language in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 515.7(a); (2) 

Life-cycle planning for asset classes or 

asset sub-groups resulting from the 

process required under § 515.7(b); (3) 

Risk management analysis resulting 

from the process required under 

§ 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 § 515.7(d). 

The FHWA is proposing to revise the 

structure and content of § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89510 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 

§ 515.7(a)(3)–(4), although FHWA notes 

that existing § 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 lifecycle 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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, § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 89511 

§ 515.11 from ‘‘Deadlines and phase-in 

of asset management plan development’’ 

to ‘‘Annual consistency determination,’’ 

and the title of § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 515.11(d)(2). In 

addition, FHWA is proposing under 

§ 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 

§ 515.13 ‘‘Process certification and 

recertification’’ because requirements 

governing the annual consistency 

determination would be moved to 

§ 515.11, and § 515.13 would be revised 

to focus on the processes by which the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89512 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 515.9(h), the development of the longrange 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 selfassessment 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 yearto-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89514 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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] 

■ 1. Remove and reserve part 500, 

consisting of §§ 500.101 through 

500.204. 

■ 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). 

§ 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). 

§ 515.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to all State DOTs. 

§ 515.5 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

Asset means all physical highway 

infrastructure located within the rightof-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 subgroup 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 § 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 § 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. 

§ 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 subgroup 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 wholeof-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; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(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 § 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 § 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.). 

§ 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 

§ 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 Federalaid 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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). 

§ 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 

§ 515.9 and that is developed using 

processes described in § 515.7 that have 

been certified by FHWA; and 

(2) Documentation that demonstrates 

implementation, during the prior 

implementation period, of the StateDOT 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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. 

§ 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 selfassessment, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Parts 17 and 84 

RIN 2900–AS20 

Telehealth Grant Program 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulation to implement a new authority 

to establish a telehealth grant program. 

This new authority requires VA to enter 

into agreements, and expand existing 

agreements, for the expansion of VA 

telehealth capabilities and provision of 

telehealth services by establishing 

telehealth access stations in rural, 

highly rural, or medically underserved 

areas, to the extent practicable. We also 

propose to amend the copayment 

regulation by exempting all telehealth 

services from the copayment 

requirement. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov. 

Except as provided below, comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period will be available at 

www.regulations.gov for public viewing, 

inspection, or copying, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post the comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following 

website as soon as possible after they 

have been received: https://

www.regulations.gov. VA will not post 

on Regulations.gov public comments 

that make threats to individuals or 

institutions or suggest that the 

commenter will take actions to harm an 

individual. VA encourages individuals 

not to submit duplicative comments; 

however, we will post comments from 

multiple unique commenters even if the 

content is identical or nearly identical 

to other comments. Any public 

comment received after the comment 

period’s closing date is considered late 

and will not be considered in the final 

rulemaking. In accordance with the 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act of 2023, a 100 word 

Plain-Language Summary of this 

proposed rule is available at 

Regulations.gov, under RIN 2900–AS20. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leonie Heyworth, MD, MPH, Deputy 

Director for Clinical Services, 

Telehealth Services, Office of Connected 

Care, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20420, 202–461–6525. 

(This is not a toll-free telephone 

number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 17, 2020, the Commander John 

Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health 

Care Improvement Act of 2019 (the Act), 

Public Law 116–171, was enacted into 

law. Section 701 of the Act, codified as 

a note to section 1701 of title 38, United 

States Code (U.S.C.), mandated that VA 

enter into agreements, and expand 

existing agreements, with organizations 

that represent or serve veterans, 

nonprofit organizations, private 

businesses, and other interested parties 

for the expansion of telehealth 

capabilities and the provision of 

telehealth services to veterans through 

the award of grants. 

VA understands that veterans who 

live in rural and highly rural areas may 

not have reliable internet access. Also, 

veterans who live in medically 

underserved areas may not have 

accessible health care facilities within 

their communities. Thus, VA has 

developed a telehealth program as a 

modern, veteran-, beneficiary- and 

family-centered health care delivery 

model that leverages information and 

telecommunication technologies to 

connect patients with health care 

providers, irrespective of the State or 

location within a State where the health 

care professional or the patient is 

physically located at the time the health 

care is provided. The telehealth access 

points use a secure video application to 

bridge the digital divide by providing 

veterans health care service via 

telehealth in a fixed, secure 

environment with a reliable internet 

connection. These telehealth access 

points allow veterans to receive 

telehealth services closer to their 

residence without the inconvenience of 

having long travel times to their nearest 

VA medical facility to receive health 

care, particularly when veterans may 

lack appropriate internet access in their 

home. The convenience of the telehealth 

access point also allows veterans to be 

more engaged in their health care, 

which results in a more positive health 

outcome. 

Section 701(b)(1) of the Act requires 

VA to award grants to entities in 

carrying out agreements entered into or 

expanded under this section with 

eligible entities. Section 701(b)(2) of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1