Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/01/08/03-105/federal-lands-highway-program-management-systems-pertaining-to-the-bureau-of-indian-affairs-and-the
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 15:59:44
Document Index: 619986517

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 973', 'art 450', 'art 500', '§\u2009973', '§\u2009973', 'art 973', '§\u2009973', 'art 650', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7']

68 FR 1105
1105-1114 (10 pages)
2125-AE53
Summary of Comments Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the BIA and the Indian Reservation Roads Program
Section 973.100 Purpose
Section 973.102 Applicability
Section 973.200 Purpose
Section 973.210 Indian Lands Bridge Management System (BMS)
Section 973.214 Indian Lands Congestion Management System (CMS)
PART 973—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-105 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-105
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 1105
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency to develop, to the extent appropriate, safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal Lands Highway program (FLHP). The Secretary of Transportation has delegated the authority to the FHWA to serve as the lead agency within the U.S. DOT to implement the FLHP. The roads funded under the FLHP include Park Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, and Indian Reservation Roads. This rulemaking proposes to provide for the development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion management systems for transportation facilities providing access to Indian lands and funded under the FLHP.
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System (DMS): http://dmses.dot.gov/​submit. Acceptable formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site.
Section 1115(d) of the TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 156 (1998)) amended 23 U.S.C. 204 to require the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency, to the extent appropriate, to develop safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the FLHP. A management system is a process for collecting, organizing, and analyzing data to provide a strategic approach to transportation planning, program development, and project selection. Its purposes are to improve transportation system performance and safety, and to develop alternative strategies for enhancing mobility of people and goods.
The roads funded under the FLHP include, but are not limited to, Park Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, and Indian Reservation Roads. The Secretary of Transportation delegated to the FHWA the authority to serve as the lead agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation to administer the FLHP (see 49 CFR 1.48 (b)(29)). This rulemaking action addresses the management systems for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program.
On September 1, 1999, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comments concerning development of this proposed rule pertaining to the BIA and the IRR program (64 FR 47746). The ANPRM requested comments on the feasibility of developing a rule to meet both the transportation planning and management systems requirements of the TEA-21. Therefore, comments made to the docket addressed both transportation planning and management systems issues. However, the FHWA has decided to publish separate NPRMs for transportation planning and management systems. For this reason, this NPRM concerns only the development of the management systems. This NPRM includes responses to the comments submitted to the docket on the ANPRM that addressed the proposed development of the four management systems. Those comments on the ANPRM that addressed transportation planning will be addressed at a later date. The FHWA received comments addressing the management systems from various State DOT's, Tribal representatives from the Indian Reservation Roads Program Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee), the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET), and an intertribal council of twenty-three federally recognized Tribes (Council). These comments are summarized in the following section. Specific comments may be obtained by reviewing the materials in the docket.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation), the FHWA has participated in a number of consultation sessions on this rulemaking with numerous Tribal government representatives. The purpose of these sessions was to explain the FHWA's intent in developing the NPRM, as well as to seek input and feedback. To the extent feasible, the FHWA will continue to use the Committee and other key Tribal transportation meetings to consult and coordinate with the (Indian Tribal Governments) ITGs on this rulemaking throughout the remainder of the process. In addition, the FHWA will hold seven informational meetings during the comment period in the following locations at a date and time to be announced in the Federal Register: Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK; Minneapolis, MN; Nashville, TN; Portland, OR; Las Vegas, NV; and Tulsa, OK. These meetings will be used to provide an overview of the rulemaking Start Printed Page 1106process and describe FHWA's purpose and intent in developing the rules. Tribal representatives are encouraged to attend these meetings and to provide suggestions and comments.
Based on the comments we received on the ANPRM and during Tribal consultations, the FHWA has developed this NPRM to provide for the development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion management systems for transportation facilities providing access to Indian lands and funded under the FLHP. Separate NPRM's on management systems have also been developed for the National Park Service (NPS) and the Park Roads and Parkways program, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Refuge Roads program, and the Forest Service (FS) and the Forest Highway program. The other three related NPRM's are published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Comments: The majority of comments supported the FHWA's proposal to develop “separate rules” pertaining to the BIA and the Indian Reservations Roads program, the FWS and the Refuge Roads program, the NPS and the Park Roads and Parkways program, and the FS and the Forest Highway program. The commenters in favor of this proposal pointed out the fact that transportation planning functions for the different Federal lands highways are performed by various Federal, State, and local entities, depending on ownership of the roadways and responsibilities for constructing and maintaining the facilities.
The Wisconsin DOT and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet offered an opposite view. These two State Transportation Departments requested that we develop only one Start Printed Page 1107general rule applicable to all four agencies. The Wisconsin DOT suggested that this rule be flexible so that it recognizes the different approaches used by the States. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet recommended that the rule should require the Federal land management agencies (FLMAs) to develop Memoranda of Understanding or Agreements that would address the consistency between the Federal land transportation planning procedures and those required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was concerned that the additional rules might jeopardize existing procedures already in effect.
Response: Following the recommendations from the majority of commenters, the FHWA, in consultation with each appropriate Federal land management agency, developed a separate rule pertaining to each agency: the BIA, the FWS, the NPS, and the FS. The variance among the rules allows for the significant differences in the ownership, jurisdiction, and maintenance responsibilities that the FLMAs exercise over the subject roadways addressed in the rule. To ensure uniformity, the FHWA coordinated the development of each NPRM, so that similar text and format are contained in each of the rules.
Comments: Tribal representatives from the Committee, the USET, and the Council recommended against the proposed development of a rule relating to transportation planning and management systems for the IRR program in a process separate from the one presently underway through the Committee. In addition, they stated that the Committee would utilize the Indian Reservation Roads Program Transportation Planning Procedures and Guidelines (Guidelines),[2] that had been developed with Tribal consultation and implemented by the DOT in October 1999, to develop regulations that address transportation planning and management issues. These commenters believed that the proposed rule and the rule derived from the Guidelines would be inconsistent with each other.
Response: This proposed rule was developed to fulfill the requirement set forth by the TEA-21. This requirement was separate and apart from the negotiated rulemaking requirement for the IRR program. The language set forth in this NPRM is, with the exception of proposed funding sources, consistent with the draft language on management systems set forth in the IRR negotiated rulemaking. While the Guidelines help the Indian Tribal Governments (ITGs) address transportation planning and management system requirements, the Guidelines do not meet the requirements for rulemaking set forth in the TEA-21.
Comments: Many States believe that the management systems should only be developed as needed and should relate to systems that are already implemented by States and local agencies. It was recommended that the FHWA encourage the Federal agencies to explore and use the States' existing systems. The States also recommended the systems be tailored to fit local conditions, and be applicable solely to the portion of the Federal lands highways owned and maintained by Federal agencies. Many of the States are concerned that the implementation of the management systems may affect the current working relationships among State, local, and Federal agencies. The Wisconsin DOT encouraged the FHWA to work with the FLMAs and State Transportation Departments to clarify ownership discrepancies between Federal and State data. They suggested that the FLMAs have accurate data reflecting the amount of mileage the agencies own by location. Further, these data have to agree with data reported by States in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database.[3]
Response: The stakeholders' concerns presented above were considered in the development of this NPRM. Each of the proposed management system rules calls for the FHWA, in cooperation with the FLMA, to develop an implementation plan or implementation procedures for each of the management systems. In addition, flexibility is provided to determine criteria for the need and applicability of each of the FLMA's management systems. These implementation plans will provide the opportunity to relate the FLMA management systems to systems already implemented by States and local agencies. It will also allow the management systems to be tailored to fit a broad range of local conditions, and to avoid inefficient duplication of management systems already in use by the States. Development of the implementation plans will provide an opportunity to strengthen the working relationships among Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies, as well as define responsibility for and ownership of data.
Response: While it is correct that the Public Law 104-59 made the management systems optional for States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), except for the congestion management systems in MPOs with a population of greater than 200,000, section 1115(d) of TEA-21 applies to the Federal land management agencies, not directly to the States; however, the States may be requested to provide information. The TEA-21, enacted on June 9, 1998, amended 23 U.S.C. 204 to specify that “The Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal lands highways program.” Therefore, the development and implementation of the management systems, where appropriate, is mandated by law for the Federal land management agencies.
In the development of this proposed rule, the FHWA has attempted to minimize the level of data collection and analyses required. The FHWA now solicits comments on the extent to which this strategy has been achieved. Any comments suggesting that the strategy has not been successful should identify specific reasons why the requirements and/or provisions are burdensome. Suggestions to lessen burdens are welcome.
This section states that the definitions in subpart A are applicable to this rule. Start Printed Page 1108
This section incorporates the terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 49 U.S.C. 5302, and 23 CFR part 450; and also includes additional definitions for terms used in this part.
The phrase “Indian lands” would be added to the definitions of “bridge management system (BMS),” “congestion management system (CMS),” “pavement management system (PMS),” and “safety management system (SMS)” to indicate the distinction between the Indian lands, Federal lands and Federal-aid management systems (refer to 23 CFR part 500 for definitions of the Federal-aid management systems). The NPRMs for the FS, FWS and NPS would use the phrase “Federal lands” to indicate the distinction between the Federal lands, Indian lands and Federal-aid management systems. The management system definitions also specify their applicability to the BIA, FS, FWS and NPS, as appropriate.
This section states the purpose of this proposed rule, which is to fulfill the requirements set forth by the TEA-21.
This section sets forth general requirements for all four management systems. Additional requirements applicable to specific systems are in §§ 973.208 through 973.214.
Paragraph (a) states that the BIA shall develop, establish, and implement the nationwide management systems. Paragraphs (a) and (h) provide flexibility in the development of the nationwide management systems. Paragraph (b) requires the FHWA and the BIA to develop implementation plans for the nationwide management systems.
Paragraph (c) states that a Tribe may develop, establish, and implement Tribal management systems.
Paragraph (d) directs the BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, to develop criteria for cases in which Tribal management systems are not appropriate.
Paragraph (e) directs the BIA or Tribes, as appropriate, to incorporate data provided by States and local governments in the nationwide or Tribal management systems for State and locally owned IRRs.
To ensure the management systems are developed, implemented, and operated systematically, paragraph (f) requires the development of procedures that will include the following: Consideration of management system results in the planning process; system analysis; a description of each management system; operation and maintenance of management systems and databases; and data collection, processing, analysis, and updating. Paragraph (g) ensures that the database has a geographical reference system so that information can be geolocated. Paragraph (h) encourages the use of existing data sources to the maximum extent possible.
Paragraph (i) states that a nationwide congestion management system is not required. The BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the Tribes, will develop criteria to determine when congestion management systems are required for specific BIA transportation facilities. The BIA or the Tribe may develop, establish and implement the congestion management systems when they are required.
Paragraph (j) requires a periodical evaluation process of the effectiveness of the management systems, preferably as part of the transportation planning process. Paragraph (k) ensures that transportation investment decisions based on management system results would be used at the BIA region or Tribal level and can be used throughout the transportation planning process.
This section provides that the funds available for the IRR program can be used for development, establishment, and implementation of the nationwide and required congestion management systems in accordance with legislative provisions for the funds.
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the PMS. Paragraph (b) requires Tribes that collect data for a PMS to provide the data to the BIA to be used in the nationwide PMS. Paragraph (c) recommends the use of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) “Pavement Management Guide” [4] as a guide for the development of the PMS. Paragraph (d) provides flexibility for the development of the PMS.
This section further sets forth processes and procedures that must be included in a PMS. They include requirements for a basic framework composed of data collection and maintenance, network level analysis, and reporting procedures.
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the BMS. Paragraph (b) requires Tribes that collect data for a BMS to provide the data to the BIA to be used in the nationwide BMS. Paragraph (c) recommends the use of the AASHTO's “Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems” [5] as a guide for the development of BMS.
The section sets forth components that must be included in a BMS. They consist of data collection and maintenance, analysis procedures, and reporting procedures.
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the SMS. Paragraph (b) requires Tribes that collect data for a SMS to provide the data to the BIA to be used in the nationwide SMS. Paragraph (c) encourages the use of the FHWA publication entitled “Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation.” [6]
Because of the strong emphasis the TEA-21 has on safety, paragraph (d) requires the SMS to be used to ensure that safety is considered and implemented as appropriate in all phases of transportation planning, programming and project implementation. Paragraph (e) states that the level of complexity of the nationwide and Tribal SMS's depends on the nature of the facilities involved.
The section sets forth the components that must be included in a SMS. They include data collection and maintenance, identification and Start Printed Page 1109correction of potential safety problems, communications, public education, training needs, and reporting.
To provide flexibility, paragraph (g) states that the extent of SMS requirements set forth in this proposed rule for low volume roads may be tailored to be consistent with the functional classification of the roads. However, each functional classification should include adequate requirements to ensure effective safety decisionmaking.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires the BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the Tribes, to develop criteria for determining when a CMS will be required for a specific transportation system.
Paragraph (b)(2) further sets forth the components to be included in a CMS. They include the following: Identification and documentation of measures for congestion; identification of the causes of congestion; development of evaluation processes; identification of benefits; determination of methods to monitor and evaluate performance of the overall transportation system after strategies are implemented; and consideration of example strategies provided in the proposed rule.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file comments received after the comment closing date in the docket and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information becoming available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period.
The FHWA has determined preliminarily that the proposed rule would be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and under the regulatory policies and procedures of the U.S. Department of Transportation, because of the substantial public interest anticipated in the transportation facilities of the Indian lands. The FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of any action taken in this rulemaking process will be minimal. The FHWA anticipates that the proposed changes will not adversely affect any sector of the economy in a material way. Though the proposed action will impact the BIA, it will not likely interfere with any action taken or planned by the BIA or another agency, or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
This proposed rule would not impose a mandate that requires further analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). This rulemaking proposes to provide for the development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion management systems for transportation systems providing access to and within Indian lands. These roads are funded under the FLHP; therefore, the proposed rule is not considered an unfunded mandate. Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and Tribal Governments and the private sector.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule contains a requirement for data and information to be collected and maintained in the four management systems that are to be developed. In order to streamline the process, the FHWA intends to request that the OMB approve a single information collection clearance for all of the data in the four management systems at the time that the requirements in this proposal are made final. The FHWA is sponsoring this proposed clearance on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The FHWA estimates that a total of 5,600 burden hours per year would be imposed on non-Federal entities to provide the required information for the BIA management systems. Respondents to this information collection include State Transportation Departments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Tribal governments, regional transportation planning agencies, and county and local governments. The BIA would bear the burden of developing the management systems in a manner that would incorporate any existing data in the most efficient way and without additional burdens to the public. The estimates here only include burdens on the respondents to provide information Start Printed Page 1110that is not usually and customarily collected.
Where a substantial level of effort may be required of non-Federal entities to provide BIA management system information, the effort has been benchmarked to the number of miles of State, local or Tribally owned roads or the number of State, local or Tribally owned bridges within the BIA's jurisdiction. This approach has been applied to the PMS, BMS and SMS. For BIA implementation of the PMS, BMS, and SMS, the total annual burden estimate is 3,600 of the 5,600 hours per year. The level of burden on non-Federal entities for these management systems is modest since the agency will incorporate existing data into the system. Of these three systems, the most substantial burden is associated with the collection of data to implement the BMS. The BMS burden is estimated at 1,400 hours per year. The PMS and SMS burdens are estimated at 1,100 hours per year for each of these management systems.
For the CMS, the non-Federal burden, if applicable, would likely fall to the MPOs, and represents the need for the BIA to coordinate its management system with the MPOs, for those limited instances when a portion of its transportation system is within an MPO area. For estimating purposes, approximately 50 MPOs nationwide may be burdened by the proposed regulation. Forty hours of burden were assigned to each of the 50 MPOs, resulting in a total burden of 2000 hours attributable to the CMS.
The FHWA is required to submit this proposed collection of information to OMB for review and approval, and accordingly, seeks public comments. Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the 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 collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected.
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this proposed action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. An environmental impact statement is, therefore, not required.
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposal will have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes.
As stated previously, this rulemaking is statutorily required under section 1115(d) of the TEA-21. While there are no specific additional dedicated funds for implementing this regulation, funds already available under the IRR program can be used for the development, establishment, and implementation of the management systems. The FHWA has utilized key Tribal transportation meetings to consult and coordinate with Indian Tribal Governments on this rulemaking since its inception. At these meetings, the FHWA advised the Tribes of the ANPRM and encouraged them to submit comments and suggestions to the docket. In addition, after the docket was closed, the FHWA shared with them all comments submitted to the docket, including those from State Transportation Departments questioning provisions of the IRR statute.
As stated earlier, the FHWA published an ANPRM on September 1, 1999, to solicit public comments concerning development of this proposed rule pertaining to the BIA and the IRR program (64 FR 47746). Among the comments the FHWA received are the comments from the Tribal representatives to the Indian Reservation Roads Program Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., and an intertribal council of twenty-three federally recognized Tribes. These comments are summarized in the section entitled “Summary of Comments Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the BIA and the Indian Reservation Roads Program.” Specific comments may be obtained by reviewing the materials in the docket.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, during the development process of this NPRM, the FHWA participated in a number of consultation sessions on this rulemaking with numerous Tribal government representatives. The purpose of these sessions was to explain the FHWA's intent in developing the NPRM, as well as to seek input and feedback. These discussions were scheduled agenda items with time provided for questions and answers and took place at the following events: The “Transportation Improvements: Experiences Among Tribal, Local, State, and Federal Governments Conference,” Albuquerque, NM, October 2000; the “Annual Providers Conference,” Anchorage, AK, November 2000; the “Intertribal Transportation Association Annual Meeting,” Las Vegas, NV, December 2000; and the “Northern Plains Transportation Exposition,” Aberdeen, SD, March 2001.
During these discussions, the Tribes addressed two major concerns. The first concern dealt with the funding for the establishment, development, and implementation of the management systems. As a response, § 973.206 of this proposed action states that the IRR program management funds may be used to conduct nationwide management systems activities. Additionally, the IRR two-percent Tribal transportation planning or construction funds may be used for Tribal management systems activities.
The second concern surrounded the Tribes' desire to utilize the IRR Negotiated Rulemaking in lieu of this proposed rule. This comment also was addressed to the ANPRM published on September 1, 1999. The FHWA responds to this comment in this NPRM in the “Summary of Comments Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the BIA and the Indian Reservation Roads Program” section. As the response indicates, the requirements for the management systems and the requirements for the IRR program are separate. However with the exception of funding, the language set forth in this NPRM is consistent with the draft language on management systems set forth in the IRR Negotiated Rulemaking Notice.Start Printed Page 1111
We have analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant and does not concern an environmental risk to health and safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because, although this proposed action is considered to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
1. Add part 973 to read as follows:
Indian lands bridge management system (BMS) means a systematic process used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or Tribal governments for analyzing bridge data to make forecasts and recommendations, and provides the means by which bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement programs and policies may be efficiently considered.
Indian lands congestion management system (CMS) means a systematic process used by the BIA or Tribal governments for managing congestion that provides information on transportation system performance and alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet Federal, State and local needs.
Indian lands pavement management system (PMS) means a systematic process used by the BIA or Tribal governments that provides information for use in implementing cost-effective pavement reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance programs and policies, and that results in pavement designed to accommodate current and forecasted traffic in a safe, durable, and cost-effective manner.
Indian lands safety management system (SMS) means a systematic process used by the BIA or Tribal governments with the goal of reducing the number and severity of traffic accidents by ensuring that all opportunities to improve roadway safety are identified, considered, implemented and evaluated, as appropriate, during all phases of highway planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance by providing information for selecting and implementing effective highway safety strategies and projects.
Indian reservation road means a public road that is located within or provides access to an Indian reservation or Indian trust land or restricted Indian land that is not subject to fee title alienation without the approval of the Federal government, or Indian and Alaska Native villages, groups, or communities in which Indians and Alaskan Natives reside, whom the Secretary of the Interior has determined are eligible for services generally available to Indians under Federal laws specifically applicable to Indians.
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program means a part of the FLHP established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to address the transportation needs of federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments (ITG).
Indian Reservation Roads transportation improvement program (IRRTIP) means a multi-year, financially constrained list by year, State, and Tribe of IRR-funded projects selected by ITGs from Tribal TIP's, or other Tribal Start Printed Page 1112actions, that are programmed for construction in the next 3 to 5 years.
Indian Reservation Roads transportation plan means a document setting out a Tribe's long-range transportation priorities and needs. The IRR transportation plan, which can be developed by either the Tribe or the BIA on behalf of that Tribe, is developed through the IRR transportation planning process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
Life-cycle cost analysis means an evaluation of costs incurred over the life of a project allowing a comparative analysis between or among various alternatives. Life-cycle cost analysis promotes consideration of total cost, to include maintenance and operation expenditures. Comprehensive life-cycle costs analysis includes all economic variables essential to the evaluation: Safety costs associated with maintenance and rehabilitation projects, agency capital cost, and life-cycle maintenance costs.
The provisions in this subpart are applicable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Tribal Governments (ITGs) that are responsible for satisfying these requirements for management systems pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
(a) The BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall develop, establish and implement nationwide pavement, bridge, and safety management systems for Federally and Tribally owned IRR. The BIA may tailor the nationwide management systems to meet the agency's goals, policies, and needs.
(b) The BIA and the FHWA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall develop an implementation plan for each of the nationwide management systems. These plans will include, but are not limited to, the following: Overall goals and policies concerning the nationwide management systems, each agency's responsibilities for developing and implementing the nationwide management systems, implementation schedule, data sources, and cost estimate.
(c) Tribes may develop, establish, and implement Tribal management systems under a self-determination contract or self-governance annual funding agreement. The Tribe may tailor the management systems to meet its goals, policies, and needs.
(d) The BIA, in consultation with Tribes, shall develop criteria for cases in which Tribal management systems are not appropriate.
(e) The BIA, in consultation with Tribes, or the Tribes under a self-determination contract, shall incorporate data provided by States and local governments into the nationwide or Tribal management systems, as appropriate, for State and locally owned IRRs.
(h) Existing data sources may be used by the BIA and Tribes to the maximum extent possible to meet the management system requirements.
(i) A nationwide congestion management system is not required. The BIA and the FHWA shall develop criteria for determining when congestion management systems are required for BIA or Tribal transportation facilities providing access to and within the Indian reservations. Either the Tribes or the BIA, in consultation with the Tribes, shall develop, establish and implement congestion management systems for the transportation facilities that meet the criteria.
(j) The BIA shall develop an appropriate means to evaluate the effectiveness of the management systems in enhancing transportation investment decisions and improving the overall efficiency of the affected transportation systems and facilities. This evaluation is to be conducted periodically, preferably as part of the BIA planning process.
In addition to the requirements provided in § 973.204, the PMS must meet the following requirements: Start Printed Page 1113
(a) The BIA shall have a PMS for all federally and Tribally owned IRRs included in the IRR inventory.
(a) The BIA shall have a nationwide BMS for the federally and Tribally owned IRR bridges that are funded under the FLHP and required to be inventoried and inspected under 23 CFR part 650, subpart C, National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).
(d) A BMS shall be designed to fit the BIA or Tribe's goals, policies, criteria, and needs using the following components, as a minimum, as a basic framework for a BMS:
(i) The inventory data described by the NBIS (23 CFR 650.311);
(c) The nationwide and Tribal SMS may be based on the guidance in “Safety Management Systems: Good Practices Start Printed Page 1114for Development and Implementation.” [3]
(e) The nationwide and Tribal SMSs may be utilized at various levels of complexities depending on the nature of the IRR facility involved.
(f) A SMS shall be designed to fit the BIA or ITG's goals, policies, criteria, and needs using, as a minimum, the following components as a basic framework for a SMS:
(g) While the SMS applies to all IRRs in the IRR inventory, the extent of system requirements (e.g., data collection, analyses, and standards) for low volume roads may be tailored to be consistent with the functional classification of the roads. However, adequate requirements should be included for each BIA functional classification to provide for effective inclusion of safety decisions in the administration of transportation by the BIA and ITGs.
1. More information on how EMS applies to transportation organizations can be found on the AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence Web site at the following URL: http//itre.ncsu.edu/AASHTO/stewardship.
2. “Indian Reservation Roads Program Transportation Planning Procedures and Guidelines,” October 1999, is available at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​flh/​reports/​indian/​intro.htm.
3. “The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway transportation system datanbase. It includes limited data on all public roads, more detailed data for a sample of the arterial and collector functional system, and certain summary information for urbanized, small urban and rural areas. Additional information about this database is available online at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​ohim.
4. “Pavement Management Guide,” AASHTO, 2001, is available for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased online at http://www.transportation.org/​publications/​bookstore.nsf or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
5. “Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems,” AASHTO, 1993, is available for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased on line at http://www.transportation.org/​publications/​bookstore.nsf or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
6. “Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation,” FHWA and NHTSA, May 1996, may be obtained at the FHWA, Office of Safety, Room 3407, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590, or electronically at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​media/​documents.htm. It is available for inspection and copying as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
2. “Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems,” AASHTO, 1993, is available for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased online at http://www.transportation.org/​publications/​bookstore.nsf or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
[FR Doc. 03-105 Filed 1-7-03; 8:45 am]