Forest Highway Portion of Public Lands Highway Program |
|---|
|
Rodney E. Slater
Federal Highway Administration
13 June 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14224]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 13, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 660
[FHWA Docket No. 93-16]
RIN 2125-AD13
Forest Highway Portion of Public Lands Highway Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing revised Forest Highway (FH) Program
regulations to conform to the requirements of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Section 1032 of the
ISTEA amends, among other things, 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 202
and 204 to combine the FH category with the public lands highway
category. The revised regulation will ensure expeditious and proper
allocation of funds to provide public road access to the National
Forest System (NFS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Allen W. Burden, Chief, Program
and Administration Division, Federal Lands Highway Office, (202) 366-
9488, Mr. Curtis L. Page, Forest Highway Program Engineer, Federal
Lands Highway Office, (202) 366-9489, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1396, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except legal Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 1991, the President signed
the ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914. Section 1032 of the
ISTEA amends 23 U.S.C. 202 and 204 by, among other things,
incorporating new planning provisions, including metropolitan and
statewide transportation plan requirements; establishing management
systems provisions, including highway safety, bridges on and off
Federal-aid highways, and highway pavements; adding and revising
definitions for key terms relating to the Federal Lands Highway
Program; and modifying existing allocation procedures.
The primary purpose of the Federal Lands Highway Program is to
provide public road funding to serve the Federal lands outside State or
local government responsibility. Typically, the facilities serve
recreational travel and tourism, protect and enhance natural resources,
provide sustained economic development in rural areas, and provide
needed transportation for Native Americans.
The FHWA's partnership with the Forest Service (FS) began in 1916
when the Federal-Aid Road Act appropriated funds for the construction
and maintenance of roads and trails serving the national forests. There
are currently over 25,000 miles of FHs, on State and local
transportation systems, serving 191 million acres of national forest
lands in 40 States plus Puerto Rico. These roads connect to the
approximately 370,000 miles of forest development roads that are under
the jurisdiction of the FS. The fiscal year 1994 (FY 94) authorization
for FHs was $113 million. On October 5, 1993, the FHWA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (58 FR
51794). The following discussion addresses comments to the NPRM which
were provided to the FHWA.
Development of Regulations
The final rule was developed by an interagency task force of the
FHWA and the FS. The FHWA and the FS considered the comments received
to the Docket for the regulation in developing the revisions to the
NPRM for the final rule.
Relationship to Interim Guidance Issued December 26, 1991
On December 26, 1991, the FHWA issued interim guidance to aid
States and the FS in complying with the new legislative requirements.
The guidance was developed in consultation with FS headquarters staff
and published in the Federal Register at 57 FR 14880 on April 23, 1992.
This interim guidance is superseded by this regulation.
Conformance
This final rule is in accordance with part 450 of this title.
Written Comments Received to the Docket
Six commenters submitted 29 comments to the Docket regarding the
NPRM. One Federal agency and five State highway agencies (SHAs)
commented on the NPRM. The majority of commenters offered specific
suggestions for revisions. Some also offered minor editorial
corrections and text enhancements. Most of the significant comments
were directed at Sec. 660.105--Planning and route designation--and at
Sec. 660.107--Allocations. All comments were considered and have been
accommodated to the extent practical. In response to these comments,
the FHWA has developed a final rule. A summary of the specific
responses to comments raised on individual sections of the NPRM
follows:
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 660.101 Purpose
Comment: One commenter expressed the need to better describe the
importance of the FH Program for access to and management of the NFS
and its role as an integral part of the Federal Lands Highway Program.
Response: This section was expanded to better describe how the FH
Program enhances local, regional, and national benefits of FHs funded
under the Public Lands Highway category of the coordinated Federal
Lands Highway Program. The FH Program provides safe and adequate
transportation access to and through National Forest System (NFS) lands
for visitors, recreationists, resource users, and others which is not
met by other transportation programs, assists rural and community
economic development, and promotes tourism and travel.
Section 660.103 Definitions
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``public
authority'' be modified so that a public authority would be required to
meet all authorities noted in the NPRM definition by changing the
``or'' condition to an ``and'' condition regarding the public
authority's authority to finance, build, operate, ``or'' maintain toll
or toll-free facilities.
Response: Because this definition is a title 23, U.S.C.,
definition, it was not revised, even though the ``and'' condition would
make it more restrictive. Regulations may clarify or explain, but
cannot revise, a statutory definition.
Comment: Another commenter suggested revising the definition of
``forest road'' to include a road which provides ``access to'' the NFS
since many FHs in some States do not meet the criteria of a forest road
as indicated by the proposed definition.
Response: This is also a title 23, U.S.C., definition and was not
revised in the final rule. The present wording for the definition of
``forest road,'' as stated in 23 U.S.C. 101, is: ``The term forest road
or trail means a road or trail wholly or partly within, or adjacent to,
and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection,
administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development
of its resources.'' This definition is adequate because a road which
provides access to the NFS is considered to be serving the NFS. Also,
the definition for FH allows for roads providing access to the NFS
since it refers to forest roads, the definition of which allows access
to the NFS.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``statewide
transportation plan'' be clarified by adding the phrase ``pursuant to
the provisions of part 450 of this title'' at the end of the
definition.
Response: Similar wording was used in the definition of
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in this section. Therefore,
the phrase was added to the end of the definition to clarify it. Also,
a definition for ``metropolitan transportation plan'' was added to this
section because the term is used in Sec. 660.105 along with the term
``statewide transportation plan,'' which is also defined in this
regulation in Sec. 660.103.
Section 660.105 Planning and Route Designation
Comment: Several of the SHAs expressed the need for clarification
of who provides transportation planning, FS resource planning, and
management systems information to the States and MPOs for incorporation
into the MPOs and transportation improvement programs (TIPs).
Response: Some minor wording changes were made to paragraph (a) of
this section to reflect the fact that the FS will provide resource
planning and related transportation information to the ``appropriate''
MPO in accordance with part 450 of this title. This clarification was
needed because there are numerous MPOs within some States and the FS
should direct the information only to the MPO needing the information.
Comment: Two of the SHAs felt that paragraph (b) should be
clarified to delineate the reporting responsibilities for management
information systems. One felt the final rule should specify that the
State would be responsible for pavement, bridge, and safety management
systems where the FH is also a State highway and that cities and
counties would be responsible for those management systems where FHs
are under city or county jurisdiction. The FS would then be responsible
for those management systems on all other applicable roads.
Response: Title 23, U.S.C., 303 requires the States to develop and
implement systems for managing highway pavements of Federal-aid
highways (pavement management systems), bridges on and off Federal-aid
highways (bridge management systems), and highway safety for all public
roads (safety management systems). The results of bridge management
systems and safety management systems on all FHs and results of
pavement management systems for FHs on Federal-aid highways are to be
provided by the SHAs for consideration in the development of programs
under Sec. 660.109 of this part. The FHWA will provide appropriate
pavement management results for FHs which are not Federal-aid highways.
The last two sentences in paragraph (b) were reworded to clarify these
procedures and be more in concert with 23 U.S.C. 204(a).
Comment: Two SHAs pointed out the inappropriate reference to the
``Federal-aid system'' in paragraph (b) when describing who reports
pavement management systems results for FHs.
Response: The language of the final rule was revised to refer to
``forest highways which are not Federal-aid highways'' rather than to
``forest highways off the Federal-aid system.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that paragraph (c)(1) be
clarified by adding the word ``forest'' before the word ``roads'' to be
more consistent with previous definitions and to clarify candidate
roads for nomination. This would clarify the fact that the SHA and the
FS will nominate ``forest'' roads, not just any roads, for FH
designation. The FH definition also references forest roads.
Response: Paragraph (c)(1) was revised to make this clarification.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the order of the three
criteria for designating FHs in paragraph (d)(1) should be revised to
add greater emphasis to the serving of access needs of the NFS.
Response: This comment was accepted. The order of the three items
was revised.
Section 660.107 Allocations
Comment: One commenter noted the restrictiveness of the NPRM in
that it limits the funding of the allocated portion of the Public Lands
Highway Program exclusively to FHs. The commenter further pointed out
that the 1991 ISTEA amended 23 U.S.C. 202 by striking the subsection
that dealt with FHs as a part of the Public Lands Highway Program with
the result that, according to the commenter, one-third of the allocated
program may be spent on highways other than FHs. Under this broader
definition of Public Lands Highways, the States would have the
flexibility to spend the allocated portion of PLH funds on all kinds of
highways such as the Bureau of Land Management roads and even Indian
Reservation Roads. The ``equal consideration'' language of the ISTEA,
in the commenter's view, would allow for at least half of the allocated
funds to be spent on such roads while the NPRM language restricts the
allocated portion to FHs only.
Response: The conference report on ISTEA states that ``Sixty-six
percent of the public lands highway account shall be allocated to the
Forest Service regional offices for use in 41 States based on the FH
criteria. The remaining 34 percent shall be allocated by the Secretary
based on national competition for other forest or public lands
highways.'' (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 331
(1991).) Therefore, the interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 202(b) is as
follows:
1. Thirty-four percent of the public lands highway funds shall be
allocated in a discretionary manner, giving preference to States that
contain at least 3 percent of the total public lands in the nation.
2. Sixty-six percent of the public lands highway funds are to be
allocated to the FS Regions in accordance with section 134 of the
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987
(STURAA) (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132, 173). Section 134 pertained to
the allocation of FH funds, which is part of the Public Lands Highway
category. Therefore, the language of this section was not changed.
Comment: Two of the SHAs took exception to the fact that this
section requires the allocation of Public Lands Highway Funds by FS
Region, citing an apparent inconsistency with section 134 of the STURAA
which allocates ``for expenditure in each State.'' It was suggested
that, for some States which have more than one FS Region, allocation by
FS Region potentially creates difficulties, such as competition or
conflicts between States, and that FH funds should continue to be
allocated as outlined in the STURAA. Also, because the ISTEA requires
that all FS projects be included in each State's ``Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program'' (STIP), allocation of funds by
State would make it easier for each State to project available funding
and projects for inclusion in its STIP.
Response: The NPRM may have given the appearance that the
allocation method is being changed. Actually, the NPRM proposed to
continue with the same FH allocation method which has been in existence
since FY 85. If FH funds were to be allocated to the States, 34 States
would have their ``hold harmless'' funds reduced by an aggregate total
of approximately $90 million per year (based on FY 94 allocation
amounts). This represents nearly 85 percent of the total FY 94 FH funds
allocation. The regulation will continue with the allocation in its
present form.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the word ``elements,'' used
in the NPRM to state that the allocation of funds for FHs uses values
based on relative transportation needs of the various elements of the
NFS, should be replaced with the word ``resources.'' The commenter
pointed out that the word ``element'' is used in the definition of
renewable resources and could be construed to limit allocations based
on renewable resources only. The commenter also believes the term
``resources'' was defined to include both renewable and nonrenewable
resources and is more appropriate to use in defining the allocation
process.
Response: This wording was carried forward from the previous
wording of the existing regulation. However, the sentence was clarified
by deleting the entire phrase ``the various elements of,'' thereby
eliminating the need for referring to either ``resources'' or
``elements.'' It now refers only to ``using values based on relative
transportation needs of the NFS.''
Section 660.109 Program Development
Comment: One commenter proposed that a seventh FH project selection
criterion should be added to the existing six criteria in paragraph (a)
of this section. The new criterion, which would read: ``The results for
forest highways from the pavement, bridge, and safety management
systems'' is needed to comply with Sec. 660.105(b) of this part, which
discusses the management systems required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
It would also have to be consistent with any changes made in 23 U.S.C.
105.
Response: Because management systems provide input to
transportation planning and the TIP, this seventh criterion was added
to the final rule as worded above.
Comment: One of the SHAs noted that the NPRM, in paragraph (a),
stated that: ``The FHWA will arrange and conduct a conference with the
FS and the State Highway Agency (SHA) to jointly select the projects
which will be included in the programs. * * *'' The commenter stated
that cooperators (agencies) with jurisdiction over the FHs under
consideration should be included in this conference to enhance the
regional planning aspect for these projects.
Response: Under current procedures, the State represents the
interests of the cooperators. The program meetings are always open to
interested cooperators who may wish to attend. The States may invite
cooperators to the meetings, if they wish. Thus, there is no need to
change the wording of the NPRM.
Comment: The previous commenter also called attention to paragraph
(a) of the NPRM which stated that the FS and the SHA will ``jointly
select the projects which will be included in the programs for the
current fiscal year and at least the next 4 years.'' The commenter
recommended that, since the projects selected will ultimately be added
to the STIP, the planning and selection of FH projects should cover the
same timeframe as the STIP.
Response: Generally, at least 5 years are needed to identify early
environmental and other preliminary engineering required to ensure
meeting the schedule to advance a project to construction. The proposed
FH timeframe is consistent with this since the TIP generally shows 3
years of the 5-year FH program. Thus, there is no need to change the
wording of the NPRM.
Comment: One commenter requested that, in paragraph (b) of this
section, the term ``recommended,'' as used in the first sentence, ``The
recommended program will be prepared by the FHWA and concurred in by
the FS and the SHA,'' should be replaced with the term ``selected.''
This would more accurately reflect the current procedure, as stated in
paragraph (a), that the FHWA, the FS, and the SHA will ``jointly select
the projects,'' not just recommend them. One of the SHAs felt the
second sentence should be revised to read, ``The FHWA will approve the
program `only when there is concurrence by the FS and the SHA.'''
Otherwise, the FHWA could conceivably approve the program without
waiting for concurrence by the other two agencies.
Response: A review of this section indicated that the wording of
the NPRM may still create some confusion, even with the recommended
word changes, because the first two sentences of paragraph (b) state
that ``The recommended program will be prepared by the FHWA and
concurred in by the FS and the SHA'' and that ``The FHWA will approve
the program.'' This would make it appear that the FHWA simply prepares
and approves its own program. Consequently, the wording of the first
sentence of this paragraph was revised to read: ``The recommended
program will be prepared and approved by the FHWA with concurrence by
the FS and the SHA.'' The second sentence was deleted.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that the term ``incorporate,''
as used in the third sentence of NPRM paragraph (b), which states that
``the SHA shall advise any other cooperators in the State of the
projects included in the final program and shall incorporate the
approved program into the STIP,'' seems vague. It appears to imply that
the approved FH program is independent of the regional and statewide
STIP planning requirements of the ISTEA. The commenter felt that,
although this may be the correct way to handle a program of this
nature, the process required to ``incorporate'' the final program into
the STIP should be clarified.
Response: This sentence was clarified by adding the following
phrase to the end of the sentence: ``And shall include the approved
program in the State's process for development of the STIP.''
Section 660.111 Agreements
Comment: One commenter felt that the 41 statewide FH agreements
currently in effect between the FHWA and the States (including Puerto
Rico) should be updated and made into tri-party agreements with the
FHWA, the FS, and the SHA. This would perpetuate the ``partnership''
spirit of the ISTEA and facilitate cooperation among the three
agencies. It would also eliminate separate agreements between the FS
and the SHA and between the FHWA and the SHA in each State. The wording
of this section should be revised by inserting the words ``the Forest
Service'' where necessary, such as after the word ``FHWA'' in paragraph
(a), to include the FS as a signatory agency to the agreements.
Response: Because there are some overall FH procedures that not
only involve the SHAs, but the FS as well, tri-party agreements among
the FHWA, the FS, and the SHA will be a requirement in the final rule.
Because the FHWA and the FS already have separate two-party FH program
agreements for all 40 States, plus Puerto Rico, and because the FHWA
does not want to delay the FH program until all new tri-party
agreements are executed, the first sentence of this section of the NPRM
was revised to delete the phrase ``prior to the expenditure of any
funds by the FHWA in the State.''
Section 660.112 Project Development
Comment: One commenter suggested that, in the first sentence of
paragraph (a), the phrase ``or a public authority'' should be added
after the words ``Projects will be administered by the FHWA.'' This
would acknowledge that the FS may, in some cases, administer the design
and construction of FH projects. The same commenter also suggested
adding the phrase ``and procedures documented in the statewide
agreement'' to the end of the sentence to allow for items included in
statewide agreements to supplement Federal-aid procedures, where
appropriate.
Response: Because the FS wants to be able to administer FH
projects, this sentence was reworded to add the words ``or the FS''
instead of ``or a public authority.'' Also, the phrase ``and procedures
documented in the statewide agreement'' was added to the end of the
sentence. This will allow the parties to determine the procedures to be
followed in a State.
Section 660.113 Construction
Comment: One commenter suggested that the words ``a public
authority'' be substituted for ``cooperator'' in paragraph (b) of this
section. This would allow the FS to perform construction, if
appropriate. Cooperators would still be included since they are, by
definition, a public authority.
Response: Because other public authorities that might potentially
be involved in a project would also be cooperators, the word
``cooperator'' was kept in the sentence in paragraph (b). However, by
adding the words ``the FS'' after FHWA, the FS will be explicitly
allowed to perform construction, if appropriate. Also, paragraph (c),
which deals with final acceptance of the project, was revised to
clarify the intent. The word ``construction'' was retained in the
language to differentiate acceptance of the construction work (for the
purpose of releasing the contractor) from that of acceptance of the
entire project, including any extra work required to resolve
noncontractor-related matters.
Section 660.115 Maintenance
Comment: In dealing with the same issue discussed in the previous
section, as to what constitutes final acceptance of a project, it was
suggested by one commenter that the word ``construction'' be deleted to
avoid confusion.
Response: The term ``construction'' is not incorrect in the context
of this paragraph, because it describes the type of acceptance being
made. However, the entire sentence was reworded to clarify and minimize
possible confusion. By referencing Sec. 660.113(c), which includes the
word ``construction,'' the meaning of the term ``construction
acceptance'' was retained.
Section 660.117 Funding, Records and Accounting
Comment: One commenter suggested deleting the phrase ``and the
SHAs'' from paragraph (e).
Response: Because the term ``cooperators'' includes SHAs, the
phrase was considered redundant and, therefore, deleted.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding the word ``Generally'' at
the beginning of the sentence in paragraph (f) to allow for those
special cases where cash is not obtained in advance of construction
procurement.
Response: Adding the word ``generally'' to the sentence makes the
requirement too much less restrictive. Instead, the following phrase
was added to the end of the last sentence: ``Unless otherwise specified
in a project agreement.'' Also, the word ``shall'' was changed to
``should'' to allow more flexibility.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices; Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not major within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be
minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. This
rule merely requires the States and Federal agencies to conform to the
requirements of the ISTEA. The requirements are basically incremental
to what the States and Federal agencies are required to do under the
new ISTEA provisions, such as incorporating new planning provisions,
including metropolitan and statewide transportation plan requirements;
and establishing management systems provisions, including highway
safety, bridges on and off Federal-aid highways, and highway pavements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on
small entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The revised regulation will not
directly affect small businesses because the regulation applies only to
Federal agency, State, and local government transportation programs.
However, a minor positive secondary effect may result from the
employment of small businesses, such as engineering consultant firms,
to implement some of the planning and management systems required by
the ISTEA.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 660
Forest highways, Highways and roads, Public lands highways.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending chapter 1
of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 660, subpart A as set
forth below.
Issued on: June 6, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
PART 660--SPECIAL PROGRAMS (DIRECT FEDERAL)
1. Part 660, subpart A is revised to read as follows:
Subpart A--Forest Highways
Sec.
660.101 Purpose.
660.103 Definitions.
660.105 Planning and route designation.
660.107 Allocations.
660.109 Program development.
660.111 Agreements.
660.112 Project development.
660.113 Construction.
660.115 Maintenance.
660.117 Funding, records and accounting.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1608-1610; 23 U.S.C. 101, 202, 204, and
315; 49 CFR 1.48.
Subpart A--Forest Highways
Sec. 660.101 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement the Forest Highway (FH)
Program which enhances local, regional, and national benefits of FHs
funded under the public lands highway category of the coordinated
Federal Lands Highway Program. As provided in 23 U.S.C. 202, 203, and
204, the program, developed in cooperation with State and local
agencies, provides safe and adequate transportation access to and
through National Forest System (NFS) lands for visitors,
recreationists, resource users, and others which is not met by other
transportation programs. Forest highways assist rural and community
economic development and promote tourism and travel.
Sec. 660.103 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), the following
apply to this subpart:
Cooperator means a non-Federal public authority which has
jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility for a FH.
Forest highway means a forest road under the jurisdiction of, and
maintained by, a public authority and open to public travel.
Forest road means a road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to,
and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection,
administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development
of its resources.
Jurisdiction means the legal right or authority to control,
operate, regulate use of, maintain, or cause to be maintained, a
transportation facility, through ownership or delegated authority. The
authority to construct or maintain such a facility may be derived from
fee title, easement, written authorization, or permit from a Federal
agency, or some similar method.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) means that organization
designated as the forum for cooperative transportation decisionmaking
pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this title.
Metropolitan Transportation Plan means the official intermodal
transportation plan that is developed and adopted through the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the metropolitan
planning area.
National Forest System means lands and facilities administered by
the Forest Service (FS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, as set forth
in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1601 note, 1600-1614).
Open to public travel means except during scheduled periods,
extreme weather conditions, or emergencies, open to the general public
for use with a standard passenger auto, without restrictive gates or
prohibitive signs or regulations, other than for general traffic
control or restrictions based on size, weight, or class of
registration.
Public authority means a Federal, State, county, town, or township,
Indian tribe, municipal or other local government or instrumentality
with authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-
free facilities.
Public lands highway means: (1) A forest road under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public
travel or (2) any highway through unappropriated or unreserved public
lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public
travel.
Public road means any road or street under the jurisdiction of and
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.
Renewable resources means those elements within the scope of
responsibilities and authorities of the FS as defined in the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (88 Stat.
476) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of October 22,
1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) such as recreation,
wilderness, wildlife and fish, range, timber, land, water, and human
and community development.
Resources means those renewable resources defined above, plus other
nonrenewable resources such as minerals, oil, and gas which are
included in the FS's planning and land management processes.
Statewide transportation plan means the official transportation
plan that is: (1) Intermodal in scope, including bicycle and pedestrian
features, (2) addresses at least a 20-year planning horizon, and (3)
covers the entire State pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this
title.
Sec. 660.105 Planning and route designation.
(a) The FS will provide resource planning and related
transportation information to the appropriate MPO and/or State Highway
Agency (SHA) for use in developing metropolitan and statewide
transportation plans pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this
title. Cooperators shall provide various planning (23 U.S.C. 134 and
135) information to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for
coordination with the FS.
(b) The management systems required under 23 U.S.C. 303 shall
fulfill the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 204(a) regarding the establishment
and implementation of pavement, bridge, and safety management systems
for FHs. The results of bridge management systems and safety management
systems on all FHs and results of pavement management systems for FHs
on Federal-aid highways are to be provided by the SHAs for
consideration in the development of programs under Sec. 660.109 of this
part. The FHWA will provide appropriate pavement management results for
FHs which are not Federal-aid highways.
(c) The FHWA, in consultation with the FS, the SHA, and other
cooperators where appropriate, will designate FHs.
(1) The SHA and the FS will nominate forest roads for FH
designation.
(2) The SHA will represent the interests of all cooperators. All
other agencies shall send their proposals for FHs to the SHA.
(d) A FH will meet the following criteria:
(1) Generally, it is under the jurisdiction of a public authority
and open to public travel, or a cooperator has agreed, in writing, to
assume jurisdiction of the facility and to keep the road open to public
travel once improvements are made.
(2) It provides a connection between adequate and safe public roads
and the resources of the NFS which are essential to the local,
regional, or national economy, and/or the communities, shipping points,
or markets which depend upon those resources.
(3) It serves:
(i) Traffic of which a preponderance is generated by use of the NFS
and its resources; or
(ii) NFS-generated traffic volumes that have a substantial impact
on roadway design and construction; or
(iii) Other local needs such as schools, mail delivery, commercial
supply, and access to private property within the NFS.
Sec. 660.107 Allocations.
On October 1 of each fiscal year, the FHWA will allocate 66 percent
of Public Lands Highway funds, by FS Region, for FHs using values based
on relative transportation needs of the NFS, after deducting such sums
as deemed necessary for the administrative requirements of the FHWA and
the FS; the necessary costs of FH planning studies; and the FH share of
costs for approved Federal Lands Coordinated Technology Implementation
Program studies.
Sec. 660.109 Program development.
(a) The FHWA will arrange and conduct a conference with the FS and
the SHA to jointly select the projects which will be included in the
programs for the current fiscal year and at least the next 4 years.
Projects included in each year's program will be selected considering
the following criteria:
(1) The development, utilization, protection, and administration of
the NFS and its resources;
(2) The enhancement of economic development at the local, regional,
and national level, including tourism and recreational travel;
(3) The continuity of the transportation network serving the NFS
and its dependent communities;
(4) The mobility of the users of the transportation network and the
goods and services provided;
(5) The improvement of the transportation network for economy of
operation and maintenance and the safety of its users;
(6) The protection and enhancement of the rural environment
associated with the NFS and its resources; and
(7) The results for FHs from the pavement, bridge, and safety
management systems.
(b) The recommended program will be prepared and approved by the
FHWA with concurrence by the FS and the SHA. Following approval, the
SHA shall advise any other cooperators in the State of the projects
included in the final program and shall include the approved program in
the State's process for development of the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program. For projects located in metropolitan areas, the
FHWA and the SHA will work with the MPO to incorporate the approved
program into the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program.
Sec. 660.111 Agreements.
(a) A statewide FH agreement shall be executed among the FHWA, the
FS, and each SHA. This agreement shall set forth the responsibilities
of each party, including that of adherence to the applicable provisions
of Federal and State statutes and regulations.
(b) The design and construction of FH projects will be administered
by the FHWA unless otherwise provided for in an agreement approved
under this subpart.
(c) A project agreement shall be entered into between the FHWA and
the cooperator involved under one or more of the following conditions:
(1) A cooperator's funds are to be made available for the project
or any portion of the project;
(2) Federal funds are to be made available to a cooperator for any
work;
(3) Special circumstances exist which make a project agreement
necessary for payment purposes or to clarify any aspect of the project;
or
(4) It is necessary to document jurisdiction and maintenance
responsibility.
Sec. 660.112 Project development.
(a) Projects to be administered by the FHWA or the FS will be
developed in accordance with FHWA procedures for the Federal Lands
Highway Program. Projects to be administered by a cooperator shall be
developed in accordance with Federal-aid procedures and procedures
documented in the statewide agreement.
(b) The FH projects shall be designed in accordance with part 625
of this chapter or those criteria specifically approved by the FHWA for
a particular project.
Sec. 660.113 Construction.
(a) No construction shall be undertaken on any FH project until
plans, specifications, and estimates have been concurred in by the
cooperator(s) and the FS, and approved in accordance with procedures
contained in the statewide FH agreement.
(b) The construction of FHs will be performed by the contract
method, unless construction by the FHWA, the FS, or a cooperator on its
own account is warranted under 23 U.S.C. 204(e).
(c) Prior to final construction acceptance by the contracting
authority, the project shall be inspected by the cooperator, the FS,
and the FHWA to identify and resolve any mutual concerns.
Sec. 660.115 Maintenance.
The cooperator having jurisdiction over a FH shall, upon acceptance
of the project in accordance with Sec. 660.113(c), assume operation
responsibilities and maintain, or cause to be maintained, any project
constructed under this subpart.
Sec. 660.117 Funding, records and accounting.
(a) The Federal share of funding for eligible FH projects may be
any amount up to and including 100 percent. A cooperator may
participate in the cost of project development and construction, but
participation shall not be required.
(b) Funds for FHs may be used for:
(1) Planning;
(2) Federal Lands Highway research;
(3) Preliminary and construction engineering; and
(4) Construction.
(c) Funds for FHs may be made available for the following
transportation-related improvement purposes which are generally part of
a transportation construction project:
(1) Transportation planning for tourism and recreational travel;
(2) Adjacent vehicular parking areas;
(3) Interpretive signage;
(4) Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or
historic sites;
(5) Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles;
(6) Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas
including sanitary and water facilities; and
(7) Other appropriate public road facilities as approved by the
FHWA.
(d) Use of FH funds for right-of-way acquisition shall be subject
to specific approval by the FHWA.
(e) Cooperators which administer construction of FH projects shall
maintain their FH records according to 49 CFR part 18.
(f) Funds provided to the FHWA by a cooperator should be received
in advance of construction procurement unless otherwise specified in a
project agreement.
[FR Doc. 94-14224 Filed 6-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P