Transportation Asset Management Plan Development Processes Certification and Recertification Guidance; Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim Guidance |
|---|
|
Brandye L. Hendrickson
Federal Highway Administration
22 February 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7835-7839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2017-0018]
Transportation Asset Management Plan Development Processes
Certification and Recertification Guidance; Transportation Asset
Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim Guidance
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is finalizing one guidance document and issuing one
interim guidance document: Transportation Asset Management Plan
Development Processes Certification and Recertification Guidance, and
Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance. These documents provide implementation guidance on provisions
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and
the Asset Management Final Rule, which requires a State department of
transportation (State DOT) to develop and implement a risk-based asset
management plan. Under these authorities, FHWA must certify that
Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) development processes
established by a State DOT meet applicable requirements, and make an
annual consistency determination, evaluating whether a State DOT has
developed and implemented a State-approved TAMP that meets all
applicable requirements. This notice finalizes the Transportation Asset
Management Plan Development Processes Certification and Recertification
Guidance, issues interim guidance on transportation asset management
plan consistency determinations, and summarizes the comments received
on the drafts of both guidance documents, FHWA's response to those
comments, and any changes that were made to the guidance documents
issued with this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice
contact Mr. Stephen Gaj, FHWA Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-1336,
Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20590, or via email at Stephen.Gaj@dot.gov. For legal questions, please
contact Ms. Janet Myers, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-
2019, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, or via email at Janet.Myers@dot.gov.
Business hours for FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Copies of the proposed Transportation Asset Management Plan
Development Processes Certification and Recertification Guidance; and
Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance are available online for download and public inspection online
under the docket at the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this notice may be
downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Publishing
Office's web page at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Background
Under the asset management provisions enacted in MAP-21, codified
at 23 U.S.C. 119, State DOTs must develop and implement a risk-based
TAMP. This TAMP must include all National Highway System (NHS)
pavements and bridges, regardless of whether the State or some other
entity owns the relevant NHS facility.
The FHWA Division Offices (Divisions) must take two actions with
respect to State DOT asset management activities. The first is TAMP
development process certification/recertification. Under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6), FHWA must certify at least every 4 years that the State
DOT's processes for developing its TAMP are consistent with applicable
[[Page 7836]]
requirements. The FHWA also must recertify whenever the State amends
its TAMP development processes, in accordance with 23 CFR 515.13(c).
The Transportation Asset Management Plan Development Processes
Certification and Recertification Guidance (Development Processes
Certification Guidance) provides a framework for Divisions to undertake
and complete this process certification. The second FHWA action, under
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5), is an annual consistency determination, which
evaluates whether the State DOT has developed and implemented a TAMP
that is consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119. The
Transportation Asset Management Plan Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance (Consistency Determination Interim Guidance) assists Divisions
on evaluating whether a State DOT has developed and implemented its
TAMP in accordance with provisions in 23 CFR 515.13(b). Note that best
practices in guidance may be revised as the state of asset management
practices advance and the asset management rule is further implemented.
Draft versions of guidance were made available for public review
and comment June 6, 2017, at 82 FR 25905. The FHWA received seven
comment letters from the following organizations: Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Georgia DOT, Maryland DOT,
Michigan DOT, New Jersey DOT, Wyoming DOT, and joint comments from the
DOTs of Idaho, Montana, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming. A summary of the comments received and FHWA's response,
including any changes made in response to comments, is provided below.
Based on the comments received, as well as FHWA's experience to date as
it implements the certification and consistency determination
requirements, FHWA concluded it is appropriate to issue final
certification guidance. However, FHWA believes that issues that may
affect FHWA consistency determinations are less well-defined at this
time. Accordingly, FHWA is issuing the guidance on consistency
determinations as interim guidance, with the expectation of finalizing
that guidance later in 2018.
Concern That the Guidance Would Impose New Requirements
Several commenters (Alaska, Wyoming, and the joint commenters)
expressed concern that these guidance documents would impose new
requirements without undergoing the required notice and comment
procedures. In response to these concerns, FHWA notes that the guidance
does not impose any new requirements. Any requirements discussed in the
guidance are imposed by existing statute or regulation, and those
requirements can be changed only by revising these underlying
authorities. Recommended best practices are clearly described as not
required, and may be revised as practices advance and asset management
is further implemented. The FHWA revised the introduction of both
documents to clarify this point.
TAMP Consistency Determination Requirements
Alaska asked for more information on the factors that Divisions
will use to determine that State DOT funding allocations are
``reasonably consistent'' with 23 U.S.C. 119. Under that section, the
Secretary must determine annually that a State has developed and
implemented an acceptable TAMP. As indicated in 23 CFR 515.13(b)(2),
each State DOT may determine the most suitable approach for
demonstrating implementation of its TAMP, so long as the information is
current, documented, and verifiable. The FHWA considers the best
evidence of plan implementation to be that, for the 12 months preceding
the consistency determination, the State DOT funding allocations are
reasonably consistent with the investment strategies in the State DOT's
TAMP. This demonstration takes into account the alignment between the
actual and planned levels of investment for various work types (i.e.,
initial construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction (CFR 515.13(b)(2)(i))). The FHWA believes the draft
guidance (page 2, third paragraph) discussion of ``reasonably
consistent'' is sufficiently detailed to inform FHWA Divisions and
stakeholders about this issue.
Alaska also asked for more information about how the Division will
communicate its consistency determination to the State DOT. As provided
in 23 CFR 515.13(b), FHWA will notify the State DOT, in writing,
whether the State DOT has developed and implemented a TAMP consistent
with applicable requirements. The FHWA does not believe it is necessary
to further specify how the notice is delivered to the State DOT.
Declining Targets and Asset Conditions
Joint commenters and Wyoming noted that the performance management
regulations in 23 CFR part 490 allow a State DOT to adopt targets for
NHS bridge and pavement conditions that reflect conditions that decline
at faster rates than previously was the case. The FHWA recognizes that,
due to the fiscal conditions and the need for trade-offs across assets,
conditions of an asset may improve, stay constant, or decline. In
response to this comment, FHWA added clarifying language to the
Consistency Determination Interim Guidance regarding such declining
targets and asset conditions. However, the State DOT should explain in
its TAMP how these improvements or declines affect long-term goals of
achieving and sustaining a state of good repair. The TAMP investment
strategies must, during the life of the long-term TAMP, be designed to
support or make 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, and (3) achieving the national goals
identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b).
Relationship Between TAMP and Existing Transportation Planning
Processes
Michigan asked for clarification on the relationship between
existing transportation processes and TAMP requirements, specifically
on page 20 of the draft Development Processes Certification Guidance.
The requirement to integrate the State-approved TAMP into the
transportation planning process calls for consideration of TAMP
information and investment strategies when making programming and
project selection decisions during transportation planning. The asset
management rule, at 23 CFR 515.9(h), clearly describes the interaction
between the TAMP and STIP: ``the State DOT must integrate its TAMP into
the State DOT's planning processes that lead to the STIP, to support
the State DOT's efforts to achieve the goals in 23 CFR 515.9(f).'' The
FHWA encourages (but does not require) that such integration extend to
including, in the STIP performance management target achievement
discussion under 23 CFR 450.218(q), information about how TAMP
investment strategies have been used when programming projects into the
STIP. In contrast, the draft Development Processes Certification
Guidance addresses the appropriate role of STIPs when State DOTs are
developing their TAMPs.
The statement noted by the commenter does not contradict 23 CFR
515.9(h). The TAMPs are the product of analyses and data requirements
that do not necessarily apply to other documents, such as STIPs. The
guidance emphasizes the long-term nature of the TAMP. A short-term
[[Page 7837]]
program, like the STIP, should be used only as background information
given this difference in relevant time periods. For example, hard
coding STIP projects into Bridge Management Systems to impact
development of investment strategies for bridge assets is not
considered the use of STIP as background information. However, if a
major project with significant amount of funding is delayed for some
reason, then the State DOT needs to determine if this delay could have
any impact on their TAMP and if so, whether the impact is significant
enough to require an update. For these reasons, importing a STIP
directly into a TAMP as a substitute for TAMP analysis and investment
decision-making does not fulfill TAMP requirements. The FHWA concluded
no change is needed to the Development Processes Certification
Guidance.
TAMP Life Cycle Planning (LCP) Process and Modeling Requirements
Georgia asked for clarification on the extent and detail it should
include in its TAMP submission regarding the LCP process and modeling.
In response, FHWA clarifies that States do not need to include their
deterioration models in detail in their TAMPs. However, the
deterioration models are required to perform the required analysis, and
a State DOT must identify the model(s) that are part of the State DOT's
process for developing its TAMP. The State DOTs should include, as part
of their process description, an explanation of how the selected
model(s) provide insight into LCP, and why a certain type of management
strategy is the most appropriate strategy at the time of TAMP
development.
The asset management rule does not specifically require State DOTs
to break assets into sub-groups; however, asset inventories normally
break assets into sub-groups (for example a pavement inventory
distinguishes between asphalt and concrete pavements), including
appropriate condition data for each asset sub-group that are used to
predict how each sub-group deteriorates. The State DOTs typically have
agency-specific deterioration curves for different pavement types and
components/elements of bridges by bridge type. The FHWA believes the
Consistency Determination Interim Guidance, the interim document
``Using a Life Cycle Planning Process to Support Asset Management,''
and the final asset management rule adequately cover this information.
No change was made to the guidance.
Update or Amendment of TAMPs
Georgia and Maryland requested clarification on the TAMP update and
amendment timelines. The State DOTs must update or amend TAMPs at least
every 4 years (23 CFR 515.13(c)). The State DOTs are otherwise free to
update or amend plans whenever such revision is warranted.\1\ The FHWA
will consider annually the most recent TAMP submitted by the State DOT,
along with any separate documentation submitted by the State DOT to
demonstrate implementation of the plan. Thus, the State DOT should
consider updating its plan whenever there is a change that has material
impact on the accuracy and validity of the processes, analyses, or
investment strategies in the plan. If the State DOT amends its TAMP,
including any amendments to TAMP development processes, the State DOT
must submit the amended document to FHWA for review. The FHWA will make
the applicable determination(s) (a new process certification,
consistency determination, or both). The State DOT must make such
submissions at least 30 days prior to the deadline for the next FHWA
consistency determination, except in the case of non-material revisions
as defined in 23 CFR 515.13(c). The FHWA believes the Consistency
Determination Interim Guidance and the final asset management rule
adequately cover this information; thus, no change was made to the
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that there are provisions in 23 CFR part 490 that
affect the timing and procedures for amending 23 U.S.C. 150(d)
targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial TAMP Requirements
Michigan and Maryland requested further information on the
requirements for the initial TAMP. The initial TAMP must include a
description of all the required TAMP development processes described in
23 CFR 515.7. The scope of this requirement includes policies,
procedures, documentation, and an implementation approach that satisfy
the requirements of 23 CFR part 515. The FHWA process certification is
based on those aspects of the initial TAMP. Separate from the
information required for the TAMP development process certification,
there are requirements for additional types of information in the
initial TAMP. Those requirements are discussed in Question and Answer
#1 in FHWA's ``Asset Management Initial Plan Guidance,'' available on
FHWA's Asset Management web page (Initial TAMP Q&A #1), at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/.
Specifically, Maryland asserts that the Development Processes
Certification Guidance contains requirements for the initial plans that
falls outside the scope of the asset management rule. The FHWA does not
agree with the commenter's interpretation. Section 515.11(b) of the
rule establishes flexibility for State DOTs, when preparing their
initial TAMPs, to deviate in certain respects from 23 CFR 515.7 and
515.9 requirements by eliminating certain analyses from the plans. In
response to the comment, FHWA added language to the Development
Processes Certification Guidance clarifying that (1) certification of
the State DOT's TAMP development processes is based on meeting the
process requirements described in 23 CFR 515.7; and (2) the initial
TAMP must provide all the information specified in 23 CFR 515.7 and
515.9, except the analyses in the three areas listed as exclusions
under 515.11(b). For a detailed discussion of the initial TAMP
requirements, see Initial TAMP Q&A #1, discussed above.
Further, Michigan requested that FHWA add a list of processes
required for the initial TAMP to the Development Processes
Certification Guidance. Because this information goes beyond the scope
of the guidance documents that are the subject of this notice, FHWA did
not revise the documents based on this comment. The requested
information appears in the Initial TAMP Q&A #1, discussed above.
Performance Gap Analysis
Georgia and Michigan requested clarification on how to conduct the
performance gap analysis, particularly, whether to use current asset
condition targets given that the targets required under 23 U.S.C.
150(d) are not due until May 20, 2018.
In response to the commenter's specific questions about the use of
targets in initial TAMPs, pursuant to 23 CFR 515.11(b), State DOTs are
not required to include 23 U.S.C. 150(d) targets in the Initial TAMPs
because the deadline for setting those targets is less than 6 months
before the deadline for submission of the initial TAMP on April 30,
2018. However, FHWA encourages (but does not require) State DOTs that
have performance targets, whether developed to meet 23 U.S.C. 150(d)
requirements or for other reasons, to include those targets if
possible. This will provide the State DOT with more experience in
analysis and implementation. A State DOT that includes targets can test
the effectiveness of its proposed TAMP development processes. The State
DOTs may wish to establish ``temporary targets'' for use in the initial
TAMP. For
[[Page 7838]]
example, State DOTs may use the minimum condition requirements for NHS
bridges and Interstate pavements, as established under 23 CFR part 490.
Also, States are encouraged to set targets for non-Interstate pavements
to get full coverage for NHS pavements. The State DOT can use various
sources of information for temporary targets, such as strategic plans
and other State plans.
As discussed above, State DOT may amend its TAMP at any time to add
section 150(d) targets, or to revise or remove any other targets.
Procedures applicable to TAMP amendments appear in 23 CFR 515.13(c).
Note, however, that 23 CFR part 490 contains separate procedures that
govern the amendment of part 490 targets.
The FHWA believes this information is adequately addressed in the
guidance, the final asset management rule, and FHWA's ``Asset
Management Initial Plan Guidance,'' available on FHWA's Asset
Management web page, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/.
Michigan noted that the examples of good practices for the
performance gap analysis would be better suited for the portion of the
Development Processes Certification Guidance entitled ``Process for
Ensuring Use of Best Available Data and Use of Bridge and Pavement
Management Systems'' on page 20. The FHWA agrees, and revised the final
guidance as suggested.
Long-term Targets, Vision, and State of Good Repair (SOGR)
Michigan and Georgia requested additional guidance on the role of
long-term targets and the State DOT's long-term vision. Michigan
commented that the Consistency Determination Guidance should be
expanded to clarify how the long-term vision under the performance gap
analysis should fit with other TAMP requirements. Michigan is concerned
that Federal and some States' performance management pavement
categories may not be in alignment, and that the 10-year period for the
financial plan may not align with time periods some States use for
asset management.
In response to the comments concerning the use of ``long-term
targets'' and ``long-term vision,'' FHWA notes that neither the rule,
nor the Development Processes Certification Guidance, specifically
requires the State DOT's performance gap process to include
identification of long-term targets. However, it is good practice for a
State DOT's performance gap process to include identification of long-
term targets and performance goals. The purpose of the TAMP is to
achieve or maintain the State DOT's desired SOGR, which is a long-term
goal and typically will look forward more than 10 years. Identification
of long-term targets is inherent in defining SOGR.
Each State DOT is required to define asset management objectives
and SOGR for itself. The asset management objectives of the State DOT's
TAMP 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 SOGR over the life cycle of the assets at
minimum practicable cost (23 CFR 515.9(d)(1)). In fact, to achieve this
goal, the performance gap, life-cycle plan, and risk management
analyses should cover periods longer than 10 years. For example, life
cycle plans for bridges may cover a period of 70-100 years; however,
the TAMP must include the information that covers the immediate next 10
years, not the entire 70-100 years (see 23 CFR 515.9(e)). The minimum
10-year period was established to acknowledge the uncertainty
surrounding the validity of the assumptions that State DOTs must make
to conduct analyses for periods longer than 10 years. The FHWA
concluded the draft Development Processes Certification Guidance
already reflects this link between the State DOT's long-term vision for
SOGR and the TAMP process for performance gap analysis. No change was
made in response to this comment.
Michigan specifically noted that it uses freeway and non-freeway
categories for its long-term vision, rather than Interstate and NHS
(excluding the Interstate) categories. The State DOT TAMPs must
specifically address the Interstate and NHS (excluding the Interstate)
as required under the performance management and asset management
rules. State DOTs have flexibility in how they make the needed
adjustments. For example, if the State DOT is managing all its freeways
and the Interstate the same way, with the same SOGR goals, the State
DOT should explain this in its asset management plan. No change was
made in response to this comment.
Michigan also asked how it should treat assets other than NHS
pavements and bridges in its long-term vision, specifically, whether it
could include other assets without making those other assets subject to
all TAMP requirements. If the State DOT wants to address other assets
without subjecting those assets to section 515.7 or 515.9(l) analyses,
the State DOT can group such assets and identify them as assets outside
the TAMP (e.g., ``other assets,'' ``non-TAMP assets'', ``other safety
related assets,'' etc.). A State DOT may identify these other types of
assets with its respective funding needs in a separate table or general
discussion, but must clearly note that the TAMP framework was not used
to arrive at the estimated funding needs/allocations for those non-TAMP
assets. This issue is addressed in Question #11 of FHWA's ``Asset
Management Initial Plan Guidance,'' available on FHWA's Asset
Management web page, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/. In response to
this comment, FHWA added information to the Consistency Determination
Interim Guidance.
Deviation From the TAMP Under Extenuating Circumstances
Michigan asked FHWA for clarification or examples of ``extenuating
circumstances'' that would allow a State to deviate from its TAMP
investment strategies, pursuant to 23 CFR 515.13(b)(2)(ii). In response
to these comments, FHWA revised the Consistency Determination Interim
Guidance, to better describe the case-by-case, extenuating
circumstances determination and the information that the State DOT
should provide to support deviation from the TAMP.
The FHWA may find that a State DOT has implemented its TAMP even if
the State DOT has deviated from the TAMP investment strategies (23 CFR
515.13(b)(2)(ii)). To support such finding, the State DOT's deviation
from its TAMP investment strategies must be the result of circumstances
beyond its reasonable control. If major changes in available funding or
program costs are due to natural disasters or third party (non-State)
actions, those circumstances likely will qualify.\2\ Circumstances
caused by State action outside the State DOT, such as major State
funding changes or changes in State program priorities due to State
legislative or executive leadership action, may qualify as extenuating
circumstances if the State DOT shows it was unable to either prevent
those changes, or to offset their effects on achievement of the TAMP
investment strategies. Changes in plans or priorities produced solely
as a result of the transportation planning process would not typically
be considered extenuating circumstances due to the State DOT's role in
transportation planning and the regulatory requirements that call for
integration of
[[Page 7839]]
the TAMP into the transportation planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the asset management final rule preamble (81 FR 73245),
FHWA provided the following example of extenuating circumstances: A
sudden increase in material prices that has an impact on delivery of
the entire program, forcing the State DOT to divert more funds to
projects already underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the State believes extenuating circumstances apply, it should
provide an explanation of the extenuating circumstances, the impacts,
the State DOT's efforts to avoid or offset the changes and impacts, and
program changes that will be undertaken to account for the changed
conditions. In addition, State DOT should consider updating or amending
its TAMPs whenever there is a material impact on the accuracy and
validity of the processes, analysis, or investment strategies in the
plan. Updates and other amendments may require FHWA review (see 23 CFR
515.13(c)).
Best Available Data
New Jersey asked whether State DOTs could use adjusted historical
data to analyze NHS bridge and pavement conditions. The State DOT must
use the best available data (23 CFR 515.7(g)). If changes are made to
historic data, the State DOT needs to explain what it has done, and why
the State DOT believes that the quality of the historic data is
improved by the changes. However, any changes in historical data will
not be used to revise reporting submitted pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e)
or to change determinations made under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) or 119(f).
No change was made to either document based on this comment.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 119; 23 CFR part 515; 49 CFR 1.85.
Issued on: February 14, 2018.
Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-03618 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P