[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89506-89519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 500 and 515
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2024-0048]
RIN 2125-AG00
Asset Management Plans; Management and Monitoring Systems
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to
amend its regulations governing risk-based Asset Management Plans
(AMP). State departments of transportation (State DOT) are required to
develop and implement a risk-based AMP for the National Highway System
(NHS) to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and the
performance of the NHS. Through this notice, FHWA is proposing to amend
its AMP regulations to add and revise definitions in the rule and
update the processes State DOTs are required to use in developing an
AMP, the required content of the AMP, procedures for State DOTs to
submit AMPs to FHWA to ensure that State DOTs are implementing AMPs
consistent with law, and procedures for State DOTs to recertify their
processes for developing the AMP. The FHWA is proposing these revisions
to implement changes in law, advance current policies, and increase the
flexibility for State DOTs to comply with AMP regulations. The FHWA is
also making minor technical corrections and changes to the rule to
improve readability. Finally, FHWA proposes to remove obsolete
regulations governing transportation management and monitoring systems.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that
appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must
include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the
acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tashia J. Clemons, Office of
Infrastructure, 202-493-0551, tashia.clemons@dot.gov; or Mariya
Tikhonova, Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1356,
mariya.tikhonova@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 89507]]
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or access all comments received by the DOT online
through: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the
instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be
downloaded from the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.federalregister.gov.
Background and Legal Authority
Asset Management Plans
The term ``asset management'' means a strategic and systematic
process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with
a focus on both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality
information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance,
preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will
achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle
of the assets at minimum practicable cost. The Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) amended
section 119(e) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), to establish a
requirement for States to develop and implement risk-based AMP to
improve or preserve the condition of NHS assets and the performance of
the system. 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(1). Section 119(e)(4) of Title 23, U.S.C.,
establishes the minimum requirements for the contents of a State's AMP
and clearly delegates to FHWA the authority to determine the
appropriate form of the AMP.\1\ On October 24, 2016, FHWA published a
final rule (81 FR 73196) that implemented requirements established by
MAP-21 and codified at 23 U.S.C. 119(e) for States to develop and
implement AMPs to improve or preserve the condition of NHS assets and
the performance of the system in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(1).
The 2016 final asset management rule implements AMP requirements,
including the processes State DOTs must use to develop their plans and
meet Federal requirements, and is codified at title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), part 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under 49 CFR 1.85(a)(1), the FHWA Administrator is delegated
the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to administer
Chapter 1 of Title 23, U.S.C., which includes section 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions of 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and 23 CFR part 515 require FHWA
to certify, and periodically recertify, the processes a State DOT uses
to develop an AMP and to evaluate a State DOT's development and
implementation of its AMP. The first step is for FHWA to certify/
recertify a State DOT's AMP development process. See 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6); 23 CFR 515.13(a). The FHWA must certify at least every 4
years, and whenever the State DOT amends its AMP development processes,
that the State DOT's processes for developing AMP meet applicable
requirements. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6)(B); 23 CFR 515.13(c). The second
step is for FHWA to conduct an annual consistency determination, which
evaluates whether the State DOT has developed and implemented an AMP
that is consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119. See 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(5); 23 CFR 515.13(b). If a State DOT has not developed
and implemented an AMP consistent with the requirements in 23 U.S.C.
119(e) and 23 CFR part 515, the State receives a reduced Federal share
for National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) projects and activities
carried out during the fiscal year in which the State DOT did not meet
the AMP requirements. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A); 23 CFR 515.15(a).
In 2018, State DOTs submitted their first AMP for review and
approval according to the requirements of the 2016 final rule. Since
then, FHWA has developed training, hosted regional workshops and
Webinars, developed guidance documents, and produced a number of
resource documents to prepare State DOTs for recertification. State
DOTs have also undergone, on an annual basis, a consistency evaluation
to ensure certified AMPs are developed and implemented consistent with
23 U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515.
Events following the promulgation of the asset management rule in
2016 require updating 23 CFR part 515. On November 15, 2021, President
Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L.
117-58, also known as the ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'') (BIL) into
law. The BIL amended the minimum requirements for an AMP, by requiring
that the AMP's life-cycle cost and risk management analyses take into
consideration extreme weather and resilience.\2\ In addition, Executive
Order (E.O.) 14008 of January 27, 2021, Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619), directs Federal Agencies to take action
addressing the crisis of climate change by, among other activities,
increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change, including
through the delivery of sustainable infrastructure. See E.O. 14008,
Sec. 201. The FHWA has identified the AMP rule as an opportunity to
advance current policies to address impacts of the present climate
crisis through planning for a transportation system that is more
resilient to the effects of sea level rise, extreme weather events,
flooding, wildfires, or other natural disasters.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See BIL, Sec. 11105(3) (codified at 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(4)(D)).
\3\ See 23 U.S.C. 119(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development and updating of the AMP is also an opportunity to
advance the policies of E.O. 13985 of January 20, 2021, Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the
Federal Government (86 FR 7009), which directed Federal Agencies to
assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies
perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for
underserved communities and to use this information to develop policies
and programs that deliver resources and benefits equitably to all. See
E.O. 13985, Sec. 1. Consistent with the goals of E.O. 13985, State
DOTs are encouraged to consider how the processes for developing an AMP
and the content of the AMP can promote equity for users of assets
included in the AMP and the communities impacted by the management of
those assets, particularly with respect to the AMP's investment
strategies. The FHWA requests comments on the consideration of equity
in the AMP, including information from State DOTs that are already
considering equity in the development of their AMPs and in particular,
their AMP's investment strategies.
Management and Monitoring Systems
In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (Pub. L. 102-240), which added section 303 to 23 U.S.C.,
requiring the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations for
State development, establishment, and implementation of systems to
manage highway pavements and bridges, highway safety, traffic
congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and
intermodal transportation facilities and systems. Section 303 also
required the Secretary to issue guidelines and requirements for the
State development, establishment, and implementation of a traffic
monitoring system for highways and public transportation facilities and
equipment. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
subsequently promulgated a final rule to implement 23 U.S.C. 303 (61 FR
67166, Dec. 19, 1996) and codified the regulations at 23 CFR part 500.
Section 303 was subsequently repealed by MAP-21, Sec. 1519(b)(1)(A),
and FHWA and FTA no longer use the regulations
[[Page 89508]]
governing the management and monitoring systems at 23 CFR part 500.
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Through this NPRM, FHWA is proposing to implement the amendments to
23 U.S.C. 119(e) in BIL to require that an AMP's risk management and
life-cycle planning analysis take into consideration extreme weather
and resilience. The incorporation of resilience considerations into the
AMP is also consistent with the policy of E.O. 14008. In addition, FHWA
is proposing several updates to the AMP rule, which has not been
revised since its initial promulgation in 2016. These updates will
remove outdated references, increase flexibility for State DOTs, and
clarify and streamline the process for State DOTs to submit, and for
FHWA to review, AMPs for the annual consistency determination and AMP
processes for periodic recertification. Finally, as part of its ongoing
efforts to ensure its regulations are up to date and do not contain
unnecessary information, FHWA is proposing to remove outdated
regulations in 23 CFR part 500. The regulations in 23 CFR part 500
would be removed and part 500 would be reserved for future use.
Section-by-Section Discussion
23 CFR Part 500
As discussed above, FHWA is proposing to remove and reserve 23 CFR
part 500, management and monitoring systems, because the underlying
statutory authority for promulgating part 500 has been repealed and
neither FHWA nor FTA rely on part 500 for regulating management systems
under their respective jurisdictions.
23 CFR Part 515
Section 515.1 Purpose
In Sec. 515.1, FHWA is proposing to change ``State transportation
department'' to ``State department of transportation.'' This change is
nonsubstantive and is being proposed so that FHWA uses consistent
terminology throughout title 23, CFR.
Section 515.3 Applicability
The FHWA proposes to remove the language ``and effective date''
from the section heading and related language from the text of Sec.
515.3. This language is no longer needed because all State DOTs are
fully in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements to
develop and implement their AMPs.
Section 515.5 Definitions
The FHWA proposes to add definitions for five terms specific to the
process for developing AMPs and revise existing definitions to
implement statutory requirements and policy priorities.
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for climate change. This
definition is taken from FHWA Order 5520, Transportation System
Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather
Events (December 15, 2014).\4\ Climate Change would mean ``any
significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended
period of time. Climate change includes major variations in
temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other environmental
conditions, that occur over several decades or longer. Climate change
may manifest as a rise in sea level, as well as increase the frequency
and magnitude of extreme weather events now and in the future.'' Given
the connection between climate change and the potential for the
increased frequency of extreme weather events, and in light of the new
requirement in BIL that an AMP's lifecycle cost and risk management
analyses must take into consideration extreme weather and resilience,
it is appropriate to include a definition for climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for extreme weather events,
which would be defined as ``events that can include significant
anomalies in temperature, precipitation, and winds and can manifest as
heavy precipitation and flooding, heatwaves, drought, wildfires, and
windstorms (including tornadoes and tropical storms). Consequences of
extreme weather events can include safety concerns, damage,
destruction, and/or economic loss. Climate change can also cause or
influence extreme weather events.'' This definition is also found in
FHWA Order 5520, and it highlights the connection between climate
change and changing temperature, precipitation, and winds, and
intensification of precipitation, flooding, heatwaves, drought,
wildfires, and windstorms. Adding a definition for extreme weather
events to Sec. 515.5 is necessary to implement the requirement in BIL
that an AMP's lifecycle cost and risk management analyses take into
consideration extreme weather and resilience.
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for implementation period to
assist State DOTs in gathering information to demonstrate
implementation of the AMP for a 12-month period as required by 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(5) and 23 CFR 515.13(b). Implementation period would mean
the 12-month period, beginning on June 1 and ending on May 31 of the
following year, covered by an AMP for purposes of plan implementation
and the annual consistency determination.
Because FHWA is proposing to include references to the long-range
statewide transportation plan in part 515 (see the section-by-section
discussion for Sec. Sec. 515.9 and 515.19 below), FHWA proposes to add
a definition for long-range statewide transportation plan, which would
have the same meaning as the term is defined in 23 CFR 450.104.
The FHWA proposes to define the term resilience to help State DOTs
incorporate resiliency as part of their AMP's system-level evaluation
and to meet the statutory requirement for State DOTs to consider
resilience as part of lifecycle planning and risk management analysis.
The definition proposed here has the same meaning as defined in 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(24) except that under this part, resiliency is evaluated
on the system level rather than with respect to a project.
In addition to the definitions proposed to be added to 23 CFR
515.5, FHWA is proposing changes to existing definitions to implement
BIL, advance current priorities, and improve the rule.
The FHWA proposes to amend the definition of Asset class so that
the example asset class of ``Intelligent Transportation (IT)'' would
read ``Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).'' This is a technical
change that is not intended to have any substantive impact.
The FHWA proposes to amend the definition for life-cycle planning
to mean ``a process to analyze strategies for managing an asset class
or asset sub-group over their whole life with demonstrated
consideration for extreme weather events and resilience, minimizing
cost while preserving or improving their condition, and extending the
life of the assets. It includes analyzing life-cycle cost, condition,
and other life-cycle benefits of alternative strategies that vary by
work type and timing.'' The FHWA proposed change reflects the
requirements in 23 U.S.C 119(e)(4)(D) for State DOTs to consider
extreme weather and resilience when analyzing estimated cost for the
whole life of an asset class or asset sub-group.
The FHWA proposes to edit the definition of risk management to
reflect the requirement 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) for State DOTs to
consider extreme
[[Page 89509]]
weather and resilience for risk management analysis. Currently, risk
management means the identification, analysis, evaluation, and
management of risks to assets and system performance. The FHWA proposes
to revise the definition to mean ``the processes and framework for
managing potential risks, such as adverse impacts associated with
extreme weather events and other risks to system resilience. Risk
management includes the identification, analysis, evaluation, and
management of risks to assets and system performance.''
Finally, FHWA proposes to edit the definition of work types to
provide additional flexibility for States to improve physical assets.
Work types would be defined as ``the categories of work utilized by a
State DOT to strategically and systematically operate, maintain, and
improve physical assets. Work type categories may include initial
construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction.'' This proposed change would make the specified work
types included in the original definition examples for consideration
rather than an exclusive list. It would allow State DOTs to categorize
the work in their AMPs in a way that is appropriate for their
particular circumstances, so long as the categories allow the State
DOTs to describe how they will use the categories to strategically and
systematically operate, maintain, and improve the physical assets that
are included in the AMP.
Section 515.7 Process for Developing the Asset Management Plan
Section 515.7 describes the processes State DOTs are required to
use in developing their AMPs and that are subject to certification by
FHWA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). State DOTs use their certified
processes to produce information it needs to develop the contents of
the AMP required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4) and part 515. The FHWA is
proposing changes to Sec. 515.7 that implement updates to 23 U.S.C.
119 made by BIL, advance current priorities, and clarify rule language.
The FHWA is proposing several changes to improve the clarity and
readability of Sec. 515.7. First, FHWA proposes to remove the first
sentence of Sec. 515.7's introductory text, which describes in general
terms the overall requirement for State DOTs to develop risk-based
AMPs. This language is unnecessary because the precise requirements for
the processes State DOTs must use to develop their AMPs is enumerated
in the paragraphs of Sec. 515.7. Second, FHWA proposes to revise
language in Sec. 515.7 to reflect that State DOTs have already have
processes for developing the AMP and have already established targets
for the condition of NHS pavements and bridges. In particular, this
NPRM would remove language in the introductory text of paragraphs (a)
through (e) requiring State DOTs to ``establish'' processes for
developing the AMP and language in paragraph (a)(1) relating to
establishing targets ``once promulgated.'' Third, FHWA is reorganizing
the contents of paragraphs (a) though (e) and making changes to rule
language to improve the clarity of the rule. Except as specified
herein, FHWA does not intend for these changes to have substantive
impact on the requirements for the processes that State DOTs use to
develop their AMPs.
The FHWA is also proposing to amend the requirements for processes
to develop the AMP to implement the requirement from BIL that the AMP's
life-cycle cost and risk management analyses must include consideration
of extreme weather and resilience. Thus, FHWA is proposing the
following changes:
Including ``cost impacts related to the presence or
absence of resilience'' among the factors in paragraph (b) introductory
text that a State DOT should include in developing the process for
conducting life-cycle planning;
Revising paragraph (b)(2) so that deterioration models
used for each asset class or asset sub-group of NHS pavements and
bridges demonstrate consideration of resilience and extreme weather
events; and
In paragraph (c), including resilience as a risk that a
State DOT's process for developing a risk management analysis must be
able to identify and, in paragraph (c)(3), requiring a State DOT to
treat risks to resilience as top priority risks if such risks are
identified.
The FHWA is also proposing several changes to improve the operation
of Sec. 515.7. In paragraph (a)(3), FHWA is proposing that a State
DOT's process for conducting a performance gap analysis must give
consideration to strategies for closing or addressing gaps that are
identified in the State DOT's performance-based plans, such as the
State Freight Plan or Highway Strategic Safety Plan. Performance-based
plans can be important sources of information for identifying gaps in
current condition of NHS pavements and bridges and the State DOT's
targets.
In the introductory text of paragraph (c), which currently requires
a State DOT to establish a process for developing a risk management
plan, FHWA proposes to use the word ``analysis'' instead of ``plan'' to
more closely align with the text of 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D). In
paragraph (c)(1), FHWA proposes to provide additional information in
the discussion of example risk categories, but this is not intended to
create any additional requirements.
Paragraph (e) requires a State DOT shall establish a process for
developing investment strategies for an AMP that meet the requirements
in Sec. 515.9(f). Currently, this process must result in a description
of how the investment strategies are influenced, at a minimum, by the
following: (1) Performance gap analysis required under Sec. 515.7(a);
(2) Life-cycle planning for asset classes or asset sub-groups resulting
from the process required under Sec. 515.7(b); (3) Risk management
analysis resulting from the process required under Sec. 515.7(c) of
this section; and (4) Anticipated available funding and estimated cost
of expected future work types associated with various candidate
strategies based on the financial plan required by Sec. 515.7(d).
The FHWA is proposing to revise the structure and content of Sec.
515.7(e). The FHWA proposes to make changes to paragraph (e) to show
how investment strategies selected by State DOTs are influenced by
strategies identified as a result of the processes required to develop
the performance gap, lifecycle planning, and risk management analyses
described in paragraphs (a) through (c)). Therefore, FHWA proposes to
revise the existing requirement that the process produce a description
of how the investment strategies are influenced by the processes for
generating the AMP's performance gap, lifecycle planning, and risk
management analyses to require that the process result in a description
of how the investment strategies are influenced by the strategies that
are identified as a result of those analyses (proposed paragraphs
(e)(1)-(3)). The FHWA is also proposing to require that the process for
developing investment strategies include a description of how the
selected investment strategies are influenced by consideration for how
the selected investment strategies would sustain and maintain a state
of good repair over the life-cycle of the assets, leading to an
improvement in the performance of the NHS and improved travel times
(proposed paragraph (e)(4)); and consideration for how the selected
investment strategies would sustain and maintain a state of good repair
over the life-cycle of the assets, resulting in deferred replacement of
assets at minimum practicable cost (proposed
[[Page 89510]]
paragraph (e)(5). A deferred replacement of assets may result in lower
carbon emissions that would otherwise result from more frequent
replacement. Finally, FHWA is proposing to require in paragraph (e)(6)
that the process for developing the AMP's investment strategies
identify anticipated available funding and the estimated cost of
expected future work types by asset class identified as a result of the
process for developing the AMP's financial plan required under
paragraph (d) and associated with selected strategies identified as a
result of the processes to develop the AMP's performance gap, lifecycle
planning, and risk management analyses required under paragraphs (a)-
(c). The FHWA is proposing to use the term ``selected strategies'' to
clarify that analysis conducted for investment strategies would only be
necessary for those strategies that are going to be implemented.
Section 515.9 Asset Management Plan Requirements
Section 515.9 sets forth minimum content requirements that apply to
a State DOT AMP. In paragraph (a), FHWA is proposing to add a reference
to 23 U.S.C. 119 to clarify that the AMP must comply with the statutory
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(e) as well as the regulations at 23 CFR
part 515. The FHWA is also proposing minor technical changes to Sec.
515.9, including in paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) to update references to
other regulations in 23 CFR that had not been promulgated at the time
of the 2016 final rule.
The FHWA proposes several revisions to the required contents of an
AMP set forth in paragraph (d). In paragraph (d)(4), FHWA is proposing
to clarify that the AMP must include performance gap analysis results,
including strategies to close identified gaps. These strategies would
be produced as a result of the process required by proposed Sec.
515.7(a)(3)-(4), although FHWA notes that existing Sec. 515.7(a)(3)
requires the performance gap analysis process to produce strategies to
close or address gaps identified by this process.
In paragraph (d)(5), FHWA proposes that the requirement for the
life-cycle planning element be revised to require life-cycle planning
analysis results that demonstrate consideration of extreme weather
events and resilience and include strategies for managing each asset
class or asset subgroup. The addition of the requirement that the life-
cycle planning analysis demonstrate consideration of extreme weather
event and resilience implements the change to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D)
made by BIL. As with the proposed change to paragraph (d)(4), the
proposed requirement to include strategies for managing each asset
class or subgroup is intended to emphasize that the strategies required
to be developed as a result of the life-cycle planning process set
forth in Sec. 515.7(b)(4) are required to be included in the AMP
itself.
In paragraph (d)(6), FHWA proposes that the requirement for the
risk management analysis element be revised to require risk management
analysis results that demonstrate consideration of extreme weather
events and resilience and include strategies to eliminate or reduce top
priority risks. As with the proposed change to paragraph (d)(5), the
proposed changes in paragraph (d)(6) implement new language in 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) and emphasize that the strategies required to be
developed as a result of the risk management analysis process set forth
in Sec. 515.7(c)(4) are required to be included in the AMP itself.
In paragraph (d)(8), FHWA proposes to require that the AMP's
investment strategies element include sufficient detail to demonstrate
that the State DOT's selected investment strategies align with the
various levels of funding to achieve targets for asset condition and
system performance effectiveness at a minimum practicable cost while
managing risks. This is consistent with the proposed revisions to the
process for developing the AMP's investment strategies in Sec.
515.7(e)(2) that would require a State DOT to describe how its selected
investment strategies are influenced by the AMP's performance gap,
life-cycle planning, and risk management analyses.
In paragraph (f), FHWA proposes to add a new paragraph (f)(5) that
would require an AMP to discuss how its investment strategies would
collectively make or support progress toward addressing risks from
extreme weather events and risks to system resilience described in
Sec. 515.7(c)(1). This change would support the BIL's amendment to 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(4)(D) requiring lifecycle cost and risk management
analyses to consider extreme weather and resilience, and it supports
the policies of E.O. 14008, which directs Federal Agencies to take
action addressing the crisis of climate change by, among other
activities, increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change,
including through the delivery of sustainable infrastructure.
In paragraph (h), FHWA proposes to require a State DOT to integrate
its AMP into the transportation planning processes that lead to the
long-range statewide transportation plan described in 23 CFR 450.216,
along with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
which is already included in paragraph (h). This aligns with two
requirements in 23 CFR 450.206(c): the requirement in Sec.
450.206(c)(4) that the State ``shall integrate into the statewide
transportation planning process, directly or by reference, the goals,
objectives, performance measures, and targets described in this
section, in other State transportation plans and transportation
processes'' including the AMP; and the requirement in Sec.
450.206(c)(5) that the State shall ``consider the performance measures
and targets established under this paragraph when developing policies,
programs, and investment priorities reflected in the long-range
statewide transportation plan'' along with the STIP.
In paragraph (l), FHWA proposes to amend the introductory text to
clarify that if a State DOT decides to include assets in addition to
NHS pavement and bridge assets in its AMP, the State DOT shall address
the items in paragraphs (l)(1) through (7) to the extent practicable,
consistent with the State DOT's needs and resources. This amendment is
intended to clarify the intent of paragraph (l) that a State DOT should
have the flexibility to address how optional assets are included in its
AMP, consistent with the State DOT's needs and resources regarding
those assets.
Section 515.11 Annual Consistency Determination
Section 515.11 currently describes the deadlines and process for
phasing in the requirement for each State DOT to develop an AMP. These
deadlines have all passed, and all State DOTs now have approved AMPs
certified processes in place for developing updated AMPs. Therefore,
FHWA is proposing to revise Sec. 515.11 to cover the process for the
annual determination by FHWA, required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5), that
a State DOT has developed and implemented an AMP consistent with 23
U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515 (``the annual consistency
determination''). The annual consistency determination is currently
discussed in Sec. 515.13 alongside the requirements governing the
certification and recertification of the State DOT's processes for
developing the AMP, as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). As discussed
in greater detail below, Sec. 515.13 would continue to cover the
requirements for certification and recertification of the State DOT's
processes for developing the AMP. As part of this reorganization, FHWA
proposes to change the title of
[[Page 89511]]
Sec. 515.11 from ``Deadlines and phase-in of asset management plan
development'' to ``Annual consistency determination,'' and the title of
Sec. 515.13 would change from ``Process certification and
recertification, and annual plan consistency review'' to ``Process
certification and recertification.'' Separating the requirements for
the annual consistency determination and the requirements for process
certification and recertification into separate sections will improve
the readability of the rule.
The FHWA is also proposing changes to the process by which a State
DOT submits, and FHWA reviews, an AMP for the annual consistency
determination. First, FHWA is proposing to update the current schedule
for State DOTs to submit required documents for the annual consistency
determination review. In Sec. 515.11(a), FHWA proposes that a State
DOT shall submit the materials necessary for FHWA to make its annual
consistency determination no later than July 1 of each year.
Specifically, a State DOT would be required to submit its State-
approved AMP that it intends to implement during the current
implementation period (proposed paragraph (a)(1)) and documentation
that demonstrates implementation, during the prior implementation
period, of the State-approved AMP that FHWA previously determined to be
consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515
as part of the annual consistency determination (proposed paragraph
(a)(2)). The FHWA notes that although the timing of when a State DOT is
required to submit information for the annual consistency determination
would change under this proposed rule, the requirements for what a
State DOT must submit for FHWA to make its annual consistency
determination remain the same.
The FHWA is proposing an implementation period approach for the
requirement that FHWA annually determine that a State DOT has developed
a plan consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(e). As
discussed in the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 515.5, the
implementation period means the 12-month period, beginning on June 1
and ending on May 31 of the following year, covered by an AMP for
purposes of plan implementation and the annual consistency
determination. Using an implementation period that runs from June 1 to
May 31 of the following year will allow States to have a full 12 months
of data to process when preparing appropriate documentation needed to
show full implementation that would need to be submitted to FHWA by
July 1. Under proposed Sec. 515.11(c)(1), FHWA would have until July
31, or 30 days, to make an annual consistency determination. This
schedule is designed to provide adequate time for State DOT to take
corrective action, if required due to a negative FHWA determination,
before the September 30 statutory deadline for FHWA to complete the
annual consistency determination. See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(B). The FHWA
believes using a submission date later than July 1 would not provide
adequate time for a State DOT to cure any deficiencies that FHWA may
identify in the State DOT submission. In such case, the State could be
found not to have complied with applicable requirements and be subject
to penalty in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A).
The FHWA is aware some State DOTs update their AMPs after July 1,
obtain a determination from FHWA that the updated AMP is consistent
with 23 U.S.C 119 requirements governing plan development and content,
and begin to implement that updated AMP in the middle of an
implementation period. When that happens, the State DOT is still
required to submit documents on the next July 1 for a full consistency
determination. Those documents, and FHWA's determination, will have to
account for the two plans the State DOT used during the Federal fiscal
year: the AMP determined consistent prior to the beginning of the
Federal fiscal year and the updated version. To address this scenario,
proposed paragraph (b) provides the State DOT implementation
documentation must describe any material changes to the State DOT's
investment strategies adopted in the updated AMP and explain any
effects of the updates on the State DOT's AMP implementation during the
current Federal fiscal year.
Proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) describe the process that FHWA will
use to conduct the annual consistency determination required by 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(5) and the scope of the annual consistency determination.
Except as described below, these provisions are largely unchanged from
what is currently required in Sec. 515.13, except that the proposed
rule provides that the annual consistency determination will be
measured based on the June 1 to May 31 timeline. That is, FHWA must
determine whether a State DOT has developed an AMP that is consistent
with 23 U.S.C. 119 and part 515 for the current implementation period
(i.e., June 1 of the current year to May 31 of the following year) and
whether the State DOT has implemented an AMP consistent with 23 U.S.C.
119 and part 515 for the prior implementation period (i.e., June 1 of
the previous year to May 31 of the current year).
In Sec. 515.11(d)(2), FHWA proposes to clarify that State DOTs
must show as part of the documentation that demonstrates implementation
of the AMP, that State DOTs used investment strategies that are
applicable to make progress toward achievement of its targets for asset
condition and performance of the NHS to support progress toward the
national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b), to improve or preserve
asset conditions, increase system resiliency, and reduce or mitigate
high priority risks.
In Sec. 515.11(d)(2)(ii), the FHWA is proposing that a State DOT
may also demonstrate plan implementation without addressing funding
allocations by work type. In such case, the State DOT would show how,
in the 12 months preceding the FHWA implementation determination, that
the State DOT used the applicable AMP's investment strategies for NHS
pavement and bridge assets to meet the requirements in Sec.
515.11(d)(2). In addition, FHWA is proposing under Sec.
515.11(d)(2)(ii) that State DOT must describe how the actual total
pavement or bridge expenditures were consistent with the investment
strategies in the State DOT AMP even though the expenditures are not by
work type.
In proposed paragraph (e), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT may
update its AMP as often as it considers necessary, but it must review
and update its AMP at least every 4 years as measured from the most
recent FHWA recertification of the State DOT's processes for developing
the TAMP. The State DOT would have to submit AMP changes to FHWA for a
determination that the updated AMP is consistent with the requirements
in 23 U.S.C. 119 and part 515 except when the changes are minor
technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable material impact
on the accuracy, adequacy, or validity of the analyses or investment
strategies in the AMP. For example, a State DOT would not need to
submit changes in the format of the AMP or a change to a point of
contact for the plan before the annual consistency determination.
Section 515.13 Process Certification and Recertification
The FHWA proposes to rename Sec. 515.13 ``Process certification
and recertification'' because requirements governing the annual
consistency determination would be moved to Sec. 515.11, and Sec.
515.13 would be revised to focus on the processes by which the
[[Page 89512]]
State DOTs will submit to FHWA their AMP development processes for
recertification pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). In proposed paragraph
(a), FHWA is proposing to require a State DOT to submit its AMP
development processes to FHWA for recertification not later than 4
years after the date that FHWA initially certified or subsequently
recertified the State DOT's processes. This is consistent with the
existing requirement that a State DOT update and resubmit its processes
at least every 4 years, beginning on the date of FHWA's certification
of the State DOT's processes. See 23 CFR 515.13(c). A State DOT would
also be required to resubmit its processes for recertification whenever
it makes changes to a process except when the changes are minor
technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable material impact
on the accuracy, adequacy, and validity of the processes. A State DOT
would have the option to submit its processes for recertification as a
standalone document or as part of an updated TAMP.
In addition, FHWA is proposing in paragraph (b) to reduce the time
by which FHWA provides a decision whether to recertify a State DOT's
processes from 90 days to 60 days. State DOTs and FHWA regularly
discuss updates to State DOT processes as the updates are in progress
and while State DOTs work to develop their AMPs. Consequently, FHWA is
often aware of these updates prior to receiving a formal request, which
tends to reduce the time to review certify amended processes. Therefore
a 60-day review time for FHWA would be appropriate. Similarly, in
proposed paragraph (d), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT would have
60 days to address any minor deficiencies that FHWA identifies instead
of the 90 days as currently provided. Except for minor technical
changes and the proposed changes described above, the procedures for
FHWA to recertify a State DOT's processes, including the procedure for
curing deficiencies, would remain the same.
The FHWA intends for this proposal to provide State DOTs with
flexibility on the timing of their requests for certification or
recertification of TAMP development processes under 23 CFR 515.13(a).
However, FHWA encourages State DOTs to consider possible impacts on the
annual consistency review when they choose to submit their AMP
processes to FHWA. For example, a State DOT might submit as a package
on July 1 updated processes together with an updated AMP developed
using the updated processes. In that scenario, the State DOT would ask
FHWA for both a process recertification under 23 CFR 515.13(a) and a
consistency determination under 23 CFR 515.11(c). If FHWA finds both
the updated processes and the updated AMP comply with applicable
requirements, this approach could work well. However, if FHWA finds it
is unable to recertify the State DOT's updated processes as submitted,
the State DOT would need to correct the cited deficiencies in its
processes, revise its AMP to reflect the changes, resubmit the
processes and AMP for FHWA review, and receive FHWA's final decisions
on process recertification and the consistency determination. If the
time required to accomplish these steps extends beyond October 1, then
the State DOT's AMP would not meet the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(5)(A) that the AMP be developed consistent with requirements in
23 U.S.C. 119(e) and 23 CFR part 515, the State DOT AMP would receive a
negative consistency determination, and the State DOT would be subject
to the penalty described in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A). Although there are
cure periods in regulation for addressing deficiencies found during the
TAMP process certification reviews, there is a risk that the State will
incur a penalty under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A). Some States may find the
risks of receiving a negative consistency determination or incurring a
penalty outweigh the convenience of a consolidated submission of the
State DOT's updated processes simultaneously with an AMP developed
using those processes.
Section 515.15 Penalties
This section discusses the statutory penalties for State DOTs that
do not develop and implement an AMP consistent with the requirements of
23 U.S.C. 119 and 23 CFR part 515. The penalties that the FHWA is
proposing in this section are penalties required by law. See 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(5)(A). The FHWA is proposing several revisions to this section.
The FHWA proposes to clarify that on October 1 of each Federal
fiscal year, instead of each fiscal year, that if a State DOT has not
developed and implemented an AMP consistent with 23 U.S.C 119, the
State DOT would be subject to the statutory penalty described at 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(5)(A), specifically, that the maximum Federal share
payable on account of any project or activity for which funds are
obligated by the State in that fiscal year under the NHPP shall be 65
percent. The current rule language references October 1, 2019, but a
reference to a specific year is no longer needed because the
requirement to develop and implement an AMP has been fully phased in.
The proposed updates to this section also more clearly reflect the
language in the statute. In addition, FHWA is proposing to revise
section 515.15 to align this rule with newly written language in
sections 515.7 and 515.9. The FHWA proposes to delete paragraph (b)
because the deadline in paragraph (b) has passed and FHWA is not aware
of any instances in which State DOTs have not established performance
targets for pavements and bridges in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150.
Section 515.17 Minimum Standards for Developing and Operating Bridge
and Pavement Management Systems
In the introductory text to Sec. 515.17, FHWA proposes to amend
the reference to ``States'' to read ``a State DOT'' for consistency
with the rest of part 515. No other changes are proposed for Sec.
515.17.
Section 515.19 Organizational Integration of Asset Management
In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to add the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan alongside the STIP to the items
that a State DOT should consider when conducting a periodic self-
assessment of its capabilities to conduct asset management and its
current efforts to implement an AMP. As discussed above regarding a
similar proposed change to Sec. 515.9(h), the development of the long-
range statewide transportation plan contains important connections to
asset management, so it is reasonable to include this as a
consideration when the State DOT conducts a periodic self-assessment of
its asset management capabilities. This proposed revision is intended
to improve the capacity of State DOTs to integrate asset management
into their organizational missions, cultures, and capabilities. As
stated in paragraph (a), these activities are not requirements, and the
proposed change to paragraph (c) does not create any new requirements
for State DOTs.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has considered the impacts of this rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended
by E.O. 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review (88 FR 21879, April 11,
2023), and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule
complies with E.O. 12866 and E.O.
[[Page 89513]]
13563 to improve regulation. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined
that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under
that E.O.
It is anticipated that the proposed rule would not be economically
significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. The proposed rule would not
have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. The
proposed rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy,
any sector of the economy, productivity, competition, or jobs. In
addition, the proposed changes would not interfere with any action
taken or planned by another Agency and would not materially alter the
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs.
The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new
requirements in the proposed rule that represent a change to the
current practices of State DOTs in developing their AMPs. The FHWA and
FTA derived this estimate by assessing the expected increase in the
level of effort and costs associated with implementing the changes to
AMP procedures in this proposed rule. Based on this analysis, FHWA
estimates that this proposed rule would have an annual cost impact to
States ranging from $3 million to $7 million. These costs are
attributable to the proposed rule's requirement that an AMP's risk
management and lifecycle planning analyses consider extreme weather and
resilience. The FHWA presents this estimated cost increase as a range
because variation among State DOTs is expected in the nature of the
resilience analysis given differences in risk profiles, the quantity of
bridge and pavement assets, local variation in costs, and general
variation in costs from year-to-year to include in their AMPs.
The FHWA estimates that this proposed rule will generate various
benefits to State DOTs and the public resulting from improvements to
the provision of transportation infrastructure. Because these benefits
are difficult to quantify, FHWA discusses the potential benefits of
this proposed rule qualitatively. For example, States may realize cost
savings from considering extreme weather and resilience in the context
of risk management and lifecycle planning analyses if the analyses
conducted for the AMP result in greater State investment in resilient
infrastructure that is less vulnerable to the impacts of sea level
rise, extreme weather events, flooding, wildfires, or other natural
disasters. A supporting statement in the rulemaking docket (FHWA-2024-
0048) contains additional details on FHWA's economic analysis of this
proposed rule. The FHWA requests data and comments that could inform
the economic analysis for this proposed rule, including any estimates
of resulting benefits.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule
on small entities and has determined that the action is not anticipated
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule affects State governments, and State
governments do not meet the definition of a small entity. Therefore,
FHWA certifies that the action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule for unfunded mandates as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us
to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated
impacts, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183
million, using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined
that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of greater than $183 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C.
1532).
Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed
in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. In addition, the
definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or
Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal
Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of
flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed rulemaking
would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the
States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under E.O. 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and
would not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under E.O. 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a
significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211 is
not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. A 60-day notice to approve the collection of information
relating to AMPs was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2024
(89 FR 46985). A 30-day notice to approve the collection of information
relating to AMPs was published in the Federal Register on August 21,
2024 (89 FR 67705).
The FHWA is required to submit the proposed collection of
information to OMB for review and approval and, accordingly, seek
public comments. Interested parties are invited to comment regarding
any aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but
not limited to: (1) whether the collection of information is
[[Page 89514]]
necessary for the performance of the functions of FHWA, including
whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the collection of information; and (4) ways to minimize the
collection burden without reducing the quality of the information
collected.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect
a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications
under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23
CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of regulations,
and that no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Part 500
Bridges, grant programs--transportation, highway traffic safety,
highways and roads, mass transportation, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
23 CFR Part 515
Asset management, highways and roads, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, transportation.
Kristin R. White,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of
23 U.S.C. 315, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR parts 500 and 515 as
follows:
PART 500--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
0
1. Remove and reserve part 500, consisting of Sec. Sec. 500.101
through 500.204.
0
2. Revise part 515 to read as follows:
PART 515--ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS
Sec.
515.1 Purpose.
515.3 Applicability.
515.5 Definitions.
515.7 Process for developing the asset management plan.
515.9 Asset management plan requirements.
515.11 Annual consistency determination.
515.13 Process certification and recertification.
515.15 Penalties.
515.17 Minimum standards for developing and operating bridge and
pavement management systems.
515.19 Organizational integration of asset management.
Authority: Sec. 1106 and 1203 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat.
405; 23 U.S.C. 109, 119(e), 144, 150(c), and 315; 49 CFR 1.85(a).
Sec. 515.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to:
(a) Establish the processes that a State department of
transportation (State DOT) must use to develop its asset management
plan, as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(8);
(b) Establish the minimum requirements that apply to the
development of an asset management plan;
(c) Describe the penalties for a State DOT's failure to develop and
implement an asset management plan in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119 and
this part;
(d) Set forth the minimum standards for a State DOT to use in
developing and operating highway bridge and pavement management systems
under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
Sec. 515.3 Applicability.
This part applies to all State DOTs.
Sec. 515.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Asset means all physical highway infrastructure located within the
right-of-way corridor of a highway. The term asset includes all
components necessary for the operation of a highway including
pavements, highway bridges, tunnels, signs, ancillary structures, and
other physical components of a highway.
Asset class means assets with the same characteristics and function
(e.g., bridges, culverts, tunnels, pavements, or guardrail) that are a
subset of a group or collection of assets that serve a common function
(e.g., roadway system, safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS), signs, or lighting).
Asset condition means the actual physical condition of an asset.
Asset management means a strategic and systematic process of
operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on
both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information,
to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a
desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at
minimum practicable cost.
Asset management plan means a document that describes how a State
DOT will carry out asset management as defined in this section. This
includes how the State DOT will make risk-based decisions from a long-
term assessment of the National Highway System (NHS), and other public
roads included in the plan at the option of the State DOT, as it
relates to managing its physical assets and laying out a set of
investment strategies to address the condition and system performance
gaps. This document describes how the highway network system will be
managed to achieve State DOT targets for asset condition and system
performance effectiveness while managing the risks, in a financially
responsible manner, at a minimum practicable cost over the life cycle
of its assets. The term asset management plan under this part is the
risk-based asset management plan that is required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e) and is intended to carry out asset management as defined in 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(2).
Asset sub-group means a specialized group of assets within an asset
class with the same characteristics and function (e.g., concrete
pavements or asphalt pavements.)
Bridge as used in this part, is defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the
National Bridge Inspection Standards.
Climate change means any significant change in the measures of
climate lasting for an extended period of time. Climate change includes
major
[[Page 89515]]
variations in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other
environmental conditions, that occur over several decades or longer and
poses adverse impacts to the condition of assets. Climate change may
manifest as a rise in sea level, as well as increase the frequency and
magnitude of extreme weather events now and in the future.
Critical infrastructure means those facilities the incapacity or
failure of which would have a debilitating impact on national or
regional economic security, national or regional energy security,
national or regional public health or safety, or any combination of
those matters.
Extreme weather events mean events that can include significant
anomalies in temperature, precipitation, and winds and can manifest as
heavy precipitation and flooding, heatwaves, drought, wildfires, and
windstorms (including tornadoes and tropical storms). Consequences of
extreme weather events can include safety concerns, damage,
destruction, and/or economic loss. Climate change can also cause or
influence extreme weather events.
Financial plan means a long-term plan spanning 10 years or longer,
presenting a State DOT's estimates of projected available financial
resources and predicted expenditures in major asset categories that can
be used to achieve State DOT targets for asset condition during the
plan period, and highlighting how resources are expected to be
allocated based on asset strategies, needs, shortfalls, and agency
policies.
Implementation period means the 12-month period, beginning on June
1 and ending on May 31 of the following year, covered by an asset
management plan for purposes of plan implementation and the annual
consistency determination.
Investment strategy means a set of strategies that result from
evaluating various levels of funding to achieve State DOT targets for
asset condition and system performance effectiveness at a minimum
practicable cost while managing risks.
Life-cycle cost means the cost of managing an asset class or asset
sub-group for its whole life, from initial construction to its
replacement.
Life-cycle planning means a process to analyze strategies for
managing an asset class, or asset sub-group, and the included assets
over their whole life with demonstrated consideration for extreme
weather events and resilience, minimizing cost while preserving or
improving their condition, and extending the life of the assets. It
includes analyzing life-cycle cost, condition, and other life-cycle
benefits of alternative strategies that vary by work type and timing.
Long-range statewide transportation plan has the same meaning as
defined in Sec. 450.104 of this title.
Minimum practicable cost means lowest feasible cost to achieve the
objective.
NHS pavements and bridges and NHS pavement and bridge assets mean
Interstate System pavements (inclusion of ramps that are not part of
the roadway normally traveled by through traffic is optional); NHS
pavements (excluding the Interstate System) (inclusion of ramps that
are not part of the roadway normally traveled by through traffic is
optional); and NHS bridges carrying the NHS (including bridges that are
part of the ramps connecting to the NHS).
Performance of the NHS refers to the effectiveness of the NHS in
providing for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods where
that performance can be affected by physical assets. This term does not
include the performance measures established for performance of the
Interstate System and performance of the NHS (excluding the Interstate
System) under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(ii)(A)(IV)-(V).
Performance gap means the gaps between the current asset condition
and State DOT targets for asset condition, and the gaps in system
performance effectiveness that are best addressed by improving the
physical assets.
Resilience has the same meaning as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(24),
except that, under this part, resilience is evaluated at the system
level.
Risk means the positive or negative effects of uncertainty or
variability upon agency objectives.
Risk management means the processes and framework for managing
potential risks, such as adverse impacts associated with extreme
weather events and other risks to system resilience. Risk management
includes the identification, analysis, evaluation, and management of
risks to assets and system performance.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has the same
meaning as defined in Sec. 450.104 of this title.
Work type means the categories of work utilized by a State DOT to
strategically and systematically operate, maintain, and improve
physical assets. Work type categories may include initial construction,
maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
Sec. 515.7 Process for developing the asset management plan.
A State DOT shall develop and use, at a minimum, the following
processes to prepare its asset management plan:
(a) A process for conducting a performance gap analysis to identify
deficiencies hindering progress toward improving or preserving the NHS
and achieving and sustaining the desired state of good repair. The
State DOT's process must produce, at a minimum, the following
information:
(1) The gap(s) between the existing asset conditions of NHS
pavements and bridges and:
(i) The state of good repair (as defined by the State DOT); and
(ii) The State DOT's targets for asset condition of NHS pavements
and bridges as established by the State DOT.
(2) The gaps, if any, in the performance-of the NHS that affect NHS
pavements and bridges regardless of their physical condition; and
(3) Alternative strategies to close or address the identified gaps.
The strategies for closing or addressing gaps identified pursuant to
paragraph (2) must consider strategies identified in the State DOT's
performance-based plans.
(b) A process for conducting life-cycle planning for an asset class
or asset sub-group at the system level. As a State DOT develops its
life-cycle planning process, the State DOT should include future
changes in demand; information on current and future environmental
conditions including extreme weather events, climate change, and
seismic activity; cost impacts related to the presence or absence of
resilience; and other factors that could impact whole-of-life costs of
assets. The State DOT may propose excluding one or more asset sub-
groups from its life-cycle planning process if the State DOT can
demonstrate to FHWA that the exclusion of the asset sub-group would
have no material adverse effect on the development of sound investment
strategies due to the limited number of assets in the asset sub-group,
the low level of cost associated with managing the assets in that asset
sub-group, or other justifiable reasons. The State DOT's life-cycle
planning process must produce, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) A description of the State DOT targets for asset condition for
each asset class or asset sub-group;
(2) The deterioration models used for each asset class or asset
sub-group of NHS pavements and bridges, which shall demonstrate
consideration of resilience and extreme weather events;
[[Page 89516]]
(3) Potential work types across the whole life of each asset class
or asset sub-group with their relative unit cost; and
(4) A strategy for managing each asset class or asset sub-group by
minimizing its life-cycle costs, while achieving the State DOT targets
for asset condition for NHS pavements and bridges under 23 U.S.C.
150(d).
(c) A process for developing a risk management analysis. The State
DOT's process must produce, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Identification of risks that can affect the condition of NHS
pavements and bridges and the performance of the NHS, including
resilience. Risks to resilience include risks associated with current
and future environmental conditions, such as extreme weather events,
climate change, seismic activity, and risks related to recurring damage
and costs as identified through the evaluation of facilities repeatedly
damaged by emergency events carried out under part 667 of this title.
Examples of other risk categories include financial risks such as
budget uncertainty; operational risks such as asset failure; and
strategic risks to achievement of State DOT objectives and goals, such
as compliance with environmental requirements or meeting organizational
needs.
(2) An assessment of the identified risks in terms of the
likelihood of their occurrence and their impact and consequence if they
do occur;
(3) An evaluation and prioritization of the identified risks. A
State DOT must treat risks to system resilience as top priority risks
if the State DOT identifies such risk(s) under paragraph (c)(1);
(4) A mitigation plan for addressing the top priority risks;
(5) An approach for monitoring the top priority risks; and
(6) A summary of the evaluations of facilities repeatedly damaged
by emergency events carried out under part 667 of this title that
discusses, at a minimum, the results relating to the State's NHS
pavements and bridges.
(d) A process for developing a financial plan that identifies
annual costs over a minimum period of 10 years. The State DOT's process
must produce, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) The estimated cost of expected future work to implement
investment strategies contained in the asset management plan, by State
fiscal year and work type;
(2) The estimated funding levels that are expected to be reasonably
available, by fiscal year, to address the costs of future work types. A
State DOT may estimate the amount of available future funding using
historical values where the future funding amount is uncertain;
(3) Anticipated funding sources; and
(4) An estimate of the value of the State DOT's NHS pavement and
bridge assets and the needed investment on an annual basis to maintain
the value of these assets.
(e) A process for developing investment strategies meeting the
requirements in Sec. 515.9(f). The State DOT's process must produce a
description of how the selected investment strategies are influenced,
at a minimum, by the following:
(1) Strategies identified through the performance gap analysis
resulting from the process required under paragraph (a) of this
section;
(2) Strategies identified through the life-cycle planning analysis
resulting from the process required under paragraph (b) of this
section;
(3) Strategies identified through the risk management analysis
resulting from the process required under paragraph (c) of this
section;
(4) Consideration for how the selected investment strategies would
sustain and maintain a state of good repair over the life-cycle of the
assets, leading to an improvement in the performance of the NHS and
improved travel times;
(5) Consideration for how the selected investment strategies would
sustain and maintain a state of good repair over the life-cycle of the
assets, resulting in deferred replacement of assets at minimum
practicable cost; and
(6) Anticipated available funding and estimated cost of expected
future work types identified as a result of the process required under
paragraph (d) of this section and associated with selected strategies
identified as a result of the processes for performance gap, life-cycle
planning, and risk management analyses described in paragraphs (a)-(c)
of this section.
(f) The State DOT's processes shall include a provision for the
State DOT to obtain necessary data from other NHS owners in a
collaborative and coordinated effort.
(g) A State DOT shall use the best available data to develop their
asset management plans. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i), each
State DOT shall use bridge and pavement management systems meeting the
requirements of Sec. 515.17 to analyze the condition of NHS pavements
and bridges for the purpose of developing and implementing the asset
management plan required under this part. The use of these or other
management systems for other assets that the State DOT elects to
include in the asset management plan is optional (e.g., Sign Management
Systems, etc.).
Sec. 515.9 Asset management plan requirements.
(a) A State DOT shall develop and implement an asset management
plan to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and improve the
performance of the NHS in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
119 and this part. Asset management plans must describe how the State
DOT will carry out asset management as defined in Sec. 515.5.
(b) An asset management plan shall include, at a minimum, a summary
listing of NHS pavement and bridge assets, regardless of ownership.
(c) In addition to the assets specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, State DOTs are encouraged, but not required, to include all
other NHS infrastructure assets within the right-of-way corridor and
assets on other public roads. Examples of other NHS infrastructure
assets include tunnels, ancillary structures, and signs. Examples of
other public roads include non-NHS Federal-aid highways. If a State DOT
decides to include other NHS assets in its asset management plan, or to
include assets on other public roads, the State DOT, at a minimum,
shall evaluate and manage those assets consistent with paragraph (l) of
this section.
(d) The minimum content for an asset management plan under this
part includes a discussion of each element in this paragraph (d).
(1) Asset management objectives. The objectives should align with
the State DOT's mission. The objectives must be consistent with the
purpose of asset management, which is to achieve and sustain the
desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at a
minimum practicable cost.
(2) Asset management measures and State DOT targets for asset
condition, including those established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150, for
NHS pavements and bridges. The plan must include measures and
associated targets the State DOT can use in assessing the condition of
the assets and performance of the highway system as it relates to those
assets. The measures and targets must be consistent with the State
DOT's asset management objectives. The State DOT must include the
measures established under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I)-(III), as
promulgated in part 490 of this title, for the condition of NHS
pavements and bridges. The State DOT also must include the targets the
State DOT has established for the measures required by 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I)-(III) and report on
[[Page 89517]]
such targets in accordance with part 490 of this title. The State DOT
may include measures and targets for NHS pavements and bridges that the
State DOT established through pre-existing management efforts or
develops through new efforts if the State DOT wishes to use such
additional measures and targets to supplement information derived from
the pavement and bridge measures and targets required under 23 U.S.C.
150.
(3) A summary description of the condition of NHS pavements and
bridges, regardless of ownership. The summary must include a
description of the condition of those assets based on the performance
measures established under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii) for condition.
The description of condition should be informed by evaluations required
under part 667 of this title of facilities repeatedly damaged by
emergency events.
(4) Performance gap analysis results, including strategies to close
identified gaps.
(5) Life-cycle planning analysis results that demonstrate
consideration of extreme weather events and resilience and include
strategies for managing each asset class or asset subgroup.
(6) Risk management analysis results that demonstrate consideration
extreme weather events and resilience, and that include strategies to
eliminate or reduce top priority risks.
(7) Financial plan.
(8) Investment strategies that demonstrate alignment with the
various levels of funding evaluated by the State DOT to achieve targets
for asset condition and system performance effectiveness at a minimum
practicable cost while managing risks.
(e) An asset management plan shall cover, at a minimum, a 10-year
period.
(f) An asset management plan shall discuss how the plan's
investment strategies collectively would make or support progress
toward:
(1) Achieving and sustaining a desired state of good repair over
the life cycle of the assets;
(2) Improving or preserving the condition of the assets and the
performance of the NHS relating to physical assets;
(3) Achieving the State DOT targets for asset condition and
performance of the NHS in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(d);
(4) Achieving the national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b);
and
(5) Addressing risks from extreme weather events and risks to
system resilience described in Sec. 515.7(c)(1).
(g) A State DOT must include in its plan a description of how the
analyses required using processes developed in accordance with Sec.
515.7 (such as analyses pertaining to life-cycle planning, risk
management, and performance gaps) support the State DOT's asset
management plan investment strategies.
(h) A State DOT shall integrate its asset management plan into its
transportation planning processes that lead to the long-range Statewide
transportation plan and the STIP, to support its efforts to achieve the
goals in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(i) A State DOT is required to make its asset management plan
available to the public, and is encouraged to do so in a format that is
easily accessible.
(j) Inclusion of performance measures and State DOT targets for NHS
pavements and bridges established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150 in the
asset management plan does not relieve the State DOT of any performance
management requirements, including 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting,
established in other parts of this title.
(k) The head of the State DOT shall approve the asset management
plan.
(l) If the State DOT elects to include other NHS infrastructure
assets or other public roads assets in its asset management plan, the
State DOT shall address to the extent practicable the following with
respect to such assets, using a level of effort consistent with the
State DOT's needs and resources:
(1) Summary listing of assets, including a description of asset
condition;
(2) Asset management measures and State DOT targets for asset
condition;
(3) Performance gap analysis;
(4) Life-cycle planning;
(5) Risk analysis, including summaries of evaluations carried out
under part 667 of this title for the assets, if available, and
consideration of those evaluations;
(6) Financial plan; and
(7) Investment strategies.
(m) An asset management plan may include consideration of critical
infrastructure from among those facilities in the State that are
eligible under 23 U.S.C. 119(c).
Sec. 515.11 Annual consistency determination.
(a) State DOT submission deadline. Not later than July 1 of each
year, a State DOT shall submit to FHWA:
(1) The State-DOT approved asset management plan that State DOT
intends to implement during the current implementation period and that
includes all information required under Sec. 515.9 and that is
developed using processes described in Sec. 515.7 that have been
certified by FHWA; and
(2) Documentation that demonstrates implementation, during the
prior implementation period, of the State-DOT approved asset management
plan that FHWA previously determined to be consistent with the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part as part of the annual
consistency determination as provided in this section.
(b) Updates during current implementation period. If, during the
current implementation period, a State begins implementation of an
updated asset management plan adopted in compliance with paragraph (e)
of this section, the State DOT documentation under paragraph (a) must
describe any material changes in investment strategies in its updated
plan and explain any effects of the updated plan on its implementation
during the current implementation period.
(c) Annual determination of plan consistency and implementation
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5).
(1) Based on the State DOT submissions pursuant to paragraph (a),
and not later than July 31 of each year, FHWA will notify the State DOT
whether:
(i) The asset management plan submitted under paragraph (a)(1)
covering an implementation period beginning on June 1 and ending on May
31 of the following year is consistent with the requirements in 23
U.S.C. 119 and this part; and
(ii) The documentation submitted under paragraph (a)(2)
demonstrates that the State DOT has implemented an asset management
plan consistent with 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part during the prior
implementation period.
(2) The notice will be in writing and, in the case of a negative
determination, will specify the deficiencies the State DOT needs to
address. In the event FHWA notifies a State DOT of a negative
determination under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2), the State DOT will
have 30 days to address the deficiencies. The State DOT may submit
additional information showing the FHWA negative determination was in
error or demonstrating the State DOT has taken corrective action that
resolves the deficiencies specified in FHWA's negative determination.
(d) Scope of annual plan consistency and implementation
determinations.
(1) Plan consistency. The FHWA will review the State DOT's asset
management plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) to ensure that
it was developed with FHWA-certified
[[Page 89518]]
processes, includes the required content, and is consistent with other
applicable requirements in 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part.
(2) Plan implementation. The State DOT must demonstrate
implementation of an asset management plan during the prior
implementation period that FHWA previously determined to be consistent
with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part. The State DOT's
submission under paragraph (a)(2) must show that the State DOT used the
investment strategies in the applicable asset management plan to make
progress toward achievement of its targets for asset condition and
performance of the NHS, to support progress toward the national goals
identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b), to improve or preserve asset
conditions, increase system resiliency, and reduce or mitigate high
priority risks. A State DOT may determine the most suitable approach
for demonstrating implementation of its asset management plan, so long
as the information submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) is
documented, verifiable, and covers the prior implementation period.
(i) FHWA considers the best evidence of plan implementation to be
that, for the prior 12-month implementation period, the State DOT
funding allocations were reasonably consistent with the investment
strategies in the applicable State DOT asset management plan. This
demonstration takes into account the alignment between the actual and
planned levels of investments for various work types (i.e. initial
construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction).
(ii) A State DOT may also demonstrate plan implementation without
addressing funding allocations by work type. In such case, the State
DOT would show how, during the prior 12-month implementation period,
the State DOT used the applicable asset management plan's investment
strategies for NHS pavement and bridge assets to meet the requirements
in paragraph (d)(2).
(iii) FHWA may find a State DOT has implemented its asset
management plan even if the State has deviated from the investment
strategies included in its asset management plan, if the State DOT
shows the deviation was necessary due to extenuating circumstances
beyond the State DOT's reasonable control.
(3) The FHWA determination. The FHWA determination under this
section is made only with respect to the consistency of the State DOT
asset management plan with applicable requirements and State DOT
implementation of its asset management plan. The FHWA determinations
are not an approval or disapproval by FHWA of strategies or other
decisions contained in the asset management plan.
(4) Additional assets. With respect to any assets the State DOT may
elect to include in its asset management plan in addition to NHS
pavement and bridge assets, the FHWA consistency determination will
consider only whether the State DOT has complied with Sec. 515.9(l)
with respect to such discretionary assets.
(e) Plan update. The State DOT may update its asset management plan
as often as it considers necessary, however, the State DOT must review
and update its asset management plan at least every four years as
measured from the most recent FHWA recertification of the processes
used by the State DOT to develop the State asset management plan. The
State DOT must submit asset management plan changes to FHWA for a
determination that the updated asset management plan is consistent with
the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part except when the changes
are minor technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable
material impact on the accuracy, adequacy, or validity of the analyses
or investment strategies in the asset management plan.
Sec. 515.13 Process certification and recertification.
(a) Not later than 4 years after the initial FHWA certification or
subsequent recertification that a State DOT's processes meet the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, the State DOT must submit
its asset management plan development processes for recertification. A
State DOT also must submit its processes for recertification whenever
it makes changes to the process(es) except when the changes are minor
technical corrections or revisions with no foreseeable material impact
on the accuracy, adequacy, and validity of the processes. A State DOT
may submit its processes as a stand-alone document or as part of an
updated State-approved asset management plan.
(b) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the FHWA
Division Office receives a State DOT's processes and request for
recertification, FHWA shall determine whether the State DOT's processes
for developing its asset management plan meet the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 119 and this part. If FHWA determines that the processes do not
meet the requirements established under 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part,
FHWA will send the State DOT a written notice of the denial of
recertification that includes a listing of the specific deficiencies.
(c) Upon receiving a notice of denial of recertification, the State
DOT shall have 90 days from receipt of the notice to address the
deficiencies identified in the notice and resubmit the State DOT's
processes to FHWA for review and recertification. The FHWA may extend
the State DOT's 90-day period to cure deficiencies upon request. During
the cure period established, all penalties and other legal impacts of a
denial of recertification shall be stayed as provided in 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6)(C)(i).
(d) If FHWA finds that a State DOT's asset management processes
substantially meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part
except for minor deficiencies, FHWA may recertify the State DOT's
processes as being in compliance, but the State DOT must take actions
to correct the minor deficiencies within 60 days of receipt of the
notification of recertification. The State DOT shall notify FHWA in
writing when corrective actions are completed.
Sec. 515.15 Penalties.
Beginning on October 1 of each Federal fiscal year, if a State DOT
has not developed an asset management plan consistent with the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part and has not implemented an
asset management plan determined to be consistent with the requirements
of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, the maximum Federal share for National
Highway Performance Program projects or activities for which funds are
obligated by the State in that fiscal year shall be reduced to 65
percent.
Sec. 515.17 Minimum standards for developing and operating bridge
and pavement management systems.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i), this section establishes the
minimum standards a State DOT must use for developing and operating
bridge and pavement management systems. State DOT bridge and pavement
management systems are not subject to FHWA certification under Sec.
515.13. Bridge and pavement management systems shall include, at a
minimum, documented procedures for:
(a) Collecting, processing, storing, and updating inventory and
condition data for all NHS pavement and bridge assets.
(b) Forecasting deterioration for all NHS pavement and bridge
assets;
(c) Determining the benefit-cost over the life cycle of assets to
evaluate alternative actions (including no action decisions), for
managing the condition of NHS pavement and bridge assets;
(d) Identifying short- and long-term budget needs for managing the
condition of all NHS pavement and bridge assets;
[[Page 89519]]
(e) Determining the strategies for identifying potential NHS
pavement and bridge projects that maximize overall program benefits
within the financial constraints; and
(f) Recommending programs and implementation schedules to manage
the condition of NHS pavement and bridge assets within policy and
budget constraints.
Sec. 515.19 Organizational integration of asset management.
(a) The purpose of this section is to describe how a State DOT may
integrate asset management into its organizational mission, culture and
capabilities at all levels. The activities described in paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section are not requirements.
(b) A State DOT should establish organizational strategic goals and
include the goals in its organizational strategic implementation plans
with an explanation as to how asset management will help it to achieve
those goals.
(c) A State DOT should conduct a periodic self-assessment of the
agency's capabilities to conduct asset management, as well as its
current efforts in implementing an asset management plan. The self-
assessment should consider, at a minimum, the adequacy of the State
DOT's strategic goals and policies with respect to asset management,
whether asset management is considered in the agency's planning and
programming of resources, including development of the long-range
statewide transportation plan and the STIP; whether the agency is
implementing appropriate program delivery processes, such as
consideration of alternative project delivery mechanisms, effective
program management, and cost tracking and estimating; and whether the
agency is implementing adequate data collection and analysis policies
to support an effective asset management program.
(d) Based on the results of the self-assessment, the State DOT
should conduct a gap analysis to determine which areas of its asset
management process require improvement. In conducting a gap analysis,
the State DOT should:
(1) Determine the level of organizational performance effort needed
to achieve the objectives of asset management;
(2) Determine the performance gaps between the existing level of
performance effort and the needed level of performance effort; and
(3) Develop strategies to close the identified organizational
performance gaps and define the period of time over which the gap is to
be closed.
[FR Doc. 2024-26200 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P