[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21757]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 93-10]
Transfer of Interstate Maintenance Program Funds
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Proposed final policy statement; requests for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed final policy statement sets forth the FHWA's
policy for addressing the interstate maintenance program funds transfer
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). The criteria for determining what
constitutes adequate maintenance, which are included in this policy,
are associated with only the transfer of Interstate Maintenance (IM)
funds and are not related to the State's responsibility to properly
maintain projects constructed with Federal-aid funds outlined in 23
U.S.C. 116, Maintenance.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 1, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments concerning this policy
statement to FHWA Docket No. 93-10, Federal Highway Administration,
Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments received will be available for
examination at the above address between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Hallin, Chief, Pavement
Design and Rehabilitation Branch, (202) 366-1323, or Ms. Vivian
Philbin, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, General Law Branch,
(202) 366-0780, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 3, 1993, the FHWA published an interim policy statement on
the transfer of Interstate maintenance program funds at 58 FR 12299,
and provided a 60-day public comment period which closed on May 3,
1993. During the intervening period, FHWA has evaluated the comments
and reconsidered its initial position. As a result, the FHWA is
proposing to modify the pavement roughness and faulting criteria and to
add additional criteria that were not proposed in the interim policy.
A total of 18 State highway agencies (SHAs) and the Highway User
Federation for Safety and Mobility (HUFSAM), a public interest group,
provided written comments to the docket established for the interim
policy statement.
The SHA comments ranged from administrative type questions, such as
requests for clarification of measurement procedures and use of
existing pavement management system data, to fundamental positions on
the individual indicators and the specific established criteria. Some
SHAs endorsed various portions of the criteria established, while
others took exception to part or all of the criteria.
The HUFSAM strongly endorsed the interim policy. It stressed the
need to assure that the Interstate System be maintained at a very high
level and noted that, from its studies, nationwide, the Interstate
maintenance funding levels are inadequate.
After evaluating the comments received, the FHWA continues to
believe that transfers of apportioned IM funds specifically earmarked
for Interstate maintenance to other designated programs should be
permitted only when the Interstate System routes are in a physical,
operational, and safe condition and perform at or near the level for
which they were designed, and constructed. Because pavement and bridge
activities constitute the major cost items of IM eligible activities,
the interim policy focused on pavement and bridge condition indicators
as the determining factors for eligibility to transfer IM funds. Other
essential elements, necessary to maintain the physical and operational
integrity of the Interstate, must also be considered in transportation
decisions. Responses to the interim policy, however, indicate a concern
that other essential elements need not be considered in transfer
decisions. This was not the intent of the interim policy statement.
Section 101(a) of Title 23 U.S.C. defines ``maintenance'' to mean
the preservation of the entire highway, including surface, shoulders,
roadside, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary
for its safe and efficient utilization. As the IM program now provides
the major resources for rehabilitation, resurfacing, and restoration
(3R) work on the Interstate System, extending the service life of all
major components and enhancing highway safety on the system should
receive first priority for IM fund use. For example, over 25 percent of
the projects and approximately 10 percent of funds from the IM program
are currently being expended on traffic and safety improvement
projects. The FHWA supports a continued strong emphasis on safety.
In a sampling of SHA pavement management systems conducted during
the past year, the FHWA found that the pavement condition indicators
established in the interim policy are generally collected and used by
the States in evaluating the condition of the Interstate for their own
management purposes. While the data collection and reporting procedures
differ somewhat, the fundamental indicators are consistently used by
the SHA's to manage their Interstate pavements.
The proposed final policy includes the original pavement and bridge
condition indicators established in the interim policy and adds
pavement surface friction as a fourth pavement condition indicator.
However, the roughness criteria has been modified and the separate
faulting criteria for jointed plain and joint reinforced concrete
pavement (JPCP and JRCP) has been replaced with a single criterion of
525 mm/km (33 inches/mile) for both jointed pavement types.
In addition to these interim factors, this proposed final policy
statement adds criteria for the additional traffic and safety related
indicators of (1) safety appurtenances, (2) traffic control devices,
and (3) geometric elements. These indicators are equally critical to
the Interstate System which relies heavily on the availability of IM
funds for continued adequacy. Maintenance of the Interstate System's
operational as well as physical characteristics in a satisfactory
manner remains the first priority for the use of these funds.
Comments Received
This section addresses specific SHA comments organized around the
criteria established for each of the individual condition indicators.
Pavement Roughness
Three SHAs suggested that the International Roughness Index (IRI),
developed at the International Road Roughness Experiment, is not the
appropriate measure of rideability. The FHWA recognizes that IRI does
have some limitations. It does, however, provide a common quantitative
basis with which to reference the different measures of roughness.
Further, it is currently collected by SHAs and provided to FHWA under
the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) submission
requirements. Although the FHWA is open to use of improved pavement
surface rideability measures, until such time that improved measures
and equipment to measure them are accepted and readily available to
SHA's, the FHWA will continue to rely on IRI as the ride indicator.
Four SHAs commented that the specific IRI criteria of 240 cm/km
(150 inches/mile) was too severe. The FHWA disagrees. The selection of
the 240 cm/km upper limit criteria on pavement roughness was directly
tied to the FHWA's desire to require Interstate pavement to be in fair
or better condition. The interim policy noted that initial IRI to
pavement serviceability rating\1\ (PSR) conversion studies\2\ indicated
a 240 cm/km IRI is equivalent to a PSR range of 3.0 to 3.5. Pavements
within this range are classified as fair in the FHWA's ``1992 Highway
Statistics''\3\ report. Subsequent additional analysis of the IRI/PSR
correlation indicates that a 240 cm/km IRI more accurately reflects a
much lower PSR range of 2.5 to 2.8 (pavements in this range are
classified as being in poor to mediocre condition\4\). Based on this
further analysis, the FHWA has established an upper limit of allowable
IRI of 200 cm/km (127''/mile). This converts to a PSR of between 2.8
and 3.2 which is more consistent with the FHWA's original objective
that pavements be in fair or better condition\5\.
\1\The PSR concept was developed at the 1956 American
Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road test to relate
the pavement serviceability index (PSI), computed from objectively
measured pavement distress, with subjective serviceability ratings
by panels of road users.
\2\Bashar Al-Omari and Michael I. Darter, ``Relationships
between IRI and PSR: A Report of the Findings of Pavement Model
Enhancements for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS),''
Transportation Engineering Series No. 69, University of Illinois at
Urbana Champaign, Report No. UILU-ENG-92-2013, September 1992. This
document is available for inspection in FHWA Docket No. 93-10.
\3\FHWA, ``Highway Statistics 1992,'' FHWA-PL-93-023. A copy of
this document is available for inspection in FHWA Docket No. 93-10.
\4\Ibid.
\5\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rutting
Rutting comments were limited to data collection difficulties and
reflected a degree of uncertainty about what data collection equipment
and procedure would be considered acceptable. No comments were received
concerning the appropriateness of the rutting indicator or the
established criteria. Therefore the FHWA has retained 15 mm (5/8 inch)
as the upper allowable limit of rutting. Concerns related to data
collection equipment and procedures are addressed under ``Pavement Data
Collection,'' later in the preamble.
Faulting
The SHA comments on the faulting criteria were split evenly; five
SHAs thought that the faulting criteria were too restrictive, while
five SHAs commented that the criteria were acceptable. In addition, the
HUFSAM found the criteria acceptable.
One SHA recommended simplifying the policy by replacing the
separate faulting criteria for jointed plain and jointed reinforced
concrete pavement (JPCP and JRCP) with a single faulting criterion in
mm/km (inches/mile) for both pavement types. A mm/km based criteria
would eliminate the need to take joint frequency into account, as the
average allowable faulting per joint would be directly related to the
number of joints/mile. The FHWA recognizes the merit in this
recommendation and has replaced the separate faulting criteria of 3 mm
on JPCP and 6 mm on JRCP with an equivalent maximum faulting rate of
525 mm/km (33 inches/mile) for both. This faulting rate is equivalent
to 3 mm per joint on typical JPCP with 6 meter (20 foot) joint spacing
and 6 mm per joint on JRCP with 12 meter (40 foot) joint spacing.
Because joint spacing varies between States, the allowable faulting per
joint will differ from State to State, even though the faulting rate
per km remains constant.
Administrative--Procedural Tolerance Limits
The most common comment, received from seven SHAs, was that the
scope of the application of the criteria was too stringent. The crux of
the argument was that some tolerance limit should be established to
allow a SHA in substantial compliance to transfer funds. A common
suggestion was that the FHWA only require that 90 to 95 percent of the
Interstate System meet the criteria before allowing transfer.
The FHWA recognizes that there are continually evolving pavement
and bridge needs and, at any one point in time, even SHAs with
exceptionally good pavements might not meet the criteria on 100 percent
of their Interstate system. The FHWA has already provided relief for
this situation. The interim policy specifically allows transfer when
all criteria are not met on the Interstate if the work necessary to
correct any deficient segments is included in the approved State
Transportation Improvement Program, required by 23 U.S.C. 135(f). This
relief is included in the final policy. The FHWA believes that allowing
a 5 to 10 percent exemption or tolerance would be unwise, as it would
allow transfer of money necessary to maintain the Interstate highway
system.
Pavement Data Collection
Several SHAs posed comments and questions on data collection and
reporting procedures. The primary concern appeared to be whether FHWA
would require a specific data collection effort using some standardized
equipment and procedures that would be different from what is currently
used by the individual SHAs. Further, the comments included request for
flexibility in summarizing the data. Several suggested that FHWA should
use whatever SHA PMS data was available to determine the acceptability
of a certification accompanying a transfer request.
The FHWA intends to rely primarily on current surface roughness,
rutting, and faulting information contained in SHAs PMS database(s) and
from information reported in HPMS in evaluating the pavement component
of State certifications accompanying Interstate maintenance fund
transfer requests.
The FHWA recognizes the uniqueness of each SHA's PMS and the
diversity of equipment and procedures used by the SHAs to meet their
particular pavement management needs. The FHWA is not prescribing new
specific uniform data collection equipment, procedures, sampling, or
data reduction techniques to determine compliance with the pavement
Interstate maintenance transfer criteria.
Bridges
Only two SHA's commented on the bridge section of the policy. Both
endorsed the use of the current National Bridge Inventory (NBI) bridge
deck condition rating (Item 58) as an indicator and supported the
criteria requirement that bridge decks have a condition rating of 5 or
better. This is consistent with the long standing use of a deck rating
of less than 5 to determine a structurally deficient bridge.
Both States also recommended that FHWA include the NBI ratings for
superstructure and substructure in the policy and delete the load
posting requirement contained in the interim policy.
The FHWA originally considered using superstructure and
substructure ratings as specific criteria when it initially developed
the interim policy. Upon further consideration, FHWA still supports
``load posting'' criterion which reflects superstructure and
substructure condition ratings and is also a measure of potential
safety concern.
The need for load posting is an end result of applying
superstructure and substructure conditions, along with other factors,
in making load carrying capacity calculations. Changes in condition
ratings, and therefore, the load posting, are affected by a reduced
maintenance effort which eventually leads to continual and long-term
deterioration of bridge elements.
One of the SHAs further recommended that the FHWA incorporate
failure susceptibility as an indicator. Failure susceptibility is not
required nor normally assessed by States in the course of inspecting
bridges to meet national bridge inspection standards. As a result, the
FHWA believes it would be inappropriate to use failure susceptibility
as a nationwide criterion in the IM fund transfer policy, and has not
included it.
Finally, one SHA recommended that bridge railing adequacy should be
included in the decision factors. The FHWA considered including bridge
railing adequacy as indicated by NBI Item 36 in the early development
of policy criteria. The NBI Item 36 is a four segment item that rates
bridge railings for adequate impact strength, and approach guardrail
for adequate vehicle safety and protection.
The adequacy of bridge railings and approach guardrail is a serious
safety concern and should be considered in the States' maintenance
program as well as in developing highway safety projects.
Bridge Data Collection
The NBI ratings are determined in accordance with the ``Recording
and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the
Nation's Bridges'' (Coding Guide) U.S. DOT/FHWA, December 1988.
Policy
For the purpose of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1), which provides for transfer
of State apportioned IM funds that are in excess of a State's need to
the State's NHS and STP apportionment, the FHWA will accept a State's
certification if the State's Interstate routes meet the following
criteria:
Pavement:
(1) An IRI of 200 cm per km (127 inches per mile) or less;
(2) Rutting of 15 mm (5/8 inch) or less on flexible pavements;
(3) Cumulative faulting of 525 mm per km (33 inches/mile) or
less on jointed rigid pavements; and
(4) Surfaces have adequate surface friction and drainage, based
on the State accidents record system not identifying any locations
with a high incidence of wet weather accidents.
Bridges:
(1) Bridge decks in ``fair condition'' or better (Coding Guide
item 58 rated 5 or better); and
(2) No load posting required (Coding Guide item 70 rated 5).
Safety Appurtenances:
Guardrail, bridge rails, safety barriers, and other safety
features including the upstream ends of all traffic barriers meet
(a) the performance criteria of 23 CFR 625, (b) acceptable use
warrants, and (c) installation requirements per State standard
plans.
Traffic Control Devices:
All major guide, regulatory, and warning signs meet the minimum
size, shape, color, format, and message requirements as well as the
day and night legibility and visibility requirements of the MUTCD
and amendments.
Geometric Elements:
(1) The horizontal and vertical alignment, and widths of median,
traveled way, and shoulders meet the AASHTO Interstate Standards, as
incorporated in 23 CFR 625, in effect either at the time of original
construction, major reconstruction, or inclusion into the Interstate
system, which ever was the latest; and
(2) Hazardous features (fixed objects, steep sideslopes, etc.)
within the clear zone are either eliminated, corrected, or
adequately shielded.
In the event that the condition, as reflected by current databases,
does not meet the required criteria, for any segment of Interstate, the
State's request for funding transfer may not be approved unless the
State certifies that the deficient segments have either been
subsequently upgraded to meet the required criteria or that the work
necessary to correct any such deficient segments is included in the
approved State Transportation Improvement Program, required by 23
U.S.C. 135(f).
Section 119(f)(2) of Title 23, U.S.C., allows the States to
transfer up to 20 percent of the apportioned IM funds to the NHS and
STP apportionment based solely on the request of the States.
(23 U.S.C. 119 and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b))
Issued on: August 29, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-21757 Filed 9-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
