Forest Highway Portion of Public Lands Highway Program

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 660

[FHWA Docket No. 93-16]

RIN 2125-AD13

Forest Highway Portion of Public Lands Highway Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing revised Forest Highway (FH) Program

regulations to conform to the requirements of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Section 1032 of the

ISTEA amends, among other things, 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 202

and 204 to combine the FH category with the public lands highway

category. The revised regulation will ensure expeditious and proper

allocation of funds to provide public road access to the National

Forest System (NFS).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Allen W. Burden, Chief, Program

and Administration Division, Federal Lands Highway Office, (202) 366-

9488, Mr. Curtis L. Page, Forest Highway Program Engineer, Federal

Lands Highway Office, (202) 366-9489, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of

the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1396, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 1991, the President signed

the ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914. Section 1032 of the

ISTEA amends 23 U.S.C. 202 and 204 by, among other things,

incorporating new planning provisions, including metropolitan and

statewide transportation plan requirements; establishing management

systems provisions, including highway safety, bridges on and off

Federal-aid highways, and highway pavements; adding and revising

definitions for key terms relating to the Federal Lands Highway

Program; and modifying existing allocation procedures.

The primary purpose of the Federal Lands Highway Program is to

provide public road funding to serve the Federal lands outside State or

local government responsibility. Typically, the facilities serve

recreational travel and tourism, protect and enhance natural resources,

provide sustained economic development in rural areas, and provide

needed transportation for Native Americans.

The FHWA's partnership with the Forest Service (FS) began in 1916

when the Federal-Aid Road Act appropriated funds for the construction

and maintenance of roads and trails serving the national forests. There

are currently over 25,000 miles of FHs, on State and local

transportation systems, serving 191 million acres of national forest

lands in 40 States plus Puerto Rico. These roads connect to the

approximately 370,000 miles of forest development roads that are under

the jurisdiction of the FS. The fiscal year 1994 (FY 94) authorization

for FHs was $113 million. On October 5, 1993, the FHWA published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (58 FR

51794). The following discussion addresses comments to the NPRM which

were provided to the FHWA.

Development of Regulations

The final rule was developed by an interagency task force of the

FHWA and the FS. The FHWA and the FS considered the comments received

to the Docket for the regulation in developing the revisions to the

NPRM for the final rule.

Relationship to Interim Guidance Issued December 26, 1991

On December 26, 1991, the FHWA issued interim guidance to aid

States and the FS in complying with the new legislative requirements.

The guidance was developed in consultation with FS headquarters staff

and published in the Federal Register at 57 FR 14880 on April 23, 1992.

This interim guidance is superseded by this regulation.

Conformance

This final rule is in accordance with part 450 of this title.

Written Comments Received to the Docket

Six commenters submitted 29 comments to the Docket regarding the

NPRM. One Federal agency and five State highway agencies (SHAs)

commented on the NPRM. The majority of commenters offered specific

suggestions for revisions. Some also offered minor editorial

corrections and text enhancements. Most of the significant comments

were directed at Sec. 660.105--Planning and route designation--and at

Sec. 660.107--Allocations. All comments were considered and have been

accommodated to the extent practical. In response to these comments,

the FHWA has developed a final rule. A summary of the specific

responses to comments raised on individual sections of the NPRM

follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 660.101 Purpose

Comment: One commenter expressed the need to better describe the

importance of the FH Program for access to and management of the NFS

and its role as an integral part of the Federal Lands Highway Program.

Response: This section was expanded to better describe how the FH

Program enhances local, regional, and national benefits of FHs funded

under the Public Lands Highway category of the coordinated Federal

Lands Highway Program. The FH Program provides safe and adequate

transportation access to and through National Forest System (NFS) lands

for visitors, recreationists, resource users, and others which is not

met by other transportation programs, assists rural and community

economic development, and promotes tourism and travel.

Section 660.103 Definitions

Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``public

authority'' be modified so that a public authority would be required to

meet all authorities noted in the NPRM definition by changing the

``or'' condition to an ``and'' condition regarding the public

authority's authority to finance, build, operate, ``or'' maintain toll

or toll-free facilities.

Response: Because this definition is a title 23, U.S.C.,

definition, it was not revised, even though the ``and'' condition would

make it more restrictive. Regulations may clarify or explain, but

cannot revise, a statutory definition.

Comment: Another commenter suggested revising the definition of

``forest road'' to include a road which provides ``access to'' the NFS

since many FHs in some States do not meet the criteria of a forest road

as indicated by the proposed definition.

Response: This is also a title 23, U.S.C., definition and was not

revised in the final rule. The present wording for the definition of

``forest road,'' as stated in 23 U.S.C. 101, is: ``The term forest road

or trail means a road or trail wholly or partly within, or adjacent to,

and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection,

administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development

of its resources.'' This definition is adequate because a road which

provides access to the NFS is considered to be serving the NFS. Also,

the definition for FH allows for roads providing access to the NFS

since it refers to forest roads, the definition of which allows access

to the NFS.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``statewide

transportation plan'' be clarified by adding the phrase ``pursuant to

the provisions of part 450 of this title'' at the end of the

definition.

Response: Similar wording was used in the definition of

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in this section. Therefore,

the phrase was added to the end of the definition to clarify it. Also,

a definition for ``metropolitan transportation plan'' was added to this

section because the term is used in Sec. 660.105 along with the term

``statewide transportation plan,'' which is also defined in this

regulation in Sec. 660.103.

Section 660.105 Planning and Route Designation

Comment: Several of the SHAs expressed the need for clarification

of who provides transportation planning, FS resource planning, and

management systems information to the States and MPOs for incorporation

into the MPOs and transportation improvement programs (TIPs).

Response: Some minor wording changes were made to paragraph (a) of

this section to reflect the fact that the FS will provide resource

planning and related transportation information to the ``appropriate''

MPO in accordance with part 450 of this title. This clarification was

needed because there are numerous MPOs within some States and the FS

should direct the information only to the MPO needing the information.

Comment: Two of the SHAs felt that paragraph (b) should be

clarified to delineate the reporting responsibilities for management

information systems. One felt the final rule should specify that the

State would be responsible for pavement, bridge, and safety management

systems where the FH is also a State highway and that cities and

counties would be responsible for those management systems where FHs

are under city or county jurisdiction. The FS would then be responsible

for those management systems on all other applicable roads.

Response: Title 23, U.S.C., 303 requires the States to develop and

implement systems for managing highway pavements of Federal-aid

highways (pavement management systems), bridges on and off Federal-aid

highways (bridge management systems), and highway safety for all public

roads (safety management systems). The results of bridge management

systems and safety management systems on all FHs and results of

pavement management systems for FHs on Federal-aid highways are to be

provided by the SHAs for consideration in the development of programs

under Sec. 660.109 of this part. The FHWA will provide appropriate

pavement management results for FHs which are not Federal-aid highways.

The last two sentences in paragraph (b) were reworded to clarify these

procedures and be more in concert with 23 U.S.C. 204(a).

Comment: Two SHAs pointed out the inappropriate reference to the

``Federal-aid system'' in paragraph (b) when describing who reports

pavement management systems results for FHs.

Response: The language of the final rule was revised to refer to

``forest highways which are not Federal-aid highways'' rather than to

``forest highways off the Federal-aid system.''

Comment: One commenter recommended that paragraph (c)(1) be

clarified by adding the word ``forest'' before the word ``roads'' to be

more consistent with previous definitions and to clarify candidate

roads for nomination. This would clarify the fact that the SHA and the

FS will nominate ``forest'' roads, not just any roads, for FH

designation. The FH definition also references forest roads.

Response: Paragraph (c)(1) was revised to make this clarification.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the order of the three

criteria for designating FHs in paragraph (d)(1) should be revised to

add greater emphasis to the serving of access needs of the NFS.

Response: This comment was accepted. The order of the three items

was revised.

Section 660.107 Allocations

Comment: One commenter noted the restrictiveness of the NPRM in

that it limits the funding of the allocated portion of the Public Lands

Highway Program exclusively to FHs. The commenter further pointed out

that the 1991 ISTEA amended 23 U.S.C. 202 by striking the subsection

that dealt with FHs as a part of the Public Lands Highway Program with

the result that, according to the commenter, one-third of the allocated

program may be spent on highways other than FHs. Under this broader

definition of Public Lands Highways, the States would have the

flexibility to spend the allocated portion of PLH funds on all kinds of

highways such as the Bureau of Land Management roads and even Indian

Reservation Roads. The ``equal consideration'' language of the ISTEA,

in the commenter's view, would allow for at least half of the allocated

funds to be spent on such roads while the NPRM language restricts the

allocated portion to FHs only.

Response: The conference report on ISTEA states that ``Sixty-six

percent of the public lands highway account shall be allocated to the

Forest Service regional offices for use in 41 States based on the FH

criteria. The remaining 34 percent shall be allocated by the Secretary

based on national competition for other forest or public lands

highways.'' (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 331

(1991).) Therefore, the interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 202(b) is as

follows:

1. Thirty-four percent of the public lands highway funds shall be

allocated in a discretionary manner, giving preference to States that

contain at least 3 percent of the total public lands in the nation.

2. Sixty-six percent of the public lands highway funds are to be

allocated to the FS Regions in accordance with section 134 of the

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987

(STURAA) (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132, 173). Section 134 pertained to

the allocation of FH funds, which is part of the Public Lands Highway

category. Therefore, the language of this section was not changed.

Comment: Two of the SHAs took exception to the fact that this

section requires the allocation of Public Lands Highway Funds by FS

Region, citing an apparent inconsistency with section 134 of the STURAA

which allocates ``for expenditure in each State.'' It was suggested

that, for some States which have more than one FS Region, allocation by

FS Region potentially creates difficulties, such as competition or

conflicts between States, and that FH funds should continue to be

allocated as outlined in the STURAA. Also, because the ISTEA requires

that all FS projects be included in each State's ``Statewide

Transportation Improvement Program'' (STIP), allocation of funds by

State would make it easier for each State to project available funding

and projects for inclusion in its STIP.

Response: The NPRM may have given the appearance that the

allocation method is being changed. Actually, the NPRM proposed to

continue with the same FH allocation method which has been in existence

since FY 85. If FH funds were to be allocated to the States, 34 States

would have their ``hold harmless'' funds reduced by an aggregate total

of approximately $90 million per year (based on FY 94 allocation

amounts). This represents nearly 85 percent of the total FY 94 FH funds

allocation. The regulation will continue with the allocation in its

present form.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the word ``elements,'' used

in the NPRM to state that the allocation of funds for FHs uses values

based on relative transportation needs of the various elements of the

NFS, should be replaced with the word ``resources.'' The commenter

pointed out that the word ``element'' is used in the definition of

renewable resources and could be construed to limit allocations based

on renewable resources only. The commenter also believes the term

``resources'' was defined to include both renewable and nonrenewable

resources and is more appropriate to use in defining the allocation

process.

Response: This wording was carried forward from the previous

wording of the existing regulation. However, the sentence was clarified

by deleting the entire phrase ``the various elements of,'' thereby

eliminating the need for referring to either ``resources'' or

``elements.'' It now refers only to ``using values based on relative

transportation needs of the NFS.''

Section 660.109 Program Development

Comment: One commenter proposed that a seventh FH project selection

criterion should be added to the existing six criteria in paragraph (a)

of this section. The new criterion, which would read: ``The results for

forest highways from the pavement, bridge, and safety management

systems'' is needed to comply with Sec. 660.105(b) of this part, which

discusses the management systems required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.

It would also have to be consistent with any changes made in 23 U.S.C.

105.

Response: Because management systems provide input to

transportation planning and the TIP, this seventh criterion was added

to the final rule as worded above.

Comment: One of the SHAs noted that the NPRM, in paragraph (a),

stated that: ``The FHWA will arrange and conduct a conference with the

FS and the State Highway Agency (SHA) to jointly select the projects

which will be included in the programs. * * *'' The commenter stated

that cooperators (agencies) with jurisdiction over the FHs under

consideration should be included in this conference to enhance the

regional planning aspect for these projects.

Response: Under current procedures, the State represents the

interests of the cooperators. The program meetings are always open to

interested cooperators who may wish to attend. The States may invite

cooperators to the meetings, if they wish. Thus, there is no need to

change the wording of the NPRM.

Comment: The previous commenter also called attention to paragraph

(a) of the NPRM which stated that the FS and the SHA will ``jointly

select the projects which will be included in the programs for the

current fiscal year and at least the next 4 years.'' The commenter

recommended that, since the projects selected will ultimately be added

to the STIP, the planning and selection of FH projects should cover the

same timeframe as the STIP.

Response: Generally, at least 5 years are needed to identify early

environmental and other preliminary engineering required to ensure

meeting the schedule to advance a project to construction. The proposed

FH timeframe is consistent with this since the TIP generally shows 3

years of the 5-year FH program. Thus, there is no need to change the

wording of the NPRM.

Comment: One commenter requested that, in paragraph (b) of this

section, the term ``recommended,'' as used in the first sentence, ``The

recommended program will be prepared by the FHWA and concurred in by

the FS and the SHA,'' should be replaced with the term ``selected.''

This would more accurately reflect the current procedure, as stated in

paragraph (a), that the FHWA, the FS, and the SHA will ``jointly select

the projects,'' not just recommend them. One of the SHAs felt the

second sentence should be revised to read, ``The FHWA will approve the

program `only when there is concurrence by the FS and the SHA.'''

Otherwise, the FHWA could conceivably approve the program without

waiting for concurrence by the other two agencies.

Response: A review of this section indicated that the wording of

the NPRM may still create some confusion, even with the recommended

word changes, because the first two sentences of paragraph (b) state

that ``The recommended program will be prepared by the FHWA and

concurred in by the FS and the SHA'' and that ``The FHWA will approve

the program.'' This would make it appear that the FHWA simply prepares

and approves its own program. Consequently, the wording of the first

sentence of this paragraph was revised to read: ``The recommended

program will be prepared and approved by the FHWA with concurrence by

the FS and the SHA.'' The second sentence was deleted.

Comment: One commenter pointed out that the term ``incorporate,''

as used in the third sentence of NPRM paragraph (b), which states that

``the SHA shall advise any other cooperators in the State of the

projects included in the final program and shall incorporate the

approved program into the STIP,'' seems vague. It appears to imply that

the approved FH program is independent of the regional and statewide

STIP planning requirements of the ISTEA. The commenter felt that,

although this may be the correct way to handle a program of this

nature, the process required to ``incorporate'' the final program into

the STIP should be clarified.

Response: This sentence was clarified by adding the following

phrase to the end of the sentence: ``And shall include the approved

program in the State's process for development of the STIP.''

Section 660.111 Agreements

Comment: One commenter felt that the 41 statewide FH agreements

currently in effect between the FHWA and the States (including Puerto

Rico) should be updated and made into tri-party agreements with the

FHWA, the FS, and the SHA. This would perpetuate the ``partnership''

spirit of the ISTEA and facilitate cooperation among the three

agencies. It would also eliminate separate agreements between the FS

and the SHA and between the FHWA and the SHA in each State. The wording

of this section should be revised by inserting the words ``the Forest

Service'' where necessary, such as after the word ``FHWA'' in paragraph

(a), to include the FS as a signatory agency to the agreements.

Response: Because there are some overall FH procedures that not

only involve the SHAs, but the FS as well, tri-party agreements among

the FHWA, the FS, and the SHA will be a requirement in the final rule.

Because the FHWA and the FS already have separate two-party FH program

agreements for all 40 States, plus Puerto Rico, and because the FHWA

does not want to delay the FH program until all new tri-party

agreements are executed, the first sentence of this section of the NPRM

was revised to delete the phrase ``prior to the expenditure of any

funds by the FHWA in the State.''

Section 660.112 Project Development

Comment: One commenter suggested that, in the first sentence of

paragraph (a), the phrase ``or a public authority'' should be added

after the words ``Projects will be administered by the FHWA.'' This

would acknowledge that the FS may, in some cases, administer the design

and construction of FH projects. The same commenter also suggested

adding the phrase ``and procedures documented in the statewide

agreement'' to the end of the sentence to allow for items included in

statewide agreements to supplement Federal-aid procedures, where

appropriate.

Response: Because the FS wants to be able to administer FH

projects, this sentence was reworded to add the words ``or the FS''

instead of ``or a public authority.'' Also, the phrase ``and procedures

documented in the statewide agreement'' was added to the end of the

sentence. This will allow the parties to determine the procedures to be

followed in a State.

Section 660.113 Construction

Comment: One commenter suggested that the words ``a public

authority'' be substituted for ``cooperator'' in paragraph (b) of this

section. This would allow the FS to perform construction, if

appropriate. Cooperators would still be included since they are, by

definition, a public authority.

Response: Because other public authorities that might potentially

be involved in a project would also be cooperators, the word

``cooperator'' was kept in the sentence in paragraph (b). However, by

adding the words ``the FS'' after FHWA, the FS will be explicitly

allowed to perform construction, if appropriate. Also, paragraph (c),

which deals with final acceptance of the project, was revised to

clarify the intent. The word ``construction'' was retained in the

language to differentiate acceptance of the construction work (for the

purpose of releasing the contractor) from that of acceptance of the

entire project, including any extra work required to resolve

noncontractor-related matters.

Section 660.115 Maintenance

Comment: In dealing with the same issue discussed in the previous

section, as to what constitutes final acceptance of a project, it was

suggested by one commenter that the word ``construction'' be deleted to

avoid confusion.

Response: The term ``construction'' is not incorrect in the context

of this paragraph, because it describes the type of acceptance being

made. However, the entire sentence was reworded to clarify and minimize

possible confusion. By referencing Sec. 660.113(c), which includes the

word ``construction,'' the meaning of the term ``construction

acceptance'' was retained.

Section 660.117 Funding, Records and Accounting

Comment: One commenter suggested deleting the phrase ``and the

SHAs'' from paragraph (e).

Response: Because the term ``cooperators'' includes SHAs, the

phrase was considered redundant and, therefore, deleted.

Comment: One commenter suggested adding the word ``Generally'' at

the beginning of the sentence in paragraph (f) to allow for those

special cases where cash is not obtained in advance of construction

procurement.

Response: Adding the word ``generally'' to the sentence makes the

requirement too much less restrictive. Instead, the following phrase

was added to the end of the last sentence: ``Unless otherwise specified

in a project agreement.'' Also, the word ``shall'' was changed to

``should'' to allow more flexibility.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices; Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this action is not major within the

meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of

Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is

anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be

minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. This

rule merely requires the States and Federal agencies to conform to the

requirements of the ISTEA. The requirements are basically incremental

to what the States and Federal agencies are required to do under the

new ISTEA provisions, such as incorporating new planning provisions,

including metropolitan and statewide transportation plan requirements;

and establishing management systems provisions, including highway

safety, bridges on and off Federal-aid highways, and highway pavements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,

5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on

small entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that

this action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. The revised regulation will not

directly affect small businesses because the regulation applies only to

Federal agency, State, and local government transportation programs.

However, a minor positive secondary effect may result from the

employment of small businesses, such as engineering consultant firms,

to implement some of the planning and management systems required by

the ISTEA.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined

that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing

Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a collection of information

requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has

determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of

the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each

regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.

The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda

in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of

this document can be used to cross reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 660

Forest highways, Highways and roads, Public lands highways.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending chapter 1

of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 660, subpart A as set

forth below.

Issued on: June 6, 1994.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

PART 660--SPECIAL PROGRAMS (DIRECT FEDERAL)

1. Part 660, subpart A is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--Forest Highways

Sec.

660.101 Purpose.

660.103 Definitions.

660.105 Planning and route designation.

660.107 Allocations.

660.109 Program development.

660.111 Agreements.

660.112 Project development.

660.113 Construction.

660.115 Maintenance.

660.117 Funding, records and accounting.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1608-1610; 23 U.S.C. 101, 202, 204, and

315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Subpart A--Forest Highways

Sec. 660.101 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement the Forest Highway (FH)

Program which enhances local, regional, and national benefits of FHs

funded under the public lands highway category of the coordinated

Federal Lands Highway Program. As provided in 23 U.S.C. 202, 203, and

204, the program, developed in cooperation with State and local

agencies, provides safe and adequate transportation access to and

through National Forest System (NFS) lands for visitors,

recreationists, resource users, and others which is not met by other

transportation programs. Forest highways assist rural and community

economic development and promote tourism and travel.

Sec. 660.103 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), the following

apply to this subpart:

Cooperator means a non-Federal public authority which has

jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility for a FH.

Forest highway means a forest road under the jurisdiction of, and

maintained by, a public authority and open to public travel.

Forest road means a road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to,

and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection,

administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development

of its resources.

Jurisdiction means the legal right or authority to control,

operate, regulate use of, maintain, or cause to be maintained, a

transportation facility, through ownership or delegated authority. The

authority to construct or maintain such a facility may be derived from

fee title, easement, written authorization, or permit from a Federal

agency, or some similar method.

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) means that organization

designated as the forum for cooperative transportation decisionmaking

pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this title.

Metropolitan Transportation Plan means the official intermodal

transportation plan that is developed and adopted through the

metropolitan transportation planning process for the metropolitan

planning area.

National Forest System means lands and facilities administered by

the Forest Service (FS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, as set forth

in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1601 note, 1600-1614).

Open to public travel means except during scheduled periods,

extreme weather conditions, or emergencies, open to the general public

for use with a standard passenger auto, without restrictive gates or

prohibitive signs or regulations, other than for general traffic

control or restrictions based on size, weight, or class of

registration.

Public authority means a Federal, State, county, town, or township,

Indian tribe, municipal or other local government or instrumentality

with authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-

free facilities.

Public lands highway means: (1) A forest road under the

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public

travel or (2) any highway through unappropriated or unreserved public

lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations under the

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public

travel.

Public road means any road or street under the jurisdiction of and

maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.

Renewable resources means those elements within the scope of

responsibilities and authorities of the FS as defined in the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (88 Stat.

476) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of October 22,

1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) such as recreation,

wilderness, wildlife and fish, range, timber, land, water, and human

and community development.

Resources means those renewable resources defined above, plus other

nonrenewable resources such as minerals, oil, and gas which are

included in the FS's planning and land management processes.

Statewide transportation plan means the official transportation

plan that is: (1) Intermodal in scope, including bicycle and pedestrian

features, (2) addresses at least a 20-year planning horizon, and (3)

covers the entire State pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this

title.

Sec. 660.105 Planning and route designation.

(a) The FS will provide resource planning and related

transportation information to the appropriate MPO and/or State Highway

Agency (SHA) for use in developing metropolitan and statewide

transportation plans pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this

title. Cooperators shall provide various planning (23 U.S.C. 134 and

135) information to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for

coordination with the FS.

(b) The management systems required under 23 U.S.C. 303 shall

fulfill the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 204(a) regarding the establishment

and implementation of pavement, bridge, and safety management systems

for FHs. The results of bridge management systems and safety management

systems on all FHs and results of pavement management systems for FHs

on Federal-aid highways are to be provided by the SHAs for

consideration in the development of programs under Sec. 660.109 of this

part. The FHWA will provide appropriate pavement management results for

FHs which are not Federal-aid highways.

(c) The FHWA, in consultation with the FS, the SHA, and other

cooperators where appropriate, will designate FHs.

(1) The SHA and the FS will nominate forest roads for FH

designation.

(2) The SHA will represent the interests of all cooperators. All

other agencies shall send their proposals for FHs to the SHA.

(d) A FH will meet the following criteria:

(1) Generally, it is under the jurisdiction of a public authority

and open to public travel, or a cooperator has agreed, in writing, to

assume jurisdiction of the facility and to keep the road open to public

travel once improvements are made.

(2) It provides a connection between adequate and safe public roads

and the resources of the NFS which are essential to the local,

regional, or national economy, and/or the communities, shipping points,

or markets which depend upon those resources.

(3) It serves:

(i) Traffic of which a preponderance is generated by use of the NFS

and its resources; or

(ii) NFS-generated traffic volumes that have a substantial impact

on roadway design and construction; or

(iii) Other local needs such as schools, mail delivery, commercial

supply, and access to private property within the NFS.

Sec. 660.107 Allocations.

On October 1 of each fiscal year, the FHWA will allocate 66 percent

of Public Lands Highway funds, by FS Region, for FHs using values based

on relative transportation needs of the NFS, after deducting such sums

as deemed necessary for the administrative requirements of the FHWA and

the FS; the necessary costs of FH planning studies; and the FH share of

costs for approved Federal Lands Coordinated Technology Implementation

Program studies.

Sec. 660.109 Program development.

(a) The FHWA will arrange and conduct a conference with the FS and

the SHA to jointly select the projects which will be included in the

programs for the current fiscal year and at least the next 4 years.

Projects included in each year's program will be selected considering

the following criteria:

(1) The development, utilization, protection, and administration of

the NFS and its resources;

(2) The enhancement of economic development at the local, regional,

and national level, including tourism and recreational travel;

(3) The continuity of the transportation network serving the NFS

and its dependent communities;

(4) The mobility of the users of the transportation network and the

goods and services provided;

(5) The improvement of the transportation network for economy of

operation and maintenance and the safety of its users;

(6) The protection and enhancement of the rural environment

associated with the NFS and its resources; and

(7) The results for FHs from the pavement, bridge, and safety

management systems.

(b) The recommended program will be prepared and approved by the

FHWA with concurrence by the FS and the SHA. Following approval, the

SHA shall advise any other cooperators in the State of the projects

included in the final program and shall include the approved program in

the State's process for development of the Statewide Transportation

Improvement Program. For projects located in metropolitan areas, the

FHWA and the SHA will work with the MPO to incorporate the approved

program into the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program.

Sec. 660.111 Agreements.

(a) A statewide FH agreement shall be executed among the FHWA, the

FS, and each SHA. This agreement shall set forth the responsibilities

of each party, including that of adherence to the applicable provisions

of Federal and State statutes and regulations.

(b) The design and construction of FH projects will be administered

by the FHWA unless otherwise provided for in an agreement approved

under this subpart.

(c) A project agreement shall be entered into between the FHWA and

the cooperator involved under one or more of the following conditions:

(1) A cooperator's funds are to be made available for the project

or any portion of the project;

(2) Federal funds are to be made available to a cooperator for any

work;

(3) Special circumstances exist which make a project agreement

necessary for payment purposes or to clarify any aspect of the project;

or

(4) It is necessary to document jurisdiction and maintenance

responsibility.

Sec. 660.112 Project development.

(a) Projects to be administered by the FHWA or the FS will be

developed in accordance with FHWA procedures for the Federal Lands

Highway Program. Projects to be administered by a cooperator shall be

developed in accordance with Federal-aid procedures and procedures

documented in the statewide agreement.

(b) The FH projects shall be designed in accordance with part 625

of this chapter or those criteria specifically approved by the FHWA for

a particular project.

Sec. 660.113 Construction.

(a) No construction shall be undertaken on any FH project until

plans, specifications, and estimates have been concurred in by the

cooperator(s) and the FS, and approved in accordance with procedures

contained in the statewide FH agreement.

(b) The construction of FHs will be performed by the contract

method, unless construction by the FHWA, the FS, or a cooperator on its

own account is warranted under 23 U.S.C. 204(e).

(c) Prior to final construction acceptance by the contracting

authority, the project shall be inspected by the cooperator, the FS,

and the FHWA to identify and resolve any mutual concerns.

Sec. 660.115 Maintenance.

The cooperator having jurisdiction over a FH shall, upon acceptance

of the project in accordance with Sec. 660.113(c), assume operation

responsibilities and maintain, or cause to be maintained, any project

constructed under this subpart.

Sec. 660.117 Funding, records and accounting.

(a) The Federal share of funding for eligible FH projects may be

any amount up to and including 100 percent. A cooperator may

participate in the cost of project development and construction, but

participation shall not be required.

(b) Funds for FHs may be used for:

(1) Planning;

(2) Federal Lands Highway research;

(3) Preliminary and construction engineering; and

(4) Construction.

(c) Funds for FHs may be made available for the following

transportation-related improvement purposes which are generally part of

a transportation construction project:

(1) Transportation planning for tourism and recreational travel;

(2) Adjacent vehicular parking areas;

(3) Interpretive signage;

(4) Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or

historic sites;

(5) Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles;

(6) Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas

including sanitary and water facilities; and

(7) Other appropriate public road facilities as approved by the

FHWA.

(d) Use of FH funds for right-of-way acquisition shall be subject

to specific approval by the FHWA.

(e) Cooperators which administer construction of FH projects shall

maintain their FH records according to 49 CFR part 18.

(f) Funds provided to the FHWA by a cooperator should be received

in advance of construction procurement unless otherwise specified in a

project agreement.

[FR Doc. 94-14224 Filed 6-10-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P