August 19, 2004
U. S. Department of Transportation
Dockets Management Facility
Room PL-401
400 Seventh Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20590-0001
RE: FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-9182, Highway Bridge Program 23 CFR Part 650
To Whom It May Concern:
The National Association of County Engineers (NACE) is responding to your Federal Register Notice/Vol. 69, No. 118 issued on June 21, 2004. We would like to take this opportunity to comment generally on the proposed rulemaking and on several specific sections of this rulemaking.
The FHWA has requested comments by August 20, 2004 on proposed revisions to the Highway Bridge Program. It is noted that the scope of comments are limited to subpart D of the Highway Bridge program sections 650.401 – 650.411.
General Comments:
- NACE applauds the stated intention to revise the regulation so that it better meets the needs of state and local bridges owners.However, we are generally concerned that with the increased flexibility to states for bridge maintenance will be at the expense of needed improvements on structurally deficient or functionally obsolete local agency bridges.For example the inclusion of historic bridge work as an eligible expense would ultimately take away available funds for critical bridge projects.NACE and some of its affiliates believe that historic bridge work should be more appropriately funded with enhancement funds.
- NACE recommends that preventive maintenance activities do not affect the 10-year rule for HBRP eligibility.
- NACE recognizes that the changes proposed by FHWA in this NPRM primarily relate to allowing the use of Federal HBRRP funding for work other than bridge replacement and rehabilitation.NACE supports this proposed flexibility at the local agency level.
We do, however, note that “seismic retrofit” is included in the expansion of eligible work. This would allow HBRRP funds to be used to satisfy the revisions proposed by the FHWA to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), which would require states to establish a seismic evaluation and retrofit program. The use of these funds to satisfy the seismic program requirements of the proposed NBIS would amount to a Federal mandate that would significantly diminish the resources available to local agencies for non-seismic related bridge replacement and rehabilitation. In addition, use of HBRRP funds to establish a BMS or to inventory bridges for historic significance would allow the states to further reduce resources currently available to replace and rehabilitate bridges of local road agencies. Collectively these three specific proposed expansions of HBRRP funding (Seismic Evaluation & Retrofit, BMS, and Historic Inventory) would represent a very large reduction in HBRRP funding available to local agencies as mandated by Federal and State government. This would be a departure from the current HBRRP practice and NACE, without a guaranteed and appropriate funding level increase, recommends strongly against such mandates.
Specific Comments:
Section 650.401 Purpose
Proposed Revision: The FHWA proposes to change the name of the program from “Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program” to “Highway Bridge Program (HBP)’.”
Comment: NACE recommends changing the name to the “Highway Bridge Replacement, Rehabilitation and Preservation Program (HBRP)”. This change in the acronym would avoid confusion with the Historic Bridge Program (HBP) and would maintain an easier user recognition and continuity with the current HBRRP. Furthermore, NACE feels that the overall Federal “highway bridge program” encompasses much more than just the rehabilitation, replacement and maintenance of bridges but includes all bridge related items of the Federal Code such as the National Bridge Inspection Standards, as well.
Section 650.403 Definitions
“Bridge Management System (BMS). A systematic process, approved by FHWA, used for analyzing bridge data to make forecasts and recommendations, and to provide the means by which bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement programs and policies may be efficiently considered as outlined in 23 CFR 500.107.”
Comment: NACE recommends avoiding wording in the definition of a BMS which indicates FHWA approval by instead inserting that wording at the appropriate points such as the proposed Section 650.411(a) which should then read “In those States with an FHWA approved Bridge Management System (BMS) and an FHWA approved Bridge Performance Plan, HBRP funding may be used for . . .”.
“Eligible highway bridge. A bridge on the current selection list or otherwise approved by FHWA to be eligible for Highway Bridge Program funding.”
Comment: NACE concurs with the definition. Though we agree with the use of the eligibility list for identifying bridges that may be selected for major work activities, we would prefer that more flexibility be provided in regard to the type of major work chosen. The current requirement that bridges with a rating of greater than 50 are not eligible for funding as a replacement project does not readily allow the local agency or the state to compare costs/benefits of rehabilitation versus replacement. We suggest that all eligible bridges with sufficiency ratings of 80 or less be eligible for either replacement or rehabilitation at the discretion of the state without requiring FHWA concurrence for the option chosen.
Add a definition for “Construction Unit Cost”: A definition is needed to clarify that the term is meant to identify the overall cost of bridge construction based on a per square foot of deck basis and is not specifically related to the “unit cost” of an individual pay item. NACE’s suggested definition:
“Construction Unit Cost”. The per square foot cost of bridge construction based on the summation of the total cost of all bridge related pay items included in a state’s federally funded bridge program divided by the total square footage of all federally funded bridge superstructure constructed by the state during the federal fiscal year.
Section 650.405 Eligible and ineligible activities
Proposed Revision: Item (3) Application of calcium magnesium acetate, sodium acetate, or other environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing and de-icing compositions.
Comment: This appears to be routine winter maintenance. NACE has concern that this could result is spending too much of the scare bridge funds for winter maintenance. If this is done there should be a limit on the amount of funds that could be utililized in this category.
Proposed Revision: “(5) Purchase and installation of the initial set of load posting signs immediately adjacent to the bridge.”
Comment: NACE recommends removal of the verbiage “initial set” to allow HBRP funding for the continued maintenance and replacement of load posting signs. The routine replacement of load restriction signs should be considered a necessary maintenance procedure to ensure highway safety.
Sec 650.405 Eligible and ineligible activities:
Proposed Revision: “(6) Safety Improvements and preventive maintenance activities identified through an approved systematic process.”
Comment: NACE recommends removal of the word “approved” and separation of the two activities “Safety Improvements” and “preventive maintenance” into individual item citations. The local agency and states systematic processes used to evaluate structural/safety conditions and prioritize improvement activities should suffice in determining needed safety improvements and preventive maintenance activities without adding another layer of FHWA oversight approval. Secondly, removal of “approved” would avoid confusion between what a systematic process is versus a BMS (see Section 650.403 Definitions, systematic process Comment).
Separating Safety Improvements and preventive maintenance into individual item citations will reinforce the distinction and uniqueness of the two activities. Example: (6a) Safety Improvement activities identified through a systematic process. (6b) Preventive maintenance activities identified through a systematic process.
Proposed Revision: Item (8) Bridge Safety inspections and related activities (including load rating and analysis).
Comment: This also appears to be routine maintenance and as such some limits should be established. A question arises “would local agencies be able to pay for bridge inspections this way?” NACE is concerned that if local agencies don’t have enough funds to now replace or repair bridges eligibility should not be expanded into these areas.
Proposed Revision: Item (11) Inventory bridges of historic significance.
Comment: It was our understanding that this inventory has already been accomplished nationwide. If so, providing this as an eligible activity further reduces funds for criticial repair and replacement projects.
Proposed Revision: “(b)(1) Costs of long approach fills, causeways, connecting roadways, interchanges, ramps, and other extensive earth structures, when constructed beyond the attainable touchdown point.”
Comment: NACE recommends adding wording to the end of this sentence as follows: “. . . constructed beyond the attainable touchdown point except as required pursuant to 23 CFR 625 to meet the minimum design standard for the proposed functional classification of the project’s roadway and bridge facility.”
This recommendation is intended to address the common case experienced wherein a local agency replaces a structure on a roadway crossing of a stream floodplain for which said roadway becomes overtopped at much lesser flood magnitudes than the minimum design event. NACE feels that by making that portion of the work, necessary to limit overtopping of the approach roadway to greater than or equal to the design event, eligible for HBRP funding would more appropriately address the provisions of 23 CFR 625. This would help to alleviate those common cases wherein an eligible structure is replaced with a structure designed for a flood event that is much greater than that which overtops the approach roadway making the structure unusable for floods between the overtopping and design events, thereby reducing the functionality of the new structure to a much lesser design event. The hydraulic analysis of a stream crossing by necessity includes both the approach roadway and bridge in order to design a complete and functional system. The current practice of only allowing funding for that portion of the approach roadway to touch down to the existing road grade does not reflect a complete and functional system.
Section 650.407 Applicability
Proposed Revision: “HBP funding may be used for Federal aid projects including:
(a) The types of work activities identified in Section 650.405(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5) and (a)(10) on eligible highway bridges on public roads.
(b) The types of work activities identified in Section 650.405(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9), (a)(11), and (a)(12) on all bridges on public roads.”
Comment: NACE recommends moving the reference to Section 650.405(a)(5) from the (a) of Section 650.407 to the (b) of Section 650.407.
The purchase and installation of load posting signs should not be limited to only those public roads’ bridges on the current selection list.
Section 650.409 Program procedures and requirements.
Proposed Revision: “(b) States are responsible for collecting bridge construction unit cost data for State and Local Government bridges and annually submitting data summaries to the FHWA for processing.”
Comment: NACE recommends inserting the verbiage “Federally funded” prior to “...State and Local Government bridges...”. Therefore, citation would appear as “(b) States are responsible for collecting bridge construction unit cost data for Federally funded State and Local Government bridges and annually submitting data summaries to the FHWA for processing.”
Proposed Revision: “(d) Upon receipt and evaluation of the bridge inventory, a sufficiency rating will be assigned to each bridge by the Secretary in accordance with the FHWA sufficiency rating formula. The sufficiency rating will be used as a basis for establishing eligibility and may be used for determining priority for replacement or rehabilitation of bridges.
Comment: NACE agrees with using the Sufficiency Rating (SR) as a basis for establishing eligibility. However, we propose that states be allowed to apply HBRP funding to bridge projects for replacement and rehabilitation as the states may determine based on structural condition, structure type, roadway alignment and prioritization, and not based solely on a range of sufficiency ratings. (Reference is made to FHWA’s previous guidance that a SR below 50 qualifies bridges for rehabilitation or replacement while a SR of 50 to 80 qualifies a bridge for rehabilitation.) NACE proposes eliminating the “below 50 & 50-80” SR guidance.
Should the “below 50 & 50-80” range of sufficiency ratings guidance continue as the criteria used in determining rehabilitation versus replacement, NACE proposes the breakpoint rating of 50 be increased. A large number of inventoried bridges are older bridges subjected to heavier loads and a changed functional adequacy situation from that for which they were initially designed. It may be more cost-effective to replace the bridge than to continue to rehabilitate to accommodate the increased capacity demands and/ or functional inadequacies. (See NACE’s comments for the definition of “Eligible highway bridge” in Section 650.403 Definitions.)
Proposed Revision: “(e) After evaluation of the inventory and assignment of sufficiency ratings, the Secretary will provide the States with selection lists of bridges that are eligible for the HBP. Eligible types of work may be selected for bridges that are on the list. Funding for work on bridges that are not on the current selection list must be approved by the FHWA.”
Comment: NACE feels that the intent of the last two sentences “Eligible types of work may be selected for bridges that are on the list. Funding for work on bridges that are not on the current selection list must be approved by the FHWA” needs to be clarified. It appears to conflict with Section 650.407 “Applicability”, particularly item (b) which states that bridges do not have to be classified as “eligible highway bridges” to qualify for HBP.
NACE suggests replacing those last two sentences with the following sentence: “Funding for work activities specified in 605.407(a) must be directed toward the bridges identified on the selection list provided by the Secretary unless approval is obtained from the FHWA. Funding for work activities specified in 605.407(b) does not require FHWA approval.
Proposed Revision: “(g) Each approved project will be designed, constructed, and inspected for acceptance in the same manner as other projects on the system of which the project is a part. Design standards for all HBP activities must conform to the provisions of 23 CFR 625, Design Standards for Highways.”
Comment: NACE proposes adding language to exempt preventive maintenance activities from this citation by specifying to which items of Section 650.405(a) the 23 CFR 625 standards shall apply.
Proposed Revision: Section 650.411 Alternate Program
Comment: NACE disagrees with the FHWA statement “The FHWA does not consider this flexibility to be a diversion of funds from reconstruction and rehabilitation but rather a more effective use of limited funds.” With each state in ultimate control of these dollars they can use as much of the funds on its own bridges including routine maintenance while providing the absolute minimum to local agencies. Alternative program appears to grant flexibility to states but no requirement that states extend this flexibility to local governments. Possibly an amendment to this program could stipulate that maintenance flexibility be limited to those states that are achieving stated performance goals on all bridges within the state – both state and local bridges. In summary, this new program leaves many questions unanswered and as such is not endorsed.
Summary
The overall affect of the new rules will increase the complexity and expand areas of eligibility for states to use bridges funds on routine maintenance. It is clear to us that the ultimate effect on local agencies will be a reduction of federal funds available for local agency bridges. We therefore disagree with the assessment that “This proposed amendment would not impose unfunded mandates..” Clearly while the law provides for funding, the actual funding for the HBRRP program is inadequate at best and certainly even less so for local government agencies who are on the bottom of the funding chain.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
A. R. Giancola, P. E.
Executive Director