Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System, 76019-76021 [E6-21581]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices
Organizations using air charter
brokers should be aware that, since the
Department does not license air charter
brokers, there is no DOT-required
financial security in place to protect an
organization’s payments to a broker that
is the lawful agent of the organization or
who acts in a ‘‘go-between’’ function.
With respect to air charter brokers that
state that they are acting as the agent of
one or more air carriers, prior to signing
a contract for air services organizations
should take steps to assure themselves
of the agency relationship and that the
carrier represented is properly licensed
by DOT and FAA to provide the air
transportation.1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Tickets to a Game or Other Special
Event Sold in Conjunction With a Flight
It is also important to note that
specific rules apply to situations where
tickets to a game or other special event
are being offered in conjunction with a
flight, whether it is a charter flight or a
regularly scheduled flight. Under 14
CFR Part 381, an entity that offers
special event or game tickets in
connection with a flight must be in
physical possession of a sufficient
number of tickets or have a written
contract for the tickets, which must be
directly traceable to the actual sponsor
of the game or other special event.
Failure to meet Part 381’s requirements
can entitle a participant to a full refund,
including the price of the air fare.
We seek the chartering public’s
cooperation and assistance to ensure
that they arrange an enjoyable and
secure traveling experience. If you have
any questions or desire additional
information, please contact Dayton
Lehman, Deputy Assistant General
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, or Lisa Swafford-Brooks,
Senior Attorney in that office, at (202)
366–9342. If you wish to ascertain
whether a particular aircraft operator
has DOT air carrier economic authority,
you may contact Bill Bertram, Chief of
the Air Carrier Fitness Division at (202)
366–1062.
An unofficial electronic version of
this document is available on the World
Wide Web at https://dms.dot.gov/reports
and at https://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/
rules/guidance.htm
1 On October 8, 2004, this office issued a notice
regarding the lawful role of air charter brokers in
the provision of air transportation and our
enforcement policy covering such operations. The
notice, which was published in the Federal
Register, provides information on a variety of topics
involving air charter brokers, including contracting
procedures and marketing. 69 FR 61429, Oct. 18,
2004; erratum published 69 FR 62321, Oct. 25,
2004. The notice may be found on the office’s
website at: https://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/
BrokerNoticeFinal.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
Dated: December 13, 2006.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 06–9772 Filed 12–14–06; 4:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2006–24902]
Final List of Nationally and
Exceptionally Significant Features of
the Federal Interstate Highway System
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this
notice to announce the final list of
nationally and exceptionally significant
features of the Federal Interstate
Highway System. The list is available at
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/
histpres/highways.asp. In developing
the final list, the FHWA considered
public comments received on the
preliminary list of exceptional elements,
which was published in the Federal
Register on June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34988).
This notice summarizes those
comments. Exemptions of the Interstate
Highway System from consideration as
historic property under the provisions
of section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966 1 will not apply to the
elements on this list.
DATES: The final list of nationally and
exceptionally significant features of the
Federal Interstate Highway System is
effective December 19, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
MaryAnn Naber, HEPE, (202) 366–2060;
Federal Highway Administration; 400
7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590;
Harold Aikens, Office of the Chief
Counsel, HCC–30, (202) 366–0791;
Federal Highway Administration, 400
7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–
0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to
4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966 was technically repealed in 1983 when
it was codified without substantive change and 49
U.S.C. 303. A provision with the same meaning is
found at 23 U.S.C. 138 and applies only to FHWA
actions. We continue to refer to section 4(f) as such
because it would create needless confusion to do
otherwise; the policies section 4(f) engendered are
widely referred to as ‘‘Section 4(f)’’ matters.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76019
Electronic Access and Filing
Internet users may access all
comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the
universal resource locator (URL) for the
Document Management System (DMS)
at https://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year.
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded by using the
Internet to reach the Office of the
Federal Register’s home page at https://
www.archives.gov and the Government
Printing Office’s Web site at https://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
I. Background
As the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways (Interstate System)
approached its 50th Anniversary, the
potential for vast sections of highway to
reach the mark at which resources are
often evaluated for historic significance
raised the issue of an overwhelming
administrative burden for the myriad
routine undertakings affecting the
Interstate System. Accordingly, on
February 18, 2005, the Section 106
Exemption Regarding Effects to the
Interstate Highway System was adopted
by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) to minimize the
administrative burden on agencies
responsible for highway maintenance
and improvements.2 This exemption
effectively excluded the majority of the
46,700-mile Interstate System from
consideration as a historic property
under section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In
addition, the recently enacted Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU) reauthorization
legislation (Pub. L. 109–59, August 10,
2005) included a provision (Section
6007) that exempts the bulk of the
Interstate System from consideration as
an historic property under section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act.
With these two exemptions in place, all
Federal agencies are no longer required
to consider the vast majority of the
Interstate System as historic property
under Section 106 and Section 4(f)
requirements. Interstate improvement
projects are still subject to these
respective processes with regard to
those resources listed on or eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places that are not integral parts
of the Interstate System.
2 The ACHP’s approved exemption was published
in the Federal Register on March 10, 2005, at 70
FR 11928.
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
76020
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices
Under Section II of the ACHP’s
Section 106 exemption, certain elements
of the Interstate System, such as bridges,
tunnels, and rest stops, shall be
excluded from the exemption’s
provisions if they have national and/or
exceptional historic significance.
Section III of the ACHP’s Section 106
exemption set forth the process by
which the FHWA was to identify these
elements in consultation with
stakeholders in each State. Section 6007
of SAFETEA–LU (codified at 23 U.S.C.
103(c)(5)) adopted by reference the same
process for identifying exclusions to the
Section 4(f) exemption. Under this
process, elements of the Interstate
System to be excluded from the
exemptions were required to meet at
least one of the following criteria for
significance:
1. National Significance. The element
is at least 50 years old and meets the
National Register of Historic Places
(National Register) criteria 3 for national
significance as defined in 36 CFR 65.4.
In particular, the quality of national
significance is ascribed to resources that
possess exceptional value or quality in
illustrating or interpreting the heritage
of the United States in history,
architecture, archeology, engineering,
and culture and that possess a high
degree of integrity.
2. Exceptional Significance. The
element is less than 50 years old and
meets the National Register criteria
consideration for exceptional
importance. The first step in evaluating
properties of recent significance is to
identify the appropriate area(s) of
significance: engineering,
transportation, social history, or
commerce. Then, deliberate and distinct
justification for the ‘‘exceptional
importance’’ of the resource must be
made. The phrase ‘‘exceptional
importance’’ may be applied to the
element’s extraordinary impact on an
event or for the quality of its design or
because it may be one of very few
survivors of a resource type. Standard
design elements, by their very nature,
are not exceptional.
3. Listed or Determined Eligible by
the Keeper. The element is listed in the
National Register or has previously been
determined eligible by the Keeper of the
National Register.
4. State or Local Significance. At the
discretion of the FHWA, elements may
be included in the list of excluded
elements if they are at least 50 years old,
were later incorporated into the
3 Information on the National Register standards
for evaluating the significance of properties and its
criteria for listing may be found at the following
URL: https://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
Interstate Highway System, and meet
the National Register criteria for
evaluation as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 at
the state or local level of significance.
The FHWA published a notice on
June 16, 2006, (71 FR 34988) describing
the collaborative process used to
identify properties that should be
excluded from the Section 106 and
Section 4(f) exemptions. The notice also
published and requested comments on a
preliminary list of properties
recommended for exclusion by teams of
Federal, State, and local stakeholders
within each State.
After reviewing the comments
submitted on the preliminary list, the
FHWA has revised and finalized the list
of exceptional Interstate System
elements, as described below. Properties
included on this list will continue to be
subject to the requirements of Sections
106 and 4(f).
II. Discussion of Comments and
Responses
A. Summary of Comments
In response to the June 16, 2006,
notice, the FHWA received 55 sets of
comments on the preliminary list.
Comments were submitted by a variety
of individuals and organizations,
including: State Department of
Transportation (DOT) representatives
(18); private citizens (17);
transportation-related associations or
professional groups (9); State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO)
representatives (4); turnpike or toll road
authorities (4); city officials (2); and a
State legislature (1). Most of the
comments addressed the inclusion of
elements on the preliminary list, with
26 suggesting that one or more elements
be removed, 19 requesting that elements
be retained, and three suggesting that
elements be added. Such comments
addressed 51 unique elements of the
Interstate System. The remaining seven
comments addressed other issues: a few
raised questions about the process of
identifying excluded elements with
several suggesting the process was too
limited and might overlook significant
resources while another found the
process and resulting list to be overinclusive. Other comments voiced
appreciation for the opportunity to
provide input on the list and a few
pointed out inaccuracies in the
justification statements of particular
elements.
B. Response to Comments
After the public comment period
ended, the FHWA categorized the
comments into two main groups: those
that required action and those that did
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
not. Comments requiring action
included suggested changes to the list
itself (i.e., addition or removal of
properties) and questions or statements
requiring additional research (e.g.,
suggested corrections to the justification
statements). The FHWA addressed
comments that suggested changes to the
list via a collaborative process, as
detailed below. For comments requiring
additional research, the FHWA worked
with qualified cultural resource
management specialists to locate the
information in question and revise
justification statements, as appropriate.
General comments about approach and
methodology are addressed below.
As described in the June 16, 2006,
notice, the FHWA engaged
representatives from FHWA Division
Offices, State DOTs, SHPOs, and other
stakeholders (where appropriate) within
each of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia to identify elements that
should remain subject to Section 106
and 4(f) requirements. At the conclusion
of the public comment period, the
FHWA noted that a number of
comments were significant enough to
require additional discussion with the
‘‘teams’’ of representatives that helped
to develop the initial list. Such
comments included requests for the
removal of certain elements from the list
or the addition of new elements to the
list. In August and September of 2006,
the FHWA convened and participated in
a series of conference calls to discuss
significant comments on elements in 10
States; invited to participate in each call
were the original team of State
representatives and all those who
submitted comments on the elements in
the State. Each call was facilitated by
the cultural resource management
specialist who worked with the State in
developing its initial list and included
representation from FHWA
Headquarters. The goals of engaging
State teams and commenters in this
manner were to provide a forum for
open communication between
stakeholders and FHWA and to attempt
to reach consensus on a final list of
elements in each State.
While the effort to identify excepted
elements to the broad exemptions for
the Interstate System references some of
the basic principles for determining
eligibility to the National Register, the
survey of this 47,000-mile resource
could not be conducted at a level of
great detail, nor was it expected to
provide definitive justification for
National Register eligibility. The intent
of the process was to determine which
resources appeared to rise to the
national and/or exceptional level in
order that they be afforded the
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices
consideration of review under Section
106 and Section 4(f), while immediately
exempting the vast majority of the
Interstate System. This initial look was
not intended to apply the same rigor
with which a formal determination of
eligibility is conducted, but to retain the
ability to apply the full 106 and 4(f)
processes to those elements which
appeared to rise to that level.
Application of the Section 106 process
would provide additional detailed
information regarding eligibility upon
which the balance of the review(s)
would proceed. It is therefore
conceivable that in the course of
consideration under the respective
reviews, some of the resources included
in the final list of exceptional elements
of the Interstate may be determined not
eligible for inclusion in the National
Register. In that case, no further
consideration of the specific Interstate
element as a historic property is
required under either of the statutory
provisions. Should a resource be
validated as National Register eligible,
most improvements would likely be
able to be made in a way that does not
adversely affect its significant
characteristics. In such cases, Section
106 could be completed very simply
and Section 4(f) would not apply. In any
case, inclusion on the list in no way
implies that these resources cannot be
maintained and improved to continue to
safely serve the traveling public.
Two commenters suggested that there
was some inconsistency between the
criteria cited in the original Section 106
exemption and the guidance for
applying the criteria subsequently
distributed in January 2006 by FHWA.4
However, the guidance was clearly
to apply the Criteria for the
Identification of Nationally Significant and
Exceptionally Significant Elements of the Interstate
Highway System’’ is available at: https://
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/
highways.asp.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
4 ‘‘Guidance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
supplemental to the language of the
actual Section 106 exemption, which
was adopted by SAFETEA-LU Section
6007, and was not intended to
supersede it. As the criteria were
applied in the course of this process,
those resources less than 50 years old
apparently meeting the standards of
‘‘exceptional,’’ were also deemed to
carry national significance within the
context of the Interstate Highway
System.
III. Changes to List of Exceptionally and
Nationally Significant Features
After considering the comments
submitted during the public comment
period and the views expressed during
the subsequent conference calls with
teams in several States, the FHWA has
made several modifications to the list of
exceptional Interstate System features.
The final list includes 132 unique
features—20 fewer features than the
preliminary list contained (152).
Specifically, the FHWA has removed 26
elements from and added 6 elements to
the list. The final list may be viewed at
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/
histpres/highways.asp.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(5)(B); Sec. 6007
of Pub. L. 109–59.
Issued on: December 12, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–21581 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Open meeting of the Taxpayer
Assistance Center Committee of the
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Treasury.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
76021
Notice.
SUMMARY: An open meeting of the
Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee
of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be
conducted (via teleconference). The
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is
soliciting public comments, ideas, and
suggestions on improving customer
service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Friday,
January 12, 2007.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Coffman at 1–888–912–1227, or
206–220–6096.
Notice is
hereby given pursuant to Section
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer
Assistance Center Committee of the
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held
Friday, January 12, 2007, from 9 a.m.
Pacific Time to 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time
via a telephone conference call. If you
would like to have the TAP consider a
written statement, please call 1–888–
912–1227 or 206–220–6096, or write to
Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd
Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174
or you can contact us at https://
www.improveirs.org. Due to limited
conference lines, notification of intent
to participate in the telephone
conference call meeting must be made
with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can be
reached at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–
220–6096.
The agenda will include the
following: Various IRS issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: December 4, 2006.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E6–21570 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76019-76021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21581]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-24902]
Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features
of the Federal Interstate Highway System
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to announce the final list of
nationally and exceptionally significant features of the Federal
Interstate Highway System. The list is available at https://
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp. In developing the
final list, the FHWA considered public comments received on the
preliminary list of exceptional elements, which was published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34988). This notice summarizes
those comments. Exemptions of the Interstate Highway System from
consideration as historic property under the provisions of section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 \1\ will not apply to the
elements on this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
was technically repealed in 1983 when it was codified without
substantive change and 49 U.S.C. 303. A provision with the same
meaning is found at 23 U.S.C. 138 and applies only to FHWA actions.
We continue to refer to section 4(f) as such because it would create
needless confusion to do otherwise; the policies section 4(f)
engendered are widely referred to as ``Section 4(f)'' matters.
DATES: The final list of nationally and exceptionally significant
features of the Federal Interstate Highway System is effective December
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Naber, HEPE, (202) 366-2060;
Federal Highway Administration; 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590; Harold Aikens, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-
0791; Federal Highway Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL) for
the Document Management System (DMS) at https://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using the
Internet to reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at
https://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web site
at https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
I. Background
As the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways (Interstate System) approached its 50th Anniversary,
the potential for vast sections of highway to reach the mark at which
resources are often evaluated for historic significance raised the
issue of an overwhelming administrative burden for the myriad routine
undertakings affecting the Interstate System. Accordingly, on February
18, 2005, the Section 106 Exemption Regarding Effects to the Interstate
Highway System was adopted by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) to minimize the administrative burden on agencies
responsible for highway maintenance and improvements.\2\ This exemption
effectively excluded the majority of the 46,700-mile Interstate System
from consideration as a historic property under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In addition, the recently
enacted Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) reauthorization legislation (Pub.
L. 109-59, August 10, 2005) included a provision (Section 6007) that
exempts the bulk of the Interstate System from consideration as an
historic property under section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act. With these two exemptions in place, all Federal
agencies are no longer required to consider the vast majority of the
Interstate System as historic property under Section 106 and Section
4(f) requirements. Interstate improvement projects are still subject to
these respective processes with regard to those resources listed on or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places that
are not integral parts of the Interstate System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ACHP's approved exemption was published in the Federal
Register on March 10, 2005, at 70 FR 11928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76020]]
Under Section II of the ACHP's Section 106 exemption, certain
elements of the Interstate System, such as bridges, tunnels, and rest
stops, shall be excluded from the exemption's provisions if they have
national and/or exceptional historic significance. Section III of the
ACHP's Section 106 exemption set forth the process by which the FHWA
was to identify these elements in consultation with stakeholders in
each State. Section 6007 of SAFETEA-LU (codified at 23 U.S.C.
103(c)(5)) adopted by reference the same process for identifying
exclusions to the Section 4(f) exemption. Under this process, elements
of the Interstate System to be excluded from the exemptions were
required to meet at least one of the following criteria for
significance:
1. National Significance. The element is at least 50 years old and
meets the National Register of Historic Places (National Register)
criteria \3\ for national significance as defined in 36 CFR 65.4. In
particular, the quality of national significance is ascribed to
resources that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or
interpreting the heritage of the United States in history,
architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that possess a
high degree of integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Information on the National Register standards for
evaluating the significance of properties and its criteria for
listing may be found at the following URL: https://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/
listing.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Exceptional Significance. The element is less than 50 years old
and meets the National Register criteria consideration for exceptional
importance. The first step in evaluating properties of recent
significance is to identify the appropriate area(s) of significance:
engineering, transportation, social history, or commerce. Then,
deliberate and distinct justification for the ``exceptional
importance'' of the resource must be made. The phrase ``exceptional
importance'' may be applied to the element's extraordinary impact on an
event or for the quality of its design or because it may be one of very
few survivors of a resource type. Standard design elements, by their
very nature, are not exceptional.
3. Listed or Determined Eligible by the Keeper. The element is
listed in the National Register or has previously been determined
eligible by the Keeper of the National Register.
4. State or Local Significance. At the discretion of the FHWA,
elements may be included in the list of excluded elements if they are
at least 50 years old, were later incorporated into the Interstate
Highway System, and meet the National Register criteria for evaluation
as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 at the state or local level of significance.
The FHWA published a notice on June 16, 2006, (71 FR 34988)
describing the collaborative process used to identify properties that
should be excluded from the Section 106 and Section 4(f) exemptions.
The notice also published and requested comments on a preliminary list
of properties recommended for exclusion by teams of Federal, State, and
local stakeholders within each State.
After reviewing the comments submitted on the preliminary list, the
FHWA has revised and finalized the list of exceptional Interstate
System elements, as described below. Properties included on this list
will continue to be subject to the requirements of Sections 106 and
4(f).
II. Discussion of Comments and Responses
A. Summary of Comments
In response to the June 16, 2006, notice, the FHWA received 55 sets
of comments on the preliminary list. Comments were submitted by a
variety of individuals and organizations, including: State Department
of Transportation (DOT) representatives (18); private citizens (17);
transportation-related associations or professional groups (9); State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) representatives (4); turnpike or
toll road authorities (4); city officials (2); and a State legislature
(1). Most of the comments addressed the inclusion of elements on the
preliminary list, with 26 suggesting that one or more elements be
removed, 19 requesting that elements be retained, and three suggesting
that elements be added. Such comments addressed 51 unique elements of
the Interstate System. The remaining seven comments addressed other
issues: a few raised questions about the process of identifying
excluded elements with several suggesting the process was too limited
and might overlook significant resources while another found the
process and resulting list to be over-inclusive. Other comments voiced
appreciation for the opportunity to provide input on the list and a few
pointed out inaccuracies in the justification statements of particular
elements.
B. Response to Comments
After the public comment period ended, the FHWA categorized the
comments into two main groups: those that required action and those
that did not. Comments requiring action included suggested changes to
the list itself (i.e., addition or removal of properties) and questions
or statements requiring additional research (e.g., suggested
corrections to the justification statements). The FHWA addressed
comments that suggested changes to the list via a collaborative
process, as detailed below. For comments requiring additional research,
the FHWA worked with qualified cultural resource management specialists
to locate the information in question and revise justification
statements, as appropriate. General comments about approach and
methodology are addressed below.
As described in the June 16, 2006, notice, the FHWA engaged
representatives from FHWA Division Offices, State DOTs, SHPOs, and
other stakeholders (where appropriate) within each of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia to identify elements that should remain
subject to Section 106 and 4(f) requirements. At the conclusion of the
public comment period, the FHWA noted that a number of comments were
significant enough to require additional discussion with the ``teams''
of representatives that helped to develop the initial list. Such
comments included requests for the removal of certain elements from the
list or the addition of new elements to the list. In August and
September of 2006, the FHWA convened and participated in a series of
conference calls to discuss significant comments on elements in 10
States; invited to participate in each call were the original team of
State representatives and all those who submitted comments on the
elements in the State. Each call was facilitated by the cultural
resource management specialist who worked with the State in developing
its initial list and included representation from FHWA Headquarters.
The goals of engaging State teams and commenters in this manner were to
provide a forum for open communication between stakeholders and FHWA
and to attempt to reach consensus on a final list of elements in each
State.
While the effort to identify excepted elements to the broad
exemptions for the Interstate System references some of the basic
principles for determining eligibility to the National Register, the
survey of this 47,000-mile resource could not be conducted at a level
of great detail, nor was it expected to provide definitive
justification for National Register eligibility. The intent of the
process was to determine which resources appeared to rise to the
national and/or exceptional level in order that they be afforded the
[[Page 76021]]
consideration of review under Section 106 and Section 4(f), while
immediately exempting the vast majority of the Interstate System. This
initial look was not intended to apply the same rigor with which a
formal determination of eligibility is conducted, but to retain the
ability to apply the full 106 and 4(f) processes to those elements
which appeared to rise to that level. Application of the Section 106
process would provide additional detailed information regarding
eligibility upon which the balance of the review(s) would proceed. It
is therefore conceivable that in the course of consideration under the
respective reviews, some of the resources included in the final list of
exceptional elements of the Interstate may be determined not eligible
for inclusion in the National Register. In that case, no further
consideration of the specific Interstate element as a historic property
is required under either of the statutory provisions. Should a resource
be validated as National Register eligible, most improvements would
likely be able to be made in a way that does not adversely affect its
significant characteristics. In such cases, Section 106 could be
completed very simply and Section 4(f) would not apply. In any case,
inclusion on the list in no way implies that these resources cannot be
maintained and improved to continue to safely serve the traveling
public.
Two commenters suggested that there was some inconsistency between
the criteria cited in the original Section 106 exemption and the
guidance for applying the criteria subsequently distributed in January
2006 by FHWA.\4\ However, the guidance was clearly supplemental to the
language of the actual Section 106 exemption, which was adopted by
SAFETEA-LU Section 6007, and was not intended to supersede it. As the
criteria were applied in the course of this process, those resources
less than 50 years old apparently meeting the standards of
``exceptional,'' were also deemed to carry national significance within
the context of the Interstate Highway System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Guidance to apply the Criteria for the Identification of
Nationally Significant and Exceptionally Significant Elements of the
Interstate Highway System'' is available at: https://
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Changes to List of Exceptionally and Nationally Significant
Features
After considering the comments submitted during the public comment
period and the views expressed during the subsequent conference calls
with teams in several States, the FHWA has made several modifications
to the list of exceptional Interstate System features. The final list
includes 132 unique features--20 fewer features than the preliminary
list contained (152). Specifically, the FHWA has removed 26 elements
from and added 6 elements to the list. The final list may be viewed at
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(5)(B); Sec. 6007 of Pub. L. 109-59.
Issued on: December 12, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-21581 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P