Adoption of the Federal Highway Administration's Nationwide Section 4(f) Net Benefit and Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluations, 79072-79074 [2020-26968]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79072
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices
232.3(d), formerly contained in
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
Order 13528. Paragraph (d)(3) of 49 CFR
232.3 conditionally excepts certain
export, industrial, and other cars not
owned by a railroad from part 232
compliance. It requires cars to be
identified by a card attached to each
side of the equipment, signed by the
shipper, specifically noting that the car
is being moved under the proper
authority. Railroads typically use carrier
bad order forms or tags for these
purposes. These forms are readily
available from all carrier repair
facilities. FRA estimates approximately
400 cars per year, each bearing two
forms or tags, are moved under this
regulation.
Type of Request: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Affected Public: Businesses.
Form(s): N/A.
Respondent Universe: 765 railroads.
Frequency of Submission: On
occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Responses:
800.
Total Estimated Annual Burden: 67
hours.
Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour
Dollar Cost Equivalent: $3,886.
Title: U.S. Locational Requirement for
Dispatching U.S. Rail Operations.
OMB Control Number: 2130–0556.
Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 241
requires, in the absence of a waiver, that
all dispatching of railroad operations
occurring in the United States be
performed in the United States. A
railroad may, however, conduct
dispatching from a country other than
the United States in an emergency
situation, but only for the duration of
the emergency situation. See 49 CFR
241.9(c). A railroad relying on this
exception must provide written
notification of its action to FRA as soon
as practicable; such notification is not
required before addressing the
emergency situation. The information
collected under this rule is used as part
of FRA’s oversight function to ensure
that extraterritorial dispatchers comply
with applicable safety regulations.
Type of Request: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Affected Public: Businesses.
Form(s): N/A.
Respondent Universe: 4 railroads.
Frequency of Submission: On
occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1.
Total Estimated Annual Burden: 8
hours.
Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour
Dollar Cost Equivalent: $616.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 07, 2020
Jkt 253001
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR
1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA
informs all interested parties that a
respondent is not required to respond
to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of
information that does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020–26924 Filed 12–7–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Adoption of the Federal Highway
Administration’s Nationwide Section
4(f) Net Benefit and Historic Bridges
Programmatic Evaluations
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), U.S. Department
of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: FRA and FTA (together ‘‘the
Agencies’’) are jointly issuing this notice
to adopt the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) nationwide
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations
for certain transportation projects
having a net benefit to Section 4(f)
properties (Nationwide Net Benefit
Programmatic Evaluation) and for
certain transportation projects that use
historic bridges (Nationwide Historic
Bridges Programmatic Evaluation).
These nationwide Section 4(f)
programmatic evaluations would
provide the Agencies with an alternative
to the individual Section 4(f) evaluation
process for demonstrating compliance
with Section 4(f) requirements, as
applicable. For proposed projects that
do not meet the criteria for Section 4(f)
exceptions or the criteria contained in
the Applicability sections of the
programmatic evaluations, the Agencies
will prepare an individual evaluation or
make a de minimis impact
determination.
DATES: The adoption of these
evaluations is effective on January 7,
2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For FRA: Marlys Osterhues, Chief,
Environment and Project Engineering
Division, Office of Railroad Policy and
Development, telephone: (202) 493–
0413, email: Marlys.Osterhues@dot.gov;
or Faris Mohammed, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Chief Counsel, telephone: (202)
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
493–7064, email: Faris.Mohammed@
dot.gov.
For FTA: Megan Blum, Director,
Office of Environmental Programs,
telephone: (202) 366–0463, email:
Megan.Blum@dot.gov; or Mark
Montgomery, Attorney-Advisor, Office
of Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 366–
1017, email: Mark.Montgomery@dot.gov.
FRA and FTA are located at 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Agencies may not
approve a proposed transportation
project that would use property from
significant publicly-owned parks,
recreation areas, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges or from significant
historic sites (collectively, ‘‘Section 4(f)
properties’’) that are subject to Section
4(f) requirements (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23
U.S.C. 138), unless certain conditions
are met. An agency may approve a
proposed transportation project
requiring the use of a Section 4(f)
property only if the agency determines
that: (1) There is no feasible and
prudent alternative to using that land,
and the project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to the
property resulting from such use; or (2)
the use of the property, after
consideration of avoidance,
minimization, mitigation, or
enhancement measures to be
implemented as a condition of approval,
will have a de minimis impact. These
efforts generally are documented in an
individual evaluation, unless the agency
makes a de minimis impact
determination, or the use meets the
criteria for one of the Section 4(f)
exceptions found at 23 CFR 774.13. As
part of the individual evaluation, the
agency must include a feasible and
prudent avoidance alternative analysis
and identify measures to minimize
harm. The agency also must provide a
public comment period and coordinate
with official(s) with jurisdiction in the
individual evaluation process.
However, FHWA has approved five
nationwide programmatic evaluations
applicable to specific uses of Section
4(f) properties. Programmatic
evaluations streamline the Section 4(f)
process by eliminating the need for an
individual Section 4(f) evaluation for
certain projects. Programmatic
evaluations can be applied to any class
of action under the National
Environmental Policy Act. FHWA
developed the framework and basic
approach to the programmatic
evaluations at a program level to cover
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices
a suite of potential Section 4(f) uses and
coordinated with the U.S. Department of
the Interior when developing the
framework. The full texts of FHWA’s
programmatic evaluations are available
at: https://
www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/
legislation/section4f.aspx.
On July 5, 1983, FHWA approved the
use of a programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation and approval for FHWA
projects that necessitate the use of
historic bridges. The historic bridges
programmatic evaluation sets forth the
basis for a programmatic Section 4(f)
approval that there are no feasible and
prudent alternatives to the use of certain
historic bridge structures to be replaced
or rehabilitated with Federal funds, and
the projects include all possible
planning to minimize harm resulting
from such use. The historic bridges
programmatic evaluation can be applied
to a proposed project that meets the
following criteria:
1. The bridge is to be replaced or
rehabilitated with Federal funds.
2. The project will require the use of
an historic bridge structure that is on or
is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
3. The bridge is not a National
Historic Landmark.
4. FRA or FTA, as appropriate,
determines the facts of the project match
those set forth in the Historic Bridges
Programmatic Evaluation (Alternatives,
Findings, and Mitigation sections).
5. Agreement among FRA or FTA, as
appropriate, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation has been reached through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
More information on the Nationwide
Historic Bridges Programmatic
Evaluation can be found in the original
Federal Register notice. 48 FR 38135–
03, July 5, 1983.
On April 20, 2005, FHWA approved
the use of a nationwide programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation for uses that
have a net benefit to a Section 4(f)
property from certain federally funded
transportation projects. A net benefit is
achieved when: (1) The transportation
use, the measures to minimize harm,
and mitigation incorporated into the
project result in an overall enhancement
to the Section 4(f) property when
compared to both the future do-nothing
or avoidance alternatives and the
present condition of the Section 4(f)
property; and (2) the use will not result
in a substantial diminishment of the
function or value that made the property
eligible for Section 4(f) protection. The
net benefit programmatic evaluation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 07, 2020
Jkt 253001
cannot be applied to a project if FRA or
FTA, as appropriate, and the official(s)
with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f)
property cannot reach an agreement that
the project will result in a net benefit to
the property. The net benefit
programmatic evaluation applicability
criteria are as follows:
1. The proposed transportation project
uses a Section 4(f) park, recreation area,
wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic
site.
2. The proposed project includes all
appropriate measures to minimize harm
and subsequent mitigation necessary to
preserve and enhance those features and
values of the property that originally
qualified the property for Section 4(f)
protection.
3. For historic properties, the project
does not require the major alteration of
the characteristics that qualify the
property for the NRHP such that the
property would no longer retain
sufficient integrity to be considered
eligible for listing. For archeological
properties, the project does not require
the disturbance or removal of the
archaeological resources that have been
determined important for preservation
in-place rather than for the information
that can be obtained through data
recovery. The determination of a major
alteration or the importance to preserve
in-place will be based on consultation
consistent with 36 CFR part 800.
4. For historic properties, consistent
with 36 CFR part 800, there must be
agreement amongst the SHPO and/or
THPO, as appropriate, FRA or FTA, as
appropriate, and the Applicant on
measures to minimize harm when there
is a use of Section 4(f) property. Such
measures must be incorporated into the
project.
5. The official(s) with jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) property agrees in
writing with the assessment of the
impacts; the proposed measures to
minimize harm; and the mitigation
necessary to preserve, rehabilitate and
enhance those features and values of the
Section 4(f) property; and that such
measures will result in a net benefit to
the Section 4(f) property.
6. The Administration determines that
the project facts match those set forth in
the Applicability, Alternatives,
Findings, Mitigation and Measures to
Minimize Harm, Coordination, and
Public Involvement sections of this
programmatic evaluation.
More information on the Nationwide
Net Benefit Programmatic Evaluation
can be found in the original Federal
Register notice. 70 FR 20618, April 20,
2005.
The Agencies currently do not utilize
any Section 4(f) programmatic
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79073
evaluations and rely on individual
evaluations to satisfy Section 4(f)
requirements for proposed rail and
transit projects that use Section 4(f)
properties. However, the Agencies were
afforded more flexibility to create
programmatic approaches to expedite
the overall environmental review
process under section 1305 of Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP–21). The ‘‘programmatic
approaches’’ language from MAP–21 is
codified at 23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3) and
implemented by the Agencies in
regulation at 23 CFR 771.105.
Additionally, as described in the final
rule in which FRA adopted 23 CFR part
771, FRA evaluated whether to adopt, in
whole or in part, any of the FHWA
programmatic evaluations. Based on
that evaluation, FRA determined
adopting FHWA’s net benefit and
historic bridge programmatic
evaluations is appropriate for its
programs. See 83 FR 54480, 54484
(October 29, 2018). Similarly, FTA
revisited being part of the net benefit
and historic bridge programmatic
evaluations after considering projects
that have gone through the Section 4(f)
process that could have benefitted from
using the programmatic evaluations.
Accordingly, the Agencies are adopting
these two nationwide programmatic
evaluations with minor technical
modifications, described below. The
technical modifications are limited to
replacing references to FHWA with the
Agencies and definitions necessary to
accommodate both railroad and transit
projects. FRA and FTA will provide the
full text of the Section 4(f)
Programmatic Evaluations, as modified
below, on their websites.
Technical Modifications to FHWA’s
Historic Bridges Programmatic
Evaluation
The Agencies are replacing the terms
‘‘Federal Highway Administration’’ and
‘‘FHWA’’ with ‘‘Federal Railroad
Administration,’’ ‘‘Federal Transit
Administration,’’ ‘‘FRA.’’ or ‘‘FTA,’’ as
appropriate. The Agencies are replacing
‘‘FHWA Division Administrator’’ with
‘‘Associate Administrator for Railroad
Policy and Development, or designee,’’
or ‘‘FTA Regional Administrator, or
designee,’’ as appropriate. Additionally,
the Agencies are modifying the
reference to a ‘‘Federal-aid highway
system or a state or local highway
system’’ to include a ‘‘rail or transit
system.’’
Technical Modifications to FHWA’s Net
Benefit Programmatic Evaluation
The Agencies are replacing the term
‘‘FHWA’’ with ‘‘FRA’’ or ‘‘FTA,’’ as
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
79074
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices
appropriate. The Agencies are also
modifying the following definitions:
1. ‘‘Administration’’ to refer to the
Federal Railroad Administration or the
Federal Transit Administration, as
appropriate.
2. ‘‘Applicant’’ to be more broadly
defined, as follows: ‘‘Applicant’’ refers
to the Federal, State, local, or federally
recognized Indian Tribal governmental
unit, or other entity, including any
private or public-private entity that
seeks Federal funding or an
Administration action for a project.
Through this Notice, the Agencies are
adopting FHWA’s Nationwide Net
Benefit Programmatic Evaluation and
the Nationwide Historic Bridges
Programmatic Evaluation in full, with
the minor technical modifications
described above.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration.
K. Jane Williams,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020–26968 Filed 12–7–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2020–0005]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Special
Permit; Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, L.L.C.
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this
notice to solicit public comments on a
request for special permit received from
the Colorado Interstate Gas Company,
L.L.C. (CIG). The special permit request
is seeking relief from compliance with
certain requirements in the Federal
pipeline safety regulations. At the
conclusion of the 30-day comment
period, PHMSA will review the
comments received from this notice as
part of its evaluation to grant or deny
the special permit request.
DATES: Submit any comments regarding
this special permit request by January 7,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference
the docket number for this specific
special permit request and may be
submitted in the following ways:
• E-Gov website: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 07, 2020
Jkt 253001
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Management
System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket number for the special permit
request you are commenting on at the
beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, please
submit two (2) copies. To receive
confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at https://
www.Regulations.gov.
Note: There is a privacy statement
published on https://
www.Regulations.gov. Comments,
including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or
edits to https://www.Regulations.gov.
Confidential Business Information:
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information
that is both customarily and actually
treated as private by its owner. Under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private,
that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this
notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as
CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) § 190.343, you may
ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the
agency by taking the following steps: (1)
Mark each page of the original
document submission containing CBI as
‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along
with the original document, a second
copy of the original document with the
CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise,
PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and they will not be placed in the
public docket of this notice.
Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA–
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
PHP–80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Any
commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this
matter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone
at 202–366–0113, or by email at
kay.mciver@dot.gov.
Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by
telephone at 713–272–2855, or by email
at steve.nanney@dot.gov.
PHMSA
received a special permit request from
CIG seeking a waiver from the
requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) and
(d): Change in class location:
Confirmation or revision of maximum
allowable operating pressure, and
§ 192.619(a): Maximum allowable
operating pressure: Steel or plastic
pipelines. This special permit is being
requested in lieu of pipe replacement or
pressure reduction for two (2) special
permit segments of 344 feet (0.065
miles) on the CIG pipeline system. The
proposed special permit segments are
located in Sweetwater County,
Wyoming. The CIG pipeline class
location in the special permit segments
has changed from a Class 1 to a Class
3 location. The CIG pipeline special
permit segments are 20-inch and 24inch diameter pipelines with existing
maximum allowable operating pressures
of 1,100 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) and 1,480 psig, respectively. The
installation of the special permit
segments occurred in 2006.
The special permit request, proposed
special permit with conditions, and
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA)
for the CIG pipelines are available for
review and public comment in Docket
No. PHMSA–2020–0005. We invite
interested persons to review and submit
comments on the special permit request
and DEA in the docket. Please include
any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result
if the special permit is granted.
Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the
special permit request, PHMSA will
evaluate all comments received on or
before the comment closing date.
Comments received after the closing
date will be evaluated, if it is possible
to do so without incurring additional
expense or delay. PHMSA will consider
each relevant comment it receives in
making its decision to grant or deny this
special permit request.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79072-79074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26968]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Adoption of the Federal Highway Administration's Nationwide
Section 4(f) Net Benefit and Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluations
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA and FTA (together ``the Agencies'') are jointly issuing
this notice to adopt the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
nationwide programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations for certain
transportation projects having a net benefit to Section 4(f) properties
(Nationwide Net Benefit Programmatic Evaluation) and for certain
transportation projects that use historic bridges (Nationwide Historic
Bridges Programmatic Evaluation). These nationwide Section 4(f)
programmatic evaluations would provide the Agencies with an alternative
to the individual Section 4(f) evaluation process for demonstrating
compliance with Section 4(f) requirements, as applicable. For proposed
projects that do not meet the criteria for Section 4(f) exceptions or
the criteria contained in the Applicability sections of the
programmatic evaluations, the Agencies will prepare an individual
evaluation or make a de minimis impact determination.
DATES: The adoption of these evaluations is effective on January 7,
2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For FRA: Marlys Osterhues, Chief, Environment and Project
Engineering Division, Office of Railroad Policy and Development,
telephone: (202) 493-0413, email: [email protected]; or Faris
Mohammed, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, telephone: (202)
493-7064, email: [email protected].
For FTA: Megan Blum, Director, Office of Environmental Programs,
telephone: (202) 366-0463, email: [email protected]; or Mark
Montgomery, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, telephone: (202)
366-1017, email: [email protected].
FRA and FTA are located at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Agencies may not approve a proposed transportation
project that would use property from significant publicly-owned parks,
recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges or from significant
historic sites (collectively, ``Section 4(f) properties'') that are
subject to Section 4(f) requirements (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138),
unless certain conditions are met. An agency may approve a proposed
transportation project requiring the use of a Section 4(f) property
only if the agency determines that: (1) There is no feasible and
prudent alternative to using that land, and the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such
use; or (2) the use of the property, after consideration of avoidance,
minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures to be implemented as
a condition of approval, will have a de minimis impact. These efforts
generally are documented in an individual evaluation, unless the agency
makes a de minimis impact determination, or the use meets the criteria
for one of the Section 4(f) exceptions found at 23 CFR 774.13. As part
of the individual evaluation, the agency must include a feasible and
prudent avoidance alternative analysis and identify measures to
minimize harm. The agency also must provide a public comment period and
coordinate with official(s) with jurisdiction in the individual
evaluation process.
However, FHWA has approved five nationwide programmatic evaluations
applicable to specific uses of Section 4(f) properties. Programmatic
evaluations streamline the Section 4(f) process by eliminating the need
for an individual Section 4(f) evaluation for certain projects.
Programmatic evaluations can be applied to any class of action under
the National Environmental Policy Act. FHWA developed the framework and
basic approach to the programmatic evaluations at a program level to
cover
[[Page 79073]]
a suite of potential Section 4(f) uses and coordinated with the U.S.
Department of the Interior when developing the framework. The full
texts of FHWA's programmatic evaluations are available at: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/legislation/section4f.aspx.
On July 5, 1983, FHWA approved the use of a programmatic Section
4(f) evaluation and approval for FHWA projects that necessitate the use
of historic bridges. The historic bridges programmatic evaluation sets
forth the basis for a programmatic Section 4(f) approval that there are
no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of certain historic
bridge structures to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal funds,
and the projects include all possible planning to minimize harm
resulting from such use. The historic bridges programmatic evaluation
can be applied to a proposed project that meets the following criteria:
1. The bridge is to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal
funds.
2. The project will require the use of an historic bridge structure
that is on or is eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP).
3. The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark.
4. FRA or FTA, as appropriate, determines the facts of the project
match those set forth in the Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation
(Alternatives, Findings, and Mitigation sections).
5. Agreement among FRA or FTA, as appropriate, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation has been reached through procedures pursuant to Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
More information on the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic
Evaluation can be found in the original Federal Register notice. 48 FR
38135-03, July 5, 1983.
On April 20, 2005, FHWA approved the use of a nationwide
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation for uses that have a net benefit
to a Section 4(f) property from certain federally funded transportation
projects. A net benefit is achieved when: (1) The transportation use,
the measures to minimize harm, and mitigation incorporated into the
project result in an overall enhancement to the Section 4(f) property
when compared to both the future do-nothing or avoidance alternatives
and the present condition of the Section 4(f) property; and (2) the use
will not result in a substantial diminishment of the function or value
that made the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection. The net
benefit programmatic evaluation cannot be applied to a project if FRA
or FTA, as appropriate, and the official(s) with jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) property cannot reach an agreement that the project will
result in a net benefit to the property. The net benefit programmatic
evaluation applicability criteria are as follows:
1. The proposed transportation project uses a Section 4(f) park,
recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site.
2. The proposed project includes all appropriate measures to
minimize harm and subsequent mitigation necessary to preserve and
enhance those features and values of the property that originally
qualified the property for Section 4(f) protection.
3. For historic properties, the project does not require the major
alteration of the characteristics that qualify the property for the
NRHP such that the property would no longer retain sufficient integrity
to be considered eligible for listing. For archeological properties,
the project does not require the disturbance or removal of the
archaeological resources that have been determined important for
preservation in-place rather than for the information that can be
obtained through data recovery. The determination of a major alteration
or the importance to preserve in-place will be based on consultation
consistent with 36 CFR part 800.
4. For historic properties, consistent with 36 CFR part 800, there
must be agreement amongst the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate, FRA or
FTA, as appropriate, and the Applicant on measures to minimize harm
when there is a use of Section 4(f) property. Such measures must be
incorporated into the project.
5. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property
agrees in writing with the assessment of the impacts; the proposed
measures to minimize harm; and the mitigation necessary to preserve,
rehabilitate and enhance those features and values of the Section 4(f)
property; and that such measures will result in a net benefit to the
Section 4(f) property.
6. The Administration determines that the project facts match those
set forth in the Applicability, Alternatives, Findings, Mitigation and
Measures to Minimize Harm, Coordination, and Public Involvement
sections of this programmatic evaluation.
More information on the Nationwide Net Benefit Programmatic
Evaluation can be found in the original Federal Register notice. 70 FR
20618, April 20, 2005.
The Agencies currently do not utilize any Section 4(f) programmatic
evaluations and rely on individual evaluations to satisfy Section 4(f)
requirements for proposed rail and transit projects that use Section
4(f) properties. However, the Agencies were afforded more flexibility
to create programmatic approaches to expedite the overall environmental
review process under section 1305 of Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21). The ``programmatic approaches'' language
from MAP-21 is codified at 23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3) and implemented by the
Agencies in regulation at 23 CFR 771.105. Additionally, as described in
the final rule in which FRA adopted 23 CFR part 771, FRA evaluated
whether to adopt, in whole or in part, any of the FHWA programmatic
evaluations. Based on that evaluation, FRA determined adopting FHWA's
net benefit and historic bridge programmatic evaluations is appropriate
for its programs. See 83 FR 54480, 54484 (October 29, 2018). Similarly,
FTA revisited being part of the net benefit and historic bridge
programmatic evaluations after considering projects that have gone
through the Section 4(f) process that could have benefitted from using
the programmatic evaluations. Accordingly, the Agencies are adopting
these two nationwide programmatic evaluations with minor technical
modifications, described below. The technical modifications are limited
to replacing references to FHWA with the Agencies and definitions
necessary to accommodate both railroad and transit projects. FRA and
FTA will provide the full text of the Section 4(f) Programmatic
Evaluations, as modified below, on their websites.
Technical Modifications to FHWA's Historic Bridges Programmatic
Evaluation
The Agencies are replacing the terms ``Federal Highway
Administration'' and ``FHWA'' with ``Federal Railroad Administration,''
``Federal Transit Administration,'' ``FRA.'' or ``FTA,'' as
appropriate. The Agencies are replacing ``FHWA Division Administrator''
with ``Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development, or
designee,'' or ``FTA Regional Administrator, or designee,'' as
appropriate. Additionally, the Agencies are modifying the reference to
a ``Federal-aid highway system or a state or local highway system'' to
include a ``rail or transit system.''
Technical Modifications to FHWA's Net Benefit Programmatic Evaluation
The Agencies are replacing the term ``FHWA'' with ``FRA'' or
``FTA,'' as
[[Page 79074]]
appropriate. The Agencies are also modifying the following definitions:
1. ``Administration'' to refer to the Federal Railroad
Administration or the Federal Transit Administration, as appropriate.
2. ``Applicant'' to be more broadly defined, as follows:
``Applicant'' refers to the Federal, State, local, or federally
recognized Indian Tribal governmental unit, or other entity, including
any private or public-private entity that seeks Federal funding or an
Administration action for a project.
Through this Notice, the Agencies are adopting FHWA's Nationwide
Net Benefit Programmatic Evaluation and the Nationwide Historic Bridges
Programmatic Evaluation in full, with the minor technical modifications
described above.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
K. Jane Williams,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-26968 Filed 12-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
