Draft Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges |
|---|
|
Victor M. Mendez
Federal Highway Administration
September 5, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54652-54655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21699]
[[Page 54652]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2012-0075]
Draft Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel
Bridges
AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to issue Program Comment for Common Post-1945
Concrete and Steel Bridges; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is
considering issuing a Program Comment at the request of the Federal
Highway Administration setting forth the way in which FHWA will comply
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with regard
to the effects of undertakings on common post-1945 concrete and steel
bridges. The FHWA is requesting comments on the proposed Program
Comment.
DATES: Submit comments on or before September 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
www.regulations.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 19477-78) or
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Naber, FHWA Office of
Planning, Environment, and Realty, (202) 366-2060,
maryann.naber@dot.gov or Carol Legard, ACHP Office of Federal
Permitting, Licensing, and Assistance, (202) 606-8522,
clegard@achp.gov. For legal questions contact Diane Mobley, FHWA Office
of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1366, diane.mobley@dot.gov. Office
hours for the FHWA are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FHWA-2012-0075.
Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available
on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 366 days this year.
Please follow the instructions. It is also available on FHWA's Web site
at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov. In addition, a hard copy may be viewed and
copied at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management
Facility, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
20590.
Background
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires
Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on
historic properties and to provide ACHP a reasonable opportunity to
comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the
regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies
comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR
part 800 (Section 106 regulations).
Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request
ACHP to provide a ``Program Comment'' on a particular category of
undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews of each
individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR
800.4 through 800.7. An agency can meet its Section 106
responsibilities with regard to the effects of particular aspects of
those undertakings by taking into account ACHP's Program Comment and
following the steps set forth in that comment.
The ACHP is now considering issuing a Program Comment at the
request of FHWA that would streamline the way in which FHWA and other
agencies may comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act with regard to common post-1945 concrete and steel
bridges.
The FHWA is taking steps to inform the public and historic
preservation organizations about this proposed Program Comment and to
solicit their views. These efforts include an email distribution to all
FHWA Division offices, State transportation agencies, the Historic
Bridge Foundation, the Historic Bridge Alliance, the National Register
of Historic Places, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, State
Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and others. In addition, FHWA
will post the proposed Program Comment on the agency Web site.
As explained in the Program Comment itself, every year FHWA funds
the rehabilitation and replacement of hundreds of bridges, many of
which are of common types constructed by State transportation agencies
after 1945, using reinforced concrete or steel beams and designs that
quickly became standardized. These common bridge types are generally
undistinguished, have little value for preservation in place, and are
rarely viable candidates for relocation.
The FHWA proposes the following Program Comment in accordance with
36 CFR 800.14(e) in order to waive case-by-case Section 106 review of
common post-1945 bridges. This program comment would apply to effects
of undertakings on common concrete and steel bridges lacking
distinctive treatments, of little value for preservation in place, and
not located within or adjacent to historic districts.
Under the Program Comment, for undertakings affecting the specified
common bridge types, FHWA or another Federal agency official would have
the option of following the requirements of the Program Comment in lieu
of case-by-case consultation with regard to the effects of proposed
work on that bridge. However, the Program Comment would not be a waiver
from Section 106 for Federal undertakings that may affect common
bridges. For bridges which meet any of the considerations designated in
Section IV of the Program Comment, individual consultation would
continue to be required. In addition, Federal agency officials would
still have to complete Section 106 review and consider effects of the
undertaking on historic properties other than the bridge itself.
The Program Comment proposes two types of programmatic mitigation
to resolve potential adverse effects: Historic American Engineering
Record documentation of at least one example of each of the common
post-1945 bridge types included in the Program Comment, and
encouragement of State departments of transportation to carry out
bridge inventories. The ACHP is specifically requesting that commenters
propose any additional ideas they may have for appropriate programmatic
mitigation measures.
Public comments on this proposed Program Comment will be accepted
on or before September 26, 2012. Once the
[[Page 54653]]
public comments resulting from this notice are considered, and edits
are incorporated as deemed appropriate, the ACHP will decide whether to
issue the Program Comment.
Authority: 23 CFR 800.14
Issued on: August 15, 2012.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
Text of the proposed Program Comment
The following is the text of the proposed Program Comment:
Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges
I. Introduction
Every year, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds the
rehabilitation and replacement of hundreds of bridges under the
Federal-aid program administered across the U.S. by State departments
of transportation (DOT) and the Federal Lands Highway program. Other
Federal agencies are also involved with projects affecting bridges
through Federal assistance, approvals, or permits. Many of the bridges
affected by these programs are of common types constructed by State
transportation agencies after 1945, using reinforced concrete or steel
beams and designs that quickly became standardized. These common bridge
types are generally undistinguished, have little value for preservation
in place and are rarely viable candidates for relocation. Yet, all
federally funded or permitted projects affecting these bridges require
review and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f) to assess whether the bridge is
eligible for inclusion in the National Register and, if so, to resolve
potential effects. Regulations developed by the ACHP and codified at 36
CFR Part 800 describe the procedures Federal agencies must follow to
meet this obligation.
Alternate compliance methods, provided by the Section 106
regulations allow agencies to meet these Section 106 obligations, but
tailor the process to their mission and needs. Section 800.14(e) of the
regulations provides that any agency may request a ``Program Comment''
from the ACHP in lieu of case-by-case review. The benefit of a Program
Comment is that it allows a Federal agency to comply with Section 106
in a single action for a class of undertakings rather than addressing
each undertaking as a separate action. The FHWA proposes the following
Program Comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e) in order to waive
case-by-case Section 106 consideration of effects on common post-1945
bridges. This Program Comment would be available for use by all Federal
agencies. It would relieve Federal agencies from the need, under
Section 106, to individually consider the effects of undertakings on
the bridges described in Section V of this Program Comment, with the
exceptions noted on Section IV, since such bridges lack distinctive
treatments, are of little value for preservation in place, and are not
located within or adjacent to historic districts.
II. Background
To develop this proposed Program Comment, FHWA met with individuals
from the ACHP staff, the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Offices, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. Participants in the meetings all have expertise on
considering historic bridges in the Section 106 review process. At the
meetings, the group members provided FHWA with individual advice and
information. Members of the group identified bridge replacement
projects as a category of undertakings that could be streamlined with
regard to effects to common post-1945 reinforced concrete or steel
bridges. Individuals within the group further recommended that of the
alternatives to standard Section 106 review available, a Program
Comment would be the most appropriate way to modify the review process
to meet the needs of FHWA as well as other Federal agencies. To
identify the types of bridges that could be addressed in a single
comment from ACHP, FHWA referred to a national context for common
historic bridges and the National Bridge Inventory.
In October 2005, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
published ``A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types.'' That context
revealed that a great many of the structures built after 1935, and
especially since 1946, are strictly utilitarian and lacking in
distinctive engineering or architectural qualities. Increasing
standardization associated with highway design as a result of growing
Federal funding and the evolving standards of AASHTO both contributed
to the uniformity of design in bridges of certain types.
Information about America's bridges, including their age and
condition, is readily available in FHWA's National Bridge Inventory
(NBI). The NBI is a collection of information (database) covering just
under 600,000 of the Nation's bridges located on public roads,
including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads,
as well as publicly accessible bridges on Federal lands. It presents a
State by State summary analysis of the number, location, and general
condition of highway bridges within each State. This database contains
detailed technical and engineering information about hundreds of
thousands of bridges in the United States, including year built, bridge
type, condition and many other fields. Some 45,000 bridges in the NBI
are rated as structurally deficient, meaning that portions of the
bridge may be in poor condition. Approximately 61,680 are identified as
functionally obsolete, meaning that the design of the bridge does not
meet current guidelines for its use, such as lack of safety shoulders
or the inability to handle certain traffic volume, speed, size, or
weight. Bridges in these categories are frequent candidates for
replacement. This Program Comment is intended to dispense with the
routine administrative burden of considering the effects of replacement
on these bridges on a case-by-case basis and make delivery of these
critical projects more efficient without affecting the preservation
outcome for the vast majority of common post-1945 bridges.
III. Applicability
The proposed Program Comment relieves Federal agencies from the
need to individually consider the effects of undertakings on the bridge
types identified in Section V, except for those subject to the
considerations noted on Section IV, in the course of compliance with
Section 106.
Undertakings include those that involve applications from State
transportation agencies or local governments for Federal permits,
approvals, or assistance that will result in alteration, replacement,
or demolition of one or more of the common bridges or culverts listed
in Section V below (hereafter, ``common bridges''). All Federal
agencies may take advantage of the streamlining provided by this
Program Comment when it is adopted by the ACHP. Data from the NBI or
existing State surveys may be used to support the determination that a
particular bridge is eligible to be considered under the provisions of
this Program Comment in terms of its age and type of construction.
However, if data from the NBI is used, that information must be
verified in the field by a qualified engineer or cultural resource
professional to ensure that the date and type have been correctly
recorded and that the bridge does not
[[Page 54654]]
meet any of the other considerations under Section IV that would render
it ineligible for this Program Comment.
The Program Comment is intended to apply to effects on common
bridges, regardless of ownership, except for those located on Indian
tribal lands \1\. For undertakings affecting common bridge types
identified in Section V, FHWA or another Federal agency official may
follow the requirements of this Program Comment in lieu of case-by-case
consultation with regard to the effects of proposed work on that
bridge. This Program Comment is not a waiver from Section 106 for
Federal undertakings that may affect common bridges as described in
Section V. Federal agency officials must still complete Section 106
review and consider effects of the undertaking on historic properties
other than the bridge itself. Such effects to other historic properties
may be direct or indirect, and must be considered by the Federal agency
official whether or not the Program Comment is applicable to the
subject bridge. For example, bridge replacement projects may have the
following types of effects to non-bridge historic properties that would
need to be considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indian tribes wishing to use the streamlining measures in
this Program Comment for common bridges on lands under their
jurisdiction are encouraged to enter into program alternatives
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disturbance to archeological sites as a result of
construction-related ground disturbing activities;
change in physical features within the setting that
contribute to historic significance of a historic property, including
alterations that a new bridge may have on the historic setting and
feeling of an adjacent historic district;
change in traffic patterns that may affect the setting,
feel, and association of a historic district; or
effects to other historic properties based on the need for
temporary construction, detours, or right-of-way.
IV. Considerations
Prior to utilizing this Program Comment for an undertaking that may
affect a common bridge, a qualified cultural resource specialist must
complete a review to determine if the following considerations apply.
If the Federal agency official, or a State official delegated the
responsibility by statute or a Programmatic Agreement executed under
the provisions of Section 106, determines that the bridge in question
meets any of the following, an agency may not utilize this Program
Comment with regard to that bridge:
A. The bridge is listed in or has previously been determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or is located
adjacent to or within a National Register listed or eligible
historic district, including linear historic districts such as a
parkway, historic road, or canal.
B. In consultation among the Federal agency, State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and any applicants for assistance, the
bridge is identified as a very early or particularly important
example of its type in a State or the Nation, has distinctive
engineering or architectural features that depart from standard
designs, such as an aesthetic railing or balustrade, includes spans
of exceptional length or complexity, or displays other elements that
were engineered to respond to a unique environmental context. [See:
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/index.asp for examples]
C. The bridge in question is or includes spans of the following
types: arch bridges, truss bridges, movable spans, suspension
bridges, or covered bridges.
States will have until December 31, 2012, to develop a list of any
exceptional bridges which should be considered as meeting the
considerations above. The FHWA Division shall organize a meeting of the
SHPO, DOT, and other interested parties to determine which, if any,
post-1945 bridges within the State meet the considerations above and
therefore would NOT fall under the terms of this Program Comment. Where
States already have a current (within the last 5 years) Programmatic
Agreement, inventory, or management plan for historic bridges that
identifies bridges meeting any of the listed considerations, the data
included in those Programmatic Agreements, inventories, or management
plans may suffice to make those determinations. States with existing
Programmatic Agreements may apply the terms of such agreements in lieu
of this consultation to identify particularly significant examples of a
common type.
The intent of this section is not to require a statewide survey or
context to be developed where none exists, but to exclude readily
recognizable exceptional bridges from the Program Comment much in the
same way that was done for the Interstate Highway exemption. It is
understood that some bridges that fall into the types specified in
Section V may be eligible for the National Register under local or
State significance. Consequently some may be overlooked as not being
exceptional; however, it is doubtful that any of these would warrant
individual consideration under Section 106 even if they were to be
determined National Register eligible. Accordingly, this Program
Comment would effectively waive all subsequent requirements for
consideration of effects under Section 106 regarding bridges which fall
into one of the common types and do not meet any of the considerations
above.
V. Bridge Types for Which No Individual Consideration Under Section 106
is Required
Based on the historic bridge context, the NBI, information
developed in statewide bridge inventories across the U.S., and
consultation with the National Conference of SHPOs and other
stakeholders, the following common bridge types are well-documented
standardized designs that lack individual distinction.\2\ Provided none
of the considerations specified in Section IV above apply, Federal
agencies do not have to consider the effects of undertakings on the
bridges that fall into the following categories under Section 106:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Descriptions and examples of these common bridge types can
be found in A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types. NCHRP
Project 25-25, task 15, October 2005 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/25-25%2815%29_FR.pdf) .
A. Reinforced concrete slab bridges
(i) Reinforced concrete cast-in-place slabs
(ii) Reinforced concrete pre-cast slabs
(iii) Pre-stressed concrete
B. Reinforced concrete beam and girder bridges
(i) Reinforced concrete T-Beams
(ii) Reinforced concrete channel beams
(iii) Reinforced concrete girders
(iv) Reinforced concrete rigid frames
(v) Pre-stressed concrete I-Beams
(vi) Pre-stressed concrete box beams
C. Multi-Beam or Multi-Girder bridges
(i) Metal-rolled multi-beams
(ii) Metal fabricated (built up) girders
(iii) Metal rigid frames
VI. Programmatic Mitigation
A. If a suitable example from at least one State is not already
included in the collection, one set of Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) documentation, including at least narrative history
and photographs, for each bridge type in Section V shall be prepared
and submitted by FHWA for acceptance by HAER. The FHWA will
coordinate with HAER to determine which, if any, of these types are
not yet represented in the HAER collection and will work with the
FHWA Division offices and State DOTs to identify a candidate for
each type not already represented. The FHWA will complete
recordation to HAER standards of at least one example for each type
not already represented in the HAER collection and will submit such
documentation to HAER before December 31, 2013.
B. The FHWA will encourage States that have not done so within
the last 5 years to update inventories of historic bridges in their
States to better ensure that bridges meeting the considerations in
Section IV above are
[[Page 54655]]
identified and considered early in the Section 106 review process.
VII. Definitions
If not specifically addressed below, terms used within this Program
Comment shall be defined consistent with the definitions provided in 36
CFR part 800.
Common Bridge is, for purposes of this Program Comment, a common
post-1945 bridge or culvert of a type identified in Section V.
Program Comment is an alternative to Section 106 review that allows
a Federal agency to request the ACHP to comment on a category of
undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews under Sections
800.4 through 800.6 of the regulations (36 CFR Part 800).
Qualified cultural resource specialist means an individual meeting
the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications for
historian or architectural historian by virtue of education and
experience to carry out historic preservation work.
[FR Doc. 2012-21699 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P