[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68790-68795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27866]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Program Comment Issued for Streamlining Section 106 Review for
Actions Affecting Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
ACTION: Program Comment issued for streamlining Section 106 review for
undertakings affecting post-1945 concrete and steel bridges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued a
[[Page 68791]]
Program Comment at the request of the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration to relieve it and other federal agencies
from the requirement under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act to consider the effects of undertakings on common
bridges and culverts constructed of concrete or steel after 1945. The
federal agencies using the Program Comment must still complete Section
106 review for the undertaking, including the identification of
historic properties and consideration of effects of the undertaking on
historic properties other than the common bridge itself.
DATES: The Program Comment was issued by the ACHP on November 2, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Address all questions concerning the Program Comment to
Carol Legard, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 803,
Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606-8522. You may submit electronic
questions to: clegard@achp.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Legard, (202) 606-8522,
clegard@achp.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (Section 106) requires federal agencies to consider
the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (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
the ACHP to issue a ``Program Comment'' on a particular category of
undertakings in lieu of conducting reviews of each individual
undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 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 an applicable Program Comment that has been issued by the
ACHP and following the steps set forth in that comment.
I. Background
The ACHP has issued a Program Comment to relieve all federal
agencies from the Section 106 requirement to consider the effects of
undertakings on common bridges and culverts constructed of concrete or
steel after 1945. The ACHP membership voted in favor of issuing the
Program Comment via an unassembled vote that concluded on November 2,
2012.
According to the requirements for obtaining a Program Comment, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) formally requested the ACHP to
comment on the effects of a category of undertakings in lieu of
conducting individual reviews for effects to certain types of bridges
commonly constructed in the United States since 1945. Bridges of the
types covered in the Program Comment were constructed in vast numbers
from plans that quickly became standardized around the middle of the
20th century. These bridges are generally undistinguished from an
engineering or architectural perspective, are considered to have little
value for preservation in place, and are rarely viable candidates for
relocation. However, because they may meet or approach the age criteria
for evaluation as historic properties, considerable time and resources
are currently expended to address effects to them on a case-by-case
basis under the Section 106 process. The Program Comment applies to
effects of undertakings on certain common concrete and steel bridges
lacking distinction, not previously listed in or determined eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and not
located within or adjacent to historic districts. The Program Comment
proposed by FHWA was received by the ACHP on August 6, 2012.
To develop the Program Comment, FHWA met with individuals from the
ACHP staff, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. With the
assistance of these individuals, FHWA prepared an initial draft of the
proposed Program Comment which was then shared with key stakeholders
and additional organizations and individuals with expertise in historic
bridges and in the Section 106 review process. This outreach effort
resulted in a number of revisions intended to address concerns raised
about the applicability of the Program Comment, the ability of states
to identify examples of common bridges that should be excluded from the
Program Comment, and the types and range of bridges that would be
exempted from Section 106 review. FHWA worked with the ACHP in
developing the new draft, which was discussed at the ACHP Federal
Agency Program Committee meeting on August 8, 2012.
Upon submitting its formal request to the ACHP, FHWA took
additional steps to inform the public and stakeholders about the
proposed Program Comment, including an email distribution, posting on
the agency web site, and a notice published in the Federal Register on
September 5, 2012 (Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172, pages 54652-
54655). In response, the Federal Highway Administration received
comments from 14 individuals and organizations.
In accordance with our regulations at 36 CFR 800.14(e), the ACHP is
responsible for obtaining the views of State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers before
reaching a decision on issuing a Program Comment. Although the Program
Comment was drafted so that it does not apply to tribal lands, the ACHP
transmitted the proposed Program Comment to Indian tribes and Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers to ensure that their views were
considered in its decision on whether to issue the program comment. The
ACHP requested comments on the Program Comment, as submitted by FHWA,
on September 7, 2012.
As a result of both FHWA's Federal Register notice and the ACHP's
solicitation of views from SHPOs and Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers, comments were received from six SHPOs, one Indian tribe, one
Native Hawaiian Organization, and 12 other individuals and
organizations.
The proposed Program Comment received strong support from the
American Public Works Association (APWA), National Association of
County Engineers (NACE), American Road and Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA), the Commissioner of Highways for the Commonwealth
of Virginia, the New York State County Highway Superintendents
Association (NYSCHSA), and the County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works. Comments from these organizations stressed that the
Program Comment is a logical, common sense approach that will save
taxpayers money and allow needed infrastructure improvements to be
completed more efficiently. The President of the NYSCHSA stated that by
excluding these common bridges from Section 106 review, taxpayers could
save up to $78 million over a 10-year period.
Four respondents to the Federal Register notice objected to the
premise that post-1945 concrete and steel highway bridges are generally
undistinguished, having little value for
[[Page 68792]]
preservation in place. One also took exception to statements in the
introduction and background sections of the Program Comment that, in
her view, indicated a lack of understanding of the significance and
rehabilitation potential for post-1945 common bridges. These four
reviewers, and four SHPOs, further disagreed with FHWA that examples of
common bridge types of exceptional significance can be readily
identified without a statewide inventory by knowledgeable professional
cultural resource specialists. The reviewers, two of which are historic
bridge experts working as consultants, argued that streamlining Section
106 review for bridges, even those built after 1945, is best
accomplished by completing a statewide historic bridge inventory and
individual determinations of historic significance based on a statewide
historic context and generally accepted scholarship.
Two commenters expressed confusion about how the identification of
exceptional bridges can be completed by December 31, 2012, particularly
where the main source of data is the National Bridge Inventory (NBI).
Distrust for the accuracy of information in the NBI and the fact that a
number of states lack recent historic bridge inventories were the
reasons these parties were concerned about the ability of the FHWA
Division in each state to identify especially important examples of the
common bridge types within the tight timeframe provided in the review
draft.
In response to these concerns, the Program Comment was revised to
extend the timeframe for completing the list of exceptional bridges to
March 31, 2013. It also encourages, but does not require, FHWA
Divisions to complete the list by that date. If additional time is
needed to complete the list, it will be granted. Also, FHWA Divisions
may add to the list of exceptional bridges, as more information becomes
available regarding the historic bridges in a state. The Program
Comment also now clarifies that to complete the list of exceptional
bridges, a statewide survey or context does not need to be developed
where none exists. The list need not be exhaustive; the intent behind
the list is to be able to exclude readily recognizable exceptional
bridges from the Program Comment. Although the commenters are correct
that this may not be sufficient in some states to identify all
exceptionally significant bridges, we believe that the Program Comment
establishes a good balance between protecting the most significant
historic bridges of these common types and eliminating repetitive and
redundant documentation and reviews that can be costly to the
government and have limited value to the broader public.
One Federally Recognized Indian tribe and one Native Hawaiian
Organization commented on the Program Comment. Both expressed concern
that the Program Comment may be seen as a broad waiver of Section 106
review for projects affecting historic bridges, leading to the
destruction of other types of sites as a result of construction. To
address this concern, the Introduction (Section I) and Section III
(Applicability) were revised to explicitly and clearly state that while
the Program Comment relieves Federal agencies from the Section 106
requirement to consider the effects of undertakings on the bridge types
identified in Section V, it is not a waiver from Section 106
requirements for the consideration of other historic properties that
may be affected by a bridge rehabilitation or replacement project. It
further clarifies that the Program Comment is not a waiver from
applicable Federal requirements to consult with Indian tribes or Native
Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) regarding undertakings that may affect
historic properties to which a tribe or NHO ascribe traditional
cultural and religious significance.
Three commenters proposed changes to the common bridge types
covered by the Program Comment (Section V). One proposed that pre-
stressed concrete should be included as a discrete bridge type and that
all pre-stressed concrete bridges built prior to 1966 be excluded from
the Program Comment. The ACHP declined to make this change as it would
be inconsistent with the other bridge types in Section V, which are
based on structure type (design) and material, and not just the
material with which it is constructed. Other recommendations were
incorporated into the final Program Comment including: Removing
reinforced concrete rigid frames, metal rigid frames, and curved metal
girders from the list of common types (they are, in fact, not as common
as the other types); and adding culverts and reinforced concrete boxes
among the common bridge types covered by the Program Comment.
Two commenters offered recommendations for improving the
programmatic mitigation in Section VI. One recommended including
specifics regarding the manner in which the FHWA will encourage the
update of inventories. The other offered additional suggestions for
mitigation. One additional mitigation measure was incorporated into the
Program Comment based on these recommendations. Section VI now requires
FHWA to complete and make available to the public a brief illustrated
history of post-1945 highway bridge engineering and design to document
for the general public the innovations and contributions of the bridges
to transportation in the post-World War II era. FHWA is required to
complete this illustrated history and documentation using Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER) standards of at least one example of
each common bridge type before December 31, 2013. A third programmatic
mitigation measure was left unchanged: A commitment for FHWA to
encourage State transportation agencies that have not recently done so
to update inventories of historic bridges in their states. The ACHP
agrees with commenters that updating and maintaining statewide historic
bridge inventories and management plans for historic bridges is the
best way to plan for the protection and preservation of the State's
most significant bridges. However, requiring State transportation
agencies to complete these inventories would place an unfair burden on
states without the resources to do these studies, and we do not agree
that such inventories are necessary to identify exceptional examples in
a state, provided the state DOT and Federal Highway Administration
consults with the SHPO and others in developing the list of exceptional
bridges, as required.
The ACHP received comments on the FHWA proposed Program Comment
from six SHPOs: Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico,
and Wisconsin. Wisconsin and Nevada SHPOs support the Program Comment
and offered minor suggestions for improving Section IV (Considerations)
which were incorporated into the final document.
Four SHPO representatives expressed objections or strong
reservations to the approach because of concerns that important post-
1945 concrete and steel bridges would remain unidentified and
unprotected in the absence of a comprehensive statewide historic bridge
survey. As with some of the commenters on the Federal Register notice
(summarized above), these SHPO reviewers equated the elimination of
individual review requirements for common bridge types with a lack of
historic significance. The ACHP has revised the Program Comment to
clarify that the intent is to streamline Section 106 review by
replacing individual documentation and treatment of the common bridge
types in Section V with the programmatic mitigation in Section VI. The
purpose of the considerations in
[[Page 68793]]
Section IV of the Program Comment is not to identify and protect all
significant bridges, but to provide the Federal Highway Administration
in each State an opportunity to identify and exclude from the Program
Comment: (1) Bridges that have already been listed or determined
eligible for listing in the National Register, and (2) common post-1945
concrete and steel bridges that are known to have exceptional
significance. Although a statewide inventory to identify exceptional
bridges is not a requirement for agencies wishing to apply the Program
Comment to undertakings affecting post-1945 bridges in a state, FHWA
will encourage states to update inventories of historic bridges to
better ensure that bridges meeting the considerations in Section IV are
identified and considered early in the Section 106 review process.
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
(NCSHPO) worked closely with FHWA to develop the Program Comment, and
has expressed strong support for it.
Finally, Federal agencies may only use the Program Comment in
states where the relevant FHWA Division has completed and filed a list
of exceptional common bridges with the FHWA Federal Preservation
Officer (FPO) in accordance with Section IV. While the ACHP does not
intend to limit the usefulness of the Program Comment to federal
agencies wishing to use it, we note that the effectiveness of the
Program Comment hinges on the FHWA Divisions in each state taking the
step to identify bridges that should be exempted from the Program
Comment. We encourage Federal agencies other than FHWA wishing to use
the Program Comment to contact the relevant FHWA Division office or the
State Historic Preservation Office to find out the status of its
efforts to complete the list required in Section IV. The FHWA FPO has
agreed to post on FHWA's Web site (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/index.asp) information about the lists once they are
submitted. Other agencies may check with the FHWA FPO or check the Web
site to determine if a list of exceptional bridges has been completed
by a state Division of FHWA. FHWA is committed to working with states
and FHWA Divisions to ensure that the requirements of the Program
Comment are communicated through the publication of guidance, FHWA's
Web site, and coordination by Headquarters and the FPO.
II. Final Text of the 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, and although some of them may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, when repair
or replacement is needed, they are rarely viable candidates for
either preservation in place or relocation. Yet, every federally
funded or permitted undertaking affecting such a bridge requires
review and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), 16 U.S.C. 470f to assess
whether the bridge is eligible for inclusion in the National
Register and, if so, to resolve adverse effects to it. The
regulations implementing Section 106, 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. At
FHWA's request, the ACHP has issued the following Program Comment in
accordance with 36 CFR Sec. 800.14(e) in order to waive, with
limited exceptions, case-by-case Section 106 consideration of
effects on common post-1945 bridges. This Program Comment is
available for use by all federal agencies and State officials
delegated the responsibility to comply with Section 106 for the
particular undertakings by statute or a program alternative under 36
CFR Sec. 800.14 (federal agencies). It relieves 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 in Section IV.
It is important to note that this Program Comment is not a
waiver from Section 106 review for undertakings that may affect
common bridges or other historic properties as described in Section
V. Neither is it a waiver from applicable federal requirements to
consult with Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations (NHO)
regarding undertakings that may affect historic properties to which
a tribe or NHO ascribes traditional cultural and religious
significance. Federal agency officials must still complete Section
106 review and consider effects of the undertaking on historic
properties other than the common 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.
II. Background
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 bridge 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
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (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 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 eliminate the 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 in recognition of the very limited preservation value
of the vast majority of common post-1945 bridges.
III. Applicability
This Program Comment relieves federal agencies from the Section
106 requirement to consider the effects of undertakings on the
bridge types identified in Section V of this Program Comment, except
for those subject to the considerations noted in Section IV of this
Program Comment.
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
[[Page 68794]]
demolition of one or more of the common bridges or culverts listed
in Section V below (common bridges). All federal agencies may take
advantage of the streamlining provided by this Program Comment.
Federal agencies may use data from the NBI or existing State surveys
to support the determination that a particular bridge is a common
bridge under this Program Comment. 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
meet any of the other considerations under Section IV.
The Program Comment applies to common bridges regardless of
ownership, except for those located on tribal lands.\1\ As noted
above, even if the undertaking involves a common bridge not subject
to considerations under Section IV, federal agency officials must
still complete Section 106 review for the undertaking, including the
identification of historic properties and consideration of effects
of the undertaking on historic properties other than the common
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-common 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 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, feeling,
and association of a historic district; or
--effects to other historic properties based on the need for
temporary construction, detours, or rights-of-way.
A federal agency is not required to use this Program Comment.
Federal agencies that choose not to use this Program Comment must
comply with Section 106 through the process in the Section 106
regulations at 36 CFR Sec. Sec. 800.3 through 800.7, or 36 CFR
Sec. 800.8(c), or another existing program alternative under 36 CFR
Sec. 800.14. Any federal agency that chooses to use this Program
Comment for an undertaking should notify consulting parties that it
will use it with regard to the effects of the undertaking on the
bridge types identified in Section V of this Program Comment.
IV. Considerations
Prior to utilizing this Program Comment for an undertaking that
may affect a common bridge, a federal agency, based on the work of a
qualified cultural resource specialist, must complete a review to
determine if any of the considerations listed below apply to the
bridge at issue. If the federal agency determines that the common
bridge in question meets any of these considerations, the agency may
not utilize this Program Comment with regard to that common 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) The bridge in question is or includes spans of the following
types: Arch bridges, truss bridges, bridges with movable spans,
suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges, or covered bridges; or
(C) The bridge was identified in a list created through the
process detailed below as having exceptional significance for
association with an event or individual, or being a very early or
particularly important example of its type in a State or the nation,
having 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 displaying
other elements that were engineered to respond to a unique
environmental context.
Before the Program Comment may be used for undertakings in a
State, the relevant FHWA Division must first develop a list of
bridges in that State that are of the types considered common
bridges, but that also meet the considerations in IV.C above, and
therefore fall outside the scope of this Program Comment. Each FHWA
Division wishing to apply the provisions of this Program Comment
must organize a meeting of the relevant SHPO, DOT, and other
interested parties in order to develop the list of bridges that meet
the criteria considerations in IV.C. The list should be finalized
and submitted to the Federal Preservation Officer of FHWA by March
31, 2013. FHWA Divisions are not required to develop a statewide
survey or context studies to support the development of such lists
where none exist. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, but
will be informed by input received at the meeting. The intent behind
the list is to be able to exclude readily recognizable exceptional
bridges from the Program Comment. Where States already have a
current (within the last 5 years) Programmatic Agreement, inventory,
or management plan for historic bridges that identifies common
bridges meeting any of the listed considerations, the data included
in those Programmatic Agreements, inventories, or management plans
may suffice to create the list. States lacking up to date historic
bridge inventories may subsequently identify additional bridges to
include on the list of exceptional bridges excluded from the Program
Comment based on information obtained in a field verification
required in Section III of this Program Comment.
V. Description of Common Bridges Within the Scope of This Program
Comment
Based on the historic bridge context, the NBI, information
developed in statewide bridge inventories across the United States,
and consultation with the National Conference of SHPOs and other
stakeholders, the following common bridge types are considered well-
documented standardized designs that lack individual distinction.\2\
It is understood that some of the bridges that fall into the
specified types may be eligible for the National Register under
local or State significance. Nevertheless, provided none of the
considerations specified in Section IV above apply, the following
are the common bridge types that fall within the scope of this
Program Comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 slabs
(B) Reinforced concrete beam and girder bridges
(i) Reinforced concrete Tee Beams
(ii) Reinforced concrete channel beams
(iii) Pre-stressed concrete I-Beams and Bulb Tees
(iv) Pre-stressed concrete box beams
(C) Steel Multi-Beam or Multi-Girder bridges
(i) Steel-rolled multi-beams
(ii) Steel fabricated (built up) girders
(D) Culverts and reinforced concrete boxes
(i) Reinforced concrete boxes
(ii) Concrete box culverts
(iii) Concrete pipe culverts
(iv) Steel pipe culverts
VI. Programmatic Mitigation
The programmatic mitigation measures in this section resolve
adverse effects that could result from the potential replacement of
common bridges and provide appropriate documentation of those common
bridges covered by this program comment. By completing the
requirements of Section IV, federal agencies will ensure that this
Program Comment is appropriately applied to individual undertakings
affecting common bridges. The measures included in this Section,
when completed by FHWA, will provide a long-term record of these
common bridge types and information about the historic and
technological significance of this period of innovation in
transportation.
(A) If a suitable example from at least one State is not already
included in the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)
collection, one set of 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
before December 31, 2013. 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.
(B) FHWA will complete a brief illustrated history of post-1945
highway bridge engineering and design to document for the general
public the innovations and
[[Page 68795]]
contributions to transportation in the Post World War II era. The
illustrated history will be published as a brochure and/or posted on
the Internet, and shall be completed and available to the public
prior to December 31, 2013.
(C) The FHWA will encourage State transportation agencies 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 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.
Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e).
Dated: November 8, 2012.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-27866 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P