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. 

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 

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: Marlys.Osterhues@dot.gov; 

or Faris Mohammed, Attorney-Advisor, 

Office of Chief Counsel, telephone: (202) 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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. 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

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: http://

www.Regulations.gov. This site allows 

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 http://

www.Regulations.gov. 

Note: There is a privacy statement 

published on http://

www.Regulations.gov. Comments, 

including any personal information 

provided, are posted without changes or 

edits to http://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– 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 24- 

inch 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES