Proposed Rule2024-23751
Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 18, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Highway Administration
Abstract
The FHWA proposes to revise the Federal regulations on the Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The proposed rule would clarify certain definitions, the applicability of this rulemaking, certain analysis requirements, and the eligibility of funds made available under the Highways title of the United States Code (U.S.C.) to provide noise abatement measures and to improve the analytical procedures. The FHWA also proposes changes and clarifications of factors used to determine the effectiveness of noise abatement measures. In addition, the proposed rule would include exemptions to Type I projects and allow screening analysis that would focus on the projects most likely to cause a traffic noise impact to improve efficiency. The proposed rule would make several changes that are intended to increase the pool of eligible participants in the noise study and mitigation decision processes to ensure everyone receives due consideration for impacts and the possibility of receiving abatement on a given project.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83801-83825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23751]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 83801]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 772
[Docket No. FHWA-2019-0036]
RIN 2125-AF78
Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to revise the Federal regulations on the
Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise. The proposed rule would clarify certain definitions, the
applicability of this rulemaking, certain analysis requirements, and
the eligibility of funds made available under the Highways title of the
United States Code (U.S.C.) to provide noise abatement measures and to
improve the analytical procedures. The FHWA also proposes changes and
clarifications of factors used to determine the effectiveness of noise
abatement measures. In addition, the proposed rule would include
exemptions to Type I projects and allow screening analysis that would
focus on the projects most likely to cause a traffic noise impact to
improve efficiency. The proposed rule would make several changes that
are intended to increase the pool of eligible participants in the noise
study and mitigation decision processes to ensure everyone receives due
consideration for impacts and the possibility of receiving abatement on
a given project.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 17, 2024. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and
follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-
9329.
<bullet> Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket
number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking
at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Aileen
Varela-Margolles, Office of Natural Environment, (305) 978-7780; for
legal information: Lev Gabrilovich, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202)
366-3813, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Electronic Access and Filing
II. Executive Summary
III. Background
IV. Summary of Key Proposed Changes
Table: Summary of Key Proposed Changes
V. Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 772.1 Purpose
Section 772.3 Definitions
Section 772.5 Applicability
Type I Projects
Project Exemptions
Type II Projects
Type III Projects
State Noise Policy
Effective Date
Section 772.7 Traffic Noise Prediction
TNM Version
Clarifications
Noise Screening Process
Section 772.9 Analysis of Traffic Noise Impacts
Section 772.11 Analysis of Traffic Noise Abatement
Engineering Effectiveness
Acoustic Effectiveness
Cost Effectiveness
Consideration of Viewpoints
Optional Factors
Date of Public Knowledge
Section 772.13 Construction Noise
Section 772.15 Documentation and Reporting
Section 772.17 Information for Local Officials
Section 772.19 Federal Participation
Table 1 to Part 772--Traffic Noise Impact Criteria
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Electronic Access and Filing
This document and all comments received may be viewed online
through the Federal eRulemaking portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> using the
docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines
are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be
downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's website
at: <a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a> and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's
website at: <a href="http://www.GovInfo.gov">www.GovInfo.gov</a>.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the location specified in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be filed in the docket and considered to the extent practicable.
In addition to late comments, we will continue to file relevant
information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment
period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine
the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time
after the close of the comment period and after DOT has had the
opportunity to review the comments submitted.
II. Executive Summary
The FHWA proposes to update the Federal Procedures for Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise in 23 CFR part 772 (part
772) to clarify the responsibilities under the ``applicability''
section of this part to various State department of transportation
(State DOT) and non-State DOT recipients of apportioned or
discretionary funding, provide additional flexibility for State DOTs,
improve consistency in the implementation of part 772, increase options
for abatement that is best suited to a particular project and
community,
[[Page 83802]]
and create a more equitable process for considering the affected
public's preference when making noise abatement decisions. The proposed
rule would make changes to how and when noise impacts are considered,
the funding mechanisms available for noise abatement, the methods for
consideration of benefitted receptor's desires, the Date of Public
Knowledge as currently defined in Sec. 772.5, and recommendations for
considering construction noise in ways that are intended to increase
the pool of eligible participants in the noise study and mitigation
decision processes to promote equitable consideration for impacts and
the possibility of receiving abatement on a given project. The proposed
changes would allow all recipients to expedite project delivery while
maintaining protections for human health and the environment by
continuing to provide for analyzing, considering, minimizing, and
mitigating noise impacts.
The FHWA proposes to reorganize part 772 to improve its clarity in
response to stakeholder feedback on the existing regulation. The
proposed changes fall into three categories: (1) those that are
intended to better balance the needs of receptors (noise-sensitive
lands and buildings) adjacent to the project with the needs of
recipients; (2) those that are intended to improve the compliance
process and focus work effort on projects that are likely to alter the
existing noise environment; and (3) those that will allow for the
timely adoption of new technology in noise analyses.
The proposed rule includes several key changes that have the
potential to alter how recipients conduct noise analyses and how the
public receives consideration for noise abatement. The FHWA is
proposing to redefine how projects are categorized, what areas of and
around a project must be considered for noise analysis, adding
exemptions to Type I projects, and allowing project-level screening.
This would allow recipients to focus analysis and mitigation efforts on
projects and areas that have, or are likely to have, noise impacts.
When projects must undergo noise analyses, FHWA is proposing to update
the method for adopting new versions of the Traffic Noise Model. In
considering traffic noise impacts, the proposed rule would include
changes to the levels that are considered an impact. When impacts are
identified and abatement must be considered, FHWA is proposing to
improve the process for considering abatement by consolidating
requirements; allowing for the use of innovative mitigation measures;
allowing for the consideration of non-acoustical benefits of
mitigation; seeking comment on third-party funding options; updating
how property owners' and residents' viewpoints are solicited, counted,
and considered; defaulting to replacing existing mitigation in-kind;
and including provisions for reestablishing a Date of Public Knowledge.
These proposed changes would increase community opportunities to
participate in decisionmaking and potentially to obtain noise
mitigation for impacts. The proposed rule also includes some updates to
the consideration of construction noise when such noise is present at a
single location for a long time. Finally, FHWA is proposing to allow
additional flexibility for all effective abatement measures to be
eligible for Federal participation. The FHWA requests comments on the
proposed changes.
Key Proposed Changes to Part 772
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic area Description of proposed change Existing regulatory section(s) Proposed regulatory section(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reorganization....................... Reorganizing the existing regulation to All sections, except Sec. 772.17. All sections, except Sec. 772.17.
better match the project development
process from beginning to end.
Applicability and responsibilities... Clarifying what parts of this All sections, except Sec. 772.1.. All sections, except Sec. 772.1.
rulemaking apply only to State DOTs
and which parts apply to all
recipients receiving FHWA funding and/
or approvals for a project.
Project Types........................ Better aligning work effort to likely Sec. 772.5, Sec. 772.7......... Sec. 772.3, Sec. 772.5, Sec.
results (e.g., focusing noise analysis 772.7.
on projects likely to have noise
impacts) by:.
<bullet> Introducing exempt projects...
<bullet> Introducing screenings to
determine likelihood of impacts.
<bullet> Updating what constitutes the
analysis area.
Traffic noise prediction............. Including legacy periods and grace Sec. 772.9....................... Sec. 772.7.
periods, and providing for use of
updated versions of the Traffic Noise
Model (TNM) via Federal Register
notice.
Consideration of adjacent receptors.. Establishing criteria and processes for Sec. 772.5, Sec. 772.13........ Sec. 772.9, Sec. 772.11.
resetting the Date of Public Knowledge
and reanalyzing a project area for new
receptors. Establishing a default
wherein public viewpoints are weighed
equally and are the final decision
point regarding State DOT-proposed
mitigation measures.
Traffic noise impacts................ Updating the criteria for a noise Sec. 772.5, Sec. 772.11, Table Sec. 772.3, Sec. 772.9, Table
impact to balance research and 1--Noise Abatement Criteria. 1--Noise Impact Criteria.
commonly used State criteria.
Analysis of traffic noise abatement.. Consolidating the analysis of Sec. 772.13...................... Sec. 772.11.
feasibility and reasonableness of
abatement measures, and replacing
these terms with effective noise
abatement or effectiveness.
Establishing a default decision of in-
kind replacement of noise mitigation
that is impacted by a project. Clarify
the process and allow for equitable
allocation of resources and benefits.
Consideration of other abatement Updating Federal participation to allow Sec. 772.13, Sec. 772.15....... Sec. 772.11, Sec. 772.19.
measures. funding noise abatement measures that
are effective and consistent with
FHWA's national policy for
environmental mitigation in 23 CFR
771.105(e) and allow more flexibility
in abatement options. Proposing three
options for third-party prohibitions,
restrictions, or allowance thereof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
Legal Authority
The FHWA developed the noise regulation as required by section 136
of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (codified at 23 U.S.C. 109(i)).
The part 772 regulation applies to a highway or multimodal construction
project that requires FHWA approval regardless of funding sources, or
is funded with Federal-aid highway funds. See 23 CFR 772.7(a). The
regulation requires a recipient to investigate traffic noise impacts in
areas adjacent to a federally-funded or approved project for the
construction of a highway on a new location or a significant change to
an
[[Page 83803]]
existing highway. If the recipient identifies noise related impacts, it
must consider noise abatement. See 23 CFR 772.11 and 772.13. The
recipient must incorporate all feasible and reasonable noise abatement
into the project design. See 23 CFR 772.13(h). The FHWA last updated
the noise regulation in 2010, with an effective date of July 13, 2011
(75 FR 39820, July 13, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
The FHWA has received ongoing feedback from State DOTs, other
transportation stakeholders and practitioners, and the public related
to the implementation of the noise regulation since 2011. The feedback
includes comments suggesting that some requirements in the existing
regulation are ambiguous and unclear while others are too prescriptive.
The existing regulations also allow for different interpretations of
some requirements. As a result, noise impact and abatement decisions
can vary significantly from State to State. Interpretations of some
requirements can also result in inequitable outcomes regarding the
construction or provision of noise abatement in communities. One
example of documented feedback is a report sponsored by FHWA and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) summarizing findings from a Traffic Noise Practitioners Summit
held in October 2015.\1\ Another example is a listening session
sponsored by FHWA and AASHTO in March 2019; comments from the listening
session are summarized and posted in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence, Traffic Noise
Practitioners Summit White Paper, and Noise Roadmap (February 22,
2016), available at: <a href="https://environment.transportation.org/past-event/2015-traffic-noise-practitioners-summit/">https://environment.transportation.org/past-event/2015-traffic-noise-practitioners-summit/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes are intended to address stakeholder concerns
with the existing regulation and would strike a balance between
retaining flexibility for States while improving consistency and
equitable implementation of the regulation for the public. The FHWA has
identified several areas where the existing regulation could be
improved to better serve the public. For example, FHWA proposes to
offer additional flexibilities on the type of non-barrier mitigation
measures allowed. Proposed improvements would better balance the
recipient's flexibilities in addressing highway noise issues and
continue to protect noise sensitive receptors, such as homes and
schools, near projects. For more information see the Section-by-Section
discussion below.
The proposed rule would support FHWA's goals and objectives of
encouraging infrastructure investment while protecting the environment.
The proposed rule also would advance the policy goals of three
Executive orders (E.O.). Section 1 of E.O. 13990 on Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis (86 FR 7037, Jan. 25, 2021) states the Administration's policy
of listening to the science and improving public health and protecting
the environment. The proposed rule, which is informed by scenario
modeling and statistical data analysis, would help to protect the
public from the introduction of new unhealthy levels of noise and would
provide for the use of data and science to analyze existing conditions
and make determinations on noise impacts and abatement. The E.O. 14008
on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619, Feb. 1,
2021) reiterates the importance of protecting public health and
delivering environmental justice. The proposed rule, when applied to
individual projects, would have the potential to lead to noise analysis
and noise abatement measures that could promote environmental justice
by protecting human health through the provision of noise mitigation
and spurring economic opportunity through mobility. In the same manner,
the proposed rule would carry out E.O. 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity
and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
(86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021), as amended by E.O. 14091 on Further
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through
The Federal Government (88 FR 10825, February 16, 2023), by introducing
new ways for recipients to consider impacts and mitigation in a way
that best fits a given community. See the IV. Summary of Key Proposed
Changes and V. Section-by-Section Discussion below.
The overarching goal of the proposed changes is to develop a clear
and concise regulation that satisfies statutory requirements, improves
the analytical process and subsequent decisionmaking, and continues to
help protect the public's health, welfare, and livability. The FHWA
proposes updates to all sections of the existing regulation. The FHWA
is soliciting comments on all of the proposed changes, and expressly
seeks comment on specific provisions below. Additional information on
these proposed changes follows in IV. Summary of Key Proposed Changes.
More details on these and other changes can be found in V. Section-by-
Section Discussion of this NPRM.
IV. Summary of Key Proposed Changes
The FHWA proposes to reorganize the sections of the existing
regulation to better match the workflow of a noise analysis during the
project development process from beginning to end. The Derivation Table
lists the proposed section numbers and names next to the existing
section numbers.
Derivation Table To Compare Proposed and Existing Part 772
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed section(s) Existing section(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 772.1 Purpose................... Sec. Sec. 772.1 and 772.3.
Sec. 772.3 Definitions............... Sec. 772.5.
Sec. 772.5 Applicability............. Sec. 772.7.
Sec. 772.7 Traffic Noise Prediction.. Sec. 772.9.
Sec. 772.9 Analysis of Traffic Noise Sec. 772.11.
Impacts.
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic Noise Sec. 772.13.
Abatement.
Sec. 772.13 Construction Noise....... Sec. 772.19.
Sec. 772.15 Documentation and Sec. Sec. 772.13, 772.11,
Reporting. and 772.19.
Sec. 772.17 Information for Local Sec. 772.17.
Officials.
Sec. 772.19 Federal Participation.... Sec. 772.15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to substitute the term ``State DOT'' for
``highway agency'' in certain sections of part 772 to reflect current
usage and clarify what actions are the exclusive responsibility of a
State DOT rather than the responsibility
[[Page 83804]]
of other non-State DOT recipients of FHWA funds or approvals. The term
``recipient'' is newly added to part 772 when the section's
requirements and responsibilities belong to any entity with a project
that is subject to this part. The term recipient is inclusive of State
DOTs, unless otherwise denoted by ``non-State DOT recipient''.
The FHWA is proposing 10 key changes to this regulation, as
summarized in the table below, Summary of Key Proposed Changes. Details
on the reorganization of content and proposed changes within individual
sections are described in the V. Section-by-Section Discussion.
Summary of Key Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section (as proposed) and topic Proposed change Purpose of change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are we proposing to change it to/
What we are proposing to change? replace it with? Why are we proposing to change this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project area requiring analysis-- We propose to use the project area To focus analysis and work effort on
Noise analysis area. where design year traffic may areas most likely to be affected by
Sec. 772.3 Definitions......... contribute to noise impacts from the the project based on traffic changes
Sec. 772.5 Applicability....... project. and construction work, and to ensure
Sec. 772.9 Analysis of traffic full consideration of community
noise impacts. impacts.
Type I project definitions and These proposed changes would: (1) To introduce additional flexibility
required analyses. identify Type I projects that could to improve the analytical process by
Sec. 772.5 Applicability....... be exempt from noise analysis because better aligning the analysis effort
Sec. 772.7 Traffic Noise these projects are expected to have to the likelihood of potential
Prediction. minimal or no noise impacts; and (2) impacts and successful construction
allow project screenings to determine of abatement, while still providing
whether impacts are likely before a the necessary information to the
full analysis with field measurements public regarding project impacts as
and modeling is undertaken. part of FHWA National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process.
Definitions of impacts........... We propose to change the definitions To better align the definitions of
Sec. 772.3 Definitions......... of substantial changes in noise substantial decrease and substantial
Sec. 772.9 Analysis of Traffic levels by: changing substantial increase to be the same range of
Noise Impacts. decrease as contained in the acoustic values which is a more logical
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic effectiveness criterion to be at approach and will also result in
Noise Abatement. least 5 dB(A) but not more than 10 additional communities being
Table 1 Noise Impact Criteria.... dB(A); and changing the substantial considered for mitigation compared
increase criterion, by capping the to the current rule. To update the
maximum allowable increase, beyond impact values in table 1 in order to
which an impact will occur, at 10 remove the requirement for State
dB(A) and maintaining the current DOTs to select an approach criteria.
floor value of 5 dB(A), below which a
noise impact because of a substantial
increase does not occur. We also
propose to remove the requirement to
set an approach level of at least 1
dB(A), and incorporate it into table
1 by reducing the Noise Impact
Criteria by 1 dB(A) for all Activity
Categories. For all criteria, State
DOTs would continue to have the
option to define more stringent
(lower) values.
TNM software updates and releases We propose to provide for usage of To ensure a smooth transition to
Sec. 772.7 Traffic Noise legacy data from ongoing projects and future updates of FHWA's TNM and to
Prediction. grace periods for beginning to use provide certainty to State DOTs and
new releases of TNM in noise noise analysis practitioners on when
analyses. the new model should be used for
noise analyses.
Date of Public Knowledge......... We propose to provide circumstances To ensure that the public obtains
Sec. 772.9 Analysis of Traffic under which the Date of Public full consideration for potential
Noise Impacts. Knowledge must be reset. impacts and abatement in cases where
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic project design changes will alter
Noise Abatement. the noise environment from what was
previously analyzed in NEPA; and to
ensure that the public is considered
for impacts and abatement in cases
where projects do not proceed in a
timely manner after the completion
of NEPA. This change consistent with
NEPA reevaluation policies.
Mitigation Options............... We propose to allow for any effective To expand options for State DOTs to
Sec. 772.9 Analysis of Traffic mitigation measures, or combination consider more cost- and acoustically-
Noise Impacts. measures, to be eligible for Federal- effective mitigation options such
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic aid funding provided they meet the that mitigation is provided more
Noise Abatement. requirements established in this often, is more effective at reducing
rulemaking and in the given State DOT noise, can enhance the environment,
Noise Policy. We propose to include and can do so using the limited
an additional optional effectiveness available funding.
factor, to allow for noise mitigation
that also provides other
environmental and social benefits.
Analysis process................. We propose to combine ``feasibility'' To consolidate and clarify the
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic and ``reasonableness'' determinations traffic noise abatement analysis
Noise Abatement. using the term ``effectiveness.'' We process so that it is easier to
propose to establish that existing understand for the public; and to
noise barriers that are disturbed by maintain existing mitigation that
a new project can be eligible for benefits a community.
Federal-aid funds for in-kind or
improved replacement without
necessitating additional analyses.
Public Involvement............... We propose to consider renters and To increase the public's awareness of
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic owners as having equal votes during and influence on final mitigation
Noise Abatement: Consideration mitigation decisionmaking; to make decisions.
of Viewpoints. mitigation decisions based on a
simple majority of returned ballots;
and to limit the use of a minimum
response rate requirement by State
DOTs.
Third Party Funding.............. We propose three options to consider To ensure equitable allocation of
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Traffic third party funding. Proposed option resources and benefits and financial
Noise Abatement. three would remove the prohibition on prudence for cost effective
complete funding of noise abatement abatement measures.
by a third party while retaining the
ban on partial funding.
[[Page 83805]]
Quantitative Analysis of We propose to include a new section To ensure the public receives proper
Construction Noise. stating that State DOTs should consideration for construction noise
Sec. 772.19 Construction Noise. conduct quantitative construction mitigation measures.
noise analyses in cases where the
public has expressed concern about
the issue, or where the State DOT
believes that construction noise is
likely to impact the quality of life
of nearby residents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to clarify the timeline for implementation
of the final rule, including preparation and use of State DOT noise
policies. The FHWA anticipates the effective date will be 30 days after
publication of the final rule, consistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To implement the final rule, FHWA
proposes that a State DOT would be required to develop its noise policy
in accordance with the final rule and submit its proposed policy to
FHWA, or self-certify its approval of its policy, within 6 months
following the effective date of the final rule. The State DOT would be
required to implement the new noise policy within 12 months of the
effective date of the final rule and apply the policy uniformly and
consistently statewide. Recipients within the State would follow and
implement their respective State DOT's noise policy on the same
schedule as the State DOT. This would allow sufficient time for States
to develop, finalize, and publish their policies.
The FHWA is proposing that States adopt new noise policy within 6
months and implement within 12 months of a final rule. The FHWA
encourages States to implement the many improvements in the final rule
by incorporating them in a new noise policy as expeditiously as
practicable. A State's failure to revise a noise policy in accordance
with the final rule could prevent FHWA Division Office from reviewing
proposed projects in the State for noise impacts and to implement
abatement measures to mitigate impacts in a timely manner. If a State
does not revise its noise policy, the FHWA Division Office would be
unable to determine whether a project's noise analysis complies with
the final rule. Since all environmental commitments for effective noise
abatement must be included in the plans, specifications and estimates
before FHWA releases a project for construction, a State's failure to
implement a revised noise policy within 12 months could result in a
delay in FHWA's approval of highway projects within the State.
Projects for which traffic noise prediction activities are
initiated 12 months after the effective date of the final rule, or
initiated after approval of the State's noise policy, whichever occurs
first, would need to be developed in accordance with this part. The
recipients of Federal funding may also choose to apply this regulation
to any project at any stage after approval of the State's noise policy.
Commenters are encouraged to comment on the feasibility of this
timeline and the proposed approaches to the noise policy development
and approval process described in V. Section-by-Section Discussion
under Sec. 772.5 Applicability.
V. Section-by-Section Discussion
The following paragraphs describe the proposed changes within each
section of the regulation as proposed to be reorganized. We also
explain where we are proposing to combine existing sections.
Section 772.1 Purpose
The FHWA proposes to reorganize the existing regulation to better
match the workflow of a noise analysis during the project development
process from beginning to end. The proposed reorganization includes
consolidating the existing Sec. 772.1 Purpose and Sec. 772.3 Noise
Standards sections into a single Sec. 772.1 Purpose section. By
consolidating these sections, proposed Sec. 772.1(a) would describe
the purpose of providing noise standards and would remove repetitive
information that is found in proposed Sec. 772.1(b) regarding what
constitutes noise standards.
The proposed changes also would include three clarifications of
existing requirements in Sec. Sec. 772.1 and 772.3. The first would
clarify that this rulemaking applies to both highway traffic noise and
construction noise by replacing the phrase ``procedures for noise
studies and noise abatement measures'' with ``highway traffic and
construction noise standards'' in proposed Sec. 772.1(a). The second
would clarify that this rulemaking provides both ``noise impact and
abatement criteria'' by adding the words ``impact and'' in Sec.
772.1(b). The final change would correct the reference to 23 U.S.C.
109(i) in existing Sec. 772.3.
Section 772.3 Definitions
Renumbered Sec. 772.3, as proposed, would add, revise, combine,
and remove several definitions. For the reasons discussed below, FHWA
proposes to add new definitions for the following eight terms: Cost
average; Exempt project; Noise analysis area; Noise Impact Criteria;
Noise policy; Receiver; Recipient; and State DOT. The FHWA proposes to
rename Noise reduction design goal to Noise reduction requirement and
revise the definition. The FHWA also proposes to revise the following
terms in the existing regulation: Benefited receptor; Impacted
receptor; Permitted; Receptor; Statement of likelihood; Substantial
noise increase; Traffic noise impacts; Type I project; Type II project;
and Type III project. The FHWA proposes to combine the terms
Multifamily dwelling and Residence into the single term Residence.
Finally, FHWA proposes to remove the terms Date of public knowledge;
Feasibility; L<INF>10</INF>; Reasonableness; and Substantial
construction. These changes would provide clarity and make these
definitions easier to understand or in line with the state of practice.
Some of these changes (e.g., benefitted receptor, impacted receptor,
and noise reduction requirement) would allow State DOTs more
flexibility to mitigate noise impacts in a community and in a context
sensitive manner. We discuss the proposed changes in alphabetical order
consistent with the regulation. We do not discuss existing definitions
that would remain unchanged.
Benefitted receptor. The FHWA proposes to simplify this definition.
Under the existing rule, a benefitted receptor is a receptor with a
``noise reduction at or above the minimum threshold of 5 dB(A), but not
to exceed the highway agency's reasonableness design goal.'' Under this
proposed rule, a benefitted receptor would include any receptor that
achieves the noise reduction requirement criterion as defined by a
State DOT. Thus, this
[[Page 83806]]
definition would align with the noise reduction requirement rather than
have multiple criteria. A defined threshold that is consistently
applied would support fairness in decisionmaking and more equitable
outcomes.
Cost average. Existing Sec. 772.13(k) allows a State DOT, on Type
I or Type II projects, the option to cost average noise abatement among
benefitted receptors within a project, if certain criteria are met.
State DOTs are familiar with this concept in noise abatement, and FHWA
proposes to add the definition to Sec. 772.3 to facilitate
implementation by recipients.
Date of public knowledge. The FHWA is proposing to remove this
definition, as it is described and used entirely in proposed Sec.
772.11 Analysis of traffic noise abatement.
Exempt project. The FHWA proposes to add this new definition for
Type I projects that are not expected to have noise impacts and are
thus exempt from noise analysis and consideration of abatement under
proposed Sec. 772.5(c).
Feasibility. The FHWA is proposing to remove this term and
definition from the rule. The concepts and criteria that are under
feasibility in the existing regulation would be covered under the
consideration of effective noise abatement described in proposed Sec.
772.11(e).
Impacted receptor. The FHWA proposes to modify this definition for
clarity, by replacing ``[t]he recipient'' with ``[a] receptor'' that
has a traffic noise impact.
L10. The FHWA proposes to remove this definition and noise metric
to reflect existing practice. All State DOTs now use the L<INF>EQ</INF>
noise metric.
Multifamily dwelling. The FHWA proposes to remove this definition
by combining it with the more general term Residence. The descriptions
in both of these terms are repetitive and can be covered by the more
general of the two. The regulatory provision in the existing definition
of multifamily dwelling, requiring that each residence in a multifamily
structure be counted as one receptor when determining impacted and
benefitted receptors, was moved to proposed Sec. 772.7(d).
Noise analysis area. The FHWA proposes to add this new definition
to identify the areas within or beyond the project limits that may have
noise impacts. This would allow project sponsors to focus analysis on
the areas that may have noise impacts. Currently, if a project is
determined to be a Type I project, then the entire project area as
defined in the environmental document is required to be analyzed, per
paragraph (8) under the definition of Type I project in existing Sec.
772.5. The proposed approach to determining the noise analysis area
would provide flexibility and avoid establishing a distance for study
based on other factors that may not be appropriate for noise analyses.
Use of TNM is the recommended method for determining the extent of
impacts from a specific highway. Impacts may be contained within the
project area, but may also extend beyond the project limits. The FHWA
is seeking comments on the new definition of noise analysis area from
the entire project to the areas that are most likely to have a noise
impact from the roadway.
Noise Impact Criteria. The FHWA proposes to add this definition to
reflect the proposed change of the title of table 1 from ``Noise
Abatement Criteria'' to ``Noise Impact Criteria.'' The term Noise
Impact Criteria, proposed to mean the values in table 1 or lower (more
stringent) values as specified in a State noise policy, would better
reflect that the sound levels in the table are the levels at which
noise impacts are considered to occur. Analysis of abatement would
occur after the identification of traffic noise impacts. This approach
was made clear in footnote 2 to Table 1 in the current regulation.
Noise policy. The FHWA proposes to add this new definition to
clarify what constitutes a State noise policy. A State may title its
noise policy by other names, but this definition and the associated
regulatory text would aid State DOTs in fulfilling the requirements.
Noise reduction requirement. The FHWA proposes to rename the
existing term Noise Reduction Design Goal to the more accurate Noise
Reduction Requirement, to reflect existing practice. The FHWA also
proposes to align the noise reduction requirement with the acoustic
effectiveness standard in Sec. 772.11(e). Under the current rule,
highway agencies analyze feasibility by achieving at least a 5 dB(A)
highway traffic noise reduction at impacted receptors, then analyze
which receptors are considered benefitted, and then finally analyze how
many benefitted receptors achieve the reasonableness acoustic criterion
(`noise reduction design goal') of at least 7 dB(A). To clarify the
standard, FHWA proposes that the acoustic feasibility, benefitted
receptor, and noise reduction design goal be consolidated into a single
`effectiveness' criterion for acoustics entitled the `noise reduction
requirement.' This value would be at least 5 dB(A) but not more than 10
dB(A) at the given number of receptors as defined in a State noise
policy. In addition, FHWA proposes to add the flexibility of allowing a
combination of abatement measures to achieve the specified noise
reduction rather than a single measure. Accordingly, as proposed, the
Noise reduction requirement would mean any measure, or combination of
measures, that mitigates noise impacts to receptors by reducing design
year noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A) as defined in a State noise policy.
Permitted. The FHWA proposes to revise this definition such that a
definite commitment to develop land can be evidenced not only by the
issuance of a building permit, but also by the equivalent. This would
address situations for which a building permit is not applicable to
that type of development. For example, projects in government
jurisdictions that do not use building permits for certain types of
developments, such as mobile homes, would be considered for impacts and
abatement, as long as the jurisdiction can prove a commitment. This
proposed change reflects common practice and addresses a gap in the
existing rule.
Reasonableness. The FHWA is proposing to remove this term and
definition from part 772. The concepts and criteria that are under
reasonableness in the existing regulation would be covered under the
consideration of effective noise abatement described in Sec.
772.11(e).
Receiver. The FHWA proposes to add this new definition to clarify
that this term refers to a modeling object inside TNM. The proposed
definition also would clarify that a modeled receiver can represent one
or more real-world receptors, provided that they share a common noise
environment.
Receptor. The FHWA proposes to modify this definition to mean a
real-world location only. The concept of ``representative'' locations
in a noise model is described in the definition of the term Receiver.
Receptors are modeled using the Receiver input object in TNM.
Recipient. The FHWA proposes to add this new definition to clarify
requirements and responsibilities belong to any entity with a project
that is subject to this part. A recipient means an entity that receives
a Federal award directly or via a pass-through entity from FHWA. The
project can be funded with apportioned or discretionary funding, or
subject to an FHWA approval action. A recipient can be a State,
regional, county, or local government or other project sponsor such as
a grant recipient undertaking a highway project. For the purposes of 23
[[Page 83807]]
CFR part 772, recipients do not include federally recognized Tribes.
Residence. The FHWA proposes to combine this definition with the
current definition of Multifamily dwelling, as previously discussed.
State department of transportation. The FHWA proposes to add this
new definition to clarify what actions are the exclusive responsibility
of a State DOT rather than the responsibility of other non-State DOT
recipients.
Statement of likelihood. The FHWA proposes to replace the phrase
``feasibility and reasonableness analysis'' in the definition with
``impact and abatement analysis'' to reflect the replacement of the
feasibility and reasonableness concepts with the proposed effective
noise abatement criteria described in Sec. 772.11(e).
Substantial construction. The FHWA proposes to remove this
definition, as it is described entirely in Sec. 772.13.
Substantial noise increase. The FHWA proposes to change the
definition of substantial noise increase from a level between 5 and 15
dB(A) to between 5 and 10 dB(A) in the design year over the existing
noise level as defined in a State noise policy. The FHWA believes that
setting the substantial increase to between 5 and 10 dB(A) would
provide clarity for what constitutes a ``substantial increase'' in
noise level. A 10 dB(A) increase is perceived as a doubling in
loudness, and will have a noticeable impact on people living, working,
or playing in the near-road environment. Noise increases above 10 dB(A)
are rare and infrequent. For example, a 10 dB(A) noise increase can be
caused by 10-fold increase in traffic volume. An increase of 15 dB(A)
can be caused by 31-fold increase in traffic volume, based on the
logarithmic scale of the decibel unit of measurement. These changes
consider what is mathematically defensible and understandable to the
public; what is recommended by research conducted into the health-
impacts and speech interference from noise; and what is an achievable
reduction using current technology. The FHWA proposes to retain the
flexibility for a State DOT to choose the criteria in its noise policy
within the given range. This proposed change in definition also would
be better aligned with the proposed noise reduction requirement of 5 to
10 dB(A), discussed in Sec. 772.11. The FHWA is seeking comments on
the proposed change to substantial noise increase.
Traffic noise impacts. The FHWA proposes to revise this definition
to incorporate proposed changes in the regulation, specifically the
title change of table 1 to part 772 from Noise Abatement Criteria to
Noise Impact Criteria, and to remove the term and concept of an
``approach'' level, the value of which is incorporated directly into
table 1. States would retain the option to define a lower impact
criteria than the values in table 1. The proposed definition otherwise
would remain the same, in that it would describe that there are two
ways in which a traffic noise impact may occur--either when design year
build condition noise levels: (1) meet or exceed the criteria listed in
table 1; or (2) create a substantial noise increase over existing
levels.
Type I project. The FHWA proposes to simplify the definition of
Type I project and move the specific examples to Sec. 772.5.
Type II project. The FHWA proposes to revise the existing
definition by adding a clause to clarify for the public that a Type II
project is a retrofit noise abatement project on an existing highway in
the absence of an associated highway project.
Type III project. The FHWA proposes to revise the existing
definition by adding a sentence to clarify that a Type III project is
not likely to change the noise environment.
The FHWA is not proposing any changes to the following existing
definitions: Common noise environment, Design year, Existing noise
levels, Impacted receptor, L<INF>EQ,</INF> Noise barrier, and Property
owner.
Section 772.5 Applicability
This section is proposed to be renumbered and revised to include
the detailed descriptions of Project Types that are found in the
existing Definitions section, introduce the new concept of exempt
projects, and describe the State DOT noise policies and minimum
criteria for inclusion in such policies.
The FHWA proposes to clarify in renumbered Sec. 772.5(a)(1) that
the proposed rule applies to any highway project or multimodal project
that requires FHWA approval, regardless of funding sources, or that is
funded with Federal-aid highway funds.
Type I Projects
The FHWA proposes to move the list of example projects that are
currently found in the Definitions section to renumbered Sec. 772.5.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 772.5(b) to organize the list of Type I
projects into four broad categories that would cover all of the project
types under the existing definition of the term ``Type I project'': (1)
construction of a roadway on a new location; (2) substantial physical
alteration of an existing highway; (3) a substantial change in the
operations of an existing highway when those changes are because of the
proposed highway project; and (4) other projects which may cause a
traffic noise impact during regular operation. The list of Type I
projects in proposed Sec. 772.5(b) would not be exclusive.
Proposed Sec. 772.5(b)(3) would explicitly describe a substantial
change in operations for clarity, where it is currently implied by the
example project types listed as being primarily work on an existing
alignment. These projects include restriping existing pavement to add
an auxiliary lane or through traffic lane, including for a high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, high occupancy toll (HOT) lane, bus lane,
or truck climbing lane; and the addition of a new or a substantial
alteration of a weigh station, rest area, ride-share lot, or toll
plaza. The FHWA proposes to move ``except for when the auxiliary lane
is a turn lane'' from paragraph (4) of the existing definition of a
``Type I project'' to the proposed project exemptions in proposed Sec.
772.5(c)(1) for clarity. In proposed Sec. 772.5(b)(3)(v), FHWA would
add an explanation to describe ``substantial alteration'' from existing
Analysis and Abatement Guidance (2011) \2\ and to account for the
projects that are eligible for assistance under title 23, including
projects funded by discretionary grants under title 23 or administered
as if Federal-aid projects under chapter 1 of title 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FHWA, ``Analysis and Abatement Guidance'' (FHWA-HEP-10-025)
(June 2010; revised December 2010), available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, projects proposing to use apportioned funding or
discretionary grants under title 23, or projects that are administered
as if they are Federal-aid projects under chapter 1 of title 23, to
build noise abatement on existing roadways, should be subject to the
same requirements of a Type I projects because the acoustic performance
of the noise abatement measure can only be predicted and analyzed by
performing a noise analysis. Such projects would include changing the
pavement surface or building noise barriers in the roadway right-of-
way.
Projects proposing to use Federal-aid funds to build independent
noise abatement on existing roadways are Type II projects and can only
obtain the FHWA funding and approval by being part of an approved Type
II program priority list. On the other hand, projects proposing to use
discretionary grant funding to build independent noise abatement on
existing roadways must follow the eligibility requirements of the
[[Page 83808]]
given grant program and are not necessarily Type II projects.
New Sec. 772.5(b)(4) would add ``other projects which may cause a
traffic noise impact during regular operation'' to the list of Type I
projects. Generally, if a project results in a new noise source, the
State DOT should consider a noise analysis for the project. The
proposed rule would not preclude a State DOT from performing a noise
analysis for a project that does not strictly meet the Type I or Type
II criteria, but may result in a new noise source.
Project Exemptions
The FHWA proposes in new Sec. 772.5(c) to introduce a new ``exempt
project'' category. The exempt projects would be those projects that
would otherwise be considered as Type I based on their scope of work
but are not likely to change the noise environment. Projects unlikely
to change the noise environment would not require analysis of traffic
noise impacts or abatement as in the case of Type III projects.
Proposed project exemptions include clarifications of project
parameters that currently are described in guidance.
The table below lists proposed Type I projects that could be
exempt, with references to the proposed regulation. The FHWA conducted
research and modeling analysis to support the proposed exemptions. The
research report, titled ``23 CFR 772 NPRM Analysis: Analysis to Support
Potential Type I Exempt Projects,'' is available for review in the
docket.
The FHWA seeks comments on whether to include exemptions in this
regulation for assessment of noise impacts, on the exempt projects in
proposed Sec. 772.5(c), and on other projects that should be
considered for exemption from analysis of traffic noise impacts with
appropriate justification.
Type I Projects and Corresponding Proposed Exemptions
If a Type I project meets the description in the first column, then
a proposed exemption is listed in the second column.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type I project Proposed exemption to Type I project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The addition of a new or The addition of, or conversion to,
substantial alteration of a toll an all-electronic toll plaza where
plaza Sec. 772.5(b)(3)(v). vehicles do not stop or accelerate
away. Sec. 772.5(c)(1)(i)
The addition of an auxiliary lane, An auxiliary lane when it is a turn
whether added by construction or lane or less than 2,500 feet in
restriping Sec. 772.5(b)(3)(ii) length and thus does not function
and (iv). as a through lane. Sec.
772.5(c)(1)(ii)
The addition of a through traffic The addition of a through traffic
lane(s), whether added by lane when:
construction or restriping Sec. <bullet> Design speed limit is 35
772.5(b)(3)(i) and (iv). mph or less; and
<bullet> Vehicular restrictions
would cause the volume of traffic
using these lanes to be much lower
than the main lanes, including
autos-only, bus-only, and no trucks
allowed. Sec. 772.5(c)(iii)
Substantial Vertical Alteration A substantial vertical alteration
Sec. 772.5(b)(2)(ii). when such alteration results in a
newly blocked line of sight between
the area and the receptor, such as
moving a roadway into a cut. Sec.
772.5(c)(1)(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type II Projects
Proposed Sec. 772.5(d) is intended to provide more clarity to the
public that a State would need to develop a Type II noise program in
order to use Federal-aid funds when considering noise abatement on
existing highways in the absence of a new highway project. This is the
case under the existing regulation and it would be the case under the
proposed rule. A State's participation in the development and
implementation of a Type II program is and would continue to be
optional. A State also retains the right to use their own funding for
such abatement in the absence of an FHWA-approved Type II noise
program.
Type III Projects
Proposed Sec. 772.5(e) provides that a State DOT is not required
to complete a noise analysis or consider abatement measures for a Type
III project, which is a Federal or Federal-aid highway project that
does not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II project. The
Definitions section of the existing regulation describes Type III
projects and states that they do not require a noise analysis. The
proposed definition in Sec. 772.3 would define Type III projects as
ones that are not likely to change the noise environment, and would
move the existing provision that a State DOT is not required to
complete a noise analysis or consider abatement measures from the
existing Definition to proposed Sec. 772.5(e).
State Noise Policy
The FHWA is considering changes to the noise policy development and
approval process and is requesting comments on three proposed options
for Sec. 772.5(f), including the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Commenters are also welcome to submit additional options, variations of
the proposed options, or a combination of these options. After
considering comments received, FHWA may include any of the options, or
a variation or combination of the options, in the final rule. For all
options, FHWA proposes to include the minimum requirements for the
information that must be included in a State DOT noise policy in Sec.
772.5(g). The FHWA seeks comment on the provided criteria and any other
criteria not addressed that FHWA should consider.
Option (1) reflects current practices that were established to
ensure compliance with the standards developed under 23 U.S.C. 109(h).
This option would ensure that projects where FHWA has approval
authority would meet the FHWA noise standards. It provides for FHWA
review and approval of State noise policies. Under this option, State
DOTs would be required to develop a noise policy in conformance with
part 772 and apply the policy uniformly and consistently statewide. The
State DOT would be required to submit its proposed State policy to FHWA
within 6 months of the effective date of the final rule for FHWA review
and approval. The FHWA would review the State noise policy in a timely
manner, and the State DOT would be required to implement the new noise
policy within 12 months of the effective date of the final rule. The
criteria provided in Sec. 772.5(g) contain the requirements for a
State noise policy to support State DOT development and FHWA review of
a policy.
Under proposed option (2), a State would self-approve its own noise
policy by finding that it meets the set of criteria, provided in
proposed Sec. 772.5(g), and thus comply with standards developed under
23 U.S.C. 109(h). Under this option, the State DOT would be required to
develop a noise policy in conformance with the regulation. Within 6
months of the effective date of the final rule, the State DOT would
develop and self-approve its State policy according to FHWA criteria
for noise policies. The State DOT would submit the self-approved noise
policy to
[[Page 83809]]
FHWA and will post it on the State DOT's public website to ensure
public access. The State DOT would be required to implement the new
noise policy within 12 months of the effective date of the final rule
and apply the policy uniformly and consistently statewide.
Under proposed option (3), a State DOT could opt to self-approve
the State noise policy or to submit it for FHWA review and approval.
The State DOT would be required to develop a noise policy in
conformance with the final rule. Within 6 months of the effective date
of the final rule, the State DOT would either (1) submit its noise
policy for FHWA review and approval, or (2) self-approve its own noise
policy by finding that it meets the set of criteria provided in
proposed Sec. 772.5(g), submit the self-approved noise policy to FHWA,
and publish it on the State DOT's public website to ensure public
access. The State DOT would be required to implement the new noise
policy within 12 months of the effective date of the final rule and
apply the policy uniformly and consistently statewide, regardless of
which approval option the State chooses.
Effective Date
Proposed Sec. 772.5(h) includes new text explaining that projects
for which traffic noise prediction activities are initiated 12 months
after the effective date of a final rule, or initiated after approval
of the State's noise policy, whichever occurs first, must be developed
in accordance with this part. The State DOT may choose to apply the
final rule to any project at any stage after approval of the State's
noise policy pursuant to Sec. 772.5(f).
Section 772.7 Traffic Noise Prediction
In renumbered Sec. 772.7, FHWA proposes to change the reference to
FHWA TNM version, and the process to announce and apply the use of new
versions of the noise model in proposed Sec. 772.7(a); make several
clarifications in proposed Sec. 772.7(c) and (d); and add a noise
screening process to reduce regulatory and analysis burden for projects
that are unlikely to cause impacts in proposed Sec. 727.7(e).
Traffic Noise Model Version
In proposed Sec. 772.7(a), FHWA proposes to delete the current
reference to a specific TNM version. Though the TNM will continue to be
the required model for noise prediction, instead of specifying a
version of TNM in the regulation, FHWA proposes to require the use of
the latest version of the model, or any other model FHWA determines to
be consistent with the TNM's methodology. The FHWA also proposes to
establish a process to announce each updated required version of TNM by
publishing a notice of availability in the Federal Register.
To allow more implementation flexibility, FHWA intends to provide a
grace period after the release of a new or major updated version of
TNM. The length of the grace period would depend on the level and
extent of the changes, but it would be a minimum of 6 months to a
maximum of 2 years. The FHWA would announce the length of the grace
period in the same Federal Register notice of availability that
announces the model release. The FHWA believes that providing a
variable grace period to incorporate use for the new model is important
to address the needs of each release situation. For example, if the new
version of the model requires additional data collection, then a longer
grace period might be necessary to accommodate this effort before
requiring its use. The FHWA believes a maximum 2-year grace period
would allow States ample time to prepare for the implementation of the
new version of the model.
The FHWA is also proposing that any highway project for which
traffic noise prediction activities have been initiated using the
previous version of the TNM before or during the grace period can
continue without switching to the new model. The new model must be used
any time traffic noise prediction (i.e., modeling activities) are
started after the end of the grace period. The FHWA believes this
process will provide a smooth transition to the adoption of each
version of TNM, provide more certainty to the States, and minimize any
interruption to project schedules.
Clarifications
The FHWA is also proposing clarifications in Sec. 772.7(c)
concerning the use of traffic characteristics that would yield the
worst traffic noise impact. Currently, the rule requires, when
predicting noise levels and assessing noise impacts, the use of
``traffic characteristics that would yield the worst traffic noise
impact for the design year. . . .''. The FHWA is proposing to clarify
these requirements for Type I and Type II projects. Type I project
analyses would continue to use the design year; however, since there is
no design year for a Type II project, those analyses would use the
worst noise hour for the existing year resulting from the combination
of natural and mechanical sources and human activity usually present in
a particular area, per the definition of Existing noise levels. This
clarification reflects the existing practice and makes the language in
the rule more precise. Consistent with current policy, State DOTs
should continue to use the operating speed to determine the existing
worst noise hour if it is determined to be consistently higher than the
posted speed limit.\3\ The FHWA is seeking comment on whether it would
be beneficial to include a new definition for the term `Worst Noise
Hour' and whether this definition should incorporate the existing
guidance regarding the use of operating speeds for vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FHWA, Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2010),
available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to consolidate and move instructions
regarding the calculation and placement of receptors, which is
currently found under the descriptions of each Activity Category in
Sec. 772.11. Because we are proposing to remove those detailed
descriptions from the text, the relevant portions were summarized and
moved to Sec. 772.7(d). The text continues to state that each State
DOT must define a method to calculate and place non-residential
receptors and apply it consistently statewide. Proposed Sec. 772.7(d)
also includes regulatory text providing that for residential land uses,
each single-family structure and each dwelling unit in a multifamily
structure would be counted as one receptor when determining impacted
and benefitted receptors. We proposed moving similar language from the
Definitions section when we combined the definitions of multifamily
dwelling and residence. The text does not reflect a new requirement,
and is part of the proposed reorganization.
Noise Screening Process
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 772.7(e) to add an optional traffic
noise screening process to allow State DOTs to determine whether a
project is likely to cause traffic noise impacts before conducting a
detailed noise analysis. If a project passes the traffic noise
screening outlined in proposed Sec. 772.7(e), the State DOT could
document the results and no further analysis would be required. Traffic
noise screening would reduce unnecessary analysis conducted for
projects that do not cause any meaningful noise impacts.
The FHWA proposes that traffic noise screening would involve
modeling a worst-case scenario with a simplified TNM run using a FHWA-
approved tool such as FHWA's Traffic Noise Screening
[[Page 83810]]
Tool,\4\ rather than the usual requirements of detailed TNM object
inputs and model validation. Currently, the use of particular screening
tools is allowed through their inclusion in a State noise policy that
is submitted for FHWA review and approval. Because of the simplified
inputs associated with a screening analysis, it is expected that
results will vary somewhat from a detailed analysis conducted using
TNM. In order to minimize any other additional sources of variance
between a detailed TNM analysis and the screening, the screening tool
should be such that it can replicate TNM results when the modeled
conditions are the same. The FHWA's Traffic Noise Screening Tool will
replicate TNM results within 0.1 dB when the modeled conditions are the
same. If a State DOT chooses to use its own screening tool; the
decision to do so, the name of the tool, and a description of the tool
would need to be included in the noise policy; and the tool also would
need to replicate TNM results within 0.1 dB in order to be deemed
compliant with the requirements. Allowing an absolute difference
between a screening tool and TNM of no more than 0.1 dB would minimize
variations that are not caused by inherent issues with the underlying
simplifications involved with screening. Simple geometries can be
computed in TNM and the results can be directly used in a screening
tool with results scaled to account for different volumes using the
same equations that are used by TNM; therefore, there is no need for a
tolerance greater than 0.1 dB for consistency with TNM. This variation
would be the test used in determining whether a given screening tool is
allowed for use on projects. The FHWA seeks feedback on the allowable
variation of 0.1 dB between TNM and a given screening tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FHWA, Traffic Noise Screening Tool, software and User's
Guide (September 2021), available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State DOT would be required to conduct the screening analysis on
the entire noise analysis area for the project. The same model or tool
used to determine noise levels for the existing year also would be
required to be used to analyze noise levels in the design year for the
build condition, consistent with current practice in the use of TNM.
State DOTs also could choose to analyze the design year for the no-
build condition using the aforementioned screening methods.
A traffic noise screening analysis would be required to include the
following parameters, if applicable: existing noise level, facility
type, length of facility, number of lanes in each travel direction,
lane width, roadway design capacity, vehicle fleet mix, speed, roadway
grade, type of ground between roadway and receiver, land (urban/
suburban/rural) areas, Noise Impact Criteria Activity Category, and
distance of nearest receiver from the roadway. The FHWA requests
comments on the proposed screening parameters and on other screening
parameters that should be considered.
Type I projects with complex attributes are not appropriate for
screening analysis and would be required to apply the provisions in
proposed Sec. 772.9. Complex attributes include: the construction of a
roadway on a new location; ground elevation changes because of hills,
valleys, and other undulations greater than three feet that do not
correlate to the grade change in the roadway (e.g., the roadway will
continue at its current elevation regardless of the surrounding
terrain); large areas of trees that fully obscure the line of sight
between the roadway and the source; intervening buildings, barriers, or
other substantial structures; intervening ground with multiple ground
types (e.g., water, pavement, grass, etc.); or where the horizontal
deviation between any roadway segment of the project and a straight
line approximation of the entire length of the roadway project is
greater than 25 degrees (i.e., a curvy road).
The FHWA proposes that detailed traffic noise analysis as described
in Sec. 772.9 would not be required if both of the following screening
conditions are satisfied: first, if the result of screening is at least
5 dB less than the Noise Impact Criteria for the appropriate activity
category, and second, if the result of screening does not exceed the
substantial noise increase criteria determined in a State noise policy.
The screening threshold of 5 dB below the Noise Impact Criteria
represents a safety factor that accounts for expected variation between
a detailed model such as TNM and a simplified model such as the Traffic
Noise Screening Tool. A 5 dB safety factor is not needed for the State
DOT's substantial noise increase criteria because any over or under
predictions in the existing condition are expected to cancel with any
over or under predictions for the future condition. For more
information, the technical report titled, ``23 CFR 772 NPRM Analysis:
Traffic Noise Screening Process'' is available for review in the
docket.
The FHWA seeks comments on whether it should allow project
screening and the proposed screening parameters.
Section 772.9 Analysis of Traffic Noise Impacts
The FHWA is proposing multiple changes to the process of analyzing
traffic noise impacts in renumbered Sec. 772.9. Related proposed
changes can be found in Sec. 772.3 and Table 1 to Part 772--Noise
Impact Criteria.
To improve readability, FHWA is proposing to reorganize this
section to better align with the order of activities in the project
development process. The FHWA removed the detailed description of the
Activity Categories from this section to avoid duplication of
descriptions provided in table 1 to part 772.
As described in proposed Sec. 772.3, FHWA proposes to clarify that
the noise analysis area in Sec. 772.9(a)(1) can be within or slightly
beyond the project limits, to only include areas that have the
potential for noise impacts. Under the current definition of a Type I
project (Sec. 772.3, Type I project, paragraph 8), a project must be
analyzed for traffic noise impacts for the entire project area as
defined in the environmental document. This change would better align
the necessary analysis with the likelihood of impacts and abatement,
while still protecting the near-road receptors from traffic noise
impacts that may be caused by, or increased by, the proposed project.
The FHWA proposes to clarify what constitutes ``validation of the
noise model'' in proposed Sec. 772.9(a)(3) by incorporating
longstanding guidance \5\ that the existing noise level and predicted
noise level for the existing condition are within +/- 3 dB(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FHWA, Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2010),
available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of determining whether there is a noise impact involves
comparing predicted noise levels against the values in table 1 for a
given land use and activity category. Currently, State DOTs must define
an `approach criteria' as a value at least 1 dB below the corresponding
value in table 1. The FHWA proposes to remove the requirement in
current Sec. 772.11(e) for State DOTs to establish an approach level
to be used when determining a traffic noise impact. As mentioned in
Sec. 772.3 Definitions and described in table 1, instead of requiring
an approach level of at least 1 dB(A) less than the Noise Impact
Criteria listed in table 1 to part 772, FHWA proposes to reduce the
Noise Impact Criteria values in table 1 by 1 dB(A) below current
levels. The purpose of this change is to integrate the most commonly
used approach level of
[[Page 83811]]
1 dB(A) less than the values in current table 1, and simplify the
regulation by not requiring States to take an additional step to apply
an approach level. States would retain the same flexibility by
continuing to have the option to define a more stringent (lower) impact
level than the values in table 1 in their State noise policy.
Section 772.11 Analysis of Traffic Noise Abatement
The FHWA is proposing several changes to renumbered Sec. 772.11,
including providing new flexibilities for noise abatement measures and
moving the reporting requirements to a new section, Sec. 772.15
Documentation and Reporting.
The FHWA is proposing to require in Sec. 772.11(a) that abatement
measures must be considered and evaluated for effectiveness (i.e.,
replacing feasibility and reasonableness in current Sec. 772.13(d)).
The FHWA would continue to require ``primary consideration to exterior
areas where frequent human use occurs'' (in current Sec. 772.11(b)),
in proposed Sec. 772.11(a)(1). The FHWA intends to maintain its
longstanding policy that noise abatement measures remain effective in
perpetuity \6\ and proposes to codify in proposed Sec. 772.11(a)(2)
what is currently provided in guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FHWA, Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2010),
available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State DOTs have requested clear direction on how to address
replacement of noise barriers. The FHWA is proposing new language in
Sec. 772.11(b) regarding how to address projects where there is
already existing noise abatement from a previous project. Current FHWA
guidance discusses how a State should consider existing abatement,
including whether it should be enhanced to provide the appropriate
level of protection for the most recent traffic volumes and worst noise
hour. However, the guidance does not discuss what to do in the event
that the existing abatement must be removed to accommodate features of
a new highway project. Some State DOTs have taken the lead in
addressing this issue by requiring that the abatement be rebuilt and,
if possible, improved upon, at a new location. To this end, FHWA
proposes to include language in the rule to address this issue
consistent with existing State DOT practice and longstanding FHWA
policy that abatement should provide a substantial reduction in noise
levels \7\ and provide that abatement in perpetuity.\8\ Specifically,
FHWA proposes in Sec. 772.11(b) that an existing noise abatement
measure that is affected or removed because of a highway project must
be replaced to provide noise abatement equal to or better than what was
present before. The FHWA believes that this proposed language could
ensure that affected communities would continue to receive at least the
same level of noise reduction even with the removal of the existing
noise abatement. The proposed language also includes exceptions to the
provision when the abatement is no longer desired or the land use is no
longer sensitive to noise. The FHWA is seeking comment on whether this
proposed clarification on the replacement of noise abatement would aid
State DOTs in planning and conducting their highway noise analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FHWA, Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2010),
available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/</a>.
\8\ FHWA, Analysis and Abatement Guidance (December 2010),
available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary change to this section is that FHWA proposes in Sec.
772.11(c) through (e) to simplify the analysis of traffic noise
abatement by consolidating the existing ``feasibility'' and
``reasonableness'' evaluation requirements into one single
``effectiveness'' assessment based on four criteria--(1) engineering
effectiveness (i.e., constructability and maintenance), (2) acoustic
effectiveness, (3) cost effectiveness, and (4) consideration of
viewpoints. Each of these criteria is described below. As proposed in
Sec. 772.11(c), each State DOT would be expected to describe what
constitutes effective abatement in its noise policy, in compliance with
the parameters defined in Sec. 772.11(e). All abatement effectiveness
factors would be required to be achieved in order for a noise abatement
measure to be deemed effective.
Engineering Effectiveness
Engineering effectiveness would have the same description as
existing Sec. 772.13(d)(1)(ii) under feasibility.
Acoustic Effectiveness
Acoustic effectiveness would combine the acoustic feasibility
factor described in existing Sec. 772.13(d)(1)(i) and the
reasonableness factor of a noise reduction design goal described in
existing Sec. 772.13(d)(2)(iii) into a single assessment.
The FHWA is proposing to rename the ``noise reduction design goal''
in existing Sec. 772.13(d)(2)(iii) as the ``noise reduction
requirement'' to more accurately reflect that achieving this reduction
remains a requirement for Federal participation in the noise abatement
measure(s).
The current noise reduction design goal for an abatement measure to
be considered reasonable is at least 7 dB(A) but not more than 10
dB(A), as defined in a State noise policy and applied uniformly and
consistently statewide. However, abatement is considered feasible under
the current rule at a minimum 5 dB(A) reduction. Similarly, most State
DOTs consider a receptor to be benefited if it receives a noise
reduction of at least 5 dB(A).
The noise reduction requirement is included in the determination of
acoustic effectiveness in proposed Sec. 772.11(e)(2). To determine
acoustic effectiveness, FHWA is proposing to allow States to define a
noise reduction requirement in the State noise policy of at least 5
dB(A) but not more than 10 dB(A). This means that an abatement measure
would need to achieve a noise reduction of at least the State's noise
reduction requirement, from 5 dB(A) to 10 dB(A), to be eligible for
Federal funding.
The intent of this proposed change is to eliminate confusion over
the varying values in the definitions and to allow more flexibility to
States in determining acoustic effectiveness for effective abatement
measures. The FHWA has received feedback from State DOTs that retaining
flexibility is an important part of the noise program, and this
proposal seeks to retain that flexibility while also providing clear
direction on abatement requirements.
The FHWA requests comment on the proposed noise reduction
requirement within the range of at least 5 dB(A) but not more than 10
dB(A) for acoustic effectiveness. The FHWA also solicits input and
justification on other ranges to define acoustic effectiveness.
The second step in determining acoustic effectiveness is to analyze
whether the noise abatement measure provides the required noise
reduction at a sufficient number or percentage of impacted receptors.
The FHWA is proposing to continue to allow State DOTs to choose from
the most common options currently in use by State DOTs. The proposed
options are: a simple majority of impacted receptors, two or more
impacted receptors, or a combination of these two criteria. For
example, by using a combination of the criteria, a State DOT could
consider noise abatement to be ineffective if there is only an isolated
receptor in the given area, and also that noise abatement must provide
the required reduction to a
[[Page 83812]]
simple majority of the impacted receptors. The State would be required
to define and explain the basis for the determination in their noise
policy, which also is required under the current regulation.
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness as proposed would have a similar description as
existing Sec. 772.13(d)(2)(ii) under reasonableness. The FHWA proposes
to clarify that cost criteria may be determined for each type of
abatement a State DOT intends to use, recognizing that different
abatement measures may have different costs associated with them. Cost
effectiveness can be based on the cost of a measure or based on the
quantity of material for that measure and the cost of that material.
Should FHWA define criteria for considering the cost effectiveness of
non-barrier (i.e., not walls or berms) abatement measures? Or should
FHWA provide some basic parameters and allow States to define how other
abatement measures will be analyzed for cost effectiveness? The FHWA
requests comments and examples to inform our consideration of these
questions and the proposed cost effectiveness provisions.
The FHWA also seeks comment on whether geographic cost allowances
and cost averaging should be retained in the regulation in proposed
Sec. 772.11(e)(3)(i) and (ii).
The FHWA is proposing to amend the provision on third party funding
of noise abatement measures. Currently, Sec. 772.13(j) prohibits any
third-party funding that is necessary to make otherwise infeasible or
unreasonable measures feasible and/or reasonable (replaced by the term
``effective'' in the proposed rule). Third parties are any entities
other than the recipients of funds designated under title 23 U.S.C. An
element in determining the reasonableness of noise abatement measures
involves relative cost effectiveness by comparing the cost of abatement
measures on a project to a baseline cost reasonableness value. Third
party funding of some of a measure's costs could have the effect of
making the cost to construct the measure on a project fall below the
baseline value, and thus be considered cost-effective, and therefore
make the remainder of the cost eligible for Federal-aid funding.
Prior to the current rule, under FHWA guidance, it was permissible
for third-party funding to pay for the difference between the actual
costs and the baseline value (partial funding) of noise abatement
measures, provided it was done in a non-discriminatory manner. The
current rule changed the standard in stating ``FHWA's position that, in
order to comply with the requirements of title VI and the Executive
order on Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898), it is only acceptable to
permit third party funding . . . if the noise abatement measure would
be considered feasible and/or reasonable without the additional
funding.'' Title VI and the E.O. 12898 requires fair treatment of
minority and low income populations in bearing the burdens and
realizing the benefits of federally funded activities. The E.O. 13985
specifically states that Agencies must recognize and work to redress
inequities in policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal
opportunity and should allocate resources to address the historic
failure to invest sufficiently, justly, and equally in underserved
communities, as well as individuals from those communities. Because
these concerns do not arise with third party funding of functional and
aesthetic enhancements of measures already determined effective,
funding of such enhancements is currently acceptable. The effect of the
provision in current Sec. 772.13(j) was to ban both partial and
complete third-party funding of noise abatement measures which are
determined to be cost ineffective.
The purpose of the prohibition in the current regulation is to
protect the Federal investment in the project by funding construction
of only cost-effective measures, and to ensure that interests desiring
otherwise cost ineffective measures do not gain an unfair advantage in
the allocation of scarce infrastructure resources on Federal-aid funded
projects. Consistent with title VI, E.O. 12898, and E.O. 13985, the
prohibition also ensures minority and low-income persons are not denied
benefits such as construction of a noise abatement measure that others
may realize as part of a Federal-aid highway project. But the scope of
the current prohibition may not be appropriate to achieve these
purposes without resulting in unintended negative consequences. It is
clear that third party funding of a portion of the cost of an
ineffective noise abatement measure, which had been allowed under
previous FHWA guidance, has the potential to result in imprudent and
unfair allocation of resources and benefits on Federal-aid projects,
and the current rule appropriately prohibits such funding. Where no
Federal, or State, resources are involved because a measure is funded
entirely by a third party; however, neither environmental or financial
fairness in allocation of public benefits and burdens, nor financial
prudence issues, are implicated. Where no person is burdened or denied
public benefits by the complete funding of additional benefits by third
parties, those additional resources in the form of third party
donations should be allowed to be used on a project to maximize limited
public investment in infrastructure. The current rule, thus, may have
gone beyond what is needed to ensure non-discriminatory treatment.
The FHWA is proposing three options for third-party funding in this
rulemaking at Sec. 772.11(e)(3)(iii). While we have included one
option (Option 3) in the proposed regulatory text, we may include any
of the options discussed, or a variation of any of the options based on
comments received, in a final rule. Proposed Option 1 would make only a
conforming change from the concept of feasible and reasonable to
effective. This option would continue the current prohibition on any
third-party funding that is necessary to make otherwise ineffective
measures effective, and would continue to allow third party funding of
enhancements.
Proposed Option 2 would continue the current prohibition on any
third party funding that is necessary to make otherwise ineffective
measures effective, and would continue to allow third party funding of
enhancements. It would add a provision to allow donation of costs for
utility relocation by a non-receptor utility and donation of real
property by a non-receptor third party, needed to construct a noise
abatement measure, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 323. According to 23
U.S.C. 323, donation of real property to be acquired in connection with
a project, funds, materials, and services is permitted, notwithstanding
any other law, the value of which is credited to the State's share of
project costs. The proposed rule would also allow the donation of real
property and allow the value of such to be credited to the State's
share of the project costs, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 323. A utility or
landowner which is also a noise sensitive receptor would not be allowed
to donate costs for utility relocation or real property because they
could gain an advantage by donating what amounts to partial funding of
abatement measures. The effect of the change would be to enhance
funding flexibility and broaden the pool of resources available for a
project. A State would not be required to allow such donations.
Proposed Option 3, which appears in the regulatory text of the
proposed rule, would remove the current prohibition insofar as it bans
complete funding of ineffective noise abatement measures by third
parties, while retaining the ban on
[[Page 83813]]
partial funding that is necessary to make otherwise ineffective
measures effective. Where a third party pays for the entire cost of
otherwise cost ineffective measures, neither of the Government's
concerns, Federal funding or fairness, financial and environmental, is
implicated. In the context of the gap between resources and needs for
infrastructure development, and increasingly dense development leading
to a greater potential for noise impacts, if a neighborhood, for
example, wishes to pay all costs associated with construction of a
noise barrier that is not cost effective under State standards, but
meets other effectiveness criteria, then the State should retain the
flexibility to accommodate the request and accept the donation. In
accepting such a donation, the State would not be committing scarce
Federal funds to otherwise ineffective measures or putting other
receptors at a disadvantage. In contrast, where there is an offer of
only partial funding of measures, enough to make the barrier cost
effective but not for the entire cost, funds would be committed to
ineffective measures, to the potential disadvantage of other receptors
on the project and of receptors on and beneficiaries of other projects.
The effect of the change would be to enhance funding flexibility and
broaden the pool of resources available for a project. A State would
not be required to allow such donations.
For noise abatement measures funded by third parties under Option
3, the value of the donation could not be credited to the non-Federal
share of the project funding. Since the construction cost of the
measure being greater than the baseline cost effectiveness value, the
measure would be ineligible for Federal-aid funding, and could only be
constructed because it was funded by a third-party donation. Because
the measure would be ineligible for Federal funding, it would not be
necessary for implementation of the project and, therefore, would not
meet the cost allowability requirements of the Federal cost principles
under 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and may not be credited to the non-
Federal share of the project funding.\9\ The FHWA seeks comment on
these three options, and any other options suggested by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FHWA, Federal-Aid Guidance Non-Federal Matching Requirements
(May 2019), available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/memonfmr_tapered20190515.htm">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/memonfmr_tapered20190515.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of the Viewpoints of the Property Owners and Residents of
the Benefitted Receptors
Proposed Sec. 772.11(e)(4) has a similar description as existing
Sec. 772.13(d)(2)(i) under reasonableness. The FHWA is proposing to
clarify its longstanding policy that only residents and property owners
at benefitting receptors can make a determination on desirability of
noise abatement on a public right-of-way. There have been situations
where a homeowner's association or other entity has sought to speak for
all residents in the association, and we want to clarify that the
viewpoints of residents and property owners must be considered
individually and not as an association. The State DOT must consider
tenants and renters in addition to property owners when analyzing noise
abatement, which clarifies FHWA existing policy. Some State noise
policies have considered tenants and renters unequally to property
owners, such as with different weighting, and FHWA seeks comment on how
to encourage equal access to the process when State DOTs are analyzing
traffic noise abatement. Equal weighting is particularly important to
ensure equitable consideration for underserved populations.
The FHWA is also proposing to streamline and standardize the
viewpoint criteria by proposing that a simple majority of respondents
must desire abatement for it to be constructed. We are proposing this
change in an effort to simplify the process and to better align the
viewpoint criteria to public expectations of voting and subsequent
decisionmaking.
The FHWA proposes that a State DOT cannot demand a minimum response
as to whether to construct a noise abatement measure, unless there are
two or more outreach efforts to directly contact the benefitted
receptors and obtain their viewpoints. This change is to reflect the
current guidance in the online FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Frequently
Asked Questions \10\ (FAQ G.7) and to address the issues regarding low
response rates to noise abatement surveys, and sporadic meeting
attendance on non-major, non-controversial projects. The State DOT
would be required to document requirements for outreach efforts, and
where necessary a minimum response rate, in the State noise policy and
apply the requirements uniformly statewide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FHWA, Noise Policy FAQs--Frequently Asked Questions (May
2012), available at: <a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/faq_nois.cfm">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/faq_nois.cfm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional Factors
The FHWA is proposing in Sec. 772.11(e)(5) a new optional factor
for added flexibility in determining the effectiveness of noise
abatement measures. New Sec. 772.11(e)(5)(vii) would provide a new
consideration of whether a noise abatement measure would provide some
added, incidental benefit to receptors from other environmental or
social impacts. For example, historically marginalized communities may
have impacts from past highway projects, but may not have received
abatement at the time. Considering this optional factor in noise
abatement could support environmental justice and community
enhancement. In addition, research has shown that some noise walls may
have air quality benefits,\11\ which supports human health. In both
cases, a State DOT would include its use of this optional factor in its
noise policy and would describe by how much the cost effectiveness
criterion of a given mitigation measure would increase when the
optional factor is in use. For example, the optional factor could
state: ``communities that predate the highway'', or ``low-income
communities will be analyzed using $45,000 per benefited receptor'';
whereas other receptors would only be considered using a ``$40,000 per
benefited receptor'' criteria. In addition, this optional factor could
be expanded and combined; for example, if a mitigation measure is being
evaluated for a low-income community, using the previous example, it
could cost up to $45,000 per benefitted receptor. If the given measure
also provides some air quality benefits, it could then be written into
the State noise policy that that measure could cost up to $48,000 per
benefitted receptor. In addition, the newly proposed optional factor
could be combined with other, existing optional reasonableness factors,
too. This additive potential of the optional factors could be used by
State DOTs to increase the possibility of providing noise mitigation
where it is needed most. The costs and situations in the previous
examples are simply for illustrative purposes and should not be taken
as guidance as to how much mitigation measures should cost. Actual
costs and
[[Page 83814]]
increases from using the optional factor will vary and be defined by
each State DOT that chooses to use it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Recommendations for
Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-road Air
Quality (August 2016), available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/recommendations_for_constructing_roadside_vegetation_barriers_to_improve_near-road_air_quality.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/recommendations_for_constructing_roadside_vegetation_barriers_to_improve_near-road_air_quality.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By including this optional factor, States may add flexibility to
increase the allowable cost of abatement as defined by cost
effectiveness, and not restrict or take away from current requirements
or add new requirements. Optional factors could not be used alone to
determine effectiveness, and should not inhibit noise abatement that is
otherwise considered effective. The FHWA seeks comment on the optional
factors, particularly the new optional factor, and whether FHWA should
consider any other factors for inclusion in this area.
Date of Public Knowledge
The FHWA proposes to move the definition of the term ``date of
public knowledge'' in current Sec. 772.5 to describe the date for
establishing the date of public knowledge in proposed Sec. 772.11(f),
and to add Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the
list of environmental documents the approval of which constitutes the
date of public knowledge.
Proposed Sec. 772.11(f)(1) and (2) were moved and revised from
current Sec. 772.11(c)(2)(vii)(C) to use terminology consistent with
the proposed rule for State DOT, environmental document, and technical
noise memorandum. Proposed Sec. 772.11(d)(3) clarifies that any lands
permitted for noise-sensitive development before the date of public
knowledge must be considered for potential impacts and abatement.
In proposed Sec. 772.11(g), FHWA added clarifications that the
date of public knowledge would be updated under certain conditions: (1)
if it has been more than 5 years since the existing date of public
knowledge was established or last updated; or (2) the State DOT finds
that a change in highway design or operations results in a change in
noise impacts. These clarifications seek to ensure fairness and
equitable access to information for the public about upcoming projects
and possible changes to the noise environment.
The FHWA is proposing 5 years as the duration because the traffic
data used in noise analysis that is older than 5 years introduces
higher risk in the analysis of safety, operations, and engineering
acceptability, and in turn, affects the accuracy of noise analysis.
Within this time period, some areas would see significant change in
travel patterns and conditions, which may warrant a reconsideration of
whether the technical assumptions that formed the basis of FHWA's prior
approval are still valid. In addition, this timeframe would allow for
one Long-Range Transportation Plan update for most metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO). See 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(1). Therefore, to
account for the project development process (i.e., planning,
preliminary design, environmental analysis, final design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction) and to minimize the need to revise an
analysis that was started at the end of the MPO modeling cycle, the
proposed rule would clarify that the date of public knowledge may need
to be updated if the traffic data used in the State DOT's noise
analysis is more than 5 years old.
The second condition is when a project has completed NEPA but it is
determined during a NEPA re-evaluation that a change in the proposed
highway design or operations would change the noise environment in a
way that changes impacts or results in new impacts that were not
evaluated in the original categorical exclusion (CE) or environmental
document. When such project design changes occur, FHWA aims to clarify
when the date of public knowledge may be reset, when impacts must be
reconsidered, and when new land use developments must be included in
the updated analyses and considered for traffic noise impacts and
abatement. The FHWA is considering defining a value for a design change
that results in noise impacts to be within the range of 1.5 to 3 dB.
The FHWA requests comment on the value within that range to consider a
change in highway design or operations that result in traffic noise
impacts.
Under both conditions, the entire noise analysis area would be
eligible for screening to determine the likelihood that the noise level
has changed from what was analyzed in the original NEPA document, in
order to determine whether a full reanalysis is necessary. Any new
noise-sensitive development and lands permitted for noise-sensitive
development between the previously established and updated date of
public knowledge for the project must be considered for potential
impacts and abatement. The updated Date of Public Knowledge would be
established based on the most recent NEPA approval for the highway
project, environmental reevaluation, or a supplemental NEPA review and
approval.
The FHWA seeks comments on the proposed changes to the date of
public knowledge.
Related to the analysis of noise abatement, FHWA is also seeking
comments on the following two items in Sec. 772.19 and table 1 of this
NPRM.
1. Request for Comments on Analysis of Non-Barrier Abatement
The current regulation focused provisions on barrier abatement.
Proposed Sec. 772.19 would include more flexibilities to consider non-
barrier abatement measures. Examples may include measures that require
ongoing maintenance or replacement, such as quiet pavements, measures
on private property, such as insulation, or measures subject to
reanalysis and revision, such as speed restrictions. In order to assess
the effectiveness of non-barrier abatement measures, FHWA is seeking
comment on ways that non-barrier abatement can be evaluated for
eligibility.
2. Request for Comments on Abatement Process for Extremely Noise
Sensitive Land Uses
Activity Category A lands are very noise sensitive, and preserving
their serenity and quietness is essential (e.g., the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier at the Arlington National Cemetery). The current
regulation has a lower impact criteria for these land uses; however,
they are evaluated for abatement using the same process as other, less
sensitive activities and land uses. The FHWA is seeking comment on
whether Activity Category A lands in table 1 should have a different
process for considering noise abatement, and how this process should be
implemented. This process should ensure that noise abatement would be
more likely because of the exceedingly noise sensitive nature of this
land use category.
Section 772.13 Construction Noise
Proposed Sec. 772.13 includes the requirements of existing Sec.
772.19, renumbered as Sec. 772.13(b) with new provisions concerning
quantitative analysis of certain construction projects in Sec.
772.13(a) and clarification that it would be optional to analyze
construction for Type III projects in Sec. 772.13(c).
Construction noise can be disruptive to human activities. When
construction noise continues for a long time at a single location, it
can create long-term impacts by disrupting sleep, concentration at work
or school, or increasing stress to adjacent receptors who may have no
recourse to avoid or minimize such noise impacts. Calculation of
construction noise levels is usually not necessary for highway traffic
noise analyses. The decision to develop a detailed construction noise
analysis usually results from a combination of factors including the
scale and scope of the project along with
[[Page 83815]]
public concern about construction noise. The FHWA is proposing, in
Sec. 772.13(a), to clarify when quantitative analysis should be
conducted on certain long-term and/or high impact construction projects
and thus encourage the use of construction noise abatement techniques
on these projects. The FHWA provides resources for these analyses in
the form of the Roadway Construction Noise Model, and the Construction
Noise Handbook located on our website (<a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/</a>). The FHWA affirms that State
DOTs should continue to consider construction noise qualitatively for
most projects, but proposes to clarify that a State DOT should consider
construction noise in a quantitative analysis where severe highway
construction noise impacts are likely to occur.
The FHWA also seeks comment on how to better consider abatement
options for long-term construction projects. State DOTs may incorporate
low-cost, easy-to-implement measures into project plans and
specifications (e.g., work-hour limits, equipment muffler requirements,
location of haul roads, elimination of ``tail gate banging'', ambient
sensitive back-up alarms, community rapport, and complaint mechanisms).
Additional ideas for abatement techniques are described in FHWA
Construction Noise Handbook. Under the proposed rule, States and
contractors would continue to have the option to formulate and
implement their own ideas too.
Finally, FHWA proposes in Sec. 772.13(c) that for Type III
projects, a State DOT may choose to perform the analyses required for
Type I and II projects under Sec. 772.13(b).
Section 772.15 Documentation and Reporting
The FHWA proposes to consolidate all of the documentation and
reporting requirements in a new section, Sec. 772.15 Documentation and
Reporting. These requirements appear in various sections of the
existing regulation, mostly under Sec. 772.11 Analysis of Noise
Abatement, as well as under Sec. 772.9 Analysis of Traffic Noise
Impacts and Sec. 772.13 Construction Noise. This new section would
contain all information and requirements related to how a noise
analysis is documented and what information a State is required to keep
on noise abatement measures for the triennial noise abatement
inventory.
The FHWA proposes Sec. 772.15(a) and (b) to clarify documentation
requirements for technical noise memos that are considered current
state of the practice.
The FHWA proposes several revisions to current Sec. 772.13(g) for
clarity, and to move the provision to proposed Sec. 772.15(c).
The FHWA proposes to move current Sec. 772.13(h) to proposed Sec.
772.15(d) and to replace the terms ``feasible and reasonable'' with
``effective'' to be consistent with this proposed rule. This provision
is consistent with the statute 23 U.S.C. 109(i).
For completeness of the reporting section, FHWA proposes in Sec.
772.15(e) to include the provision in current Sec. 772.19(c) and
proposed Sec. 772.13(a)(3) to incorporate construction noise abatement
measures in plans and specifications.
The FHWA proposes to reorganize the Abatement Measure Reporting
requirements in Sec. 772.15(f), into a list format to clearly identify
required information. We also propose adding `if applicable' after
certain items in the list for cases where the reported abatement
measure is not a barrier (i.e., not a noise wall or a berm). Materials
or features typically used for walls or berms are also listed.
The FHWA seeks comments on the reorganization of provisions into a
new Documentation and Reporting section.
Section 772.17 Information for Local Officials
The FHWA is proposing minor changes to this section by simplifying
the discussion of the requirements to remove repetitious language. This
section describes the information a State DOT must provide to local
officials within whose jurisdiction a highway project is located.
In Sec. 772.17(a)(2), FHWA proposes to remove mention of
``approach'' for consistency with proposed changes in Sec. 772.9 and
table 1 to part 772 to incorporate approach level into table 1.
Instead, a State DOT would base the distance on future noise levels
that meet the Noise Impact Criteria for each Activity Category in table
1.
The FHWA proposes to move the provision regarding use of noise
contours for land use planning from current Sec. 772.9(c) to proposed
Sec. 772.17(c), as it is more relevant to this section.
Section 772.19 Federal Participation
The FHWA proposes to renumber existing Sec. 772.15 as proposed
Sec. 772.19 and amend its provisions. The FHWA would like to encourage
States to consider the most acoustically and cost-effective noise
abatement measures, and to promote the use of new technologies that
could result in lower noise levels and cost savings. The FHWA proposes
that State DOTs could use a combination of measures to develop
effective noise abatement so long as they are all properly maintained
to provide the intended noise reduction. This proposed change could
also help advance equity initiatives. For example, if a State DOT is
proposing to build a noise wall, but the given benefited community
feels that this would divide it or otherwise disconnect it from the
surrounding areas, the State DOT could opt to propose quiet pavements
instead, so long as the pavement provided the same acoustical benefit
as the wall would have, and the State DOT agreed to maintain it to a
lifespan equal to that of the wall. Further, through the use of a
combination of measures, the State DOT could propose some acoustic
benefit from a quiet pavement, and some acoustic benefit from a lower-
height, less visually intrusive, wall to achieve the overall noise
reduction goals of that State DOT. The FHWA requests comments on this
new approach to determine Federal participation.
In proposed Sec. 772.19(b)(3), FHWA proposes to clarify the
provision on previous determinations of an abatement measure, as the
current regulation uses feasible and reasonable as a basis and the
proposed rule uses effective as a basis.
The FHWA also invites comments on whether the list of allowable
noise abatement measures should be retained or if other effective
measures should be added to the list in proposed Sec. 772.19(c), and
why.
The FHWA proposes to add a new Sec. 772.19(d) to explain which
measures are not eligible noise abatement, codifying FHWA's
longstanding policy and guidance. Proposed Sec. 772.19(d)(1) would be
moved from current Sec. 772.15(c)(1) and the term ``landscaping''
would be replaced with ``vegetation.'' The FHWA's Highway Traffic
Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (2011) describes that FHWA does
not consider the planting of vegetation to be a highway traffic noise
abatement measure. For example, a 200-foot width of dense vegetation
can reduce noise by 10 decibels; but it is almost impossible to plant
enough vegetation to achieve sufficient noise reductions. The planting
of trees and shrubs provides psychological benefits, visual screening,
privacy, or aesthetic treatment, but is not highway traffic noise
abatement.
Proposed Sec. 772.19(d)(2) and (3) are also from FHWA's Highway
Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement
[[Page 83816]]
Guidance, which states that FHWA highway traffic noise regulations
limit use of Federal funds to reducing traffic noise impacts and
providing highway traffic noise abatement benefits. Monetary
compensation accomplishes neither of these requirements.
Table 1 to Part 772--Traffic Noise Impact Criteria
The FHWA is proposing multiple changes to table 1. Related changes
can also be found in Sec. Sec. 772.3 and 772.9.
The FHWA proposes to rename table 1 ``Traffic Noise Impact
Criteria'' to better reflect that the noise levels are impact rather
than abatement criteria, as further explained in footnote 1 to table 1.
The FHWA proposes to remove the L<INF>10</INF>(h) noise metric.
Currently, States may choose to use either L<INF>EQ</INF>(h) or
L<INF>10</INF>(h) but not both on a project to determine noise impacts.
All States have chosen to use L<INF>EQ</INF>(h), as identified in their
noise policies. The FHWA requests comments on the decision to remove
the L<INF>10</INF>(h) noise metric.
The FHWA is proposing to consolidate the activity categories in
table 1 from seven to four categories. Category A would remain the
same. New activity category ``B'' would merge former categories B, C,
and E, and include noise-sensitive land uses where people learn, live,
play, work, or worship. New activity category ``C'' would merge former
categories F and G, and include sites that are not noise-sensitive,
such as noise generating land uses, undeveloped and unpermitted land
uses, and vacant and derelict structures. Impact and abatement analysis
would not be needed for proposed Activity Category C sites, but the
presence of these lands should be disclosed in the environmental
document as lands that are not noise sensitive; and sound levels should
be reported in accordance with Sec. 772.17. Category D would remain a
subset of certain Activity Category B public non-residential land uses
where noise-sensitive activities only occur indoors, and which may be
eligible for either outdoor or indoor noise abatement. Residential land
uses would remain ineligible for consideration of interior noise
abatement measures. The FHWA seeks comment on whether to include
residential land uses under Activity Category D. Example land uses for
each activity description are provided in table 1.
The footnotes were also updated to account for the other changes to
table 1. We have added proposed Footnote 2 to make clear that lands
that are subject to other agencies' regulations would be able to
consider impacts and require abatement using different methods than
under this regulation. This change was made to clarify existing
practice. In addition, FHWA proposes to move the provision in existing
Sec. 772.11(c)(2)(i) that requires State DOTs to submit justifications
for approval of an Activity Category A designation to footnote 3 to
table 1. Proposed Footnote 4 is the same as current Footnote 3.
Proposed Footnote 5 clarifies that Activity Category C does not require
analysis of noise impacts. The FHWA proposes to move the provision in
existing Sec. 772.11(c)(2)(iv) regarding requirements for indoor
analysis of Activity Category D to proposed Footnote 6. The FHWA also
proposes to move the provisions in existing Sec. 772.11(c)(2)(iii)
through (v) that require State DOTs to ``adopt a standard practice for
analyzing these land use facilities that is consistent and uniformly
applied statewide'' to footnote 7 to table 1.
As previously described, the values in table 1 are also updated to
be 1 dB below current levels by updating the values in table 1 to
integrate the most commonly used `Approach level' criteria of 1 dB(A)
less than the values in table 1 (per the existing Sec. 772.11(e)). The
purpose of this change is to simplify the regulation by not requiring
States to take an additional step to apply an approach level. States
would retain the option to define lower impact criteria and table 1
would continue to serve as a ceiling. States would continue to retain
the same regulatory flexibility. This change is also discussed in Sec.
772.3 Definitions and Sec. 772.9 Analysis of traffic noise impacts.
This proposed change would simplify the regulation by removing a
requirement for States to choose an approach level, would incorporate
that level into the existing table 1, and would retain a State's
flexibility to choose a lower impact level in its State noise policy.
The FHWA is seeking comments on the proposed changes to table 1
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 109(i) to develop standards for highway noise
levels compatible with different land uses.
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Policies
and Procedures for Rulemaking
The FHWA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking under E.O.
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as
amended by E.O. 14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), and DOT's
regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it
under that E.O.
Based on the estimated economic impacts of this proposed rule as
summarized in the next section of this preamble and discussed in detail
in the supporting statement on the economic analysis, the proposed rule
would not have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more.
The FHWA anticipates that the proposed rule would not adversely affect,
in a material way, any sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, or jobs. In addition, these changes would not interfere
with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs. The proposed rule may raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of the President's priorities.
This section of the NPRM summarizes the estimated costs, cost
savings, and acknowledges potential benefits resulting from the
proposed rule. Details of the economic analysis are set forth in a
supporting statement accessible in the rulemaking docket (FHWA-2019-
0036).
The FHWA currently lacks complete data and information needed to
quantify all of the costs, cost savings, and benefits from this
proposed rule. Cost savings resulting from this proposed rule that can
currently be quantified are estimated to be $2.2 million per year at
both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, measured in 2019 dollars.
The FHWA does not anticipate the proposed rule resulting in any
additional quantifiable benefits. The FHWA requests data and
information that could inform the economic analysis for this
rulemaking, including any estimates of resulting costs, cost savings,
and benefits at the final rule stage.
The changes in the proposed rule would result in cost savings
because of the streamlining and alignment of various processes between
FHWA and State DOTs. The FHWA; however, lacks the data and information
on the current time burdens of these processes and the reductions in
these burdens that would result from the proposed rule. As discussed in
the supporting statement on the economic analysis, FHWA obtained some
information by sending a questionnaire to division offices asking about
the frequency of different types of construction projects and project-
level noise analyses, and about the time burden for FHWA and State DOT
[[Page 83817]]
employees for a typical project-level noise analysis and for noise
policy approval. Given the information available, FHWA discusses some
economic impacts of the proposed changes on a qualitative basis only in
the NPRM and requests information from commenters to inform the
economic analysis. If useful information is received from this request,
FHWA will consider quantifying additional impacts in the economic
analysis of the final rule.
The FHWA evaluated the proposed changes to the Applicability
section (proposed Sec. 772.5) and determined that these changes would
result in cost savings because of the introduction of a project
exemption process. For the proposed project exemption process, FHWA
evaluated data from division offices and then assumed an annual total
of two Type I projects per State would receive an exemption and thus
not need to conduct a project-level noise analysis. Multiplying this
value of two projects by the total number of States (52, including the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) resulted in a total annual number
of 104 Type I projects that would receive an exemption and thus would
not need to conduct a project-level noise analysis.
Next, based on information on the hours needed at the Federal and
State levels to complete a project-level noise analysis, FHWA estimated
an average cost per project-level noise analysis of $1,138 for FHWA
employees and $20,335 for State DOT employees. Multiplying this total
cost by the estimated number of 104 avoided project-level noise
analyses per year results in a total annual cost savings of $118,387
for FHWA employees and $2.1 million for State DOT employees. These
annual cost savings result in total 10-year cost savings of $1.2
million for FHWA employees and $21.1 million for State DOT employees on
an undiscounted basis and in 2019 dollars.
The proposed rule also would make changes to the noise policy
approval process and proposes three options for these changes. The FHWA
assumed that the effort spent by State DOT employees would not be
affected by the rule changes, but that there would be reductions in the
effort spent by FHWA employees for two of the three proposed options.
The first proposed option, which is reflected in the proposed rule,
would require FHWA approval of State noise approval policies and would
not result in any changes from the status quo in terms of labor by FHWA
employees. The second proposed option would allow a State to self-
approve its noise policy, and FHWA assumes that this option would
result in a reduction of 100 percent of the labor spent by FHWA
employees for this process. The third proposed option would allow a
State to choose between self-approving its noise policy or having FHWA
conduct the review and approval. The FHWA assumes that this option
would result in a reduction of 50 percent of the labor spent by FHWA
employees for this process, based on the assumption that half of the
States would choose to self-approve their respective noise policies.
The potential cost savings of the three proposed options for
changes to the noise policy approval process range from $0 (for
proposed option 1) to $367,187 (for proposed option 2) in total over
the 10-year analysis period. Because FHWA has not identified a
preferred option, FHWA does not include any cost savings for changes to
the noise policy approval process in the estimated cost savings for
this proposed rule. If the final rule reflects proposed option 2 or
proposed option 3; however, FHWA would expect cost savings associated
with changes to the noise policy approval process.
The proposed changes to Sec. 772.7 on Traffic Noise Prediction
would result in cost savings because of the introduction of a project
screening process that would reduce the number of noise analyses being
conducted. Because the screening process is new, FHWA does not have any
data or information that can be used to estimate the percentage of
project-level noise analyses likely to be avoided because of project
screening. The FHWA requests information on the project screening
process and the percentage of projects likely to be screened out
because of this process to inform the analysis, and possible
quantification, of these cost savings at the final rule stage.
The proposed changes to the Traffic Noise Prediction section are
also expected to result in cost savings because of changes that would
allow the use of an updated TNM following FHWA's publication of a
Federal Register notice, rather than upon completion of a longer
rulemaking process by revising the reference to a specific model in the
Code of Federal Regulations (see existing Sec. 772.9(a)). The FHWA,
however, lacks the data and information needed to quantify this cost
savings. The FHWA discusses this cost savings only in qualitative terms
at the NPRM stage.
The proposed changes to the Analysis of Traffic Noise Impacts
section (proposed Sec. 772.9) is expected to result in cost savings to
States because of the simplification of Activity Categories and their
application to various land uses. The FHWA, however, lacks the data and
information needed to quantify this cost savings at this time. The FHWA
requests information on the potential cost savings because of the
simplification of Activity Categories to inform the analysis, including
possible quantification, of these cost savings at the final rule stage.
The proposed changes to the Analysis of Traffic Noise Impacts
section also could result in increased costs to States because they
include reducing the substantial maximum noise increase criterion from
15 dB to 10 dB. The part of a project-level noise analysis that is
affected by this change is the initial determination of impacts, which
is a less time-consuming part of the overall effort than consideration
of potential abatement measures. Roughly 50 percent of States already
utilize a 10 dB or less substantial noise increase criterion in a State
noise policy. This change also only affects new alignments, and data
collected from division offices suggests that new alignments are
relatively infrequent, with States having less than one new alignment
project per year on average. Given these various factors, FHWA believes
that any cost associated with this change would be minimal. The FHWA
requests information on the potential costs to States because of
reducing the substantial maximum noise increase criterion from 15 dB to
10 dB to inform the analysis, and possible quantification, of these
cost estimates at the final rule stage.
The proposed change to the Analysis of Traffic Noise Abatement
section (proposed Sec. 772.11) would result in cost savings to States
by combining the current criteria of reasonableness and feasibility
into a single effectiveness criterion. The FHWA, however, lacks data
and information on how this proposed change is likely to affect State
DOT employee time spent on a project-level noise analysis. The FHWA
requests information on the potential cost savings resulting from the
combining of the reasonableness and feasibility criteria into a single
effectiveness criterion to inform the analysis, and possible
quantification, of these expected cost savings at the final rule stage.
The proposed changes to the Construction Noise section provide that
a State DOT should conduct quantitative analysis of impacts on any
projects where severe highway construction noise impacts are likely to
occur because of the projects' scale and scope, or when the public has
raised serious concerns about construction noise. These analyses would
encourage
[[Page 83818]]
the use of construction noise abatement techniques on these projects.
The FHWA believes the proposed changes reflect current practice.
Therefore, FHWA does not expect any costs or cost savings to result
from them. The FHWA requests comments and information about any
possible costs or cost savings about the construction noise provision.
The proposed changes to the Information for Local Officials section
(proposed Sec. 772.17) are intended to simplify the discussion of the
requirements and to remove repetitious language. The FHWA does not
expect any costs or cost savings to result from these minor language
revisions.
The proposed changes to the Federal Participation section (proposed
Sec. 772.19) encourage States to consider the most acoustically and
cost-effective noise abatement measures, and to promote the use of new
technologies that could result in lower noise levels and cost savings.
This section also notes that Federal-aid funds may participate in the
costs of noise abatement measures or a combination of measures up to
the Federal share payable on the Federal-aid highway on which the
project is located. The changes in this section could result in cost
savings, but FHWA currently lacks the data and information that would
be needed to estimate potential cost savings. The FHWA discusses these
potential cost savings on a qualitative basis and requests information
that may facilitate a quantification of these expected cost savings at
the final rule stage.
The proposed changes to Table 1 to Part 772--Traffic Noise Impact
Criteria could result in cost savings. Changes include the reduction of
Noise Impact Criteria by 1dB(A) below the current levels, thus reducing
the need for a State to define an `Approach Criteria' in their Noise
Policy, and making this a completely optional task, where it is a
requirement under the existing regulation. In addition, table 1 no
longer includes the L<INF>10</INF> noise metric. This would not result
in any changes because no State uses the L<INF>10</INF> metric, all
States use L<INF>EQ</INF>. The proposed changes to table 1 also include
consolidation of the existing Activity Categories into broader
conceptual categories with examples listed. This should allow a State
to more easily make a determination of which Activity Category, and
impact criteria, applies to any given land use, thus reducing
consultation time with FHWA. Other changes to table 1 include renaming
the table and adding explanatory footnotes of content that used to be
in the body of the rule; no costs or savings are expected from these
changes. Given the lack of information on the cost savings that the
changes to table 1 would achieve, FHWA discusses these potential cost
savings on a qualitative basis. Again, FHWA requests information that
may facilitate a quantification of these cost savings at the final rule
stage.
The proposed rule does not result in any currently quantifiable
costs or benefits, only cost savings. The proposed rule generates total
10-year cost savings of $19.1 million or $15.7 million in 2019 dollars
at discount rates of 3 percent or 7 percent, respectively. On an
annualized basis, the proposed rule results in $2.2 million in cost
savings at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, again in 2019
dollars. Roughly 95 percent of the cost savings generated by the
proposed rule accrue to State DOTs, and the remaining roughly 5 percent
accrues to FHWA. Additional details on the estimated cost savings of
this proposed rule can be found in the economic analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule
on small entities and has determined that the action is not anticipated
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule affects only States, and States are not
included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601.
Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and FHWA
certifies that the action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48,
March 22, 1995) as it will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector,
of $168 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.). In
addition, the definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which
State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the
program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program
permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 dated August 4, 1999,
and FHWA has determined that this action would not have a substantial
direct effect of sufficient federalism implications on the States. The
FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State
law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State government functions.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule does not
contain new collection of information requirements for the purposes of
the PRA. The OMB has approved a collection of information for the Noise
Barriers Inventory Request (OMB Control No. 2125-0645) referenced in
Sec. 772.15(f).
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of the
NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and has determined
that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment and meets the criteria for the CE at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20),
which applies to the promulgation of rules and regulations.
Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for CEs under the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations under 23 CFR 771.117(a)
and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. The
FHWA does not anticipate any adverse impacts from this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that the action would not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal
governments; and would not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, a Tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities
[[Page 83819]]
and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this proposed
rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.
Regulation Identification Number
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year.
The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to
cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rulemaking can
be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda
entry for this rulemaking at [<a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2125-AF78">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2125-AF78</a>].
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 772
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Noise control,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Kristin R. White,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to revise 23 CFR
part 772 to read as follows:
PART 772--PROCEDURES FOR ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE AND
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Sec.
772.1 Purpose.
772.3 Definitions.
772.5 Applicability.
772.7 Traffic noise prediction.
772.9 Analysis of traffic noise impacts.
772.11 Analysis of traffic noise abatement.
772.13 Construction noise.
772.15 Documentation and reporting.
772.17 Information for local officials.
772.19 Federal participation.
Table 1 to Part 772--Traffic Noise Impact Criteria
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(h) and (i); 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332;
sec. 339(b), Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568, 605; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Sec. 772.1 Purpose.
(a) To provide highway traffic and construction noise standards to
help protect the public's health, welfare, and livability in the
planning, design, construction, and operation of highways pursuant to
title 23 of the U.S. Code.
(b) The highway traffic noise prediction requirements, noise
analyses, noise impact and abatement criteria, and requirements for
informing local officials in this part constitute the noise standards
mandated by 23 U.S.C. 109(i). All highway projects which are developed
in conformance with this part shall be deemed to be in accordance with
FHWA noise standards.
Sec. 772.3 Definitions.
Benefitted receptor. The recipient of an abatement measure that
receives a noise reduction at or above the noise reduction requirement.
Common noise environment. A group of receptors within the same
Activity Category in table 1 to this part that are exposed to similar
noise sources and levels; traffic volumes, traffic mix, and speed; and
topographic features. Generally, common noise environments occur
between two secondary noise sources, such as interchanges,
intersections, and crossroads.
Cost average. Arithmetic average cost of abatement among benefitted
receptors for an entire project.
Design year. The future year used to estimate the probable traffic
volume for which a highway is designed.
Exempt project. A Federal or Federal-aid highway project that meets
the classifications of a Type I project but is expected to have no
noise impact and is thus exempt from traffic noise and abatement
analysis.
Existing noise levels. The worst noise hour resulting from the
combination of natural and mechanical sources and human activity
usually present in a particular area.
Impacted Receptor. A receptor that has a traffic noise impact.
L<INF>EQ.</INF> The equivalent steady-state sound level in a stated
period of time that contains the same acoustic energy as the time-
varying sound level during the same time period. L<INF>EQ</INF>(h) is
the hourly value of L<INF>EQ</INF>.
Noise analysis area. The area within and beyond the project limits
that has Type I project characteristics and that requires a noise
analysis. The noise analysis area shall completely encompass the area
where alterations and construction will occur, and shall also include
any area beyond the construction limits where design year traffic may
contribute to noise impacts from the project.
Noise barrier. A physical obstruction that is constructed between
the highway noise source and the noise sensitive receptor(s) that
lowers the noise level, including standalone noise walls, noise berms
(earth or other material), and combination berm/wall systems.
Noise Impact Criteria. The values in table 1 to this part or lower
values as specified in a State noise policy.
Noise policy. The State-specific document or documents containing
the State DOT's approach to noise analyses in compliance with this
part, including by describing statewide processes for project-level
noise analysis, and defining any State-specific options available in
this part.
Noise reduction requirement. Any measure, or combination of
measures, that mitigates noise impacts to receptors by reducing design
year noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A) as defined in the State DOT's noise
policy.
Permitted. A definite commitment to develop land with an approved
specific design of land use activities as evidenced by the issuance of
a building permit, or the equivalent in cases where a building permit
is not applicable to that type of development.
Property owner. An individual or group of individuals that holds a
title, deed, or other legal documentation of ownership of a property or
a residence.
Receiver. A representative location of a noise sensitive area(s) in
traffic or construction noise models, for any of the land uses listed
in table 1 to this part. A receiver may represent multiple receptors if
they share a common noise environment.
Receptor. A discrete, real-world location of a noise sensitive
area(s), for any of the land uses listed in table 1 to this part.
Recipient. A recipient means an entity that receives a Federal
award directly or via a pass-through entity from the Federal Highway
Administration. The award can be apportioned or discretionary funding,
or an approval action. For the purposes of the part, recipients do not
include federally recognized Tribes.
Residence. A dwelling unit, which is either a single-family
structure or each dwelling unit in a multifamily structure.
State Department of Transportation. A department or agency
maintained in conformity with 23 U.S.C. 302 and charged under State law
with the responsibility for highway construction (as defined in 23
U.S.C. 101); and that is authorized by the laws of the State to make
final decisions in all matters relating to, and to enter into, all
contracts and agreements for projects and activities to fulfill the
duties imposed by title 23 of the U.S. Code, this title, and other
applicable Federal laws and regulations.
Statement of likelihood. A statement provided in the Categorical
Exclusion (CE), the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the
Record of Decision
[[Page 83820]]
(ROD), or the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based
on the noise impact and abatement analysis completed at the time the
environmental document is being approved.
Substantial noise increase. An increase in noise levels of between
5 and 10 dB(A), as specified in the State DOT's noise policy, in the
design year over the existing noise level.
Traffic noise impacts. Design year build condition noise levels
that meet or exceed the Noise Impact Criteria listed in table 1 to this
part; and/or design year build condition noise levels that create a
substantial noise increase over existing noise levels.
Type I project. A Federal or Federal-aid highway project likely to
cause traffic noise impacts during regular operation of the facility in
the design year.
Type II project. A Federal or Federal-aid highway project for
retrofit noise abatement on an existing highway in the absence of an
associated highway project, when such a project makes use of
apportioned funding sources from FHWA. Projects utilizing discretionary
grant funds are not considered Type II projects.
Type III project. A Federal or Federal-aid highway project that
does not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II project. A
Type III project is not likely to change the noise environment.
Sec. 772.5 Applicability.
(a) This part applies to all Federal or Federal-aid Highway
Projects authorized under title 23 of the U.S. Code. Therefore, this
part applies to:
(1) Any highway project or multimodal project that requires FHWA
approval regardless of funding sources, or is funded with Federal-aid
highway funds; and
(2) All Type I projects, unless this part specifically indicates
that a section only applies to Type II or Type III projects.
(b) A Type I project includes:
(1) The construction of a roadway on a new location.
(2) The substantial physical alteration of an existing roadway,
including:
(i) Substantial horizontal alteration. A project that halves the
distance between the traffic noise source and the closest receptor
between the existing condition to the future build condition.
(ii) Substantial vertical alteration. A project that removes
shielding, thereby exposing the line-of-sight between the receptor and
the traffic noise source. This is done by either altering the vertical
alignment of the highway or by altering the topography between the
highway traffic noise source and the receptor.
(iii) Substantial abatement alteration. A project that results in
the alteration of the existing highway surface, through the
installation of a different pavement surface, or of the existing right-
of-way, through the installation of a noise barrier, for the purpose of
providing noise abatement to existing communities along existing
roadways; when such projects are funded by discretionary grants under
title 23 of the U.S. Code or administered as if Federal-aid projects
under 23 U.S.C. chapter 1.
(3) A substantial change in the operations of an existing roadway
because of the project, including:
(i) The addition of a through-traffic lane(s). This includes the
addition of a through-traffic lane that functions as a High Occupancy
Toll (HOV) lane, High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, bus lane, or truck
climbing lane.
(ii) The addition of an auxiliary lane.
(iii) The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps
added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange.
(iv) Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a
through-traffic lane or an auxiliary lane.
(v) The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh
station, rest area, ride-share lot or toll plaza. A substantial
alteration may include increased capacity for overnight parking, or
relocation of parking facilities closer to noise sensitive land uses.
(4) Other projects which may cause a traffic noise impact during
regular operation.
(c) Type I projects that are not likely to change the noise
environment during regular operation of the facility in the design year
may be exempted from analysis.
(1) The following projects are exempted Type I projects:
(i) The addition of, or conversion to, an all-electronic toll plaza
where vehicles do not stop or accelerate away.
(ii) An auxiliary lane when it is a turn lane or less than 2,500
feet in length, and thus does not function as a through lane.
(iii) The addition of a through traffic lane when:
(A) Design speed limit is 35 mph or less; and
(B) Vehicular restrictions that would cause the volume of traffic
using these lanes to be much lower than the main lanes, including
autos-only, bus-only, no trucks allowed.
(iv) A substantial vertical alteration when such alteration results
in a newly blocked line of sight between the roadway and the receptor,
such as moving a roadway into a cut.
(2) Any project that would otherwise qualify as exempt, which could
involve unusual circumstances, is a Type I project.
(3) The recipient, in its discretion, may choose to determine
impacts and consider abatement for any project that would otherwise
qualify as exempt.
(d) The development and implementation of Type II projects are not
mandatory requirements of 23 U.S.C. 109(i).
(1) For a Type II project to be eligible for Federal-aid funding,
the State DOT must develop and implement a Type II program in
accordance with Sec. 772.17(b). Participation in the Type II program
is optional.
(2) If a State DOT chooses to participate in a Type II program, the
State DOT shall develop a priority system, based on a variety of
factors, to rank the projects in the program. This priority system
shall be submitted to and approved by FHWA before the State DOT is
allowed to use Federal-aid funds for a project in the program. The
State DOT shall reanalyze the priority system on a regular interval,
not to exceed 5 years.
(e) For a Type III project, a recipient is not required to complete
a noise analysis or consider abatement measures.
(f) The State DOT shall develop a noise policy in conformance with
this part within 6 months of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The State
DOT shall implement the approved noise policy upon approval or within
12 months of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], whichever comes first, and
shall apply the policy uniformly and consistently statewide.
(1) Non-State DOT recipients and all subrecipients carrying out a
project funded by a discretionary grant under title 23 of the U.S.
Code, or administered as if a Federal-aid project under 23 U.S.C.
chapter 1, must use their State DOT's FHWA-approved noise policy for
highway traffic and construction noise analysis to comply with the
requirements of this part. Multi-State regional recipients will apply
the State DOT noise policy that corresponds with the roadway's
location, this may result in two or more policies applying to a single
project if it crosses multiple State borders.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) The State DOT noise policy must define and include the
following criteria:
(1) Noise Impact Criteria in table 1 to this part or lower values
that would be applied consistently statewide. State whether the State
DOT will use the values in table 1 to this part to
[[Page 83821]]
determine the presence of noise impacts, or if they will use lower
values. If using lower values, define these.
(2) Substantial noise increase criterion between 5 and 10 dB(A).
Noise levels above the defined threshold are a noise impact.
(3) The noise model and tools used for noise analysis and whether
they are consistent with and conform to the requirements listed in
Sec. 772.7.
(4) Method to calculate and place non-residential receptors and
definition of worst noise hour.
(5) The procedure on the rounding of results.
(6) Evaluation criteria for abatement options, including what
constitutes effective abatement, and the basis for determination,
described under Sec. 772.11(e).
(7) Procedures for providing project information to local
officials.
(8) If the State participates in a Type II program, the factors for
a priority system.
(9) Methods for considering construction noise impacts and
abatement.
(h) Projects for which traffic noise prediction activities are
initiated by [1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], or initiated
after approval of the State's noise policy, whichever occurs first,
shall be developed in accordance with this part. The State DOT may also
choose to apply this part to any project at any stage after approval of
the State's noise policy.
Sec. 772.7 Traffic noise prediction.
(a) Any analysis required by this part must use the latest version
of FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM); or any other model determined by
FHWA to be consistent with the methodology of TNM.
(1) FHWA will announce the availability of a new or updated version
of the TNM by publishing a Federal Register notice, which will also
specify a grace period to facilitate the transition to its use.
(2) Projects for which traffic noise prediction activities have
been initiated under the previous version of the model can be completed
under the previous version.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a
recipient must use the latest version of TNM on any new analysis as
described in Sec. 772.11 beginning after the last day of the grace
period specified in a Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of that version.
(b) A recipient shall use average pavement type in TNM for future
noise level prediction unless recipient substantiates the use of a
different pavement type and obtains FHWA approval.
(c) In predicting noise levels and assessing noise impacts, a
recipient shall use the following traffic characteristics that would
yield the worst traffic noise impact:
(1) For Type I projects, the worst traffic-noise hour for the
design year.
(2) For Type II projects, the worst noise hour, as defined in Sec.
772.3 for existing noise levels.
(d) State DOTs shall define and include a statewide method for
calculating and placing receptors in non-residential land uses in their
noise policy. For residential land uses, each single-family structure
and each dwelling unit in a multifamily structure shall be counted as
one receptor when determining impacted and benefitted receptors.
(e) A recipient may screen projects to determine the likelihood of
traffic noise impacts. If traffic noise screening is used, the
following provisions apply.
(1) TNM, or any other model or tool determined by FHWA as compliant
with the methodology of TNM for screening purposes, shall be used for
traffic noise screening to determine the likelihood of traffic noise
impacts. A screening tool that produces the same results as TNM for the
same model inputs within 0.1 dB will be considered compliant.
(2) A recipient shall conduct the screening analysis on the entire
noise analysis area for the project. The same model or tool used to
determine the existing condition shall also be used to analyze the
design year condition(s).
(3) A screening analysis shall include the following parameters, if
applicable:
(i) Existing noise level;
(ii) Facility type;
(iii) Length of facility;
(iv) Number of lanes in each travel direction;
(v) Lane width;
(vi) Roadway design capacity;
(vii) Vehicle fleet mix;
(viii) Speed;
(ix) Roadway grade;
(x) Type of ground between roadway and receiver;
(xi) Land (urban/suburban/rural) areas;
(xii) Noise Impact Criteria Activity Category; and
(xiii) Distance of nearest receiver from the roadway.
(4) The screening analysis may also include additional appropriate
parameters.
(5) Type I projects with complex attributes are not appropriate for
screening analysis and the recipient shall apply the provisions in
Sec. 772.9. Complex attributes include:
(i) The construction of a roadway on a new location;
(ii) Ground elevation changes because of hills, valleys, and other
undulations greater than 3 feet that do not correlate to the grade
change in the roadway;
(iii) Large areas of trees that fully obscure the line of sight
between the roadway and the source;
(iv) Intervening buildings, barriers, or other substantial
structures;
(v) Intervening ground with multiple ground types (e.g., water,
pavement, grass, etc.); or
(vi) Where the deviation between any roadway segment and a
straight-line approximation of the roadway is greater than 25 degrees.
(6) Detailed traffic noise analysis as described in Sec. 772.9 is
not required if both of the following screening conditions are
satisfied:
(i) If the result of screening is at least 5 dB less than the Noise
Impact Criteria in table 1 to this part for the appropriate activity
category; and
(ii) If the result of screening does not exceed the substantial
noise increase criteria determined in the State DOT noise policy.
Sec. 772.9 Analysis of traffic noise impacts.
The recipient shall determine and analyze expected traffic noise
impacts for all Type I and II projects.
(a) The analysis of traffic noise impacts shall include:
(1) Identification of the noise analysis area to determine all
traffic noise impacts.
(2) Identification of existing land uses and activities that may be
affected by noise from the highway, including undeveloped land that is
determined to be permitted.
(3) Validation of the noise model with field measurement of noise
levels using an ANSI Type I or Type II integrating sound level meter.
The model is validated if existing highway traffic noise level and
predicted highway traffic noise level for the existing condition are
within +/-3 dB(A).
(b) A recipient shall complete a traffic noise analysis for each
alternative under detailed study and each Activity Category listed in
table 1 to this part that is present in the noise analysis area.
(1) For projects on new alignments, determine existing noise levels
by field measurements, and predict design year traffic noise levels
using an FHWA-approved noise model.
(2) For projects on existing alignments, predict existing and
design year traffic noise levels using an FHWA-approved noise model.
(c) In determining traffic noise impacts, a recipient shall give
primary
[[Page 83822]]
consideration to exterior areas where frequent human use occurs.
(1) For Type I projects, traffic noise impacts shall be determined
for the design year for the build alternative. Traffic noise impacts
shall be determined by analyzing whether there is a substantial noise
increase, or noise levels in exceedance of the Noise Impact Criteria in
table 1 to this part.
(2) For Type II projects, traffic noise impacts shall be determined
from current year conditions.
Sec. 772.11 Analysis of traffic noise abatement.
(a) When traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement
measures that reduce traffic noise impacts shall be considered and
evaluated for effectiveness.
(1) In abating traffic noise impacts, a recipient shall give
primary consideration to exterior areas where frequent human use
occurs.
(2) With the exception of noise insulation, the recipient shall
maintain the noise abatement measure in perpetuity.
(b) Any existing noise abatement measure that is affected, up to
and including removal, because of a new Type I, II, or III project
shall be replaced to provide noise abatement equal to or better than
what was present before, unless:
(1) The public no longer desires such abatement according to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section; or
(2) The land use has changed to a non-sensitive activity, as
defined in table 1 to this part, Activity Category C.
(c) Each State DOT shall develop, and describe in its noise policy,
what constitutes effective abatement under paragraph (e) of this
section.
(d) The analysis of traffic noise abatement shall include the
recipient's determination of the effectiveness of implementing the
abatement measure(s).
(e) All four required factors described in this paragraph for
effective noise abatement shall be met in order for a noise abatement
measure to be deemed effective. Effectiveness includes:
(1) Engineering effectiveness. The recipient shall make a
determination that it is possible to design, construct, and maintain
the abatement measure. Factors to consider include safety, barrier
height, topography, drainage, utilities, maintenance of the abatement
measure, and access to adjacent properties.
(2) Acoustic effectiveness. When noise abatement measure(s) are
being considered, a recipient shall achieve a noise reduction
requirement of at least 5 to 10 dB(A), as defined in its State noise
policy. The State DOT shall explain the basis for the determination of
its noise reduction requirement in its noise policy. Receptors that
achieve this reduction are considered benefitted. The State DOT shall
define whether this reduction must be achieved by a simple majority of
impacted receptors, for two or more impacted receptors, or a
combination of these two criteria, and explain the basis for this
determination in its noise policy.
(3) Cost effectiveness. Each State DOT shall determine, and obtain
FHWA approval for, the allowable cost or equivalent quantity of
abatement by determining a baseline cost effectiveness value. The State
DOT may determine a separate baseline cost effectiveness value for each
type of abatement measure. The State DOT shall reanalyze the baseline
cost effectiveness value on a regular interval, not to exceed 5 years.
(i) A State DOT has the option of justifying, for FHWA approval,
different cost effectiveness values for particular geographic areas
within the State, however, the State DOT must use the same cost
effectiveness/construction cost ratio statewide.
(ii) A recipient has the option to cost average noise abatement
among common noise environments if no single common noise environment
exceeds two times the State DOT's cost effectiveness criteria and
collectively all common noise environments being averaged do not exceed
the State DOT's baseline cost effectiveness value.
(iii) Partial funding of a noise abatement measure by a third party
is not allowed on a Federal or Federal-aid Type I or Type II project if
the funding is required for the measures to be considered cost
effective, except donation of utility relocation services by a non-
receptor utility and of real property by a non-receptor third party,
needed to construct a noise abatement measure, are acceptable. Funding
of the entire cost of a noise abatement measure by any third party is
allowed on a Federal or Federal-aid Type I or Type II project
regardless of the measure's cost effectiveness. Discretionary grants
under title 23 of the U.S. Code are not considered third party funding
sources. Third party donation of the cost of functional enhancements,
such as absorptive treatment and access doors, or of aesthetic
enhancements, to a noise abatement measure already determined effective
is acceptable.
(4) Consideration of the viewpoints of the property owners and
residents of the benefitted receptors. The recipient shall solicit the
viewpoints of all of the benefitted receptors and document a decision
on either desiring or not desiring the noise abatement measure. The
recipient shall consider tenants or renters equally when analyzing
noise abatement. Only the residents and property owners at benefitted
receptors can make a determination on desirability of noise abatement
on Federal highway right-of-way. A simple majority of respondents must
desire the abatement for it to be constructed.
(i) The State DOT shall not require a minimum response rate as to
whether to construct an abatement measure, unless there are two or more
outreach efforts to directly contact the benefitted receptors and
obtain their viewpoints.
(ii) The State DOT shall document requirements for outreach
efforts, and where necessary a minimum response rate, in the State
noise policy and apply the requirements uniformly statewide.
(5) Optional factors. A State DOT can also include optional factors
in its noise policy and apply them to projects. The following optional
factors can only be used to increase the allowable cost of abatement as
defined in paragraph (e)(3) of this section:
(i) Date of development.
(ii) Length of time receptors have been exposed to highway traffic
noise impacts.
(iii) Exposure to higher absolute highway traffic noise levels.
(iv) Changes between existing and future build conditions.
(v) Percentage of mixed zoning development.
(vi) Use of noise compatible planning concepts by the local
government.
(vii) Whether the abatement provides additional environmental or
social benefits.
(f) The date of public knowledge provides local officials and the
community an official notice that this project is approved and under
active development. It is first established on the date of approval of
the CE, FONSI, ROD, or Supplemental EIS, as described in part 771 of
this chapter.
(1) If undeveloped land is not permitted for development by the
date of public knowledge, the recipient shall determine noise levels in
accordance with Sec. 772.7 and document the results in the project's
environmental document and technical noise memorandum.
(2) Federal participation in noise abatement measures will not be
considered for lands that are not permitted by the date of public
knowledge.
(3) Any lands permitted for noise-sensitive development before the
date of public knowledge must be considered for potential impacts from
the project,
[[Page 83823]]
and if such impacts occur, must be considered for noise abatement.
(g) The date of public knowledge will be updated when project-based
assumptions or data become out-of-date. As such, it will be reset under
the following conditions:
(1) If more than 5 years has elapsed since the date of public
knowledge was established or last updated and the project has not
initiated construction; or
(2) If a recipient identifies a design or operational change that
results in a change in noise impacts to a receptor during a
reevaluation pursuant to Sec. 771.129 of this chapter.
(h) If the date of public knowledge is reset in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this section, then all noise-sensitive development in
the noise analysis area, including noise-sensitive development that was
built or permitted since the date of public knowledge was previously
established, must be evaluated for noise impacts and abatement in
accordance with this part.
Sec. 772.13 Construction noise.
(a) For any project where severe highway construction noise impacts
are likely to occur because of the scale and scope of the project, or
when the public has expressed serious concern about construction noise,
the recipient should conduct quantitative analysis of impacts as early
in the project development process as the information is available.
(b) For all Type I and II projects, a recipient shall:
(1) Identify land uses or activities that may be affected by noise
from construction of the project. The identification is to be performed
during the project development studies.
(2) Determine the specific monitoring and mitigation measures that
are needed to minimize or eliminate adverse construction noise impacts
to the community. This determination shall include a weighing of the
social, economic, and environmental benefits and adverse effects of the
abatement measures.
(3) Incorporate the needed abatement measures in the plans and
specifications.
(c) For Type III projects, a recipient may choose to perform
analyses as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
Sec. 772.15 Documentation and reporting.
(a) The recipient shall document in the technical noise memorandum
the noise levels for the existing and design year build conditions for
all activity categories described in table 1 to this part, consistent
with Sec. 772.9.
(b) The technical noise memorandum, including for design-build
projects, shall document all considered and proposed noise abatement
measures for inclusion in the project's environmental document. Final
design of design-build noise abatement measures shall be based on the
preliminary noise abatement design developed in the technical noise
memo. Noise abatement measures shall be considered, developed, and
constructed in accordance with this standard and in conformance with
the provisions of Sec. 636.109 of this chapter.
(c) Before adoption of a CE, FONSI, or ROD, the environmental
document shall include a Statement of Likelihood regarding noise
impacts and abatement. For the NEPA reviews, this analysis shall be
completed to the extent that design information on the alternative(s)
under study in the environmental document is available at the time the
environmental document is completed.
(1) The Statement of Likelihood shall identify:
(i) All locations where noise impacts are predicted to occur.
(ii) All locations with noise abatement that is preliminarily
effective, including a physical description of the abatement being
proposed.
(iii) All locations with impacts that have no effective noise
abatement alternative.
(2) The Statement of Likelihood shall also indicate that the
determination of effective traffic noise abatement in accordance with
Sec. 772.11 may change because of changes in the project design after
approval of the environmental document; and that the final
determination on the construction of the abatement measure(s) is made
during the completion of the project's final design and public
involvement processes.
(d) FHWA and recipients will not approve project plans and
specifications unless all environmental commitments for effective
traffic noise abatement, determined in accordance with Sec. 772.11,
are incorporated into the plans and specifications to reduce the noise
impact on existing activities, developed lands, or undeveloped lands
for which development is permitted.
(e) Recipients shall also incorporate any selected construction
noise abatement measures in the plans and specifications.
(f) Each State DOT shall maintain an inventory of all constructed
noise abatement measures, including those built by other recipients in
its borders. These other recipients shall submit their information to
their State DOT at the end of construction for their project. FHWA will
collect this information from the State DOT in accordance with OMB's
Information Collection requirements. The inventory shall include the
following parameters:
(1) Location (State, county, city, route).
(2) Type of abatement.
(3) Year of construction.
(4) Cost (overall cost, unit cost per/sq. ft.).
(5) Average height (if applicable).
(6) Total length (if applicable).
(7) Total area (if applicable).
(8) Material(s) used.
(i) For noise walls, these are typically: precast concrete, block,
cast in place concrete, brick, metal, wood, fiberglass, plastic
(transparent, opaque, other), or combination of two or more materials.
(ii) For berms, these are typically: earth, rubble, and/or leftover
construction materials.
(9) Features (for noise walls, these are typically: absorptive or
reflective surface texture; or features such as overlaps, or
maintenance access doorways).
(10) Foundation (For noise barriers, these are typically: ground
mounted or on structure).
(11) Average insertion loss/noise reduction as reported by the
model in the noise analysis.
(12) Land use(s) and activity category(ies) protected.
(13) Project type (Type I, Type II, and optional project types such
as State-funded, county-funded, tollway/turnpike-funded, other, or
unknown).
Sec. 772.17 Information for local officials.
(a) To minimize future traffic noise impacts on currently
undeveloped lands of Type I projects, a recipient shall inform local
officials within whose jurisdiction the highway project is located, of:
(1) Noise compatible planning concepts;
(2) The distance from the edge of the nearest travel lane of the
highway improvement to the point at which future noise levels meet the
Noise Impact Criteria for each Activity Category in table 1 to this
part, for undeveloped lands or properties within the project limits;
and
(3) Non-eligibility for Federal-aid participation of a Type II
project as described in Sec. 772.19(b).
(b) If a State DOT chooses to participate in a Type II noise
program, the State DOT shall have a statewide outreach program to
inform local officials and the public of the items in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(c) FHWA TNM noise contours, or any other model or tool determined
by FHWA as compliant with the
[[Page 83824]]
methodology of FHWA TNM, may be used for land use planning to comply
with paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
Sec. 772.19 Federal participation.
(a) Type I and Type II projects. Title 23 of the U.S. Code funds
may be used for noise abatement measures when:
(1) Traffic noise impacts have been identified; and
(2) Abatement measures have been determined to be effective
pursuant to Sec. 772.11(e).
(b) Type II projects. (1) No funds made available out of the
Highway Trust Fund may be used to construct Type II noise barriers, as
defined by this part if such noise barriers were not part of a project
approved by FHWA before November 28, 1995.
(2) Title 23 of the U.S. Code funds are available for Type II
projects along lands that were developed or were under substantial
construction before approval of the acquisition of the rights-of-ways
for, or construction of, the existing highway.
(3) FHWA will not approve a noise abatement measure for a location
where a previous determination of such a measure was:
(i) Not ``feasible and reasonable'' for a Type I project prior to
the effective date of this part.
(ii) Not ``effective'' for a Type I project under this part.
(c) Eligible noise abatement measures. Federal-aid funds may
participate in the costs of noise abatement measures or a combination
of measures up to the Federal share payable on the Federal-aid highway
on which the project is located, and based on other applicable program
requirements. The measures or combination of measures which may be
incorporated into a Type I or Type II project to reduce traffic noise
impacts include, but are not limited to:
(1) Construction of noise barriers, including acquisition of
property rights, either within or outside the highway right-of-way.
(2) Traffic management measures including, but not limited to,
traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle
types, time-use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed
limits, and exclusive lane designations.
(3) Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments.
(4) Acquisition of real property or interests therein
(predominantly unimproved property) to serve as a buffer zone to
preempt development which would be adversely impacted by traffic noise.
This measure may be included in Type I projects only.
(5) Noise insulation of Activity Category D land use facilities
listed in table 1 to this part. Post-installation maintenance and
operational costs for noise insulation are not eligible for Federal-aid
funding.
(d) Ineligible noise abatement measures. Federal-aid funds may not
participate in the costs of the following measures:
(1) Modifying the vegetation in an area of land alone.
(2) Payment or compensation for a highway traffic noise impact
through the purchase of a noise easement from a property owner.
(3) Monetary compensation to a property owner in lieu of noise
abatement.
Table 1 to Part 772--Traffic Noise Impact Criteria
[Hourly A-weighted sound level decibels (dB(A))]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity
criteria
Activity category (LEQ(h)) \1\ Evaluation location Activity description \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A \3\.......................... 56 Exterior....................... Lands on which serenity and
quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an
important public need and where
the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the
area is to continue to serve
its intended purpose.
B \4\ \7\...................... 66 Exterior....................... Noise-sensitive land uses where
people learn, live, play, work,
or worship, and where reduced
noise levels are necessary for
the land use to serve its
intended purpose. Examples
include but are not limited to:
active sport areas,
amphitheaters, auditoriums,
campgrounds, cemeteries, day
care centers, hospitals,
hotels, libraries, medical
facilities, motels, offices,
parks, picnic areas, places of
worship, playgrounds, public
meeting rooms, public or
nonprofit institutional
structures, radio studios,
recording studios, recreation
areas, residential areas,
section 4(f) sites, schools,
television studios, trails, and
trail crossings.
C \5\.......................... ............ ............................... Non-noise sensitive land uses:
noise generating land uses,
undeveloped and unpermitted
land uses, or vacant and
derelict structures. Examples
of non-noise sensitive land
uses include agriculture,
airports, bus yards, emergency
services, industrial, logging,
maintenance facilities,
manufacturing, mining, rail
yards, retail facilities,
shipyards, utilities (water
resources, water treatment,
electrical), and warehousing.
D \6\ \7\...................... 51 Interior....................... A subset of certain Activity
Category B public, non-
residential land uses where
noise sensitive activities
occur only indoors. Examples
include but are not limited to:
auditoriums, day care centers,
hospitals, libraries, medical
facilities, places of worship,
public meeting rooms, public or
nonprofit institutional
structures, radio studios,
recording studios, schools, and
television studios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The LEQ(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for
noise abatement measures.
\2\ Any of these land uses and Activities may be subject to other laws or rules (such as section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, or section 4(f) (23 CFR part
774)); impact and abatement analysis for these specific land uses and activities will be conducted according
to applicable regulations, if requested by the oversight agency responsible for implementing the statutory
requirements.
\3\ Highway agencies shall submit justifications to FHWA on a case-by-case basis for approval of an Activity
Category A designation.
\4\ Includes undeveloped lands permitted for Activity Category B.
\5\ No analysis of noise impacts is required for Activity Category C.
\6\ A State DOT shall conduct an indoor analysis after a determination is made that exterior abatement measures
will not be effective for non-residential land uses in Activity Category B. In non-residential land uses where
no exterior activities are impacted by traffic noise, or where the exterior activities are far from or
physically shielded from the roadway such that there is no impact on exterior activities, the State DOT shall
use Activity Category D as the basis of determining noise impacts in lieu of Activity Category B.
\7\ For Activity Categories B and D, each State DOT shall adopt a standard practice for analyzing these land use
facilities that is documented in its noise policy and is applied consistently and uniformly statewide.
[[Page 83825]]
[FR Doc. 2024-23751 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 18, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.