Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Legal Research Digest 54 national Cooperative highway researCh program December 2010 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES praCtiCe UnDer the environmental provisions oF saFetea-lU This report was prepared under NCHRP Project 20-6, âLegal Problems Arising Out of Highway Programs,â for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report was prepared by Larry W. Thomas, Attorney-at- Law, Washington, DC. James B. McDaniel, TRB Counsel for Legal Research Projects, was the principal investigator and content editor. the problem and its solution State highway departments and transportation agen- cies have a continuing need to keep abreast of operat- ing practices and legal elements of specific problems in highway law. This report continues NCHRPâs practice of keeping departments up-to-date on laws that will af- fect their operations. applications The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transporta- tion Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) adjusted the federal environmental statutes that control the development of highway and transit projects that are eligible for federal funding or need some form of federal approval. The statutes are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4f of the Department of Transportation Act (4f). Under NEPA, SAFETEA-LU prescribes an approach that combines the planning and project development process. SAFETEA-LU also pre- scribed new requirements for major projects that include a structured approach to participation by other agen- cies. Under Section 4f, Congress ordered rulemaking to standardize practice and codify a process for de mini- mis findings where the impacts to protected resources (e.g., parks, wildlife refuges, historic sites) are minor. Congress also shortened the statute of limitations to 180 days for challenges to NEPA decisions, and four states are allowed to pursue delegation of authority to make the decisions to authorize projects as categorical exclusions under NEPA. The Federal Highway Administration and the Fed-⢠eral Transit Administration have responded with guid- ance and rulemakings. Litigation has already been initiated on how to in-⢠terpret the new statute of limitations. One state has pursued the delegation of authority to ⢠make categorical exclusion decisions. There have been variances on how to interpret ⢠these provisions. This legal research digest summarizes the amendato- ry statutory provisions, guidance, and rulemakings and the judicial decisions that have interpreted them. The research reviews legislative history intended to explain why these provisions were enacted. The digest provides a convenient source for deter- mining how these provisions are being administered by the appropriate federal agencies and state departments of transportation. It should be useful to department of transportation administrators, attorneys, planners, con- tractors, financial officials, environmental specialists, community activists, and policy makers.
