Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Utah Department of Transportation Audit Report, 16170-16174 [2018-07751]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16170
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Hall at (940) 594–5913, or by
email at: Barbara.L.Hall@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 2120–0042.
Title: Aircraft Registration.
Form Numbers: 8050–1, 8050–2,
8050–4, 8050–98, 8050–88, 8050–88A,
8050–117, 8050–117.
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Background: Public Law 103–272
states that all aircraft must be registered
before they may be flown. It sets forth
registration eligibility requirements and
provides for application for registration
as well as suspension and/or revocation
of registration. The information
collected is used by the FAA to register
an aircraft or hold an aircraft in trust.
The information requested is required to
register and prove ownership.
Respondents: Approximately 146,757
registrants.
Frequency: Information is collected
on occasion.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 32 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
103,982 hours.
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 4, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Performance, Policy, and Records
Management Branch, ASP–110.
[FR Doc. 2018–07659 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of
Information Collection: Certification:
Air Carriers and Commercial Operators
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval to renew an information
collection. The information collected
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
will be used to issue air carrier
operating certificates and to establish
minimum safety standards for the
operation of the air carriers to whom
such certificates are issued. The Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the
following collection of information was
published on December 28, 2017. There
were no responses to the 60-day Federal
Register Notice.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by May 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget. Comments should be addressed
to the attention of the Desk Officer,
Department of Transportation/FAA, and
sent via electronic mail to oira_
submission@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to
(202) 395–6974, or mailed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA’s
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Hall at (940) 594–5913, or by
email at: Barbara.L.Hall@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 2120–0593.
Title: Certification: Air Carriers and
Commercial Operators.
Form Numbers: FAA Form 8400–6.
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Background: The request for clearance
reflects requirements necessary under
parts 135, 121, and 125 to comply with
part 119. The FAA will use the
information it collects and reviews to
ensure compliance and adherence to
regulations and, if necessary, to take
enforcement action on violators of the
regulations.
Respondents: Approximately 2,177 air
carriers and commercial operators.
Frequency: Information is collected
on occasion.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 2.45 hours.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
8,865 hours.
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 4, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Performance, Policy, and Records
Management Branch, ASP–110.
[FR Doc. 2018–07661 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2018–0008]
Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program; Utah Department of
Transportation Audit Report
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; Request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–
21) established the Surface
Transportation Project Delivery Program
that allows a State to assume FHWA’s
environmental responsibilities for
environmental review, consultation, and
compliance under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
Federal highway projects. When a State
assumes these Federal responsibilities,
the State becomes solely responsible
and liable for carrying out the
responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu
of FHWA. This program mandates
annual audits during each of the first 4
years of State participation to ensure
compliance with program requirements.
This notice announces and solicits
comments on the first audit report for
the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver
comments to Docket Management
Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590. You may also
submit comments electronically at
www.regulations.gov. All comments
should include the docket number that
appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will
be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Those
desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you
may print the acknowledgment page
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments in any
of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, or
labor union). The DOT posts these
comments, without edits, including any
personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deirdre Remley, Office of Project
Development and Environmental
Review, (202) 366–0524,
Deirdre.Remley@dot.gov, or Mr. Jomar
Maldonado, Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202) 366–1373, Jomar.Maldanado@
dot.gov, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
assumed FHWA’s responsibilities under
NEPA, and the responsibilities for
NEPA-related Federal environmental
laws described in the MOU.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C.,
requires the Secretary to conduct annual
audits during each of the first 4 years of
State participation. After the fourth
year, the Secretary shall monitor the
State’s compliance with the written
agreement. The results of each audit
must be made available for public
comment. This notice announces the
availability of the first audit report for
UDOT and solicits public comment on
same.
Electronic Access
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results of
the Federal Highway Administration’s
(FHWA) first audit of the Utah
Department of Transportation’s (UDOT)
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review responsibilities and
obligations that FHWA has assigned and
UDOT has assumed pursuant to 23
United States Code (U.S.C.) 327.
Throughout this report, FHWA uses the
term ‘‘NEPA Assignment Program’’ to
refer to the program codified at 23
U.S.C. 327. Under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 327, UDOT and FHWA executed
a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) on January 17, 2017, to
memorialize UDOT’s NEPA
responsibilities and liabilities for
Federal-aid highway projects and
certain other FHWA approvals for
transportation projects in Utah. Except
for one project, which FHWA retained,
FHWA’s only NEPA responsibilities in
Utah are oversight and review of how
UDOT executes its NEPA Assignment
Program obligations. The section 327
MOU covers environmental review
responsibilities for projects that require
the preparation of environmental
assessments (EAs), environmental
impact statements (EIS), and nondesignated documented categorical
exclusions (DCE). A separate MOU,
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326, authorizes
UDOT’s environmental review
responsibilities for other categorical
exclusions (CE), commonly known as
An electronic copy of this notice may
be downloaded from the specific docket
page at www.regulations.gov.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program, codified at 23 United
States Code (U.S.C.) 327, commonly
known as the NEPA Assignment
Program, allows a State to assume
FHWA’s environmental responsibilities
for review, consultation, and
compliance for Federal highway
projects. When a State assumes these
Federal responsibilities, the State
becomes solely liable for carrying out
the responsibilities it has assumed, in
lieu of the FHWA. The UDOT published
its application for NEPA assumption on
October 9, 2015, and made it available
for public comment for 30 days. After
considering public comments, UDOT
submitted its application to FHWA on
December 1, 2015. The application
served as the basis for developing a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
that identifies the responsibilities and
obligations that UDOT would assume.
The FHWA published a notice of the
draft MOU in the Federal Register on
November 16, 2016, with a 30-day
comment period to solicit the views of
the public and Federal agencies. After
the close of the comment period, FHWA
and UDOT considered comments and
proceeded to execute the MOU.
Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
Authority: Section 1313 of Pub. L. 112–
141; Section 6005 of Pub. L. 109–59; 23
U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Issued on: April 4, 2018.
Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery
Program
Draft FHWA Audit of the Utah
Department of Transportation
January 17–June 9, 2017
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16171
CE Program Assignment. This audit
does not cover the CE Program
Assignment responsibilities and
projects.
As part of its review responsibilities
under 23 U.S.C. 327, FHWA formed a
team in April 2017 to plan and conduct
an audit of NEPA responsibilities UDOT
assumed. Prior to the on-site visit, the
Audit Team reviewed UDOT’s NEPA
project files, UDOT’s response to
FHWA’s pre-audit information request
(PAIR), and UDOT’s self-assessment of
its NEPA Program. The Audit Team
reviewed additional documents and
conducted interviews with UDOT staff
in Utah on June 5–9, 2017.
The UDOT entered into NEPA
Assignment Program after almost 9
years of experience making FHWA
NEPA CE determinations pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 326 (beginning August 2008).
The UDOT’s environmental review
procedures are compliant for CEs, and
UDOT is implementing procedures and
processes for DCEs, EAs, and EISs as
part of its new responsibilities under the
NEPA Assignment Program. Overall, the
Audit Team found that UDOT is
successfully adding DCE, EA, and EIS
project review responsibilities to an
already successful CE review program.
The Audit Team did not identify any
non-compliance observations. This
report describes five observations as
well as several successful practices the
Audit Team found. The Audit Team
finds UDOT is carrying out the
responsibilities it has assumed and is in
substantial compliance with the
provisions of the MOU.
Background
The NEPA Assignment Program
allows a State to assume FHWA’s
environmental responsibilities for
review, consultation, and compliance
for Federal-aid highway projects. Under
23 U.S.C. 327, a State that assumes these
Federal responsibilities becomes solely
responsible and solely liable for
carrying them out. Effective January 17,
2017, UDOT assumed FHWA’s
responsibilities under NEPA and other
related environmental laws. Examples
of responsibilities UDOT has assumed
in addition to NEPA include section 7
consultation under the Endangered
Species Act and consultation under
section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Following this first audit, FHWA will
conduct three more annual audits to
satisfy provisions of 23 U.S.C. 327(g)
and Part 11 of the MOU. Audits are the
primary mechanism through which
FHWA may oversee UDOT’s compliance
with the MOU and the NEPA
Assignment Program requirements. This
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
16172
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
includes ensuring compliance with
applicable Federal laws and policies,
evaluating UDOT’s progress toward
achieving the performance measures
identified in MOU Section 10.2, and
collecting information needed for the
Secretary’s annual report to Congress.
The FHWA must present the results of
each audit in a report and make it
available for public comment in the
Federal Register.
The Audit Team consisted of NEPA
subject matter experts (SME) from the
FHWA Utah Division, as well as from
FHWA offices in Sacramento,
California, Washington, District of
Columbia, Atlanta, Georgia, and Austin,
Texas. These experts received training
on how to evaluate implementation of
the NEPA Assignment Program. In
addition, the FHWA Utah Division
designated an environmental specialist
to serve as a NEPA Assignment Program
liaison to UDOT.
Scope and Methodology
The Audit Team conducted an
examination of UDOT’s NEPA project
files, UDOT responses to the PAIR, and
UDOT self-assessment. The audit also
included interviews with staff and
reviews of UDOT policies, guidance,
and manuals pertaining to NEPA
responsibilities. All reviews focused on
objectives related to the six NEPA
Assignment Program elements: program
management; documentation and
records management; quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC); legal
sufficiency; training; and performance
measurement.
The focus of the audit was on UDOT’s
process and program implementation.
Therefore, while the Audit Team
reviewed project files to evaluate
UDOT’s NEPA process and procedures,
the team did not evaluate UDOT’s
project-specific decisions to determine
if they were, in FHWA’s opinion,
correct or not. The Audit Team
reviewed 14 NEPA Project files with
DCEs, EAs, and EISs, representing all
projects in process or initiated after the
MOU’s effective date. The Audit Team
also interviewed environmental staff in
all four UDOT regions as well as their
headquarters office.
The PAIR consisted of 24 questions
about specific elements in the MOU.
The Audit Team used UDOT’s response
to the PAIR to develop specific followup questions for the on-site interviews
with UDOT staff.
The Audit Team conducted 18 on-site
and 3 phone interviews. Interview
participants included staff from each of
UDOT’s four regional offices and UDOT
headquarters. The Audit Team invited
UDOT staff, middle management, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
executive management to participate to
ensure the interviews represented a
diverse range of staff expertise,
experience, and program responsibility.
Throughout the document reviews
and interviews, the Audit Team verified
information on the UDOT section 327
NEPA Assignment Program including
UDOT policies, guidance, manuals, and
reports. This included the NEPA QA/QC
Guidance, the NEPA Assignment
Training Plan, and the NEPA
Assignment Self-Assessment Report.
The Audit Team compared the
procedures outlined in UDOT
environmental manuals and policies to
the information obtained during
interviews and project file reviews to
determine if there are discrepancies
between UDOT’s performance and
documented procedures. The team
documented observations under the six
NEPA Assignment Program topic areas.
Below are the audit results.
Overall, UDOT has carried out the
environmental responsibilities it
assumed through the MOU and the
application for the NEPA Assignment
Program, and as such the Audit Team
finds that UDOT is substantially
compliant with the provisions of the
MOU.
Observations and Successful
Practices
This section summarizes the Audit
Team’s observations of UDOT’s NEPA
Assignment Program implementation,
including successful practices UDOT
may want to continue or expand.
Successful practices are positive results
that FHWA would like to commend
UDOT on developing. These may
include ideas or concepts that UDOT
has planned but not yet implemented.
Observations are items the Audit Team
would like to draw UDOT’s attention to,
which may benefit from revisions to
improve processes, procedures, or
outcomes. The UDOT may have already
taken steps to address or improve upon
the Audit Team’s observations, but at
the time of the audit they appeared to
be areas where UDOT could make
improvements. This report addresses all
six MOU topic areas as separate
discussions. Under each area, this report
discusses successful practices followed
by observations.
This audit report provides an
opportunity for UDOT to begin
implementing actions to improve their
program. The FHWA will consider the
status of areas identified for potential
improvement in this audit’s
observations as part of the scope of
Audit #2. The second Audit Report will
include a summary discussion that
describes progress since the last audit.
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Program Management
The UDOT has made progress toward
meeting the initial requirements of the
MOU for the NEPA Assignment Program
under 23 U.S.C. 327, including
implementing the updated Manual of
Instruction (MOI), a QA/QC Plan, a
Training Plan, and addressing the
findings from a Self-Assessment Report.
Successful Practices
The Audit Team found that UDOT
understands its project-level
responsibility for DCEs, EAs, and EISs
that FHWA assigned to UDOT through
the NEPA Assignment Program. The
UDOT has established a vision and
direction for incorporating the NEPA
Assignment Program into its overall
project development process. This was
clear in the PAIR responses and in
interviews with staff in the regions and
at UDOT’s central office, commonly
known as ‘‘the Complex.’’
The UDOT reorganized environmental
staff to align employee roles with the
new responsibilities under the NEPA
Assignment Program. Staff at the
Complex are responsible for EAs and
EISs. Regional environmental staff
coordinate their NEPA work through
Program Managers at the Complex.
Environmental staff also share resources
and use the subject matter expertise of
staff in other regional offices or at the
Complex. Some staff responsibilities
have changed under the NEPA
Assignment Program, but positions have
remained the same. Prior to assuming
responsibilities under the NEPA
Assignment Program, regional staff
reported to the pre-construction
department in their regional office.
Following assumption of the NEPA
Assignment Program, Environmental
Managers in the regions report to
Environmental Program Managers at the
Complex. In anticipation of assuming
NEPA responsibilities, UDOT hired an
Environmental Performance Manager
who is responsible for overseeing
UDOT’s policies, manuals, guidance,
and training under the NEPA
Assignment Program.
Observations
Observation #1: Communication of
UDOT policy and procedures to staff
Most SMEs and regional
environmental staff were not aware of
the latest policies and procedures
regarding the NEPA Assignment
Program. During interviews, some staff
at the regional offices and at the
Complex said they heard about changes
at quarterly environmental meetings.
Some regional staff said they expect to
hear about changes from their Managers
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
in the regional office, but they often feel
they do not receive all necessary
information. Other regional staff said
they receive updated memoranda and
other communications about the NEPA
Assignment Program through their
Program Manager at the Complex. Some
SMEs indicated they were unaware of
how their specialty fits into the overall
NEPA process. There does not seem to
be a clear understanding among all staff
about the differences between UDOT’s
responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 and
23 U.S.C. 327 and how this affects staff
members’ roles and responsibilities in
carrying out section 327.
Observation #2: Section 4(f) terms
regarding determinations of use
During review of the NEPA Project
files, the Audit Team found some
determinations labeled ‘‘n/a,’’
suggesting Section 4(f) was not
applicable when there was a historic
site/historic property identified in the
Section 106 determination of eligibility/
finding of effect (DOE/FOE). In other
examples, the files correctly indicate
‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ whether there is or is not
a Section 4(f) use. When the DOE/FOE
identifies historic properties that are
eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, UDOT would
also need to evaluate whether the action
will constitute a use under Section 4(f),
per FHWA policy (see ‘‘3.2 Assessing
Use of Section 4(f) Properties’’ in FHWA
‘‘Section 4(f) Policy Paper,’’ 2012).
Therefore, the correct determination
should be ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ instead of
‘‘n/a’’.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Documentation and Records
Management
The Audit Team reviewed UDOT’s
NEPA Project documents for 14 projects
under the NEPA Assignment Program.
The UDOT maintains a complete final
record for DCEs, EAs, and EISs. There
are inconsistencies about how, when,
and where staff maintain supporting
draft and deliberative documentation,
and staff either do not have or are not
aware of protocols for recordkeeping.
Successful Practices
ProjectWise is a document database
UDOT uses to maintain final project
records for DCEs, EAs, and EISs.
Though it was not developed
specifically for producing and
maintaining environmental documents,
ProjectWise is accessible to all staff and
can store complete NEPA
documentation. During interviews,
UDOT environmental staff
demonstrated they understood the
minimum documentation that should be
included in the final ProjectWise record,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
and the Audit Team verified that the
minimum documentation is in NEPA
Project file reviews.
In interviews, some UDOT staff
shared that they document decisions
made verbally for the project record.
This shows that some staff understand
the importance of having a written
record of decision points in the NEPA
processes that may happen through
phone conversations and in-person
meetings.
Environmental Managers at the
Complex have taken steps to implement
consistent records management on EAs
and EISs in ProjectWise by adding
stipulations to consultant contracts that
require them to follow records
management protocols in their final
project files.
Observations
Observation #3: UDOT recordkeeping
and file management
Some environmental staff interviewed
during the audit said they store draft
files, supporting information, and
deliberative documentation on personal
drives, on local servers, and/or in
hardcopy filing cabinets. Thus, outside
of ProjectWise, UDOT recordkeeping
and file management is inconsistent,
which may indicate the lack of specific
protocols for managing supporting
documents that inform NEPA decisions
and other environmental
determinations. Such practices can
make document retrieval and review
difficult because the location of UDOT’s
file of record is unclear. This issue can
also raise concerns about document
retention practices and the
completeness of administrative records
for projects needing them.
Staff at the regional offices and at the
Complex said ProjectWise does not
include organizational tools such as
subfolders or adequate search
capabilities. ProjectWise was not
created specifically for environmental
documentation. It is a document
management system, and although it
allows for subfolders with
environmental documents storage,
UDOT does not use this function nor
does it have adequate functionality for
searching files or tracking project
environmental process milestones.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The UDOT is in the early stages of the
section 327 program, and because there
is not yet sufficient data on project
approvals, the team was not able to fully
evaluate the effectiveness of the QA/QC
component of the program. The Audit
Team made the following observations.
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16173
Successful Practices
The UDOT has implemented some
successful practices to ensure the
quality of its NEPA documents. The
UDOT developed a QA/QC plan to help
environmental staff and consultants
ensure documents are developed,
reviewed, and approved in accordance
with QA/QC procedures. The UDOT’s
use of DCE, EA, and EIS QA/QC
checklists supports process
standardization. Though regional
environmental staff do not manage EAs
or EISs under the NEPA Assignment
Program, several staff said they were
aware there is a QA/QC checklist for
reviewing these documents. They were
also aware that Managers at the
Complex review and submit the
checklist and final document to UDOT’s
Deputy Director for final approval.
Regional environmental staff can
contact Program Managers at the
Complex to get procedural and technical
assistance on topics or documentation
requirements outside of their technical
expertise area. Throughout the audit
interviews, several staff said they felt
comfortable calling Managers at the
Complex with questions.
Observations
Observation #4: QA/QC documentation
Although most environmental staff
were aware of the QA/QC plan and
checklists, the Audit Team learned
through interviews that there is varied
understanding about roles and
procedures as they relate to
documenting QA/QC approvals.
Managers demonstrated that they
understand the various roles and
procedures for obtaining signature
approval for final documents, but
regional staff had a varied
understanding of these procedures.
Environmental staff outside of the
Complex were also uncertain of whether
a new checklist was developed for
DCEs, or if the EA/EIS checklist is used
for DCE QA/QC.
Legal Sufficiency
Successful Practices
Through interviews, the Audit Team
learned of the following successful
practices: UDOT has extended the legal
sufficiency process it has in place for
Section 326 CE assignment to
accommodate the section 327 NEPA
Assignment Program by contracting
with outside counsel who have
extensive experience in NEPA, other
environmental laws, and Federal
environmental litigation. The UDOT
Environmental Managers can work
directly with outside counsel without
the need to go through the Utah
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
16174
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
Attorney General’s (AG) Office. An
Assistant AG assigned to UDOT is kept
apprised of all communications between
UDOT staff and outside counsel.
Outside counsel expects early legal
involvement for all controversial
projects. The UDOT, an Assistant AG,
and outside counsel held an
‘‘organizational meeting’’ earlier this
year and expect to hold regular,
quarterly meetings.
Training
The UDOT’s Training Coordinator is
in the early stages of establishing a
Training Management Program (‘‘UDOT
U’’) for all UDOT employees. This
program will include the following
components: (1) core competencies for
all UDOT employees; (2) training for all
UDOT employees through UDOT U; (3)
a portal for tracking training completed
by UDOT employees; (4) SME
identification and validation of training
needs; and (5) leadership input on
priorities and budgets for all disciplines.
The UDOT could incorporate NEPA
Assignment Program training needs into
UDOT U in the future, and the Training
Coordinator has plans to work with the
environmental group on its specific
needs.
Successful Practices
Through interviews and the PAIR
response, the Audit Team learned that
UDOT delivered several disciplinebased (e.g., Noise, Section 4f, Section 7,
Air Quality, and Legal Sufficiency)
training courses to staff and consultants.
The Audit Team learned that UDOT has
used the annual conference to inform
staff and consultants about the NEPA
Assignment Program and the
responsibilities that UDOT has
assumed.
Observations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Observation #5: UDOT’s training plan
coordination
The UDOT developed a NEPA
Assignment Program Training Plan, as
required by the MOU, but through
interviews the Audit Team found that
Environmental Managers developed the
plan with minimal coordination with
the UDOT Training Coordinator, SMEs,
or regional staff. In interviews, the
Audit Team learned that some SMEs did
not get opportunities to attend training
on topics outside their subject area,
including NEPA. An understanding of
NEPA compliance is important for all
environmental staff, including SMEs.
Although ‘‘UDOT U’’ has offered
environmental training on specific
topics such as stormwater and
permitting, the NEPA Assignment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
Program training plan is not integrated
into ‘‘UDOT U.’’
Performance Measures
The Environmental Performance
Manager has begun collecting and
tracking performance data, such as the
completeness of project records,
timeline for completion of
environmental documents, and whether
QA/QC was performed for each
document. The Environmental
Performance Manager indicated that the
results of this audit will be used to help
revise manuals and procedures and that
the self-assessment informed some
changes. For example, the MOI has been
updated to clarify which documents
need to be updated and uploaded in
projects files.
Successful Practices
The UDOT surveyed resource agency
partners about how it is implementing
responsibilities under the NEPA
Assignment Program. Managers said
they are striving to improve UDOT’s
relationships with partner agencies
despite having different missions and
perspectives. The environmental group
will continue to survey its partners in
the future, and will modify the survey
as needed to help improve UDOT’s
environmental processes and
relationships with resource agencies.
Next Steps
The FHWA provided this draft audit
report to UDOT for a 14-day review and
comment period. The Audit Team
considered UDOT comments in
developing this draft audit report. The
FHWA will publish a notice in the
Federal Register for a 30-day comment
period in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
327(g). No later than 60 days after the
close of the comment period, FHWA
will respond to all comments submitted
to finalize this draft audit report
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(B). The
FHWA will publish the final audit
report in the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 2018–07751 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices Debt
Management Advisory Committee
Meeting
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(2), that a
meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams
Hotel, 16th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC, on May
1, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. of the following
debt management advisory committee:
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Treasury Borrowing Advisory
Committee of the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association.
The agenda for the meeting provides
for a charge by the Secretary of the
Treasury or his designate that the
Committee discuss particular issues and
conduct a working session. Following
the working session, the Committee will
present a written report of its
recommendations. The meeting will be
closed to the public, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d) and Public
Law 103–202, section 202(c)(1)(B) (31
U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my
determination, pursuant to the authority
placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C.
App. 2, section 10(d) and vested in me
by Treasury Department Order No. 101–
05, that the meeting will consist of
discussions and debates of the issues
presented to the Committee by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the
making of recommendations of the
Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to
Public Law 103–202, section
202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is
exempt from disclosure under that
provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In
addition, the meeting is concerned with
information that is exempt from
disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
The public interest requires that such
meetings be closed to the public because
the Treasury Department requires frank
and full advice from representatives of
the financial community prior to
making its final decisions on major
financing operations. Historically, this
advice has been offered by debt
management advisory committees
established by the several major
segments of the financial community.
When so utilized, such a committee is
recognized to be an advisory committee
under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 3.
Although the Treasury’s final
announcement of financing plans may
not reflect the recommendations
provided in reports of the Committee,
premature disclosure of the Committee’s
deliberations and reports would be
likely to lead to significant financial
speculation in the securities market.
Thus, this meeting falls within the
exemption covered by 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical
briefing to the press on the day before
the Committee meeting, following the
release of a statement of economic
conditions and financing estimates. This
briefing will give the press an
opportunity to ask questions about
financing projections. The day after the
Committee meeting, Treasury will
release the minutes of the meeting, any
charts that were discussed at the
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16170-16174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07751]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2018-0008]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Utah Department
of Transportation Audit Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program that
allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for
environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Federal highway projects. When a
State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely
responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has
assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during
each of the first 4 years of State participation to ensure compliance
with program requirements. This notice announces and solicits comments
on the first audit report for the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590. You may also submit comments electronically
at www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page
[[Page 16171]]
that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone can
search the electronic form of all comments in any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union).
The DOT posts these comments, without edits, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deirdre Remley, Office of Project
Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-0524,
[email protected], or Mr. Jomar Maldonado, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-1373, [email protected], Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the
specific docket page at www.regulations.gov.
Background
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23
United States Code (U.S.C.) 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment
Program, allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities
for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects.
When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes
solely liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in
lieu of the FHWA. The UDOT published its application for NEPA
assumption on October 9, 2015, and made it available for public comment
for 30 days. After considering public comments, UDOT submitted its
application to FHWA on December 1, 2015. The application served as the
basis for developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that
identifies the responsibilities and obligations that UDOT would assume.
The FHWA published a notice of the draft MOU in the Federal Register on
November 16, 2016, with a 30-day comment period to solicit the views of
the public and Federal agencies. After the close of the comment period,
FHWA and UDOT considered comments and proceeded to execute the MOU.
Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT assumed FHWA's responsibilities under
NEPA, and the responsibilities for NEPA-related Federal environmental
laws described in the MOU.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to
conduct annual audits during each of the first 4 years of State
participation. After the fourth year, the Secretary shall monitor the
State's compliance with the written agreement. The results of each
audit must be made available for public comment. This notice announces
the availability of the first audit report for UDOT and solicits public
comment on same.
Authority: Section 1313 of Pub. L. 112-141; Section 6005 of Pub.
L. 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Issued on: April 4, 2018.
Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program
Draft FHWA Audit of the Utah Department of Transportation
January 17-June 9, 2017
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results of the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) first audit of the Utah Department of
Transportation's (UDOT) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
responsibilities and obligations that FHWA has assigned and UDOT has
assumed pursuant to 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 327. Throughout this
report, FHWA uses the term ``NEPA Assignment Program'' to refer to the
program codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. Under the authority of 23 U.S.C.
327, UDOT and FHWA executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on
January 17, 2017, to memorialize UDOT's NEPA responsibilities and
liabilities for Federal-aid highway projects and certain other FHWA
approvals for transportation projects in Utah. Except for one project,
which FHWA retained, FHWA's only NEPA responsibilities in Utah are
oversight and review of how UDOT executes its NEPA Assignment Program
obligations. The section 327 MOU covers environmental review
responsibilities for projects that require the preparation of
environmental assessments (EAs), environmental impact statements (EIS),
and non-designated documented categorical exclusions (DCE). A separate
MOU, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326, authorizes UDOT's environmental review
responsibilities for other categorical exclusions (CE), commonly known
as CE Program Assignment. This audit does not cover the CE Program
Assignment responsibilities and projects.
As part of its review responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 327, FHWA
formed a team in April 2017 to plan and conduct an audit of NEPA
responsibilities UDOT assumed. Prior to the on-site visit, the Audit
Team reviewed UDOT's NEPA project files, UDOT's response to FHWA's pre-
audit information request (PAIR), and UDOT's self-assessment of its
NEPA Program. The Audit Team reviewed additional documents and
conducted interviews with UDOT staff in Utah on June 5-9, 2017.
The UDOT entered into NEPA Assignment Program after almost 9 years
of experience making FHWA NEPA CE determinations pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
326 (beginning August 2008). The UDOT's environmental review procedures
are compliant for CEs, and UDOT is implementing procedures and
processes for DCEs, EAs, and EISs as part of its new responsibilities
under the NEPA Assignment Program. Overall, the Audit Team found that
UDOT is successfully adding DCE, EA, and EIS project review
responsibilities to an already successful CE review program. The Audit
Team did not identify any non-compliance observations. This report
describes five observations as well as several successful practices the
Audit Team found. The Audit Team finds UDOT is carrying out the
responsibilities it has assumed and is in substantial compliance with
the provisions of the MOU.
Background
The NEPA Assignment Program allows a State to assume FHWA's
environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance
for Federal-aid highway projects. Under 23 U.S.C. 327, a State that
assumes these Federal responsibilities becomes solely responsible and
solely liable for carrying them out. Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT
assumed FHWA's responsibilities under NEPA and other related
environmental laws. Examples of responsibilities UDOT has assumed in
addition to NEPA include section 7 consultation under the Endangered
Species Act and consultation under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Following this first audit, FHWA will conduct three more annual
audits to satisfy provisions of 23 U.S.C. 327(g) and Part 11 of the
MOU. Audits are the primary mechanism through which FHWA may oversee
UDOT's compliance with the MOU and the NEPA Assignment Program
requirements. This
[[Page 16172]]
includes ensuring compliance with applicable Federal laws and policies,
evaluating UDOT's progress toward achieving the performance measures
identified in MOU Section 10.2, and collecting information needed for
the Secretary's annual report to Congress. The FHWA must present the
results of each audit in a report and make it available for public
comment in the Federal Register.
The Audit Team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts (SME) from
the FHWA Utah Division, as well as from FHWA offices in Sacramento,
California, Washington, District of Columbia, Atlanta, Georgia, and
Austin, Texas. These experts received training on how to evaluate
implementation of the NEPA Assignment Program. In addition, the FHWA
Utah Division designated an environmental specialist to serve as a NEPA
Assignment Program liaison to UDOT.
Scope and Methodology
The Audit Team conducted an examination of UDOT's NEPA project
files, UDOT responses to the PAIR, and UDOT self-assessment. The audit
also included interviews with staff and reviews of UDOT policies,
guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities. All reviews
focused on objectives related to the six NEPA Assignment Program
elements: program management; documentation and records management;
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC); legal sufficiency; training;
and performance measurement.
The focus of the audit was on UDOT's process and program
implementation. Therefore, while the Audit Team reviewed project files
to evaluate UDOT's NEPA process and procedures, the team did not
evaluate UDOT's project-specific decisions to determine if they were,
in FHWA's opinion, correct or not. The Audit Team reviewed 14 NEPA
Project files with DCEs, EAs, and EISs, representing all projects in
process or initiated after the MOU's effective date. The Audit Team
also interviewed environmental staff in all four UDOT regions as well
as their headquarters office.
The PAIR consisted of 24 questions about specific elements in the
MOU. The Audit Team used UDOT's response to the PAIR to develop
specific follow-up questions for the on-site interviews with UDOT
staff.
The Audit Team conducted 18 on-site and 3 phone interviews.
Interview participants included staff from each of UDOT's four regional
offices and UDOT headquarters. The Audit Team invited UDOT staff,
middle management, and executive management to participate to ensure
the interviews represented a diverse range of staff expertise,
experience, and program responsibility.
Throughout the document reviews and interviews, the Audit Team
verified information on the UDOT section 327 NEPA Assignment Program
including UDOT policies, guidance, manuals, and reports. This included
the NEPA QA/QC Guidance, the NEPA Assignment Training Plan, and the
NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment Report.
The Audit Team compared the procedures outlined in UDOT
environmental manuals and policies to the information obtained during
interviews and project file reviews to determine if there are
discrepancies between UDOT's performance and documented procedures. The
team documented observations under the six NEPA Assignment Program
topic areas. Below are the audit results.
Overall, UDOT has carried out the environmental responsibilities it
assumed through the MOU and the application for the NEPA Assignment
Program, and as such the Audit Team finds that UDOT is substantially
compliant with the provisions of the MOU.
Observations and Successful Practices
This section summarizes the Audit Team's observations of UDOT's
NEPA Assignment Program implementation, including successful practices
UDOT may want to continue or expand. Successful practices are positive
results that FHWA would like to commend UDOT on developing. These may
include ideas or concepts that UDOT has planned but not yet
implemented. Observations are items the Audit Team would like to draw
UDOT's attention to, which may benefit from revisions to improve
processes, procedures, or outcomes. The UDOT may have already taken
steps to address or improve upon the Audit Team's observations, but at
the time of the audit they appeared to be areas where UDOT could make
improvements. This report addresses all six MOU topic areas as separate
discussions. Under each area, this report discusses successful
practices followed by observations.
This audit report provides an opportunity for UDOT to begin
implementing actions to improve their program. The FHWA will consider
the status of areas identified for potential improvement in this
audit's observations as part of the scope of Audit #2. The second Audit
Report will include a summary discussion that describes progress since
the last audit.
Program Management
The UDOT has made progress toward meeting the initial requirements
of the MOU for the NEPA Assignment Program under 23 U.S.C. 327,
including implementing the updated Manual of Instruction (MOI), a QA/QC
Plan, a Training Plan, and addressing the findings from a Self-
Assessment Report.
Successful Practices
The Audit Team found that UDOT understands its project-level
responsibility for DCEs, EAs, and EISs that FHWA assigned to UDOT
through the NEPA Assignment Program. The UDOT has established a vision
and direction for incorporating the NEPA Assignment Program into its
overall project development process. This was clear in the PAIR
responses and in interviews with staff in the regions and at UDOT's
central office, commonly known as ``the Complex.''
The UDOT reorganized environmental staff to align employee roles
with the new responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program. Staff
at the Complex are responsible for EAs and EISs. Regional environmental
staff coordinate their NEPA work through Program Managers at the
Complex. Environmental staff also share resources and use the subject
matter expertise of staff in other regional offices or at the Complex.
Some staff responsibilities have changed under the NEPA Assignment
Program, but positions have remained the same. Prior to assuming
responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program, regional staff
reported to the pre-construction department in their regional office.
Following assumption of the NEPA Assignment Program, Environmental
Managers in the regions report to Environmental Program Managers at the
Complex. In anticipation of assuming NEPA responsibilities, UDOT hired
an Environmental Performance Manager who is responsible for overseeing
UDOT's policies, manuals, guidance, and training under the NEPA
Assignment Program.
Observations
Observation #1: Communication of UDOT policy and procedures to staff
Most SMEs and regional environmental staff were not aware of the
latest policies and procedures regarding the NEPA Assignment Program.
During interviews, some staff at the regional offices and at the
Complex said they heard about changes at quarterly environmental
meetings. Some regional staff said they expect to hear about changes
from their Managers
[[Page 16173]]
in the regional office, but they often feel they do not receive all
necessary information. Other regional staff said they receive updated
memoranda and other communications about the NEPA Assignment Program
through their Program Manager at the Complex. Some SMEs indicated they
were unaware of how their specialty fits into the overall NEPA process.
There does not seem to be a clear understanding among all staff about
the differences between UDOT's responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 and
23 U.S.C. 327 and how this affects staff members' roles and
responsibilities in carrying out section 327.
Observation #2: Section 4(f) terms regarding determinations of use
During review of the NEPA Project files, the Audit Team found some
determinations labeled ``n/a,'' suggesting Section 4(f) was not
applicable when there was a historic site/historic property identified
in the Section 106 determination of eligibility/finding of effect (DOE/
FOE). In other examples, the files correctly indicate ``yes'' or ``no''
whether there is or is not a Section 4(f) use. When the DOE/FOE
identifies historic properties that are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, UDOT would also need to evaluate
whether the action will constitute a use under Section 4(f), per FHWA
policy (see ``3.2 Assessing Use of Section 4(f) Properties'' in FHWA
``Section 4(f) Policy Paper,'' 2012). Therefore, the correct
determination should be ``yes'' or ``no'' instead of ``n/a''.
Documentation and Records Management
The Audit Team reviewed UDOT's NEPA Project documents for 14
projects under the NEPA Assignment Program. The UDOT maintains a
complete final record for DCEs, EAs, and EISs. There are
inconsistencies about how, when, and where staff maintain supporting
draft and deliberative documentation, and staff either do not have or
are not aware of protocols for recordkeeping.
Successful Practices
ProjectWise is a document database UDOT uses to maintain final
project records for DCEs, EAs, and EISs. Though it was not developed
specifically for producing and maintaining environmental documents,
ProjectWise is accessible to all staff and can store complete NEPA
documentation. During interviews, UDOT environmental staff demonstrated
they understood the minimum documentation that should be included in
the final ProjectWise record, and the Audit Team verified that the
minimum documentation is in NEPA Project file reviews.
In interviews, some UDOT staff shared that they document decisions
made verbally for the project record. This shows that some staff
understand the importance of having a written record of decision points
in the NEPA processes that may happen through phone conversations and
in-person meetings.
Environmental Managers at the Complex have taken steps to implement
consistent records management on EAs and EISs in ProjectWise by adding
stipulations to consultant contracts that require them to follow
records management protocols in their final project files.
Observations
Observation #3: UDOT recordkeeping and file management
Some environmental staff interviewed during the audit said they
store draft files, supporting information, and deliberative
documentation on personal drives, on local servers, and/or in hardcopy
filing cabinets. Thus, outside of ProjectWise, UDOT recordkeeping and
file management is inconsistent, which may indicate the lack of
specific protocols for managing supporting documents that inform NEPA
decisions and other environmental determinations. Such practices can
make document retrieval and review difficult because the location of
UDOT's file of record is unclear. This issue can also raise concerns
about document retention practices and the completeness of
administrative records for projects needing them.
Staff at the regional offices and at the Complex said ProjectWise
does not include organizational tools such as subfolders or adequate
search capabilities. ProjectWise was not created specifically for
environmental documentation. It is a document management system, and
although it allows for subfolders with environmental documents storage,
UDOT does not use this function nor does it have adequate functionality
for searching files or tracking project environmental process
milestones.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The UDOT is in the early stages of the section 327 program, and
because there is not yet sufficient data on project approvals, the team
was not able to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the QA/QC component
of the program. The Audit Team made the following observations.
Successful Practices
The UDOT has implemented some successful practices to ensure the
quality of its NEPA documents. The UDOT developed a QA/QC plan to help
environmental staff and consultants ensure documents are developed,
reviewed, and approved in accordance with QA/QC procedures. The UDOT's
use of DCE, EA, and EIS QA/QC checklists supports process
standardization. Though regional environmental staff do not manage EAs
or EISs under the NEPA Assignment Program, several staff said they were
aware there is a QA/QC checklist for reviewing these documents. They
were also aware that Managers at the Complex review and submit the
checklist and final document to UDOT's Deputy Director for final
approval.
Regional environmental staff can contact Program Managers at the
Complex to get procedural and technical assistance on topics or
documentation requirements outside of their technical expertise area.
Throughout the audit interviews, several staff said they felt
comfortable calling Managers at the Complex with questions.
Observations
Observation #4: QA/QC documentation
Although most environmental staff were aware of the QA/QC plan and
checklists, the Audit Team learned through interviews that there is
varied understanding about roles and procedures as they relate to
documenting QA/QC approvals. Managers demonstrated that they understand
the various roles and procedures for obtaining signature approval for
final documents, but regional staff had a varied understanding of these
procedures. Environmental staff outside of the Complex were also
uncertain of whether a new checklist was developed for DCEs, or if the
EA/EIS checklist is used for DCE QA/QC.
Legal Sufficiency
Successful Practices
Through interviews, the Audit Team learned of the following
successful practices: UDOT has extended the legal sufficiency process
it has in place for Section 326 CE assignment to accommodate the
section 327 NEPA Assignment Program by contracting with outside counsel
who have extensive experience in NEPA, other environmental laws, and
Federal environmental litigation. The UDOT Environmental Managers can
work directly with outside counsel without the need to go through the
Utah
[[Page 16174]]
Attorney General's (AG) Office. An Assistant AG assigned to UDOT is
kept apprised of all communications between UDOT staff and outside
counsel. Outside counsel expects early legal involvement for all
controversial projects. The UDOT, an Assistant AG, and outside counsel
held an ``organizational meeting'' earlier this year and expect to hold
regular, quarterly meetings.
Training
The UDOT's Training Coordinator is in the early stages of
establishing a Training Management Program (``UDOT U'') for all UDOT
employees. This program will include the following components: (1) core
competencies for all UDOT employees; (2) training for all UDOT
employees through UDOT U; (3) a portal for tracking training completed
by UDOT employees; (4) SME identification and validation of training
needs; and (5) leadership input on priorities and budgets for all
disciplines. The UDOT could incorporate NEPA Assignment Program
training needs into UDOT U in the future, and the Training Coordinator
has plans to work with the environmental group on its specific needs.
Successful Practices
Through interviews and the PAIR response, the Audit Team learned
that UDOT delivered several discipline-based (e.g., Noise, Section 4f,
Section 7, Air Quality, and Legal Sufficiency) training courses to
staff and consultants. The Audit Team learned that UDOT has used the
annual conference to inform staff and consultants about the NEPA
Assignment Program and the responsibilities that UDOT has assumed.
Observations
Observation #5: UDOT's training plan coordination
The UDOT developed a NEPA Assignment Program Training Plan, as
required by the MOU, but through interviews the Audit Team found that
Environmental Managers developed the plan with minimal coordination
with the UDOT Training Coordinator, SMEs, or regional staff. In
interviews, the Audit Team learned that some SMEs did not get
opportunities to attend training on topics outside their subject area,
including NEPA. An understanding of NEPA compliance is important for
all environmental staff, including SMEs. Although ``UDOT U'' has
offered environmental training on specific topics such as stormwater
and permitting, the NEPA Assignment Program training plan is not
integrated into ``UDOT U.''
Performance Measures
The Environmental Performance Manager has begun collecting and
tracking performance data, such as the completeness of project records,
timeline for completion of environmental documents, and whether QA/QC
was performed for each document. The Environmental Performance Manager
indicated that the results of this audit will be used to help revise
manuals and procedures and that the self-assessment informed some
changes. For example, the MOI has been updated to clarify which
documents need to be updated and uploaded in projects files.
Successful Practices
The UDOT surveyed resource agency partners about how it is
implementing responsibilities under the NEPA Assignment Program.
Managers said they are striving to improve UDOT's relationships with
partner agencies despite having different missions and perspectives.
The environmental group will continue to survey its partners in the
future, and will modify the survey as needed to help improve UDOT's
environmental processes and relationships with resource agencies.
Next Steps
The FHWA provided this draft audit report to UDOT for a 14-day
review and comment period. The Audit Team considered UDOT comments in
developing this draft audit report. The FHWA will publish a notice in
the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 327(g). No later than 60 days after the close of the comment
period, FHWA will respond to all comments submitted to finalize this
draft audit report pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(B). The FHWA will
publish the final audit report in the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 2018-07751 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
