Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Utah Department of Transportation Audit Report, 46992-46996 [2018-20097]

Download as PDF 46992 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2018 / Notices provide Runway 14/32 lighting systems with the relocated runway; install Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs) on Runway 04/22, Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) on the Runway 04, 14, and 22 ends, and Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) on each end of Runway 04/22; remove approximately 20 acres of on-Airport trees and individual off-Airport trees as necessary to clear trees that penetrate FAA Threshold Siting Surface (TSS)/ Part 77 approach and transitional surfaces; install obstruction lighting on Fixed Based Operator (FBO) and hangar buildings in the Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) departure surface areas beyond Runway 04, 14, and 22 ends; construct an on-Airport access road connecting the north and west building areas; voluntarily explore creation of Rusty Patched Bumble Bee/ pollinator habitat on airport property southwest of proposed 30th Street North realignment. Based on the analysis in the Final EA, the FAA has determined that the proposed action will not result in significant impacts to resources identified in accordance with FAA Orders 1050.1F and 5050.4B. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. Issued in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on August 31, 2018. Andy Peek, Manager, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region. [FR Doc. 2018–20144 Filed 9–14–18; 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. ACTION: Notice. 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 the responsibilities it has daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 years to ensure the State’s compliance with program requirements. This notice finalizes the findings of the first audit report for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 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.Maldonado@ 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this notice and all comments received 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, 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 end 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. PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 finalizes the findings of the first audit report for UDOT participation in the NEPA Assignment program. The FHWA published a draft version of this report in the Federal Register on April 13, 2018, at 83 FR 16170, and made it available for public review and comment for 30 days in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(g). The FHWA received two responses to the Federal Register notice during the public comment period for the draft report. Neither of the comments were substantive. One comment from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association outlined their general support for this program. The second comment was from an anonymous individual and the comment was unrelated to the report. The FHWA considered both comments and determined that neither comment triggered changes in the content of the report. This notice includes the final version of the audit report. Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109–59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773. Brandye L. Hendrickson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program 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’s) 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 E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2018 / Notices daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 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 MOU covers environmental review responsibilities for projects that require the preparation of environmental assessments (EA), 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 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 the 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 in lieu of FHWA. Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT assumed FHWA’s responsibilities under VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108). 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 oversees UDOT’s compliance with the MOU and the NEPA Assignment Program requirements. This 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, CA, Washington, DC, Atlanta, GA, and Austin, TX. 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 the 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 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46993 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 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 E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1 46994 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2018 / Notices 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. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 Successful Practices and training under the NEPA Assignment Program. Observations Observation #1: Communication of UDOT policy and procedures to staff Most SME 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The UDOT uses a document database called ‘‘ProjectWise’’ 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, E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2018 / Notices 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 At the time of the first audit UDOT was in the early stages of the section 327 program, and because there was 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. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 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 understood 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 whether a new checklist was developed for DCEs, or if the EA/EIS checklist is used for DCE QA/QC. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 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 Observation #5: UDOT’s training plan coordination The UDOT developed a NEPA Assignment Program Training Plan, as PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46995 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. Finalizing the Report The FHWA published a draft version of this report in the Federal Register on April 13, 2018, at 83 FR 16170, and made it available for public review and comment for 30 days in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(g). The FHWA received two responses to the Federal Register notice during the public comment period for the draft report. Neither of the comments were substantive. One comment from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association outlined their support for this program. The second comment was from an anonymous individual and the comment was unrelated to the report. E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1 46996 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2018 / Notices The FHWA considered both comments and determined that neither comment triggered changes in the content of the report. This is FHWA’s final version of the audit report. [FR Doc. 2018–20097 Filed 9–14–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0004] Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection Request: Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. The FMCSA requests to renew the ICR titled, ‘‘Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers,’’ that requires foreign (Mexico-based) forhire and private motor carriers to file an application Form OP–2 if they wish to register to transport property only within municipalities in the United States on the U.S.-Mexico international borders or within the commercial zones of such municipalities. FMCSA invites public comment on the ICR. There were no comments received to the 60-day Federal Register notice dated April 9, 2018. SUMMARY: Please send your comments by October 17, 2018. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA–2018–0004. 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/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to oira_submission@ daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES DATES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:47 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Fiorella Herrera, Transportation Specialist, Office of Registration and Safety Information, Customer Service and Vetting Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Telephone: 202–366–0376; Email Address: fiorella.herrera@dot.gov. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers. OMB Control Number: 2126–0019. Type of Request: Renewal of information collection. Respondents: Foreign motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers. Estimated Number of Respondents: 527. Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours. Expiration Date: October 31, 2018. Frequency of Response: Occasionally. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,108 hours [527 responses × 4 hours]. Background: Title 49 U.S.C. 13902(c) contains basic licensing procedures for registering foreign (Mexico-based) motor carriers to operate across the U.S.Mexico international border into the United States. 49 CFR part 368 contains the regulations that require foreign (Mexico-based) motor carriers to apply to the FMCSA for a Certificate of Registration to provide interstate transportation in municipalities in the United States on the U.S.-Mexico international border or within the commercial zones of such municipalities as defined in 49 U.S.C. 13902(c)(4)(A). FMCSA carries out this registration program under authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation. Foreign (Mexico-based) motor carriers use Form OP–2 to apply for Certificate of Registration authority at the FMCSA. The form requests information on the foreign motor carrier’s name, address, U.S. DOT Number, form of business (e.g., corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership), locations where the applicant plans to operate, types of registration requested (e.g., for-hire motor carrier, motor private carrier), insurance, safety certifications, PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 household goods arbitration certifications, and compliance certifications. On April 9, 2018, FMCSA published a 60-day Federal Register notice (83 FR 15222). Upon further review, FMCSA revised the number of estimated annual respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden hour costs due to a correction in the total number of applications filed between 2015–2017 which did not account for the fact the $300 fee applies only to new registrations; and the addition of the costs associated with submitting updates by mail, which is not included in the currently approved estimate. The estimated number of annual respondents and responses increased from 380 to 527, resulting in an increase of annual burden hours from 1,520 (380 respondents × 4 hours) to 2,108 (527 × 4 hours), and an increase in burden hour costs from $63,339 to $87,925. The $30,235 increase in estimated costs to respondents ($144,235 proposed— $114,000 currently approved) is due to an adjustment in the estimated number of respondents filing for a new registration. The increase is also due to a correction in the method of cost calculations which was not applied to the currently approved estimate, where the $300 fee applies only to new registrations. The increase is also due to the addition of the costs associated with submitting updates by mail, which was also not included in the currently approved estimate. Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: September 12, 2018. G. Kelly Regal, Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. 2018–20158 Filed 9–14–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM 17SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46992-46996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20097]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu 
of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 
years to ensure the State's compliance with program requirements. This 
notice finalizes the findings of the first audit report for the Utah 
Department of Transportation (UDOT).

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 and all comments received 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, 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 end 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 finalizes 
the findings of the first audit report for UDOT participation in the 
NEPA Assignment program. The FHWA published a draft version of this 
report in the Federal Register on April 13, 2018, at 83 FR 16170, and 
made it available for public review and comment for 30 days in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(g). The FHWA received two responses to 
the Federal Register notice during the public comment period for the 
draft report. Neither of the comments were substantive. One comment 
from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association outlined 
their general support for this program. The second comment was from an 
anonymous individual and the comment was unrelated to the report. The 
FHWA considered both comments and determined that neither comment 
triggered changes in the content of the report. This notice includes 
the final version of the audit report.

    Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of 
Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.

Brandye L. Hendrickson,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program

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's) 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

[[Page 46993]]

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 MOU covers environmental 
review responsibilities for projects that require the preparation of 
environmental assessments (EA), 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 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 the 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 in lieu of FHWA. 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and consultation under 
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 
306108).
    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 oversees 
UDOT's compliance with the MOU and the NEPA Assignment Program 
requirements. This 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, CA, 
Washington, DC, Atlanta, GA, and Austin, TX. 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 the 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

[[Page 46994]]

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 SME 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 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

    The UDOT uses a document database called ``ProjectWise'' 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,

[[Page 46995]]

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

    At the time of the first audit UDOT was in the early stages of the 
section 327 program, and because there was 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 understood 
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 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 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.

Finalizing the Report

    The FHWA published a draft version of this report in the Federal 
Register on April 13, 2018, at 83 FR 16170, and made it available for 
public review and comment for 30 days in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
327(g). The FHWA received two responses to the Federal Register notice 
during the public comment period for the draft report. Neither of the 
comments were substantive. One comment from the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association outlined their support for this 
program. The second comment was from an anonymous individual and the 
comment was unrelated to the report.

[[Page 46996]]

The FHWA considered both comments and determined that neither comment 
triggered changes in the content of the report. This is FHWA's final 
version of the audit report.

[FR Doc. 2018-20097 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.