Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Florida DOT Audit #3 Report, 10212-10216 [2020-03465]
Download as PDF
10212
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2020 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0945]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of
Information Collection: Bird/Other
Wildlife Strike Report
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
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 Federal Register Notice
with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of
information was published on
November 25, 2019. The collection
involves voluntary reporting of bird/
other wildlife strike information
following a wildlife strike incident with
aircraft. This data becomes part of the
publicly available National Wildlife
Strike Database. Strike reports provide
critical information that allows the FAA
to determine high-risk species, track
national trends, evaluate the FAA’s
wildlife hazard management program,
and provide scientific foundation for
regulatory guidance. Additionally, this
essential information allows engine and
airframe manufacturers to evaluate the
effectiveness of aircraft components. It
also helps airports identify and mitigate
hazardous species and the location of
wildlife attractants, affords a better
understanding of strike dynamics, and
provides key metrics for an airport to
evaluate the effectiveness of its wildlife
management program.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by March 23, 2020.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Weller by email at: john.weller@faa.gov;
phone: (202) 267–3778.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Feb 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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.
OMB Control Number: 2120–0045.
Title: Bird/Other Wildlife Strike
Report.
Form Numbers: FAA Form 5200–7.
Type of Review: This review is for a
renewal of an information collection.
Background: The Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following
collection of information was published
on November 25, 2019 (84 FR 64948). 14
CFR 139.337, Wildlife Hazard
Management, requires the FAA to
collect wildlife strike data to develop
standards and monitor hazards to
aviation. Data identify wildlife strike
control requirements and provide inservice data on aircraft component
failure. Pilots, airport operations staff,
aircraft and airport maintenance
personnel, air traffic controllers,
wildlife biologists, and anyone else
having knowledge of a strike report
incidents to the FAA, primarily using
the web version of FAA Form 5200–7.
The data becomes part of the publicly
available National Wildlife Strike
Database used to enhance safety by
airports, airlines, engine and airframe
manufacturers, and the FAA. Overall,
the number of strikes annually reported
to the FAA has increased from 1,850 in
1990 to more than 16,000 in 2018.
Respondents: Approximately 16,020
airport operations staff, pilots, air traffic
controllers, wildlife biologists, aircraft
and airport maintenance personnel, and
others having knowledge of a strike.
Frequency: Information is collected as
needed.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 5 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
1,335 hours.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 14,
2020.
John Weller,
National Wildlife Biologist, Airport Safety
and Operations Division, Office of Airports
Safety and Standards.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2019–0040]
Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program; Florida DOT Audit
#3 Report
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice, request for comment.
The Surface Transportation
Project Delivery 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 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 is the third audit of the Florida
Department of Transportation’s (FDOT)
performance of its responsibilities under
the Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program (National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Assignment Program). This notice
announces and solicits comments on the
third audit report for FDOT.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before March 23, 2020.
DATES:
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
that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone can search the
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2020–03453 Filed 2–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2020 / Notices
electronic form of all comments in any
one 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.
Ms.
Marisel Lopez Cruz, Office of Project
Development and Environmental
Review, (407) 867–6402, marisel.lopezcruz@dot.gov, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or
Mr. David Sett, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (404) 562–3676, david.sett@
dot.gov, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 60 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, GA 30303. 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 may
be downloaded from the specific docket
page at www.regulations.gov.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C.
327, commonly known as the NEPA
Assignment Program, allows a State to
assume FHWA’s responsibilities for
environmental 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 FHWA. Effective December 14,
2016, FDOT assumed FHWA’s
responsibilities for environmental
review and the responsibilities for
reviews under other Federal
environmental requirements.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C.,
requires the Secretary to conduct annual
audits to ensure compliance with the
memorandum of understanding during
each of the first 4 years of State
participation and, after the fourth year,
monitor compliance. The results of each
audit must be made available for public
comment. The second audit report was
published in the Federal Register on
November 29, 2019, at 84 FR 65891.
This notice announces the availability
of the third audit report for FDOT and
solicits comments on the same.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Feb 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law
112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109–59;
23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Issued on: February 13, 2020.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery
Program
Draft FHWA Audit #3 of the Florida
Department of Transportation
May 2018 to April 2019
Executive Summary
This is the third audit of the Florida
Department of Transportation’s (FDOT)
assumption of National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities
under the Surface Transportation
Project Delivery Program. Under the
authority of 23 U.S.C. 327, FDOT and
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) executed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) on December 14,
2016, whereby FHWA assigned, and
FDOT assumed, FHWA’s NEPA
responsibilities and liabilities for
Federal-aid highway projects and other
related environmental reviews for
transportation projects in Florida.
The FHWA formed a team in January
2019 to conduct an audit of FDOT’s
performance according to the terms of
the MOU. The team held internal
meetings to prepare for an on-site visit
to the Florida Division and FDOT
offices. Prior to the on-site visit, the
team reviewed FDOT’s 2019 Project
Development & Environment (PD&E)
Manual and NEPA project files, FDOT’s
response to FHWA’s pre-audit
information request (PAIR), and FDOT’s
NEPA Assignment Self Assessment
Summary Report. The team presented
initial project file observations to FDOT
Office of Environmental Management
(OEM) on August 1, 2019. The team
conducted interviews with FDOT and
prepared preliminary audit results from
September 23–26, 2019. The team
presented these preliminary
observations to FDOT OEM leadership
on September 27, 2019.
The FDOT continues to develop,
revise, and implement procedures and
processes required to carry out the
NEPA Assignment Program. Overall, the
team found that FDOT is committed to
delivering a successful NEPA Program.
This report describes numerous
successful practices and one noncompliance observation. The FDOT has
carried out the responsibilities it has
assumed in keeping with the intent of
the MOU and FDOT’s application.
Through this report, FHWA is notifying
FDOT of the one non-compliance
observation that requires FDOT to take
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10213
corrective action. By addressing the
observation in this report, FDOT will
continue to assure a successful program.
The report concludes with the status of
FHWA’s non-compliance observations
from the first and second audit reviews,
including any FDOT self-imposed
corrective actions.
Background
The purpose of the audits performed
under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 327 is
to assess a State’s compliance with the
provisions of the MOU as well as all
applicable Federal statutes, regulations,
policies, and guidance. The FHWA’s
review and oversight obligation entails
the need to collect information to
evaluate the success of the NEPA
Assignment Program; to evaluate a
State’s progress toward achieving its
performance measures as specified in
the MOU; and to collect information for
the administration of the NEPA
Assignment Program. This report
summarizes the results of the third audit
in Florida and includes a summary
discussion that describes progress since
the last audit. Following this audit,
FHWA will conduct one more annual
NEPA Assignment Program audit.
Scope and Methodology
The overall scope of this audit review
is defined both in statute (23 U.S.C. 327)
and the MOU (Part 11). An audit
generally is defined as an official and
careful examination and verification of
accounts and records, especially of
financial accounts, by an independent
unbiased body. With regard to accounts
or financial records, audits may follow
a prescribed process or methodology
and be conducted by ‘‘auditors’’ who
have special training in those processes
or methods. The FHWA considers this
review to meet the definition of an audit
because it is an unbiased, independent,
official, and careful examination and
verification of records and information
about FDOT’s assumption of
environmental responsibilities.
The team consisted of NEPA subject
matter experts (SME) from FHWA
offices in Texas, Georgia, and
Headquarters, as well as staff from
FHWA’s Florida Division. The diverse
composition of the team, as well as the
process of developing the review report
and publishing it in the Federal
Register, are intended to make this audit
an unbiased official action taken by
FHWA.
The team conducted a careful
examination of FDOT policies,
guidance, and manuals pertaining to
NEPA responsibilities, as well as a
representative sample of FDOT’s project
files. Other documents, such as the
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
10214
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2020 / Notices
August 2019 PAIR responses and
FDOT’s August 2019 Self Assessment
Summary Report, also informed this
review. In addition, the team
interviewed FDOT staff in person and
via video conference. This review is
organized around the six NEPA
Assignment Program elements: Program
management; documentation and
records management; quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC); legal
sufficiency; performance measurement;
and training program. In addition, the
team considered three cross-cutting
focus areas: (1) Interchange Access
Requests (IAR); (2) project
authorizations; and (3) permanent
Emergency Repair (ER) projects.
The team defined the timeframe for
highway project environmental
approvals subject to this third audit to
be between May 2018 and April 2019,
when 616 projects were approved. The
team drew judgmental samples totaling
23 projects from data in FDOT’s online
file system, Statewide Environmental
Project Tracker (SWEPT). In the context
of this report, descriptions of
environmental documents are consistent
with FDOT’s Project Development and
Environment Manual. The FHWA
judgmentally selected all Type 2
Categorical Exclusions (CEs) (21
projects) and all Environmental
Assessments (EA) with Findings of No
Significant Impacts (2 projects). The
audit team selected all IARs that were
pending for approval during the audit
period (five projects) to determine if
they were following protocols for
environmental review. The team
reviewed all project authorization files
in the audit period (252 project files)
downloaded from FHWA Fiscal
Management Information System (FMIS)
to determine if the NEPA certification
was completed for these projects prior
to the authorization. For permanent ER
projects, FHWA judgmentally sampled
41 projects in SWEPT and FMIS and
identified those with construction
contracts to determine if the NEPA was
completed prior to authorization and if
the NEPA scope was consistent with the
contract.
The team submitted a PAIR to FDOT
that contained 20 questions covering all
6 NEPA Assignment Program elements.
The FDOT responses to the PAIR were
used to develop specific follow-up
questions for the on-site interviews with
FDOT staff.
The team conducted a total of 18
interviews. Interview participants
included staff from five FDOT District
offices, Districts 3 through 7, and the
FDOT Central Office. The team
interviewed FDOT legal, financial,
planning, and environmental staff.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Feb 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
The team compared FDOT policies
and procedures (including the
published 2019 Project Development &
Environment PD&E Manual) for the
audit focus areas to the information
obtained during interviews and project
file reviews to determine if FDOT’s
performance of its MOU responsibilities
are in accordance with FDOT policies
and procedures and Federal
requirements. Individual observations
were documented during interviews and
reviews and combined under the six
NEPA Assignment Program elements.
The audit results are described below by
program element.
Overall Audit Opinion
The team recognizes that FDOT’s
efforts have included implementing the
requirements of the MOU by: Processing
and approving projects; refining
policies, procedures, and guidance
documents; refining the SWEPT
tracking system for ‘‘official project
files’’; training staff; implementing a
QA/QC Plan; and conducting a self
assessment for monitoring compliance
with the assumed responsibilities. The
team found evidence of FDOT’s
continuing efforts to train staff in
clarifying the roles and responsibilities
of FDOT staff, and in educating staff in
an effort to assure compliance with all
of the assigned responsibilities.
During the third audit, the team
identified numerous successful
practices and one non-compliance
observation that FDOT will need to
address through corrective actions.
These results came from a review of
FDOT procedures, Self Assessment,
PAIR responses, project files, and
interviews with FDOT personnel.
The FDOT has carried out the
responsibilities it has assumed
consistent with the intent of the MOU
and FDOT’s application. The team finds
that FDOT is in substantial compliance
with the terms of the MOU. By
addressing the observations in this
report, FDOT will continue to assure a
successful program.
Successful Practices and Observations
Successful practices are practices that
the team believes are positive, and
encourages FDOT to consider
continuing or expanding those programs
in the future. The team identified
numerous successful practices in this
report. Observations are items the team
would like to draw FDOT’s attention to,
which may improve processes,
procedures, and/or outcomes. The team
identified no observations in this report.
A non-compliance observation is an
instance where the team finds the State
is not in compliance or is deficient with
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
regard to a Federal regulation, statute,
guidance, policy, State procedure, or the
MOU. Non-compliance may also
include instances where the State has
failed to secure or maintain adequate
personnel and/or financial resources to
carry out the responsibilities they have
assumed. The FHWA expects the State
to develop and implement corrective
actions to address all non-compliance
observations. The team identified one
non-compliance observation during this
third audit.
The team acknowledges that sharing
initial results during the site visit
closeout and sharing the draft audit
report with FDOT provides them the
opportunity to clarify any observation,
as needed, and/or begin implementing
corrective actions to improve the
program. The FHWA will also consider
actions taken by FDOT to address these
observations as part of the scope of
Audit #4.
The Audit Report addresses all six
MOU program elements as separate
discussions.
Program Management
Successful Practices
The team learned through interviews
that FDOT has a strong process for
addressing its Self Assessment
corrective actions. The process includes
creating an action plan, dedicating staff
to the plan, and identifying timeframes
for follow up. The FHWA confirmed in
FDOT’s Self Assessment documentation
that FDOT provides a status regarding
its ‘‘opportunities for improvement’’
which includes a strong process for
corrective actions and a corrective
action status update section.
As FDOT’s NEPA Assignment
Program matures, communication
continues to improve between FDOT’s
SMEs, consultants, and FDOT’s District
staff. Through interviews the team
confirmed the improved
communication. For example, some
districts invite environmental staff to
the District Interchange Review
Committee meetings to discuss IAR
projects early in the process. The team
encourages FDOT to implement this
practice statewide. Another example of
good communication is the process that
OEM uses to implement new FHWA
guidance. When new guidance is issued
and FDOT changes its process, it
communicates with the districts through
changes in the manuals, periodic
meetings, and training. During the audit,
the team confirmed broad awareness of
how FDOT chose to implement the
FHWA June 12, 2018, Additional
Flexibilities in CEs memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2020 / Notices
The team learned that the
enhancements to the SWEPT system
continue to create efficiencies for the
NEPA Assignment Program
implementation and FDOT continues to
dedicate resources to improve SWEPT.
Interviewees stated that these
investments have resulted in more
consistent documentation from the
districts. Additional enhancements to
SWEPT include cross references to
FDOT’s PD&E manual and updates to
the Type 1 CE, Type 2 CE, and
reevaluation forms. The FDOT OEM
now has direct responsibility and
control for SWEPT updates, which
allows for quicker revisions to SWEPT
to adapt to its changing needs. For
example, when FDOT implemented its
process for documenting legal
sufficiency determinations,
modifications to SWEPT were needed to
allow users to specify the type of legal
sufficiency review being performed,
such as for an Environmental Impact
Statement or a Section 4(f) evaluation.
The FDOT expeditiously addressed this
need and now SWEPT permits users to
distinguish type of document being
reviewed for legal sufficiency.
The SWEPT is considered by FDOT
staff to be a significant program level
QA/QC tool as it requires input of
needed information prior to allowing
the project to advance further. For
example, a project cannot advance to
FDOT OEM for QA/QC review until the
QA/QC review is completed at the
district level by the Environmental
Administrator and the Engineering
Administrator. Another example of
SWEPT’s QA/QC control is the
environmental certification process. The
environmental certification document is
used to document NEPA completion to
authorize Federal funding in subsequent
project phases. The SWEPT will
generate the environmental certification
only after NEPA has been approved.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Successful Practice
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
During interviews, FDOT staff
presented the Electronic Review
Comments internal review platform as a
tool that allows continuous engagement
among environmental staff and SMEs.
This tool allows continuous QC as the
environmental project is developed.
Legal Sufficiency
The team’s review of FDOT’s legal
sufficiency program found that FDOT
has continued to structure the legal
sufficiency process for the NEPA
Assignment Program by having in-house
counsel, as well as outside counsel with
NEPA experience, available. The FDOT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Feb 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
has made one legal sufficiency Section
4(f) determination during the audit time
frame, implementing the internal
procedures that were previously
developed. The FDOT’s Office of
General Counsel (OGC) continues to
participate in monthly coordination
meetings and topic-specific meetings
with OEM and the districts. It also
reviews other environmental documents
when requested for legal input. There
remains close collaboration throughout
the process amongst and between OGC,
OEM, and the district attorneys.
Successful Practice
The SWEPT has a form that has the
capability to document the legal
sufficiency finding within the system.
This tool ensures that proper
documentation is captured in the
project file without the need for
additional supporting documentation.
Training Program
The FDOT’s training program
continues to be exemplary. The FDOT
has continued to focus resources
ensuring staff, other agencies, and
consultants are adequately trained. In
the last year, FDOT again trained over
2,000 people in their NEPA process,
endangered species, traffic analysis,
cultural resources, and noise technical
areas. Through information presented in
the FDOT Self Assessment and through
interviews of FDOT staff, the review
team learned of the variety in and
growth of FDOT’s environmental
training program.
The FDOT OEM promotes staff
awareness of its Self Assessments
through multiple notices to districts, a
statewide Self Assessment kick-off
Webinar, and the use of Self Assessment
computer-based training courses.
Through information presented in the
FDOT Self Assessment and through
interviews of FDOT staff, the team
learned that FDOT is one of the few
NEPA assignment States to internally
promote its self assessments.
Successful Practice
The team learned through interviews
of OEM staff that FDOT has increased
its environmental training outreach to
multiple disciplines. The
Transportation Symposium has
included environmental review training
on a wide spectrum of topics. This year,
the number of environmental training
courses at the symposium increased by
about 50 percent and were targeted to
individuals from a broad range of
disciplines.
The team also learned that FDOT’s
YouTube channel includes a variety of
environmental training Webinars and
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10215
videos. The FDOT has migrated its Web
trainings to YouTube so that trainings
are available and accessible to staff and
the public through the MyFDOT
channel.
Performance Measures
Based on information reported in
FDOT’s 2019 Self Assessment Summary
Report, FDOT is meeting or exceeding
all performance measures.
Documentation and Records
Management
The team reviewed the environmental
documentation for 41 permanent repair
projects to determine if the NEPA was
completed prior to authorization and if
the NEPA scope was consistent with the
contract. All 41 permanent ER projects
were determined compliant.
The team reviewed all IAR projects
(five projects) to determine if FDOT was
following protocols for environmental
review. The projects selected for the IAR
file review had NEPA documents that
were still under development; therefore,
no conclusions could be drawn from the
project file review.
Successful Practice
The FDOT Central Office has
procedures that ensure IAR projects
receive NEPA review as part of the
FHWA IAR approval. Systems Planning
staff have been trained in SWEPT and
verify that the NEPA documentation
supports FHWA’s NEPA review
expectations for IAR projects.
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Some
FDOT Project Files Contain Insufficient
Documentation To Support the Project
Authorization, Environmental Analysis,
or Decision
The team reviewed environmental
documentation for 21 Type 2 CEs and 2
EAs to determine if the environmental
review met Federal requirements. The
team found CEs missing U.S. Coast
Guard permits and Endangered Species
Act consultation documentation (two
projects). Finally, at the time FDOT
prepared a Finding of No Significant
Impact, the review team determined the
scope of the EA was inconsistent with
the State Transportation Improvement
Program.
The team also reviewed 252 Project
Authorization files to determine if the
NEPA certification was completed for
these projects prior to the authorization.
The team found that some Project
Authorizations did not have
documentation verifying that NEPA was
completed (18 projects).
The team’s observations on the
environmental documentation and on
the Project Authorization files were
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
10216
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2020 / Notices
shared with FDOT for its consideration
and initial responses. The team received
responses from FDOT either resolving
the observation or verifying missing
documentation and/or procedural
deficiencies. While these projects were
found non-compliant at the time of the
review, the missing documents have
subsequently been uploaded by FDOT
or FDOT committed to implementing a
process improvement to address these
concerns.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Update from 2017 Audit #1, NonCompliance Observation #1 and 2018
Audit #2, Non-Compliance Observation
#1: Some FDOT Project Files Contain
Insufficient Documentation To Support
the Environmental Analysis or Decision
The FHWA reported a noncompliance observation related to some
FDOT project files that lacked
documentation to support the
environmental analysis or decision as
part of Audit #1 and Audit #2. The
FDOT and FHWA have productively
worked together to resolve
documentation issues from these
previous audits. The FDOT continues to
implement process improvements to
address noted procedural deficiencies.
These improvements will be considered
during the next audit.
The FHWA and FDOT have also been
working together through previous
audits to mutually understand FDOT’s
implementation of reasonable assurance
that the project impacts would not be
significant when full compliance for a
project is not possible by the time the
NEPA decision has been prepared.
Through the interviews and project file
reviews, the team received clarification
from FDOT regarding the differences in
the applicability of standard
specifications and special provisions
when addressing endangered species
impacts and consultation, and how
these tools support reasonable
assurances of no significant impacts to
support the NEPA decision. In addition,
the team learned that FDOT provided
training and clarifications internally to
ensure reasonable assurance is
appropriately applied during NEPA
document development.
Finalizing This Report
The FHWA provided a draft of the
audit report to FDOT for a 14-day
review and comment period. The team
considered FDOT’s comments in this
draft audit report. The FHWA is
publishing this 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 address all
comments submitted to finalize this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Feb 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
draft audit report pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
327(g)(2)(B). Subsequently, FHWA will
publish the final audit report in the
Federal Register.
The FHWA will consider the results
of this audit in preparing the scope of
the next annual audit. The next audit
report will include a summary that
describes the status of FDOT’s
corrective and other actions taken in
response to this audit’s conclusions.
[FR Doc. 2020–03465 Filed 2–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
Labor Commissioner’s petition for
reconsideration will not change the fact
that the MRB Rules cannot be enforced
against NTTC’s members.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent Lopez, Office of Chief Counsel,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone No. 202–366–4400;
Facsimile No. 202–366–7041.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0097; PD–38(R)]
Hazardous Materials: California Meal
and Rest Break Requirements
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Dismissal of petition for
reconsideration of an administrative
determination of preemption.
AGENCY:
Petitioner: The California Labor
Commissioner.
Local Law Affected: California Labor
Code, Sections 226.7, 512, and 516;
California Code of Regulations (CCR),
title 8, section 11090.
Applicable Federal Requirements:
Federal Hazardous Material
Transportation Law (HMTA), 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq., and the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR
parts 171–180.
Mode Affected: Highway.
SUMMARY: On September 21, 2018, in
response to a petition from the National
Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC),
PHMSA published a determination that
California’s meal and rest break rules
(MRB Rules) are preempted, under 49
U.S.C. 5125, as applied to drivers of
motor vehicles transporting hazardous
materials. The California Labor
Commissioner’s petition for
reconsideration of that decision is
denied on the grounds of mootness.
After PHMSA issued its preemption
determination, and after the request for
reconsideration was filed, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) determined that the MRB
Rules are preempted, under 49 U.S.C.
31141, as applied to property-carrying
commercial motor vehicles drivers
covered by FMCSA’s hours of service
regulations. FMCSA’s decision covers a
broader group of drivers than PHMSA’s
decision, including NTTC’s members.
Accordingly, granting the California
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A. PHMSA Proceeding
NTTC applied to PHMSA for a
determination on whether Federal
Hazardous Material Transportation Law,
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts the
MRB Rules, as applied to the
transportation of hazardous materials.
Section 5125 of 49 U.S.C. contains
express preemption provisions relevant
to this proceeding. In particular,
subsection (a) provides that a
requirement of a State, political
subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe is
preempted—unless the non-federal
requirement is authorized by another
federal law or DOT grants a waiver of
preemption under section 5125(e)—if:
(1) Complying with a requirement of
the State, political subdivision, or tribe
and a requirement of this chapter, a
regulation prescribed under this
chapter, or a hazardous materials
transportation security regulation or
directive issued by the Secretary of
Homeland Security is not possible; or
(2) the requirement of the State,
political subdivision, or tribe, as applied
or enforced, is an obstacle to
accomplishing and carrying out this
chapter, a regulation prescribed under
this chapter, or a hazardous materials
transportation security regulation or
directive issued by the Secretary of
Homeland Security.1
PHMSA preemption determinations
do not address issues of preemption
arising under the Commerce Clause, the
Fifth Amendment or other provisions of
the Constitution, or statutes other than
the Federal Hazardous Material
Transportation Law, unless it is
necessary to do so in order to determine
1 These two paragraphs set forth the ‘‘dual
compliance’’ and ‘‘obstacle’’ criteria that are based
on U.S. Supreme Court decisions on preemption.
See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Florida
Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132
(1963); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, Inc., 435 U.S. 151
(1978). PHMSA’s predecessor agency, the Research
and Special Programs Administration, applied these
criteria in issuing inconsistency rulings under the
original preemption provisions in Section 112(a) of
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Public
Law 93–633, 88 Stat. 2161 (Jan. 3, 1975).
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10212-10216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2019-0040]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Florida DOT
Audit #3 Report
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice, request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Project Delivery 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
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
is the third audit of the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT)
performance of its responsibilities under the Surface Transportation
Project Delivery Program (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Assignment Program). This notice announces and solicits comments on the
third audit report for FDOT.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2020.
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
that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone can
search the
[[Page 10213]]
electronic form of all comments in any one 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. Marisel Lopez Cruz, Office of
Project Development and Environmental Review, (407) 867-6402,
[email protected], Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, or Mr. David Sett, Office of the Chief Counsel, (404) 562-3676,
[email protected], Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 60 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. 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
U.S.C. 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment Program, allows a
State to assume FHWA's responsibilities for environmental 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 FHWA.
Effective December 14, 2016, FDOT assumed FHWA's responsibilities for
environmental review and the responsibilities for reviews under other
Federal environmental requirements.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to
conduct annual audits to ensure compliance with the memorandum of
understanding during each of the first 4 years of State participation
and, after the fourth year, monitor compliance. The results of each
audit must be made available for public comment. The second audit
report was published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2019, at
84 FR 65891. This notice announces the availability of the third audit
report for FDOT and solicits comments on the same.
Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of
Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Issued on: February 13, 2020.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program
Draft FHWA Audit #3 of the Florida Department of Transportation
May 2018 to April 2019
Executive Summary
This is the third audit of the Florida Department of
Transportation's (FDOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program. Under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 327, FDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) executed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) on December 14, 2016, whereby FHWA assigned, and
FDOT assumed, FHWA's NEPA responsibilities and liabilities for Federal-
aid highway projects and other related environmental reviews for
transportation projects in Florida.
The FHWA formed a team in January 2019 to conduct an audit of
FDOT's performance according to the terms of the MOU. The team held
internal meetings to prepare for an on-site visit to the Florida
Division and FDOT offices. Prior to the on-site visit, the team
reviewed FDOT's 2019 Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Manual
and NEPA project files, FDOT's response to FHWA's pre-audit information
request (PAIR), and FDOT's NEPA Assignment Self Assessment Summary
Report. The team presented initial project file observations to FDOT
Office of Environmental Management (OEM) on August 1, 2019. The team
conducted interviews with FDOT and prepared preliminary audit results
from September 23-26, 2019. The team presented these preliminary
observations to FDOT OEM leadership on September 27, 2019.
The FDOT continues to develop, revise, and implement procedures and
processes required to carry out the NEPA Assignment Program. Overall,
the team found that FDOT is committed to delivering a successful NEPA
Program. This report describes numerous successful practices and one
non-compliance observation. The FDOT has carried out the
responsibilities it has assumed in keeping with the intent of the MOU
and FDOT's application. Through this report, FHWA is notifying FDOT of
the one non-compliance observation that requires FDOT to take
corrective action. By addressing the observation in this report, FDOT
will continue to assure a successful program. The report concludes with
the status of FHWA's non-compliance observations from the first and
second audit reviews, including any FDOT self-imposed corrective
actions.
Background
The purpose of the audits performed under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 327 is to assess a State's compliance with the provisions of the
MOU as well as all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies,
and guidance. The FHWA's review and oversight obligation entails the
need to collect information to evaluate the success of the NEPA
Assignment Program; to evaluate a State's progress toward achieving its
performance measures as specified in the MOU; and to collect
information for the administration of the NEPA Assignment Program. This
report summarizes the results of the third audit in Florida and
includes a summary discussion that describes progress since the last
audit. Following this audit, FHWA will conduct one more annual NEPA
Assignment Program audit.
Scope and Methodology
The overall scope of this audit review is defined both in statute
(23 U.S.C. 327) and the MOU (Part 11). An audit generally is defined as
an official and careful examination and verification of accounts and
records, especially of financial accounts, by an independent unbiased
body. With regard to accounts or financial records, audits may follow a
prescribed process or methodology and be conducted by ``auditors'' who
have special training in those processes or methods. The FHWA considers
this review to meet the definition of an audit because it is an
unbiased, independent, official, and careful examination and
verification of records and information about FDOT's assumption of
environmental responsibilities.
The team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts (SME) from FHWA
offices in Texas, Georgia, and Headquarters, as well as staff from
FHWA's Florida Division. The diverse composition of the team, as well
as the process of developing the review report and publishing it in the
Federal Register, are intended to make this audit an unbiased official
action taken by FHWA.
The team conducted a careful examination of FDOT policies,
guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities, as well as a
representative sample of FDOT's project files. Other documents, such as
the
[[Page 10214]]
August 2019 PAIR responses and FDOT's August 2019 Self Assessment
Summary Report, also informed this review. In addition, the team
interviewed FDOT staff in person and via video conference. This review
is organized around the six NEPA Assignment Program elements: Program
management; documentation and records management; quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC); legal sufficiency; performance measurement;
and training program. In addition, the team considered three cross-
cutting focus areas: (1) Interchange Access Requests (IAR); (2) project
authorizations; and (3) permanent Emergency Repair (ER) projects.
The team defined the timeframe for highway project environmental
approvals subject to this third audit to be between May 2018 and April
2019, when 616 projects were approved. The team drew judgmental samples
totaling 23 projects from data in FDOT's online file system, Statewide
Environmental Project Tracker (SWEPT). In the context of this report,
descriptions of environmental documents are consistent with FDOT's
Project Development and Environment Manual. The FHWA judgmentally
selected all Type 2 Categorical Exclusions (CEs) (21 projects) and all
Environmental Assessments (EA) with Findings of No Significant Impacts
(2 projects). The audit team selected all IARs that were pending for
approval during the audit period (five projects) to determine if they
were following protocols for environmental review. The team reviewed
all project authorization files in the audit period (252 project files)
downloaded from FHWA Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) to
determine if the NEPA certification was completed for these projects
prior to the authorization. For permanent ER projects, FHWA
judgmentally sampled 41 projects in SWEPT and FMIS and identified those
with construction contracts to determine if the NEPA was completed
prior to authorization and if the NEPA scope was consistent with the
contract.
The team submitted a PAIR to FDOT that contained 20 questions
covering all 6 NEPA Assignment Program elements. The FDOT responses to
the PAIR were used to develop specific follow-up questions for the on-
site interviews with FDOT staff.
The team conducted a total of 18 interviews. Interview participants
included staff from five FDOT District offices, Districts 3 through 7,
and the FDOT Central Office. The team interviewed FDOT legal,
financial, planning, and environmental staff.
The team compared FDOT policies and procedures (including the
published 2019 Project Development & Environment PD&E Manual) for the
audit focus areas to the information obtained during interviews and
project file reviews to determine if FDOT's performance of its MOU
responsibilities are in accordance with FDOT policies and procedures
and Federal requirements. Individual observations were documented
during interviews and reviews and combined under the six NEPA
Assignment Program elements. The audit results are described below by
program element.
Overall Audit Opinion
The team recognizes that FDOT's efforts have included implementing
the requirements of the MOU by: Processing and approving projects;
refining policies, procedures, and guidance documents; refining the
SWEPT tracking system for ``official project files''; training staff;
implementing a QA/QC Plan; and conducting a self assessment for
monitoring compliance with the assumed responsibilities. The team found
evidence of FDOT's continuing efforts to train staff in clarifying the
roles and responsibilities of FDOT staff, and in educating staff in an
effort to assure compliance with all of the assigned responsibilities.
During the third audit, the team identified numerous successful
practices and one non-compliance observation that FDOT will need to
address through corrective actions. These results came from a review of
FDOT procedures, Self Assessment, PAIR responses, project files, and
interviews with FDOT personnel.
The FDOT has carried out the responsibilities it has assumed
consistent with the intent of the MOU and FDOT's application. The team
finds that FDOT is in substantial compliance with the terms of the MOU.
By addressing the observations in this report, FDOT will continue to
assure a successful program.
Successful Practices and Observations
Successful practices are practices that the team believes are
positive, and encourages FDOT to consider continuing or expanding those
programs in the future. The team identified numerous successful
practices in this report. Observations are items the team would like to
draw FDOT's attention to, which may improve processes, procedures, and/
or outcomes. The team identified no observations in this report.
A non-compliance observation is an instance where the team finds
the State is not in compliance or is deficient with regard to a Federal
regulation, statute, guidance, policy, State procedure, or the MOU.
Non-compliance may also include instances where the State has failed to
secure or maintain adequate personnel and/or financial resources to
carry out the responsibilities they have assumed. The FHWA expects the
State to develop and implement corrective actions to address all non-
compliance observations. The team identified one non-compliance
observation during this third audit.
The team acknowledges that sharing initial results during the site
visit closeout and sharing the draft audit report with FDOT provides
them the opportunity to clarify any observation, as needed, and/or
begin implementing corrective actions to improve the program. The FHWA
will also consider actions taken by FDOT to address these observations
as part of the scope of Audit #4.
The Audit Report addresses all six MOU program elements as separate
discussions.
Program Management
Successful Practices
The team learned through interviews that FDOT has a strong process
for addressing its Self Assessment corrective actions. The process
includes creating an action plan, dedicating staff to the plan, and
identifying timeframes for follow up. The FHWA confirmed in FDOT's Self
Assessment documentation that FDOT provides a status regarding its
``opportunities for improvement'' which includes a strong process for
corrective actions and a corrective action status update section.
As FDOT's NEPA Assignment Program matures, communication continues
to improve between FDOT's SMEs, consultants, and FDOT's District staff.
Through interviews the team confirmed the improved communication. For
example, some districts invite environmental staff to the District
Interchange Review Committee meetings to discuss IAR projects early in
the process. The team encourages FDOT to implement this practice
statewide. Another example of good communication is the process that
OEM uses to implement new FHWA guidance. When new guidance is issued
and FDOT changes its process, it communicates with the districts
through changes in the manuals, periodic meetings, and training. During
the audit, the team confirmed broad awareness of how FDOT chose to
implement the FHWA June 12, 2018, Additional Flexibilities in CEs
memorandum.
[[Page 10215]]
The team learned that the enhancements to the SWEPT system continue
to create efficiencies for the NEPA Assignment Program implementation
and FDOT continues to dedicate resources to improve SWEPT. Interviewees
stated that these investments have resulted in more consistent
documentation from the districts. Additional enhancements to SWEPT
include cross references to FDOT's PD&E manual and updates to the Type
1 CE, Type 2 CE, and reevaluation forms. The FDOT OEM now has direct
responsibility and control for SWEPT updates, which allows for quicker
revisions to SWEPT to adapt to its changing needs. For example, when
FDOT implemented its process for documenting legal sufficiency
determinations, modifications to SWEPT were needed to allow users to
specify the type of legal sufficiency review being performed, such as
for an Environmental Impact Statement or a Section 4(f) evaluation. The
FDOT expeditiously addressed this need and now SWEPT permits users to
distinguish type of document being reviewed for legal sufficiency.
The SWEPT is considered by FDOT staff to be a significant program
level QA/QC tool as it requires input of needed information prior to
allowing the project to advance further. For example, a project cannot
advance to FDOT OEM for QA/QC review until the QA/QC review is
completed at the district level by the Environmental Administrator and
the Engineering Administrator. Another example of SWEPT's QA/QC control
is the environmental certification process. The environmental
certification document is used to document NEPA completion to authorize
Federal funding in subsequent project phases. The SWEPT will generate
the environmental certification only after NEPA has been approved.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Successful Practice
During interviews, FDOT staff presented the Electronic Review
Comments internal review platform as a tool that allows continuous
engagement among environmental staff and SMEs. This tool allows
continuous QC as the environmental project is developed.
Legal Sufficiency
The team's review of FDOT's legal sufficiency program found that
FDOT has continued to structure the legal sufficiency process for the
NEPA Assignment Program by having in-house counsel, as well as outside
counsel with NEPA experience, available. The FDOT has made one legal
sufficiency Section 4(f) determination during the audit time frame,
implementing the internal procedures that were previously developed.
The FDOT's Office of General Counsel (OGC) continues to participate in
monthly coordination meetings and topic-specific meetings with OEM and
the districts. It also reviews other environmental documents when
requested for legal input. There remains close collaboration throughout
the process amongst and between OGC, OEM, and the district attorneys.
Successful Practice
The SWEPT has a form that has the capability to document the legal
sufficiency finding within the system. This tool ensures that proper
documentation is captured in the project file without the need for
additional supporting documentation.
Training Program
The FDOT's training program continues to be exemplary. The FDOT has
continued to focus resources ensuring staff, other agencies, and
consultants are adequately trained. In the last year, FDOT again
trained over 2,000 people in their NEPA process, endangered species,
traffic analysis, cultural resources, and noise technical areas.
Through information presented in the FDOT Self Assessment and through
interviews of FDOT staff, the review team learned of the variety in and
growth of FDOT's environmental training program.
The FDOT OEM promotes staff awareness of its Self Assessments
through multiple notices to districts, a statewide Self Assessment
kick-off Webinar, and the use of Self Assessment computer-based
training courses. Through information presented in the FDOT Self
Assessment and through interviews of FDOT staff, the team learned that
FDOT is one of the few NEPA assignment States to internally promote its
self assessments.
Successful Practice
The team learned through interviews of OEM staff that FDOT has
increased its environmental training outreach to multiple disciplines.
The Transportation Symposium has included environmental review training
on a wide spectrum of topics. This year, the number of environmental
training courses at the symposium increased by about 50 percent and
were targeted to individuals from a broad range of disciplines.
The team also learned that FDOT's YouTube channel includes a
variety of environmental training Webinars and videos. The FDOT has
migrated its Web trainings to YouTube so that trainings are available
and accessible to staff and the public through the MyFDOT channel.
Performance Measures
Based on information reported in FDOT's 2019 Self Assessment
Summary Report, FDOT is meeting or exceeding all performance measures.
Documentation and Records Management
The team reviewed the environmental documentation for 41 permanent
repair projects to determine if the NEPA was completed prior to
authorization and if the NEPA scope was consistent with the contract.
All 41 permanent ER projects were determined compliant.
The team reviewed all IAR projects (five projects) to determine if
FDOT was following protocols for environmental review. The projects
selected for the IAR file review had NEPA documents that were still
under development; therefore, no conclusions could be drawn from the
project file review.
Successful Practice
The FDOT Central Office has procedures that ensure IAR projects
receive NEPA review as part of the FHWA IAR approval. Systems Planning
staff have been trained in SWEPT and verify that the NEPA documentation
supports FHWA's NEPA review expectations for IAR projects.
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Some FDOT Project Files Contain
Insufficient Documentation To Support the Project Authorization,
Environmental Analysis, or Decision
The team reviewed environmental documentation for 21 Type 2 CEs and
2 EAs to determine if the environmental review met Federal
requirements. The team found CEs missing U.S. Coast Guard permits and
Endangered Species Act consultation documentation (two projects).
Finally, at the time FDOT prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact,
the review team determined the scope of the EA was inconsistent with
the State Transportation Improvement Program.
The team also reviewed 252 Project Authorization files to determine
if the NEPA certification was completed for these projects prior to the
authorization. The team found that some Project Authorizations did not
have documentation verifying that NEPA was completed (18 projects).
The team's observations on the environmental documentation and on
the Project Authorization files were
[[Page 10216]]
shared with FDOT for its consideration and initial responses. The team
received responses from FDOT either resolving the observation or
verifying missing documentation and/or procedural deficiencies. While
these projects were found non-compliant at the time of the review, the
missing documents have subsequently been uploaded by FDOT or FDOT
committed to implementing a process improvement to address these
concerns.
Update from 2017 Audit #1, Non-Compliance Observation #1 and 2018 Audit
#2, Non-Compliance Observation #1: Some FDOT Project Files Contain
Insufficient Documentation To Support the Environmental Analysis or
Decision
The FHWA reported a non-compliance observation related to some FDOT
project files that lacked documentation to support the environmental
analysis or decision as part of Audit #1 and Audit #2. The FDOT and
FHWA have productively worked together to resolve documentation issues
from these previous audits. The FDOT continues to implement process
improvements to address noted procedural deficiencies. These
improvements will be considered during the next audit.
The FHWA and FDOT have also been working together through previous
audits to mutually understand FDOT's implementation of reasonable
assurance that the project impacts would not be significant when full
compliance for a project is not possible by the time the NEPA decision
has been prepared. Through the interviews and project file reviews, the
team received clarification from FDOT regarding the differences in the
applicability of standard specifications and special provisions when
addressing endangered species impacts and consultation, and how these
tools support reasonable assurances of no significant impacts to
support the NEPA decision. In addition, the team learned that FDOT
provided training and clarifications internally to ensure reasonable
assurance is appropriately applied during NEPA document development.
Finalizing This Report
The FHWA provided a draft of the audit report to FDOT for a 14-day
review and comment period. The team considered FDOT's comments in this
draft audit report. The FHWA is publishing this 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 address all comments submitted to finalize this draft audit
report pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(2)(B). Subsequently, FHWA will
publish the final audit report in the Federal Register.
The FHWA will consider the results of this audit in preparing the
scope of the next annual audit. The next audit report will include a
summary that describes the status of FDOT's corrective and other
actions taken in response to this audit's conclusions.
[FR Doc. 2020-03465 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P