78914 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 235 / Monday, December 7, 2020 / Notices 

requirements under 49 CFR 

1105.8(b)(3), because it will not 

substantially change the level of 

maintenance of railroad properties. 

CPRC requests authority to control the 

Tunnel by December 15, 2020, so that 

the parties can close the transaction 

before the end of the year. The 

exemption will be effective December 

15, 2020, and petitions to stay will be 

due by December 10, 2020. Petitions to 

reopen will be due by December 22, 

2020. 

It is ordered: 

1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board 

exempts from the prior approval 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323–25 the 

control transaction described above, 

subject to the employee protective 

conditions in New York Dock Railway— 

Control—Brooklyn Eastern District 

Terminal, 360 I.C.C 60, aff’d New York 

Dock Railway v. United States, 609 F.2d 

83 (2d Cir. 1979). 

2. Notice of the exemption will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

3. The exemption will become 

effective on December 15, 2020. 

Petitions for stay must be filed by 

December 10, 2020. Petitions to reopen 

must be filed by December 22, 2020. 

Decided: December 1, 2020. 

By the Board, Board Members Begeman, 

Fuchs, and Oberman. 

Tammy Lowery, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26811 Filed 12–4–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2020–0014] 

Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program; Alaska Department 

of Transportation Third Audit Report 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21) established the Surface 

Transportation Project Delivery Program 

that allows a State to assume FHWA’s 

environmental responsibilities for 

environmental review, consultation, and 

compliance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

Federal highway projects. When a State 

assumes these Federal responsibilities, 

the State becomes solely responsible 

and liable for carrying out the 

responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu 

of FHWA. This program mandates 

annual audits during each of the first 4 

years of State participation to ensure 

compliance with program requirements. 

This notice announces and solicits 

comments on the third audit report for 

the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(DOT&PF). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 6, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to Docket Management 

Facility: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. You may also 

submit comments electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

should include the docket number that 

appears in the heading of this 

document. All comments received will 

be available for examination and 

copying at the above address from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments in any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, or 

labor union). The DOT posts these 

comments, without edits, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David T. Williams, Office of Project 

Development and Environmental 

Review, (202) 366–5074, 

David.Williams@dot.gov, or Mr. Jay 

Payne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 

366–4241, James.O.Payne@dot.gov; 

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 environmental 

responsibilities for review, consultation, 

and compliance for Federal highway 

projects. When a State assumes these 

Federal responsibilities, the State 

becomes solely liable for carrying out 

the responsibilities it has assumed, in 

lieu of FHWA. The DOT&PF published 

its application for NEPA assumption on 

May 1, 2016, and made it available for 

public comment for 30 days. After 

considering public comments, DOT&PF 

submitted its application to FHWA on 

July 12, 2016. The application served as 

the basis for developing a memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) that identified 

the responsibilities and obligations that 

the DOT&PF would assume. The FHWA 

published a notice of the draft MOU in 

the Federal Register on August 25, 

2017, with a 30-day comment period to 

solicit the views of the public and 

Federal agencies. After the close of the 

comment period, FHWA and DOT&PF 

considered comments and proceeded to 

execute the MOU. Effective November 

13, 2017, DOT&PF 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 to ensure compliance with the 

MOU during each of the first 4 years of 

State participation and, after the fourth 

year, monitor compliance. The FHWA 

must make the results of each audit 

available for public comment. The 

second audit report of DOT&PF 

compliance was finalized on February 

25, 2020. This notice announces the 

availability of the third audit report for 

DOT&PF and solicits public comment 

on same. 

Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 

112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109–59; 

23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Program, FHWA’s Audit of the Alaska 

Department of Transportation 

April 6–10, 2020 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of 

the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA) third audit of the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities’ (DOT&PF) assumption 

of FHWA’s project-level National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

responsibilities and obligations 

pursuant to a 23 U.S.C. 327 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 235 / Monday, December 7, 2020 / Notices 78915 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

The DOT&PF entered the NEPA 

Assignment Program after more than 8 

years of experience making FHWA 

NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE) 

determinations pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 

326 (beginning September 22, 2009). 

Alaska’s MOU became effective on 

November 13, 2017. Currently, FHWA’s 

NEPA responsibilities in Alaska include 

the oversight and auditing of the 

DOT&PF’s execution of the NEPA 

Assignment Program and certain 

activities excluded from the MOU, such 

as the NEPA reviews of projects 

advanced by direct recipients other than 

the DOT&PF. 

The FHWA audit team began to 

prepare for the site visit in November 

2019. The audit team reviewed 

DOT&PF’s NEPA project files, 

DOT&PF’s response to FHWA’s preaudit information request (PAIR), and 

considered DOT&PF’s Self-Assessment 

Report. On April 6–10, 2020, the audit 

team conducted a completely virtual 

site visit rather than its traditional onsite visit due to national health 

emergency travel restrictions. 

The audit team appreciates DOT&PF’s 

responsiveness to the questions 

regarding the status of general 

observations from the second audit. 

This report concludes with a status 

update for FHWA’s observations from 

the second audit report. 

The audit team finds DOT&PF in 

substantial compliance with the terms 

of the MOU in meeting the 

responsibilities it has assumed. This 

report does not identify any noncompliance observations; it does 

identify two general observations and 

three successful practices. 

Background 

The NEPA Assignment Program 

allows a State to assume FHWA’s 

environmental responsibilities for 

review, consultation, and compliance 

for highway projects. This program is 

codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. When a State 

assumes these Federal responsibilities 

for NEPA project decisionmaking, the 

State becomes solely responsible and 

solely liable for carrying out these 

obligations in lieu of and without 

further NEPA-related approval by 

FHWA. 

The FHWA assigned responsibility for 

making project NEPA approvals and 

other related environmental decisions 

for highway projects to DOT&PF. The 

MOU documents these responsibilities. 

Examples of responsibilities DOT&PF 

has assumed in addition to NEPA 

include Section 7 consultation under 

the Endangered Species Act and 

consultation under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

This is the third of four required 

annual audits pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 

327(g) and Part 11 of the MOU. The 

FHWA uses audits as the primary 

mechanism to oversee DOT&PF’s 

compliance with the MOU and the 

NEPA Assignment Program 

requirements. This includes ensuring 

compliance with applicable Federal 

laws and policies, evaluating DOT&PF’s 

progress toward achieving the 

performance measures identified in 

Section 10.2 of the MOU, and collecting 

information needed for the Secretary’s 

annual report to Congress. The FHWA 

must present its audit results in a report 

and make it available for public 

comment in the Federal Register. 

The audit team included NEPA 

subject matter experts from FHWA 

Alaska Division Office, the Chief 

Counsel’s Office, the Resource Center, 

and Headquarters Office of Project 

Development & Environmental Review 

and Infrastructure. 

Scope and Methodology 

The audit team examined a sample of 

DOT&PF’s NEPA project files, DOT&PF 

responses to the PAIR, and DOT&PF’s 

Self-Assessment Report. The audit team 

also interviewed resource agencies and 

DOT&PF staff and reviewed DOT&PF 

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), Training, 

Performance Measures, and Legal 

Sufficiency. 

Project File Review: To consider 

DOT&PF staff adherence to program 

procedures and Federal requirements, 

the audit team selected a sample of 

individual project files for which the 

environmental review had been 

completed. The audit team evaluated 

DOT&PFs compliance with assumed 

responsibilities and adherence to their 

own processes and procedures for 

project-level environmental 

decisionmaking. The audit team did not 

evaluate DOT&PF’s project-specific 

decisions. The 54 sampled files 

included programmatic CEs (actions 

approved in the regional offices as noted 

in DOT&PF’s November 2017 NEPA 

Assignment Categorical Exclusion 

guidance), CEs and Environmental 

Assessments (approved in the Statewide 

Environmental Office (SEO)), and reevaluations (approved by the same 

office as the original environmental 

document). 

PAIR Review: The audit team 

reviewed DOT&PF’s responses to the 

PAIR, which consisted of 32 questions 

about specific elements in the MOU that 

DOT&PF must implement. The audit 

team used these responses to develop 

specific follow-up questions for 

interviews with DOT&PF staff. 

DOT&PF Self-Assessment Review: 

The audit team reviewed DOT&PF’s 

January 2020 Self-Assessment Report 

and used it to develop specific followup questions for interviews with 

DOT&PF staff. The NEPA Assignment 

Program MOU Section 8.2.5 requires the 

DOT&PF to conduct annual selfassessments of its QA/QC procedures 

and performance. 

Interviews: The audit team conducted 

21 interviews with DOT&PF staff. 

Interviewees included staff from each of 

DOT&PF’s three regional offices and its 

SEO. The audit team invited DOT&PF 

staff and middle management to 

participate in interviews to ensure they 

represented a diverse range of staff 

expertise, experience, and program 

responsibility. 

In addition, the audit team conducted 

two phone interviews of attorneys with 

the Alaska Department of Law and five 

phone interviews with staff at the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). 

Policy/Guidance/Manual Review: 

Throughout the document reviews and 

interviews, the audit team verified 

information on DOT&PF’s NEPA 

Assignment Program including DOT&PF 

policies, guidance, manuals, and 

reports. This included the 

Environmental Program Manual (EPM), 

the NEPA Assignment QA/QC Plan, the 

NEPA Assignment Program Training 

Plan, and the NEPA Assignment SelfAssessment Report. 

Overall Audit Opinion 

This report identifies two 

observations and three successful 

practices. The audit team finds DOT&PF 

is substantially in compliance with the 

provisions of the MOU, has carried out 

the environmental responsibilities it 

assumed through the NEPA Assignment 

Program, and has taken steps to address 

observations identified in the second 

audit. 

Non-Compliance Observations 

The audit team did not make any noncompliance observations in the third 

audit. 

Observations and Successful Practices 

This section summarizes the audit 

team’s observations of DOT&PF’s NEPA 

Assignment Program implementation, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
78916 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 235 / Monday, December 7, 2020 / Notices 

and DOT&PF’s successful practices. 

‘‘Observations’’ are items the audit team 

would like to draw DOT&PF’s attention 

to, which may benefit from revisions to 

improve processes, procedures, or 

outcomes. The DOT&PF 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 

DOT&PF could make improvements. 

‘‘Successful practices’’ are positive 

results that FHWA would like to 

commend DOT&PF on developing. 

These may include ideas or concepts 

that DOT&PF has planned but not yet 

implemented. Successful practices and 

observations are described under the six 

MOU topic areas: Program Management, 

Documentation and Records 

Management, QA/QC, Training, 

Performance Measures, and Legal 

Sufficiency. 

This audit report provides an 

opportunity for DOT&PF to take further 

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 the fourth audit. The fourth 

audit report will include a summary 

discussion that describes progress since 

this audit. 

Program Management 

Program Management includes the 

overall administration of the NEPA 

Assignment Program. The audit team 

noted the following successful practices 

and observations related to Program 

Management. 

Successful Practice #1: Consultation 

With Resource Agencies 

The review team interviewed five staff 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and three staff from NMFS. 

Under Section 3.2.1 of the MOU, the 

State assumed the DOT Secretary’s 

responsibilities for highway projects 

under NEPA for environmental review, 

reevaluation, consultation, or other 

actions required under the Endangered 

Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and 

other environmental laws. The audit 

teams’ assessment of DOT&PF’s 

compliance with consultation and 

permitting requirements under this 

section of the MOU resulted in the 

following five conclusions: 

1. DOT&PF is submitting complete 

and accurate information to both the 

USACE and NMFS for consultation and 

permitting requirements. 

2. DOT&PF is very responsive when 

agencies request additional information 

or revisions. 

3. DOT&PF submits comprehensive 

and timely monitoring reports when 

they are required for projects. 

4. DOT&PF has improved their 

oversight of construction contractors’ 

adherence to USACE permit conditions. 

The DOT&PF has self-reported permit 

violations and worked with the USACE 

to remedy the situation. 

5. DOT&PF has a good working 

relationship with USACE and NMFS. 

Some of the DOT&PF regions have set 

up regular meetings with the agencies to 

foster relationships and enhance 

communication. Resource agency 

interviews revealed that they think 

those meetings are helpful and would 

like them to continue. 

The USACE interviews identified an 

opportunity to increase the efficiency of 

interagency coordination. The DOT&PF 

should more clearly identify in the 

permitting package whether a project is 

a Federal undertaking or not, and 

identify what coordination it has 

completed. 

Observation #1: Self-Assessment 

Procedures 

Section 8.2.5 of the MOU (Monitoring 

and Oversight), requires DOT&PF to 

perform annual self-assessments of its 

QA/QC process and performance to 

determine if the process is working as 

intended. Section 10.1.3 of the MOU 

(Performance Measurement) requires 

DOT&PF to collect and maintain data 

related to the attainment of performance 

measures, monitor progress towards 

meeting performance measures, and 

include its progress in a self-assessment. 

The DOT&PF’s 2018 NEPA Assignment 

Program Self-Assessment Procedures 

require that SEO develop the 

preliminary and final self-assessment 

report through coordination with, and 

input from, the Regional Environmental 

Managers. The audit team found that 

DOT&PF did not develop the January 

2020 Self-Assessment report in 

accordance with their procedures, nor 

distributed the final report to the 

Regions. The audit team based this 

finding on interviews. 

Documentation and Records 

Management 

Documentation and Records 

Management includes maintaining 

project files and other recordkeeping 

(whether hardcopy or electronic) 

pertaining to DOT&PF’s discharge of the 

responsibilities it has assumed under 

the 23 U.S.C. 327 Program. From 

November 1, 2018, through October 31, 

2019, DOT&PF made 287 project 

decisions. Through employing both 

random and judgmental sampling 

procedures, the audit team identified 54 

project decisions to review, and did not 

identify any systemic issues warranting 

an observation. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

Under Section 8.2.4 of the MOU, 

DOT&PF agreed to carry out regular QA/ 

QC activities in accordance with the 

MOU and DOT&PF procedures 

established to implement the NEPA 

Assignment Program. Based on the 

information evaluated by the audit 

team, DOT&PF is conducting regular 

QA/QC activities in accordance with the 

MOU, though opportunities exist to 

utilize trend data to continue improving 

the program. 

Training 

Under Sections 12.1 and 12.2 of the 

MOU, DOT&PF committed to 

implementing training necessary to 

carry out the environmental 

responsibilities assumed under the 

NEPA Assignment Program. The 

DOT&PF also committed to assessing its 

need for training, developing a training 

plan, and updating the training plan on 

an annual basis. 

Successful Practice #2: Central Region 

Organizational Cross-Training Initiative 

The central region has recently kicked 

off an organizational cross-training 

initiative, called ‘‘Share-TheKnowledge,’’ that provides 

opportunities for environmental 

analysts to get exposure to informal 

training in other functional areas, such 

as transportation planning, realty, 

safety, highway design, operations, and 

construction. Cross-training provides a 

general awareness of how and to what 

extent NEPA reviews can relate to 

project planning and inform Federal-aid 

highway project development. 

Successful Practice #3: Taking 

Advantage of Training Opportunities 

Based on interviews, the audit team 

learned the South Coast Region invited 

Federal resource agency representatives 

to monthly meetings to encourage 

knowledge sharing and partnering. 

During a time when training budgets are 

limited, FHWA encourages DOT&PF to 

continue to take advantage of training 

opportunities that may be made 

available by Federal partners. One 

example was when DOT&PF staff 

participated in the recent NMFS 

acoustic training in Anchorage. 

Performance Measures 

The DOT&PF continues to collect, 

maintain, and develop data towards 

monitoring its performance as required 

by Section 10.1.3 of the MOU. The audit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 235 / Monday, December 7, 2020 / Notices 78917 

team noted the following observation 

related to Performance Measures. 

Observation #2: Assessing Resource 

Agency Communication 

Section 10.2.1 C. of the MOU requires 

DOT&PF to ‘‘Assess change in 

communication among DOT&PF, 

Federal and State agencies, and the 

public resulting from assumption of 

responsibilities under this MOU.’’ The 

MOU allows DOT&PF to determine the 

method it will use to assess this change. 

The DOT&PF selected to use an annual 

resource agency poll. The DOT&PF 

identified this measure in its DOT&PF 

NEPA Assignment Program 

Performance Measures document 

located on its website. In addition, 

DOT&PF reported in this audit, and 

Audits 1 and 2, that an annual resource 

poll would be the method for collecting 

data towards monitoring this measure. 

The DOT&PF has not used a resource 

agency poll to date. Through the audit 

team’s review of DOT&PF’s SelfAssessment, PAIR, and audit interviews 

with DOT&PF, the audit team found that 

a poll was not a useful tool to assess 

changes in communication. The FHWA 

recommends that the DOT&PF consider 

changing the method for reporting this 

measure. 

Legal Sufficiency 

Since 2017, the same attorney from 

the Alaska Department of Law (Alaska 

DOL), Transportation Section, has been 

assigned to the NEPA Assignment 

program. The assigned attorney has 

significant experience with Federal-aid 

highway projects and the Federal 

environmental process. The attorney 

works directly with DOT&PF staff on 

project environmental documents. 

Based on the interviews, the review 

process exceeded the standard set forth 

in the Environmental Procedures 

Manual (EPM), with the attorney being 

involved early in project development, 

normally reviewing a NEPA document 

before receiving a formal request for a 

legal sufficiency review. During the 

audit period, the attorney reviewed one 

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation and issued 

a finding of legal sufficiency in August 

2019. The attorney did not review an 

environmental impact statement during 

the audit period. 

The Alaska DOL management stated 

during the interviews that while one 

attorney is currently assigned to the 

program, should workload increase 

significantly another attorney would be 

assigned to NEPA work, perhaps 

through the utilization of outside 

counsel per 23 U.S.C. 327(a)(2)(G). 

Based on these observations, the audit 

team finds that the DOT&PF meets the 

legal sufficiency determination and 

staffing requirements set forth in the 

DOT&PF EPM. 

Status of Observations From Audit #2 

Report (April 2019) 

This section describes the actions 

DOT&PF has taken (or is taking) in 

response to observations made during 

the second audit. 

Observation #1: Applicability of Existing 

Interagency Agreements 

Section 5.1.3 of the MOU required the 

DOT&PF to work with FHWA and the 

resource agencies to modify existing 

interagency agreements within 6 months 

of the effective date of the MOU. During 

Audit 2, the audit team determined that 

none of DOT&PF’s existing agreements 

applied to the current NEPA 

Assignment Program under 23 U.S.C. 

327. According to the January 2020 SelfAssessment Report, ‘‘DOT&PF is not 

currently pursuing agency agreements 

per Section 5.1.4 of the MOU regarding 

appropriate processes and procedures.’’ 

Observation #2: DOT&PF Delegation of 

Authority for NEPA Approvals 

Section 3.3.1 of the MOU requires 

DOT&PF to make NEPA approvals (CE 

determinations, findings of no 

significant impact, or records of 

decision). Audit 2 revealed 

inconsistencies regarding the delegation 

of NEPA approvals within DOT&PF. 

The DOT&PF’s January 2020 SelfAssessment states that DOT&PF will 

incorporate a protocol that standardizes 

the delegation authority for NEPA 

approval in the regions in the February 

2020 update of its EPM. The DOT&PF 

has not made any changes to the EPM 

since February 2018 per the DOT&PF’s 

response to Audit 3’s Pre-Audit 

Information Request. Based on 

interviews conducted as part of Audit 3, 

DOT&PF now plans to incorporate this 

protocol into the EPM in May 2020. 

Currently, each region has its own 

delegation process. Generally, DOT&PF 

delegates the NEPA approvals to the 

senior staff and communicates that 

delegation via email to affected parties. 

Most staff interviewed understand their 

region’s delegation process and new 

staff are becoming oriented with the 

process. 

Observation #3: Staff Capacity 

Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the MOU 

outline the requirements for the State’s 

commitment of resources and adequate 

organizational staff capacity. Moderate 

to high staff turnover has been a 

recurring issue since the MOU went into 

effect (Audit #1 report Observation #3 

and Audit #2 report Observation #3). 

According to the January 2020 SelfAssessment Report, ‘‘DOT&PF’s staffing 

levels were a concern during this audit 

period and senior staff expended 

considerable effort to hire new qualified 

staff and to retain current staff. As a 

result of this effort, the regional offices 

are now fully or near fully staffed.’’ The 

DOT&PF is aware of the issue and 

continues to track staffing impacts on 

the NEPA Assignment Program through 

the QA/QC process. 

Observation #4: Documentation of 

Environmental Commitments 

Section 5.1.1 of the MOU requires the 

State to follow Federal laws, 

regulations, policies, and procedures to 

implement the responsibilities assumed. 

Audit 2 revealed inconsistencies 

regarding how DOT&PF was 

documenting environmental 

commitments and making sure that 

DOT&PF carries the environmental 

commitments through the project 

development process and into 

construction. The DOT&PF developed 

written guidance on the documentation 

of environmental commitments. 

According to the January 2020 SelfAssessment Report, the guidance was 

implemented on May 5, 2019. Based on 

the interviews conducted as part of 

Audit 3, DOT&PF staff understood who 

certified that the environmental 

commitments were included in the 

plan, specifications, and estimates, as 

well as their role in the certification 

process. 

Observation #5: Inconsistency in Project 

Termini and Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) 

Section 3.3.1 of the MOU requires 

DOT&PF, at the time of NEPA approval 

(CE determination, finding of no 

significant impact, or record of 

decision), to ensure that the project’s 

design concept, scope, and funding is 

consistent with current planning 

documents. During Audit 2, the audit 

team found one project file with an 

inconsistency between project termini 

shown in a project plan and that 

described in the STIP, and similar 

inconsistencies in the DOT&PF’s Audit 

2 Self-Assessment. Project scope 

inconsistencies were not found by the 

file review team during Audit 3. The 

DOT&PF’s Audit 3 Self-Assessment 

identified one instance of a project 

description discrepancy that did not 

affect the scope of the project. Regional 

QC efforts appear to have improved this 

issue, although DOT&PF noted in their 

self-assessment that using the STIP 

project description as the project scope 

in environmental documents is not 

possible for all projects. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
78918 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 235 / Monday, December 7, 2020 / Notices 

Observation #6: Training Plan Update 

Section 12.2 of the MOU commits 

DOT&PF and FHWA to update the 

DOT&PF training plan annually in 

consultation with other Federal agencies 

as appropriate. The DOT&PF did not 

update its Training Plan prior to or 

during the Audit 2 process. In their 

response to the Audit 3 PAIR, DOT&PF 

stated ‘‘the training plan was updated 

on October 29, 2019 with minor 

revisions to Section 5. A list of proposed 

training has been added to this section 

and the RD&T2 [Research, Development, 

and Technology Transfer], FHWA, and 

Prior Training Requests subsections 

have been removed.’’ Based on the 

information gathered through the PAIR 

and interviews, the audit team is 

satisfied that the DOT&PF addressed the 

training observation from the second 

audit. Moving forward, DOT&PF 

committed to coordinating with the 

Alaska Division Office for future annual 

updates of the Training Plan. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26790 Filed 12–4–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2020–0122] 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for 

Safe Operation; Application for an 

Exemption From Grote Industries, LLC 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant 

of exemption. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

announces its decision to grant Grote 

Industries, LLC’s (Grote) application for 

a limited 5-year exemption to allow 

motor carriers operating trailers and van 

body trucks to install amber brakeactivated pulsating warning lamps on 

the rear of trailers and van body trucks 

in addition to the steady-burning brake 

lamps required by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). 

The Agency has determined that 

granting the exemption would likely 

achieve a level of safety equivalent to or 

greater than the level of safety provided 

by the regulation. 

DATES: This exemption is effective 

December 7, 2020 and ending December 

2, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside 

Operations Division, Office of Carrier, 

Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC–PSV, 

(202) 366–0676, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments submitted to notice 

requesting public comments on the 

exemption application, go to 

www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 

Dockets Operations, Room W12–140 on 

the ground level of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. To be sure 

someone is there to help you, please call 

(202) 366–9317 or (202) 366–9826 

before visiting Dockets Operations. The 

on-line Federal document management 

system is available 24 hours each day, 

365 days each year. The docket number 

is listed at the beginning of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions 

from certain parts of the FMCSRs. 

FMCSA must publish a notice of each 

exemption request in the Federal 

Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The 

Agency must provide the public an 

opportunity to inspect the information 

relevant to the application, including 

any safety analyses that have been 

conducted. The Agency must also 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment on the request. 

The Agency reviews safety analyses 

and public comments submitted, and 

determines whether granting the 

exemption would likely achieve a level 

of safety equivalent to, or greater than, 

the level that would be achieved by the 

current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). 

The decision of the Agency must be 

published in the Federal Register (49 

CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for 

denying or granting the application and, 

if granted, the name of the person or 

class of persons receiving the 

exemption, and the regulatory provision 

from which the exemption is granted. 

The notice must also specify the 

effective period and explain the terms 

and conditions of the exemption. The 

exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 

381.300(b)). 

Grote’s Application for Exemption 

Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs 

requires all exterior lamps (both 

required lamps and any additional 

lamps) to be steady-burning, except turn 

signal lamps, hazard warning signal 

lamps, school bus warning lamps, 

amber warning lamps or flashing 

warning lamps on tow trucks and 

commercial motor vehicles (CMV) 

transporting oversized loads, and 

warning lamps on emergency and 

service vehicles authorized by State or 

local authorities. 

Grote applied for an exemption from 

49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow motor carriers 

operating trailers and van body trucks to 

install brake-activated pulsating 

warning lamps on the rear of trailers 

and van body trucks in addition to the 

steady-burning brake lamps required by 

the FMCSRs. Specifically, Grote 

requested allowance to use: (1) An 

upper pair of brake-activated warning 

lamps centered about the centerline of 

the trailer such that the centerline of the 

outermost identification (ID) lamps to 

the centerline of the auxiliary braking 

lamps is between 6–12 inches and 

collinear with the three ID lamp cluster; 

(2) a single brake-activated warning 

lamp centrally located on or below the 

rear sill collinear with the stop/tail/turn 

lamps; (3) an upper pair of brakeactivated warning lamps (as described 

in (1) above) and a single brakeactivated warning lamp centrally 

located on or below the rear sill 

collinear with the stop/tail/turn lamps; 

(4) a lower pair of brake-activated 

warning lamps centered about the 

centerline of the trailer located on or 

below the rear sill; or (5) an upper pair 

of brake-activated warning lamps (as 

described in (1) above and a lower pair 

of brake-activated warning lamps as 

described in (4) above). The same brakeactivated warning lamp options would 

also be applicable to van body straight 

trucks. These brake-activated warning 

lamps would be amber in color and act 

as a Class II strobe (pulsate) for up to 4 

seconds with each application of the 

brake, then steadily burn red for the 

duration of the time the brake circuit is 

activated. The brake-activated pulsating 

warning lamps would be in addition to 

the steady-burning brake lamps required 

by the FMCSRs. 

Grote is a manufacturer of vehicle 

lighting and safety equipment, and 

requests this relief on behalf of 

interstate motor carriers because 

previous research has demonstrated that 

the use of pulsating brake-activated 

warning lamps increases visibility of 

equipment and vehicles. The use of 

amber pulsating brake-activated 

warning lamps, in addition to steadyburning red brake lamps required by the 

FMCSRs, would allow commercial 

carriers to not only maintain operational 

safety levels, but also implement more 

efficient and effective operations. 

A copy of the application is included 

in the docket referenced at the 

beginning of this notice. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES