[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84454-84458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28503]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2020-0020]


Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona 
Department of Transportation Draft FHWA 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 is the first audit of the Arizona 
Department of Transportation's (ADOT) performance of its 
responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery 
Program (NEPA Assignment Program). This notice announces and solicits 
comments on the first audit report for ADOT.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 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 self-
addressed, 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 one of our dockets by 
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the 
comment, if submitted on

[[Page 84455]]

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. Neel Vanikar, Office of Project 
Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-2068, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#244a4141480a52454a4d4f455664404b500a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aec0cbcbc280d8cfc0c7c5cfdceecac1da80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or 
Mr. Jay Payne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4241, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#670d060a021449084917061e09022703081349000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="264c474b435508490856475f48436642495208414950">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 ADOT published its application for NEPA assumption on June 29, 
2018, and solicited public comment. After considering public comments, 
ADOT submitted its application to FHWA on November 16, 2018. The 
application served as the basis for developing a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) that identifies the responsibilities and 
obligations that ADOT would assume. The FHWA published a notice of the 
draft MOU in the Federal Register on February 11, 2019, at 84 FR 3275, 
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 ADOT 
considered comments and proceeded to execute the MOU. Effective April 
16, 2019, ADOT 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 memorandum of 
understanding during each of the first four years of State 
participation and, after the fourth year, monitor compliance. The FHWA 
must make the results of each audit available for public comment. This 
notice announces the availability of the first audit report for ADOT 
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.

Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program

Draft FHWA Audit #1 of the Arizona Department of Transportation

Executive Summary

    This is Audit #1 of the Arizona Department of Transportation's 
(ADOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery 
Program. Under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 327, ADOT and the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) executed a memorandum of understanding 
(MOU) on April 16, 2019, to memorialize ADOT's NEPA responsibilities 
and liabilities for Federal-aid highway projects and other related 
environmental reviews for highway projects in Arizona. This 23 
U.S.C. 327 MOU covers environmental review responsibilities for 
projects that require the preparation of environmental assessments 
(EA), environmental impact statements (EIS), and non-designated 
individual categorical exclusions (CE). A separate MOU between FHWA 
and ADOT, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326, authorizes environmental review 
responsibilities for other CE. This audit does not cover the CE 
responsibilities and projects assigned to ADOT under the 23 U.S.C. 
326 MOU.
    The FHWA conducted an audit of ADOT's performance according to 
the terms of the MOU March 9-12, 2020. Prior to the audit, the FHWA 
audit team held internal meetings to prepare for an onsite visit to 
the Arizona Division and ADOT offices. Prior to the onsite visit, 
the audit team reviewed ADOT's environmental manuals and procedures, 
NEPA project files, ADOT's response to FHWA's pre-audit information 
request (PAIR), and ADOT's NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment Report. 
During the March 2020 audit, the audit team conducted interviews 
with staff from ADOT Environmental Planning (EP) and ADOT's external 
partners, and prepared preliminary audit results. The audit team 
presented these preliminary results to ADOT EP leadership on March 
12, 2020.
    Overall, the audit team found that ADOT has carried out the 
responsibilities it has assumed consistent with the intent of the 
MOU and ADOT's application. The ADOT continues to develop, revise, 
and implement procedures and processes required to deliver its NEPA 
Assignment Program. This report describes several observations and 
successful practices. Through this report, FHWA is notifying ADOT of 
two non-compliance observations that require ADOT to take corrective 
action. By addressing the observations in this report, ADOT will 
continue to assure successful program assignment.

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 first audit in 
Arizona and ADOT's progress towards meeting the program review 
objectives identified in the MOU. Following this audit, FHWA will 
conduct three additional annual NEPA Assignment Program audits in 
Arizona.

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). The definition of an 
audit is one where an independent unbiased body makes an official 
and careful examination and verification of accounts and records, 
especially of financial accounts. Auditors who have special training 
with regard to accounts or financial records may follow a prescribed 
process or methodology in conducting an audit of those processes or 
methods. The FHWA considers its 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 ADOT's 
assumption of environmental responsibilities.
    The audit team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts (SME) 
from FHWA Headquarters and Resource Center, as well as staff from 
FHWA's Arizona Division. This audit is an unbiased official action 
taken by FHWA, which included an audit team of diverse composition, 
and followed an established process for developing the review report 
and publishing it in the Federal Register.
    The audit team reviewed six NEPA Assignment Program elements: 
Program management; documentation and records management; quality 
assurance/quality control (QA/QC); performance measures; legal 
sufficiency; and training. The audit team considered three 
additional focus areas for this review: Project-level conformity 
procedures; Section 4(f) procedures; and public involvement 
procedures.
    The audit team conducted a careful examination of ADOT policies, 
guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities,

[[Page 84456]]

as well as a representative sample of ADOT's project files. Other 
documents, such as ADOT's PAIR responses and ADOT's Self-Assessment 
Report, also informed this review. In addition, the audit team 
interviewed staff from ADOT EP and ADOT's external partners, both in 
person and via teleconference.
    The timeframe defined for this first audit includes highway 
project environmental approvals completed between April 16, 2019, 
and December 31, 2019. During this timeframe, ADOT completed NEPA 
approvals and documented NEPA decision points for 12 projects. Due 
to the small sample size, the audit team reviewed all 12 projects. 
This consisted of four Individual CEs, one EA with a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI), two draft EAs, one EA initiated with 
scoping completed, one draft EIS, and three EA re-evaluations.
    The PAIR submitted to ADOT contained 23 questions covering all 6 
NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit team developed specific 
follow-up questions for the onsite interviews with ADOT staff based 
on ADOT responses to the PAIR.
    The audit team conducted a total of 17 interviews. Interview 
participants included staff from ADOT EP, Arizona Attorney General's 
Office (AGO), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9, 
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG), and the city of Phoenix.
    The audit team compared ADOT manuals and procedures to the 
information obtained during interviews and project file reviews to 
determine if ADOT's performance of its MOU responsibilities is in 
accordance with ADOT procedures and Federal requirements. The audit 
team documented individual observations and successful practices 
during the interviews and reviews and combined these under the six 
NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit results are described 
below by program element.

Overall Audit Opinion

    The audit team found ADOT has carried out the responsibilities 
it has assumed consistent with the intent of the MOU and ADOT's 
application. The FHWA is notifying ADOT of two non-compliance 
observations that require ADOT to take corrective action. By 
addressing the observations cited in this report, ADOT will continue 
to assure a successful program.

Successful Practices and Observations

    Successful practices are practices that the team believes are 
positive, and encourages ADOT to consider continuing or expanding 
those programs in the future. The audit team identified numerous 
successful practices in this report.
    Observations are items the audit team would like to draw ADOT's 
attention to, which may improve processes, procedures, and/or 
outcomes. The team identified three observations in this report.
    Non-compliance observations are instances where the audit 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 audit team 
identified two non-compliance observations in this report.
    The audit team shared initial results during the site visit 
closeout and shared the draft audit report with ADOT to provide them 
the opportunity to clarify any observation, as needed, and/or begin 
implementing corrective actions to improve the program. The FHWA 
will consider actions taken by ADOT to address these observations as 
part of the scope of the second audit.

Successful Practices and Observations

Program Management

Successful Practices

    The ADOT EP has developed several detailed guidance manuals for 
implementing NEPA Assignment and evaluating environmental resources. 
These manuals are readily available online at ADOT's environmental 
website. The ADOT continuously updates their manuals and has a 
process for tracking updates by including a list of changes as an 
appendix in each version. Several staff members stated they 
regularly consult the guidance manuals and are informed of updates.
    The ADOT EP has developed internal procedures for resolving and 
escalating conflicts. The ADOT Project Development Procedures Manual 
describes these escalation procedures. The ADOT has found this to be 
an effective tool to assist in evaluating controversial issues, 
identifying appropriate levels of communication, and determining the 
best approach for dispute resolution.
    During interviews with staff, the audit team learned that ADOT 
EP makes a considerable effort at internal communication and 
coordination through meetings, emails, and informal interaction. The 
staff holds weekly and monthly meetings for environmental planners 
and technical groups to discuss project issues, address program-
level questions, and update staff on guidance. Interviewed staff 
said they were well-informed about procedures and comfortable 
discussing complex situations with team leads and technical experts. 
In addition, ADOT EP attends partnering/preconstruction meetings 
with other ADOT sections to convey environmental commitments and to 
stay informed of project changes.
    During interviews, EPA, AZGFD, and the city of Phoenix commented 
on ADOT EP's collaboration and communication efforts with them. The 
EPA was appreciative of ADOT EP holding bi-monthly coordination 
meetings to discuss the status of projects and commented on their 
much-improved relationship with ADOT. The AZGFD acknowledged and 
appreciated the opportunities to provide input through the outreach 
efforts of ADOT biologists on projects with wildlife concerns. The 
city of Phoenix noted ADOT's improved communication with local 
governments and efforts to increase flexibility in the environmental 
review process. The audit team recognizes ADOT EP's outreach efforts 
with these external partners. One area identified by the audit team 
in need of improved collaboration is project-level conformity 
determinations, where legal responsibility remains assigned to FHWA.

Observations

Non-Compliance Observation #1: Incomplete Project Files Submission

    For this audit, pursuant to MOU Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, FHWA 
requested all project files pertaining to the NEPA approvals and 
documented NEPA decision points completed during the audit review 
period. The request specified the approved NEPA document and all 
supporting documentation related to the decision milestones, such as 
consultation letters, technical memos, and resource evaluations 
(email to ADOT November 26, 2019). The FHWA provided additional 
clarification to ADOT regarding the types of NEPA approvals and NEPA 
decision documents that ADOT should submit (email to ADOT December 
18, 2019).
    The audit team found several inconsistences between ADOT's 
procedures for maintaining project files (as identified in the ADOT 
CE Checklist Manual, ADOT EA/EIS Manual, ADOT QA/QC Plan, and ADOT 
Project Development Procedures Manual) and the project file 
documentation provided to FHWA. The ADOT's procedures specify 
utilizing a standard folder structure for all projects and saving 
all project documentation and supporting information in the project 
files. However, the project files submitted by ADOT for this audit 
were incomplete and did not include all supporting documentation. 
The project files that ADOT submitted consisted primarily of final 
decision documents and, in most cases, did not include 
correspondence, internal communication, technical memos/reports, or 
other types of information to support NEPA decisions or demonstrate 
how ADOT evaluated resources.
    The audit team learned during interviews that ADOT EP management 
created a duplicate project file for each project which consisted of 
a subset of their project files. Due to the incomplete project 
files, it is unclear how ADOT is maintaining electronic project 
files and administrative records, and how ADOT is complying with its 
procedures and the terms of the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU as they apply to 
records retention. The audit team determined that ADOT EP management 
made the decision to not submit all requested project files for 
review by FHWA as required by the MOU (Section 8.2.3). In the last 
23 U.S.C. 326 MOU monitoring review, FHWA observed this same 
practice and informed ADOT that such a practice was in non-
compliance with the MOU. Just as that practice was in non-compliance 
with the 23 U.S.C. 326 MOU, this practice is also in non-compliance 
with the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU.

Observation #1: Use of the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard

    The ADOT is responsible for inputting project information for 
assigned projects into the Federal Infrastructure Permitting

[[Page 84457]]

Dashboard, per MOU Section 8.5.1. During the audit, the audit team 
reviewed the Permitting Dashboard and found that it did not include 
information for any of the applicable projects assigned to ADOT. The 
audit team confirmed during interviews that ADOT has not updated the 
dashboard. The audit team acknowledges that ADOT is working with 
FHWA to obtain access to the dashboard and address this issue.

Documentation and Records Management

    The audit team reviewed 12 projects as part of this audit. This 
consisted of four Individual CEs, one EA with a FONSI, two draft 
EAs, one EA initiated with scoping completed, one draft EIS, and 
three EA re-evaluations.

Successful Practices

    The ADOT EP has developed several standard templates (e.g., 
checklists, forms, etc.) to document various actions and decision-
points throughout the NEPA process. These are an effective tool for 
ADOT to consistently evaluate environmental resources and document 
decisions. Staff indicated that these templates have aided in 
streamlining the review process and provided consistency across 
projects.

Observations

Non-Compliance Observation #2: Project-Level Conformity Compliance 
Issues

    The statutory provisions of the NEPA Assignment Program, along 
with Section 3.2.1 of the MOU, prohibit ADOT from assuming the 
responsibility for making conformity determinations for projects 
processed under the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU. However, pursuant to the 
Federal transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.105(c) 
and Section 7.2.1 of the MOU, ADOT and FHWA Arizona Division can 
agree on procedures that allow ADOT to engage in activities to 
assist in this process and establish when and how consultation with 
FHWA must occur.
    The audit team reviewed ADOT's protocols for seeking FHWA's 
project-level conformity determinations, conducted a focused review 
of project-level conformity procedures on six projects, and 
interviewed ADOT, MAG, and EPA staff. The audit team found that ADOT 
had not given FHWA a chance to review and agree on the protocols 
and, as a result, the protocols do not provide for the appropriate 
consultation, coordination, and communication with FHWA and other 
agencies, such as EPA and MAG, to ensure the projects meet the 
project-level conformity requirements where required.
    The audit team found documentation for two projects showing that 
ADOT staff did not coordinate with FHWA on the application of 
conformity requirements and, by doing so, ADOT took actions that 
were not assigned to them. This failure to coordinate prevented FHWA 
from meeting its conformity determination responsibilities. The ADOT 
incorrectly concluded that the conformity requirements did not apply 
to one of the two projects because they assumed that the project 
would not trigger any FHWA approvals. The ADOT proceeded to complete 
NEPA without FHWA's conformity determination. This deficient 
approval prevents FHWA from authorizing the project until the 
conformity requirements are met. In another project, ADOT 
incorrectly determined that a widening project was exempt from 
project conformity under 40 CFR 93.126.
    The audit team found multiple projects that did not demonstrate 
ADOT's compliance with interagency consultation requirements, per 40 
CFR 93.105. The ADOT appears to have conducted some degree of 
interagency consultation but information on such consultation was 
not included in the project files. Therefore, it is unclear whether 
the interagency consultation agencies had an opportunity to 
participate in consultation or if ADOT provided them an opportunity 
to review and comment on the materials as required by 40 CFR 93.105 
and MOU Section 7.2.1. During interviews, EPA expressed concerns 
regarding how ADOT conducts project-level interagency consultation. 
Both EPA and MAG also felt that the interagency consultation is not 
fully transparent since ADOT does not: (1) Share comments with all 
interagency consultation agencies throughout the process; (2) 
provide responses to agency comments; and (3) consistently follow up 
with agencies to ensure their comments are adequately addressed. In 
cases where a project-level conformity determination is required, 
the interagency consultation process must meet the conformity rule 
requirements found in 40 CFR 93.105.
    During interviews, ADOT staff did not demonstrate a full of 
understanding project-level conformity requirements. The audit team 
identified that ADOT staff were not aware that: (1) Certain FHWA 
approvals (in addition to Federal funding) may necessitate a 
project-level conformity determination; (2) certain situations may 
require a redetermination of project-level conformity under 40 CFR 
93.104(d); (3) the importance of specific traffic data requirements 
for the reviews; and (4) the public involvement requirements 
associated with project-level conformity.
    The lack of agreed-upon interagency consultation procedures with 
clear roles, responsibilities, and coordination protocols, 
particularly between ADOT and FHWA, creates a significant risk of 
project schedule delays and, ultimately, project non-compliance. The 
ADOT should revise their procedures to be consistent with 40 CFR 
93.105 and obtain agreement from FHWA to make sure the correct 
workflows are established, the responsibilities of FHWA are not 
curtailed, and that interagency consultation is transparent. Until 
agreed-upon protocols between FHWA and ADOT are in place, ADOT 
should consult with FHWA on all projects in non-attainment and 
maintenance areas to determine if conformity determination will be 
required for the project and the appropriate interagency 
consultation needed.

Observation #2: Inconsistencies and Deficiencies Based on the Review of 
Project File Documentation

    The audit team preliminarily identified several inconsistencies 
between ADOT's procedures for documenting project decisions (as 
identified in the ADOT CE Checklist Manual, ADOT EA/EIS Manual, ADOT 
QA/QC Plan, and ADOT Project Development Procedures Manual) and the 
incomplete project file documentation provided. Section 4.2.4 of the 
MOU specifies that ADOT must implement documentation procedures to 
support appropriate environmental analysis and decisionmaking under 
NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The FHWA informed ADOT EP 
leadership during the audit week that project files were incomplete 
and, in response, ADOT submitted additional project files and 
supporting documentation. The ADOT was provided a second opportunity 
after the audit week to clarify inconsistences identified by the 
audit team and answer follow-up questions regarding the project 
documentation.
    After completing the project file review (including the 
supplemental information provided by ADOT), the audit team 
identified the following procedural deficiencies relating to the MOU 
and FHWA's regulations, policies, and guidance:
    <bullet> One project did not include the disclosure statement on 
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement cover page regarding the 
intent to combine the final EIS and record of decision as identified 
in the January 14, 2013, interim guidance memorandum on MAP-21 
Section 1319 Accelerated Decision making in Environmental Reviews.
    <bullet> One corridor widening project did not demonstrate 
independent utility and logical termini as required in 23 CFR 
771.111(f)(1) and 23 CFR 771.111(f)(2).
    <bullet> One project did not demonstrate that funding for the 
project is programmed beyond Fiscal Year 2019 and did not 
demonstrate that the project is identified on a current Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Program per 23 CFR 771.113(a)(3).
    In addition, the audit team found several inconsistencies 
between ADOT's documentation of Section 4(f) determinations (as 
identified in ADOT's Section 4(f) procedures and FHWA Section 4(f) 
regulation and guidance) and the project file documentation. Due to 
the inadequate information provided, it is unclear how ADOT is 
implementing Section 4(f) and how ADOT is complying with its Section 
4(f) procedures. The audit team identified the following 
inconsistencies in project files relating to Section 4(f) 
evaluations and determinations:
    <bullet> One project included a Section 106 no adverse effect 
finding and Section 4(f) no use determinations for six historic 
properties; however, ADOT did not provide any information 
demonstrating how they evaluated these resources under Section 4(f), 
or if they consulted the officials with jurisdiction over the 
resources.
    <bullet> Two projects included a Section 106 finding of either 
adverse effect or no adverse effect, indicating the presence of 
potential Section 4(f) resources; however, ADOT did not provide any 
information demonstrating how they evaluated these resources under 
Section 4(f), or if they had consulted the officials with 
jurisdiction over the resources.
    <bullet> One project included a Section 4(f) joint development 
determination but it is unclear

[[Page 84458]]

what information ADOT used to support this determination (such as a 
master plan map or other planning information), or if they consulted 
the official with jurisdiction over the resource regarding potential 
impacts to the Section 4(f) resource.
    <bullet> One project included a temporary occupancy 
determination and the description of the impact to the resource is 
inconsistent with the definition provided in 23 CFR 774.13(d)(3).
    <bullet> One project stated that a Section 4(f) resource within 
the project area is jointly owned by two entities, but it is unclear 
if ADOT consulted with both officials with jurisdiction regarding 
the de minimis use since only one official with jurisdiction 
concurred with the de minimis use.
    The audit team acknowledges that ADOT is aware that 
implementation of Section 4(f) is an area in need of improvement and 
recognizes their efforts to update its procedures, including ADOT 
recently developing standard evaluation forms.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

    The audit team verified that ADOT has procedures in place for 
QA/QC which are described in the ADOT QA/QC Manual and ADOT Project 
Development Procedures Manual. The ADOT has developed QC checklists 
and forms to assist in implementing project-level QC procedures. 
During the project file reviews, the audit team noted some variation 
in how ADOT implements project-level QC procedures, and 
inconsistencies in how ADOT documents QC reviews. It was unclear how 
ADOT conducts thorough project-level QC reviews (completeness vs. 
accuracy), how ADOT corrects errors it identifies during QC reviews, 
and how the environmental planners coordinate with technical experts 
during QC reviews. Staff indicated during interviews that informal 
QC reviews are often conducted before QC checklists are completed, 
though it is unclear how this process is tracked to ensure comments 
are addressed. Due to these inconsistencies, the audit team was 
unable to fully assess the implementation of project-level QC 
procedures. The FHWA will continue to evaluate this program 
objective in subsequent audits.

Performance Measures

Observations

Observation #3: Incomplete Development and Implementation of 
Performance Measures

    The audit team reviewed ADOT's development and implementation of 
performance measures to evaluate their program as required in the 
MOU (Part 10.2.1). The ADOT's QA/QC Plan and self-assessment report 
identified several performance measures but both indicated that ADOT 
was still refining these measures and had not fully implemented 
them. The ADOT's PAIR response stated that ADOT has focused on 
tracking projects for schedule issues and has not begun gathering 
data for other performance measures. The self-assessment report did 
not include reporting data for any of the performance measures. The 
audit team confirmed during staff interviews that ADOT does not have 
data for its performance measures and is looking to further refine 
its performance measures. Due to the lack of performance measure 
data, the audit team determined that ADOT has not fully established 
and initiated data collection as it relates to performance metrics 
per the MOU.

Legal Sufficiency

    Through information provided by ADOT and an interview by the 
FHWA Office of Chief Counsel with an Assistant Attorney General 
(AAG) assigned to ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program, the auditors 
determined ADOT had not conducted formal legal sufficiency reviews 
of assigned environmental documents during the audit period. 
Currently, ADOT retains the services of two AAGs for NEPA Assignment 
reviews and related matters. The assigned AAGs have received formal 
and informal training in environmental law matters. The ADOT also 
has the ability to retain outside counsel to review projects or 
conduct litigation should the need arise.

Successful Practice

    Through the interview, the audit team learned ADOT seeks to 
involve lawyers early in the environmental review phase, with AAGs 
participating in project coordination team meetings and reviews of 
early drafts of environmental documents. In addition, ADOT and the 
AGO have a process in place by which ADOT can request written legal 
opinions and advice from an AAG on environmental review legal 
matters. For formal reviews, the process would include a formal 
transmittal memo from an ADOT environmental manager, a review 
package (hard copy or electronic), and a completed ADOT EA/EIS 
Quality Control Checklist.

Training

    The audit team reviewed ADOT's 2020 Training Plan and ADOT's 
PAIR responses pertaining to its training program. The ADOT's 
training program includes in-house, Web-based, and instructor-led 
courses training opportunities for staff. Since assuming NEPA 
responsibilities, ADOT has held several formal training courses and 
plans to continue these efforts during the upcoming year. The ADOT 
provides new hires with structured onboarding training which 
includes coaching, mentoring, and collaborative on-the-job training 
to facilitate professional development. The ADOT EP Training Officer 
tracks staff training needs and completion of courses and updates 
this document quarterly. Staff remarked during interviews on the 
availability of training offered to them and opportunities to travel 
out of State for specialty technical courses.

Successful Practices

    The audit team commends ADOT for developing a detailed training 
plan and committing resources to provide training opportunities for 
staff. The ADOT EP encourages staff to pursue individual training 
interests and has undertaken efforts to ensure staff maintains 
professional certifications. The ADOT EP has developed a Web-based 
training course for staff as an introduction to NEPA Assignment. To 
further support the training program, ADOT EP utilizes a dedicated 
training coordinator within the environmental section.

Finalizing This Report

    The FHWA provided a draft of the audit report to ADOT for a 14-
day review and comment period. The ADOT provided comments which the 
audit team considered in finalizing this draft audit report. The 
audit team acknowledges that ADOT has begun to address some of the 
observations identified in this report and recognizes ADOT's efforts 
toward improving their program. 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 ADOT's 
corrective and other actions taken in response to this audit's 
conclusions.

[FR Doc. 2020-28503 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>