84458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Notices 

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. 

• 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). 

• 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 selfassessment 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 selfassessment 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2020–0027–N–36] 

Proposed Agency Information 

Collection Activities; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its 

implementing regulations, this notice 

announces that FRA is forwarding the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

abstracted below to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. The ICR describes 

the information collection and its 

expected burden. On September 29, 

2020, FRA published a notice providing 

a 60-day period for public comment on 

the ICR. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before January 

27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed ICR 

should be sent within 30 days of 

publication of this notice to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find the particular ICR by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Notices 84459 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Hodan Wells, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad 

Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 

telephone: (202) 493–0440, email: 

Hodan.wells@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 

44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, require Federal agencies to issue 

two notices seeking public comment on 

information collection activities before 

OMB may approve paperwork packages. 

See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 

through 1320.12. On September 29, 

2020, FRA published a 60-day notice in 

the Federal Register soliciting comment 

on the ICR for which it is now seeking 

OMB approval. See 85 FR 61085. FRA 

received no comments in response to 

this notice. 

Before OMB decides whether to 

approve the proposed collection of 

information, it must provide 30 days for 

public comment. Federal law requires 

OMB to approve or disapprove 

paperwork packages between 30 and 60 

days after the 30-day notice is 

published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)–(c); 5 CFR 

1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, 

Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes the 30-day 

notice informs the regulated community 

to file relevant comments and affords 

the agency adequate time to digest 

public comments before it renders a 

decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. 

Therefore, respondents should submit 

their respective comments to OMB 

within 30 days of publication to best 

ensure having their full effect. 

Comments are invited on the 

following ICR regarding: (1) Whether the 

information collection activities are 

necessary for FRA to properly execute 

its functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of FRA’s estimates of 

the burden of the information collection 

activities, including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used to 

determine the estimates; (3) ways for 

FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information being 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of information collection 

activities on the public, including the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

The summary below describes the ICR 

that FRA will submit for OMB clearance 

as the PRA requires: 

Title: Training, Qualification, and 

Oversight for Safety-Related Railroad 

Employees. 

OMB Control Number: 2130–0597. 

Abstract: In 2014, FRA published a 

final rule establishing minimum 

training standards for all safety-related 

railroad employees, as required by the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

The final rule requires each railroad or 

contractor that employs one or more 

safety-related employees to develop and 

submit a training program to FRA for 

approval and to designate the minimum 

training qualifications for each 

occupational category of employee. 

Additionally, the rule requires most 

employers to conduct periodic oversight 

of their own employees and annual 

written reviews of their training 

programs to close performance gaps. 

FRA will use the information 

collected to ensure each employer— 

railroad or contractor—conducting 

operations subject to 49 CFR part 243 

develops, adopts, submits, and complies 

with a training program for each 

category and subcategory of safetyrelated railroad employee. Each program 

must have training components 

identified so that FRA will understand 

how the program works when it reviews 

the program for approval. Further, FRA 

will review the required training 

programs to ensure they include: Initial, 

ongoing, and on-the-job criteria; testing 

and skills evaluation measures designed 

to foster continual compliance with 

Federal standards; and the identification 

of critical safety defects and plans for 

immediate remedial actions to correct 

them. 

In response to petitions for 

reconsideration, FRA extended the 

effective date for developing the 

required training program under 

§ 243.101 for each Class I railroad, and 

each intercity or commuter passenger 

railroad conducting operations with 

400,000 or more total annual employee 

work hours to January 1, 2020, and for 

all remaining employers subject to this 

part to May 1, 2021. 

Type of Request: Extension with 

change (revised estimates) of a currently 

approved collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses. 

Form(s): N/A. 

Respondent Universe: 1,155 railroads/ 

contractors/training organizations/ 

learning institutions. 

Frequency of Submission: On 

occasion. 

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 

165,054. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 

91,069 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour 

Dollar Cost Equivalent: $7,020,889. 

Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 

1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA 

informs all interested parties that a 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of 

information that does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

Brett A. Jortland, 

Deputy Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28471 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket Number FRA–2020–0097] 

Notice of Application for Approval of 

Discontinuance or Modification of a 

Railroad Signal System 

Under part 235 of title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 

20502(a), this document provides the 

public notice that on December 14, 

2020, the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

seeking approval to discontinue or 

modify a signal system. FRA assigned 

the petition Docket Number FRA–2020– 

0097. 

Applicant: National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation, Nicholas J. Croce III, PE, 

Deputy Chief Engineer, C&S, 2995 

Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Specifically, Amtrak requests 

permission to convert approximately 13 

miles of its cab signal and fixed 

automatic block signal system to a 

signal system having cab signals 

without fixed automatic block signals, 

operated under NORAC Rule 562, on 

Amtrak’s New York Division, Main Line 

New York to Philadelphia, Northeast 

Corridor, between County Interlocking 

located at milepost (MP) 32.8 in New 

Brunswick, New Jersey, and Union 

Interlocking located at MP 19.7 in 

Rahway, New Jersey. Amtrak is the 

owner and operator of this line, but 

Conrail and New Jersey Transit Rail 

Operations (NJTRO) both operate on 

portions of this line as tenants with 

trackage rights. Both Conrail and NJTRO 

have concurred with the application. 

Amtrak’s proposed changes are to 

remove 34 fixed automatic block signals 

between County Interlocking and Union 

Interlocking; convert each of the former 

signal locations to block points on 

Tracks 1, 2, 3, and 4; and install Clear 

to the Next Interlocking ‘‘C’’ lights, per 

NORAC Rule 280a, on interlocking 

signals at County Interlocking 

(eastward) and Edison, Lincoln, and 

Union Interlockings (westward). 

Amtrak states removing the signals 

will eliminate maintenance and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES