75532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 

18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will 

also be available for inspection and 

copying at the NYSE’s principal office 

and on its Internet Web site at 

www.nyse.com. All comments received 

will be posted without change; the 

Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– 

2010–73 and should be submitted on or 

before December 27, 2010.18

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30318 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7234] 

Shipping Coordinating Committee; 

Notice of Committee Meeting 

The Shipping Coordinating 

Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 

meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 

January 18, 2011, in Room 6103 of the 

United States Coast Guard Headquarters 

Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593–0001. The 

primary purpose of the meeting is to 

prepare for the forty-second Session of 

the International Maritime 

Organization’s (IMO) Standards of 

Training and Watchkeeping (STW) to be 

held at the IMO headquarters in 

London, United Kingdom, from January 

24 to January 28, 2011. 

The primary matters to be considered 

include: 

—Adoption of the agenda; 

—Decisions of other IMO bodies; 

—Validation of model training courses; 

—Unlawful practices associated with 

certificates of competency; 

—Casualty analysis; 

—Development of an e-navigation 

strategy implementation plan; 

—Revision of the Recommendations for 

entering enclosed spaces aboard 

ships; 

—Development of model procedures for 

executing shipboard emergency 

measures; 

—Development of training standards for 

recovery systems; 

—Development of unified 

interpretations for the term ‘‘approved 

seagoing service’’; 

—Work program and provisional agenda 

for STW 43; 

—Election of Chairman and ViceChairman for 2012; 

—Any other business; 

—Report to the Marine Safety 

Committee. 

Members of the public may attend 

this meeting up to the seating capacity 

of the room. To facilitate the building 

security process, and to request 

reasonable accommodation, those who 

plan to attend should contact the 

meeting coordinator, Ms. Zoe Goss, by 

e-mail at zoe.a.goss@uscg.mil, by phone 

at (202) 372–1425, by fax at (202) 372– 

1926, or in writing at Commandant (CG– 

5221), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd 

Street, SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 

20593–7126 not later than January 11th, 

2011, 7 days prior to the meeting. 

Requests made after January 11th might 

not be able to be accommodated. Please 

note that due to security considerations, 

two valid, government issued photo 

identifications must be presented to 

gain entrance to the Headquarters 

building. The Headquarters building is 

accessible by taxi and privately owned 

conveyance (public transportation is not 

generally available). However, parking 

in the vicinity of the building is 

extremely limited. Additional 

information regarding this and other 

IMO SHC public meetings may be found 

at: http://www.uscg.mil/imo. 

Dated: November 24, 2010. 

Jon Trent Warner, 

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating 

Committee, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30378 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2010–0151] 

Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Pilot Program; Caltrans Audit 

Report 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: Section 6005 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) established the 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Pilot Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. 

To ensure compliance by each State 

participating in the Pilot Program, 23 

U.S.C. 327(g) mandates semiannual 

audits during each of the first 2 years of 

State participation. This notice 

announces and solicits comments on the 

fifth audit report for the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 3, 2011. 

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 

http://www.regulations.gov, or fax 

comments to (202) 493–2251. 

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 is able to 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 behalf of an association, business, or 

labor union). You may review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000, (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ruth Rentch, Office of Project 

Development and Environmental 

Review, (202)–366–2034, 

Ruth.Rentch@dot.gov, or Mr. Michael 

Harkins, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 75533 

1Caltrans MOU between FHWA and Caltrans 

available at: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

strmlng/safe_cdot_pilot.asp. 

(202) 366–4928, 

Michael.Harkins@dot.gov, Federal 

Highway Administration, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 

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 Office of the 

Federal Register’s home page at http:// 

www.archives.gov and the Government 

Printing Office’s Web site at http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov. 

Background 

Section 6005 of SAFETEA–LU 

(codified at 23 U.S.C. 327) established a 

pilot program to allow up to five States 

to assume the Secretary of 

Transportation’s responsibilities for 

environmental review, consultation, or 

other actions under any Federal 

environmental law pertaining to the 

review or approval of highway projects. 

In order to be selected for the pilot 

program, a State must submit an 

application to the Secretary. 

On June 29, 2007, Caltrans and FHWA 

entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) that established 

the assignments to and assumptions of 

responsibility to Caltrans. Under the 

MOU, Caltrans assumed the majority of 

FHWA’s responsibilities under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, as 

well as the FHWA’s responsibilities 

under other Federal environmental laws 

for most highway projects in California. 

To ensure compliance by each State 

participating in the Pilot Program, 23 

U.S.C. 327(g) requires the Secretary to 

conduct semiannual audits during each 

of the first 2 years of State participation; 

and annual audits during each 

subsequent year of State participation. 

The results of each audit must be 

presented in the form of an audit report 

and be made available for public 

comment. This notice announces the 

availability of the fifth audit report for 

Caltrans and solicits public comment on 

same. 

Authority: Section 6005 of Pub. L. 109–59; 

23 U.S.C. 315 and 327; 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued on: November 24, 2010. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Pilot Program 

Federal Highway Administration Audit 

of California Department of 

Transportation 

July 26–30, 2010 

Overall Audit Opinion 

Based on the information reviewed, it 

is the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) audit team’s opinion that as of 

July 30, 2010, the California Department 

of Transportation (Caltrans) continued 

to make progress toward meeting all 

responsibilities assumed under the 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Pilot Program (Pilot Program), as 

specified in the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) 1 with FHWA 

and in Caltrans’ Application for 

Assumption (Application). 

The FHWA commends Caltrans for its 

implementation of corrective actions in 

response to previous FHWA audit report 

findings. The FHWA also observed that 

Caltrans continued to identify and 

implement on a statewide Pilot Program 

basis best practices in use at individual 

Caltrans Districts (Districts). 

With the completion of FHWA’s fifth 

audit, Caltrans has now operated under 

the Pilot Program for 3 years. In 

compliance with the time specifications 

for the required audits, FHWA 

completed four semiannual audits in the 

first 2 years of State participation and 

has begun the annual audit cycle, 

beginning with this audit, which was 

completed July 30, 2010. Collectively, 

the FHWA audits have included on-site 

audits to 9 of the 12 Districts and to the 

Caltrans Regional Offices supporting the 

remaining 3 Districts. The audit team 

continues to identify significant 

differences across the Districts in terms 

of implementing Pilot Program policies, 

procedures, and responsibilities. 

Examples of such differences include: 

resource availability and allocation; 

methods of implementation; methods of 

process evaluation and improvement; 

and levels of progress in meeting all 

assumed responsibilities. It is the audit 

team’s opinion that the highly 

decentralized nature of operations 

across Districts continues to be a major 

contributing factor to the variations 

observed in the Pilot Program. As a 

result of this organizational structure, 

clear, consistent, and ongoing oversight 

by Caltrans Headquarters (HQ) over 

Districts’ implementation and operation 

of the Pilot Program responsibilities is 

necessary. A robust oversight program 

will help foster the exchange of 

information and the sharing of best 

practices and resources between 

Districts and will put the entire 

organization in a better position to more 

fully implement all assumed 

responsibilities and to meet all Pilot 

Program commitments. 

Due to the multiyear timeframes 

associated with more complex and 

controversial projects, the full lifecycle 

of the environmental review aspect of 

project development (proceeding from 

initiation of environmental studies and 

concluding with the issuance of a 

Record of Decision or equivalent 

decision document) has yet to be 

realized within the Pilot Program to 

date. Caltrans continues to gain 

experience in understanding the 

resource requirements and processes 

necessary to administer its Program. It is 

the audit team’s opinion that Caltrans 

needs to maintain this continuous 

process improvement to refine its 

approaches and use of resources to meet 

all Pilot Program commitments, 

especially given the increasing resource 

demands associated with managing 

ever-more complex and controversial 

projects under the Pilot Program. 

Caltrans staff and management 

continue to request feedback from the 

FHWA audit team regarding program 

successes, best practices, and areas in 

need of improvement. By addressing all 

findings in this report, Caltrans will 

continue to move toward full 

compliance with all assumed 

responsibilities and Pilot Program 

commitments. 

As of the conclusion of the fifth 

FHWA audit, Caltrans has participated 

in the Pilot Program for 3 years. It is 

FHWA’s opinion that Caltrans has 

continued to improve its processes and 

procedures and has benefited from 

participation in the Pilot Program. 

However, it also is FHWA’s opinion that 

while Caltrans participation in the Pilot 

Program has been successful thus far, it 

is still functioning in a development 

context and has yet to reach full 

maturity. Ongoing repeat findings and 

program areas still in the process of 

being developed or improved 

contributed to this opinion. 

Requirement for Transition Plan 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

Section 6005(a) established the Pilot 

Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327. 

Under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 

327(i)(1), ‘‘the program shall terminate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

75534 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 

on the date that is 6 years after the date 

of enactment of this section’’ which will 

be August 10, 2011. Additionally, in 

accordance with the MOU between 

FHWA and Caltrans, Caltrans and 

FHWA must jointly ‘‘develop a plan to 

transition the responsibilities that 

Caltrans has assumed back to the FHWA 

so as to minimize disruption to the 

project, minimize confusion to the 

public, minimize burdens to other 

affected Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and, ensure, to the maximum 

extent possible, Caltrans will be able to 

complete by August 10, 2011, all 

anticipated environmental approvals.’’ 

The transition plan must be completed 

and approved by both Caltrans and 

FHWA no later than March 10, 2011. 

New legislation is required in order for 

the Pilot Program to be extended. 

Effective Practices 

The FHWA audit team observed the 

following effective practices during the 

fifth audit: 

1. Caltrans HQ has sought out, shared, 

and implemented (or is implementing) 

best practices in use at the District level 

to use on a statewide basis. Examples 

include: 

(a) Use of a standard form to 

document Class of Action 

determination; 

(b) Use of the File Maker Pro 

environmental database system to track 

projects and milestones; and 

(c) Creation of a Section 4(f) point of 

contact in each District to serve as a 

technical resource for District staff. 

2. Use of monthly newsletters and emails from HQ environmental 

coordinators to inform District 

environmental staff of key issues, timely 

topics, and changes in practices. 

3. The Sacramento Legal Office 

permanently assumed responsibility for 

all environmental law issues in two 

Districts where staff turnover resulted in 

limited expertise to support legal 

sufficiency reviews. As the number of 

legal sufficiency reviews performed 

under the Pilot Program has not been 

significant, concentrating reviews 

amongst a key group of attorneys should 

assist with a consistent level of review 

of environmental documents and the 

development of expertise under the 

Pilot Program. 

4. Development of an on-line training 

course on Section 4(f) determinations 

that is nearing completion. 

5. Expansion of the scope of the 

Caltrans self-assessment process to 

include review of Pilot Program areas 

identified as potential weaknesses by 

HQ Environmental Coordinators. 

6. A variety of approaches are being 

used by individual Districts to capture, 

track, and ensure that environmental 

commitments identified in 

environmental documents are being 

met. Identified District specific 

approaches used to accomplish this 

include: 

(a) Training environmental staff in 

environmental commitments tracking; 

(b) Dedicating resources to track 

commitments, ensuring that the 

commitments are circulated at key 

stages of the project cycle, and checking 

that the commitments have been met at 

the completion of a project; 

(c) Using dedicated formats to 

capture, describe, and ensure that 

environmental commitments are 

transferred and incorporated into 

contract documents; 

(d) Requiring environmental 

awareness training for construction 

personnel prior to the start of 

construction; and 

(e) Training appropriate staff on 

incorporation of environmental 

commitments into plan, specification, 

and estimate packages. 

Background 

The Pilot Program allows the 

Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 

to assign, and the State to assume, the 

Secretary’s responsibilities under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for one or more highway 

projects. Upon assigning NEPA 

responsibilities, the Secretary may 

further assign to the State all or part of 

the Secretary’s responsibilities for 

environmental review, consultation, or 

other action required under any Federal 

environmental law pertaining to the 

review of a specific highway project. 

When a State assumes the Secretary’s 

responsibilities under this program, the 

State becomes solely responsible and is 

liable for carrying out the 

responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu 

of the FHWA. 

To ensure compliance by each State 

participating in the Pilot Program, 23 

U.S.C. 327(g) mandates that FHWA, on 

behalf of the Secretary, conduct 

semiannual audits during each of the 

first 2 years of State participation; and 

annual audits during each subsequent 

year of State participation. The focus of 

the FHWA audit process is four-fold: (1) 

To assess a Pilot State’s compliance 

with the required MOU and applicable 

Federal laws and policies; (2) to collect 

information needed to evaluate the 

success of the Pilot Program; (3) to 

evaluate Pilot State progress in meeting 

its performance measures; and (4) to 

collect information for use in the 

Secretary’s annual Report to Congress 

on the administration of the Pilot 

Program. Additionally, 23 U.S.C. 327(g) 

requires FHWA to present the results of 

each audit in the form of an audit report 

published in the Federal Register. This 

audit report must be made available for 

public comment, and FHWA must 

respond to public comments received 

no later than 60 days after the date on 

which the period for public comment 

closes. 

Caltrans published its draft 

Application to participate in the Pilot 

Program on March 14, 2007, and made 

it available for public comment for 30 

days. After considering public 

comments, Caltrans submitted its 

Application to FHWA on May 21, 2007, 

and FHWA, after soliciting the views of 

Federal agencies, reviewed and 

approved the Application. Then on June 

29, 2007, Caltrans and FHWA entered 

into an MOU that established the 

assignments to and assumptions of 

responsibility to Caltrans, which 

became effective July 1, 2007. Under the 

MOU, Caltrans assumed the majority of 

FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA, 

as well as FHWA’s responsibilities 

under other Federal environmental laws 

for most highway projects in California. 

Scope of the Audit 

This is the fifth FHWA audit of 

Caltrans participation in the Pilot 

Program. The on-site portion of the 

audit was conducted in California from 

July 26 through July 30, 2010. As 

required in SAFETEA–LU, each FHWA 

audit must assess compliance with the 

roles and responsibilities assumed by 

the Pilot State in the MOU. The audit 

also includes recommendations to assist 

Caltrans in successful participation in 

the Pilot Program. 

The audit primarily focused on 

assessing compliance with assumed 

responsibilities. Key Pilot Program areas 

evaluated during this audit included: 

• Section 4(f) process determination 

and documentation; 

• The reevaluation process; 

• The impact of furloughs and loss of 

staff; 

• Project files; 

• Resource agency consultation and 

coordination; 

• Training; 

• Quarterly reports; 

• Quality Assurance Quality Control 

(QA/QC) process; and 

• NEPA process documentation. 

Prior to the on-site audit, FHWA 

completed telephone interviews with 

Federal resource agency staff at the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the 

National Park Service, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 75535 

on-site audit included visits to the 

Caltrans Offices in District 3/North 

Region (Marysville), District 4 

(Oakland), District 5 (San Luis Obispo), 

District 7 (Los Angeles), District 8 (San 

Bernardino), and District 12 (Irvine). 

Additionally, FHWA auditors visited 

the Sacramento offices of the USACE 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to interview staff. 

This report documents findings 

within the scope of the audit as of the 

completion date of the on-site audit on 

July 30, 2010. 

Audit Process and Implementation 

The intent of each FHWA audit 

completed under the Pilot Program is to 

ensure that each Pilot State complies 

with the commitments in its MOU with 

FHWA. The FHWA does not evaluate 

specific project-related decisions made 

by the State because these decisions are 

the sole responsibility of the Pilot State. 

However, the FHWA audit scope does 

include the review of the processes and 

procedures (including documentation) 

used by the Pilot State to reach project 

decisions in compliance with MOU 

Section 3.2. 

In addition, Caltrans committed in its 

Application (incorporated by reference 

in MOU Section 1.1.2) to implement 

specific processes to strengthen its 

environmental procedures in order to 

assume the responsibilities assigned by 

FHWA under the Pilot Program. The 

FHWA audits review how Caltrans is 

meeting each commitment and assesses 

Pilot Program performance in the core 

areas specified in the Scope of the Audit 

section of this report. 

The Caltrans’ Pilot Program 

commitments address: 

• Organization and Procedures under 

the Pilot Program. 

• Expanded QC Procedures. 

• Independent Environmental 

Decisionmaking. 

• Determining the NEPA Class of 

Action. 

• Consultation and Coordination with 

Resource Agencies. 

• Issue Identification and Conflict 

Resolution Procedures. 

• Record Keeping and Retention. 

• Expanded Internal Monitoring and 

Process Reviews. 

• Performance Measures to Assess the 

Pilot Program. 

• Training to Implement the Pilot 

Program. 

• Legal Sufficiency Review. 

The FHWA team for the fifth audit 

included representatives from the 

following offices or agencies: 

• FHWA Office of Project 

Development and Environmental 

Review. 

• FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel. 

• FHWA Alaska Division Office. 

• FHWA Resource Center 

Environmental Team. 

• Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center. 

• FWS. 

During the onsite audit, FHWA 

interviewed more than 70 staff from 6 

District offices and the USACE and 

FWS. The audit team also reviewed 

project files and records for over 80 

projects managed by Caltrans under the 

Pilot Program. 

The FHWA acknowledges that 

Caltrans identified specific issues 

during its fifth self-assessment 

performed under the Pilot Program 

(required by MOU section 8.2.6), and is 

working on corrective actions to address 

the identified issues. Some issues 

described in the Caltrans selfassessment may overlap with FHWA 

findings identified in this audit report. 

In accordance with MOU Section 

11.4.1, FHWA provided Caltrans with a 

30-day comment period to review this 

draft audit report. The FHWA reviewed 

comments received from Caltrans and 

revised sections of the draft report, 

where appropriate, prior to publishing it 

in the Federal Register for public 

comment. 

Limitations of the Audit 

The conclusions presented in this 

report are opinions based upon 

interviews of selected persons 

knowledgeable about past and current 

activities related to the execution of the 

Pilot Program at Caltrans, and a review 

of selected documents over a limited 

time period. The FHWA audit team’s 

ability to conduct each audit and make 

determinations of Caltrans’ compliance 

with assumed responsibilities and 

commitments under the Pilot Program 

has been further limited by the 

following: 

• Select Districts visited by FHWA 

audit team. The FHWA audit team has 

not visited each District during the audit 

process. Each audit (including this 

audit) has consisted of visits to Districts 

with significant activity under the Pilot. 

• Caltrans staff availability during 

audits. Some Caltrans staff selected to 

be interviewed by the audit team were 

out of the office and unavailable to 

participate in the onsite audit. This 

limited the extent of information 

gathering. 

• Incomplete project files. Project 

files and associated project 

documentation have, when reviewed by 

the audit team, not always been 

complete. This is especially true for 

projects where the project or related 

studies were initiated prior to 

commencement of the Pilot Program. A 

full assessment of compliance with Pilot 

Program policies and procedures is not 

possible unless all required documents 

are available for review. 

• Limited scope of Pilot Program 

project development activity. Caltrans 

has not operated under the Pilot 

Program for a sufficient period of time 

to manage the full lifecycle of most 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) 

and other complex projects. Therefore, 

FHWA is not yet able to fully determine 

how Caltrans will comply with its 

responsibilities assumed under the Pilot 

Program for these project situations. 

• Insufficient data to determine time 

savings reported by Caltrans in the 

completion of environmental 

documents. Due to the short period of 

time that the Pilot Program has been in 

place, a sufficient number of projects of 

varying complexities have not been 

completed to adequately support a 

determination on the potential time 

savings resulting from participation in 

the Pilot Program. 

• Distinction between the two 

Categorical Exclusion (CE) assumption 

processes—Section 6004 and Section 

6005. Since the assumption by Caltrans 

of the SAFETEA–LU Section 6004 CE 

process is not a part of these audits, it 

is not possible to validate the 

correctness of determinations placing 

individual CEs under the aegis of each 

assumed responsibility. 

• Continued errors in the quarterly 

reports. The quarterly reports prepared 

by Caltrans listing all environmental 

approvals and decisions made under the 

Pilot Program continue to contain 

omissions and errors. As a result, it is 

difficult for FHWA to exercise full 

oversight on Pilot Program projects 

unless a complete accounting of all 

NEPA documents produced under the 

Pilot is available and taken into account 

during the FHWA audit. 

Status of Findings Since Last Audit 

(July 2009) 

As part of the fifth audit, FHWA 

evaluated the corrective actions 

implemented by Caltrans in response to 

the ‘‘Deficient’’ and ‘‘Needs 

Improvement’’ findings in the fourth 

FHWA audit report. 

1. Quarterly Reports—The quarterly 

reports Caltrans provided to FHWA 

under MOU Section 8.2.7 continued to 

include inaccuracies related to 

environmental document approvals and 

decisions made under the Pilot Program. 

The FHWA does acknowledge that 

Caltrans is in the process of 

implementing the File Maker Pro 

environmental database system on a 

statewide basis to assist in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

75536 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 

developing of a comprehensive database 

of environmental projects and 

milestones to improve the accuracy of 

the information reported in the 

quarterly reports. 

2. QA/QC Certification Process— 

Project file reviews completed during 

the fifth audit continued to identify 

incorrect and incomplete QC 

certification forms. Caltrans continues 

to address inadequacies in this process 

through staff specific training when 

inconsistencies are identified, most 

notably during the self-assessment 

process. 

3. QA/QC Assurance—Under the Pilot 

Program, NEPA documentation must 

clearly identify that FHWA has no role 

in the environmental review and 

decisionmaking process for assigned 

projects. However, environmental 

document reviews continued to identify 

instances when FHWA was referenced 

as being involved in the decisionmaking 

process. 

‘‘Needs Improvement’’ audit findings 

status: 

1. Inadequate Guidance in the 

Standard Environmental Reference 

(SER)—Caltrans updated the SER to 

address FHWA’s concerns regarding 

several instances where guidance 

provided was unclear, misleading, or 

incomplete. However, additional 

instances were observed during the fifth 

audit regarding unclear, misleading, or 

incomplete information in the SER. 

2. Procedural and Substantive 

Requirements—The identified areas of 

confusion regarding implementation of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7 process have been addressed 

and the process of consulting with the 

FWS under ESA Section 7 has been 

improved. 

3. Section 4(f) Issues: 

(a) Documentation—Project file 

reviews and interviews with Caltrans 

staff confirmed continuing 

inconsistencies in the documentation 

required to meet the Section 4(f) 

provisions. 

(b) Circulation of a Draft Section 4(f) 

Evaluation—Project file reviews and 

interviews with Caltrans staff identified 

confusion regarding the requirement to 

circulate Section 4(f) Evaluations to the 

Department of the Interior for review. 

(c) Section 4(f) Implementation— 

Project file reviews and interviews with 

Caltrans staff identified several 

inconsistencies with the 

implementation and general 

understanding required in carrying out 

Section 4(f) provisions. 

Caltrans is continuing to address each 

issue. For example, Caltrans requested 

and received two FHWA-led Section 4(f) 

trainings, each 2 days in length, with 

specific requests to address areas that 

FHWA has identified as problematic 

during the Pilot Program audit. Caltrans 

is also completing an on-line Section 

4(f) training that will be posted on the 

‘‘Training on Demand’’ Web site. 

4. Legal Division Staff—Significant 

variability existed in the Federal 

environmental law experience of the 

attorneys in the four Caltrans legal 

offices. Most notably, the retirement of 

a highly experienced attorney near the 

end of 2008 resulted in two of Caltrans’ 

legal offices serving some of Caltrans’ 

largest and busiest Districts with no 

attorneys on staff with substantial 

experience in Federal environmental 

law. Since October 2009, the 

Sacramento Legal Division assumed 

permanent responsibility for all 

environmental law issues in the legal 

office affected by the retirement of the 

experienced attorney in 2008. 

5. Training—In the past, 

inconsistencies in training were 

identified in the areas of Section 4(f) 

and Section 7 processes. There were 

also observed inconsistencies in the use 

of tools to identify training needs and to 

track employees’ training histories, as 

well as no method for employees to 

track completion of any online training 

available on the Caltrans Web site. A 

method to record the completion of online trainings by Caltrans staff is now 

available with implementation of its use 

underway. 

6. Maintenance of Project and General 

Administrative Files—Caltrans has 

instituted specific procedures for 

maintaining project files in accordance 

with the Uniform Filing System (UFS) 

and has provided training on these 

procedures. Inconsistencies in the 

application of these procedures, 

reported in previous audit findings, 

were also identified in this audit. 

Findings Definitions 

The FHWA audit team carefully 

examined Pilot Program areas to assess 

compliance in accordance with 

established criteria in the MOU and 

Application. The time period covered 

by this audit report is from the start of 

the Caltrans Pilot Program (July 1, 2007) 

through completion of the fifth onsite 

audit (July 30, 2010) with the focus of 

the audit on the most recent 12 month 

period. This report presents audit 

findings in three areas: 

• Compliant—Audit verified that a 

process, procedure or other component 

of the Pilot Program meets a stated 

commitment in the Application and/or 

MOU. 

• Needs Improvement—Audit 

determined that a process, procedure or 

other component of the Pilot Program as 

specified in the Application and/or 

MOU is not fully implemented to 

achieve the stated commitment or the 

process or procedure implemented is 

not functioning at a level necessary to 

ensure the stated commitment is 

satisfied. Action is recommended to 

ensure success. 

• Deficient—Audit was unable to 

verify if a process, procedure or other 

component of the Pilot Program met the 

stated commitment in the Application 

and/or MOU. Action is required to 

improve the process, procedure or other 

component prior to the next audit; 

or 

Audit determined that a process, 

procedure or other component of the 

Pilot Program did not meet the stated 

commitment in the Application and/or 

MOU. Corrective action is required prior 

to the next audit. 

or 

Audit determined that for a past 

Needs Improvement finding, the rate of 

corrective action has not proceeded in a 

timely manner; is not on the path to 

timely resolution of the finding. 

Summary of Findings—July 2010 

Compliant 

Caltrans was found to be compliant in 

meeting the requirements of the MOU 

for the key Pilot Program areas within 

the scope and the limitations of the 

audit, with the exceptions noted in the 

Deficient and Needs Improvement 

findings in this audit report set forth 

below. Caltrans continues to provide 

FHWA with all required oversight 

reports, per MOU Section 8.2 (e.g., 

Quarterly Reports listing project 

approvals and decisions made under the 

authority of the Pilot Program and the 

Self-assessment Summary Reports) and 

has fully cooperated with FHWA during 

the audit process. Even with the loss of 

staff, furloughs, and budget constraints 

Caltrans continues to be compliant in 

their commitment of resources needed 

to carry out the responsibilities assumed 

under the Pilot Program. 

Needs Improvement 

(N1) Maintenance of Project and 

General Administrative Files—MOU 

Section 8.2.4 requires that Caltrans 

maintains project and general 

administrative files pertaining to its 

discharge of the responsibilities 

assumed under the Pilot Program. 

Caltrans has instituted specific 

procedures for maintaining project files 

in accordance with the UFS and has 

provided training on these procedures. 

Inconsistencies in the application of 

these procedures, which have been 

reported in previous audit findings, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 75537 

were also identified throughout the 

Districts visited in this audit. Examples 

of inconsistencies observed in 10 of the 

approximately 80 project files reviewed 

during the audit included: 

(a) Instances where required 

documentation was missing in project 

files but was produced by Caltrans staff 

at the request of the auditors. Examples 

of such missing documents included a 

letter documenting the State Historic 

Preservation Officer’s concurrence on 

effect determination; correspondence 

between Caltrans and FWS regarding a 

Biological Opinion for a project; and 

project level conformity determinations 

by FHWA; and 

(b) Missing, out of order, or 

incomplete UFS tabs. 

(N2) Performance Measure—‘‘Monitor 

relationships with agencies and the 

general public’’—MOU Section 10.2.1.C 

requires Caltrans to ‘‘assess change in 

communication among Caltrans, Federal 

and State resource agencies, and the 

public.’’ Caltrans conducted the first 

annual resource agency survey in 2009 

and a second survey in February 2010. 

The Second Annual Resource Agency 

Survey Report was delivered in May 

2010. Each report lists an average rating 

for each survey question and a 

comparison is made from the previous 

report average ratings. The Survey 

Report does not report each agency’s 

rankings separately, which would 

produce a more accurate assessment of 

Caltrans’ individual relationship with 

Federal and State agencies. It is FHWA’s 

recommendation that the specific 

agencies’ rating information be shared 

with FHWA so that agency specific 

relationship issues could be identified 

and corrective actions could be 

discussed. 

(N3) Coordination with Resource 

Agencies—Through interviews with 

resource agency staff, the audit team 

learned the following: 

(a) Under MOU Section 7.1.1, Caltrans 

‘‘agrees to seek early and appropriate 

coordination with all appropriate 

Federal, State, and local agencies in 

carrying out any of the responsibilities 

and highway projects assumed under 

Part 3 of this MOU.’’ Based on 

information obtained during audit 

interviews with representatives from a 

USACE District office, the audit team 

learned that Caltrans is not conducting 

pre-application coordination with this 

office nor engaging in appropriate 

coordination on NEPA reviews which is 

limiting the agencies’ flexibility to 

develop project alternatives and 

mitigation options. 

(b) MOU Section 7.1.2, Caltrans 

‘‘agrees to make all reasonable and good 

faith efforts to identify and resolve 

conflicts with all appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies during the 

consultation and review process in 

carrying out any of the responsibilities 

assumed under Part 3 of this MOU.’’ 

Interviews with representatives from a 

Caltrans District Office, a USACE 

District Office, and a FWS Field Office, 

determined that longstanding conflicts 

(i.e. insufficient information provided, 

lack of compliance with environmental 

commitments and disagreements on 

regulatory timeframes, action areas and 

compensative mitigation requirements) 

are not being addressed and ‘‘good faith’’ 

efforts to resolve conflicts between these 

Federal agencies and a few Districts are 

lacking. These agencies reported that 

due to these conflicts, efforts to carry 

out responsibilities under applicable 

Federal laws are not being implemented 

to the fullest extent. 

(N4) Procedural and Substantive 

Requirements—MOU Section 5.1.4 

states that Caltrans will work with all 

other appropriate Federal agencies 

concerning the laws, guidance, and 

policies that such other Federal agencies 

are responsible for administering. 

Project file reviews and staff interviews 

identified the following inconsistencies: 

(a) The Section 7 consultation was 

incomplete and the Section 7 finding 

was not included in the NEPA 

documentation of a project’s Finding of 

No Significant Impacts (FONSI); and 

(b) An Environmental Assessment 

(EA) document did not identify that the 

project was in a 100-year flood zone and 

therefore, a ‘‘practicability’’ finding was 

not made in the FONSI. As a result, the 

project was not in compliance with 

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain 

Management and 23 CFR 650. 

(N5) Compliance with Procedural and 

Substantive Requirements—MOU 

Section 5.1 requires Caltrans to be 

subject to the same procedural and 

substantive requirements that apply to 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) in carrying out the 

responsibilities assumed under the Pilot 

Program. Such procedural and 

substantive requirements include 

compliance with Federal laws, Federal 

regulations, Executive Orders, DOT 

Orders, FHWA Orders, official guidance 

and policy issued by DOT or FHWA, 

and any applicable Federal Court 

decisions, and interagency agreements 

such as programmatic agreements, 

memoranda of agreement, and other 

similar documents that relate to the 

environmental review process. 

Documentation errors during the NEPA 

process were noted in 11 of 

approximately 80 project files reviewed 

during the audit. Project file reviews 

identified incomplete or inaccurate 

NEPA documents and other related 

project materials. Some of these 

instances included: 

(a) A FONSI that did not include a 

response to comments received on the 

EA regarding traffic operations and their 

impacts on the project; 

(b) A FONSI that did not include a 

statement that the Section 7 

consultation had been performed in 

compliance with the ESA; 

(c) Two CE determinations failed to 

reference the most current noise studies 

performed prior to the approvals of the 

CEs; 

(d) One CE determination failed to 

reference the most current traffic 

analysis performed prior to the approval 

of the CE and; 

(e) A project file contained a fact sheet 

for the project that contained incorrect 

information on the level of 

environmental documentation. Even if 

this fact sheet was not released to the 

public, it is part of the project file and 

would become part of the administrative 

record, and thus contain incorrect 

information. 

(N6) Re-evaluation Process—MOU 

Section 5.1 requires Caltrans to be 

subject to the same procedural and 

substantive requirements that apply to 

DOT in carrying out the responsibilities 

assumed under the Pilot Program. This 

includes the process and documentation 

for conducting NEPA re-evaluations to 

comply with 23 CFR 771.129. 

Additionally, SER Chapter 33 discusses 

re-validations and re-evaluations. 

Project file reviews and staff interviews 

identified varying degrees of 

compliance with these procedures. 

Project file reviews completed in some 

Districts determined that the reevaluations completed complied with 

SER Chapter 33. However, in other 

Districts project files identified the 

following inconsistencies: 

(a) A re-evaluation was used to 

combine portions of two EISs. The 

FHWA re-evaluation process does not 

accommodate such an approach. Other 

elements of this re-evaluation that 

appeared to deviate from established 

procedures included: (1) A change was 

made to the project that was not 

evaluated in either of the original EISs 

or the subsequent re-evaluations 

performed on the respective projects 

and (2) a previous conformity 

determination was relied on for the 

segment covered by one of the EISs, 

whereas a new conformity 

determination was done on the segment 

from the second EIS. There was no 

conformity determination for the 

combined project; 

(b) In another project file review, no 

evidence was found that a Section 106 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

75538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 

Area of Potential Effect (APE) was 

revised after a post-final environmental 

document change occurred that 

expanded the footprint of the proposed 

project outside of the original APE. No 

documents in the project file were 

identified to support that Caltrans had 

performed an evaluation to determine if 

the change had an effect on the validity 

of the original environmental document 

or the Section 106 determination of 

effects; 

(c) A re-evaluation of an original CE 

determination contained, as a part of the 

re-evaluation, the addition of another 

project CE determination. The District 

concurrently issued a Section 6005 CE 

for the ‘‘combined’’ project, without 

including a new project description. 

The project file contained the new CE 

with the re-evaluation attached. 

Documentation in the file indicated that 

the second project was not to be added 

to the original CE, since that would 

make the first project ineligible for a 

Federal funding category; 

(d) A re-evaluation did not include 

documentation of an affirmative 

determination that the NEPA document 

was still valid; and 

(e) Instances were observed by the 

audit team that re-evaluations were 

approved without the original project 

file or approved environmental 

document being in the District Office. In 

one instance, a re-evaluation was 

approved by a District without 

reviewing the project file or final 

environmental document. According to 

information provided to the audit team, 

the project file had been removed from 

the office and could not be located. 

The audit team feels that additional 

clarification and guidance needs to be 

provided by Caltrans to the 

environmental staff as to the purpose 

and use of the re-evaluation process. A 

re-evaluation is done to determine if the 

approved environmental document or 

the CE designation remains valid. In the 

re-evaluation process, the original 

decision and analysis needs to be 

reviewed for its validity. The process is 

not intended to be used to change the 

scope of projects. 

(N7) Section 4(f) and ‘‘Locally 

Significant’’ Historic Resources—MOU 

Section 5.1.1 affirms that Caltrans is 

subject to the same procedural and 

substantive requirements that apply to 

the DOT in carrying out the 

responsibilities assumed under the Pilot 

Program. The SER Chapter 20, Section 

4(f) and Related Requirements, sets 

forth procedures for documenting 

impacts to Section 4(f) properties in 

Caltrans-assigned environmental 

documents, while the Forms and 

Templates section of the SER contains 

annotated outlines for such documents. 

However, the SER does not address how 

Caltrans should determine whether a 

historic resource which is significant at 

the local level should be considered 

eligible for protection under Section 

4(f). In the case of one project reviewed 

by the audit team, it was unclear from 

review of the project file and from 

interviews with Caltrans staff what 

process was used for making the 

determination and what internal and 

external coordination and consultation 

was required. It is the audit team’s 

opinion that the SER should include a 

process to ensure consistency in the 

determination of the historic 

significance of local resources. 

(N8) Training: Inconsistent Level of 

Training for Staff—MOU Section 12.1.1 

requires Caltrans to ensure that its staff 

is properly trained and that training will 

be provided ‘‘in all appropriate areas 

with respect to the environmental 

responsibilities Caltrans has assumed.’’ 

Section 4.2.2 of the MOU also requires 

that Caltrans maintain adequate staff 

capability to effectively carryout the 

responsibilities it has assumed. 

The audit team found an inconsistent 

application of the training plan for 

generalists in two Districts. Interviews 

with several SEPs in two Districts 

indicated that oversight or tracking of 

training for generalists is not uniform 

and identified the need for a more 

systematic approach. The interviews 

found that training attended by 

generalists is not consistently monitored 

by their SEPs, nor is the training plan 

consistency applied or tracked to ensure 

employees attend the proper training 

given to support the generalist’s 

responsibilities. While the audit team 

did learn that a more systematic training 

plan for generalists (i.e., the generalist 

roadmap) had recently been developed, 

it remains an important issue to ensure 

that staff attends the training prescribed 

by the plan to ensure they have the 

proper skill set to effectively carry out 

responsibilities under the Pilot Program. 

(N9) Training: Inconsistent 

Understanding of Required Processes— 

MOU Section 4.2.2 requires Caltrans to 

maintain adequate organizational and 

staff capacity to effectively carry out the 

responsibilities it has assumed under 

MOU Section 3. The following 

inconsistencies were noted during 

interviews with Caltrans staff: 

(a) Interviews with two SEPs and 

project file reviews indicated a lack of 

understanding of the Section 4(f) 

process and options available for 

implementation and documentation of 

the Section 4(f) process. A lack of 

understanding and knowledge was 

identified in the areas of the 

determination of de minimis impacts 

findings, the use of established Section 

4(f) programmatic agreements, and the 

required documentation, evaluation, 

and explanation to be included in the 

environmental documents; 

(b) Interviews with one HQ 

Environmental Coordinator and one SEP 

reflected a lack of awareness of any 

policy or guidance for the use the 

Statute of Limitations notice and; 

(c) Interviews with SEPs in two 

Districts reflected a lack of awareness 

and knowledge of the ‘‘Blanket’’ CE for 

approval of design exceptions. While 

the use of this may be limited, a general 

understanding and awareness is 

expected by Caltrans staff. Several SEPs 

either did not know of the ‘‘Blanket’’ CE 

or were unaware of how and when to 

use it. 

Deficient 

(D1) Reports Listing Approvals and 

Decisions (i.e., Quarterly Reports)— 

MOU Section 8.2.7 requires Caltrans to 

submit a report listing all Pilot Program 

approvals and decisions made with 

respect to responsibilities assumed 

under the MOU with FHWA (each 

quarter for the first 2 years; after the first 

2 years no less than every 6 months). 

Caltrans has chosen to continue to 

provide quarterly reports to FHWA. 

Inaccurate project reporting continues to 

be an ongoing issue affecting the 

quarterly report process and has been 

identified in every previous FHWA 

audit report. Among the reporting errors 

identified in this audit were: 

(a) Omission of two EAs; 

(b) Omission of one FONSI; 

(c) Omission of a biological opinion; 

(d) Incorrect approval date for a CE 

determination; 

(e) Incorrect listing of a re-evaluation/ 

revalidation for a Section 6004 CE 

determination as Section 6005 CE 

determination; and 

(f) Incorrectly included a reevaluation/revalidation of a project with 

no Federal funding or required 

approvals, and therefore not a part of 

the Pilot Program. 

The current Caltrans approach to 

developing the quarterly reports 

continues to be deficient. The accuracy 

of the reports on project approvals and 

decisions affects the FHWA oversight of 

the Pilot Program. The FHWA 

acknowledges that Caltrans is in the 

initial stages of statewide 

implementation of the File Maker Pro 

environmental database. It is anticipated 

that the implementation of this database 

system will improve the accuracy of 

information provided in the quarterly 

reports to FHWA. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 75539 

(D2) Section 4(f) Documentation— 

MOU Section 5.1.1 affirms that Caltrans 

is subject to the same procedural and 

substantive requirements that apply to 

DOT in carrying out the responsibilities 

assumed under the Pilot Program. The 

SER Chapter 20, Section 4(f) and 

Related Requirements, sets forth 

procedures for documenting impacts to 

Section 4(f) properties in Caltransassigned environmental documents, 

while the Forms and Templates section 

of the SER contains annotated outlines 

for such documents, including 

appropriate language for addressing de 

minimis impacts (49 U.S.C. 303(d); 23 

U.S.C. 139(b); 23 CFR 774.17). As was 

also noted in the fourth FHWA audit of 

the Pilot Program, project file reviews 

and interviews with staff during this 

audit identified inconsistencies in the 

documentation requirements for 

carrying out the Section 4(f) provisions. 

These included: 

(a) For a bridge replacement project 

located within a National Forest, no 

documentation was provided in the EA 

document or in the project file regarding 

the Section 4(f) status of the recreational 

facilities in the immediate project 

vicinity or any possible project impacts 

to those resources; 

(b) A project file contained a letter 

from the official with jurisdiction over 

the Section 4(f) recreational resource 

stating the impacts to the resource 

would be de minimis. Neither the EA 

document nor the project file contained 

the supporting documentation for that 

determination, as required under 23 

CFR 774.7(b). 

(c) The Section 4(f) discussion in the 

environmental document of another 

project (for which no NEPA approval 

had been made at the time of the audit) 

was unclear as to which type of Section 

4(f) documentation and approval was 

being contemplated. The applicable 

section of the EA included the 

discussion of four different types of 

Section 4(f) approvals: 

1. The EA described the project as 

qualifying for a Nationwide 

Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation, 

but did not reach a conclusion pursuant 

to the applicable Programmatic. 

2. The document then included a 

discussion similar to what is used in an 

individual Section 4(f) Evaluation, 

including impacts to Section 4(f) 

properties, avoidance alternatives, and 

measures to minimize harm, ending by 

stating that no preferred alternative had 

been identified for the project. 

3. The EA also contained a Section 

4(f) constructive use discussion, which 

reached no conclusion. 

4. Finally, the project file contained 

an e-mail stating that although the EA 

was missing expected language 

regarding de minimis impacts and a 

concurrence letter from the officials 

with jurisdiction, the Caltrans Branch 

Chief would sign the QA/QC sheets 

‘‘with the assurance that the above items 

will be completed.’’ 

(D3) QA/QC Certification Process— 

MOU Section 8.2.5 and SER Chapter 38 

require Caltrans staff to review each 

environmental document in accordance 

with the policy memorandum titled, 

‘‘Environmental Document Quality 

Control Program under the NEPA Pilot 

Program’’ (July 2, 2007). Incomplete and 

incorrectly completed QC certification 

forms continue to be identified. During 

project file reviews by the audit team, 

the following instances of incomplete or 

incorrect QC certification forms since 

the July 2009 audit were observed: 

(a) An Environmental Assessment and 

Section 4(f) Evaluation was approved 

contingent on changes that still needed 

to be made to the document; 

(b) One QC certification form was 

approved by the Quality Control 

Reviewer, Preparer, and Branch Chief 

without the technical reviewer’s 

signature due to pending comments; 

(c) Five other QC certification forms 

contained undated review signatures or 

the signatures were not obtained in the 

proper sequence in accordance with the 

Caltrans established QA/QC processes; 

(d) Two QC certification forms were 

missing the signatures of required 

reviewers. In those cases, a memo was 

included in the files documenting this 

oversight. One memo noted that the 

NEPA document that was approved for 

the project had been incomplete. No 

additional explanation was provided; 

and 

(e) Two external QC certification 

forms contained signatures that were 

obtained after the internal QC 

certification form signatures. The SER 

Chapter 38 process requires the QC 

external certification form to be 

completed before the internal 

certification review can be initiated. 

(D4) Maintenance of Project and 

General Administrative Files—MOU 

Section 8.2.4 requires Caltrans to 

maintain project and general 

administrative files pertaining to its 

discharge of the responsibilities 

assumed under the Pilot Program. 

Caltrans has instituted specific 

procedures for maintaining project files 

and has provided training on these 

procedures. Previous audits identified 

inconsistencies with the application of 

these procedures (i.e., missing required 

documents, missing UFS tabs) and 

inconsistencies throughout the Districts 

visited in this audit were also identified. 

This audit also identified 

inconsistencies with file maintenance in 

at least 15 of the approximately 80 

project files reviewed. Examples of 

these include: 

(a) Various types of required project 

documentation were missing from 

project files. Examples of missing 

documents included: 

• Signed final environmental 

documents; 

• Noise abatement decision report; 

• Historic Properties Survey Report; 

• Environmental Commitment 

Records; 

• Internal and external QC 

certification forms (some signed but 

undated); 

• Signed copies of the PEAR/PES 

forms; 

• Section 106 Memorandum of 

Agreement; and 

• Information on the types of Section 

4(f) resources and the projects’ impacts 

upon them. 

(b) Two instances in which the project 

files were not available for review; in 

one case, the file has been improperly 

disposed, while in the other case, it was 

uncertain whether the project file had 

been misplaced or had never been set 

up. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30326 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0380] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Revision of a CurrentlyApproved Information Collection 

Request: Training Certification for 

Drivers of Longer Combination 

Vehicles 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), FMCSA announces its plan to 

submit the Information Collection 

Request (ICR) described below to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for its review and approval. The 

FMCSA requests approval to revise and 

extend an information collection request 

(ICR) entitled, ‘‘Training Certification for 

Drivers of Longer Combination 

Vehicles.’’ This ICR is necessary because 

the training certificates drivers are 

required to present to prospective 

employers serve as proof the drivers 

have successfully completed the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES