43726 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2018–0004] 

Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program; Florida DOT Audit 

#1 Report 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Project Delivery Program allows a State 

to assume FHWA’s environmental 

responsibilities for review, consultation, 

and compliance for Federal highway 

projects. When a State assumes these 

Federal responsibilities, the State 

becomes solely responsible and liable 

for the responsibilities it has assumed, 

in lieu of FHWA. This program 

mandates annual audits during each of 

the first 4 years to ensure the State’s 

compliance with program requirements. 

This is the first audit of the Florida 

Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) 

performance of its responsibilities under 

the Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program (National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

assignment program). This notice 

finalizes the findings of the first audit 

report for the FDOT’s participation in 

accordance to FAST Act requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Marisel Lopez Cruz, Office of Project 

Development and Environmental 

Review, (202) 493–0356, marisel.lopezcruz@dot.gov, or Mr. David Sett, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, (404) 562–3676, 

david.sett@dot.gov, Federal Highway 

Administration, Department of 

Transportation, 61 Forsyth Street 

17T100, Atlanta, GA 30303. Office 

hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

e.t., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of this notice may 

be downloaded from the specific docket 

page at www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

The Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program (or NEPA Assignment 

Program) allows a State to assume 

FHWA’s environmental responsibilities 

for review, consultation, and 

compliance for Federal highway 

projects. This provision has been 

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

assumes these Federal responsibilities, 

the State becomes solely responsible 

and liable for carrying out the 

responsibilities, in lieu of FHWA. The 

FDOT published in the Florida 

Administrative Register its application 

for assumption under the NEPA 

Assignment Program on April 15, 2016, 

and made it available for public 

comment for 30 days. After considering 

public comments, FDOT submitted its 

application to FHWA on May 31, 2016. 

The application served as the basis for 

developing the memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) that identifies the 

responsibilities and obligations FDOT 

would assume. The FHWA published a 

notice of the draft MOU in the Federal 

Register on November 1, 2016, with a 

30-day comment period to solicit the 

views of the public and Federal 

agencies. After the end of the comment 

period, FHWA and FDOT considered 

comments and proceeded to execute the 

MOU. Effective December 14, 2016, 

FDOT assumed FHWA’s responsibilities 

under NEPA, and the responsibilities for 

reviews under other Federal 

environmental requirements. 

Section 327(g) of Title 23, United 

States Code, requires the Secretary to 

conduct annual audits during each of 

the first 4 years of State participation. 

After the fourth year, the Secretary shall 

monitor the State’s compliance with the 

written agreement. The results of each 

audit must be made available for public 

comment. This notice finalizes the 

finding of the first audit report for the 

FDOT participation in accordance to 

FAST Act requirements. A draft version 

of this report was published in the 

Federal Register on April 18, 2018, at 

83 FR 17216, and was available for 

public review and comments. The 

FHWA received three responses to the 

Federal Register Notice during the 

public comment period for this draft 

report. None of comments were 

substantive; one from the American 

Road and Transportation Builders 

Association voiced support of this 

program and another was anonymous 

that was unrelated to this report. The 

remaining comments came from FDOT. 

The Audit Team met with FDOT to 

discuss their comments throughout the 

Audit report development. The FHWA 

considered FDOT’s comments not to be 

substantive but nonetheless revised the 

report language in several instances. 

This notice includes a final version of 

the audit report that addresses all 

comments submitted on the draft audit 

report. 

Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 

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

Public Law 114–94; 23 U.S.C. 327; 49 CFR 

1.85; 23 CFR 773. 

Brandye L. Hendrickson, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

FINAL 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Program 

FHWA Audit #1 of the Florida 

Department of Transportation 

December 2016 to May 2017 

Executive Summary 

This is the first audit of the Florida 

Department of Transportation’s 

(FDOT’s) performance of its 

responsibilities under the Surface 

Transportation Project Delivery Program 

(National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) assignment program). Under the 

authority of 23 U.S.C. 327, FDOT and 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) executed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) on December 14, 

2016, whereby FHWA assigned and 

FDOT assumed FHWA’s NEPA 

responsibilities and liabilities for 

Federal-aid highway projects and other 

related environmental reviews for 

transportation projects in Florida. 

The FHWA formed a team in January 

2017 to conduct an audit of FDOT’s 

performance according to the terms of 

the MOU. The Audit Team held internal 

meetings to prepare for an on-site visit 

to the Florida Division and FDOT 

offices. Prior to the on-site visit, the 

Audit Team reviewed FDOT’s NEPA 

project files, FDOT’s response to 

FHWA’s pre-audit information request 

(PAIR), and FDOT’s Self-Assessment 

Summary Report of its NEPA program. 

The Audit Team conducted interviews 

with FDOT and resource agency staff 

and prepared preliminary audit results 

from October 16 to 20, 2017. The Audit 

Team presented these preliminary 

observations to FDOT Office of 

Environmental Management (OEM) 

leadership on October 20, 2017. 

Upon accepting the NEPA assignment 

responsibilities, FDOT updated its 

procedures and processes as required by 

the MOU. Overall, the Audit Team 

found that FDOT is committed to 

establishing a successful NEPA 

program. This report describes several 

successful practices, three observations, 

and one non-compliance observation. 

The FDOT has carried out the 

responsibilities it has assumed in 

keeping with the intent of the MOU and 

FDOT’s Application. Through this 

report, FHWA is notifying FDOT of one 

non-compliance observation that 

requires FDOT to take corrective action. 

By addressing the observations in this 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Notices 43727 

report, FDOT will continue to assure a 

successful program. 

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 Florida. Following this audit, FHWA 

will conduct three annual audits. The 

second audit report will include a 

summary discussion that describes 

progress since the last audit. 

Scope and Methodology 

The overall scope of this audit review 

is defined both in statute (23 U.S.C. 327) 

and the MOU (Part 11). An audit 

generally is defined as an official and 

careful examination and verification of 

accounts and records, especially of 

financial accounts, by an independent 

unbiased body. With regard to accounts 

or financial records, audits may follow 

a prescribed process or methodology 

and be conducted by ‘‘auditors’’ who 

have special training in those processes 

or methods. The FHWA considers this 

review to meet the definition of an audit 

because it is an unbiased, independent, 

official and careful examination and 

verification of records and information 

about FDOT’s assumption of 

environmental responsibilities. 

The Audit Team consisted of NEPA 

subject matter experts from the FHWA 

offices in Juneau, Alaska, Denver, 

Colorado, Columbus, Ohio, Washington, 

District of Columbia, Atlanta, Georgia, 

Austin, Texas, as well as staff from the 

FHWA Florida Division. The diverse 

composition of the team, as well as the 

process of developing the review report 

and publishing it in the Federal 

Register, are intended to make this audit 

an unbiased official action taken by 

FHWA. 

The Audit Team conducted a careful 

examination of FDOT policies, 

guidance, and manuals pertaining to 

NEPA responsibilities, as well as a 

representative sample of FDOT’s project 

files. Other documents, such as the June 

2017 six-month status update report 

from FDOT, the August 2017 PAIR 

responses, and FDOT’s September 2017 

Self-Assessment Summary Report, 

informed this review. The Audit Team 

interviewed FDOT staff and resource 

agency staff. This review is organized 

around six NEPA assignment program 

elements: program management, 

documentation and records 

management, quality assurance/quality 

control (QA/QC), legal sufficiency, 

performance measurement, and training 

program. In addition, the Audit Team 

considered three cross-cutting focus 

areas: (1) Engineering Analysis within 

the NEPA process; (2) Archaeological 

and Historical Resources; and (3) 

Protected Species and Habitat. 

The Audit Team defined the 

timeframe for highway project 

environmental approvals subject to this 

first audit to be between December 2016 

and May 2017, when 209 projects were 

approved. The team drew both 

representative and judgmental samples 

totaling 77 projects from data in FDOT’s 

online file system, Statewide 

Environmental Project Tracker 

(SWEPT). In the context of this report, 

Type 1 CE and Type 2 CE are consistent 

with FDOT’s Project Development and 

Environmental Manual. The FHWA 

judgmentally selected all Type 2 

categorical exclusions (CEs) (3 projects), 

all reevaluations (12 projects), all 

Environmental Assessments (EAs) with 

Findings of No Significant Impacts 

(FONSIs) (3 projects), all Environmental 

Impact Statements (EISs) with Records 

of Decision (RODs) (no projects fell into 

this category), and all Type 1 CE 

projects completed under 23 CFR 

771.117(d) CEs (9 projects). Fifty 

randomly selected project files came 

from the remaining 182 Type 1 CEs 

completed under 23 CFR 771.117(c), 

applying a 90 percent confidence level 

and a 10 percent margin of error to the 

sample. The Audit Team reviewed 

projects in all FDOT’s seven districts. 

The Audit Team submitted a PAIR to 

FDOT that contained 55 questions 

covering all 6 NEPA assignment 

program elements. The FDOT responses 

to the PAIR were used to develop 

specific follow-up questions for the onsite interviews with FDOT staff. 

The Audit Team conducted a total of 

42 interviews. Interview participants 

included staff from four of FDOT’s 

seven district offices—District 1 

(Bartow), District 2 (Lake City), District 

5 (Deland), and District 7 (Tampa)—and 

FDOT Central Office. The audit team 

interviewed FDOT environmental staff, 

middle management, and executive 

management, regional representatives 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) from the 

Florida Department of State, Division of 

Historic Resources. 

The Audit Team compared the 

procedures outlined in FDOT policies 

and environmental manuals (including 

the published 2016 Project Development 

& Environment (PD&E) Manual) to the 

information obtained during interviews 

and project file reviews to determine if 

there are discrepancies between FDOT’s 

performance and documented 

procedures. Individual observations 

were documented during interviews and 

reviews and combined under the six 

NEPA Assignment Program elements. 

The audit results are described below by 

program element. 

Overall Audit Opinion 

The Audit Team recognizes that 

FDOT is in the early stages of the NEPA 

Assignment Program and FDOT’s 

programs, policies, and procedures may 

still be in the process of being 

incorporated into its program statewide. 

The FDOT’s efforts have been focused 

on establishing and refining policies, 

procedures and guidance documents; 

establishing the SWEPT tracking system 

for ‘‘official project files’’; training staff; 

establishing a QA/QC Plan; and 

conducting a self-assessment for 

monitoring compliance with the 

assumed responsibilities. The FDOT has 

carried out the responsibilities it has 

assumed consistent with the intent of 

the MOU and FDOT’s Application. By 

addressing the observations in this 

report, FDOT will continue to assure a 

successful program. 

Non-Compliance Observation 

A non-compliance observation is an 

instance 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. Noncompliance 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 one noncompliance observation during this first 

audit. 

Observations and Successful Practices 

Observations are items the Audit 

Team would like to draw FDOT’s 

attention to, which may improve 

processes, procedures, and/or outcomes. 

The Audit Team identified three 

observations in this report. Successful 

practices are practices that the Audit 

Team believes are successful, and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
43728 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Notices 

encourages FDOT to consider 

continuing or expanding those programs 

in the future. The Audit Team identified 

several successful practices in this 

report. All six MOU program elements 

are addressed here as separate 

discussions. 

The Audit Team acknowledges that 

sharing the draft audit report with 

FDOT allows the Agency to begin 

implementing corrective actions to 

improve the program. The FHWA will 

also consider the status of these 

observations as part of the scope of 

Audit #2. 

Program Management 

Successful Practices 

The Audit Team learned that FDOT 

has maintained its good working 

relationship with the three resource 

agencies interviewed—USFWS, USACE, 

SHPO. Each agency stated that FDOT 

coordinated any changes in their 

program with the Agency to ensure 

satisfaction with their regulatory 

requirements. 

Observation 1: FDOT environmental 

commitment documentation and 

tracking 

The Audit Team noted in interviews 

and project file reviews that FDOT’s 

environmental commitments were 

inconsistently documented and tracked. 

During the interviews, OEM and district 

staff indicated inconsistencies in how 

commitment compliance is 

accomplished in FDOT and the function 

and use of the Project Commitment 

Record (PCR) Form. District staff have 

developed different tools than the PCR 

to track commitment compliance. Both 

the Self-Assessment Summary Report 

and project file reviews indicated that 

commitments were not being included 

verbatim into the Commitments Section 

of some NEPA documents or 

reevaluations. The Audit Team noted 

that commitments are not consistently 

transferred onto PCR forms for tracking 

through the various phases of project 

development. The Audit Team 

encourages FDOT to implement the 

commitment compliance 

recommendations identified in their 

2017 Self-Assessment Summary Report 

to address this observation. 

Observation 2: FDOT Program level 

coordination to address MOU 

requirements 

During the audit interviews, though it 

has not had occasion to do so, FDOT 

stated they would implement new 

Federal statutory requirements or U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

regulations, without FHWA 

consultation. This approach may 

establish FDOT policy or guidance in 

advance of FHWA, which could conflict 

with any subsequent DOT/FHWA 

issued policy or guidance. If such a 

conflict should occur, FDOT would then 

need to change their policies and 

procedures to meet the DOT/FHWA 

guidance. According to MOU subpart 

5.2.1 FDOT may not establish policy 

and guidance on behalf of the DOT 

Secretary or FHWA for highway projects 

covered in the MOU. The FHWA met 

with FDOT to discuss its need for 

informed decision making necessary for 

new Federal requirements. The FDOT 

clarified that they intended to consult 

with FHWA in order to gain information 

on emerging policy and guidance in 

order to make informed decisions. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

Successful Practices 

The FDOT has implemented several 

successful practices to ensure the 

quality of its NEPA documents. As an 

example of a successful QC practice, 

one district developed a checklist to 

provide better quality control in making 

sure they were uploading the necessary 

information into SWEPT for project 

review and coordination. As they 

received comments from OEM, the 

district adjusted their checklist so that 

future projects would also benefit from 

the OEM comments. 

Observation 3: FDOT’s approach to 

QA could be broadened and made more 

responsive 

The FDOT QA/QC Plan identified 

only the Self-Assessment as FDOT’s QA 

tool. The FDOT Self-Assessment 

considered five focus areas for 

compliance: commitments; ponds; 

species and habitat; QA/QC; and Type 

1 CE projects. Both FHWA and FDOT 

reviewed the same 27 projects 

(exclusive of Type I CEs completed 

under 23 CFR 771.117(c)) and identified 

a similar number of projects with 

documentation issues for the focus areas 

in common (commitments and species 

and habitat). However, the Audit Team 

identified additional project 

documentation or compliance issues not 

identified by FDOT. While FHWA 

acknowledges that FDOT has employed 

quality assurance as a corrective action 

to address missing information for 

projects, FDOT’s obligation under the 

MOU is that its QA/QC process identify 

and address the full range of compliance 

obligations it has assumed. Though 

concentrating on focus areas is 

appropriate for a Self-Assessment 

Summary Report, FDOT’s QA overall 

process should be broader in scope in 

order to identify and correct any 

deficiencies. The FHWA met with 

FDOT to discuss FDOT’s approach to 

QA. The FDOT clarified that they have 

other quality assurance tools in addition 

to the Self- Assessment. The FHWA will 

include a consideration of FDOT’s 

quality assurance tools in its next audit 

review. 

Legal Sufficiency 

The Audit Team’s review of FDOT’s 

legal sufficiency program found that 

FDOT has structured the legal 

sufficiency process for the NEPA 

Assignment Program by having in house 

counsel as well as being able to contract 

with outside counsel who have NEPA 

experience. Because FDOT is in the 

early stages of implementation, no legal 

sufficiency determinations have been 

made during the audit time frame. 

Successful Practices 

The FDOT Office of General Counsel 

(OGC) is fully engaged in the NEPA 

process. Legal staff participate in 

monthly coordination meetings and 

topic specific meetings with OEM and 

the districts. They also review other 

documents as requested for legal input. 

There is close collaboration throughout 

the process among OGC, OEM, the 

districts, and districts’ attorneys. 

Based on the information provided, 

the FDOT OGC is adequately staffed to 

provide management and oversight of 

the NEPA assignment process. In 

addition, FDOT attorneys located in 

each of the seven districts provide 

supplemental support to the dedicated 

NEPA OGC staff as needed. 

Training Program 

Successful Practices 

The Audit Team learned through 

interviews that employee training is a 

corporate priority at FDOT. The FDOT’s 

training is considered a successful 

practice in four respects: 

First, FDOT developed its own online NEPA Assignment training. These 

succinct Web-based training videos 

address new NEPA assignment 

processes, including performance 

measures, the FHWA audit process, QA/ 

QC, and the FDOT self-assessment 

process. Such training contributes to a 

consistent understanding of and 

participation in these aspects of the 

NEPA Assignment Program among all 

FDOT staff. 

Second, FDOT provides employees 

ample training opportunities. 

Employees are notified of those 

opportunities through training 

coordinators and the Learning Curve 

system, which provides a library of 

courses. The training helps FDOT 

employees understand new roles and 

responsibilities and is available as 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Notices 43729 

needed. In preparation for NEPA 

Assignment, OEM also provided several 

in-person sessions for the districts. The 

training was recorded and is available 

online. 

Third, FDOT employees are required 

to have an Individual Training Plan 

(ITP). The plan includes required 

subject matter courses and courses that 

promote development of technical and 

leadership skills. 

Finally, training is integrated into 

employee performance evaluations and 

employees’ ITPs are discussed with 

supervisors on an annual basis, thereby 

emphasizing the importance of training 

and promoting compliance with training 

requirements. Completion of training is 

incorporated into the employees’ and 

supervisors’ performance evaluations. 

Performance Measures 

The FDOT presented a discussion of 

their performance measures that 

implement those listed in MOU Section 

10.2 in the July 2017 revision of their 

QA/QC Plan. In that discussion, FDOT 

developed several sub-measures along 

with performance targets, responsible 

parties, relevant processes, and desired 

outcomes identified (see Appendix A of 

the Plan- http://www.fdot.gov/ 

environment/sched/files/APPROVEDFDOT-OEM_QAQC-Plan_-Dec222017- 

revised2017-0712.pdf ). This plan also 

identifies FDOT’s method of 

performance monitoring using SWEPT 

as well as how OEM will, when needed, 

take corrective action to improve 

performance. 

The FDOT Self-Assessment Summary 

Report contained the results of FDOT’s 

first report of its assessment of the 

NEPA Assignment Program and FDOT 

procedures compliance. This 

assessment, for the period between 

December 14, 2016, and April 30, 2017, 

entailed review of project files as well 

as results from a survey of Agency 

satisfaction. The report also included a 

discussion of FDOT’s progress in 

attaining performance results. 

Successful Practices 

The FDOT has demonstrated it has 

taken an active interest in developing, 

monitoring, and implementing the 

performance measures as required by 

the MOU. In reviewing Section 3 of the 

FDOT Self-Assessment Summary 

Report, the Audit Team noted that 

FDOT is the first NEPA assignment 

State to create a training module on 

performance measures. This module, 

available to all FDOT staff, explains 

performance metrics, how the measures 

are computed in SWEPT, performance 

monitoring, and how the measures 

appear in FDOT’s annual SelfAssessment Summary Report. During 

the interviews, FDOT’s leadership 

indicated that they wanted performance 

measures to account for, objectively 

measure, and use quantitative data to 

support, FDOT performance. They also 

made it clear that FDOT is measuring 

something worthwhile and plans to 

revisit the performance metrics over 

time. 

Documentation and Records 

Management 

The SWEPT has been identified as 

FDOT’s project file of record, in which 

FDOT maintains approved 

reevaluations, CEs, EAs, and EISs. The 

Electronic Review and Comments (ERC) 

system is an internal tool to capture 

review and comments on the 

environmental documents. During the 

audit interviews, FDOT staff indicated 

only final documents are maintained in 

the SWEPT system. The Audit Team has 

full access to SWEPT but has no access 

to ERC. 

Successful Practices 

• The FHWA commends FDOT’s use 

of the ERC system to document internal 

review and comments on NEPA 

documents and to maintain a record of 

the disposition of those comments. 

• The FDOT’s statewide 

implementation of SWEPT as the 

administrative file of record used for 

decision making and documenting 

compliance with the NEPA process 

facilitated the Audit Teams review of 

project files. The following features are 

particularly notable: 

• The date-stamping of data in 

SWEPT is used for performance 

measurement tracking. 

• The SWEPT, with its Bates 

stamping ability, facilitates 

administrative records and open records 

request compilations. 

• The June 2017 SWEPT update 

includes Type 1 CE ‘‘smartforms’’ which 

provide internal controls that increases 

certainty of NEPA compliance. 

Non-Compliance Observation 1: Some 

FDOT project files contain insufficient 

documentation to support the 

environmental analysis or decision 

Both the MOU (subpart 10.2.1) and 

FDOT’s PD&E Manual specify that 

documentation is needed to support 

compliance. The Audit Team observed 

that 47 of the 77 project files reviewed 

did not have sufficient documentation 

in SWEPT to support the environmental 

analysis or NEPA decision. The FDOT 

Self-Assessment reached similar 

conclusions, and identified 9 of 36 

projects having insufficient 

documentation. The Audit Team could 

not determine if the discrepancy 

indicated documentation had not been 

uploaded into SWEPT or if the required 

process had not been completed. The 

team provided a list of these projects 

along with a draft of this report to FDOT 

for their review and comment. The 

FDOT provided their comments on this 

report, but did not provide additional 

information to clarify whether 

documentation was not uploaded or a 

required process was not completed. 

The FHWA discussed FDOT’s comment 

on this non-compliance observation and 

the State acknowledged an issue with 

project documentation. The FDOT 

indicated that they would share the 

updated details regarding the 47 project 

files and they were already 

implementing corrective actions to 

address this issue. 

The FDOT has committed to comply 

with all applicable environmental 

review requirements to highway 

projects it has assumed and to maintain 

documentation of this compliance. The 

file review of projects, most, but not all, 

of which were processed with a CE, 

identified the following deficiencies in 

supporting documentation: 1) missing 

or outdated technical documents 

referenced in the NEPA document; 2) 

using FDOT standard specifications for 

Endangered Species Act compliance 

instead of conducting consultation 

when species are known to be present, 

missing documentation of consultation, 

missing impacts analysis, missing 

documentation which concludes with a 

finding, and missing concurrence 

documentation from applicable 

agencies; 3) missing documentation of 

Section 106 consultation; 4) missing or 

incorrect documentation for fiscal 

constraint (for several levels of 

documents including Type 1 CEs); 5) 

missing environmental commitments 

identified in technical reports, and 

commitments not carried forward in 

reevaluations; 6) missing Section 4(f) 

impacts/avoidance analysis; 7) missing 

documentation to support floodplain 

effects finding; 8) missing 

documentation to support the wetlands 

finding; 9) missing documentation for 

Essential Fish Habitat consideration; 10) 

missing documentation of community 

and other resources impacts when 

addressing ROW changes; and, 11) 

missing documentation of water quality 

considerations. 

The FDOT has informed the Review 

Team that they have implemented some 

corrective actions to address missing 

documentation. The FDOT staff 

interviews revealed that the SWEPT 

system was updated to include a control 

to not allow a project file review to be 

completed without uploading all 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
43730 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Notices 

supporting documentation. The FDOT 

believes that this system improvement 

will ensure that supporting 

documentation, which was sometimes 

missing as SWEPT was initially 

implemented, would now be present 

prior to an approval point. The 

implementation of these improvements 

was incorporated after the audit project 

file review time frame. 

Finalizing this Report 

The FHWA received three responses 

to the Federal Register Notice during the 

public comment period for this draft 

report. None of comments were 

substantive; one from the American 

Road and Transportation Builders 

Association voiced support of this 

program and another was anonymous 

that was unrelated to this report. The 

remaining comments came from FDOT. 

The Audit Team met with FDOT to 

discuss their comments throughout the 

Audit report development. The FHWA 

considered FDOT’s comments not to be 

substantive but nonetheless revised the 

report language in several instances. 

This notice includes a final version of 

the audit report that addresses all 

comments submitted on the draft audit 

report. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18476 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket Number FRA–2018–0029] 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR), this 

provides the public notice that by a 

letter dated March 15, 2018, the 

Maryland Transit Administration 

(MTA–MARC), the Illinois Department 

of Transportation (IDOT), and the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), have jointly petitioned the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

for a waiver of compliance from certain 

provisions of the Federal railroad safety 

regulations contained at 49 CFR part 

238, Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards. FRA assigned the petition 

docket number FRA–2018–0029. 

Specifically, Petitioners request relief 

from 49 CFR 238.131 and 238.133, 

pertaining to the exterior side door 

safety system interface with the Siemens 

SC–44 diesel-electric locomotives to be 

used in passenger service, when 

operating in a lite consist (locomotives 

only). Petitioners found that in daily 

operation, the by-pass switch for the 

door safety system must be put into ‘‘bypass’’ to operate the locomotive lite, 

causing an operational constraint for 

daily servicing, maintenance, 

inspection, and fueling. The repeated 

unsealing and resealing of the by-pass 

switch may cause premature failure of 

the switch. MARC and Siemens worked 

jointly to develop a proposed ‘‘Yard 

Mode’’ solution, which monitors the 

door summary circuit trainline, along 

with other trainlines and locomotive 

operating parameters, determining 

whether the locomotive is operating in 

a lite consist or a passenger car consist. 

When ‘‘Yard Mode’’ is activated, it 

allows low speed (10 miles per hour or 

less) operation of the locomotive 

without placing the door by-pass device 

in by-pass. The ‘‘Yard Mode’’ solution 

relies on a multi-step software 

verification, along with multiple 

deliberate acts and confirmations by an 

operator, to enable the system. 

A copy of the petition, as well as any 

written communications concerning the 

petition, is available for review online at 

www.regulations.gov and in person at 

the Department of Transportation’s 

Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, W12–140, Washington, 

DC 20590. The Docket Operations 

Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. FRA does not anticipate 

scheduling a public hearing in 

connection with these proceedings since 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA, in writing, before 

the end of the comment period and 

specify the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number and may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Website: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. 

Communications received by October 

11, 2018 will be considered by FRA 

before final action is taken. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered if practicable. 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of any written communications 

and comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

document, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT 

solicits comments from the public to 

better inform its processes. DOT posts 

these comments, without edit, 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 

https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

See also http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of 

regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Robert C. Lauby, 

Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety 

Chief Safety Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18496 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket Number FRA–2018–0066] 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), this 

document provides the public notice 

that by a letter dated April 11, 2018, 

BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

for a waiver of compliance from certain 

provisions of the Federal railroad safety 

regulations contained at 49 CFR part 

227. FRA assigned the petition Docket 

Number FRA–2018–0066. 

In its petition, BNSF asked FRA to 

waive compliance with 49 CFR 227.109 

to allow employees certified under 49 

CFR part 240 and/or part 242 to exceed 

1,095 days between audiometric tests if 

they meet the hearing acuity timelines 

of 49 CFR 240.217 and/or 242.201. 

Specifically, BNSF asked FRA to allow 

employees subject to part 240 and/or 

part 242 audiometric testing 

requirements to go up to 1,460 days 

between audiometric tests to alleviate 

the confusion of having multiple 

hearing test requirements for part 240 

and 242 certified employees (testing 

requirements under parts 240 and/or 

242 as well as under part 227). 

A copy of the petition, as well as any 

written communications concerning the 

petition, is available for review online at 

www.regulations.gov and in person at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1