Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 45181 

Office of the Secretary based on the 

selection criteria. The final funding 

decisions will be made by the Secretary 

of Transportation. 

3. Additional Information—Prior to 

award, each selected applicant will be 

subject to a risk assessment required by 

2 CFR 200.205. The FHWA must review 

and consider any information about the 

applicant that is in the designated 

integrity and performance system 

accessible through SAM, currently the 

Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). 

An applicant may review information in 

FAPIIS and comment on any 

information about itself. The FHWA 

will consider comments by the 

applicant in addition to the other 

information in FAPIIS, in making a 

judgment about the applicant’s integrity, 

business ethics, and record of 

performance under Federal awards 

when completing the review of risk 

posed by applicants. 

VI. Federal Award Administration 

Information 

1. Federal Award Notices—The 

FHWA will announce awarded projects 

by posting a list of selected projects at 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/ 

chbp.cfm. Following the announcement, 

FHWA will contact the point of contact 

listed in form SF–42. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements—All awards will be 

administered pursuant to the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards found in 2 CFR part 

200, as adopted by DOT at 2 CFR 1201. 

In addition, applicable Federal laws, 

rules, and regulations of FHWA will 

apply to the projects that receive 

program funds, including planning 

requirements, agreements, Buy America 

compliance, and other grant program 

requirements. 

3. Reporting—Each recipient of 

program funding must submit the 

Federal Financial Report (SF–425) on 

the financial condition of the project 

and the project’s progress annually, as 

well as an Annual Budget Review and 

Program Plan to monitor the use of 

Federal funds and ensure accountability 

and financial transparency in the 

competitive highway bridge program by 

September 30 of each year. The FHWA 

reserves the right to request additional 

information, if necessary, to better 

understand the status of the project. 

4. Reporting Matters Related to 

Integrity and Performance—If the total 

value of a selected recipient’s currently 

active grants, cooperative agreements, 

and procurement contracts from all 

Federal awarding agencies exceeds 

$10,000,000 for any period of time 

during the period of performance of this 

Federal award, the applicant during that 

period of time must maintain the 

information reported to SAM and 

FAPIIS about civil, criminal, or 

administrative proceedings described in 

paragraph 2 of this award term and 

condition. This is a statutory 

requirement under Section 872 of Public 

Law 110–417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 

2313). As required by Section 3010 of 

Public Law 111–212, all information 

posted in the designated integrity and 

performance system on or after April 15, 

2011, except past performance reviews 

required for Federal procurement 

contracts, will be publicly available. 

5. Federal Awarding Agency 

Contact(s)—For further information 

concerning this notice, please contact 

the Competitive Highway Bridge 

Program staff via email at CHBPgrant@

dot.gov, or call Douglas Blades at 202– 

366–4622. A TDD is available for 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing at 202–366–3993. In addition, 

FHWA will post answers to questions 

and requests for clarifications on 

FHWA’s website at https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/chbp.cfm. To 

ensure applicants receive accurate 

information about eligibility or the 

program, the applicant is encouraged to 

contact FHWA directly, rather than 

through intermediaries or third parties, 

with questions. The FHWA staff may 

also conduct briefings on the 

Competitive Highway Bridge Program 

discretionary grants selection and award 

process upon request. 

VIII. Other Information 

1. Protection of Confidential Business 

Information—All information submitted 

as part of, or in support of, any 

application shall use publicly available 

data or data that can be made public and 

methods that are accepted by industry 

practice and standards, to the extent 

possible. If the application includes 

information the applicant considers to 

be a trade secret or confidential 

commercial or financial information, the 

applicant should do the following: 

(1) Note on the front cover that the 

submission ‘‘Contains Confidential 

Business Information (CBI)’’; 

(2) mark each affected page ‘‘CBI’’; 

and 

(3) highlight or otherwise denote the 

CBI portions. 

The FHWA protects such information 

from disclosure to the extent allowed 

under applicable law. In the event 

FHWA receives a Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) request for the 

information, FHWA will follow DOT 

procedures described in its FOIA 

regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only 

information that is ultimately 

determined to be confidential under that 

procedure will be exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

Authority: Public Law. 115–141. 

Brandye L. Hendrickson, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19182 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2018–0040] 

Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program; Alaska Department 

of Transportation Audit Report 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21) established the Surface 

Transportation Project Delivery Program 

that allows a State to assume FHWA’s 

environmental responsibilities for 

environmental review, consultation, and 

compliance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

Federal highway projects. When a State 

assumes these Federal responsibilities, 

the State becomes solely responsible 

and liable for 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 notice announces 

and solicits comments on the first audit 

report for the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities 

(DOT&PF). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 5, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to Docket Management 

Facility: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. You may also 

submit comments electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

should include the docket number that 

appears in the heading of this 

document. All comments received will 

be available for examination and 

copying at the above address from 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45182 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments in any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, or 

labor union). The DOT posts these 

comments, without edits, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David T. Williams, Office of Project 

Development and Environmental 

Review, (202) 366–4074, 

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

Maldonado, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

(202) 366–1373, Jomar.Maldonado@

dot.gov, Federal Highway 

Administration, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

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

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of this notice may 

be downloaded from the specific docket 

page at www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

The Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program, codified at 23 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) 327, commonly 

known as the NEPA Assignment 

Program, allows a State to assume 

FHWA’s environmental responsibilities 

for review, consultation, and 

compliance for Federal highway 

projects. When a State assumes these 

Federal responsibilities, the State 

becomes solely liable for carrying out 

the responsibilities, in lieu of the 

FHWA. The DOT&PF published its 

application for NEPA assumption on 

May 1, 2016, and made it available for 

public comment for 30 days. After 

considering public comments, DOT&PF 

submitted its application to FHWA on 

July 12, 2016. The application served as 

the basis for developing a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) that identifies 

the responsibilities and obligations that 

the DOT&PF would assume. The FHWA 

published a notice of the draft MOU in 

the Federal Register on August 25, 

2017, with a 30-day comment period to 

solicit the views of the public and 

Federal Agencies. After the end of the 

comment period, FHWA and DOT&PF 

considered comments and proceeded to 

execute the MOU. Effective November 

13, 2017, DOT&PF assumed FHWA’s 

responsibilities under NEPA, and the 

responsibilities for NEPA-related 

Federal environmental laws described 

in the MOU. 

Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., 

requires the Secretary to conduct annual 

audits 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 announces the 

availability of the first audit report for 

DOT&PF and solicits public comment 

on same. 

Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 

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

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

Issued on: August 28, 2018. 

Brandye L. Hendrickson, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Draft FHWA Audit of the Alaska 

Department of Transportation 

April 16–20, 2018 

The Audit Team finds Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is carrying 

out the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Assignment Program 

responsibilities (assumed November 

2017) and is compliant with the 

provisions of the NEPA Assignment 

Program Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU). The Alaska 

DOT&PF has established written 

internal policies and procedures for the 

assumed Federal responsibilities. 

Following 5 months after execution of 

the MOU, the Audit Team identified 

one non-compliance observation, seven 

general observations, and six successful 

practices. Overall, DOT&PF has carried 

out the environmental responsibilities it 

assumed through the MOU and the 

application for the NEPA Assignment 

Program. 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of 

the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA) first audit of the Alaska 

DOT&PF NEPA review responsibilities 

and obligations that FHWA has assigned 

and DOT&PF has assumed pursuant to 

23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 327. 

Throughout this report, FHWA uses the 

term ‘‘NEPA Assignment Program’’ to 

refer to the program codified at 23 

U.S.C. 327. Under the authority of 23 

U.S.C. 327, DOT&PF and FHWA signed 

a MOU on November 3, 2017, to 

memorialize DOT&PF’s NEPA 

responsibilities and liabilities for 

Federal-aid highway projects and 

certain other FHWA approvals for 

transportation projects in Alaska. Except 

for three projects, which FHWA 

retained, FHWA’s only NEPA 

responsibilities in Alaska are oversight 

and review of how DOT&PF executes its 

NEPA Assignment Program obligations. 

The MOU covers environmental review 

responsibilities for projects that require 

the preparation of environmental 

assessments (EAs), environmental 

impact statements (EIS), and categorical 

exclusions (CE). 

As part of its review responsibilities 

under 23 U.S.C. 327, FHWA formed a 

team in October 2017 to plan and 

conduct an audit of NEPA 

responsibilities DOT&PF assumed. Prior 

to the on-site visit, the Audit Team 

reviewed DOT&PF’s NEPA project 

documentation, DOT&PF’s response to 

FHWA’s pre-audit information request 

(PAIR), and DOT&PF’s self-assessment 

of its NEPA Program. The Audit Team 

reviewed additional documents and 

conducted interviews with DOT&PF 

staff in Alaska on April 16–20, 2018. 

The DOT&PF entered into the NEPA 

Assignment Program after more than 8 

years of experience making FHWA 

NEPA CE determinations pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 326 (beginning September 22, 

2009). The DOT&PF’s environmental 

review procedures are compliant for 

CEs, and DOT&PF is implementing 

procedures and processes for CEs, EAs, 

and EISs as part of its new 

responsibilities under the NEPA 

Assignment Program. Overall, the Audit 

Team found that DOT&PF is 

successfully adding CE, EA, and EIS 

project review responsibilities to an 

already successful CE review program. 

The Audit Team identified one noncompliance observation, seven general 

observations, as well as several 

successful practices. The Audit Team 

finds DOT&PF is carrying out the 

responsibilities it has assumed and is in 

compliance with the provisions of the 

MOU. 

Background 

The NEPA Assignment Program 

allows a State to assume FHWA’s 

environmental responsibilities for 

review, consultation, and compliance 

for Federal-aid highway projects. Under 

23 U.S.C. 327, a State that assumes these 

Federal responsibilities becomes solely 

responsible and solely liable for 

carrying them out. Effective November 

13, 2017, DOT&PF assumed FHWA’s 

responsibilities under NEPA and other 

related environmental laws. Examples 

of responsibilities DOT&PF has assumed 

in addition to NEPA include Section 7 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 45183 

consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and consultation 

under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

Following this first audit, FHWA will 

conduct three more annual audits to 

satisfy provisions of 23 U.S.C. 327(g) 

and Section 11 of the MOU. Audits are 

the primary mechanism through which 

FHWA may oversee DOT&PF’s 

compliance with the MOU and the 

NEPA Assignment Program 

requirements. This includes ensuring 

compliance with applicable Federal 

laws and policies, evaluating DOT&PF’s 

progress toward achieving the 

performance measures identified in 

MOU Section 10.2, and collecting 

information needed for the Secretary’s 

annual report to Congress. The FHWA 

must present the results of each audit in 

a report and make it available for public 

comment in the Federal Register. 

The Audit Team consisted of NEPA 

subject matter experts from the FHWA 

Alaska Division, as well as from FHWA 

offices in Washington, District of 

Columbia; Atlanta, Georgia; Sacramento, 

California; and Lakewood, Colorado. 

These experts received training on how 

to evaluate implementation of the NEPA 

Assignment Program. In addition, the 

FHWA Alaska Division designated their 

Environmental Program Manager to 

serve as a NEPA Assignment Program 

liaison to DOT&PF. 

Scope and Methodology 

The Audit Team conducted an 

examination of DOT&PF’s NEPA project 

files, DOT&PF responses to the PAIR, 

and DOT&PF’s self-assessment. The 

audit also included interviews with staff 

and reviews of DOT&PF policies, 

guidance, and manuals pertaining to 

NEPA responsibilities. All reviews 

focused on objectives related to the six 

NEPA Assignment Program elements: 

program management; documentation 

and records management; quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC); 

legal sufficiency; training; and 

performance measurement. 

The focus of the audit was on 

DOT&PF’s individual project 

compliance and adherence to program 

practices and procedures. Therefore, 

while the Audit Team reviewed project 

documentation to evaluate DOT&PF’s 

NEPA process and procedures, the team 

did not evaluate DOT&PF’s projectspecific decisions to determine if they 

were, in FHWA’s opinion, correct or 

not. The Audit Team reviewed NEPA 

documents from 41 projects including 

Programmatic CEs, CEs, EAs and Reevaluations, a representative sample of 

all NEPA documents in process or 

initiated after the MOU’s effective date. 

The Audit Team also interviewed 

environmental staff in all three DOT&PF 

regions as well as their headquarters 

office. 

The PAIR consisted of 66 questions 

about specific elements in the MOU. 

The Audit Team appreciates the efforts 

of DOT&PF staff to meet the review 

schedule in supplying their response. 

These responses were used to develop 

specific follow-up questions for the onsite interviews with DOT&PF staff. 

The Audit Team conducted 22 on-site 

and 6 phone interviews. Interviewees 

included staff from each of DOT&PF’s 

three regional offices and DOT&PF 

headquarters. The Audit Team invited 

DOT&PF staff, middle management, and 

executive management to participate in 

interviews to ensure the interviews 

represented a diverse range of staff 

expertise, experience, and program 

responsibility. 

Throughout the document reviews 

and interviews, the Audit Team verified 

information on the DOT&PF NEPA 

Assignment Program including DOT&PF 

policies, guidance, manuals, and 

reports. This included the NEPA QA/QC 

Plan, the NEPA Assignment Program 

Training Plan, and the NEPA 

Assignment Self-Assessment Report. 

The Audit Team utilized information 

obtained during interviews and project 

file documentation reviews to consider 

the State’s implementation of the 

assignment program through DOT&PF 

environmental manuals, procedures, 

and policy. This audit is a compliance 

review of DOT&PF’s adherence to their 

own documented procedures in 

compliance with the terms of the MOU. 

The team documented observations 

under the six NEPA Assignment 

Program topic areas. Below are the audit 

results. 

Overall Audit Opinion 

The Audit Team acknowledges 

DOT&PF’s effort to establish written 

internal policies and procedures for the 

new responsibilities they have assumed. 

This report identifies one noncompliant observation that DOT&PF 

will need to address through corrective 

action. These non-compliance 

observations come from a review of 

DOT&PF procedures, project file 

documentation, and interview 

information. This report also identifies 

several notable observations and 

successful practices that we recommend 

be expanded. Overall, DOT&PF has 

carried out the environmental 

responsibilities it assumed through the 

MOU and the application for the NEPA 

Assignment Program, and as such the 

Audit Team finds that DOT&PF is 

substantially compliant with the 

provisions of the MOU. 

Non-Compliance Observations 

Non-compliance observations are 

instances where the team found 

DOT&PF was out of compliance or 

deficient in proper implementation of a 

Federal regulation, statute, guidance, 

policy, the terms of the MOU, or 

DOT&PF’s own procedures for 

compliance with the NEPA process. 

Such observations may also include 

instances where DOT&PF has failed to 

maintain technical competency, 

adequate personnel, and/or financial 

resources to carry out the assumed 

responsibilities. Other non-compliance 

observations could suggest a persistent 

failure to adequately consult, 

coordinate, or consider the concerns of 

other Federal, State, Tribal, or local 

agencies with oversight, consultation, or 

coordination responsibilities. The 

FHWA expects DOT&PF to develop and 

implement corrective actions to address 

all non-compliance observations. The 

FHWA will conduct follow up reviews 

of non-compliance observations in 

Audit #2 from this review. 

Observations and Successful Practices 

This section summarizes the Audit 

Team’s observations of DOT&PF’s NEPA 

Assignment Program implementation, 

including successful practices DOT&PF 

may want to continue or expand. 

Successful practices are positive results 

that FHWA would like to commend 

DOT&PF on developing. These may 

include ideas or concepts that DOT&PF 

has planned but not yet implemented. 

Observations are items the Audit Team 

would like to draw DOT&PF’s attention 

to, which may benefit from revisions to 

improve processes, procedures, or 

outcomes. The DOT&PF may have 

already taken steps to address or 

improve upon the Audit Team’s 

observations, but at the time of the audit 

they appeared to be areas where 

DOT&PF could make improvements. 

This report addresses all six MOU topic 

areas as separate discussions. Under 

each area, this report discusses 

successful practices followed by 

observations. 

This audit report provides an 

opportunity for DOT&PF to begin 

implementing actions to improve their 

program. The FHWA will consider the 

status of areas identified for potential 

improvement in this audit’s 

observations as part of the scope of 

Audit #2. The second Audit Report will 

include a summary discussion that 

describes progress since the last audit. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45184 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 

Program Management 

The review team acknowledges the 

DOT&PF’s efforts to accommodate their 

environmental program to the 23 U.S.C. 

327 responsibilities they have assumed. 

These efforts include updating their 

Environmental Procedures Manual, 

developing and implementing an 

expanded QA/QC Plan, establishing an 

Environmental Program Training Plan, 

and implementing a self-assessment 

process identifying deficiencies that 

were described and addressed in a 

report. 

Successful Practices 

The Audit Team found that DOT&PF 

has, overall, appropriately implemented 

its project-level review and compliance 

responsibility for CEs, EAs, and EISs. 

The DOT&PF has established a vision 

and direction for incorporating the 

NEPA Assignment Program into its 

overall project development process. 

This was clear in the DOT&PF’s 

responses to FHWA’s PAIR and in 

interviews with staff in the regions and 

at DOT&PF’s headquarters office, 

commonly known as the Statewide 

Environmental Office (SEO). 

The DOT&PF increased 

environmental staff in the SEO to 

support the new responsibilities under 

the NEPA Assignment Program. Staff at 

SEO are responsible for the review of 

some projects classified as CEs and all 

projects classified as EAs and EISs. 

Regional environmental staff coordinate 

their NEPA work through Regional 

Environmental Managers and NEPA 

Program Managers at SEO. Some staff 

responsibilities have changed under the 

NEPA Assignment Program, but 

positions have essentially remained 

unchanged. Following assumption of 

NEPA responsibilities, DOT&PF hired a 

statewide NEPA Assignment Program 

Manager who is responsible for 

overseeing DOT&PF’s policies, manuals, 

guidance, and training under the NEPA 

Assignment Program. 

The Audit Team would also like to 

recognize DOT&PF efforts to bring a 

lawyer into the early stages of project 

development to ensure a legally 

defensible document. 

Non-Compliance Observation #1: 

Opportunity of a Public Hearing 

Section 7.2.1 of the MOU requires the 

DOT&PF to develop procedures to 

implement the responsibilities assumed. 

This review identified one example of 

deficient adherence to these State 

procedures. This Audit Team identified 

one project file where DOT&PF did not 

offer the opportunity for a public 

hearing for the release of the Draft EA 

consistent with its own public 

involvement procedures in the January 

2005 Preconstruction Manual Section 

520.4.1 or the February 2018 

Environmental Procedures Manual 

Section 4.4.2. The Audit Team 

confirmed with SEO that although 

public meetings were held, no 

opportunity for a public hearing was 

provided. 

Observation #1: Programmatic Section 

106 Compliance and Section 4(f) 

Compliance 

The DOT&PF’s November 2017 

Section 106 Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) established an alternate procedure 

for Section 106 compliance in Alaska 

which allows the use of a streamlined 

process. The Audit Team identified a 

risk to DOT&PF in the application of 

their Section 106 PA to projects that 

require integrating the Section 106 

process results to comply with the 

requirements of Section 4(f). 

a. The PA notes that the streamlined 

process is applicable to projects with 

low potential to affect historic 

properties. The DOT&PF staff 

characterized how they apply the 

streamlined Section 106 process to 

individual projects as ones that result in 

little or no potential to affect historic 

properties. The DOT&PF project 

documentation for the streamlined 

Section 106 compliance is a form that 

does not identify either a project effect 

or the effect to a specific historic 

property. 

b. Because the use of the streamlined 

form does not identify a Section 106 

effect for any individual historic 

property, the DOT&PF documentation 

cannot support any required Section 4(f) 

de minimis impact determinations. (see 

23 CFR 774.5(b)(1)) 

Observation #2: Lack of a process to 

implement planning consistency at time 

of a NEPA decision 

Section 3.3.1 of the MOU requires 

DOT&PF to, at the time they make a 

NEPA approval (CE determination, 

finding of no significant impact, or 

record of decision) check to ensure that 

the project’s design concept, scope, and 

funding is consistent with current 

planning documents. Reviews of project 

documents provided no evidence that 

DOT&PF staff had reviewed planning 

documents for availability of funding. 

Through interviews it was clear that 

their understanding of this requirement 

varied. Through reviews of DOT&PF 

manuals, the Audit Team could not find 

a procedure for staff to follow so that at 

the time staff makes a NEPA approval, 

they are also checking (and 

documenting) that the project’s design 

concept, scope, and funding is 

consistent with planning documents. 

Observation #3: Staff Capacity 

Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 discuss the 

State’s commitment of resources and 

adequate organizational and staff 

capability. Several DOT&PF staff 

explained through interviews, that since 

the State’s entry into the full NEPA 

Assignment Program, their required 

review and documentation efforts 

dramatically increased. We learned from 

two region office staff that, because of 

the increased workload, the region 

office did not have sufficient resources 

to manage the workload associated with 

the NEPA Assignment Program. A 

related concern was the challenge in 

retaining qualified staff, possibly 

leading to a delay in project delivery. 

(MOU Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) 

Observation #4: Government-toGovernment Consultation 

Section 3.2.3 of the MOU excludes 

assignment of the responsibility for 

Government-to-Government 

consultation with Tribes, to DOT&PF. 

The Audit Team learned through 

interviews, and a check of DOT&PF’s 

environmental manual, that the 

DOT&PF has no written procedures on 

how its staff are to accommodate a 

Tribal request for Government-toGovernment consultation with FHWA. 

Through interviews it was apparent that 

DOT&PF’s staff has an inconsistent 

understanding of how to handle this 

scenario. Staff indicated they would like 

written guidance that addresses the 

process that includes FHWA’s role. 

(MOU Section 3.2.3) 

Documentation and Records 

Management 

The NEPA Assignment Program 

became effective on November 13, 2017. 

From that effective date through 

February 28, 2018, the DOT&PF made 

56 project decisions. By employing both 

judgmental and random sampling 

methods, the Audit Team reviewed 

NEPA project documentation for 41 of 

these decisions. 

Successful Practices 

The Audit Team recognizes several 

efforts to improve consistency of filing 

project documentation learned through 

project documentation reviews and 

interviews. These include: the use of a 

standardized electronic folder structure 

developed by Central Region; a 

spreadsheet template used in Central 

Region to manage tasks and standardize 

filing of project documents; and 

Southcoast Region utilizing a document 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 45185 

specialist to ensure that project files are 

complete. 

The Audit Team would also like to 

commend DOT&PF’s use of the optional 

23 CFR 771.117(e) form for CE projects 

classified as c(26), c(27), or c(28) 

because it clearly and efficiently 

demonstrates that the conditions 

required for the project to be processed 

as a ‘‘c-list’’ CE have been met. We urge 

DOT&PF management to consider 

making this form a required part of CE 

documentation. 

Observation #5: Section 106 Compliance 

Section 5.1.1 of the MOU requires the 

State to follow Federal laws, 

regulations, policy, and procedures to 

implement the responsibilities assumed, 

and Section 4.2.3 specifically calls out 

requirements pertaining to historic 

properties. This review identified two 

examples of deficient adherence to these 

Federal Section 106 compliance 

procedures. The regulations that 

implement Section 106 of the NHPA 

require the Agency Official to consider 

the impacts of their undertaking on 

historic properties and to afford the 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) an opportunity to comment. 

Through project file reviews, the Audit 

Team identified one instance where the 

Section 106 review did not consider the 

full extent of the project’s undertaking. 

This was a project where an off-ramp 

bypass lane was added to the project but 

was not considered as part of Section 

106 compliance. Note that this error was 

also discovered by DOT&PF during their 

self-assessment and corrective action 

has been completed. In the second 

instance, the review of project file 

documentation revealed that DOT&PF 

incorrectly made a decision that Section 

106 compliance requirements to make 

an effect determination did not apply. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

The Audit Team recognizes that the 

DOT&PF is in the early stages of the 

NEPA Assignment Program. However, 

the Audit Team made the following 

observations related to QA/QC. 

Successful Practices 

The MOU requires the DOT&PF to 

conduct an annual self-assessment of its 

QA/QC process and performance. The 

Audit Team found the DOT&PF’s selfassessment report to be well-written and 

comprehensive with in-depth analyses. 

This documents their commitment to 

implementing a compliant NEPA 

Assignment Program. 

The Audit Team would like to 

recognize the SEO’s use of the QA/QC 

database for tracking QA/QC reviews. 

This allows them to quantify the review 

results to better identify trends or areas 

of concern that should be addressed. 

The Audit Team learned through 

interviews that the Section 106 

professionally qualified individuals in 

SEO review the information the regions 

submit to the SHPO. The SEO staff said 

that the records were adequate overall, 

but occasional follow up with 

individual regions was necessary to 

increase the clarity and address possible 

omissions. This SEO feedback should 

result in increased consistency and 

clarity in Section 106 documentation 

subject to interagency review. 

Observation #6: QC staff roles and 

responsibilities 

The DOT&PF’s QA/QC plan identifies 

a Project Development Team who would 

review documents to ensure 

consistency, conciseness, and overall 

quality, but it does not discuss specific 

responsibilities of individual members 

for the QA/QC process. In addition, staff 

did not consistently articulate the QA/ 

QC responsibilities of the Project 

Development Team members. The Audit 

Team would like to draw the DOT&PF’s 

attention to what appears to be an 

inconsistent awareness of the use of 

Project Development Teams and the 

roles and responsibilities of team 

members for QC. 

Training Program 

Per MOU Section 12 Training, the 

DOT&PF committed to implementing 

training necessary to meet its 

environmental obligations assumed 

under the NEPA Assignment Program. 

As required in the MOU the DOT&PF 

also committed to assessing its need for 

training, developing a training plan, and 

updating the training plan on an annual 

basis in consultation with FHWA and 

other Federal Agencies as deemed 

appropriate. 

The DOT&PF developed the 2018 

Environmental Program Training Plan to 

fulfill the requirements of Section 12 of 

the MOU. The 2018 Environmental 

Program Training Plan is a 

comprehensive document that addresses 

a number of issues related to training 

including: 

• a variety of in-person and virtual 

training methods that could be used by 

DOT&PF; 

• the timing of, and approach to, 

updating the 2018 Environmental 

Program Training Plan; 

• the development of an individual 

training plan (ITP) that outlines both 

mandatory and non-mandatory training; 

• the training and experience the 

employees must acquire to be 

considered for promotion; and 

• maintaining a record of trainings 

that were taken by employees in the last 

3 years and their anticipated training 

requests for the upcoming year. 

Successful Practices 

Tracking environmental training is 

required by the DOT&PF’s 2018 

Environmental Program Training Plan. 

One PD&E Chief shared a spreadsheet 

developed to track all the training taken 

by his staff, including environmental 

courses. The Audit Team believes this 

tool will help ensure employees 

received required training to advance 

the NEPA Assignment Program. 

Observations: 

Observation #7: Training Program 

MOU Sections 12.2, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 

require the DOT&PF to retain staff and 

the organizational capacity to 

implement their program and to 

implement training. Training often is an 

important tool for attaining and 

maintaining staff and organizational 

capacity. The Audit Team asked 

DOT&PF staff to share their perceptions 

about the training requirements in the 

plan; the adequacy of the training 

budget; and how training relates to their 

job responsibilities, performance, and 

employee development and promotion. 

The Audit Team urges the DOT&PF to 

consider ways to accommodate training 

needs and consider various approaches 

to deliver necessary training in a timely 

manner: 

a) Regarding training requirements, 

some interviewees said that the 

DOT&PF’s training plan requirements 

were unrealistic because either: 1) staff 

was too busy working on projects to 

have the time to complete the training 

courses identified in the plan; or 2) 

given the turnover rates in their office 

and the frequency of training offered, 

employees were unlikely to get all 

required training during their tenure. 

The Audit Team considers the plan to 

be realistic and urges the DOT&PF to 

consider ways to address these 

challenges. 

b) Regarding the training budget, 

interview responses revealed no 

consensus. The DOT&PF management 

indicated a strong desire to have a 

robust NEPA program and some 

interviewees responded that they felt 

that the training budget was adequate. 

However, responses from other 

interviewees indicated that the training 

budget was inadequate, especially as it 

relates to travel. The Audit Team was 

unable to resolve whether the budget 

was inadequate and will consider this 

issue again in the next audit. 

c) The 2018 Environmental Program 

Training Plan links training to employee 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45186 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices 

development and promotion. Interviews 

revealed: (1) inconsistent preparation 

and use of an ITP as is required for 

employees; (2) perceptions that training 

requirements for flexing from an 

Analyst 1 to Analyst 2 position are 

clearly spelled out, but not for 

advancement beyond an Analyst 2 

position; (3) concerns that training 

opportunities are too limited or not 

available; and (4) some employees have 

not had a performance review in several 

years. Based on this input, the Audit 

Team suggests that the DOT&PF focus 

on additional ways to improve 

implementation of their Training Plan. 

d) Regarding training needs, DOT&PF 

staff indicated a need for Section 4(f) 

training, according to interviews in all 

three regions and SEO. Multiple 

interviewees also identified a need for 

training in noise and floodplains. 

Training needs cited at a lesser 

frequency included ESA, cumulative 

effects, Section 408, EA/EIS, QA/QC, 

Planning and Environmental Linkages, 

stream enhancement, NEPA, conflict 

resolution and mediation. Given that the 

DOT&PF is now implementing 

additional environmental review 

responsibilities based on the MOU, and 

staff recognize the need to be prepared 

to embrace those responsibilities, the 

Audit Team urges the DOT&PF to 

address these training needs 

expeditiously, and be sensitive to 

ongoing training needs. 

Performance Measures 

The DOT&PF has demonstrated it has 

taken an active interest in developing, 

monitoring, and implementing the 

performance measures required by the 

MOU. The March 21, 2018, DOT&PF 

NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment 

Summary Report contained the results 

of the DOT&PF’s first report of its 

assessment of NEPA Assignment and 

DOT&PF procedures compliance. The 

DOT&PF’s March 1, 2017, response to 

FHWA’s PAIR included answers to 

questions posed on performance 

measures. Because of the information 

provided in these two documents, 

combined with the fact that a relatively 

brief period of time has transpired since 

the MOU became effective, the Audit 

Team has not identified any 

observations or successful practices 

here. However, the following discussion 

describes the current status of the 

DOT&PF’s performance measures. 

The DOT&PF’s performance measure 

to assess change in communication 

among the DOT&PF, Federal and State 

resource agencies, and the public 

resulting from assumption of 

responsibilities under this MOU was 

based on the experience of a single EA 

project, according to DOT&PF’s selfassessment summary report. Through 

interviews, the Audit Team learned that 

the DOT&PF believes the resource 

agencies will observe little change in 

communication and consultation 

because DOT&PF had been operating 

under a 23 U.S.C. 326 MOU since 

September 2009. 

The DOT&PF’s self-assessment 

summary report suggests some early 

efficiencies have been observed, but the 

consensus from interviews was that it is 

too early to determine if substantial 

increased efficiencies and timeliness 

will result from the program. Some 

individuals indicated that over time the 

program should result in increased 

efficiencies and timeliness. 

Through interviews, the Audit Team 

learned that data for performance 

measures are being collected and 

presented quarterly to DOT&PF 

management for use in decisionmaking. 

Also, that DOT&PF believes the existing 

performance measures are 

comprehensive and adequate. The 

DOT&PF leadership said that 

performances measures will be 

evaluated annually to determine if 

adjustment is needed. 

Legal Sufficiency 

Interviews with both staff and 

management attorneys emphasized the 

legal sufficiency review process 

emulated FHWA’s ‘‘early legal 

involvement’’ concept, i.e., bringing a 

lawyer onto the reviewing team at an 

early stage in project development. We 

learned that DOT&PF staff do not need 

to go through management to talk to an 

attorney, but may call or email at any 

time (and, with regard to EAs, have 

done so under NEPA Assignment). 

Management noted specific review steps 

are to take place at the both draft and 

final stages for assigned EISs and 

Individual Section 4(f) Evaluations. 

At this time, the Alaska Department of 

Law (DOL) expressed no intention of 

expanding the number of staff attorneys 

assigned to document review; however, 

it has a contingency plan should 

workload increase significantly in 

future. Specifically, should DOT&PF be 

sued over an assigned project, DOL 

tentatively intends to contract with 

outside counsel (per 23 U.S.C. 

327[a][2][G]) to handle the litigation 

rather than make a single staff attorney 

divide his time between document 

review and defending the case. The 

Transportation Section attorney would 

act as support counsel to the litigators 

in a manner similar to the way FHWA 

counsel provide litigation support to the 

U.S. Department of Justice when it 

defends FHWA’s environmental 

decisions in court. (MOU Section 6.1.1) 

Next Steps 

The FHWA provided this draft audit 

report to DOT&PF for a 14-day review 

and comment period. The Audit Team 

considered DOT&PF comments in 

developing this draft audit report. The 

FHWA will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register for a 30-day comment 

period in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

327(g). No later than 60 days after the 

close of the comment period, FHWA 

will respond to all comments submitted 

to finalize this draft audit report 

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(B). The 

FHWA will publish the final audit 

report in the Federal Register. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19184 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund 

Notice of Information Collection and 

Request for Public Comment 

ACTION: Notice and request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Currently, the 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), 

Department of the Treasury, is soliciting 

comments concerning the Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

Program—Certification Application, 

which will be submitted through the 

Awards Management Information 

System (AMIS). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 5, 2018 

to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments via 

email to Tanya McInnis, Acting Program 

Manager for the Office of Certification, 

Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, 

CDFI Fund, at ccme@cdfi.treas.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanya McInnis, Acting Program 

Manager for the Office of Certification, 

Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of 

the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW, Washington DC 20220 or by phone 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES