Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 10599 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7804] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: 

‘‘Elegance and Refinement: The StillLife Paintings of Willem van Aelst’’ 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000, 

I hereby determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘Elegance 

and Refinement: The Still-Life Paintings 

of Willem van Aelst,’’ imported from 

abroad for temporary exhibition within 

the United States, are of cultural 

significance. The objects are imported 

pursuant to loan agreements with the 

foreign owners or custodians. I also 

determine that the exhibition or display 

of the exhibit objects at the Museum of 

Fine Arts, Houston, Houston, Texas, 

from on or about March 11, 2012, until 

on or about May 28, 2012, the National 

Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on 

or about June 24, 2012, until on or about 

October 14, 2012, and at possible 

additional exhibitions or venues yet to 

be determined, is in the national 

interest. I have ordered that Public 

Notice of these Determinations be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. 

Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: 202–632–6469). The 

mailing address is U.S. Department of 

State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 

5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Ann Stock, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4112 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

Commission Meeting 

AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission will hold its regular 

business meeting on March 15, 2012, in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Details 

concerning the matters to be addressed 

at the business meeting are contained in 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this notice. 

DATES: March 15, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: North Office Building, 

Hearing Room 1 (Ground Level), North 

Street (at Commonwealth Avenue), 

Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, 

telephone: (717) 238–0423, ext. 306; fax: 

(717) 238–2436; email: rcairo@srbc.net 

or Stephanie L. Richardson, Secretary to 

the Commission, telephone: (717) 238– 

0423, ext. 304; fax: (717) 238–2436; 

email: srichardson@srbc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

business meeting will include actions 

on the following items: (1) A resolution 

concerning the use of lesser quality 

water; (2) approval for Susquehanna 

River Flow Management project 

expenditures; (3) a revision of the bylaws relating to the Commission’s 

Investment Policy Statement; (4) a 

request for a partial fee waiver; (5) 

ratification/approval of grants/contracts 

(6) revision of FY–2013 Budget; (7) 

release for public review and comment 

of a Low Flow Protection Policy; and (8) 

Regulatory Program projects. Projects 

listed for Commission action are those 

that were the subject of a public hearing 

conducted by the Commission on 

February 16, 2012; notice of which was 

published in 77 FR 3321, January 23, 

2012. Please note, in such notice, 

Project No. 34 under Supplementary 

Information, Additional Projects, 

identifies the project sponsor and 

facility as Water Treatment Solutions, 

LLC (South Mountain Lake) as being 

located in Wood Township, Lycoming 

County, Pa. The correct location is 

Woodward Township, Lycoming 

County, Pa. 

Opportunity to Appear and Comment: 

Interested parties are invited to attend 

the business meeting and encouraged to 

review the Commission’s Public 

Meeting Rules of Conduct, which are 

posted on the Commission’s Web site, 

www.srbc.net. As identified in the 

public hearing notice referenced above, 

written comments on the Regulatory 

Program projects that were the subject of 

the public hearing, and are listed for 

action at the business meeting, were due 

on or before February 27, 2012. Written 

comments pertaining to any other 

matters listed for action at the business 

meeting may be mailed to the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 

1721 North Front Street, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17102–2391, or submitted 

electronically to Richard A. Cairo, 

General Counsel, email: rcairo@srbc.net 

or Stephanie L. Richardson, Secretary to 

the Commission, email: 

srichardson@srbc.net. Any such 

comments mailed or electronically 

submitted must be received by the 

Commission on or before March 9, 2012, 

to be considered. 

Authority: Public Law 91–575, 84 Stat. 

1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

Thomas W. Beauduy, 

Deputy Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4027 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2012–0005] 

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 and annual audits 

during each subsequent year of State 

participation. This notice announces 

and solicits comments on the sixth audit 

report for the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 23, 2012. 

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 selfVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Feb 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM 22FEN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 

1Caltrans MOU between FHWA and Caltrans 

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

strmlng/safe_cdot_pilot.asp. 

addressed, 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, 

(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.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

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 

the 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 sixth 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: February 14, 2012. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

DRAFT 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Pilot Program Federal Highway 

Administration Audit of California 

Department of Transportation October 

17–21, 2011 

Overall Audit Opinion 

Based on the information reviewed, it 

is the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) audit team’s opinion that as of 

October 21, 2011, 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 sixth 

audit, Caltrans has now operated under 

the Pilot Program for 4 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 is 

now conducting the annual audit cycle, 

which began with the fifth audit in July 

2010 and includes this sixth audit in 

October 2011. Collectively, FHWA 

audits have included on-site audits to 

Caltrans headquarters offices, 10 of the 

12 Caltrans Districts, and to the Caltrans 

Regional Offices supporting the 

remaining two 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, 

Caltrans Headquarters (HQ) must 

provide clear, consistent, and ongoing 

oversight over Districts’ implementation 

and operation of the Pilot Program 

responsibilities. Implementation of 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 meet all 

Pilot Program commitments. 

Due to the multiyear timeframes 

associated with most 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 (ROD) 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 continue 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 under 

recent resource constraints. 

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), as enacted in SAFETEA–LU, 

‘‘the program shall terminate on the date 

that is 6 years after the date of 

enactment of this section,’’ which was 

August 10, 2011. However, section 

2203(c) of the Surface Transportation 

Extension Act of 2010, Part II, Public 

Law 111–322, amended 23 U.S.C 327 

(i)(1) to require the Pilot Program to 

terminate seven years after the date of 

the enactment of SAFETEA–LU or 

August 10, 2012. The MOU between 

FHWA and Caltrans was amended 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 10601 

August 8, 2011, to include this new date 

and to update related provisions. 

Effective Practices 

The FHWA audit team observed the 

following effective practices during the 

sixth audit: 

1. The creation of a statewide 

Community Impacts working team that 

holds monthly calls to share 

Community Impact Assessment (CIA) 

and Environmental Justice information. 

Caltrans has also developed new CIA 

guidance. 

2. Improved level of consistency in 

implementing processes and 

documenting information, largely due to 

the use of the Standard Environmental 

Reference (SER) and templates. 

3. Improved Section 4(f) de minimis 

letters to the officials with jurisdiction, 

with good examples from local agencies 

in District 4. 

4. Increased access to training, 

including the availability of on-demand 

training, PowerPoint, Webinars and 

videoconferencing. 

5. Complete and well-organized 

project files in District 10. 

6. Assumptions and Risk statements 

included in early project development/ 

scoping that list possible consequences, 

effects and costs of not complying with 

all environmental requirements and 

procedures. 

7. Caltrans’ Standard Specifications 

for Construction 2010 (recently 

released) requires environmental 

stewardship to be included in all 

construction contracts, which should 

aid in environmental mitigation 

implementation. 

8. The new Caltrans Standard 

Tracking and Exchange Vehicle for 

Environmental (STEVE) supports 

tracking of the environmental review 

process and sharing of project status 

across project teams and includes an 

internal dispute resolution process. 

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 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. 

Scope of the Audit 

This is the sixth FHWA audit of 

Caltrans participation in the Pilot 

Program. The on-site portion of the 

audit was conducted in California from 

October 17 through October 21, 2011. 

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. 

Prior to the on-site audit, FHWA 

completed telephone interviews with 

Federal resource agency staff at the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), the 

National Park Service, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. The 

on-site audit included visits to the 

Caltrans Offices in District 2 (Redding), 

District 3/North Region (Marysville), 

District 4 (Oakland), District 6 (Fresno), 

District 10 (Stockton), and Headquarters 

(Sacramento). 

This report documents findings 

within the scope of the audit as of the 

completion date of the on-site audit on 

October 21, 2011. 

Audit Process and Implementation 

The intent of each FHWA audit 

completed under the Pilot Program is to 

ensure that the Pilot State complies with 

the commitments in its MOU with 

FHWA. The FHWA does not evaluate 

specific project-related decisions made 

by the State; 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 assess 

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 Quality Control 

Procedures; 

• Independent Environmental 

Decisionmaking; 

• Determining the NEPA Class of 

Action; 

• Consultation and Coordination with 

Resource Agencies; 

• Issue Identification and Conflict 

Resolution Procedures; 

• Recordkeeping 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 sixth 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; 

• U.S. FWS. 

During the onsite audit, the audit 

team interviewed more than 60 staff 

from 5 Caltrans District and HQ offices. 

The audit team also reviewed project 

files and records for over 55 projects 

managed by Caltrans under the Pilot 

Program. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 

The FHWA acknowledges that 

Caltrans identified specific issues 

during its sixth 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 the 

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, including 

participation in scheduled interviews, 

despite Caltrans having been notified 

ahead of time. This limited the extent of 

information gathering. 

• 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 environmental 

documents. 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 relatively short 

period of time that the Pilot Program has 

been in place, Caltrans has not 

completed the environmental process 

for a sufficient number of projects of 

varying complexities to adequately 

support a determination on the potential 

time savings resulting from 

participation in the Pilot Program. 

• Continued errors in the quarterly 

reports. As has been the case in every 

audit, the quarterly reports prepared by 

Caltrans listing environmental 

approvals and decisions made under the 

Pilot Program continue to contain 

omissions and errors. It is difficult for 

FHWA to exercise full oversight on Pilot 

Program projects without a complete 

accounting of all NEPA documents 

produced under the Pilot. 

Status of Findings Since the Last Audit 

(July 2010) 

As part of the sixth audit, FHWA 

evaluated the corrective actions 

implemented by Caltrans in response to 

the ‘‘Deficient’’ and ‘‘Needs 

Improvement’’ findings in the fifth 

FHWA audit report. 

Deficient Audit Finding Status 

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 audit team acknowledges that 

Caltrans has recently implemented the 

STEVE environmental database system 

on a statewide basis to assist in the 

development of a comprehensive 

database of environmental projects and 

milestones. 

2. Section 4(f) Documentation—As 

noted in the past two audits, 

inconsistencies in Section 4(f) 

compliance and documentation have 

been observed by the audit team. The 

FHWA acknowledges that Caltrans 

continues to provide Section 4(f) 

training and assistance to the Districts to 

improve the understanding of the 

Section 4(f) statute and regulations. 

However, training implementation is 

inconsistent with staff implementing 

Section 4(f) across Districts. 

3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

(QA/QC) Certification Process—Project 

file reviews completed during the sixth 

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. 

Needs Improvement Audit Findings 

Status 

1. Maintenance of Project and General 

Administrative Files—Caltrans has 

instituted specific procedures for 

maintaining project files in accordance 

with the Uniform Filing System 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. 

2. Performance Measure—FHWA 

recommended that Caltrans share with 

FHWA the specific agencies’ rating 

information so that specific issues could 

be identified. Caltrans has provided this 

information to FHWA. 

3. Coordination with Resource 

Agencies—Conversations with Federal 

resource agencies prior to the onsite 

audit indicated that relationships 

between the agencies and Caltrans are 

generally considered to be effective; 

however, the audit team noted an issue 

regarding insufficient information being 

initially submitted to the resource 

agencies. 

4. Procedural and Substantive 

Requirements—There were identified 

instances of incomplete documentation 

regarding the Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 process. This was also an area 

of irregularities identified in the 

Caltrans Self Assessment. Section 7 

compliance continues to be a topic 

addressed by the Biological Consultancy 

group and, included as part of the 

STEVE, there is an elevation process for 

Section 7 conflicts. 

5. Re-evaluation Process—Project file 

reviews and staff interviews continue to 

indicate varying degrees of compliance 

with the re-evaluation process and 

procedures. 

6. Section 4(f) Consistency Issue— 

Project file reviews and interviews with 

Caltrans staff confirmed continuing 

inconsistencies in the implementation 

of the Section 4(f) process as well as 

with a general understanding required 

in carrying out Section 4(f) provisions. 

The audit team does acknowledge that 

a Section 4(f) evaluation training on 

demand module was recently posted for 

use by Caltrans staff. 

7. Training—As in past audits, the 

audit team observed inconsistencies in 

the use of tools to identify training 

needs, ensure training is received, and 

to track employees’ training histories. 

The audit team also determined there 

was no method for employees to track 

completion of any online training 

available on the Caltrans Web site. 

Findings Definitions 

The FHWA audit team carefully 

examined Pilot Program areas to assess 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 10603 

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 sixth onsite 

audit (October 21, 2011) with the focus 

of the audit on the most recent 15 

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—October 2011 

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. 

Needs Improvement 

(N1) 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 carry out the 

responsibilities it has assumed. 

The audit team found the following 

inconsistencies across the Districts 

regarding the level of needed trainings 

received by Caltrans staff: 

(a) Several of the Section 4(f) District 

Points of Contact (POC) have very little, 

if any experience with writing or 

reviewing a Section 4(f) document and 

have had little training in Section 4(f). 

The audit team learned that the specific 

roles and responsibilities for the POCs 

had not yet been determined. Also, it 

has not been decided if there will be the 

formation of a working/peer group of 

these POCs or how they should proceed 

in becoming ‘‘expert’’ in this area; 

(b) The audit team learned through 

interviews that the number and variety 

of available online on-demand trainings 

have increased. However, the lack of a 

system to track those taking these 

trainings creates difficulties in 

identifying staff training needs; 

(c) Interviews with staff reflected 

instances where staff had to cancel their 

attendance at trainings due to resource 

limitations, or schedule demands; and 

(d) Interviews with staff indicated a 

large staff turnover in certain Districts. 

The loss of experienced staff increases 

the importance of the training needed 

for new employees, which is uncertain 

due to resource restrictions in these 

same Districts. 

(N2) 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. Good communication 

among all staff levels is essential for this 

to be accomplished. The following 

inconsistencies in lack of knowledge 

and inconsistent understanding were 

noted during interviews with Caltrans 

staff: 

(a) Interviews with Caltrans staff in 

varying positions in three Districts 

revealed a lack of understanding of the 

FHWA fiscal constraint requirements 

and its relationship to NEPA 

documents; 

(b) A majority of Caltrans staff 

members interviewed indicated that 

there is a lack of understanding of the 

definitions for the following Section 4(f) 

terms: Section 4(f) use; temporary 

occupancy; avoidance alternatives; least 

overall harm analysis; and constructive 

use of a Section 4(f) resource. 

(c) Interviews with Caltrans staff 

reflected that there was a lack of 

understanding for determining a de 

minimis impact on a Section 4(f) 

resource; 

(d) Several Caltrans staff members 

interviewed indicated a lack of 

knowledge regarding the identification 

of officials with jurisdiction over 

Section 4(f) resources; and 

(e) Interviews with Caltrans District 4 

staff reflected that there was a lack of 

communication among all staff 

concerning the District’s new 

requirement to hold public hearings for 

all EAs. 

(N3) Air Quality Conformity 

Determinations—Section 8.5.1 of the 

MOU and SER Chapter 38 require 

Caltrans staff to document the air 

quality conformity analysis for each 

project by submitting a request to 

FHWA for a formal conformity 

determination, as required by 23 U.S.C. 

327(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I). The request for the 

conformity determination should be 

submitted to FHWA as soon as possible 

after the preferred alternative is 

identified. The FHWA conformity 

determination must be received before 

the final NEPA action is completed. 

Through interviews and project file 

reviews, the audit team identified an 

environmental assessment (EA) that was 

approved without a project-level 

conformity determination letter from 

FHWA. This determination letter was 

later obtained from FHWA and a reevaluation was performed by Caltrans 

and included in the project file. 

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 and no less 

than every 6 months after the first 2 

years). Caltrans has chosen to continue 

to provide quarterly reports to FHWA 

after the first 2 years. As was identified 

in every previous FHWA audit report, 

inaccurate project reporting was 

identified in this audit and it continues 

to be an ongoing issue affecting the 

quarterly report process. 

Among the reporting errors identified 

in this audit were the omission of two 

completed decisions—one ROD and one 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

The FHWA acknowledges that a new 

statewide database (STEVE) has recently 

been implemented throughout the 

Districts, and Caltrans anticipates that 

this new system will improve the 

accuracy of information provided in the 

quarterly reports provided to FHWA. 

(D2) QA/QC Certification Process— 

MOU Section 8.2.5 and SER Chapter 38 

require Caltrans staff to review each 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 

environmental document in accordance 

with the policy memorandum titled, 

‘‘Environmental Document Quality 

Control Program under the NEPA Pilot 

Program’’ (July 2, 2007). As was 

identified in past audits, incomplete 

and incorrectly completed QC 

certification forms continued to be 

identified in this audit. During project 

file reviews by the audit team, the 

following instances of incomplete or 

incorrect QC certification forms were 

observed: 

(a) Four Internal QC certification 

forms (for three projects) were 

completed and signed and dated by 

reviewers after the approval date of the 

document; 

(b) One class of action determination 

form was signed on the same date that 

the document was approved; 

(c) Five 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. 

This included four projects where 

external QC certification forms 

contained signatures that were obtained 

after the internal QC certification form 

signatures; and 

(d) Five QC certification forms were 

missing the signatures of required 

reviewers. 

(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). The policy 

memorandum included the revision to 

the quality control program that 

includes the addition of a NEPA QC 

Review. The purpose of this review 

component is to ensure that the 

environmental document complies with 

the FHWA policies and guidance and 

the requirements of all applicable 

Federal laws, executive orders, and 

regulations. 

Interviews with Caltrans staff and 

project file reviews in one District 

indicated that a NEPA QC reviewer was 

directed by the Office Chief of 

Environmental Affairs and the District 

Director to sign the internal certification 

form without having reviewed the final 

version of the environmental document 

in order to meet the project schedule. 

The NEPA QC reviewer had noted in the 

project file that there were two items, 

previously identified to be addressed, 

that had not yet been addressed in the 

document that was signed. 

(D4) 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 

revalidations and re-evaluations. As in 

past audits, project file reviews and staff 

interviews identified varying degrees of 

understanding of, and compliance with, 

these procedures and the improper use 

of re-evaluation documentation to serve 

another project development purpose. 

Project file reviews identified the 

following inconsistencies with regards 

to re-evaluations: 

(a) A re-evaluation is done to 

determine if the approved 

environmental document or the 

Categorical Exclusion (CE) designation 

remains valid. In the re-evaluation 

process, the original decision and 

analysis needs to be reviewed for its 

validity. A re-evaluation was used to 

increase the scope of the original EA/ 

FONSI. The FHWA re-evaluation 

process does not accommodate such an 

approach. The supporting 

documentation and project files for this 

project were not available for review; 

and 

(b) In a second project, the NEPA 

document was identified in the 

Quarterly Report as a re-evaluation. This 

project was identified as an intersection 

improvement that was to be added to a 

larger project, already under 

construction. The project file contained 

both re-evaluation forms and CE 

checklist forms. Under NEPA, the 

project should have been a stand-alone 

CE, as it was not a part of the original 

project. 

(D5) 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. As 

was also noted in the fourth and fifth 

FHWA audits of the Pilot Program, 

project file reviews and interviews with 

staff conducted during this audit 

identified inconsistencies with the 

implementation and documentation 

requirements for carrying out the 

Section 4(f) provisions. 

In the case of Section 4(f) evaluations, 

the audit team found the following: 

(a) Two of the three evaluations did 

not contain a required Section 4(f) 

avoidance alternative analysis. 

(b) Two of the three evaluations did 

not provide a required Least Overall 

Harm Analysis. 

(D6) Statement Regarding Assumption 

of Responsibility—MOU section 3.2.5 

requires language regarding Caltrans’ 

assumption of responsibility under 23 

U.S.C. 327 be included on the cover 

page of each environmental document 

for all assumed Pilot Program projects. 

The audit teams’ project file reviews 

found the following inconsistencies 

with this requirement: 

(a) The cover page for one EA 

reviewed during the audit did not 

include this required statement; 

(b) The cover page for one Final EIS 

had been modified from the language 

agreed to in the MOU; and 

(c) The cover page for three California 

Environmental Quality Act only 

document contained the FHWA 

assumption statement, even though 

there was no FHWA involvement in this 

document. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3977 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2007–0017; FMCSA– 

2007–29019; FMCSA–2007–28695; FMCSA– 

2008–0106; FMCSA–2009–0154; FMCSA– 

2009–0291; FMCSA–2009–0303; FMCSA– 

2009–0321] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of renewal of 

exemptions; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to renew the exemptions from 

the vision requirement in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 36 

individuals. FMCSA has statutory 

authority to exempt individuals from 

the vision requirement if the 

exemptions granted will not 

compromise safety. The Agency has 

concluded that granting these 

exemption renewals will provide a level 

of safety that is equivalent to or greater 

than the level of safety maintained 

without the exemptions for these 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

drivers. 

DATES: This decision is effective March 

2, 2012. Comments must be received on 

or before March 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

bearing the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) numbers: FMCSA– 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES