Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 37547 

apportioned to the States are set aside 

to be used only for State Planning and 

Research (SPR). At least 25 percent of 

the SPR funds apportioned annually 

must be used for research, development, 

and technology transfer activities. In 

accordance with government-wide grant 

management procedures, a grant 

application must be submitted for these 

funds. In addition, recipients must 

submit periodic progress and financial 

reports. In lieu of Standard Form 424, 

Application for Federal Assistance, the 

FHWA uses a work program as the grant 

application. The information contained 

in the work program includes task 

descriptions, assignments of 

responsibility for conducting the work 

effort, and estimated costs for the tasks. 

This information is necessary to 

determine how FHWA planning and 

research funds will be utilized by the 

State Transportation Departments and if 

the proposed work is eligible for Federal 

participation. The content and 

frequency of submission of progress and 

financial reports specified in 23 CFR 

part 420 are specified in OMB Circular 

A–102 and the companion common 

grant management regulations. 

Respondents: 52 State Transportation 

Departments, including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Frequency: Annual. 

Estimated Average Annual Burden 

per Response: 560 hours per 

respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 29,120 hours. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the U.S. 

DOT’s performance, including whether 

the information will have practical 

utility; (2) the accuracy of the U.S. 

DOT’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the collected information; 

and (4) ways that the burden could be 

minimized, including the use of 

electronic technology, without reducing 

the quality of the collected information. 

The agency will summarize and/or 

include your comments in the request 

for OMB’s clearance of this information 

collection. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as 

amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued On: June 17, 2022. 

Michael Howell, 

Information Collection Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13404 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2021–0010] 

Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program; Utah 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 

responsibilities for environmental 

review, consultation, and compliance 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other Federal 

environmental laws for Federal highway 

projects. When a State assumes these 

Federal responsibilities, the State 

becomes solely responsible and liable 

for carrying out the responsibilities it 

has assumed in lieu of FHWA. This 

program mandates annual audits during 

each of the first 4 years of State 

participation to ensure compliance with 

program requirements. This notice 

announces and solicits comments on the 

fourth and final audit report for the 

Utah Department of Transportation 

(UDOT). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2022. 

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 

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: Ms. 

Lana Lau, Office of Project Development 

and Environmental Review, (202) 366– 

2052, Lana.Lau@dot.gov, or Mr. Patrick 

Smith, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 

366–1345, Patrick.c.Smith@dot.gov, 

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

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 viewed online at 

www.regulations.gov using the docket 

number listed above. Electronic retrieval 

help and guidelines are available on the 

website. It is available 24 hours each 

day, 365 days each year. An electronic 

copy of this document may also be 

downloaded from the Office of the 

Federal Register’s website at 

www.FederalRegister.gov and the U.S. 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.GovInfo.gov. 

Background 

The Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program, codified at 23 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 it has assumed in 

lieu of FHWA. The UDOT published its 

application for NEPA assumption on 

October 9, 2015, and made it available 

for public comment for 30 days. After 

considering public comments, UDOT 

submitted its application to FHWA on 

December 1, 2015. The application 

served as the basis for developing a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

that identified the responsibilities and 

obligations that UDOT would assume. 

The FHWA published a notice of the 

draft MOU in the Federal Register on 

November 16, 2016 (81 FR 80710), with 

a 30-day comment period to solicit the 

views of the public and Federal 

agencies. After the close of the comment 

period, FHWA and UDOT considered 

comments and proceeded to execute the 

MOU. Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT 

assumed FHWA’s responsibilities under 

NEPA, and the responsibilities for other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37548 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 

Federal environmental laws described 

in the MOU. 

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

requires the Secretary to conduct annual 

audits to ensure compliance with the 

MOU during each of the first 4 years of 

State participation and, after the fourth 

year, monitor compliance. The FHWA 

must make the results of each audit 

available for public comment. The 

FHWA published the first audit report 

of UDOT compliance on September 17, 

2018 (83 FR 46992), the second report 

on November 13, 2019 (84 FR 61680), 

and the third report on September 17, 

2020 (85 FR 58102). This notice 

announces the availability of the fourth 

and final audit report for UDOT and 

solicits public comments. 

Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 

112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 

109–59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR part 773. 

Stephanie Pollack, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Program; Draft FHWA Audit of the 

Utah Department of Transportation; 

July 1, 2018–June 30, 2019 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of 

the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA) fourth audit of the Utah 

Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) review responsibilities and 

liabilities that FHWA has assigned and 

UDOT has assumed pursuant to 23 

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. 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327, UDOT and 

FHWA executed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) on January 17, 

2017, to memorialize UDOT’s NEPA 

responsibilities and liabilities for 

Federal-aid highway projects and 

certain other FHWA approvals in Utah. 

The section 327 MOU covers 

environmental review responsibilities 

for projects that require the preparation 

of environmental assessments (EA), 

environmental impact statements (EIS), 

and non-designated documented 

categorical exclusions (DCE). A separate 

MOU, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326, 

authorizes UDOT’s environmental 

review responsibilities for other 

categorical exclusions (CE), commonly 

known as CE Program Assignment. The 

scope of this audit does not cover the CE 

Program Assignment responsibilities. 

As part of FHWA’s review 

responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 327, 

FHWA formed a team (the ‘‘Audit 

Team’’) in August 2020 to plan and 

conduct an audit of NEPA 

responsibilities UDOT assumed. The 

Audit Team conducted its review 

during the period from November 9 to 

December 2, 2020. As part of this audit, 

the Audit Team reviewed UDOT’s 

NEPA project files, UDOT’s response to 

FHWA’s pre-audit information request 

(PAIR), UDOT’s NEPA Assignment SelfAssessment Report, UDOT’s NEPA 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/ 

QC) Guidance, and UDOT’s NEPA 

Assignment Training Plan. The Audit 

Team conducted videoconference 

interviews with four members of UDOT 

central office staff, six of UDOT’s legal 

counsel (one current Assistant Attorney 

General assigned to UDOT, one former 

Assistant Attorney General assigned to 

UDOT, and four outside counsel), three 

staff members from the U.S 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

two staff members from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) as part of 

the audit. 

Overall, the Audit Team found that 

UDOT continues to successfully carry 

out its DCE, EA, and EIS project review 

responsibilities. The UDOT has also 

made efforts to respond to the FHWA 

findings from the third audit, including 

improving document management and 

QA/QC procedures. In the third audit, 

the Audit Team had found that UDOT 

issued an environmental document 

without a final legal sufficiency finding, 

and observed that there were ways 

UDOT could improve their training. 

In this fourth and final audit, the 

Audit Team identified four observations 

and two successful practices. The Audit 

Team finds UDOT is carrying out the 

responsibilities it has assumed and is in 

substantial compliance with the 

provisions of the MOU. This report also 

concludes with the status of FHWA’s 

non-compliance observation from the 

third audit review, including any UDOT 

self-imposed corrective actions. After 

the fourth year of UDOT’s participation 

in the program, FHWA will continue to 

monitor UDOT’s compliance with the 

terms of this MOU, in accordance with 

23 U.S.C. 327(h). 

Background 

The NEPA Assignment Program 

allows a State to assume FHWA’s 

environmental responsibilities for 

review, consultation, and compliance 

for Federal-aid highway projects and 

certain FHWA approvals. Under 23 

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

Federal responsibilities becomes solely 

responsible and solely liable for 

carrying them out. Effective January 17, 

2017, UDOT assumed FHWA’s 

responsibilities under NEPA and other 

related environmental laws. Examples 

of responsibilities UDOT has assumed 

in addition to NEPA include section 7 

consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act and consultation under 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Audits are the primary mechanism 

through which FHWA oversees UDOT’s 

compliance with the MOU and the 

NEPA Assignment Program 

requirements. This includes ensuring 

compliance with applicable Federal 

laws and policies, evaluating UDOT’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. 

Through this fourth and final audit, 

FHWA will satisfy provisions of 23 

U.S.C. 327(g) and Part 11 of the MOU. 

This report summarizes the results of 

the fourth audit in Utah and includes a 

summary discussion that describes 

progress since the last audit. This audit 

is the last of the required audits. 

Scope and Methodology 

The MOU (Part 3.1.1) states that 

‘‘[p]ursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(a)(2)(A), on 

the Effective Date, FHWA assigns, and 

UDOT assumes, subject to the terms and 

conditions set forth in 23 U.S.C. 327 and 

this MOU, all of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Secretary’s 

responsibilities for compliance with the 

NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. with 

respect to the highway projects 

specified under subpart 3.3. This 

assignment includes statutory 

provisions, regulations, policies, and 

guidance related to the implementation 

of NEPA for highway projects such as 23 

U.S.C. 139, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, 

DOT Order 5610.1C, and 23 CFR 771 as 

applicable.’’ Also, the performance 

measure in MOU Part 10.2.1(A) for 

compliance with NEPA and other 

Federal environmental statutes and 

regulations commits UDOT to 

maintaining documented compliance 

with requirements of all applicable 

statutes and regulations, as well as 

provisions in the MOU. 

The Audit Team consisted of NEPA 

subject matter experts from the FHWA 

Utah Division, FHWA Resource Center, 

the Volpe Center, FHWA Headquarters, 

and FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel. 

These experts received training on how 

to evaluate implementation of the NEPA 

Assignment Program. 

The Audit Team conducted an 

examination of UDOT’s NEPA project 

files, UDOT’s responses to the PAIR, 

and UDOT’s self-assessment. The audit 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 37549 

also included interviews with staff and 

reviews of UDOT 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; QA/QC; legal 

sufficiency; training; and performance 

measurement. In particular, the Audit 

Team reviewed UDOT’s process and 

procedures for conducting 

environmental re-evaluations. 

The focus of the audit was on UDOT’s 

process and program implementation. 

Therefore, while the Audit Team 

reviewed project files to evaluate 

UDOT’s NEPA process and procedures, 

the Audit Team did not evaluate 

UDOT’s project-specific decisions to 

determine if they were, in FHWA’s 

opinion, appropriate or not. The Audit 

Team reviewed 20 NEPA Project files 

with DCEs, EAs, EISs, and reevaluations, representing all projects 

with decision points or other actionable 

items between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 

2020. The Audit Team also interviewed 

environmental staff in UDOT’s 

headquarters office. 

The PAIR consisted of 25 questions 

about specific elements in the MOU. 

The Audit Team used UDOT’s response 

to the PAIR to develop specific followup questions for the UDOT staff. 

The Audit Team conducted four 

interviews with UDOT environmental 

staff, one virtual interview with staff 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), one interview with staff 

from the FWS, two interviews with 

UDOT’s outside legal counsel, and one 

interview with legal counsel from the 

Utah Attorney General’s office. All 

interviews were conducted as 

videoconference interviews. 

Throughout the document reviews 

and interviews, the Audit Team verified 

information regarding the UDOT NEPA 

Assignment Program including UDOT 

policies, guidance, manuals, and 

reports. This included the NEPA QA/QC 

Guidance, the NEPA Assignment 

Training Plan, and the NEPA 

Assignment Self-Assessment Report. 

The Audit Team compared the 

procedures outlined in UDOT 

environmental manuals and policies to 

the information obtained during 

interviews and project file reviews to 

determine if there were discrepancies 

between UDOT’s performance and 

documented procedures. The Audit 

Team documented observations under 

the six NEPA Assignment Program topic 

areas. Below are the audit results. 

Overall, UDOT 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 UDOT is substantially compliant 

with the provisions of the MOU. 

Observations and Successful Practices 

This section summarizes the Audit 

Team’s observations of UDOT’s NEPA 

Assignment Program implementation, 

including successful practices UDOT 

may want to continue or expand. 

Successful practices are positive results 

FHWA would like to commend UDOT 

for developing. These may include ideas 

or concepts that UDOT has planned but 

not yet implemented. Observations are 

items the Audit Team would like to 

draw UDOT’s attention to, which may 

benefit from revisions to improve 

processes, procedures, or outcomes. The 

UDOT 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 UDOT could make 

improvements. This report addresses all 

six MOU topic areas as separate 

discussions. Within each area, this 

report discusses successful practices 

followed by observations. 

This audit report provides an 

opportunity for UDOT to implement 

actions to improve their NEPA 

Assignment Program. The FHWA and 

UDOT will continue to work together to 

monitor UDOT’s compliance with the 

terms of this MOU, as required by 23 

U.S.C. 327(h). 

Program Management 

Successful Practice #1 

The Audit Team identified one of 

UDOT’s project websites which 

included detailed information about the 

proposed noise impact analyses, traffic 

noise abatement measures, and the 

proposed relocation of the existing noise 

barriers as a successful practice. The 

noise impact and abatement information 

presented to the public was 

comprehensive and easy to understand. 

Observation #1 

Section 5.1.4 of UDOT’s NEPA 

Assignment MOU outlines an 

interagency planning and coordination 

protocol to make sure that all 

programmatic agreements reflect 

UDOT’s new roles and responsibilities 

under NEPA Assignment. The Audit 

Team observed that UDOT’s Section 106 

programmatic agreements with four 

Tribal governments predate NEPA 

Assignment, and they do not reflect 

UDOT’s assigned roles and 

responsibilities. We recommend that 

UDOT reach out to these Tribal 

governments and implement the 

interagency planning and coordination 

provisions of Section 5.1.4, which may 

include amending the programmatic 

agreements or obtaining a ‘‘written 

consent’’. The recommended path 

forward would enable UDOT to clarify 

its assigned roles and responsibilities 

during Section 106 consultations. 

The overall consistency across all five 

of the Section 106 programmatic 

agreements is important to clarify the 

organizational roles and responsibilities 

between UDOT and FHWA for both 

Section 106 and Government-toGovernment consultations, resulting in 

more predictable lines of 

communication, more productive and 

meaningful interagency dialogue with 

the Tribes, and a positive reinforcement 

of FHWA’s retained Tribal trust 

responsibilities. 

Observation #2 

In the course of reviewing the most 

recent Manual of Instruction (MOI), the 

Audit Team identified several areas that 

do not address the most recent 

requirements and guidelines associated 

with the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act; FHWA’s 2019 Reevaluation Q&A Guidance; Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21) Section 1319 interim 

guidance relating to the appropriate use 

of the combined Final Environment 

Impact Statement/Record of Decision 

(FEIS/ROD) documents; FHWA’s 2011 

Environmental Justice and NEPA 

guidance for identifying, disclosing and 

mitigating impacts to environmental 

justice communities; or FHWA’s 

October 2018 memorandum addressing 

activities that may be completed prior to 

issuance of a Notice of Intent to prepare 

an EIS. During interviews, UDOT 

informed us that they make regular 

updates to the MOI, as needed. 

However, these examples illustrate that 

the MOI would benefit from a regularly 

scheduled, comprehensive review to 

ensure that it reflects current national 

policy and guidance. 

Documentation and Records 

Management 

Successful Practice #1 

During this audit period, the Audit 

Team reviewed re-evaluations for two 

EIS projects that appeared to use the 

same format. While it is not explicitly 

required by the MOI, UDOT did appear 

to use a standard procedure for these reevaluations. For example, both included 

a Summary of Re-evaluation Analysis 

Table that functions like an 

environmental checklist. This table 

creates a standard process for looking at 

changes in both the magnitude of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37550 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 

project impacts, as well as project scope 

modifications. 

Observation #1 

The team reviewed multiple reevaluations for the West Davis Corridor 

Project. Each individual re-evaluation 

addressed the changes on that portion of 

the larger project. The FHWA suggests 

UDOT also add language that 

summarizes the changes across all the 

re-evaluations, such as providing a 

listing of all the related re-evaluations 

and a statement correlating them, to 

clearly demonstrate and document that 

UDOT has considered impacts across 

the entirety of the project. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

The UDOT has made improvements to 

its QA/QC procedures. These 

improvements are discussed in the 

Legal Sufficiency section of this report. 

Legal Sufficiency 

During the audit period outside 

counsel issued three findings of legal 

sufficiency per the requirements of 23 

CFR 771.125(b) and 23 CFR 774.7(d), 

copies of which were provided to the 

Audit Team. These include legal 

sufficiency reviews of one EIS and two 

Section 4(f) evaluations. The UDOT has 

continued using the legal sufficiency 

process it put in place for both Section 

326 CE and Section 327 NEPA 

Assignment; that is, contracting with 

outside counsel who have extensive 

experience in NEPA, other 

environmental laws, and Federal 

environmental litigation. 

Since the signing of the initial 

FHWA–UDOT MOU for the NEPA 

Assignment Program in January 2017, 

no lawsuits have been filed against 

NEPA-assigned projects in the State of 

Utah. 

Training 

The UDOT has continued to develop 

an annual training plan, in compliance 

with Section 12.2 of the MOU. 

Performance Measures 

The UDOT has continued to assess its 

performance as required under the 

terms of the MOU. The UDOT’s annual 

self-assessment report indicates that 

they are meeting their performance 

targets. The process of, and results from, 

the State’s self-assessment have been an 

important factor in the improvement of 

UDOT’s NEPA Program. 

Observation #1 

Section 10.2.1.C.i of the MOU 

requires UDOT to assess change in and 

ensure effective communication among 

UDOT, Federal and State resource 

agencies resulting from assumption of 

responsibilities under the MOU. 

In interviews, resource agency staff at 

the EPA and the FWS stated that overall 

they have a good working relationship 

with UDOT staff. Some FWS staff 

indicated that they could utilize 

additional information on the 

differences between the 23 U.S.C. 326 

(CE Assignment) program and the 23 

U.S.C. 327 (NEPA Assignment) program. 

The audit team also learned that neither 

FWS nor EPA had responded to UDOT’s 

annual resource agency survey. These 

are examples of where UDOT’s program 

may benefit from more consistent, 

program-level discussions with resource 

agencies to ensure that all parties 

understand their respective roles and 

responsibilities, as well as the 

provisions of the 326 and 327 programs. 

Stronger managerial-level 

communications with the resource 

agencies may increase their 

understanding of the importance of the 

survey and improve the response rate. 

Non-Compliance Observation 

Non-compliance observations are 

instances where the team found UDOT 

was out of compliance or deficient in 

proper implementation of a Federal 

regulation, statute, guidance, policy, the 

terms of the MOU, or UDOT’s own 

procedures for compliance with the 

NEPA process. Such observations may 

also include instances where UDOT has 

failed to maintain technical 

competency, adequate personnel, and/or 

financial resources to carry out the 

assumed responsibilities. Other noncompliance 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 UDOT to develop and 

implement corrective actions to address 

all non-compliance observations. 

The Audit Team did not identify any 

non-compliance observations during 

this audit. 

Follow-up to Previous Audit Findings 

The FHWA reported a noncompliance observation relating to 

UDOT not complying with the State’s 

environmental review procedures as a 

part of Audit #3. 

2019 Audit #3—Issuing a Document 

Without Final Legal Sufficiency Finding 

As noted earlier, in response to the 

2019 audit finding that legal sufficiency 

review documentation was not provided 

prior to approval of a project FEIS, 

UDOT and outside counsel 

implemented a more formalized system 

by instituting a Legal Sufficiency 

Review Form to be completed by 

outside counsel. The form ensures a 

record that the review occurred. This 

form has already been used for legal 

sufficiency reviews during this audit 

period. 

Next Steps 

The FHWA provided this draft audit 

report to UDOT for a 30-day review and 

comment period. The Audit Team 

considered UDOT comments in 

developing this draft audit report. The 

FHWA will publish this notice in the 

Federal Register for a 30-day comment 

period in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

327(g)(2)(A). 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)(2)(B). Once 

finalized, FHWA will publish the final 

audit report in the Federal Register. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13401 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[FTA Docket No. FTA 2022–0017] 

Agency Information Collection Activity 

Under OMB Review: Public 

Transportation Safety Agency Plan 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces that the Information 

Collection Requirements (ICRs) 

abstracted below have been forwarded 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

ICR describe the nature of the 

information collection and their 

expected burdens. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before July 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Comments are Invited On: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1