54884 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with 

respect to land. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is considering a 

proposal to change a portion of the 

airport from aeronautical use to nonaeronautical use and to authorize the 

sale of the airport property. The 21.508 

acres of land, known as Parcel A on the 

airports Exhibit A Property Map, is 

situated southeast of the airport. The 

land was obligated under FAA Project 

No(s). 3–18–0103–06. There are no 

impacts to the airport by allowing the 

airport to dispose of the property. The 

land was previously acquired for 

approach protection under a larger 

parcel of land purchased from Ms. Lela 

Covert (listed as Parcel 3 in the current 

Exhibit A Property Map and Parcel 7 

under previous Exhibit A Property 

Maps). These 21.508 acres of the larger 

parcel are not needed for approach 

protection or future airport 

development. Approval does not 

constitute a commitment by the FAA to 

financially assist in the disposal of the 

subject airport property nor a 

determination of eligibility for grant-inaid funding from the FAA. The 

disposition of proceeds from the 

disposal of the airport property will be 

in accordance FAA’s Policy and 

Procedures Concerning the Use of 

Airport Revenue, published in the 

Federal Register on February 16, 1999. 

In accordance with section 47107(h) 

of title 49, United States Code, this 

notice is required to be published in the 

Federal Register 30 days before 

modifying the land-use assurance that 

requires the property to be used for an 

aeronautical purpose. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Jack Delaney, Assistant 

ADO Manager, Chicago Airports District 

Office, 2300 E. Devon, Chicago, IL 

60018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Delaney, Assistant ADO Manager, 

Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E. 

Devon, Chicago, IL 60018. Telephone 

Number 847–294–7875/FAX Number 

847–294–7046. Documents reflecting 

this FAA action may be reviewed at this 

same location or at Indianapolis 

Executive Airport, Indianapolis, 

Indiana. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following 

is a legal description of the property 

located in Zionsville, Boon County, 

Indiana, and described as follows: 

A part of the Northeast Quarter of 

Section 12, Township 18 North, Range 

2 East, Boone County, Indiana, 

described as follows: Commencing at 

the rebar with a plastic cap marked 

‘‘Mid-States Engr’’ marking the 

northwest corner of said quarter section; 

thence South 00 degrees 56 minutes 54 

seconds West along the west line of said 

quarter section 1,201.59 feet; thence 

South 89 degrees 52 minutes 48 seconds 

East 768.09 feet to the POINT OF 

BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION: 

thence North 89 degrees 54 minutes 51 

seconds East 1,031.67 feet; thence South 

00 degrees 56 minutes 54 seconds West 

910.49 feet; thence South 89 degrees 54 

minutes 51 seconds West 1,026.64 feet; 

thence North 00 degrees 37 minutes 55 

seconds East 910.41 feet to the POINT 

OF BEGINNING and containing 21.508 

acres, more or less. The bearing in this 

description are based upon the north 

line of the Northeast Quarter of section 

12 have a bearing of South 89 degrees 

52 minutes 48 seconds East. 

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on 

September 9, 2008. 

Jim Keefer, 

Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, 

FAA, Great Lakes Region. 

[FR Doc. E8–22063 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2008–0053] 

Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Pilot Program; Caltrans Audit 

Report. 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final report. 

SUMMARY: Section 6005 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) established the 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

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

To ensure compliance by each State 

participating in the Pilot Program, 23 

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

audits during each of the first 2 years of 

State participation. This final report 

presents the findings from the first 

FHWA audit of the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

under the pilot program. 

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.access.gpo.gov. 

Background 

Section 6005 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

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

pilot program to allow up to five States 

to assume the Secretary of 

Transportation’s responsibilities for 

environmental review, consultation, or 

other actions under any Federal 

environmental law pertaining to the 

review or approval of highway projects. 

In order to be selected for the pilot 

program, a State must submit an 

application to the Secretary. 

On June 29, 2007, Caltrans and FHWA 

entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) that established 

the assignments to and assumptions of 

responsibility to Caltrans. Under the 

MOU, Caltrans assumed the majority of 

FHWA’s responsibilities under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, as 

well as the FHWA’s responsibilities 

under other Federal environmental laws 

for most highway projects in California. 

To ensure compliance by each State 

participating in the Pilot Program, 23 

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

conduct semiannual audits during each 

of the first 2 years of State participation; 

and annual audits during each 

subsequent year of State participation. 

The results of each audit must be 

presented in the form of an audit report 

and be made available for public 

comment. The FHWA solicited 

comments on the first audit report in a 

Federal Register Notice published on 

June 2, 2008, at 73 FR 31536. The 

FHWA received one comment which 

was supportive of the draft audit report. 

This notice provides the final draft of 

the first FHWA audit report for Caltrans 

under the pilot program. 

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

23 U.S.C. 315 and 327. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54885 

1Caltrans MOU available at http:// 

environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/ 

safe_cdot_pilot.asp. 

Issued on: September 16, 2008. 

Thomas J. Madison, Jr., 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Pilot Program—FHWA Audit of 

Caltrans, January 29–31, 2008 

Background 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) section 

6005(a) established the Surface 

Transportation Project Delivery Pilot 

Program (Pilot Program), codified at 

Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), 

section 327. The Section 6005 Pilot 

Program allows the Secretary to assign, 

and the State to assume, the Secretary 

of Transportation’s (Secretary) 

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 

liable for carrying out the 

responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu 

of the Federal Highway Administration 

(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 audits is to assess a pilot 

State’s compliance with the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) 1 and applicable Federal laws 

and policies, to collect information 

needed to evaluate the success of the 

Pilot Program, to evaluate pilot State 

progress toward achieving its 

performance measures, and to collect 

information needed for 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. This 

audit report was published in the 

Federal Register June 2, 2008, at 73 FR 

31536 with a request for comments 

(Docket Number FHWA–2008–0053). 

The 60-day comment period closed 

August 1, 2008, with one comment 

received. In compliance with 23 U.S.C. 

327(g)B, FHWA has responded to the 

comment and published the final report 

in the Federal Register no later than 60 

days after the date on which the period 

for public comment closed. 

The California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) published its 

Application for Assumption 

(Application) under the Pilot Program 

on March 14, 2007, and made it 

available for public comment for 30 

days. After considering public 

comments, Caltrans submitted its 

application to FHWA on May 21, 2007, 

and FHWA, after soliciting the views of 

other Federal agencies, reviewed and 

approved the application. Then on June 

29, 2007, Caltrans and FHWA entered 

into an MOU that established the 

assignments to and assumptions of 

responsibility to Caltrans, which 

became effective July 1, 2007. Under the 

MOU, Caltrans assumed the majority of 

FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA, 

as well as FHWA’s responsibilities 

under other Federal environmental laws 

for most highway projects in California. 

Caltrans’ participation in the Pilot 

Program will be effective through 

August 2011. 

In order to meet the audit 

requirements specified in SAFETEA– 

LU, FHWA contracted with consultants 

who have expertise in compliance 

auditing to assist FHWA in developing 

the audit processes and procedures for 

the Pilot Program. Training was 

provided to the audit team, FHWA, and 

Caltrans staff in two phases: 

1. Basics of Compliance Auditing 

(January 2007); and 

2. Development of the Pilot Program 

Audit Process and Procedures (August 

2007). 

The August 2007 audit training 

included specific Pilot Program auditing 

processes and procedures. The auditors 

received training on each core audit area 

to be evaluated during FHWA audits of 

each pilot State’s Program. The core 

audit areas to be evaluated are: Program 

management; records and 

documentation management; quality 

control and quality assurance processes; 

legal sufficiency; performance measures; 

and training. 

Scope of the Audit 

The Caltrans’ Pilot Program audit was 

conducted by the FHWA audit team in 

California from January 29 through 

January 31, 2008. The audit, as required 

in SAFETEA–LU, assessed Caltrans’ 

compliance with the roles and 

responsibilities it assumed in the MOU 

and also provided recommendations to 

assist Caltrans in creating a successful 

Pilot Program. 

As this was the first FHWA audit of 

Caltrans’ participation in the Pilot 

Program, it was designed to begin the 

audit sampling process. The audit 

sample included fundamental processes 

and procedures the State put in place to 

carry out the assumptions of the roles 

and responsibilities set forth in the 

MOU. Key sample areas included Pilot 

Program staffing resources, training, 

legal sufficiency, and the 

implementation of processes and 

procedures to support assumed 

responsibilities. The sampling process 

also included a geographic element, as 

the audit included onsite visits to two 

Caltrans locations, the Caltrans 

Headquarters office in Sacramento, and 

its District 4 Office in Oakland. Future 

audits will include onsite visits to other 

Caltrans Districts. 

While the six core audit areas 

identified and discussed during the 

August 2007 training serve as the basis 

for each Pilot Program audit, it is not 

expected that each audit will address all 

six core audit areas. For the first audit, 

FHWA selected core audit areas for 

review based on professional auditing 

experience, statistical techniques (where 

appropriate), interviews with Federal 

resource agencies, and an evaluation of 

background information provided by 

Caltrans prior to the onsite audit. All 

Pilot Program areas for which 

compliance is required under the MOU 

will be evaluated cumulatively by 

FHWA in future audits. Future FHWA 

Pilot Program audits will also follow up 

on findings from previous FHWA Pilot 

Program audits. 

Audit Process and Implementation 

Each FHWA audit conducted under 

the Pilot Program is designed to ensure 

a pilot State’s compliance with the 

commitments in its MOU with FHWA. 

FHWA will not evaluate specific 

project-related decisions made by the 

State as these decisions are the sole 

responsibility of the pilot State. 

However, the scope of the FHWA audits 

does include reviewing the processes 

and procedures used by the pilot State 

to reach project decisions in compliance 

with MOU Section 3.2. 

Also, Caltrans committed in its 

Application (which is incorporated into 

the MOU in 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 Pilot Program audits will review 

how Caltrans is meeting each of these 

commitments as well as the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

2Effective April 11, 2008, FHWA’s Section 4(f) 

regulation has been re-codified as 23 CFR part 774. 

The legal sufficiency review requirement for Final 

Section 4(f) Evaluations is now found at 23 CFR 

774.7(d). 

performance of the Pilot Program in the 

core audit areas previously described. 

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 

• Record Keeping and Retention 

• Expanded Internal Monitoring and 

Process Reviews 

• Performance Measures To Assess 

the Pilot Program 

• Training To Implement the Pilot 

Program 

• Legal Sufficiency Review 

The FHWA audit team included 

representatives from the following 

offices or agencies: 

• FHWA Office of Project 

Development and Environmental 

Review 

• FHWA Office of Chief Counsel 

• FHWA Alaska Division Office 

• FHWA Resource Center 

Environmental Team 

• Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center 

• Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

From January 29 through January 31, 

2008, the audit team conducted the 

onsite audit and evaluated the core Pilot 

Program areas associated with program 

management, training, records and 

documentation management, and legal 

sufficiency at both Caltrans 

Headquarters and District level. The 

onsite audit consisted of interviews 

with more than 40 Caltrans staff at 

Headquarters and in the Districts for 

both the Capital and Local Assistance 

programs, as well as 11 members of 

Caltrans’ legal staff at Headquarters and 

in field offices. The audit team 

interviewed a cross-section of staff 

including top senior managers, senior 

environmental planners, associate 

planners, and technical experts. 

Caltrans staff at several Districts were 

contacted by telephone and a portion of 

the audit team visited the District 4 

Office in Oakland. The team also 

reviewed project documentation 

associated with the projects provided to 

the FHWA California Division Office. 

FHWA acknowledges that Caltrans 

identified specific issues during its first 

self-assessment performed under the 

Pilot Program as required under MOU 

section 8.2.6. During the FHWA onsite 

audit, Caltrans indicated that it had 

begun to implement corrective actions 

to address some issues identified in its 

first self-assessment. Some issues 

identified in the Caltrans selfassessment may overlap with FHWA 

findings in this audit report. In part, 

FHWA conducts each Pilot Program 

audit to evaluate assumed 

responsibilities and to obtain evidence 

to support the basis for each audit 

finding. Therefore, this audit report 

documents findings within the scope of 

the audit and as of the dates of the 

onsite portion of the audit. FHWA does 

acknowledge that some deficiencies 

identified in this audit report occurred 

during the first 3 months of Pilot 

Program operations. 

In accordance with MOU section 

11.4.1, FHWA provided Caltrans with a 

30-day comment period to review this 

draft report. FHWA has reviewed the 

comments received from Caltrans and 

has revised sections of the draft report 

where appropriate. 

Overall Audit Opinion 

As this is a Pilot Program, it is 

expected that a learning curve is 

required. As such, Caltrans has made 

reasonable progress in implementing the 

start-up phase of Pilot Program 

operations and Caltrans is learning how 

to operate this new Pilot Program 

effectively. Based on the information 

reviewed, it is the audit team’s opinion 

that to date, Caltrans has been carrying 

out the responsibilities it has assumed 

in keeping with the intent of the MOU. 

The Pilot Program in California is 

proceeding through the start-up phase. 

During the onsite audit, Caltrans staff 

and management indicated ongoing 

interest in obtaining constructive 

feedback on successes and areas for 

improvement. By addressing the 

findings in this report, Caltrans will 

help move the program toward success. 

Findings 

The FHWA audit team carefully 

examined Pilot Program areas to assess 

compliance in accordance with 

established criteria (i.e., MOU, 

Application for Assumption). The time 

period covered in this first audit report 

is from the start of the Pilot Program 

(July 1, 2007) through completion of the 

first onsite audit (January 31, 2008). 

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 for 

Assumption and/or MOU. 

• Needs Improvement—Audit 

determined that a process, procedure or 

other component of the Pilot Program as 

specified in the Application for 

Assumption 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 

for Assumption 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 for 

Assumption and/or MOU. Corrective 

action is required prior to the next 

audit. 

Summary Findings 

Findings—Compliant 

(C1) Legal Sufficiency—Caltrans’ 

Legal Division has developed a 

consistent process to conduct formal 

legal sufficiency reviews by attorneys 

(per 23 Code of Federal Regulations 

§§ 771.125(b) and 771.135 (k) 2) and has 

provided basic legal sufficiency training 

to each reviewing attorney, in 

compliance with MOU section 8.2.5 and 

Section 773.106(b)(3)(iii) of Caltrans’ 

Application. (Note: An evaluation of the 

implementation of the legal sufficiency 

review process could not be performed 

because no legal sufficiency 

determinations had been completed 

under the Pilot Program as of the date 

of the FHWA audit.) 

(C2) Establish Pilot Program Policies 

and Procedures—Caltrans currently, in 

general, complies with MOU section 

1.1.2 commitments to establish Pilot 

Program policy and procedural 

documentation (as detailed in Caltrans’ 

Application). 

Pilot Program policies and procedures 

are described in the Caltrans’ 

Application sections ‘‘Overview of 

Caltrans’’ Standard Environmental 

Reference (SER),’’ ‘‘Other Guidance,’’ 

and ‘‘Appendix C.’’ Caltrans maintains 

the SER, a four volume Environmental 

handbook, as a single on-line policy and 

procedural reference focusing on 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for environmental documents, 

supporting technical studies, and the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54887 

procedures for processing these reports. 

The SER addresses compliance with 

NEPA, the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA), and other 

applicable Federal and State laws, 

executive orders, regulations, guidance 

documents, and policies. Caltrans added 

Chapter 38: ‘‘NEPA Delegation,’’ to 

Volume 1 of the SER to include the 

majority of the policies and procedures 

associated with administering the Pilot 

Program. However, other sections in the 

SER including ‘‘Policy Memos’’ contain 

information on the Pilot Program. In 

addition to the SER, a number of 

manuals and other forms of guidance on 

Caltrans Web sites include information 

on various aspects of processes 

associated with the Pilot Program. Most 

notably, Chapter 6 of the Local 

Assistance Program Manual for Local 

Assistance Projects Off the State 

Highway System provides detailed 

guidance on preparing environmental 

documents for local agency projects and 

also refers users to the SER. 

(C3) Background NEPA Training— 

Caltrans’ existing Environmental Staff 

Development Program, outlined in the 

Application, has processes in place to 

ensure that Environmental Staff 

involved in NEPA documentation have 

the underlying foundational skill sets 

required in addition to the added skills 

required to address responsibilities 

under the Pilot Program. To achieve 

this, the Environmental Staff 

Development Program includes 

numerous processes, including an 

annual needs assessment, to evaluate 

the training needs of the environmental 

staff at each of Caltrans’ 12 districts. 

These processes help to ensure ongoing 

compliance with the overall Caltrans’ 

Application commitment to ongoing 

staff development. (Note: Specific skills 

required for the Pilot Program are 

discussed under separate findings.) 

(C4) Training Plan—Caltrans 

conducted a training needs assessment 

specific to the Pilot Program and 

developed a training plan titled 

‘‘Caltrans Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Pilot Program Training Plan 

(Oct. 1, 2007)’’ in compliance with 

section 12.1.2 of the MOU. 

(C5) Interagency Agreements that 

Involve Signatories in Addition to 

FHWA and Caltrans—Caltrans complied 

with MOU section 5.1.5 as it pertains to 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

Section 106 Programmatic Agreement 

(PA). Caltrans completed addenda to the 

PA within 6 months after the effective 

date of the MOU to reflect Caltrans’ 

assignment of authority under the Pilot 

Program. 

(C6) State Commitment of 

Resources—The initial evaluation of 

resources to implement the Pilot 

Program and the assignment of 

resources, as of the date of the first 

audit, is compliant with MOU section 

4.2.2, as demonstrated by: 

a. Creation of eight new Caltrans 

positions (Person Years or PY, 

equivalent to the Federal Full Time 

Equivalent or FTE) to support Pilot 

Program implementation. These new 

positions include two in the Caltrans 

Headquarters Division of Environmental 

Analysis (one NEPA Delegation 

Manager, one Statewide Audit 

Coordinator) and six new positions in 

the Caltrans Division of Local 

Assistance, Office of NEPA Delegation 

and Environmental Procedures (one 

Local Assistance NEPA Delegation and 

Environmental Coordinator and five 

Local Assistance NEPA Delegation 

Coordinators). 

b. Assigning additional 

responsibilities to existing Caltrans 

Headquarters staff in the areas of Legal 

Sufficiency, Training, and Local 

Assistance, as well as expanding the 

responsibilities of four Environmental 

Coordinators. To date, these 

responsibilities have been 

accommodated within the work 

schedules of these positions. 

c. Continuing and expanding the use 

of technical specialists (e.g., Biologists, 

Cultural Resource specialists) and 

generalists (e.g., Senior Environmental 

Planners) from Caltrans’ Capital Projects 

section to assist, as needed, Caltrans’ 

Local Assistance section with the 

review and approval of NEPA program 

elements. The reallocation of resources 

is conducted on an ongoing basis to 

meet needs (under the Pilot Program 

and in general) as they are identified. 

d. Maintaining organizational and 

staffing capabilities to effectively carry 

out the responsibilities assumed under 

MOU sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 pertaining 

to section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Findings—Needs Improvement 

(N1) Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control (QA/QC) Process 

Implementation—The Caltrans QA/QC 

process developed to comply with MOU 

section 8.2.5 has not been consistently 

implemented for all projects assumed 

under the Pilot Program. Caltrans 

personnel did not demonstrate a 

consistent understanding of the steps in 

the QA/QC process. As staff use and 

apply the QA/QC procedures, Caltrans 

needs to actively monitor conformance 

with its procedures and, as needed, 

assess and correct the root causes 

behind areas of weakness in execution. 

(N2) QA/QC Process Related to SER 

Chapter 38 Procedural and Policy 

Changes—MOU section 8.2.5 requires 

that Caltrans carry out regular QA/QC 

activities to ensure that the assumed 

responsibilities are conducted in 

accordance with the MOU. While some 

SER procedural and policy changes are 

addressed through memoranda or emails based on the level of importance, 

no system existed at the time of the 

audit to track all policy changes, thereby 

affecting the QA/QC of SER changes. 

The audit identified that a recent 

revision to SER Chapter 38 resulted in 

the erroneous omission of 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) 

from the list of environmental 

documents required to include a 

statement on the document cover page 

regarding Caltrans’ assumption of 

responsibility under 23 U.S.C. 327 and 

MOU section 3.2.5. 

(N3) Environmental Document 

Protocols—Class of Action 

Determination—The audit team was 

unable to identify through a review of 

Pilot Program policies and procedures 

specified in SER Chapter 38 how a class 

of action determination is documented. 

Caltrans staff interviewed indicated that 

an informal agreement exists to use email correspondence to document 

decisions on class of action 

determinations. It is recommended that 

Caltrans acknowledge in SER Chapter 

38 acceptable options for 

documentation of class of action 

determinations. 

(N4) Documentation of Pilot Program 

Procedures in SER 38—SER Chapter 38 

requires that the signatory of each 

environment document be informed of 

the completion of the environmental 

document QA/QC review process before 

signing the document. It is 

recommended that Caltrans 

acknowledge in SER Chapter 38 

acceptable options to convey the 

recommendation to the signatory official 

that all QA/QC review certification 

forms have been completed. 

(N5) Execution of the Legal 

Sufficiency Review Process—The first 

environmental document submitted for 

formal legal sufficiency review was not 

submitted in accordance with the 

procedures specified in the October 15, 

2007, memorandum titled: ‘‘Procedures 

for Determining Legal Sufficiency for 

Environmental Documents under the 

NEPA Pilot Program’’ (nor, by reference, 

DEA’s July 2, 2007, memorandum, 

‘‘Environmental Document Quality 

Control Program under the NEPA Pilot 

Program’’). As this new process comes 

into use, Caltrans should actively 

monitor conformance and provide 

additional training as needed. 

(N6) Pilot Program Self-Assessment— 

Caltrans’ self-assessment process needs 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

improvement to ensure it fully complies 

with MOU section 8.2.6. Specifically, 

the first self-assessment conducted by 

Caltrans under the Pilot Program did not 

correlate each identified issue needing 

improvement to the corrective action(s) 

taken to address each issue. 

Findings—Deficient 

(D1) QA/QC Process—Caltrans 

requires each environmental document 

to be reviewed according to the policy 

memo titled ‘‘Environmental Document 

Quality Control Program under the 

NEPA Pilot Program (July 2, 2007).’’ 

Several deficiencies exist with the 

quality control process detailed in the 

aforementioned policy memo, SER 

Chapter 38, and as required by MOU 

section 8.2.5. These deficiencies are: 

a. Completion of Quality Control 

Certification Forms. The required 

Internal and External Certification forms 

used in the environmental document 

review process were not consistently 

completed prior to the approval of each 

environmental document. The QC 

policy memo requires that ‘‘all staff 

personnel who have served as a 

reviewer on a project document shall 

sign a Quality Control Certification 

Form at the conclusion of their review. 

The reviewer’s signature certifies that 

the document meets professional 

standards and Federal and State 

requirements in the reviewer’s area of 

expertise, and is consistent with the 

SER and annotated outlines.’’ Seven of 

11 documents examined identified 

where the signatory approved the 

environmental document prior to the 

completion of the document review 

process (i.e., before the Quality Control 

Certification Form was completed). 

b. Inconsistent Completion of the 

Environmental Document Preparation 

and Review Tool Checklist and the 

Resource/Technical Specialist Review 

Certification on the Internal and 

External Quality Control Certification 

Forms. For EAs and EISs, the specific 

resource topics identified in the 

Environmental Document Preparation 

and Review Tool Checklist were not 

always consistent with the resource 

topics indicated on the Resource/ 

Technical Specialist Review 

Certification forms for the same 

document. 

c. The Peer Reviewer for 3 of 11 

environmental documents examined 

under the audit did not meet the 

requirement in SER Chapter 38 to be ‘‘a 

staff member who has not participated 

in, supervised or technically reviewed 

the project.’’ 

(D2) Pilot Program Self-Assessment— 

Caltrans’ self-assessment process failed 

to fully comply with MOU section 8.2.6 

which requires the identification of 

‘‘any areas needing improvement.’’ The 

Caltrans self-assessment (which 

reviewed the completion of the Quality 

Control Certification forms) did not 

identify that in some cases the peer 

reviewer function was not performed 

according to SER Chapter 38 policy. The 

policy requires an independent review 

by environmental staff not otherwise 

involved in the project. The self 

assessment did not identify that on 3 of 

11 QA/QC certification forms (reviewed 

under this audit and the self 

assessment) used on EA and EIS 

projects, the person signing as the peer 

reviewer also signed as a technical 

expert. 

(D3) Records Management—The 

project filing system in place at District 

4 did not meet the Caltrans Uniform 

Filing System requirements as specified 

in the ‘‘Record Keeping and Retention’’ 

section of the Caltrans Application. This 

determination was made by the Audit 

Team through interviews with district 

personnel during the on-site audit. The 

Uniform Filing System is the records 

management method chosen by Caltrans 

to comply with the records retention 

requirements in MOU section 8.3. This 

filing system was not in use and was not 

implemented as described in the 

Application and SER Chapter 38. 

(D4) 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 cover pages for two Draft EIS 

documents and one EA reviewed during 

the audit did not include this required 

statement. 

Response to Comments and 

Finalization of Report 

Only one comment was received by 

FHWA during the 60-day comment 

period for the draft audit report. This 

comment was submitted by the Caltrans 

on July 31, 2008. Caltrans wished to 

thank FHWA for the opportunity to 

participate in the pilot program, an 

‘‘opportunity to test a new model for 

implementing the Secretary of 

transportation’s environmental 

responsibilities.’’ Caltrans also stated 

that their relationship with FHWA 

continues to be ‘‘strong and healthy.’’ 

Their comment also stated that they 

were pleased with the FHWA audit 

opinion. They take the pilot program 

responsibilities and commitments 

seriously and appreciate FHWA’s audit 

input and findings as they assist 

Caltrans in continuous improvement. 

The FHWA feels that there was no 

need to revise the draft audit report 

findings to be responsive to this 

comment, with the exception of making 

the ‘‘Background’’ section current and 

the addition of this section. 

[FR Doc. E8–22131 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2008–0231] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt 23 individuals from 

the vision requirement in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable 

these individuals to operate commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate 

commerce without meeting the 

prescribed vision standard. The Agency 

has concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level of safety maintained without the 

exemptions for these CMV drivers. 

DATES: The exemptions are effective 

September 23, 2008. The exemptions 

expire on September 23, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64– 

224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or 

Room W12–140 on the ground level of 

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 

365 days each year. If you want 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES