Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 23777 

1Caltrans MOU between FHWA and Caltrans 

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

strmlng/safe_cdot_pilot.asp. 

and to the process for consideration of 

tunnel alternatives in response to 

comments received. 

FTA requests comments on the policy 

guidance, which is available in DOT’s 

electronic docket at http:// 

regulations.gov and on FTA’s Web site 

at http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/ 

newstarts/ 

planning_environment_5615.html. 

Issued this May 14, 2009, in Washington, 

DC. 

Matthew J. Welbes, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–11718 Filed 5–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2009–0051] 

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. This notice 

announces and solicits comments on the 

third audit report for the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 19, 2009. 

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 selfaddressed, 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.access.gpo.gov. 

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 

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 third 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 May 11, 2009. 

Jeffrey F. Paniati, 

Acting Deputy Federal Highway 

Administrator. 

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Pilot Program; Federal Highway 

Administration Audit of California 

Department of Transportation; January 

26–30, 2009 

Introduction 

Overall Audit Opinion 

Based on the information reviewed, it 

is the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) audit team’s opinion that as of 

January 30, 2009, the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

continued to work 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 the Caltrans Application for 

Assumption (Application). 

With the completion of FHWA’s third 

audit, the audit team has completed 

onsite audits of the majority of the 

Caltrans Districts. The audit team 

identified significant differences across 

the Districts in terms of the Pilot 

Program: resource availability and 

allocation, details of implementation, 

processes, and improvement and 

progress toward meeting all 

commitments. The highly decentralized 

nature of Caltrans operations is a major 

contributing factor to the variation 

observed. The decentralized nature of 

the organization necessitates clear, 

consistent and ongoing oversight by 

Caltrans Headquarters over District 

operations. 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 meeting all Pilot 

Program commitments. 

Due to the multiyear timeframes 

associated with more complex and 

controversial projects, the full lifecycle 

of project development (beginning with 

environmental studies and concluding 

23778 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 

with the issuance of a record of 

decision) has yet to be fully realized by 

the Pilot Program. Caltrans continues to 

gain experience in understanding the 

resource requirements and processes 

necessary to administer its Pilot 

Program. It is the audit team’s opinion 

that Caltrans needs to continue to refine 

its approaches and resources to meet all 

Pilot Program commitments, especially 

given the likelihood of increasing 

resource demands associated with 

exclusively managing more complex 

and controversial projects under the 

Pilot Program. 

During the onsite audit, Caltrans staff 

and management continued to express 

ongoing interest in receiving feedback 

from the FHWA audit team related to 

program successes and areas in need of 

improvement. By addressing all findings 

in this report, Caltrans will continue to 

move its program toward full 

compliance with all assumed 

responsibilities and meeting all Pilot 

Program commitments. 

Background 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU, Pub L. 

109–59) section 6005(a) established the 

Pilot Program, codified at title 23, 

United States Code (U.S.C.), section 327. 

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 

liable for carrying out the 

responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu 

of the 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 that 

is 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. 

Caltrans published its 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 

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 (23 U.S.C 327(i)(1)). 

Scope of the Audit 

This is the third FHWA audit of the 

Caltrans Pilot Program. The onsite 

portion of the audit was conducted in 

California from January 26 through 

January 30, 2009. 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 administering a successful 

Pilot Program. 

The audit primarily focused on four 

key Pilot Program areas: (1) The Local 

Assistance (LA) program (Caltrans 

manages LA and Capital projects 

through independent organizational 

entities), (2) the role of the regional 

offices, (3) the effectiveness of and 

adherence to specified performance 

measures, and (4) the continued review 

of compliance with assumed 

responsibilities. 

Prior to the onsite audit, FHWA 

conducted telephone interviews with 

Federal resource agency staff at the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

regional offices in California. The onsite 

audit included visits to the Caltrans 

Headquarters Office (HQ) in Sacramento 

and to four Caltrans District/Regional 

Offices: District 3/North Region 

(Marysville), District 4 (Oakland), 

District 6/Central Region (Fresno), and 

District 10 (Stockton). The audit team 

also visited the USFWS and USACE 

offices in Sacramento. 

This report documents findings 

within the scope of the audit as of the 

completion date of the onsite audit (i.e., 

January 30, 2009). 

Audit Process and Implementation 

The intent of each FHWA audit 

completed under the Pilot Program is to 

ensure that each Pilot State complies 

with the commitments in its MOU with 

FHWA. The FHWA does not evaluate 

specific project-related decisions made 

by the State because these decisions are 

the sole responsibility of the Pilot State. 

However, the FHWA audit scope does 

include the review of the processes and 

procedures 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 assesses 

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. 

• 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 team for the third audit 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 23779 

• Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

• U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 

During the onsite audit, FHWA 

interviewed more than 80 Caltrans staff 

(from both the Capital and LA programs) 

in four District/Region offices and 

Caltrans HQ. The audit team 

interviewed a cross-section of staff 

including top senior managers, senior 

environmental planners, generalists, 

associate planners, and technical 

experts. The audit team also reviewed 

project files and records for over 35 

projects managed under the Pilot 

Program. 

The FHWA acknowledges that 

Caltrans identified specific issues 

during its third self-assessment 

performed under the Pilot Program 

(required by MOU section 8.2.6), and 

has established processes to address 

each issue. Some issues described in the 

Caltrans self-assessment 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 the 

draft audit report. 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. 

Status of Findings From the Last Audit 

As part of the third audit, FHWA 

evaluated the corrective actions 

implemented by Caltrans in response to 

the audit findings in the second audit 

report. 

The FHWA observed that Caltrans 

continues to demonstrate compliance 

with two areas identified as 

‘‘Compliant’’ in either the first audit 

(January 2008) or second audit (July 

2008); the establishment of Pilot 

Program policies and procedures and 

interagency agreements that involve 

other agencies as signatories. 

While previous audits also found 

Caltrans to be ‘‘Compliant’’ with its 

commitment to put in place a consistent 

process to conduct formal legal 

sufficiency reviews, limited information 

was available to support any finding 

determination during the third audit 

because only one formal finding of legal 

sufficiency had been completed. 

The FHWA also reviewed the current 

status of ‘‘Deficient’’ and ‘‘Needs 

Improvement’’ audit findings identified 

during the second FHWA audit in July 

2008. 

‘‘Deficient’’ audit findings: 

(1) Performance Measure: 

‘‘Effectiveness of relationships with the 

general public’’—Caltrans reported 

progress in its third self-assessment on 

the performance measure ‘‘effectiveness 

of relationships with agencies and the 

general public.’’ Caltrans developed a 

method to evaluate its relationships 

with the general public by assigning a 

survey rating measuring the quality of 

public meeting materials. The survey 

was completed for 27 projects for which 

public meetings were held since the 

initiation of the Pilot Program. (See 

related findings N10 and D2 below.) 

(2) Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

(QA/QC) Certification Process— 

Through project files reviews, the 

FHWA audit identified one instance 

where the environmental branch chief 

was not the final document reviewer 

(based on the signature dates included 

on the form). The audit team did verify 

that the External QC Certification form 

was correctly completed prior to 

proceeding with the Internal QC 

Certification form. 

(3) Environmental Document 

Process—Class of Action 

Determinations—The audit team 

observed that the project files reviewed 

in this audit contained the required 

concurrence by the HQ Environmental 

Coordinator for Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) class of action 

determinations. (See related finding D5 

below.) 

‘‘Needs Improvement’’ audit findings: 

(1) Commitment of Resources—The 

audit team is aware that Caltrans has 

systems in place designed to capture 

time spent by staff on various tasks and 

activities required under the Pilot 

Program. However, interviews with 

Caltrans District staff working on LA 

projects revealed that work hours 

associated with the Pilot Program are 

not consistently entered into the 

Expenditure Authorization system using 

the Pilot Program specific codes. 

Caltrans has not clearly identified how 

the information gathered by these timerecording systems helps Caltrans 

determine the sufficiency of staff 

resources needed under the Pilot 

Program. 

Resource tracking is an ongoing area 

of concern for the audit team. As the 

complexity of projects increases with 

maturation of the Pilot Program, the 

variability in reporting and tracking 

resource expenditures may affect the 

timely delivery and quality of 

environmental documents. (See related 

finding N5 below.) 

(2) District Training Approaches and 

Implementation—During the three 

FHWA audits, the audit team identified 

considerable variation in training needs 

assessments, approaches, and 

responsibilities across Districts and also 

within individual Districts. The 

observed variations in training 

approaches may result in potentially 

widely varying levels of competency 

among staff. In order to achieve a 

sufficient level of competency among all 

staff, Caltrans HQ environmental staff 

need to actively monitor each District’s 

training methods and ensure that 

consistency is achieved in terms of 

training assessment and delivery. (See 

related findings N7 and N12 below.) 

(3) Pilot Program Performance 

Measures—These two performance 

measures have been addressed by 

Caltrans in the following manner: 

a) Performance Measure: ‘‘Timely 

Completion of NEPA Process’’—Caltrans 

has expanded this performance measure 

to include tracking the time from 

initiating environmental studies to the 

approval date of the draft and final 

environmental documents. The 

performance measure also now 

differentiates the timeframes by EAs and 

EISs. Previously, project timeframes 

were reported in aggregate instead of by 

environmental document type. 

b) Performance Measure: ‘‘Maintain 

documented compliance with 

requirements of all Federal laws and 

regulations being assumed.’’—Caltrans 

reported in its third self-assessment that 

100 percent of final environmental 

documents contained documentation of: 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 

as amended (section 7) biological 

opinions and letters of concurrence, 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

concurrences under section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(section 106), and section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (section 4(f)) findings and 

conclusions. (See related finding N8 

below.) 

(4) Quarterly Reports—The quarterly 

reports Caltrans provides to FHWA 

under section 8.2.7 of the MOU 

continue to include inaccurate/ 

incomplete information on 

environmental document approvals and 

decisions under the Pilot Program. Each 

of the first five quarterly reports 

received by FHWA have been revised, 

some several times, to address data 

reporting errors including: omitted 

categorical exclusions, EAs, findings of 

no significant impacts, re-evaluations, 

section 4(f) analyses, and section 7 and 

section 106 consultations, as well as 

numerous consultations and categorical 

exclusions (CEs) reported in error. The 

third self-assessment reported that a 

quarterly report protocol was developed 

and implemented prior to preparing the 

fifth quarterly report. However, the 

audit team determined that the fifth 

23780 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 

report also included errors and 

omissions (omitted EA, re-evaluation 

and notice of intent, and section 7 

consultations reported in error) and a 

revised report was submitted. (See 

related finding D1 below.) 

(5) Varying Understanding of Section 

6004/Section 6005 CEs—The audit team 

did not observe any misunderstanding 

of section 6004 and section 6005 

SAFETEA–LU CE determinations in the 

District Offices visited in the third 

audit. 

(6) Creating and Maintaining Project 

Protocols and Project Files—The 

Caltrans’ third self-assessment reported 

that corrective action discussions were 

completed with staff managing projects 

with incomplete project files and/or 

those not conforming to the Uniform 

Environmental File System (UFS) 

protocol. Additionally, it was reported 

that discussions of the retention of 

electronic communications were 

completed with District staff. (See 

related findings C1 and N4 below.) 

(7) QA/QC Process Implementation— 

Caltrans’ third self-assessment reported 

on the number of ways that Caltrans 

actively monitors conformance with the 

Pilot Program QC procedures. Methods 

include ongoing communication with 

senior environmental planners 

regarding the QC processes, discussions 

at staff meetings, review by senior 

environmental planners of 

environmental documents and HQ 

Environmental Coordinators actively 

monitoring conformance with the QC 

procedures. (See related finding C4 

below.) 

Key Elements of Implementation 

One purpose of each FHWA audit of 

a State Pilot Program is to identify and 

collect information on Pilot Program 

implementation practices for 

consideration by potential future Pilot 

Program participants. Key programmatic 

elements used by Caltrans to administer 

its Pilot Program include documenting 

policies and procedures in Standard 

Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 

38, annotated outlines for 

environmental documents, QC 

certification forms, environmental 

document review checklists, and 

monthly NEPA delegation statewide 

teleconferences. 

Effective Practices 

The FHWA audit team observed 

during interviews and through project 

file reviews completed in Districts 3, 4, 

6, 10 and the North and Central regions 

the following effective practices: 

(1) Central Region practices: 

(a) The environmental document 

template used for each project 

establishes the format and provides 

technical cues at locations where 

specific data should be entered by 

environmental document authors. The 

use of document templates helps to 

ensure compliance with environmental 

laws and to improve document 

consistency and quality. 

(b) For large projects, once the 

Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) 

form has been completed by Caltrans 

staff, environmental staffers perform 

joint field reviews with the local 

agencies and their consultants. This 

affords Caltrans and local agency staff 

the opportunity to discuss the NEPA 

process requirements and the required 

technical studies needed to complete 

the process. 

(c) Individual Development Programs 

(IDPs) are critical elements in the 

training process for Caltrans staff (in 

both the Capital and LA programs). 

Senior environmental planners regularly 

and consistently use IDPs to guide and 

track staff training. 

(2) The LA staff in District 10 use a 

work plan and tracking sheet that serves 

as a work flow chart for LA projects in 

the District. This tool is useful because 

it helps Caltrans and local governments 

understand the requirements, 

sequencing, and timing of 

environmental compliance activities 

throughout the project development 

process. 

Findings Definitions 

The FHWA audit team carefully 

examined Pilot Program areas to assess 

compliance in accordance with 

established criteria (i.e., MOU, 

Application). The time period covered 

by this third audit report is from the 

start of the Caltrans Pilot Program (July 

1, 2007) through completion of the third 

onsite audit (January 30, 2009) with the 

focus of the audit on the most recent 6 

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. 

Summary of Findings—January 2009 

Compliant 

(C1) Completion of the PES form—As 

stated in Chapter 6 of the LA Procedures 

Manual, completing the PES form for 

each project is one of the roles and 

responsibilities of LA staff. The audit 

team learned through interviews with 

LA staff in the Central Region office that 

training had been provided on how to 

complete the PES form. The audit team 

also confirmed through file reviews that 

the PES forms in the Central Region 

were completed correctly. 

(C2) Tracking and Managing 

Projects—The Central Region office 

developed a sophisticated data 

management and tracking system using 

the File Maker software application for 

tracking and managing Capital projects 

(i.e., projects on the State Highway 

System (SHS)). The Central Region has 

standard practices to ensure that all 

projects are entered into the system and 

tracked appropriately. The system 

included data validation features such 

as color coded items to identify missed 

deadlines or inactive projects. The audit 

team found that all environmental 

staffers in the office appear to be able to 

input data into the system. The File 

Maker system is used to track, manage, 

and provide reports on the Capital 

projects in the Region. As a result, the 

audit team was able to determine that 

the Central Region office is compliant 

with section 8.2.7 of the MOU, requiring 

Caltrans to report to FHWA any 

approvals and decisions Caltrans makes 

with respect to the responsibilities it has 

assumed under the Pilot Program. 

(C3) Project Files/UFS—Section 8.2.4 

of the MOU and procedures specified in 

SER Chapter 38 require that Caltrans 

staff maintain project files and general 

administrative files for all Capital and 

LA projects in accordance with the UFS. 

The audit team found that the North 

and Central Regions have taken 

additional steps to ensure that project 

files are organized correctly and that the 

proper information can be located 

easily. Additional sub-tabs have been 

added to the UFS file tab system to 

improve the clarity and consistency 

across the Districts in these Regions. 

The new sub-tabs were added for topic 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 23781 

areas likely to contain large amounts of 

information (e.g., biology, special status 

species, coordination correspondence). 

(C4) QA/QC Process—The Central 

Region has established a QA/QC unit. 

The audit team interviewed members of 

this unit during the onsite visit at the 

Regional office. To ensure compliance 

with section 8.2.5 of the MOU, the QA/ 

QC unit implemented, for its Capital 

program staff, a QC process that 

involves an internal review and QA/QC 

branch chief signature that exceeds the 

requirements of the QC plan in the SER 

Chapter 38. 

Needs Improvement 

(N1) QA/QC Certification Process— 

Section 8.2.5 of the MOU 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 audit team observed 

improvement since the previous audit 

(July 2008) in the completion of the QC 

certification forms. However, the audit 

team still identified incomplete and 

incorrectly completed QC certification 

forms. These inconsistencies were also 

identified in the third Caltrans selfassessment and corrective actions were 

discussed in that report. 

(N2) Self-Assessment and Process 

Reviews—Section 8.2.6 of the MOU and 

SER Chapter 38 require Caltrans to 

regularly perform an internal formal 

process review for environmental 

compliance, referred to by Caltrans as a 

self-assessment. A summary report of 

the Caltrans self-assessment is provided 

to FHWA prior to each FHWA audit. 

The audit team has identified aspects of 

the self-assessment process that need 

improvement in order for this process to 

meet its stated intent. These areas 

include: 

(a) Review of projects during the selfassessment. To fully assess compliance 

with the project development process 

and responsibilities assumed under the 

Pilot Program, Caltrans needs to 

evaluate projects at all phases of project 

development, as well as compliance 

with project filing procedures. A 

complete review should include not 

only projects that have reached decision 

points and have been reported in the 

quarterly reports to FHWA, but also 

projects yet to reach a decision point. 

(b) More details on performance 

measures. As the self-assessment is the 

primary method of data collection and 

evaluation of success in meeting Pilot 

Program performance measures, more 

details and discussion regarding each 

performance measure should be 

included in the self-assessments. 

Examples of areas that need further 

explanation include: (1) The sampling 

procedures used for checking EA/EIS 

project files organized according to the 

established filing system and (2) the 

sampling procedures used for checking 

the completeness of the QC certification 

forms. 

(c) Limited scope of the selfassessment review. A significant 

proportion of the third self-assessment 

focused on the effectiveness of 

corrective actions implemented by 

Caltrans to address deficiencies noted in 

its second self-assessment and actions 

taken to address FHWA Pilot Program 

audit findings. While an important 

component of the self-assessment 

process, review of improvement 

regarding noted deficiencies from prior 

internal and external audits is only one 

aspect of a successful self-assessment 

process. The bulk of the self-assessment 

process should be focused on 

confirmation that all Pilot Program 

requirements are being fully met, 

including pursuit of newly occurring 

areas of weakness/ potential weakness. 

(d) To ensure that Caltrans is 

effectively reviewing all elements of 

assumed responsibility as stated in the 

MOU and Application, it must present 

a systematic review of all Pilot Program 

processes and procedures. Caltrans has 

yet to establish a methodology/approach 

to specify how it will conduct its selfassessment process. In particular, the 

process it is using and intends to use to 

determine, for each audit, what Pilot 

Program elements warrant review, the 

level of review to be performed on each 

selected element, the depth of the 

review (e.g., the sample size of 

documents reviewed, the number of 

districts contacted/staff interviewed, the 

frequency of reviews), and the coverage 

of each self-assessment (what parts of 

the Program have been/need to be 

reviewed/re-reviewed). The current selfassessment process has yet to 

demonstrate that Caltrans is evaluating 

its Program in a manner that will 

determine for all applicable components 

if ‘‘its process is working as intended, to 

identify any areas needing 

improvements in the process’’ (MOU 

Section 8.2.6). Evidence to suggest that 

the self-assessment process needs 

improvement is demonstrated by new 

Needs Improvement and Deficient audit 

findings identified by the FHWA audit 

team in this audit in areas recently 

reviewed (but not identified) under 

Caltrans self-assessment. In addition, 

the FHWA audit team identified new 

Deficient findings in Pilot Program areas 

not evaluated by the self-assessment 

process. 

(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. 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 in the Districts visited, the audit 

team identified a misunderstanding by 

the Caltrans staff regarding the air 

quality conformity determination 

process. This misunderstanding and 

confusion was not observed in the first 

two audits. Several Caltrans staff 

interviewed in both the North and 

Central Regions were not aware of their 

responsibilities to request formal FHWA 

conformity determinations for projects 

processed though the LA program. 

Interviews identified a lack of 

communication and misunderstandings 

between Caltrans staff and local 

agencies regarding air quality 

conformity analysis and determinations. 

In two of seven project files reviewed 

for air quality conformity 

determinations, FHWA conformity 

determination letters were missing. For 

another file, the conformity letter was 

not included in the project file but was 

subsequently located by Caltrans staff 

and included in the file during the 

audit. 

(N4) Project Files/UFS—Section 8.2.4 

of the MOU and SER Chapter 38 require 

Caltrans to maintain project files and 

general administrative files. To support 

statewide consistency in file content 

and organization, the UFS has been 

developed for mandatory use for all 

Capital and LA projects. 

Despite the ‘‘Compliant’’ finding 

regarding the North and Central regions 

described under item C3 above, the 

audit team identified that some project 

files were not established as soon as 

environmental studies had begun, as 

required by SER Chapter 38, 

Additional inconsistencies identified 

included: 

(a) Several instances where project 

files were missing UFS tabs and some 

sections contained no information or an 

explanation as to why the tabs were 

missing or tab sections were incomplete 

(i.e., empty). 

(b) Required project documentation 

was missing from several project files. 

Examples of missing documents include 

PES forms, QA/QC certification forms, 

air quality conformity determination 

23782 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 

letters, State Historic Preservation Office 

concurrence letters for section 106 

determinations, ‘‘Plans, Specifications 

and Estimates’’ information, and various 

transmittal letters. 

(c) Project file reviews identified 

unsigned/incomplete documentation 

including incomplete environmental 

document filing checklists, unsigned 

environmental document preparation 

and review tools, and unsigned LA EA 

document title pages. 

(N5) Commitment of Resources— 

Section 4.2.2 of the MOU requires 

Caltrans to maintain adequate 

organizational and staff capability 

effectively to carry out the 

responsibilities it has assumed, 

including devoting adequate staff 

resources to the Pilot Program. In the 

Districts/Regions visited, interviews 

with the Caltrans staff working on LA 

projects revealed the following: 

(a) Inconsistencies associated with 

charging time spent on Pilot Program 

activities to the official Work 

Breakdown Structure (WBS) code 

(6DELE). Staff interviews identified two 

main reasons for incomplete adherence 

to use of the WBS code: not having the 

time to determine the amount of time 

and enter it in the time sheet system; 

not tracking Pilot Program labor 

expenditures at all. 

(b) LA staffers expressed frustration to 

the audit team regarding the amount of 

work to be accomplished by current LA 

staff in the Districts. Concerns were 

frequently expressed regarding 

inadequate staffing, lack of timeliness in 

filling vacant positions, and the 

difficulty coping with the pressure to 

advance projects in a timely manner and 

on schedule. 

The audit team learned that Caltrans 

is considering updating and enhancing 

the LP 2000 system which should 

present an opportunity to improve 

resource tracking for LA staff, and 

projecting future staff needs. 

(N6) Adequate QA/QC Review of 

Technical Studies—The second Caltrans 

self-assessment identified that the peer 

review of the biological resources 

technical studies was sometimes less 

thorough than the same reviews 

performed for SHS projects. The audit 

team confirmed this finding through 

interviews with LA staff in one District 

visited. Caltrans has committed to 

ensure that the appropriate level of 

environmental analysis is conducted for 

all NEPA documents for projects on 

both the SHS and also on local streets 

and roads. 

A corrective measure was identified 

in the self-assessment to remind the 

staff biologists that the peer review of 

biological resource technical studies for 

the LA projects uses the same standard 

as for Capital projects. The audit team 

concurs in this corrective measure and 

also recommends that additional followup review occurs to ensure that it is 

being implemented. 

(N7) Training on Air Quality 

Conformity—MOU section 12.1.1 

requires Caltrans to provide training ‘‘in 

all appropriate areas with respect to the 

environmental responsibilities that 

Caltrans has assumed.’’ Three of four LA 

and Capital environmental planners 

interviewed in the Central Region office 

indicated an ongoing need for training 

in the area of air quality conformity, its 

role in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program, the 

Transportation Improvement Plan, and 

emissions budgets. Interviewees 

indicated that additional training or 

primers by Caltrans’ air quality 

specialists are needed for environmental 

planners due to this being such a 

dynamic area affecting many projects. 

Caltrans should assess if other 

environmental planners in other 

Districts/Region offices also find this 

area problematic and require additional 

training in this area. Air quality 

specialists should also work with 

environmental planners in their 

Districts to ensure that everyone 

understands their role and the required 

processes. 

(N8) Procedural and Substantive 

Requirements—MOU section 5.1.1 

requires Caltrans to be subject to the 

same procedural and substantive 

requirements that apply to FHWA in 

carrying out the responsibilities 

assumed. Through interviews with 

USACE and USFWS staff located in 

California, the audit team learned that 

there have been a few instances where 

environmental requirements were not 

completely and correctly implemented. 

(a) In at least one instance, based on 

the biological assessment of the project, 

take of threatened or endangered species 

was anticipated and quantified. 

However, Caltrans made a request for 

informal, not formal consultation, to the 

USFWS. This process decision is 

contrary to the implementing 

regulations of section 7 of the ESA. 

(b) In other instances, the USACE 

reported that environmental assessment 

documents prepared pursuant to NEPA 

and reviewed by the USACE under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

contained insufficient information to 

support decisionmaking and chosen 

alternatives. Further, as part of their 

Clean Water Act section 404 permit 

verification, the conclusions made by 

Caltrans in relation to ESA requirements 

were not supported. This 

noncompliance prevented the USACE 

from issuing its required permit without 

the proper consultation with the 

USFWS. 

It is the opinion of the audit team, 

based on these observations, that 

Caltrans staff and/or the consultants 

hired by Caltrans to conduct biological 

assessments, submit permit 

applications, and perform NEPA 

analyses, could benefit from training in 

various environmental laws and 

regulations. It is also noted that the 

technical reviews and other QC reviews 

should have identified these errors. The 

MOU section 10.2.1.C performance 

measure to monitor relationships with 

Federal resource agencies needs to be 

implemented. 

(N9) Assignments under the Pilot 

Program—MOU section 3.2.2 requires 

Caltrans to comply with the 

requirements of all applicable 

environmental laws. Caltrans staff 

interviewed indicated a lack of 

understanding of the SAFETEA–LU 

section 6002 (§ 6002; 23 U.S.C. 139) 

environmental review process definition 

and role of participating agencies, 

particularly in comparison to that of 

cooperating agencies. 

In a review by the audit team of four 

EIS project files, the audit team found 

that the cooperating and participating 

agency invitation letters sent by Caltrans 

were not totally accurate and were 

confusing. The letters were based on the 

template invitation letter provided in 

the SER, with links to the Local 

Assistance Manual. This template 

contains the following errors and 

confusing language: 

(a) The subject line for the letter only 

mentions an invitation to become a 

participating agency, with no indication 

of an invitation to also be a cooperating 

agency, when both apply. Yet, in the 

body of the letter, there is a combined 

discussion of cooperating agency status 

and participating agency status. 

(b) In the list of activities that will be 

occurring during the NEPA process, 

there are two instances listing both 

FHWA and Caltrans as providing 

various information. Under the Pilot 

Program, as stated in the first paragraph 

of the letter, FHWA is not involved in 

the project. 

(c) The letter does not clarify the 

different roles and responsibilities of 

participating and cooperating agencies. 

(d) The letter states that an agency will 

be a cooperating agency only if it has 

‘‘jurisdiction for permit.’’ That is not in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1598.5 which 

defines cooperating agency as, ‘‘any 

Federal agency other than the lead 

agency which has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise with respect to any 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 23783 

environmental impact involved in the 

proposal.’’ 

Caltrans needs to ensure that the 

SAFETEA–LU environmental review 

process (§ 6002; 23 U.S.C. 139) is fully 

and correctly implemented. 

(N10) Performance Measure— 

‘‘Monitor relationships with the general 

public’’—MOU section 10.2.1.C requires 

Caltrans to monitor relationships with 

the general public. This is the first audit 

to evaluate this performance measure as 

such a tool had not previously been 

developed for this performance 

measure. This measure is intended to 

assess the effectiveness of any changes 

in communication that could affect an 

existing relationship among Caltrans 

and the general public. The tool or 

indicator measure developed involves 

Caltrans staff and/or consultants 

performing self assessments to evaluate 

public meeting materials. To fully assess 

this relationship, however, the views of 

the other party must be considered as 

well. The current performance measure 

does not reflect the general public’s 

views on communication with Caltrans 

regarding Federal-aid highway projects. 

More details need to be provided 

regarding the projects for which the 

public meeting materials are being 

evaluated. Different projects require 

different and appropriate materials 

depending on the scope and issues 

involved in the project. Using a generic 

rating for all projects, with no additional 

information or explanation may not 

truly reflect the desired outcome. 

(N11) Documentation of Class of 

Action Determinations—Through 

project file reviews, the audit team 

found inconsistencies in the class of 

action determination documentation. 

The SER Chapter 38 ‘‘Defining the Class 

of Action’’ requires for EAs and EISs, 

that either a Deputy District Director for 

Environmental (or designee) or a District 

Local Area (DLA) Engineer and a 

District senior environmental planner 

make a determination with the 

concurrence of the Division of 

Environmental Analysis Environmental 

Coordinator. 

Four of six EIS project files reviewed 

by the audit team did not include 

documentation on the class of action 

determination. For one project, the class 

of action was changed from an EIS to an 

EA, but no documentation was 

identified in the file to explain the 

change or to demonstrate concurrence 

on the decision to down scope the 

environmental document type. For 

another project, the project file did not 

contain an explanation for the change of 

action from an EA to an EIS. 

(N12) LA Training Plan—Under 

section 12.1.1 of the MOU, Caltrans is 

responsible for ensuring 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.’’ 

This section of the MOU also states that 

‘‘Caltrans agrees to have all appropriate 

employees (including consultants hired 

for the purpose of carrying out the 

Secretary’s responsibilities) attend such 

training.’’ Additionally, the Application 

states that DLA environmental staffers 

‘‘will provide training to local agencies 

and their consultants to ensure that LA 

environmental documents follow 

statewide procedures and meet Federal 

requirements.’’ 

Section 12.1.2 of the MOU requires 

that a training plan be updated annually 

during Caltrans’ participation in the 

Pilot Program. This training plan is 

shared with FHWA on an annual basis. 

The training plans submitted for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 07–08 and FY 08–09 included 

information only on Capital program 

training and did not include 

information on training for DLA staff or 

how staff will provide training to local 

agencies and consultants. The 

information gaps in the FY08–09 

Training Plan include: 

(a) The lack of a formalized training 

plan for DLA staff on DLA-specific 

processes—Four interviewees and preaudit information collection revealed no 

evidence of a formal training plan to 

carry out the LA responsibilities under 

the Pilot Program, including training for 

DLA staff and staff in local agencies and 

consultants. Interviews in all Districts/ 

Regions visited indicated varying 

training activities have occurred, 

however, this information—or an 

explanation on the approach—is not 

included in the training plan. 

(b) The lack of an ongoing training 

procedure for local agencies and 

consultants, including expected courses 

or outreach to be offered. Six 

interviewees stated that there is no 

formal approach being used by Caltrans 

Districts to ensure proper training or 

outreach is provided to local agencies 

and consultants. Given the very large 

number of LA projects in some Districts, 

and the typically high staff turnover 

within local agencies, Caltrans needs to 

formalize and implement an ongoing 

training plan to ensure that LA program 

staff can carry out the responsibilities 

under the Pilot Program and work with 

the local agencies and consultants to 

ensure compliance with statewide 

procedures and Federal requirements 

assumed by Caltrans. 

Deficient 

(D1) Quarterly Reports—The quarterly 

reports Caltrans provides to FHWA 

under section 8.2.7 of the MOU 

continue to consistently include an 

inaccurate listing of all approvals and 

decisions under the Pilot Program. The 

quarterly reports received by FHWA for 

the first five quarters have all contained 

substantial errors and have had to be 

revised and resubmitted to FHWA by 

Caltrans. 

Discussions with Caltrans staff 

developing input for the quarterly 

reports identified inconsistent 

approaches and procedures in the 

processes leading to report production. 

Communication is not always timely 

between the project generalists and the 

staff responsible for project tracking and 

reporting. Additionally, two of the four 

Districts visited during the third audit 

were unable to readily produce a list of 

the projects within that District that fall 

under the Pilot Program. The audit team 

finds the quarterly reporting process 

and products deficient. 

(D2) Performance Measure—‘‘Monitor 

relationships with Federal and State 

resource agencies’’—MOU section 

10.2.1.C requires Caltrans to ‘‘assess 

change in communication among 

Caltrans, Federal and State resource 

agencies.’’ In all three Caltrans selfassessments (December 2007, June 2008, 

and December 2008) under ‘‘Progress in 

Meeting Pilot Program Performance 

Metrics’’ Caltrans stated that this 

performance measure has not yet been 

implemented. The audit team 

understands that Caltrans has engaged a 

consultant to undertake a survey of 

Federal and State resource agencies to 

assess their relationships with Caltrans; 

however, the minimal degree of progress 

after 18 months of the Pilot Program 

renders Caltrans’ performance on this 

requirement deficient at the time of the 

audit. 

(D3) Delegation of Signature 

Authority—In six of the eight Caltrans 

District Offices reviewed in this audit, 

the audit team learned of the delegation 

of signature authority for EISs and 

individual Section 4(f) Evaluations that 

occurred in October 2007. 

In September 2007, Caltrans asked for 

clarification of signature authority for 

EISs as stated in the Application and 

section 1.1.2 of the MOU. The FHWA 

responded with clarification of this 

signature authority through a letter from 

FHWA to Caltrans dated September 12, 

2007. This letter stated that the Draft EIS 

can be signed by either the Deputy 

District Director for Environmental 

Planning or the District Director, at the 

Caltrans’ District discretion. Final EISs 

are to be signed by District Directors, 

and not further delegated. There was no 

request for clarification for individual 

Section 4(f) Evaluations and therefore, 

23784 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 20, 2009 / Notices 

that signature authority remains as 

agreed to with the Deputy District 

Director. 

During the audit, the audit team 

learned of two memos, dated October 

2007, that delegated, for six Districts, 

the signature of individual Section 4(f) 

Evaluations to the Environmental Office 

Chiefs and the signature of EISs to the 

Environmental Division Chief or the 

District Director. 

This delegation is inconsistent with 

the FHWA clarification letter. 

Additionally, Chapter 38 of the SER is 

inconsistent regarding this delegation of 

signature authority for Draft EISs, 

indicating two different delegation 

signature authorities, one to the Deputy 

District Director and one to the Deputy 

District Director for Environmental 

Planning, in the sections ‘‘Signature 

Authorities’’ and ‘‘Signature Protocols.’’ 

(D4) Assignment of Section 6002 

Responsibility under the Pilot 

Program—Under MOU section 3.2.2, 

Caltrans is responsible for complying 

with the requirements of any applicable 

environmental law. Therefore, Caltrans 

is responsible for complying with 

SAFETEA–LU section 6002 (23 U.S.C. 

139) which defines provisions of the 

environmental review process. The 

SAFETEA–LU section 6002(d)(23 U.S.C. 

139(d)) states that a Federal lead agency 

for a highway project conducting a 

NEPA process under section 6002, in 

this case Caltrans, ‘‘shall identify, as 

early as practicable in the 

environmental review process for a 

project, any other Federal and nonFederal agencies that may have an 

interest in the project, and shall invite 

such agencies to become participating 

agencies in the environmental review 

process for the project.’’ 

In three of the six EIS project files 

reviewed, there were participating 

agency invitations sent out to only 5 to 

10 agencies per project. For those 

projects, the audit team, thorough 

interviews and review of project files, 

learned that more local, State, Federal, 

or tribal governmental agencies, either 

may have or already had, expressed an 

interest in the project and were 

therefore required to be an invited 

participating agency. 

The Caltrans’ third self-assessment 

included a section on ‘‘Understanding 

of Section 6002 Requirements,’’ and did 

not report any finding that requires a 

corrective action. 

Based on its review of project files 

and interviews with Caltrans staff, the 

audit team finds Caltrans’ compliance 

with its Pilot Program responsibilities to 

be deficient with regard to the intent 

and requirements of SAFETEA–LU 

section 6002 regarding inviting 

participating agencies. 

(D5) Corrective Action for Audit 

Deficiency—In three of the project files 

reviewed by the audit team that 

contained a class of action 

determination documentation, the class 

of action determination concurrence 

was issued the day before the third 

audit began, or actually, in two 

instances, the concurrence was issued 

during the audit. This is a failure to 

fully address the deficiency, 

‘‘Environmental Document Process— 

Class of Action Determination,’’ noted 

in the previous audit. 

[FR Doc. E9–11719 Filed 5–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Open Meeting of the Financial Literacy 

and Education Commission 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

public meeting of the Financial Literacy 

and Education Commission, established 

by the Financial Literacy and Education 

Improvement Act (Title V of the Fair 

and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 

2003). 

DATES: This meeting of the Financial 

Literacy and Education Commission 

will be held on Wednesday, May 27, 

2009, beginning at 10 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The Financial Literacy and 

Education Commission meeting will be 

held in the Cash Room at the 

Department of the Treasury, located at 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20220. To be admitted 

in the Treasury building, attendees must 

RSVP with their name as shown on a 

government-issued ID, organization 

represented (if any), phone number, 

date of birth, Social Security number 

and country of citizenship. To register, 

visit http://www.treasury.gov/ofe, click 

on the ‘‘Financial Literacy and 

Education Commission’’ and then click 

on ‘‘Event Summary and Registration.’’ 

For admittance to the Treasury building 

on the day of the meeting, attendees 

must present a government-issued ID, 

such as a driver’s license or passport, 

which includes a photo and date of 

birth. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, contact Dubis 

Correal by e-mail at 

dubis.correal@do.treas.gov or by 

telephone at (202) 622–5770 (not a toll 

free number). Additional information 

regarding the Financial Literacy and 

Education Commission and the 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Financial Education may be obtained 

through the Office of Financial 

Education’s Web site at http:// 

www.treas.gov/ofe. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Financial Literacy and Education 

Improvement Act, which is in Title V of 

the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108– 

159), established the Financial Literacy 

and Education Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) to improve the financial 

literacy and education of persons in the 

United States. The Commission is 

composed of the Secretary of the 

Treasury and the heads of the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency, the 

Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal 

Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, the National Credit Union 

Administration, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, the Departments 

of Education, Agriculture, Defense, 

Health and Human Services, Housing 

and Urban Development, Labor, and 

Veterans Affairs, the Federal Trade 

Commission, the General Services 

Administration, the Small Business 

Administration, the Social Security 

Administration, the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, and the Office of 

Personnel Management. The 

Commission is required to hold 

meetings that are open to the public 

every four months. 

This meeting of the Commission, 

which will be open to the public, will 

be held in the Cash Room at the 

Department of the Treasury, located at 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. The room will 

accommodate 80 members of the public. 

Seating is available on a first-come, firstseated basis. Participation in the 

discussion at the meeting will be 

limited to Commission members, their 

staffs, and special guest presenters. 

Dated: May 12, 2009. 

Andrew Mayock, 

Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of the 

Treasury. 

[FR Doc. E9–11737 Filed 5–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P