Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37299 

tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, 

accumulating 1.2 million miles. He 

holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. 

His driving record for the last 3 years 

shows no crashes and no convictions for 

moving violations in a CMV. 

Stanley W. Tyler, Jr. 

Mr. Tyler, 41, has complete loss of 

vision in his left eye due to a traumatic 

injury sustained as a child. The visual 

acuity in his right eye is 20/20. 

Following an examination in 2009, his 

ophthalmologist noted, ‘‘I believe that 

Mr. Tyler has perfectly adequate vision 

to perform the driving tasks required to 

operate a commercial vehicle.’’ Mr. 

Tyler reported that he has driven 

straight trucks for 10 years, 

accumulating 275,000 miles. He holds a 

Class B CDL from Virginia. His driving 

record for the last 3 years shows no 

crashes and no convictions for moving 

violations in a CMV. 

Victor H. Vera 

Mr. Vera, 35, has had retinal scarring 

in his right eye since 2002. The best 

corrected visual acuity in his right eye 

is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. 

Following an examination in 2009, his 

optometrist noted, ‘‘My opinion is that 

he has sufficient vision to safely operate 

a commercial vehicle.’’ Mr. Vera 

reported that he has driven tractortrailer combinations for 4 years, 

accumulating 729,600 miles. He holds a 

Class A CDL from Texas. His driving 

record for the last 3 years shows no 

crashes and one conviction for speeding 

in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit 

by 7 mph. 

Charles A. Winchell 

Mr. Winchell, 54, has complete loss of 

vision in his left eye due to an infection 

that resulted in a failed corneal 

transplant in 1999. The best corrected 

visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25. 

Following an examination in 2009, his 

optometrist noted, ‘‘I certify that in my 

opinion that Chuck has sufficient vision 

to perform the driving tasks required to 

operate a commercial vehicle as he has 

been doing this for many years with the 

same condition.’’ Mr. Winchell reported 

that he has driven tractor-trailer 

combinations for 35 years, accumulating 

1.7 million miles. He holds a Class D 

operator’s license from Oklahoma. His 

driving record for the last 3 years shows 

no crashes and one conviction for 

speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the 

speed limit by 10 mph. 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315, FMCSA requests public 

comment from all interested persons on 

the exemption petitions described in 

this notice. The Agency will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

business August 27, 2009. Comments 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the location listed under the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. The 

Agency will file comments received 

after the comment closing date in the 

public docket, and will consider them to 

the extent practicable. 

In addition to late comments, FMCSA 

will also continue to file, in the public 

docket, relevant information that 

becomes available after the comment 

closing date. Interested persons should 

monitor the public docket for new 

material. 

Issued on: July 21, 2009. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–17966 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–1999–5748; FMCSA– 

2000–8398; FMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA– 

2003–14223; FMCSA–2005–20027; FMCSA– 

2005–20560] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Renewals; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously 

announced its decision to renew the 

exemptions from the vision requirement 

in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations for 6 individuals. FMCSA 

has statutory authority to exempt 

individuals from the vision requirement 

if the exemptions granted will not 

compromise safety. The Agency has 

concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that will be equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level of safety maintained 

without the exemptions for these 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

drivers. 

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. 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2- 

year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption 

would likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved absent 

such exemption.’’ The statute also 

allows the Agency to renew exemptions 

at the end of the 2-year period. The 

comment period ended on July 2, 2009. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received no comments in this 

proceeding. 

Conclusion 

The Agency has not received any 

adverse evidence on any of these drivers 

that indicates that safety is being 

compromised. Based upon its 

evaluation of the 6 renewal 

applications, FMCSA renews the 

Federal vision exemptions for Edmund 

J. Barron, Thomas E. Howard, Roger K. 

Cox, Billy L. Johnson, Myron D. Dixon, 

and Clifford E. Masink. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315, each renewal exemption will 

be valid for 2 years unless revoked 

earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will 

be revoked if: (1) The person fails to 

comply with the terms and conditions 

of the exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. 

Issued on: July 21, 2009. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–17972 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–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: Final report. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

1Caltrans MOU between FHWA and Caltrans 

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

strmlng/safe_cdot_pilot.asp. 

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 (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 third 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 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 third audit report in 

a Federal Register Notice published on 

May 20, 2009, at 74 FR 23777. The 

FHWA received no comments. This 

notice provides the final draft of the 

third FHWA audit report for Caltrans 

under the pilot program. 

Authority: Section 6005 of Public Law 

109–59; 23 U.S.C. 315 and 327; 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued on: July 17, 2009. 

Gregory G. Nadeau, 

Acting 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 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. 

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)). 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37301 

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. The FHWA solicited 

comments on the third audit report in a 

Federal Register Notice published May 20, 

2009, at 74 FR 23777. The FHWA received 

no comments during the comment period. 

This notice provides the final draft of the 

third FHWA audit report for Caltrans under 

the pilot program. 

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; 

• 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 selfassessment 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 selfassessment 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 time-recording 

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.) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37302 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

(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, reevaluations, 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 report also included 

errors and omissions (omitted EA, reevaluation 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37303 

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 subtabs were added for topic 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 self-assessment 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 self-assessment 

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 selfassessment 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 self-assessment 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 selfassessment 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 through 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 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

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 selfassessment 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 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37305 

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 pre-audit 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 

self-assessments (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, 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 non-Federal 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. 

Response to Comments and Finalization of 

Report 

The FHWA received no comments during 

the 30-day comment period for the draft 

audit report. Therefore, the FHWA feels that 

there is no need to revise the draft audit 

report findings and finalizes the audit report 

with this notice. 

[FR Doc. E9–17896 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

July 22, 2009. 

The Department of Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. Copies of 

the submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES