83 FR 49973 - Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Ohio Department of Transportation Audit Report
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 192 (October 3, 2018)
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 192 (October 3, 2018)
| Page Range | 49973-49976 | |
| FR Document | 2018-21565 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 49973-49976] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-21565] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2018-0009] Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Ohio Department of Transportation Audit Report AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program that allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 years to ensure the State's compliance with program requirements. This notice makes available the final report of Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) second audit under the program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James G. Gavin, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-1473, [email protected], or Mr. David Sett, Office of the Chief Counsel, (404) 562-3676, [email protected], Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 61 Forsyth Street 17T100, Atlanta, GA 30303. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the specific docket page at www.regulations.gov. Background The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment Program, allows a State to assume FHWA's responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely liable for carrying out the responsibilities, in lieu of FHWA. The ODOT published its application for assumption under the NEPA Assignment Program on April 12, 2015, and made it available for public comment for 30 days. After considering public comments, ODOT submitted its application to FHWA on May 27, 2015. The application served as the basis for developing the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that identifies the responsibilities and obligations that ODOT would assume. The FHWA published a notice of the draft MOU in the Federal Register on October 15, 2015, at 80 FR 62153, with a 30-day comment period to solicit the views of the public and Federal agencies. After the comment period closed, FHWA and ODOT considered comments and executed the MOU. Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to conduct annual audits to ensure compliance with the MOU during each of the first 4 years of State participation and, after the fourth year, monitor compliance. The results of each audit must be made available for public comment. The FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register on April 18, 2018, soliciting public comment for 30-days, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g). This notice is available at 83 FR 17212. The FHWA received comments on the draft report from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). The ARTBA's comments were supportive of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and did not relate specifically to Audit 2. The team has considered these comments in finalizing this audit report. This notice makes available the final report of ODOT's second audit under the program. Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773. Issued on: September 26, 2018. Brandye L. Hendrickson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program Final FHWA Audit of the Ohio Department of Transportation August 6, 2016-August 4, 2017 Executive Summary This is the second audit of the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities, conducted by a team of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff (the team). The ODOT made the effective date of the project-level NEPA and environmental review responsibilities it assumed from FHWA on December 28, 2015, as specified in a [[Page 49974]] memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed on December 11, 2015. The ODOT delegated these responsibilities to ODOT representatives located in the Division of Planning. This audit examined ODOT's performance under the MOU regarding responsibilities and obligations assigned therein. Prior to the on-site visit, the team performed reviews of ODOT's project NEPA approval documentation in EnviroNet (ODOT's official environmental document filing system). This review consisted of a statistically valid sample of 92 project files out of 736 approved documents in ODOT's EnviroNet system with an environmental approval date between May 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017. The team also reviewed ODOT's response to the pre-audit information request (PAIR) and ODOT's Self-Assessment report. In addition, the team reviewed ODOT's environmental processes, manuals, and guidance; ODOT NEPA Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Processes and Procedures; and the ODOT NEPA Assignment Training Plan (collectively, ``ODOT procedures''). The team conducted interviews with ODOT's Central Office during the on- site portion of the review from July 31 to August 4, 2017. The team interviewed the resource agencies the week prior to the on-site review. Overall, the team finds ODOT continues to make reasonable progress in implementing the NEPA Assignment Program. The team found one non- compliance observation that will require ODOT to respond with corrective action by its next self-assessment and subsequent report. The team also noted five general observations and three successful practices. Background The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (NEPA Assignment Program) allows a State to assume FHWA's responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance with environmental laws for Federal-aid highway projects. When a State assumes these responsibilities, it becomes solely responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities assumed, in lieu of FHWA. The State of Ohio represented by ODOT completed the application process and entered into an MOU with FHWA effective on December 28, 2015. With this agreement, ODOT assumed FHWA's project approval responsibilities under NEPA and NEPA-related Federal environmental laws. The FHWA is obligated to conduct four annual compliance audits of the ODOT's compliance with the provisions of the MOU. Audits serve as FHWA's primary mechanism of overseeing ODOT's compliance with applicable Federal laws and policies, evaluate ODOT's progress toward achieving the performance measures identified in the MOU, and collect information needed for the Secretary's annual report to Congress. This audit is the second completed in Ohio. The third audit is scheduled for 2018. Scope and Methodology The team conducted a careful examination of the ODOT NEPA Assignment Program through a review of ODOT procedures and project documentation, ODOT's PAIR response, and the self-assessment summary report, as well as interviews with ODOT Central Office and district environmental staff and resource agency staff. This review focuses on the following six NEPA Assignment Program elements: (1) Program management, (2) documentation and records management, (3) QA/QC, (4) legal sufficiency, (5) performance measurement, and (6) training. The PAIR consisted of 22 questions, based on responsibilities assigned to ODOT in the MOU. The team reviewed ODOT's response, and compared the responses to ODOT's written procedures. The team utilized ODOT's responses to draft interview questions to clarify information in ODOT's PAIR response. The ODOT provided its NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment summary report 30 days prior to the team's on-site review. The team considered this summary report both in focusing on issues during the project file reviews and in drafting interview questions. The report was compared against the previous year self-assessment report and the requirements in the MOU to identify any trends. Between April 21 and June 5, 2017, the team conducted a project file review of a statistically valid sample of 92 project files representing ODOT NEPA project approvals in ODOT's online environmental file system, EnviroNet with an environmental approval date between May 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017. The sample size of 92 projects was calculated using a 90 percent confidence interval with a 10 percent margin of error. The projects reviewed represented all NEPA classes of action available, all 12 ODOT Districts and the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC). During the on-site review week, the team conducted interviews with 37 ODOT staff members at the central office and three districts: District 1 (Lima); District 11 (New Philadelphia); and District 12 (Cleveland). Interviewees included District Environmental Coordinators (DEC), environmental staff, and executive management, representing a diverse range of expertise and experience. The interviews at the ODOT Districts included a discussion with staff regarding NEPA Assignment. The team conducted interviews the week prior to the on-site review with personnel from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region V Office, and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. These agencies provided valuable insight to the team regarding ODOT's performance and relationships with partner resource agencies. The team identified gaps between the information from the desktop review of ODOT procedures, PAIR, self-assessment, project file review, and interviews. The team documented the results of its reviews and interviews and consolidated the results into related topics or themes. From these topics or themes, the team developed the review observations and successful practices. The audit results are described below. Overall, the team found evidence that ODOT made reasonable progress in implementing the NEPA Assignment Program based on the Audit 1 observations and demonstrated commitment to success of the program. The team found one non-compliance observation that will require ODOT to respond with corrective action by its next self-assessment and subsequent report. The team also noted five general observations and three successful practices. The FHWA expects ODOT to develop and implement timely corrective action to address the non-compliance observation. In addition, based on the observations noted below, the team urges ODOT to consider improvements in order to build upon the early successes of its program. Observations and Successful Practices Program Management Observation 1: Implementation of ODOT policy, manuals, procedures, and guidance is inconsistent across the State, particularly involving local governments and consultants. The team noted inconsistencies in the application of various ODOT procedures in project file reviews. These inconsistencies were particularly apparent in documents produced and [[Page 49975]] actions taken by Local Public Agencies (LPA) and consultants, likely due to variability in these outside parties' understanding of ODOT procedures and requirements in areas such as public involvement (PI) and environmental justice (EJ). Inconsistencies included items such as not initiating contact with emergency and public services as part of PI during the NEPA process and a failure to include EJ forms in project files. The ODOT representatives reported in response to interviews that they have already taken action to train LPA and consultant staff in response to this observation. The ODOT staff said that they moved registration for the environmental training program from their office to the Office of Local Technical Assistance Program and the result was greater visibility and exposure of environmental training opportunities for the LPAs. The ODOT representatives are hopeful the additional focus on training will mitigate any inconsistencies in their program. Successful Practice 1: ODOT has effective program management processes in place resulting in successful project delivery. In the 2 years since ODOT has assumed NEPA responsibilities, ODOT has approved more than 1000 NEPA actions. Since Audit 1, ODOT undertook measures to solidify its program management approach. The ODOT representatives assigned subject matter experts with responsibility for ODOT's procedures in their subject areas providing a sense of ownership and allowing for ODOT to stay current in its program management responsibilities. The ODOT developed and implemented over 140 procedures to document how to implement NEPA Assignment, manage the program, and provide detailed instruction for completion of environmental actions to document preparers and reviewers. The ODOT implemented a quarterly update system for new or revised ODOT procedures using a listserv approach and a single Web-based repository of all guidance to share information. The ODOT continues to use routine statewide NEPA chats and DEC Meetings to share updated information with NEPA practitioners and to hear concerns from the field. Lastly, ODOT is committed to continued process improvements to refine areas of noted deficiency. Documentation and Records Management Non-Compliance Observation 1: Disclosure language required by Sections 3.1.2 or 3.1.3 of the MOU was missing from project materials and documents. The team identified 10 project files where PI materials lacked the required disclosure language required in MOU Sections 3.1.2 or 3.1.3. The disclosure in both sections states, ``The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried- out by ODOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 11, 2015 and executed by FHWA and ODOT.'' In addition to these 10 projects, ODOT identified 9 additional projects in which various other documents lacked the required disclosure language, as part of its self-assessment. The projects identified by FHWA came from 8 of ODOT's 12 Districts and included both ODOT and LPA projects. The projects identified by ODOT have a similar distribution among districts and project sponsors. The team considers this problem to be systemic across Ohio, identified in about 20 percent of the FHWA sample. The team acknowledges that ODOT has already developed an action plan to address this issue, including the following:In support of NEPA Assignment, ODOT has issued over 140 pieces of guidance, manuals or instructions on ODOT's process and implementation of the NEPA Assignment Program. The ODOT will review guidance that references this section of the MOU and ensure that there are no changes that we could make to better provide direction or guidance to our teams on how to comply with this requirement. The MOU Section 3.1.3 requirement is already a part of several of ODOT environmental training classes, including the PI class, Categorical Exclusion (CE) class, 1-Week NEPA class, among others. However, ODOT will review these classes to ensure Section 3.1.3 requirements are included and seek to include this compliance area into other classes. In addition, ODOT will make this area a renewed focus at our NEPA chats and DEC meetings. Both of these events are training events with all of ODOT's environmental staff, statewide. In addition, this topic will be presented to our consultant teams at our next Consultant Environmental Update Meeting and our Ohio Transportation Engineering Conference (OTEC). Lastly, ODOT will look for opportunities to increase outreach to our LPA's on this subject. The ODOT will keep working to improve our overall performance in this area. Observation 2: Project-level compliance issues were identified in four areas: Public Involvement, Environmental Justice, Environmental Commitments, and Fiscal Constraint. In addition, instances were identified where the information included in the online environmental file did not comply with ODOT standards. The FHWA identified project-level compliance issues on 17 projects in 4 areas in Audit 2. Three areas were identified in both Audit 1 and Audit 2 (i.e., PI, EJ, and environmental commitments) and one was a new area of issue in the current audit (i.e., fiscal constraint). Three of the areas in need of improvement from the FHWA Audit 1 (i.e., floodplains, Wetlands Findings per E.O. 11990, and Section 4(f)) were not identified in this audit, as shown in Table 1. As a result of the first FHWA audit and ODOT's first self-assessment, ODOT updated many procedures relating to the NEPA process and NEPA Assignment to improve its processes and meet Federal requirements. This may be a contributing factor to the changes in the areas in need of improvement identified in FHWA Audit 1 and FHWA Audit 2 The ODOT's second Self-Assessment summary report also identified PI, EJ, and environmental commitments as areas of needed improvements and fiscal constraint as a compliance issue. During Audit 2, ODOT informed FHWA about planned changes and improvements to EnviroNet that should address some of the errors identified in the FHWA project file review. Table 1--Areas With Project-Level Compliance Issues by Year ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FHWA Audit 1 FHWA Audit 2 Area (2016) (2017) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Involvement.................. [check] [check] Environmental Justice............... [check] [check] Environmental Commitments........... [check] [check] Fiscal Constraint................... [check] Floodplains......................... [check] Wetlands Findings per E.O. 11990.... [check] Section 4(f)........................ [check] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, FHWA identified issues with project file management in both Audit 1 and Audit 2. The ODOT also identified project file management as an [[Page 49976]] area in need of improvement through its Self-Assessment summary reports. For example, the team could not find required documentation in the Project File Tab even though there were indications that a related task was completed. The areas under which the errors occurred, include, but are not limited to PI, EJ, environmental commitments, maintenance of traffic, and fiscal constraint. The projects identified represent all ODOT's 12 districts and included ODOT, ORDC, and LPA projects. The team considers these to be project level compliance issues because, although documentation expected to be in the project file was missing, the files generally contained indications that the necessary review or commitments were being implemented. The team strongly encourages ODOT to continue improvements to EnviroNet and ODOT procedures to ensure complete documentation and compliance on future projects. The FHWA will more closely review these project level compliance issues in its next Audit review. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Observation 3: There are variations in awareness, understanding, and implementation of QA/QC process and procedures. The inconsistencies and missing information so far described are an indication that ODOT's QA/QC process requires attention. The interviews revealed that middle and upper management at the districts are not involved in the QA/QC process. The ODOT District environmental staff and non-environmental staff said that they rely on the ODOT Central Office to be the final backstop for QA/QC. However, most district staff indicated a lack of awareness or understanding of the overall QA/QC process. No training is provided exclusively for QA/QC. Successful Practice 2: EnviroNet serves as QA/QC in terms of process and consistency. Interviews with district and ODOT Central Office staff indicated that, overall, EnviroNet has changed the NEPA review process for the better and represents a ``one-stop shop'' for documentation of the NEPA process. The ODOT staff indicated that with everything now on-line, including electronic signatures, communication is easier between ODOT, the LPAs and consultants. The use of drop down menus and response selections within the project file resource areas acts as QC, creating increased standardization and consistency statewide. The system of checks built into the system includes error messages and a hard stop of the project if a peer review is required and not completed. Another safeguard of EnviroNet is ``validation'' which instigates a hard stop if required fields are not filled in the project file. There are security protocols to allow access to the appropriate staff for project file review and input, peer review and ultimately approval officials. Legal Sufficiency Review To date, ODOT has not applied the ``ODOT NEPA Assignment Legal Sufficiency Review Guidance'' guidance because it did not have any documents that required legal sufficiency review. There are no observations to report at this time. Performance Measures Observation 4: Some of ODOT's performance measures are ineffective. The ODOT developed Performance Measures as required in MOU Section 10.2 to provide an overall indication of ODOT's execution of its responsibilities assigned by the MOU. The team urges ODOT to refine or revise performance measures to reveal any occasional or ongoing challenges in agency relationships as well as any possible need to adjust approaches to QC. Training Program The ODOT has a robust environmental training program and provides adequate budget and time for staff to access a variety of internal and external training. The ODOT updated its training plan in January 2017, and provided the plan to FHWA and resource agencies for their review, as required by Section 12.2 of the MOU. The training plan includes both traditional, instructor-based training courses and quarterly DEC meetings as well as monthly NEPA chats, where ODOT Central Office staff can share new information and guidance with district staff, including interactive discussions on the environmental program. Furthermore, the training plan includes a system to track training needs within ODOT. In addition, ODOT holds bi-annual meetings with consultants to provide on- going updates about the environmental program. Successful Practice 3: ODOT continues the practice of required and continuous training of both staff and consultants involved in the environmental process. The ODOT's training plan states that all ODOT environmental staff (both central and district offices) and environmental consultants are required to take the pre-qualification training courses. Staff is also encouraged to take training offered beyond the minimum required training. All staff interviewed indicated that ODOT management fully supports required training of staff and consultants. Observation 5: Opportunities exist for expanding training in Environmental Justice (EJ). Currently, ODOT's training plan does not include a stand-alone training course on EJ. In the Self-Assessment summary report, ODOT identified EJ as an area needing improvement. This observation and that the team found project level compliance issues related to EJ indicate that additional attention should be paid by ODOT to EJ compliance. The FHWA encourages ODOT to include specific EJ training opportunities in its training plan, such as the Web-based course currently under development, and other EJ courses offered by the National Highway Institute, the FHWA Resource Center, and/or the EPA. Finalization of Report The FHWA received one response to the Federal Register Notice during the public comment period for this draft report. This response, from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, was supportive of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and did not relate specifically to Audit 2. This report is a finalized draft version without substantive changes. [FR Doc. 2018-21565 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Notices 49973
and the Development of Maintenance DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Assignment Program on April 12, 2015,
Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft and made it available for public
Federal Highway Administration comment for 30 days. After considering
The Consensus Standards public comments, ODOT submitted its
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2018–0009]
The FAA finds the following new and application to FHWA on May 27, 2015.
revised consensus standards acceptable Surface Transportation Project The application served as the basis for
Delivery Program; Ohio Department of developing the memorandum of
for initial airworthiness certification of
Transportation Audit Report understanding (MOU) that identifies the
the specified aircraft under the
responsibilities and obligations that
provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light- AGENCY: Federal Highway ODOT would assume. The FHWA
Sport Aircraft rule. The following Administration (FHWA), U.S. published a notice of the draft MOU in
consensus standards become effective Department of Transportation (DOT). the Federal Register on October 15,
October 3, 2018 and may be used unless ACTION: Notice. 2015, at 80 FR 62153, with a 30-day
the FAA publishes a specific comment period to solicit the views of
notification otherwise: SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– the public and Federal agencies. After
ASTM Designation F2339–17, titled: 21) established the Surface the comment period closed, FHWA and
Standard Practice for Design and Transportation Project Delivery Program ODOT considered comments and
Manufacture of Reciprocating Spark that allows a State to assume FHWA’s executed the MOU.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C.,
Ignition Engines for Light Sport environmental responsibilities for
requires the Secretary to conduct annual
Aircraft environmental review, consultation, and
audits to ensure compliance with the
ASTM Designation F2483–18 e, titled: compliance under the National
MOU during each of the first 4 years of
Standard Practice for Maintenance Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
State participation and, after the fourth
and the Development of Maintenance Federal highway projects. When a State
year, monitor compliance. The results of
assumes these Federal responsibilities,
Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft each audit must be made available for
the State becomes solely responsible
ASTM Designation F3198–18, titled: public comment. The FHWA published
and liable for the responsibilities it has
Standard Specification for Light Sport a notice in the Federal Register on April
assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This
Aircraft Manufacturer’s Continued 18, 2018, soliciting public comment for
program mandates annual audits during
Operational Safety (COS) Program 30-days, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g).
each of the first 4 years to ensure the
This notice is available at 83 FR 17212.
ASTM Designation F3206–17, titled: State’s compliance with program
The FHWA received comments on the
Standard Practice for Independent requirements. This notice makes
draft report from the American Road &
Audit Program for Light Aircraft available the final report of Ohio
Transportation Builders Association
Manufacturers Department of Transportation’s (ODOT)
(ARTBA). The ARTBA’s comments were
second audit under the program.
Availability supportive of the Surface Transportation
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Project Delivery Program and did not
James G. Gavin, Office of Project relate specifically to Audit 2. The team
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor
Development and Environmental has considered these comments in
Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Review, (202) 366–1473, James.Gavin@
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 finalizing this audit report. This notice
dot.gov, or Mr. David Sett, Office of the makes available the final report of
copyrights these consensus standards. Chief Counsel, (404) 562–3676,
Individual reprints of a standard (single ODOT’s second audit under the
David.Sett@dot.gov, Federal Highway program.
or multiple copies, or special Administration, U.S. Department of
compilations and other related technical Transportation, 61 Forsyth Street Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law
information) may be obtained by 112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109–59;
17T100, Atlanta, GA 30303. Office 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
contacting ASTM at this address, or at hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
(610) 832–9585 (phone), (610) 832–9555 e.t., Monday through Friday, except Issued on: September 26, 2018.
(fax), through service@astm.org (email), Federal holidays. Brandye L. Hendrickson,
or through the ASTM website at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway
www.astm.org. To inquire about Administration.
Electronic Access
standard content and/or membership or Surface Transportation Project Delivery
about ASTM International Offices An electronic copy of this notice may Program
abroad, contact Joe Koury, Staff Manager be downloaded from the specific docket
page at www.regulations.gov. Final FHWA Audit of the Ohio
for Committee F37 on Light-Sport
Department of Transportation
Aircraft: (610) 832–9804, jkoury@ Background
astm.org. August 6, 2016–August 4, 2017
The Surface Transportation Project
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. Executive Summary
September 25, 2018. 327, commonly known as the NEPA This is the second audit of the Ohio
Steven W. Thompson, Assignment Program, allows a State to Department of Transportation’s (ODOT)
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Standards assume FHWA’s responsibilities for assumption of National Environmental
Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. environmental review, consultation, and Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2018–21458 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am] compliance for Federal highway conducted by a team of Federal
projects. When a State assumes these Highway Administration (FHWA) staff
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Federal responsibilities, the State (the team). The ODOT made the
becomes solely liable for carrying out effective date of the project-level NEPA
the responsibilities, in lieu of FHWA. and environmental review
The ODOT published its application for responsibilities it assumed from FHWA
assumption under the NEPA on December 28, 2015, as specified in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_50165/page/1.svg)
![49976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Notices
area in need of improvement through its QC, creating increased standardization environmental consultants are required
Self-Assessment summary reports. For and consistency statewide. to take the pre-qualification training
example, the team could not find The system of checks built into the courses. Staff is also encouraged to take
required documentation in the Project system includes error messages and a training offered beyond the minimum
File Tab even though there were hard stop of the project if a peer review required training. All staff interviewed
indications that a related task was is required and not completed. Another indicated that ODOT management fully
completed. The areas under which the safeguard of EnviroNet is ‘‘validation’’ supports required training of staff and
errors occurred, include, but are not which instigates a hard stop if required consultants.
limited to PI, EJ, environmental fields are not filled in the project file.
There are security protocols to allow Observation 5: Opportunities exist for
commitments, maintenance of traffic,
access to the appropriate staff for project expanding training in Environmental
and fiscal constraint. The projects
file review and input, peer review and Justice (EJ).
identified represent all ODOT’s 12
districts and included ODOT, ORDC, ultimately approval officials. Currently, ODOT’s training plan does
and LPA projects. not include a stand-alone training
Legal Sufficiency Review
The team considers these to be project course on EJ. In the Self-Assessment
level compliance issues because, To date, ODOT has not applied the summary report, ODOT identified EJ as
although documentation expected to be ‘‘ODOT NEPA Assignment Legal an area needing improvement. This
in the project file was missing, the files Sufficiency Review Guidance’’ guidance observation and that the team found
generally contained indications that the because it did not have any documents project level compliance issues related
necessary review or commitments were that required legal sufficiency review. to EJ indicate that additional attention
being implemented. The team strongly There are no observations to report at should be paid by ODOT to EJ
encourages ODOT to continue this time. compliance. The FHWA encourages
improvements to EnviroNet and ODOT Performance Measures ODOT to include specific EJ training
procedures to ensure complete opportunities in its training plan, such
Observation 4: Some of ODOT’s as the Web-based course currently
documentation and compliance on
performance measures are ineffective. under development, and other EJ
future projects. The FHWA will more
closely review these project level The ODOT developed Performance courses offered by the National Highway
compliance issues in its next Audit Measures as required in MOU Section Institute, the FHWA Resource Center,
review. 10.2 to provide an overall indication of and/or the EPA.
ODOT’s execution of its responsibilities
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Finalization of Report
assigned by the MOU. The team urges
(QA/QC) ODOT to refine or revise performance The FHWA received one response to
Observation 3: There are variations in measures to reveal any occasional or the Federal Register Notice during the
awareness, understanding, and ongoing challenges in agency public comment period for this draft
implementation of QA/QC process and relationships as well as any possible report. This response, from the
procedures. need to adjust approaches to QC. American Road & Transportation
Builders Association, was supportive of
The inconsistencies and missing Training Program the Surface Transportation Project
information so far described are an The ODOT has a robust Delivery Program and did not relate
indication that ODOT’s QA/QC process environmental training program and specifically to Audit 2. This report is a
requires attention. The interviews provides adequate budget and time for finalized draft version without
revealed that middle and upper staff to access a variety of internal and substantive changes.
management at the districts are not external training. The ODOT updated its [FR Doc. 2018–21565 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am]
involved in the QA/QC process. The training plan in January 2017, and
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
ODOT District environmental staff and provided the plan to FHWA and
non-environmental staff said that they resource agencies for their review, as
rely on the ODOT Central Office to be required by Section 12.2 of the MOU. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
the final backstop for QA/QC. However, The training plan includes both
most district staff indicated a lack of traditional, instructor-based training Federal Motor Carrier Safety
awareness or understanding of the courses and quarterly DEC meetings as Administration
overall QA/QC process. No training is well as monthly NEPA chats, where
provided exclusively for QA/QC. ODOT Central Office staff can share new Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier
Successful Practice 2: EnviroNet serves information and guidance with district Registration Plan Board of Directors
as QA/QC in terms of process and staff, including interactive discussions
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
consistency. on the environmental program.
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Furthermore, the training plan includes
Interviews with district and ODOT a system to track training needs within ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier
Central Office staff indicated that, ODOT. In addition, ODOT holds bi- Registration Plan Procedures
overall, EnviroNet has changed the annual meetings with consultants to Subcommittee Meeting.
NEPA review process for the better and provide on-going updates about the
represents a ‘‘one-stop shop’’ for TIME AND DATE: The meeting will occur
environmental program.
documentation of the NEPA process. on October 9, 2018, at 1 p.m. Eastern
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
The ODOT staff indicated that with Successful Practice 3: ODOT continues Daylight Time.
everything now on-line, including the practice of required and continuous PLACE: This meeting will be open to the
electronic signatures, communication is training of both staff and consultants public via conference call. Any
easier between ODOT, the LPAs and involved in the environmental process. interested person may call 1–866–210–
consultants. The use of drop down The ODOT’s training plan states that 1669, passcode 5253902#, to listen and
menus and response selections within all ODOT environmental staff (both participate in this meeting.
the project file resource areas acts as central and district offices) and STATUS: Open to the public.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Oct 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_50165/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-03 02:30:14
Document Modified: 2018-10-03 02:30:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Contact | Mr. James G. Gavin, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-1473, [email protected], or Mr. David Sett, Office of the Chief Counsel, (404) 562-3676, [email protected], Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 61 Forsyth Street 17T100, Atlanta, GA 30303. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 49973 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR