|
|---|
|
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona Department of Transportation FHWA Audit Report Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Highway Administration Byline: Shailen P. Bhatt Date: 13 September 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Roads & Highways
|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62878-62882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19704]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2021-0020]
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; Arizona
Department of Transportation FHWA 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
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 carrying out the responsibilities it has
assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This program mandates annual audits during
each of the first 4 years of State participation to ensure compliance
with program requirements. This is the second audit of the Arizona
Department of Transportation's (ADOT) performance of its
responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery
Program (NEPA Assignment Program). This
[[Page 62879]]
notice makes available the final second audit report for ADOT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Colleen Vaughn, Office of Project
Development and Environmental Review, (202) 633-0356,
colleen.vaughn@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or
Ms. Michelle Andotra, Office of the Chief Counsel, (404) 562-3679,
michelle.andotra@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the
specific docket page at www.regulations.gov.
Background
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23
United States Code (U.S.C.) 327, commonly known as the NEPA Assignment
Program, allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities
for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal highway projects.
When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes
solely liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in
lieu of FHWA. The ADOT published its application for NEPA assumption on
June 29, 2018, and solicited public comment. After considering public
comments, ADOT submitted its application to FHWA on November 16, 2018.
The application served as the basis for developing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that identifies the responsibilities and
obligations that ADOT would assume. The FHWA published a notice of the
draft MOU in the Federal Register on February 11, 2019, at 84 FR 3275,
with a 30-day comment period to solicit the views of the public and
Federal agencies. After the close of the comment period, FHWA and ADOT
considered comments and proceeded to execute the MOU. Effective April
16, 2019, ADOT assumed FHWA's responsibilities under NEPA, and the
responsibilities for NEPA-related Federal environmental laws described
in the MOU.
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to
conduct annual audits to ensure compliance with the MOU during each of
the first 4 years of State participation and, after the fourth year,
monitor compliance. The FHWA must make the results of each audit
available for public comment. The FHWA published a notice in the
Federal Register at 87 FR 66357 on November 03, 2022, soliciting
comments for 30 days pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g). 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 the audit. This notice makes available the final report
of ADOT's second audit under the program. The final audit report is
available for download at www.regulations.gov under FHWA-2021-0020.
Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law 112-141; Section 6005 of
Public Law 109-59; 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773.
Shailen P. Bhatt,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, FHWA Audit #2 of the
Arizona Department of Transportation
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results of the Federal Highway
Administration's second audit of the Arizona Department of
Transportation's (ADOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project
Delivery Program. Under the authority of Title 23 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 327, ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on April 16,
2019, to memorialize ADOT's NEPA responsibilities and liabilities
for Federal-aid highway projects and other related environmental
reviews for highway projects in Arizona. This 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU
covers environmental review responsibilities for projects that
require the preparation of environmental assessments (EA),
environmental impact statements (EIS), and non-designated individual
categorical exclusions (CE). A separate MOU between FHWA and ADOT,
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326, authorizes environmental review
responsibilities for other CEs. This audit does not cover the CE
responsibilities and projects assigned to ADOT under the 23 U.S.C.
326 MOU.
The FHWA conducted an audit of ADOT's performance according to
the terms of the MOU from March 29 to April 1, 2021. Prior to the
audit, the FHWA audit team reviewed ADOT's environmental manuals and
procedures, NEPA project files, ADOT's response to FHWA's pre-audit
information request (PAIR), and ADOT's NEPA Assignment Self-
Assessment Report. During the March 2021 audit, the audit team
conducted interviews with staff from ADOT Environmental Planning
(EP) and the Arizona Attorney General's Office (AGO) and prepared
preliminary audit results. The audit team presented these
preliminary results to ADOT EP leadership on April 1, 2021. The
audit team conducted a completely virtual site visit rather than its
traditional onsite visit due to national health emergency travel
restrictions.
Overall, the audit team found that ADOT has carried out the
responsibilities it has assumed consistent with the intent of the
MOU and ADOT's application. The ADOT continues to develop, revise,
and implement procedures and processes required to deliver its NEPA
Assignment Program. This report describes several observations and
successful practices. Through this report, FHWA is notifying ADOT of
two non-compliance observations that require ADOT to take corrective
action. By addressing the observations in this report, ADOT will
continue to assure successful program assignment.
Background
The purpose of the audits performed under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 327 is to assess a State's compliance with the provisions of
the MOU as well as all applicable Federal statutes, regulations,
policies, and guidance. The FHWA's review and oversight obligation
entails the need to collect information to evaluate the success of
the NEPA Assignment Program; to evaluate a State's progress toward
achieving its performance measures as specified in the MOU; and to
collect information for the administration of the NEPA Assignment
Program. This report summarizes the results of the second audit in
Arizona and ADOT's progress towards meeting the program review
objectives identified in the MOU. Following this audit, FHWA will
conduct two additional annual NEPA Assignment Program audits in
Arizona.
Scope and Methodology
The overall scope of this audit review is defined both in
statute (23 U.S.C. 327) and the MOU (Part 11). The definition of an
audit is one where an independent, unbiased body makes an official
and careful examination and verification of accounts and records,
especially of financial accounts. Auditors who have special training
with regard to accounts or financial records may follow a prescribed
process or methodology in conducting an audit of those processes or
methods. The FHWA considers its review to meet the definition of an
audit because it is an unbiased, independent, official, and careful
examination and verification of records and information about ADOT's
assumption of environmental responsibilities.
The audit team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts from
FHWA Headquarters, Resource Center, Office of the Chief Counsel, and
staff from FHWA's Arizona Division. This audit is an unbiased
official action taken by FHWA, which included an audit team of
diverse composition, and followed an established process for
developing the review report and publishing it in the Federal
Register.
The audit team reviewed six NEPA Assignment Program elements:
program
[[Page 62880]]
management; documentation and records management; quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC); performance measures; legal sufficiency;
and training. The audit team considered two additional focus areas
for this review: the procedures contained in 40 CFR part 93 for
project-level conformity and the procedures contained in Section
4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified
in 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 (otherwise known as Section
4(f)). This report concludes with a status update for FHWA's
observations from the first audit report.
The audit team conducted a careful examination of ADOT policies,
guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities, as well
as a representative sample of ADOT's project files. Other documents,
such as ADOT's PAIR responses and ADOT's Self-Assessment Report,
also informed this review. In addition, the audit team interviewed
ADOT staff via videoconference.
The timeframe defined for this second audit includes highway
project environmental approvals completed between January 1 to
December 31, 2020. During this timeframe, ADOT completed NEPA
approvals and documented NEPA decision points for nine projects. Due
to the small sample size, the audit team reviewed all nine projects.
This consisted of three EAs with a Finding of No Significant Impact,
two EAs initiated with scoping completed, three EA re-evaluations,
and one individual CE.
The PAIR submitted to ADOT contained 24 questions covering all 6
NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit team developed specific
follow-up questions for the interviews with ADOT staff based on ADOT
responses to the PAIR. The audit team conducted a total of 13
interviews. Interview participants included staff from ADOT EP and
the Arizona AGO.
The audit team compared ADOT manuals and procedures to the
information obtained during interviews and project file reviews to
determine if ADOT's performance of its MOU responsibilities is in
accordance with ADOT procedures and Federal requirements. The audit
team documented individual observations and successful practices
during the interviews and reviews and combined these under the six
NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit results are described
below by program element.
Overall Audit Opinion
The audit team found ADOT has carried out the responsibilities
it has assumed consistent with the intent of the MOU and ADOT's
application. The FHWA is notifying ADOT of two non-compliance
observations that require ADOT to take corrective action. By
addressing the observations cited in this report, ADOT will continue
to ensure a successful program.
Successful Practices and Observations
Successful practices are practices that the team believes are
positive and encourages ADOT to consider continuing or expanding
those programs in the future. The audit team identified numerous
successful practices in this report.
Observations are items the audit team would like to draw ADOT's
attention to, which may improve processes, procedures, and/or
outcomes. The team identified four observations in this report.
Non-compliance observations are instances where the audit team
finds the State is not in compliance or is deficient with regard to
a Federal regulation, statute, guidance, policy, State procedure, or
the MOU. Non-compliance may also include instances where the State
has failed to secure or maintain adequate personnel and/or financial
resources to carry out the responsibilities they have assumed. The
FHWA expects the State to develop and implement corrective actions
to address all non-compliance observations. The audit team
identified two non-compliance observations in this report.
The audit team shared initial results during the closeout
meeting with ADOT and shared the draft audit report with ADOT to
provide them the opportunity to clarify any observation, as needed,
and/or begin implementing corrective actions to improve the program.
The FHWA will consider actions taken by ADOT to address these
observations as part of the scope of the third audit.
Program Management
Successful Practice #1
The ADOT EP continues to maintain several guidance manuals for
implementing NEPA Assignment and evaluating environmental resources.
These manuals are readily available online at ADOT's environmental
website. The ADOT continuously updates its manuals and ensures staff
are informed of updates. Staff noted the benefit of utilizing the
guidance manuals and having better defined procedures.
Successful Practice #2
During interviews with staff, the audit team learned that ADOT
EP has increased internal communication and coordination by holding
monthly meetings with the NEPA Assignment Program managers and
technical area program managers, and by holding biweekly meetings
with program managers. The ADOT EP's internal communication efforts
also included emails and informal staff interactions.
Successful Practice #3
During interviews with staff, the audit team learned that staff
felt a benefit of NEPA Assignment has been an increased sense of
ownership and responsibility for the program and decisions. Program
managers indicated that staff at all levels within ADOT had become
more engaged in the NEPA Assignment Program.
Observations
Observation #1: Deficiencies and Gaps in ADOT's Manuals and Procedures
The audit team reviewed ADOT's manuals and procedures as part of
the evaluation of ADOT's performance of its MOU responsibilities.
Section 4.2.4 of the MOU specifies that ADOT must implement
procedures to support appropriate environmental analysis and
decisionmaking under NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The
audit team identified the following deficiencies in ADOT's manuals
and procedures which may result in incomplete project documentation
or analysis and increase the risk for non-compliance:
The ADOT CE Checklist Manual and the ADOT EA/EIS Manual
contain different procedures for completing re-evaluations and the
process for re-evaluations for EA/EISs is not well-defined. During
interviews, staff described variations in the procedures for
completing and documenting re-evaluations.
The ADOT Section 4(f) Manual, documentation forms, and
desk reference/matrix contain information inconsistent with FHWA
guidance and regulation, as identified below:
[cir] The manual, desk reference/matrix, ``Section 4(f)
Applicability/Exceptions'' form, and ``No Section 4(f) Property/
Use'' form incorrectly state that the exception for archaeological
sites applies only to Section 106 adverse effect findings. The
archaeological exception can be applied to both no adverse effect
and adverse effect findings. Moreover, resources resulting in either
finding must still be evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability and
potential uses. The incorrect information in ADOT's materials
creates the risk of inadequately evaluating archaeological sites
with a finding of no adverse effect for Section 4(f) purposes, and
not consulting with the official with jurisdiction when the
archaeological exception is applied.
[cir] The manual, desk reference/matrix, and ``No Section 4(f)
Property/Use'' form incorrectly state that a Section 106 no adverse
effect finding equates to a Section 4(f) ``no use.'' While it is
possible for a Section 4(f) ``no use'' to apply in cases of no
adverse effect findings, this is not automatic, and resources should
be evaluated on an individual basis to determine potential uses. The
project file should include information demonstrating that a ``no
use'' determination is appropriate and the factors that support that
decision. The incorrect information in ADOT's materials creates the
risk of inadequately evaluating all eligible historic properties for
potential uses.
[cir] The ``Section 4(f) De Minimis Impact on Public Parks,
Recreational Areas and Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges'' form incorrectly
indicates that meeting minutes alone can be used to document written
concurrence from the official with jurisdiction. Meeting minutes can
be used to demonstrate that communicating potential impacts and
coordinating with the official with jurisdiction occurred, but
written concurrence should be documented through formal
correspondence (e.g., signed letter or form, or email responses).
Documentation and Records Management
Successful Practice #4
During interviews, staff indicated increased efforts to
coordinate with the ADOT Communications Office and the ADOT Civil
Rights Office on public involvement activities conducted for
projects.
Successful Practice #5
The ADOT continues to implement its standard folder structure
for consistent
[[Page 62881]]
record keeping and assistance with QA reviews. Staff commented that
the standard folder structure was a helpful tool and improved the
process for maintaining project files.
Successful Practice #6
The ADOT EP has developed standard templates (checklists, forms)
for various decision points and processes. Staff noted that using
the standard templates during the environmental review process has
increased the consistency of project documentation.
Observations
Section 4.2.4 of the MOU specifies that ADOT must implement
procedures to support appropriate environmental analysis and
decisionmaking under NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The
audit team identified several inconsistencies between ADOT's
procedures for documenting project decisions (as identified in the
ADOT CE Checklist Manual, ADOT EA/EIS Manual, ADOT Section 4(f)
Manual, ADOT QA/QC Plan, and ADOT Project Development Procedures
Manual) and the project file documentation provided. The ADOT was
provided an opportunity during the audit, and during their
opportunity to comment on the draft audit report, to clarify
inconsistencies identified by the audit team and provide additional
information regarding the project documentation. The ADOT provided
explanations to the audit team's questions and indicated where
specific information was located in the project files but did not
submit additional documents or files. The FHWA did not consider this
supplemental information to be sufficient for four audited projects.
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Deficiencies in Section 4(f) Evaluation
of Archaeological resources
The ADOT's Section 4(f) Manual (Sections 3.3 and 3.4.2) and FHWA
regulations, policies, and guidance provide information on
determining the applicability of Section 4(f) to archaeological
resources and determining if there is an exception or potential use.
ADOT's Section 4(f) Manual (Sections 5.2 and 5.3) specifies
procedures for documenting Section 4(f) uses of archaeological
sites, exceptions per 23 CFR 774.13(b), and ``no use''
determinations. During Audit #1, FHWA identified inconsistencies
with ADOT's Section 4(f) evaluation and documentation of
archaeological sites which were included as an observation in the
Audit #1 Report. The audit team observed similar inconsistencies
during the project file reviews for this audit and identified the
following procedural deficiencies relating to ADOT's Section 4(f)
evaluation and documentation:
One project file included a Section 106 adverse effect
determination for two archaeological sites, indicating the presence
of Section 4(f) resources and potential Section 4(f) uses. The
consultation letter sent to the Arizona State Historic Preservation
Officer did not state ADOT's intent to apply the archaeological
exception to these sites or include other Section 4(f) information
regarding these sites. No other consultation letters or other
information were provided in the project file or NEPA document as to
how these two sites were evaluated for Section 4(f).
Non-Compliance Observation #2: Deficiencies in Analysis of Right-of-Way
Impacts
The ADOT's procedures (ADOT EA/EIS Manual) and FHWA's
regulations, policies, and guidance provide information on how to
consider right-of-way impacts in the NEPA analysis. The FHWA's
regulations, policies, and guidance provide additional information
on how early property acquisitions should be considered with the
right-of-way impacts analysis. After completing the project file
review, the audit team identified the following procedural
deficiencies relating to ADOT's evaluation of right-of-way impacts:
One project file did not demonstrate that early
acquisition of properties and previous relocations were adequately
addressed in the impact analysis in the NEPA document. The NEPA
document stated that ADOT had acquired properties within the project
corridor during previous planning and environmental studies and that
ADOT intended to incorporate these early acquisitions into the
right-of-way needed for the current project. The CEs previously
completed for some of these early acquisitions included a complete
NEPA evaluation. However, several CEs previously completed for early
acquisitions were only for title transfer of the properties (per 23
CFR 771.117(d)(12)) and did not evaluate demolition, relocations, or
other potential environmental impacts. The audit team requested
additional information from ADOT regarding the NEPA analysis of
these properties. The ADOT responded that the project files and NEPA
document contained a complete record and no additional documentation
was available. Since the properties acquired as early acquisitions
were incorporated into the right-of-way needed for the current
project, these properties should have been included in the NEPA
analysis, even though the properties were acquired during other
planning and environmental studies. Based on the information
provided in the project file and the NEPA document, it does not
appear that all of the early acquisitions were fully evaluated in
the NEPA analysis for the current project, nor were they accounted
for in the total number of acquisitions required for the project
(per 23 CFR 771.119(b)). The land use, environmental justice,
community impacts, and indirect and cumulative impacts sections
provided conflicting information regarding the impact analyses of
these properties. Therefore, it is unclear how all the early
property acquisitions were considered in the overall right-of-way
impacts analysis in the NEPA evaluation.
Observation #2: Deficiencies in Section 4(f) Documentation of de
minimis Impact to Historic Properties
The ADOT's procedures (ADOT Section 4(f) Manual Sections 5.1 and
5.4.2 and ADOT QA/QC Plan Section 5.1.1) specify completing the
``Section 4(f) De Minimis Impact for Historic Properties Form'' in
addition to obtaining written concurrence from the official with
jurisdiction.
After completing the project file review, the audit team found
that two project files did not include the ``Section 4(f) De Minimis
Impact for Historic Properties Form'' for de minimis impacts to
historic properties.
Observation #3: Inconsistencies in Interagency Consultation
Documentation
After completing the project file review, the audit team found
several inconsistencies with ADOT's documentation of compliance with
interagency consultation requirements (per 40 CFR 93.105). It is
unclear if interagency consultation occurred for some projects since
the project files did not include information on agency responses,
concurrence, and the comment resolution process. Therefore, it is
unknown if the interagency consultation agencies had an opportunity
to participate in consultation or if ADOT provided them an
opportunity to review and comment on the materials as required by 40
CFR 93.105 and MOU Section 7.2.1.
The audit team is aware that ADOT has increased efforts to
follow up with agencies throughout interagency consultation and
include email responses with consultation documentation and
acknowledges ADOT's progress toward improving their processes.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The audit team verified that ADOT has procedures in place for
QA/QC which are described in the ADOT QA/QC Plan and the ADOT
Project Development Procedures. No observations were identified
during this audit.
Performance Measures
Observations
Observation #4: Incomplete Development and Implementation of
Performance Measures To Evaluate the Quality of ADOT's Program
The audit team reviewed ADOT's development and implementation of
performance measures to evaluate their program as required in the
MOU (Part 10.2.1). The ADOT's QA/QC Plan, PAIR response, and self-
assessment report identified several performance measures, but all
included limited reporting data for the review period. The ADOT's
reporting data primarily dealt with increasing efficiencies and
reducing project delivery schedules rather than on measuring the
quality of relationships with agencies and the general public, and
decisions made during the NEPA process. The metrics ADOT has
developed are not being utilized to provide a meaningful or
comprehensive evaluation of the overall program. In addition, ADOT's
performance measures indicate a disconnect between its metrics and
availability of reportable data. Staff indicated during interviews
that performance measures are not an effective or useful tool in
evaluating the program.
Legal Sufficiency
Through information provided by ADOT and interviews by the FHWA
Office of Chief Counsel with two Assistant Attorneys General (AAG)
assigned to ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program, the auditors
[[Page 62882]]
determined ADOT had not completed formal legal sufficiency reviews
of assigned environmental documents during the audit period.
Currently, ADOT retains the services of two AAGs for NEPA Assignment
reviews and related matters. The assigned AAGs have received formal
and informal training in environmental law matters.
Successful Practice #7
Through the interviews, the audit team learned ADOT seeks to
involve its lawyers early in the environmental review phase, with
AAGs participating in project coordination team meetings and reviews
of early drafts of environmental documents. The AAGs will provide
legal guidance at any time ADOT requests it throughout the project
development process. For formal legal sufficiency reviews, the
process includes a submittal package containing a request for legal
sufficiency review. A letter finding of legal sufficiency would be
included in the project file.
Training
The audit team reviewed ADOT's 2021 Training Plan and ADOT's
PAIR responses pertaining to its training program. The ADOT
continues to maintain a strong training program by providing
training opportunities to staff and dedicating time, effort, and
resources toward its training program. To further support the
training program, ADOT EP employs a dedicated training coordinator
within the environmental section.
Successful Practice #8
During staff interviews, the audit team learned that the staff
provides input on the training plan and that program managers meet
quarterly to discuss training needs. Staff remarked on the
availability of training offered to them and considered this to be a
benefit to ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program. The audit team commends
ADOT for adjusting to a virtual environment and offering online
training opportunities for staff.
Status of Observations From the Audit #1 Report
This section describes the actions ADOT has taken (or is taking)
in response to observations made during the first audit.
Non-Compliance Observation #1: Incomplete Project Files Submission
During Audit #1, ADOT submitted incomplete project files to FHWA
by not uploading all files requested by FHWA to the file sharing
website. For Audit #2, ADOT provided FHWA direct access to the
project files requested for the project file review. The ADOT has
stated it intends to continue to utilize this method for sharing
files with FHWA. The ADOT also indicated it will continue to
identify improvements in technology to increase efficiencies in file
sharing. The FHWA appreciates ADOT's efforts towards increasing the
transparency and communication during the audit process, and better
utilizing available technologies.
Non-Compliance Observation #2: Project-Level Conformity Compliance
Issues
During Audit #1, the audit team found that ADOT's protocols do
not provide for the appropriate consultation, coordination, and
communication with FHWA and other agencies to ensure the projects
meet the project-level conformity requirements where required. The
audit team found documentation for two projects showing that ADOT
staff did not coordinate with FHWA on the application of conformity
requirements and found multiple projects that did not demonstrate
ADOT's compliance with interagency consultation requirements (per 40
CFR 93.105). As part of Audit #2, the audit team learned that ADOT
has made progress toward addressing these issues. The ADOT and FHWA
established a joint working group that resulted in developing draft
coordination procedures and identifying increased communication
methods, including monthly coordination meetings. During the file
review for Audit #2, the audit team identified additional
inconsistencies in the project files as described in the
observations above. The FHWA recognizes ADOT's efforts toward
improving its procedures and will continue to evaluate this area in
subsequent audits.
Observation #1: Use of the Federal Infrastructure Permitting
Dashboard
The ADOT is responsible for inputting project information for
assigned projects into the Federal Infrastructure Permitting
Dashboard, per MOU Section 8.5.1 and in accordance with the Federal
Permitting Dashboard Reporting Standard. During Audit #1, the audit
team found that the dashboard did not include information for any of
the applicable projects assigned to ADOT. The ADOT has since
obtained access to the dashboard, designated staff responsible for
entering project data, and has updated the dashboard with relevant
project information.
Observation #2: Inconsistencies and Deficiencies Based on the
Review of Project File Documentation
After completing the project file review for Audit #1, the audit
team identified several procedural deficiencies relating to the MOU,
ADOT's procedures, and FHWA's regulations, policies, and guidance.
To address this issue, ADOT has developed standard templates (forms,
checklists) to increase consistency in project file documentation
and has informed staff of documentation requirements. The audit team
identified additional procedural deficiencies during Audit #2 as
identified in the observations described above. The FHWA recognizes
ADOT's efforts toward improving its procedures and will continue to
evaluate this area in subsequent audits.
Observation #3: Incomplete Development and Implementation of
Performance Measures
During Audit #1, the audit team reviewed ADOT's development and
implementation of performance measures to evaluate their program as
required in the MOU (Part 10.2.1). The Self-Assessment Report did
not include reporting data for any of the performance measures. Due
to the lack of performance measure data, the audit team determined
that ADOT had not fully established and initiated data collection as
it relates to performance metrics per the MOU. For Audit #2, the
audit team reviewed ADOT's performance measures and reporting data
submitted for the review period. The ADOT has made progress toward
developing and implementing its performance measures, though FHWA
continues to identify this program objective as an area of concern,
described in the observations above, and will continue to evaluate
this area in subsequent audits.
Response to Public Comments on the Draft Report and the Final Report
The FHWA received one comment applicable to the draft audit
report, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(2). The American Road &
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) commented that they are
in general support of ADOT's implementation of the NEPA Assignment
Program to accelerate Federal-aid highway program and project
delivery in Arizona. The FHWA appreciates ARTBA's input.
After reviewing the public comments, FHWA determined that there
is no need to revise the draft audit report. Therefore, FHWA is
finalizing ADOT's second NEPA Assignment audit report with this
Federal Register notice.
[FR Doc. 2023-19704 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P