FY 2007 Stewardship Agreement with Maryland State Highway Administration

Page 1 - Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose, Authority and Scope

[Table of Contents]

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 106 (c), the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Federal Highway Administration DelMar Division, Maryland Office (FHWA) agree to follow the procedures set forth in this Stewardship and Oversight Agreement (Agreement) to carry out their respective oversight responsibilities in the delivery of Federal-aid Projects and Programs. This agreement supersedes all past agreements and plans, including the Stewardship Plan signed April 30, 2001, and shall become effective on the date listed below and remain in effect until superseded.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998, and the Safe, Accountable, flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005 provided flexibility to the States in how to ensure project actions are carried out in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. TEA-21, Section 1305 (a) requires that FHWA and the State enter into an agreement showing the extent of the State's assumption of the Transportation Secretary's responsibilities. ISTEA and TEA-21 altered the FHWA role from full project oversight and approval of every project or activity funded with FHWA funds to program oversight and some targeted project level approval. The program and project assumptions made possible under Section 1016 of ISTEA and Section 1305 of TEA-21 require that the SHA accept these assumed responsibilities and provide greater program accountability due to less federal involvement. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the overall program has evolved requiring a more comprehensive agreement that covers all aspects of the Federal-aid Highway Program that provides a road map to effectively and efficiently execute the Federal-aid program relating to programs/project delivery to include financial integrity.

By signing this Agreement, the SHA and the FHWA agree to adhere to the provisions and responsibilities included herein. The SHA and the FHWA further agree to carry out their responsibilities in a true spirit of cooperation. Prior to the beginning of each Federal Fiscal Year, the FHWA will collaborate with SHA in the development of its annual work plan. FHWA will accomplish its stewardship and oversight responsibilities by implementation of the annual work plan in conjunction with this plan. The FHWA and the SHA will also commit the resources needed to effectively implement the work plan action items.

The SHA agrees that where it assumes FHWA's Title 23 oversight role and approval responsibilities, it is responsible for ensuring that projects are developed and constructed in full compliance with Federal requirements, and that necessary corrective action is taken when actions and approvals are found to be in non-compliance with applicable Federal requirements. The FHWA is available for consultation in such matters or may unilaterally become involved in determining corrective action.

The SHA further understands that nothing contained herein shall relieve it from ultimate accountability for compliance with Federal laws and regulations with respect to the expenditure of Federal-aid highway funds in the State of Maryland, including those funds passed through to local governments. This agreement does not preclude the FHWA access to and review of Federal-aid projects at any time, and does not replace the provisions of Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.).

This Stewardship and Oversight Plan serves as a continuing plan of project and program oversight responsibilities for FHWA and SHA covering the following functional areas:

• Planning Program
• Environment Program
• Design Monitoring Program
• Construction Monitoring Program
• Financial Management Program
• Bridge Program
• Safety and Traffic Program
• Civil Rights Program
• Right-of-Way Program
• Intelligent Transportation System Program
• Materials Quality Assurance Program
• Pavement Design and Management Program
• Maintenance Monitoring Program
• Research, Development and Technology Transfer (RD & T) Program
• Planning

In general, FHWA will use Process Review/Product Evaluation (PR/PE) techniques to assess the capability and capacity of the SHA in those areas where the SHA has assumed FHWA's responsibilities. FHWA will also use these techniques to monitor and evaluate SHA's fulfillment of the responsibilities outlined in this Agreement. In cases where project level activity is still an integral part of FHWA's stewardship and oversight efforts, early involvement in project decisions combined with an assessment of the quality of the products produced during the project development process will be the primary focus.

As specified above, the Agreement includes stewardship responsibilities for various programs/functional areas with identified actions by each agency. FHWA will use Program Activities as defined later in this Plan to monitor and evaluate program performance and effectiveness. This Plan incorporates the concept of mutual service standards (Attachment 1) that include agreed upon formats, procedures and targeted timeframes for SHA and FHWA actions, including submissions, comments and approvals. The Agreement also takes into account the FHWA and SHA resources and capabilities, and the federal requirements where FHWA has a mandated role in the oversight process. This plan forms the principal basis for monitoring and evaluating the quality of the SHA's Federal-aid program, and the continued disbursement of federal funds based upon SHA policies, practices, and staffing resources.

While SHA can assume the responsibility for FHWA in many Title 23 U.S.C. actions, some Title 23 U.S.C. requirements remain FHWA responsibilities. These program elements include, but are not limited to:

• All Federal responsibilities for planning and programming oversight specified in 23 USC 134 and 135.
• Waivers to Buy America requirements.
• Environmental approvals.
• Civil Rights program approvals.
• Special Experimental Project (SEP) methods (FHWA HQ approval required for experimental contracting/project delivery methods)
• Federal air quality conformity determinations required by the Clean Air Act.
• Obligation of funds.
• Addition/modification of access points on the Interstate System.
• Use of Interstate airspace for non-highway-related purposes.
• Hardship acquisition and protective buying.
• Modifications to project agreements.
• Final vouchers.

FHWA will annually perform risk assessments of various program areas for the purpose of prioritizing its program level oversight activities for the coming year. The objective of these risk assessments is to focus the limited resources of the FHWA Division Office on those activities that represent the greatest risk to FHWA in fulfilling its stewardship responsibilities. A portion of the risk assessments will involve an evaluation of SHA's internal controls, operating procedures, and staffing. By this process, it is expected that the greatest possible confidence level will be achieved for the resources committed. SHA will be invited to participate in these risk assessments; however, FHWA will make all final determinations of risk categories and mitigation plan for identified risk statements.

Definitions

[Table of Contents]

For the purposes of this agreement, the following definitions apply:

Control Document

Applicable standards, policies, and standard specifications that are acceptable to FHWA for application in the geometric and structural design of highways.

Core Functions

Activities that make up the main elements of the FHWA's Federal-aid oversight responsibilities based on regulations and national policies. Core functions in the FHWA Division Office are Planning, Environment, Right-of-Way, Design, Construction, Finance, Operations, System Preservation, Safety, and Civil Rights.

Exempt Projects (Delegated Projects)

Projects that do not require FHWA to review and approve actions pertaining to design, plans, specifications, estimates, right-of-way certification statements, contract awards, inspections, and final acceptance of Federal-aid projects on a project by project basis.

Full Oversight Projects

Projects that require FHWA to review and approve actions pertaining to design, plans, specifications, estimates, right-of-way certification statements, contract awards, inspections, and final acceptance of Federal-aid projects on a project by project basis.

Major Projects

Projects with an estimated total cost greater than $500 million, or projects approaching $500 million with a high level of interest by the public, Congress, or the Administration.

Oversight

The act of ensuring that the Federal highway program is delivered consistent with laws, regulations and policies.

Performance/Compliance Indicators

These indicators track performance trends, health of the Federal-aid Highway Program, and compliance with Federal requirements.

Risk Management

The systematic identification, assessment, planning, and management of threats and opportunities faced by FHWA projects and programs.

Stewardship

The efficient and effective management of the public funds that have been entrusted to the FHWA.

3R Project

A project intended to extend the service life of existing highways, bridges, and related appurtenances; and/or restore safe, efficient travel on an existing facility. 3R (resurfacing, rehabilitation, and restoration) work includes the placement of additional surface material and other work necessary to return an existing roadway to a condition of structural or functional adequacy. This may include improving geometric features such as flattening curves, improving sight distance and minor roadway and/or shoulder widening. 3R projects are typically constructed within existing right-of-way, or require only minor acquisitions necessary to enhance safety.

Construction Cost

The cost of a specific project based on the engineer's estimate amount. The construction cost does not include: construction engineering and inspection, preliminary engineering, right-of-way, utility adjustments.

Force Account

The direct performance of highway construction work by a State transportation department, a county, a railroad, a public utility company by use of labor, equipment, materials, and supplies furnished by them and used under their direct control. 23 CFR 635.203(c)

Preventive Maintenance

The lowest level of 3R work. In general, any work that 1) prevents the intrusion of water into the pavement or pavement base (crack or joint sealing, under drains, restoration of drainage systems); 2) prevents deterioration of bridges including painting, scour protection, deck repair, deck drain cleaning, and seismic retrofit; 3) restores pavement rideability by profiling, milling, overlaying, or replacing a portion of the pavement structure.

Delegation of Authority to Local Agencies

[Table of Contents]

The SHA may, pursuant to 23CFR 1.11 and 635.105, delegate certain Federal-aid project authorities to a well-qualified and suitably equipped local public agency. The SHA is responsible for ensuring that appropriate procedures and guidelines are in place to facilitate the compliance of local public agency administered Federal-aid projects. FHWA will review and approve these practices and procedures for Federal-aid projects.

The SHA will determine if the local agency is well qualified and adequately staffed to administer projects before delegation of any activities. The SHA will review the local agency's ability to administer Federal-aid projects or specific activities on a case-by-case basis, and the extent of delegation will be dependent on their current staffing level and experience, and past performance. An Agency Agreement will be executed between SHA and the local agency to outline the responsibilities of both SHA and the local agency. The agreement will require FHWA concurrence.

The SHA retains responsibility under Federal law and regulations for all delegated activities. The SHA will have written procedures established for the local agency that provide the necessary processes, approvals, oversight and review that ensures the delegated projects receive adequate supervision and inspection, and are completed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and applicable federal requirements. While SHA will offer any training, advice, or other assistance as may be needed by a local agency to aid it in successfully completing its Federal-aid project, it is understood that the project is controlled by the local agency. As such, if the local agency is not following prescribed requirements, SHA's recourse would be to remove Federal-aid funds from the project.

The following program elements will not be delegated to local agencies:

• NEPA approval
• Sole Source Approval
• Approval of Force Accounts
• Design Exception approval
• Approval of Right of Way certification
• Approval of Engineering Plans
• Approval of DBE Goals
• Approval and Audit of Labor compliance
• Final Inspection
• Project Acceptance

Stewardship and Oversight of Federal - Aid Projects

[Table of Contents]

This section describes SHA and FHWA agreement on the stewardship and oversight responsibilities including those that are delegated to the SHA, along with those that are retained by FHWA. Next section, describes stewardship roles and responsibilities for specific functional program areas for SHA and FHWA. As a condition to accepting Federal-aid highway funds, SHA agrees to follow all applicable project and program requirements.

FHWA Responsibilities:

The FHWA is ultimately accountable for all Federal-aid highway projects. The FHWA will fulfill its stewardship role at a project level as follows:

• Full Oversight Projects – Projects meeting the following criteria are subject to full FHWA oversight:

• Involvement on Other Projects – The FHWA may become involved with any Federal-aid project, including those for which SHA has assumed oversight responsibility. FHWA oversight of non full-oversight projects (exempt projects) will be through program level activities, such as Process Review/Program Evaluation (PR/PE), attendance at Task Force meetings, etc. Additionally SHA may request FHWA involvement. The extent of FHWA involvement will be defined by SHA's request. The FHWA will provide engineering support for project development activities and technical assistance on major unique and/or unusual structures and on non-federally funded Interstate reconstruction projects. FHWA will also provide engineering support for project development and/or construction activities on other projects when requested by SHA.
• Technical Assistance – The FHWA Division Office is prepared to provide technical assistance to SHA or local agencies on any aspect of an eligible Title 23 project including intermodal transportation projects. Technical assistance activities will be decided on a case-by-case basis in consultation with SHA, other partners and the division office. The FHWA Division Office will continue to focus their time and effort on improving processes and procedures, in cooperation with the SHA.
• Non-Title 23 Responsibility – FHWA will continue to be responsible for the oversight of applicable non-Title 23 requirements. Such oversight will be conducted through a combination of both project and program level activities. Applicable non-Title 23 requirements include, but are not limited to:
  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
  • Section 4 (f) of the DOT Act of 1966
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties
  • Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
  • Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE)
  • Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The FHWA will manage and provide oversight of SHA's Federal-Aid programs in various ways. The methods used will be:

1. Routine day-to-day program actions and other interaction.
2. Division participation on SHA task forces, teams, implementation committees, reviews, attendance at SHA meetings, etc.
3. PR/PE reviews activities on program areas as needed and determined in accordance with the Division's risk assessment process and/or other high importance program areas. PR/PE reviews activities will be utilized as one of the primary methods of program oversight. PR/PE reviews comprise the process of comprehensively reviewing and evaluating State and or local agency policies, procedures, practices and controls for the development and implementation of Federal-aid projects and programs. Annual PR/PE's program will be jointly developed in accordance with "FHWA Maryland Division & Maryland State Highway Administration Joint Process Review Procedures, January 4, 2005" and are included in Division's annual work plan.
4. The Division Office Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Program to assess the financial aspects of programs and projects.

SHA Responsibilities:

SHA hereby advises FHWA that it wishes to assume project oversight responsibilities in accordance with the following:

• Interstate Projects – SHA assumes oversight responsibility for the right-of-way approval, utility approval, railroad approval and related activities, design approval, plans, specifications, estimates, contract award, and inspection of the following projects on the Interstate System designated as exempt projects by the FHWA: (1) all resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) projects and (2) all reconstruction/new construction projects with an estimated construction cost of less than $5 million. All Interstate projects must comply with all Title 23 U.S.C. and non-Title 23 U.S.C. requirements.
• Other NHS Projects (not on the Interstate System) – SHA assumes oversight responsibility for the right-of-way approval, utility approval, railroad approval and related activities, design approval, design exceptions, plans, specifications, estimates, contract award, and inspection for the following non-Interstate NHS projects designated as projects by the FHWA:
  • All resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation (3R) projects and
  • All new construction/reconstruction projects with an estimated cost of less than $10 million.
• Non-NHS Projects – SHA assumes oversight responsibility for the right-of-way approval, utility approval, railroad approval and related activities, design approval, design exceptions, plans, specifications, estimates, contract award, and inspection of projects not on the NHS. Non-NHS projects are required to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State law, regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and construction standards, in lieu of many Title 23 U.S.C. requirements. Title 23 U.S.C. requirements that are applicable to all Federal-aid projects include, but are not limited to, transportation planning, procurement of professional services, Davis-Bacon wage rates, advertising for bids, award of contracts, use of convict produced materials, Buy America Act provisions and other requirements. All non-NHS projects must also comply with all non-Title 23 U.S.C. requirements.
• Local Agency Projects – SHA is responsible for assuring that all Federal-aid projects administered by local agencies comply with all applicable Federal and State requirements. SHA is not relieved of this responsibility even though the project may be delegated to the local agency. In accordance with 23 CFR 1.11 and 635.105, SHA is responsible for ensuring that the local agency is qualified and equipped to administer the project and has processes in place to ensure compliance with Federal requirements.

For those projects that SHA has agreed to assume oversight responsibility, SHA will follow all applicable FHWA policies, regulations, Title 23, and non-Title 23 requirements as if FHWA were involved.

Planning Program

[Table of Contents]

BACKGROUND

States are required to conduct continuing, comprehensive and collaborative planning process that facilitates the effective and efficient movement of goods and people in all areas of the States including the metropolitan and local areas. FHWA role includes policy and program guidance as well as information and advice on FHWA, state, regional, and local transportation planning and program matters in Maryland.

The planning program is divided into five main categories: statewide; urban; highway information; air quality, and miscellaneous. The statewide and urban planning activities are performed jointly with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The statutory and regulatory references for the statewide and metropolitan functions are 23 U.S.C. 134, 23 U.S.C. 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305, 23 CFR Part 450 (Subparts B and C), and 49 CFR Part 613 (Subparts B and C)

OPERATING PROCEDURES

FHWA provides technical expertise and assistance through participation in committees and teams set up by the SHA, MDOT, and the MPOs that address planning topic areas including: (1) Long Range Transportation Plans; (2) Statewide and Metropolitan areas Transportation Improvement Programs; (3) Unified Planning Work Programs; (4) Congestion Management, (5) Air Quality Conformity Determination, and (6) Data Collection and Reporting.

PROJECT OVERSIGHT

In all program areas FHWA and FTA work with the State, MPOs, and Local agencies to review, approve, and comment on planning programs to ensure consistency with Federal laws and regulations. In addition, FHWA provide the State and the MPOs with example of best practices to enhance their planning products such as the Long Range Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs, and Unified Planning Work Programs.

The following Table provides background information on the authority, action, and frequency for a variety of recurring planning-related activities in the five core areas.

Action

A= Approve, C= Compliance, I= Information, P= Prepare

Environment Program

[Table of Contents]

Background

The FHWA is the lead federal agency in integrating the full range of environmental requirements under a single, unified process that results in efficient and timely transportation decisions in accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU. These laws and regulations include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations CEQ 40CFR1500-1508 and FHWA 23CFR771 (proposed 23CFR1420); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and implementing regulations 23CFR771 (proposed 23CFR1430); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations 36CFR800; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as well as others. Furthermore, FHWA has a commitment to the "protection and enhancement of communities and the natural environment" as outlined in the USDOT Strategic Goals.

Operating Procedures

FHWA participates in task forces and teams set up by the SHA that address both broad policy or program environmental issues as well as individual topics of interest. Teams have been developed for the following: (1) Training, (2) Environmental Justice, and (3) Historic Bridges. Although the Secondary/Cumulative Effects Analysis and Environmental Streamlining teams have completed their tasks, follow up activities may be required. In addition, FHWA is a member of two Interagency Oversight teams: the Steering Committee and the Interagency Managers. SHA is in the process of integrating Community Impact Assessment/Environmental Justice. SHA has fully integrated Context Sensitive Solutions into the projects and is developing a work plan. FHWA and SHA partner in completing process reviews in the Environment Program Area.

Project Oversight

For all projects, FHWA and SHA work together in the project planning phase to ensure compliance with NEPA and other applicable laws before FHWA selects an alternative (location approval). The level of involvement is commensurate with the level of the environmental impacts or project complexity and follows a set procedure depending on environmental documentation class.

For Programmatic Categorical Exclusions, the SHA prepares a checklist documenting eligibility in accordance with the criteria outlined in previous FHWA/SHA agreements. SHA files the form. FHWA conducts a process review every 5 years to ensure that the projects are appropriately classified. Categorical Exclusions, Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations and Section 4(f) Evaluations are prepared by SHA and submitted to the FHWA for review. FHWA's goal is to respond to all submissions within timeframes shown in the table below. Coordination on Environmental Assessments/Findings of No Significant Impacts and Environmental Impact Statements are conducted following the "Maryland's Streamlined Environmental and Regulatory Process" guidelines and include interagency field meetings, concurrence points, reviews and approval procedures. SHA will update the streamlined procedures by September 2008 in accordance with SAFETEA-LU. The Maryland Action Plan which contains the Public Involvement Procedures will also be updated.

The Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement for Minor Projects between FHWA, SHA, Maryland Historic Trust, and the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation for carrying out the responsibilities of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is in the process of being updated.

FHWA is also an active member of individual project teams and help guide the project planning study. All documents requiring legal sufficiency review (the final EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation) will be sent to the Assistant Chef Counsel for Eastern Legal Services, Offices of Chief Counsel (OCC) by the Division Office with summary comments prior to issuing these documents. Pre-Draft Section 4(F) documents will be submitted to OCC for comment regarding potential for legal sufficiency. The OCC's goal is to provide legal sufficiency review comments to the Division within 30 days after receipt of the document. Environmental Re-evaluations are conducted through informal consultation and formal written documentation. All project coordination is facilitated by monthly SHA/FHWA coordination meetings.

Environment Program Summary Table
(Exempt and full oversight Projects)

Environment Program Performance/Compliance Indicators:

Objective: To meet timeliness targets for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA).

Indicators:

• EISs and EAs completion timelines targets established in Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS)
• Reduction in the processing time for completion of EISs (from Notice of Intent to ROD) from established targets in EDTS (Baseline: As established in EDTS)
• Reduction in the processing time for EAs from project initiation to FONSI (2005 Baseline- 29 months)

Reporting: Annually by August 31 for the current FY year.

Design Monitoring Program

[Table of Contents]

The purpose of a design monitoring program is to establish procedures for assuring that Federal-aid projects are constructed in accordance with 23 CFR Part 625 Design Standards for Highways, 626 Pavement Policy, 627 Value Engineering, 630 Pre-construction Procedures, 633 Required Contract Provisions, 636 Design-Build Contracting, 645 Utilities, 646 Railroads, 650 Bridges, 652 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations and Projects, 655 Traffic Operations, 771 Environmental Impact and Related Procedure, and 772 Noise. It is FHWA policy that FHWA personnel make sufficient reviews of Federal-aid projects to assure they are designed in accordance with applicable standards and in consideration of appropriate cost-effectiveness strategies.

All projects on the NHS, regardless of funding source, must follow FHWA approved AASHTO design standards except for non-freeway 3R projects where SHA may request FHWA approval to use state developed standards.

For Federal-aid projects on the NHS, including the Interstate System, the primary objectives of the design monitoring program are:

• To promote improved safety through appropriate use of design standards and guidelines.
• To make value added input at appropriate points in the project development process, with emphasis on early involvement in the project decision making process.
• To maintain a close working relationship between FHWA and SHA project development personnel.
• To ensure the integrity of the Interstate system through the review and approval of Interstate access point additions or modifications.
• To promote context sensitive solutions concepts
• To ensure that environmental commitments are incorporated into projects.

The types of design reviews that will be undertaken by FHWA include:

• Early Planning Reviews: Early involvement maximizes FHWA's opportunity to participate in design decisions with the goals of promoting safety and preserving human and natural environment. FHWA's participation in developing possible transportation solutions or concept development meetings, prior to any public meetings, should be included on Federal-aid projects of a scope that is likely to require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, or a FHWA full oversight project.
• Intermediate Reviews (Preliminary Plans, ROW Plans and Construction Plans): These reviews are appropriate during the time the design concepts and major design features are being developed and finalized. The purposes of intermediate reviews are to assure that appropriate design considerations are used during layout development, to assure that environmental commitments are observed, to assure cost-effective design alternates are considered, to maintain communication with the highway agency, and to evaluate the quality of the product. On complex projects an onsite plan-in-hand review should be conducted and a review team approach considered. FHWA will participate in intermediate reviews on full-oversight projects.
• Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) Reviews: These are the last reviews in the preparation of project documents, allowing project authorization to take place. The reviews may utilize a checklist approach and should generally not involve a design review if there was adequate FHWA involvement during the intermediate reviews leading up to the final plans. These reviews are required on all FHWA oversight projects to assure that the project complies with all federal requirements before federal funding authorization is approved.
• Design Process Reviews/Program Evaluations (PR/PE): These reviews evaluate the processes and procedures used by SHA on design activities. Process reviews can be broad in scope, covering a major design activity such as conceptual studies, preliminary plan development, or PS&E preparation, or they can be more specific, covering such elements as geometrics, pavement design, safety, structures, etc. All process reviews should include a sufficient sampling of actual products and/or projects to assure that the process is producing the intended results. As appropriate, non-full federal oversight projects will be included in the sample of projects inspected as a part of process reviews.
• Design and Operation Reviews: These reviews are undertaken for recently completed projects to evaluate the effectiveness of current design policy and detect design features that can be improved. The reviews should be conducted using a team approach with representatives from various functional areas. Projects should be open to traffic before being considered as candidates for a design and operation review.

On Federal-aid projects where SHA has the delegated authority to act for FHWA in design monitoring, a similar type of program of independent reviews will be conducted. SHA administered projects are subject to joint FHWA-SHA process reviews and inspections and must comply with applicable Federal requirements.

Along with the general items listed above for FHWA project review, the following are specific requirements for bridge projects:

• For new or reconstruction bridge projects on the Interstate system (bridges that carry interstate traffic and interchange bridges), preliminary bridge plans as well as final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) will be submitted to FHWA for review.
• For new or reconstruction bridge projects that carry traffic over the Interstate Highway regardless of funding source, preliminary bridge plans will be submitted to FHWA for the purpose of evaluating horizontal and vertical clearances on the Interstate system.
• FHWA may elect to retain oversight on Federal-aid projects involving unusual structures. Unusual structures may include tunnels, structures featuring new or complex wall systems, structures that involve complex stream stability countermeasures, or designs that are atypical or unique.
• Unusual bridges may include unique foundation problems, complex designs with unique features, bridges with exceptionally long spans, or bridges being designed with procedures that depart from currently recognized acceptable practices.
• FHWA will be available for technical assistance on all Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid bridge projects.
  

Construction Monitoring Process

[Table of Contents]

In general SHA has responsibility for the construction of all Federal-aid projects and for ensuring that such projects receive adequate supervision and inspection to ensure that Projects are completed in conformance with approved plans & specifications. The primary objectives of the FHWA construction-monitoring program are:

• To evaluate SHA 's control of the projects and the quality and progress of work
• To maintain a close working relationship with SHA construction staff
• To promote quality improvements
• To promote work zone safety
• To assure that projects are completed in reasonably close conformance with the approved plans and specifications and approved changes
• To ensure incorporation of environmental commitments

FHWA will use the following types of inspections to obtain these objectives:

• Process Review/Product Evaluation (PR/PE) – comprehensive review of SHA's procedures and controls. The purpose of a PR/PE is to provide oversight of SHA construction and materials management activities and to determine compliance with Federal-aid requirements on a statewide or Region wide basis.
• Inspection-In-Depth – a thorough on-site review to evaluate a specific contract item, combination of items, or major phase of a project. Inspections-in-depth may be accomplished on an individual project basis or on several projects with the findings summarized as a Region wide or statewide review.
• Project Inspection – an on-site review to evaluate SHA's activities, the quality and progress of the work, incorporation of environmental commitments, and if appropriate, to follow up on findings from previous inspections.
• Final Inspection - A review to determine the extent to which SHA has exercised its control to assure that the project has been completed in reasonably close conformance with the plans, specifications, and authorized changes, including implementation of environmental commitments.
• Operational Review – The intent of these inspections is to observe a recently completed project with a multi-disciplinary team to identify opportunities for improvement that may be incorporated in future projects. These reviews also provide the opportunity to identify items that worked very well in addition to noting deficiencies.

Design and Construction Programs
Summary Table

Design and Construction Program Performance/Compliance Indicators:

Objective: To deliver and steward federal-aid highway program with high performance and integrity.

Indicators:

1. Annually, bid cost of projects (Funds 70, 71, 72) will not exceed 110% of estimated cost at the time the project is funded for construction in the CTP
2. Percent of construction projects completed on time based on established contract completion date at time of award. (Target 90 %) (Project completion is defined as open to Traffic Date as established in the Notice to Proceed)
3. Percent of Federal-aid projects completed within 10 % of the awarded amount (Target 90%).
4. Number of joint process reviews conducted and findings implemented
5. Major projects completed on time and within budget (baseline: initial financial plan schedule and cost)

Reporting: Annually by January 15 for the previous FY year.

Financial Management Program

[Table of Contents]

Background

Passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provided specific guidance regarding financial integrity in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program. One requirement is that FHWA shall establish an oversight program to monitor the effective and efficient use of funds and be responsive to all areas relating to financial integrity and project delivery. Another SAFETEA-LU provision provides that the State shall be responsible for the monitoring of subrecipients of Federal funds and determine that subrecipients have sufficient accounting controls to properly manage Federal funs awarded. Previous legislation such as the Chief Financial Officers Act, Cash Management Improvement Act, Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, Improper Payment Information Act, remain in place. Finance core functions are discussed below.

Operating Environment

The accuracy and priority of Federal-aid reimbursement are the primary responsibility of the SHA whether the primary cost documentation originates within SHA or with a third party. SHA fulfills this responsibility by maintaining adequate operating policies and procedures, a sound accounting system with proper internal controls, and suitable audit activities. It is FHWA's responsibility to assure that such processes are in place and providing desired results, as well as, to provide technical assistance and advice in funding and financial areas. FHWA provides assistance and maintenance to SHA for the electronic data sharing and Electronic Signature environment.

Oversight Responsibilities

Project Agreements

Initial project authorization and agreement and amended authorizations are the responsibility of the pertinent FHWA program officer. Pursuant to 2 CFR 630, Subpart C, the reviewer will review and approve plans, specifications and estimates, as appropriate. SHA enters pertinent statistical, descriptive, and financial information in the FMIS and the project is signed electronically by both SHA and FHWA. The electronic signature process for FHWA Project Authorizations and Agreements (23 CFR 106) allows SHA and FHWA to electronically create and sign project Authorizations, Agreements, and Modifications. This process allows faster approvals and permits better control of funds on Federal-aid projects.

Amended agreement modifications are the responsibility of the FHWA Finance Team.
Costs incurred based on SHA's billing history report or other approved costs such as extra work orders, support additional obligations, or the conversion of advance construction. SHA enters the pertinent financial information and justification in FMIS and the agreement modifications is signed electronically by both SHA and FHWA.

The annual drug free work place certification is required to be updated annually by the State. FHWA will assure that current copy is on file.

Advance construction (23 U.S.C. 115; 23 CFR Subpart G) has been an effective tool in innovative financing to advance a project's construction time line. These projects must meet the same Agreement requirements and proceed in the same manner as a regular Federal-aid project, except for the following: FHWA authorization does not constitute any commitment of Federal funds and SHA will not be reimbursed until the project has been converted. Conversion of advance construction projects requires an amended Agreement which is electronically signed by both SHA and FHWA finance personnel.

The time frames for processing amended project authorizations agreements is 7 to 10 work days for full oversight projects; and 3 to 5 work days for State Administered (Exempt) projects.

Federal-aid Reimbursement of Eligible Expenditures

Federal-aid reimbursement to SHA for eligible expenditures incurred is found in 23 U.S.C. 121. In accordance with 23 CFR 1.9(a), Federal-aid funds shall not participate in any costs which is not incurred in conformity with applicable Federal and State Law, the regulations in 23 CFR, and policies and procedures prescribed by FHWA. The FHWA Maryland Division provides oversight of Cost Reimbursable Contracts, pursuant to 23 CFR Part 140, 49 CFR Part 18, and OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments." Likewise, FHWA must comply with the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA).

Reimbursement to SHA is made through an electronic signature Federal-aid Rapid Approval and State Payment System (RASPS). The Single Audit Act does not preclude FHWA from performing program reviews and these activities are undertaken by FHWA to facilitate oversight of the Current Billing process. These routine financial management reviews may be conducted on SHA's accounting systems and records to assure conformance with applicable laws, regulations, and government-wide accounting principles and standards. Also, to maintain an adequate system of management control and to promote effective program delivery and efficiency, FHWA promotes the conduct of joint FHWA-SHA Quality Financial Management Initiatives (QFMI). The employment of these mechanisms will provide reasonable assurance that only allowable costs are reimbursed, thus ensuring the integrity of the Federal-aid program. Further these joint cooperative efforts between FHWA and SHA will help to establish opportunities for continuous improvements, specifically in areas with any potential compliance weaknesses.

Cash Management

The Cash Management Act of l990 (31 CFR Part 205), prescribes rules and procedures for the transfer of funds between the federal government and the states for federal grant and other programs. The U.S. Treasury and the State of Maryland have entered into an agreement to describe its funds transfer procedures. FHWA's involvement is to provide assistance and guidance to the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to facilitate compliance and to assist in the implementation of cash management improvements. FHWA and SHA have implemented electronic signature processes for reimbursement of the State's Current Billings and Project Authorizations and Agreements. The RASPS provides SHA with same day reimbursement.

Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS)

The Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) is FHWA's major financial information system. It contains data related to all highway projects financed with Federal-aid highway funds. FHWA uses this information for planning and executing program activities, evaluating program performance, and depicting financial trends and requirements related to current and future funding. Electronic data sharing allows SHA to transmit their FMIS data electronically to the FMIS Warehouse database until FHWA reviews and approves the data. This process provides faster approvals and better control of funds. Both SHA and FHWA have the ability to access FMIS information to obtain current funding and project related reports.

Federal-aid Funding

The Federal-aid Highway Program is made up of a series of separately funded program categories, each having its own specific and separate funding as described in 23 U.S.C. Each of the programs has certain activities for which that funding may be used and are described in law. When an Authorization Act establishes a program, it sets certain ground rules under which the program operates. These rules include the amounts of funds available to the program for each fiscal year; period of availability; Federal participation ratio; Fund source; type of authority; and a listing of eligibility activities. In order to be more responsive to Federal budget policy, a limit is placed on total funds that can be obligated during the fiscal year (obligation limitation). The FHWA Maryland Division, in their role of administering and delivering the Federal-aid highway program, has a responsibility to provide information, guidance, and assistance to SHA. Although this oversight is ongoing, when a new Authorization Act modifies existing programs, or adds or eliminates programs, then FHWA has a responsibility to advise SHA that significant changes in the program have been made and that appropriate financing procedures are implemented by SHA.

Discretionary Funding Applications

Legislation provides for a Discretionary funding program to be used for specific Federal-aid projects. Program areas include Interstate Maintenance, Bridge, Public Lands, etc. Instructions are issued on an annual basis by the FHWA Headquarters' Office of Program Administration. Based on the type of call for applications, SHA must submit applications for projects that are either designated in the current legislation, or projects that are ready to be obligated. Instructions are provided to SHA for the discretionary application process and electronic submittal. The Division will review and evaluation the applications submitted to assure that the candidate projects meet the eligibility and submission requirements. The Division will then electronically submit the State's applications to the Headquarters office of Program Administration for a determination.

Transfer of Funds

SAFETEA-LU provided greater flexibility for the transfer of funds, specifically to other Federal agencies or to other States. (23 U.S.C. 104(k)(3) and 23 U.S.C. 132) Guidance and submission instructions for the various types of transfers allowable are provided by the Headquarters' office. The SHA must initiate the request for transfers to other agencies, or the transfer among their unobligated program funds. Transfers of High Priority Projects will require an agreement between the receiving agency (i.e. NPS) and the SHA. All requests for transfer are reviewed by the Division office for adherence to the Federal requirements prior to submission to the Headquarters' Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).

Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation Program (FIRE)

The Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation Program (FIRE) (FHWA Order 4560.1A) requires each Federal-aid Division office to establish an effective oversight program to ensure that Federal funds are properly managed and effectively used in accordance with Federal policies. Under this program, each Federal-aid Division office is required to submit annual certifications of internal and financial controls to support the financial statements. To support the certifications, activities outlined in FIRE must be accomplished, annually. A grant financial management review in response to the performance of an annual risk assessment is required. [The purpose of the grant financial management process review is to assess one key State process to determine that (1) the process complies with Federal requirements, (2) the process complies with generally accepted accounting principles and standards and internal controls, and (3) areas of opportunity are identified for process improvement.]

The FIRE also requires a review of randomly selected billing transactions, as well as transactions selected by the CFO for the Improper Payment Review. The review of the transactions is to review documentation in order to verify the eligibility of the costs billed to FHWA by the SHA, local governments, etc.

The FIRE also requires the Division and the State to perform reviews of inactive Federal-aid projects and release any unneeded obligations.

Improper Payments Review (IPR)

Improper Payments Review is to determine the extent to which improper payments were made in the Federal-aid Highway program. An improper payment is any payment that should not have been made or was made in an incorrect amount (overpayment and underpayments); payments to an ineligible recipient, payment for ineligible services, duplicate payments, payment or services not received, etc. The randomly sampling process will be carried out by the Headquarters' Office of the Chief Finance Office (CFO) and involves two phases. In the first phase, the CFO will select a sample of payments from the RASPS and provide it to the Division Office. The Division office will obtain the State billing detail (object codes) that will support each payment in the sample. In Phase two, the CFO will identify the specific billing detail to test. Instructions and worksheets are also provided to the Division who will document the testing. Verifications will include the eligibility and accuracy of costs billed to FHWA; costs were incurred after FHWA approval; costs were charged to the correct project; costs were approved by the appropriate State/local official; and that SHA has sufficient supporting documentation to substantiate the billing. The final report and worksheets are reported to the CFO. IPR's are directed by the CFO twice a year.

Inactive Federal-aid Project Reviews

The FHWA Division office will work with the SHA to conduct and document the results of quarterly reviews of inactive projects in accordance with 23 CFR 630, Subpart A, Project Authorizations and Agreements. The Division shall work with the State to determine the validity of the amount obligated for each project. Once excess obligations are identified, MDHSA is required to take action to promptly deobligate the funds. This action will require a modification of the project agreement. The FHWA Strategic Plan has established a goal of inactive projects as 5% of the State's annual apportionments. Results of the inactive projects reviews shall be recorded by the Division Office in FHWA's standard work papers and submitted to the CFO.

SHA is responsible for establishing a funds management program that will ensure that funds are being used effectively and lapsable funds are limited. This would also include a review of older projects that have had no activity for possible release of funds for use on other eligible federal projects. Annually, FHWA will evaluate the effectiveness of SHA's funds management program.

Finance Plan for Major Projects

In accordance with SAFETEA-LU Section 1904, part (h) SHA is responsible for assuring that they have a Financial Plan for Major Projects. Finance Plans for Major Projects shall continue to be developed by SHA and submitted to the FHWA Division Office. The Division will approve finance plans prior to authorization of Federal-aid funds for construction. Major Projects are those projects receiving Federal financial assistance with an estimated cost of $500 million or more or projects that have been identified by the DOT Secretary as being "Major" as a result of special interest.

Audits

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-133 was issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984 [P.L. 98-502] and Amendments of 1996 [P.L. 104-156] for the purpose of setting forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies for the audit of States, local governments, and non-profit organizations expending Federal awards. The U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General is the cognizant agency for audit responsibilities for Maryland Department of Transportation. Since FHWA is the Federal awarding agency to SHA, the FHWA Maryland Division is administratively cognizant and has certain responsibilities in this area.

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is responsible for ensuring that its operations are audited. FHWA is responsible for ensuring that audits are completed and reports are received in a timely manner, assure that findings are resolved, and corrective actions are taken in a timely manner. Further FHWA has a responsibility to provide technical advice and assistance to SHA and auditors as appropriate, and advise SHA of requirements imposed by Federal laws, regulations or provisions of contracts.

Record Requirements/Retention

SHA maintains the official records for Federal projects. Supporting documentation will be retained by SHA for three years after the final voucher has been accepted and will include (but not limited to): the final contractor pay estimate, material certification, projects' agreement/modification, statement of overruns and underruns, PR-47 and final Right of Way certificate in accordance with current requirements. Supporting documentation retained by SHA will be available upon request to FHWA.

Reports

FIRE certifications are required to be submitted by the Division Administrator June 8th and September 23rd of each fiscal year.

Financial Management Program
Summary Table

Financial Management Program Performance/Compliance Indicators:

Objective: To deliver and steward federal-aid highway program with high performance and integrity.

Indicators:

• Reduction in the unexpended balance of projects with no expenditure changes for one year, and unexpended balances of $500,000 or more as required by FIRE. Baseline defined in the FMISQ40A report.
• Reduction in the number of findings from external reviews such as OIG, single audit, SHA audits.
• Development and implementation of FIRE Plans based on new guidance.
  
  Reporting: Annually by August 31 for the current FY year.

Bridge Program

[Table of Contents]

Background

23 CFR Part 650, Subpart C establishes National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) that apply to all bridges carrying vehicular traffic that are greater than 20 feet in length and located on a public road.

23 CFR Part 650, Subpart D establishes the procedures for administering the Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The program was established to replace, rehabilitate and preserve deficient bridges.

23 USC 503(b) establishes the Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program (IBRD) to demonstrate the application of innovative material technology in the construction of bridges and other structures.

SAFETEA-LU Section 1804 continues the National Historic Covered Bridge Program (NHCBP) by providing funds to assist the States in the rehabilitation, repair, or preservation of the Nation's historic covered bridges.

Oversight Activities for the NBIS

Each year FHWA will conduct a NBIS compliance review of MSHA. The reviews will look at the following major NBIS elements: inspection procedures, frequency of inspection, qualifications of personnel, quality of reports, quality of inventory data, load ratings and postings, scour program, quality assurance and procedures established to review, prioritize and track recommendations for repairs. The review includes discussion with MSHA staff, a random sampling of bridge inspection reports and records, field reviews of selected bridges and quality assurance checks of inventory data.

FHWA will also review the State's management of the bridge inspection program for the Counties, Cities and other bridge owners (local public agencies) including their oversight of inspection procedures, maintaining the inventory data and providing technical assistance. The MSHA will conduct a formal review of each local public agency at least every four years. Each year FHWA will participate in at least four reviews of selected local public agencies.

FHWA prepares an annual report on the MSHA NBIS review. The report will establish if MSHA is compliant with the NBIS and include recommendations for improvement. The MSHA will prepare a report on the NBIS review of each local public agency. FHWA will furnish comments to be included in the MSHA report.

Oversight Activities for the HBP

Eligibility for this program is based on bridge condition and inventory data that MSHA submits annually to FHWA. FHWA reviews the data and furnishes MSHA with a selection list of eligible structures. The MSHA also annually submits bridge construction unit cost data which is reviewed by FHWA. The HBP funds apportioned to each State are based on the relative area of deficient bridges and the relative bridge construction unit costs. Not less than 15 percent of the apportioned funds shall be expended for projects located off the Federal-aid system. MSHA and the local governments may select any bridge on the selection list for replacement or rehabilitation under this program. A waiver request must be approved by FHWA for all projects that do not meet the eligibility requirements for rehabilitation versus replacement based on bridge sufficiency rating. As well a waiver request must be made for all rehabilitation and replacement projects that do not address all conditions that classify a bridge as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In addition, subject to the approval of FHWA, preventive maintenance activities and installation of scour countermeasures may be performed on bridges regardless if on the selection list. Refer to Maintenance Program section of this Stewardship Agreement for preventive maintenance requirements.

Oversight Activities for the Innovative Bridge Research & Deployment Program (IBRD)

Grants are distributed annually based on competitive application. MSHA in coordination with FHWA identifies potential projects, prepares application and submits to FHWA Division Office. Division reviews application and submits to Headquarters with endorsement. If grant is awarded, the Division handles as a non-exempt project. MSHA prepares and submits report to FHWA on evaluation of the innovative technology.

Oversight Activities for the National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program (NHCBP)

Grants are distributed annually based on competitive application. MSHA in coordination with FHWA identifies potential projects, prepares application and submits to FHWA Division Office. Division reviews application and submits to Headquarters with endorsement. If grant is awarded, the Division handles as a non-exempt project.

Leads

FHWA

Division Bridge Engineer

MSHA

Office of Bridge Inspection & Remedial Engineering, Office of Bridge Development

List of key approved standards, specifications and manuals:

• Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations - Highways
• Title 23 United States Code - Highways
• FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structural Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges
• AASHTO Specifications
• MSHA Guide for Completing Structure Inventory and Appraisal Input Forms
• MSHA PONTIS Element Data Collection Manual
• MSHA Policy and Procedure Manual
• MSHA Structural Standards Manual
• MSHA Manual for Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design
• MSHA Standard Specification for Construction and Materials

Bridge Program
Summary Table

Bridge Program Performance/Compliance Indicators

Objective 1: Effectively use the Bridge Management Program to manage and allocate resources to improve performance of SHA's bridges.

Indicators:

• Replacement, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance and routine maintenance needs systematically classified and prioritized according to need and benefit and activities selected.
• All Highway Bridge Program funds distributed and expended among replacement, rehabilitation and preventive maintenance activities.
• Reduction in deficient bridge deck area on Maryland NHS compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals (2006 baseline: 29.6%) Reduction in deficient bridge deck area on Maryland non-NHS compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals (2006 baseline: 34.8%)

Objective 2: Provide longer lasting highway infrastructure through improved research, design, and quality of construction, system preservation, and size and weight enforcement.

Indicators:

• Existence of documented and-state-of-the-technology policies, procedures, standards and specifications to assure compliance with federal requirements and standards for design, construction, safety inspection, maintenance, load rating, quality assurance, etc.
• Number of market ready technologies implemented during the year
• Reduction in deficient bridge deck area on Maryland NHS compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals. (2006 baseline: 29.6%)
• Reduction in deficient bridge deck area on Maryland non-NHS compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals. (2006 baseline: 34.8%)

Reporting: Annually by August 31 for the current FY year.

Safety and Traffic Program

[Table of Contents]

Section 1401 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) includes the program and policy language for implementing the new "core" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which is codified as the new Section 148 of Title 23 of the United States Code (23USC148).

SHA has the responsibility for carrying out the State's Highway Safety Improvement Program in accordance with Section 148 of Title 23 of the United States Code (23USC148). The FHWA Maryland Division exercises its oversight responsibilities through review of the annual programs, review of program processes, and review of annual reports. The FHWA and the SHA will work together on safety issues related to geometric design, roadside safety, safety appurtenances, the highway safety improvement program, work zone safety and traffic control, pedestrian safety and bicycle safety, Safe Routes to School program (SRTS), and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. In each instance, sharing of knowledge occurs through discussions, meeting/committee/task force participation, and by performing periodic reviews. The Maryland Division's Safety Engineer currently participates with the State on the following task forces and teams:

• SHA Mobility and Safety Council
• Maryland Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
• Strategic Highway Safety Plan Steering Committee
• Smooth Operator Program Task Force
• Section 402 Grant Review team (SRTS)

The following is a general description of the new "core" Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) codified in 23 USC 148 that identifies program requirements.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): The purpose of the HSIP shall be to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. To obligate "core" safety funds SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State:

• Develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries
• Produces a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems
• Evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed improvements
• Submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

In accordance with 23 USC 148, the SHSP means a plan developed by SHA that:

• Analyzes and make effective use of state, regional or local crash data
• Addresses engineering, management, operation, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services in evaluating highway projects
• Considers safety needs, and high fatality segments of all public roads in the State
• Considers results of State, regional or local transportation and highway safety planning processes
• Describes a program of projects or strategies to reduce or eliminate hazards
• Approved by the Governor or responsible State agency
• Consistent with the requirements of the Statewide planning process, sec. 135(g)

As part of the SHSP, the State shall:

• Have in place a crash data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis
• Identify hazardous locations sections or elements that constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
• Establish the relative severity of these locations
• Adopt strategic and performance-based goals
• Advance the capabilities of the State for traffic records data collection, analysis, and integration
• Determine priorities for the correction of hazardous road locations, sections, and elements as identified through crash data analysis
• Establish an evaluation process to assess results achieved by improvement projects

As a condition for obligating HSIP funds, under Section 148(c)(I)(D), SHA will prepare an annual report, in addition to the HSIP and rail-highway crossing safety report, that describes not less than 5 percent of their public road locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs. The legislation requires that the 5 percent reports include an assessment of potential remedies at the locations identified, the estimated costs of the remedies, and impediments to their implementation other than costs

High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRP): SAFETEA-LU introduced a new set-aside provision known as the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP), codified as 23 U.S.C. §148 (f). This program is a component of the HSIP and is set-aside after HSIP funds have been apportioned to the States. Projects may be selected on any public HRRR to correct or improve hazardous road locations or features. The State's HSIP, including the HRRR element, shall consider the safety needs on all public roads, whether state or locally owned. SHA is required to identify HRRR roadways (and expend the HRRR funds) according to the following definition:

Highway-Rail Crossing Safety: Under SAFETEA-LU, highway-rail grade crossing safety (elimination of hazards and the installation of warning devices at railway-highway crossings) has also been established as a component of the HSIP and is set-aside after HSIP funds have been apportioned to the States. The purpose of this program is to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at public highway-rail grade crossings through the elimination of hazards and/or the installation/upgrade of warning devices at crossings. Most requirements of the program remain unchanged, including the requirement that the State must conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highway-rail crossings to identify those that may require separation, relocation, or additional warning devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose. At a minimum, this schedule is to provide cross buck signs for all highway-rail crossings. [23 USC 130(d)].

Additionally, FHWA has oversight responsibility for the following Highway Safety-related activities.

• Safe Routes to School Program: Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU includes the program language for the Safe Routes to School Program. The purpose of the program shall be to enable and encourage children in primary and middle schools, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. For infrastructure related projects, eligible activities are the planning, design, and construction of projects that will substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. These include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, secure bike parking, and traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools (within approximately 2 miles). Such projects may be carried out on any public road or any bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail in the vicinity of schools.
• SHA must set aside from its Safe Routes to School apportionment not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent of the funds for non-infrastructure related activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school. These include public awareness campaigns and outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and enforcement in the vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment, and training, volunteers, and managers of safe routes to school programs. In order to receive program funds, SHA must use a sufficient amount of the funds to fund a full-time position for coordinator of the State's safe routes to school program.
• 159 Certification (Drug Offender's Driver's License Suspension) [Authority: 23 U.S.C. 159 and 315, 23 CFR 192]. Encourages States to enact and enforce drug offender's driver's license suspensions. States must comply with 23 U.S.C. 159 in order to avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds. By January 1 of each year, the Governor shall submit written notification to FHWA Division Administrator whether the State has enacted and is enforcing a law or whether the State opposes such a law as per 23 U.S.C. 159.
• Work Zone Review of Conformance (Work Zone Safety and Mobility) [Authority: 23 U.S.C. 105, 106, 109, 115, 315, 320, 402(a) / Source 43 FR 47140, 10/12/78, 23 CFR 630 Subpart J Final Rule, 09/09/2004]. Provides guidance and establishes requirements for systematically addressing the safety and mobility impacts of work zones, and developing strategies to help manage these impacts on all Federal-aid highway projects. The SHA shall work in partnership with the FHWA in the implementation of its policies and procedures to improve work zone safety and mobility. FHWA and SHA will review the State's policies and procedures for conformance with 23 CFR 630 Subpart J Final Rule. The State shall comply with all provisions of the 23 CFR 630 Subpart J Final Rule no later that October 12, 2007. FHWA is also responsible for performing an annual work zone self-assessment by June 1. The Division shall coordinate this effort with the appropriate personnel of SHA.
• NCHRP 350 (Standards, Policies, and Standard Specifications) [Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109, 315, and 402, Sec. 1073 of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; 49 CFR 1.48 (b) and (n); 23 CFR 625.4(a) Chapter 5.1 - Performance Requirements, 7/93 & 8/28/98 FHWA Policy Memos]. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 established crash testing requirements for highway hardware in both permanent and in work zone applications. States must comply with NCHRP Report 350 criteria and the subsequent AASHTO/FHWA agreements dated July 1, 1998.
• MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) [Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 109(d), 114(a), 135, 217, 307, 315, and 402(a) ; Source: 48 FR 46776, 10/14/83; 23 CFR 655 Subpart F]. The MUTCD, approved by FHWA, is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a). Where state or other Federal agency MUTCD's or supplements are required, they shall be in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD.

The following activities do not involve an FHWA oversight role with the State. Rather, this is a specific list of activities that FHWA Maryland Division and SHA needs to be aware of, either for funding purposes or for general information.

• 154 Certification (Open Container Laws) [Authority: 23 U.S.C. 154, 23 CFR 1270, 3/31/00 NHTSA/FHWA Guidance Memo] States must comply with 23 U.S.C. 154 in order to avoid transfer of Federal-aid highway funds. Currently Tennessee does not comply with law.
• 164 Certification (Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws) [Authority: 23 U.S.C. 164, 23 CFR 1275, 3/31/00 NHTSA/FHWA Guidance Memo]. States must comply with 23 U.S.C. 164 in order to avoid transfer of Federal-aid highway funds. Reporting requirement is to NHTSA.
• Section 163: 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Incentives/Penalties. TEA-21 instituted an incentive program to encourage States to establish 0.08 percent BAC as the legal limit for drunk driving offenses. States may use these grant funds for any project eligible under Title 23. Beginning in FY 2004, States not having passed a 0.08 BAC law will be subject to a penalty equal to 2.0% of their Federal-aid apportionments. The penalty increases by an additional 2.0% in each subsequent year to a maximum of 8.0%.
• Section 157: Seat Belt Use Incentives. TEA-21 instituted an incentive program to encourage States to increase seat belt use rates. States must establish their seat belt use rates in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary of Transportation. States may use these grant funds for any safety project eligible under Title 23.
  

Safety and Traffic
Summary Table

Safety and Traffic Program Performance/Compliance Indicators

Objective 1: To implement comprehensive, integrated and data-driven safety programs at the State and local-level that covers all public roadways.

Indicators:

• Establishment of a base line for quality and timeliness of the Safety data
• Continued implementation of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Implementation of the new core Highway Safety Improvement Program

Objective 2: To implement countermeasures to reduce highway-related fatalities.

Indicators:

• Reduction in fatalities compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals based on severity and injury crashes. (2006 baseline: 652 fatalities)
• Reduction in pedestrian fatalities compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals. (2006 baseline: 96 fatalities)
• Reduction in intersection fatalities compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals. (2006 baseline: 144 fatalities)
• Reduction in run off the road fatalities compared to annual and long-range strategic performance goals. (2006 baseline: 194 fatalities)
  

Objective 3: Mitigate congestion and improve system reliability in work zones thorough actions targeted at key causes of congestion in Maryland.

Indicators:

• Compliance with the requirements of the work zone final rule
• Improvement on Work Zone Self Assessment scores (baseline 12.9)

Reporting: Annually by August 31 for the current FY year.

Civil Rights Program

[Table of Contents]

Background

The Maryland Division Office is committed to effectively implement and enforce the Civil Rights program within the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) in its design, planning, construction, and management of the multimodal transportation system and which receives federal funding or assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The SHA is obligated to ensure nondiscrimination in all programs and activities, and in the provisions of all services and benefits, as a basis for continued receipt of FHWA funds according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and codified federal regulations that outline these acts.

The Civil Rights Specialists, on behalf of the Division Office, review and approve all Civil Rights program documents, and provide comments and recommendations to the SHA. The Division Office Civil Rights Specialists provide training, technical assistance and interpretation, as needed, on the laws, executive orders, civil rights authorities, and regulatory requirements.

Operating Environment

The objectives of the Division Office's Civil Rights Stewardship Plan are to: (1) perform scheduled program reviews with the State; (2) provide technical assistance and guidance to SHA and MDOT; (3) ensure that program documents and other required reports are accurate, completed in a timely manner, and when appropriate, approved; and (4) serve as a resource to SHA and MDOT in its civil rights program and policy development meetings. Successful implementation of the civil rights activities will require support from the Division Administrator and Assistant Division Administrator. Technical assistance may be required from the Resource Center and the Washington Office of Civil Rights. The civil rights program elements are required through a collection of regulations, laws, and executive orders, and approval actions are outlined in these elements.

The Maryland State Highway Administration has an established Equal Opportunity Office comprising a central office and seven district offices. The Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity has direct and independent access to the both the Administrator, and the Deputy Administrator for Finance, Information Technology and Administration. The Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and the seven District Equal Opportunity Officers are primarily responsible for carrying out SHA's Civil Rights responsibilities in the following program areas:

• Nondiscrimination - Title VI, Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and American with Disabilities Act (Section 504/ADA)
• State Internal Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Program
• State External Contractor Compliance Program
• On the Job Training (OJT) Program and OJT Supportive Services (OJT/SS)
• Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and DBE Supportive Services (DBE/SS)

Guided by laws (such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), statutes, regulations (essentially 49 CFR Part 21 & 26 and 23 CFR 200 & 230), policies, executive orders and other related instruments, the Maryland Division will perform oversight on SHA's Civil Rights activities in the respective program areas.

Applicable Legislation

• 23 CFR 230 Subpart D; 23 USC 140; FHWA Order 4710.8
• FHWA-1391/1392, Federal Aid Highway Construction Contractor's Annual EEO Report: 23 CFR 230.121, FHWA Notice N 4720 dated 8-27-91
  DBE Program: 49 CFR 26
• DBE Supportive Services (DBE/SS): 49 CFR 26; 23 USC 140(c); 23 CFR 230.201-207
• On the Job Training (OJT) Program: 23 CFR 230 Subpart A
• OJT Supportive Service (OJT/SS): SAFETEA-LU Section 5204(e); 23 CFR 230.113; 23 USC 140(b)
• Title VI Program: 23 CFR 200; 23 USC 324; Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Environmental Justice in Minority Population & Low Income Population: Executive Order 12898
• Limited English Proficiency (LEP): Executive Order 13166
• Affirmative Action and State Internal EEO Program: 23 USC 140(a)-(d); Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968; Federal-aid Highway Act of 1970; 23 CFR 230 Subpart C; 23 CFR 1.9; 23 CFR 1.36
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 49 CFR 27; 29 CFR USC 794 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 28 CFR 35; 42 USC 12101
• Indian Outreach Program: 23 USC 140(c); 23 CFR 230.201-207
• Minority Institutions of Higher Education (MIHE): Presidential Executives Order 12667; 13021; 12900.
• AASHTO/Transportation and Civil Engineering (TRAC) Program: 23 USC 140(b); FHWA Notice N 4720.9 dated 9/16/97; SAFETEA-LU Section 5204(e);
• Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program (DDETFP): Established by Public Law 102-240, Section 6001 (ISTEA) & re-authorized in TEA-21; Executive Orders 12667; 13021; 12900.
• Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures Program: Educational initiative of the U.S. Department of Transportation under the authority of the Secretary: SAFETEA-LU Section 5204(d)
• Urban Youth Corps (UYC): TEA-21 Section 1108(g); 42 USC 12572; 42 USC 12656
• Welfare to Work: SAFETEA-LU Section 5204(e)
• National Summer Transportation Institute (NSTI): SAFETEA-LU Section 5204(e)
• SAFETEA-LU: Section 1904(g)(4); 23 USC 106 (g)(4)

Oversight Activities

As an essential component of the Federal Highway Administration, the Maryland Division Office is deep commitment to ensuring that our customers and partners enjoin discrimination, as well as foster equal opportunity and affirmative action in all their programs, practices and activities. We will endeavor to ensure that our immediate customers, SHA and MDOT, are in compliance with all the nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, and equal employment opportunity requirements. This will be achieved through collaborative, proactive and preventive measures, to include leadership, partnering, open communication, frank discussions, reviews, constructive feedback, technical assistance, and training.

The Division Office will perform oversight on SHA and MDOT's Civil Rights activities in the respective program areas. The Division Office will analyze civil rights reports submitted by SHA to help identify trends and will provide feedback and recommendations. The Division Office will periodically monitor SHA's oversight responsibility regarding the administration of projects by sub-recipients for determining that sub-recipients of federal funds have adequate project delivery systems for projects and sufficient accounting control to properly manage federal funds.

Civil Rights Program
Summary Table