[Date submitted]

[Name], Operations Engineer

FHWA Montana Division

585 Shepard Way

Helena, MT 59601

Subject:	[Project Number]
[Project Name]
UPN [UPN]
Work Type [Work Type]

Executive Summary

The executive summary should summarize the design exception submittal and should include the following:

Brief description of proposed project

Listing of the controlling criteria for which a design exception is requested

Recommendation for proposed value

Proposed Project

This section should describe the proposed project, its purpose and intended outcomes, as well as clearly outline the benefits this project will have on the overall transportation system.

Description and Scope of Work

Describe general project information and scope of work. Provide a brief description of the design features of the project (i.e. horizontal and vertical curve discussion, number and widths of travel lanes and shoulders, new structures, upgraded or eliminated guardrail, rumble strips, side slope design, etc.), and note which design features will be used in place.

Purpose and Need

Provide the project purpose and need in this section. Consider providing comments regarding the purpose and need’s relationship to operations, safety, capacity, 3R or other deficiencies anticipated to be improved.

Public Perception

This subsection should address the social context in which the project is proposed and how the project has been received by stakeholders and the surrounding community.

Existing Conditions

This section should address the existing conditions in which the project is being proposed and provide the context to better understand the potential impact of the design exception.

Project Location and Roadway Characteristics

County name

City/town name

Indian reservation

Route number

Functional classification

Beginning and ending reference points

Project length

Terrain (level, rolling, mountainous)

The use and character of the land adjacent to the project

Planned or anticipated changes in adjacent land use

Right-of Way layout

Traffic Data

RP X.X to RP X.X
Year AADT	# – Present
Year AADT	# – Letting Year
Year AADT	# – Design Year
DHV	#
T	#%
EAL	#
AGR	#%

Crash Analysis

As requested, a safety analysis was completed on a portion of System and Route # from reference posts X.X to X.X for the X-year period Date to Date. Copy and Paste the Summary or Executive Summary from Safety Managements Memo.

Design and Posted Speed

This section should list the design speed that has been chosen for the project. Discuss the posted speed limits, speed zone studies and approved speed zones.

Environmental Factors

Natural resources: This subsection should address the existing natural resources in the area, including wetlands, biological, trees, and parklands, to highlight a few.

Cultural resources: This subsection should address the existing historical and archeological resources in the area.

Description of Design Exception and Applicable Criteria

If there are multiple design exceptions being submitted for the same project, each design exception request should be addressed separately in this section, but discussion should be provided describing how multiple design exceptions relate to one another directly or indirectly, particularly if there is a cumulative effect.

Controlling Element Standards

State each controlling element standard for which a design exception is being requested.

Controlling Element Standards Deviation

Describe why a deviation from the standard is appropriate or necessary and how the affected controlling element relates to the project purpose and need.

Design Exception Details

Provide a detailed explanation of the design exception and why it is the preferred action.

Proposed Design Criteria and Degree of Reduction

Description of the proposed design criteria.

Describe the proposed design criteria’s degree of reduction as compared to the standard.

Relate the criteria in terms of other controlling elements and/or engineering principles as applicable (e.g. relate the proposed design criteria to design speed if design speed is relative to the controlling element or if the controlling-element is a side slope, relate the recoverable, traversable non-recoverable or critical non-recoverable slope types).

Evaluate the measurable and meaningful dimensions and/or frequency of the proposed design criteria with respect to the overall project and project elements using engineering judgment and principles (e.g. the proposed side slope design criteria is proposed for 100’ RT. The overall project length is 1000’).

Describe why the proposed design criteria is appropriate and is consistent with the purpose and need.

Visual Representation (attached)

Provide supplemental attachments illustrating the existing condition, improvement that would meet the design standard, and the proposed improvement reflecting the requested design exception geometric parameter, such as:

Milepost and station location of the design exception

Photo(s) of the project area

Plan view

Profile

Cross section of the design exception location

Table showing side by side comparisons for the design element

Impacts

This section should address the anticipated cumulative effects of the design exception on corridor operations, safety, adjacent sections, as well as long and short term effects.

Impact on Corridor Operations

Level-of-service, volume-to-capacity ratio

Impact on Corridor Safety

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) procedures may be used, when applicable, to compare predicted safety for alternative scenarios (1)

Adjacent Roadway Sections and Future Work Plans

Discussion of compatibility with adjacent roadway sections and anticipated future corridor

Impact to Driver Expectation

Considering adjacent roadways and other planned improvements

Consider the overall context of the roadway

Design Speed Exception

Include discussion of the effects on other controlling criteria if the design exception is for design speed.

Horizontal curves and superelevation

Stopping Sight Distance

Clear zone

Alternatives Considered

This section should include a description and explanation of any feasible alternatives that were considered, the selected treatment, and the reasons why the proposed treatment was selected.

Mitigation Measures

This section should address all mitigation efforts for the impacts identified in the “Impacts” section. These should include any mitigating features proposed within the design, whether incidental or added exclusively to mitigate the non-conforming element, as well as any mitigating circumstances outside of the design. The FHWA document, Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions may be a resource; it provides potential mitigation measures for various design elements (2).

Anticipated Costs

This section should address the anticipated costs and cost savings associated with the design exception. Costs include costs to the department, as well as social costs to society. Not all costs can be easily determined or measured in dollars, however costs included in this section should be quantified to the extent practical and qualified as real, potential, and/or comparative. These can be documented using a benefit-cost analysis.

A cost estimate of the incremental cost comparison of the cost of the design exception to the cost of complying with minimum standards.

Costs and benefits may include resources, time, and other quantified assessments.

Benefit-cost analysis and/or a Value Engineering assessment may be included when appropriate data is available.

Recommendation/Summary

This section should summarize the information from the previous sections, the cumulative effects to corridor and statewide objectives, and recommend the proposed design exception. The summary must show that reasonable engineering judgment was used to justify the proposed design exception and the outcome will match the project purpose and need.

Concur:	Date

[Name], P.E.

[Choose proper title] Engineer

Concur:	Date

[Name], P.E.

Operations Engineer, Federal Highways Administration

Distribution:

[Choose District Administrator] District Administrator	Rob Stapley, Rail, Transit, & Planning Division Administrator
Damian Krings, Highways Engineer	Tom Martin, Environmental Services Bureau Chief
Andy Collison, Bridge Engineer	Jeff Jackson, Geotechnical and Pavement Bureau Chief
Gabe Priebe, Traffic and Safety Engineer	Joe Green, Construction Bureau – VA Engineer
Jason Gilliam, Right-of-Way Bureau Chief	Jon Swartz, Maintenance Division Administrator
[Choose a name] FHWA - Operations Engineer (PODI)

cc:

[EPSProjectManager], EPS Project Manager
MDT Headquarters Milestone Report Distribution <mdthqmilestonereport@mt.gov>
[Choose a District Distribution]
[Choose a Maintenance Chief]

Optional (remove if not used)

Vacant, Eng. Manager, Bridge Management System [if there are structures on the project]
Andy White, Secondary Roads Engineer [project is on or crosses a secondary route]
Jeremy Terry, Road Design Engineer [Road involvement]
Shelby Clark, Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator [omit if is obviously no bike/ped involvement]
County Officials [secondary program, any route that is county maintained, or involves a county agreement]
Tribal Government Officials [on or adjacent to a reservation]
City/Municipal Officials [projects within city/urban limits: MDT Urban Maps | Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) (mt.gov)]
STREET, JOHN THOMAS A CIV USAF AFGSC 341 CES/CEMD, Malmstrom Air Force Base <john_thomas.street@us.af.mil> [USAF access routes: \\state\mdt\prd\GreatFalls\GTF\ALL_STAFF\T_and_E_Routes]