Difference between revisions of "Help Article"

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|}
 
|}
  
The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities.  It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. The information is presented in numerous articles having as simple a layout as possible.  These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from the spec book, ''Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction''.
+
The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities.  It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from ''Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction''.
  
The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specs.  Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Specifications'' are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications."  References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction'' are "Standard Plan XXX.XX".   
+
The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specifications.  Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Specifications'' are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications."  References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction'' are "Standard Plan XXX.XX".   
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="280px" align="right"
 
|-
 
|'''EPG articles are not referenced as "sections" but as EPG XXX.X or "articles" to avoid confusion with MoDOT specs.'''
 
|}
 
 
 
===Organization===
 
  
Articles are grouped into the spec book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in [[:Category:100 GENERAL|EPG 100 General]] mirror Division 100 specs, articles in [[:Category:300 BASES|EPG 300 Bases]] mirror Division 300 specs, etc.).  Many articles have been subdivided into additional articles.  For example, the reader may notice that [[903.6 Warning Signs|EPG 903.6 Warning Signs]] and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of [[:Category:903 Highway Signing|EPG 903 Highway Signing]]. 
+
==Organization==
  
In most articles the reader will notice numerous words in <font color=#0033ff>blue</font color>These words are links to another article, figure or website with related informationThis allows the reader to effectively navigate.
+
Articles are grouped into the specification book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in [[:Category:100 GENERAL|EPG 100 General]] mirror Division 100 specifications, articles in [[:Category:300 BASES|EPG 300 Bases]] mirror Division 300 specifications, etc.)Many articles have been subdivided into additional articlesFor example, the reader may notice that [[903.6 Warning Signs|EPG 903.6 Warning Signs]] and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of [[:Category:903 Highway Signing|EPG 903 Highway Signing]].
  
While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specs, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specs.  For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items.  Some of these are:
+
While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specifications, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specifications.  For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items.  Some of these are:
  
 
* [[:category:121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments|EPG 121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments]]
 
* [[:category:121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments|EPG 121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments]]
Line 29: Line 23:
  
 
* [[:Category:132 Safety|EPG 132 Safety]]
 
* [[:Category:132 Safety|EPG 132 Safety]]
 
* [[:Category:133 Snow and Ice Control|EPG 133 Snow and Ice Control]]
 
  
 
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
 
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
  
===How best to view the articles===
+
==How best to view the articles==
  
 
The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
 
The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
Line 48: Line 40:
 
|}
 
|}
  
===How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article===
+
==How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article==
  
 
:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
 
:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
[[image:Help Article Print 1.jpg|center|800px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 1.jpg|center|600px]]
  
 
:'''2)''' Click “File”
 
:'''2)''' Click “File”
[[image:Help Article Print 2.jpg|center|500px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 2.jpg|center|440px]]
  
 
:'''3)''' Click “Print Preview”
 
:'''3)''' Click “Print Preview”
[[image:Help Article Print 3.jpg|center|450px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 3.jpg|center|400px]]
  
 
:'''4)''' Select “As selected on screen”
 
:'''4)''' Select “As selected on screen”
[[image:Help Article Print 4.jpg|center|700px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 4.jpg|center|630px]]
  
 
:'''5)''' Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.   
 
:'''5)''' Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.   
Line 66: Line 58:
 
:'''6)''' Print the selection.
 
:'''6)''' Print the selection.
  
===Use of Terms in the EPG===
+
[[image:Help Article Request Form title.jpg|right|350px]]
:'''Shall''' and '''Will''' indicate a required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice. Shall and will statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study.
+
 
:'''Should''' indicates a recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations.  Deviations are allowed if [[:Category:900 TRAFFIC CONTROL#Engineering Judgment|engineering judgment]] or [[:Category:900 TRAFFIC CONTROL#Engineering Study|engineering study]] indicates the deviation to be appropriate.
+
==EPG Approval Process==
:'''May''' indicates a permitted practice and carries no requirement or recommendation.
+
 
 +
Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Revisions to forms used in the EPG are also proposed by using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form.
 +
 
 +
'''Any other standard affected by a proposed EPG revision?'''  
  
===EPG Approval Process===
+
Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (other EPG articles, any Standard Plans, specifications, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the EPG proposal.  Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes. Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="360px" align="right"
+
[[image:Help Article Request Form Issue Name.jpg|right|350px]]
|-
+
===Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form===
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''I would like to propose a specific, authoritative revision. What do I do?'''</center>
 
|-
 
|Proposed revisions are submitted on the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Just copy and paste the affected portion of your division's EPG article into a Word filePlace the Word file into revision mode and make your proposed changes to the file. (If your division’s info is already in the EPG, do not email Word files of revisions to your division’s old manual.  Base your division's proposed revisions on EPG text, not the old manuals.) Attach this proposal to the form with the "Click here to attach a file" button. Along with the actual proposed textual revision of the EPG, provide:
 
|-
 
| 1) Any other standard affected by the revision,
 
|-
 
| 2) The name of the proposal's sponsor,
 
|-
 
| 3) The proposal's summary,
 
|-
 
| 4) The proposal's fiscal impact and
 
|-
 
| 5) A description of any effort to engage industry and FHWA in the revision development.
 
|}
 
Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions. 
 
  
 
Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
 
Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
  
:'''1) Any other standard affected by the revision.'''  Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (Standard Plans, specs, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the proposalWord files in revision mode are required for textual changes.  Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
+
:'''Contact.'''  The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required.  The contact is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
 +
 
 +
:'''Summarize.'''  Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit).  This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
  
:'''2) Sponsor.'''  The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is requiredThe sponsor is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
+
:'''Fiscal Impact.'''  Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOTInclude necessary calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact.  The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value.
  
:'''3) Summary.''' Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit). This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
+
:'''External Involvement.''' Provide a summary of efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how the involvement occurred. This is not applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.  
  
:'''4) Fiscal Impact.''' Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOTInclude whatever calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions are necessary to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact.  The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value, not simply a vague financial discussion.
+
The Engineering Policy Revision Request Form also requires the '''date''', '''issue name''' and a '''listing of all affected publications'''.  (For instance, should a proposal for EPG 606.1 also require revisions to Sec 606 and Std. Plan 606.30, the section and standard plan as well as their proposed revisions would be specified along with the proposed revisions to the EPG article.)
  
:'''5) Involvement.''' Provide a summary of any efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how that the involvement occurred. This may not be applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.  
+
It is also optional to enter information about whether the proposal involves an '''Administrative Rule''' or '''LPA''' guidance, the submitter's '''tracking number''' (if any) and the submitter's '''desired effective letting date'''.
  
Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:
+
===After the proposed EPG revision is submitted===
  
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
+
Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions. Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:
'''Level 1 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Policy and Innovations Engineer without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary. 
 
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
 
|-style="background:#99ffff"   
 
|-style="background:#99ffff"   
Line 124: Line 105:
 
|'''High/Tall:'''  Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high.  Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
 
|'''High/Tall:'''  Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high.  Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
 
|-
 
|-
|Also refer to [[Help:Contents#Use of Terms in the EPG|Use of Terms in the EPG]], above.
+
|'''Until:''' Do not use "til".
 
|}
 
|}
  
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or approve the Engineering Policy Administrator. The revision is submitted on the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.   
+
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
 +
'''Level 1 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Policy and Innovations Engineer without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary. 
 +
 
 +
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing a decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or concurrence with the Policy and Innovations Engineer. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary. 
 +
 
 +
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 business days to provide comment or concur with the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.
 +
 
 +
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by [https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/de/DSL/Forms/ByYear.aspx Design Standards Letters] and posted both internally and externally.
 +
 
 +
 
  
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 working days to provide comment or approve the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.
 
  
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by [https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/de/DSL/Forms/ByYear.aspx Design Standards Letters]  and posted both internally and externally.  Substantive EPG changes are documented on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.
 
  
====EPG Ballot Cycles====
+
 
 +
===EPG Ballot Cycles===
 +
<font size : 20%><font color = "white">.</font color = "white">
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="965x" align="center"  
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="965x" align="center"  
 
|-
 
|-
!style="background:#99efff" colspan="5"| 2018 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
+
!style="background:#99efff" colspan="5"| 2022 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
 +
|-
 +
!style="background:#99ffff" width="250"| Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services  !!style="background:#99ffff" width="180"| Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer !!style="background:#99ffff" width="190"| Ballot Items Due to FHWA !!style="background:#99ffff"|Publish Revisions !!style="background:#99ffff"|Effective Date
 
|-
 
|-
!style="background:#99ffff" width="250"| Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services  !!style="background:#99ffff" width="200"| Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer !!style="background:#99ffff" width="200"| Ballot Items Due to FHWA !!style="background:#99ffff"|Publish Revisions !!style="background:#99ffff"|Effective Date
+
|June 21, 2021 ||June 25, 2021 ||June 25, 2021 ||July 19, 2021 ||October 1, 2021
 
|-
 
|-
|December 22, 2017|| January 8, 2018 ||January 22, 2018 ||February 2, 2018 ||April 1, 2018
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 17, 2021 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 24, 2021 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 24, 2021 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 18, 2021 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2022
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 23, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|April 6, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|April 20, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|May 4, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|July 1, 2018
+
|December 17, 2021 ||December 24, 2021 ||December 24, 2021 ||January 18, 2022 ||April 1, 2022
 
|-
 
|-
|June 22, 2018 ||July 6, 2018 ||July 20, 2018 ||August 3, 2018 ||October 1, 2018
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 18, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 25, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 25, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|April 18, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|July 1, 2022
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 21, 2108 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 5, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 19, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|November 2, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2019
+
|June 17, 2022 ||June 24, 2022 ||June 24, 2022 ||July 18, 2022 ||October 1, 2022
 
|-
 
|-
|December 21, 2018 ||January 7, 2019 ||January 18, 2019 ||February 1, 2019 ||April 1, 2019
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 16, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 23, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 23, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 17, 2022 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2023
 +
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
====Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions====
+
==Division Contacts==
 +
Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input.  Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
 +
 
 +
::'''''Bridge:''''' Darren Kemna
 +
 
 +
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Terri Parker
 +
 
 +
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
 +
 
 +
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
 +
 
 +
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt, John Donahue
 +
 
 +
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Lydia Brownell
 +
 
 +
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
 +
 
 +
::'''''Design:''''' Shelie Daniel, Tim Schroeder, Dave Simmons
 +
 
 +
:::Bid & Contract Services: Danica Stovall-Taylor
 +
 
 +
:::CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
 +
 
 +
:::Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
 +
 
 +
:::Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
 +
 
 +
:::LPA: Laura Ellen
 +
 
 +
:::Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
 +
 
 +
::'''''Highway Safety & Traffic:'''''  Lisa Vieth
 +
 
 +
:::Safety Engineering: Ray Shank
  
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to Engineering Policy Services?
+
:::Signals: Ashley Buechter, Lisa Vieth
  
The division should usually begin by referencing the current contents of the EPG article to be revised.  Submit a Word document in revision mode showing both proposed additions and deletions to the EPG article.  The proposed revision should use complete sentences and paragraphs as much as possible.  Bullets are permissible, but they are typically used sparingly.
+
:::Signs: Tom Honich, Cayci Reinkemeyer
  
If changes are proposed to EPG figures, provide the new .jpg files for photos and .pdf or MicroSoft Word documents for the textual figures.  The EPG wiki can accommodate a number of other types of files, but .jpg, .pdf and .doc files tend to be most efficient.
+
:::Work Zones: Dan Smith
  
===Division Contacts===
+
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Paul Denkler  
Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input. Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
 
  
::'''''Bridge:''''' Greg Sanders
+
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Kratzer, Jenni Hosey
  
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Adam Brown
+
:::Aviation: Amy Ludwig
  
::'''''Construction and Materials'''''
+
:::Freight & Waterways: Cheryl Ball
  
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
+
:::Railroads: Troy Hughes
  
:::Construction Engineering: Jeremy Kampeter
+
:::Transit: Joni Roeseler
  
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
+
::'''''Planning:'''''  Eric Curtit
  
:::Materials:  
+
==FHWA Contacts==
 +
Below is a listing of FHWA personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
  
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
+
::'''''ADA:''''' Lauren Paulwell
  
::'''''Design:'''''  
+
::'''''Bridge:''''' Scott Stotlemeyer
  
:::Environmental & Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
+
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''  Dawn Perkins
  
:::Right of Way:
+
::'''''Design:'''''  Brian Nevins, Kevin Irving (KC & NW), Felix Gonzalez (NE & SE), Dawn Perkins (SL), Charles Pursley (CD & SW)
  
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Tim Jackson
+
::'''''Environmental:''''' Raegan Ball and Taylor Peters
  
::'''''Motor Carrier:'''''  
+
::'''''Pavements:''''' Mike McGee
  
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Teel
+
::'''''Right of Way:''''' Michael Latuszek
  
::'''''Planning:''''' Machelle Watkins
+
::'''''Safety and Traffic Control:''''' John Miller
  
::'''''Traffic:'''''
+
::'''''Transportation and Planning:''''' Brad McMahon and Steven Minor

Latest revision as of 11:20, 16 July 2021

Engineering Policy Revision Request Form
Form to Propose Level 1, 2 and 3 Revisions for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards

The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities. It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.

The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specifications. Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the Missouri Standard Specifications are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications." References and links to the Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction are "Standard Plan XXX.XX".

Organization

Articles are grouped into the specification book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in EPG 100 General mirror Division 100 specifications, articles in EPG 300 Bases mirror Division 300 specifications, etc.). Many articles have been subdivided into additional articles. For example, the reader may notice that EPG 903.6 Warning Signs and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of EPG 903 Highway Signing.

While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specifications, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specifications. For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items. Some of these are:

Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.

How best to view the articles

The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:

Click on any picture to view
17-in. Monitors:
1024 x 768 pixels screen area
Medium text size in wiki "View" settings
Wide Screen Monitors:
1680 x 1050 pixels screen area
Medium text size
Larger text size in wiki "View" settings
125% zoom in wiki "View" settings

How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article

1) Highlight the selected article or portion of article
Help Article Print 1.jpg
2) Click “File”
Help Article Print 2.jpg
3) Click “Print Preview”
Help Article Print 3.jpg
4) Select “As selected on screen”
Help Article Print 4.jpg
5) Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.
6) Print the selection.
Help Article Request Form title.jpg

EPG Approval Process

Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Revisions to forms used in the EPG are also proposed by using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form.

Any other standard affected by a proposed EPG revision?

Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (other EPG articles, any Standard Plans, specifications, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the EPG proposal. Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes. Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.

Help Article Request Form Issue Name.jpg

Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form

Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:

Contact. The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required. The contact is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
Summarize. Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit). This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
Fiscal Impact. Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT. Include necessary calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact. The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value.
External Involvement. Provide a summary of efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how the involvement occurred. This is not applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.

The Engineering Policy Revision Request Form also requires the date, issue name and a listing of all affected publications. (For instance, should a proposal for EPG 606.1 also require revisions to Sec 606 and Std. Plan 606.30, the section and standard plan as well as their proposed revisions would be specified along with the proposed revisions to the EPG article.)

It is also optional to enter information about whether the proposal involves an Administrative Rule or LPA guidance, the submitter's tracking number (if any) and the submitter's desired effective letting date.

After the proposed EPG revision is submitted

Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions. Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:

Tips on Text
While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
Assure/Ensure/Insure: The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation. “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful. “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
Dimensions: Typically use “high”, “wide” and “long” instead of “in height”, “in width” and “in length”.
Farther/Further: Use “farther” to express a physical distance, such as 10 miles farther, and “further” for a non-physical dimension, such as further thought.
Fewer/less: Use “few” or “fewer” for something comprised of a small number of countable components (such as fewer dollars, fewer gallons of water, etc.). Use “less” for amounts that are not being counted (less money, less water, etc.).
Gender: Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
High/Tall: Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high. Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
Until: Do not use "til".

Level 1 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Policy and Innovations Engineer without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.

Level 2 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item. The District Engineers and Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing a decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or concurrence with the Policy and Innovations Engineer. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.

Level 3 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item. The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 business days to provide comment or concur with the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.

Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by Design Standards Letters and posted both internally and externally.




EPG Ballot Cycles

.

2022 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer Ballot Items Due to FHWA Publish Revisions Effective Date
June 21, 2021 June 25, 2021 June 25, 2021 July 19, 2021 October 1, 2021
September 17, 2021 September 24, 2021 September 24, 2021 October 18, 2021 January 1, 2022
December 17, 2021 December 24, 2021 December 24, 2021 January 18, 2022 April 1, 2022
March 18, 2022 March 25, 2022 March 25, 2022 April 18, 2022 July 1, 2022
June 17, 2022 June 24, 2022 June 24, 2022 July 18, 2022 October 1, 2022
September 16, 2022 September 23, 2022 September 23, 2022 October 17, 2022 January 1, 2023

Division Contacts

Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input. Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:

Bridge: Darren Kemna
Chief Counsel's Office: Terri Parker
Construction and Materials:
Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt, John Donahue
Geotechnical Engineering: Lydia Brownell
Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
Design: Shelie Daniel, Tim Schroeder, Dave Simmons
Bid & Contract Services: Danica Stovall-Taylor
CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
LPA: Laura Ellen
Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
Highway Safety & Traffic: Lisa Vieth
Safety Engineering: Ray Shank
Signals: Ashley Buechter, Lisa Vieth
Signs: Tom Honich, Cayci Reinkemeyer
Work Zones: Dan Smith
Maintenance: Paul Denkler
Multimodal: Michelle Kratzer, Jenni Hosey
Aviation: Amy Ludwig
Freight & Waterways: Cheryl Ball
Railroads: Troy Hughes
Transit: Joni Roeseler
Planning: Eric Curtit

FHWA Contacts

Below is a listing of FHWA personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:

ADA: Lauren Paulwell
Bridge: Scott Stotlemeyer
Construction and Materials: Dawn Perkins
Design: Brian Nevins, Kevin Irving (KC & NW), Felix Gonzalez (NE & SE), Dawn Perkins (SL), Charles Pursley (CD & SW)
Environmental: Raegan Ball and Taylor Peters
Pavements: Mike McGee
Right of Way: Michael Latuszek
Safety and Traffic Control: John Miller
Transportation and Planning: Brad McMahon and Steven Minor