Revision of Stewardship and Oversight Agreement Template, 77657-77664 [2023-24960]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77657-77664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24960]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2022-0013]


Revision of Stewardship and Oversight Agreement Template

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final notice announces the availability of a revised 
Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Agreement template. The S&O Agreement 
defines the roles and responsibilities of FHWA and each State 
department of transportation (State DOT) with respect to project 
approvals and related responsibilities under title 23, United States 
Code (U.S.C.), and title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and 
documents methods that will be used for Federal-aid Highway Program 
(FAHP) oversight activities. This template will be used by each of the 
52 FHWA Division Offices and their respective State DOTs to develop and 
execute a new S&O Agreement within 1 year of the date this notice is 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, 
please contact Mr. Steve Mills, Office of Infrastructure, (502) 682-
3534, or via email at [email protected]. For legal questions, please 
contact Mr. David Serody, FHWA Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4241, 
or via email at [email protected]. Office hours for FHWA are from 
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as amended, Congress established 
authority for States to enter into agreements with FHWA under which the 
States carry out certain project responsibilities traditionally handled 
by FHWA. Congress also recognized the importance of a risk-based 
approach to FHWA oversight of the FAHP by establishing requirements in 
23 U.S.C. 106(g). The S&O Agreement is a key element of FHWA's risk-
based S&O approach. The S&O Agreements are formal instruments executed 
between each FHWA Division Office and its corresponding State DOT. The 
S&O Agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of FHWA and the 
State DOT with respect to title 23, U.S.C. project approvals and 
related responsibilities, and documents methods that will be used for 
FAHP oversight activities.
    In response to DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG) 
recommendations,\1\ FHWA revised its national S&O procedures to require 
use of a uniform template for developing an S&O Agreement. In 2015, 
FHWA issued the template currently in use. Each of the 52 FHWA Division 
Offices and their respective State DOTs executed a new S&O Agreement 
based on the 2015 S&O Agreement template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Improvements to Stewardship and Oversight Agreements Are 
Needed to Enhance Federal-aid Highway Program Management,'' OIG, 
DOT, Report Number MH-2013-001 (October 1, 2012), available at: 
https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/28742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA began initiating updates to the 2015 S&O Agreement 
template due to changes to applicable statutes and regulations and 
after identifying improvements to the template. In addition, section 
11307 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Pub. L. 117-58) 
directed the Secretary of Transportation to publish a template created 
by the Secretary for Federal-State S&O Agreements in the Federal 
Register along with a notice requesting public comment on ways to 
improve the template. In accordance with this requirement, FHWA 
published a notice and request for comments regarding FHWA's revised 
S&O Agreement template on December 21, 2022, at 87 FR 78193.
    Section 11307(c)(1) of BIL requires FHWA to consider comments 
received in response to the Federal Register notice and publish a 
notice in the Federal Register that (A) describes any proposed changes 
to be made to the template, and any alternatives to such changes; (B) 
addresses comments in response to which changes were not made to the 
template; and (C) prescribes a schedule and a plan to execute a process 
for implementing the changes to the template. In accordance with 
section 11307(c)(3) of BIL, FHWA will modify the template as stated in 
this notice and will update existing agreements with

[[Page 77658]]

State DOTs according to this template by no later than November 12, 
2024.

Discussion of Comments

I. Summary

    The FHWA received 10 comments in response to the notice and request 
for comments from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 7 separate comments from 7 State 
DOTs; Georgia (GDOT), New York (NYSDOT), Oklahoma (ODOT), South 
Carolina (SCDOT), Maryland (MDOT), Texas (TxDOT), and Pennsylvania 
(PennDOT); 1 joint comment from 5 State DOTs (Idaho, Montana, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming) (``Joint States''); and 3 comments 
from 1 individual. The FHWA considered each comment in publishing this 
notice. The following discussion describes changes made to the proposed 
template and addresses comments that did not lead to changes, in 
accordance with BIL, section 11307(c)(1)(A)-(B).

II. Analysis and Response to Comments

    Comments and responses are listed by section of the proposed 
template. General comments are listed after the section comments.

Section I. Background and Information

    Comment: The SCDOT commented on a proposed change to the first 
sentence of section I. In the 2015 template, the FAHP was described as 
``a federally-assisted program of Stateselected projects.'' The FHWA 
proposed changing this language to read: ``The Federal-aid Highway 
Program (FAHP) provides for a Federally-assisted State program.'' The 
SCDOT commented that the proposed revision could be misconstrued and 
recommended that the language used in the 2015 template be restored.
    The FHWA Response: The language in the 2015 template did not 
account for other entities that are involved in the selection of 
projects, such as metropolitan planning organizations, and FHWA does 
not believe that defining the FAHP as a ``federally-assisted program of 
State-selected projects,'' as stated in the 2015 template, is 
completely accurate. The FHWA, however, agrees with SCDOT that the 
proposed language could still be misconstrued and is deleting the 
sentence ``The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) provides for a 
Federally-assisted State program'' from the proposed template entirely. 
A general description of the FAHP is not necessary for S&O agreements.

Section II. Intent and Purpose of Agreement

    No comments were received related to section II.

Section III. Permissible Areas of Assumption Under 23 U.S.C. 106(c)

    Comment: The MDOT recommended revising the description of 
``design'' used in section III.A of the template to be consistent with 
what MDOT claimed was the latest guidance from FHWA on design. Instead 
of stating that design ``includes preliminary engineering, engineering, 
and design-related services directly relating to the construction of a 
FAHP-funded project, including engineering, design, project development 
and management, construction project management and inspection, 
surveying, mapping (including the establishment of temporary and 
permanent geodetic control in accordance with specifications of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and architectural-
related services,'' MDOT suggested that the template state that design 
``includes preliminary design, final design, and design-related 
services directly relating to the construction of a FAHP-funded 
project, including design, project development and management, 
construction project management and inspection, surveying, mapping 
(including the establishment of temporary and permanent geodetic 
control in accordance with specifications of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration), and architectural/engineering-related 
services.''
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA does not agree with this comment. The 
description of design used in section III.A of the proposed template 
closely matches the description of activities under the definition of 
``construction'' in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(4)(A). The FHWA notes that some 
changes are needed to align the definition of ``design'' in section 
III.A of the template with the definition used in 23 U.S.C. 
101(a)(4)(A), which was revised by BIL, section 11103(1)(A) to include 
``assessing resilience.'' Accordingly, FHWA has modified section III.A 
of the proposed template to add the phrase ``assessing resilience'' to 
the list of design activities.
    Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, and ODOT commented on the statement in 
the last paragraph of section III of the proposed template: ``The 
[State DOT] is to exercise any and all assumptions of the FHWA's 
responsibilities in accordance with the Federal laws, regulations, 
policies, Executive Orders, and procedures that would apply if the 
responsibilities were carried out by FHWA. For all projects and 
programs carried out under Title 23, the [State DOT] will comply with 
Title 23 and all applicable non-Title 23 Federal-aid program 
requirements.'' These commenters objected to State DOTs being required 
to follow Executive Orders, claiming that before FHWA implements an 
Executive Order, FHWA must implement the Executive Order through a 
directive or policy; that some Executive Orders require further 
analysis before implementation; and that specifically including mention 
of Executive Orders is unnecessary because these Orders will be covered 
by FHWA policies. The ODOT commented that including ``procedures'' was 
unnecessary because it claimed that FHWA policies are already covered 
by the template's mention of ``regulations'' and ``policies.'' The ODOT 
further claimed that requiring the assumption of responsibilities in 
accordance with FHWA internal procedures is inconsistent with the 
requirement in section 11307(e)(1) of BIL that FHWA ``shall not enforce 
or otherwise require a State to comply with approval requirements that 
are not required by Federal law (including regulations) in a Federal-
State stewardship and oversight agreement.'' \2\ Finally, AASHTO 
suggested removing mention that a State DOT is to exercise assumed 
responsibilities in accordance with all applicable non-Title 23 
Federal-aid program requirements, as AASHTO claimed that S&O Agreements 
are only executed under Title 23, U.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ODOT's comment refers to ``Section 11306(c)(3)(e)'' of 
BIL. ODOT, Comment Letter on Notice of Revision of Stewardship and 
Oversight Template (Feb. 21, 2023), at 3, https://downloads.regulations.gov/FHWA-2022-0013-0010/attachment_1.pdf. 
Because BIL does not contain a section 11306(c)(3)(e) and the 
statutory language ODOT quotes is from BIL section 11307(e)(1), FHWA 
assumes that ODOT intended to cite section 11307(e)(1) in its 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA Response: The FHWA does not agree with these comments. 
When a State DOT performs an assumed FHWA responsibility, they perform 
the responsibility as though it was performed by FHWA. This includes 
following applicable Executive Orders (E.O.), FHWA procedures, and non-
Title 23 Federal-aid program requirements. An alternative 
interpretation would mean that different requirements would apply to 
projects based on whether a State DOT assumes a responsibility from 
FHWA or whether FHWA takes on that responsibility itself, which FHWA 
does not believe is the intent of 23 U.S.C. 106(c).

[[Page 77659]]

    In addition, FHWA disagrees with several assumptions made by these 
commenters. In terms of EOs, FHWA is not always required to issue a 
directive or policy to implement an E.O. The EOs may, in certain cases, 
have the force of law, with agencies then implementing those EOs. See 
Ass'n for Women in Science v. Califano, 566 F.2d 339, 344 (D.C. Cir. 
1977). In addition, FHWA does not believe it is accurate to assume that 
all future EOs will inherently be covered by other FHWA policies. The 
FHWA also disagrees with ODOT's comment that including a requirement to 
comply with ``procedures'' in addition to Federal regulations and 
policies in section III is unnecessary. This comment relies on 
specific, legally significant definitions that ODOT ascribes to the 
words ``policies'' and ``procedures,'' but these definitions do not 
have a basis in Federal law. The language at issue reflects FHWA's 
intent that when a State DOT assumes an FHWA responsibility that is 
described in an FHWA policy, procedure, or regulation, the same 
requirements that would apply if FHWA maintained that responsibility 
will apply to the State DOT. Finally, FHWA disagrees with ODOT that 
requiring the assumption of responsibilities in accordance with FHWA 
procedures is inconsistent with section 11307(e)(1) of BIL. That 
section refers to ``approval requirements,'' and carrying out 
assumptions of FHWA responsibilities in accordance with FHWA policies 
does not necessarily involve FHWA approvals.

Section IV. Assumption of Responsibilities for Federal-Aid Projects on 
the NHS

    Comment: The AASHTO and ODOT commented that stewardship and 
oversight plans for specific projects, which are mentioned in sections 
IV, V, and VI, are not well defined in the template and the template 
does not provide any limits on the scope, content, or frequency with 
which these plans might be used. These commenters stated that these 
plans could allow the relevant FHWA Division Office, at its sole 
discretion, to supersede the delegation of responsibilities to the 
State for specific projects or even entire programs. Commenters 
recommended that more detail be provided on these plans, including why 
and how often a FHWA Division Office would supersede the delegation of 
responsibilities to the State, the scope of these plans, and their 
content. These commenters further argued that the State DOT should have 
input into the development of these plans.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that clarification is needed on 
when these plans may be used, their scope, and content. To address 
concerns around why and how often these plans might be implemented, 
FHWA is adding a statement to section VI stating that projects will be 
selected for risk-based FHWA project involvement and S&O activities 
``based on a risk assessment and the responses to identified threats 
and opportunities.'' In response to concerns over the ambiguous scope 
of these S&O plans, FHWA is including language in section VI.D that 
these plans may, in some instances such as responses to elevated risks, 
supersede responsibilities a State DOT would otherwise assume from FHWA 
on a project-by-project basis. In terms of content, as now described in 
section VI.D, the plan will include documented actions that the FHWA 
Division Office will undertake to respond to identified risks.
    In addition, in terms of allowing States to have input into the 
development of these project specific S&O plans, FHWA agrees that good 
communication between FHWA and State DOTs is important, and FHWA 
Division Offices will continue to seek and consider State DOT input in 
the process. However, FHWA does not believe that adding language to the 
template that requires State DOT input in the development of these 
plans would be appropriate. The FHWA intends for project specific S&O 
plans to apply an additional layer of oversight over State DOTs when 
needed. The FHWA does not believe it appropriate to have the State 
DOTs, who are the subject of such oversight, to play a substantial role 
in determining how FHWA exercises its oversight duties. To make this 
point clear, FHWA is revising language in sections IV.B and V.B to 
state that S&O plans are ``developed by'' the FHWA rather than merely 
being ``adopted by'' the FHWA, as was stated in the proposed template.
    Comment: The Joint States suggested that FHWA clarify that a 
State's assumption of FHWA responsibilities is superseded ``when and 
only to the extent'' that it is superseded by provisions of a 
stewardship and oversight plan.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that clarification is needed. 
The FHWA modified sections IV, V, and VI to clarify that program wide 
assumptions are superseded by S&O plans for specific projects only on a 
``project-by-project basis'' by provisions contained in the S&O plan.
    Comment: The Joint States also commented that the proposed 
provision regarding high-risk categories that are designated in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 106(c)(4) should be revised to clarify the 
applicability of such a designation and that FHWA should better define 
the extent that a high-risk designation supersedes a State's general 
assumption of FHWA's responsibilities.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that clarification is needed. 
The FHWA modified section IV.C to clarify the applicability of high-
risk categories. A State DOT may not assume responsibilities for 
Interstate projects in a designated high-risk category, as laid out in 
23 U.S.C. 106(c)(4). While FHWA has not designated any high-risk 
categories to date, if FHWA makes a future high-risk designation that 
applies to a State, that designation will immediately supersede the 
assumptions of responsibilities in that State's S&O Agreement only to 
the extent of that high-risk designation.

Section V. Assumption of Responsibilities for Federal-Aid Projects Off 
the NHS

    Comment: As stated above when discussing comments made regarding 
section IV, several commenters raised concerns related to the 
stewardship and oversight plans mentioned in sections IV, V, and VI.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA repeats the response made above when 
discussing comments made regarding section IV. As section IV and 
section V contain the same language, FHWA is making the same changes 
described above in section IV to section V.B.
    Comment: The MDOT noted that the proposed template stated that 
State DOTs would be required to exercise any and all assumptions of the 
FHWA's responsibilities in accordance with the Federal laws, 
regulations, policies, Executive Orders, and procedures that would 
apply if the responsibilities were carried out by FHWA, and asked if 
FHWA would provide the State DOTs a list of the most current Federal 
laws, regulations, policies, Executive Orders, and procedures that FHWA 
is responsible to carry out.
    The FHWA Response: To clarify, FHWA intended this statement to mean 
that when a State DOT assumes an FHWA responsibility, the same 
requirements that would apply if FHWA maintained that responsibility 
apply to the State DOT. This statement only reflects that applicable 
laws will apply when a State DOT assumes responsibility. The FHWA does 
not intend to provide a list of the current Federal laws, regulations, 
policies, EOs, and procedures that may apply, which

[[Page 77660]]

may be different for different projects and may change from time to 
time.

Section VI. FHWA Oversight Program Under 23 U.S.C. 106(g)

    Comment: As stated above when discussing comments made regarding 
section IV, several commenters raised concerns related to the 
stewardship and oversight plans mentioned in sections IV, V, and VI.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA repeats the response made above when 
discussing comments regarding section IV. In section VI, FHWA is 
clarifying that FHWA Division Offices select projects for a S&O plan 
based on a risk assessment and the responses to identified threats and 
opportunities. The FHWA Division Office then documents actions that it 
will undertake to respond to the risks in the S&O plan. In section VI.D 
FHWA is also clarifying that for the selected projects, the plan 
supersedes the assumption of project approval actions under Attachment 
A.
    Comment: The AASHTO, MDOT, ODOT, an individual, and the Joint 
States commented on Attachment B and the description of Attachment B 
included in section VI.B. Commenters recommended that a list of 
documents required by regulation or statute be provided and that 
clarification is needed regarding: (a) the documents that are intended 
for inclusion in Attachment B; (b) FHWA approval of documents included 
in Attachment B; and (c) how to handle updating documents included in 
Attachment B.
    The FHWA Response: Attachment B is intended to list manuals, 
agreements and other control, monitoring, and reporting documents the 
State DOT uses on Federal-aid projects. The FHWA intends to provide a 
listing of documents that are required to be submitted to or approved 
by FHWA based on statute or regulation, with instructions to aid State 
DOTs and FHWA Divisions in developing Attachment B. Each Attachment B 
must include, at a minimum, the list of documents identified by FHWA 
that are required to be submitted to or approved by FHWA based on 
statute or regulation, and, based upon an agreement between the State 
DOT and FHWA Division Office, any other documents used on Federal-aid 
projects. The FHWA is adding language to this effect in section VI.B 
and to the instructions in Attachment B.
    Finally, with respect to updating documents included in Attachment 
B, the format of Attachment B is optional and there are several 
acceptable ways of handling updated documents. Attachment B can be 
updated as a ``minor revision'' in accordance with section VIII.B.2 to 
indicate an updated document. Alternatively, the documents can be 
listed as ``current version'' without indicating an approval date or 
version. The format should be agreed to by the State DOT and its 
respective FHWA Division Office.
    Comment: The PennDOT commented that the language describing the two 
options related to Stewardship and Oversight Indicators in section VI.C 
is unclear and questioned the need for Stewardship and Oversight 
Indicators.
    The FHWA Response: Individual States and their respective FHWA 
Division Offices have the option of establishing S&O Indicators to help 
monitor performance of responsibilities assumed under this S&O 
Agreement. These indicators are not required, as Option 2 demonstrates; 
however, if the FHWA Division Office and the State wish to use them to 
monitor performance, Option 1 gives them that ability.

Section VII. State DOT Oversight Responsibilities

    Comment: The AASHTO, MDOT, NYSDOT, ODOT, and the Joint States all 
raised concerns over the proposed template's statement that the State 
DOT ``will provide information'' to the FHWA Division Office ``upon 
request.'' These commenters expressed concern that this language could 
lead to a large volume of requests, the request of irrelevant 
information, and that this language did not specify any timeframe for 
the State DOT to provide the information. Commenters suggested placing 
boundaries to frame the potential extent of information requests and 
that the template state that the timeframe for the State DOT to provide 
the information will be agreed to by the State DOT and FHWA Division 
Office.
    The FHWA Response: By requiring States to provide information upon 
request, FHWA is not instituting any new requirements. The FHWA has the 
authority to request any and all information deemed desirable in 
administering the FAHP program pursuant to 23 CFR 1.5. The FHWA will 
continue to take into consideration the burden and workload associated 
with requests for information and the time required to fulfill 
requests, but FHWA will not add language to the template limiting 
requests for information that it deems necessary for the S&O of the 
FAHP or to stipulate that timeframes for requests will be agreed to by 
the respective State DOT.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns over the paragraph in 
section VII titled ``Subrecipient Oversight.'' The AASHTO, NYSDOT, and 
ODOT commented that the paragraph describing State DOT responsibility 
for oversight of subrecipients does not provide for a State DOT to use 
a risk-based approach in monitoring subrecipients. In addition, an 
individual commenter stated that the proposed language, unlike language 
from the 2015 template which stated that a State DOT is responsible and 
accountable for local public agency compliance with all applicable 
Federal laws and requirements, would encourage State DOTs to shirk 
their responsibilities under the S&O Agreement.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters suggesting 
that State DOTs should be allowed to use a risk-based approach to 
monitor subrecipients, and FHWA modified the paragraph describing SDOT 
responsibility for oversight of subrecipients to clarify that, 
consistent with the uniform administrative requirements for Federal 
awards in 2 CFR part 200, State DOTs are able to use a risk-based 
approach in monitoring subrecipients, so long as the State DOT ensures 
that its subrecipients meet all applicable Federal requirements. As 
this paragraph makes clear that a State DOT remains responsible for 
ensuring that subrecipients meet all applicable Federal requirements, 
FHWA disagrees with the individual commenter that this language should 
be further modified.
    Comment: The GDOT commented that a Stewardship and Oversight 
Indicators sub-section like that included in section VI with similar 
options should also be included in section VII.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA disagrees with this suggestion. The 
description of S&O Indicators in section VI is sufficient and does not 
need to be repeated in section VII.
    For readability, FHWA is also modifying the organization of section 
VII to better mirror that of other sections. The FHWA is also refining 
the citations in section VII.C to better convey the precise source of 
the information.

Section VIII. Agreement Execution and Modifications

    Comment: The AASHTO, the Joint States, and NYSDOT all stated that 
future updates to the S&O Agreement template should be prohibited 
without notice and comment to be consistent with section 11307 of BIL.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA acknowledges that BIL, section 11307 
requires that an update to the S&O Agreement template be published in 
the Federal Register, for FHWA to provide

[[Page 77661]]

for a comment period, and for FHWA to publish a notice laying out a 
final template after consideration of these comments. The FHWA complied 
with this requirement by issuing a notice, along with the proposed S&O 
Agreement template, for public comments on December 21, 2022 (87 FR 
78193), and by publishing this notice. The FHWA does not agree, 
however, that the intent of Congress in passing section 11307 was to 
require any future change to the S&O Agreement template to go through 
that same process. The notice and comment process in section 11307(b)-
(c) describes singular events that are tied to specific dates after the 
enactment of BIL. The FHWA does not believe that the carefully crafted 
process in section 11307(b)-(c) describing how the template should be 
updated after the enactment of BIL reflects Congress's intent that all 
future updates to the template follow this same procedure. The FHWA 
will seek notice and comment through the Federal Register, as well as 
through other methods as appropriate, to seek input and communicate any 
potential future changes. The FHWA appreciates the feedback received 
from AASHTO, SDOTs, and other transportation stakeholders and intends 
to continue good communication.
    Comment: The AASHTO further commented that section VIII provides 
processes for making amendments and modifications to individual S&O 
Agreements, which can be used to address incremental changes in Federal 
requirements, rather than requiring FHWA to introduce a new template. 
The AASHTO and NYSDOT stated that the template should only be updated 
when there are significant, substantive changes in Federal regulations 
or requirements.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that going through the amendment 
process, rather than issuing a new template, may be more appropriate 
for incorporating incremental changes in Federal requirements into S&O 
Agreements. The FHWA anticipates that the issuance of future revisions 
to the template will be based on substantive changes in Federal 
regulations or requirements, such as after the adoption of a new 
Federal transportation bill. There may be other times, however, where 
FHWA may find it more appropriate to issue a new template rather than 
to have FHWA Division Offices and State DOTs agree to amendments and 
then have FHWA process each amendment in accordance with section 
VIII.B.2.
    Comment: The Joint States commented that section VIII.B.2 should be 
titled ``Amendments that would not change the substance of the 
template'' instead of just ``Amendments'' and further commented that 
this section should be revised to state that Amendments ``would not 
change the substance of the template.''
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA does not find these changes necessary. 
To start, amendments are between the State DOT and FHWA Division 
Office. While they may change the content of that specific S&O 
Agreement, they would not affect the S&O Agreement template. In 
addition, FHWA believes that it is appropriate for amendments to make 
substantive changes to an individual S&O Agreement. Without this 
ability, it is unclear how individual S&O Agreements could be changed 
to account for the circumstances of specific States. The FHWA observes 
that section VIII.B.1 provides an opportunity for a State DOT and its 
division office to make minor, non-substantive changes to the S&O 
Agreement.
    Comment: The AASHTO, the Joint States, and NYSDOT also objected to 
language in proposed section VIII.C which would have required an S&O 
Agreement be replaced in its entirety at the request of the FHWA Office 
of Infrastructure. The commenters stated that this provision allows 
FHWA too much authority to unilaterally make changes without notice or 
comment and is inconsistent with the intent of section 11307 of BIL.
    The FHWA Response: As previously stated, FHWA does not believe that 
section 11307 of BIL requires that additional future revisions to the 
S&O Agreement template go through the procedure laid out in that 
section. The FHWA, however, does agree that allowing the Office of 
Infrastructure to unilaterally replace an S&O Agreement for any reason 
may not be appropriate, as this could disrupt the delivery of the FAHP. 
The FHWA has modified the proposed language to clarify the reasons a 
new S&O Agreement would be required, which are changes to regulations 
or statutes or upon issuance of a revised template.

Section IX. Agreement Term and Termination

    Comment: The AASHTO, ODOT, SCDOT, and TxDOT all opposed the 
proposed change to section IX stating that an S&O Agreement would have 
a term of no greater than 6 years and that a new S&O Agreement must be 
executed before the expiration of the current S&O Agreement, claiming 
that there would be consequences if an S&O Agreement expires before a 
new S&O Agreement is executed. Commenters suggested modifying this 
provision to allow existing S&O Agreements to remain effective until a 
new superseding S&O Agreement is executed.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that a 
situation in which an S&O Agreement expires could disrupt the 
administration of the FAHP and should be avoided. The intent of the 
proposed term was to ensure S&O Agreements are updated on a regular 
basis, such as every 6 years. After reviewing the comments received, 
FHWA now expects that future changes to statute and regulation will 
prompt updates to S&O Agreements without the need for a set term. The 
FHWA therefore agrees with commenters that this provision should be 
removed.
    Comment: The FHWA also proposed in section IX to allow the FHWA 
Division Office to terminate an S&O Agreement at any time if the FHWA 
Division Office determines that the S&O Agreement is no longer in the 
public interest. The AASHTO, the Joint States, ODOT, and TxDOT all 
opposed this provision. Commenters stated that a termination of an S&O 
Agreement would be catastrophic to the delivery of Federal-aid projects 
and programs, that the language used was vague, and that this provision 
indicates a level of mistrust that does not serve to foster a 
cooperative relationship needed to ensure a successful joint agreement. 
These commenters argued that decisions on the termination or 
replacement of an agreement should be made jointly between the State 
DOT and FHWA.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that the 
termination of an S&O Agreement would have a negative impact on the 
delivery of the FAHP and should be avoided. The intent of this 
provision was to provide FHWA a means to expediently address an 
unforeseen extraordinary circumstance that could impair the ability of 
a State DOT to effectively carry out the project approvals and related 
responsibilities pursuant to an S&O Agreement. Upon careful 
reconsideration of the intent of this provision, FHWA acknowledges that 
should such circumstances ever arise, there are other statutory and 
regulatory actions FHWA may take on a project or programmatic basis to 
protect the Federal interest in the S&O of the FAHP. The FHWA therefore 
agrees with commenters that this provision should be removed.
    Lastly, FHWA proposed section IX with a final provision that stated 
that expiration or termination of an S&O Agreement would mean that the 
assumption of project approvals by a State DOT would be automatically

[[Page 77662]]

revoked. Because FHWA is removing all provisions related to the 
expiration or termination of an S&O Agreement, this language is 
unnecessary and will be removed, which fully deletes proposed section 
IX.
Attachment A. Project Responsibility Matrix
    Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, and ODOT commented that a distinction 
has been historically made in Attachment A between the assumptions of 
responsibilities on Interstate facilities and those on other National 
Highway System (NHS) facilities.
    The FHWA Response: The flexibility for FHWA to retain selected 
approvals on the Interstate System while the State DOT assumes those 
approvals on non-Interstate NHS projects has traditionally been 
exercised, and FHWA is not proposing to change or limit this 
flexibility. The FHWA agrees that this flexibility is not made clear in 
the template and intends to clarify this flexibility in instructions 
for developing revised S&O Agreements based on the revised template.
    Comment: The AASHTO and ODOT commented that Attachment A should 
include all responsibilities that must be retained by FHWA as well as 
those that can be delegated per law or regulation.
    The FHWA Response: The primary purpose of Attachment A is to 
describe the responsibilities that the State assumes from FHWA pursuant 
to 23 U.S.C. 106(c) and other legal authorities. To meet that purpose, 
Attachment A includes all FHWA project approvals that can be assumed by 
the State. In addition, FHWA included some actions that cannot be 
assumed to clarify a distinction with an action that can be assumed, 
clarify that a specific action cannot be assumed, or to otherwise avoid 
ambiguity. The purpose of the S&O Agreement is not to provide a 
comprehensive list of every FHWA project approval.
    Comment: The NYSDOT commented that a statement should be added to 
Attachment A stating that projects selected by the FHWA for 
risk[hyphen]based FHWA project involvement are not covered by the 
Attachment A matrix.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that this is an important point 
to make and has added language in section VI.D to clarify this. 
Project-specific S&O plans will distinguish which Attachment A 
assumptions are superseded by the project-specific plan. Attachment A 
assumptions that are not superseded by the project plan remain in 
effect.
    Comment: The Joint States suggested that the third sentence of the 
introductory text to Attachment A should be modified to clarify that 
``all'' elements of a FAHP project do not need to be eligible for FAHP 
funding. The commenter suggested language be added to clarify that only 
elements of the project that are to be supported by FAHP funding must 
be eligible for FAHP funding.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that a clarification is needed 
and modified this sentence to state that the State is responsible for 
ensuring that all applicable, rather than individual, elements of a 
project need to be eligible for FAHP funding. The FHWA disagreed with 
the suggested language as in certain situations, such as advance 
construction, the eligibility of elements not supported by FAHP funds 
is significant.
    Comment: The FHWA proposed action 18 in table 3 as reading: 
``Approve any betterment to be incorporated into the project and for 
which emergency relief funding is requested.'' The PennDOT commented 
that the ``and'' in this statement should be deleted.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees and has modified Attachment A 
accordingly.
    Comment: The GDOT commented on action 23 in table 4, which FHWA 
proposed would read: ``Determine use of more costly signing, pavement 
marking and signal materials (or equipment) is in the public 
interest.'' The GDOT stated that 23 CFR 655.606 uses the term 
``approved'' instead of ``determined''.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees and replaced the term 
``determined'' with ``approved'' to match 23 CFR 655.606.
    Comment: The PennDOT commented that action 25 in table 4, which 
FHWA proposed to read, ``Determination that a United States Coast Guard 
Permit is not required for bridge construction,'' should be modified to 
limit this approval to when the bridge construction is over navigable 
water.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA disagrees with this suggested revision. 
To prevent conflicts with other documents, actions listed in Attachment 
A are clearly and concisely described without providing additional 
information or additional guidance on the action.
    Additional Changes to Attachment A: In the process of reviewing 
comments and drafting a revised template, FHWA made several revisions 
to the language for actions 28, 29, 30 and 31 in Table 5. These changes 
were made to better align the language with language used in other 
actions in Attachment A and the associated regulations.
    Major Projects: The major projects action in the proposed template 
``Review and accept initial financial plan and annual updates for 
Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]'' (proposed action 1) was 
split into two actions, ``Review and accept initial financial plan for 
Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]'' and ``Review and accept 
financial plan annual updates for Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 
106(h)]'' for clarity. The major projects action in the proposed 
template ``Review cost estimates for Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 
106(h)]'' (proposed action 2) was deleted as FHWA determined that this 
action was intrinsically part of the review of the initial financial 
plan and financial plan annual updates and therefore duplicitous of 
other actions in Attachment A.
    Further, in response to comments urging FHWA to maintain maximum 
flexibility in terms of allowing State DOTs to assume actions, FHWA 
undertook a review of proposed Attachment A to determine whether there 
were any actions that could be assumed by State DOTs. The FHWA 
determined that actions related to major projects, ``Review and accept 
initial financial plan for Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]'', 
``Review and accept financial plan annual updates for Federal major 
projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]'', and ``Approve project management plan 
for Federal major projects [23 U.S.C. 106(h)]'' could be assumed by 
States and modified Attachment A accordingly.
Attachment B. Manuals, Agreements, Control, Monitoring, and Reporting 
Documents
    Comment: Several commenters provided suggestions on Attachment B, 
which FHWA has reviewed and responded to in section VI above. In 
addition, an individual commenter suggested that FHWA should retain its 
approval authority for all manuals, policies, and procedures used by a 
State DOT, regardless of whether such approval is contemplated by 
specific statute or regulation.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA cannot require State DOTs to submit 
manuals, policies, and procedures for approval by FHWA if such approval 
is not required by statute or regulation, in accordance with section 
11307(e)(1) of BIL. Further, in line with section 1316(a) of the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94), FHWA 
believes it appropriate to

[[Page 77663]]

allow a State to assume responsibilities ``to the maximum extent 
practicable.''
Attachment C. Stewardship and Oversight Indicators
    Comment: The GDOT commented that language should be added to the 
Attachment C heading paragraph that explains how to document when 
indicators are not included in the S&O Agreement.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA has clarified in Attachment C that 
establishing S&O Indicators is optional and that Attachment C should be 
used only when they are established. If a State DOT and FHWA Division 
Office have not established S&O Indicators, FHWA expects Attachment C 
to not be included in any S&O Agreement between them.
    Comment: The PennDOT commented that the example Stewardship and 
Oversight Indicators in Attachment C do not seem directly related to 
how well a State DOT's assumption of responsibilities is functioning.
    The FHWA Response: The Attachment C included in the proposed 
template is a drafting example, which is provided to demonstrate 
acceptable methods of showing S&O Indicators and examples of the type 
of information to include. Regarding the Indicator examples included, 
some are directly related to an assumable action, such as the example 
Indicator ``Number of projects with conditional ROW,'' which is 
directly related to the conditional ROW actions in Attachment A. Other 
examples are indirectly related to an assumable action, such as the 
example Indicator ``Percent of DBE goal achieved,'' which is indirectly 
related to project award actions in Attachment A.
General Comments
    Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, and ODOT commented that individual 
FHWA Division Offices and State DOTs should have the flexibility to 
modify their S&O Agreement and add State-specific attachments to 
address such aspects as specific State responsibilities, delegation of 
State assumed responsibilities on subrecipient projects, or the 
oversight of subrecipients.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA disagrees with allowing flexibility to 
modify the template body or Attachment A. The template body includes 
provisions that apply to all States and modification in individual S&O 
Agreements would defeat the purpose of a single template that applies 
to all 52 FHWA Division Offices and State DOTs.
    Similarly, FHWA does not believe that States should have the 
flexibility to modify Attachment A beyond allowing States to assume 
responsibilities where allowed per Attachment A. Attachment A describes 
actions that FHWA has determined are assumable based on the language of 
23 U.S.C. 106(c), and FHWA does not believe that allowing for 
additional assumable actions would be appropriate.
    Additional attachments to individual S&O Agreements are allowable. 
Additional attachments, however, cannot conflict with provisions in the 
template and must meet FHWA guidelines for public posting, including 
compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    Comment: The PennDOT commented that if funds are not being 
``passed'' through the State DOT, the State DOT does not have a 
responsibility because the recipient would be executing an agreement 
directly with the FHWA.
    The FHWA Response: The S&O Agreements are not applicable to non-
State DOT recipients and issues associated with non-State DOT 
recipients are not discussed here. The template and resulting S&O 
Agreements are not intended to provide program-specific guidance beyond 
what is necessary to establish the roles and responsibilities of the 
FHWA Division Office and the State DOT with respect to certain project 
approvals, related responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities.
    Comment: The AASHTO, NYSDOT, ODOT, and PennDOT commented that the 
template does not specifically address the wider range of potential 
subrecipients anticipated in various programs within the BIL. These 
commenters stated that the template should allow for means of 
addressing the delegation to and oversight of non-State DOT 
subrecipients. The PennDOT added that it was concerned over the impact 
to the agency regarding responsibility over such recipients. The NYSDOT 
commented that the template should provide greater guidance and 
flexibility in administering new programs.
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that the template does not 
specifically address the range of potential subrecipients involved in 
specific programs. The template and resulting S&O Agreements are not 
intended to provide program specific guidance beyond what is necessary 
to establish the roles and responsibilities of the FHWA Division Office 
and the State DOT with respect to certain project approvals, related 
responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 
106. To the extent that such entities are subrecipients of a State DOT, 
section VII of the template addresses the State DOT's responsibility 
for overseeing its subrecipients. The FHWA does not find it necessary 
to lay out specific means of addressing the delegation to and oversight 
of such subrecipients, as that is the responsibility of the State DOT. 
Part of this responsibility is to evaluate each subrecipient's risk of 
ensuring compliance and determining the appropriate oversight and 
monitoring in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(b). The FHWA acknowledges 
that new programs under BIL may involve a wider range of potential 
subrecipients and that risks will be different from traditional 
subrecipients who possess more experience administering FAHP projects.
    Comment: An individual commenter expressed concern with State DOTs 
misapplying provisions of S&O Agreements under the current template and 
provided what he stated was an example of this occurring. This 
commenter argued that FHWA should provide a more detailed description 
of State DOT responsibilities in any revised template, particularly 
with respect to State DOT responsibilities for projects on the NHS that 
do not utilize Federal funds. This commenter also stated that FHWA 
should take extra care to ensure that entrenched commitment to 
erroneous views of the law and the duties imposed by Title 23, U.S.C. 
and the S&O Agreement is corrected, contained, and not adopted by other 
public officials or contractors, and that FHWA should include 
additional language to reflect the need for State DOTs to perform or 
directly supervise construction projects on the NHS, including those 
undertaken by its subrecipients, such as Local Public Agencies (LPA).
    The FHWA Response: The FHWA agrees that it is important for State 
DOTs to recognize responsibilities on the NHS for projects that may not 
use Federal funds. The S&O Agreements, however, are not meant to lay 
out every responsibility a State DOT has that might be related to the 
FAHP; instead, they are meant to define the roles and responsibilities 
of FHWA and each State DOT regarding project approvals and related 
responsibilities under Title 23, U.S.C., and document methods of 
oversight. For example, S&O Agreements are not the place to discuss the 
relationship between State DOTs and LPAs, apart from the relationship 
that might exist when a State DOT provides a subaward to the LPA. The 
FHWA therefore disagrees with the commenter that S&O Agreements are 
appropriate places to define State DOT

[[Page 77664]]

responsibilities in detail, such as State DOT responsibilities for 
projects that do not use Federal funds, which are not related to the 
purpose of an S&O Agreement.
    The FHWA also agrees that it is important for State DOTs to 
supervise construction projects on the NHS, including those undertaken 
by its subrecipients. The FHWA does not, however, believe that the S&O 
Agreement needs to include additional language to reflect this need. 
Section VII of the template includes language stating that the State 
DOT is responsible for ensuring that its subrecipients meet applicable 
Federal requirements. The FHWA does not believe it appropriate or 
necessary to explicitly state that this oversight must be done by 
directly supervising construction of projects on the NHS.
Schedule To Implement Changes
    In accordance with section 11307(c)(1) of BIL, FHWA has considered 
all comments received on its proposed S&O Agreement template. Through 
this notice, FHWA is describing the proposed changes to be made to that 
proposed template and is addressing comments in response to which 
changes were not made to the template. In accordance with sections 
11307(c)(1)(C) and 11307(c)(3)(A) of BIL, FHWA is updating its S&O 
Agreement template, which can be found at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/stewardship/. Pursuant to section 11307(c)(3)(B) of BIL, 
FHWA will ensure that this revised template is used to update existing 
S&O Agreements not later than November 12, 2024.
    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106(c); section 11307, Pub. L. 117-58, 135 
Stat. 532; 49 CFR 1.85.

Shailen P. Bhatt,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-24960 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P