National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision |
|---|
Topics: Federal Highway Administration
|
Victor M. Mendez
Federal Register
August 31, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54156-54162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22006]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2010-0159]
RIN 2125-AF43
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated in our regulations, approved by the
Federal Highway Administration, and recognized as the national standard
for traffic control devices used on all streets, highways, bikeways,
and private roads open to public travel. The FHWA proposes to revise
certain information relating to target compliance dates for traffic
control devices. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and in
particular its emphasis on burden-reduction and on retrospective
analysis of existing rules, the proposed changes are intended to reduce
the costs and impacts of compliance dates on State and local highway
agencies and to streamline and simplify the information.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2011. Late
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., E.T., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 19477-78) or
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or Mr. William Winne, Office
of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397, Federal Highway Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, the notice of and request for comments, and all
comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of
the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may
also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page
at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web
page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
To help make the FHWA's docket comment review process more
efficient, the FHWA requests that commenters cite the Section number
identified in Table I-2 for any comment to the docket about a specific
proposed revision to the text of the table.
Background
When new provisions are adopted in a new edition or revision of the
MUTCD, any new or reconstructed traffic control devices installed after
adoption are required to be in compliance with the new provisions. For
existing devices in the field that do not comply with the new MUTCD
provisions, 23 CFR 655.603(d)(1), authorizes the FHWA to establish
target compliance dates for compliance of particular existing devices.
Table I-2 in the Introduction of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD lists 58
specific provisions for which the FHWA has established target
compliance dates for upgrading existing devices in the field via the
Federal rulemaking process in Final Rules issued in 2000,\1\ 2003,\2\
2007,\3\ and 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 65 FR 78923, December 18, 2000.
\2\ 68 FR 65496, November 20, 2003.
\3\ 72 FR 72574, December 21, 2007.
\4\ 74 FR 66732, December 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of a specific target compliance date, existing
devices in the
[[Page 54157]]
field that do not meet the new MUTCD provisions are expected to be
upgraded by highway agencies over time to meet the new provisions via a
systematic upgrading process as required by 23 CFR 655.603(d)(1), but
there are no specific dates for required completion of the upgrades.
Systematic upgrading programs enable highway agencies to prioritize
traffic control upgrades based on a variety of factors such as relative
safety needs, costs, and available resources. Agencies can decide,
where appropriate, to defer upgrading certain non-compliant devices
until the device wears out, is damaged or destroyed, or is replaced.
In response to concerns about the potential costs and impact of
previously adopted MUTCD compliance dates on State and local
governments in the current economic climate, on November 30, 2010, the
FHWA published in the Federal Register a Request for Comments \5\ on
traffic control device compliance dates. The FHWA asked for responses
to a series of seven questions about compliance dates, their benefits
and potential economic impacts, especially economic hardships to State
and local governments that might result from specific target compliance
dates for upgrading certain non-compliant existing devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 75 FR 74128, November 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the end of the comment period, the FHWA received 592 letters to
the docket. The comments were submitted by 360 private citizens, 168
local government highway agencies, 28 State DOTs, 16 industry
representatives, 6 national associations representing practitioners, 5
national associations representing safety advocates, 5 elected
officials, and 4 traffic engineering consultants.
The overwhelming majority of comments from all responders addressed
the target compliance dates associated with maintaining minimum levels
of sign retroreflectivity and with minimum letter heights for street
name signs. There were also many comments from private citizens
expressing concerns about requiring the use of mixed-case lettering for
street name signs and other guide signs.
Comments from private citizens were evenly balanced between support
for and opposition to compliance dates for upgrading existing signs
that do not meet minimum levels of retroreflectivity. Often emphasizing
the current economic climate, local highway agencies predominantly
expressed concerns about the target compliance dates for sign
retroreflectivity because of economic concerns. Similarly, State DOTs
and national associations representing practitioners generally
suggested that all dates should be eliminated or extended because of
current economic conditions. Representatives of the traffic control
materials industry and national safety associations supported retaining
all existing compliance dates for safety reasons, often specifically
citing concerns about the needs of older road users. Also, a variety of
comments indicated confusion about target compliance dates in general
and that the number and complexity of compliance dates listed in Table
I-2 makes it difficult for agencies to understand what is required in
order to take appropriate actions.
In general, the FHWA has intended that target compliance dates
coincide with the useful service life of the devices that would need to
be replaced to meet any new requirements, thus minimizing economic and
logistical impacts on highway agencies. This approach is consistent
with Executive Order 13563 and in particular its emphasis on the
avoidance of unjustified costs. Some comments indicated that variations
in climate and other environmental conditions around the country may
result in considerably longer useful service lives of certain devices
than the estimates used by the FHWA in establishing the compliance
dates. In such cases, compliance dates can create an undue burden for
the agency, requiring device replacement before the end of actual
useful service life.
The FHWA has carefully reviewed and considered all of the comments
received in response to the request for comments. It has decided to
propose revisions to Table I-2 to simplify it and reduce the impacts of
target compliance dates on agencies by eliminating, extending, or
otherwise revising most of the dates. This approach is consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13563, including its emphasis on
consideration of benefits and costs (sections 1(a) and 1(b)), its
requirement of an open exchange of information with stakeholders
(section 2(a)), and, in particular, its call for retrospective analysis
of existing rules, including streamlining and modification to make such
rules less burdensome (section 6). This approach is also consistent
with Presidential Memorandum, Administrative Flexibility, which calls
for reducing burdens and promoting flexibility for State and local
governments.
Proposed Amendment
Of the 58 items for which target compliance dates are currently
listed in Table I-2, the FHWA proposes to eliminate altogether the
compliance dates for 46 items (8 that have already expired and 38 that
have future compliance dates) and to extend and/or revise the dates for
4 items. We are not proposing a change for the dates for the other
eight items, which actually represent only six specific requirements in
the MUTCD, since three of the eight items are all related to the
required use of high-visibility apparel by workers in the right-of-way.
For these six requirements, the compliance dates would remain in
effect.
A summary of the specific proposed changes in Table I-2 of the
MUTCD is included in the following section.
The text of this proposed revision to the 2009 edition of the MUTCD
is available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part
7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text of the
proposed revision is available on the MUTCD Internet Web site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov and on the docket for this rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov. The proposed text is available in two formats. The
first format shows the current MUTCD text of Table I-2 with proposed
additions in blue, underlined text and proposed deletions as red
strikeout text. The second format shows a ``clean'' version of Table I-
2, with all the proposed changes incorporated. The complete 2009
edition of the MUTCD is also available on the same Internet Web site.
This NPA is being issued to provide an opportunity for public
comment on the desirability of these proposed amendments to the MUTCD.
The FHWA is interested in receiving comments regarding the safety
benefits provided by traffic device uniformity, the costs and other
burdens associated with achieving compliance for existing non-compliant
devices, and the proposed revisions, extensions, eliminations, and
retention of compliance dates outlined in this notice. In all cases,
and consistent with Executive Order 13563, section 2, the FHWA seeks
comments not only on its proposals but also on possible alternative
approaches. Based on the comments received and its own experience, the
FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed changes included in
this notice.
[[Page 54158]]
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Table I-2
1. The FHWA proposes to eliminate target compliance dates, which
were based on estimated useful service lives, for 33 items in Table I-2
that were established in the Final Rules for the 2000 and 2003 editions
of the MUTCD, that have not yet expired. These 33 target compliance
dates proposed for elimination are for provisions in Sections 2B.03,
2B.10, 2B.11, 2B.13, 2B.26, 2B.55, 2C.04, 2C.13, 2C.20, 2C.38, 2C.40,
2C.41, 2C.42, 2C.46, 2C.49, 2C.61, 2C.63, 2D.43 (two provisions),
2D.44, 2G.01 through 2G.07, 2G.11 through 2G.15, 2H.05 and 2H.06,
2I.09, 2I.10, 2N.03, 3B.18, 4D.01, 4D.31, 4E.07, 5C.05, 7B.16, and
8C.09. These items mostly involve new or revised sign designs,
including larger letter heights and/or larger sizes for some signs, and
certain other changes in traffic control device design, location, or
operation that have made some existing devices in the field obsolete.
Based on comments received and other communications with State and
local highway agencies, the FHWA believes that these 33 dates in Table
I-2 may create fiscal and logistical burdens on highway agencies. Based
on comments received, the FHWA believes that agencies can better
organize and track the replacement or upgrade of these devices in the
ordinary course of implementation of their systematic upgrading
programs. Additionally, highway agencies are in the best position to
make decisions on device replacements based on actual useful service
lives in their particular climates and environments, rather than having
a universal compliance date based on estimated useful service life. The
FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the costs, and other
burdens associated with achieving compliance for existing non-compliant
devices, and the proposed elimination of these compliance dates. The
FHWA also requests comments on alternative approaches, such as
extending rather than eliminating these compliance dates.
2. The FHWA proposes to eliminate the target compliance dates for
three items in Table I-2 that were established with the Final Rule for
the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. Although these dates were recently
established, the FHWA believes their elimination is warranted based on
consideration of specific concerns raised in responses to the November
30, 2010, Request for Comments, as explained below. For each of these
three items, the FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the
costs, and other burdens associated with achieving compliance for these
existing non-compliant devices, and the proposed elimination of these
compliance dates.
The December 31, 2019, target compliance date would be eliminated
for a provision in Section 2D.45 that requires multilane conventional
road approaches to interchanges to have guide signs to identify which
direction of turn is necessary for access to each direction of the
freeway or expressway. Agencies expressed confusion about this date
because they interpreted it as requiring the replacement of existing
overhead sign structures (which typically have a very long useful
service life, well beyond 10 years) in order to install the required
new signs. The MUTCD allows post-mounted signs to be used to provide
the needed information to road users about turn directions at the
interchange, even if overhead sign structures are present for other
signs. The FHWA believes that eliminating this target compliance date
will reduce the confusion. Highway agencies will still need to install
the required signs under their systematic upgrading programs, but will
not have a specific date by which this must be accomplished.
The target compliance date of December 31, 2016, or at resurfacing,
whichever comes first, would be eliminated for provisions in Sections
3B.04 and 3B.05 that require dotted, rather than broken, lane lines for
dropped lanes and for acceleration, deceleration, and auxiliary lanes.
Some agencies indicated that they have durable markings for lane lines
that have a useful service life that will extend beyond the 2016 date.
Some agencies also use recessed or inlaid markings, for which it is not
practical to change the marking pattern from broken to dotted until the
next resurfacing occurs, but resource constraints will cause the
resurfacing cycle to exceed 7 years. Some agencies also indicated it
would be very difficult to meet the 2016 compliance date because of the
large number of individual pavement marking layout drawings for
individual existing intersections and interchanges that need to be
revised to show the locations and lengths of dotted lane lines before
crews can be instructed to revise the markings in the field.
Eliminating this target compliance date would allow agencies to
implement the new marking requirement when existing lines become
significantly worn to the point they can be marked over without causing
road user confusion, or when resurfacing occurs.
The December 31, 2014, target compliance date for the provision in
Section 8C.12 that requires a traffic queuing study of grade crossings
within 200 feet of roundabouts or other circular intersections would be
eliminated. Based on knowledge gained from frequent interactions with
State and local agencies, the FHWA believes that there are extremely
few existing roundabouts or other circular intersections within 200
feet of a grade crossing and that those that do exist have likely
already been studied for queuing issues as a part of or subsequent to
their original design. As roundabouts are increasingly being given
consideration as an alternative to installing a traffic signal, any
such considerations at locations near grade crossings will be required
by the language in Section 8C.12 to be studied as a part of the process
of evaluating whether to construct a roundabout.
The FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the costs, and
other burdens associated with the proposed elimination of these
compliance dates. The FHWA also requests comments on alternative
approaches, such as extending rather than eliminating these compliance
dates.
3. The FHWA proposes to eliminate from Table I-2 eight items for
which the previously established target compliance dates have expired.
These dates (pertaining to certain provisions in Sections 2B.09, 2C.30,
2C.50, 2J.05, 7B.11, 7B.12, 8B.19 and 8C.02 through 8C.05, and 9B.18)
were established in the Final Rules for the 2000 and 2003 editions of
the MUTCD. Elimination of these items from the table is consistent with
the FHWA's previous practice of eliminating target compliance dates
from subsequent MUTCD editions after they have expired. Based on
frequent communications and interactions with numerous State and local
highway agencies, the FHWA believes that most agencies have already
upgraded these devices as their useful service lives have been reached.
Although some of these non-compliant devices might still exist in the
field, they are expected to be replaced with compliant devices under
agencies' systematic upgrading programs. The FHWA requests comments on
this proposal.
4. The FHWA proposes to revise the January 22, 2012, target
compliance date that was established in December 2007, with the Final
Rule for Revision 2 of the 2003 edition of the MUTCD, for the Section
2A.08 provision that requires agencies to implement an assessment or
management method designed to maintain sign retroreflectivity at or
above the established minimum levels.
[[Page 54159]]
This compliance date does not require any signs to be replaced by a
given date. It requires highway agencies to implement an assessment or
management method for maintaining sign retroreflectivity by the
compliance date in accordance with section 406 of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L.
102-388; October 6, 1992). The compliance date for this requirement
would be extended to a date 2 years after the effective date of the
Final Rule for this proposed revision of the MUTCD. This would provide
agencies with an estimated additional 1 to 2 years to implement their
chosen assessment or management method. Additionally, the FHWA proposes
to make the new compliance date apply only to implementing an
assessment or management method for regulatory and warning signs. The
requirement in the MUTCD language to implement a method for all types
of signs would remain, but there would not be a specific target
compliance date for required implementation of the method for signs
other than regulatory and warning signs. Based on our subject matter
expertise and experience with the benefits and impacts of traffic
control devices, the FHWA believes that, because of the critical safety
nature of the messages they convey, especially for older road users,
regulatory and warning signs constitute the highest priority for
assessing retroreflectivity of existing signs. The proposed revisions
to the compliance date and its applicability will provide relief and
enable agencies to determine when their resources will allow them to
add signs other than regulatory and warning signs to their
retroreflectivity assessment or management method.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the two existing
target compliance dates for replacement of signs that are identified
using the assessment or management method as failing to meet the
established minimum retroreflectivity levels. The January 22, 2015,
date for regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide (except street
name) signs and the January 22, 2018, date for street name signs and
overhead guide signs would both be eliminated. Without specific
compliance dates for these items, agencies will still need to replace
any sign they identify as not meeting the established minimum
retroreflectivity levels.
The FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the costs, and
other burdens associated with achieving compliance with this
requirement, and the proposed revisions of these compliance dates. The
FHWA also requests comments on alternative approaches, including
retention of the current compliance dates and extending rather than
eliminating some of them.
5. The FHWA proposes to revise the target compliance date of
December 31, 2014, or when timing adjustments are made to the
individual intersection and/or corridor, whichever occurs first, that
applies to provisions on timing requirements for vehicular yellow and
red clearance intervals in Section 4D.26 and pedestrian clearance
intervals in Section 4E.06. These compliance dates were established
with the Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. As noted in that
Final Rule, the compliance dates were established to achieve a more
rapid implementation of these new requirements at existing locations,
because safety studies found that significant crash reductions were
achieved where the required timing methods were used to determine the
yellow and red clearance intervals, and because the FHWA believes that
the new requirements for pedestrian clearance intervals are needed to
provide a buffer between pedestrian movements and vehicular movements.
The compliance dates were based on what FHWA believed to be the typical
signal retiming frequency of about 5 years. Some agencies commented
that current budgetary constraints have made it difficult to retime all
of their traffic signals on a 5-year cycle. The FHWA proposes to extend
the existing compliance date to a date of 5 years after the effective
date of the Final Rule for this proposed revision of the MUTCD, or when
timing adjustments are made to the individual intersection and/or
corridor, whichever occurs first. This would provide agencies with an
estimated additional 2 years to implement the new requirements of
Sections 4D.26 and 4E.06 at any locations that have not already been
made compliant under a previous intersection or corridor retiming.
The FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the costs, and
other burdens associated with achieving compliance for these existing
non-compliant devices, and the proposed revision of this compliance
date. The FHWA also requests comments on alternative approaches,
including retention of the current compliance dates and extending them
for a longer period.
6. The FHWA proposes to revise and extend the compliance date for
the provisions in Sections 8B.03 and 8B.04 that require a
retroreflective strip on the back of Crossbuck signs and on the front
and back of supports for Crossbuck signs at passive grade crossings.
The existing compliance date of January 17, 2011, was established with
the Final Rule for the 2000 edition of the MUTCD. The 2003 edition of
the MUTCD eliminated the requirement to install the retroreflective
strips on the fronts of Crossbuck sign supports, if a Yield or Stop
sign is present along with the Crossbuck sign. During the last decade,
the FHWA was considering establishing requirements to add a Yield or
Stop sign at all passive railroad crossings. The addition of a Yield or
Stop sign could necessitate replacing the Crossbuck support post in
order to achieve minimum mounting heights. As a result, many railroad
companies and highway agencies have deferred installing the
retroreflective strips until a final decision was made on this issue in
order to avoid unnecessary expense and to achieve the economies of
sending sign crews to crossings only once rather than twice. The
December 2009 Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD did incorporate the
requirement for YIELD or STOP signs at passive crossings in Section
8B.04, and a target compliance date for adding these signs at existing
crossings was established as December 31, 2019. The January 12, 2011,
compliance date for the retroreflective strips provided railroads and
public agencies with only 1 year after the final decision on the rule
for Yield or Stop signs to install the retroreflective strips at the
thousands of crossings where such work was deferred.
The FHWA proposes to extend the target compliance date for the
retroreflective strips to December 31, 2019, to coincide with the date
for adding Yield or Stop signs with Crossbuck signs at passive grade
crossings. As noted in the Final Rule that established the target
compliance date for the retroreflective strips, the addition of such
strips provides safety benefits that justify having a target compliance
date, but having a single compliance date for both the retroreflective
strips and the Yield or Stop signs at grade crossings is more
practical. The FHWA also proposes to adjust the item for Section 8B.03
in Table I-2 to more accurately reflect that the requirements for
retroreflective strips are in Section 8B.04 as well as in Section 8B.03
and to accurately reflect that the compliance date was also intended to
apply to the retroreflective strips on the backs of the Crossbuck
signs.
The FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the costs, and
other burdens associated with achieving compliance for these existing
non-compliant devices, and the proposed revision of this compliance
date. The
[[Page 54160]]
FHWA also requests comments on alternative approaches, including
retention of the current compliance dates and extending them for a
longer period.
7. The FHWA proposes to retain the existing target compliance dates
in Table I-2 for eight items that we deem to be of critical safety
importance, based on existing evidence and our subject matter expertise
and experience in traffic control device matters. For each of these
eight items, the Final Rules establishing the compliance dates clearly
identified the safety justification for such compliance dates. These
justifications remain valid, as summarized below. For each of these
eight items, the FHWA requests comments on the safety benefits, the
costs, and other burdens associated with achieving compliance for these
existing non-compliant devices, and the proposed retention of this
compliance date. The FHWA also requests comments on alternative
approaches, including extension of the current compliance dates.
The January 17, 2013, compliance date for Section 2A.19 provisions
requiring crashworthiness of existing sign supports on roads with
posted speed limits of 50 mph or higher was established in the Final
Rule for the 2003 edition of the MUTCD to be consistent with
information previously communicated to jurisdictions in a variety of
training and presentations by the FHWA Office of Safety regarding
roadside safety and countermeasures for run-off-the-road crashes.
Eliminating fixed-object hazards such as non-crashworthy sign supports
on high-speed roads remains a critical safety need due to the deaths
and severe injuries that high-speed run-off-the-road crashes can result
in when a non-crashworthy sign support is struck. Therefore, the 10-
year period for compliance from the 2003 Final Rule is proposed to be
retained.
The Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD established new
requirements in Section 2B.40 to install additional One Way signs at
certain types of intersections and established a December 31, 2019,
compliance date for adding the required signs at existing intersections
where the signs are not in place in the required number and location.
This 10-year period was established because of the demonstrated safety
issues associated with wrong-way travel on divided highways, research
on the needs of older drivers, and because the additional signs would
provide significant safety benefits to road users. These safety
benefits justify retaining the existing compliance date for installing
the critically-needed One Way signs at existing intersections.
In Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14, revised requirements on the use of
various horizontal alignment warning signs and determinations of
advisory speed values were adopted in the Final Rule for the 2009
edition of the MUTCD and a compliance date of December 31, 2019, was
established for any required revisions in posted advisory speeds and
for installing any newly-required horizontal alignment warning signs
that are not currently in place at existing curves. This 10-year
compliance date was established because of the demonstrated safety
issues associated with run-off-the-road crashes at horizontal curves.
Fatalities at horizontal curves account for approximately 25 percent of
all highway fatalities, yet horizontal curves are only a small portion
of the Nation's highway mileage. The more rational and uniform posting
of advisory speeds and the installation of the required additional
horizontal alignment warning signs at existing locations will provide
significant safety benefits to road users and a 10-year period for
achieving compliance is remains appropriate.
The Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD established new
requirements in Sections 2E.31, 2E.33, and 2E.36 for the use of black-
on-yellow ``Left'' or ``Left Exit'' plaques on guide signs for all
left-hand freeway and expressway exits and established a compliance
date of December 31, 2014, for adding such plaques to existing guide
signs. This 5-year target compliance date was established to address a
recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board as a result
of a significant safety concern exhibited with left-hand exits. The
installation of these plaques at all existing left-hand exits within 5
years is necessary to achieve critical safety improvements for road
users at left-side exits. The installation of these plaques generally
does not require replacement of the existing sign or sign supports and
this change affects relatively few existing locations throughout the
country.
The Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD also established
new requirements in Sections 6D.03, 6E.02, and 7D.04 that all workers,
including flaggers and school crossing guards, within the right-of-way
of all highways, not just Federal-aid highways, must wear high-
visibility apparel, and established a 2-year target compliance date of
December 31, 2011. Required compliance of apparel for workers,
including law enforcement officers, on Federal-aid highways has been in
effect since November 24, 2008. The 2-year target compliance date for
these three provisions applicable to non-Federal-aid highways was
established to be consistent with the 2-year compliance period that was
previously established for workers on Federal-aid highways. The
December 31, 2011, compliance date remains appropriate for this low-
cost, but highly critical, safety requirement and no changes are
proposed to the compliance dates for Sections 6D.03, 6E.02, and 7D.04.
In Section 8B.04, as discussed above, a new requirement was adopted
in the Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD to require the use
of either a Yield or Stop sign with the Crossbuck sign at all passive
grade crossings, and a target compliance date of December 31, 2019, was
established for adding these signs at existing crossings. This 10-year
compliance date was established to promote increased safety at passive
grade crossings, especially during nighttime hours. Although the new
requirements involve conducting engineering studies for some locations
and installing signs that do not currently exist at existing grade
crossings, the existing 10-year target compliance date for installation
of the required additional signs at existing locations remains
appropriate.
Conclusion
The proposed revisions to Table I-2 are intended to reduce the
regulatory burden and provide increased flexibility to State and local
highway agencies and to enable those agencies to make decisions on when
to replace or upgrade existing noncompliant devices in accordance with
their own local environmental conditions and the competing priorities
in their communities for a wide variety of safety-related measures that
might be needed in the context of limited budgets. The proposed
revisions also simplify procedures for traffic control device
replacements and reinforce the principle that most noncompliant traffic
control devices can be replaced in the ordinary course of routine
maintenance and/or when the useful life of such devices has expired.
The few items for which target compliance dates are proposed to be
retained or extended are, based on FHWA's experience and subject matter
expertise on traffic control device issues, considered to be essential
for statutory or safety reasons and/or of relatively low-cost to
implement.
It is important to understand that elimination of a compliance date
for a given Standard contained in the MUTCD does not eliminate the
[[Page 54161]]
regulatory requirement to comply with that Standard. The Standard
itself remains in the MUTCD and applies to any new installations, but
the firm fixed date for replacing noncompliant devices that exist in
the field is eliminated.
On April 22, 2010, a separate NPA was published in the Federal
Register \6\ proposing to revise the 2009 edition of the MUTCD
regarding maintaining minimum retroreflectivity of longitudinal
pavement markings. The deadline for comments to that docket has passed
and the FHWA is currently reviewing the docket comments received. In
that NPA, FHWA suggested that the proposed revisions regarding
maintaining minimum retroreflectivity of longitudinal pavement markings
would be designated as Revision 1 to the 2009 edition of the MUTCD.
Actual designation of revision numbers will depend on the relative
timing of any Final Rules that may be issued by the FHWA as a result of
the April 22, 2010, NPA, this NPA, and any other NPAs regarding the
MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 75 FR 20935, April 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action would be a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and
within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to the
significant public interest in issues surrounding the MUTCD. This
action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to improve
regulation. In particular, this action is consistent with, and can be
seen as directly responsive to, the requirements of Executive Order
13563, and in particular its requirement for retrospective analysis of
existing rules (section 6), with an emphasis on streamlining its
regulations. This approach is also consistent with Presidential
Memorandum, Administrative Flexibility, which calls for reducing
burdens and promoting flexibility for State and local governments.
The proposed changes in the MUTCD would reduce burdens on State and
local government in the application of traffic control devices. They
would provide additional clarification, guidance, and flexibility to
such governments. The uniform application of traffic control devices
will greatly improve roadway safety and traffic operations efficiency.
The standards, guidance, options, and support are also used to create
uniformity and to enhance safety and mobility. The proposed changes in
this rulemaking will not require the expenditure of funds, but rather
will provide State and local governments with the flexibility to
allocate scarce financial resources based on local conditions and the
useful service life of its traffic control devices. It is anticipated
that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal and indeed
costs and burdens will be reduced, not increased; therefore, a full
regulatory evaluation is not required.
As noted, this action streamlines existing significant regulation
to reduce burden and promote the flexibilities of State and local
governments under Executive Order 13563. In response to concerns about
the potential impact of previously adopted MUTCD compliance dates on
State and local governments in the current economic climate, the FHWA
published a Request for Comments on traffic control device compliance
dates. The FHWA asked for responses to a series of seven questions
about compliance dates, their benefits and potential economic impacts,
especially economic hardships to State and local governments that might
result from specific target compliance dates for upgrading certain non-
compliant existing devices. The responses received from that notice
were considered in the development of this proposal. The FHWA
anticipates that this proposed rulemaking will reduce the impacts of
compliance dates on State and local highway agencies and will
streamline and simplify information contained in the MUTCD.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes
on small entities and anticipates that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would reduce burdens and provide clarification and
additional flexibility, and would not require an expenditure of funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48,
March 22, 1995). On the contrary, the proposed changes provide
additional guidance, flexibility, and clarification and would not
require an expenditure of funds. This action would not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $140.8 million or more in any 1 year (2
U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be
proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects
on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999. This
action would increase flexibility for State and local governments. The
FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rulemaking will not
preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability
to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The MUTCD is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. These proposed
amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of Transportation's
authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to promulgate uniform
guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of the highway. The
overriding safety benefits of the uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD
are shared by all of the State and local governments, and changes made
to this rule are directed at enhancing safety. In general, the proposed
amendments increase flexibility for States and local governments. To
the extent that these proposed amendments override any existing State
requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the
interest of national uniformity.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and
would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
[[Page 54162]]
determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that
this action does not contain collection information requirements for
purposes of the PRA.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking
of private property or otherwise have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655
Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Issued on: August 23, 2011.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title
23, Code of Federal Regulations part 655 as follows:
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets
and Highways--[Amended]
2. Revise Sec. 655.601(a), to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose.
* * * * *
(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), 2009 Edition, with Revision(s) number ------
[revision number to be inserted] incorporated, FHWA, dated --------
[date to be inserted]. This publication is incorporated by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is on file at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA call (202) 741-6030, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. It is available for inspection and
copying at the Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-1993, as provided in 49
CFR part 7. The text is also available from the FHWA Office of
Operations Web site at: http//mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-22006 Filed 8-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P