[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 150 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40484-40487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19721]



[[Page 40483]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Highway Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



23 CFR Part 655



Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual Amendments; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 150 / Friday, August 2, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 40484]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. 96-15]
RIN 2125-AD68


National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Standards for 
Center Line and Edge Line Markings

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed admendment for the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices (MUTCD); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 655, subpart F, and recognized as the national 
standard for traffic control on all public roads. Sec. 406 of the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1993, requires that the MUTCD include a national standard to define the 
roads that must have center line or edge line markings or both, 
provided that in setting such a standard, consideration be given to the 
functional classification of roads, traffic volumes, and the number and 
width of lanes. The MUTCD amendments herein proposed are intended to 
improve traffic operations and safety by providing national standards 
and guidance to establish uniform application and use of center line 
and edge line markings on streets and highways.

DATES: Submit written, signed comments on or before May 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 96-15, 
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All comments received will be available 
for examination at the above address between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 
e.t., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. Those desiring 
notifications of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest D. L. Huckaby, Office of 
Highway Safety (HHS-10), (202) 366-9064; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, 
Office of Chief Counsel (HCC-20), (202) 366-0834, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MUTCD is approved by the FHWA as the 
national standard for all streets and highways open to public travel. 
The MUTCD is available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 
CFR part 7, appendix D. It may be purchased for $44.00 from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, DC 20402, stock no. 050-001-00308-2. The FHWA both receives 
and initiates requests for amendments to the MUTCD. Each request is 
assigned an identification number that shows, by Roman numeral, the 
part of the MUTCD affected and, by Arabic numeral, the order in which 
the request was received. The MUTCD request identification number for 
the amendments in this rulemaking is III-73 (Change) and is titled 
``Standards for Center Line and Edge Line Markings.''
    This notice is being issued to provide an opportunity to review and 
comment on the proposed amendments to the MUTCD. The FHWA will issue a 
final rule after considering the comments offered.

Proposed Amendment

    Section 406 of the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY ending September 30, 1993, Pub. L. 
102-388, 106 Stat 1520, requires that the MUTCD include a standard to 
define the roads that must have center line or edge line markings or 
both, provided that in setting such a standard, consideration be given 
to the functional classification of roads, traffic volumes, and the 
number and width of lanes.

Definitions

    The proposed amendment uses terminology that is in compliance with 
the MUTCD definitions. As included in the Section 1A-9 of the MUTCD, 
the term ``roadway'' shall be defined as: ``That portion of a highway 
improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive 
of parking and auxiliary lanes, berms, and shoulders. In the event a 
highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term `roadway' as 
used herein, refers to any such roadway separately, but not to all such 
roads collectively.'' Center Line Marking
    The FHWA proposes replacing the fifth paragraph of Section 3B-1 of 
the 1988 version of the MUTCD with the following:
    Center line markings shall be placed on paved, undivided 2-way 
streets and highways having the characteristics as follows:
    1. Rural arterials and collectors with roadways 18 feet or more in 
width and an average daily traffic (ADT) of 1000 or more.
    2. Urban arterials and collectors with roadways 20 feet or more in 
width and an ADT of 2000 or more.
    3. Roadways with 3 lanes or more.
    Center line markings should be placed on paved, undivided 2-way 
streets and highways having the following characteristics:
    1. Rural roadways 18 feet or more in width with an ADT of 500 or 
more.
    2. Urban roadways 20 feet or more in width with an ADT of 1000 or 
more.
    3. Roadways were engineering studies indicate a need.
     Center line markings may be placed on any undivided 2-way streets 
and highways.
    In determining whether to place centerline markings on roadways 
less than 16 feet wide, the risk of vehicles on pavement edges or of 
drivers being adversely affected by parked vehicles may be considered. 
Also when edge line markings are used the risk of persistent vehicle 
encroachment into the lane of opposing traffic may be considered.

Edge Line Marking

    The FHWA proposes replacing the second paragraph of Section 3B-6 
with the following:
    Edge line markings shall be white except that on the left edge of 
each roadway of divided streets and highways, and 1-way roadways in the 
direction of travel, they shall be yellow.
    Edge line markings shall be placed on paved streets and highways of 
the following types or with the following characteristics, except when 
roadway edges are defined by curbs and/or by markings for parking 
spaces:

1. Freeways,
2. Expressways, and
3. Rural arterials.

    Edge line markings should be placed on paved streets and highways 
with the following characteristics, except when roadway edges are 
defined by curbs and/or by markings for parking spaces:

1. Rural collectors 20 feet or more in width,
2. Paved streets and highways where an engineering study indicates a 
need.

    Edge line markings may be placed on other classes of streets and 
highways with or without center line markings.

Compliance Date

     The proposed compliance date for the proposed amendments is three 
years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.
     When reviewing the proposed amendments, readers should consider 
the additional center line marking

[[Page 40485]]

standards in the MUTCD Section 3B-3, ``No-Passing Zone Markings'' which 
states:
    Where center line markings are installed, no-passing zones shall be 
established at vertical and horizontal curves and elsewhere on two- and 
three-lane highways where an engineering study indicates passing must 
be prohibited because of inadequate sight distances or other special 
conditions. Specific reference is made to section 11-307 UVC Revised 
1968.
    A no-passing zone shall be marked by either a one direction, no-
passing markings (no. 5, section 3A-7) or a two direction, no-passing 
markings (no. 6, section 3A-7) as illustrated in figure 3-2b.

Background

Current Practice

    Part III of the current MUTCD, the 1988 edition, sets forth basic 
principles and prescribes standards and guidelines for markings on all 
streets and highways open to public travel in the United States. The 
primary purposes of center line markings are to separate opposing 
directions of traffic flows, and to provide positive guidance to 
drivers by defining the left limit of a driver's field of safe travel 
and no-passing zones. The primary purpose of edge line markings is to 
provide positive guidance by defining the right and left limits of a 
driver's field of safe travel.
    Sections 3B-1 and 3B-6 of the MUTCD state the following regarding 
the roadways on which center line and edge line marking, respectively, 
are recommended:
    In Section 3B-1:
    Center line markings are recommended on paved highways under the 
following conditions:
    1. In rural districts on two-lane pavements 16 feet or more in 
width with prevailing speeds of greater than 35 mph.
    2. In residential or business districts on through highways where 
there are significant traffic volumes.
    3. On undivided pavements of four or more lanes.
    4. At other locations where an engineering study indicates a need 
for them.
    In Section 3B-6:
    Edge line markings shall be provided on Interstate highways, on 
rural multilane highways, and may be used on other classes of roads.

Previous Proposal

    Concurrently with the preparation of the 1988 edition of the MUTCD, 
the FHWA proposed an amendment to the MUTCD on center line markings. In 
response to a February 20, 1985, petition from the Center for Auto 
Safety, designated by FHWA as MUTCD request III-35 (Change) titled 
``Warrants for Center Line Pavement Markings,'' the FHWA considered 
establishing warrants for center line markings. The FHWA's proposed 
amendments to the MUTCD were made available to the public for review 
and comment in FHWA Docket No. 87-21 on January 27, 1988, as published 
at 53 FR 2233. At that time the FHWA contended that minimum standards 
should be established for center line markings. The FHWA received 200 
comments in response to the proposed amendments in FHWA Docket No. 87-
21. Most of the commenters implied that: (1) The center line and edge 
line markings' standards and guidelines contained in the MUTCD were 
satisfactory, and (2) no additional standards were needed at that time. 
A termination notice for the rulemaking was published on January 23, 
1989, at 54 FR 2998. Although denying the request for change in the 
termination notice, the FHWA stated that it would consider alternative 
actions necessary to better determine standards responsive to the 
motorists' needs and to the concerns expressed in the docket comments.
    After the current 1988 edition of the MUTCD was published, a 
decision was made by the FHWA on January 6, 1988, at 53 FR 236, to 
postpone rulemaking on all requests for revisions to the MUTCD except 
those changes that would significantly impact safety. The FHWA 
announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD on January 10, 
1992, at 57 FR 1134.

Findings of Research

    In Appendix G, Analysis of Need for Centerline Stripes, of the 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 214, ``Design and 
Traffic Control Guidelines for Low-Volume Rural Roads,'' 1 the 
author, Mr. John Glennon, concludes that center line markings are 
justified by a benefit-cost tradeoff for low volume roads with ADT's 
above 300 vpd. Mr. Glennon cautioned, however, that the exact decision 
point is sensitive to the assumed accident costs and the obtainable 
accident reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     1 This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed at 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. A copy is in the files for 
FHWA Docket No. 96-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Messrs. Richard N. Schwab and Donald G. Capelle reported on 
findings and recommendations that they deduced from FHWA research 
studies on roadway delineation in an article titled ``Is Delineation 
Needed,'' in the May 1980 issue of the ``ITE Journal.'' 2 They 
reported that center line markings can be cost beneficial at an ADT as 
low as 50 vpd, and that center line markings should be used on any 
paved roadway surface that will retain markings and that carries two-
way traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2 This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed at 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. A copy is in the files for 
FHWA Docket No. 96-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Mr. Ted R. Miller in a paper, ``Benefit-Cost Analysis 
of Lane Marking,'' 3 contained in Transportation Research Record 
1334 published in 1992, even at 500 ADT, edge lines on rural two-lane 
roads yield safety benefits of $17.00 for every dollar invested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     3 This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed at 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. A copy is in the files for 
FHFWA Docket No. 96-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Present Practice

    The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) conducted 
a survey of current State practices in 1993 and published the results 
in a 1994 report, ``Pavement Marking Programs and Practices.'' 4 
The survey showed that for the 794,917 miles of State roadway in the 42 
responding States, 80 percent received both center line and edge line 
markings, while 12 percent received only center line markings. The 8 
percent receiving neither center line nor edge line markings were 
unpaved or had an ADT of 300 vpd or less in rural areas. Either center 
line and edge line markings, or center line markings only are placed on 
all State roadways in 27, or 77 percent, of 35 responding States. 
Several States indicated that edge line markings are placed on all 
roadways 20 feet or more in width and several said that edge line 
markings were not used on roadways less than 16 feet in width.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     4 This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed at 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. A copy is in the files for 
FHWA Docket No. 96-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NC) 
conducted three surveys between 1989 and 1994 to collect information 
from States and many local jurisdictions about their use of center line 
and edge line markings. The surveys focused on and provided insight 
regarding the best practices and the state of the practice by States 
and local governments. The surveys showed that most States are placing 
center line and edge line markings on the highways that are under the 
State jurisdiction. Also, the city governments preferred higher ADT 
limits for requiring center line markings than did the State 
governments.

[[Page 40486]]

Proposals by Others

    Since 1948 the NC has served as an independent organization 
providing professional ideas on the content of the MUTCD, which is 
published by the FHWA. Beginning in 1980, the responsibilities of the 
NC were to initiate, review, or comment on proposed changes to the 
MUTCD. As such, the NC had the opportunity to review proposals and make 
recommendations to the FHWA in the same manner as any other member of 
the public. It is composed of sponsoring organizations that have 
substantial and continuing interest in traffic control.
    The NC has been drafting proposals for amending the next version of 
the MUTCD. The NC proposal for Sections 3B-1 and 3B-6 contain mandatory 
standards, recommended guidance, and permissive options. The NC 
proposal also includes the types of criteria required by the Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, of 1993.
    The proposed NC amendment to the fifth paragraph in Section 3B-1 
provides for the use of center line markings as follows. The definition 
of the ``traveled way'' in the proposal is the portion of the roadway 
for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders, and exclusive of 
parking lanes which are not excluded in the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials' definition.
STANDARD
    Center line markings shall be placed on paved, undivided streets 
and highways as follows:
    1. All rural arterials and collectors with a traveled way 18 feet 
or more in width with an ADT of 1000 or greater.
    2. All urban arterials and collectors with a traveled way 20 feet 
or more in width with an ADT of 5000 or greater.
    3. All two-way streets and highways having three or more travel 
lanes.
GUIDANCE
    Center line markings should be placed on paved, undivided streets 
and highways as follows:
    1. Urban arterials and collectors with a traveled way 20 feet or 
more in width with an ADT of 2500 or greater.
    2. At other locations where an engineering study indicates a need 
for them.
OPTION
    Center line markings may be placed on other paved, undivided 
streets and highways with a traveled way of 16 feet or more in width.
    The proposed NC amendments in Section 3B-6 provide for the use of 
edge line markings as follows:
STANDARD
    Edge line markings shall be placed on all freeways, expressways, 
and on all rural arterials with a traveled way 20 feet or more in 
width.
GUIDANCE
    Edge line markings should be placed on paved streets and highways 
as follows:
    1. Rural collectors with a traveled way 20 feet or more in width 
and where the edge of the traveled way is not otherwise delineated with 
curbs or other pavement markings.
    2. At other locations where an engineering study indicates a need 
for them.
OPTION
    Edge line markings may be placed on streets and highways with or 
without center line markings.
    The ATSSA, which is one of the NC sponsoring organizations, had 
supported an earlier and similar draft of the above NC proposed 
amendments to the MUTCD Sections 3B-1 and 3B-6, with the following 
exceptions:
    In Section 3B-1, for the use of center line markings, the ATSSA 
recommends that the first standard use an ADT of 500 vpd in lieu of an 
ADT of 1000 vpd and that the second standard use an ADT of 2000 vpd in 
lieu of an ADT of 5000 vpd. The ATSSA also recommends that the first 
guidance statement use 18 feet or more in lieu of 20 feet or more for 
the travel way width criteria, and an ADT of 1500 vpd in lieu of an ADT 
of 2500 vpd. The ATSSA reasons for recommending the lower criteria 
include current State practices discussed in NCHRP Synthesis of Highway 
Practice No. 138, ``Pavement Markings: Materials and Application for 
Extended Service Life'' 5 dated 1988, that concludes that an ADT 
of 300 or greater warrants markings based on opposing traffic per day; 
and previously mentioned paper, ``Benefit-Cost Analysis of Lane 
Marking,'' 6 contained in Transportation Research Record 1334 
dated 1992, that reports that pavement striping yields benefits of 
$60.00 for every dollar spent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     5 This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed at 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. A copy is in the files for 
FHWA Docket No. 96-15.
     6 This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed at 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. A copy is in the files for 
FHWA Docket No. 96-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 3B-6, for the use of edge line markings, the ATSSA 
recommends adding the following as a guidance statement: ``Pavement 
edge line markings should be used where there is no ambient light, 
minimum sight distance, or the presence of other road hazards such as 
soft shoulder, steep drop-offs, or unprotected long slopes.''

Discussion of Amendments

    A review of above-mentioned research and the NC and ATSSA surveys 
of current State and local government practices showed that center line 
and edge line markings are beneficial and that most States currently 
use them extensively on their roadways.
    The FHWA proposed amendments to the MUTCD contain national 
standards and guidance for determining the streets and highways on 
which placement of center line markings and edge line markings are both 
required or recommended. The criteria in these standards and guidance 
provide for a uniform application on roadways while considering the 
flexibility needed by States and other jurisdictions in applying 
limited resources for improved safety. The proposed amendments also 
reflect current acceptable practice since many States are currently 
providing the required center line and edge line markings or better at 
their own discretion.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic 
impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. The proposed MUTCD changes 
in this notice contain additional guidance and requirements for the 
application of center line and edge line markings on roadways. The FHWA 
expects that application uniformity will be improved at little 
additional expense to the public agencies or the motoring public. 
Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

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 this proposed 
action on small entities, including small governments. This notice of 
proposed rulemaking adds some alternative traffic control devices and 
only a very limited number

[[Page 40487]]

of new or changed requirements. Most of the proposed changes are 
expanded guidance and clarification information. Based on this 
evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The MUTCD is 
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, which requires 
that changes to the national standards issued by the FHWA shall be 
adopted by the States or other Federal agencies within two years of 
issuance. This proposed amendment is in keeping with the Secretary of 
Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 315 to promulgate 
uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of the 
highway.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    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. To the extent that these amendments override any existing 
State requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the 
interests of national uniformity.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 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 et seq.) and has 
determined that this action 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 number 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.

(23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a), 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32, 655.601, 
655.602, 655.603; 49 CFR 1.48)

    Issued on: July 24, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-19721 Filed 8-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P