[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