[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9-14]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33806]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket Nos. 97-2295 (96-47), 97-2335 (96-15), and 97-3032]
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: Final amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices (MUTCD).

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

SUMMARY: This document contains amendments to the MUTCD as adopted by 
the FHWA. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, 
subpart F and recognized as the national standard for traffic control 
devices on all public roads.
    The amendments herein change various sections of Part 3, Markings, 
of the MUTCD. The FHWA is adopting the amendments pursuant to section 
406 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, FY 1993, which 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 FHWA has also 
received requests to include such standards in the MUTCD for center 
line or edge line markings. The MUTCD amendments contain the 
requirements and recommendations for the uniform application and use of 
center line and edge line markings on streets and highways. The 
amendments are intended to improve traffic operations and safety 
through consistent and uniform use of such markings.

DATES: The final rule is effective January 3, 2000. Incorporation by 
reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2000.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: 
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's 
database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    The text for these sections of the MUTCD is available from the FHWA 
Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1) or from the FHWA Home Page 
at the URL: http://www.ohs.fhwa.dot.gov/devices/mutcd.html. Please note 
that the current rewrite sections contained in this docket for MUTCD 
Part 3 will take approximately 8 weeks from the date of publication 
before they will be available at this web site.

Background

    The 1988 MUTCD is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed in 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased for $57.00 (Domestic) 
or $71.25 (Foreign) from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, 
Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. The purchase of the MUTCD includes the 1993 
revision of Part 6, Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for 
Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Incident 
Management Operation, dated September 1993.
    The FHWA both receives and initiates requests for amendments to the 
MUTCD. Each request is assigned an identification number which 
indicates by Roman numeral, the organizational 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 
promulgated by this final rule is MUTCD Request III-73 (Change), titled 
``Standards for Center Line and Edge Line Markings.'' The text changes 
will be published in the next edition of the MUTCD.
    The FHWA is promulgating this final rule in response to MUTCD 
Request III-73 (Change) as addressed in the proposed rules in Docket 
Nos. 96-15 and 96-47, to MUTCD Request III-35 (Change) as addressed in 
Docket No. 87-21, and to section 406 of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 1993 (Pub. 
L. 102-388, 106 stat. 1520, at 1564). The FHWA rearranged its docket 
system to accord with the electronic system adopted by the Department 
of Transportation in 1997. The FHWA Docket Numbers 96-15 and 96-47 were 
transferred and scanned as FHWA Docket Numbers 97-2335 and 97-2295, 
respectively. The amendments to the MUTCD and the related actions are 
contained within this document as well as a discussion summarizing the 
basis for the amendments.
    The FHWA first proposed center line and edge line standards that 
were published January 27, 1988, at 53 FR 2233 in response to MUTCD 
Request III-35 (Change). The majority of the commenters believed that 
the then existing standards did not need to be changed. The FHWA 
published a decision on January 23, 1989, at 54 FR 2298 that it was not 
appropriate to set national standards for centerline markings at that 
time. The decision also stated that the FHWA would consider

[[Page 10]]

alternative actions to better determine standards that are responsive 
to the motorists needs and to the concerns expressed in the docket 
comments.
    This document contains the disposition of proposed standards for 
the 1988 MUTCD as published on August 2, 1996, at 61 FR 40484. It also 
discusses the disposition of an alternative proposed standard 
subsequently published on January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691 as part of the 
proposed future edition of the MUTCD.
    In developing these amendments to the 1988 MUTCD, the FHWA has 
reviewed the comments received in response to the FHWA dockets and 
other information related to the MUTCD and the proposals.

Definitions

    For the purposes of this standard, the following terms shall be 
defined by the road jurisdiction in accordance with MUTCD Section 1A-9, 
Definitions of Words and Phrases. The FHWA is considering, through a 
series of proposed rules, the addition of such terms and definitions in 
a future edition of the MUTCD. The proposed definitions of ``arterial 
highway,'' ``collector highway,'' and ``traveled way'' were contained 
in a proposed rule published at 62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997, in 
FHWA Docket 97-3032. The other terms may be included in future proposed 
rulemaking for the future edition of the MUTCD based on need and public 
requests.
    The following definitions should be used for the terms contained in 
the proposed rule and this final rule:
    Roadway shall mean that portion of a highway improved, designed or 
ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk, berm 
or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm or shoulder is used by 
persons riding bicycles or other human powered vehicles. In the event a 
highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term ``roadway'' as 
used herein shall refer to any such ``roadway'' separately but not to 
all such roadways collectively. Roadway includes parking lanes.
    Traveled way shall mean that portion of the roadway excluding the 
parking lanes.
    Collector highway shall mean a general term denoting a highway 
which in rural areas connects small towns and local highways to 
arterial highways, and in urban areas provides land access and traffic 
circulation within residential, commercial and business areas and 
connects local highways to the arterial highways. This highway may be 
designated as part of a collector highway system.
    Arterial highway shall mean a general term denoting a highway 
primarily used by through traffic, usually on a continuous route or a 
highway designated as part of an arterial highway system.

Amendments to the MUTCD

    The FHWA replaces 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, 2-way traveled ways 
on streets and highways having one or more of the following 
characteristics:
    1. Urban and rural arterials and collectors with traveled ways 6 
meters (20 feet) or more in width with an ADT of 6000 or greater.
    2. Urban and rural traveled ways with 3 lanes or greater.
    Center line markings should be placed on paved, 2-way traveled ways 
on streets and highways having the following characteristics:
    1. Urban arterials and collectors with traveled ways 6 meters (20 
feet) or more in width with an ADT of 4000 or greater.
    2. Rural arterials and collectors with traveled ways 5.4 meters (18 
feet) or more in width with an ADT of 3000 or greater.
    Center line markings may be placed on other 2-way traveled ways on 
any street and highway.
    On traveled ways less than 4.8 meters (16 feet) wide, an 
engineering study should be used in determining whether to place center 
line markings on traveled ways due to traffic encroaching on the 
pavement edges, due to traffic being affected by parked vehicles, and 
due to traffic encroachment into the lane of opposing traffic where 
edge line markings are used.
    The FHWA replaces the second paragraph of section 3B-6 of the 1988 
version of the MUTCD with the following:
    Edge line markings shall be white, except they shall be yellow for 
the left edge in the direction of travel of the traveled ways of a 
divided or one way street or highway.
    Edge line markings shall be placed for paved traveled ways on 
streets and highways with the following characteristics:
    1. Freeways,
    2. Expressways, and
    3. Rural arterials with traveled ways 6 meters (20 feet) or more in 
width with an ADT of 6000 or greater.
    Edge line markings should be placed on paved travel ways for 
streets and highways with the following characteristics:
    1. Rural collectors with traveled ways 6 meters (20 feet) or more 
in width.
    2. Other paved streets and highways where engineering study 
indicates a need.
    Edge line markings may be placed on the traveled way on any other 
street or highway with or without center line markings.
    Edge line markings may be excluded based on engineering judgment 
where the travel way edges are delineated by curbs or other markings.

Compliance Date

    Since the changed standards and guidelines for lane markings may 
impose some additional costs to State and local jurisdictions, the FHWA 
is establishing a compliance date for the installation of new markings. 
The compliance date is 3 years after the effective date of this final 
rule or when pavement lane markings are replaced within an established 
pavement marking program, or when the highway is resurfaced or 
reconstructed, whichever date is earlier. This will allow the 
replacement of the pavement lane markings after the normal service life 
of the markings.

Discussion of Amendment

    The FHWA believes that these new standards will effectively and 
practically enhance highway safety and traffic operations by requiring 
and recommending the minimum use of center line and edge line markings 
throughout the nation for specific classes of streets and highways as 
defined by the standards. The typical road user's expectancies can be 
met through a nationally uniform and consistent application of these 
markings for warning, guidance, and delineation purposes in accordance 
with these standards.
    The standards require the use of these markings for paved traveled 
ways of streets and highways with the highest traffic volumes and 
design standards in the nation. The standards also contain 
recommendations and information to support nationally uniform placing 
of markings on other roads.
    Based on the information submitted to the FHWA, the FHWA believes 
that most of the required and recommended markings in accordance with 
these standards are currently in place. Generally, the markings have 
been provided by most jurisdictions as a result of good engineering 
practices, and in some cases, as a result of their own regulations and 
policies.

[[Page 11]]

    The new standards will help assure that all road jurisdictions 
provide at least the required minimum markings when applicable. This 
change will require some, mostly local, jurisdictions to provide the 
markings on some roads for the first time. The FHWA estimates that the 
additional costs nationwide to meet the new minimum requirements could 
total approximately $10 million to $20 million per year. Additional 
costs may be incurred at a jurisdiction's discretion if they place 
markings in accordance with the FHWA recommendations and information 
for markings. These costs, in most cases, are eligible for Federal or 
Federal-aid funding.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, the FHWA initially proposed 
standards for which road locations would require a center line in FHWA 
Docket No. 87-21 in response to MUTCD Request III-35 (Change), 
``Warrants for Center Line Pavement Markings.'' The FHWA terminated 
that docket on January 23, 1989, at 54 FR 2998 without change to the 
MUTCD and 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. As a result, and 
pursuant to section 406 of the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 1993, and other requests, the FHWA 
initiated MUTCD Request III-73 (Change), ``Standards for Center Line 
and Edge Line Markings.''
    In response to this request, the FHWA published in Docket 96-15 on 
August 2, 1996, at 61 FR 40484, the proposed changes for the 1988 
MUTCD.
    In general, the public comments received for this docket indicated 
that the proposed standards would be too extensive in the number of 
additional roads required to be marked and in the associated costs.
    Many commenters for this docket indicated that a proposed standard 
submitted by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(NCUTCD) and published with the proposed rule would reasonably fulfill 
the road user needs for markings while economically standardizing the 
current and proven marking practices of most road jurisdictions.
    Subsequently, in Docket No. 96-47 on January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691, 
the FHWA published proposed marking standards for a future edition of 
the MUTCD and included for public comment a different proposed standard 
that was similar to the proposed standard submitted by the NCUTCD in 
Docket 96-15. Therefore, in developing this final rule, the FHWA 
assessed public comments on the two differing proposed standards 
contained in Dockets 96-15 and 96-47.
    An analysis of Docket 96-15 reveals that over half of the comments 
were opposed to the proposed amendment. In general, the comments stated 
that the warrants were too restrictive and/or too expensive. A similar 
analysis of Docket 96-47 reveals that less than ten percent of the 
comments stated that the warrants were too restrictive and/or too 
expensive.
    This final rule promulgates marking standards that improve the 
safety of road users, while being responsive to the public comments 
submitted to the dockets. The proposed amendment was changed by 
adjusting the values for traveled way width and Average Daily Traffic 
(ADT) that is responsive to the public comments submitted to the 
dockets while still enhancing highway safety, traffic operations, and 
considering the costs to local jurisdictions.
    This final rule also fulfills the requirements of section 406 of 
the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, FY 1993. The FHWA considers the number and width of lanes criteria 
required by section 406 to be satisfied by use of the traveled way 
width criteria in the standard because of the interrelations of these 
criteria as contained in road design standards used by most 
jurisdictions and referenced in the MUTCD.
    For the proposed standard published August 2, 1996, in Docket No. 
96-15, the 103 commenters submitted responses to the docket including 
10 States, 32 counties, 46 municipalities, 6 consultants, 6 local 
government groups, 2 individuals, and 1 transportation group. Six 
commenters supported the entire proposed standard. The main issues and 
concerns discussed by most commenters who opposed the proposed 
standards included the establishing of required standards in lieu of 
recommended standards, the potential of additional costs, the need to 
clearly define the criteria, and the potential traffic and safety 
impacts. The FHWA believes that the various modifications to the 
proposed standards in preparing the standards herein adequately address 
and resolve the majority of commenter objections to the standards. The 
FHWA also believes that the final rule will enhance safety for highway 
users.
    Many commenters opposed establishing the mandatory requirements 
within the MUTCD for the markings placement standards and preferred the 
use of recommendations. The primary reasons included reduction in a 
road jurisdiction's engineering judgment and their potential increases 
in liability in determining where limited markings resources should be 
best applied based on traffic and safety needs. Many were concerned 
that the requirements did not allow for engineering judgment when 
safety, traffic and resource considerations may determine the special 
needs for markings.
    The final rule was modified to allow adjustments when an 
engineering study indicates the markings would cause potential safety 
hazards. Twenty-six commenters were concerned about the potential 
liability to the highway jurisdictions if some markings do not 
continuously meet the proposed new requirements. Another liability 
concern was the limited available engineering judgment for adjusting 
resources that may be inadequate to provide for the required as well as 
additionally critical marking needs.
    The FHWA modified the criteria values to reduce the number of roads 
requiring markings, and to provide for more engineering judgment based 
on the State and local safety and traffic needs while still improving 
safety. The FHWA also addressed these concerns by adding a provision 
which allows engineering studies and engineering judgment to determine 
the marking requirements for safety issues. The FHWA believes that the 
minimum national requirements for the markings are needed pursuit to 
the requirements in section 406 and to help improve the uniform 
application of the markings on a national basis for the roads which can 
have the most substantial impacts on safety and traffic operations.
    Many commenters were concerned about the potential additional 
costs, mostly for the local jurisdictions, associated with installing 
and maintaining the required markings, especially where no or minimal 
markings are currently in place. Most States currently provide the 
markings which would be required by the rule, but local jurisdictions 
vary in compliance. Originally, the FHWA estimated that the proposed 
requirements could have increased the marking costs nationwide by 
approximately $50 million to $100 million.
    Twenty commenters indicated acceptance of the National Committee on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) proposed standards which would 
reduce the number of roads requiring the markings and, therefore, 
reduce the required costs. The FHWA modified the requirements to 
reflect the NCUTCD criteria and added provisions

[[Page 12]]

for increased engineering judgment in marking placement. The FHWA 
believes that these modifications will still improve the overall safety 
of the Nation's highways while mitigating the potential increased costs 
to State and local jurisdictions.
    Some commenters were concerned with the cost of surveying the roads 
to determine where the markings would be required in each jurisdiction. 
The FHWA believes that jurisdictions should be aware of the ADT's and 
widths of the major roadways now specified in the standards and that 
the ADT's are an estimate that can be performed at a jurisdiction's 
judgment. Based on the traveled way widths and ADT's in this final rule 
the estimated costs are significantly reduced. The FHWA now estimates 
that the additional total cost nationwide to meet the new minimum 
requirements may total only $10 million to $20 million per year. These 
costs, in most cases, are eligible for Federal or Federal-aid funding 
at the jurisdictions' judgment and, therefore, these standards would 
not constitute an unfunded Federal mandate as mentioned by some 
commenters.
    Many commenters requested the addition of definitions to help 
define the limits of the standards. Several commenters requested the 
definitions for the terms ``arterial,'' ``collector,'' ``urban,'' 
``rural,'' and ``paved'' roads as contained in the standards. The terms 
may be defined by the road jurisdiction in accordance with MUTCD 
section 1A-9 until they are defined in the MUTCD. The FHWA is presently 
developing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will include these 
definitions.
    The FHWA is currently considering, through a series of proposed 
rules, the addition of definitions for such terms in the future version 
of the MUTCD. The proposed definitions for the terms ``arterial 
highway,'' ``collector highway,'' and ``traveled way'' were published 
December 5, 1997, in Docket No. 97-3032 for potential inclusion in the 
future edition of the MUTCD. The other terms may be included in future 
proposed rules for the future edition of the MUTCD based on need and 
public requests. Example definitions which may be used for the terms in 
the marking standard contained herein are discussed in the 
``Definitions'' section of this rulemaking.
    One State commented that the terms ``urban'' and ``rural'' should 
not be defined in the MUTCD because various jurisdictions adequately, 
but differently, define these terms by statute, ordinance, or other 
regulation for the purposes of the marking standards. This final rule 
does not define ``rural'' and ``urban,'' but the terms are being 
defined as part of the MUTCD update.
    Approximately fifty percent of the commenters recommended changing 
the criteria and/or their values within the marking standards. 
Approximately twenty five percent of the commenters regarding the 
center line criteria and twenty percent regarding the edge lines 
criteria proposed changing one or more of the proposed criteria for the 
average daily traffic (ADT) or the road width. The main reason for 
changing the criteria was to reduce costs and allow more engineering 
judgment. Thirty-five percent of the commenters recommended other types 
of criteria for marking installations, such as, engineering judgment, 
parking, curbs, speed, crash history, and pavement surface. These 
values may be added by the jurisdictions, but the FHWA believes the 
standards provide adequate and safety marking criteria based on the 
majority of public comments and studies. The FHWA modified the criteria 
values to reduce the number of roads that require the markings and 
added provisions for increased engineering judgment in marking 
placement.
    The FHWA also changed the basis of the marking standard to use 
``traveled way,'' as used in the NCUTCD and American Traffic Safety 
Services Association (ATSSA) proposals rather than ``roadway'' to 
eliminate the parking lanes from the width criteria issues discussed by 
many commenters in the width criteria. The FHWA chose to use ``traveled 
way'' instead of ``roadway'' because the AASHTO definition of 
``roadway'' includes the shoulder, whereas the MUTCD definition does 
not.
    Commenters also submitted several safety concerns related to the 
proposed requirements. Commenters indicated that using the term 
``roadway'' rather than ``traveled way'' which was recommended in the 
NCUTCD and ATSSA proposed standards would necessitate the use of larger 
width criteria values to avoid potential unsafe traffic conflicts with 
vehicles in the parking lanes. The FHWA modified the requirements by 
basing the standards on traveled way width, which does not include the 
parking lanes, in place of roadway width.
    The FHWA also added an engineering judgment provision which 
determines marking requirements for safety concerns, such as, the 
parking conflicts. Fifteen commenters indicated that the markings of 
some lower volume roads, such as, in residential areas, may cause 
increased speeds or additional traffic on these roads which could 
potentially reduce safety. They indicated that road users typically 
would expect and interpret the markings to indicate a major road and 
that residents typically resist such markings on their roads. Other 
commenters indicated that the types of crashes which occur at some 
locations, especially in municipalities, are not related to and would 
not be reduced by placing the markings.
    The FHWA added a provision to allow engineering judgment for safety 
reasons which will assist jurisdictions in providing markings which 
improve safety. The FHWA also modified the proposed rule by increasing 
the traffic volume criteria values for roads requiring center lines to 
allow more engineering judgment on a larger number of lower volume 
roads.
    The FHWA subsequently published a separate NPA on January 6, 1997, 
in FHWA Docket No. 97-47 including entire Part 3, Markings, for a 
proposed future version of the MUTCD. Based on the previous comments to 
Docket No. 96-15, the FHWA proposed alternative proposed standards, 
called Warrants, for center line and edge line markings that were 
similar to the proposed standards submitted by the NCUTCD for Docket 
No. 96-15.
    Of the 32 commenters responding to the proposed Part 3, sixteen 
commenters discussed the alternative proposed standards for center line 
and edge line markings warrants. The commenters' main issues were 
similar to those submitted for Docket No. 96-15. Three commenters 
recommended the use of guidance rather than requirements. Four State 
DOT commenters discussed concern regarding additional cost and 
abilities of local jurisdictions to place and maintain additional 
required markings. Two commenters were concerned about the safe passing 
of parked vehicles when center line is in place on narrow roadways. 
Five commenters requested definitions for such terms as ``arterial,'' 
``collector,'' ``urban,'' ``rural,'' ``paved,'' and ``refuge'' 
contained in the proposed standards. Five commenters discussed the 
criteria and criteria values, including one State DOT, that indicated 
that the local jurisdictions would meet the proposed standards. The 
issues raised by commenters in this docket were similar to issues 
submitted by commenters and appropriately addressed by FHWA as 
discussed above for Docket No. 96-15.

[[Page 13]]

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. Based on the information 
submitted to the FHWA, the FHWA has concluded that most of the required 
marking and much of the recommended markings in accordance with these 
standards are currently in place as a result of common engineering 
practices and, in some cases, State and local jurisdiction regulations 
and policies. The new standards will help assure that all road 
jurisdictions provide at least the required minimum markings when 
applicable. This change will require some, mostly local, jurisdictions, 
to provide the markings on some roads for the first time. The FHWA 
estimates that the additional costs nationwide to meet the new minimum 
requirements could total approximately $10 million to $20 million per 
year. This is based on an average of 1000 to 2000 local jurisdictions 
needing some additional markings at an average cost of $20,000 per 
jurisdiction for markings with an average life cycle of 2 years. 
Additional costs may be incurred at a jurisdiction's judgment if they 
place markings in accordance with the FHWA recommendations for 
markings. These costs, in most cases, are eligible for Federal or 
Federal-aid funding at the jurisdictions' judgment. Therefore, a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small 
entities, including small governments. This final rule may require the 
installation of some additional center line and edge line markings on 
roads in various jurisdictions. The FHWA estimates that the additional 
costs nationwide to meet the new minimum requirements could total 
approximately $10 million to $20 million per year. This is based on an 
average of 1000 to 2000 local jurisdictions needing some additional 
markings at an average cost of $20,000 per jurisdiction for markings 
with an average life cycle of 2 years. These costs, in most cases, are 
eligible for Federal or Federal-aid funding at the jurisdictions' 
judgment. 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 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and 
it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial 
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that 
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this 
document directly preempts any State law or regulation.
    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. These 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does no impose a Federal mandate resulting in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

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, minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Property)

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights

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

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520.

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 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, and Traffic regulations.

    The FHWA hereby amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal 
Regulations, part 655 as set forth below.

PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a), 315, and 402(a); and 49 CFR 
1.48(b).

Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets 
and Highways

    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), FHWA, 1988, including

[[Page 14]]

Revision No. 1 dated January 17, 1990, Revision No. 2 dated March 17, 
1992, Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993, Errata No. 1 to the 1988 
MUTCD Revision 3, dated November 1, 1994, Revision No. 4 dated November 
1, 1994, Revision No. 4a (modified) dated February 19, 1998, Revision 
No. 5 dated December 24, 1996, Revision No. 6 dated June 19, 1998, and 
Revision No. 7 dated January 3, 2000. 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 Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. The 1988 MUTCD, including 
Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993, may be purchased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. 
The amendments to the MUTCD titled, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 1,'' 
dated January 17, 1990, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 2,'' dated March 17, 
1992, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 3,'' dated September 3, 1993, ``1988 
MUTCD Errata No. 1 to Revision No. 3,'' dated November 1, 1994, ``1988 
MUTCD Revision No. 4,'' dated November 1, 1994, ``1998 MUTCD Revision 
No. 5,'' dated December 24, 1996, ``Revision No. 6,'' dated June 19, 
1998, and ``Revision No. 7'' dated January 3, 2000 are available from 
the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation 
Operations, HOTO, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. These 
documents are available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 
CFR part 7.
* * * * *
    Issued on: December 22, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-33806 Filed 12-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P