[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