[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5532-5538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2822]



[[Page 5532]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 630

FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-11130
RIN 2125-AE29


Work Zone Safety

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is seeking comments regarding improvements that can 
be made to its regulation on Traffic Safety in Highway and Street Work 
Zones to better address work zone mobility and safety concerns. The 
FHWA has identified goals for maximizing the availability of roadways 
during construction and maintenance, while minimizing impacts on road 
users and highway workers, and would like to ascertain whether the 
current provisions in our regulation are adequate to address the unique 
mobility and safety challenges posed by work zones. Therefore the FHWA 
is soliciting input to identify the key issues that should be 
considered if the regulation were to be updated.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should include the docket number 
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received 
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page 
that appears after submitting comments electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shelley Row, Office of 
Transportation Operations, HOTO-1, (202) 366-1993; or Mr. Raymond 
Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-0791, 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:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code for Information 
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and 
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and 
guidelines are available under the help section of the web site. An 
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using a 
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the 
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 
512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal 
Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government 
Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    Highway construction and maintenance work zones cause mobility and 
safety problems for the traveling public, businesses, highway workers, 
and transportation agencies, resulting in an overall loss in 
productivity and growing frustration. Work zones are a necessary part 
of meeting the need to maintain and upgrade our aging highway 
infrastructure. However, with vehicle travel increasing significantly 
faster than miles of roadway, we also have a growing congestion problem 
that is further worsened by work zones.

Legislative and Regulatory History

    Section 1051 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2001, December 
18, 1991, required the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to 
develop and implement a highway work zone safety program to improve 
work zone safety at highway construction sites by enhancing the quality 
and effectiveness of traffic control devices, safety appurtenances, 
traffic control plans, and bidding practices for traffic control 
devices and services. The FHWA implemented this provision of ISTEA 
through non-regulatory action, by publishing a notice in the Federal 
Register on October 24, 1995 (60 FR 54562). (Hereinafter referred to as 
``the notice.'')
    The purpose of this notice was to establish the National Highway 
Work Zone Safety Program (NHWZSP) to enhance safety at highway 
construction, maintenance and utility sites. In this notice, the FHWA 
indicated that having appropriate National and State standards and 
guidelines would contribute to improved work zone safety. To attain 
these National and State standards and guidelines, the FHWA identified, 
among other things, the need to update its regulation on work zone 
safety, 23 CFR 630, subpart J.
    The notice indicated that the FHWA would review current work zone 
problems and update the regulation to better reflect current needs 
including reinforcement of guidance on bidding practices, work zone 
accident data collection and analysis at both project and program 
levels, compliance with traffic control plans, and work zone speed 
limits. While the focus of this notice was work zone safety, it also 
identified the need ``to minimize disruptions to traffic during 
construction of highway projects.''
    Work zone mobility and safety are major concerns to the traveling 
public, businesses and transportation agencies. The FHWA has identified 
National goals for maximizing the availability of the Nation's roads 
during road construction and maintenance while minimizing impacts on 
road users and workers. To facilitate the attainment of these goals and 
to better meet the needs of transportation agencies, the traveling 
public, and highway workers, the FHWA is considering a wide range of 
options, including revising and expanding the regulations in 23 CFR 
630, subpart J; alternatively, the FHWA is considering policy guidance. 
Congress' continued interest in this subject is evidenced by the fact 
that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
Subcommittee on Highway and Transit, held a hearing entitled Work Zone 
Safety in July 2001.
    The FHWA is therefore seeking input into the consideration of 
revision of the current regulation.

Definitions/Explanation of Terms

    The definitions and explanations for the key terms and phrases used 
in this ANPRM are provided below. Some are standard definitions as 
stated by various manuals/codes, trade organizations and public 
entities, while others are commonly understood explanations and 
interpretations.
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).\1\ The Americans with 
Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336 was enacted July 26, 1990. The ADA

[[Page 5533]]

prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with 
disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public 
accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation. It also 
mandates the establishment of TDD/telephone relay services. The term 
``disability'' means, with respect to an individual--(A) a physical or 
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major 
life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; 
or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
    Constructibility Review. Refers to a process for assessing and 
improving highway construction project contract documents to ensure 
rational bids and to minimize problems during construction. 
Constructibility is defined as the optimum use of construction 
knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field 
operations to achieve overall project objectives.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Public Law 
101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (July 26, 1990).
    \2\ From National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 
Project 20-24(12), Avoiding Delays During the Construction Phase of 
Highway Projects, Draft Report July 2001. This project is currently 
underway, with publication of the final results expected in early 
2002. When completed, a copy of the final report may be obtained 
electronically at: http://www4.nas.edu/trb/onlinepubs.nsf/web/crp or 
by writing to the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Lockbox 289, 
Washington, DC 20055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disruption due to Work Zones. The deviation from normalcy caused by 
work zones resulting in impacts on mobility, safety and productivity of 
users, businesses and highway workers.
    Incident. Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(MUTCD),\3\ Temporary Traffic Control, defines an incident as an area 
of a highway where temporary traffic controls are imposed by authorized 
officials in response to a road user incident, natural disaster, or 
special event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Millenium 
Edition, December 2000. This document is available electronically at 
the following URL: http://mutcd/kno-millenium.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mobility. A representation of the efficiency and convenience of 
transportation facilities and traffic flow. The commonly used 
performance measures for the assessment of mobility include delay, 
speed, travel time and queue lengths. With specific reference to work 
zones, mobility pertains to moving road users smoothly through or 
around a work zone area with a minimum delay compared to baseline 
travel when no work zone is present.
    Mobility and Safety Audits. Refers to the process of evaluating 
work zone traffic control and management plans against the applicable 
mobility and safety standards, in order to obtain an estimate of the 
performance of the work zone with respect to the attainment of those 
mobility and safety standards.
    Road User/Traveler. Part 1 of the MUTCD, General, defines road user 
to include all vehicle operators (private, public and commercial), 
bicyclists, pedestrians or disabled people within the highway, 
including workers in temporary traffic control zones.
    Safety. A representation of the level of exposure to danger for 
users of transportation facilities. With specific reference to work 
zones, safety refers to minimizing the exposure to danger of road users 
in the vicinity of a work zone and road workers at the work zone 
interface with traffic. The commonly used measures for road safety are 
the number of crashes or the consequences of crashes (fatalities and 
injuries), at a given location or along a section of highway, during a 
period of time. Worker safety in work zones refers to the safety of 
workers at the work zone interface with traffic and the impacts of the 
work zone design on worker safety. The number of worker fatalities and 
injuries at a given location or along a section of highway, during a 
period of time is also used to depict the safety of work zones.
    Temporary Traffic Control Zone. The MUTCD defines a temporary 
traffic control zone as an area of a highway where road user conditions 
are changed because of a work zone or traffic incident by the use of 
temporary traffic control devices, flaggers, police, or other 
authorized personnel.
    User Cost. The cost of the disruptions due to work zones borne by 
road users, nearby residents and businesses, transportation agencies, 
and contractors. User costs primarily include travel delay costs (time 
value of money), additional fuel consumption costs, environmental 
impact costs, and accident costs. Consideration may also be given to 
lost sales, late deliveries/lost productivity, and costs of delayed 
construction.
    Work Zone. The MUTCD defines a work zone in Part 6, Temporary 
Traffic Control, as an area of a highway with construction, 
maintenance, or utility work activities. A work zone is typically 
marked by signs, channelizing devices, barriers, pavement markings, 
and/or work vehicles. It extends from the first warning sign or 
rotating/strobe lights on a vehicle to the END ROAD WORK sign or the 
last temporary traffic control device.
    The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances 
(NCUTLO) \4\ adds to this definition in Section 4 of its Work Zone 
Model Law, by including the following: a work zone may be for short or 
long durations and may include stationary or moving activities, 
including: Long-term highway construction such as building a new 
bridge, adding travel lanes to the roadway, extending an existing 
roadway, etc; Short-term highway maintenance such as striping the 
roadway, median, and roadside grass mowing/landscaping, pothole repair, 
etc; and Short-term utility work, such as repairing electric, gas, or 
water lines within the roadway. The work zone does not include private 
construction, maintenance or utility work outside the highway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances 
(NCUTLO), Work Zone Model Law, Section 4--Definitions (j). More 
information on the NCUTLO and its Work Zone Model Law may be 
obtained electronically at: http://www.ncutlo.org or by writing the 
NCUTLO at, 107 S. West Street, # 110, Alexandria, VA 22314, Ph--800-
807-5290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Model 
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) \5\ states that a work zone is a 
segment of the roadway marked to indicate that construction, 
maintenance, or utility work is being done. A work zone extends from 
the first warning sign to the end construction (work) sign or the last 
traffic control device. Work zones may or may not involve workers or 
equipment on or near the road. A work zone may be stationary (such as 
repairing a water line) or moving (such as re-striping the centerline); 
it may be short term (such as pothole patching) or long term (such as 
building a new bridge).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), August 1998. 
Information about and copies of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash 
Criteria (MMUCC) may be obtained on the Internet at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov or by writing the NHTSA at 400 7th St. SW 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 888-327-4236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), in its Manual on 
Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, American National 
Standard--ANSI D-16,\6\ is proposing a definition for work zone, which 
is similar to the NCUTLO definition. It states that a work zone is an 
area of a

[[Page 5534]]

trafficway \7\ with highway construction, maintenance or utility work 
activities. A work zone is typically marked by signs, channelizing 
devices, barriers, pavement markings, and/or work vehicles. It extends 
from the first warning sign or flashing lights on a vehicle to the END 
ROAD WORK sign or the last traffic control device. A work zone may be 
for short or long duration and may include stationary or moving 
activities. Inclusions: Long-term stationary highway construction such 
as building a new bridge, adding travel lanes to the roadway,\8\ 
extending an existing trafficway, etc.; Mobile highway maintenance such 
as striping the roadway, median, and roadside grass mowing/landscaping, 
pothole repair, etc.; Short-term stationary utility work such as 
repairing electric, gas, or water lines within the trafficway, etc. 
Exclusions: Private construction, maintenance or utility work outside 
the trafficway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The purpose of this American National Standard is to provide 
a common language for collectors, classifiers, analysts and users of 
traffic accident data. The Manual promotes uniformity and 
comparability of motor vehicle traffic accident statistics developed 
in states and local jurisdictions. Information about this standard 
may be obtained by contacting the American National Standards 
Institute at 1819 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, Telephone: 
202.293.8020, Fax: 202.293.9287 or on the Internet at: http://www.ansi.org.
    \7\ The American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) equivalent of ``trafficway'' is ``highway, street 
or road.''
    \8\ The AASHTO term equivalent to ``roadway'' is ``traveled 
way.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Work Zone Duration. Refers to the length of time for which a work 
zone is needed to complete the required highway construction or 
maintenance activity.
    Work Zone Frequency. Refers to either the number of work zones or 
distance between multiple work zones along a corridor or in a road 
network; or the time between recurrent work zones for performing road 
construction or maintenance work at the same location, along the same 
segment of a corridor, or in a road network.

Statement of the Problem

    As much of the Nation's transportation infrastructure approaches 
its service life, preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance become 
an increasing part of our transportation improvement program.\9\ The 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 
105-178, 112 Stat. 107, enacted in June 1998, provides for a 40 percent 
increase in transportation funding over the total provided in the 
ISTEA.\10\ Much of this funding is being spent on maintaining and 
operating existing roads, since comparatively few new roads are being 
built. At the same time, traffic volumes continue to grow and create 
more congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FHWA report, ``Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and 
Safety During Construction and Maintenance Operations,'' September 
1998. This report is available electronically at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_wzs_links.htm or may be 
obtained by writing the FHWA Safety Core Business Unit at FHWA, 
Safety, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    \10\ Statement of Vincent F. Schimmoller, Deputy Executive 
Director, FHWA, USDOT, Before The House Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Hearing on 
Work Zone Safety, July 24, 2001. An electronic copy of this 
statement may be obtained at: http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2001/release100.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1980 to 1999, the U.S. experienced a 76 percent increase in 
total vehicle-miles traveled, while total lane miles of public roads 
increased only by 1 percent.\11\ Congestion is frustrating and costly 
to businesses and individuals. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 
estimated that the cost of congestion was approximately $78 billion in 
1999. The combination of heavier traffic volumes passing through a road 
network with more work zones increases the operational and safety 
impacts of those work zones on the road network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions & Performance (C&P) Report to Congress,'' FHWA, 1999. A 
copy of this report may be obtained electronically at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/1999cpr/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years, highway professionals have devised and implemented 
several strategies and innovative practices for minimizing the 
disruption caused by work zones, while ensuring successful project 
delivery. However, more effort is required to meet the needs and 
expectations of the American public, given the current and expected 
level of investment activity in highway infrastructure, a significant 
portion of which is for maintenance and reconstruction.
    The results of a recent FHWA nationwide survey, reported in 
``Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and 
Transportation in Communities,'' \12\ illustrates the American public's 
frustration with work zones. Key findings include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The results of the survey are available in ``Moving Ahead: 
The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in 
Communities,'' FHWA Publication No. FHWA-OP-01-017, 2000. A copy of 
this publication is available electronically on the FHWA web page 
at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/movingahead.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Work zones were cited as second only to poor traffic flow 
in causing traveler dissatisfaction;
     The top three improvements indicated by the public as a 
``great help'' to improve roadways and transportation are related to 
roadway repairs and work zones. They are:
    a. More durable paving materials (67 percent);
    b. Repairs made during non-rush hours (66 percent); and
    c. Reducing repair time (52 percent);
     The use of better traffic signs showing expected roadwork, 
and better guide signs for re-routing traffic to avoid roadwork, were 
also cited as being of ``great help,'' by 40 percent and 35 percent of 
the respondents respectively; and
     Many travelers indicated a preference to have the road 
closed completely for moderate durations in exchange for long-lasting 
repairs.
    The following facts illustrate the adverse impacts of work zones on 
traveler and construction worker safety:
     Work Zone fatalities reached a high of 872 in 1999,\13\ 
while 39,000 Americans were injured in work zone related crashes in the 
same year; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The statistics on work zone crashes for the year 2000 were 
not officially available at the time this ANPRM was drafted.
    \14\ Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the 
NHTSA. More information is available electronically at: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From 1992 to 1999, about 106 to 136 highway workers died 
each year in road construction activities, as indicated by the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.\15\ On 
average, 23 percent of these fatalities were due to workers being 
struck by vehicles or mobile equipment in roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal 
Occupational injuries is available electronically at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the contracting industry is under pressure to expedite 
construction and minimize disruption, and has expressed concerns that 
these pressures reduce productivity, and may compromise quality.
    While mobility and safety are two distinct challenges posed by the 
circumstances we face on our highways, it is important to realize that 
both these elements are closely tied to one another. Studies and data 
analyses over time have proven that as congestion builds, crash rates 
increase; and as crashes increase, more congestion occurs. Therefore, 
it is important to develop comprehensive solutions and mitigation 
measures for work zones that address both mobility and safety of 
transportation and traffic flow from the perspective of reducing the 
impacts of work zones on users, businesses and highway workers, and 
ultimately improving mobility, safety and productivity.
    In recognition of these facts and findings, the FHWA is seeking to 
identify and foster ways to make work zones function better. This 
requires looking at the full life of our transportation infrastructure 
and may require changing the way construction

[[Page 5535]]

and maintenance projects are conceived, planned, designed and executed. 
Changes to the project development process may fundamentally include 
consideration of the mobility and safety impacts of work zones on road 
users and businesses, at the same time providing for worker safety and 
efficient construction. It is essential that all interested parties 
participate in developing any rules, regulations and/or guidelines to 
facilitate improved, comprehensive practices for road construction and 
maintenance projects.
    Currently, the regulation has the broad purpose of providing 
guidance and establishing procedures to ensure that adequate 
consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians, and construction 
workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. However, the content 
of the current regulation is narrowly focused on the development of 
Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) and on the operations of two-lane, two-way 
roadways. The FHWA believes that the trends of increasing road 
construction, growing traffic and public frustration with work zones 
call for a more broad-based examination of the current regulations.
    The FHWA is considering updating the current regulations to seek 
and facilitate comprehensive means and methods to reduce the need for 
recurrent road work, the duration of work zones, and the disruption 
caused by work zones. The FHWA hopes to receive substantial input from 
the transportation community in the development of new regulations and 
guidelines. Through this ANPRM, the FHWA seeks to initiate discussion 
with the transportation community and any interested parties by 
soliciting comments and input on several key questions. During the 
entire rulemaking consideration process, the FHWA will conduct outreach 
and solicit comments, suggestions and input from a variety of 
transportation stakeholders and will be grateful to all participants 
for their contributions. The FHWA will continue to file relevant 
information in the docket as it becomes available and interested 
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.

General Discussion for Considering Policy and Regulation Change

    To reduce the need for recurrent work zones, reduce the duration of 
work zones, and reduce the disruption due to work zones, the FHWA will 
consider updating the current regulation based on the following 
objectives of the FHWA's work zone mobility and safety program:
     Reduction of the impacts of highway work zones on road 
users, construction workers, businesses and society, at the same time 
maximizing the availability of the roadway for efficient traffic 
movement;
     Enhancement of the way construction projects are currently 
conceived, planned, designed and executed to bring about a focus shift 
to customer-oriented construction project planning;
     Identification of an exhaustive set of issues that govern 
work zone mobility and safety for possible consideration in an updated 
regulation;
     Consideration and incorporation of a range of innovative 
practices and technologies that can substantially improve work zone 
mobility and safety; and
     Extensive outreach and dialogue with a wide cross-section 
of transportation stakeholders and the community, characterized by a 
willingness to listen and respond to inputs and suggestions.

Request for Comments

    Based on previous studies and the knowledge base accumulated over 
time through input from States, local agencies, and professional 
organizations, the FHWA has identified a set of issues that may be 
addressed as part of this rulemaking effort. We have posed these issues 
as questions to elicit comments, guidance and suggestions. The FHWA 
believes that the magnitude of the problem under consideration and the 
level of concern voiced by road users requires reconsideration of how 
we plan, design and construct roadway projects to shift our focus to 
the needs of road users and businesses while balancing the need for 
worker safety. A customer-oriented construction project planning and 
implementation approach necessitates that we examine the complete 
project development cycle. Therefore, we have grouped the questions 
into categories that generally correspond to the major steps in project 
development. These categories are:
     General (wide-ranging policy and regulatory 
considerations);
     Transportation Planning and Programming;
     Project Design for Construction and Maintenance;
     Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones;
     Public Outreach and Communications; and
     Analyzing Work Zone Performance.
    Commenters are also encouraged to include discussion of any other 
issues they consider relevant to this effort.

General

    1. Should there be a National policy to promote improved mobility 
and safety in highway construction and maintenance? If so, should the 
National policy be incorporated into the regulation or issued 
separately as guidance that outlines guidelines and best practices for 
implementation?
    2. Are the current provisions of 23 CFR 630, subpart J adequate to 
meet the mobility and safety challenges of road construction and 
maintenance projects encountered at all stages of project evolution? If 
they are not adequate, what are the provisions and/or sections that 
need to be enhanced and/or modified to ensure mobility and safety in 
and around work zones?
    3. Should work zone regulations be stratified to reflect varying 
levels and durations of risk to road users and workers, and disruptions 
to traffic? What would be the most appropriate stratification factors 
(e.g., duration, length, lanes affected, Average Daily Traffic (ADT), 
road classification, expected capacity reduction, potential impacts on 
local network and businesses)?
    4. Currently, there are several definitions for work zone, as 
defined by the MUTCD, ANSI D16 (proposed), NCUTLO and NHTSA. These 
definitions, even though similar in basic structure and implication, 
differ in length and the degree of detail addressed. Should there be a 
common National definition for work zone to bring about uniformity? If 
so, what should the common National definition be?

Transportation Planning and Programming

    It is important to consider user mobility and safety impacts and 
worker safety requirements across the different stages of highway 
project development. Consideration of these impacts should begin early 
and be consistently coordinated across the planning processes and 
project development stages. The FHWA expects that such consideration 
will reduce the need for recurrent work zones, the duration of work 
zones, and the disruption caused by work zones.
    5. How, if at all, are impacts to road users due to road 
construction and maintenance part of the management and operations 
considerations that are addressed in transportation plan development?
    6. To what extent should the metropolitan and statewide 
transportation planning processes address cross-cutting policy issues 
that may contribute to increases in project costs (for example, the use 
of more durable materials, life-cycle costing, complete closure of 
facilities,

[[Page 5536]]

information sharing on utilities, etc.)? Is it appropriate to consider 
the impact of construction and maintenance projects to road users in 
planning for future roadway improvements at the metropolitan level? At 
the statewide level? At the corridor level?
    7. What data and methods are currently available to address the 
above considerations? What else would be needed to support such 
considerations in the metropolitan and statewide transportation 
planning processes? At the corridor level?

Project Design for Construction and Maintenance

    In making decisions on alternative project designs, project 
designers should consider different strategies and practices that may 
lead to reductions in the need for recurrent road construction and 
maintenance work, the duration of work zones and the disruption caused 
by work zones. Examples of such considerations include life-cycle cost 
analysis, alternative project scheduling and design strategies, such 
as, full road closures and night time work, using more durable 
materials, coordinating road construction, estimation of user costs/
impacts, risk and reward sharing with contractors, and constructibility 
reviews for projects.
    8. How can the FHWA encourage agencies to incorporate the above 
considerations (life-cycle cost analysis, alternative project 
scheduling and design strategies, etc.) in the decisionmaking process 
for evaluating alternative project designs? What are the most 
appropriate ways to include these considerations in project design?
    9. Can user cost be a useful measure to assess alternative means to 
design and implement work zones? What weight should agencies assign to 
user costs as a decisionmaking factor in the alternatives evaluation 
process? Should analytical tools, such as QuickZone,\16\ QUEWZ-98,\17\ 
etc., be used for the evaluation of various design alternatives and 
their estimated impact to the public? What other impact measures 
(delay, speed, travel time, crashes) should agencies estimate and use 
for alternatives evaluation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ QuickZone is a traffic analysis delay estimation tool 
designed by the FHWA to aid State and local design and construction 
staff, operations and planning staff, construction contractors and 
even utility contractors. This Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tool can 
be used to analyze both urban and inter-urban corridors. QuickZone 
1.0 will soon be available. QuickZone Beta version 0.99 is available 
as a free download at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workzone.htm.
    \17\ QUEWZ-98 is a microcomputer analysis tool that estimates 
traffic impacts, emissions and additional road user costs resulting 
from short-term lane closures in work zones. More information about 
this tool may be obtained online at: http://tti.tamu.edu/researcher/v36n2/quewz98.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Given the fact that utility delays have been cited as 
roadblocks to efficient project delivery, what should be done to 
address this issue?

Managing for Mobility and Safety in and Around Work Zones

    There are many methods that can be applied to managing traffic in 
and around work zones. The application of Intelligent Transportation 
Systems (ITS) for purposes, such as, traffic management, automated 
enforcement and traveler information is a useful method to improve 
transportation mobility and safety. The current and future mobility and 
safety challenges presented by work zones may require Traffic Control 
Plans (TCPs) to include traffic management, enforcement and operations 
considerations (such as ITS based traffic control and traveler 
information, speed management and enforcement, incident and emergency 
management, etc.), security considerations, and other considerations 
(for example, utility location and coordination information).
    11. The current regulation specifies the requirement for TCPs for 
work zones, but does not address the issues of sustained traffic 
management and operations, or traffic enforcement methods and 
partnerships. Should the scope of TCPs be expanded to include such 
considerations? What are the most relevant practices or technologies 
that should be considered in planning for traffic management, 
enforcement and operations? What are the most appropriate ways to 
facilitate the inclusion of such considerations in traffic control 
planning?
    12. Should TCPs address the security aspects of construction of 
critical transportation infrastructure? Should TCPs address the 
security aspects of work zone activities in the vicinity of critical 
transportation or other critical infrastructure?
    13. How should TCPs address ADA requirements?
    14. Should more flexibility be allowed on who develops TCPs--State 
DOTs, municipalities, contractors or law enforcement agencies--and how 
should the responsibility for developing TCPs be assigned? Should 
certification be required for TCP developers? How can the owners and 
contractors share the roles, risk and rewards in developing TCPs and 
implementing and operating work zones?
    15. To ensure roadway mobility and safety and work area safety, 
should mobility and safety audits be required for work zones?

Public Outreach and Communications

    To reduce the anxiety and frustration of the public, it is 
important to sustain effective communications and outreach with the 
public regarding road construction and maintenance activity, and the 
potential impacts of the activities. This also increases the public's 
awareness of such activities and their impacts on their lives. The lack 
of information is often cited as a key cause of frustration for the 
traveling public. Therefore, it is important to identify the key issues 
that need to be considered from a public outreach and information 
perspective.
    16. How can we better communicate the anticipated work zone impacts 
and the associated mitigation measures to the public? Who--the State, 
local government, contractor, or other agency--should be responsible 
for informing the public?
    17. Should projects with substantial disruption include a public 
communication plan in the project development process? If so, what 
should such a plan contain?

Analyzing Work Zone Performance

    Evaluation is a necessary tool for analyzing failures and 
identifying successes in work zone operations. Work zone performance 
monitoring and reporting at a nationwide level has the potential to 
increase the knowledge base on work zones and help better plan, design 
and implement road construction and maintenance projects.
    18. Should States and local transportation agencies report 
statistics on the characteristics of work zones (such as number of work 
zones, size, cost, duration, lanes affected, ADT, road classification, 
level of disruption and impacts on local network and businesses) to 
appropriate State or Federal agencies? If so, in what ways do you think 
this would be beneficial?
    19. Should States and local transportation agencies report 
statistics on the mobility performance of work zones? Are typical 
mobility measures, such as, delay, travel time, traffic volumes, speed 
and queue lengths appropriate to analyze work zone mobility 
performance? What are the top three measures that are most appropriate?
    20. Are the currently used measures for safety (typically, crashes, 
fatalities and injuries) appropriate to analyze work zone performance? 
If not, what other measures should be considered? Are current 
mechanisms for collecting this information adequate? If not, how can we 
improve them?

[[Page 5537]]

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received 
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be 
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the 
FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as 
it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and 
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new 
material. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) may be issued at any 
time after close of the comment period.

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

    The FHWA has determined preliminarily that the contemplated rule 
would not be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12866 and would not be significant within the meaning 
of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It 
is anticipated that the economic impact of this action would be 
minimal. Any rulemaking action resulting from this ANPRM would propose 
to amend the current regulations and it is anticipated that any changes 
proposed would not affect any Federal funding available.
    Any changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in a material 
way, any sector of the economy. In addition, any changes are not likely 
to interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency or to 
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs.
    Based upon the information received in response to this ANPRM, the 
FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits associated 
with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information, and data are 
solicited on the economic impact of the changes described in this 
document or any alternative proposal submitted.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), and based upon the information received in response 
to this ANPRM, the FHWA will evaluate the effects of any action 
proposed on small entities. If the rulemaking action contemplated in 
this ANPRM is promulgated, it is anticipated that the proposed action 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The FHWA encourages commenters to evaluate any options 
addressed here with regard to the potential for impact, and to 
formulate their comments accordingly.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The actions being considered under this ANPRM would not impose 
unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The actions being 
considered under this ANPRM would not result 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. 
1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be 
proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the affects 
on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Any action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of this 
proceeding will be analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and 
the FHWA anticipates that any action contemplated will not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism assessment. The FHWA also anticipates that any action taken 
will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the 
States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. 
We encourage commenters to consider these issues, as well as matters 
concerning any costs or burdens that might be imposed on the States as 
a result of actions considered here.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. Any action that might 
be contemplated in subsequent phases of this proceeding will be 
evaluated for PRA requirements.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    Any action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of this 
proceeding will be analyzed under Executive Order 13175, dated November 
6, 2000, and the FHWA believes that any proposal will not have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, the FHWA 
anticipates that a tribal summary impact statement will not be 
required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA will analyze any action that might be proposed in 
subsequent stages under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or 
Use. We have determined that any action contemplated will not be a 
significant energy action under that order because any action 
contemplated will not be a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866 and will not be likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
    Therefore, the FHWA anticipates that a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency will analyze any action that might be proposed for the 
purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4347) to assess whether there would be any effect on the quality 
of the environment.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA will analyze any action that might be proposed in 
subsequent stages under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interface with Consitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does 
not anticipate at this time that such action would effect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive 
Order 12630.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Any action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of this 
proceeding will meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

[[Page 5538]]

minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA will analyze any action that might be proposed in 
subsequent stages under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA does not 
anticipate that such action would concern an environmental risk to 
health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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 630

    Highway safety, Highways and roads.

    (Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 109, 115, 315, 320, and 402(a); 23 
CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48; sec. 1051, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 2001; 
sec. 358(b), Pub.L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 625.)

    Issued on: January 31, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-2822 Filed 2-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P