[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57722-57736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket S-018]
RIN 1218-AB88


Safety Standards for Signs, Signals, and Barricades

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
revising the construction industry safety standards to require that 
traffic control signs, signals, barricades or devices protecting 
workers conform to Part VI of either the 1988 Edition of the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(MUTCD), with 1993 revisions (Revision 3) or the Millennium Edition of 
the FHWA MUTCD (Millennium Edition), instead of the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) D6.1-1971, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices for Streets and Highways (1971 MUTCD).

DATES: This final rule will become effective December 11, 2002. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 11, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of 
the Solicitor of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4004, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive petitions 
for review of the final rule.
    For copies of this Federal Register document contact: OSHA, Office 
of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register document, as well as 
other relevant documents, can be obtained from OSHA's Web page on the 
Internet at http://www.osha.gov.

[[Page 57723]]

    How to Obtain Copies of the MUTCD: The Federal Highway 
Administration partnered with three organizations to print copies of 
the Millennium Edition Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 
sale. The organizations are: (1) American Traffic Safety Services 
Association, 15 Riverside Parkway, Suite 100, Fredericksburg, VA 22406-
1022; Telephone: 1-800-231-3475; FAX: (540) 368-1722; www.atssa.com; 
(2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 
300 West, Washington, DC 20005-3438; FAX: (202) 289-7722; www.ite.org; 
and (3) American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials; www.aashto.org; Telephone: 1-800-231-3475; FAX: 1-800-525-
5562.
    On-line copies of the Millennium Edition are available for 
downloading from DOT's Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium.htm. On-line copies of the 1988 Edition of the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Revision 3, dated 9/93, with the 
November 1994 Errata No. 1) are available for downloading from OSHA's 
Web site: http://www.osha.gov/doc/highway_workzones. In addition, both 
documents are available for viewing and copying at each OSHA Area 
Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information and Press 
Inquiries--Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of Public Affairs, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone: (202) 693-1999. Technical Information--Nancy Ford, Office of 
Construction Standards and Construction Services, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    This final rule addresses the types of signs, signals, and 
barricades that must be used to protect construction employees from 
traffic hazards. The vast majority of road construction in the United 
States is funded through Federal transportation grants. As a condition 
to receiving Federal funding, the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
(DOT's) Federal Highway Administration requires compliance with its 
MUTCD.
    In furtherance of OSHA's statutory mandate to protect the health 
and safety of employees, OSHA also requires employers that are within 
the scope of its authority to comply with the MUTCD. However, OSHA's 
current standard incorporates the 1971 version of the MUTCD, which FHWA 
has since updated. The purpose of this final rule is to update OSHA's 
standard.

II. Procedural History

    On April 15, 2002, OSHA published a direct final rule and a 
companion proposed rule to update 29 CFR 1926 subpart G--Signs, 
Signals, and Barricades [67 FR 18091]. The Agency explained that unless 
a significant adverse comment is received within a specified period of 
time, the rule would become effective. Alternatively, if significant 
adverse comments are received, the agency would withdraw the direct 
final rule and treat the comments as comments to the proposed rule. 
Direct final rulemaking is used where the agency anticipates that the 
rule will be non-controversial.
    The Agency stated that, for purposes of the direct final rule 
published on April 15, a significant adverse comment is one that 
explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to 
the rule's underlying premise or approach, or why it would be 
ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a 
significant adverse comment would necessitate withdrawal of this direct 
final rule, OSHA would consider whether the comment raises an issue 
serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-
comment process. A comment recommending an addition to the rule would 
not be considered a significant adverse comment unless the comment 
states why this rule would be ineffective without the addition. If 
timely significant adverse comments were received, the agency would 
publish a notice of significant adverse comment in the Federal Register 
withdrawing this direct final rule no later than July 15, 2002.
    In the companion proposed rule, which is essentially identical to 
the direct final rule [67 FR 18145], OSHA stated that in the event the 
direct final rule were withdrawn because of significant adverse 
comment, the agency could proceed with the rulemaking by addressing the 
comment and again publishing a final rule. The comment period for the 
proposed rule ran concurrently with that of the direct final rule. Any 
comments received under the companion proposed rule were to be treated 
as comments regarding the direct final rule. Likewise, significant 
adverse comments submitted to the direct final rule would be considered 
as comments to the companion proposed rule; the agency would consider 
such comments in developing a subsequent final rule.
    On July 15, 2002, OSHA published a notice withdrawing the direct 
final rule [67 FR 46375], explaining that of the eight comments that 
had been submitted, the Agency was treating two as significant adverse 
comments. Both comments challenged the August 13, 2002 effective date 
of the rule. The two comments are being treated as comments on the 
companion proposed rule, and are addressed below. In response to the 
comments, OSHA has set the effective date at December 11, 2002.

III. Background

    Currently, under 29 CFR part 1926 subpart G--Signs, Signals, and 
Barricades, OSHA requires that employers comply with the 1971 MUTCD. 
Specifically, employers must ensure that the following conform to the 
1971 MUTCD: traffic control signs or devices used to protect 
construction workers (29 CFR 1926.200(g)(2)); signaling directions by 
flagmen (29 CFR 1926.201); and barricades for the protection of workers 
(29 CFR 1926.202).
    In contrast, a DOT rule, 23 CFR 655.601 through 655.603, requires 
that such traffic control signs or devices conform to a more recent 
version of the MUTCD. DOT regulations provide that the MUTCD is the 
national standard for all traffic control devices on streets, highways 
and bicycle trails. DOT's rule requires that traffic control devices on 
roads in which federal funds were involved be in substantial 
conformance with its MUTCD. In effect, the MUTCD has become a national 
benchmark for all roads.
    Under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, sections 109(d) and 402(a), the 
Secretary of Transportation is authorized to promulgate and require 
compliance with uniform guidelines to reduce injuries and fatalities 
from road accidents. Specifically, section 109(d) authorizes DOT to 
require (through its approval of State highway department requirements) 
all highway projects in which Federal funds are involved to comply with 
these types of uniform rules. Highways are broadly defined under 
section 101(a)(11) of the DOT statute, and include roads, streets and 
parkways. Under section 402(a), DOT is authorized to require each State 
to have a highway safety program, including uniform standards for 
traffic safety, approved by DOT. In accordance with this authority, DOT 
promulgated 23 CFR part 655, subpart F (Traffic Control Devices on 
Federal-Aid and Other Streets and Highways). In section 655.603(a), DOT 
established its MUTCD as ``the national standard for all traffic

[[Page 57724]]

control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open 
to public travel * * * '' Under subpart F, the States were required to 
adopt Revision 3 for federally funded highways within two years of its 
issuance. The effective date of the final rule that adopted Revision 3 
was January 10, 1994 [58 FR 65084 (December 10, 1993)]. A two-year 
period for transition to full compliance with Revision 3 expired 
January 10, 1996. Transition to full compliance with the Millennium 
edition must be completed by January 2003. Consequently, employers have 
already been required to comply with Revision 3 for all federal-aid 
highways. In addition, all States have required compliance with 
Revision 3 for most roads (although there is some variation among the 
States regarding the extent to which compliance is required on 
municipal, county, and private roads).
    In the early 1970s, the FHWA assumed from ANSI responsibility for 
publishing the MUTCD. The FHWA substantially rewrites the MUTCD every 
10 to 20 years, and amends it every two to three years. Until the 
Millennium Edition was published in December 2000, the most recent 
edition was the 1988 edition. The 1988 edition consisted of 10 parts, 
including part VI, ``Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for 
Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility, and Incident 
Management Operations.'' The FHWA substantially revised and reissued 
part VI in 1993 (Revision 3). There are substantial differences both in 
substance and format between Revision 3 and the 1971 MUTCD. The most 
recent edition of the MUTCD, the Millennium Edition published in 
December 2000, contains some substantive changes and a new, easier to 
use format. States are required to adopt the Millennium Edition or its 
equivalent by January 2003.
    Several stakeholders asked OSHA to update subpart G, because they 
had to meet the outdated OSHA requirements in addition to the DOT rule. 
They pointed out that Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition reflect 
updated standards and technical advances based on 22 years of 
experience in work zone traffic control design and implementation, as 
well as human behavior research and experience. The National Committee 
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (``NCUTCD''), consisting of various 
national associations and organizations interested in highway 
construction or highway safety, including the American Road and 
Transportation Builders Association, the Association of American 
Railroads, the American Automobile Association, the National 
Association of Governor's Highway Safety Representatives, and the 
National Safety Council, unanimously resolved in January 1999 to 
request that OSHA adopt Revision 3 in place of the 1971 MUTCD. In May 
2000, OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Occupational Safety and 
Health (``ACCSH'') also expressed support for adopting a more recent 
edition of the MUTCD as the OSHA standard for the construction 
industry.
    OSHA reviewed the differences between the 1971 version, Revision 3 
and the Millennium Edition and concluded that compliance with the more 
recently published manuals would provide all the safety benefits (and 
more) of the 1971 version. The differences between OSHA's regulations 
that reference the 1971 MUTCD and DOT's modern regulations create 
potential industry confusion and inefficiency, without in any respect 
advancing worker safety. Accordingly, in an interpretation letter dated 
June 16, 1999, to Cummins Construction Company, Inc., OSHA stated that 
it would accept compliance with Revision 3 in lieu of compliance with 
the 1971 MUTCD referenced in section 1926.200(g) through its de minimis 
policy.
    The numerous and various changes to the 1971 MUTCD reflected in 
Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition stem from over 20 additional 
years of experience in temporary traffic control zone design, 
technological changes, and contemporary human behavior research and 
experience. Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition provide highway work 
zone planners more comprehensive guidance and greater flexibility in 
establishing effective temporary traffic control plans based on type of 
highway, traffic conditions, duration of project, physical constraints 
and the nature of the construction activity. Revision 3 and the 
Millennium Edition, accordingly, better reflect current practices and 
techniques to best ensure highway construction worker safety and 
health.
    Accordingly, OSHA is amending the safety and health regulations for 
construction to adopt and incorporate Revision 3 (and the option to 
comply with the Millennium Edition), instead of the 1971 MUTCD, and to 
make certain editorial changes. The amendment deletes the references in 
29 CFR 1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.202 to the 1971 MUTCD and inserts 
references to Revision 3 (and the option to comply with the Millennium 
Edition). The amendment clarifies and abbreviates 29 CFR 1926.201(a), 
by simply adopting the requirements of Revision 3 (and the option to 
comply with the Millennium Edition) with regard to the use of flaggers. 
The amendment also makes certain editorial corrections, replacing the 
term workers for the term workmen and the term flaggers for the term 
flagmen in 29 CFR 1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a).
    Updating OSHA's rule eliminates the technical anomaly of having to 
meet both OSHA's outdated requirement to comply with the 1971 version 
and DOT's more modern requirements. Instead, OSHA's final rule requires 
compliance with Revision 3 (or, at the option of the employer, the 
Millennium edition). In addition to harmonizing OSHA's requirements 
with those of DOT, the final rule's additional safety measures 
(described below) will be enforceable as OSHA requirements. With the 
current emphasis on rebuilding the Nation's highways and improving 
safety in work zone areas, OSHA's update is particularly appropriate.

IV. Discussion of Changes

Format and Style

    Both the 1971 MUTCD and Revision 3 were written in narrative form 
with ``must/shall,'' ``should,'' and ``may'' sentences indicating 
mandatory requirements, guidance, and options, respectively. These 
verbs were often intermixed within a single paragraph, leading to some 
confusion. In the Millennium Edition, each subsection is organized by 
``standard,'' ``guidance,'' and ``options'' categories. An additional 
category, titled ``support,'' is also included. This format clarifies 
what is expected of employers and the basis for those requirements. 
Pursuant to the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.31, only the mandatory 
language of standards that are incorporated through reference are 
adopted as OSHA standards. Therefore, the summary of changes below will 
focus primarily on the revisions that impose new requirements, or 
modify already existing requirements. The summary does contain short 
discussions on traffic control plans and tapers which, while not 
required by MUTCD, reflect industry practice.
    The 1988 edition of the MUTCD eliminated the term ``flagmen'' and 
``workmen'' and replaced them with the more inclusive ``flaggers'' and 
``workers.'' The final rule amends 29 CFR 1926.200(g)(2), 1926.201(a) 
and 1926.203 to be consistent with these changes.
    In the Millennium Edition, the FHWA also changed the title of part 
6 from ``Standards and Guides for Traffic

[[Page 57725]]

Controls for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility, and 
Incident Management Operations'' to ``Temporary Traffic Control.'' The 
new title is more succinct and more accurately describes the contents 
of the section.

Sections 6A Through 6B (Introduction and Fundamental Principles)

    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition describe an overall ``guiding 
philosophy'' of ``fundamental principles'' for good temporary traffic 
control, which is not explicitly set out in part VI of the 1971 MUTCD. 
Although these principles do not formally establish new requirements, 
they provide a framework for understanding requirements set out in the 
remainder of part VI. In the corresponding section, the 1971 ANSI 
standard required that all temporary traffic control devices be removed 
as soon as practical when they are no longer needed. Revision 3 
downgraded this requirement to a recommendation. This issue was 
revisited during the drafting of the Millennium Edition, which once 
again requires the removal of signs when they are no longer needed. The 
Millennium Edition requires that employers remove temporary traffic 
control devices that are no longer appropriate, even when the work is 
only suspended for a short period of time.

Section 6C (Temporary Traffic Control Elements)

    The 1971 MUTCD does not discuss traffic control plans (TCPs), which 
are used by industry to describe traffic controls that are to be 
implemented in moving vehicle and pedestrian traffic through a 
temporary traffic control zone. Revision 3 emphasizes the importance of 
TCPs in facilitating safe and efficient traffic flow. Revision 3 
recognizes that different TCPs are suitable for different projects and 
does not detail specific requirements. The Millennium Edition offers 
expanded guidance and options for TCPs, but it adds no requirements. In 
both Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition, a TCP is recommended but 
not required. Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition also discuss the 
``temporary traffic control zone,'' comprised of several areas known as 
the ``advance warning area,'' ``transition area,'' ``activity area,'' 
and ``termination area.'' In addition, Revision 3 and the Millennium 
Edition explain the need for differing traffic control measures in each 
control zone area.
    The 1971 MUTCD only briefly describes ``tapers'' and provides a 
formula for calculating the appropriate taper length. However, Revision 
3 defines and discusses five specific types of tapers used to move 
traffic in or out of the normal path of travel. It illustrates each of 
them, and sets out specific formulae for calculating their appropriate 
length. In all three editions, information relating to tapers is 
limited to guidance and contains no mandatory requirements.
    All versions of the MUTCD require the coordination of traffic 
movement, when traffic from both directions must share a single lane. 
Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition describe five means of 
``alternate one-way traffic control,'' adding the ``Stop or Yield 
Control Method'' to the methods described in the 1971 MUTCD. The ``Stop 
or Yield Control Method'' is appropriate for a low-volume two-lane road 
where one side is closed and the other side must serve both directions. 
It calls for a stop or yield sign to be installed on the side that is 
closed. The approach to the side that is not closed must be visible to 
the driver who must yield or stop.

Section 6D (Pedestrian and Worker Safety)

    Revision 3 adds a lengthy section, not found in the 1971 MUTCD, 
that provides guidance and options on pedestrian and worker safety. 
Under Revision 3, the key elements of traffic control management that 
should be considered in any procedure for assuring worker safety are 
training, worker clothing, barriers, speed reduction, use of police, 
lighting, special devices, public information, and road closure. 
Revision 3 recommends that these traffic control techniques be applied 
by qualified persons exercising good engineering judgment. The 
Millennium Edition makes this recommendation a requirement. The 
Millennium Edition also requires advance notification of sidewalk 
closures.

Section 6E (Hand Signaling or Flagger Control)

    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition require that a flagger wear 
an orange, yellow, or ``strong yellow green'' (called ``yellow-green'' 
in Millennium Edition) vest, shirt, or jacket, instead of an ``orange 
vest and/or an orange cap,'' as directed in the 1971 ANSI standard. For 
nighttime work, Revision 3 requires that the outer garment be retro-
reflective orange, yellow, white, silver, or strong yellow-green, or a 
fluorescent version of one of these colors. This clothing must be 
designed to identify clearly the wearer as a person, and the clothing 
must be visible through the full range of body motions. For nighttime 
work, the Millennium Edition requires that the colors noted above be 
retro-reflective, but does not mandate that the clothing be visible 
through the full range of body motions. Both Revision 3 and the 
Millennium Edition allow the employer more flexibility in selecting 
colors.
    Under the 1971 ANSI standard, the flagger was required to be 
visible to approaching traffic at a distance that would allow a 
motorist to respond appropriately. Revision 3 and the Millennium 
Edition contain more specific requirements. Under both versions, 
flaggers must be visible at a minimum distance of 1,000 feet. In 
addition, Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition list training in ``safe 
traffic control practices'' as a minimum flagger qualification.
    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition depart significantly from the 
1971 ANSI standard by requiring that ``Stop/Slow'' paddles, not flags, 
be the primary hand-signaling device. The paddles must have an 
octagonal shape on a rigid handle, and be at least 18 inches wide with 
letters at least six inches high. The 1971 ANSI standard recommended a 
24-inch width. Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition require that 
paddles be retro-reflectorized when used at night. Flags would still be 
allowed in emergency situations or in low-speed and/or low-volume 
locations. Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition differ in that 
Revision 3's recommendations for flag and paddle signaling practice are 
requirements in the Millennium Edition. In addition, the Millennium 
Edition applies several new requirements when flagging is used. The 
flagger's free arm must be held with the palm of the hand above 
shoulder level toward approaching traffic and the flagger must motion 
with the flagger's free hand for road users to proceed. These 
requirements were guidance in Revision 3, and options in the 1971 ANSI 
standard.

Section 6F (Devices)

    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition reflect numerous differences 
in the design and use of various traffic control devices, such as 
signs, signals, cones, barricades and markings, used in temporary 
traffic control zones. Several signs or devices are described that are 
not mentioned in Part VI of the 1971 ANSI standard. These signs and 
devices, along with their location in Revision 3 and the Millennium 
Edition, can be found in Table 1.

[[Page 57726]]



                                                    Table 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          New signs and devices                           Revision 3                      Millennium edition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable Changeable Message Signs.......  6F-2......................................  6F.52.
Arrow Displays..........................  6F-3......................................  6F.53.
High-Level Warning Device or Flag Tree..  6F-4......................................  6F.54.
Temporary Raised Islands................  6F-5h.....................................  6F.63.
Impact Attenuators......................  6F-8a.....................................  6F.76.
Portable Barriers.......................  6F-5g and 8b..............................  6F.75.
Temporary Traffic Signals...............  6F-8c.....................................  6F.74.
Rumble Strips...........................  6F-8d.....................................  6F.78.
Screens.................................  6F-8e.....................................  6F.79.
Opposing Traffic Lane Divider...........  6F-8f.....................................  6F.64.
Shoulder Drop-Off.......................  6F-1b(19).................................  6F.41.
Uneven Lanes............................  6F-1b(20).................................  6F.42.
No Center Stripe........................  6F-1b(21).................................  6F.43.
Be Prepared to Stop.....................  Vl-8c sign W20-7b.........................  6F.15, W3-1a.
Detour Marker and End Detour............  6F-1c(4)..................................  6F.15.
Various Other Warning Signs.............  V1-8a, signs W1-4bR, W1-4cR, W1-8, W3-3,    ..........................
                                           W4-1 and W4-3 and V1-8b, signs W5-2a and
                                           W8-3a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dimensions, shape, legends or use of various signs have changed. Those changes are reflected in Table 2.


                                                    Table 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                New signs                                 Revision 3                      Millennium edition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn Off 2-Way Radios and Cellular        6F-1b(18a) and (18b)......................  6F.15, W22-2.
 Telephones.
Stop Ahead and Yield Ahead..............  VI-8a, signs W3-1a and W3-2a..............  6F.15, W3-1a & W3-2a.
Road Narrows and Narrow Bridge..........  VI-8a, signs W5-1 and W5-2................  6F.15, W5-1 & W5-2.
Right Lane Ends.........................  VI-8c, sign W9-1..........................  6F.15, W9-1.
Length of Work..........................  6F-1c(2)..................................  6F.15, G20-1.
End Road Work...........................  6F-1c(3)..................................  6F.15, G20-2a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition offer expanded options 
for the color of temporary traffic control signs. Signs that under the 
1971 ANSI standard were required to have orange backgrounds may now 
have fluorescent red-orange or fluorescent yellow-orange backgrounds.
    The 1971 ANSI standard required that signs in rural areas be posted 
at least five feet above the pavement; signs in urban areas were 
required to be at least seven feet above the pavement. Revision 3 
eliminated the distinction between urban and rural areas, and 
downgraded the requirement to a recommendation. It recommended that 
signs in all areas have a minimum height of seven feet. In the 
Millennium Edition, the FHWA returned to the 1971 ANSI requirements. 
The Millennium Edition also introduced the requirement that signs and 
sign supports be crashworthy.
    The Millennium Edition introduced and clarified mandatory 
requirements for the design of the following signs: Weight Limit, 
Detour, Road (Street) Closed, One Lane Road, Lane(s) Closed, Shoulder 
Work, Utility Work, signs for blasting areas, Shoulder Drop-Off, Road 
Work next XX KM (Miles), and Portable Changeable Message.
    The dimensions, color or use of certain channelizing devices have 
also changed. ``Channelizing devices'' include cones, tubular markers, 
vertical panels, drums, barricades, temporary raised islands and 
barriers. The 1971 ANSI standard required that traffic cones and 
tubular markers be at least 18 inches in height and that the cones be 
predominantly orange. Revision 3 raised the minimum height for traffic 
cones and tubular markers to 28'' ``when they are used on freeways and 
other high speed highways, on all highways during nighttime, or 
whenever more conspicuous guidance is needed.'' (6F-5b(1), 5c(1)) 
Revision 3 also expanded the color options for cones to include 
fluorescent red-orange and fluorescent yellow-orange. The Millennium 
Edition maintained these requirements.
    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition require that vertical panels 
be 8 to 12 inches wide, rather than the 6 to 8 inches required by the 
1971 ANSI standard. Under Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition, drums 
must be made of lightweight, flexible and deformable materials, at 
least 36 inches in height, and at least 18 inches in width. Steel drums 
may not be used. The Millennium Edition adds the requirement that each 
drum have a minimum of two orange and two white stripes with the top 
stripe being orange. Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition require that 
delineators only be used in combination with other devices, be white or 
yellow, depending on which side of the road they are on, and be mounted 
approximately four feet above the near roadway edge.
    The 1971 ANSI standard required warning lights to be mounted at 
least 36 inches high. Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition reduced the 
minimum height to 30 inches and introduced new requirements for warning 
lights. Type A low intensity flashing warning lights and Type C steady-
burn warning lights must be maintained so as to allow a nighttime 
visibility of 3000 feet. Type B high intensity flashing warning lights 
must be visible on a sunny day from a distance of 1000 feet.
    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition contain an additional 
requirement, not found in the 1971 ANSI standard, that requires 
employers to remove channelizing devices that are damaged and have lost 
a significant amount of their retro-reflectivity and effectiveness. 
Revision 3 and the

[[Page 57727]]

Millennium Edition also specifically prohibit placing ballast on the 
tops of drums or using heavy objects such as rocks or chunks of 
concrete as barricade ballast.
    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition address in greater detail the 
appearance and use of pavement markings and devices used to delineate 
vehicle and pedestrian paths. They require that after completion of the 
project, pavement markings be properly obliterated to ensure complete 
removal and a minimum of pavement scars. Whereas Revision 3 requires 
that all temporary broken-line pavement markings be at least four feet 
long, the Millennium Edition sets the minimum at two feet.

Section 6G (Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities)

    This section, not found in the 1971 ANSI standard, provides 
information on selecting the appropriate applications and modifications 
for a temporary traffic control zone. The selection depends on three 
primary factors: Work duration, work location, and highway type. 
Section 6G in both Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition emphasizes 
that the specific typical applications described do not include a 
layout for every conceivable work situation and that typical 
applications should, when necessary, be tailored to the conditions of a 
particular temporary traffic control zone.
    Among the specific new requirements in Revision 3 and the 
Millennium Edition are the following: retro-reflective and/or 
illuminated devices in long term (more than three days) stationary 
temporary traffic control zones; warning devices on (or accompanying) 
mobile operations that move at speeds greater than 20 mph; warning sign 
in advance of certain closed paved shoulders; a transition area 
containing a merging taper in advance of a lane closure on a multi-lane 
road; temporary traffic control devices accompanying traffic barriers 
that are placed immediately adjacent to the traveled way; and temporary 
traffic barriers or channelizing devices separating opposing traffic on 
a two-way roadway that is normally divided.
    The Millennium Edition includes several additional requirements in 
Section 6G. It requires the use of retro-reflective and/or illuminated 
devices in intermediate-term stationary temporary traffic control 
zones. A zone is considered intermediate-term if it is occupying a 
location more than one daylight period up to three days, or if there is 
nighttime work in the zone lasting more than one hour. The Millennium 
Edition also requires a transition area containing a merging taper when 
one lane is closed on a multi-lane road. When only the left lane on 
undivided roads is closed, the merging taper must use channelizing 
devices and the temporary traffic barrier must be placed beyond the 
transition area channelizing devices along the centerline and the 
adjacent lane. In addition, when a directional roadway is closed, 
inapplicable WRONG WAY signs and markings, and other existing traffic 
control devices at intersections within the temporary two-lane two-way 
operations section, must be covered, removed, or obliterated.

Revision 3 Section 6H (Application of Devices)

    Revision 3 and the Millennium Edition provide an extensive series 
of diagrams illustrating Atypical applications' of the temporary 
traffic control requirements. These illustrations are intended as 
practical guides on how to apply all the factors discussed in other 
chapters and displayed on Figures and Tables throughout Part VI.

Effective Date

    In the direct final rule, OSHA set an effective date of August 13, 
2002. In two of the eight comments received in response to the direct 
final rule and proposed rule, commenters asserted that the effective 
date needed to be delayed by one year. The Agency is treating those two 
comments as significant adverse comments.
    The National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) asserted 
that an additional year was needed to ``allow enough time for industry 
organizations to notify their constituents of their new compliance 
responsibilities and for contractors to achieve full compliance.'' (EX 
2-3). Specifically, NECA stated:

    Most construction contractors not involved in routine highway 
construction are unaccustomed to the details [of the updated MUTCD] 
* * * Utility contractors performing progressive removal and/or 
installation of electrical and communication line, piping, sewer 
system are not usually involved in the construction and maintenance 
of roadways * * * There could be a shortage of traffic control 
devices from suppliers and manufacturers to meet expanded requests 
if there is an abrupt need to achieve full compliance among a 
broader construction audience than expected. This could potentially 
lead to unpredicted non-compliance among highway construction 
contractors as well as among non-highway contractors. For example, a 
representative of a major manufacturer of temporary traffic lane 
marking recently told NECA that the company's typical months for 
producing the tape for the upcoming construction season are February 
and March, suggesting a possible shortage of material until well 
after the proposed OSHA effective compliance date of August 2002. 
Available material and equipment supply may not meet a rapid demand. 
Manufacturers and suppliers should be allowed time to expand their 
inventory in anticipation of expanded demand.

(EX 2-3).
    The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) submitted similar 
comments (EX-2-7), asserting that:

    Most residential construction is not involved in routine highway 
construction and therefore, most are not aware of the requirements 
of the MUTCD. * * * [T]here may be a shortage of traffic control 
devices and equipment that could lead to significant cost increases 
or non-compliance with the new standard if these are unavailable. 
This would add additional costs to residential construction projects 
that are currently in progress or for contracts for construction 
endeavors that are already in place.

(EX 2-7).
    The Agency finds that these assertions fail to demonstrate a need 
for a one-year delay in the effective date. Implicit in the comments is 
the assumption that the MUTCD has applied only to employers engaged in 
road work, while OSHA is now seeking to apply the revised MUTCD to 
contractors engaged in non-road work affected by road traffic hazards. 
The assumption that the requirements of the 1971 MUTCD were limited to 
the construction/repair of roads is incorrect. In section 6A-3 
(``Application of Standards'') of the 1971 MUTCD, ``construction and 
maintenance operations'' covered by the manual are described as 
including ``encroachments by adjacent building construction.''
    Also, with respect to NECA's comment, as stated in section 6A-2 
(Scope) of the 1971 MUTCD, the requirements have applied specifically 
to ``utility work.'' Additionally, in 29 U.S.C. 1926 subpart V (Power 
Transmission and Distribution), section 1926.955(b)(7) requires that in 
metal power transmission/distribution tower construction, adequate 
traffic control must be maintained when crossing highways with 
equipment as required by the provisions of 1926.200 (g)(2)--which had 
incorporated the 1971 MUTCD. This Subpart V requirement has been in 
place since 1973. Therefore, employers other than just those 
constructing/repairing roads have had to comply with the 1971 MUTCD for 
approximately 30 years.
    As discussed below, in analyzing the costs of updating the rule, 
OSHA estimates that the overwhelming majority of roads in the United 
States

[[Page 57728]]

are subject to DOT requirements to comply with Revision 3 or the 
Millennium Edition. Consequently, the percentage of worksites where 
equipment is now going to be required for the first time is small. 
Furthermore, it is unlikely that many construction employers work 
exclusively on sites subject to DOT jurisdiction. As long as some of 
their work has been subject to DOT requirements, they have had to have 
the equipment necessary to comply with the updated MUTCD since 1996. 
Therefore, it is unlikely that whatever new demand there is for 
equipment will be significant relative to current industry production 
levels.
    The NAHB and NECA also stated that more time is needed to train 
both the industry and OSHA compliance officers on the updated MUTCD. In 
light of the fact that most affected employers have been required to 
comply with the updated MUTCD since 1996, it appears that a one-year 
extension in the effective date, which was requested by these 
commenters, is not necessary. However, to facilitate the Agency's 
emphasis on outreach efforts, OSHA has added 120 days to the original 
proposed effective date; the new effective date is December 11, 2002. 
This will also accommodate the small number of employers affected by 
this rule that have not until now been required to comply with the 
updated MUTCD requirements.

Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

Relationship to Existing DOT Regulations
    Through this rule, OSHA is requiring that traffic control signs, 
signals, barricades or devices conform to Revision 3 or Part VI of the 
Millennium Edition, instead of the ANSI MUTCD. The ANSI MUTCD was 
issued in 1971. In 1988 the FHWA substantially revised and reissued the 
MUTCD. Since that time, FHWA has published several updates, including a 
1993 revision to Part VI--Revision 3. In December 2000, FHWA published 
a Millennium Edition of the MUTCD that changed the format and revised 
several requirements. Employers that receive Federal highway funds are 
currently required to comply with Revision 3 and have up until January 
2003 to bring their programs into compliance with the Millennium 
Edition.
    This is a significant regulatory action and has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. OSHA 
has determined that this action is not an economically significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Revision 
3 of the MUTCD adds to the ANSI requirements some new, alternative 
traffic control devices and expanded provisions and guidance materials, 
including new typical application diagrams that incorporate technology 
advances in traffic control device application. Part VI of the 
Millennium Edition includes some alternative traffic control devices 
and only a very limited number of new or changed requirements. However, 
the activities required by compliance with either Revision 3 or the 
Millennium Edition would not be new or a departure from current 
practices for the vast majority of work sites. All of these 
requirements are now or have been part of DOT regulations that cover 
work-related activities on many public roadways.
    According to DOT regulations, the MUTCD is the national standard 
for streets, highways and bicycle trails. While OSHA's de minimus 
policy is applied to situations in which there is failure to comply 
with the 1971 ANSI MUTCD when there is compliance with Revision 3, this 
action will reduce any confusion created by the current requirement for 
employers to comply both with the 1971 ANSI MUTCD and DOT's MUTCD.
Percentage of Roads Covered Under OSHA's Standard Versus the DOT 
Standard
    The majority of U.S. roads are currently covered by DOT regulations 
and their related State MUTCDs. DOT regulations cover all federal-aid 
highways, which carry the majority of traffic. Moreover, many states 
extend MUTCD coverage to non-federal-aid and private roads. Thus, the 
requirements imposed by this OSHA final rule will be new only for the 
small percentage of the work that is not directly regulated by DOT or 
state transportation agencies.
    Federal-Aid Highways. Employers must comply with Revision 3 for all 
construction work respecting federal-aid highways. Although federal-aid 
highways constitute a minority of all public highways as measured by 
length, these highways carry the great majority of traffic. According 
to OSHA's analysis, 84 percent of vehicle-miles are driven on federal-
aid highways (see Table 1). Though not a perfect measure, vehicular use 
corresponds more directly than length of road to the need for 
construction, repair, and other work activities addressed by the MUTCD. 
This suggests that most of these activities occur with respect to 
federal-aid highways. Conforming to the standards of the MUTCD during 
these work activities is a clear requirement of receiving federal 
highway funds and is therefore regulated by DOT.
    State, Local, County and Municipal Roads (not Receiving Federal 
Aid). The available data suggest that work respecting most non-federal-
aid roads are required to comply with the MUTCD. Many states choose to 
regulate public roadways that are not federal-aid highways and thereby 
extend the coverage of the MUTCD. For example, OSHA reviewed the 
practices of nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas), which include 
23 percent of all U.S. public roads. In conducting this review, OSHA 
found that eight of the states require MUTCD standards on all state 
roads, while the ninth state requires MUTCD standards on state roads if 
the state contracts the work to be done. Five of these states also 
require that MUTCD standards be met on all county and municipal roads. 
For the sample of nine states, individual state coverage of public 
roads by state MUTCDs ranges from 12 percent to 100 percent (see Table 
2). OSHA found that, on average, MUTCD coverage of all public roads in 
these nine states is 84 percent. (OSHA computed the average across the 
nine states by weighting by total highway miles.)
    Private Roads. OSHA also examined MUTCD coverage of private roads. 
Although data on the extent of private roads is very limited, the best 
available information indicates that about 20 percent of the total 
mileage is accounted for by private roads (see Table 2). Some of these 
private roads are covered by State MUTCD standards. Of the nine states 
examined by OSHA, one state included private roads under the MUTCD 
standards if the state enforced traffic laws on these roads (e.g., 
roads in gated communities). Another state extended MUTCD standards to 
private roads if the state was involved in road design or approval. A 
third state deferred coverage to municipal ordinances, which may 
require meeting MUTCD standards on private roads. Thus, although it is 
clear that some local governments extend coverage to private roads, no 
data are available to specify with precision the extent to which this 
is the case.
Additional Incentives To Comply With the MUTCD
    The estimates of the percentage of roads and highways covered by 
the MUTCD presented above are conservative. States, localities and 
their contractors have additional incentives to comply with the MUTCD 
when it is

[[Page 57729]]

not required. OSHA policy reinforces these incentives because OSHA does 
not enforce compliance with the ANSI MUTCD when there is compliance 
with Revision 3.
    Under 23 U.S.C. 402(a), states must have highway safety programs 
that are approved by the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary is 
directed to promulgate guidelines for establishing these programs. 
Those guidelines state that programs ``should'' conform with the MUTCD. 
DOT does not have the authority to require compliance with the MUTCD on 
roads that do not receive federal aid, but recommends it. In light of 
this, and the statement that the MUTCD is ``the national standard for 
all traffic control devices'' (23 CFR 655.603(a)), the MUTCD has become 
the standard of care for litigation purposes. Thus, when a state or 
local government engages in a road construction project, it will likely 
seek to meet a reasonable standard of care (i.e. compliance with a 
recent edition of the MUTCD). If it does not, it could face substantial 
liability if the construction on its roads is a contributing factor in 
an accident. While compliance with the MUTCD does not insulate a state 
or locality from liability, it significantly reduces its exposure.
    Moreover, many of the contractors who conduct work on covered roads 
are likely to conduct work on non-covered roads as well. In the 
interest of efficiency, these contractors are likely to consistently 
apply the current version of the MUTCD to all work, rather than switch 
back to the ANSI version for a small percentage of their overall 
business.
    Finally, as is discussed below, signs and devices meeting 1993 
specifications are often less expensive than signs meeting 1971 ANSI 
specifications. This has provided contractors involved in road 
construction and repair operations with a natural incentive to replace 
old and worn signs with signs meeting the more up-to-date standard.
Costs Associated With the DOT Standard
    DOT has consistently found that their revisions to the MUTCD as a 
whole and to its various parts have not given rise to new annual costs 
of compliance that are significant within the meaning of that term as 
used in Executive Order 12866. The Federal Register Notice (December 
10, 1993) on the final amendment to the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices (MUTCD); Work Zone Traffic Control states:

    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. As previously discussed in the 
above sections on `Changed Standards' and `New Devices,' this 
revision of Part VI adds some new, alternative traffic control 
devices, and only a very limited number of new or changed 
requirements. Most of the changes included in this version of part 
VI are expanded guidance materials, including many new Typical 
Application Diagrams. The FHWA expects that application uniformity 
will improve at virtually no additional expense to public agencies 
or the motoring public. Therefore, based on this analysis a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

58 FR 65084, 65085.
    The Federal Register Notice (December 18, 2000) on the final 
amendment to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets 
and Highways (MUTCD) states:

    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 will be minimal. Most of the 
changes in this final rule provide additional guidance, 
clarification, and optional applications for traffic control 
devices. The FWHA believes that the uniform application of traffic 
control devices will greatly improve the traffic operations 
efficiency and the safety of roadways at little additional expense 
to public agencies or the monitoring public. Therefore, a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

65 FR 78923, 78957.
    Moreover, OSHA has conducted detailed comparisons of the various 
versions of the MUTCD. The OSHA comparative analysis indicates that the 
majority of changes to the 1971 version offered increased flexibility, 
were advisory in nature, or changed mandatory requirements to non-
mandatory provisions. Table 3 summarizes the differences between the 
1971 ANSI MUTCD and the 1993 Revision that either potentially increase 
costs or lead to increased flexibility. In cases of increased 
flexibility and changes to non-mandatory provisions, it is likely that 
the effect will be to decrease the costs of compliance.
    In a few instances, however, the 1993 Revision mandated sign or 
device changes that could lead to cost increases because contractors 
would need to purchase new signs for some projects. Table 4 summarizes 
these cases, which include specifications for stop/slow paddles, no 
parking signs, ``road narrows'' and other warnings, and reflective 
traffic drums. The table lists the changes in specifications as well as 
presents prices for the 1971 versus the 1993 version of the sign or 
device. Excluded from Table 4 are ``approach warning signs,'' which are 
additional signs required by the 1993 MUTCD in highly vulnerable areas.
    For stop/slow paddles, the more recent MUTCD version of sign (18'' 
by 18'') is less expensive than the older, ANSI version (24'' by 24''), 
with vendors reporting a price difference of $31.50 per sign. No 
parking signs that include the international ``no parking'' symbol (as 
required in the 1993 MUTCD) but do not include a legend are only $0.80 
more than the older ANSI version of the signs containing only a legend 
(the 1993 MUTCD does not require a legend). For ``road narrows'' and 
other warning signs, the MUTCD version (36'' by 36'') is $31 more than 
the ANSI-specification in the most direct comparison that OSHA 
identified ($90, as compared to $59). One vendor, however, sold a 
version of the new sign using an alternative metal for less than $47. 
Regarding reflective traffic drums, one vendor reported that reflective 
55-gallon metal drums (1971 ANSI standard) are no longer produced. When 
they were last available they sold for $45 to $60 each. A reflective 
traffic drum meeting the MUTCD standard is $68.
    To summarize, prices for signs meeting 1993 MUTCD specifications 
are not significantly higher than prices for signs meeting 1971 ANSI 
specifications; in fact, the prices are often lower. Moreover, for 
devices such as reflective traffic drums, it is not even possible to 
replace old and worn items with items meeting 1971 standards. This 
suggests that contractors involved in road construction and repair 
operations have had an incentive to update to 1993 specifications as 
their equipment has worn out. The primary effect of the OSHA standard, 
will be to speed the process of switching to 1993 specifications for 
contractors who have not already chosen to switch.
    To further gauge the potential burden of updating to 1993 MUTCD 
specifications, OSHA examined the forty-four colored illustrations of 
the different types of typical highway construction work zones 
presented in Sections 6G through 6H of the 1993 MUTCD. The majority of 
examples of work zones presented in the MUTCD represent situations that 
are currently covered by DOT regulations, and would not be affected by 
the OSHA standard. However, OSHA was able to identify three examples of 
situations that may not fall under DOT regulations, but would be 
included in the scope of the OSHA standard.
    The first example examined was a ``Lane closure on minor street,''

[[Page 57730]]

illustrated by Figure TA-18 (see page 142-3 of the MUTCD). In this 
example, compliance with the 1993 MUTCD would require no changes. 
Requirements would be met using signs and devices meeting the 1971 ANSI 
specifications. Consequently, no incremental costs would be 
attributable to compliance with the 1993 MUTCD.
    The second example examined was a ``Lane closure for one lane-two 
way traffic control,'' illustrated by Figure TA-10 (see page 126-7 of 
the MUTCD). In this setting, compliance with the 1993 MUTCD is achieved 
by adding two flagger signs and four advance warning signs (two ``Right 
[Left] Lane Closed Ahead'' and two ``Road Construction XXX Ft'') to the 
1971 ANSI requirement. In addition, two flagger hand signaling devices 
(sign paddles) meeting the 1993 dimensions (24'' by 24'') are needed. A 
Flagger sign can be purchased for about $34, while the ``Right [Left] 
Lane Closed Ahead'' and ``Road Construction XXX Ft'' signs can be 
purchased for about $47 each. The two sign paddles are $67.\1\ Thus, 
compliance with the 1993 MUTCD would involved a one-time expenditure of 
$323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prices are from Newman Signs (http://www.newmansigns.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, OSHA examined a third situation, ``Lane closure on low-
volume two-lane road,'' illustrated by Figure TA-11 (see page 128-9 of 
the MUTCD). It is important to note that this situation would likely 
apply to a county or state road, and most states already extend the 
coverage of the MUTCD in this setting (see OSHA review of 9 states 
presented below). Here, compliance with the 1993 MUTCD is achieved 
through the use of two ``Right [Left] Lane Closed Ahead'' and two 
``Road Construction XXX Ft'') to the 1971 ANSI requirement, which can 
be purchased for about $47 each.\2\ In addition, one advance warning 
sign with the international symbol for ``yield'' is needed. These can 
be purchased for roughly $100.\3\ Thus, compliance with the 1993 MUTCD 
would involve a one-time expenditure of $288. If it is assumed that 
contractor chooses to use 20 drums instead of 20 cones, this would 
involve a one-time additional expenditure of $1,360, increasing 
compliance costs to $1,648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prices are from Newman Signs (http://www.newmansigns.com/).
    \3\ Prices are from Newman Signs (http://www.newmansigns.com/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DOT has consistently found that changes and revisions to 
the MUTCD do not lead to significant compliance costs. OSHA's 
comparative assessment of the 1971 ANSI requirements and the 1993 MUTCD 
tends to support DOT's findings. Because the OSHA regulation applies 
the MUTCD as developed by DOT, the costs of compliance with the OSHA 
regulation will be insignificant as well.
Costs Attributable to the OSHA Standard
    The analysis discussed above indicates that the costs of compliance 
for OSHA's proposed action will not be significant under Executive 
Order 12866. As DOT has estimated, the costs associated with the 
various versions of the MUTCD and its revisions are small. OSHA's 
comparative analysis of the 1971 ANSI and 1993 MUTCD supports DOT's 
estimates. In addition, the overwhelming majority of public roads are 
already covered by DOT regulations and their related State MUTCDs. As 
discussed above, OSHA estimated that more than 80 percent of work 
performed on U.S. roads is covered by DOT regulations and their related 
State MUTCDs. Due to the extension of MUTCD requirements to non-
federal-aid and private roads as well as additional incentives to 
comply with the MUTCD in situations where compliance is not mandatory, 
the percentage of work already covered is likely to be much higher than 
80 percent. The costs of compliance for those directly regulated by 
OSHA will, therefore, be substantially lower than those estimated for 
compliance with DOT regulations.
    The differences between OSHA's current regulations that reference 
the ANSI MUTCD and DOT's regulations create potential industry 
confusion and inefficiency. OSHA's comparative analysis of the 1971 
ANSI and 1993 MUTCD indicated that the majority of changes offered 
increased flexibility, were advisory in nature, or changed mandatory 
requirements to non-mandatory provisions. Since the costs of the 
proposed action are so minimal, it is possible that they will be 
completely offset by eliminating the inefficiency associated with 
inconsistent OSHA and DOT regulations as well the direct cost savings 
from enhanced flexibility and changes to non-mandatory provisions 
embodied in the 1993 MUTCD.
Technological and Economic Feasibility
    The MUTCD is a standard that has been routinely updated for decades 
by DOT and in fact predates the federal highway program. The process 
used to update this standard is for DOT to work with state highway 
officials, who provide federal officials with information on the 
evolving nature of traffic control devices and industry practices. The 
federal role consists primarily of compiling this evolving set of 
practices and devices into a national manual--the MUTCD--that includes 
standards, guidance, and options. As noted by a DOT official,\4\ the 
MUTCD essentially codifies current industry practice. Thus, most 
potentially affected parties--local governments, highway and utility 
contractors, and others--already apply the MUTCD, which clearly 
demonstrates that doing so is both technologically and economically 
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Personal communication between Rudolph Umbs, Federal Highway 
Administration, and John Duberg, TechLaw, December 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    In order to determine whether a regulatory flexibility analysis is 
required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has evaluated the 
potential economic impacts of this action on small entities. Table 5 
presents the data used in this analysis to determine whether this 
regulation would have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA used the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) Small Business Size Standard and defined 
a small firm as a firm with $27.5 million or less in annual receipts.
    OSHA guidelines for determining the need for regulatory flexibility 
analysis require determining the regulatory costs as a percentage of 
the revenues and profits of small entities. The analysis presented here 
is in most respects a worst-case analysis. OSHA examined the situation 
of a small firm with less than 20 employees all of whose employees work 
on projects not previously covered by Revision 3 or the Millennium 
Edition. OSHA further assumed that the firm previously complied only 
with the existing OSHA rule (1971 ANSI MUTCD). OSHA derived estimates 
of the profits and revenues per firm for establishments with fewer than 
20 employees for ``Highway and Street Construction'' (SIC 1611) using 
data from Census and Dun and Bradstreet. Compliance costs were 
estimated using the third situation examined under Costs Associated 
with the DOT Standard (``Lane closure on low-volume two-lane road'') 
and assuming the worst-case scenario, where compliance costs were 
$1,648. This value served as OSHA's estimate for upper-bound compliance 
costs per construction crew. OSHA assumed that a highway construction 
crew consists of four employees and computed an estimate of average 
total cost of the regulation per establishment of $2,161. Annualized 
compliance costs were $308 per establishments for small entities,

[[Page 57731]]

amounting to 0.03 percent of revenue and 0.85 percent of profit. Based 
on this worst-case evaluation, OSHA certifies that this regulation will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

                       Table 1.--Federal Aid Highway Length, Lane-Miles and Vehicle-Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Length of roadway                      Annual Vehicle-
                         System                              (Miles) \1\      Lane-Miles \2\       Miles \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Highways....................................             46,564            208,649            648,124
Other National Highways................................            113,995            333,355            546,028
                                                        --------------------
    Total National Highways............................            160,559            542,004          1,194,152
                                                        ====================
Other Federal-Aid......................................            797,783          1,719,703          1,093,975
                                                        --------------------
    Total Federal-Aid Highways.........................            958,342          2,261,707          2,288,127
                                                        ====================
Non Federal-Highways...................................          2,973,673          5,947,348            420,201
                                                        --------------------
    Total Highways.....................................          3,932,015          8,209,055          2,708,328
                                                        ====================
Federal-Aid as a Percent of Total......................                24%                28%               84%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FHWA, Highway Statistics: 1999, Section V, Table HM-16.
\2\ FHWA, Highway Statistics: 1999, Section V, Table HM-48.
\3\ FHWA, Highway Statistics: 1999, Section V, Table VM-3.


                                       Table 2.--Highway Miles Covered by Federal or State MUTCDs: Selected States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Covered
                                                                                            Town,                                             miles as a
                      State                         Federal       State        County     township,     Other\2\   Total miles  Total miles    share of
                                                   agency\1\      agency                  municipal                  covered                    total
                                                                                                                                              (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama\3\......................................          733       10,869  ...........  ...........  ...........       11,602       94,246           12
Arkansas\4\.....................................        2,135       16,366       65,347       13,710            1       97,559       97,559          100
Colorado\4\.....................................        6,969        9,071       55,447       12,363        1,299       85,149       85,149          100
Connecticut\4\..................................            4        3,717  ...........       16,807          260       20,788       20,788          100
Delaware\5\.....................................            7        5,065  ...........  ...........  ...........        5,072        5,748           88
Kentucky\6\.....................................        1,013       27,477  ...........  ...........  ...........       28,490       74,120           38
Michigan\4\.....................................        2,083        9,725       89,344       20,570  ...........      121,722      121,722          100
North Carolina\7\...............................        2,361       78,103  ...........  ...........  ...........       80,464       99,301           81
Texas\4\........................................          454       79,164      142,285       78,488          116      300,507      300,507          100
                                                 --------------
    9 State Total...............................       15,759      239,557      352,423      141,938        1,676      751,353      899,140           84
                                                 --------------
U.S. Total......................................      118,391      773,904    1,766,396    1,206,925       66,401  ...........    3,932,017  ...........
                                                 --------------
9 States as a % of U.S. Total...................          13%          31%          20%          12%           3%  ...........          23%  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FHWA, Highway Statistics: 1999, Section V, Table HM-10
\1\ Roadways in Federal parks, forests, and reservations that are not part of the State and local highway systems.
\2\ Includes State park, State toll, other State agency, other local agency, and other roadways not identified by ownership.
\3\ County, other local public, and private roads are covered if the state was part of design work or road approval.
\4\ All state, county, and municipal roads are covered.
\5\ Municipal and private roads are not covered.
\6\ All state, county, and municipal roads are covered if the state contracts the work.
\7\ NC has no county road; municipalities ``should'' use the MUTCD.
\8\ States for which OSHA reviewed MUTCD requirements.


       Table 3.--Changes in 1993 MUTCD (vs. 1971 ANSI) that Lead to Potential Cost Decreases or Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           1971 ANSI MUTCD                  1993 Rev 3, Part VI MUTCD                Nature of change(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6E-3 Flagmen:                         6E-3: High Visibility Clothing:       ....................................
The use of an orange vest, and/or an  1. For daytime work, the flagger's    Mandatory provisions offer more
 orange cap shall be required for      vest, shirt, or jacket shall be       flexibility--wider range of
 flagmen.                              orange, yellow, strong yellow green   acceptable garments and colors.
                                       or fluorescent versions of these
                                       colors.
For nighttime * * * garments shall    For nighttime work, * * * the         Clarification of visibility distance
 be reflectorized.                     garments shall be retroreflective:    requirements.
                                      1. Orange, yellow, white, silver,     Millennium Edition no longer
                                       strong yellow-green, or a             requires visibility through full
                                       fluorescent version of one of         range of body motions.
                                       these.
                                      2. Shall be visible at a minimum      ....................................
                                       distance of 1,000 feet.
                                      3. Shall be designed to identify      ....................................
                                       clearly the wearer as a person and
                                       be visible through the full range
                                       of body motions.

[[Page 57732]]

 
6E-2. Hand-Signaling Devices:         6E-4. Hand-Signaling Devices:         Sign change.
Sign paddles should be at least 24    The standard STOP/SLOW sign paddle    ....................................
 inches wide * * *                     shall be 18 inches square.
6E-5. Flagger Stations:               6E-6. Flagger Stations:               ....................................
* * * distance is related to          Table VI-1, Guidelines for length of  Guidance provisions that offer more
 approach speed and physical           longitudinal buffer space, may be     flexibility.
 conditions at the site; however,      used for locating flagger stations
 200 to 3000 feet is desirable.        in advance of the work space. (Pg.
                                       13: lengths start at 35 feet for
                                       20MPH speed to 485 feet for 65
                                       MPH))
                                      Footnote to the guidelines in Table   Contractors that perform work on
                                       VI indicate that distances apply on   steep downgrades most likely have
                                       wet and level pavements. Employers    referenced the document under
                                       will have to purchase the AASHTO      projects covered by DOT
                                       (1990) document (A Policy on          regulations. OSHA should be able to
                                       Geometric Design of Highways and      include this information in the
                                       Streets, AASHTO) for recommended      Federal Register or on the web.
                                       adjustments for the effect of grade
                                       on stopping and variation for
                                       trucks. Also, 6E-6 references the
                                       same AASHTO document (1990), Table
                                       III-2 for ``distance may be
                                       increased for downgrades.'' The
                                       reference to the 1990 document is
                                       outdated. Employers may purchase
                                       AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric
                                       Design of Highways and Streets,
                                       2001. Member Price: $80 or Non
                                       Member Price: $102
Figure 6-12 depicts 14 commonly used  Figure VI-7A and VI-7b includes the   The additional signs allow greater
 regulatory signs.                     14 commonly used regulatory signs     flexibility.
                                       depicted in 1971 ANSI plus 7
                                       additional signs:
                                      R3-1 (24''x24'') International        ....................................
                                       symbol: no right turn
                                      R3-2 (24''x24'') International        ....................................
                                       symbol: no left turn
                                      R3-5 (30''x36'') left curve only      ....................................
                                      R3-6 (30''x36'') International        ....................................
                                       symbol: left lane bear left
R4-7: international symbol with       R3-7 (30''x30'') Left lane must turn  ....................................
 additional plaque that reads Keep     left
 Right (24''x18'').
                                      R3-8 (30''x30'') Multi-turn left      ....................................
                                       lanes
                                      Two of the 14 signs depicted in ANSI  ....................................
                                       1971 were modified:
                                      R4-7: additional plaque (24''x18'')   ....................................
                                       is no longer required.
R8-3 (24''x30'') ``No Parking''       R8-3 (24''x24'') Letter sign was      Sign change.
 sign.                                 revised to reflect the
                                       international symbol for no
                                       parking.
6B-8 Road (Street) Closed Sign        6-F.1.a(4):                           Changed to non-mandatory.
The Road (Street) Closed sign shall   The ``shall'' provisions for Road     ....................................
 be used where the roadway is closed   (Street) Closed signs, etc., have
 to all traffic except contractors'    been changed to ``should.''
 equipment * * * and shall be
 accompanied by appropriate detour
 signing.
6B-10 Weight Limit Signs              6-F.1a.(6):                           Changed to non-mandatory.
Weight restrictions must be           Weight restrictions should be         ....................................
 consistent with State or local        consistent with State or local
 regulations * * *                     regulations. One weight limit sign
                                       (R12-5 (30''x36'') was added for
                                       optional use.
``Flagman 500 Ft'' sign.              A Sign changed to international       Changed to non-mandatory.
                                       symbol for flagger (48''x48'')--
                                       this sign may be used in
                                       conjunction with other warning
                                       signs.
``Road Work 1 Mile'' sign.            This sign is omitted.                 ....................................
``Road Narrows'' W5-1: 30''x30''      Dimensions changed to 36''x36''       Sign change.
``Narrow Bridge'' W5-2: 30''x30''     Dimensions changed to 36''x36''       Sign change.
``Right Lane Ends'' W9-1: 30''x30''   Dimensions changed to 36''x36''       Sign change.
International symbol signs require    International symbol signs no longer  Greater flexibility. Reduction in
 descriptive plaques:                  require descriptive plaques:          requirements.
(1) W6-1 with plaque: Divided         ....................................  ....................................
 Highway (24''x18'')
(2) W6-2 with plaque: Divided         ....................................  ....................................
 Highway Ends (24''x18'')
(3) W12-2 with plaque: Low Clearance  ....................................  ....................................
 (24''x18'')
(4) W8-5 plaque: Slippery When Wet    ....................................  ....................................
 (24''x18'')
                                      6-F.1 b.(4): Other approach warning   Greater flexibility.
                                       signs.
                                      Certain conditions require other      ....................................
                                       advance warning signs, such as
                                       limited sight distance or because
                                       an obstruction may require a
                                       motorist to stop. There are no
                                       specified standards for such signs.
                                       The determination of the sign or
                                       signs to be used shall be based on
                                       an engineering study using the
                                       following sections as guidelines.
                                       As an alternative to a specific
                                       distance on these advance warning
                                       signs, the word AHEAD may be used.
                                      Blasting Zone Ahead: W22-1:           ....................................
                                       Previously, ``Blasting Zone 1000
                                       ft.'' Turn off Two-way Radios and
                                       Cellular Telephones: W22-2: ``and
                                       Cellular Telephones'' was added.
                                      New signs available for selection:    Greater flexibility.
                                      Shoulder Drop Off: W8-9a              ....................................
                                      Uneven Lanes: W8-11                   ....................................
                                      No Center Strip: W8-12                ....................................

[[Page 57733]]

 
                                      Lane curves: W1-4bR; W1-4cR           ....................................
                                      Bear right: W1-8                      ....................................
                                      Signal ahead: W3-3                    ....................................
                                      Right lane traffic merging: W4-1; W4- ....................................
                                       3
                                      Lane narrows: W5-2a                   ....................................
                                      International symbol for ``pavement   ....................................
                                       ends'': W8-3a
                                      Truck crossing: W8-6                  ....................................
                                      Loose gravel: W8-7                    ....................................
                                      Rough road: W8-7                      ....................................
                                      Shoulder Drop off: W8-9a              ....................................
                                      Be Prepared to Stop: W20-7b           ....................................
                                      6F-2. Portable Changeable Message     PCMS is most frequently on high-
                                       Signs (PCMS).                         density, urban freeways.
                                      * * * used most frequently on high-   These situations are most likely to
                                       density, urban freeways, * * * or     be covered by DOT regulations, and
                                       where highway alignment, traffic      thus, not affected by the OSHA
                                       routing problems or other             standard.
                                       conditions require advance warning
                                       and information.
                                      6F-3. Arrow Displays. * * * intended  The Arrow Displays is an optional
                                       to provide additional warning and     means (non-mandatory) for employers
                                       directional information to assist     to supplement other traffic control
                                       in merging and controlling traffic    devices. It is popular because it
                                       through or around a temporary         can be highly mobile (mounted on a
                                       traffic control zone.                 vehicle, trailer, etc.) and easily
                                                                             repositioned as the job progresses.
                                      Type A: appropriate for use on low-   ....................................
                                       speed urban streets.
                                      Type B: for intermediate-speed        ....................................
                                       facilities and for maintenance or
                                       mobile operations on high-speed
                                       roadways.
                                      Type C: used on high-speed, high      ....................................
                                       volume traffic control projects.
                                      Arrow display panels shall be
                                       mounted on a vehcile, a trailer, or
                                       other suitable support.
                                      Arrow display shall not be used on a
                                       two-lane, two-way roadway for
                                       temporary one-lane operation.
                                      An arrow display shall not be used
                                       on a multilane roadway to laterally
                                       shift all lanes of traffic, because
                                       unnecessary lane changing may
                                       result.
                                      6F-4. High-level warning device       The high level warning device, also
                                       (flag tree). * * * most commonly      referred to as the flag tree, is
                                       used in urban high-density traffic    another option (non-mandatory) for
                                       situations to warn motorists of       employers to use in addition to
                                       short-term operations                 other traffic control devices.
                                      * * * may supplement other traffic
                                       control devices in temporary
                                       traffic control zones.
                                      * * * shall consist of:
                                      --minimum of two flags with or
                                       without a Type B, high intensity,
                                       flashing warning light.
                                      --distance from the road way to the
                                       bottom of the lens of the light and
                                       to the lowest point of the flay
                                       material shall be no less than 8
                                       feet.
                                      --flags shall be 16 inches square or
                                       larger and shall be orange or
                                       fluorescent versions of orange in
                                       color.
6C-3 Cone Design                      6F-5 Channelizing Devices             Projects on freeways and high-speed
                                                                             highways are likely to fall under
                                                                             DOT regulations, and thus, are
                                                                             unaffected by the OSHA standard.
These shall be a minimum of 18        6F-5b Cones
 inches in height
                                      * * * shall be a minimum of 18
                                       inches-except when used on freeways
                                       and other high-speed highways they
                                       shall be 28 inches in height.
                                      Retroreflection of 28-inch or larger
                                       cones shall be provided by a white
                                       band 6 inches wide, no more than 3
                                       to 4 inches from the top of the
                                       cone, and an additional 4-inch wide
                                       white band a minimum of 2 inches
                                       below the 6-inch band.
6C-5 Vertical Panels Design           6F-5d Vertical Panels                 Projects on expressways, freeways,
                                                                             and high-speed highways are likely
                                                                             to fall under DOT regulations, and
                                                                             thus, are unaffected by the OSHA
                                                                             standard.
* * * shall consist of at least one   * * * shall be 8 to 12 inches wide *
 panel, 6 to 8 inches in width * * *   * *
                                      Vertical panels used on expressways,
                                       freeways and other high-speed
                                       roadways shall have a minimum of
                                       270 square inches of retro
                                       reflective area facing traffic.
6C-4 Drum Design                      6F-5e Drums                           Device change.
Drums are normally metal drums, of    Drums * * * shall be constructed of
 30 to 55 gallon capacity * * *        lightweight, flexible, and
                                       deformable materials and be a
                                       minimum of 36 inches in height; and
                                       have at least an 18 inch minimum
                                       width, regardless of orientation.
                                      Steel drums shall not be used.

[[Page 57734]]

 
                                      6F-8 Other devices                    Offers greater flexibility. Impact
                                                                             Attenuators, portable barriers,
                                                                             etc. are new devices added to
                                                                             reflect common practices among
                                                                             highway construction and repair
                                                                             contractors.
                                      New section added to reflect current
                                       technology.
                                      1. 6F-8a. Impact Attenuators.
                                      2. 6F-8b. Portable Barriers.
                                      3. 6F-8c. Temporary Traffic Signals.
                                      4. 6F-8d. Rumble Strips.
                                      5. 6F-8e. Screens.
                                      6. 6F-8f. Opposing Traffic Lane
                                       Divider.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 4.--Prices for Traffic Warning Signs and Devices Changed by the 1993 MUTCD Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Applicable
           Sign/Device             Summary of Change        Source               Price             standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Stop/Slow' Sign Paddle.........  1971 ANSI width     Pac Sign Co. (G-hs- $65.00............  1971 ANSI
                                   requirements were   12).               33.50.............  1993 MUTCD
                                   (at least) 24      John M. Warren,
                                   inches; Changed     Inc. (TC1006).
                                   to 18 inches
                                   square in 1993
                                   MUTCD.
`No Parking Any Time'...........  Changed to reflect  John M. Warren,     12.95.............  1971 ANSI
                                   international       Inc. (TS1011).
                                   symbol for No
                                   Parking.
No Parking international symbol,  ..................  Newman Signs (R7-   12.05.............  1993 MUTCD
 without written legend.                               31A).              8.47..............  1993 MUTCD
                                                      Newman Signs (R8-
                                                       3A).
`No Parking' with international   ..................  Pac Sign Co. (G-r-  16.00.............  1993 MUTCD
 symbol below legend.                                  101be5).           22.00.............  1993 MUTCD
                                                      Pac Sign Co. (G-r-
                                                       101ra5).
`Narrow Bridge'; `Right Lane      Dimensions changed  Pac Sign Co. (G-w5- 59.00.............  1971 ANSI
 Ends'; `Road Narrows'.            from 30x30 in       2ara22; G-w9-
                                   1971 to 36x36 in    1ra22; G-w5-
                                   1993.               1ra22).
`Right Lane Closed Ahead'.......  ..................  Pac Sign Co. (G-    90.00.............  1993 MUTCD
                                                       w20-5rra27).       ..................  ..................
                                                      Newman Signs (W20-  46.63.............  1993 MUTCD
                                                       5R-A).
Reflective Traffic Drum.........  1971 ANSI           1971 ANSI version   45 to 60 when last  1971 ANSI
                                   requirement:        no longer           available;
                                   metal drums of 30-  produced;           estimate by sales
                                   55 gallon           Northeast Traffic   representative.
                                   capacity.           Control Company.
                                  1993 MUTCD          Bent Manufacturing  68.00.............  1993 MUTCD
                                   requirement:        Superdome Drum.
                                   constructed of
                                   lightweight,
                                   flexible, and
                                   deformable
                                   materials,'' 36
                                   inch height
                                   minimum, 18 inch
                                   width minimum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Price data were obtained from the following Web sites:
John M. Warren, Inc., Mobile, AL
http://www.johnmwarren.com/item.asp?cat=1&ThisPage=0&maxPage=0&prodID=140
http://parkingsignsbypac.safeshopper.com/501/cat501.htm
http://www.johnmwarren.com/item.asp?cat=2&ThisPage=2&maxPage=2&prodID=290
Newman Signs
http://www.newmansigns.com/
Pac Sign Co., Binghamton, NY
http://parkingsignsbypac.safeshopper.com/226/cat226.htm?239
http://parkingsignsbypac.safeshopper.com/544/cat544.htm?239
http://parkingsignsbypac.safeshopper.com/542/cat542.htm?239
http://parkingsignsbypac.safeshopper.com/383/cat383.htm?239
Bent Manufacturing, Huntington Beach, CA
http://www.bentmfg.com/drums.htm


   Table 5.--Data and Calculations for Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Data type/Calculation                    Amount/Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipts (1,000) \1\.................................      $9,807,978
Median return on sales \2\ (in percent)..............               3.00
Estimated profit for 1997............................    $294,239,340
Total employment \1\.................................          42,501
Number of establishments \1\.........................           8,104
Employment per establishment (Total employment                      5.24
 divided by number of establishments)................

[[Page 57735]]

 
Receipts per establishment (Receipts divided by            $1,210,264
 number of establishments)...........................
Profit per establishment (Profit divided by number of         $36,308
 establishments).....................................
Number of crews per establishment (Employment per                   1.31
 establishment divided by 4, assuming 4-person crew).
Worst-case one-time cost per crew (from economic               $1,648
 analysis)...........................................
Total one-time cost per establishment (Worst-case one-         $2,161
 time cost per crew multiplied by number of crews per
 establishment)......................................
Annualization factor (10 year life, 7% interest) \3\.               0.14
Annualized cost per establishment (Total one-time                $308
 cost per establishment multiplied by annualization
 factor).............................................
Cost as a percentage of receipts per establishment                  0.03
 (Annualized cost per establishment divided by
 receipts per establishment).........................
Cost as a percentage of profit per establishment                    0.85 
 (Annualized cost per establishment divided by profit
 per establishment)..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, ``Number of Firms, Number of
  Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, and Receipts by Employment
  Size of the Enterprise for the United States, All Industries--
  1997,''(http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb2.htm#go97) for SIC 1611,
  Highway and Street Construction (Enterprises with less than 20
  employees).
\2\ Data from Dun and Bradstreet, ``Industry Norms & Key Business
  Ratios, 1998-1999,'' for SIC 1611, Highway and Street Construction.
\3\ Annualization factor (Af) computed using the formula following this
  footnote.

  [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE02.000
  
where i is the interest rate and n is the useful life of the 
equipment.

Response to Comments Related to Regulatory Analysis

    Comments received from the National Association of Home Builders 
(NAHB), the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the 
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) confirm the 
existence of situations where: (1) federal funds for road construction 
are not used and (2) state regulations do not mandate adherence to the 
Millennium version of the MUTCD. OSHA's economic analysis both 
acknowledged and estimated the degree to which these situations are 
likely to occur. The comments did not challenge OSHA's estimates. Thus, 
comments received do not substantively affect the original economic 
analysis.
    Both NAHB and NECA raised the concern that the original date of 
compliance could lead to a shortage of traffic control devices. Since 
the overwhelming majority of job sites are already required to comply 
with Millennium version of the MUTCD, the devices are widely available. 
In fact, OSHA's research indicated that devices used to comply with the 
1971 MUTCD often are no longer manufactured. Thus, for some devices, 
compliance with the Millennium edition is much easier than compliance 
with the 1971 edition of the MUTCD.
    Other comments also centered around August 2002 deadline for 
implementation. NECA suggests that such an immediate deadline could 
create a burden by disrupting contracts and work already in progress, 
since the new requirements may not have been incorporated. OSHA has 
addressed these concerns directly by extending the effective date. 
Postponement of the effective date will ensure that the cost of 
complying with the standard (which OSHA has estimated to be quite 
small) will be even smaller.
    In sum, the conclusion of OSHA's original regulatory analysis 
remains. The cost of complying with the standard will not represent a 
significant impact on small or large firms. This conclusion holds even 
in the unlikely case where the costs come entirely in the form of a 
decline in profits. In many cases, firms will be able to pass on at 
least some of the costs, further reducing the regulatory burden. 
Moreover, any costs attributable to the standard are short run in 
nature. As old contracts expire, new contracts will incorporate the 
costs of the new standard directly.

Unfunded Mandates

    This final rule, which amends Subpart G--Signs, Signals, and 
Barricades (29 CFR 1926.200(g)(2), 201(a), 202 and 203) has been 
reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). For the purposes of the UMRA, the 
Agency certifies that this final rule does not impose any Federal 
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, or 
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector, of 
more than $100 million in any year.

Federalism

    OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), which requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain 
from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking 
any actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such 
actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and the 
presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for 
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent 
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the 
extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (29 
U.S.C. 651 et seq.) expresses Congress' intent to preempt State laws 
where OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health standards. 
Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption on issues covered by 
Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, 
a plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 29 
U.S.C. 667. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such 
Plan States must, among other things, be at least as effective in 
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the 
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are 
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for road-
construction safety.
    Although Congress has expressed a clear intent for OSHA standards 
to preempt State job safety and health rules in areas involving the 
safety and health of road-construction workers, this final rule has 
only a minimum impact on the states. DOT requires compliance with the 
MUTCD for ``application on any highway project in which Federal highway 
funds participate and on projects in federally administered areas where 
a Federal department or agency controls the highway or supervises the 
traffic operations.'' 23 CFR 655.603(a). For this work, which 
represents the majority of road construction work in every State, all 
States must require compliance with the current edition of the MUTCD or 
another manual that substantially conforms to the current edition. 
States

[[Page 57736]]

have been required to enforce Revision 3 or their own substantially 
conforming manual since 1994. DOT regulations allow States until 
January 2003 to adopt the Millennium Edition, or another manual that 
substantially conforms to the Millennium Edition. See 23 CFR 
655.603(b). In addition, States must have highway safety programs that 
are approved by the Secretary of Transportation, even for roads that do 
not receive Federal aid. The Secretary is directed to promulgate 
guidelines for establishing these programs. 23 U.S.C. 402(a). Those 
guidelines state, inter alia, that programs should conform with the 
current edition of the MUTCD. Accordingly, most States require 
compliance with the latest edition of the MUTCD even on roads that 
receive no Federal funding. The requirements described in this document 
are new requirements only for the very small percentage of employers 
that are not already covered by the DOT regulations or corresponding 
State requirements. Therefore, the required state plan adoption of the 
provisions of Revision 3 or the Millennium Edition or an equivalent 
standard will also effectively impose a new regulation only on that 
extremely small percentage of employers. (See economic analysis) OSHA 
concludes that this action does not have a significant impact on the 
states.

State Plan Standards

    The 26 States or territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety 
and health plans must adopt an equivalent amendment or one that is at 
least as protective for employees within six months of the publication 
date of this final standard. These states are: Alaska, Arizona, 
California, Connecticut (for State and local government employees 
only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey (for State and local government 
employees only), New York (for State and local government employees 
only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose new information collection requirements 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-30.

List of Subjects in CFR Part 29

    Incorporation by reference, MUTCD, Occupational Safety and Health, 
Traffic control devices.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of John Henshaw, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    This action is taken pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 
section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), section 
107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction 
Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 
FR 50017), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6 day of September, 2002.
John Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
    Part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby 
amended as set forth below:

PART 1926 B--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Subpart G of Part 1926 is revised to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); sections 4, 6, 8, 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) as applicable, 
29 CFR part 1911.

Subpart G--[Amended]

    2. Paragraph (g)(2) of Sec.  1926.200 is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1926.200  Accident prevention signs and tags.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) All traffic control signs or devices used for protection of 
construction workers shall conform to Part VI of the Manual of Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices (AMUTCD''), 1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 
3, 1993, FHWA-SA-94-027 or Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices, Millennium Edition, December 2000, FHWA, which are 
incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register 
approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of the Millennium 
Edition from the following organizations: American Traffic Safety 
Services Association, 15 Riverside Parkway, Suite 100, Fredericksburg, 
VA 22406-1022; Telephone: 1-800-231-3475; FAX: (540) 368-1722; 
www.atssa.com; Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street, 
NW., Suite 300 West, Washington, DC 20005-3438; FAX: (202) 289-7722; 
www.ite.org; and American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials; www.aashto.org; Telephone: 1-800-231-3475; 
FAX: 1-800-525-5562. Electronic copies of the MUTCD 2000 are available 
for downloading at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium. Electronic 
copies of the 1988 Edition MUTCD, Revision 3, are available for 
downloading at http://www.osha.gov/doc/highway_workzones. Both 
documents are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, Room 
N2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210 or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
* * * * *
    3. Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.201 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.201  Signaling.

    (a) Flaggers. Signaling by flaggers and the use of flaggers, 
including warning garments worn by flaggers shall conform to Part VI of 
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (1988 Edition, Revision 
3 or the Millennium Edition), which are incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1926.200(g)(2).
* * * * *
    4. Section 1926.202 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.202  Barricades.

    Barricades for protection of employees shall conform to Part VI of 
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1988 Edition, Revision 3 
or Millennium Edition), which are incorporated by reference in Sec.  
1926.200(g)(2).
    5. Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1926.203 is revised to read as follows:
    1926.203 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) Signals are moving signs, provided by workers, such as 
flaggers, or by devices, such as flashing lights, to warn of possible 
or existing hazards.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-23142 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P