[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24384-24404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11020]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 630

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


Work Zone Safety and Mobility

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to amend its regulation that governs traffic 
safety in highway and street work zones. The FHWA recognizes that 
increasing road construction activity on our highways can lead to an 
increase in congestion and crashes, as well as loss in productivity and 
public frustration with work zones. These proposed changes are intended 
to facilitate consideration of the broader safety and mobility impacts 
of work zones in a more coordinated and comprehensive manner across 
project development stages.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should include the docket number 
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received 
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page 
that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able 
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Battles, Office of 
Transportation Operations, HOTO-1, (202) 366-4372; or Mr. Raymond 
Cuprill, Office of the

[[Page 24385]]

Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

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

Background

Overview of the Proposal

    The principal mission of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(USDOT) is to provide the American people with a transportation system 
that is safe, effective, and secure. Transportation is vital to our 
Nation's economy, national security, and quality of life. We depend on 
transportation for access to jobs, to enable us to conduct our 
business, to supply us with services and goods, and to facilitate our 
leisure and recreational activities. When we take appropriate action to 
address our mobility needs, we can also improve the safety of our 
system and enhance our natural and human environment. We also find that 
there is a decrease in safety and a degradation in environment when we 
do not address critical mobility issues on our highway system. To help 
attain the mission of the USDOT, the FHWA has identified strategic 
goals in the areas of safety, mobility and productivity, environment, 
National security, and organizational excellence. Under the ``mobility 
and productivity'' area, the FHWA has identified ``congestion 
reduction'' as one of the vital few strategies. One way to reduce 
congestion is to improve the performance of our Nation's ``work 
zones.''
    The FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 630 subpart J, ``Traffic 
Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones.'' Work zones cause safety and 
mobility impacts on the traveling public, businesses, workers, and 
transportation agencies, resulting in an overall loss in productivity 
and growing frustration. These work zone impacts are exacerbated by 
growing congestion in many locations. The FHWA recognizes the trends of 
increased road construction, growing traffic, increased crashes, and 
public frustration with work zones. These trends call for a more broad-
based understanding and examination of the safety and mobility impacts 
of work zones on road users, other affected parties, and workers. 
Better addressing work zone safety and mobility requires consideration 
of work zone issues starting early in project development and 
continuing through project completion.
    The current regulation has a broadly stated purpose of providing 
guidance and establishing procedures to ensure that adequate 
consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians, and construction 
workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. However, the content 
of the current regulation is focused primarily on the development of 
traffic control plans (TCPs), the operation of work zones on two-lane, 
two-way roadways, and other provisions that address project 
responsibility, pay items, training and process review and evaluation. 
These provisions in the current regulation primarily address the issue 
of traffic control through the work zone itself. At the time this 
regulation was written, the TCP was an important concept that was and 
still is essential for work zone safety. Today's environment includes 
new challenges due to growing congestion, increasing reconstruction and 
public frustration with work zones. TCPs for work zones are still 
essential, but they are no longer a sufficient approach for managing 
work zone impacts that may extend to an area much bigger than the 
actual work area. The proposed changes to 23 CFR part 630 subpart J are 
intended to facilitate consideration of the broader safety and mobility 
impacts of work zones in a coordinated and comprehensive manner across 
project development stages. The following is a summary of key proposed 
changes:
    [sbull] Title change of 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to ``Work Zone 
Safety and Mobility.''
    [sbull] State transportation departments (hereinafter referred to 
as ``States'') to develop and adopt work zone safety and mobility 
policies. These policies will support the systematic consideration of 
the safety and mobility impacts of work zones during project 
development; and address the safety and mobility needs of all road 
users (i.e., motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with 
disabilities), workers, and other affected parties (i.e., public 
facilities such as parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, 
police stations, and hospitals; and private parties such as businesses 
and residences) on Federal-aid highway projects.
    [sbull] States to conduct work zone impacts analysis during project 
development to better understand individual project characteristics and 
the associated work zone impacts. This will facilitate better 
decisionmaking on alternative project options and in the development of 
appropriate work zone impact mitigation measures.
    [sbull] States to develop Transportation Management Plans (TMPs) 
for projects as determined by the State's policy and the results of the 
work zone impacts analysis. A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) 
documents the mitigation strategies identified during this analysis. 
The TMP facilitates a more comprehensive approach to manage the safety 
and mobility impacts of work zones, by including a Transportation 
Operations Plan (TOP) and a Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP) 
in addition to the current requirement for a Traffic Control Plan 
(TCP).
    [sbull] Provisions that allow States to be more creative and 
performance oriented in their procurement processes by allowing 
flexibility to choose either method-based or performance-based 
specifications for their contracts.

Statement of the Problem

    Work zones are a necessary part of meeting the need to maintain and 
upgrade our aging highway infrastructure. As much of the Nation's 
transportation infrastructure approaches the end of its service life, 
preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance become an increasing part 
of our transportation improvement program.\1\ The Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107) 
enacted in June 1998, provides for a 40 percent increase in 
transportation funding over the total provided in the Intermodal 
Surface

[[Page 24386]]

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), (Pub. L. 102-240; 105 
Stat. 1914; Dec. 18, 1991).\2\ Much of this funding is being spent on 
performing capital improvements and maintaining existing roads, since 
comparatively few new roads are being built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FHWA report, ``Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and 
Safety During Construction and Maintenance Operations,'' September 
1998. This report is available electronically at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_wzs_links.htm or may be 
obtained by writing the FHWA Office of Safety at, 400 7th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    \2\ Statement of Vincent F. Schimmoller, Deputy Executive 
Director, FHWA, USDOT, Before The House Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Hearing on 
Work Zone Safety, July 24, 2001. An electronic copy of this 
statement may be obtained at: http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2001/release100.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, traffic volumes continue to grow and create more 
congestion. As vehicle travel continues to increase significantly 
faster than miles of roadway, we have a growing congestion problem that 
is exacerbated by work zones. From 1980 to 1999, the U.S. experienced a 
76 percent increase in total vehicle-miles traveled, while total lane 
miles of public roads increased only by 1 percent.\3\ Congestion 
affects normal vehicular movement including that of cars, trucks, and 
buses, and is frustrating and costly to both individuals and 
businesses. Studies indicate that over the years, ``extremely'' or 
``severely'' congested highway miles more than doubled from 1982 to 
1997, while uncongested miles dropped by almost half. The Texas 
Transportation Institute (TTI) estimated that the cost of congestion 
was approximately $78 billion in 1999. The combination of heavier 
traffic volumes passing through a road network with more work zones 
increases the operational and safety impacts of those work zones on the 
road network. Recent analysis shows that of this congestion, work zones 
on freeways cause an estimated 24 percent of nonrecurring delay, 
resulting in lost capacity of 60 million vehicles per day (VPD) in the 
summer, and that of 64 million VPD in the winter.\4\ According to FHWA 
estimates, about 12.8 percent of the National Highway System is under 
construction at any time during the summer roadwork season, leading to 
3,110 work zones.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions & Performance (C&P) Report to Congress,'' FHWA, 1999. A 
copy of this report may be obtained electronically at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/1999cpr/.
    \4\ ``Temporary Losses of Capacity Study,'' FHWA, November 5, 
2001. A copy of this report may be obtained by writing the FHWA 
Office of Highway Operations, at 400 7th Street, SW., HOP, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    \5\ Interim results from an FHWA study entitled, ``Snapshot of 
Peak Summer Work Zone Activity.'' This study is currently underway 
and is expected to be completed in June 2003. Copies of the final 
report may be obtained electronically at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workzone.htm or by writing the FHWA Office 
of Highway Operations, at 400 7th Street, SW., HOP, Washington, DC 
20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Work zones continue to have adverse impacts on traveler and worker 
safety. Work zone fatalities reached a high of 1,079 in 2001,\6\ while 
over 40,000 people were injured in work zone related crashes in the 
same year.\7\ From 1997 to 2001, over 4,000 people were killed in work 
zone crashes, with over 220,000 injured; and about 300 workers died in 
road construction activities during the same time frame, as indicated 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational 
Injuries.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The statistics on work zone crashes for the year 2002 were 
not officialy available at the time this NPRM was drafted.
    \7\ Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the 
NHTSA. More information is available electronically at: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
    \8\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational 
injuries is available electronically at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years, highway professionals have devised and implemented 
several strategies and innovative practices for minimizing the 
disruption caused by work zones, while ensuring successful project 
delivery. For example, more work is done during night time to minimize 
the impacts of work zones on the traveling public by avoiding work 
during the more heavily traveled daytime hours. However, the current 
and expected level of investment activity in highway infrastructure (a 
significant portion of which is for maintenance and reconstruction of 
existing roadways) implies that increasingly, work will be done under 
traffic. In 1997, 47.6 percent of highway capital outlay was spent on 
system preservation (resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, 
reconstruction).
    In addition to increased road construction, growing traffic, and 
increases in crashes, public frustration with work zones indicates that 
more effort is required to meet the needs and expectations of the 
American public. The results of a recent FHWA nationwide survey, 
reported in ``Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and 
Transportation in Communities,'' \9\ illustrate the American public's 
frustration with work zones. Work zones were cited as second only to 
poor traffic flow in causing traveler dissatisfaction. The top three 
improvements indicated by the public as a ``great help'' to improve 
roadways and transportation are related to roadway repairs and work 
zones. They are: (a) More durable paving materials (67 percent); (b) 
repairs made during non-rush hours (66 percent); and (c) reducing 
repair time (52 percent). The use of better traffic signs showing 
expected roadwork, and better guide signs for re-routing traffic to 
avoid roadwork, were also cited as being of ``great help,'' by 40 
percent and 35 percent of the respondents, respectively. Many travelers 
indicated a preference to have the road closed completely for moderate 
durations in exchange for long-lasting repairs. About 67 percent of 
respondents expressed support for one-week long road closures, and 37 
percent expressed support for one-month long road closures; while 16 
percent of respondents expressed support for a three-month closing, and 
10 percent or fewer would support longer closings (six months to a 
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The results of the survey are available in ``Moving Ahead: 
The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in 
Communities,'' FHWA Publication No. FHWA-OP-01-017, 2000. A copy of 
this publication is available electronically on the FHWA Web page 
at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/movingahead.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the contracting industry is under pressure to expedite 
construction and minimize disruption by reducing their work hours, 
compressing their schedules and shifts, and increasing night work. They 
have expressed concerns that these pressures affect worker safety, 
reduce productivity, and may compromise quality. Therefore, a balance 
must be achieved between construction needs and the safety and mobility 
needs of the traveling public.
    While safety and mobility are two distinct challenges posed by the 
circumstances faced on highways, it is important to realize that both 
these elements are closely tied to one another. Studies and data 
analyses over time indicate that as congestion builds, crash rates 
increase; and as crashes increase, more congestion occurs. Therefore, 
it is important to develop comprehensive mitigation measures that 
alleviate the impacts of work zones and ultimately improve 
transportation safety and mobility.

Legislative and Regulatory History

    Section 1051 of ISTEA required the Secretary of Transportation 
(Secretary) to develop and implement a highway work zone safety program 
to improve work zone safety at highway construction sites by enhancing 
the quality and effectiveness of traffic control devices, safety 
appurtenances, traffic control plans, and bidding practices for traffic 
control devices and services. The FHWA implemented this provision of 
ISTEA through non-regulatory action, by publishing a notice in the 
Federal Register on October 24, 1995 (60 FR 54562). (Hereinafter 
referred to as ``the notice.'')
    The purpose of this notice was to establish the National Highway 
Work Zone Safety Program (NHWZSP) to

[[Page 24387]]

enhance safety at highway construction, maintenance and utility sites. 
In this notice, the FHWA indicated that having appropriate National and 
State standards and guidelines would contribute to improved work zone 
safety. To attain these National and State standards and guidelines, 
the FHWA identified the need to update its regulation on work zone 
safety, 23 CFR part 630, subpart J.
    The notice indicated that the FHWA would review current work zone 
problems and update the regulation to better reflect current needs 
including reinforcement of guidance on bidding practices, work zone 
crash data collection and analysis at both project and program levels, 
compliance with traffic control plans, and work zone speed limits. 
While the focus of this notice was ``work zone safety,'' it also 
identified the need ``to minimize disruptions to traffic during 
construction of highway projects.''

Discussion for Considering Policy and Regulation Change

    Since establishing the NHWZSP, the FHWA identified work zone safety 
and mobility as major concerns to the traveling public, businesses and 
transportation agencies. Therefore, the FHWA undertook several efforts 
to better address the unique safety and mobility challenges posed by 
work zones, including research and development, and compilation of best 
practices and guidelines. The FHWA is now in the process of updating 23 
CFR part 630 subpart J, which governs traffic safety in highway and 
street work zones. An examination of the current provisions in 23 CFR 
part 630 subpart J indicate that they reflect the needs and issues that 
were relevant at the time the regulation was developed, but are no 
longer comprehensive enough to address the complex issues of today and 
the future.
    The current regulation has a broadly stated purpose of providing 
guidance and establishing procedures to ensure that adequate 
consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians, and workers on all 
Federal-aid construction projects. However, the content of the current 
regulation is focused primarily on the development of traffic control 
plans (TCPs), the operation of work zones on two-lane, two-way 
roadways, and other provisions that address project responsibility, pay 
items, training and process review and evaluation. These provisions in 
the current regulation primarily address the issue of traffic control 
through the work zone itself. At the time this regulation was written, 
the TCP was an important concept that was and still is essential for 
work zone safety. Today's environment however, includes new challenges 
due to growing congestion, increasing reconstruction and public 
frustration with work zones.
    More road work is being done under ever increasing traffic--this 
leads to further congestion, delays, and increases in fatalities and 
crashes, thereby placing contractors and workers under pressure and 
leading to public frustration with work zones. These circumstances and 
consequences call for a more broad-based examination of the current 
regulations. TCPs for work zones are still important and essential, but 
they are no longer a sufficient approach for managing work zone impacts 
that may extend to an area much bigger than the actual work area.
    Through research conducted over the years, and based on feedback 
from State agencies and the public, the FHWA believes that in order to 
comprehensively improve work zone safety and mobility, there needs to 
be a systematic consideration of the safety and mobility impacts of 
work zones across the different project development stages, and the 
development of appropriate mitigation measures that help alleviate 
these impacts. The proposed amendments to 23 CFR part 630 subpart J are 
intended to facilitate consideration of the broader safety and mobility 
impacts of work zones in a coordinated and comprehensive manner across 
project development stages.
    As a first step towards the consideration of amending 23 CFR part 
630 subpart J, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM), aimed at identifying the key issues that should be considered 
if the current regulation were to be updated. The ANPRM entitled ``Work 
Zone Safety'' was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 
2002, at 67 FR 5532. The ANPRM comment period ended on June 6, 2002.
    Pursuant to the end of the ANPRM comment period, we conducted 
several outreach sessions with the transportation community to discuss 
the issues addressed by the ANPRM and to provide a synopsis of the 
comments received on the ANPRM. The following is a list of the outreach 
efforts that were undertaken by the FHWA:
    [sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual 
meeting of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) Design Subcommittee, June 13, 2002, Savannah, 
Georgia;
    [sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual 
meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering annual 
meeting, June 17, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
    [sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual 
meeting of the AASHTO Maintenance Subcommittee, July 17, 2002, Mobile, 
Alabama;
    [sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual 
meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction, August 6, 2002, 
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware;
    [sbull] ANPRM public meeting at Chevy Chase, Maryland, September 
19, 2002;
    [sbull] ANPRM outreach meeting with North Carolina DOT, September 
24, 2002; and
    [sbull] ANPRM public meeting at Chevy Chase, Maryland, September 
25, 2002.
    Given today's issues and the feedback obtained from the ANPRM and 
continued outreach with the transportation community, the FHWA believes 
that it is in the Nation's best interest to amend the regulation to 
recognize the need to comprehensively consider work zone safety and 
mobility. Through this NPRM the FHWA seeks to embed full consideration 
of the safety and mobility impacts of work zones into the project 
development process, and provide for worker safety and efficient 
construction. The proposed changes seek to bring about such 
consideration in a manner that provides flexibility to States to apply 
the regulations to their unique operating environments, their policies 
and procedures, and individual project requirements.

Overview of the ANPRM

    In the ANPRM, the FHWA identified a broad range of work zone issues 
that apply to planning, designing, and implementing Federal-aid highway 
projects. The issues posed in the ANPRM correspond to an over-arching 
theme that aims to reduce the need for recurrent roadwork, the duration 
of work zones, and the disruption caused by work zones. These issues 
were posed as questions to elicit comments, guidance, and suggestions. 
The ANPRM indicated that in order to adequately meet the safety and 
mobility expectations of our customers (road users, workers, and all 
other affected properties), changes may be required to the project 
development process to fundamentally include consideration of the 
safety and mobility impacts of work zones, while providing for worker 
safety and efficient construction. Such a customer-oriented approach 
necessitates examination of the complete project development cycle. 
Therefore, the questions in the ANPRM were grouped into categories that 
generally correspond to the major steps in project development. These 
categories are:

[[Page 24388]]

    [sbull] General (wide-ranging policy and regulatory 
considerations);
    [sbull] Transportation Planning and Programming;
    [sbull] Project Design for Construction and Maintenance;
    [sbull] Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones;
    [sbull] Public Outreach and Communications; and
    [sbull] Analyzing Work Zone Performance.
    Commenters were also encouraged to include discussion of any other 
issues they considered relevant to this effort.

Discussion of Comments and Responses to ANPRM

    The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the 
ANPRM and the subsequent outreach efforts conducted by the FHWA. The 
FHWA's responses to these comments and the proposed actions are also 
provided. The discussion provides a general sense of the issues 
addressed in the comments.
    The ANPRM and associated documents are available in the docket at 
http://dms.dot.gov, under Docket No. 2001-11130. To better understand 
the summary of the ANPRM comments, reviewers are encouraged to download 
a copy of the ANPRM from the docket.
    We received 84 responses to the docket. Of these, 67 provided 
responses to the specific questions raised in the ANPRM, while the 
remaining 17 provided a set of general comments only.
    The general comments provided by the 17 respondents who did not 
answer the specific questions in the ANPRM were not directly 
attributable to any of the specific issues raised in the ANPRM--
however, their comments were synthesized and summarized to provide a 
general understanding of their position on work zone safety and 
mobility issues.
    The 67 respondents who provided comments on the specific questions 
raised in the NPRM provided both direct and indirect responses that 
indicated whether or not they were in support of a particular issue. A 
direct response constituted a definite ``Yes'' or ``No'' type response 
from the respondent, while an indirect response constituted a verbatim 
response to the question, which was then analyzed and interpreted as to 
what the respondent's position was. In cases where the respondent's 
position was not interpretable whether he/she was in support of an 
issue, we indicated that the respondent's position was unclear. Also, 
not all respondents answered all the questions in the ANPRM, which were 
indicated as ``no response'' in the summary of ANPRM comments.
    The ANPRM comments analysis shows percentages of responses across 
several categories, for example, Yes--60 percent, No--20 percent, No 
Response--10 percent, Unclear--10 percent. The purpose of presenting 
the ANPRM responses along the lines of percentages is not to assign 
statistical significance to the responses, but to present a general 
cross-section of the responses and also to present a general idea of 
the respondents' position on different issues.
    The percentages showing the profile of ANPRM respondents are based 
on all the responses (84), while the percentages showing the break-up 
of respondents' position on different issues is based on the 67 
respondents who provided comments on the specific questions in the 
ANPRM.
    About 70 percent of the respondents were from the public sector or 
represent public sector interests, 18 percent of the respondents were 
from the private sector or catered to private sector interests, 6 
percent of the respondents represented both public and private sector 
interests, while the remaining 6 percent did not indicate their 
affiliation.
    The break-up of the agency types of the different respondents 
present the following statistics. About 65 percent of the respondents 
belonged to Departments of Transportation (DOTs) (either State or 
local), 2 percent of the respondents represented private sector 
equipment/technology providers; 5 percent of the respondents belonged 
to other public agencies (Federal and other State agencies); 6 percent 
of the respondents were either private individuals or consultants or 
contractors; 15 percent of the respondents represented trade 
associations and special interest groups, including the American 
Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), the American Road 
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) and the Associated General 
Contractors (AGC) of America; and 6 percent of the respondents did not 
indicate their agency affiliations.
    The AASHTO compiled the ANPRM questions into a survey and 
distributed it amongst its member agencies. Several State DOTs provided 
their responses through AASHTO's survey, while others submitted their 
comments individually. AASHTO, as an agency, did not provide specific 
comments on the ANPRM, but stated its general position on work zone 
safety and mobility based on the responses from its member agencies. 
AASHTO indicated general agreement amongst its respondents on the need 
to have a National policy to improve safety and mobility in highway 
construction and maintenance, and that the policy should be issued in 
the form of guidance.
    It was also noticeable that a majority of the respondents' primary 
job function involved either traffic, engineering, safety or design. 
There was very little participation from the planning community, 
contractors, and law enforcement personnel.

ANPRM ``General'' Section--Comments Summary

    The ``General'' section in the ANPRM addressed wide-ranging policy 
and regulatory considerations regarding work zone safety and mobility. 
The ANPRM stated that the FHWA was considering a wide range of options, 
including revising and expanding the regulations in 23 CFR part 630, 
subpart J, and that, alternatively, the FHWA was also considering 
policy guidance. This section was therefore primarily aimed at 
identifying whether or not the FHWA should advocate a new National 
policy on work zone safety and mobility, and whether the policy should 
be advocated through regulation or through policy guidance.
    When asked if there should be a National policy to promote improved 
safety and mobility in work zones, 81 percent of the respondents who 
commented on specific questions in the ANPRM, said yes; 16 percent said 
no; and about 3 percent did not respond. Of the respondents who said 
yes, 76 percent belonged to DOTs, 2 percent were from other public 
agencies, 4 percent represented private agencies, 13 percent were from 
trade associations, and 6 percent did not indicate their agency 
affiliation. When asked if the National policy (if it were to be 
developed), should be issued as regulation or in the form of best 
practices and guidance, 64 percent of the respondents who commented on 
specific questions in the ANPRM said that the policy should be 
advocated through guidance and best practices; 18 percent said that the 
policy should be advocated through regulation; about 4 percent of the 
responses were unclear; while 14 percent did not respond.
    Of the respondents who indicated that the policy should be 
advocated through guidance and best practices, 90 percent belonged to 
DOTs, 2 percent represented other public agencies, 5 percent belonged 
to trade associations, and 2 percent did not indicate their agency 
affiliation. Further, a few respondents (about 16 percent of 
respondents who provided comments on specific ANPRM questions) 
indicated that there need not be a new policy. Instead, they suggested 
that existing

[[Page 24389]]

regulations and guidelines need to be enforced better. In general, 
respondents also acknowledged that mobility considerations should be 
incorporated in planning, designing and implementing work zones.
    When queried about the adequacy of the current regulations, about 
40 percent of respondents who provided comments on specific questions 
in the ANPRM indicated that the current regulations are not adequate 
for addressing work zone safety and mobility concerns at all stages of 
project evolution; while 34 percent indicated that the current 
regulations are adequate. The remaining respondents who commented on 
specific questions in the ANPRM did not provide information that led to 
any conclusive inference as to whether the current regulations are 
adequate or not. Of the respondents who indicated that the current 
regulations are not adequate, 56 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent 
represented other public agencies, 7 percent were from private 
agencies, 30 percent belonged to trade associations, and 4 percent did 
not indicate their agency affiliations. All the respondents who stated 
that the current regulations are adequate belonged to DOTs.
    In response to the need for stratifying work zone regulations 
according to varying levels and durations of risk to road users and 
workers, and disruptions to traffic, about 76 percent of respondents 
who provided comments on specific ANPRM questions recommended that work 
zone regulations should be stratified. Of these, 75 percent belonged to 
DOTs, 4 percent were from private agencies, 16 percent represented 
trade associations, and 6 percent did not indicate their agency 
affiliations. The different stratification factors that were presented 
in the ANPRM included: duration, length, lanes affected, Average Daily 
Traffic (ADT), road classification, expected capacity reduction, 
potential impacts on local network and businesses. Out of these 
factors, ADT, road classification and expected impacts /capacity 
reduction were often referred to as the most appropriate stratification 
factors. However, while it was evident that regulations should be 
stratified, several respondents also indicated that it may be 
cumbersome to implement such stratification, and it may lead to 
confusion in interpretation of regulations.
    Currently there are four different definitions of the term ``work 
zone'', as stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(MUTCD), the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances 
(NCUTLO), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
and by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (proposed).
    The MUTCD defines a work zone as an area of a highway with 
construction, maintenance, or utility work activities, and that it is 
typically marked by signs, channelizing devices, barriers, pavement 
markings, and/or work vehicles. The MUTCD also states that a work zone 
extends from the first warning sign or rotating/strobe lights on a 
vehicle to the END ROAD WORK sign or the last temporary traffic control 
device.
    The NCUTLO adds to this definition by stating that a work zone may 
be for short or long durations, and may include stationary or moving 
activities. The NCUTLO also provides examples for the different types 
of work zones, and indicates that the work zone does not include 
private construction, maintenance or utility work outside the highway.
    The NHTSA definition for work zone is very similar to that of the 
MUTCD, the difference being that NHTSA indicates work zones may or may 
not involve workers or equipment on or near the road, and that work 
zones may be stationary or moving, and short term or long term in 
nature.
    The ANSI, in its Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic 
Accidents, American National Standard--ANSI D-16, is proposing a 
definition for work zone, which is similar to the NCUTLO definition.
    The ANPRM inquired whether there ought to be a common National 
definition for the term ``work zone.'' About 84 percent of the 
respondents who provided comments on the specific questions in the 
ANPRM indicated that there should be a common National definition for 
``work zone.'' Of these, 77 percent belonged to DOTs, 2 percent were 
from other public agencies, 2 percent belonged to private agencies, 14 
percent represented trade associations, and 5 percent did not indicate 
their agency affiliations. In response to specific language for a 
common national definition, a majority of the respondents suggested 
adopting either the MUTCD or the ANSI definition. Several respondents 
mentioned that adopting a common National definition for work zone will 
enhance and standardize work zone data collection and crash reporting 
processes.

ANPRM ``General'' Section--FHWA Response and Proposed Action

    The ANPRM comments indicate strong support for the development of a 
National policy on work zone safety and mobility and document the need 
to amend FHWA's current regulations in 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to 
address both safety and mobility issues associated with work zones. The 
respondents indicated that the preferred method for FHWA to advocate 
the regulation is by establishing a broad policy, supported by detailed 
guidelines for implementation. The FHWA therefore proposes to amend its 
regulation in 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to include the consideration of 
work zone mobility in addition to safety.
    The proposed amendments would result in a broad regulation that 
addresses a wide range of issues, and provide implementation 
flexibility to States in meeting their individual program goals and 
needs. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the regulation recognize 
the need for stratification, and provide flexibility to States in 
applying the provisions of the regulation to different projects, based 
upon their respective program goals and their understanding of the 
needs and work zone impacts of individual projects.
    With regard to the issue of a common National definition for work 
zone, the ANPRM comments indicate the need for a common National 
definition for work zone. However, the FHWA realizes that the four 
different definitions for work zone are essentially similar in content 
and implication. Therefore, for the purposes of this regulation, we 
propose to incorporate the MUTCD definition for work zone. Further, one 
of the reasons the FHWA raised the issue of a common National 
definition for the term ``work zone,'' was to gauge public opinion on 
whether there is any recognition that the impacts of work zones may not 
always be restricted to the work zone itself, and that the impacts may 
be felt in the advance area of the work zone, other roadway corridors, 
the regional transportation network and on other modes of 
transportation. This concept of broader impacts of work zones is 
however addressed in the proposed amendments by incorporating it into 
the definition of ``work zone impacts,'' rather than incorporating it 
in the definition of work zone itself.
    The definition and explanation for the phrase ``work zone impacts'' 
is available in the section-by-section discussion of this NPRM and the 
``Definitions and explanation of terms'' section of the proposed 
regulation language.

ANPRM ``Transportation Planning and Programming'' Section--Comments 
Summary

    The purpose of the Transportation Planning and Programming section 
was to identify whether the road user safety and mobility impacts of 
work zones, and work zone safety requirements are

[[Page 24390]]

considered in Statewide, metropolitan and corridor transportation 
planning and programming. Further, it also endeavored to assess the 
feasibility of incorporating such considerations in transportation 
planning and programming.
    When asked if road user impacts of work zones are considered in 
transportation planning and programming, about 24 percent of 
respondents who provided comments on specific questions in the ANPRM 
indicated that user-impacts are not currently considered in 
transportation planning; 9 percent did not respond; 18 percent of the 
responses were unclear; while 49 percent indicated that user impacts 
are indeed considered in transportation planning. Even though 49 
percent of the respondents said yes, many interpreted the question as 
addressing early project-level planning verses the transportation 
planning processes that develop long-range and short-term 
transportation plans (LRTP's and TIP's). Therefore, there is a 
significant amount of ambiguity in the responses to this question.
    When asked if work zone impacts should be considered in 
metropolitan, statewide and corridor level transportation planning, on 
average, about 30 percent of the respondents who provided comments on 
specific questions in the ANPRM said yes to metropolitan and statewide 
planning, while 25 percent said no. Of the respondents who indicated 
that work zone impacts should be considered in metropolitan planning, 
74 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent were from private agencies, 13 
percent represented trade associations, and 9 percent did not indicate 
their agency affiliations. Of the respondents who indicated that work 
zone impacts should be considered in statewide planning, 86 percent 
belonged to DOTs, 5 percent were from private agencies, 5 percent 
represented trade associations, and 5 percent did not indicate their 
agency affiliations. On the other hand, a slightly higher number of 
respondents who provided comments on specific questions in the ANPRM, 
48 percent, indicated that work zone impacts should be considered in 
corridor planning, while only 9 percent said no. It is noticeable that 
about 40 percent of the respondents who provided comments on specific 
questions in the ANPRM did not respond to any of these issues, which 
indicates the level of ambiguity in the responses.
    There were mixed responses to the adoption of crosscutting policy 
level considerations to account for the safety and mobility impacts of 
work zones in transportation planning and programming. Examples of such 
crosscutting policy-level considerations include the use of more 
durable materials, life-cycle costing, complete closure of facilities, 
information sharing on utilities, etc. The purpose of adopting policies 
on such cross-cutting issues is to facilitate a streamlined approach to 
incorporate work zone considerations into transportation planning and 
programming, and to serve as decisionmaking tools that help make better 
decisions to mitigate the impacts of work zones, while planning, 
programming, designing, and implementing projects. Most respondents did 
not interpret the question appropriately, leading to several responses 
that did not address this issue directly.

ANPRM ``Transportation Planning and Programming'' Section--FHWA 
Response and Proposed Action

    The provisions in the proposed amendments do not have a direct 
effect on the transportation planning processes (i.e., LRTP and TIP) 
that consider and develop transportation plans at a regional or 
metropolitan level. The responses to the questions in the 
transportation planning and programming section were ambiguous, with 
several respondents either choosing not to answer the questions or 
misinterpreting the questions as addressing early project-level 
planning verses the transportation planning processes that develop 
long-range and short-term transportation plans (LRTP's and TIP's). 
Further, 23 CFR part 630 subpart J falls under the ``Engineering and 
Traffic Operations'' area, and does not exercise authority over the 
``Planning and Research'' areas.
    The proposed changes do not have any implications on the 
transportation planning processes that develop LRTP's and TIP's. 
However, based on current industry trends and needs and on ongoing 
research, the FHWA believes that it is important to consider the 
impacts of work zones while developing transportation plans by 
accounting for these impacts at the regional, network and corridor 
levels, and suitably coordinating projects so as to minimize these 
impacts. Certain State DOTs, for instance, the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans), consider the impacts of work zones at the 
systems planning level by evaluating the feasibility of the 
implementation of multiple projects in their respective districts. The 
FHWA intends to conduct further research and outreach to better 
understand how work zone impacts can be incorporated in the 
transportation planning and programming processes, and to further 
develop the necessary tools and guidelines that will help States 
implement such consideration.

ANPRM ``Project Design for Construction and Maintenance'' Section--
Comments Summary

    The purpose of the Project Design for Construction and Maintenance 
section in the ANPRM was to identify strategies and practices to make 
better decisions on alternative project designs that may lead to 
reductions in the need for recurrent road construction and maintenance 
work, the duration of work zones and the disruption caused by work 
zones. Examples of such considerations include life-cycle cost 
analysis, alternative project scheduling and design strategies, such 
as, full road closures and night time work, using more durable 
materials, coordinating road construction, estimation of user costs/
impacts, risk and reward sharing with contractors, and constructability 
reviews for projects.
    The ANPRM queried the public on how the FHWA can encourage 
considerations in project design and decisionmaking that may lead to 
reductions in the need for recurrent road work, the duration of work 
zones and the impacts of work zones. Examples of such considerations 
include life-cycle cost analysis; alternative project scheduling and 
design strategies, such as, full road closures and night time work; 
using more durable materials; coordinating road construction; 
estimation of user costs/impacts; risk and reward sharing with 
contractors; and constructability reviews for projects. The following 
is a summary of suggested methods for FHWA to facilitate these 
considerations \10\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We do not indicate percentages for this ANPRM question as 
it was primarily a qualitative question that asked for suggestions 
on methods to best incorporate considerations in project design to 
reduce recurrent road work, the duration of work zones and the 
impacts of work zones. What is presented is a summary of the most 
popular suggestions and often repeated suggestions from the 
respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Several respondents suggested that FHWA develop procedures 
and practices and provide guidelines for States to be able to 
incorporate such considerations. A few respondents referred to the 
``Work Zone Best Practices Guide'' as a good starting point.
    [sbull] A few respondents (primarily State DOT's and a few trade 
associations) suggested that the FHWA provide funding incentives for 
States that adopt such practices.

[[Page 24391]]

    [sbull] Very few respondents suggested mandatory requirements in 
this regard.
    [sbull] Some of the respondents suggested regulations on use of 
life-cycle costing to make policy-level decisions on choice of highway 
material.
    When asked if ``user-cost'' could be a useful factor in 
decisionmaking for alternative project designs, about 10 percent of the 
respondents who provided comments on specific questions in the ANPRM 
said no; 10 percent did not respond; 1 percent of the responses were 
unclear; while an overwhelming majority of 79 percent said yes. Of the 
respondents that said yes, 85 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent were 
from private agencies, 10 percent represented trade associations, and 2 
percent did not indicate their agency affiliations. When asked if 
analytical tools should be used for the evaluation of various work zone 
design alternatives and their estimated impacts, 1 percent said no; 39 
percent did not respond; 18 percent of the responses were unclear; 
while 42 percent said yes. Of the respondents that said yes, 79 percent 
belonged to DOTs, 3 percent were from private agencies, 14 percent 
represented trade associations, and 3 percent did not indicate their 
agency affiliations.
    When asked whether utility delays have been cited as obstacles to 
efficient project delivery, several respondents said yes; while a 
smaller number said no. Several suggestions were made on how best to 
address utility delays in project design.

ANPRM ``Project Design for Construction and Maintenance'' Section--FHWA 
Response and Proposed Action

    The ANPRM comments led the FHWA to conclude that the respondents 
acknowledge the need to account for work zone impacts of projects and 
the associated costs to the public; and to consider alternative 
strategies in project design and decisionmaking such as, choice of 
longer-lasting materials, complete road-closures, work during night-
time and off-peak hours, innovative contracting techniques, and utility 
coordination. It is also clear that the respondents prefer guidance in 
this regard rather than regulation, and that very restrictive 
regulations may affect innovation and creativity in the development of 
work zone impact mitigation strategies. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to 
amend the current regulation by introducing a new section on work zone 
impacts analysis that will govern decisionmaking on project design 
strategies and work zone impacts mitigation alternatives. These 
proposed amendments provide flexibility to States in scaling the level 
of detail required for the impacts analysis and evaluation of 
alternative project options according to the unique characteristics of 
each project and their respective program goals.

ANPRM ``Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones'' 
Section--Comments Summary

    Technology is constantly evolving and there are many methods that 
can be applied to managing traffic in and around work zones. The 
application of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) for purposes, 
such as, traffic management, automated enforcement, and traveler 
information is a useful method to improve transportation safety and 
mobility. The current and future safety and mobility challenges 
presented by work zones may require Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) to 
include traffic management, enforcement and operations considerations 
(such as ITS based traffic control and traveler information, speed 
management and enforcement, incident and emergency management, etc.), 
security considerations, and other considerations (for example, utility 
location and coordination information). The purpose of the managing for 
mobility and safety section was therefore to identify the need for 
expanding the content of TCPs and to outline improved methods and 
strategies to manage, operate, and enforce work zones.
    In general, several respondents indicated the need for 
comprehensive traffic mitigation planning for work zones across all 
stages of project development and delivery that would reduce the safety 
and mobility impacts of work zones, by incorporating appropriate 
mitigation strategies.
    About 70 percent of the respondents who commented on specific 
questions in the ANPRM indicated that the scope of TCPs should be 
expanded to consider sustained traffic management, operations and 
enforcement; about 12 percent said no; 12 percent did not respond; 
while 6 percent of the responses were unclear. Of the respondents that 
stated that the scope of TCPs should be expanded, 77 percent belonged 
to DOTs, 2 percent were from other public agencies, 4 percent were from 
private agencies, 15 percent represented trade associations, and 2 
percent did not indicate their agency affiliations. Based on the 
general preference of the respondents to the ANPRM, and on subsequent 
outreach sessions conducted by the FHWA, it is evident that the scope 
of TCPs should be expanded to account for sustained traffic management, 
operations and enforcement for some projects.
    With respect to the deployment of uniformed police officers in work 
zones, it was evident from the ANPRM comments that several States have 
increasingly been deploying uniformed police officers on roadway 
construction projects. Respondents indicated that these practices are 
successful in increasing motorist compliance, regulating work zone 
travel speeds, and in reducing crashes.
    When asked if TCPs should consider the security aspects of the 
construction of critical transportation infrastructure, about 30 
percent of the respondents who commented on specific questions in the 
ANPRM said no; 15 percent did not respond; 9 percent of the responses 
were unclear; while 46 percent said yes. Further, when asked if TCPs 
should consider the security aspects of work zone activity in the 
vicinity of critical transportation or other critical infrastructure, 
33 percent of the respondents said no; 13 percent did not respond; 6 
percent of the responses were unclear; while 48 percent said yes. 
Several respondents commented that TCP's may not be the most 
appropriate vehicles for security considerations. Security 
considerations, where applicable, need to be addressed to the extent 
possible in other comprehensive security planning efforts. Such 
security plans should involve work zone considerations. At the same 
time, many respondents also indicated that emergency-related traffic 
management implications do apply to work zones, e.g., keeping work zone 
lanes open during emergency evacuations such as hurricanes, and other 
natural or man-made disasters.
    When asked if more flexibility should be allowed in the development 
of TCPs, 30 percent of the respondents who commented on specific 
questions in the ANPRM said no; about 25 percent did not respond; 7 
percent of the responses were unclear; while 37 percent said yes. Of 
the respondents that said yes, 80 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent 
were from other public agencies, 8 percent represented trade 
associations, and 8 percent did not indicate their agency affiliations. 
While a significant percentage of the respondents said ``no''--they 
qualified their assertion by stating that flexibility should be allowed 
in terms of allowing participation from law enforcement, public, and 
contractors in TCP development, but it should ultimately be the project 
owner--State DOT or other transportation agency who should develop and 
approve TCPs. Further, it may be noted that Sec.  630.1010(a)(4) of the

[[Page 24392]]

current regulation states the following with regards to flexibility in 
TCP development: ``Provisions may be made to permit contractors to 
develop their own TCP's and use them if the State and FHWA find that 
these plans are as good as or better than those provided in the plans, 
specifications, and estimates (P.S. & E.).'' The current regulation 
also requires a responsible person from the State, at the project 
level, to ensure that the TCP and other safety aspects of the contract 
are effectively administered. Representatives of the contracting 
industry have also indicated that they are reluctant to develop their 
own TCPs primarily because of liability concerns, and because there is 
an impression that contractors may do this by cost-cutting at the risk 
of safety.
    When asked if certification should be required for TCP developers, 
about 34 percent of the respondents indicated no; 27 percent did not 
respond; about 5 percent of the responses were unclear; while 34 
percent said yes. All respondents who said no were from DOTs. Of the 
respondents that indicated yes, 78 percent belonged to DOTs, 17 percent 
represented trade associations, and 4 percent did not indicate their 
agency affiliations. Most States currently require TCPs to be signed 
and sealed by licensed Professional Engineers (P.E.). A few respondents 
recommended that all TCP developers be certified, or have undergone the 
Traffic Control Supervisor (TCS) training. Some respondents suggested 
the use of ``pre-qualified'' designers and contractors for the 
development of TCPs, to avoid the possibility of unsafe or inadequate 
TCPs. The regulation currently states that all persons responsible for 
the development, design, implementation, and inspection of traffic 
control shall be adequately trained.
    When asked how TCPs should address considerations that are required 
by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Pub. L. 101-336, July 26, 
1990, 104 Stat 327, as amended), several respondents reasserted that 
TCPs should include ADA considerations \11\ for urban projects with 
pedestrian and other urban issues. They recommended several ways for 
including ADA considerations in TCPs. Also, several respondents 
indicated that TCPs should address ADA considerations only when ADA 
considerations are already being met by the job-site (prior to 
deployment of the work zone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The U.S. Access Board, the Federal agency charged with 
developing accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities 
under the ADA and other statutes, is currently completing work on 
proposed guidelines for sidewalks, street crossings, and related 
pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way that will include 
accessibility provisions for work zones that are on or along 
pedestrian routes. Draft proposed guidelines for public rights-of-
way accessibility were posted to the Board's Web site at www.access-board.gov in June 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When asked if mobility and safety audits should be required for 
work zones, 28 percent of the respondents who commented on specific 
questions in the ANPRM said no; about 13 percent did not respond; 3 
percent of the responses were unclear; while 55 percent of the 
respondents said yes. About 95 percent of the respondents who said no 
belonged to DOTs. Of the respondents who said yes, 81 percent belonged 
to DOTs, 3 percent were from private agencies, 14 percent represented 
trade associations, and 3 percent did not indicate their agency 
affiliations. The current regulation mentions the need for training for 
personnel responsible for traffic control inspection, but there are no 
statements that require work zone safety inspections or mobility/safety 
audits. Several States have policies that require work zone traffic 
control and safety inspections to be performed by their construction 
and safety inspectors.

ANPRM ``Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones'' 
Section--FHWA Response and Proposed Action

    The responses to this section indicate strong support for expanding 
TCPs to address sustained traffic management, operations and safety to 
help mitigate the impacts of work zones. Sustained transportation 
management and operations strategies include transportation systems 
management, ITS, traveler information, incident management, procedures 
for work zone operations during emergencies, and conduct of mobility 
audits. Additional considerations include transportation operational 
safety considerations such as enforcement in work zones, speed 
monitoring and management, and conduct of safety audits.
    The proposed amendments therefore include provisions that 
facilitate the consideration of transportation management and 
operations components that address sustained management, operations and 
safety. These amendments include provisions for flexibility in 
decisionmaking on the need for such strategies, and their scope and 
level of detail, based upon individual project requirements and work 
zone impacts. As suggested by the ANPRM comments, the proposed changes 
would provide for flexibility as to who develops the TCP and the 
transportation management and operations strategies, with ultimate 
responsibility belonging to the State.
    The issue of certification for TCP developers and/or other 
personnel responsible for design, development and implementation of 
work zone safety and mobility requirements was addressed by proposing 
to include provisions in the regulation that require training for State 
personnel involved in work zone related decision making, with 
provisions that allow for flexibility in implementation commensurate 
with the State's needs.
    Since security aspects of construction related to critical 
infrastructure are best addressed in other comprehensive security 
planning efforts, the proposed changes do not address this issue. With 
regard to ADA considerations for work zones, we propose language that 
refers to the appropriate sections of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) that address Federal ADA compliance.

ANPRM ``Public Outreach and Communications'' Section--Comments Summary

    To reduce the anxiety and frustration of the public, it is 
important to sustain effective communications and outreach with the 
public regarding road construction and maintenance activity, and the 
potential impacts of these activities. This also increases the public's 
awareness of such activities and their impacts on their lives. The lack 
of information is often cited as a key cause of frustration for the 
traveling public. Therefore, this section of the ANPRM attempted to 
identify the key issues that need to be considered from a public 
outreach and information perspective.
    An overwhelming majority of the respondents were supportive of 
reaching out to the public and keeping them informed about planned and 
ongoing construction and maintenance activities. When asked if projects 
with substantial disruption should include a public communications 
plan, 10 percent of the respondents who commented on specific questions 
in the ANPRM said no; 9 percent did not respond, while 81 percent 
indicated yes. Of the respondents who indicated yes, 81 percent were 
from DOTs, 2 percent belonged to private agencies, 13 percent 
represented trade associations, and 4 percent did not indicate their 
agency affiliation. Several States have recognized the need for 
communicating with the public, both on an ongoing basis, and for 
specific projects, and have been using various communications 
techniques and media sources for getting the word out.

[[Page 24393]]

ANPRM ``Public Outreach and Communications'' Section--FHWA Response and 
Proposed Action

    There is strong support for public outreach and communications with 
regard to work zones, and several transportation agencies are already 
undertaking concerted efforts to better inform the public about the 
safety and mobility aspects and impacts of work zones. The proposed 
changes to the regulation therefore facilitate the consideration of 
public information and outreach strategies as part of the work zone 
impacts mitigation mechanisms; with flexibility for States in the 
choice of the different strategies and their scope and level of detail, 
based upon individual project requirements and work zone impacts.

ANPRM ``Work Zone Performance Monitoring and Reporting''--Comments 
Summary

    Evaluation is a necessary tool for analyzing failures and 
identifying successes in work zone operations. Work zone performance 
monitoring and reporting at a nationwide level has the potential to 
increase the knowledge base on work zones and help better plan, design 
and implement road construction and maintenance projects. The purpose 
of this section in the ANPRM was to identify the adequacy and 
appropriateness of the current data reporting, and the need for 
enhanced and increased reporting of data on work zones by States. The 
following data issues were addressed: work zone characteristics, work 
zone mobility performance, and work zone safety performance.
    When asked if States should report information on work zone 
characteristics, about 46 percent of the respondents who commented on 
specific questions in the ANPRM said no; 12 percent did not respond; 12 
percent of the responses were unclear; while 30 percent said yes. Of 
the respondents that said no, 91 percent belonged to DOTs. Of the 
respondents that said yes, 70 percent belonged to DOTs.
    When asked if States should report information on work zone 
mobility performance, 40 percent said no; 21 percent did not respond; 1 
percent of the responses were unclear; while 37 percent said yes. Of 
the respondents who said no, 89 percent belonged to DOTs. Of the 
respondents who said yes, 72 percent belonged to DOTs.
    When asked if the current work zone safety data collection methods 
and efforts are adequate and appropriate, 36 percent said no; 28 
percent did not respond; 3 percent of the responses were unclear; while 
33 percent of the respondents said yes. Of the respondents who said no, 
72 percent belonged to DOTs. Of the respondents who said yes, 95 
percent belonged to DOTs. Most of the respondents indicated that the 
mobility measures mentioned in the ANPRM were appropriate, and that the 
currently used safety measures are appropriate as well. Several 
respondents indicated that although reporting information on work zone 
characteristics, mobility performance and safety performance would be 
useful, they cautioned against requiring unwieldy data collection by 
States that are already strapped for cash and personnel. A fair number 
of respondents also indicated the need for more standardized crash 
reporting policies and procedures.

ANPRM ``Work Zone Performance Monitoring and Reporting'' Section--FHWA 
Response and Proposed Action

    While establishing the benefits of data collection and reporting on 
the safety and mobility performance of work zones, the ANPRM comments 
are mixed with respect to regulations that mandate such data collection 
and reporting. The current provisions in the regulation require States 
to analyze crashes and crash data to correct deficiencies on individual 
projects and improve the content of future TCPs. We propose to retain 
this provision, with the option to include other safety performance 
measures (e.g., speed variance) as appropriate. Since performance 
monitoring serves as a basis for process and content improvement in 
work zone impacts mitigation, we propose to add a new provision that 
encourages States to analyze work zone mobility data. There are no 
proposed requirements on the type of analysis or the actual mobility 
parameters that should be analyzed.

General Discussion of the Proposal

Summary of ANPRM Resolution and Areas Receiving Strong Support

    The following is a summary of the areas that are strongly supported 
by respondents to the ANPRM:
    [sbull] There is support for a National policy on work zones that 
explicitly addresses both safety and mobility. The policy should be 
broad and address a wide range of issues. The FHWA should support the 
policy by providing appropriate guidance to States. There needs to be 
flexibility in the implementation of regulations, thereby enabling 
creativity and innovation in work zone impacts mitigation.
    [sbull] The policy should stratify work zone regulations and allow 
flexibility to States in applying the regulations appropriately to 
individual projects, based on the State's program goals and the work 
zone impacts of the project.
    [sbull] Work zone considerations should be mainstreamed and 
institutionalized in State procedures.
    [sbull] Comprehensive work zone impacts mitigation plans should be 
developed. These plans should consider the work zone safety and 
mobility impacts of projects early in project level planning, and 
progress through the later stages of project development. Alternative 
project options including design, procurement and construction 
strategies that minimize these impacts should be developed and 
evaluated. We get strong validation that the costs borne by users as a 
result of the impacts of work zones could be a useful factor in 
decisionmaking for evaluating alternative project designs. Work zone 
induced user-costs are derivatives of the safety and mobility impacts 
of work zones. Therefore, as part of considering work zone safety and 
mobility in project development, there needs to be an analysis of the 
impacts of work zones, which will then lead to development and 
evaluation of alternative project designs and mitigation strategies. 
States should however have the flexibility to scale their work zone 
impacts analysis and evaluation of alternative project options and 
mitigation strategies, based on the severity of anticipated work zone 
impacts due to individual projects.
    [sbull] The scope of TCPs should be expanded to address sustained 
traffic management and operations considerations. There needs to be 
flexibility for States in enlisting participation from law enforcement, 
the public and contractors in developing TCPs, but ultimate 
responsibility for the project should lie within the State.
    The FHWA believes that the increasing pressures for work zone 
safety and mobility, growth of reconstruction, and the concern voiced 
by road users require reconsideration of how we plan, design and 
construct roadway projects to focus on highway and worker safety, as 
well as meet the mobility needs of our customers. Therefore, the 
purpose of the proposed regulation is to:
    [sbull] Reduce the safety and mobility impacts of highway work 
zones on road users, workers, businesses, and society, and maximize the 
availability of the roadway for efficient traffic movement while 
ensuring worker safety and efficient construction.
    [sbull] Enhance the way construction projects are currently 
conceived,

[[Page 24394]]

planned, designed, and executed to more fully consider work zone 
impacts on road users, workers, and other affected parties.

Summary of Proposed Changes

    We propose changing the title of 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to 
``Work Zone Safety and Mobility'' to more accurately represent the 
impacts of work zones on the public. To this end, we propose to update 
the ``Purpose'' and ``Policy'' sections of the current regulation to 
emphasize the consideration of both the safety and mobility of work 
zones. We also propose to amend and relocate some of the language that 
is currently in the ``Background'' section to the ``Purpose'' section. 
The ``Background'' section of the current regulation contains a 
reference to the MUTCD, and its purpose and applicability. We propose 
to amend this reference to the MUTCD and include it in a new section 
entitled, ``References''.
    The current regulation indicates that its purpose is to assure that 
adequate consideration is given to all motorists, pedestrians, and 
construction workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. We 
propose language in this section to indicate that work zones have 
impacts on bicyclists, and persons with disabilities, in addition to 
motorists, pedestrians and workers. We propose to introduce the term 
``road users,'' which encompasses motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, 
and persons with disabilities. We also propose language to indicate 
that work zones impact other parties in addition to road users and 
workers. We therefore propose to introduce the phrase ``other affected 
parties,'' which may include public facilities like parks, recreational 
facilities, fire stations, police stations, and hospitals, and private 
parties such as businesses and residences.
    Further, in the ``Purpose'' section we propose to provide a brief 
synopsis of the safety and mobility impacts that work zones have on 
road users, workers and other affected parties. We also propose to 
indicate that these safety and mobility impacts of work zones are 
exacerbated by growing congestion in many locations, and that 
addressing these issues requires considerations that start early in 
project development and continue through project completion.
    The ``Background'' section of the current regulation recognizes the 
importance of traffic control for work zone safety, and presents the 
MUTCD as a guide that provides basic principles and standards for the 
design and application of traffic control devices. We propose to amend 
this reference to the MUTCD and include it in a new section entitled, 
``References''. We propose to retain the current language that refers 
to the MUTCD as a guide for traffic control, but augment it with 
language that recognizes that there are considerations in addition to 
traffic control that are required to comprehensively address the safety 
and mobility impacts of work zones.
    We propose to add a new section entitled, ``Definitions/Explanation 
of Terms'' to explain the meaning and implications of certain terms 
that are key to understanding and interpretation of the proposed 
provisions in the regulation. The inclusion of this proposed new 
section results in a change in the section numbering scheme.
    We propose minor changes to the current section on 
``Implementation'' to clearly indicate the responsibilities of States 
and those of the FHWA Division Administrators, and to convey that 
States and their respective FHWA Divisions are encouraged to work 
together to ensure conformance with, and implementation of the 
requirements of this proposed regulation.
    We propose reorganizing the requirements that are currently under 
the ``Contents of the Agency's Procedures'' into a new section 
entitled, ``State Transportation Department Policy and Procedures.'' 
The purpose of this reorganization is to clearly delineate policy level 
and project level requirements. The major proposed changes to the 
regulation are located in this section. Most of the proposed changes 
are developed around the consideration and analysis of the work zone 
safety and mobility impacts of projects, and the development of 
mitigation measures that are contained within a Transportation 
Management Plan (TMP) for projects.
    The section on ``State Transportation Department Policy'' consists 
of proposed requirements that specify the following: development of a 
``Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy'; provision of work zone related 
``Training'' to personnel; conduct of ``Process Review and Evaluation'; 
and collection and analysis of ``Work Zone Performance Data.''
    The proposed requirement for the development of a ``Work Zone 
Safety and Mobility Policy'' is new. We propose that States develop 
their own ``work zone safety and mobility policies'' that will support 
the systematic consideration of work zone impacts across all stages of 
project development; and address the safety and mobility needs of all 
road users, workers, and other affected parties on all Federal aid 
highway projects.
    The proposed requirements on ``Training'' are part of the current 
regulation with proposed changes that encourage documentation of the 
training provided, and the provision of periodic training updates to 
appropriate personnel.
    The ``Process Review and Evaluation'' requirements are in the 
current regulation, and we propose to modify the requirements to 
provide flexibility to States with regard to the conduct of the 
reviews, and the frequency and the type of reviews. We also propose to 
encourage States to address these reviews in their respective 
stewardship agreements with the FHWA Divisions.
    We propose to remove the language on work zone crash data 
collection and analysis from the current ``Process Review and 
Evaluation'' section, and include it in a new paragraph entitled, 
``Work Zone Performance Data.'' In this paragraph we propose changes 
that encourage the collection and analysis of work zone mobility 
performance data in addition to crash data.
    In the project level requirements we propose a section that 
outlines systematic ``Project Impact Analysis and Management 
Procedures'' to include the following: conduct of ``Work Zone Impacts 
Analysis'; development of a ``Transportation Management Plan (TMP)''; 
development of provisions for ``Pay Items'' for work zone traffic 
control and management; and assignment of ``Responsible Persons'' for 
projects.
    We propose a new section on Work Zone Impacts Analysis. It proposes 
to require an analysis of work zone impacts for projects, and provides 
flexibility to States in scaling the level of detail of the analysis 
based on the anticipated work zone impacts of individual projects. It 
also proposes that if States determine that a project is anticipated to 
have minimal sustained work zone impacts, they may exempt the project 
from the impacts analysis.
    The TMP would be a new requirement and would include updated 
requirements on the Traffic Control Plan (TCP). We propose to delete 
the current language on TCP requirements for two-lane/two-way 
operations on highways as they are available in the MUTCD. In addition 
to the TCP, the TMP may consist of a Transportation Operations Plan 
(TOP), and a Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). The proposed 
requirements indicate that TMPs are required for all projects, but the 
TCP is the only mandatory component of TMPs. The need for the other two 
components of the TMP, namely the TOP and the PIOP, is dependent upon 
the State's policy

[[Page 24395]]

requirements and the severity of work zone impacts due to the project.
    The ``Pay Items'' paragraph is an existing requirement with 
proposed changes that would allow both method based and performance 
based specifications for procurement. The ``Responsible Persons'' 
paragraph is an existing requirement with proposed changes that would 
require a responsible person for projects from the contractor in 
addition to the responsible person from the State.
    By incorporating the proposed changes in 23 CFR 630 part subpart J, 
the FHWA intends to facilitate creative thinking and innovation by the 
States to mainstream work zone safety and mobility considerations in 
their policies and procedures, and in their normal project development 
process at appropriate levels. We believe that the approach we have 
adopted in our proposed changes will allow for flexibility to States in 
the application of the regulation according to their unique 
circumstances and operating environments, their program goals, and the 
needs of individual projects. The FHWA will continue to research best 
practices for work zone safety and mobility and share them with States. 
This will enable practitioners to modify best practices and incorporate 
creative and innovative approaches that best suit their needs.

Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 630.1002 Purpose

    Section 630.1002(a). The current regulation states that the purpose 
of this subpart is to provide guidance and establish procedures to 
assure that adequate consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians, 
and workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. We propose to 
restate that the purpose of this subpart is to address the safety and 
mobility needs of all road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, 
and persons with disabilities), workers, and other affected parties on 
all Federal-aid projects. These proposed changes are intended to 
achieve the following:
    [sbull] Convey the notion that adequate consideration should be 
given to all road users, rather than just motorists, pedestrians and 
workers. Therefore we propose to add the term ``all road users,'' which 
is inclusive of ``motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with 
disabilities.''
    [sbull] Convey the notion that, in addition to road users, work 
zones may have safety and mobility impacts on other parties that are 
affected by the highway or street project. We therefore propose to 
include the phrase ``and other affected parties,'' after ``workers.'' 
Affected parties may include: public facilities like parks, 
recreational facilities, fire stations, police stations, and hospitals; 
and private parties such as businesses and residences.
    [sbull] Emphasize the importance of work zone safety and mobility, 
by restating the purpose statement to specifically indicate that 
adequate consideration should be given to the ``safety and mobility'' 
needs of road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons 
with disabilities), workers, and other affected parties.
    Section 630.1002(b). In this paragraph, we propose to indicate that 
work zones cause safety and mobility impacts on road users, workers, 
and affected properties. We propose to highlight one of the key issues 
that we face today and in the future by stating that work zone impacts 
are exacerbated by growing congestion in many locations. We therefore, 
propose to assert that addressing the safety and mobility issues of 
work zones requires considerations that go beyond the installation of 
appropriate traffic control devices, and that these considerations 
should start early in project development and continue through project 
completion.

Section 630.1004 References

    We propose to include a new section entitled, ``References'' which 
contains amended language from the ``Background'' section of the 
current regulation.
    The ``Background'' section of the current regulation recognizes the 
importance of traffic control for work zone safety, and presents the 
MUTCD as a guide that provides basic principles and standards for the 
design, application, installation, and maintenance of various types of 
traffic control devices during highway construction projects, 
maintenance operations, and utility work. Further, it discusses the 
limitations of the MUTCD, the efforts taken by transportation agencies 
in developing guidelines for work zone traffic control, and the need 
for greater uniformity in work zone traffic control and more attention 
to proper implementation of the MUTCD.
    We propose to amend this reference to the MUTCD and include it in a 
new section entitled, ``References''. We propose to retain the current 
language that refers to the MUTCD as a guide for traffic control, but 
augment it with language that recognizes that there are considerations 
in addition to traffic control that are required to comprehensively 
address the safety and mobility impacts of work zones.
    We propose to retain the sentence that describes the content and 
implications of the MUTCD with regards to provision of guidelines and 
standards for traffic control. We identify that the MUTCD does not 
address the other actions that should be taken to help comprehensively 
mitigate the safety and mobility impacts of work zones. We recognize 
the efforts taken by transportation agencies to mitigate the safety and 
mobility impacts of work zones, but note that a more coordinated and 
comprehensive effort is required to bring about greater consideration 
of such work zone safety and mobility impacts.

Section 630.1006 Definitions and Explanation of Terms

    This section is a new section which proposes to include definitions 
for the terms, ``Work Zone,'' ``Work Zone Impacts,'' ``Transportation 
Management Plan (TMP),'' ``Traffic Control Plan (TCP),'' 
``Transportation Operations Plan (TOP)'', and ``Public Information and 
Outreach Plan (PIOP).'' We propose to add these definitions because 
they are considered relevant to the proposed changes, and would have 
direct implications on the application of the regulation by States.

Section 630.1008 Policy

    We propose to change the section number for the ``Policy'' section 
from Sec.  630.1006 to Sec.  630.1008. This section states FHWA's 
policy on work zone safety and mobility for all Federal-aid highway 
projects. We propose to include elements that would address the 
``mobility'' needs in addition to those that would address the safety 
needs of all road users, workers, and other affected parties. We 
propose to amend the last sentence of the paragraph to indicate that 
States are encouraged to implement these procedures for non-Federal-aid 
projects, maintenance and utility operations as well.

Section 630.1010 Implementation

    We propose to change the section number for the ``Implementation'' 
section from Sec.  630.1008 to Sec.  630.1010. The proposed content of 
this section is very similar to that of the current regulation. This 
section outlines the role of the FHWA Division Office, and that of the 
State in implementing the provisions in the regulation. We propose to 
modify the first sentence of this section to convey that in addition to 
reviewing the State's implementation of its procedures, the FHWA shall 
also be responsible for reviewing the ``conformance'' of the State's 
procedures with this regulation. We also propose to

[[Page 24396]]

append the same sentence with language to convey that the 
implementation of the regulations is a collaborative process between 
the State and the FHWA Division Office, by adding the words, ``as 
agreed upon by the FHWA and the State.'' This conveys that the State 
and the FHWA Division Office may work together to develop appropriate 
procedures and determine the most suitable intervals for the FHWA 
Division Administrator to review the State's implementation of its 
procedures. We do not propose any modifications to the second sentence 
in this section. We propose to modify the last sentence in this section 
of the current regulation by deleting the word ``major'' in ``or 
revisions'' so as to eliminate ambiguity in interpretation.

Section 630.1012 State Transportation Department Policy and Procedures

    We propose to reorganize the section entitled ``Contents of the 
agency procedures,'' under a new title, ``State Transportation 
Department Policy and Procedures.'' The purpose of this reorganization 
is to clearly delineate policy level and project level requirements for 
States. We propose to change the section number for this section from 
Sec.  630.1010 to Sec.  630.1012. Our proposed changes to this section 
are explained in the following paragraphs.
    This section consists of two main requirements, which are: Sec.  
630.1012(a) State Transportation Department Policy, and Sec.  
630.1012(b) Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures.
    In Sec.  630.1012(a) ``State Transportation Department Policy'' we 
propose policy level requirements for States to support the 
consideration of work zone safety and mobility impacts in the project 
development process.
    In Sec.  630.1012(a) we propose to add the requirement for a ``Work 
Zone Safety and Mobility Policy.'' This would be a new requirement, 
where we propose that States shall develop their own ``work zone safety 
and mobility policies'' that will support the systematic consideration 
of work zone impacts across all stages of project development; and 
address the safety and mobility needs of all road users, workers, and 
other affected parties on all Federal-aid highway projects. All stages 
of project development include early project level planning through 
project design, traffic control and operations planning. Such policies 
would facilitate easier and more streamlined decision making during 
project development by providing a standardized approach, and by 
serving as an implementation guide to practitioners who are involved in 
planning, designing, and implementing road projects.
    In Sec.  630.1012(a)(1)(i) we propose to make these policies 
scaleable according to each State's unique requirements, and that the 
State may apply its policy to different projects based on the severity 
of work zone impacts of the project.
    In Sec.  630.1012(a)(1)(ii) we propose to recommend that the State 
involve personnel from different departments and representing the 
different project development stages in the development of the policy. 
The proposed language is general and would allow flexibility in the 
role and makeup of the team. Such a team may be responsible for the 
analysis and evaluation of the safety and mobility issues related to 
work zones, and the development, improvement, and institutionalization 
of the resultant project options as well as the work zone design and 
impact mitigation strategies for different types of projects. Such a 
multidisciplinary team may serve as a standing committee of experts on 
work zones, and may help make informed decisions during the appropriate 
stages of project development on how best to design and build projects, 
and mitigate the impacts of work zones. The State may include other 
stakeholders (i.e., other transportation agencies, police, fire, 
emergency medical services, and regional transportation management 
centers), and industry representatives (i.e., engineers, contractors) 
in developing these policies.
    The content of the policy would be determined by the State. The 
following are examples of topics that may be addressed in these State 
policies:
    [sbull] Project Classification. A project classification system 
would be a process to classify road projects into different types, 
based on the severity of work zone impacts. This classification process 
would allow the State to apply appropriate policies and practices for 
the design, implementation, and management of work zones and their 
impacts, that are best suited to specific project types. The different 
parameters that affect work zone impacts of projects include, but are 
not limited to: Road classification; area type (urban, suburban, 
rural); traffic demand and travel characteristics (lanes affected, 
Average Daily Traffic, expected capacity reduction, Level of Service); 
type of work; complexity of work being performed (duration, length, 
intensity); level of traffic interference with construction activity; 
and potential impacts on local network and businesses. Project 
classification systems may range from a simple scheme to classify 
projects into high impact and low impact, to a multi-dimensional matrix 
of projects that helps decisionmaking on appropriate work zones 
treatments for different types of projects. At this time, there are no 
recommended tiers of projects, and States may develop their own 
classification system that best suits their needs. It is noteworthy 
that a simple and straightforward classification system would ensure 
that it is practical and is also easy to adopt and apply.
    [sbull] Work Zone Performance Standards. Performance standards 
would establish the safety and mobility performance requirements for 
work zones for different types of projects, and thereby drive 
appropriate planning, design and operational strategies that help 
achieve the set requirements. An example of a performance standard for 
work zones would be the establishment of a traffic management policy 
that outlines performance standards for different types of projects. 
Such a traffic management policy may also outline methods that 
prescribe limits on lane closures, thresholds on delays and queues due 
to work zones, and restrictions on work hours so as to achieve the 
mobility performance standards for different types of projects. The 
traffic management policy may also include safety performance standards 
that outline requirements for crash reduction.
    For example, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has 
developed and adopted a policy that sets limitations on the number of 
lanes that may be closed for construction activities on freeways and 
``freeway look-alikes'' (other highways that are similar to freeways). 
Such performance standards for decisionmaking during the early project 
planning and preliminary design stages would provide designers and 
traffic control and operations planners an understanding of the 
limitations that they are working under, thereby resulting in more 
comprehensive and complete designs and traffic control and operations 
plans, which may not require extensive changes during the final stages 
of design, or during the actual construction phase.
    [sbull] Development of Recommendations on Project Options, and Work 
Zone Design and Impacts Mitigation Alternatives that Suit Different 
Project Types. After the establishment of a project classification 
system and appropriate performance standards, the State may then 
develop recommendations on alternative project planning and design 
solutions and strategies that best minimize the work zone impacts for 
different project types. The availability of Statewide policies and 
procedures on the most suitable

[[Page 24397]]

project options and work zone design and impacts mitigation strategies 
for the different types of projects would streamline decisionmaking, 
and ultimately make project delivery more efficient and effective, and 
work zones less disruptive. Examples of alternative project options and 
design strategies would include recommendations on work zone strategies 
(e.g., night work, full-closure); design strategies (e.g., traffic 
control, choice of materials, use of positive separation); contracting 
strategies (e.g., low bid, design-build, A+B bidding, incentive/
disincentive contracting); and mitigation strategies (e.g., use of 
intelligent transportation systems, traveler information, real-time 
work zone monitoring, management and enforcement).
    Section 630.1012(a)(2) ``Training.'' The proposed requirements in 
the ``Training'' section are part of the current regulation in Sec.  
630.1010(d). We propose to modify the current language in this section 
by adding the words ``work zone related transportation management and'' 
after the word inspection. This would indicate that training related to 
work zones is not limited to just subjects that address traffic control 
for work zones. The proposed language reads as follows: ``All persons 
responsible for the development, design, implementation, operation, and 
inspection of work zone related transportation management and traffic 
control shall be adequately trained.'' We propose to add another 
sentence that encourages documentation of the successful training 
received by the appropriate personnel, and the provision of periodic 
training updates that reflect changing industry practices. The proposed 
amendment would encourage States to keep records of training provided 
to personnel, and also to periodically provide training updates that 
are reflective of changing industry practices. The State may choose the 
most appropriate intervals for providing training updates.
    Section 630.1012(a)(3) ``Process Review and Evaluation.'' The 
current requirements on ``Process Review and Evaluation'' are stated in 
Sec.  630.1010(e) and we propose to relocate the current language to 
Sec.  630.1012(a)(3). We propose to add language that would provide 
flexibility to States on the frequency and the type of reviews. The 
current regulation requires States to annually review randomly selected 
projects throughout their jurisdiction for the purpose of assessing the 
effectiveness of their procedures. We propose to lessen the burden on 
States by changing the word ``shall'' to ``is encouraged'', and by 
changing the requirement for ``annual'' reviews to ``periodic'' 
reviews. With increasing construction activity, and demand for time and 
resources of State personnel, the requirement to conduct such reviews 
on an annual basis may overburden States, resulting in perfunctory 
reviews for the sake of meeting a regulatory requirement. We believe 
that it is in the States' best interest to conduct reviews of processes 
and projects at appropriate intervals, so that they can continually 
improve their processes with regards to work zones and meet the needs 
of their customers better.
    Further, we also propose to remove the requirement for the review 
and approval of the State's review results by the FHWA Division 
Administrator. We believe that the process reviews and improvements 
would be better achieved by a cooperative agreement and understanding 
between the State and the FHWA Division, which may be addressed in the 
stewardship agreement. We also propose to encourage States to include 
an FHWA representative in the process reviews. An overarching proposal 
would be to include both ``safety and mobility'' considerations in the 
reviews.
    Section 630.1012(a)(4) ``Work Zone Performance Data.'' The current 
regulation consists of requirements on analysis of construction zone 
accidents and accident data. These requirements are currently presented 
under the ``Process Review and Evaluation,'' Sec.  630.1010(e)(2). We 
propose to relocate the language on work zone crash data collection and 
analysis from the current ``Process Review and Evaluation'' section and 
include it under the title, ``Work Zone Performance Data.'' In Sec.  
630.1012(a)(4)(i) we propose to retain the crash and crash data 
analysis requirements, but change ``construction zone accidents and 
accident data'' to ``crashes and crash data.'' We also propose that 
States may include other safety performance measures in the analysis. 
This would be to reflect the trend of increasingly deploying ITS and 
other automated systems for work zones that indirectly help collect 
better safety performance data on work zones. Such safety performance 
measures would include data on speed variance and video data on work 
zone traffic flow that may help identify potential safety improvements.
    In Sec.  630.1012(a)(4)(ii) we propose to add language that would 
encourage States to collect and analyze work zone mobility performance 
data to continually improve work zone practices and policies. Examples 
of mobility performance data would include delay, travel time, traffic 
volumes, speed, and queue lengths. The purpose of these proposed 
changes is to bring to the attention of States that both safety and 
mobility performance measurement and analysis is an essential part of 
ensuring that we develop and adopt the most effective and efficient 
practices for improving work zone safety and mobility, thereby 
delivering on the expectations of our customers.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b) ``Project Impact Analysis and Management 
Procedures'' we propose to require project level procedures that would 
analyze the work zone impacts of alternative project options and design 
strategies, and would develop mitigation measures that help manage the 
work zone impacts. The proposed requirements are: ``Work Zone Impacts 
Analysis'', ``Transportation Management Plan (TMP)'', ``Pay Items'', 
and ``Responsible Persons.''
    Section 630.1012(b)(1) ``Work Zone Impacts Analysis.'' This would 
be a new requirement that would require States to analyze the work zone 
safety and mobility impacts of alternative project options and work 
zone design strategies, and develop appropriate measures to mitigate 
the work zone impacts. The purpose of this impacts analysis would be to 
understand the type, severity and the extent of the work zone impacts 
associated with the different project alternatives, and to incorporate 
appropriate mitigation measures and strategies in project design, 
traffic control, transportation management and operations, and 
construction. We propose to provide flexibility to States in the 
performance of these impacts analyses by indicating that the scope and 
level of detail of the analysis would vary based on the States' 
policies and their understanding of the anticipated severity of work 
zone impacts due to the project. For projects with minimal sustained 
work zone impacts, the State would be exempt from performing a detailed 
project specific impacts analysis.
    States would be encouraged to start the impacts analysis early in 
project development, and depending on the anticipated severity of work 
zone impacts due to the project, continue the analysis through project 
design, and traffic control and operations planning. This means that 
States would be encouraged to adopt a gradual systematic process for 
the impacts analysis by initially identifying the anticipated work zone 
impacts of the project during early project level planning, and based 
on this identification determine whether a more

[[Page 24398]]

detailed impacts analysis is required during the subsequent stages of 
project development. As proposed, States would be required to document 
the results of the work zone impacts analysis, the project options, the 
work zone design strategies, and mitigation measures identified during 
the process.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(1)(i) we propose to encourage States to 
establish a team that would include representatives of the project 
development stages to discuss, evaluate and document work zone issues, 
and take responsibility for the development of the project design and 
work zone mitigation strategies. The size and constitution of the 
multidisciplinary team and the level of involvement required may vary 
according to the anticipated work zone impacts. As proposed, we suggest 
that non-State personnel and affected parties may also be included in 
this team as appropriate. Such non-State personnel and affected parties 
may include other transportation agencies, such as counties, cities, 
local municipalities, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), 
transit providers, police and other emergency response agencies, and 
representatives of affected businesses and residences.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(1)(ii) we propose language that states that 
the impacts analysis would be a systematic process that may require the 
use of appropriate analytical tools, depending on the degree of detail 
required for the analysis. Such tools would include transportation 
modeling and/or simulation software. We also propose that the impacts 
analysis consist of three main activities that are explained as 
follows:
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(1)(ii)(A) we propose to include a requirement 
for States to understand the project, traffic and travel 
characteristics, and identify the work zone impacts of the project 
(including impacts of multiple projects at the corridor and network 
levels, as appropriate).
    States may begin by fully understanding the project, traffic and 
travel characteristics and needs early on in project planning. Based on 
this understanding the work zone impacts and the parties affected by 
the work zone can be better identified. States may then develop an 
overall project design and impacts mitigation strategy. Based on the 
level of understanding gained from the early analysis, States may 
decide upon the level of detail that is required for analyzing the work 
zone impacts of alternative project options and design strategies, and 
developing the most appropriate mitigation measures. Project, travel, 
and traffic characteristics may include:
    [sbull] Traffic demand and volumes, seasonal and temporal 
variations in demand (hourly, daily, weekly), occurrence of special 
events, percentages of different vehicular volumes (cars, trucks, 
buses), type of travel (commuter or tourist), freight corridor, transit 
corridor, business issues, and other such similar characteristics; and
    [sbull] State policy requirements on impacts analysis and 
mitigation requirements for the specific project type and/or regional 
requirements on work zone impacts mitigation and management.
    The work zone impacts of the project may include consideration of 
the following:
    [sbull] Impacts of the project at both the corridor and network 
levels to include parallel corridors, alternate routes, the 
transportation network, and other modes of transportation, impacts of 
other work zones in the vicinity of the project, either at the corridor 
level or the network level;
    [sbull] Impacts on nearby transportation infrastructure, such as, 
key intersections and interchanges, railroad crossings, public transit 
junctions, and other junctions in the transportation network;
    [sbull] Impacts on evacuation routes in the vicinity of critical 
transportation or other infrastructure;
    [sbull] Impacts on affected public properties, including parks, 
recreational facilities, fire stations, police stations, and hospitals; 
and
    [sbull] Impacts of the project on affected private properties, 
including businesses and residences.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(1)(ii)(B) we propose to add language that 
discusses the development and evaluation of alternative project options 
including design, procurement, and construction strategies that 
minimize the work zone impacts of the project.
    This activity would constitute the development of alternative 
project options and the evaluation of the respective work zone impacts, 
so as to mitigate and manage the impacts to the best extent possible. 
The number of alternative project options and design strategies and the 
level of detail of the analysis of the work zone impacts would depend 
on the State's understanding of the individual project needs and the 
anticipated severity of work zone impacts due to the project. Examples 
of alternative project options would include design, procurement, and 
construction strategies such as:
    [sbull] Temporal alternatives for work performance such as season, 
month, day of week (weekend vs. weekday), and time of day (night time 
vs. day, off-peak vs. peak);
    [sbull] Alternative lane closure strategies such as full-closure, 
partial closure, cross-overs, multiple lane closure, single lane 
closure; and impact of alternative traffic management strategies on 
lane-closure decisions;
    [sbull] Alternative design solutions that address the durability 
and economy of maintenance of the roadway;
    [sbull] Alternative design solutions and strategies that impact 
decision making on Right of Way (ROW) acquisition;
    [sbull] Alternative construction staging plans, and construction 
techniques and methodologies (e.g., accelerated construction 
techniques) that may have varying types and severity of work zone 
impacts; and
    [sbull] Alternative contracting methodologies such as low-bid, 
design-build, A+B bidding, and incentive/disincentive contracting.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(1)(ii)(C) we propose to add language that 
would address the development of transportation management 
recommendations that mitigate the work zone impacts of the project for 
the chosen project option, including traffic control, transportation 
operations and safety, and public information and outreach strategies.
    As a final activity in the impacts analysis, this process would 
develop appropriate transportation management recommendations that 
would mitigate the work zone impacts of the project. Such 
transportation management recommendations would include traffic control 
requirements, transportation operations and safety requirements, and 
public information and outreach requirements. These requirements would 
be grouped and documented in the TMP, which is explained in the 
following paragraphs.
    Traffic control requirements would include recommendations on 
strategies to safely and efficiently handle traffic flow through the 
actual work zone itself. Examples of traffic control requirements would 
include recommendations on lane closure widths, work zone and work area 
configuration, tapers, and the choice and positioning of traffic 
control and safety devices.
    Examples of transportation operations recommendations would include 
the following:
    [sbull] The deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 
technologies for work zone traffic monitoring and management;
    [sbull] Provision of real-time traveler information to the public, 
including information provision on Web sites;

[[Page 24399]]

    [sbull] Application of transportation systems management (TSM) and 
corridor management strategies, including mitigation treatments for 
alternate routes (for e.g., traffic signal timing adjustment on 
affected corridors), and alternate modes (for e.g., public transit 
subsidies, incentives and special programs);
    [sbull] Coordination of transportation management with existing 
regional Transportation Management Centers (TMCs);
    [sbull] Conduct of mobility and safety reviews and audits;
    [sbull] Speed enforcement and management in work zones using either 
police officers or through automated techniques;
    [sbull] Incident management plans for work zones; and
    [sbull] Policies on work zone traffic management during emergency 
situations, for e.g., hurricane evacuations or other natural disasters.
    Examples of public information and outreach recommendations may 
include the following communications requirements:
    [sbull] Provision of project and work zone information prior to the 
commencement of the work in order to make the public aware of the 
expected work zone impacts and the State's actions to mitigate the 
impacts;
    [sbull] Provision of recommendations to the public on commuter 
alternatives, such as information on alternate routes and alternate 
modes;
    [sbull] Provision of information on changing conditions on the 
project during the course of its implementation (for e.g., changes in 
lane closure scenarios, construction staging, construction times, 
alternate routing); and
    [sbull] Obtaining public input into the development of appropriate 
work zone impacts mitigation strategies during the planning and design 
phases of the project; the refinement of work zone traffic management 
and mitigation strategies during the course of the project 
implementation; and public feedback on performance of the work zone and 
project after the completion of the project.
    Examples of public information and outreach sources that the State 
may consider for the public information and outreach plan would include 
the following:
    [sbull] Dissemination of information through brochures, pamphlets 
and media sources including newspapers, television and radio channels, 
and Web sites;
    [sbull] Public meetings and hearings;
    [sbull] Coordination and cooperation with affected public and 
private parties;
    [sbull] Establishment of telephone hotlines; and
    [sbull] Focus groups, surveys, and market research for obtaining 
input and feedback from the public.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(2) we propose to establish the requirement for 
a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The TMP would be a new 
requirement with the current requirements on the Traffic Control Plan 
(TCP) updated and rolled into it. The TMP would document the work zone 
mitigation and management strategies recommended by the work zone 
impacts analysis.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(2) we propose language to indicate that a TMP 
would document the mitigation strategies identified during the work 
zone impacts analysis. We propose that a TMP would have three 
coordinated components, namely the Traffic Control Plan (TCP), the 
Transportation Operations Plan (TOP), and the Public Information and 
Outreach Plan (PIOP). We propose to indicate that the content and 
degree of detail of the TMP will vary according to the severity of work 
zone impacts due to the project. We propose to require that States 
shall develop TMPs for projects based on their policy requirements and 
the severity of work zone impacts due to the project. We then propose 
to outline the requirements for the individual TMP components in Sec.  
630.1012(b)(2)(i)--``TCP,'' Sec.  630.1012(b)(2)(ii)--``TOP,'' and 
Sec.  630.1012(b)(2)(iii)--``PIOP.'' The proposed content for these 
sections are explained in the following paragraphs.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(2)(i) we outline the proposed requirements for 
a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). As proposed, the TMP would include a TCP 
or provisions that would allow contractors to develop a State approved 
TCP prior to the start of work. This means that TCPs would be developed 
for all projects. It also means that States may involve contractors in 
the development of TCPs based on their understanding of the 
construction staging and strategies.
    We propose to retain the current language on the definition of 
TCPs, and include the consideration of mobility by stating that it is a 
plan for safely and efficiently handling traffic through a specific 
highway or street work zone or project. We propose that TCPs may range 
in scope from a very detailed TCP designed solely for a specific 
project, a section of the MUTCD, or reference to approved standard 
plans or State transportation department manual. We also propose that 
for projects that have minimal work zone impacts, the TCP would be the 
only component of the TMP.
    The scope of the TCP would be determined by the anticipated 
construction staging and scheduling, and the traffic safety and control 
requirements identified in the work zone impacts analysis. The plans, 
specifications, and estimates (P.S. & E.s) would include either a 
State-prepared TCP; or provisions for contractors to develop a TCP, 
approved by the State, prior to start of the work. We also propose to 
retain the current language that the TCP shall be consistent with the 
provisions of the MUTCD.
    We propose to delete the current language in the regulation that 
addresses TCP requirements for the work zone operations of two-lane, 
two-way highways as that language is available in the MUTCD. The reason 
why we propose to include the TCP as a component of the TMP is to 
present the need for a synergistic, coordinated approach to developing 
and implementing traffic control and transportation management 
strategies.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(2)(ii) we outline the requirements for a 
Transportation Operations Plan (TOP). We propose to include the 
development of a TOP as part of the TMP for projects. We propose that 
States would include a TOP in the TMP if recommended by the results of 
the work zone impacts analysis. A TOP would include considerations that 
address the safety and mobility of the transportation system by 
adopting strategies for the sustained operations and management of the 
work zone impact area. Such strategies would include transportation 
systems management; corridor management; and traffic management 
operations and safety (i.e., ITS based traffic control and traveler 
information, speed management and enforcement, incident and emergency 
management, safety reviews and audits). We propose to recommend that 
States coordinate the TOP with stakeholders (i.e., other transportation 
agencies, police, fire, emergency medical services, and regional 
transportation management centers).
    We propose to indicate that the scope of the TOP would be 
determined by the transportation operations and safety requirements 
identified in the work zone impacts analysis. We propose that the TOP 
may be included in the P.S. & E.s. This would provide the State 
flexibility to contract the TOP as part of the overall contract for the 
project, or hire a separate contractor for implementing the TOP. We 
also propose that provisions may be made in the P.S.&E.s for 
contractors to develop a TOP, approved by the State, prior to the

[[Page 24400]]

start of work. This would provide the State an opportunity to involve 
the contractor in the development of the TOP.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(2)(iii) we outline the requirements for a 
Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). We propose to include the 
development of PIOPs as part of the TMP for projects. We propose that 
States would include a PIOP in the TMP, if recommended by the results 
of the work zone impacts analysis. A PIOP would consist of project 
level communications that would ensure that affected road users, the 
general public, residences and businesses, and the appropriate public 
entities are informed about the project, the expected work zone 
impacts, and the changing conditions of the project. Through the PIOP 
we propose to encourage States to provide adequate (i.e., frequent, 
current, and near-real-time where appropriate) information for the 
affected parties to make informed travel decisions that help alleviate 
the work zone impacts of the project.
    We propose to identify that the scope of the PIOP would be 
determined by the public information and outreach requirements 
identified in the work zone impacts analysis. We propose that the State 
may choose to include the PIOP in the P.S.&E.s. This would provide the 
State the flexibility to contract the PIOP as part of the overall 
contract for the project, or hire a separate contractor for 
implementing the PIOP. We also propose that alternatively, States may 
choose to include provisions in the P.S.&E.s for contractors to develop 
a PIOP, approved by the State, prior to the start of work. This would 
provide the State an opportunity to involve the contractor in the 
development of the PIOP.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(3) we propose to amend the requirements for 
``Pay Items.'' This is an existing requirement, with proposed changes 
that would allow both method based and performance based specifications 
for procurement, and emphasize the need for unit pay items in the case 
of method based procurement for TCPs. It also proposes to allow the 
State flexibility in including the other TMP components in the P.S.&E. 
package.
    In Sec.  630.1012(b)(4) we propose to amend the requirements for 
``Responsible Persons.'' This is an existing requirement, with proposed 
changes that would require a responsible person at the project level 
from the contractor, in addition to the responsible person from the 
State.

Compliance Date

    We propose that the compliance date be 3 years after the effective 
date of the final rule. This would allow States time to implement the 
proposed requirements.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this 
document in the docket room at the above address. We will file comments 
received after the comment closing date in the docket and will consider 
later comments to the extent practicable. We may, however, issue a 
final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In 
addition to late comments, we will also continue to file, in the 
docket, relevant information becoming available after the comment 
closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the 
docket for new material.

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small 
entities. This rule applies to State departments of transportation in 
the execution of their highway program with respect to work zones. The 
implementation of the proposed provisions in this rule will therefore 
not affect the economic viability or sustenance of small entities. 
Accordingly, the FHWA certifies that the proposed action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed action does not impose unfunded mandates as defined 
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 
1995, 109 Stat. 48). The actions proposed in this NPRM would not result 
in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that 
might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the 
affects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations.
    The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule contains a 
requirement for data and information to be collected and maintained in 
the support of design, construction, and operational decisions that 
affect the safety and

[[Page 24401]]

mobility of the traveling public related to highway and roadway work 
zones. In order to streamline the process, the FHWA intends to request 
that the OMB approve a single information collection clearance for all 
of the data in the proposed regulation.
    The FHWA estimates that a total of 83,200 burden hours per year 
would be imposed on non-Federal entities to provide the required 
information for the proposed regulation requirements. Respondents to 
this information collection include State Transportation Departments 
from all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The 
estimates here only include burdens on the respondents to provide 
information that is not usually and customarily collected.
    The FHWA is required to submit this proposed collection of 
information to OMB for review and approval, and accordingly, seeks 
public comments. Comments regarding any aspect of these information 
collection requirement, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the 
collection of information is necessary for the performance of the 
functions of the FHWA, including whether the information has practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility and clarity of the collected information; and (4) 
ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of 
the information collected.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that this proposed action 
will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; 
will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. This rulemaking primarily 
applies to urbanized metropolitan areas and National Highway System 
(NHS) roadways that are under the jurisdiction of State transportation 
departments. The purpose of this proposed action is to mitigate the 
safety and mobility impacts of highway construction and maintenance 
projects on the transportation system, and would not impose any direct 
compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments and will not have 
any economic or other impacts on the viability of Indian tribes. 
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use. We have determined that this proposed 
action will not be a significant energy action under that order because 
any action contemplated will not be a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866 and will not be likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Further, we believe that the implementation of the proposed 
provisions by State departments of transportation would reduce the 
amount of congested travel on our highways, thereby reducing the fuel 
consumption associated with congested travel. Therefore, the FHWA 
certifies that a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 
13211 is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et seq.) 
and has determined that this proposed action will not have any effect 
on the quality of the environment. Further, we believe that the 
implementation of the proposed provisions by State departments of 
transportation would reduce the amount of congested travel on our 
highways. This reduction in congested travel would reduce automobile 
emissions that are induced by congested travel, thereby contributing to 
a cleaner environment.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 
12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this 
proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action will not 
cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 630

    Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation, Highway 
safety, Highways and roads, Project agreement, Traffic regulations.

    Issued on April 29, 2003.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to revise 
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 630, subpart J as set forth 
below:

PART 630--PRECONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

    1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 109, 115, 315, 320, and 402(a); 23 CFR 
1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).

    2. Revise subpart J of part 630 to read as follows:

Subpart J--Work Zone Safety and Mobility

Sec.
630.1002 Purpose.
630.1004 References.
630.1006 Definitions and explanation of terms.
630.1008 Policy.
630.1010 Implementation.
630.1012 State transportation department policy and procedures.
630.1014 Compliance date.


Sec.  630.1002  Purpose.

    (a) This subpart provides guidance and establishes procedures to 
assure that adequate consideration is given to the safety and mobility 
of all road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with 
disabilities \1\), workers,

[[Page 24402]]

and other affected parties on all Federal-aid projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Americans with Disabilities Act (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 
Stat. 327 (1990)) requires that people with disabilities not be 
discriminated against and provided the same opportunities as non-
disabled people. This applies to issues of access in work zones 
(Title II & III, ADA). Since 1991 there have been specific design 
standards, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) that provide minimum requirements for all environments 
including temporary work done by utility companies. The existing 
ADAAG standards are codified at 28 CFR part 36 as Appendix A. 
Compliance with the ADAAG standards or with the Uniform Federal 
Accessibility Standards (UFAS), (which is codified at Appendix A to 
41 CFR part 101-19.6) constitutes compliance with Federal ADA 
accessibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Work zones impact the safety and mobility of road users, 
workers, businesses, and other affected parties. These safety and 
mobility impacts are exacerbated by growing congestion in many 
locations. Addressing these issues requires considerations that start 
early in project development and continue through project completion. 
These considerations go beyond the installation of appropriate traffic 
control devices.


Sec.  630.1004  References.

    Part 6 of the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) \2\ 
sets forth basic principles and prescribes standards for the design, 
application, installation, and maintenance of the various types of 
traffic control devices for highway and street construction, 
maintenance operation, and utility work. However, the MUTCD does not 
address the other actions that should be taken to help mitigate the 
safety and mobility impacts of work zones. Although agencies 
responsible for road projects have taken some steps to consider work 
zone safety and mobility impacts in project development, a coordinated 
and comprehensive effort is required to bring about greater 
consideration of such work zone safety and mobility impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MUTCD Millenium Edition (official FHWA publication is in 
electronic format only) is available at the URL: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. A looseleaf binder format of the MUTCD is 
published by a partnership of the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Traffic 
Safety Association (ATSSA), and the Institute of Transportation 
Engineers (ITE), and is available for purchase at the URL: http://www.aashto.org/bookstore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec.  630.1006  Definitions and explanation of terms.

    As used in this subpart:
    Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP) means project level 
communications that ensure that affected road users, the general 
public, residences and businesses, and the appropriate public entities 
are informed about the project, the expected work zone impacts, and the 
changing conditions on the project.
    Traffic Control Plan (TCP) means a plan for safely and efficiently 
handling traffic through a specific highway or street work zone or 
project.
    Transportation Management Plan (TMP) means a document which 
outlines various transportation management strategies to alleviate work 
zone impacts of projects. These strategies address traffic control, 
transportation operations and safety, and public information and 
outreach, which are aligned in the TMP as three coordinated components: 
a traffic control plan (TCP), a traffic operations plan (TOP), and a 
public information and outreach plan (PIOP). The content of the TMP 
will vary based on the severity of work zone impacts due to a project.
    Transportation Operations Plan (TOP) means considerations that 
address the safety and mobility of the transportation system by 
adopting strategies for the sustained operations and management of the 
work zone impact area. The TOP consists of strategies that address 
transportation systems management; corridor management; and traffic 
management operations and safety (i.e., Intelligent Transportation 
Systems (ITS) based traffic control and traveler information, speed 
management and enforcement, incident and emergency management, safety 
reviews and audits).
    Work zone \3\ means an area of a highway with construction, 
maintenance, or utility work activities. A work zone is typically 
marked by signs, channelizing devices, barriers, pavement markings, 
and/or work vehicles. It extends from the first warning sign or 
rotating/strobe lights on a vehicle to the END ROAD WORK sign or the 
last temporary traffic control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MUTCD, Part 6, Temporary Traffic Control Zones, sec. 6C. 02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Work zone crash means a traffic crash in which the first harmful 
event occurs within the boundaries of a work zone or on an approach to 
or exit from a work zone, resulting from an activity, behavior or 
control related to the movement of the traffic units through the work 
zone. Includes collision and non-collision crashes occurring on 
approach to, exiting from or adjacent to work zones that are related to 
the work zone.
    Work zone impacts means the deviation from normalcy of the 
transportation system induced by work zones, resulting in impacts on 
the safety and mobility of road users, workers, and other affected 
parties. The extent of the work zone impacts may vary based on factors 
such as road classification, area type (urban, suburban, and rural), 
traffic and travel characteristics, type of work being performed, and 
complexity of the project. These impacts may extend beyond the physical 
location of the work zone itself, and may be felt on the roadway on 
which the work is being performed, as well as other highway corridors, 
other modes of transportation, and (or) the regional transportation 
network to which the influence of the work zone extends.


Sec.  630.1008  Policy.

    It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration that each 
State Transportation Department (hereinafter referred to as ``State'') 
shall develop and implement policies and procedures consistent with the 
requirements of this regulation that will assure the safety and 
mobility needs of all road users, construction workers, and other 
affected parties on Federal-aid highway projects. States are encouraged 
to implement these policies and procedures for non-Federal-aid highway 
projects.


Sec.  630.1010  Implementation.

    The FHWA shall review the conformance of the State's policies and 
procedures with this regulation, and reassess the State's 
implementation of its procedures at appropriate intervals. The FHWA 
shall take other appropriate actions to assure that the State's 
policies and procedures are being followed and achieve the results 
intended. Revisions in established policies and procedures shall be 
submitted to the FHWA for information.


Sec.  630.1012  State Transportation Department Policy and Procedures.

    The State transportation department policy and procedures shall 
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
    (a) State Transportation Department Policy.--(1) Work Zone Safety 
and Mobility Policy. Each State shall develop and implement policies 
and procedures that support the systematic consideration of work zone 
impacts across all project development stages; and address the safety 
and mobility needs of all road users, construction workers, and other 
affected parties on all Federal-aid highway projects.
    (i) The content of such policies and their implications for 
different projects will vary based on the expected severity of work 
zone impacts due to projects.
    (ii) States are encouraged to use a team of personnel from 
appropriate departments and representing the different project 
development stages to develop and implement these policies and 
procedures.

[[Page 24403]]

    (2) Training. All persons responsible for the development, design, 
implementation, operation, and inspection of work zone related 
transportation management and traffic control shall be adequately 
trained. States are encouraged to keep records of the training 
successfully completed by these personnel, and provide periodic 
training updates that reflect changing industry practices.
    (3) Process review and evaluation. In order to assess the 
effectiveness of work zone safety and mobility procedures, States are 
encouraged to perform a periodic process review and evaluation, or 
review randomly selected projects throughout their jurisdictions. 
Appropriate State personnel who are representative of the project 
development stages and the different departments within the State are 
encouraged to participate in this review. States are encouraged to 
include an FHWA representative as a member of the review team, and to 
address the reviews in the stewardship agreements between each State 
and the FHWA.
    (4) Work zone performance data. (i) Work zone crashes and crash 
data shall be analyzed and used to correct deficiencies which are found 
to exist on individual projects, and to continually improve work zone 
practices and policies. Other safety performance factors may be 
included in the analysis.
    (ii) States are encouraged to collect and analyze work zone 
mobility performance data to correct deficiencies, which are found to 
exist on individual projects, and to continually improve work zone 
practices and policies.
    (b) Project impact analysis and management procedures.--(1) Work 
Zone Impacts Analysis. The State shall analyze the work zone impacts of 
alternative project options and work zone design strategies, and 
develop appropriate measures to alleviate these impacts. The scope and 
level of detail of this impacts analysis will vary based on the State's 
policies, and their understanding of the anticipated severity of work 
zone impacts due to the project. If the State determines that a project 
is expected to have minimal sustained work zone impacts, they may 
exempt the project from the impacts analysis. The State is encouraged 
to start the impacts analysis early in the project development process 
and, depending upon the anticipated severity of work zone impacts due 
to the project, continue the analysis through project design, and 
traffic control and operations planning. The resultant project options 
and work zone design strategies and the mitigation measures recommended 
by the work zone impacts analysis shall be appropriately documented.
    (i) The State is encouraged to establish a team that includes 
representatives of the project development stages to discuss, evaluate 
and document work zone issues, and take responsibility for the 
development of the project design and work zone mitigation strategies. 
Non-State personnel, including transit providers, freight movers, 
public safety and other affected parties, may be included in this team 
as appropriate.
    (ii) The work zone impacts analysis is a systematic process that 
may require the use of appropriate analytical tools. It consists of the 
following activities:
    (A) Understanding of the project and traffic and travel 
characteristics, and identification of the work zone impacts of the 
project (including impacts of multiple projects at the corridor and 
network levels, as appropriate).
    (B) Development and evaluation of alternative project options 
including design, procurement, and construction strategies that 
minimize the work zone impacts of the project.
    (C) Development of transportation management recommendations that 
mitigate the work zone impacts of the project, including traffic 
control, transportation operations and safety, and public information 
and outreach strategies.
    (2) Transportation Management Plan (TMP). A Transportation 
Management Plan (TMP) documents the mitigation strategies identified 
during the work zone impacts analysis. A TMP has three coordinated 
components: Traffic Control Plan (TCP), Transportation Operations Plan 
(TOP), and Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). The content and 
degree of detail of the TMP components will depend on the severity of 
work zone impacts due to the project. Based upon the State's policy 
requirements and the recommendations from the work zone impacts 
analysis, the State shall develop a TMP for the project. The 
requirements for the TMP components are as follows:
    (i) Traffic Control Plan (TCP). (A) The TMP shall include a TCP or 
provisions for the development of a State-approved TCP prior to start 
of work. A TCP is a plan for safely and efficiently handling traffic 
through a specific highway or street work zone or project. These plans 
may range in scope from a very detailed TCP designed solely for a 
specific project, a reference to a specific section of the MUTCD, or 
reference to approved standard plans or State transportation department 
manual.
    (B) For projects that have minimal work zone impacts, the TCP may 
be the only component of the TMP.
    (C) The scope of the TCP is determined by the anticipated work 
staging and scheduling, and the traffic safety and control requirements 
identified in the work zone impacts analysis.
    (D) The plans, specifications, and estimates (P.S.&E.s) shall 
include either a State-prepared TCP; or provisions for contractors to 
develop a TCP, approved by the State, prior to start of the work.
    (E) The TCP shall be consistent with the MUTCD provisions for 
Temporary Traffic Control Zones and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.
    (ii) Transportation Operations Plan (TOP). (A) If recommended by 
the results of the work zone impacts analysis, the TMP shall include a 
TOP. A TOP includes considerations that address the safety and mobility 
of the transportation system by adopting strategies for the sustained 
operations and management of the work zone impact area.
    (B) The TOP consists of strategies that address transportation 
systems management; corridor management; and traffic management 
operations and safety (i.e., Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 
based traffic control and traveler information, speed management and 
enforcement, incident and emergency management, safety reviews and 
audits). Development and sustained coordination of the TOP in 
partnership with stakeholders (i.e., other transportation agencies, 
transit providers, freight movers, utility suppliers, police, fire, 
emergency medical services, and regional transportation management 
centers) is encouraged.
    (C) The scope of the TOP is determined by the transportation 
operations and safety requirements identified in the work zone impacts 
analysis.
    (D) The TOP may be included in the P.S.&E.s. Alternatively, 
provisions may be made in the P.S.&E.s for contractors to develop a 
TOP, approved by the State, prior to the start of work.
    (iii) Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). (A) If 
recommended by the results of the work zone impacts analysis, the TMP 
shall include a PIOP. A PIOP consists of project level communications 
that ensure that affected road users, the general public, residences 
and businesses, and the appropriate public entities are informed about 
the project, the expected work zone impacts, and the changing 
conditions on the project.

[[Page 24404]]

    (B) Through the PIOP, States are encouraged to provide adequate 
(i.e., frequent, current, and near-real-time where appropriate) 
information for the affected parties to make informed travel decisions 
that help alleviate the work zone impacts of the project.
    (C) The scope of the PIOP is determined by the public information 
and outreach requirements identified in the work zone impacts analysis.
    (D) The PIOP may be included in the P.S.&E.s. Alternatively, 
provisions may be made in the P.S.&E.s for contractors to develop a 
PIOP, approved by the State, prior to the start of work.
    (3) Pay Items. (i) The P.S. & E.s shall include pay item provisions 
for implementing the TCP. For method-based specifications for 
implementing the TCP, the P.S.&E.s shall include unit pay items to 
cover the cost of providing, installing, moving, replacing, 
maintaining, and cleaning traffic control devices. In the case of 
performance specifications, the P.S.&E.s will include pay item 
provisions for the targeted performance criteria. Suitable force 
account procedures may be used. Lump-sum method of payment may be used 
only to cover very small projects, projects of short duration, 
contingency, and general items.
    (ii) The State may choose to include appropriate pay item 
provisions for the other TMP components in the P.S.&E.s.
    (4) Responsible Persons. The State and the contractor shall each 
designate a qualified person at the project level who will have the 
primary responsibility and sufficient authority for assuring that the 
TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the contract are 
effectively administered.


Sec.  630.1014  Compliance Date.

    State Transportation Departments must comply with all elements of 
this policy no later than June 6, 2006.

[FR Doc. 03-11020 Filed 5-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P