Federal Register, Volume 69 Issue 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54562-54572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20340]

[[Page 54562]]

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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA amends its regulation that governs traffic safety and
mobility in highway and street work zones. The changes to the
regulation will facilitate comprehensive consideration of the broader
safety and mobility impacts of work zones across project development
stages, and the adoption of additional strategies that help manage
these impacts during project implementation. These provisions will help
State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) meet current and future work
zone safety and mobility challenges, and serve the needs of the
American people.

DATES: Effective Date: October 12, 2007.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Battles, Office of
Transportation Operations, HOTO-1, (202) 366-4372; or Mr. Raymond
Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-0791, Federal
Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

This document and all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket
Facility, Room PL-401, may be viewed through the Docket Management
System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov. 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 this Web site.
An electronic copy of this document may 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 reach the Office of the Federal Register's
home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing
Office's Web site at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

History

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1051 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), (Pub. L. 102-
240, 105 Stat. 1914; Dec. 18, 1991), the FHWA developed a work zone
safety program to improve work zone safety at highway construction
sites. The FHWA implemented this program through non-regulatory action
by publishing a notice in the Federal Register on October 24, 1995 (60
FR 54562). This notice established the National Highway Work Zone
Safety Program (NHWZSP) to enhance safety at highway construction,
maintenance, and utility sites. In this notice, the FHWA indicated the
need to update its regulation on work zone safety (23 CFR 630, Subpart
J).
As a first step in considering amendments to its work zone safety
regulation, the FHWA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) on February 6, 2002, at 67 FR 5532. The ANPRM solicited
information on the need to amend the regulation to better respond to
the issues surrounding work zones, namely the need to reduce recurrent
roadwork, the duration of work zones, and the disruption caused by work
zones.
The FHWA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 7,
2003, at 68 FR 24384. The regulations proposed in the NPRM were
intended to facilitate consideration and management of the broader
safety and mobility impacts of work zones in a more coordinated and
comprehensive manner across project development stages, and the
development of appropriate strategies to manage these impacts. We
received a substantial number of responses to the NPRM. While most of
the respondents agreed with the intent and the concepts proposed in the
NPRM, they recommended that the proposed provisions be revised and
altered so as to make them practical for application in the field. The
respondents identified the need for flexibility and scalability in the
implementation of the provisions of the proposed rule; noted that some
of the terms used in the proposed rule were ambiguous and lent
themselves to subjective interpretation. Respondents also commented
that the documentation requirements in the proposal would impose undue
time and resource burdens on State DOTs.
In order to address the comments received in response to the NPRM,
the FHWA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on
May 13, 2004, at 69 FR 26513. The SNPRM addressed the comments related
to flexibility and scalability of provisions, eliminated ambiguous
terms from the language, and reduced the documentation requirements. We
received several supportive comments in response to the SNPRM. Most
respondents noted that the SNPRM addressed the majority of their
concerns regarding the originally proposed rule. However, they did
offer additional comments regarding specific areas of concern. In the
final rule issued today, the FHWA has addressed all the comments
received in response to the SNPRM that are within the scope of this
rulemaking
The regulation addresses the changing times of more traffic, more
congestion, greater safety issues, and more work zones. The regulation
is broader so as to recognize the inherent linkage between safety and
mobility and to facilitate systematic consideration and management of
work zone impacts. The regulation can advance the state of the practice
in highway construction project planning, design, and delivery so as to
address the needs of the traveling public and highway workers. The key
features of the final rule are as follows:
A policy driven focus that will institutionalize work zone
processes and procedures at the agency level, with specific language
for application at the project level.
A systems engineering approach that includes provisions to
help transportation agencies address work zone considerations starting
early in planning, and progressing through project design,
implementation, and performance assessment.
Emphasis on addressing the broader impacts of work zones
to develop transportation management strategies that address traffic
safety and control through the work zone, transportation operations,
and public information and outreach.
Emphasis on a partner driven approach, whereby
transportation agencies and the FHWA will work together towards
improving work zone safety and mobility.
Overall flexibility, scalability, and adaptability of the
provisions, so as to customize the application of the regulations
according to the needs of individual agencies, and to meet the needs of
the various types of highway projects.

[[Page 54563]]

Summary Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the SNPRM

The following discussion provides an overview of the comments
received in response to the SNPRM, and the FHWA's actions to resolve
and address the issues raised by the respondents.

Profile of Respondents

We received a total of 33 responses to the docket. Out of the 33
total respondents, 27 were State DOTs; 4 were trade associations; and 2
provided comments as private individuals. The 4 trade associations were
namely, the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA),
the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), the
Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America, and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). We classified the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as a State DOT
because they represent State DOT interests. The AASHTO provided a
consolidated response to the SNPRM on behalf of its member States.
Several State DOTs provided their comments individually.
The respondents represented a cross-section of job categories,
ranging from all aspects of DOT function, to engineering/traffic/
safety/design, to construction and contracting.

Overall Position of Respondents

We received several supportive comments in response to the SNPRM.
Most State DOTs, the AASHTO, and all private sector respondents greatly
appreciated the FHWA's continued effort to receive input during the
development of the proposed rule, and particularly in issuing the
SNPRM. Most respondents also noted that the SNPRM addressed the
majority of their concerns regarding the originally proposed rule.
The respondents also offered comments on specific areas of concern,
and recommended changes to improve the rule's language. The State DOTs
and the AASHTO offered comments, which relate to their continued
concern that the rule allow for adequate flexibility and scalability
while limiting unintended liability and cost. Private sector
respondents also offered specific comments on certain areas of concern.
Details regarding these issues and FHWA's specific response are
discussed in the following section, which provides a section-by-section
analysis of the comments.
The level of support for the SNPRM is indicated by the fact that 23
of the 33 respondents expressed overall support for the provisions
proposed in the SNPRM. It is to be noted that these respondents were
not necessarily supportive of all the provisions, but rather that,
their overall position on the SNPRM was supportive. Many of these
respondents provided suggestions on modifications and revised language
for specific provisions as they deemed appropriate. Of the 23
respondents who were supportive, 21 represented State DOTs and 2
represented trade associations.
Of the remaining respondents, 2 opposed the issuance of the rule, 2
agreed with the intent and the concepts but did not agree with many of
the mandatory provisions, and the remaining 6 did not expressly
indicate their overall position.
One of the two respondents who opposed the issuance of the rule was
the Iowa DOT. It expressed that it supports the goals of improved
safety and reduced congestion, but opposes the proposed rule as it
would not necessarily help achieve these goals. It believes that its
current work zone policies are sufficient to provide for a high
standard of safety and mobility. It noted that the rule is not flexible
enough, and that it would require significant commitments from its
limited staff.
The other respondent that opposed the rule was the Kansas DOT. It
suggested that the FHWA retract the rule and, instead, issue the
information on work zone safety and mobility as a guide for use by
State DOTs. It believes that encouraging State DOTs to review and
improve their current practices on work zone safety and mobility,
through closer contact with FHWA and other partners, would be more
effective than mandating specific processes. It also suggested changes
to specific sections, and recommended that the FHWA implement the
AASHTO's recommendations, if retraction of the rule was not an option.

Section-by-Section Analysis of SNPRM Comments and FHWA Response

Section 630.1002 Purpose

There were no major comments in response to this section. The
overall sentiment of the respondents was supportive of the language as
proposed in the SNPRM, and therefore, we will retain the language as
proposed in the SNPRM.

Section 630.1004 Definitions and Explanation of Terms

Most respondents were supportive of this section. Some respondents
offered specific comments on some of the definitions proposed in the
SNPRM. They are discussed as follows:
Definition for ``Mobility.'' The AGC of America remarked
that the definition for mobility seems to imply a greater emphasis on
mobility than on safety. It recommended that we change the second
sentence of the definition to imply that work zone mobility should be
achieved without compromising the safety of highway workers or road
users. To address this comment the FHWA has amended the definition by
adding the words, ``while not compromising the safety of highway
workers or road users'' at the end of the second sentence. In addition,
the word ``smoothly'' after the phrase, ``mobility pertains to moving
road users,'' has been replaced by the word ``efficiently.''
Definition for ``Safety.'' The AASHTO and several DOTs
recommended that the term, ``road worker(s)'' be changed to ``highway
worker(s)'' for the sake of consistency. We agree with this
observation, and made this change. The Georgia DOT recommended that the
term ``danger'' be changed to ``potential hazards'' to reduce potential
liability. We agree with this recommendation, and therefore, replaced
the word ``danger'' with ``potential hazards'' in the first sentence.
In the second sentence, we rephrased ``minimizing the exposure to
danger of road users'' with ``minimizing potential hazards to road
users.''
Definition for ``Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) Plan.''
We moved the definition for the TTC plan from Sec. 630.1004,
Definitions and Explanation of Terms, to Sec. 630.1012(b),
Transportation Management Plan (TMP), where the requirements for the
TTC plan are laid out. This is in response to a comment from the
Georgia DOT that the language under the TTC plan section of Sec.
630.1012(b) was not consistent with the Manual On Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD).\1\ Since the definition for the TTC plan was
referenced from the MUTCD, it was removed from the definitions section
and placed in Sec. 630.1012(b)(1), where TTC plans are discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The MUTCD is approved by the FHWA and recognized as the
national standard for traffic control on all public roads. It is
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations at 23
CFR part 655. It is available on the FHWA's Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov and is available for inspection and copying at
the FHWA Washington, DC Headquarters and all FHWA Division Offices
as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions for ``Work Zone'' and ``Work Zone Crash.''
There were several comments recommending changes to certain terminology
in both these definitions. For example, the AASHTO

[[Page 54564]]

and several DOTs suggested that the term, ``traffic units,'' in the
first sentence of the Work Zone Crash definition be changed to ``road
users.'' However, we have decided not to adopt the changes in order to
maintain consistency with other industry accepted sources--the
definition for ``work zone'' being referenced from the MUTCD, and that
for ``work zone crash,'' from the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
Guideline (MMUCC).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ ``Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline'' (MMUCC),
2d Ed. (Electronic), 2003, produced by National Center for
Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Telephone 1-(800)-934-8517. Available at the
URL: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov. The NHTSA, the FHWA, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and the Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA) sponsored the development of the
MMUCC Guideline which recommends voluntary implementation of the 111
MMUCC data elements and serves as a reporting threshold that
includes all persons (injured and uninjured) in crashes statewide
involving death, personal injury, or property damage of $1,000 or
more. The Guideline is a tool to strengthen existing State crash
data systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 630.1006 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy

The majority of the respondents supported the proposed language in
this section. The AASHTO and several DOTs recommended the removal of
the second clause in the second to last sentence, ``representing the
different project development stages.'' These respondents believe that
this change would grant the States maximum flexibility to implement the
most appropriate team for each project. The FHWA agrees with this
observation and has deleted the phrase in question.
The ATSSA recommended that we specifically include or encourage the
participation of experienced industry professionals in the multi-
disciplinary team referenced in the second to last sentence. The FHWA
believes that States will solicit the participation of industry
representatives if required for the specific project under
consideration.
The Kansas DOT commented that the use of the words ``policy'' and
``guidance'' in the same sentence could be confusing, as policies
usually carry more weight than guidance. This comment refers to the
second sentence, the first part of which reads, ``This policy may take
the form of processes, procedures, and/or guidance * * * '' The FHWA
disagrees because we believe that policies do not necessarily have to
be mandates. For example, it may be a State DOT policy that it
``shall'' consider and manage work zone impacts of projects, but the
actual methods to do so may be provided as guidance to its district/
region offices which may vary according to the different types of
projects that they encounter. The underlying purpose of the work zone
safety and mobility policy section is to require State DOTs to
implement a policy for the systematic consideration and management of
work zone impacts, so that such consideration and management becomes a
part of the mainstream of DOT activities. How a State chooses to
implement the policy is its prerogative--and it may take the form of
processes, procedures, and/or guidance, and may vary upon the work zone
impacts of projects.
The Virginia DOT commented on the second sentence of this section
that it does not agree with the ``shall'' requirement to address work
zone impacts through the various stages of project development and
implementation. It justified its objection by saying that ``addressing
work zone impacts through the various stages of project development and
implementation'' will not work from a practical standpoint due to
unforeseen field conditions and circumstances, and that the shall
clause could result in potential litigation. The FHWA disagrees with
the Virginia DOT. We would like to mention that the second sentence by
itself, when taken out of context, doesn't quite convey the message of
the entire section. The preceding sentence and the following sentence
need to be considered in interpreting what the second sentence means.
The first sentence requires that State DOTs implement a policy for the
systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts on all
Federal-aid highway projects. The second sentence further qualifies the
term ``systematic'' by saying that the policy shall address work zone
impacts throughout the various stages of project development and
implementation--this implies that the consideration and management of
work zone impacts progresses through the various stages. The third
sentence further clarifies that the methods to implement this policy
may not necessarily be absolute requirements, but rather be implemented
through guidance. Further, the third sentence provides a more specific
delineator by saying that the implementation of the policy may vary
based upon the characteristics and expected work zone impacts of
individual projects or classes of projects.

Section 630.1008 Agency-Level Processes and Procedures

The AASHTO and several State DOTs remarked that there is
inconsistency with the use of ``Agency'' and ``State Agency,'' and that
this needs to be resolved. Further, a few State DOTs sought
clarification as to whether ``agency'' applies to the State
transportation agency or other entities that might be involved in the
project development process (i.e., county and/ or local governments and
authorities). In response to this comment, we changed all instances of
the terms ``State Agency'' and ``Agency'' in the entire subpart to the
term ``State,'' as referenced in the rule.
Section 630.1008(a), Section Introduction. There were no specific
comments in response to the language in this paragraph. In the second
sentence, to remove ambiguity and for clarity, we replaced the words
``well defined data resources'' with the words, ``data and information
resources.''
The North Carolina DOT observed that the language in this paragraph
is an introduction to the section, and that it should not be labeled as
``(a).'' We did not make this change because the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) requires paragraph designations on all text in a rule.
Section 630.1008(b), Work Zone Assessment and Management
Procedures. Most respondents were supportive of the language in this
paragraph.
Section 630.1008(c), Work Zone Data. Most State DOTs and the AASHTO
opposed the mandatory requirement to use work zone crash and
operational data towards improving work zone safety and mobility on
ongoing projects, as well as to improve agency processes and
procedures. One of the key reasons cited for this opposition was the
difficulty and level of effort involved in obtaining and compiling data
quickly enough to take remedial action on ongoing projects. A few DOTs
also stated that using data to improve State-level procedures was
feasible but not at the individual project level. The AASHTO also
observed that there is already a reference to data in Sec.
630.1008(e), ``Process Review,'' where the use of data is optional and
not mandatory. Some States recommended that we clarify the term
``operational data,'' whether it is observed or collected data. They
also noted that the ``shall'' clauses in the first two sentences are
inconsistent with the ``encouraged to'' in the last sentence, and
questioned as to how the use of data

[[Page 54565]]

can be mandated when the data resources themselves are optional. The
California Transportation Department (CalTrans) questioned the
objective of developing TMPs and conducting process reviews if
appropriate performance measures and data collection standards are not
identified for determining success.
The FHWA provides the following comments and responses to the above
stated concerns:
The purpose of the provisions in this section is not to
require States to collect additional data during project
implementation, but rather, to improve the use of available work zone
field observations, crash data, and operational information to: (1)
Manage the safety and mobility impacts of projects more effectively
during implementation; and (2) provide the basis for systematic
procedures to assess work zone impacts in project development.
For example, most agencies maintain field diaries for constructions
projects. These field diaries are intended to provide a log of
problems, decisions, and progress made over the duration of a project.
In many States, these diaries log incidents and actions such as the
need to replace channelization devices into their proper positions
after knockdown by an errant vehicle, or to deal with severe congestion
that occurred at some point during the day. These log notes, when
considered over time, may provide indications of safety or operational
deficiencies. To address such deficiencies, it may be necessary and
prudent to improve the delineation through the work zone to prevent
future occurrences of knockdown events, or to alter work schedules to
avoid the congestion that recurs at unexpected times due to some local
traffic generation phenomena.
Police reports are another example of an available source of data
that may be useful in increasing work zone safety. Provisions are made
in many agencies for a copy of each crash report to be forwarded to the
engineering section immediately upon police filing of the crash report.
Where a work zone is involved, a copy of this report should be
forwarded as soon as possible to the project safety manager to
determine if the work zone traffic controls had any contribution to the
crash so that remedial action can be taken.
These applications do not necessarily require that agencies gather
new data, but there may be a need to improve processes to forward such
reports to the appropriate staff member for review during project
implementation and/or to provide guidance or training to facilitate
interpretation of these reports. Agencies may choose to enhance the
data they capture to improve the effectiveness of these processes by
following national crash data enhancement recommendations and/or
linking it with other information (e.g., enforcement actions, public
complaints, contractor claims). This same data and information can be
gathered for multiple projects and analyzed by the agency to determine
if there are common problems that could be remedied by a change in
practices. The information may also be used for process reviews.
The first sentence of this paragraph was revised to convey
that States are required to use field observations, available work zone
crash data, and operational information at the project level, to manage
the work zone impacts of specific projects during project
implementation. This provision requires States to use data and
information that is available to them, so as to take appropriate
actions in a timely manner to correct potential safety or mobility
issues in the field. Operational information refers to any available
information on the operation of the work zone, be it observed or
collected. For example, many areas have Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) in place, and many others are implementing specific ITS
deployments to manage traffic during construction projects. The
application of this provision to a project where ITS is an available
information resource, would result in the use of the ITS information to
identify potential safety or mobility issues on that project.
The second sentence was also revised to convey that work
zone crash and operational data from multiple projects shall be
analyzed towards improving State processes and procedures. Such
analysis will help improve overall work zone safety and mobility. Data
gathered during project implementation needs to be maintained for such
post hoc analyses purposes. Such data can be used to support analyses
that help improve State procedures and the effectiveness of future work
zone safety and mobility assessment and management procedures.
The respondents indicated that the use of ``encouraged
to'' in the last sentence is inconsistent with the ``shall'' clauses in
the first two sentences. Further, the phrase, ``establish data
resources at the agency and project levels'' does not clearly convey
the message of the provision. This provision does not require States to
embark on a massive data collection, storage, and analysis effort, but
rather to promote better use of elements of their existing/available
data and information resources to support the activities required in
the first two sentences. Examples of existing/available data and
information resources include: Project logs, field observations, police
crash records, operational data from traffic surveillance devices
(e.g., data from traffic management centers, ITS devices, etc.), other
monitoring activities (e.g., work zone speed enforcement or citations),
and/or public complaints. We revised the last sentence to convey that
States should maintain elements of their data and information resources
that logically support the required activities.
In response to CalTrans' comment regarding establishing
performance measures and data collection standards, we appreciate the
value of the input, but we believe that we do not have adequate
information at this time to specify performance measures for
application at the National level. State DOTs may establish such
performance measures and data collection standards as applicable to
their individual needs and project scenarios. For example, the Ohio-DOT
mandates that there shall always be at least two traffic lanes
maintained in each direction for any work that is being performed on an
Interstate or Interstate look-alike. We believe that such policies need
to be developed and implemented according to individual State DOT
needs, and hence we maintain a degree of flexibility in the rule
language.
Section 630.1008(d), Training. Most State DOTs and the AASHTO
opposed the mandatory requirement that would require training for the
personnel responsible for work zone safety and mobility during the
different project development and implementation stages. These
respondents noted that the proposed language implied that State DOTs
would be responsible for training all the listed personnel, including
those who do not work for the DOT itself, and that this would create a
huge resource burden, as well as increase the liability potential for
the DOTs. These commenters also ratified their opposition by quoting
the MUTCD training requirement, which does not mandate training, but
suggests that personnel should be trained appropriate to the job
decisions that they are required to make. Some DOTs, including the New
York State DOT (NYSDOT), requested that the reference to personnel
responsible for enforcement of work zone related transportation
management and traffic control be clarified as to whether it refers to
law enforcement officers or to field construction/safety inspectors.

[[Page 54566]]

The FHWA provides the following comments and responses to the above
stated concerns:
The FHWA agrees that the first sentence in the training
section seems to imply that the State would be responsible for training
all mentioned personnel; therefore, we changed the sentence to convey
that the State shall ``require'' the mentioned personnel be trained.
This change will require the State to train direct State employees
only, and takes away the burden from the State to train personnel who
are not direct employees. We believe that personnel responsible for the
development, design, operation, inspection, and enforcement of work
zone safety and mobility need to be trained, and this requirement will
allow for training to be provided by the appropriate entities. The
responsibility of the State would be to require such training, either
through policy or through specification. For example, the Florida DOT
has developed and required work zone training of their designers and
contractors by procedure and by specifications. Similarly, the Maryland
State Highway Administration (MD-SHA) provides a maintenance of traffic
(MOT) design class to personnel responsible for planning and designing
work zones, including consultants and contractors.
Further, in keeping with the MUTCD language on training,
we added the phrase, ``appropriate to the job decisions each individual
is required to make'' to the end of the first sentence. This clarifies
that the type and level of training will vary according to the
responsibilities of the different personnel. For example, Maryland
State Highway Police officers attend a 4-hour work zone safety and
traffic control session at the Police Academy.
We also revised the second sentence to convey that States
shall require periodic training updates that reflect changing industry
practices and State processes and procedures. Since we revised the
first sentence to convey that training of non-State personnel is not a
State responsibility, in the second sentence, we deleted the phrase,
``States are encouraged to keep records of the training successfully
completed by these personnel.''
In response to the request that ``personnel responsible
for enforcement'' of work zone related transportation management and
traffic control be clarified, we believe that this group is inclusive
of both law enforcement officers and field construction/safety
inspectors.
Section 630.1008(e), Process Review. Most respondents were
supportive of the language in this section. The AASHTO and several
State DOTs recommended that States should have maximum flexibility to
implement the most appropriate team for each project. These commenters
suggested that the fourth and the fifth sentences of the section be
deleted, and that the clause, ``as well as FHWA'' be added to the end
of the third sentence.
The FHWA agrees with the observation made by the AASHTO and State
DOTs that States should have maximum flexibility to implement the most
appropriate review team for each project. Therefore, as suggested, we
deleted the fourth and the fifth sentence of the section, and added the
clause, ``as well as FHWA'' to the end of the third sentence. Further,
in the third sentence, we changed the phrase ``are encouraged to'' to
``should.''

Section 630.1010 Significant Projects

All respondents agreed with the concept of defining significant
projects, and the requirement to identify projects that are expected to
have significant work zone impacts; however, most State DOTs and the
AASHTO opposed the requirement to classify Interstate system projects
that occupy a location for more than three days with either
intermittent or continuous lane closures, as significant. They cited
that all Interstate system projects that occupy a location for more
than three days would not necessarily have significant work zone
impacts, particularly on low-volume rural Interstate sections. Several
DOTs remarked that designation of significant projects purely based on
the duration would not be prudent, and that the volume of traffic on
that Interstate should be taken into account. They also noted that such
classification is not consistent with the MUTCD. They remarked that
this provision could not be effectively applied to routine maintenance
activities performed by State DOT maintenance crews, and that
requesting exceptions to such routine work would be unreasonably
arduous.
These respondents also objected to the associated exemption clause
for the same provision, commenting that it would be very cumbersome to
implement. Some States also requested clarification on whether general
exceptions would be granted for work categories for defined segments of
Interstate projects where the work would have little impact.
The DOTs of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming
commented that the threshold for designating the reference Interstate
projects as significant was too low. They suggested that low volume
Interstates and rural Interstates should be excluded, and that, the
duration should be extended well above the three-day duration.
The AASHTO and the State DOTs also remarked that the identification
of significant projects in ``cooperation with the FHWA'' should be
changed to ``in consultation with the FHWA.''
The FHWA provides the following responses and proposed action in
response to the referenced concerns:
We agree with the majority of the concerns raised by the
respondents.
We changed the significant projects clause as applicable
to Interstate system projects, to require States to classify as
significant projects, all Interstate system projects within the
boundaries of a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA), that
occupy a location for more than three days with either intermittent or
continuous lane closures. We believe that this change addresses all the
concerns raised by the respondents. The delineation of projects by the
boundaries of a designated TMA will address the work zone impacts of
lane-closures on Interstate segments in the most heavily traveled areas
with recurring congestion problems. We believe that in general, areas
with recurring congestion tend to be severely impacted by lane closures
as compared to those without recurring congestion. We also believe that
the areas that are already designated as TMAs tend to exhibit patterns
of recurring congestion on their Interstates due to heavy traffic
demand and limited capacity. This revision, in most cases, would also
not require low-volume rural Interstate segments to be classified as
significant projects.
We revised the exemption clause provisions related to the
applicable Interstate system projects to allow for exemptions to
``categories of projects.'' This will provide for blanket exemptions
for specific categories of projects on Interstate segments that are not
expected to have significant work zone impacts. This will eliminate the
burdensome procedural aspect of seeking exemptions for Interstate
projects on an individual project basis.
We also reorganized this section to consist of paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d). Paragraph (a) provides the general definition
for a significant project, with no changes in language from what was
proposed in the SNPRM. Paragraph (b) enumerates the purpose of
classifying projects as significant, and lays out the requirements for
States to classify projects as significant. This language is also the
same as what was proposed in the SNPRM. Paragraph (c) provides the
revised definition of significant projects

[[Page 54567]]

as applicable to Interstate system projects. Paragraph (d) provides the
revised exemption clause as applicable to significant projects on the
Interstate system.
In keeping with the overall recommendation of respondents,
we changed all instances of ``Agency'' and ``State Agency'' to
``State.''
We do not agree with the recommendation that the
identification of significant projects should be done in
``consultation'' with the FHWA rather than ``cooperation with the
FHWA.'' We believe that this is a cooperative process, rather than
requiring just consultation. Therefore, we did not make any change to
this terminology.

Section 630.1012 Project-Level Procedures

Section 630.1012(a). The North Carolina DOT observed that the
language in this section is an introduction to the section, and that it
should not be labeled as ``(a).'' We did not make this change because
the OFR requires paragraph designations on all text in a rule.
The ITE recommended that the FHWA should encourage consideration of
work zone impacts prior to project development, at the corridor and
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and program development stage.
It provided examples of decisions that would be made at the earlier
stages, such as, life-cycle cost decisions, and project scheduling
decisions. We appreciate ITE's input and agree with the general intent
of its suggested content. We believe that the language in Sec. Sec.
630.1002, Purpose and 630.1010, Significant Projects covers some of the
issues to which the ITE refers. Specifically, the following two
sentences from the respective sections address the ITE's concerns:
From Sec. 630.1002, Purpose: ``Addressing these safety
and mobility issues requires considerations that start early in project
development and continue through project completion.''
From Sec. 630.1010, Significant Projects: ``This
identification of significant projects should be done as early as
possible in the project delivery and development process, and in
cooperation with the FHWA.''
Section 630.1012(b), Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Most
respondents were supportive of the provisions in this section.
The Florida DOT requested further definition for the phrase ``less
than significant work zone impacts.'' We believe that the definition
for ``work zone impacts'' as provided in Sec. 630.1004 and the clauses
for identification of projects with significant work zone impacts, as
stated in Sec. 630.1010 adequately describe the phrase ``less than
significant work zone impacts.'' We did not take any action in response
to this comment.
The New Jersey DOT recommended that, in order to facilitate maximum
flexibility to States, the term ``typically'' be introduced before the
word ``consists'' in the third sentence of this section. We do not
agree with the suggested edit because for significant projects, a TMP
shall always consist of a TTC plan, and address Transportation
Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components, unless an
exemption has been granted for that project. We did not take any action
in response to this comment.
Section 630.1012(b)(1), Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) Plan. In
general, most respondents were supportive of the provisions in this
section, except the provision regarding maintenance of pre-existing
roadside safety features.
Most State DOTs and the AASHTO were opposed to the provision, which
required the maintenance of pre-existing roadside safety features in
developing and implementing the TTC plan. They recommended that the
FHWA either remove the requirement or change the mandatory ``shall'' to
a ``should.''
Several DOTs stated that maintenance of all pre-existing roadside
safety features would be very difficult, especially, in urban areas.
Other DOTs requested clarification on what ``pre-existing roadside
safety features'' would entail--whether it would include items like
signs, guardrail, and barriers, or it would include features like
shoulders, slopes and other geometric aspects. On that note, several
DOTs mentioned that maintenance of pre-existing roadside safety
``hardware'' would be more practical than maintaining pre-existing
roadside safety features.
The Laborers Health and Safety Foundation of North America (LHSFNA)
continued to stress the requirement for Internal Traffic Control Plans
(ITCPs) for managing men and materials within the work area, so as to
address worker safety issues better, and to level the playing field for
contractors.
The FHWA offers the following in response to the comments and
concerns raised above:
The FHWA agrees with most of the concerns raised by the
respondents.
In the fourth sentence of paragraph (b)(1), we changed the
term ``pre-existing roadside safety features,'' to ``pre-existing
roadside safety hardware.'' We believe that this change will address
all the concerns raised by the respondents, and eliminate ambiguity and
subjectivity from the requirement.
In response to the LHSFNA's comment regarding ITCPs, we
agree that ITCPs are important for providing for worker safety inside
the work area, but we still believe that this issue is outside the
purview of this rulemaking effort and this subpart.
In order to be consistent with the remaining sections of
this subpart, and to eliminate ambiguity, we deleted the first sentence
of this section, and replaced it with the definition for TTC plan as
stated in Sec. 630.1004. Consequently, we removed the definition for
TTC plan from Sec. 630.1004.
Section 630.1012(b)(2), Transportation Operations (TO) Component.
Most respondents were supportive of the provisions in this section. The
AASHTO and several DOTs suggested that ``traveler information'' be
removed as a typical TO strategy because ``traveler information'' fits
more logically in the PI component. The New Jersey DOT recommended that
the phrase ``transportation operations and safety requirements'' be
changed to ``transportation operations and safety strategies,'' so as
to soften the tone of the language.
We agree with both of the above observations; therefore, we removed
``traveler information'' from the listing of typical TO strategies in
the second sentence. We also changed the phrase ``transportation
operations and safety requirements'' to ``transportation operations and
safety strategies'' in the last sentence.
Section 630.1012(b)(3), Public Information Component. Most
respondents were supportive of the provisions in this section. The
AASHTO and several DOTs suggested that ``traveler information'' be
included as a typical PI strategy rather than a TO strategy, because
``traveler information'' fits more logically in the PI component. The
New Jersey DOT recommended that the phrase ``public information and
outreach requirements'' be changed to ``public information and outreach
strategies,'' so as to soften the tone of the language.
We agree with both of the above observations; therefore, we added a
new sentence after the first sentence, to indicate that the PI
component may include traveler information strategies. We also changed
the phrase ``public information and outreach requirements'' to ``public
information and outreach strategies'' in the third sentence.
Section 630.1012(b)(4), Coordinated Development of TMP. Most
respondents were supportive of the provisions in this section. The
AASHTO and several DOTs

[[Page 54568]]

recommended that the terminology, ``coordination and partnership'' in
the first sentence, be changed to ``consultation,'' so that it doesn't
imply active and direct participation from all the subjects. They
explained that the term ``coordination'' implies that all participants
have veto/negative powers which may delay project delivery as it is
impossible to satisfy everybody. Further, the DOTs of Idaho, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming commented that the use of
``i.e.'' for the list of stakeholders implies that all those
stakeholders are required for all projects. So they recommended that we
change the ``i.e.'' to ``e.g.'' so that it would imply that the list
provides examples of possible stakeholders, and that all of them need
not be involved in all projects.
The FHWA agrees with both of the above observations and
recommendations; therefore, we changed the phrase ``partnership and
coordination'' to ``consultation'' in the first sentence of this
section. We also changed ``i.e.'' to ``e.g.'' for the list of
stakeholders.
Section 630.1012(c), Inclusion of TMPs in Plans, Specifications,
and Estimates (PS&Es). Most respondents were supportive of the
provisions in this section. The DOTs of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming noted that the last sentence in this section
could imply that the State shall approve any TMP that is developed by
the contractor, irrespective of whether it meets the standards or not.
They recommended that the sentence be revised for clarity.
The FHWA agrees with the above observation. We revised the last
sentence of this section to convey that contractor developed TMPs shall
be subject to the approval of the State, and that the TMPs shall not be
implemented before they are approved by the State. This clarifies the
language and explicitly states the notion that it is the State that is
ultimately responsible for approving any contractor developed TMP.
Section 630.1012(d), Pay Items. Most respondents were supportive of
the provisions in this section. However, the ATSAA and the AGC of
America opposed the option in Sec. 630.1012(d)(1) for States to use
lump sum pay items for implementing the TMPs. The ATSSA believes that
unit bid items provide greater specificity and are a better indicator
of the direct cost of work zones. Conversely, the use of a lump sum pay
item provides less comprehensive data, and may, in some cases, limit,
or eliminate the contractor's ability to make a profit on certain
projects due to unknown equipment or device requirements either during
bidding or project implementation. It cited that unit pay items,
especially for the TTC plan, would require that all the identified work
zone safety and mobility strategies/equipment/devices be provided for
by the contractor. This would level the playing field, and not place
conscientious contractors (those who lay emphasis on work zone safety
and mobility and include them in their bids) at a disadvantage.
The FHWA recognizes ATSSA's and AGC's concerns, but we believe that
States have the required understanding of when to use unit pay items
and when not to, and that the requirement for unit pay items on all
projects is not practical for real-world application. Therefore, we did
not remove the option for DOTs to use lump sum contracting.
We changed ``i.e.'' to ``e.g.'' for the list of possible
performance criteria for performance specifications in Sec.
630.1012(d)(2), to remove the implication that the list is an
exhaustive list of performance criteria.
Section 630.1012(e), Responsible Persons. Most respondents were
supportive of the provisions in this section. A few State DOTs remarked
that the terms ``qualified person,'' ``assuring,'' and ``effectively
administered,'' in Sec. 630.1012(e) were ambiguous and lent themselves
to subjective interpretation.
The FHWA agrees with the above observations. We changed the term
``qualified'' to ``trained,'' as specified in Sec. 630.1008(d) so as
to clarify the requirement for the responsible person. We also changed
the phrase ``assuring that'' to ``implementing,'' and deleted the
phrase, ``are effectively administered.''

Section 630.1014 Implementation

Most respondents were supportive of the provisions in this section.
We did not make any changes to the language in this section.

Section 630.1016 Compliance Date

Most respondents were supportive of the provisions in this section.
We did not make any changes to the language in this section.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures.
This final rule is not anticipated to adversely affect, in a
material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes
will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action
or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs; nor will the changes raise any novel legal
or policy issues. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not
required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L.
96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this
final rule on small entities and has determined that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule applies to State departments of transportation in the
execution of their highway program, specifically with respect to work
zone safety and mobility. The implementation of the provisions in this
rule will not affect the economic viability or sustenance of small
entities, as States are not included in the definition of small entity
set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. For these reasons, the RFA does not apply
and the FHWA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule will 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 final rule will not result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C.
1532).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and
it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation 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,

[[Page 54569]]

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 final 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 mobility of the traveling public related to highway and
roadway work zones. This information collection requirement was
submitted to and approved by the OMB, pursuant to the provisions of the
PRA. In this submission, the FHWA requested the OMB to approve a single
information collection clearance for all of the data and information in
this final rule. The requirement has been approved, through July 31,
2007; OMB Control No. 2125-0600.
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 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.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that this 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 final rule 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 action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use. We have determined that this is not a significant
energy action under that order because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, we believe that the implementation of the final rule
by State departments of transportation will 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 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 action will not have any effect on the quality of
the environment. Further, we believe that the implementation of the
final rule by State departments of transportation will reduce the
amount of congested travel on our highways. This reduction in congested
travel will reduce automobile emissions thereby contributing to a
cleaner environment.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this action will
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 action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this 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, Incorporation by reference, Project
agreement, Traffic regulations.

Issued on: September 1, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 630, as follows:

PART 630--PRECONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 630 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).

0
2. Revise subpart J of part 630 to read as follows:

Subpart J--Work Zone Safety and Mobility

Sec.
630.1002 Purpose.
630.1004 Definitions and explanation of terms.
630.1006 Workzone safety and mobility policy.
630.1008 State-level processes and procedures.
630.1010 Significant projects.
630.1012 Project-level procedures.
630.1014 Implementation.
630.1016 Compliance date.

Sec. 630.1002 Purpose.

Work zones directly impact the safety and mobility of road users
and highway workers. These safety and mobility impacts are exacerbated
by an aging highway infrastructure and growing congestion in many
locations. Addressing these safety and mobility issues requires
considerations that start early in project development and continue
through project completion. Part 6 of the Manual On Uniform Traffic

[[Page 54570]]

Control Devices (MUTCD) \1\ sets forth basic principles and prescribes
standards for the design, application, installation, and maintenance of
traffic control devices for highway and street construction,
maintenance operation, and utility work. In addition to the provisions
in the MUTCD, there are other actions that could be taken to further
help mitigate the safety and mobility impacts of work zones. This
subpart establishes requirements and provides guidance for
systematically addressing the safety and mobility impacts of work
zones, and developing strategies to help manage these impacts on all
Federal-aid highway projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 630.1004 Definitions and explanation of terms.

As used in this subpart:
Highway workers include, but are not limited to, personnel of the
contractor, subcontractor, DOT, utilities, and law enforcement,
performing work within the right-of-way of a transportation facility.
Mobility is the ability to move from place to place and is
significantly dependent on the availability of transportation
facilities and on system operating conditions. With specific reference
to work zones, mobility pertains to moving road users efficiently
through or around a work zone area with a minimum delay compared to
baseline travel when no work zone is present, while not compromising
the safety of highway workers or road users. The commonly used
performance measures for the assessment of mobility include delay,
speed, travel time and queue lengths.
Safety is a representation of the level of exposure to potential
hazards for users of transportation facilities and highway workers.
With specific reference to work zones, safety refers to minimizing
potential hazards to road users in the vicinity of a work zone and
highway workers at the work zone interface with traffic. The commonly
used measures for highway safety are the number of crashes or the
consequences of crashes (fatalities and injuries) at a given location
or along a section of highway during a period of time. Highway worker
safety in work zones refers to the safety of workers at the work zone
interface with traffic and the impacts of the work zone design on
worker safety. The number of worker fatalities and injuries at a given
location or along a section of highway, during a period of time are
commonly used measures for highway worker safety.
Work zone \2\ is 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 high-
intensity rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe lights on a
vehicle to the END ROAD WORK sign or the last temporary traffic control
(TTC) device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ MUTCD, Part 6, ``Temporary Traffic Control,'' Section 6C.02,
``Temporary Traffic Control Zones.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work zone crash \3\ 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. This includes crashes occurring on approach to,
exiting from or adjacent to work zones that are related to the work
zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline'' (MMUCC),
2d Ed. (Electronic), 2003, produced by National Center for
Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Telephone 1-(800)-934-8517. Available at the
URL: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov. The NHTSA, the FHWA, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and the Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA) sponsored the development of the
MMUCC Guideline which recommends voluntary implementation of the 111
MMUCC data elements and serves as a reporting threshold that
includes all persons (injured and uninjured) in crashes statewide
involving death, personal injury, or property damage of $1,000 or
more. The Guideline is a tool to strengthen existing State crash
data systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work zone impacts refer to work zone-induced deviations from the
normal range of transportation system safety and mobility. 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, time of day/
night, and complexity of the project. These impacts may extend beyond
the physical location of the work zone itself, and may occur 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.

Sec. 630.1006 Work zone safety and mobility policy.

Each State shall implement a policy for the systematic
consideration and management of work zone impacts on all Federal-aid
highway projects. This policy shall address work zone impacts
throughout the various stages of the project development and
implementation process. This policy may take the form of processes,
procedures, and/or guidance, and may vary based on the characteristics
and expected work zone impacts of individual projects or classes of
projects. The States should institute this policy using a multi-
disciplinary team and in partnership with the FHWA. The States are
encouraged to implement this policy for non-Federal-aid projects as
well.

Sec. 630.1008 State-level processes and procedures.

(a) This section consists of State-level processes and procedures
for States to implement and sustain their respective work zone safety
and mobility policies. State-level processes and procedures, data and
information resources, training, and periodic evaluation enable a
systematic approach for addressing and managing the safety and mobility
impacts of work zones.
(b) Work zone assessment and management procedures. States should
develop and implement systematic procedures to assess work zone impacts
in project development, and to manage safety and mobility during
project implementation. The scope of these procedures shall be based on
the project characteristics.
(c) Work zone data. States shall use field observations, available
work zone crash data, and operational information to manage work zone
impacts for specific projects during implementation. States shall
continually pursue improvement of work zone safety and mobility by
analyzing work zone crash and operational data from multiple projects
to improve State processes and procedures. States should maintain
elements of the data and information resources that are necessary to
support these activities.
(d) Training. States shall require that personnel involved in the
development, design, implementation, operation, inspection, and
enforcement of work zone related transportation management and traffic
control be trained, appropriate to the job decisions each individual is
required to make. States shall require periodic training updates that
reflect changing industry practices and State processes and procedures.
(e) Process review. In order to assess the effectiveness of work
zone safety and mobility procedures, the States shall perform a process
review at least every two years. This review may include the evaluation
of work zone data at the State level, and/or review of randomly
selected projects throughout

[[Page 54571]]

their jurisdictions. Appropriate personnel who represent the project
development stages and the different offices within the State, and the
FHWA should participate in this review. Other non-State stakeholders
may also be included in this review, as appropriate. The results of the
review are intended to lead to improvements in work zone processes and
procedures, data and information resources, and training programs so as
to enhance efforts to address safety and mobility on current and future
projects.

Sec. 630.1010 Significant projects.

(a) A significant project is one that, alone or in combination with
other concurrent projects nearby is anticipated to cause sustained work
zone impacts (as defined in Sec. 630.1004) that are greater than what
is considered tolerable based on State policy and/or engineering
judgment.
(b) The applicability of the provisions in Sec. Sec.
630.1012(b)(2) and 630.1012(b)(3) is dependent upon whether a project
is determined to be significant. The State shall identify upcoming
projects that are expected to be significant. This identification of
significant projects should be done as early as possible in the project
delivery and development process, and in cooperation with the FHWA. The
State's work zone policy provisions, the project's characteristics, and
the magnitude and extent of the anticipated work zone impacts should be
considered when determining if a project is significant or not.
(c) All Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a
designated Transportation Management Area (TMA) that occupy a location
for more than three days with either intermittent or continuous lane
closures shall be considered as significant projects.
(d) For an Interstate system project or categories of Interstate
system projects that are classified as significant through the
application of the provisions in Sec. 630.1010(c), but in the judgment
of the State they do not cause sustained work zone impacts, the State
may request from the FHWA, an exception to Sec. Sec. 630.1012(b)(2)
and 630.1012(b)(3). Exceptions to these provisions may be granted by
the FHWA based on the State's ability to show that the specific
Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects
do not have sustained work zone impacts.

Sec. 630.1012 Project-level procedures.

(a) This section provides guidance and establishes procedures for
States to manage the work zone impacts of individual projects.
(b) Transportation Management Plan (TMP). A TMP consists of
strategies to manage the work zone impacts of a project. Its scope,
content, and degree of detail may vary based upon the State's work zone
policy, and the State's understanding of the expected work zone impacts
of the project. For significant projects (as defined in Sec.
630.1010), the State shall develop a TMP that consists of a Temporary
Traffic Control (TTC) plan and addresses both Transportation Operations
(TO) and Public Information (PI) components. For individual projects or
classes of projects that the State determines to have less than
significant work zone impacts, the TMP may consist only of a TTC plan.
States are encouraged to consider TO and PI issues for all projects.
(1) A TTC plan describes TTC measures to be used for facilitating
road users through a work zone or an incident area. The TTC plan plays
a vital role in providing continuity of reasonably safe and efficient
road user flow and highway worker safety when a work zone, incident, or
other event temporarily disrupts normal road user flow. The TTC plan
shall be consistent with the provisions under Part 6 of the MUTCD and
with the work zone hardware recommendations in Chapter 9 of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide. Chapter 9 of the AASHTO Roadside Design
Guide: ``Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety
Features for Work Zones'' 2002, is incorporated by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is on file at the
National Archives and Record Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA call (202) 741-6030, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The entire document is available for
purchase from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite
249, Washington, DC 20001 or at the URL: http://www.aashto.org/bookstore. It is available for inspection from the FHWA Washington
Headquarters and all Division Offices as listed in 49 CFR Part 7. In
developing and implementing the TTC plan, pre-existing roadside safety
hardware shall be maintained at an equivalent or better level than
existed prior to project implementation. The scope of the TTC plan is
determined by the project characteristics, and the traffic safety and
control requirements identified by the State for that project. The TTC
plan shall either be a reference to specific TTC elements in the MUTCD,
approved standard TTC plans, State transportation department TTC
manual, or be designed specifically for the project.
(2) The TO component of the TMP shall include the identification of
strategies that will be used to mitigate impacts of the work zone on
the operation and management of the transportation system within the
work zone impact area. Typical TO strategies may include, but are not
limited to, demand management, corridor/network management, safety
management and enforcement, and work zone traffic management. The scope
of the TO component should be determined by the project
characteristics, and the transportation operations and safety
strategies identified by the State.
(3) The PI component of the TMP shall include communications
strategies that seek to inform affected road users, the general public,
area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about
the project, the expected work zone impacts, and the changing
conditions on the project. This may include traveler information
strategies. The scope of the PI component should be determined by the
project characteristics and the public information and outreach
strategies identified by the State. Public information should be
provided through methods best suited for the project, and may include,
but not be limited to, information on the project characteristics,
expected impacts, closure details, and commuter alternatives.
(4) States should develop and implement the TMP in sustained
consultation with stakeholders (e.g., other transportation agencies,
railroad agencies/operators, transit providers, freight movers, utility
suppliers, police, fire, emergency medical services, schools, business
communities, and regional transportation management centers).
(c) The Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&Es) shall include
either a TMP or provisions for contractors to develop a TMP at the most
appropriate project phase as applicable to the State's chosen
contracting methodology for the project. A contractor developed TMP
shall be subject to the approval of the State, and shall not be
implemented before it is approved by the State.
(d) The PS&Es shall include appropriate pay item provisions for
implementing the TMP, either through method or performance based
specifications.

[[Page 54572]]

(1) For method-based specifications individual pay items, lump sum
payment, or a combination thereof may be used.
(2) For performance based specifications, applicable performance
criteria and standards may be used (e.g., safety performance criteria
such as number of crashes within the work zone; mobility performance
criteria such as travel time through the work zone, delay, queue
length, traffic volume; incident response and clearance criteria; work
duration criteria).
(e) Responsible persons. The State and the contractor shall each
designate a trained person, as specified in Sec. 630.1008(d), at the
project level who has the primary responsibility and sufficient
authority for implementing the TMP and other safety and mobility
aspects of the project.

Sec. 630.1014 Implementation.

Each State shall work in partnership with the FHWA in the
implementation of its policies and procedures to improve work zone
safety and mobility. At a minimum, this shall involve an FHWA review of
conformance of the State's policies and procedures with this regulation
and reassessment of the State's implementation of its procedures at
appropriate intervals. Each State is encouraged to address
implementation of this regulation in its stewardship agreement with the
FHWA.

Sec. 630.1016 Compliance Date.

States shall comply with all the provisions of this rule no later
than October 12, 2007. For projects that are in the later stages of
development at or about the compliance date, and if it is determined
that the delivery of those projects would be significantly impacted as
a result of this rule's provisions, States may request variances for
those projects from the FHWA, on a project-by-project basis.

[FR Doc. 04-20340 Filed 9-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P