[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 77 (Thursday, April 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20935-20941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2009-0139]
RIN 2125-AF34


National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Maintaining 
Minimum Retroreflectivity of Longitudinal Pavement Markings

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments (NPA).

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

SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is 
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, approved by 
the Federal Highway Administration, and recognized as the national 
standard for traffic control devices used on all streets, highways, 
bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. The FHWA proposes to 
amend the MUTCD to include standards, guidance, options, and supporting 
information relating to maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity 
for pavement markings. The proposed revisions would establish a uniform 
minimum level of nighttime pavement marking performance based on the 
visibility needs of nighttime drivers. The proposed revisions will 
promote safety, enhance traffic operations, and facilitate comfort and 
convenience for all drivers, including older drivers. The proposed 
revisions described herein would be designated as Revision 1 to the 
2009 Edition of the MUTCD.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments 
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this 
document. All

[[Page 20936]]

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 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://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cathy Satterfield, Office of 
Safety, (708) 283-3552; or Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or access all comments received by the DOT online 
through http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval 
help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 
hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An 
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from 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

    On December 21, 2007, at 72 FR 72574, the FHWA published in the 
Federal Register a final rule amending the MUTCD to include standards, 
guidance, options, and supporting information relating to maintaining 
minimum levels of retroreflectivity for traffic signs. The final rule 
was issued in response to section 406 of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 
102-388; October 6, 1992). Section 406 of this Act directed the 
Secretary of Transportation to revise the MUTCD to include a standard 
for minimum levels of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for 
traffic signs and pavement markings, which apply to roads open to 
public travel.
    The FHWA is now proposing the establishment of minimum pavement 
marking retroreflectivity levels in the MUTCD. The FHWA has analyzed 
and considered technical research results as well as input from 
participants of FHWA-sponsored workshops (as discussed later in this 
document) and developed proposed minimum maintained pavement marking 
retroreflectivity levels for the MUTCD.
    The FHWA sponsored research to establish recommended minimum 
pavement marking retroreflectivity levels.\1\ This research included a 
literature review as well as the use of the latest visibility modeling 
techniques and tools. The findings of the literature review were used 
to establish criteria for key factors related to the visibility of 
pavement markings. Some of the major factors included in the study are 
shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The report titled, ``Updates to Research on Recommended 
Minimum Levels for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to Meet Driver 
Night Visibility Needs'' can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/07059/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pavement marking configuration (3 levels: white dashed 
line left of the vehicle, yellow dashed line left of the vehicle, and 
yellow dashed line left of the vehicle with a solid white line right of 
the vehicle),\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional configurations and pavement marking types (such 
as transverse markings, arrows, or intersection markings) were not 
studied because they were not incorporated in the visibility 
modeling software used for the referenced research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Vehicle type (2 levels: passenger car, commercial truck),
     Vehicle speed (3 levels: 40, 55, and 70 mph),
     Pavement surface (2 levels: concrete, asphalt),
     Driver age (1 level: 62 years, which was the average age 
of the study participants used to establish the minimum sign 
retroreflectivity levels),
     Preview time (1 level: 2.2 seconds determined to be an 
absolute minimum for safe vehicle operations), and
     Pavement marking width (1 level: set at the nominal 
dimension of 4 inches for longitudinal pavement markings).
    The visibility modeling outputs were used to generate research 
recommendations for minimum retroreflectivity levels for pavement 
markings. The recommendations were based on maintaining a minimum 
preview time of 2.2 seconds for nighttime drivers with visual 
capabilities of a typical 62-year-old driver.
    The findings were then vetted through FHWA-sponsored workshops in 
the summer of 2007.\3\ The workshops included participants from State 
and local agencies from around the country. The goal of the workshops 
was to obtain input from public agencies regarding efforts to establish 
a minimum retroreflectivity requirement for pavement markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A summary of the 2007 workshops can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/pavement_visib/fhwasa08003/fhwasa08003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the FHWA developed a synthesis of the benefits of pavement 
markings, including safety studies, vehicle operations studies, and 
visibility-related studies.\4\ While early landmark studies are 
referenced in the synthesis, the emphasis was directed to more recent 
studies offering new insights into the benefits of pavement markings 
that were previously undetectable (more data are now available for 
advanced analysis techniques). Regarding minimum pavement marking 
retroreflectivity, the synthesis shows that drivers judge pavement 
markings as being marginally adequate when retroreflectivity levels 
range from 80 to 130 mcd/m\2\/lux. The safety benefits of adding 
edgelines was demonstrated for nighttime conditions, low-visibility 
conditions, and highways with narrow pavement widths and low traffic 
volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Carlson, Park, Andersen. Benefits of Pavement Markings: 
Renewed Perspective Based on Recent and Ongoing Research, Paper No. 
09-0488, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, 
DC, January 2009. This document can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway%5Fdept/night_visib/pavement_visib/no090488/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The synthesis also included a critical review of the results of a 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study which 
included the following language in the findings: ``* * * the difference 
in safety between new markings and old markings during non-daylight 
conditions on non-intersection locations is approximately zero.'' \5\ 
The synthesis includes key concerns of the NCHRP study approach 
regarding inadequate samples of pavement markings with 
retroreflectivity levels at or near the proposed minimum 
retroreflectivity levels. It was concluded that the NCHRP study 
provides little if any information regarding the link between minimum 
pavement marking retroreflectivity and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pavement Marking Materials and Markers: Real-World 
Relationship Between Retroreflectivity and Safety Over Time, NCHRP 
Web Only Report 92, can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_webdoc_92.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in anticipation of this NPA, the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) developed a task 
force on minimum retroreflectivity for pavement

[[Page 20937]]

markings. This task force prepared AASHTO Policy Resolution HW-07-18, 
dated January 24, 2008, and titled, ``Minimum Levels of 
Retroreflectivity for Pavement Markings'' that outlines their 
opinions.\6\ The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(NCUTCD) also developed MUTCD language for unspecified minimum levels 
of retroreflectivity for pavement markings and submitted that 
recommendation to FHWA. The NCUTCD recommendation did not include a 
table of values for minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additional information about AASHTO can be found at the 
following Internet Web site: http://transportation.org.
    \7\ NCUTCD's recommended language can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/ghawkins/MTC-Files/2009-01_Meeting/Min%20Mkg%20Retro%20Ballot.approved%20by%20Council.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment

    The goal of this NPA is to amend the MUTCD to include methods to 
maintain minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity and associated 
minimum maintained values for longitudinal pavement marking 
retroreflectivity. The FHWA seeks comment on the proposed changes to 
the Introduction, Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, and new 
Section 3A.03 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity of Longitudinal 
Pavement Markings.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction

    1. In the Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add the STANDARD 
statement compliance dates for new Section 3A.03 Maintaining Minimum 
Retroreflectivity of Longitudinal Pavement Markings. The FHWA proposes 
a phase-in compliance period of 4 years from the date of Final Rule for 
implementation and continued use of a maintenance method that is 
designed to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the 
established minimum levels and 6 years from date of the Final Rule for 
replacement of pavement markings that are identified using the 
maintenance method as failing to meet the established minimum levels. 
Considering the comments regarding budget cycles, particularly those of 
local agencies, that were received during the sign retroreflectivity 
rulemaking process, the FHWA believes that a 4-year compliance period 
for establishing and implementing a maintenance method that is designed 
to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the 
established levels is appropriate. This compliance period will allow 
transportation agencies to make allowances for budgets (including 
working with the States or regional organizations to access funds and/
or develop partnerships) to achieve the minimum levels of pavement 
marking retroreflectivity. The 6-year compliance period applies to the 
replacement of pavement markings that have been identified using a 
maintenance method as failing to meet the minimum retroreflectivity 
levels. The FHWA believes 6 years is appropriate because this allows 
time for agencies to prioritize how to spend limited resources on those 
pavement markings that should be replaced. Longer compliance 
replacement periods were provided for signs because retroreflective 
sign materials have longer service lives than pavement markings.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General

    2. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA 
proposes to add the publication ``Summary of the MUTCD Pavement Marking 
Retroreflectivity Standard'' to the list of other publications that are 
useful sources. A draft version of this document is available on the 
docket. This draft publication is a supplemental document for 
informational purposes and the final version of this document will 
reflect any necessary changes made to this proposed rule and will be 
published and distributed by FHWA.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 3--Pavement Markings

    3. The FHWA proposes a new section titled, Section 3A.03 
Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity of Longitudinal Pavement 
Markings. The FHWA proposes to include STANDARD, SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and 
OPTION statements in this section that refer to maintaining minimum 
pavement marking retroreflectivity.
    4. In the STANDARD statement, FHWA proposes to require that public 
agencies or officials having jurisdiction shall use a method designed 
to maintain retroreflectivity of white and yellow longitudinal pavement 
markings that are required or recommended in Sections 3B.01, 3B.04 or 
3B.07 of the MUTCD at or above the minimum levels in proposed Table 3A-
1. This proposed statement is very similar to the STANDARD statement 
adopted in the sign retroreflectivity final rule requiring the use of a 
maintenance method.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Sign retroreflectivity final rule was published in the 
Federal Register at 72 FR 72574 on December 21, 2007, and can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA received numerous comments during the sign 
retroreflectivity rulemaking process regarding the placement of 
retroreflectivity requirements in a STANDARD statement. The FHWA 
proposes to include the reference to minimum levels for pavement 
marking retroreflectivity in a STANDARD statement because the statute 
requires the Secretary to revise the MUTCD to include a standard for 
minimum levels of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for 
pavement markings. Under the MUTCD's current organization, the best way 
to do this is by including it in a STANDARD statement, because 
Standards represent requirements.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the context of this NPA, the definitions of STANDARD and 
GUIDANCE are identical to the definitions provided in the 
Introduction of the MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov). Specifically, 
a STANDARD is a statement of required, mandatory or specifically 
prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device, while a 
GUIDANCE is a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice 
in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering 
judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the proposed STANDARD statement is to establish 
minimum levels of nighttime pavement marking performance based on the 
visibility needs of nighttime drivers. Pavement markings excluded from 
the proposed STANDARD are not to be excluded from any other MUTCD 
standards. For instance, Section 3A.02 of the MUTCD already requires 
that pavement markings that must be visible at night shall be 
retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the markings 
are adequately visible.
    5. As part of the STANDARD, the FHWA proposes a new table numbered 
and titled, ``Table 3A-1 Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels 
for Longitudinal Pavement Markings.'' The information in the table is 
based upon research conducted on pavement marking retroreflectivity in 
the report titled, ``Updates to Research on Recommended Minimum Levels 
for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to Meet Driver Night Visibility 
Needs.'' \10\ The proposed table applies only to white and yellow 
longitudinal pavement markings on roads where they are required or 
recommended in Sections 3B.01, 3B.04 or 3B.07 of the MUTCD. In the 
MUTCD, standard statements are used to denote those

[[Page 20938]]

items that are required, while guidance statements are used to denote 
items that are recommended. The MUTCD does not require or recommend 
pavement markings on all types of roads. Therefore, this proposed 
rulemaking applies to white and yellow longitudinal pavement markings, 
including temporary longitudinal pavement markings, on certain types of 
roads and on roads exceeding certain minimum volumes and/or widths that 
are described in standard and guidance statements in Sections 3B.01, 
3B.04, or 3B.07 of the MUTCD. This includes center lines, lane lines, 
and edge lines, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The report titled, ``Updates to Research on Recommended 
Minimum Levels for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to Meet Driver 
Night Visibility Needs'' can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/07059/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Center line markings typically separate opposing traffic flows, 
such as the solid and/or broken yellow lines used to designate:
     Passing and no passing zones
     Two-way left turn lanes
     Reversible lanes
     Flush medians formed by yellow markings.
    Center line markings are required or recommended by Section 3B.01 
on:
    (1) All paved urban arterials and collectors that have a traveled 
way of 20 feet or more in width and average daily traffic (ADT) of 
4,000 vehicles per day or greater.
    (2) All rural arterials and collectors that have a traveled way of 
18 ft or more in width and an ADT of 3,000 vehicles per day or greater.
    (3) All paved two-way streets or highways that have three or more 
lanes for moving motor vehicle traffic. This includes the one- or two-
direction no-passing zone markings that separate two lanes in one 
direction from one lane in the other direction.
    (4) Other traveled ways where an engineering study indicates such a 
need.
    Lane line markings separate traffic flows in the same direction, 
such as the solid, broken, or dotted white lines used to separate more 
than one lane in a given direction, including turn lanes, through 
lanes, and preferential lanes.
    Lane line markings are required or recommended by Section 3B.04 on:
    (1) Freeways and Interstate highways.
    (2) All roadways that are intended to operate with two or more 
adjacent traffic lanes that have the same direction of travel, except 
as otherwise required for reversible lanes.
    (3) Congested locations where the roadway will accommodate more 
traffic lanes with lane line markings than without the markings.
    Edge line markings are solid lines that delineate the right or left 
edge of a roadway, such as:
     Yellow left edge lines
     White right edge lines
     White channelizing lines that function in place of edge 
lines in delineating a gore, divergence, or obstruction that can be 
passed on either side by traffic in one direction.
    Edge lines are required or recommended by Section 3B.07 on:
    (1) Freeways
    (2) Expressways
    (3) Rural arterials and collectors with a traveled way of 20 ft or 
more in width and an ADT of 3,000 vehicles per day or greater.
    (4) Paved streets and highways where an engineering study indicates 
a need for edge line markings.
    The proposed retroreflectivity levels are measured at the standard 
30-meter geometry and shown in units of millicandelas per square meter 
per lux (mcd/m\2\/lx). The proposed table addresses two types of 
pavement marking configurations: (1) Two-lane roads with centerline 
markings only, and (2) all other roads. Studies have shown that 
nighttime drivers report significantly shorter pavement marking 
visibility distances on roadways marked with only centerline markings 
versus roadways with both centerline and edge line markings.\11\ 
Therefore, the proposed retroreflectivity levels are higher for two-
lane roads with centerline markings only. In addition, visibility and 
safety studies indicate that visibility distance is increased and run-
off-the-road crashes are decreased with the presence of edge line 
markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ TRR1605--Visibility of New Centerline and Edge Line 
Pavement Markings, Zwahlen & Schnell, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://trb.metapress.com/content/u4v7227l667x5610/fulltext.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each roadway type, the FHWA proposes minimum retroreflectivity 
values for two posted speed categories: (1) 35 to 50 mph, and (2) 55 
mph and higher. Research shows that roadways with higher speed limits 
should have pavement markings with higher retroreflectivity levels in 
order to maintain adequate visibility in terms of preview time.\12\ 
After considering workshop comments suggesting simplicity in the table, 
the FHWA believes that more than two speed categories may not be 
reasonable. The FHWA proposes the posted speed category of 55 mph and 
higher as the break point for higher speed roadways and thus higher 
minimum retroreflectivity levels because 55 mph represents a natural 
break point that will include nearly 70 percent of rural two-lane 
roadways in the United States. The FHWA proposes that minimum 
retroreflectivity values not apply on roads with posted speed limits 30 
mph or less because low-beam headlight illumination provides sufficient 
visibility at these low speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Carlson, Park, Andersen. Benefits of Pavement Markings: 
Renewed Perspective Based on Recent and Ongoing Research, Paper No. 
09-0488, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, 
DC, January 2009. This document can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/pavement_visib/no090488/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both the two-lane roads with only centerline markings and all 
other roads, the FHWA proposes exceptions to the minimum 
retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings. When retroreflective 
raised pavement markers (RRPMs) supplement or substitute for a 
longitudinal pavement marking, the FHWA proposes that the minimum 
pavement marking retroreflectivity levels would not be applicable to 
that line as long as the RRPMs are maintained so that at least three 
are visible from any position along that line during nighttime 
conditions. The FHWA proposes this exception because when RRPMs are 
maintained they provide more roadway preview time than pavement 
markings alone.\13\ The FHWA proposes that three RRPMs must be visible 
along a line, because research has shown that a minimum of three point 
sources of delineation is needed for drivers to estimate roadway 
alignment, particularly roadway curvature, as well as provide the 
necessary preview time based on roadway speed and typical application 
practices.\14\ Sections 3B.13 and 3B.14 of the MUTCD include 
information regarding RRPMs supplementing or substituting for 
longitudinal pavement markings. The FHWA also proposes to exempt 
pavement markings from meeting minimum maintained retroreflectivity 
levels on roadways where continuous roadway lighting assures that the 
markings are visible, because Section 3A.02 of the MUTCD provides a 
similar exemption, which is appropriate and is not proposed to be 
changed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Carlson, P., J. Miles, A. Pike, and E. Park. ``Evaluation 
of Wet Weather Pavement Markings: First Year Report,'' Report 0-
5008-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2005. This 
document can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5008-1.pdf.
    \14\ The report titled, ``Review and Development of Recommended 
Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Levels'' by Chris 
Debaillon, Paul J. Carlson, H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Yefei He, Tom 
Schnell, and Fuat Aktan, In Transportation Research Record 2055, 
TRB, National Research Council,Washington, DC 2008 can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://trb.metapress.com/content/nv26lj157627g372/.
    \15\ Paragraph 3 in Section 3A.02 states, ``Markings that must 
be visible at night shall be retroreflective unless ambient 
illumination assures that the markings are adequately visible.''

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

[[Page 20939]]

    The FHWA understands, based on input from stakeholder workshops as 
well as some comments received during the sign retroreflectivity 
rulemaking process, that there may be some agencies that are not 
comfortable with including Table 3A-1 Minimum Maintained 
Retroreflectivity Levels for Longitudinal Pavement Markings in the 
MUTCD. The FHWA believes that including minimum retroreflectivity 
values in the MUTCD is necessary to satisfy the statutory requirement 
that the MUTCD be amended to include a standard on minimum maintained 
retroreflectivity levels. The FHWA also believes inclusion of the table 
will provide clarity and convenience to the users of the MUTCD. An 
additional advantage of placing the table in the MUTCD is that updates 
or changes to the minimum retroreflectivity levels would be subject to 
public notice and comment during the rulemaking process to revise the 
MUTCD.
    6. Following Table 3A-1, the FHWA proposes a SUPPORT statement that 
describes compliance with the STANDARD. The FHWA proposes to include an 
explanation that compliance with the STANDARD is achieved by having a 
method in place and using the method to maintain the minimum levels 
established in Table 3A-1. Provided that a method is being used, an 
agency or official having jurisdiction would be in compliance with the 
Standard, even if there are pavement markings that do not meet the 
minimum retroreflectivity levels at a particular location or at a 
particular point in time. This proposed SUPPORT statement is very 
similar to the one adopted in the sign retroreflectivity final rule. 
The FHWA proposes to include this statement based on comments from 
organizations and agencies during the sign retroreflectivity rulemaking 
process.
    During the pavement marking workshop series, the FHWA received 
input from several agencies who stated that winter conditions are 
especially problematic for maintaining pavement marking 
retroreflectivity. In many areas of the country, snow and/or ice can 
cover pavement markings for long periods of time and low temperatures 
or precipitation can make it impractical to replace markings. In 
addition, snow removal and roadway preparation operations, such as 
sanding and salting, can damage pavement markings. In addition, the 
FHWA understands that many factors, including environmental conditions 
and pavement resurfacing, must be considered before a responsible 
agency can be expected to restore their markings in accordance with 
Table 3A-1. For example, agencies involved with resurfacing a specific 
roadway should not have to restore their markings along that roadway 
immediately before resurfacing. The FHWA recognizes that it is not a 
practical use of resources to restore markings immediately before a 
resurfacing project because new markings will be applied immediately 
after resurfacing is completed. The proposed maintenance methods allow 
agencies the flexibility to choose a maintenance method, and FHWA 
believes a responsible agency will determine a reasonable time period 
for restoring markings in accordance with Table 3A-1.
    The FHWA recognizes that there is liability concern on the part of 
some jurisdictions with the establishment of pavement retroreflectivity 
levels and methods in the MUTCD. However, the FHWA believes that the 
selection of a reasonable method for maintaining pavement marking 
retroreflectivity and strict adherence to the same might serve to 
defend highway agencies in tort liability claims and litigation. Public 
agencies and officials that implement and follow a reasonable method in 
conformance with the national MUTCD would appear to be in a better 
position to successfully defend tort litigation involving claims of 
improper pavement marking retroreflectivity than jurisdictions that 
lack any method. Including the table in the MUTCD does not imply that 
an agency needs to measure the retroreflectivity of every pavement 
marking in its jurisdiction. Instead, agencies must implement methods 
designed to provide options on how to maintain the minimum 
retroreflectivity levels using the criteria in Table 3A-1.
    7. The FHWA proposes to include a GUIDANCE statement that 
recommends that one or more of the maintenance methods listed should be 
used to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the 
levels identified in Table 3A-1. The methods listed are: (1) Calibrated 
visual nighttime inspection, (2) consistent parameters visual nighttime 
inspection, (3) measured retroreflectivity, (4) service life based on 
monitored pavement markings, (5) blanket replacement, and (6) other 
methods. The GUIDANCE statement includes a brief description of each 
method and references ``Summary of the MUTCD Pavement Marking 
Retroreflectivity Standard,'' which provides more information about 
these methods and their association to minimum maintained 
retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings. As part of the 
descriptions of the various methods in the GUIDANCE, the FHWA proposes 
to include a statement indicating that pavement markings identified as 
below the proposed minimum levels are to be replaced. The FHWA proposes 
to allow agencies to establish other methods than those specifically 
described; however, such methods must be designed to maintain pavement 
marking retroreflectivity at or above the proposed minimum levels 
listed in Table 3A-1, and must be based on an engineering study.
    The FHWA believes there is sufficient flexibility in the proposed 
maintenance methods that allow agencies to choose the most appropriate 
method or combination of methods. The proposed minimum 
retroreflectivity levels listed in Table 3A-1 do not infer a 
requirement to measure every pavement marking. Current 
retroreflectivity measurement practices include mobile measurement at 
highway speeds and handheld stationary measurement. However, mobile and 
handheld pavement marking retroreflectometers produce inconsistent 
results when measuring certain types of pavement markings such as 
profiled or textured pavement markings, rumble stripes, and RRPMs. In 
those cases, an agency may select a method other than actual 
measurements.
    In the OPTION statement, the FHWA proposes to list several pavement 
marking types that agencies may exclude from the proposed maintenance 
methods and minimum maintained pavement marking retroreflectivity 
levels. The FHWA proposes to exclude these markings because additional 
research is needed to support establishment of minimum 
retroreflectivity levels for these markings. The pavement marking types 
that the FHWA proposes to exclude are: (1) Words, symbols, and arrows, 
(2) crosswalks and other transverse markings, (3) black markings used 
to enhance the contrast of pavement markings on a light colored 
pavement, (4) diagonal or chevron markings within a neutral area of a 
flush median, shoulder, gore, divergence, or approach to an 
obstruction, (5) dotted extension lines that extend a longitudinal line 
through an intersection or interchange area, (6) curb markings, (7) 
parking space markings, and (8) shared use path markings. This list 
will not exclude those markings from existing MUTCD retroreflectivity 
requirements and guidance.

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

[[Page 20940]]

appearing at the top of this document in the docket room at the above 
address. The FHWA will file comments received after the comment closing 
date and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. In 
addition, the FHWA 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. A final rule may be published at any time after the close of 
the comment period.

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

    The FHWA has determined that this action is a nonsignificant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under 
the regulatory policies and procedures of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this 
rulemaking would cause minimal additional expense to public agencies. 
In 2008, the FHWA published its preliminary analyses of the cost 
impacts to State and local agencies to reflect material costs and 
overall mileage of State and local roads. The findings of the revised 
analysis, accounting for the current language and minimum 
retroreflectivity levels (published concurrently with this NPA), show 
that the costs of the proposed action to States and local agencies 
would be less than $100 million per year. The proposed 6-year 
regulation implementation period would allow replacement of non-
compliant pavement markings under currently planned maintenance cycles 
and provides for the most recently placed markings to reach the end of 
their useful service life.
    The FHWA has considered the costs and benefits associated with this 
rulemaking and believes that the benefits outweigh the costs. The MUTCD 
already requires that pavement markings that must be visible at night 
shall be retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the 
markings are adequately visible. The changes proposed in this notice 
provide additional guidance, clarification, and flexibility in 
maintaining longitudinal pavement markings. The pavement markings 
excluded from the proposed rulemaking are not to be excluded from any 
other MUTCD standards. The FHWA expects the proposed maintenance 
methods will help to promote safety and mobility on the Nation's roads 
and will result in minimum expense to public agencies or the motoring 
public.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed 
action on small entities, including small governments. The FHWA 
certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed action would apply to State departments of 
transportation in the execution of their highway programs, specifically 
with respect to the retroreflectivity of pavement markings. 
Additionally, pavement marking improvement is eligible for up to 100 
percent Federal-aid funding. This also applies to local jurisdictions 
and tribal governments, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(c). The 
implementation of this proposed action would not affect the economic 
viability or sustenance of small entities, as States are not included 
in the definition of a small entity that is set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The FHWA analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated 
August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action 
would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism 
implications on States and local governments that would limit the 
policymaking discretion of the States and local governments. Nothing in 
the MUTCD directly preempts any State law or regulation.
    The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart 
F. These proposed amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of 
Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to 
promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of 
the highway.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 
March 22, 1995). The impacts analysis shows that State and local 
agencies would be likely to incur impacts of roughly $64 million per 
year after the 6-year implementation period for maintaining the 
proposed minimum levels of pavement marking retroreflectivity. The 
estimates are based upon the assumption that the distribution of 
marking materials on a national basis is 75 percent paint, 20 percent 
thermoplastic, and 5 percent epoxy. The labor, equipment, and mileage 
costs for pavement marking replacement were excluded under the 
assumption that the proposed implementation period of 6 years is long 
enough to allow replacement of non-compliant pavement markings under 
currently planned maintenance cycles. Therefore, this proposed rule 
will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $141.3 
million or more in any 1 year. In addition, pavement marking 
replacement is eligible for up to 100 percent Federal-aid funding. This 
applies to local jurisdictions and tribal governments, pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 120(c). Further, the definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type 
in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust 
their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in 
the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program 
permits this type of flexibility.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, will not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, 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. The FHWA has determined that this is not 
a significant energy action under that order because it is not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive 
Order 13211 is not required.

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.

[[Page 20941]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, 
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that 
this proposed action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for the purposes of the PRA.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, to eliminate ambiguity, and to 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. This is not an economically significant action and does 
not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposed action would not affect a taking of private property 
or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
has determined that it will not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment.

Regulation Identification Number

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655

    Design Standards, Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and 
roads, Incorporation by reference, Pavement Markings, Traffic 
regulations.

    Issued on: April 15, 2010.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 23, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 655 as follows:

PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315 and 
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart F--[Amended]

    2. Revise Sec.  655.601(a), to read as follows:


Sec.  655.601  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD), [date to be inserted], including Revision No. 1, 
FHWA, dated [date to be inserted]. This publication is incorporated by 
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(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. It is available for 
inspection and copying at the Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, as provided in 49 CFR Part 7. 
The text is also available from the FHWA Office of Transportation 
Operation's Web site at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-9294 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P