[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 770-780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31249]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed amendments (SNPA); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is
incorporated in FHWA regulations 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 proposed in
an earlier notice of proposed amendment (NPA) to amend the MUTCD to
include standards, guidance, options, and supporting information
related to maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity for pavement
markings. Based on the review and analysis of the numerous comments
received in response to the NPA, FHWA has substantially revised the
proposed amendments to the MUTCD and, as a result, is issuing this
SNPA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2017. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
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. All comments should include the docket number that
appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those
desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that
appears after submitting comments electronically. In accordance with
the Administrative Procedure Act, DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its rulemaking process. The DOT posts these comments,
without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for
alternate submission instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cathy Satterfield, Office of
Safety, [email protected], (708) 283-3552; or Mr. William
Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, [email protected], (202) 366-
1397, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 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 this 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.ofr.gov and the
Government Publishing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpo.gov and is
available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7,
at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text of the
proposed revision is available on the MUTCD Internet Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The proposed additions are shown in blue text and
proposed deletions are shown as red strikeout text. The complete
current 2009 edition of the MUTCD is also available on the same
Internet Web site. A copy of the proposed revision is included at the
conclusion of the preamble in this document and is also available as a
separate document under the docket number noted above at http://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 771]]
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Section 406 of the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-388; October 6, 1992)
directed the Secretary of Transportation to ``revise the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices to include--a standard for a minimum
level of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for pavement
markings and signs, which shall apply to all roads open to public
travel.'' Improving safety and mobility throughout the transportation
network are two of the core goals of the DOT. The purpose of FHWA's
proposal to include minimum retroreflectivity levels in the MUTCD \1\
is to advance safety and mobility by assisting with the nighttime
visibility needs of drivers and improving the infrastructure's ability
to work with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies. The
final rule for maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity for
traffic signs was issued on December 21, 2007, at 72 FR 72574. This
proposed rule addresses driver visibility needs in terms of pavement
markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
This proposed rule would establish minimum retroreflectivity levels
for pavement markings on all roads open to public travel with average
annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes over 6,000 and speed limits of 35
mph or higher. Agencies or officials having jurisdiction would be
required to develop and implement a method for maintaining pavement
marking retroreflectivity at minimum levels. It would not require
agencies or officials having jurisdiction to upgrade markings by a
specific date, nor would it require them to ensure every marking is
above the minimum retroreflectivity level at all times.
This SNPA includes revisions based on docket comments submitted as
part of an NPA issued April 22, 2010, at 75 FR 20935. Retroreflectivity
levels and locations were simplified from what was presented in the NPA
to the following criteria making it easier to understand and implement:
--Requires a minimum retroreflectivity level of 50 mcd/m\2\/lx where
statutory or posted speed limits are greater than or equal to 35 mph
--Recommends a minimum retroreflectivity level of 100 mcd/m\2\/lx where
statutory or posted speed limits are greater than or equal to 70 mph
--Applies only to longitudinal lines (e.g., center lines, edge lines,
and lane lines).
III. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA has considered the costs and potential benefits of this
rulemaking and believes the rulemaking is being implemented in a manner
that fulfills our obligation under Section 406 of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L.
102-388; October 6, 1992), while also providing flexibility for
agencies. The estimated national costs are documented in the updated
economic analysis report and the flexibility is documented in the new
publication titled, ``Methods for Maintaining Pavement Marking
Retroreflectivity.'' Both of these are available on the docket.
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, and that all markings
on Interstate highways shall be retroreflective. The proposed changes
in the MUTCD would provide agencies the benefit of minimum
retroreflective performance levels which are supported by research to
make markings visible at night. Additionally, recent research findings
indicate that maintenance of pavement marking retroreflectivity may
have a positive effect on safety.
The economic analysis provides a national estimate of the costs and
benefits to implement this rulemaking and to replace markings. Costs
for individual agencies would vary based on factors such as the amount
of pavement marking mileage subject to the standards and current
pavement marking practices. The analysis estimates first year start-up
implementation costs of $29.4 million for all affected State and local
agencies to develop maintenance methods and purchase necessary
equipment. In addition, annual measurement and management activities of
$14.9 million nationwide are expected to determine which markings
require replacement. In the second and following years, if agencies
were to replace markings that do not meet the minimum retroreflectivity
levels, despite the fact that there are no replacement compliance dates
there would be an estimated increase of approximately $52.5 million per
year nationally from current estimated pavement marking replacement
expenditures. Therefore, this proposed rule would not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
The proposed changes in the MUTCD would provide additional guidance
and clarification, while allowing flexibility in maintaining pavement
marking retroreflectivity. The FHWA does not have enough information to
determine the benefits of this document. The economic report summarizes
findings from relevant research. The FHWA seeks comment on the issue.
Background
Pavement markings are one of the key methods of conveying
information to the driver at night, conveying the location of the road
center and edges, alignment information, presence of passing or no-
passing zones, and indications that the driver is occupying the correct
lane. The U.S. nighttime fatal crash rate is approximately three times
that of the daytime crash rate, and safety studies \2\ have shown that
adding center line and edge line markings (or edge lines where only
center lines were present) significantly reduces nighttime crashes. The
MUTCD contains warrants indicating types of facilities that either
shall or should have center line, edge line, or lane line markings.
Therefore, FHWA has limited the proposed amendment to longitudinal
markings to encompass center line, edge line, and lane line markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The paper titled ``The Benefits of Pavement Markings: A
Renewed Perspective Based on Recent and Ongoing Research'' can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/pavement_visib/no090488/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the MUTCD, markings that must be visible at night shall be
retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the markings
are adequately visible. All markings on Interstate highways shall be
retroreflective. Retroreflectivity is the measure of an object's
ability to reflect light back towards a light source along the same
axis from which it strikes the object. In the case of retroreflective
markings, incoming light from vehicle headlamps is reflected back
towards the headlamps, and, more importantly, the driver's eyes,
allowing the driver to see the pavement marking. Glass beads embedded
in the marking material produces the retroreflective property of the
pavement marking. The Coefficient of Retroreflected Luminance
(RL), which is measured in millicandelas per meter squared
per lux (mcd/m\2\/lx), is the most common measurement.
Retroreflectometers used in the United
[[Page 772]]
States are based on CEN \3\-prescribed 30-meter geometry per ASTM Test
Method E1710 \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CEN is the European Committee for Standardization.
\4\ ASTM E1710, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Retroreflective Pavement Marking Materials with CEN-Prescribed
Geometry Using a Portable Retroreflectometer'', is available through
subscription or purchase at the following Internet Web site: http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research has in some cases shown a correlation between increased
retroreflectivity and reduced crashes, but has had limited success in
quantifying that relationship. This is primarily due to the difficulty
in what the level of retroreflectivity for the marking was at the time
of a crash, along with the difficulty in accounting for other factors
that may impact increases or reductions in crashes. Historically,
agencies have not measured most of their pavement markings, and when
they did it was typically to determine if newly installed markings met
the standards of a contract. Once a pavement marking is installed, the
retroreflectivity of the marking begins to degrade. The degradation
rate is difficult to predict because some of the beads embedded in the
marking become dislodged by traffic, obscured by dirt, or removed in
snow plowing operations. In recent years, with mobile
retroreflectometers available, a few agencies have more information on
the level of retroreflectivity of their longitudinal pavement markings,
including some information on markings that have been in place for some
time. With this new data, agencies are better positioned to proactively
manage their pavement markings.
The FHWA sponsored research to establish recommended minimum
pavement marking retroreflectivity levels that is based on the
nighttime driving needs of drivers, including older drivers \5\. One of
the key conditions considered in the research was that a minimum
preview time \6\ of 2.2 seconds was needed for nighttime drivers to
safely navigate their vehicles. The research used updated visibility
modeling techniques and tools to determine minimum retroreflectivity
levels for a number of scenarios. The research scope was limited to
dark, dry, rural, straight roads and longitudinal pavement markings. In
addition, FHWA held workshops \7\ to solicit input on potential
standards for minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/07059/.
\6\ Preview time describes the distance a driver must be able to
see pavement markings down the road in order to receive adequate
information to perceive, process, and react to the information to
safely guide the vehicle. Since this distance increases as the speed
of the vehicle increases, preview time is used to express this
distance for any speed.
\7\ The summary report titled: ``Pavement Marking
Retroreflectivity Workshops'' can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/pavement_visib/fhwasa08003/fhwasa08003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2010, at 75 FR 20935, FHWA published in the Federal
Register an NPA to amend the MUTCD to include standards, guidance,
options, and supporting information related to maintaining minimum
levels of retroreflectivity for pavement markings. The NPA 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 the Act directed the Secretary of Transportation
to ``revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to include--a
standard for a minimum level of retroreflectivity that must be
maintained for pavement markings and signs, which shall apply to all
roads open to public travel.'' Improving safety and mobility throughout
the transportation network are two of the core goals of the DOT. This
SNPA would propose minimum retroreflectivity levels in the MUTCD to
advance safety and mobility by meeting the nighttime visibility needs
of drivers on our Nation's roads and improving the infrastructure's
ability to work with ITS technologies. The final rule for maintaining
minimum levels of retroreflectivity for traffic signs was issued on
December 21, 2007, at 72 FR 72574. The sign retroreflectivity final
rule, and Revision 2 of the 2009 MUTCD \8\, requires agencies to
implement and have continued use of an assessment or management method
that is designed to maintain regulatory and warning sign
retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels. This
proposed rule addresses driver visibility needs in terms of pavement
markings. The FHWA used knowledge it gained through the sign
retroreflectivity rulemaking process to prepare the NPA, as well as
this SNPA, for maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity. This
includes simplifying the minimum retroreflectivity levels, requiring
the use of a method to maintain minimum retroreflectivity, and
clarifying the types of longitudinal lines for which this proposed rule
applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Revision 2 of the 2009 MUTCD, 77 FR 28460 (May 14, 2012),
revised certain information relating to target compliance dates for
traffic control devices. It can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-14/pdf/2012-11710.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since publishing the NPA, the need for improved pavement markings
has become more apparent in relation to advanced driver assistance
systems (ADAS) in vehicles. Numerous manufacturers have ADAS that
include lane departure warning systems that use camera sensors to
detect pavement markings to monitor the position of the vehicle.
Automakers, suppliers, and research institutes have indicated in
interviews that maintenance of pavement markings will be necessary to
support vehicle automation. Michael J. Robinson of General Motors
testified before the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highway and Transit that, ``one of the
key highway needs is to provide--at a minimum--clearly marked lanes and
shoulders.'' \9\ In the same hearing, former NHTSA Administrator
Strickland spoke of how the autonomous vehicle will advance safety and
specifically mentioned FHWA's efforts to improve the infrastructure to
``interact with and support automated or partially automated
vehicles.'' \10\ More recently, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and SAE International
(formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers) have formed a joint task
force to develop a specification that includes criteria for road
markings for vehicle cameras that detect and use lane markings for
features such as Lane Departure Warning (LDW) and Lane Keeping Assist
(LKA). The joint task force will use the information from National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-102(06), Road Markings
for Machine Vision as a basis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Testimony of Michael J. Robinson, Vice President,
Sustainability and Global Regulatory Affairs, before the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, Hearing on How Autonomous Vehicles will Shape
the Future of Surface Transportation, November 19, 2013 http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2013-11-19-robinson.pdf.
\10\ Testimony of The Honorable David L. Strickland,
Administrator, National Highways Traffic Safety Administration,
before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Hearing on How Autonomous
Vehicles will Shape the Future of Surface Transportation, November
19, 2013. http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2013-11-19-strickland.pdf.
\11\ More information regarding the scope and status of NCHRP
20-102 (06), Road Markings for Machine Vision is available at the
following Internet Web site: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment period for the NPA related to pavement marking
[[Page 773]]
retroreflectivity closed on August 20, 2010. The FHWA received
approximately 100 responses that were submitted to the docket
containing nearly 700 individual comments on the NPA. The FHWA received
comments from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(NCUTCD), AASHTO, State departments of transportation (State DOTs), the
National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the American Traffic
Safety Services Association (ATSSA), Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (AHAS), the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), city
and county governmental agencies, consulting firms, private industry,
associations, other organizations, and individual private citizens. The
FHWA has reviewed and analyzed the comments that were received in
preparing this SNPA.
State and local DOTs, as well as associations that represent them,
submitted many comments expressing concern over key elements of the
MUTCD language as proposed in the NPA. The commenters expressed
confusion about which pavement markings would be required to meet
minimum retroreflectivity values and concern over compliance dates for
replacing deficient markings, the proposed minimum retroreflectivity
levels, cost, and liability. Organizations comprised of safety
advocates and some industry suppliers of pavement markings submitted
comments suggesting that the NPA did not go far enough in establishing
retroreflectivity standards. In consideration of all the comments, FHWA
desires to simplify the proposed MUTCD language to provide clarity
while improving safety and minimizing the financial burden and
potential liability concerns expressed by the commenters, particularly
local agencies responsible for maintaining pavement markings. The FHWA
also has a responsibility to meet the congressional intent of Section
406 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act as discussed above, with an appreciation for
economic impact.
The AASHTO and NACE requested delaying the final rule for pavement
marking retroreflectivity until AASHTO's Subcommittee on Traffic
Engineering funds and completes a proposed research project intended to
provide a synthesis of pavement marking retroreflectivity maintenance
practices. The organizations and many of their members felt this
project would produce actual measurement of in-service pavement marking
retroreflectivity levels to compare with the minimum values proposed by
FHWA. The project was completed under NCHRP Project 20-07 Task 310. The
findings were published January 2013 in a report titled,
``Determination of Current Levels of Retroreflectance Attained and
Maintained by State Departments of Transportation.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The report titled, ``Determination of Current Levels of
Retroreflectance Attained and Maintained by State Departments of
Transportation,'' can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(310)_FR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, it was noted that the proposed revisions regarding
maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity would be designated as
Revision 1 to the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. Actual designation of
revision numbers depends on the relative timing of final rules issued
by FHWA related to the MUTCD.
As a result of the comments received in response to the NPA, FHWA
concluded that significant changes to the proposed MUTCD language are
warranted. As a result, FHWA is issuing this SNPA to provide the
opportunity for public review and comment on the revised proposal.
Docket comments and summaries of the FHWA's analyses and determinations
are discussed below.
Proposed Supplemental Amendment
In this SNPA, FHWA proposes to continue with the following key
concepts from the NPA:
Implementation and continued use of a method that is
designed to maintain pavement markings at or above specific minimum
retroreflectivity levels would be the key factor indicating compliance
with this section of the MUTCD.
The minimum retroreflectivity levels would apply only to
longitudinal pavement markings under dry conditions, specifically
center lines, edge lines and lane lines.
The method would not be required to include markings on
roads with statutory or posted speed limits under 35 mph.
Markings that are adequately visible due to ambient
illumination may be excluded from the method.
Acknowledges that there may be some locations or certain
periods of time where markings may be below the minimum
retroreflectivity levels.
The FHWA proposes the following key changes from the language
proposed in the April, 2010, NPA:
Remove the compliance date for replacing markings;
Simplify conditions so there are only two
retroreflectivity values (one being a STANDARD and one being GUIDANCE)
that are based on posted speed limit only, and apply to both white and
yellow longitudinal pavement markings;
Simplify the STANDARD to one minimum retroreflectivity
level of 50 mcd/m\2\/lx that applies to roads with statutory or posted
speeds of 35 mph and greater;
Change the requirement for high-speed roadways from a
STANDARD to GUIDANCE, and condense the various minimum
retroreflectivity levels to one minimum retroreflectivity level of 100
mcd/m\2\/lx;
Add an OPTION for agencies to exclude roadways with
volumes less than 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) from the application of
their methods to maintain retroreflectivity; and
Remove the exception for roadways with raised reflective
pavement markers (RRPMs).
An analysis of the comments and the resulting proposed changes are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
The definitions of the MUTCD Section 1A.13 are used here,
particularly in reference to the terms STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and
SUPPORT. A STANDARD refers to a required, mandatory or specifically
prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. STANDARD
statements are sometimes modified by an OPTION statement. GUIDANCE
denotes a recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical
situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or an
engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. An OPTION
states a practice that is a permissive condition and may contain
allowable modifications to a STANDARD or GUIDANCE statement while
SUPPORT statements simply convey information.
This SNPA is being issued to provide an opportunity for public
comment on these proposed amendments to the MUTCD. The FHWA requests
comments on the proposed amendments to the MUTCD that are presented in
this SNPA. After reviewing the comments received in response to the NPA
and this SNPA, FHWA may issue a final rule concerning the proposed
changes included in this document. In order to enable FHWA to
appropriately review and address all comments, commenters should cite
the Section and paragraph number of the proposed MUTCD text for each
specific comment to the docket.
Section-by-Section Analysis
This section-by-section analysis includes a discussion of the
proposed SNPA language and an analysis of the comments submitted to the
NPA docket.
[[Page 774]]
Since Section 3A.03 contains the majority of the material specifically
related to maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity, that section
is described first, followed by proposed changes to Section 1A.11 and
the Introduction.
Section 3A.03 Maintaining Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
1. The FHWA proposes to change the current section title to
``Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity'' to simplify the title and be
consistent with the title for Sign Retroreflectivity in Section 2A.08
of the 2009 MUTCD.
2. The FHWA has revised the organization and content of the
STANDARD statement from what was proposed in the NPA. Many commenters
indicated there was confusion regarding which markings were included in
the minimum retroreflectivity requirements and which minimum
retroreflectivity values applied under specific roadway marking
conditions. To reduce confusion, FHWA proposes to base the minimum
pavement marking retroreflectivity values only on posted speed limits,
rather than a combination of posted speed and type of roadway marking
pattern as proposed in Table 3A-1 of the NPA. In conjunction with this
change, FHWA proposes to refrain from incorporating a table such as the
NPA's Table 3A-1 and instead simplify the requirement for maintaining
pavement marking retroreflectivity by including the retroreflectivity
values in the text. The proposed retroreflectivity values apply to both
white and yellow pavement markings.
3. In the STANDARD statement, paragraph 1, FHWA proposes that a
method designed to maintain retroreflectivity at or above 50 mcd/m\2\/
lx shall be used for longitudinal markings on roadways with statutory
or posted speed limits of 35 mph or greater. The proposed STANDARD is a
minimum level intended to meet driver visibility needs. Many agencies
currently have goals to achieve higher initial levels of
retroreflectivity based on driver preferences and other factors. There
are also a few agencies with goals to maintain higher levels. This
rulemaking should not be misconstrued as a recommendation to lower
these goals, but rather to encourage all agencies to replace or retrace
markings before they reach this bare minimum level. This should result
in markings that are typically well above these retroreflectivity
levels throughout their useful life. As in the NPA, this STANDARD
applies only to longitudinal markings. Information regarding markings
that may be excluded and clarification on markings to which this
STANDARD does not apply are described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
proposed MUTCD text.
The 50 mcd/m\2\/lx requirement proposed for the STANDARD is based
on research on pavement marking retroreflectivity requirements
documented in publication FHWA-HRT-07-059, ``Updates to Research on
Recommended Minimum Levels for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to
Meet Driver Night Visibility Needs.'' \13\ In this report, fully marked
roadways (those having edge lines, center lines, and lane lines, as
needed) were identified as requiring retroreflectivity levels of 40
mcd/m\2\/lx for speeds of 50 mph and lower and 60 mcd/m\2\/lx for
speeds of 55 to 65 mph. One of the key conditions considered in the
research was that a minimum preview time of 2.2 seconds was needed for
nighttime drivers to safely navigate their vehicles. The value of 50
mcd/m\2\/lx is also one of the minimum retroreflectivity values
proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/07059/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA received comments from NCUTCD, AASHTO, NACE and several
State and local agencies opposed to the higher retroreflectivity values
presented in the NPA. Some of those commenters suggested alternate
minimum retroreflectivity values that ranged from 50 to 150 mcd/m\2\/
lx, depending on the pavement marking configuration and posted speed
limit. The FHWA received comments from ATSSA, AARP, and AHAS suggesting
higher retroreflectivity values than proposed in the NPA and suggesting
that minimum retroreflectivity values for roads with posted speed
limits less than 35 mph should also be established. Specific comments
referred to studies indicating that drivers prefer pavement markings
with a range of 80 to 130 mcd/m\2\/lx. The proposed minimum level of 50
mcd/m\2\/lx was selected based on driver needs derived from a
requirement of 2.2 second preview time, rather than public attitude
surveys. This minimum will improve the retroreflectivity of markings in
jurisdictions where pavement markings are not currently being
adequately maintained, without placing an undue burden on agencies that
choose to maintain markings at higher levels.
The FHWA also believes that establishing one retroreflectivity
value as a STANDARD, rather than several values, will facilitate
implementation of this proposed rule. In terms of roadways with posted
speed limits of less than 35 mph, FHWA received comments from NACE and
26 local agencies supporting FHWA's proposal that the minimum levels
not apply to roads with posted speeds of less than 35 mph; whereas,
AHAS and ATSSA questioned whether the FHWA was meeting the
congressional intent by not requiring the method to apply to these
roads. The FHWA believes there would be little benefit in requiring
agencies to implement a method to maintain a specific minimum
retroreflectivity level of markings on these roads because properly
working vehicle headlamps typically provide adequate preview distance
of the road itself for the short preview distance needed at these
speeds. Therefore, the level of retroreflectivity of the pavement
markings is not as critical at these lower speeds.
4. In the GUIDANCE statement, paragraph 2, FHWA proposes that a
method designed to maintain retroreflectivity at or above 100 mcd/m\2\/
lx should be used for longitudinal markings on roadways with statutory
or posted speed limits of 70 mph or greater. The GUIDANCE statement is
included to encourage higher retroreflectivity levels for roadways with
higher speeds. This is based on a preview time of 2.2 seconds,
indicating drivers need longer viewing distances on higher speed
roadways, which can be achieved by maintaining a higher level of
retroreflective pavement markings. The 100 mcd/m\2\/lx level is based
on research of pavement marking retroreflectivity requirements
documented in publication FHWA-HRT-07-059, ``Updates to Research on
Recommended Minimum Levels for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to
Meet Driver Night Visibility Needs.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/07059/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table 3A-1 of the NPA, FHWA also proposed separate minimum
retroreflectivity values for two-lane roads with only center line
markings. These separate minimum values were included to address driver
needs for higher retroreflective center lines on facilities without
edge lines. Based on the comments from agencies and their associations,
this was one of the areas that caused confusion. Since this SNPA
provides agencies with the option to exclude roadways with Annual Daily
Traffic (ADT) less than 6,000 vpd from
[[Page 775]]
their method (for reasons explained in item 8 below), and edge lines
are required on rural arterials with an ADT of 6,000 vpd or greater and
recommended for rural arterials and collectors with an ADT of 3,000 or
greater, FHWA believes it is not necessary to include a higher minimum
retroreflectivity level on two-lane roads with center lines only.
The NPA proposed minimum retroreflectivity value of 250 mcd/m\2\/lx
for two-lane roads with only center line markings and speeds of 55 mph
or higher was particularly controversial. The FHWA received comments
from AASHTO, NCUTCD, NACE, as well as several State DOTs suggesting
that it was not feasible with existing technologies to maintain a
retroreflectivity level of 250 mcd/m\2\/lx. The AASHTO and nine State
DOTs suggested reducing this value to 100 mcd/m\2\/lx; whereas, the
NCUTCD and NACE suggested a value of 150 mcd/m\2\/lx. Typical State
requirements for yellow pavement markings are less than 250 mcd/m\2\/lx
due to the difficulty in achieving and sustaining this level of
retroreflectivity with most available yellow marking materials. It is
the intent of this GUIDANCE statement to encourage agencies to improve
pavement marking conditions, and not to require public agencies to meet
levels that would be impractical to maintain with existing
technologies. In consideration of the factors discussed above, FHWA
proposes that a value of 100 mcd/m\2\/lx or above should be maintained
for longitudinal markings on all roadways with posted speed limits of
70 mph or greater, regardless of the roadway pavement marking
configuration.
5. The FHWA proposes to delete Table 3A-1 that was included in the
NPA because of the proposed simplified retroreflectivity values
contained in Section 3A.03, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the MUTCD. Table 3A-
1, as proposed in the NPA, included two exceptions to maintaining
minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity. One exception provided that
minimum retroreflectivity levels were not applicable to pavement
markings on roadways with properly maintained RRPMs. Although this
provision was supported by NCUTCD, AASHTO, and NACE, other
organizations such as ATSSA, 3M, and AARP suggested that the use of
RRPMs should not result in an exception to the required minimum
retroreflectivity levels because there are no performance requirements
for RRPMs.
After reviewing available research and considering the intended use
and durability of RRPMs, FHWA proposes to delete the exception for
roadways with RRPMs. The research conducted for pavement marking
retroreflectivity indicates that even with RRPMs, a pavement marking
retroreflectivity level of 40 to 50 mcd/m\2\/lx is still needed for
peripheral-vision lane keeping tasks.\15\ This level of
retroreflectivity is consistent with the proposed SNPA language that
requires an agency to maintain retroreflectivity at 50 mcd/m\2\/lx,
rather than the higher values proposed in the NPA. If the exclusion for
roadways with RRPMs were to remain, additional parameters would need to
be considered. This would include parameters such as a minimum level of
retroreflectivity for the RRPMs (for which there is currently
insufficient research), spacing requirements (which varies in the MUTCD
in accordance with the application), and maintenance requirements to
replace missing or damaged devices. Setting such parameters for RRPMs
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Finally, the research \16\ is
based on dry pavement marking retroreflectivity. The RRPMs are commonly
used to enhance wet nighttime delineation, which further indicates that
RRPMs fall outside of the scope of this rulemaking effort. In reviewing
this information, along with the comments submitted to the docket, it
became clear that providing an exclusion for roadways with RRPMs
introduced a level of unintended complexity to the proposed rule, and
therefore FHWA does not propose an exclusion for roadways with RRPMs in
the SNPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/07059/.
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not included as an exception in the NPA, NCUTCD, AASHTO,
NACE, nine State DOTs and a consultant suggested adding an exception
for roadways with post-mounted delineators for the same reason that
roads with RRPMs were excluded in the NPA. The commenters felt that
roadside post[hyphen]mounted delineators have greater target value when
compared to RRPMs, and are easily replaced, in most cases, without
obstructing the traffic lanes. The commenters suggested that
delineators are also used in snow and winter conditions and provide
added visibility of the roadway geometry. While FHWA believes that
roadside delineators are a valuable traffic control device, they are
placed on the side of the road at varying distances from the outside
edge of the travel lane and do not provide the same level of lane
delineation as pavement markings. As a result, FHWA does not propose an
exclusion for roadways with delineators. As discussed above in regard
to RRPMs, such an exclusion would introduce an unnecessary level of
complexity and is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The FHWA retains the proposed exclusion for roadways where ambient
illumination assures that the pavement markings are visible. The FHWA
believes that it is appropriate to maintain this exclusion in order to
provide consistency with existing paragraph 3 of Section 3A.02 of the
2009 MUTCD which states, ``Markings that must be visible at night shall
be retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the
markings are adequately visible.'' \17\ Additional information
regarding this exclusion, including a discussion of the comments, is
included in item 8 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The 2009 MUTCD can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The FHWA proposes in paragraph 3, GUIDANCE, to recommend that
the method used to maintain retroreflectivity should be one or more of
those described in a separate document titled, ``Methods for
Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity'' or developed from an
engineering study based on the minimum retroreflectivity values in
Paragraphs 1 and 2. A draft version of this document is available in
the docket. In the NPA, FHWA proposed to include short descriptions of
the recommended methods. However, FHWA believes more details are needed
to fully describe the intent of the methods and to avoid
misinterpretation. In an effort to simplify the MUTCD, FHWA believes it
is more appropriate to refer MUTCD users to this supplemental document
rather than trying to briefly summarize it in the MUTCD. An added
benefit to this approach is that this document, which will be available
on FHWA's Web site, will include detailed guidance on how to use the
methods and inform agencies that other methods can be developed if they
are tied to the minimum retroreflectivity levels through an engineering
study. In addition to containing information describing the acceptable
methods, this document also includes information about methods that are
not acceptable for maintaining minimum pavement marking
retroreflectivity because they cannot be tied to the minimum
retroreflectivity levels, along with recommendations of items to
consider
[[Page 776]]
and include in an agency's documentation of its method. The FHWA
believes that by providing all of the pertinent information related to
the methods to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity in one
place, users are more likely to obtain complete information and
therefore make more informed decisions about the method(s) they use for
maintaining minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity.
7. In paragraph 4, SUPPORT, the FHWA proposes to indicate that
retroreflectivity levels for pavement marking are measured at an
entrance angle of 88.76 degrees and an observation angle of 1.05
degrees, also referred to as 30-meter geometry, and that the units are
reported in mcd/m\2\/lx. The FHWA proposes to add this statement to
capture these specifics regarding measurement and associated units of
pavement marking retroreflectivity that were included as a note in
Table 3A-1 of the NPA. For the reasons discussed in item 5 of this
document, the FHWA proposes to delete Table 3A-1 in the SNPA, but this
pertinent information is still needed, so the FHWA proposes this
SUPPORT statement to retain the information.
8. In paragraph 5, OPTION, FHWA proposes to list several types of
pavement markings that agencies may exclude from their method to
maintain minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity. The pavement
markings excluded from an agency's method under this OPTION are still
required to be retroreflective unless otherwise excluded under MUTCD
Section 3A.02. Items C through F of this OPTION statement refer to
specific types of markings and remain unchanged from the NPA. Those
types of markings are as follows: dotted extension lines (extending a
longitudinal line through an intersection, major driveway or
interchange area), curb markings, parking space markings, and shared-
use path markings. These markings are effectively optional, and
additional research would be needed to support establishment of minimum
retroreflectivity levels for these markings.
In item A of this OPTION, FHWA proposes an exclusion for markings
where ambient illumination assures that the markings are adequately
visible. The FHWA proposes to relocate and reword this text from what
appeared in the NPA to clarify its meaning. In Table 3A-1 of the NPA,
FHWA included an exception for markings on roadways where continuous
roadway lighting assures that the markings are visible. Since FHWA
deleted Table 3A-1 from the SNPA, it is more appropriate to list this
exclusion in proposed paragraph 5. The FHWA also proposes to use text
in the OPTION statement that more closely matches the existing text in
Section 3A.02, paragraph 3. Existing paragraph 3 of Section 3A.02 of
the 2009 MUTCD also includes the statement, ``All markings on
Interstate highways shall be retroreflective.'' Therefore, Interstate
markings that are adequately visible due to lighting do not need to
meet the minimum levels nor be included in an agency's method, but they
do need to be retroreflective. Although NCUTCD, AASHTO, and NACE
supported an exception for lighting in the NPA, AARP and a supplier
suggested that the exception for roadways with roadway lighting would
undermine the safety benefits of the proposed amendments. The FHWA
proposes to retain the exclusion for lighting to provide agencies with
the flexibility to illuminate roadways without the added burden of
implementing a method for maintaining pavement marking
retroreflectivity.
In item B of this OPTION, FHWA proposes to allow agencies the
option to exclude markings on roadways with ADTs less than 6,000 vpd
from their method. This change is in response to comments on the
approach used in the NPA, which was based on the MUTCD warrants for
longitudinal pavement markings. The warrants are based on roadway
characteristics such as traffic volume, functional class, and pavement
width. Pavement markings not included by these warrants were excluded
from the method in the NPA, although the comments indicated this was
not clear. The exclusion provided in item B, based solely on traffic
volume, substitutes for the more complex exclusion based on warrants
proposed in the NPA. This responds specifically to comments FHWA
received from 2 local agencies and one road commission representing
over 80 local agencies suggesting that low volume roads be excluded
from meeting minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity values. The
commenters' definition of ``low volume'' ranged from 3,000 to 6,000
vpd. The exclusion also responds to many comments that optional
markings (those neither required nor recommended by the warrants)
should be excluded from the method. The AHAS and two suppliers
commented that these optional marking should not be excluded.
Another complicating factor in the NPA approach is that the MUTCD
warrants require certain pavement markings under specific roadway
conditions and recommend certain pavement markings under other roadway
conditions. The FHWA received comments from NCUTCD, AASHTO, NACE, and
over 40 State and local agencies pertaining to whether the standard
should include only those pavement markings required in the MUTCD, or a
combination of required and recommended pavement markings, as was
proposed in the NPA. Some State and local DOTs suggested that if there
were a requirement to maintain retroreflectivity on pavement markings
that were only recommended (by means of a GUIDANCE statement) and not
required, then their agency might elect not to install such recommended
markings.
The FHWA conducted a thorough review of the MUTCD language related
to required, recommended, and optional markings and determined that
using a specific volume of traffic for the exclusion would be
considerably easier for agencies to understand and implement than use
of the warrants. By removing functional class and pavement width from
the determination of whether a pavement marking is included in the
method, the only consideration is the appropriate volume threshold to
select. Because a volume of 6,000 vpd is the threshold above which a
center line is required on an urban arterial and collector road (see
Section 3B.02, paragraph 9) and the threshold above which rural
arterials are required to have edge lines (see Section 3B.07, paragraph
1), FHWA believes that it is appropriate to establish 6,000 vpd as the
volume above which a method for maintaining pavement marking
retroreflectivity applies. The FHWA believes this is consistent with
its goal of simplifying the language while meeting congressional intent
and appreciating agency's resource concern. Because this is proposed as
an OPTION statement, agencies could choose to include roadways with
less than 6,000 vpd in their methods for maintaining minimum pavement
marking retroreflectivity, as resources allow.
The NPA excluded additional markings that are generally not
classified as longitudinal markings. Due to the reformatting of the
MUTCD text in this SNPA, those markings are now addressed in a separate
proposed SUPPORT statement, paragraph 6. A discussion of those markings
and related comments appears in item 9 below.
9. The FHWA proposes a SUPPORT statement, paragraph 6, to clarify
that the provisions of proposed Section 3A.03 do not apply to non-
longitudinal pavement markings, and to specifically list several non-
longitudinal types of
[[Page 777]]
pavement markings that are excluded from this proposed rule. The
following markings, which are the same as those presented in the NPA,
would be listed in paragraph 6: transverse markings, words, symbol, and
arrow markings, crosswalk markings, and chevron, diagonal, and
crosshatch markings. The MUTCD does not require the use of these
markings, so there is a concern that same agencies may choose to
discontinue their use if minimum levels of retroreflectivity are
established. The ATSSA, AARP, a State DOT, and a supplier disagreed
with allowing agencies to exclude pavement markings such as, words,
symbols, and arrows, crosswalks, railroad crossing markings, etc.,
because the commenters felt that these markings are important. Other
than longitudinal markings, there are few markings required by the
MUTCD. There is a concern that establishing minimum retroreflectivity
levels for markings that are not required may result in some agencies
choosing to discontinue their use. In addition, these markings are
excluded because the existing body of research does not cover the
retroreflectivity needs of drivers for non-longitudinal markings.
10. The FHWA proposes a SUPPORT statement, paragraph 7, that
acknowledges that special circumstances will periodically cause
pavement marking retroreflectivity to be below the minimum
retroreflectivity levels. The FHWA proposed similar information in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the NPA. The FHWA received comments from NCUTCD,
AASHTO, NACE, ATSSA, and more than 40 State and local agencies
suggesting that the language be changed from a SUPPORT statement to a
STANDARD statement to further assist them in potential liability
defense, especially in light of the 2009 MUTCD language regarding the
terms ``standard'' and ``engineering judgment.'' \18\ Due to the
issuance of Revision 1 of the 2009 MUTCD, FHWA believes that it is
appropriate to retain this language as a SUPPORT statement. Within this
SUPPORT statement, paragraph 7, FHWA proposes text that describes some
of the occurrences that may cause pavement markings to periodically be
below the minimum retroreflectivity levels. The items included in this
statement are similar to those contained in paragraph 3 of the NPA, but
are expanded to clarify additional circumstances in response to
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Revision 1 of the 2009 MUTCD was issued in May 2012 to
address many of these concerns, well after the pavement marking
retroreflectivity NPA was published in April 2010. The Revision 1
final rule is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-14/html/2012-11712.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add item A, isolated locations of abnormal
degradation, to the list to address comments from NCUTCD and AASHTO
suggesting that this item be added. The FHWA agrees that there may be
isolated locations where pavement markings experience abnormal wear or
degradation due to adjacent land uses or types of vehicles using the
roadway, and that it is impractical to expect retroreflectivity levels
to be continuously maintained at or above minimum levels at such
locations.
The FHWA proposes to rephrase the text regarding pavement
resurfacing, item B, to better explain that this rule is not intended
to apply during periods preceding imminent resurfacing or
reconstruction. The FHWA does not believe that it is a cost effective
use of labor and materials to re-apply pavement markings immediately
prior to resurfacing, rehabilitating or reconstructing a roadway.
In item C, FHWA proposes to include unanticipated events such as
equipment breakdowns, material shortages, contracting problems, and
other similar conditions to this listing. Although not included in the
NPA, FHWA proposes to add these items based on comments from State and
local agencies suggesting that these unanticipated events can and do
occur. For example, in 2010 there was a global shortage of certain
types of pavement marking materials. In addition, it is possible that a
pavement marking contract could fall behind schedule if equipment
malfunctions unexpectedly or if there is a problem with a contract. The
FHWA believes that including such a provision is appropriate, because
it is possible that unanticipated events beyond an agency's control may
contribute to markings falling below the minimum levels.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add item D to address the loss of
retroreflectivity due to snow maintenance operations. Snow maintenance
operations include plowing as well as applying materials to roadway
surfaces that may negatively impact pavement marking retroreflectivity.
The AASHTO and 20 State and local DOTs, particularly those in northern
tier States, expressed concern with maintaining prescribed
retroreflectivity levels during the winter months. The commenters
indicated that roadway maintenance activities such as snow plowing and
placement of traction sand degrades the pavement markings at such time
when replacement of the markings is impossible. Although the revised
minimum levels of this SNPA should mitigate this concern, the results
of NCHRP Project 20-07 indicate maintaining pavement marking
retroreflectivity during winter months will continue to be a problem
for at least some agencies in many snow belt States. The FHWA agrees
with the stated concern and proposes to add this item to address the
difficulty associated with maintaining pavement marking
retroreflectivity during winter maintenance operations. While this is a
more recurring type of retroreflectivity maintenance issue than those
listed in items A through C, the schedule to restore markings is based
largely on the weather in a particular year and can vary significantly
by region.
Following the list of items, FHWA proposes to indicate that when
these circumstances occur, compliance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 is
achieved if a reasonable course of action is taken to restore such
markings in a timely manner. The FHWA proposes this revised statement
following the list of examples to clarify that compliance with the
minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels may take such factors
into consideration. The FHWA realizes that when such circumstances
occur, agencies will need to schedule their resources and priorities in
order to restore the pavement markings. The FHWA's intent is for
agencies take an appropriate course of action in a timely manner.
Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications
11. The FHWA proposes to add a new publication titled, ``Methods
for Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity'' to the list of
other publications that are useful sources. A draft version of this
document is available in the docket. This draft publication is a
supplemental document for informational purposes. The final version of
this document will reflect any changes made to this proposed rule and
will be published and distributed by FHWA. In the NPA, FHWA proposed to
reference a summary of this report instead. The FHWA has reconsidered
the intent and resulting content of this supplemental document, and
proposes to reference this document which contains more information
about the methods to be used for maintaining pavement marking
retroreflectivity than can be adequately described in the MUTCD text or
a summary document. Several State and local DOTs submitted specific
questions and comments to the docket related to the methods as
described in the proposed MUTCD text. Because FHWA proposes to simplify
the MUTCD language in the SNPA, FHWA
[[Page 778]]
believes it is appropriate to reference a supplemental document that
would be easily accessible on FHWA's Web site and would provide
detailed guidance on how to implement the methods, rather than to
provide partial information in the MUTCD text. See item 6 of this
document for more information about the proposed publication ``Methods
for Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity.''
Introduction
In the Introduction, FHWA proposes to add to Table I-2 Target
Compliance Dates Established by FHWA, a compliance date for new Section
3A.03 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity. The FHWA proposes a
compliance period of 4 years from the effective date of the Final Rule
for this revision of the MUTCD for implementation and continued use of
a method that is designed to maintain retroreflectivity of longitudinal
pavement markings, and refers the reader to Paragraph 1. This proposed
4-year compliance period is similar to that proposed in the NPA. In the
NPA, FHWA also proposed to include a compliance period for replacing
markings that were found to be deficient by the agency's method for
maintaining minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity. While ATSSA
agreed with the compliance periods, the NCUTCD, AASHTO, NACE, members
of those organizations, and two local agencies agreed with establishing
a 4-year compliance period for establishing and using a method to
maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity, but did not support a
compliance date for replacing deficient markings. The FHWA believes
that a 4-year compliance period for establishing and implementing such
a method is appropriate; however, FHWA is no longer seeking to
establish compliance dates for replacement of deficient markings as
this should be established by agencies pursuant to their methods. This
is consistent with Revision 2 of the 2009 MUTCD in regard to Minimum
Retroreflectivity compliance dates for Traffic Signs. Without specific
compliance dates in the MUTCD for replacing deficient markings,
agencies would still need to replace or remark pavement markings they
identify as not meeting the established minimum retroreflectivity
values, but each agency would be allowed to establish a schedule for
replacement based on resources and relative priorities. Agencies would
need to establish their replacement schedules using the same level of
consideration as they would any other engineering decision regarding
maintenance of traffic control devices.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to revise the 2009
MUTCD text as follows:
Add a row to Table I-2 Target Compliance Dates Established by FHWA:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 MUTCD section Nos. 2009 MUTCD section title Specific provision Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3A.03........................ Maintaining Minimum Implementation and continued 4 years from the
Retroreflectivity. use of a method that is effective date of this
designed to maintain revision of the MUTCD
retroreflectivity of
longitudinal pavement
markings (see Paragraph 1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add new reference document to Section 1A.11 Relation to Other
Publications: Section 1A.11
``Methods for Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity,''
Report No. FHWA-SA-14-017 (FHWA)
Revise Section 3A.03 as follows:
Section 3A.03 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity
Standard
01 Except as provided in Paragraph 5, a method designed to maintain
retroreflectivity at or above 50 mcd/m\2\/lx shall be used for
longitudinal markings on roadways with statutory or posted speed limits
of 35 mph or greater.
Guidance
02 Except as provided in Paragraph 5, a method designed to maintain
retroreflectivity at or above 100 mcd/m\2\/lx should be used for
longitudinal markings on roadways with statutory or posted speed limits
of 70 mph or greater.
03 The method used to maintain retroreflectivity should be one or
more of those described in ``Methods for Maintaining Pavement Marking
Retroreflectivity'' (see Section 1A.11) or developed from an
engineering study based on the values in Paragraphs 1 and 2.
Support
04 Retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings are measured with
an entrance angle of 88.76 degrees and an observation angle of 1.05
degrees. This geometry is also referred to as 30-meter geometry. The
units of pavement marking retroreflectivity are reported in mcd/m\2\/
lx, which means millicandelas per square meter per lux.
Option
05 The following markings may be excluded from the provisions
established in Paragraphs 1 and 2:
A. Markings where ambient illumination assures that the markings
are adequately visible;
B. Markings on roadways that have an ADT of less than 6,000
vehicles per day;
C. Dotted extension lines that extend a longitudinal line through
an intersection, major driveway, or interchange area (see Section
3B.08);
D. Curb markings;
E. Parking space markings; and
F. Shared-use path markings.
Support
06 The provisions of this Section do not apply to non-longitudinal
pavement markings including, but not limited to, the following:
A. Transverse markings;
B. Word, symbol, and arrow markings;
C. Crosswalk markings; and
D. Chevron, diagonal, and crosshatch markings.
07 Special circumstances will periodically cause pavement marking
retroreflectivity to be below the minimum levels. These circumstances
include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Isolated locations of abnormal degradation;
B. Periods preceding imminent resurfacing or reconstruction;
C. Unanticipated events such as equipment breakdowns, material
shortages, contracting problems, and other similar conditions; and
D. Loss of retroreflectivity resulting from snow maintenance
operations.
When such circumstances occur, compliance with Paragraphs 1 and 2
is still considered to be achieved if a reasonable course of action is
taken to restore such markings in a timely manner.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this
document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file
comments received
[[Page 779]]
after the comment closing date and will consider late comments to the
extent practicable. In addition, 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.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action would be a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and
within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures because of
the significant public interest in the MUTCD. Additionally, this action
complies with the principles of Executive Order 13563. The FHWA has
considered the costs and potential benefits of this rulemaking and
believes the rulemaking is being implemented in a manner that fulfills
our obligation under Section 406 of the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-388; October
6, 1992) and provides flexibility for agencies. The estimated national
costs are documented in the updated economic analysis report, which is
available as a separate document under the docket number noted in the
title of this document at http://www.regulations.gov. The flexibility
is documented in the new publication titled, ``Methods for Maintaining
Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity,'' to which the MUTCD refers
readers.
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 and that all markings
on Interstate highways shall be retroreflective. The proposed changes
in the MUTCD would provide additional guidance and clarification, while
allowing flexibility in maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity.
The pavement markings excluded from the proposed rulemaking are not to
be excluded from any other MUTCD standards. The FHWA believes that the
uniform application of traffic control devices will greatly improve the
traffic operations efficiency and roadway safety. The standards,
guidance, and support are also used to create uniformity and to enhance
safety and mobility at little additional expense to public agencies or
the motoring public.
The economic analysis provides a national estimate of the costs to
implement this rulemaking and to replace markings. Costs for individual
agencies would vary based on factors such as the amount of pavement
marking mileage subject to the standards and current pavement marking
practices. The analysis estimates first year start-up implementation
costs of $29.4 million for all affected State and local agencies to
develop maintenance methods and purchase necessary equipment. In
addition, annual measurement and management activities of $14.9 million
nationwide are expected to determine which markings require
replacement. In the second and following years, if agencies were to
replace markings that do not meet the minimums despite the fact that
there are no replacement compliance dates, there is an estimated
increase of approximately $52.5 million per year nationally from
current estimated pavement marking replacement expenditures. 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
$100 million or more in any one year. These changes are not anticipated
to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In
addition, these changes would not create a serious inconsistency with
any other Federal agency's action or materially alter the budgetary
impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. It is
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be
minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required,
though FHWA has prepared an economic analysis, which has been placed in
the docket. Although it is not possible to calculate the benefits
specifically attributed to this proposal, numerous safety studies
dating back to the 1970's clearly show that adding pavement markings to
two lane highways reduces nighttime crashes, a result of those markings
providing enough retroreflectivity to be visible to drivers at night.
The limited safe speed on unmarked roads at night is a clear indication
that there are also operational benefits of visible pavement markings
both day and night. The FHWA believes that lives will be saved and
injuries reduced by the improved maintenance of pavement marking
retroreflectivity. As indicated in the economic analysis, a crash
reduction factor is not available to estimate the safety benefits of
maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity. Lack of crash reduction
factors associated specifically with retroreflectivity has limited the
analysis to developing a range of potential benefit-cost ratios between
1 and 60.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed
action on small entities, including small governments. This proposed
action would apply to State and local DOTs in the execution of their
highway programs, specifically with respect to the retroreflectivity of
pavement markings. In addition, 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). I hereby certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 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 would 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 economic impacts analysis shows that implementing
these standards would likely increase current pavement marking
replacement expenditures by approximately $52.5 million per year for
all State and local agencies nationwide. 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. There would also be an estimated cost of $14.9 million in annual
measurement and management activities nationwide to ensure compliance
with the minimum values. In addition, in the first year, before
[[Page 780]]
annual implementation or replacement costs began, the State and local
agencies are estimated to have nationwide start-up implementation costs
of $29.4 million to develop maintenance methods and purchase
measurement equipment. Finally, the compliance dates to replace
markings that do not meet the minimum retroreflectivity have been
eliminated. Although agencies will still need to replace these
markings, their schedules would be based on their method for
maintaining retroreflectivity as well as their resources and relative
priorities. Therefore, this proposed rule would not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $151 million or more in any one 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 would not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and would 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.
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 significant effect on the
quality of the environment and is categorically excluded under 23 CFR
771.117(c)(20).
Regulation Identifier 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 in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHWA proposes to amend
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, subpart F as follows:
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
0
1. The authority for part 655 is revised 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 1.85.
Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets
and Highways [Amended]
0
2. Revise Sec. 655.601(d)(2)(i), to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), 2009 edition, including Revision No. 1 and No. 2,
dated May 2012, and No. [number to be inserted], dated [date to be
inserted], FHWA.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31249 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P