99-33806. National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Standards for Center Line and Edge Line Markings  

  • [Federal Register Volume 65, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2000)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 9-14]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-33806]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    Federal Highway Administration
    
    23 CFR Part 655
    
    [FHWA Docket Nos. 97-2295 (96-47), 97-2335 (96-15), and 97-3032]
    RIN 2125-AD68
    
    
    National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on 
    Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Standards for 
    Center Line and Edge Line Markings
    
    AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
    
    ACTION: Final amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
    Devices (MUTCD).
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This document contains amendments to the MUTCD as adopted by 
    the FHWA. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, 
    subpart F and recognized as the national standard for traffic control 
    devices on all public roads.
        The amendments herein change various sections of Part 3, Markings, 
    of the MUTCD. The FHWA is adopting the amendments pursuant to section 
    406 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
    Appropriations Act, FY 1993, which requires that the MUTCD include a 
    national standard to define the roads that must have center line or 
    edge line markings or both, provided that in setting such a standard, 
    consideration be given to the functional classification of roads, 
    traffic volumes, and the number and width of lanes. The FHWA has also 
    received requests to include such standards in the MUTCD for center 
    line or edge line markings. The MUTCD amendments contain the 
    requirements and recommendations for the uniform application and use of 
    center line and edge line markings on streets and highways. The 
    amendments are intended to improve traffic operations and safety 
    through consistent and uniform use of such markings.
    
    DATES: The final rule is effective January 3, 2000. Incorporation by 
    reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by 
    the Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2000.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest D. L. Huckaby, Office of 
    Transportation Operations, HOTO, (202) 366-9064, or Mr. Raymond W. 
    Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-20), (202) 366-0834, 
    Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 
    Seventh Street, SW., 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
    
        Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
    Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
    http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
    year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
    help.
        An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
    and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
    Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
    users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: 
    http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's 
    database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
        The text for these sections of the MUTCD is available from the FHWA 
    Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1) or from the FHWA Home Page 
    at the URL: http://www.ohs.fhwa.dot.gov/devices/mutcd.html. Please note 
    that the current rewrite sections contained in this docket for MUTCD 
    Part 3 will take approximately 8 weeks from the date of publication 
    before they will be available at this web site.
    
    Background
    
        The 1988 MUTCD is available for inspection and copying as 
    prescribed in 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased for $57.00 (Domestic) 
    or $71.25 (Foreign) from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
    Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, 
    Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. The purchase of the MUTCD includes the 1993 
    revision of Part 6, Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for 
    Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Incident 
    Management Operation, dated September 1993.
        The FHWA both receives and initiates requests for amendments to the 
    MUTCD. Each request is assigned an identification number which 
    indicates by Roman numeral, the organizational part of the MUTCD 
    affected, and by Arabic numeral, the order in which the request was 
    received. The MUTCD request identification number for the amendments 
    promulgated by this final rule is MUTCD Request III-73 (Change), titled 
    ``Standards for Center Line and Edge Line Markings.'' The text changes 
    will be published in the next edition of the MUTCD.
        The FHWA is promulgating this final rule in response to MUTCD 
    Request III-73 (Change) as addressed in the proposed rules in Docket 
    Nos. 96-15 and 96-47, to MUTCD Request III-35 (Change) as addressed in 
    Docket No. 87-21, and to section 406 of the Department of 
    Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 1993 (Pub. 
    L. 102-388, 106 stat. 1520, at 1564). The FHWA rearranged its docket 
    system to accord with the electronic system adopted by the Department 
    of Transportation in 1997. The FHWA Docket Numbers 96-15 and 96-47 were 
    transferred and scanned as FHWA Docket Numbers 97-2335 and 97-2295, 
    respectively. The amendments to the MUTCD and the related actions are 
    contained within this document as well as a discussion summarizing the 
    basis for the amendments.
        The FHWA first proposed center line and edge line standards that 
    were published January 27, 1988, at 53 FR 2233 in response to MUTCD 
    Request III-35 (Change). The majority of the commenters believed that 
    the then existing standards did not need to be changed. The FHWA 
    published a decision on January 23, 1989, at 54 FR 2298 that it was not 
    appropriate to set national standards for centerline markings at that 
    time. The decision also stated that the FHWA would consider
    
    [[Page 10]]
    
    alternative actions to better determine standards that are responsive 
    to the motorists needs and to the concerns expressed in the docket 
    comments.
        This document contains the disposition of proposed standards for 
    the 1988 MUTCD as published on August 2, 1996, at 61 FR 40484. It also 
    discusses the disposition of an alternative proposed standard 
    subsequently published on January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691 as part of the 
    proposed future edition of the MUTCD.
        In developing these amendments to the 1988 MUTCD, the FHWA has 
    reviewed the comments received in response to the FHWA dockets and 
    other information related to the MUTCD and the proposals.
    
    Definitions
    
        For the purposes of this standard, the following terms shall be 
    defined by the road jurisdiction in accordance with MUTCD Section 1A-9, 
    Definitions of Words and Phrases. The FHWA is considering, through a 
    series of proposed rules, the addition of such terms and definitions in 
    a future edition of the MUTCD. The proposed definitions of ``arterial 
    highway,'' ``collector highway,'' and ``traveled way'' were contained 
    in a proposed rule published at 62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997, in 
    FHWA Docket 97-3032. The other terms may be included in future proposed 
    rulemaking for the future edition of the MUTCD based on need and public 
    requests.
        The following definitions should be used for the terms contained in 
    the proposed rule and this final rule:
        Roadway shall mean that portion of a highway improved, designed or 
    ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk, berm 
    or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm or shoulder is used by 
    persons riding bicycles or other human powered vehicles. In the event a 
    highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term ``roadway'' as 
    used herein shall refer to any such ``roadway'' separately but not to 
    all such roadways collectively. Roadway includes parking lanes.
        Traveled way shall mean that portion of the roadway excluding the 
    parking lanes.
        Collector highway shall mean a general term denoting a highway 
    which in rural areas connects small towns and local highways to 
    arterial highways, and in urban areas provides land access and traffic 
    circulation within residential, commercial and business areas and 
    connects local highways to the arterial highways. This highway may be 
    designated as part of a collector highway system.
        Arterial highway shall mean a general term denoting a highway 
    primarily used by through traffic, usually on a continuous route or a 
    highway designated as part of an arterial highway system.
    
    Amendments to the MUTCD
    
        The FHWA replaces the fifth paragraph of section 3B-1 of the 1988 
    version of the MUTCD with the following:
        Center line markings shall be placed on paved, 2-way traveled ways 
    on streets and highways having one or more of the following 
    characteristics:
        1. Urban and rural arterials and collectors with traveled ways 6 
    meters (20 feet) or more in width with an ADT of 6000 or greater.
        2. Urban and rural traveled ways with 3 lanes or greater.
        Center line markings should be placed on paved, 2-way traveled ways 
    on streets and highways having the following characteristics:
        1. Urban arterials and collectors with traveled ways 6 meters (20 
    feet) or more in width with an ADT of 4000 or greater.
        2. Rural arterials and collectors with traveled ways 5.4 meters (18 
    feet) or more in width with an ADT of 3000 or greater.
        Center line markings may be placed on other 2-way traveled ways on 
    any street and highway.
        On traveled ways less than 4.8 meters (16 feet) wide, an 
    engineering study should be used in determining whether to place center 
    line markings on traveled ways due to traffic encroaching on the 
    pavement edges, due to traffic being affected by parked vehicles, and 
    due to traffic encroachment into the lane of opposing traffic where 
    edge line markings are used.
        The FHWA replaces the second paragraph of section 3B-6 of the 1988 
    version of the MUTCD with the following:
        Edge line markings shall be white, except they shall be yellow for 
    the left edge in the direction of travel of the traveled ways of a 
    divided or one way street or highway.
        Edge line markings shall be placed for paved traveled ways on 
    streets and highways with the following characteristics:
        1. Freeways,
        2. Expressways, and
        3. Rural arterials with traveled ways 6 meters (20 feet) or more in 
    width with an ADT of 6000 or greater.
        Edge line markings should be placed on paved travel ways for 
    streets and highways with the following characteristics:
        1. Rural collectors with traveled ways 6 meters (20 feet) or more 
    in width.
        2. Other paved streets and highways where engineering study 
    indicates a need.
        Edge line markings may be placed on the traveled way on any other 
    street or highway with or without center line markings.
        Edge line markings may be excluded based on engineering judgment 
    where the travel way edges are delineated by curbs or other markings.
    
    Compliance Date
    
        Since the changed standards and guidelines for lane markings may 
    impose some additional costs to State and local jurisdictions, the FHWA 
    is establishing a compliance date for the installation of new markings. 
    The compliance date is 3 years after the effective date of this final 
    rule or when pavement lane markings are replaced within an established 
    pavement marking program, or when the highway is resurfaced or 
    reconstructed, whichever date is earlier. This will allow the 
    replacement of the pavement lane markings after the normal service life 
    of the markings.
    
    Discussion of Amendment
    
        The FHWA believes that these new standards will effectively and 
    practically enhance highway safety and traffic operations by requiring 
    and recommending the minimum use of center line and edge line markings 
    throughout the nation for specific classes of streets and highways as 
    defined by the standards. The typical road user's expectancies can be 
    met through a nationally uniform and consistent application of these 
    markings for warning, guidance, and delineation purposes in accordance 
    with these standards.
        The standards require the use of these markings for paved traveled 
    ways of streets and highways with the highest traffic volumes and 
    design standards in the nation. The standards also contain 
    recommendations and information to support nationally uniform placing 
    of markings on other roads.
        Based on the information submitted to the FHWA, the FHWA believes 
    that most of the required and recommended markings in accordance with 
    these standards are currently in place. Generally, the markings have 
    been provided by most jurisdictions as a result of good engineering 
    practices, and in some cases, as a result of their own regulations and 
    policies.
    
    [[Page 11]]
    
        The new standards will help assure that all road jurisdictions 
    provide at least the required minimum markings when applicable. This 
    change will require some, mostly local, jurisdictions to provide the 
    markings on some roads for the first time. The FHWA estimates that the 
    additional costs nationwide to meet the new minimum requirements could 
    total approximately $10 million to $20 million per year. Additional 
    costs may be incurred at a jurisdiction's discretion if they place 
    markings in accordance with the FHWA recommendations and information 
    for markings. These costs, in most cases, are eligible for Federal or 
    Federal-aid funding.
        As discussed in the proposed rule, the FHWA initially proposed 
    standards for which road locations would require a center line in FHWA 
    Docket No. 87-21 in response to MUTCD Request III-35 (Change), 
    ``Warrants for Center Line Pavement Markings.'' The FHWA terminated 
    that docket on January 23, 1989, at 54 FR 2998 without change to the 
    MUTCD and stated that it would consider alternative actions necessary 
    to better determine standards responsive to the motorists' needs and to 
    the concerns expressed in the docket comments. As a result, and 
    pursuant to section 406 of the Department of Transportation and Related 
    Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 1993, and other requests, the FHWA 
    initiated MUTCD Request III-73 (Change), ``Standards for Center Line 
    and Edge Line Markings.''
        In response to this request, the FHWA published in Docket 96-15 on 
    August 2, 1996, at 61 FR 40484, the proposed changes for the 1988 
    MUTCD.
        In general, the public comments received for this docket indicated 
    that the proposed standards would be too extensive in the number of 
    additional roads required to be marked and in the associated costs.
        Many commenters for this docket indicated that a proposed standard 
    submitted by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
    (NCUTCD) and published with the proposed rule would reasonably fulfill 
    the road user needs for markings while economically standardizing the 
    current and proven marking practices of most road jurisdictions.
        Subsequently, in Docket No. 96-47 on January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691, 
    the FHWA published proposed marking standards for a future edition of 
    the MUTCD and included for public comment a different proposed standard 
    that was similar to the proposed standard submitted by the NCUTCD in 
    Docket 96-15. Therefore, in developing this final rule, the FHWA 
    assessed public comments on the two differing proposed standards 
    contained in Dockets 96-15 and 96-47.
        An analysis of Docket 96-15 reveals that over half of the comments 
    were opposed to the proposed amendment. In general, the comments stated 
    that the warrants were too restrictive and/or too expensive. A similar 
    analysis of Docket 96-47 reveals that less than ten percent of the 
    comments stated that the warrants were too restrictive and/or too 
    expensive.
        This final rule promulgates marking standards that improve the 
    safety of road users, while being responsive to the public comments 
    submitted to the dockets. The proposed amendment was changed by 
    adjusting the values for traveled way width and Average Daily Traffic 
    (ADT) that is responsive to the public comments submitted to the 
    dockets while still enhancing highway safety, traffic operations, and 
    considering the costs to local jurisdictions.
        This final rule also fulfills the requirements of section 406 of 
    the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
    Act, FY 1993. The FHWA considers the number and width of lanes criteria 
    required by section 406 to be satisfied by use of the traveled way 
    width criteria in the standard because of the interrelations of these 
    criteria as contained in road design standards used by most 
    jurisdictions and referenced in the MUTCD.
        For the proposed standard published August 2, 1996, in Docket No. 
    96-15, the 103 commenters submitted responses to the docket including 
    10 States, 32 counties, 46 municipalities, 6 consultants, 6 local 
    government groups, 2 individuals, and 1 transportation group. Six 
    commenters supported the entire proposed standard. The main issues and 
    concerns discussed by most commenters who opposed the proposed 
    standards included the establishing of required standards in lieu of 
    recommended standards, the potential of additional costs, the need to 
    clearly define the criteria, and the potential traffic and safety 
    impacts. The FHWA believes that the various modifications to the 
    proposed standards in preparing the standards herein adequately address 
    and resolve the majority of commenter objections to the standards. The 
    FHWA also believes that the final rule will enhance safety for highway 
    users.
        Many commenters opposed establishing the mandatory requirements 
    within the MUTCD for the markings placement standards and preferred the 
    use of recommendations. The primary reasons included reduction in a 
    road jurisdiction's engineering judgment and their potential increases 
    in liability in determining where limited markings resources should be 
    best applied based on traffic and safety needs. Many were concerned 
    that the requirements did not allow for engineering judgment when 
    safety, traffic and resource considerations may determine the special 
    needs for markings.
        The final rule was modified to allow adjustments when an 
    engineering study indicates the markings would cause potential safety 
    hazards. Twenty-six commenters were concerned about the potential 
    liability to the highway jurisdictions if some markings do not 
    continuously meet the proposed new requirements. Another liability 
    concern was the limited available engineering judgment for adjusting 
    resources that may be inadequate to provide for the required as well as 
    additionally critical marking needs.
        The FHWA modified the criteria values to reduce the number of roads 
    requiring markings, and to provide for more engineering judgment based 
    on the State and local safety and traffic needs while still improving 
    safety. The FHWA also addressed these concerns by adding a provision 
    which allows engineering studies and engineering judgment to determine 
    the marking requirements for safety issues. The FHWA believes that the 
    minimum national requirements for the markings are needed pursuit to 
    the requirements in section 406 and to help improve the uniform 
    application of the markings on a national basis for the roads which can 
    have the most substantial impacts on safety and traffic operations.
        Many commenters were concerned about the potential additional 
    costs, mostly for the local jurisdictions, associated with installing 
    and maintaining the required markings, especially where no or minimal 
    markings are currently in place. Most States currently provide the 
    markings which would be required by the rule, but local jurisdictions 
    vary in compliance. Originally, the FHWA estimated that the proposed 
    requirements could have increased the marking costs nationwide by 
    approximately $50 million to $100 million.
        Twenty commenters indicated acceptance of the National Committee on 
    Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) proposed standards which would 
    reduce the number of roads requiring the markings and, therefore, 
    reduce the required costs. The FHWA modified the requirements to 
    reflect the NCUTCD criteria and added provisions
    
    [[Page 12]]
    
    for increased engineering judgment in marking placement. The FHWA 
    believes that these modifications will still improve the overall safety 
    of the Nation's highways while mitigating the potential increased costs 
    to State and local jurisdictions.
        Some commenters were concerned with the cost of surveying the roads 
    to determine where the markings would be required in each jurisdiction. 
    The FHWA believes that jurisdictions should be aware of the ADT's and 
    widths of the major roadways now specified in the standards and that 
    the ADT's are an estimate that can be performed at a jurisdiction's 
    judgment. Based on the traveled way widths and ADT's in this final rule 
    the estimated costs are significantly reduced. The FHWA now estimates 
    that the additional total cost nationwide to meet the new minimum 
    requirements may total only $10 million to $20 million per year. These 
    costs, in most cases, are eligible for Federal or Federal-aid funding 
    at the jurisdictions' judgment and, therefore, these standards would 
    not constitute an unfunded Federal mandate as mentioned by some 
    commenters.
        Many commenters requested the addition of definitions to help 
    define the limits of the standards. Several commenters requested the 
    definitions for the terms ``arterial,'' ``collector,'' ``urban,'' 
    ``rural,'' and ``paved'' roads as contained in the standards. The terms 
    may be defined by the road jurisdiction in accordance with MUTCD 
    section 1A-9 until they are defined in the MUTCD. The FHWA is presently 
    developing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will include these 
    definitions.
        The FHWA is currently considering, through a series of proposed 
    rules, the addition of definitions for such terms in the future version 
    of the MUTCD. The proposed definitions for the terms ``arterial 
    highway,'' ``collector highway,'' and ``traveled way'' were published 
    December 5, 1997, in Docket No. 97-3032 for potential inclusion in the 
    future edition of the MUTCD. The other terms may be included in future 
    proposed rules for the future edition of the MUTCD based on need and 
    public requests. Example definitions which may be used for the terms in 
    the marking standard contained herein are discussed in the 
    ``Definitions'' section of this rulemaking.
        One State commented that the terms ``urban'' and ``rural'' should 
    not be defined in the MUTCD because various jurisdictions adequately, 
    but differently, define these terms by statute, ordinance, or other 
    regulation for the purposes of the marking standards. This final rule 
    does not define ``rural'' and ``urban,'' but the terms are being 
    defined as part of the MUTCD update.
        Approximately fifty percent of the commenters recommended changing 
    the criteria and/or their values within the marking standards. 
    Approximately twenty five percent of the commenters regarding the 
    center line criteria and twenty percent regarding the edge lines 
    criteria proposed changing one or more of the proposed criteria for the 
    average daily traffic (ADT) or the road width. The main reason for 
    changing the criteria was to reduce costs and allow more engineering 
    judgment. Thirty-five percent of the commenters recommended other types 
    of criteria for marking installations, such as, engineering judgment, 
    parking, curbs, speed, crash history, and pavement surface. These 
    values may be added by the jurisdictions, but the FHWA believes the 
    standards provide adequate and safety marking criteria based on the 
    majority of public comments and studies. The FHWA modified the criteria 
    values to reduce the number of roads that require the markings and 
    added provisions for increased engineering judgment in marking 
    placement.
        The FHWA also changed the basis of the marking standard to use 
    ``traveled way,'' as used in the NCUTCD and American Traffic Safety 
    Services Association (ATSSA) proposals rather than ``roadway'' to 
    eliminate the parking lanes from the width criteria issues discussed by 
    many commenters in the width criteria. The FHWA chose to use ``traveled 
    way'' instead of ``roadway'' because the AASHTO definition of 
    ``roadway'' includes the shoulder, whereas the MUTCD definition does 
    not.
        Commenters also submitted several safety concerns related to the 
    proposed requirements. Commenters indicated that using the term 
    ``roadway'' rather than ``traveled way'' which was recommended in the 
    NCUTCD and ATSSA proposed standards would necessitate the use of larger 
    width criteria values to avoid potential unsafe traffic conflicts with 
    vehicles in the parking lanes. The FHWA modified the requirements by 
    basing the standards on traveled way width, which does not include the 
    parking lanes, in place of roadway width.
        The FHWA also added an engineering judgment provision which 
    determines marking requirements for safety concerns, such as, the 
    parking conflicts. Fifteen commenters indicated that the markings of 
    some lower volume roads, such as, in residential areas, may cause 
    increased speeds or additional traffic on these roads which could 
    potentially reduce safety. They indicated that road users typically 
    would expect and interpret the markings to indicate a major road and 
    that residents typically resist such markings on their roads. Other 
    commenters indicated that the types of crashes which occur at some 
    locations, especially in municipalities, are not related to and would 
    not be reduced by placing the markings.
        The FHWA added a provision to allow engineering judgment for safety 
    reasons which will assist jurisdictions in providing markings which 
    improve safety. The FHWA also modified the proposed rule by increasing 
    the traffic volume criteria values for roads requiring center lines to 
    allow more engineering judgment on a larger number of lower volume 
    roads.
        The FHWA subsequently published a separate NPA on January 6, 1997, 
    in FHWA Docket No. 97-47 including entire Part 3, Markings, for a 
    proposed future version of the MUTCD. Based on the previous comments to 
    Docket No. 96-15, the FHWA proposed alternative proposed standards, 
    called Warrants, for center line and edge line markings that were 
    similar to the proposed standards submitted by the NCUTCD for Docket 
    No. 96-15.
        Of the 32 commenters responding to the proposed Part 3, sixteen 
    commenters discussed the alternative proposed standards for center line 
    and edge line markings warrants. The commenters' main issues were 
    similar to those submitted for Docket No. 96-15. Three commenters 
    recommended the use of guidance rather than requirements. Four State 
    DOT commenters discussed concern regarding additional cost and 
    abilities of local jurisdictions to place and maintain additional 
    required markings. Two commenters were concerned about the safe passing 
    of parked vehicles when center line is in place on narrow roadways. 
    Five commenters requested definitions for such terms as ``arterial,'' 
    ``collector,'' ``urban,'' ``rural,'' ``paved,'' and ``refuge'' 
    contained in the proposed standards. Five commenters discussed the 
    criteria and criteria values, including one State DOT, that indicated 
    that the local jurisdictions would meet the proposed standards. The 
    issues raised by commenters in this docket were similar to issues 
    submitted by commenters and appropriately addressed by FHWA as 
    discussed above for Docket No. 96-15.
    
    [[Page 13]]
    
    Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Dot 
    Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    
        The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
    regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
    significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation 
    regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic 
    impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. Based on the information 
    submitted to the FHWA, the FHWA has concluded that most of the required 
    marking and much of the recommended markings in accordance with these 
    standards are currently in place as a result of common engineering 
    practices and, in some cases, State and local jurisdiction regulations 
    and policies. The new standards will help assure that all road 
    jurisdictions provide at least the required minimum markings when 
    applicable. This change will require some, mostly local, jurisdictions, 
    to provide the markings on some roads for the first time. The FHWA 
    estimates that the additional costs nationwide to meet the new minimum 
    requirements could total approximately $10 million to $20 million per 
    year. This is based on an average of 1000 to 2000 local jurisdictions 
    needing some additional markings at an average cost of $20,000 per 
    jurisdiction for markings with an average life cycle of 2 years. 
    Additional costs may be incurred at a jurisdiction's judgment if they 
    place markings in accordance with the FHWA recommendations for 
    markings. These costs, in most cases, are eligible for Federal or 
    Federal-aid funding at the jurisdictions' judgment. Therefore, a full 
    regulatory evaluation is not required.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
    612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small 
    entities, including small governments. This final rule may require the 
    installation of some additional center line and edge line markings on 
    roads in various jurisdictions. The FHWA estimates that the additional 
    costs nationwide to meet the new minimum requirements could total 
    approximately $10 million to $20 million per year. This is based on an 
    average of 1000 to 2000 local jurisdictions needing some additional 
    markings at an average cost of $20,000 per jurisdiction for markings 
    with an average life cycle of 2 years. These costs, in most cases, are 
    eligible for Federal or Federal-aid funding at the jurisdictions' 
    judgment. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this 
    action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
    number of small entities.
    
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    
        This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
    criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and 
    it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial 
    direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that 
    would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this 
    document directly preempts any State law or regulation.
        The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart 
    F, which requires that changes to the national standards issued by the 
    FHWA shall be adopted by the States or other Federal agencies within 
    two years of issuance. These 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. To the extent that these amendments 
    override any existing State requirements regarding traffic control 
    devices, they do so in the interests of national uniformity.
    
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    
        This rule does no impose a Federal mandate resulting in the 
    expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
    or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 
    U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    
    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice reform)
    
        This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
    of Executive Order 12988, civil Justice Reform, minimize litigation, 
    eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
    
    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
    
        We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
    Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
    concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
    disproportionately affect children.
    
    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Property)
    
        This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
    have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental 
    Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
    Rights
    
    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
    
        This action does not contain a collection of information 
    requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
    U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    
    National Environmental Policy Act
    
        The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
    determined that this action would 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, Signs, and Traffic regulations.
    
        The FHWA hereby amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal 
    Regulations, part 655 as set forth below.
    
    PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
    
        1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a), 315, and 402(a); and 49 CFR 
    1.48(b).
    
    Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets 
    and Highways
    
        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), FHWA, 1988, including
    
    [[Page 14]]
    
    Revision No. 1 dated January 17, 1990, Revision No. 2 dated March 17, 
    1992, Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993, Errata No. 1 to the 1988 
    MUTCD Revision 3, dated November 1, 1994, Revision No. 4 dated November 
    1, 1994, Revision No. 4a (modified) dated February 19, 1998, Revision 
    No. 5 dated December 24, 1996, Revision No. 6 dated June 19, 1998, and 
    Revision No. 7 dated January 3, 2000. This publication is incorporated 
    by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and 
    is on file at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
    Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. The 1988 MUTCD, including 
    Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993, may be purchased from the 
    Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 
    P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. 
    The amendments to the MUTCD titled, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 1,'' 
    dated January 17, 1990, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 2,'' dated March 17, 
    1992, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 3,'' dated September 3, 1993, ``1988 
    MUTCD Errata No. 1 to Revision No. 3,'' dated November 1, 1994, ``1988 
    MUTCD Revision No. 4,'' dated November 1, 1994, ``1998 MUTCD Revision 
    No. 5,'' dated December 24, 1996, ``Revision No. 6,'' dated June 19, 
    1998, and ``Revision No. 7'' dated January 3, 2000 are available from 
    the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation 
    Operations, HOTO, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. These 
    documents are available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 
    CFR part 7.
    * * * * *
        Issued on: December 22, 1999.
    Kenneth R. Wykle,
    Federal Highway Administration.
    [FR Doc. 99-33806 Filed 12-30-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
1/3/2000
Published:
01/03/2000
Department:
Federal Highway Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Document Number:
99-33806
Dates:
The final rule is effective January 3, 2000. Incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2000.
Pages:
9-14 (6 pages)
Docket Numbers:
FHWA Docket Nos. 97-2295 (96-47), 97-2335 (96-15), and 97-3032
RINs:
2125-AD68: Standards for Center Line and Edge Line Markings on Streets and Highways
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2125-AD68/standards-for-center-line-and-edge-line-markings-on-streets-and-highways
PDF File:
99-33806.pdf
CFR: (1)
23 CFR 655.601