Temporary Traffic Control Devices, 64173-64181 [E6-18283]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64173-64181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18283]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 630

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-25203]
RIN 2125-AF10


Temporary Traffic Control Devices

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to supplement its regulation that governs 
work zone safety and mobility in highway and street work zones to 
include conditions for the appropriate use of, and expenditure of funds 
for, uniformed law enforcement officers, positive protective measures 
between workers and motorized traffic, and installation and maintenance 
of temporary traffic control devices during construction, utility, and 
maintenance operations. The proposed changes are intended to decrease 
the likelihood of fatalities and injuries to workers who are exposed to 
motorized traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) 
while working on Federal-aid highway projects. This proposal is in 
response to section 1110 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 
109-59, 119 Stat. 1227.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at https://
dmses.dot.gov/submit or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. Alternatively, 
comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
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 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 print the acknowledgement page that appears after 
submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the 
electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the 
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, 
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
Persons making comments may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement 
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 
70, Pages 19477-78) or may visit https://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chung Eng, Office of 
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-8043; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0791, U.S. 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 and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at: https://dmses.dot.gov/submit. The DMS is 
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission 
and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section 
of the Web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the 
Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.archives.gov 
and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: https://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    Increasingly, maintenance and reconstruction of the nation's 
highways are taking place while traffic is maintained on the facility 
under repair. This has resulted in an increase in the exposure of 
workers to high-speed traffic and a corresponding increase in the risk 
of injury or death for highway workers, adding to worker safety 
concerns within an industry where the fatality rate for highway 
construction workers is already more than double that of other 
construction workers.\1\

[[Page 64174]]

Over the last ten years, the number of fatalities in work zones has 
risen from 789 in 1995 to 1,068 in 2004.\2\ Of the 1,068 fatalities in 
2004, 89 percent, or 953 were either motorists or passengers. On 
average, more than 100 workers are killed and over 20,000 are injured 
each year in the highway and street construction industry.\3\ According 
to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 55 
percent of the work related fatalities in the U.S. highway construction 
industry between 1992 and 1998 were vehicle or equipment related 
incidents that occurred in a work zone. This same source indicated that 
highway worker fatalities where a worker on foot was struck by a 
vehicle were about equally likely to have been struck by a passing 
traffic vehicle versus a construction vehicle. Overall, highway worker 
safety represents a small but important and increasing part of the work 
zone safety problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Road Construction Hazards Fact Sheet--Laborers' Health and 
Safety Fund of North America, Washington, DC. It is available at the 
following URL: https://wzsafety.tamu.edu/files/factsheet.stm.
    \2\ Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and is 
available at the following URL: https://www.fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
    \3\ Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Publication No. 
2001-128; Building Safer Highway Work Zones: Measures to Prevent 
Worker Injuries from Vehicles and Equipment. It is available at the 
following URL: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/2001128.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the growing concerns associated with injuries to 
workers resulting from work space intrusion crashes, the FHWA convened 
a task force of representatives from the highway industry in 2002 to 
further explore these concerns. This collaboration led to the 
publication of a brochure in 2003 that introduces the concept of 
positive protection as one approach to reducing injuries to workers and 
motorists.\4\ The brochure recommended a three-step process to help 
reduce fatalities from intrusion crashes: (1) Increase awareness of the 
problem and the benefits of using positive protection by distributing 
the brochure; (2) synthesize available ``good practices'' information, 
including potential benefits, based on existing guidelines, practices, 
and safety data from individual agencies; and (3) initiate research to 
develop standardized guidelines for when to use positive protection in 
work zones. To date, steps one and two have been completed, and limited 
research has begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Brochure on Positive 
Protection: Reducing Risk, Protecting Workers and Motorists. This 
brochure can be obtained from the AASHTO Bookstore through the 
following URL: https://bookstore.transportation.org/Item_
details.aspx?id=247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The synthesis, entitled ``Positive Protection Practices in Highway 
Work Zones'' and carried out as project 2-7(174) under the National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), was completed in June 
2005.\5\ The synthesis indicated that while there have been numerous 
studies addressing the overall frequency and severity of work zone 
crashes, available information on work zone intrusion crashes and 
worker injuries remains very limited. Limited data available from two 
States indicate that intrusion crashes accounted for approximately 9 
percent of all work zone crashes; 7 percent of fatal work zone crashes; 
and 8 percent of the fatal and serious injuries combined. This data 
also indicated that worker fatalities accounted for approximately 15 
percent of fatal work zone intrusion crashes. While these numbers are 
relatively small, they represent an important component of the work 
zone safety picture. The synthesis found that because of the growing 
concern with work zone safety, State highway agencies are using a wide 
range of positive protection devices and other safety treatments. 
However, temporary barrier placement decisions were generally made on a 
case-by-case basis, and while worker safety is sometimes considered, no 
specific guidance on this subject was found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-7(174), A Synthesis of 
Highway Practice--Positive Protection Practices in Highway Work 
Zones, June 17, 2005. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where positive protection is used, the portable concrete barrier 
was found to be the temporary barrier most widely used by highway 
agencies. In fact, it was found to be used to some extent by nearly 
every State highway agency. In spite of this, the review found that 
there are few specific situations where agencies require the use of 
portable concrete barriers in work zones, and these situations are 
limited almost exclusively to the protection of motorists from drop-
offs, opposing traffic, and work space hazards rather than for the 
protection of workers. In current practice, the decision on portable 
concrete barrier use typically includes some element of engineering 
judgement or analysis.
    In addition to portable concrete barriers, the synthesis review 
found that the combination of shadow vehicles equipped with truck 
mounted attenuators (SV/TMA) is also widely used by highway agencies. 
Information on their use was located for all but 11 States. While 
worker exposure is not frequently mentioned as a specific factor to be 
considered in the use of SV/TMAs, it is frequently considered 
indirectly based on the type of work operations and the overall 
characteristics of the roadways and work zones where agencies recommend 
its use. The overwhelming commonality in the use of SV/TMAs was found 
to be for moving and mobile operations, and work zones of short 
duration. In addition to specific factors to be considered, the 
decision on SV/TMA use also includes some elements of engineering 
judgement or analysis on occasion.
    Besides portable concrete barriers and SV/TMAs, several other types 
of positive protection devices were also found to be in use by some 
State highway agencies, although to a much lesser extent. These include 
moveable concrete barriers, water-filled barriers, temporary 
guardrails, arrestor nets, and finally, a highly mobile longitudinal 
barrier that is characterized as an emerging technology.
    The synthesis found that positive protection is generally 
considered by the State highway agencies to be very effective in 
improving work zone safety, particularly where workers are concerned. 
This was supported by limited crash data identified in the synthesis 
that clearly show TMAs as being highly effective in stopping errant 
vehicles with relatively few serious injuries to occupants of the 
impacting vehicles or the shadow vehicle driver. Limited crash data was 
also found confirming that portable concrete barriers are highly 
effective in terms of preventing intrusions into the work space or 
other hazardous areas.
    The synthesis concluded that while positive protection provides a 
highly effective means of protecting workers and road users from risks 
associated with work space intrusions, this technique is not feasible 
or practical for all work zone situations. Based on serious and fatal 
injuries to vehicle occupants resulting from a number of crashes 
involving portable concrete barriers, it was recommended that these 
barriers should always be installed according to accepted design 
guidelines and only where needed to shield work zone hazards.
    While the primary focus of the synthesis was on positive 
protection, the author also looked at other measures that are being 
used to reduce exposure and reduce intrusion risks. The synthesis found 
that the combined use of various measures involving other than positive 
means to reduce worker exposure or reduce intrusion risks, particularly 
police enforcement and

[[Page 64175]]

reduced work zone speed limits, may be more common than positive 
protective measures. Common usage of police in work zones to help 
enhance safety is supported by findings from a 2001 FHWA study 
indicating that a majority of States use uniformed police officers in 
at least some work zones where there are particular safety concerns.\6\ 
However, this study also identified a number of key issues related to 
the use of police officers in work zones and provided several policy 
recommendations that would help improve the process as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FHWA Study on the Use of Uniformed Police Officers on 
Federal-aid High Construction Projects, October 2001. This document 
can be found at the following URL: https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/nwzaw/toc.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. State transportation agencies using Federal-aid funds to assign 
uniformed police officers to highway work zones should coordinate with 
State law enforcement agencies to develop written policies and 
guidelines addressing the following:
    a. Situations where uniformed police officers are recommended;
    b. The work zone traffic control planning process; and
    c. Officer pay, work procedures supervision, etc.
    2. Police officers assigned to federally funded highway work zones 
should receive training on the requirements contained in the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the 
national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any 
street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel. It can be 
found at the following URL: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Agencies are encouraged to gather data on traffic safety 
incidents at federally funded highway work zones to better assess the 
effectiveness of work zone traffic control techniques.
    4. In addition to uniformed police officers, agencies should also 
consider using new traffic control technologies such as automated 
enforcement and intrusion alarms to improve safety at highway work 
zones.
    Related research that is currently under way includes the 
following:
    1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study on 
the Design of Construction Work Zones on High-Speed Highways (Study 
details and status can be found at the following URL: https://
www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+3-69); and
    2. NCHRP study on Traffic Enforcement Strategies in Work Zones 
(Study details and status can be found at the following URL: https://
www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/
NCHRP+3-80).
    This research is expected to yield additional design guidance that 
can be used to supplement what currently exists in the MUTCD and the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide presents a synthesis of 
current information and operating practices related to roadside 
safety and is intended for use as a resource document from which 
individual highway agencies can develop standards and policies. It 
can be purchased from AASHTO thru the following URL: https://
bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislation

    Section 1110 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 
109-59; August 10, 2005), directed the Secretary of Transportation to 
issue regulations establishing the conditions for the appropriate use 
of, and expenditure of funds for, uniformed law enforcement officers, 
positive protective measures between workers and motorized traffic, and 
installation and maintenance of temporary traffic control devices 
during construction, utility, and maintenance operations.
    The FHWA is proposing to add a new subpart K to part 630 in title 
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement this statutory 
requirement. The FHWA is proposing to emphasize the need to 
appropriately consider and manage worker safety by establishing 
conditions under which consideration for the appropriate use of, and 
expenditure of funds for, uniformed law enforcement officers, and 
positive protective measures between workers and motorized traffic 
would be required on all Federal-aid highway projects.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The FHWA proposes to emphasize the need to appropriately consider 
and manage worker safety as part of the project development process by 
providing guidance on key factors to consider in reducing worker 
exposure and risk from motorized traffic. The FHWA proposes to require 
that each agency's policy for the systematic consideration and 
management of work zone impacts, to be established in accordance with 
the recently updated 23 CFR part 630 subpart J (effective October 12, 
2007), address the consideration and management of worker safety as 
follows:
    1. Avoid or minimize worker exposure to motorized traffic through 
the application of appropriate positive protective strategies 
including, but not limited to, full road closures; ramp closures; 
crossovers; detours; and rolling road blocks during work zone setup and 
removal;
    2. Where exposure cannot be adequately managed through the 
application of the above strategies, reduce risk to workers from being 
struck by motorized traffic through the use of appropriate positive 
protective devices;
    3. Where exposure and risk reduction is not adequate, possible, or 
practical, manage risk through the application of appropriate intrusion 
countermeasures including, but not limited to, the use of uniformed law 
enforcement officers; and
    4. Assure that the quality and adequacy of deployed temporary 
traffic control devices are maintained for the project duration.
    This proposed rule would require that each agency develop and 
implement procedures for considering the need for positive protective 
measures between workers and motorized traffic; and a policy addressing 
the use of uniformed law enforcement on Federal-aid projects. The 
proposed subpart K would also require that each agency develop and 
implement quality standards for work zone traffic control devices to 
help ensure that the quality and adequacy of temporary traffic control 
devices on construction, utility, and maintenance operations is 
maintained for the project duration.

Section 630.1102 Purpose

    This section would explain that the FHWA is taking this action to 
establish requirements and provide guidance for addressing worker 
exposure and risk from motorized traffic in order to decrease the 
likelihood of fatalities or injuries to workers who are exposed to 
motorized traffic while working on Federal-aid highway projects.
    By emphasizing worker safety, the proposed rule would attempt to 
enhance the safety of both the motorist and worker during the project.

Section 630.1104 Definitions

    This section would provide six definitions to assist in the proper 
understanding of the proposed rule.
    A definition of ``agency'' would be provided to clarify that the 
term includes State and local highway agencies that receive Federal-aid 
highway funding.
    A definition of ``Federal-aid highway project'' would be provided 
to clarify that the term includes construction, maintenance, and 
utility projects that are funded in whole or in part with Federal-aid 
highway funds.

[[Page 64176]]

    A definition of ``intrusion countermeasures'' would be provided to 
differentiate between positive protective measures and other than 
positive protective measures.
    A definition of ``motorized traffic'' would be provided to 
differentiate between the motorized traveling public versus motorized 
construction traffic.
    A definition of ``positive protective measures'' would be included 
because the term is defined in section 1110 of SAFETEA-LU. This 
definition of positive protective measures would be further refined to 
differentiate between ``positive protective devices'' and ``positive 
protective strategies.''
    ``Positive protective devices'' would be defined as devices that 
contain and redirect vehicles and meet the crashworthiness evaluation 
criteria contained in National Cooperative Highway Research Program 
(NCHRP) report 350.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350, Recommended Procedures 
for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. This 
document is available at the following URL: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-
a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Positive protective strategies'' would be defined as traffic 
management strategies that would help avoid crashes involving workers 
and motorized traffic by eliminating or diverting traffic from the 
vicinity of the activity area. Such strategies would include the use of 
full road closures, detours, crossovers, and ramp/interchange closures.

Section 630.1106 Positive Protective Measures

    This section would require that each agency's policy for the 
systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts, to be 
established in accordance with the recently updated 23 CFR part 630 
subpart J, address the consideration and management of worker safety as 
part of the overall work zone safety analysis on Federal-aid highway 
projects. To implement this aspect of the policy, the agency would need 
to develop procedures that begin with the consideration of positive 
protective strategies that would avoid or minimize worker exposure to 
motorized traffic including, but not limited to, full road closures, 
ramp closures, crossovers, detours, and rolling road blocks during work 
zone setup and removal. Where the application of positive protective 
strategies is not possible, practical or adequate to manage exposure, 
the procedures would consider the use of appropriate positive 
protective devices, basing need on the project characteristics, the 
MUTCD, the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, and factors including, but not 
limited to, the following:
     Project exposure and duration;
     Traffic speed;
     Traffic volume;
     Distance between traffic and workers;
     Geometrics (that adversely impact exposure--e.g., poor 
sight distance, sharp curves);
     Vehicle mix;
     Type of work (as related to worker exposure);
     Time of day (e.g., night work);
     Roadway classification;
     Consequences from/to motorists resulting from roadway 
departure;
     Potential hazard to traffic presented by device itself, 
and to workers and traffic during device placement;
     Access to/from work zone; and
     Work area restrictions (including impact on worker 
exposure).
    No Escape Routes--The FHWA proposes that at a minimum, positive 
protective measures shall be required to separate workers from 
motorized traffic in all work zones conducted under traffic in areas 
that offer workers no means of escape (e.g., tunnels, bridges, etc.), 
unless an engineering analysis determines otherwise. Work zones 
involving no escape areas generally present a higher level of risk for 
workers and therefore justify special consideration for applying 
positive protective measures. Rather than the typical approach of 
determining the need for positive protective measures based on an 
engineering analysis, the proposed language would emphasize the need to 
appropriately assess work zones involving no escape areas by requiring 
that positive protective measures be applied unless an engineering 
analysis determines that this would not be necessary or feasible based 
on other project characteristics.
    The FHWA also proposes that the following minimum criteria for 
positive protective devices shall apply:
    Temporary Longitudinal Traffic Barriers--Temporary longitudinal 
traffic barriers would be required to protect workers in stationary 
work zones lasting 2 weeks or more when the project design speed is 45 
mph or greater, and the nature of the work requires workers to be less 
than a lane-width from the edge of an open travel lane, unless an 
engineering analysis determines otherwise.
    While available information on work zone intrusion crashes and 
worker injuries is limited, there are two especially critical 
conditions where common sense would indicate a strong need for 
consideration of temporary longitudinal traffic barriers. The first is 
speed, specifically, speeds that are 45 mph or greater. Of the 1,068 
highway fatalities in 2004 that occurred in work zones, 888, or 83 
percent, occurred where the speed limit was 45 mph or greater.\10\ The 
second is the proximity of workers to live traffic. In the presence of 
speeds of 45 mph and greater, common sense would indicate that workers 
within a lane-width of a live travel lane would be at high risk in 
terms of exposure, particularly in light of the many distractions that 
the average driver faces on a daily basis. A national survey of more 
than 4,000 drivers in 2002 showed that about 14 percent of drivers that 
have been involved in a crash in the past 5 years attribute the crash 
to their being distracted at the time.\11\ This projects to an 
estimated 7.2 million distracted driver crashes over a 5 year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and is 
available at the following URL: https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
    \11\ Findings Report for National Survey of Distracted and 
Drowsy Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2002 submitted to NHTSA 
March 2003. The report can be found at the following URL: https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/drowsy_driving1/
survey-distractive03/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the critical conditions described, a determination 
of whether or not to use temporary longitudinal traffic barriers must 
also consider the work zone duration. The act of placing, relocating, 
and removing the barriers themselves poses a risk to the workers 
involved, as well as to the motorists. By their nature, temporary 
longitudinal traffic barriers tend to be heavy, bulky and time 
consuming to maneuver. While there is no data pointing to a specific 
duration as being an ideal ``tipping point'', the previously cited 
synthesis on Positive Protection Practices in Highway Work Zones 
indicates that three States specified a threshold value, all of which 
were two weeks or more, as one factor in considering the need for 
temporary longitudinal traffic barriers.
    While the preceding are considered to be a critical combination of 
characteristics, the FHWA recognizes that consideration of other 
factors and project characteristics as part of an engineering analysis 
may determine the best solution to be something other than temporary 
longitudinal traffic barriers. Similar to the proposed approach for 
addressing work zones involving no escape areas, the intent is to 
emphasize the need to appropriately assess work zones with the 
specified critical combination of characteristics by requiring that 
temporary longitudinal

[[Page 64177]]

traffic barriers be applied unless an engineering analysis determines 
that this would not be necessary or feasible based on other project 
characteristics.
    Shadow Vehicles and Truck Mounted Attenuators--The FHWA proposes 
that the determination of need and the priorities for application of 
protective shadow vehicles and truck-mounted attenuators shall be 
consistent with the guidance included in chapter 9 of the AASHTO 
Roadside Design Guide. The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide is a widely 
recognized document that is intended for use as a resource from which 
individual highway agencies can develop standards and policies, making 
modifications to fit local conditions as appropriate. The guidance in 
chapter 9 includes suggested priorities for the application of 
protective vehicles and truck mounted attenuators that appear to be 
very well thought out. Accordingly, the FHWA is proposing that these 
suggested priorities serve as the basis upon which decisions on need 
are made.
    Other Requirements--When positive protective devices are required 
by an agency, the FHWA proposes to require that these devices shall be 
paid for on a unit pay basis, unless doing so would create a conflict 
with innovative contracting approaches such as design-build or some 
performance based contracts where the contractor is paid to assume a 
certain risk allocation, and payment is generally made on a lump sum 
basis.
    The application of specific positive protective devices would be 
required to be in accordance with the work zone hardware 
recommendations in Chapter 9 of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide: 
Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety Features 
for Work Zones' 2002, which is incorporated by reference into 23 CFR 
630.1012(b)(1) in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, 
effective October 12, 2007, and is on file at the National Archives and 
Record Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal 
regulations/ibr--locations.html. The entire document is available for 
purchase from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 
249, Washington, DC 2001 or thru the following URL: https://
bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=148.

Section 630.1108 Intrusion Countermeasures

    This section would promote the consideration and use of other than 
positive protective measures to reduce the risk of motorized traffic 
intrusion into the work space where the provision of positive 
protective measures is not adequate, possible or practical. A wide 
range of motorized traffic intrusion countermeasures would be suggested 
for consideration including, but not limited to the following:
     Effective, credible signing;
     Variable message signs;
     Arrow boards;
     Warning flags and lights on signs;
     Longitudinal and lateral buffer space;
     Trained flaggers and spotters;
     Enhanced flagger station setups;
     Intrusion alarms;
     Rumble strips;
     Pace or pilot vehicle;
     High quality work zone pavement markings and removal of 
misleading markings;
     Channelizing device spacing reduction;
     Longitudinal channelizing barricades;
     Work zone speed limit reduction;
     Law enforcement;
     Automated speed enforcement (where permitted by State/
local laws);
     Drone radar;
     Worker and work vehicle/equipment visibility; and
     Worker training.
    It would be noted that these countermeasures are not mutually 
exclusive and should be considered in combination as appropriate.
    This section would specifically recognize that the countermeasure 
of using uniformed law enforcement officers to maintain an appropriate 
speed through work zones is a common practice in many States. Law 
enforcement presence in work zones is generally recognized as an 
element that helps enhance safety.\12\ The presence of a uniformed law 
enforcement officer and marked law enforcement vehicle in view of the 
traveling public on a highway project can affect driver behavior, 
helping to maintain the appropriate speeds and increasing driver 
awareness through the work zone. This is particularly important given 
the large number of distracted driver crashes cited previously, and 
that almost one out of every three traffic fatalities have been found 
to be related to speeding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FHWA Study on the Use of Uniformed Police Officers on 
Federal-aid Highway Construction Projects, October 2001. This 
document can be found at the following URL: https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/nwzaw/toc.htm.
    \13\ FHWA Safety Facts Flyer, which can be found at the 
following URL: https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/23000/23100/
23121/12SpeedCountsNumbers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section would suggest conditions that should be considered in 
determining the need for uniformed law enforcement presence in work 
zones. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Operations occurring on high speed, high volume facilities 
where workers on foot are exposed to traffic;
     Operations, including temporary traffic control device 
set-up and removal, that occur closely adjacent to traffic without 
positive protection;
     Operations that require temporary or frequent shifts in 
traffic patterns;
     Night operations that may cause special concerns;
     Locations where traffic conditions and crash history 
indicate substantial problems may be encountered during the project;
     Operations that require brief closure of all lanes in one 
or both directions;
     Operations where traffic queuing is expected; and
     Other work sites where traffic conditions present a high 
risk for workers and the traveling public.
    While full-time uniformed law enforcement presence in every work 
zone is not a reasonable expectation, policies that result in an 
increased driver expectancy for encountering law enforcement officers 
in work zones should help improve safety. This may be achieved through 
a combination of active enforcement (issuing citations) at selected 
work zones, law enforcement presence during high-risk activities, and 
occasional law enforcement presence at all major work zones. The 
previously cited FHWA study on the use of uniformed police officers 
recognized that a majority of States already use uniformed police 
officers in at least some work zones. However, this study also 
identified a number of issues that hinder more widespread and 
consistent use of uniformed police officers in work zones including:
     Some agencies had no policies regarding the use of 
officers;
     Where policies existed, they vary widely regarding the 
circumstances where officers are used;
     A majority of the agencies did not have a training program 
for officers assigned to work zones;
     It was not clear whether police officers were familiar 
with the MUTCD in all cases;
     Chain of command varied widely;

[[Page 64178]]

     Conflicts exist between an officer's routine mission 
versus work zone duties;
     Nearly half of the agencies do not include the police when 
planning a project;
     Funding is not always available when officers are needed; 
and
     Officers are not always available when needed.
    To address these issues, this section would require that each 
agency, in cooperation with the FHWA, develop a policy, or update an 
existing policy where appropriate, to address the use of uniformed law 
enforcement on work zone operations occurring on Federal-aid highways. 
The policy would address the following:
    1. Law enforcement involvement during major project planning and 
development;
    2. Situations where uniformed law enforcement officers are 
recommended;
    3. Duties/expectations of the officers (and how they differ 
according to different situations);
    4. Active enforcement versus presence;
    5. Appropriate work zone safety and mobility training for the 
officers;
    6. Communications and chain of command; and
    7. Officer pay.
    This section would emphasize that when uniformed law enforcement 
officers are used, they are to be used as a supplement to, and not a 
replacement for, temporary traffic control devices required by the 
MUTCD. The conditions regarding Federal-aid eligibility for using 
uniformed law enforcement officers would be clarified in this section. 
This section would also address the issue of funding shortfalls where 
payment for officers is part of an agency-wide program budget by 
requiring appropriate consideration of anticipated projects to more 
accurately estimate budget needs, and the establishment of contingency 
provisions to provide for instances when the initial budget proves 
insufficient.

Section 630.1110 Installation and Maintenance of Temporary Traffic 
Control Devices

    The focus of this section would be to ensure that the proper 
temporary traffic control devices are installed and adequately 
maintained throughout the life of the project. Part 6 of the MUTCD 
includes requirements for temporary traffic control. The recently 
updated regulation in 23 CFR part 630 subpart J will require the 
development of a Temporary Traffic Control plan, in accordance with 
Part 6 of the MUTCD, as a component of a broader Transportation 
Management Plan (TMP) in order to facilitate the continuity of 
reasonably safe and efficient road user flow and highway worker safety 
when a work zone is necessary. Subpart J will also require that both 
the agency and the contractor each designate a trained person at the 
project level with the responsibility for implementing the TMP.
    Typically, the installation and maintenance of temporary traffic 
control devices are both part of a basic contract item such as 
``traffic control and protection,'' or ``protection and maintenance of 
traffic.'' Such items generally also cover maintenance. Requiring a 
separate pay item for the installation and maintenance of temporary 
traffic control devices would not be substantially different from 
current practice. The FHWA believes that section 1110 of SAFETEA-LU 
advocates a requirement that each agency develop and adopt a quality 
standard to help maintain the quality and adequacy of the temporary 
traffic control devices for the duration of the project.
    The FHWA proposes to emphasize the maintenance aspect to ensure 
that quality is sustained throughout the life of the project by 
requiring that each agency develop and implement a quality standard to 
help maintain the quality and adequacy of the temporary traffic control 
devices for the duration of the project. Some agencies are already 
doing this, either by developing a variation of, or through direct 
reference to quality guidelines for work zone traffic control devices 
such as those developed by the American Traffic Safety Services 
Association (ATSSA).\14\ This section would also require that there be 
an appropriate level of inspection to assure compliance with the 
quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The American Traffic Safety Services Association's (ATSSA) 
Quality Guidelines for Work Zone Traffic Control Devices uses photos 
and written descriptions to help judge when a traffic control device 
has outlived its usefulness. These guidelines are available for 
purchase from ATSSA through the following URL: https://
www.atssa.com/store/bc_item_detail.jsp?productId=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance Date

    The FHWA proposes to establish a compliance date of October 12, 
2008, for subpart K. Subpart K is proposed as a supplement to subpart 
J, which governs work zone safety and mobility in highway and street 
work zones, and has an effective date of October 12, 2007. Since 
subpart K is tied to the specific components of Subpart J, the proposed 
compliance date for subpart K would provide one year from the effective 
date of subpart J to implement the proposed requirements through 
revisions and/or additions to elements developed under subpart J.

National Congestion Initiative

    The proposed rule includes measures that could further the goals of 
the Secretary of Transportation's new National Strategy to Reduce 
Congestion on America's Transportation Network, announced on May 16, 
2006.\15\ By requiring the development and implementation of a standard 
to help maintain the quality and adequacy of temporary traffic control 
devices on Federal-aid highway projects, we anticipate that the 
proposed rule will help reduce congestion by assuring that motorists 
are always provided with positive guidance while traveling through work 
zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Speaking before the National Retail Federation's annual 
conference on May 16, 2006, in Washington, DC, U.S. Transportation 
Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled a new plan to reduce congestion 
plaguing America's roads, rail, and airports. The National Strategy 
to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network includes a 
number of initiatives designed to reduce transportation congestion. 
The transcript of these remarks is available at the following URL: 
https://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp051606.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

    All comments received on or before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be 
available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments 
received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and 
will be considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a 
final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In 
addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the 
docket relevant information that becomes available after the comment 
closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the 
docket for new material.

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

    The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would not be 
a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 or significant within the meaning of U.S. Department of 
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. A recent synthesis 
of positive protection practices in highway work zones indicates that a 
wide range of positive protective devices and other safety treatments 
are already being used by

[[Page 64179]]

State highway agencies.\16\ This synthesis found that among positive 
protective devices, portable concrete barriers and SV/TMAs were being 
used by nearly every State highway agency. The proposed regulatory 
action would emphasize the need to consider worker safety as an 
integral part of each State highway agency's process for considering 
and managing the overall impacts due to work zones. As such, any 
additional usage of positive protective devices resulting from the 
proposed action would be incremental to what many State highway 
agencies are already using to address work zone safety. In addition, 
the emphasis on first considering strategies that would avoid or 
minimize worker exposure to motorized traffic may decrease the overall 
need for positive protective devices. Accordingly, it is anticipated 
that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-7(174), A Synthesis of 
Highway Practice--Positive Protection Practices in Highway Work 
Zones, June 17, 2005. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed action is not anticipated to adversely affect, in a 
material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, the proposed 
action is not likely to interfere with any action taken or planned by 
another agency or to materially alter the budgetary impact of any 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
    Based on the information received in response to this NPRM, the 
FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits associated 
with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information, and data are 
solicited on the economic impact of the changes described in this 
document or any alternative proposal submitted.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of these proposed changes on 
small entities. This rule applies to all State and local highway 
agencies that use Federal-aid highway funding in the execution of their 
highway program. The proposed regulatory action would emphasize the 
need to consider worker safety as an integral part of each agency's 
process for considering and managing the overall impacts due to work 
zones on Federal-aid highway projects. As noted previously, a recent 
synthesis of positive protection practices in highway work zones 
indicates that a wide range of positive protective devices and other 
safety treatments are already being used by State highway agencies. 
This synthesis found that among positive protective devices, portable 
concrete barriers and SV/TMAs were being used by nearly every State 
highway agency. The FHWA believes that positive protective devices and 
other safety treatments are also widely used by many local agencies 
because the FHWA's research indicates that local agencies usually 
follow State practice with respect to MUTCD guidance. As such, any 
additional usage of positive protective devices resulting from the 
proposed action would be incremental to what many local highway 
agencies are already using to address work zone safety. In addition, 
the emphasis on first considering strategies that would avoid or 
minimize worker exposure to motorized traffic may decrease the overall 
need for positive protective devices. Accordingly, the FHWA has 
determined that the proposed regulation would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This notice of proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). This proposed action would 
not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more 
in any one year period to comply with these changes.
    Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded 
Mandate 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 to the States.

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 
the FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not have a 
substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on 
States that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
local governments. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed 
rulemaking would not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions and does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The 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 highways.

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. The purpose of this 
proposed rule is to improve worker safety on Federal-aid highway 
projects, and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on 
Indian tribal governments and will not have any economic or other 
impacts on the viability of Indian tribes. Therefore, a tribal summary 
impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that it is not a 
significant energy action under that order because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. 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 (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has 
determined that this proposed action does not contain collection

[[Page 64180]]

information requirements for 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, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not 
cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
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 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 630

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

    Issued on: October 25, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to add Subpart 
K to title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 630, as follows:
Subpart K--Temporary Traffic Control Devices
Sec.
630.1102 Purpose.
630.1104 Definitions.
630.1106 Positive Protective Measures.
630.1108 Intrusion Countermeasures.
630.1110 Installation and Maintenance of Temporary Traffic Control 
Devices.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(c) and 112; Sec. 1110 of Pub. L. 109-
59; 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart K--Temporary Traffic Control Devices


Sec.  630.1102  Purpose.

    To establish requirements and provide guidance for addressing 
worker safety by limiting the exposure and risk from motorized traffic 
in order to decrease the likelihood of fatalities or injuries to 
workers on Federal-aid highway projects. This subpart is applicable to 
all State and local highway agencies that receive Federal-aid highway 
funding.


Sec.  630.1104  Definitions.

    For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
    Agency means a State or local highway agency that receives Federal-
aid highway funding.
    Federal-aid Highway Project means highway construction, 
maintenance, and utility projects funded in whole or in part with 
Federal-aid funds.
    Intrusion Countermeasures means strategies involving the use of 
other than positive protective measures to reduce the likelihood of 
motorized traffic intrusion into the work space.
    Motorized Traffic means the motorized traveling public. This term 
does not include motorized construction or maintenance traffic.
    Positive Protective Devices means the devices that contain and 
redirect vehicles and meet the crashworthiness evaluation criteria 
contained in NCHRP report 350.
    Positive Protective Measures means the positive protective devices 
and positive protective strategies used to avoid motorized traffic 
crashes in work zones that can lead to worker injuries and fatalities 
through work space intrusions.
    Positive Protective Strategies means the traffic management 
strategies that would help avoid crashes involving workers and 
motorized traffic by eliminating or diverting traffic from the vicinity 
of the activity area.


Sec.  630.1106  Positive Protective Measures.

    (a) Each agency's policy for the systematic consideration and 
management of work zone impacts, to be established in accordance with 
23 CFR 630.1006, shall include the consideration and management of 
highway worker safety on Federal-aid highway projects. These procedures 
should begin with the consideration of positive protective strategies 
that would avoid or minimize worker exposure to motorized traffic 
including, but not limited to, full road closures; ramp closures; 
crossovers; detours; and rolling road blocks during work zone setup and 
removal. Where these strategies are not possible, practical, or 
adequate to manage exposure, the procedures shall consider the use of 
appropriate positive protective devices, basing need on the project 
characteristics, the MUTCD, chapter 9 of the AASHTO Roadside Design 
Guide, and factors including, but not limited to, the following:
    (1) Project exposure and duration;
    (2) Traffic speed;
    (3) Traffic volume;
    (4) Distance between traffic and workers;
    (5) Geometrics (that adversely impact exposure--e.g., poor sight 
distance, sharp curves);
    (6) Vehicle mix;
    (7) Type of work (as related to worker exposure);
    (8) Time of day (e.g., night work);
    (9) Roadway classification;
    (10) Consequences from/to motorists resulting from roadway 
departure;
    (11) Potential hazard to traffic presented by device itself, and to 
workers and traffic during device placement;
    (12) Access to/from work zone; and
    (13) Work area restrictions (including impact on worker exposure).
    (b) At a minimum, positive protective measures shall be required to 
separate workers from motorized traffic in all work zones conducted 
under traffic in areas that offer workers no means of escape (e.g., 
tunnels, bridges, etc.) unless an engineering analysis determines 
otherwise. In addition, the following minimum criteria for positive 
protective devices shall apply:
    (1) Temporary longitudinal traffic barriers shall be used to 
protect workers in stationary work zones lasting two weeks or more when 
the project design speed is 45 mph or greater, and the nature of the 
work requires workers to be within one lane-width from the edge of a 
live travel lane, unless an engineering analysis determines otherwise.
    (2) The determination of need and the priorities for application of 
protective shadow vehicles and truck-mounted attenuators shall be 
consistent with the guidance included in chapter 9 of the AASHTO 
Roadside Design Guide.

[[Page 64181]]

    (c) When positive protective devices are necessary, these devices 
shall be paid for on a unit pay basis, unless doing so would create a 
conflict with innovative contracting approaches such as design-build or 
some performance based contracts where the contractor is paid to assume 
a certain risk allocation, and payment is generally made on a lump sum 
basis. Application of specific positive protective devices shall be in 
accordance with chapter 9 of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide.


Sec.  630.1108  Intrusion Countermeasures.

    (a) In situations where the provision of positive protective 
measures is not adequate, possible or practical, appropriate 
consideration should be given to the use of intrusion countermeasures 
to reduce the risk of motorized traffic intrusion into the work space. 
These countermeasures are not mutually exclusive and should be 
considered in combination as appropriate. A wide range of motorized 
traffic intrusion countermeasures should be considered including, but 
not limited to:
    (1) Effective, credible signing;
    (2) Variable message signs;
    (3) Arrow boards;
    (4) Warning flags and lights on signs;
    (5) Longitudinal and lateral buffer space;
    (6) Trained flaggers and spotters;
    (7) Enhanced flagger station setups;
    (8) Intrusion alarms;
    (9) Rumble strips;
    (10) Pace or pilot vehicle;
    (11) High quality work zone pavement markings and removal of 
misleading markings;
    (12) Channelizing device spacing reduction;
    (13) Longitudinal channelizing barricades;
    (14) Work zone speed limit reduction;
    (15) Law enforcement;
    (16) Automated speed enforcement (where permitted by State/local 
laws);
    (17) Drone radar;
    (18) Worker and work vehicle/equipment visibility; and
    (19) Worker training.
    (b) Among the intrusion countermeasures, uniformed law enforcement 
presence in work zones is generally recognized as an element that 
enhances safety. The presence of a uniformed law enforcement officer 
and marked law enforcement vehicle in view of the motorized traffic on 
a highway project can affect driver behavior, helping to maintain 
appropriate speeds and increase driver awareness through the work zone. 
Conditions that should be considered in determining the need for 
uniformed law enforcement presence in work zones include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) Operations occurring on high speed, high volume facilities 
where workers on foot are exposed to traffic;
    (2) Operations, including temporary traffic control device set-up 
and removal, that occur closely adjacent to traffic without positive 
protection;
    (3) Operations that require temporary or frequent shifts in traffic 
patterns;
    (4) Night operations that may cause special concerns;
    (5) Locations where traffic conditions and crash history indicate 
substantial problems may be encountered during the project;
    (6) Operations that require brief closure of all lanes in one or 
both directions;
    (7) Operations where traffic queuing is expected; and
    (8) Other work sites where traffic conditions present a high risk 
for workers and the traveling public.
    (c) Each agency, in cooperation with the FHWA, shall develop a 
policy addressing the use of uniformed law enforcement on operations 
occurring on Federal-aid highways. The policy shall address the 
following:
    (1) Law enforcement involvement during major project planning and 
development;
    (2) Situations where uniformed law enforcement officers are 
recommended;
    (3) Duties/expectations of the officers (and how they differ 
according to different situations);
    (4) Active enforcement versus presence;
    (5) Appropriate work zone safety and mobility training for the 
officers, consistent with the training requirements in 23 CFR 
630.1008(d);
    (6) Communications and chain of command; and
    (7) Officer pay
    (d) Uniformed law enforcement officers shall not be used in lieu of 
temporary traffic control devices required by the Part 6 of the MUTCD. 
Costs associated with the provision of uniformed law enforcement to 
help protect workers and maintain safe and efficient travel through 
highway work zones are eligible for Federal-aid participation. Federal-
aid eligibility excludes law enforcement activities that would normally 
be expected in and around highway problem areas requiring management of 
traffic. Payment for the services of uniformed law enforcement in work 
zones may be included as part of the project budget, or be accommodated 
as part of an agency-level program budget. Payment for the use of 
uniformed law enforcement included as part of the project budget shall 
be on a unit pay basis. The process for establishing an agency-level 
program budget shall include:
    (1) Appropriate consideration of anticipated projects to estimate 
budget needs; and
    (2) Contingency provisions to address identified needs should the 
budget prove insufficient.


Sec.  630.1110  Installation and Maintenance of Temporary Traffic 
Control Devices.

    To help ensure that the integrity of the temporary traffic control 
is sustained after implementation, each agency shall develop and 
implement quality standards to help maintain the quality and adequacy 
of the temporary traffic control devices for the duration of the 
project. Agencies may choose to adopt quality standards such as those 
developed by the American Traffic Safety Services Association 
(ATSSA).\1\ A level of inspection necessary to assure compliance with 
the quality standards shall be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The American Traffic Safety Services Assoc