74128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 

1 74 FR 66732, December 16, 2009. 

2 65 FR 78923, December 18, 2000. 

3 68 FR 65496, November 20, 2003. 

4 72 FR 72574, December 21, 2007. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Rescinding the Notice of Intent for an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

Harrison and Stone Counties, MS 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Rescind Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS. 

SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the 

Notice of Intent for preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for a proposed highway to provide a 

connection between U.S. Highway 49 

near the town of Star to Interstate 20 

near the Interchange with State Route 

475 in the City of Pearl, Rankin County, 

Mississippi. The original Notice of 

Intent for this EIS process was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claiborne Barnwell, Project 

Development Team Leader, Federal 

Highway Administration, Mississippi 

Division, 100 West Capitol Street, Suite 

1026, Jackson, Mississippi 39269, 

Telephone: (601) 965–4217. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) in cooperation with the 

Mississippi Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) initiated an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

with a Notice of Intent May 22, 2009, to 

provide a connector road, to be built to 

interstate standards, between U.S. 

Highway 49 and Interstate 20. 

Due to funding constraints this Notice 

of Intent is rescinded. 

Andrew H. Hughes, 

Division Administrator, Mississippi, Federal 

Highway Administration, Jackson, 

Mississippi. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30022 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2010–0159–] 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (MUTCD) Compliance Dates 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice requests 

comments on compliance dates for 

highway agencies to upgrade their 

existing non-compliant traffic control 

devices to comply with certain 

requirements established in the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD). This notice asks for 

responses to a series of questions about 

compliance dates, their benefits and 

economic impacts, and other related 

issues. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, Room W12–140, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590, or fax comments to (202) 493– 

2251. Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments must include the docket 

number that appears in the heading of 

this document. All comments received 

will be available for examination and 

copying at the above address from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments in 

any one of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, or 

labor union). Anyone may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the program discussed 

herein, contact Mr. Hari Kalla, MUTCD 

Team Leader, FHWA Office of 

Operations, (202) 366–5915, or via email at hari.kalla@dot.gov. For legal 

questions, please contact Mr. Raymond 

Cuprill, Senior Attorney Advisor, 

FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, 

(202) 366–1392, or via e-mail at 

raymond.cuprill@dot.gov. Business 

hours for the FHWA are from 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. 

The Web site 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 Office of 

the Federal Register’s home page at: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register 

and the Government Printing Office’s 

Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov. 

Background 

The MUTCD is incorporated by 

reference within Federal regulations at 

23 CFR Part 655, approved by FHWA, 

and recognized as the national standard 

for traffic control devices used on all 

public roads. When new provisions are 

adopted in a new edition or revision of 

the MUTCD, any new or reconstructed 

traffic control devices being installed 

after adoption are generally required to 

be in compliance with the new 

provisions. Existing devices in the field 

that do not meet the new MUTCD 

provisions are expected to be upgraded 

by highway agencies over time to meet 

the new provisions via a systematic 

upgrading process, but there are no 

specific dates for required completion of 

the upgrades. The Code of Federal 

Regulations, at 23 CFR 655.603(d)(1), 

authorizes FHWA to establish target 

compliance dates for compliance of 

particular existing devices. The FHWA 

establishes such compliance dates via 

the Federal rulemaking process. 

The Final Rule for the 2009 edition of 

the MUTCD 1 established 12 new 

specific compliance dates in Table I–2 

for upgrading existing devices to 

comply with certain new provisions 

adopted in that edition. Table I–2 in the 

2009 MUTCD also included 46 other 

compliance dates that had not been 

reached by 2009 that were established 

in previous Final Rules in 2000,2 2003,3

and 2007 4 for new provisions adopted 

in those Final Rules. The FHWA is 

aware of concerns on the part of some 

State and local highway agencies about 

the potential impacts of MUTCD 

compliance dates in the current 

economic downturn, which has 

significantly reduced the resources 

available to such agencies. 

Purpose of This Notice 

The FHWA is interested in examining 

the issues of the safety benefits provided 

by traffic control device uniformity and 

the economic hardships to State and 

local governments that might result 

from specific compliance dates for 

upgrading some non-compliant existing 

devices. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 74129 

5Public Law 89–564, 80 Stat. 731. 

6Section 406 of the Department of Transportation 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 

(Pub. L. 102–388; October 6, 1992). 7 D. Ripley. Quantifying the Safety Benefits of 

Traffic Control Devices—Benefit-Cost Analysis of 

Traffic Sign Upgrades. Accepted for publication in 

the proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent 

Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa, August 2005. 

This paper can be found at http://tcd.tamu.edu/ 

Documents/MinRetro/MinRetro.htm. 

The purpose of this notice is to 

present a general discussion of issues 

related to MUTCD compliance dates, to 

present a discussion of existing 

compliance dates for seven specific 

2009 MUTCD provisions, and to request 

comments and input on those issues 

and dates. This notice also includes a 

series of specific questions for which 

the FHWA requests input on each. 

While there are questions presented 

on specific aspects of MUTCD 

compliance dates, comments and input 

may be offered on any part of this 

notice. 

The FHWA is seeking comments from 

all interested parties to help FHWA in 

further examining these issues and 

evaluating potential future alternative 

courses of action, including additional 

rulemaking. 

Discussion of General Compliance Date 

Issues 

The FHWA has established MUTCD 

compliance dates for upgrading existing 

non-compliant devices based on what it 

believes to be a reasonable balance of 

the safety benefits afforded by 

uniformity of traffic control devices and 

the economic costs to agencies to 

achieve compliance. Highway agencies 

are allowed to use systematic upgrading 

programs (without specific compliance 

dates) to upgrade their existing devices 

in the field to meet the vast majority of 

all new MUTCD provisions. For 

example, the 2009 MUTCD requires that 

the lettering on street name signs shall 

be composed of combination of lowercase letters with initial upper case 

letters. However, there is no specific 

compliance date for replacement of 

existing Street Name signs that use all 

capital lettering. Existing Street Name 

signs using all capital letters can remain 

in place until they need to be replaced 

due to end of service life or some other 

reason. As a result, agencies do not 

incur any additional cost to meet this 

MUTCD requirement. In addition, 

FHWA has established specific 

compliance dates predominantly based 

on the useful service life of devices. 

This approach enables highway 

agencies to defer upgrading noncompliant devices until the device 

wears out, is damaged or destroyed, or 

is replaced due to other events such as 

highway reconstruction, thus 

minimizing economic impacts. 

In the 2009 MUTCD, specific 

compliance dates were established for 

only 12 of the hundreds of new 

provisions that were adopted with that 

new edition. In those 12 cases, FHWA 

determined that the safety benefits that 

the traveling public would derive from 

those new provisions were so critical 

that compliance of existing devices in 

the field potentially prior to the end of 

their service lives was necessary. Traffic 

control device upgrades are eligible for 

use of Federal-aid highway funds, thus 

mitigating the impacts on State and 

local highway agencies. 

The FHWA understands that there are 

many competing demands on State and 

local government resources, particularly 

to highway and public works agencies, 

that State and local governments must 

balance with highway safety and traffic 

control device uniformity in allocating 

their limited resources. The FHWA also 

believes that traffic control device 

uniformity is important to the safety of 

not only of motor vehicles, but also of 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road 

users, and as such this uniformity 

provides important benefits to society. 

The MUTCD was originally developed 

in 1930s because of the consensus 

among State and local governments, 

organizations representing motorists, 

and many safety-related organizations, 

that traffic control device uniformity 

was essential to reducing crashes and 

the deaths, injuries, and property 

damage that results from crashes. The 

1966 Highway Safety Act 5 further 

recognized the safety benefits of traffic 

control device uniformity by legislating 

the change in status of the MUTCD from 

a recommended practice with voluntary 

compliance to a national standard with 

mandatory compliance. 

Further, FHWA believes that the 

establishment of specific compliance 

dates for limited numbers of new 

MUTCD requirements is effective in 

achieving uniformity for those critical 

items. Requirements with specific 

compliance dates receive much greater 

attention and upgrading action by 

highway agencies because of the 

potential for tort liability and the 

potential loss of Federal-aid funds. 

Discussion of Specific Compliance 

Dates 

The FHWA has identified three 

compliance dates established in the 

December 2007 Final Rule on 

maintaining minimum sign 

retroreflectivity and four of the new 

compliance dates established in the 

Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the 

MUTCD that might potentially present 

the greatest challenges to overcome. A 

discussion of each follows. 

Maintaining Minimum Sign 

Retroreflectivity (Section 2A.08) 

On December 21, 2007, the Final Rule 

for revision number 2 of the 2003 

edition of the MUTCD was issued 

regarding maintaining minimum levels 

of sign retroreflectivity. This rulemaking 

was in response to a statutory 

requirement.6 As a part of this Final 

Rule, three specific compliance dates 

were established regarding the new 

requirements: (1) January 22, 2012 (4 

years)—implementation and continued 

use of an assessment or management 

method that is designed to maintain 

traffic sign retroreflectivity at or above 

the established minimum levels; (2) 

January 22, 2015 (7 years)—replacement 

of regulatory, warning, and postmounted guide (except street name) 

signs that are identified using the 

assessment or management method as 

failing to meet the established minimum 

levels; and (3) January 22, 2018 (10 

years)—replacement of street name 

signs and overhead guide signs that are 

identified using the assessment or 

management method as failing to meet 

the established minimum levels. 

The new minimum sign 

retroreflectivity requirements were 

intended to assure adequate nighttime 

visibility of traffic signs, especially for 

older drivers, but with significant safety 

benefits for all drivers, as clearly 

documented by research.7 Further, the 

7-year and 10-year compliance periods 

were set based on expected service life 

of sign sheeting materials. 

One-Way Signs (Section 2B.40) 

On December 16, 2009, the Final Rule 

for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD was 

issued and a compliance date of 

December 31, 2019, (10 years) was 

established for upgrading existing field 

locations to comply with a new 

requirement for the number and 

location of One-Way regulatory signs. 

The new requirement is that One-Way 

signs shall be installed on the near-right 

and far-left corners of each intersection 

with the directional roadways of a 

divided highway having a median width 

of 30 feet or more. This was a 

recommendation (Guidance) in the 2003 

MUTCD that was strengthened to a 

requirement (Standard) in the 2009 

MUTCD. 

Some highway agencies already have 

a policy, per the 2003 guidance, to 

install near-right and far-left One-Way 

signs at each directional roadway 

intersection of their divided highways 

with medians 30 feet or wider. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
74130 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 

8 ‘‘Guidelines and Recommendations to 

Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,’’ 

FHWA Report no. FHWA–RD–01–051, May 2001, 

can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. 

Recommendations I.E(4), I.K(2), and I.K(3). 

9 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,’’ 

FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–04–091, 

August 2004, pages 209–211, can be viewed at the 

following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/ 

safety/pubs/04091/. 

10NCHRP Research Results Digest 299, November 

2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web 

site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ 

nchrp_rrd_299.pdf. This digest includes data from 

the study ‘‘Changes in Crash Risk Following 

Retiming of the Traffic Signal Change Intervals,’’ by 

R.A. Retting, J.F. Chapline, and A.F. Williams, as 

published in Accident Analysis and Prevention, 

Volume 34, number 2, pages 215–220, available 

from Pergamon Press, Oxford, NY. 

However, agencies that did not comply 

with the 2003 guidance at all or only at 

some of the applicable intersections 

now must change their policy for use of 

One-Way signs at newly constructed 

intersections, and, by the end of 2019, 

install any additional One-Way signs 

needed at their existing locations to 

meet the Standard. Even though 10 

years is allowed for this work to be 

done, this might constitute a burden for 

some agencies with significant mileage 

of divided highways with medians 30 

feet or wider. 

The strengthening of this provision to 

a Standard was based on safety research 

as detailed in the Older Driver 

Handbook.8 Further, the 10-year 

compliance date for existing locations 

was established in consideration of the 

demonstrated safety issues associated 

with wrong-way travel on divided 

highways and because FHWA 

anticipates that installation of the 

required additional signs at existing 

locations will provide significant safety 

benefits to road users. The FHWA 

believes that State and local highway 

agencies and owners of private roads 

open to public travel can schedule the 

installation of the additional required 

signs in conjunction with their 

programs for maintaining and replacing 

other signs at existing locations along 

divided highways that are worn out or 

damaged, thus minimizing any impacts. 

Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs 

(Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14) 

The 2009 MUTCD established new 

requirements that engineering practices 

shall be used to determine the 

appropriate advisory speed on 

horizontal curves and requiring a 

hierarchal approach to determine the 

use of various horizontal alignment 

warning signs, including Turn or Curve 

signs, Advisory Speed plaques, 

Chevrons and Large Arrow signs, and 

Exit Speed/Ramp Speed signs. For these 

signs, the Table 2C–5 matrix of 

‘‘Required, Recommended, or Optional’’ 

must be used to determine use of each 

type of sign, based on the difference 

between the speed limit on the 

approach and the advisory speed of the 

curve. The new requirement applies to 

arterials and collectors with an Average 

Annual Daily Traffic volume of over 

1,000 vehicles per day. A compliance 

date of December 31, 2019 (10 years), 

was established for upgrading signing at 

existing field locations to comply with 

the new horizontal alignment warning 

sign requirements. 

Even though 10 years is allowed for 

this work to be done, this might 

constitute a burden for some agencies 

with a network of higher volume arterial 

and collector roads having large 

numbers of horizontal curves. 

The new requirement for use of 

engineering practices to determine 

advisory speeds for curves and to use 

Table 2C–5 to determine the required, 

recommended, and optional use of 

horizontal alignment warning signs and 

plaques was determined to be needed 

because fatalities at horizontal curves 

account for 25 percent of all highway 

fatalities, even though horizontal curves 

are only a small portion of the nation’s 

highway mileage, and because the past 

application of engineering judgment for 

determination of advisory speeds and 

horizontal curve signing, without 

specific uniform criteria, has not 

sufficiently improved the safety 

performance of horizontal curves. Also, 

the 10-year compliance date was 

established because of the demonstrated 

safety issues associated with run-off-theroad crashes at horizontal curves and 

because FHWA anticipates that a 

uniform method of determining 

advisory speeds and installation of the 

required additional signs at existing 

locations will provide significant safety 

benefits to road users. The FHWA 

believes that State and local highway 

agencies and owners of private roads 

open to public travel can schedule the 

installation of the additional required 

signs in conjunction with their 

programs for maintaining and replacing 

other signs at existing locations that are 

worn out or damaged, thus minimizing 

any financial impacts. 

Yellow Change Intervals and Red 

Clearance Intervals (Section 4D.26) 

The 2009 MUTCD established a new 

requirement that durations of yellow 

change intervals and red clearance 

intervals for traffic signals shall be 

determined using engineering practices, 

such as the kinematic formulas 

published by the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers that take into 

account approach speeds, deceleration 

rates of stopping vehicles, intersection 

width, and roadway grades. Previously, 

the MUTCD did not require or 

recommend any particular methods for 

determining the durations of these 

critical safety intervals in the traffic 

signal sequence. A compliance date of 

December 31, 2014 (5 years), or when 

timing adjustments are made to the 

individual intersection and/or corridor, 

whichever occurs first, was established 

for highway agencies to use engineering 

practices to determine times for the 

yellow change intervals and red 

clearance interval at their existing 

signalized locations and to revise the 

timing of those intervals based on the 

determinations. 

Many highway agencies have been 

using engineering practices to determine 

yellow change interval and red 

clearance interval durations. However, 

there are some agencies that have been 

using jurisdiction-wide constant 

durations, ‘‘rules of thumb,’’ or assigning 

durations to these intervals without 

applying any engineering factors. Such 

highway agencies might be burdened by 

the need to evaluate all their signalized 

intersections and adjust the durations of 

the yellow change intervals and red 

clearance intervals to comply with the 

new requirement within the 5-year 

compliance period. 

As documented in the FHWA report 

‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational 

Guide,’’ 9 a variety of studies from 1985 

through 2002 found significant safety 

benefits from using accepted 

engineering practices to determine the 

durations of yellow change and red 

clearance intervals. Subsequent safety 

studies 10 have further documented 

significant major reductions in crashes 

when jurisdictions have revised the 

durations of the yellow change and red 

clearance intervals using accepted 

engineering practices. The 5-year 

compliance date was established 

because of the demonstrated safety 

benefits, as discussed above, of proper 

engineering-based timing of these 

critical signal intervals, and because 

traffic signals and signal control 

equipment have a very long service life 

(30 to 50 years is not uncommon) and 

very long intervals between signal 

timing adjustments are typical at many 

traffic signal locations in many 

jurisdictions. The FHWA believes that 

relying on systematic upgrading 

provisions, based on service life, to 

achieve compliance with this critical 

timing need would take an inordinately 

long time, to the detriment of road user 

safety. The FHWA believes that State 

and local highway agencies and owners 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Notices 74131 

of private roads open to public travel 

can minimize any impact of this signal 

timing requirement by adopting a policy 

that determines durations of yellow 

change and red clearance intervals that 

is based on engineering practices and 

then by applying that policy whenever 

an existing individual signal location or 

system of interconnected locations is 

being checked or adjusted for any 

reason, such as investigation of citizen 

complaints or routine maintenance. 

Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases 

(Section 4E.06) 

The 2009 MUTCD established a new 

requirement for pedestrian signals that 

the pedestrian change interval (flashing 

upraised orange hand) shall not extend 

into the red clearance interval and shall 

be followed by a buffer interval of at 

least 3 seconds. Previously, it was 

allowable to continue the flashing 

orange hand display into and through 

the vehicular red clearance interval, and 

thus there was no requirement for any 

pedestrian safety ‘‘buffer time’’ between 

the end of the flashing orange hand 

display and the start of green for 

conflicting traffic on the street being 

crossed by pedestrians. A compliance 

date of December 31, 2014 (5 years), or 

when timing adjustments are made to 

the individual intersection and/or 

corridor, whichever occurs first, was 

established for this new requirement. 

Most highway agencies have operated 

their pedestrian signals so that the 

flashing upraised hand terminates no 

later than the start of the yellow change 

interval for parallel vehicular traffic. 

With this display sequence, the yellow 

time and any red clearance time serves 

as the buffer interval and would comply 

with the new requirement. However, 

there are some highway agencies that 

have made it a practice at some or all 

of their signals to extend the flashing 

orange hand to the end of the yellow 

change interval or even all the way to 

the end of the red clearance interval. 

Most such pedestrian signal displays do 

not provide the required minimum 3 

seconds after the end of the flashing 

orange hand as a margin of safety that 

allows a pedestrian who underestimates 

the time needed to cross a roadway, 

with or without a countdown display, to 

better avoid a conflict with vehicles. 

Highway agencies that have existing 

pedestrian signals operated in this 

manner might be burdened by the need 

to adjust the control equipment and/or 

durations of timing intervals to comply 

with the new requirement within the 5- 

year compliance period. 

The FHWA established the 5-year 

compliance date because of the 

demonstrated safety issues associated 

with pedestrian crossings at traffic 

signals, the need for consistent display 

of signal indications for pedestrians, 

and the pedestrian confusion that would 

likely occur as a result of a long-term 

mixing of a variety of pedestrian signal 

displays associated with the pedestrian 

clearance interval. Traffic signals and 

signal control equipment have a very 

long service life (30 to 50 years is not 

uncommon) and very long intervals 

between signal retiming are typical at 

many traffic signal locations in many 

jurisdictions. The FHWA believes that 

relying on systematic upgrading, based 

on service life, to achieve compliance 

with this critical timing need would 

take an inordinately long time, to the 

detriment of pedestrian safety. The 

FHWA believes that State and local 

highway agencies and owners of private 

roads open to public travel can 

minimize any impact of this signal 

timing requirement by adopting a policy 

for timing and display of pedestrian 

change intervals in relation to vehicular 

intervals in compliance with Section 

4E.06 and then by applying that policy 

whenever an existing individual signal 

location or system of interconnected 

locations is being checked or adjusted 

for any reason, such as investigation of 

citizen complaints or routine 

maintenance. 

Questions 

A series of seven specific questions 

regarding MUTCD compliance dates are 

listed below, for which the FHWA 

requests input on each, to help further 

examine this issue. 

The seven questions are as follows: 

1. What, if any, difficulties does your 

organization anticipate in meeting the 

seven MUTCD compliance dates 

discussed above for upgrading existing 

non-compliant devices in the field? 

2. Are there one or more of these 

seven compliance dates that are more 

problematic than the others for your 

organization? If so, which ones, and 

why? 

3. If some or all of these seven 

compliance dates were extended, how 

long do you estimate it would take to 

complete the necessary traffic control 

device upgrades? 

4. What safety or other impacts would 

result from extending some or all of 

these seven compliance dates? 

5. Are there other MUTCD 

compliance dates not described in this 

notice that are problematic for your 

organization? If yes, which ones, and 

why? 

6. What considerations should be 

applied to establish new compliance 

dates in the MUTCD? 

7. What other comments or input do 

you wish to provide to FHWA regarding 

MUTCD compliance dates for upgrading 

existing traffic control devices? 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 

114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; 

and, 49 CFR 1.48(b). 

Issued on: November 18, 2010. 

Shailen Bhatt, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29587 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Finding of No Significant 

Impact for the Washington State 

Portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor Upgrades Tier-1 

Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), United States 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and the FRA’s Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(FRA Environmental Procedures) (64 FR 

28545 (May 26, 1999)), the FRA and the 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) prepared a 

Tier-1 Environmental Assessment (Tier1 EA) that evaluates the impacts of a 

corridor improvements program to the 

Washington State portion of the Pacific 

Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC 

Program). This notice advises the public 

that FRA finds that the corridor 

improvement program will not have a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human or natural environment and has 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) supporting that 

determination. Copies of both the Tier1 EA and FONSI are available on FRA’s 

Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/ 

freight/3011.shtml. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding either the 

Tier-1 EA or FONSI please contact 

Melissa DuMond, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone: (202) 493–6366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the PNWRC Program in 

Washington State is to improve intercity 

passenger rail service by reducing travel 

times, achieving greater schedule 

reliability, and creating capacity for 

additional trip frequencies in order to 

accommodate growing intercity travel 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES