This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

64836 

Vol. 88, No. 181 

Wednesday, September 20, 2023 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 630 

[Docket No. FHWA–2022–0017] 

RIN 2125–AG05 

Work Zone Safety and Mobility and 

Temporary Traffic Control Devices 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to 

amend its regulations that govern traffic 

safety and mobility in highway and 

street work zones. The FHWA 

recognizes that increasing road 

construction activity on our highways 

can lead to travel disruptions which 

could potentially result in congestion 

and crashes, as well as loss in 

productivity and public frustration with 

work zones. These proposed changes are 

intended to facilitate consideration of 

the broader safety and mobility impacts 

of work zones in a more coordinated 

and comprehensive manner across 

project development stages. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 20, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not 

duplicate your docket submissions, 

please submit comments by only one of 

the following means: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is (202) 366–9329. 

All submissions should include the 

agency name and the docket number 

that appears in the heading of this 

document or the Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) for the rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jawad Paracha, Office of Transportation 

Operations (HOTO–1), (202) 366–4628, 

or via email at Jawad.Paracha@dot.gov, 

or Mr. William Winne, Office of the 

Chief Counsel (HCC–30), (202) 366– 

1379, or via email at William.Winne@

dot.gov. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

This document and all comments 

received may be viewed online through 

the Federal eRulemaking portal at 

www.regulations.gov using the docket 

number listed above. Electronic retrieval 

help and guidelines are also available at 

www.regulations.gov. An electronic 

copy of this document may also be 

downloaded from the Office of the 

Federal Register’s website at 

www.FederalRegister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.GovInfo.gov. 

All comments received 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. In addition to late 

comments, FHWA will also continue to 

file relevant information in the docket 

as it becomes available after the 

comment period closing date and 

interested persons should continue to 

examine the docket for new material. A 

final rule may be published at any time 

after the close of the comment period 

and after DOT has had the opportunity 

to review the comments submitted. 

Background 

The principal mission of the DOT is 

to ensure America has the safest, most 

efficient, and modern transportation 

system in the world. This system boosts 

our economic productivity and global 

competitiveness and enhances the 

quality of life in communities both rural 

and urban. We depend on transportation 

for access to jobs, to enable us to 

conduct our business, to supply us with 

services and goods, and to facilitate our 

leisure and recreational activities. The 

Department’s mission is accomplished 

through strategic goals pertaining to 

safety, economic strength and global 

competitiveness, equity, climate and 

sustainability, transformation, and 

organizational excellence. 

An efficient and well-maintained 

roadway network is a critical 

component of our overall transportation 

system. Our roadway network must be 

continuously monitored and repaired to 

keep it functioning. Periodically, 

roadways must also be rehabilitated, 

reconstructed, or otherwise improved. 

The FHWA strongly encourages that 

work zones to accomplish these 

activities be implemented and 

maintained as safely as possible and 

with the least possible amount of travel 

disruption. Doing so directly supports 

the DOT safety strategic goal and 

facilitates the movement of people and 

goods while that work occurs, which is 

essential for maintaining economic 

strength and global competitiveness. 

Similarly, effective work zone 

management also ensures that impacts 

themselves do not unduly burden any 

one user group excessively without 

efforts to mitigate those differential 

impacts, which furthers the DOT equity 

strategic goal. Congestion generated by 

work zones contributes to vehicular 

pollution, and reducing congestion 

undoubtedly supports DOT goals 

pertaining to climate and sustainability. 

Finally, continuous development and 

support of new technologies, strategies, 

and uses of new sources of data for work 

zone management relate directly to the 

Department’s transformation and 

organizational excellence goals. 

This NPRM proposes changes to 

Subpart J, Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility, and Subpart K, Temporary 

Traffic Control Devices to clarify and 

correct certain aspects of the regulations 

that were last modified in 2004 and 

2006, respectively. 

Subpart J—Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility 

Work zones are a necessary part of 

meeting the need to maintain and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64837 

1BIL information can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm. 

2FAST Act information can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/ 

html/PLAW-114publ94.htm. 

3Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

maintained by NHTSA. More information is 

available at the following internet website: http:// 

www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/. 

4Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries 

maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. More information is available 

at the following internet website: https://

www.bls.gov/iif/data.htm. 

5 ‘‘Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and 

Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation, 

FHWA Office of Operations,’’ can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/executive_

summary.htm. 

6 ‘‘Transportation Systems Management and 

Operations Performance Report,’’ Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation, January 2020, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/operations/ 

Documents/2020-January_TSMOPerformanceReport.pdf. 

7Soltani-Sobh, A., Ostojic, M., Stevanovic, A., 

Ma, J. and Hale, D.K. (2017). ‘‘Development of 

Congestion Causal Pie Charts for Arterial 

Roadways.’’ International Journal for Traffic & 

Transport Engineering, 7(1). 

8 ‘‘Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety 

and Mobility (23 CFR 630 Subpart J),’’ September 

2005, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/rule_guide/ 

index.htm. 

9 ‘‘Work Zone Impacts Assessment—An 

Approach to Assess and Manage Work Zone Safety 

and Mobility Impacts of Road Projects’’ August 

2006, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/ 

final_rule/wzi_guide/index.htm. 

10 ‘‘Developing and Implementing Transportation 

Management Plans for Work Zones,’’ December 

2005, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/ 

publications/trans_mgmt_plans/index.htm. 

11 ‘‘Work Zone Public Information and Outreach 

Strategies,’’ November 2005, can be viewed at the 

following website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/ 

info_and_outreach/index.htm. 

12 ‘‘Work Zone Process Reviews’’ can be viewed 

at the following internet website: https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/prtoolbox/wzpr.htm. 

13 ‘‘Guidance on Data Needs, Availability, and 

Opportunities for Work Zone Performance 

Measures,’’ March 2013, can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/publications/ 

fhwahop13011/index.htm. 

14 ‘‘Work Zone Performance Management Peer 

Exchange Workshop,’’ May 2013, can be viewed at 

the following internet website: https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/p2p/pmwkshop053013/ 

index.htm. 

15 ‘‘Work Zone Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Implementation Guide,’’ January 2014, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop14008/ 

index.htm. 

16 ‘‘Utilizing the Work Zone Capability Maturity 

Framework to Improve Work Zone Management 

Capabilities and Process Review Efforts,’’ April 

2019, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/webinars/ 

wzcmf/presentation/index.htm. 

17 ‘‘Guidance for Conducting Effective Work Zone 

Process Reviews,’’ April 2015, can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15013/ 

index.htm. 

upgrade our aging roadway 

infrastructure. Work zone activities are 

expected to increase significantly with 

the passage of the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL) (enacted as the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Pub. L. 117–58) (November 15, 2021)). 

The law provides approximately $350 

billion for Federal highway programs 

during Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026.1

This represents a 55 percent increase in 

highway and bridge program funding 

over the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114– 

94, December 4, 2015).2

Even without increased funding, work 

zones already result in significant safety 

and mobility impacts. In 2020 (the latest 

year for which data are available), the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) reports that 

857 individuals lost their lives in 774 

fatal work zone crashes.3 In 2020, 117 

workers at road construction sites 

experienced a fatal occupational injury, 

62 of which involved a worker on foot 

being struck by a motor vehicle.4

In terms of mobility impacts, it has 

been estimated that 10 percent of 

congestion in urban areas and 35 

percent of congestion in rural areas is 

caused by work zones.5 In 

Pennsylvania, 17 to 26 percent of 

congestion is attributed to roadwork; 6

in Florida, 4 to 7 percent of mid-day and 

p.m. peak congestion on arterial streets 

are attributed to work zones.7 Certainly, 

the requirements contained in 23 CFR 

part 630 Subpart J continue to be 

needed to help manage and mitigate 

work zone safety and mobility impacts 

across the country. 

The FHWA has developed multiple 

resources to assist States in 

implementing the revisions to the Work 

Zone Safety and Mobility Rule 

2004.8 9 10 11 12 Overall, States have 

complied with requirements to establish 

a work zone safety and mobility policy 

and to implement a process for 

identifying significant projects. 

However, the extent of implementation 

of some of the other required State-level 

processes and procedures has varied 

across the country. For example, many 

States have developed and implemented 

systematic procedures to assess 

anticipated work zone impacts in 

project development. However, only a 

few States have established procedures 

to monitor and manage actual safety and 

mobility impacts during project 

implementation or to perform postproject evaluations, despite increased 

availability of data sources and 

methodologies available to do so.13 14 15

Similarly, many States have not fully 

embraced the opportunities for 

conducting data-driven performancebased work zone process reviews that 

these data sources and methodologies 

now offer, despite additional guidance 

and encouragement to do so.16 17 The 

FHWA acknowledges that a lack of 

clarity in what is specifically required 

by certain parts of the regulation may 

partially explain the uneven adoption. 

The existing regulation has language 

that was considered necessary at the 

time it was established to ensure State 

understanding of the regulation, but 

which is now considered superfluous to 

its understanding and implementation. 

In addition, FHWA recognizes that 

the required frequency of Agency work 

zone process reviews may be hampering 

some States from performing more indepth assessments using available data 

and methods. Section 11302 of the BIL 

calls for revisions to § 630.1008(e) to 

ensure that the work zone process 

review is required not more frequently 

than once every 5 years. In addition, 

Section 11303 of the BIL calls for 

revisions to § 630.1010(c) to ensure that 

only a project with a lane closure for 3 

or more consecutive days shall be 

considered to be a significant project for 

purposes of that section and, 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, a State shall not be required to 

develop or implement a transportation 

management plan (TMP) (as described 

in § 630.1012) for a highway project not 

on the Interstate System if the project 

requires not more than 3 consecutive 

days of lane closures. 

These regulations were last modified 

in 2004 and introduced requirements for 

State departments of transportation to 

develop and adopt work zone safety 

policies; to conduct work zone impacts 

analyses during project development to 

better understand individual project 

characteristics and the associated work 

zone impacts; to develop TMPs for 

projects as determined by the State’s 

policy and results of impact analysis; 

and provisions to allow States flexibility 

to choose either method-based or 

performance-based specifications for 

their contracts. The FHWA proposes to 

revise §§ 630.1004, 630.1006, 630.1008, 

630.1010, 630.1012, 630.1014, and 

630.1016 to clarify certain aspects of the 

regulation and to update and provide 

additional emphasis to certain elements 

that have not seen the quality of 

implementation that was initially 

envisioned. The following is a summary 

of key proposed changes: 

• Incorporation of new definitions 

and clarification of some existing 

definitions; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64838 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

18 ‘‘Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

Guideline’’ (MMUCC), 5th Ed. (Electronic), 201703, 

produced by National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, NHTSA. Telephone 1–(800)–934–8517. 

Available at the following internet website: https:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/mmucc-1. 

• Incorporation of a requirement in a 

State’s Work Zone Safety and Mobility 

Policy to define the safety and mobility 

performance measures that the State 

will monitor and report; 

• Reframing the requirement for biannual work zone process reviews as 

work zone programmatic reviews to be 

performed every 5 years, along with 

additional information on what is to be 

included in such reviews; 

• Revising the definition of what 

constitutes a ‘‘significant project’’; and 

• Simplifying the language describing 

the components of a TMP. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

Proposed Revisions to the Subpart J 

§ 630.1004 Definitions and 

Explanation of Terms 

The proposed changes to this section 

include: defining terms not previously 

defined; strengthening the definitions of 

a few terms that were already included 

in this section; and improving the 

organization of the regulation. 

The FHWA proposes to add 

definitions of the terms ‘‘Agency’’ and 

‘‘State’’ to this section. The FHWA also 

proposes to modify the definition of 

‘‘Mobility’’ in work zones to delete the 

language about not compromising the 

safety of highway workers, as the 

importance of not compromising the 

safety of highway workers is already 

emphasized in the definition of 

‘‘Safety.’’ Next, the definition of 

‘‘Safety’’ would be revised to remove 

superfluous language and to strengthen 

the language pertaining to highway 

workers by adding the rate of highway 

worker fatalities and injuries per hours 

of work activity as a useful performance 

measure of safety. 

The FHWA also proposes to move the 

definition of ‘‘Transportation 

Management Plan’’ that had been a part 

of § 630.1012(b) to this Definitions 

section. This definition includes 

reference to the temporary traffic control 

(TTC) plan and a traffic operations (TO) 

component to the TMP, as needed. The 

description of a public information 

component has been expanded to public 

information and outreach (PIO) to be 

consistent with the intent of that aspect 

of the TMP. The definition of a ‘‘Work 

Zone Crash’’ would be revised to make 

it consistent with the definition of a 

work zone crash in the Model Minimum 

Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC).18 The 

reference to the MMUCC would be 

updated to the 5th edition published in 

2017, and superfluous language 

describing the development of the 

MMUCC would be removed. 

The FHWA also proposes to revise the 

definition of ‘‘Work Zone Impacts’’ to 

better list the factors affecting work zone 

impacts, particularly factors that affect 

highway worker safety. Examples are 

provided of traffic and travel 

characteristics that influence such 

impacts (volume, speed, vehicle mix 

and classification, etc.). In addition, 

revisions to the definition are proposed 

to better describe that such impacts may 

extend upstream or downstream of the 

limits of the work zone in addition to 

other highway corridors, other modes of 

transportation, or the regional 

transportation network. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a 

definition for ‘‘Work Zone 

Programmatic Reviews.’’ This definition 

would replace the term ‘‘Process 

Review’’ to better emphasize the intent 

of the review upon the State’s overall 

work zone management program. The 

work zone programmatic review is a 

data driven, systematic, and holistic 

analysis that uses quantitative and 

qualitative data from different sources to 

assess the safety and mobility 

performance of work zones under an 

agency’s jurisdiction in order to identify 

improvements to that agency’s work 

zone processes and procedures. 

§ 630.1006 Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility Policy 

A data-driven approach to work zone 

safety and mobility management 

requires the definition and use of 

performance measures. However, when 

originally published in 2004, the 

existing regulation did not require 

States to define the performance 

measures they would use to monitor 

and manage work zone impacts as well 

as their overall work zone management 

program. As a result, not all States have 

identified performance measures they 

plan to monitor, nor have they 

developed the processes and procedures 

necessary to compute such measures. 

Therefore, FHWA proposes to revise 

this section to add a requirement that 

the State’s work zone safety and 

mobility policy will identify the safety 

and mobility performance measures that 

will be used to monitor and manage 

performance. The revision suggests the 

following project-level and 

programmatic-level performance 

measure examples: number of fatal and 

injury crashes occurring in a work zone 

(project-level measure); percent of 

projects that exceed a preestablished 

crash rate in the work zone 

(programmatic-level measure); number 

of highway worker fatalities and injuries 

experienced or highway worker fatality 

and injury rate per hours worked 

(project- or programmatic-level 

measure); percent of projects that 

experience queues above a predefined 

threshold (programmatic-level measure); 

and percent of time when speeds in a 

work zone drop below a predefined 

threshold (project-level measure). 

§ 630.1008 State-Level Processes and 

Procedures 

When the existing regulation was 

published in 2004, the idea of work 

zone safety and mobility management 

was a new concept. Consequently, the 

language in the regulation was written 

to give States significant leeway in how 

they chose to establish work zone safety 

and mobility management policies and 

procedures. The FHWA believes that 

States have made significant strides in 

their assessment and management 

procedures over the past 15 years that 

the existing regulation has been in 

place. In addition, analytical tools and 

data sources are readily available to 

perform these assessments. Therefore, 

FHWA proposes to revise § 630.1008(b) 

on work zone assessment and 

management procedures to strengthen 

these requirements. The word ‘‘should’’ 

would be replaced with ‘‘shall’’ in the 

first sentence. Strengthening the 

requirement to perform these 

assessments and management efforts 

will facilitate continued improvement 

in work zone safety and mobility 

nationally without unduly burdening 

the States. Next, the word ‘‘potential’’ 

would be added before ‘‘work zone 

impacts’’ to further indicate that it is an 

activity that occurs during project 

development, and the phrase ‘‘to all 

road users and highway workers’’ would 

be added to emphasize the importance 

of assessing potential impacts to both 

groups during project development. 

Finally, the words ‘‘impacts occurring’’ 

would be added after the phrase ‘‘safety 

and mobility’’ to emphasize the 

importance of monitoring conditions 

that occur when a work zone is in place. 

Similarly, regulatory language 

published in 2004 indicated the need to 

use data and other information to 

improve agency work zone safety and 

mobility management processes but did 

not provide a lot of specifics as to what 

data or information could or should be 

used. Thus, FHWA also proposes to 

revise § 630.1008(c) on work zone data. 

A description of safety surrogate data 

and of work zone exposure data would 

be added to the list of available data 

sources that States shall use to monitor 

and manage work zone impacts for 

specific projects during implementation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64839 

19Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

maintained by NHTSA and is available at the 

following URL: http://www.fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/. 

and to perform its work zone 

programmatic reviews. Examples of 

operational information (speeds, travel 

times, queue length and duration, etc.) 

would also be added to this section. 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

§ 630.1008(e) to change the description 

of process reviews to work zone 

programmatic reviews. The change in 

terminology emphasizes the importance 

of the review to look at all aspects of a 

State’s work zone management program. 

To comply with BIL, the frequency of 

work zone programmatic reviews is 

reduced from once every 2 years to once 

every 5 years. A statement would be 

added that the review will be shared 

with FHWA at the end of each 5-year 

review period. 

The FHWA also proposes to 

strengthen the requirements of the work 

zone programmatic review with the 

addition of § 630.1008(e)(1) to indicate 

that it shall include a data-driven 

assessment of the safety and mobility 

performance of either all work zones 

occurring during the 5-year period of 

the review, or a representative sample of 

the State’s significant work zones. The 

proposed regulation further states that 

the approach used for selecting the 

representative projects shall be 

documented in the review and based on 

factors such as land use, roadway type, 

type of work zone, and extent of the 

work zone impacts. Language is added 

which proposes that each programmatic 

review shall include an assessment of 

work zone safety and mobility 

performance occurring since the last 

review, systematic identification of the 

States’ work zone management 

processes and procedures to be 

improved, action items to be taken to 

achieve improvement, divisions/offices 

responsible for implementing the 

actions, and the estimated timeline for 

implementation. Language is also added 

that would require States to monitor 

work zone performance annually and 

report that performance to FHWA at the 

end of the third year after the most 

recent programmatic review. Given the 

longer time that would now be allowed 

between reviews, this proposed 

requirement emphasizes the need to 

monitor work zones on a continuous 

basis rather than simply evaluating a 

sample of work zones at 5-year 

intervals. 

The regulatory language published in 

2004 indicated that appropriate 

personnel who represent the various 

stages of project development, and 

different offices within the State that are 

involved in work zone management, 

should participate in the process (now 

programmatic) review but did not 

explicitly call out agency functions and 

offices that should be involved in the 

review. Therefore, FHWA proposes to 

add § 630.1008(d)(2) to explicitly 

identify the various State divisions or 

offices that shall be examined as part of 

the programmatic review, including but 

not limited to project planning, design, 

project implementation, maintenance 

activities, transportation operations and 

management, permitting (e.g., utilities, 

oversize/overweight, lane closures, 

sidewalk closures), training, and public 

information and outreach. The 

remaining language in this section 

would be revised as § 630.1008(e)(3). 

The FHWA proposes to add ‘‘and 

implementation’’ after ‘‘project 

development’’ to keep it consistent with 

the similar statement in § 630.1006. The 

FHWA also proposes to remove the last 

sentence of the remaining language in 

the existing version of this section since 

it simply describes the intent of process 

reviews and is not essential to the 

implementation of the regulation. 

§ 630.1010 Significant Projects 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

§ 630.1010(c) in response to directives 

included in BIL. Specifically, the 

paragraph would be changed to state 

that projects on the Interstate System 

within the boundary of a designated 

Transportation Management Area 

(TMA) that require intermittent or 

continuous lane closures for 3 or more 

consecutive days shall be considered 

significant projects. 

The FHWA also proposes to add a 

new § 630.1010(d) to indicate that States 

shall not be required to develop or 

implement the TO or PIO components 

of a TMP for a highway project not on 

the Interstate System if the project is not 

deemed significant by the State. 

Although the existing language 

appeared to already allow this, this 

additional paragraph would emphasize 

that point more directly. This proposed 

addition would require that the 

previous paragraph (d) be renumbered 

as § 630.1010(e). 

§ 630.1012 Project-Level Procedures 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

§ 630.1012(b) describing the TMP. The 

first full sentence would be moved to 

the § 630.1004 definitions and 

explanation of terms. The second 

sentence would be edited to utilize the 

TO and PIO acronyms previously 

defined § 630.1004. 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

§ 630.1012(b)(1) describing a TTC plan. 

The second sentence of this paragraph 

is superfluous to the intent of the 

regulation and would be deleted in its 

entirety. The American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) ‘‘Roadside Design 

Guide’’ that is incorporated by reference 

would be updated to the 2011 edition. 

This document was developed by 

AASHTO to present the concepts of 

roadside safety (including those in work 

zones) to designers so that the most 

practical, appropriate, and beneficial 

roadside design can be accomplished for 

each project. 

Section 630.1012(b)(3) would be 

edited slightly to use the term ‘‘PIO’’ 

when discussing the public information 

and outreach component of a TMP 

when used. 

The FHWA also proposes to delete 

§§ 630.1012(d)(1) and 630.1012(d)(2) 

from the regulation. Both paragraphs are 

informational only and are not needed. 

§ 630.1016 Compliance Date 

The FHWA proposes that the 

compliance date be 12 months after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. This would allow 

States time to implement the proposed 

changes in requirements. In addition, 

FHWA proposes to specify that the 

States’ next work zone programmatic 

review would be due on December 31, 

2025, and once every 5 years thereafter. 

Subpart K—Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices 

In 2007, at 72 FR 68489, FHWA added 

a new subpart K to 23 CFR part 630 to 

facilitate 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 intent of 

the regulation was to reduce both 

worker and motorist fatalities and 

injuries in work zones. Overall, work 

zone fatalities did decrease significantly 

during the latter half of that decade, 

from a high of 1,068 work zone fatalities 

in 2004 to 590 fatalities in 2011.19

Unfortunately, since then that trend has 

reversed, growing from 590 fatalities in 

2011 to 857 fatalities in 2020 (the most 

recent year of available national work 

zone fatality data). 

Vehicle collisions with highway 

workers as a percentage of all highway 

worker fatalities have also been trending 

upward in recent years. In 2015, 35 

percent of all highway worker fatalities 

at road construction sites were caused 

by a vehicle striking a worker; by 2020, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64840 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

20Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, US. Department of Labor, 

Washington, DC. Accessible at https://www.bls.gov/ 

iif/overview/cfoi.htm. 

21Worker Fatalities and Injuries at Road 

Construction Sites. National Work Zone Safety 

Information Clearinghouse. Accessible at https://

workzonesafety.org/work-zone-data/workerfatalities-and-injuries-at-road-construction-sites/. 

22Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 23 CFR part 

630 Temporary Traffic Control Devices. Federal 

Register, Vol. 71, No. 211, November 1, 2006. 

23Final Rule, 23 CFR part 630 Subpart K, 

Temporary Traffic Control Devices. Federal 

Register, Vol. 72, No. 233, December 5, 2007. 

24Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21). Public Law 112–141, Section 1405, 

Highway Worker Safety, July 6, 2012. 

25Ullman, G.L., M.D. Finley, J.E. Bryden, R. 

Srinivasan, and F.M. Council. Traffic Safety 

Evaluation of Nighttime and Daytime Work Zones. 

NCHRP Report 627. Transportation Research Board 

of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2008. 

26Ullman, G.L., V. Iragavarapu, and D. Sun. Work 

Zone Positive Protection Guidelines. Report No. 

FHWA/TX–11/0–6163–1. Texas Transportation 

Institute, College Station, TX, May 2011. 

27Support for MAP–21 Section 1405: Cost-Benefit 

Analysis. Unpublished report prepared for FHWA. 

March 12, 2013. 

28Ullman, G.L. and V. Iragavarapu. Work Zone 

Positive Protection Guidelines for Idaho. Report No. 

FHWA–ID–14–228. Texas A&M Transportation 

Institute, College Station, TX, November 2014. 

29Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

(FAST Act). Public Law 114–94. Section 1427, 

Highway Work Zones, December 4, 2015. 

that number has increased to 53 

percent.20 21

Among other provisions, the initial 

NPRM for Subpart K, published 

November 1, 2006, at 71 FR 64173, 

proposed that ‘‘. . . . 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.’’ 22 The FHWA 

received a substantial number of 

comments to the NPRM. While overall 

the responses were supportive of the 

intent of the proposed rule, several of 

the respondents noted that the language 

imposed the requirements without any 

supporting research indicating that the 

proposed criteria were appropriate.23

This created significant concerns with 

some respondents, who viewed the 

requirements as arbitrary and overly 

prescriptive. The FHWA, in response to 

the comments, acknowledged the lack of 

available data and research regarding 

vehicle intrusions, and modified the 

final rule language to require the need 

for longitudinal traffic barrier and other 

positive protection devices to be based 

on an engineering study. The final rule 

also required States to consider use of 

positive protection where such devices 

offer the highest potential for increased 

safety for workers and road users. The 

FHWA retained the conditions listed in 

the 2006 NPRM as examples of 

situations where positive protection use 

shall be considered and added roadside 

hazards such as drop-offs or unfished 

bridge decks that will remain overnight 

or longer as other examples. 

Language in the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21) signed into law on July 6, 2012, 

directed FHWA to modify Subpart K to 

re-incorporate the original language 

proposed in the 2006 NPRM related to 

criteria for requiring positive 

protection.24 However, research and 

data did not support the thresholds 

stated in the law. A study using the 

Roadside Safety Analysis Program 

(RSAP) and available data from New 

York State regarding work zone 

intrusion crash severities indicated that 

positive protection use in work zones 

could be justified using benefit-cost 

analyses in many cases, but on higher 

volume roadways and for longer 

duration projects than were specified in 

the law language.25 26 The FHWA 

funded a separate benefit-cost analysis, 

using a different methodology, to 

evaluate the efficacy of modifying 

Subpart K language and also concluded 

that the thresholds for positive 

protection use stated in MAP–21 could 

not be justified.27 Another study using 

an updated version of RSAP and 

updated cost values still resulted in 

recommendations for positive 

protection use in work zones that were 

higher than specified in the MAP–21 

language.28 Despite the lack of research 

findings supporting the criteria, 

reference to the MAP–21 language was 

retained in the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act, signed into 

law on December 4, 2015.29

While the results of the various 

analyses have not supported the 

inclusion of the specific thresholds of 

the 2006 NPRM language into the 

Subpart K regulation, there is reason to 

revise the rule at this time. It has been 

over 15 years since the rule was first 

published. New technologies, such as 

work zone intelligent transportation 

systems (also referred to as smart work 

zones) and automated flagger assistance 

devices (AFADs), have become 

dependable tools that are now readily 

available to help mitigate the safety and 

mobility impacts of work zones and 

should be listed as options to consider 

within the regulation. Other advanced 

technologies to support connected and 

automated vehicle travel through and 

around work zones continue to be 

developed and deployed. Conversely, 

despite sufficient time to develop 

appropriate procedures to do so, 

adoption of the requirement to base 

decisions regarding the need for 

longitudinal traffic barriers and other 

positive protection devices on an 

‘‘engineering study’’ have been uneven 

across the States. A need exists to 

strengthen the rule with regard to what 

constitutes an engineering study. 

Finally, the rule references guidelines 

and other documents that have been 

superseded by newer publications, and 

the rule needs to be revised to reflect the 

proper publication references. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

Proposed Revisions to Subpart K 

§ 630.1104 Definitions 

Proposed revisions to § 630.1106(b) of 

the rule would specify that States are to 

perform an engineering study to guide 

decisions regarding the use of positive 

protection devices to prevent the 

intrusion of motorist traffic into the 

workspace and other potentially 

hazardous areas in the work zone, use 

of exposure control measures to avoid or 

minimize worker exposure to motorized 

traffic and road user exposure to work 

activities, and use of other traffic control 

measures. Therefore, FHWA proposes to 

add a definition of an engineering study 

to this section. 

Next, NCHRP 350 has been 

superseded with the Manual of 

Assessing Safety Hardware (otherwise 

known as MASH), American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, AASHTO. The 

FHWA’s longstanding policy is that all 

roadside safety hardware installed on 

the National Highway System (NHS) be 

crashworthy. As the MASH 

implementation process moves forward, 

there no longer is a need to call out the 

crashworthiness requirements that 

positive protection devices shall meet. 

Therefore, FHWA proposes that the text 

‘‘. . . National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350, 

Recommended Procedures for the Safety 

Performance Evaluation of Highway 

Features, 1993, Transportation Research 

Board, National Research Council’’ and 

subsequent language that incorporates 

by reference that report into the 

regulation be deleted. 

§ 630.1106 Policy and Procedures for 

Work Zone Safety Management 

The FHWA proposes to modify 

§ 630.1106(b) to clarify that agency 

processes, procedures, or guidance 

regarding strategies and devices to be 

used for the management of work zone 

impacts, including the use of positive 

protection devices and other strategies, 

are to be based on an engineering study. 

In addition, new details are proposed to 

provide characteristics of an engineering 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64841 

30Speed Safety Cameras. FHWA–SA–21–070. 

FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

study and examples of the types of 

engineering decisionmaking tools that 

could be used in the engineering study. 

The FHWA also proposes to modify 

the text for paragraph (b)(2) from 

‘‘Anticipated traffic speeds through the 

work zone’’ to ‘‘Anticipated operating 

conditions including traffic volume, 

vehicle mix, and speeds through the 

work zone.’’ Paragraph (b)(3) would 

then be modified from ‘‘Anticipated 

traffic volume’’ to ‘‘Anticipated traffic 

safety impacts,’’ paragraph (b)(4) would 

be deleted, and the remaining item list 

would be renumbered. 

§ 630.110 Work Zone Safety 

Management Measures and Strategies 

The FHWA proposes to modify 

§ 630.1108(a), Positive Protection 

Devices, to remove redundant language 

indicating that decisions regarding the 

use of longitudinal traffic barrier and 

other positive protection devices shall 

be based on an engineering study, as 

this was already stated in § 630.1106(b). 

The FHWA also proposes that this 

section be revised to require positive 

protection devices be used in work 

zones with high anticipated operating 

speeds that provide workers no means 

of escape from motorized traffic 

intruding into the workspace unless an 

engineering study determines otherwise. 

This language is consistent with that 

initially proposed in the 2006 Subpart K 

NPRM and in MAP–21 for these 

situations. The remaining portion of this 

section would retain the existing 

language requiring positive protection 

devices to be considered in other 

situations that place workers at 

increased risk from motorized traffic, 

and where positive protection devices 

offer the highest potential for increased 

safety for workers and road users. 

The FHWA proposes to modify the 

list of technologies and strategies in 

§ 630.1108(c), Other Traffic Control 

Measures. Specifically, FHWA proposes 

that paragraph (c)(7) be modified to 

include the use of automated flagger 

assistance devices (AFADs) in addition 

to enhanced flagger station setups 

already mentioned. Paragraph (c)(16) 

would be modified from automated 

speed enforcement to speed safety 

cameras, which is the preferred title of 

the technology as an FHWA proven 

safety countermeasure.30 Two 

additional technologies, protection 

vehicles and intelligent transportation 

systems (ITS) and other advanced 

technology solutions and strategies, are 

additionally proposed as paragraphs 

(c)(21) and (c)(22). 

§ 630.1110 Maintenance of Temporary 

Traffic Control Devices 

The FHWA proposes to revise the 

internet website addresses of the 

American Traffic Safety Services 

Association’s (ATSSA) ‘‘Quality 

Guidelines for Work Zone Traffic 

Control Devices,’’ the Illinois 

Department of Transportation ‘‘Quality 

Standards for Work Zone Traffic Control 

Devices,’’ and the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation ‘‘Quality 

Standards—Methods to determine 

whether the various traffic control 

devices are Acceptable, Marginal, or 

Unacceptable.’’ These documents are 

currently available, but the website 

addresses have changed since subpart K 

was originally issued in 2007. 

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51 

The FHWA is incorporating by 

reference the more current versions of 

the manuals listed herein. Specifically, 

FHWA incorporates by reference 

Chapter 9 of the AASHTO ‘‘Roadside 

Design Guide: Traffic Barriers, Traffic 

Control Devices, and other Safety 

Features for Work Zones’’ but will 

incorporate the 2011 edition instead of 

the 2002 edition. This document was 

developed by AASHTO to present the 

concepts of roadside safety (including 

those in work zones) to designers so that 

the most practical, appropriate, and 

beneficial roadside design can be 

accomplished for each project. In 

addition, FHWA incorporates by 

reference its 2009 ‘‘Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways,’’ including Revisions No. 1 

and No. 2, dated May 2012, and No. 3 

dated August 2022. This document was 

developed by FHWA to define the 

standards used by road managers 

nationwide to install and maintain 

traffic control devices on all public 

streets, highways, bikeways, and private 

roads open to public travel. 

The documents that FHWA is 

incorporating by reference are 

reasonably available to interested 

parties, primarily State DOTs, local 

agencies, and Tribal governments 

carrying out Federal-aid highway 

projects. These documents represent the 

most recent refinements that 

professional organizations have formally 

accepted and are currently in use by the 

transportation industry. The documents 

incorporated by reference are available 

on the docket of this rulemaking and at 

the sources identified in the regulatory 

text below. The specific standards are 

discussed in greater detail elsewhere in 

this preamble. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has considered the 

impacts of this rule under Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 

4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and 

Review, as amended by E.O. 1314094 

(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’), 

and DOT’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. The Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs within the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined that this rulemaking is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

OMB has not reviewed it under that 

E.O. 

It is anticipated that the proposed rule 

would not be economically significant 

for purposes of E.O. 12866. The 

proposed rule would not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $200 million 

or more. The proposed rule would not 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, any sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, or jobs. In 

addition, the proposed changes would 

not interfere with any action taken or 

planned by another Agency and would 

not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of any entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this proposed rule on small 

entities and has determined that it is not 

anticipated to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of 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. However, the 

proposed regulatory action would only 

directly impact State requirements 

regarding work zone programmatic 

reviews, and otherwise would clarify 

the characteristics of a significant 

project. State governments are not 

included in the definition of small 

entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. 

Therefore, FHWA certifies that the 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule would not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64842 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48). This 

proposed rule would not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $168 million or more 

in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In 

addition, the definition of ‘‘Federal 

Mandate’’ in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act excludes financial 

assistance of the type in which State, 

local, or Tribal governments have 

authority to adjust their participation in 

the program in accordance with changes 

made in the program by the Federal 

Government. The Federal-aid highway 

program permits this type of flexibility. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

This proposed rule has been analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and 

FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

The FHWA also has determined that 

this proposed rule would not preempt 

any State law or State regulation or 

affect the States’ ability to discharge 

traditional State governmental 

functions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

has determined that the rule does not 

contain collection of information 

requirements for the purposes of the 

PRA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 

determined that it is categorically 

excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), 

which applies to the promulgation of 

rules, regulations, and directives. 

Categorically excluded actions meet the 

criteria for categorical exclusions under 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations and under 23 CFR 

771.117(a) and normally do not require 

any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. 

The FHWA does not anticipate any 

adverse environmental impacts from 

this proposed rule. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed regulatory action in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments.’’ The 

purpose of the proposed regulatory 

action is to improve motorist, worker, 

and other vulnerable road user safety 

and mobility on Federal-aid highway 

projects. The FHWA believes that the 

proposed action would not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, would not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian Tribal governments, and would 

not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a Tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

The E.O. 12898 requires that each 

Federal Agency make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations. The 

FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not raise any 

environmental justice issues. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

A 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, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Traffic 

regulations. 

Issued under authority delegated in 

49 CFR 1.81 and 1.85. 

Shailen P. Bhatt, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA proposes to amend Title 23, 

Code of Federal Regulations, part 630, 

as set forth below: 

PART 630—PRECONSTRUCTION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 630 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 109, 112, 115, 

315, 320, and 402(a); Sec. 1110, 1501, and 

1503 of Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144; Pub. 

L. 105–178, 112 Stat. 193; Pub. L. 104–59, 

109 Stat. 582; Pub. L. 97–424, 96 Stat. 2106; 

Pub. L. 90–495, 82 Stat. 828; Pub. L. 85–767, 

72 Stat. 896; Pub. L. 84–627, 70 Stat. 380; 23 

CFR 1.32 and 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.85, and Pub. 

L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405, section 1303. 

Subpart J—Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility 

■ 2. Revise subpart J of part 630 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart J—Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility 

Sec. 

630.1002 Purpose. 

630.1004 Definitions and explanation of 

terms. 

630.1006 Work zone safety and mobility 

policy. 

630.1008 State-level processes and 

procedures. 

630.1010 Significant projects. 

630.1012 Project-level procedures. 

630.1014 Implementation. 

630.1016 Compliance date. 

630.1018 Incorporation by reference. 

§ 630.1002 Purpose. 

Work zones directly impact the safety 

and mobility of road users and highway 

workers. These safety and mobility 

impacts are exacerbated by an aging 

highway infrastructure and growing 

congestion in many locations. 

Addressing these safety and mobility 

issues requires considerations that start 

early in project development and 

continue through project completion. 

Part 6 of the MUTCD (incorporated by 

reference, see § 630.1018) sets forth 

basic principles and prescribes 

standards for the design, application, 

installation, and maintenance of traffic 

control devices for highway and street 

construction, maintenance operation, 

and utility work. In addition to the 

provisions in the MUTCD, there are 

other actions that could be taken to 

further help mitigate the safety and 

mobility impacts of work zones. This 

subpart establishes requirements and 

provides guidance for systematically 

addressing the safety and mobility 

impacts of work zones, and for 

developing strategies to help manage 

these impacts on all Federal-aid 

highway projects. 

§ 630.1004 Definitions and explanation of 

terms. 

As used in this subpart: 

Agency means a State or local 

highway agency or authority. 

Highway workers include, but are not 

limited to, personnel of the contractor, 

subcontractor, agency, utilities, and law 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64843 

2 see MUTCD, Part 6, ‘‘Temporary Traffic 

Control’’ (incorporated elsewhere in this subpart). 

3 see ‘‘Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

Guideline’’ (MMUCC), 5th Ed. (Electronic), 2017, 

produced by NHTSA. Available at the following 

internet website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/mmucc-1. 

enforcement, performing work within 

the right-of-way of a transportation 

facility. 

Mobility is the ability to move from 

place to place and is significantly 

dependent on the availability of 

transportation facilities and on system 

operating conditions. With specific 

reference to work zones, mobility 

pertains to moving road users efficiently 

through or around a work zone area 

with minimum delay compared to 

baseline travel when no work zone is 

present. The commonly used 

performance measures for the 

assessment of mobility include delay, 

speed, travel time, and queue lengths. 

Safety is a representation of the level 

of exposure to potential hazards for 

users of transportation facilities and 

highway workers. With specific 

reference to work zones, safety refers to 

minimizing potential hazards to road 

users in the vicinity of a work zone and 

highway workers at the work zone 

interface with traffic. The commonly 

used performance measures for highway 

work zone safety are the number of 

crashes or the consequences of crashes 

(fatalities and injuries) at a given 

location or along a section of highway 

during a period of time. In terms of 

highway worker safety performance 

measures, the number of highway 

worker fatalities and injuries at a given 

location or along a section of highway 

during a period of time, and the rate of 

highway worker fatalities and injuries 

per hours of work activity, are 

commonly used measures. 

State refers to a State department of 

transportation. 

Transportation management plan 

(TMP) consists of strategies to manage 

the work zone impacts of a project. Its 

scope, content, and degree of detail may 

vary based upon the agency’s work zone 

policy and the agency’s understanding 

of the expected work zone impacts of 

the project. 

Work zone 2 is an area of a highway 

with construction, maintenance, or 

utility work activities. A work zone is 

typically marked by signs, channelizing 

devices, barriers, pavement markings, 

and/or work vehicles. It extends from 

the first warning sign or high intensity 

rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe 

lights on a vehicle to the END ROAD 

WORK sign or the last temporary traffic 

control (TTC) device. 

Work zone crash 3 is a crash that 

occurs in or related to a construction, 

maintenance, or utility work zone, 

whether or not workers were actually 

present at the time of the crash. ‘‘Work 

zone-related’’ crashes may also include 

crashes involving motor vehicles slowed 

or stopped because of the work zone, 

even if the first harmful event occurred 

before the first warning sign. 

Work zone impacts refer to work 

zone-induced deviations from the 

normal range of transportation system 

safety and mobility. The extent of the 

work zone impacts may vary based on 

factors such as: road classification and 

geometrics; area type (urban, suburban, 

and rural); traffic and travel 

characteristics (volumes, speeds, vehicle 

mix and classification, etc.); type of 

work being performed; distance between 

workers and traffic; availability of 

escape paths for workers; time of day/ 

night; and complexity and duration of 

the project. These impacts may extend 

beyond the physical location of the 

work zone itself, including upstream or 

downstream of the work zone location, 

other highway corridors, other modes of 

transportation, and/or the regional 

transportation network. 

A work zone programmatic review is 

a data-driven, systematic, and holistic 

analysis that uses quantitative and 

qualitative data from different sources to 

assess the safety and mobility 

performance of work zones under a 

State’s jurisdiction in order to identify 

improvements to that agency’s work 

zone processes and procedures. 

§ 630.1006 Work zone safety and mobility 

policy. 

(a) Each State shall implement a 

policy for the systematic consideration 

and management of work zone impacts 

on all Federal-aid highway projects. 

This policy shall address work zone 

impacts throughout the various stages of 

the project development and 

implementation process. This policy 

may take the form of processes, 

procedures, or guidance, and may vary 

based on the characteristics and 

expected work zone impacts of 

individual projects or classes of 

projects. 

(b) At a minimum, the policy shall 

identify safety and mobility 

performance measures that will be used 

to manage performance, such as number 

of fatal and injury crashes occurring in 

a work zone, percent of projects that 

exceed a preestablished crash rate in the 

work zone, number of highway worker 

fatalities and injuries experienced or 

highway worker fatality and injury rate 

per hours worked, percent of projects 

that experience queues above a 

predefined threshold, and percent of 

time when speeds in a work zone drop 

below a predefined threshold. 

(c) The States should institute this 

policy using a multi-disciplinary team 

and in partnership with FHWA. The 

States are encouraged to implement this 

policy for non-Federal-aid projects as 

well. 

§ 630.1008 State-level processes and 

procedures. 

(a) This section consists of State-level 

processes and procedures for States to 

implement and sustain their respective 

work zone safety and mobility policies. 

State-level processes and procedures, 

data and information resources, 

training, and periodic evaluation enable 

a systematic approach for addressing 

and managing the safety and mobility 

impacts of work zones. 

(b) Work zone assessment and 

management procedures. States shall 

develop and implement systematic 

procedures to assess potential work 

zone impacts to all road users and 

highway workers in project 

development and to manage safety and 

mobility impacts occurring during 

project implementation. The scope of 

these procedures shall be based on the 

project characteristics. 

(c) Work zone data. States shall use 

field observations, available work zone 

crash data, safety surrogate data (e.g., 

speed differentials, hard braking and 

other data from connected and 

autonomous vehicles), available 

operational information (e.g., speeds, 

travel times, queue length and 

duration), and available exposure data 

(e.g., number of projects, number and 

length of lane closures, vehicle-miles 

traveled through work zones) to monitor 

and manage work zone impacts for 

specific projects during implementation 

and to perform its work zone 

programmatic reviews. 

(d) Training. States shall require that 

personnel involved in the development, 

design, implementation, operation, 

inspection, and enforcement of work 

zone related transportation management 

and traffic control be trained, 

appropriate to the job decisions each 

individual is required to make. States 

shall require periodic training updates 

that reflect changing industry practices 

and State processes and procedures. 

(e) Work zone programmatic review. 

In order to assess the effectiveness of 

work zone safety and mobility processes 

and procedures, States shall perform a 

work zone programmatic review every 5 

years and share that review with FHWA 

by the end of the 5-year review period. 

(1) The work zone programmatic 

review shall include a data-driven 

assessment of the safety and mobility 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64844 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

performance of all work zones or a 

representative sample of the State’s 

significant work zones over the 5-year 

period being reviewed. The approach 

used for selecting the representative 

projects shall be documented and 

should be based on factors such as land 

use (urban and rural locations), roadway 

type, type of work zone, and extent of 

the work zone impacts. 

(2) Each programmatic review shall 

include an assessment of the work zone 

safety and mobility performance 

occurring since the last review was 

performed, systematic identification and 

assessment of the States’ work zone 

management processes and procedures 

to be improved, action items to be taken 

to achieve improvement, divisions or 

offices responsible for implementing the 

actions, and estimated timeline for 

implementation. 

(3) States shall use crash data, 

available safety surrogate data (e.g., 

speed differentials, hard braking, and 

other data from connected and 

autonomous vehicles), operational data, 

and the performance measures specified 

in their work zone policy to conduct the 

assessment. To ensure assessment of the 

safety and mobility performance of their 

work zones on a continuous basis, 

States shall monitor performance 

annually and report that performance to 

FHWA at the end of the third year after 

the most recent programmatic review. 

(4) The work zone programmatic 

review shall include examination of 

efforts across all State divisions or 

offices affecting work zone safety and 

mobility management, including but not 

limited to: project planning, project 

design, project implementation, 

maintenance activities, transportation 

operations and management, permitting 

(e.g., utilities, oversize/overweight, lane 

closures, sidewalk closures), training, 

and public information and outreach. 

(5) Appropriate personnel who 

represent the project development and 

implementation stages and the different 

offices within the State, and FHWA 

should participate in this review. Other 

non-State stakeholders may also be 

included in this review, as appropriate. 

§ 630.1010 Significant projects. 

(a) A significant project is one that, 

alone or in combination with other 

concurrent projects nearby, is 

anticipated to cause sustained work 

zone impacts (as defined in § 630.1004) 

that are greater than what is considered 

tolerable based on State policy and 

engineering judgment. 

(b) The applicability of the provisions 

in §§ 630.1012(b)(2) and 630.1012(b)(3) 

is dependent upon whether a project is 

determined to be significant. The State 

shall identify upcoming projects that are 

expected to be significant. This 

identification of significant projects 

should be done as early as possible in 

the project delivery and development 

process, and in cooperation with 

FHWA. The State’s work zone policy 

provisions, the project’s characteristics, 

and the magnitude and extent of the 

anticipated work zone impacts should 

be considered when determining if a 

project is significant or not. 

(c) All Interstate system projects 

within the boundaries of a designated 

Transportation Management Area that 

require intermittent or continuous lane 

closures for 3 or more consecutive days 

shall be considered as significant 

projects. 

(d) A State shall not be required to 

develop or implement the TO or PIO 

components of a TMP (as described in 

section § 630.1012(b)) for a highway 

project not on the Interstate System if 

the project is not deemed significant by 

the State. 

(e) For an Interstate system project or 

categories of Interstate system projects 

that are classified as significant through 

the application of the provisions in 

§ 630.1010(c), but in the judgment of the 

State do not cause sustained work zone 

impacts, the State may request from 

FHWA an exception to §§ 630.1012(b)(2) 

and 630.1012(b)(3). The FHWA may 

grant exceptions to these provisions 

based on the State’s ability to show that 

the specific Interstate system project or 

categories of Interstate system projects 

do not have sustained work zone 

impacts. 

§ 630.1012 Project-level procedures. 

(a) This section provides guidance 

and establishes procedures for States to 

manage the work zone impacts of 

individual projects. 

(b) Transportation Management Plan 

(TMP). For significant projects (as 

described in § 630.1010), the State shall 

develop a TMP that consists of a TTC 

plan and addresses both transportation 

operations (TO) and public information 

and outreach (PIO) components. For 

individual projects or classes of projects 

that the State determines to have less 

than significant work zone impacts, the 

TMP may consist only of a TTC plan. 

States are encouraged to consider TO 

and PIO issues for all projects. 

(1) A TTC plan describes TTC 

measures to be used for facilitating road 

users through a work zone or an 

incident area. The TTC plan shall be 

consistent with the provisions under 

Part 6 of the MUTCD (incorporated by 

reference, see § 630.1018) and with the 

work zone hardware recommendations 

in Chapter 9 of the AASHTO Roadside 

Design Guide (incorporated by 

reference, see § 630.1018). In developing 

and implementing the TTC plan, preexisting roadside safety hardware shall 

be maintained at an equivalent or better 

level than existed prior to project 

implementation. The scope of the TTC 

plan is determined by the project 

characteristics and the traffic safety and 

control requirements identified by the 

State for that project. The TTC plan 

shall either be a reference to specific 

TTC elements in the MUTCD, approved 

standard TTC plans, State transportation 

department TTC manual, or be designed 

specifically for the project. 

(2) The TO component of the TMP 

shall include the identification of 

strategies that the State will use to 

mitigate impacts of the work zone on 

the operation and management of the 

transportation system within the work 

zone impact area. Typical TO strategies 

may include, but are not limited to, 

demand management, corridor/network 

management, safety management and 

enforcement, and work zone traffic 

management. The scope of the TO 

component should be determined by the 

project characteristics and the 

transportation operations and safety 

strategies identified by the State. 

(3) The PIO component of the TMP 

shall include communications strategies 

that seek to inform affected road users, 

the general public, area residences and 

businesses, and appropriate public 

entities about the project, the expected 

work zone impacts, and the changing 

conditions on the project. This may 

include traveler information strategies. 

The scope of the PIO component should 

be determined by the project 

characteristics and the public 

information and outreach strategies 

identified by the State. Public 

information and outreach should be 

provided through methods best suited 

for the project, and may include, but not 

be limited to, information on the project 

characteristics, expected impacts, 

closure details, and commuter 

alternatives. 

(4) States should develop and 

implement the TMP in sustained 

consultation with stakeholders (e.g., 

other transportation agencies, railroad 

agencies/operators, transit providers, 

freight movers, utility suppliers, police, 

fire, emergency medical services, 

schools, business communities, and 

regional transportation management 

centers). 

(c) Inclusion of TMP in Plans, 

Specification, and Estimates. The Plans, 

Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) 

shall include either a TMP or provisions 

for contractors to develop a TMP at the 

most appropriate project phase as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64845 

applicable to the State’s chosen 

contracting methodology for the project. 

A contractor developed TMP shall be 

subject to the approval of the State and 

shall not be implemented before it is 

approved by the State. 

(d) Inclusion of Pay Item Provisions in 

Plans, Specification, and Estimates. The 

PS&Es shall include appropriate pay 

item provisions for implementing the 

TMP, either through method or 

performance-based specifications. 

(e) Responsible persons. The State and 

the contractor shall each designate a 

trained person, as specified in 

§ 630.1008(d), at the project level who 

has the primary responsibility and 

sufficient authority for implementing 

the TMP and other safety and mobility 

aspects of the project. 

§ 630.1014 Implementation. 

Each State shall work in partnership 

with FHWA in the implementation of its 

policies and procedures to improve 

work zone safety and mobility. At a 

minimum, this shall involve an FHWA 

review of conformance of the State’s 

policies and procedures with this 

regulation and reassessment of the 

State’s implementation of its procedures 

at appropriate intervals. Each State is 

encouraged to address implementation 

of this regulation in its stewardship 

agreement with FHWA. 

§ 630.1016 Compliance date. 

States shall comply with all the 

provisions of this rule no later than 

[DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE]. The next work zone 

programmatic review will be due 

December 31, 2025, and once every 5 

years thereafter. For projects that are in 

the later stages of development at or 

about the compliance date, and if it is 

determined that the delivery of those 

projects would be significantly 

impacted as a result of this rule’s 

provisions, States may request variances 

for those projects from FHWA on a 

project-by-project basis. 

§ 630.1018 Incorporation by reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. All approved incorporation 

by reference (IBR) material is available 

for inspection at the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). Contact FHWA 

at: Federal Highway Administration, 

Office of Transportation Operations, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–8043; 

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/contactus.htm. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, visit 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html or email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material 

may be obtained from the following 

sources: 

(a) AASHTO, American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 

1000, Washington, DC 20004; (202) 624– 

5800; website: https://

store.transportation.org/. 

(1) AASHTO Roadside Design Guide: 

‘‘Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control 

Devices, and Other Safety Features for 

Work Zones’’, 2011; approved for 

§ 630.1012. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) FHWA, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 

telephone (202) 366–1993; website: 

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. 

(1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways 

(MUTCD), as follows; approved for 

§§ 630.1002; 630.1012: 

(i) 2009 edition, November 4, 2009. 

(ii) Revision No. 1, dated May 2012. 

(iii) Revision No. 2, dated May 2012. 

(iv) Revision No. 3, dated June 2022. 

(2) [Reserved] 

Subpart K—Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices 

■ 3. Amend Subpart K by removing the 

authority citation. 

■ 4. Amend § 630.1104 by adding, in 

alphabetical order, the definition of 

‘‘Engineering Study’’ and revising the 

definition of ‘‘Positive Protection 

Devices’’ to read as follows: 

§ 630.1104 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Engineering Study means the 

comprehensive analysis and evaluation 

of available pertinent information, and 

the application of appropriate 

principles, provisions, and practices for 

the purpose of determining the choice 

and application of work zone positive 

protection devices, exposure control 

measures, or other traffic control 

measures to safety manage work zones. 

* * * * * 

Positive Protection Devices means 

devices that contain or redirect vehicles. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 630.1106 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 630.1106 Policy and procedures for work 

zone safety management. 

* * * * * 

(b) Agency processes, procedures, or 

guidance should be based on 

consideration of standards or guidance 

contained in the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways and the AASHTO Roadside 

Design Guide, as well as project 

characteristics and factors. The 

strategies and devices to be used may be 

determined by a project-specific 

engineering study or determined from 

agency guidelines developed from an 

engineering study that indicate when 

positive protection devices or other 

strategies and approaches are to be used 

based on project and highway 

characteristics and factors. An engineer, 

or an individual working under the 

supervision of an engineer shall perform 

an engineering study through the 

application of procedures and criteria 

established by the engineer. The person 

conducting the engineering study shall 

document such study. Benefit-cost 

analyses, decision matrices, decision 

tree analysis, or other appropriate 

engineering decisionmaking tools may 

be used in the engineering study. The 

types of measures and strategies to be 

used are not mutually exclusive, and 

should be considered in combination as 

appropriate based on characteristics and 

factors such as those listed below: 

(1) Project scope and duration; 

(2) Anticipated operating conditions 

including traffic volume, vehicle mix, 

and speeds through the work zone; 

(3) Anticipated traffic safety impacts; 

(4) Type of work (as related to worker 

exposure and crash risks); 

(5) Distance between traffic and 

workers, and extent of worker exposure; 

(6) Escape paths available for workers 

to avoid a vehicle intrusion into the 

work space; 

(7) Time of day (e.g. night work); 

(8) Work area restrictions (including 

impact on worker exposure); 

(9) Consequences from/to road users 

resulting from roadway departure; 

(10) Potential hazard to workers and 

road users presented by device itself 

and during device placement and 

removal; 

(11) Geometrics that may increase 

crash risks (e.g., poor sight distance, 

sharp curves); 

(12) Access to/from work space; 

(13) Roadway classification; and 

(14) Impacts on project cos and 

duration. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 630.1108 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (c)(7), (c)(16), and 

(c)(20), and adding paragraphs (c)(22) 

and (c)(23) to read as follows: 

§ 630.1108 Work zone safety management 

measures and strategies. 

(a) Positive Protection Devices. At a 

minimum, agencies shall use positive 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64846 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

protection devices in work zones with 

high anticipated operating speeds that 

provide workers no means of escape 

from motorized traffic intruding into the 

workspace unless an engineering study 

determines otherwise. Positive 

protection devices shall be considered 

in other situations that place workers at 

increased risk from motorized traffic, 

and where positive protection devices 

offer the highest potential for increased 

safety for workers and road users such 

as: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) Enhanced flagger station setups or 

use of automated flagger assistance 

devices (AFADs); 

* * * * * 

(16) Speed Safety Cameras (where 

permitted by State/local laws): 

* * * * * 

(20) Public information and traveler 

information; 

* * * * * 

(22) Protection vehicles; and 

(23) Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS) and other advanced 

technology solutions and strategies. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 630.1110 by revising 

footnote 1 to read as follows: 

§ 630.1110 Maintenance of temporary 

traffic control devices. 

* * * * * 

1The 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/ATSSA-Store/ProductMiscellaneous#/storefront/9df4b401- 

c3e9-e811-a863-000d3a140bb5. Similar 

guidelines are available from various 

State highway agencies. The Illinois 

Department of Transportation ‘‘Quality 

Standards for Work Zone Traffic Control 

Devices’’ is available online at https://

idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/ 

Doing-Business/Manuals-Guides-&- 

Handbooks/Highways/SafetyEngineering/Traffic%20Control%20

Field%20Manual%20

for%20IDOT%20Employees%20

(April%202016).pdf. The Minnesota 

Department of Transportation ‘‘Quality 

Standards—Methods to determine 

whether the various traffic control 

devices are Acceptable, Marginal, or 

Unacceptable’’ is available online at 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/ 

publ/fieldmanual/qualitystandards.pdf. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19701 Filed 9–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2023–0008; Notice No. 

226] 

RIN 1513–AD00 

Proposed Establishment of the Nine 

Lakes of East Tennessee Viticultural 

Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes 

establishing the approximately 4,064- 

square mile ‘‘Nine Lakes of East 

Tennessee’’ viticultural area in 

northeastern Tennessee. The proposed 

viticultural area is not within any other 

established viticultural area. TTB 

designates viticultural areas to allow 

vintners to better describe the origin of 

their wines and to allow consumers to 

better identify wines they may 

purchase. TTB invites comments on this 

proposed addition to its regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 20, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to TTB on this proposal electronically 

using the comment form for this 

document posted within Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0008 on the Regulations.gov 

website at https://www.regulations.gov. 

At the same location, you also may view 

copies of this document, the related 

petition and selected supporting 

materials, and any comments TTB 

receives on this proposal. A direct link 

to that docket is available on the TTB 

website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

notices-of-proposed-rulemaking under 

Notice No. 226. Alternatively, you may 

submit comments via postal mail to the 

Director, Regulations and Ruling 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 

12, Washington, DC 20005. Please see 

the Public Participation section of this 

document for further information on the 

comments requested on this proposal 

and on the submission, confidentiality, 

and public disclosure of comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the FAA Act 

pursuant to section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, 

the Secretary of the Treasury has 

delegated certain administrative and 

enforcement authorities to TTB through 

Treasury Order 120–01. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) authorizes TTB to establish 

definitive viticultural areas and regulate 

the use of their names as appellations of 

origin on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for the preparation and 

submission of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features as described in 

part 9 of the regulations and, once 

approved, a name and a delineated 

boundary codified in part 9 of the 

regulations. These designations allow 

vintners and consumers to attribute a 

given quality, reputation, or other 

characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to the wine’s 

geographic origin. The establishment of 

AVAs allows vintners to describe more 

accurately the origin of their wines to 

consumers and helps consumers to 

identify wines they may purchase. 

Establishment of an AVA is neither an 

approval nor an endorsement by TTB of 

the wine produced in that area. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1