87282 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 

Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 

CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 

45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 

13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 

783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 786; Notice of November 8, 2022, 

87 FR 68015, 3 CFR, 2022 Comp., p. 563; 

Notice of September 18, 2024, 89 FR 77011 

(September 20, 2024). 

■ 2. Section 744.11 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) and the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 744.11 License requirements that apply 

to entities acting or at significant risk of 

acting contrary to the national security or 

foreign policy interests of the United States. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Footnote 1 entities. You may not, 

without a license or license exception, 

reexport, export from abroad, or transfer 

(in-country) to or within any destination 

or to any end user or party any foreignproduced item subject to the EAR 

pursuant to § 734.9(e)(1) of the EAR. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(iv) Footnote 4 entities. You may not, 

without a license, reexport, export from 

abroad, or transfer (in-country) to or 

within any destination or to any end 

user or party any foreign-produced item 

subject to the EAR pursuant to 

§ 734.9(e)(2) of the EAR. * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 746—EMBARGOES AND OTHER 

SPECIAL CONTROLS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 746 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801–4852; 50 U.S.C. 

4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 

287c; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108–11, 117 Stat. 559; 

22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 22 

U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 

12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 

614; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 

Comp., p. 899; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 

CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 

26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; 

Presidential Determination 2003–23, 68 FR 

26459, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 320; 

Presidential Determination 2007–7, 72 FR 

1899, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 325; Notice of 

May 8, 2024, 89 FR 40355 (May 9, 2024). 

■ 4. Section 746.8 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), 

(a)(12)(ii)(D) and (E); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(12)(ii)(F); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(vi)(D) 

and (E); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(F); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 746.8 Sanctions against Russia and 

Belarus. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Russia/Belarus-Military End User 

and Procurement FDP rule. A license is 

required to reexport, export from 

abroad, or transfer (in-country) to or 

within any destination or to any end 

user or party any foreign-produced item 

subject to the EAR under § 734.9(g) of 

the EAR. 

* * * * * 

(12) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) Wholly owned subsidiaries, 

branches, or sales offices of companies 

headquartered in countries from 

Country Group A:5 and A:6 in 

supplement no. 1 to part 740; 

(E) Joint ventures between two or 

more companies headquartered in 

Country Group A:5 and A:6 in 

supplement no. 1 to part 740, including 

the wholly owned subsidiaries, 

branches, or sales offices of such joint 

ventures; or 

(F) For official business of diplomatic 

or consular missions of the governments 

of Country Group A:5 and A:6 

destinations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(D) The wholly owned subsidiaries, 

branches, or sales offices of companies 

headquartered in countries from 

Country Group A:5 and A:6 in 

supplement no. 1 to part 740; 

(E) Joint ventures of companies 

headquartered in Country Groups A:5 

and A:6 with other companies 

headquartered in Country Groups A:5 

and A:6; or 

(F) For official business of 

governments of Country Group A:5 and 

A:6 destinations. 

(vii) Applications for companies 

headquartered in Country Groups A:5 

and A:6 to support civil 

telecommunications infrastructure. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vi) License Exception Encryption 

commodities, software, and technology 

(ENC) for civil end-users that are 

wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries, 

branches, or sales offices; foreign 

subsidiaries, branches, or sales offices of 

U.S. companies that are joint ventures 

with other U.S. companies; joint 

ventures of U.S. companies with 

companies headquartered in countries 

from Country Group A:5 and A:6 in 

supplement no. 1 to part 740 of the EAR 

countries; the wholly-owned 

subsidiaries, branches, or sales offices of 

companies headquartered in countries 

from Country Group A:5 and A:6 in 

supplement no. 1 to part 740; joint 

ventures of companies headquartered in 

Country Group A:5 and A:6 with other 

companies headquartered in Country 

Groups A:5 and A:6; or for official 

business of diplomatic or consular 

missions of the governments of Country 

Group A:5 and A:6 destinations 

(§§ 740.13(c) and 740.17 of the EAR). 

■ 5. Supplement no. 6 to part 746 is 

amended by adding paragraph (i) to read 

as follows: 

Supplement No. 6 to Part 746—Russian 

and Belarusian Industry Sector 

Sanctions Pursuant to § 746.8(a)(6) 

(i) Pre-cursors for riot control agents and 

chloropicrin as follows: 

(1) Malononitrile (CAS 109–77–3); 

(2) 2-Chlorobenzaldehyde (CAS 89–98–5); 

(3) 2-Chlorobenzyl Alcohol (CAS 17849– 

38–6); 

(4) 2-Chlorobenzylamine (CAS 89–97–4); 

(5) Benzene, 1-chloro-2-(dimethoxymethyl) 

(CAS 70380–66–4); 

(6) Acetophenone (CAS 98–86–2); 

(7) Chloroacetyl Chloride (CAS 79–04–9); 

(8) Chloroform (CAS 67–66–3); and 

(9) o-Aminophenol (CAS 95–55–6). 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Strategic Trade and Technology Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25445 Filed 10–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA amends 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. The 

changes will facilitate consideration of 

the broader safety and mobility impacts 

of work zones in a more coordinated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87283 

and comprehensive manner across 

project development stages. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 2, 2024. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of December 

2, 2024. 

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, the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 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 U.S. 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.GovInfo.gov. 

Background 

The principal mission of 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. 

Work zones are a necessary part of 

maintaining and upgrading our aging 

roadway infrastructure. The FHWA 

strongly encourages that work zones be 

implemented and maintained as safely 

as possible, and with the least possible 

amount of travel disruption. Doing so 

directly supports DOT’s safety strategic 

goal, facilitates the movement of people 

and goods while work occurs on our 

highways, and is essential for 

maintaining economic strength and 

global competitiveness. Similarly, 

effective work zone management also 

ensures that work zone impacts do not 

unduly burden any one user group, and 

that appropriate efforts are taken to 

mitigate the differential impacts caused 

by work zones. Congestion generated by 

work zones contributes to vehicular 

pollution; reducing congestion 

undoubtedly supports DOT goals 

pertaining to climate and sustainability. 

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. 

Subpart J—Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility Overview 

Over the last two decades, significant 

strides have been made in managing 

work zone safety and mobility, with 

States establishing overarching work 

zone safety and mobility policies and 

implementing processes to better 

understand and manage work zone 

impacts (e.g., implementing processes 

for significant projects, applying 

intelligent technologies for work zone 

operations, measuring work zone 

performance). However, opportunities 

still exist to improve the consistency 

and continuity of work zone 

management practices across States, 

including proactively monitoring and 

managing work zone impacts of projects 

during implementation and leveraging 

available data sources for data-driven 

work zone performance reviews. Work 

zones continue to have significant safety 

and mobility impacts on our 

transportation system, which are further 

expected to increase due to increased 

road construction and rehabilitation 

projects funded by the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL). Further, 

Congress, through the BIL, required 

FHWA to update the process review and 

significant projects sections. 

In light of the above, FHWA 

published an NPRM on September 20, 

2023, at 88 FR 64836, to update Subpart 

J to meet current and future work zone 

management needs while also making 

the subpart compliant with the BIL. The 

key changes proposed in the NPRM 

included: incorporating safety and 

mobility performance measures in 

States’ work zone policies; increasing 

the reporting interval for work zone 

process reviews from 2 to 5 years (as per 

the BIL) and reframing process reviews 

to programmatic reviews; clarifying 

certain unclear terms; and clarifying the 

significant projects and associated 

Transportation Management Plan (TMP) 

criteria for Interstate and non-Interstate 

projects (as per the BIL). 

Several States, a few trade 

associations, and some private industry 

representatives provided responses to 

the NPRM. Most State department of 

transportation (State DOT) commenters 

agreed with the intent and concepts 

proposed in the NPRM but they 

recommended revisions to minimize 

regulatory burden, increase flexibility 

and scalability, and make the provisions 

more practical to apply in the field. 

States also noted that some of the terms 

used in the proposed rule were 

ambiguous and lent themselves to 

subjective interpretation, and asked for 

clarification on the compliance dates. In 

this final rule, FHWA has addressed the 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM that are within the scope of this 

rulemaking. The regulation addresses 

the comments related to flexibility and 

scalability of provisions; revises, 

eliminates, or clarifies ambiguous terms 

pointed out by the commenters; and 

clarifies compliance timeframes. 

The final rule revises §§ 630.1004, 

630.1006, 630.1008, 630.1010, 630.1012, 

630.1014, and 630.1016 of the existing 

rule published in 2004 to clarify certain 

aspects of the regulation and to update 

and provide additional emphasis on 

certain elements. The regulation will 

enhance the current state of practice in 

work zone management by promoting 

data-driven assessment of work zone 

performance, motivating agencies to 

conduct a thorough review of work zone 

management processes, and encouraging 

comprehensive assessment and 

management of work zone safety and 

mobility impacts. This final rule 

incorporates new definitions and 

clarifies some existing definitions; 

includes a requirement in States’ Work 

Zone Safety and Mobility Policies to 

define the safety and mobility 

performance measures that States will 

monitor and report; reframes Work Zone 

Process Reviews to Work Zone 

Programmatic Reviews (WZPR), 

emphasizing the importance of 

reviewing all aspects of a State’s work 

zone management program; changes the 

WZPR reporting timeframe from every 2 

years to every 5 years to comply with 

the BIL; strengthens the requirement for 

States to develop and implement work 

zone assessment and management 

procedures with an added notion of 

addressing impacts to all anticipated 

road users and highway workers; and 

clarifies the significant project and TMP 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87284 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

maintained by NHTSA and is available at the 

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

2Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 

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

iif/overview/cfoi.htm. 

3Worker 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/. 

criteria for Interstate and Non-Interstate 

projects to comply with the BIL. 

Subpart K—Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices Overview 

In 2007, at 72 FR 68489, FHWA added 

a new Subpart K to 23 Code of Federal 

Regulations (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 decreased 

significantly during the latter half of 

that decade, from a high of 1,068 work 

zone fatalities in 2004 to 590 fatalities 

in 2011.1 Unfortunately, since then that 

trend has reversed, growing from 590 

fatalities in 2011 to 891 fatalities in 

2022 (the most recent year of available 

national work zone fatality data). Work 

zones continue to have significant safety 

and mobility impacts on our 

transportation system, which are further 

expected to increase due to increased 

road construction and rehabilitation 

projects funded by the BIL. 

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, 

that number has increased to 53 

percent.2 3

It has been over 15 years since the 

Subpart K 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 

(AFAD), 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 existing regulation 

references guidelines and other 

documents that have been superseded 

by newer publications. 

In light of the above, FHWA 

published an NPRM on September 20, 

2023, at 88 FR 64836, to update Subpart 

K to meet current and future work zone 

safety needs. The regulations proposed 

in the NPRM were intended to facilitate 

improved agency guidelines backed by 

engineering research to determine the 

use of positive protection and other 

strategies. In addition, the proposed 

regulations mandated the use of positive 

protective strategies to minimize worker 

exposure to motorized traffic in work 

zones with high anticipated operating 

speeds that provide workers no means 

of escape from motorized traffic 

intruding into the workspace. Several 

States, a few trade associations, and 

some private industry representatives 

provided responses to the NPRM. While 

most of the commenters agreed with the 

intent and the concepts proposed in the 

NPRM, they recommended that the 

proposed provisions be revised and 

altered to make them practical for 

application in the field. The 

commenters identified the need for 

flexibility and scalability in the 

implementation of the provisions of the 

proposed rule; noted that some of the 

terms used in the proposed rule were 

ambiguous and lent themselves to 

subjective interpretation; and asked for 

clarification on compliance timeframes 

of the final rule. In this final rule, 

FHWA has addressed the comments 

received in response to the NPRM that 

are within the scope of this rulemaking. 

The regulation addressed the comments 

related to flexibility and scalability of 

provisions; revised, eliminated, or 

clarified ambiguous terms pointed out 

by the commenters; and clarified 

compliance timeframes. 

The final rule revises §§ 630.1104, 

630.1106, 630.1108, and 630.1110 of the 

existing rule published in 2007 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 final 

rule also adds § 630.1112 to the existing 

rule to clarify the compliance 

timeframe. The final rule incorporates 

new definitions and clarifies some 

existing definitions; updates the 

requirement in States’ Work Zone Safety 

Management Policies and Procedures 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; updates 

the requirement in States’ Work Zone 

Safety Management Policies and 

Procedures to provide characteristics of 

an engineering study and examples of 

the types of engineering decisionmaking 

tools that can be used in the engineering 

study; and modifies § 630.1108(a) to: (i) 

require that 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; and (ii) remove 

redundant language indicating that 

decisions regarding the use of 

longitudinal traffic barriers and other 

positive protection devices shall be 

based on an engineering study. 

Profile of Commenters 

A total of 53 parties commented on 

the NPRM. Of these, 35 were from State 

DOTs, 12 were from trade associations, 

3 were from private companies, and 3 

were from private citizens. 

Representatives from 20 State DOTs 

provided 35 responses. The 20 States 

represented a diverse range of 

geographies from across the country. 

The DOTs of Idaho, South Dakota, North 

Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana 

provided a consolidated response to the 

NPRM, while the remaining State DOTs 

submitted individual comments. The 

trade associations that provided 

comments included the Laborers’ Health 

and Safety Fund of North America 

(LHSFNA), American Traffic Safety 

Services Association (ATSSA), 

Associated General Contractors of 

America (AGC), American Society of 

Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Road 

and Transportation Builders Association 

(ARTBA), Motorcycle Industry Council 

(MIC), American Federation of State, 

County, and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME), International Safety 

Equipment Association (ISEA), and 

Institute of Transportation Engineers 

(ITE). 

The commenters represented a crosssection of job categories across DOT 

functions including planning, 

engineering, traffic, safety, design, 

construction and contracting. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87285 

4MMUCC Guideline Model Minimum Uniform 

Crash Criteria 6th edition. National Highway Traffic 

Continued 

Subpart J—Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility 

Overall Position of Commenters 

Most commenters were generally 

supportive of the intent and stated 

purpose of the proposed revisions. 

Some commenters offered additional 

comments on specific areas of concern 

and recommended changes to improve 

the rule’s language and interpretability. 

Generally, State DOTs commented 

that the proposed revisions should not 

have a mandatory impact, but instead 

allow for flexibility and scalability 

while limiting unintended liability and 

cost. Five States agreed with FHWA’s 

intent and the concepts for improving 

work zone safety and mobility but did 

not agree with many of the mandatory 

provisions. States also sought 

clarification on whether FHWA 

intended to mandate the performance 

measures listed in some of the ‘‘shall’’ 

conditions or whether the measures 

were provided as examples. In addition, 

States asked for clarification on certain 

ambiguous terms as well as the 

compliance timeframe for the final rule. 

Most State DOT commenters 

appreciated the updated 5-year 

reporting timeframe for WZPRs but had 

concerns about the new 3-year 

performance reporting requirement. 

They commented that the 3-year 

requirement contradicts BIL § 11302 and 

would require significant commitments 

from its limited staff. In addition, they 

sought clarification on the flexibility for 

States to choose the number of 

performance measures and specific 

measures to meet final rule 

requirements. 

Private sector commenters also 

offered comments on certain areas of 

concern. Details regarding these issues 

and FHWA’s specific response are 

discussed in the following section, 

which provides a section-by-section 

analysis of the comments. 

Section-by-Section Analysis of NPRM 

Comments and FHWA Response— 

Subpart J 

Overview of the Organization of This 

Section 

This section consists of a detailed 

discussion on the comments received on 

specific NPRM sections and the FHWA 

response and resolution to the 

comments. For each section, the 

following information is presented: 

• Breakdown of the position of the 

commenters with regards to the 

provisions proposed in that section; 

• Major issues cited by the 

commenters; and 

• FHWA action in response to the 

comments and explanation of the 

provisions being implemented in the 

final rule. 

The following paragraphs present a 

section-by-section analysis and 

resolution of the comments on the 

NPRM. 

§ 630.1004 Definitions and 

Explanation of Terms 

Most commenters were supportive of 

this section. Some commenters offered 

specific comments on some of the 

definitions proposed in the NPRM. They 

are discussed as follows: 

Definition of ‘‘Agency’’ 

A commenter pointed out that the 

term ‘‘agency’’ only appears in the 

definitions of ‘‘Highway Workers,’’ 

‘‘Transportation Management Plan,’’ 

and ‘‘Work Zone Programmatic 

Review.’’ The commenter mentioned 

that all remaining sections refer to 

‘‘States’’ and have no actionable items 

for agencies. The commenter sought 

clarification on the intent of using the 

term ‘‘agency’’ and any final rule 

provisions or action items applicable to 

local highway agencies or authorities. 

The FHWA will retain the ‘‘Agency’’ 

definition as proposed in the NPRM and 

add clarification in § 630.1010 that 

provisions in §§ 630.1010, 630.1012, 

and 630.1014 apply to State and local 

agencies that receive Federal funding for 

their work zone projects. The FHWA 

updated the definition of ‘‘Agency’’ by 

adding, ‘‘that receives Federal-aid 

highway funding’’ at the end to be 

consistent with the Subpart K 

definition. 

Definition of ‘‘Mobility’’ 

Four commenters provided input on 

this definition, with three commenters 

opposed to the deletion of language 

associated with highway worker or road 

user safety and one being neutral. The 

three commenters suggesting that the 

language associated with the safety of 

highway workers and road users should 

not be deleted believe that keeping the 

language intact would help emphasize 

the fact that safety is a crucial aspect 

that underpins the movement of road 

users. Another commenter suggested 

adding ‘level of service’ as an example 

of commonly used performance 

measures. 

As requested by the commenters, 

FHWA will retain the safety language 

related to highway workers and road 

users in the mobility definition. The 

FHWA did not add ‘level of service’ as 

an example measure because it is a 

metric that can be derived from the 

other example metrics included in the 

provision. 

Definition of ‘‘Road Users’’ 

While FHWA did not propose a 

definition for ‘‘Road User’’ in the 

NPRM, one commenter asked FHWA to 

clarify the term in relation to the use of 

this term in § 630.1008(b). 

The FHWA declines to add a new 

definition here but notes that the 

definition for the term ‘‘Road Users’’ is 

provided in 23 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 148(a)(8). 

Definition of ‘‘Safety’’ 

Ten commenters supported the 

removal of superfluous language on 

highway worker safety. Four of the 

commenters suggested removing ‘‘the 

rate of highway worker fatalities and 

injuries per hours of work activity’’ from 

commonly used measures. They 

suggested this removal due to the 

difficulty of obtaining accurate 

information for these measures. 

The FHWA understands the difficulty 

cited by commenters in collecting 

accurate hours of work activity and 

numbers of highway worker fatalities 

and injuries. To this end, FHWA 

removed ‘‘the rate of highway worker 

fatalities and injuries per hours of work 

activity’’ from the commonly used 

measures. 

Definition of ‘‘Transportation 

Management Plan’’ 

Five commenters pointed out that the 

section-by-section discussion of 

§ 630.1004 in the NPRM inaccurately 

stated that the TMP definition includes 

references to the temporary traffic 

control (TTC) plan and transportation 

operations (TO) and public information 

and outreach (PIO) components to the 

TMP. 

The FHWA agrees with the 

commenters’ observation that the TMP 

definition does not provide information 

about the TTC, TO, and PIO 

components. Sections 630.1010(d) and 

630.1012(b) provide a detailed 

explanation of these TMP components. 

The FHWA added a clarifying sentence 

at the end of the TMP definition that 

readers can refer to § 630.1010(d) and 

§ 630.1012(b) for more information on 

the TMP and its components. 

Definition of ‘‘Work Zone Crash’’ 

Three commenters supported the 

proposed changes. Two commenters 

asked FHWA to compare the proposed 

work zone crash definition with the 

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

(MMUCC) definition of secondary 

crashes.4 The MMUCC says that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87286 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Safety Administration. Accessed at: https://

www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/ 

downloads/MMUCC/. 

secondary crashes are identified from 

the time the initial crash is detected, 

occurring either at the primary crash 

site or within the traffic queue or 

backup, including those in the opposite 

direction caused by the primary crash. 

A commenter recommended providing 

additional clarification that the crash 

tracking requirement is not intended to 

capture any crash within the area of 

impact, and only specifically workzone-related crashes per the MMUCC. 

The FHWA did not make any changes 

to the proposed NPRM language. The 

existing ‘‘Work Zone Crash’’ definition 

in § 630.1004 refers to the crash 

definition in MMUCC, which also 

addresses secondary crashes outside the 

work zone limits influenced by the 

primary work zone crashes. The FHWA 

encourages States to include secondary 

work zone crashes in their safety 

analysis to the extent data are available. 

Definition of ‘‘Work Zone Impacts’’ 

Two commenters supported the 

proposed changes. One commenter 

recommended adding ‘‘Type of 

Temporary Traffic Control’’ to the list of 

factors for assessing the work zone 

impacts and extent. Another commenter 

asked for clarification on whether States 

need to use minimum parameters or 

engineering judgement to assess 

‘‘distance between workers and traffic 

and availability of escape paths for 

workers’’ factors. 

The FHWA updated the rule language 

by adding type of temporary traffic 

control as a factor that States can 

consider for assessing the extent of work 

zone impacts. In addition, FHWA 

clarifies that States can (i) use data from 

work zone planning and 

implementation logs to identify ‘‘the 

distance between workers and traffic’’ 

and (ii) a combination of data (e.g., work 

zone type, location, closure status) and 

engineering judgement to assess ‘‘the 

availability of escape paths for 

workers.’’ Workers in this instance 

refers to flaggers and highways workers. 

§ 630.1006 Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility Policy 

§ 630.1006(b) Identification of Safety 

and Mobility Performance Measures in 

the Policy 

Twenty-one commenters provided 

comments in response to this paragraph. 

Of these, 12 commenters expressed 

concerns about the inclusion of a list of 

safety and mobility performance 

measures within the ‘‘shall’’ condition 

of the work zone policy requirement. 

They believe that it gives the impression 

that FHWA mandates the use of these 

performance measures. The commenters 

sought clarity on whether FHWA 

mandates the use of these measures or 

whether they are just examples. They 

also asked whether they can choose 

performance measures not listed in this 

paragraph and whether there is a 

minimum number of safety and mobility 

performance measures that each State 

should identify to meet this 

requirement. A commenter noted that 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devises (MUTCD) uses American 

National Standards Institute/ISEA 

(ANSI/ISEA) 107–2015 standard for 

compliance requirements of highvisibility safety apparel for all workers 

performing daytime and nighttime work 

activity within temporary traffic control 

zone. The commenter suggested adding 

a new paragraph to recognize the new 

ANSI/ISEA 107–2020, the American 

National Standard for High Visibility 

Safety Apparel. 

The safety and mobility performance 

measures included in the NPRM are 

examples and are not mandatory. To 

avoid confusion, FHWA split the 

proposed sentence into two. The revised 

first sentence contains the requirement 

for States to identify performance 

measures in their work zone policies. 

The second sentence provides examples 

of measures to consider. States can 

comply with this requirement by 

identifying at least one safety and one 

mobility performance measure, but they 

are encouraged to use as many 

performance measures as needed to 

manage the performance of their work 

zones. States may choose performance 

measures that are best suited to their 

work zone conditions and impacts but 

they must have a documented work 

zone performance management 

approach for selecting projects, 

identifying performance measures, and 

collecting performance data. In response 

to the suggestion to add a new 

paragraph regarding ANSI/ISEA 107– 

2020, Subpart J incorporates the 

MUTCD and requires the use of Part 6 

by reference. Section 6C.05 of the 

MUTCD requires all workers performing 

daytime and nighttime work activity 

within temporary traffic control zones to 

wear high-visibility safety apparel that 

meets the Performance Class 2 or 3 

requirements of the ANSI/ISEA 107– 

2015 standard or equivalent revisions. 

§ 630.1006(c) Multi-Disciplinary Team 

Eight commenters provided input on 

this paragraph. Note that FHWA did not 

propose any changes to existing 

language related to the multidisciplinary team. The only change that 

FHWA made to this paragraph was to 

assign a paragraph number, ‘‘(c),’’ to this 

sentence. Six commenters suggested 

removing this paragraph to allow States 

flexibility for selecting members for the 

multidisciplinary team. Two 

commenters sought clarification on 

whether States can keep this team 

internal and involve external parties 

only if necessary. Another commenter 

commented that the language in 

§ 630.1006(c) is redundant with 

§ 630.1008(e)(5). 

The FHWA disagrees with the 

suggestion of deleting this paragraph 

and retained the language as proposed 

in the NPRM. The intent of the 

‘‘should’’ condition is to encourage 

States to include members from various 

work zone management divisions in 

their policy development and 

implementation in a comprehensive 

manner. States can determine the 

members of their multidisciplinary team 

based on their needs. The team and 

developed policies can remain internal 

to the States, but external members can 

be added if deemed necessary. While 

§ 630.1006(c) addresses the members 

that participate in the development and 

implementation of the work zone safety 

and mobility policy, § 630.1008(e)(5) 

addresses the members that participate 

in the work zone programmatic review. 

§ 630.1008 State-Level Processes and 

Procedures 

§ 630.1008(b) Work Zone Assessment 

and Management Procedures 

Ten commenters provided comments 

on this paragraph. Among these, seven 

commenters suggested to retain the 

previous ‘‘should’’ condition for this 

requirement instead of elevating to a 

‘‘shall.’’ These commenters also 

believed that the term ‘‘potential’’ in 

‘‘potential work zone impacts’’ could be 

construed as requiring analysis for 

outcomes that may be unlikely but are 

nonetheless ‘‘potential’’ impacts. They 

recommended replacing the term 

‘‘potential’’ with ‘‘likely’’ or ‘‘possible’’ 

so that the implementation of this 

requirement can be more practical. A 

commenter expressed concern with the 

use of term ‘‘all’’ in ‘‘all road users and 

highway workers’’ as some road users 

(e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists) might 

not be applicable when assessing 

impacts on certain work zones. The 

commenter suggested removing the term 

‘‘all’’ or qualifying with a caveat such as 

‘‘all anticipated road users.’’ Another 

commenter recommended adding 

‘‘(including motorcyclists)’’ next to road 

users. 

The FHWA disagrees with the 

commenters’ suggestion to retain the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87287 

5https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_

rule/webcast/020112wztpdi/rush_ppt/rush.htm. 

‘‘should’’ condition instead of ‘‘shall’’ 

condition. The Work Zone Assessment 

and Management Procedures provision 

was introduced in 2007 as a new 

concept, hence the use of ‘‘should’’ was 

appropriate at that time. Since then, 

States have made significant progress in 

their work zone impacts assessment and 

management procedures. Therefore, 

using ‘‘shall’’ will reinforce this 

progress and facilitate continued 

improvement in work zone safety and 

mobility nationwide. The FHWA made 

additional changes for clarity and to 

address the issues cited by the 

commenters. 

§ 630.1008(c) Work Zone Data 

Thirteen commenters provided 

comments on this paragraph. Of these, 

eight commenters suggested changing 

the ‘‘shall’’ condition for this 

requirement to a ‘‘should.’’ These States 

noted that the term ‘‘available’’ is 

missing in front of safety surrogate data. 

Some commenters asked FHWA to 

clarify its intent in using the term 

‘‘available’’ in front of multiple data 

sources. They commented that some 

data sources might be available in the 

market but not accessible for States to 

use due to factors such as required 

subscriptions and funding. In addition, 

five commenters sought clarity on 

whether FHWA mandates the use of 

performance measures listed in this 

paragraph or whether they are just 

examples. Two other commenters asked 

for clarity on the term ‘‘specific 

projects’’ and if it is the same as 

significant projects defined in 

§ 630.1010. 

The existing rule already requires 

States to use data in their work zone 

safety and mobility management 

processes. The FHWA retained the 

‘‘shall’’ condition to facilitate improved 

data-driven assessments of work zone 

performance nationwide. To address the 

comment about performance measures, 

FHWA split the paragraph into two 

sentences in the final rule. The revised 

first sentence presents the requirement, 

and the second sentence identifies 

example measures for each data source. 

The FHWA’s intent in using the term 

‘‘available’’ in this paragraph is not to 

require States to acquire additional data 

available in the market, but rather to 

make use of data accessible and 

available to them through existing 

sources. ‘‘Specific projects’’ in this 

paragraph refers to individual projects 

that State DOTs choose for monitoring 

and management of work zone impacts 

during implementation. Specific 

projects may include significant or nonsignificant projects, and are selected 

based on factors such as land use, type 

of roadway, work zone type, and the 

extent of potential work zone impacts. 

§ 630.1008(d) Training 

Three commenters provided 

comments on this paragraph. Note that 

FHWA did not propose any changes to 

existing language for this paragraph. 

The commenters did not cite any major 

issues. One commenter asked about 

training and certification requirements 

pursuant to § 630.1008(d). Another 

commenter recommended that State and 

local roadway owners should require a 

trained and certified Work Zone 

Supervisor to be assigned for each 

significant project. The third commenter 

recommended to update the paragraph 

language by adding an established time 

period that informs workers when they 

should recertify their training to ensure 

workers are thoroughly trained in the 

best safety practices when working in 

work zones. 

The FHWA did not make any changes 

to this provision. With regard to the 

commenter’s question on training and 

certification requirements, FHWA’s 

position is that State DOTs need to 

tailor training and certification for each 

role based on their own requirements. 

For example, Virginia DOT’s Work Zone 

Traffic Control Training Requirements 

document 5 identifies various roles in 

design, construction, and maintenance/ 

operations divisions and their 

respective training and certification 

requirements. The current state of the 

practice is that most agencies require 

their staff to be retrained once every 2 

to 4 years. With regard to the comment 

on retraining, FHWA believes that the 

second sentence in this provision (i.e., 

States shall require periodic training 

updates that reflect changing industry 

practices and State processes and 

procedures) addresses the comment by 

requiring periodic training updates that 

reflect changing industry practices, 

which includes state-of-the-art 

practices. 

§ 630.1008(e) Work Zone Programmatic 

Review 

Eleven commenters provided input on 

this paragraph. All commenters were 

supportive of this high-level provision. 

Note that § 630.1008(e) speaks about the 

high-level provision for work zone 

programmatic reviews and its reporting 

timeframe, whereas paragraphs 

§ 630.1008(e)(1) through (e)(5) provide 

more specifics on the contents of the 

work zone programmatic reviews, 

project selection for conducting reviews, 

data-driven assessment needs, and 

examination of various work zone 

efforts. Commenters provided separate 

comments on these individual 

paragraphs, which are discussed 

following this section. Six commenters 

asked for clarification for the timeframe 

of the data to be included in the 5-year 

programmatic review. They noted a 

technical concern in the wording that 

calls for a State to share its 5-year 

review with FHWA ‘‘by the end of the 

5-year review period.’’ They suggested 

that the review period for each WZPR 

report should include the review of 

work zones from 5 calendar years prior 

to the year of the report. Commenters 

also asked for clarification on the 

compliance dates for the reframed 

WZPR requirement. They mentioned 

that it may take at least 12 to 24 months 

to update their policies and data 

collection practices to meet the new 

requirements. They asked FHWA to 

consider these factors when identifying 

the compliance dates/timeframes. A 

commenter recommended application of 

data driven assessments to a 

representative sample of work zone 

projects over the 5-year review period 

that justify their inclusion. 

The FHWA finds the approach 

suggested by the State DOTs for 

Programmatic Reviews’ review period 

(i.e., the review period for each WZPR 

report includes selection and review of 

work zones from 5 calendar years prior 

to the year of the report) to be 

reasonable. States may use this 

approach for selecting the review period 

for their Programmatic Reviews. The 

FHWA addressed comments about 

compliance timeframes in § 630.1016 by 

indicating that the next Programmatic 

Review reports are due by December 31, 

2030. The FHWA reemphasizes that 

States shall use a documented approach 

for selecting representative projects 

based on factors such as land use (urban 

and rural locations), roadway type, type 

of work zone, and extent of the work 

zone impacts. 

§ 630.1008(e)(1) Work Zone 

Programmatic Review—Qualification 

Six commenters provided comments 

on this paragraph. Of these, two 

commenters suggested changing the 

requirement from ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘should’’ 

and indicated that this change will 

allow flexibility to States in selection of 

projects for WZPRs. These two 

commenters along with four other 

commenters noted a major concern with 

the use of term ‘‘all’’ in ‘‘all work zones’’ 

and indicated that this implies that 

States shall include all their work zones 

in their WZPRs. They indicated that the 

term ‘‘all’’ is particularly concerning in 

rural areas where there are very few 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87288 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

projects that qualify as ‘‘significant.’’ 

These commenters suggested removing 

the term ‘‘all’’ from the regulation. 

Another commenter asked whether 

States are required to negotiate and 

confirm the representative project 

selection approach with the FHWA 

division offices. 

The FHWA retained the ‘‘shall’’ 

condition and addressed the concern 

raised by multiple commenters by 

removing the term ‘‘all’’ from the final 

rule language. To avoid confusion, 

FHWA split the first sentence into two 

sentences. The revised first sentence 

addresses the data-driven assessment 

requirement of WZPRs, and the second 

sentence presents the minimum 

Programmatic Review requirement to 

include a representative sample of the 

State’s work zones over the 5-year 

period being reviewed. This revision 

provides flexibility to State DOTs to 

select a representative set of projects 

based on a documented and wellreasoned approach. To the extent 

possible, FHWA encourages States to 

include all work zones in their 

programmatic review to make it a 

comprehensive review of systemwide 

performance. While States are not 

required to include FHWA division 

offices in defining the approach for 

representative project selection, they are 

encouraged to do so. 

§ 630.1008(e)(2) Explanation of Work 

Zone Programmatic Review 

Two commenters provided input on 

this paragraph. One commenter 

suggested changing the requirement 

from ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘should’’ to minimize 

regulatory burden on States. Another 

commenter commented that the terms 

‘‘divisions or offices’’ used in this 

paragraph are not clearly defined. 

The FHWA retained the ‘‘shall’’ 

condition in the final rule to ensure 

uniform implementation and reporting 

of WZPRs across the country. To make 

it clear that Programmatic Reviews 

should identify State divisions and 

offices responsible for implementing 

action items, FHWA added the term 

‘‘State’’ in front of ‘‘divisions or offices.’’ 

§ 630.1008(e)(3) Work Zone 

Programmatic Review Data and 

Reporting 

Nine commenters provided comments 

on this paragraph and opposed the 

provisions in it. A commenter suggested 

changing the requirement from ‘‘shall’’ 

to ‘‘should’’ to minimize regulatory 

burden on States. Eight commenters 

indicated that the requirement to report 

performance at the end of the third year 

might be contradictory to the BIL. 

Commenters noted inconsistent use of 

the term ‘‘available’’ in front of data 

sources. A commenter asked for 

clarification on contents to be included 

in the 3-year report. Another commenter 

suggested consistency in use of example 

measures listed in § 630.1008(e)(3) and 

§ 630.1008(c). In addition, five 

commenters sought clarity on whether 

FHWA mandates the use of performance 

measures listed in this paragraph or 

whether they are just examples. 

The FHWA removed the mid-point 

performance data reporting from the 

rule provision to address the comments 

received. The FHWA retained the 

annual performance monitoring 

requirement. The purpose of the annual 

monitoring is to facilitate continuity in 

assessing work zone performance. States 

are encouraged to use the performance 

measures they identify in their policies 

for the annual monitoring and 

incorporate their findings into their 5- 

year WZPRs. The FHWA added the term 

‘‘available’’ in front of all data sources 

to make it consistent. The FHWA 

removed the performance measures 

proposed in the § 630.1008(e)(3) of 

NPRM and added a sentence noting that 

agencies can use examples of 

performance measures listed in 

§ 630.1008(c) for each data source. 

§ 630.1008(e)(4) Examination of Other 

Efforts 

Seven commenters provided 

comments on this paragraph. Of these, 

two commenters suggested changing the 

requirement from ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘should’’ to 

minimize regulatory burden on States. 

Four commenters opposed the use of the 

term ‘‘all’’ in ‘‘all State divisions and 

offices,’’ and noted that the selection of 

applicable divisions or efforts to be 

examined as part of WZPRs varies 

between States depending on factors 

such as staff and data availability in 

those divisions. They asked whether the 

efforts listed in the requirement are 

examples or requirements, and if States 

have flexibility in selection of these 

efforts based on their work zone 

assessment criteria. 

The FHWA retained the ‘‘shall’’ 

condition in the final rule to emphasize 

the importance of covering all aspects of 

program planning and project 

development that affect work zone 

safety and mobility. The FHWA 

removed the term ‘‘all’’ in front of ‘‘State 

divisions or offices’’ to allow States 

flexibility to select efforts applicable to 

their work zone safety and mobility 

assessment. The FHWA further clarifies 

that the efforts listed in § 630.1008(e)(4) 

apply to work zone processes and 

procedures requirements between 

§ 630.1008(e)(2) and § 630.1008(e)(4). 

The FHWA’s intent is for States to select 

the efforts considering the assessment of 

the work zone safety and mobility 

performance. The FHWA encourages 

States to involve FHWA division offices 

in selecting efforts, but it is not 

mandatory. 

§ 630.1010 Significant Projects 

§ 630.1010(a) Significant Project 

Explanation 

Only one commenter provided 

comments in response to this paragraph. 

Note that FHWA did not propose any 

changes to existing language for this 

paragraph. This commenter suggested 

adding the words ‘‘work zone’’ in 

between significant projects to 

distinguish work zone projects from 

other types of projects that may have 

different impacts and requirements. 

The FHWA did not propose any 

changes to this provision in the NPRM. 

Therefore, FHWA did not make any 

change to the final rule. With regards to 

the one comment on this topic, the 

significant project definition addresses 

sustained work zone impacts, and it is 

implied that these projects are work 

zone projects. 

§ 630.1010(c) Significant Project 

Qualification—Interstates 

Four commenters provided comments 

on this paragraph. Note that FHWA did 

not propose any changes to existing 

language for this paragraph. Three of the 

commenters recommended deleting this 

paragraph, noting that States have a 

defined policy under § 630.1010(a) for 

determining significant projects. Two 

commenters asked FHWA to consider 

providing flexibility for intermittent 

closures associated with preservation 

and maintenance activities with lower/ 

mitigated impacts on the interstate 

system. Another commenter mentioned 

that the BIL language about significant 

projects does not include intermittent 

lane closures. 

In compliance with BIL § 11303(a), 

FHWA retained the language as 

proposed in the NPRM. Although States 

define their policy under § 630.1010(a), 

work zones on interstates that meet the 

conditions of § 630.1010(c) would still 

qualify as significant projects. This 

section identifies minimum criteria for 

significant projects. If a State determines 

a project or a class of projects as not 

significant, they can make use of the 

State DOT policy in § 630.1010(b) and 

exception process in § 630.1010(d) to 

file an exception and not prepare the 

PIO and TO components of a TMP. The 

BIL § 11303(a) mentions that ‘‘The 

Secretary shall amend section 

630.1010(c) of title 23, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to ensure that only a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87289 

project described in that paragraph with 

a lane closure for 3 or more consecutive 

days shall be considered to be a 

significant project for purposes of that 

section.’’ The projects described in 

paragraph § 630.1010(c) include work 

zone projects with intermittent or 

continuous lane closures. 

§ 630.1010(d) Significant Project 

Qualification—Non-Interstates 

Three commenters provided 

comments on this paragraph. All of 

them recommend deleting this 

paragraph, noting that TMP 

requirements are covered in 

§ 630.1012(b). 

The FHWA retained this paragraph 

because it is required for compliance 

with BIL § 11303(b) and to address TO/ 

PIO requirements for non-interstate 

projects. However, FHWA modified this 

paragraph to simplify the language and 

make it consistent with the interstate 

system projects requirement. The 

FHWA also changed the numbering for 

this section § 630.1010(d) in the NPRM 

to § 630.1010(e). This change allows the 

significant project exceptions for 

interstate projects (i.e., previously 

§ 630.1012(e) in the NPRM) to be next 

to the significant project qualification 

section (i.e., § 630.1012(c)). 

§ 630.1010(e) Significant Project 

Exceptions—Interstates 

One commenter provided comments 

on this paragraph. Note that FHWA did 

not propose any changes to this 

paragraph. The commenter requested 

clarity on the process and time frame to 

request and receive an exception from 

FHWA. 

Since there was no change proposed 

in the NPRM, FHWA did not make any 

changes to this paragraph in the final 

rule. With regards to the commenter’s 

requested clarification on the process 

and time frame for exceptions, States are 

encouraged to coordinate with FHWA 

division offices on how to handle 

exceptions either on a project-by-project 

basis or for a particular project category, 

in order to streamline and simplify the 

process. 

§ 630.1012 Project-Level Procedures 

§ 630.1012(a) Section Overview and (b) 

Transportation Management Plan 

Five commenters provided comments 

in response to the NPRM preamble 

language of this paragraph. Note that 

FHWA did not propose any changes to 

existing language for this paragraph in 

the NPRM. A commenter asked FHWA 

to clarify which agencies would be 

responsible for developing TMPs for 

projects outside the State DOT’s 

jurisdiction. Further, the commenter 

mentioned that the State should not be 

required to develop and implement 

TMPs for such projects and manage 

their impacts. The section-by-section 

discussion of the NPRM’s § 630.1004 

talks about updating the public 

information component to PIO in the 

TMP definition. However, the TMP 

definition does not cover the TO and 

PIO components of a TMP. All five 

commenters pointed out that the 

preamble discussion on expanding 

public information to PIO is more 

appropriate in the section-by-section 

discussion of § 630.1012(b) as that 

section explains about PIO. 

The FHWA decided to remove the 

requirement that TTC plans are 

consistent with the work zone hardware 

recommendations in Chapter 9 of the 

2011 American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) Roadway Design Guide 

(RDG), which had been proposed for 

incorporation by reference in the NPRM. 

The 4th edition of the RDG includes 

some statements that are no longer 

accurate (e.g., reference to FHWA’s 

approval of crashworthy products by 

issuing acceptance letters). Despite this 

change in mandatory requirement, 

agencies are encouraged to consider the 

work zone hardware recommendations 

in the AASHTO RDG when preparing 

their TTC plan. This RDG 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. 

The FHWA clarifies that the 

provisions in §§ 630.1010, 630.1012, 

and 630.1014 apply to all State and 

local agencies that receive Federal 

funding for their work zone projects. An 

agency (State or local) that receives 

Federal funds for their work zone 

projects is responsible for developing 

and implementing TMPs and managing 

impacts of those projects. The FHWA 

agrees with the commenters and 

clarifies that the description of a public 

information component in § 630.1010(d) 

and § 630.1012(b) has been expanded to 

PIO to be consistent with the intent of 

that aspect of the TMP. 

The rulemaking to adopt the 11th 

edition of MUTCD was in progress 

when FHWA published the NPRM for 

this rule. In December 2023, FHWA 

published the new version of MUTCD. 

Since § 630.1012(b) refers to MUTCD 

Part 6, FHWA updated the MUTCD 

reference in § 630.1018 to reflect the 

new version. 

§ 630.1012(c) Inclusion of TMP in Plans, 

Specification, and Estimates 

Two commenters provided comments 

on this paragraph. Both suggested 

removing the ‘‘shall’’ condition from 

this paragraph and noted that including 

TMP into Plans, Specification, and 

Estimates will require additional policy 

and process development, training, and 

legal review. 

The FHWA did not make any change 

to this paragraph in the final rule. The 

‘‘shall’’ condition has been in place 

since the initial Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility Rule published in 2004 and 

does not introduce any new 

requirements. 

§ 630.1012(e) Responsible Persons 

Only one commenter provided 

comments in response to this paragraph. 

The FHWA did not propose any changes 

to this paragraph in the NPRM. The 

commenter inquired if the trained 

person referred to in this paragraph 

must meet any ATSSA certification 

requirements. 

The FHWA did not make any changes 

to this paragraph. With regards to the 

commenter’s question, FHWA does not 

establish specific training and 

certification requirements, as each 

agency determines its own. 

§ 630.1016 Compliance Date 

Eleven commenters provided 

comments in response to this paragraph. 

Of these, ten commenters asked 

questions about the compliance date for 

the provision and the timeframe for the 

mid-point performance summary and 

WZPR reporting. Commenters asked for 

the effective date to be a minimum of 12 

months from the date of final rule 

publication. 

The FHWA changed the compliance 

date to December 31, 2026, which 

allows at least 24 months for States to 

comply with the rule. The next WZPR 

reporting date will be December 31, 

2030, respectively. In addition, FHWA 

removed the phrase ‘‘and once every 5 

years thereafter’’ as it is already covered 

in § 630.1008(e). 

Subpart K—Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices 

Overall Position of Commenters 

Commenters were generally 

supportive of the intent and purpose of 

the updates to Subpart K and 

acknowledged the importance of work 

zone safety, and specifically, worker 

safety. The commenters offered 

comments on specific areas of concern 

and recommended changes to improve 

the rule’s language. State DOTs 

expressed concern that the rule should 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87290 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

not mandate provisions but rather it 

should allow for adequate flexibility 

and scalability while limiting 

unintended liability and cost. States 

also sought clarification of certain 

ambiguous terms and the compliance 

timeframe. Private sector commenters 

also offered comments on certain areas 

of concern. Details regarding these 

issues and FHWA’s specific responses 

are discussed in the following section, 

which provides a section-by-section 

analysis of the comments. 

The majority of commenters 

expressed overall support for the 

provisions proposed in the NPRM. 

While the commenters’ overall position 

on the NPRM was supportive, many of 

these commenters suggested 

modifications and revised language for 

specific provisions as they deemed 

appropriate. 

Of the six commenters who did not 

expressly support the updates, five of 

them agreed with FHWA’s intent and 

the concepts for improving work zone 

safety and worker protection, but did 

not agree with the mandatory 

provisions. They opposed the change 

proposed in § 630.1108(a) to require 

positive protection devices in specific 

conditions unless an engineering study 

concludes otherwise. To this end, they 

mentioned the specific work zone 

conditions where these requirements 

would not be practically applicable, and 

the additional investments associated 

with implementing these strategies. 

They suggested additional changes to 

specific sections and removal of 

ambiguous terms. They also sought 

clarification on the compliance 

timeframe for the final rule. The 

remaining commenter opposed the 

provision for development of broader 

guidelines based on an engineering 

study that agencies can use for 

determining the requirement of positive 

protection or other strategies, and also 

opposed adding the ‘‘high anticipated 

operating speeds’’ qualifier in the 

provision (§ 630.1108(a)) that addresses 

the positive protection requirement. 

Section-by-Section Analysis of 

Comments and FHWA Response— 

Subpart K 

§ 630.1104 Definitions and 

Explanation of Terms 

Most commenters were supportive of 

this section. Some commenters offered 

specific comments on some of the 

definitions proposed in the NPRM. They 

are discussed as follows: 

Definition of ‘‘Engineering Study’’ 

Eight commenters provided input on 

this definition. All eight commenters 

stated that the term ‘‘comprehensive’’ in 

‘‘comprehensive analysis and evaluation 

of available pertinent information . . .’’ 

is unclear. They recommended deleting 

this term to be consistent with the 

definition of Engineering Study from the 

recently published MUTCD 11th 

edition. A commenter suggested adding 

the term ‘‘temporary’’ in front of ‘‘traffic 

control.’’ 

Keeping consistency with the MUTCD 

definition, FHWA deleted the term 

‘‘comprehensive’’ from this definition. 

The term ‘‘traffic control’’ is used in a 

broad sense here. As the definition of 

‘‘Engineering Study’’ applies to the 

entire Subpart K, which provides 

guidance on how to approach strategies 

related to all work-zone-related 

temporary traffic control, FHWA did not 

add ‘‘temporary’’ before ‘‘traffic control’’ 

in this definition. 

Definition of ‘‘Positive Protection 

Devices’’ 

Four commenters provided input on 

this paragraph. Three commenters 

opposed removing the crashworthiness 

qualifier requirements from the 

definition of positive protection devices. 

They mentioned that the 

crashworthiness requirements ensure 

that the various positive protection 

mechanisms used are tested for their 

appropriateness to offer the necessary 

protections at relevant speeds. The 

remaining commenter asked for a more 

detailed definition of positive protection 

devices, including example devices that 

constitute a positive protection device. 

The FHWA updated the definition 

language to include that the positive 

protection devices meet applicable 

industry crashworthiness evaluation 

criteria. For example, AASHTO’s 

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware 

includes current industry 

crashworthiness evaluation criteria. 

Industry crashworthiness evaluation 

criteria are not regulatory, and use of 

them is voluntary and not required by 

law. This updated language 

reemphasizes FHWA’s longstanding 

policy that all roadside safety hardware 

installed on the National Highway 

System be crashworthy. States can refer 

to 23 U.S.C. 112(g)(4) for examples of 

positive protection devices, which 

include temporary traffic barriers, crash 

cushions, and other strategies to avoid 

traffic crashes in work zones, including 

full road closures. 

§ 630.1106 Policy and Procedures for 

Work Zone Safety Management 

§ 630.1106(b) Agency Processes, 

Procedures, or Guidance 

Eight commenters provided input on 

this section. Three of the commenters 

opposed the requirement 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. 

The remaining commenter suggested 

requiring that State DOTs conduct a 

project-specific engineering study 

instead of using agency guidelines based 

on an engineering study. 

The FHWA decided to remove the 

reference to the AASHTO RDG. The 4th 

edition of the RDG includes some 

statements that are no longer accurate 

(e.g., reference to FHWA’s approval of 

crashworthy products by issuing 

acceptance letters). Despite this change, 

agencies are encouraged to consider 

work zone related information in the 

AASHTO RDG during the development 

of their processes, procedures, and 

guidance. The FHWA reemphasizes that 

agencies need to use reasonable and 

well-documented approaches backed by 

engineering research to develop their 

processes, procedures, or guidance for 

managing work zone impacts, including 

using positive protection devices and 

other strategies. Such well-documented 

approaches can provide evidence-based 

justification for agencies to determine 

the need for positive protection and 

other strategies to ensure worker safety. 

A commenter suggested moving the 

detailed discussion of engineering study 

from this paragraph to the ‘‘engineering 

study’’ definition in § 630.1104. 

The definitions section offers a 

broader definition of engineering study. 

In contrast, this section provides more 

in-depth details of who conducts the 

study, how to document it, and 

applicable tools to perform it. Therefore, 

FHWA believes the details of the 

engineering study are more applicable 

to this section. 

Another commenter asked for a clear 

definition of the terms ‘‘safety impacts’’ 

used in § 630.1106 (b)(3) ‘‘anticipated 

traffic safety impacts.’’ 

As noted in § 630.1004—definitions of 

‘‘Safety’’ and ‘‘Work Zone Impacts,’’ 

work zone safety impacts refer to workzone-induced potential hazards to road 

users in the vicinity of a work zone and 

highway workers at the work zone 

interface with traffic. Anticipated traffic 

safety impacts in this paragraph refer to 

identifying the safety risks to work zone 

workers and road users associated with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87291 

6https://workzonesafety.org/work-zone-data/ 

work-zone-traffic-crash-trends-and-statistics/. 

7https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/ 

design/documents/final-dib-91_06282021_a11y.pdf. 

various factors such as exposure to 

traffic, time of activity, type of activity, 

intrusion of motorized traffic into 

activity area, lane widths, speed limits, 

crash frequency and severity prior to 

work zone implementation, and prework zone inspection findings. This 

safety impact identification approach 

can be a simple checklist for short-term 

and limited-exposure projects and a 

more involved assessment for long-term 

and complex projects. 

A commenter recommended adding a 

minimum safety requirement for work 

zone workers to this section. 

The FHWA does not see a need to add 

specific requirements for worker safety 

in this paragraph as worker safety is 

addressed in various sections of 23 CFR 

630 Subparts J and K, and MUTCD 11th 

edition. 

The FHWA referenced four benefitcost studies in the NPRM Subpart-K 

discussion section to justify that 

research and data did not support the 

thresholds stated in the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP–21). In response, two commenters 

stated that these studies overestimated 

the cost of positive protection devices. 

Studies found it difficult to justify 

positive protection based on crash 

statistics and benefit cost analysis. Due 

to limited availability and challenges 

associated with collecting positive 

protection-specific data, FHWA has no 

new credible information to justify 

updating the implementation thresholds 

of positive protection strategies. 

§ 630.1108 Work Zone Safety 

Management Measures and Strategies 

§ 630.1108(a) Positive Protection 

Devices 

Seven commenters provided input on 

this paragraph. Five commenters 

opposed the use of the ‘‘shall’’ condition 

for implementing positive protection 

devices and mentioned that these 

devices require a significant investment. 

They suggested retaining the existing 

rule provision language, which would 

allow States to determine the need for 

positive protection devices based on an 

engineering study. They also mentioned 

that several previous studies have 

demonstrated that cost-benefit analyses 

do not justify this policy. In addition, 

two commenters noted that the 

requirement to use positive protection 

devices ‘‘unless an engineering study 

determines otherwise’’ is the opposite of 

the current rule and contrary to the 

findings of prior research. These 

commenters also asked about the extent 

of conducting these engineering studies 

across different projects. 

The FHWA made a minor update but 

retained the remaining language as 

proposed in the NPRM. In the NPRM, 

FHWA added the ‘‘shall’’ condition for 

the use of positive protection in 

response to increasing trend of fatalities 

in worker struck incidents and to 

address the requirements in MAP–21 

Section 1405. Since this is a ‘‘shall’’ 

condition, FHWA is restricting the 

implementation requirement to the 

situations where the workers are most 

vulnerable, which is work zones with 

high anticipated operating speeds that 

provide workers no means of escape 

from motorized traffic intruding into the 

workspace. The FHWA added the ‘‘high 

anticipated operating speeds’’ as the 

majority of fatal work zone crashes 

occur on high-speed roadways such as 

urban and rural interstates, urban and 

rural principal arterials, and freeways/ 

expressways.6 These facility types 

generally operate at high speeds (45 

mph or greater). The FHWA prioritizes 

the implementation of enhanced safety 

measures in high-risk environments, 

ultimately safeguarding the lives of 

those working in the most vulnerable 

conditions. The language adopted is 

consistent with that used in MAP–21 

Section 1405 for these situations. 

However, agencies may choose to use 

positive protection devices on roadways 

with lower operating speeds. 

State DOTs may use a tiered approach 

to conduct engineering studies for the 

type of work zones identified in this 

provision. Agencies may develop their 

engineering analysis criteria based on 

factors such as type of work, exposure 

to traffic, expected work zone level of 

effort, worker protection needs, vehicle 

mix, time of day, geometry, and 

location. For example, Caltrans 

established Guidelines on the Use of 

Positive Work Zone Protection and 

Mitigation Measures,7 which provide a 

detailed approach and weightage 

criteria to conduct a safety risk 

assessment and engineering analysis to 

determine positive protection and other 

mitigation measures for their work 

zones. This guidance document also 

allows Caltrans to determine the 

required level of positive protection 

based on the safety risk. The 

engineering analysis may vary from a 

simple assessment of checklist items 

summarized in a few paragraphs for 

smaller projects (e.g., short-term 

maintenance) to a more thorough 

assessment and risk analysis of checklist 

items for larger/complex projects (e.g., 

bridge approach slab replacement, 

widening projects, and shoulder 

maintenance). 

A commenter suggested six 

recognized serious hazards for 

consideration of positive protection. 

This commenter also suggested 

including a requirement for States to 

specify positive protection and provide 

an associated pay item when serious 

hazards are foreseen or encountered on 

a project unless an agency determines 

the same to be impractical under 

applicable agency standards. 

The serious hazards recognized by the 

commenter did not have any changes 

compared to the NPRM language on 

example scenarios and situations for 

positive protection consideration, 

except for ‘‘Any other situation not 

specifically outlined above which 

merits the use of positive protection.’’ 

The FHWA updated § 630.1108(b)(4) to 

include ‘‘within one lane width’’ as an 

example for determining closeness of 

workers to open travel lanes as a result 

of work operations. Section 630.1106(a) 

addresses the commenter’s suggestion 

for agencies to specify the use of 

positive protection in their policy 

whereas § 630.1108(d)(2) addresses the 

suggestion for inclusion of pay items for 

such specified positive protection. 

A commenter opposed the omission 

of language associated with use of 

temporary longitudinal barriers to 

protect workers. This commenter also 

mentioned that the ‘‘high anticipated 

operating speeds’’ qualifier used in this 

positive protection requirement 

regulation does not fully comply with 

MAP–21. 

As longitudinal barrier is one type of 

positive protection device, the NPRM 

already covers these barriers in the 

engineering study requirement. In 

addition, agencies can refer to 23 U.S.C. 

112(g)(4) for examples of positive 

protection devices, which include 

temporary traffic barriers, crash 

cushions, and other strategies. As 

indicated previously, the majority of 

fatal and injury work zone crashes occur 

on high-speed roadways such as urban 

and rural interstates, rural interstates, 

urban and rural principal arterials, and 

freeways/expressways. These facility 

types generally operate at high speeds 

(operating speeds of 45 mph or greater). 

The language adopted is consistent with 

that used in MAP–21 Section 1405 for 

these situations. 

§ 630.1108(b) Exposure Control 

Measures 

One commenter provided input on 

this paragraph. Note that FHWA did not 

propose any changes to existing 

language for this paragraph. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87292 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter suggested updating the 

requirement from ‘‘should’’ to ‘‘shall.’’ 

The FHWA did not make any changes 

to this provision. The FHWA retained 

the ‘‘should’’ condition to provide 

agencies with the flexibility to explore 

exposure and other traffic control 

measures as an alternative suite of 

options to preserve safety. 

§ 630.1108(c) Other Traffic Control 

Measures 

Two commenters provided comments 

in response to this paragraph. One 

commenter supported the inclusion of 

AFADs as an exposure control device. 

Another commenter recommended 

defining ‘‘protection vehicles.’’ 

The FHWA updated § 630.1108(c)(22) 

from ‘‘Protection vehicles’’ to 

‘‘Protection or shadow vehicles used to 

protect workers and equipment from 

impacts by errant vehicles’’ to reflect the 

fact that there is inconsistency in how 

agencies define and use these terms. 

§ 630.1110 Maintenance of Temporary 

Traffic Control Devices.—Footnotes 

Six commenters provided input on 

this paragraph. Note that FHWA did not 

propose any changes to existing 

language for this paragraph. All six 

commenters recommended removing 

references to Illinois and Minnesota 

Quality Standards for Work Zone Traffic 

Control Devices from § 630.1110 

footnotes. They opposed the suggestion 

of guidelines from other agencies in the 

footnotes and mentioned that agencies 

should be able to establish their own 

maintenance of TTC device standards or 

use ATSSA’s ‘‘Quality Guidelines for 

Temporary Traffic Control Devices and 

Features.’’ 

The FHWA encourages agencies to 

establish their TTC device standards as 

applicable to their needs and policies. 

To this end, FHWA removed references 

to agency-specific quality standards 

(Illinois DOT and Minnesota DOT) and 

retained one of the commonly used 

industry standards (ATSSA’s Quality 

Guidelines for Temporary Traffic 

Control Devices and Features) as an 

example. 

§ 630.1112 Compliance Date 

Nine commenters asked about the 

compliance timeframe for the Subpart K 

final rule. The commenters asked for the 

effective date to be minimum 12 months 

from the date of final rule publication. 

In the anticipation that the rule is 

published in 2024, FHWA proposed the 

effective date of December 31, 2025, 

which allows at least 12 months for 

States to update their policy in 

compliance with the rule. The 

implementation date for the updated 

policy will be December 31, 2026. 

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51 

The FHWA is incorporating by 

reference the most current version of the 

MUTCD. At the time of NPRM 

publication, the rulemaking to adopt the 

11th edition of the MUTCD was still 

underway. The FHWA published the 

11th edition of MUTCD in December 

2023. To this end, FHWA updated the 

references to incorporate the ‘‘Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 

Streets and Highways,’’ 11th edition 

dated December 2023. 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 document that FHWA is 

incorporating by reference is reasonably 

available to interested parties, primarily 

State DOTs, local agencies, and Tribal 

governments carrying out Federal-aid 

highway projects. This 

documentrepresents the most recent 

refinements that have been formally 

accepted and are currently in use by the 

transportation industry. The document 

incorporated by reference is 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. 14094 

(‘‘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 final rule 

would not be economically significant 

for purposes of E.O. 12866. The final 

rule would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $200 million or more. 

The final rule would not adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, 

any sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, or jobs. In addition, the 

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 final 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 

regulatory action only directly impacts 

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 final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This final rule would not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48). This final 

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 final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and 

FHWA has determined that this final 

rule would not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

The FHWA also has determined that 

this final rule would not preempt any 

State law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87293 

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 final 

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 final rule. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

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 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 regulatory 

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 final 

rule does not raise any environmental 

justice issues. 

Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the Abstract section of the Department’s 

Unified Agenda entry for this 

rulemaking at [https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202310&RIN=2125-AG05]. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda twice 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. 

Kristin R. White, 

Acting Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA amends 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, sections 1303 and 

1405. 

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 Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways (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 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 that 

receives Federal-aid highway funding. 

Highway workers include, but are not 

limited to, personnel of the contractor, 

subcontractor, agency, utilities, and law 

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, while not compromising the 

safety of highway workers or road users. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87294 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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. Refer to § 630.1010(d) and 

§ 630.1012(b) for more information on a 

TMP and its components. 

Work zone is an area of a highway 

with construction, maintenance, or 

utility work activities. A work zone is 

typically marked by one or more of the 

following: signs, channelizing devices, 

barriers, pavement markings, 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. See MUTCD, Part 6, 

‘‘Temporary Traffic Control’’ 

(incorporated elsewhere in this subpart). 

Work zone crash 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. See 

‘‘Model Minimum Uniform Crash 

Criteria Guideline’’ (MMUCC), 5thEd. 

(Electronic), 2017, produced by NHTSA. 

Available at the following website: 

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

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; type of 

temporary traffic control; 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. 

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 work zone performance. 

Examples of such performance measures 

include 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, 

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 cooperation with the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA). The 

States are encouraged to implement this 

policy for non-Federal-aid projects as 

well. 

§ 630.1008 State-level processes and 

procedures. 

(a) General. 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 likely work zone 

impacts to all highway workers and 

anticipated road users 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, available safety surrogate 

data, available operational information, 

and available exposure data to monitor 

and manage work zone impacts for 

specific projects during implementation 

and to perform its work zone 

programmatic reviews. Examples of 

crash data include fatalities, injuries, 

and crashes; examples of safety 

surrogate data include speed 

differentials, hard braking, and other 

data from connected and autonomous 

vehicles; examples of available 

operational information include speeds, 

travel times, queue length, and duration; 

and examples of available exposure data 

include number of projects, number and 

length of lane closures, and vehiclemiles traveled through work zones. 

(d) Training. States shall require that 

personnel involved in the development, 

design, implementation, operation, 

inspection, and enforcement of workzone-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 

performance of the State’s work zones. 

At a minimum, this review shall include 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87295 

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, State divisions 

or offices responsible for implementing 

the actions, and estimated timeline for 

implementation. 

(3) States shall use available crash 

data, available safety surrogate data, 

available operational data, and the 

performance measures specified in their 

work zone policy to conduct the 

assessment. Section 630.1008(c) 

provides example performance 

measures for each data source listed in 

this section. To ensure assessment of the 

safety and mobility performance of their 

work zones on a continuous basis, 

States shall monitor performance 

annually. 

(4) The work zone programmatic 

review shall include examination of 

efforts across 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) For an Interstate system project or 

categories of Interstate system projects 

that are classified as significant through 

the application of the provisions in 

paragraph (c) of this section 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. 

(e) Non-interstate system projects 

with less than 3 consecutive days of 

intermittent or continuous lane closures 

do not require the transportation 

operations (TO) or public information 

and outreach (PIO) components of a 

TMP (as described in § 630.1012(b)). 

§ 630.1012 Project-level procedures. 

(a) Scope. This section provides 

guidance and establishes procedures for 

States to manage the work zone impacts 

of individual projects. 

(b) Transportation Management Plan. 

For significant projects (as described in 

§ 630.1010), the State shall develop a 

TMP that consists of a TTC plan and 

addresses both TO and 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). 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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87296 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 cooperation 

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 

December 31, 2026. The next work zone 

programmatic review will be due 

December 31, 2030. 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 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; phone: (202) 

366–8043; website: 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 or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. The material may be obtained 

from the following sources: 

(a) FHWA, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 

phone: (202) 366–1993; website: 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. 

(1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways 

(MUTCD), 11th Edition, FHWA, 

December 2023; approved for 

§§ 630.1002; 630.1012. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart K—Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices 

■ 3. Revise subpart K of part 630 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart K—Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices 

Sec. 

630.1102 Purpose. 

630.1104 Definitions and explanation of 

terms. 

630.1106 Policy and procedures for work 

zone safety management. 

630.1108 Work zone safety management 

measures and strategies. 

630.1110 Maintenance of temporary traffic 

control devices. 

630.1112 Compliance date. 

§ 630.1102 Purpose. 

To decrease the likelihood of highway 

work zone fatalities and injuries to 

workers and road users by establishing 

minimum requirements and providing 

guidance for the use of positive 

protection devices between the work 

space and motorized traffic; installation 

and maintenance of temporary traffic 

control devices; use of uniformed law 

enforcement officers during 

construction, utility, and maintenance 

operations; and by requiring contract 

pay items to ensure the availability of 

funds for these provisions. This subpart 

is applicable to all Federal-aid highway 

projects, and its application is 

encouraged on other highway projects 

as well. 

§ 630.1104 Definitions and explanation of 

terms. 

For the purposes of this subpart, the 

following definitions apply: 

Agency means a State or local 

highway agency or authority that 

receives Federal-aid highway funding. 

Exposure control measures means 

traffic management strategies to avoid 

work zone crashes involving workers 

and motorized traffic by eliminating or 

reducing traffic through the work zone, 

or diverting traffic away from the work 

space. 

Federal-aid highway project means 

highway construction, maintenance, 

and utility projects funded in whole or 

in part with Federal-aid funds. 

Motorized traffic means the motorized 

traveling public. This term does not 

include motorized construction or 

maintenance vehicles and equipment 

within the work space. 

Other traffic control measures means 

all strategies and temporary traffic 

controls other than Positive Protection 

Devices and Exposure Control 

Measures, but including uniformed law 

enforcement officers, used to reduce the 

risk of work zone crashes involving 

motorized traffic. 

Engineering study means the 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 safely manage work zones. 

Positive protection devices means 

devices that contain or redirect vehicles 

and meet applicable industry 

crashworthiness evaluation criteria. 

Industry crashworthiness evaluation 

criteria are not regulatory, and use of 

them is voluntary and not required by 

law. 

§ 630.1106 Policy and procedures for work 

zone safety management. 

(a) Each agency’s policy and 

processes, procedures, or guidance for 

the systematic consideration and 

management of work zone impacts, to 

be established in accordance with 

§ 630.1006, shall include the 

consideration and management of road 

user and worker safety on Federal-aid 

highway projects. These processes, 

procedures, or guidance, to be 

developed in cooperation with the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), shall address the use of 

Positive Protection Devices to prevent 

the intrusion of motorized traffic into 

the work space and other potentially 

hazardous areas in the work zone; 

Exposure Control Measures to avoid or 

minimize worker exposure to motorized 

traffic and road user exposure to work 

activities; Other Traffic Control 

Measures including uniformed law 

enforcement officers to minimize work 

zone crashes; and the safe entry/exit of 

work vehicles onto/from the travel 

lanes. Each of these strategies should be 

used to the extent that they are possible, 

practical, and adequate to manage work 

zone exposure and reduce the risks of 

crashes resulting in fatalities or injuries 

to workers and road users. 

(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 (MUTCD), 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87297 

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 decision-making 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 cost and 

duration. 

(c) Each agency, in partnership with 

FHWA, shall develop a policy 

addressing the use of uniformed law 

enforcement on Federal-aid highway 

projects. The policy may consist of 

processes, procedures, and/or guidance. 

The processes, procedures, or guidance 

should address the following: 

(1) Basic interagency agreements 

between the highway agency and 

appropriate law enforcement agencies to 

address work zone enforcement needs; 

(2) Interaction between highway and 

law-enforcement agencies during project 

planning and development; 

(3) Conditions where law enforcement 

involvement in work zone traffic control 

may be needed or beneficial, and 

criteria to determine the project-specific 

need for law enforcement; 

(4) General nature of law enforcement 

services to be provided, and procedures 

to determine project-specific services; 

(5) Appropriate work zone safety and 

mobility training for the officers, 

consistent with the training 

requirements in § 630.1008(d); 

(6) Procedures for interagency and 

project-level communications between 

highway agency and law enforcement 

personnel; and 

(7) Reimbursement agreements for law 

enforcement service. 

§ 630.1108 Work zone safety management 

measures and strategies. 

(a) Positive protection devices. At a 

minimum, agencies shall use positive 

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: 

(1) Work zones that provide workers 

no means of escape from motorized 

traffic (e.g., tunnels, bridges, etc.); 

(2) Long-duration work zones (e.g., 

two weeks or more) resulting in 

substantial worker exposure to 

motorized traffic; 

(3) Projects with high anticipated 

operating speeds (e.g., 45 mph or 

greater), especially when combined with 

high traffic volumes; 

(4) Work operations that place 

workers close (e.g., within one lane 

width) to travel lanes open to traffic; 

and 

(5) Roadside hazards, such as dropoffs or unfinished bridge decks, that will 

remain in place overnight or longer. 

(b) Exposure control measures. 

Exposure control measures should be 

considered where appropriate to avoid 

or minimize worker exposure to 

motorized traffic and exposure of road 

users to work activities, while also 

providing adequate consideration to the 

potential impacts on mobility. A wide 

range of measures may be appropriate 

for use on individual projects, such as: 

(1) Full road closures; 

(2) Ramp closures; 

(3) Median crossovers; 

(4) Full or partial detours or 

diversions; 

(5) Protection of work zone setup and 

removal operations using rolling road 

blocks; 

(6) Performing work at night or during 

off-peak periods when traffic volumes 

are lower; and 

(7) Accelerated construction 

techniques. 

(c) Other traffic control measures. 

Other traffic control measures should be 

given appropriate consideration for use 

in work zones to reduce work zone 

crashes and risks and consequences of 

motorized traffic intrusion into the work 

space. These measures, which are not 

mutually exclusive and should be 

considered in combination as 

appropriate, include a wide range of 

other traffic control measures such as: 

(1) Effective, credible signing; 

(2) Changeable message signs; 

(3) Arrow panels; 

(4) Warning flags and lights on signs; 

(5) Longitudinal and lateral buffer 

space; 

(6) Trained flaggers and spotters; 

(7) Enhanced flagger station setups or 

use of automated flagger assistance 

devices (AFADs); 

(8) Intrusion alarms; 

(9) Rumble strips; 

(10) Pace or pilot vehicle; 

(11) High-quality work zone pavement 

markings and removal of misleading 

markings; 

(12) Channelizing device spacing 

reduction; 

(13) Longitudinal channelizing 

barricades; 

(14) Work zone speed management 

(including changes to the regulatory 

speed or variable speed limits); 

(15) Law enforcement; 

(16) Speed Safety Cameras (where 

permitted by State/local laws): 

(17) Drone radar; 

(18) Worker and work vehicle/ 

equipment visibility; 

(19) Worker training; 

(20) Public information and traveler 

information; 

(21) Temporary traffic signals. 

(22) Protection or shadow vehicles 

used to protect workers and equipment 

from impacts by errant vehicles; and 

(23) Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS) and other advanced 

technology solutions and strategies. 

(d) Uniformed law enforcement 

officers. (1) A number of conditions may 

indicate the need for or benefit of 

uniformed law enforcement in work 

zones. The presence of a uniformed law 

enforcement officer and marked law 

enforcement vehicle in view of 

motorized traffic on a highway project 

can affect driver behavior, helping to 

maintain appropriate speeds and 

improve driver alertness through the 

work zone. However, such law 

enforcement presence is not a substitute 

for the temporary traffic control devices 

required by Part 6 of the MUTCD. In 

general, the need for law enforcement is 

greatest on projects with high traffic 

speeds and volumes, and where the 

work zone is expected to result in 

substantial disruption to or changes in 

normal traffic flow patterns. Specific 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
87298 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

project conditions should be examined 

to determine the need for or potential 

benefit of law enforcement, such as the 

following: 

(i) Frequent worker presence adjacent 

to high-speed traffic without positive 

protection devices; 

(ii) Traffic control setup or removal 

that presents significant risks to workers 

and road users; 

(iii) Complex or very short-term 

changes in traffic patterns with 

significant potential for road user 

confusion or worker risk from traffic 

exposure; 

(iv) Night work operations that create 

substantial traffic safety risks for 

workers and road users; 

(v) Existing traffic conditions and 

crash histories that indicate a potential 

for substantial safety and congestion 

impacts related to the work zone 

activity, and that may be mitigated by 

improved driver behavior and 

awareness of the work zone; 

(vi) Work zone operations that require 

brief stoppage of all traffic in one or 

both directions; 

(vii) High-speed roadways where 

unexpected or sudden traffic queuing is 

anticipated, especially if the queue 

forms a considerable distance in 

advance of the work zone or 

immediately adjacent to the work space; 

and 

(viii) Other work site conditions 

where traffic presents a high risk for 

workers and road users, such that the 

risk may be reduced by improving road 

user behavior and awareness. 

(2) Costs associated with the 

provision of uniformed law enforcement 

to help protect workers and road users, 

and to maintain safe and efficient travel 

through highway work zones, are 

eligible for Federal-aid participation. 

Federal-aid eligibility excludes law 

enforcement activities that would 

normally be expected in and around 

highway problem areas requiring 

routine or ongoing law enforcement 

traffic control and enforcement 

activities. Payment for the services of 

uniformed law enforcement in work 

zones may be included in the 

construction contract, or be provided by 

direct reimbursement from the highway 

agency to the law enforcement agency. 

When payment is included through the 

construction contract, the contractor 

will be responsible for reimbursing the 

law enforcement agency, and in turn 

will recover those costs through contract 

pay items. Direct interagency 

reimbursement may be made on a 

project-specific basis, or on a 

programwide basis that considers the 

overall level of services to be provided 

by the law enforcement agency. Contract 

pay items for law enforcement service 

may be either unit price or lump sum 

items. Unit price items should be 

utilized when the highway agency can 

estimate and control the quantity of law 

enforcement services required on the 

project. The use of lump sum payment 

should be limited to situations where 

the quantity of services is directly 

affected by the contractor’s choice of 

project scheduling and chosen manner 

of staging and performing the work. 

Innovative payment items may also be 

considered when they offer an 

advantage to both the highway agency 

and the contractor. When 

reimbursement to the law enforcement 

agency is made by interagency transfer 

of funds, the highway agency should 

establish a program-level or projectlevel budget that is adequate to meet 

anticipated program or project needs, 

and include provisions to address 

unplanned needs and other 

contingencies. 

(e) Work vehicles and equipment. In 

addition to addressing risks to workers 

and road users from motorized traffic, 

the agency processes, procedures, and 

guidance established in accordance with 

§ 630.1006 should also address safe 

means for work vehicles and equipment 

to enter and exit traffic lanes and for 

delivery of construction materials to the 

workspace, based on individual project 

characteristics and factors. 

(f) Payment for traffic control. 

Consistent with the requirements of 

§ 630.1012, Project-level Procedures, 

project plans, specifications and 

estimates (PS&Es) shall include 

appropriate pay item provisions for 

implementing the project 

Transportation Management Plan 

(TMP), which includes a Temporary 

Traffic Control (TTC) plan, either 

through method- or performance-based 

specifications. Pay item provisions 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(1) Payment for work zone traffic 

control features and operations shall not 

be incidental to the contract, or 

included in payment for other items of 

work not related to traffic control and 

safety; 

(2) As a minimum, separate pay items 

shall be provided for major categories of 

traffic control devices, safety features, 

and work zone safety activities, 

including but not limited to positive 

protection devices, and uniformed law 

enforcement activities when funded 

through the project; 

(3) For method-based specifications, 

the specifications and other PS&E 

documents should provide sufficient 

details such that the quantity and types 

of devices and the overall effort required 

to implement and maintain the TMP can 

be determined; 

(4) For method-based specifications, 

unit price pay items, lump sum pay 

items, or a combination thereof may be 

used; 

(5) Lump sum payment should be 

limited to items for which an estimate 

of the actual quantity required is 

provided in the PS&E or for items where 

the actual quantity required is 

dependent upon the contractor’s choice 

of work scheduling and methodology; 

(6) For Lump Sum items, a 

contingency provision should be 

included such that additional payment 

is provided if the quantity or nature of 

the required work changes, either an 

increase or decrease, due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

contractor; 

(7) Unit price payment should be 

provided for those items over which the 

contractor has little or no control over 

the quantity, and no firm estimate of 

quantities is provided in the PS&Es, but 

over which the highway agency has 

control of the actual quantity to be 

required during the project; 

(8) Specifications should clearly 

indicate how placement, movement/ 

relocation, and maintenance of traffic 

control devices and safety features will 

be compensated; and 

(9) The specifications should include 

provisions to require and enforce 

contractor compliance with the contract 

provisions relative to implementation 

and maintenance of the project TMP 

and related traffic control items. 

Enforcement provisions may include 

remedies such as liquidated damages, 

work suspensions, or withholding 

payment for noncompliance. 

§ 630.1110 Maintenance of temporary 

traffic control devices. 

To provide for the continued 

effectiveness of temporary traffic control 

devices, each agency shall develop and 

implement quality guidelines to help 

maintain the quality and adequacy of 

the temporary traffic control devices for 

the duration of the project. Agencies 

may choose to adopt existing quality 

guidelines such as those developed by 

the American Traffic Safety Services 

Association (ATSSA) or other state 

highway agencies.1 A level of inspection 

necessary to provide ongoing 

compliance with the quality guidelines 

shall be provided. 

1 ATSSA’s Quality Guidelines for 

Temporary Traffic Control Devices and 

Features 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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87299 

1Policyholders must also pay policy fees and 

statutory surcharges at the time of application or 

policy renewal. See 44 CFR 61.10. 

https://www.atssa.com/resource/qualityguidelines/. Similar guidelines are available 

from various State highway agencies. 

§ 630.1102 Compliance Date. 

States shall update their policy no 

later than December 31, 2025, and 

implement the policy no later than 

December 31, 2026. 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. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25065 Filed 10–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[USCG–2024–0996] 

Safety Zone; Claytor Lake, Dublin, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

a safety zone in Virginia for portions of 

Claytor Lake to protect personnel, 

vessels, and the marine environment 

from potential hazards created by 

hazardous debris within the waterway 

due to a tropical storm. Any vessel in 

the regulated area must comply with 

directions from the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander or his representative, 

including a Federal, State, and local 

officer designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Virginia (COTP) in 

the enforcement of the safety zone. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.520 will be enforced for Claytor 

Lake from October 30th, 2024 through 

January 31st, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, call 

or email LCDR Justin Strassfield, Sector 

Virginia, Waterways Management 

Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone: 

757–668–5580, email: 

VirginiaWaterways@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce a safety zone for 

Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and other 

Storms with High Wind for portions of 

Claytor Lake from October 30th, 2024, 

through January 31st, 2025, to protect 

personnel, vessels, and the marine 

environment from potential hazards 

created by hazardous debris within the 

waterway due to tropical storm Helene. 

The safety zone is now in Port 

Condition RECOVERY. This action is 

being taken to provide for the safety of 

life on navigable waterways while 

cleanup operations are conducted. The 

safety zone encompasses Claytor Lake. 

It is bound by the following positions: 

Claytor Lake: 37°02′2.4′′ N, 80°39′40.7′′ 

W; 37°04′31.5′′ N 80°35′06.8′′ W. 

During enforcement periods, the 

operator of a vessel in the regulated area 

must comply with directions from the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 

including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty 

officer, or other officer operating a Coast 

Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and 

local officer designated by or assisting 

the Captain of the Port Virginia (COTP) 

in the enforcement of the safety zone. 

To seek permission to enter, contact the 

COTP or the COTP’s representative by 

VHF–FM Channel 16. 

In addition to this notification of 

enforcement in the Federal Register, the 

Coast Guard plans to provide 

notification of this enforcement period 

via the Local Notice to Mariners and 

marine information broadcasts. 

Dated: October 28, 2024. 

P.M. Britton, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Virginia. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25466 Filed 10–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Parts 61 and 62 

[Docket ID FEMA–2024–0030] 

RIN 1660–AB16 

National Flood Insurance Program 

Installment Payment Plan 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP) is a voluntary program 

in which interested persons can 

purchase flood insurance for their 

property, if it is located in a community 

that participates in the NFIP by 

adopting and enforcing a set of 

minimum floodplain management 

requirements to reduce future flood 

damages. FEMA is revising the NFIP’s 

regulations to offer NFIP policyholders 

the option of paying their annual flood 

insurance premium in monthly 

installments. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

31, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for inspection 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Bronowicz, Director, Policyholder 

Services Division, Federal Insurance 

Directorate, Resilience, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, (202) 

557–9488, Kelly.Bronowicz@

fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. The National Flood Insurance 

Program 

Congress created the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) through 

enactment of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) (title XIII 

of Pub. L. 90–448, 82 Stat. 572), 42 

U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The NFIP is a 

Federal program enabling property 

owners in participating communities 

that adopt and enforce floodplain 

management regulations to purchase 

insurance as a protection against flood 

losses. A consumer may purchase an 

NFIP federally-backed flood insurance 

policy either: (1) directly from the 

Federal Government through a direct 

servicing agent (referred to as ‘‘NFIP 

Direct’’); or (2) from a participating 

private insurance company through the 

Write Your Own (WYO) Program. The 

Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) 

sets out the terms and conditions of 

insurance. See 44 CFR part 61, appendix 

A. FEMA establishes terms and 

conditions of coverage and sets 

premiums for coverage. The terms, 

coverage limits, and flood insurance 

premiums are the same whether a policy 

is purchased from the NFIP Direct or a 

private WYO insurance company in the 

WYO Program. See 44 CFR 62.23(a). 

Under the regulations in place prior to 

this rule change, FEMA required 

policyholders to pay their applicable 

SFIP annual premium in full at the time 

of application.1 44 CFR 61.4(b). 

Requiring payment of the annual 

premium in full at the time of 

application reduced administrative 

costs to the program, and because of the 

seasonal nature of flooding, ensured the 

receipt of premium and exposure to risk 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES