33546 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Federal Regulations are amended as

follows:

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,

BLIND, AND DISABLED

Subpart D—[Amended]

1. The authority citation for subpart D

of part 416 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611(a), (b), (c),

and (e), 1612, 1617, and 1631 of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382(a), (b),

(c), and (e), 1382a, 1382f, and 1383).

2. Section 416.420 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 416.420 Determination of benefits;

general.

* * * * *

(a) General rule. We generally use the

amount of your countable income in the

second month prior to the current

month to determine how much your

benefit amount will be for the current

month. We will use the benefit rate (see

§§ 416.410 through 416.414), as

increased by a cost-of-living adjustment,

in determining the value of the onethird reduction or the presumed

maximum value, to compute your SSI

benefit amount for the first 2 months in

which the cost-of-living adjustment is in

effect. If you have been receiving an SSI

benefit and a Social Security insurance

benefit and the latter is increased on the

basis of the cost-of-living adjustment or

because your benefit is recomputed, we

will compute the amount of your SSI

benefit for January, the month of an SSI

benefit increase, by including in your

income the amount by which your

Social Security benefit in January

exceeds the amount of your Social

Security benefit in November. Similarly,

we will compute the amount of your SSI

benefit for February by including in

your income the amount by which your

Social Security benefit in February

exceeds the amount of your Social

Security benefit in December.

Example 1. Mrs. X’s benefit amount is

being determined for September (the current

month). Mrs. X’s countable income in July is

used to determine the benefit amount for

September.

Example 2. Mr. Z’s SSI benefit amount is

being determined for January (the current

month). There has been a cost-of-living

increase in SSI benefits effective January. Mr.

Z’s countable income in November is used to

determine the benefit amount for January. In

November, Mr. Z had in-kind support and

maintenance valued at the presumed

maximum value as described in

§ 416.1140(a). We will use the January benefit

rate, as increased by the COLA, to determine

the value of the in-kind support and

maintenance Mr. Z received in November

when we determine Mr. Z’s SSI benefit

amount for January.

Example 3. Mr. Y’s SSI benefit amount is

being determined for January (the current

month). Mr. Y has Social Security income of

$100 in November, $100 in December, and

$105 in January. We find the amount by

which his Social Security income in January

exceeds his Social Security income in

November ($5) and add that to his income in

November to determine the SSI benefit

amount for January.

* * * * *

Subpart K—[Amended]

3. The authority citation for subpart K

of part 416 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1602, 1611,

1612, 1613, 1614(f), 1621, and 1631 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5),

1381a, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j,

and 1383); sec. 211, Pub. L. 93–66, 87 Stat.

154 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note).

4. Section 416.1130 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 416.1130 Introduction

(a) General. Both earned income and

unearned income include items

received in kind (§ 416.1102). Generally,

we value in-kind items at their current

market value and we apply the various

exclusions for both earned and

unearned income. However, we have

special rules for valuing food, clothing,

or shelter that is received as unearned

income (in-kind support and

maintenance). This section and the ones

that follow discuss these rules. In these

sections (§§ 416.1130 through 416.1148)

we use the in-kind support and

maintenance you receive in the month

as described in § 416.420 to determine

your SSI benefit. We value the in-kind

support and maintenance using the

Federal benefit rate for the month in

which you receive it. Exception: For the

first 2 months for which a cost-of-living

adjustment applies, we value in-kind

support and maintenance you receive

using the VTR or PMV based on the

Federal benefit rate as increased by the

cost-of-living adjustment.

Example: Mr. Jones receives an SSI benefit

which is computed by subtracting one-third

from the Federal benefit rate. This one-third

represents the value of the income he

receives because he lives in the household of

a son who provides both food and shelter (inkind support and maintenance). In January,

we increase his SSI benefit because of a costof-living adjustment. We base his SSI

payment for that month on the food and

shelter he received from his son two months

earlier in November. In determining the

value of that food and shelter he received in

November, we use the Federal benefit rate for

January.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–16206 Filed 6–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket 96–9; FHWA–97–2281]

RIN 2125–AD89

National Standards for Traffic Control

Devices; Revision of the Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices;

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and School

Warning Signs

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final amendment to the Manual

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD).

SUMMARY: This document contains an

amendment to the MUTCD which has

been adopted by the FHWA for

inclusion therein. The amendment

revises sections of the MUTCD to permit

the optional use of fluorescent yellow

green (FYG) warning signs related to

pedestrian, bicycle, and school

applications. The MUTCD is

incorporated by reference in FHWA’s

regulations on traffic control devices on

Federal-aid and other streets and

highways, and recognized as the

national standard for traffic control

devices on all public roads. This

amendment is intended to expedite

traffic, improve safety and provide a

more uniform application of highway

signs, signals, and markings.

DATES: The final rule is effective on June

19, 1998. Incorporation by reference of

the publication listed in the regulations

is approved by the Director of the

Federal Register as of June 19, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ernest Huckaby, Office of Highway

Safety (202) 366–9064; or Mr. Ray

Cuprill, Office of Chief Counsel, (202)

366–1377, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33547

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Government Printing Office’s

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at

(202) 512–1661. Internet users may

reach the Office of the Federal Register’s

home page at: http://www.nara.gov/

fedreg and the Government Printing

Office’s database at: http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

The text for Parts I, II, VII, and IX of

the MUTCD is available from the FHWA

Office of Highway Safety (HHS–10) or

from the FHWA Home Page at the URL:

http://www.ohs.fhwa.dot.gov/devices/

mutcd.html

Background

The 1988 MUTCD is available for

inspection and copying as prescribed in

49 CFR Part 7. It may be purchased for

$44 (Domestic) or $55 (Foreign) from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954,

Stock No. 650–001–00001–0. The

purchase of the MUTCD includes the

1993 revision of Part VI, Standards and

Guides for Traffic Controls for Street

and Highway Construction,

Maintenance, Utility and Incident

Management Operation, dated

September 1993.

The FHWA both receives and initiates

requests for amendments to the

MUTCD. Each request is assigned an

identification number which indicates

by Roman numeral, the organizational

part of the MUTCD affected and, by

Arabic numeral, the order in which the

request was received. This amendment

contains the disposition of a proposed

change which was published on June 7,

1996, at 61 FR 29234. Text changes

required as a result of amendments

contained herein will be distributed to

everyone currently appearing on the

FHWA, Office of Highway Safety,

Federal Register mailing list and will be

published in the next edition of the

MUTCD. Those wishing to be added to

this Federal Register mailing list should

write to the Federal Highway

Administration, Office of Highway

Safety, HHS–10, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Summary of Comments

The FHWA has reviewed the

comments received in response to the

proposed amendment and other

information related to the MUTCD. The

FHWA is acting on the following

request for change to the 1988 edition of

the MUTCD.

This amendment to the MUTCD

allows the use of fluorescent yellow

green (FYG) as an optional color for

Advance Pedestrian Crossing Sign

(W11–2), Pedestrian Crossing Sign

(W11A–2), Bicycle Crossing Sign (W11–

1), School Advance Sign (S1–1), School

Crossing Sign (S2–1), and School Bus

Stop Ahead Sign (S3–1).

The FHWA received 141 comments in

response to the proposed amendment, of

which 110 agreed with the FHWA’s

position; 21 opposed; and 10 were

either undecided or suggested

recommendations not addressed in the

NPRM. The FHWA received 12

comments suggesting this color be

adopted for use in incident

management. The FHWA is currently

conducting research with the States of

New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia on

the appropriate color for incident

management. Included in this research

is FYG. Upon conclusion of the research

rulemaking action will be considered.

The notice of proposed amendment

published on June 7, 1996, included a

vague and incomplete reference to the

Pedestrian Crossing Sign and the

Advance Pedestrian Crossing Sign. Both

signs were intended to be embraced by

the amendment permitting optional

FYG use. Inadvertently, however, the

former was referenced by name only;

the latter was referenced by sign number

only, although dual (name and sign

number) references were included for

each of the other signs involved in the

amendment.

The FHWA believes, however, that it

is appropriate to include both the

Pedestrian and Advance Pedestrian

Crossing Signs in the amendment

adopted here. Although comment was

not specifically invited concerning the

Advance Pedestrian Crossing Sign by

name, we note that the sign is

equivalent in context to the School

Advance Sign which received no

opposing comments. Moreover, because

the amendment provides for optional

installation of FYG signs, inclusion of

both the Pedestrian and Advance

Pedestrian Crossing Signs should not

impose any hardship or result in any

detriment. Conversely, failure to include

both signs within the scope of the

amendment adopted at this time could

unduly burden those municipalities that

choose to install FYG signs, but would

then have to do so under different

installation schedules for the Pedestrian

Crossing and Advance Pedestrian

Crossing Signs. Sequential installation

of the signs would contradict the

FHWA’s recommendation that a

systematic approach be used to install

the signs, potentially resulting in

negative safety implications. Indeed,

several commenters questioned the

advisability of not including both the

Pedestrian Crossing and Advance

Pedestrian Crossing Signs. Further,

several commenters indicated that a

mixing of FYG and standard yellow

signs, resulting from failure to include

both in this notice, could lead to

motorists’ confusion and should not be

permitted.

Pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes are a

serious problem in the United States. A

total of 5,412 pedestrians were reported

killed and another 82,000 were injured

in motor vehicle crashes in 1996. An

estimated 59,000 bicyclists were injured

and 761 were killed in motor vehicle

collisions in 1996. Of the 41,907 people

who lost their lives in motor vehicle

crashes in 1996, 13 percent were

pedestrians and 2 percent were

bicyclists (Traffic Safety Facts 1996

(NHTSA)). Although a drop in

pedestrian fatalities has occurred in

recent years, a serious problem

continues to exist in the United States

relative to pedestrian and bicyclist

deaths and injuries.

The DOT Secretarial Initiative for

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety is a new

effort to promote walking and bicycling

as a safe, healthy, and efficient way to

travel. By the year 2000, the Secretarial

Initiative will have attempted to

decrease by 10 percent the number of

injuries and fatalities occurring to

bicyclists and pedestrians, and to

double the national percentage of

transportation trips made by walking or

bicycling.

As reported in the NPRM, the FHWA

conducted a nationwide study during

1993–1995. North Carolina State

University, Civil Engineering

Department, took part in this study and

performed an in-depth research study in

the use of FYG warning signs. The study

involved eight sites in multiple

pedestrian environments in multiple

cities. The overall results of the study

indicate that FYG warning signs

produced only marginal improvement

in perceived safety at the crossing sites.

At three of the crossing sites studied,

the evaluation indicated a significant

reduction in the number of pedestrian/

vehicle conflicts, as well as a significant

increase in the percentage of vehicles

slowing or stopping. Public opinion

surveys reflected a strong indication

that the FYG warnings do ‘‘stand out’’

and were associated with the need for

caution. (Source: ‘‘Field Evaluation of

Fluorescent Strong Yellow Green

Pedestrian Warning Signs,’’ M.S. Thesis,

K.L. Clark, North Carolina State

University, 1994.)
33548 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Over the last 26 months, the FHWA

has approved 28 jurisdictions to

experiment with FYG warning signs.

Several of the jurisdictions that have

taken part in the experimentation have

indicated that the use of the FYG

warning signs meets pedestrian safety

needs and have requested permission to

install additional signs. Many other

jurisdictions have expressed an interest

in their use and are awaiting the FHWA

final rule.

Of the 141 comments received in

response to the NPRM, 23 represented

jurisdictions that either participated in

the original two-year experimentation,

or that are currently experimenting with

FYG, submitted comments. Of those

jurisdictions, 22 were in agreement with

the proposed optional use, and 1

opposed the proposal.

The City of Chicago has recently

implemented a ‘‘Safe Route to School

Program’’ for the Chicago Board of

Education. This program is a direct

result of crashes involving motorists and

children in school zones. The City of

Chicago has requested and been granted

approval to experiment with FYG signs

at 10 school crossings that have been

identified as ‘‘problem locations.’’

Installation of the first FYG sign

received media attention and its use has

been well received by elected officials,

the Board of Education, and the public.

In many instances, jurisdictions have

publicized the installation of the FYG

signs and have received positive

responses from educators, parents,

students, and motorists.

The NPRM received favorable

comments and overwhelming support

from local governments, including

police departments and public school

systems, in addition to special interest

groups and the general public. National

organizations with safety interests, such

as the National Safety Council, Institute

of Transportation Engineers, and the

American Automobile Association

(AAA-Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi),

have all responded very positively to

the use of FYG warning signs.

Many of the public comments

received in response to the NPRM

voiced common concerns that will be

addressed individually. The NPRM

addressed the cost increase of

fluorescent sheeting material as one and

a half times as much as the high

intensity sign material. The FHWA

estimated the cost of the fluorescent

sheeting material to be $7.45 per sq.ft.

versus the high intensity sign material at

$5.32 per sq.ft. These costs considered

sign blank, sheeting material, and labor

costs for a 30′′ x 30′′ sign. Several docket

comments stated that FYG sheeting

material ($4.90 per sq. ft.) actually costs

only 30 percent more than high

intensity sign material ($3.75 per sq.ft.)

When comparing total installed sign

costs (fabrication, hardware,

installation, and labor costs), the actual

cost difference would only be 7 percent

($17.74 per sq. ft. versus $18.90 per sq.

ft.) for a 30′′ School Crossing Sign. The

FHWA agrees with this cost statement

as these costs follow along with the cost

evaluation method using the BellomoMcGee calculation. (Source: 1987 study

conducted by Bellomo-McGee for the

FHWA, ‘‘Retroreflectivity of Roadway

Signs for Adequate Visibility: A Guide,’’

(FHWA/DF–88/001).) The FHWA is also

concerned with the cost burden on State

and local transportation agencies and

believes the ‘‘optional’’ use as opposed

to an unfunded mandate will relieve the

agencies of an undue cost burden. The

overall installation cost for the sign is

not much different because the sheeting

cost is only a small amount of the total

cost of a sign installation.

There is concern that the NPRM gave

conflicting guidance in proposing a

‘‘systematic approach’’ at locations

selected for use of the FYG warning

signs, and the ‘‘gradual phase-in’’ as

part of ‘‘routine maintenance.’’

Historically, when signs are installed at

the same time, they generally deteriorate

beyond usefulness at the same time and

need to be replaced at the same time.

Signs that are taken down to comply

with the ‘‘systematic approach’’ and that

are in a usable condition may be used

again at other locations. Additionally,

signs can be taken down and

refurbished with new sheeting material

and used again at new locations.

Several commenters believe the use of

FYG warning signs should be

implemented as a mandatory (shall)

condition in the MUTCD, rather than an

optional condition as proposed in the

NPRM. Designation of FYG signs as an

option fits in with the present character

of the MUTCD which allows the State

and local transportation agencies to

make a determination on use of traffic

control devices that may be beneficial to

some locations. An example is the use

of channelizing devices in work zones

with the optional use of tubular

markers, cones, and drums. This is a

positive step in allowing State and local

agencies to address their safety needs

and avoids an undue burden on their

budgets.

Concern has been expressed over the

‘‘novelty effect’’ of the FYG signs. While

there is always the possibility of a

‘‘novelty’’ effect which could decrease

the benefits over time, the

experimentation procedures took into

consideration the possibility of the

novelty effect on drivers by instructing

the implementing agency to allow at

least 30 days between the time the

experimental signs were installed and

the time the study proceeded.

The American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) publishes standard

test methods, specifications, practices,

guides, classifications, and terminology.

These standards are developed

voluntarily and used voluntarily. They

become legally binding only when a

government body makes them so, or

when they are cited in a contract.

Specifically, ASTM E991 describes

procedures for measuring the color of

fluorescent specimens as they would be

perceived when illuminated by

daylight, and for calculating tristimulus

values and chromaticity coordinates for

these conditions. ASTM E1247 provides

spectrophotometric methods for

identifying the presence of fluorescence

in object-color specimens.

There is some concern regarding the

use of ASTM E991 and E1247 for

determining compliance with

specifications listed in the NPRM. It was

mentioned that most State and local

agencies would not have the

instrumentation necessary to accurately

measure fluorescence specifications.

This is not deemed a critical concern as

the testing for FYG would be no

different than what is done in field

offices now. Most States currently have

the capability to do initial testing of

retroreflectivity. When a State purchases

sign material, the manufacturer certifies

the specifications; however, some States

reserve the option to do their own lab

work.

The Commission Internationale de

l’Eclairage (CIE) (English: International

Commission on Illumination)

chromaticity coordinates (x,y), defining

the corner of the Fluorescent Yellow

Green daytime color region, are stated in

the table below. Several docket

comments received mentioned that the

Y values were omitted from the NPRM;

therefore, the Y values have been

inserted in the table below:

x y Y YF

0.387 0.610 50 20

0.368 0.539 ................ ................

0.421 0.486 ................ ................

0.460 0.540 ................ ................

Fluorescent materials differ from nonfluorescent materials in that the total

luminance is the sum of the luminances

due to reflection and fluorescence. The

luminance factor Y of such materials is

the sum of the luminance due to

reflection (YR) and the luminance due to

fluorescence (YF). Therefore, Y=YR+YF.

If the value of YF is greater than zero,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33549

the material is fluorescent; if YF equals

zero, then the luminance factor Y is

equal to YR.

These four pairs of chromaticity

coordinates determine the acceptable

color in terms of the CIE 1931 Standard

Colorimetric System (2 degree standard

observer) measured with CIE Standard

Illuminant D65 in accordance with

ASTM E991. In addition, the color shall

be fluorescent, as determined by ASTM

E1247.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this

action is not a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866 or significant within the

meaning of Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures. It is anticipated that the

economic impact of this rulemaking

would be minimal. The change in this

notice provides additional guidance,

clarification, and optional application

for traffic control devices. The FHWA

expects that application uniformity will

improve at little additional expense to

public agencies or the motoring public.

Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is

not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

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

601–612), the FHWA has evaluated the

effects of this action on small entities.

This final amendment allows the

optional use of alternative traffic control

devices and the changes adopted here

merely provide expanded guidance and

clarification on the selection of

appropriate traffic control devices.

Based on this evaluation, the FHWA

hereby certifies that this action would

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose unfunded

mandates as defined by the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.

104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48).

This rulemaking relates to the Federalaid Highway Program which is a

financial assistance program in which

State, local, or tribal governments have

authority to adjust their program in

accordance with changes made in the

program by the Federal government, and

thus is excluded from the definition of

Federal mandate under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

The MUTCD is incorporated by

reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F,

which requires that changes to the

national standards issued by the FHWA

shall be adopted by the States or other

Federal agencies within two years of

issuance. These amendments are in

keeping with the Secretary of

Transportation’s authority under 23

U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to

promulgate uniform guidelines to

promote the safe and efficient use of the

highway. To the extent that these

amendments override any existing State

requirements regarding traffic control

devices, they do so in the interests of

national uniformity.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction.

The regulations implementing Executive

Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a

collection of information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action

for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

has determined that this action would

not have any effect on the quality of the

environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655

Design standards, Grant programs—

transportation, Highways and roads,

Incorporation by reference, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Signs,

Traffic regulations.

The FHWA hereby amends chapter I

of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations,

part 655 as set forth below:

PART 655—TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 655

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105,

109(d), 114(a), 135, 217, 307, 315, and 402(a);

23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart F—Traffic Control Devices on

Federal-Aid and Other Streets and

Highways

2. In section 655.601, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 655.601 Purpose.

* * * * *

(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices for Streets and Highways

(MUTCD), FHWA, 1988, including

Revision No.1 dated January 17, 1990,

Revision No. 2 dated March 17, 1992,

Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993,

‘‘Errata No. 1 to the 1988 MUTCD,

Revision 3 dated November 1, 1994,’’

Revision No. 4 dated November 1, 1994,

Revision No. 4a (modified) dated

February 19, 1998, Revision No. 5 dated

December 24, 1996, and Revision No. 6,

dated June 19, 1998. This publication is

incorporated by reference in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51

and is on file at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

Suite 700, Washington, DC. The 1988

MUTCD, including Revision No. 3 dated

September 3, 1993, may be purchased

from the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),

P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–

7954, Stock No. 650–001–00001–0. The

amendments to the MUTCD, titled

‘‘1988 MUTCD Revision No. 1,’’ dated

January 17, 1990, ‘‘1988 MUTCD

Revision No. 2,’’ dated March 17, 1992,

‘‘1988 MUTCD Revision No. 3,’’ dated

September 3, 1993, ‘‘1988 MUTCD

Errata No. 1 to Revision No. 3,’’ dated

November 1, 1994, ‘‘1988 MUTCD

Revision No. 4,’’ dated November 1,

1994, ‘‘Revision No. 4a(modified),’’

dated February 19, 1998, and ‘‘1988

MUTCD Revision No. 5,’’ dated

December 24, 1996, and Revision No. 6

dated June 19, 1998 are available from

the Federal Highway Administration,

Office of Highway Safety, HHS–10, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. These documents are available

for inspection and copying as prescribed

in 49 CFR part 7.

* * * * *
33550 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Issued: June 9, 1998.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–15882 Filed 6–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 7, and 602

[TD 8770]

RIN Nos. 1545–AP81 and 1545–AI32

Certain Transfers of Stock or

Securities by U.S. Persons to Foreign

Corporations and Related Reporting

Requirements

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Final and temporary

regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains

regulations relating to certain transfers

of stock or securities by U.S. persons to

foreign corporations pursuant to the

corporate organization and

reorganization provisions of the Internal

Revenue Code, and the reporting

requirements related to such transfers.

The regulations provide the public with

guidance necessary to comply with the

Tax Reform Act of 1984.

DATES: These regulations are effective

July 20, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip L. Tretiak at (202) 622–3860 (not

a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information

contained in these final regulations has

been reviewed and approved by the

Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under

control number 1545–1271. Responses

to these collections of information are

required in order for certain U.S.

shareholders that transfer stock or

securities in section 367(a) exchanges to

qualify for an exception to the general

rule of taxation under section 367(a)(1).

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a valid control number.

The estimated burden per respondent

varies from .5 to 8 hours, depending

upon individual circumstances, with an

estimated average of 4 hours.

Comments concerning the accuracy of

this burden estimate and suggestions for

reducing this burden should be sent to

the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS

Reports Clearance Officer, T:FS:FP,

Washington, DC 20224, and to the

Office of Management and Budget, Attn:

Desk Officer for the Department of the

Treasury, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC

20503.

Books or records relating to a

collection of information must be

retained as long as their contents may

become material in the administration

of any internal revenue law. Generally,

tax returns and tax return information

are confidential, as required by 26

U.S.C. 6103.

Background

On May 16, 1986, temporary and

proposed regulations under sections 367

(a) and (d), and 6038B were published

in the Federal Register (51 FR 17936).

These regulations, which addressed

transfers of stock or securities and other

assets, as well as related reporting

requirements, were published to

provide the public with guidance

necessary to comply with changes made

to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax

Reform Act of 1984. The IRS and the

Treasury Department later issued Notice

87–85 (1987–2 C.B. 395), which set forth

substantial changes to the 1986

regulations, effective with respect to

transfers of domestic or foreign stock or

securities occurring after December 16,

1987. A further notice of proposed

rulemaking containing rules under

section 367(a) with respect to transfers

of domestic or foreign stock or

securities, as well as section 367(b), was

published in the Federal Register on

August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41993). The

section 367(a) portion of the 1991

proposed regulations was generally

based upon the positions announced in

Notice 87–85, but the regulations

proposed certain modifications to

Notice 87–85, particularly with respect

to transfers of stock or securities of

foreign corporations.

Subsequently, the IRS and the

Treasury Department have issued

guidance focusing on the transfers of

stock or securities of domestic

corporations. Notice 94–46 (1994–1 C.B.

356) announced modifications to the

positions set forth in Notice 87–85 (and

the 1991 proposed regulations) with

respect to transfers of stock or securities

of domestic corporations occurring after

April 17, 1994. Temporary and

proposed regulations (referred to as the

inversion regulations) implementing

Notice 94–46 (with certain

modifications) were published in the

Federal Register on December 26, 1995

(60 FR 66739 and 66771). Final

inversion regulations, published in the

Federal Register on December 27, 1996

(61 FR 61849), generally followed the

rules contained in the temporary

regulations, with modifications.

The final regulations herein address

transfers of foreign stock or securities,

and other matters addressed in the 1991

proposed regulations under section

367(a) that were not addressed in the

1996 final inversion regulations.

In addition, these final regulations

address those portions of the 1991

proposed section 367(b) regulations that

relate to transactions that are subject to

both sections 367 (a) and (b). The

remainder of the 1991 proposed section

367(b) regulations will be finalized at a

later date.

This document also contains final

regulations under section 6038B with

respect to reporting requirements

applicable to transfers of stock or

securities described under section

367(a). Rules regarding outbound

transfers to corporations of assets other

than stock (including intangibles), and

outbound transfers to foreign

partnerships will be addressed in

separate guidance.

Finally, these final regulations

contain a clarification with respect to

the scope of certain outbound transfers

of intangibles that are subject to section

367(d).

Explanation of Provisions

Sections 367 (a) and (b): Introduction

Section 367(a)(1) generally treats a

transfer of property (including stock or

securities) by a U.S. person to a foreign

corporation (an outbound transfer) in an

exchange described in section 332, 351,

354, 356 or 361 as a taxable exchange

unless the transfer qualifies for an

exception to this general rule.

Section 367(a)(2) provides that, except

as provided by regulations, section

367(a)(1) shall not apply to the transfer

of stock or securities of a foreign

corporation which is a party to the

exchange or a party to the

reorganization. Section 367(a)(3)

contains an exception to section

367(a)(1) for certain outbound transfers

of tangible assets other than stock or

securities. Section 367(a)(5) contains

limitations on any exceptions to section

367(a)(1) in certain instances.

Section 367(b) provides that, with

respect to certain nonrecognition

transfers in connection with which

there is no transfer of property

described in section 367(a)(1), a foreign

corporation will retain its status as a

corporation unless regulations provide

otherwise.

These final regulations address

transactions described in both sections