27480 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

association which is registered under

section 17 of the Act and which

provides for the membership therein of

such futures commission merchant,

unless no such futures association is so

registered.

(b) The requirements of paragraph (a)

of this section shall not apply to a

futures commission merchant registered

in accordance with § 3.10(a)(3) of this

chapter.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 14, 2001

by the Commission.

Edward W. Colbert,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–12489 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2001–8846]

RIN 2125–AE83

Revision of the Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices; General

Provisions, Markings, and Signals

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments

to the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated

by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart

F, approved by the Federal Highway

Administration, and recognized as the

national standard for traffic control

devices on all public roads. The purpose

of this notice is to propose revised

wording on the design and installation

of traffic control devices, specifically

accessible pedestrian signals, in the

MUTCD.

This document proposes new text for

the MUTCD in Part 1—General and Part

4—Signals. The proposed changes

included herein are intended to revise

supporting information and guidance

relating to the decisionmaking process

concerning accessible pedestrian

signals.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver

comments with the docket number that

appears in the heading of this document

to the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Dockets Management

Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 or

submit electronically at http://

dmes.dot.gov/submit. All comments

should include the docket number that

appears in the heading of this

document. All comments received will

be available for examination and

copying at the above address between 9

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those

desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you

may print the acknowledgment page

that appears after submitting comments

electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding the notice of

proposed amendments contact Mr.

Ernest Huckaby, Office of

Transportation Operations, Room 3408,

(202) 366–9064, or Mr. Raymond

Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Room 4230, (202) 366–0791, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL 401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/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 notice of proposed

amendment 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.

Background

The MUTCD is available for

inspection and copying as prescribed in

49 CFR part 7 on the FHWA’s website

at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. This

notice is being issued to provide an

opportunity for public comment on the

desirability of proposed amendments to

Section 1A.11 and to Section 4E.06

concerning accessible pedestrian

signals. Based on the comments

received and its own experience, the

FHWA may issue a final rule concerning

the proposed changes included in this

notice.

This notice of proposed amendment is

being published in response to several

letters received by the U.S. Department

of Transportation objecting to language

in the text of the MUTCD summarized

in the final rule published at 65 FR

78923 on December 18, 2000. The letters

received by the U.S. Department of

Transportation were written by the

American Council of the Blind, the

Association for Education and

Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually

Impaired Division Nine—Orientation

and Mobility, the National Committee

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and

Accessible Design for the Blind.

The letter from the National

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices (NCUTCD) discusses a meeting

it held in January 2001 with

representatives of various organizations

that represent individuals with visual

disabilities. During the meeting the

attendees drafted text they believe

would be more acceptable to

pedestrians with visual disabilities and

the organizations that represent them.

However, the NCUTCD recommended

one sentence of the draft text be deleted

because it believed it may encourage a

‘‘do nothing’’ response by a traffic

agency as opposed to conducting an

engineering study of the request to

install a traffic control device at a

location.

The FHWA agrees with this position

as Federal, State, and local agencies are

required to comply with the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Title II of the ADA

of 1990 requires that public entites not

discriminate against people with

disabilities. Subject to the provisions of

Title II, no qualified individual with a

disability shall, by reason of such

disability, be excluded from

participation in or be denied the

benefits of the services, programs, or

activities of a public entity, or be

subjected to discrimination by any such

entity. The FHWA believes that a traffic

agency should review a request for

pedestrian signals accessible to visually

impaired persons in the same manner as

it does all other requests to install a

traffic control device. Also, the FHWA

has the added requirement under the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.

701 et seq.) and the ADA of 1990 of

overseeing that recipients of Federal-aid

funding comply with the laws and do

not discriminate against people with

disabilities.

The FHWA invites comments on the

proposed new text for the last paragraph

of the MUTCD Section 1A.11 and the

first six paragraphs of the MUTCD

Section 4E.06. The proposed changes

are included in the following

discussion:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27481

1 ‘‘Accessible Pedestrian Signals,’’ U.S. Access

Board, August 1998, is available online at URL:

http://www.access-board.gov. A single hardcopy

may be obtained without charge by contacting the

U.S. Access Board at (202) 272–5343 (voice) or

(202) 272–5449 (TTY); or by writing to the Board

at 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC

20004–1111.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to

Part 1—General

1. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other

Documents, the FHWA is proposing to

add a new document in subparagraph U

to paragraph 3 to read, ‘‘ ‘Accessible

Pedestrian Signals,’ A–37, U.S.

Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board (The U.S.

Access Board).’’ This new document

would be a useful source of information

for traffic engineers to use because it

provides various techniques for making

pedestrian signal information available

to pedestrians with visual disabilities.

The address for the U.S. Architectural

and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (The U.S. Access Board) would be

added to page i of the MUTCD.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to

Part 4—Signals

1. In Section 4E.06, the FHWA

proposes to revise paragraph 1 to read,

‘‘The primary technique that

pedestrians who have visual disabilities

use to cross streets at signalized

intersections is to initiate their crossing

when they hear the traffic in front of

them stop and the traffic alongside them

begin to move, corresponding to the

onset of the green interval. This

technique is effective at many signalized

intersections. The existing environment

is often sufficient to provide the

information that pedestrians who have

visual disabilities need to operate safely

at a signalized intersection. Therefore,

many signalized intersections will not

require any accessible pedestrian

signals.’’ The FHWA is proposing to

replace the phrase ‘‘the vast majority of’’

with ‘‘many’’ because ‘‘many signalized

intersections’’ better represents the

degree of effectiveness of the technique

used by pedestrians who have visual

disabilities to cross the street.

2. In Section 4E.06, the FHWA

proposes to revise paragraph 2 to read,

‘‘If a particular signalized intersection

presents difficulties for pedestrians who

have visual disabilities to cross safely

and effectively, an engineering study

should be conducted that considers the

safety and effectiveness for pedestrians

in general, as well as the information

needs of pedestrians with visual

disabilities.’’ The FHWA is proposing to

delete text from this paragraph that

suggested safety and effectiveness

concerns for all pedestrians be

examined first before considering any

access issues for pedestrians with visual

disabilities. The FHWA is proposing to

use the term ‘‘engineering study’’ rather

than ‘‘examination’’ or ‘‘review’’ to

explain the general practice used for

determining needed intersection

improvements for road users, including

all pedestrians. Engineering studies can

examine numerous tools to assist

pedestrians, including accessible

pedestrian signals.

3. In Section 4E.06, the FHWA

proposes to revise paragraph 4 to read,

‘‘Local organizations, providing support

services to pedestrians who have visual

and/or hearing disabilities, can often act

as important advisors to the traffic

engineer when consideration is being

given to the installation of devices to

assist such pedestrians. Additionally,

orientation and mobility specialists or

similar staff also might be able to

provide a wide range of advice. The U.S.

Access Board’s Document A–37,

‘Accessible Pedestrian Signals,’ 1

provides various techniques for making

pedestrian signal information available

to persons with visual disabilities.’’ The

FHWA is proposing to replace

‘‘professionals’’ with ‘‘staff,’’ because

the term ‘‘professionals’’ could connote

that a certification is necessary. The

FHWA is proposing to add the sentence

‘‘The U.S. Access Board’s Document A–

37, ‘Accessible Pedestrian Signals,’

provides various techniques for making

pedestrian signal information available

to persons with visual disabilities’ to the

end of the paragraph. This reference was

published in the NPA of December 30,

1999, at 64 FR 73612, 73670 under

FHWA docket 99–6575, but

inadvertently deleted from the final

rule.

4. In Section 4E.06, the FHWA

proposes to delete existing paragraphs 5

and 6. The FHWA proposes to delete

these paragraphs because paragraph 4

covers the consideration of advice from

organizations that represent individuals

with disabilities. In addition, an

engineering study, mentioned in

paragraph 2, covers consideration of

cost.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

The FHWA believes a 30-day

comment period is sufficient for these

proposed changes inasmuch as the issue

has already been the subject of a noticeand-comment rulemaking (RIN 2125–

AE71) and the proposed changes are in

response to the aforementioned

comments by the National Committee

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,

organizations providing support

services to pedestrians with visual

disabilities, and others. It appears that

the concerns indicated by the different

organizations have been addressed in

these proposed changes. The notice of

the FHWA’s intent to add a section on

accessible pedestrian signals in the

MUTCD was first published in a notice

of proposed amendment on December

30, 1999 (RIN 2125–AE71). The FHWA

provided an extensive opportunity for

public comment and review by

accepting comments on this issue for a

period of 6 months until June 30, 2000.

Because the public is very familiar with

the issues, the FHWA believes a 30-day

comment period would be sufficient. In

addition, there are three national

organizations, American Association of

State Highway and Transportation

Officials, Institute of Transportation

Engineers and American Traffic Safety

Services Association, that are in the

process of printing the new MUTCD.

Providing more than a 30-day comment

period would be contrary to the public

interest because it would also delay

implementation of a massive

publication effort and distribution of the

MUTCD to traffic engineering

practitioners. Since printing the

MUTCD involves a large investment and

they are aware of the possible changes

to Section 4E.06, these national

organizations would not like to print an

MUTCD when such a significant change

is pending. In addition, all of the

concerned parties have expressed that

they would be greatly concerned if the

national organizations who plan to print

the MUTCD do so with the current text

of Section 4E.06. The FHWA believes

that this is the most equitable and

economic solution; and therefore, a

comment period longer than 30-days

would be contrary to public interest.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be

considered and will be available for

examination in the docket at the above

address. Comments received after the

comment closing date will be filed in

the docket and will be considered to the

extent practicable, but the FHWA may

issue a final rule at any time after the

close of the comment period. In

addition to late comments, the FHWA

will also continue to file in the docket

relevant information that becomes

available after the comment closing

date, and interested persons should

continue to examine the docket for new

material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined

preliminarily that this action will not be

27482 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

a significant regulatory action within

the meaning of Executive Order 12866

or significant within the meaning of

U.S. Department of Transportation

regulatory policies and procedures. It is

anticipated that the economic impact of

this rulemaking would be minimal. The

new standards and other changes

proposed in this notice are intended to

improve traffic operations and safety,

and provide additional guidance,

clarification, and optional applications

for traffic control devices. The FHWA

expects that these proposed changes

will create uniformity and enhance

safety and mobility 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 (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated the effects of this

proposed action on small entities. This

notice of proposed amendment proposes

revised wording on the design and

installation of traffic control devices,

specifically accessible pedestrian

signals, in the MUTCD. The proposed

changes are intended to improve traffic

operations and safety, expand guidance,

and clarify application of traffic control

devices as it relates to accessible

pedestrian signals. The FHWA hereby

certifies that these proposed revisions

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This proposed rule would not impose

unfunded mandates as defined by the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995, 109

Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.).

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

The FHWA has analyzed this

proposed action in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 13132 dated August 4,

1999. This proposal amends the existing

regulation to revise wording on the

design and installation of traffic control

devices, specifically accessible

pedestrian signals, in the MUTCD. The

FHWA has consulted with States and

local governments and believes that the

proposed changes will not increase

direct cost compliance costs of States

and local governments.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal

Consultation)

The FHWA has analyzed this

proposal under Executive Order 13175,

dated November 6, 2000, and believes

that the notice of proposed amendment

would not have substantial direct effects

on one or more Indian tribes; will not

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on Indian tribal governments; and

will not preempt tribal law. The

proposed changes in this notice of

proposed amendment revise guidance

and supporting information, not

standards, related to the decisionmaking

process concerning whether or not to

install accessible pedestrian signals.

Therefore, a tribal summary impact

statement is not required.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction.

The regulations implementing Executive

Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Federal agencies must obtain approval

from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for each collection of

information they conduct, sponsor, or

require through regulations. The FHWA

has determined that this proposed

action does not contain a collection of

information requirement for purposes of

the PRA.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This proposed action meets

applicable standards in Sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,

Civil Justice Reform, to minimize

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and

reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of

Children)

The FHWA has analyzed this

proposed action under Executive Order

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This is not an economically

significant action and does not concern

an environmental risk to health or safety

that may disproportionately affect

children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of

Private Property)

This proposed action would not effect

a taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under

Executive Order 12630, Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this

proposed action for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has

determined that it would not have any

effect on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655

Design standards, Grant programs—

Transportation, Highways and roads,

Incorporation by reference, Signs,

Traffic regulations.

(23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217,

315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR

1.48(b))

Issued on: May 11, 2001.

Vincent F. Schimmoller,

Deputy Executive Director, Federal Highway

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–12426 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DE 054–1031b; FRL–6981–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Delaware; Nitrogen Oxides Budget

Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Delaware for the purpose of establishing

a nitrogen oxides ( NOX) allowance

trading program for large electric

generating and industrial units,

beginning in 2003. In the Final Rules

section of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving the State’s SIP submittal as a

direct final rule without prior proposal