Utilities

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 645

[FHWA Docket No. 94-8]

RIN 2125-AD31

Utilities

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending its regulations on utilities. These

amendments eliminate the requirement for FHWA preaward review and/or

approval of consultant contracts for preliminary engineering and

increase the ceiling for lump sum agreements from $25,000 to $100,000.

They clarify the meaning of the term ``approved program'' and the

methodology to be used to compute indirect or overhead rates. They

require utilities to submit final billings within one year following

completion of the utility relocation work. They eliminate the

requirements for State highway agencies (SHAs) to certify the

completion of utility work and to provide evidence of payment prior to

reimbursement. They bring the definition of ``clear zone'' into

conformance with the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ``Roadside Design Guide.'' Finally,

they incorporate an amendment conforming the utilities regulations to

the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),

Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914. The FHWA is making these changes to

conform the utilities regulations to more recent laws, regulations, and

guidance; to clarify these regulations; and to give the SHAs more

flexibility in implementing them.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective August 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jerry L. Poston, Office of

Engineering, 202-366-0450, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of the Chief

Counsel, 202-366-0780, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The amendments in this final rule are based primarily on the notice

of

[[Page 34847]]

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the May 17, 1994, Federal

Register at 59 FR 25579 (FHWA Docket No. 94-8). All comments received

in response to this NPRM have been considered in adopting these

amendments.

Current FHWA regulations regarding utility relocation and

accommodation matters have evolved from basic principles established

decades ago, with many of the policies remaining unchanged. The current

regulations are found in title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part

645 (23 CFR part 645). Subpart A of this part pertains to utility

relocations, adjustments, and reimbursement. Subpart B pertains to the

accommodation of utilities. Part 645 was revised on May 15, 1985, when

a final rule was published in the Federal Register at 50 FR 20344. Two

significant changes have occurred since then, on February 2 and July 1,

1988, when amendments to the regulation were published in the Federal

Register at 53 FR 2829 and 53 FR 24932. The February 2 amendment

provided that each SHA must decide, as part of its utility relocation

plan, whether to allow longitudinal utility installations within the

access control limits of freeways and, if allowed, under what

circumstances. The July 1 amendment clarified that costs incurred by

highway agencies in implementing projects solely for safety corrective

measures to reduce the hazards of utilities to highway users are

eligible for Federal-aid participation.

This final rule amends these regulations in the following manner

and for the reasons indicated below.

In Sec. 645.109, paragraph (b) is amended to eliminate the

requirement for FHWA preaward review and/or approval of consultant

contracts for preliminary engineering and related work. The amendment

increases the number of consultant contracts that can be advanced

without prior FHWA approval and provides for consistency in the

administration of consultant agreements.

In Sec. 645.113, paragraph (f) is amended to increase the ceiling

for lump sum agreements from $25,000 to $100,000. This provides the

SHAs greater flexibility in utilizing the lump sum payment arrangement.

The purpose of allowing lump sum agreements in lieu of agreements based

on an accounting of actual costs is to reduce the administrative burden

associated with utility relocation projects. Under the lump sum

process, cost accounting is easier, project billings are simplified,

and a final audit of detailed cost records is not required. Final

project costs are typically quite close to the costs estimated for

small, routine projects. The FHWA believes that the small degree of

accuracy that might be realized if more detailed cost accounting

methods were followed does not justify the extra cost involved in

carrying out detailed audits. This revision increases the number of

utility relocations potentially eligible for lump sum payment,

anticipates future needs, and responds, in part, to the fact that since

the $25,000 limit was established in 1983, inflation has reduced the

number and limited the scope of projects eligible for lump sum

payments.

In Sec. 645.113, paragraph (g)(1) is amended to change the term

``approved program'' to ``Statewide transportation improvement

program.'' Title 23, United States Code, section 135 (23 U.S.C. 135)

requires a Statewide transportation improvement program to include all

projects in the State which are proposed for Federal-aid highway

funding. This program replaces the ``approved program'' previously

required in 23 U.S.C. 105. This amendment conforms the utilities

regulation to section 135 by specifying that utility relocation work

must be included in an ``approved Statewide transportation improvement

program.''

In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (d)(1) is amended to clarify the

methodology to be used for computing indirect overhead rates. The

definition of indirect costs, and what may or may not be included, is

set forth in 48 CFR part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures.

Part 31 is referenced in 49 CFR part 18, the common rule for Federal

grants, cooperative agreements, and subawards to State, local, and

Indian tribal governments. However, to avoid any misunderstandings and

to assure consistency with the common rule, a reference to 48 CFR 31 is

added to the utilities regulations.

In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (i)(2) is revised to require utilities

to submit final billings within one year following completion of the

work, otherwise previous payments to utilities may be considered final

and projects may be closed out, except as agreed to between the SHA and

the utility. This change will assist highway agencies in their efforts

to obtain timely final billings from the utilities. Some utility bills

are received years after the work is completed, thus delaying audit

activity and project closure. Billings received from utilities more

than one year following completion of the utility relocation work may

be paid if the SHA so desires, and Federal funds may participate in

these payments.

In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (i)(2) is further revised to eliminate

the requirement that the SHA certify that utility work is complete,

acceptable, and in accordance with the terms of the agreement. These

certifications are no longer considered necessary because all third

party agreements and non-construction contracts are reviewed by the

FHWA on a program basis. This revision will reduce paperwork and

expedite the submittal of final billings from the utilities.

In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (i)(4) is removed. This paragraph

prohibited Federal reimbursement for a final utility billing until the

highway agency furnished evidence that it had paid the utility with its

own funds. This regulation is contrary to the general FHWA practice

whereby the FHWA reimburses the SHAs for costs incurred, not for actual

payments made.

Section 645.207 is amended to change the term ``clear recovery

area'' to ``clear zone,'' to revise the definition of ``clear zone'' to

conform to the one contained in AASHTO's ``Roadside Design Guide,''\1\

and to add a definition of the term ``border area'' which is contained

in the definition of ``clear zone.'' In Sec. 645.209, paragraph (a) is

amended to clarify the FHWA's continuing intent to accommodate

utilities within highway rights-of-way when sufficient clear zone is

not available, and paragraph (b) is amended to change the term ``clear

recovery area'' to ``clear zone.'' These changes provide consistency

with AASHTO's ``Roadside Design Guide,'' a 1989 document which should

be used as a guide for establishing clear zones for various types of

highways and operating conditions. The term ``clear recovery area''

originated in 1985 and, though worded somewhat differently, meant

essentially the same as the term ``clear zone.'' These terms were often

used interchangeably. The ``Roadside Design Guide,'' however, uses the

term ``clear zone'' exclusively. Hence, to avoid confusion, the term

``clear zone'' is incorporated into the utilities regulations.

\1\The ``Roadside Design Guide'' is incorporated by reference at

23 CFR 625.5(a)(3). It is available for purchase from the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North

Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Also, it is available for

inspection as provided in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Sec. 645.215, paragraph (a) is amended to change the term

``Federal-aid system'' to ``Federal-aid highway.'' This revision is in

accordance with a conforming amendment in section 1016(f)(1)(B) of the

ISTEA changing the term ``Federal-aid system'' in 23 U.S.C. 109(l) to

``Federal-aid highway.''

[[Page 34848]]

Discussion of Comments

Interested persons were invited to participate in the development

of this final rule by submitting written comments on the NPRM to Docket

94-8 on or before July 18, 1994. Comments were received from 10 SHAs

and 6 utilities representatives. A summary of the comments received

relative to each proposed amendment follows.

In Sec. 645.109, paragraph (b) is amended to eliminate the

requirement for FHWA preaward review and/or approval of consultant

contracts for preliminary engineering. Four SHAs and 5 utilities

commenters were in favor of the amendment proposed in the NPRM to

increase the upper limit on the value of such contracts from $10,000 to

$25,000. One SHA recommended that the upper limit be increased even

more.

In Sec. 645.113, paragraph (f) is amended to increase the ceiling

for lump sum agreements from $25,000 to $100,000. Four SHAs were in

favor of this proposed amendment; 5 utilities commenters recommended

that the upper limit be increased even more.

In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (d)(1) is amended to clarify the

methodology to be used to compute indirect or overhead rates. Four SHAs

and 5 utilities commenters were in favor of this proposed amendment.

In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (i)(2) is amended to require utilities

to submit final billings within one year following completion of work.

Four SHAs were in favor of the amendment proposed in the NPRM to

establish a 180-day final billing deadline. Three SHAs and 6 utilities

commenters recommended that the final billing deadline be established

for a period of time longer than 180 calendar days proposed in the NPRM

and suggested several other time periods.

In Secs. 645.207 and 645.209, the definition of ``clear zone'' is

revised to parallel the definition of this term in AASHTO's ``Roadside

Design Guide.'' Four SHAs were in favor of this proposed amendment; 1

SHA recommended that the Texas Transportation Institute's (TTI) ``A

Supplement to a Guide for Selecting, Designing, and Locating Traffic

Barriers'' be included with the AASHTO ``Roadside Design Guide'' as a

good technical reference; 5 utilities commenters recommended that the

clear zone definition specify that the clear zone ends at the right-of-

way line.

Section 645.215 incorporates a conforming amendment contained in

section 1016(f)(1)(B) of the ISTEA that changes the term ``Federal-aid

systems'' to ``Federal-aid highways.'' Four SHAs were in favor of this

proposed amendment.

A discussion of the specific comments received and the FHWA

responses to them follows.

Comment 1

One SHA recommended that Sec. 645.109(b) be modified to increase

the upper limit on the value of consultant contracts for preliminary

engineering for which the FHWA may forgo preaward review and/or

approval from $10,000 to $100,000, rather than simply increasing it to

$25,000 as the FHWA had proposed.

Response

The FHWA has decided to totally eliminate the requirement for FHWA

preaward review and/or approval of consultant contracts for preliminary

engineering, consistent with the administration of other consultant

agreements. The determination to allow a utility to use a consultant

for preliminary engineering should be made by the SHA, not the FHWA,

when the utility agreement is executed. This change will be

accomplished by eliminating the last sentence of Sec. 645.109(b).

Comment 2

Five utilities commenters recommended that Sec. 645.113(f) be

modified to increase the ceiling for lump sum agreements from $25,000

to $200,000. They asserted that this was desirable because the

administrative cost of tracking ``actual cost'' projects adds

significantly to the cost of the undertaking for both the utility and

the SHAs that must approve the billing.

Response

This recommendation was not adopted. The increase from $25,000 to

$100,000 will increase the number of utility relocations potentially

eligible for lump sum payments and reduce the administrative burden

associated with utility relocation projects. An increase even higher

than $100,000, such as to the recommended $200,000, may have been

possible. However, it is desired at this time to retain the $100,000

figure because it seems to represent a good break point between major

and minor work and because it corresponds more closely to increasing

inflation rates which have over the years reduced the number and

limited the scope of projects eligible for lump sum payments.

Provisions for lump sum payments for utility relocation work were first

addressed by the FHWA in Policy and Procedure Memorandum 30-4 (PPM 30-

4)\2\ dated December 31, 1957. These provisions pertained to very minor

work estimated to cost less than $2,500, work that normally would be

performed by a utility with its own forces. Increases up to the present

$25,000 limit, which was established in 1983, were based primarily upon

inflation rates. Projecting inflation from 1983 to 1995 provides a

figure which is slightly less than $100,000, but the $100,000 figure is

used several other places in the Federal regulations as a break point

between major and minor work. Even so, the FHWA will monitor the

effects of increasing the lump sum ceiling to $100,000, primarily

through discussions with States and utilities' coordinators, and will

consider the possibility of increasing the figure in the near future if

such is deemed appropriate.

\2\The Federal Highway Administration's Policy and Procedure

Memorandums are available for inspection and copying from the FHWA

headquarters and field offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7,

appendix D.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 3

Three SHAs and 6 utilities commenters had reservations about the

proposed amendment to Sec. 645.117(i)(2) to require utilities to submit

final billings within 180 calendar days following completion of work.

They all basically supported the concept of establishing a deadline for

submitting final billings, but strongly indicated that 180 calendar

days were not enough. The utilities commenters recommended that at

least 270 calendar days be provided. Two SHAs recommended 365 calendar

days. The utilities commenters asserted that (a) a 180 calendar day

requirement would be burdensome to utilities, especially those that are

joint pole users, because of cross billing from other parties, and (b)

it is often very difficult to secure final bills simply because of the

number of parties involved and the time required to verify and

reconcile the accuracy of the billing. One SHA stated that the 180

calendar day limit would not provide the utilities sufficient time to

compile changes and submit their final bills, and that, historically,

80 percent of utility billings are received between 180 and 365

calendar days after completion of the utility relocation work. Another

SHA indicated that the 180 calendar day limit would put an unreasonable

burden on the State since its regulations did not contain a time limit.

Response

These recommendations were adopted with a slight, but more

flexible, modification. The comments revealed a

[[Page 34849]]

general consensus that it would be desirable to establish a time period

following completion of the utility relocation work during which final

billings must be submitted, but that 180 calendar days were not enough.

Hence, Sec. 645.117(i)(2) is amended to require utilities to submit

final billings within one year following completion of the utility

relocation work, otherwise previous payments to the utility may be

considered final, except as agreed to between the SHA and the utility.

Comment 4

One SHA requested clarification of the term ``completion of work''

as it is used in the proposed amendment to Sec. 645.117(i)(2). For

example, the commenter asked whether the work would be completed when

finished in the field by the utility or its contractor, when the

highway project was finished, or at some other milestone.

Response

The intent of the proposed amendment was to require utilities to

submit final billings within a certain time period following physical

completion of the utility relocation work in the field. Hence,

Sec. 645.117(i)(2) is amended to require utilities to submit final

billings within one year following completion of the utility relocation

work.

Comment 5

One SHA suggested that the proposed amendment to require utilities

to submit final billings within 180 calendar days following completion

of work be modified to allow for time extensions beyond the 180

calendar day limit if the SHA should so choose. The SHA argued that

this modification was needed to alleviate conflicts with a State law

permitting claims against the State to be submitted within one year

from the time of accrual.

Response

This recommendation was adopted. As stated in the NPRM, the FHWA

intended to allow billings received after the specified time period to

be paid at the discretion of the highway agency. Hence,

Sec. 645.117(i)(2) is amended to require utilities to submit final

billings within one year following completion of the utility relocation

work, with exceptions as agreed to between the SHA and the utility.

Comment 6

Five utilities commenters recommended that the definition of

``clear zone'' in the proposed amendment to Sec. 645.207 be modified to

clearly indicate that the clear zone ends at the right-of-way line.

Response

This suggested amendment was not made to the ``clear zone''

definition, but was incorporated elsewhere in the regulations. The

purpose for amending Sec. 645.207 was to provide consistency with

AASHTO's ``Roadside Design Guide.'' To do so, the term ``clear recovery

area'' was changed to ``clear zone'' and the definition of ``clear

zone'' in the ``Roadside Design Guide'' was adopted. However, to

clarify the intent of the revised regulation, a definition of ``border

area'' was added. This, taken together with the definition of ``clear

zone,'' means that the area that actually can be made available for the

safe use of errant vehicles is limited by the right-of-way width. For

all practical purposes, the old definition of ``clear recovery area''

is the same as the actual clear zone. In cases where sufficient right-

of-way is not available to accommodate the minimum clear zone distance

required, highway agencies should consider acquiring additional right-

of-way, taking into account not only clear zone but other highway and

utility needs. In all cases, full consideration should be given to

sound engineering principles and economic factors. Utility facilities

should be treated the same as other roadside hazards. Little will be

gained by moving utilities, unless their presence in the clear zone

presents a significantly greater hazard to motorists than any other

hazards.

Comment 7

One SHA suggested that TTI's ``A Supplement to a Guide for

Selecting, Designing, and Locating Traffic Barriers'' be included with

the AASHTO ``Roadside Design Guide'' as a good technical reference in

the proposed amendment to Sec. 645.207.

Response

This suggestion was not adopted. AASHTO's ``Roadside Design

Guide,'' 1989, superseded AASHTO's ``Guide for Selecting, Designing,

and Locating Traffic Barriers,'' 1977, and the TTI supplement which

came into use in the early 1980's, even though much of the guidance in

the new document was the same as in the superseded documents. One

significant difference between the ``Roadside Design Guide'' and the

two earlier documents is the determination of minimum clear zones on

slopes. Current AASHTO guidelines consider embankment slopes between

3:1 and 4:1 to be non-recoverable (i.e., any vehicle leaving the

roadway will likely go to the bottom of the slope). Consequently, the

clear zone should not end on the slope itself, and a clear run-out area

beyond the toe of such a slope is desirable. This was not considered in

the 1977 barrier guide or the TTI supplement, so the information in

these documents is no longer accurate for non-recoverable slopes. Any

SHA may modify the earlier guidance and continue to use it to determine

minimum clear zones on existing facilities. However, the FHWA believes

a more practical approach is for each highway agency to develop and

implement a policy on utility pole locations that encourages maximum

offsets consistent with existing conditions and based on a cost-

effectiveness analysis.

Comment 8

One SHA expressed a concern about non-regulatory guidance in the

FHWA's ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide''\3\ dealing with the use of fixed

amount (lump sum) payments to utilities. The wording in the non-

regulatory supplement to part 645 (NS 23 CFR 645A, Attachment), case I,

paragraph 2, indicates that the lump sum payments may be made for work

performed by a utility with its own forces. It was requested that the

FHWA guidance in the non-regulatory supplement be revised to allow lump

sum payments to be made for work performed for a utility under a

utility-let or continuing contract.

\3\The Federal Highway Administration's ``Federal-Aid Policy

Guide'' is available for inspection and copying from the FHWA

headquarters and field offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7,

appendix D.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response

Provisions for lump sum payments for utility relocation work were

first addressed by the FHWA in PPM 30-4 dated December 31, 1957. These

provisions pertained to very minor work estimated to cost less than

$2,500, work that normally would be performed by a utility with its own

forces. There was no apparent intent, however, in PPM 30-4 or any

subsequent FHWA guidance or regulation, to preclude lump sum payments

for work performed by a contractor under a utility-let contract. If the

utility uses an existing continuing contractor, payment should be made

by the method the utility has previously established with the

contractor. If the continuing contract establishes a lump sum payment

for certain types of work, this payment method can be used for the

Federal-aid project if the SHA believes the cost is reasonable. If the

utility lets a contract, payment should be based on the methods that

are customary and acceptable for the work

[[Page 34850]]

involved, which could potentially include the lump sum payment method.

In light of these comments, the FHWA is revising its regulations to

incorporate the amendments outlined in the NPRM with some modifications

to clarify the proposals and to address concerns raised by commenters.

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. The amendments would simply make

minor changes to update the utilities regulations to conform to recent

laws, regulations, and guidance and to clarify existing policies. It is

anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal

because the amendments would only clarify or simplify procedures

presently being used by SHAs and utilities. 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 rule on small

entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA certifies that this action

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. This is because the amendments would only clarify or

simplify procedures used by SHAs and utilities in accordance with

existing laws, regulations, and guidance.

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 it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a separate federalism assessment. This action merely

conforms the utilities regulations to recent laws, regulations, and

guidance; clarifies these regulations; and gives the SHAs more

flexibility in implementing them.

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 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501-3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 645

Grant Programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Utilities--

relocations, adjustment, reimbursement.

In consideration of the foregoing, title 23, Code of Federal

Regulations, part 645 is amended as set forth below.

Issued on: June 22, 1995.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

PART 645--UTILITIES

1. The authority citation for part 645 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101, 109, 111, 116, 123, and 315; 23 CFR

1.23 and 1.27; 49 CFR 1.48(b); and E.O. 11990, 42 FR 26961 (May 24,

1977).

Sec. 645.109 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 645.109, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the last

sentence.

Sec. 645.113 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 645.113, paragraph (f) is amended by removing the figure

``$25,000'' wherever it appears and adding in its place the figure

``$100,000'', and paragraph (g)(1) is amended by revising the term

``approved program'' to read ``approved Statewide transportation

improvement program''.

4. In Sec. 645.117, paragraph (i)(4) is removed, and paragraphs

(d)(1) and (i)(2) are revised to read as follows:

Sec. 645.117 Cost development and reimbursement.

* * * * *

(d) Overhead and indirect construction costs. (1) Overhead and

indirect construction costs not charged directly to work order or

construction accounts may be allocated to the relocation provided the

allocation is made on an equitable basis. All costs included in the

allocation shall be eligible for Federal reimbursement, reasonable,

actually incurred by the utility, and consistent with the provisions of

48 CFR part 31.

* * * * *

(i) Billings. (1) * * *

(2) The utility shall provide one final and complete billing of all

costs incurred, or of the agreed-to lump-sum, within one year following

completion of the utility relocation work, otherwise previous payments

to the utility may be considered final, except as agreed to between the

SHA and the utility.

* * * * *

5. Section 645.207 is amended by removing the paragraph

designations from all definitions; by placing the definitions in

alphabetical order; by removing the definition of ``clear recovery

area''; by removing the words ``clear recovery area'' from the first

sentence in the definition for ``clear roadside policy'' and adding in

their place the words ``clear zone''; and by adding the definitions of

``border area'' and ``clear zone'' as follows:

Sec. 645.207 Definitions.

* * * * *

Border area--the area between the traveled way and the right-of-way

line.

* * * * *

Clear zone--the total roadside border area starting at the edge of

the traveled way, available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area

may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable

slope, and/or the area at the toe of a non-recoverable slope available

for safe use by an errant vehicle. The desired width is dependent upon

the traffic volumes and speeds, and on the roadside geometry. The

AASHTO ``Roadside Design Guide,'' 1989, should be used as a guide for

establishing clear zones for various types of highways and operating

conditions. It is available for inspection from the FHWA Washington

Headquarters and all FHWA Division and Regional Offices as prescribed

in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D. Copies of current AASHTO publications are

available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, Suite 225,

[[Page 34851]]

444 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20001.

* * * * *

6. In Sec. 645.209, paragraph (a) is amended by adding a new

sentence between the existing third and fourth sentences to read as set

forth below, and paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words ``clear

recovery'' in the second sentence and ``clear recovery area'' in the

third sentence and adding in their place the words ``clear zone''.

Sec. 645.209 General requirements.

(a) Safety. * * * The lack of sufficient right-of-way width to

accommodate utilities outside the desirable clear zone, in and of

itself, is not a valid reason to preclude utilities from occupying the

highway right-of-way. * * *

Sec. 645.215 [Amended]

7. In Sec. 645.215, paragraph (a), the fifth sentence, is amended

by removing the words ``of the Federal-aid highway system'' and adding

in their place the words ``of Federal-aid highways''.

[FR Doc. 95-16403 Filed 7-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P