Federal Register, Volume 65 Issue 243 (Monday, December 18, 2000)

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 243 (Monday, December 18, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78923-78958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31974]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket Nos. 97-2295 (Formerly 96-47), 97-3032, 98-3644, 98-4720,
99-5704, 99-6298, 99-6575, and 99-6576]
RIN 2125-AE11, AE25, AE38, AE50, AE58, AE66, AE71, and AE72

National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD).

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

SUMMARY: This document contains the complete revision to the MUTCD as
adopted by the FHWA. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR
part 655, subpart F and recognized as the national standard for traffic
control devices on all public roads. The new MUTCD has incorporated
technological advances and application change, as well as improved the
overall organization to clarify the discussion of the content.

DATES: The final rule is effective January 17, 2001. However, the FHWA
is setting later compliance dates for some portions of the MUTCD; see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further details.
Incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the regulations
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 17,
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest D. L. Huckaby, Office of
Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), (202) 366-9064, Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Room 3412, 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 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 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 web
site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
The text for the millennium edition of the MUTCD is available from
the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations' web site at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

Background

The FHWA announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD on
January 10, 1992, at 57 FR 1134. The purpose of this rewrite effort is
to reformat the text for clarity of intended meanings, to include
metric dimensions (i.e., both English and metric dimensions will be
included in the text) and values for the design and installation of
traffic control devices, and to improve the overall organization and
discussion of the contents in the MUTCD.
Although the Federal Highway Administrator is responsible for
adopting the changes contained in this new millennium edition, the
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) took the
lead in this effort to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD. The NCUTCD is a
national organization of individuals from the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National
Association of County Engineers (NACE), the American Public Works
Association (APWA), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
and other organizations that have extensive experience in the
installation and maintenance of traffic control devices. The NCUTCD
voluntarily assumed the arduous task of rewriting, reformatting and
editing the entire 1988 MUTCD into an updated and more user friendly
document.
The FHWA reviewed and incorporated most of the NCUTCD's proposals
for revising the MUTCD in several Federal Register notices of proposed
amendments. This document contains the disposition of the comments to
the dockets of the notices of proposed amendments which were published
in the Federal Register shown in the table below. The table also shows
the number of letters submitted to each docket and the number of
separate comments addressed as part of the FHWA review and
deliberation.
Adopted changes to the MUTCD text, as discussed herein, are
available on the MUTCD Internet site (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov). The
final rule text will be available on the MUTCD Internet site in
December 2000. Anyone unable to download the text should write to the
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations,
HOTO-1, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Table of Notices of Proposed Amendments Published by FHWA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket Number of Separate
MUTCD part Title number and letters comment
date received entries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1.................................... General provisions/ 97-3032 24 86
Definitions. 12/05/97
Part 1 (update)........................... General provisions/ 99-6575 14 60
Definitions. 12/30/99
Chapters 2A,D,E,F,I....................... Signs........................ 98-3644 47 800
06/11/98
Chapters 2G, 2H........................... Tourist oriented directional 98-4720 80 95
signs, & recreation & 06/24/99
cultural interest signs.

[[Page 78924]]

Chapter 2C................................ Warning signs................ 99-5704 42 329
06/24/99
Chapter 2B................................ Regulatory signs............. 99-6298 86 304
12/21/99
Part 3.................................... Markings..................... 97-2295 40 247
01/06/97
Part 3 (update)........................... Markings..................... 99-6575 27 181
12/30/99
Part 4.................................... Signals...................... 97-2295 24 264
01/06/97
Part 4 (update)........................... Signals...................... 99-6575 111 578
12/30/99
Part 5.................................... Low volume roads............. 99-6298 23 231
12/21/99
Part 6.................................... Temporary traffic control.... 99-6576 56 2652
12/30/99
Part 7.................................... Traffic controls for school 97-3032 20 156
areas. 12/05/97
Part 8.................................... Traffic control systems for 97-2295 29 210
railroad-highway grade 01/06/97
crossings.
Part 8 (update)........................... Highway-rail grade crossings. 99-6298 23 210
12/21/99
Part 9.................................... Traffic controls for bicycles 98-4720 79 357
06/24/99
Part 10................................... Traffic controls for highway- 99-5704 46 381
light rail grade crossings. 06/24/99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments

The FHWA has reviewed the comments received in response to the
dockets listed above and other information related to the MUTCD and
these proposals. The FHWA is acting on the following items published in
the notice of proposed amendments. Each action and its basis is
summarized below:

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 1--General Provisions

The FHWA received 146 comments from 38 commenters concerning Part
1. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at
62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30,
1999.
1. In Part 1 Introduction, the FHWA is incorporating a discussion
on defining the following condition headings: STANDARD, OPTION,
GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT. This change addresses many comments received
regarding the difficulty in distinguishing between distinct sections in
previous editions of the MUTCD. In the NPA for Part 1, this discussion
was covered in Section 1A.10 MUTCD Changes, Interpretations, and
Experimentations. Based on docket comments, the FHWA believes it is
important for the reader to see this discussion before proceeding to
the other sections of the manual. Therefore, the FHWA is moving this
discussion to the Introduction.
The FHWA is also changing the way that these condition headings
appear throughout the text. The FHWA received many comments expressing
a need for improvement in the blocked headings found in the notice of
proposed amendments. An explanation of both the terms and new heading
style is included in the Introduction.
Also being added is a new STANDARD statement indicating that any
traffic control device design or application provision contained in the
MUTCD shall be considered in the public domain. The FHWA will not
include any copyrighted or patented devices in the MUTCD with the
exception of the Interstate Shield, a copyrighted device developed by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). Since this is a frequently asked question, the FHWA has
decided to include language in the MUTCD to address this policy.
A new GUIDANCE paragraph is added to Part 1 Introduction to discuss
the use of the International System of Units, a modernized version of
the Metric system, and English units used throughout the MUTCD. The
FHWA recommends that a decision be made to consistently use either the
International System of Units (Metric) or English units in the design
and installation of traffic control devices.
2. In Table I.1, Evolution of the MUTCD, two other revisions to the
1988 MUTCD are added for a total of seven revisions to the 1988 MUTCD,
instead of the five revisions previously shown in the table. The FHWA
has also added the new millennium edition to this table.
3. In Section 1A.01 Purpose of Traffic Control Devices, paragraph
1, the term ``road users'' is referenced. Road user is the preferred
term because it encompasses both motorized and non-motorized traffic.
The term ``road user'' is defined in Section 1A.13. The FHWA did not
receive any docket comments on this change.
4. In Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices, under
the SUPPORT statement, the term ``speed'' is added as a variable that
governs the design, operation, placement, and location of various
traffic control devices. The traveling speed of road users can affect
their ability to appropriately respond to the driving task. The FHWA
did not receive any docket comments on this change.
5. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, under the
STANDARD statement, the term ``colors'' is added to the statement that
all symbols not shown in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' \1\ book shall
be adopted using the

[[Page 78925]]

procedures described in Section 1A.10, ``MUTCD Changes,
Interpretations, and Experimentations.'' The FHWA did not receive any
docket comments on this change.
Also in this section, an OPTION is added to explain that State and
local highway agencies may develop word message signs to notify road
users of special regulations or situations. The FHWA did not receive
any docket comments on this change.
6. In Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices,
GUIDANCE is added to explain the difference between functional and
physical maintenance. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on
this change.
7. In Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices,
under the STANDARD statement, a reference to 23 CFR 655.603 is added to
adopt the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control
devices, and require that any State or other Federal agency MUTCD shall
be in substantial conformance with the national standards. The FHWA did
not receive any docket comments on this change.
8. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control
Devices, (titled in the 1999 NPA as ``Placement Authority,'') paragraph
1, STANDARD language is added to require that all traffic control
devices and any other signs or messages within the street or highway
right-of-way shall be placed only as authorized by a public authority
or official having jurisdiction for the street or highway. The FHWA did
not receive any docket comments on this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the 1988 MUTCD. It is available for purchase from
the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, PO Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection
and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA
Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also in Section 1A.08, GUIDANCE is added to indicate that any
unauthorized traffic control device or any non-essential sign or
message placed within the highway right-of-way should be removed. The
FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.
9. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment
(titled in the 1999 NPA as ``Engineering Study or Judgment Required''),
a clarification discussion on the difference between engineering study
and engineering judgment is added. The FHWA did not receive any docket
comments opposed to adding this discussion.
Also in Section 1A.09, one commenter stated that the word
``required'' in the title of this section (titled in the 1999 NPA as
``Engineering Study or Judgment Required''), conflicts with the
GUIDANCE given in this section. The FHWA agrees and has changed the
title of this section to ``Engineering Study and Engineering
Judgment,'' because that title more appropriately conveys the objective
of the section.
The same commenter also recommended that the STANDARD statement,
which provides that the inclusion of a traffic control device in the
MUTCD is not a legal requirement for their installation, be deleted
from this section because he did not see its purpose. The FHWA
disagrees because the STANDARD statement complements the GUIDANCE
paragraphs in this section that discuss that the decision to use a
particular device should be made on the basis of an engineering study
or the application of engineering judgment.
10. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, and
Changes, STANDARD language is added to paragraph 1 to prohibit the
design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other
than those adopted in the MUTCD, unless the process for an
interpretation, experimentation, or change is followed.
Also in Section 1A.10, is a new GUIDANCE statement indicating that
any request for permission to experiment with a new traffic control
device should contain a legally binding statement certifying that the
traffic control device is not protected by a patent or a copyright
since patented or copyright protected traffic control devices are not
permitted in the MUTCD, except for the Interstate Shield.
11. A new Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases, is added.
Definitions in this section are provided for terms that are universally
used throughout the MUTCD. The definitions for terms found in only one
section of the MUTCD can be found within the specific section. The FHWA
did not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However,
the FHWA did receive editorial comments on some of the definitions, and
they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.
12. A new Section 1A.14 Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control
Devices, is added. These abbreviations shall be the STANDARD for word
messages used in conjunction with traffic control devices. The FHWA did
not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However, the
FHWA did receive editorial comments which have been incorporated as
minor modifications to the text.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2A--General Provisions
and Standards

[[Page 78926]]

rectangular, the FHWA has also included the recreation signs in the
guide signs category (see double asterisk in new table).
18. In Section 2A.1l Sign Colors, a new Table 2A.4, Uses of Sign
Colors is added. The FHWA has also included a statement that the color
coordinates and values shall conform to those shown in the color
specifications described in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' (SHS)
Book.\2\ There were no docket comments on this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA believes that including this statement will help promote
uniformity of colors where traffic control signs are designed and
installed by providing the reader with a specific reference source for
determining the proper color coordinates and values.
19. In Section 2A.13 Symbols, paragraph 2 explains that new symbol
signs shall be adopted by FHWA based on research evaluation studies to
determine comprehension data and recognition/legibility distance for
the symbol sign. The FHWA added an OPTION statement for State and/or
local highway agencies to conduct these research studies. There were no
docket comments on this section.
20. In Section 2A.14 Word Messages, paragraph 2 provides GUIDANCE
for determining sign letter heights is added. Sign letter heights
should be determined based on 1 inch per 40 feet of legibility
distance. The FHWA believes this amendment will improve sign legibility
for all road users, especially for older road users whose vision may be
diminished. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.
In paragraph 5, an OPTION is provided for State and local highway
agencies to use the combination of lowercase letters with initial
uppercase letters for street name signs. In Section 2A.15 of the 1988
MUTCD, this OPTION only applied to destination guide signs and did not
give States this flexibility. The FHWA has also eliminated the
restriction for using series B alphabets only on street name signs.
States now have the flexibility to use other standard series alphabets,
as appropriate. There were no docket comments on this section.
21. In Section 2A.17 Overhead Sign Installations, the FHWA removed
the restriction for placing signs on bridges located along only
``urban'' freeways and expressways in the OPTION statement. Overhead
signs may be placed on ``any'' freeway or expressway bridge where
feasible, to enhance safety and economy. This change provides more
installation flexibility to State and local highway agencies. There
were no docket comments on this section.
22. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, paragraph 7 allows State and
local highway agencies the OPTION to adjust the mounting height of
signs when the sign supports are located near the edge of the right-of-
way on a steep backslope. There were no docket comments on this
section.
23. In the first paragraph of Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, a
STANDARD is added that requires sign supports within the clear zone to
be breakaway or shielded for the safety of the road user particularly
in run-off-road incidents. There were no docket comments on this
section.
24. In Section 2A.23 Maintenance, GUIDANCE is added to paragraph 2
which recommends that maintenance inspections be conducted both day and
night. Although this is a general practice among many engineering and
transportation officials, the FHWA believes it is a practice worth
reiterating in the MUTCD. There were no docket comments on this
section.
25. In Section 2A.24 Wrong-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA has
deleted the OPTION and SUPPORT text that appeared in the NPA and
modified the figures to more accurately show the typical sign
application for wrong-way traffic control. This change helps the text
read clearer and is based on the FHWA internal review process which
identified inconsistencies, redundancy, and confusion between the text
and the accompanying typical figures.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2B--Regulatory Signs

The FHWA received 304 comments from 86 commenters concerning
Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. Only the technical (not editorial)
comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed
amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.
26. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA received
several comments requesting the addition of a table that depicts sign
sizes. The FHWA has adopted a similar format to the one recommended by
the NCUTCD that expands the sign category headings to cover additional
sizes. Table 2B-1 lists sign sizes for Conventional Roads, Expressways,
and Freeways, ``minimum'' and ``oversized'' signs.
27. In Section 2B.04 STOP Sign, paragraph 3, under the STANDARD
statement, we proposed text requiring the use of the 4-way supplemental
plaque (R1-3) at intersections where all approaches are controlled by
STOP signs. This practice was optional in the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA
received one comment in opposition to this adopted change. The FHWA has
adopted this requirement because it believes the use of the
supplemental plaque will provide additional emphasis and motorist
information at the stop location.
The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 3 years after
the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to
minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This
period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the
normal service life. This change takes effect immediately for all new
installations.
28. The proposed amendment to Section 2B.05 STOP Sign Applications
recommended changing the title of this section from ``Warrants for Stop
Signs'' to ``STOP Sign Applications.'' This change eliminates the
misunderstanding created by the term ``warrants'' which has a ``legal
sanctions'' connotation. No commenters objected to this amendment,
therefore the FHWA has changed the section title as proposed.
Several commenters indicated disappointment that the GUIDANCE
statement in Section 2B.05, paragraph 1, was not upgraded to a STANDARD
since many local governments receive frequent requests for STOP signs
to be installed for speed control. Traffic engineers would like to have
the language in the MUTCD that would back up their decision when faced
with political pressure to install STOP signs to control speed. The
FHWA does not consider this sufficient justification to elevate this
GUIDANCE to a STANDARD requirement, particularly when you consider the
potential impacts on local governments. Two commenters questioned why
an engineering study, as opposed to an engineering judgment, was not
required in the NPA. The FHWA believes that it is more practical to
recommend that an engineering study be done for multi-way stops and
that engineering judgment be used for one-way or two-way stops.
29. The FHWA received no objections to the proposed language in
Section 2B.06 Stop Sign Placement, changing the language from OPTION to
GUIDANCE for using STOP lines to supplement a STOP sign. The FHWA
believes that the use of the STOP line will provide the road user with
additional information for making safe traffic operation decisions,
therefore the proposal is adopted.
Also in this section, under GUIDANCE, the FHWA received no comments
objecting to the proposed language stating that the STOP signs should
not be placed on the far side of

[[Page 78927]]

the intersection. The text has been modified to clarify that when only
one sign is installed, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far
side of the intersection. This would allow the use of a supplemental
STOP sign on the left side which may be appropriate in some cases.
30. In Section 2B.07 Multi-way Stop Sign Applications, paragraph 3,
the FHWA added GUIDANCE to recommend that the decision to install
Multi-way Stop signs should be based on an engineering study. The FHWA
offers the same rationale that was provided in Section 2B.05, which
addresses the reasoning for the use of engineering judgment as opposed
to engineering study.
Several commenters responded to the GUIDANCE statement (in item
C.1) which lists the criteria to consider in an engineering study for a
multi-way STOP sign installation. There is a misunderstanding that the
criteria was reduced from 500 to 300 vehicles per hour. The 1988 MUTCD
provides for 500 vehicles per hour from all approaches and 200 combined
vehicular and pedestrian units per hour from the minor-street
approaches. The revised text provides: ``1. The vehicular volume
entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of
both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight
hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per
hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor-street
vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest
hour * * * '' This is the same criteria presented in a slightly
different manner.
Additionally, Item C.2 of the criteria includes bicycle volumes to
the combination volume studies of vehicles and pedestrians. The FHWA
believes that bicycle travel is an integral part of traffic control
considerations. Therefore, this should improve the traffic data when
considering installation of traffic control devices. One commenter
pointed out that typical count methods do not allow for comprehensive
counting of bicycles over long time periods. The FHWA agrees that
manual counts are routinely done over an 8-12 hour period in order to
gather pedestrian and bicyclist data. It is true that automatic 24-hour
counts, typically done by machines with rubber tubes across the
roadway, cannot count bicycles; however, video methods offer a highly
effective means to capture this data. Since the language is provided
under GUIDANCE, the FHWA does not believe that this will cause an
inconvenience to traffic engineers.
31. In Section 2B.11 Speed Limit Sign, a sentence is added to the
OPTION statement to read: ``A changeable message sign that changes for
traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the
appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times.'' In the NPA this
was suggested as an addition to Section 2B.13 Night Speed Limit Sign.
After reconsideration by the FHWA and from comments provided on this
issue, it was determined that it be placed in Section 2B.11, because
this is not necessarily a night condition.
32. In Section 2B.16 Reduced Speed Ahead Sign (R2-5 series), the
FHWA received one comment regarding the proposed assembly method B
under OPTION which when applied to a metric assembly, could require a
five-sign configuration for an advance notice of change in speed limit.
The FHWA believes that since this method is ``optional'' and not a
requirement, its inclusion under OPTION is appropriate.
Also in this section, one comment was received suggesting that the
background color for the supplemental plaques in GUIDANCE be changed
from the color yellow to white so that motorists will not confuse this
sign assembly with the School Speed Limit Sign Assembly. The FHWA
agrees and has modified the language to read ``When used with Speed
Limit assemblies, the supplemental plaques should have a white
background with a black legend and border, except for the METRIC plaque
(see Section 2B.11).'' The FHWA believes that it is essential that the
METRIC plaque be distinct to draw attention to the use of metric units
in that particular jurisdiction. The FHWA is providing a phase-in
compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final
rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local
highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing
signs after the normal service life. This change is effective
immediately for new sign installations.
33. In Section 2B.17 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 to R3-4)
(referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.15), the FHWA is combining the
language for the Turn Prohibition and the U-Turn Prohibition signs into
one section. No negative comments were received for this amendment.
The FHWA received one comment suggesting that the following text be
added as an OPTION: ``Where ONE WAY signs are used, Turn Prohibition
signs may be omitted (see Section 2B.31).'' The FHWA agrees and is
adding this language because this may reduce the number of sign
messages and prevent driver message overload.
34. In Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5,
R3-5a and R3-7) (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.16), the FHWA
proposed adding a new Mandatory Movement Lane Control Sign (R3-5a)
under OPTION to explain to road users that they must stay in the same
lane and proceed straight through an intersection. Two comments were
received that recommended changing the name of this sign to a
``Straight Through Only'' sign, which is a more specific description of
the sign's intent. The FHWA agrees and is adopting this change.
Also in Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs, a
GUIDANCE statement is added to read: ``Mandatory Movement Lane Control
signs should be accompanied by lane control pavement markings,
especially where traffic volumes are high, where there is a high
percentage of commercial vehicles, or where other distractions exist.''
This was proposed as a requirement in the NPA, which stated that
whenever lane use control signs are installed, lane-use pavement
markings shall also be installed, and seven commenters objected to this
proposal and mentioned that many jurisdictions are successfully using
this signing without markings, and that making this condition mandatory
may constitute an unfunded mandate creating serious hardships on many
jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with these suggestions, and believes
that this language is more appropriately included as an OPTION in
Section 2B.19.
35. In Section 2B.30 WRONG WAY Sign (R5-1a), the FWHA proposed to
include a reference to Figure 2-5a which shows the signing and pavement
marking treatments for divided highway intersections with medians 9 m
(30 ft). Based on the negative comments received on the proposed
figure, the FHWA has revised the figure to only depict WRONG WAY
signing. The figure is renumbered Figure 2B-2, ``Typical Wrong Way
Signing for Divided Highways.''
36. In Section 2B.32 ONE WAY Sign (R6-1, R6-2), the FHWA proposed
to change the recommendation regarding placement of the One Way signs
from a recommendation to a requirement. The FHWA received one negative
comment regarding the change from GUIDANCE to STANDARD, stating the
rationale that alley traffic is familiar traffic and that the current
practice has been proven over time to be adequate. The FHWA disagrees
with this comment and is adopting the proposed amendment. Not

[[Page 78928]]

all traffic in alleys will always be familiar traffic, and this new
requirement will increase safety by reducing the chance of road users
inadvertently making wrong-way movements.
Another commenter to this section suggested adding a compliance
period to relieve the cost burden on local agencies. The FHWA is
providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective
date of this final rule to minimize any impact on State and local
highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the
existing signs after the normal service life.
37. In Section 2B.35 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping
Signs, the FHWA inadvertently omitted the proposed text, stating that
all street parking signs are to be illuminated or retroreflective. This
text is consistent with Section 2A.08 Illumination and
Retroreflectivity, which discusses the general provisions and standards
for signs. The FHWA believes the language that addresses
retroreflectivity and illumination is best discussed as a STANDARD in
Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs. The FHWA is adopting the
following text: ``Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or
illuminated to show the same shape or similar color by both day and
night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text
discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 1A.08).
38. In Section 2B.37 Emergency Restriction Signs (referenced in the
NPA as Section 2B.36, paragraph 3), FHWA is providing States with the
choice of either using red or black legend and border on a white
background for these signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments
opposed to this adopted change.
39. The 1988 MUTCD contained a sentence that the WALK ON LEFT (R9-
1) and NO HITCHHIKING (R9-4) signs do not have to be retroreflective.
However, the FHWA is changing this and requiring that all signs,
including these pedestrian signs, shall be either illuminated or
retroreflective. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to this
adopted change.
40. In Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA proposed adding
two new symbol signs for NO RIGHT TURN ON RED (R10-11c) and NO LEFT
TURN ON RED (R10-11d). Three commenters disagreed with the use of these
symbol signs as alternatives to the word legend R10-11a and R10-11b
signs. Their concern was that these new symbol signs may be confused
with the R3-1R (NO RIGHT TURN) and the R3-1L (NO LEFT TURN) symbol
signs and will lead to increased violations for No Right Turn or No
Left Turns situations. The FHWA believes that since the use of the
proposed signs is an OPTION and not a requirement, that jurisdictions
should be able to have the option of using either word message signs or
these new symbol signs. Therefore, the text has been modified to read:
``A symbolic NO TURN ON RED sign (R10-11c) may be used as an alternate
to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs.''
41. The FHWA added two new sections to address High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) signing: Section 2B.49 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and
Section 2B.50 High Occupancy Vehicle Sign Applications and Placement.
No commenters objected to this amendment.
The FWHA has deleted the R3-18 and R3-19 HOV signs from the text
and Table 2B-1. These signs have been replaced by the remaining HOV
signs found in Table 2B-1. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance
period of 6 years after the effective date of the final rule to
minimize any potential impact on State and local highway agencies. This
period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the
normal service life. Immediate compliance is required for all new
installations.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2C--Warning Signs

The FHWA received 329 comments from 42 commenters concerning
Chapter 2C. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64
FR 33802 on June 24, 1999, under docket number FHWA-1999-5704.
42. The following general changes are in Chapter 2C: the various
sizes of warning signs are shown in Table 2C-2; and the sections in 2C
are grouped and discussed according to category type and application.
Table 2C-1 shows the categories, application, appropriate sections, and
sign numbers for the warning signs discussed in Chapter 2C. The table
is designed so that it is easy to reference this information. The
section topics are grouped by roadway-related, traffic-related, and
non-vehicle related categories.
43. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, paragraph 2
includes language that was proposed in the NPA as Section 2C.35
Motorized Traffic Signs. The language indicating that warning signs
should be removed or covered when conditions or activities are seasonal
or temporary is more appropriate for inclusion in Section 2C.02 which
discusses general application for all warning signs. This language is
removed from the section on ``Motorized Traffic Signs.''
In Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, the minimum sizes of the
following signs are increased from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30
inches): Merge Sign (W4-1), Narrow Bridge Sign (W5-2), Two-Way Traffic
Sign (W6-3), and the Double Arrow Sign (W12-1). This change makes the
minimum size consistent with other signs in the respective sign series
and improve the sign visibility for road users, particularly older
drivers. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years
after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations
to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies.
This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after their
normal service life. This change is effective immediately for all new
installations.
The FHWA received comments from the Washington Department of
Transportation (WDOT) and an engineering concerning Table 2C-2. The
WDOT suggested that all diamond warning signs in this table should be
the same size for a given roadway type facility. The example given was
that the Curve Sign (W1 Series) requires more decision and reaction
time than the Merge Sign (W4 Series). Therefore, the WDOT suggests that
the Curve Sign, when used on expressways and freeways, should be at
least the same size as shown for the Merge Sign which is 1200 mm x 1200
mm (48 inches by 48 inches). The FHWA agrees that there is a need to
further study this issue of sign size consistency, and we will revisit
it as part of a future notice of proposed amendments.
An engineering consultant suggested that the FHWA delete the term
``standard size'' used as a heading in Table 2C-2 because in tort
liability cases, the term ``standard size'' is misunderstood and
requires explanation. Based on this comment, the FHWA has revised Table
2C-2 to relate the warning sign sizes to the roadway classification
using the following headings: Conventional Roads, Expressway, and
Freeway. The FHWA has added a supplemental Table 2C-2a to show the
minimum and oversized warning sign sizes.
44. In Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Signs, the discussion for
each of the horizontal alignment signs (W1-1 through W1-5) are combined
into one section. A Table 2C-4 has been added to provide guidance for
determining when to use the horizontal alignment signs based on the
number of alignment changes and based on whether or not the advisory
speed is

[[Page 78929]]

greater than, equal to, or less than 50 km/h (30 mph).
45. In Section 2C.07 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory
Speed Sign, a new W1-9 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-9 sign
combines the Turn (W1-1) Sign or the Curve (W1-2) Sign with the
Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) to create one sign. The FHWA has also
included a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment
Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA indicated that the W1-9 sign shall be
installed within the turn or curve. However, based on the docket
comments from the Illinois DOT, the Ohio DOT, and the Ohio Institute of
Transportation Engineers, the FHWA has revised paragraph 2 to indicate
that this sign shall be installed at the beginning of the turn or curve
to give motorists prior warning before they enter the curve. The FHWA
also received a comment from Pierce County, Washington indicating that
this sign has potential application in urban or lower speed conditions.
The FHWA agrees and has included a minimum size of 900 mm x 900 mm (36
x 36 inches) when this sign is used on low speed facilities.
46. In Section 2C.08 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection
Sign, a new W1-10 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-10 sign combines
the Turn (W1-1) sign or the Curve (W1-2) sign with the Cross Road (W2-
1) sign or Side Road (W2-2, W2-3) signs to create one sign. The FHWA
has added a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06. The FHWA has
deleted the following paragraph which was formerly paragraph 3 in the
NPA: ``The Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign should
not be used if there is adequate roadway length to provide for separate
signs showing each of the applicable features.'' Based on comments
received, the FHWA believes that even when adequate space is available
to install separate signs, this combination sign can provide a clearer
message to the road user, and the decision to use this sign should be
left to the State or local agency's discretion.
47. In Section 2C.10 Chevron Alignment Sign, based on a docket
comment that the FHWA received from the Illinois DOT, the FHWA has
added an OPTION to install the Chevron Alignment (W1-8) sign on the far
side of an intersection to inform road users of a change in horizontal
alignment through an intersection.
48. In Section 2C.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs, a new TRUCK ESCAPE
RAMP word message (W7-4c) sign is added to the MUTCD. Since this term
is more widely and commonly used, the FHWA has included it as an OPTION
to the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP word message (W7-4) sign. The FHWA has
included GUIDANCE for installing No Parking (R8-3 series) signs near
the ramp entrance due to the potential hazard caused by parking at
these ramp locations.
49. In Section 2C.13 Road Narrows Sign, an OPTION to use the
Advisory Speed (W13-1) plaque with the ROAD NARROWS (W5-1) sign is
added.
50. In Section 2C.20 Low Clearance Sign, the use of the Low
Clearance (W12-2) sign is required to notify road users of clearances
less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height or
minimum structure height. Providing this critical information is
especially important to operators of large vehicles.
51. A new Section 2C.22 Speed Hump Sign and new word message sign
(W17-1) is added. The FHWA received a docket comment from the NCUTCD
requesting this new word message sign. With the prevalent application
of traffic calming techniques within residential communities and the
possibility of States developing their own word message signs, the FHWA
believes it is appropriate to include a standard word message sign in
the MUTCD. In an effort to promote uniformity and discourage a
proliferation of States using a variety of signs, the FHWA adopts the
SPEED HUMP sign recommended by the NCUTCD. The addition of this new
section means that the section numbers for the sections following 2C.22
are changed.
52. In Section 2C.24 Shoulder Signs, language is added to describe
the application of the SOFT SHOULDER (W8-4) sign, the LOW SHOULDER (W8-
9) sign, the SHOULDER DROP-OFF (W8-9a) sign, and the UNEVEN LANE (W8-
11) sign. These word message signs are also appropriate for use in work
zones (MUTCD Part 6). Since Part 6 references the signs but does not
include a description, the FHWA has included an application discussion
for these signs. The symbols for these existing signs have created
confusion and misunderstanding. Therefore, the symbol signs are deleted
in lieu of word messages. A phase-in compliance period of 10 years from
the effective date of this final rule is provided so that State and
local agencies can replace their existing symbol signs with word
message signs over the course of the normal service life of the signs.
53. In Section 2C.26 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3 series), all
of the Advance Traffic Control signs are combined into one section. The
Advance Traffic Control signs include: The Stop Ahead (W3-1a), the
Yield Ahead (W3-2a), the Signal Ahead (W3-3), and a new BE PREPARED TO
STOP (W3-4) sign. A new word message sign was submitted as a docket
comment from the NCUTCD. This word message sign was already adopted in
MUTCD Part 6, Work Zones. The MUTCD Part 6 shows the sign but does not
have any descriptive text accompanying the sign. The FHWA believes this
word message sign is appropriate for inclusion in both Chapter 2C and
Part 6 because it advises road users that they may encounter traffic
congestion or stopped traffic caused by traffic signals. This amendment
includes descriptive text to discuss the application of the BE PREPARED
TO STOP sign.
Also in this section, the FHWA received comments from the city of
Bellevue, Washington and the Washington DOT indicating that they have
installed Street Name plaques with the Advance Traffic Control signs
and have had no negative effects. Therefore, in the first OPTION
statement of Section 2C.26 the FHWA has modified the sentence to allow
the OPTION of installing a supplemental Street Name plaque above or
below any Advance Traffic Control sign rather than just the Signal
Ahead sign because it gives States more flexibility.
54. In Section 2C.27 Cross Traffic Does Not Stop plaque, a new (W4-
4P) plaque is added. This plaque is intended to warn road users that
they are approaching a 2-way stop controlled intersection. This new
word message plaque is based on research conducted by the Texas
Transportation Institute \3\ and on recommendations included in the
``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.'' \4\ The FHWA believes it is
appropriate from a safety standpoint to add this new warning sign to
help road users quickly identify the type of stop controlled
intersection. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to
this new plaque. However, the FHWA did receive a comment suggesting
that we add the OPTION to use this plaque on 1-way stop controlled T-
intersections and the FHWA has included this modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Picha, D.L., C.E. Schuckel, J.A. Parham, and C.T. Mai,
``Traffic Control Devices at Two-Way Stop Controlled
Intersections,'' Research Report 1374-IF, Texas Transportation
Institute, College Station, Texas, November 1996.
\4\ ``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,'' Report No. 1 FHWA-
RD-97-135, available from the FHWA Research and Technology Report
Center, 9701 Philadelphia Court, Unit Q, Lanham, Maryland 20706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA also received comments from the city of Bellevue,
Washington and the Texas DOT questioning the

[[Page 78930]]

appropriate color of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaque. In
response to these comments, and since this plaque is intended as a
warning message to provide advance notice of an upcoming situation,
language is added that the plaque colors are black legend on a yellow
background. In State and local jurisdictions where this plaque is
intended to regulate traffic, this plaque may be placed on the same
post as the STOP sign. When used with the STOP sign, the colors are
black legend on a white background.
55. In Section 2C.30, paragraph 4, a new sentence is added that
roadway delineation may also be used to notify road users of lane
reduction situations. The OPTION to use pavement markings in addition
to the Lane Ends signs will provide additional guidance information to
the road users.
Also in paragraph 5 of this section, GUIDANCE is included to
indicate that, in situations where an extra lane has been added for
slower moving traffic, a Lane Ends sign should be installed in advance
of the end of the extra lane.
56. In Section 2C.33 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs,
GUIDANCE is added to clarify the difference between when the Exit Speed
(W13-2) signs and the Ramp Speed (W13-3) signs should be used. Based on
deliberation comments made to the docket review, the FHWA has changed
the title of this section and included a new Curve Speed (W13-5) sign.
This sign was not discussed in the NPA, but the FHWA believes it should
be included in the MUTCD because it provides the advisory speed on
roads and highways at the beginning of horizontal alignment changes.
The Curve Speed sign is designed exactly like the Exit and Ramp Speed
sign.
57. In Section 2C.34 Intersection Warning Signs, an OPTION to
install an Advance Street Name (W16-8) plaque in conjunction with the
intersection warning signs is provided. This change provides helpful
advance information to the road user.
Also in this section, the FHWA has added a new Circular
Intersection (W2-6) symbol sign that was submitted by the NCUTCD. The
FHWA received comments from the Texas, Missouri, and Oregon DOTs in
favor of a different symbol that was similar to the roundabout symbol
used in Europe. With the advent of traffic calming practices in
residential communities, the FHWA believes it is important to take
advantage of this opportunity to include a sign in the MUTCD for
circular intersections. Until further research can be done on another
symbol, the FHWA plans to include the symbol submitted by the NCUTCD
and to include language indicating that the symbol be accompanied by an
educational word message plaque.
58. A new Section 2C.36 Motorized Traffic Signs is added. Motorized
traffic signs are used to alert road users to unexpected entries into
the roadway by trucks, farm vehicles, emergency vehicles, and other
vehicles.
Also in this section, a new EMERGENCY SIGNAL AHEAD (W11-12) warning
sign for use with the Emergency Vehicle (W11-8) symbol sign is added.
These two signs are required in advance of all emergency vehicle
traffic control signals (Chapter 4F).
Based on FHWA internal comments made during the docket review
deliberations, this section has also been revised to include an OPTION
to use other word message warning signs to indicate the type of
emergency vehicle station ahead (such as rescue squad, etc.) in
situations when no emergency signal is present.
59. In Section 2C.37 Crossing Signs, a new design and application
for advance crossing and crossing signs is added. In the past, the
crossing signs were distinguished from the advance crossing signs by
the use of crosswalk lines on the sign. However, people rarely noticed
the difference. The FHWA has changed the design of these signs by
deleting the crosswalk lines and using one sign for both the advance
and the crossing location. The crossing sign when used to provide
advance notice to road users is supplemented with the legend ``AHEAD''
or with an appropriate distance plaque. The crossing sign is used
adjacent to crossings and must be supplemented with a diagonal downward
pointing arrow when the crossing does not have pavement markings. If
pavement markings are used to mark the crosswalk, then only the
crossing sign is needed and the diagonal downward pointing arrow is
optional. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10
years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to
minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is
effective immediately for new sign installations.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2D--Guides Signs for
Conventional Roads

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts
2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are
addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA)
was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.
60. Throughout Chapter 2D, the FHWA is replacing the word
``marker'' with the word ``sign,'' since these route and auxiliary
markers are generally considered signs. The sign numbers, however, will
continue to carry the ``M'' designation (example: M1-4) so that the
State's sign inventory will not need to change. Also, a reference to
Chapter 2A is included to remind readers to check there for placement,
location, and other general criteria for signs, since this information
is not repeated in every section. There were no docket comments on this
section.
61. In Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination, the
STANDARD statement in paragraph 3 is modified to extend the general
requirements for retroreflectivity and/or illumination to ``all'' guide
sign messages and legends, unless specific exceptions are provided.
This is consistent with Section 2A.08 which requires all signs to be
retroreflective and/or illuminated. There were no docket comments on
this section.
62. In Section 2D.09 Numbered Highway Systems, a sentence is added
to paragraph 5 which states that the highest priority route sign legend
shall be placed on top or to the left of the sign panel. This will help
the road user better identify the class of roadway (example: Interstate
vs. County route). There were no docket comments on this section.
63. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, paragraph 6 allows the
OPTION of placing a white sign panel behind the Off-Interstate Business
Route signs when they are installed on a green guide sign. This
amendment will improve the sign's contrast and conspicuity. There were
no docket comments on this section.
64. In Section 2D.15 Cardinal Direction Auxiliary Sign, the first
letter of cardinal direction messages is increased by 10 percent.
Increasing the first letter of cardinal direction signs such as EAST
and WEST, helps the road user in the navigation task by providing a
clearer distinction between the similar appearance of these two
messages. This same principle is true for the NORTH and SOUTH cardinal
directions. This change was previously adopted in revision number 5 to
the 1988 MUTCD and is mentioned here to bring attention to the
compliance date which was December 31, 1994. The FHWA received no
docket comments on this section.
65. In Section 2D.33 Destination and Distance Signs, the OPTION
statement is changed to add the placement of the route sign and
cardinal direction within

[[Page 78931]]

the destination sign panel. When this option is used, the size of the
route sign and cardinal direction auxiliary sign should be at least the
minimum size specified for these signs. There were no docket comments
on this section.
66. In Section 2D.34 Destination Signs, paragraph 9 recommends that
when there are four destinations, they should be shown on two separate
sign panels. The FHWA has changed this from a requirement (as shown in
the 1988 edition of the MUTCD) to a GUIDANCE in order to allow State
and local highway agencies more flexibility. The FHWA believes this
change is appropriate since the OPTION in paragraph 10 allows all four
destinations on one sign panel in situations where spacing is critical.
The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.
67. In the 1988 edition of the MUTCD, distance signs were required
to be placed approximately 500 feet outside the municipal limits or at
the edge of the built-up district. Section 2D.37 Location of Distance
Signs, eliminates this specific distance requirement and allows the
State and local highway agencies the flexibility to determine the
appropriate sign location. There were no docket comments on this
section.
68. The FHWA received comments from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and reviewed the recommendations in the ``Older Driver
Highway Design Handbook,'' \5\ which suggest that a discussion for
installing street name signs on overhead mast arms be included in the
MUTCD. Since many State and local highway agencies are already using
this application and it does improve sign visibility, the FHWA is
adopting this as an OPTION in paragraph 11 of Section 2D.38 Street Name
Sign. At intersections having two different street names, the FHWA is
also adopting the OPTION to show both street names on one panel with
appropriate directional arrows. This is consistent with the ``Older
Driver Highway Design Handbook'' and will also optimize sign visibility
for the road user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

69. In Section 2D.44 General Service Signs, paragraph 15 is changed
to eliminate the term ``opaque background'' since all backgrounds shall
be either retroreflective or illuminated as discussed in Section 2D.03.
There were no docket comments on this section.
In this same section, an OPTION is added to use the new word
message sign ``ROAD CONDITION DIAL 511'' to notify road users of road
and traffic conditions. This is a new OPTION that was not included in
the NPA because at the time, it had not been approved by the Federal
Communications Commission.
70. The title of Section 2D.45 proposed in the NPA is changed from
``Milepost Markers'' to ``Reference Posts.'' This change is based on
internal review discussions during the FHWA's deliberation of docket
comments. The FHWA has changed the title of this section to ``Reference
Posts'' since this is a more accurate description.
The FHWA has also modified this section in paragraph 11 of the
OPTION statement to eliminate the provision for placement of the
kilometer (mile) fractions on the back of the post or on a separate
small plate. The text in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD was written more
for road maintenance and public works activities. This modification is
being made to help road users better identify their location in
emergency situations.

Discussion of Amendments to Chapter 2E--Guide Signs, Expressways
and Freeways

\6\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the 2000 MUTCD. It is available for purchase from
the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, PO Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection
and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA
Division Offices as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

79. In Section 2E.19 Diagrammatic Signs, the FHWA in the NPA
proposed as a STANDARD the requirement of showing only one destination
for each directional arrowhead on diagrammatic signs. Based on comments
to the docket by the Missouri Department of Transportation, the FHWA
has decided to recommend rather than require the practice of showing
only one destination for each arrowhead on a

[[Page 78932]]

diagrammatic sign. The recommended number of destinations is two for
each sign. However, the FHWA recognizes that there are some special
situations where there are more than two principle destinations at the
interchange and changing this sentence to GUIDANCE provides more
flexibility to State and local highway agencies.
80. In Section 2E.20 Signing for Interchange Lane Drops, the last
sentence in paragraph 1 is added to prohibit the use of the EXIT ONLY
panel on diagrammatic signs at any major bifurcation or split. This
change is intended to eliminate a potentially confusing situation for
road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments.
81. In Section 2E.21 Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA is
including GUIDANCE in paragraph 3(a) to indicate that the desirable
letter size for changeable message signs is 450 mm (18 inches) or a
minimum letter size of 265 mm (10.6 inches). The FHWA is also including
additional criteria (as discussed in MUTCD Part 6) for the use of
changeable message sign.
82. In Section 2E.24 Lateral Clearance, paragraph 1 adds a
discussion on the importance of the clear zone and breakaway supports
when determining the horizontal clearance distance for sign
installation.
83. In Section 2E.29 Interchange Exit Numbering, paragraph 2
increases the vertical dimension of the exit number panel from 600 mm
(24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). This change is adopted because it
improves the visibility of critical sign information for directing the
road users to their destinations. Since the FHWA received comments from
North Carolina, Missouri, and Minnesota Departments of Transportation
expressing concern regarding the impact of implementing this change for
existing installations, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance
period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for
existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and
local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of
existing signs after the normal service life. This change takes effect
immediately for all new installations.
Also in this section, the text in the OPTION statement is modified
to recommend the use of milepost numbering as the preferred method for
interchange exit numbering. Consecutive numbering is optional for those
States which are still working towards changing over to milepost
numbering. The FHWA received a docket comment from the Ohio Department
of Transportation suggesting this change.
Additionally in this section, the FHWA has included an OPTION to
add the word ``LEFT'' to the exit number panel. Since left exits are
generally fewer and tend to violate expectancy, the FHWA believes that
this OPTION will help the road user identify proper lane placement
prior to the exit.
84. In Section 2E.31 Advance Guide Signs, the paragraph 2 GUIDANCE
statement includes placement of Advance Guide signs in advance of the
exit gore. The distance of an Advance Guide sign is changed from ``400m
to 1km'' to ``1 to 2 km (\1/2\ to 1 mile)'' from the exit gore. This
change places the Advance Guide sign back further from the exit gore in
order to provide more decision and reaction time to the road user.
Although the FHWA did not receive any comments expressing concern with
this change, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7
years after the effective date of this final rule for existing
installations in order to minimize any potential impact to State and
local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the
existing signs after their normal service life. This change is
effective immediately for all new installations.
85. In Section 2E.33 Other Supplemental Guide Signs, paragraph 2
adds GUIDANCE for installing only one supplemental guide sign on each
interchange approach. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this
section.
86. In Section 2E.34 Exit Direction Signs, paragraph 2 prohibits
the use of population figures or other similar information on Exit
Direction signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.
Also in this section, the second GUIDANCE statement deletes the
words ``cantilevered support'' and allows the Exit Direction sign to be
installed on any overhead support located over the exit lane in advance
of a gore point.
The change in the last sentence of Section 2E.34, paragraph 10 is
revised from that proposed in the NPA in response to a docket comment
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of
recommending that the Exit Direction sign should be mounted on the face
of the overhead structure, the FHWA is changing this to an OPTION to
allow more flexibility at those locations that may not have available
overhead structures.
87. In Section 2E.41 Signing by Type of Interchange, paragraph 3
provides GUIDANCE that the signing layout should be similar for
interchanges which have only one exit ramp in the direction of travel.
The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.
88. In Section 2E.42 Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange, an OPTION is
added for installing overhead guide signs at the 1 km (\1/2\ mile) and
4 km (2 mile) points. This OPTION is in addition to the required
overhead guide signs at the 2 km (1 mile) point and at the theoretical
gore of each connecting ramp.
89. In Section 2E.48 Closely-Spaced Interchanges, paragraph 1 is
changed from that proposal in the NPA in response to a docket comment
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of mandating
or requiring that the advance guide signs for the next interchange
should be mounted on an overhead structure, the FHWA is changing the
GUIDANCE to an OPTION in an effort to allow more flexibility at those
locations that may not have available overhead structures.
90. In Section 2E.52 General Service Signs, paragraph 2 adds an
OPTION that allows an action message, such as NEXT RIGHT, to be placed
on general service signs which do not have exit numbers included on the
sign. Figure 2E-38 has been added as an example. The FHWA did not
receive any comments on this section.
Also in this section, paragraph 4, GUIDANCE is added that
recommends the distances to services should be shown on general service
signs when the service is more than 2 km (1 mile) from the interchange.
Additionally, paragraph 4a(1), is changed based on comments from
the Ohio Department of Transportation and logo organizations in 9
States, which suggested that the FHWA delete tire repair from the list
of criteria for selecting and installing general service signs for gas
stations. The FHWA is adopting this modification since the majority of
businesses offering gas today, no longer provide tire repair services.
This same change applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph 8, item 1.
Also in this section, paragraph 4b(4), 4c(4), and 4f(3) are revised
to add ``modern sanitary facilities'' as a criteria for food, lodging,
and camping services.
Additionally, paragraph 4b(2) modifies the number of days that a
food service, selected for general service sign, is open. The 1988
MUTCD showed 7 days per week, and the new edition states at least 6
days per week. This amendment also applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph
9, item D(b). This revision to the MUTCD is made in order to comply
with the requirement of Federal law, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 214,
which was effective on June

[[Page 78933]]

9, 1998. There were no docket comments on this section.
Also in this section, a STANDARD is added which requires that
general service signs that are operated on a seasonal basis shall be
removed or covered during periods when the service is not available.
This amendment reduces the chance of road users mistakenly leaving
their routes only to find that the particular service is closed. The
FHWA received no comments on this section.
91. In Section 2E.57 Radio Information Signing, paragraph 1 allows
State and local highway agencies the OPTION of using a word message
Radio-Traffic Information (D12-4) sign in conjunction with traffic
management systems. The FHWA received no comments on this section.
Also in this section, paragraph 2 establishes three as the maximum
number of frequencies shown on each Radio-Traffic Information sign. The
FHWA did not receive any comments on this change.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 2F--Specific Service Signs

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts
2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are
addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA)
was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.
92. Since the FHWA has combined chapters 2E and 2F of the 1988
MUTCD into one chapter, the new chapter for Specific Service Signs is
Chapter 2F (formerly Chapter 2G in the 1988 MUTCD). There were no
docket comments on combining Chapters 2E and 2F.
93. In Section 2F.01 Eligibility, paragraph 4 adopts Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a STANDARD for selecting eligible
specific services. This is consistent with the requirements of other
Federal programs. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.
Also in this section, paragraphs 5 and 12 adopt a new specific
service sign category for attraction signs. This increases the Specific
Service Sign categories to five (gas, food, lodging, camping, and
attractions). There were no docket comments on this section.
Additionally, paragraph 7 is changed from that proposal in the NPA
as a result of docket comments received from six logo organizations
suggesting that the FHWA modify the discussion for Specific Service
Sign eligibility to include the following text shown in bold: ``If
facilities for the specific service being considered are not available
within the 5 km (3 miles) limit or choose not to participate in the
program, then the limit of eligibility may be extended in 5 km (3
miles) increments until one or more facilities for the services being
considered choose to participate or until 25 km (15 miles) are reached,
whichever comes first.'' The FHWA is adopting this modification to give
states more flexibility in the selection of eligible specific service
facilities
In paragraph 9, item (A)(1), under GUIDANCE, the FHWA adds
``alternative fuels'' to the list of qualification criteria for
specific service signs. No comments were received regarding this
change.
94. The FHWA received 11 comments from representatives of various
State logo organizations requesting that FHWA modify the proposed
Section 2F.02 Application, paragraph 2, to allow for up to three types
of services to be displayed on a specific service sign (example: gas,
food, and lodging). The FHWA is adopting three types of specific
services on one sign as the maximum along with the requirement that if
three types of services are allowed on one sign, then the logo panels
(businesses) shall be limited to two for each type of service. This
would allow for a total of six logo panels per sign which is consistent
with the STANDARD in Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs.
The FHWA believes that this change will give the states more
flexibility in the selection of specific service facilities.
Also in this section under the STANDARD statement, paragraph 2 is
changed to delete the requirement for a separate sign for each type of
specific service at freeway and expressway interchanges.
95. In Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs, the
proposed paragraph 2 allowed a maximum of six logo panels for any
specific service category shown on a sign. Based on 12 docket comments
received from State Departments of Transportation, representatives of
various motorist information services, and logo organizations, the FHWA
is also amending paragraph 2 to allow a maximum of four logo panels for
one of the two service types on the same sign (example: four food logo
panels and two lodging logo panels). When four logo panels for one type
of service are installed on a sign, the maximum number of logo panels
still shall not exceed six. The FHWA believes that this change will
give the States more flexibility in the selection of specific service
facilities.
Also in this section, the maximum logo panel size for expressway
intersections is increased from 900 mm x 600 mm (36 inches x 24
inches) to 1500 mm x 900 mm (60 inches x 36 inches). There were no
docket comments on this section.
96. In Section 2F.05 Size of Lettering, Table II-5, ``Letter and
Numeral Sizes for Specific Service Signs'' as shown in the 1988 MUTCD
is deleted. In the 1988 MUTCD, a category 1 size was included for use
on expressways where access to crossroads was provided by at-grade
intersections. The FHWA is deleting Table II-5 and the related
categories. The FHWA is adopting a minimum height of 250 mm (10 inches)
for all letters and numerals on specific service signs on freeways and
expressways, and 150 mm (6 inches) for signs on conventional roads and
ramps. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years
after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to
minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is
effective immediately for new sign installations.
97. In Section 2F.06 Signs at Interchanges, the requirement for a
separate Specific Service sign for each type of services is deleted.
Also in this section, paragraph 2 adds GUIDANCE that specific
service ramp signs should be spaced at least 30 m (100 feet) from the
exit gore sign, from each other, and from the ramp terminal. The FHWA
received no docket comments on this section.
98. In Section 2F.07 Single-Exit Interchanges, paragraph 4 adds an
OPTION to install the exit number panel on top of specific service
signs on the freeway or expressway for the single-exit interchanges.
There were no docket comments on this section.
99. In Section 2F.09 Signs at Intersections, paragraph 3 deletes
the reference to a specific distance at which logo panels should not be
displayed because they are visible from the roadway or highway. The
FHWA believes that the State and local highway agencies should
determine the acceptable visibility limits. The FHWA did not receive
any comments regarding this change.
Also in this section, paragraph 6 adds an OPTION to install the
NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) and other directional information below the logos on
the specific service signs.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2G--Tourist-Oriented
Directional Signs.

The FHWA received 52 comments from 10 commenters concerning

[[Page 78934]]

Chapter 2G. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed
in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was
published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.
100. In Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, the FHWA is defining
the term ``tourist-oriented directional sign.'' The term ``panel'' is
also defined in Chapter 1. The FHWA received no comments on the
definition.
One commenter suggested defining ``immediate area'' in the first
STANDARD or allowing the States to provide a definition in their State
policy. The FHWA believes that defining ``immediate area'' is best
addressed through State policy (Section 2G.07), and is revising that
section to include a definition as an element of the policy.
A State transportation department pointed out that requiring the
use of tourist-oriented directional signs in place of specific service
signing may conflict with State statutes. To avoid conflict with State
statutes, the FHWA believes that this text would be better addressed as
GUIDANCE, and is changing the section accordingly. This change gives
the needed encouragement without eliminating the flexibility that some
agencies might need.
Three State transportation departments suggested uniform placement
of tourist-oriented directional signs regardless of whether the
facility and its on-premise advertising signs are readily visible or
not from the roadway. Additionally, one State transportation department
recommended a definition of ``readily visible from the roadway'' be
included. The FHWA believes that for positive guidance, tourist-
oriented directional signs should be installed regardless of whether or
not the facility and/or its on-premise advertising is readily visible
from the roadway. The FHWA has deleted this text from the GUIDANCE.
101. In Section 2G.02 Design, the FHWA is including a STANDARD that
each tourist-oriented directional panel shall display only one eligible
business, service or activity facility. None of the commenters
disagreed with this change and the American Traffic Safety Services
Association, Inc. commented favorably.
102. In Section 2G.03 Style and Size of Lettering, the National
Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) recommended
deleting the text related to the legend on rural roads. The FHWA agrees
with this recommendation and removed it from the GUIDANCE. Using
smaller letters on ``less important rural roads'' is not helpful to the
unfamiliar road user. One commenter suggested that text referencing the
``Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs and Pavement Markings'' \7\ be
added. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and is adding it to the
STANDARD, since it is the design standard for letters, numerals, and
spacing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The ``Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs and Pavement
Markings,'' 1977 Edition, is published by the Federal Highway
Administration. It may be obtained from the FHWA, Office of
Transportation Operations, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
It is available for inspection and copying at the FHWA headquarters
and all FHWA Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

103. In Section 2G.04 Arrangement and Size of Signs, the FHWA
limits the size of a tourist-oriented directional sign to a maximum of
1.8m (6 ft.). One commenter suggested that the limitation should be on
the number of panels on the sign, rather than the physical size of the
sign. The FHWA agrees that there should be a limitation on the number
of panels as well as the size of the sign. A maximum sign size is
specified to prevent visual obstructions.
Also, under the first GUIDANCE in Section 2G.04, it was proposed in
the NPA that no more than three panels should be displayed on each
sign. One State transportation department objected. The FHWA agrees
because this may place an undue burden for sign removal on those
jurisdictions with existing signs. Therefore, the FHWA will continue to
allow display of four panels per tourist-oriented directional sign.
Several comments were received on the text regarding installation
of intersection approach signs. The text in the first GUIDANCE
contained conflicting language. The FHWA is revising the first GUIDANCE
to allow for a straight ahead approach sign and is clarifying that
intersection approach signs for tourist-oriented destinations to the
left, right and straight ahead should be installed in advance of the
intersection and that no more than four panels should be displayed on
each sign. The FHWA is adding other clarifications to the text, based
on the comments received, including: (1) Recommending the order in
which signs should be installed; for consistency signs should appear in
the following order: (a) The left turn sign should be located farthest
from the intersection, (b) then the right turn sign, and (c) the
straight ahead sign located closest to the intersection; (2)
recommending that when there are multiple destinations in the same
direction that the panels on the tourist-oriented directional sign
should be displayed in order based on the destination's distance from
the intersection (the closest destination should appear first); (3)
clarifying that the left, right or straight ahead turn panels may be
combined on the same sign, but that the straight ahead sign should not
be combined with a sign displaying both the left and right turn
destinations, and (4) allowing signs for destinations in the straight
ahead direction when there are signs for destinations in either the
left or right direction.
104. In Section 2G.05 Advance Signs, the first OPTION regarding
installation of advance signs in the NPA has been moved to the GUIDANCE
statement in Section 2G.07 State Policy, which is a more appropriate
location. Also, in Section 2G.05, the FHWA is including GUIDANCE to
clarify that in cases where directional word messages such as NEXT
RIGHT (LEFT) or AHEAD are appropriate for application, this additional
information may be added to the 1.8m (6 ft) maximum sign height. None
of the commenters disagreed with this change and the American Traffic
Safety Services Association, Inc., commented in support of the change.
One State transportation department objected to installation of the
directional word messages above the business identification panels. The
destinations on tourist-oriented directional signs and where to turn
are priority information; therefore, the directional word message
action should be shown first. There were several comments requesting
sign dimensions be shown on the figures. The dimensions were
inadvertently left off the figures in the NPA and the dimensions in the
1988 Manual will be used with the appropriate metric conversions.
105. Section 2G.06 Sign Locations, require that the location of all
other traffic control devices shall take precedence over the location
of tourist-oriented directional signs, and that tourist-oriented
directional signs shall not obstruct the road user's view of other
traffic control devices. None of the commenters disagreed with this
change.
The NCUTCD and two other commenters objected to the exception,
found in Section 2G.06 GUIDANCE, for the location of the straight ahead
sign. The FHWA agrees and has deleted the exception. For positive
guidance, a straight ahead business should have a sign in advance of
the intersection.
Also in this section, one commenter suggested that the location of
and distance between signs, for the advance signs was excessive. The
FHWA believes that locating advance signs 1 km (\1/2\ mi) from the
intersection is an appropriate distance, but agrees that the

[[Page 78935]]

spacing between signs is excessive and has reduced the distance to 152
m (500 ft). Since this is a shorter minimum distance than the current
MUTCD, this will not have any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
One commenter objected to the phrase in the OPTION paragraph. The
Executive Order referenced in the comment was revoked by Executive
Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and effective on November 2, 1999.
However, the FHWA is modifying this paragraph by deleting ``but within
the right-of-way'' to be consistent with other parts of the Manual
which do not reference right-of-way limits for sign placement.
106. In Section 2G.07 State Policy, the FHWA proposed to add the
equal opportunity criteria of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241) as a STANDARD condition for destinations
to be eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs. One State
transportation department and one State chapter of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers objected to including civil rights
requirements in the Manual, while the American Traffic Safety Services
Association, Inc. supported their inclusion. The FHWA disagrees with
these objections to include the civil rights requirements. This
paragraph was added as a condition for destinations eligible for
tourist-oriented directional signs, because most Federal programs
require compliance with Title VI regulations. This paragraph is
consistent with Chapter 2F Specific Service Signs.
Also in Section 2G.07, the GUIDANCE statement is revised to include
a definition of ``immediate area'' for the area to be served.
``Immediate Area'' was used in the first STANDARD of Section 2G.01
Purpose and Application, of the NPA. In order to give the State highway
agencies more flexibility, the FHWA believes that the definition is
best addressed through State policy.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2H--Recreational and
Cultural Interest Area Signs

The FHWA received 46 comments from eight commenters concerning
Chapter 2H. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed
in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was
published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA is modifying the following
recreational and cultural interest signs to improve their visibility
and make the sign design less complex: Litter Container (RG-130),
Ranger Station (RG-170), Picnic Area (RM-120), Laundry (RA-060),
Sleeping Shelter (RA-110) and Interpretative Trail (RL-130).
Also, the FHWA is adopting the following Forest Service symbols \8\
and will include them in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' book \9\ Motor
Home (RM-200), Group Picnicking (RM-220), Group Camping (RM-210), Dog
(RG-240), Seaplane (RG-260), Family Restroom (RA-150), Helicopter (RA-
160), All-Terrain Vehicle (RL-170), Archer (RL-190), Hang Glider (RL-
210), Fishing Pier (RW-160), Hand Launch for Boating (RW-170), Kayak
(RW-190), Wind Surf (RW-210) and Chairlift for Skiing (RS-100). The
FHWA has only included new or modified symbol signs in the revised
manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the FHWA and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, many of the
symbols used by the Forest Service are adopted by reference in the
MUTCD. These symbols are referred to as the ``88 Forest Service
Symbol Signs.''
\9\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the 2000 MUTCD. It is available for purchase from
the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, PO Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection
and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA
Division Offices as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the commenters disagreed with the modified or adopted
symbols. However, one State transportation department recommended that
we mandate that titles be used with the signs. The FHWA disagrees with
the need for this clarification because Section 2A.13 permits an
education plate to accompany a symbol sign that is not readily
recognizable by the public.
107. In Section 2H.01 Scope, use of recreational and cultural
interest signs is expanded by providing the OPTION of using these
symbols on directional guide signs found on expressways and freeways.
The American Traffic Safety Services Association supported the expanded
use of these symbols. Two commenters opposed the expanded use of the
symbols suggesting the possible overloading of road users with too many
signs along freeways, especially in congested areas. The FHWA disagrees
because the GUIDANCE in Section 2H.02 encourages agencies to adopt
policies for recreational and cultural interest signing, and cautions
agencies not to use them where they might be confused with other
traffic control signs.
Also, in this section, the STANDARD paragraph has been removed.
General signing requirements are covered in Chapter 2A.
108. In Section 2H.02 Application of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Signs, one State transportation department recommended
removing the text related to nonvehicular events and amenities. The
FHWA disagrees with the recommendation because the Manual has
jurisdiction over the signing that leads road users to nonvehicular
events and amenities such as trails, structures, and facilities.
109. In Section 2H.04 General Design Requirements for Recreational
and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs, several commenters recommended
including examples of the usage and series categories and one State
chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers opposed the
removal of the Category and Usage Chart. The FHWA agrees with this last
recommendation. A Category Chart is included. This chart is similar to
the Category and Usage Chart included in the 1988 Manual, except the
road/type usage information has been removed. It is no longer
appropriate to specify usage since the use of the symbols has been
expanded to include both conventional roads and expressways and
freeways.
Also, in Section 2H.04, the FHWA has removed the SUPPORT paragraph
proposed in the NPA. The use of recreational and cultural interest
symbol signs is discussed in Section 2H.01.
110. In Section 2H.05 Symbol Sign Sizes, sign information is
discussed in paragraph format. The FHWA received no negative comments
regarding the removal of Table II-7, ``Sign Sizes.'' The American
Traffic Safety Services Association recommended that a minimum size of
750 mm x 750 mm (30 in x 30 in) be used for expressway and freeway
installation to ensure legibility and increase comprehension
commensurate with today's higher speeds and complexities evidenced on
these types of roadways. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation. The
recommended expressway/freeway sign size text is contained in GUIDANCE.
111. In Section 2H.06 Use of Educational Plaques, GUIDANCE
recommends that, if used, the educational plaque should be the same
width as the symbol sign. None of the commenters disagreed with this
change.
112. One State transportation department recommended deleting the
proposed Section 2H.08 Color Format. The FHWA agrees with this
recommendation and has removed Section 2H.08 as referenced in the NPA,
because sign design requirements, including color, are addressed in
Section 2H.04.
113. In Section 2H.08 Placement of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Symbol Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2H.09),
one State transportation department suggested that the exception to the
vertical mounting height for

[[Page 78936]]

symbol signs on low speed, low volume roads is not necessary and may
cause some signs to be installed so that they are no longer
crashworthy. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation to eliminate
the exception. Chapter 2A of the Manual requires all signs within the
clear zone to be mounted at 2.1 m (7 ft) in urban areas, and at 1.5m (5
ft) in rural areas.
114. In Section 2H.09 Destination Guide Signs (referenced in the
NPA as Section 2H.10), one State transportation department recommended
that both the recreational and cultural interest area symbol signs and
destination guide signs be white on brown. The FHWA disagrees with the
recommendation. The GUIDANCE lists the order of preference for use of
shapes and colors. While rectangular, white on green is listed first,
States may use rectangular, white on brown. This provides maximum
flexibility to the States.
Also, in this section, one State transportation department
recommended deleting the requirement that advance guide signs and exit
direction signs have the white on green color combination where there
are destinations other than a recreational or cultural interest area.
The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation. Guide signs shall be white
on green, except white on brown may be used when solely recreational or
cultural interest area destinations are shown.
Several commenters recommended removal of the trapezoidal shape.
The FHWA is retaining the GUIDANCE that allows use of the trapezoidal
shape. However, the FHWA will consider this recommendation in the
future after further study.
115. The FHWA received no objections to deleting Sections 2H.10
through 2H.15 of the 1988 Manual, as proposed in the NPA. These
sections gave a general description of the categories of recreation and
cultural interest symbol signs.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2I--Emergency
Management

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2A Which Were Not
Adopted

122. In Section 2A.03, the FHWA has deleted the OPTION sentence
which indicated that traffic engineering judgment or studies may show
that signs would be unnecessary at certain locations. By definition,
the purpose of engineering judgment and studies is to determine whether
or not a sign or other traffic control device is needed.
123. In Section 2A.18, paragraph 1, the FHWA has decided not to
adopt the proposal to require the minimum mounting height of 2.1 m (7
feet) for all signs. This decision is based on crash-worthiness
research results \10\ which did not justify universal application of
the increased mounting height. It is also based on docket comments
received from 8 county highway agencies which opposed the increased
mounting height for all signs. The minimum mounting height will remain
at 5 feet for rural areas and 7 feet for urban areas where parking and
other obstructions to view may occur. This minimum mounting height does
not preclude the installation of signs at higher heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Marzougui, Dhafer; Bedewi, Nabih; Meczkowski, Leonard; and
Taylor, Harry W.; ``Sign Support Height Analysis Using Finite
Element Simulation.'' Presented at International Journal on Crash
Conference, September 6-8, 2000. To be published in the
International Journal on Crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Not Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2E--Expressway and
Freeway Guide Signs

124. In Section 2E.29, paragraph 2, the FHWA has decided not to
adopt the amendment to increase the vertical dimension of the exit
number sign panel from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). The
FHWA received comments from North Carolina, Missouri and Minnesota
Departments of Transportation expressing disagreement with the idea of
increasing the vertical dimension of the exit number sign panel to 30
inches, particularly in the absence of specific data to indicate that
the 24 inch panels are not performing adequately. The FHWA agrees and
will revisit as part of a future research study.

Discussion of Not Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2F--Specific
Service Signs

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts
2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are
addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA)
was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.
125. In Section 2F.02, paragraph 4, the FHWA has decided not to
limit the use of the ATTRACTION to expressways and freeways since in
paragraph 5, the other specific service categories may be used on any
class of highway.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 3--Markings

The FHWA received 352 comments from 40 commenters concerning Part 3
under docket number 96-47 (in mid-1997 this docket was scanned into the
U.S. Dockets Facility as FHWA-1997-2295 and may be retrieved

[[Page 78937]]

electronically with this number). Also, the FHWA received 181 comments
from 27 commenters in response to docket number 99-6575. The two
notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 691 on
January 6, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. Only the
technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion.
126. Chapter A, General Principles, of the 1988 MUTCD is renamed
``General.'' Several sections within this chapter are more
appropriately relocated to Chapter B as follows: (a) Section 3A.08 is
moved to 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges, (b)
Section 3A.09 is moved to 3B.15 Transverse Markings, and (c) Section
3A.10 is moved to Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines. Section
3A.07 of the 1988 MUTCD discussed the different types of yellow and
white lines. This discussion was reorganized and moved to Section 3B.
Each type of line in Section 3A.07 is now discussed in the first six
sections of Section 3B, which is organized by color of longitudinal
lines.
127. In Section 3A.06 Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Line
Markings, the FHWA is adding to the OPTION statement a recommended
ratio for line segments and gaps for ``dotted lines.'' One comment was
received from a State highway agency recommending that a definition be
provided for the wording ``or longer gaps.'' Since the proposed text
did not contain any guidance on the maximum spacing of the longer gaps,
the FHWA is including an OPTION statement recommending a maximum ratio
of 1:3 for line segments and gaps, respectively, for dotted lines.
128. The section headings on Chapter B, Pavement and Curb Markings,
are renamed and reorganized to read as follows:

3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings
and Warrants
3B.02 No-Passing zone Markings
3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings
3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and
Warrants
3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings
3B.06 Edge Line Markings
3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines
3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges
3B.09 Lane Reductions Transition Markings
3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions
3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers
3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle Positioning Guides with Other
Longitudinal Markings
3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other Markings
3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings
3B.15 Transverse Markings
3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines
3B.17 Crosswalk Markings
3B.18 Parking Space Markings
3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings
3B.20 Speed Measurement Markings
3B.21 Curb Markings
3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings
3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motorized Vehicles
3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts
3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections
3B.26 Speed Hump Markings
3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings

129. Sections 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line
Pavement Markings and Warrants, 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Markings, and
3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings (all referenced in
the NPA as Section 3B.01); Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and
Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White
Longitudinal Pavement Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.02);
and 3B.06 Edge Line Markings, and 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines
(both referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.03), are modified to include
the provisions of the amendments on standards for center line and edge
line markings published as a Final Rule at 65 FR 9 on January 3, 2000.
There were 96 commenters on the proposed amendments to include the
center line and edge line Final Rule into the proposed Section 3B.01
and 3B.03. Sixty-one commenters opposed the proposed text, and 45 of
these commenters suggested two technical corrections. Most of the
comments opposed to the proposed text were concerned about the warrants
for center line and edge line markings which required edge lines on
rural roads before center lines. The FHWA agreed with the comments and
changed the text to make the warrants for rural center line and edge
line markings consistent. Many commenters suggested a technical
correction concerning the ADT values in the proposed warrants. The
discussion in the final amendments of January 3, 2000 on center line
and edge line markings (65 FR 9, January 3, 2000) stated that ``The
FHWA believes that jurisdictions should be aware of the average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes and widths of the major roadways now specified in
the standards and that the ADTs are an estimate that can be performed
at a jurisdiction's judgment.'' The FHWA agrees with the commenters and
included a SUPPORT statement ``If a traffic count is not available, the
ADTs described in this section can be estimates that are based on
engineering judgment.'' Many comments included suggestions that were
addressed in the final rule published on January 3, 2000. Many
commenters also suggested revisions lowering the STANDARDS, which
cannot be accepted because it would adversely impact safety to the
traveling public.
As noted in the final amendments for center line and edge line
pavement markings, dated January 3, 2000, the compliance date for these
sections is January 3, 2003 or when pavement lane markings are replaced
within an established pavement marking program, or when the highway is
resurfaced or reconstructed, whichever date is earlier.
130. Section 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line
Pavement Markings and Warrants, now contains GUIDANCE on the speed
definition in the warrants for no-passing zones at curves which was in
the 1988 MUTCD in Section 3B.05. The text in the NPA for these warrants
reduced the minimum passing sight distances because it was based on
posted or statutory speed limits as shown in Table 3B-1. In the 1988
MUTCD, the minimum passing sight distances were determined based on the
greater of the off-peak 85th percentile speed or the posted speed
limits. The FHWA received eight comments that opposed deleting the use
of the 85th percentile speed because using the 85th percentile improves
safety. Accordingly, the FHWA is returning to the use of the 85th
percentile speed because it agrees that this improves safety.
131. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA is changing the first paragraph of the first OPTION
to be consistent with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings, the STANDARD for
highway-rail grade crossings. The STANDARD will read: ``No-passing zone
markings shall be used on approaches to highway-rail grade crossings in
conformance with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings.'' The second
paragraph of the first OPTION will remain an OPTION and will read:
``No-passing zone markings may also be used at other locations where
the prohibition of passing is appropriate.''
132. In Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line
Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal

[[Page 78938]]

Pavement Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.02 White Longitudinal
Line Markings), 11 commenters had concerns about specific wording in
the text or details about the figures as proposed and suggested
technical or editorial revisions to make them acceptable. Of these
suggested revisions, five concerned lane lines within a crosswalk. The
FHWA agrees with these comments and the lines are removed from within
the crosswalks.
After the NPA was published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, the
FHWA noted that text requiring lane line markings was inadvertently
omitted from the proposed amendment and was included in the updated
text published 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. One comment, received
in response to the second NPA, noted that the standard for lane lines
on Interstate highways was omitted from the proposed text and that it
should be reinserted. The FHWA agrees and is including this STANDARD in
the final text.
133. The FHWA is revising the STANDARD for the extension of dotted
lines through intersections in Section 3B.08 Extensions Through
Intersections (referenced in the NPA as 3B.04 Extensions Through
Intersections or Interchanges). One commenter was opposed to the color
being the color of the line extended, rather than the color of the line
to which it is extended. One commenter was opposed to the width of the
marking being the same as the line it extends. The FHWA believes that
the proposed text is appropriate because it will provide the most
consistent application of dotted line extensions. The FHWA will retain
the proposed text in the final version.
Also in this section, paragraph 2, the FHWA added Figure 3B-11,
sheet 2 of 2, Typical Pavement Marking Applications (referenced in the
NPA as Figure 3-9a, Typical Pavement Marking Applications), to show
more examples of the use of dotted line markings in intersections. This
figure was in response to older driver research that shows that
motorists benefit by having these additional markings. The FHWA
received nine, mostly editorial, comments. Two commenters suggested
reducing the GUIDANCE to an OPTION which would reduce safety. One
commenter suggested adding curvature of the roadway to the list of
examples where line extensions should be considered. The FHWA agrees to
include ``* * * on curved roadways * * *'' into the final text.
134. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other
Markings, and 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement
Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.07 Raised Pavement Markers,
Retroreflective and Non-Retroreflective), the FHWA received 21 comments
about raised pavement markers. Two comments, from northern States,
opposed the minimum height of the raised pavement marker. Since the
height definition is SUPPORT and not a STANDARD or GUIDANCE, the
proposed text is retained. Seven of the comments proposed technical
changes to the spacing of the raised pavement markers. Since the space
of raised pavement markers is GUIDANCE, the proposed text will be
retained until research indicates that different spacing would provide
better information to road users. The FHWA received no comments,
however, about the color of raised pavement markers conforming to the
color of the pavement marking where they are placed. The FHWA received
five comments about the use of raised pavement markers at right edge
lines. Two comments addressed the use of raised pavement markers in
construction work zones. One comment recommended that raised pavement
markers be permitted, and another opposed the use of raised pavement
markers on right edge lines. Several commenters agreed that raised
pavement markers should not be used on right edge lines. Since there is
not a consensus on using raised pavement markers on right edge lines at
this time, the FHWA is retaining the proposed GUIDANCE that raised
pavement parkers should not supplement right edge line markings.
135. In Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines (referenced in the NPA
as Section 3B.09), paragraphs 2, 4, and 6, the FHWA is adding an
optional ``Yield Line'' marking for use where it is important to
indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield. Figure
3-24, Typical Yield Line Layout, provides an illustration of these
markings. The FHWA received ten comments. Five of the comments opposed
the proposal and indicated that the proposed markings were not needed.
The FHWA believes that improved public awareness of yield line markings
will lead to consistency in the use of the stop line marking for
mandatory stops and the yield line when a yield is the appropriate
action. Since these markings would be optional, State and local highway
agencies would not be required to use them.
Also in this section, the FHWA received one comment which suggested
that the wording of the following phrase be clarified as follows:
``Where through lanes of traffic approaching an intersection become the
mandatory turn lanes.'' The FHWA is incorporating the above underlined
words into the final text to clarify the sentence. The FHWA received
two comments suggesting reductions to the use of blue markings to
designate parking spaces for persons with disabilities. The FHWA
believes the suggestions would reduce the visibility of the markings
and is adopting the text as proposed in the NPA.
136. In Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings (referenced
in the NPA as Section 3B.12), third OPTION, paragraph 5, the FHWA is
adding a ``Yield Ahead'' triangle symbol marking for optional use in
advance of intersections where approaching traffic will encounter a
YIELD sign. Figure 3B-24 provides an illustration of these markings.
The FHWA received 14 comments, of which only four opposed the proposal.
Three comments addressed text and figures that had not changed from the
1988 MUTCD and that will be retained. Only one comment opposed the
proposed yield ahead markings. The FHWA is adopting the yield ahead
marking as proposed in the NPA.
Also in Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, second
SUPPORT, the second paragraph states: ``Where crossroad channelization
of ramp geometry do not make wrong-way movements physically difficult,
guidance to a potential wrong-way road user can be provided by placing
a lane-use arrow * * *.'' The FHWA is changing this SUPPORT to GUIDANCE
to be consistent with the GUIDANCE, paragraph B, in Part 2E.50 Wrong-
Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps which states ``Where crossroad
channelization or ramp geometrics do not make wrong-way movements
difficult, a lane-use arrow should be placed in each lane * * *.''
137. In Section 3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings
(referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.13), the FHWA is differentiating
between types of preferential lanes. The diamond pavement marking
symbol is for exclusive HOV lane use. In situations where a
preferential lane is not an HOV lane, then the word message (Bus, Taxi,
etc.) or symbol (Bike, etc.) for the type of traffic allowed would be
used. The FHWA received three comments that suggested editorial changes
to this section, and it has made one minor editorial change to the
second STANDARD, paragraph 2, to include a reference to Figure 3B-25.
138. In Section 3B.21 Curb Markings (referenced in the NPA as
3B.15), paragraph 5, the FHWA is adding paved median noses to the
locations that

[[Page 78939]]

should have retroreflective solid yellow markings. This addition is
made in response to recommendations for older drivers \11\, which shows
the benefits of having these additional markings. The FHWA received two
comments which suggested that the text be changed to an OPTION, and one
technical comment that suggested that additional guidance be included
on the placement of the markings. The FHWA is adopting the text as
proposed in the NPA because the FHWA believes that retroreflective
markings should be placed to increase the visibility of paved median
noses. The FHWA also believes that the portion of the paved median nose
that should be marked should be left to each jurisdiction's judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ ``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,'' Report No. 1
FHWA-RD-97-135, available from the FHWA Research and Technology
Report Center, 9701 Philadelphia Court, Unit Q, Lanham, Maryland
20706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

139. In Section 3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for
Motorized Vehicle (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.16), is added to
provide the STANDARDS for longitudinal lane line markings for
physically and non-physically separated, reversible and non-reversible,
and left and right side concurrent flow preferential lanes for
motorized vehicles. Table 3B-2 was added to list the standards in a
tabular format. Figure 3B-25 provides an illustration of these
markings.
Furthermore, GUIDANCE is added on marking the neutral area between
a preferential use lane and a regular traffic lane, when the distance
between them is greater than 1.2 m (4 ft). The FHWA received eight
comments concerning this section. Several comments were about showing a
double yellow centerline on the figures. The FHWA believes that since
the figures clearly show that there is a median, the use of a double
yellow centerline is not appropriate. One commenter suggested using a
double white dashed line for the right lane line on concurrent flow HOV
lanes. Another commenter suggested that the double wide white
longitudinal lines should be double normal white longitudinal lines.
The FHWA believes that the longitudinal lines shown in the proposed
figures provide reasonable options which will promote uniformity of
markings to the road users. The FHWA is retaining the proposed figures
in the final version.
140. Section 3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts (referenced in the NPA
as Section 3B.17), Figure 3B-26 (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-26),
Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and Figure 3B-27,
Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, (referenced in the NPA
as Figure 3-27), are added to incorporate standard markings for
roundabouts to the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with one commenter opposed
to this section which suggested a reduction from GUIDANCE to OPTION.
The FHWA did receive 14 editorial comments on the text and figures and
they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.
141. Section 3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections
(referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.18), is added to incorporate
optional standard markings for other circular intersections including
rotaries, traffic circles, and residential traffic calming designs.
Figures 3B-26, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and 3B-
27, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, provides
illustrations of typical markings for other circular intersections. The
FHWA received one comment about the placement of the crosswalk in
advance of the yield line in the figures. The FHWA believes that the
location of the crosswalk in advance of the yield lines as shown in the
figures provides the shortest and safest location for pedestrians to
walk. The FHWA will retain the proposed figures in the final version.
142. Section 3B.26 Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the NPA as
Section 3B.19), is added to provide pavement markings to assist
motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figures 3B-28,
Pavement Markings for Speed Humps, and 3B-29, Pavement Markings for
Speed Humps, provide illustrations of typical speed hump markings. The
FHWA received 11 comments, none of which opposed having speed hump
markings. Most, however, were concerned that the markings were
excessive and would be difficult to maintain. The FHWA is retaining the
text and figures because these markings are optional and the FHWA is
not convinced that the alternate markings are better.
143. Section 3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the
NPA as 3B.20), is added to provide pavement markings to assist
motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figure 3B-30,
Advance Warning Markings for Speed Humps, provides an illustration of
typical advance warning markings for speed humps. The FHWA received
four comments. One commenter stated that the advance warning for speed
hump markings should not be used because they are similar in appearance
to stop lines. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter, because the
advance warning markings are a series of transverse bars located in
advance of a speed hump, which would not be found at an intersection
where a stop bar is located.
144. In Section 3F.02 Channelizing Devices, the FHWA received seven
comments on a new STANDARD that states that the color of cones and tube
markers used outside construction and maintenance areas shall be the
same as the pavement markings. Three comments had concerns about
allowing orange as the color of a tubular marker on a white or yellow
lane line. One commenter wanted the STANDARD to be more restrictive by
excluding orange as a substitute color. Another commenter called the
STANDARD difficult to achieve and enforce in practice. The third
commenter suggested orange as the predominant color, with permanently
mounted tubular markers to be only white. The FHWA will adopt the
proposed wording because orange is a universal color for cones and
tubular markers. While it is preferable that the color of cones in non-
work zones match the color of line that they supplement or are
substituted for, the FHWA believes motorists will understand if orange
cones or tubular markers are used.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 4--Highway Traffic Signals

The FHWA received 842 comments from 135 commenters concerning Part
4. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at
62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, and 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999.
145. For Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic
Signals, the FHWA reviewed the text of Part 4 to ensure all terms that
need to be explained are defined in this section and that all terms in
the definitions are used in the text. Based on this review, the FHWA is
adding new definitions for the terms ``signal housing'' and ``walk
interval'' because these terms are used in the text of Part 4, but were
never defined. The definition for ``signal installation'' is removed
because it is no longer used in the text. This section is significantly
expanded from four definitions to seventy-one definitions that are
being used throughout Part 4.
146. In Section 4C.01 through 4C.09 concerning warrants, the number
of warrants are increased from seven, as noted in the 1997 NPA, to
eight (The School Crossing Warrant, which was moved to Section 7D.04 in
the 1997 NPA, is being moved back to Chapter 4C to keep all the signal
warrants together, eliminating the need for the reader to

[[Page 78940]]

use two parts of the MUTCD. See 62 FR 693). The FHWA did not receive
any comments opposed to moving the school crossing warrant from Part 7
back to Part 4.
147. The FHWA inadvertently omitted Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School
Crossing, from the previous NPAs. Section 4C.06 is essentially the same
as the 1988 version, with some minor exceptions. The exceptions are:
(1) A new SUPPORT paragraph explaining that the School Crossing
Warrant is to be applied in instances where school children crossing
the street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic
signal. The FHWA is deleting this paragraph from Warrant 4, Pedestrian
Volume, and moving it to Section 4C.06.
(2) To be more consistent with the other STANDARD wording used in
the MUTCD, the statement concerning the need for a traffic control
signal is changed from ``may be warranted when * * *'' to ``shall be
considered when * * *.''
(3) To match the other chapters in Part 4, the FHWA is adding a new
STANDARD paragraph which will indicate that, before deciding to install
a traffic control signal, ``consideration shall be given to
implementation of other remedial measures.''
(4) To match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, a new STANDARD paragraph
is added to Warrant 5 which will state that the School Crossing warrant
shall not be applied within 300 feet of another traffic signal, unless
the proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of
traffic.
(5) Due to a desire to assist in the reduction of traffic
congestion, a new GUIDANCE paragraph is added that states, ``If
installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be
coordinated.''
(6) The use of pedestrian detectors is changed from an OPTION to a
GUIDANCE to match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. The GUIDANCE now reads,
``At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-
actuated and should include pedestrian detectors.''
(7) The FHWA is deleting the sentence from the 1988 MUTCD which
reads, ``Special police supervision and/or enforcement should be
provided for a new non-intersection installation'' because the
effectiveness of this depends on the local traffic characteristics and
should be determined by local engineering judgment.
148. In Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications, the
FHWA is retaining the phrase ``Unless otherwise determined by law'' in
the first paragraph under STANDARD. Two comments were received, both in
opposition to the proposal to delete this phrase in the January 1997
NPA on the basis that the proposed deletion would infringe on the
States' rights to have additional or different meaning of signal
indications. The FHWA withdrew this proposal in the December 1999 NPA
and put the phrase back in this section. The FHWA encourages States and
local entities to achieve uniform rules of the road that are in accord
with chapter 11, Rules of the Road, in the ``Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)
and Model Traffic Ordinance,'' 1992, published by the National
Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Alexandria,
Virginia.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances,
107 S. West St, #110, Alexandria, VA 22314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

149. In Sections 4D.04, 4D.05, 4D.06, 4D.07, 4D.08, 4D.11, and
4D.16, the text concerned with the use of red arrows is being retained
in the MUTCD. In the 1999 NPA, it was suggested that this text be
removed for reasons of motorist confusion as to the meaning of the red
arrow indication. Comments were received from 8 States, 21 cities, 6
counties, 8 consultants, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (NCUTCD), and 9 others that objected to the removal of
the red arrow from the MUTCD. Most of the comments pointed out that the
red arrow has now been in widespread use for many years, and drivers,
including older drivers, understand its meaning and are using it
safely. It was pointed out that the research summarized in the ``Older
Driver Highway Design Handbook'' \13\ was conducted shortly after the
red arrow was introduced; therefore, the education of the motoring
public, especially older drivers, was still underway. Most of the
comments also pointed out that significant funds would need to be spent
to convert to circular red displays for protected only mode left-turn
phases, including adding LEFT TURN SIGNAL signs on span wires and mast
arms, some of which might not be able to handle the additional load. No
comments supporting the removal of red arrows were received. The FHWA
agrees with these comments and has decided to retain the text concerned
with the use of red arrows in the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ ``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,'' Report No. 1
FHWA-RD-97-135, available from the FHWA Research and Technology
Report Center, 9701 Philadelphia Court, Unit Q, Lanham, Maryland
20706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

150. In Section 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications,
three commenters questioned the accuracy of item d(3) of the NPA that
states a YELLOW ARROW can be terminated by a CIRCULAR YELLOW. The FHWA
agrees that this statement is inaccurate and is removing the phrase,
``a CIRCULAR YELLOW indication or'' from this section. Also, the
revised text is now part of item E4 of this section.
151. In Section 4D.06 Application of Steady Signal Indications For
Left Turns, the 1999 NPA proposed to add a new STANDARD statement and a
new OPTION statement in an attempt to favor the leading protected only
mode left-turn phases over the other types of left-turn phasing based
on the ``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.'' Comments were received
from ten cities, one county, the NCUTCD, and three others that objected
to the inclusion of these paragraphs in the MUTCD. Most of the comments
mentioned that the decision as to the type of left-turn phasing to use
should be made on a case-by-case basis and that a proliferation of
leading protected only mode left-turn phases would not be in the
interest of anyone, including older drivers. Because there are many
legitimate uses for both protected/permissive and lagging left-turn
phases, the FHWA is replacing these two paragraphs with an OPTION
paragraph regarding special consideration for older drivers in the
design of left-turn phasing.
Also in this section, four cities asked that clarifying text
allowing the use of ``Dallas phasing'' be added in compliance with
the1993 interpretation request by the Texas Department of
Transportation. ``Dallas phasing'' provides for a protected/permissive
(five section) signal to display a circular green for the left turn
approach while the through movement approach signal displays a circular
red. The FHWA interpreted the MUTCD ``to permit ``Dallas phasing'' if
the five section display for the left turn is shielded, hooded,
louvered, positioned or designed so that the left turn signal displays
are not seen by the through movement driver.'' Based on these requests,
the FHWA is adding a second means of providing protected/permissive
mode left-turn phasing. This second means involves an exclusive left-
turn signal face instead of a shared left-turn signal face. Therefore,
``Dallas phasing'' is allowed in both of the above described
situations.
152. In Section 4D.12 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control
Signals, the FHWA received one comment that additional information
needs to be added to clarify the procedures for changing from flashing
to steady mode. The FHWA is adding language to this

[[Page 78941]]

section describing the process of changing from either a yellow-red or
a red-red flashing mode to a steady mode. This additional language is
needed to ensure a safe transition from a flashing to a steady (stop-
and-go) operation.
Another commenter stated that a new GUIDANCE paragraph needs to be
added to Section 4D.12 to recommend that, for any steady red clearance
interval provided during the change from red-red flashing mode to
steady (stop-and-go) mode, the minimum duration should be 6 seconds.
The FHWA agrees and is adding a new GUIDANCE paragraph to this section.
153. In Section 4D.13 Preemption and Priority Control of Traffic
Control Signals, one comment was received that revisions need to be
made regarding the shortening or omission of pedestrian intervals in
priority control sequences. The FHWA is adding text to this section's
STANDARD paragraph to clarify that pedestrian intervals may be omitted
if the entire vehicular phase is also omitted.
154. In Section 4D.15, the FHWA is changing the title from ``Number
and Location of Signal Faces by Approach'' to ``Size, Number, and
Location of Signal Faces by Approach.'' This was done based one comment
suggesting the information on the size of signal faces is more
appropriately contained in this section than as shown in Section 4D.16
Number and Arrangement of Sections in Signal Faces, in the 1999 NPA.
Also in Section 4D.15, a new paragraph D is added to the first
GUIDANCE statement listing a fourth recommended reason to use 12 inch
signals. This new GUIDANCE is to use 12 inch signals at locations where
there is a significant percentage of elderly drivers. Comments received
from two States, two cities, the NCUTCD, and one consultant objected to
the inclusion of this paragraph in the SUPPORT statement of Section
4D.16 as proposed in the 1999 NPA. Most of the commenters stated that
the STANDARDS and GUIDANCE found elsewhere in Chapter 4D adequately
address the decision as to which size lenses to use. The FHWA decided
the new paragraph D was a more appropriate location for this
information.
155. In Section 4D.16, the FHWA is changing the title from ``Number
and Arrangement of Sections in Signal Faces'' to ``Number and
Arrangement of Signal Sections in Vehicular Traffic Control Signal
Faces.'' This was done based on a comment suggesting the need to
clarify that this section deals only with vehicular traffic control
signals. This allows items a, c, and d to be deleted from the proposed
STANDARD paragraph since they are not vehicular traffic control
signals.
156. In Section 4D.17 Visibility, Shielding, and Positioning of
Signal Faces, the FHWA has removed the first sentence of the last
SUPPORT paragraph listed in the 1999 NPA. Comments received from three
States, three cities, the NCUTCD, and two consultants objected to the
inclusion of this sentence describing the size of the backplates in the
MUTCD. Most of the comments noted that the use of backplates three
times the diameter of the signal would cause infrastructure problems
because of inordinate size; a backplate of that size is not needed.
Also in this section and in response to a comment, proposed
paragraph 3 in the 1999 NPA under the STANDARD statement, and proposed
paragraph 5 in the 1999 NPA under the GUIDANCE statement, are removed
because it is not appropriate to aim signal heads in a direction that
does not serve drivers at the stop line. Most agencies provide an
additional signal face if one is needed to attract the attention of
drivers approaching a signal on a curved approach. The FHWA is also
adding an OPTION to address the possibility of providing an additional
head on the approach.
In response to another comment, the FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE
paragraph to Section 4D.17 about the preferability of using visors
instead of louvers. The FHWA is adding this paragraph since visors are
preferred because they do not diminish light output.
157. In Section 4D.20 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (referenced
in the NPA as Section 4D.19), the FHWA is revising the text to remove
references to portable traffic control signals (except for the
definition of a portable traffic control signal) because a portable
traffic control signal is a temporary traffic control signal that is
easily moved. Also, the STANDARDS, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT in this
section deal with both portable and temporary. The FHWA is changing the
definition of a portable traffic control signal to, ``A portable
traffic control signal shall be defined as a temporary traffic control
signal that is designed so that is can be easily transported and reused
at different locations.''
158. The FHWA is adding two new sections, 4E.06 Accessible
Pedestrian Signals and 4E.08 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, to
provide GUIDANCE and STANDARDS for accessible pedestrian signals and
accessible pedestrian signal detectors. Text related to accessible
pedestrian signals has also been added in various other sections, such
as Sections 4C.01 and 4D.03. This was done in response to numerous
comments that were received, including 65 comments from the U.S.
Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board and 16 comments from
The Environmental Access Committee of Division Nine of the Association
for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired.
The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 4 years after the
effective date of this final rule for existing installations of
accessible pedestrian signals and accessible pedestrian signal
detectors to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies.
This change is effective immediately for new installations.
159. In Section 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, based on a
comment received, the FHWA is adding a phrase to the third STANDARD
statement that requires the walk tone to have a faster repetition rate
only if the walk tone is similar to the tone for the pushbutton locator
tone.
160. In Section 4E.07 Pedestrian Detectors, the FHWA is changing
the title proposed in the 1999 NPA as ``Pedestrian Signal Timing'' to
``Pedestrian Detectors,'' because the new title accurately reflects
information contained in this section. The FHWA is also including a
paragraph 8, GUIDANCE, and a paragraph 10, STANDARD, that are part of
the 1988 MUTCD, but were inadvertently left out of the NPAs. The
GUIDANCE paragraph reads, ``If used, special purpose pushbuttons (to be
operated only by authorized persons) should include a housing capable
of being locked to prevent access by the general public.'' The STANDARD
paragraph reads, ``If used, a pilot light or other means of indication
installed with a pedestrian pushbutton shall not be illuminated until
actuation. Once it is actuated, it shall remain illuminated until the
pedestrian's green or WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal
indication is displayed.''
161. In Section 4E.08 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, a new
OPTION paragraph is added that allows the use of pushbutton locator
tones with accessible pedestrian signals. This is being added to
clarify the rest of the text in Section 4E.08.
Also, based on a comment, the FHWA is adding a new phrase to the
second STANDARD statement to read, ``When used, pushbutton locator
tones shall be easily locatable, shall have a duration of 0.15 seconds
or less, and shall repeat at one-second intervals.''

[[Page 78942]]

162. In Section 4E.09 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, two
commenters objected to the change in the duration of the pedestrian
clearance time being calculated to the far side of the traveled way.
The 1988 MUTCD text states the duration of the pedestrian clearance
time should be calculated to the center of the farthest traveled lane.
The proposed change would have added time to flashing DON'T WALK
intervals and would have forced many agencies to retime their traffic
signal systems. This would place an undue burden on many local and
State jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with the two commenters and is
reverting to the 1988 MUTCD text that refers to the center of the
farthest traveled lane.
Also in this section another commenter stated that a change to the
second paragraph in the STANDARD statement is needed to make the
sentence accurate. It is only the first portion of the pedestrian
clearance time that is comprised of the flashing DON'T WALK interval.
The FHWA is revising the text to make it clear that the yellow and red
intervals can also be included in the pedestrian clearance time.
163. In Section 4F.02 Design of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control
Signals, the FHWA has changed paragraph 5 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD to
be consistent with the STANDARD statement in Section 2B.40 Traffic
Signal Signs. The STANDARD in Section 2B.40 states that the R10-13
sign, bearing the legend EMERGENCY SIGNAL, shall be used with the
emergency-vehicle traffic control signal on each major street approach.
In addition, a sentence will be added to Section 4F.02, paragraph 5, to
be consistent with the GUIDANCE in Section 2B.40 that the EMERGENCY
SIGNAL sign be mounted adjacent to an overhead emergency-vehicle
traffic control signal.
164. In Section 4K.03 Warning Beacon, the FHWA is adding the phrase
``except for SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign beacons'' to the second paragraph
in the STANDARD statement to clarify that SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign
beacons are allowed to be included within the border of the sign to be
consistent with Section 7B.10.
165. In Section 4L.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks, a
commenter suggested that the third paragraph in the OPTION statement
proposed in the 1999 NPA, concerned with the placement of the lights in
the center of lanes and on lane lines be relocated to the GUIDANCE
statement. In order to provide clear recommendations to agencies
regarding the proper installation of these new optional devices, the
FHWA is making this change and also adding the phrase ``away from the
normal tire track paths'' at the end of the paragraph. The paragraph
now reads as follows: ``If used, In-Roadway Warning Lights should be
installed in the center of each travel lane, at the centerline of the
roadway, at each edge of the roadway or parking lanes, or at suitable
locations away from the normal tire track paths.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 5--Low Volume Roads

The FHWA received 231 comments from 23 commenters concerning Part
5. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64
FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.
166. A new Part 5 is added to the MUTCD entitled, ``Traffic Control
Devices for Low Volume Roads.'' After consideration, the NPA's proposed
title, ``Low Volume Rural Roads'' was revised because these roads are
not exclusive to rural areas.
167. In Section 5A.01 Function, 16 commenters requested that the
maximum volume on low volume roads be raised from the proposed 200 AADT
(average annual daily traffic) to 400 AADT. The FHWA agrees and is
adopting a maximum volume of 400 AADT because AASHTO uses 400 vehicles
per day as the breakpoint for low-volume roads in its current version
of ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets.'' \14\ Also,
recent on-going research conducted by Midwest Research Institute as
part of NCHRP 20-7(108) indicates that those geometric design
guidelines applicable to roads with AADTs of 400 vehicles per day or
less differ from geometric design guidelines normally applied to higher
volume. This change provides State and local jurisdictions with more
flexibility when installing and maintaining traffic control devices to
provide for efficient and safe traffic flow within their fiscal
restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets''
1994 Edition (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials-AASHTO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also in this section, several commenters requested a change in the
proposed definition of low volume roads which restricted these roads to
those facilities outside the corporate limits of communities. The FHWA
is changing the language to describe low volume roads as facilities
lying outside built-up areas of cities, towns and communities. The FHWA
is adopting this definition to avoid confusion caused by varying
corporate limit treatments practiced by State and local agencies.
Additionally in Section 5A.01, in the STANDARD statement, the
classification scheme for low volume roads is being changed to paved
and unpaved. This modification replaces the proposed Categories 1
through 3 in this section and throughout Part 5. Several commenters
expressed problems with applications of the proposed categories, and
the FHWA agrees that the classification change will eliminate most of
the confusion.
168. In Section 5A.03 Design, in the second paragraph of the
STANDARD statement, proposed Table 5A-1 is mentioned. The heading for
this table is changed to ``Minimum Sign Sizes for Low Volume Roads,''
and a number of signs are eliminated that typically would not be used
on low volume roads. The following signs have been removed from Part 5:

R2-3 Night Speed Limit
R3-1 Turn Prohibition
R9-1 WALK ON LEFT FACING TRAFFIC
R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION
R13-1 Weigh Station
R14-1 TRUCK ROUTE
R14-3 Hazardous Cargo Prohibition

The above changes to Table 5A-1 do not prevent a jurisdiction from
using the above signs or any other sign in the MUTCD that is
appropriate for its roadways.
Also in Table 5A-1, the FHWA has changed minimum sizes for several
signs so that all signs in the table are consistent with dimensions
published in other parts of the MUTCD. This will not impose any
additional requirement to State and local highway agencies. Minimums
for the following signs have been modified:

R1-1 STOP
W5-2 NARROW BRIDGE
W8-3 PAVEMENT ENDS
W11-(XX) Entering/Crossing
W10-2, 3, 4 Railroad Crossing Warning
W14-3 NO PASSING ZONE
W20-1 ROAD WORK XX M (FT)
W20-7a Flagger
W20-7b BE PREPARED TO STOP
W21-1a Workers
W21-6 Survey Crews

The above changes to Table 5A-1 will have no impact on State or
local jurisdictions.
169. In Section 5C.09 Motorized Traffic and Crossing Signs (W-11
Series and W8-6), the proposed section on seasonal or temporary signing
is changed from a STANDARD statement to GUIDANCE statement in the final

[[Page 78943]]

MUTCD amendment. Although it is good practice to remove or cover such
signs when the activities described will not be occurring for an
extended period of time, it is not imperative for low volume roads.
170. In Section 5E.02 Center Line Markings, the FHWA has eliminated
the proposed OPTION stating a minimum width for roadways with center
line markings. There are no definitive guidelines, supported by
research, for such minimums on low volume roads.
171. In Section 5E.05 Object Markers, the FHWA has changed the
proposed first phrase of the GUIDANCE statement to an OPTION statement
for when to consider to use TYPE III barricades to mark the end of a
low volume road. Commenters pointed out that such barriers are
typically not warranted for low volume roads and should not be
recommended as a general treatment for such facilities.The FHWA agrees
because no supporting data has been presented showing that the
barricades are needed on all low volume roads.
172. In Section 5F.05 Pavement Markings, the proposed STANDARD
statement is removed as it only directed readers to Sections 8B.9 and
8B.10. The proposed SUPPORT statement is changed to GUIDANCE on when to
install pavement markings in advance of highway-rail grade crossings on
low-volume roads. The FHWA agrees with the commenters who suggested
that on a paved road with center line markings, the unfamiliar motorist
would have no knowledge of the low AADT and, therefore, would expect
highway-rail grade crossing markings. These markings should increase
safety at these highway-rail grade crossings. This should have no
impact on State or local jurisdictions because this is not a change
from the current MUTCD requirements.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 6--Temporary Traffic
Control

The FHWA received 2875 comments from 56 commenters concerning Part
6. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64
FR 73606 on December 30, 1999.
173. The title of Part 6 is changed from ``Standards and Guides for
Traffic Controls for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance,
Utility, and Incident Management Operations'' to ``Temporary Traffic
Control'' as indicated in the NPA.
174. In Chapter 6A General, the FHWA has moved a portion of the
STANDARD from the end of Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles because it
applies to all Chapters of Part 6. The moved portion reads, ``There
shall be adequate statutory authority for the implementation and
enforcement of needed traffic regulations, parking controls, speed
zoning, and incident management. Such statutes shall provide sufficient
flexibility in the application of traffic control to meet the needs of
changing conditions in the temporary traffic control zone.''
175. In Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic
Control, paragraph 3b of the GUIDANCE statement, a number of commenters
suggested the need to indicate conditions under which permanent traffic
control devices do not have to be removed in a temporary traffic
control zone. The FHWA is retaining language similar to that used in
the 1988 MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993, which clearly
indicated which traffic control devices to be used. The last sentence
reads, ``However, in intermediate-term stationary, short term and
mobile operations where visible permanent devices are inconsistent with
intended travel paths, devices that highlight or emphasize the
appropriate path should be used.''
In Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic Control,
paragraph 4c of the GUIDANCE statement, a commenter suggested the need
to describe ambient conditions factors. The FHWA is retaining the
modifiers ``road user volumes, light, and weather'' from the 1988
Edition of MUTCD, Revision 3 to describe ambient conditions. This
change should have no impact on State or local highway agencies since
the FHWA is retaining the current MUTCD requirements.
176. In Section 6C.01 Temporary Traffic Control Plans, the FHWA is
adding a fourth GUIDANCE statement to provide additional information on
minimizing the need to reduce speed limits in temporary traffic control
zones. It reads, ``Reduced speed limits should be used only in the
specific portion of the temporary traffic control zone where the above
conditions or restrictive features are present; however, frequent
changes in speed limit should be avoided. A traffic control plan should
be designed so that vehicles can safely travel through the temporary
traffic control zone with a speed limit reduction of no more than 10
mph. A reduction of more than 10 mph in the speed limit should be used
only when required by restrictive features in the temporary traffic
control zone. Where restrictive features justify a speed reduction of
more than 10 mph, additional driver notification should be provided.
The speed limit should be stepped down in advance of the location
requiring the lowest speed, and additional warning should be used.''
This change will have no economic impact on State and local highway
agencies. However, roadway safety and efficiency should increase
because research has shown that speed reductions should be no more than
a 10 mph increment.
177. A new Section 6C.02 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, is added
to the MUTCD to better define temporary traffic control zones. It
contains only general information concerned with temporary traffic
control zones. A new definition for ``temporary traffic control zones''
includes a work area or an incident area. In the NPA this text was
included as part of the Section 6C-2 Components of Temporary Traffic
Control Zones. This change is not adding any new requirements for State
or local jurisdictions.
178. Section 6C.03 Components of Temporary Traffic Control Zones
(referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.2) includes information concerned
exclusively with the four components of a temporary traffic control
zone, i.e., the advance warning area, the transition area, the activity
area, and the termination area. The examples of a work zone area and an
incident area are removed from this Section 6C.2 and relocated to
Chapter 6G which is concerned with types of temporary traffic control
zone activities. In the NPA, the text of Sections 6C.02 and 6C.03 was
combined into just one section and four commenters suggested that the
NPA language was too cumbersome and recommended that the text be split.
The FHWA agrees and has made the change to clarify the text.
179. In Section 6C.06 Activity Area (referenced in the NPA as
Section 6C.5), Table 6-1, ``Guidelines for Length of Minimum Advance
Working Area,'' was incorrectly titled and located in the NPA. The FHWA
is renumbering the table as Table 6E-1, is moving the table to Section
6E.05 Flagger Stations, and re-titling it ``Distance of Flagger Station
in Advance of Work Space.'' This table provides information on the
distance a flagger should be in advance of the work area based on the
speed of approaching traffic. The information in the table has nothing
to do with Activity Areas and lengths of minimum advance working areas.
180. In Section 6C.07 Termination Area (referenced in the NPA as
Section 6C.6), the FHWA has changed the first SUPPORT statement to a
STANDARD as the statement is a definition, and definitions are by their
very nature STANDARDS.

[[Page 78944]]

The GUIDANCE statement dealing with END ROAD WORK signs has been
moved to Section 6F.49 END ROAD WORK Sign (G20-2) as it most
appropriately goes in the section that describes the sign and not in
this section discussing a termination area.
In place of the GUIDANCE statement, an OPTION statement has been
added to this section indicating the need for an END ROAD WORK, speed
limit, or other sign to indicate to road users that they may resume
normal operations. The above changes were made to be consistent
throughout the MUTCD and to add guidance to optimize road user
performance in temporary traffic control zones.
181. In Section 6C.08 Tapers (referenced in the NPA as Section
6C.7), in the sixth proposed SUPPORT statement regarding a One-Lane,
Two-Way Taper, the last sentence, ``Typically, traffic is controlled by
a flagger or temporary traffic control signal.'' Seven commenters
suggested the need that this and other sections be more specific on
providing temporary traffic control for two-way traffic using a one-
lane roadway. The FHWA agrees and has changed the text accordingly. The
text is being revised and relocated to the sixth GUIDANCE statement in
the MUTCD because anywhere two-way traffic is moved in a one-lane of a
road, there needs to be some type of temporary traffic control to
maintain traffic flow and safety. The GUIDANCE statement reads,
``Traffic should be controlled by a flagger or temporary traffic signal
(if sight distance is limited), or a STOP or a YIELD sign.'' This
change should have no impact on State and local jurisdictions while
improving road user safety by providing positive direction to road
users during temporary traffic control operations.
182. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control (referenced
in the NPA as Section 6C.9), the FHWA is changing the first proposed
GUIDANCE statement indicating the need for some type of temporary
traffic control for one-lane, two-way traffic flow operations to a
STANDARD. Anywhere two-way traffic is moved in a one-lane of a road,
there needs to be some type of temporary traffic control to maintain
traffic flow and safety. This change should have no impact on State and
local jurisdictions while improving road user safety by providing
positive direction to road users during temporary traffic control
operations.
183. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the proposed third
STANDARD statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement because there are
no acceptable measures to judge ``when pedestrians are especially
vulnerable to impact by errant vehicles, all pedestrians shall be
separated and protected by a temporary barrier.'' Three commenters
recommended this change and the FHWA agrees. The fifth GUIDANCE
statement now reads, ``When pedestrian and motor vehicle paths are
rerouted to a closer proximity to each other, consideration should be
given to separating them with a temporary barrier.'' This will provide
more flexibility to State and local highway agencies and, thereby,
reducing the impacts on them.
Also in this section, the first STANDARD statement is relocated
from the end of proposed Section 6D.2 Worker Considerations, because it
is applicable to both pedestrian and worker safety. These changes were
based on comments from the NCUTCD as well as other commenters. The FHWA
agrees and it now reads, ``the various traffic control provisions for
pedestrian and worker safety set forth in this Part shall be applied by
qualified persons after appropriate evaluation and engineering
judgment.''
184. In Section 6E.01 Qualifications for Flaggers, the FHWA is
changing the first proposed SUPPORT sentence to a STANDARD as the
statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature
STANDARDS.
185. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the proposed
statement ``When flashing lights are used at night, the illumination
shall not blind drivers.'' was questioned by three commenters because
there no acceptable measures to determine this. The FHWA agrees and has
removed the statement from the second GUIDANCE of this section.
In the second STANDARD the word ``red'' was inadvertently left out
of the NPA. The STANDARD now reads, ``When used at nighttime, flags
shall be retroreflectorized red.'' This is identical wording to that in
the 1988 Edition of MUTCD, Revision 3. This should have no impact on
State or local governments since the FHWA is retaining the current
requirements.
186. In Section 6F.01 Types of Devices, the proposed first SUPPORT
statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement and revised to read, ``The
design and application of temporary traffic control devices used in
temporary traffic control zones should consider the needs of all road
users.'' This change is made to emphasize the need to consider all road
users, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and railroads as well as motor
vehicle traffic, when designing and applying traffic control devices.
187. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA
has added an OPTION statement which retains language from the 1988
MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993, that allows the use of non-
black on orange pedestrian warning signs in work zones. The new OPTION
statement reads, ``In order to maintain the systematic use of yellow or
fluorescent yellow-green background for pedestrian, bicycle, and school
warning signs in a jurisdiction, the yellow or fluorescent yellow-green
background for pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs may be
used in temporary traffic control zones.'' This OPTION is modified to
include the fluorescent yellow-green color because many jurisdictions
have adopted this optional warning sign color for pedestrian, bicyclist
and school facilities and locations. In addition, this provides more
flexibility to State and local highway agencies to increase awareness
of pedestrians and bicyclists in temporary traffic control zones.
188. In Section 6F.03 Sign Placement, the FHWA is adding the
GUIDANCE statement, ``Neither portable nor permanent sign supports
should be located on sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or areas designated for
pedestrian or bicycle traffic.'' The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety commented on this omission that would allow the placement of
temporary traffic control signs to hinder the movement of pedestrians
and bicyclists. The FHWA agrees and this should not have an impact on
State or local governments.
189. In Section 6F.09 LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY Signs (R-11-3, R11-4), the
FHWA is changing the first STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE statement
to provide more flexibility in signing in rural communities where the
temporary traffic control zone may be within a residential block and
not kilometers (miles) down a road without intersections.
190. Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function (as referenced in the NPA)
has been combined with Section 6F.16 Warning Sign Design and
Application (as referenced in the NPA), and renamed, ``Section 6F.15
Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application.'' These changes were
made because the FHWA agrees with the comments from six commenters that
the material in the two sections really belongs together.
Also in Section 6F.15, the STANDARD statement and GUIDANCE
statement proposed in the NPA concerning flexible signs are removed as
these items are adequately addressed in Section 6F.02 Signs, and in
Section 6F.03 Sign Placement. Five commenters indicated this overlap.
191. Section 6F.16 Position of Advance Warning Sign (referenced as

[[Page 78945]]

Section 6F.17 in the NPA) has been combined with Section 6F.18 Other
Advance Warning Signs (as referenced in the NPA) and Section 6F.19
Application of Warning Signs for Maintenance, Minor Road Work, and
Utility Sites (as referenced in the NPA) and has been moved and named,
``Section 6F.16 Position of Advance Warning Signs.'' These changes were
made because the FHWA agrees with the five commenters that indicated
the overlap in technical issues in these three sections.
192. In Section 6F.20 ONE LANE ROAD Sign (W20-4) (referenced in the
NPA as Section 6F.23), the FHWA has moved to Section 6C.10 One-Lane,
Two-Way Traffic Control, the proposed GUIDANCE statement concerning how
to temporarily control two-way traffic on a one-lane roadway. This
GUIDANCE statement has been reworded to read, ``If traffic on the
affected one-lane roadway is not visible from one end to the other,
then flagging procedures or traffic signal control should be used to
control alternate traffic flows.'' This GUIDANCE has been clarified and
is more appropriately placed in Section 6C.10.
193. In Section 6F.28 EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED signs (E5-2)
(referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.31), one commenter suggested that
a complementary sign, EXIT CLOSED (E5-2a), was inadvertently left out
of the NPA. The FHWA agrees and has included this sign in this section
as an OPTION. In temporary traffic control work zones in and around
interchanges it is important to provide current traveler information
such as notifying motorists that an exit is, in fact, closed. This
change provides for uniformity for signs used at exit locations and
will have no impact on State or local highway agencies.
194. In Section 6F.52 Portable Changeable Message Signs (referenced
in the NPA as Section 6F.55), the FHWA is changing the first SUPPORT
statement to a STANDARD statement as the statement is a definition and
definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS. The statement is
revised to read, ``Portable Changeable Message Signs are traffic
control devices with the flexibility to display a variety of messages.
Each message consists of either one or two phases, only. Typically, a
phase consists of up to three lines of eight characters per line.''
195. In Section 6F.53 ARROW PANELS (referenced in the NPA as
Section 6F.56), the FHWA is changing the first proposed SUPPORT
statement in the NPA to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition and
definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.
Additionally, since arrow panels are similar to portable changeable
message signs, the FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE statement to Section 6F.53
identical to the GUIDANCE statement for locating and providing
protection for portable changeable message signs. The GUIDANCE
statement reads, ``An arrow panel should be placed on the shoulder of
the roadway or, if practical, further from the traveled lane. It should
be delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic control devices or
when within the clear zone, shielded with a barrier or crash cushion.
When an arrow panel is not being used, it should be removed; if not
removed, shielded; or if the previously two options are not feasible,
delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic control devices.''
This GUIDANCE will maintain traffic flow efficiency and improve safety.
196. In Section 6F.55 Channelizing Devices, Subsection A General
(referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.58), the FHWA changed the second
paragraph of the second SUPPORT paragraph in the NPA ``Standard designs
of channelizing devices are shown in Figure 6F-06,'' to a STANDARD at
the beginning of the section. The design dimensions in Figure 6F-06
have always been STANDARDS. One commenter pointed out this discrepancy.
Also in this section, in Subsection D Vertical Panels, the
requirement that vertical ``panel strip widths shall be 150 mm (6 in),
except where panel heights are less than 900 mm (36 in), then 100 mm (4
in) stripes may be used'' was inadvertently reversed in the NPA. The
FHWA has corrected this wording making it similar to that in the1988
MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993. Since this change is keeping
the current requirements of the MUTCD, there is no impact on State or
local highway agencies.
Additionally, Subsection G Direction Indicator Barricade, the FHWA
has changed the proposed first GUIDANCE statement to an OPTION
statement to read: ``The Direction Indicator Barricade may be used in
tapers, transitions, and other areas where specific directional
guidance to motorists is necessary.'' Direction indicator barricades do
not have to always be used in these situations. This provides State and
local highway agencies more flexibility in selecting temporary traffic
control devices for work zones.
Subsection J Opposing Traffic Lane Divider, is more appropriately
relocated to this section from proposed Section 6F.67 as referenced in
the NPA because it provides directional guidance to motorists.
197. In Section 6F.69 Lighting Devices, Subsection D(4) Warning
Lights (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.60), the FHWA relocated to
this Subsection a GUIDANCE statement from Figure TA-34 and Figure TA-
36. The GUIDANCE statement reads, ``The maximum spacing for warning
lights should be identical to the channelizing device spacing
requirements.'' This GUIDANCE is applicable to any situation where
lighting devices are used, not just in the two typical application
Figures.
The FHWA is moving the SUPPORT statement (referenced in the NPA as
Subsection D(4) Flashing Beacon (Vehicle Mounted)) ``During normal
daytime maintenance operations, the functions of flashing warning
beacons are adequately provided by rotating lights or strobe lights on
a maintenance vehicle'' to the beginning of the Section. Furthermore,
the FHWA is retaining a STANDARD statement, ``The use of the vehicle
hazard warning lights shall not be used instead of rotating lights or
strobe lights'' and an OPTION statement, ``The vehicle hazard warning
lights may only supplement the rotating lights or strobe lights'' to
clarify the intent of `rotating lights or strobe lights'. The STANDARD
and OPTION statements were added to MUTCD in January 9, 1997, and were
inadvertently omitted in the NPA.
198. In Section 6F.74 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (referenced
in the NPA as Section 6F.61), the first GUIDANCE is revised to read:
``When temporary traffic control signals are used, conflict monitors
that are typically used in traditional traffic signal operations should
be used.'' This was corrected because the spacing between traffic
signal installations, as proposed in the NPA, has nothing to do with
the need for a conflict monitor. This has no impact on State or local
governments since the FHWA is retaining existing MUTCD requirements.
199. In Section 6F.75 Temporary Traffic Barriers (referenced in the
NPA as Section 6F.62), the FHWA is changing a GUIDANCE statement to a
STANDARD statement. The statement reads, ``In order to mitigate the
effect of striking the end of a temporary traffic barrier, the end
shall be installed in accordance with the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
by flaring until the end is outside the acceptable clear zone or by
providing with crashworthy end treatments.'' This requirement should
improve safety because research indicates that there are no acceptable
methods of providing the required

[[Page 78946]]

degree of safety other than flaring or providing crashworthy end
treatments.
200. In Section 6F.76 Crash Cushions, Subsection B Truck-Mounted
Attenuators, the second proposed SUPPORT statement is changed to a
STANDARD in the new MUTCD as the statement is a definition of ``truck-
mounted attenuators'' and definitions are by their very nature
STANDARDS.
Under this same Subsection B, the proposed the first STANDARD
statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement in the new MUTCD to
provide more flexibility in the spacing of the shadow vehicle behind
the workers and their work vehicles.
201. In Section 6G.05 Work Outside of Shoulder (referenced in the
NPA as Section 6G.6), the FHWA has changed to an OPTION statement the
GUIDANCE statement which reads, ``Where the activity is spread out over
a distance of more than 3.2 km (2 mi), the sign should be repeated
every 1.6 km (1 mi).'' Since the work being performed is outside the
shoulder, there may not always be a need to install signs that
frequently. This will provide more flexibility to State and local
highway agencies.
202. In Section 6G.06 Work on the Shoulder With No Encroachment
(referenced as Section 6G.7, Subsection B in the NPA), the GUIDANCE
statement ``Truck off-tracking should be considered when determining
whether the minimum lane width of 3 m (10 ft) is adequate'' from Figure
TA-43 has been added to Section 6G.06 Subsection B Minor Encroachment
on the Traveled Way. It is in this Subsection that minimum lane widths
are discussed and accounting for truck off-tracking is applicable to
all temporary traffic control zones with minimum lane widths.
203. Section 6G.08 Work Within the Median, is added to the new
MUTCD as a separate section. It was referenced in the NPA as the
GUIDANCE statement under Section 6G.3. The new section reads, ``If work
in the median of a divided highway is within 4.5 m (15 ft) from the
edge of the traveled way for either direction of travel, traffic
control should be used through the use of advance warning signs and
channelization devices.'' This change provides for improved road user
safety in temporary traffic control work zones.
204. In Section 6G.10 Work Within Traveled Way of Urban Streets,
Subsection B. Bicyclists, the FHWA is changing a proposed SUPPORT
statement to a STANDARD statement to ensure that bicyclists are
accommodated during a temporary traffic control zone. The statement
reads, ``If the work area affects the movement of bicyclists, adequate
access to the roadway, bicycle path, or shared-use path shall be
provided. For details on controlling bicycle traffic, see Part 9.''
This change should provide for increased safety for bicyclist in
temporary traffic control work zones and has no significant impact on
State or local government agencies.
205. In Section 6G.18 Work in the Vicinity of Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings, a new GUIDANCE statement is added to read, ``Early
coordination with the railroad company should occur before work
starts.'' As it is important that all users of the work area are aware
of temporary changes and for continued highway-rail grade crossing
operations. This early coordination should improve road user operations
and improve safety while having no economic impact on State and local
highway agencies.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 7--Traffic Controls for
School Areas

The FHWA received 156 comments from 20 commenters concerning Part
7. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 62 FR 64324
on December 5, 1997.
206. In Section 7A.01, the Typical School Route Plan Map (Figure
7A-1) is revised as proposed in the NPA. Several comments were received
suggesting modifications to the figure. The figure has been enlarged
and printed in color to better identify signals and stop signs. The
arrow heads reflecting direction of travel are enlarged. Traffic
control devices are added where intersecting streets meet the collector
road.
The FHWA received no negative comments regarding our proposal to
include middle and high schools in the development plans for school
routes. This amendment to Section 7A.01, paragraph 6, adopts the
following GUIDANCE: ``A school route plan for each school serving
elementary to high school students should be prepared * * *.''
The amendment to Section 7A.01, paragraph 8, requires the traffic
control devices in the school plan to be related to the volume and
speed of vehicle traffic, street width, and the number and age of
children using the crossing. There were no negative comments to this
change.
207. The FHWA received two comments that objected to the deletion
of the text found in Sections 7A.05 through 7A.10, 7B.01 through 7B.04,
7B.07, and 7B.08 of the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA believes that retaining
this text is not necessary with the new layout of the MUTCD, because
this information is provided in other sections.
208. Six comments were received on the proposed text in Section
7B.01 which found the sign size terminology confusing. Based on these
comments, the heading is revised to read ``Size of School Signs.'' The
FHWA received no other negative comments regarding this amendment.
However, there were three comments regarding Table 7B-1 ``Size of
School Area Signs and Plaques.'' One comment suggested using
``centimeters'' to display metric units. In a final rule published at
64 FR 33751 on June 24, 1999, the FHWA adopted two American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials publications for the
design of traffic control devices for use on all roads open to public
travel. These documents use millimeters, not ``centimeters.'' Another
comment noted that the proposed table was not in agreement with the
``Standard Highway Signs'' book.\15\ This book is also undergoing
revision. The FHWA will ensure that there are no conflicts with sign
sizes shown in both publications. There was a comment regarding the
``older driver'' issue of sign size and legibility. The FHWA believes
this issue is adequately covered in the OPTION statement that reads:
``The `special' sized sign may be used for applications that require
increased emphasis, improved recognition or increased legibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the 1988 MUTCD. It is available for purchase from
the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O.
Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for
inspection and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all
FHWA Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on comments received, the OPTION statement has been expanded
to define where the minimum size signs are used.
209. A new section, 7B.07 Sign Color for School Warning Signs, is
added that addresses the optional use of the color fluorescent yellow
green for school warning signs. This amendment was adopted in a final
rule published at 63 FR 33546 on June 19, 1998. The FHWA has included
this OPTION for use of the color and GUIDANCE that addresses the
systematic approach for the use of this color.
210. Section 7B.08 School Advance Warning Sign (S1-1) was
referenced in the NPA as Section 7B.07 School Advance Warning Sign (S1-
1). Section 7B.09 School Crosswalk Warning Assembly (S1-1 with Diagonal
Arrow) was referenced in the NPA as Section 7B.08 School Crosswalk
Warning Sign

[[Page 78947]]

(S2-1). The text for both sections is modified to be consistent with
Section 2C.36 which discusses a new application for advance crossing
and crossing signs. The FHWA is eliminating the crosswalk lines on the
crossing signs since road user comprehension studies show that they
generally do not know the difference between the two signs. Instead of
using crosswalk lines within the sign to indicate where the actual
crossing is located, the new application consists of a crossing sign
with supplemental downward pointing arrow plaque to show the crossing
location. For advance crossing situations, the new application will
consist of a crossing sign supplemented with an ``Ahead'' or ``XX
feet'' plaque. This assembly shall be used in advance of the first
installation of the School Speed Limit Sign assembly. The FHWA believes
that the supplemental plaques must be used (not optional) to ensure
safety of children at crosswalks in school zones. The FHWA is providing
a phase-in compliance period of 10 years after the effective date of
this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and
local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of
existing signs after their normal service life. This change is
effective immediately for new sign installations.
211. In Section 7B.09, paragraph 4, under the GUIDANCE statement,
new text recommends that an engineering study should be conducted
before installing the School Crosswalk Warning Sign. No commenters
objected to this amendment. However, as mentioned above, the sign is
now referred to as the School Crosswalk Warning Assembly sign.
212. Section 7B.11 changes the title to ``School Speed Limit
Assembly (S4-1, S4-2, S4-3, S4-4, S5-1).'' The FHWA is adopting this
amendment based on two comments received indicating that this section
describes the complete assembly of signs that make up a school speed
limit sign, not just the plates. The FHWA concurs with this
recommendation.
Also in Section 7B.11, one commenter suggested moving the text for
the ``End School Zone'' (S5-2) sign to a separate section, since it is
a separate sign from the others found in 7B.11. This text is moved to
new Section 7B.13.
213. The title of Section 7B.12 is changed to ``School Reduced
Speed Ahead Assembly.'' This amendment is based on one comment received
suggesting changing the title to better reflect the actual sign used
and illustrated. The appropriate text is also modified to reflect this
change.
214. One comment was received for Section 7B.14 Parking and
Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series), suggesting that ``No Standing''
signs be addressed as an example. The FHWA agrees with this suggestion
and a discussion is included in paragraph 2.
Figure 7-2, ``Placement of the S1-1 sign'' which was shown in the
1988 MUTCD, is deleted based on three comments that pointed out that
this subject is covered in Section 2C, and revised Figure 7B-1
``Typical Signing for School Area Traffic Control'' that is depicted in
this Final Rule. The FHWA has renumbered the remaining figures
appropriately.
The revised Figure 7B-1 is corrected to reflect the assembly signs
with the diagonal arrow and the ``AHEAD'' and ``XX FEET'' plaques as
discussed in Sections 7B.08 and 7B.09. The figure has also been
expanded to show the metric versions of the speed limit signs along
with English units.
215. In Section 7C Markings, four commenters indicated conflict
with the text in Part 3 Markings. The FHWA has amended the text for
consistency with Part 3.
216. A GUIDANCE statement in Section 7C.04 Stop Line Markings,
paragraph 1, is adopted for the placement of a Stop line in the absence
of a marked crosswalk.
217. This amendment to Section 7C.06, the OPTION statement,
clarifies that the ``SCHOOL'' word markings may extend across two
lanes. (See Figure 7C-1). In the proposed text, this OPTION was
inadvertently shown in the GUIDANCE discussion, and was brought to
FHWA's attention by a docket comment.
218. In Chapter 7D Signals, the text is deleted and the reader is
referred to Part 4 Signals, Section 4C.06 School Crossing Signal
Warrant. The FHWA only received one comment in opposition to this
change.
219. Chapter 7E Crossing Supervision deletes the discussion on
legal authority for adult guards and student patrols since the state
and local agencies are responsible for establishing laws regarding
these crossing supervisors. There were no objections received on this
change.
220. This amendment to Section 7E.04, paragraph 2, is based on a
comment that the FHWA received indicating that mentioning ``daytime,
nighttime, and twilight hours,'' and the reference to Section 6E.03 is
redundant. The FWHA agrees and the reference to ``daytime, nighttime,
and twilight hours'' is deleted.
The FHWA is also amending the text in the last paragraph of Section
7E.04 to include ``police officers'' in addition to adult guards and
student patrols in wearing high-visibility retroreflective material or
clothing, since police officers may be used for crossing supervision as
mentioned in Section 7E.06.
221. The discussion on the use and size of the Stop paddle in
Section 7E.05, paragraph 2, is changed the from OPTION to GUIDANCE. It
was also suggested that the STANDARD in paragraph 3 be modified to
indicate that the paddles should be ``at least'' 450mm (18 in). The
FHWA agrees and is adopting this change. This would then allow the use
of a larger paddle. Paragraph 3 is also modified to require the word
``STOP'' on both sides of the paddle instead of ``one or both sides''
since it is important for traffic to read and respond to this command
from both directions of travel.
222. Section 7E.10 High Visibility Clothing has been eliminated
since this text is a duplicate to that stated in Section 7E.04.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 8--Traffic Controls for
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

The FHWA received 412 comments from 52 commenters concerning Part
8. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at
64 FR 691 on January 6, 1997 and at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.
223. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, commenters from 4 States and 1
county recommended that the last sentence in Paragraph 3 of the 1999
NPA, a SUPPORT statement, be changed to reflect that the responsibility
for determining the need and selection of devices at a grade crossing
should be shared with the highway agency, the regulatory agency, and
the railroad company, instead of just resting with the highway agency.
The FHWA and the Federal Railroad Administration have reviewed Federal
law, regulations, and guidance and found that although they encourage
voluntary railroad involvement (as members of diagnostic teams where
Federal funds are involved) in the analysis of need for and type of
protection, they do not impose on railroads the responsibility to make,
or share in making, determinations of need for or selection of traffic
control devices. Therefore, the FHWA is not making the suggested
changes.
224. The FHWA is changing the title for Section 8A.05 from
``Traffic Controls in Work Zones During Construction or Maintenance,''
to ``Temporary Traffic

[[Page 78948]]

Control,'' to be consistent with Part 6 of this Manual.
225. In proposed Section 8A.08 Private Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings, a State commented that paragraph 4 in the GUIDANCE statement
containing a recommendation to evaluate a private crossing by means of
an engineering study to determine possible closure or the appropriate
type of traffic control, be downgraded to OPTION or deleted. The FHWA
has decided to delete this section on Private Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings. The Federal Railroad Administration will be addressing the
private highway-rail grade crossing issue in an upcoming safety
inquiry.
226. In Section 8B.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign
(R15-1, R15-2), the FHWA has added a STANDARD statement (as proposed in
the 1999 NPA) to require the placement of a strip of retroreflective
white material on the back of each Crossbuck sign for the length of
each blade, except where Crossbuck signs are installed back-to-back.
The FHWA also added a STANDARD statement (as proposed in the 1999 NPA)
to require the placement of a strip of retroreflective white material
on the front and back of each Crossbuck support. The FHWA is providing
a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing installations to
minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This
change takes effect immediately for all new installations.
227. In Section 8B.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning
Signs, a State recommended the continued inclusion of the phrase,
``Where physical conditions do not permit even a partially effective
display of the sign,'' under the STANDARD statement. The FHWA agrees
and is including this item, which is one of the exceptions to the
mandated use of the W10-1 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning
sign, because it is still relevant.
In response to a comment, the FHWA is upgrading the proposed last
paragraph of Section 8B.03 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD and placing it as
Item A in the first paragraph of this section. This item will require
the use of the W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4 sign on the parallel highway when
the parallel highway is less than 100 feet from the railroad track.
In response to another commenter, the FHWA is adding the phrase
``(using the speed of the turning maneuver)'' to paragraph 4, STANDARD,
to clarify what speed to use to determine placement distance on the
parallel highway for the W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4 advance warning signs.
228. In Section 8B.06 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS Sign, paragraph 1,
GUIDANCE, the FHWA is changing ``engineering study'' to ``engineering
judgment'' because engineering experience and familiarity with local
traffic and geometric conditions is sufficient to determine whether the
potential for vehicles stopping on tracks is high.
229. In Section 8B.12 NO SIGNAL Sign, a State, a county, and the
Association of American Railroads commented on the inclusion of the NO
SIGNAL sign in the MUTCD. They believe that the sign does not convey
any needed information and just adds to sign clutter. The FHWA is
retaining this optional sign because of comments from members of
Congress and the FHWA's desire to provide warning to the road user that
the crossing does not have active warning devices. In addition, no
jurisdiction is required to install this sign. However, if a
jurisdiction determines it is needed, this is a standard sign it may
use.
230. The FHWA decided to change the sequence of sections near the
end of Chapter 8B so that all signs are discussed first, then pavement
markings for better continuity. The headings for Sections 8B.14, 8B.15,
8B.16, 8B.17, and 8B.18 now read as follows:

8B.14 Low Ground Clearance Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Sign (W10-5)
8B.15 Storage Space Signs (W10-11, W10-11a, W10-11b)
8B.16 Pavement Markings
8B.17 Stop Lines
8B.18 Dynamic Envelope Delineation

231. In Section 8B.14 Low Ground Clearance Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Sign (W10-15) (referenced in the NPA as Section 8B.16),
several commenters suggested relocation of text concerning a hang-up of
long wheelbase vehicles or trailers with low ground clearance from the
STANDARD statement to the GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA moved the text
because there are no established means for determining which crossings
will create a hang-up of long wheelbase vehicles or trailers with low
ground clearance.
232. In Section 8B.15 Storage Space Signs (referenced in the NPA as
Section 8A.7), commenters from a State and a county remarked that the
W10-11 Storage Space sign does not convey the information that there is
limited space beyond the crossing. The FHWA agrees that the GUIDANCE
should include the use of the W10-11a word message ``storage distance''
sign in conjunction with the W10-11 sign. Another commenter stated that
the letter size on the W10-11a sign with four lines of text on a 24''
by 24'' (600 mm by 600 mm) panel will not be large enough to be legible
to drivers at normal highway speeds. The FHWA agrees and is including a
drawing of the W10-11a as a 30" by 36" (750 mm by 900 mm) sign with a
4-inch letter size in the MUTCD and in the Standard Highway Signs
manual.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the FHWA is adding a new W10-11b word message storage
distance sign as an OPTION to remind motorists of the storage distance
space between the intersection and the tracks behind them.
233. In Section 8B.18 Dynamic Envelope Delineation (referenced in
the NPA as Section 8A.6), a railroad company commented that the use of
dynamic envelope delineation markings should be made an OPTION instead
of GUIDANCE. There were a number of other comments about these markings
being mistaken for stop lines, about how far from the tracks the
markings should be placed, and the design of the markings.
One State requested that the entire section be deleted. Because of
the comments and lack of real-world experience with these markings, the
FHWA is changing this section to an OPTION until research on this
concept is done. The FHWA would appreciate the assistance of the State
and local jurisdictions that use these markings in determining their
effectiveness.
234. In Section 8D.01 Introduction, the U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Compliance Board requested that a number of provisions
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) be
complied with when a ``pedestrian circulation route'' crosses a
railroad track. The FHWA is adding a new GUIDANCE paragraph that reads,
``If a pedestrian route is provided, sufficient clearance from
supports, posts, and gate mechanisms should be maintained for
pedestrian travel.''
235. In Section 8D.03, the FHWA is changing the title from
``Flashing-Light Signals, Cantilevered Supported'' to ``Flashing-Light
Signals, Overhead Structures'' because flashing-light signals are not
only mounted on cantilevered supports, but also on overhead structures
that extend over the entire width of the roadway.
236. In Section 8D.04 Automatic Gates, a comment was received on
using medians at grade crossings that do not have four-quadrant gates.
The FHWA agrees that text regarding median islands, which is adequately
covered in

[[Page 78949]]

Section 8D.05 in conjunction with four-quadrant gates, should also be
covered in this section for automatic gates in general. The FHWA is
adding a new OPTION paragraph to Section 8D.04 that reads, ``Automatic
gate installations may include median islands between opposing lanes on
an approach to a highway-rail grade crossing.''
237. Several comments were received on Section 8D.04, paragraph 4
in the 1999 NPA, GUIDANCE, and Section 8D.05, paragraph 5 in the 1999
NPA, GUIDANCE, that pointed out the paragraphs had both a ``shall'' and
a ``should'' in the same sentence. They requested the FHWA change the
``should'' to a ``shall,'' thus making the entire sentence a STANDARD.
The FHWA agrees that the gate going back to its upright position after
the train is gone be mandatory, not just recommended, and is changing
this sentence to a STANDARD, and therefore the ``should'' to a
``shall.'' Those submitting comments also wanted to delete the 12-
second time period, but the FHWA is retaining the 12-second time period
as GUIDANCE.
238. In Section 8D.07 Traffic Control Signals at or Near Highway-
Rail Grade Crossings, paragraphs 1 and 3, the FHWA is reverting to the
STANDARD and OPTION language used in the 1988 MUTCD describing the use
of traffic signals at highway-rail grade crossings based on comments
that the proposed language was not as clear about the types of
crossings where traffic signals are appropriate. Also, a comment was
received suggesting that this section clarify that the preemption
condition should be terminated only when the crossing gates are
energized to start their upward movement. The person submitting the
comment felt clarification on preemption termination would make a
difference in responding to situations when a second train approaches
as the preemption associated with the first train is terminating. The
FHWA agrees and is inserting clarifying wording.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 9-Traffic Controls for
Bicycle Facilities

The FHWA received 357 comments from 79 commenters concerning Part
9. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802
on June 24, 1999.
239. The FHWA received no objections to deleting Sections 9A.01,
9A.04, 9A.06, 9A.07, and 9A.09. The information found in these sections
can be found in Part 1 of the MUTCD.
240. In Section 9A.03, the FHWA is modifying the definitions by
adopting the definitions published in the ``Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities,'' 1999 edition, AASHTO\17\. The term ``Shared
Roadway'' has been deleted from the definitions relating to bicycle
facilities since this term is not used in Part 9. The adoption of these
definitions was recommended by the NCUTCD and concurred in by 65
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The ``Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,''
1999 edition, AASHTO, is available for inspection as prescribed at
49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased from AASHTO, 444 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or electronically at
http://www.aashto.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

241. In Section 9A.05, the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD
and 65 other commenters to change the text related to the reference to
the ``Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance'' \18\ published
by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinance, from a
STANDARD to SUPPORT to better reflect the information included in this
section. The FHWA agrees that this change is also consistent with the
language found in Part 1 of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The ``Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance,''
1992 Revision, is published by the National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 107 S. West Street, #110, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314. It is available for inspection as prescribed at 49
CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

242. In Section 9B.01, the FHWA received no negative comments
regarding the consolidation of application and location of signs into
this section. In paragraph 5 of this section, the NCUTCD and 68 other
commenters suggested adding language discussing the maximum mounting
height of 1.5m (5 ft) which is shown in Figure 9B-1. The FHWA agrees
that this omission was an oversight and should have been stated in the
text of Section 9B.01, therefore it is reviewing this section
accordingly. In addition, there were no negative comments received
concerning the minimum mounting height remaining 1.2m (4 ft) as
reflected in Section 9B.01 paragraph 5, and Figure 9B-1.
There were several favorable comments received on Table 9B-1
``Bikeway Sign Sizes.'' Several signs have been added to the table that
were inadvertently left out of the NPA. The column reflecting sign
sizes has been modified to read ``Minimum Sign Size.'' The signs have
been reordered to reflect the order found in Part 2.
243. In Section 9B.02, the statement that sign sizes for shared use
paths should be those shown in Table 9B-1 is changed from GUIDANCE to
STANDARD since sign sizes are considered STANDARDS in other parts of
the MUTCD. An OPTION statement is added to allow the use of larger size
signs when appropriate.
Also in Section 9B.02, the OPTION statement regarding the use of
fluorescent yellow green warning signs for ``Bicycle Crossing'' warning
signs has been moved to Section 9B.15 Bicycle Crossing Warning Signs
which is a more appropriate location for this discussion.
244. In Section 9B.03, text has been added to the OPTION statement
that allows the use of larger STOP and YIELD signs when appropriate.
One commenter recommended adding GUIDANCE on assignment of priority at
path/roadway intersections and to recommend selection of appropriate
intersection control. The FHWA is adding this language to this section.
245. In Section 9B.04 (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.06 with
the Proposed title ``Preferential Bicycle Land Signs''), the title of
this section is modified to read ``Bicycle Lane Signs'' to be
consistent with the definition found in Section 9A. The word
``preferential'' is deleted throughout the text for consistency. Three
comments were received that addressed the inconsistency between this
section and Section 9C.04 Markings For Bicycle Lanes.
Two paragraphs have been added to Section 9B.04 as an OPTION
statement that addresses the use of the R3-16a and R3-17a ``Bicycle
Lane'' signs that were shown in the NPA but not addressed in the text.
The R3-16a sign may be used to notify the bicyclist that the bicycle
lane is ending. The R3-17a sign may be used to notify bicyclists that
they may encounter parked vehicles where parking is allowed.
The proposed deletion of the preferential lane symbol (diamond) for
bicycles was well received. Both the R3-16 and R3-17 signs and
appropriate figures that were proposed to be modified in the NPA, and
there were no objections to this change. The FHWA is providing a phase-
in compliance period of 5 years after the effective date of this final
rule for existing markings to minimize any impact on State and local
highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new signing
installations.
246. In Section 9B.05 (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.10 and
proposed changing the title from ``Lane Use Control Signs'' to
``Bicycle Preferential Lane-Use Control Signs''), the NCUTCD and 65
other commenters recommended changing this sign to ``Begin Right Turn
Lane Yield to Bikes Sign'' (R4-4), to better define the sign's use. A
comment was received and concurred with by 66 others that the OPTION
statement

[[Page 78950]]

should be revised to reduce redundancy and to clarify the intent of
this sign to be used at the beginning of right turn only lanes with
parallel through bicycle lanes. The FHWA is revising this section to
substitute the word ``weave'' for ``merge'' to better describe the
movements at these locations.
Also, the R3-7 sign mentioned in Section 9B.10 is not specifically
a bicycle-related sign, but is instead related to right turn only
lanes. The FHWA agrees that this sign is adequately addressed in Part
2B and is deleted from this section.
247. In Section 9B.08 (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.09), the
title is changed from ``No Parking Signs'' to ``No Parking Bicycle Lane
Signs.'' None of the commenters disagreed with this change.
One comment was received regarding the language found in the NPA
Section 9B.09 and pointed out that due to variances in State and local
laws affecting parking in bicycle lanes that this STANDARD text would
be better addressed as GUIDANCE. The FHWA disagrees with this change in
condition and is adding the text ``If the installation of signs is
necessary to restrict parking * * *'' in order to clarify that when
these signs are posted, this concept shall be followed. This addition
to the text allows flexibility and has no impact on State and local
jurisdictions.
248. In Section 9B.09 Bicycle Regulatory Signs (referenced in the
NPA as Section 9B.05 Bicycle Restriction Signs), several commenters
recommended changing the title and text to ``Bicycle Regulatory Signs''
since these signs are more appropriately noted as regulatory signs, not
specifically as restriction signs. The FHWA agrees with this
recommendation and is changing the title. It was also suggested that
text be added to the OPTION statement in Section 9B.09 to address the
use of the R10-3 sign at locations without pedestrian signals. The FHWA
agrees and is adding this OPTION. The GUIDANCE statement is modified
deleting the phrase ``where bicyclists are expected to dismount and
walk with pedestrians while crossing the street'' since the State's law
or Uniform Vehicle Code may not require bicyclists to dismount.
249. The proposed amendment to Section 9B.10 recommended changing
the name of this sign from ``Travelpath Restriction Signs'' to
``Shared-Use Path Restriction Sign.'' None of the commenters disagreed
with this change. The proposed change is adopted.
250. A new Section 9B.11 Other Regulatory Signs is added after it
was suggested that there are other regulatory signs that may be
applicable to shared use paths and other bicycle facilities.
251. Several comments were received on the text regarding
Intersection Warning Signs in Section 9B.13 (proposed as Section
9B.14). The text was in conflict with that found in Section 2C.33. The
text found under OPTION of Section 2C.33 has been inserted in this
section and modified to include ``shared use paths.'' Several
commenters also questioned the language in the second OPTION statement
that also conflicted with the GUIDANCE statement found in Section
2C.33. The FHWA has deleted this second OPTION and added language to be
consistent with the GUIDANCE statement found in Section 2C.33 that
states that intersection warning signs should not be used when the path
approach to the intersection has a stop, yield, or signal control.
252. In Section 9B.14, 67 commenters remarked that the word
``Hazardous'' in the Bicycle Hazardous Condition Warning sign be
changed to ``Surface'' since the word may be misinterpreted for the
warning condition ahead in the bicycle path surface. The FHWA agrees
and the sign and text is changed to read ``Bicycle Surface Condition
Warning Sign.''
It was also proposed in 9B.14 that the SLIPPERY WHEN WET plaque be
made a supplemental plaque similar to other specific surface conditions
(DIP, BUMP). The SLIPPERY WHEN WET plaque has been assigned the
designation ``W8-10p.''
253. The text in Section 9B.15 Bicycle Crossing Warning Signs has
been replaced with text that was published in Section 2C.36 which
proposed a new application for advance crossing and crossing signs. The
FHWA eliminated the crosswalk lines on the crossing signs since road
user's comprehension studies show that they generally do not know the
difference between the two signs. Instead of using crosswalk lines
within the sign to indicate where the actual crossing is located, the
FHWA is requiring a crossing sign with supplemental downward pointing
arrow plaque to show the crossing location. In an advance crossing
situation, the FHWA is requiring using a crossing sign supplemented
with an ``AHEAD'' or ``XX FEET'' plaque. The FHWA is providing a phase-
in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final
rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local
highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing
signs after their normal service life. This change is effective
immediately for new sign installation.
It was also suggested that the text in the GUIDANCE paragraph of
Section 9B.15 be revised to remove the distances stated for low and
high speed roadways and refer the reader to Table 2C-3 which states the
guidelines for advance placement of warning signs. The FHWA agrees with
this recommendation and has deleted the duplicate language.
254. In Section 9B.16, the FHWA received no negative comments on
the proposed text under OPTION, published at 62 FR 1364 on January 9,
1997. The text is modified to clarify that the Share the Road word
message plaque (W16-1) may be used in conjunction with the W11-1
Bicycle Crossing sign. One comment was received suggesting a picture of
the sign be added. This sign has been added to the page with warning
signs.
The SUPPORT paragraph found in Section 9B.20 Warning Signs is
relocated to 9B.16 Other Bicycle Warning Signs in order to consolidate
references to other warning signs.
255. In Section 9B.18 Bicycle Route Markers (referenced in the NPA
as Section 9B.17), the FHWA is changing the GUIDANCE which recommends
that the M1-8 marker should be used to establish a unique designation
for a State or local bicycle route to an OPTION. The FHWA did not
receive any comments opposing this proposal.
The NCUTCD recommended that the M1-9 Bicycle Route Marker that is
shown in the NPA be revised to be consistent with the M1-9 design
depicted in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' \19\ book. The M1-9 design
shows the route number above and the bicycle below which improves the
legibility of the route number. The FHWA agrees with this
recommendation, and has modified the M1-9 bicycle route marker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways (MUTCD). It is available for purchase from the
U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O.
Box 371954, Pittsburg, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection
and copying as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

256. In Section 9B.19 Destination Arrow and Supplemental Plaque
Signs for Bicycle Route Signs, the NCUTCD recommended that the
discussion of color of the M7-1 through M7-7 signs be stated as a
STANDARD instead of GUIDANCE. The FWHA agrees and the discussion of
sign colors is changed to a STANDARD to ensure uniformity.
257. In Figure 9B-2, the title has been revised by replacing the
word ``typical'' with ``example'' and now reads ``Example Signing for
the Beginning and

[[Page 78951]]

End of a Bicycle Route'' since this may not be considered a ``typical''
drawing. Other modifications to the figure are made on comments
received, including removing the crosswalk lines, extending the
centerline through the roadway, adding a curb line at the beginning/end
of the bicycle route, and extending the size of the arrow sign (M7-1)
to match the D11-1 sign.
258. Figure 9C-3, ``Typical Signing for the Beginning and End of a
Bikeway of a Preferential Bicycle Lane,'' is removed from the MUTCD.
The NCUTCD submitted a figure that shows recommended signing and
markings for bicycle lanes combined on one figure. The FHWA agrees with
this concept, therefore a new Figure 9C-5, ``Typical Pavement Marking
for Bicycle Lanes on Two-way Street,'' is added with accompanying text
to Chapter 9C MARKINGS.
259. The FHWA received no objections to the proposed language in
Section 9C.02 regarding pavement markings for bicycle facilities. The
text in GUIDANCE is modified to include all bicycle facilities, not
merely bicycle lanes. Also, the text in Section 9C.02 regarding
``pavement marking materials that will minimize loss of traction under
wet conditions'' is changed to a more generalized statement since some
materials may be slippery to bicyclists when dry as well as wet.
260. The FHWA received no objections to the proposal in Section
9C.03 to change the language from GUIDANCE to OPTION for using a solid
white line to separate different types of users on shared use paths.
The proposed change is adopted.
261. In Section 9C.04, the title now reads ``Markings for Bicycle
Lanes'' in order to be consistent with the revised definition of this
term. It was recommended that the word ``preferential'' be deleted
throughout Part 9 to be consistent with the language found in the
``Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,'' 1999 edition,
AASHTO.\20\ This was adopted. Also, the proposed amendment to Section
9C.04 included text requiring signs to be used with preferential lane
symbols. Commenters suggested deleting this text from this section
since it is covered in Section 9B. The FHWA believes requiring the use
of these signs is of importance and is including the proposed text in
Section 9C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The ``Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,''
1999 edition, AASHTO, is available for inspection as prescribed at
49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased from AASHTO, 444 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 2001, or electronically at
http://www.aashto.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE statement to indicate how bicycle
lanes are specifically defined by marking. This paragraph reads
``Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle
lanes.''
Also in Section 9C.04, the FHWA is changing the STANDARD so that
both markings and signs are mandatory. Use of pavement markings only
would not alert drivers to the presence of the lane to the same extent
as markings and signs together would, especially in inclement weather
conditions.
Three commenters found the language proposed in Section 9C.04
regarding the placement of bicycle lane symbols immediately after an
intersection confusing. The FHWA is revising the text to include
maximum distance between markings. The sentence reads ``If used, the
bicycle lane symbol shall be placed immediately after, but not closer
than 20m (65 ft) from the cross road, or other locations as needed.''
262. Several comments were received regarding Figure 9C-4,
``Intersection Pavement Markings--Designated Bicycle Lane with Left
Turn Area, Heavy Turn Volumes, Parking, One-way Traffic, or Divided
Roadway.'' The FHWA is adopting a figure submitted by the NCUTCD which
more clearly shows recommended signs and symbols for a bicycle lane.
Several comments were received regarding Figures 9C-7, Typical Bicycle
Lane Treatment at Parking Lane into Right Turn Only Lane'' and 9-8,
``Typical Bicycle Lane Treatment at Right Turn Only Lane.'' The figure
legends that were proposed in the NPA are revised and corrected.
263. In Section 9C.06, the FHWA is expanding the discussion of
markers on shared use paths in the STANDARD paragraph and is adding
text to be consistent with the text found in Section 3C.02.
264. The FHWA's proposal to add a separate Section 9C.07 to cover
the discussion on pavement markings used for obstruction received no
objections, however, the title is simplified to ``Pavement Markings for
Obstructions.''
The SUPPORT statement in Section 9C.07 is modified by changing the
word ``condition'' to ``obstruction'' to better define the application
of this marking. The second sentence in the statement is deleted
because such obstruction may not always be visible to bicyclists, and
may lead to the marking not being used in locations where it is
appropriate.
The GUIDANCE statement in Section 9C.07 is revised to make the
marking applicable to obstructions other than drainage grates, and to
specify that such markings should be used specifically for hazards near
the roadway edge and not in the center of the roadway. The sentence
reads ``In roadway situations where a drainage grate or other roadway
obstruction that is inappropriate for bicycle travel cannot be
eliminated, white markings applied as shown in Figure 9C-7 should be
used.''
265. In Section 9D.02 Signal Operations for Bicycles, one commenter
recommended combining the discussion on visibility requirements with
the discussion on signal operations for bicycles and using the term
``visibility-limited signal faces.'' There were no other negative
comments received. One commenter recommended revising the language in
the second paragraph. The FHWA agrees, and the text is revised to read
``On bikeways, the needs of bicyclists shall be considered when setting
signal timing.''
266. Modifications are made to several of the figures in Part 9
based on comments received. The Figure 9C-5 (NPA Figure 9-6) is divided
into two figures based on comments received from the NCUTCD. The top
two diagrams are numbered and titled ``Figure 9B-3. Typical Signs and
Marking for Shared-Use Paths.'' The bottom right diagram on NPA Figure
9-6 is deleted because it is not considered necessary. The bottom two
diagrams remain and are numbered and titled ``Figure 9C-6. Optional
Word and Symbol Pavement Markings for Bicycle Lanes.''
A new figure is added, numbered and titled ``Figure 9C-2. Center
Line Markings for Shared-Use Paths.'' This figure depicts centerline
and obstruction markings for paths. This figure is added to more
clearly show how to divide a shared use path of sufficient width into
two opposing lanes and how to delineate an obstruction.
The NPA Figure 9-9 is replaced with a figure that was submitted by
the NCUTCD and is renumbered and titled ``Figure 9C-7. Obstruction
Pavement Marking.'' This figure is also found in AASHTO's ``Guide of
Development of Bicycle Facilities,'' and clearly shows marking details
and taper rates.
267. As proposed in Part 9C of the NPA, the FHWA is deleting the
preferential lane symbol (diamond) for bicycle signs and pavement
markings. The American Traffic Safety Services Association commented
that the 7 to 10 year phase-in is too long and should be shortened to 3
to 5 years if the use of the diamond symbol on preferential lanes has
caused confusion among the public. The FHWA agrees that the use of the
diamond symbol on preferential lanes is confusing and with ATSSA's
suggestion requiring that all new projects comply now. The FHWA agrees

[[Page 78952]]

that the 7 to 10 year phase-in is excessive and is revising the
proposed phase-in period to 6 years. This change takes effect
immediately for new installations.

Part 10--Traffic Controls for Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade
Crossings

The FHWA received 381 comments from 46 commenters concerning part
10. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64
FR 33806 on June 24, 1999.
268. Part 10 is added to the MUTCD. The FHWA received 5 comments
supporting the addition of Part 10 to the MUTCD.
269. In Section 10A.01 Introduction, a new paragraph 3 is added
under the SUPPORT statement to read: ``An initial educational campaign
along with an ongoing program to continue to educate new drivers is
beneficial when introducing light rail operations to an area and,
hence, new traffic control devices.'' This paragraph is added to
address docket comment concerns about road users' comprehension of new
traffic control devices that pertain to light rail operation.
Also in this section, a new paragraph 5 under STANDARD is added to
read: ``Where light rail transit and railroads use the same track or
adjacent tracks, the traffic control devices, systems, and practices
for railroad crossings shall be used. (See Part 8).'' This paragraph is
added based on review of docket comments concerning the use of the W10-
6 sign (light rail transit advance warning sign) proposed to be added
in Part 10 versus the W10-1 sign (highway-rail advance warning sign)
that is required in Part 8. This paragraph clarifies that the traffic
controls described in Part 8 have precedence when a track or adjacent
tracks are used by both heavy and light rail.
The FHWA has removed from this section proposed paragraphs 4
(STANDARD) and 5 (OPTION) from the 1999 NPA, regarding applicability of
Part 10 to only new and modernized locations and when consistent with
Federal and State laws and regulations. The compliance date for
automatic gates, flashing-light signals and blank-out signs is 5 years
after the effective date of this final rule. This 5-year phase-in
period for automatic gates, flashing-light signals and blank-out signs
is given in order to not cause an undue economic burden on the affected
jurisdictions.
270. In Section 10A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, the FHWA is
changing paragraph 7 concerning lane restrictions or the performance of
flagging near highway-light rail transit grade crossings from GUIDANCE
to STANDARD to be consistent with the STANDARD paragraph in Section
8A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones. This change will require that
lane restrictions, flagging or other operations not be performed in a
manner that would cause vehicles to stop on the tracks with no means of
escape.
271. In Chapter 10C Signs, Illumination and Markings (titled
``Signs, Pavement Markings, and Illumination'' in the 1999 NPA), the
FHWA is reordering the sections to follow other parts of the Manual
(regulatory, warning, information, illumination and pavement markings).
Within the regulatory category, the FHWA reordered the sections as: at
the crossing, near the crossing, and then signs for mixed-use alignment
operation. The new order is: 10C.01 Introduction, 10C.02 Look Sign,
10C.03 STOP or YIELD Sign, 10C.04 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS Sign, 10C.05
STOP HERE ON RED Sign, 10C.06 Light Rail Transit-Activated Blank-Out
Turn Prohibition Signs, 10C.07 Divided Highway With Light Rail Transit
Crossing Sign, 10C.08 No Vehicles On Tracks Sign, 10C.09 Light Rail
Transit Only Lane Signs, 10C.10 Do Not Pass Light Rail Transit Sign,
10C.11 Highway-Rail Advance Warning Signs, 10C.12 Light Rail Transit
Approaching-Activated Blank-Out Warning Sign, 10C.13 Light Rail Station
Sign, 10C.14 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings, and
10C.15 Dynamic Envelope Delineation Markings.
272. In Section 10C.01 Introduction, the proposed OPTION paragraph
in the 1999 NPA, concerning the use of smaller than standard size
signs, is removed. A commenter stated that unlike bicycle facilities,
for light rail transit, sign sizes and placement similar to standard
highway signs are required because of the similarity of motor vehicle
driver needs. The FHWA agrees with this comment and is removing the
OPTION so that the signs conform to Chapter 2A as stated in the
STANDARD. Since this issue is provided for in Chapter 2A, it should not
be stated as an OPTION in this section.
273. Proposed Section 10C.02 Light Rail Transit Warning Signs (W10-
6, W10-6a) has been removed and replaced with a new Section 10C.02
entitled, ``LOOK Sign (R15-8).'' Based on docket comments received
about the W10-6 light rail transit advance warning sign and review of
the section, the FHWA agrees that allowing the use of a warning sign at
crossings to supplement the Crossbuck (Figure 10-6 in the 1999 NPA) is
not appropriate (warning signs are used in advance to warn the road
user of an approaching unexpected condition, not at the condition). The
FHWA agrees to include the option to use the LOOK sign (R15-8) as a
supplemental panel to the Crossbuck at light rail transit grade
crossings. The LOOK sign is currently an OPTION allowed in Part 8,
Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; therefore, to be
consistent the FHWA is adding it to Part 10.
The FHWA received several comments in response to the proposal to
add a new standard Light Rail Transit Warning Sign (W10-6) and a Light
Rail Transit Both Directions Warning Sign (W10-6a, W10-6b). Three
docket commenters stated that the W10-1 sign is already a universally
accepted advance warning sign standard at all highway-rail grade
crossings. They stated that the new light rail transit warning sign
provides the potential for confusion and may fail to elicit the
appropriate degree of caution. In an effort to create uniform
standards, they recommend the W10-1 sign be installed instead of W10-6.
One commenter wanted this sign to be an OPTION instead of a
requirement, thinking that at signalized intersections with light rail
transit crossing one leg the placement of the sign would be subject to
different interpretations as to what approaches qualify for such an
installation. One commenter suggested that the W10-6 and the W10-6a be
round to match the shape of the W10-1. Another commenter stated that
the distinction provided between the W10-6 and the W10-6a and W10-6b
appears to be unnecessary and potentially hazardous and that drivers
should be alert to the possibility of bi-directional rail traffic at
all crossings.
In response to the above comments, the FHWA is removing the section
referenced in the 1999 NPA as 10C.2 Light Rail Transit Warning Signs
(W10-6, W10-6a) and replacing it with Section 10C.11 Highway-Rail
Advance Warning Signs (W10-1, W10-2, W10-3, W10-4). The W10-1 sign is
already a universally accepted advance warning sign standard at all
highway-rail grade crossings and is currently required in Part 8 of the
MUTCD. This will remove the potential for confusion and the potential
of not achieving the appropriate degree of caution. The compliance date
removal of existing W10-6 series signs is 5 years after the effective
date of this final rule. This 5-year phase-in period for removal of
existing W10-6 series signs is given in order to not cause an undue
economic burden on the affected jurisdictions.

[[Page 78953]]

274. In Section 10C.03 STOP or YIELD Signs (R1-1, W3-1, R1-2, W3-
2), two commenters suggested the wording on the use of STOP AHEAD or
YIELD AHEAD signs be changed to match that in Section 2C.25 (use on
approaches with insufficient sight distance). The FHWA agrees with
these comments and made text changes to reflect this change.
One commenter requested a change from a STANDARD to an OPTION, and
another commenter requested a change from a STANDARD to a GUIDANCE when
STOP or YIELD signs are used to control the highway-light rail transit
crossing. The FHWA disagrees that the STANDARD should be changed to an
OPTION or a GUIDANCE. A clarifying phrase is added to the end of the
first paragraph that indicates the STOP AHEAD and YIELD AHEAD signs
shall be installed in accordance with Section 2C.25. Section 2C.25
indicates that these signs shall be installed if there is a sight
distance problem.
Six commenters suggested the addition of two new characteristics
for deciding whether to use a STOP or YIELD sign. The FHWA will
consider the proposal for adding two new characteristics for deciding
if a crossing should use a STOP or YIELD sign in the future.
One commenter indicated that proposed paragraph 4 in the 1999 NPA
(covering not installing a STOP or YIELD sign near a crossing such that
vehicles might extend into the path of an approaching light rail
transit vehicle) is in conflict with State laws concerning when a light
rail crosses a local road that intersects a State highway, the local
road is required to stop before entering the highway. The FHWA agrees
and is removing this sentence and replacing it with a new paragraph
that gives GUIDANCE about posting a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign if a
STOP or YIELD sign is installed near a crossing where vehicle queues
are likely to extend into the path of a light rail transit train.
One commenter took exception to the GUIDANCE recommending that STOP
or YIELD signs be erected on a separate post. He stated that this
guidance was unnecessarily restrictive and that there is no reason why
a STOP sign could not be mounted on an existing fixture (e.g., a street
light pole) if that fixture is in a suitable position. He said that the
other requirements of this paragraph are already covered by Part 2, and
the entire paragraph 4 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3)
should be deleted. The FHWA agrees that STOP and YIELD signs may be
installed on another suitable post and is changing that paragraph to an
OPTION instead of deleting it.
After review of this section, the FHWA is removing proposed
paragraph 5 in the 1999 NPA, (OPTION) regarding the option to install a
STOP or YIELD sign as an interim measure while waiting for active
devices to be installed and operational. This paragraph is no longer
appropriate because Section 10B.01 Introduction and other paragraphs in
Section 10C.03 give the authority to use STOP and YIELD signs at
crossings for other than interim measures.
275. In Section 10C.06 Light Rail Transit-Activated Blank-Out Turn
Prohibition Sign (R3-1a to R3-2a) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as
Section 10C.04), a commenter questioned the appropriateness of transit-
activated turn prohibitions. His experience with such blank-out signs
showed that road users often fail to note and respond to the activation
of such signs. He found this problem significant in cases of high
volumes or permissive left turns across heavy traffic. He recommended
using traffic signal phasing with protected/prohibited operation
instead of these signs. The FHWA disagrees. These signs are appropriate
for use, and road users are helped by and do respond to the message. If
protected-only left-turn phasing is used, it would not be necessary to
install a blank-out turn-prohibition sign for the left-turn movement.
One commenter objected to the blank-out sign because he said the
detail on the sign cannot be reproduced on a fiber optic sign. A
problem was also found with adding the railroad tracks to the sign
because it may weaken turn prohibitions where no specified hazard is
identified on the sign. The FHWA disagrees with this comment. There are
a number of different technologies that can be used to convey this
message if the use of fiber optic technology for this sign is in
question.
After a review of this section, the FHWA realized that the GUIDANCE
given in proposed paragraph 2 of the 1999 NPA unduly prohibited the use
of this sign on mixed-use alignments. In proposed paragraph 3 of the
1999 NPA, the words ``on a semi-exclusive alignment'' also unduly
prohibited the use of this sign on mixed-use alignments. The FHWA is
removing paragraph 2 from GUIDANCE and the words, ``on a semi-exclusive
alignment'' from paragraph 3 to allow the light rail transit-activated
blank-out turn prohibition signs to be used in mixed-use and semi-
exclusive alignments.
276. In Section 10C.08 No Vehicles on Tracks Sign (R15-6, R15-6a)
(referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section10C.07), several comments were
received as well as the results from the FHWA research study,
``Evaluation of Selected Potential MUTCD Signs.'' \21\ One commenter
requested that the use of this sign be extended to locations where the
tracks are only separated by pavement markings. The FHWA agrees with
this comment and is making the appropriate text changes to this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ ``Evaluation of Selected Potential MUTCD Signs,''
Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-053, is available from National
Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another commenter suggested that the use of this sign is more
appropriate when adjacent traffic lanes are separated from the transit
lane only by striping or lane designation, and that it is obvious when
curbs are used that vehicles are prohibited from driving on the tracks
and the curb itself provides a deterrent. The FHWA partially agrees
with this comment. However, we believe an important application of this
sign is at intersections in order to inform drivers not to proceed down
the wrong (light rail transit) side of the curb.
A third commenter thought the sign would call attention to the
tracks and be misinterpreted as indicating traffic may travel on the
exclusive roadway as long as they do not drive on the tracks. He also
suggested using turn restrictions and DO NOT ENTER signs instead. The
FHWA disagrees with the suggestion to substitute a DO NOT ENTER sign
for a No Vehicles on Tracks symbol sign--it is important to tell
drivers why they are not permitted to enter or turn onto the light rail
transit track area, as some drivers intentionally violate turn
restriction signs when they think that they will not be putting their
safety in jeopardy. When the guideway is not paved, most agencies will
not exercise their option to use this sign. However, the FHWA agrees
that in some instances a DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign is appropriate. The
FHWA is removing the phrase from paragraph 1 (SUPPORT) that suggests
the No Vehicles on Tracks sign is appropriate for streets solely for
light rail transit. The FHWA is adding as the new second paragraph in
Section 10C.08 the following GUIDANCE language: The DO NOT ENTER (R5-1)
sign should be used where a road user could wrongly enter a light rail
transit only street.'' A DO NOT ENTER conveys the message better for
this situation.
The fourth commenter recommended a word message sign be used
instead of the symbol sign because the symbol is confusing. The FHWA
disagrees that only a word message sign (DO NOT DRIVE ON TRACKS, R15-
6a) should be

[[Page 78954]]

used. However, the FHWA is adding an optional word message sign that
could be used in lieu of the symbol sign based on this docket comment
and results from the FHWA symbol sign research.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ ``Evaluation of Selected Potential MUTCD Signs,'' FHWA,
2000 (Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-053)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

277. In Section 10C.09 Light Rail Transit Only Lane Signs (R15-4
Series) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.05), one commenter
suggested that the use of the ``Light Rail Transit Only Lane''
regulatory (R15-4 series) sign in mixed alignments (an alignment where
motor vehicles and light rail transits operate in the same lane) does
not appear to be appropriate. He recommended that the OPTION paragraph
be revised. The FHWA disagrees with this comment because the purpose of
these signs is for mixed-use alignments.
278. In Section 10C.10 Do Not Pass Light Rail Transit Sign (R15-5)
(referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.06), the FHWA conducted a
symbol sign research evaluation.\23\ Based on the results of that
study, an optional word message sign is added: ``DO NOT PASS STOPPED
TRAIN'' (R15-5a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

279. In Section 10C.12 Light Rail Transit Approaching-Activated
Blank-Out Warning Sign (W10-7) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section
10C.11), one commenter found the proposed W10-7 sign to be unclear and
had the potential to be confused with the I-12 sign. The commenter
believes that by shape and color, the W10-7 sign appears to be
regulatory rather than warning. He also believes that standard railroad
warning signs and exclusive signal phases appear to be adequate without
the W10-7 sign. The FHWA partially agrees and is adding descriptive
wording to the text to reinforce that the W10-7 sign is a warning sign.
Six commenters suggested that the proposed third paragraph be
changed from an OPTION to GUIDANCE, recommending these signs be used at
traffic signals where traffic turning across tracks is not controlled
by exclusive signal phases. The FHWA disagrees because many agencies do
not want to use these signs. Changing this to GUIDANCE would force
these agencies to justify their decision to not use a device that
should only be an OPTION.
One commenter suggested that a special sign is not needed for this
situation because the road user does not distinguish between heavy and
light rail. The FHWA disagrees because there is no similar sign for
heavy rail.
One commenter stated that the proposed format of the blank-out sign
does not convey a message that the light rail transit car may be
approaching from behind the driver. Also, the use of a verbal message
format should be an OPTION. The FHWA disagrees. This sign is not
required, but is a device the traffic engineer may use. The FHWA is
adding descriptive words to the text to improve this section.
280. In Section 10C.14 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit
Crossings, the FHWA is removing proposed paragraph 2 of the 1999 NPA,
(STANDARD) of this section, dealing with location of luminaires,
because it is already covered in paragraph 2 (referenced in the 1999
NPA as paragraph 3), which references a recommended practice for
roadway lighting.
281. In Section 10C.15 Dynamic Envelope Delineation (referenced in
the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.13), one commenter recommended deleting the
proposed fifth paragraph of the 1999 NPA where GUIDANCE is provided on
delineation along the roadway between intersections in mixed-use
alignments. He believed that this practice could confuse road users and
diminish their respect for the distinctive paving at locations where
its purpose is to deter vehicle encroachment into a reserved trackway.
The FHWA disagrees because delineation of the dynamic envelope along
the roadway in mixed-use alignments will better communicate to road
users where to expect the light rail transit train. This is especially
important in mixed-use alignments because road users may have a greater
number of possible crossings with a light rail transit train (depending
on lane restrictions). However, the FHWA is changing this paragraph to
an OPTION so the decision of whether to delineate the dynamic envelope
in mixed-use alignments can be made based on local conditions.
One commenter suggested changing the proposed sixth paragraph of
the 1999 NPA (on extending the markings across all highway-light rail
transit crossings) from GUIDANCE to OPTION because it may be more
appropriate to use a stop line so motorists don't pull up to the
dynamic envelope marking thinking it serves as a stop line and be in
the way of a descending gate. The FHWA agrees with changing this
paragraph to an OPTION; and includes the drawing of the dynamic
envelope pavement marking for a semi-exclusive alignment (currently
shown in Figure 8B-4 in Part 8) in Figure 10C-2. The FHWA is modifying
the length of the pavement marking in that figure to extend across the
width of the entire roadway so it will not be confused with a stop
line.
One commenter suggested that markings should only be installed when
an engineering study demonstrates a need to define the envelope. The
FHWA agrees with this suggestion and is changing paragraph 2 of this
section to be an OPTION in the MUTCD. The FHWA also is adding a phrase
to the end of paragraph 7 explaining that if used, markings should
extend across all crossings, ``unless a four quadrant gate system (see
Section 10D.04) is used.''
One commenter stated that additional guidance is needed on pavement
marking colors, line style, etc. The FHWA agrees and is modifying
paragraph 3 to add the words, ``and shall be a 100 mm (4 in) normal
solid white line'' to the end of the paragraph. The current text refers
to Part 3, but there is no mention of the size and colors of dynamic
envelope delineation in Part 3.
282. In Section 10D.01 Introduction, one commenter stated that,
based on experience with light rail transit operating speeds, the
speeds mentioned in paragraph 6 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as
paragraph 2) need to be changed from a maximum speed of 55 mph to a
maximum speed of 65 mph. The FHWA agrees and is making this change to
the text.
Another commenter suggested deleting proposed paragraph 4 of the
1999 NPA (the last paragraph in SUPPORT) and proposed paragraph 5 of
the 1999 NPA (the first paragraph in GUIDANCE) because they do not make
any substantive contribution to Part 10. The FHWA agrees that these
paragraphs are unnecessary and is removing them.
Six commenters suggested paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as
paragraph 7), on audible devices, be changed from OPTION to GUIDANCE in
order to provide adequate warning for the visually impaired community
and to meet the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements. The
FHWA disagrees because the ADA requirements do not require audible
devices at every grade crossing. The FHWA believes that changing
paragraph 5 to GUIDANCE could mean significant financial burdens to
State and local governments. In addition, the FHWA believes that the
jurisdictions that need these devices will conduct the appropriate
engineering studies and install these devices. FHWA will investigate
this issue further.
283. The FHWA is adding two new sections to Chapter 10D Highway-
Light Rail Transit Active Traffic Control Grade Crossing Systems. The
FHWA is

[[Page 78955]]

adding Section 10D.02 Four Quadrant Gate Systems to mirror the current
wording in Part 8 (Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings) to
govern four quadrant gate systems, if used. This decision is based on
the inclusion of a section on four quadrant gates in Part 8 and the
current use of four quadrant gates at highway-light rail transit grade
crossings. The FHWA is adding Section 10D.04 Flashing-Light Signals, to
properly categorize some of the wording from Section 10D.03 Automatic
Gates (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.02) and to cover the
aspects of flashing-light signals that are unique to light rail
transit.
284. In Section 10D.03 Automatic Gates (referenced in the 1999 NPA
as Section 10D.02 Traffic Gates), one commenter suggested that the
title should be changed from ``Traffic Gates,'' to ``Automatic Gates''
because the term ``Automatic Gates'' is used in Part 8. The FHWA agrees
and has changed the title to ``Automatic Gates'' for this section (to
match Part 8).
Another commenter suggested the FHWA not use the term ``automatic
gate'' since most, if not all, gates at highway-rail grade crossings
and highway-light rail transit grade crossings are operated by power
and controlled by electrical circuits that make them automatic.
However, there was concern that the term ``traffic gate'' failed to
distinguish between Barrier (Resistance) Gates, and Warning Gates. He
suggested that ``traffic gates'' be replaced by ``barrier traffic
gates.'' The FHWA disagrees because, before changing to a term other
than ``automatic gates'' (as used in Part 8), the development of new
technical definitions needs to be addressed by the rail and traffic
engineering professions.
Six commenters suggested changing paragraph 3 (referenced in the
1999 NPA as paragraph 2) from a GUIDANCE to a STANDARD. They stated
that industry experience has found gated light rail transit grade
crossings safer than ungated crossings, especially at speeds above 60
km/h (35 mph). In addition, they stated that the California Public
Utilities Commission requires that gates be used where light rail
transit speeds exceed 60 km/h (35 mph). Where light rail transit speeds
exceed 60 km/h (35 mph), the commenters said the need for gates is due
to both the increased stopping distance required for light rail
vehicles traveling over this speed and the increase in property damage,
injuries and fatalities reported when light rail transit collisions
occur at speeds above 60 km/h (35 mph). The commenters also say this is
standard design practice for all new light rail transit systems in the
United States, and so would not create an additional financial burden
for light rail transit systems. The FHWA disagrees with changing this
paragraph to a STANDARD at this time. Additionally, the USDOT Highway/
Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group is developing a report that
may recommend changes in GUIDANCE at active highway-rail grade
crossings. Based on that report, the FHWA will consider whether changes
to Part 10 are needed.
Six commenters suggested that paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999
NPA as paragraph 4), concerning the OPTION to install automatic gates
and flashing-light signals when the highway-light rail transit grade
crossing is not at an intersection and when light rail transit speeds
greater than 40 km/h (25 mph), be changed from OPTION to STANDARD
because of industry experience. The commenters state that motorists are
not expecting to stop at mid-block locations, and as such the need for
traffic gates is greater at lower light rail transit speeds to provide
a physical barrier between the motorist and the tracks. The FHWA
disagrees with changing this paragraph to a STANDARD. This proposed
change would need to be part of a future notice of proposed amendment
to allow the public a chance to comment. Additionally, the USDOT
Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group is developing a
report that may lead to changes in GUIDANCE at active crossings. After
reviewing that report, the FHWA will consider whether changes are
needed to Part 10.
Two commenters questioned the restriction of light rail transit
speeds in paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 4). The
FHWA disagrees with these objections because paragraph 5 defines when
traffic control signals may be used instead of flashing-light signals
or gates. That paragraph is not an attempt to control speeds of light
rail transit operations or drivers of other motor vehicles. The
criteria listed in this paragraph are not speed limits. Paragraph 5
contains valuable information to most agencies, however it is not a
STANDARD. This paragraph allows a particular agency to use traffic
control signals at a grade crossing that has light rail transit speeds
in excess of 60 km/h (35 mph). This paragraph does not limit light rail
transit speeds; it discusses the use of gates depending on speed.
285. In Section 10D.05 Traffic Control Signals (referenced in the
1999 NPA as Section 10D.03). One commenter suggested a change to
paragraph 3, GUIDANCE, saying 60 meters (200 ft) is inadequate for
desirable interconnection. He recommended 200 m (650 ft) and
recommended that this be a STANDARD requirement. The FHWA disagrees
because 60 meters (200 feet) is the distance used in other parts of the
MUTCD for guidance related to railroad preemption.
Six commenters suggested two new paragraphs (concerning the use of
traffic control signals at highway-light rail transit grade crossings
based on an engineering study, light rail transit speeds, and traffic
control devices at the crossings) be added as OPTIONS. The FHWA
partially agrees, but is only adding the phrase, ``at a location other
than an intersection,'' to paragraph 9 of Section 10D.05. The remainder
of the suggested new paragraph will not be added because the FHWA does
not want road users to disregard the importance of traffic signals. If
traffic signals are placed at grade crossings where they would display
GREEN for a majority of the time, there will be a disregard for traffic
signals. The suggested second paragraph would conflict with Part 8.
Three commenters requested that the paragraph referenced in the
1999 NPA as paragraph 7 (exclusive only turn phase with arrow
indications) be changed from OPTION to GUIDANCE. They stated that
industry experience has demonstrated that, at intersections with
exclusive turn lanes parallel to the tracks, a protected only turn
phase should be provided to minimize the potential for a road user to
run in front of a light rail vehicle approaching from behind. As a
result of these docket comments, the FHWA has changed this paragraph to
a STANDARD instead of the requested GUIDANCE to improve safety at
highway-light rail transit grade crossings. This paragraph was reworded
to require a red indication to be displayed so that vehicles are
prohibited from turning onto the tracks when trains are approaching or
occupying the crossing. The FHWA also has moved this paragraph into the
Traffic Signal Preemption Turning Restrictions section (now renumbered
as Section 10D.06).
286. In Section 10D.06 Traffic Signal Preemption Turning
Restrictions (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.04), two
commenters opposed the restriction of turn movements at nearby
signalized intersections. They believed the restriction should be
changed to provide for an engineering study of site conditions. The
FHWA disagrees. Motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists should not be
trapped when crossing the tracks due to a lack of storage distance and
should not run into the path of an oncoming train.

[[Page 78956]]

287. In Section 10D.07 Use of Traffic Control Signals for Control
of Light Rail Transit Vehicles at Grade Crossings (referenced in the
1999 NPA as Section 10D.05), six commenters recommended that paragraph
3 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 2), concerning allowing
standard traffic signals to be used for light rail transit signals, be
deleted. They stated that industry experience has demonstrated that
motorist confusion occurs if standard traffic signal indications are
used in lieu of special light rail transit signal indications. They
stated that existing systems that have standard traffic signals in
place to control light rail transit movements will not be affected by
this because of the provisions in the 1999 NPA in paragraphs 4 and 5 in
Section 10A.01. The FHWA disagrees with deleting paragraph 3. There is
no reason why green-yellow-red signals cannot be used to control light
rail transit traffic, especially since the GUIDANCE (erroneously shown
as the second paragraph of SUPPORT in Section 10D.5, paragraph 6 of the
1999 NPA) states that the indications should be positioned so as not to
be visible to motorists. In addition, proposed paragraphs 4 and 5 in
the 1999 NPA for Section 10A.01 have been deleted. The FHWA has changed
this GUIDANCE concerning positioning of indications to a STANDARD in
paragraph 4, to emphasize the importance of positioning green-yellow-
red signals.
One commenter recommended that the second sentence in paragraph 5
(referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3), concerning termination of
the light rail transit phase, be moved to GUIDANCE. He indicated that
it is not always practical to terminate the light rail phase until
after the light rail transit vehicle has cleared the crossing. The FHWA
disagrees because we believe that modern electronics technology can
accomplish this STANDARD and because it does not seem safe to terminate
a light rail transit phase prior to the light rail transit clearing the
crossing.
Another commenter also recommended deletion of the second sentence
in paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3), concerning
termination of the light rail transit phase, because this requirement
would preclude the use of fixed time traffic controllers on light rail
transit intersections. The FHWA disagrees because of the hazard
associated with the light rail transit phase terminating prior to the
clearing of the crossing and because actuated controller equipment can
be used. In addition, a pre-timed controller set up with special
cabinet wiring that allows stop-timing on the light rail transit phase
would satisfy this STANDARD.
Six comments were received regarding paragraph 2 (referenced in the
1999 NPA as paragraph 4) and Figure 10D-1 (numbered as Figure 10-1 in
the 1999 NPA). Two commenters suggested the GUIDANCE was too specific
regarding the white bars and that it is not a proper function of the
Manual to dictate the specifics of railway signaling. They stated that
green, yellow and red signal indications are universally recognized,
and other coding systems increase the opportunity for error. One
commenter opposed the language on the use of white bars, because white
bars are used for track switching operations, and a switching operation
signal should be different from a stop and go signal. He recommended
adopting the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC)
language of a T shape, or a vertical or horizontal bar for the Go
signal. Another commenter said the CTCDC permits a shape and a triangle
in addition to the bars. He recommended that the triangle and T shape
be added to the list of signal indications. One commenter suggested
that an amber color should be allowed for the horizontal bar with a
white color for the vertical bar. Another commenter recommended
deletion of the language governing diverging routes in Figure 10D-1.
Based on these docket comments, the FHWA is changing this paragraph to
an OPTION and is making it less specific regarding railway signaling.
The FHWA is also modifying Figure 10D-1 to say ``Typical,'' not
``Recommended.''
Two commenters opposed the 8 ft separation between the light rail
transit signals and traffic signals described in paragraph 7
(referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 8). They suggested a minimum 3
ft separation. One reasoned that the separation is unnecessary since
the signals are required to be distinctly different, and such a
requirement could force the placement of a light rail transit signal
into a sub-satisfactory position. The other commenter stated that since
the light rail transit signal and traffic signal displays are
dissimilar such a restriction would correspond to requiring a
pedestrian signal and vehicular traffic signal to be separated by 8
feet. The FHWA partially agrees but believes some separation is
desirable. Therefore, the FHWA is changing the requirement to a 1m (3
ft) separation.
288. In Section 10D.08 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Signals and
Crossings (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.06 Non-Motorist
Signals and Crossings), one commenter suggested that the term ``non-
motorist'' be replaced with ``pedestrian'' because ``non-motorist'' is
both cumbersome and strange. The FHWA partially agrees and is changing
the term ``non-motorist'' to ``pedestrian and bicyclist'' in the title
of this section and throughout this section.
Six commenters recommended the first sentence of proposed paragraph
3 of the 1999 NPA, concerning the use of flashing-light signals, be
changed from OPTION to GUIDANCE. The FHWA agrees and is changing this
sentence to GUIDANCE, with minor modifications to the sentence to
respond to another comment.
One commenter suggested that paragraph 4 be changed to recommend
flashing-light signals instead of gates at pedestrian crossings where
an engineering study has determined sight distance is insufficient for
completion of crossing prior to arrival of light rail transit, or where
light rail transit speeds are greater than 60 km/h (35mph). The
commenter suggested gates be allowed as an OPTION if flashing-light
signals are not sufficient. The FHWA agrees that flashing-light signals
should be added before or with gates, and is making appropriate text
changes to paragraph 4.
One commenter indicated that the text and the figure reference in
paragraph 4 disagree. The commenter suggested text be added to indicate
that a traffic gate may be used as a combination vehicle/pedestrian
control device by placing the gate behind the sidewalk, keeping in mind
that the flashing-light signals need to be clearly visible to road
users and the lights shall not be obstructed by walls, buildings,
trees, etc. The commenter further recommended another restriction for
such an installation should be that the gate arm length not be
excessive, as determined by industry standards. The FHWA partially
agrees; however, gates do not necessarily need to be placed behind the
sidewalk. Figure 10D-3 shows this type of combination vehicle/
pedestrian traffic control device. The FHWA is correcting the
references to the figures in this section. The third sentence suggested
by the commenter referred to industry standards that the FHWA is not
aware of, so that sentence is not included in the text.
The same commenter recommended that paragraph 5 would then no
longer be relevant and should be deleted. The FHWA disagrees because
the SUPPORT paragraph is still relevant to describe the optional gates.
One commenter suggested criteria be added to Section 10D.08 for the
use of

[[Page 78957]]

swing gates or that paragraph 6, which mentions swing gates, be
deleted. The FHWA disagrees because the swing gates are described and
illustrated in an acceptable manner. The purpose of swing gates is to
prevent pedestrians from entering the track area.
Another commenter recommended new figures be added to Part 10 that
show light rail transit/pedestrian and bicycle crossings that take up a
smaller amount of right-of-way. The FHWA disagrees because the text and
figures in Part 10 do not refer to the amount of right-of-way needed
for accommodating light rail transit parallel to a roadway.
One commenter stated that physically blocking the sidewalk with an
automatic gate, shown in Figures 10D-3, 10D-4, and 10D-5 (numbered in
the 1999 NPA as Figures 10-3, 10-4, and 10-5) can be problematic and
should not be considered ``typical.'' The commenter believed that this
matter is addressed sufficiently in the text and these illustrations
should be deleted. The FHWA disagrees. Blocking sidewalks with
automatic gates during the passage of trains or light rail transit
vehicles is done all the time and is safe, not problematic.

Rulemaking Analysis 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 will be minimal. Most of the changes in this
final rule provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional
applications for traffic control devices. The FHWA believes that the
uniform application of traffic control devices will greatly improve the
traffic operations efficiency and the safety of roadways 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 action on small
entities, including small governments. This final rule adds some
alternative traffic control devices and only a very limited number of
new or changed requirements. Most of the changes are expanded guidance
and clarification information. 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.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and
it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in the
MUTCD directly preempts any State law or regulation. 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 2 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. Note that the overriding safety benefits of the uniformity
prescribed by the MUTCD are shared by all of the State and local
governments, and that changes made in this notice are directed at
enhancing safety. To the extent that these amendments override any
existing State requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do
so in the interest 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 of 1995

This action does not contain a collection of information
requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Note that the revisions directed by this action can be phased in by
the States over specified time periods in order to minimize hardship.
The changes made to traffic control devices that would require an
expenditure of funds all have effective dates sufficiently long to
allow normal maintenance funds to replace the devices at the end of the
material life-cycle. To the extent the involved revisions require
expenditures by the States and local governments on Federal-aid
projects, they are reimbursable. This rule does not impose a Federal
mandate resulting 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 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This 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)

We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

This rule will 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 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 655

Design standards, Grant program-transportation, Highways and roads,
Incorporation by reference, Signs, and Traffic regulations.

The FHWA hereby amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 655 as set forth below.

[[Page 78958]]

PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

1. Revise the authority citation for part 655 to read as follows:

Authority: 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).

Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets
and Highways [Amended]

2. Revise Sec. 655.601, paragraph (a), to read as follows:

Sec. 655.601 Purpose.

* * * * *
(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2000
Millennium Edition, FHWA dated December, 2000. 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. It is available for
inspection and copying at FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 3408,
Washington, DC 20590, as provided in 49 CFR part 7. The text is also
available from the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations' web site
at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *

Issued on: December 11, 2000.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-31974 Filed 12-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P