[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 268-334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24863]



[[Page 267]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Highway Administration



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



23 CFR Parts 634 and 655



 National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 268]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 634 and 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977]
RIN 2125-AF22


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

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The MUTCD (also referred to as ``the Manual'') is incorporated 
by our regulations, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and 
recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on 
all public roads. The purpose of this notice of proposed amendments is 
to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information 
relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The 
proposed changes are intended to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, 
improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control 
device application. These proposed changes are being designated as the 
next edition of the MUTCD.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at 
www.regulations.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments 
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this 
document. All comments received will be available for examination and 
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of 
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or 
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting 
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 19477-78) or 
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of 
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or Raymond Cuprill, Office 
of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 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 and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal 
eRulemaking portal at: www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and 
retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of 
the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 
Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may 
also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page 
at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web 
page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the 
MUTCD incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are 
available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7, 
at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text, 
figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the MUTCD 
incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are available 
on the MUTCD Internet Web site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The proposed 
text is available in two formats. The first format shows the current 
MUTCD text with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed 
deletions as red strikeout text, and also includes notes in green boxes 
to provide helpful explanations where text is proposed to be relocated 
or where minor edits are proposed. The second format shows a ``clean'' 
version of the complete text proposed for the next edition of the 
MUTCD, with all the proposed changes incorporated. The complete current 
2003 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 incorporated is also 
available on the same Internet Web site.
    This notice of proposed amendments is being issued to provide an 
opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed 
amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the comments received and its own 
experience, the FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed 
changes included in this notice.
    The notice of proposed amendments is being published to address the 
many advances in technology, research results, and improved traffic and 
safety management strategies that have occurred since the 2002 
initiation of the rulemaking process that led to the 2003 edition of 
the MUTCD. The FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the 
MUTCD. The FHWA requests that commenters cite the page number and line 
numbers of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to 
the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make the 
FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient.
    A summary of the significant proposed general changes and proposed 
changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following 
discussion.

Discussion of Proposed General Amendments to the MUTCD

    1. The FHWA proposes to develop a new cover page for the new 
edition of the MUTCD that will maintain general consistency with covers 
of previous editions but with changes to give it a distinctive 
appearance, to minimize the possibility of confusion by users. Although 
a new cover page has not yet been developed and is not illustrated in 
the NPA, the FHWA proposes to include a new cover page design in the 
edition of the MUTCD published as the Final Rule. The FHWA proposes 
that the date of the new edition to be identified on the cover and 
elsewhere within the document will be the year in which the Final Rule 
is issued.
    2. The FHWA proposes to include paragraph numbers for each section, 
in the margins, for the final page images of the next edition of the 
MUTCD. Although the page images shown for the NPA do not include 
paragraph numbers, the FHWA proposes to include them in the edition of 
the MUTCD published as the Final Rule in order to aid practitioners in 
referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of future MUTCD 
notices of proposed amendments. On the FHWA's MUTCD Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, along with the proposed MUTCD text, the FHWA has 
posted sample pages showing four possible methods for paragraph 
numbering. Interested persons should review the sample pages and 
provide comments to the docket on the paragraph numbering options.
    3. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA proposes minor changes in text

[[Page 269]]

and figures for grammatical or style consistency, to improve 
consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to 
correct minor errors. Where the FHWA proposes to add a new chapter 
within a part of the MUTCD, a new section within a chapter of the 
MUTCD, or a new item within a listing, the chapters or sections or 
items that follow the proposed addition would be renumbered or 
relettered accordingly. All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists 
of Tables, and page headers and footers would be revised as appropriate 
to reflect the proposed changes.
    4. The FHWA proposes, where appropriate, to modify figures and 
tables to reflect proposed changes in the text and to add figures and 
tables to illustrate new or revised text.
    5. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA proposes to relocate 
statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in 
logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition, 
the FHWA proposes to change the titles of some sections in order to 
more accurately describe the content of the section.
    6. The FHWA proposes to remove the phrase ``reasonably safe'' 
throughout the Manual, because it cannot be easily defined, and as a 
result it is open to too much subjective interpretation. The FHWA 
proposes that each occurrence of the term either be eliminated or 
replaced with suitable language that is more appropriate.
    7. The FHWA proposes to change the phrase ``bicycle trail'' to 
``bikeway'' in several places in the Manual. The FHWA proposes this 
change because the term ``bikeway'' is a generic term used for any 
road, street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for 
bicycle travel and the term ``bicycle trail'' is generally used to 
designate only off-road trails or paths that are typically not 
constructed to engineering standards or guidelines, and the application 
of the MUTCD to such bicycle trails would generally be impractical, 
inappropriate, and inadvisable in some locations.
    8. The FHWA proposes to change the references to the book 
previously titled ``Standard Highway Signs'' to refer to the current 
``Standard Highway Signs and Markings.'' This change is proposed 
throughout the MUTCD because the FHWA is changing the title of that 
book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes information 
regarding markings.
    9. The FHWA has conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign 
codes used throughout the Manual, and proposes to revise sign codes in 
several places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As 
part of this process, the FHWA proposes to revise the term ``sign 
code'' to ``sign designation'' to avoid confusion with other uses of 
the word ``code,'' and to use the ``a'' suffix in sign designations for 
word message signs that are alternatives to symbol signs, use the ``P'' 
suffix for sign designations for plaques, and add ``(M)'' suffixes for 
signs that have metric units.
    10. In all Parts of the MUTCD where sign images are shown in the 
figures, the FHWA proposes to add sign images that are already in the 
Standard Highway Signs and Markings book, but not in the MUTCD, and to 
update figures to show proposed new signs or changes to existing signs.
    11. The FHWA proposes to add information in the MUTCD regarding 
toll plaza applications, because toll facilities are becoming more 
common and there is a need to provide more consistent use of signing, 
signals, and markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to 
enhance safety and convenience for road users. The FHWA proposes to add 
provisions on toll plaza traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4 
that reflect the results of research study on best practices for 
traffic control strategies at toll plazas \1\ (referred to hereafter as 
the ``Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report'') and 
FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
    \2\ ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,'' dated 
September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The FHWA proposes to expand the provisions regarding 
preferential lanes and add new provisions regarding managed lanes in 
various Parts of the MUTCD. This proposed information is contained 
primarily in Parts 2 and 3, and is intended to address specific signing 
and marking issues associated with electronic toll collection, High 
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls, etc. In addition, the FHWA 
proposes to eliminate some information regarding preferential lanes 
that is too specific for the MUTCD because it deals with highway 
planning and programmatic matters rather than the traffic control 
devices for preferential lanes.
    13. In order to further address the needs of motorcyclists, the 
FHWA proposes to add information to Parts 2, 3, and 8 regarding traffic 
control device considerations for motorcyclists.
    14. The FHWA proposes to change the designations of barricades to 
Types 1, 2, and 3 to eliminate the use of roman numerals because these 
are the only devices that are designated by roman numerals and to be 
consistent with other items such as object marker types. This editorial 
change would affect the text of several Parts of the MUTCD.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction

    15. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement 
regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. The FHWA proposes this 
change to incorporate recent changes to 23 CFR 655.603(a) \3\ that 
clarify that, for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase ``open 
to public travel'' includes toll roads and roads within shopping 
centers, parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar 
business and recreation facilities that are privately owned but where 
the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. The FHWA 
also proposes to modify the wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove the 
military base exemption from the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to apply the 
provisions in the MUTCD and modify the CFR based on a request from the 
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to include 
military bases in order to facilitate motorist safety through 
conformity and consistency with national standards. The FHWA agrees 
that many military bases are public and contain public roads that can 
be freely accessed, and that the use of such roads by military 
personnel from all over the country makes it especially important for 
traffic control devices on military bases to be in conformance with the 
national standards of the MUTCD. As a part of this change, the FHWA 
proposes to indicate that traffic control devices can be placed by the 
authority of non-public agencies, and the MUTCD is recognized as the 
national standard for traffic control devices on public facilities and 
private property open to public travel, as defined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated 
December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In the fourth STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add that 
substantial conformance of State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or 
Supplements shall be as defined in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1), to reflect the

[[Page 270]]

incorporation of the definition of that term into the CFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated 
December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. In the listing of target phase-in compliance dates, FHWA 
proposes to include the specific target phase-in compliance date for 
those items whose dates were determined through previous rulemaking, 
now that the effective dates are known. In addition, the FHWA proposes 
target phase-in compliance dates for a number of significant proposed 
changes in the NPA. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the listing 
any items for which the target phase-in compliance dates have already 
passed or will be passed by the date of the publication of the Final 
Rule resulting from this NPA. It should also be noted that the target 
phase-in compliance dates define the end of the ``phase-in compliance 
period'' as discussed for various items in the remainder of this 
document.
    18. Although not specifically shown in the NPA, the FHWA is 
considering incorporating the phase-in compliance periods into the body 
of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and sections in the 
Final Rule. The FHWA is considering this change because the list of 
phase-in compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more convenient 
and effective for practitioners to have phase-in compliance periods 
embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the Manual. 
The FHWA encourages the public to view the Minnesota State Department 
of Transportation Web site at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mutcd/index.html to view how Minnesota has incorporated the 
phase-in compliance periods into its State MUTCD text and to provide 
comments to the docket on whether Minnesota's method is preferable to 
listing all the phase-in compliance periods in the MUTCD Introduction.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General

    19. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA 
proposes to delete the STANDARD statement from this section, and place 
the text in Section 2A.06, because that section more appropriately 
deals with signs, including their colors and symbols. For the same 
reason, text in the OPTION statement relating to signs only is also 
proposed to be relocated to Section 2A.06.
    20. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control 
Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that signs 
and other devices (as explained in a proposed new SUPPORT statement) 
that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed with the 
permission of the public agency or official having jurisdiction, should 
be located where they will not interfere with, or detract from traffic 
control devices. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that there 
are some signs and devices that are placed within the right-of-way for 
distinct purposes that are not traffic control devices.
    21. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, 
and Interim Approvals, the FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD 
statement to indicate that electronic submittals of requests for 
interpretation, permission to experiment, interim approvals, or changes 
are preferred. The FHWA proposes to include the e-mail address for such 
submittals. As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes an 
OPTION statement that includes the postal address for such requests to 
be mailed to, in the event that the submitter does not have access to 
e-mail.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise and supplement the language 
regarding interim approvals for the use of traffic control devices in 
order to provide additional information about the process and reflect 
how it has evolved since the 2003 MUTCD.
    22. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA 
proposes to add four FHWA publications and a publication of the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to the list of 
publications in the SUPPORT statement. All of these documents are 
referenced in other Parts of the MUTCD.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to update the list to reflect 
current editions of the publications.
    The FHWA also proposes to delete existing publication 19, the 
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Recommended Practice 
titled, ``School Trip Safety Program Guidelines'' from the list of 
publications because ITE has rescinded publication of the reference 
document and the information from this publication is included within 
the MUTCD text where appropriate.
    23. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA proposes to add to the 
STANDARD statement the assignment of the color purple to indicate 
facilities or lanes that are allowed to be used only by vehicles 
equipped with electronic toll collection (ETC) transponders. The FHWA 
proposes this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes using 
signs and pavement markings as discussed below in the proposed changes 
in Parts 2 and 3. Color specifications for signing and marking 
materials are contained in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 1 through 6. The FHWA has 
reviewed color properties of the purple signing and marking materials 
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to revise the 
existing daytime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign 
material (Table 1), add nighttime color coordinates for purple 
retroreflective sign material (Table 2), and add daytime and nighttime 
color coordinates and luminance factors for purple retroreflective 
marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6). The proposed values for purple 
in the tables are as indicated below (no change is proposed for the 
existing values for luminance factors for purple as contained in Table 
1A):

  Table 1.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                              Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302.............  Existing 0.064 Proposed
                                             0.064
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307.............  Existing 0.200 Proposed
                                             0.202
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374.............  Existing 0.300 Proposed
                                             0.247
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457.............  Existing 0.202 Proposed
                                             0.136
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 2.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                              Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300......................................................        0.064
0.307......................................................        0.150
0.480......................................................        0.245
0.530......................................................        0.170
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                        Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300......................................................        0.064
0.309......................................................        0.260
0.362......................................................        0.295
0.475......................................................        0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 271]]


Table 5A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement
                            Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Minimum                              Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..........................................................           15
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 6.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                        Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.338......................................................        0.380
0.425......................................................        0.365
0.470......................................................        0.385
0.635......................................................        0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This 
Manual, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions for: ``bicycle 
lane,'' ``changeable message sign,'' ``contraflow lane,'' 
``crosswalk,'' ``flashing,'' ``highway traffic signal,'' 
``intersection,'' ``logo,'' ``occupancy requirement,'' ``public road,'' 
``raised pavement marker,'' ``road user,'' ``roundabout,'' ``rumble 
strip,'' ``sign,'' ``sign legend,'' ``speed,'' ``speed limit,'' ``speed 
zone,'' ``traffic,'' and ``traffic control device'' to better reflect 
accepted practice and terminologies and for consistency in the usage of 
these terms in one or more Parts of the MUTCD.
    The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for the words ``alley,'' 
``average annual daily traffic,'' ``barrier-separated lane,'' 
``bikeway,'' ``buffer-separated lane,'' ``circulatory roadway,'' 
``contiguous lane,'' ``electronic toll collection,'' ``flagger,'' 
``gate,'' ``highway-light rail transit grade crossing,'' ``hybrid 
signal,'' ``managed lane,'' ``multi-lane,'' ``open road electronic toll 
collection,'' ``opposing traffic,'' ``pathway,'' ``pictograph,'' 
``preferential lane,'' ``private property open to public travel,'' 
``public facility,'' ``safe-positioned,'' ``school,'' ``school zone,'' 
``signing,'' ``splitter island,'' ``symbol,'' ``turn bay,'' ``warning 
light,'' ``worker,'' and ``yield line'' to the list of definitions 
because they are used in the MUTCD.
    25. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 1A.13. 
The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 1A.14 
Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations in This Manual,'' and contains a 
STANDARD statement with 38 acronyms and abbreviations and their 
definitions. The remaining section in Chapter 1A would be renumbered 
accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding this new section to assist 
readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the Manual.
    26. In existing Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15) Abbreviations 
Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the 1st 
STANDARD statement a paragraph indicating that the abbreviations listed 
in Table 1A-2 shall be used only on Portable Changeable Message Signs 
and that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to be 
abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message sign, the abbreviations 
shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used. The original research \5\ on 
abbreviations was based on the need to shorten words when used on 
portable changeable message signs due to the limited number of 
characters available, unlike fixed-message signs. Many of the 
abbreviations were developed for words that would not otherwise 
normally be abbreviated on signs, and the intent was not to abbreviate 
such words on fixed-message signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Report number FHWA/RD-81/039 ``Human Factors Design of 
Dynamic Displays'' by C. L. Dudek and R. D. Huchingson, Final 
Report, May 1982, is available from the National Technical 
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, 
Web site http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE statement a 
sentence indicating that punctuation marks or other characters that are 
not letters or numerals should not be used in abbreviations, unless 
absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.
    27. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA proposes to 
add several additional abbreviations for various terms that are often 
used on signs or markings and for which a single abbreviation for each 
is needed to enhance uniformity. The FHWA also proposes to remove 
several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather than 
abbreviations (such as ``D'' for diesel on general service signs), and 
to revise several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the 
specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed. 
The FHWA also proposes to remove from Table 1A-1 some words that should 
not be abbreviated on static signs or large permanent full-matrix 
changeable message signs. In concert with these changes to Table 1A-1, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the title of Table 1A-2 to ``Abbreviations 
That Shall Only Be Used on Portable Changeable Message Signs'' and add 
to Table 1A-2 some of the abbreviations that would be removed from 
Table 1A-1. The FHWA also proposes to revise the content of Table 1A-2 
to specifically list the abbreviations (some of which can be used only 
with a prompt word) that are appropriate only for use on portable 
changeable message signs (PCMS).

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2 Signs

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 2--General
    28. In December 2005, the FHWA published a report on the findings 
of a synthesis of non-MUTCD traffic signing.\6\ The purposes of this 
synthesis (hereafter referred to as the Sign Synthesis Study) were to 
collect information on special (non-MUTCD) sign legends, designs, and 
symbols used by the State DOTs and by selected large cities and 
counties; to identify commonalities, such as what special conditions 
are the most common reasons for developing a special sign and what 
design elements have been most commonly used to communicate the 
message; and to determine the most likely candidate sign legends and 
symbols for potential inclusion in future editions of the MUTCD and 
make recommendations for standardized sign designs. The synthesis found 
that a considerable number and variety of non-MUTCD signs are in 
routine use by State and local highway agencies in the U.S. In many 
cases, jurisdictions have used the flexibility given to them by the 
MUTCD to develop and install special word message signs to communicate 
unique traffic regulations or warnings of conditions that are not 
specifically covered in the MUTCD. In some cases the same word message 
is used by most or all States to describe a particular condition. 
However, more often there is considerable variety among the States in 
the specific words or phrases used to communicate the same basic 
information to road users. Based on the information gathered in the 
synthesis, the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed for 
the frequently used signing not currently included in the MUTCD and is 
proposing to add several new signs throughout the MUTCD to provide road 
users with a uniform message for commonly encountered conditions. In 
addition to describing these proposed new signs in the MUTCD text, the 
FHWA proposes to add images of these proposed signs to applicable 
figures throughout the MUTCD. A brief discussion of each

[[Page 272]]

proposed new sign is included in the preamble for each appropriate 
chapter or section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signing,'' FHWA, December 
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases the FHWA is proposing new symbol signs that mirror 
existing Canadian MUTCD \7\ standard symbols that have been in 
longstanding use in that neighboring country. Such symbols were 
reviewed as a part of the signing synthesis. Canada has moved 
considerably farther into symbolization of common regulatory, warning, 
and guide/information messages (sometimes by adopting European symbols) 
than has the U.S. The synthesis found several well-designed Canadian 
symbols with intuitively obvious meanings for sign messages for which 
some or many States are using a non-MUTCD word message sign (often with 
many variations among States). The FHWA proposes adopting some of these 
Canadian symbols or close likenesses, with a temporary educational 
plaque as needed. The FHWA believes that this will improve the harmony 
of North American signing in view of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) and will enhance the convenience and safety of U.S. 
and international travelers when driving, riding, or walking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada, 
4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation 
Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario 
K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site http://www.tac-atc.ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The FHWA proposes to move object markers from Part 3 to Part 2, 
because there has been confusion regarding the location of object 
markers in the MUTCD, and the FHWA feels that information regarding 
object markers is best placed in Part 2. Object markers are typically 
fabricated from retroreflective sheeting mounted on a substrate and 
installed on a post and thus are more like a sign than a marking, and 
most public agencies handle object markers as signs rather than 
markings.
    30. The FHWA proposes to delete the recommendation that signs 
should only be used where justified by engineering studies or judgment 
from several places in Part 2. The FHWA proposes this change because it 
is not the intent of the Manual to make all sign device installations 
subject to engineering oversight. The FHWA understands that most signs 
are installed by sign crews authorized to make field decisions that are 
not necessarily reviewed by engineers or covered by policies prepared 
by engineers. These proposed revisions recognize the current practice 
of installing signs throughout the country and do not detract from the 
requirements that engineering studies must be done under engineering 
supervision for very specific traffic control decisions. However, at 
the same time it is not required that an engineer be involved in the 
decisions for each device at every location.
    31. The FHWA proposes to update the existing sign size Tables 2B-1 
and 2I-1 (new Table 2K-1) to reflect proposed new signs, deleted signs, 
and changes to sign sizes. The FHWA proposes to modify Table 2C-2 from 
its general treatment of warning sign sizes to instead specifically 
address each sign similarly to the way it is done in Table 2B-1. 
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add sign size Tables 2D-1, 2E-1, 2F-
1, and 2I-1 to specify the sizes for guide and motorist information 
signs that have a standardized legend.
    In Chapters 2B and 2C, the FHWA proposes to add to the appropriate 
OPTION statements that the minimum overall sign size may be decreased 
for signs in alleys with restrictive physical condition and vehicle 
usage that limits installation of the minimum size sign. The FHWA 
proposes this change to reflect the results of the FHWA MUTCD 
Urbanization Needs Survey,\8\ which included comments from a number of 
city traffic engineers that the MUTCD does not adequately address sign 
sizes and application for alley installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Urbanizing the MUTCD,'' by W. Scott Wainwright, 2003, 
paper no. CB03C184, Compendium of Papers for the 2003 Institute of 
Transportation Engineers Technical Conference, is available from the 
Institute of Transportation Engineers (Web site: http://www.ite.org). A presentation based on the paper can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/FHWA/MUTCD_Urbanization.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The FHWA proposes to eliminate the option of all uppercase 
letters for names of places, streets, and highways, and require that 
these names be composed of lowercase letters with an initial uppercase 
letter. The FHWA proposes this change, which affects provisions and 
figures in various chapters throughout Part 2, based on Older Driver 
research documented in FHWA reports \9\ (referred to hereafter as the 
``Older Driver handbook'') that shows significant legibility and 
recognition distance benefits versus all uppercase letters for 
destinations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and 
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm. Also see Recommendation II.A(2) in 
``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and 
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, which can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. In Chapters 2A and 2E, the FHWA also proposes to discourage the 
use of punctuation, apostrophes, questions marks or other characters on 
signs that are not letters or numerals unless absolutely necessary to 
avoid confusion. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with a 
similar proposed change in Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2A
    34. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the FHWA 
proposes to clarify the definition of ``special purpose road'' in item 
D of the STANDARD statement by deleting the phrase ``or that provides 
local access,'' because the existing definition is overly broad. FHWA 
intends to clarify that neighborhood residential streets are not 
special-purpose roads and signing for such streets should be the same 
as that for other conventional roads.
    35. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA proposes to relocate 
a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and its associated 
OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The FHWA proposes 
this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely place for a reader 
to look for information regarding sign design.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use 
of e-mail addresses to the last STANDARD and OPTION statements. The use 
of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site 
addresses. E-mail addresses are just as difficult to read and remember 
as Internet Web site addresses and constitute the same issues for a 
driver traveling at highway speeds. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    36. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information in existing 
Section 2A.07 to proposed new Chapter 2M in order to consolidate all 
information on changeable message signs into one chapter. The FHWA 
would renumber the remaining sections accordingly.
    37. In existing Section 2A.08 (new Section 2A.07) Retroreflectivity 
and Illumination, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to 
clarify that overhead sign installations on freeways and expressways 
should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that 
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination, and that 
overhead sign installations on conventional or special purpose roads

[[Page 273]]

should be illuminated unless engineering judgment indicates that 
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination. The FHWA 
proposes this change because the current language implies that written 
documentation (engineering study) is mandatory for the practitioner to 
decide that illumination is not needed for signs on conventional roads. 
The FHWA believes that such documentation is not necessary and 
therefore the FHWA proposes to recommend that engineering judgment be 
used rather than require an engineering study. Overhead sign 
installations such as street name signs, lane use signs, and other 
smaller sign installations on conventional roads generally would not 
warrant overhead lighting and may be impractical for structural 
reasons. Many overhead sign installations on conventional roads are on 
monotube structures that are not designed to support overhead lighting.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last STANDARD 
statement to prohibit the use of individual LED pixels and groups of 
LEDs within the background area of a sign, except for the STOP/SLOW 
paddles used by flaggers and the STOP paddles used by adult crossing 
guards. The FHWA's intent is to clarify that LEDs are to be used only 
in the border or in the legend/symbol and not in the background of 
signs.
    38. In existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.10) Sign Colors, the 
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows the use of 
fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The FHWA 
proposes this change in order to give jurisdictions the flexibility to 
use fluorescent colors when they determine that they are needed in 
order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part of this 
proposal, FHWA proposes to revise the color specifications in title 23 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F, 
Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the fluorescent version of the color red. 
The color specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and 
fluorescent pink are already included in 23 CFR 655. The FHWA has 
reviewed color properties of the fluorescent red signing and materials 
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to add daytime 
color coordinates and luminance factors for fluorescent red 
retroreflective sign material (Tables 3 and 3A), and add nighttime 
color coordinates for fluorescent red retroreflective sign material 
(Table 4). The proposed values for fluorescent red in the tables are as 
indicated below:

     Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
                      Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.666......................................................        0.334
0.613......................................................        0.333
0.671......................................................        0.275
0.735......................................................        0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 3A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective
                              Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Minimum                       Maximum         YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................................           30           15
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
                      Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.680......................................................        0.320
0.645......................................................        0.320
0.712......................................................        0.253
0.735......................................................        0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA has also reviewed the existing daytime color coordinates for 
fluorescent pink retroreflective sign materials and believes that these 
coordinates are overly restrictive for current technology. The FHWA 
proposes to revise the color coordinates in Table 3 for fluorescent 
pink, to include a fifth pair of x and y coordinates, to better define 
the color of fluorescent pink sign sheeting material. The proposed 
values for fluorescent pink in Table 3 are as follows:

     Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Pink
                      Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exist. 0.450 Prop. 0.600..................  Exist. 0.270 Prop. 0.340
Exist. 0.590 Prop. 0.450..................  Exist. 0.350 Prop. 0.332
Exist. 0.644 Prop. 0.430..................  Exist. 0.290 Prop. 0.275
Exist. 0.563 Prop. 0.536..................  Exist. 0.230 Prop. 0.230
Exist.--Prop. 0.644.......................  Exist.;-- Prop. 0.290
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2A-4 Common 
Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in the text. 
Specifically, the FHWA proposes to add the color purple for Electronic 
Toll Collection signs and to remove the use of the color yellow from 
school signs. The FHWA also proposes to add additional types of 
Changeable Message Signs and expand the table to include various legend 
and background colors for those signs, consistent with the proposed 
text of proposed new Chapter 2M as discussed below. In addition, the 
FHWA proposes to note that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and 
yellow background colors may be used.
    40. In existing Section 2A.12 (new Section 2A.11) Dimensions, the 
FHWA proposes to add new provisions to the STANDARD and GUIDANCE 
statements regarding the appropriate use of the various columns in the 
Tables throughout the MUTCD that describe sizes for signs on various 
classes of roads. The FHWA proposes this new language to clarify how 
the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA 
also proposes adding language in each of the sections throughout the 
MUTCD that refer to a sign size table, to refer back to this generally 
applicable text in existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.12), and to 
delete repetitive text on use of the various columns in the size tables 
that appears in other sections throughout the MUTCD.
    41. In existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.12) Symbols, the FHWA 
proposes to add a STANDARD statement and a corresponding OPTION 
statement at the end of the section prohibiting the use of symbols from 
one type of sign on a different type of sign, except in limited 
circumstances or as specifically authorized in the MUTCD. The FHWA 
proposes this change because the colors and shapes of symbols are 
designed to have a specific impact depending on the intended use of 
that type of sign. Intermixing symbols from one type of sign to a 
different type of sign may not have the same impact and may be 
potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically prohibited. 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    42. In existing Section 2A.14 (new Section 2A.13) Word Messages, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend 
that the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 22 mm (1 
in) of letter height per 9 m (30 ft) of legibility distance. In 
conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the 
SUPPORT statement that follows this first GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA 
proposes these changes in order to be consistent with

[[Page 274]]

recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \10\ that sign 
legibility be based on 20/40 vision. Most States allow drivers with 20/
40 corrected vision to obtain driver's licenses, and with the 
increasing numbers of older drivers the FHWA believes that 20/40 vision 
should be the basis of letter heights used on signs. This proposed 
change will generally not impact the design of guide signs because 
existing MUTCD provisions for guide sign letter heights provide 
sufficient legibility distances for 20/40 vision in most cases. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies. The sizes of some regulatory and warning signs used 
in some situations will need to be increased to provide for larger 
letter sizes. Specific changes to sign sizes resulting from the 
proposed change in Section 2A.14 are discussed below in the items 
pertaining to the sign size tables in other Chapters in Part 2 and in 
certain other Parts of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and 
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm. Also see recommendation number 
II.A(1) in ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. In existing Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, the 
FHWA proposes to clarify the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the 
corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another. 
The FHWA proposes this clarification to better facilitate the use of 
sign fabrication software with inset borders.
    44. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders. The proposed new 
section is numbered and titled ``Section 2A.15 Enhanced Conspicuity for 
Standard Signs'' and contains an OPTION statement regarding the methods 
that may be used to enhance the conspicuity of standard regulatory, 
warning, or guide signs and a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of 
strobe lights as a sign conspicuity enhancement method. The various 
conspicuity enhancement methods proposed reflect widespread and 
successful practices by State and local agencies. The FHWA proposes 
this new section to provide improved uniformity of such treatments to 
benefit road users. The remaining sections in Chapter 2A would be 
renumbered accordingly.
    45. In existing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA 
proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE an additional recommended 
criterion for locating signs where they do not obscure the sight 
distance to approaching vehicles on a major street for drivers who are 
stopped on minor-street approaches. The FHWA proposes this change to 
reflect good engineering practice and improve safety.
    The FHWA also proposes to add to the 3rd GUIDANCE statement that 
the placement of wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should have 
a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA proposes this change 
to clarify the priority of sign type placement, reflecting the proposed 
addition to the manual of new types of guide signs.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last GUIDANCE 
statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP and YIELD 
signs at intersections, to clarify that the dimension shown in Figure 
2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs from the edge of 
pavement of the intersected roadway is GUIDANCE.
    46. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA proposes to change 
the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD to require that the 
provisions of this section apply to all signs and object markers, 
unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the Manual. The FHWA 
proposes this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this 
section are mandatory, particularly as they relate to pedestrian 
considerations.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement that refers the 
reader to Chapter 2L for mounting heights for object markers and 
clarifies that the minimum heights given in combination with 
crashworthy supports may not necessarily constitute a crashworthy sign 
assembly. The FHWA proposes this new text to provide readers with the 
appropriate references to materials with additional information on 
mounting heights and crashworthiness.
    In addition to reorganizing the text within the STANDARD statements 
in this section, the FHWA proposes to clarify that mounting heights 
should be measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level 
of the near edge of the pavement. The FHWA also proposes to add text to 
clarify that a minimum height of 2.1 m (7 ft) is to be used for signs 
installed at the side of the road in business, commercial, or 
residential areas where parking or pedestrian movements are likely to 
occur, or where the view of the sign might be obstructed, or where 
signs are installed above sidewalks. In concert with these changes, the 
FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending that a sign not 
project more than 100 mm (4 in) into a pedestrian facility if the 
bottom of a secondary sign that is mounted below another sign, is 
mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft). The FHWA proposes these changes in 
order to make the mounting height language consistent throughout the 
Manual, and to add language that requires consideration of pedestrian 
activity in the vicinity of signs, per ADAAG provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the new third STANDARD 
statement that where large signs are installed on multiple breakaway 
posts, the clearance from the ground to the bottom of the sign shall be 
at least 2.1 m (7 ft), in order to provide consistency with other parts 
of the Manual.
    47. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA proposes to add a 
GUIDANCE statement that overhead sign supports and post-mounted sign 
and object marker supports should not intrude into the usable width of 
a sidewalk or other pedestrian facility. The FHWA proposes this new 
text to comply with ADAAG provisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2B
    48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes 
changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement to clarify 
that regulatory signs are rectangular unless specifically designated 
otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA also proposes adding a 
reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings \13\ book for sign 
design elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The current edition of ``Standard Highway Signs and 
Markings,'' FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes relocating the first two paragraphs of 
existing Section 2B.54 to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02, 
because the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word 
messages and symbols which is more relevant in this section.
    49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to 
add a new STANDARD statement at the end of the section that requires 
that

[[Page 275]]

minimum sizes for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane 
conventional roads shall be as shown on Table 2B-2, and requiring a 
specific minimum size for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches. 
The FHWA proposes this new text and table to provide signs on multi-
lane approaches that are more visible and legible to drivers with 
visual acuity of 20/40. On multi-lane roads, increased legibility 
distances are also needed due to the potential blockage of signs by 
other vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
    50. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2B-1 
Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These proposed changes include adding 
more sizes in the ``Minimum'' column for use in low speed environments. 
The FHWA also proposes to add several more signs and supplemental 
plaques to the table to correspond with other proposed changes within 
Part 2.
    51. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 2B.03 
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections.'' 
This proposed new section contains information currently contained in 
Section 2B.05. In addition, the FHWA proposes additional 
recommendations on the factors that should be considered in 
establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and YIELD signs. 
The proposed additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical 
progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.
    The FHWA also proposes to include a STANDARD statement that 
prohibits the use of STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with other 
traffic control signal operation, except for the cases specified in the 
STANDARD. While much of this information is in existing Section 2B.05, 
the FHWA proposes to add a specific case regarding channelized turn 
lanes to the list of cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used, 
reflecting common practice.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to include requirements for the use of 
folding STOP signs for traffic signal power outages by adding language 
to the MUTCD that corresponds to Official Interpretation 2-
545.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-545, April 9, 
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 
2B.04 to ``Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and Supplemental Plaques.'' As part 
of this change, the FHWA proposes to require the use of the ALL-WAY 
supplemental plaque if all intersection approaches are controlled by 
STOP signs, to limit the use of the ALL-WAY plaque to only those 
locations where all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP 
signs, and to prohibit the use of supplemental plaques with the legend 
2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, etc. below STOP signs. The FHWA proposes these 
changes to provide uniformity in the use of supplemental plaques with 
STOP signs, especially at locations where all approaches are controlled 
by STOP signs.
    The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending the use 
of plaques with appropriate alternate messages, such as TRAFFIC FROM 
RIGHT DOES NOT STOP, where STOP signs control all but one approach to 
the intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to encourage the use of 
these plaques at intersections that need increased driver awareness 
regarding an unexpected right-of-way control.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing the use of a 
proposed new EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque mounted below a STOP 
sign when an engineering study determines that a special combination of 
geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for 
right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the 
intersection without stopping. The FHWA proposes this change to give 
agencies flexibility in establishing right-of-way controls for such 
special conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study \15\ found that at least 
12 States have developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose. 
The FHWA proposes the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate 
legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 18, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. The FHWA proposes to relocate much of the information in 
existing Section 2B.05 (new Section 2B.06) STOP Sign Applications to 
the proposed new Section 2B.04. The FHWA also proposes to add 
additional language to the remaining GUIDANCE statement that lists 
conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered. 
This change would provide agencies with specific and quantitative 
guidance regarding the use of STOP signs.
    54. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.06 STOP Sign 
Placement from the MUTCD, because most of the text in this section is 
proposed to be incorporated into Section 2B.10.
    55. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA proposes to 
clarify the STANDARD statement by adding that YIELD signs at 
roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall 
not be used to control the circular roadway. The FHWA proposes this 
change to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reflect 
the prevailing practices of modern roundabout design.
    56. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.10 to ``STOP Sign or 
YIELD Sign Placement'' to reflect the relocation of language regarding 
STOP sign placement from existing Section 2B.06 to this section.
    The FHWA proposes to delete the requirement from the first STANDARD 
statement that YIELD signs be placed on both the left and right sides 
of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane and instead make 
this a recommendation in a GUIDANCE statement near the end of the 
Section. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an 
OPTION allowing similar placement of a YIELD sign on the left-hand side 
of a single lane roundabout approach if a raised splitter island is 
available. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect current practice 
on signing roundabout approaches and to allow agencies additional 
flexibility.
    The FHWA also proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement that 
no items other than retroreflective strips on the supports, official 
traffic control signs, sign installation dates, or several other 
inventory-type items shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or 
YIELD signs or on their supports. In conjunction with this proposed 
change, the FHWA proposes to clarify the first GUIDANCE statement to 
indicate that a sign that is mounted back-to-back with a STOP or YIELD 
sign should stay within the edges of the STOP or YIELD sign, and that 
if needed, the size of the STOP or YIELD sign should be increased to 
accomplish this recommendation. The FHWA proposes these changes to 
clarify the language that resulted in confusion amongst some 
practitioners regarding the placement of messages on the back of STOP 
and YIELD signs and to assure that the shape of these critical 
intersection right-of-way signs can be discerned from the opposite 
direction of approach. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies. This proposed new phase-in 
compliance period would supersede the existing phase-in compliance 
period (for existing

[[Page 276]]

Sections 2B.06 and 2B.10) of 10 years from the effective date of the 
Final Rule for the 2003 edition, or December 20, 2013.
    The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of the 
section prohibiting the placement of two STOP signs or two YIELD signs 
on the same support facing the same direction. The FHWA proposes this 
change to prohibit this practice, because it is potentially confusing 
and not an acceptable method of adding emphasis.
    57. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.11 to ``Yield Here to 
Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs'' to reflect 
additional language that FHWA also proposes to add to this section 
regarding the use of Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs. The proposed new 
language would be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7 
regarding the placement of these signs, as well as stop and yield 
lines. The FHWA proposes adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign 
because some State laws require motorists to come to a full stop for, 
rather than yield to, pedestrians in a crosswalk.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD and OPTION 
statements at the end of the section regarding the combination use of 
Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11-2) signs with the Yield Here to (Stop 
Here for) Pedestrian (R1-5 series) sign. The FHWA proposes these 
additions to allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead but 
not post-mounted where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) signs have been 
installed. The FHWA also proposes to allow the use of advance 
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs on the approach with AHEAD or 
distance plaques and In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs at the 
crosswalk where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian signs have 
been installed. The FHWA proposes this new language to be consistent 
with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's 
Official Interpretation 2-566.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-566, July 27, 
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION 
statements regarding the use of a proposed new Overhead Pedestrian 
Crossing (R1-9 or R1-9a) sign that may be used to remind road users of 
laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk. 
The FHWA proposes to add this sign based on the Sign Synthesis 
Study,\17\ which revealed that some agencies use an overhead sign, 
because it is needed in some applications. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA 
proposes to add this sign to Table 2B-1, Figure 2B-2 and to the 
appropriate text and figures in Part 7, for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 19, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to insert new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements 
between the first OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding conditions 
and criteria to be used in determining when In-Street Pedestrian 
Crossing signs should be used at unsignalized intersections. The FHWA 
proposes these additional statements to provide for more uniform 
application of these signs and discourage over-use.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement restricting the 
placement of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign to the roadway at 
the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a 
median island. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an 
OPTION statement permitting the W11-2 sign with downward sloping arrow 
to be post-mounted on the right-hand side of the street if the 
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) warning sign is used in combination with 
the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. The FHWA proposes this new text 
to be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is 
based on FHWA's Official Interpretation  7-64(1).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(1), July 23, 
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/7_64.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the existing first STANDARD 
statement by specifying that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign 
shall have a black legend and border on a white background, surrounded 
by an outer fluorescent yellow-green background area, or by an outer 
fluorescent yellow background area. FHWA proposes this change to 
clarify how the sign is to be designed and to allow the alternate color 
of fluorescent yellow.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of this STANDARD 
statement to indicate that unless an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign 
is placed on a physical island, it is to be designed to bend over and 
then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a 
vehicle. The FHWA proposes this change because while all signs must be 
crashworthy, these in-street signs need to have special supports to 
minimize damage to vehicles and injuries to pedestrians if the signs 
are struck by a passing vehicle. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    Finally, the FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement prior 
to the last OPTION statement that provides requirements on the mounting 
heights for In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. The FHWA proposes this 
new STANDARD statement to preclude incorrect mounting of this sign when 
it is on an island.
    59. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to 
the STANDARD statement that speed zones (other than statutory speed 
limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study 
that includes an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-
flowing vehicles. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that 
consideration is to be given to the free-flow speed when determining 
altered speed zones, and to clarify that statutorily established speed 
limits, such as those typically established by State laws setting 
statewide maximum limits for various classes of roads, do not require 
an engineering study. The FHWA also proposes adding a new SUPPORT 
statement to provide additional information about the difference 
between a statutory speed limit and an altered speed zone.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes relocating and incorporating the 
material from existing Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Signs, to 
this section. The FHWA proposes this change in order to place material 
regarding the Speed Limit sign in one section for better clarity and 
flow.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION statement that permits 
the use of several new plaques (R2-5P series) to be mounted with the 
Speed Limit Sign when a jurisdiction has a policy of installing speed 
limit signs only on the streets that enter from a jurisdictional 
boundary or from a higher speed street to indicate that the speed limit 
is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area 
unless otherwise posted. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect 
common practice in some urban areas, as documented by the Sign 
Synthesis Study,\19\ and because

[[Page 277]]

it is often unnecessary and overly costly to install a speed limit sign 
on every minor residential street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 19-20, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes adding a new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE 
statement to recommend that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used 
where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph, 
or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice. 
The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide consistency with the 
recommendations contained in Chapter 2C.
    60. The FHWA proposes relocating all of the text from existing 
Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Sign to Section 2B.13 Speed Limit 
Sign. (See item 59 above.)
    61. In existing Section 2B.19 (new Section 2B.18) the FHWA proposes 
to change the title to ``Movement Prohibition Signs'' to incorporate 
the inclusion of the proposed new No Straight Through (R3-27) sign in 
the GUIDANCE statement in this section. The symbolic No Straight 
Through sign is most commonly used for traffic restrictions associated 
with traffic calming programs. The sign is useful at intersections 
having four approaches, where the through movement to be prohibited is 
onto a street or road that does not have a ``Do Not Enter'' condition, 
such as when 90-degree turns into the roadway are allowed, but the 
straight ahead movement into the roadway is prohibited. This proposed 
new sign uses the standard Canadian MUTCD RB-10 sign as the basis of 
the design. The FHWA proposes to add an illustration of this new sign 
to Figure 2B-3.
    The FHWA also proposes changing the first paragraph of the 2nd 
OPTION statement regarding the use of Turn Prohibition Signs adjacent 
to signal heads to a GUIDANCE statement. For conspicuity reasons, these 
signs should be mounted near the appropriate signal face, and this 
reflects typical practice. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to change this 
to a recommended practice rather than an option.
    Additionally, the FHWA proposes adding new STANDARD and SUPPORT 
statements at the end of this section to prohibit the use of No Left 
Turn, No U-Turn, and combination No U-Turn/No Left Turn signs at 
roundabouts in order to prohibit drivers from turning left onto the 
circular roadway of a roundabout. The proposed language also indicates 
that ONE WAY and/or Roundabout Directional Arrow signs are the 
appropriate signs to indicate the travel direction for this condition. 
The FHWA proposes these changes to provide uniformity in signing at 
roundabouts and to reduce the possibility of confusion for drivers who 
intend to turn left by circumnavigating the roundabout.
    62. In existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane 
Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that 
overhead lane control signs should be installed over the appropriate 
lanes on signalized approaches where lane drops, multiple-lane turns 
with shared through-and-turn lanes, or other lane-use controls that 
would be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The FHWA 
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Part 4 
and to enhance safety and efficiency by providing for more effective 
signing for these potentially confusing situations. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph at the end of the OPTION 
statement regarding the types of arrows that may be used on 
Intersection Lane Control signs at roundabouts. The FHWA also proposes 
to add a new figure numbered and titled ``Figure 2B-5 Intersection Lane 
Control Sign Arrow Options for Roundabouts'' illustrating the signs. 
The FHWA proposes to add this information to reflect current practice 
for roundabout signing and to correspond with similar options proposed 
for pavement marking arrows on roundabout approaches in Part 3.
    63. In existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) Mandatory 
Movement Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the first 
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that Mandatory Movement 
Lane Use Control signs shall indicate only the single vehicle movement 
that is required from each lane, and to clarify the placement of the 
signs. The FHWA also proposes to add that where three or more lanes are 
available to through traffic and Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol 
signs are used, these shall be mounted overhead. The FHWA proposes 
these changes for consistency with existing Section 2B.22 (new Section 
2B.21).
    The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of 
this section describing the optional use of the proposed new BEGIN 
RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs at the 
upstream ends of mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA proposes this change to 
give agencies flexibility to use these proposed new signs to designate 
the beginning of mandatory turn lanes where needed for enforcement 
purposes.
    64. In existing Section 2B.22 (new Section 2B.21) Optional Movement 
Lane Control Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement 
to clarify that, if used, Optional Movement Lane Control signs shall be 
located in advance of and/or at the intersection where the lane 
controls apply. This proposed change also provides consistency with 
existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) regarding placement of 
Movement Lane Control Signs.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of 
the section prohibiting the use of the word message only when more than 
one movement is permitted from a lane. The FHWA proposes this change to 
be consistent with other requirements in the MUTCD regarding the use of 
the term ONLY for lane use.
    65. In existing Section 2B.23 (new Section 2B.22) Advance 
Intersection Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD at 
the end of the section prohibiting the overhead placement of Advance 
Intersection Lane Control (R3-8) signs where the number of lanes 
available to through traffic on an approach is three or more. In such 
cases, overhead R3-5 signs are used. The FHWA proposes this change to 
be consistent with existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19).
    66. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following new Section 
2B.22 (existing Section 2B.23). The new section is numbered and titled, 
``Section 2B.23 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign.'' This proposed new 
section contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this sign 
for a lane of a freeway or expressway that is approaching a grade-
separated interchange where traffic in the lane is required to depart 
the roadway onto the exit ramp at the next interchange. As documented 
in the Sign Synthesis Study,\20\ at least 12 States currently use this 
type of regulatory sign for freeway lane drop situations to establish 
the ``must exit'' regulation and make it enforceable where warning 
signs and markings alone have proven ineffective. (The overhead ``Exit 
Only'' plaque on

[[Page 278]]

guide signs is yellow and is a warning message.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 22, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. The FHWA proposes editorial and organizational changes to 
existing Sections 2B.26 through 2B.28 to improve the consistency and 
flow of information and improve its usability by readers. These 
proposed changes involve relocating paragraphs within and between these 
sections and reorganizing the text into five sections. The sections are 
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.26 Regulatory Signs for Preferential 
Lanes--General,'' ``Section 2B.27 Preferential Lanes Vehicle Occupancy 
Definition Signs,'' ``Section 2B.28 Preferential Lane Periods of 
Operation Signs,'' ``Section 2B.29 Preferential Lane Ahead Signs,'' and 
``Section 2B.30 Preferential Lane Ends Signs.'' As a part of this 
change, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and 
SUPPORT statements regarding regulatory signing for lanes that are 
restricted to Electronic Toll Collection only, as a form of 
preferential lane, to provide consistency in regulatory signing for 
this increasingly used management strategy, and regarding mounting of 
preferential lane regulatory signs where lateral clearance is limited, 
to reflect existing practices. The FHWA also proposes removing text 
from existing Section 2B.27 regarding the establishment and revision of 
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane operations that is not directly 
related to traffic control devices but is programmatic in nature, and 
instead refer to an FHWA program guidance document that contains this 
information.
    68. The FHWA proposes to add several new sign images and to revise 
several existing sign images in existing Figure 2B-7 (new Figure 2B-8) 
Examples of Preferential Lane Regulatory Signs that illustrate the 
various regulatory signs used to designate HOV and bus preferential 
lanes, to reflect state of the practice for improved conspicuity and 
legibility of Preferential Lane regulatory signs for HOV Lanes, and to 
reflect recent FHWA policy guidance on traffic control devices for 
preferential lane facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This August 3, 2007 FHWA policy memorandum can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. The FHWA proposes to add two sections that further describe 
regulatory signing at toll plazas and for managed lanes. The proposed 
sections are numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.31 Regulatory Signs for 
Toll Plazas'' and ``Section 2B.32 Regulatory Signs for Managed Lanes 
and ETC Only Lanes.'' The FHWA proposes these new sections in order to 
provide consistency and uniformity in signing practices for these types 
of facilities, which are becoming increasingly common and for which 
uniform signing provisions are not currently contained in the MUTCD. 
The proposed provisions generally reflect available guidance such as 
the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations report \22\ and 
various FHWA publications on managed lanes.\23\ As a part of these 
changes, new symbols that denote exact change and attended lanes are 
proposed for use in toll plaza signing in order to help road users more 
quickly identify the proper lane(s) to choose for the type of toll 
payment they will use. A new symbol that denotes that a toll facility's 
ETC payment system is nationally interoperable with all other ETC 
payment systems is also proposed for future use as this 
interoperability is anticipated to become available in the next few 
years. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
    \23\ ``Managed Lanes--A Primer,'' FHWA publication number FHWA-
HOP-05-031, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf and ``Managed Lanes--A Cross-Cutting Study,'' FHWA 
report number FHWA-HOP-05-037, November, 2004, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. The FHWA proposes to add a new section titled, ``Section 2B.33 
Jughandle Signs.'' The new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and 
OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs for jughandles. 
Regulatory signing for jughandles is critical because the geometry 
typically requires left turns and U-turns to be made via a right turn, 
either in advance of or beyond the intersection, and this is contrary 
to normal driver expectations. The Sign Synthesis Study \24\ found that 
jughandles are currently in common use in at least six States and the 
FHWA believes that jughandles are likely to see increasing use in the 
future in more States in order to improve intersection safety and 
operations. Therefore, in order to provide agencies with uniform 
signing practices for several of the most common geometric layouts of 
jughandles, the FHWA proposes this new section along with several new 
signs and a figure to illustrate their use. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition 
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. In existing Section 2B.29 (new section 2B.34) Do Not Pass Sign, 
the FHWA proposes to introduce a new symbol sign that has been in use 
and well understood in Europe and Canada (the Canadian MUTCD RB-31 
sign) for many decades.\25\ The FHWA proposes to add this symbol sign 
due to the need to reduce the number of word message signs, increase 
symbolization, and promote better harmony due to globalization and 
increasing international travel. Because this symbol is new, the FHWA 
proposes to allow the use of a DO NOT PASS educational plaque with this 
sign. The FWHA also proposes to allow the optional continued use of the 
existing word message sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing 
Section 2B.29 (new Section 2B.34). The first new section, numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE 
Sign,'' contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this word 
sign. As found by the Sign Synthesis Study,\26\ at least five States 
use signs to remind road users of the meaning of a solid yellow line 
for no-passing zones, however, there is considerable variety in the 
wording that is used. The term ``Do No Pass'' is preferable because 
that same terminology has been used in the R4-1 sign. ``Solid Line'' is 
preferable because it is fewer words and all center lines are yellow, 
so it is not necessary to state the color of the line. ``On Your Side'' 
is simpler and easier to understand than ``right of center line'' or 
``in your lane.'' Therefore, the FHWA proposes that the new sign have a 
standard message of ``Do Not Pass When Solid Line Is On Your Side'' in 
order to provide consistency and uniformity. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good

[[Page 279]]

condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. The second new proposed section is numbered and titled, 
``Section 2B.36 DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign and DO NOT PASS ON 
SHOULDER Sign'' and contains an OPTION statement regarding the use of 
these two proposed new signs to inform road users that use of the 
shoulder as a travel lane or to pass other vehicles is prohibited. The 
FHWA proposes these two new signs because the Sign Synthesis Study \27\ 
found that at least 19 States are using some version of regulatory sign 
to prohibit driving, turning, and/or passing on shoulders and the FHWA 
feels that consistent and uniform messages for these purposes should be 
provided to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered 
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.31 (new 
Section 2B.38) ``SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign and KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT 
TO PASS Sign'' and expand the existing OPTION and GUIDANCE statements 
in this section to add the proposed new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign. 
The Sign Synthesis Study \28\ found that at least 19 States use a 
``Keep Right Except to Pass'' sign to legally require vehicles to stay 
in the right-hand lane of a multi-lane highway except when passing a 
slower vehicle, and the FHWA feels that a consistent message should be 
provided to road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.32 (new 
Section 2B.39) to ``TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE Sign'' and revise the section 
to discontinue the use of the TRUCK LANE XXX FEET (R4-6) as a 
regulatory sign because the message is one of guidance information 
(distance to the start of the truck lane) rather than regulatory in 
nature. This is consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2D that 
adds a new guide sign with this message. Also, the FHWA proposes to add 
an OPTION that describes the appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS USE 
RIGHT LANE sign on multi-lane roadways to reduce unnecessary lane 
changing.
    76. In existing Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40) Keep Right and 
Keep Left Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new narrow Keep Right (R4-
7c) sign that may be installed on narrow median noses where there is 
insufficient lateral clearance for a standard width sign. The FHWA 
proposes this new sign, which is only 12 inches wide rather than the 
standard 24 inch wide R4-7 sign, to reflect current practice in some 
States and to provide other agencies with the flexibility to use this 
sign where applicable.
    77. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing 
Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40). The first proposed new section is 
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.41 STAY IN LANE Sign'' and contains 
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements on the use of STAY IN LANE (R4-9) signs 
and the pavement markings that should be used with them. The second 
proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 2B.42 RUNAWAY 
VEHICLES ONLY Sign'' and contains a GUIDANCE statement regarding the 
use of the RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY Sign near truck escape ramp entrances. 
Both the STAY IN LANE and RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY signs are existing 
signs illustrated in existing Figure 2B-8 (new Figure 2B-13), but not 
described in the existing text of the MUTCD. The third proposed new 
section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.43 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out 
Signs'' and contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD statements regarding 
three proposed new signs that may be used on two-lane highways where 
physical turn-out areas are provided for the purpose of giving a group 
of faster vehicles an opportunity to pass a slow-moving vehicle. As 
documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,\29\ at least eight States, 
mostly in the west, use regulatory signs to legally require slow moving 
vehicles to use the turnout if a certain number of following vehicles 
are being impeded. Most of the eight States use similar wording on 
their signs, but there are some variations. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for the use of Slow Vehicle Turn-Out 
signs to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The 
FHWA proposes adding these new signs to provide for uniformity of the 
message. The remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered 
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. In existing Sections 2B.34 and 2B.35 (new Sections 2B.44 and 
2B.45), the FHWA proposes to allow lower mounting heights for Do Not 
Enter and Wrong Way signs as a specific exception when an engineering 
study indicates that it would address wrong-way movements at freeway/
expressway entrance ramps. The FHWA proposes this exception based on 
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \30\ and positive 
experience in several States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.D(4d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. In existing Section 2B.36 (new Section 2B.46) Selective 
Exclusion Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the legend of several 
existing selective exclusion signs to use the word NO rather than 
PROHIBITED or EXCLUDED, to simplify the messages and make them easier 
to read from a distance. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to add regulatory AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY 
and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY signs to the last OPTION statement to reflect 
current practice.
    80. In existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29) Pedestrian Signs 
and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to modify the designs of the R10-3, R10-
3a through R10-3e, R10-4, R10-4a, and R10-4b to include the Canadian 
MUTCD standard symbol for pushbuttons (in addition to the words), to 
begin the symbolization of the ``pushbutton'' message. The FHWA 
proposes this change to provide better harmony in North American 
signing design, which is needed as a result of the increased travel 
between the US, Canada, and Mexico resulting from NAFTA. The FHWA 
proposes to use this new pushbutton symbol on several signs throughout 
the MUTCD.
    81. In existing Section 2B.37 (new Section 2B.47) ONE WAY Signs, 
the FHWA proposes to change the existing GUIDANCE statement to a 
STANDARD to require, rather than recommend, that ONE WAY signs be 
placed on the near right, far left, and far right corners of each 
intersection with the directional roadways of divided highways. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. 
The FHWA proposes to revise Figures 2B-18 through 2B-20 accordingly. In 
concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to revise the 
second paragraph of the OPTION statement to clarify that agencies may 
omit the use of certain ONE WAY signs at intersections with

[[Page 280]]

medians less than 9 m (30 ft). The FHWA proposes to require the 
installation of ONE WAY signs to reflect recommendations from the Older 
Driver handbook.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.E(4), 
I.K(2), and I.K(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add two new paragraphs to the 2nd 
STANDARD statement to require two ONE WAY signs for each approach for 
T-intersections and cross intersections, one near side and one far 
side. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect recommendations from the 
Older Driver handbook.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.K(4) and 
I.K(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add new OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT 
statements at the end of the Section regarding the use of ONE WAY signs 
on central islands of roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add this text 
to promote consistency in signing for roundabouts.
    82. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2E.50 to a new section numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.48 
Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps.'' The FHWA proposes 
this change because these types of signs are regulatory in nature, 
rather than guide signs. The remaining sections would be renumbered 
accordingly.
    83. In existing Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49) Divided Highway 
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement 
to a STANDARD and revise the text to require the use of Divided Highway 
Crossing Signs for all approaches to divided highways in order to 
encompass recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\33\ As part 
of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION 
statement to allow the sign to be omitted if the divided road has 
average annual daily traffic less than 400 vehicles per day and a speed 
limit of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.K(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes changing the existing 2nd OPTION statement 
to a STANDARD in order to require that the Divided Highway Crossing 
sign be located on the near right corner of the intersection. As part 
of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION 
statement to permit the installation of an additional Divided Highway 
Crossing sign on the left-hand side of the approach to supplement the 
sign on the near right corner of the intersection. As in the previous 
item, these proposed changes are to implement recommendations from the 
Older Driver handbook. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for the revised provisions on the use of Divided Highway 
Crossing signs at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
    84. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing 
Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49). The first proposed new section is 
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.50 Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs 
(R6-4, R6-4a, and R6-4b)'' and contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION 
statements on the use of Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs. The second 
proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 2B.51 Roundabout 
Circulation Sign (R6-5P)'' and contains GUIDANCE and OPTION statements 
regarding the use of the Roundabout Circulation Sign at roundabouts and 
other circular intersections. The third proposed new section is 
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.52 Examples of Roundabout Signing'' 
and it contains a SUPPORT statement referencing new Figures 2B-24 
through 2B-26 that illustrate examples of regulatory and warning signs 
for roundabouts of various configurations. The proposed new SUPPORT 
statement also references other areas in the Manual that contain 
information on guide signing and pavement markings at roundabouts. The 
remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered accordingly. The 
FHWA proposes these new sections in order to add valuable information 
regarding regulatory and warning signs at roundabouts to the MUTCD. The 
use of roundabouts has increased over the past 10 years, and it is 
important that more detailed information on effective signing of 
roundabouts be included in the Manual in order to have consistency for 
road users throughout the country. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing regulatory signs for 
roundabouts in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    85. In existing Section 2B.40 (new Section 2B.54) Design of 
Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, the FHWA proposes several 
changes to the colors of the borders of parking signs. The FHWA 
proposes to revise the 2nd paragraph of the first STANDARD statement to 
reflect that the Parking Prohibition signs R7-201a, R8-4, and R8-7 
shall have a black legend and border on a white background, and the R8-
3a sign shall have a black legend and border and a red circle on a 
white background. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the 
existing designs of these specific signs.
    The FHWA also proposes changing the last paragraph of the existing 
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that a VAN ACCESSIBLE 
plaque be installed below the R7-8 sign where parking spaces that are 
reserved for persons with disabilities are designated to accommodate 
wheelchair vans. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect Section 502.6 
of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement 
following the (new) 2nd GUIDANCE statement that specifies the required 
colors of the R7-8, R7-8a, and R7-8b signs, to reflect the existing 
sign color schemes for these signs as illustrated in existing Figure 
2B-16 (new Figure 2B-27).
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE and STANDARD statements 
prior to the last OPTION statement regarding the use of proposed new 
Pay for Parking and Parking Pay Station signs where a fee is charged 
for parking and a midblock pay station is used instead of individual 
parking meters. The FHWA proposes to add these signs to reflect current 
practice in many areas where cities and towns are replacing individual 
parking space meters with a ``pay and display'' system. The FHWA 
proposes a design for the fee station sign that is very similar to a 
standard European symbol, because the results of the Sign Synthesis 
Study \34\ showed that several U.S. cities are using a sign very 
similar to the European design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 27, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
    86. In existing Section 2B.44 (new Section 2B.58) Pedestrian 
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to 
recommend that No Pedestrian Crossing Signs be supplemented with 
detectable guidance, such as grass strips, landscaping, planters, 
fencing, rails, or barriers in order to provide pedestrians who have

[[Page 281]]

visual disabilities with additional guidance as to where not to cross.
    87. In existing Section 2B.45 (new Section 2B.59) Traffic Signal 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete the first existing GUIDANCE 
statement regarding the placement of Traffic Signal signs because 
locations of signs near signal faces are proposed to be specifically 
recommended for individual signs where this is appropriate.
    To correspond with proposed changes in Chapter 4E requiring that 
signs for pedestrian pushbuttons clearly indicate which crosswalk 
signal is actuated by each pedestrian detector, the FHWA proposes to 
revise the first SUPPORT and OPTION statements in this section and the 
sign images in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29). The proposed 
revisions eliminate the use of the existing R10-1, R10-3 and R10-4 sign 
designs because these do not identify a specific crosswalk, and 
therefore do not meet the proposed requirement in Chapter 4E. The FHWA 
proposes to redesign those signs and revise the text in this section to 
clarify how to use the R10 series of pushbutton signs appropriately. 
The FHWA also proposes to add paragraphs to the 2nd OPTION statement 
regarding the use of a new R10-25 sign, where a pushbutton detector has 
been installed for pedestrians to activate In-Roadway Warning Lights or 
flashing beacons, and a new R10-24 sign, where a pushbutton detector 
has been installed exclusively for bicyclists, to enable bicyclists to 
actuate a separate bike signal phase or a parallel vehicular green 
phase at a signalized crossing. Bikes need less time to cross than 
pedestrians, so the push buttons actuate timing specifically 
appropriate for bikes, which is an operationally efficient strategy. 
The FHWA proposes to add both of these new signs to reflect current 
practice as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,\35\ and to provide 
consistent and uniform messages for these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add a proposed new FOR MORE CROSSING 
TIME--HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2 SECONDS sign to this section and to 
illustrate the sign image in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29). 
The FHWA proposes to add this sign to correspond with comparable 
proposed provisions in Chapter 4E.
    The FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements in 
this section regarding the location of LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY, LEFT 
TURN YIELD ON GREEN, and LEFT TURN SIGNAL YIELD ON GREEN signs, 
independently and with an AT SIGNAL supplemental plaque. The FHWA 
proposes these new statements based on recommendations from the Older 
Driver handbook.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.H(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the existing 2nd GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA proposes to add 
locations where the skew angle of the intersection roadways creates 
difficulty for older drivers to see traffic approaching from their 
left, to the list of conditions where consideration should be given to 
the use of No Turn on Red signs. The FHWA proposes this change based on 
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.A(3) and 
I.I(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add to the (new) 4th OPTION statement 
information regarding the use of a blank-out sign instead of a NO TURN 
ON RED sign during certain times of the day or during portions of a 
signal cycle where a leading pedestrian interval is provided. The FHWA 
proposes this new text to correspond to other proposed changes in Part 
4 regarding the use of these signs. The FHWA also proposes to add 
information to this OPTION statement regarding the use of a post-
mounted NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT FROM RIGHT LANE sign and a NO TURN ON RED 
FROM THIS LANE (with down arrow) overhead sign that may be used on 
signalized approaches with more than one right-turn lane.
    Finally, to correspond with proposed changes in Part 4 that would 
add a new Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, the FHWA proposes to add to the 
last STANDARD statement a paragraph that describes the use of a 
CROSSWALK STOP ON RED sign that is proposed to be required with 
pedestrian hybrid signals.
    The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for the 
use of proposed new signs and proposed new sign designs at existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    88. In existing Figure 2B-19 (new Figure 2B-30) Traffic Signal 
Signs and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to change the design of the 
TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15) sign to be a 
symbolic sign. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce the number of 
words, give a more precise symbolized message, and make the sign more 
conspicuous to road users. The proposed sign design has been in 
extensive use by the New York City Department of Transportation. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    89. In existing Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60) Photo Enforced 
Signs and Figure 2B-1, the FHWA proposes to replace the existing word 
message PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) plaque with a new symbol plaque for 
Photo Enforced. The FHWA proposes to retain the existing word message 
plaque as an alternate. In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the 
design of the TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-18) sign to add the 
symbolic camera. The FHWA proposes these changes based on preliminary 
results of the ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs'' study.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60). This new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2B.61 Ramp Metering Signs'' and contains a GUIDANCE 
statement describing the recommended use of proposed new regulatory 
signs that should accompany ramp control signals. The FHWA proposes to 
add these new signs because ramp metering signals are used in several 
States, but there are not standard signs for them in the MUTCD, so 
States have developed a variety of signs, as documented by the Sign 
Synthesis Study.\39\ In this new Section, the FHWA proposes two new 
signs, X VEHICLES PER GREEN and X VEHICLES PER GREEN EACH LANE. The 
FHWA proposes these new signs to provide uniformity in ramp meter 
signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 28-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. In existing Section 2B.50 (new Section 2B.65) Weigh Station 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the text of the R13-1 sign to 
``TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION--NEXT RIGHT'' to reflect 
that the message is regulatory, rather than guidance. The FHWA proposes 
a

[[Page 282]]

phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    In addition, in Figure 2B-33, the FHWA proposes to illustrate the 
customary regulatory sign color of a black legend on a white 
background, rather than the allowable option of the reverse color 
pattern, for the TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION--NEXT 
RIGHT sign.
    92. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2B.53 (new Section 2B.68). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2B.69 Headlight Use Signs'' and contains GUIDANCE, 
SUPPORT, and OPTION statements that describe the use of several 
proposed new signs that may be used by States that require road users 
to turn on their vehicle headlights under certain weather conditions. 
The Sign Synthesis Study \40\ found that there is a wide variation in 
the legends currently being used by States for this purpose. FHWA 
proposes these new signs to provide increased uniformity of the 
messages for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    93. The FHWA proposes changing the number and title of existing 
``Section 2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs'' to ``Section 2B.70 
Miscellaneous Regulatory Signs.'' As discussed in item 48 above, the 
FHWA proposes to relocate the existing OPTION statements from this 
section to Section 2B.02. The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION 
statement regarding the use of a proposed new FENDER BENDER MOVE 
VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL LANES sign that agencies may use to inform road 
users of State laws that require them to move their vehicles to the 
shoulder if they have been involved in a minor non-injury crash. As an 
integral part of active incident management programs in many urban 
areas, an increasing number of States and cities are using signs 
requiring drivers who have been involved in relatively minor ``fender 
bender'' or non-injury crashes to move their vehicles to the shoulder. 
A variety of sign messages are in use for this purpose, as documented 
by the Sign Synthesis Study.\41\ The FHWA proposes adding this sign 
because, with the increasing popularity of these laws and incident 
management programs, a standardized sign legend is needed. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C--General
    94. The FHWA proposes to remove the following word signs from the 
MUTCD, because related symbol signs have been in use for 35 years, 
thereby making these word signs obsolete: HILL Sign (W7-1b) in existing 
Section 2C.12, DIVIDED HIGHWAY (W6-1a) and DIVIDED ROAD (W6-1b) in 
existing Section 2C.18, DIVIDED HIGHWAY ENDS (W6-2a) and DIVIDED ROAD 
ENDS (W6-2b) in Section existing 2C.19, STOP AHEAD (W3-1a) and YIELD 
AHEAD (W3-2a) and SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3a) in existing Section 2C.29.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C--Specific
    95. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to 
change the last paragraph of the OPTION to a GUIDANCE statement to 
recommend, rather than merely allow, a fluorescent yellow-green 
background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with 
pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds. Also proposed is a new 
STANDARD statement that would require that warning conditions 
associated with school buses and schools have a fluorescent yellow-
green background. The FHWA is also proposing to revise similar wording 
in other sections in Chapter 2C and in Part 7. In the intervening years 
since the fluorescent yellow-green background color was introduced as 
an option, most highway agencies have adopted policies to use this 
color for school warning signs and many have also decided to use it for 
all warnings associated with pedestrians and bicycles. This predominant 
usage is due to the enhanced conspicuity provided by fluorescent 
yellow-green, particularly during dawn and twilight periods. The FHWA 
proposes these changes in Section 2C.03 to provide more uniformity and 
consistency in school, pedestrian, and bicycle warning signing. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    In place of the existing paragraph in the OPTION statement, the 
FHWA proposes to add two new paragraphs that describe allowable changes 
in warning sign sizes and designs. The FHWA proposes these changes to 
provide agencies with flexibility in designing signs to meet field 
conditions, such as allowing modifications to be made to the symbols 
shown on intersection warning signs in order to approximate the 
geometric configuration of the roadway.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a 2nd STANDARD statement that 
establishes a minimum size for all diamond-shaped warning signs facing 
traffic on multi-lane conventional roads of 900 mm x 900 mm (36 in x 36 
in). This proposal is consistent with other proposed changes as 
discussed above regarding existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.14) 
that base sign size dimensions on letter sizes needed for a visual 
acuity of 20/40, which results in larger sign sizes. On multi-lane 
roads, increased legibility distances are needed due to the potential 
blockage of signs by other vehicles.
    96. The FHWA proposes to revise Table 2C-2 Warning Sign and Plaque 
Sizes to incorporate additional sign series and to specify that for 
several diamond-shaped signs, the minimum size required for signs 
facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads is 900 mm x 900 mm (36 
in. x 36 in). The FHWA proposes these changes to provide signs on 
multi-lane approaches that are more visible to drivers with visual 
acuity of 20/40 and to be consistent with and incorporate other 
proposed changes in Chapter 2C. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
    97. In Section 2C.05 Placement of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes 
to revise the SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements to refer to the use of 
Perception-Response Time (PRT), rather than Perception, Identification, 
Emotion, and Volition (PIEV) Time, in determining the placement of 
warning signs. The older terminology of PIEV Time has been replaced 
with the current term Perception-Response Time, which has come into 
common use and is the terminology used in the current American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 
Policies. The Traffic Control Devices Handbook \42\ addresses both 
terms but

[[Page 283]]

correctly identifies PRT as the terminology now in common use. 
Accordingly, it is appropriate to update the MUTCD using the common 
terminology PRT. In addition to proposed changes in Section 2C.05, the 
FHWA proposes to change the notes for Table 2C-4 by replacing ``PIEV 
time'' with ``PRT,'' as well as other changes in the notes and values 
in Table 2C-4 in order to provide adequate legibility of warning signs 
for 20/40 visual acuity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for revised placement of existing signs in good condition 
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2001, is available 
for purchase from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.ite.org. PIEV and PRT are 
discussed on pages 34-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    98. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section 
2C.05. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.06 
Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs'' and contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, 
and OPTION statements regarding the use of the proposed new Table 2C-5 
Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection, in which the FHWA proposes a 
hierarchal approach to use of these signs and plaques and proposes to 
define required, recommended, and optional warning signs. The FHWA 
proposes a standard to make the requirements applicable to freeways, 
expressways, and functionally classified arterials and collectors over 
1,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) and an option statement 
allowing their use on other roadways. These road classifications 
represent higher volume roadways, a larger percentage of unfamiliar 
drivers, and have the potential to yield the largest safety benefits in 
reducing crashes due to road users' lack of awareness of a change in 
horizontal alignment, as documented in a recent National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7, ``A Guide for Reducing 
Collisions on Horizontal Curves,'' can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. In concert with the changes in the previous item, the FHWA 
proposes several changes to existing Section 2C.06 (new Section 2C.07) 
Horizontal Alignment Signs to incorporate the proposed material in new 
Table 2C-5 and to provide agencies with additional information on the 
appropriate use of horizontal alignment signs. The FHWA also proposes 
to add a new Figure 2C-2 to illustrate an example of the use of warning 
signs for a turn, and to modify existing Figure 2C-7 (new Figure 2C-3) 
to illustrate horizontal alignment signs for a sharp curve on an exit 
ramp.
    100. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.46 Advisory 
Speed Plaque so that it appears earlier in the Chapter as Section 2C.08 
because of its predominant application with horizontal alignment 
warning signs. In addition, the FHWA proposes several revisions to the 
section to incorporate the proposed new Table 2C-5, and to require that 
Advisory Speed plaques be used where it is determined to be necessary 
on the basis of an engineering study that follows established traffic 
engineering practices.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at 
the end of the section describing the use of Advisory Speed plaques at 
toll plazas. The FHWA proposes this additional information to 
incorporate toll plaza signing into the MUTCD.
    101. In existing Section 2C.10 (new Section 2C.09) Chevron 
Alignment Sign, the FHWA proposes to change the first sentence of the 
first OPTION statement to a STANDARD to require the use of the Chevron 
Alignment sign in accordance with the hierarchy of use as listed in 
proposed new Table 2C-5, as discussed earlier regarding new Section 
2C.06. The FHWA also proposes to add information to the 2nd STANDARD 
statement regarding the minimum installation height of these signs. The 
proposed minimum mounting height of 4 feet would be an exception to the 
normal minimum mounting height for signs, based on established 
practices. The FHWA also proposes to add a reference in the GUIDANCE 
statement to proposed new Table 2C-6 Approximate Spacing for Chevron 
Alignment Signs on Horizontal Curves. The proposed spacing criteria are 
based on research.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ FHWA/TX-04/0-4052-1, ``Simplifying Delineator and Chevron 
Applications for Horizontal Curves,'' dated March 2004, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4052-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add a new STANDARD statement at the end 
of the section clarifying conditions in which the Chevron Alignment 
sign should not be used. The FHWA proposes this new text to preclude 
possible misinterpretations of the appropriate use of this sign.
    102. In existing Section 2C.07 (new Section 2C.10) Combination 
Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed Signs, the FHWA proposes to amplify 
the existing STANDARD statement in order to clarify how these signs are 
to be used.
    103. In existing Section 2C.09 (new Section 2C.12) One-Direction 
Large Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement a 
prohibition on the use of a One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the 
central island of a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change in 
conjunction with other proposed changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to 
provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.
    104. In existing Section 2C.11 (new Section 2C.13) Truck Rollover 
Warning Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the 
beginning of the section to require the use of the Truck Rollover 
Warning sign on freeway and expressway ramps in accordance with the 
proposed new Table 2C-5.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the existing first OPTION 
statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend the use of the Truck 
Rollover Warning sign for appropriate conditions.
    105. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.36 so that 
it appears earlier in the Chapter as new Section 2C.14 to consolidate 
all sections relating to horizontal alignment in one area of the 
chapter for ease of reference and consistency. In addition, the FHWA 
proposes to revise the title of the section to ``Advisory Exit and Ramp 
Speed Signs,'' as well as the text to remove the optional Curve Speed 
sign. The Curve Speed sign has had only limited usage and, with the 
proposed hierarchal approach to warning signs usage for horizontal 
curves, this sign is no longer needed. The FHWA believes it is 
desirable to broaden the consistent usage of a few signs providing 
better driver communications rather than adding potential driver 
confusion with a mixed application of several signing options.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to require that the use of 
the Advisory Exit Speed and Advisory Ramp Speed signs on freeway and 
expressway ramps be in accordance with the proposed new Table 2C-5.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes several other clarifications 
throughout the section to aid readers on the placement of advisory 
speed signs and plaques.
    For all of the proposed changes in applications of warning signs 
and plaques for horizontal curves in new Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14 
and in the new Table 2C-5, the FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 10 years for existing horizontal alignment signs in good 
condition, to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    106. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2C.15 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp 
Speed Signs.'' The FHWA proposes this new sign for optional use where 
ramp or exit curvature is not apparent to drivers in the deceleration 
or exit lane

[[Page 284]]

or where the curvature needs to be specifically identified as being on 
the ramp rather than on the mainline. The FHWA proposes the design and 
the use of this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study,\45\ which found 
that at least four States have developed signs for this purpose, but 
with varying designs. The FHWA proposes a uniform design for this type 
of sign, to provide consistency for road users. The remaining sections 
would be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 43, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    107. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.13 Truck 
Escape Ramp Signs to Chapter 2F, to reflect the proposed new 
classification and design of these signs as general service signs. 
These signs provide guidance and information messages similar in 
function to the signs used for weigh stations, chain-up areas, and 
similar highway features, so it is appropriate for these signs for 
truck escape ramps to be designed as general service signs.
    108. In existing Section 2C.18 (new Section 2C.21) Divided Highway 
Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD that the Divided Highway (W6-
1) sign shall not be used instead of a Keep Right (R4-7 series) sign on 
the nose of a median island. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect 
accepted signing practices and prevent misuse of the W6-1 sign.
    109. In existing Section 2C.19 (new Section 2C.22) Divided Highway 
Ends Sign (W6-2), the FHWA proposes to revise the existing OPTION 
statement to a GUIDANCE statement, recommending that the Two-Way 
Traffic (W6-3) sign should also be used. The FHWA proposes this change 
in order to be consistent with the existing GUIDANCE in existing 
Section 2C.34 (new Section 2C.45) that the W6-3 sign should be used for 
this condition.
    110. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2C.19 (new Section 2C.22). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2C.23 Freeway or Expressway Ends Signs'' and contains 
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of these proposed new 
signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs because there are many 
locations where a freeway or expressway ends by changing to an 
uncontrolled access highway, and it is important to warn drivers of the 
end of the freeway or expressway conditions. In other cases, the need 
for this type of warning may be generated by other conditions not 
readily apparent to the road user, such as the need for all traffic to 
exit the freeway or expressway on exit ramps. The Sign Synthesis Study 
\46\ found that at least 21 States have developed their own standard 
warning signs for this purpose but with varying legends and designs. 
The FHWA proposes uniform designs for these signs, to provide 
consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 43-44, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 
2C.26 (new Section 2C.30) to ``Shoulder and Uneven Lanes Signs'' to 
incorporate a proposed new symbolic Shoulder Drop Off sign and two 
plaques to warn road users of either a low shoulder or uneven lanes. 
The FHWA proposes this new sign as a result of the Sign Synthesis 
Study,\47\ which found that symbol signs and/or different word messages 
are being used in at least 13 States to convey these or similar 
messages, with a wide variety of legends and symbol designs. The States 
are not consistent in how these symbol signs are used, with some being 
used for uneven lanes and some for low shoulder or shoulder drop-off 
conditions. The Canadian MUTCD prescribes a single standard symbol 
warning sign (TC-49) for use to warn of either a low shoulder or uneven 
lanes. The FHWA proposes to adopt the standard Canadian sign to provide 
a single uniform symbol for these conditions, which are similar in 
terms of issues for vehicular control, with supplemental educational 
word message plaques as needed. Adoption of the Canadian symbol will 
also aid in promoting North American harmony of traffic signing. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 37, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add a NO SHOULDER sign to the option 
statement in this section to allow agencies to use a sign of uniform 
legend, which would warn road users that shoulders do not exist along 
the roadway. The FHWA proposes this new sign and its design based on 
the ``Sign Synthesis Study,'' \48\ which found inconsistencies in the 
legends of signs currently in use by the States for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 37, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 
2C.27 (new Section 2C.31) to ``Surface Condition Signs'' in order to 
incorporate several additional signs and supplemental plaques into this 
section. The FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use of 
supplemental plaques with legends such as ICE, WHEN WET, STEEL DECK and 
EXCESS OIL with the W8-5 sign to indicate the reason that the slippery 
conditions might be present.
    The FHWA also proposes to add information regarding the existing 
LOOSE GRAVEL and ROUGH ROAD word signs. These signs and plaques have 
been illustrated in new Figure 2C-6 and the Standard Highway Signs book 
but have not previously been discussed in the MUTCD text.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to incorporate the information in 
existing Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD sign into this section 
in order to maintain cohesiveness of information.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a new symbolic Falling Rocks sign 
and an educational plaque to this section to reflect common practice in 
many States to warn road users of the frequent possibility of rocks 
falling (or already fallen) onto the roadway. The Sign Synthesis Study 
\49\ found a lack of consistency in the sign legends or symbols 
currently in use by the States for this purpose. To provide consistency 
in sign design, the FHWA proposes to add a symbol sign (along with an 
educational plaque for use if needed) that may be used to warn road 
users of falling or fallen rocks, slides, or other similar situations. 
Although the most common sign currently used in the U.S. is a word 
sign, Canadian, Mexican, European, and international standards use 
symbols, all of which are very similar, for this message. The FHWA 
proposes to adopt the standard Mexican MUTCD symbol, because its design 
appears to offer the best simplicity and legibility. The FHWA proposes 
a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 37-38, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    113. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2C.27 (new Section 2C.31). The new

[[Page 285]]

section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.32 Warning Signs and 
Plaques for Motorcyclists'' and contains SUPPORT and OPTION statements 
regarding the use of two new warning signs and an associated symbolic 
plaque that may be specifically placed to warn motorcyclists of road 
surface conditions that would primarily affect them, such as grooved or 
brick pavement and metal bridge decks. The proposed new signs are based 
on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\50\ which found a variety 
of different messages in use by the States for these purposes. 
Subsequently, a study \51\ evaluated several different motorcycle 
symbols and arrangements of such symbols both within the primary 
warning sign and as a supplemental plaque. The study found that the 
best legibility distance is provided by depicting a motorcycle on a 
supplementary plaque and that one particular style of motorcycle 
provides the best comprehension of the intended message. As a result, 
the FHWA proposes to adopt word message signs with standardized legends 
of GROOVED PAVEMENT and METAL BRIDGE DECK and a new supplementary 
plaque featuring a side view of a motorcycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 39-40, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
    \51\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site:http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
    114. As discussed above, the FHWA proposes to incorporate all of 
the information contained in existing Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE 
ROAD Sign into new Section 2C.31. The FHWA proposes to title existing 
Section 2C.28 (new Section 2C.33) ``NO CENTER STRIPE Sign,'' and 
include an OPTION statement regarding the use of the NO CENTER STRIPE 
Sign. The FHWA proposes this new language based on a review of the 2003 
MUTCD and 2004 SHS that revealed that the MUTCD did not contain 
language about this existing sign, which has been illustrated in Figure 
2C-4.
    115. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2C.34 Weather Condition Signs'' that contains OPTION and 
STANDARD statements regarding the use of three proposed new signs to 
warn users of potential adverse weather conditions. The proposed WATCH 
FOR FOG, GUSTY WINDS AREA, ROAD MAY FLOOD, and Depth Gauge signs are 
all based on results of the Sign Synthesis Study \52\ that showed that 
signs for these purposes were in very common use in many parts of the 
country, but with widely varying legends. The FHWA proposes to add 
uniform designs for these signs to provide road users with consistent 
messages. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years 
for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State 
and local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 38-39, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    116. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2C.36 Advance Ramp Control Signal Signs'' that contains 
OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use of two 
proposed new signs. The FHWA proposes new RAMP METER AHEAD and RAMP 
METERED WHEN FLASHING signs to provide uniformity of signing at ramp 
metering locations, especially because the practice of ramp metering 
continues to grow. The common existing use of these signs is documented 
in the Sign Synthesis Study \53\ and is recommended in the FHWA's Ramp 
Management and Control Handbook.\54\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 34, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
    \54\ ``Ramp Management and Control Handbook,'' FHWA, January 
2006, page 5-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/pdf/rm_handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    117. In existing Section 2C.30 (new Section 2C.37), the FHWA 
proposes to change the title of the section to ``Reduced Speed Limit 
Ahead Signs'' to reflect the proposed change of the sign name to be 
consistent with the Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, and Signal Ahead warning 
sign names.
    The FHWA proposes revising the GUIDANCE statement to recommend that 
a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is being 
reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph, or where engineering judgment 
indicates the need for advance notice. The FHWA believes that 
reductions in speed limit of more than 10 mph are unexpected by road 
users and may require special actions to reduce speed before reaching 
the start of the lower speed zone, and thus justify the use of a 
warning sign. The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide 
consistency for determining where speed reduction signs should be 
placed. This change corresponds to proposed changes in Section 2B.13.
    118. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 2C.30 (new Section 2C.37). The new section is numbered and 
titled ``Section 2C.38 DRAWBRDIGE AHEAD Sign (W3-6)'' and contains a 
STANDARD statement and a figure regarding the use of this sign. The 
FHWA proposes this new Section because existing Section 4I.02 (new 
Section 4J.02) Design and Location of Moveable Bridge Signals and Gates 
requires the use of the DRAWBRIDGE AHEAD sign in advance of all 
drawbridges. Because the W3 series is used for advance warning signs 
and this sign is required in advance of the condition, it is 
appropriate to include the text and a figure in Chapter 2C. The 
remaining sections in Chapter 2C would be renumbered accordingly.
    119. In existing Section 2C.31 (new Section 2C.39) Merge Signs, the 
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of the section to 
incorporate a proposed new NO MERGE AREA supplemental plaque that may 
be mounted below an Entering Roadway Merge sign, a Yield Ahead sign, or 
a YIELD sign to warn road users on an entering roadway or channelized 
right-turn movement that they will encounter an abrupt merging 
situation at the end of the ramp or turning roadway. When there are 
only a few entrance ramps or channelized right turns in an area that do 
not have acceleration lanes, those few locations do not meet driver 
expectations. The FHWA proposes this plaque based on the results of the 
Sign Synthesis Study \55\ that indicated some States routinely use this 
plaque to provide road users with important warning information for 
these conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 34, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. In existing Section 2C.33 (new Section 2C.41) Lane Ends Signs, 
the FHWA proposes to add the W4-7 THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT (LEFT) sign 
to the OPTION statement to allow the use of this sign, as a supplement 
to other signs, to warn road users in the right-hand (left-hand) lane 
that their lane is about to become a mandatory turn or exit lane. The 
FHWA proposes this

[[Page 286]]

change to be consistent with the current use of that sign in Part 6.
    121. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2C.33 (new Section 2C.41). This new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2C.42 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD Sign.'' This 
proposed new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT 
statements regarding the use of this proposed new sign to provide 
advance warning of a freeway lane drop. The FHWA proposes to add this 
sign based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \56\ that showed 
several States use a similar warning sign for these conditions, 
particularly when overhead guide signs are not present on which to use 
EXIT ONLY plaques. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 35, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections numbered and titled, 
``Section 2C.43 Toll Road Begins Signs'' and ``Section 2C.44 Stop Ahead 
Pay Toll Sign.'' Both sections include GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD 
statements regarding the use of these proposed new signs on toll 
facilities to provide for consistency and uniformity of signing for 
these messages and to implement the signing portions of FHWA's ``Toll 
Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.'' \57\ The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies. The remaining sections would 
be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ ``Policy on Traffic Control Strategies for Toll Plazas,'' 
dated October 12, 2006 can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2C.34 (new Section 2C.45). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2C.46 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane Roadway Sign'' 
and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of this 
proposed new sign for warning of two-way traffic on roads having three 
through lanes, with one lane in one direction and two lanes in the 
other direction. The proposed sign is a variant of the existing W6-1 
two-way traffic warning sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign for 
optional use based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \58\ that 
indicated that several States use this type of sign to warn drivers of 
this condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 36, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs, to Section 
2C.14 in order to place all horizontal alignment warning signs in the 
same area of the manual.
    125. In existing Section 2C.37 (new Section 2C.48) Intersection 
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the existing OPTION 
statement to indicate that an educational plaque with a legend such as 
TRAFFIC CIRCLE or ROUNDABOUT may be mounted below a Circular 
Intersection symbol sign. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the 
GUIDANCE statement, the recommendation that Circular Intersection 
symbol warning signs should be installed on the approach to a YIELD 
sign controlled roundabout. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide 
consistency for roundabout signing throughout the MUTCD.
    The FHWA also proposes to add new Offset Side Roads and Double Side 
Roads symbols for use on Intersection Warning Signs to the GUIDANCE 
statement. The FHWA proposes these new symbols based on the results of 
the Sign Synthesis Study \59\ that showed that variants of the W2-2 
sign depicting offset side roads or two closely spaced side roads are 
used in many States, but the relative distance between the two side 
roads and the relative stroke widths of the roadways varies 
significantly. As a result, the FHWA proposes uniform designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. In existing Section 2C.38 (new Section 2C.49) Two-Direction 
Large Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement 
that the Two-Direction Large Arrow sign shall not be used in the 
central island of a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change in 
conjunction with other proposed changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to 
provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.
    127. In existing Section 2C.39 (new Section 2C.50) Traffic Signal 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that the 
provision of flashing yellow arrow signal faces and flashing red arrow 
signal faces are additional exceptions to the requirement for use of 
W25-1 or W25-2 signs, consistent with similar proposed changes in 
Chapter 4D. The FHWA also proposes a clarification to the STANDARD 
statement that W25-1 and W25-2 signs are to be vertical rectangles, for 
consistency with existing Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, which 
indicates that the W25 series signs are rectangular in shape.
    128. In existing Section 2C.40 (new Section 2C.51) Vehicular 
Traffic Signs and existing Section 2C.41 (new Section 2C.52) 
Nonvehicular Signs, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements 
regarding the use of Warning Beacons and supplemental WHEN FLASHING 
plaques to indicate specific periods when the condition or activity is 
present or is likely to be present. The FHWA proposes these changes to 
clarify this allowable use, for consistency with existing provisions in 
Part 4 regarding warning beacons.
    129. The FHWA also proposes to add to the first OPTION statement in 
existing Section 2C.40 (new Section 2C.51) information regarding the 
use of the Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign and the TRAIL XING 
supplemental plaque. With the increasing mileage of shared-use paths in 
the U.S., the number of places where shared-use paths, used by both 
bicyclists and pedestrians, cross a road or highway is also increasing. 
To provide advance warning of these crossings and to indicate the 
location of the crossing itself, it is currently necessary to use both 
the W11-1 (bicycle) and W11-2 (pedestrian) crossing warning signs, 
mounted together on the same post, or sequentially along the road. The 
Sign Synthesis Study \60\ revealed that several States have developed 
combination signs to simplify and improve the signing for shared-use 
path crossings, using either a single sign with combined bicycle and 
pedestrian symbols or a word message sign with a variety of different 
legends. The FHWA proposes to add this sign for use to serve this 
increasing need and to provide a uniform design for consistency. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 42, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    130. In existing Section 2C.41 (new Section 2C.52) Nonvehicular 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement that requires 
school signs and their related supplemental plaques to have a 
fluorescent yellow-green background with a black legend and border to 
be

[[Page 287]]

consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2A and in Part 7. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the 3rd 
OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, 
the use of fluorescent yellow-green for pedestrian, bicycle, and 
playground nonvehicular warning signs and their supplemental plaques. 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies. These proposed changes are also reflected in existing 
Section 2C.42 (new Section 2C.53) Playground Sign and in Chapter 2A and 
Part 7.
    131. In Figure 2C-12 Nonvehicular Traffic Signs, the FHWA proposes 
to add images of new symbolic warning signs for moose, elk/antelope/
caribou, wild horses (horse without a rider), burro/donkey, sheep, 
bighorn sheep, and bears. The MUTCD includes only three signs to warn 
of the possible crossings of large animals--deer crossing (W11-3), 
cattle crossing (W11-4), and equestrian crossing (horse with rider, 
W11-7). The prevalence of other types of large animals that may cross 
roads (and which may cause significant damage or injury if struck by a 
vehicle) has caused at least 16 States to develop signs (usually 
symbolic) for warning of one or more different animal crossings, as 
documented in the Sign Synthesis Study.\61\ The FHWA proposes adding 
the new signs because these animals all look significantly different 
from the three existing animal symbols and the existing standard MUTCD 
signs would not provide an accurate meaning and adequate warning. Also, 
because there is a lack of consistency in the signs currently being 
used for this purpose by the States, the FHWA proposes uniform symbol 
designs for consistency. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 41-42, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2C.42 (new Section 2C.53). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2C.54 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign'' and contains 
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of this sign to 
provide advance warning of a change in traffic patterns, such as 
revised lane usage, roadway geometry, or signal phasing. The FHWA 
proposes this change to reflect existing practices in many States and 
numerous local jurisdictions as documented in the Sign Synthesis Study 
\62\ and to provide a uniform legend for this purpose, consistent with 
similar proposed changes in Part 6. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The remaining 
sections would be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after proposed new 
Section 2C.54. This new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.55 
Warning Signs on Median Barriers for Preferential Lanes'' and contains 
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of warning 
signs applicable only to preferential lanes on median barriers. The 
FHWA proposes this new section for consistency with similar existing 
provisions for preferential lane regulatory signs in Chapter 2B and to 
reflect existing practices by agencies operating preferential lane 
facilities. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
    134. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque, to Section 2C.08 in order to place 
all horizontal alignment warning signs in the same area of the manual.
    135. In existing Section 2C.47 (new Section 2C.59) Supplemental 
Arrow Plaques, the FHWA proposes to delete the references to the W16-7 
downward diagonal arrow plaque, because the W16-7 plaque is not used 
for the application described in this section. The diagonal downward 
arrow plaque is only used with Nonvehicular Crossing warning signs and 
has a different design than the W16-5p and W16-6p plaques, which are 
the subject of this Section.
    136. In existing Section 2C.49 (new Section 2C.61) Advance Street 
Name Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement, and an 
accompanying figure, that recommends the order in which street names 
should be displayed on an Advance Street Name plaque. The FHWA proposes 
this change to provide consistency for road users.
    137. In existing Section 2C.50 (new Section 2C.62) Cross Traffic 
Does Not Stop, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to 
recommend that plaques with appropriate alternative messages, such as 
TRAFFIC FROM LEFT DOES NOT STOP, be used at intersections where STOP 
signs control all but one approach to the intersection. The FHWA 
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 
2B.
    138. In existing Section 2C.51 (new Section 2C.63) SHARE THE ROAD 
Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD that requires that the 
SHARE THE ROAD plaque be used only as a supplement to a Vehicular 
Traffic or Nonvehicular sign. The FHWA proposes this change to provide 
road users with more clarity on the type of vehicle or nonvehicle that 
may be present, and because plaques are not intended for independent 
use.
    139. In existing Section 2C.53 (new Section 2C.65) Photo Enforced 
Plaque, the FHWA proposes replacing the existing ``PHOTO ENFORCED'' 
word message plaque with a new symbol plaque designated as W16-10P. The 
existing word message plaque would be retained as an alternate to the 
new symbol plaque and its sign number reassigned as W16-10aP. The 
proposed new symbol plaque is illustrated in Figure 2C-14. The FHWA 
proposes this change based on preliminary results of the ``Evaluation 
of Symbol Signs'' study.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2C.53 (new Section 2C.65). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2C.66 METRIC Plaque'' at the end of the section. This 
proposed new section contains a GUIDANCE statement that recommends the 
use of the METRIC plaque above a Weight Limits sign that shows the load 
limits in metric units. This plaque is currently illustrated in 
existing Figure 2B-8 and has a regulatory sign code, even though it has 
a black legend on a yellow background and is intended to warn road 
users that the values on the regulatory sign are in metrics. 
Accordingly, the FHWA proposes redesignating this plaque as a warning 
plaque and adding text regarding its use to Chapter 2C.
    141. Following proposed Section 2C.66, the FHWA also proposes to 
add a new Section numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.67 NEW Plaque'' 
that describes the use of this optional plaque that may be mounted 
above a regulatory

[[Page 288]]

sign when a new traffic regulation takes effect or above an advance 
warning sign for a new traffic regulation. The FHWA proposes that the 
use of this plaque be limited to 6 months after the traffic regulation 
has been in effect. The FHWA proposes this new plaque based on the Sign 
Synthesis Study,\64\ which showed that some States and Canadian 
provinces are using similar plaques and signs for this purpose, and to 
provide a uniform plaque design for consistency. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    142. The FHWA also proposes two additional sections at the end of 
the Chapter numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.68 LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL 
Plaque'' and ``Section 2C.69 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Plaque'' that describe 
the use of these proposed new plaques. The FHWA proposes the use of 
these plaques to provide for consistency and uniformity of signing for 
these messages and to implement the signing portions of FHWA's ``Toll 
Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.'' \65\ The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,'' dated 
September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2D--General
    143. In existing Section 2D.28 (new Section 2D.31) Junction 
Assembly, existing Section 2D.29 (new Section 2D.32) Advance Route Turn 
Assembly, and existing Section 2D.35 (new Section 2D.42) Location of 
Destination Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the requirements and 
recommendations for the locations of these signs. In new Section 2D.31, 
the FHWA proposes revising the required distances to recommended 
distances, and in new Sections 2D.32 and 2D.42, the FHWA proposes 
adding new recommendations regarding the distances between signs. The 
FHWA proposes these changes in order to provide more flexibility for 
the placement of these various signs, particularly as it relates to 
rural areas, and to indicate that the dimensions shown on Figure 2D-7 
are recommendations.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2D--Specific
    144. In Section 2D.07 Amount of Legend, the FHWA proposes to revise 
the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that guide signs should be limited to 
no more than three lines of destinations, and that action information 
should be provided on guide signs in addition to the destinations, 
where appropriate. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce confusion 
regarding the number of lines on a guide sign and to address the 
results of recent NCHRP research on driver information overload.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ NCHRP Report 488, ``Additional Investigations on Driver 
Information Overload'' 2006, page 65, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_488c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the OPTION statement and 
add a STANDARD statement regarding the use of pictographs on guide 
signs. The FHWA proposes these changes in order to incorporate 
information regarding pictographs in the MUTCD, to reflect FHWA's 
Official Interpretation numbers 2-540(I) \67\ and 2-565(I) \68\ and to 
restrict the maximum size of such pictographs so that they do not 
detract from the primary legend of the signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ This official interpretation can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_540.htm.
    \68\ This official interpretation can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_565.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, the FHWA proposes to make several 
revisions to this section to clarify the use and design of arrows on 
guide signs. In the first STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to 
require that down arrows on overhead signs shall always be vertical and 
positioned directly over the approximate center of the applicable lane. 
However, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement that permits 
diagonal arrows pointing diagonally downward on overhead guide signs 
only if each arrow is located directly over the center of the lane and 
only for the purpose of emphasizing a separation of diverging roadways. 
Some States have installed overhead guide signs with downward slanting 
arrows that are not centered over the appropriate lanes, but pointing 
toward the center of a lane, only for the purpose of reducing sign 
size. The FHWA believes that overhead signs with arrows designed and 
oriented in this fashion are confusing to drivers because they imply 
movement out of a lane. The FHWA proposes these changes to prohibit the 
use of diagonally slanted down arrows on overhead guide signs to 
indicate a specific lane where roadways do not diverge, in order to 
reduce this confusion and assure consistent sign design practices. In 
concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph 
to the STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of more than one down 
and/or diagonal arrow pointing to the same lane, for the same reasons. 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement to permit the use 
of curved-stem arrows that represent the intended driver paths to 
destinations involving left-turn movements on guide signs on approaches 
to roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the following 
GUIDANCE statement that references readers to the appropriate sections 
that describe the principles for such arrows.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise Figure 2D-2 and the text of 
Section 2D.08 to describe and illustrate the various types of arrows 
used on guide signs, to clarify appropriate arrow use.
    146. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, the FHWA proposes to 
change the second sentence of the second OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE 
statement to recommend, rather than just allow, the use of a white 
square or rectangle behind the Off-Interstate Business Route sign when 
it is used on a green guide sign. The FHWA proposes this change to 
enhance the conspicuity of the Off-Interstate Business Route sign in 
this usage, since the green route sign alone blends into the green 
guide sign background.
    147. In Section 2D.12 Design of Route Sign Auxiliaries, the FHWA 
proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement clarifying that if a route sign 
and its auxiliary signs are combined in a single sign, the background 
color of the sign should be green, and a STANDARD that auxiliary signs 
shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign. If placed on a green 
guide sign background, the legends of the auxiliary messages shall be 
white legend placed directly on the green background. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to provide consistency for background colors, because 
background colors currently in use for this application are not 
consistent across the country and green is the appropriate background 
color for a directional guide sign, and to preclude mis-application of 
auxiliary signs on green guide signs.
    148. In Section 2D.14 Combination Junction Sign, the FHWA proposes 
to delete the 2nd paragraph of the OPTION statement that permitted the 
use of other

[[Page 289]]

designs to accommodate State and county route signs. The FHWA proposes 
this change, because it was not the intent to allow agencies to use 
their own unique designs that do not match the design of the M2-2 sign.
    149. The FHWA proposes to add a section following Section 2D.22. 
The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2D.23 BEGIN Auxiliary 
Sign'' and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of 
this proposed new sign where a numbered route begins. The FHWA proposes 
this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study \69\ that revealed that 
several States use an auxiliary BEGIN sign above the confirming route 
marker at the start of a route to provide additional helpful 
information to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered 
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 52, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    150. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing 
Section 2D.23 (new Section 2D.24). The two new sections are numbered 
and titled, ``Section 2D.25 TOLL Auxiliary Sign'' and ``Section 2D.26 
Electronic Toll Collection Only Auxiliary Signs.'' The Signs Synthesis 
Study \70\ found that some States are using the TOLL auxiliary sign to 
provide road users useful information that a numbered route is a toll 
facility. The proposed Electronic Toll Collection Only auxiliary sign 
would complement and be consistent with signs proposed in Chapters 2B 
and 2E to inform road users that a highway is restricted to use only by 
ETC-equipped vehicles. The FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2D-5 
to illustrate these signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs to provide 
consistency and uniformity in signing applications for toll facilities. 
The remaining sections and figures would be renumbered accordingly. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 52, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    151. In existing Section 2D.26 (new Section 2D.29) Directional 
Arrow Auxiliary Signs, the FHWA proposes to add that a Directional 
Arrow auxiliary sign that displays a double-headed arrow shall not be 
mounted in advance of or at a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change 
to eliminate any possible confusion that would be created by the use of 
this sign in the proximity of a roundabout, where direct left turns are 
not allowed.
    152. In existing Section 2D.27 (new Section 2D.30) Route Sign 
Assemblies, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION 
statement allowing diagrammatic route sign formats to be used on 
approaches to roundabouts. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate 
signing for roundabouts in the MUTCD.
    153. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2D.29 (new Section 2D.32). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2D.33 Lane Designation Auxiliary Signs'' and contains 
an OPTION statement regarding the use of these optional signs that may 
be used as a method to tell road users which lane to get into to travel 
a particular numbered route and direction. The FHWA also proposes to 
add an additional illustration in existing Figure 2D-6 to illustrate 
the use of these auxiliary signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs 
based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\71\ which found that 
at least seven States use M6 auxiliary signs stating ``Left Lane,'' 
``Center Lane,'' or ``Right Lane'' below route signs in route sign 
assemblies. This can be an economical alternative to one or more larger 
green guide signs in certain situations. The remaining sections would 
be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 53, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    154. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 2D.30 (new Section 2D.34). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2D.35 Combination Lane Use/Destination Overhead Guide 
Sign'' and contains OPTION and GUIDANCE statements, as well as a 
figure, describing the use of these optional signs. The FHWA proposes 
this new section, and the associated signs, based on the Sign Synthesis 
Study.\72\ At complex intersections involving multiple turn lanes, 
multiple destinations, service roads, and/or various constraints often 
found in urban areas that can limit the ability to use of a series of 
advance signs, many States have found it necessary to combine 
regulatory lane use information with destination information onto a 
single guide sign or sign assembly, especially to aid unfamiliar 
drivers in determining which lane or lanes to use for a particular 
destination. However, there is no consistency or uniformity in the 
colors used, the sign design layouts, or other aspects of these signs. 
The FHWA proposes a uniform design for this type of sign, to provide 
consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 45-46, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    155. In existing Section 2D.32 (new Section 2D.37) Trailblazer 
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to recommend 
that if shields or other similar signs are used to provide route 
guidance in following a trail, they should be designed in accordance 
with the sizes and other design principles for route signs, such as 
those described in Sections 2D.10 through 2D.12. The FHWA proposes this 
change to address situations where route signs used for named trails do 
not have route numbers.
    156. The FHWA proposes adding a new section that is numbered and 
titled ``Section 2D.40 Destination Signs at Roundabouts'' and contains 
a STANDARD, OPTION and SUPPORT statements, as well as figures, 
regarding the use of Destination Signs at Roundabouts. In particular, 
the proposed Section includes information regarding Exit destination 
signs, and associated arrows and diagrammatic signs for roundabouts. 
The remaining sections and figures in Chapter 2D would be renumbered 
accordingly.
    157. The FHWA also proposes to add a new section numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2D.41 Destination Signs at Jughandles.'' The FHWA 
proposes this new section because guide signing in advance of a 
jughandle, in addition to regulatory signing, which was discussed in 
Chapter 2B, is critical to advise potential left-turn or U-turn drivers 
of the need to move to the right and prepare to execute a right turn 
either before or beyond the intersection in order to reach their 
destination. The FHWA proposes optional use of diagrammatic-style 
destination signs for use at jughandles where standard directional 
guide signs are insufficient. A reference to a proposed new figure in 
Chapter 2B illustrating both regulatory and guide signs for jughandles 
would also be added. The remaining sections in Chapter 2D would be 
renumbered accordingly.
    158. In existing Section 2D.38 (new Section 2D.45) Street Name 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new OPTION statement to allow the use 
of a route

[[Page 290]]

shield on Street Name signs to assist road users who may not otherwise 
be able to associate the name of the street with the route number. The 
FHWA proposes to allow the use of these signs based on the results of 
the Sign Synthesis Study,\73\ which showed that several agencies 
incorporate route shields into Street Name signs on streets that are 
part of a U.S., State, or county numbered route. Typically route sign 
assemblies are only provided on intersecting roads that are also 
numbered routes, and on some very major unnumbered streets within 
cities. Including a route shield within the Street Name sign provides 
additional information for traffic on the lesser streets that intersect 
the numbered route. This is helpful to unfamiliar road users who may be 
attempting to find their way back to a numbered route and who do not 
recognize the street name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 47, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    159. The FHWA proposes to add a new table numbered and titled, 
``Table 2D-2 Recommended Minimum Letter Heights on Street Name Signs'' 
that contains information regarding the letter sizes to be used on 
Street Name signs based on the mounting type, road classification, and 
speed limit. FHWA proposes to add information in existing Section 2D.38 
(new Section 2D.45) related to this new table.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the GUIDANCE to recommend that a 
pictograph used on a Street Name sign to identify a governmental 
jurisdiction or other government-approved institution should be 
positioned to the right, rather than the left, of the street name. The 
FHWA proposes this change because the name of the street is the primary 
message on the sign and the pictograph is secondary, and the primary 
message should be read first by being on the left. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 15 years for the placement of the 
pictograph to the right of the street name sign for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to add new OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE 
statements regarding the use of alternative background colors for 
Street Name Signs where a highway agency determines that this is 
necessary to assist road users in determining jurisdictional authority 
for roads. The FHWA proposes that the only acceptable alternatives to 
green for the background color of Street Name signs shall be blue, 
brown, or black. The FHWA proposes these new statements because the 
MUTCD has not previously limited the alternate colors, and as a result, 
there is wide variation in practice among jurisdictions. Sometimes 
inappropriate colors are being used, because these are colors reserved 
for other traffic control device messages, or the colors used have poor 
contrast ratio between legend and background. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing street name signs 
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies. The FHWA also proposes to add to the OPTION to specifically 
allow the border to be omitted on Street Name signs. The current text 
of this section implies, but does not specifically state, that the 
border may be omitted.
    160. In existing Section 2D.39 (new Section 2D.46) Advance Street 
Name Signs, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE statement and a reference 
to Figure 2C-14 that recommends the order in which street names should 
be displayed on an Advance Street Name plaque, in order to provide for 
improved consistency in this type of signing.
    161. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2E.49 to Chapter 2D to become a new section numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2D.47 Signing on Conventional Roads on Approaches to 
Interchanges.'' The FHWA proposes this change because the information 
in this section, and the associated figures, are about guide signing on 
conventional road approaches to a freeway, rather than signing on a 
freeway.
    In this relocated section, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD 
statement to require, rather than merely recommend, that on multi-lane 
conventional road approaches to any freeway interchange, guide signs 
shall be provided to identify which direction of turn is to be made for 
ramp access and/or which specific lane to use to enter each direction 
of the freeway. This information is critical for drivers on a multi-
lane approach to an interchange because it allows drivers to choose the 
proper lane in advance and reduces the need to make last-second lane 
changes close to the entrance ramp. The FHWA believes that the existing 
GUIDANCE statements are not strong enough for this very important need 
and that this signing needs to be mandatory. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
    162. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2E.50 to Chapter 2D to become a new section numbered and 
titled, ``Section 2D.48 Freeway Entrance Signs.'' The FHWA proposes 
this change so that all signing on conventional roads at and in advance 
of interchanges with freeways is located in the same area of the 
Manual.
    163. The FHWA proposes to add a new sign to existing Section 2D.40 
(new Section 2D.49) and retitle the section, ``Parking Area or Parking 
Wayfinding Sign.'' The FHWA proposes to add this new sign, which is a 
vertical rectangle with a white letter P in a blue circle symbol at the 
top of the sign and a blue directional arrow at the bottom of the sign. 
This sign would be an alternative to the existing Parking Area 
directional sign and would give agencies a consistent parking guide 
sign to use in community wayfinding programs. This new sign is 
consistent with the widespread use of the blue background and white P 
as a parking wayfinding symbol throughout Europe and at many airports 
and institutional sites in the United States.
    164. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2D.42 Rest 
Area Signs, 2D.43 Scenic Area Signs, and 2D.45 General Service Signs to 
a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2F General Service Signs'' in order to 
combine information regarding similar type signs in to one area of the 
Manual.
    165. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2D.46 
Reference Location Signs and Intermediate Reference Location Signs, 
2D.47 Traffic Signal Speed Sign, 2D.48 General Information Signs, the 
first four paragraphs of 2D.49 Signing of Named Highways, and 2D.50 
Trail Signs to a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2I General Information 
Signs.''
    166. The FHWA proposes adding a new section numbered and titled 
``Section 2D.52 Community Wayfinding Signs'' that contains SUPPORT, 
STANDARD, OPTION and GUIDANCE statements, as well as two new figures, 
regarding the use of community wayfinding guide signs to direct 
tourists and other road users to key civic, cultural, visitor, and 
recreational attractions and other destinations within a city or a 
local urbanized or downtown area. The remaining sections and figures in 
Chapter 2D would be renumbered accordingly.
    Many of the cities currently using community wayfinding signs are 
using different colors, design layouts, fonts, and arrows, and many of 
these signs are not well designed to properly serve road users. The 
FHWA proposes to add this section to provide a uniform set of 
provisions for design and locations of

[[Page 291]]

these signs based on accepted sign design principles, to achieve 
consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 15 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
    167. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections numbered and titled, 
``Section 2D.53 Truck, Passing, or Climbing Lane Signs'' and ``Section 
2D.54 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Sign.'' The FHWA proposes to add Section 
2D.53 to be consistent with the proposed elimination of regulatory 
truck lane signs from existing Section 2B.32 (new Section 2B.39). These 
types of signs convey guidance information, rather than regulation.
    The FHWA proposes Section 2D.54 based on the results of the Sign 
Synthesis Study,\74\ which found that these signs are being used by a 
number of States. See also the discussion of this topic under Chapter 
2B above. The FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2D-21 to 
illustrate these signs. The remaining sections and figures in Chapter 
2D would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 46, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2E
    168. In section 2E.01 Scope of Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign 
Standards, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to 
clarify that Chapter 2E shall apply to any highway that meets the 
definition of freeway or expressway facilities. The FHWA proposes this 
revision to make it clear that not just the Standards, but also the 
Guidance and Option statements in Chapter 2E apply to freeway and 
expressway guide signs. This includes STANDARD, SUPPORT, AND OPTION 
statements that refer to Section 2A.11 Dimensions which clarifies the 
intended application of the standard sign designs in Table 2E-1.
    169. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2E.24 Guide 
Sign Classification to appear earlier in the Chapter as Section 2E.03. 
The FHWA believes that guide sign classification should appear earlier 
in the chapter, because this section identifies the various groups of 
freeway/expressway guide signs by name. The remaining sections would be 
renumbered accordingly.
    170. The FHWA proposes to relocate the existing text of existing 
Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing to new Section 2I.07. The FHWA 
also proposes to add a new Section 2E.09 titled Signing of Named 
Highways with a SUPPORT statement to refer to new Sections 2D.55 and 
2I.07, where appropriate information is provided about use of highway 
names on signing of unnumbered highways and memorial signing of routes, 
bridges, or highway components.
    171. In existing Section 2E.09 (new Section 2E.10) Amount of Legend 
on Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to add information to the existing 
GUIDANCE and OPTION statement, as well as to add a new STANDARD 
statement regarding the use of pictographs on freeway and expressway 
guide signs. This information is similar to that proposed in Section 
2D.07 Amount of Legend, but maintains the distinct requirements for 
freeway/expressway lines of legend.
    172. In existing Section 2E.18 (new Section 2E.19) Arrows for 
Interchange Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to make several revisions to 
this section to clarify the use and design of arrows on guide signs. 
The FHWA proposes these changes to be consistent with proposed changes 
in Chapter 2D as discussed above regarding Section 2D.08. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    173. The FHWA proposes significant changes to the first STANDARD 
and GUIDANCE statements in existing Section 2E.19 (new Section 2E.20) 
Diagrammatic Signs to specify a specific design for diagrammatic signs 
for multi-lane exits that have an optional exit lane that also carries 
the through road and for splits that include an optional lane. The 
proposed design features an upward arrow per lane and is consistent 
with the recommendations of the Older Driver handbook.\75\ The FHWA 
believes that the up arrow per lane style of diagrammatic signs, 
including the appropriate use of EXIT ONLY sign panels, is the clearest 
and most effective method of displaying to road users the essential 
information about the proper and allowable lanes to use to reach their 
destinations with this ``option lane'' lane use for exits. The existing 
diagrammatic sign design that attempts to illustrate optional lane use 
via dotted lane lines on a single arrow shaft is too subtle to be 
easily recognized and understood by many road users, especially older 
drivers. A recent study \76\ confirmed that the up arrow per lane 
diagrammatic design is significantly superior to the existing 
diagrammatic design or enhancements thereto in terms of providing a 
longer decision sight distance and higher rates of road user 
comprehension. Because of the nature of the combination of lane use and 
geometry, the FHWA believes that the proposed new type of diagrammatic 
signing should be mandatory for this type of exit. The FHWA also 
proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD statement to require the use of 
diagrammatic signs at certain types of cloverleaf interchanges, where: 
(1) The outer (non-loop) exit ramp of a cloverleaf is a multi-lane exit 
having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route, and 
(2) a cloverleaf interchange that includes a collector-distributor 
roadway that is accessed from the main roadway by a multi-lane exit 
having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route. The 
FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with the general proposed 
change to require the proposed new style of diagrammatic signs for 
multi-lane exits that have an optional exit lane that also carries the 
through route and for splits that include an optional lane. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.A(3)
    \76\ ``Diagrammatic Sign Study--Preliminary Results,'' conducted 
by Gary Golembiewski and Bryan Katz for the Traffic Control Devices 
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresDiagrammaticSigns.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of 
the section to permit the use of an EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) legend at the 
bottom of a diagrammatic sign to supplement, but not to replace, the 
exit or ramp advisory speed warning signs where extra emphasis of an 
especially low advisory ramp speed is needed. The Sign Synthesis Study 
\77\ found that at least four States have found it necessary to use 
similar advisory speed panels with Exit Direction and/or diagrammatic 
guide signs to provide even more advance notice and emphasis of a very

[[Page 292]]

low ramp speed, typically because of curvature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 51, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    174. In existing Section 2E.20 (new Section 2E.21) Signing for 
Interchange Lane Drops, the FHWA proposes to change the first GUIDANCE 
statement to a STANDARD statement to require the use of the EXIT ONLY 
(down arrow) sign panel on signing of lane drops on all overhead 
advance guide signs for exits that do not have an ``option lane,'' and 
to provide design requirements for the bottom portion of Exit Direction 
signs. The FHWA proposes these requirements to provide consistency with 
other proposed changes in the Manual, especially related to the use of 
arrows that are better understood by older drivers. The FHWA believes 
that, for freeway splits and other interchange configurations that 
include a lane drop but do not involve ``option lanes,'' the use of 
down arrows and EXIT ONLY sign panels over each lane on the advance 
guide signs is the clearest and most effective method of displaying to 
road users the essential information about the lane drop and about the 
proper lane(s) to use to reach their destinations. The FHWA also 
believes that the use of upward diagonal black arrows within an EXIT 
ONLY panel at the bottom of the Exit Direction signs for such 
interchanges more clearly reinforces the lane drop while still 
providing upward diagonal arrows in the direction of the exit. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    175. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from Section 
2E.21 Changeable Message Signs to proposed new Chapter 2M, where all 
information on Changeable Message Signs would be consolidated. The 
remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
    176. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2E.24 Guide 
Sign Classification to appear earlier in the Chapter as Section 2E.03. 
The FHWA believes that guide sign classification should appear earlier 
in the chapter because this section identifies the various groups of 
freeway/expressway guide signs by name. The remaining sections would be 
renumbered accordingly.
    177. In existing Section 2E.28 (new Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit 
Numbering, the FHWA proposes to revise the 1st STANDARD statement to 
require that if suffix letters are used for exit numbering at a multi-
exit interchange, the suffix letter shall be included on the exit 
number plaque and shall be separated from the exit number by a space 
having a width of at least half of the height of the suffix letter. The 
FHWA proposes this change in order to provide practitioners with more 
direction on the space between the exit number and the suffix than was 
previously provided in the MUTCD or the Standard Highway Signs and 
Markings book. This will enhance the legibility of the exit number and 
help avoid confusion.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the 1st 
STANDARD statement to make it clear that if suffix letters are used for 
exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter 
cannot be used.
    The FWHA also proposes to delete the Option statement and replace 
it with a new Standard stating that interchange exit numbering shall 
use the reference location exit numbering method and the consecutive 
exit numbering method shall not be used. The FHWA proposes this change 
because only 8 of the 50 States still use consecutive exit numbering 
and the vast majority of road users now expect reference location exit 
numbering. The FHWA believes that road users will be best served by 
nationwide uniformity of exit numbering using the reference location 
method.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the first 
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that a Left Exit Number 
(E1-5bP) plaque be used at the top left edge of the sign for numbered 
exits to the left to alert users that the exit is to the left, which is 
often not expected. This proposed change also requires that the 
``LEFT'' message be black on a yellow background.
    The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency of message to 
drivers and for consistency with other parts of the manual. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period for the new requirements of new 
Section 2E.27 of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    178. In existing Section 2E.30 (new Section 2E.29) Advance Guide 
Signs and in existing Section 2E.33 (new Section 2E.32) Exit Direction 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement to require that a 
Left Exit Number (E1-5bP) plaque be used at the top left edge of the 
sign for numbered exits to the left and that a LEFT (E1-5aP) plaque be 
added to the top left edge of the sign for non-numbered exits to the 
left. The FHWA proposes this new text to be consistent with the 
proposed changes in existing Section 2E.28 (new Section 2E.27). The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the first sentence of the OPTION 
statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, that 
the word ``EXIT'' be omitted from the bottom line where interchange 
exit number plaques are used. The FHWA proposes this change in order to 
avoid duplication of the EXIT message on the exit number plaque and on 
the guide sign.
    179. In existing Section 2E.33 (new Section 2E.32) Exit Direction 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add requirements to the 2nd STANDARD 
statement regarding the use of diagrammatic signs and the use of 
plaques with these signs for left exits. The FHWA proposes this new 
text to be consistent with other proposed changes in the manual 
regarding diagrammatic signs and plaques for left exits. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the last existing 
OPTION statement to permit the use of an EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) legend 
at the bottom of the Exit Direction sign to supplement, but not to 
replace, the exit or ramp advisory speed warning signs where extra 
emphasis of an especially low advisory ramp speed is needed. This may 
be done by adding an EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) sign panel to the face of 
the Exit Direction sign near the bottom of the sign or by making the 
EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) message a part of the Exit Direction sign. The 
Sign Synthesis Study \78\ found that at least four States have found it 
necessary to use similar advisory speed panels with Exit Direction 
signs to provide even more advance notice and emphasis of a very low 
ramp speed, typically because of curvature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 51, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    180. In existing Section 2E.34 (new Section 2E.33) Exit Gore Signs, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to clarify that the 
space between the exit number and the suffix letter on an Exit Gore 
Sign shall be the width of at least half of the height of the suffix 
letter. This proposed change correlates to a similar proposed change in 
existing Section 2E.28 (new Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit Numbering.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION statement

[[Page 293]]

allowing the use of Type 1 object markers on sign supports below the 
Exit Gore sign to improve the visibility of the gore for exiting 
drivers. The FHWA proposes this change based on recommendations from 
the Older Driver handbook.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.A(4b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION paragraph allowing the 
use of a vertical rectangular shaped Exit Gore sign for certain narrow 
gore areas, and an OPTION paragraph allowing the use of an Exit Number 
(E5-1bP) plaque above existing Exit Gore (E5-1) signs only when non-
numbered exits are converted to numbered exits, and a STANDARD 
paragraph requiring the use of the Exit Gore (E5-1a) sign when 
replacement of existing assemblies of the E5-1 and E5-1bP signs becomes 
necessary. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide for more uniform 
design of Exit Gore signs.
    181. In existing Section 2E.41 (new Section 2E.40), Freeway-to-
Freeway Interchange, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement 
requiring the use the word ``LEFT'' at splits where the off-route 
movement is to the left, and the use of diagrammatic signs for freeway 
splits with an option lane and for multi-lane freeway-to-freeway exits 
having an option lane. The FHWA proposes these changes to be consistent 
with other proposed changes in the Manual. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    182. In Section 2E.45 (new Section 2E.44) Diamond Interchange, the 
FHWA proposes removing the second sentence of the first STANDARD 
statement regarding the prohibition of cardinal initials on exit 
numbers. This sentence is not applicable for a diamond interchange, 
because they have a single exit ramp. Existing Section 2E.28 (new 
Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit Numbering already contains a 
prohibition on the use of cardinal directions as the suffix of exit 
numbers.
    183. The FHWA proposes to move the information from existing 
Section 2E.49 (new Section 2E.48) Signing on Conventional Road 
Approaches and Connecting Roadways to Section 2D.47, and leave a 
SUPPORT statement to refer readers to the appropriate section. The FHWA 
proposes this change because the section and figures are about guide 
signing on conventional road approaches to a freeway, and therefore, 
are more appropriate for Chapter 2D.
    184. The FHWA proposes to move a majority of the information from 
existing Section 2E.50 (new Section 2E.49) Wrong-Way Traffic Control at 
Interchange Ramps to Section 2B.48, and leave a SUPPORT statement to 
refer readers to the appropriate section. The FHWA proposes this change 
because the section and figure relate more to regulatory signs than 
guide signs, and therefore, are more appropriate for Chapter 2B.
    185. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2E.51 General 
Service Signs, 2E.52 Rest and Scenic Area Signs, Section 2E.53 Tourist 
Information and Welcome Center Signs, Section 2E.56 Radio Information 
Signing, and 2E.57 Carpool and Rideshare Signing to a new Chapter 
titled, ``Chapter 2F General Service Signs.''
    186. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2E.54 
Reference Location Signs and Enhanced Reference Location Signs and 
2E.55 Miscellaneous Guide Signs to a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2I 
General Information Signs.''
    187. The FHWA proposes to split existing Section 2E.59 into four 
sections and substantially edit the material. The resulting sections 
would be numbered and titled, ``Section 2E.51 Preferential Lane Guide 
Signs--General,'' ``Section 2E.52 Guide Signs for Initial Entry Points 
to Preferential Lanes,'' ``Section 2E.53 Guide Signs for Intermediate 
Entry Points to Preferential Lanes,'' and ``Section 2E.54 Guide Signs 
for Exits From Preferential Lanes to General Purpose Lanes or Directly 
to Another Highway.'' The FHWA proposes this reorganization of material 
to improve consistency and understanding by grouping like material 
together. In conjunction with these changes, the FHWA proposes a 
variety of changes in the technical provisions, sign designs, and 
figures for preferential lane guide signing, to reflect the state of 
practice and for enhanced sign conspicuity and legibility and to 
reflect recent FHWA policy guidance regarding traffic control devices 
for preferential lane facilities.\80\ The FHWA also proposes new 
information in these sections to incorporate new provisions regarding 
managed lanes and lanes reserved only for vehicles equipped for 
Electronic Toll Collection, which are forms of preferential lanes. With 
the increasing use of these types of preferential lanes and the 
continuing emphasis on congestion management, the FHWA believes it is 
important for the state of the practice for signing of such lanes, 
based on recent policy and guidance document,\81\ to be incorporated 
into the MUTCD to enhance signing uniformity. The remaining sections 
would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing preferential lane signing in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The FHWA's August 3, 2007 policy memorandum can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
    \81\ Available FHWA guidance and handbooks on preferential lanes 
and managed lanes can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    188. The FHWA also proposes to add six new sections to Chapter 2E 
that describe the design and application of signs at conventional toll 
facilities and for ETC facilities. The proposed new sections are 
numbered and titled, ``Section 2E.55 Toll Facility and Toll Plaza Guide 
Signs--General,'' ``Section 2E.56 Advance Signs for Conventional Toll 
Plazas,'' ``Section 2E.57 Advance Signs for Toll Plazas on Diverging 
Alignments From Open Road ETC Only Lanes,'' ``Section 2E.58 Toll Plaza 
Canopy Signs,'' ``Section 2E.59 Guide Signs for Entrances to ETC-Only 
Facilities,'' and ``Section 2E.60 ETC Program Information Signs.'' The 
FHWA proposes these new sections and the associated text and figures to 
implement the recommendations of the Toll Plaza Best Practices and 
Recommendations report \82\ and to reflect the state of the practice 
for electronic toll collection signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs for toll facility and 
toll plaza signing to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a part of these changes, the FHWA proposes to adopt new symbols 
to denote exact change and attended lanes, for use in toll plaza 
signing. The FHWA believes that symbols for these messages will help 
road users to more quickly identify the proper lane(s) to choose for 
the type of toll payment they will use. The proposed symbols are 
similar to those already in use for these purposes on some toll 
facilities in the U.S. as well as in Europe and Asia, and the FHWA also 
believes that such symbols will also aid in understanding by 
international travelers.
    The FHWA also proposes a new symbol to be reserved for use when a 
toll facility's ETC payment system is nationally interoperable with all 
other ETC payment systems. Although such

[[Page 294]]

national interoperability is not yet available, toll operators are 
actively working on developing interoperability so that, for example, 
an EZ-Pass transponder will work on a California toll facility's 
FasTrak ETC payment system. When this interoperability becomes 
available in the future, it will take a number of years thereafter for 
all toll operators to transition to it and, during that transition 
period, there will be a need for signing to indicate to road users that 
a particular toll facility's payment system is nationally 
interoperable. The FHWA believes that it is in the best interest of 
uniformity, safety, and road user convenience for a standard symbol to 
be adopted prior to the transition period so that it is available when 
needed.
    189. Finally, the FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2E.61 Guide Signs for Managed Lanes'' to provide SUPPORT, 
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE information related to guide signing for managed 
lanes with operational strategies such as tolls, vehicle occupancy 
requirements, and vehicle type restrictions that are variable and put 
into effect on a real-time basis to respond to changing conditions. The 
FHWA proposes this new section and the associated material for 
consistency with other proposed provisions regarding signing for 
preferential lanes and electronic toll collection, and to reflect the 
state of the practice in managed lanes as documented in FHWA 
publications regarding managed lanes.\83\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for the new provisions for guide signs 
for managed lanes to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ ``Managed Lanes--A Primer,'' FHWA publication number FHWA-
HOP-05-031, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf and ``Managed Lanes--A Cross-Cutting Study,'' FHWA 
report number FHWA-HOP-05-037, November, 2004, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 2F Through 2M
    190. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter numbered and titled, 
``Chapter 2F General Service Signs.'' This proposed new chapter 
contains several sections that the FHWA proposes to relocate from 
Chapters 2D and 2E in order to group similar sign types in the same 
area of the Manual.
    191. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2F.01 Sizes of General Service Signs'' and a new Table 2F-1 
to indicate the sizes of the General Service signs and plaques. 
Proposed Sections 2F.02 General Service Signs for Conventional Roads 
and 2F.03 General Service Signs for Freeways and Expressways contain 
information in existing Sections 2D.45 and 2E.51, respectively.
    192. In existing Section 2E.51 (new Section 2F.03) the FHWA 
proposes to change the design of the D9-16 Truck Parking general 
services sign as illustrated in Figure 2F-1. A recent study \84\ tested 
several symbols for this message and found that the message can be 
successfully symbolized. The FHWA proposes to adopt the symbol that was 
found to be the easiest to comprehend and which provides the greatest 
legibility distance. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    193. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2F.04 Interstate Oasis Signing'' that contains SUPPORT, 
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding signing for 
facilities that have been designated by the State within which they are 
located as having met the eligibility criteria of FHWA's Interstate 
Oasis Policy.\85\ The language of this proposed new section is based on 
the signing provisions of the Interstate Oasis Policy. The FHWA also 
proposes the adoption of a unique symbol for use on separate Interstate 
Oasis signs in conjunction with the word message. Preliminary human 
factors testing indicates that the proposed symbol provides optimum 
comprehension, conspicuity, and legibility. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition 
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ FHWA's Interstate Oasis Policy, dated October 18, 2006, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-17367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    194. The FHWA proposes to combine the text from existing Sections 
2D.42, 2D.43 and 2E.52 to create a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2F.05 Rest Area and Other Roadside Area Signs'' so that 
similar information is located all in one area.
    In conjunction with this change, the FHWA proposes changes to the 
text that would be relocated from Sections 2D.42 and 2D.43 to clarify 
the types of signs to be used at Rest Areas and at Scenic and Other 
Roadside Areas. Existing Section 2D.42 can be misinterpreted as meaning 
that restrooms are required in order to use the Parking Area, Roadside 
Table, Roadside Park, and Picnic Area signs, which was not FHWA's 
intent. Restrooms are only required at locations designated as Rest 
Areas. The FHWA also proposes to change the accompanying figures, 
accordingly.
    The FHWA proposes to add two paragraphs to the OPTION statement at 
the end of the section to allow the use of the telecommunications 
devices for the deaf (TDD) Symbol Sign and the wireless Internet 
services (Wi-Fi) Symbol Sign to supplement advance guide signs for rest 
areas if such amenities are available. The FHWA proposes to add the TDD 
symbol based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \86\ that 
showed that several States are using a similar sign, and because this 
sign design is specified by the Americans With Disabilities Act for use 
to indicate facilities that are equipped with TDD. The FHWA proposes 
the Wi-Fi symbol sign because many rest areas are being equipped with 
wireless Internet service for road users visiting these areas and many 
States are using word message or symbol signs to indicate the 
availability of this service in the rest area. The FHWA believes that a 
uniform symbol is needed for this rapidly expanding signing practice 
and preliminary human factors testing \87\ indicates that the proposed 
symbol provides optimum comprehension, conspicuity, and legibility. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, page 48, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
    \87\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    195. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2E.53 to become new section 2F.06 Tourist Information and 
Welcome Center Signs. The FHWA proposes this change, because the 
material is more in keeping with the content of proposed Chapter 2F. 
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to revise the design of the D9-10 
Tourist Information general service sign as illustrated in Figure 2F-1. 
A

[[Page 295]]

recent study \88\ found that the meaning of the existing ``question 
mark'' symbol for this service is poorly understood by road users. The 
abbreviation ``INFO'' was fully understood by 96 percent of the 
participants in the human factors testing. Further, the FHWA believes 
that the term INFO is understandable in most languages. Although the 
legibility distance of the tested version of ``INFO'' was less than 
that of the existing symbol, the FHWA proposes a design featuring 
larger and bolder letters to provide legibility that is expected to be 
comparable to the existing symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    196. The proposed new Section 2F.07 Radio Information Signing 
contains information from existing Section 2E.56. In the last OPTION 
statement, the FHWA proposes to revise the legend of the D12-4 sign to 
use the word ``CALL'' rather than ``DIAL'' to be consistent with the 
D12-2 and D12-5 signs, and to reflect current terminology.
    197. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2F.08 TRAVEL INFO CALL 511 Sign'' that incorporates text from 
existing Section 2D.45 associated with this sign.
    198. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2E.57 to become new Section 2F.09 Carpool and Ridesharing 
Signing. The FHWA proposes this change, because this material is more 
in keeping with the content in proposed Chapter 2F.
    199. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections at the end of the 
chapter numbered and titled, ``Section 2F.10 Brake Check Area Signs'' 
and ``Section 2F.11 Chain Up Area Signs.'' The FHWA proposes to add 
these new signs based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \89\ 
that revealed that some States use signs for these specific purposes. 
Some States provide off-road areas (on the shoulder or in a physically 
separated rest area type of roadway) for drivers to install and remove 
tire chains during winter weather conditions. Some States also provide 
similar areas for trucks and other vehicles to check their brakes in 
advance of the start of a long downhill grade. The FHWA believes these 
types of areas are similar in some ways and could be considered 
motorist services and should be consistent in color and legend. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, pages 46-47, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    200. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing 
Section 2C.13 to become a new section numbered and titled, ``Section 
2F.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs.'' The FHWA proposes this change to 
clarify that these types of signs convey information on a form of 
motorist service (similar to rest areas, brake check areas, etc.), 
rather than warnings. The FHWA also proposes to relocate the 
illustrations of these signs from Chapter 2C to Chapter 2F and change 
the color scheme of the signs to white legend on a blue background. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    201. In existing Section 2F.02 (new Section 2G.02) Application, the 
FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to indicate that service 
types are allowed to appear on up to two signs, rather than just one. 
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect FHWA's Interim Approval (IA-9) 
to Display More than Six Specific Service Logo Panels for a Type of 
Service, dated September 21, 2006,\90\ which allows for up to two 
specific service signs containing up to 12 logos for a given type of 
service. As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph 
to the GUIDANCE statement indicating that when a service type is 
displayed on two signs, the signs for that service type should follow 
one another in succession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-9, dated September 21, 2006, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia_9_logopanels.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    202. In existing Section 2F.03 (new Section 2G.03) Logos and Logo 
Sign Panels, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that 
the letter heights for word message logos should have the minimum 
letter heights stated in Section 2G.05. The FHWA proposes this change 
to recommend letter heights that provide enhanced legibility for older 
drivers.
    The FHWA also proposes to add OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and 
SUPPORT statements to this section regarding the use and design of 
supplemental messages within the logo sign panel. The FHWA proposes 
this new text to incorporate messages, such as DIESEL and 24 HOURS, 
that are helpful to road users. As part of this proposed change, the 
FHWA proposes to add a new symbol called the ``RV Friendly'' symbol 
that may be used by businesses that are designed with facilities to 
accommodate the on-site movement and parking of recreational vehicles. 
The proposed language was developed based on the conditions listed in 
Interim Approval IA-8, dated September 6, 2005,\91\ as well as 
additional criteria deemed necessary, such as alternate RV Friendly 
symbol design and placement, and the need for an engineering study to 
demonstrate that a U-turn can be made by RVs, if U-turns are needed to 
access the RV Friendly site desiring to be signed as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Interim Approval IA-8 can be viewed at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to include a new 
OPTION for the use of the supplemental message OASIS within the logo 
panel of a business that has been designated as an Interstate Oasis 
facility. The FHWA includes this proposed additional supplemental 
message to reflect the Interstate Oasis Program and Policy that was 
published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2002.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The Interstate Oasis Program and Policy can be viewed at: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at 
the end of the section regarding the use of dual logo panels (two 
smaller logos on the same panel) on Specific Service signs. The FHWA 
bases this proposal on the results of experimentation and research in 
Texas,\93\ which found that mixing food and gas logos in a dual logo 
panel did not significantly impact the effectiveness. To minimize the 
potential for information overload and to maximize the legibility of 
specific service signs, the FHWA proposes that dual logos should be 
used on specific service signs only when the two businesses are under 
the same roof, all available logo panels are already in use, and there 
is no room for additional logos. The FHWA also proposes that dual logo 
panels be limited to two food businesses or one food and one gas 
business. The recommended maximum number of dual logo panels used on 
any one specific service sign is two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ ``Effects of Adding Dual-Logo Panels to Specific Service 
Signs: A Human Factors Study,'' by H. Gene Hawkins and Elisabeth R. 
Rose, 2005, published in Transportation Research Record number 1918, 
is available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board at 
the following internet Web site: http://www.trb.org. A brief summary 
of the research results can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=772254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for the 
new provisions of new Section 2G.03 for

[[Page 296]]

existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
    203. In existing Section 2F.04 (new Section 2G.04) Number and Size 
of Signs and Logo Sign Panels, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and 
STANDARD statements to permit the use of, and provide the associated 
requirements for, additional logo sign panels of the same specific 
service type when more than six businesses of a specific service type 
are eligible for logo sign panels at the same interchange. The FHWA 
proposes to include this information, based on Interim Approval (IA-9) 
to Display More than Six Specific Service Logo Panels for a Type of 
Service, dated September 21, 2006.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-9, dated September 21, 2006, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia_9_logopanels.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    204. In existing Section 2F.05 (new Section 2G.05) Size of 
Lettering, the FHWA proposes to add standards for minimum letter 
heights for logo sign panels consisting only of word legends that are 
displayed on the mainlines of freeways and expressways and on 
conventional roads and ramps. The FHWA proposes these minimum letter 
heights to provide letter heights that will enhance legibility for 
older drivers. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
    205. In existing Section 2F.08 (new Section 2G.08) Double-Exit 
Interchanges, the FHWA proposes to add a new GUIDANCE statement to 
recommend that where a service type is displayed on two Specific 
Service signs at a double-exit interchange, one of the signs should 
display the logo panels for the service type of the businesses that are 
accessible from one of the two exits and the other sign should display 
the logo panels for the service type of the businesses that are 
accessible from the other exit. The FHWA proposes this change to 
provide consistency in logo signing for double-exit interchanges when a 
service type is displayed on two signs.
    206. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section 
2F.08 (new Section 2G.08). The new section is numbered and titled, 
``Section 2G.09 Specific Service Trailblazer Signs'' and contains 
SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements regarding these 
guide signs that are required along crossroads for facilities that have 
logo panels displayed along the main roadway and ramp, and that require 
additional vehicle maneuvers to reach. The FHWA proposes this new 
section and an associated new figure to enhance the uniformity of this 
signing practice which is being used by many States.
    207. In existing Section 2F.09 (new Section 2G.10) Signs at 
Intersections, the FHWA proposes to relocate the first paragraph of the 
existing OPTION statement to the 2nd STANDARD statement in order to 
clarify that the type of service and the action message or the 
directional arrow shall all be on the same line directly above the 
business logo panel or below the logo sign panel.
    208. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter numbered and titled, 
``Chapter 2I General Information Signs.'' This proposed new chapter 
contains several sections that the FHWA proposes to relocate from 
Chapters 2D and 2E in order to group similar sign types in the same 
area of the Manual.
    209. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 2I.01 Sizes of General 
Information Signs and a new Table 2I-1 to indicate sizes of General 
Information signs. Proposed new Sections 2I.02 Reference Location Signs 
and Intermediate Reference Location Signs, 2I.03 Enhanced Reference 
Location Signs, 2I.04 Traffic Signal Speed Sign, 2I.05 General 
Information Signs, 2I.06 Miscellaneous Information Signs, 2I.07 
Memorial Signing, and 2I.08 Trail Signs, contain information in 
existing Sections 2D.46, 2E.54, 2D.47, 2D.48, 2E.55, 2D.49 and 2D.50, 
respectively.
    210. In existing Section 2D.47 (new Section 2I.04) Traffic Signal 
Speed Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION 
statement allowing a changeable message element for the numerals of the 
Traffic Signal Speed sign to be displayed if different system 
progression speeds are set for different times of the day. The FHWA 
also proposes to allow a blank-out version of the Traffic Signal Speed 
sign to be used to display the message only during the times when the 
system is operated in coordinated mode. The FHWA proposes this change 
to provide agencies with flexibility to provide for different speeds at 
different times of day. The FHWA also proposes to revise the STANDARD 
statement to increase the minimum size of the Traffic Signal Speed sign 
from 300 x 450 mm (12 x 18 in) to 600 x 900 mm (24 x 36 in) to provide 
for suitable letter sizes.
    211. In existing Section 2E.55 (new Section 2I.06) the FHWA 
proposes to replace the phrase ``Miscellaneous Guide Signs'' with 
``Miscellaneous Information Signs'' in the title, in the text of the 
section, and in the associated figure, to reflect the relocation of 
this section into proposed new Chapter 2I.
    212. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2I.07 Memorial Signing.'' This proposed new section is 
comprised of text pertaining to memorial signs, which is relocated from 
existing sections 2D.49 and 2E.08. The FHWA proposes to revise several 
statements within the section in order to make the information in this 
section regarding memorial signing consistent with existing Section 
2D.49 Signing of Named Highways (new Section 2D.55).
    213. In existing Section 2D.50 (new Section 2I.08) Trail Signs, the 
FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of trail 
signs on freeways or expressways. The FHWA proposes this restriction 
because trail designations are not appropriate for freeways and 
expressways and should be confined to conventional roads.
    214. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 2I.09 Acknowledgement Signs.'' This proposed new section 
contains SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and OPTION statements regarding 
the placement and design of the signs that can be used as a way of 
recognizing a company, business, or volunteer group that provides a 
highway-related service. The FHWA bases the proposed information on the 
policy memo ``Optional Use of Acknowledgment Signs on Highway Rights-
of-Way,'' dated August 10, 2005.\95\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for the new provisions for 
acknowledgement signs for existing signs in good condition to minimize 
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ FHWA's Policy Memo can be viewed at the following Internet 
Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-mem_ack.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    215. In existing Section 2H.04 (new Section 2J.04) General Design 
Requirements for Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Guide 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to replace the entire set of recreational and 
cultural area symbol signs with a new, updated, and expanded set of 
signs, based on the National Park Service's updated Uniguide Standards 
Manual,\96\ plus a few United States Forest Service standard symbol 
signs for activities not covered in the Uniguide standards. As a 
result, the FHWA proposes to revise existing Table 2H-1 (new Table 2J-
1) to reflect the new set of signs, as well as

[[Page 297]]

figures within Chapter 2I that show recreational and cultural signs. 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Information about the National Park Service's Uniguide 
Standards Manual can be obtained at the following Internet Web site: 
http://www.nps.gov/hfc/acquisition/uniguide.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    216. In existing Section 2H.07 (new Section 2J.07) Use of 
Prohibitive Slash, the FHWA proposes to clarify the STANDARD statement 
to indicate recreational and cultural interest area symbol signs for 
prohibited activities and items are only to be used within a 
recreational or cultural interest area when a standard regulatory sign 
for such a prohibition is not provided in Chapter 2B. The FHWA also 
proposes that for recreational and cultural interest area prohibitory 
signs only, the red diagonal slash is to be placed behind the symbol, 
rather than over it in, consistent with National Park Service 
standards.
    217. In existing Section 2H.08 (new Section 2J.08) Placement of 
Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs, the FHWA proposes 
to add an OPTION statement allowing the symbol on the Wildlife Viewing 
Area sign to be placed to the left or right of the legend, and the 
arrow to be placed below the symbol. The FHWA proposes the new 
binoculars symbol to denote wildlife viewing areas based on the Sign 
Synthesis Study,\97\ which revealed that several States and the 
National Park Service were already using this symbol in this manner to 
design an effective guide sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December 
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    218. In existing Section 2H.09 (new Section 2J.09) Destination 
Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete the first sentence of the 2nd 
STANDARD statement restricting the use of white on brown destination 
guide signs on linear parkway-type highways that primarily function as 
arterial connectors. This proposed change is the result of an amended 
memorandum of understanding that was signed in 2006 by the National 
Park Service and the FHWA.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ This Memorandum of Understanding can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    219. In existing Section 2I.03 (new Section 2K.03), Evacuation 
Route Signs, the FHWA proposes to reorganize the paragraphs to provide 
a more logical flow. The FHWA also proposes to include information in 
the first STANDARD statement regarding the design of the proposed 
Tsunami Evacuation Route sign. The FHWA bases the proposed design on a 
symbol currently being used in all Pacific Coast States.
    The FHWA also proposes to clarify the use of Advance Turn Arrow (M5 
series) and Directional Arrow (M6 series) auxiliary signs with 
Evacuation Route signs in the first STANDARD and OPTION statements.
    220. In existing Section 2I.08 (new Section 2K.08) Emergency Aid 
Center Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement allowing the 
use of a fluorescent pink background color when Emergency Aid Center 
signs are used in an incident situation, such as during the aftermath 
of a nuclear or biological attack. The FHWA proposes this change, 
because EM-6 Series signs may be useful for incident situations.
    221. In existing Section 2I.09 (new Section 2K.09) Shelter 
Directional Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement 
allowing the use of a fluorescent pink background color when Shelter 
Direction signs are used in an incident situation, such as during the 
aftermath of a nuclear or biological attack. The FHWA proposes this 
change, because EM-7 Series signs may be useful for incident 
situations.
    222. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter numbered and titled, 
``Chapter 2L Object Markers, Barricades, and Gates.'' This proposed new 
chapter contains existing Sections 3C.01 through 3C.04, which are 
related to object markers and existing Section 3F.01 on barricades. The 
FHWA proposes this new chapter to group these devices in the same area 
of the Manual.
    223. In existing Section 3C.02 (new Section 2L.02) Object Markers 
for Obstructions Within the Roadway, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION 
statement to clarify that Type 1 or Type 3 markers may be installed on 
the nose of a median island at an intersection to provide additional 
emphasis. The FHWA proposes this new statement to clarify that the 
application is permitted.
    224. In existing Section 3C.03 (new Section 2L.03) Object Markers 
for Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway, the FHWA proposes to revise 
the STANDARD statement to specify that Type 2 or Type 3 object markers 
are to be used for obstructions not actually within the roadway and to 
restrict the use of Type 1 and Type 4 object markers for such 
applications.
    225. In existing Section 3C.04 (new Section 2L.04) Object Markers 
for Ends of Roadways, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD 
statement that if an object marker is used to mark the end of a 
roadway, a Type 4 object marker shall be used. The FHWA proposes this 
change to provide clarity that the Type 4 object marker is the only 
type of object marker to be used to mark the end of a roadway.
    226. The FHWA proposes adding a new Section 2L.06 Gates, containing 
provisions regarding the design and use of gates for a variety for 
traffic control purposes beyond the most common use at highway-rail 
grade crossings. The FHWA proposes this new section in order to provide 
for enhanced uniformity of gates, as they are used in a wide variety of 
applications.
    227. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter numbered and titled, 
``Chapter 2M Changeable Message Signs.'' This new chapter contains 
information from existing Sections 2A.07 and 2E.21 as well as 
additional new information, organized into seven sections regarding 
Changeable Message Signs, specifically regarding the description, 
application, legibility and visibility, design characteristics, message 
length and units of information, installation, and display of travel 
times on Changeable Message Signs. The FHWA proposes this change to 
consolidate all information about changeable message signs into one 
location in the Manual and to reflect the recommendations of extensive 
research on changeable message sign legibility, messaging, and 
operations conducted over a period of many years by the Texas 
Transportation Institute.\99\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 10 years for the new provisions for Changeable Message Signs 
for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Information on the many research projects on changeable 
message signs conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 
can be accessed via TTI's Internet Web site at: http://tti.tamu.edu/
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 3--Pavement Markings

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 3--General
    228. The FHWA proposes to remove references to the blue raised 
pavement marker from Part 3. Blue raised pavement markers have been 
used to mark the locations of fire hydrants for emergency response 
personnel and are not intended to communicate a traffic control message 
to the general public. Consistent with the proposed changes in Section 
1A.08 as described in item 20 above, blue raised pavement markers would 
not be considered traffic control devices and therefore the FHWA 
believes that requirements for design and application of such markers 
should not be included in the MUTCD.

[[Page 298]]

    229. The FHWA proposes to add information to allow the use of 
appropriate route shield pavement marking symbols (including 
appropriate colors) to assist in guiding road users to their 
destinations. The use of the red, white, and blue Interstate shield 
marking was authorized by FHWA in Official Interpretation  3-
162(I).\100\ The FHWA also proposes to add a new figure to illustrate 
these route shield pavement markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-162(I), dated 
January 28, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/3-162-I-VA-S.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    230. In several sections within Part 3, the FHWA proposes to add 
new language to clarify that dotted lane lines, rather than broken lane 
lines, are to be used for non-continuing lanes, including acceleration 
lanes, deceleration lanes, auxiliary lanes, and lane drops. The FHWA 
also proposes to revise the various existing figures in Chapter 3B that 
illustrate these conditions to reflect the proposed changes. The FHWA 
proposes these changes to avoid confusing road users regarding the 
function of these lanes and to improve safety and operations. As 
documented in NCHRP Synthesis 356,\101\ a number of States and other 
jurisdictions currently follow this practice, which is also the 
standard practice in Europe and most other developed countries. The 
FHWA believes that the existing use of a normal broken lane line for 
these non-continuing lanes does not adequately inform road users of the 
lack of lane continuity ahead and that standardized use of dotted lane 
lines for non-continuing lanes will better serve this important purpose 
in enhancing safety and uniformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    231. The FHWA proposes to relocate Chapter 3C Object Markers and 
Section 3F.01 Barricades to Part 2 because readers of the MUTCD have 
difficulty finding object markers in the MUTCD and because most 
jurisdictions treat these devices as signs for purposes of inventory 
and policy. The FHWA proposes to place the information on object 
markers and barricades in a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2L Object 
Markers and Barricades.''
    232. The FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements in various sections 
within Part 3 to allow use of retroreflective or internally illuminated 
raised pavement markers in the roadway immediately adjacent to curbed 
noses of raised medians and curbs of islands, or on top of such curbs. 
This is an effective practice commonly used to aid road users in 
identifying these channelizing features at night. The FHWA proposes 
this optional use based on recommendations from the Older Driver 
handbook.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations 
I.C(2), I.C(4f), and I.F(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    233. The FHWA proposes to include arrows in the list of items that 
are to be designed in accordance with the Pavement Markings chapter of 
the Standard Highway Signs and Markings book.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3A
    234. In Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations, the FHWA proposes 
relocating the last paragraph of the SUPPORT statement, which pertains 
to the general functions of longitudinal lines, to a STANDARD statement 
in Section 3A.05, because that section deals specifically with 
longitudinal pavement markings. See item 237 below for additional 
information.
    235. In Section 3A.03 Materials, the FHWA proposes to add 
information to the SUPPORT statement regarding marking systems that 
consist of clumps or droplets of material with visible open spaces of 
bare pavement between the material droplets. The FHWA proposes this new 
text in order to clarify that this type of marking system is suitable 
for use if it meets other marking requirements of the highway agency. 
This also reflects FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-196(I), 
dated July 19, 2006.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-196(I), dated 
July 19, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_196.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    236. In Section 3A.04 Colors, the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd 
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to include red delineators, for 
consistency with Chapter 3D and to clarify that the application of red 
raised pavement markers and delineators is for one-way roadways and 
ramps and for truck escape ramps, because red is not intended to be 
used for these devices on undivided highways, except in the special 
case of truck escape ramps as provided in existing Section 3D.03.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new 6th paragraph to the 
STANDARD statement explaining the use of purple markings to supplement 
lane line or edge line markings for toll plaza approach lanes that are 
to be used only by vehicles that are equipped with ETC transponders. 
The FHWA proposes this new STANDARD paragraph to be consistent with 
other proposed changes in the MUTCD regarding the use of the color 
purple to readily identify lanes that are to be used by vehicles 
equipped with ETC transponders. (See item 23.)
    237. In Section 3A.05, the FHWA proposes to change the title to 
``Functions, Widths, and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement Markings,'' 
and to incorporate into a STANDARD statement the information regarding 
the general function of longitudinal lines from the SUPPPORT statement 
in existing Section 3A.01. The FHWA proposes changing the 
classification of this text to a STANDARD for consistency with 
requirements in other sections in Part 3 and to appropriately reflect 
how this text has been applied.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the OPTION statement regarding the 
lengths of line segments and gaps used for dotted lines to a GUIDANCE 
statement in order to encourage increased consistency in the dimensions 
for dotted lines based on their function. The recommended dimensions 
reflect the most common practice as documented in NCHRP Synthesis 
356.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    238. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 
3A.05. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 3A.06 
Definitions Relating to Pavement Markings'' and contains a STANDARD 
statement that defines the terms ``neutral area,'' ``physical gore,'' 
and ``theoretical gore.'' The FHWA proposes this new section to provide 
definitions of these terms, because they are used throughout Part 3 to 
describe the use and application of pavement markings.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3B
    239. In Section 3B.01 Yellow Center Line Pavement Markings and 
Warrants, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the 2nd STANDARD 
statement to specifically prohibit the use of a single solid yellow 
line as a center line marking on a two-way roadway. A single solid 
yellow center line marking has not been allowed by the MUTCD but some 
agencies have improperly used it because of the lack of a specific 
prohibition statement.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement after the first

[[Page 299]]

GUIDANCE statement that references sections of the Uniform Vehicle Code 
that contain information regarding left turns across center line no-
passing zone markings and paved medians. The information was contained 
in the 1988 MUTCD, and the lack of this information in the 2000 and 
2003 editions of the MUTCD has generated the need to provide this in 
the next edition.
    240. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Pavement Markings and 
Warrants, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the first SUPPORT 
statement that describes that the values of passing sight distances 
shown in Table 3B-1 are for operational use in marking no-passing zones 
and are less than the values used for geometric design of highways. The 
FHWA proposes this in order to provide clarity and avoid confusion 
between operational use of markings and geometric design.
    The FHWA also proposes to add language to the last paragraph of the 
3rd STANDARD statement specifying that for this application a buffer 
zone shall be a flush median island formed by two sets of double yellow 
center line markings, in order to clarify how to appropriately mark a 
buffer zone and to correspond with the existing illustration in Figure 
3B-5.
    The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement immediately 
following the 3rd STANDARD statement permitting the use of yellow 
diagonal markings in the neutral area between the two sets of no-
passing zone markings, reflecting common practice for discouraging 
travel in that area.
    241. In Section 3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings, 
the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE in 
order to recommend for certain conditions, rather than just permit, the 
use of arrows with two-way left turn lanes. The FHWA proposes this 
change as a result of the NCHRP Synthesis 356 \105\ which highlighted a 
variety of marking issues for which additional uniformity could be 
provided to aid road users. The synthesis found that the use of arrows 
in two-way left-turn lanes at the start of the lane and at other 
locations along the lane as needed is the predominant practice. The 
FHWA also reflects this proposed change in Figures that contain arrows 
in two-way left turn lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    242. In Section 3B.04 White Lane Line Pavement Markings and 
Warrants, the FHWA proposes to relocate the last GUIDANCE statement to 
become the first GUIDANCE statement (currently the last GUIDANCE 
statement) and to clarify that the lane line marking requirements do 
not apply to reversible lanes, for which the existing text of Part 3 
requires the use a different color and pattern of markings.
    The FHWA also proposes to add requirements to the STANDARD 
statement to specify that dotted lines are required for acceleration, 
deceleration, and auxiliary lanes. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    243. In Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd STANDARD statement to clarify the 
requirements for channelizing lines in gore areas alongside the ramp 
and through lanes for exit ramps and for entrance ramps. As part of 
this change, the FHWA proposes to change the first existing GUIDANCE 
statement to a STANDARD, to require, rather than recommend, the 
beginning and ending points of the channelizing lines, in order to 
improve uniformity in application and to reflect the predominant 
practice as documented in NCHRP Synthesis 356.\106\ The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies. The FHWA proposes to illustrate the proposed changes in 
Figure 3B-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add text to the 2nd OPTION statement 
permitting the use of white retroreflective or internally illuminated 
raised pavement markers to supplement channelizing lines and optional 
chevron markings at exit ramp and entrance ramps for enhanced nighttime 
visibility, to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver 
handbook.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.A(4a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    244. In Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines, the FHWA 
proposes to add to the OPTION statement that if a bicycle lane is 
marked on the outside portion of a traveled way, the edge line that 
would mark the outside edge of the bicycle lane may be omitted, because 
the lane line separating the motor vehicle lane from the bicycle lane 
can serve the purpose of the edge line.
    245. In Section 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or 
Interchanges, the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement 
to add locations where offset left turn lanes might cause driver 
confusion to the listing of examples where dotted lines extensions 
should be used, to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver 
handbook.\108\ FHWA also proposes to add dimensions of the line 
segments and gaps for the dotted line extension markings in order to 
provide consistency in the application and for consistency with the 
provisions of Section 3A.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.E(4d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    246. In Section 3B.09 Lane-Reduction Transition Markings, the FHWA 
proposes to add an OPTION statement after the STANDARD statement that 
exempts agencies from the requirement to place edge lines and/or 
delineators along low-speed urban roadways where curbs clearly define 
the roadway edge in a lane reduction transition if supported by 
engineering judgment. The FHWA also proposes revising the 2nd paragraph 
of the 2nd GUIDANCE statement to reference the proposed exemption of 
low-speed roadways from the use of edge line markings. The FHWA 
proposes these changes because on low-speed urban roadways, curbs often 
provide adequate delineation of change of alignment of road edge.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the 2nd GUIDANCE statement to 
recommend that a dotted lane line be used approaching a lane reduction, 
consistent with the proposed use of dotted lane lines for other 
conditions in which a lane does not continue ahead. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    247. In Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions, the FHWA 
proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement to clearly indicate 
that toll booths at toll plazas are fixed obstructions that shall be 
marked according to the requirements of this section. The FHWA proposes 
this change based on the recommendations

[[Page 300]]

of the Toll Plazas Best Practices and Recommendations Report.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement 
to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than just permit, that 
where observed speeds exceed posted or statutory speed limits, longer 
tapers should be used. This is consistent with text already contained 
in the first GUIDANCE statement in Section 3B.09.
    248. In Section 3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers, the FHWA proposes to 
modify the first STANDARD statement to specify that the height of a 
raised pavement marker is not to exceed approximately 25 mm (1 in) 
above the road surface, rather than specifying a minimum height, in 
order to clarify that tubular markers and other similar devices that 
might be placed on or in the roadway are not raised pavement markers.
    The FHWA also proposes to add STANDARD and SUPPORT statements that 
clarify that internally illuminated raised pavement markers shall be 
steadily illuminated and shall not be flashed, and that flashing raised 
pavement markers are considered to be In-Roadway Lights, consistent 
with Part 4.
    Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement near 
the end of the section that recommends consideration of the use of more 
closely spaced retroreflective pavement markers where additional 
emphasis is needed. This proposed statement incorporates FHWA 
Interpretation 3-176(I) \110\ into the Manual and is consistent with 
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ FHWA Official Interpretation 3-176(I), dated 
January 21, 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_176.htm.
    \111\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001, 
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation III.A(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    249. In Section 3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle 
Positioning Guides with Other Longitudinal Markings, the FHWA proposes 
to change the SUPPORT statement to a GUIDANCE in order to recommend, 
rather than just permit, that the spacing of raised pavement markers 
used as positioning guides for typical conditions should be 2N, where N 
equals the length of one line segment plus one gap. The FHWA proposes 
this change to reflect typical practice and to provide enhanced 
uniformity.
    250. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other 
Markings, the FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION 
statement that provides for the use of supplemental retroreflective or 
internally illuminated raised pavement markers on horizontal curves to 
improve drivers' visibility of curves. The FHWA proposes this new text 
based on recommendations of the Older Driver handbook.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001 
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation III.A(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    251. In Section 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for 
Pavement Markings, the FHWA proposes to change the GUIDANCE statement 
to a STANDARD requiring that the color of raised pavement markers shall 
simulate the color of the markings for which they substitute, in order 
to assure uniformity of markings colors.
    252. In Section 3B.15 Transverse Markings, the FHWA proposes to add 
arrows and speed reduction markings (which are proposed new types of 
markings, as discussed in item 257 below) to the list of transverse 
markings in the STANDARD statement that shall be white in order to 
provide clarity and provide uniformity in applications.
    253. The FHWA proposes several changes to Section 3B.16 Stop and 
Yield Lines, as well as to Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield Signs (in Part 
7 Traffic Controls for School Areas) to clarify the intended use of 
stop and yield lines. In Section 3B.16, the FHWA proposes to add 
requirements to the first STANDARD statement regarding the use of STOP 
and YIELD lines, specifically as they relate to locations where YIELD 
(R1-2) signs or Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) signs are 
used. The FHWA proposes these changes to assure that stop lines are not 
misused to indicate a yield condition or vice versa. The FHWA proposes 
a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings 
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies. As part of the proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to require 
that stop lines shall not be used at locations on uncontrolled 
approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to 
pedestrians. The FHWA proposes this change in accordance with FHWA's 
Official Interpretation 3-201(I), dated January 10, 2007.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ FHWA Official Interpretation 3-201(I), dated 
January 10, 2007, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_201.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement that requires 
the use of Yield Here to Pedestrian (R1-5 and R1-5a) signs at a 
crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach when a yield 
line is used, for consistency with the existing requirement in existing 
Section 2B.11.
    The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to clarify that Yield 
Lines and Yield Here to Pedestrian signs should not be used in advance 
of crosswalks that cross an approach or departure from a roundabout. 
The FHWA proposes this change because yield lines and signs for the 
crosswalk would be too close to the yield lines and signs at the entry 
to the circulatory roadway and could be confusing to road users.
    The FHWA also proposes to add OPTION and SUPPORT statements that 
describe the use of staggered Stop and Yield lines. Longitudinally 
offsetting the stop lines and yield lines on a multi-lane approach is a 
common practice that improves drivers' view of pedestrians, improves 
sight distance for turning vehicles, and increases the turning radius 
for left-turning vehicles.
    254. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 3B.16 
Stop and Yield Lines. The proposed new section is numbered and titled 
''Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings'' and contains 
OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding use of markings to indicate 
that the intersection is not to be blocked. The remaining sections in 
Chapter 3B would be renumbered accordingly. Do Not Block Intersection 
Markings are being used more widely across the country to improve 
traffic flow through intersections. Uniformity in the use and type of 
markings is needed to minimize road user confusion. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    255. In existing Section 3B.17 (new Section 3B.18) Crosswalk 
Markings, the FHWA proposes adding a paragraph to the first GUIDANCE 
statement that recommends that crosswalk markings should be located so 
that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings, 
to be consistent with provisions in ADAAG \114\ and to

[[Page 301]]

provide more consistency for pedestrians as they negotiate the 
crosswalk and curb ramps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes several additional changes to the first 
GUIDANCE statement to reflect the findings of FHWA report, ``Safety 
Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled 
Locations.'' \115\ The proposed changes include deleting some of the 
requirements for the specific placement of crosswalk markings and 
adding recommendations regarding the placement of crosswalk markings 
across uncontrolled approaches based on engineering judgment and 
engineering studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ ``Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at 
Uncontrolled Locations,'' FHWA report HRT-04-100, Charles 
Zegeer, et al., September 2005, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/04100.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement at the end of the 
section that incorporates information regarding detectable warning 
surfaces that mark boundaries between pedestrian and vehicular ways 
where there is no raised curb. The proposed language would be added to 
the Manual in response to requests from the U.S. Access Board, based on 
ADAAG.\116\ There has been a notable amount of confusion among many 
highway agencies regarding the proper use of detectable warning 
surfaces and where to find the proper information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    256. In existing Section 3B.19 (new Section 3B.20), the FHWA 
proposes to incorporate the word ``arrow'' in several places in the 
section to reflect that, although arrows are often not thought of as 
symbols, the provisions of this section are intended to apply to 
arrows. As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to title the Section, 
``Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings.''
    The FHWA also proposes to move the 2nd paragraph of the existing 
2nd OPTION statement to a new GUIDANCE statement in order to recommend, 
rather than just permit, that the International Symbol of Accessibility 
parking space marking should be placed in each parking space designated 
for use by persons with disabilities, for consistency with the 
provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a new GUIDANCE statement that 
describes the use and placement of lane-use arrows in lanes designated 
for the exclusive use of a turning movement and in turn bays, in lanes 
from which movements are allowed that are contrary to the normal rules 
of the road, and where opposing offset channelized left-turn lanes 
exist. The FHWA proposes this new language to reflect common practice 
and provide for increased uniformity, as highlighted in the NCHRP 
Synthesis 356.\117\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 
years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, pages 7-13, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement that 
recommends the use of ONLY word markings to supplement the required 
arrow markings where through lanes approaching an intersection become 
mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
5 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes revising the existing 3rd GUIDANCE statement 
to add that where through lanes become mandatory turn or exit lanes, 
markings and signs should be placed well in advance of the turn or exit 
to provide additional advance warning to drivers. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to reflect the predominant practice, as documented by 
NCHRP Synthesis 356,\118\ and to enhance safety at these potentially 
confusing locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, pages 6-7, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement near the end of the 
section to clarify that the ONLY word marking is not to be used for 
lanes with more than one movement. The FHWA proposes this change to 
prevent road user confusion.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to expand the existing 4th GUIDANCE 
statement to recommend that lane reduction arrow markings be used on 
roadways with a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or above, and to 
recommend that they be used on roadways with lower speed limits when 
determined to be appropriate based on engineering judgment. The 
existing MUTCD allows the use of lane reduction arrow markings in an 
OPTION statement, however, based on the information in NCHRP Synthesis 
356 \119\ the FHWA believes that, for enhanced safety, they should be 
recommended on high-speed roads in order to provide a clear indication 
that the lane reduction transition is occurring. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and 
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, page 32, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    257. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 3B.20 (new Section 3B.21). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 3B.22 Speed Reduction Markings'' and contains 
SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding these proposed 
transverse markings that may be placed on the roadway within a lane in 
a pattern to give drivers the impression that their speed is 
increasing. The FHWA proposes this new section to reflect the Traffic 
Control Devices Pooled Fund Study on speed reduction markings,\120\ 
which found that these markings can be effective in reducing speeds at 
certain locations, and to provide a standardized design for such 
markings in order to provide uniformity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing speed reduction pavement 
markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ ``Pavement Markings for Speed Reduction,'' December 2004, 
prepared by Bryan J. Katz for the Traffic Control Devices Pooled 
Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/04100.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    258. In existing Section 3B.22 (new Section 3B.24) Preferential 
Lane Word and Symbol Markings, the FHWA proposes to add information 
regarding markings to be used for ETC preferential lanes to the 
STANDARD statement, for consistency with other related proposed changes 
in Parts 2 and 3 regarding ETC only lanes. As a part of this change, 
the FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE regarding the use of 
preferential lane symbol and word markings at key decision points on a 
preferential lane, to reflect a recent FHWA policy memorandum.\121\ The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The FHWA's August 3, 2007 policy memorandum on ``Traffic 
Control Devices for Preferential Lane Facilities'' can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    259. The FHWA proposes to edit, expand, and reorganize existing 
Section 3B.23 (new Section 3B.25) Preferential

[[Page 302]]

Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motor Vehicles. The proposed changes in 
this section correspond to comparable sections on preferential lanes in 
Chapters 2B and 2E. The resulting proposed changes in this section 
include expanding the first STANDARD statement to include longitudinal 
pavement markings for buffer-separated left-hand and right-hand side 
preferential lanes, and expanding the 2nd STANDARD statement to include 
markings for counter-flow preferential lanes on divided highways. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing 
pavement markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies. These proposed changes reflect typical existing 
practices for the marking of preferential lanes, as documented in 
various FHWA guidance and handbooks.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Available FHWA guidance and handbooks on preferential 
lanes can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE regarding the use of 
dotted line markings at direct exits from preferential lane facilities, 
to reduce the chances of unintended exit maneuvers, reflecting a recent 
FHWA policy memorandum.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The FHWA's August 3, 2007 policy memorandum on ``Traffic 
Control Devices for Preferential Lane Facilities'' can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    260. To illustrate the proposed changes to existing Section 3B.23 
(new Section 3B.25), and to clarify their use, the FHWA proposes to add 
more examples to Figures 3B-31 through 3B-34 to show the required 
longitudinal markings for buffer-separated preferential lanes and 
counter-flow preferential lanes.
    261. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 3B.23 (new Section 3B.25). The proposed new section is numbered 
and titled ``Section 3B.26 Chevron and Diagonal Crosshatching 
Markings'' and contains OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements on 
the use of markings intended to discourage travel on certain paved 
areas. In this new section, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the optional 
use of diagonal markings in gore areas and require chevron markings 
because gores separate traffic flowing in the same direction and 
diagonal crosshatching is inappropriate for that condition. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement 
markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies. The remaining sections in Chapter 3B would be 
renumbered accordingly.
    262. The FHWA proposes deleting existing Section 3B.24 Markings for 
Roundabout Intersections and existing Section 3B.25 Markings for Other 
Circular Intersections because information from those sections has been 
edited and expanded, and is now included in proposed new Chapter 3C 
(see item 266 below).
    263. In existing Section 3B.26 (new Section 3B.27) Speed Hump 
Markings, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to more clearly 
state that if speed hump markings are to be used on a speed hump or a 
speed table, the only markings that shall be used are those shown in 
Figures 3B.35 and 3B.36. Because the existing MUTCD language is not 
prescriptive, a wide variety of marking patterns are being used for 
speed humps and the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed 
to enhance safety. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 
years for existing pavement markings in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
    264. In existing Section 3B.27 (new Section 3B.28) Advance Speed 
Hump Markings, the FHWA proposes to revise STANDARD to more clearly 
specify that if advance speed hump markings are used, the only markings 
that shall be used are those shown in Fig 3B-37. Because the existing 
MUTCD language is not prescriptive, a wide variety of marking patterns 
are being used for advance speed hump markings and the FHWA believes 
that additional uniformity is needed to enhance safety. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement 
markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    265. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 3B.27 (new Section 3B.28). The new section is numbered and 
titled, ``Section 3B.29 Markings for Toll Plazas'' and contains 
SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements for the use of 
pavement markings at toll plazas. The FHWA proposes this new section in 
the MUTCD to reflect the recommendations of the Toll Plazas Best 
Practices and Recommendations report \124\ and to provide uniformity in 
pavement markings at toll plazas because toll plazas have not been 
included in previous editions of the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 5 years for existing locations for the 
recommendations on the use of solid lane lines and the requirements for 
the design of optional purple markings in this new section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 3C through 3H
    266. As discussed in item 231 above, the FHWA proposes to move 
object markers, contained in existing Chapter 3C, to Part 2. The FHWA 
proposes to title Chapter 3C, ``Roundabout Markings.'' This proposed 
new chapter contains 7 sections that describe pavement markings at 
roundabouts, including lane lines, edge lines, yield lines, crosswalk 
markings, and pavement word, arrow, and symbol markings. The chapter 
also includes a variety of proposed new figures that illustrate 
examples of markings for roundabouts of various geometric and lane-use 
configurations. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the state of 
the practice for roundabout markings, especially for multi-lane 
roundabouts, the safe and efficient operation of which necessitates 
specific markings to enable road users to choose the proper lane before 
entering the roundabout. The FHWA solicits comments on whether it is 
necessary for all the proposed new figures illustrating roundabout 
markings to be added to the MUTCD or whether some of those 
illustrations should be placed in other documents for reference, such 
as an updated version of the Roundabouts Guide. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for changes from the existing 
requirements and guidance for existing pavement markings in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    267. In Section 3D.03 Delineator Application, in the first STANDARD 
statement, the FHWA proposes to delete the exemption of routes that 
have substantial portions with large sections of tangent alignments 
from those locations where single delineators shall be provided on 
freeways and expressways. The FHWA proposes this change because the 
terms ``substantial portions'' and ``large sections'' cannot be 
adequately defined.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a new STANDARD statement indicating 
that delineators on the left-hand side of a two-way roadway shall be 
white. This corresponds to the existing requirement that delineator 
color shall match the color of the edge line, but clarifies the

[[Page 303]]

intent for this situation, which has been misinterpreted by some 
agencies.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a new paragraph to the first 
GUIDANCE statement to recommend that delineators should be used 
wherever guardrail or other longitudinal barriers are present in order 
to provide for consistency in application. Guardrail and barriers are 
typically close to the roadway and delineation on these features helps 
road users be aware of the potential to collide with them during 
conditions of darkness. The proposed new paragraph reflects existing 
common practice. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 
years for delineators on existing guardrail or existing longitudinal 
barriers to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    268. In Section 3D.04 Delineator Placement and Spacing, the FHWA 
proposes adding an OPTION at the end of the section to allow 
delineators of an appropriate color to be mounted on the face of or on 
top of guardrails or other longitudinal barriers in a closely-spaced 
manner such that they form a continuous or nearly continuous ribbon of 
delineation. This OPTION is proposed because this application is 
becoming more widely used for special conditions and aids in improving 
safety and visibility.
    269. The FHWA proposes several revisions to Chapter 3E Colored 
Pavements, Section 3E.01 General, in order to provide for a more 
logical flow, to better emphasize traffic control device and non-
traffic control device colored pavements, and to reflect FHWA's 
Interpretation 3-169(I) \125\ on non-retroreflective colored pavements. 
The resulting language classifies as a traffic control device any 
retroreflective colored pavement between crosswalk lines and non-
retroreflective colored pavement between crosswalk lines that is 
intended to communicate a regulatory or warning message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-169(I), dated September 
1, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/3-169-I-FL-S.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    270. As discussed in item 231 above, the FHWA proposes to move the 
discussion of barricades to Part 2. As a result, the title of chapter 
3F would be ``Channelizing Devices.''
    271. In existing section 3F.02 (new Section 3F.01) Channelizing 
Devices, the FHWA proposes to modify the STANDARD statement so that it 
is consistent with Section 6F.59 Cones. Rather than repeating much of 
the information that is already contained in Section 6F.59, the FHWA 
proposes to delete the last four paragraphs of the STANDARD statement 
and replace them with a reference to the retroreflectivity requirements 
in Sections 6F.58 to 6F.60.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement 
that the color of the reflective bands on channelizing devices shall be 
white, except for bands on channelizing devices that are used to 
separate traffic flows in opposing directions, which shall be yellow. 
The FHWA proposes this change to correspond with the ``color code'' for 
markings.
    272. In Section 3G.01 General (Chapter 3G Islands), the FHWA 
proposes to add the purpose of toll collection to the definition of 
island for traffic control purposes. The FHWA proposes this change 
because toll collection is a unique type of island.
    273. In Section 3G.02 Approach-End Treatment, the FHWA proposes to 
change the first OPTION statement to a SUPPORT statement because bars 
and buttons projecting above the pavement surface in the neutral area 
between approach-end markings are not considered traffic control 
devices, and therefore are not regulated by the MUTCD. In concert with 
this change, the FHWA proposes to delete the last GUIDANCE statement 
and the first paragraph of the last OPTION statement.
    274. In Section 3G.03 Island Marking Application, the FHWA proposes 
changing the 2nd paragraph of the STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE 
statement because it is not always practical or necessary for a 
jurisdiction to include chevron or diagonal hatching in the triangular 
neutral area for all islands, especially small triangular channelizing 
islands at intersections.
    275. The FHWA proposes adding a new section at the end of Chapter 
3G. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 3G.07 
Pedestrian Islands and Medians'' and contains SUPPORT statements on the 
purpose of pedestrian islands and medians as well as the placement of 
detectable warnings at curb ramps. The information proposed within this 
section is included in order to assist practitioners with meeting the 
provisions of ADAAG.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    276. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter at the end of Part 3. 
The proposed new chapter is numbered and titled, ``Chapter 3H Rumble 
Strip Markings'' and contains two sections that describe the use of 
marking in conjunction with longitudinal and transverse rumble strips. 
Rumble strips have been in use for many years and numerous agencies are 
considering increased usage as part of their strategic highway safety 
plans. The proposed chapter is intended to address the use of markings 
in combination with rumble strips.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 4--General
    277. The FHWA proposes to reorganize Part 4 to improve the 
continuity and flow of information regarding the application of highway 
traffic signals in the MUTCD. Various paragraphs and sections would be 
relocated throughout the part, and the proposed new organization is 
reflected in the descriptions below.
    278. The FHWA proposes to replace the word ``shown'' when referring 
to signal indications with the word ``displayed'' throughout Part 4. 
The FHWA also proposes to remove several references to ``lenses'' being 
``illuminated'' and replace these with references to ``signal 
indications'' being ``displayed.'' The FHWA proposes these changes to 
provide for consistency in terminology and because many newer signal 
optical units do not include lenses.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4A
    279. In Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic 
Signals, the FHWA proposes to remove ``signals at toll plazas'' from 
the list of items that are not included as ``highway traffic signals'' 
in its definition. The FHWA proposes this change as a result of the 
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations 
Report \127\ that indicated that signals at toll plazas have properties 
that are similar to some other special uses of highway traffic signals, 
and therefore should be included in the definition. Also, the FHWA is 
proposing to add a new Chapter 4K that provides for the application of 
highway traffic signals at toll plazas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for ``Hybrid Signal'' and 
``Pedestrian Hybrid Signal'' to provide clarity to the difference 
between normal traffic control signals and Pedestrian Hybrid Signals 
and Emergency Hybrid Signals, both of which are proposed for addition 
to the MUTCD in Part 4.

[[Page 304]]

    The FHWA proposes to add several items to the definition of 
``Intersection,'' consistent with the proposed revised definition in 
Section 1A.12. The FHWA proposes to add that two roadways separated by 
9 meters (30 feet) or more shall be separate intersections; however, if 
no stopping point is designated between the two roadways in the median, 
the two intersections and the median between them shall be one 
intersection. The FHWA also proposes to clarify that any part of any 
vehicle legally beyond a stopping point is legally in the intersection, 
and a vehicle will remain in the intersection until the rear of the 
vehicle has cleared the intersection or crosswalk. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to more clearly define an intersection with respect to 
roadways divided by a median, particularly as this relates to signal 
design and operation.
    Additionally, the FHWA proposes to revise the definition for 
``Permissive Mode'' to include flashing YELLOW ARROW and flashing RED 
ARROW indications for permissive phases, as well as circular green. The 
flashing YELLOW ARROW and flashing RED ARROW are described in more 
detail in subsequent items below.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions of ``Signal 
Face'' and ``Signal Head'' to clarify that a signal face is an assembly 
of one or more signal sections, and that a signal head is an assembly 
of one or more signal faces. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify 
the meanings because they are often misstated.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4B
    280. In Section 4B.02 Basis of Installation or Removal of Traffic 
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to change the OPTION statement (with 
the exception of the last sentence of item E) to a GUIDANCE to 
recommend the steps that should be taken to remove a traffic control 
signal from operation, rather than merely permit steps to be taken. As 
part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to remove the suggested 
sign legend ``TRAFFIC SIGNAL UNDER STUDY FOR REMOVAL'' from item C, 
because the legend for this sign should be based on applicable 
circumstances for the individual intersection, and therefore a standard 
message should not be included in the MUTCD.
    The FHWA proposes to add to the remaining OPTION statement that 
only items A and B of the GUIDANCE statement need to be completed for 
temporary traffic control signals, because items C through E do not 
apply to those locations. The FHWA also adds to the remaining OPTION 
statement that controller cabinets may remain in place after removal of 
traffic signal heads if the jurisdiction desires to continue analysis 
of the traffic signal removal.
    281. In Section 4B.04 Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals, the 
FHWA proposes to add two items to the list of less restrictive 
alternatives that should be considered before a traffic control signal 
is installed. Proposed item H discusses revising the geometrics at the 
intersection to add pedestrian median refuge islands and/or curb 
extensions. Proposed item L discusses the use of a pedestrian hybrid 
signal or in-roadway warning lights if pedestrian safety is a major 
concern at a location. The remaining items would be renumbered 
accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding these items because they are 
viable potential alternatives to a new traffic control signal.
    282. In Section 4B.05 Adequate Roadway Capacity, the FHWA proposes 
adding a paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement clarifying that additional 
methods for increasing roadway capacity that do not involve widening a 
signalized intersection should be carefully evaluated. Such methods 
could include revising pavement markings and lane-use assignments where 
appropriate. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that lower-cost 
options should be considered to increase roadway capacity and 
operational efficiency at signalized intersections.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4C
    283. In Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic 
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes adding a new Warrant 9, 
``Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing'' to the list of 
warrants. This proposed warrant is described in more detail in item 287 
below.
    The FHWA proposes adding a second paragraph to the first OPTION 
statement allowing any four sequential 15-minute periods to be 
considered as 1 hour in signal warrants that require conditions to be 
present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, if the 
separate 1-hour periods used in the analysis do not overlap each other 
and both the major and minor street volumes are for the same specific 
1-hour periods. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that the 1-
hour periods of peak traffic volumes may not necessarily correspond to 
60 minutes starting at the :00 hour on the clock.
    284. In Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour, the FHWA proposes 
adding to the OPTION statement that a traffic signal justified only 
under this warrant may be operated in flash-mode during the hours when 
the warrant is not met. The FHWA also proposes a GUIDANCE statement 
recommending that the signal be traffic-actuated. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 15 years for this GUIDANCE statement for 
existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes these changes to encourage 
efficient operational strategies, because a traffic signal justified 
only under the Peak Hour warrant may have very low traffic volumes 
during much of the day. This language is similar to existing provisions 
in Sections 4C.05 (Pedestrian Volume Warrant) and 4C.06 (School 
Crossing Warrant).
    285. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, the FHWA 
proposes to change in the STANDARD the criteria that are to be met in 
an engineering study for a traffic signal to be considered. The FHWA 
proposes to replace the existing two criteria with two new criteria 
based on vehicular and pedestrian volumes, and to require that only one 
of the criteria be met. The proposed criteria, and the associated 
volume curves, are derived from other vehicle-based traffic signal 
warrants and supplemented with data gathered during a TCRP/NCHRP 
study.\128\ Similar to other traffic signal warrants, the FHWA proposes 
to add an OPTION statement following the criteria, allowing the use of 
different volume curves based on the posted or statutory speed limit or 
the 85th-percentile speed, or the location of the intersection. The 
FHWA also proposes to revise the OPTION to reduce the required 
pedestrian volumes for this warrant by as much as 50 percent if the 
15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.1 m/sec 
(3.5 ft/sec). The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the 
recommendations of the joint TCRP/NCHRP study that adjustments are 
needed in the existing pedestrian volume warrant. The net effect of the 
proposed revisions is as follows: (a) The pedestrian warrant will be 
slightly easier to meet with lower pedestrian volumes on streets with 
high vehicle volumes, and (b) the pedestrian warrant will be slightly 
more difficult to meet on streets with low vehicle volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ ``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Pedestrian 
Crossings,'' TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation 
Research Board, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    286. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, and Section 
4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, the FHWA

[[Page 305]]

proposes adding recommendations to the GUIDANCE statement that a 
traffic signal installed based on the pedestrian warrant or school 
crossing warrant only should also control the side street or driveway. 
When a traffic control signal is installed at an intersection with stop 
signs on the minor street to assist pedestrians in crossing the major 
street, minor street traffic can cross and turn left into the major 
street after stopping during the display of the green on the major 
street. This violates driver expectancies and compromises the meaning 
and effectiveness of the green signal indication. The FHWA believes 
that, even if the volume of traffic on the minor street is low when a 
signal is justified based on Warrant 4, it is in the best interest of 
traffic safety that the minor street be signalized also rather than 
stop sign controlled. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
    287. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 
4C.09. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 4C.10 
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing'' and 
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION statements describing 
the new warrant, which is intended for use in locations where none of 
the other eight signal warrants are met, but the proximity of the 
intersection to a highway-rail grade crossing is the principal reason 
to consider installing a traffic control signal. The FHWA proposes 
adding this new warrant, because some stop-controlled approaches to 
intersections near highway-rail grade crossings contain a stop line, 
which is closer to the track than the length of a large vehicle, and 
sight distances may preclude the vehicle from waiting on the approach 
side of the grade crossing before entering the intersection. Many of 
these intersections do not meet one of the other warrants in the MUTCD 
because those warrants use minimum volume thresholds for considering 
the installation of a traffic signal and not the proximity of a 
highway-rail grade crossing. The proposed warrant is based on 
recommendations from an NCHRP research project.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Information about ``Highway Traffic Signal Warrant for 
Intersections Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,'' NCHRP Project 03-
76A, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4D--General
    288. The FHWA proposes a significant reorganization of Chapter 4D 
so that similar subjects are grouped together in adjacent sections, or 
combined into single sections within the Chapter. In addition, the FHWA 
proposes to add the use of flashing yellow and flashing red arrows in 
Part 4, which affects many sections within Chapter 4D.
    289. The FHWA also proposes to add the use of a flashing yellow 
arrow indication as an optional alternative to a circular green for 
permissive left-turn and right-turn movements throughout Part 4, which 
affects many sections within Chapter 4D. The proposed text throughout 
Chapter 4D incorporates Interim Approval IA-10, dated March 20, 2006, 
for flashing yellow arrows during permissive turn intervals.\130\ The 
Interim Approval and the subsequent proposed text in the MUTCD are 
based on research contained in NCHRP Report 493.\131\ The research 
found that the flashing yellow arrow is the best overall alternative to 
the circular green as the permissive signal display for a left-turn 
movement, has a high level of understanding and correct response by 
left-turn drivers and a lower fail-critical rate than the circular 
green, and the flashing yellow arrow display in a separate signal face 
for the left-turn movement offers more versatility in field 
application. It is capable of being operated in any of the various 
modes of left-turn operation by time of day, and is easily programmed 
to avoid the ``yellow trap'' associated with some permissive turns at 
the end of the circular green display. The application of flashing 
yellow arrow indications for right-turn movements is a logical 
extension of use for left-turns and will provide jurisdictions with a 
useful tool to effectively control a wide variety of situations 
involving right turns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-10, dated March 20, 
2006, can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia-10_flashyellarrow.pdf.
    \131\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays 
for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    290. The FHWA also proposes to add information in several places in 
this chapter regarding the use of U-turn arrow indications to reflect 
the increasing use of U-turn arrows.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4D--Specific
    291. In Section 4D.01 General, the FHWA proposes to add a SUPPORT 
statement between the first and second paragraphs of the STANDARD 
statement to clarify the meaning of a seasonal shutdown. The FHWA 
proposes to add this information to incorporate clarifications into the 
MUTCD per Official Interpretation 4-288, dated April 27, 
2005.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-288, dated April 27, 
2005, can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_288.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to relocate a paragraph regarding coordination of 
traffic control signals within 800 m (0.5 mi) of one another from 
existing Section 4D.14 and add it to the GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA 
also proposes to add that coordination for such traffic signals should 
be considered where a jurisdictional boundary or a boundary between 
different signal systems falls in between them. The FHWA proposes this 
change to encourage jurisdictions to coordinate traffic signal timing 
plans across jurisdictional or system boundaries. In concert with this 
proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add a new SUPPORT statement at 
the end of this section that contains information regarding traffic 
signal coordination that was previously in Section 4D.14.
    292. In Section 4D.03 Provisions for Pedestrians, the FHWA proposes 
to change the OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than 
merely permit, the use of No Pedestrian Crossing signs at traffic 
control signal locations where it is necessary or desirable to prohibit 
certain pedestrian movements, where such movements are not physically 
prevented by other means. The FHWA proposes this change because if the 
pedestrian movement is to be prohibited, a prohibitory sign should be 
used.
    293. The FHWA proposes to relocate and retitle existing Section 
4D.18 to ``Section 4D.04 Signal Indications--Design, Illumination, 
Color, and Shape.'' The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD 
statement, which states that letters or numbers shall not be displayed 
as part of a vehicular signal indication. The FHWA proposes to 
specifically prohibit vehicular countdown displays because countdown 
indications on vehicular signal indications and similar methods of 
attempting to indicate a ``pre-yellow'' warning, such as a flashing 
green interval, have been found to lengthen

[[Page 306]]

the ``dilemma zone'' and thereby result in increased crash rates.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ ``Safety Evaluation of a Flashing-Green Light in a Traffic 
Signal,'' by D. Mahalel and D.M. Zaidel, Traffic Engineering + 
Control magazine, February, 1985, pages 79-81, is available for 
purchase from Hemming Information Services, 32 Vauxhall Bridge Road, 
London, SW1V 2SS, England, Web site: http://www.tecmagazine.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to provide an exception to the prohibition 
on lettering for toll plaza signals (which is proposed for addition to 
the MUTCD, see item 347 below) because the Toll Plaza Best Practices 
and Recommendations Report \134\ indicates that lettered messages on 
toll plaza signals are useful for toll operations and, with the 
extremely low speeds in a toll plaza stopped lane environment, such 
messages do not significantly detract from the signal indications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add in the first STANDARD statement that 
strobes or other flashing displays within or adjacent to red signal 
indications shall not be used. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify 
that strobes within traffic signals are not approved traffic control 
devices and to be consistent with FHWA Official Interpretation 4-
263.\135\ Although FHWA allowed experimentation with strobes in red 
traffic signals in the mid-1980s, the FHWA made a determination in 1990 
not to approve any further experimentations with strobe lights in 
traffic signals, and to terminate all then-current experimentations 
with these devices. As stated in the Official Interpretation, research 
conducted as part of the experimentation process showed inconsistent 
benefits and some significant disbenefits to the use of strobes and 
similar flashing displays. Any strobes operating within red traffic 
signals are not in accordance with the MUTCD and they are not under any 
approved experimentation. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 5 years for removing strobes from existing locations to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-263, dated July 2, 2003, 
can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4-263-I-FL-s.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes to relocate information regarding arrows 
from existing Section 4D.16 to the first STANDARD statement, and to add 
an item D to require that U-turn arrows, if used, be pointed in a 
manner that directs the driver through the turn. The FHWA proposes this 
change in order to provide U-turn signal arrow indications for use on 
signalized approaches where left turns are prohibited or not physically 
possible but U-turns are allowed and need to be positively controlled 
with a protected signal phase. In such cases, left-turn arrows are not 
appropriate.
    294. To better organize the information by subject matter, and to 
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add several sections following 
Section 4D.04. The proposed new sections are numbered and titled 
``Section 4D.05 Size of Vehicular Signal Indications,'' ``Section 4D.06 
Positions of Signal Indications Within a Signal Face--General,'' 
``Section 4D.07 Positions of Signal Indications Within a Vertical 
Signal Face,'' and ``Section 4D.08 Positions of Signal Indications 
Within a Horizontal Signal Face.'' Much of the information in these 
proposed new sections is contained in existing sections within Chapter 
4D, but the text is revised to pertain to the subject of each 
particular section. Significant additional changes to the sections are 
described in items 295 and 296 below.
    295. In new Section 4D.05 Size of Vehicular Signal Indications, the 
FHWA proposes modifying the STANDARD to require 300 mm (12 in) signal 
indications for all new signal installations. As part of this proposed 
change, the FHWA proposes to allow existing 200 mm (8 in) signal 
indications to be retained for the remainder of their useful life, to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA 
proposes to revise the following OPTION statement to allow the use of 
200 mm (8 in) signal indications under three specific circumstances 
where such use could be advantageous. The FHWA proposes these changes 
to reflect the predominant current signal design practice, to reflect 
the results of studies \136\ that have shown the significant safety 
benefits of using 300 mm (12 in) indications, and to make signal 
indications more visible to elderly drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ These studies are summarized and documented in the FHWA 
report ``Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering 
Countermeasures to reduce Red-Light Running,'' pages 22-23, which 
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf and in 
``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA publication 
number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, page 283, which can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    296. In Section 4D.06 Positions of Signal Indications Within a 
Signal Face--General, the FHWA proposes adding to the STANDARD 
statement that unless otherwise stated for a particular application, if 
a vertical signal face contains a cluster(s), the face shall have at 
least three vertical positions. The FHWA proposes this change because 
road users who are color vision deficient identify the illuminated 
color by its position relative to the other signal sections.
    The FHWA also proposes to add requirements to the STANDARD 
statement for the position of U-turn arrow signal sections in a signal 
face. The FHWA proposes this change to accommodate the new U-turn 
arrows as described previously in item 290.
    297. The FHWA also proposes adding several new figures that 
illustrate positioning and arrangements of signal sections in left turn 
signal faces (Figures 4D-5 to 4D-11) and right turn signal faces 
(Figures 4D-12 to 4D-17). The FHWA proposes these new figures in order 
to enhance understanding and correct application of the relatively 
complex requirements and options for turn signals.
    298. In existing Section 4D.04 (new Section 4D.09) Meaning of 
Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA proposes to add to item A(1) of 
the STANDARD statement a requirement that vehicular traffic turning 
left yield the right-of-way to other vehicles approaching from the 
opposite direction so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard. The 
FHWA proposes this change to conform the MUTCD to the Uniform Vehicle 
Code and to laws in many States.
    The FHWA also proposes to separate existing item B(1) of the 
STANDARD statement into two items to more clearly indicate the meaning 
of a steady circular yellow and a steady yellow arrow to vehicular 
traffic. As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to add that a steady 
circular yellow signal indication warns that the related flashing arrow 
movement is being terminated. The FHWA proposes this change to provide 
consistency with the proposed addition of the applications of flashing 
yellow arrows and flashing red arrows.
    The FHWA proposes to revise item C(1) of the STANDARD statement to 
clarify that where permitted, vehicles making a right turn or a left 
turn from a one-way street onto another one-way street when a steady 
circular red indication is displayed shall be governed by the rules 
applicable to making a stop at a STOP sign. The FHWA proposes this 
change to clarify the right of way rules for turning after stopping on 
a circular red indication. The FHWA also proposes a revision to item 
C(2) related to a steady red arrow signal indication that is similar in 
nature but reflects the different

[[Page 307]]

requirements for turning on a red arrows versus on a circular red.
    The FHWA proposes to delete the information from existing item D of 
the STANDARD statement and instead describe the meanings of flashing 
yellow signal indications in a new item E and flashing red signal 
indications in a new item F to more specifically clarify their meanings 
to vehicular traffic, to pedestrians, and when displayed as a beacon. 
The FHWA proposes to state in new item D that a flashing green 
indication has no meaning and shall not be used.
    In new item E of the STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add 
an item 2 that describes the use of flashing yellow arrow indications 
for permissive turning movements in the direction of the arrow. The 
FHWA proposes this change to allow agencies to use the flashing yellow 
arrow, as an option to the steady circular green indication, for 
intersections with permitted turning phases. The effectiveness of the 
flashing yellow arrow for this purpose has been demonstrated as 
reported in NCHRP Report 493.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays 
for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    299. In existing Section 4D.05 (new Section 4D.10) Application of 
Steady Signal Indications, the FHWA proposes to modify item A(2) in the 
first STANDARD to exclude the use of a circular red signal indication 
with a green arrow indication when it is physically impossible for 
traffic to go straight through the intersection, such as on the stem of 
a T-intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to provide for 
additional consistency and uniformity of signal displays for the stems 
of T-intersections.
    The FHWA proposes to modify item E(3) in the first STANDARD to 
permit the use of a steady yellow arrow indication to terminate a 
flashing yellow arrow or a flashing left-turn red arrow controlling a 
permissive left-turn phase. The FHWA proposes this change to provide 
consistency with the proposed addition of the flashing yellow arrow 
indication for permissive left turns. As documented in NCHRP Report 
493,\138\ the steady yellow arrow was found to be successful as the 
change interval display following the flashing yellow arrow permissive 
interval. A subsequent study by the University of Wisconsin \139\ found 
no evidence to suggest that the flashing yellow arrow permissive 
indication negatively affects drivers' understanding of the steady 
yellow change interval indication. No problems with this display have 
been reported to FHWA by the dozens of highway agencies that have 
implemented the flashing yellow arrow at several hundred intersections 
under experimentation or interim approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays 
for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
    \139\ An abstract and summary of ``An Evaluation of Driver 
Comprehension of Solid Yellow Indications Resulting from 
Implementation of Flashing Yellow Arrow,'' 2007, by Michael A. 
Knodler, David A. Noyce, Kent C. Kacir, and Chris L. Brehmer, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=802137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add new STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements at 
the end of this section that contain new material related to the 
proposed addition of the flashing yellow arrow and flashing left-turn 
red arrow, as well as information previously contained in portions of 
existing Sections 4D.08 and 4D.09, along with minor edits.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to restrict the displays of several 
combinations of arrow signal indications of different colors pointing 
in the same direction on any one signal face or as a result of the 
combination of displays from multiple signal faces on an approach. The 
FHWA proposes this change to avoid displaying conflicting or confusing 
information to road users.
    300. To better organize the information by subject matter, and to 
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add several sections related to 
signal faces following Section 4D.10. The proposed new sections are 
numbered and titled ``Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces on an 
Approach,'' ``Section 4D.12 Visibility, Aiming, and Shielding of Signal 
Faces,'' ``Section 4D.13 Lateral Positioning of Signal Faces,'' 
``Section 4D.14 Longitudinal Positioning of Signal Faces,'' ``Section 
4D.15 Mounting Height of Signal Faces,'' and ``Section 4D.16 Lateral 
Offset (Clearance) of Signal Faces.'' Much of the information in these 
proposed new sections is contained in existing sections within Chapter 
4D, but the text is revised to pertain to the subject of each 
particular section. Significant additional changes to the sections are 
described in items 301 through 305 below.
    301. In new Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces on an Approach, 
the FHWA proposes revising item A of the STANDARD statement to clarify 
that two signal faces are required for a straight-through movement if 
such movement exists at a location, even if it is not the major 
movement, and to require two signal faces for the major signalized 
turning movement if no straight-through movement exists, such as on the 
stem of a T-intersection. The FHWA proposes these changes to ensure 
that the straight-through movement, or major signalized turning 
movement in absence of a straight-through movement, contain redundant 
signal faces in case of one of the signal faces fails, and to 
incorporate the FHWA's Official Interpretation number 4-295(I).\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-295(I), dated October 19, 
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_297.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes adding an OPTION to allow a single section 
GREEN ARROW signal to be used when there is never a conflicting 
movement at an intersection. This single section signal may be used for 
a through movement at a T-intersection if appropriate geometrics and 
signing are placed according to an engineering study, to allow for 
free-flow of traffic where there are no conflicting movements. The FHWA 
proposes this change to incorporate Official Interpretation 4-255(I) 
into the MUTCD.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-255(I), dated February 
19, 2003, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4-255-I-NE-s.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement at the end of the 
section that outlines the recommendations for providing and locating 
signal faces at intersections where the posted or statutory speed limit 
or the 85th-percentile speed on an approach exceeds 60 km/h (40 mph). 
As documented in the FHWA reports ``Making Intersections Safer: A 
Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running'' 
\142\ and ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \143\ 
numerous studies have found significant safety benefits from locating 
signal faces overhead rather than at the roadside, providing one 
overhead signal face per through lane when there is more than one 
through lane, providing supplemental near-side and/or far-side post-
mounted faces for added visibility, and including backplates on the 
signal faces. Additionally, two recent studies, by the

[[Page 308]]

URS Corporation \144\ and by Bradley University \145\ found that 
reconfiguring diagonal signal spans to ``box'' spans or mast arm 
layouts with far-side signal face locations produced significant 
reductions in the number of red light violations and entries into the 
intersection late in the yellow change interval. The FHWA proposes the 
addition of this GUIDANCE to reflect modern signal design practices and 
to enhance the safety of signalized intersections along higher-speed 
roadways, where the potential benefits are greatest. For the same 
reasons, the FHWA also proposes that these recommendations should be 
considered as well as for any major urban or suburban arterial street 
with four or more lanes. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Pages 17-27 of this report can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
    \143\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA 
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 73-75 and 
281-282, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
    \144\ Details on this study, ``Far-Side Signals vs. Diagonal 
Span Behavioral Research,'' project number 12937724, February 2006, 
can be obtained from URS Corporation, 3950 Sparks Drive SE, Grand 
Rapids, MI 49546-2420.
    \145\ Evaluation of Signal Mounting Configurations at Urban 
Signalized Intersections in Michigan and Illinois'' by Kerrie L. 
Schattler, Matthew T. Christ, Deborah McAvoy, and Collette M. 
Glauber, August 1, 2007, may be obtained from the Department of 
Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, 1501 West 
Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    302. In place of existing Figure 4D-3 Typical Arrangements of 
Signal Lenses in Signal Faces, the FHWA proposes to add several new 
figures showing typical arrangements of signal sections in signal faces 
and typical lateral positioning of signal faces for several different 
conditions, including U-turn arrows, non-turning, and turning 
situations. The proposed new figures include Figures 4D-1, 4D-2, and 
4D-6 through 4D-18. The FHWA believes that these new figures will 
assist users of the Manual in understanding and applying the relatively 
complex provisions, especially regarding turning movements.
    303. In new Section 4D.12 Visibility, Aiming, and Shielding of 
Signal Faces, the FHWA proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of the 
first GUIDANCE statement, which was relocated from existing Section 
4D.17, to add that signal backplates should be used on all of the 
signal faces that face an approach with a posted or statutory speed 
limit or where the 85th-percentile speed on the approach exceeds 60 km/
hr (40 mph), and that signal backplates should be considered when the 
speeds are 60 km/hr (40 mph) or less. The FHWA proposes this change to 
reflect modern signal design practices to enhance safety by increasing 
the visibility of signal faces on higher-speed approaches, especially 
for older drivers, to reflect safety studies as documented in the FHWA 
reports ``Signalized Intersection: Informational Guide'' \146\ and 
``Making Intersections Safer: Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to 
Reduce Red Light Running,'' \147\ as well as recommendations from the 
Older Driver handbook \148\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize 
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA 
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 288-290, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
    \147\ Page 26 of this report can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
    \148\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation 
I.N(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement allowing the use 
of yellow retroreflective strips along the perimeter of a signal face 
backplate. The FHWA proposes this change to increase the conspicuity of 
the signal face at night, and to add language to the MUTCD in 
accordance with Interim Approval IA-1, dated February 2, 2004.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ The Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on 
Signal Backplates, number IA-1, dated February 6, 2004, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_retroborder.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    304. In new Section 4D.13 Lateral Positioning of Signal Faces, the 
FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD requiring that overhead-mounted turn 
signal faces of certain types for exclusive turn lanes shall be located 
directly over the turn lane. The FHWA proposes this change to ensure 
that drivers associate the proper turn signal face with the exclusive 
turn lane and because the research documented in NCHRP Report 493 \150\ 
found that this location produced the best driver understanding and 
correct behavior. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 
years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays 
for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this proposed change in the preceding paragraph, the 
FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement that on an approach with an 
exclusive left-turn lane(s) and opposing vehicular traffic where a 
circular green signal indication is used for permissive left turns, 
signal faces containing a circular green signal indication should not 
be post-mounted on the far side median or located overhead above an 
exclusive left-turn lane or the extension of the lane. The FHWA 
proposes this change because NCHRP Report 493 \151\ found that the 
circular green permissive left-turn indication is confusing to some 
left-turn drivers who assume it provides right of way during the 
permissive interval. The FHWA believes that placement of the circular 
green indication directly above or in line with an exclusive left-turn 
lane exacerbates the safety issues with this display. Research \152\ 
found that found that displaying a circular green signal indication in 
a separate signal face directly over an exclusive left-turn lane led to 
a higher left-turn crash rate than ``shared'' displays placed over the 
lane line between the left-turn lane and the adjacent through lane or 
to the right of that line. Placing the signal display over the lane 
line or to the right of it helps to promote the idea that the signal 
display with the circular green indication is being shared by the left-
turn and through lanes. This can help reduce the infrequent but very 
dangerous occurrence of the circular green permissive indication being 
misunderstood as a protected ``go'' indication by left-turn drivers. 
The FHWA clarifies that this proposed recommendation would apply only 
to new or reconstructed intersections. The FHWA also proposes similar 
wording in proposed new Sections 4D.18 and 4D.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays 
for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, page 57, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
    \152\ ``An Evaluation of Permissive Left-Turn Signal Phasing,'' 
by Kenneth R. Agent, ITE Journal, Vol. 51, No. 12, December, 1981, 
pages 16-20, may be obtained from the Institute of Transportation 
Engineers (Web site: http://www.ite.org.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD repeating the existing 
requirement in existing Section 4D.15 (new Section 4D.10) prohibiting 
the use of left-turn arrows in near-right signal faces and prohibiting 
the use of right-turn arrows in far-left signal faces when supplemental 
post-mounted signal faces are used. The FHWA proposes this change for 
additional emphasis and to ensure consistency.
    305. In new Section 4D.15 Mounting Height of Signal Faces, the FHWA 
proposes to revise the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the STANDARD statement

[[Page 309]]

to apply the height requirements for signal housings to any portion of 
a highway that can be used by motor vehicles. Because a shoulder is not 
included in the definition of roadway, the FHWA proposes this change to 
ensure that any portion of the highway on which motor vehicles may 
travel is subject to the appropriate height requirements.
    306. To better organize the information by subject matter, and to 
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add several sections related to 
signal indications for turn movements following new Section 4D.16. The 
FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 4D.06 to be 
``Section 4D.17 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements--General.'' 
Proposed new Sections 4D.18 through 4D.20 describe the use of specific 
signal indications and signal faces for the permissive only mode, the 
protected only mode, and the protected/permissive mode left-turn 
movements, respectively. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle 
existing Section 4D.07 to be ``Section 4D.21 Signal Indications for 
Right-Turn Movements--General.'' Proposed new Sections 4D.22 through 
4D.24 describe the various modes of signalized right-turn movements in 
the same order as the left turns. In addition to adding new material 
related to the proposed addition of the flashing yellow arrow and 
flashing red arrow, the FHWA proposes several editorial changes within 
each new section to ensure that the text pertains to the subject of the 
particular section. The FHWA proposes to allow the use of flashing red 
arrow for permissive turn movements only in certain unusual 
circumstances where an engineering study determines that each 
successive vehicle must come to a full stop before making the turn 
permissively. The FHWA also proposes to add Figures 4D-6 through 4D-12 
and Figures 4D-13 through 4D-18 to illustrate positioning and typical 
signal faces for each of the modes of left-turn and right-turn phasing, 
respectively. Significant additional changes to the sections are 
described in items 307 through 314 below.
    307. In new Section 4D.17 Signal Indications for Left-Turn 
Movements--General, the FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD statement 
specifying the requirements for signal indications on the opposing 
approach and for conflicting pedestrian movements during permissive and 
protected left-turn movements. The FHWA proposes this addition for 
consistency with other requirements in Part 4. The FHWA also proposes 
to prohibit the use of a protected-only mode left-turn phase which 
begins or ends at a different time than the adjacent through movements 
unless an exclusive left turn lane is provided. The FHWA proposes this 
change because, without an exclusive left-turn lane, the operation of a 
protected-only mode left-turn phase forces left-turning vehicles to 
await the display of the protected green arrow while stopped in a lane 
used by through vehicles, causing many approaching through vehicles to 
abruptly change lanes to avoid delays, and this can result in 
inefficient operations and rear-end and sideswipe type crashes.\153\ If 
an exclusive left-turn lane is not present and protected only mode is 
needed for the left-turn movement, ``split-phasing,'' in which the 
protected left-turn movement always begins and ends at the same times 
in the signal cycle as the adjacent through movement, can be used. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA 
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, page 307, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes adding an OPTION to allow the use of static 
signs to inform drivers that left-turn arrows will not be available at 
certain times of the day. The FHWA proposes this change to give 
agencies an option to inform motorists of the presence of a variable 
mode left turn signal.
    308. In new Section 4D.18 Signal Indications for Permissive Only 
Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD statements 
for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow as 
permissive left turn signals. The FHWA proposes this change as part of 
the addition of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow options 
for signalizing permissive left-turns.
    309. In new Section 4D.19 Signal Indications for Protected Only 
Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the STANDARD 
allowing the use of protected-only mode signal faces with the 
combination of circular red, left-turn yellow arrow, and left-turn 
green arrow. The FHWA proposes this change to enhance uniformity by 
requiring States and municipal agencies to use a left-turn red arrow 
instead of a circular red for protected-only mode left-turn signals. 
Red arrow signal indications have been in use for over 35 years, are 
extensively implemented for protected turn movements in the majority of 
States, are well understood by road users, present an unequivocal 
message regarding what movement is prohibited when the red indication 
is displayed, and eliminate the need for the use of a supplemental R10-
10 LEFT TURN SIGNAL sign. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize 
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    310. In new Section 4D.20 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD 
statements for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow 
signal indications for protected/permissive left-turn movements. The 
FHWA also proposes adding a GUIDANCE statement that recommends against 
using ``separate'' signal faces for protected/permissive left-turn 
movements, since they include the display of a circular green 
indication that is located to the left of the lane line separating the 
left-turn lane from the adjacent through lane(s).
    311. In new Section 4D.21 Signal Indications for Right-Turn 
Movements--General, the FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD statement 
specifying the requirements for left-turn signal indications on the 
opposing approach and for conflicting pedestrian movements during 
permissive and protected right-turn movements. The FHWA proposes this 
addition for consistency with other requirements in Part 4. The FHWA 
also proposes to prohibit the use of a protected-only mode right-turn 
phase which begins or ends at a different time than the adjacent 
through movements unless an exclusive right turn lane is provided. 
Similar to item 307 above for left-turns, the FHWA proposes this change 
because, without an exclusive right-turn lane, the operation of a 
protected-only mode right-turn phase forces right-turning vehicles to 
await the display of the protected green arrow while stopped in a lane 
used by through vehicles, causing many approaching through vehicles to 
abruptly change lanes to avoid delays, and this can result in 
inefficient operations and rear-end and sideswipe type crashes. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes adding an OPTION to allow the use of static 
or changeable message signs to inform drivers that right-turn arrows 
will not be available at certain times of the day. The FHWA proposes 
this change to give agencies an option to inform motorists of the 
presence of a variable mode right turn signal.

[[Page 310]]

    312. In new Section 4D.22 Signal Indications for Permissive Only 
Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD statements 
for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow as 
permissive right turn signals. The FHWA proposes this change as part of 
the addition of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow options 
for signalizing permissive right-turns.
    313. In new Section 4D.23 Signal Indications for Protected-Only 
Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes to retain the provision 
currently located in existing Section 4D.07 that allows the use of 
protected-only mode right-turn signal faces with the combination of 
circular red, right-turn yellow arrow, and right-turn green arrow. 
Although the use of circular red indications for protected-only mode 
left-turns is proposed for elimination in item 309 above, the FHWA 
believes that circular red should be retained for use with protected-
only mode right-turn movements because of the different meanings of the 
circular red and the right-turn red arrow signal indications regarding 
right-turn-on-red after stop. Circular red would be used in a 
protected-only mode right turn signal face if it is intended to allow 
right turns on red after stopping. The FHWA also proposes adding 
STANDARD statements for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing 
red arrow signal indications for protected only mode right-turn 
movements.
    314. In new Section 4D.24 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD 
statements for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow 
signal indications for protected/permissive right-turn movements. The 
FHWA also proposes adding a STANDARD statement that prohibits the use 
of ``separate'' signal faces for protected/permissive right-turn 
movements, since they offer no benefits when compared to a shared 
signal face.
    315. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 4D.25 Signal Indications for Approaches With Shared Left-
Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and No Through Movement.'' This new section 
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD and OPTION statements regarding this type of 
lane that is shared by left-turn and right-turn movements, which is 
sometimes provided on an approach that has no through movement, such as 
the stem of a T-intersection or where the opposite approach is a one-
way roadway in the opposing direction. The FHWA proposes this change to 
provide explicit information regarding shared left-turn/right-turn 
lanes, which has not previously been included in the MUTCD, and to 
enhance uniformity of displays for this application. The FHWA proposes 
a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signals in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    316. In existing Section 4D.10 (new Section 4D.26) Yellow Change 
and Red Clearance Intervals, the FHWA proposes to revise the first 
STANDARD regarding yellow change intervals to account for the proposed 
introduction of the flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow for 
permissive turn phases.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a 
GUIDANCE, to recommend, rather than merely permit, a yellow change 
interval to be followed by a red clearance interval to provide 
additional time before conflicting movements are released, when 
indicated by the application of engineering practices as discussed 
below. The FHWA proposes this change based on safety studies indicating 
the positive effect on safety of providing a red clearance interval and 
surveys indicating that use of a red clearance interval is a 
predominant practice by jurisdictions, as documented in the FHWA report 
``Making Intersections Safer: Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to 
Reduce Red Light Running.'' \154\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing signals in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Pages 35-36 of this report can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to revise the second STANDARD statement to 
indicate that the durations of the yellow change interval and, when 
used, the red clearance interval, shall be determined using engineering 
practices, and to add a new SUPPORT statement to indicate that 
engineering practices for determining the durations of these intervals 
can be found in two Institute of Transportation Engineers publications. 
The FHWA proposes these changes to enhance safety at signalized 
intersections by requiring that accepted engineering methods be used to 
determine the durations of these critical intervals rather than random 
or ``rule of thumb'' settings, and by recommending the provision of a 
red clearance interval when such accepted engineering practices 
indicate such interval is needed. As documented in the FHWA report 
``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \155\ a variety of 
studies from 1985 through 2002 have found significant safety benefits 
from using accepted engineering practices to determine the durations of 
yellow and red clearance intervals. Recent safety studies \156\ have 
further documented significant major reductions in crashes when 
jurisdictions have revised the durations of the yellow change and red 
clearance intervals using the accepted engineering practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA 
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 209-211, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
    \156\ NCHRP Research Results Digest 299, November 2005, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_299.pdf. This digest 
includes data from the study ``Changes in Crash Risk Following 
Retiming of the Traffic Signal Change Intervals,'' by R.A. Retting, 
J.F. Chapline, and A.F. Williams, as published in Accident Analysis 
and Prevention, Volume 34, number 2, pages 215-220, available from 
Pergamon Press, Oxford, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes a new STANDARD statement that requires that 
the duration of the yellow change intervals and red clearance intervals 
be within the technical capabilities of the signal controller, and be 
consistent from cycle to cycle in the same timing plan. The FHWA 
proposes this change to accommodate the inherent limitations of some 
older mechanical controllers but provide for consistency of interval 
timing.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes a new STANDARD statement at the end of 
the section that prohibits the use at a signalized location of flashing 
green indications, countdown vehicular signals, or similar displays 
intended to provide a ``pre-yellow warning'' interval. Flashing beacons 
on advance warning signs on the approach to a signalized location would 
be exempted from the prohibition. The FHWA proposes this change to 
clarify the MUTCD consistent with FHWA Official Interpretation 
 4-246.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Official Interpretation 4-246 can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4-246-I-NY-S.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    317. In existing Section 4D.13 (new Section 4D.27) Preemption and 
Priority Control of Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to add a 
GUIDANCE statement recommending that agencies provide back-up power 
supplies for signals with railroad preemption or that are coordinated 
with flashing light signal systems, with the exception of traffic 
control signals interconnected with light rail transit systems. The 
FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the primary functions of the

[[Page 311]]

interconnected signal systems still function in a safe manner in the 
event of a power failure, and for consistency with similar proposed 
GUIDANCE in Part 8. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
10 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing light rail 
transit signal indications to control preemption or priority control 
movements for public transit buses in ``queue jumper'' lanes or bus 
rapid transit in semi-exclusive or mixed-use alignments. The FHWA 
proposes this change to incorporate clarification into the MUTCD 
consistent with FHWA Official Interpretation 10-59(I) and 
10-66(I), to provide additional flexibility to agencies 
seeking to reduce driver confusion with traffic signals intended to 
control only mass transit vehicles.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ FHWA's Official Interpretations 10-59(I), dated April 16, 
2003, and 10-66(I), dated October 6, 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web sites: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/10_59.htm and http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/10_66.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    318. Following new Section 4D.27, the FHWA proposes to add several 
sections related to the flashing operation of traffic signals. The 
proposed sections are numbered and titled, ``Section 4D.28 Flashing 
Operation of Traffic Control Signals--General,'' ``Section 4D.29 
Flashing Operation--Transition Into Flashing Mode,'' ``Section 4D.30 
Flashing Operation--Signal Indications During Flashing Mode,'' and 
``Section 4D.31 Flashing Operation--Transition Out of Flashing Mode.'' 
While much of this information is contained in existing sections of the 
MUTCD, the FHWA proposes to edit, add new information, and better 
organize the material to provide clarity on the flashing operation of 
traffic signals, including how to transition into and out of flashing 
mode. Significant additional changes to existing material are described 
in items 319 through 322 below.
    319. In Section 4D.28 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control 
Signals--General, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing traffic 
control signals to be operated in flashing mode on a scheduled basis 
during one or more periods of the day. The FHWA proposes this change 
because more efficient operations may be achieved if the signal is set 
to flashing mode when steady mode (stop and go) operation is not 
needed. This change is consistent with a similar proposed change in 
Section 4C.04 discussed in item 284 above.
    320. In Section 4D.29 Flashing Operation--Transition into Flashing 
Mode, the FHWA proposes to add information to the STANDARD for 
terminating the flashing yellow arrow signal indication when entering 
flashing mode. The FHWA proposes this change as part of the proposed 
addition of the flashing yellow arrow indication for permissive turns.
    321. In Section 4D.30 Flashing Operation--Signal Indications During 
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposes to include a paragraph in the STANDARD 
statement that prohibits green signal indications from being displayed 
when a traffic control signal is operated in the flashing mode, except 
for single-section green arrow signal indications as noted elsewhere in 
the section. The FHWA proposes this paragraph to clarify proper 
displays during flashing mode.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the STANDARD to allow a signal 
face consisting of entirely arrow indications to flash a yellow arrow 
indication if it is intended that turns are to be permitted after 
yielding, without a full stop required, during flashing mode. The FHWA 
proposes this change to provide clarity that this application is 
allowed.
    322. In Section 4D.31 Flashing Operation--Transition Out of the 
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD requiring that no 
steady green or flashing yellow indication shall be terminated and 
immediately followed by a steady red indication without first 
displaying a steady yellow indication. The FHWA proposes this change to 
ensure that road users receive adequate warning of the onset of the red 
indication when the signal is transitioning from flashing mode to 
steady mode.
    323. As part of the restructuring of Chapter 4D, the FHWA proposes 
to renumber and revise the titles of existing Sections 4D.20, 4D.19, 
and 4D.21 to be ``Section 4D.32 Temporary and Portable Traffic Control 
Signals,'' ``Section 4D.33 Lateral Offset of Signal Supports and 
Cabinets,'' and ``Section 4D.34 Use of Signs at Signalized Locations,'' 
respectively.
    324. In new Section 4D.34 Use of Signs at Signalized Locations, the 
FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement a recommendation to use 
overhead lane-control signs where lane-drops, multiple-lane turns, 
shared through and turn lanes, or other lane-use regulations that may 
be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The FHWA proposes 
this change to enhance safety by providing road users with highly 
visible notice of the appropriate lane-use regulations before 
approaching an intersection where these unusual and unexpected 
conditions exist. This change also reflects safety studies as 
documented in the FHWA report ``Signalized Intersections: Informational 
Guide'' \159\ and recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\160\ 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA 
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 292-293, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
    \160\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.M(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    325. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 
4D.34. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 4D.35 
Use of Pavement Markings at Signalized Locations,'' and contains 
paragraphs relocated from Section 4D.01.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4E
    326. In Section 4E.02 Meaning of Pedestrian Signal Head 
Indications, the FHWA proposes to revise item B of the STANDARD that 
defines the meaning of the flashing UPRAISED HAND pedestrian signal 
indication. First, the FHWA proposes to allow pedestrians that enter 
the intersection on a steady WALKING PERSON indication to proceed to 
the far side of the traveled way unless otherwise directed by signs or 
signals to proceed only to a median or pedestrian refuge area. The FHWA 
proposes this change to allow pedestrians to cross an entire divided 
highway and not have to stop at the median if the signal has been timed 
to provide sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the entire highway. 
In cases where the signal timing only provides enough time for 
pedestrians to cross to the median, signs or signals are required to be 
provided to direct pedestrians accordingly. The FHWA also proposes 
changes in Section 4E.10 (see item 336 below) for consistency with this 
change. In addition, the FHWA proposes to allow pedestrians to enter 
the intersection when a countdown pedestrian signal indication is shown 
with the flashing UPRAISED HAND if they are able to travel to the far 
side of the traveled way or to a median by the time a conflicting 
vehicular movement is allowed to proceed. The FHWA proposes this change 
because many pedestrians walk faster than the walking

[[Page 312]]

speeds used to calculate the length of the pedestrian change interval; 
therefore, many pedestrians are easily able to begin their crossing 
after the flashing UPRAISED HAND and countdown period has started and 
complete their crossing during the displayed countdown period and the 
additional buffer period of vehicular yellow and red clearance 
intervals. As a result, pedestrians should be permitted to make their 
own determination of whether or not they have sufficient time to begin 
and complete their crossing during the remaining pedestrian clearance 
time. Some jurisdictions using pedestrian countdown signals, such as 
Salt Lake City, Utah, have adopted laws and ordinances similar to the 
FHWA's proposal.\161\ The FHWA acknowledges that this change will 
require a coordinated change to the Uniform Vehicle Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Salt Lake City ordinance 12.32.055, Pedestrian Signal 
Indications, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://66.113.195.234/UT/Salt%20Lake%20City/11008000000007000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    327. In Section 4E.03 Application of Pedestrian Signal Heads, the 
FHWA proposes to add a 2nd STANDARD statement at the end of the section 
to explicitly require a steady or flashing red signal indication to be 
shown to any conflicting vehicular movement perpendicular to a 
crosswalk with an associated pedestrian signal head displaying either a 
steady WALKING PERSON or flashing UPRAISED HAND indication. The FHWA 
proposes this addition to reflect sound engineering practice.
    328. In Section 4E.04 Size, Design, and Illumination of Pedestrian 
Signal Head Indications, the FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD 
statement to allow the use of a one-section pedestrian signal head with 
the WALKING PERSON and UPRAISED HAND symbols overlaid upon each other 
or side by side. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect Official 
Interpretation 4-303,\162\ dated February 3, 2006, which 
clarified that: ``As long as the [signal head] properly displays the 
individual upraised hand and walking person indications, visible as 
distinctly separate indications meeting all other requirements (color, 
shape, luminous intensity, etc.), the light sources comprising the 
indications may be overlaid on each other or they may be side-by-
side.'' The FHWA proposes to change Figure 4E-1 Typical Pedestrian 
Signal Indications to reflect this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Official Interpretation 4-303 can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_303.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement 
recommending that some form of automatic dimming be used to reduce the 
brilliance of the pedestrian signal indication if the indication is so 
bright as to cause excessive glare in nighttime conditions. The FHWA 
proposes this new recommendation to avoid glare conditions, which can 
reduce the visibility of the indications at night, similar to the 
existing GUIDANCE for vehicular signal indications in Chapter 4D.
    329. Both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the 
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 require that facilities, 
programs and services be accessible to persons with disabilities. The 
FHWA proposes changes to Sections 4E.06, 4E.08, and 4E.09 of MUTCD 
regarding communication of pedestrian signal information to pedestrians 
with vision, vision and hearing, or cognitive disabilities to reflect 
research \163\ conducted under NCHRP 3-62, Accessible Pedestrian 
Signals, and a 5-year project on Blind Pedestrians' Access to Complex 
Intersections sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, National 
Eye Institute, that has demonstrated that certain techniques most 
accurately communicate information. The proposed changes also result in 
making accessible pedestrian detectors easy to locate and actuate by 
persons with visual or mobility impairments. Significant proposed 
changes to existing material are described in item 330 and items 332 
through 335 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Research reports on this topic can be viewed at the U.S. 
Access Board's Internet Web site at: http://www.access-board.gov/research/aps.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    330. In Section 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, the FHWA 
proposes to change the second STANDARD to require both audible and 
vibrotactile walk indications, and to add requirements on how audible 
and vibrotactile walk indications are to be provided. The FHWA proposes 
that audible indications shall not be provided during the pedestrian 
change interval because research \164\ has found that visually disabled 
pedestrians need to concentrate on the sounds of traffic movement while 
they are crossing and audible indications of the flashing UPRAISED HAND 
interval would be distracting from that task. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Research reports on this topic can be viewed at the U.S. 
Access Board's Internet Web site at: http://www.access-board.gov/research/aps.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to change the existing 4th GUIDANCE 
statement regarding the loudness of audible pedestrian walk signals to 
a STANDARD. The new STANDARD bases the loudness of an audible 
pedestrian walk signal on the ambient sound level and provides for 
louder volume adjustment in response to an extended pushbutton press. 
The FHWA proposes these changes to allow the audible pedestrian walk 
signals to be heard over the ambient sound level, and to allow 
pedestrians with hearing impairments to receive a louder audible walk 
signal. The FHWA also proposes to add to this STANDARD that an 
accessible walk signal shall have the same duration as the pedestrian 
walk signal unless the pedestrian signal rests in the walk phase and 
add subsequent GUIDANCE regarding the recommended duration and 
operation of the accessible walk signal if the pedestrian signal rests 
in the walk phase. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that the 
duration of accessible walk signals is dependent on whether the signal 
controller is set to rest in walk or steady don't walk in the absence 
of conflicting demands.
    Following the new STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add new 
GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements regarding the duration, tone, 
and speech messages of audible walk indications in order to clarify 
their use and application.
    The FHWA proposes to modify the existing 4th STANDARD to require 
that speech walk messages only be used where it is technically 
infeasible to install two accessible pedestrian signals at one corner 
with the minimum required separation. The STANDARD also contains 
requirements for what information is allowed in speech messages. The 
FHWA also proposes a GUIDANCE statement that recommends that the speech 
messages not state or imply a command. The FHWA proposes these changes 
to clarify when and under what circumstances speech walk messages are 
to be used. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years 
for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State 
or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA proposes deleting the existing last SUPPORT, STANDARD, and 
GUIDANCE statements from this section and replacing them with 
information regarding the use of audible beaconing as an additional 
feature that may be provided as a result of an extended pushbutton 
press. The FHWA proposes adding this information, because while they 
can be valuable,

[[Page 313]]

activating audible beaconing features at multiple crosswalks at the 
same intersection can be confusing to visually disabled pedestrians, 
and therefore audible beaconing should be activated only when needed.
    331. In Section 4E.07 Countdown Pedestrian Signals, the FHWA 
proposes changing the option of using pedestrian countdown displays to 
a requirement for new installations of pedestrian signals. The proposed 
STANDARD requires the use of countdown displays at all pedestrian 
signals except where the duration of the pedestrian change interval is 
less than 3 seconds. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
10 years for the addition of pedestrian countdown displays to existing 
pedestrian signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes this change to provide 
enhanced pedestrian safety because a multi-year research project 
involving crash data for hundreds of locations in San Francisco \165\ 
showed significant overall safety benefits and substantial reductions 
in the number of pedestrian-vehicle crashes when countdown signals are 
used, as compared to locations that did not have the countdowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ ``Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience With an 
Extensive Pilot Installation,'' by Markowitz, Sciortino, Fleck, and 
Yee, published in ITE Journal, January 2006, pages 43-48, is 
available from the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FHWA proposes a new STANDARD after the first 
paragraph of the GUIDANCE that requires that a pedestrian countdown 
signal be dark when the duration of the green interval for a concurrent 
vehicular movement has intentionally been set to continue beyond the 
end of the pedestrian change interval. The FHWA proposes this change to 
ensure consistency with normal pedestrian signal operations, which 
requires the countdown display to be dark whenever the steady UPRAISED 
HAND is displayed.
    332. In Section 4E.08 Pedestrian Detectors, the FHWA proposes 
changing the first GUIDANCE statement regarding the location of a 
pedestrian pushbutton to a STANDARD and adding criteria that are to be 
met for the location of pushbuttons. The FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE 
and OPTION statements that contain additional information for locations 
where constraints make meeting some of the criteria impractical. The 
FHWA proposes these changes to make pedestrian pushbuttons more 
accessible to disabled pedestrians and to pedestrians in general. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing 
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes modifying the existing first 
STANDARD statement to require accessible pedestrian pushbuttons mounted 
on the same pole to be provided with the accessible features described 
in Section 4E.09 of the MUTCD. The FHWA also proposes to change the 
following GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that the 
positioning of the pushbuttons and legends on the signs clearly 
indicate which crosswalk signal is activated by which pushbutton. The 
FHWA proposes these changes to eliminate ambiguity regarding which 
pushbutton a pedestrian must activate to cross a particular street. The 
FHWA also proposes to add to the existing last STANDARD statement that 
a when a pilot light is used at an accessible pedestrian signal 
location, each actuation shall be accompanied by the speech message 
``wait.'' The FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the activation 
confirmation is available to pedestrians with impaired vision.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end 
of the section requiring a FOR MORE CROSSING TIME: HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 
2 SECONDS (R10-32P) sign if additional crossing time is provided by 
means of an extended pushbutton press. The FHWA proposes this change to 
ensure that pedestrians receive instructions of the use of this feature 
and are made aware of the feature's existence.
    With the exception of the 15 year period proposed for the new 
requirements regarding locations of pedestrian pushbuttons, for the 
other new or revised provisions in Section 4E.08, the FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    333. In Section 4E.09 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, the 
FHWA proposes to modify the second STANDARD to require pushbutton 
locator tones at accessible pedestrian signals. As part of this change, 
the FHWA proposes to change the following GUIDANCE statement regarding 
locator tones to a STANDARD. The FHWA proposes this change consistent 
with item 330 above. In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the first 
paragraph of the existing first GUIDANCE statement regarding tactile 
arrows to a STANDARD, and relocate it within the section. The FHWA 
proposes modifying the remainder of the GUIDANCE statement to reduce 
redundancy.
    The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD that requires locator tones, 
tactile arrows, speech walk messages, and a speech pushbutton 
informational message when two accessible pedestrian pushbuttons are 
placed on the same pole. Additionally, if the clearance time is 
sufficient to only cross to the median of a divided highway, an 
accessible pedestrian detector shall be provided on the median. The 
FWHA proposes these changes consistent with item 332 above.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the existing 3rd 
OPTION statement allowing the use of an extended pushbutton press to 
activate additional accessible features at a pedestrian crosswalk. The 
FHWA proposes to follow this new paragraph with a new STANDARD 
statement that sets requirements for the amount of time a pushbutton 
shall be pressed to activate the extra features.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end 
of the section requiring that speech pushbutton information messages 
only play when the walk interval is not timing. Requirements regarding 
the content of these messages are also contained in this new STANDARD. 
The FHWA proposes this change to promote uniformity in the content of 
speech messages.
    For the new or revised provisions of Section 4E.09, the FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals 
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    334. The FHWA also proposes to revise existing Figure 4E-2 to show 
a general layout of recommended pushbutton locations. The FHWA proposes 
to add a new Figure numbered and titled, ``Figure 4E-3 Typical 
Pushbutton Locations'' that shows 8 examples of pushbutton locations 
for various sidewalk, ramp, and corner configurations. The FHWA 
proposes these additional figures to help clarify appropriate locations 
under different geometric conditions.
    335. In Section 4E.10 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, the 
FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD to require the steady 
UPRAISED HAND indication to be displayed during the yellow change 
interval and the red clearance interval if used as part of the 
pedestrian clearance time. The FHWA proposes this change to be 
consistent with the proposed change in Section 4E.07 to require 
countdown pedestrian signal displays. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good condition to

[[Page 314]]

minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement for 
calculating pedestrian clearance times to use slower walking speeds, 
except where extended pushbutton presses or passive pedestrian 
detection has been installed for slower pedestrians to request 
additional crossing time as noted in the OPTION. Another proposed 
GUIDANCE statement notes that a lower speed should be considered if 
significant numbers of pedestrians in wheelchairs or slower pedestrians 
are present. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide enhanced 
pedestrian safety, based on recent research \166\ regarding pedestrian 
walking speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Pedestrian walking speed research was included in 
``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Pedestrian 
Crossings,'' TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation 
Research Board, 2006, which can be viewed at the following Internet 
Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf. Also see the article ``The Continuing Evolution of 
Pedestrian Walking Speed Assumptions,'' by LaPlante and Kaeser, ITE 
Journal, September 2004, pages 32-40, available from the Institute 
of Transportation Engineers, Web site: http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, based on the same research, the FHWA proposes to add a 
GUIDANCE statement recommending that the total of the walk phase and 
pedestrian clearance time should be long enough to allow a pedestrian 
to walk from the pedestrian detector to the opposite edge of the 
traveled way at a speed of 0.9 meters (3 feet) per second. The FHWA 
proposes this change to ensure that slower pedestrians can be 
accommodated at longer crosswalks if they start crossing at the 
beginning of the walk phase.
    For the changes in recommended walking speeds and method of 
determining pedestrian timing, the FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 5 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize 
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the last existing GUIDANCE to a 
STANDARD to require, rather than merely recommend, that median-mounted 
pedestrian signals, signing, and pushbuttons (if actuated) be provided 
when the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only for crossing from 
the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for a pedestrian 
to wait. The FHWA proposes this change to assure that pedestrians who 
must wait on a median or island are provided the means to actuate a 
pedestrian phase to complete the second half of their crossing. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    The FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows a leading 
pedestrian interval when a high volume of pedestrians and turning 
vehicles are present. As indicated in the FHWA report ``Signalized 
Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \167\ several studies have 
demonstrated that leading pedestrian intervals can significantly reduce 
conflicts for pedestrians. The FHWA also proposes to add a GUIDANCE 
statement that gives a recommended minimum length of the leading 
pedestrian interval, reflecting recommendations from the Older Driver 
handbook,\168\ and the traffic control devices that should be used to 
prevent turning vehicles from crossing the path of pedestrians during 
this leading interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA 
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 197-198, can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
    \168\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older 
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.P(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes an OPTION statement that permits the 
green time for the concurrent vehicular movement to be set longer than 
the pedestrian change interval to allow vehicles to complete turns 
after the pedestrian phase. The FHWA proposes these changes to include 
this application in the MUTCD that is used by many jurisdictions, and 
recommended by the Older Driver handbook \169\ to reduce conflicts 
between pedestrians and turning motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ This 2001 report can be viewed at the following Internet 
Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/01-051.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 4F through 4L
    336. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter to Part 4, numbered and 
titled, ``Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid Signals.'' The proposed new 
chapter would have three sections that describe the application, 
design, and operation of pedestrian hybrid signals. A pedestrian hybrid 
signal is a special type of hybrid signal used to warn and control 
traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a 
street or highway at a marked crosswalk. A pedestrian hybrid signal 
contains a circular yellow signal indication centered below two 
circular red signal indications, and shall be dark except when 
activated. The remaining Chapters in Part 4 would be re-lettered 
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this addition to give agencies 
additional flexibility by providing an alternative method for control 
of pedestrian crosswalks that has been found by research \170\ to be 
highly effective. This type of device has been used successfully for 
many years in Tucson, Arizona, where it is known as a ``HAWK Signal.'' 
This type of device offers significant benefits for providing enhanced 
safety of pedestrian crossings where normal traffic control signals 
would not be warranted. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period 
of 10 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ ``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Pedestrian 
Crossings,'' TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation 
Research Board, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    337. As part of this new Chapter, the FHWA proposes to add three 
new figures. Proposed Figures 4F-1 and 4F-2 contain guidelines for the 
justification of installation of pedestrian hybrid signals on low speed 
and high speed roadways, respectively. Proposed Figure 4F-3 shows the 
proposed sequence of intervals for a pedestrian hybrid signal.
    338. The FHWA proposes changing the title of existing Chapter 4F 
(new Chapter 4G) to ``Traffic Control Signals and Hybrid Signals for 
Emergency Vehicle Access'' to reflect the proposed addition of hybrid 
signals to this chapter.
    339. In existing Section 4F.01 (new Section 4G.01) Application of 
Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals and Hybrid Signals, the FHWA 
proposes adding a paragraph to the OPTION statement to allow an 
emergency-vehicle hybrid signal to be installed in place of an 
emergency-vehicle traffic control signal under the conditions described 
in Section 4G.04. The FHWA proposes this change to accommodate 
emergency-vehicle hybrid signals as proposed to be added as described 
below.
    340. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 4F.03 (new Section 4G.03). The proposed new section is numbered 
and titled ``Section 4G.04 Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Signals'' and 
contains STANDARDS for this type of traffic signal which will be used 
in conjunction with signs to warn and control traffic at an 
unsignalized location where emergency vehicles enter or cross the 
street or highway. An emergency-vehicle hybrid signal contains a 
circular yellow signal

[[Page 315]]

indication centered below two circular red signal indications, and 
shall be dark except when activated. The FHWA had proposed the addition 
of a somewhat similar device, the Emergency Beacon, for the 2003 
edition of the MUTCD but decided not to include it in the Final Rule 
due to various concerns about some details of the device's design and 
operational features and alleged insufficient experience with the 
device. Since that time, additional experience has been gained with 
this type of device and the current proposal to add the Emergency-
Vehicle Hybrid Signal is revised from the previous proposal to address 
the earlier design and operational issues. The FHWA believes that 
hybrid signals provide an effective, alternative method to control 
traffic at some locations where emergency vehicles enter and cross 
roadways. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years 
for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State 
or local highway agencies.
    341. The FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 4G-1 that illustrates 
the Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Signal.
    342. In existing Section 4H.01 (new Section 4I.01) Application of 
Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to delete 
unnecessary descriptive language and instead add a SUPPORT statement 
referring the reader to FHWA's ``Ramp Management and Control Handbook'' 
\171\ for information on conditions that might justify freeway entrance 
ramp control signals. The FHWA proposes this change because this 
publication, which was released after the 2003 MUTCD was published, is 
the appropriate place for the information rather than in the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ ``Ramp Management and Control Handbook,'' dated January 
2006, FHWA Publication  FHWA-HOP-06-001 can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    343. In existing Section 4H.02 (new Section 4I.02) Design of 
Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to clarify the 
STANDARD by requiring the use of at least two signal faces per ramp on 
a single lane ramp or a multiple lane ramp where green signal 
indications are always displayed simultaneously. On a ramp with 
multiple lanes where the green signal indications are not always 
displayed simultaneously, (as is the case in some staggered-release 
ramp metering situations in which one lane receives the green while the 
other lane is stopped and then the other lane receives the green while 
the first lane is stopped), the FHWA proposes to require two signal 
faces per lane or group of lanes. The FHWA proposes this change to 
incorporate Official Interpretation 4-294(I) \172\ into the 
MUTCD, which ensures that each separately controlled lane or group of 
lanes has at least two signal faces displayed. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Official Interpretation  4-294(I), dated 
September 30, 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_294.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION to allow ramp control 
signals to control some, but not all lanes on a ramp. The FHWA proposes 
this change to reflect the current practice in many jurisdictions of 
providing HOV bypass lanes on ramps. Also, the FHWA proposes to add 
text to allow the two required signal faces to be mounted on the side 
of the roadway on the same pole when only one lane is controlled. The 
second signal face may be mounted lower than the normal mounting 
height. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate existing practice 
in many ramp metering systems, designed to avoid motorist confusion 
that could arise if a signal were mounted on the side of the ramp where 
the lane is not controlled by the signal, due to the standard lateral 
separation requirements.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending 
that appropriate regulatory signs such as ONE VEHICLE PER GREEN should 
be installed adjacent to the signal face, and that special measures 
should be considered for freeway to freeway ramps. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to reflect the current practices in most jurisdictions 
that operate ramp metering systems.
    344. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following new Section 
4I.02. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 4I.03 
Operation of Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals'' and contains 
GUIDANCE recommending that the operational strategies for ramp control 
signals should be determined prior to their installation, and that a 
RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING (W3-7) sign with a warning beacon should be 
used for a ramp meter that is only used during certain portions of the 
day. The FHWA proposes these changes to ensure that a proper operating 
strategy has been developed and that road users are alerted to the 
presence and operation of part time ramp meters.
    345. In existing Section 4I.02 (new Section 4J.02) Design and 
Location of Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, the FHWA proposes to 
revise the first STANDARD to require the use of 300 mm (12 in) diameter 
signal indications on all new movable bridge signals, and remove the 
option of using 200 mm (8 in) signal indications. The FHWA proposes 
this change to maintain consistency with the proposed changes in new 
Section 4D.05 that require the use of 300 mm (12 in) diameter signal 
indications for new signal faces. The FHWA also proposes to revise the 
STANDARD statement to require that a stop line be installed on 
signalized approaches to a movable span to indicate the point behind 
which vehicles are required to stop. The FHWA proposes this change to 
be consistent with other proposed changes throughout the MUTCD that 
require a stop line.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of the existing 
2nd STANDARD to indicate that the stripes on movable bridge warning 
gates shall be vertical. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent 
with other proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10 and the new Section 2L.06 
that require vertical, rather than diagonal, stripes on warning gates. 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years to minimize 
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    346. In existing Section 4I.03 (new Section 4J.03) Operation of 
Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, the FHWA proposes to add to the 
GUIDANCE statement that traffic signals on adjacent streets or highways 
that are interconnected with drawbridge control should be preempted by 
the operation of the movable bridge in accordance with Section 4D.27. 
The FHWA proposes to add this language to ensure proper preemption when 
appropriate.
    347. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter to Part 4 titled, 
``Chapter 4K Toll Plaza Traffic Signals.'' The remaining chapters would 
be relettered accordingly. This new chapter includes OPTION, STANDARD, 
GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements for traffic control signals in toll 
plazas. Items such as the number and size of signal faces, the phases 
which may be displayed, and the applications of toll plaza traffic 
signals to toll plaza operations are discussed in this chapter. The 
FHWA proposes this addition as a result of the recommendations in the 
Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report \173\ and to 
provide additional

[[Page 316]]

consistency and uniformity of such displays for road users. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals 
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    348. In existing Section 4K.02 (new Section 4L.02) Intersection 
Control Beacon, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that 
that two horizontally aligned red signal indications shall be flashed 
simultaneously, and two vertically aligned red signal indications shall 
be flashed alternately. The FHWA proposes this change to avoid 
horizontally aligned red signal indications in an intersection control 
beacon from being confused with highway-rail grade crossing flashing-
light signals, and to be consistent with the existing requirement for 
stop beacons in existing Section 4K.05 (new Section 4L.05).
    349. In existing Section 4K.03 (new Section 4L.03) Warning Beacon, 
the FHWA proposes to add an item to the SUPPORT statement to add the 
typical use of Warning Beacons in conjunction with a regulatory or 
warning sign that includes the phrase WHEN FLASHING in its legend to 
indicate that the regulation is in effect or that the condition is 
present only at certain times.
    The FHWA also proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that 
warning beacons used on toll plaza canopies to call attention to signs 
denoting electronic toll collection lanes should be distinctly separate 
from lane-use control signals. The FHWA proposes this change as a 
result of the Toll Plazas Best Practices and Recommendations Report 
\174\ and to reflect the new standard requiring a lane-use control 
signal above all non-open-road electronic toll collection lanes. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the OPTION statement that 
Warning Beacons that are activated by bicycles and pedestrians may be 
used as appropriate to provide additional warning to approaching 
vehicles. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify the allowable use of 
pedestrian-actuated beacons, per FHWA Official Interpretation  
4-269.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ FHWA Official Interpretation  4-269, dated June 
3, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_269.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement allowing 
Warning Beacons mounted on toll plaza islands, on toll plaza impact 
attenuators, and on toll booth ramparts to be mounted at a height which 
is appropriate for viewing in the toll plaza context, even if that 
height is lower than the normal minimum height above the pavement. The 
FHWA proposes this change as a result of the recommendations in the 
Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    350. In existing Section 4K.05 (new Section 4L.05) Stop Beacon, the 
FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD that a Stop Beacon shall be used 
only to supplement a STOP sign, a DO NOT ENTER sign, or a WRONG WAY 
sign. The FHWA proposes this addition to reflect the meaning of a 
flashing red indication and for consistency with existing Section 4K.03 
(new Section 4L.03). As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes 
to add to the last paragraph of the STANDARD that the mounting height 
range for the bottom of the signal housing or a Stop Beacon also 
applies to the top of a DO NOT ENTER sign or a WRONG WAY sign, in 
addition to a STOP sign.
    351. In existing Section 4J.01 (new Section 4M.01) Application of 
Lane-Use Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement 
requiring lane-use control signals to indicate lane open/lane closed 
status at toll plazas in lanes that are not Open Road electronic toll 
collection lanes. The FHWA also proposes an OPTION statement that 
allows the use of these signals in Open Road electronic toll collection 
lanes. The FHWA proposes these changes as a result of the 
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations 
Report.\177\ Although some toll facilities use red-yellow-green traffic 
signal indications to indicate lane open/lane closed status, this is an 
antiquated and non-conforming practice because for several decades the 
MUTCD has required the use of standard red X and downward-pointing 
green arrow lane-use control signal indications for this specific 
purpose. The FHWA proposes a 10-year phase-in compliance period for 
this requirement for existing toll plazas to minimize any impacts on 
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    352. In existing Section 4J.03 (new Section 4M.03) Design of Lane-
Use Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to add an Option to the existing 
STANDARD that requires that the bottom of the signal housing of any 
lane-use control signal face be at least 4.6 m (15 ft) above the 
pavement. The proposed OPTION would allow the signal to be mounted 
lower above a toll plaza lane. If the toll plaza canopy has a lower 
vertical clearance above the roadway than 4.6 m (15 ft), that clearance 
controls the height of vehicles that can use the lane and thus the 
lane-use control signal can be mounted below a height of 4.6 m (15 ft) 
as long as it is not lower than the bottom of the canopy. The FHWA 
proposes this change as a result of the recommendations in the Toll 
Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic 
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    353. In existing Section 4L.01 (new Section 4N.01) Application of 
In-Roadway Lights, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement 
that In-Roadway Lights shall only be used for applications described in 
this chapter. The FHWA also proposes to add to the STANDARD that In-
Roadway Lights be flashed and not steadily illuminated. The FHWA 
proposes these changes to preclude the use of In-Roadway Lights for any 
purpose not included in this chapter because such uses have not yet 
been sufficiently tested to confirm their effectiveness and because 
steadily illuminated lights could be confused with internally 
illuminated raised pavement markings.
    354. In Section 4L.02 (new Section 4N.02) In-Roadway Warning Lights 
at Crosswalks, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to 
account for the lower pedestrian walking speeds proposed elsewhere in 
Part 4 and to ensure consistency in walking speeds used to calculate 
pedestrian intervals. The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD 
statement that if pedestrian pushbuttons are used to actuate the In-
Roadway Lights, a PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING LIGHTS sign shall be 
mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton. The 
FHWA proposes this change to direct users on how to activate the In-
Roadway Lights.

[[Page 317]]

    The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement requiring 
median-mounted pedestrian detectors when the period of operation is 
sufficient for crossing only from a curb or shoulder to the median of a 
divided highway. The FHWA proposes this change to ensure that 
pedestrians who only cross to the median can actuate the In-Roadway 
Lights to warn motorists for the remainder of their crossing, and for 
consistency with similar proposed changes in Section 4E.10.
    The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing In-Roadway Lights in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 5 Traffic Control Devices for 
Low-Volume Roads

    355. In Section 5A.01 Function, the FHWA proposes to change item B 
of the STANDARD statement to prohibit classifying a residential street 
in a neighborhood as a low-volume road for the purposes of Part 5 of 
the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes this change to provide consistency with 
item A of the STANDARD which states that low-volume roads shall be 
facilities lying outside the built-up area of Cities, towns, and 
communities.
    356. In Section 5C.04 Stop Ahead and Yield Ahead Signs, the FHWA 
proposes to delete the OPTION statement that allows word message signs 
to be used as an alternative to symbol signs. The FHWA proposes this 
change because the use of word message Stop Ahead and Yield Ahead signs 
are no longer permitted. This corresponds with a proposed change in 
Chapter 2C.
    357. In Section 5C.07 Hill Sign, the FHWA proposes to delete the 
2nd paragraph of the OPTION statement that permits confining the use of 
the Hill sign on low-volume roads to roads where commercial or 
recreational vehicles are anticipated. The FHWA proposes this change to 
emphasize that the use of the Hill sign should be based on the results 
of an engineering study of vehicles and road characteristics, as stated 
in the first paragraph of the OPTION statement.
    358. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 5E.05 Object 
Markers to Chapter 5C. The section will be numbered and titled 
``Section 5C.14 Object Markers and Barricades.'' The FHWA proposes this 
change in order to locate the subject material with other sections in 
Part 5 that deal with signs. This change coincides with the proposed 
relocation of object markers and barricades from Part 3 to Part 2 of 
the MUTCD.
    359. In Section 5F.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign 
and Number of Tracks Plaque, the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd 
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that the measurement for 
the strip of retroreflective material that is to be placed on each 
support is to be from the Crossbuck sign or the Number of Tracks sign 
to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground. The FHWA proposes this change 
to be consistent with similar proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10.
    360. In Section 5F.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning 
Signs, the FHWA proposes several changes to the section to reflect that 
a supplemental plaque describing the type of traffic control at a 
highway-rail grade crossing shall be used on all low-volume roads in 
advance of every crossing. The FHWA proposes these changes to be 
consistent with similar proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10.
    361. In Section 5F.04 STOP and YIELD Signs, the FHWA proposes 
several changes to the section regarding the use and application of 
STOP signs or YIELD signs at highway-rail grade crossings. The FHWA 
proposes these changes to be consistent with similar proposed changes 
in Parts 8 and 10 (see more detailed discussions below).

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 6--General
    362. The FHWA proposes to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to 
delete 23 CFR Part 634 regarding Worker Visibility. The FHWA proposes 
this change in order to incorporate those provisions into the MUTCD, 
which is applicable to all public roads. As such, 23 CFR Part 634 would 
no longer be needed because its requirements would be incorporated into 
the MUTCD, and therefore, applicable to all roads open to public travel 
in accordance with 23 CFR Part 655, not just Federal-aid highways.
    363. The FHWA proposes to revise the first SUPPORT statement in 
Chapter 6A to indicate that the acronym ``TTC,'' meaning Temporary 
Traffic Control, applies to all of Part 6. In conjunction, the FHWA 
would delete the first SUPPORT statement from the remaining Chapters in 
Part 6 because it is repetitive.
    364. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement in 
Chapter 6A to indicate that the needs and control of all road users 
through a TTC zone apply to all public facilities and on private 
property open to public travel, in addition to highways. The FHWA 
proposes this change to incorporate FHWA's Final Rule to 23 CFR Part 
655, dated December 14, 2006, which provided clarification on the 
meaning of roads ``open to public travel.'' \179\ The FHWA would delete 
the first STANDARD statement from the remaining Chapters in Part 6 
because it repeats this information, which is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated 
December 14, 2006, (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 75111-75115) can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    365. The FHWA proposes to update the figures throughout Part 6 to 
reflect proposed new or revised signs in Part 2 that are applicable to 
Temporary Traffic Control Zones.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 6A through 6E
    366. In Section 6B.01 Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic 
Control, the FHWA proposes to clarify items F and G of the second 
GUIDANCE statement to indicate that it is on high-volume streets and 
highways that roadway occupancy should be scheduled during off-peak 
hours and that if significant impacts to roadway operations are 
anticipated, early coordination should occur with officials having 
jurisdiction over the affected streets and providing emergency 
services. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide agencies with more 
flexibility in allowing roadway occupancy, particularly for work on 
local residential streets and other low volume streets where temporary 
traffic control does not cause a problem during peak hours and to 
encourage communication.
    367. In Section 6C.04 Advance Warning Area, the FHWA proposes to 
add information regarding sign spacing to the end of the GUIDANCE 
statement, as well as add a new SUPPORT statement. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to reinforce that the distances contained in Table 6C-1 
are for guidance purposes and should be considered minimum, and that 
the recommended distances should be increased based on field 
conditions.
    368. In Section 6C.08 Tapers, the FHWA proposes to add to the last 
GUIDANCE statement that the length of a short taper should be a minimum 
of 15 m (50 ft). In addition, the FHWA proposes to add that a 
downstream taper with a length of approximately 30 m (100 ft) should be 
used to guide traffic back into their original lane. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to provide practitioners with more information

[[Page 318]]

regarding taper lengths. In particular, this proposed change provides a 
minimum length for a ``short taper,'' because no length had been 
provided in the past, and to reflect the use of a ``downstream taper'' 
as has been shown in various existing figures in Part 6.
    369. In Table 6C-3 Taper Length Criteria for Temporary Traffic 
Control Zones, the FHWA proposes to add a minimum taper length for one-
lane, two-way traffic tapers. The existing table contained only a 
maximum length, and the FHWA believes that it is important to also 
state a minimum length. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes 
to add minimum taper lengths to existing Figures 6H-10, 6H-11, 6H-12, 
6H-18 and 6H-27 (new Figures 6I-10, 6I-11, 6I-12, 6I-18 and 6I-27).
    370. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA 
proposes to add an OPTION statement that explicitly allows for the 
movement of traffic through a one-lane, two-way constriction to be 
self-regulating, provided that the work space is short, on a low-volume 
street or road, and that road users from both directions are able to 
see the traffic approaching from the opposite direction through and 
beyond the work site. The FHWA proposes this change to provide 
practitioners with more flexibility on low-volume, low-speed roads.
    371. In Section 6C.11 Flagger Method of One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic 
Control, the FHWA proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE statement that 
traffic should be controlled by a flagger at each end of a constricted 
section of roadway, unless a one-lane, two-way TTC zone is short enough 
to allow a flagger to see from one end of the zone to the other. The 
FHWA proposes this change to emphasize that the preferred method of 
flagger control is to use two flaggers.
    372. The FHWA proposes relocating the information from existing 
Section 6F.54 regarding the PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign and flaggers in 
activity areas where a pilot car is being used, to Section 6C.13 Pilot 
Car Method of One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control. The FHWA proposes this 
change because the information is specific to pilot cars, which are 
covered in Section 6C.13.
    373. The FHWA proposes to relocate several paragraphs related to 
accessible pedestrian facilities from Section 6D.01 Pedestrian 
Considerations to Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, in order 
to consolidate related information into one section.
    374. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the FHWA proposes 
to add to the existing 2nd STANDARD statement that accessibility and 
detectability shall be maintained along an alternate pedestrian route 
if a TTC zone affects an accessible and detectable pedestrian facility. 
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect the provisions of ADAAG.\180\ 
Although this requirement is already included in Section 6G.11, the 
FHWA adds it to this section because it is a pedestrian consideration, 
and therefore, consistent with the content of this section. As part of 
this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the first sentence of 
the 3rd GUIDANCE statement, which conflicts with the proposed STANDARD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FHWA proposes to delete the 3rd STANDARD statement 
regarding the requirement for TTC devices to be crashworthy because 
that requirement is covered in other sections and does not need to be 
repeated here.
    375. In Section 6D.03 Worker Safety Considerations, the FHWA 
proposes to delete item B in the GUIDANCE statement because it would be 
superseded by new statements that the FHWA proposes adding later in the 
section. The FHWA proposes adding a new STANDARD statement to 
incorporate into the MUTCD the provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 regarding 
the use of high-visibility safety apparel by workers within the public 
right-of-way that were published in the Federal Register on November 
24, 2006.\181\ The FHWA also proposes adding a new first paragraph to 
the existing OPTION statement that allows first responders and law 
enforcement personnel to use safety apparel meeting a newly developed 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for ``public 
safety vests'' because this type of vest will better meet the special 
needs of these personnel. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 2 years for worker apparel on non-Federal-aid highways to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. A compliance 
date of November 24, 2008 has already been established for worker 
apparel on Federal-aid highways as a result of 23 CFR Part 634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ The Federal Registrar Notice for the Final Rule, dated 
November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792-67800) can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    376. In Section 6E.02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, the FHWA 
proposes to make several changes regarding the use of high-visibility 
safety apparel by flaggers during daytime and nighttime activity, as 
well as law by enforcement personnel within a TTC zone, to reflect the 
provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 that were published in the Federal 
Register on November 24, 2006.\182\ The FHWA also proposes adding a new 
OPTION statement that allows first responders and law enforcement 
personnel to use safety apparel meeting a newly developed ANSI standard 
for ``public safety vests'' because this type of vest will better meet 
their special needs. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
2 years for worker apparel on non-Federal-aid highways to minimize any 
impact on state or local highway agencies. A compliance date of 
November 24, 2008 has already been established for worker apparel on 
Federal-aid highways as a result of 23 CFR Part 634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ The Federal Registrar Notice for the Final Rule, dated 
November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792-67800) can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    377. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the FHWA proposes to 
change the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD, and modify the text 
to require that flaggers use a STOP/SLOW paddle, a red flag, or an 
Automated Flagger Assistance Device to control road users through TTC 
zones. The FHWA proposes this change in order to require that one of 
the three listed devices be used, and to explicitly delete `hand 
signaling' from the list of permitted methods to control traffic. See 
item 379 below for additional discussion.
    The FHWA also proposes to add SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements prior 
to the first OPTION statement to clarify that it is optimal to place a 
STOP/SLOW paddle on a rigid staff, with minimum length of 2.1 m (7 ft), 
in order to display a STOP or SLOW message that is stable and high 
enough to be seen by approaching or stopped traffic. The FHWA proposes 
the new language to add clarity to the use of the staff because the 
STOP/SLOW paddle is shown on a staff in existing Figure 6E-1, however, 
there is no language in the existing text regarding the use of the 
staff.
    378. The FHWA proposes to add three new sections following Section 
6E.03. The first new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 6E.04 
Automated Flagger Assistance Devices.'' This new section contains 
SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements describing the use 
of Automated Flagger Assistance Devices (AFADs). AFADs are optional 
devices

[[Page 319]]

that enable a flagger(s) to be positioned out of the lane of traffic 
and are used to control road users through temporary traffic control 
zones. The second new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 6E.05 
STOP/SLOW Automated Flagger Assistance Devices'' and contains STANDARD, 
OPTION, and GUIDANCE statements describing the use of a remotely 
controlled STOP/SLOW sign on either a trailer or a movable cart system 
and a gate arm. The third new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 
6E.06 Red/Yellow Lens Automated Flagger Assistance Devices'' and 
contains STANDARD, OPTION, and GUIDANCE statements describing the use 
of remotely controlled red and yellow lenses and a gate arm. The 
remaining sections in this chapter would be renumbered accordingly. The 
FHWA proposes to incorporate the AFAD into the MUTCD based on FHWA's 
revised Interim Approval, dated January 28, 2005.\183\ The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing Automated 
Flagger Assistance Devices in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ The Revised Interim Approval notice can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_afads012705.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    379. In existing Section 6E.04 (new Section 6E.07) Flagger 
Procedures, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement 
that flaggers shall use a STOP/SLOW paddle, flag or an AFAD to control 
road users, and that the use of hand movements alone is prohibited. The 
FHWA proposes this additional language to protect the safety of workers 
and road users and to reinforce that hand movements alone are not an 
acceptable flagging method.
    380. The FHWA also proposes to relocate GUIDANCE and OPTION 
statements from existing Section 6E.05 to the end of new Section 6E.07 
because they reference flagger procedures more than flagger stations.
    381. In existing Section 6E.05 (new Section 6E.08) Flagger 
Stations, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that an 
escape route for flaggers should be identified. The FHWA proposes this 
text in order to emphasize the need to provide flaggers with a way to 
avoid an errant vehicle.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 6F
    382. In Table 6F-1 Sizes of Temporary Control Signs, the FHWA 
proposes to change the minimum size of the TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC (R1-2aP) 
sign to 600 mm x 450 mm (24 in x 18 in) to be consistent with the same 
sign in Part 2.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the sizes of certain signs listed 
in Table 6F-1 to incorporate sizes that are more legible for drivers 
with 20/40 visual acuity. This is consistent with similar proposed 
changes in sign sizes in Part 2.
    383. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA 
proposes to revise the first OPTION statement to delete fluorescent 
red-orange and fluorescent yellow-orange from the alternative colors 
for orange. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with a 
similar change in Part 2, and because there are no separate color 
specifications for these colors, as they are both contained within the 
single color specification for fluorescent orange.
    384. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 6F.11 
STAY IN LANE. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 
6F.12 Work Zone and Higher Fines Signs and Plaques.'' This proposed new 
section contains an OPTION statement describing the use of the WORK 
ZONE plaque above a Speed Limit Sign to emphasize that a reduced speed 
limit is in effect within a TTC zone and the FINES HIGHER, FINES 
DOUBLED, and $XX FINE plaques that may be mounted below the Speed Limit 
sign if increased fines are imposed for traffic violations within the 
TTC zone, as well as the associated signs that may be used to mark the 
beginning and ends of these zones. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F 
would be renumbered accordingly.
    385. In existing Section 6F.15 (new Section 6F.16) Warning Sign 
Function, Design, and Application, the FHWA proposes to delete the 2nd 
STANDARD statement and the first three paragraphs of the 3rd OPTION 
statement, because they provide sign size information that is already 
contained in Section 6F.02.
    386. In Section 6F.16 (new Section 6F.17) Position of Advance 
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the first 
GUIDANCE statement recommending that the ROAD WORK sign be the first 
advance warning sign encountered by road users when multiple advance 
warning signs are needed on an approach to a TTC. The FHWA proposes 
this new language to reflect current practice in which the first sign 
encountered in advance of a TTC is the most generic sign.
    387. In Figure 6F-4 Warning Signs in Temporary Traffic Control 
Zones, the FHWA proposes to add the STREET WORK, WORKERS, and FRESH OIL 
word signs to the list of optional word message signs listed next to 
the asterisk at the bottom of the page. The FHWA proposes this change 
to provide practitioners with the flexibility to use various word 
message signs in advance of various types of temporary traffic control 
zones.
    388. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 6F.28 (new Section 6F.29) EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED, EXIT ONLY 
Signs. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 6F.30 
NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign (W23-2)'' and contains an OPTION 
statement describing the use of the NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD sign to 
provide advance warning of a change in traffic patterns, such as 
revised lane usage, roadway geometry, or signal phasing. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F would be renumbered 
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect current practice 
in many States and numerous local jurisdictions as documented in the 
Sign Synthesis Study \184\ and to provide a uniform legend for this 
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 184 This December 2005 publication (FHWA-HOP-06-074) can 
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    389. In existing Section 6F.29 (new Section 6F.31) Flagger Sign, 
the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION to allow Flagger signs to remain 
displayed to road users for up to 15 minutes when flagging operations 
are not occurring under certain circumstances. The FHWA proposes this 
change to reflect Official Interpretation 6-200(I), which was 
issued on September 22, 2004.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ FHWA Official Interpretation  6-200, dated 
September 22, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web 
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/6_200.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    390. In existing Section 6F.42 (new Section 6F.44) Shoulder Signs, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to include the 
proposed new symbol version of the Shoulder Drop Off sign and the 
supplemental plaque to warn road users of a low shoulder to be 
consistent with this proposed new sign in Chapter 2C.
    391. In existing Section 6F.43 (new Section 6F.45) UNEVEN LANES 
Sign, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement to permit the use of 
the proposed new Shoulder Drop Off symbol sign with an UNEVEN LANES 
supplemental plaque instead of the UNEVEN LANES word sign. The FHWA 
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 
2C.

[[Page 320]]

    392. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing 
Section 6F.44 (new Section 6F.46) NO CENTER STRIPE Sign. The proposed 
new section is numbered and titled ``Section 6F.47 Reverse Curve Signs 
(W1-4 Series)'' and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements describing 
the use of the Reverse Curve signs to give road users advance notice of 
a lane shift. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F would be renumbered 
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this change to allow for the use of 
``single reverse curve'' signs similar to those already allowed in 
existing Section 6F.45 for ``double reverse curve'' signs.
    393. The FHWA proposes relocating the information from existing 
Section 6F.54 PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign (G20-4), to Section 6C.13 
because the information is related specifically to pilot cars, which 
are covered in Section 6C.13. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F 
would be renumbered accordingly.
    394. In existing Section 6F.55 (new Section 6F.57) Portable 
Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the first 
STANDARD statement to a SUPPORT, as well as to add additional 
information because this statement just provides information, rather 
than requirements.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the first 
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD in order to require that Portable 
Changeable Message signs comply with specific chapters and tables in 
the MUTCD.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the last 2 paragraphs of the first 
GUIDANCE statement to clarify the recommendations for messages and 
phases. As part of these changes, the FHWA proposes to change the 
recommended display time for message phases, to expand the 
recommendations for message lengths and phases and to delete the OPTION 
statement.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the last GUIDANCE statement to 
clarify that Portable Changeable Message signs should be placed off the 
shoulder of the roadway and behind a traffic barrier, if practical. The 
FHWA also proposes to add additional recommendations regarding the use 
of Portable Changeable Message signs in temporary traffic control 
zones.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement in 
the middle of the first GUIDANCE statement that describes the 
requirements for the number of phases and number of lines, placement of 
messages within each line, techniques for message display and 
interaction between signs if more than one is simultaneously visible to 
road users.
    The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for the 
new requirements for existing Portable Changeable Message Signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA proposes all of the changes in this section to be 
consistent with the proposed changes for permanent Changeable Message 
signs as proposed in new Chapter 2M, but with differences to suit the 
special nature of Portable Changeable Message Signs. These changes are 
based on extensive research on changeable message sign legibility, 
messaging, and operations conducted over a period of many years by the 
Texas Transportation Institute.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Information on the many research projects on changeable 
message signs conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 
can be accessed via TTI's Internet Web site at: http://tti.tamu.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    395. In Figure 6F-6 Advance Warning Arrow Display Specifications, 
the FHWA proposes to add an Alternating Diamond display as one of the 
options for a Flashing Caution display. This type of display has been 
found effective by experimentation in Utah.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ ``Dancing Diamonds in Highway Work Zones: Evaluation of 
Arrow Panel Caution Displays,'' Utah Department of Transportation 
Report number UT-02.13, dated June 2002, by Saito and Turley, can be 
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.dot.state.ut.us/download.php/tid=297/UT-02.13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    396. In existing Section 6F.58 (new Section 6F.60) Channelizing 
Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement that 
all channelizing devices shall be crashworthy. As part of this change, 
the FHWA proposes to delete from the first GUIDANCE statement the 
recommendation that channelizing devices be crashworthy because it 
would conflict with the proposed STANDARD. The FHWA proposes these 
changes to increase the safety of workers and road users and to be 
consistent with other crashworthiness requirements throughout Part 6.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd 
STANDARD statement to simplify the requirements for the placement of 
channelizing devices for channelizing pedestrians. As part of the 
revisions, the FHWA proposes to change the minimum required height of 
channelizing devices from 900 mm (36 in) to 800 mm (32 in) to reflect 
predominant practice. The FHWA also proposes to delete the existing 3rd 
STANDARD statement because it is repetitive.
    The FHWA proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE that where multiple 
channelizing devices are aligned to form a continuous pedestrian 
channelizer, connection points should be smooth to optimize long-cane 
and hand trailing. The FHWA proposes this additional language to 
provide practitioners with recommendations that will enable visually 
impaired pedestrians to traverse channelized areas more easily.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes adding two new STANDARD statements 
and an OPTION statement in the middle of this section describing the 
use of warning lights on channelizing devices. Many different types of 
lighting methods are currently being used, including flashing, steady-
burn, and sequential. Some lighting methods do not provide roadway 
users with the appropriate message and some are confusing. Therefore, 
the FHWA proposes this language to provide uniformity in the types of 
lighting methods used.
    397. In Figure 6F-7 Channelizing Devices, the FHWA proposes to 
specify that the 900 mm (36 in) height of the Direction Indicator 
Barricade is a minimum height. The ``MIN'' was inadvertently missing in 
the 2003 MUTCD.
    398. In existing Section 6F.60 (new Section 6F.62) Tubular Markers, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of the first STANDARD to 
clarify the requirements for reflectorization bands on tubular markers 
that are less than 1050 mm (42 in) in height as well as for tubular 
markers that are 1050 mm (42 in) or more in height. The FHWA proposes 
this language in order to provide more clarity on the width and spacing 
of reflectorization bands for bands on tubular markers of different 
heights.
    399. In existing Section 6F.61 (new Section 6F.63) Vertical Panels, 
the FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd paragraph of the first STANDARD 
statement a requirement that clearance between the bottom of a vertical 
panel and the roadway shall be a maximum of 300 mm (12 in). The FHWA 
proposes the change to provide consistency between Figure 6F-7 and the 
text.
    The FHWA also proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a 
STANDARD to require, rather than merely permit, a panel stripe width of 
100 mm (4 in) to be used where the height of the reflective material on 
a vertical panel is 900 mm (36 in) or less. The FHWA proposes this 
change to reflect predominant practice and encourage uniformity.
    400. In existing Section 6F.62 (new Section 6F.64) Drums, the FHWA 
proposes changing the first sentence of the second GUIDANCE paragraph 
to a STANDARD statement to prohibit

[[Page 321]]

weighting drums with sand, water, or any material to the extent that 
would make them hazardous to road users or workers when struck. As part 
of this change, the FHWA also proposes deleting the remaining sentence 
of this GUIDANCE statement because drums shall have closed tops (per 
the last sentence of the first STANDARD statement), which should keep 
large amounts of water out of the device, therefore, reducing the 
effects of freezing.
    401. In existing Section 6F.63 (new Section 6F.65) Type 1, 2, or 3 
Barricades, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD after the 4th 
paragraph of the first GUIDANCE statement requiring continuous 
detectible bottom and top rails with no gaps on barricades that are 
used to channelize pedestrians. In addition, the FHWA proposes to add 
an OPTION statement following the proposed STANDARD that provides the 
ability to facilitate drainage between the bottom rail and the ground 
surface.
    402. In existing Section 6F.64 (new Section 6F.66) Direction 
Indicator Barricades, the FHWA proposes to delete the first Guidance 
statement because it conflicts with the proposed requirement in 
existing Section 6F.58 (new Sections 6F.60) that all channelizing 
devices shall be crashworthy, as discussed in item number 396 above.
    403. In existing Section 6F.65 (new Section 6F.67) Temporary 
Traffic Barriers as Channelizing Devices, the FHWA proposes to change 
the first paragraph of the GUIDANCE to a STANDARD in order to prohibit, 
rather than discourage, the use of temporary traffic barriers for a 
merging taper, except in low-speed urban areas. The FHWA proposes this 
change to provide consistency on the use of temporary traffic barriers 
within this section.
    The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of 
the section requiring that temporary traffic barriers used to 
channelize pedestrians meet specific criteria that aid pedestrians with 
visual disabilities, to be consistent with requirements elsewhere in 
Part 6.
    404. The FHWA proposes retitling existing Section 6F.66 (new 
Section 6F.68) to ``Longitudinal Channelizing Devices,'' to provide for 
devices for this purpose other than just barricades. The FHWA also 
proposes to change the first GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD in order 
to require that, if longitudinal channelizing devices are used singly 
as Type 1, 2, or 3 barricades, they must comply with design and 
placement characteristics established for the devices in Chapter 6F. 
The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with provisions 
elsewhere in Chapter 6F.
    The FHWA also proposes to delete the second paragraph of the first 
OPTION statement, so as to no longer permit longitudinal channelizing 
devices to be filled with water as ballast. The FHWA proposes this 
change to provide consistency throughout Part 6 because the FHWA 
proposes to no longer allow water to be used as ballast for any 
channelizing devices.
    405. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 6F.67 (new Section 6F.69), numbered and titled, ``Section 6F.70 
Temporary Lane Separators.'' This new section contains OPTION, 
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of these optional 
devices that may be used to channelize road users, to divide opposing 
vehicular traffic lanes, or divide lanes when two or more lanes are 
open in the same direction, and to provide continuous pedestrian 
channelization. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect existing 
successful practices. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
5 years for existing devices in good condition to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
    406. In existing Section 6F.69 (new Section 6F.72) Temporary Raised 
Islands, the FHWA proposes to change the recommended width of temporary 
raised islands in the GUIDANCE statement from 450 mm (18 in) to 300 mm 
(12 in). The FHWA proposes this change to facilitate the use of 
existing devices that have been successfully used in many applications.
    407. The FHWA proposes to make several revisions to existing 
Section 6F.71 (new Section 6F.74) Pavement Markings, and existing 
Section 6F.72 (new Section 6F.75), retitled, ``Temporary Markings'' to 
clarify, reduce redundancy, and organize the text in a more logical 
order. The proposed changes include differentiating the usage of 
pavement markings in long-term stationary temporary traffic control 
zones from those used in intermediate-term and shorter temporary 
traffic control zones. The FHWA proposes to clarify that temporary 
broken line segments can be shorter than those required for normal 
permanent broken line markings but that temporary no-passing zone 
markings must meet the normal standards for permanent markings.
    408. In existing Section 6F.73 (new Section 6F.76) retitled 
``Temporary Raised Pavement Markers,'' the FHWA proposes to add OPTION, 
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements at the beginning and end of the 
section to provide more information regarding the color, patterns, and 
spacing of raised pavement markers in temporary traffic control zones. 
The proposed changes repeat certain requirements and recommendations 
from Part 3 and also provide for optional use of temporary short-term 
(usually no longer than 14 days) use of a less expensive pattern of 
raised pavement markers to substitute for a broken line marking.
    409. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.76 
Floodlights, because floodlights are not traffic control devices and it 
is not appropriate for the MUTCD to have regulatory language regarding 
their design or use. The remaining sections would be renumbered 
accordingly.
    410. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.77 Flashing 
Warning Beacons, because the material is already covered in Chapter 4K 
and does not need to be repeated in Part 6.
    411. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.79 Steady-Burn 
Electric Lamps, because the FHWA believes that most jurisdictions are 
using other types of warning lights, therefore, making steady-burn 
electric lamps obsolete.
    412. The FHWA proposes to delete the 3rd STANDARD in Section 6F.80 
Temporary Traffic Control Signals, because the prohibition against 
supports for temporary traffic control devices encroaching into 
pedestrian access routes is covered elsewhere in Part 6 and does not 
need to be repeated.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes adding a new STANDARD at the end of 
the section requiring temporary traffic signals placed within 60 m (200 
ft) of a highway-rail grade crossing or a highway-light rail transit 
grade crossing to have preemption unless arrangements are made to 
prevent traffic from queuing across the tracks. The FHWA proposes this 
change to protect road users from conflicts with rail crossings in TTC 
zones and to be consistent with provisions in Parts 4 and 8.
    413. In Section 6F.81 Temporary Traffic Barriers, the FHWA proposes 
to add in the STANDARD that temporary traffic barriers, including their 
end treatments, shall be crashworthy in order to correspond with 
similar requirements for other roadside devices. The FHWA also proposes 
to add several paragraphs to the end of the 2nd SUPPORT statement 
regarding the use of movable barriers, and describing their use in 
existing Figures 6H-45 and 6H-34 (new Figures 6I-45 and 6I-34). The 
FHWA proposes to add this text in Chapter 6F and delete existing 
Section

[[Page 322]]

6G.18 Movable Barriers, so that the information is contained in one 
location.
    414. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Sections 6F.82 Crash 
Cushions and 6F.83 Vehicle Arresting Systems, because neither crash 
cushions nor vehicle arresting systems are traffic control devices and 
it is not appropriate for the MUTCD to have regulatory language 
regarding their design or use. The FHWA believes that adequate and 
appropriate guidance on crash cushions and vehicle arresting systems is 
readily available in a variety of FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, and industry 
publications and Web sites, such as the FHWA Office of Safety's Roadway 
Departure Web site (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/). The 
remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
    415. In existing Section 6F.84 (new Section 6F.82) Rumble Strips, 
the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that black and 
orange are acceptable colors for transverse rumble strips in TTC zones. 
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect research showing that in 
addition to white, the colors black and orange work well in TTC 
zones.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Report No. K-TRAN: KY-02-3 ``Guidelines for the 
Application of Removable Rumble Strips,'' August 2006 can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ksdot.org/idmws/DocContent.dll?Library=PublicDocs-dt00mx38&ID=003717523&Page=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    416. The FHWA proposes to delete Section 6F.85 Screens, because 
glare screens are not traffic control devices and it is not appropriate 
for the MUTCD to have regulatory language regarding their design or 
use. The FHWA believes that adequate and appropriate guidance on glare 
screens is readily available in a variety of FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, and 
industry publications and Web sites, such as the FHWA Office of 
Safety's Roadway Departure Web site (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/). The remaining sections would be renumbered 
accordingly.
    417. The FHWA proposes to delete Section 6F.86 Future and 
Experimental Devices, because such devices are already covered in Part 
1.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 6G Through 6I
    418. In Section 6G.01 Typical Applications, the FHWA proposes to 
add a new GUIDANCE statement recommending that a TTC plan should be 
developed for all planned special events and approved by the highway 
agencies having jurisdiction. The FHWA proposes this change to help 
assure that proper traffic controls are installed when planned special 
events, such as parades, street fairs, farmers' markets, etc. impact 
traffic, and to respond to a National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) report on this subject.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ NTSB Report HAR-04/04, ``Rear End Collision and Subsequent 
Vehicle Intrusion into Pedestrian Space at Certified Farmers' 
Market, Santa Monica, California, July 16, 2003'', dated August 3, 
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http;//
ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/HAR0404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    419. In Section 6G.11 Work Within the Traveled Way of Urban 
Streets, the FHWA proposes to relocate the first sentence of the 
STANDARD statement to Section 6D.01 because the information about 
maintaining accessibility and detectability along pedestrian routes is 
most appropriately covered in Section 6D.01.
    420. In Section 6G.12 Work Within the Traveled Way of Multi-Lane, 
Nonaccess Controlled Highways, the FHWA proposes to reference existing 
Section 6F.65 (new Section 6F.67) Temporary Traffic Barriers as 
Channelization Devices in the first GUIDANCE statement, and delete the 
2nd STANDARD statement and the first paragraph of the 2nd SUPPORT 
statement. The FHWA proposes this change to eliminate unnecessary 
repetition regarding temporary traffic barriers.
    421. As discussed in item 413 above, the FHWA proposes to delete 
existing Section 6G.18 Movable Barriers and place all information 
regarding movable barriers in Section 6F.81.
    422. The FHWA proposes to reverse the order of existing Chapters 6H 
and 6I so that Chapter 6H would be Control of Traffic Through Traffic 
Incident Management Areas and Chapter 6I would be Typical Applications. 
The FHWA proposes this change so that the numerous Typical Application 
diagrams will be at the end of Part 6 and to enhance the position 
within Part 6 of the text and figures on incident management.
    423. In existing Section 6I.01 (new Section 6H.01) General, the 
FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that the Incident 
Command System (ICS) as required by the National Incident Management 
System (NIMS) shall be implemented in traffic incident management 
areas. The FHWA proposes this language per The Department of Homeland 
Security and Presidential Directives (DHSPD) 5 and 
8,\190\ which require the adoption of the National Incident 
Management System and the Incident Command System by all Federal, 
State, tribal and local governments. These two systems are required for 
all planned and unplanned incidents in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ The Department of Homeland Security and Presidential 
Directives (DHSPD) 5 and 8 can be viewed at Internet Web 
site addresses: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-6.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd paragraph of the GUIDANCE 
statement that all on-scene responders and news media personnel should 
wear high-visibility apparel. The FHWA proposes this text to 
incorporate into the MUTCD the provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 regarding 
high-visibility apparel, as discussed in Section 6D.03 (item 375) 
above.
    424. In existing Sections 6I.02 (new Section 6H.02) Major Traffic 
Incidents and 6I.03 (new Section 6H.03) Intermediate Traffic Incidents, 
the FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements near the end of the sections 
explaining the use of light sticks at incidents. The FHWA proposes 
these changes to reflect the increasingly common use of light sticks by 
emergency responders as a more convenient and effective device than 
flares.
    425. In existing Section 6H.01 (new Section 6I.01) Typical 
Applications, the FHWA proposes changing the Typical Applications to 
reflect the proposed changes to all parts of the MUTCD with particular 
reference to proposed Part 6 text and figure changes.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add clarification to the existing 
second SUPPORT statement that except for the notes to the typical 
applications (which are clearly classified using headings as being 
STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, or SUPPORT), the information presented in 
the typical applications can generally be regarded as Guidance. The 
FHWA proposes this change to provide additional information about the 
nature of the information in the Typical Application illustrations.
    Additionally, the FHWA proposes the following changes to the notes 
to the figures of typical applications:
    a. Notes for existing Figure 6H-4 (new Figure 6I-4): The FHWA 
proposes adding a new item 4 allowing stationary signs to be omitted if 
the work is mobile because the use of such signs is often not practical 
with mobile operations. The FHWA also proposes adding a new item 9 in 
the STANDARD statement stating that vehicle-mounted signs shall be 
mounted in a manner such that they are not obscured by equipment or 
supplies, and that sign legends shall be covered or turned from view 
when work is not in progress, for consistency with similar provisions 
in the notes for existing Figure 6H-17 (new Figure 6I-17).

[[Page 323]]

    b. Notes for existing Figures 6H-5, 6H-34, and 6H-36 (new Figures 
6I-5, 6I-34, and 6I-36): The FHWA proposes revising the STANDARD 
statement to indicate that temporary traffic barriers shall comply with 
the provisions of Section 6F.81. The FHWA proposes this revision to 
provide users with clear, consistent requirements for the use of 
temporary traffic barriers.
    c. In existing Figures 6H-12 and 6H-14 (new Figures 6I-12 and 6I-
14), the FHWA proposes to clarify that the dimension between the 
nearest signal face for each approach and the stop line should be 45 m 
(150 ft) for 200 mm (8 in) signal indications and 55 m (180 ft) for 300 
mm (12 in) signal indications, for consistency with provisions of Part 
4.
    d. Also in existing Figure 6H-14 (new Figure 6I-14), the FHWA 
proposes to delete the NO PASSING ZONE pennant signs and the DO NOT 
PASS signs because they have been illustrated in an incorrect location 
and they are not necessary.
    e. Notes for existing Figure 6H-16 (new Figure 6I-16): The FHWA 
proposes to add a new item 1 to the GUIDANCE statement indicating that 
all lanes should be a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) in width to be consistent 
with guidance in other applications. The FHWA also proposes deleting 
existing item 2 regarding spacing of channelizing devices because that 
information is covered elsewhere in the Manual and does not need to be 
repeated here.
    f. Notes for existing Figures 6H-31 and 6H-36 (new Figures 6I-31 
and 6I-36): The FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement to 
describe the use of the Reverse Curve signs. The FHWA proposes this 
change to be consistent with the proposed new section numbered and 
titled ``Section 6F.47 Reverse Curve Signs.'' As part of this change, 
the FHWA also proposes deleting existing items in the OPTION statements 
regarding the ALL LANES THRU supplemental plaque because the reverse 
curve signs graphically indicate that message.
    g. Notes for existing Figures 6H-37, 6H-38, 6H-39, 6H-42 and 6H-44 
(new Figures 6I-37, 6I-38, 6I-39, 6I-42 and 6I-44): The FHWA proposes 
adding a STANDARD note that requires an arrow panel be used on all 
freeway lane closures, and that a separate arrow panel be used for each 
closed lane when more than one freeway lane is closed. The FHWA 
believes that an arrow panel is essential for safety at all lane 
closures on freeways due to the high speeds. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 2 years for these arrow board requirements at 
existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    h. Notes for existing Figure 6H-38 (new Figure 6I-38): The FHWA 
also proposes to add a STANDARD note that requires that temporary 
traffic barriers comply with the provisions and requirements in Section 
6F.81. The FHWA proposes this change for consistency with provisions 
elsewhere in Part 6.
    i. In existing Figure 6H-38 (new Figure 6I-38), the FHWA proposes 
to change the dimension label for the single row of channelizing 
devices in advance of the traffic split from 30 m (100 ft) ``MAX'' to 
``MIN'' to reflect that the distance labeled is the minimum distance, 
not the maximum distance. The dimension was inadvertently mislabeled in 
the 2003 MUTCD.
    j. Notes for existing Figure 6H-41 (new Figure 6I-41): The FHWA 
proposes adding to item 3 the recommendation that channelizing devices 
should be placed to physically close the ramp when an exit is closed. 
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect existing practice, and provide 
for positive closure instead of just relying on a sign.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 7 Traffic Controls for School 
Areas

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 7--General
    426. The FHWA proposes to change the name of the S1-1 sign from 
``School Advance Warning'' to ``School'' sign throughout Part 7 and in 
Table 7B-1. The FHWA proposes this change in order to simplify the name 
of the S1-1 sign and to provide flexibility in the sign's application 
and use of the sign with other signs and plaques to form a sign 
assembly.
    427. The FHWA also proposes changing the name of the ``School 
Crosswalk Warning Assembly'' to ``School Crossing Assembly'' to 
simplify its name and to provide additional flexibility in its usage.
    428. In Section 7A.04 Scope, the FHWA proposes to relocate the 
existing OPTION statement to Section 7B.03 because the positioning of 
in-roadway signs is more consistent with the subject of that section.
    429. The FHWA proposes to delete Sections 7A.05 through 7A.10 
because the subjects of those sections are already covered in other 
parts of the Manual. In their place, the FHWA proposes to add a 
paragraph to the SUPPORT statement to Section 7A.04 providing cross 
references to the appropriate sections. In addition, the FHWA proposes 
to add that provisions discussed in Part 3 are applicable in school 
areas. The FHWA proposes these changes to reduce redundancy in the 
Manual.
    430. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 7A.05 Grade-Separated School Crossings'' that contains a 
SUPPORT statement regarding the use of grade-separated crossings for 
school pedestrian traffic. Much of the information in this proposed new 
section was previously covered in existing Chapter 7F Grade Separated 
Crossings, which the FHWA proposes to delete. The FHWA proposes these 
changes because grade-separated crossings are not traffic control 
devices regulated by the MUTCD.
    431. In Section 7B.01 Size of School Signs, the FHWA proposes to 
delete from the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement the phrase 
``on public roads, streets, and highways'' because 23 CFR 655.603 \191\ 
now makes the MUTCD apply to more than just public roads and thus makes 
this phrase inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See fn. 3 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    432. In Section 7B.03 Position of Signs, the FHWA proposes to 
relocate an OPTION statement from Section 7A.04 to this section 
regarding the use of in-roadway signs because the information is more 
consistent with the subject of this section.
    433. In Section 7B.07 Sign Color for School Warning Signs, the FHWA 
proposes to revise this section to make the use of fluorescent yellow-
green as the background color for all school warning signs and plaques 
a STANDARD rather than an option. The FHWA proposes to revise the 
STANDARD statement accordingly, and to delete the associated OPTION and 
GUIDANCE statements. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 
10 years for existing school warning signs and plaques in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. 
The FHWA proposes these changes because the use of fluorescent yellow-
green has become predominant practice in most jurisdictions. 
Fluorescent yellow-green provides enhanced conspicuity for these 
critical signs, especially in dusk and dawn periods, and the FHWA 
believes that uniform use of this background color for all school 
warning signs and plaques will enhance safety and road user 
recognition. The FHWA proposes to revise the background color of school 
warning signs and plaques in the figures throughout Part 7 to reflect 
this proposed change.
    434. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 7B.08 School 
Advance

[[Page 324]]

Warning Assembly, and replace it with three new sections numbered and 
titled, ``Section 7B.08 School Sign,'' ``Section 7B.09 School Area or 
School Zone Sign,'' and ``Section 7B.10 School Advance Crossing 
Assembly.'' The remaining sections in Chapter 7B would be renumbered 
accordingly. As discussed in item 426 above, the FHWA proposes this 
change in order to provide flexibility in the sign's application and 
use of the sign with other signs and plaques to form a sign assembly.
    435. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 7B.08 to include one 
SUPPORT statement that describes three specific applications for the 
School (S1-1) sign. As part of this new SUPPORT, the FHWA proposes to 
add a new figure numbered and titled, ``Figure 7B-2 Example of Signing 
for a School Zone,'' that illustrates the use of the School (S1-1) sign 
and the Fines Higher (R2-6P) plaque. The remaining figures in Chapter 
7B would be renumbered accordingly. Proposed new Sections 7B.09 through 
7B.11 contain additional STANDARD and OPTION statements for each of the 
three uses of the S1-1 sign.
    436. In proposed Section 7B.09 School Area or School Zone Sign and 
Section 7B.10 School Advance Crossing Assembly, the FHWA proposes to 
add an OPTION statement that permits the use of a supplemental arrow 
plaque on a School (S1-1) sign in locations where a school area/zone or 
school crosswalk that is located on a cross street less than 38 m (125 
ft) from the edge of a street or highway. The FHWA proposes these 
changes to provide jurisdictions with flexibility for installing signs 
where there is not sufficient distance for advance signing.
    437. In existing Section 7B.09 (new Section 7B.11) School Crossing 
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to add to the OPTION statement that when 
used at a school crossing, the In-Street Pedestrian sign may use the 
schoolchildren symbol (as found on the S1-1 sign), rather than the 
single pedestrian symbol. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate 
Official Interpretation 7-65(I), which was issued on September 
6, 2004.\192\ The FHWA proposes to show these optional sign designs in 
existing Figure 7B-4 (new Figure 7B-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-65(I), dated September 6, 
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/7_65.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to add to the OPTION statement to allow the 
use of the proposed new Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign (discussed in 
Chapter 2B) sign at school crossings and to add a complementary 
restriction to the last STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of this 
sign at signalized crossings. The FHWA proposes these changes to allow 
appropriate use of this overhead sign to enhance the safety of school 
crossings.
    438. In existing Section 7B.10 (new Section 7B.12) SCHOOL BUS STOP 
AHEAD Sign, the FHWA proposes revising the GUIDANCE statement by 
removing the specific distance of 150 m (500 ft) that a stopped school 
bus should be visible to road users, and in its place inserting a 
reference to distances given in Table 2C-4. The FHWA proposes this 
change because Table 2C-4 provides more detailed information about 
proper placement of warning signs.
    439. In existing Figure 7B-1 School Area Signs, the FHWA proposes 
to replace the existing School Bus Stop Ahead (S3-1) word message sign 
with a symbol sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign based on positive 
experiences in West Virginia, where a symbol sign for this message has 
been used for 25 to 30 years \193\ and in Canada, where it has also 
been used since the 1970s. The FHWA proposes to use a symbol that is 
similar to the Canadian MUTCD \194\ standard WC-9 symbol. The proposed 
symbol features a school bus with a depiction of red flashing lights, a 
bus-mounted STOP sign, and students getting on or off the bus. A recent 
study \195\ found that the proposed symbol sign was better understood 
than the existing word message sign and that the symbol provides 
comparable legibility distance. The FHWA believes that the replacement 
of selected word message signs with well-designed symbol signs will 
improve safety in view of increasing globalization and non-English 
speaking road users in the United States. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ For additional information on West Virginia's successful 
experience with this symbol sign, contact Mr. Ray Lewis, Staff 
Engineer--Traffic Research and Special Projects Traffic Engineering 
Division, West Virginia DOT, Division of Highways, phone: 304-558-
8912, email: [email protected].
    \194\ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada, 
4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation 
Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario 
K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site http://www.tac-atc.ca.
    \195\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluations of Symbol Signs,'' 
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the 
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also proposes to revise the illustration in Figure 7B-1 to 
clarify that the S4-1 (time) and S4-6 (Monday-Friday) plaques may be 
used together, but other combinations of plaques are not allowed.
    440. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section following existing 
Section 7B.10 (new Section 7B.13), numbered and titled, ``Section 7B.13 
SCHOOL BUS TURN AHEAD Sign (S3-2).'' This new section contains an 
OPTION statement about the use of this proposed new sign that can be 
installed in advance of locations where there is a school bus turn 
around on a roadway at a location not visible to approaching users for 
a distance as determined in Table 2C-4. The remaining sections in 
Chapter 7B would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA also proposes to 
add a new Figure 7B-1 Illustrating the proposed sign. The FHWA proposes 
this new sign to provide a standard sign for applications that fit this 
need. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies.
    441. In existing Section 7B.11 (new Section 7B.14) School Speed 
Limit Assembly, the FHWA proposes to change the first paragraph of the 
2nd OPTION statement to a STANDARD to require, rather than merely 
permit, fluorescent yellow-green pixels to be used when the ``SCHOOL'' 
message is displayed on a changeable message sign for a school speed 
limit. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with other 
proposed changes that require fluorescent yellow-green to be the 
standard color for school zone warning signs.
    442. In existing Section 7B.12 (new Section 7B.15), the FHWA 
proposes to change the name of the ``Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead'' 
sign to ``Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead'' sign to be consistent with 
the Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, and Signal Ahead sign names and to be 
consistent with the proposed change in the name of the similar warning 
sign in Chapter 2C.
    443. In existing Section 7B.13 (new Section 7B.16) END SCHOOL ZONE 
Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to clarify that the end 
of a designated school zone shall be marked with both an END SCHOOL 
ZONE sign and a Speed Limit sign for the section of highway that 
follows. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with proposed 
changes to Section 7B.08. It is important and sometimes legally 
necessary to mark the end points of designated school zones. The use of 
a

[[Page 325]]

Speed Limit sign showing the speed limit for the following section of 
highway is required by existing section 2B.13. The FHWA also proposes 
to modify figures in Chapter 7B to reflect these proposed changes. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for installation 
of END SCHOOL ZONE signs at existing locations to minimize any impact 
on state or local highway agencies.
    444. In Section 7C.03 Crosswalk Markings, the FHWA proposes to add 
a 5th paragraph to the first GUIDANCE statement recommending that 
warning signs be installed for marked crosswalks at nonintersection 
locations, and adequate visibility be provided by implementing parking 
prohibitions. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with a 
similar proposed change in existing Section 3B.17 (new Section 3B.18).
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE 
statement, a recommendation that the spacing between diagonal or 
longitudinal lines should not exceed 2.5 times the line width. The FHWA 
proposes this change to be consistent with existing text in Section 
3B.17.
    445. In Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield Lines, the FHWA proposes to 
incorporate several changes to be consistent with proposed changes to 
Section 3B.16 with the same title. See item 262 for more information.
    446. In Section 7C.05 Curb Markings for Parking Regulations, the 
FHWA proposes to add to the OPTION statement that curb markings without 
word markings or signs may be used to convey a general prohibition by 
statute of parking within a specified distance of a STOP sign, 
driveway, fire hydrant, or crosswalk. The proposed text is already 
contained in existing Section 3B.21 (new Section 3B.22), and the FHWA 
believes it is important to restate it in Section 7C.05 for emphasis 
and consistency.
    447. In Section 7C.06 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, the FHWA 
proposes to revise this section to provide consistency with Section 
3B.19 (new Section 3B.20).
    448. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Chapter 7D Signals 
because it is a small chapter whose only purpose is to provide 
reference to Part 4 and Section 4C.06. The FHWA proposes to incorporate 
the references in Section 7A.04 instead. The FHWA would reletter the 
remaining chapters accordingly.
    449. In existing Section 7E.01 (new Section 7D.01) Types of 
Crossing Supervision, the FHWA proposes to delete the reference 
document, ``Civilian Guards for School Crossings'' from the 2nd 
paragraph of the SUPPORT statement because Northwestern University is 
phasing out such publications and it will not be available in the 
future.
    450. In existing Section 7E.03 (new Section 7D.03) Qualifications 
of Adult Crossing Guards, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE 
statement to indicate that the list represents the minimum 
qualifications of adult crossing guards. In addition, the FHWA proposes 
to add three additional qualifications (new items C, D, and E) that are 
similar to applicable provisions in Section 6E.01 for flaggers.
    451. In existing Section 7E.04 (new Section 7D.04) Uniform of Adult 
Crossing Guards and Student Patrols, the FHWA proposes to delete ``and 
Student Patrols'' from the title of the section and to delete the 
second paragraph of the STANDARD statement, which relates to the 
apparel worn by student patrols. The FHWA believes that student patrols 
do not control vehicular traffic and provisions relating to student 
patrols are not appropriate for the MUTCD. The FHWA also proposes to 
delete the first GUIDANCE statement because most adult crossing guards 
do not wear a uniform. In addition, as part of proposed changes to the 
STANDARD statement, the GUIDANCE statement is no longer necessary. The 
FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to reflect that law 
enforcement officers performing school crossing supervision shall use 
high-visibility safety apparel labeled as ANSI 107-2004. The FHWA 
proposes these changes to incorporate into the MUTCD the provisions of 
23 CFR Part 634 that were published in the Federal Register on November 
24, 2006.\196\ As part of these proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to 
delete the second GUIDANCE statement because it is superseded by the 
new proposed statements discussed above. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 2 years for crossing guard apparel on non-Federal-
aid highways to minimize any impact on state or local highway agencies. 
A compliance date of November 24, 2008, has already been established 
for worker apparel on Federal-aid highways as a result of 23 CFR Part 
634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ The Federal Register Notice was published in the Federal 
Register on November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792-
67800) and can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    452. In existing Section 7E.05 (new Section 7D.05) Operating 
Procedures for Adult Crossing Guards, the FHWA proposes to change the 
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD, thereby making all of the paragraphs 
requirements, rather than recommendations. Because the safety of school 
children is paramount, it is important that adult crossing guards 
follow specific requirements when controlling traffic for the purpose 
of assisting school children.
    453. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 7E.06 Uniformed 
Law Enforcement Officers, because the information is covered in 
existing Section 7E.01 (new Section 7D.01). The remaining sections 
would be renumbered accordingly.
    454. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Sections 7E.07, 7E.08, 
and 7E.09 because these sections pertain to student patrols. The FHWA 
believes that student patrols do not control vehicular traffic and 
provisions relating to student patrols are not appropriate for the 
MUTCD. The FHWA believes that adequate and appropriate guidance on 
student patrols is readily available from other sources, such as the 
American Automobile Association's ``School Safety Patrol Operations 
Manual.'' \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ This 2004 publication can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://www.aaa.com/aaa/049/PublicAffairs/SSPManual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    455. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Chapter 7F Grade 
Separated Crossings, because the information from that chapter is to be 
covered by the proposed changes to Section 7A.05. (See item 430 above.)

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

    456. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add the 
following definitions: ``Constant Warning Time Train Detection,'' 
``Diagnostic Team,'' ``Locomotive Horn,'' ``Pathway-Rail Grade 
Crossing,'' ``Quiet Zone,'' ``Station Crossing,'' and ``Wayside Horn.'' 
The FHWA proposes adding these definitions because these words are used 
in Part 8 and have not previously been defined.
    457. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 8A.04. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 8A.05 
Illumination at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings'' and contains information 
previously included in existing Chapter 8C. The FHWA proposes to change 
the designation of the text in this section to SUPPORT because 
illumination is not a traffic control device and thus should not be 
regulated by GUIDANCE and OPTION language. The FHWA believes

[[Page 326]]

that adequate and appropriate guidance on illumination of highway-rail 
grade crossings is readily available from other sources, such as the 
ANSI's Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8, available from the 
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Information on obtaining this publication can be viewed on 
the following Internet Web site: https://www.iesna.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    458. The FHWA proposes to make several changes throughout Chapter 
8B Signs and Markings, to require that a YIELD sign or STOP sign be 
installed at all passive highway-rail grade crossings, except where 
train crews always provide flagging of the crossing to road users. The 
FHWA proposes this change to incorporate information from FHWA's Policy 
Memorandum, ``Guidance for Use of YIELD or STOP Signs with the 
Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,'' \199\ dated 
March 17, 2006, into the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to strengthen the 
language to a STANDARD in the MUTCD from the informational guidance 
contained in the policy memo, to require, rather than recommend, the 
use of YIELD or STOP signs in conjunction with the Crossbuck sign at 
all passive crossings except where train crews always provide flagging 
to road users. While the Crossbuck sign is in fact a regulatory sign 
that requires vehicles to yield to trains and stop if necessary, recent 
research \200\ indicates insufficient road user understanding of and 
compliance with that regulatory requirement when just the Crossbuck 
sign is present at passive crossings. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ FHWA's Policy Memorandum, ``Guidance for Use of YIELD or 
STOP Signs with the Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade 
Crossings,'' dated March 17, 2006, can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/yieldstop_guidememo/yieldstop_policy.htm
    \200\ National Cooperative Highway Research Report 470 titled 
``Traffic Control Devices for Passive Railroad-Highway Grade 
Crossings,'' Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    459. The FHWA proposes to revise existing Figures 8B-1 and 8B-6, 
and to add a new figure, numbered and titled, ``Figure 8B-2 Highway-
Rail Grade Crossings (Crossbuck) Regulatory Signs with Separate Posts'' 
to reflect the proposed requirement to install a YIELD sign or STOP 
sign at all passive highway rail-grade crossings, except where train 
crews always provide flagging of the crossing to road users. The 
remaining existing Figures in Chapter 8B would be renumbered 
accordingly.
    460. In Section 8B.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign 
and Number of Tracks Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION 
statement that allows the Crossbuck sign to have reflectorized red 
lettering, rather than the standard black lettering, at non-signalized 
crossings. The FHWA proposes this change to emphasize that the 
Crossbuck assigns the right-of-way to rail traffic at a highway-rail 
grade crossing.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of the 3rd 
STANDARD statement, and the associated figure, to indicate that 
measurement for the retroreflective strip that is placed on the front 
and back of the support for the Crossbuck or Number of Tracks sign is 
to be from the ground, rather than the roadway. The FHWA proposes this 
change because there may be some cases where the ground level at the 
base of the sign is higher than the edge of the roadway.
    461. The FHWA proposes to relocate and retitle existing Section 
8B.08 to be, ``Section 8B.04 Use and Meaning of STOP or YIELD Signs at 
Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' The FHWA proposes replacing all 
of the existing text with new text that describes the use of STOP and 
YIELD Signs at passive highway-rail grade crossings, as proposed in 
item 458 above.
    462. The FHWA also proposes to add a new section numbered and 
titled, ``Section 8B.05 Crossbuck Assemblies with YIELD Signs or STOP 
Signs at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings'' to provide information 
on the use of the Crossbuck Assemblies as proposed in item 458 above. 
The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
    463. In existing Section 8B.04 (new Section 8B.06) Highway-Rail 
Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the 
first STANDARD statement a requirement that a supplemental plaque 
describing the type of traffic control at the highway-rail grade 
crossing shall be used with the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance 
Warning sign (W10-1). As part of this proposed change, the FHWA 
proposes to require the use of a No Signal (W10-10P) supplemental 
plaque in advance of a crossing that does not have active traffic 
control devices, and the use of a new Signal Ahead (W10-16P) plaque in 
advance of a crossing that does have active traffic control devices. 
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. 
The FHWA proposes to add the new Signal Ahead (W10-16P) plaque to 
existing Figure 8B-2 (new Figure 8B-3) and Table 8B-1.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add at the end of the 1st 
STANDARD statement that a Yield Ahead or a Stop Ahead Advance Warning 
Sign shall also be installed if criteria are met, along with 
information regarding the distance between signs in advance of a 
highway-rail grade crossing, to emphasize existing requirements in Part 
2.
    The FHWA proposes these changes to improve safety by providing road 
users with additional information regarding traffic control devices at 
highway-rail grade crossings, as recommended by recent research.\201\ 
Because of these proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to delete existing 
Section 8B.15 because the information from that section would be 
included in the revisions to Section 8B.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ National Cooperative Highway Research Report 470 titled 
``Traffic Control Devices for Passive Railroad-Highway Grade 
Crossings,'' Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In concert with the above proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to 
add to the 2nd STANDARD statement a requirement that a supplemental 
plaque describing the type of traffic control at a highway-rail grade 
crossing also be used with W10-2, W10-3, and W10-4 warning signs where 
the distance between the railroad tracks and a parallel highway is less 
than 30 m (100 ft). In these situations, the distance to the tracks 
does not allow for the use of a W10-1 sign, but the additional 
information provided by the supplemental plaques is just as important.
    464. In existing Section 8B.10 (new Section 8B.11) STOP HERE WHEN 
FLASHING Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a new sign designated R8-10a. 
This proposed sign is similar in design and size to the existing R10-6a 
sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign in order to provide a 600 mm x 
750 mm (24 in. x 30 in.) alternate to the R8-10 sign. The FHWA proposes 
to add both the proposed new R8-10a sign and the existing R10-6a signs 
to Table 8B-1.
    465. The FHWA proposes to rewrite existing Section 8B.12 (new 
Section 8B.13) Emergency Notification Sign in its entirety. The 
proposed text includes STANDARD statements that specify the minimum 
amount of information to be placed on Emergency Notification signs, 
sign placement, and the proposed sign color of a white legend and 
border on a blue background. The proposed new

[[Page 327]]

text includes an OPTION statement that allows similar information to be 
displayed on the enclosure for signal apparatus at crossings that are 
equipped with active traffic control devices. The proposed new text 
also includes a GUIDANCE statement with additional information on sign 
retroreflectivity, sign placement, and sign size. To illustrate the 
proposed change, FHWA would revise Figure 8B-4 and Table 8B-1 
accordingly. The FHWA proposes these changes to simplify the 
requirements for these signs and to assure that the appropriate 
information is displayed on these valuable signs that provide 
information to roadway users in the event of an emergency or signal 
malfunction requiring notification to the railroad. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    466. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 8B.15 because the 
information from this section is included in the proposed revisions to 
Section 8B.04. See item 461 above.
    467. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 8B.16 LOOK Sign to 
indicate that the LOOK sign may be mounted on a separate sign post 
(rather than to give the option of mounting it as a supplemental plaque 
on the Crossbuck sign) in the immediate vicinity of the highway-rail 
grade crossing on the railroad right-of-way. The FHWA proposes this 
change because other proposed changes require other signs to be placed 
on the Crossbuck assembly and there would be insufficient space for the 
LOOK sign.
    468. In Section 8B.21 Stop Lines, the FHWA proposes to add a 
STANDARD statement requiring the use of stop lines on paved roadways at 
highway-rail grade crossings that are equipped with active control 
devices. This requirement is currently implied by STANDARD language in 
Section 8B.20 and illustrated in Figure 8B-6. The FHWA proposes to add 
this specific requirement in Section 8B.21 for clarification and 
because the stop line provides road users with a clear indication of 
the point behind which they are required to stop when the traffic 
control devices are activated.
    469. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Chapter 8C Illumination, 
and place the information from this Section in a new Section numbered 
and titled, ``Section 8A.05 Illumination at Highway-Rail Grade 
Crossings.'' See item 457 above. The remaining Chapters in Part 8 would 
be relettered accordingly.
    470. In existing Section 8D.03 (new Section 8C.03) Flashing-Light 
Signals, Overhead Structures, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD 
statement that except as noted in this section, flashing-light signals 
mounted overhead shall comply with the applicable provisions of new 
Section 8C.02. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that the 
requirement in existing Section 8D.02 (new Section 8C.02) for back-to-
back pairs of flashing-light signals on each side of the tracks when 
there is highway traffic in both directions applies also to overhead 
mounted flashing light signals.
    471. In existing Section 8D.04 (new Section 8C.04) Automatic Gates, 
the FHWA proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of the STANDARD statement 
to indicate that the stripes on gate arms shall be vertical, rather 
than 45-degree diagonal. The FHWA would change the stripes on Figures 
8C-1, 10D-3, and 10D-4 accordingly. The diagonal stripes tend to 
encourage road users to drive around the gates because diagonal stripes 
are used on other devices such as barricades, object markers, etc. to 
indicate the direction in which road users are expected to change their 
path of travel. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 
years for existing stripes on gate arms in good condition to minimize 
any impact on State or local highway agencies or railroad companies.
    472. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section 
8D.05 (new Section 8C.05) numbered and titled, ``Section 8C.06 Wayside 
Horn Systems.'' This new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, and 
GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of wayside horn systems to 
provide directional audible warning at highway-rail grade crossings 
pursuant to the Interim Approval for the Use of Wayside Horn Systems, 
issued August 2, 2004.\202\ The Interim Approval and proposed MUTCD 
text support the Final Rule adopted by Federal Railroad Administration 
mandating the sounding of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade 
crossings (49 CFR Part 222).\203\ The FHWA would renumber the remaining 
sections in this chapter accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ The Interim Approval can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
    \203\ The Federal Register Notice was published on December 18, 
2003, (Volume 68, Number 243, Page 70586-70687) and can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    473. In existing Section 8D.07 (new Section 8C.08) Traffic Control 
Signals at or Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the FHWA proposes to 
add a 3rd paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement recommending that back-up 
power be supplied to traffic control signals that have railroad 
preemption or that are coordinated with flashing-light signal systems 
at a highway-rail grade crossing. The FHWA proposes to add this 
recommendation because railroad flashing-light signals are typically 
provided with standby power supply to ensure their operation during 
power outages and it is important that traffic signals at or near the 
crossings also be provided with standby power during power outages to 
help prevent vehicles from queuing on approaches crossing tracks. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a 4th paragraph to the 
GUIDANCE statement to conform with Section 8A.01, which states that the 
highway agency or authority with jurisdiction and the regulatory agency 
with statutory authority jointly determine the need and selection of 
devices at a highway-rail grade crossing. In conjunction with that 
proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd STANDARD statement 
to clarify that the timing parameters must be furnished by the 
jurisdiction so that the railroad will be able to design the train 
detection circuitry. The FHWA proposes these changes, because railroads 
often do not have the expertise or the authority to determine the 
preemption operation and timing of the traffic signals.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the last SUPPORT statement to 
provide a cross-reference to the proposed new Section 4C.10, which 
describes the Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing signal 
warrant that is intended for use at a location where the proximity to 
the intersection of a highway-rail grade crossing on an intersection 
approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to 
consider installing a traffic control signal.
    474. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 8D.07 (new Section 8C.08) numbered and titled, ``Section 8C.09 
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing(s) Within or In Close Proximity to 
Roundabouts, Traffic Circles, or Circular Intersections.'' This new 
section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE

[[Page 328]]

statements that clarify the need for active traffic control devices 
where highway-rail grade crossings are within or in close proximity to 
roundabouts, traffic circles or circular intersections. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for traffic control 
devices in good condition at existing locations to minimize any impact 
on State or local highway agencies.
    475. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 8D 
Quiet Zone Treatments at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' The purpose of 
this new Chapter is to add language to support and directly refer to 
the Final Rule adopted by Federal Railroad Administration regarding 
quiet zones established in conjunction with restrictions on train horns 
at certain highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR Part 222).\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ The Federal Register Notice was published on December 18, 
2003 (Volume 68, Number 243, Page 70586-70687) and can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    476. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 8E 
Pathway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' The purpose of this new Chapter is to 
provide information for traffic control devices used at pathway-rail 
grade crossings. Shared-use paths and other similar facilities often 
cross railroad tracks and it is important that suitable traffic control 
devices be used to provide for safe and effective operation of such 
crossings. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years 
for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 9 Traffic Controls for 
Bicycle Facilities

    477. In Section 9A.03 Definitions Relating to Bicycles, the FHWA 
proposes to change the definition of ``bicycle lane'' to indicate that 
a bicycle lane is to be designated by pavement markings, and that signs 
may be used to supplement the markings designating a bicycle lane, but 
they are not required. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent 
with proposed changes in Sections 1A.13 and 9B.04. The FHWA also 
proposes to delete the second sentence of the definition of ``Designed 
Bicycle Route'' and relocate this text to existing Section 9B.20 (new 
Section 9B.21) where it is more appropriate.
    478. In Section 9B.01 Application and Placement of Signs, the FHWA 
proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to indicate that no portion 
of a sign or its support shall be placed less than 0.6 m (2 ft) 
laterally from the near edge of the path, or less than 2.4 m (8 ft) 
vertically over the entire width of the shared-use path. As part of 
this change, the FHWA proposes to remove the requirement that signs be 
placed a maximum of 1.8 m (6 ft) from the near edge of a path. The FHWA 
proposes this change to be more consistent with Part 2 and in response 
to feedback from practitioners that the existing MUTCD standards for 
sign height and offset can restrict the ability of agencies to 
effectively install signs on many shared-use path locations. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies. The FHWA also proposes to modify Figure 9B-1 to illustrate 
the proposed minimum vertical offset information for overhead mounted 
signs.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement 
that the clearance for overhead signs on shared-use paths should be 
adjusted to accommodate path users requiring more clearance, such as 
equestrians or typical maintenance or emergency vehicles.
    479. In Section 9B.04, retitled Bike Lane Signs and Plaques, the 
FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements to clarify 
that Bike Lane signs are not required along bicycle lanes, and to give 
recommendations on the placement of Bike Lane signs and plaques when 
they are used. Whether the presence or absence of the Bicycle Lane sign 
provides a clearly measurable benefit in indicating a designated 
bicycle lane has not been conclusively demonstrated. Amending the MUTCD 
to make the use of Bicycle Lane signs with marked bicycle lanes a 
recommended, rather than a mandatory, condition would provide 
flexibility for jurisdictions that do not desire to use the Bicycle 
Lane sign, without restricting the ability of jurisdictions that prefer 
to use the signs to continue to do so. These changes are consistent 
with proposed changes to the definition of ``bicycle lane'' as 
discussed in item 477 above.
    480. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 9B.05 
numbered and titled, ``Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign 
(R4-11).'' This Section includes OPTION and SUPPORT statements 
regarding the use of this proposed new sign, which is illustrated in 
Figure 9B-2. The FHWA proposes this new sign, and accompanying text and 
figure, to provide jurisdictions with a consistent sign design, along 
with application information, for locations where it is important to 
inform road users that the travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists 
and motor vehicles to operate side by side. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition 
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
    481. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 
9B.08 (new Section 9B.09) to ``Selective Exclusion Signs'' and add new 
text regarding the exclusion of various designated types of traffic 
from using particular roadways or facilities. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. As 
part of the change, the FHWA proposes to add No Skaters (R9-13) and No 
Equestrians (R9-14) signs to the text and to Figure 9B-2.
    482. In existing Section 9B.10 (new Section 9B.11) Bicycle 
Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to add information about three 
proposed new signs for bicycle pushbuttons, consistent with similar 
proposed text in Chapter 2B.
    483. In existing Section 9B.17 (new Section 9B.18), which the FHWA 
proposes to retitle, ``Bicycle Warning and Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian 
Signs,'' the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement permitting the 
use of the proposed new Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian (W11-15) sign where 
both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing the roadway, such as 
at an intersection with a shared-use path. Further discussion of this 
proposed sign can be found above in the discussion of existing Section 
2C.40 (new Section 2C.51). The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
    The FHWA proposes to permit a TRAIL XING (W11-15P) supplemental 
plaque to be mounted below the W11-15 sign. The FHWA also proposes to 
illustrate this configuration in Figure 9B-3. The FHWA proposes these 
changes to be consistent with Chapter 2C.
    484. In existing Section 9B.18 (new Section 9B.19) Other Bicycle 
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the legend on the W5-4a sign 
from ``BIKEWAY NARROWS'' to ``PATH NARROWS.'' The FHWA proposes this 
change because shared-use paths are the only bikeway type on which the 
W5-4a sign is used, therefore, use on other types of bikeways would be 
inappropriate or confusing, and should not be encouraged. The FHWA 
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in 
good condition to minimize any impact on

[[Page 329]]

State or local highway agencies. In conjunction with the proposed 
change in the text, FHWA proposes to make the appropriate change in 
Table 9B-1.
    485. In existing Section 9B.19 (new Section 9B.20), the FHWA 
proposes to retitle the section ``Bicycle Guide Signs'' and add several 
new signs, along with information on their use. The FHWA proposes these 
changes to provide flexibility and potentially reduce costs for signing 
bicycle routes in urban areas where multiple routes intersect or 
overlap. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for 
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies. Along with additional text regarding the use of 
the proposed new Alternative Bike Route Guide (D11-1c) and Bicycle 
Destination signs (D1-1b, D1-1c, D1-2b, D1-2c, D1-3b, and D1-3c), the 
FHWA proposes adding the various new signs to Table 9B-1 and Figure 9B-
4.
    486. In existing Section 9B.20 (new Section 9B.21) Bicycle Route 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new Bicycle Route (M1-8a) sign that 
retains the clear, simple, and uniform design of the M1-8 sign, but 
provides an area near the top of the panel to include a pictograph or 
words that are associated with the route or with the agency that has 
jurisdiction over the route. There has been a significant amount of 
interest in allowing agencies to develop unique or distinctive route 
number signs for bicycle routes, in much the same way that States use 
distinctive M1-5 signs for State highways. However, this could lead to 
route sign designs that are unclear and non-uniform. As a result, the 
FHWA proposes the new M1-8a sign to provide a clear, uniform sign. The 
M1-8 sign would continue to remain in the MUTCD for use when agencies 
do not wish to use a distinctive pictograph, symbol, or wording. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing 
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local 
highway agencies.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the existing 2nd OPTION 
statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, a U.S. 
Bicycle Route number designation be requested from AASHTO for a 
designated bicycle route that extends through two or more States. The 
FHWA also proposes to add this GUIDANCE the text relocated from the 
definition of ``designated bicycle route'' in Section 9A.03 regarding 
continuous routing of bicycle routes, as discussed above in item 478.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise the design of the U.S. Bike 
Route Sign in Figure 9B-4 so that a larger bicycle is shown on the top 
part of the sign with a smaller number below it. The reason for the 
change is to present an immediate impression of a ``bicycle numbered 
route'' rather than a ``highway numbered route which can also be used 
by bicyclists'' and to provide consistency with AASHTO's recommended 
design for the sign.
    487. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 
9B.21 (new Section 9B.22) to ``Bicycle Route Sign Auxiliary Plaques'' 
and to revise the content of the section considerably. As part of the 
changes, the FHWA proposes to revise the size and design of the M4-11 
BEGIN plaque to be consistent with similar M4 series auxiliary signs in 
Part 9. The FHWA also proposes to delete the M4-12 and M4-13 plaques 
from this section and Figure 9B-4 because these duplicate the M4-6 and 
M4-5 auxiliary signs. In addition, FHWA proposes to delete the M7 
series arrow plaques from this section and Figure 9B-4 because these 
duplicate the proposed new sizes of the M5 and M6 auxiliary signs. The 
FHWA also proposes to add 300 mm x 150 mm (12 in x 6 in) sizes for 
selected M3 and M4 series auxiliary signs, and add 300 mm x 225 mm (12 
in x 9 in) sizes for all M5 and M6 series auxiliary signs, and to refer 
to these smaller sizes in this section, Table 9B-1, and Figure 9B-4. 
These smaller sizes will be suitable for use with M1-8, M1-8a, and M1-9 
signs. These proposed changes will ensure that route auxiliary 
designations are consistent between Part 2 and Part 9.
    488. The FHWA proposes to replace existing Figure 9B-6 with a new 
Figure 9B-6 titled, ``Example of Bicycle Guide Signing'' that 
illustrates an example of guide signing for bicycles, including the 
Bicycle Destination signs.
    489. The FHWA proposes to add three new sections following existing 
Section 9B.22 (new Section 9B.23) Bicycle Parking Area Sign. The first 
proposed new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 9B.24 Reference 
Location Signs and Intermediate Reference Location Signs'' and contains 
information regarding the use of the signs on shared-use paths. 
Reference Location signs (formerly called mileposts) have been defined 
in Chapter 2D of the MUTCD since 1971, and have proven extraordinarily 
valuable for traveler information, maintenance and operations, 
emergency response, and numerous other applications. The linear nature 
of many shared-use paths would seem to also naturally lend itself to 
the application of Reference Location signs. However, the use and 
design of such signs has not yet been explicitly addressed in Part 9 of 
the MUTCD. Defining a standard and uniform design could provide more 
uniform traveler guidance, reduce the proliferation of non-standard 
reference location signs, and encourage the use of these signs where 
desirable and appropriate. The proposed signs would be proportionately 
sized for the lower operating speeds of shared-use paths, using a 150 
mm (6 in) wide panel with 113 mm (4.5 in) numerals. The proposed text 
is adapted directly from existing Section 2D.46 defining the use of 
these signs for conventional roadways. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. In addition to 
revising the text, the FHWA proposes to revise Figure 9B-4 and Table 
9B-1 to include the use of these signs.
    490. The second proposed new section is numbered and titled, 
``Section 9B.25 Mode-Specific Guide Signs for Shared-Use Paths'' and 
contains information regarding the use of signs to guide different 
types of users to separate pathways where they are available. 
Currently, the Manual provides tools only to prohibit user types, not 
to show which user types are permitted. As a result, jurisdictions are 
commonly installing varied, non-standard mode permission signs. The 
proposed changes are intended to provide clarity and uniformity for 
mode-specific guide signs on shared-use paths by adding five new signs 
to the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies. In addition to adding the new signs to 
Figure 9B-4 and Table 9B-1, the FHWA proposes to add Figure 9B-8 
``Example of Mode-Specific Guide Signs on Shared-Use Paths'' to 
illustrate the use of the proposed signs.
    491. The third proposed new section is numbered and titled, 
``Section 9B.26 Object Markers.'' The FHWA proposes to relocate the 
text and figures from Section 9C.03 to this section, to be consistent 
with a similar proposed move of object markers from Part 3 to Part 2.
    492. In Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use 
Paths, the FHWA proposes to relocate the last five paragraphs to new 
Section 9B.26 as discussed in item 491 above.
    493. In Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes, the FHWA proposes 
several changes in this Section to correspond with proposed changes to 
the definition of ``bicycle lane'' in Section 1A.13 (item 477 above) 
and

[[Page 330]]

signs and plaques for bike lanes in Section 9B.04.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to expand the last STANDARD 
statement to include ``other circular intersections'' as locations 
where bicycle lanes are prohibited. The FHWA proposes this additional 
language to clarify that in addition to being prohibited on the 
circular roadway of a roundabout, bicycle lanes are not to be provided 
on the circular roadway of other circular intersections.
    494. The FHWA proposes to add a new section at the end of Chapter 
9C numbered and titled, ``Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking.'' This new 
section contains OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding 
the use of a proposed new Shared Lane Marking. This proposed new 
pavement marking indicates the legal and appropriate bicyclist line of 
travel, and cues motorists to pass with sufficient clearance, and is 
based on field research conducted in San Francisco, California.\205\ 
The purpose of this proposed new marking is to reduce the number and 
severity of bicycle-vehicular crashes, particularly crashes involving 
bicycles colliding with suddenly opened doors of parked vehicles. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing 
pavement markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or 
local highway agencies. In addition to the text, the FHWA proposes to 
illustrate the appropriate use of the marking in a new figure, titled, 
``Figure 9C-9 Shared Lane Marking.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ ``San Francisco's Shared Lane Pavement Markings: Improving 
Bicycle Safety,'' Final Report, February 2004, prepared for the City 
of San Francisco Department of Traffic and Parking by Alta Planning 
and Design can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 10 Traffic Controls for 
Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings

    495. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 10A.04. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 
10A.05 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings'' and 
contains information previously included in existing Section 10C.22. 
The FHWA proposes to change the designation of the text in this section 
to SUPPORT because illumination is not a traffic control device and 
thus should not be regulated by GUIDANCE and OPTION language. A similar 
change is proposed in Part 8--see item 457 above.
    496. In Section 10B.01 Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add to 
the STANDARD and OPTION statements that Crossbuck Assemblies are also 
appropriate traffic control devices at highway-light rail transit grade 
crossings in semi-exclusive alignments, if an engineering study 
indicates that their use would be adequate. The FHWA also proposes to 
add to the last SUPPORT statement that Section 8B.04 and Figures 8B-1, 
8B-2, and 8B-6 contain information regarding the use and placement of 
Crossbuck Assemblies. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency 
with changes in Part 8 as discussed in item 458 above.
    497. In Section 10C.02, which the FHWA proposes to re-title ``Use 
of Crossbuck Assemblies at Passive Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade 
Crossings,'' the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION that allows the 
Crossbuck sign to have reflectorized red lettering, rather than the 
standard black lettering, at non-signalized crossings. The FHWA 
proposes this change to emphasize that the Crossbuck assigns the right-
of-way to LRT traffic at a highway-light rail transit grade crossing.
    The FHWA also proposes to delete the requirement that Crossbuck 
signs be used on each highway approach to every highway-light rail 
transit grade crossing on a semi-exclusive alignment from the STANDARD 
statement. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect standard practice 
with most light rail transit agencies in the U.S. Crossbuck signs are 
not typically used at crossings controlled by traffic signals, 
particularly in downtown areas. Crossings within highway-highway 
intersections in urban areas with train speeds of 60 km/h (35 mph) or 
less are typically controlled by traffic signals and Crossbuck signs 
are not used. Crossbuck signs are not appropriate for light rail 
transit crossings in downtown areas or at intersections controlled by 
traffic signals, since they are believed to be ineffective and create 
sign clutter. The FHWA proposes to revise the OPTION statement to allow 
the use of Crossbuck Assemblies (described in Section 8D.05) on 
semiexclusive alignments, to allow agencies the flexibility to use the 
Crossbuck sign if they choose to do so for certain situations.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of the second 
STANDARD statement to clarify that the strip of reflective material 
that is required on Crossbuck Assembly supports shall be vertical and 
placed on the back of the support from the bottom of the Crossbuck sign 
to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground. In conjunction with this 
change, the FHWA clarifies that on Crossbuck Assemblies where the YIELD 
or STOP sign is installed on a separate support, or is omitted in 
accordance with Section 8B.04, a vertical strip of retroreflective 
white material, not less than 50 mm (2 in) in width, shall be used on 
the front of the Crossbuck Assembly support from the bottom of the 
Crossbuck sign or Number of Tracks sign to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above 
the ground. The FHWA proposes these changes to clarify the types of 
reflective strips to be used, how they are to be measured, and when 
they are to be used.
    498. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 10C.03 LOOK Sign to 
indicate that the LOOK sign may be mounted on a separate sign post 
(rather than to give the option of mounting it as a supplemental plaque 
on the Crossbuck sign) in the immediate vicinity of the highway-light 
rail grade crossing on the railroad right-of-way. The FHWA proposes 
this change because other proposed changes require other signs to be 
placed on the Crossbuck assembly and there would be insufficient space 
for the LOOK sign.
    499. The FHWA proposes to change the title of Section 10C.04 to 
``Use of STOP or YIELD Signs without Crossbuck Signs at Highway-Light 
Rail Transit Grade Crossings'' to reflect proposed changes to this 
section that clarify when it is appropriate to use only STOP or YIELD 
signs, without the Crossbuck Sign. As part of the proposed changes, 
FHWA proposes to delete the OPTION statement allowing a STOP or YIELD 
sign to be installed on the Crossbuck post, because this is proposed to 
be covered in Sections 10B.01 and 10C.02.
    500. In existing Section 10C.08 STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING Sign 
(renumbered Section 10C.07 because the order of Sections 10C.07 and 
10C.08 is proposed to be reversed to follow the same order as they are 
in Part 8), the FHWA proposes to add a new sign designated R8-10a. This 
proposed sign is similar in design and size to the existing R10-6a 
sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign in order to provide a 600 mm x 
900 mm (24 in x 30 in) alternate to the R8-10 sign. The FHWA proposes 
to add both the proposed new R8-10a sign and the existing R10-6a signs 
to Table 8B-1.
    501. In Section 10C.15 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning 
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement a 
requirement that a supplemental plaque describing the type of traffic 
control at the highway-light rail grade crossing shall be used with the 
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning sign (W10-

[[Page 331]]

1). As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to require the 
use of a No Signal (W10-10P) supplemental plaque in advance of a 
crossing that does not have active traffic control devices, and the use 
of a new Signal Ahead (W10-16P) plaque in advance of a crossing that 
does have active traffic control devices. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for the use of these supplemental plaques 
at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to add at the end of the 1st 
STANDARD that a Yield Ahead or a Stop Ahead Advance Warning Sign shall 
also be installed if criteria are met, along with information regarding 
the distance between signs in advance of a highway-light rail grade 
crossing, to emphasize existing requirements in Part 2.
    The FHWA proposes these changes to improve safety by providing road 
users with additional information regarding traffic control devices at 
highway-rail grade crossings as recommended by recent research.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ National Cooperative Highway Research Report 470 titled 
``Traffic Control Devices for Passive Railroad-Highway Grade 
Crossings,'' Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    502. In Figure 10C-4 Warning Signs and Light Rail Station Sign, the 
FHWA proposes to revise the symbol shown on the W10-7 sign to utilize 
the same symbol of a light rail vehicle as that used on the I-12 sign. 
The light rail vehicle symbol on the existing W10-7 sign was an 
inadvertent error that the FHWA proposes to correct so that the symbols 
will be consistent. The FHWA also proposes to add the No Signal (W10-
10P) and Active Control (W10-16P) plaques to this figure.
    503. The FHWA proposes to rewrite Section 10C.21 Emergency 
Notification Sign in its entirety. These proposed changes are very 
similar to those proposed in existing Section 8B.12 (new Section 8B.13) 
in item 465 above. The proposed text includes STANDARD statements that 
specify the minimum amount of information to be placed on Emergency 
Notification signs, sign placement, and the proposed sign color of a 
white legend and border on a blue background. The proposed new text 
includes an OPTION statement that allows similar information to be 
displayed on the enclosure for signal apparatus at crossings that are 
equipped with active traffic control devices. The proposed new text 
also includes a GUIDANCE statement with additional information on sign 
retroreflectivity, sign placement, and sign size. The FHWA proposes a 
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good 
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. To 
illustrate the proposed change, FHWA would revise Figure 10C-4. The 
FHWA proposes these changes to simplify the requirements for these 
signs and to assure that the appropriate information is displayed on 
these valuable signs that provide information to roadway users in the 
event of an emergency or signal malfunction requiring notification to 
the railroad LRT agency.
    504. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 10C.22 
Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings, and place the 
information from this Section in a new Section numbered and titled, 
``Section 10A.05 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings.'' 
The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly. See item 495 
above.
    505. In existing Section 10C.24 (new Section 10C.23) Stop Lines, 
the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement requiring the use of stop 
lines on paved roadways at highway-light rail transit grade crossings 
that are equipped with active control devices. This requirement is 
currently implied by STANDARD language in Section 10C.22 and 
illustrated in Figure 10C-2. The FHWA proposes to add this specific 
requirement in Section 10C.24 for clarification and because the stop 
line provides road users with a clear indication of the point behind 
which they are required to stop when the traffic control devices are 
activated.
    506. In Section 10D.01 Introduction, the FHWA proposes to change 
the OPTION statement to a STANDARD statement, which will require 
audible devices to the provided and operated in conjunction with 
flashing-light signals or traffic control signals where they are 
operated at a crossing that is used by pedestrians. The FHWA proposes 
this change because light rail transit vehicles are often nearly 
silent, and blind pedestrians cannot see flashing lights. Requiring the 
use of an audible warning device would assure that information about 
the approach of a light rail transit vehicle is available to persons 
with visual disabilities. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance 
period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on 
State or local highway agencies.
    507. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section 
10D.04 numbered and titled, ``Section 10D.05 Wayside Horn Systems.'' 
This new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements 
regarding the use of wayside horn systems to provide directional 
audible warning at highway-light rail grade crossings, pursuant to the 
Interim Approval for the Use of Wayside Horn Systems, issued August 2, 
2004.\207\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years 
for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway 
agencies. See item 472 above for additional information because this 
proposed new section is very similar to proposed new Section 8C.06. 
FHWA would renumber the remaining sections in this chapter accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ The Interim Approval can be viewed at the following 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    508. In existing Section 10D.08 (new Section 10D.07) Use of Traffic 
Control Signals for Control of Light Rail Transit Vehicles at Grade 
Crossings, the FHWA proposes to change the first paragraph of the 
SUPPORT statement to a GUIDANCE statement, to recommend that the light 
rail transit signal indications shown in Figure 10D-1 be used to 
control light rail transit movements. The existing MUTCD indicates that 
the indications shown in the figure are only examples of indications 
that could be used, and there is no requirement or recommendation to 
use these particular indications. As a result, there is no uniformity 
in the light rail transit signal indications used around the country. 
The FHWA believes that such uniformity is needed and that the 
indications shown in Figure 10D-1 should be recommended for use. The 
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing 
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway or transit 
agencies.
    509. In Figures 10D-3 and 10D-4, the FHWA proposes to change the 
striping on the gate arms from diagonal to vertical to reflect the 
proposed striping change in Section 8D.04.
    510. In existing Section 10D.08 (new Section 10D.09) Pedestrian and 
Bicycle Signals and Crossings, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE 
statement that an audible device should be installed, in addition to a 
Crossbuck sign, at pedestrian and bicycle crossings where determined by 
an engineering study. The FHWA also proposes to add that if an 
engineering study shows that flashing-light signals with a Crossbuck 
sign and an audible device would not provide sufficient notice of an 
approaching light rail transit vehicle, the LOOK sign and/or pedestrian 
gates should be considered. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide

[[Page 332]]

consistency with proposed changes in Section 10D.01 in item 506 above.
    511. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing 
Section 10D.08 (new Section 10D.09) numbered and titled, ``Section 
10D.10 Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings(s) Within or In Close 
Proximity to Roundabouts, Traffic Circles, or Circular Intersections.'' 
This new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements 
that clarify the need for active traffic control devices where highway-
rail grade crossings are within or in close proximity to roundabouts, 
traffic circles, or circular intersections. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any 
impact on State or local highway agencies.
    512. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 10E 
Quiet Zone Treatments at Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings.'' 
The purpose of this new Chapter is to add language to support and 
directly refer to the Final Rule adopted by Federal Railroad 
Administration regarding quiet zones established in conjunction with 
restrictions on train horns at certain highway-rail grade crossings (49 
CFR Part 222) \208\ which may have applicability to certain highway-
light rail transit grade crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ The Federal Register Notice was published on December 18, 
2003 (Volume 68, Number 243, Page 70586-70687) and can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    513. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 10F 
Pathway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings.'' The purpose of this new 
Chapter is to provide information for traffic control devices used at 
pathway-rail grade crossings. Shared-use paths and other similar 
facilities often cross light rail transit tracks and it is important 
that suitable traffic control devices be used to provide for safe and 
effective operation of such crossings. The FHWA proposes a phase-in 
compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to 
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action would not be a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of U.S. Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. These changes are not anticipated 
to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. 
Most of the proposed changes in the MUTCD would 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 roadway safety. The standards, guidance, and support are also used 
to create uniformity and to enhance safety and mobility at little 
additional expense to public agencies or the motoring public. In 
addition, these changes would not create a serious inconsistency with 
any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of 
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Therefore, a 
full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes 
on small entities and has determined that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This proposed rule would add some alternative traffic control devices 
and only a very limited number of new or changed requirements. Most of 
the proposed changes are expanded guidance and clarification 
information.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 
March 22, 1995). The proposed revisions can be phased in by the States 
over specified time periods in order to minimize hardship. The proposed 
changes to traffic control devices that would require an expenditure of 
funds all would have future 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 proposed revisions would require 
expenditures by the State and local governments on Federal-aid 
projects, they are reimbursable. This action would not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 
U.S.C. 1532).

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 
the FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rulemaking will not 
preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability 
to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The MUTCD is 
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. These proposed 
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. The 
overriding safety benefits of the uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD 
are shared by all of the State and local governments, and changes made 
to this rule are directed at enhancing safety. To the extent that these 
proposed amendments override any existing State requirements regarding 
traffic control devices, they do so in the interest of national 
uniformity.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and 
would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact 
statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant 
energy action under that order because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 
13211 is not required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

[[Page 333]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, 
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that 
this action does not contain collection information requirements for 
purposes of the PRA.

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)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not concern an 
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately 
affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect 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. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

23 CFR Part 634

    Design standards, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, 
Workers, Traffic regulations.

23 CFR Part 655

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

    Issued on: December 14, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority 23 U.S.C. 
315, the FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations 
parts 634 and 655 as follows:

PART 634--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

    1. Part 634, as added at 71 FR 67800 (November 24, 2006), is 
removed and reserved.

PART 655-TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

    2. The authority citation for part 655 continues 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).

    3. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  655.601 to read as follows:


Sec.  655.601  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD), ------ [date to be inserted] Edition, FHWA, dated --
---- [date to be inserted]. 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 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA call (202) 
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. It is available for 
inspection and copying at the Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, as provided in 49 CFR part 7. 
The text is also available from the FHWA Office of Operations Web site 
at: http//mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  655.603 by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  655.603  Standards.

    (a) National MUTCD. The MUTCD approved by the Federal Highway 
Administrator is the national standard for all traffic control devices 
installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public 
travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a). For the purpose 
of MUTCD applicability, open to public travel includes toll roads and 
roads within shopping centers, parking lot areas, airports, sports 
arenas, and other similar business and/or recreation facilities that 
are privately owned but where the public is allowed to travel without 
access restrictions. Private gated properties where access is 
restricted and private highway-rail grade crossings are not included in 
this definition.

Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655--[Amended]

    5. Amend Table 1 by changing the daytime chromaticity coordinates 
for retroreflective sign material for the color Purple as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302.............  Existing 0.064 Proposed
                                             0.064.
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307.............  Existing 0.200 Proposed
                                             0.202.
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374.............  Existing 0.300 Proposed
                                             0.247.
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457.............  Existing 0.202 Proposed
                                             0.136.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Amend Table 2 by adding the nighttime chromaticity coordinates 
for retroreflective sign material for the color Purple as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300......................................................        0.064
0.307......................................................        0.150
0.480......................................................        0.245
0.530......................................................        0.170
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Amend Table 3 by changing the daytime chromaticity coordinates 
for retroreflective sign material for the color Fluorescent Pink as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.450 Proposed 0.600.............  Existing 0.270 Proposed
                                             0.340.
Existing 0.590 Proposed 0.450.............  Existing 0.350 Proposed
                                             0.332.
Existing 0.644 Proposed 0.430.............  Existing 0.290 Proposed
                                             0.275.
Existing 0.563 Proposed 0.536.............  Existing 0.230 Proposed
                                             0.230.
Existing------Proposed 0.644..............  Existing------Proposed
                                             0.290.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Amend Table 3 by adding after Fluorescent Pink the color 
Fluorescent Red and its daytime chromaticity coordinates for 
retroreflective sign material as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.666......................................................        0.334
0.613......................................................        0.333
0.671......................................................        0.275
0.735......................................................        0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 334]]

    9. Amend Table 3A by adding after Fluorescent Pink the color 
Fluorescent Red and its daytime luminance coordinates for 
retroreflective sign material as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Minimum                       Maximum         YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................................           30           15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Amend Table 4 by adding after Fluorescent Green the color 
Fluorescent Red and its nighttime chromaticity coordinates for 
retroreflective sign material as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.680......................................................        0.320
0.645......................................................        0.320
0.712......................................................        0.253
0.735......................................................        0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Amend Table 5 by adding after the color Blue the daytime 
chromaticity coordinates for Purple retroreflective pavement marking 
material as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300......................................................        0.064
0.309......................................................        0.260
0.362......................................................        0.295
0.475......................................................        0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Amend Table 5A by adding after the color Blue the daytime 
luminance factors for Purple retroreflective pavement marking material 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Minimum                              Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..........................................................           15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Amend Table 6 by adding after the color Yellow the nighttime 
chromaticity coordinates for Purple retroreflective pavement marking 
material as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             x                                    Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.338......................................................        0.080
0.425......................................................        0.365
0.470......................................................        0.385
0.635......................................................        0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-24863 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P