[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 16, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66730-66863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28322]
[[Page 66729]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 16, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66730]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD) (also referred to as ``the Manual'') is incorporated
by reference within 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 final
rule is to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting
information relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the
MUTCD to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and
incorporate technology advances in traffic control device application.
The MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, is being designated as the
2009 Edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective January 15, 2010.
The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this
regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register as of January 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or Mr. 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
This document, the notice of proposed amendments (NPA), and all
comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: http://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
On January 2, 2008, at 73 FR 268, the FHWA published an NPA
proposing revisions to the MUTCD. Those changes were proposed to be
designated as the next edition of the MUTCD. Interested persons were
invited to submit comments to FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977. Based on
the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA is issuing a
final rule and is designating the MUTCD, with these changes
incorporated, as the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD.
The text of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule
changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted changes from
the 2003 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 of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD, with these
final rule changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted
changes from the 2003 Edition, are available on the FHWA's MUTCD
Internet site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The previous version of the
MUTCD, the 2003 MUTCD with Revisions 1 and 2 incorporated, is also
available on this Internet site. The 2009 Edition supersedes all
previous editions and revisions of the MUTCD.
Summary of Comments
The FHWA received 1,841 letters submitted to the docket, containing
over 15,000 individual comments on the MUTCD in general or on one or
more parts, chapters, sections, or paragraphs contained in the MUTCD.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD),
State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), city and county government
agencies, Federal government agencies, consulting firms, private
industry, associations, other organizations, and individual private
citizens submitted comments. The FHWA has reviewed and analyzed all of
the comments received. The NCUTCD comments included support for all
items in the NPA except as otherwise indicated. The significant
comments and summaries of the FHWA's analyses and determinations are
discussed below. General comments and significant global changes
throughout the MUTCD are discussed first, followed by discussion of
significant comments and adopted changes in each of the individual
Parts of the MUTCD. All of the items discussed below were proposed in
the NPA unless otherwise indicated.
Discussion of General Amendments to the MUTCD
1. The FHWA received several general comments from State DOTs,
local agencies, associations, and citizens regarding the NPA. Two local
agencies, a traffic control device vendor, an association, and two
citizens expressed general support for the changes in the MUTCD, such
as incorporating into the MUTCD recommendations of the Older Driver
Handbook, the Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs, and new
technologies. In addition to the overall general comments, some of the
commenters had specific comments that relate to the entire MUTCD. Those
topics that the FHWA considers to be substantive and non-editorial in
nature are discussed in the following items within this section.
2. The NCUTCD submitted a letter suggesting that the FHWA issue a
supplemental notice of proposed amendments (SNPA). Fourteen State DOTs,
AASHTO, and the Chair of the NCUTCD submitted duplicate copies of the
NCUTCD's letter in support of an SNPA. In addition, three State DOTs, a
county DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic engineering consultant also
stated support for the NCUTCD's letter. The NCUTCD's letter included
the following statements in support of an SNPA:
1. The NPA did not include a quantified assessment of the economic
impacts of the proposed changes on public agencies and the private
sector.
2. More details are needed regarding some of the proposed changes
and some of the proposed changes need to be reorganized or reformatted.
3. The extent of the proposed changes and the number of expected
comments is such that the final rule would be significantly different
from the NPA version, and would therefore constitute a new document
which should be reviewed as an SNPA prior to becoming a final rule.
4. Because of the interconnectivity between the language in the
various sections, chapters, and parts, a change in one section might
have impacts on multiple other sections. Therefore, an SNPA is needed
in order to have the opportunity to review additional changes resulting
from responses to comments to assess whether they are consistent with
each other.
[[Page 66731]]
5. There is precedent for issuing multiple proposed rules for
changes to the MUTCD.
6. It is essential that the FHWA provide an opportunity to review
the FHWA responses to the docket so that implementation and liability
changes can be identified, assessed, and discussed before a final rule
is published.
7. An SNPA is needed to assess the FHWA response to comments and
evaluate the level of engineering flexibility that will be provided in
the next edition of the MUTCD.
Five State DOTs, a local agency, nine toll road operators, a major
retail business owner, and a traffic engineering consultant also
expressed general support for an SNPA.
Two bicycle associations, a traffic engineering consultant, and a
citizen disagreed with the need for an SNPA and requested that FHWA
publish a final rule. The two bicycle associations suggested that if an
SNPA were to be published instead of a final rule, the FHWA should
issue Interim Approvals for all new devices and applications in Part 9
so that public agencies can begin installing them to improve conditions
for bicyclists.
The FHWA carefully reviewed and considered the concerns both for
and against issuing an SNPA and decided that an SNPA is not necessary
or appropriate. The FHWA determined that the seven specific statements
cited by the NCUTCD in support of an SNPA do not justify delaying the
finalization of a new edition of the MUTCD that will significantly
improve the safety and efficiency of highway travel. Additionally, in
making decisions in the final rule regarding the various technical
issues cited in the letters from the NCUTCD and others who requested an
SNPA, the FHWA has taken into consideration the concerns expressed. To
address the concerns, in most cases the FHWA has revised certain
provisions to make them less restrictive or has deleted from the final
rule certain provisions that were proposed in the NPA, has reorganized
and reformatted material to clarify it, and has eliminated specific
target compliance dates or established long compliance periods
consistent with service lives of the devices. In most cases the new
provisions apply only to new installations or reconstructions of
devices, and the provisions for systematic upgrading cited in Section
655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations \1\ allow
existing noncompliant devices in good condition to remain in place
until the end of their service lives, thus minimizing any impacts of
new requirements on State or local highway agencies and owners of
private roads open to public travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The FHWA received comments from three local agency DOTs, an
association of counties, and a citizen suggesting that there are too
many proposed changes to the MUTCD and that many of the changes are too
complex. The FHWA believes that continuously updating the MUTCD is
necessary in order to incorporate advances in technology, new research
results, and state of the practice in traffic control devices. Since
the MUTCD's purpose is to improve safety and efficiency, the MUTCD must
be revised to remain current with these new technologies and
applications.
4. A State DOT, 10 local agency DOTs, an association representing
local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant expressed concern that
there were too many new STANDARD statements (or GUIDANCE statements
elevated to STANDARD statements) in the proposed revisions, and that
the large number of changes places an undue financial burden on
agencies. The FHWA believes that the changes to the MUTCD will provide
improved uniformity in traffic control device applications across the
country, thereby increasing safety, and that the additional Standards
will not result in undue financial burden on agencies. As discussed
under Amendments to the MUTCD Introduction, in the vast majority of
cases existing devices in good condition that are not in compliance
with new standards can remain in place for the remainder of their
service life, thus minimizing any impacts of new requirements on State
or local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public
travel.
5. The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and three city DOTs
opposing the scope of the changes within the MUTCD and suggesting that
many of the changes are more appropriate for a handbook, rather than
the MUTCD. Several of the commenters expressed concern that the MUTCD
was becoming more prescriptive in nature, thus limiting creativity,
flexibility, and judgment. The FHWA believes that the widespread use of
the MUTCD by State and local agencies and design professionals, and its
importance as a Federal regulation for traffic control devices
justifies the level of detail incorporated in the MUTCD. Further, the
FHWA believes that sufficient justification has been provided for any
new standards and that ample latitude for flexibility and judgment is
provided in the application of Guidance and Options in the MUTCD.
6. The FHWA adopts a new cover page for this edition of the MUTCD
that maintains general consistency with covers of previous editions,
but with changes to give it a distinctive appearance to minimize the
possibility of confusion by users. The date of this edition, which is
identified on the cover and elsewhere within the document, is the year
in which the final rule is issued.
7. The FHWA includes paragraph numbers in the margins for each
paragraph of each section for the final page images of this edition of
the MUTCD. The FHWA includes these paragraph numbers in order to aid
practitioners in referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of
future MUTCD notices of proposed amendments. The FHWA posted sample
pages on its MUTCD Web site showing four possible methods for paragraph
numbering and as part of the NPA asked interested persons to review the
sample pages and provide comments to the docket on the paragraph
numbering options. Based on comments, the FHWA numbers the paragraphs
in the manner that was shown as Alternative 3, with dark
numerals outside the margin, and in a font that is easy to read without
being distracting.
8. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a citizen provided comments
regarding the format of MUTCD pages, print style, numbering of
sections, etc. Based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA changes the
font of GUIDANCE statements to italics to distinguish them from OPTION
and SUPPORT statements. As part of this change, the FHWA eliminates
italics from the titles of figures and tables.
9. The FHWA received several comments regarding the use of metric
units in the MUTCD. The NCUTCD, six State DOTs, ATSSA, an NCUTCD
member, and two traffic engineering consultants suggested that the
metric units be removed in their entirety or that the English units
precede the metric units, and a traffic engineering consultant
suggested that the MUTCD continue to be issued with both systems of
measurement. Because metric units are not currently used in the U.S.
for traffic control device applications, the FHWA determines that only
English units are to be used in the MUTCD text, figures, and tables and
places metric
[[Page 66732]]
equivalent values for all English unit values used in the MUTCD in a
new Appendix A2 in this final rule. This preserves the soft conversions
of the English to metric values in the MUTCD while also providing a
document that is less cumbersome to read and apply. This change is
consistent with an Informational Memorandum from FHWA's Executive
Director, dated November 25, 2008,\2\ stating that use of metric
measurements will now be optional in all FHWA documents, including
letters, memoranda, publications, reports, and information on FHWA Web
sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Informational Memorandum, ``Update on Metric Use
Requirements for FHWA Documents,'' by Jeffrey Paniati, dated
November 25, 2008, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/1108metr.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA incorporates minor changes in
text, figures, and tables for grammatical or style consistency, to
improve consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity,
or to correct minor errors. Where the FHWA adds 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 addition are renumbered or relettered accordingly. All
Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists of Tables, and page headers
and footers are revised as appropriate to reflect the changes.
11. The FHWA modifies figures and tables to reflect changes in the
text and adds figures and tables to illustrate new or revised text.
12. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA relocates
statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in
logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition,
the FHWA changes the titles of some sections, figures, and tables in
order to more accurately describe the content.
13. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA removes 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 received a comment from a local DOT opposed to
this revision, stating that there are some circumstances in the MUTCD
where the phrase ``reasonably safe'' reflects real-world conditions,
and that removing the phrase could pose a liability problem to State
and local agencies in civil litigation. The FHWA disagrees because of
the subjectivity of the term and for each occurrence of the term either
eliminates or replaces the term with suitable language that is more
appropriate.
14. The FHWA changes the references to the book previously titled
``Standard Highway Signs'' to refer to the current title, ``Standard
Highway Signs and Markings.'' This reflects FHWA's change of the title
of that book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes
information regarding pavement markings. The FHWA received a comment
from ATSSA in support of this change. The FHWA also resolves the
inaccuracies between the sign illustrations in the MUTCD and the
``Standard Highway Signs and Markings'' (SHSM) book to the extent
practical in the MUTCD figures.
15. The FHWA conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign
codes used throughout the Manual, and revises sign codes in several
places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As part of
this process, the FHWA revises the term ``sign code'' to ``sign
designation'' to avoid confusion with other uses of the word ``code.''
The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA in support of this change. A
State DOT opposed sign nomenclature changes, stating that these changes
could be complex for agencies that catalog sign inventory databases
based on the nomenclature. The FHWA understands the issues related to
inventory databases but determines that the nomenclature changes are
necessary for consistency. The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA
suggesting that the suffix ``w'' be used for word message signs to
avoid confusion with the ``a'' suffix being used for abbreviations in
the route marker series (such as M4-1a and M4-7a). The FHWA disagrees
and uses the ``a'' suffix in sign designations for word message signs
that are alternatives to symbol signs, as presented in the NPA. The
FHWA uses the ``P'' suffix for designations for plaques to clarify that
these devices must accompany a sign and cannot be used alone. ATSSA
supported this change. Also, based on a comment from a citizen, the
FHWA adds a column to the sign size tables in Parts 6 and 9 to cite the
applicable MUTCD Section for each sign so that MUTCD users can review
the pertinent information for each sign. The sign size tables for other
Parts of the MUTCD already have this column.
16. Based on a comment from the NCUTCD that a single location
should be provided where all definitions can be found, the FHWA places
all definitions in Part 1 by relocating to Section 1A.13 all
definitions that were previously contained or repeated in the MUTCD
Introduction and in Parts 2 through 10 of the 2003 MUTCD and in the
NPA.
17. The FHWA adds 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 signs, signals, and
markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to enhance safety
and convenience for road users. The FHWA adds provisions on toll plaza
traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4 that reflect the results
of research studies on best practices for traffic control strategies at
toll plazas,\3\ FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices,\4\
and FHWA's report on ``Strategies for Improving Safety at Toll
Collection Facilities.'' \5\ The NCUTCD and 10 agencies that operate
toll facilities suggested that the toll road related material be placed
in a new, separate Part to facilitate the use of this material. The
FHWA understands that the toll operators would like to have the
information consolidated into one area, but disagrees with adding a
separate Part. Instead, the FHWA creates new chapters for toll plazas
within Parts 2, 3, and 4 and places the new toll-related material in
those chapters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``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.
\4\ ``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.
\5\ ``Strategies for Improving Safety at Toll Collection
Facilities,'' Report number FHWA-IF-08-005, May 2008, can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/resources/report/toll_summary/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The FHWA expands the provisions regarding preferential lanes
and adds new provisions regarding managed lanes in various parts of the
MUTCD to address the increasing complexity and use of these types of
lanes. Although four agencies that operate toll facilities expressed
support for the need for increased uniformity in traffic control
devices on managed lanes for the purposes of improving traffic safety,
eight agencies (including some of those who also supported the need for
including toll facilities in the MUTCD) expressed concern that the
changes will place a financial burden on their agency, and two of these
agencies felt that the changes were too restrictive and should reflect
recommendations, rather than requirements. The FHWA understands that
changes in the MUTCD are often met with financial concerns; however,
the FHWA believes that the provisions for systematic upgrading
[[Page 66733]]
cited in Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
\6\ will enable changes associated with the final rule to be
accommodated without significant expense. The information on
preferential and managed lanes is contained primarily in Parts 2 and 3
and is intended to address specific signing and marking issues
associated with High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls and
other operational strategies on managed lanes, etc. To better
facilitate user understanding, the FHWA creates new chapters for
preferential and managed lanes in Parts 2 and 3 and places the new and
existing material on those subjects in those chapters. In addition, as
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA eliminates 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The FHWA received comments from a variety of commenters on
subject material that was not included in the NPA. In some cases those
comments pertain to existing subject matter in the 2003 Edition that
was not proposed for change in the NPA, while in other cases the
commenters suggest new material for the MUTCD such as new signs or
different traffic control device applications from those included in
the 2003 Edition or the NPA. Comments received during the comment
period that were outside the scope of this rulemaking are neither
discussed in this preamble nor addressed in the final rule. The FHWA
appreciates these comments, and might consider some of these ideas for
potential future rulemaking activities.
Discussion of Amendments Within the Introduction
20. The FHWA revises paragraph 01 regarding the definition of
traffic control devices to reflect that traffic control devices on
private roads open to public travel are placed by authority of the
private property owner or private official having jurisdiction. A State
DOT commented that the existing language and that proposed in the NPA
for this paragraph implied that public agencies have the authority to
place traffic control devices on private roads open to public travel.
The FHWA agrees that clarification is needed and revises the text
accordingly.
21. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revisions and additions to the
text regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. Two city DOTs, an
NCUTCD member, three transportation professionals, a traffic control
device vendor, and two citizens all supported the changes, as proposed
in the NPA and as currently provided in the CFR, to apply the MUTCD to
private roads open to public travel. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and
an employee of a State DOT opposed applying the MUTCD to private roads,
mostly because of concerns about enforcement of the provisions. The
FHWA recognizes that enforcement can only occur when a State includes
the requirement to comply with MUTCD in State ordinances, local
building codes, development approvals, site plans, etc., and as a
result of the potential tort liability to the owners of the private
roads. The FHWA believes that public agency traffic engineers are not
expected to enforce this provision for existing conditions on private
roads open to public travel.
Two State DOTs and two toll road operators suggested that the
wording be revised to reflect that toll roads may be operated by
public, quasi-public, or private entities and that toll roads are gated
and restricted by tolling. The FHWA agrees and revises the language in
this final rule and in 23 CFR 655.603(a),\7\ to clarify that, for the
purpose of applicability of the MUTCD, toll roads under the
jurisdiction of public agencies or authorities or of public-private
partnerships are considered to be public facilities, and that ``open to
public travel'' includes private toll roads and roads within shopping
centers, 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. To address the comments
from two toll road operators, this final rule language further
clarifies that except for gated toll roads, roads within private gated
properties where public access is restricted at all times shall not be
considered to be open to public travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA received several comments from a major retail business
operator suggesting that there are many items in the MUTCD that are not
easily applicable to parking lots within shopping centers and the
driving aisles within those parking lots. The FHWA agrees that, while
MUTCD general principles and standard traffic control device designs
should be used in parking lots, there are some MUTCD provisions that do
not easily translate to conditions typically found in parking lots and
parking garages. The FHWA believes that additional future consideration
is needed to determine appropriate and feasible standards and guidance
for the application of traffic control devices in parking lots.
Therefore, the FHWA exempts parking spaces and driving aisles in
parking lots, both privately and publicly owned, from MUTCD
applicability in this final rule. The MUTCD continues to be applicable
to ring roads, roads providing access to or egress from public roads,
and circulation roads on private property open to public travel.
Accordingly, throughout the MUTCD, where the term ``private property
open to public travel'' was used in the NPA, the FHWA clarifies the
term to be ``private road open to public travel'' and provides a
precise definition of that term in Section 1A.13 in this final rule.
The FHWA also incorporates these changes into 23 CFR 655.603(a).
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA also modifies the wording of 23
CFR 655.603(a) to remove the exemption from MUTCD applicability for
military bases, based on a request from the Military Surface Deployment
and Distribution Command to include military bases, in order to
facilitate road user safety through conformity and consistency with
national standards.
22. The FHWA adds SUPPORT paragraph 05 to clarify that pictographs
embedded within signs are not in themselves considered traffic control
devices and thus the pictographs are not subject to the provisions in
paragraph 04 that prohibit patented, copyrighted, or trademarked items.
This clarification is necessary to address frequent questions from
users of the MUTCD on this subject.
23. In concert with the change to show dimensions throughout the
MUTCD in only English units, the FHWA revises the text in paragraphs 13
and 14 to provide a reference to new Appendix A2 for tables converting
each of the English unit numerical values to the equivalent Metric
values and to recommend that if metric units are to be used in laying
out distances or determining sizes of devices, such units should be
specified on plan drawings and made known to those responsible for
designing, installing, or maintaining traffic control devices.
24. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise the paragraph regarding
adoption of MUTCD revisions by the States or other Federal agencies,
substantial conformance of State or
[[Page 66734]]
other Federal agency MUTCDs or Supplements, and compliance periods for
new and existing devices to reflect the requirements of the Code of
Federal Regulations applicable to the MUTCD that have been in effect
since 2006.\8\ In this final rule, the FHWA further revises the text to
make it clearer and more easily understood by users. The FHWA divides
the single paragraph into several separate paragraphs containing
applicable text on certain subjects that are presented in a more
logical sequence. New text consistent with the CFR is added regarding
compliance of new or reconstructed devices, and Option and Support text
regarding replacement of existing noncompliant devices is revised for
clarity and relocated from the end of the MUTCD Introduction to follow
other related text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. In the NPA, the FHWA asked for comments regarding the
possibility of incorporating the phase-in target compliance periods
into the body of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and
sections in this Final Rule. The FHWA considered this change because
the list of target compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more
convenient and effective for practitioners to have target compliance
periods embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the
Manual. The Minnesota DOT has incorporated the target compliance
periods into its State MUTCD text, and the FHWA asked whether
Minnesota's method is preferable to listing all the target compliance
periods in the MUTCD Introduction. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, a State DOT, a
toll facility operator, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic control device
vendor favored placing the compliance periods within the sections to
which that they pertain. The NCUTCD also suggested that a reference be
placed in the Introduction to a list of all target compliance dates on
the MUTCD Web site. The FHWA understands that there are advantages and
disadvantages to placing the target compliance dates within the text.
Placing the target compliance dates within the sections to which they
apply might result in some agencies delaying action to comply with the
provision until the compliance date approaches. As a result, the FHWA
continues to provide the target compliance date information in the
Introduction, and does not embed the dates within the section text.
However, to consolidate and improve the clarity of this information,
the FHWA relocates the listing of target compliance dates from the body
of the MUTCD Introduction to a new Table I-2.
In new Table I-2, FHWA includes the specific target compliance
dates for those items whose dates were determined through previous
rulemaking, now that the effective dates are known, and deletes from
the listing any items for which the target compliance dates have passed
by the date of the publication of this final rule.
The FHWA deletes most of the large number of new target compliance
dates that were proposed in the NPA. Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations, states that for existing highways ``each
State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, and Federal
agency shall have a program as required by 23 U.S.C. 402(a), which
shall include provisions for the systematic upgrading of substandard
traffic control devices and for the installation of needed devices to
achieve conformity with the MUTCD.'' Although the FHWA may establish
specific target compliance dates to achieve compliance with respect to
specific devices, the systematic upgrade program allows public agencies
and officials having jurisdiction to upgrade their existing
noncompliant devices when the devices are no longer serviceable because
they reach the end of their service life or otherwise need to be
replaced, or when other events such as highway improvement or
reconstruction projects occur, thus minimizing any impacts to State or
local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public
travel. Target compliance periods shorter than expected service life
have generally only been established in unusual cases when a new MUTCD
requirement is deemed to be so critically important from a safety
impact standpoint that it justifies earlier replacement of noncompliant
existing devices. In some cases, the FHWA has adopted target compliance
dates for certain provisions, such as a requirement to do a study or to
evaluate the timing of traffic signal clearance intervals, that are not
directly related to the service life of a device but which the FHWA
believes can be reasonably accommodated within typical agency
procedures and practices. The FHWA reviewed all the proposed target
compliance dates in the NPA in the context of the CFR language, the
general intents stated above, and the comments received, and the FHWA
establishes only 12 new target compliance dates in this final rule.
Each of these new target dates is discussed in detail under the
appropriate item later in this preamble.
Additionally, for new target compliance dates, the FHWA establishes
specific dates (December 31 of a particular year) rather than the
previous practice of setting target compliance dates as a certain
number of years from the effective date of the final rule. The FHWA
believes that specific end of calendar year target compliance dates
will assist MUTCD users by making the dates clear without the need to
determine what date a final rule became effective. It should also be
noted that the target compliance dates define the end of the ``phase-in
compliance period'' as discussed for various items in the remainder of
this document.
Discussion of Amendments Within Part 1
26. In Section 1A.07, Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices,
the FHWA revises paragraphs 01 and 02 to be consistent with the
language of 23 CFR 655.603 regarding the applicability of the MUTCD as
the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any
street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel. The
FHWA adopts language for these paragraphs in this final rule that is
consistent with terminology regarding private roads as discussed above
under Introduction to the MUTCD.
The FHWA received a comment from a citizen opposed to changing
``bicycle trail'' to ``bikeways'' as proposed in the NPA. However,
because the MUTCD defines bikeway as the generic term for any road,
street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for bicycle
travel, the FHWA retains the word ``bikeways'' in this final rule.
The FHWA received three comments from local agencies opposed to
including the term ``private property'' because of their belief that
the property owner should be responsible for maintaining traffic
control devices on private property, not a public agency or other
entity. As discussed previously, the FHWA revises the term ``private
property'' to ``private roads.'' To respond to the comments from the
local agencies, the FHWA modifies the language in this final rule to
clarify that, in the case of private roads open to public travel, it is
the property owner or the private official having jurisdiction who is
responsible for traffic control device design, placement, maintenance,
operation, and uniformity, consistent with language in the MUTCD
Introduction.
The FHWA adds a Support sentence in this final rule about adoption
of the national MUTCD, supplements, or State
[[Page 66735]]
manuals by all States and a new GUIDANCE paragraph recommending that
these State manuals or supplements should be reviewed for specific
provisions relating to that State. The NCUTCD recommended these
additions and the FHWA agrees that this is necessary to clarify that
there is a need to review the specific State Manuals for local
requirements.
As requested by the U.S. Military Command, and supported by ATSSA,
the FHWA expands paragraph 07 to add the U.S. Military Command to the
list of Federal agencies that have adopted the national MUTCD.
Two State DOTs opposed the proposed change of paragraph 08 to a
GUIDANCE statement that would recommend that States adopt Section 15-
116 of the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) because the adoption of State
laws is outside of the control of State DOTs and is in the hands of
elected officials. The FHWA retains and adopts this change in this
final rule and reiterates that this is GUIDANCE, a statement of
recommended but not mandatory practice, and as a result the MUTCD is
merely recommending the adoption of this section of the UVC by the
States, in accordance with their laws and constitutions.
27. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control
Devices, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding a new SUPPORT statement
describing certain signs and other devices that do not have any traffic
control purpose that are placed with the permission of the public
agency or official having jurisdiction and a new GUIDANCE statement
that such signs and other devices should not be located where they will
interfere with or detract from traffic control devices. The FHWA
proposed 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. The FHWA received comments from the
NCUTCD, five State DOTs, a local agency, a vendor, and an association
agreeing with the proposed SUPPORT statement. A State DOT, a local DOT,
and a traffic device vendor suggested that some of the items included
in the SUPPORT statement, such as markers to guide snowplow operators,
markers that identify fire hydrant locations, markers that identify
underground utility locations, and design features such as speed humps
are indeed traffic control devices and their application should be
standardized by including them in the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with
adding explicit standards for these devices in the MUTCD, noting that
States may establish requirements for these devices and design features
under their adopted policy for use of the public right-of-way. The FHWA
adopts the SUPPORT statement, as proposed in the NPA but with minor
editorial changes, in this final rule.
Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a toll road
operator, the FHWA changes the proposed GUIDANCE statement to a
STANDARD statement in this final rule to require, rather than just
recommend, that such signs and other devices shall not be located where
they will interfere with or detract from traffic control devices, since
it is important that traffic control devices not be blocked or
interfered with. This is also necessary for consistency with other
provisions in the MUTCD about device placement, such as the
requirements in Sections 2D.50 and 2H.08 that community wayfinding
signs and acknowledgement signs shall not be installed in a position
where they would obscure the road users' view of other traffic control
devices. Signs and other devices that do not have any traffic control
purpose that are placed within the highway right-of-way have even less
importance than community wayfinding and acknowledgement signs.
28. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment,
the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and two toll
road operators recommending the removal of the existing STANDARD
statement stating that the MUTCD shall not be a legal requirement for
the installation of traffic control devices, because it is a general
provision for all devices in the Manual that is inconsistent with
numerous specific requirements elsewhere in the MUTCD that specific
devices must be installed, and such requirements are ``legal
requirements.'' The commenters also suggested that this Standard
statement may not be consistent with the Guidance statement that
immediately follows it. The FHWA agrees that this STANDARD statement is
not easily understood by users of the MUTCD outside of the legal
profession, but this statement has been the subject of important court
interpretations regarding the applicability of the MUTCD and has legal
significance beyond its plain meaning. The FHWA believes that, in the
future, consideration should be given to removing or revising this
statement, but additional legal study should be undertaken before doing
so. Therefore, the FHWA decides to retain this STANDARD statement but
cautions users of the MUTCD to consult with legal counsel before
attempting to ascertain the meaning of the statement.
The FHWA did not propose in the NPA a significant change to the
second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement as it appears in the 2003
MUTCD. However, four Kansas counties, the Kansas Association of
Counties, and an engineer from Kansas suggested revising the language
that recommends that jurisdictions with responsibility for traffic
control that do not have engineers on their staffs who are trained and/
or experienced in traffic control devices should seek engineering
assistance from others. The commenters felt that many applications of
the MUTCD are straightforward and well illustrated, and engineering
assistance is not needed. As a result, the commenters felt that the
language should be revised to recommend engineering assistance only if
warranted due to the complexity of the situation. The commenters also
recommended removing language about smaller agencies requesting
assistance of larger agencies because of liability reasons. The FHWA
disagrees with these comments and in this final rule adopts the
revisions to the GUIDANCE statement as proposed in the NPA. However, to
address the concerns, the FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement noting
that, as part of the Federal-aid Program, each State is required to
have a Local Technology Assistance Program (LTAP) that provides
technical assistance to local highway agencies and that requisite
technical training in the application of the principles of the MUTCD
and, as needed, engineering assistance, is available from the State's
LTAP.
The FHWA received a comment suggesting that the first paragraph of
the GUIDANCE statement in the 2003 MUTCD be revised so that the phrase
``this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering
judgment'' cannot be used to ignore Standards based on ``engineering
judgment,'' such as creating new sign symbols. The FHWA agrees that
this language conflicts with other statements in the Manual regarding
the intent and strength of Standards and in this final rule revises the
GUIDANCE statement in Section 1A.09, the definition of the text heading
``Standard'' in Section 1A.13, and the definitions of engineering
judgment and engineering study in Section 1A.13, to resolve the
conflict and to make these statements consistent with each other.
29. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes,
and Interim Approvals, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to revise paragraph
03 to indicate that electronic submittals of
[[Page 66736]]
requests for interpretation, permission to experiment, interim
approvals, or changes shall be submitted electronically rather than by
standard mail, and proposed to include the e-mail address for such
electronic submittals. As part of this change, the FHWA proposed to add
an OPTION statement that includes the postal address for mailing of
requests in the event that the submitter does not have access to e-
mail. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT and two
toll road operators recommending that the STANDARD statement be changed
to GUIDANCE or SUPPORT as this might not be convenient for all
agencies. The FHWA disagrees with these comments as adequate provision
for submission by standard mail is provided in the OPTION statement.
The FHWA is aware that some written requests that are submitted by
standard mail are lost or damaged in the screening of all postal mail
that is sent to FHWA headquarters. As a result, e-mail submittals are
preferred but standard mail submittals are also allowed. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule the STANDARD and OPTION as proposed in the
NPA but with minor editorial changes.
The FHWA in this final rule adopts the proposed change of paragraph
20, regarding local jurisdictions informing their State DOT of
locations where they are using devices under an Interim Approval, to a
GUIDANCE statement (formerly a STANDARD statement in the 2003 MUTCD).
The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and two toll road operators
in support of the revision and a comment from another State DOT opposed
to the revision because of their belief that the local jurisdiction
should be required, rather than merely recommended, to notify the State
DOT of locations where a traffic control device or application under an
interim approval is being used. The FHWA disagrees with this comment as
not all State DOTs believe that such notifications are needed and
because State DOTs can require such notification when they adopt the
MUTCD.
The FHWA received a comment from a State DOT suggesting that a new
STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA be expanded to also require
that jurisdictions check with their State DOT for official status of an
Interim Approval in their State before requesting permission from the
FHWA. The FHWA agrees with the concept and adopts a new GUIDANCE
paragraph 21 in this final rule about requests for both experimentation
and interim approvals, which recommends that local agencies be aware of
any State requirements and policies that might apply to these
processes.
30. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to add four FHWA publications and a publication by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The FHWA publications
cover topics such as roundabouts, designing sidewalks and trails for
access, older drivers, and ramp management and control. The ANSI
publication discusses high-visibility public safety vests. In addition,
the FHWA proposed revising the list to reflect current editions of the
publications and adding Web site addresses to obtain the documents. The
FHWA adopts these new publications and revisions in this final rule. In
addition, based on comments from the NCUTCD, a utility commission, and
an engineering consultant, the FHWA adds several other new publications
that are useful sources of information. These publications include four
FHWA documents covering topics in signal timing, signalized
intersections, railroad-highway grade crossings, and changeable message
signs and an AASHTO publication on pedestrian facilities.
31. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, in the NPA the FHWA proposed
adding 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) devices. ATSSA,
a State DOT, four toll road operators, a traffic control device vendor,
and a citizen all supported adding the color purple for signing and
marking ETC facilities and lanes. A toll road operator in Florida
stated that their past experience has shown that the color purple fades
rapidly in Florida and will likely do so in other States with similar
climates. A toll road operator in Texas questioned whether there were
any purple materials for signs and markings that would meet Texas DOT
durability and nighttime standards. The Illinois Tollway expressed a
similar concern about challenges in design and application to ensure
that effective color contrast is provided under all circumstances. The
FHWA disagrees with comments that adequate materials do not exist,
particularly with the adjustment in color values discussed below, and
incorporates this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes
using signs and pavement markings as discussed in the changes in Parts
2 and 3. As a part of the change, in this final rule the FHWA revises
the text to reflect the intended general use of the color purple for
lanes restricted to use only by vehicles with registered electronic
toll accounts, such as in ETC systems utilizing transponders or video/
license plate recognition systems to identify a vehicle with a
registered toll account. Where a toll lane or facility is not
restricted to specific vehicles and any vehicle without a toll account
can use a toll lane or facility because a license plate recognition
system sends the vehicle owner a bill for the toll, the use of the
color purple is inappropriate.
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 received a comment
from a signing material manufacturer stating that the proposed values
for the color coordinates in the NPA were too restrictive. Based on
retroreflectivity evaluations, the commenter suggested that the daytime
chromaticity coordinates for the purple colored sign sheeting be
shifted to a redder shade, and that a new set of chromaticity
coordinates be generated for a nighttime color that also allows for a
redder shift and that might be different from the daytime requirements.
A toll road operator suggested that the color purple designated by the
chromaticity coordinates is not the same hue as the color their agency
currently uses. The FHWA has reviewed the color properties of the
purple signing materials available from a variety of manufacturers and
adopts daytime and nighttime color coordinates for purple
retroreflective sign material (Tables 1 and 2) that are slightly
revised from the values that were proposed in the NPA. The adopted
daytime color coordinates are based on a large series of measurements
of various purple materials that are close to or match the Pantone
color selected by the EZ-Pass consortium. With the minor adjustments as
adopted, there are sufficient materials that meet the values to provide
for competition, but without reducing color recognition. The adopted
nighttime color coordinates are similar to the nighttime coordinates
for purple pavement markings. The FHWA also adopts daytime and
nighttime color coordinates and luminance factors for purple
retroreflective marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6) as proposed in
the NPA. The values for purple in the tables are as indicated below (no
change in the existing values for luminance factors for purple as
contained in Table 1A):
[[Page 66737]]
Table 1--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.302 0.064
0.310 0.210
0.380 0.255
0.468 0.140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.355 0.088
0.385 0.288
0.500 0.350
0.635 0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words and Phrases in
This Manual, as discussed previously, the FHWA places all definitions
in Part 1 by relocating to Section 1A.13 all definitions that were
previously contained or repeated in the MUTCD Introduction and in Parts
2 through 10. In regard to the definitions of the text headings
``Standard'' and ``Guidance,'' the FHWA clarifies that the verb ``may''
is not used in STANDARD or GUIDANCE statements, based on comments from
a State DOT. Also based on a State DOT comment, the FHWA further
clarifies the definition of STANDARD statements by adding that such
statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering
judgment or engineering studies. This prohibition has always been
inherent in the meaning of Standards, but the FHWA is aware of cases
where the lack of explicit text to this effect has resulted in the
misapplication of engineering judgment or studies. Some agencies
believed that Standards could be ignored based on engineering judgment
or an engineering study, which is not the case.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the definitions for various words
and phrases to better reflect accepted practice and terminologies and
for consistency in the usage of these terms in one or more Parts of the
MUTCD. Except as specifically discussed, there were a few comments of
an editorial nature regarding some of these definitions that the FHWA
incorporates in this final rule, as appropriate.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to specify that the height of a raised
pavement marker is not to exceed approximately 1 inch 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. Based on
recommendations from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a traffic control
device manufacturer, the FHWA changes the height requirement of a
raised pavement marker to not exceed 1 inch for a permanent marker or 2
inches for a temporary flexible marker and references Part 6 for
information on temporary flexible markers.
The FHWA clarifies the definition of ``intersection'' to reflect
comments from three State DOTs, two city DOTs, and an NCUTCD member
suggesting that several of the items within the definition were
confusing and needed clarification. The FHWA also clarifies the
definition of ``special purpose road'' by deleting the phrase ``or that
provides local access,'' because the definition in the 2003 MUTCD was
overly broad. The FHWA received comments from two local DOTs in
Washington State opposed to the FHWA's proposed clarification that
neighborhood residential streets are not special-purpose roads and
signing for such streets should be the same as that for other
conventional roads. One of those commenters suggested that neighborhood
residential streets should be treated differently from other
conventional roads and suggested that there should be two classes of
conventional roads: High-speed and low-speed. The FHWA disagrees with
the commenters and retains the definition, as proposed in the NPA in
Section 2A.01, and notes that neighborhood streets are two-lane
conventional roads within the definition for ``conventional road.''
The FHWA also adds definitions for a variety of new terms to the
list of definitions because they are used in the MUTCD and need to be
defined. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed using the term ``hybrid
signal;'' however, based on comments from two State DOTs and three city
DOTs, the FHWA changes the term ``hybrid signal'' to ``hybrid beacon''
throughout the MUTCD to emphasize that it is not intended that
approaching vehicles stop at a dark beacon face as they are required to
do at a dark traffic control signal in some States. To address comments
from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and seven agencies that operate toll
facilities, the FHWA adopts the definition for ``open road tolling
(ORT),'' rather than ``open road electronic toll collection'' as
proposed in the NPA, to match current use of the term. To reflect the
changes discussed previously in the MUTCD Introduction, in this final
rule the FHWA revises the term ``private property open to public
travel'' to ``private road open to public travel'' and clarifies the
definition to reflect that parking areas and driving aisles within
parking areas are not included. The FHWA also adds a definition of
``parking area'' since that term is used in the MUTCD. The FHWA also
makes minor revisions to several definitions to improve clarity and
consistency, as suggested by comments. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to
include in the definition of the term ``school zone'' that it is an
area where special law enforcement activity or increased fines for
traffic violations are authorized. An NCUTCD member suggested that such
enforcement is not required for the area to be considered a school
zone. The FHWA agrees, and deletes that criterion from the definition
in this final rule. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, two toll road
operators, and an NCUTCD member suggested that the proposed definition
of ``worker'' be revised to include workers that are not on foot, such
as equipment operators, toll collectors, etc. In addition, the NCUTCD,
a State DOT, and a toll road operator suggested that ``pathway'' also
be added to the definition of ``worker'' since workers on pathways are
also subject to potential harm. The FHWA decides to add pathway to the
[[Page 66738]]
definition, but does not make the other suggested change, because this
definition is general in nature and other specifics about workers are
covered in Section 6D.03.
The FHWA received many comments suggesting other new terms be added
to the list of definitions. In response to the comments received, the
FHWA decides not to add all of the terms suggested, but adds
definitions for ``accessible pedestrian signal detector,'' ``altered
speed zone,'' ``attended lane,'' ``average daily traffic (ADT),''
``downstream,'' ``dropped lane,'' ``ETC account only lane,'' ``exact
change lane,'' ``grade crossing,'' ``lane drop,'' ``open road tolling
point,'' ``overhead sign,'' ``plaque,'' ``post-mounted sign,''
``primary signal face,'' ``pushbutton information message,'' ``rail
traffic,'' ``signing,'' ``statutory speed zone,'' ``supplemental signal
face,'' ``toll booth,'' ``toll island,'' ``toll lane,'' ``toll plaza,''
``toll-ticket system,'' and ``upstream'' because they are used in the
MUTCD and should be defined.
33. The FHWA adds a new section following Section 1A.13. This new
section is numbered and titled Section 1A.14 Meanings of Acronyms and
Abbreviations in This Manual, and contains a STANDARD statement with 42
acronyms and abbreviations and their meanings. The FHWA adds this new
section to assist readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used
throughout the Manual. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed 38 acronyms and
abbreviations. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and two State DOTs suggested several
more acronyms and abbreviations. The FHWA conducted a review of terms
used more than once in the MUTCD text and/or figures and adds five
acronyms and their definitions in this final rule. For those terms used
only once, the FHWA decides not to include their acronyms and their
definitions in this final rule. The FHWA also deletes one of the
abbreviations, km/h, that was proposed in the NPA, because of the
deletion of metric values from the MUTCD.
34. In Section 1A.15 (numbered Section 1A.14 in the 2003 MUTCD)
Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA adds paragraph
02 indicating that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to
be abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS), the
abbreviations shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used and that, unless
indicated by an asterisk, these abbreviations shall only be used on
PCMSs. The original research \9\ on abbreviations was based on the need
to shorten words when used on portable changeable message signs because
of 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. A local DOT opposed
adding abbreviations to the MUTCD, preferring instead to allow their
use only on a case-by-case basis. The NCUTCD suggested that Table 1A-2
be moved to Part 6 because PCMSs are covered in Chapter 6F; however,
the FHWA decides not to relocate the table because PCMSs can be used
outside of temporary traffic control zones and some of the
abbreviations used on PCMSs apply to applications other than temporary
traffic control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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, and at the Web
site: http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA adds 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. A traffic engineering consultant opposed the use of
the abbreviation AM for two separate meanings (morning and AM radio);
however, the FHWA retains the abbreviation for both meanings based on
effective use of both abbreviations by several States and because
context of use differentiates the meanings. Based on comments from a
State DOT and a traffic engineering consultant regarding the use of the
abbreviation ``LA'' for lane, the FHWA places the note ``see Table 1A-
2'' in the column for the abbreviation for lane, and makes subsequent
changes in Table 1A-2 to clarify the use of the abbreviation ``LN'' for
use with PCMSs. Another State DOT suggested adding several
abbreviations and the FHWA agrees to add abbreviations for ``Saint,''
``Mount,'' and ``Mountain'' as ``ST,'' ``MT,'' and ``MTN,''
respectively. Although the FHWA proposed an abbreviation for township
in the NPA, the FHWA removes this abbreviation from this final rule
based on comments from a traffic engineering consultant. The FHWA also
removes several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather
than abbreviations (such as ``D'' for diesel on general service signs)
and revises several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the
specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed.
The FHWA removes 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 revises the
title of Table 1A-2 to ``Abbreviations That Shall Only Be Used on
Portable Changeable Message Signs'' and adds to Table 1A-2 some of the
abbreviations that were removed from Table 1A-1. The FHWA also revises
the content of Table 1A-2 to specifically list the abbreviations (some
of which can only be used with a prompt word) that are appropriate for
use only on PCMSs. A local DOT opposed the abbreviations for downtown
and slippery as being unclear. The FHWA disagrees, because the
abbreviations are based on research and experience, and retains in this
final rule the abbreviations for these terms that were proposed in the
NPA. Three State DOTs suggested that the abbreviations for eastbound
(and the other directions) be shortened to two letters. While the FHWA
agrees that traffic engineers understand the two-letter abbreviations
(EB, WB, NB, and SB), research has shown that those abbreviations are
not well understood by the public. Two State DOTs suggested that there
might be cases where abbreviations need to be used on static signs, and
as a result, the FHWA reviewed the list of abbreviations and has added
additional asterisks to items that are acceptable for use on permanent
CMSs and static signs. As discussed above, the FHWA revises the prompt
word for the abbreviation ``LN'' to include the roadway name and allows
the use of the combination ``[roadway name] LN'' to be used on traffic
devices other than PCMSs without the use of the prompt words ``Right,''
``Left,'' or ``Center.''
Discussion of Amendments Within Part 2--Signs --General
36. In this final rule, the FHWA reorganizes the information
regarding toll road signs and preferential and managed lane signs into
two separate chapters. Although the information was not organized in
the NPA in this manner, the FHWA received comments from several State
and local DOTs, as well as toll road operators, suggesting that the
information would be easier to find if it was contained in separate
Parts of the MUTCD. As discussed above under General, the FHWA
disagrees with adding new Parts but agrees with consolidating this
information into new chapters and adopts new Chapters 2F Toll Road
Signs and 2G Preferential and Managed Lane Signs in this final rule.
[[Page 66739]]
Discussion regarding specific elements of those chapters and comments
submitted to the docket are contained in the appropriate sections
below.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2A
37. In Section 2A.03 Standardization of Application, in the NPA the
FHWA proposed deleting paragraph 02, which recommends that signs should
be used only where justified by engineering judgment or studies.
Although ATSSA agreed with the proposal, three State DOTs, three local
DOTs, and two associations suggested retaining the statement because
determining the placement of signs is an engineering function. The FHWA
agrees and retains the paragraph in this final rule. The FHWA notes
that this statement is not a requirement for an engineering study for
the determination to use each individual sign because the determination
for the use of many regulatory signs is based upon State laws and local
agency ordinances.
38. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, as proposed in the NPA, the
FHWA relocates a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and the
associated OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The
FHWA incorporates this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely
place for a reader to look for information regarding sign design.
In addition, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds information
regarding the use of e-mail addresses to paragraphs 14 and 16. The use
of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site
addresses. Five State DOTs opposed the provisions and suggested that
Internet and e-mail addresses be allowed because they provide important
information for travelers, including information about work zones,
carpools, and toll facilities. The FHWA agrees that Internet
information can be helpful, but adopts the changes as proposed based
upon research\10\ that has identified the upper range of driver
workload to be 4 bits of information (4 individual characters) before
glancing back to the road. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Additional Investigations on Driver Information
Overload,'' NCHRP Report 488, 2003, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=1324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the FHWA in this final rule relocates and consolidates
existing and proposed text concerning the design of pictographs on
signs from other sections in chapters 2D, 2E, and 2J to a new paragraph
17 in Section 2A.06. This material on pictographs also incorporates the
FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-646(I).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This official interpretation can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_646.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The FHWA relocates the information in Section 2A.07 of the 2003
MUTCD to new Chapter 2L in order to consolidate all information on
changeable message signs into one chapter.
40. In Section 2A.07 Retroreflectivity and Illumination (Section
2A.08 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the
existing 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 should be illuminated unless engineering judgment
indicates that retroreflection will perform effectively without
illumination. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic control device
manufacturer all supported the change. A State DOT and two local DOTs
opposed the revision, because they felt that illumination of overhead
signs, particularly on conventional roadways, is not necessary. In this
final rule, the FHWA deletes the existing and proposed guidance about
illumination of overhead signs, because the minimum maintained
retroreflectivity levels for overhead signs that were adopted as
Revision 2 of the 2003 MUTCD\12\ provide for adequate performance of
these signs. Highway agencies can determine to illuminate overhead
signs based on their own policies or on studies of specific problem
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Sign retroreflectivity final rule was published in the
Federal Register at 72 FR 72574 on December 21, 2007 and can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph prohibiting 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 was
to clarify that LEDs are to be used only in the border or in the
legend/symbol and not in the background of signs. Although ATSSA
supported the clarification, three State DOTs, a local DOT, and a
traffic engineering consultant expressed confusion and possible
contradiction between this statement and others in the MUTCD. To
respond to the need to clarify the statement, and the desire to place
all of the information related to LEDs and their application in one
place, the FHWA adds paragraphs 07, 08, 11, and 12 to this section in
this final rule.
41. On January 22, 2008, after the NPA was published, the FHWA
adopted revision Number 2 of the 2003 MUTCD to add minimum maintained
retroreflectivity requirements for signs in Section 2A.09 (Section
2A.08 in the NPA) and a new Table 2A-3 detailing minimum
retroreflectivity values. The FHWA incorporates that text and table
into Section 2A.08 in this final rule, with a minor editorial
correction to the table to match the applicable text. The FHWA also in
this final rule adds to the table the new Bold Symbol signs (W2-7, 8
Double Side Roads and W11-16-22 Large Animals) that are adopted in
Chapter 2C, for consistency and accuracy regarding minimum
retroreflectivity values.
42. In Section 2A.10 Sign Colors (Section 2A.11 in the 2003 MUTCD),
the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add an OPTION statement that allows the
use of fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The
NCUTCD, a State DOT, two local agencies, and an NCUTCD member all
supported the use of fluorescent colors, while a traffic engineering
consultant opposed the addition of fluorescent colors without guidance
on when they should be used. The FHWA adopts this change in this final
rule with minor editorial revisions in order to give jurisdictions the
flexibility to use fluorescent colors when they determine they are
needed in order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part
of this change, the FHWA revises the color specifications in 23 CFR
part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the
fluorescent version of the color red, as proposed in the NPA. The color
specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and
fluorescent pink are already included in those tables of the appendix
to 23 CFR part 655, subpart F.
43. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to make several changes to Table
2A-5 Common Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in
the text. Specifically, the FHWA proposed 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 proposed 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
[[Page 66740]]
proposed text of proposed new Chapter 2M (numbered Chapter 2L in this
final rule) as discussed below. In addition, the FHWA proposed to note
that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and yellow background colors
may be used. The NCUTCD and ATSSA supported these changes. The FHWA
adopts the changes and, for consistency with Section 1A.12, the FHWA
adds a footnote to Table 2A-5 to indicate that the color purple is only
used on plaques or header panels mounted with other signs and only for
lanes restricted to vehicles with registered toll accounts, and that
purple is not used as a full sign background, nor is it used for toll
lanes with video/license plate recognition that any vehicle without a
registered toll account may use.
44. In Section 2A.11 Dimensions (Section 2A.12 in the 2003 MUTCD),
in this final rule the FHWA adds 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, as proposed in the NPA. While a
traffic control device manufacturer supported the referenced tables, a
State DOT, two city DOTs, and an NCUTCD member opposed the dimensions,
stating that they are too prescriptive, no longer allow jurisdictions
to use good engineering judgment in determining sign sizes, and could
result in larger signs. The FHWA disagrees, because the sizes specified
are appropriate to enable letter sizes sufficient to meet the
legibility needs of all drivers, including older drivers. These sizes
remain largely unchanged from the 2003 MUTCD and only a few specific
sign sizes were increased. The FHWA adopts this language to clarify how
the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA
also adds 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 Section 2A.11, and deletes repetitive text on use of the
various columns in the size tables that appeared in other sections
throughout the 2003 MUTCD.
45. In Section 2A.12 Symbols (Section 2A.13 in the 2003 MUTCD), the
FHWA adds 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. While a State DOT and a local DOT
supported these revisions, two other State DOTs and another local DOT
opposed the changes and suggested that it would be simpler to use the
same symbols for recreational and cultural interest areas on other
signs. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because many approved
symbols for recreational and cultural area guide signing are not
appropriate for use on warning or regulatory signs. 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 can affect the impact and can
be potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically
prohibited. The FHWA adopts this change as proposed in the NPA, with
minor editorial revisions.
46. In Section 2A.13 Word Messages (Section 2A.14 in the 2003
MUTCD), the FHWA revises the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend that
the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 1 inch of letter
height per 30 feet of legibility distance. In conjunction with this
proposed change, the FHWA deletes the SUPPORT statement that followed
this paragraph in the 2003 MUTCD. The NCUTCD and ATSSA supported these
changes. Four State DOTs, seven local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, a traffic
engineering consultant, and a citizen all opposed the change, stating
that the larger letter heights would create larger signs, and
suggesting that there was a lack of significant research and
justification. The FHWA notes that the majority of sign sizes remain
the same as the 2003 MUTCD and only a few specific sign designs which
had legends too small to be read from an appropriate distance were
increased in size. Additionally, signs in good condition may remain in
place as long as they are serviceable until they are replaced under the
periodic maintenance program of each agency. The FHWA adopts these
changes in order to be consistent with recommendations from the Older
Driver Handbook \13\ 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 change will generally not impact the design
of guide signs because the provisions in the 2003 MUTCD for guide sign
letter heights already provided sufficient legibility distances for 20/
40 vision in most cases. The sizes of 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 change
in letter height 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSSA, a State DOT, a research institute, and a traffic engineering
consultant suggested that the FHWA add the positive contrast Clearview
font into the SHSM and MUTCD based on the research done under the
experimental use of the font demonstrating significant legibility
enhancements for older drivers. The FHWA did not propose such an
addition in the NPA and the FHWA disagrees with the commenters and does
not add the font. Although the Clearview font received Interim Approval
in September 2004 for positive-contrast guide sign legends only, some
research to date has shown that negative contrast mixed-case Clearview
legends are not as legible as standard SHSM alphabets. The practicality
of maintaining two separate alphabet systems, one for positive-contrast
and one for negative-contrast legends, has also been taken into
consideration. Further, the alternative alphabet did not undergo any
testing on numerals and special characters, which have been reported to
be problematic from a legibility standpoint, nor has any testing been
performed on a narrower series. It would be premature to categorically
adopt the alternative alphabet for a marginal theoretical improvement
in legibility where no supporting evidence of a demonstrable
improvement has been reported by those agencies who have erected
signing using the alternate alphabets. Highway agencies can continue to
use the Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs
under the provisions of the FHWA's Interim Approval IA-5 dated
September 2, 2004.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Interim Approval IA-5 can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSSA, a State DOT, a local agency, and a citizen supported the
FHWA's proposal to eliminate the option to use all upper-case letters
for names of places, streets, and highways and to require that such
names be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial
upper-case letters. However, 5
[[Page 66741]]
State DOTs, 10 local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, an association of local
counties, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the change and
suggested that the use of all upper-case letters remain an option, or
that the FHWA change the proposed STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE
statement. Many of the commenters expressed concern with cost and
thought that while the mixed-case words might be easier to read, the
amount of improvement in legibility did not justify the cost. The FHWA
adopts the STANDARD requirement for mixed-case lettering for names of
places, streets, and highways because published research \15\ supports
the enhanced legibility of mixed-case legends in comparison to all
upper-case legends. The FHWA also notes that under the systematic
upgrading provisions of Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, existing signs in good condition can remain for
the remainder of their service life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Research on this topic is cited and discussed in ``Highway
Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no.
FHWA-RD-01-103, May 2001, which can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds text in Section 2A.13 regarding fractions,
hyphens, and relationships of upper case to lower case letters in
mixed-case words used in word messages in this final rule, for
consistency with other MUTCD provisions in Chapters 2D and 2E,
information in the SHSM book, and accepted sign design practices
necessary for proper sign word message legibility.
47. In Section 2A.14 Sign Borders (Section 2A.15 in the 2003
MUTCD), the FHWA clarifies the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the
corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another.
The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA in support of this revision and
the FHWA adopts the proposed text with editorial revisions in this
final rule to better facilitate the use of sign fabrication software
with inset borders.
48. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2A.15
Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs. This section 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 NCUTCD, ATSSA, and several State
and local DOTs, NCUTCD members, and traffic engineering consultants
commented on the various conspicuity enhancement methods proposed in
the NPA. Some commenters felt that having a large variety of methods
for sign conspicuity would not help with uniformity, and therefore the
methods should be deleted altogether, or at least the number of items
reduced. Other commenters provided comments about the specific methods.
Several commenters suggested that a red strip (item F in the NPA)
should only be permitted on signs indicating that a stop, yield, or
prohibition is involved with the sign. To avoid confusion, the FHWA
does not adopt item F in this final rule. The FHWA believes that adding
specific methods for increasing sign conspicuity will actually result
in more uniform use of conspicuity methods, because agencies will have
access to a list of optional uses, rather than creating an unlimited
number of their own methods. The methods contained in the OPTION
reflect widespread and successful practices by State and local
agencies, and as a result, the FHWA incorporates the methods, with
minor editorial changes for consistency with other MUTCD sections, in
this final rule.
The New York State DOT opposed the FHWA's proposed prohibition of
the use of strobe lights for conspicuity of highway signs, stating that
there is no research indicating that their use is dangerous and that
information about their use in New York shows that they can have a very
positive effect on highway safety. The FHWA disagrees and notes that
published reports \16\ on experimentation with the application of
strobe lights to traffic signals have not demonstrated lasting safety
effects and therefore it is unlikely that application of strobes to
other traffic control devices would have lasting effects. The FHWA also
notes that New York State has not provided any documentation of
positive effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Evaluation of Strobe Lights in Red Lens of Traffic
Signals,'' by Benjamin H. Cottrell, Virginia Transportation Research
Council, was published in 1995 in Transportation Research Record
number 1495, which is available for purchase from the Transportation
Research Board's bookstore, which can be accessed at the following
Internet Web site: http://pubsindex.trb.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA incorporates this new section to provide improved
uniformity of enhanced conspicuity treatments to benefit road users.
49. The FHWA received several comments associated with Figure 2A-1
Examples of Enhanced Conspicuity for Signs. Many of the comments were
the same as those expressed for the written text in Section 2A.15.
Based on comments from a State DOT, the FHWA adds two new drawings
illustrating the use of the words ``NEW'' and ``NOTICE'' on the yellow
sign panel and renumbers the drawings accordingly. The FHWA also adds
that orange flags may be used on drawing B and deletes the drawing
showing the use of a red strip of retroreflective sheeting on a
regulatory sign panel.
50. In Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA adds to
paragraph 06 an additional recommended criterion for locating signs
where they do not obscure the line of sight to approaching vehicles on
a major street for drivers who are stopped on minor-street approaches.
The FHWA received comments from two State DOTs and a local DOT
supporting this proposed revision and the FHWA adopts this change in
this final rule to reflect good engineering practice and improved
safety.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds to paragraph 10 that the
placement of community wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should
have a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA received a
comment from a State DOT and local DOT in support of this addition and
incorporates it in this final rule to clarify the priority of sign type
placement, reflecting the addition to the manual of new types of guide
signs.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph to the last
GUIDANCE statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP
and YIELD signs at intersections, and to clarify that the dimension
shown in Figure 2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs
from the edge of the traveled way of the intersected roadway is
GUIDANCE. A State DOT, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member agreed with
this statement. In this final rule the FHWA moves this statement to
Section 2B.10 based on a comment, since the statement is more
appropriately related to the content of that section.
51. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD regarding proposed
revisions to Figure 2A-2, and as a result, changes the title to
``Examples of Heights and Lateral Locations of Sign Installations'' to
indicate that these are examples and to be consistent with the text in
Sections 2A.16, 2A.18, and 2A.19. Although a State DOT, an NCUTCD
member, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the use of the 12-
foot dimension between the edge of the pavement and the sign in
drawings A and D, the FHWA disagrees and retains the 12-foot dimension
in this final rule, because the guidance text in Section 2A.19
recommends the 12-foot dimension, and therefore the figure should
reflect the text. The FHWA received similar comments about the
[[Page 66742]]
lateral offset dimensions in Figure 2A-3; however, the FHWA retains the
offsets as shown in the NPA, because the MUTCD text remains unchanged.
The dimensions in the figure were merely corrected to maintain
consistency with the text.
52. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA adopts the change of
paragraph 01 to a STANDARD, as proposed in the NPA, 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
incorporates this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this
section are mandatory, including in relation to pedestrian
considerations.
The FHWA also clarifies that mounting heights are to be measured
vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level of the edge of the
traveled way. The FHWA also adds text to clarify that a minimum height
of 7 feet 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 adds that a sign shall not project more
than 4 inches into a pedestrian facility if the bottom of a secondary
sign that is mounted below another sign is mounted lower than 7 feet.
The FHWA had proposed these provisions as a GUIDANCE statement in the
NPA; however, based on comments from the Utah DOT and an advocacy group
for the blind, the FHWA changes this to a STANDARD statement in this
final rule to be consistent with requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act as set forth in ADAAG provisions \17\ regarding signs
in the vicinity of pedestrian activity and in order to make the
mounting height language consistent throughout the Manual. In addition,
the FHWA reorganizes the order of the text within the STANDARD
statements in this section for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA received a comment
from a State DOT expressing the need to reconcile the compliance date
for the existing statement in this Section that requires post-mounted
supports to be crashworthy if in the clear zone. The FHWA notes that
there is an existing target compliance date of January 17, 2013, that
was established with the final rule \18\ for the 2003 Edition of the
MUTCD for crashworthiness of sign supports for roads with posted speed
limits of 50 mph or higher. No specific target compliance date was
established for roads with posted speed limits of 45 mph or less and
for all roads with unposted speed limits. The FHWA believes that no
target compliance date is needed for crashworthiness of sign supports
on these lower speed roads and that systematic upgrading processes will
suffice in ultimately achieving crashworthiness of all sign supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Federal Register Notice for this Final Rule, dated
November 20, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 224, Page 65496-65583) can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/texts/2125-AE67.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2B
54. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory
Signs, the FHWA adopts the change of paragraph 01 to a STANDARD
statement to clarify that regulatory signs are rectangular unless
specifically designated otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA
also adds a reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings \19\
book for sign design elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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 relocates the first two paragraphs of Section 2B.54
of the 2003 MUTCD to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02, because
the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word messages and
symbols that is more relevant in this section.
55. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA had
proposed in the NPA to reference a new Table 2B-2 with minimum sizes
for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane conventional
roads. Based on comments from the NCUTCD and an NCUTCD member, the FHWA
instead adds a column to Table 2B-1 for multi-lane conventional roads
in this final rule, rather than an entire new table. To address these
comments, as well as those from two State DOTs, concerning specific
regulatory signs identified in Table 2B-1 other than STOP signs, the
FHWA also adds two exemptions to the requirement to use the larger sign
sizes on multi-lane conventional roads: (1) For the size of signs
mounted in the median on the left-hand side of the roadway that are in
addition to the signs placed on the right-hand side and (2) for multi-
lane conventional roads with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less. The
FHWA received comments in opposition to the larger sign sizes,
primarily because of cost concerns, from three local DOTs and a traffic
engineering consultant. The FHWA disagrees with these comments because
any impacts are mitigated by the systematic upgrading provisions (23
CFR 655.603(d)(1)) that enable highway agencies to upgrade to the
larger sizes as the existing signs are replaced at the end of their
service life. The FHWA believes that the new text and information in
the table is necessary 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
because of the potential blockage of signs by other vehicles.
In the NPA, the FHWA also included a requirement that the minimum
size of 36 inches x 36 inches shall be used for STOP signs that face
multi-lane approaches. While ATSSA, the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a
local DOT supported the requirement, a State DOT and six city DOTs
opposed the change, particularly as it related to STOP signs on low-
speed roads. The FHWA adopts the requirement to use larger STOP signs,
because increased STOP sign sizes have been shown to reduce crashes by
19%.\20\ However, the FHWA clarifies the minimum size requirement for
STOP signs as 36 inches x 36 inches facing side roads (one or more
lanes) where they intersect multi-lane highways that have speed limits
of 45 mph or higher. For multi-lane highways or streets that have speed
limits of 40 mph or less, the STOP signs on the side-road approaches
shall follow the sizes shown for conventional roads in Table 2B-1. STOP
signs that face traffic on the multi-lane highway shall be a minimum
size of 36 inches x 36 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Crash Reduction Factors Desktop Reference,'' publication
number FHWA-SA-07-015, September, 2007, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.transportation.org/sites/scohts/docs/Crash%20Reduction%20Factors%20Desktop%20Reference%2012-19-07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adds a
GUIDANCE statement that the minimum size for regulatory signs facing
traffic on exit and entrance ramps should be the size identified in
Table 2B-1 for the mainline roadway classification listed for each of
the columns.
56. The FHWA received comments related to specific sign sizes in
Table 2B-2 proposed in the NPA. As discussed above, the FHWA combines
proposed Table 2B-2 into Table 2B-1 in this final rule. The NCUTCD, two
State DOTs, two local DOTs, two NCUTCD
[[Page 66743]]
members, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the larger sizes
of various signs, including YIELD signs, DO NOT ENTER signs, ONE WAY
signs, parking signs, and signs used on traffic signal mast arms. The
FHWA adopts the larger sizes as proposed in the NPA because of the
critical nature of the information conveyed by these signs. These
larger sizes are more legible, especially to older drivers, and
therefore these critical message signs merit larger sized legends.
57. The FHWA makes several changes to Table 2B-1 Regulatory Sign
and Plaque Sizes. These changes include adding more sizes in the
``Minimum'' column for use in low-speed environments and adding several
more signs and supplemental plaques to the table to correspond with
other changes within Part 2. A local DOT opposed many of the minimum
sizes shown in the table because they are larger than those used in
that State's urban areas. The commenter believes that in urban areas
the space available for signs along sidewalks and medians can often be
very narrow, making it difficult to place larger signs without
encroaching into the street, buildings, landscaping, utilities,
signals, or pedestrian right-of-way. A traffic engineering consultant
questioned the justification for the increased sizes and expressed
concern about the wind loading on traffic signal mast arms because of
the larger sign sizes. A State DOT and a local DOT also expressed the
desire to use smaller sign sizes on traffic signal mast arms and for
some other signs. The FHWA reiterates that the increase in sign and
plaque sizes is to improve driver recognition and response time, with
the intent of meeting the needs of road users with 20/40 visual acuity.
Letter heights smaller than 6 inches become problematic in meeting the
needs of drivers with 20/40 visual acuity, therefore the FHWA adopts in
this final rule the proposed increases in the sizes of signs. The FHWA
also received several comments from the NCUTCD and its members
suggesting additional revisions beyond those shown in the NPA that the
FHWA incorporates in this final rule. These revisions include adding
signs to the table that were inadvertently not included in the NPA and
adjusting the sizes of some of the signs to reflect the larger letter
sizes associated with 20/40 visual acuity as discussed previously under
Chapter 2A.
58. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.04
Right-of-Way at Intersections. This section contains information
contained in Section 2B.05 of the 2003 MUTCD. In addition, as proposed
in the NPA, the FHWA adds recommendations on the factors that should be
considered in establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and
YIELD signs. A State DOT and a city DOT supported these new criteria. A
State DOT supported the majority of the criteria, but suggested that
approach speeds should not be included in the conditions. The FHWA
agrees and deletes that condition in this final rule. Two city DOTs
suggested that the criteria, particularly item B, required too much
data collection, which can be expensive and require resources beyond
those available at the local level. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the
remaining criteria, because the FHWA believes an engineering
evaluation, which includes data collection, needs to be performed for
STOP and YIELD sign applications, which are critical right-of-way
controls. The additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical
progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds paragraph 05, to the existing
GUIDANCE statement that YIELD signs should not be used for speed
control. The 2003 MUTCD already included the recommendation that STOP
signs not be used for speed control. A local DOT supported the addition
of YIELD signs to this recommendation; however, a State DOT and a local
DOT suggested that the FHWA revise the statement to indicate that STOP
and YIELD signs should not be used ``exclusively'' for speed control,
because there are occasions where STOP and YIELD signs serve a
secondary purpose as speed control measures. The FHWA disagrees with
revising the language and notes that a system of alternating two-way
stops remains allowable for neighborhood traffic control.
The FHWA also adds 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. Much of this
information was in Section 2B.05 of the 2003 MUTCD; however, the FHWA
adds a specific case regarding channelized turn lanes to the list of
cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used, reflecting common
practice.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement
prohibiting the use of STOP signs and YIELD signs on different
approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches
conflict with or oppose each other, except as noted in Section 2B.09.
Two State DOTs, a city DOT, and an NCUTCD member opposed this statement
because they felt that there are circumstances where this practice
should be allowed. The FHWA disagrees, because this prohibition is
needed for consistency with the adopted STANDARD statement for use of
STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with traffic signal operation, and
the FHWA notes that an EXCEPT RIGHT TURN R1-10P plaque is incorporated
in this final rule in Section 2B.05 to address many of the situations
cited by the commenters.
Finally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA
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.\21\ Although two city DOTs opposed this
language, in part because of concerns about liability, three State DOTs
and a city DOT supported the language, with editorial changes. Many of
the comments pertained to incorporating additional information from the
Official Interpretation into the MUTCD. The FHWA does not believe that
the MUTCD is the appropriate location for this information. The FHWA
does, however, revise the text in this final rule to clarify the
language on how folding STOP signs are to be installed and manually
retrieved in conjunction with signal operation upon restoration of
electrical power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. The FHWA renumbers and retitles Section 2B.04 of the 2003 MUTCD
to Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and ALL WAY Plaque. As part of this change,
the FHWA proposed to revise the STANDARD statement 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. ATSSA, a local DOT,
a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen supported the new
requirements, while five State DOTs, four local DOTs and an association
representing local DOTs, and a NCUTCD member opposed the proposed
requirements. Many of the commenters felt that all or some of the
existing 2-WAY, 3-WAY, or 4-WAY plaques should be retained because they
are understood by road users, and to replace the signs would be
unnecessarily expensive. The FHWA disagrees for two reasons: (1) The
ALL-WAY plaque is the same size as the 2-
[[Page 66744]]
WAY, 3-WAY, and 4-WAY plaques and the required replacements can be
accomplished through the systematic upgrading processes of Section
655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations; and (2) the
word message ``ALL-WAY'' more clearly communicates that all approaches
are required to stop, which is critical information for road users
facing a STOP control at an intersection. The FHWA adopts the
requirements, as proposed, 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 adds 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. A city DOT opposed this recommendation, suggesting that
it should be either an Option, or eliminated from the MUTCD. The FHWA
disagrees and adopts the change to encourage the use of these plaques
at intersections that need increased driver awareness regarding an
unexpected right-of-way control. A State DOT opposed the revision
because the regulatory and warning signs should not be installed on the
same post. The FHWA adds language to Section 2A.16 to clarify that
these plaques may be posted below a STOP sign.
Finally, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION allowing
the use of a 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. ATSSA, a State DOT, and a local DOT
supported this new plaque and associated language, while a State DOT
and a local DOT opposed it, citing their beliefs that it might cause
conflicts between vehicles that have to stop with those that do not
have to stop and that it will reduce the integrity of the STOP sign.
The FHWA disagrees and adopts this change to give agencies flexibility
in establishing right-of-way controls for such special conditions.
Since this is an optional use, agencies are not required to use this
sign. The Sign Synthesis Study \22\ found that at least 12 States have
developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose. The adopted sign
provides for the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. The FHWA relocates much of the information in Section 2B.05
STOP Sign Applications of the 2003 MUTCD to Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way
at Intersections. The FHWA adds additional language to the remaining
GUIDANCE statement in Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications that lists
conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered. A
State DOT supported the language with the criteria for STOP signs, and
several commenters provided editorial comments or asked questions. The
FHWA reiterates that the language in this section provides agencies
with specific and quantitative guidance regarding the use of STOP signs
only, while the guidance and criteria set forth in Section 2B.05
encompass the need for right-of-way control in the form of YIELD and
STOP conditions. The FHWA also received a comment from a retail owner
suggesting that this section does not specifically address the use of
STOP signs in parking areas. As discussed previously regarding the
MUTCD Introduction, the FHWA exempts parking lots from MUTCD
applicability.
61. The FHWA deletes Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement from the
2003 MUTCD because most of the text in this section is incorporated
into Section 2B.10 of this final rule.
62. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, as proposed in the
NPA, the FHWA clarifies 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. Four State DOTs, two
local DOTs, two NCUTCD members, five bicycle/pedestrian advocacy
associations, and four citizens supported the changes to this section.
A State DOT and a local DOT expressed concern about portions of the
section that were removed that would allow YIELD signs to be used
instead of STOP signs at some locations and the removal of the
visibility requirement for YIELD sign installations. The FHWA disagrees
with these commenters because the text changes in Section 2B.09 do not
materially change the meaning of the provisions regarding where YIELD
signs may be used. The FHWA adopts this change to provide uniformity in
signing at roundabouts and to reflect the prevailing practices of
modern roundabout design.
Two traffic engineering consultants suggested that YIELD signs be
prohibited to assign the right-of-way on all approaches to an
intersection, other than for a roundabout intersection. The FHWA agrees
and clarifies the proposed STANDARD statement in this final rule so
that it is explicitly clear that YIELD signs shall not be used to
control the right-of-way on all approaches to an intersection, other
than for all approaches to a roundabout intersection, for consistency
with requirements for traffic signal controlled intersections and STOP
controlled intersections.
63. The FHWA retitles Section 2B.10 to ``STOP Sign or YIELD Sign
Placement'' to reflect the relocation of language regarding STOP sign
placement from Section 2B.06 of the 2003 MUTCD to this section.
In the NPA the FHWA proposed to delete the requirement from
paragraph 01 that YIELD signs be placed on both the left-hand and
right-hand sides of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane
and instead makes this a GUIDANCE statement in paragraph 16. In concert
with this change, the FHWA also proposed 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. A
local DOT and a traffic engineering consultant supported these changes,
and the FHWA adopts this language to reflect current practice on
signing roundabout approaches and to allow agencies additional
flexibility.
To address comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a local DOT,
the FHWA relocates the GUIDANCE statement recommending that STOP and
YIELD signs not be placed further than 50 feet back from the edge of
the pavement of the intersected roadway to this section in this final
rule. In the NPA, this statement was proposed in Section 2A.16.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a paragraph to the STANDARD
that prohibited the mounting of items other than retroreflective strips
on the supports, official traffic control signs, sign installation
dates, inventory stickers, anti-vandalism stickers, and bar codes on
the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs or on their supports. To
address a comment from a State DOT suggesting that the FHWA clarify the
intent of the language, the FHWA separates the information into three
paragraphs in this final rule. Paragraph 04 details the placement of
items on the fronts of STOP or Yield signs, paragraph 05 describes
items placed on the backs of STOP or Yield signs, and paragraph 06
describes the placement of items on the fronts or backs of STOP or
YIELD signs supports.
[[Page 66745]]
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA 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. While two DOTs and an NCUTCD member
supported this language, four State DOTs, two local DOTs, and a citizen
opposed this language, because they felt that DO NOT ENTER signs should
be allowed to be mounted on the back of STOP signs without increasing
the size of the STOP sign to the extent required. Two local DOTs and a
citizen opposed the language in general, because they felt that a sign
mounted on the back of a STOP or YIELD sign would show its bare
aluminum side, which would serve to highlight or frame the STOP or
YIELD sign. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because it is
critical to assure that the shape of these very important intersection
right-of-way signs can be discerned from the opposite direction of
approach. The FHWA adopts these changes to clarify the GUIDANCE
statement 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 adds
that, if needed, the size of the STOP or YIELD sign should be increased
to accomplish this recommendation.
The FHWA adds paragraph 16 recommending that an additional YIELD
sign be placed on the left-hand side of the multi-lane roundabout
approach if a raised splitter island is available. A State DOT and a
traffic engineering consultant supported this recommendation, while a
local agency felt that it should be an option, rather than a
recommendation. The FHWA believes that the left-hand side YIELD sign is
important for multi-lane approaches to roundabouts due to the curvature
at the roundabout entry and this sign should be provided if a splitter
island is present. The FHWA adopts the NPA language in this final rule.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds paragraph 19 prohibiting the
placement of multiple STOP signs or multiple YIELD signs on the same
support facing the same direction. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and two
local DOTs supported this change. The FHWA adopts this change to
prohibit this practice, because there have been no studies or research
documenting any safety benefits of this practice and it is potentially
confusing, and there are many other acceptable and proven methods of
adding emphasis, such as detailed in Section 2A.15.
64. The FHWA retitles Section 2B.11 to ``Yield Here to Pedestrians
Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs'' to reflect additional
language in the STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statement that FHWA adds
to this section regarding the use of Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs.
The language is consistent with similar language in Part 7 regarding
the placement of these signs, as well as stop and yield lines. The FHWA
proposed adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign because some State
laws require motorists to come to a full stop for, rather than just
yield to, pedestrians in a crosswalk. The NCUTCD, a local DOT, and a
bicycle/pedestrian advocacy association supported the changes; however,
a State DOT and an NCUTCD member opposed restricting the use of R1-5
Yield (Stop) Here to Pedestrian signs to only multi-lane approaches.
The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed and notes that these signs were
developed as a countermeasure for the multiple threat situations for
pedestrians and there is no need for advance yielding (stopping) on a
single lane approach to a crosswalk.
In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add STANDARD and
OPTION statements at the end of the section regarding the combination
use of the Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian (R1-5 series) sign
in the vicinity of the Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11-2) sign. The
FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, three State DOTs, four local
DOTs, and two traffic consultants who supported the concept, but found
the wording confusing. As a result, the FHWA adopts a revised STANDARD
statement in this final rule that restricts blocking the view of the
W11-2 sign, or placing it on the same post as a R1-5 series sign. The
FHWA also adopts paragraph 05 in the OPTION statement to allow
Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead where Yield Here to
(Stop Here for) signs have been installed in advance of the crosswalk.
The FHWA also allows 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 adopts this
new language to be consistent with similar language that is being
adopted in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's Official Interpretation
2-566.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-566(I), July 27,
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing
Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and
OPTION statements regarding the use of the 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.
ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a local DOT supported the inclusion of the
Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs and their design, while another
NCUTCD member, two State DOTs, and a local DOT opposed the signs and/or
their designs because they wanted more flexibility. The FHWA disagrees
with the commenters and adds the text as proposed and this sign, with
the design as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule. This is based on
the Sign Synthesis Study,\24\ which revealed that some agencies use an
overhead sign because it is needed in some applications. The FHWA adds
this sign to Table 2B-1, Figure 2B-2, and to the appropriate text and
figures in Part 7, for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to insert new GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements regarding conditions and criteria to be used in determining
when In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs should be used at unsignalized
intersections. The NCUTCD, an NCUTCD member, 2 State DOTs, and 3 local
DOTs opposed the recommended criteria, specifically the criteria to use
the signs at crossing locations where there are 25 or more pedestrians
per hour. The FHWA agrees and removes the criteria from this final
rule, and adopts the OPTION statement allowing highway agencies to
develop criteria for determining the applicability of In-Street
Pedestrian Crossing signs.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA also adds paragraph 03 requiring
that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, be placed only in
the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane
line, or on a median island. While an NCUTCD member supported the
language, two State DOTs and two local DOTs opposed the language,
suggesting that locating this sign in the crosswalk was not the
original intent of this device, and that doing so might actually pose a
safety issue by distracting or obstructing the pedestrian's or driver's
view. The FHWA received comments from a City DOT opposed to the
proposed language restricting the location of overhead pedestrian
crossing signs to over the roadway at the crosswalk location and
[[Page 66746]]
prohibiting the installation of the signs at signalized locations. The
commenter felt that there are unique locations where the requirements
need to be relaxed to allow flexibility. The FHWA disagrees with these
comments, because the experimentation that led to the original
inclusion of the R1-6 In-Street Pedestrian Sign in the MUTCD only
involved signs located in the street itself, where it is highly visible
to the approaching driver, and did not include any application of the
R1-6 sign behind the curb. The FHWA does not have any information that
would support placement of this sign at locations out of the roadway
itself. The FHWA adopts the language in this final rule to be
consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on
FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(1).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(I), July 23,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/7_64.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in the NPA the FHWA proposed revising paragraph 10 to
specify 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 a yellow background
area. The FHWA adopts this language, with editorial edits, based on
comments from two State DOTs suggesting the need to clarify the color
of the background area.
The FHWA also proposed revising paragraph 11 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. A local DOT and a
traffic control device manufacturer supported this provision, while a
State DOT opposed the language, stating that drums, cones, and other
types of devices used within roadways are not required to have this
ability. The FHWA adopts this language in this final rule 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.
Finally, the FHWA adds paragraph 13 that provides requirements for
the mounting heights of In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. A traffic
control device manufacturer opposed the mounting height requirements;
however, FHWA adopts these requirements as proposed in the NPA to
preclude incorrect mounting of this sign when it is on an island and to
assure that the signs are crashworthy by not being mounted above
vehicle windshield height .\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Information on the FHWA's crash-testing of in-street signs
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway%5Fdept/policy_guide/road_hardware/breakaway/signsupports.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign, the FHWA proposed in the NPA
to add to the STANDARD a 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. A State DOT and a local DOT
supported this new language, while a State DOT, a local DOT, and an
advocacy association opposed the language because they felt it was too
restrictive. In addition, a State DOT, an association of local DOTs,
and six local DOTs expressed concern that some roadways do not have
volumes that are high enough to allow the collection of speed
distributions, and there are some types of roads, such as residential
streets and school zones, where the free-flow speed is actually the
safety issue. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule 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
(such as neighborhood roads and school zones), do not require an
engineering study. The FHWA also proposed to add a new SUPPORT
statement to provide additional information about the difference
between a statutory speed limit and an altered speed zone. A citizen
opposed the descriptions because he believes they offer a way to avoid
doing a proper speed survey and thus enable jurisdictions to post
unreasonably low speed limits. The FHWA disagrees, as this is only a
SUPPORT statement that does not affect the other provisions regarding
studies to establish speed limits, and the FHWA adopts the SUPPORT
statement in this final rule to clarify the difference between
statutory speed limits and altered speed zones.
The FHWA also proposed to add a new OPTION statement to permit 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. A State DOT, a local DOT, and a retired traffic
engineer supported the new language; however, a State DOT opposed the
language, because it felt that such plaques can be difficult to enforce
and have the potential to be abused. The FHWA disagrees with the
commenter and adopts this change in this final rule, with editorial
clarification, to reflect common practice in some urban areas, as
documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,\27\ and because it is often
unnecessary and overly costly to install a speed limit sign on every
minor residential street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``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 proposed to add paragraph 09 to recommend that a
Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is being
reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates
the need for advance notice. One State DOT supported this new
recommendation; however, another State DOT opposed this recommendation,
stating that to install reduced speed limit signs in advance of every
10 mph reduction in speed would be infeasible. A turnpike authority
suggested that speed limit drops of more than 10 mph at a time should
be discouraged. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule because
the practice of installing reduced speed signs in advance of speed
zones with more than a 10 mph reduction has been in place in many
States for decades. In addition, some States and local highway agencies
have engaged in the practice of establishing speed limits more than 10
mph lower than the rural statutory speed limit when entering a town or
commercial area, and road users need to be warned of such situations.
The FHWA also adopts this change in order to provide consistency with
changes contained in Chapter 2C.
The FHWA clarifies the STANDARD statement proposed in the NPA for
the establishment of speed zones on the basis of an engineering study
of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles, by adding
SUPPORT and OPTION statements in this final rule in response to
comments from the NCUTCD. That organization suggested more
clarification as to engineering studies that should be conducted to
reevaluate non-statutory speed limits and the posting of altered speed
zones. The FHWA believes these adopted changes will assist agencies
with reevaluating non-statutory speed limits on segments of their
roadways that have
[[Page 66747]]
undergone significant changes since the last review; such as the
addition or elimination of parking, change in the number of travel
lanes, changes in bicycle lane configuration, or signal coordination
and in determining speed limits in speed zones.
As discussed above, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to add in
paragraph 01 of the STANDARD statement a requirement that the
engineering study that is performed to determine a speed zone shall
include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing
vehicles. Based on a comment from the Regulatory and Warning Signs
Technical Committee of the NCUTCD to include additional guidance and
supporting information for the establishment of speed zones in the
vicinity of signalized intersections, the FHWA adds paragraph 13 to the
GUIDANCE statement to recommend that speed studies on signalized
intersection approaches be taken outside the influence area of the
traffic control signal, which is generally considered to be
approximately \1/2\ mile, to avoid obtaining skewed results for the
85th percentile speed. Following this GUIDANCE, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT
statement regarding the use of advance warning signs in the vicinity of
signalized intersections. The FHWA believes that this new text provides
agencies with additional information that is useful in establishing
speed zones and gaining motorists' awareness.
Finally, the FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE statement to indicate that
Speed Limit signs should not be used to warn of an advisory speed for a
roadway condition, based on a comment from the NCUTCD that this is
needed for consistency with the provisions of Section 2C.08 Advisory
Speed Plaque. The FHWA also adds a reference to Section 2C.08 for
information on advisory speed plaques for these conditions.
67. In Section 2B.17 Higher Fines Signs and Plaque, the FHWA
proposed changes to OPTION, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and SUPPORT statements.
In this final rule, the FHWA revises the existing and proposed text to
be consistent with similar provisions in Chapter 6F and Chapter 7B for
the application of Higher Fines signs and plaque.
68. The FHWA relocates all of the text from Section 2B.18 Location
of Speed Limit Sign of the 2003 MUTCD to Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign
(see item 66 above).
69. In Section 2B.18 (Section 2B.19 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA
changes the title to ``Movement Prohibition Signs'' to incorporate the
inclusion of the No Straight Through (R3-27) sign in the GUIDANCE
statement in this section. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, a State DOT, two local
DOTs, an association, and two citizens supported this new sign,
although some of the commenters also suggested that the signs be
allowed for other applications. A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed
the new sign because they felt that it was unnecessary. The commenters
suggested that the DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign serves the same purpose.
The FHWA disagrees and adopts the symbolic No Straight Through sign as
proposed in the NPA. The 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 new sign uses the standard Canadian MUTCD RB-10
sign as the basis of the design. The FHWA adds an illustration of this
new sign to Figure 2B-4.
The FHWA also changes paragraph 09 regarding the use of Turn
Prohibition Signs adjacent to signal heads from an OPTION to a GUIDANCE
statement. Although a local DOT opposed strengthening this language to
a recommendation, the FHWA believes that for conspicuity reasons, these
signs should be mounted near the appropriate signal face, and this
reflects typical practice. Therefore, the FHWA adopts in this final
rule the proposed changes to a recommended practice rather than an
option.
Additionally, the FHWA adds 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 language also indicates that Roundabout Directional
Arrow and/or ONE WAY signs are the appropriate signs to indicate the
travel direction for this condition. The NCUTCD and two of its members,
a State DOT, two local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant
supported the proposed language. Some comments in support of the
proposal also indicated that there might be unique existing situations
where the design of the roundabout is confusing and/or driver
expectancy is such that a No Left Turn sign is needed to correct driver
behavior at roundabout approaches. The FHWA disagrees with those
comments and suggests that the Roundabout Directional Arrow and/or ONE
WAY signs can be used to help in those situations. The FHWA adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA to provide uniformity in signing at
roundabouts and to reduce the possibility of confusion for drivers that
intend to turn left by circumnavigating the roundabout.
70. In Section 2B.19 (Section 2B.20 of the 2003 MUTCD) Intersection
Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposed 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 NCUTCD, an NCUTCD member, a local DOT, and a citizen supported the
language that lane control signs should be mounted overhead. Eight
State DOTs and seven local DOTs, however, suggested that placing lane
control signs overhead, as well as using oversized post-mounted signs,
should be an option, rather than a recommendation, because of the costs
involved. The FHWA adopts the recommendation to use overhead signs for
the stated conditions, however to address the comments from the DOTs,
the FHWA provides additional information in this final rule to clarify
alternatives to mounting overhead signs when it is impractical to do
so. These changes are adopted to enhance safety and efficiency by
providing for more effective signing for potentially confusing
intersection configurations.
The FHWA also proposed 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. ATSSA, the NCUTCD, an
NCUTCD member, a State DOT, and two local DOTs supported the arrow
shapes, while another NCUTCD member thought that including four
different ways to show each movement lacked uniformity. A traffic
engineering consultant supported the various options for arrows because
he believes that road users understand and interpret normal lane
control arrows better than fish hook arrows. A local DOT suggested that
the left-turn arrow should be prohibited from use at roundabout
intersections. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA along
with ``Figure 2B-5 Intersection Lane Control Sign Arrow Options for
Roundabouts'' illustrating the signs, to reflect current practice for
roundabout signing and to correspond with similar options for pavement
[[Page 66748]]
marking arrows on roundabout approaches in Part 3. The FHWA notes that
human factors research \28\ found that all of the arrow designs shown
for roundabout movements were well understood by the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Lane Restriction Signing and Marking for Double-Lane
Roundabouts'', Final Report, October 2007, by John A. Molino, Vaughn
W. Inman, Bryan J. Katz, and Amanda Emo, 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/FinalRoundaboutReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. In Section 2B.20 (Section 2B.21 in the 2003 MUTCD) Mandatory
Movement Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 proposed to add that where three or more
lanes are available to through traffic and Mandatory Movement Lane
Control symbol signs are used, they shall be mounted overhead. A State
DOT supported this requirement; however, four State DOTs, three local
DOTs, two NCUTCD members, and a citizen opposed the requirement,
suggesting that overhead installations are not always practical and
that post-mounted R3-5 signs with plaques are sufficient and easily
understood. The FHWA disagrees and notes that the intent is to prohibit
post-mounted lane use control signs on approaches with three or more
through lanes, because the needed lane use information is more visible
overhead rather than off to the side where traffic in the adjacent
lanes limits the visibility of post-mounted signs. In addition, lane
use regulatory signing is to be placed over the lane to which it
applies on approaches with three or more through lanes, and not just
where one of the lanes changes to a mandatory turn lane or combination
turn lane. This is crucial information for motorists and the lack of
overhead lane use signing contributes to crashes on multilane
approaches to intersections. The FHWA also adopts these changes for
consistency with Section 2B.21.
In this final rule, the FHWA changes paragraph 05 from a STANDARD
statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than require,
that R3-5 series supplemental plaques (LEFT LANE, TAXI LANE, etc.) for
R3-5 series lane control signs on two-lane approaches be mounted above
the associated R3-5 sign. Although these changes were not proposed in
the NPA, the FHWA adopts these changes in response to comments from the
NCUTCD and a citizen. The commenters suggested that this statement was
more appropriate as a recommendation, and they also indicated that the
supplemental plaques should be added above the sign, rather than below,
since placing the information at the top of the sign assembly allows
drivers to quickly determine if the sign applies to them. The FHWA
agrees and incorporates these changes in this final rule.
The FHWA also add paragraphs 06 and 07 in response to a comment
from the NCUTCD to clarify the use of R3-7 LEFT (RIGHT) LANE MUST TURN
LEFT (RIGHT) Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs, because they are
being misused throughout the country. The FHWA agrees and adds these
paragraphs in the final rule to clarify where these signs should and
should not be used.
Finally, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement
at the end of this section describing the optional use of the new BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs at the
upstream end of the turn lane taper of mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA
adds this change to give agencies flexibility to use these new signs to
designate the beginning of mandatory turn lanes where needed for
enforcement purposes. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and a local DOT supported this
change. A State DOT and a NCUTCD member opposed the introduction of the
R3-20 sign, because the R3-7 and R3-5 signs are available and therefore
they believe that another sign is not needed and would reduce
uniformity. The FHWA disagrees, because this new optional sign will
provide road users additional information regarding mandatory turn
lanes. The FHWA adopts the R3-20 sign, incorporating an editorial
suggestion regarding its placement, in this final rule.
72. In Section 2B.21 (Section 2B.22 in the 2003 MUTCD) Optional
Movement Lane Control Sign, the FHWA revises the STANDARD statement, as
proposed in the NPA, 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 change also provides consistency
with Section 2B.20 regarding placement of Mandatory Movement Lane
Control Signs.
The FHWA also adopts the proposed paragraph 05 requiring that
Optional Movement Lane Control (R3-6) signs be mounted overhead if used
on an approach where the number of lanes available to through traffic
is three or more. Similar to the comments in Section 2B.20, a local DOT
supported this change, while two State DOTs, two local DOTs, and two
NCUTCD members opposed this change, suggesting that it should be
optional rather than recommended. The FHWA disagrees because lane use
regulation is critical information for drivers that can be obscured by
other traffic on approaches of three or more through lanes when post-
mounted.
Similar to comparable provisions in Section 2B.20, in this final
rule the FHWA changes paragraph 06 from a STANDARD statement, as
proposed in the NPA, to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than
require, that R3-5 series supplemental plaques (LEFT LANE, TAXI LANE,
etc) for R3-5 series lane control signs on two-lane approaches be
mounted above the associated R3-6 sign, for consistency with a similar
statement in Section 2B.20.
The FHWA also adds paragraph 08, as proposed in the NPA,
prohibiting the use of the word message ONLY when more than one
movement is permitted from a lane. The FHWA adopts this change in this
final rule to be consistent with other requirements in the MUTCD
regarding the use of the term ONLY for lane use.
73. In Section 2B.22 Advance Intersection Lane Control Signs
(Section 2B.23 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add
paragraph 05 prohibiting the overhead placement of Advance Intersection
Lane Control (R3-8) signs where the number of lanes available to
traffic on an approach is three or more. In such cases, overhead R3-5
signs are used. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, three local DOTs, and a
traffic engineering consultant pointed out confusing language in the
statement proposed in the NPA. The FHWA clarifies the language in this
final rule to refer to the total number of lanes, not just through
lanes. This section pertains to advance lane use signs, while Section
2B.19 addresses lane use control signs at the intersection.
74. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.23
RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign. This section, as proposed in the NPA,
contained 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,\29\ at least 12 States currently use
[[Page 66749]]
this type of regulatory sign for freeway lane drop situations to
establish the ``must exit'' regulation and make it enforceable where
warning signs (such as the overhead ``Exit Only'' black-on-yellow
warning plaque on guide signs) and markings alone have proven
ineffective. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a local DOT supported the new
RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) sign; however, another NCUTCD
member opposed the sign because he felt that there are similar signs in
the MUTCD that can be used. The FHWA disagrees because there are no
other post-mounted regulatory signs that adequately convey this
message. The FHWA adopts this section in this final rule with revisions
to indicate that this sign may be used to supplement an overhead EXIT
ONLY guide sign, in response to a comment from a toll road operator
that further clarification was needed to preclude unintended uses of
the R3-33 sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. Although the FHWA did not propose in the NPA any significant
changes to Section 2B.24 Two-Way Left Turn Only Signs, the FHWA
received comments from three local DOTs suggesting that two-way left
turn only signs are no longer necessary because this turn configuration
has been in use for long enough that motorists are familiar with its
operation. The commenters suggested that two-way left turn only signs
be optional, rather than recommended. The FHWA disagrees because the
operation of two-way left-turn lanes is a regulatory application
requiring motorists to turn left out of the lane rather than using the
lane as an auxiliary through lane. Lane markings alone regulate traffic
only for NO PASSING zones; therefore two-way left turn only signs are
needed. The FHWA retains this section, as it existed in the 2003 MUTCD,
with minor editorial changes.
76. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section
numbered and titled Section 2B.25 BEGIN and END Plaques, consisting of
an OPTION statement for the optional use of the BEGIN or END plaque and
a STANDARD statement that, if the plaque is used, it is to be placed
above a regulatory sign. The FHWA adds this new section in response to
comments from the NCUTCD that the existing END plaques already
contained in Section 2D.22 and the BEGIN plaque proposed in the NPA in
Section 2D.23 should be made available for optional use with any
regulatory sign. The NCUTCD based its suggestion on recommendation
15 from the Sign Synthesis Study.\30\ The FHWA agrees and
adopts this new section, along with an illustration of the plaques in
Figure 2B-6, in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 22-23, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. The FHWA adds a new section titled Section 2B.27 Jughandle
Signs. As proposed in the NPA, this section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD,
and OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs for
jughandles. A State DOT suggested that road users would be better
served by advance guide signing for jug handles, rather than regulatory
signing. The FHWA disagrees because regulatory signing is critical for
jughandles since 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 \31\ 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 adds this new section
along with several new signs and a figure to illustrate their use.
ATSSA and a local DOT supported the regulatory signs illustrated in the
figure. The NCUTCD suggested editorial changes to the text and to the
arrows on some of the signs, which the FHWA adopts in this final rule.
Although a local DOT opposed the use of ``U Turn and Left Turn''
language on the R3-24 signs, the FHWA incorporates the sign designs, as
proposed in the NPA, because the sign designs and their applications
have effectively been in use in several States for decades and are
critical information for road user decisions for the condition of an
indirect left turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. In Section 2B.28 DO NOT PASS Sign (Section 2B.29 of the 2003
MUTCD), in the NPA the FHWA proposed a new symbol sign for the DO NOT
PASS (R4-1) Sign. ATSSA, three local DOTs, and two citizens supported
the new symbol signs. Although the proposed symbol sign has been in use
and is well understood in Europe and Canada (the Canadian MUTCD RB-31
sign) for many decades,\32\ the FHWA does not adopt the symbol sign in
this final rule because of comments from the NCUTCD and two of its
members, seven State DOTs, and five local DOTs suggesting that U.S.
drivers would not understand its meaning. The FHWA agrees that
additional human factors testing of the symbol is desirable before
future consideration of adoption of this symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new section numbered and
titled Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE sign,
which contained an OPTION statement describing the use of this word
message sign. ATSSA and two local DOTs supported this new sign.
Although at least five States use signs to remind road users of the
meaning of a solid yellow line for no-passing zones, the NCUTCD and two
of its members, eight State DOTs, four local DOTs, and a local
association of traffic engineers recommended deleting this section and
the associated sign in its entirety because they felt that the proposed
sign was not needed. Many stated that the No Passing Pennant (W14-3)
warning sign may be used for this purpose. The FHWA agrees and does not
adopt this section or the sign in this final rule.
80. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to retitle Section 2B.31 of the
2003 MUTCD to ``KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Sign and SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP
RIGHT Sign'' to reflect the proposed addition of a new KEEP RIGHT
EXCEPT TO PASS sign in this section. The Sign Synthesis Study \33\
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. The NCUTCD,
an NCUTCD member, ATSSA, and a local DOT supported the new KEEP RIGHT
EXCEPT TO PASS sign. The NCUTCD also noted that the new KEEP RIGHT
EXCEPT TO PASS sign is used for different situations than the SLOWER
TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT sign. The FHWA agrees and adopts
[[Page 66750]]
revisions in this final rule to separate the applications of each of
the signs, including placing the new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign in
its own Section, numbered Section 2B.30 in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. In Section 2B.31 (numbered Section 2B.32 in the 2003 MUTCD), as
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA retitles the Section to ``TRUCKS USE
RIGHT LANE Sign'' and revises 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 changes in
Chapter 2D that add a new guide sign with this message. The FHWA also
adds an OPTION statement, as proposed in the NPA, which describes the
appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE sign on multi-
lane roadways to reduce unnecessary lane changing.
82. In Section 2B.32 Keep Right and Keep Left Signs (numbered
Section 2B.33 in the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA adds a new narrow Keep Right
(R4-7c) sign that may be installed on narrow medians where there is
insufficient lateral clearance for a standard width Keep Right sign.
ATSSA, a State DOT, two local DOTs, and a traffic engineering
consultant supported this new sign. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that
this narrower sign may be installed on medians less than 6 feet in
width; however, in this final rule the FHWA revises the permitted use
of this sign to medians less than 4 feet wide based on a comment from
ATSSA. The FHWA adopts 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.
83. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds three new sections
following Section 2B.32. The first new section is numbered and titled
Section 2B.33 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 new section is
numbered and titled Section 2B.34 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 Figure
2B-10 (Figure 2B-8 of the 2003 MUTCD), but not described in the text of
the 2003 MUTCD. The third new section is numbered and titled Section
2B.35 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Signs, and contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and
STANDARD statements regarding three 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. ATSSA and a local DOT supported the SLOW VEHICLES
WITH XX OR MORE FOLLOWING VEHICLES MUST USE TURN-OUT (R4-12) sign;
however, two State DOTs opposed the sign because of safety concerns. As
documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,\34\ 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 adds these new
signs in this final rule to provide for uniformity of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled Section 2B.36 DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign and DO NOT PASS
ON SHOULDER Sign, which contains an OPTION statement regarding the use
of these two new signs to inform road users that use of the shoulder as
a travel lane or to pass other vehicles is prohibited. ATSSA supported
these two new signs. The FHWA adopts these 2 new signs in this final
rule because the Sign Synthesis Study \35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. In Sections 2B.37 DO NOT ENTER Sign and 2B.38 WRONG WAY Sign
(Sections 2B.34 and 2B.35 of the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA adds SUPPORT
statements, as proposed in the NPA. These statements reference Section
2B.41, which allows 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 exit
ramps. The FHWA adopts this exception based on recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook \36\ and positive experience in several States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 II.D(4d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. In Section 2B.39 Selective Exclusion Signs (Section 2B.36 in
the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA changes 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. ATSSA, a State DOT, and a local DOT
supported this change. The FHWA also adds the new No Skaters (R9-13)
and No Equestrians (R9-14) signs to this list, as well as to Figure 2B-
11, based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, two NCUTCD members,
and several pedestrian/bicycle associations.
To respond to a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adds paragraph
06 to recommend that the NO PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLES (R5-10b) sign, when
used on a freeway or expressway exit or entrance ramp, should be
installed in a location where it is clearly visible to any pedestrian
or bicyclist attempting to enter the limited access facility from a
street intersecting the exit ramp.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add two new regulatory signs,
AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY to the last OPTION
statement to reflect current practice. While ATSSA and a local DOT
supported both of these signs, an NCUTCD member suggested that their
meaning was so similar that only one sign is needed. The FHWA agrees
and adopts the AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY (R5-11) sign in this final rule
and deletes the FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY sign.
87. In Figure 2B-26 (Figure 2B-18 in the 2003 MUTCD) Pedestrian
Signs and Plaques, the FHWA in this final rule modifies the designs of
the R10-3, R10-3a through R10-3e, R10-4 and R10-4a to include the
Canadian MUTCD standard symbol for pushbuttons (in addition to the
words), as proposed in the NPA, to begin the symbolization of the
``pushbutton'' message. The FHWA adopts this change to provide better
harmony in North American signing design, which is needed as a result
of the increased travel between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico resulting
from NAFTA. The FHWA is adopting this new pushbutton symbol on several
signs throughout the MUTCD.
[[Page 66751]]
88. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2B.40 ONE WAY Signs (Section
2B.37 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA changes paragraph 03 to a STANDARD
to require, rather than recommend, that at an intersection with a
divided highway having a median width of 30 feet or more, ONE WAY signs
be placed on the near right and far left corners of each intersection
with the directional roadways to reflect recommendations from the Older
Driver handbook.\37\ In concert with these changes, and based on
comments from a State DOT, the FHWA clarifies that, at an intersection
with a divided highway that has a median width of less than 30 feet,
Keep Right (R4-7) signs shall be installed, visible to traffic on the
divided highway and each crossroad approach, and/or ONE WAY signs shall
be placed, visible to each crossroad approach, on the near right and
far left corners of the intersection. The FHWA also adds an OPTION
statement allowing ONE WAY signs to also be placed on the far right
corner of an intersection with a divided highway that has a median
width of less than 30 feet. The FHWA revises Figures 2B-15 through 2B-
17 accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.E(4),
I.K(2), and I.K(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds two STANDARD paragraphs as proposed in the NPA
to require two ONE WAY signs for each approach for T-intersections and
cross intersections, one on the near side and one on the far side. The
FHWA adopts this change to reflect recommendations from the Older
Driver handbook.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ``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 establishes a target compliance date of December 31, 2019,
(approximately 10 years from the effective date of this final rule) for
the installation of the additional ONE WAY and/or Keep Right signs
required to achieve compliance with these provisions at existing
locations. The FHWA establishes this target compliance date because of
the demonstrated safety issues associated with wrong-way travel on
divided highways and because the FHWA anticipates that installation of
the required additional signs at existing locations will provide
significant safety benefits to road users. State and local highway
agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel can schedule
the installation of the additional required signs in conjunction with
their programs for maintaining and replacing other signs at existing
locations that are worn out or damaged, thus minimizing any impacts.
The FHWA also adds 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 adopts this text to promote
consistency in signing for roundabouts.
Additionally, to respond to a comment from the NCUTCD and to
provide highway agencies with a uniform method of communicating
potentially important messages, in this final rule the FHWA adds BEGIN
ONE WAY and END ONE WAY signs as optional signs that may be used to
notify approaching road users of the beginning point or ending point of
a one-way directional roadway. These new optional signs are consistent
with existing sign designs. The Signs Synthesis Report \39\ indicates
these signs are in use in some States. The FHWA adopts the signs in the
text and includes them in Figure 2B-13, and notes that the impact of
this addition is mitigated as the use of these signs is optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 26, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates the information from
Section 2E.50 of the 2003 MUTCD to a new section numbered and titled
Section 2B.41 Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps. The FHWA
adopts this change because these types of signs are regulatory in
nature, rather than guide signs.
In addition, the FHWA adds paragraph 06 allowing the option to
mount a DO NOT ENTER sign(s) and/or a WRONG WAY sign(s) along the exit
ramp facing a road user at a lower mounting height under specific
conditions. A local DOT supported this option, while two State DOTs and
a local DOT expressed concerns about the crashworthiness of signs at
this lower mounting height. Another local DOT suggested that a lower
mounting height should not be allowed for signs, because other signs
are restricted from being installed in this manner. The FHWA disagrees
with the commenters and adopts this language in this final rule because
of the effective application of this option in several States,\40\
research conducted by Texas Transportation Institute,\41\ and the
results of crash testing of sign supports of various heights as
documented in AASHTO's Roadside Design Guide.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``Marking the Way to Greater Safety,'' Senior Mobility
Series: Article 4, Public Roads Magazine, July/August 2006, page 55,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/06jul/08.htm.
\41\ ``Countermeasures for Wrong-Way Movement on Freeways:
Overview of Project Activities and Findings,'' Report number FHWA/
TX-04/4128-1, January 2004, by Scott A. Cooner, A. Scott Cothron,
and Steven E. Ranft, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/4128-1.pdf.
\42\ ``Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition,'' 2002, is available
for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, via the Internet Web site: https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. In Section 2B.42 Divided Highway Crossing Signs (Section 2B.38
in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change the first
OPTION statement to a STANDARD statement 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.\43\
Although ATSSA supported this change, six State DOTs, eight local DOTs,
three NCUTCD members, a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen
all opposed the change, suggesting that it was unrealistic in urban
areas and would involve the installation of too many signs. As a result
of the comments, the FHWA reevaluated this proposal and the underlying
research and recommendations from the Older Driver Handbook. Based on
that review, the FHWA revises the first STANDARD statement to require
the installation of a Divided Highway Crossing sign on unsignalized
minor-street approaches from which both left turns and through
movements are permitted onto a divided highway having a median width at
the intersection itself of 30 feet or greater. The FHWA notes that the
operational and safety issues with side road approaches to divided
highways is for left turns out of the side road approach onto the
divided highway and for through crossing movements from the side road
approach, rather than for right turn movements, and revises the
STANDARD and OPTION statements accordingly. As part of this change, the
FHWA also adopts an OPTION statement to allow the Divided Highway
Crossing sign to be omitted if the divided road has average annual
daily traffic less than 400 vehicles per day and a speed limit of 30
mph or less. The FHWA also adopts an OPTION
[[Page 66752]]
statement permitting the use of the Divided Highway Crossing sign
facing signalized minor-street approaches from which both left and
right turns are permitted onto a divided highway having a median width
of 30 feet or greater at the intersection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ``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 proposed in the NPA to change the existing 2nd OPTION
statement to a STANDARD statement in order to require that the Divided
Highway Crossing sign be located on the near right corner of the
intersection. The FHWA adopts this change as proposed. As part of this
change, the FHWA also adds 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. The FHWA adopts these to implement
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled Section 2B.43 Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs, containing
STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements on the use of Roundabout
Directional Arrow Signs. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, a local DOT, and a
traffic engineering consultant supported the use of these signs. Two
State DOTs, three local DOTs, two traffic engineering consultants, an
NCUTCD member, and a citizen commented about the design of the sign.
The NCUTCD member supported the sign design. Many of the commenters
suggested that the background color should be yellow rather than white.
The FHWA disagrees, noting that the use of the black and yellow W1-8
Chevron sign is reserved for application to warning of horizontal
curvature. The FHWA notes that the regulatory sign for use at
roundabouts is the Roundabout Directional Arrow and not the Chevron
Alignment sign, which is a warning sign.
The FHWA adopts the recommendation to mount the sign at least 4
feet high when used on the central island of a roundabout, as proposed
in the NPA. A traffic engineering consultant supported this
recommendation, while a State DOT expressed concerns about the mounting
height. The FHWA notes that information regarding crashworthiness of
sign supports at various mounting heights is provided in AASHTO's
Roadside Design Guide.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ``Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition,'' 2002, is available
for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, via the Internet Web site: https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.44
Roundabout Circulation Plaque, as proposed in the NPA, that contains
GUIDANCE and OPTION statements regarding the use of the Roundabout
Circulation Sign at roundabouts and other circular intersections.
ATSSA, a local DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant supported this
new section and the associated sign, while a State DOT and a local DOT
suggested that more signs at roundabouts are not needed. Three local
DOTs suggested that a supplemental YIELD TO TRAFFIC IN CIRCLE plaque
under the YIELD sign be permitted. The FHWA disagrees and does not
incorporate the supplemental plaque in this final rule, because the
FHWA is not aware of any studies documenting the effectiveness of such
a plaque, but the FHWA notes that the MUTCD provides agencies the
flexibility to develop and use word message plaques at problem
locations if they deem it necessary. The FHWA adopts this section and
the associated sign as proposed in the NPA.
93. The FHWA also adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2B.45 Examples of Roundabout Signing, as proposed in the NPA, that
contains a SUPPORT statement referencing new Figures 2B-21 through 2B-
23 that illustrate examples of regulatory and warning signs for
roundabouts of various configurations. The SUPPORT statement also
references other areas in the Manual that contain information on guide
signing and pavement markings at roundabouts. The FHWA adopts this new
section in order to add valuable information regarding regulatory and
warning signs at roundabouts to the MUTCD.
An NCUTCD member supported the designs depicted in Figures 2B-21
through 2B-23 on the basis of applied laboratory studies. A State DOT,
a local DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant suggested that the
Pedestrian Crossing signs shown in Figures 2B-21 and 2B-22 should be
required, rather than optional. Two State DOTs suggested that the
Roundabout Advance Warning sign should be required, rather than
optional. The FHWA disagrees because the decision to place a warning
sign is based upon engineering judgment and that the only mandatory
warning signs are the advance railroad crossing warning sign and
certain horizontal alignment warning signs in certain conditions.
94. In Section 2B.47 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping
Signs (Section 2B.40 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adopts several
changes to the colors of the borders of parking signs, as proposed in
the NPA. The FHWA revises paragraph 03 to reflect that the Parking
Prohibition signs R8-4 and R8-7 and the alternate design for the R7-
201aP plaque shall have a black legend and border on a white
background, and the R8-3 sign shall have a black legend and border and
a red circle and slash on a white background. A traffic engineering
consultant supported the black border, while a local DOT opposed the
use of a black border. The FHWA adopts the color changes to reflect the
existing designs of these specific signs.
Based on a comment from an NCUTCD member, the FHWA relocates the
VAN ACCESSIBLE plaque from this section and Figure 2B-24 to Chapter 2I
and Figure 2I-1. As part of this change, the FHWA changes its sign
designation to D9-6a. The FHWA also changes paragraph 08 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 designed to accommodate wheelchair vans. The FHWA
adopts this change to reflect Section 502.6 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. A traffic engineering consultant opposed this
requirement and questioned how agencies are to enforce the requirement
on private property. As discussed previously under the MUTCD
Introduction, the FHWA deletes the requirement for MUTCD applicability
to parking lots.
The FHWA also adds information in this STANDARD (paragraph 08) that
specifies the required colors of the R7-8 sign and the R7-8P plaque to
reflect the existing color schemes for this sign and plaque as
illustrated in Figure 2B-24. A local DOT opposed the colors for the R7-
8 sign, because all of the signs in that State have white lettering on
a blue background. The FHWA disagrees and notes that such signs do not
conform to the MUTCD standard design of green legend and border with
white on blue ADA symbol. The FHWA notes that it did not propose a
change to the existing sign design in the NPA.
Finally, the FHWA adds information, as proposed in the NPA,
regarding the use of 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 adopts these signs to
[[Page 66753]]
reflect current practice in many areas where cities and towns are
replacing individual parking space meters with a ``pay and display''
system. The FHWA adopts a design for the fee station sign that is very
similar to a standard European symbol, because the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study \46\ showed that several U.S. cities are using a sign
very similar to the European design. ATSSA and a local DOT supported
the addition of the Pay for Parking series of signs; however, an NCUTCD
member suggested that the signs needed to be more standardized. The
FHWA agrees and removes the signs designated as R7-21a and R7-22a from
the text of this final rule and Figure 2B-24. Based on comments from
the NCUTCD, the FHWA also adopts an OPTION statement regarding the
color-coding of time limits to provide clearer and quicker recognition
by the driver for different time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
95. In Section 2B.51 Pedestrian Crossing Signs (Section 2B.44 in
the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 visual disabilities with additional guidance as to
where not to cross. A local DOT supported the revision as proposed in
the NPA. Three associations for the visually impaired, an orientation
and mobility specialist, and seven citizens suggested that this
statement be strengthened to a requirement because, without a physical
restriction of the crossing, pedestrians who are visually impaired
might cross at a location without realizing that crossing is
prohibited, creating a dangerous situation. While the FHWA understands
the concerns raised by the commenters, there are too many variables to
make this action mandatory. Many sites cannot accommodate physical
barriers, as evidenced by two local DOTs that requested that this
statement be an option because they felt that the recommendation was
too restrictive and unachievable in many instances, especially within
already built environments. In addition, a State DOT and two local DOTs
commented that the items proposed in the NPA for creating the physical
barrier are not traffic control devices, and therefore should not be
included in the MUTCD. The FHWA agrees that this statement is not
appropriate for the MUTCD and does not adopt the language in this final
rule.
96. In the changes adopted in this final rule the FHWA separates
the material proposed in the NPA for Section 2B.59 Traffic Signal Signs
(Section 2B.45 of the 2003 MUTCD) into three separate sections. The
FHWA believes that separating the material into three sections, based
on the type of signs, will make it easier for practitioners to find
information about the various types of signs. The new sections are
adopted in this final rule as Section 2B.52 Traffic Signal Pedestrian
Actuation Signs, Section 2B.53 Traffic Signal Signs, and Section 2B.54
No Turn on Red Signs.
97. In Section 2B.52 Traffic Signal Pedestrian and Bicycle
Actuation Signs, the FHWA revises paragraphs 02 and 03 and the sign
images in Figure 2B-26 to correspond with adopted changes in Chapter 4E
requiring that signs for pedestrian pushbuttons clearly indicate which
crosswalk signal is actuated by each pedestrian detector. The revisions
eliminate the use of the R10-1, R10-3, and R10-4 sign designs (as shown
in the 2003 MUTCD) because these do not identify a specific crosswalk,
and therefore do not meet the requirements in Chapter 4E. ATSSA
supported the new sign designs as proposed in the NPA; however, a State
DOT and two traffic control device vendors opposed the creation of new
pedestrian crosswalk signs. The commenters suggested that the multiple
changes in signs place a costly burden on both the industry and local
municipalities for new artwork, tooling, and mixed inventory of signs,
which in turn compromises uniformity. The FHWA disagrees with the
opponents' comments because it is important that pedestrians be given a
clear indication of which crosswalk the pushbutton controls.
A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed removal of the R10-4b sign,
because they are using the sign and feel it is readily understood by
the public. The FHWA disagrees and removes the existing R10-4b sign,
because the new R10 series signs include an illustration of a hand with
a finger touching the pushbutton. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and a local DOT
supported the new hand illustration. A traffic control device vendor
and a citizen opposed the increase in size of pedestrian signs from 9
inches x 12 inches to 9 inches x 15 inches to accommodate the finger
symbol. The commenters felt that the existing size is sufficiently
large enough and that the larger size will increase the cost of the
sign and potentially encourage graffiti. A State DOT, three local DOTs,
three NCUTCD members, four bicycle/pedestrian associations, two traffic
control device vendors, and a citizen opposed the use of the hand
illustration in the sign designs because of concerns about user
understanding and the size and orientation of the hand illustration in
relation to the arrow on the sign. The FHWA believes that, based on
Canadian usage, the hand illustration will be understood by users and
that addition of the symbol justifies the slightly larger sign size;
however, in response to the comments, in this final rule the FHWA adds
a GUIDANCE paragraph 05 to recommend that the orientation of the finger
should point in the respective direction of the arrow on the signs, and
revises the sign images in Figure 2B-26 accordingly.
A local DOT suggested that the legend on the educational plaques
for the R10-3e and R10-3i signs be revised to more accurately reflect
the instructions that should be given to pedestrians at a crosswalk
with countdown signals. As a result, the FHWA revises the legend to be
consistent with the text of Section 4E.02. The FHWA adopts the new sign
designs and revises the text in this section to clarify how to use the
R10 series of pushbutton signs appropriately.
The FHWA also adds paragraphs 07 and 08 regarding the use of new
R10-24 and R10-26 signs, where a pushbutton detector has been installed
exclusively to actuate a green phase for bicyclists, and a new R10-25
sign, where a pushbutton detector has been installed for pedestrians to
activate In-Roadway Warning Lights or flashing beacons. Bikes need less
time to cross than pedestrians do, so the pushbuttons actuate timing
specifically appropriate for bikes, which is an operationally efficient
strategy. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, two of its
members, a State DOT, and four bicycle/pedestrian associations in
support of the new R10-24 sign, but with suggestions to rephrase the
wording to specify a ``green phase for bicyclists,'' rather than a
``special bicycle phase.'' The FHWA agrees and adopts the new sign, and
associated revised text, as well as an alternative design with an arrow
designated R10-26, in this final rule. ATSSA and an association for the
blind supported the new R10-25 sign to activate warning lights. The
association for the blind suggested changing the text on the sign to
``flashing lights'' to clarify the message. The FHWA adopts in this
final rule these new signs to reflect current practice as documented by
the
[[Page 66754]]
Sign Synthesis Study,\47\ and to provide consistent and uniform
messages for these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new FOR MORE CROSSING TIME
HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2 SECONDS (R10-32P) sign to this section for use
where an extended push button press is used to provide additional
crossing time. Although two local DOTs were opposed to this sign,
stating that it might lead to pedestrian confusion, or might be used
inappropriately, the FHWA adopts this sign in this final rule, with a
revised legend which more clearly communicates to pedestrians the
meaning than the legend that was proposed in the NPA, to correspond
with comparable provisions in adopted in Chapter 4E. The FHWA also
illustrates the sign image in Figure 2B-26. The adopted sign legend is
PUSH BUTTON FOR 2 SECONDS FOR EXTRA CROSSING TIME.
98. In Section 2B.53 Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA deletes the
first GUIDANCE statement that appeared in the 2003 MUTCD. This
statement, regarding the placement of Traffic Signal signs adjacent to
traffic signal faces, was overly broad. Instead, in this final rule,
the FHWA specifically recommends the locations of individual signs as
appropriate.
The FHWA removes the LEFT TURN SIGNAL YIELD ON GREEN (R10-21) sign
in this final rule, because the provisions in Part 4 that are the only
reason for using this sign have been removed in the adopted text for
Part 4. The FHWA also adds paragraphs 03 and 04 regarding the location
of LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY and LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN signs,
independently and with an AT SIGNAL supplemental plaque, as proposed in
the NPA. The FHWA adopts this language based on recommendations from
the Older Driver handbook.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, to correspond with changes proposed in Part 4 to add a new
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, the FHWA proposed a paragraph in the NPA that
describes the use of a CROSSWALK STOP ON RED (R10-23) sign that is to
be used in conjunction with pedestrian hybrid beacons. While ATSSA
supported the new sign, four local DOTs opposed the new sign, primarily
because they thought that it was not needed. Some commenters felt that
road users should know to stop on a red signal and should not need a
sign instructing them to do so. Other commenters felt that the sign
would cause confusion, because road users are to stop on a solid red
and then proceed on a flashing red after they stop, while other felt
that they should have more flexibility to develop a better sign. The
FHWA disagrees with the commenters because the extensive experience
with the sign in Tucson, AZ has not indicated a problem with the sign
being understood by road users and the sign is needed at pedestrian
hybrid beacons to reinforce the regulatory requirements. To address a
comment from a local DOT suggesting that the use of this sign be
restricted to only locations with pedestrian hybrid beacons, but not
required at all pedestrian hybrid beacons as proposed in the NPA, the
FHWA adopts revised language in this final rule, to clarify that the
sign is to be used only at locations with pedestrian hybrid beacons.
99. In Section 2B.54 No Turn on Red Signs, in paragraph 03, the
FHWA adds item F to the list of conditions where consideration should
be given to the use of No Turn on Red signs. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed that this item refer to locations where the skew angle of the
intersecting roadways creates difficulty for older drivers to see
traffic approaching from their left. The FHWA proposed this change
based on recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\49\ A former
NCUTCD member suggested that the specific criteria regarding skewed
intersections should not be added, since sight distance to the left is
covered under condition A. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter and
retains item F in this final rule because the adequacy of sight
distance is associated with the selection of adequate gaps for a right
turn on red movement. Three State DOTs, two local DOTs, and an NCUTCD
member suggested that turns at skewed intersections can be difficult
for all drivers, not just older drivers, and suggested that FHWA delete
the word ``older.'' The FHWA agrees and adopts item F in this final
rule to indicate that skew angled intersections are difficult for all
drivers, by deleting the word ``older.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ``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 adds paragraph 05 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. An NCUTCD member supported this new information, and the
FHWA adopts this new text to correspond to other changes in Part 4
regarding the use of these signs. The FHWA also adds information
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.
100. Concerning Figure 2B-27 Traffic Signal Signs and Plaques
(Figure 2B-19 in the 2003 MUTCD) proposed in the NPA, the FHWA received
comments from ATSSA, a State DOT, a local DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a
traffic engineering consultant supporting the design change of the
TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15) sign to a symbolic,
rather than word message sign. An NCUTCD member, a State DOT, and a
local DOT opposed the new design because of the use of yellow (normally
reserved for warning signs) on the regulatory sign background and the
symbols and sign layout. The sign design has been extensively and
successfully used by the New York City DOT \50\ and was reviewed
favorably by the Regulatory and Warning Sign Technical Committee and
the full NCUTCD. The FHWA adopts this new design to reduce the number
of words, give a more precise symbolized message, and make the sign
more conspicuous to road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Information on New York City's experience with the adopted
R10-15 sign design can be obtained from the New York City Department
of Transportation, Division of Traffic Planning, Room 928, 40 Worth
Street, New York, NY 10013, telephone 212-442-6641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSSA and a local DOT supported the proposed LEFT TURN YIELD ON
FLASHING RED ARROW AFTER STOP (R10-27) sign; however, a State DOT and
an NCUTCD member opposed this new sign because they felt that road
users should stop, rather than yield at a red signal. The FHWA
disagrees and adopts the sign as proposed in the NPA, noting that the
legend that begins with ``LEFT TURN YIELD * * *'' has been evaluated as
the preferable text and it includes the words ``AFTER STOP.'' Another
State DOT and a traffic engineering consultant suggested adding similar
signs to alert road users to yield on flashing yellow arrows. The FHWA
does not adopt this suggested addition,
[[Page 66755]]
because NCHRP Report 493 \51\ found that a regulatory sign is not
needed to instruct drivers to yield on flashing yellow arrows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101. In Section 2B.55 Photo Enforced Signs and Plaques (Section
2B.46 in the 2003 MUTCD) and Figure 2B-3, the FHWA adds to the word
message PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) plaque (as it existed in the 2003
MUTCD) the option to use a new symbol plaque for Photo Enforced. The
FHWA retains the existing word message plaque as an alternate. In
addition, the FHWA revises the design of the TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO
ENFORCED (R10-18) sign to add the symbolic camera. Although ATSSA and a
local DOT supported the new camera symbol on the Photo Enforced signs
and plaques, two NCUTCD members, two State DOTs, and two local DOTs
opposed the addition of the new symbol because they did not think that
road users would understand the symbol. The FHWA disagrees and adopts
the new symbol based on road user understanding of the symbol
documented in research results of the ``Evaluation of Selected Symbol
Signs'' study \52\ conducted by the Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund
Study. To address comments from two toll road operators and a State
DOT, the FHWA also adds an OPTION and a GUIDANCE regarding the optional
use of the Photo Enforced symbol or word message plaques at toll plazas
to address situations where video enforcement is in use at toll plazas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ ``Design and Evaluation of Selected Symbol Signs,'' Final
Report, May 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason
Kennedy, and Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
102. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.56
Ramp Metering Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a GUIDANCE
statement describing the recommended use of new regulatory signs that
should accompany ramp control signals. Based on comments from the
NCUTCD and a State DOT, the FHWA adopts the language as an OPTION
statement. This allows agencies to determine whether the use of the
signs is appropriate for their conditions based on enforcement
experience. The FHWA adds these new signs because ramp metering signals
are used in several States, but there were no standard signs for them
in the 2003 MUTCD, so States have developed a variety of signs, as
documented by the Sign Synthesis Study.\53\ In this new Section, the
FHWA adopts two new signs, X VEHICLES PER GREEN and X VEHICLES PER
GREEN EACH LANE. ATSSA and a local DOT supported these new signs.
Another local agency expressed concerns that allowing more than one
vehicle per green might cause driver confusion, especially if they are
behind a large vehicle on a ramp. The FHWA adopts these signs based
upon effective application in many States and to provide uniformity in
ramp meter signing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
103. In Section 2B.60 Weigh Station Signs (Section 2B.50 of the
2003 MUTCD), the FHWA changes 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. A local DOT supported this
change. Although three State DOTs and two NCUTCD members suggested that
either the original language be retained, or other revisions be made to
the sign text, the FHWA adopts the text of the sign as proposed in the
NPA. The FHWA notes that a State at the time of its adoption of the
MUTCD may include appropriate additional information in its supplement.
In addition, in Figure 2B-30, the FHWA illustrates 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. ATSSA supported
this change in the illustration.
104. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.64
Headlight Use Signs, containing GUIDANCE, SUPPORT, and OPTION
statements that describe the use of several new signs that may be used
by States to require road users to turn on their vehicle headlights
under certain conditions. ATSSA and a local DOT supported the new
signs, as proposed in the NPA. An NCUTCD member opposed this new
section because he felt that the installation of these types of signs
is already covered in other sections in the MUTCD, and that since
wording of the signs is based on laws that vary from State to State, it
is not appropriate to standardize a series of signs in the MUTCD. The
Sign Synthesis Study \54\ found that there is a wide variation in the
legends currently being used by States for this purpose and the FHWA
adopts these new signs to provide increased uniformity of the messages
for road users. Based on comments from two State DOTs and a traffic
engineering consultant, the FHWA does not adopt the proposed TURN OFF
HEADLIGHTS sign from this final rule, because commenters felt that it
might communicate an inappropriate message to road users during
nighttime conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
105. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.65
FENDER BENDER Sign. This new section contains an OPTION statement
regarding the use of a new FENDER BENDER MOVE VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL
LANES sign that agencies may use to inform road users of laws or
ordinances that require them to move their vehicles from the travel
lanes 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 that have been involved in relatively minor ``fender
bender'' or non-injury crashes to move their vehicles out of the travel
lanes. A variety of sign messages are in use for this purpose, as
documented by the Sign Synthesis Study.\55\ Although ATSSA and a State
and a local DOT supported the new sign, as proposed in the NPA, the
NCUTCD and two of its members and three State DOTs provided comments
about the sign design. Several of the commenters from Arizona suggested
that the term ``Fender Bender'' be revised to reflect the wording of
signs in their State. A few commenters suggested that the use of yellow
and white backgrounds on the same sign is inappropriate, and many of
the commenters opposed the symbol for fender bender, because they did
not feel that it had been tested for road user comprehension. Based on
the comments, the FHWA removes the symbol from the sign but is adopting
the black on yellow header panel in the design, noting that the
regulatory portion of the sign is a black legend and border on a white
background. The FHWA adopts this sign because a standardized sign
legend is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106. In this final rule, the FHWA changes the number and title of
Section
[[Page 66756]]
2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs, as it appeared in the 2003 MUTCD to
Section 2B.66 Seat Belt Symbol. As discussed in item 54 above, the FHWA
is relocating the OPTION statements that were in this section to
Section 2B.02. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a FENDER BENDER
MOVE VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL LANES sign to this section and retitle the
section to ``Miscellaneous Regulatory Signs''; however, as noted above,
the FHWA adopts a new Section 2B.65 for the Fender Bender sign in this
final rule and the only remaining text in Section 2B.66 discusses the
Seat Belt Symbol. Therefore, the FHWA revises the section title to
``Seat Belt Symbol'' in this final rule.
107. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new chapter numbered
and titled Chapter 2L Object Markers, Barricades, and Gates. In
addition to containing information on object markers, this new chapter
was to have contained information from Section 3F.01 of the 2003 MUTCD
on barricades, without any significant changes. A State DOT, four local
DOTs, and an NCUTCD member supported moving these items to Part 2. A
State DOT opposed moving object markers and barricades to Part 2
because it felt that they are used to mark obstructions and help in
guidance and delineation of the roadway, the same as pavement markings.
The FHWA agrees that barricades and gates are more appropriately
related to Chapter 2B, and places Section 2B.67 Barricades and Section
2B.68 Gates in this chapter.
108. The FHWA adds a new Section 2B.68 Gates (numbered 2L.06 in the
NPA) that contains 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. Two local DOTs supported this new section
and several agencies provided comments. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and
an NCUTCD member suggested that the FHWA provide clarification
regarding whether one or both sides of gate arms and fences are to be
reflectorized. The FHWA agrees and adds clarifying language in this
final rule to indicate that both sides are to be reflectorized, with an
option to reflectorize only the side facing moving traffic in the
normal direction if used at ramps. Based on comments from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, a State DOT, two toll road operators, and an
NCUTCD member, the FHWA removes the crashworthiness and mounting height
requirements for gate arms to better serve their application. The FHWA
adds a requirement that gates be designed so that the gate arms are
securely locked in either the open position or closed position, based
on a comment from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicating that it
is appropriate to lock gates securely in either of these positions. The
FHWA adopts this new section in order to provide for enhanced
uniformity of gates, as they are used in a wide variety of traffic
control applications.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2C--General
109. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to move object markers from Part
3 to a new chapter, titled Chapter 2L Object Markers. A State DOT, four
local DOTs, and an NCUTCD member supported moving these items to Part
2. A State DOT opposed moving object markers to Part 2 because it felt
that they are used to mark obstructions and help in guidance and
delineation of the roadway, the same as pavement markings. The FHWA
disagrees with retaining object markers in the chapter with pavement
markings because, although these devices can provide some delineation,
the primary function of object markers is as a warning sign. Due to the
warning function that object markers serve, in this final rule the FHWA
moves object markers to Chapter 2C and revises the title of Chapter 2C
to include object markers.
110. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA removes the following word
message signs from the MUTCD, because comparable symbol signs have been
in use for 35 years, thereby making these word signs obsolete: HILL
Sign (W7-1b), DIVIDED HIGHWAY (W6-1a) and DIVIDED ROAD (W6-1b), DIVIDED
HIGHWAY ENDS (W6-2a) and DIVIDED ROAD ENDS (W6-2b), STOP AHEAD (W3-1a),
YIELD AHEAD (W3-2a), and SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3a). A State DOT opposed
eliminating the use of many of these word signs, because it felt that
the word message signs were added to and included in previous editions
of the MUTCD to enable agencies to use the optional signs for the
benefit of better understanding of signs. The commenter also suggested
that since the word messages are fulfilling the purpose for signs, it
is difficult to justify the cost of replacing the signs. The FHWA
disagrees with the commenter and notes that the symbol designs for many
of these signs have been in use for more than 35 years and that symbol
warning signs are more readily recognized and comprehended by drivers
with fewer driver errors. In addition, existing word message signs in
good condition may remain in service until such point in time that they
are replaced as part of the agency's periodic sign maintenance program.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2C--Specific
111. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to remove paragraph 01 requiring the use of
engineering studies or judgment in determining the use of warning
signs. A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed the removal of this
STANDARD because they felt that engineering studies or judgment are
necessary. The FHWA agrees and retains the requirement in this final
rule and adds a reference to Section 1A.09 regarding engineering
studies and engineering judgment.
112. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, in place of the
existing paragraph in the OPTION statement, the FHWA adds two new
paragraphs that describe allowable changes in warning sign sizes and
designs, as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA adopts these changes to
provide agencies with flexibility in designing signs to meet field
conditions. This includes allowing sign sizes larger than Oversized in
Table 2C-2 to be rectangular or square and modifications to be made to
the symbols shown on intersection warning signs in order to approximate
the geometric configuration of the roadway. A State and two local DOTs
supported these new paragraphs and offered an editorial change that the
FHWA adopts in this final rule.
Additionally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to change paragraph 05
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.
While ATSSA supported this change, the NCUTCD and one of its members,
many State and local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed
changing the language to GUIDANCE, suggesting instead that it remain an
OPTION. The commenters provided a variety of reasons, the most
prominent being that some State and local DOTs reserve the use of the
fluorescent yellow-green background for only school-related warning
signs in order to add emphasis to those locations. A State and a local
DOT, an NCUTCD member, a traffic engineering consultant, and a private
citizen expressed concern about the lack of research supporting the
effectiveness of the fluorescent yellow-green color that would justify
elevating the provision to a recommendation, rather than an option.
Some of the commenters suggested that an overuse of the fluorescent
yellow-green would reduce the effectiveness of the color. In
[[Page 66757]]
addition, some commenters said that the color fades more quickly over
time, and that it is significantly more expensive than yellow. Based on
the comments, the FHWA decides to retain the language as an OPTION in
this final rule, allowing the use of a fluorescent yellow-green
background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with
pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds.
The FHWA also adopts a new STANDARD statement requiring that
warning signs associated with schools and school buses have a
fluorescent yellow-green background, as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA
also revises similar wording in other sections in Chapter 2C and in
Part 7. In the intervening years since the use of fluorescent yellow-
green background color was introduced as an option in the MUTCD, most
highway agencies have adopted policies to use this color for school
warning signs. This predominant usage is because of the enhanced
conspicuity provided by fluorescent yellow-green, particularly during
dawn and twilight periods. ATSSA and two local DOTs supported this
change, while a State DOT, a State association of counties, and a local
DOT suggested that the school bus sign should not be included in the
requirement. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, a State DOT,
three local DOTs, and an NCUTCD member oppose any requirement to use
fluorescent yellow-green. These commenters feel that there is not
sufficient research demonstrating that the color modifies behavior and
the high cost, along with the tendency to fade more quickly than
yellow, does not justify requiring its use. The FHWA disagrees and
notes that in-place evaluation of fluorescent yellow-green by State
DOTs has identified acceptable durability and sheeting life and the
FHWA also adopts this background color for school bus warning signs for
consistency with the requirement for other school warning signs.
113. In Section 2C.04 Size of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to add a STANDARD paragraph to establish a minimum size of 36
inches x 36 inches for all diamond-shaped warning signs facing traffic
on multi-lane conventional roads. This is consistent with other changes
adopted in Section 2A.13 and discussed previously in this preamble,
concerning basing sign size dimensions on the letter sizes needed for a
visual acuity of 20/40, which results in larger sign sizes. Although
ATSSA and two local agencies supported the language as proposed, four
State DOTs, six local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic engineering
consultant expressed concern about installing 36 inch x 36 inch signs
on low-speed roads and on roads in urban areas where there is limited
space for signs. Many of those commenters suggested that the larger
size signs be optional for such roadways. Four additional local DOTs
opposed the requirement for larger signs specifically because of
insufficient space in urban areas. On multi-lane roads, increased
legibility distances are needed because of the potential blockage of
signs by other vehicles, but the FHWA agrees in part with the
commenters and adopts revisions to this section in this final rule that
are consistent with similar revisions to Section 2B.03 by adding two
exceptions to the requirement to use the larger sign sizes on multi-
lane conventional roads for: (a) The size of the left-hand side signs
mounted in the median to supplement the right-hand side placement, and
(b) multi-lane conventional roads with posted speed limits of 35 mph or
less.
Finally, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement that the minimum size
for warning signs facing traffic on exit and entrance ramps should be
the size identified in Table 2C-2 for the mainline roadway
classification listed for each of the columns, in response to a comment
from Utah DOT suggesting that this language be added for consistency
with other sections of the MUTCD. This language is consistent with
similar guidance that the FHWA adds in Section 2B.03 as discussed
previously.
114. The FHWA revises 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 36 inches x 36 inches.
Based on comments from the NCUTCD (and to be consistent with a similar
change in Table 2B-1), the FHWA adds a column to Table 2C-2 for multi-
lane conventional roads in this final rule. The FHWA also adopts
additional changes in Table 2C-2 to address comments from the NCUTCD
and one of its members, and to provide consistency between the table
and other changes within the chapter. These include adding additional
sizes for signs and plaques, adding new signs while deleting signs no
longer used, and clarifying the note at the bottom of the table
regarding exceptions to the requirement to use the larger sign sizes on
multi-lane conventional roads (as discussed above). The FHWA adopts the
increases in sign sizes to provide signs on multi-lane approaches that
are more legible to drivers with visual acuity of 20/40 and to be
consistent with and incorporate other changes adopted in Chapter 2C.
115. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA revises in Section 2C.05
Placement of Warning Signs 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 PRT, which has come into common use and is the
terminology used in the current policies of the AASHTO. The Traffic
Control Devices Handbook \56\ addresses both terms, but correctly
identifies PRT as the terminology now in common use. Accordingly, it is
appropriate to update the MUTCD using the common terminology PRT. The
NCUTCD and a local DOT supported these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 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 to 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the changes adopted in Section 2C.05, the FHWA is
also revising 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. Two State DOTs, four local DOTs, two traffic engineering
consultants, and an NCUTCD member commented about the values as well as
the notes in Table 2C-4. As a result, in this final rule the FHWA
further refines the notes in this final rule regarding the legibility
distance for Condition A. The FHWA notes that increasing the minimum
legend size to 6 inches causes the table values to change from those in
the 2003 MUTCD, and that the distances and associated notes in the
table are guidance, which by its nature allows flexibility.
116. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.06
Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs, containing SUPPORT, STANDARD, and
OPTION statements regarding the use of the new Table 2C-5 Horizontal
Alignment Sign Selection, in which the FHWA establishes a hierarchal
approach to use of these signs and plaques and defines required,
recommended, and optional warning signs. A State DOT and four local
DOTs supported the overall intent of the proposed new section and
associated table, but felt that FHWA should modify the language to
allow the use of engineering judgment rather than
[[Page 66758]]
require the use of Table 2C-5 and should clarify that actual prevailing
speeds should be used when determining the need for horizontal
alignment warning signs. Several of these agencies also commented in
opposition to the requirement to place warning signs on arterials and
collectors with average annual daily traffic (AADT) of over 1,000. To
address some of the concerns, the FHWA revises the STANDARD statement
in this final rule to clarify that alignment warning signs shall be
used in accordance with Table 2C-5 based on the speed differential
between the roadway's posted or statutory speed limit or 85th
percentile speed, whichever is higher, and the horizontal curve's
advisory speed. This change is consistent with the methodology on
application of posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed
is consistent with FHWA's ``Program Memorandum on Consideration and
Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures,'' Measure 7,
Yellow Change Intervals.\57\ As part of this change, the FHWA also
includes in the STANDARD statement the use of the prevailing speed in
determining the speed differential to the horizontal curve's advisory
speed along with posted and statutory speed and 85th percentile speed.
Regarding the requirement to place warning signs on functionally
classified arterials and collectors over 1,000 AADT, the FHWA believes
that this is appropriate because these road classifications represent
higher-volume roadways, which have a larger percentage of unfamiliar
drivers, and have the potential to yield the largest safety benefits in
reducing crashes resulting from road users' lack of awareness of a
change in horizontal alignment, as documented in a recent NCHRP
study.\58\ The FHWA retains the option to use Horizontal Alignment
Warning signs on other roadways or on arterial and collector roadways
with less than 1,000 AADT based on engineering judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ FHWA's Program Memorandum on Consideration and
Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures, dated July 10, 2008
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/.
\58\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine State DOTs, six local DOTs, two NCUTCD members, and a citizen
opposed the inclusion of Table 2C-5 in the MUTCD, or suggested that the
some or all of the values in the table be recommended, rather than
required, because they felt that engineering experience and judgment
are superior to prescribing values. The FHWA disagrees and notes that
fatalities at horizontal curves account for 25 percent of all highway
fatalities even though horizontal curves are only a small portion of
the nation's highway mileage. The past and current basis of the
application of engineering judgment for determination of horizontal
curve signing has not sufficiently improved the safety performance of
horizontal curves. Therefore, the FHWA adopts Table 2C-5 with revisions
as a STANDARD statement to improve the safety performance of horizontal
curves. Six State DOTs, five local DOTs, a State association of
counties, and two traffic engineering consultants suggested that the
row concerning Chevron signs should be deleted, that the wording be
reverted to that used in the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD, and that the
use of Chevron signs not be required. The FHWA disagrees and adopts in
this final rule the Chevron signs and their values, as proposed in the
NPA based upon research regarding their safety effectiveness \59\ and
because Chevron signs are a key element in the hierarchy of horizontal
alignment warning signs in that Chevron signs provide positive guidance
to a road user entering a curve as to alignment of the road and the
sharpness of the curve. However, based on comments from the NCUTCD,
five State DOTs, five local DOTs, a State association of counties, and
a traffic engineering consultant expressing concerns that application
of the speed differential in proposed Table 2C-5 to freeway ramps would
have resulted in the placement of Truck Rollover warning signs on the
majority of the loop ramps on the nation's highway system which would
be a financial burden to highway agencies, the FHWA deletes the Truck
Rollover warning sign from Table 2C-5. The incidence of truck rollover
crashes is more specific to individual freeway ramp geometry than to
speed differential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The FHWA Roadway Departure Crash Reduction Factors can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
117. In concert with the changes adopted in the previous item, the
FHWA adopts several changes to Section 2C.07 Horizontal Alignment Signs
(Section 2C.06 of the 2003 MUTCD) to incorporate the material in Table
2C-5 and to provide agencies with additional information on the
appropriate use of horizontal alignment signs. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending the use of a Turn
(W1-1) sign instead of a Curve sign in advance of curves that have
advisory speeds of 30 mph or less. A State DOT, two local DOTs, and a
NCUTCD member suggested that the statement be changed to a STANDARD to
promote uniformity. The FHWA agrees and adopts the requirement in this
final rule. In the 2003 MUTCD, a GUIDANCE statement indicated that
Table 2C-5 should be used, and Note 1 of the table stated that
``Engineering judgment should be used to determine whether the Turn or
Curve Sign should be used.'' In the NPA the FHWA proposed to delete
this table and its notes and replace it with a completely new Table 2C-
5 referenced in the text in a STANDARD that the table shall be used.
Inherent in new Table 2C-5 is a definitive choice, either required
(STANDARD), or recommended (GUIDANCE), or Option (OPTION); an option to
choose either the TURN or the CURVE for the same advisory speed and
speed difference is no longer possible within the STANDARD statement.
Hence, the addition of the STANDARD statement is consistent with the
STANDARD in Table 2C-5 rather than carrying forward a note from the old
table. The FHWA also revises the language regarding the use of the
Winding Road sign to allow its use to be optional, rather than
recommended, based on comments from the NCUTCD and a local DOT. The
FHWA also adds Figure 2C-2 to illustrate an example of the use of
warning signs for a turn, and modifies Figure 2C-3 (Figure 2C-7 in the
2003 MUTCD) to illustrate horizontal alignment signs for a sharp curve
on an exit ramp.
118. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates Section 2C.46 of
the 2003 MUTCD 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 adopts
several revisions to the section to incorporate 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. A State DOT and several
local DOTs in that State supported using engineering judgment, rather
than engineering studies, for determining advisory speeds. The FHWA
disagrees, noting that the application of engineering judgment that is
implicit in the determination of an appropriate advisory speed should
be documented in writing as an engineering study. A State DOT, a local
DOT, and a traffic
[[Page 66759]]
engineering consultant suggested that eliminating references to ball-
bank indicators, as proposed in the NPA, should be reconsidered,
because it might cause agencies to unnecessarily believe that a more
extensive engineering study is needed. The FHWA agrees and adopts in
this final rule a SUPPORT statement identifying appropriate engineering
practices for determining advisory speeds. This includes the use of an
accelerometer, design speed evaluation, or a ball-bank indicator.
119. In Section 2C.09 Chevron Alignment Sign (Section 2C.10 of the
2003 MUTCD), the FHWA changes paragraph 01 to a STANDARD to require the
use of the Chevron Alignment sign in accordance with the hierarchy of
use as listed in Table 2C-5 and to be consistent with Section 2C.06.
Similar to the discussion above in item 116, several commenters were
opposed as they prefer to retain the choice to use Chevron Alignment
signs based upon engineering judgment. The FHWA disagrees and adopts
the STANDARD Table 2C-5 requiring the use of Chevron Alignment signs,
because application of Chevron Alignment signs can reduce crashes on
horizontal curves by 35 percent.\60\ As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA
also adds information to paragraph 04 regarding the minimum
installation height of these signs. A local DOT and an NCUTCD member
supported the minimum 4-foot mounting height, while two local DOTs
suggested allowing even lower mounting heights, in part because they
felt it would enable chevron signs to be better illuminated by
headlights. The FHWA disagrees and adopts a minimum mounting height of
4 feet as an exception to the normal minimum mounting height for signs,
consistent with provisions in Section 3F.04 for delineator placement.
The FHWA also adds a reference in the GUIDANCE statement to Table 2C-6
Approximate Spacing of Chevron Alignment Signs on Horizontal Curves.
The spacing criteria are based on research.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The FHWA Roadway Departure Crash Reduction Factors can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/.
\61\ 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 adds a new STANDARD statement at the end of the
section specifying the conditions when the Chevron Alignment sign shall
not be used, as proposed in the NPA. Although a local DOT supported the
revision, three State DOTs, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member opposed
the prohibition of Chevron Alignment signs at T-intersections to warn
drivers that a through movement is not physically possible. The FHWA
disagrees and adopts the prohibition on the use of the Chevron
Alignment sign for this purpose, because this is the function of a Two-
Direction (or One-Direction) Large Arrow sign. A State DOT supported
the prohibition of Chevron Alignment signs to mark obstructions within
or adjacent to the roadway, and the FHWA adopts in this final rule
expanded text to also prohibit the use of the Chevron Alignment sign to
mark the beginning of adjacent guard rail or barrier to address a
comment from a local DOT. The FHWA adopts this text to preclude
possible misinterpretations of the appropriate use of this sign.
120. In Section 2C.10 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory
Speed Signs (Section 2C.07 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA amplifies the
existing STANDARD statement in order to clarify how these signs are to
be used. Although a local DOT supported the revised language, a State
DOT, a local DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic engineering
consultant opposed the language. Some of the commenters felt that there
are some locations where the combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory
Speed sign serves the purpose better than the other advance horizontal
alignment warning signs, and therefore should be used alone, as a
substitute for the advance horizontal alignment warning signs. The FHWA
disagrees because it is inherent in the application of warning signs
that they be located in advance of the hazard in order to provide the
time and distance for a road user to reduce speed and act in a timely
manner. The FHWA also notes that the combination Horizontal Alignment/
Advisory Speed sign shall only be used to supplement advance horizontal
alignment warning signs. Furthermore, the advance horizontal alignment
warning signs are placed in advance of the curve and the combination
Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed sign is placed at the beginning of
the curve. The FHWA adopts the revisions with minor editorial changes
in this final rule.
121. In Section 2C.12 One-Direction Large Arrow Sign (Section 2C.09
in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement as proposed in
the NPA prohibiting the use of a One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the
central island of a roundabout, as proposed in the NPA. A traffic
engineering consultant supported this change, and the FHWA adopts this
change in this final rule in conjunction with other changes in Chapters
2B and 2D to provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.
122. In Section 2C.13 Truck Rollover Warning Sign (Section 2C.11 of
the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA had proposed in the NPA to add a STANDARD
statement requiring the use of the Truck Rollover Warning sign on
freeway and expressway ramps in accordance with the new Table 2C-5. Two
State DOTs, an association of local DOTs, and an NCUTCD member opposed
the required use of Truck Rollover warning signs because of concerns as
noted above in Section 2C.06. The FHWA agrees and removes in this final
rule that requirement from this section, as well as from Table 2C-5, as
the incidence of truck rollover crashes is more specific to individual
freeway ramp geometry than to speed differential.
In this final rule, the FHWA reverts to the optional use of the
Truck Rollover warning sign (as in the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD) and
adds the use of an engineering study to determine the need for the
sign. As part of this change, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement
describing appropriate engineering practices for determining
recommended curve speeds.
123. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates Section 2C.36 of
the 2003 MUTCD 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 revises the title of the section to ``Advisory Exit
and Ramp Speed Signs'' and revises the text to remove the optional
Curve Speed sign, as proposed in the NPA. Although a local DOT
supported deleting the Curve Speed Advisory sign, a citizen opposed its
removal. The Curve Speed sign has had only limited usage and, with the
new hierarchal approach to warning sign 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.
124. For all of the changes in applications of warning signs and
plaques for horizontal curves in Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14 and in
Table 2C-5, the FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December
31, 2019 (approximately 10 years from the effective date of this final
rule) for the installation of the additional signs and revisions in
advisory speed values
[[Page 66760]]
required to achieve compliance with these provisions at existing
locations. The FHWA establishes this target compliance date because of
the demonstrated safety issues associated with run-off-the road crashes
at horizontal curves. As noted above, fatalities at horizontal curves
account for 25 percent of all highway fatalities, yet horizontal curves
are only a small portion of the nation's highway mileage. The FHWA
anticipates that installation of the required additional signs at
existing locations will provide significant safety benefits to road
users. State and local highway agencies and owners of private roads
open to public travel can schedule the installation of the additional
required signs in conjunction with their programs for maintaining and
replacing other signs at existing locations that are worn out or
damaged, thus minimizing any financial impacts.
125. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.15
Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed Signs. As
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA incorporates these new signs for optional
use where ramp or exit curvature is not apparent to drivers in the
deceleration or exit lane or where the curvature needs to be
specifically identified as being on the ramp rather than on the
mainline. ATSSA, two local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, and a citizen
supported these new signs. The FHWA adopts the design and the use of
this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study,\62\ which found that at
least four States have developed signs for this purpose, but with
varying designs. The FHWA adopts a uniform design for this type of
sign, to provide consistency for road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
126. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to relocate Section 2C.13 of the
2003 MUTCD Truck Escape Ramp Signs to Chapter 2F (Chapter 2I in this
final rule), to reflect the proposed new classification and design of
these signs as general service signs. As discussed in detail under
Amendments to Chapter 2I, the FHWA retains Truck Escape Ramp signs as
Section 2C.17 in this final rule. The FHWA also retains the warning
sign designations for the associated signs, and retains the color of
the background of these signs as yellow and the color of the legend,
border, and arrows as black. The sign images for these signs are shown
in Figure 2C-4 in this final rule.
127. In Section 2C.19 ROAD NARROWS Sign (Section 2C.15 in the 2003
MUTCD) the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the language describing
the situations under which a ROAD NARROWS sign should be used. A local
DOT and a State association of counties and several of its members
suggested that the proposed language actually changed the intent of the
section. As a result, the FHWA clarifies the language in this final
rule to state that the ROAD NARROWS sign should be used in advance of a
transition on two-lane roads where the pavement width is reduced
abruptly to a width such that vehicles traveling in opposite directions
cannot simultaneously travel through the narrow portion of the roadway
without reducing speed. The FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement to
describe the optional use of this sign on low-volume local streets with
speed limits of 30 mph or less.
128. In Section 2C.22 Divided Highway Sign (Section 2C.18 in the
2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds a STANDARD that the Divided Highway (W6-1)
sign shall not be used instead of a Keep Right (R4-7 series) sign in
the median island, as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA adopts this change
to reflect accepted signing practices and prevent misuse of the W6-1
sign.
129. In Section 2C.23 Divided Highway Ends Sign (Section 2C.19 of
the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA changes the OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE statement, recommending that the Two-Way
Traffic (W6-3) sign should also be used to warn of the transition to a
two-lane, two-way section. The FHWA adopts this change in this final
rule in order to be consistent with the GUIDANCE in Section 2C.44 that
the W6-3 sign should be used for this condition.
130. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.24
Freeway or Expressway Ends Signs (numbered Section 2C.23 in the NPA)
containing OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of these
new signs. The FHWA adopts 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 might 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
\63\ found that at least 21 States have developed their own standard
warning signs for this purpose, but with varying legends and designs.
The FHWA adopts uniform designs for these signs, to provide consistency
for road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
131. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to change the title of Section
2C.31 (Section 2C.26 of the 2003 MUTCD) to ``Shoulder and Uneven Lanes
Signs.'' The FHWA proposed to incorporate a new symbolic Shoulder Drop
Off sign and a plaque, as well as a new UNEVEN LANES plaque, to warn
road users of either a low shoulder or uneven lanes. The FHWA proposed
these new signs and plaques as a result of the Sign Synthesis
Study,\64\ 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 the 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 NCUTCD, one of its members, and a local DOT commented that
an UNEVEN LANES word message warning sign is more appropriate than
using a Shoulder Drop Off symbol with a supplemental UNEVEN LANES
plaque to depict uneven lanes. The FHWA agrees that the proposed symbol
sign tends to convey a meaning of shoulder drop off more than it does
of uneven lanes and revises the language in this final rule to allow
the use of an UNEVEN LANES word message sign to warn of a difference in
elevation between lanes. Further, the FHWA relocates the text regarding
the word message UNEVEN LANES sign to Section 2C.32 Surface Condition
Signs in this final rule, because it is more appropriately located
there. As part of this change, the FHWA does not adopt the UNEVEN LANES
supplemental plaque, since the use of this plaque to supplement a
Shoulder Drop Off symbol sign is not adopted. The FHWA retains the
Shoulder Drop Off symbol sign to depict an unprotected shoulder drop-
off, as stated in the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed to add an optional use of the NO
[[Page 66761]]
SHOULDER sign to allow agencies to use a sign of uniform legend that
would warn road users that shoulders do not exist along the roadway.
This sign and its design are based on the ``Sign Synthesis Study,''
\65\ which found inconsistencies in the legends of signs currently in
use by the States for this purpose. The NCUTCD suggested that road
users would be better served by two signs, one indicating that there is
no shoulder and another indicating that a shoulder ends. The FHWA
agrees and adopts in this final rule two optional signs, the NO
SHOULDER sign to warn of the lack of a shoulder on a short segment of a
roadway without a shoulder, as proposed in the NPA, and a new SHOULDER
ENDS sign to provide advance warning that a shoulder is ending.
Although not proposed in the NPA, use of the new SHOULDER ENDS sign is
optional, and the FHWA believes that some agencies may find it
appropriate to use this sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
132. The FHWA changes the title of Section 2C.32 to ``Surface
Condition Signs'' (Section 2C.27 in the 2003 MUTCD) and incorporates
several additional signs and supplemental plaques into this section, as
proposed in the NPA. The FHWA adds information in the OPTION 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 adds information in the OPTION regarding the LOOSE
GRAVEL and ROUGH ROAD word signs, as proposed in the NPA. These signs
and plaques have been illustrated in the MUTCD and the SHSM book, but
had not previously been discussed in the MUTCD text.
In addition, the FHWA incorporates the information from Section
2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD sign of the 2003 MUTCD into this section,
as proposed in the NPA, in order to maintain cohesiveness of
information.
Finally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding 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 \66\ found a lack of consistency in the sign legends or
symbols currently in use by States for this purpose. To provide
consistency in sign design, the FHWA proposed 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
proposed to adopt the standard Mexican MUTCD symbol, because its design
appeared to offer the best simplicity and legibility. Although ATSSA
and a local DOT supported this new sign and plaque, the NCUTCD and one
of its members opposed the symbol on the sign and the plaque because
they felt that it would not be well understood by the travelling public
and that a word sign would be more appropriate. The FHWA believes that
additional human factors testing of alternative symbols for this
message would be desirable prior to future consideration of adopting a
symbol and therefore the FHWA does not adopt the symbol sign or plaque
in this final rule. Instead, the FHWA adopts a FALLEN ROCKS word
message sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
133. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled Section 2C.33 Warning Signs and Plaques for Motorcyclists,
that 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 FHWA adds the new signs to promote needed sign
uniformity, based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\67\ which
found a variety of different messages in use by the States for these
purposes. Subsequently, a study \68\ 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. ATSSA, the
Motorcycle Safety Foundation, a State DOT, a local DOT, and a citizen
supported these new signs and plaques. As a result, the FHWA adopts
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. Based on comments from three NCUTCD members, a traffic
engineering consultant, and a citizen suggesting edits to the symbol
and flexibility in the mounting of the plaque, the FHWA also clarifies
the text and Figure 2C-6 in this final rule to show the motorcyclist on
the plaque facing left and to allow the Motorcycle plaque to be mounted
either above or below the sign if the warning is intended to be
directed primarily to motorcyclists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ ``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.
\68\ ``Design and Evaluation of Selected Symbol Signs,'' Final
Report, May, 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason
Kennedy, and Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
134. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a new section numbered
and titled Section 2C.34 NO CENTER STRIPE Sign. The FHWA adopts this
new section based on a review of the 2003 MUTCD and 2004 SHSM book that
revealed that the MUTCD did not contain language about this existing
sign, which is illustrated in Figure 2C-6. However, in this final rule
the FHWA revises the legend of the sign to NO CENTER LINE to reflect
current terminology, and revises the title and text of Section 2C.34
accordingly.
135. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled Section 2C.35 Weather Condition Signs, containing OPTION and
STANDARD statements regarding the use of four new signs to warn users
of potential adverse weather conditions. The FHWA based the proposed
signs on results of the Sign Synthesis Study \69\ that showed that
signs for various weather conditions were in very common use in many
parts of the country, but with widely varying legends. In the NPA, the
FHWA proposed to use the legend WATCH FOR FOG. Although ATSSA supported
the proposed legend, the NCUTCD and one of its members and a local DOT
suggested that ``WATCH FOR'' is unnecessary text on a warning sign. The
FHWA agrees and adopts the legend FOG AREA in this final rule. ATSSA
supported the GUSTY WINDS sign, while a State DOT, a local DOT, and an
[[Page 66762]]
NCUTCD member suggested alternate wording or questioned the need for
the sign. The FHWA adopts the wording GUSTY WINDS, as proposed in the
NPA as this message is simpler and clearer than any alternate wordings.
ATSSA, a State DOT, a local DOT, and a citizen supported the new ROAD
MAY FLOOD and Depth Gauge signs. The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested
revisions to clarify the placement of these optional signs to indicate
the depth of the water at the deepest point on the roadway. The FHWA
agrees with the suggested revisions and adopts them in this final rule
because they provide clearer and less ambiguous information to road
users. The FHWA adopts uniform designs for these signs to provide road
users with consistent messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
136. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled Section 2C.37 Advance Ramp Control Signal Signs, containing
OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use of two new
signs. ATSSA and two local DOTs supported the addition of these signs
to the MUTCD. The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested clarifying the
placement of the RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING sign to allow flexibility
in where it is placed. The FHWA agrees and revises the language
accordingly in this final rule to clarify the GUIDANCE statement as to
the placement of the sign in advance of the ramp control signal near
the entrance to the ramp or on the arterial on the approach to the
ramp. The FHWA also adopts the 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 \70\ and is recommended in the FHWA's Ramp
Management and Control Handbook.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ``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.
\71\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
137. The FHWA changes the title of Section 2C.38 to ``Reduced Speed
Limit Ahead Signs'' (Section 2C.30 of the 2003 MUTCD) to reflect the
change of the sign name to be consistent with the Stop Ahead, Yield
Ahead, and Signal Ahead warning sign names. A State DOT and a citizen
supported the use of these signs.
As proposed in the NPA, and to correspond to changes adopted in
Section 2B.13, the FHWA revises the GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is
being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment
indicates the need for advance notice. A local DOT supported this
revision. Two State DOTs suggested that it is infeasible to install
reduced speed signs in advance of every 10 mph reduction in speed. The
FHWA reiterates that the Reduced Speed Limit Ahead warning sign should
be used for speed limit drops in excess of 10 mph and would remain only
an option, rather than a recommendation, for a 10 mph difference in
posted speed limits. The FHWA believes that reductions in speed limit
of more than 10 mph are unexpected by road users and might 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 adopts
this change in order to provide consistency for determining where speed
reduction signs should be placed.
138. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.39
DRAW BRIDGE Sign, as proposed in the NPA, that contains a STANDARD
statement and a figure regarding the use of this sign. The FHWA adopts
this new Section in this final rule because Section 4J.02 Design and
Location of Moveable Bridge Signals and Gates (Section 4I.02 of the
2003 MUTCD) requires the use of the DRAW BRIDGE 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, which
covers Warning Signs. ATSSA supports the required use of this sign at
drawbridges. Based on a comment from a local DOT, the FHWA revises the
design of the W3-6 sign to be a two line legend warning sign with DRAW
as the first line and BRIDGE as the second line, as Draw Bridge is two
words rather than one in the dictionary and a two-line legend allows
for larger letters that are more legible to road users, and deletes
AHEAD from the legend, since the shape and color of the sign implies
that the condition listed is ahead.
139. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2C.40 Merge Signs (Section
2C.31 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds an OPTION statement at the end
of the section to incorporate the new NO MERGE AREA supplemental plaque
that may be mounted below a Merge sign, an Entering Roadway Merge sign,
a Yield Ahead sign, or a YIELD sign. The purpose of this plaque is 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. ATSSA, two State DOTs, and a local
DOT supported the new plaque. Two local DOTs opposed its use,
suggesting that it might be misinterpreted. The FHWA believes that 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. Therefore, the FHWA adopts this plaque in
this final rule based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\72\
which indicated that some States routinely use this plaque to provide
road users with important warning information for these conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
140. In Section 2C.42 Lane Ends Signs (Section 2C.33 of the 2003
MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to allow the use of the W4-7 THRU
TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT (LEFT) sign, as a supplement to other signs, to
warn road users in the right or left lane that their lane is about to
become a mandatory turn or exit lane. ATSSA and the NCUTCD supported
this new sign; however, a local DOT suggested that an additional sign
is not needed, because the existing W9-1 and W9-2 Series signs already
serve this purpose. The FHWA agrees and does not adopt the proposed use
of this sign in this final rule. The FHWA believes this sign legend can
be confusing when there are more than two through lanes. Instead, the
FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement in Section 2C.42 in this final rule to
recommend the use of the RIGHT (LEFT) LANE ENDS (W9-1) adjacent to the
Lane-Reduction Arrow pavement markings. The FHWA also clarifies the
application of the W4-2, W9-1, and W9-2 warning signs in this final
rule by adding a STANDARD statement prohibiting their use where a thru
lane is designated as a mandatory turning lane approaching an
intersection. The FHWA adopts these changes to be consistent with
changes adopted in Sections 2B.20 and 3B .04. The FHWA retains the
current use of the W4-7 sign for temporary conditions in Part 6.
141. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.43
RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD Sign. This section contains OPTION,
STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements regarding the use
[[Page 66763]]
of this new sign to provide advance warning of a freeway lane drop.
ATSSA and two local DOTs supported this sign, while the NCUTCD and two
of its members opposed the addition of this warning sign, because they
felt that the sign should be a regulatory sign, since it is used when
traffic is required to depart the roadway. The FHWA notes that this
warning sign is for post-mounted application in advance of the RIGHT
LANE MUST EXIT supplementary regulatory sign to the overhead guide sign
EXIT ONLY where physical constraints prevent overhead signing of the
EXIT ONLY sign. Several of the commenters suggested that the word
``AHEAD'' be deleted from the sign, because warning signs already imply
that the condition is ahead. The FHWA retains the ``AHEAD'' legend in
this final rule, because it warns of an exit requirement, which is
different from many other warning signs. The FHWA adopts this sign
based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \73\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
142. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a new section numbered
and titled Section 2C.46 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane Roadway Sign.
The proposed sign was a variant of the existing W6-1 two-way traffic
warning sign. ATSSA and two local DOTs supported the sign; however, an
NCUTCD member and a citizen expressed concern that the sign might
convey inaccurate information to drivers if the sign rotated to an
upside down position as the result of vandalism or sign damage. The
FHWA agrees and does not adopt this section or the associated signs in
this final rule.
143. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates the information
from Section 2C.36 of the 2003 MUTCD 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 Chapter 2C.
144. In Section 2C.46 Intersection Warning Signs (Section 2C.37 of
the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION
allowing an educational plaque with a legend such as TRAFFIC CIRCLE or
ROUNDABOUT to be mounted below a Circular Intersection symbol sign.
ATSSA and a local DOT supported this new plaque.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to delete from the GUIDANCE statement
the recommendation that Circular Intersection symbol warning signs
should be installed on the approaches to a YIELD sign controlled
roundabout. Based on a comment from a traffic engineering consultant
suggesting that advance notice of a circular intersection needs to be
given on higher speed approaches, the FHWA decides not to delete the
existing GUIDANCE statement in the 2003 MUTCD and instead retains the
GUIDANCE statement with a modification that recommends installing the
Circular Intersection (W2-6) symbol sign in advance of a roundabout if
the approach has a statutory or posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher
The FHWA also adds new Offset Side Roads and Double Side Roads symbols
for use on Intersection Warning Signs to the GUIDANCE statement, as
proposed in the NPA. ATSSA and a local DOT supported these symbol
signs, while the NCUTCD and a traffic engineering consultant provided
comments about the design of the Offset Side Road intersection warning
sign. As a result, the FHWA adds two GUIDANCE statements providing
recommendations that the Double Side Roads W2-8 symbol sign should be
used instead of the Side Road symbol sign where two closely spaced side
roads are on the same side of the highway, that no more than two side
road symbols should be displayed on the same side of the highway on a
W2-7 or W2-8 symbol sign, and no more than three side road symbols
should be displayed on a W2-7 or W2-8 symbol sign. The FHWA adopts
these new symbols to address the results of the Sign Synthesis
Study,\74\ which 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 adopts uniform designs in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
145. In Section 2C.47 Two-Direction Large Arrow Sign (Section 2C.38
of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adopts the STANDARD statement as proposed
in the NPA that the Two-Direction Large Arrow sign shall not be used in
the central island of a roundabout. A traffic engineering consultant
supported this restriction, while a local DOT suggested that this
restriction was not needed, because no one would use the sign for that
application. The FHWA notes that the Two Direction Large Arrow warning
sign is frequently used inappropriately in the central island of a
roundabout intersection. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule
in conjunction with other changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to provide
consistency in signing at roundabouts.
146. In Section 2C.48 Traffic Signal Signs (Section 2C.39 of the
2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts text clarifying
the STANDARD statement that W25-1 and W25-2 signs are to be vertical
rectangles. Two local DOTs and an NCUTCD member opposed the existing
provisions of requiring the use of the W25-1 and W25-2 signs to warn
drivers of extended green signal indications in the opposite direction.
The commenters felt that the sign text should be revised to improve the
understanding of the legend, or should be eliminated. The FHWA notes
that the provisions for their use are clearly indicated in the text
referred to in Part 4, and that they are not required for all
permissive left-turn applications, only for those few where a ``yellow
trap'' signal sequence is operated.
147. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a new Combined Bicycle/
Pedestrian sign and TRAIL X-ING supplemental plaque in Section 2C.49
(Section 2C.40 of the 2003 MUTCD) Vehicular Traffic Warning Signs. 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,
the provisions of the STANDARD statements of the 2003 MUTCD made it
necessary to use both the supplementary application of the W11-1
(bicycle) and W11-2 (pedestrian) crossing warning signs, mounted
together on the same post at the crossing when used to supplement the
advance warning placement, or sequentially along the road The Sign
Synthesis Study \75\ 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. As a result, the FHWA proposed in the NPA a new Combined
[[Page 66764]]
Bicycle/Pedestrian sign and TRAIL X-ING supplemental plaque. ATSSA, a
State DOT, and three local DOTs supported the Combined Bicycle/
Pedestrian sign application and the design of the sign as proposed in
the NPA. The NCUTCD and three of its members, four State DOTs, three
local DOTs, an association representing local DOTs, five associations
representing bicyclists and/or pedestrians, and three citizens
supported the use of the Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign, but
suggested that the design proposed in the NPA was confusing, tested
poorly in research studies, or was unclear. As a result of those
comments, the FHWA revises the sign design adopted in this final rule
to show a bicycle symbol at the top of the sign and a pedestrian symbol
at the bottom, as suggested by the NCUTCD. The FHWA also adds a TRAIL
CROSSING word message alternative sign in this final rule because it
agrees with a comment from the NCUTCD that such a sign might be needed
in locations where the recreational path includes equestrians or
snowmobiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSSA, a State DOT, two NCUTCD members and a traffic engineering
consultant commented that the color of the Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian
sign and TRAIL X-ING plaque shown in Figure 2C-10 should be changed to
reflect that the standard background color is yellow, and that the
fluorescent yellow-green color is optional. The FHWA agrees and revises
the sign illustrations in this final rule accordingly, consistent with
adopted revisions in Section 2A.10.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement
that the Combination Pedestrian/Bicycle symbol sign and TRAIL CROSSING
word message sign may be supplemented with plaques with the legend
AHEAD, XX FEET, or NEXT XX MILES when used in advance of a pedestrian
and bicycle crossing. The FHWA adds this language in this final rule to
provide consistency with other sections in the MUTCD involving the use
of plaques with Vehicular Traffic Warning signs.
In addition, the FHWA adds a STANDARD to clarify that post-mounted
Bicycle (W11-1), Golf Cart (W11-11), Combined Pedestrian/Bicycle (W11-
15), and TRAIL CROSSING (W11-15a) signs shall be supplemented with a
diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque when used at a
crossing. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds this
requirement to be consistent with the current STANDARD in the 2003
MUTCD (included in Section 2C.51 in this final rule) that requires the
use of the W16-7P plaque at crossings.
148. In Section 2C.50 Non-Vehicular Warning Signs (Section 2C.41 of
the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA changes the 2nd OPTION statement in the 2003
Edition of the MUTCD to a GUIDANCE statement. Although not proposed in
the NPA, the FHWA adopts this change to recommend the use of warning
signs supplemented with plaques with the AHEAD or XX FEET legend when
they are used with or in advance of a pedestrian, snowmobile, or
equestrian crossing to inform road users that they are approaching a
point where crossing activity might occur. The FHWA adopts this change
in this final rule to be consistent with the use of these plaques at
crossings, as required throughout the MUTCD. Application of the Non-
Vehicular Warning signs without the plaques stating distance or AHEAD
or downward sloping arrow at the crossing can be confusing to road
users as to the location of the crossing. FHWA notes the serious
consequences to a pedestrian or wheel chair bound user if the operator
of a much heavier vehicle operator is confused as to the location where
to expect them to enter the highway.
The FHWA also revises the existing STANDARD in paragraph 04 to
clarify that the placement of a supplemental downward pointing arrow
plaque shall be below post-mounted Non-Vehicular Warning signs, and to
prohibit the use of the diagonal downward pointing arrow on overhead-
mounted Non-Vehicular Warning signs. Although not proposed in the NPA,
the FHWA adopts these clarifications in response to a comment from a
State DOT suggesting that an arrow on an overhead sign would not be
pointing to the appropriate location. The resulting STANDARD in this
final rule specifies that the diagonal downward sloping arrow (W16-7P)
plaque shall not be used with an overhead mounting of the W11-6, W11-7
or W11-9 Non-Vehicular Warning symbol signs. This is necessary so that
the application of the W16-7 downward sloping arrow uniquely identifies
the location of the crossing.
The FHWA adds STANDARD and OPTION statements regarding the
combination use of the Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrian sign in
the vicinity of the Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) sign in this final rule
that restricts blocking the view of the W11-2 sign, or placing it on
the same post as a R1-5 series sign. These additional statements are
necessary for consistency with the STANDARD and OPTION statements in
Sections 2B.11 and 2B.12. The FHWA also adopts the OPTION statement to
allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead where Yield Here
To (Stop Here For) signs have been installed in advance of the
crosswalk. The FHWA also allows the use of advance Pedestrian Crossing
(W11-2) signs on the approach with AHEAD or distance plaques at the
crosswalk where Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrian signs have
been installed. The FHWA adopts this new language to be consistent with
similar language that is adopted in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's
Official Interpretation 2-566.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-566(I), July 27,
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a STANDARD statement that
required school signs and their related supplemental plaques to have a
fluorescent yellow-green background with a black legend and border to
be consistent with changes in Chapter 2A and in Part 7. In this final
rule, the FHWA relocates this statement to Section 2A.10 Sign Colors,
based on comments from an NCUTCD member, a State DOT, a local DOT, and
a traffic engineering consultant, suggesting that Section 2A.10 is a
more appropriate location for the information, since that section
discusses the color of signs.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to change paragraph 09 to a GUIDANCE
statement to recommend, rather than merely permit, the use of
fluorescent yellow-green for pedestrian, bicycle, and playground Non-
Vehicular Warning signs and their supplemental plaques. The NCUTCD and
two of its members, three State DOTs, and two local DOTs opposed
including the Bicycle (W11-1) warning sign in this statement that
elevates the use of the fluorescent yellow-green background to a
recommendation (rather than an option as in the 2003 MUTCD), because
Bicycle warning signs are not always school related. Because bicycles
are defined as vehicles, the Bicycle W11-1 warning sign is a Vehicular
Traffic Warning sign, and therefore the FHWA moves it to Section 2C.49
in this final rule. As discussed above in 2C.49, the use of fluorescent
yellow-green is an option for Vehicular Traffic Warning signs,
including the W11-1 sign. To be consistent with changes adopted in
Section 2C.03 and discussed therein, in this final rule the FHWA adopts
an OPTION to use fluorescent yellow-green for non-school Non-Vehicular
Warning signs and their associated plaques.
[[Page 66765]]
149. In both Section 2C.49 Vehicular Traffic Warning Signs and
Section 2C.50 Non-Vehicular Warning Signs (Sections 2C.40 and 2C.41 of
the 2003 MUTCD), in the NPA the FHWA proposed 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. A local DOT supported this
additional information; however, an NCUTCD member suggested that the
language was confusing. The FHWA revises the language in this final
rule to clarify the application of a supplemental WHEN FLASHING (W16-
13P) plaque. The FHWA adopts these changes to clarify the allowable use
of this plaque, for consistency with provisions regarding warning
beacons contained in Part 4 of the 2003 MUTCD and in the adopted 2009
MUTCD.
150. In Figure 2C-11 (Figure 2C-12 in the NPA) Non-Vehicular
Warning Signs, the FHWA adds images of new symbolic warning signs for
moose, elk/antelope/caribou, wild horses (horse without a rider),
burros/donkeys, sheep, bighorn sheep, and bears, as proposed in the
NPA. The 2003 MUTCD included 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 might cross roads (and
which might 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.\77\ ATSSA supported the new large animal symbol
signs, however a State DOT and a local DOT suggested that there is not
sufficient research to show that the existing animal warning signs are
effective, so there is no reason to add considerably more animal symbol
warning signs. The NCUTCD and two of its members provided comments
about the design of the bear, sheep, elk, moose, and wild horse
symbols. Based on those comments, the FHWA revises the moose symbol in
this final rule to show the animal with its head up and removes the
grass from beneath the elk's feet. The FHWA adopts the new signs
because the new animal symbols look significantly different from the
three animal symbols in the 2003 MUTCD and the standard signs do not
provide accurate meaning and adequate warning. The FHWA also adopts the
uniform symbol designs to address the lack of consistency in the signs
currently being used for this purpose by the States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
151. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.52
NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign, containing 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 intersection control. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a local
DOT supported this sign as presented in the NPA. A State DOT, an NCUTCD
member, two local DOTs, a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen
either opposed the message because they felt that it was not clear or
suggested that alternate legends be added for this sign. A State DOT
suggested deleting the sign and allowing agencies to develop a specific
sign to indicate what is different. A State DOT, two local DOTs, and an
NCUTCD member suggested that the background of the sign be orange,
since it represents a temporary situation, and that the sign should be
in Part 6, rather than in Part 2. The FHWA declines removing the
proposed sign from Part 2 because it is a warning sign for a change in
conditions that may not be associated with temporary traffic control.
However, the FHWA also adds this sign in this final rule (with an
orange background) in Chapter 6F. The FHWA understands that some
agencies are using different legends; however, the FHWA declines adding
additional legends to the MUTCD in order to establish a uniform design
and most importantly a uniform meaning to road users. The FHWA adopts
in this final rule the legend as shown in the NPA to reflect existing
practices in many States and numerous local jurisdictions as documented
in the Sign Synthesis Study \78\ and to provide a uniform legend for
this purpose, consistent with similar adopted changes in Part 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
152. In Section 2C.58 Advance Street Name Plaque (Section 2C.49 of
the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a requirement
that the lettering on Advance Street Name plaques shall be composed of
a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.
ATSSA and a citizen supported this change. Two State DOTs, two local
DOTs, and an NCUTCD member supported the use of mixed-case letters, but
suggested that their use not be mandatory. The commenters felt that
there is not enough evidence to support the change to mandate the use
of mixed-case letters and that the cost of replacing the signs is
disproportionate to the benefit to be received by changing the letters.
The FHWA disagrees that there are significant cost impacts, as existing
Advance Street Name plaques in good condition may remain in service
until such point in time that they are replaced as part of the agency's
periodic sign maintenance program. The FHWA retains the requirement for
mixed-use letters based on published research \79\ that demonstrates
the improved recognition and legibility distances for place names and
destinations that are comprised of an upper-case first letter followed
by lower-case lettering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Research on this topic is cited and discussed in ``Highway
Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no.
FHWA-RD-01-103, May 2001, which can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the current design requirements in Chapter 2D for
the application of directional arrows to Street Name signs and Advance
Street Name signs, the FHWA adds a requirement that directional arrows
be used adjacent to street names when two street names are used on the
Advance Street Name plaque. The FHWA adopts this requirement in this
final rule based on a comment from the NCUTCD suggesting the need to
account for side roads that have different names, and to provide
consistency for road users. The added text reflects common practice by
highway agencies and MUTCD principles for arrows on guide signs.
The FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement, and an accompanying figure,
that recommends the order in which street names should be displayed on
an Advance Street Name plaque, as proposed in the NPA. ATSSA and a
local DOT supported this recommendation.
153. In Section 2C.59 CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP Plaque (Section
2C.50 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement as
proposed in the NPA 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. ATSSA and
a local DOT supported the plaques. Similar to comments about Chapter 2B
proposals regarding ALL-WAY plaques with STOP signs, two local DOTs
opposed using
[[Page 66766]]
these plaques because they feel that the existing plaques are
effective. The FHWA disagrees that the meaning and understanding of
these types of supplemental plaques by road users has confused drivers
facing a STOP sign as to which other approaches are required to stop.
The FHWA believes to the contrary, that these plaques are helpful for
informing and warning road users, and the FHWA adopts these plaques in
this final rule to be consistent with changes adopted in Chapter 2B.
154. In Section 2C.60 SHARE THE ROAD Plaque (Section 2C.51 of the
2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement that requires that
the SHARE THE ROAD plaque be used only as a supplement to a Vehicular
Traffic or Non-Vehicular sign. ATSSA and a State DOT supported this
standard, while a local DOT suggested that prohibiting the use of this
plaque alone is not justified. The FHWA disagrees because road users
need more clarity on the type of vehicle or nonvehicle that might be
present, and because plaques are not intended for independent use. The
FHWA adopts this change in this final rule as proposed in the NPA. The
FHWA proposed in the NPA to require the use of fluorescent yellow-green
background for all school, pedestrian, and bicycle applications. As
discussed above in Section 2C.03, in this final rule the FHWA revised
Section 2C.03 to make the mandatory application of fluorescent yellow-
green apply only to School area signs and adopted an OPTION statement
that the background color of Non-Vehicular Warning signs may be either
yellow or fluorescent yellow-green consistent with Table 2A-5. Based on
a comment from a State DOT, a local DOT, two NCUTCD members, and a
traffic engineering consultant suggesting the need for consistency with
Section 2C.03, FHWA adds a STANDARD statement to Section 2C.60 to
provide for the consistent application of the appropriate background
color to the SHARE THE ROAD plaque.
155. In Section 2C.61 Photo Enforced Plaque (Section 2C.53 of the
2003 MUTCD), the FHWA replaces the ``PHOTO ENFORCED'' word message
plaque with a new symbol plaque depicting a camera and designated as
W16-10P, as proposed in the NPA. The existing word message plaque is
retained as an alternate to the new symbol plaque and its sign
designation reassigned as W16-10aP. ATSSA supported the addition of the
symbol sign, while a State DOT, a local DOT, and two NCUTCD members
opposed the symbol sign, primarily because they felt that its meaning
was not clear. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the new symbol sign in
this final rule, noting that the results of the ``Design and Evaluation
of Symbol Signs'' study \80\ found that subjects in a human factors
study demonstrated excellent correct understanding of the symbol when
displayed with a Signal Ahead warning sign as meaning a warning of Red
Light Enforcement Cameras.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ``Design and Evaluation of Selected Symbol Signs,'' Final
Report, May, 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason
Kennedy, and Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
156. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a section numbered and
titled Section 2C.66 METRIC Plaque. The FHWA does not adopt this
section in this final rule, reflecting the removal of metric signs from
the MUTCD.
157. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2C.62
NEW Plaque (numbered Section 2C.67 in the NPA) that describes the use
of this optional plaque that may be mounted above a regulatory sign
when a new traffic regulation takes effect or above an advance warning
sign for a new traffic control condition. ATSSA, the NCUTCD, a State
DOT, a local DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant supported the
plaque and its design as proposed in the NPA. Two local DOTs and two
NCUTCD members suggested that the design of the plaque be changed to a
black legend on a yellow background. A State DOT, two local DOTs, and
an NCUTCD member opposed the new plaque because of its design and the
fact that Section 2A.15 addresses other ways to enhance sign
conspicuity. The FHWA revises the design of the plaque in this final
rule to be the black legend ``NEW'' and a black border on a yellow
background without the black and white sunburst graphic. Although not
opposed to the plaque, a local DOT expressed concern that that the
addition of this supplemental plaque to the MUTCD might result in
overuse of the plaques by agencies being pressured to ``do more by
adding this plaque to many signs'' for a particular situation,
regardless of whether the plaque's effectiveness is demonstrated. The
FHWA understands this concern, and notes that in response to a comment
from the NCUTCD, the FHWA adopts language in this final rule
restricting the use of the NEW plaque so that it cannot be used alone.
The FHWA adopts this new plaque based on the Sign Synthesis Study,\81\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed in a GUIDANCE statement that the
use of this plaque be limited to the first 6 months after the traffic
regulation has been in effect. A State and a local DOT supported this
time limitation, while another local DOT suggested that its use be
limited to 3 months. To address a comment from the State DOT suggesting
that if the plaque remains in place for a long time (possibly years) it
would degrade the effect of the same sign at a location that has a new
restriction, the FHWA revises the statement to a STANDARD in this final
rule, thereby limiting its use to a maximum 6-month time period. The
FHWA believes that timely removal of this plaque is essential,
warranting mandatory language.
158. In Section 2C.63 Object Marker Design and Placement Height
(Section 3C.01 of the 2003 MUTCD, numbered Section 2L.01 of the NPA),
the FHWA adopts several revisions in this final rule based on comments
submitted by the NCUTCD suggesting the need to clarify the design of
object markers due to their relocation into Part 2 signs to avoid
inconsistencies with existing and proposed revisions to the MUTCD. The
resulting changes clarify existing standards that object markers do not
have a border in their design, that Type I object markers are diamond
shaped, that retroreflectors are in fact retroreflective devices, and
providing information regarding the design of the Type 4 object marker
that is used to mark the end of a roadway. These revisions will not
have a significant impact on agencies; rather they provide
clarification and combine similar information all in one location,
which the FHWA believes will be beneficial to practitioners.
159. In Section 2C.64 Object Markers for Obstructions Within the
Roadway (Section 3C.02 of the 2003 MUTCD, Section 2L.02 of the NPA),
the FHWA proposed in the NPA adding an OPTION statement regarding the
placement of Type 1 or Type 3 markers on the nose of a median island.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a local DOT, supported the concept, but
suggested editorial changes that the FHWA adopts in this final rule. A
local DOT suggested including the option to install Type 2
[[Page 66767]]
markers in the same manner; however the FHWA disagrees because the
approach end of a median island is in the roadway, not adjacent to the
roadway, therefore only Type 1 and 3 markers are appropriate.
160. In Section 2C.65 Object Markers for Obstructions Adjacent to
the Roadway (Section 3C.03 of the 2003 MUTCD, Section 2L.03 of the
NPA), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement
to specify that Type 1 and Type 4 object markers shall not be used to
mark obstructions adjacent to the roadway. The FHWA relocates the
STANDARD statement from Section 2C.64 Object Markers for Obstructions
Within the Roadway to Section 2C.65 Object Markers for Obstructions
Adjacent to the Roadway, because the STANDARD statement applies to
objects adjacent to the roadway. In this final rule the FHWA also
revises the STANDARD statement to clarify the application of Type 3
object markers to the approach ends of guardrail and other roadside
appurtenances to address a comment from a State DOT suggesting the need
to address the required size where the ends of the guardrail or
roadside appurtenances are of a size other than 12 inches x 36 inches,
for consistency with existing STANDARD requirements for Type 3 Object
Markers. The FHWA adopts this clarification to provide for the
predominant practice by highway agencies.
161. In Section 2C.66 Object Markers for Ends of Roadways (Section
3C.04 of the 2003 MUTCD, Section 2L.04 of the NPA), the FHWA adds a
STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA, to require that if an object
marker is used to mark the end of a roadway, a Type 4 object marker
shall be used. The FHWA adopts 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.
To address a comment from the NCUTCD to place design information
for all types of object markers in the same section, the FHWA relocates
the information regarding the design of the Type 4 marker to Section
2C.63 in this final rule.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2D--General
162. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2D.30 Junction Assembly
(Section 2D.28 of the 2003 MUTCD), Section 2D.31 Advance Route Turn
Assembly (Section 2D.29 of the 2003 MUTCD), and Section 2D.40 Location
of Destination Signs (Section 2D.35 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA
revises the requirements and recommendations for the locations of these
signs. In Section 2D.30, the FHWA proposed to change the sign placement
distances in advance of an intersection from STANDARD to GUIDANCE, to
recommend, rather than require, that the signs be installed at the
distances stated therein. In Sections 2D.31 and 2D.40, the FHWA
proposed to add new recommendations regarding the distances between
signs to provide consistency with the sign placement distances included
in Section 2D.30. In this final rule the FHWA adopts these changes as
proposed in the NPA, 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 Amendments Within Chapter 2D--Specific
163. In Section 2D.04 Size of Signs, the FHWA adds a requirement,
as proposed in the NPA, that the sizes of conventional road guide signs
that have standardized designs shall be as shown in Table 2D-1, except
as noted in Section 2A.11. Although a local DOT supported this change,
two State DOTs and an NCUTCD member opposed this change, suggesting
that States needed to have flexibility in sign size when the need
arises, and to exercise engineering judgment, rather than needing to
follow requirements at all times. The FHWA disagrees that signs with
standard legends need not conform in overall size and believes that
non-conformance to the standard sign sizes results in smaller letter
sizes that cannot be read at distances adequate to react to the
message. Signs listed in Table 2D-1 that have legends that might vary
in length are adequately addressed by the footnote allowing for an
appropriate adjustment in size for an atypical sign. The FHWA adopts
the proposed language in this final rule.
164. In Section 2D.05 Lettering Style, the FHWA proposed a
requirement in the NPA to use a combination of lower-case letters with
initial upper-case letters for names of places, streets, and highways
on conventional road guide signs. A transportation research institute,
a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen all supported this
requirement, while two State DOTs, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member
suggested that the use of a combination of lower-case letters with
initial upper-case letters be a recommendation, and that all upper-case
letters be allowed as well. The commenters suggested that there is not
enough convincing evidence to support making the change to upper-case
and lower-case letters as a mandatory condition. The FHWA disagrees
because the change to mixed-case alphabets is based directly on the
outcome of a research study \82\ that demonstrated improved recognition
of familiar destinations on guide signs when displayed using mixed-case
lettering. In this final rule the FHWA revises the language in this
section from what was proposed in the NPA to clarify that the nominal
loop height of the lower-case letters shall be three-quarters the
height of the initial upper-case letter. The FHWA also adds clarifying
language to help users of the MUTCD determine the appropriate letter
height when a mixed-case legend letter height is specified referring
only to the initial upper-case letter or when only to a lower-case
letter is referred to. The FHWA adopts this language in this final rule
to address comments in several sections of the NPA from various
commenters suggesting that more information was needed to determine the
appropriate letter heights for mixed-case legends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Research on this topic is cited and discussed in ``Highway
Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no.
FHWA-RD-01-103, May 2001, which can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds a STANDARD at the end of this section in this
final rule to clarify that the distortion of unique letter forms of the
Standard Alphabet series is prohibited, and provides a reference to the
provisions in Section 2D.04 regarding the prescribed methods to modify
the length of a word for a given letter height and series. Although the
referenced provisions exist in Section 2D.04 of the 2003 MUTCD, and
state that the letter designs shall be as detailed in the ``Standard
Highway Signs'' book, the FHWA has noticed that with the advancement
and use of electronic technologies for sign design and fabrication,
such distortion of letter forms to fit word legends on signs has become
increasingly prevalent. The FHWA believes that this distortion
compromises legibility, and adds this specific requirement in this
final rule as a reiteration of the existing provision.
165. In Section 2D.07 Amount of Legend, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to revise the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that guide signs should
be limited to no more than three lines of destinations and that action
and distance information should be provided on guide signs in addition
to the destinations, where appropriate. ATSSA and an NCUTCD member
supported this change, whereas two State DOTs suggested that the
language allow for more flexibility, such as when
[[Page 66768]]
a destination name occupies more than one line, or at a location where
four destinations are needed, such as a ramp terminal. The FHWA
disagrees with this suggestion due to concerns about increasing the
cognitive load imposed on a driver and adopts in this final rule the
language as proposed in the NPA, with the addition of language to refer
to exceptions noted elsewhere (such as in Section 2D.37 Destination
Signs), that provide information on how to accommodate four
destinations where necessary. FHWA adopts this language 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.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 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 the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise the OPTION regarding the
use of pictographs on guide signs. Because the information contained in
this OPTION provides general provisions and applies to all cases in
which pictographs are allowed, the FHWA relocates the information to
Chapter 2A in this final rule, as discussed previously in this
preamble.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a STANDARD statement
specifying the maximum dimension of a pictograph on a guide sign. The
proposed language stated that a pictograph shall not exceed the size of
the route shield on the guide sign, and that if the guide sign does not
include a route shield, the maximum size of the pictograph shall not
exceed two times the letter height of the destination legend. ATSSA, a
local DOT, and a toll road operator supported this language. A State
DOT and two toll road operators suggested exempting ETC system
pictographs from adhering to the width dimension requirements, because
ETC pictographs are often rectangular, rather than square, in shape.
Two toll road operators suggested that there be no limit on the size of
ETC pictographs. The FHWA understands that there is a need for some
flexibility with regard to ETC system pictographs because of their
unique designs and the critical information conveyed by their use,
unlike other pictographs that only complement and not replace an
associated word legend. As a result, the FHWA adopts specific
provisions on the size of ETC-system pictographs in Chapter 2F. In
addition, the FHWA relocates specific provisions on pictographs to the
relevant Sections where a pictograph is allowed to better group related
information. The FHWA adopts these changes in order to incorporate
information regarding pictographs in the MUTCD, to reflect FHWA's
Official Interpretation number 2-646(I) \84\ and to provide information
on the maximum size of certain pictographs so that they do not detract
from the primary legend of the signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ This official interpretation can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_646.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
166. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to make
several revisions to this section to clarify the use and design of
arrows on guide signs. The first STANDARD statement required that down
arrows on overhead signs shall always be vertical and positioned
directly over the approximate center of the applicable lane. ATSSA and
a local DOT supported this language; however three State DOTs opposed
it, stating that the location of arrows on the sign should be GUIDANCE,
not a STANDARD statement. The FHWA disagrees with the opposing
commenters and retains the language in this final rule in order to
reduce uncertainty and confusion by providing positive guidance in sign
legends. The FHWA also proposed to add a requirement that no more than
one down arrow shall point to a lane on a single overhead sign (or on
multiple overhead signs on the same sign structure). ATSSA, a State
DOT, and a local DOT supported this requirement, while three State DOTs
opposed it because their States use multiple down arrows to point to a
single lane. The FHWA believes that allowing one more arrow than the
number of lanes present creates conflicting information for the road
user to process and that adopting this language will substantially
increase positive guidance and eliminate driver confusion and late lane
changes, thereby improving highway safety. The FHWA adopts the language
as proposed in the NPA in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add an OPTION permitting the use
of 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.
ATSSA and a local DOT supported this new OPTION, while one State DOT,
an NCUTCD member and a citizen opposed this use of diagonally pointing
arrows. The commenters believe that the arrows are unlikely to convey
meaningful and consistent information to the driver, as there are no
guidelines identifying the circumstances that would justify placing the
arrows at an angle, and that there is a likely potential for
inconsistent application, an implication of a lane change, and an
overall practice that is not consistent with the use of upward-pointing
arrows at similar locations. The FHWA agrees with the commenters and
does not adopt this OPTION for overhead signs in this final rule.
The FHWA adopts the proposed 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 or circular intersections. ATSSA and an NCUTCD member
supported this new OPTION. The FHWA clarifies through a STANDARD that
the use of a curved-stem arrow on any sign not associated with a
circular intersection is prohibited, because such use would be
confusing and is not the intended use of this type of arrow. The FHWA
adds this statement to clarify application of curved-stem arrows on
guide signs.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
regarding the use of various arrow types, including curved-stem and
Types A through D arrows. ATSSA, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member
supported including this information; however, one of the commenters
felt that the level of detail included in the GUIDANCE and the
following OPTION was too much and that a reference to the SHSM book
would suffice. Two State DOTs and another NCUTCD member suggested that
some of the information regarding specific arrow types be deleted, or
changed from a GUIDANCE to an OPTION, because their State was using a
different arrow type. The FHWA disagrees and adopts in this final rule
the statements as proposed in the NPA, because the selection of the
arrow type and placement are critical to the overall appearance and
legibility of the sign. A local DOT supported the NPA language
recommending that the arrowheads for the Types A, B, and C directional
arrows should be 1.5 to 1.75 times the height of the largest letter on
the sign, while a State DOT opposed the revision because it felt that
there was no value in providing that information. The FHWA disagrees
and adopts the recommendation in the MUTCD because the GUIDANCE on
arrow size ensures that the arrow is kept in relative proportion to the
entire legend, preserving legibility.
167. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to change paragraph 07 to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend,
rather than just allow, the use of a white square or
[[Page 66769]]
rectangle behind the Off-Interstate Business Route sign when it is used
on a green guide sign. The FHWA proposed 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. ATSSA supported the proposed change; however, two State
DOTs, two NCUTCD members, and a citizen opposed this change or
suggested modifications. Many of the commenters suggested that if there
is a problem with conspicuity of Off-Interstate Business Route signs,
then they should be redesigned. The FHWA agrees with the commenters and
does not adopt the proposed revision in this final rule, retaining the
use of a white-square or rectangle as an option rather than as a
recommendation. To address concerns with conspicuity of the route sign
when used on a guide sign, the FHWA might consider modifications to the
sign to enhance its conspicuity in a future rulemaking and/or a
revision to ``Standard Highway Signs and Markings'' book.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates a paragraph
from Section 2D.14 to this section regarding the use of U.S. or State
Route signs as components of guide signs. The FHWA adopts this change
in this final rule to place similar information together in the same
location.
168. In Section 2D.12 Design of Route Sign Auxiliaries, the FHWA in
this final rule revises paragraph 02 by deleting the first sentence
related to the size of auxiliary signs carrying word messages and
mounted with 30 inch x 24 inch Interstate Route signs. Although not
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA deletes the sentence in this final rule
to reflect the consistent practice of determining the size of the
auxiliary sign based on the height of the route sign rather than its
width, maintaining a consistent letter height for the auxiliary message
as it relates to the numeral height within the route sign.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a GUIDANCE statement and
corresponding STANDARD statement to clarify that if a route sign and
its auxiliary signs are combined in a single sign, the background color
of the sign should be green. Along with this GUIDANCE, the FHWA
proposed adding a corresponding STANDARD that on such a sign the
auxiliary messages shall be white legends placed directly on the green
background and that auxiliary signs shall not be mounted directly to a
guide sign. The FHWA proposed these changes to provide consistency for
background colors, because the background colors currently in use for
this application are not consistent across the country. Green is the
appropriate background color for a directional guide sign, and the
FHWA's intent is to preclude the incorrect use of auxiliary signs on
green guide signs. ATSSA and a local DOT supported the STANDARD
language as proposed in the NPA; however, an NCUTCD member suggested
that the proposal in the NPA was too restrictive, because it implied
that green backgrounds would be required for the signs. FHWA disagrees
with the comment because the GUIDANCE statement specifically addresses
the combination of route and auxiliary signs to form a guide sign as
provided in the preceding OPTION and the prescribed background color of
a guide sign is green. To address the specific concern raised by the
NCUTCD member, the FHWA instead revises the STANDARD statement in
paragraph 06 in this final rule to clarify that the intent is to apply
an auxiliary message directly to the sign background, rather than
display it as an auxiliary sign panel mounted to another sign when
route signs and auxiliary messages are used as legend components on
signs other than guide signs. Additionally, to provide consistency with
Sections 2D.10 and 2D.29 and clarification regarding independently
mounted route sign assemblies, in this final rule the FHWA also adds a
GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the background, legend, and border
of a route sign auxiliary should have the same colors as those of the
route sign with which the auxiliary is mounted in a route sign
assembly.
169. In Section 2D.13 Junction Auxiliary Sign, the FHWA revises
this STANDARD to clarify that placement of the Junction (M2-1)
auxiliary sign above a Cardinal Direction auxiliary sign where access
is available only to one direction of the intersected route is one of
the possible mounting locations. Although not proposed in the NPA, the
FHWA includes this revision in this final rule to clarify the existing
provision, which was overly restrictive in that it required the display
of misleading information to the road user in such situations.
170. In Section 2D.14 Combination Junction Sign, as proposed in the
NPA, the FHWA deletes the second paragraph of the OPTION statement that
permitted the use of other designs to accommodate State and county
route signs, implying that the basic requirements for the sign, such as
legend and background colors, were appropriate. In concert with this
change, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to revise the first paragraph of
the GUIDANCE to clarify that only the unique outline of the official
route marker should be used on guide signs and not the contrasting
rectangular backplate for independent mounting in a directional
assembly. Rather than include this design-related information in this
section, in this final rule the FHWA relocates this information to
Section 2D.11, incorporating comments from an NCUTCD member to clarify
the intent, providing a reference accordingly in Section 2D.14.
171. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled Section 2D.23 BEGIN Auxiliary Sign, containing OPTION,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of this new sign
where a numbered route begins. The FHWA proposed this sign in the NPA
based on the Sign Synthesis Study \85\ 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. To address comments from the New York State DOT, the FHWA
revises the language in this final rule to allow the use of the BEGIN
auxiliary sign in any route assembly, rather than just for numbered
routes as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
172. In Section 2D.26 Advance Turn Arrow Auxiliary Signs (Section
2D.28 of the NPA), the FHWA adds a paragraph to the STANDARD statement
and adds a corresponding GUIDANCE to reflect that the use of the
curved-stem Advance Turn Arrow auxiliary (M5-3) sign on the approach to
a circular intersection would be appropriate when curved-stem arrows
are used on corresponding regulatory lane-use signs, Destination signs,
and pavement markings. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds
this information in this final rule to provide consistency with similar
provisions in Section 2D.38 that are also added in this final rule to
address a comment from a State DOT suggesting if the curved-stem arrows
are used, they should be used consistently for a particular destination
or movement. This language will ensure consistent use of the curved-
stem arrow, when used.
173. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2D.27
Lane Designation Auxiliary Signs (numbered Section 2D.33 in the NPA).
In the NPA, the proposed section contained an OPTION statement
regarding the use of these optional signs that may be used as a method
to tell road users which lane
[[Page 66770]]
to use to access a particular numbered route and direction. In this
final rule, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement to clarify that these
Lane Designation auxiliary signs shall be used only where the
designated lane is a mandatory movement lane, due to road user
confusion exhibited when such a message is used at locations where a
lane is not a mandatory movement lane, causing unnecessary lane
changes. The FHWA adopts these new signs based on the results of the
Sign Synthesis Study,\86\ 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
effective, economical alternative to one or more guide signs in certain
situations. The FHWA also adds an additional illustration in Figure 2D-
5 to illustrate the use of these auxiliary signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
174. In Section 2D.28 Directional Arrow Auxiliary Signs (Section
2D.26 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a
STANDARD statement indicating that a Directional Arrow auxiliary sign
that displays a double-headed arrow shall not be mounted below a route
sign in advance of or at a circular intersection. The FHWA proposed
this change to eliminate any possible confusion that would be created
by the use of this sign in the proximity of a circular intersection,
where direct left turns are not allowed. The NCUTCD and a traffic
engineering consultant supported this revision. To further clarify the
language, in this final rule the FHWA adopts language to indicate that
a Directional Arrow auxiliary sign that displays a double-headed arrow
shall not be mounted in a directional assembly in advance of or at a
circular intersection.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION and
corresponding STANDARD to describe the optional use of the downward
pointing diagonal arrow auxiliary (M6-2a) sign. The FHWA adds this
language in this final rule for consistency with provisions adopted in
Section 2D.46 Freeway Entrance signs.
175. In Section 2D.32 Directional Assembly (2D.34 in the NPA), the
FHWA deletes the requirement that the end of a route shall be marked by
a Directional assembly with an END auxiliary sign. Although not
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts this change in this final rule to
remove a conflict with Section 2D.22, as suggested by a State DOT. In
this final rule the FHWA also revises the language of Item C (numbered
Item D(1) in the 2003 MUTCD) of the STANDARD statement to clarify the
application of Directional assemblies where the intersected route is
designated on both legs of the crossroad and adds a new item D to
clarify the use of Directional assemblies where the intersected route
is designated only on one of the legs. Although not proposed in the
NPA, the FHWA adds this information to reduce the possibility of
conflicting information being displayed to road users.
176. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2D.33
Combination Lane Use/Destination Overhead Guide Sign (Section 2D.35 in
the NPA). In the NPA the FHWA proposed OPTION and GUIDANCE statements,
as well as a figure, describing the use of these optional signs for
dedicated lanes at complex intersection approaches involving multiple
turn lanes and destinations. The FHWA proposed this new section, and
the associated signs, based on the Sign Synthesis Study.\87\ 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 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 assist 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. A State DOT and a citizen
supported this new section, while two other State DOTs and a local DOT
opposed the proposed language. One of the commenters felt that the
Combination Lane Use/Destination (D15-1) overhead guide sign is too
large for retrofitting on span wires, and suggested a smaller sign. The
FHWA disagrees with the commenters' proposed smaller sign, because it
would be too small for viewing at a distance. The FHWA revises the
proposed GUIDANCE statement regarding the design of the sign to a
STANDARD in this final rule, to preclude conflict with other provisions
for the design of guide signs and because the basic principles of guide
sign design do not provide for flexibility in the sign design elements.
In this final rule, the FHWA also adds that the Combination Lane Use/
Destination (D15-1) overhead guide sign shall be used only where the
designated lane is a mandatory movement lane (as illustrated in the
corresponding figure), and shall not be used for lanes with optional
movements, because such use would not be possible given the design
criteria and would present a confusing message to road users. The FHWA
notes that this sign is optional and adopts a uniform design for this
type of sign, to provide consistency for road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
177. Although not proposed in the NPA, in Section 2D.34 Confirming
or Reassurance Assemblies (Section 2D.31 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA
adds to the STANDARD statement that where the Confirming or Reassurance
assembly is for an alternative route, the appropriate auxiliary sign
for an alternative route shall also be included in the assembly. Though
not explicitly stated, this method is the only way in which to provide
a correct message to a road user. The FHWA adds this requirement in
this final rule to be consistent with the existing provisions of
Section 2D.16.
178. In Section 2D.35 Trailblazer Assembly (Section 2D.32 of the
2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement that where the
Trailblazer assembly is for an alternative route, the appropriate
auxiliary sign for an alternative route shall also be included in the
assembly. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds this
requirement in this final rule to be consistent with the existing
provisions of Section 2D.16 and with the adopted changes in Section
2D.34.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that if shields or other similar signs are used to provide
route guidance in following an auto tour route, 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.
Although a local DOT and an NCUTCD member supported this language,
another NCUTCD member suggested that this information is better suited
for Section 2H.07 Auto Tour Route Signs. The FHWA agrees and in this
final rule adopts and relocates this recommendation to Section 2H.07.
179. In Section 2D.36 Destination and Distance Signs (Section 2D.33
of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA clarifies the GUIDANCE statement to
recommend a minimum height of a Route shield when used on Destination
signs should be at least two times the height of the upper-case letters
of the principal legend and
[[Page 66771]]
not less than 18 inches. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA
adopts this change, as suggested by two State DOTs, in this final rule
to provide consistency with existing related provisions in Chapters 2D
and 2E.
180. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2D.38
Destination Signs at Circular Intersections (Section 2D.40 in the NPA).
In the NPA the proposed section contained STANDARD, OPTION, and SUPPORT
statements, as well as figures, regarding the use of destination signs
at circular intersections. In particular, the Section included
information regarding Exit destination signs, and associated arrows and
diagrammatic signs for roundabouts. The NCUTCD and one of its members,
a State DOT, a local DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant
supported this section. The State DOT suggested that the difference
between the arrows used on the junction assembly and the destination
signs may be confusing. To address this comment and reflect the use of
the optional curved-stem arrow on destination signs, the FHWA adds a
GUIDANCE statement in this final rule recommending that if they are
used, they should also be used on corresponding regulatory lane-use
signs, Directional assemblies, and pavement markings for a particular
destination or movement. The FHWA adds this information in this final
rule to facilitate consistent use of the optional curved-stem arrow,
when used.
The FHWA also adds a STANDARD statement in this final rule
prohibiting diagrammatic signs for circular intersections from
depicting the number of lanes within the intersection circulatory
roadway, or on its approaches or exits. Although not proposed in the
NPA, the FHWA adds this statement in this final rule to reflect the
provisions illustrated in the accompanying figures and to provide
clarification due to the restoration in this final rule in Chapter 2E
of the provisions for freeway and expressway diagrammatic signs
(proposed for deletion in the NPA), on which the number of lanes is
depicted.
181. In Section 2D.43 Street Name Signs (Section 2D.38 of the 2003
MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a new OPTION statement to
allow the use of a route shield on Street Name signs to assist road
users who might not otherwise be able to associate the name of the
street with the route number. Two State DOTs supported this new
language. The FHWA adopts the OPTION for the use of these signs based
on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\88\ 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 cross streets
that intersect the numbered route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a
STANDARD requiring lettering for names of streets and highways on
Street Name signs to composed of a combination of lower-case letters
with initial upper-case letters. This requirement is consistent with
the requirements adopted in Section 2A.13. As described above in the
discussion of Section 2A.13 comments, several State and local DOTs
opposed this requirement, while ATSSA and a citizen supported this
requirement. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule
revisions to paragraphs 04 through 07 to clarify the letter heights for
Street Name signs, based on the adopted use of mixed-case letters.
These letter heights are based on the legibility index of 1 inch of
letter height for 30 feet of viewing distance as discussed above in the
General amendments to the MUTCD. While the requirement for the format
and display of lettering is changed, the letter heights are unchanged
from the 2003 MUTCD. ATSSA and several local DOTs supported this
language, while other State and local DOTs opposed the language because
they felt the letters were too large. The FHWA notes that the letter
heights are based on the legibility distance for older drivers and that
agencies may use narrower letter series for longer names and use
reduced letter heights for auxiliary destinations (such as ``Pkwy'') to
manage sign sizes.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise paragraph 13 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 proposed 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 NCUTCD, two
State DOTs, three local DOTs, a transportation research institute, and
a traffic engineering consultant opposed the revision and two State
DOTs suggested that the pictograph should be allowed to be positioned
to either the left or the right of the street name. The commenters
cited the cost of replacing the signs and lack of research regarding
the proposed change in pictograph location as their reasons for
opposing the change. The FHWA agrees and does not adopt the proposal in
this final rule, retaining the placement of the pictograph to the left
of the street name, consistent with the 2003 MUTCD. Two State DOTs
opposed using pictographs on Street Name signs; however, the FHWA
allows their use based on the existing provisions of the 2003 MUTCD.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding 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
orientation for roads. The FHWA proposed these new statements because,
even though the background color for guide signs in general is
specified as green, the MUTCD has contained a GUIDANCE statement that
the background color ``should'' be green and the text has not
explicitly limited the alternate colors for Street Name sign
backgrounds, and as a result, there is wide variation in practice among
jurisdictions. Sometimes inappropriate colors are being used that are
reserved for other traffic control device messages, or the colors used
have poor contrast ratio between legend and background. In the NPA, the
FHWA proposed that the only acceptable alternative background colors
for Street Name (D3-1 or D3-1a) signs are blue, brown, or black. To
address a comment from ATSSA, a State DOT, and a traffic control device
vendor, the FHWA eliminates the reference to black backgrounds in this
final rule, because as a non-retroreflective background color, it is
not as visible at night, especially to older drivers. ATSSA suggested
that blue and brown not be allowed as background colors, because no
minimum maintained levels of retroreflectivity have been established
for these colors. The FHWA disagrees and allows the use of blue and
brown backgrounds, as these colors are currently allowed for certain
classes of guide signs and the FHWA anticipates that a future
rulemaking process will propose the establishment of minimum maintained
retroreflectivity levels for these colors. The FHWA adds the color
[[Page 66772]]
white as a permissible background color when used with a black legend
in this final rule. The FHWA adopts these revisions in this final rule
to address comments from four State DOTs, four local DOTs, and a
citizen that more flexibility in Street Name sign backgrounds is
needed. The FHWA also adopts the OPTION that the border may be omitted
on Street Name signs, as proposed in the NPA. A local DOT supported
this change, while another local DOT felt that the border helps
recognition and legibility. The language in the 2003 MUTCD Edition of
this section implies, but does not specifically state, that the border
may be omitted. The FHWA believes that the practice of eliminating the
border on Street Name signs can minimize the crowding of the legend
resulting from reduced edge spacing and that the recognition of the
sign under nighttime conditions is accomplished primarily by the
combination of the contrasting background color and legend color of the
signs and their typical and expected placement at intersections. As
part of the revision in this final rule that allows the use of the
color white as an alternative background color on Street Name signs,
the FHWA adds to the STANDARD that the legend (and border, if used)
shall be black, for consistency with other provisions regarding sign
legends.
182. In the NPA the FHWA proposed 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. A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed the new table,
either providing comments on the specific letter heights or suggesting
it be deleted in its entirety. The comments were commensurate with
those related to larger letter heights and/or the use of mixed-case
legends, which are discussed elsewhere. The FHWA adopts Table 2D-2 in
this final rule, reflecting existing and adopted provisions in the text
of Section 2D.43 and providing additional clarification by
distinguishing between letter heights for the name of the street and
for any supplemental lettering or auxiliary designations, such as
``Ave'' and ``St,'' consistent with the OPTION in Section 2D.43.
183. In Section 2D.44 Advance Street Name Signs (Section 2D.39 of
the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a GUIDANCE
statement at the end of the section recommending the order in which
street names should be displayed on an Advance Street Name plaque. A
State DOT and two local DOTs supported this text; however, the State
DOT suggested that the language and figure illustrating the full
assembly should be in Chapter 2C. The FHWA deletes this information
from this Section in this final rule, as the same information is
provided in Chapter 2C. Instead, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement
providing the appropriate reference to Section 2C.58.
184. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates the information
from Section 2E.49 of the 2003 MUTCD to Chapter 2D as a new section
numbered and titled Section 2D.45 Signing on Conventional Roads on
Approaches to Interchanges. The FHWA adopts this proposed change in
this final rule 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 the freeway itself.
In the relocated section, the FHWA also proposed to add a STANDARD
statement to require, rather than merely recommend, that on multi-lane
conventional road approaches to a 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. ATSSA and a local DOT supported
this change. A State DOT and an NCUTCD member suggested that the
language be retained as a recommendation, rather than a requirement.
The FHWA adopts this statement as a STANDARD because the FHWA believes
that the GUIDANCE statements in the 2003 MUTCD are not strong enough
for this very important need and that this signing needs to be
mandatory. To address comments from the NCUTCD and three local DOTs, in
this final rule the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement referring to existing
figures in which overhead signs for this purpose are illustrated.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds SUPPORT and
STANDARD at the end of the section to describe the appropriate optional
use of Advance Entrance Direction diagrammatic guide signs. The FHWA
adds this information in response to a comment from a State DOT
recommending that consistency in signing of freeway entrance ramps in
proximity to the intersection of a frontage roadway is needed. The FHWA
agrees that consistency in use of this optional sign is critical to
deterring wrong-way movements at freeway entrance ramps and assisting
road users in safely making any lane changes needed to enter the
freeway in the correct direction.
185. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to relocate the information from
Section 2E.50 of the 2003 MUTCD to Chapter 2D as a new section numbered
and titled Section 2D.46 Freeway Entrance Signs. A local DOT supported
this change. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule so that all
guide signing on conventional roads at and in advance of interchanges
with freeways is located in the same chapter of the Manual.
Although not proposed in the NPA, in this final rule the FHWA adds
two paragraphs to the OPTION statement to describe the permitted use of
alternate legends, such as PARKWAY, in place of FREEWAY and the
optional use of Directional assemblies at the corner of an intersection
with a freeway or expressway entrance ramp. The FHWA adopts these
paragraphs to provide consistency with provisions in Sections 2D.28 and
2D.32 and flexibility in signing the immediate point of entry to a
freeway or expressway to discourage wrong-way entries on adjacent exit
ramps at the same intersection.
186. In Section 2D.47 Parking Area Guide Sign (Section 2D.40 of the
2003 MUTCD) the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a new sign to be an
alternative to the Parking Area directional sign. This sign
incorporated a white letter P in a blue circle symbol at the top of the
sign. Although the proposed sign was 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, and was supported by MISA and an NCUTCD member, the
NCUTCD opposed the use of the color blue, because they were concerned
that it would be confused with ``police'' signs. Because of this
potential inconsistency, FHWA does not adopt this proposal in this
final rule.
187. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates Sections 2D.42 Rest
Area Signs, 2D.43 Scenic Area Signs, and 2D.45 General Service Signs of
the 2003 MUTCD to a new chapter titled Chapter 2I General Service
Signs, in order to combine information regarding similar type signs in
to one chapter of the Manual. The FHWA received no substantive comments
on this proposal.
188. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates Sections 2D.46
Reference Location Signs and Intermediate Reference Location Signs,
2D.47 Traffic Signal Speed Sign, 2D.48
[[Page 66773]]
General Information Signs, the first four paragraphs of 2D.49 Signing
of Named Highways, and 2D.50 Trail Signs of the 2003 MUTCD to a new
chapter titled Chapter 2H General Information Signs. The FHWA received
no substantive comments on this proposal.
189. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2D.50
Community Wayfinding Signs (numbered Section 2D.52 in the NPA).
Although the FHWA proposed adding this section in the NPA, in this
final rule the FHWA reorganizes and revises its content to reflect
comments from ATSSA, six State DOTs, two local DOTs, a research
institute, and two citizens. The general comments about this new
section included both support for the NPA proposal as written or with
minor changes and opposition to community wayfinding signs in general.
Commenters expressed concerns that the NPA proposal was too restrictive
or that it was not detailed enough. Some commenters suggested that the
information was so exhaustive that it justified a separate rulemaking
activity or that community wayfinding signs need not be governed by the
MUTCD. The FHWA adopts this new section with SUPPORT, STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements, as well as new figures illustrating
typical usage, to provide practitioners with information 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 FHWA notes that 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 believes that providing criteria for community
wayfinding guide signing is important to address issues of legibility,
placement, and excessive amounts of information displayed, and because
of the extreme lack of uniformity among and proliferation of such
signs. Many of the non-conforming installations have occurred without
official experimentation as required by Section 1A.10. The following
paragraphs in this item describe the significant differences between
the proposed language in the NPA and the language adopted in this final
rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed recommending in a GUIDANCE statement
that wayfinding signs be used only on conventional roads. Various
agencies commented that community wayfinding signs are not appropriate
for freeways and expressways due to the cognitive overload of
information that can be displayed on this type of sign. To address
these comments, the FHWA changes the proposed statement to a STANDARD
in this final rule to clarify that community wayfinding guide signs
shall be limited to conventional roads and not installed on freeway or
expressway mainlines or ramps. For similar reasons, the FHWA also adds
to the STANDARD that community wayfinding guide signs shall not be
overhead-mounted. These changes are consistent with the experience
gained in official experimentations that FHWA has approved to date, on
which the MUTCD provisions are based, and which have only included
conventional roads and post-mounted signs.
The FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement in this final rule recommending
that if used, a community wayfinding guide sign system should be
established on a local, municipal, or equivalent jurisdictional level
or for an urbanized area of adjoining municipalities, or equivalent,
that form an identifiable geographic entity conducive to a cohesive and
continuous system of signs. The FHWA adopts this recommendation because
community wayfinding guide signs are not appropriate for use on a
regional or statewide basis where infrequent or sparse placement does
not contribute to a continuous or coordinated system of signing that is
readily identifiable as such to the road user. In such cases, existing
MUTCD provisions indicate that Destination or other guide signs should
be used to direct road users to an identifiable area.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds SUPPORT and
corresponding GUIDANCE statements to clarify that the provisions
contained in this section apply to vehicular community wayfinding guide
signs, not pedestrian wayfinding guide signs, and to provide
recommendations regarding the placement of pedestrian wayfinding signs.
The FHWA adopts these statements in this final rule because many
jurisdictions use pedestrian wayfinding guide signs, and it is
important that they not be confused with signing for vehicles because
of the high potential for vehicles to reduce speed or stop unexpectedly
to read signs that are not adequately sized for roadway applications
and the potential to direct a motorist the wrong way on a one-way
street when the message is actually intended only for pedestrians or
other users of a sidewalk or roadside area.
In this final rule the FHWA revises the adopted language to clarify
that color-coding of community wayfinding is an option, rather than a
requirement, as implied in the NPA, and that only one boundary sign is
used at each boundary crossing.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds information
regarding the use of pictographs of the identification enhancement
marker to paragraph 15, since many jurisdictions use pictographs and
need regulations regarding their use. As part of this STANDARD, the
FHWA expands the language adopted in this final rule to provide
additional detail about the placement of color coded panels on the face
of informational guide signs.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a prohibition on the use of
red, orange, and yellow as background colors on wayfinding signs. In
addition, FHWA also prohibits the use of fluorescent yellow-green and
fluorescent pink as background colors for community wayfinding signs in
this final rule to be consistent with existing MUTCD provisions that
reserve these colors for critical Non-Vehicular Warning signs and for
incident management signs.
Additionally, as proposed in the NPA the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE
statement recommending that community wayfinding guide signs be
rectangular in shape to prevent unusual shapes of wayfinding signs. The
FHWA notes that only the identification enhancement marker may form a
non-rectangular shape.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to allow the use of white or black
horizontal lines to separate destinations from each other. In this
final rule, the FHWA adopts more flexibility to the color of the
separator line by allowing it to be of a contrasting color that meets
the minimum contrast requirements, rather than limiting it to just
black or white. As part of this change, the FHWA changes the use of
this horizontal separator line from an OPTION to a GUIDANCE to
encourage the use of the line to separate between groups of
destinations by direction, consistent with the GUIDANCE provisions for
a multi-line destination sign elsewhere in Chapter 2D.
In this final rule the FHWA adopts revised fifth STANDARDS in
paragraphs 27 through 30 to provide more specificity as to the height,
spacing, and style, of lettering on community wayfinding guide signs
than was proposed in the NPA, consistent with official experimentations
approved to date and with other changes adopted in Chapter 2D for
general provisions for guide signs.
[[Page 66774]]
The FHWA also clarifies the STANDARD in paragraph 32 of this final
rule so that the provision allowing the use of Internet and e-mail
addresses applies to bicyclists that are stopped or parked out of the
traffic flow, since bicyclists in the flow of traffic have the same
legibility and comprehension issues as other vehicle operators. This
change also is consistent with existing and adopted provisions in
Section 2A.06.
Because arrows on existing wayfinding signs are often not
appropriately located, the FHWA revises the language in this final rule
to require, rather than recommend, arrow location and priority order of
destinations, as well as arrow designs to follow specific provisions in
the MUTCD. This change is consistent with official experimentations
that have been approved to date and eliminates a conflict with general
provisions for guide signs in Chapters 2D and 2E.
Finally, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE in paragraph 42 at the end of the
section to clarify that the area of the identification enhancement
marker shall not exceed one-fifth of the area of the community
wayfinding guide sign with which it is mounted in the same sign
assembly. This revision is consistent with experimentation experience
with this type of sign and provides consistency with general guide sign
design principles and assures that the non-critical enhancement message
does not overpower the more important destination messages.
The FHWA adopts this section to provide a uniform set of provisions
for the designs and locations of these signs based on accepted sign
design principles, to achieve consistency for road users.
190. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule two
new sections numbered and titled Section 2D.51 Truck, Passing, or
Climbing Lane Signs, and Section 2D.52 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Sign. The
FHWA adopts Section 2D.51 to be consistent with the elimination of
regulatory truck lane signs from Section 2B.39 (Section 2B.32 of the
2003 MUTCD). These types of signs convey guidance information, rather
than regulation. The FHWA adds Section 2D.52 based on the results of
the Sign Synthesis Study,\89\ which found that these signs are being
used by a number of States. A State DOT suggested that the Slow Vehicle
Turn-Out signs should be regulatory, rather than guide signs. The FHWA
disagrees (see discussion under Chapter 2B above) and adopts these
signs as guide signs, as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA also adds a new
Figure 2D-21 to illustrate these signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ ``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 Amendments Within Chapter 2E--General
191. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA revises the
terminology to separate ``Overhead Arrow-per-Lane'' guide signs from
traditional ``diagrammatic'' guide signs to better describe the type of
guide sign being used. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, a toll road operator,
and a toll road operator association recommended the change and the
FHWA agrees. The FHWA makes this same terminology change wherever it
appears throughout the MUTCD.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2E--Specific
192. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a
new section, numbered and titled Section 2E.09 Signing of Named
Highways, with a SUPPORT statement to refer to new Sections 2D.53 and
2M.10 where appropriate information is provided about the use of
highway names on signing of unnumbered highways and memorial signing of
routes, bridges, or highway components.
193. In Section 2E.10 (Section 2E.09 in the 2003 MUTCD) Amount of
Legend on Guide Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the
GUIDANCE statement to state that sign legends should not exceed three
lines of copy, including route numbers and exit instructions. The
NCUTCD, four State DOTs, a toll agency, and an NCUTCD member opposed
the use of the word ``including'' that was proposed in the NPA. The
FHWA agrees that this was an inadvertent error and replaces the word
``including'' with ``excluding'' in the section adopted in this final
rule, which is consistent with the provisions of Section 2D.07. The
GUIDANCE statement now states that sign legends should not exceed three
lines of copy, excluding route numbers and exit instructions.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed new OPTION and STANDARD statements
regarding the use and maximum dimensions of pictographs on freeway and
expressway signs. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a toll agency agreed
with the use of pictographs ATSSA agreed with the proposed maximum
dimensions, while two State DOTs and three toll road operators opposed
the restrictions on the dimensions of the pictograph. The FHWA
relocates the provisions related to pictographs to the specific
sections of the Manual to which they apply in this final rule, the
provisions of which are based on Official Ruling No. 2-646(I) \90\.
Further, to address the comments, the FHWA provides an exception and
further guidance on the size of pictographs for electronic toll
collection systems whose display does not accompany a duplicate word
message and relocates the statement to Section 2F.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ This Official Interpretation can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_646.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
194. In Section 2E.11 (Section 2E.10 in the 2003 MUTCD) Number of
Signs at an Overhead Installation and Sign Spreading, a State DOT
recommended modifying the existing GUIDANCE to place an Advance Guide
sign on the overcrossing structure when the crossroad goes over the
mainline. Although this was not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA agrees
that added flexibility is needed by highway agencies and adopts in this
final rule an expanded paragraph 04 to also recommend placing the
Advance Guide sign directly in front of the overcrossing structure on
an independent support as an alternative to placing the sign directly
on the overcrossing structure.
195. In Section 2E.14 (Section 2E.13 in the 2003 MUTCD) Size and
Style of Letters and Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA a new STANDARD
which requires freeway and expressway guide signs that have
standardized designs to match the sizes shown in Table 2E-1, except as
noted in Section 2A.11. A State DOT and an NCUTCD member opposed the
change because it prohibits the use of at least one of the State DOT's
standard sizes for guide signs. The FHWA disagrees because standard
signs will, by virtue of a standard design, have predictable
dimensions. The FHWA adopts this section in this final rule as proposed
in the NPA. The FHWA also removes the sentence in GUIDANCE paragraph 08
regarding loop height of lower-case letters and adds a comparable
sentence in STANDARD paragraph 04 for consistency with requirements
adopted in Section 2D.05 and to eliminate the conflict between sections
2A.13 and 2D.05.
196. In Table 2E-1 Freeway or Expressway Guide Sign and Plaque
Sizes, the FHWA proposed in the NPA minimum sizes for a variety of
guide signs and plaques. Based on comments from two State DOTs, the
FHWA in this final rule does not adopt the proposed entries for the
Interchange Advance and
[[Page 66775]]
Exit Direction signs because, due to the variation in the amount, size,
and length of allowable legends, the sizes will vary and it is not
practical to standardize this information in the table. The FHWA notes
further that the information will be covered as standardized guide sign
layout in the ``Standard Highway Signs and Markings'' book.
The FHWA received an anonymous comment that the information about
the use of fractions on guide signs is contradictory and does not
provide highway agencies with sufficient criteria for proper use,
resulting in reduced legibility of sign messages. The FHWA agrees and
clarifies criteria for the proper display of fractions on guide signs
in this final rule and places this information in Section 2A.13 (see
discussion above under that section).
197. In Section 2E.17 (Section 2E.16 in the 2003 MUTCD)
Abbreviations, the FHWA adopts new GUIDANCE as proposed in the NPA,
which states that periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or
other punctuation or characters that are not letter or numerals should
not be used on signs. A State DOT agreed with the change. Another State
DOT opposed the restriction of ampersands because they are a way to
shorten messages and reduce the cost of signs. As previously discussed
in Section 2A.13, the FHWA disagrees and notes that ampersands are
frequently confused with the numeral ``8'' and are less conspicuous
than the use of the word ``AND.''
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in the first
GUIDANCE statement a recommendation that longer commonly used words
that are not a part of a proper name and are readily recognizable
should be abbreviated, to reduce the amount of information displayed on
the sign and expedite recognition and processing time. The FHWA also
adds a new GUIDANCE statement that a solidus is reserved for fractions
only and should not be used to separate words on the same line of a
legend. The FHWA makes these changes for consistency with existing
recommendations on limiting the amount of legend on signs and to
reflect current practice.
198. In Section 2E.19 (Section 2E.18 in the 2003 MUTCD) Arrows for
Interchange Guide Signs, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to revise
existing STANDARD and OPTION statements as well as add new OPTION and
STANDARD statements to this section to clarify the style and placement
of arrows on guide signs. Comments regarding the proposed language and
the resulting language adopted in this final rule are described in the
following paragraphs.
The FHWA proposed a new STANDARD in the NPA requiring down arrows
on overhead signs to be positioned approximately over the center of the
lane. The NCUTCD, four State DOTs, a toll road operator, a city, and a
toll road operators association opposed the proposed requirements and
recommended that the statements be GUIDANCE or OPTION. The FHWA
disagrees and notes that non-conforming designs have been ineffectively
employed in field applications, which demonstrates the need for the
requirement. The FHWA adopts the new STANDARD in this final rule with
editorial revisions to further clarify the new provision.
The FHWA also proposed a new STANDARD to explicitly prohibit the
use of more than one down arrow on an overhead sign structure pointing
to the same lane. Four State DOTs opposed the change and recommended
allowing more flexibility in the application of the down arrows where
an option lane is present. The FHWA disagrees with these comments
because there had not been a provision in the MUTCD allowing such use
and because this practice has been demonstrated to cause uncertainty to
motorists on the approach to a decision point when the number of arrows
displayed is greater than the number of lanes present. The Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane signs adopted in Section 2E.21 have been shown to be a
clearer, positive method of conveying lane use where an option lane is
present at a decision point. Therefore, the FHWA adopts this new
STANDARD in this final rule. Based on a comment from a State DOT, the
FHWA provides a reference to the appropriate provisions for addressing
the geometric conditions of an option lane.
In the NPA, the FWHA proposed the OPTION of using a directional
arrow to point diagonally downward to emphasize the departure of
diverging roadways. One State DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a citizen
opposed this revision because of the potential for inconsistent
application, the implication of a lane change, and because it would be
an overall practice that is not consistent with the use of upward-
pointing arrows at similar locations. The FHWA agrees and does not
adopt this provision for overhead guide signs.
199. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed significant changes to Section
2E.19 of the 2003 MUTCD regarding Diagrammatic Signs. The changes
proposed in the NPA included requiring a specific design for
diagrammatic signs (now called the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign) for
multi-lane exits that have an optional exit lane that also carries the
through road, and for splits that include an optional lane. Several
State DOTs expressed a concern that the proposed requirements were not
practical in urban areas with closely spaced interchanges. The FHWA
agrees and as a result adopts new and revised sections in this final
rule to address provisions related to interchange signing with optional
exit lanes. The resulting sections are: Section 2E.20 Signing for
Splits and Multi-Lane Exits with an Option Lane, Section 2E.21 Design
of Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane Guide Signs, Section 2E.22 Design of Freeway
and Expressway Diagrammatic Guide Signs, and Section 2E.23 Signing for
Intermediate and Minor Interchange Multi-Lane Exits with an Option
Lane. These sections are discussed in the following items.
200. Section 2E.20 Signing for Option Lanes at Splits and Multi-
Lane Exits, as adopted in this final rule, contains SUPPORT, STANDARD,
and GUIDANCE statements regarding signing for freeway and expressway
splits or multi-lane exit interchanges where an interior option lane
serves two movements in which traffic can either leave the route or
remain on the route, or choose either destination at a split, from the
same lane. The FHWA is adopting this separate section in this final
rule to provide an overview of the types of signing to be used for
interchanges with optional lanes. The NPA would have required Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane signs for all locations with an interior option lane.
The adopted Section 2E.20 distinguishes that there are two types of
signs, ``Overhead Arrow-per-Lane'' signs and ``Diagrammatic'' signs,
and provides the general provisions that apply to the three Sections
that follow, all of which provide for more flexibility in the signing
of locations with interior option lanes. As part of this change, the
FHWA relocates a STANDARD statement from Section 2E.21 as proposed in
the NPA to Section 2E.20, where it is more appropriately located.
201. In Section 2E.21 Design of Overhead Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs
for Option Lanes (numbered and titled Section 2E.20 Diagrammatic Signs
in the NPA), the FHWA adopts provisions for Overhead Arrow-per-Lane
signs. As proposed in the NPA, the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane design
features an upward arrow for each lane and is consistent with the
recommendations of
[[Page 66776]]
the Older Driver handbook \91\ and a recent study \92\ that confirmed
that the up arrow for each 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. The FHWA believes that the Overhead Arrow-per-
Lane style, 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 where an ``option lane'' is used for at an
exit. 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 State DOT, a city, and a citizen agreed
with the sign designs as proposed in the NPA, although the State DOT
questioned the required size of the arrows on the signs. The NCUTCD, 13
State DOTs, 5 toll road operators, an NCUTCD member, and a citizen
opposed the required use of the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign and argued
for the continued allowable use of the diagrammatic signs recommended
in the 2003 MUTCD. Several of the commenters also recommended changing
the design of the existing diagrammatic signs if retained in the MUTCD.
In this final rule the FHWA adopts the new style of Overhead Arrow-per-
Lane signs proposed in the NPA and also decides to retain the
provisions for the existing diagrammatic sign design as an alternative
to the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signs. The FHWA also adopts a SUPPORT
statement at the beginning of the section to state that the Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane design has been shown to be superior to diagrammatic
signs and to encourage the use of that design. The FHWA also adopts
modified figures within the section to illustrate the use of both the
Overhead Arrow-per-Lane and existing diagrammatic signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ ``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).
\92\ ``Evaluation of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs,'' Final
Report, May, 2008, 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/Diagrammatic_Freeway_Guide_Sign_Design_rev4_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a city recommended additional changes
to the proposed list of design criteria in the STANDARD statement for
Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signs. The FHWA agrees that additional
clarification will provide uniformity in sign design and, based on the
comments, the FHWA adds items G, H, and I in this final rule to clarify
the design and placement of distance messages on signs, the number of
lanes displayed on signs, and the use of exit plaques.
202. The FHWA adopts a new section in this final rule numbered and
titled Section 2E.22 Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic
Guide Signs for Option Lanes, to describe the criteria under which
diagrammatic signs are allowed to be used. The FHWA adopts a SUPPORT
statement at the beginning of the section recognizing that diagrammatic
signs have been shown to be less effective than conventional or
Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs at conveying the destination or
direction(s) that each approach lane serves, whether dedicated or
option lanes are present. However, based on comments submitted on the
NPA, the FHWA recognizes that in some cases a diagrammatic sign is most
practical, and therefore adopts in this final rule criteria for their
use and design based on the 2003 MUTCD provisions for diagrammatic
signs.
203. The FHWA adopts a new section in this final rule numbered and
titled Section 2E.23 Signing for Intermediate and Minor Interchange
Multi-Lane Exits with an Option Lane, to provide recommendations on the
types of signing to be used at intermediate and minor multi-lane exits
where there is an operational need for the presence of an option lane
for only the peak period, during which excessive queues might otherwise
develop if the option lane were not present. The text proposed in the
NPA (in Section 2E.19) would have required diagrammatic (now called
Overhead Arrow-per-Lane) signs for these locations in a STANDARD
statement and the 2003 MUTCD recommended diagrammatic signs for these
locations in a GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA understands, based on past
experience and comments on Section 2E.19 of the NPA, that in such
cases, the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signing
described for option lanes in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 might not be
practicable, depending on the need for and level of use of the option
lane and the spacing of nearby interchanges, particularly in non-rural
areas. The adopted provision provides flexibility and guidance on the
signing for such locations where the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or
diagrammatic signs are not practicable due to various considerations.
204. In Section 2E.24 Signing for Interchange Lane Drops (Section
2E.21 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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. A citizen agreed with the proposed
changes. Four State DOTs opposed the proposed requirements and
requested that the STANDARD statements be changed to GUIDANCE or
OPTION. The FHWA disagrees and notes that existing GUIDANCE has
resulted in improper and ineffective methods of signing of option
lanes. 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 provide 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 NCUTCD, two State DOTs, a toll road operator, a toll road
operators association, and a city agreed with the section, but
recommended text changes. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in
the NPA in this final rule with revisions based on adopted changes to
Sections 2E.22 and 2E.23 concerning the continued use of diagrammatic
signs and the new Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signs.
A toll road operator opposed the proposed GUIDANCE that recommended
the use of the Advance Guide sign with a distance message where the
dropped lane is an auxiliary lane between successive entrance and exit
ramps and the distance is less than 1 mile. The FHWA adopts a revision
to paragraph 08 to clarify that the provision recommends displaying the
distance in addition to the EXIT ONLY message.
205. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a new
section in this final rule numbered and titled Section 2E.28 Eisenhower
Interstate System Signs. This section contains OPTION, GUIDANCE, and
STANDARD
[[Page 66777]]
statements regarding the use of Eisenhower Interstate System (M1-10 and
M1-10a) signs that may be used on Interstate highways at periodic
intervals and in rest areas, scenic overlooks, or other similar
roadside facilities on the Interstate system. This sign was adopted in
an August 11, 1993 memorandum, subject ``Eisenhower Interstate System
Sign,'' from the FHWA Executive Director to the Regional Federal
Highway Administrators and the Federal Lands Highway Program
Administrator. The sign was contained in the 2003 MUTCD by being
included in a figure illustrating various guide signs and the sign
design has also been in the Standard Highway Signs and Markings Book.
However, there was no text in the 2003 MUTCD describing the sign or its
intended use. The FHWA adds this section in this final rule to
incorporate language regarding the optional use of this sign and, if
used, GUIDANCE on where it should be located and a STANDARD on where it
shall not be used. These provisions are consistent with adopted
provisions for signing of Auto Tour Routes in Section 2H.07 and are
necessary to assure that highway agencies that elect to use the sign do
so properly in accordance with the 1993 FHWA direction and with adopted
provisions for similar types of signs.
206. In Section 2E.31 (Section 2E.28 in the 2003 MUTCD) Interchange
Exit Numbering, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise paragraph 02 to
clarify an existing provision 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. This will enhance the legibility of the exit number and
help avoid confusion, especially between the letter ``B'' and the
numeral ``8.'' This provision was included in the 2003 MUTCD requiring
a space between the number and the suffix, but the width of the space
was not specified, implying that the space is equal to the letter
height. Three State DOTs, a city, and an NCUTCD member opposed the
revision because research has not been performed to justify the new
requirement and because of concerns that adding the space between the
suffix letter and exit number will cause confusion, increase the size
of the signs, and add expenses to agencies because of the increased
wind load. The FHWA disagrees because the new provision actually
modifies an existing requirement and reduces the amount of space
required between the number and letter. In this final rule the FHWA
adopts the provision and specifies a space width of one-half to three-
quarters of the letter height. This revision should have a minimal
impact on agencies because Exit Number plaque widths are commonly
standardized rather than customized fit to the exact legend, therefore
the revision does not introduce a new requirement that did not exist in
the 2003 MUTCD. Further, a Narrow Exit Gore sign is adopted in Section
2E.37 that will ameliorate issues regarding extra sign width for the
space between the exit number and the suffix on Exit Gore signs. The
FHWA adopts this change in this final rule in order to provide
practitioners with clearer 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.
In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA a new STANDARD 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 NCUTCD, two
State DOTs, a toll road operator, a local DOT, a toll road operator
association, and a citizen agreed with the proposal and suggested
clarifying for situations where an interchange has multiple exits in
one direction, but only a single exit in the opposite direction,
suggesting that the provision should allow the use of an exit number
without a suffix in the direction with only one exit. The FHWA agrees
and adopts the proposal in this final rule with the suggested revision.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA replaces an OPTION with a STANDARD
stating that interchange exit numbering shall use the reference
location exit numbering method and that the consecutive exit numbering
method shall not be used. The FHWA adopts this change because only 8 of
the 50 States still use consecutive exit numbering and, based on past
public comment and inquiries, the vast majority of road users now
expect reference location exit numbering. The FHWA believes that road
users will be better served by nationwide uniformity of exit numbering
using the reference location method. Two local agencies and ATSSA
agreed. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and a county opposed the revision
and suggested reducing the statement to GUIDANCE since their experience
has shown consecutive exit numbering has not compromised safety or
convenience. The commenters also had concerns about a potentially large
cost associated with replacing all signs along the freeway with minimal
benefit. The FHWA disagrees because uniform exit numbering is important
for road user navigation and for the reporting of incidents to
facilitate expedient and accurate emergency response and warrants
consistency across the United States. It is expected that the
conversion to reference-location based exit numbering would be
accomplished on a systematic route-by-route basis, as has been done in
many other States that have undergone such conversions over the past
several decades.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to change a GUIDANCE statement in
the 2003 MUTCD to 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 to alert road users that the exit is to the
left, which is often not expected. This change also required that the
``LEFT'' portion of the message be black on a yellow background. A
State DOT agreed with the change. Another State DOT also agreed and
suggested adding an example of an optional left exit scenario with a
black on yellow LEFT LANE plaque below the parent guide sign. The FHWA
disagrees, as the message display suggested by that State DOT is
frequently misinterpreted as an indication of a dedicated lane with a
mandatory exit movement and does not promote consistency of the message
for similar situations. Two State DOTs, a city, and two NCUTCD members
opposed the revision because they believe that the new provisions will
not add a significant improvement from the provisions for diagrammatic
signs in the 2003 MUTCD and suggested reducing the statement to
GUIDANCE. The FHWA disagrees because the direction of the exit is
better communicated by the positive sign legend and placement of the
sign over the roadway. The FHWA adopts the proposed changes in this
final rule for consistency of message to drivers and for consistency
with other parts of the manual regarding left-side exits.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a target compliance period of 10
years for the implementation of LEFT (E1-5aP) and Left Exit Number (E1-
5bP) plaques at left-side exits. In this final rule the FHWA adopts a
target compliance date December 31, 2014 (approximately 5 years from
the effective date of this final rule) for the requirements in Sections
2E.31, 2E.33, and 2E.36 to install LEFT (E1-5aP) or Left Exit Number
(E1-5bP) plaques at all existing numbered and non-numbered left exits
on freeways and expressways. The FHWA adopts this target compliance
date to address a recent recommendation (Safety Recommendation H-08-7)
by the
[[Page 66778]]
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). \93\ The NTSB developed
this recommendation as a result of an imminent safety concern exhibited
with left-side freeway exits. The FHWA believes that the installation
of these plaques at all existing left-side exits within 5 years is
necessary to achieve critical safety improvements at left-side exits
and that reliance on the systematic upgrade provisions of Section
655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations is not
appropriate in this case. The installation of these plaques would
generally not require replacement of the existing sign or sign supports
and this change affects relatively few locations throughout the
country. The FHWA anticipates that installation of the required plaques
at existing locations will provide significant safety benefits to road
users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-08-7 is contained within
NTSB's letter dated August 18, 2008, which can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2008/H08_3_7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
207. In Section 2E.33 (Section 2E.30 in the 2003 MUTCD) Advance
Guide Signs and in Section 2E.36 (Section 2E.32 in the 2003 MUTCD) Exit
Direction Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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. In this final rule the FHWA adopts this
proposed statement to be consistent with the changes in Section 2E.31.
A State DOT suggested reducing the statement to GUIDANCE because they
believe it is not necessary to have the LEFT plaque in all cases. The
FHWA disagrees because the suggestion would not provide a consistent,
uniform message to road users. An NCUTCD member suggested changing the
plaque message to LEFT EXIT instead of LEFT. The FHWA disagrees as non-
numbered exits contain the word EXIT within the distance message and
the word EXIT on the plaque would be redundant. As noted above in item
206, the FHWA also adopts a target compliance date of December 31, 2014
for the requirements for E1-5aP and E1-5bP plaques at left-side exits.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, a toll road operator, and a toll road
operator association suggested deleting paragraph 06 regarding the use
of Advance Guide signs for multi-lane exits because the information is
contained in other locations in Chapter 2E. The FHWA disagrees because
the provision pertains specifically to Advance Guide signs. A State DOT
suggested changing the statement to GUIDANCE. Another State DOT opposed
the revision because Section 2E.33 states that diagrammatic signs can
serve as Advance Guide signs. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters
because uniformity in the display of messages regarding multi-lane
exits is critical and the FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the
NPA in this final rule.
208. The FHWA relocates the OPTION and STANDARD statements
regarding the use of pictographs as proposed in Section 2E.10 of the
NPA to Section 2E.35 (Section 2E.32 in the 2003 MUTCD) Other
Supplemental Guide Signs in this final rule. As part of this change,
the FHWA clarifies the provisions for the display of pictographs in
this final rule. See Section 2E.10 discussion above for additional
information.
209. In Section 2E.36 (Section 2E.33 in the 2003 MUTCD) Exit
Direction Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the second
STANDARD statement to clarify the appropriate signing for exits where a
through lane is being terminated and for multi-lane exits having an
optional exit lane that also carries the through route or for a split
with an option lane. The NCUTCD suggested replacing Figures 2E-5, 2E-6,
and 2E-8 through 2E-10 with alternate Figures provided in their comment
and updating the corresponding references in this section. A State DOT
suggested deleting references to Figures 2E-5 and 2E-6 because the
Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signs must be placed at the point of divergence
of the outside lane and not at the theoretical gore. Another State DOT
also suggested revising the text to require Exit Direction signs
overhead at the theoretical gore where there is a through lane being
terminated and to require a diagrammatic sign near the point where the
outside edge of the dropped lane begins to diverge from the mainline
where there is a multi-lane exit with an optional exit lane. A State
DOT and a toll road operator suggested changing the STANDARD statements
to GUIDANCE. A State DOT opposed the revisions. The FHWA agrees with
the comment regarding the inaccurate reference to the figures and
references the appropriate figures in this final rule. The FHWA
disagrees with changing the STANDARD statements to GUIDANCE and adopts
the provisions as proposed in the NPA to promote uniformity in the
application of signing at similar locations and to be consistent with
other changes in the Manual regarding Overhead Arrow-per-Lane
diagrammatic signs and plaques for exits.
A State DOT suggested changing paragraph 10 regarding the use of
the LEFT plaque at non-numbered exits from STANDARD to GUIDANCE. The
FHWA disagrees with the comment because it would conflict with similar
provisions adopted in Section 2E.31 requiring the use of the left exit
number plaque and is necessary for consistency in sign legends. In this
final rule the FHWA adopts the requirements for E1-5aP or E1-5bP
plaques at left-side exits. As noted above in item 206, the FHWA also
adopts a target compliance date of December 31, 2014 for the
requirements for E1-5aP and E1-5bP plaques at left-side exits.
Finally, the FHWA adopts the OPTION, as proposed in the NPA, to
permit the use of an EXIT XX MPH (E13-2) sign panel 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 MPH (E13-2) sign panel to the face of the Exit Direction sign near
the bottom of the sign or by making the EXIT XX MPH message a part of
the Exit Direction sign. The Sign Synthesis Study \94\ 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.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, a toll road operator, and a toll road operator
association agreed and suggested text revisions to eliminate repetitive
wording. The FHWA agrees with the suggested revision and rewords the
provision to simplify and eliminate redundant language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
210. In Section 2E.37 (Section 2E.34 in the 2003 MUTCD) Exit Gore
Signs, the FHWA adopts the revision to the STANDARD statement, as
proposed in the NPA, to clarify that the space between the exit number
and the suffix letter on an Exit Gore Sign shall be the width of one-
half to three-quarters of the height of the suffix letter. This change
correlates to a similar change in Section 2E.31 Interchange Exit
Numbering.
The FHWA also adopts an additional paragraph in the OPTION
statement, as proposed in the NPA, 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 adopts this
[[Page 66779]]
based on recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\95\ A city and
ATSSA agreed. A toll road operator opposed the revision because they
believe that the object marker will not serve a useful purpose and will
add to sign clutter. The FHWA disagrees because the object markers
serve to visually tie the sign to the ground, which enhances nighttime
visibility and depth perception of the physical gore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ ``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, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts an OPTION
paragraph allowing the use of a vertical rectangular shaped Exit Gore
sign for certain narrow gore areas 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 for
a numbered exit when replacement of existing assemblies of the E5-1 and
E5-1bP signs becomes necessary. The FHWA adopts these changes in this
final rule to provide for more uniform design of Exit Gore signs. An
NCUTCD member noted that the E5-1a sign is prohibited based on text
elsewhere in Chapter 2E and Table 2E-1. The FHWA disagrees because an
OPTION is provided in this Section for a vertically arranged Exit Gore
sign and the FHWA adds the standard sizes for these signs into Table
2E-1 in this final rule for clarification. A State DOT suggested
allowing a narrow version of the E5-1a sign at non-numbered exits. The
FHWA disagrees because the E5-1a unnumbered Exit Gore signs are 6 feet
wide, which should fit in most narrow gore situations and because in
this final rule the FHWA also provides an OPTION allowing the mounting
height of any Exit Gore sign to be 14 feet or more to address narrow
gore situations.
211. In Section 2E.40 (Section 2E.37 in the 2003 MUTCD) Interchange
Sequence Signs, a toll road operator opposed the proposed revisions to
the STANDARD in the NPA regarding the LEFT EXIT or LEFT sign panel use
where the exit direction is to the left. The commenter was concerned
that left exits create driver expectancy issues and should therefore
warrant individual guide sign panels from the one mile advanced sign
through the exit direction assembly. The FHWA disagrees because the
LEFT or LEFT EXIT message addresses the expectancy issues raised by the
commenter. The FHWA adopts a revised provision in this final rule to
retain the LEFT sign panel, but does not adopt the LEFT EXIT sign
panel, because the intended use of both sign panels is identical and
allowing two different messages for the same purpose does not promote
uniformity in sign legends.
212. In Section 2E.44 (Section 2E.41 in the 2003 MUTCD) Freeway-to-
Freeway Interchange, the FHWA proposed to add a STANDARD statement in
the NPA requiring the use of the left exit number plaque at splits
where the off-route movement is to the left. The NCUTCD, two State
DOTs, a local DOT, and two toll road operators supported this
requirement, while two State DOTs opposed it. One of the State DOTs
stated that there is not enough justification for doing so, and that
the practice of installing exit panels left justified for left exits
and right justified for right exits is meant to orient motorists to the
lane they will use to exit. The FHWA disagrees with the comment because
left-side exits continue to violate driver expectancy and just placing
the exit number plaques on the left is too subtle and does not convey a
positive message to the motorist. The FHWA also adopts provisions in
this section requiring the use the use of Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or
diagrammatic signs for freeway splits with an option lane and for
multi-lane freeway-to-freeway exits having an option lane, consistent
with provisions adopted for Sections 2E.20 through 2E.22. The NCUTCD, a
State DOT, and two agencies that operate toll facilities felt that this
requirement duplicates language elsewhere in Chapter 2E and therefore
should be removed from this section. The FHWA disagrees with the
comment and includes the language in this section because the provision
applies to the specific geometric condition and interchange type
described in this section. A local DOT supported this requirement,
while two State DOTs felt that the use of diagrammatic signs should be
a recommendation, rather than a requirement. The FHWA disagrees and
adopts the proposed changes to be consistent with other adopted changes
in the Manual regarding signing for option lanes.
213. In Section 2E.48 (Section 2E.45 in the 2003 MUTCD) Diamond
Interchange, the FHWA adopts the proposed removal of 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 it has a single exit ramp. Section 2E.31
Interchange Exit Numbering already contains a prohibition on the use of
cardinal directions as the suffix of exit numbers. The FHWA also
rewords the STANDARD statement to clarify that the singular message
EXIT shall be used as a part of either the distance message or the exit
number plaque on the Advance Guide signs for non-numbered exits. This
revision is made to clarify the specific application of the existing
STANDARD.
214. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA moves the information from
Section 2E.52 (Section 2E.49 in the 2003 MUTCD) Signing on Conventional
Road Approaches and Connecting Roadways to Section 2D.45 in this final
rule, and leaves a SUPPORT statement to refer readers to the
appropriate section. The FHWA adopts 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.
215. The FHWA moves a majority of the information from Section
2E.53 (Section 2E.50 in the 2003 MUTCD) Wrong-Way Traffic Control at
Interchange Ramps to Section 2B.41, as proposed in the NPA, and leaves
a SUPPORT statement to refer readers to the appropriate section. The
FHWA adopts this change in this final rule because the section and
figure relate more to regulatory signs than guide signs, and therefore,
are more appropriate for Chapter 2B.
The FHWA also adds a reference in this final rule to Section 2D.46
on the use of guide signs and Directional assemblies to mark the point
of entry to a freeway or expressway. Although not proposed in the NPA,
the FHWA adds this reference in this final rule to assist users of the
Manual by providing additional information related to freeway and
expressway entrance ramp signing.
216. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates Sections 2E.51
General Service Signs, 2E.52 Rest and Scenic Area Signs, 2E.53 Tourist
Information and Welcome Center Signs, 2E.56 Radio Information Signing,
and 2E.57 Carpool and Rideshare Signing (as numbered in the 2003 MUTCD)
to a new Chapter in this final rule titled Chapter 2I General Service
Signs (numbered 2F in the NPA).
217. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates Sections 2E.54
Reference Location Signs and Enhanced Reference Location Signs and
2E.55 Miscellaneous Guide Signs (as numbered in the 2003 MUTCD) to a
new Chapter in this final rule titled Chapter 2H General Information
Signs (numbered 2I in the NPA).
[[Page 66780]]
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2F--Toll Road Signs--General
218. In this final rule, the FHWA adopts a new chapter numbered and
titled, Chapter 2F Toll Road Signs. Although not proposed as a separate
chapter in the NPA, this new chapter consolidates information proposed
in the NPA related to toll road signing to address comments from
practitioners that a separate chapter on toll road signing would be
helpful.
219. In several sections of the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a new
symbol to denote that a toll facility's ETC payment system is
nationally interoperable with all other ETC payment systems. The NCUTCD
and a State DOT opposed this new symbol, because they felt that it is
premature to address interoperability, especially with an untested
symbol. Since efforts to achieve this interoperability have not made as
much progress as previously anticipated, the FHWA does not adopt in
this final rule the proposed interoperable symbol or requirements for
its use.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2F--Toll Road Signs--Specific
220. In this final rule the FHWA adopts a new section, Section
2F.01 Scope, to respond to comments suggesting that toll road and
managed lane signing be separated in the MUTCD. This new section
includes a SUPPORT statement that clarifies that Chapter 2F applies to
a route or facility on which all lanes are tolled, while Chapter 2G
applies to the signing of managed lanes within an otherwise non-toll
facility that employs tolling or pricing as an operational strategy to
manage congestion levels, and to explain the scope of Chapter 2F in
relation to other signing provisions elsewhere in Part 2. In this
section, the FHWA also includes a STANDARD statement that, except where
specifically indicated in this chapter, the provisions of other
chapters in Part 2 shall apply to toll roads. The FHWA adopts this
STANDARD to reflect the relocation of this material from Chapter 2E, as
suggested by commenters who wanted a separate chapter for toll roads.
221. In Section 2F.02 Sizes of Toll Road Signs, the FHWA adopts
STANDARD, SUPPORT, and OPTION statements referring to Section 2A.11 and
Table 2F-1 in the MUTCD for information on sign sizes. Although not
proposed as a separate section in the NPA, the FHWA adopts this
consolidation of information from Chapters 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E of the
NPA into one section to provide uniformity in sign sizes.
222. The FHWA adds a new section in this final rule numbered and
titled Section 2F.03 Use of Purple Backgrounds and Underlay Panels with
ETC Account Pictographs. The FHWA adds this STANDARD and SUPPORT
information to assure consistency with adopted requirements regarding
the use of the color purple on signs as contained in Sections 1A.12,
2A.10, 2F.12, and 2F.16.
223. The FHWA adds a new section in this final rule numbered and
titled Section 2F.04 Size of ETC Pictographs. The FHWA adds this
STANDARD and GUIDANCE information to assure consistency with adopted
requirements and recommendations regarding pictographs in Chapter 2A
and in Section 2F.15 and to provide for adequate conspicuity and
legibility of ETC pictographs on the approaches to toll plazas, where
this information is critical.
224. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new section numbered and
titled Section 2F.05 Regulatory Signs for Toll Plazas. In the NPA, the
FHWA proposed to number this Section 2B.31; however, the section number
changes due to the reorganization of information in this final rule.
The FHWA adopts this section to provide consistency and uniformity in
signing practices for these types of facilities, which are becoming
increasingly common and for which uniform signing provisions were not
provided in the 2003 MUTCD.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
regarding the recommended placement of optional Toll Rate Schedule
signs in the vicinity of toll plazas. A local DOT suggested that the
name of the sign be changed to ``Toll Rate sign,'' omitting the word
``schedule,'' because some toll road operators vary the toll amount by
time of day. The FHWA agrees and revises the name of the sign to ``Toll
Rate sign'' in this final rule. Three State DOTs and five toll road
operators opposed the recommended sign placement (100 to 200 feet in
advance of the toll plaza), suggesting that toll road operators need
more flexibility to place the signs in a location where they can be
easily read and understood by road users. One commenter suggested that
the site characteristics of toll plazas vary so widely that a universal
distance requirement for this sign may create unnecessary complications
for some toll facilities, and could lead to the sign being placed in a
less than desirable location. To address these comments, the FHWA
adopts revised GUIDANCE in this final rule to recommend that the signs
be placed between the toll plaza and the first advance sign informing
traffic of the toll plaza. This revised language allows the information
to be outside the immediate influence of the toll plaza area, at which
driver attention is more appropriately focused on signs designating the
appropriate lanes based on payment method, and there is often little
space available for additional signing. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed
recommending that the Toll Rate sign be limited to three lines of text.
Three State DOTs and three toll road operators opposed the recommended
limit of three lines of text because there are several methods that a
toll agency can use in assessing rates, and that often requires more
than three lines of text. The FHWA adopts the recommended limit of
three lines of text in this final rule because it is consistent with
existing provisions in the MUTCD regarding the number of lines of
legend that are based on the maximum information load that a road user
approaching a sign can read and process. To address the need to provide
more detailed information, the FHWA also adds an OPTION in this final
rule allowing the use of a more detailed toll rate schedule at attended
toll booths where vehicles must stop to pay the toll.
225. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new section numbered and
titled Section 2F.06 Pay Toll Advance Warning Sign (numbered and titled
in the NPA as Section 2C.44 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Sign). The FHWA revises
the title of the section in this final rule to reflect the revised sign
legend, based on comments as discussed herein. ATSSA, a toll road
operator, and a local DOT supported the signs and their design, as
proposed in the NPA. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and nine toll road
operators suggested that the proposed wording be changed to delete the
words ``STOP AHEAD'' from the sign and its application, because the
message ``Stop Ahead'' is not appropriate in advance of locations with
ETC capabilities and because these advance signs are located at 1 mile
and \1/2\ mile in advance of the location where some or all lanes are
required to stop at a toll plaza. The commenters also suggested that
there be more flexibility in the wording of the sign. The FHWA agrees
that STOP AHEAD is not appropriate on these advance signs that are so
far from the condition requiring traffic to stop and modifies the
design of the sign and the text in the section adopted in this final
rule to reflect that this is a Pay Toll Advance Warning sign. However,
as discussed below under Sections 2F.08 and 2F.09, the FHWA adopts
similar
[[Page 66781]]
signs and plaques that do bear the words ``STOP AHEAD'', for use closer
to the toll plaza than \1/2\ mile.
Except for suggesting the words ``STOP AHEAD'' be removed, as
discussed above, the NCUTCD supported the W9-6 sign as proposed in the
NPA and shown in proposed Figure 2C-9, but suggested that the W9-6P
plaque be removed. A State DOT suggested that the signs and plaques be
black text on a white background instead of on a yellow background,
because payment is a requirement and is enforceable on toll facilities.
The FHWA disagrees with both commenters, retaining the W9-6P plaque
(and adopting a new Section 2F.07 in this final rule describing its
use) and the yellow background color of the signs and plaques as
proposed in the NPA, but reflecting the change of the sign text and
plaque to Pay Toll Advance Warning. These signs and plaques are in
advance of the toll collection point and are therefore warning, not
regulatory. Three toll road operators commented on the proposed
recommendations for advance placement of the signs. Although one of the
commenters supported the proposed language, the other two suggested
that there needed to be more flexibility, based on volumes of traffic
and whether or not the lanes accepted cash payment. The FHWA notes that
the placement of the signs is GUIDANCE, which allows adjustment in the
location placement. The FHWA adopts this section regarding the use of
these new signs on toll facilities to provide for consistency and
uniformity of signing for messages and to implement the signing
portions of FHWA's ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
226. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.07 Pay Toll Advance Warning Plaque (numbered and titled in the NPA
as Section 2C.69 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Plaque). The FHWA revises the
title of the section it adopts in this final rule to reflect a revised
plaque legend, adopted in response to comments, as discussed above
under Section 2F.06. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed including ``Stop
Ahead'' on the Pay Toll plaque, however, similar to Section 2F.06, the
FHWA removes ``Stop Ahead'' in this final rule to address comments from
two toll road operators and a State DOT who suggested that message
``Stop Ahead'' is not appropriate in advance of locations with ETC
capabilities.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a requirement that
the legend PAY TOLL be replaced with a suitable legend such as TAKE
TICKET for toll plazas where road users entering a toll-ticket facility
are issued a toll ticket. The FHWA adopts this change in this final
rule based on comments from toll road operators on the need to provide
an appropriate sign legend that will accommodate toll-ticket
facilities.
Finally, the FHWA adopts an OPTION at the end of the section
allowing the toll for passenger or 2-axle vehicles to be omitted from
the W9-6P plaque if the toll information is displayed on the guide sign
that the plaque accompanies. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA
adds this OPTION to address a comment from a toll road operator
suggesting that incorporating a changeable message element into the W9-
6P plaque should not be required if the information can be displayed on
the accompanying guide sign. The FHWA adopts the use of this plaque 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.'' \97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
227. The FHWA adopts in this final rule two new sections numbered
and titled Section 2F.08 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Warning Sign, and Section
2F.09 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Warning Plaque. As discussed above under
Section 2F.06, the FHWA adopts this sign and plaque for use at
locations less than \1/2\ mile in advance of mainline toll plazas, and
adopts these new sections to clarify their use.
228. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.10 LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL Warning Plaque (numbered section 2C.68 in
the NPA). This section describes the use of this new plaque, as
proposed in the NPA. ATSSA and a toll road operator supported this new
plaque. Two State DOTs, a toll road operator, and an NCUTCD member
suggested that alternate messages, such as LAST FREE EXIT be allowed on
the sign. The FHWA declines to change the message on the plaque,
because the message LAST FREE EXIT could be misinterpreted to mean that
the limited access roadway was ending or that it is the last exit off
the route. To maintain uniformity in the messages, the FHWA adopts the
plaque as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.
229. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.11 Toll Auxiliary Sign (Section 2D.25 in the NPA) to require the use
of this sign above the route sign of a numbered toll facility, in any
route sign assembly providing directions from a non-toll highway to the
toll facility or to a segment of a highway on which the payment of a
toll is required. The Signs Synthesis Study \98\ found that some States
are using these signs to provide road users useful information that a
numbered route is a toll facility. The proposed section was supported
in concept by most commenters, but the NCUTCD and some toll facility
operators suggested that provision should be included to allow the
continued use of unique toll facility route shield designs that
incorporate the word ``TOLL'' into the route shield itself, rather than
as an auxiliary sign, and that pictographs be allowed in the TOLL
auxiliary sign. The FHWA disagrees because a very wide variety of
unique toll route shield designs are currently in use, and many do not
conform to basic principles of sign design. Further, the TOLL sign is
an auxiliary sign, not a route marker, and therefore the incorporation
of a pictograph is not appropriate. The FHWA believes that uniformity
in the display of similar messages is important for directional
guidance and adopts a uniform provision for notifying road users of a
toll route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the M4-15 sign was proposed with black legend on a
white background, similar to other auxiliary signs, such as cardinal
directions, JCT, BYPASS, etc., that are used with route signs. Because
this particular auxiliary sign is different in function from others, in
that it also serves to provide a warning to road users that the route
is a toll road, the FHWA believes that a black legend on a yellow
background is appropriate for this sign. The FHWA received comments
from several toll road operators expressing concerns that a white
background is needed to make this a regulatory sign in order to enforce
the requirement to pay the toll. The FHWA disagrees with those comments
in relation to this particular auxiliary sign because there are many
other signs associated with toll payment on a toll road that are
designed as black-on-white regulatory signs or plaques and thereby
enable enforcement. The FHWA adopts in this final rule this auxiliary
sign with
[[Page 66782]]
a yellow background and includes comparable text on this sign in
Section 2F.13.
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed to require the use of the TOLL
(M4-15) auxiliary sign above all route signs of a numbered toll
facility when a parallel or nearby free facility has the same route
number. However, it was not the FHWA's intent to endorse the practice
of duplicate route numbering for non-toll and toll routes, because it
could not be consistently applied as an alternate route. The FHWA does
not believe that such a non-uniform practice is helpful in road user
guidance and navigation. As a result, the FHWA does not adopt this
requirement in this final rule. This is different from the practice of
assigning alternative routes, such as business, truck, or bypass
designations on different alignments where there is always a primary
numbered route, which is acceptable.
230. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.12 Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) Account-Only Auxiliary Signs
(Section 2D.26 in the NPA). The FHWA proposed these auxiliary signs in
the NPA to complement and be consistent with signs in this chapter and
in Chapter 2G that inform road users that a highway is restricted to
use only by vehicles having a registered ETC payment account. Two toll
road operators supported this new section. The NCUTCD and a State DOT
suggested that the word ONLY be omitted when an ETC facility accepts
multiple ETC payment systems. The FHWA disagrees, because the intent is
to notify road users that only vehicles that have registered toll
accounts can use the highway, and includes the word ONLY in the section
adopted in this final rule.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule an
option to use the NO CASH auxiliary sign in a route sign assembly
directly below the ETC Account-Only auxiliary sign. The NCUTCD opposed
this option because of confusion that can result at toll plazas where
lanes are segregated by different payment methods; however, the FHWA
retains the OPTION in this final rule because the application of this
sign is not for toll plazas and the FHWA believes that the option of a
NO CASH message might be helpful at the entry point to a toll road to
inform road users in areas where ETC is not well established.
231. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.13 Toll Facility and Toll Plaza Guide Signs--General (Section 2E.55
in the NPA). In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to adopt new symbols to
denote exact change and attended lanes and proposed to require their
use in toll plaza signing. The FHWA believed that symbols for these
messages would 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 were similar to those already in use for these
purposes on some toll facilities in the U.S. The NCUTCD, two State
DOTs, a local DOT, and four toll road operators opposed the requirement
to use the proposed symbols because of their belief that the symbols
had not been adequately tested and would not convey a clear, simple
message at freeway speed. The FHWA adopts the symbols in this final
rule, but agrees that the use of these symbols should not be required
at this time, and therefore adopts an OPTION to use the symbols. As
part of this change in this final rule, the FHWA adopts requirements to
use word messages such as FULL SERVICE, CASH, CHANGE, or RECEIPTS on
signs for attended lanes at toll plazas, and to use the word message
EXACT CHANGE and the amount of the toll for passenger vehicles on signs
for Exact Change lanes at toll plazas. The FHWA refines the designs and
enlarges the minimum size of the symbols to enhance their legibility
when used with accompanying word legends, and adds clarifying language
in this final rule to indicate that these symbols are to be used only
as panels within guide signs that accompany the required word messages,
not as an independent sign or within a sign assembly.
ATSSA and a toll road operator supported the standardization of
placement of signing for ETC facilities. Three State DOTs and nine toll
road operators opposed some of the details that FHWA proposed in the
NPA, particularly those related to the proposed ETC (pictograph) ONLY--
NO CASH (R3-16) regulatory lane-use sign. Most of the commenters
opposed the use of the term ``NO CASH'' because they felt that it might
be misinterpreted to mean that payment may be made by other means, such
as credit card, ticket, or video. To address these comments, in this
final rule the FHWA revises the sign design, deleting the NO CASH text,
and adopts this sign as a guide sign, rather than a regulatory sign.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed requirements for the design of signs
to be used on lanes or facilities that are open only to use by ETC
device-equipped vehicles. Two State DOTs and two toll road operators
opposed the language. One State DOT opposed the requirement to use a
purple background, while the other commenters opposed using the word
``ONLY,'' unless there is only one accepted ETC system. The FHWA adopts
the use of the color purple, because the intent is to use purple as an
identifier of a requirement for vehicles to have a registered ETC
account. However, to address the concerns of the commenter, the FHWA
revises the requirements in this final rule to accommodate ETC
pictographs whose predominant background color is purple. The FHWA
retains the word ONLY because the word is intended to identify that the
facility excludes vehicles without registered ETC accounts. To address
the concerns expressed by the commenters, the FHWA adopts an OPTION
allowing agencies to display information on a separate sign notifying
road users that the facility will accept payments from other systems'
transponders or devices in addition to its primary ETC-device payment
system.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a STANDARD at the
end of the section requiring signing to conform to the provisions of
paragraphs 04 and 05 of this section for entrances to toll highways
where ETC is employed only through license plate character recognition,
such that road users are not required to establish a registered toll
account, and thus any vehicle can use the facility without restriction.
The FHWA adds this requirement to assure that the color purple and the
provisions associated with signing where a registered ETC account is
required are limited to facilities that are not unrestricted and are
not misused on toll facilities where any vehicle can use the facility,
consistent with adopted STANDARDS regarding the color purple in Section
1A.12 and 2F.03.
232. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a new section numbered
and titled Section 2F.14 Advance Signs for Conventional Toll Plazas
(Section 2E.56 in the NPA) as proposed in the NPA. The NCUTCD and three
toll road operators supported the NPA language. One toll road operator
suggested changing the proposed text in this section from GUIDANCE to
OPTION. The FHWA disagrees, and adopts the text as GUIDANCE because
there is sufficient flexibility in the GUIDANCE statements to address
special situations. Another toll road operator suggested that the
proposed recommended use of overhead signs is most pertinent to
mainline toll plazas, and that additional language was needed regarding
signing for ramps. The FHWA disagrees that additional information is
needed, because signing for ramps is already included in the provision,
as proposed in the NPA. Three toll road operators
[[Page 66783]]
opposed the language regarding placement distances for guide signs with
lane information for the toll payment types, suggesting that the
recommended distances were not appropriate. The FHWA disagrees because
a minimum distance is given and is adequately qualified as being
related to the approach geometry and visibility of the toll plaza
canopy signs. The FHWA adopts the language in this final rule, as
proposed in the NPA.
233. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.15 Advance Signs for Toll Plazas on Diverging Alignments from Open-
Road ETC Account-Only Lanes (Section 2E.57 in the NPA). Three toll road
operators supported the intent of the guidance language in this
section; however, they provided comments reflecting their own
experience. The significant comments are discussed herein. In the NPA,
the FHWA proposed to recommend that the ETC (pictograph) ONLY--NO CASH
(R3-16) regulatory sign with a downward pointing arrow over the center
of each lane that will become an Open-Road ETC lane be installed 1 mile
and 0.5 miles in advance of the point where a separate alignment
leading to the toll plaza diverges from mainline-aligned Open-Road ETC
Account-Only lanes. Two toll road operators suggested that down arrows
may be inappropriate at the one mile location depending on lane
arrangement and traffic volume. In addition, they suggested that down
arrows convey a more forceful and definitive message that action should
be taken by the driver at that location. The commenters felt that one
mile may be too far in advance of the plaza to begin traffic separation
by payment method. The FHWA disagrees, because positive communication
of lane use information is necessary for efficient segregation of
traffic on the approach to an Open-Road ETC/toll plaza bifurcation,
just as it is for any other major bifurcation or split. Since these
provisions are recommendations, there is sufficient flexibility to use
diagrammatic signing (as one toll road operator suggested) or Arrow-
per-Lane signs as adopted in Chapter 2E, and there is no restriction on
posting a distance message to convey the distance over which the lane
changes can be made. As a result, the FHWA adopts in this final rule
the language as proposed in the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed recommending an additional set of
overhead advance signs with lane information for the toll payment types
800 feet in advance of the toll plaza. Two toll road operators opposed
this recommendation because the provisions already include three sets
of guide signs in advance of the plaza, and locating a fourth set close
to the plaza would interfere with the visibility of canopy signing. The
FHWA disagrees because the mainline signing typically has far fewer
lanes in which to display lane-specific information as it relates to
the toll plaza lanes. Because this provision is guidance, deviations
based on geometric constraints in which the distance specified is not
available can be made. The FHWA adopts the provision in this final rule
as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA notes that the recommendation suggests
that these signs be placed at a location that avoids or minimizes any
obstruction of the toll plaza canopy signs and lane-use control
signals, as proposed in the NPA.
234. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.16 Toll Plaza Canopy Signs (numbered Section 2E.58 in the NPA). This
section contains STANDARD, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements regarding
signs over the center of the lanes on the toll canopy, display of the
toll fee, and lane-use control signals. A toll road operator supported
the provisions as proposed in the NPA. Several other toll road
operators submitted comments opposed to the language or recommending
specific changes.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a requirement to provide a sign above
the center of each lane that is not an Open-Road ETC Account-Only lane,
mounted on or suspended from the toll plaza canopy, or on a separate
structure immediately in advance of the plaza, indicating the payment
type(s) accepted in the lane and any restrictions or prohibitions of
certain types of vehicles that apply to the lane. A State DOT suggested
that requiring a sign above the center of each lane that is not an
Open-Road ETC Account-Only lane was excessive, and that their
experience showed that signs on the columns over ETC lanes have been
very successful. The FHWA disagrees, because signs on the columns or
booths alone do not adequately relate this critical information to
individual travel lanes approaching and through the toll plaza. The
NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested clarifying these signing requirements
to more clearly indicate that Open-Road ETC Account-Only lanes are
excluded from the requirement. The FHWA believes that the language, as
proposed in the NPA, clearly indicates that Open-Road ETC Account-Only
lanes are excluded, however the FHWA clarifies the provision in this
final rule to require the overhead signing, when mounted on a structure
rather than the canopy, be located such that each sign be clearly
associated with an individual toll lane. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed
including a requirement that the toll fee for passenger or 2-axle
vehicles be included on the canopy sign or on a separate sign mounted
on the upstream side of the toll booth. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and
a toll road operator opposed this requirement for ticketed systems. The
FHWA agrees and excludes toll-ticket systems from this requirement in
this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed an OPTION and associated STANDARD
regarding the optional use of supplementary flashing yellow beacons at
ETC Account-Only canopy lanes. The NCUTCD and two toll road operators
opposed this language, because they felt that the beacons would
interfere with or detract from the lane-use control signals. The FHWA
disagrees because the beacons are optional, but their placement, if
used, needs to be a STANDARD to assure that they are not
inappropriately located so close to lane-use signals that they would be
confusing. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed prohibiting the use of lane-
use control signals to call attention to a lane for a specific toll
payment type such as ETC Account-Only lanes. A State DOT and a toll
road operator suggested that the flashing of a standard circular yellow
signal indication within a lane-use control signal face has become
widely recognized as an indicator of an open ETC Account-Only lane, and
its use should be continued. The FHWA disagrees with the use of a
standard circular traffic signal or beacon indications to display lane
status, since red X and downward green arrow lane-use control signals
are the appropriate displays for this use.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to allow the use of lane-use control
signals above the center of Open-Road ETC Only lanes to indicate the
open or closed status of the lane. Similar text was proposed in Part 4,
and is adopted there in Section 4K.02 this final rule with revisions
based on comments. The FHWA does not adopt the text in Section 2F.16
regarding lane-use signals with Open-Road ETC Only lanes and instead
adds a reference to Section 4K.02 in this final rule.
In Section 2C.08 of the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add paragraphs
describing the use of Advisory Speed plaques at toll plazas. The
NCUTCD, three State DOTs, two local DOTs, and two NCUTCD members
suggested changes to the wording to clarify the use of Advisory Speed
plaques in relation to other signs at toll plazas. The FHWA decides to
not allow the use of Advisory Speed Plaques at toll plazas
[[Page 66784]]
independent of other warning signs. Instead, the FHWA adopts text in
Section 2F.16 describing the allowable display of an advisory speed
within a horizontal rectangular panel with a black legend and yellow
background within the bottom portion of a canopy sign for an ETC
Account-Only toll plaza lane in which a regulatory speed limit is not
posted and in which vehicles are not required to stop.
235. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled 2F.17 Guide
Signs for Entrances to ETC Account-Only Facilities (Section 2E.59 in
the NPA). This section contains SUPPORT and STANDARD statements
regarding the use of guide signs at entrances to facilities that are
restricted to use only by vehicles with a registered ETC account. In
the NPA, the FHWA proposed to include managed lanes in the provisions;
however, in this final rule the FHWA removes the provisions for managed
lanes from this section because FHWA adopts a new Chapter 2G in this
final rule with provisions for managed lanes. A toll road operator
supported the language as proposed in the NPA. The NCUTCD, two State
DOTs and two toll road operators suggested removing specific references
to ``transponder,'' as proposed in the NPA, and changing the language
to account for other devices. The FHWA agrees and adopts revised
language in this final rule to clarify that the section is intended to
apply to a variety of electronic toll collection systems.
236. The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled Section
2F.18 ETC Program Information Signs (Section 2E.60 in the NPA). In the
NPA, the FHWA proposed allowing signs that inform road users of
telephone numbers, Internet addresses, and e-mail addresses for
enrolling in an ETC program of a toll facility or managed lane,
obtaining an ETC transponder, and/or obtaining ETC program information,
but only in rest areas, in parking areas, or on low speed roadways. The
NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and several toll road operators suggested that
the proposed prohibition of signs in areas other than rest areas,
parking areas, and low speed roadways was excessive and that some
mechanism should be allowed to display this information in other areas.
The FHWA understands that road users benefit from knowing how to obtain
information about ETC programs, and as a result adopts an OPTION
statement in this final rule allowing the use of ETC Program
Information signs with telephone numbers of four or fewer numerals in
certain other areas under certain specific conditions.
237. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a section numbered and
titled Section 2C.43 Toll Road Begins Signs, which, if adopted as a
part of the consolidation of toll-related signing information into a
separate chapter, would be located in Chapter 2F. Although ATSSA, a
local DOT, and two toll road operators supported the sign, the NCUTCD,
two other toll road operators, and a State DOT opposed the section and
its associated signs because there is no consensus on whether the
beginning of a toll road should be designated with a regulatory,
warning, or guide sign because of variations in State laws. The FHWA
believes that the signing before the toll road begins addresses this
issue (see Sections 2F.10, 2F.11 and 2F.13) and adequately address
notification to road users of the last exit before entering a toll
facility and the entrance to a toll facility. As a result, the FHWA
does not adopt this proposed section and the associated signs in this
final rule.
Discussion of Amendments to Chapter 2G--Preferential and Managed Lane
Signs
238. The FHWA adopts a new chapter numbered and titled Chapter 2G
Preferential and Managed Lane Signs. Although not proposed as a
separate chapter in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a separate chapter with 18
sections in this final rule to consolidate information that was
proposed in other sections in the NPA related to preferential and
managed lanes. As discussed previously in this preamble under General
Amendments to the MUTCD, the FHWA creates this separate chapter to
address comments from practitioners that a separate chapter would be
helpful.
239. In Section 2G.01 Scope, the FHWA adopts relocated SUPPORT
information from 2003 MUTCD Sections 2B.26 and 2B.27 describing
operational considerations for preferential and managed lanes and
additional SUPPORT text providing cross-references to other pertinent
information in the MUTCD.
240. In Section 2G.02 Sizes of Preferential and Managed Lane Signs,
the FHWA includes STANDARD, SUPPORT, and OPTION statements referring to
other sections in the MUTCD for information on sign sizes, consistent
with similar provisions in the chapters from which the provisions of
this new chapter were relocated. The FHWA adopts this section to
provide uniformity in Preferential and Managed Lane Sign sizes.
241. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to edit and relocate paragraphs
within and between existing Sections 2B.26 through 2B.28, and to
reorganize the text into five sections (Sections 2B.26 through 2B.30)
to improve the consistency and flow of information and improve its
usability by readers. As adopted in this final rule, the FHWA relocates
those proposed sections to new Chapter 2G, since they are related to
preferential and managed lanes. The sections are numbered and titled
Section 2G.03 Regulatory Signs for Preferential Lanes--General, Section
2G.04 Preferential Lane Vehicle Occupancy Definition Regulatory Signs,
Section 2G.05 Preferential Lane Periods of Operation Regulatory Signs,
Section 2G.06 Preferential Lane Advance Regulatory Signs, and Section
2G.07 Preferential Lane Ends Regulatory Signs.
242. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.03 Regulatory
Signs for Preferential Lanes--General (Section 2B.26 proposed in the
NPA). Two toll road operators expressed concern that the proposed
language would now classify toll plaza lanes that segregate traffic by
payment method as preferential lanes and that there is a lack of
research or justification for applicability to non-HOV preferential
lanes, such as toll plaza lanes. The operators suggested that text
regarding non-HOV preferential lanes should be limited to OPTION
conditions until further research on safety and applicability is
available. The FHWA disagrees with the suggested revision as an OPTION
and adopts the language proposed in the NPA in this section but
provides clarification in Section 2G.01 to address these concerns,
explicitly stating that lanes that segregate traffic based on payment
method are not considered to be preferential lanes.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
regarding the installation of a post-mounted regulatory sign applicable
only to a preferential lane on a median barrier where lateral clearance
is limited. Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a toll
road operator expressing concerns that wider signs are not legible when
installed at a skew relative to the approaching traffic and to resolve
a conflict with an existing STANDARD statement in Section 2A.18, the
FHWA revises the GUIDANCE statement in this final rule regarding signs
mounted on median barriers. As part of this change, in this final rule,
the FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement requiring that where lateral
clearance is limited, Preferential Lane regulatory signs that are post-
mounted on a median barrier and that are wider than 72 inches shall be
mounted with a vertical clearance that complies with the provisions of
Section 2A.18 for
[[Page 66785]]
overhead mounting. This revision is also consistent with identical
provisions in Sections 2G.08 and 2G.10.
In this final rule, the FHWA adopts a STANDARD statement that is
relocated from Section 2B.32 as proposed in the NPA. This STANDARD is
in regard to applying provisions for regulatory signs for preferential
lanes to non-priced managed lanes that are operated by varying vehicle
occupancy requirements (HOV) or by using vehicle type restrictions as a
congestion management strategy. This includes provisions for the use of
changeable message elements when certain types of vehicles are
prohibited from using a managed lane or when a managed lane is
restricted to use by only certain types of vehicles during certain
operational strategies, and when the vehicle occupancy required for use
of an HOV lane is varied as a part of a managed lane operational
strategy.
243. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.04 Preferential
Lane Vehicle Occupancy Definition Regulatory Signs (Section 2B.27
proposed in the NPA). This section contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE,
SUPPORT, and OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs.
The FHWA adopts a revised STANDARD statement in paragraph 07 to
clarify that the requirement for an overhead Vehicle Occupancy
Definition sign in advance of the beginning of or the initial entry
point to HOV lanes is applicable only to barrier- and buffer-separated
or contiguous preferential lanes, where access between the preferential
and general-purpose lanes is restricted to designated locations. The
FHWA adopts this clarification to address comments from a State DOT and
two toll road operators that correctly pointed out that the statement
as proposed in the NPA was too broad and needed to be limited to only
certain conditions. The FHWA agrees and adopts the revised STANDARD in
this final rule.
244. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.05 Preferential
Lane Periods of Operation Regulatory Signs (Section 2B.28 proposed in
the NPA). Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a STANDARD
statement in this final rule requiring that for preferential lanes on
which regulations are in effect on a full-time basis, either the full-
time Periods of Operation (R3-11b and R3-14b) signs shall be used, or
the legends of the part-time Periods of Operations (R3-11, R3-11a, R3-
14, R3-14a) signs shall be modified to display the legend 24 HOURS. In
addition this STANDARD prohibits the use of a full-time Periods of
Operation (R3-14b) sign where the preferential lane is in effect only
on a part-time basis. The FHWA adopts these changes in this final rule
to provide clarification of an existing requirement, based on comments
from the NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and three toll road operators.
Finally, the FHWA in the final rule adopts a GUIDANCE statement
recommending that overhead (R3-14 series) or post-mounted (R3-11
series) Periods of Operation signs should be installed at periodic
intervals along the length of a contiguous or buffer-separated
preferential lane where continuous access with the adjoining general-
purpose lanes is provided. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA
adopts this recommendation in this final rule to provide more
flexibility in the placement of these signs by clarifying that signs
need not be installed at periodic intervals on facilities where access
is restricted to designated locations and is not continuous with the
adjoining general-purpose lanes.
245. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2G.06
Preferential Lane Advance Regulatory Signs (Section 2B.29 in the NPA).
This section contains GUIDANCE and OPTION statements regarding the use
of these regulatory signs, as proposed in the NPA.
246. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2G.07
Preferential Lane Ends Regulatory Signs (Section 2B.30 in the NPA).
This section contains STANDARD and OPTION statements regarding the use
of these regulatory signs, as proposed in the NPA.
247. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new section numbered and
titled Section 2G.08 Warning Signs on Median Barriers for Preferential
Lanes (Section 2C.55 as proposed in the NPA). This section contains
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of warning
signs applicable only to preferential lanes on median barriers. In the
NPA, the FHWA proposed GUIDANCE and OPTION statements regarding the
installation of a post-mounted warning sign applicable only to a
preferential lane on a median barrier where lateral clearance is
limited. Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a toll
road operator expressing concerns that wider signs are not legible when
installed at a skew relative to the approaching traffic and to resolve
a conflict with an existing STANDARD statement in Section 2A.18, the
FHWA adopts a revised GUIDANCE statement in this final rule regarding
signs mounted on median barriers. As part of this change, the FHWA
adopts a new STANDARD statement requiring that where lateral clearance
is limited, Preferential Lane warning signs that are post-mounted on a
median barrier and that are wider than 72 inches shall be mounted with
a vertical clearance that complies with the provisions of Section 2A.18
for overhead mounting. This revision is also consistent with identical
provisions in Sections 2G.03 and 2G.10.
248. In this final rule, the FHWA relocates an existing provision
to Chapter 2G in Section 2G.09 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Plaque
(Section 2C.64 proposed in the NPA). This section contains OPTION and
SUPPORT statements from the 2003 MUTCD regarding the use of these
plaques and there are no substantive changes to the information.
249. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts four sections in this
final rule that include the existing material in Section 2E.59 of the
2003 MUTCD and substantially edits the contents to improve consistency
and understanding by grouping similar material together. The resulting
sections are numbered and titled Section 2G.10 Preferential Lane Guide
Signs--General, Section 2G.11 Guide Signs for Initial Entry Points to
Preferential Lanes, Section 2G.12 Guide Signs for Intermediate Entry
Points to Preferential Lanes, and Section 2G.13 Guide Signs for Egress
from Preferential Lanes to General-Purpose Lanes. These four sections
were proposed in the NPA as Sections 2E.51 through 2E.54 respectively.
In conjunction with these changes, the FHWA adopts a variety of changes
in the technical provisions, sign designs, and figures for preferential
lane guide signing, as described in the following items, to reflect the
state of practice for enhanced sign conspicuity and legibility, and to
reflect recent FHWA policy guidance \99\ regarding traffic control
devices for preferential lane facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The FHWA's policy guidance can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
250. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.10 Preferential
Lane Guide Signs--General (Section 2E.51 as proposed in the NPA). This
section contains SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and OPTION statements
regarding preferential lane signing. Although not proposed in the NPA,
the FHWA clarifies in a STANDARD statement in this final rule that HOV
lanes that are managed by varying the occupancy requirements in
response to changing conditions are also governed by the provisions in
this section. The FHWA adds this statement to
[[Page 66786]]
distinguish that such HOV lanes are not governed by the provisions of
subsequent sections that deal with managed lanes that also use pricing
as a management strategy.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to prohibit showing occupancy
requirements for preferential lanes on guide signs. A local DOT
supported this provision, while a State DOT opposed it. The FHWA adopts
this prohibition because the occupancy requirements are most
appropriately displayed on regulatory signing.
To address comments from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and two toll
road operators, the FHWA adopts reorganized and expanded provisions in
this final rule to establish signing criteria for the initial and
intermediate entry points into a preferential lane from the general-
purpose lanes.
Although proposed as a GUIDANCE statement in the NPA, the FHWA
adopts a STANDARD statement regarding the mounting of post-mounted
Preferential Lane guide signs where lateral clearance is limited, to be
consistent with revisions in Sections 2A.18, 2G.03, and 2G.08 for
clearance to light fixtures and sign supports.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts the STANDARD requirement to
use a LEFT plaque on top left edge of the Advance Guide and
Preferential Lane Entrance Direction signs where the entry point is on
the left-hand side of the general-purpose lanes. Two State DOTs opposed
this requirement for similar reasons discussed in Sections 2E.36 and
2E.40; however, the FHWA adopts the requirement to maintain uniformity
and enhance road user understanding as described in Chapter 2E.
251. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.11 Guide Signs
for Initial Entry Points to Preferential Lanes (Section 2E.52 as
proposed in the NPA). This section contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION,
and SUPPORT statements regarding guide signing for initial entry points
to preferential lanes.
252. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.12 Guide Signs
for Intermediate Entry Points to Preferential Lanes (Section 2E.53 as
proposed in the NPA). This section contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION,
and SUPPORT statements regarding guide signing for intermediate entry
points to preferential lanes, as proposed in the NPA. Although not
proposed in the NPA, in this final rule the FHWA relocates the
information from the last STANDARD and SUPPORT statements regarding
signing for direct access ramps to a new Section 2G.15.
253. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.13 Guide Signs
for Egress from Preferential Lanes to General-Purpose Lanes (Section
2E.54 as proposed in the NPA). In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a
different title for this section, as well as additional content that
included signing for egress from preferential lanes to another highway.
In this final rule, the FHWA adopts a separate Section 2G.15 for that
information. Section 2G.13 as adopted contains STANDARD, SUPPORT, and
GUIDANCE statements regarding guide signing for egress from
preferential lanes to general-purpose lanes, as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA adopts the recommendation to use Pull-Through signs with
the Egress Direction sign at exits to direct access ramps, as proposed
in the NPA. A State DOT and two toll road operators suggested that
Pull-Through signs should only be used when warranted, such as for left
exits. The FHWA disagrees because of the ambiguity between single-lane
preferential lanes and direct exits, whether left-hand or right-hand
side.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that consideration be given to the use of
overhead guide signs to display the information related to egress from
the preferential lanes, where two or more adjoining preferential lanes
are present in a single direction. The FHWA adds this provision in
conjunction with other changes to address comments regarding the
visibility of signs installed on median barriers.
254. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.14 Guide Signs
for Direct Entrances to Preferential Lanes from Another Highway.
Although not proposed as a separate section in the NPA, this section
contains STANDARD and SUPPORT statements from proposed Section 2E.53 in
the NPA, related to guide signing for direct access ramps to
preferential lanes.
255. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.15 Guide Signs
for Direct Exits from Preferential Lanes to Another Highway. Although
not included as a separate section in the NPA, as discussed above under
Section 2G.13, this section contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT
statements related to guide signing for direct exits from preferential
lanes to another highway. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed the use of a
black and white header panel on a Pull-Through sign. A State DOT and
two toll road operators opposed the color, stating that preferential
lanes are assigned other colors, such as purple and white. The FHWA
disagrees, as the purple header is reserved for priced or tolled
facilities and is not assigned to the lane; rather, it conveys
information and the requirement for a vehicle to be registered in an
ETC account program to enter a priced managed lane. Once within the
lane, this requirement is not displayed as the lanes are not named for
or branded by the ETC account program. The FHWA adopts the use of a
black and white sign panel for a Pull-Through sign in this final rule
for a preferential lane and addresses similar signing for priced
managed lanes in Section 2G.18.
The FHWA also adopts the recommendation to use Pull-Through signs
with the Exit Direction sign at exits to direct access ramps, as
proposed in the NPA. A State DOT and two toll road operators suggested
that Pull-Through signs should only be used when warranted, such as for
left exits. The FHWA disagrees because of the ambiguity between single-
lane preferential lanes and direct exits, whether left-hand or right-
hand side.
256. The FHWA in this final rule adopts ``2G.16 Signs for Priced
Managed Lanes--General.'' Although not proposed as a separate section
in the NPA, the FHWA adopts this section that contains SUPPORT and
STANDARD statements that were proposed in Section 2E.61 of the NPA and
significantly expands background information on the signing needs for
managed lanes based on possible combinations of operational strategies
employed, such as tolling or pricing, either alone or combined with an
occupancy requirement for non-toll travel, and whether eligibility for
non-toll travel requires registration in a local program. To address
comments from a traffic engineering consultant, the FHWA provides a
SUPPORT statement referring to the figures illustrating the advance
signing sequence for priced lanes to begin 2 miles from the initial
entry point due to the additional informational needs of road users to
decide whether to use the lane and whether they are eligible to use the
lane under certain operational strategies.
257. The FHWA in this final rule adopts ``2G.17 Regulatory Signs
for Priced Managed Lanes'' (Section 2B.32 proposed in the NPA). This
section contains STANDARD and OPTION statements regarding regulatory
signing for priced managed lanes and includes new signs that are
modified versions of similar preferential lane signs in response to
comments from the NCUTCD and a toll road operator that specific signs
should be provided instead of merely providing a reference to a
provision for a different application.
[[Page 66787]]
258. The FHWA in this final rule adopts Section 2G.18 Guide Signs
for Priced Managed Lanes (Section 2E.61 proposed in the NPA). This
section provides STANDARD, SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements
related to guide signing for priced 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 adopts this separate
section to further clarify and specifically address the various
combinations of operational strategies for managed lanes that include
pricing or tolling as a congestion management strategy, as suggested in
a comment by the NCUTCD. This new section also provides for consistency
with other adopted provisions regarding signing for preferential lanes,
and addresses the state of the practice in priced managed lanes.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a requirement that guide signing for
priced managed lanes strictly comply with the provisions in Sections
2G.10 through 2G.15. A toll road operator suggested that this
requirement was too restrictive, and recommended adding options that
would allow more flexible use of the purple background color. The FHWA
disagrees because the use of the color purple is reserved for sign
legends associated with the display of information for ETC account
program registration requirements and information and is not intended
to be used indiscriminately as an overall sign background for other
uses. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the requirement to comply with
the provisions of Sections 2G.10 through 2G.15 except as otherwise
noted in this section.
The FHWA adopts the proposed GUIDANCE recommending the display of
comparative travel times for managed lanes that are an alternative to
general purpose lanes. The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested that this
recommendation be removed and replaced with a more general provision
since it has had no prior use or testing. The FHWA disagrees and
believes that including an abstract provision would result in widely
non-uniform practices and therefore adopts in this final rule the
language as proposed, but revises the sign design to be in conformance
with accepted sign layout practices and the requirements for guide
signs for minimizing the overall amount of information displayed on the
sign.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed the use of the word ``EXPRESS'' on
guide signs for managed lanes. The NCUTCD and a State DOT opposed the
use of the word ``EXPRESS,'' because they felt that it would imply
limited access or limited stops. The FHWA disagrees with removing the
use the term ``EXPRESS,'' but does revise the provision as adopted in
this final rule to clarify that the signs are intended for the managed
lanes of a freeway on which a toll is charged but which are available
as an alternative to non-tolled lanes of the freeway. In addition, FHWA
retains the designation of ``Express Lane'' because, by their nature of
management strategies, such facilities further limit access to
intersecting routes and the adjacent general-purpose lanes, and the
designation, therefore, is appropriate. The FHWA also believes that,
given the complexity of management strategies that could be employed on
such facilities, specific terms strictly tied to the individual
management strategies would become unwieldy and excessive for motorists
to comprehend and that the various management strategies applied are
more appropriately communicated by the regulatory signing and messages.
In concert with similar changes elsewhere in Part 2, the FHWA adopts in
this final rule revised provisions to reserve the diamond symbol
exclusively for HOV lanes.
259. The FHWA adds several new sign images and revises several
existing sign images in Figure 2G-1 Examples of Preferential Lane
Regulatory Signs (Figure 2B-8 in the NPA) to illustrate the various
regulatory signs used to designate HOV and bus preferential lanes. A
local DOT supported the addition of several of the signs and plaques.
The FHWA revises the figure from what was illustrated in the NPA to
reflect comments regarding the design of certain signs. As part of
these changes, the FHWA revises the designs illustrated for the R3-12
series signs. A local professional organization suggested that the
design of the Bus Lane Ahead and HOV Lane Ahead signs be revised to
include a diagonal arrow, similar to the BEGIN RIGHT (LEFT) TURN LANE
(R3-20 series) signs. Two toll road operators and a State DOT suggested
that the R3-14 design does not provide desirable information for
preferential lanes that operate continuously. The FHWA disagrees with
the commenters and adopts in this final rule Figure 2G-1, with some
revisions, to reflect the 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.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ This August 3, 2007 FHWA policy memorandum can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
260. The FHWA adopts Figure 2G-17 Regulatory Signs for Managed
Lanes (Figure 2B-10 in the NPA) to illustrate examples of signs
described in Section 2G.17. ATSSA and a local DOT supported the sign
illustrations, whereas the NCUTCD suggested that the price signs shown
in the figure should be researched prior to placing them in the MUTCD.
The NCUTCD, two toll road operators, and a State DOT opposed the R3-31
sign illustrating the toll rate on a per-mile basis. Based on these and
other comments, the FHWA deletes the sign illustrating the rate per
mile and otherwise adopts the figure as proposed in the NPA,
incorporating additional signs that are similar to those for
preferential lanes, but with the legends modified to accommodate priced
managed lanes because to provide consistency and uniformity in signing
practices for priced managed lanes, which are becoming increasingly
common, and for which uniform signing provisions are not currently
contained in the MUTCD.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapters 2H Through 2N
261. The FHWA adopts a new chapter numbered and titled Chapter 2H
General Information Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to number this
Chapter 2I; however, the chapter number changed due to the
reorganization of the chapters adopted in this final rule. This chapter
contains several sections from Chapters 2D and 2E of the 2003 MUTCD in
order to group similar sign types in the same area of the Manual. A
State DOT supported this new chapter. The new chapter includes Section
2H.01 Sizes of General Information Signs and Table 2H-1 (Section 2I.01
and Table 2I-1 proposed in the NPA) that establish the sizes of General
Information signs. The FHWA also adopts Sections 2H.02 General
Information Signs (I Series), 2H.03 Traffic Signal Speed Sign (I1-1),
2H.04 Miscellaneous Information Signs, 2H.05 Reference Location Signs
and Intermediate Reference Location Signs, 2H.06 Enhanced Reference
Location Signs, 2H.07 Auto Tour Route Signs, and 2H.08 Acknowledgement
Signs, which contain information from Sections 2D.46, 2D.47, 2D.48,
2D.49, 2D.50, 2E.54, and 2E.55 of the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA adopts these
sections in Chapter 2H in a sequence
[[Page 66788]]
that presents the information in the most logical order.
262. The FHWA adopts in this final rule Section 2H.03 Traffic
Signal Speed Sign (Section 2D.47 of the 2003 MUTCD and Section 2I.04 in
the NPA) with a revised paragraph 04 that increases the minimum size of
the Traffic Signal Speed sign from 12 x 18 inches to 24 x 36 inches to
provide for suitable letter sizes, as proposed in the NPA. ATSSA and a
local DOT supported the increased sign size. Another local DOT
suggested that it might be too large for urban conditions, given the
narrow space for signs due to landscaping, utility poles, etc., and
might present structural problems when replacing existing signs on
existing signal structures. The FHWA disagrees because the current size
is too small to be read by road users with 20/40 visual acuity, even in
urban situations, and notes that the adopted sign is actually smaller
than a standard lane-use sign used on signal structures and is no
larger than other signal-related regulatory signs that are commonly
installed on mast arms or span wires.
263. In this final rule the FHWA adopts Section 2H.04 (Section
2E.55 of the 2003 MUTCD and Section 2I.06 in the NPA) with a revised
title of ``Miscellaneous Information Signs'' and associated text to
reflect the relocation of this section into the new Chapter 2H.
264. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to retain the title ``Trail
Signs'' for Section 2H.07 (numbered Section 2D.50 in the 2003 MUTCD and
Section 2I.08 in the NPA). However, to address a comment from the
NCUTCD and one of its members, in this final rule the FHWA titles
Section 2H.07 as ``Auto Tour Route Signs'' to better reflect the
content of this section. In the adopted section, all occurrences of the
word ``trail'' have been replaced with ``auto tour route.'' In the NPA,
the FHWA proposed to add a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of
trail signs on freeways or expressways because trail signs were often
misinterpreted to mean walking trails, rather than marked vehicular
routes. The NCUTCD and one of its members, eight State DOTs, the
National Park Service, numerous trail associations, and citizens
opposed the restriction of trail signs on freeways and expressways. The
FHWA agrees that there are some situations where it is necessary to
install Auto Tour Route signs on freeways or expressways in order to
provide continuity between discontinuous segments of conventional
roadways that are designated as auto tour routes and for which a
freeway or expressway provides the only connection. As a result, the
FHWA adopts in this final rule a revised STANDARD and information
regarding the circumstances under which Auto Tour Route signs may be
installed on freeways and expressways, and information about the types
of signs and assemblies to be used.
265. The FHWA adopts in this final rule Section 2H.08
Acknowledgement Signs (Section 2I.09 in the NPA.) As proposed in the
NPA, this 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. Although the Motorist
Information Services Association (MISA), an NCUTCD member, and a local
DOT supported this section, another NCUTCD member opposed this new
section, stating that acknowledgement signs are not traffic control
devices and do not belong in the MUTCD. Five State DOTs and a local DOT
opposed the requirements related to the sign design and placement,
including the restriction on telephone numbers and Internet addresses,
stating that more flexibility is needed. The FHWA disagrees with
allowing more flexibility and adopts the proposed provisions in this
final rule to address the existing extreme variability in
acknowledgement sign design and placement practices. The FHWA notes
that the restriction on telephone numbers and Internet addresses is
consistent with other sections of the MUTCD and that that some
agencies' current practices have prioritized acknowledgement signs over
more critical traffic control devices, which the FHWA discourages. As a
result, the FHWA believes it is important to include sign design and
placement regulations in the MUTCD. In this final rule, the FHWA adopts
additional information about the design of the signs, including the
location of the sponsor acknowledgment logo, the maximum size of the
sign display, and a restriction on external and internal illumination.
This information is based on the FHWA policy memo ``Optional Use of
Acknowledgment Signs on Highway Rights-of-Way,'' dated August 10,
2005.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ FHWA's Policy Memo can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-mem_ack.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
266. The FHWA adopts in this final rule Chapter 2I General Service
Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to number this Chapter 2F. This
chapter contains several sections from Chapters 2D and 2E of the 2003
MUTCD in order to group similar sign types in the same area of the
Manual. The FHWA received a comment from a local DOT supporting the
creation of this new chapter.
267. The FHWA adopts in this final rule Section 2I.01 Sizes of
General Service Signs, and a new Table 2I-1 to establish the minimum
sizes of General Service signs and plaques. ATSSA supported the
addition of Table 2I-1, while a State DOT and an NCUTCD member opposed
establishing requirements for minimum sign sizes for General Service
signs. Those in opposition felt that the requirements will no longer
allow good engineering judgment in specifying signs that will perform
well, but are smaller than the minimum dimensions in the new table. The
FHWA disagrees and believes that consistency in sizes of standardized
sign legends is intrinsic to the concept of uniformity and adopts the
provisions as proposed in the NPA. In response to a comment from the
NCUTCD suggesting that many of the sign sizes in Table 2I-1 appear to
be larger than necessary, the FHWA notes that the signs have been
designed and sized according to conventional design principles.
268. The FHWA adopts in this final rule Section 2I.02 General
Service Signs for Conventional Roads that contains information from
Section 2D.45 and 2B.10 of the 2003 MUTCD in the NPA, no significant
changes were proposed to the information that is adopted in this
section.
269. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2I.03 General Service Signs
for Freeways and Expressways (Section 2E.51 of the 2003 MUTCD), the
FHWA changes the design of the Truck Parking (D9-16) sign, as
illustrated in Figure 2I-1. ATSSA supported the new symbol for the
Truck Parking sign. A recent study \102\ tested several symbols for
this message and found that the message can be successfully symbolized.
The FHWA adopts in this final rule the symbol that was found to be the
easiest to comprehend and that provides the greatest legibility
distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ ``Design and Evaluation of Selected Symbol Signs,'' Final
Report, May, 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason
Kennedy, and Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
270. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a
new section numbered and titled Section 2I.04 Interstate Oasis Signing,
containing SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and OPTION statements regarding
signing for facilities that have been designated by a State as having
[[Page 66789]]
met the eligibility criteria of FHWA's Interstate Oasis Policy.\103\
Although the MISA supported this new section, a State DOT opposed it
because it felt that the Interstate Oasis program is not needed. The
State DOT suggested that sufficient information is provided through the
use of general service signs, specific service signs, and rest area
signing. The FHWA adopts the section as proposed to comply with the
requirements of SAFETEA-LU regarding the establishment of designation
criteria and signing requirements for these facilities. The language of
this section is based on the signing provisions of the FHWA's
Interstate Oasis Policy.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 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.
\104\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adopts a unique symbol for use on separate Interstate
Oasis signs in conjunction with the word message. ATSSA and a local DOT
supported the design of the Interstate Oasis (D5-12) sign, while a
State DOT and an NCUTCD member suggested that the sign be classified as
a D9 series services sign, not a D5 series sign. The FHWA disagrees and
classifies the sign as a D5 series sign because it gives direction to a
specific facility that is not an individual service. Other D5 series
signs are for roadside facilities, such as Rest Area and Scenic
Overlook. Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA removes the
sign image from the adopted Figure 2I-1, since the panel is not used on
its own, and retains the image in Figure 2I-4.
271. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts Section 2I.05 Rest
Area and Other Roadside Area Signs, that combines the text from
Sections 2D.42, 2D.43, and 2E.52 of the 2003 MUTCD, so that similar
information is located in one section. The FHWA adopts text revisions
to clarify the types of signs to be used at rest areas and at scenic
and other roadside areas. Section 2D.42 of the 2003 MUTCD 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. An NCUTCD member supported this revision.
A State DOT and an NCUTCD member suggested that the requirements
for installing advance roadside area signs were too restrictive. The
FHWA agrees and in this final rule adopts the placement information as
a GUIDANCE statement, rather than a STANDARD, consistent with the
provisions in Section 2E.29.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts two paragraphs at the end
of this 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 adopts the TDD symbol based on the
results of the Sign Synthesis Study \105\ that showed that several
States are using a similar sign, and because this sign design is
specified by the Americans With Disabilities Act to indicate facilities
that are equipped with TDD. The FHWA adopts 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. A State DOT suggested that there be a
requirement to install supplemental plaques identifying the Wi-Fi
symbol; however, the symbol was evaluated and exhibited an acceptable
level of comprehension.\106\ The FHWA believes that a uniform symbol is
needed for this rapidly expanding signing practice and the human
factors testing indicates that the proposed symbol provides optimum
comprehension, conspicuity, and legibility. MISA supported this new
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ ``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.
\106\ ``Design and Evaluation of Selected Symbol Signs,'' Final
Report, May 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason
Kennedy, and Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
272. The FHWA adopts in this final rule two new sections numbered
and titled Section 2I.06 Brake Check Area Signs, and Section 2I.07
Chain Up Area Signs, as proposed in the NPA as Sections 2F.10 and
2F.11. The FHWA adopts these new types of signs based on the results of
the Sign Synthesis Study \107\ 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 facility) for
drivers to install and remove tire chains during winter weather
conditions. Some States also provide similar areas for trucks and other
heavy vehicles to check their brakes in advance of the start of a long
downhill grade. The NCUTCD and four State DOTs opposed placing these
signs in Chapter 2I, because they felt that these signs are not guide
signs, rather they are warning signs. The FHWA does not consider these
to be warning signs, rather it considers these types of areas to be
roadside facilities and the signs should be consistent in color and
legend with those for other roadside facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
273. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a new Section 2I.08
Tourist Information and Welcome Center Signs (Section 2F.06 in the NPA)
that contains the information from Section 2E.53 of the 2003 MUTCD. The
FHWA adopts this change, to group like material in the same chapter.
MISA supported this new section. Additionally, as proposed in the NPA,
the FHWA adopts a revised design of the Tourist Information (D9-10)
sign, as illustrated in Figure 2I-1. A recent study \108\ 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 symbol, the
FHWA adopts a design featuring larger and bolder letters to provide
legibility that is expected to be comparable to the question mark
symbol, consistent with minimum letter heights for guide signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ ``Design and Evaluation of Selected Symbol Signs,'' Final
Report, May 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason
Kennedy, and Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
274. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a
new Section 2I.09 Radio Information Signing (Section 2F.07 in the NPA)
that contains information from Section 2E.56 of the 2003 MUTCD. In the
last OPTION statement, the FHWA adopts a revised legend for the D12-4
sign using the word ``CALL'' rather than ``DIAL'' in order to be
consistent with the terminology used on the adopted D12-2 Carpool
Information and D12-5 Travel Information signs and to reflect current
terminology. ATSSA and a local DOT supported this change in legend
text.
[[Page 66790]]
275. The FHWA adopts in this final rule Section 2I.10 TRAVEL INFO
CALL 511 Signs (Section 2F.08 in the NPA) that incorporates text from
Section 2D.45 of the 2003 MUTCD associated with these signs. MISA
supported this proposed new section. A State DOT suggested that the
FHWA allow alternate designs of the sign that would eliminate the
duplicate message ``511'' by incorporating a larger scale pictograph.
The FHWA disagrees, because the suggested pictograph (the trademarked
511 pictograph) has not undergone legibility testing to determine
whether it can be used independently.
276. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a
new Section 2I.11 Carpool and Ridesharing Signing (Section 2F.09 in the
NPA) that contains information from Section 2E.57 of the 2003 MUTCD.
The FHWA adopts this change because this material relates to the
content in Chapter 2I.
277. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to relocate the information from
Section 2C.13 of the 2003 MUTCD to a new section numbered and titled
Section 2F.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs. With the chapter reorganization
adopted in this final rule, it would have been Section 2I.12. The FHWA
proposed this change to clarify that these types of signs convey
information on a form of roadside facility (similar to rest areas,
brake check areas, etc.), rather than warnings. Although a local DOT
supported this change, the NCUTCD and one of its members, six State
DOTs, two local DOTs, and a citizen opposed truck escape ramp signs
being reclassified, suggesting that this section and the associated
signs remain in Chapter 2C. Based on the comments, FHWA agrees that
truck escape ramp signs are only intended to communicate information in
an emergency situation and the escape ramp is not to be entered except
under such a condition, and thus a warning classification for the signs
is more appropriate. The FHWA does not adopt proposed Section 2F.12 in
this final rule, and retains the truck escape ramp signs in Chapter 2C
with black legends on yellow backgrounds.
278. In this final rule the FHWA adopts Chapter 2J Specific Service
Signs that contains the provisions of Chapter 2F of the 2003 MUTCD.
This chapter was numbered Chapter 2G in the NPA. Significant proposed
and adopted changes to provisions of 2003 MUTCD Chapter 2F are
discussed below.
279. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise the STANDARD statement
in Section 2J.02 Application (Section 2F.02 of the 2003 MUTCD) to
indicate that a service type is allowed to appear on up to two Specific
Service signs, rather than only on one. MISA and an NCUTCD member
supported this change. A State DOT opposed limiting the number to two,
while a State travel information council opposed allowing more than one
sign per service type because they felt that the overflow of service
types onto two signs at one interchange would further complicate the
signing. The FHWA disagrees that signing would be further complicated,
based on the fact that the total number of signs allowed has not
changed. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the change as proposed in
the NPA 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,\109\ which allows for up to 2 Specific Service signs
containing up to 12 logos for a given type of service. As part of this
change, the FHWA also adopts a paragraph 06 indicating that when a
service type is displayed on two signs, the signs for that service type
should follow one another in succession. MISA, a State DOT, and an
NCUTCD member supported this provision. Two State DOTs felt that it
would not be practical for the signs to follow one another in
succession, because their existing sign panels would have to be removed
and relocated. The commenters suggested that the wording allow
installation of additional service signs as space allows. The FHWA
declines revising the language as suggested because it is important
that the signs be in succession to aid the driver in recollection and
decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
280. In Section 2J.03 Logos and Logo Sign Panels (Section 2F.03 of
the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add to the first
GUIDANCE statement a recommendation that the letter heights for word
message logos should have the minimum letter heights described in
Section 2J.05. A State DOT and a State travel information council
commented that the minimum letter heights referenced in Section 2J.05
are in a STANDARD statement. Therefore, to avoid conflicts created by
referencing a STANDARD statement in a GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA does
not adopt the GUIDANCE as proposed in the NPA. Instead, in this final
rule the FHWA adopts a SUPPORT statement referencing Section 2J.05 for
minimum letter heights for logo sign panels.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA also adopts OPTION, STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements in this section regarding the use and
design of supplemental messages within the logo sign panel. To enhance
recognition of the presence of a supplemental message, the figures
depict the logo sign panels with the supplemental messages on a yellow
background. The FHWA adopts this new text to incorporate messages, such
as DIESEL and 24 HOURS that are helpful to road users. ATSSA, a State
travel information council, MISA, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic
signing vendor supported the proposed language. In the NPA, the FHWA
also proposed restricting the number of supplemental messages on a logo
panel to just one. A State DOT opposed this restriction but the FHWA
disagrees because the recommendation of a maximum of one supplemental
message is based on driver information processing capabilities. An
agency may, through engineering judgment based on applicable design
considerations and human factors, display more than one supplemental
message if it deems it to be essential to motorist direction.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add recommendations regarding the
specific minimum letter heights for the supplemental message for logo
sign panels on Specific Service signs for various roadway
classifications. A State DOT and an NCUTCD member suggested that the
proposed letter height of only 4 inches on a mainline freeway or
expressway sign is too small, and recommended a minimum letter height
of 6 inches. The FHWA notes that 4 inches represents the minimum letter
height, and agencies can use larger letter heights. The 4-inch
supplemental legend was balanced with the recommendation for an 8-inch
business name. In order to provide consistency and to avoid repeating
language, the FHWA does not adopt the recommendation as proposed in the
NPA. Instead, in this final rule the FHWA adopts a STANDARD statement
that references Table 2J-1 for minimum height requirements for letters
and numerals on supplemental messages displayed within the logo sign
panel.
The FHWA adopts a new supplemental message for use with logo sign
panels that may be used by businesses that are designed with facilities
to accommodate the on-site movement and parking of recreational
vehicles (RVs). As proposed in the NPA, the language was developed
based on the conditions listed in Interim Approval IA-8, dated
September 6,
[[Page 66791]]
2005,\110\ as well as additional criteria deemed necessary, such as
alternate RV Access supplemental message 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 accessible site desiring
to be signed as such. The proposed language created a significant
amount of interest, particularly within the RV community. The FHWA
received over 1,150 letters from RV owners, many of whom are members of
the Family Motor Coach Association (FMCA). All of those commenters
supported the concept of RV signing. Only one RV owner commented that
RV accessible sites should not be signed because there are too many
signs along the highway already and that special interest groups should
not be candidates for additional signing. The large number of members
of the FMCA who submitted letters, as well as a few additional
citizens, suggested that the FHWA retain the existing sign designs
contained in the Interim Approval, primarily because the program has
already been implemented in 15 States, and they are concerned about the
costs that those States would incur if they were forced to change their
signs. These commenters felt that the 15 States that are already using
these signs might abandon the RV accessible program instead of
upgrading the signs. ATSSA, a State DOT, MISA, an NCUTCD member, a
traffic engineering consultant, and three citizens supported the design
proposed in the NPA for several reasons. Many thought that the design
in the Interim Approval produced a cluttered appearance that was
alleviated in the NPA design by keeping the RV Access supplemental
message within the logo sign panel. The FHWA adopts the design proposed
in the NPA, because the FHWA believes it is important to contain the RV
symbol within the borders of the business logo to make it easier for
the travelling public to determine which service accommodates RVs and
to simplify the overall sign design. The FHWA points out to the RV
owners who submitted comments that, due to the systematic upgrade
provisions of Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, the 15 States that have signs in place do not need to
spend any funds on immediately upgrading their existing signs since
they can keep their existing signs in place until they need to be
replaced, at which time replacement with a sign that is compliant with
the MUTCD would occur. In addition, although not proposed in the NPA,
the FHWA adopts a GUIDANCE statement in this final rule recommending
that agencies using the RV Access supplemental message should have a
policy on the site requirements needed to qualify for such a
designation. This incorporates additional information from the Interim
Approval regarding the need for States to develop a policy on site
requirements, as suggested in a comment from a citizen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Interim Approval IA-8 can be viewed at the following Web
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adopts a new OPTION statement allowing the use of the
supplemental message OASIS within the logo panel of a business that has
been designated as an Interstate Oasis facility. As proposed in the
NPA, the FHWA adopts this additional supplemental message to reflect
the Interstate Oasis Program and Policy that was published in the
Federal Register on October 18, 2002.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The Interstate Oasis Program and Policy can be viewed at:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add STANDARD, OPTION, and
GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of dual logo panels (two smaller
logos on the same panel) on Specific Service signs. The FHWA based this
proposal on the results of research in Texas \112\ which found that
mixing food and gas logos in a dual logo panel did not significantly
impact their effectiveness. Although a local DOT supported this
proposal, the NCUTCD and one of its members, eight State DOTs, a State
travel information council, MISA, and a traffic signing vendor opposed
it. Further review by the FHWA indicates that the research in Texas was
a simulation only. In addition, the FHWA has not received results from
field experimentation underway in Texas and Kentucky to support
inclusion of dual logos at this time. As a result, the FHWA does not
adopt in this final rule the proposed use of dual logo sign panels on
Specific Service signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ ``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: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
281. The FHWA adopts in Section 2J.04 Number and Size of Signs and
Logo Sign Panels (Section 2F.04 of the 2003 MUTCD) 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. ATSSA, MISA,
a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member supported this new provision as
proposed in the NPA, while three State DOTs and a State travel
information council expressed opposition. Those in opposition suggested
that the additional logo sign panels of the same service type, beyond
six, would lead to sign proliferation, potentially causing driver
confusion. Some of the commenters stated that the purpose of the logo
panels is to inform motorists of the specific services available at a
particular interchange so that they can make informed decisions about
essential motorist services before exiting the highway, and the fact
that one sign would have the full complement of six specific service
providers for a single type is a clear indication that the motorist
will have a number of choices for that service type at that
interchange. Thus, these commenters felt it is not necessary to
identify each provider at that location. The FHWA understands the
purpose of the program and notes that States may develop policies
regarding the scope and use of Specific Service signing and might elect
to use only General Service signing. The FHWA adopts this provision as
proposed in the NPA, based on the Interim Approval to Display More than
Six Specific Service Logo Panels for a Type of Service (IA-9), dated
September 21, 2006.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
282. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a STANDARD statement in
Section 2J.05 Size of Lettering (Section 2F.05 of the 2003 MUTCD),
specifying 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. ATSSA and a local DOT
supported the letter heights as proposed in the NPA. Four State DOTs
opposed the proposed sizes because they felt that the legend size on
word-only logo sign panels should not be mandated and should be
consistent with how trademarks are handled. The FHWA disagrees because
the purpose of a minimum letter height is for legibility of legends
that do not have recognition value by virtue of a unique graphic
representation. Trademarked word graphic business representations
[[Page 66792]]
constitute logos and are not subject to this provision. The NCUTCD, one
of its members, and MISA supported the letter heights, with the
exception of the letter heights on ramps, which they felt should be
changed to 4-inch upper-case and 3-inch lower case to reflect that ramp
panels are half the size of mainline panels. The FHWA disagrees because
of the need to maintain legibility, regardless of panel size. In this
final rule, the FHWA adopts a reference in the STANDARD to a new Table
2J-1 with minimum letter and numeral sizes for Specific Service signs
according to sign type, rather than repeating the detailed requirements
in the STANDARD statement. The FHWA adopts the minimum letter heights
in Table 2J-1 to provide letter heights that will enhance legibility
for older drivers. This new table includes the sizes for Specific
Service signs, logo panels, and logo panel supplemental messages.
283. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts Section 2J.08 Double-
Exit Interchanges (Section 2F.08 of the 2003 MUTCD) with a GUIDANCE
paragraph 03 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. MISA and an NCUTCD member
supported the intent of this section, but suggested revisions to allow
for a ``split-service'' sign format where two services would be
displayed for one exit. The commenters suggested that ``split-service''
signs where the top section displays FOOD--EXIT 5A and the bottom
section displays LODGING--EXIT 5A would not comply with the proposed
text. The FHWA disagrees, noting that the purpose of this provision is
to avoid situations where one sign is split between each exit, not
service category. An example would be one sign displaying ``FOOD--EXIT
5A'' and ``FOOD--EXIT 5B'' followed by a second Food sign that also
applies to both exits with the same headings. The FHWA's intent is that
one sign should read ``FOOD--EXIT 5A'' while the other reads ``FOOD--
EXIT 5B''. This provision does not preclude the display of two services
on one sign. The FHWA adopts paragraph 03, as proposed in the NPA, to
provide consistency in logo signing for double-exit interchanges when a
service type is displayed on two signs.
284. The FHWA adopts Section 2J.09 Specific Service Trailblazer
Signs, containing 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. ATSSA
supported this section as proposed in the NPA, while two DOTs and a
State travel information council opposed the new section in its
entirety, specifically the mandating of the use of Specific Service
trailblazer signs, as indicated in paragraph 02. Two additional State
DOTs suggested that more flexibility be provided to allow other
official signs and legal outdoor advertising signs to serve as
substitutes for Specific Service trailblazer signs, where it is not
feasible or practical to install these signs. The FHWA disagrees
because highway agencies do not control the content, format, or
continued presence of off-premise signs and therefore reliance on off-
premise signs is not advisable. The NCUTCD suggested relaxing the
requirement that facilities shall not be considered eligible for
signing from the ramp and main roadway where it is not feasible or
practical to install Specific Service trailblazer signs. The FHWA
disagrees, because the continuity of the system of signs is essential
to motorist guidance. The FHWA adopts this new section and an
associated new figure, as proposed in the NPA, to enhance the
uniformity of this signing practice, which is being used by many
States.
285. The FHWA adopts Section 2J.10 Signs at Intersections (Section
2F.09 of the 2003 MUTCD) and expands paragraph 05, as proposed in the
NPA, to require that the action message or the directional arrow shall
all be on the same line as the type of service or below the logo sign
panels. A State DOT opposed changing this to a requirement, because
many of their signs do not meet this requirement and would need to be
replaced. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the requirement in this final
rule. The 2003 MUTCD language required the action message or
directional arrow to be on the same line as the type of service, which
was required to be above the logo(s), but provided an optional
alternative to display the action message or directional arrow below
the logo(s). The text adopted in this final rule merely consolidates
the 2003 OPTION and STANDARD statements, and the consolidated STANDARD
continues to allow the action message or directional arrow to be either
(1) above the logos on the same line as the service type, or (2) below
the logos. Further, under the systematic upgrade provisions of Section
655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, States can keep
their existing signs in place until they need to be replaced, at which
time replacement with a sign that is compliant with the MUTCD would
occur.
286. In this final rule the FHWA adopts Chapter 2K Tourist-Oriented
Directional Signs that contains the provisions of Chapter 2G of the
2003 MUTCD. The FHWA did not propose any significant changes to this
chapter in the NPA (numbered 2H therein), nor does the FHWA adopt any
significant changes to the text in this chapter in this final rule.
287. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new Chapter 2L Changeable
Message Signs (Chapter 2M in the NPA.) The NPA contained information
from Sections 2A.07 and 2E.21 of the 2003 MUTCD as well as additional
new information, organized into seven sections, specifically pertaining
to the description, application, legibility and visibility, design
characteristics, message length and units of information, installation,
and display of travel times on changeable message signs. Five State
DOTs, a local DOT, a local association, and two toll road operators
suggested that FHWA clarify the terms Changeable Message Sign (CMS),
Dynamic Message Sign (DMS), and Variable Message Sign (VMS), since the
terms are used differently throughout the traffic engineering and the
ITS/electronics industry. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the term
Changeable Message Sign (CMS) as it is the standard nomenclature in the
traffic engineering profession, and clarifies that this term is
synonymous with signs referred to as DMS and VMS. The FHWA adopts this
new chapter to consolidate all information about CMSs 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.\114\ A State DOT, a traffic control device vendor, and a
legal firm supported the creation of a consolidated chapter, whereas a
local ITE chapter suggested that there needed to be clarification on
what types of CMSs are covered by this chapter. The FHWA agrees and
adopts clarifying text in this final rule to distinguish between
various
[[Page 66793]]
types of CMS and the applicability of these provisions to each type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
288. The FHWA adopts Section 2L.01 Description of Changeable
Message Signs (Section 2M.01 in the NPA). ATSSA and a local DOT
supported the proposed prohibition of advertising messages on CMSs. A
law firm suggested that States need to have an opportunity to allow
advertising on CMSs under controlled circumstances to assist with
funding, thereby enabling modern CMS technology, which is a vital
element of the ITS program. The FHWA disagrees, as advertising in the
highway right of way is not permitted, and the FHWA believes it is a
distraction from traffic conditions, official traffic control devices,
and the driving task in general. ATSSA also supported the description
of CMSs and the design language.
Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a GUIDANCE
statement in this final rule to consolidate and clarify existing
provisions stating that blank-out signs that display only single-phase,
predetermined electronic-display legends that are limited by their
composition and arrangement of pixels or other illuminated forms in a
fixed arrangement (such as a blank-out sign indicating a part-time turn
prohibition, a blank-out or changeable lane-use sign, or a changeable
OPEN/CLOSED sign for a weigh station), should conform to the provisions
of the applicable section for the specific type of sign, provided that
the letter forms, symbols, and other legend elements are duplicates of
the static messages, as detailed in the ``Standard Highway Signs and
Markings'' book. The FHWA adopts this language in this final rule to
provide information regarding these types of signs, allowing greater
flexibility in the use of such signs.
289. The FHWA adopts Section 2L.02 Applications of Changeable
Message Signs (Section 2M.02 in the NPA), which allows the use of CMSs,
both permanent and portable, by State and local highway agencies to
display emergency, homeland security, and America's Missing: Broadcast
Emergency Response (AMBER) alert messages, in addition to safety or
transportation-related messages already included in the 2003 MUTCD. The
FHWA also adopts a GUIDANCE statement, as proposed in the NPA, that
States have a policy regarding the display of these types of messages.
ATSSA and a State DOT supported these changes. Another State DOT
suggested that additional messages be allowed when used in a temporary
traffic control zone. The FHWA believes that this information should be
considered in the State's policy on the use of CMSs and not included in
the MUTCD. Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA also adopts in
this final rule a GUIDANCE statement that when multiple CMSs are used
to address a specific situation, the message displays should be
consistent to the driver along the roadway corridor and adjacent
corridors, and that different operating agencies should coordinate
their messages accordingly.
290. In Section 2L.03 Legibility and Visibility of Changeable
Message Signs (Section 2M.03 in the NPA), the FHWA had proposed adding
a recommendation in the NPA regarding care and maintenance of the
protective material on the front face of a CMS. Two State DOTs opposed
this language, stating it was too prescriptive and that specific
details regarding maintenance should not be included in the MUTCD. The
FHWA agrees and does not adopt the proposed language in this final
rule.
291. The FHWA adopts Section 2L.04 Design Characteristics of
Changeable Message Signs (Section 2M.04 in the NPA), as proposed in the
NPA, which expands the elements that are prohibited on CMSs to include
advertising, exploding, scrolling, or other dynamic elements. Two State
DOTs, three local DOTs, and an association of local ITS partners
suggested that sequencing arrows be allowed. The FHWA disagrees because
sequencing arrows are not appropriate for CMSs that can accommodate
word legends that are comparable to static signs when installed at the
roadside or in an overhead location. However, to address this issue, in
this final rule the FHWA adopts a reference to Part 6 regarding the use
of flashing arrow boards for lane closures that are placed in the
closed portion of a lane.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a recommendation that
except in the case of a limited-legend CMS (such as a blank-out or
electronic-display changeable message regulatory sign) that is used in
place of a static regulatory sign or an activated blank-out warning
sign that supplements a static warning sign at a separate location,
changeable message signs should be used as a supplement to, and not as
a substitute for, conventional signs and markings. ATSSA, a State DOT,
a local DOT, and a local chapter of ITE supported this language.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts provisions for spacing
between characters, words, and message lines, as well as letter heights
and width-to-height ratios of the sign characters, in this section.
ATSSA, a State DOT, three local DOTs, a traffic control device vendor,
and a local ITE section suggested revisions to the proposed language or
suggested that it be deleted because it was too prescriptive. The FHWA
adopts the language as proposed, based on research evaluations \115\
that support the provisions. The FHWA understands that CMS technology
is continuing to develop and will consider those developments in future
rulemaking and/or policy guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA adopts a requirement that CMSs automatically adjust their
brightness under varying light conditions to maintain legibility. ATSSA
supported this language. A State DOT suggested that additional
clarification be provided. The FHWA notes that Table 2A-5 provides
information for the use of a white legend on a black background for the
colors of regulatory electronic changeable displays.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to recommend that the front face of a
CMS be covered with protective material. A State DOT, a local DOT, and
a local ITE chapter suggested that this recommendation be removed,
since there might be signs that do not need a protective front
material. The FHWA agrees and does not adopt the reference to
protective material in this final rule.
In GUIDANCE paragraph 11, the FHWA decides to remove the specific
recommended minimum values of luminance for CMSs because such precise
information is more appropriately contained in other reference
materials. Instead, the FHWA adopts the GUIDANCE statement as a
recommendation that the luminance should meet industry criteria for
CMS. The FHWA adopts the recommended range of luminance contrast as
proposed in the NPA.
The remaining paragraphs that were proposed in this section are
related to color messages and backgrounds on CMSs. ATSSA supported the
proposed language, while several State and local DOTs, traffic control
device manufacturers, and an NCUTCD member suggested changes to the
text or suggested that the language be deleted. Some agencies felt that
the language indicated that all CMSs are to be in color. The FHWA
disagrees, as only the sign legend is required to be in color, not the
background. Some commenters did not know that the capability exists for
displaying the colors indicated in the NPA. The capability does exist
and
[[Page 66794]]
some agencies have begun to use signs that employ more advanced
technologies, however; FHWA believes that agencies have not specified
the use of the colors because of the lack of standards and apparent or
implied acceptance of existing technologies in use. Based on the
availability and effective use of signs that have the capabilities to
display full color the FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
Based on a comment from a local ITE section, the FHWA also adopts
information on the use of symbols regarding resolution and replication
of static versions of signs.
292. The FHWA adopts Section 2L.05 Message Length and Units of
Information (Section 2M.05 in the NPA), with revisions to the STANDARD
to clarify that each message on a CMS shall consist of no more than two
phases. Two State DOTs, seven local DOTs, an association of local DOTs,
and a traffic engineering consultant opposed this language, stating
that it was overly restrictive and that a third phase should be
allowed. The FHWA disagrees, because messages composed of more than two
phases exceed driver information processing capabilities and adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA. Some of the commenters, as well as an
NCUTCD member, suggested that the language conflicted with the last
GUIDANCE statement in the section recommending an additional CMS to be
used if the message required more than two phases. To address this
comment, in this final rule the FHWA adopts a revision the last
GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the display of information that
would otherwise necessitate more than two phases would be handled by
the use of two CMSs at separate locations, each with distinct,
independent messages with a maximum of two phases each. In this final
rule the FHWA also adds to the GUIDANCE statement an additional
principle that the duration between the displays of two phases should
not exceed 0.3 seconds, to clarify the issue of how long an interval
between successive phases should be.
The FHWA adopts a requirement, as proposed in the NPA, that each
phase of a message shall be understood by itself regardless of the
sequence in which it is read. A State DOT, two local DOTs, and a toll
road operator suggested that this language be changed to a
recommendation, or be applicable only to permanent CMS. The FHWA
disagrees and believes that the logical display of messages is critical
to their comprehension and subsequent action by road users to promote
effective traffic operation. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed
in the NPA, in this final rule.
The FHWA adopts a requirement that techniques of message display
such as animation, rapid flashing, dissolving, exploding, scrolling
that travels horizontally or vertically across the face of the sign, or
other elements, shall not be used. This language is similar to the
requirements in Sections 2L.04 and 6F.60. The Minnesota DOT and a local
ITE section suggested that there needed to be more guidance,
particularly related to moving arrows. The FHWA disagrees with allowing
the use of moving arrows on permanent CMSs. However, to address this
issue, the FHWA adopts a reference to Part 6 regarding the use of
flashing arrow boards for lane closures.
293. The FHWA adopts Section 2L.06 Installation of Permanent
Changeable Message Signs (Section 2M.06 in the NPA) that contains
recommendations on the factors that should be considered when
installing permanent CMSs that are not used in place of static signs.
ATSSA and a local DOT supported the provisions in this proposed
section. To address a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA adopts language
in this final rule to clarify that CMSs should be located upstream of
known bottlenecks and high-crash locations to enable drivers to choose
an alternate route.
294. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add Section 2M.07 Display of
Travel Times on Changeable Message Signs. Although ATSSA supported this
new section, several State and local DOTs, the NCUTCD and several of
its members, as well as other associations provided various comments
regarding the specific language or opposed the new section in its
entirety because it is not related to traffic control devices. Much of
the proposed language included information about public involvement.
The FHWA agrees with the commenters and does not adopt this section in
this final rule. The information is contained in the FHWA's 2004 policy
document titled ``Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Recommended Practice and
Guidance'' \116\ if agencies would like more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Recommended Practice and
Guidance, dated 7/16/2004, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-memorandum_dms.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
295. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 2M.04 General Design
Requirements for Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Guide
Signs (Section 2H.04 of the 2003 MUTCD and Section 2J.04 in the NPA) 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 (NPS) updated Uniguide Standards Manual,\117\ in
addition to a few United States Forest Service standard symbol signs
for activities not covered in the Uniguide Standards. The Society for
Environmental Graphic Design (SEGD) and Harpers Ferry Center (part of
the National Park Service) supported the integration of SEGD Recreation
Symbols into the MUTCD, and suggested that even more of them be
included in the MUTCD. The NCUTCD and one of its members, four State
DOTs, two local DOTs, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opposed the
proposed symbols for several reasons, including: (1) Some of them
conflict with other previously-adopted symbols in the MUTCD; (2) they
had not undergone sufficient legibility testing; and (3) by adopting
the proposed symbols, the MUTCD would contain a mixture of symbol
systems, and therefore would not be uniform. In consideration of the
comments, in this final rule the FHWA adopts only the current versions
of the NPS Uniguide symbols that do not conflict with symbols adopted
by other provisions of the MUTCD, and revises the figures in Chapter 2M
accordingly. Because the symbols previously adopted by the MUTCD for
roadway applications have undergone legibility and comprehension
evaluations prior to adoption, FHWA determines that it is inappropriate
to replace those already-adopted symbols with symbols that are untested
and complex in their designs. In response to a comment regarding the
numbering of the symbols, the FHWA adopts the current designations
available at the time of rulemaking with the presumption that the
designations adopted by the MUTCD will be adhered to as revisions to
the SEGD materials evolve. The FHWA believes it is important to
establish the primacy of the MUTCD as its contents are subject to the
Federal rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Information about the National Park Service's Uniguide
Standards Manual can be obtained from the National Park Service,
Harpers Ferry Center, 67 Mather Place, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425,
telephone 304-535-5050, Internet Web site http://www.nps.gov/hfc/products/uniguide.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding ``Prohibited Activities and
Items'' as one of the usage categories for recreational and cultural
interest area symbol guide signs in this section and in Table 2M-1
(Table 2H-1 of the 2003 MUTCD and Table 2J-1 in the NPA). Based on
comments discussed in the following item, the FHWA does not adopt this
usage category in this final rule. The FHWA revises Table 2M-1 to
reflect the new set of signs, as well as
[[Page 66795]]
figures within Chapter 2M that show recreational and cultural signs.
296. The FHWA adopts Section 2M.07 Use of Prohibitive Circle and
Diagonal Slash for Non-Road Applications (Section 2H.07 in the 2003
MUTCD and Section 2J.07 in the NPA) with revisions to the title and
additional clarifying language to describe the appropriate use of the
prohibitive circle and diagonal slash. The clarifying language is in
addition to the text proposed in the NPA regarding signing for
prohibited activities or items in recreational or cultural interest
areas when a standard regulatory sign for such a prohibition is not
provided in Chapter 2B.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to specify that the red diagonal
slash be placed behind the symbol, rather than over it, consistent with
National Park Service standards. Although a local DOT, MISA, and an
NCUTCD member supported this text and the associated images proposed in
Figure 2J-11, ATSSA, another NCUTCD member, a State DOT, and three
local DOTs opposed the inconsistent use of the slash, as well as all of
the sign images in proposed Figure 2J-11. The FHWA agrees with the
commenters and does not adopt the language regarding the red diagonal
slash in this final rule, thereby making the use of the slash
consistent (symbol behind the slash). Also, the FHWA does not adopt
Figure 2J-11. The FHWA adopts revised sign images in the figures
throughout Chapter 2M to show the slash in front of the symbol.
297. The FHWA adopts Section 2M.08 Placement of Recreational and
Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs (Section 2H.08 of the 2003 MUTCD
and Section 2J.08 in the NPA) including the new binoculars symbol, as
proposed in the NPA, to denote wildlife viewing areas based on the Sign
Synthesis Study,\118\ which revealed that several States and the
National Park Service were already using this symbol in this manner to
design an effective guide sign. The FHWA also adopts the OPTION
statement proposed in the NPA, 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. MISA and an NCUTCD member
supported this text and the associated symbol, while a State DOT
suggested that the symbol on the Wildlife Viewing Area sign should
always be placed on the same side, similar to pictographs for street
name signs. The FHWA disagrees, and adopts the language as proposed,
because flexibility is needed based on whether the associated arrow is
pointing to the left or right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA adopts information in the last OPTION statement
permitting the use of Advance Turn or Directional Arrow auxiliary signs
with white arrows on brown backgrounds with Recreational and Cultural
Area Interest symbol guide signs to create Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Directional Assemblies. Although not proposed in the NPA,
the FHWA adopts this language in this final rule to provide agencies
with the flexibility to create Recreational and Cultural Interest Area
Directional Assemblies, similar to other assemblies that are permitted
in the MUTCD.
298. The FHWA adopts Section 2M.09 Destination Guide Signs (Section
2H.09 in the 2003 MUTCD and Section 2J.09 in the NPA), and deletes the
first sentence of the second STANDARD statement that restricted the use
of white on brown destination guide signs on linear parkway-type
highways that primarily function as arterial connectors. This change
proposed in the NPA is the result of an amended memorandum of
understanding that was signed in 2006 by the National Park Service and
the FHWA.\119\ MISA and an NCUTCD member supported this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ This Memorandum of Understanding can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
299. The FHWA adopts Section 2M.10 Memorial or Dedication Signing
(Section 2I.07 Memorial Signing in the NPA), which is comprised
primarily of text pertaining to memorial and dedication signs that was
in Sections 2D.49 and 2E.08 of the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA relocates the
information on these type of signs to Chapter 2M because they are more
appropriately classified as a Recreational and Cultural Interest Area
signs, rather than as General Information Signs. The FHWA also revises
the background color for Memorial or Dedication Signs from green to
brown. The FHWA adopts revised statements within the section, as
proposed in the NPA, in order to make the information in this section
regarding memorial and dedication signing consistent with Section 2D.53
Signing of Named Highways (Section 2D.49 of the 2003 MUTCD). Although
not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and OPTION
statements regarding design recommendations, requirements, and options
for these signs that are consistent with general signing principles and
with provisions for other recreational and cultural interest area signs
to address the fact that the information on these signs was relocated
from another Chapter.
300. The FHWA adopts Section 2N.03 Evacuation Route Signs (Section
2I.03 of the 2003 MUTCD), with reorganized paragraphs, as proposed in
the NPA, to provide a more logical flow. The FHWA also adopts
information regarding the design of the new Tsunami Evacuation Route
sign, as proposed in the NPA. The design is based on a symbol currently
being used in all Pacific Coast States.
The FHWA also adopts the clarification of the use of Advance Turn
Arrow (M5 series) and Directional Arrow (M6 series) auxiliary signs
with Evacuation Route signs in paragraphs 02 and 03, as proposed in the
NPA.
301. The FHWA adopts Section 2N.08 Emergency Aid Center Signs
(Section 2I.08 of the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, and adopts
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. ATSSA and a local DOT supported this change. The FHWA adopts
this change, because Emergency Aid Center (EM-6 Series) signs might be
useful for incident situations.
302. The FHWA adopts Section 2N.09 Shelter Directional Signs
(Section 2I.09 of the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, with 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. ATSSA
supported this change. The FHWA adopts this change, because Shelter
Direction (EM-7 Series) signs may be useful for incident situations.
Discussion of Amendments to Part 3--Pavement Markings--General
303. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to remove all references to blue
raised pavement markers for locating fire hydrants from Part 3 because
they are not considered to be traffic control devices. Two local DOTs
agreed with the proposal. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a traffic
control device manufacturer recommended keeping blue raised pavement
markers in the MUTCD. Based on the comments, in this final rule the
FHWA removes all STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements regarding
blue raised pavement markers from the Manual, but adds a new SUPPORT
statement in Section 3B.11 stating that blue raised pavement markers
are sometimes used
[[Page 66796]]
to help emergency personnel locate fire hydrants.
304. Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adopts the terms
``dotted lane line'' and ``dotted line extension'' instead of ``dotted
line'' throughout Part 3 and the rest of the MUTCD to clarify the
provisions applicable to each. A ``dotted lane line'' is used to
separate a continuing lane from a non-continuing lane, while a ``dotted
line extension'' is used to extend a line through an intersection or
taper area.
305. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts the optional use of
appropriate route shield pavement marking symbols (including
appropriate colors) to assist in guiding road users to their
destinations. The NCUTCD commented that colors of State route shield
markings should also be allowed and the FHWA agrees. The FHWA includes
a figure illustrating several examples of route shield pavement
markings.
306. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts 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, and auxiliary lanes. Sections 3A.06, 3B.04, 3C.02, and 3D.02 all
contain information on the use of dotted lane lines for these uses. The
FHWA also adopts revisions to the various figures in Chapter 3B that
illustrate the adopted provisions on proper uses of the different types
of lines and adds figures where needed to better illustrate the text on
the use of dotted lane lines. As documented in NCHRP Synthesis
356,\120\ 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 the standardized use of dotted lane lines for non-continuing lanes
as adopted in this final rule will better serve this important purpose
in enhancing safety and uniformity. Sections 3B.04 and 3B.09 below
contain further discussion of dotted lane lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
307. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to place the information on
object markers and barricades in a new chapter titled Chapter 2L Object
Markers, Barricades, and Gates. This involved the relocation of Chapter
3C Object Markers and Section 3F.01 Barricades to Part 2 because
readers of the MUTCD have difficulty finding object markers in the 2003
MUTCD. In addition, most jurisdictions treat these devices as signs for
purposes of inventory and policy. As discussed above in Chapters 2B and
2C, in this final rule, the FHWA relocates the information on
barricades to the adopted Section 2B.67 Barricades and the information
on object markers to Sections 2C.63, 2C.64, 2C.65, and 2C.66.
308. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule
OPTION statements in various sections within Part 3 to allow the 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, based on recommendations
from the Older Driver handbook.\121\ This is an effective practice
commonly used to aid road users in identifying these channelizing
features at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 3A
309. In Section 3A.02 Standardization of Application, in the NPA
the FHWA proposed revising the OPTION statement about temporary masking
of markings. A State DOT expressed concern about the tape being able to
match the color of the pavement. The FHWA disagrees with this comment
because the NPA wording ``approximately the same color'' allows
sufficient flexibility. A toll road operator recommended adding a
durability requirement for tape and requiring that the tape be fully
maintained. The FHWA disagrees with this comment because the MUTCD does
not specify durability times or ``full maintenance'' of any markings.
The FHWA adopts the revised OPTION statement in the final rule as
proposed in the NPA.
310. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 3A.05 Colors
(numbered Section 3A.04 in the NPA) to limit the use of red raised
pavement markers to truck ramps, one-way roadways, and ramps. A toll
road operator recommended relocating the text to a section specifically
concerning raised pavement markers. The FHWA disagrees because this
section provides the STANDARD for the application of red raised
pavement markers consistent with the STANDARD for applying other
colors. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD and two State DOTs
recommending that red raised pavement markers be allowed on two-way
undivided roadways to indicate wrong-way movement to vehicles. Research
conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute \122\ supported the use
of red raised pavement markers on the left side of two-way undivided
roadways to indicate wrong-way movement to vehicles traveling on the
wrong side of the center line. The FHWA agrees with the research and in
this final rule adopts an expanded paragraph 04 to allow the use of red
raised pavement markers on travel lanes where the color red is visible
to traffic proceeding in the wrong direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ ``Red Retroreflective Pavement Markings: Driver
Understanding of Their Purpose,'' by Jeffrey D. Miles, Paul J.
Carlson, Brooke Ullman, and Nada Trout, was published by the
Transportation Research Board in Transportation Research Record
2056, 2008, pages 34-42, and can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://trb.metapress.com/content/p006183142152145/fulltext.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposed to add paragraph 06 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 with registered
Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) accounts. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs,
and two toll road operators opposed the mention of purple lines because
of concerns over visibility and the requirement to use the color
purple. The FHWA disagrees with these comments because purple was
already established in the 2003 MUTCD for future use, purple as used on
both signs and markings is visible at night as a distinct color, and
purple is being included for optional, not mandatory, use for markings.
A State DOT and four toll road operators agreed with the revision, but
recommended removing mention of ETC transponders in regard to allowable
use of an ETC lane and, as discussed previously in Chapter 2F, the FHWA
agrees and revises the terminology to refer to ETC Account-Only lanes.
This new paragraph is consistent with other changes in Part 2 of the
MUTCD regarding the use of the color purple for signing to readily
identify lanes that are to be used only by vehicles with registered ETC
accounts.
311. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in Section 3A.06
(numbered Section 3A.05 in the NPA), a change in the title to
``Functions, Widths, and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement Markings.''
Based on a comment from a toll road operator
[[Page 66797]]
regarding the general function of a dotted line, the FHWA adopts a
revision to the STANDARD statement in paragraph 01 item D to read, ``A
dotted line provides guidance or warning of a downstream change in lane
function'' in order to more accurately describe the function of the
dotted line.
The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a
local DOT recommending removal of the proposed wording ``continuing
lane'' and ``non-continuing lane'' in the GUIDANCE statement regarding
the lengths of line segments and gaps for dotted lines. The FHWA agrees
and in this final rule the proposed phrase concerning separation of a
continuing lane and non-continuing lane is removed from paragraph 06.
The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and a toll road operator
opposed to the existing language recommending 3-foot line segments and
9-foot gaps for dotted lines because they wanted more flexibility. The
FHWA disagrees and declines to revise the dimensions in order to
encourage increased consistency in the dimensions for dotted lines
based on their function, while still allowing flexibility for agencies.
The recommended dimensions reflect the most common practice as
documented in NCHRP Synthesis 356.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
312. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a new section titled Section
3A.06 Definitions Relating to Pavement Markings, containing definitions
of the terms ``neutral area,'' ``physical gore,'' and ``theoretical
gore.'' Based on comments from the NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and two
local DOTs, the FHWA in this final rule modifies the definitions to
enhance accuracy and clarity and relocates the information to Section
1A.13, where all definitions are located.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 3B
313. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a new STANDARD statement in
Section 3B.01 Yellow Center Line Pavement Markings and Warrants to
specifically prohibit the use of a single solid yellow line as a center
line marking on a two-way roadway. Two State DOTs and a local DOT
agreed with the proposal in the NPA. Six commenters, including three
local DOTs, two consultants, and a retailer, opposed the revision. The
commenters suggested that a single solid yellow center line be allowed
on low-speed roads, low-volume roads, school zones, and parking aisles.
In addition, several of the commenters mentioned that single solid
yellow center lines are sometimes used in Europe and Canada, and that a
single line is more cost effective than a double solid yellow center
line. The FHWA disagrees with these comments because there have been no
studies showing the effectiveness or road user understanding of a
single solid yellow center line, especially in regard to passing
prohibitions, there is no defined meaning of a single yellow center
line in regard to passing or no passing, and this marking has not been
allowed by the MUTCD. Some agencies have improperly used a single solid
yellow center line because of the lack of a specific prohibition
statement. The FHWA adopts paragraph 05 as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to add SUPPORT paragraph 08, which
references sections of the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) that contain
information regarding left turns across center line no-passing zone
markings and paved medians. The NCUTCD and a State DOT supported the
revision. Two State DOTs and a consultant disagreed with the revision,
stating that the sentence is unnecessary, that the UVC is not readily
available without purchase, and that the UVC is not applicable in all
States. The FHWA disagrees, because the UVC is the model for State laws
and the FHWA supports adoption of the UVC by all States for their motor
vehicle laws as a necessary component of traffic control device
uniformity, and because the sentence provides clarification. 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
questions and indicates the need to provide the information in this
edition. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
314. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone
Pavement Markings and Warrants to add an OPTION 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. A local DOT agreed with the revision, but
recommended making the paragraph a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees with
the commenter because no studies have been performed to justify making
the markings mandatory. The FHWA adopts in this final rule paragraph 13
as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA received one comment regarding the existing language for
minimum taper lengths. A local DOT recommended changing the STANDARD to
GUIDANCE to allow more flexibility to practitioners in low-speed urban
conditions, such as some traffic calming and parking situations. The
FHWA agrees that flexibility is needed, similar to that given in Part 6
for taper lengths at flagger stations and for shifting tapers, and the
FHWA can find no recent research basis for the longstanding minimum
values for either urban or rural conditions in the STANDARD. Therefore,
the FHWA adopts paragraph 16 as GUIDANCE. The value of taper length
calculated by the formula remains as the recommended minimum for any
given condition of speed and offset.
315. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 3B.03 Other Yellow
Longitudinal Pavement Markings to change the first OPTION to GUIDANCE
in order to recommend for certain conditions, rather than just permit,
the use of arrows with two-way left-turn lanes. A State DOT asked for
guidance on the distance between sets of two-way left-turn lane arrows.
The FHWA disagrees that a distance is needed because it depends on
several factors, such as speeds, geometry, and intersection spacing.
The NCUTCD supported the proposed change, but recommended relocating
the text to Section 3B.20. A consultant agreed with the proposal, but
made an editorial recommendation. Four State DOTs, five local DOTs, and
two NCUTCD members opposed upgrading the paragraph from OPTION to
GUIDANCE because of concerns about potential for increased maintenance
costs. The FHWA adopts paragraph 04 as GUIDANCE, but relocates the text
describing the placement locations for two-way left-turn lane-use arrow
pavement markings to Section 3B.20, where it more logically belongs.
The NCHRP Synthesis 356 \124\ 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 modifies the figures
that contain arrows in two-way left-turn lanes to show when they are
recommended and when they are optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
316. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 3B.04 White Lane Line
Pavement Markings and Warrants a
[[Page 66798]]
STANDARD specifying that dotted lines are required for acceleration,
deceleration, and auxiliary lanes. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, a local
DOT, and two citizens agreed with the proposal. Two State DOTs and a
local DOT opposed the revision and requested that dotted lines not be
required, but did not indicate reasons. The FHWA believes uniformity is
needed and adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the
NPA with minor editorial changes.
The FHWA received several comments regarding the proposal in the
NPA to require the use of wide dotted white lane lines for lane drops.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, three local DOTs, and a citizen agreed with
the proposal, but recommended text revisions for clarity. Three State
DOTs, two local DOTs, and a citizen opposed the proposed requirement
because they wanted flexibility to use other markings. The FHWA
believes uniformity is needed and adopts the required use of lane drop
markings as proposed in the NPA with minor editorial changes and adds a
sentence to the GUIDANCE to clarify that, for lane drops at
intersections, the lane drop marking should begin no closer to the
intersection than the furthest upstream regulatory or warning sign
associated with the lane drop. The FHWA also adds ``in advance of
freeway route splits with dedicated lanes'' as an additional required
use for wide dotted white line markings, because this situation is
similar to a lane drop.
In this final rule, the FHWA revises the language in paragraph 06
item D for auxiliary lane markings ``between two or more adjacent
intersections'' to ``between two adjacent intersections'' based on
comments from a State DOT and a local DOT.
Based on the comments discussed above dealing with lane drop
markings and auxiliary lane markings, the FHWA adopts three additional
drawings to Figure 3B-10 and a new Figure 3B-11 to better illustrate
the provisions of the text.
The FHWA received several comments regarding the proposed STANDARD
in the NPA requiring the use of dotted white lane lines at entrance
ramps with parallel acceleration lanes and the OPTION to extend the
dotted lane line to the downstream end of the acceleration taper. The
NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and a local DOT agreed with the proposal, but
recommended text revisions. Two local DOTs opposed the proposed OPTION
to allow the dotted lane line to extend to the downstream end of the
acceleration taper because they believe that drivers could be trapped
in the lanes that are ending. The FHWA disagrees and notes that
extending the dotted white lane line to the downstream end of the
acceleration taper is an OPTION and its use in some conditions can help
drivers determine the length of the taper during periods of darkness
and help drivers avoid trying to merge into heavy traffic prematurely.
The FHWA adopts the language as proposed with minor editorial changes.
The FHWA also revises the language for widths of dotted lines
throughout Section 3B.04 to provide clarification. A State DOT, two
local DOTs, and a citizen expressed confusion concerning the text and
associated figures proposed in the NPA. The FHWA adopts language
clarifying that wide dotted lines are to be used in advance of lane
drops and for auxiliary lanes, which are really just a special case of
a lane drop, and that normal width dotted lines are to be used for
other dotted lane lines and dotted extensions of lines. The FHWA also
updates the figures throughout Part 2 and Part 3 for consistency with
the text regarding dotted lane lines.
The FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December 31, 2016
(approximately seven years from the effective date of this final rule),
or roadway resurfacing, whichever occurs first, for the replacement of
broken white lane lines with dotted white lane lines required to
achieve compliance with these provisions at existing locations. The
FHWA establishes this target compliance date because of the road user
confusion that would likely occur as a result of a long-term mixing of
the application of both broken lane lines and dotted lane lines for
non-continuing lanes. These locations typically involve merging or lane
changing and have a high potential for crashes if road users
misunderstand or are confused by the markings. The FHWA believes that,
without a specific target compliance date, replacing existing broken
lane lines with dotted lane lines under the geometric conditions where
dotted lines are required in this final rule might be delayed by some
agencies until the existing markings are totally worn off. Most
agencies restripe their markings when they are worn to a degree, but
well before they are totally absent from the pavement, due to safety
issues with unmarked pavement. Further, Portland cement concrete
pavements have a very long service life, especially in southern
climates, thus making the intervals between resurfacings very long. The
FHWA anticipates that the required replacement with the new lane line
marking pattern at existing locations will provide safety benefits to
road users, and that a seven-year phase-in period is longer than the
life of most markings and will allow State and local highway agencies
and owners of private roads open to public travel to spread out the
work over a reasonable time period and thus minimize any impacts.
317. In Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings,
the FHWA proposed language in the NPA to clarify the requirements for
channelizing lines in gore areas alongside the ramp and through lanes
for exit ramps and entrance ramps in order to improve uniformity in
application and to reflect the predominant practice as documented in
NCHRP Synthesis 356.\125\ The NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and a local DOT
agreed with the proposal, but recommended revisions that included only
extending the channelization line for entrance ramps with tapered
acceleration lanes to a point at least half the distance from the
theoretical gore, to more accurately reflect predominant practice to
allow earlier merging into the mainline lane. A State DOT opposed the
proposal and recommended that the STANDARD be changed to an OPTION. The
FHWA disagrees with reducing this to an OPTION, because uniformity is
needed to minimize road user confusion, and in this final rule adopts
the language as proposed in the NPA but with the suggested change
regarding tapered acceleration lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 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 adopts a third drawing to Figure 3B-9 for additional
clarification of channelizing line markings for tapered entrance ramps.
318. In Section 3B.08, Extensions Through Intersections or
Interchanges, a consultant suggested that the existing GUIDANCE text
from the 2003 MUTCD recommending that edge lines should not be extended
through major intersections or major driveways as solid lines, be
changed to a STANDARD. The FHWA agrees because such a provision is
already a STANDARD in Section 3B.06 and adopts paragraph 06 as a
STANDARD in this final rule for consistency.
319. In Section 3B.09, Lane-Reduction Transition Markings, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to revise paragraph 08 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 received several comments on this
[[Page 66799]]
proposal. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, four local DOTs, two toll road
operators, and a citizen agreed with the proposal, but recommended
several changes, including changing the sentence to an OPTION,
requiring the use of wide dotted white lines instead of normal dotted
white lines, and allowing the use of either dotted white lines or
broken white lines as lane reduction markings. Four State DOTs and two
local DOTs opposed the revision. Although lane-reduction transitions
share many characteristics in common with lane drops and auxiliary
lanes, the FHWA believes that additional research and experimentation
with dotted lane lines on the approach to lane-reduction transitions
would be beneficial before adopting the dotted lane line markings for
this application. Although the NCUTCD recommended that highway agencies
be given the option of using either the current standard markings or
the proposed dotted lane line markings for lane-reduction transitions,
the FHWA believes that the non-uniformity that would result from having
two allowable markings for this application would not be in the best
interest of road users. Therefore, the FHWA does not adopt the proposed
change in this final rule and retains the text from the 2003 MUTCD for
paragraph 08. The FHWA also updates related figures and Section 3B.04
for consistency.
320. In Section 3B.10, Approach Markings for Obstructions, the FHWA
proposed language in the NPA to clearly indicate that toll booths at
toll plazas are fixed obstructions that shall be marked according to
the requirements of this section. The proposal was based on the
recommendations from the Toll Plazas Best Practices and Recommendations
Report.\126\ Based on comments from the NCUTCD, four toll road
operators, and two State DOTs, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a
SUPPORT statement referencing Chapter 3E Markings for Toll Plazas
(Section 3B.29 in the NPA) for additional information on approach
markings for toll plaza islands and makes editorial changes to the
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ ``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 received several comments regarding the existing language
in the 2003 MUTCD for minimum taper lengths approaching obstructions.
Three toll road operators and a State DOT opposed the statement because
some toll plazas cannot accommodate the requirement. Two local DOTs
opposed the statement because urban conditions cannot always
accommodate the requirement. Consistent with the same change in Section
3B.02, the FHWA in this final rule modifies paragraph 05 from STANDARD
to GUIDANCE.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to change an existing OPTION to
GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than just permit, that where observed
speeds exceed posted or statutory speed limits, longer tapers should be
used. Two State DOTs and a local DOT opposed the revision. The FHWA in
this final rule removes the statement because it is unnecessary, as the
formula for taper length based on speed is provided earlier in the
section.
321. In Section 3B.11, Raised Pavement Markers--General, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to limit the use of red raised pavement markers to
being visible to traffic proceeding in the wrong direction of a one-way
roadway or ramp. A State DOT and a local DOT agreed with the proposal.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and an NCUTCD member recommended allowing the
use of red raised pavement markers on divided highways and on the left-
hand side of two-way roadways. Consistent with changes as discussed
previously in Section 3A.05, the FHWA in this final rule revises
paragraph 02 to read, ``The side of a raised pavement marker that is
visible to traffic proceeding in the wrong direction may be red (see
Section 3A.05).''
Additionally, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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. Based on recommendations from the
NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and an NCUTCD member, the FHWA adopts this
statement as an OPTION.
322. In Section 3B.13, Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other
Markings, several commenters made recommendations regarding the
existing GUIDANCE from the 2003 MUTCD that raised markers should not
supplement right-hand edge line markings. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, a
local DOT, and a toll road operator opposed the existing provision,
stating that in many cases there is no bicycle use of the shoulder and
the use of raised markers on the right-hand edge line can be very
beneficial for delineation on curves and at other locations where extra
emphasis of the edge line is needed. Four bicyclist-related
organizations recommended leaving the existing provision in place
because raised markers can cause bicyclists using the shoulder to lose
control if they accidentally drive over the markers. The FHWA believes
that there are many locations where raised markers can be used on
right-hand edge lines where bicycles are not allowed on a highway and/
or to enhance safety overall, without compromising safety for
bicyclists. Therefore, in this final rule the FHWA removes the existing
GUIDANCE and adopts a new GUIDANCE paragraph 02 that reads as follows:
``Raised pavement markers should not supplement right-hand edge lines
unless an engineering study or engineering judgment indicates the
benefits of enhanced delineation of a curve or other location would
outweigh possible impacts on bicycles using the shoulder, and the
spacing of raised pavement markers on the right-hand edge is close
enough to avoid misinterpretation as a broken line during wet night
conditions.''
323. In Section 3B.14, Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for
Pavement Markings, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change the GUIDANCE
to a STANDARD requiring that the color of raised pavement markers shall
match the color of the markings for which they substitute, in order to
assure uniformity of markings colors. Based on comments from the
NCUTCD, a State DOT, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member, the FHWA in
this final rule removes the statement because the information is
covered in Section 3B.11.
For consistency with changes discussed above in Section 3B.13
regarding the use of raised pavement markers on right-hand edge lines,
the FHWA in this final rule makes comparable changes in Section 3B.14.
324. In Section 3B.15, Transverse Markings, the FHWA relocates the
existing second STANDARD statement to Section 3B.20 in the final rule.
This STANDARD statement requires pavement marking letters, numerals,
arrows, and symbols to be installed in accordance with the SHSM, and is
relocated to the section where it more appropriately belongs.
325. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed several changes to Section 3B.16
Stop and Yield Lines to clarify the intended use of these markings. The
FHWA proposed to add requirements regarding the use of stop and yield
lines, specifically as these relate to locations where YIELD (R1-2)
signs or Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) signs are used. A
State DOT and a local DOT agreed with the proposal. Two State DOTs and
a local DOT disagreed with the proposal and recommended
[[Page 66800]]
allowing stop lines at railroad crossings and other locations that
operate under yield control. The FHWA proposed these changes to assure
that stop lines are not misused to indicate a yield condition or vice
versa. The FHWA adopts the STANDARD proposed in the NPA, which requires
that stop lines shall not be used at locations on uncontrolled
approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to
pedestrians. This change is in accordance with FHWA's Official
Interpretation 3-201(I), dated January 10, 2007.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 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 proposed a new STANDARD statement in the NPA that required
the use of Yield (Stop) Here to Pedestrian (R1-5 series) signs at a
crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach when a yield
(stop) line is used. A local DOT recommended that the sentence be
GUIDANCE instead of a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees and adopts paragraph
13 for consistency with the requirement in paragraph 01 of Section
2B.11.
326. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a new section numbered and
titled ``Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings,'' containing
OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of markings to
indicate that the intersection is not to be blocked and to add a new
Figure 3B-18 (Figure 3B-17 in the NPA) showing the options for the Do
Not Block Intersection Markings. Four local DOTs and an NCUTCD member
approved of the new section. Two local DOTs opposed the new section
because of a concern over maintenance in northern States and potential
driver confusion over right-of-way. The FHWA believes that Do Not Block
Intersection Markings are being used more widely across the country to
improve traffic flow through intersections and that uniformity in the
use and type of markings is needed to minimize road user confusion. The
markings are optional and not mandated for use, but the MUTCD
provisions will improve uniformity if markings are used for this
purpose. In this final rule the FHWA adopts the section and figure as
proposed in the NPA, but with minor editorial revisions.
327. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 3B.18 Crosswalk
Markings, to expand the GUIDANCE regarding the specific placement of
crosswalk markings and to add new GUIDANCE regarding the placement of
crosswalk markings across uncontrolled approaches, based on engineering
judgment and engineering studies. A State DOT and two local DOTs
opposed the expanded language on engineering studies. A State DOT and a
local DOT agreed with the proposal, but recommended that roundabouts be
exempted, and that the study consider the 85th percentile speed in
addition to the posted speed. The FHWA believes that an engineering
study for crosswalks is appropriate at locations not controlled by a
traffic signal, stop sign, or yield sign, including at a roundabout if
it does not have a yield sign controlling the entry. The FHWA adopts in
this final rule the language proposed in the NPA for the engineering
study, but also includes the 85th percentile speed as a consideration
in an engineering study. The language reflects the findings of the FHWA
report, ``Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at
Uncontrolled Locations.'' \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ ``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 received comments from the NCUTCD, five State DOTs, four
local DOTs, and an NCUTCD member regarding the proposed conditions
where marked crosswalks alone should not be installed. A local DOT
disagreed with the proposed GUIDANCE and recommended that it be an
OPTION because they desire more flexibility. The remaining commenters
agreed with the proposal, but recommended editorial changes. The FHWA
believes that GUIDANCE is appropriate because of pedestrian safety
concerns and adopts the language as proposed in the NPA with editorial
changes.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to add a GUIDANCE statement
recommending that crosswalk markings should be located so that the curb
ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings. A local DOT
opposed the revision and an organization for the blind recommended
making the proposal a STANDARD. The FHWA adopts paragraph 17 as
proposed in the NPA to be consistent with existing provisions in ADAAG
\129\ and to provide more consistency for pedestrians as they negotiate
the crosswalk and curb ramps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 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 the NPA, the FHWA also proposed 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 was
in response to requests from the U.S. Access Board, based on
ADAAG.\130\ Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member agreed
with the proposal. An organization for the blind requested that the
statement be revised to a STANDARD. Two State DOTs and two local DOTs
opposed the revision because detectable warning surfaces are not
considered traffic control devices and the information is already
contained in ADAAG. The FHWA decides to adopt the language as SUPPORT
because it merely provides information about provisions in other
existing or proposed Federal regulations, but the FHWA revises the
proposed text to remove the specifications and dimensions for
detectable warning devices and instead reference the ADAAG. For the
same reason, the FHWA does not adopt in the final rule the Figure 3B-20
that was proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
328. In Section 3B.20, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to incorporate
the word ``arrow'' in several places to reflect that, because arrows
are often not thought of as symbols, the provisions of this section are
intended to apply to arrows. The FHWA also changes the title of the
section to ``Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings,'' as proposed
in the NPA.
The FHWA includes arrows in the list of items that are to be
designed in accordance with the Pavement Markings chapter of the SHSM
book. A local DOT requested that the statement be revised to an OPTION
to allow local jurisdictions to use different arrow designs. The FHWA
believes that uniformity of arrow markings is important and adopts
paragraph 04 as a STANDARD.
The FHWA does not adopt Figure 3B-28 or Figure 3B-29 as proposed in
the NPA because the same information is provided in other figures in
Chapter 2B. References in Chapter 3B are updated to refer to the
figures in Part 2 as appropriate.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to change an existing OPTION to
GUIDANCE 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
[[Page 66801]]
by persons with disabilities, for consistency with the provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. A State DOT and an NCUTCD member
opposed the change and recommended that it remain GUIDANCE because the
marking can become obscured by snow and it can pose a safety hazard for
pedestrians when it is wet and slippery. The FHWA adopts the language
as proposed in the NPA because many State and local laws and codes
require the wheelchair symbol marking and it is the predominant
practice. As a GUIDANCE condition, the marking can be omitted based on
engineering study or judgment.
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed to add a new GUIDANCE that
describes the use and placement of lane-use arrows in lanes designated
for the exclusive use of a turning movement, 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 NCUTCD, three State DOTs, four local DOTs, a toll road
operator, and a consultant agreed with the proposal, but recommended
that the second arrow in a turn bay be optional. Four State DOTs and a
local DOT opposed the change to GUIDANCE and recommended that it remain
an OPTION. The FHWA proposed the NPA language to reflect common
practice and provide for increased uniformity, as highlighted in the
NCHRP Synthesis 356.\131\ The FHWA adopts the language proposed in the
NPA with editorial changes and, based on the comments, the FHWA adds
paragraph 22, which provides an OPTION that the second (downstream)
arrow may be omitted based on engineering judgment when arrows are used
for a short turn lane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ 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 proposed in the NPA to add a GUIDANCE that
recommends the use of ONLY word markings to supplement the required
arrow markings where through lanes approaching an intersection become
mandatory turn lanes. A local DOT agreed with the proposal. A State DOT
and two local DOTs opposed the revision and recommended the statement
be revised to an OPTION. The FHWA believes improved uniformity is
needed to adequately inform road users of the lane-use restriction at a
lane drop and adopts the GUIDANCE as proposed in the NPA.
Also, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a GUIDANCE to recommend
that lane-reduction arrow markings be used on roadways with a speed
limit of 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. A State DOT and a local DOT agreed with
the proposal. Five State DOTs, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member
opposed the proposal and recommended that all lane-reduction arrows
remain as an OPTION. A local DOT suggested the statement clarify that
an on-ramp merge lane is not a ``lane reduction'' and the FHWA agrees.
Based on the information in NCHRP Synthesis 356,\132\ the FHWA believes
that, for enhanced safety, lane-reduction arrows should be recommended
on high-speed roads in order to provide a clear indication that the
lane reduction transition is occurring. The FHWA adopts the language as
proposed in the NPA, but includes language clarifying that a typical
parallel acceleration lane is not a ``lane reduction'' but that lane-
reduction arrows may be used in long acceleration lanes based on
engineering judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, to respond to a comment from a consultant, the FHWA
adds a new STANDARD that a single-direction lane-use arrow shall not be
used in a lane bordered on both sides by yellow two-way left-turn lane
longitudinal markings, to clarify the existing provisions regarding
arrows. A two-way left-turn lane, by definition, has traffic flowing in
two directions, so it is inappropriate and potentially very confusing
to road users to place a single-direction arrow in a two-way left-turn
lane. The unique two-way arrow is the only appropriate type of arrow
marking for this application, and thus a specific prohibition of one-
direction arrows is necessary because of improper application by some
jurisdictions.
Finally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to add an OPTION allowing the
use of lane-use arrows in a dropped lane on the approach to a freeway
or expressway exit, reflecting common practice. The FHWA received a
comment from the NCUTCD in opposition to the proposed OPTION, stating
that normal lane-use arrows are inappropriate for freeways and
expressways because the exit ramp typically departs from the mainline
at a small angle rather than the 90-degree turn suggested by the shape
of normal turn arrows. The NCUTCD suggested that a new style of arrow
be developed and added to the MUTCD specifically for dropped lanes at
exit ramps. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the OPTION as proposed in the
NPA, with editorial changes, because normal lane-use arrows are
successfully used at many locations where the angle of turn is much
less than 90 degrees, there is no evidence of any problems with these
arrows at the many locations where they are currently used in advance
of freeway lane drops, and research would be needed to develop and test
different style arrows to assure they would be better understood by
road users than the existing arrows.
329. The FHWA received several comments regarding the proposal in
the NPA to add a new section numbered and titled Section 3B.22 Speed
Reduction Markings, containing SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding 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 NCUTCD and three State DOTs agreed with
the proposed section, but recommended editorial changes. Two local DOTs
and an NCUTCD member opposed the proposed section because of a concern
that speed reduction markings have not been adequately tested and do
not work. The FHWA disagrees because the Traffic Control Devices Pooled
Fund Study on speed reduction markings\133\ found that these markings
can be effective in reducing speeds at certain locations, and because
it is necessary to provide a standardized design for such markings in
order to provide uniformity. The FHWA adopts the language proposed in
the NPA with editorial changes and adds a new GUIDANCE statement to
paragraph 02 explaining that speed reduction markings should not be
used in areas frequented mainly by local or familiar drivers (e.g.,
school zones), based on comments citing the above-mentioned Pooled Fund
Study research. Five State DOTs, a local DOT, and a citizen requested
that a longitudinal spacing table be developed for the speed reduction
markings. The FHWA declines adding a longitudinal spacing table at this
time because this goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and would
need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ ''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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
330. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new section numbered and
titled Section 3B.24 Chevron and Diagonal Crosshatch Markings (numbered
Section
[[Page 66802]]
3B.26 in the NPA) containing OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements
on the use of markings intended to discourage travel on certain paved
areas. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA eliminates the optional use of
diagonal markings in gore areas and requires that, if markings are used
in the gore, they shall be chevron markings, because gores separate
traffic flowing in the same direction and diagonal crosshatching is
inappropriate for that condition. Based on a comment from a public
utilities commission, the FHWA adopts an OPTION statement that
crosshatch markings may also be used at highway-rail and highway-light
rail transit grade crossings. While a local DOT agreed with the
proposed minimum widths for chevron and diagonal lines, the NCUTCD and
two local DOTs recommended that the minimum width for chevron and
diagonal lines be less than 12 inches for lower speed roadways. The
FHWA agrees with the NCUTCD and adopts the minimum width at 8 inches
for roadways with speed limits less than 45 mph. Based on a comment
from a State DOT that some agencies use an angle of 36 degrees rather
than 45 degrees because a 3-4-5 triangle can be used to easily lay out
the crosshatch markings in the field, the FHWA adopts a chevron angle
of ``approximately 30 to 45 degrees.''
331. In Section 3B.25 (numbered Section 3B.26 in the 2003 MUTCD)
Speed Hump Markings, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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-29 and 3B-30. Based on comments from
a State DOT and an NCUTCD member noting that the existing OPTION and
proposed revised STANDARD contained the same information, the FHWA
deletes the OPTION in this final rule. The FHWA received several
comments regarding the proposed language restricting markings to those
in the accompanying figures. A local DOT agreed with the proposal,
while a State DOT, two local DOTs, and two consultants opposed the
proposal and recommended allowing local variations of speed hump
markings. The FHWA disagrees with allowing local variations in speed
hump markings because the FHWA believes that additional uniformity will
better serve the interests of road users. Because the 2003 MUTCD
language is not prescriptive, a wide variety of marking patterns are
being used for speed humps and unfamiliar drivers do not recognize the
local markings. The FHWA adopts paragraph 01 as proposed in the NPA.
332. In this final rule, the FHWA is moving all of the information
from the NPA proposed Section 3B.29 Markings for Toll Plazas to a new
adopted Chapter 3E Markings for Toll Plazas (see item 341 below).
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapters 3C Through 3J
333. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts a new chapter,
numbered and titled Chapter 3C Roundabout Markings, 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 also adopts seven
sections within the chapter 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 new figures that illustrate examples of
markings for roundabouts of various geometric and lane-use
configurations. In the NPA, the FHWA solicited comments on whether it
is necessary for all of 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 the FHWA Roundabouts Guide,\134\ which is in the process of being
updated. The FHWA received comments on both sides of the issue. The
FHWA believes that, for this edition of the MUTCD, it is important to
provide these illustrations of new concepts in markings in one location
for ready reference. As practitioners gain more familiarity with these
markings, the FHWA will consider the possibility of eliminating some of
the figures in a future edition. The FHWA adopts most of the figures in
this final rule but, in response to comments, deletes several of the
figures and editorially combines the content of the deleted figures
with the content of other figures being adopted. The FHWA believes this
presents the same information in a more concise manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ ``Roundabouts: An Informational Guide,'' Report number
FHWA-RD-00-67, June, 2000, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Section 3C.01 General as proposed in the NPA, the
FHWA received several comments about the proposed STANDARD defining
roundabouts and requiring pavement markings and signs at roundabouts to
present a consistent message to the road user. The comments noted that
Section 1A.13 already contains a definition of a roundabout and that
consistency of messages between signs and markings is a general
requirement applicable to all conditions. The FHWA agrees and replaces
the proposed STANDARD with a SUPPORT that provides a more general
description of a roundabout and refers to Section 1A.13.
The FHWA received comments from two State DOTs, a local DOT, an
NCUTCD member, and a consultant about the proposed OPTION that traffic
control signals may be used at roundabouts to facilitate pedestrian
crossings or meter traffic. The FHWA agrees with the comments that the
use of traffic control signals at any location is governed by
provisions in Part 4 rather than Part 3, and the FHWA in this final
rule replaces the proposed OPTION with a SUPPORT statement referring to
Part 4.
334. In Section 3C.02 White Lane Line Pavement Markings for
Roundabouts, the FHWA relocates to Section 9C.04 the STANDARD and
GUIDANCE statements about bicycle lane markings in and on the approach
to roundabouts that were proposed in the NPA in Section 3C.02, because
the information is more appropriately located in Section 9C.04, and
adopts a SUPPORT statement in Section 3C.02 referring to Section 9C.04.
The FHWA also adopts a STANDARD that a through lane that becomes a
dropped lane at a roundabout shall be marked with a dotted white lane
line in accordance with Section 3B.04. This statement is necessary to
remind users of the requirements of Section 3B.04 that also apply to
lane drops when they occur at a roundabout.
335. The FHWA in this final rule revises the title of Section 3C.03
from ``Edge Line Pavement Markings for Roundabouts,'' as proposed in
the NPA, to ``Edge Line Pavement Markings for Roundabout Circulatory
Roadways,'' in order to more accurately describe the subject of the
provisions in the section. The FHWA received a comment from a local DOT
suggesting that the recommended use of a white edge line on the outer
edge of the circulatory roadway, including the wide dotted edge line
extension across the lanes entering the roundabout, be changed to an
OPTION. The FHWA disagrees because the edge line markings provide
important guidance to road users entering the roundabout and
circulating within the roundabout, and this has been found to be
successful in practice in Europe and elsewhere. A State DOT
[[Page 66803]]
opposed the proposed GUIDANCE recommending that a wide dotted line be
used across the entry to a roundabout and requested that a normal
dotted line be used, consistent with the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees
because the wide dotted line provides special emphasis that is
recommended for drivers entering the roundabout. The GUIDANCE is
adopted as proposed.
336. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed Section 3C.05 Crosswalk Markings
at Roundabouts, which provides STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT
statements concerning the use of crosswalks at roundabouts. The FHWA
received a comment from an organization for the blind suggesting that
the proposed GUIDANCE for marked crosswalks if pedestrian facilities
are provided be changed to a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees and notes
that there may be some cases where it is not desirable to provide
marked crosswalks, such as where overpasses or underpasses are
provided. Two local DOTs and a consultant suggested that the
recommendation be changed to an OPTION. The FHWA disagrees and adopts
the provision as a GUIDANCE statement in this final rule because if at-
grade pedestrian crossing activity is present, pedestrians should be
provided with crosswalks to indicate the proper places to cross the
roundabout approaches.
337. Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA does not adopt
Section 3C.07 Example Markings for Roundabouts, which was proposed in
the NPA. The FHWA adopts a SUPPORT statement in Section 3C.01 in the
final rule that refers to the figures in Chapter 3C that provide
examples of pavement markings at roundabouts. The FHWA also renumbers
the following section that was proposed in the NPA, Markings for Other
Circular Intersections, from 3C.08 to 3C.07 in the final rule.
338. The FHWA adopts a new chapter titled Chapter 3D Markings for
Preferential Lanes, that contains information relocated from NPA
numbered Section 3B.24 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings and
NPA numbered Section 3B.25 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for
Motor Vehicles. The FHWA also relocates to Chapter 3D and renumbers
Table 3B-2 and Figures 3B-31, 3B-32, 3B-33, and 3B-34 that were
proposed in the NPA, which list and show the required longitudinal
markings for buffer-separated preferential lanes and counter-flow
preferential lanes.
339. In Section 3D.01 (numbered Section 3B.24 in the NPA)
Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings, the FHWA adopts information
regarding markings to be used for ETC preferential lanes in the
STANDARD, for consistency with other related changes in Parts 2 and 3
regarding ETC Account-Only lanes. Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a
State DOT, and two toll road operators, the FHWA revises paragraph 06
to clarify that preferential lane use word or symbol markings are
required when the separation area between a preferential lane and the
adjacent general purpose lane can be traversed by motor vehicles.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a word marking for ETC
Account-Only lanes. A State DOT, two toll road operators, and a local
DOT opposed the proposed revision because it would reduce the ability
to reconfigure plaza lanes. The NCUTCD and a State DOT agreed with the
proposal, but recommended adding HOT lanes to the list of types of
preferential lanes where word markings are required, and adding an
OPTION that allows preferential lane-use markings to be omitted under
certain circumstances. The FHWA in this final rule revises paragraph 06
to include HOT lanes along with HOV lanes and adds paragraph 08 to
allow preferential lane word or symbol markings to be omitted at toll
plazas where physical conditions preclude their use.
The FHWA had proposed in the NPA adding the word marking TRANSIT
ONLY as an alternative to a ``T'' marking for light-rail transit lanes.
Instead, based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA in this final
rule adopts the word marking LRT ONLY because the word marking
``TRANSIT'' is too wide to fit in most lanes.
340. In Section 3D.02 (Section 3B.25 in the NPA) Preferential Lane
Longitudinal Markings for Motor Vehicles, the FHWA in this final rule
edits, expands, and reorganizes the existing section, which corresponds
to comparable sections on preferential lanes in Part 2. These changes
reflect typical existing practices for the marking of preferential
lanes, as documented in various FHWA guidance and handbooks.\135\ The
FHWA also revises paragraph 03 as proposed in the NPA to match the
names of different configurations of preferential lanes that are
defined in Section 1A.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 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 proposed in the NPA to add a new GUIDANCE regarding the
use of dotted line markings at direct exits from preferential lane
facilities, to reduce the chances of unintended exit maneuvers. A local
DOT opposed the use of dotted lines because of a concern that the
dotted lines will add to driver confusion. The FHWA disagrees and
considers the proposed GUIDANCE as an important best practice,
reflecting a recent FHWA policy memorandum.\136\ The FHWA adopts
paragraph 08 as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
341. The FHWA adopts a new chapter, numbered and titled Chapter 3E
Markings for Toll Plazas, that contains information relocated from
Section 3B.29 Markings for Toll Plazas, which was a new section
proposed in the NPA. As adopted in the final rule, Section 3E.01
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements for the use
of pavement markings at toll plazas. The chapter provides uniformity in
pavement markings at toll plazas because toll plazas have not been
included in previous editions of the MUTCD.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and three toll road operators agreed with
the NPA proposal that longitudinal markings for Electronic Toll
Collection lanes comply with Section 3D.01 (numbered Section 3B.25 in
the NPA), but recommended editorial changes. To reflect the comments,
the FHWA revises paragraph 02 to require that, for Open Road Tolling
lanes that bypass a mainline toll plaza on a separate alignment, the
longitudinal markings shall also comply with Section 3D.02, and word
markings shall be used in accordance with Section 3D.01 (Section 3B.24
in the NPA) on the approach to the point of divergence from the
mainline.
The FHWA received several comments on the proposed GUIDANCE in the
NPA recommending that ETC Account-Only lanes be separated from cash
payment toll plaza lanes by a physical barrier or pavement markings.
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, four toll road operators, and a local DOT
agreed with the proposal, but recommended that the statement be changed
to an OPTION, that striping alone not be allowed, and that vehicle
speed not be used to determine the point of separation between lanes.
The FHWA disagrees with the comments because the recommendations are
based on the Toll Plazas Best Practices and Recommendations
report.\137\ The FHWA
[[Page 66804]]
adopts paragraph 04 as GUIDANCE, but revises the text for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ ``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 received comments regarding the NPA proposal to allow the
use of purple solid longitudinal markings to supplement lane lines. The
NCUTCD and a State DOT opposed the use based on recommendations from a
toll road task force. As discussed above in Section 3A.05 regarding
comments on the use of purple markings, the FHWA disagrees with these
comments and adopts the optional use of purple markings A toll road
operator and a local DOT agreed with the optional use of purple
markings, but recommended that the minimum width of 1 inch for the
supplemental purple line be revised. Based on its own experience and
observations, the FHWA agrees that 1 inch is too narrow and changes the
minimum width of the optional purple supplemental marking to 3 inches
and adopts a maximum width to be the same width as the line it
supplements.
Finally, based on comments from the NCUTCD and a toll road operator
that it is impractical to install edge lines in the constrained space
between toll booths, the FHWA adds paragraph 08 that states:
``Longitudinal pavement markings may be omitted alongside toll booth
islands between the approach markings and any departure markings.''
342. In Section 3F.02 (Section 3D.02 in the NPA) Delineator Design,
the FHWA adopts a SUPPORT paragraph in the final rule to clarify the
differences between single delineators, double delineators, and
vertically elongated delineators when discussing a series of
delineators along a roadway. This editorial clarification is necessary
to reduce user confusion over these terms.
343. In Section 3F.03 (Section 3D.03 in the NPA) Delineator
Application, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a GUIDANCE to
recommend that delineators should be used wherever guardrail or other
longitudinal barriers are present in order to provide consistency in
application. Two local DOTs agreed with the proposal. A local DOT
disagreed with the proposal and requested that delineators should be
recommended on guardrails based on the lateral distance from the
roadway. The FHWA disagrees. Because guardrail and barriers are
typically close to the roadway, delineation on these features helps
make road users aware of the potential to collide with them during
conditions of darkness, and this delineation assists road users with
navigating the roadway alignment. A State DOT and a local DOT agreed
with the proposal, but requested clarification for the location of the
delineators. The FHWA modifies the text of the adopted Section 3F.03 in
several places to clarify that delineators are used in a series rather
than a single delineator alone.
344. In Section 3F.04 (Section 3D.04 in the NPA) Delineator
Placement and Spacing, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change the
GUIDANCE discussing the mounting height of delineators. Based on
comments from the NCUTCD and three State DOTs questioning the ability
to consistently achieve a precise mounting height of 4 feet, the FHWA
in this final rule revises paragraph 01 to describe the recommended
mounting height as ``approximately 4 feet.''
345. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revising Chapter 3G Colored
Pavements (Chapter 3E in the NPA and 2003 MUTCD), Section 3G.01
General, in order to provide a more logical flow of information, to
better emphasize traffic control device and non-traffic control device
colored pavements, and to reflect FHWA's Interpretation 3-169(I) \138\
on non-retroreflective colored pavements. The proposed language
classified 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, warning, or guidance message. A State DOT, two local DOTs,
and a pedestrian advisory board agreed with the revisions. A citizen
opposed the revisions because of concern that the language placed
restrictions on the use of stamped concrete for aesthetic measures. The
FHWA disagrees with the citizen because the language includes brick
patterns in the list of aesthetic treatments that are not considered to
be traffic control devices, and the FHWA adopts the text as proposed in
the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
346. In Chapter 3H (Chapter 3F in the NPA and 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA
revises the title in this final rule to ``Channelizing Devices Used for
Emphasis of Pavement Marking Patterns'' based on a comment from the
NCUTCD, to more accurately reflect the content. As discussed above in
item 107, the section discussing barricades is relocated to Section
2B.67 Barricades.
In Section 3H.01 (numbered Section 3F.01 in the NPA) Channelizing
Devices, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to require that the design of
channelizing devices, except for color, be consistent with Sections
6F.67, 6F.68, and 6F.69 (as numbered in the NPA). Based on comments
from the NCUTCD, a traffic device manufacturer, ATSSA, and a citizen,
the FHWA revises the STANDARD to require that the design of
channelizing devices, except for color, comply with all of Chapter 6F
rather than just three sections in that chapter. The FHWA also revises
the OPTION to include additional types of channelizing devices and
references specific sections of Chapter 6F for descriptions of the
devices.
In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to expand the STANDARD to
require 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. Two State DOTs, an NCUTCD member, and a consultant opposed the
proposed use of yellow banding because, as written, it would apply also
to temporary traffic control zones and conflict with provisions in
Chapter 6F. Two local DOTs agreed with the proposal. The NCUTCD and a
State DOT agreed with the proposal, but recommended editorial changes
to clarify that the yellow bands would apply only outside of Temporary
Traffic Control (TTC) Zones. The FHWA agrees with the recommended
editorial changes and adopts a revised paragraph 04 to clarify the
required use of the yellow bands on channelizing devices.
347. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed several revisions to Chapter 3I
Islands (Chapter 3G in the NPA and 2003 MUTCD). In Section 3I.01
(Section 3G.01 in the NPA) General, the FHWA proposed to add the
purpose of toll collection to the definition of island for traffic
control purposes. The NCUTCD opposed the change and recommended the
deletion of toll booth plazas from being considered islands. The FHWA
disagrees because toll booth plaza islands are located between traffic
lanes and do control vehicular movements and share similar
characteristics with many other types of islands. The FHWA adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA but relocates the revised definition to
Section 1A.13 and editorially combines it with similar text in the
definition of Island that existed in Section 1A.13 of the 2003 MUTCD.
348. In Section 3I.03 (Section 3G.03 in the NPA) Island Marking
Application, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change a STANDARD
discussing pavement markings in the neutral area to a GUIDANCE because
it is not always practical or necessary for a jurisdiction to include
chevron or diagonal hatching
[[Page 66805]]
in the triangular neutral area for all islands, especially small
triangular channelizing islands at intersections. A local DOT agreed
with the proposal. Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA
revises paragraph 02 editorially and adopts the statement as GUIDANCE.
349. The FHWA deletes Section 3G.05 Island Object Markers, as
numbered and titled in the 2003 MUTCD and in the NPA, because object
markers have been designated as signs and relocated to Chapter 2C and
this text is no longer appropriate in Part 3. The provisions of former
Section 3G.05 are addressed by text in Chapter 2C.
350. In Section 3I.05 (Section 3G.06 in the NPA), the FHWA in the
final rule revises the title to ``Island Delineation'' and adds an
OPTION, repeated from Section 3B.11, that allows the use of raised
pavement markers in front of and on top of curbed noses of raised
medians and curbs of islands.
351. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a new section at the end
of Chapter 3I, numbered and titled Section 3I.06 (numbered Section
3G.07 in the NPA) Pedestrian Islands and Medians, containing 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 was included in order to assist
practitioners with meeting the provisions of ADAAG.\139\ Two State DOTs
and a local DOT opposed the proposed section because they do not
consider pedestrian islands and medians to be traffic control devices
and the information is already contained in ADAAG. Two local DOTs
agreed with the proposal and an organization for the blind requested
that the language be changed to a STANDARD. The FHWA decides to adopt
the language as SUPPORT because it merely provides information about
provisions in other existing or proposed Federal regulations. However,
the FHWA does not adopt in this final rule the details on placement of
detectable warning surfaces and Figure 3G-1 that was proposed in the
NPA, because the information is contained in ADAAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
352. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new chapter to the end
of Part 3 that is numbered and titled Chapter 3J Rumble Strip Markings
(Chapter 3H in the NPA), which contained two sections that describe the
use of markings in conjunction with longitudinal and transverse rumble
strips. A local DOT agreed with the proposal, but recommended text
changes. A State DOT, a local DOT, four organizations representing
bicyclists, and an NCUTCD member opposed the proposed chapter because
they do not believe rumble strips are traffic control devices and they
feel the inclusion of the chapter will have negative implications for
bicyclists. The FHWA has not made a determination on whether or not
rumble strips are traffic control devices, but believes that certain
types of rumble strips, particularly those that are formed from white
or colored strips of pavement marking material, might have
characteristics that could potentially make them candidates for future
consideration as traffic control devices. Also, because rumble strips
have been in use for many years and numerous agencies are considering
increased usage as part of their strategic highway safety plans, there
is a need to include provisions in the MUTCD for pavement markings that
are used with rumble strips. The FHWA adopts the chapter as proposed,
but makes revisions to Sections 3J.01 and 3J.02 as described below.
353. In Section 3J.01 (Section 3H.01 in the NPA) Longitudinal
Rumble Strip Markings, the FHWA proposed language for the use of rumble
stripes (longitudinal lines located over longitudinal rumble strips.) A
State DOT asked if rumble strips were being considered as traffic
control devices. Based on the comment, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT
statement in paragraph 02 to clarify that, ``This Manual contains no
provisions regarding the design and placement of longitudinal rumble
strips.''
Based on comments from the NCUTCD and an NCUTCD member, the FHWA
revises paragraph 04 to reference Section 3A.05 for the color of edge
lines or center lines associated with longitudinal rumble stripes.
Also, based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA adds a new STANDARD
in paragraph 05 that states that an edge line shall not be used in
addition to a rumble stripe that is located along a shoulder. This
clarification is needed to preclude the use of a double edge line,
which would be in conflict with the defined meanings of double lines in
Chapter 3B.
As requested by the NCUTCD and a State DOT, the FHWA adds Figure
3J-1 to illustrate the text in Section 3J.01.
354. In Section 3J.02 (Section 3H.02 in the NPA) Transverse Rumble
Strip Markings, the FHWA proposed that the color of a transverse rumble
strip shall be the color of the pavement or white. A State DOT opposed
the proposal because of concerns that white transverse lines could be
confused with stop lines or crosswalks. The FHWA disagrees because
there is no evidence of such confusion if properly used and located.
Another State DOT asked if rumble strips were being considered as
traffic control devices. Based on the comment, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT
statement in paragraph 02 to clarify that, ``This Manual contains no
provisions regarding the design and placement of transverse rumble
strips that approximate the color of the pavement.'' A third State DOT
recommended that black be added as an acceptable color for a transverse
rumble strip and the FHWA agrees. A consultant recommended that orange
be added as an acceptable color in a TTC situation and the FHWA agrees,
for consistency with Section 6F.87 (see additional discussion there).
The FHWA revises paragraph 03 to read, ``Except as otherwise provided
in Section 6F.87 for TTC zones, if the color of a transverse rumble
strip used within a travel lane is not the color of the pavement, the
color of the transverse rumble strip shall be either black or white.''
Discussion of Amendments to Part 4--Highway Traffic Signals
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4A--General
355. As discussed above under General and Part 1, in this final
rule the FHWA relocates all the definitions in Section 4A.02
Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic Signals to Section 1A.13 in
order to consolidate all definitions in one place in the MUTCD. Where
definitions of the same term exist in both sections, the FHWA retains
the most accurate definition or combines the definitions editorially.
The FHWA also adopts a SUPPORT statement as the sole text of Section
4A.02, referring to Sections 1A.13 and 1A.14 for definitions and
acronyms.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4B
356. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed in Section 4B.02 Basis of
Installation or Removal of Traffic Control Signals to change the OPTION
statement (with the exception of the last sentence of item E) to a
GUIDANCE, in order to recommend the steps that should be taken to
remove a traffic control signal from operation, rather than merely
describe steps that may be taken. The FHWA also proposed to add to the
remaining sentence of the OPTION statement that only the first two
steps (items A and B of the GUIDANCE) need to be completed for
[[Page 66806]]
temporary traffic control signals, because the other steps (items C
through E of the GUIDANCE) do not apply to those locations. An NCUTCD
member in comments suggested deleting the reference to installing signs
in item C because experience has found that signs do not help with
citizen awareness of a study and that public notification is more
effective through public meetings and/or the media. The FHWA agrees
with the commenter and adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA, but
with the suggested deletion in item C.
357. In Section 4B.04 Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to add two items (L and H) to the list of less
restrictive alternatives that should be considered before a traffic
control signal is installed. Item H discusses revising the geometrics
at the intersection to add pedestrian median refuge islands and/or curb
extensions. Item L discusses the use of a pedestrian hybrid beacon or
in-roadway warning lights if pedestrian safety is a major concern at a
location. A toll authority, two local DOTs, and a consultant agreed
with the addition, and a The FHWA adopts the addition of these items as
proposed in the NPA because they are viable potential alternatives to a
new traffic control signal.
358. In Section 4B.05 Adequate Roadway Capacity the FHWA proposed
in the NPA to add a paragraph to the GUIDANCE 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 or lane-use
assignments where appropriate. The FHWA proposed this language to
recommend that lower-cost options should be considered to increase
roadway capacity and operational efficiency at signalized
intersections. A local DOT supported this proposal. A State DOT, a
local DOT, five associations, an NCUTCD member, and three private
citizens agreed with the proposal and suggested adding a statement to
consider the needs of bicyclists prior to implementing the alternative
methods for increasing capacity. The FHWA agrees with these comments
and also adopts in this final rule an additional statement that any
impacts to bicyclists should also be considered.
A State DOT agreed with the revision and suggested that the list
include other methods such as proper traffic signal timing,
optimization, major route priority, truck and transit priority devices,
traffic signal coordination, advanced traffic signal signage, and
closed loop systems. The FHWA disagrees with this comment and declines
to add the suggested items to the list because these measures are
adequately addressed elsewhere in Part 4.
A State DOT opposed this revision and suggested removing Section
4B.05 from the MUTCD since adequate roadway capacity is not a traffic
control device. The FHWA disagrees because this longstanding section of
the MUTCD is necessary because of safety and operational impacts to
signalized intersections, and because markings and lane use can
significantly affect capacity.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4C
359. In Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add 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, 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 proposed to add this paragraph to clarify that the 1-
hour periods of peak traffic volumes do not necessarily need to
correspond to 60 minutes starting at the :00 hour on the clock. A local
DOT opposed this revision based on concerns about its potential misuse
in litigation. The FHWA disagrees because this revision reflects
accepted engineering practice and is an optional practice which
presents a viable alternative to agencies that wish to use it. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA.
360. In Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to add to the OPTION statement that a traffic signal justified
only under this warrant may be operated in flashing mode during the
hours when the warrant is not met. The FHWA also proposed to add a
GUIDANCE statement recommending that such a signal be traffic-actuated.
The FHWA proposed these statements 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 provisions in Sections 4C.05 (Warrant 4,
Pedestrian Volume) and 4C.06 (Warrant 5, School Crossing). A local DOT
agreed with the proposals. Two State DOTs and a local DOT opposed the
OPTION for flashing operation because they felt that traffic signals
should not flash ordinarily, not all drivers understand flashing
traffic signals, the number of crashes might increase, and the flashing
operation takes away from the operational characteristics of actuated
signals. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because the flashing
mode is currently utilized in many jurisdictions and has proven
effective for signals with an unusual peak hour scenario. Also, any
actuated signal can be operated in flashing mode and the decision
should be based on engineering judgment. Therefore, the FHWA adopts in
this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA.
361. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to revise the STANDARD statement regarding criteria
that are to be met in an engineering study for a traffic signal to be
considered. The FHWA proposed replacing the existing two criteria with
two new criteria based on vehicular and pedestrian volumes, and
requiring that only one of the criteria be met. The 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.\140\ The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT,
three local DOTs, six associations, and three private citizens in
support of the NPA revisions. A local DOT and four associations
suggested that bicyclists receive equal treatment and be included in
all counts and applied to all appropriate warrants. The FHWA disagrees
with these comments because consideration of bicyclists in applying
signal warrants is adequately covered in Section 4C.01, Studies and
Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals. A State DOT suggested
adding a formula to the warrants. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter
since the curves are based on formulas and there is no need to put the
precise formula in the text. An association and an NCUTCD member
suggested that the warrants also include consideration for the width of
the crossing, the number of lanes, the frequency of adequate gaps in
traffic, or the presence of one-way versus two-way traffic flows since
it is generally easier to cross one-way traffic than two-way traffic.
The FHWA concurs that number of lanes contributes to pedestrian
[[Page 66807]]
exposure but disagrees with the suggested revision because issues with
crossing distance should be addressed with refuge islands or other
geometric treatments, and should not be a warrant for a signal unless
the pedestrian and vehicle volumes are present. Additionally, the
warrant revisions are based on the NCHRP study, \141\ which did not
recommend separate curves for different numbers of lanes on the major
street. A local DOT opposed the revision of the pedestrian warrant
because of concerns that new signalization will be easier to attain
since the changes require that only one criterion needs to be met. The
commenter suggested that other methods such as signing, pedestrian
walkways, and overpasses should be investigated prior to the
installation of a new traffic signal. The FHWA disagrees because the
criteria still account for both pedestrian volume and major street
volume and therefore the attainment of signalization has not been made
easier. The FHWA notes that alternatives to signalization are discussed
in Section 4B.04, Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ ``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.
\141\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to other traffic signal warrants, the FHWA also proposed in
the NPA 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. A local DOT suggested adding flexibility to allow the
installation of a signal to encourage pedestrians to cross at a safe
location, such as a new trail, rather than simply to accommodate them.
The FHWA disagrees with the commenter since this warrant can be used at
trail crossings, and adopts in this final rule the language as proposed
in the NPA.
An NCUTCD member suggested that ``or YIELD'' be added after the
proposed ``STOP'' in paragraph 04. The FHWA disagrees with the
suggested revision, as a YIELD sign is not a restrictive enough traffic
control device to facilitate high pedestrian crossing volumes and
should not prevent the installation of a signal for pedestrian crossing
if it is warranted. Additionally, the suggested revision would preclude
roundabouts within 300 feet of the pedestrian signal.
The FHWA also proposed to revise the OPTION statement 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 3.5
feet/second. A local DOT agreed with this revision, while two State
DOTs and two local DOTs were opposed to the revisions based primarily
on concerns that the text appears to require a pedestrian speed study
and it is impractical to measure the 15th percentile speed of
pedestrians. The FHWA disagrees because this is an OPTION and does not
require a study. The 15th percentile crossing speed would only be
needed if the agency wants to explore a reduction in the pedestrian
volume criterion. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the language as
proposed in the NPA.
362. In both Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, and
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, the FHWA proposed in the NPA
to add recommendations to the GUIDANCE statement that a traffic signal
installed at an intersection or major driveway location, based on the
pedestrian warrant or school crossing warrant only, should also control
the minor 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 the
expectations of drivers on the major street 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 also be controlled by signals
rather than by STOP signs. A local DOT agreed with the proposed
GUIDANCE for providing a minimum distance for a pedestrian signal from
side streets or driveways. A State DOT opposed the revision and
suggested that the minimum distance for a pedestrian signal from side
streets or driveways be increased to 300 feet to be consistent with the
distance from a traffic signal. The FHWA disagrees as the two distances
are for different purposes and reasons. The 100-foot distance is for
low volume side streets or driveways that are STOP or YIELD sign
controlled, to avoid pedestrian conflicts with side-street turning
vehicles; whereas the 300-foot distance is for an adjacent traffic
control signal or STOP sign controlling the street to be crossed at a
more significant intersection. A consultant suggested that a roundabout
should be evaluated as a safer option when crashes reach the point
where a signal is warranted. The FHWA agrees but does not modify the
MUTCD text in this final rule because roundabouts are discussed in
Section 4B.04, Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals, as an
alternative to traffic signal control. The FHWA in this final rule
adopts the language as proposed in the NPA with editorial revisions.
363. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a new section following Section
4C.09, numbered and titled Section 4C.10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, and containing 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 proposed this new warrant because some
stop-controlled approaches to intersections near highway-rail grade
crossings contain a stop line that is closer to the track than the
length of a large vehicle, and sight distance obstructions might
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 rather than the proximity of a highway-rail grade
crossing. The warrant is based on recommendations from an NCHRP
research project.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ ``Warranting Traffic Signals on the Basis of Proximity of
Railroad Grade Crossings,'' by Elena Shenk Prassas, William R.
McShane, Edward Lieberman, and Roeof Engelbrecht, was published by
the Transportation Research Board in Transportation Research Record
2030, 2007, pages 59-68, and can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://trb.metapress.com/content/r6856337l2484256/fulltext.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and two local DOTs agreed with the new
warrant in the NPA. A State DOT, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member
opposed the new warrant for a variety of reasons, including concerns
that it could add a significant number of unnecessary signals,
perceived inconsistency with 23 U.S.C. 130 regarding use of Federal
funds, uncertainty as to whether the warrant is practical or feasible
since it is based on a research project, and the desire for further
review and testing before implementation as a national standard. The
FHWA disagrees with these comments because meeting the warrant does not
require installation of a signal,
[[Page 66808]]
the FHWA is not aware of any conflicts with Federal funding under 23
U.S.C. 130, and the consensus of practitioners that was developed by
the NCUTCD's processes is that the warrant is needed and should be
added to the MUTCD.
A local DOT suggested increasing the minimum threshold volume
because a signal could be warranted with only 25 vehicles in the peak
one-hour period. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter since the
language is based on an NCHRP study and a signal does not have to be
installed if the warrant is met.
A State DOT suggested that the warrant should only be invoked when
some vehicle operators will have no choice but to stop on the tracks to
attain adequate sight distance. The FHWA agrees with commenter that the
warrant is intended to prevent vehicles from queuing across a highway-
rail grade crossing and becoming trapped in a queue with no means of
clearing the tracks. However, the FHWA does not make the suggested
revision because this situation does not need to be explicitly stated
in the text.
A local DOT suggested that STANDARD Item B be changed to GUIDANCE
because rail preemption usually involves numerous signal locations
within the rail corridor and the cost of the preemption might exceed
the original signal budget. The FHWA disagrees since neither Section
4D.27 nor Section 8C.09 indicates that preemption must be applied to
anything other than the one intersection under consideration.
A State DOT suggested that an additional criterion be added to the
STANDARD that would address locations where vehicles continuously queue
on the crossing and might create a hazardous situation. The FHWA points
out that the words ``continuously'' and ``hazardous'' are undefined and
too strong for this situation.
A State DOT opposed the requirement for highway-rail grade crossing
to have both flashing-light signals and automatic gates if a traffic
signal is installed based on this warrant, because there are some
crossings at or near intersections where gates might not be practical
to install. The FHWA believes that it is possible that locations exist
where installing gates might be impractical, but where it is still
worthwhile to install a signal at the highway-highway intersection in
order to facilitate traffic movements that enable vehicles to move off
the tracks prior to the arrival of a train. Gates can discourage
additional vehicles from driving onto the tracks during the track
clearance phase, but the flashing-light signals and bells should be
sufficient where gates are impractical. The FHWA in this finale rule
adopts a revised STANDARD in paragraph 09, item C, to require only
flashing-light signals and adopts GUIDANCE recommending automatic
gates.
The FHWA adopts this new section with revisions noted above in this
final rule.
364. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the new Figure 4C-9 Warrant
9, Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (One Approach Lane
at the Track Crossing), Figure 4C-10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track
Crossing), and the associated Tables 4C-2, 4C-3, and 4C-4, as proposed
in the NPA but with minor editorial revisions based on comments
received.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4D--General
365. The FHWA in the NPA proposed to reorganize Chapter 4D so that
similar subjects are grouped together in adjacent sections, or combined
into single sections within the Chapter. While the NCUTCD agreed with
the proposed reorganization, an NCUTCD member suggested that the
explanations of the meanings and applications of signal indications
should precede the explanation of signal face arrangements, so that
users could know what the indications mean and how they are to be
applied before trying to arrange them into signal faces. The FHWA
agrees and in this final rule relocates NPA proposed Sections 4D.09 and
4D.10 to follow Section 4D.03 as Sections 4D.04 and 4D.05,
respectively, and renumbers NPA proposed sections 4D.04 through 4D.08
to be Sections 4D.06 through 4D.10.
366. The FHWA proposed in the NPA the addition of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow indications as optional alternatives to a
circular green indication for permissive left-turn and right-turn
movements in Part 4, which affects many sections within Chapter 4D. The
proposed text throughout Chapter 4D incorporated the provisions of the
Interim Approval IA-10 \143\ for flashing yellow arrows during
permissive turn intervals. The Interim Approval and the proposed MUTCD
text were are based on research contained in NCHRP Report 493.\144\ 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. Further, the optional use of flashing red arrow
indications for permissive left-turn and right-turn applications where
each successive vehicle must come to a complete stop before turning
permissively provides a useful tool to improve safety and operation of
signalized intersections in some circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ 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.
\144\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUTCD, a State DOT, two local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, an
anonymous commenter, and a citizen agreed with adding flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow. A State DOT and four local agencies
opposed the addition of flashing yellow arrows because of concerns
about losing signal display uniformity, cost implications for
converting existing signals, possible driver confusion, and public
educational campaign requirements. Two State DOTs, five local agencies,
an association, and an NCUTCD member opposed the addition of flashing
red arrow left-turn faces because of concerns about lack of uniformity
for signal faces, and possible driver misinterpretation. A local DOT
and an anonymous commenter suggested allowing three-section flashing
yellow arrow displays where the flashing yellow arrow and steady yellow
arrow are displayed in the same signal section. This configuration was
suggested to provide flexibility where there are height restrictions.
The FHWA disagrees with these comments because the suggested
configuration would reduce uniformity for flashing yellow arrow
[[Page 66809]]
displays, it has not been tested, a four-section signal face can be
used in the majority of situations, and if vertical clearance is an
issue a horizontal face could be used. Two local DOTs agreed with the
addition of flashing yellow arrows and flashing red arrows and
suggested requiring the use of conflict monitors/malfunction management
units (CMs/MMUs) that monitor flashing indications if flashing arrows
are used for left-turn control, based on concerns over public safety.
The FHWA disagrees with providing additional language about the CMs/
MMUs because this information is too detailed in electronic issues for
the MUTCD. The FHWA adopts the flashing yellow arrow and flashing red
arrow in Part 4, based on the supporting research \145\ and the
usefulness of these optional displays to address significant safety and
operational issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUTCD in its comments also recommended revising Sections 4D.17
through 4D.20 (Sections 4D.06 and 4D.07 in the 2003 MUTCD) to eliminate
provisions that allow the use of separate left-turn signal faces that
include circular green indications for permissive turns. Such separate
left-turn faces are those which have been used with signal displays in
a configuration known as ``Dallas phasing,'' which uses a separate
signal face over the left-turn lane that displays a circular green
indication for permissive left turns while the signal faces for
adjacent thru lanes display red indications. The NCUTCD stated that
signal faces and indications for permissive left turns have been the
subject of much research over the past 10 or more years and the results
of that research have indicated that a circular green for a permissive
left-turn movement located over or in front of a left-turn lane is
often misunderstood by drivers. Also, a flashing yellow arrow to
indicate a permissive left-turn movement has proved very successful. As
a result, the NCUTCD recommended changes that support the optional use
of flashing yellow arrows for permissive left turns, as noted above.
The changes recommended by the NCUTCD to address the circular green
permissive left-turn in a separate signal face also eliminate the need
to distinguish between three different types of separate left-turn
signal faces (as proposed in the NPA as items B, C, and D of the
SUPPORT statement). The FHWA agrees that the available option of using
flashing yellow arrow indications has made the circular green displays
used with ``Dallas phasing'' obsolete and unneeded, and that the
research supports prohibiting ``separate signal faces'' for left turns
with circular green indications. The FHWA adopts in this final rule
provisions in Sections 4D.17 through 4D.20 that reflect these NCUTCD
recommendations. The FHWA also replaces the terms ``flashing yellow
arrow signal face'' and ``flashing red arrow signal face'' throughout
the MUTCD text and figures with appropriate language, such as ``a
separate signal face with a flashing yellow arrow.''
367. A State DOT and an NCUTCD member suggested reducing redundant
language in Chapter 4D to provide clear and concise language and using
figures within each section to reduce the amount of text. The FHWA
agrees and adopts in this final rule appropriate edits and additional
figures where needed.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4D--Specific
368. In Section 4D.01 General, the FHWA adds SUPPORT paragraph 04
as proposed in the NPA, to clarify the condition of a seasonal
shutdown. The FHWA adds this information to incorporate clarifications
into the MUTCD per Official Interpretation 4-288, dated April
27, 2005.\146\ A local DOT agreed with this revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 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 also relocates a paragraph regarding coordination of
traffic control signals within one-half mile of one another from
Section 4D.14 of the 2003 MUTCD and adds it to GUIDANCE paragraph 09.
The FHWA also adds 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 includes this
change to encourage jurisdictions to coordinate traffic signal timing
plans across jurisdictional or system boundaries. A local DOT agreed
with this revision. The FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement at the end of
this section that contains information regarding traffic signal
coordination that was previously in Section 4D.14 of the 2003 MUTCD. A
local DOT opposed this revision because they believe the original text
was clearer and more consistent with the previous paragraph. The FHWA
disagrees because the text is intended to address control sections on
different cycle lengths, not across jurisdictional boundaries. In this
final rule the FHWA relocates the paragraph as proposed in the NPA and
makes editorial revisions.
369. In Section 4D.03 Provisions for Pedestrians, the FHWA proposed
in the NPA to revise the first GUIDANCE statement to indicate that
accessible pedestrian signals should be provided where deemed
appropriate by engineering judgment. A State DOT agreed with the
revision. A consultant agreed with the proposed revision and suggested
elevating the GUIDANCE to a STANDARD, to be in conformance with the
draft Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) which
requires accessible pedestrian signals where visual pedestrian signal
heads are installed and where pushbuttons are used. The FHWA is waiting
for the United States Department of Justice adoption of the anticipated
United States Access Board public right of way guidelines before prior
to revising the MUTCD on this issue, and therefore the FHWA adopts the
in this final rule revised language as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA also proposed 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
proposed this change because if the pedestrian movement is to be
prohibited, a prohibitory sign should be used. A local DOT agreed with
this revision. A State DOT also agreed and suggested that signs should
be used if it is not practical to provide a barrier. The FHWA agrees
and adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA with
the suggested revision.
370. In Section 4D.04 (Section 4D.09 in the NPA) Meaning of
Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA in the NPA proposed 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 proposed this change to conform the MUTCD to
the Uniform Vehicle Code and to the laws in many States.
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed editorial changes to item A(2A)
of the STANDARD statement. Two local DOTs suggested further revisions
to item A(2) to clarify that pedestrians cannot be legally in a
crosswalk when there is a
[[Page 66810]]
green arrow indication. The FHWA disagrees and declines to adopt the
suggested revision because the statement is intended to address the
situation that there may still be a pedestrian in the crosswalk,
finishing his or her crossing, when the green arrow is first displayed.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to add a new item A(4) in the
STANDARD statement that pedestrians facing a GREEN ARROW signal
indication, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal indication
or other traffic control device, shall not cross the roadway. A local
DOT opposed the proposed item A(4) because the text implies that a
pedestrian can have a walk signal for a crosswalk in conflict with a
motorist who has a green arrow indication across that same crosswalk.
The commenter suggested revising the language to prohibit this
conflict. The FHWA disagrees because scenarios exist where a green
arrow is displayed that would not be in conflict with the pedestrian
movement, such as where a crosswalk is parallel to a straight-through
green arrow or where a channelization island is used to separate the
pedestrian movement from a right-turn movement on a green arrow.
The FHWA adopts items A(1) through A(4) as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA also proposed the separation of existing STANDARD item
B(1) 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 proposed to add that a steady yellow arrow
signal indication warns that the related flashing arrow movement is
being terminated. The FHWA proposed this change to provide consistency
with the addition of the applications of flashing yellow arrows and
flashing red arrows. A local DOT opposed the revision because of
concerns that there will be increased driver confusion and rear-end
crashes. The commenter notes that motorists traditionally have not been
used to interpreting the yellow as described in the NPA proposal
because a yellow has always come after a green movement and thus never
mandated a stop. The FHWA disagrees because the concerns raised by the
commenter have not been an issue where this display sequence has been
used. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the language of item B of the
STANDARD as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise STANDARD item C(1) 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 proposed this
change to clarify the right-of-way rules for turning after stopping on
a circular red indication. The FHWA also proposed to revise item C(2)
related to a steady red arrow signal indication that is similar in
nature, but reflects the different requirements for turning on a red
arrow versus on a circular red. The FHWA in this final rule adopts the
language of item C of the STANDARD as proposed in the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed 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 also proposed to state in new STANDARD
item D that a flashing green indication has no meaning and shall not be
used. A State DOT, and four local DOTs agreed with the NPA's proposals.
The FHWA in this final rule adopts the language of item D of the
STANDARD as proposed in the NPA.
In new item E of the STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA 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 proposed 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.\147\ A State DOT opposed
this change because of concerns that the text ``vehicular traffic shall
to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk'' and ``pedestrians shall
yield to vehicles upon activation of the flashing yellow arrow'' is
contradicting. The FHWA disagrees because ``vehicular traffic shall to
yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk'' is needed to indicate that
vehicles moving on flashing yellow arrows must yield to the
pedestrians, and ``pedestrians shall yield to vehicles upon activation
of the flashing yellow arrow'' is needed to clarify that pedestrians
must yield to any vehicles that entered the intersection legally on a
previous phase and have not yet fully cleared the intersection when the
flashing yellow arrow is first displayed. The FHWA adopts in this final
rule the language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An NCUTCD member opposed the proposed new STANDARD item E (5),
which described the meaning of a flashing yellow signal indication that
is displayed as a beacon at the approach to or along a curve or other
geometric feature because it implied that flashing circular yellow
beacons can be used over curves or other geometric features (other than
intersections) and would not necessarily have to supplement another
traffic control sign or marker. The FHWA agrees with the comment and
does not adopt proposed item E(5) in this final rule.
A local DOT opposed proposed new item F(2), which describes the
meaning of a flashing red arrow signal indication, because of the
belief that the operation might lead drivers to think that the opposing
movement also has a flashing red operation and that the intersection is
functioning as stop and go on all approaches. The FHWA disagrees
because there has been no evidence that drivers have been making this
misinterpretation when flashing red arrows have been used, such as
during late night or emergency flash operation. The FHWA also notes
that a supplementary R10-27 sign could be used to mitigate this
concern. The FHWA in this final rule adopts the language as proposed in
the NPA.
A local DOT opposed proposed new item F(4) regarding the meaning of
flashing circular red signal indications used as beacons supplementing
another traffic control device, because of concerns that the text is
inconsistent with the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees because the commenter
has misunderstood the intent of this language, which is merely to state
what drivers are expected to do when seeing a flashing red Stop Beacon,
as described in Chapter 4L, that accompanies a STOP, DO NOT ENTER, or
WRONG WAY sign. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the language as
proposed in the NPA.
371. In Section 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications
(Section 4D.10 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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
from the stem of a T-intersection. In this final rule, the FHWA does
not adopt that proposed language because it
[[Page 66811]]
would conflict with other provisions adopted in Section 4D.25.
A citizen and two anonymous commenters suggested revising item B(4)
to totally ban all yellow trap situations and adding a figure to
illustrating the yellow trap. The FHWA did not propose such a total ban
in the NPA and believes that it is reasonable to allow for exceptions
in rare cases if a warning sign is used, as provided in items B(4)(c)
and B(4)(d). The FHWA also notes that there is no need to illustrate
yellow trap in the MUTCD because such illustrations exist in other
documents such as handbooks published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
An anonymous commenter suggested adding a new STANDARD statement
after proposed item E(1)(b) to require a steady yellow arrow following
a flashing yellow arrow or flashing red arrow in certain situations,
and revising proposed item E(2) to reflect the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow signal indications for permissive turns,
as discussed in Sections 4D.17 and 4D.21. The FHWA agrees and in this
final rule adopts a new item E(2) and a revised item E(3) (item E(2) in
the NPA) for consistency with other STANDARD statements in Chapter 4D
that require these displays.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA a modified item E(4) (item E(3) in the
NPA) in the first STANDARD to permit the use of a steady yellow arrow
indication to terminate a flashing yellow arrow or a flashing red arrow
controlling a permissive left-turn phase. The FHWA proposed this change
to provide consistency with the addition of the flashing yellow arrow
and flashing red arrow indications for permissive left turns. As
documented in NCHRP Report 493,\148\ 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\149\ 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 the FHWA by the dozens of highway
agencies that have implemented flashing yellow arrows at several
hundred intersections under experimentation or interim approval. The
FHWA in this final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ 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.
\149\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An anonymous commenter suggested revising STANDARD item E(5)(a)
(item E (4)(a) in the NPA) to include preemption situations at railroad
crossings when a flashing yellow arrow changes to steady yellow arrow
back to a flashing yellow arrow. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision in this final rule.
In this final rule the FHWA also revises the final STANDARD
statement to reflect the elimination of the use of circular red
indications in separate left turn signal faces, as discussed below in
Section 4D.19, and the elimination of ``Dallas phasing'' signal
displays, as discussed above in item 366.
An anonymous commenter suggested revising the last paragraph in the
final STANDARD statement to limit the prohibition of both flashing and
steady displays in the same signal section to yellow indications, since
signal faces are, in some cases, allowed to display both a flashing red
and a steady red indication from the same signal section during steady
mode operation. The FHWA agrees in concept and adopts in this final
rule the language as proposed in the NPA with revisions to address the
comment.
372. In Section 4D.06 (Section 4D.18 in the 2003 MUTCD) Signal
Indications--Design, Illumination, Color, and Shape, the FHWA proposed
in the NPA 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 specifically proposed to 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 the ``dilemma zone'' and thereby result in increased crash
rates.\150\ A private citizen opposed this proposed prohibition on
vehicular countdown indications because he believes an advance warning
of a signal change should be allowed for heavy trucks. The commenter
requested the adoption of a new STANDARD for advanced warning system
for high-speed roads. The FHWA disagrees because the research supports
the ban on vehicular countdown indications and therefore adopts in this
final rule the language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ ``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, at the following Internet Web site:
http://www.tecmagazine.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed an exception to the prohibition
on lettering for toll plaza signals. As discussed below in Chapter 4K,
the FHWA is not allowing the use of traffic control signals at toll
plazas, so the FHWA does not adopt the exception in this final rule.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to add a statement in the first
STANDARD that strobes or other flashing displays within or adjacent to
red signal indications shall not be used, in order to clarify that
strobes within traffic signals are not approved traffic control
devices. This would be consistent with FHWA's Official Interpretation
4-263.\151\ Although FHWA allowed experimentation with strobes in red
traffic signals in the mid-1980s, the FHWA made a determination in 1990
not to approve further experimentations with strobe lights in traffic
signals, and to terminate all experimentations with these devices that
were in progress at that time. As stated in the Official
Interpretation, research conducted as part of the experimentation
process showed inconsistent benefits and some significant disadvantages
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
received comments from a State DOT and two local DOTs supporting this
revision. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a local DOT supported the
revision and suggested expanding the strobe prohibition to signal
indications other than red because a strobe is inappropriate with any
traffic signal display. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and an association
supported the revision and suggested clarifying ``flashing displays
adjacent to red signal indications'' to allow emergency vehicle
preemption (EVP) confirmation lights. Two State DOTs opposed the
revision because they believe from anecdotal information the strobes
have merit in certain situations and have a positive effect on highway
safety. The FHWA believes that such anecdotal information
[[Page 66812]]
is insufficient to override the formal studies that have consistently
shown no benefit of strobes and disadvantages in some cases. A
consultant disagreed with the strobe prohibition because it will
prohibit the use of the red strobe above the flashing red signal
indication on the STOP/SLOW paddle Automatic Flagger Assistance Devices
(AFADs) and suggested revising the text or providing an exception for
construction work zone traffic control devices. The flashing red
indication of the AFAD is a Stop Beacon as defined in Section 4L.05 and
it is a highway traffic signal device so the strobe prohibition would
apply. The FHWA is not aware of any documented justification for
allowing an exception in construction work zones or AFADs. The FHWA in
this final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA with
editorial revisions to clarify that the strobe prohibition applies to
all colors of signal indications and to exclude EVP confirmation
lights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State DOT and an NCUTCD member suggested prohibiting dual-arrow
(green arrow/yellow arrow) indications because they believe that they
cause problems for color blind drivers. The FHWA disagrees because
dual-arrow indications have been in use for decades with no documented
problems and green-yellow color blindness is extremely rare in
comparison to red-green color blindness.
373. In the new Figure 4D-1 Example of U-Turn Signal Face that was
proposed in the NPA, a State DOT noted that the U-Turn display is not
currently manufactured nor is there an ITE specification for it. The
FHWA notes that while there is currently no ITE specification, the lens
design has been manufactured and is being used in some jurisdictions.
The signal indication is not required, but could be used to control a
U-turn movement on an approach from which there is no left-turn
movement physically possible or the left-turn is prohibited. Four local
DOTs opposed the new figure because the U-turn signal display is not
common and might not be clear from long distances. The FHWA disagrees
because, although not widely used at present, the need for U-turn
signal indications is increasing and it is necessary to establish
uniform provisions for their design and use. The FHWA also notes that,
although the shape of arrow will not be able to be seen from as long a
distance as a left-turn or right-turn arrow, vehicles would be
decelerating to slower speeds in a U-turn lane, so that distance is not
as critical. The FHWA adopts new Figure 4D-1 as proposed in the NPA.
374. In Section 4D.07 (Section 4D.15 in the 2003 MUTCD) Size of
Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to modify
the STANDARD to require 12-inch signal indications for all new signal
installations, to reflect the predominant current signal design
practice, to reflect the results of studies \152\ that have shown the
significant safety benefits of using 12-inch indications, and to make
signal indications more visible to older drivers. As part of this
proposed change, the FHWA would allow existing 8-inch signal
indications to be retained for the remainder of their useful life. In
the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise the OPTION statement to allow the
use of 8-inch signal indications under three specific circumstances
where such use could be advantageous. Three local DOTs and an NCUTCD
member agreed with the revisions. The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested
revising the proposed statement permitting existing 8-inch indications
to be retained for the remainder of their useful life from STANDARD to
OPTION to improve readability. The FHWA agrees and adopts the change in
this final rule based on the commenters' recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested adding additional items in the
OPTION to also allow 8-inch signal indications for supplemental near
side signal indications and along roadways with speeds less than 30
miles per hour, and where the signal indications are located less than
120 feet from the stop line. Four State DOTs, 15 local agencies, 2
associations, a consultant, a signal equipment supplier, and 5 citizens
similarly requested allowing 8-inch signal indications in historic
downtown districts, residential districts, central business districts,
and suburban town centers, where they believe that 12-inch indications
would not be context appropriate. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this
final rule a revised OPTION allowing 8-inch circular signal indications
for near side supplemental signal indications and for circular
indications located less than 120 feet from the stop line on all
roadways with a posted or statutory speed limit of 30 miles per hour or
less.
A local DOT suggested adding an OPTION allowing 8-inch indications
for vehicular signal faces that exclusively control a bicycle movement
or bikeway since 12-inch indications might be excessive given the
typical speeds and position of bicycles. The FHWA agrees and in this
final rule adopts the suggested OPTION.
A State DOT requested allowing 8-inch indications for ramp metering
signals where the indications are at eye level with the driver and
visibility might not be an issue. The FHWA disagrees and does not adopt
this suggestion because ramp metering signals are typically located on
ramps and many ramps are relatively high speed. The ramp metering
signals are sometimes not anticipated by unfamiliar road users, so
prominent signal indications are important.
375. In Section 4D.08 (Section 4D.16 in the 2003 MUTCD) Positions
of Signal Indications Within a Signal Face--General, the FHWA proposed
in the NPA to add to the STANDARD a 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 proposed this change because road users who are color vision
deficient identify the illuminated color by its position relative to
the other signal sections. An NCUTCD member noted that the proposed
clause about clusters belongs in Section 4D.09 (Section 4D.16 in the
2003 MUTCD), which discusses vertical signal faces. The commenter
suggested adding an OPTION statement that allows dual red indications
in signal faces that do not control turning movements and also
suggested adding a GUIDANCE statement to describe how the dual red
indications are to be arranged into clusters. The FHWA agrees with the
commenter's concerns and adopts in this final rule an OPTION statement
in Section 4D.09 allowing clustering of two circular red or two red
arrow indications in a vertically-arranged signal face but prohibiting
clustering of two identical green arrows because that display can
incorrectly imply that a two-lane turn movement is allowed. The FHWA
also adopts references in Section 4D.09 to Figure 4D-2 and certain
other figures to illustrate examples of clusters. A local DOT suggested
adding an OPTION to allow the use of a single-section signal at
approaches controlled by a flashing or steady circular red signal for
minor driveways at signalized intersections. The FHWA disagrees because
a single-section flashing circular red indication is a stop beacon and
is discussed in Section 4L.05. If the
[[Page 66813]]
circular red indication alternates between flashing red and steady red,
then a single section is not appropriate because a change in position
is needed and a change interval is also required.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to add requirements to the
STANDARD statement for the position of U-turn arrow signal sections in
a signal face. The FHWA proposed this change to accommodate the new U-
turn arrows as described previously in item 373. A local DOT and an
NCUTCD member agreed with the revision and suggested removing the
reference to U-turns to the right because they are rare and a circular
indication can be used. The FHWA disagrees because U-turns to the right
can be used for frontage roads and removing the text might result in
possible misapplication. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the
language as proposed in the NPA.
376. In new Section 4D.09 (Section 4D.07 in the NPA) Positions of
Signal Indications within a Vertical Signal Face, the NCUTCD, a State
DOT, a consultant, an NCUTCD member, and two anonymous commenters made
suggestions regarding the text proposed in the NPA to incorporate
signal faces using a flashing yellow arrow or flashing red arrow for
permissive turn indications. The FHWA agrees and deletes the term
``immediately'' from the second paragraph of the first STANDARD adopted
in this final rule and also revises the list of relative positions to
include steady and/or flashing yellow arrow and red arrow sections.
Similarly, the FHWA also adopts a revised Section 4D.10 (Section 4D.08
in the NPA) Positions of Signal Indications within a Horizontal Signal
Face with similar revisions to the list of relative positions, based on
the commenters' suggestions.
A State DOT suggested adding a figure to illustrate clusters. An
anonymous commenter also suggested clarifying the last STANDARD to
accommodate specific provisions in Section 4D.25 for the use of dual-
arrow signal indications. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule
a revised second STANDARD, containing clarifications based on the
commenters' suggestions, and also adopts a reference to various figures
that illustrate clusters in vertical signal faces.
An anonymous commenter suggested clarifying the positioning for
flashing red arrow and steady red arrow signal indications because of
concern for color-blind drivers. The FHWA agrees with the commenter and
adopts in this final rule a revised STANDARD paragraph 03 that
effectively prohibits two adjacent red arrow sections in a vertical
face unless they are clustered side-by-side, to address the color
blindness issue. This is necessary to avoid the safety consequences of
a colorblind road user being confused by the signal display when two
red arrows are in line with each other vertically.
377. In Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces on an Approach, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise item A of the STANDARD to clarify
that two primary 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 primary 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 proposed this change
to ensure that the straight-through movement, or major signalized
turning movement in absence of a straight-through movement, contains
redundant primary signal faces in case one of the signal faces fails,
and to incorporate the FHWA's Official Interpretation number 4-
295(I).\153\ Two State DOTs and a local DOT opposed the revision
because they would prefer to retain the flexibility to provide a single
signal face for specific conditions. An NCUTCD member agreed with the
revision. The FHWA agrees with the NCUTCD member that two primary
signal faces shall be provided for the through movement and adopts in
this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA with editorial
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ 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 proposed in the NPA to add an OPTION allowing a
single section green arrow signal 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
proposed this change to incorporate Official Interpretation 4-255(I)
into the MUTCD.\154\ A local DOT agreed with the revision. The FHWA in
this final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding 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 40 mph.
As documented in two FHWA reports, ``Making Intersections Safer: A
Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running''
\155\ and ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \156\
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. A study \157\ of intersections in British Columbia,
Canada, also found statistically significant collision reductions in
the range of 10 to 45 percent when signal displays were upgraded from a
single overhead signal face to two overhead faces. Additionally, two
recent studies, by the URS Corporation \158\ and by Bradley
University,\159\ 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 proposed 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 proposed that this GUIDANCE also be
considered for any major urban or suburban arterial street with four or
more lanes. A citizen agreed with the revision. The NCUTCD and a local
DOT agreed but suggested
[[Page 66814]]
revising the speed threshold value to 45 miles per hour or higher to
eliminate a potentially ambiguous situation where 85th percentile
speeds are between 40 and 45 miles per hour and neither the posted nor
the statutory speed exceed 40 miles per hour. The FHWA agrees and
adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA with the
suggested revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Pages 17-27 of this report can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
\156\ ``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/.
\157\ ``Safety Benefits of Additional Primary Signal Heads,''
March, 1998, by Emmanuel Felipe and Dragana Mitic, can be obtained
from G.D. Hamilton Associates, 1199 Hastings Street West, Suite 900,
Vancouver, BC, V6E 3T5, Canada.
\158\ 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.
\159\ 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, can be obtained from the Department of
Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, 1501 West
Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A large city DOT opposed the proposed new GUIDANCE statements
because of concerns that providing one signal face per through lane is
too extreme and will place an unnecessary financial hardship on
agencies. The commenter said the collision data and red light running
data in that city does not support the NPA recommendation and suggested
replacing the GUIDANCE with a new statement that would recommend
practices similar to those used in California. The NCUTCD and a State
DOT agreed with the general concepts of the NPA proposal but suggested
replacing GUIDANCE items A and B with a table to list the recommended
number of signal heads for various lane and speed combinations,
including certain speed ranges below 45 mph, and recommended fewer
overhead signal faces than one signal per through lane in some cases. A
State DOT agreed with the new GUIDANCE, but suggested that it be
lowered to an OPTION. Three State DOTs, 13 local agencies, an NCUTCD
member, a consultant, and a citizen opposed GUIDANCE item B regarding
locating a signal face over the center of each through lane because of
concerns about the cost for agencies, aesthetics, increased energy
usage, shortening of the operating time for battery backups, liability
issues, lack of effectiveness for increased visibility, and lack of
design flexibility for engineers.
In consideration of the comments received, the FHWA adopts in this
final rule a revised GUIDANCE that references a new Table 4D-2
``Recommended Minimum Number of Primary Signal Faces for Through
Traffic on Approaches with Posted, Statutory, or 85th Percentile Speed
of 45 mph or Higher'' in this final rule. The adopted text and table
recommend that all primary faces should be located on the far side,
that the total number of overhead and/or post-mounted far side primary
signal faces should equal the number of through lanes on approaches
with two or more through lanes, and that certain minimum numbers of
those total signal faces should be located overhead on the far side of
the intersection. A note in the table also indicates that, if
practical, all of the recommended total number of primary through
signal faces should be located overhead. The revised GUIDANCE indicates
that it applies only to new or reconstructed signal installations. The
FHWA believes that the adopted GUIDANCE and the associated table will
enhance safety as new and reconstructed signals are installed on
higher-speed approaches as well as accommodate older existing signals
for the remainder of their service life. However, the FHWA disagrees
with the NCUTCD's suggestion for adding specific guidance on the number
and location of signal faces for approaches with speeds less than 45
mph, because such a provision was not proposed in the NPA and should be
subject to the review and comment process of a future rulemaking. The
FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA that merely recommends
that the same layouts as for higher speed approaches be considered for
any major urban or suburban arterial street with four or more lanes and
other approaches with speeds less than 45 mph.
A State DOT and four local agencies opposed the proposed GUIDANCE
item C recommending that separate signal faces controlling exclusive
turn lanes should be located overhead, approximately over the center of
the turn lane, because of concerns about the lengths of mast arms that
will be needed. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because the
proposed GUIDANCE is based on best practices currently in use in many
jurisdictions and therefore adopts in this final rule the GUIDANCE as
proposed in the NPA.
Three State DOTs supported GUIDANCE item E (item D in the NPA)
about supplemental signal faces, with editorial comments. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA with
editorial changes.
Two State DOTs, two local agencies, and an NCUCTD member agreed
with GUIDANCE item F (item E in the NPA) about backplates but suggested
making exceptions for pole-mounted, supplemental, and cluster signals
because of concerns about needing larger pole foundations and their
opinion that the need for backplates is not critical on supplemental or
pole-mounted signals. A State DOT and five local agencies opposed item
E because of concerns about additional wind loading and they believe
mast arms provide contrast with the signal head. The FHWA disagrees and
adopts in this final rule item F because on high speed approaches the
need for contrast is very important for all signal faces.
The FHWA also adopts the proposed Figure 4D-3, retitled Recommended
Vehicular Signal Faces for Approaches with Posted, Statutory, or 85th
Percentile Speed of 45 mph or Higher, with revisions to reflect adopted
revisions in the text of Section 4D.11.
378. In Section 4D.12 (Section 4D.17 in the 2003 MUTCD) Visibility,
Aiming, and Shielding of Signal Faces, the FHWA proposed in the NPA a
revised 4th paragraph of the first GUIDANCE statement 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 85th percentile
speed is 45 mph or higher, and that signal backplates should be
considered when the speeds are less than 45 mph. The FHWA proposed 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''
\160\ and ``Making Intersections Safer: Toolbox of Engineering
Countermeasures to Reduce Red Light Running,'' \161\ as well as
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\162\ Two local DOTs
agreed with the revision. The FHWA also received comments about
providing exceptions to the backplate recommendations and in opposition
to backplates similar to comments received in Section 4D.11. The FHWA
in this final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ ``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/.
\161\ Page 26 of this report can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
\162\ ``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 proposed an OPTION statement allowing the use of
yellow retroreflective strips along the perimeter of a signal face
backplate. The FHWA proposed 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.\163\ A
local DOT agreed with the revision. Another local DOT also agreed but
suggested that the minimum width be changed to zero. The FHWA notes
that the use of the
[[Page 66815]]
retroreflective strip is optional and any width less than an inch would
provide limited benefit. The FHWA in this final rule adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, the FHWA also editorially revises the order in
which the paragraphs of Section 4D.12 appear, to more logically group
like topics together.
379. In Figure 4D-4 (Figure 4D-2 in the 2003 MUTCD) Lateral and
Longitudinal Location of Primary Signal Faces, a local DOT suggested
deleting this figure because the MUTCD proposed to mandate 12-inch
indications for all new installations. The FHWA disagrees that the
figure is obsolete, since it illustrates the 20-degree ``cone of
vision'' provisions that are still in effect and since 8-inch lenses
will still be allowed for certain situations. The FHWA adopts Figure
4D-4 as proposed in the NPA but with revisions to reflect adopted
revisions in the text of Chapter 4D.
380. In new Section 4D.13 Lateral Positioning of Signal Faces, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 proposed this statement
to ensure that drivers associate the proper turn signal face with the
exclusive turn lane and because the research documented in NCHRP Report
493 \164\ found that this location produced the best driver
understanding and correct behavior. A local DOT agreed with the
revision. Two State DOTs also agreed but suggested reducing the
STANDARD to GUIDANCE because there are numerous existing signals that
do not meet the criteria because of short mast arms. A State DOT and
two local DOTs opposed the new STANDARD predominantly because of cost
to upgrade existing signals and concerns about long masts arms in high
wind areas. The FHWA disagrees because the state of the art for both
guide signing and signals is to provide specific traffic control/
movement information to each lane to reduce driver confusion,
especially at complex intersections, and the research validates this
practice for turn signals. The FHWA in this final rule adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA the FHWA also proposed to add a GUIDANCE statement that,
for new or reconstructed signals, 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 proposed this
change because NCHRP Report 493 \165\ 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\166\ found that found that
displaying a circular green signal indication 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 shared 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 NCUTCD and a
local DOT agreed with the proposed revision. A State DOT also agreed
and recommended elevating the GUIDANCE to STANDARD to prohibit the use
of circular green indications. A State DOT agreed and suggested
revising the language to clarify that the GUIDANCE applies to all
situations, not only where a permissive left turn opposes a protected
left turn. Two local DOTs agreed with the revision but suggested an
exception when the circular green indication is accompanied by an R10-
12 sign. Six State DOTs, nine local agencies, an NCUTCD member, and a
citizen opposed the new GUIDANCE based on their local experience and
concerns about prohibiting variable mode left-turn phasing, and
additional costs to agencies to modify existing signals. The FHWA
disagrees because the FHWA believes the research supports the new
GUIDANCE, because the FHWA did not propose it as a STANDARD, and
because the GUIDANCE only applies to new and reconstructed signals. The
FHWA in this final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA with
minor editorial revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ 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.
\166\ ``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 at the following Web site: http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
381. The FHWA adopts the provisions in Section 4D.17 through 4D.20
(Sections 4D.06 and 4D.07 in the 2003 MUTCD) and elsewhere in Chapter
4D, as proposed in the NPA, that allow the use of flashing yellow arrow
and flashing red arrow indications. The FHWA also adopts the NCUTCD
recommendation to eliminate separate left-turn signal faces that
include circular green indications for permissive left turns. Both
changes are discussed above in item 366.
382. In Section 4D.17 (Section 4D.06 in the 2003 MUTCD) Signal
Indications for Left-Turn Movements--General, a State DOT agreed with
the proposed addition of flashing yellow arrows and also suggested
allowing a four-signal indication display for protected/permissive
left-turn mode with green arrow, steady yellow arrow, flashing red
arrow, and steady red arrow in a ``T'' configuration so that the agency
can retrofit existing signals with flashing red arrows. The FHWA
disagrees and notes that the configuration suggested by the commenter
is prohibited because a change interval must be displayed after the
flashing red arrow and before the steady red arrow. Sections 4D.17
through 4D.20 require a steady yellow arrow change interval because the
change from flashing red arrow to steady red arrow would not
necessarily be noticed by road users and makes violators of those who
enter the intersection on steady red arrow during the timed change
interval.
A consultant suggested revising the definition of variable left-
turn mode in paragraph 02, item D, so as to not imply that the service
type must change during the day and as a result preclude the use of
varying left-turn modes on specific days or for construction
activities. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule adds ``or as traffic
conditions change'' to this item D and also to comparable text in
STANDARD paragraph 08. The FHWA also adopts similar changes for
variable right-turn mode in Section 4D.20.
The FHWA in the NPA proposed 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 proposed this addition for consistency with
other
[[Page 66816]]
requirements in Part 4. A local DOT agreed with the addition, but
suggested allowing an exemption for a green display for one direction
only during preemption. In the commenter's jurisdiction a flashing
UPRAISED HAND is shown during preemption and therefore it is not
possible to display a green left-turn arrow because it conflicts with
that pedestrian signal display. The FHWA notes that the NPA proposed
provisions do not preclude the commenter's operation as long as a
yellow trap is not created. A consultant agreed with the addition and
suggested revising the language to emphasize how the provision may be
used to avoid the yellow trap. The FHWA notes that similar provisions
are provided in Section 4D.05 (NPA Section 4D.10) regarding the yellow
trap and therefore, in this final rule adopts the language as proposed
in the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed a STANDARD prohibiting 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 proposed 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, which can result in inefficient operations and
rear-end and sideswipe type crashes.\167\ If an exclusive left-turn
lane is not present and a 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 NCUTCD and a State
DOT supported the prohibition, recognizing this is an unacceptable
practice. Two State DOTs and four local agencies disagreed and
suggested deleting the STANDARD or reducing it to GUIDANCE or OPTION
because their experience has shown that this operation provides
operational benefits in special circumstances. The FHWA disagrees,
because this prohibition addresses the issue of unsafe last-second lane
changing and the commenters have not provided supporting data to
justify reducing the statement from a STANDARD. Accordingly, in this
final rule the STANDARD is adopted as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ ``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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An NCUTCD member noted that a SUPPORT paragraph proposed in the NPA
did not contain SUPPORT language. The FHWA agrees that the existing
language can only be interpreted as prohibitory in nature and in this
final rule adopts this statement as a STANDARD with editorial
revisions. The intent of the language is to prohibit the display of the
yellow change interval when the left-turn operation is changing from
permissive mode to protected mode, consistent with other STANDARD
provisions elsewhere in Chapter 4D.
383. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the NPA proposed new
Section 4D.18 Signal Indications for Permissive Only Mode Left-Turn
Movements with revisions to prohibit circular green indications for
permissive left-turn movements in separate left-turn signal faces, as
previously discussed in item 366. A State DOT suggested adding an
OPTION to allow a circular red signal indication as a replacement to
the red arrow for permissive only mode left turns as allowed by Interim
Approval IA-10, Section 2, Signal Face Arrangement, item b. The FHWA
disagrees because the Interim Approval allowed the option of circular
red since, at the time the Interim Approval was issued, the 2003 MUTCD
allowed that option for separate left-turn signal faces and there are a
few States where red arrows have not been used. As discussed below
regarding Section 4D.19, the FHWA eliminates the circular red in this
final rule for separate left-turn faces and therefore declines to add
it as an OPTION.
An anonymous commenter suggested adding a new STANDARD item
permitting a ``Left Turn Yield on Flashing Yellow'' sign with the
flashing yellow arrow signal face. The FHWA disagrees because the
research \168\ found that such a sign is not needed and therefore the
FHWA does not want to encourage the use of a sign, but the FHWA also
notes that Chapter 2B allows agencies to develop their own word message
signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
384. The FHWA proposed in the NPA a new Section 4D.19 Signal
Indications for Protected Only Mode Left-Turn Movements. An NCUTCD
member suggested deleting STANDARD item D because the shared protected-
only left-turn face can only be used when the through and left-turn
indications begin and terminate at the same time. The FHWA disagrees
because this provision is necessary for intersections that have
variable lane uses and signal phasing by time of day. The FHWA in this
final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
An anonymous commenter suggested revising STANDARD paragraph 01 to
allow a vertical green arrow for situations where a shared signal face
is used for the protected only left-turn mode. The FHWA agrees and also
adopts in this final rule an OPTION to allow a vertical arrow in place
of the circular green display where right turns are not allowed. The
FHWA also adopts a similar revision in the comparable paragraph
regarding right turns in Section 4D.23.
The FHWA in the NPA proposed 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 proposed 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. A local DOT agreed with the revision. An anonymous
commenter suggested allowing a circular red indication for protected-
only left turns from a one-way street onto another, at intersection
approaches that have a gentle left turn with a 45-degree green arrow
indication, such as single-point urban interchanges, and at approaches
with shared left-turn/right-turn lanes and no through movements to be
consistent with Section 4D.25. The FHWA disagrees because an R10-17a
sign can be used with the red left arrow, the red arrow must match the
green and yellow arrows for uniformity and consistency, and the T-
intersection described does not apply to Section 4D.25, which addresses
only the case of T-intersections with a shared left-turn/right-turn
lane without a through movement. A State DOT opposed the revision and
suggested adding an OPTION to allow the use of the circular red signal
with a supplemental R10-10 sign because they believe the circular red
signal provides better visibility and it allows agencies to stock one
type of
[[Page 66817]]
red signal display. The FHWA disagrees because allowing the option
would be inconsistent with the MUTCD uniformity goals.
Two local DOTs suggested providing an OPTION to allow variable mode
left-turn phasing, to be consistent with Section 4D.18. The NCUTCD also
suggested adding OPTION statements to allow separate left-turn signal
faces with a flashing left-turn yellow arrow and signal faces with
flashing left-turn red arrows to operate in a variable turn mode. The
FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule the OPTION statements as
recommended.
385. In new Section 4D.20 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA adopts text as proposed
in the NPA, but with revisions comparable to and consistent with those
adopted in Sections 4D.17 through 4D.19.
A State DOT suggested revising the first STANDARD item A for shared
signal faces to require terminating a green arrow and circular green
indication with a combination steady yellow arrow and circular yellow.
The FHWA disagrees because the proposed language is not applicable in a
four-section signal face where no yellow arrow is provided. Also, the
provision states that the yellow arrow ``shall not be required'' and
therefore agencies can choose to display both the circular yellow and
steady yellow arrow during the change interval. A State DOT suggested
editorial revisions to STANDARD items A, B, C, and E for shared signal
faces to consolidate the text, but the FHWA declines to make the
changes because, although there is some overlap, all four items state
different ideas.
In item C of the first STANDARD, the FHWA revises the text in this
final rule to state that when the left-turn GREEN ARROW and CIRCULAR
GREEN signal indications are being terminated together, the required
display following the left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication shall be
either the display of a CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indication alone or the
simultaneous display of the CIRCULAR YELLOW and left-turn YELLOW ARROW
signal indications. This revision provides additional flexibility to
jurisdictions to display both the steady yellow arrow and steady
circular yellow simultaneously and reflects a common practice. The FHWA
makes a similar revision in this final rule to comparable text for
right turns in Section 4D.24.
An anonymous commenter suggested revising the second STANDARD item
H for separate left-turn faces with a flashing yellow arrow to allow a
three-section signal face where there are horizontal spacing
limitations. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule revised
STANDARD text to allow lateral positioning limitations for
horizontally-mounted signal faces and additional text to allow the same
three-section face to include a dual-arrow section capable of
alternately displaying steady green and flashing yellow arrows. The
FHWA adopts a comparable change in similar provisions in Section 4D.24.
A local DOT opposed the proposed 2nd STANDARD item I for separate
left-turn signal faces with a flashing yellow arrow because the
language would suppress further research of viable and efficient ways
to implement the flashing yellow arrow at protected only left-turn
intersections. The commenter also stated that there is no research
showing the prohibited method is unsafe or otherwise ineffective and
that the new hybrid beacon allows this in the yellow signal. The FHWA
disagrees because there has not been sufficient research or
experimentation to justify allowing the displays suggested by the
commenters.
An anonymous commenter agreed with the proposed 3rd STANDARD items
E and F for separate left-turn signal faces with a flashing red arrow.
The same commenter expressed concerns about requiring the display of
flashing red arrow and steady red arrow signal indications in the same
signal section because of color-blind driver concerns. The FHWA agrees
with the commenter regarding the color blindness issue and adopts in
this final rule an OPTION allowing side-by-side clustering of two red
left arrows, one steady and one flashing. The FHWA also adopts this
OPTION for comparable provisions in Section 4D.24.
386. In the NPA the FHWA proposed a new Section 4D.21 Signal
Indications for Right-Turn Movements--General. The FHWA proposed
revising the provisions to prohibit the display of a circular green for
a permissive right-turn movement in a separate right-turn signal face
over or in front of a right-turn lane to parallel the NCUTCD
recommendation for separate left-turn signal faces. The FHWA proposal
noted that this would not disallow the common use of a five-section
face over the right turn lane, typically for a ``right turn overlap''
situation, as the five-section would be considered a ``shared face.''
Similarly, a three-section face over a right-turn lane, with all
circular indications that always display the same color circular
indications as the adjacent through signal faces would also be a
``shared'' face and would not be prohibited.
A local DOT suggested that the displays of right-turn indications
with u-turn signal indications should be further clarified. The FHWA
agrees and adopts in this final rule a new STANDARD paragraph to
address the U-turn arrow signal indications.
The FHWA also proposed to add 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 proposed this addition for
consistency with other requirements in Part 4. The FHWA proposal would
also 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 382
above for left turns, the FHWA proposed 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. A local DOT and an anonymous
commenter agreed. Two local DOTs suggested adding an exception to
STANDARD paragraph 03 for applications where there is raised or painted
channelization that prevents conflicts with opposing left-turn
vehicles. The FHWA agrees with commenters if the right-turn movement
and the opposing left-turn movement can depart from the intersection in
their own dedicated lanes without conflict as described in Section
4D.05 (NPA Section 4D.10). The FHWA adopts in this final rule a
reference to Section 4D.05 to clarify the protected right-turn
operation.
377. In the NPA the FHWA proposed a new Section 4D.22 Signal
Indications for Permissive Only Mode Right-Turn Movements with
revisions prohibiting the use of circular green in a separate right
turn signal face operating in permissive mode as previously discussed
in item 366.
An anonymous commenter suggested deleting ``and the opposing right-
turn signal faces display right-turn green arrow signal indications for
a protected right-turn movement'' in STANDARD item E for separate
right-turn signal faces with a flashing red arrow to clarify that the
opposing right turn is not relevant in this situation. The FHWA agrees
and in this final rule deletes the
[[Page 66818]]
phrase from the adopted item E as suggested.
388. In new Section 4D.23 Signal Indications for Protected-Only
Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to retain the
provision located in Section 4D.07 of the 2003 MUTCD 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 has been eliminated for left-turn signal faces in item 384
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
proposed to add STANDARD statements for the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow signal indications for protected only mode
right-turn movements. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the language
as proposed in the NPA with revisions incorporating the NCUTCD's
recommendations in Section 4D.17 about consolidating all text regarding
``separate'' signal faces.
389. In new Section 4D.24 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA adopts the text as
proposed in the NPA, but with revisions for consistency with adopted
text in Sections 4D.21 through 4D.22.
390. The FHWA also adopts several new figures that illustrate
positioning and arrangements of signal sections in left turn signal
faces (Figures 4D-6 to 4D-12) and right turn signal faces (Figures 4D-
13 to 4D-19). The FHWA adopts these new figures in order to enhance
understanding and correct application of the relatively complex
requirements and options for turn signals. In this final rule, the FHWA
adopts minor revisions to these figures to reflect changes in
applicable text.
391. The FHWA adopts Section 4D.25 Signal Indications for
Approaches With a Shared Left-Turn/Right-Turn Lane and No Through
Movement, as proposed in the NPA but with editorial revisions for
clarity. This new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and OPTION
statements regarding this type of lane that is shared by left-turn and
right-turn movements 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 includes this new
section 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. A local DOT
agreed.
Another local DOT suggested allowing the use of a four-section
signal face where a steady circular yellow follows both left-turn and
right-turn green arrows instead of the five-section signal face,
because this might save space in certain applications. The FHWA
disagrees because the suggested signal display will require a yellow
change interval that requires two different yellows being displayed
simultaneously.
The commenter also suggested allowing for the option of a flashing
left-turn yellow arrow and flashing right-turn yellow arrow being
displayed simultaneously ``when the lack of vehicular conflict is
because a red signal indication is being displayed to traffic on the
opposing approach'' when there is a conflicting vehicular or pedestrian
movement. The commenter believes this would serve to reinforce the DO
NOT ENTER condition when a two-way street intersects a one-way street
with the use of the two turn arrows as well as provide notice to
motorists that they must yield when making either turn. The FHWA
disagrees because the provisions require a five-section shared face
with two steady yellow arrows, one for right turns and one for left
turns. A single circular yellow would not be consistent with the steady
yellow arrows used for the change interval in the faces for the
exclusive turn lane(s) on the approach.
A State DOT and an anonymous commenter suggested adding figures to
illustrate potential signal head configurations, particularly for
situations with pedestrian accommodations because the text is difficult
to interpret. The FHWA agrees and adopts a new Figure 4D-20 in this
final rule.
An anonymous commenter noted that the provisions of this Section
are an exception to the STANDARD in Section 4D.19 that requires the use
of a red arrow indication for a protected only left-turn movement that
is for a separately-controlled protected only left turn. The FHWA
agrees and in this final rule adopts text indicating that the circular
red displays required in Section 4D.25 are an exception to what would
otherwise be required by Chapter 4D.
392. In Section 4D.26 (Section 4D.10 in the 2003 MUTCD) Yellow
Change and Red Clearance Intervals, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
revise the first STANDARD regarding yellow change intervals to account
for the introduction of the flashing yellow arrow and flashing red
arrow for permissive turn phases. A State DOT and two local DOTs
suggested revising the text to allow a green arrow to follow a flashing
yellow arrow to be consistent with Section 4D.20. A local DOT also
suggested exempting the change interval when going from the flashing
red arrow to a green arrow. The FHWA agrees with the commenters and
adopts in this final rule a revision in the 1st STANDARD to exempt the
change interval between the permissive interval and the lagging
protected interval in turn signals.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed changing the first OPTION statement
to a GUIDANCE, to recommend, rather than merely permit, that a yellow
change interval should 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 proposed 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.'' \169\ A State DOT agreed with the revision.
Another State DOT and five local agencies opposed the revision because
of concerns that there is a lack of evidence to support elevating this
provision to GUIDANCE, laws about change intervals vary by State, and
the GUIDANCE does not provide flexibility to use engineering judgment.
The FHWA notes that the proposed text does not recommend red clearance
intervals for all signals, only to provide them when it is indicated by
the application of engineering practices, such as the ITE formulas. The
FHWA disagrees with the commenters because studies \170\ have shown
safety benefits when yellow and red clearance times are used per the
ITE
[[Page 66819]]
formulas. The FHWA adopts this final rule the language as proposed in
the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Pages 35-36 of this report can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
\170\ 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 proposed in the NPA 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 also proposed to add a new SUPPORT statement
to indicate that engineering practices for determining the durations of
these intervals can be found in two publications from the ITE. The FHWA
proposed this 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 that a red
clearance interval is needed. As documented in the FHWA report
``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \171\ a variety of
studies from 1985 through 2002 have found significant safety benefits
from using accepted engineering practices to determine the durations of
yellow change and red clearance intervals. Recent safety studies \172\
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. A State
DOT and two local DOTs opposed the revision because their agencies have
other methods for calculating red intervals and do not believe the ITE
methods to be superior. The FHWA disagrees because the studies have
shown significant safety benefits when red clearance times are provided
per the ITE methods and therefore, adopts in this final rule the
language as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ ``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/.
\172\ 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 establishes a target compliance date of December 31,
2014 (approximately 5 years from the effective date of this final rule)
or when timing adjustments are made to the individual intersection and/
or corridor, whichever occurs first, for the durations of yellow change
intervals and red clearance intervals at existing locations to be based
on engineering practices. The FHWA establishes this target compliance
date because of the demonstrated safety benefits, as discussed above,
of proper engineering-based timing of these critical signal intervals.
Traffic signals and signal control equipment have a very long service
life (30 to 50 years is not uncommon) and very long intervals between
signal retiming are typical at many traffic signal locations in many
jurisdictions. The FHWA believes that relying on systematic upgrading
provisions (23 CFR 655.603(d)(1)), based on service life, to achieve
compliance with this critical timing need would take an inordinately
long time, to the detriment of road user safety. State and local
highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel can
minimize any impact of this signal timing requirement by adopting a
policy for determining durations of yellow change and red clearance
intervals that is based on engineering practices as discussed in
Section 4D.26 and then by applying that policy whenever an existing
individual signal location or system of interconnected locations is
being checked or adjusted for any reason, such as investigation of
citizen complaints or routine maintenance.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to add a new STANDARD statement
that requires the duration of the yellow change and red clearance
intervals to be within the technical capabilities of the signal
controller, and that they be consistent from cycle to cycle in the same
timing plan. The FHWA proposed this change to accommodate the inherent
limitations of some older mechanical controllers, but provide for
consistency of interval timing. Two State DOTs suggested allowing red
clearance interval extensions when a vehicle violating the red signal
is detected entering the intersection on red. The FHWA agrees and
adopts text in this final rule to allow a red clearance interval
extension when a red light runner is detected.
Two local DOTs suggested adding an exception to allow red clearance
intervals longer than 6 seconds for exceptionally large intersections
such as at a single point urban interchange. The FHWA agrees and adopts
in this final rule an exception for exceptionally large intersections
Finally, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add 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 are exempted from the prohibition.
The FHWA proposed this change to make the MUTCD consistent with FHWA
Official Interpretation 4-246.\173\ The FHWA notes that it did
not intend to include pedestrian countdown signals in the provision and
therefore adopts in this final rule revised language to add
``vehicular'' before ``signal displays'' in order to exclude pedestrian
countdown signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
393. In Section 4D.27 (Section 4D.13 in the 2003 MUTCD) Preemption
and Priority Control of Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA 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 proposed this change to ensure that the primary functions of
the interconnected signal systems still function in a safe manner in
the event of a power failure. Four State DOTs and a local DOT agreed
with the addition. A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed the GUIDANCE
because of concerns about the increased cost for installation and
maintenance and that the large cabinet sizes might impact the right-of-
way and their ability to meet ADA requirements. The FHWA disagrees and
adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA because
of the important safety benefits provided by back-up power at such
locations.
In addition, the FHWA also adopts the proposed new 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
adopts this to incorporate clarification into the MUTCD consistent with
FHWA Official Interpretation 10-59(I) and 10-66(I),
and to provide additional flexibility to agencies seeking to reduce
driver confusion with traffic signal indications intended to control
only mass transit vehicles.\174\ A local DOT agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66820]]
394. In Section 4D.28 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control
Signals--General, the FHWA adopts the proposed new 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 includes this
change because more efficient operations might 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 change in
Section 4C.04 discussed in item 360 above.
395. In Section 4D.30 Flashing Operation--Signal Indications During
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 proposed including this
paragraph to clarify proper displays during flashing mode. A State DOT
requested clarification for pedestrian signal indications during
flashing operation. The FHWA notes that this information is provided in
Chapter 4E and adds a new reference in this final rule.
396. In Section 4D.31 Flashing Operation--Transition Out of
Flashing Mode, a local DOT suggested adding a new provision to allow
the signal operation to change from flashing mode to steady (stop-and-
go) mode by servicing the minor street before the major street to go
back into the coordinated cycle. The FHWA disagrees because this
violates the existing MUTCD and no justification was provided to add
the provision. The FHWA adopts Section 4D.31 as proposed in the NPA.
397. In Section 4D.34 (Section 4D.19 in the 2003) Use of Signs at
Signalized Locations, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 might be unexpected by unfamiliar
road users are present. The FHWA in this final rule does not adopt the
proposed additional GUIDANCE text and instead adopts a reference to
Section 2B.19, where the appropriate text is located.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4E--General
398. The FHWA in this final rule is adopting a reorganization of
the existing and NPA proposed content of Section 4E.06 Accessible
Pedestrian Signals and Section 4E.09 Accessible Pedestrian Detectors.
In doing so, the FHWA eliminates overlapping text and cross-references
and consolidates the provisions into a clearer and more logical flow of
the information, without changing its meaning. This reorganization is
based on comments from an organization for the blind noting that
accessible pedestrian signals require the use of pushbutton-integrated
devices and having the various features of accessible pedestrian
signals (APS) described piecemeal in two different sections can lead to
confusion in installation. The FHWA agrees with this comment and
believes that placing the material in one location with a more accurate
grouping of features and functions of pushbutton-integrated APS will
improve understanding by users of the MUTCD. The text of this
consolidated content is reorganized into five new sections, Section
4E.09 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Detectors--General, Section
4E.10 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Detectors--Location, Section
4E.11 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Detectors--Walk Indications,
Section 4E.12 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and Detectors--Tactile
Arrows and Locator Tones, and Section 4E.13 Accessible Pedestrian
Signals and Detectors--Extended Pushbutton Press Features. The new
sections also include adopted revisions to the text of former Sections
4E.06 and 4E.09, as discussed below.
399. The FHWA in this final rule is relocating Section 4E.10 in the
2003 MUTCD to a new Section 4E.06 because the content of this section,
pedestrian intervals and signal phases, more appropriately follows the
content of Sections 4E.04 and 4E.05 and should precede the information
on countdown pedestrian signals, pedestrian detectors, and accessible
pedestrian signals and detectors.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 4E--Specific
400. In Section 4E.02 Meaning of Pedestrian Signal Head
Indications, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise item B of the
STANDARD that defines the meaning of the flashing UPRAISED HAND
pedestrian signal indication to allow pedestrians that entered 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
proposed 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 clearance 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 NCUTCD
agreed with this change and also suggested an editorial revision, which
the FHWA agrees with and adopts in this final rule. The FHWA also
adopts revisions to Section 4E.06 (see item 403 below) for consistency
with this change.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a second change in the meaning of the
flashing orange UPRAISED HAND, 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 the countdown
display reaches zero. The FHWA proposed this change because many
pedestrians walk faster than the walking 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. In the NPA, the FHWA stated the
belief that 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.
The FHWA received comments agreeing with this proposed change from the
NCUTCD, two local DOTs, a toll road authority, a local pedestrian
advisory board, and a consultant. However, the FHWA received comments
in opposition to this change from 4 State DOTs, 12 local DOTs, an
NCUTCD member, a regional section of ITE, and a retired traffic
engineer. The opponents expressed concerns that there would be two
different meanings of the flashing UPRAISED HAND depending on whether
or not a countdown display is present, and that this would be difficult
to teach to young schoolchildren. The FHWA understands the concerns
expressed about two meanings for the same indication and, as a result
the FHWA does not adopt in this final rule the second proposed change
in the
[[Page 66821]]
meaning of flashing UPRAISED HAND. However, the FHWA believes that
ultimately countdown pedestrian displays will be nearly ubiquitous and
that the countdown information does provide pedestrians with the
information they need to make individual judgments on whether to start
crossing during the countdown, based on their individual walking
speeds. The FHWA encourages additional research and experimentation to
evaluate the feasibility of removing the flashing UPRAISED HAND
indication completely as the pedestrian clearance display and instead
just displaying the countdown.
401. In the NPA the FHWA proposed minor editorial revisions to
Section 4E.03 Application of Pedestrian Signal Heads. A local DOT
agreed with the proposed revisions to Section 4E.03, but commented that
there are conditions where pedestrian signal heads can be used that are
not covered by any of the conditions for which this section either
requires or recommends the use of pedestrian signal heads. The FHWA
agrees and adopts in this final rule an OPTION statement after the
GUIDANCE, indicating that pedestrian signal heads may be used under
other conditions based on engineering judgment.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA 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, to reflect sound engineering practice. The NCUTCD agreed
with this addition but suggested a minor editorial change. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule this additional STANDARD statement with the
minor editorial change suggested by the NCUTCD, but relocates this
statement to Section 4E.06 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases
(Section 4E.10 in the 2003 MUTCD), because the subject matter is more
logically located there.
402. In Section 4E.04 Size, Design, and Illumination of Pedestrian
Signal Head Indications, the FHWA in the NPA proposed 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 proposed this change to
reflect the Official Interpretation 4-303,\175\ dated February
3, 2006, which provides that the light sources comprising the
indications may be overlaid on each other, as long as the pedestrian
signal head properly displays the individual indications, visible as
distinctly separate indications that meet all other requirements, such
as color, shape, and luminous intensity, etc. A State DOT opposed
overlaid symbols on pedestrian signal heads, citing false indications
from sun glare in some pedestrian signal units. The FHWA disagrees
because pedestrian signal heads with overlaid symbols are in widespread
use in many States and the FHWA is unaware of any significant issues
with false indications from sun glare when compared to side-by-side
symbols. Further, the use of overlaid symbols is optional and any
highway agency can choose not to use them. The FHWA adopts in this
final rule the revision to the first STANDARD statement and also adopts
a revised Figure 4E-1 Typical Pedestrian Signal Indications to reflect
this change. Further, based on comments about the figure from the
NCUTCD, four State DOTs, and a consultant, the FHWA adopts additional
illustrations to Figure 4E-1 to show a one-section unit with overlaid
symbols and countdown numerals and a two-section unit with overlaid
symbols in the top section and countdown numerals in the bottom
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 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 proposed in the NPA 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 proposed 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. The NCUTCD agreed with this revision and
suggested minor editorial changes for clarity, which the FHWA adopts in
this final rule. An organization for the blind also agreed in concept
with this revision, but suggested that it be a STANDARD rather than
GUIDANCE, requiring pedestrian signal indications to be responsive to
ambient light, brighter in bright conditions and dimmer in low light
conditions. The FHWA disagrees because supporting data for such a
mandatory requirement is not documented in any studies. A State DOT
opposed the proposed GUIDANCE recommending dimming because of concern
about operational and risk management problems. The FHWA disagrees
because similar language regarding dimming of vehicular signal
indications has been in the MUTCD for many decades and the FHWA is
unaware of any significant issues with dimming of vehicular signals.
403. In Section 4E.06 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases
(Section 4E.10 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
revise the first STANDARD statement to require the steady UPRAISED HAND
indication to be displayed during the yellow change interval and the
red clearance interval if those intervals are used as part of the
pedestrian clearance time, to be consistent with the change that was
proposed in Section 4E.07 to require countdown pedestrian signal
displays. The NPA also proposed revisions to the first OPTION statement
that would allow both the vehicular yellow change interval time and the
red clearance time to be used to satisfy the calculated duration of the
pedestrian clearance time. The FHWA received comments from a city, a
consultant, and a citizen opposing the allowable use of the red
clearance time for this purpose because it results in the lack of any
safety ``buffer'' for pedestrians before conflicting traffic receives a
green signal indication. Also, the NCUTCD submitted a comment noting
that there are significant disconnects and inconsistencies between the
timing of pedestrian intervals and vehicular intervals, especially with
the introduction of pedestrian countdown displays, that must be
addressed in order to resolve inconsistency and present a logical and
consistent message to pedestrians. The NCUTCD recommended that there
should always be a minimum interval of at least 3 seconds between the
end of the flashing UPRAISED HAND display (which coincides with the end
of the pedestrian countdown display) and the release of any vehicular
traffic that might be in conflict with the terminating pedestrian
interval, and recommended calling this the pedestrian buffer interval.
The NCUTCD recommended that a minimum rather than a fixed buffer
interval be specified because vehicle actuated sequences and certain
combinations of vehicle and pedestrian displays can result in buffer
interval lengths that are determined by factors other than pedestrian
considerations. The NCUTCD further recommended that the sum of the
pedestrian change interval and the buffer interval must equal or exceed
the calculated pedestrian clearance time. The FHWA
[[Page 66822]]
agrees that this required buffer interval provides a margin of safety
that allows a pedestrian who underestimates the time he or she needs to
cross a roadway, with or without a countdown display, to better avoid a
conflict with vehicles. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a revised
section that incorporates the NCUTCD's recommendations.
As also recommended by NCUTCD, the FHWA also adopts an OPTION to
allow the countdown pedestrian display with flashing UPRAISED HAND to
extend into the yellow change interval, but terminate within the yellow
change interval and be followed by a steady UPRAISED HAND and zero
(followed by blank) countdown display for the remainder of the yellow
change interval. This minimizes disruption of vehicular traffic, and
also makes the pedestrian change interval more closely approximate the
pedestrian clearance time. While the functionality of some current
controller equipment might result in the UPRAISED HAND and countdown
being displayed until the end of the yellow change interval, that would
not be required by the adopted OPTION. The FHWA believes that future
controller software will incorporate a timed pedestrian buffer interval
between the end of the flashing UPRAISED HAND/countdown zero interval
and the release of conflicting vehicular traffic, that the pedestrian
buffer interval timing value will be a part of the pedestrian interval
series of controller data inputs, and that the controller logic will be
designed to implement the intention of the interval without any other
data input. The FHWA also adopts a new Figure 4E-2 Pedestrian Intervals
in this final rule to illustrate the pedestrian buffer interval and its
relationship to other pedestrian and vehicular intervals, to enhance
clarity and understanding. The subsequent figure numbering in Chapter
4E is changed accordingly.
The FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December 31, 2014
(approximately 5 years from the effective date of this final rule) or
when timing adjustments are made to the individual intersection and/or
corridor, whichever occurs first, for the display and timing of the
pedestrian change interval as per the adopted text of Section 4E.06 at
existing locations. The FHWA establishes this target compliance date
because of the demonstrated safety issues associated with pedestrian
crossings at traffic signals, the need for consistent display of signal
indications for pedestrians, and the pedestrian confusion that would
likely occur as a result of a long-term mixing of a variety of
pedestrian signal displays associated with the pedestrian clearance
interval. Traffic signals and signal control equipment have a very long
service life (30 to 50 years is not uncommon) and very long intervals
between signal retiming are typical at many traffic signal locations in
many jurisdictions. The FHWA believes that relying on the systematic
upgrading provisions of Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, based on service life, to achieve compliance with
this critical timing need would take an inordinately long time, to the
detriment of pedestrian safety. State and local highway agencies and
owners of private roads open to public travel can minimize any impact
of this signal timing requirement by adopting a policy for timing and
display of pedestrian change intervals in relation to vehicular
intervals as discussed in Section 4E.06 and then by applying that
policy whenever an existing individual signal location or system of
interconnected locations is being checked or adjusted for any reason,
such as investigation of citizen complaints or routine maintenance.
The FHWA also adopts revisions to the first GUIDANCE statement, as
proposed in the NPA, to reduce the recommended walking speed for
calculating pedestrian clearance times to 3.5 feet per second, 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. In this final rule, the FHWA also adds an
OPTION paragraph to clarify that if crossing time is to be added based
on an extended pushbutton press, it may be added to either the walk
interval or the pedestrian change interval. The FHWA adopts these
provisions to provide enhanced pedestrian safety, based on recent
research \176\ regarding pedestrian walking speeds. In addition, based
on the same research, the FHWA adopts an additional GUIDANCE statement,
as proposed in the NPA, 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 3 feet per second. The FHWA adopts this
guidance to ensure that slower pedestrians can be accommodated at
longer crosswalks if they start crossing at the beginning of the walk
phase. The FHWA received comments in support of these changes in
walking speed from four cities, a local DOT, several associations
representing visually disabled pedestrians and pedestrians in general,
a regional planning commission, a consultant, and many citizens. Some
of these comments also requested that the GUIDANCE on walking speed be
strengthened to a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees with making this a
STANDARD because the walking speed used to calculate pedestrian
clearance time for signals has always been in the form of GUIDANCE,
allowing highway agencies some flexibility in unusual circumstances and
the FHWA believes that it is appropriate for such flexibility to be
continued. Therefore, in this final rule the FHWA adopts the walking
speeds as GUIDANCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also received comments in opposition to some or all of the
provisions for reduced walking speeds from 6 State DOTs, 21 cities, 3
counties, a regional signal system manager, and several citizens. The
comments in opposition centered on impacts on signal timing that might
reduce the vehicular capacity of intersections, where longer pedestrian
intervals would reduce the available green time for vehicles or could
necessitate using a longer cycle length, which in turn could impact
numerous intersections in a coordinated signal system and could require
considerable effort to implement in large systems. The FHWA recognizes
that the recommended use of slower walking speeds in calculating
pedestrian intervals will, in some cases, slightly reduce vehicular
capacity and, for highway agencies with large numbers of signalized
intersections, will require considerable time and effort to retime
signals. However, the FHWA believes that the research has clearly
demonstrated the need to reduce walking speeds to accommodate a larger
percentage of the walking public and that the safety needs of
pedestrians for adequate crossing time must outweigh potential
vehicular capacity impacts. Further, this adopted section provides
agencies with various optional ways to mitigate the impacts, such as by
using the extended button press feature to only provide the longer time
when it is called for by a pedestrian who needs it. The FHWA also
believes that agencies can reduce the efforts needed to implement
retiming of pedestrian
[[Page 66823]]
intervals by doing so in conjunction with regularly scheduled periodic
reviews of all signal timings and operations at their signalized
intersections, a practice that has long been recommended in many
traffic engineering handbooks and publications.
The FHWA also adopts the NPA proposed revision of the existing
GUIDANCE to a STANDARD, in order 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 adopts
this standard to assure that pedestrians who must wait on a median or
island are provided with the means to actuate a pedestrian phase to
complete the second half of their crossing. The FHWA received a comment
from an organization for the blind agreeing with this change and also
recommending that this STANDARD also require the provision of APS,
because persons with low or no vision need this information as well.
The FHWA does not agree with making APS a requirement under these
conditions but, for consistency with other sections in Chapter 4E that
recommend APS for various conditions, the FHWA adds GUIDANCE that APS
should be considered for this condition.
The FHWA also adopts in this final rule the proposed 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,'' \177\
several studies have demonstrated that leading pedestrian intervals can
significantly reduce conflicts for pedestrians. In the NPA, the FHWA
also proposed a GUIDANCE statement that gives a recommended minimum
length of the leading pedestrian interval, reflecting recommendations
from the Older Driver handbook,\178\ and the traffic control devices
that should be used to prevent turning vehicles from crossing the path
of pedestrians during this leading interval. The FHWA received several
comments from the NCUTCD and others about the needs of blind
pedestrians, including concerns about the proposed recommendation that
the leading interval should be timed to allow pedestrians to cross at
least one lane of traffic before turning traffic is released, and
concerns about the proposed recommendations on the methods that should
be used to prohibit turns across the crosswalk during the leading
interval. Based on these comments, the FHWA adopts the proposed
GUIDANCE statement in this final rule but with clarifying revisions to
recommend that: (1) When a leading pedestrian interval is used, the use
of an APS should be considered; and, (2) in the case of a large corner
radius, the leading pedestrian interval should be timed to allow
pedestrians to establish their position ahead of turning traffic before
it is released. The FHWA also removes the text about various specific
methods of prohibiting turns and replaces it with a more general
recommendation that consideration should be given to prohibiting turns
across the crosswalk during a leading pedestrian interval, to give
agencies more flexibility in how they implement such turn prohibitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ ``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/.
\178\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA the FHWA proposed adding an OPTION statement to permit
the green time for the concurrent vehicular movement to be set longer
than the pedestrian change interval in order to allow vehicles to
complete turns after the pedestrian phase. This treatment is used by
many jurisdictions, and is recommended by the Older Driver handbook
\179\ to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning motor
vehicles. Based on comments from the NCUTCD, the FHWA in this final
rule revises the proposed OPTION statement to a SUPPORT statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ This 2001 report can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/01-051.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
404. In Section 4E.07 Countdown Pedestrian Signals, in the NPA the
FHWA proposed changing the option of using pedestrian countdown
displays to a requirement for new installations of pedestrian signals
where the duration of the pedestrian change interval is more than 3
seconds. The FHWA proposed this to provide enhanced pedestrian safety
because a multi-year research project involving crash data for hundreds
of locations in San Francisco \180\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, a local
DOT, a regional council of governments, a city pedestrian advisory
board, a consultant, and a private citizen agreeing with this
requirement, while five State DOTs, three cities, two counties, and a
citizen agreed in concept, but requested that it be a recommendation,
rather than a requirement. The FHWA received comments in opposition to
anything more restrictive than an OPTION from six State DOTs, six
cities, three counties, a consultant, and a citizen. Most of the
comments in opposition centered on concerns about impacts on controller
operation, drivers of vehicles using the pedestrian countdown
information to decide to speed up when approaching the intersection,
and financial impacts. The FHWA disagrees because pedestrian countdowns
have been operating successfully with a wide variety of control
equipment without significant problems, studies have found that drivers
use the pedestrian countdown information to make better choices (i.e.,
to start slowing to a stop, rather than speed up), and the safety
benefits of pedestrian countdowns justify the requirement that they be
used with new pedestrian signal installations. The FHWA does not adopt
in this final rule the proposed sentence in this section that would
have required highway agencies to add pedestrian countdown displays to
all existing pedestrian signal heads within 10 years. As a result,
existing pedestrian signals without the countdown displays can
generally remain in place until the end of their useful service life
under the systematic upgrading provisions of Section 655.603(d)(1) of
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, thus minimizing any impacts to
highway agencies.
The FHWA also received comments from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs and
two local DOTs recommending an increase in the threshold of the
pedestrian change interval above which the countdown displays would be
required, from more than 3 seconds (as proposed in the NPA) to more
than 7 seconds, because countdowns of 7 seconds or less are so short
that they could be missed. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final
rule the proposed increase in the threshold duration. Crosswalks
needing a pedestrian clearance interval of 7 seconds or less are likely
to be across relatively narrow streets where the countdown information
is of less value to
[[Page 66824]]
pedestrians. The NCUTCD also recommended, and the FHWA agrees, to adopt
in this final rule an OPTION statement allowing pedestrian countdown
displays to be used with pedestrian change intervals of 7 seconds or
less, to provide flexibility to highway agencies.
A comment from the NCUTCD recommended the addition of a sentence in
the first STANDARD statement that when countdown pedestrian signals are
used, the countdown shall always be displayed simultaneously with the
flashing UPRAISED HAND signal indication displayed for that crosswalk.
The FHWA agrees that this sentence, which reiterates existing
requirements elsewhere in Chapter 4E, helps clarify the operation of
the countdown and the FHWA adopts this requirement in this final rule.
The FHWA adopts in this final rule a revision the second sentence
of STANDARD paragraph 06 to prohibit the pedestrian countdown display
during the red clearance interval, rather than during the yellow change
interval. This revision is necessary to be consistent with revisions
adopted in Section 4E.06 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases
(Section 4E.10 in the 2003 MUTCD) regarding the display of pedestrian
countdown displays during certain vehicular signal intervals. It also
provides agencies more flexibility to extend the display of the
flashing UPRAISED HAND and the accompanying countdown into the yellow
interval, which would not have been allowed under the NPA language.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a new STANDARD after the first
paragraph of the GUIDANCE to require 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 received comments from
the NCUTCD noting that pedestrian countdown displays are required by
other provisions in Chapter 4E to display the countdown only in
conjunction with the flashing UPRAISED HAND indication and they are to
be dark at all other times. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule does
not adopt that proposed new STANDARD and the removes the existing last
sentence of the first GUIDANCE paragraph.
405. 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 in this final rule revises various sections in Chapter 4E of the
MUTCD regarding communication of pedestrian signal information to
pedestrians with vision, vision and hearing, or cognitive disabilities
to reflect research \181\ conducted under NCHRP 3-62, Accessible
Pedestrian Signals, and a 5-year project on Blind Pedestrians' Access
to Complex Intersections \182\ sponsored by the National Eye Institute
of the National Institutes of Health, that has demonstrated that
certain techniques most accurately communicate information. The changes
also result in making accessible pedestrian detectors easy to locate
and actuate by persons with visual or mobility impairments. Significant
changes to existing material are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ 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.
\182\ Information on this research can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2a/26/bb.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
406. In Section 4E.08 Pedestrian Detectors, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to change the first GUIDANCE statement regarding the location
of a pedestrian pushbutton to a STANDARD and to add criteria that would
be required to be met for the location of pushbuttons, in order to make
pedestrian pushbuttons more accessible to disabled pedestrians and to
pedestrians in general. The FHWA received comments in favor of the
proposal from many citizens, a consultant, a local DOT, and several
associations representing visually disabled pedestrians and pedestrians
in general. However, the FHWA received comments opposed to the proposal
in general or to certain items of the pushbutton location criteria from
a State DOT, 11 cities, and a county. The objections generally cited
the cost impacts of moving pedestrian detectors and the inflexibility
of a STANDARD under conditions that can sometimes make it impractical
to meet the requirements. The FHWA believes that some of the concerns
are valid and adopts the pushbutton location criteria as GUIDANCE in
this final rule. This will still provide for improved accessibility of
pushbuttons for all pedestrians while providing some latitude for
engineering judgment to address unusual conditions.
The FHWA also adopts in this final rule the NPA proposed STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements that contain additional information for
locations where physical constraints make meeting some of the criteria
impractical. The FHWA also adopts the change of a 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 adopts this change to eliminate
ambiguity regarding which pushbutton a pedestrian must activate to
cross a particular street. The FHWA also adopts the addition 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 adopts this change
to ensure that the activation confirmation is available to pedestrians
with impaired vision.
The FHWA received comments from two manufacturers of pedestrian
pushbuttons and two citizens in opposition to the existing provision
that, if a pilot light is used with a pushbutton, once the button is
actuated the pilot light shall remain illuminated until the walk signal
or green indication is displayed. The comments generally cited the
inability of certain brands of pushbutton equipment to meet the
standard without expensive redesign. The FHWA did not propose a change
in the NPA to this existing provision. The reason for keeping the pilot
light illuminated after it is pushed is to mirror what people
experience with elevator call buttons. If the pilot light goes off
after the button is pushed, the pedestrian might feel that the call has
been dropped and might be induced to cross without waiting for the walk
signal. The FHWA declines to revise this provision in this final rule.
Finally, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a STANDARD statement at
the end of the section requiring a sign if an extended pushbutton press
will always provide additional crossing time, to ensure that
pedestrians receive instructions of the use of this feature and are
made aware of the feature's existence. In the NPA, the legend of this
sign was proposed to be ``FOR MORE CROSSING TIME HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2
SECONDS.'' The FHWA received a comment from the NCUTCD agreeing with
the requirement for a sign but recommending that the legend be changed
to ``PUSH BUTTON FOR 2 SECONDS FOR EXTRA CROSSING TIME'' because the
button is not held down, as in with force applied toward the ground, it
is pressed. The FHWA agrees and adopts the provision with the revised
sign legend.
407. In new Section 4E.10 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and
Detectors--Location, the FHWA adopts in this final rule the addition of
a STANDARD, proposed in the NPA for Section 4E.09,
[[Page 66825]]
that requires locator tones, tactile arrows, speech walk messages, and
a speech pushbutton informational message when two accessible
pedestrian pushbuttons are placed less than 10 feet apart or on the
same pole. The proposal was supported by the NCUTCD but opposed by a
State DOT because of concerns about information overload. As noted
above, the provision is supported by research and the FHWA adopts it as
proposed. Additionally, the FHWA adopts the change from an existing
GUIDANCE to a STANDARD, as proposed in the NPA for Section 4E.10, that
if the clearance time is sufficient to only cross to the median of a
divided highway, an accessible pedestrian detector shall, rather than
should, be provided on the median. This change was supported by a
consulting firm and the FHWA received no comments in opposition.
408. In new Section 4E.11 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and
Detectors--Walk Indications, the FHWA adopts several changes based on
NPA proposed revisions in Section 4E.06. The FHWA proposed to require
both audible and vibrotactile walk indications, to add requirements on
how audible and vibrotactile walk indications are to be provided, and
to add language prohibiting audible indications during the pedestrian
change interval because research \183\ 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 received
comments in opposition to the some or all of these changes from the two
State DOTs, six cities, two manufacturers, and a few citizens,
generally citing insufficient research. The FHWA disagrees with the
comments in opposition because the changes are based on sound research,
as discussed above. The FHWA received comments in favor of these
changes from a city, a State DOT, a local DOT, a consultant, several
organizations representing visually disabled pedestrians and
pedestrians in general, and many citizens. Most of these comments also
requested that APS be required for all locations where pedestrian
signals are provided. The FHWA did not propose such a requirement in
the NPA and declines to adopt it in this final rule. The U.S. Access
Board is considering initiating proposed rulemaking to consider
adopting Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) that
could possibly mandate APS at all new or renovated pedestrian signal
locations. Once the United States Department of Justice has adopted any
future Access Board public right of way guidelines as a standard, the
FHWA will reconsider the matter for future revisions of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ 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 received comments from the NCUTCD and an organization for
the blind recommending changes to some of the proposed requirements
regarding how audible and vibrotactile walk indications are to be
provided and operated, and to make the text clearer and consistent with
other provisions. The FHWA agrees with these comments, which also
address comments from others about inconsistencies in the text, and
adopts in this final rule revisions to the second STANDARD statement of
former Section 4E.06.
The FHWA also adopts the proposed addition to the STANDARD that an
accessible walk signal shall have the same duration as the pedestrian
walk signal unless the pedestrian signal rests in the walk interval and
adopts subsequent GUIDANCE regarding the recommended duration and
operation of the accessible walk signal if the pedestrian signal rests
in the walk interval. The FHWA adopts this change to clarify that the
duration of the accessible walk signal is dependent on whether the
signal controller is set to rest in walk or steady don't walk in the
absence of conflicting demands.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to change to a STANDARD the 4th
GUIDANCE statements in former Section 4E.06 and former Section 4E.09
regarding the loudness of audible pedestrian walk signals and to base
the loudness of an audible pedestrian walk signal on the ambient sound
level and provide for louder volume adjustment in response to an
extended pushbutton press. The FHWA proposed adopting 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 received comments from
two manufacturers of APS equipment and from a local DOT opposing making
the maximum loudness a STANDARD and citing technical problems with
measurement of sound levels that make it impractical to comply
precisely. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule revises the sentences
about maximum loudness value for walk indications and pushbutton
locator tones to GUIDANCE.
The FHWA also adopts added GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements
regarding the duration, tone, and speech messages of audible walk
indications, as proposed in the NPA in Sections 4E.06 and 4E.09, in
order to clarify their use and application. Further, the FHWA adopts
the modifications (proposed in Section 4E.06) to the existing 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 adopts the addition of a GUIDANCE statement
(proposed in Section 4E.06) that recommends that the speech messages
not state or imply a command. The FHWA is adopting these changes to
clarify when and under what circumstances speech walk messages are to
be used.
409. In new Section 4E.12 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and
Detectors--Tactile Arrows and Locator Tones the FHWA adopts in this
final rule several changes based on the NPA proposed revisions to
Section 4E.09. The FHWA adopts the proposed change to the first
paragraph of the existing first GUIDANCE statement regarding tactile
arrows to a STANDARD, relocates it within the section, and modifies the
remainder of the GUIDANCE statement to reduce redundancy.
The FHWA proposed modifying the second STANDARD in former Section
4E.09, to require pushbutton locator tones at accessible pedestrian
signals, and also proposed changing the following GUIDANCE statement to
a STANDARD regarding locator tones. Based on comments from APS
manufacturers and others, as discussed above, the FHWA adopts the
proposed changes. The FHWA also received a comment from a city that the
STANDARD sentence requiring locator tones to be deactivated when the
signal is operating in a flashing mode is too restrictive in regard to
traffic control signals or pedestrian hybrid beacons that are activated
from a flashing or dark mode to a stop-and-go mode by pedestrian
actuations. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule a sentence
exempting these situations from the STANDARD requirement.
410. In new Section 4E.13 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and
Detectors--Extended Pushbutton Press Features the FHWA adopts in this
final rule the NPA proposed changes to Section 4E.09. The FHWA adopts
the addition of a paragraph to the existing 3rd OPTION statement
allowing the use of an extended pushbutton press to activate
[[Page 66826]]
additional accessible features at a pedestrian crosswalk and the
addition of a new STANDARD statement to follow this new paragraph that
sets requirements for the amount of time a pushbutton shall be pressed
to activate the extra features.
The FHWA does not adopt in this final rule the last SUPPORT,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements from Section 4E.06 as proposed in the
NPA, and replaces these with SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD
text regarding the use of audible beaconing and other additional
features that may be provided as a result of an extended pushbutton
press. The FHWA adopts this information, because while audible
beaconing features can be valuable, 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. The FHWA received
comments from two local DOTs in opposition to the use of an extended
pushbutton press to call for added crossing time because of concerns
about misuse by pedestrians and impacts on signal controllers and
pedestrian countdown operation. The FHWA declines to remove the ability
of highway agencies to use this option, but does recognize that adding
time to the pedestrian change interval via an extended pushbutton press
could result in some issues with countdown displays until signal
controller manufacturers incorporate countdown timing into their
equipment and software.
The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed addition of 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 adopts this change to promote uniformity in the
content of speech messages. The FHWA received no significant comments
on these proposals.
411. The FHWA received comments regarding the NPA proposed revision
of Figure 4E-3 (Figure 4E-2 in the 2003 MUTCD) to show a general layout
of recommended pushbutton locations from the NCUTCD and a consultant,
suggesting that the title of the figure be revised to ``Pushbutton
Location Area'' and that other editorial changes to the figure be made
for consistency with the MUTCD text. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this
final rule the figure with the suggested revisions, and with other
minor editorial changes to address other comments on this figure.
412. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the proposed new ``Figure
4E-4 Typical Pushbutton Locations'' (Figure 4E-3 in the NPA) that shows
eight examples of pushbutton locations for various sidewalk, ramp, and
corner configurations, to help clarify appropriate locations under
different geometric conditions. Based on comments received, the FHWA
makes editorial revisions to this figure to improve clarity and
accuracy.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapters 4F Through 4L
413. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the NPA proposed addition
of a new Chapter to Part 4, numbered and titled Chapter 4F Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacons, with three sections that describe the application,
design, and operation of pedestrian hybrid beacons, and with three new
figures. Figures 4F-1 and 4F-2 contain guidelines for the justification
of installation of pedestrian hybrid beacons on low-speed and high-
speed roadways, respectively. Figure 4F-3 shows the sequence of
intervals for a pedestrian hybrid beacon. The remaining Chapters in
Part 4 are re-lettered accordingly. The FHWA adopts these sections to
give agencies additional flexibility by providing an alternative method
for control of pedestrian crosswalks that has been found by
research\184\ to be highly effective. This type of device offers
significant benefits for providing enhanced safety of pedestrian
crossings where normal traffic control signals would not be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA received comments in favor of adding the pedestrian hybrid
beacon from a State DOT, eight cities, the NCUTCD, an organization for
the blind, several organizations representing pedestrians, and many
citizens. The FHWA also received comments in opposition to the addition
of pedestrian hybrid beacons from five State DOTs, four cities, a
county, a toll road authority, and some others. However, most of the
objections related to the name for the device that was proposed in the
NPA (pedestrian hybrid signal) and the concern that, because the device
is dark between actuations, drivers would treat it as a 4-way stop in
States where laws require such driver behavior at dark traffic signals.
As discussed earlier in Section 1A.13 Definitions, based on these and
other comments, the FHWA adopts pedestrian hybrid beacon as the revised
name for the device. Many beacons are dark between activations and
drivers are not required by laws to stop at dark beacons. Further, the
unique arrangement of the hybrid beacon's indications make it appear
very different from a normal traffic control signal, and the
experiences of Tucson, AZ and the many other highway agencies that have
successfully experimented with pedestrian hybrid beacons have not
resulted in any adverse safety issues being brought to the FHWA's
attention.
414. In Section 4F.01 Application of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons,
based on a comment from a city, in this final rule the FHWA does not
adopt the first paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement that was proposed
in the NPA and instead adds to the OPTION statement that a pedestrian
hybrid beacon may, rather than should, be considered for a location
that meets the pedestrian crossing or school crossing warrant for a
traffic control signal but a decision is made to not install a traffic
control signal.
415. In Section 4F.02 Design of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, in this
final rule the FHWA adopts in the GUIDANCE statement a requirement that
pedestrian hybrid beacons should be installed at least 100 feet from
side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs,
and does not adopt the final STANDARD paragraph of the section that was
proposed in the NPA. The FHWA received several comments noting that
Chapters 4C and 4D contain GUIDANCE that traffic signals justified by a
pedestrian crossing or school crossing should be installed at least 100
feet from intersections with minor side streets or driveways controlled
by STOP or YIELD signs and expressing concerns that pedestrian hybrid
beacons should be subject to the same guidance. Because a traffic
control signal and a pedestrian hybrid beacon both stop traffic on the
major street to enable pedestrians to cross, if installed at an
intersection, both of these types of devices generate the same issues
involving the STOP or YIELD controlled side street traffic that caused
the FHWA to prohibit ``half-signals'' several decades ago and that
resulted in the recommendations adopted in Chapter 4C and 4D. Side
street drivers controlled by only a STOP or YIELD sign often encounter
delays because of high major street traffic volumes and they typically
use the pedestrian-activated stoppage of major street traffic as their
opportunity to turn onto or cross the major street. When doing so,
these drivers often do
[[Page 66827]]
not give adequate attention to pedestrians in their path. Because the
purpose of a pedestrian hybrid beacon is to enhance the safety of
pedestrian crossings, and because of similar provisions in Chapters 4C
and 4D, the FHWA believes it is also inappropriate for pedestrian
hybrid beacons to be used at or within 100 feet of intersections with
STOP or YIELD sign controlled side streets, and the FHWA adopts the new
GUIDANCE.
416. In Section 4F.03 Operation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, the
FHWA received several comments about flashing red indications proposed
to be displayed by the hybrid beacon during the flashing UPRAISED HAND
pedestrian change interval. Some comments expressed concern about
drivers being allowed to proceed while a pedestrian could still be in
the street. Experimentations with the hybrid beacon in Tucson and many
other jurisdictions have not revealed any significant safety issues
with the flashing red operation. Further, allowing drivers to proceed,
after a full stop, if the pedestrian traffic has already cleared their
half of the roadway is the major advantage of this device over a
midblock pedestrian traffic control signal. The FHWA in this final rule
declines to remove the proposed text on the flashing red operation for
hybrid beacons.
The FHWA also received comments from the NCUTCD, five State DOTs,
two cities, a county, and an NCUTCD member requesting that the
alternating (``wig-wag'') pattern of the two flashing red indications
that was proposed to be specified for the pedestrian hybrid beacon be
changed to a simultaneous flashing of the two reds, because of concerns
that the alternating flashing reds might be mistaken by drivers as the
flashing-light signals used at highway-rail grade crossings, or that
such use could diminish the impact of the flashing-light signals at
grade crossings. However, the FHWA also received comments from a
consultant and a State DOT in support of the alternating flashing reds
for hybrid beacons, noting that there has been no research or
experimentation with pedestrian hybrid beacons using simultaneous
flashing reds, and therefore it is unknown whether the device would be
as effective as it has been shown to be in the experimentations with
the alternating flashing reds. The comments also noted that there has
been no research indicating that drivers associate the alternating
flashing red pattern as being unique to grade crossings. The consultant
also pointed out that with simultaneous flashing reds, the display goes
from double steady red to dark for a split second, before the flashing
starts. With a wig-wag display, one of the red signals is always lit.
Since motorists would see a dark signal for a moment, it might lead
them to think that the signal has returned to its ``rest'' phase of
being dark and this could result in less safety. Additionally, the FHWA
believes that, because of context and a completely different sequence
of signal displays, there is an extremely low possibility of the
alternate flashing reds of the pedestrian hybrid beacon being mistaken
as flashing-light signals of a highway-rail grade crossing or that it
will diminish the impact or respect for those flashing-light signals.
At a grade crossing, the flashing-light signals come on immediately
from a dark condition when a train is detected as approaching the
crossing. At a pedestrian hybrid beacon, the indications go from dark
to flashing yellow for several seconds, followed by steady yellow for
several seconds, and then to steady red for a typical duration of seven
seconds, before the alternating flashing red display begins. In view of
these factors, the FHWA agrees that alternating flashing red is
appropriate for pedestrian hybrid beacons and adopts that provision in
this final rule rather than changing it to simultaneous flashing.
417. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a change in the title of
Chapter 4G proposed in the NPA to ``Traffic Control Signals and Hybrid
Beacons for Emergency Vehicle Access'' in order to reflect the addition
of hybrid beacons to this chapter. Additionally, in Section 4G.01
Application of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals and Hybrid
Beacons, the FHWA adopts the proposed addition of a paragraph to the
OPTION statement to allow an emergency-vehicle hybrid beacon to be
installed in place of an emergency-vehicle traffic control signal under
the conditions described in Section 4G.04. The FHWA received no
substantive comments other than those discussed below under Section
4G.04.
418. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the proposed new Section
4G.04 Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Beacons containing provisions for this
type of beacon for optional use in conjunction with signs to warn and
control traffic at an unsignalized location where emergency vehicles
enter or cross the street or highway and adopts new Figure 4G-1
illustrating the Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Beacon.
The FHWA received some comments opposed to certain aspects of this
device, for similar reasons as the comments opposed to the Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (Chapter 4F). As discussed above regarding Chapter 4F and
Sections 4F.01 through 4F.03, the change in name of the device to use
the phrase ``hybrid beacon'' rather than ``hybrid signal'' addresses
concerns about State laws requiring drivers to treat a dark signal as a
4-way stop. Also, similar to Section 4F.03, in the Section 4G.04
adopted in this final rule the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE a statement
that an emergency-vehicle hybrid beacon should not be installed at
locations that are less than 100 feet from a side street or driveway
that is controlled by STOP or YIELD signs. Some of the comments on
Section 4G.04 concerned the issue of alternating versus simultaneous
flashing red indications. For a discussion of this issue, see above
under Section 4F.03. The FHWA also received a comment from a State DOT
suggesting that an OPTION be added to Section 4G.04 allowing the use of
a steady red clearance interval after the steady yellow interval and
before the alternating flashing red interval. The FHWA agrees and
adopts the additional OPTION in this final rule.
419. In Section 4I.02 Design of Freeway Entrance Ramp Control
Signals (Section 4H.02 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA
to require the use of at least two signal faces per separately-
controlled lane on a multiple lane ramp where green signal indications
are not always displayed simultaneously to all of the lanes. The FHWA
received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a local DOT in
opposition to this proposed requirement. The objections centered on
physical challenges involving signal face mountings, especially when
there are three or more separately-controlled lanes. A State DOT
commented that, unlike a traffic signal at an intersection, there is
little if any conflict or danger if a motorist inadvertently violates a
red signal because of a burned-out lamp and the risk of burned-out lamp
is low because of the common use of LED indications and the fact that
ramp control signals typically operate only 3 hours a day. The
commenter further stated that on metered ramps of two lanes or more
they use overhead signal faces mounted directly in line with the lane
that they control and thus the signals are highly visible to motorists.
The NCUTCD commented that a single signal face per separately-
controlled lane provides sufficient indications and permits
installation location flexibility in these cases. The FHWA agrees with
these comments and adopts in this final
[[Page 66828]]
rule Section 4I.02 with a revised STANDARD statement to require one
signal face located over the approximate center of each separately-
controlled lane when there are two or more separately-controlled lanes
on the ramp. The FHWA also adopts a GUIDANCE statement that additional
side-mounted signal faces should be considered for ramps with two or
more separately-controlled lanes.
420. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new Section 4I.03
(Section 4H.03 proposed in the NPA) Operation of Freeway Entrance Ramp
Control Signals containing GUIDANCE recommending the operational
strategies for ramp control signals. Based on comments on this section
as well as on comparable text in Section 2C.37 the FHWA revises the
GUIDANCE adopted in this final rule regarding the use of RAMP METERED
WHEN FLASHING (W3-7) signs to be consistent with Section 2C.37.
421. The FHWA adopts in this final rule revisions to Section 4J.02
Design and Location of Movable Bridge Signals and Gates (Section 4I.02
in the 2003 MUTCD) and 4J.03 Operation of Movable Bridge Signals and
Gates (Section 4I.03 in the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA. The
FHWA received no significant comments on these sections.
422. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new chapter to Part 4
titled Chapter 4K Highway Traffic Signals at Toll Plazas, containing
three sections. In the NPA, only Section 4K.01 was proposed to be
included in Chapter 4K, dealing with traffic signals used at toll
plazas to indicate a requirement to stop and pay a toll or to go after
paying the toll, or to indicate a low account balance in electronic
toll collection lanes. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a
State DOT, and many toll road operators opposing the details regarding
traffic signals at toll plazas. The NCUTCD recommended that the NPA
text for Section 4K.01 Traffic Signals at Toll Plazas be deleted and be
replaced with a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of traffic
control signals and devices that resemble traffic control devices with
red or green circular indications at toll plazas. The NCUTCD stated
that, although many toll facility operators currently use these types
of indications at toll plazas, there are a variety of other devices,
such as changeable message signs or other displays that do not resemble
traffic signals that are also being successfully used by toll agencies
for these purposes. The FHWA agrees that since other methods of
communicating the desired messages are available and traffic control
signals should be reserved for other more critical uses, the use of
devices resembling traffic signals is inappropriate at toll plazas. The
FHWA adopts Section 4K.01 in this final rule with a STANDARD statement
prohibiting the use of traffic control signals and devices that
resemble traffic control devices with red or green circular indications
at toll plazas to indicate the open or closed status of a toll lane,
and a GUIDANCE statement recommending that traffic control signals and
devices that resemble traffic control devices with red or green
circular indications should not be used for new or reconstructed
installations at toll plazas to indicate the success or failure of
electronic toll payments or to alternately direct drivers making cash
toll payments to stop and then proceed.
423. The FHWA also adopts in Chapter 4K an additional section
titled Section 4K.02 Lane-Use Control Signals at Toll Plazas,
containing text on lane-use control signals at toll plazas that was
proposed in the NPA as a part of Sections 4M.01 and 4M.03, but
incorporating revisions based on comments on the material proposed in
the NPA. In regard to the requirement to use lane-use control signals
to indicate the open or closed status of toll plaza lanes, the FHWA
received comments from two toll authorities in opposition to the
requirement because of their longstanding use of circular traffic
control signal indications for this purpose. The FHWA also received
comments from the NCUTCD and three toll authorities agreeing with the
requirement. The FHWA adopts the requirement because lane-use control
signals have long been required by the MUTCD for all cases of
indicating open-closed status of any lane and this standard display is
appropriately extended to lanes at toll plazas.
The FHWA also received comments from two toll authorities stating
that the use of lane-control signals to indicate the open or closed
status of an Open Road Tolling lane is not appropriate unless it is in
conjunction with other devices (such as signs, cones, other
channelizing devices, and arrow boards) that are used to close a high-
speed lane. The FHWA agrees and also notes that some freeways have or
will have systems of successive lane-control signals along the freeway
corridor and that ORT lanes might be established along such corridors.
The FHWA in this final rule modifies the proposed OPTION statement to
allow the use of lane-control signals to indicate the open or closed
status of an Open Road Tolling lane in conjunction with other devices
(such as signs, cones, other channelizing devices, and arrow boards)
that are used to close a high-speed lane.
424. The FHWA also adopts in Chapter 4K an additional section
titled Section 4K.03 Warning Beacons at Toll Plazas, containing text on
warning beacons at toll plazas that was proposed in the NPA as Section
4L.03, but incorporating revisions based on comments on the material
proposed. The FHWA received comments from two toll road operators
requesting that warning beacons mounted on toll plaza islands or impact
attenuators associated with such islands be allowed to operate in a
steady rather than flashing yellow mode, to act as an enhanced
conspicuity marker. The FHWA disagrees and declines to make the
requested change in this final rule because all warning beacons are
circular and operate only in a flashing mode, and because a steady
circular yellow indication has a defined meaning for traffic signals
that is not appropriate in the context of a toll booth island or
attenuator.
425. In Section 4L.02 Intersection Control Beacon, the FHWA adopts
the proposed addition to the STANDARD statement that two horizontally
aligned red signal indications in an Intersection Control Beacon shall
be flashed simultaneously, and two vertically aligned red signal
indications shall be flashed alternately, to be consistent with the
existing requirement for stop beacons in Section 4L.05.
426. The FHWA adopts in this final rule revisions to Section 4L.03
Warning Beacon as proposed in the NPA, except that the FHWA relocates
toll plaza related text to Section 4K.03 (as discussed above) and
further revises item D in the SUPPORT statement of Section 4L.03 to
include WRONG WAY as an additional regulatory sign for which a warning
beacon is not an appropriate supplement, for consistency with Section
4L.05.
427. The FHWA adopts Section 4L.05 Stop Beacon as proposed in the
NPA, with minor editorial changes for clarity.
428. The FHWA adopts revisions to Section 4M.01 Application of
Lane-Use Control Signals and Section 4M.03 Design of Lane-Use Control
Signals as proposed in the NPA, except that the FHWA relocates toll
plaza related text to Section 4K.02 (as discussed above) and makes
minor editorial changes for clarity.
429. In Section 4N.01 Application of In-Roadway Lights, the FHWA
adopts in this final rule the additions to the STANDARD statement
proposed in the NPA that In-Roadway Lights shall only be used for
applications described in this chapter and that In-Roadway Lights shall
be flashed and not steadily
[[Page 66829]]
illuminated. The FHWA includes 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. The FHWA received
comments from a device manufacturer and a transit agency requesting
that in-roadway lights be allowed for use at highway-rail grade
crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings. The FHWA
disagrees and declines to adopt such an optional use, because there has
been insufficient reported research showing the effectiveness of such
uses at grade crossings.
430. The FHWA adopts revisions to Section 4N.02 In-Roadway Warning
Lights at Crosswalks as proposed in the NPA, except that the FHWA also
adopts an additional OPTION statement at the beginning of the section
to indicate that in-roadway lights may be installed at certain marked
crosswalks, based on an engineering study or engineering judgment, to
provide additional warning to road users. The FHWA received a comment
from a city recommending this text because there is no existing
statement indicating that the use of in-roadway lights is optional. The
FHWA agrees and also adopts the OPTION text.
Discussion of Amendments to Part 5--Traffic Control Devices for Low-
Volume Roads
431. In Section 5A.01 Function, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
prohibit classifying a residential street in a neighborhood as a low-
volume road for the purposes of Part 5 of the MUTCD. Two local DOTs
agreed with the proposal. A State DOT and local DOT opposed the
revision because many residential streets have lower ADT and operating
speeds than some rural roads. The FHWA disagrees with the comment,
because the change to paragraph 01 item B provides consistency with
paragraph 01 item A, which states that low-volume roads shall be
facilities lying outside the built-up areas of cities, towns, and
communities. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the language as
proposed in the NPA.
432. The FHWA received several comments regarding Table 5A-1 Sign
and Plaque Sizes on Low-Volume Roads as proposed in the NPA. The NCUTCD
recommended making the typical sign sizes the same size as for
Conventional Roads, making the minimum sign sizes the next smaller size
than Conventional Roads, and making the oversized sign sizes the next
larger size than Conventional Roads. The Conventional Road sign sizes
are based on Tables 2B-1, 2C-2, 6F-1, and 8B-1. The minimum and
oversized sizes are based on the SHSM book. The FHWA agrees with the
NCUTCD recommendations and adopts in this final rule revisions to Table
5A-1.
433. In Section 5B.04 Traffic Movement and Prohibition Signs, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to change an existing OPTION, which discusses
the usefulness of these signs, to SUPPORT. A State DOT opposed the
change and the FHWA agrees that this text is more appropriately stated
as an OPTION. Accordingly, the FHWA does not adopt the proposed change
in this final rule and retains paragraph 04 as an OPTION, as in the
2003 MUTCD.
434. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts in this final rule new
Section 5C.14 Object Markers and Barricades to replace 2003 MUTCD
Section 5E.05 Object Markers. The FHWA moves the information in order
to locate the subject material with other sections in Part 5 that deal
with signs. This change coincides with the adopted relocation of object
markers and barricades from Part 3 to Part 2 of the MUTCD.
435. Although not proposed in the NPA, in Section 5E.02 Center Line
Markings, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a new OPTION in paragraph
03 that permits center line markings to be placed on highways with or
without edge line markings, based on a comment from a State DOT for
consistency with Part 3. In addition, the FHWA adopts a modified
GUIDANCE in paragraph 02 to clarify the application of center line
markings for low-volume roads.
436. In Section 5F.02, the FHWA changes the title to ``Grade
Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and Number of Tracks Plaque,'' in the final
rule. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA revises the STANDARD in
paragraph 04 to clarify that the strip of retroreflective material on
each sign support at passive highway-rail grade crossings is measured
from the Crossbuck sign or the Number of Tracks plaque to within 2 feet
of the ground. The NCUTCD recommended additional text consisting of a
SUPPORT statement and a minor revision to the existing STANDARD
statement to make Part 5 consistent with revisions being made to Part
8. The FHWA agrees and adopts revisions to Section 5F.02 in this final
rule to provide consistency with Part 8 as adopted herein.
437. In Section 5F.03 Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to require 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. Two
State DOTs and a local DOT opposed the revision because the
supplemental plaques are not necessary on low volume roads with
familiar motorists. The FHWA agrees and does not adopt in this final
rule the proposed requirement for the use of supplemental plaques,
which is consistent with similar revisions being adopted in Part 8.
438. In Section 5F.04 STOP and YIELD Signs, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA several changes regarding the use and application of STOP signs
or YIELD signs at highway-rail grade crossings. A State DOT and a
consultant opposed the proposal to require the placement of STOP or
YIELD signs at all highway-rail grade crossings that are not equipped
with automatic traffic control devices. The FHWA disagrees and adopts
the STANDARD in paragraph 01 to be consistent with requirements adopted
in Part 8. The NCUTCD and a State DOT opposed the proposed removal of
the STANDARD requiring the use of STOP AHEAD and YIELD AHEAD signs in
certain situations. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule restores
paragraph 02 to be consistent with the requirements in Chapter 2C.
439. In Section 5G.02 Applications, as proposed in the NPA, the
FHWA revises paragraph 02 from an OPTION to SUPPORT, which states that
maintenance activities might not require extensive TTC if the traffic
volumes and speeds are low. Based on recommendations from the NCUTCD
and a State DOT, the FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement referring to
Table 6H-3, which provides the recommended distances between signs
shown in the Typical Applications drawings in Part 6. The FHWA also
adds an OPTION statement to specifically allow a reduced advance
placement distance for traffic control devices on low-volume roadways
that have speeds of less than or equal to 30 miles per hour. The FHWA
adopts these revisions for consistency with provisions in Part 6.
440. The FHWA adopts a new chapter, numbered and titled Chapter 5H
Traffic Control for School Areas, in the final rule. The NCUTCD and a
State DOT recommended adding a new chapter to cover traffic control for
low volume roads adjacent to schools, since schools do exist on low-
volume rural roads and there is a need to refer readers of Part 5 to
the applicable provisions of Part 7. The FHWA agrees and adds the new
chapter, which consists of a SUPPORT paragraph that refers users to
[[Page 66830]]
Part 7 for more information and a STANDARD paragraph that merely
requires compliance with applicable provisions in Part 7.
Discussion of Amendments to Part 6--Temporary Traffic Control--General
441. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA revises the Code of Federal
Regulations to delete title 23 CFR part 634 regarding Worker
Visibility, in order to incorporate the provisions into the MUTCD,
which is applicable to all public roads. As such, title 23 CFR part 634
is no longer needed because its requirements for high visibility
garments are incorporated into the MUTCD in Sections 6D.03 and 6E.02
and are therefore applicable to all roads open to public travel in
accordance with title 23 CFR part 655, not just applicable to Federal-
aid highways.
442. The FHWA in this final rule updates the figures throughout
Part 6 to reflect new or revised signs adopted in Part 2 that are
applicable to Temporary Traffic Control Zones.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapters 6A Through 6E
443. In Section 6B.01 Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic
Control, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to modify the GUIDANCE in
paragraph 07 item 2.C to recommend that provisions should be made for
the continuous operation of work on roadways. The NCUTCD and four State
DOTs opposed the use of the word ``continuous.'' The FHWA agrees and in
this final rule revises item 2.C to recommend that provisions should be
made to minimize the need for lane closures.
A State DOT suggested rewording the existing GUIDANCE in item 2.D
that recommended that road users should use alternative routes that do
not include TTC zones. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule a
revised item 2.D that also considers roadway capacity and type of
roadway.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to modify item 2.F in the GUIDANCE to
recommend that roadway occupancy for TTC should be scheduled during
off-peak hours ``on high-volume streets and highways'' to provide
agencies with more flexibility in time periods for work on local
residential streets and low-volume streets. A State DOT agreed with the
proposal, but recommended additional language that included the removal
of the term ``roadway occupancy.'' The FHWA agrees in part with the
recommended modifications and adopts in this final rule a revised item
2.F that uses the term ``lane closures'' instead of ``roadway
occupancy,'' recommends that lane closures on high-volume streets and
highways should be scheduled during off-peak hours ``if work operations
permit,'' and recommends that night work should be considered ``if the
work can be accomplished with a series of short-term operations.''
444. In Section 6C.04 Advance Warning Area, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to add a new GUIDANCE regarding sign spacing that reinforced
that the distances contained in Table 6C-1 are for guidance purposes
and should be considered minimums. A local DOT agreed with the
proposal. The NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and a transportation research
institute recommended that the distances in Table 6C-1 be referred to
as ``approximate'' and that shorter distances be allowed based on field
conditions. The FHWA agrees with the comments and adopts in this final
rule a modified paragraph 06 to recommend that the distances in Table
6C-1 should be adjusted for field conditions by increasing or
decreasing the recommended distances.
445. In Section 6C.05 Transition Area, the FHWA proposed in the NPA
an OPTION that stated that vehicle-mounted traffic control devices may
be used instead of channelizing devices to establish a transition area.
The NCUTCD opposed the proposal, while a State DOT and two local DOTs
agreed with the proposal. A State DOT and a transportation research
institute recommended that the statement be upgraded to GUIDANCE. The
FHWA disagrees with changing this provision to GUIDANCE at this time
but might consider proposing it for a future rulemaking. The FHWA in
this final rule adopts paragraph 03 as an OPTION to allow the use of
vehicle-mounted traffic control devices to establish a transition area
because portable devices can be more practical for mobile operations.
446. In Section 6C.07 Termination Area, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to revise the STANDARD to clarify the use of a termination area. A
State DOT and a transportation research institute opposed the existing
STANDARD requiring that termination areas be used, because they are not
required in all instances. The FHWA agrees with the comment and in this
final rule changes the STANDARD to SUPPORT, because the termination
area is not specific and is not used in all cases.
447. In Section 6C.08 Tapers, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add
GUIDANCE to recommend that the length of a short taper used with
flagger operations should be a minimum of 50 feet. While a local DOT
agreed with the revision, a State DOT opposed the change and suggested
no set minimum taper length, in order to allow more flexibility on low-
volume and low-speed local roads. The FHWA believes that a taper
shorter than 50 feet long does not provide any guidance information to
approaching road users, and therefore in this final rule adopts the
proposed GUIDANCE in paragraph 15. The FHWA also adopts a recommended
minimum taper length of 50 feet for one-lane, two-way traffic tapers in
Table 6C-3 and illustrates the recommended minimum taper length in
several figures in Part 6.
In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add GUIDANCE that a
downstream taper with a length of approximately 100 feet should be used
to guide traffic back into their original lane. Two State DOTs opposed
the proposal because they believe a downstream taper is not always
necessary. The FHWA notes that the statement only applies to flagger
operations and this taper is very important to provide positive
guidance to vehicles after they pass the lane closure. Based on
comments from ATSSA, a State DOT, and a transportation research
institute, the FHWA adopts a revised GUIDANCE in this final rule that
does not include the word ``approximately'' as indicated above and
recommends that a length of 100 feet should be used for a downstream
taper.
448. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to add an OPTION to explicitly allow for the
movement of traffic to be self-regulating through a one-lane, two-way
constriction, provided that the work space is short and is 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 proposed this change to provide
practitioners with more flexibility on low-volume, low-speed roads.
While two local DOTs opposed the change, four State DOTs, a local DOT,
and a transportation research institute agreed with the proposal. The
FHWA adopts this proposal in this final rule, but acknowledges that,
since this is an OPTION, an agency may prohibit the use of this OPTION
within its jurisdiction. Based on comments from a State DOT and a
transportation research institute, the FHWA also deletes a SUPPORT
statement that was in the 2003 MUTCD because it is no longer necessary
with the new OPTION adopted in paragraph 05.
[[Page 66831]]
449. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to relocate the STANDARD in
Section 6F.54 of the 2003 MUTCD 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. In
response to a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adopts in this final
rule a revised paragraph 04 to require that a flagger shall be
stationed ``to control'' rather than ``to stop'' vehicular traffic
until the pilot vehicle is available. The FHWA also retains Section
6F.58 PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign in this final rule with the first
sentence of the existing STANDARD and a reference to Section 6C.13, as
discussed in item 475 below.
450. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA in this final rule relocates
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.
Based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA relocates an existing
GUIDANCE from Section 6D.02 to Section 6D.01 that list the pedestrian
considerations that should be addressed when temporary pedestrian
pathways in TTC zones are designed or modified, in order to consolidate
pedestrian consideration information into one section. In this final
rule, paragraph 11 in Section 6D.01 contains the relocated GUIDANCE.
451. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the FHWA proposed
in the NPA to relocate a statement from Section 6G.11 of the 2003 MUTCD
that accessibility and detectability shall be maintained along an
alternate pedestrian route if a TTC zone affects an accessible and
detectable pedestrian facility. This is an existing provision of the
ADAAG.\185\ The FHWA in this final rule adopts the proposed relocation.
Based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA also retains the first
sentence of paragraph 04, which states that adequate pedestrian access
and walkways shall be provided if the TTC zone affects the movement of
pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
452. In Section 6D.03 Worker Safety Considerations, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA a new STANDARD to incorporate into the MUTCD the
provisions of title 23 CFR part 634 regarding the use of high-
visibility safety apparel by workers within the public right-of-way.
The NCUTCD recommended revising paragraph 04 to clarify that the
required use of high-visibility apparel also applied to emergency
responders and that exposure of workers to ``work vehicles'' within the
TTC zone also requires the use of high-visibility safety apparel. In
this final rule, the FHWA adopts a revised STANDARD that incorporates
into the MUTCD the provisions of title 23 CFR part 634 that were
published as a Final Rule in the Federal Register on June 15, 2009
\186\ and the recommended revisions by the NCUTCD. The FHWA also adopts
a new OPTION as proposed in the NPA in paragraph 05 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. In the NPA, the FHWA referenced
the provisions of title 23 CFR part 634 that were published in the
Federal Register on November 24, 2006.\187\ The NCUTCD, five State
DOTs, two local DOTs, two fire departments, and a transportation
research institute agreed with the proposal, but recommended
modifications. Numerous firefighting associations and organizations,
police associations, and citizens opposed the proposed change,
primarily because of a concern that the safety apparel would have to be
worn over turn-out gear during emergency operations that involve
exposure to flame, fire, or other hazards. The 2006 Federal Register
notice was amended with a Final Rule on June 15, 2009, to exempt
firefighters from the requirement to use high-visibility safety apparel
when they are exposed to hazardous conditions where the use of the
apparel might increase the risk of injury to firefighter personnel. In
this final rule, the FHWA revises the STANDARD in paragraph 07 and adds
an OPTION in paragraph 08 that describes the exemption for firefighters
from the requirement to use high-visibility safety apparel in certain
conditions. The FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December
31, 2011 (approximately two years from the effective date of this final
rule) for worker apparel on non-Federal-aid highways, which is
consistent with the two-year compliance period that was provided for
Federal-aid highways in title 23 CFR part 634. Required compliance of
apparel for workers, including law enforcement officers, on Federal-aid
highways has been in effect since November 24, 2008, pursuant to title
23 CFR part 634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated June
15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113, Page 28160-28161) can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2009_register&docid=fr15jn09-7.pdf.
\187\ The Federal Register 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
453. In Section 6E.02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA several changes regarding the use of high-
visibility safety apparel by flaggers during daytime and nighttime
activity, as well as by law enforcement personnel within a TTC zone, to
reflect the provisions of title 23 CFR part 634 (see items 441 and 452
above). The NCUTCD and a local DOT recommended revising the reference
to the ANSI 107 publication throughout the section to remove ``or
equivalent revisions.'' The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule
the reference to the ANSI 107-2004 publication, which is the latest
version of the of the ANSI 107 standard. Based on a comment from a
State DOT, the FHWA revises paragraph 01 to include a combination of
orange-red and fluorescent yellow-green as an approved apparel
background material color combination. The FHWA establishes a target
compliance date of December 31, 2011 (approximately two years from the
effective date of this final rule) for flagger apparel on non-Federal-
aid highways. Required compliance of apparel for workers, including law
enforcement officers, on Federal-aid highways has been in effect since
November 24, 2008, pursuant to title 23 CFR part 634.
454. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to add SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements to clarify that it is
recommended to place a STOP/SLOW paddle on a rigid staff, with a
minimum length of 7 feet, in order to display a STOP or SLOW message
that is stable and high enough to be seen by approaching or stopped
traffic. A State DOT, three local DOTs, and a traffic control device
manufacturer agreed with the proposal. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, 11 State
DOTs, a transportation research institute, and an NCUTCD member opposed
the proposed minimum recommended height, citing concerns about the
ability of a flagger to control the paddle on such a long staff,
especially in windy conditions. The FHWA agrees with these concerns and
does not adopt in this final rule the proposed GUIDANCE that included a
[[Page 66832]]
recommended specific minimum height of 7 feet. The FHWA adopts a
SUPPORT in paragraph 04 to note that the optimum method of displaying a
STOP or SLOW message is to place the STOP/SLOW paddle on a rigid staff
that is tall enough to be seen by approaching or stopped traffic.
A contractor noted that flags for TTC are normally sold in a red/
orange color instead of the red color that is required in the 2003
MUTCD. Based on the comment, the FHWA adopts a revised STANDARD in
paragraph 09 that includes red or fluorescent orange/red as acceptable
colors for flags.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA an OPTION to allow the use of a
flashlight with a red glow cone at night to supplement the STOP/SLOW
paddle or flags. A State DOT opposed the proposal because of concerns
that glow cones do not give positive guidance at night. A State DOT and
a transportation research institute recommended revising the statement
to specify that the flashlight is only to be used at night in an
emergency operation when the flagger station is not illuminated. The
FHWA agrees with the commenters and in this final rule adopts a revised
paragraph 12, as recommended by the commenters. A State DOT and a
transportation research institute recommended new language to describe
methods of signaling with a flashlight in an emergency when the flagger
station is not illuminated. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule
adopts a new STANDARD with three methods of signaling with a flashlight
to provide consistency with the other commonly used flagging procedures
using other hand signaling devices. Signaling with a flashlight is an
optional flagging procedure, but if a highway agency chooses to allow
it, the FHWA believes that it is critical to include uniform methods of
flashlight signaling so that road users are not confused in work zone
flagging operations. The flashlight signaling methods are those that
are in common use.
455. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add three new sections
following Section 6E.03: Section 6E.04 Automated Flagger Assistance
Devices, Section 6E.05 STOP/SLOW Automated Flagger Assistance Devices,
and Section 6E.06 Red/Yellow Lens Automated Flagger Assistance Devices.
Automated Flagger Assistance Devices (AFADs) are optional devices that
enable a flagger(s) to be positioned out of the lane of traffic and are
used to control road users through TTC zones. Four State DOTs, two
local DOTs, ATSSA, and three construction-related companies agreed with
the proposed addition of AFADs to the MUTCD. A State DOT, a local DOT,
and an NCUTCD member opposed the inclusion of AFADs in the MUTCD
because of a lack of experimentation and reliability. The FHWA
disagrees and notes that this device has been used with an Interim
Approval in many jurisdictions for approximately five years and no
operational problems have ever been reported. The FHWA adopts in this
final rule the AFAD sections into the MUTCD, based on FHWA's revised
Interim Approval, dated January 28, 2005.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ The Revised Interim Approval notice can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_afads012705.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
456. In Section 6E.04 Automated Flagger Assistance Devices, the
FHWA in the NPA proposed to allow the use of AFADs. The NCUTCD opposed
the proposal to allow AFADs that use red and yellow lenses. Two State
DOTs, a highway safety institute, eight construction-related companies,
and an NCUTCD member recommended allowing AFADs that use red and yellow
lenses and the FHWA agrees. Both types of AFADs have been used with the
FHWA's revised Interim Approval, dated January 28, 2005,\189\ and no
operational problems have been reported with either device. The FHWA
adopts the section including both types of AFADs into the MUTCD in this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ The Revised Interim Approval notice can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_afads012705.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA in this final rule does not adopt the NPA proposed
GUIDANCE that recommended that AFADs should only be used after an
engineering study determines they are appropriate. The NCUTCD, four
State DOTs, a local DOT, and ATSSA recommended the removal of the
statement and the FHWA agrees that an engineering study is not
necessary for each individual use of AFADs.
The FHWA in the NPA proposed a STANDARD prohibiting AFADs from
being a substitute for or a replacement for a continuously operating
temporary traffic control signal. The NCUTCD opposed the proposed
STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the proposal in this final rule
because it believes that paragraph 07 emphasizes the point that AFADs
are to assist the flagger and not to be operated independently.
The FHWA does not adopt in this final rule the NPA proposed
condition that AFADs be less than 800 feet apart to allow a single
flagger to simultaneously operate two AFADs or simultaneously operate a
single AFAD at one end while being a flagger at the other end of the
TTC zone. A State DOT, ATSSA, and a construction-related company
recommended that the distance be increased to 1,500 feet apart based on
successful tests. The NCUTCD recommended that the proposed distance
limitation be deleted. The FHWA disagrees with increasing the maximum
distance to 1,500 feet because documentation of effects from such an
increase has not been provided. However, the FHWA agrees with the
NCUTCD that there is also no reason to have a specific number of feet
as a maximum distance, because there is a wide variability of
conditions under which AFADs are used and engineering judgment can
suffice. Therefore, the FHWA adopts paragraph 14 without the item C
that was proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA does not adopt in this final rule the NPA proposed
GUIDANCE recommending that an AFAD be removed from its normal operating
position when not in use. The NCUTCD and three State DOTs recommended
that the statement be upgraded to a STANDARD. The FHWA notes that there
is a STANDARD in Section 6B.01 that requires that TTC devices be
removed or covered when work is suspended for short periods of time.
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to recommend that a State or local
agency that elects to use AFADS should adopt a policy governing AFAD
applications. Based on comments from the NCUTCD and a local DOT, the
FHWA in this final rule adopts a revised paragraph 17 to add the phrase
``based on engineering judgment'' to recommend that a State or local
agency that elects to use AFADs should adopt a policy, based on
engineering judgment, governing AFAD applications.
457. In Section 6E.05 STOP/SLOW Automated Flagger Assistance
Devices, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to provide STANDARDS and GUIDANCE
for the use of a remotely controlled STOP/SLOW sign on either a trailer
or a movable cart system and a gate arm. One flagging company opposed
the STOP/SLOW variety of AFAD because it could present problematic
situations. The FHWA disagrees and notes that this device has been used
with an Interim Approval (as discussed above) for approximately five
years and no operational problems have been reported. The FHWA adopts
the section concerning the STOP/SLOW AFAD in the MUTCD in this final
rule.
Four State DOTs commented on the proposed height of 6 feet to the
bottom of the STOP/SLOW sign and recommended that it match the proposed
height of 7 feet for the flagger paddle. As discussed above in item
454,
[[Page 66833]]
the FHWA does not adopt in this final rule a specific height for the
flagger paddle, so consistency is no longer an issue. The FHWA adopts
paragraph 02 as proposed in the NPA.
The NCUTCD and a State DOT recommended removing the Stop Beacon
from the proposed list of active conspicuity devices that shall
supplement the AFAD's STOP/SLOW sign. The FHWA disagrees and notes that
the decision was made to keep the Stop Beacon rather than change to a
steady burn red indication because the Stop Beacon is appropriate for
use with a STOP sign, which is the sign used in this variety of AFAD.
In this final rule, the FHWA adopts the Stop Beacon in the list of
supplemental active conspicuity devices in paragraph 04 item B as
proposed in the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a STANDARD to require that a gate
arm, if used, shall be covered with alternating red and white
retroreflective stripes at 6-inch intervals. The NCUTCD and four State
DOTs recommended changes to the NPA proposed language for gate arms
that should accompany the STOP/SLOW AFAD. Based on these comments, the
FHWA adopts in this final rule a revised paragraph 11 to require that
gate arms, if used, shall be fully retroreflectorized on both sides and
that the retroreflective strips shall be spaced at 16-inch intervals.
Similar changes are also adopted in Section 6E.06.
458. In Section 6E.06 Red/Yellow Lens Automated Flagger Assistance
Devices, the FHWA in the NPA proposed a new section allowing the use of
remotely controlled red and yellow lenses with a gate arm. The NCUTCD
and an NCUTCD member opposed the proposed red/yellow lens type of
AFADs. The FHWA disagrees and notes that this device has been used with
an Interim Approval (as discussed above) for approximately five years
and no operational problems have ever been reported. The FHWA adopts in
this final rule the new section as proposed in the NPA with editorial
changes.
459. In Section 6E.07 Flagger Procedures, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to add a STANDARD that flaggers shall use a STOP/SLOW paddle, flag,
or an AFAD to control road users approaching a TTC zone, and that the
use of hand movements alone is prohibited. This additional language was
proposed to protect the safety of workers and road users, and
reinforces that hand movements alone are not an acceptable flagging
method. The NCUTCD and a local DOT opposed the reference to AFADs in
the proposal. The FHWA notes that with the addition of AFADs to the
MUTCD, an AFAD is an acceptable device for a flagger. Two local DOTs
agreed with the prohibition of hand movements alone for flaggers. Four
State DOTs, three local DOTs, a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives, and an NCUTCD member opposed the prohibition of the
use of hand movements alone and recommended an exemption for law
enforcement and emergency situations. The FHWA in this final rule
adopts a modified paragraph 02 that prohibits the use of hand movements
alone, but establishes an exception for law enforcement personnel or
emergency responders at incident scenes.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to revise a GUIDANCE to recommend
that a flagger should stand alone, away from other workers. Based on a
comment from a State DOT and for consistency with normal work zone
worker safety practices, the FHWA in the final rule adopts paragraph 06
to also recommend that flaggers should stand away from work vehicles or
equipment.
460. In Section 6E.08 Flagger Stations, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to add to the GUIDANCE that an escape route for flaggers should be
identified. Based on comments from two State DOTs, the FHWA adopts in
this final rule a revised paragraph 03 to state that the flagger should
identify an escape route for protection from errant vehicles to clarify
why the escape route is necessary.
Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 6F
461. In Table 6F-1 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Sign and Plaque
Sizes, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to adopt revised sign sizes in the
Freeway or Expressway column and in the Minimum column for several
signs. A State DOT, ATSSA, and a transportation research institute
recommended additional sign size changes to make the signs more legible
for drivers with 20/40 visual acuity and to assure that the signs are
large enough to use for TTC on high-speed freeways. The FHWA agrees and
in this final rule adopts the changes for consistency with the adopted
sign sizes in Part 2.
A State DOT and a transportation research institute also
recommended adding to the Freeway or Expressway column a sign size of
48 inches for the Stop sign and 24 inches for the Stop sign on a Stop/
Slow Paddle because there are applications for Stop signs in freeway/
expressway TTC applications. The FHWA agrees that this is appropriate
and consistent with provisions in Chapter 2B and revises the table in
this final rule.
462. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to expand a STANDARD to require that the minimum
sign sizes shown in Table 6F-1 shall only be used on local streets or
roadways where the 85th percentile speed or posted speed limit is less
than 35 mph. A State DOT agreed with the change. A local DOT
recommended that the 85th percentile speed be used exclusively. The
FHWA disagrees because relying only on the 85th percentile speed would
require an agency to do a speed study on all streets and roadways,
which is impractical. The FHWA adopts in this final rule paragraph 09
as proposed in the NPA.
463. In Section 6F.03 Sign Placement, the FHWA proposed in the NPA
to add additional language discussing the minimum mounting heights for
TTC signs. A State DOT, two local DOTs, and an NCUTCD member questioned
why the mounting height requirements were not consistent with Part 2.
Based on the comments, the FHWA in this final rule adopts revisions to
paragraphs 04, 05, and 06 to match the language from Section 2A.18 for
consistency.
464. In Section 6F.04 Sign Maintenance, a State DOT and a
consultant recommended that the existing STANDARD statement be revised
to GUIDANCE to be consistent with Section 2A.22 and that Section 2A.08
be referenced concerning minimum retroreflectivity. The FHWA agrees and
adopts paragraphs 01 and 02 as GUIDANCE and adds a SUPPORT that
references Section 2A.08 in this final rule.
465. The FHWA proposed in the NPA a new section numbered and titled
Section 6F.12 Work Zone and Higher Fines Signs and Plaques, which
describes the use of the plaques supplementing a Speed Limit sign to
emphasize that a reduced speed limit is in effect within a TTC zone and
that increased fines are imposed for traffic violations within the TTC
zone. Based on comments from two State DOTs, the FHWA revises one of
the proposed OPTIONS to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely
allow, that a BEGIN HIGHER FINES ZONE sign should be installed at the
upstream end of a work zone where increased fines are imposed for
traffic violations and an END HIGHER FINES ZONE sign should be
installed at the downstream end of the work zone. The FHWA adopts this
language in this final rule consistent with the language adopted in
Sections 2B.17 and 7B.10.
466. In Section 6F.23 CENTER LANE CLOSED AHEAD Sign, a State DOT
and a transportation research institute
[[Page 66834]]
recommended removing the existing Center Lane Closed Ahead (W9-3a)
symbol sign because the symbol sign was confusing in its meaning.
Although this was not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA agrees and in this
final rule removes the OPTION for using the sign and revises the title
of the section. This symbol has not undergone human factors testing to
confirm that its meaning can be comprehended by road users. The FHWA
also removes the symbol sign from Figures 6F-4 and 6H-38 in this final
rule.
467. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new section numbered
and titled Section 6F.30 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign, which
describes the optional 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. A local DOT
and ATSSA supported the addition of the new sign. A State DOT and a
consultant opposed the new sign and preferred signs that are more
descriptive. The FHWA disagrees and notes that a more specific word
message can be used if appropriate. The FHWA in this final rule adopts
the proposed OPTION in paragraph 01. Based on comments from two DOTs
that a maximum time limit on display of the sign is needed, the FHWA
adopts in this final rule a new GUIDANCE in paragraph 02 to recommend
that, in order to retain its effectiveness, the sign should be
displayed for up to 2 weeks and then be removed.
468. In Section 6F.31 Flagger Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA
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. While two State DOTs and a local DOT
agreed with the proposal, three other State DOTs and another local DOT
opposed the proposal. In addition, a State DOT, ATSSA, and a
transportation research institute recommended that the proposed 15-
minute time period should be increased to 30 minutes. The FHWA decides
not to adopt the proposed OPTION in this final rule and also deletes an
existing STANDARD that stated that the Flagger sign shall be removed,
covered, or turned away from road users when the flagging operations
are not occurring. The FHWA notes that this sign is no different from
other TTC signs and there is an existing provision in Section 6B.01
that addresses removal of signs that are no longer applicable.
469. In Section 6F.44 Shoulder Signs and Plaque, the FHWA proposed
in the NPA a Shoulder Drop-Off symbol (W8-17) sign with a SHOULDER
DROP-OFF (W8-17p) supplemental plaque. Consistent with the adopted
changes to Chapter 2C, the FHWA in this final rule adopts the W8-17
symbol sign as the Shoulder Drop-Off warning sign with a SHOULDER DROP-
OFF (W8-17p) supplemental plaque and deletes the SHOULDER DROP-OFF word
message sign (W8-9a in the 2003 MUTCD).
470. In Section 6F.45 UNEVEN LANES Sign, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA an optional Shoulder Drop-Off symbol sign (W8-17) with an UNEVEN
LANES supplemental plaque that could be used instead of the UNEVEN
LANES word sign. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and ATSSA agreed with the
proposal. Three other State DOTs, three local DOTs, and an NCUTCD
member opposed the new sign because the meaning was unclear. Consistent
with the adopted changes to Chapter 2C, the FHWA in this final rule
adopts the W8-17 symbol sign as the Shoulder Drop-Off warning sign. The
FHWA in this final rule does not adopt the UNEVEN LANES (W8-11p)
supplemental plaque that was proposed in the NPA, and retains the
existing W8-11 UNEVEN LANES word message sign.
471. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a new STEEL PLATE ON
PAVEMENT (W8-24) sign in Section 6F.45. A State DOT recommended that a
separate section be added specifically for this sign. The FHWA agrees
and in this final rule renames the sign and relocates the text to a new
section, numbered and titled Section 6F.46 STEEL PLATE AHEAD Sign.
472. In Section 6F.47 NO CENTER LINE Sign (numbered Section 6F.46
in the NPA), a State DOT recommended revising the existing title and
sign name from NO CENTER STRIPE to NO CENTER LINE to better describe
what the sign is used for. The FHWA agrees and adopts a revised name
for the title and sign, for consistency with similar adopted changes in
Chapter 2C. The FHWA also adopts revisions to the sign in Figure 6F-4.
473. In the NPA the FHWA proposed a new section, numbered and
titled Section 6F.48 Reverse Curve Signs (numbered Section 6F.47 in the
NPA), that contained OPTION and STANDARD statements describing the use
of the Reverse Curve signs to give road users advance notice of a lane
shift. The NCUTCD, five State DOTs, two local DOTs, a transportation
research institute, and three NCUTCD members recommended changes to the
proposed section, including changing the proposed STANDARD to GUIDANCE,
and limiting the number of lanes displayed on the multi-lane versions
of the sign. Based on the comments, the FHWA adopts in this final rule
the proposed section, adds an OPTION to allow the use of a new ALL
LANES (W24-1cP) plaque with the W1-4 sign, and adds an OPTION to allow
a rectangular version of the multi-lane sign if there are more than
three lanes being shifted. The FHWA also adopts a new GUIDANCE that
recommends the Reverse Turn (W1-3) sign if the design speed of the
curve is 30 mph or less to be consistent with the existing GUIDANCE for
Typical Applications in Chapter 6H. The FHWA in this final rule also
adopts revised language in Section 6F.49 Double Reverse Curve Signs
that match the adopted language in Section 6F.48. The FHWA revises
Figure 6F-4 to include the new ALL LANES plaque.
474. In Figure 6F-4 Warning Signs in Temporary Traffic Control
Zones, the FHWA adopts in the final rule revisions to warning signs and
plaques in the figure based on adopted changes to Chapter 6F and Part
2.
475. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to relocate all of the
information from Section 6F.58 PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign (numbered
Section 6F.54 in the 2003 MUTCD), to Section 6C.13, because the
information is related specifically to pilot cars, which are covered in
Section 6C.13. A State DOT opposed the proposed deletion of the section
from Chapter 6F. In this final rule, the FHWA retains the first
sentence of the existing STANDARD in Section 6F.58 and adds a reference
to Section 6C.13 for details on the usage of this sign.
476. In Section 6F.60 Portable Changeable Message Signs (numbered
Section 6F.57 in the NPA) the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change
paragraph 01 from STANDARD to SUPPORT because this statement just
provides information, rather than requirements. The FHWA proposed to
change paragraph 07 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD in order to require that
Portable Changeable Message signs comply with specific chapters and
tables in the MUTCD. The FHWA proposed to revise several GUIDANCE
paragraphs to clarify the recommendations for messages and phases, and
to clarify that Portable Changeable Message signs should be placed off
the shoulder of the roadway and behind a traffic barrier. The FHWA also
proposed to delete the existing OPTION allowing smaller letter sizes on
Portable Changeable Message signs and multiple signs to display an
entire message because the proposed GUIDANCE updates this information.
The FHWA proposed a new
[[Page 66835]]
STANDARD in the NPA, but adopts it as GUIDANCE in paragraph 17 in this
final rule to recommend, rather than require, the number of phases and
number of lines, placement of message within each line, techniques for
message display, and interaction between signs if more than one is
simultaneously visible to road users. The FHWA adopts the other changes
proposed for this section in the NPA in this final rule to be
consistent with the adopted changes for permanent Changeable Message
signs in new Chapter 2L, 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.\190\ The FHWA did not receive any comments on
the proposed changes to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
477. In Section 6F.61 Arrow Boards (numbered Section 6F.58 in the
NPA), the FHWA proposed to revise the GUIDANCE in paragraph 09 to
clarify the measurement for the minimum mounting height of an arrow
board. A State DOT recommended replacing the word ``panel'' with
``board.'' The FHWA agrees and in this final rule replaces the word
``panel'' with ``board'' throughout the section, including in the title
because the device is most commonly known by that term and because
``panel'' is defined in the adopted definitions in Section 1A.13 as
applying to static signs.
A local DOT recommended revising the existing STANDARD that
prohibited the use of arrow boards from being used to laterally shift
traffic because the existing language is confusing. The FHWA agrees and
adopts in this final rule a modified paragraph 25 to require that arrow
boards shall only be used to indicate a lane closure and that they
shall not be used for lane shifts, for consistency with other
requirements.
A State DOT requested that the ``Alternating Diamond'' mode be
added to the approved list of mode selections on an arrow board for
consistency with the addition of this type of display in Figure 6F-6,
as discussed below. The FHWA agrees and adopts a modified paragraph 16
item C to include the Alternating Diamond mode.
478. In Figure 6F-6 Advance Warning Arrow Board Display
Specifications, the FHWA proposed in the NPA the Alternating Diamond
display as one of the options for a Flashing Caution display. Two State
DOTs and a local DOT agreed with the proposal. A State DOT and a local
DOT opposed the proposed change because they believe the display could
cause driver confusion and because the symbol is already used for HOV
facilities and could create an inconsistent message. The FHWA disagrees
and notes that experimentation did not identify this issue as a problem
and that it is only an option for an agency to use. The FHWA adopts the
Alternating Diamond in this final rule as an option for a Flashing
Caution display.
479. In Section 6F.63 Channelizing Devices (numbered Section 6F.60
in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a STANDARD in
paragraph 01 that all channelizing devices shall be crashworthy. A
local DOT agreed with the change. The FHWA adopts in this final rule
the STANDARD as proposed in the NPA. Based on a comment from a State
DOT and a transportation research institute, the FHWA also deletes an
existing GUIDANCE stating that channelizing devices should be
crashworthy because it would be contradictory to the new STANDARD.
The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and an NCUTCD member suggesting revised
language for the STANDARD in paragraph 05 concerning channelizing
devices used to channelize pedestrians to be consistent with the
STANDARD proposed in Section 6F.68. Another State DOT commented that
the proposed text in paragraph 05 on channelizing pedestrians was
ambiguous. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and an NCUTCD member also
recommended retaining an existing OPTION in Section 6F.60, which the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to relocate to Section 6F.68, regarding the
height of the gap between the bottom rail and the ground surface that
may be used to facilitate drainage in the section, and recommended
revising the allowable gap from 6 inches to 2 inches. The FHWA agrees
with all of these comments and in this final rule adopts a revised
paragraph 05 that relocates to Section 6F.63 the STANDARD that was
proposed in Section 6F.68 to simplify the requirements for the
placement of channelizing devices for channelizing pedestrians. The
FHWA also adopts a revised OPTION that allows a gap of up to 2 inches
to comply with Section 6F.74 and relocates to Section 6F.63 the OPTION
that was proposed in Section 6F.68.
480. In Section 6F.64 Cones (numbered Section 6F.61 in the NPA),
the NCUTCD recommended deleting the existing GUIDANCE concerning the
use of cones for pedestrian channelization or pedestrian barriers in
TTC zones, to be consistent with adopted language in Section 6D.01. The
FHWA agrees and removes the GUIDANCE in this final rule.
481. In Section 6F.65 Tubular Markers (Section 6F.62 in the NPA),
the FHWA in the NPA proposed to revise the STANDARD in paragraph 03 to
expand the requirements for reflectorization bands on tubular markers.
The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested increasing the maximum distance
from the orange band to the top of the tubular marker from 4 inches to
6 inches to be consistent with the requirement for retroreflective
stripes on drums. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule a
revised STANDARD to be consistent with the retroreflective striping of
other devices.
The NCUTCD recommended deleting the existing GUIDANCE concerning
the use of tubular markers for pedestrian channelization or as
pedestrian barriers in TTC zones, to be consistent with the language
adopted in Section 6D.01. The FHWA agrees and deletes the GUIDANCE in
this final rule.
A State DOT suggested deleting the existing STANDARD that described
the use of a noncylindrical tubular marker, because it was redundant
and conflicted with the previous STANDARD. The FHWA agrees and in this
final rule removes the paragraph as suggested.
482. In Section 6F.66 Vertical Panels (Section 6F.63 in the NPA),
the FHWA proposed in the NPA to require that the dimensions listed in
the section refer to the ``retroreflective material'' on the vertical
panels. The FHWA adopts the STANDARDS in the final rule with additional
revisions that better clarify the intent of the section.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to change an OPTION to a STANDARD to
require, rather than merely permit, a panel stripe width of 4 inches to
be used where the height of the reflective material on a vertical panel
is 36 inches or less. Based on comments from a State DOT and an NCUTCD
member that the proposed requirement was too restrictive, the FHWA in
this final rule maintains the use of 4-inch wide panel stripes as an
OPTION for vertical panels that are 36 inches in height or less.
483. In Section 6F.67 Drums (numbered Section 6F.64 in the NPA),
the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change a GUIDANCE to a STANDARD to
prohibit 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 proposed to delete
another GUIDANCE discussing the use of drain holes to prevent water
[[Page 66836]]
from accumulating and freezing. This recommendation is not necessary
since there is a STANDARD that requires drums to have a closed top,
thus reducing the possibility of any water actually accumulating in the
device. A local DOT supported the proposal. Two State DOTs, five local
DOTs, and a consultant opposed the proposed changes because the word
``hazardous'' is too subjective for a STANDARD statement. The FHWA in
this final rule retains the existing text from the 2003 MUTCD in
paragraph 04 and does not adopt the proposed changes. Based on a
comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA deletes an existing GUIDANCE
concerning the use of drums for pedestrian channelization or pedestrian
barriers in TTC zones, to be consistent with language adopted in
Section 6D.01.
484. In Section 6F.68 Type 1, 2, or 3 Barricades (Section 6F.65 in
the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA a new STANDARD requiring
continuous detectible bottom and top rails with no gaps on barricades
that are used to channelize pedestrians. The FHWA also proposed to
relocate an OPTION from Section 6F.63 to allow a gap of up to 6 inches
between the bottom rail and the ground surface to facilitate drainage.
Based on comments from a State DOT and a transportation research
institute, the FHWA in this final rule revises the allowable gap in the
OPTION to 2 inches to comply with Section 6F.74. Based on comments from
the NCUTCD and a State DOT, the FHWA adopts and relocates the proposed
STANDARD and OPTION statements to Section 6F.63, as described in item
479 above.
The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, a transportation research institute,
and two local DOTs opposed the proposed STANDARD regarding barricade
placement in conformance with application and installation
requirements. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule does not adopt the
proposed statement.
Based on comments from the NCUTCD and a State DOT, the FHWA in this
final rule deletes an existing STANDARD and does not adopt the proposed
GUIDANCE that discussed the use of ballasts. The FHWA agrees with the
commenters that the information is already adequately covered elsewhere
in Chapter 6F and does not need to be repeated in this section.
485. In Section 6F.70 Temporary Traffic Barriers as Channelizing
Devices (numbered Section 6F.67 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to delete the STANDARD requiring that temporary traffic barriers be
supplemented with delineation, pavement markings, or channelizing
devices. A State DOT and a transportation research institute opposed
the revision because the temporary barrier will be difficult to see at
night without those traffic control devices. The FHWA agrees and in
this final rule retains the existing provision.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to change a 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
proposed this change to provide consistency on the use of temporary
traffic barriers within this section. A State DOT opposed the proposed
change. The FHWA agrees and retains the provision as GUIDANCE in this
final rule due to inconsistency with other provisions. The FHWA notes
that this section allows temporary traffic barriers to be used for a
merging taper in low-speed urban conditions or for a constricted/
restricted TTC zone.
The FHWA also proposed to add a new STANDARD that temporary traffic
barriers shall be placed in conformance with the application and
installation requirements for the specific device being used. The
NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a transportation research institute
commented that this statement is not needed because, if a device is not
in compliance with the application, then it is not in compliance with
the MUTCD. The FHWA believes that the statement does not add anything
to the meaning of the section and does not adopt the proposal in this
final rule.
The FHWA proposed a new STANDARD statement requiring that temporary
traffic barriers that are used to channelize pedestrians meet specific
criteria that aid pedestrians with visual disabilities, to be
consistent with requirements elsewhere in Part 6. The NCUTCD and a
State DOT suggested deleting this provision because it is repetitive of
Section 6F.74 while ATSSA suggested revising the provision to be
consistent with Section 6F.74. The FHWA does not adopt proposed
STANDARD in this final rule because it is repetitive of the language in
Section 6F.74.
486. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA in this final rule retitles
Section 6F.71 (numbered Section 6F.68 in the NPA) to ``Longitudinal
Channelizing Devices,'' to expand the section to include additional
devices besides barricades that serve this purpose. The FHWA proposed
in the NPA to remove an OPTION that allowed the devices to be hollow
and filled with water as ballast. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and six
traffic control device companies opposed the proposed change because
these devices are water filled devices. The FHWA agrees and in this
final rule maintains the OPTION statement in the Manual.
The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a transportation research institute
opposed a proposed STANDARD requiring that longitudinal channelizing
devices be placed in compliance with the application and installation
requirements of the device. Similar to the same issue discussed above
in Section 6F.70, the FHWA does not adopt the proposed STANDARD because
the FHWA decides that the proposed statement does not add any
meaningful information to the section.
A State DOT and a transportation research institute recommended
revising an existing statement to require, instead of recommend, that
channelizing devices be interlocked if used for pedestrian control. The
FHWA agrees and revises paragraph 07 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD in this
final rule to be consistent with the adopted language in Section 6F.63.
Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adopts in the final
rule paragraph 03 to recommend the use of retroreflective material or
delineation on longitudinal channelizing devices when used to
channelize vehicular traffic at night, consistent with similar
provisions elsewhere in Part 6.
487. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new section, numbered
and titled Section 6F.72 Temporary Lane Separators (numbered Section
6F.70 in the NPA), which describes the use of these optional devices
that may be used to channelize road users, to divide opposing vehicular
traffic lanes, to divide lanes when two or more lanes are open in the
same direction, and to provide continuous pedestrian channelization.
ATSSA and a traffic control device manufacturer agreed with the
proposal. A State DOT, two local DOTs, a pedestrian/bicyclist
organization, an NCUTCD member, and three citizens opposed the proposed
section because they believe that temporary lane separators are not
compatible with bicycle travel. The FHWA disagrees with the comments
and notes that the device is optional and the agencies should determine
whether or not to use it if there are problems with bicycle
interaction. The FHWA adopts the proposed text in this final rule and
relocates this section to be Section 6F.72, so it will precede Section
6F.73 Other Channelizing Devices (numbered Section 6F.69 in the NPA)
for better organization of the chapter.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA a STANDARD to restrict temporary
lane separators to a maximum of 4 inches in
[[Page 66837]]
height and 1 foot in width. A local DOT agreed with the proposal. The
NCUTCD, a State DOT, and an NCUTCD member recommended a minimum height
of 2.5 inches for the devices. A traffic control device manufacturer
opposed the recommendation from the NCUTCD and agreed with the NPA
proposal. The FHWA decides to adopt in this final rule paragraph 02 as
proposed in the NPA and notes that no reasoning was given for the
proposed minimum height, which could eliminate devices currently in
use.
The FHWA also proposed an OPTION to allow the use of approved
channelizing devices to supplement temporary lane dividers. ATSSA
recommended this statement be upgraded to GUIDANCE. A State DOT, a
transportation research institute, and a traffic device manufacturer
recommended this statement be upgraded to a STANDARD. The FHWA
disagrees and notes that paragraph 03 addresses the visibility of
temporary lane separators if supplemental channelizing devices are not
used. The FHWA adopts the OPTION as proposed in the NPA.
A State DOT and a transportation research institute recommended a
new STANDARD to require an opening in temporary lane dividers at
pedestrian crossing locations. The FHWA agrees and adds paragraph 06
for consistency with ADAAG, which requires at least a 60-inch wide
pathway for the crossing pedestrian.
488. In Section 6F.75 Temporary Raised Islands (numbered Section
6F.72 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to change the
recommended width of temporary raised islands from at least 18 inches
to at least 12 inches. This change facilitates the use of existing
devices that have been successfully used in many applications. The
NCUTCD recommended a width of 10 inches. The FHWA disagrees because no
reasoning was provided for a smaller width than 12 inches. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule the change to paragraph 04 as proposed in the
NPA.
489. In Section 6F.77 Pavement Markings (numbered Section 6F.74 in
the 2003 NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to differentiate the usage
of pavement markings in long-term stationary temporary traffic control
zones from those used in intermediate-term and short-term temporary
traffic control zones. For long-term stationary operations, the FHWA
proposed to revise the existing STANDARD in paragraph 04 to require
that obliteration of markings in the temporary traveled way that are no
longer applicable shall remove ``all of the non-applicable pavement
marking material, and the obliteration method(s) shall minimize
pavement scarring.'' The NCUTCD and an NCUTCD member opposed the
proposed change and recommended the statement be changed to GUIDANCE.
The FHWA disagrees with the commenters and believes that removal of
conflicting markings is essential for safety and that the NPA language
is easier to understand. A State DOT opposed the use of the words ``all
of'' because it is not practical. The FHWA agrees with the State DOT
and in this final rule adopts the revised STANDARD in paragraph 04 as
proposed in the NPA, with the exception of the words ``all of,'' which
the FHWA does not adopt in this final rule.
490. In Section 6F.78 Temporary Markings (Section 6F.75 in the
NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA in paragraph 02 to recommend that
temporary pavement markings should not remain in place for more than 14
days after the application of the pavement surface treatment or the
construction of the final pavement surface on new roadways or over
existing pavements unless justified by an engineering study. Based on
comments from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and an NCUTCD member, the
FHWA replaces ``an engineering study'' with ``engineering judgment'' in
the GUIDANCE adopted in this final rule to allow more flexibility.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to relocate an existing STANDARD from
Section 6F.77 to Section 6F.78 that requires that all pavement markings
and devices used to delineate road user paths shall be carefully
reviewed during daytime and nighttime periods. The NCUTCD and an NCUTCD
member recommended changing the STANDARD to GUIDANCE and removing the
word ``carefully'' from the statement. The FHWA agrees that mandatory
language is too restrictive in this case and adopts paragraph 06 in
this final rule as GUIDANCE and removes the word ``carefully'' from the
statement.
Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adopts a new GUIDANCE
statement that recommends that the NO CENTER LINE sign, if used, should
be placed in accordance with Section 6F.47. The FHWA adds paragraph 10
in this final rule to be consistent with the adopted GUIDANCE in
Section 6F.47 that recommends the placement of the NO CENTER LINE sign
at the beginning of the TTC zone and repeated at 2-mile intervals in
long TTC zones when the work obliterates the center line pavement
markings.
491. In Section 6F.79 Temporary Raised Pavement Markers (numbered
Section 6F.76 in the NPA), the FHWA in the NPA proposed to add new
STANDARD and GUIDANCE requiring the color of the raised pavement
markers to simulate the color of the markings for which they substitute
and that the pattern of the raised pavement markers should simulate the
pattern of the markings for which they substitute. A local DOT agreed
with the proposal. In this final rule, the FHWA adopts the two
statements as a combined STANDARD in paragraph 02 to require that the
color and pattern of the raised pavement markers to simulate the color
and pattern of the markings for which they substitute, for consistency
with similar provisions in Chapter 3B.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a STANDARD to describe the use of
temporary raised pavement markers as a substitute for solid lines. The
NCUTCD opposed the revision. The FHWA disagrees and believes that the
proposed STANDARD in paragraph 04 improves clarity and in this final
rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to allow the optional use of a less
expensive pattern of raised pavement markers to substitute for a broken
line marking and recommend that temporary raised pavement markers
should not be in place for more than 14 days. A local DOT agreed with
the proposal. The NCUTCD opposed the proposed OPTION. The FHWA
disagrees and notes that the statement was removed from an existing
STANDARD to make it an optional exception to the requirements of the
STANDARD. A State DOT opposed the proposed GUIDANCE recommending a
limit of 14 days for the devices. The FHWA disagrees and notes that it
is consistent with the adopted language in Section 6F.78. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule paragraphs 05 and 06 as proposed in the NPA.
492. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to delete Section 6F.82
Floodlights (numbered Section 6F.76 in the 2003 MUTCD), because the
FHWA believes that floodlights are not traffic control devices.
Although a local DOT agreed with the proposal, the NCUTCD, three State
DOTs, ATSSA, and a transportation research institute opposed the
proposed deletion of the section because they believe the section
provides useful information to the practitioner. The FHWA agrees to
leave these types of devices in the MUTCD until a clear definition of
traffic control devices is established in a future edition and in this
final rule maintains the section as Section 6F.82 Floodlights,
[[Page 66838]]
with the same text from the 2003 MUTCD.
493. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA in this final rule deletes
Section 6F.77 (as numbered in the 2003 MUTCD) Flashing Warning Beacons.
Two State DOTs and ATSSA opposed the proposal because they did not want
the language regarding the device to be removed from the Manual. The
FHWA disagrees with the commenters and notes that the material is
already covered in Chapter 4L and does not need to be repeated in Part
6.
494. In Section 6F.83 Warning Lights (numbered Section 6F.79 in the
NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise a STANDARD to require that
the 30-inch minimum mounting height for warning lights be measured
vertically from the bottom of the lens to the elevation of the near
edge of the pavement. Two State DOTs and a transportation research
institute opposed the change because it would preclude the use of
warning lights on drums. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule retains
paragraph 11 with the language from the 2003 MUTCD.
495. The FHWA in this final rule deletes Section 6F.79 (as numbered
in the 2003 MUTCD) Steady-Burn Electric Lamps, as proposed in the NPA.
A local DOT agreed with the change. A State DOT and a transportation
research institute opposed the change because the device has
appropriate applications. The FHWA disagrees and notes that the only
difference between other warning lights and the steady burn electric
lamp is the power source and that it is not necessary to include both
in the Manual.
496. In Section 6F.84 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (numbered
Section 6F.80 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA a new STANDARD
requiring temporary traffic signals placed within 200 feet 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. A State DOT and a local DOT
supported the proposal. Based on comments from a State DOT, a
transportation research institute, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member,
the FHWA in this final rule adopts a modified paragraph 13 to require
that a uniformed officer or flagger shall be required at the crossing
to prevent vehicles from stopping within the crossing if the temporary
traffic control signal is not provided with preemption.
497. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to delete Section 6F.86 Crash
Cushions (numbered Section 6F.82 in the 2003 MUTCD) because the FHWA
believes that crash cushions are not traffic control devices and 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. A local DOT agreed with
the proposal. The NCUTCD, five State DOTs, ATSSA, and a transportation
research institute opposed the deletion of the section because they
believe it provides important information on the topic. The FHWA agrees
to leave these types of devices in the MUTCD until a clear definition
of traffic control devices is established in a future edition and in
this final rule maintains the section as Section 6F.86 Crash Cushions
with the 2003 MUTCD text.
498. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA in this final rule deletes
Section 6F.83 (as numbered in the 2003 MUTCD) Vehicle Arresting Systems
because they are not traffic control devices. A local DOT agreed with
the proposal. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, ATSSA, and a local DOT opposed
the deletion of the section because they did not want the information
removed from the Manual. The FHWA disagrees and believes that the
section does not provide any useful traffic control device information
for practitioners.
499. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to delete Section 6F.88 Screens
(numbered Section 6F.85 in the 2003 MUTCD), because the FHWA believes
that glare screens are not traffic control devices. A local DOT agreed
with the proposal. The NCUTCD, four State DOTs, a local DOT, a
transportation research institute, a consultant, and a citizen opposed
the deletion of the section because it provides information about
screens that is not provided elsewhere. The FHWA agrees to leave these
types of devices in the MUTCD until a clear definition of traffic
control devices is established in a future edition and in this final
rule maintains the section as Section 6F.88 Screens with the text from
the 2003 MUTCD.
500. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA in this final rule deletes
Section 6F.86 (as numbered in the 2003 MUTCD) Future and Experimental
Devices, because such devices are already covered in Part 1. The NCUTCD
agreed with the change. A State DOT, a local DOT, and a transportation
research institute opposed the change because the public needs to
understand that new TTC devices must go through an experimentation
process before being used. The FHWA disagrees and notes that the
information is already contained in Section 1A.10.
Discussion of Final Rule Amendments Within Chapters 6G Through 6I
501. In Section 6G.01 Typical Applications, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to add GUIDANCE in paragraph 04 recommending that a TTC plan
should be developed for all planned special events in conjunction with
and approved by the highway agency or agencies having jurisdiction over
the affected roadways. The NCUTCD and a local DOT supported the
language as proposed. A State DOT and four other local DOTs noted that
law enforcement agencies approve traffic control plans in their area.
To address this concern, the FHWA adopts in this final rule revised
language that removes the specification that ``highway'' agencies
approve TTC plans, leaving it flexible to have the appropriate agency
having jurisdiction approve TTC plans. Two State DOTs, two local DOTs,
an NCUTCD member, a transportation research institute, a pedestrian/
bicyclist association, and three citizens opposed the language proposed
in the NPA requiring that ``all'' special planned events have TTC
plans. The commenters suggested that such language was too inclusive
and should be limited only to those events affecting traffic
operations. The FHWA agrees in part and adopts revised language in this
final rule accordingly. For those events that will not have traffic
impacts, the TCC plan will be minimal. The FHWA adopts these changes 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.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
502. In Section 6G.02 Work Duration, a State DOT requested
clarification of the existing STANDARD and OPTION paragraphs on the
treatments of mobile operations at speeds between 3 mph and 20 mph
because it is unclear if the existing language applies to these speeds.
The FHWA agrees that clarification is necessary and in this final rule
revises the STANDARD in paragraph 22 to apply to the treatments of
mobile operations for all speeds and deletes the last two OPTION
paragraphs in the 2003 MUTCD.
503. In Section 6G.04 Modifications to Fulfill Special Needs, the
FHWA proposed to remove the last GUIDANCE statement recommending that
typical
[[Page 66839]]
applications be modified where pedestrian or bicycle usage is high. A
State DOT opposed the revision because it is a good reminder regarding
accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians. The FHWA agrees and in
this final rule adopts revisions to the GUIDANCE in paragraph 03 to
include pedestrian routes as item F and bicycle diversions as item G in
the list of conditions when typical applications should be modified.
504. In Section 6G.11 Work Within the Traveled Way of Urban
Streets, the FHWA proposed to relocate the first paragraph of the first
STANDARD in the 2003 MUTCD to Section 6D.01 because the information
about maintaining accessibility and detectability along pedestrian
routes is most appropriately covered in Section 6D.01. The FHWA adopts
the proposed relocation in this final rule.
A State DOT recommended modifying the existing STANDARD in
paragraph 05 to require that both pedestrian and vehicular access be
provided to transit stops that are affected and relocated because of
work activity. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule to
clarify and reiterate that full accessibility to transit stops is
required during work activity, consistent with provisions in Chapter
6D.
505. In Section 6G.12 Work Within the Traveled Way of Multi-Lane,
Non-Access Controlled Highways, a State DOT recommended a new OPTION to
allow a single continuous taper to be used where operating speeds are
40 mph or less and the space approaching the work area does not permit
moving traffic over one lane at a time. The FHWA agrees that this
flexibility is needed and can be appropriately applied in lower speed
conditions and in this final rule adopts the new OPTION in paragraph
13.
506. In Section 6G.13 Work Within the Traveled Way at an
Intersection, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to modify the existing
GUIDANCE in paragraph 04 to recommend, among other things, the
relocation of signal heads to provide improved visibility. The NCUTCD
and an NCUTCD member recommended changing ``improved'' to ``adequate''
visibility, for consistency with the other conditions in the sentence.
The FHWA agrees and in this final rule adopts the proposed revision and
also references Part 4 for the description of adequate visibility for
signal heads.
507. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to reverse the order of Chapters
6H and 6I of the 2003 MUTCD so that Chapter 6H would be Control of
Traffic Through Traffic Incident Management Areas and Chapter 6I would
be Typical Applications. The FHWA proposed this change so that the
numerous Typical Application diagrams would be at the end of Part 6 and
to place the text and figures on incident management closer to the
other sections in Part 6. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and two State DOTs opposed
this change, primarily because they believe Chapter 6I is best left as
the designated chapter for Incident Management, in part because it is
referred to in a number of important documents. The FHWA agrees and in
this final rule retains the Typical Application diagrams in Chapter 6H
and retains Chapter 6I as Incident Management, consistent with the 2003
MUTCD.
508. The FHWA received several general comments and suggestions on
Chapter 6H Typical Applications (numbered Chapter 6I in the NPA). A
State DOT, a local DOT, five bicyclist-related associations, an NCUTCD
member, and two citizens suggested adding an OPTION to use the adopted
Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) sign and adding a reference to
Section 9B.06 in all Typical Applications where the lanes are narrowed
to 10 feet in TTC zones to remind MUTCD users to consider bicyclists.
The FHWA disagrees with the suggested addition because narrow lane
widths are allowed in many permanent conditions, so it is not
unrealistic to allow it in TTC situations. An agency can address
specific bicycle accommodations in a project's TTC plan.
509. In Table 6H-3 Meaning of Letter Codes on Typical Application
Diagrams (numbered Table 6I-3 in the NPA), a State DOT and a
transportation research institute suggested adding a fifth road type
classification ``Local (very low speed)'' with a suggested sign spacing
of 100 feet. The FHWA disagrees and notes that the suggested spacing is
already indicated for ``Urban (low speed)''. If an agency wants to use
the shorter spacing for signs on rural low-speed facilities, they can
apply the low-speed criteria and use the same values as the Urban. The
commenters also suggested increasing the sign spacing for Urban (low
speed) to 200 feet because the existing 100-foot spacing is inadequate
on a 35 mph street. The FHWA disagrees and notes that the 100-foot
spacing is usually adequate for urban low-speed applications and allows
more signs to be located between city blocks, thereby eliminating the
need for duplication. The FHWA adopts Table 6H-3 in this final rule as
proposed in the NPA.
510. In Section 6H.01 Typical Applications, the FHWA adopts in this
final rule the SUPPORT, as proposed in the NPA, that, except for the
notes (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 also
adopts in this final rule changes in the Typical Applications to
reflect the changes to all parts of the MUTCD with particular reference
to Part 6 text and figure changes.
Additionally, the FHWA adopts the figures and corresponding notes
proposed in the NPA with the following changes and responses to
comments received:
a. Notes for Figure 6H-4: In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a
new note 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. Two local DOTs agreed with the proposed revision. The FHWA
in this final rule adopts a revised note 4 to read ``Stationary warning
signs may be omitted for short duration or mobile operations if the
work vehicle displays high-intensity rotating, flashing, oscillating,
or strobe lights,'' to be consistent with Section 6G.02. The FHWA also
deletes existing note 5 (as numbered in the NPA) because the
information is incorporated in the adopted note 4. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed a new STANDARD note stating that vehicle-mounted signs shall
be mounted in a manner not obscured by equipment or supplies, and that
sign legends on vehicle-mounted signs shall be covered or turned from
view when work is not in progress, for consistency with similar
provisions in the Notes for Figure 6H-17. A local DOT agreed with the
revision and the FHWA adopts note 8 in this final rule as proposed in
the NPA. A State DOT suggested adding new GUIDANCE to describe when a
shadow vehicle should be used. The FHWA disagrees since the suggested
information is contained in Section 6F.03.
b. In Figure 6H-4, a State DOT suggested revisions to the existing
figure, including removing the leading truck, making the trailing truck
optional, making the SHOULDER WORK sign optional, and allowing reduced
traffic control requirements for short duration operations less than 60
minutes. The FHWA disagrees because the existing provisions are
consistent with other Typical Applications for Mobile Operations and
Section 6G.02. The FHWA in this final rule adds a ``Work Vehicle'' tag
to the lead truck for clarification.
c. In Figure 6H-5, a State DOT suggested revisions to the existing
figure, including adding a lateral
[[Page 66840]]
clearance marker at the barrier angle point and an object marker at the
nose of the attenuator. The FHWA disagrees because the use of
channelizing devices to close the lane should provide delineation for
the barrier. An agency can add additional devices if they believe
conditions warrant it.
d. In the Notes for Figure 6H-6, a State DOT and a transportation
research institute suggested adding two new STANDARDS describing the
requirements for the mounting of vehicle-mounted signs and the display
of high-intensity lights on shadow and work vehicles. The FHWA agrees
and adds notes 11 and 12 as STANDARDS in this final rule, which are
identical to existing adopted STANDARDS from the Notes for Figure 6H-
17.
e. In the Notes for Figure 6H-7, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
reword note 3 to clarify that required pavement markings no longer
applicable shall be removed or obliterated as soon as practical. A
State DOT and a transportation research institute suggested revising
the note to remove the word ``practical'' and instead require that the
pavement markings that are no longer applicable be removed once the TTC
diversion is complete. The FHWA agrees with the comment and in this
final rule revises note 3 to read ``Pavement markings no longer
applicable to the traffic pattern of the roadway shall be removed or
obliterated before any new traffic patterns are open to traffic.''
f. In Figure 6H-7, a local DOT suggested revising the existing
figure to delete the ROAD CLOSED sign because it might imply that
travel is not possible in that direction. The FHWA agrees and deletes
the sign in this final rule. A State DOT asked what NCHRP 350 approved
sign assembly is available to accommodate the warning sign with
supplemental plaque shown in the figure on a portable sign stand and
still maintain the 5-foot minimum sign height to the lowest sign. The
FHWA responds that this Typical Application would not typically be used
for periods of less than three days, thus signs would not be on
portable mountings and therefore no revisions to the figure are
necessary.
g. In Notes for Figure 6H-9, an NCUTCD member suggested revising
existing GUIDANCE note 3 to include YIELD signs. The FHWA agrees that
this is appropriate for consistency with Part 2 and adopts in this
final rule a revised note 3 that recommends that STOP or YIELD signs
displayed to side roads should be installed as needed along the
temporary route.
h. In Figure 6H-10, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the
upstream taper dimension from ``100 ft MAX'' to ``50 to 100 ft.'' A
State DOT opposed the proposed revision and recommended that the
upstream taper dimension remain as a maximum of 100 feet and also
recommended deleting the 50-foot minimum. The FHWA disagrees because
adopted Section 6C.08 includes a minimum taper length of 50 feet and
the figure reflects this change. The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to
revise the downstream taper dimension from ``100 ft MAX'' to ``50 to
100 ft.'' A State DOT and a transportation research institute suggested
retaining the existing ``100 ft MAX'' dimension for the downstream
taper in order to comply with Figure 6C-3 and suggested deleting the
existing note about buffer space because the information is contained
in note 4 of the accompanying Notes section. The FHWA agrees with the
comments and adopts the suggested revisions in this final rule.
i. In Figure 6H-12, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the
maximum distance between the nearest signal face for each approach and
the stop line from 150 feet to 180 feet, for consistency with
provisions of Part 4. A State DOT suggested revising the figure to
include a dimension between the end of the downstream taper and the
location of the opposing temporary signal because the distance is
critical to provide enough distance for traffic to return to its own
lane prior to the stop line for the opposing traffic. The FHWA notes
the concern of the commenter, but declines to revise the figure because
this dimension is left up to the agency to determine based upon the
geometrics of the project and design speed through the TTC zone. The
FHWA adopts in this final rule Figure 6H-12 as proposed in the NPA. The
FHWA also adopts in this final rule the same revision to the maximum
distance in Figure 6H-14, as proposed in the NPA.
j. In Figure 6H-13, a State DOT and a transportation research
institute suggested revising the existing figure to make the BE
PREPARED TO STOP sign mandatory instead of optional. The FHWA disagrees
because the use of the sign should be dictated by the conditions for
the project, such as volume and speed of traffic, length, and frequency
of closure.
k. In Figure 6H-14, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a note that
the maximum distance from the stop line to signal indication is 150
feet if 8-inch signal indications are used. A State DOT and a
transportation research institute suggested deleting the asterisked
note because the use of 8-inch signal displays should not be suggested
since additional traffic control emphasis is needed in temporary
traffic control applications. The FHWA agrees with the comment and also
notes that the adopted revisions to Part 4 only allow the use of 8-inch
indications for very low speed roads, and therefore the FHWA in this
final rule removes the note. An NCUTCD member suggested replacing the
existing symbolic DO NOT PASS sign with the word message sign, for
clarity. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule the suggested
revision for this figure and throughout Chapter 6H, for consistency
with adopted text in Chapter 2B.
l. In Notes for Figure 6H-15, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
change an existing GUIDANCE to a STANDARD, to require, instead of
recommend, that workers in the roadway shall wear high-visibility
safety apparel as described in Section 6D.03. A State DOT and a
transportation research institute suggested deleting the proposed
STANDARD because the statement is now unnecessary as a result of the
adopted changes in Section 6D.03. The FHWA agrees and in this final
rule deletes the statement from Notes for Figure 6H-15 and from Notes
for Figure 6H-16. As described in Section 6D.03, workers within the
public right-of-way are now required to wear high-visibility safety
apparel, except for firefighters exposed to hazardous heat conditions
and law enforcement personnel when performing non-traffic related
activities. The commenters also suggested revising this and other
Typical Applications for low-volume roads to also apply to low-speed
roads. The FHWA disagrees because there have been no other comments
received noting problems with this operation and agencies have the
option to require additional measures for these situations.
m. In Notes for Figure 6H-16, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a
new note 1 to the GUIDANCE indicating that all lanes should be a
minimum of 10 feet in width, to be consistent with guidance in other
applications. A local DOT agreed with the proposal, while the NCUTCD
opposed the proposal but did not provide a reason for the objection.
The FHWA adopts in this final rule the proposed note because the text
is consistent with existing GUIDANCE in Notes for Figure 6H-6.
n. In Figure 6H-16, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to include a
dimension showing a 10-foot minimum width for all lanes. A State DOT
asked if traffic can be moved to the shoulder in this Typical
Application. The FHWA responds that this Typical Application
[[Page 66841]]
should allow shoulder use if necessary and adopts in this final rule a
revised note in Figure 6H-16 identical to the adopted note in Figure
6H-15 that indicates a 10-foot minimum width to the edge of pavement or
outside edge of paved shoulder.
o. In Figure 6H-20, a State DOT and a transportation institute
recommended revisions to the existing figure to add NO LEFT TURN signs,
NO RIGHT TURN signs, and Main Street South Detour signs to provide
guidance for drivers arriving from the east and west. The FHWA agrees
and adopts a revised Figure 6H-20 that incorporates the recommended
signs for added clarification because the intent is to provide guidance
to road users on all approaches to the work zone.
p. In Figure 6H-23, a State DOT and a transportation research
institute suggested revisions to the existing figure to add
channelization devices along the double yellow center line to be
consistent with adopted provisions in Section 6G.12. The FHWA agrees
and adopts the suggested revision in this final rule. An NCUTCD member
suggested deleting the LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT sign outside of the
curb. The FHWA disagrees with the comment because this sign complies
with provisions in Chapter 2B and the sign needs to be displayed to
inform road users of the temporary left-turn lane established by
closing the left lane.
q. In Notes for Figure 6H-27, a State DOT and a transportation
research institute suggested elevating existing note 4 (as numbered in
the NPA) from OPTION to GUIDANCE to recommend that ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD
signs be used to provide adequate advance warning for this Typical
Application. The FHWA agrees that the signs should be used in this
situation, and in this final rule changes the statement to GUIDANCE and
renumbers the statement as note 8. The FHWA adopts the change for
consistency with other Typical Applications that indicate that the ONE
LANE ROAD sign should be used when one lane of a two-lane roadway is
closed. The commenters also recommended that the ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD
sign be added to each approach in Figure 6H-27. The FHWA agrees and
adopts in this final rule the suggested revisions to Figure 6H-27.
r. In Figure 6H-28, a State DOT and a transportation research
institute suggested revising the existing figure to replace the symbols
for channelization devices because Type 3 barricades should not be used
for channelization between road users and pedestrians. The FHWA agrees
and adopts a new symbol to represent a longitudinal channelizing device
and revises Figure 6H-28 and Table 6H-2 accordingly.
s. In Figure 6H-29, a State DOT and a transportation research
institute suggested revising the existing figure to remove the
``(optional)'' note from the ROAD WORK AHEAD sign so that the sign is a
recommendation and not an option. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision in this final rule to be consistent with all other
Typical Applications that recommend the ROAD WORK AHEAD sign whenever
work is occurring within the roadway. The commenters also suggested
replacing the cones used to close the sidewalk with a Type 3
channelizing device. The FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested revision
in this final rule.
t. In Notes for Figure 6H-32, a State DOT and a transportation
research institute suggested revising existing GUIDANCE note 4 because
the figure and text were not consistent for the placement of the
Reverse Curve signs. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule a
revised note 4 to match Figure 6H-32. The commenters also asked why
existing note 9 (as numbered in the NPA) was not a STANDARD similar to
provisions in the Notes for Figure 6H-46. The FHWA in this final rule
removes notes 6, 7, 8, and 9 (as numbered in the NPA) because the
provisions regarding grade crossings are addressed in Figure 6H-46 and
do not need to be repeated in the Notes for Figure 6H-32. The FHWA also
renumbers note 10 (as numbered in the NPA) as note 6 in this final
rule.
u. In Figure 6H-32, a State DOT and a transportation research
institute suggested revising the second warning sign distance
measurements from miles to feet in the figure since the illustration
does not depict a freeway application and the measurements in feet are
more practical than miles. The FHWA agrees and in this final rule
revises Figure 6H-32 to modify the legend on the second warning sign on
each approach from ``XX MILES'' to ``XX FT.''
v. In Notes for Figure 6H-33, a State DOT and a transportation
research institute suggested adding a new STANDARD requiring arrow
boards for each lane of a freeway lane closure. The FHWA agrees and
adopts in this final rule a new STANDARD note 6 identical to the
adopted language in other Typical Applications involving multi-lane
freeway lane closures (see item 510.z. below).
w. In Figure 6H-34, a State DOT and a transportation research
institute suggested revising the existing figure to remove the
``(optional)'' label for the shoulder taper to comply with GUIDANCE
note 3 of the Notes for Figure 6H-33. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision in this final rule.
x. In Notes for Figure 6H-35, a State DOT and a transportation
research institute suggested adding two new STANDARDS describing the
requirements for the mounting of vehicle-mounted signs and the display
of high-intensity lights on shadow and work vehicles. The FHWA agrees
and adds notes 2 and 3 as STANDARDS in this final rule, which are
identical to existing adopted STANDARDS from Notes for Figure 6H-17 The
FHWA also adopts a revised GUIDANCE note 5 to remove ``high-intensity
rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe lights'' since they are
included in the new STANDARD note 3. The commenters also suggested
adding a new STANDARD requiring arrow boards for each lane of a freeway
lane closure. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule a new
STANDARD note 4 identical to the adopted language in other Typical
Applications involving multi-lane freeway lane closures (see item
510.z. below.)
y. In Notes for Figure 6H-36, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a
STANDARD describing the use of the Reverse Curve signs and also delete
the OPTION regarding the ALL LANES THRU supplemental plaque because the
Reverse Curve signs graphically indicate that message. A State DOT
suggested reducing the proposed STANDARD to GUIDANCE. The FHWA
disagrees and adopts the proposed STANDARD as note 7 in this final rule
to be consistent with the STANDARD adopted in Section 6F.48 Reverse
Curve Signs. The FHWA also adopts in this final rule two new OPTIONS as
notes 8 and 9 that are identical to adopted OPTIONS in Section 6F.48
that describe signs that may be used when multiple lanes are being
shifted. A State DOT and a transportation research institute suggested
adding a new STANDARD prohibiting the use of barriers along the
shifting taper. The FHWA agrees and adopts the recommended STANDARD in
the Notes for Figure 6H-36 and in the Notes for Figure 6H-38 to be
consistent with the adopted STANDARD in the Notes for Figure 6H-34. A
State DOT and a transportation research institute suggested revising
existing note 12 in the NPA from OPTION to GUIDANCE to recommend that
trucks should be directed to use the travel lanes if the shoulder
cannot adequately accommodate trucks. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision as GUIDANCE note 15 in this final rule. An agency
can make the determination whether or not the shoulder has
[[Page 66842]]
adequate structural capacity to handle trucks and that an agency is not
being required to alter their procedures with this GUIDANCE.
z. In Notes for Figures 6H-37, 6H-38, 6H-39, 6H-42, and 6H-44, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a STANDARD note to require that an
arrow board be used on all freeway lane closures, and that a separate
arrow board be used for each closed lane when more than one freeway
lane is closed. The FHWA believes that an arrow board is essential for
safety at all lane closures on freeways because of the high speeds. A
local DOT agreed with the proposed STANDARD. A second local DOT
suggested reducing the statement to GUIDANCE because it might not
always be feasible to have an arrow board available depending on the
amount of time the roadway is closed, if it is scheduled or emergency,
and how many work zones are underway at the same time. The FHWA
disagrees because the safety benefit of using an arrow board on freeway
lane closures warrants this provision as a STANDARD. The FHWA adopts in
this final rule the new STANDARD note as proposed in the NPA.
aa. In Notes for Figure 6H-37 and Notes for Figure 6H-38, a State
DOT and a transportation research institute suggested elevating an
existing OPTION to GUIDANCE to recommend that trucks should be directed
to use the travel lanes if the shoulder cannot adequately accommodate
trucks. The FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested revision in this final
rule as GUIDANCE note 6 in Notes for Figure 6H-37 and GUIDANCE note 14
in Notes for Figure 6H-38 to be consistent with the adopted change to
Notes for Figure 6H-36 (see item 510.z. below).
bb. In Notes for Figure 6H-38, a State DOT and a transportation
research institute suggested adding a new STANDARD to require removing
existing conflicting pavement markings and installing temporary
markings before traffic patterns are changed. The FHWA agrees and
adopts new STANDARD note 4 in this final rule for consistency with
multiple figures in Chapter 6H that show temporary markings and
pavement markings that should be removed for a long-term project. The
commenters also suggested elevating OPTION note 7 (as numbered in the
NPA) to GUIDANCE because of concern about creating driver confusion
with two arrow boards that are visible at the same time. The FHWA
agrees that a consistent application of the devices in this Typical
Application is needed and in this final rule deletes the OPTION and
replaces it with new GUIDANCE note 7 to recommend that the 2L distance
between the end of the merging taper and beginning of the shifting
taper should be extended so that road users can focus on one arrow
board at a time if the two arrow boards create confusion.
cc. In Notes for Figure 6H-45, the NCUTCD suggested adding three
OPTIONS to allow a work vehicle or shadow vehicle to be equipped with a
truck-mounted attenuator, to allow a longitudinal buffer space to be
used to separate opposing vehicular traffic, and to allow the
reversible lane to be changed between the peak periods of vehicular
traffic, to be consistent with Figure 6H-31. The NCUTCD also suggested
a STANDARD requiring arrow boards for each lane of a freeway lane
closure, to be consistent with the adopted STANDARD in Figure 6H-37.
The FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested OPTIONS and STANDARD in this
final rule. These provisions are identical to existing language in the
Notes for Figures 6H-31 and 6H-37.
511. As discussed previously, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
renumber Chapter 6I as Chapter 6H. Based on comments, the FHWA in this
final rule decides not to adopt the proposed renumbering of the
chapters and therefore retains the same numbering for these two
chapters as in the 2003 MUTCD.
512. In Section 6I.01 General, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add
a STANDARD that the Incident Command System (ICS) as required by the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) be implemented in traffic
incident management areas. The FHWA proposed including this language
because the Department of Homeland Security and Presidential Directives
(DHSPD) 5 and 8 \192\ 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. Although a local DOT supported this language, a State DOT and
an NCUTCD member opposed the requirement, stating that the NIMS/ICS are
not directly related to traffic control devices, and therefore it is
inappropriate that MUTCD text require their use. The FHWA agrees and
does not adopt the STANDARD in this final rule, and instead adopts
information about NIMS/ICS in a SUPPORT in paragraph 01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ The Department of Homeland Security and Presidential
Directives (DHSPD) 5 and 8 can be viewed at the following
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to expand existing GUIDANCE regarding
TTC practices for on-scene responders and add new GUIDANCE regarding
TTC practices for placement of emergency vehicles. A local DOT agreed
with the proposal. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, ATSSA, and an NCUTCD
member suggested revised language, including adding that on-scene
responder organizations should train their personnel in the
requirements for traffic incident management and revising the GUIDANCE
on positioning of emergency vehicles to optimize traffic flow through
the incident scene. The FHWA agrees with the comments in part and
adopts in this final rule a revised GUIDANCE in paragraph 07 to
recommend that on-scene responder organizations should train their
personnel ``in the requirements for traffic incident management
contained in this Manual'' and also adopts a revised GUIDANCE in
paragraph 08 to recommend that emergency vehicles be safe-positioned
such that traffic flow through the incident scene is optimized.
Finally, a State DOT and a local DOT recommended deleting the
existing GUIDANCE of the 15-minute time provision for responders
arriving on-scene at a traffic incident to estimate the magnitude of
the traffic incident, the expected time duration of the traffic
incident, and the expected vehicle queue length, and to set up the
appropriate temporary traffic controls based on these estimates. The
FHWA agrees that 15 minutes is unrealistic in some circumstances and
deletes the phrase ``within 15 minutes of arrival on-scene'' in this
final rule.
513. In Section 6I.02 Major Traffic Incidents and Section 6I.03
Intermediate Traffic Incidents, the FHWA proposed to revise a GUIDANCE
related to when flares are used to initiate TTC at traffic incidents
and add a new OPTION related to the use of light sticks to initiate TTC
at traffic incidents. The FHWA proposed the OPTION to reflect the
increasingly common use of light sticks by emergency responders as a
more convenient and effective device than flares. A local DOT agreed
with the proposal. Three State DOTs, ATSSA, and an NCUTCD member
recommended several changes, including rewording the language to remove
the word ``initiate'' and allowing flares to supplement instead of
replace channelizing devices as TTC. The FHWA agrees with the comments
in part and adopts in this final rule a revised GUIDANCE in paragraph
11 of Section 6I.02 and paragraph 07 of
[[Page 66843]]
Section 6I.03 to recommend that ``when lights sticks or flares are used
to establish the initial traffic control at incident scenes,
channelizing devices should be installed as soon thereafter as
practical.'' The FHWA also adopts a revised OPTION in each section that
follows the GUIDANCE, which allows light sticks or flares to remain in
place if they are being used to supplement the channelizing devices.
A State DOT recommended revising an existing GUIDANCE to also
encourage early diversion to an appropriate route as a reason for TTC
at a traffic incident. The FHWA agrees that this is appropriate and
highly useful to road users and adds ``to encourage early diversion to
an appropriate alternate route'' as a reason for TTC at a traffic
incident to paragraph 07 in Section 6I.02 and paragraph 03 in Section
6I.03 in this final rule.
514. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, two State DOTs, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD
member suggested that FHWA include Typical Incident Management
Application (TIMA) illustrations in Chapter 6I, similar to those
provided in Chapter 6H for TTC. The FHWA did not propose including
TIMAs in the NPA. The commenters recommended that the illustrations,
which were developed with input from the National Traffic Incident
Management Coalition, AASHTO, and ATSSA, under the oversight of the
NCUTCD, be included because many incident management responders are
already using parts of the TIMAs, and these illustrations should be
made available to all incident management responders. The International
Association of Police Chiefs and a local police department submitted
letters opposing placing TIMAs in the MUTCD, because they felt that the
TIMAs should be used voluntarily, rather than included in the MUTCD
where they conceivably could be interpreted as standards, rather than
practices. The FHWA agrees that requiring these specific TIMAs for
incidents, which are, by nature, unique, could have significant
negative consequences. The FHWA and practitioners need to educate and
partner with law enforcement to achieve the goal of increasing the
appropriate use of the typical applications, rather than establishing
requirements at this time without having a clear understanding of all
of the issues involved.
Discussion of Amendments to Part 7--Traffic Controls for School Areas
Discussion of Amendments Within Part 7--General
515. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA deletes in this final rule
Sections 7A.05 through 7A.10 of the 2003 MUTCD. The subjects of those
sections are already covered in other parts of the Manual. In their
place, the FHWA adopts paragraph 02 in Section 7A.04, which provides
cross-references to the appropriate sections.
516. In Chapter 7C Markings, the FHWA in this final rule deletes
the text in Sections 7C.02 through 7C.06 of the 2003 MUTCD that was
repetitive of comparable sections in Chapter 3B, and instead adopts
references to the appropriate sections in Chapter 3B. As a result, the
FHWA adopts Chapter 7C with only three sections, Section 7C.01
Functions and Limitations, Section 7C.02 Crosswalk Markings, and
Section 7C.03 Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings.
Discussion of Amendments Within Part 7--Specific
517. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to move all of the information
from Chapter 7F Grade-Separated Crossings in the 2003 MUTCD to a new
section numbered and titled Section 7A.05 Grade-Separated School
Crossings. The proposed section contained a SUPPORT statement regarding
the use of grade-separated crossings for school pedestrian traffic. A
local DOT agreed with the proposal. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and an
NCUTCD member disagreed with the proposed section because it did not
address traffic control devices. A local DOT opposed the listed
preference of overpasses to underpasses for grade-separated school
crossings. The FHWA agrees that grade-separated school crossings are
not traffic control devices and in this final rule does not adopt
Section 7A.05 as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA also removes Chapter 7F,
as numbered in the 2003 MUTCD, from the Manual and removes the
reference to grade-separated crossings from STANDARD paragraph 01 in
Section 7A.04.
518. In Section 7B.01 Size of School Signs, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to revise the STANDARD in paragraph 03 to require that speeds
be less than 35 mph in order to use the minimum sign sizes. The NCUTCD,
two State DOTs, and a local DOT commented on the proposed wording of
the STANDARD. The FHWA in this final rule adopts a revised paragraph 03
based on the comments, to clarify that the application of the minimum
sizes to the identified signs is only where there are low traffic
volumes and speeds are 30 mph or lower. Based on a recommendation from
a State DOT, the FHWA adopts paragraphs 05 and 06 to provide GUIDANCE
and OPTION statements, respectively, on the use of oversized school
signs, for consistency with provisions in Part 2 for sizes of
regulatory and warning signs on multilane roadways.
519. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a school district recommended
changes to the NPA proposed Table 7B-1 to include three additional
plaques that can be used with school area signs. The NCUTCD also
recommended that the minimum sign sizes for multi-lane conventional
roads be based on the Conventional Road sign size. The FHWA agrees with
the comments and adopts in this final rule the recommended changes to
Table 7B-1 for consistency with Part 2 provisions.
520. In Section 7B.03 Position of Signs, the NCUTCD, a State DOT,
and an NCUTCD member recommended the deletion of existing text that was
a repeat of information in Part 2. The FHWA agrees and in this final
rule deletes the GUIDANCE and OPTION statements of the 2003 MUTCD. The
FHWA also adopts two SUPPORT statements that reference sections in
Chapter 2A for information regarding the placement and location of
signs. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts an OPTION that states
that in-roadway signs for school traffic control areas may be used
consistent with the requirement of Sections 2B.12, 7B.08, and 7B.12.
521. In Section 7B.07 Sign Color for School Warning Signs, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to require, instead of merely allow, the use of
fluorescent yellow-green as the background color for all school warning
signs and plaques. A State DOT, ATSSA, and a local DOT agreed with the
proposal. Four State DOTs, a local DOT, two NCUTCD members, and a
citizen opposed the required use of fluorescent yellow-green and
recommended that the fluorescent yellow-green color be an OPTION or
GUIDANCE because of the increased cost over the yellow background and a
lack of research showing additional benefit. The FHWA proposed these
changes because the use of fluorescent yellow-green has become the
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. Consistent with Part 2
[[Page 66844]]
as adopted in this final rule, the FHWA adopts the required use of
fluorescent yellow-green for school warning signs and plaques as
proposed in the NPA.
522. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA in this final rule adopts a
new section numbered and titled Section 7B.08 School Sign and Plaques,
which replaces 2003 MUTCD Section 7B.08 School Advance Warning
Assembly. A local DOT opposed the introduction of the term ``school
area'' proposed in the NPA because it could lead to confusion. A local
school district requested clarification on the use of signs in school
areas versus school zones. A State DOT and a local DOT recommended
changes to the proposed list of applications for the School Sign. Based
on the comments, and in concert with the adopted definition of ``school
zone'' as discussed in Section 1A.13, the FHWA adopts an expanded
paragraph 02 to clarify the four specific applications of the School
Sign (S1-1) (School Area, School Zone, School Advance Crossing, and
School Crossing) in order to provide flexibility to States and local
governments in applying standard school signing in accordance with
their State laws and local ordinances. For consistency with the adopted
OPTION described in item 523 below, the FHWA also adopts paragraph 03
in this final rule which allows the use of a School sign with a
supplemental arrow plaque to be provided on a cross street in close
proximity to the intersection within a school area.
523. The FHWA in this final rule adopts a new section numbered and
titled Section 7B.09 School Zone Sign and Plaques and END SCHOOL ZONE
Sign. The FHWA in the NPA proposed language permitting the use of a
supplemental arrow plaque on a School (S1-1) sign at locations where a
school zone is located on a cross street less than 125 feet from the
edge of a street or highway. The FHWA proposed the change to provide
jurisdictions with flexibility for installing signs where there is not
sufficient distance for advance signing. A local DOT agreed with the
proposal. The NCUTCD agreed with the proposal, but recommended that a
specific maximum distance be removed from the statement. The FHWA
agrees with the NCUTCD and in this final rule adopts a modified
paragraph 05 to allow the use of the School sign with a supplemental
arrow plaque on a cross street ``in close proximity to the
intersection.'' The FHWA also modifies Figure 7B-3 to demonstrate
typical cross street signage for a School Zone sign with a supplemental
arrow plaque.
The FHWA also adopts a new plaque, ``ALL YEAR'' (S4-7P) that may be
used to supplement the School Zone Sign (S1-1), based on comments from
an NCUTCD member. The FHWA adopts paragraph 03 in Section 7B.09 to
describe the optional use and modifies Figure 7B-1 and Table 7B-1 to
include the new plaque.
524. The FHWA in this final rule adopts a new section numbered and
titled Section 7B.10 Higher Fines Zone Signs and Plaques, and relocates
to this section applicable information that was proposed in the NPA for
Section 7B.09 School Area or School Zone Sign and Section 7B.16 END
SCHOOL ZONE Sign. The FHWA also adopts the BEGIN HIGHER FINES ZONE (R2-
10) sign, END HIGHER FINES ZONE (R2-11) sign, and FINES HIGHER (R2-6P)
plaque and incorporates these signs into Figure 7B-1 and Table 7B-1.
To illustrate the use of the signs in Section 7B.10, the FHWA in
this final rule revises the title of Figure 7B-2, as proposed in the
NPA, to ``Example of Signing for a Higher Fines School Zone without a
School Crossing'' and adopts a new figure, numbered and titled ``Figure
7B-5 Example of Signing for a Higher Fines School Zone with a School
Speed Limit.''
525. The FHWA in this final rule revises the title of Figure 7B-3
to ``Example of Signing for a School Crossing Outside of a School
Zone'' and Figure 7B-4 to ``Example of Signing for a School Zone with a
School Speed Limit and a School Crossing.'' The NCUTCD and a State DOT
recommended the changes to the titles for clarification and the FHWA
agrees. The FHWA also makes editorial changes to the NPA proposed
figures based on recommendations from several commenters.
526. In Section 7B.11 School Advance Crossing Assembly (numbered
Section 7B.10 in the NPA) the FHWA in this final rule adopts revisions
to the section proposed in the NPA. Consistent with a similar change
discussed in item 523 above, the FHWA adopts a modified paragraph 04 to
allow the use of the School Advance Crossing assembly on a street when
a school crosswalk is located on the cross street in close proximity to
an intersection.
527. In Section 7B.12 School Crossing Assembly (numbered Section
7B.11 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to remove a statement
recommending the School Crossing assembly at marked crosswalks
including signalized locations. A local school district opposed the
revision and requested that the signs still be allowed at signalized
intersections. Two State DOTs recommended that language be added to
prohibit the use of the School Crossing assembly at signalized
intersections. The FHWA notes that the School Crossing assembly is
still allowed at school crossings, including those that are signal
controlled, but is not allowed on stop or yield controlled approaches.
The FHWA adopts in this final rule the language as proposed in the NPA.
A local DOT recommended that the School Crossing assembly be
prohibited on approaches controlled by a YIELD sign in addition to
those controlled by a STOP sign. The FHWA agrees that this is necessary
to provide consistency with the final rule for STOP and YIELD sign
applications in Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections.
Accordingly, the FHWA adopts in this final rule a modified paragraph 03
to prohibit the School Crossing assembly on approaches controlled by a
STOP or YIELD sign.
528. In Section 7B.13 School Bus Stop Ahead Sign (numbered Section
7B.12 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the GUIDANCE
statement by removing the specific distance of 500 feet that a stopped
school bus should be visible to road users, and in its place proposed
inserting a reference to distances given in Table 2C-4. A State DOT and
two local DOTs agreed with the proposal. The NCUTCD, a local DOT, and a
consultant opposed the reference to Table 2C-4. The FHWA agrees with
the NCUTCD that using Table 2C-4 is unnecessary for this particular
sign because the visibility of the high mounted red flashers located at
the top of the rear of the school bus are much more readily visible for
the School Bus Stop Ahead (S3-1) sign than for a bus with no flashers
activated for the SCHOOL BUS TURN AHEAD (S3-2) sign. The FHWA in this
final rule adopts a modified paragraph 01 to recommend the use of the
School Bus Stop Ahead sign when a stopped school bus is not visible to
road users for ``an adequate distance.''
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to replace the existing School Bus
Stop Ahead (S3-1) word message sign with a symbol sign as shown in
Figure 7B-1. The FHWA proposed 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
[[Page 66845]]
also been used since the 1970s. The FHWA proposed to use a symbol that
is similar to the Canadian MUTCD \194\ standard WC-9 symbol. The
proposed symbol featured a school bus with a depiction of red flashing
lights, a bus-mounted STOP sign, and students getting on or off the
bus. ATSSA and a local DOT agreed with the proposal. A State DOT
recommended changing the symbols of the children to be consistent with
the symbols of children used in the School (S1-1) sign and the FHWA
agrees. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a citizen agreed with the
proposal, but recommended various changes in the design of the sign.
The FHWA declines to incorporate the commenters' recommended changes,
because a recent human factors evaluation \195\ of the symbol proposed
in the NPA along with three alternative symbol designs and the current
word version warning sign found that the understanding of the meaning
of the symbol design as proposed in the NPA was equal to that of two
alternative symbol designs tested. The study also found that the NPA
symbol design has a greater legibility distance than the other symbol
alternatives evaluated and equal legibility distance to the existing
word version design. Seven State DOTs, six local DOTs, an NCUTCD
member, and a citizen opposed the proposed symbol sign, primarily
because of anticipated confusion over the symbolic representation. The
FHWA disagrees with the comments and adopts in this final rule the sign
as proposed in the NPA but with a minor adjustment to the symbols of
children to make them consistent with those in the S1-1 sign. As noted
above, the study found that the symbol sign was clearly understood by
the vast majority of the test subjects. 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 the
number of non-English speaking road users in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, e-mail: [email protected].us.
\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\ ``Design and Evaluations of Symbol Signs,'' Final Report,
May, 2008, conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, Jason Kennedy, and
Heather Rigdon Howard, 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/symbol_sign_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
529. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new section numbered and
titled Section 7B.14 SCHOOL BUS TURN AHEAD Sign (numbered Section 7B.13
in the NPA.) This new section contains the NPA proposed OPTION
statement about the use of this 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 NCUTCD, three State DOTs, and a local
DOT agreed with the proposal, but recommended changes to the proposed
language, including the reference to Table 2C-4. A local DOT opposed
the section and questioned the need for the proposed sign. A State DOT,
a local DOT, and a consultant opposed the use of Table 2C-4. The FHWA
disagrees with the objection to the use of Table 2C-4 and notes that
Condition B does provide adequate stopping distances, especially
considering that a school bus is a taller vehicle that can be seen for
a greater distance away than a normal passenger vehicle. The FHWA
adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA illustrated the proposed new sign, SCHOOL BUS TURN AHEAD
(S3-2), in Figure 7B-1 of the NPA. ATSSA and a local DOT agreed with
the proposed sign. A State DOT opposed the proposed sign. Four State
DOTs, three local DOTs, and two citizens recommended modifications to
the proposed sign, including changing the name of the sign to ``SCHOOL
BUS TURN AROUND'' and changing the color to yellow instead of
fluorescent yellow-green. The FHWA disagrees with the proposed changes
and adopts the new sign as proposed in the NPA. This new sign provides
a standard sign for applications that fit this need, with a legend that
is appropriate for the condition.
530. In Section 7B.15 (numbered Section 7B.14 in the NPA), the FHWA
changes the title to ``School Speed Limit Assembly and END SCHOOL SPEED
LIMIT Sign'' in this final rule to reflect the addition of a new sign,
END SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT (S5-3), which is illustrated in Figure 7B-1. The
FHWA adopts this sign, which clarifies the location that a reduced
speed limit for a school zone is concluded, consistent with comparable
provisions for other reduced speed limits in Chapter 2B.
The FHWA in this final rule relocates one of the STANDARD
statements proposed in the NPA from Section 7B.09 to Section 7B.15
because the content regarding reduced speed zones is more appropriate
in that section. A local DOT supported the NPA proposal to require the
use of the School (S1-1) sign in advance of a reduced speed zone for a
school area, while a different local DOT opposed the proposal. The FHWA
adopts in this final rule paragraph 02 requiring the use of the School
sign in advance of a reduced speed zone for a school area. The FHWA
also clarifies the application of higher fines zones in school speed
limit zones by adding paragraph 03 that is consistent with the adopted
Chapter 2B.
Numerous agencies opposed the proposed requirement (in Section
7B.16 of the NPA) 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 in this final
rule retains the requirement but relocates it to Section 7B.15. It is
important and sometimes legally necessary to mark the end points of
designated school zones. The use of a Speed Limit sign showing the
speed limit for the following section of highway is required by
existing language in Section 2B.13. In response to comments, the FHWA
also adds an OPTION statement to provide flexibility in mounting the
END SCHOOL ZONE sign when a Speed Limit sign or END HIGHER FINES sign
is also required at the same location.
Two State DOTs and a consultant opposed the existing GUIDANCE that
the reduced speed zone should begin either 200 feet from the crosswalk
or 100 feet from the school property line. The FHWA in this final rule
revises paragraph 07 to recommend that the beginning point of a reduced
school speed limit zone should be at least 200 feet in advance of the
school grounds, a school crossing, or other school related activities.
The FHWA also recommends that the 200-foot distance should be increased
where the school speed limit is 30 mph or higher. These changes are
based on recently published research\196\ by the Texas Transportation
Institute concerning speeds in school zones. The FHWA notes that the
distances are recommendations that can be adjusted based on State law
and local ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ ``Speeds in School Zones,'' Report number FHWA/TX-09/0-
5470-1, February, 2009, by Kay Fitzpatrick, et al., Texas
Transportation Institute, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5470-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA 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. Two State DOTs and two local DOTs recommended the statement be
changed to GUIDANCE. Three State DOTs and three traffic control device
manufacturers opposed the proposal and recommended the statement remain
as an OPTION because the requirement
[[Page 66846]]
will make obsolete many of the existing changeable message signs. The
FHWA disagrees with the commenters and notes that the fluorescent
yellow-green color is required for consistency with the general
requirements for colors used on changeable message signs in Chapters 2A
and 2L and for school area warning signs in Section 7B.07. The STANDARD
is adopted in this final rule as proposed in the NPA.
The NCUTCD and a State DOT recommended removal of the existing
OPTION statement that allows the use of the signal indications of the
Speed Limit Sign Beacon to be positioned within the face of the School
Speed Limit (S5-1) sign. This statement mirrors a similar OPTION in
Section 4L.04 Speed Limit Sign Beacon. This sign is the only instance
where beacons are allowed within a sign face. Under certain light and
weather conditions, the flashing beacon causes halation that obscures
the sign message. The FHWA agrees that this is an obsolete practice but
declines to remove the option at this time. The FHWA might consider
this for a future rulemaking. However, the FHWA removes the OPTION from
Section 7B.15 and instead provides a cross-reference to Section 4L.04
in this final rule.
531. The FHWA does not adopt Section 7B.16 END SCHOOL ZONE Sign
that was proposed in the NPA, but maintains the existing END SCHOOL
ZONE Sign (S5-2) and requirements for its use, as discussed above in
Section 7B.15.
532. In Section 7B.16 (Section 7B.15 in the NPA) Reduced School
Speed Limit Ahead Sign, in this final rule the FHWA revises the OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than merely
allow, the use of this sign where the speed limit is being reduced by
more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates that advance
notice would be appropriate. The FHWA makes this change for consistency
with similar GUIDANCE for advance warning of other reduced speed limits
as adopted in Sections 2B.13 and 2C.38
533. In Section 7C.02 Crosswalk Markings (numbered Section 7C.03 in
the NPA), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a GUIDANCE statement
recommending that warning signs be installed for marked crosswalks at
nonintersection locations, and that adequate visibility for students be
provided by implementing parking prohibitions. A State DOT recommended
changing the statement to a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees because some
flexibility is needed and mandatory language is not appropriate in this
case. The NCUTCD recommended adding ``or other appropriate measures''
in addition to implementing parking prohibitions to provide adequate
visibility of students. The FHWA agrees and adopts in this final rule a
modified paragraph 03 as GUIDANCE.
Two local DOTs opposed the NPA proposal to change the word
``pedestrian'' to ``student'' when discussing conflicting movements
with motorists and bicyclists. The commenters noted that students are
not the only people to use a crosswalk. The FHWA disagrees with the
comment because the crosswalk markings discussed in Part 7 are for
school crossings. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the change as
proposed in the NPA.
534. The FHWA in this final rule removes Chapter 7D Signals of the
2003 MUTCD, because it is a small chapter whose only purpose was to
provide references to Part 4 and Section 4C.06. The FHWA incorporates
the references in Section 7A.04 instead.
535. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to delete the information
pertaining to student patrols from the MUTCD except for a SUPPORT
statement in Section 7D.01 Types of Crossing Supervision, which
acknowledged the use of student patrols and referenced the ``AAA School
Safety Patrol Operations Manual.'' \197\ Two State DOTs and a local DOT
opposed the deletion of all the material on student patrols. The FHWA
disagrees with the commenters. 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 in this final rule
removes the mention of student patrols in Section 7D.04. The FHWA also
removes Sections 7E.07, 7E.08, and 7E.09 that were in the 2003 MUTCD
because these sections pertained to student patrols, and removes the
reference to student patrols from STANDARD paragraph 01 in Section
7A.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ This 2004 publication can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.aaa.com/aaa/049/PublicAffairs/SSPManual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
536. In Section 7D.03 Qualifications of Adult Crossing Guards, the
FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the GUIDANCE statement to indicate
that the list represents the minimum qualifications of adult crossing
guards. The FHWA proposed three additional qualifications (items C, D,
and E in paragraph 02) that are similar to applicable provisions in
Section 6E.01 for flaggers. Three State DOTs and an NCUTCD member
recommended substantive revisions to the language. The FHWA adopts the
text as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA might consider the suggested
revisions in a future rulemaking.
537. In Section 7D.04 Uniform of Adult Crossing Guards, the FHWA
adopts in this final rule a revised paragraph 01 to reflect that law
enforcement officers performing school crossing supervision shall use
high-visibility safety apparel labeled as ANSI 107-2004. This change
incorporates into the MUTCD the provisions of 23 CFR part 634 that were
published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2006.\198\ The NCUTCD
and a State DOT recommended editorial changes to the proposed statement
and the FHWA agrees and adopts a revised STANDARD. The FHWA establishes
a target compliance date of December 31, 2011 (approximately two years
from the effective date of this final rule) for adult crossing guard
apparel on non-Federal-aid highways. Required compliance of apparel for
workers, including law enforcement officers, on Federal-aid highways
has been in effect since November 24, 2008, pursuant to 23 CFR part
634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ The Federal Register Notice was published in the Federal
Register on November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Pages 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
538. In Section 7D.05 Operating Procedures for Adult Crossing
Guards, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to require, rather than recommend,
that adult crossing guards shall not direct traffic but rather select
opportune times to create a sufficient gap in the traffic flow and
stand in the roadway to indicate that pedestrians are about to use or
are using the crosswalk and that all vehicular traffic must stop. Two
State DOTs, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member opposed the proposed
change because they believe that adult crossing guards do have some
traffic control powers and the new language could increase the
likelihood of litigation. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters
because the laws of many States do not grant police power to direct
traffic to school crossing guards. 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 schoolchildren, to minimize the exposure of schoolchildren
to vehicles that fail to stop. Therefore, the FHWA adopts in this final
rule paragraph 01 as proposed in the NPA.
[[Page 66847]]
In addition, the FHWA proposed to require, rather than recommend,
that adult crossing guards use a STOP paddle. A State DOT opposed the
change because it would prohibit the use of flags. The FHWA adopts the
change to paragraph 02 as proposed in the NPA to increase the level of
consistency for motorists approaching school crosswalks.
Discussion of Amendments to Part 8--Traffic Controls for Railroad and
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Grade Crossings
539. Although it was not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates
the information contained in Part 10 of the 2003 MUTCD and the
revisions thereto proposed in the NPA and editorially combines it with
Part 8 into the retitled Part 8 Traffic Control for Railroad and Light
Rail Transit (LRT) Grade Crossings. The FHWA combines the information
because of the similarities between the topics, to reduce the amount of
redundant material and cross-referencing, and based on comments
received by a State DOT and an NCUTCD member. In most cases Parts 8 and
10 of the 2003 MUTCD and the proposed revisions to those Parts in the
NPA contained virtually identical provisions. In combining the two
Parts, the FHWA identifies all provisions from former Part 10 that are
specifically applicable only to light-rail transit grade crossings,
identifies all provisions that are specifically applicable only to
railroad grade crossings, and uses the generic term ``grade crossing''
for provisions that are applicable to both railroad grade crossings and
light-rail grade crossings. The FHWA also adopts ``LRT'' as a new
abbreviation for light-rail transit since this is a common industry
abbreviation and it will reduce the amount of text in the MUTCD.
540. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, in this final rule the FHWA
relocates light-rail transit grade crossing information contained in
Section 10A.01 in the 2003 MUTCD to Section 8A.01 with revisions to the
language as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA also adds definitions of
various terms as proposed in the NPA for Sections 8A.01 and 10A.01, but
relocates them to Section 1A.13, as previously discussed.
A State DOT suggested revising the proposed ``Constant Warning Time
Train Detection'' definition to add ``track circuitry'' and
``determines the time of arrival of a train at a crossing'' and
suggested other editorial revisions. The FHWA disagrees because the
suggested language does not include important elements including
``uniform waiting time'' and ``not accelerating or decelerating'' and
therefore the FHWA adopts the definition as proposed in the NPA and
relocates it to Section 1A.13.
The FHWA received comments suggesting removing the ``Diagnostic
Team'' definition and the use of the term ``diagnostic team'' from the
MUTCD because it may inadvertently increase the scope of the MUTCD and
this term is provided in other reference materials. The FHWA agrees and
deletes the proposed ``Diagnostic Team'' definition and deletes the use
of ``diagnostic team'' in the various places that it had been proposed
to be added in Part 8.
A State DOT also suggested removing the terms ``train whistle,''
``locomotive whistle,'' and ``train horn'' from the NPA proposed
``Locomotive Horn'' definition to promote uniformity. The FHWA agrees
that the terms should not be used interchangeably in the MUTCD. The
FHWA believes that the most appropriate term to consistently use in the
MUTCD is ``locomotive horn'' to be consistent with Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) terminology, and the FHWA adopts the use of that
term in this final rule.
An NCUTCD member suggested revising the existing ``pre-signal''
definition to clarify that supplemental near-side traffic control
signal faces for the highway-highway intersection are not considered
pre-signals and that pre-signals are typically used where the clear
storage distance is insufficient to store one or more design vehicles.
The FHWA agrees and adopts the definition as suggested by the commenter
with editorial revisions in this final rule.
A State railroad operator suggested revising the existing ``Vehicle
Intrusion Detection Devices'' definition to replace ``Intrusion'' with
``Presence'' because the highway industry typically refers to devices
that detect automobiles along the roadways as vehicle presence
detectors. The FHWA notes that the term is used only once in the MUTCD
and therefore a definition is not needed. The FHWA deletes the existing
definition and relocates the elements of the definition to the text in
Section 8C.06.
A State DOT opposed the proposed new ``Wayside Horn'' definition in
the NPA because it is not beneficial for motorists, only for
pedestrians. The FHWA disagrees because the horns can be made loud
enough to be heard by occupants of motor vehicles. The NCUTCD suggested
revising the proposed ``Wayside Horn'' definition by replacing the term
``oncoming motorist'' with ``road users'' and to include the whole
wayside horn system, not just the horns. The FWHA agrees because the
wayside horns are a part of the wayside horn system and the FHWA adopts
the NCUTCD suggested revisions to the proposed definition in the NPA in
this final rule.
The NCUTCD also suggested adding new definitions for ``Entrance
Gate'' and ``Exit Gate.'' The FHWA agrees because the suggested new
definitions clarify existing terms used in the MUTCD and adds the new
definitions recommended by the NCUTCD in Section 1A.13 with editorial
revisions.
The NCUTCD and a State railroad operator suggested adding a new
definition for ``Swing Gate'' since it is mentioned in several
locations in the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees because Section 8C.13
already covers the characteristics of a swing gate and adding a
definition would be repetitive and unnecessary.
541. In Section 8A.02, Use of Standard Devices, Systems, and
Practices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, a State DOT opposed the NPA
proposed revisions to the GUIDANCE because the term ``road user'' gives
too much weight to pedestrians and the commenter believes that
pedestrians should not be in the road. The FHWA disagrees because the
devices described in Part 8 also control pedestrians and bicyclists, so
``road user'' is the appropriate term and therefore in this final rule
adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
542. The FHWA relocates Section 10A.02 of the 2003 MUTCD, with
revisions as proposed in the NPA, to new Section 8A.03 Use of Standard
Devices, Systems, and Practices at Highway-LRT Grade Crossings in this
final rule. This new section contains provisions specifically
applicable only to light-rail grade crossings.
543. In Section 8A.04, Uniform Provisions (Section 8A.03 in the
2003 MUTCD), a State DOT suggested revising the existing 2nd STANDARD
statement to remove a conflict with AASHTO guidance on crash cushions.
The commenter notes that when placing a crash cushion in front of the
sign or signal, AASHTO recommends that there not be a curb in front of
the crash cushion for high speeds. The commenter suggested changing the
language to require either a raised island or a crash cushion to
protect a center mounted sign or signal. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision to the existing provision in this final rule. This
revision provides agencies with more flexibility in the placement of
signs and signals and provides consistency with AASHTO guidance.
544. The FHWA adopts a new Section 8A.06 Illumination at Grade
Crossings (section 8A.05 in the NPA) containing
[[Page 66848]]
information previously included in Chapter 8C of the 2003 MUTCD in this
final rule. The FHWA adopts the text in this section as SUPPORT
statements as proposed in the NPA because illumination is not a traffic
control device and thus should not be regulated by GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements. The FHWA believes 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.\199\ The NCUTCD and two State DOTs agreed and suggested
editorial text revisions for clarification. The FHWA adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA with editorial revisions recommended by
the commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ Information on obtaining this publication can be viewed on
the following Internet Web site: https://www.iesna.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
545. The FHWA adopts a new Section 8A.07 (Chapter 8D in the NPA)
Quiet Zone Treatments at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. The FHWA adopts
the contents of NPA proposed Chapter 8D in a new Section 8A.07 based on
recommendations from a State DOT and a city. The purpose of this new
section is to add language to support and directly refer to regulations
adopted by Federal Railroad Administration regarding quiet zones
established in conjunction with restrictions on locomotive horns at
certain highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR part 222).\200\ The
NCUTCD, two State DOTs, a railroad operator, an NCUTCD member, and a
vendor opposed the proposed language because they believe it fails to
provide the guidance necessary to implement the installation of
required traffic control devices in quiet zones. The NCUTCD suggested
including new STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT text. The FHWA disagrees
because there has been no confusion on the part of practitioners on how
to install the traffic control devices for quiet zones, even though the
FRA regulation has been in effect for three years without any specific
treatments or procedures specified in the MUTCD. Provisions regarding
the traffic control devices that might be used in a quiet zone have
been available in the 2003 MUTCD without any advice on how to
specifically apply these in a quiet zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed language in Chapter 10E regarding
Quiet Zone treatments at light-rail transit grade crossings, comparable
to that proposed in Part 8 for railroad grade crossings. The NCUTCD and
a State railroad operator opposed the new language because Quiet Zones
do not apply to light rail transit crossings in the FRA regulations.
The FHWA agrees with the commenters and in this final rule deletes the
language that was proposed in Chapter 10E in the NPA.
546. In Section 8A.08 (Section 8A.05 in the 2003 MUTCD), Temporary
Traffic Control Zones, a State railroad operator suggested adding a new
cross reference to Figure 6H-46, which shows an example of a temporary
traffic control zone at a highway-rail grade crossing. Although not
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA agrees and in this final rule adopts the
suggested change as a SUPPORT statement that also clarifies that the
example is only one of many situations that might be encountered. The
FHWA also combines information contained in Section 10A.05 in the 2003
MUTCD into Section 8A.08 in this final rule, with editorial revisions
to the language as proposed in the NPA.
547. The FHWA adopts several NPA proposed changes throughout
Chapter 8B Signs and Markings in this final rule, to require the
installation of a YIELD sign or STOP sign at all passive highway-rail
grade crossings. The FHWA adopts this change to incorporate information
into the MUTCD from FHWA's Policy Memorandum, ``Guidance for Use of
YIELD or STOP Signs with the Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings,'' \201\ dated March 17, 2006. The FHWA adopts the
language as a STANDARD in the MUTCD to require, rather than merely
recommend as in the Policy Memorandum, the use of YIELD or STOP signs
in conjunction with the Crossbuck sign at all passive crossings. While
the Crossbuck sign is in fact a regulatory sign that requires vehicles
to yield to trains and stop if necessary, recent research \202\
indicates insufficient road user understanding of and compliance with
that regulatory requirement when just the Crossbuck sign is present at
passive crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 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.
\202\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A local DOT and ATSSA agreed with the proposed new STANDARD
requiring a STOP or YIELD sign. The NCUTCD also agreed and suggested
revising the exception for situations ``where an authorized person on
the ground directs road users not to enter the crossing prior to a
train occupying the crossing.'' A State DOT suggested deleting the
exception. The FHWA disagrees with deleting the exception because there
is no need for the additional YIELD or STOP sign at a crossing where
road users are always given clear instructions as to when it is not
safe to cross the track. Nine State DOTs, 12 local agencies, 3
associations, the University of Kansas, an NCUTCD member, a former
NCUTCD member, and 3 consultants opposed the proposed new STANDARD
because of concerns that the STOP or YIELD signs will be redundant to
the Crossbuck regulatory sign and will result in confusion about the
installation and maintenance responsibilities between agencies and
railroad companies, sign clutter, potential for increased rear-end
crashes, the adoption in most crossings of a STOP sign instead of
YIELD, lack of respect for the new signs by drivers, and additional
expense for sign installation. The commenters also indicated the lack
of field research studies supporting the adoption of these signs.
Several of the commenters suggested retaining the 2003 MUTCD text or
making the proposed STANDARD statement an OPTION. The FHWA responds to
the commenters by noting that the requirement of a YIELD or STOP sign
in conjunction with the Crossbuck sign at passive grade crossings
resulted from research \203\ that showed that road users do not fully
comprehend the message being communicated by a Crossbuck sign alone.
The same Crossbuck sign is used at active and passive grade crossings.
At active grade crossings, road users perceive the Crossbuck sign to be
marking the location of the grade crossing and the gates and lights as
the traffic control devices that control their actions. At passive
grade crossings, road users sometimes think that the Crossbuck sign
merely marks the location of the grade crossing, when in fact it also
needs to convey the regulatory message of ``yield to trains.''
Furthermore, the Crossbuck sign design,
[[Page 66849]]
although unique in shape, does not always sufficiently attract the
attention of road users, especially at night and when they are turning
onto the grade crossing from a street that is parallel to the track.
The use of a YIELD sign (and occasionally a STOP sign when justified by
an engineering study) can improve the safety of passive grade crossings
without requiring any action by road users beyond that which is already
required of them. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA
with editorial revisions suggested by the NCUTCD in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A railroad operator and a railroad association suggested revising
the proposed requirement to allow the use of engineering judgment
instead of an engineering study to determine when STOP signs should be
used at passive grade crossings. The FHWA disagrees and believes that
the decision to stop all vehicles that approach a grade crossing is so
important that it should be documented in a study. The NCUTCD suggested
adding text to the STANDARD that the determination to include a STOP
sign in a Crossbuck Assembly shall be made by the regulatory agency or
highway authority having jurisdiction over the roadway approach. The
FHWA agrees because the decision to stop all vehicles should be made by
the highway authority and not the railroad or light-rail transit
authority. The FHWA adopts the NCUTCD suggested revision to clarify the
proposed STANDARD statement in this final rule.
A railroad association suggested allowing an exception for
requiring an engineering study for existing highway rail grade
crossings with STOP signs. The FHWA disagrees because if a STOP sign is
in place at a crossing and an engineering study justifying its use is
already on file, then a new study would not be necessary. However, if
no such study is on file because it was lost or because engineering
judgment was used to determine the need for the STOP sign, then a new
study should be conducted and placed in the file. If the new study does
not justify the STOP sign, then the STOP sign should be replaced with a
YIELD sign.
The FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December 31, 2019
(approximately 10 years from the effective date of this final rule) or
when adjustments are made to the individual grade crossing and/or
corridor, whichever occurs first, for implementing the new requirements
for YIELD or STOP signs at existing passive crossings. The FHWA
establishes this target compliance date to promote increased safety at
passive grade crossings, especially during nighttime hours. Because the
new requirements involve conducting engineering studies and installing
signs that do not currently exist at existing grade crossings, the FHWA
believes that relying on the systematic upgrading processes that
highway agencies typically use to replace existing signs at the end of
their service lives would result in an excessively long time period for
installation of YIELD or STOP signs at existing passive grade
crossings. The FHWA anticipates that installation of the required
additional signs at existing locations will provide significant safety
benefits to road users.
548. In Section 8B.01 Purpose, the FHWA relocates existing SUPPORT
and STANDARD statements from Section 10C.01 of the 2003 MUTCD with
editorial revisions as proposed in the NPA in this final rule.
549. In retitled Table 8B-1 Grade Crossing Sign and Plaque Minimum
Sizes, the NCUTCD suggested reducing the existing dimension for the I-
13 sign (I-13a in the 2003 MUTCD) to 12 inches x 9 inches. The FHWA
decides to delete the size information for the I-13 sign from Table 8B-
1, to eliminate any potential inconsistencies with an anticipated
future rulemaking for this item by the FRA.
A consultant questioned why the W10-14P, W10-14aP, and W10-15P
plaques were proposed to increase in size from 24 inches x 18 inches to
30 inches x 24 inches, noting that sign sizes for other plaques (W10-
5P, W10-9P, and proposed W10-10P) remained at 24 inches x 18 inches
size. The FHWA in this final rule adopts increases in the size of the
W10-5P and W10-9P plaques to 30 inches x 24 inches to provide
consistency with the other adopted revisions that increase the
lettering height to 5 inches for all railroad crossing warning plaques,
to assure adequate legibility for drivers with 20/40 visual acuity.
550. In retitled Section 8B.03 Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign
(R15-1) and Number of Tracks Plaque (R15-2P) at Active and Passive
Grade Crossings, the FHWA proposed in the NPA an OPTION statement that
allowed the Crossbuck sign at non-signalized crossings to have
reflectorized red lettering, rather than the standard black lettering.
While a local DOT agreed with the proposal, five State DOTs, three
local agencies, ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a consultant opposed it
because of concerns that the red letters will fade quickly, the need
for uniformity, and the red color might imply that a vehicle needs to
stop. The FHWA agrees with these comments and does not adopt the
proposed OPTION in this final rule, in order to promote uniformity.
Two State DOTs suggested revising the proposed SUPPORT statement to
note that the Crossbuck sign functions similar to a YIELD sign. The
FHWA agrees and in this final rule adopts the revisions to the SUPPORT
statement proposed by the commenters. The FHWA also revises the SUPPORT
to state that Crossbuck signs function similar to a YIELD sign ``in
most States'' based on information provided by the FRA.
The FHWA also relocates to this section the existing OPTION from
Section 10C.02 in the 2003 MUTCD to use a Crossbuck sign on a highway
approach to a highway-light rail transit grade crossing on a semi-
exclusive or mixed-use alignment.
A State railroad operator suggested revising the existing STANDARD
statement to require the R15-2P plaque at all multi-track crossings,
not just at crossings without automatic gates, based on concerns about
the potential for second train incidents. These concerns are present at
multi-track crossings, independent of whether gate arms are installed.
The FHWA notes this comment and might consider including this
suggestion in a future NPA.
The NCUTCD suggested adding the word ``vertical'' to the existing
STANDARD in Section 8B.03 to clarify the orientation of the
retroreflective white strip material on the support for a YIELD or STOP
sign. The FHWA agrees and makes the suggested revision and relocates
the language to Section 8B.04.
551. The FHWA adopts the retitled Figure 8B-1 (Figure 8B-3 in the
2003 MUTCD) Regulatory Signs and Plaques for Grade Crossings in this
final rule, which combines Figure 8B-3 and Figure 10C-2 in the 2003
MUTCD and incorporates the NPA proposed R8-10a and R10-6a signs. ATSSA
supported the new signs while an NCUTCD member opposed them stating
that these smaller signs were not necessary. The FHWA disagrees because
the smaller alternate signs are needed for situations when vertical
space is limited.
A State railroad operator and local DOT suggested using the
symbolic turn restriction blank-out signs instead of the text messages
for the R3-1a and R3-2a signs, similar to the California MUTCD
provisions. The FHWA notes that the Section 8B.08 text does not prevent
blank-out symbolic signs from being used. The text gives the OPTION of
using the word message signs for this purpose; the text does not
mandate only
[[Page 66850]]
the use of the word message signs for this situation.
552. The FHWA also adopts the revised Section 8B.04 (Section 8B.08
in the 2003 MUTCD) Crossbuck Assemblies with YIELD or STOP Signs at
Passive Grade Crossings in this final rule. The FHWA replaces all of
the existing text with new STANDARD, GUIDANCE, SUPPORT, and OPTION
statements proposed in Section 8B.05 the NPA combined with new language
proposed in Section 10C.02 in the NPA that describes the use of STOP
and YIELD signs at passive grade crossings. The FHWA also relocates a
STANDARD from Section 8B.03 and makes several editorial revisions to
the language as proposed in the NPA to remove inconsistencies and
redundancies with Section 8B.03 based on several comments received. The
remaining sections are renumbered accordingly.
The FHWA also adopts the NPA proposed deletion from the STANDARD
statement of the requirement that Crossbuck signs be used on each
highway approach to every highway-light rail transit grade crossing on
a semi-exclusive alignment. The FHWA adopts this change to reflect the
standard practice of most light rail transit agencies in the nation.
Crossbuck signs are not typically used at grade crossings controlled by
traffic signals, particularly in downtown areas. Grade crossings within
highway-highway intersections in urban areas with train speeds of 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 grade crossings in downtown areas or at intersections
controlled by traffic signals, since they are believed to be
ineffective and create sign clutter. A city agreed with the deletion
while a State DOT opposed it.
The NCUTCD and a State DOT suggested adding a requirement in
Section 8B.04 that the mounting height for the STOP or YIELD sign
should be at least 5 feet for new installations while another State DOT
suggested a 4-foot mounting height for new installations. The FHWA
adopts a minimum mounting height of 4 feet but agrees that a higher
mounting height might be needed for new installations and might
consider proposing this in a future NPA.
The FHWA also proposed in Section 8B.03 of the NPA to revise the
STANDARD statement, and the associated figure, to indicate that the
measurement for the retroreflective strip that is placed on the front
and back of the support for the Crossbuck sign is to be from the
ground, rather than the roadway. The FHWA proposed this change because
there might be some cases where the ground level at the base of the
sign is higher than the edge of the roadway. The FHWA adopts the
proposed change in Section 8B.04 in this final rule but does not adopt
the requirement for the retroreflective strip on the back of the
support. A State DOT suggested revising the text to add the word
``back'' to the existing STANDARD statement to specify where not to
install white strips on Crossbuck supports for one-way streets. The
FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested revision in this final rule and
changes this statement to an OPTION rather than stating it in a
STANDARD text as an exception.
Two State DOTs and a city opposed the STANDARD statement proposed
in Section 8B.05 in the NPA for the use of STOP AHEAD and YIELD AHEAD
warning signs because installing the signs might not always be feasible
because of space limitations, the signs might conflict with advance
railroad warning signs, and drivers might start ignoring these signs if
too many are installed. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter because
there will not be an over-proliferation of these signs if they are
installed only when the criteria in Section 2C.35 are met. The FHWA
adopts this proposed STANDARD paragraph in this final rule, but
reverses the order of the W3-1 and W3-2 signs to improve consistency.
The FHWA also adds a YIELD AHEAD and STOP AHEAD warning sign to Figure
8B-6.
A county and a consultant suggested revising the NPA proposed
GUIDANCE recommending using yield lines at highway-rail crossings in
order to reference Section 3B.16 and to remove the words ``transverse
line'' since it might be confused with a stop line. The FHWA disagrees
with removing ``transverse line'' because Section 3B.16 in the 2003
MUTCD makes it clear that yield lines are transverse lines. The FHWA
does not adopt the proposed GUIDANCE and instead adopts a reference to
Section 8B.28 in a new SUPPORT statement for the proper use of stop
lines and yield lines.
A State DOT suggested providing an OPTION allowing a ``Goal Post''
or ``U''-mounted assembly for the placement of the Yield or Stop sign
on a Crossbuck Assembly to maintain proper sign mounting height for
crashworthiness of the sign assembly. The commenter also notes that
these can be used as an alternative where the roadway shoulder area is
limited. The FHWA notes that the text does not prevent an agency from
using a U-mounted assembly. Figure 8B-2 shows the YIELD or STOP sign
below the Crossbuck and Number of Tracks signs, but does not prohibit
other arrangements and therefore no revisions are necessary to
accommodate the commenter's request.
A State railroad operator suggested adding a STANDARD to require
the railroad company to be responsible for the entire Crossbuck
Assembly (which the language in the NPA defines to include the YIELD or
STOP sign), unless the roadway authority has agreed to place and
maintain a separate YIELD or STOP sign for the crossing. The commenter
stated that typically railroad companies prohibit roadway authorities
from altering or otherwise modifying Crossbuck Assemblies at their
grade crossings, and STOP and YIELD signs placed in conjunction with
Crossbuck Assemblies should ideally be located on the same post, and
therefore maintained by the railroad. The commenter said that the
responsibilities of the roadway authority and railroad should be
stated. The FHWA disagrees because responsibility the installation and
maintenance of the YIELD or STOP sign on the Crossbuck support will
vary from State to State. To clarify this situation, the FHWA adds a
cross reference to Sections 8A.02 and 8A.03, which discusses the
general responsibilities of highway agencies and railroad companies.
553. The FHWA relocates Section 10C.04 in the 2003 MUTCD to Section
8B.05 and retitles the section as ``Use of STOP (R1-1) or YIELD (R1-2)
Signs without Crossbuck Signs at Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings,''
with editorial revisions, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.
554. The FHWA combines the light-rail transit grade crossing
information from Section 10C.15 as proposed in the NPA into new Section
8B.06 (Section 8B.04 in the 2003 MUTCD) Grade Crossing Advance Warning
Signs (W10 Series) and also adopts the NPA proposed revisions for
Section 8B.06. The FHWA proposed 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 Grade
Crossing Advance Warning sign (W10-1). As part of this proposal, the
FHWA also proposed requiring the use of a new 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. While ATSSA agreed, numerous commenters opposed the use of the
No Signal plaque because it is obvious what control is at an active
crossing and because of concerns over the cost of
[[Page 66851]]
implementation, sign clutter, and lack of research and justification
for their use. The FHWA acknowledges that the SIGNAL AHEAD plaque
message is not needed or particularly helpful in advance of active
crossings. There is already a NO GATES OR LIGHTS (W10-13P) plaque that
can be used in advance of passive crossings, so a new NO SIGNAL plaque
is unnecessary. Using a separate YIELD AHEAD or STOP AHEAD plaque will
not convey this message, as road users might think that it refers to a
highway-highway intersection beyond the grade crossing. Because this
final rule adopts a requirement that a retroreflective YIELD or STOP
sign be used at every passive crossing, which will have an effect on
how much in advance (especially at night) a road user becomes aware of
the presence of a grade crossing, there is no need to require or even
recommend that this plaque be used at all passive crossings. As a
result of the comments, the FHWA does not adopt the proposed STANDARD
requiring supplemental plaques under advance warning signs at active
and passive crossings, and the two proposed plaque designs.
A State DOT suggested providing an OPTION for situations where two
grade crossings are spaced closely together where one grade crossing
has signals and the other crossing does not. The FHWA disagrees with
the need for this OPTION because in this unusual case lights and gates
will have to also be installed at the passive grade crossing or the
placement of the signs and plaques will have to be carefully designed
to minimize any potential confusion. A State DOT recommended changing
the reference from the W10-1 sign to the W10 series since there will be
instances where the NO TRAIN HORN plaque is used and there will not be
a W10-1 sign. The FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested revision.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to add at the end of the 1st
STANDARD a 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. Two State DOTs, five local agencies, an association, and a
consultant opposed the new STANDARD because of concerns about sign
redundancy with other advance warning signage, increases burdens on
public agencies resulting from sign clutter and operations costs in
typical urban environments, and will likely not change road user
behavior. A city suggested reducing the STANDARD to GUIDANCE. The FHWA
disagrees because the use of STOP AHEAD or YIELD AHEAD signs are
required for non-grade crossing applications in Section 2C.35 when the
criteria is met and their use should also be required in this section.
Therefore, the FHWA adopts in this final rule the language as proposed
in the NPA.
555. The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed new Figure 8B-3 Crossbuck
Assembly with a YIELD or STOP Sign on a Separate Sign Support to
reflect the adopted new requirement to install a YIELD sign or STOP
sign at all passive highway-rail grade crossings, except crossings
where road users are directed by an authorized person on the ground to
not enter the crossing at all times that an approaching train is about
to occupy the crossing. The remaining existing Figures in Chapter 8B
are renumbered accordingly.
556. The FHWA combines light-rail transit grade crossing
information from Section 10C.10 in the NPA into retitled Section 8B.07
(Section 8B.05 in the 2003 MUTCD) EXEMPT Grade Crossings Plaques (R15-
3P, W10-1aP). A State DOT suggested revising the existing provisions to
clarify the placement of an exempt plaque in relation to a Crossbuck
sign, warning sign, or other plaque. The FHWA disagrees because Section
8B.07 has existing text that says that the EXEMPT plaque is installed
below the advance warning sign.
557. In retitled Figure 8B-4 (Figure 8B-2 in the 2003 MUTCD)
Warning Signs and Plaques for Grade Crossings, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to add the light rail transit signs and plaques from Figure 10C-3
in the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA proposed revising the symbol shown on the
W10-7 sign to use the same symbol of a light rail transit vehicle as
that used on the I-12 sign. The light rail transit vehicle symbol on
the existing W10-7 sign was an inadvertent error that the FHWA wanted
to correct so that the symbols will be consistent. A city and ATSSA
agreed with the proposed revision. The NCUTCD suggested adding a note
that signs can be modified for geometrics to allow a curved line for a
roundabout and railroad tracks. The FHWA agrees and adopts the proposed
revision with the suggested note and editorial revisions.
558. With respect to the NPA proposed Figure 8B-6 Example of
Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings at Grade Crossings,
the NCUTCD suggested adding the words ``If transverse lines are used at
the grade crossing'' to the note about the yield line. The FHWA agrees
and adopts the suggested change in this final rule. A State DOT opposed
the use of yield lines. The commenter suggested showing an illustration
of the yield line if this requirement is retained. The FHWA notes that
if a YIELD sign is used at a passive crossing, then a yield or stop
line may be used per Section 8B.28, as discussed below. The FHWA does
not add an illustration of a yield line since the note on Figure 8B-6
is sufficient. The NCUTCD opposed moving the W10-1 sign in reference to
the railroad crossing pavement markings and suggested retaining the
location as shown in the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA agrees and maintains the
placement of the W10-1 and pavement markings as shown in the 2003
MUTCD. An NCUTCD member suggested illustrating the use of the W10-10P
and W10-16P plaques for passive and active grade crossings,
respectively. The FHWA notes that the supplemental plaques will not be
required and therefore does not add them to the figure.
559. In Section 8B.08 Turn Restrictions During Preemption (Section
8B.06 in the 2003 MUTCD) and in Section 8B.09 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS
Sign (R8-8) (Section 8B.07 in the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA combines the
proposed language with appropriate text from Sections 10C.09 and
10C.05, respectively, in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail transit grade
crossings, and adopts editorial revisions as proposed in the NPA in
this final rule.
560. In Section 8B.10 TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE Sign (R8-9) (Section
8B.09 in the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA combines the existing language with
appropriate text from Section 10C.06 in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail
transit grade crossings in this final rule. A local agency suggested
revising the existing OPTION statement to clarify that the R8-9 sign
replaces the Crossbuck assembly. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision in this final rule.
561. In retitled Section 8B.11 STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING Sign (R8-10,
R8-10a) the FHWA combines the existing language with appropriate text
from Section 10C.08 in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail transit grade
crossings.
562. In retitled Section 8B.12 STOP HERE ON RED Sign (R10-6, R10-
6a) the FHWA combines the existing language with appropriate text from
Section 10C.07 in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail transit grade
crossings.
563. In Section 8B.17 LOOK Sign (R15-8) (Section 8B.16 in the 2003
MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to remove the option of mounting
the LOOK sign on the Crossbuck support. Two State DOTs opposed this
[[Page 66852]]
revision because there are situations where this option is beneficial.
Based on the comments received, the FHWA does not adopt the proposed
change. However, the FHWA adopts a new GUIDANCE statement recommending
that the LOOK sign should not be mounted on a Crossbuck Assembly that
has a STOP or YIELD sign because there would be insufficient space for
the LOOK sign and there would be too many signs for the driver to
process. A State railroad operator suggested removing the phrase ``on a
separate post'' from the proposed revision in the NPA to allow other
possible mounting locations, such as on a pedestrian swing gate or on a
wall adjacent to the crossing. The FHWA notes that the NPA proposal
intended to prohibit the mounting of the LOOK sign on the Crossbuck
support, and the option suggested by the commenter would be allowed
with the adopted text. The FHWA also combines language with appropriate
text from Section 10C.03 in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail transit grade
crossings.
564. The FHWA proposed to rewrite Section 8B.18 (Section 8B.12 in
the 2003 MUTCD) Emergency Notification Sign (I-13) and combine it with
the information in Section 10C.21 in the NPA. The proposed new text
included STANDARD statements that specify the minimum amount of
information to be placed on Emergency Notification signs, sign
placement, and the sign color of a white legend and border on a blue
background. A GUIDANCE statement with additional information on sign
retroreflectivity, sign placement, and sign size was also proposed. To
illustrate the proposed changes, FHWA proposed to revise Figure 8B-5
and Table 8B-1 accordingly. The FHWA proposed these changes to simplify
the requirements for these signs and to assure that the appropriate
information is displayed on these signs that provide valuable
information to roadway users in the event of an emergency or signal
malfunction requiring notification to the railroad or light rail
transit agency. A city and ATSSA agreed with the revisions proposed in
the NPA. Two State DOTs suggested revisions to allow different letter
heights. A city also opposed the proposed revision because in urban
areas where the highway-light rail transit grade crossing is at a named
intersection there should not be a need for a unique grade crossing
identifier. The FHWA adopts the revisions as proposed in the NPA but
removes specific references to letter heights and design details since
this information will be addressed by an anticipated future rulemaking
by the Federal Railway Administration.
A State DOT, six local agencies, an association, an NCUTCD member,
and a consultant suggested adding a new provision that the railroad
company is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the I-13
sign. The FHWA disagrees and notes that this specific responsibility
might vary from State to State and Sections 8A.02 and 8A.03 discuss the
general responsibilities of highway agencies and railroad companies.
565. With respect to the NPA proposals for retitled Figure 8B-5,
(Figure 8B-4 in the 2003 MUTCD) Example of Emergency Notification Sign,
the NCUTCD suggested revising the crossing number on the I-13 sign (I-
13a in the 2003 MUTCD) to be consistent with the DOT format. The FHWA
agrees with showing a realistic number in the figure and adopts the
sign with a revised legend in this final rule. An NCUTCD member
suggested deleting the emergency notification sign and figure from the
MUTCD because he believes that it is the railroad company's
responsibility to provide the sign. The FHWA disagrees because there
are situations where highway agencies install and maintain these signs
and therefore the sign is retained to promote uniformity.
566. In retitled Section 8B.21 (Section 8B.15 in the NPA) NO TRAIN
HORN Sign or Plaque (W10-9, W10-9P), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to
change the existing NO TRAIN HORN sign to a supplemental plaque. The
FHWA also proposed to revise the STANDARD to clarify that the plaque
should be mounted directly below the W10-1 sign. Two State DOTs and a
State railroad operator suggested revising the NPA proposed STANDARD to
include a reference to 49 CFR part 222 to be in conformity with the
quiet zone definition noted earlier in the MUTCD. The FHWA agrees and
adopts the suggested change in this final rule. The NCUTCD and a State
DOT suggested allowing the NO TRAIN HORN plaque to also be used with
the W10-2, W10-3, and W10-4 signs. The FHWA agrees that such use is
appropriate and adopts the suggested revision. A State DOT also
suggested requiring the NO TRAIN HORN plaque below the Number of Tracks
Plaque, if used, otherwise mounted under the Crossbuck sign. The FHWA
disagrees because the suggested revision would allow the placement of
the NO TRAIN HORN sign at the crossing rather than in advance of the
crossing where it is needed. The FHWA does not adopt the removal of the
existing NO TRAIN HORN W10-9 sign as proposed in the NPA, and instead
allows either the W10-9 sign or W10-9P plaque to be used.
567. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed deleting existing Section 8B.15
and relocating the information to other sections. The FHWA retains the
section as Section 8.22 NO GATES OR LIGHTS Plaque (W10-13P) in this
final rule. The FHWA deletes the NO SIGNAL Sign from the MUTCD based on
comments received in Section 8B.06. See item 554 above.
568. The FHWA adopts Section 8B.23 Low Ground Clearance Grade
Crossing Sign (W10-5) (Section 8B.17 in the 2003 MUTCD) in this final
rule, which combines the existing language with the existing language
in Section 10C.16 in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail transit grade
crossings.
569. In Section 8B.24 (Section 8B.18 in the 2003 MUTCD) Storage
Space Signs (W10-11, W10-11a, W10-11b), the FHWA combines appropriate
text from Section 10C.18 in the 2003 MUTCD with NPA proposed Section
8B.18 in this final rule. A railroad operator suggested requiring the
NO TRAIN HORN plaque (W10-9P) be placed above the W10-11aP or W10-11bP
plaque. The FHWA disagrees and retains the existing text because the NO
TRAIN HORN plaque needs to be placed on the same support as the advance
warning sign, not the same support as the storage distance sign.
570. In Section 8B.25 Skewed Crossing Sign (W10-12) (Section 8B.19
in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA combines the existing language with
appropriate text from Section 10C.19 in the 2003 MUTCD for light rail
transit grade crossings.
571. In Section 8B.27 (Section 8B.20 in the 2003 MUTCD) Pavement
Markings, the FHWA combines the existing language and proposed
revisions with appropriate text from Section 10C.23 in the 2003 MUTCD
for light rail transit grade crossings in this final rule. A State DOT
opposed the NPA proposed revision to the 4th STANDARD statement in
section 8B.20 which proposed removing the requirement for railroad
pavement markings on roads with speeds less than 40 mph. The commenter
believes that the pavement markings are important for safety and the
revision would apply to thousands of crossings in the commenter's
jurisdiction. The FHWA addresses the commenter's concern by revising
the wording so that an engineering study is required to omit pavement
markings on roads with speeds less than 40 mph.
The NCUTCD, two DOTs, two local agencies, an NCUTCD member, and a
[[Page 66853]]
consultant opposed the NPA proposed revisions to the GUIDANCE regarding
the location of the advanced warning sign in relation to the pavement
marking and suggested retaining the 2003 MUTCD text. The FHWA agrees
and maintains the text as in the 2003 MUTCD and revises Figure 8B-6 to
be consistent with this action.
572. In retitled Section 8B.28 (Section 8B.21 in the 2003 MUTCD)
Stop and Yield Lines, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 the existing language in
Section 8B.21 of the 2003 MUTCD and illustrated in Figure 8B-6. A local
DOT agreed. The FHWA adopts this specific requirement 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.
The FHWA also proposed relocating GUIDANCE statements from Section
8B.05 in the NPA recommending stop lines when a STOP sign is used with
the Crossbuck sign and adding yield lines when a YIELD sign is used
with the Crossbuck sign. A city suggested adding a requirement for stop
lines at passive crossings because stop lines are more important in
those situations. A State DOT opposed using yield lines because their
practice is to use stop lines at all highway rail crossings. Based on
the comments received, the FHWA adds an OPTION to allow stop lines at
passive grade crossings where a YIELD sign is installed. While the stop
line is preferred in this situation for consistency, the new OPTION
will improve safety by improving nighttime visibility at grade
crossings with the retroreflective stop lines. The FHWA also combines
the existing language with appropriate text from Section 10C.24 in the
2003 MUTCD for light rail transit grade crossings.
A city opposed the proposed revision in Section 8B.21 of the NPA to
require a stop line at every active grade crossing because of the
belief that this would provide a small benefit for a large cost and a
State DOT suggested reducing the STANDARD to GUIDANCE. The FHWA
disagrees with the commenters because the requirement is only for paved
active crossings and the FHWA believes the safety benefits will
outweigh the disadvantages. A State railroad operator suggested
providing GUIDANCE regarding the appropriate placement of the stop line
where tracks are within or adjacent to an intersection. The FHWA
declines to add the suggested statement because engineering judgment
should dictate stop line placement in those situations due to the wide
variety of situations where tracks are within or immediately adjacent
to the intersection. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the
NPA and the new OPTION to install a stop line at a grade crossing with
a YIELD sign in this final rule.
573. In Section 8B.29 (Section 8B.22 in the 2003 MUTCD) Dynamic
Envelope Markings, the FHWA adopts the proposed NPA revision to Section
8B.22 in the 2003 MUTCD and relocates the SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and OPTION
statements from Section 10C.24 as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA deletes
the existing OPTION statement in Section 8B.22 of the 2003 MUTCD in
this final rule based on a comment received from a State railroad
operator which suggested that the provision is subjective. The FHWA
agrees that the OPTION is not needed because adopted paragraph 02
adequately addresses the subject.
574. In retitled Figure 8B-8 Example of Train Dynamic Envelope
Pavement Markings at Grade Crossings, a State DOT suggested providing a
new note on the existing figure that the dynamic envelope markings are
optional. The FHWA agrees because the text of Section 8B.29 clearly
describes these markings as optional. The FHWA adds ``optional'' prior
to ``white pavement marking'' in the bottom right-hand corner of the
drawing. The FHWA also adds the illustration from Figure 8A-1 in the
2003 MUTCD to this figure.
575. The FHWA in this final rule adopts the NPA proposed deletion
of Chapter 8C Illumination in the 2003 MUTCD and places the information
from this chapter in a new section numbered and titled Section 8A.06
Illumination at Grade Crossings. See item 544 above. The remaining
chapters in Part 8 are re-lettered accordingly.
576. The FHWA relocates to Section 8C.01 (Section 8D.01 in the 2003
MUTCD) Introduction, the SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements regarding
light-rail transit grade crossings from Section 10D.01 in the NPA in
this final rule. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to change the OPTION
statement in Section 10D.01 to a STANDARD statement, which will require
audible devices to be provided and operated in conjunction with
flashing-light signals or traffic control signals where they are
operated at a light rail transit grade crossing that is used by
pedestrians. The FHWA proposed 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. Two cities
and a State railroad operator opposed the revision, in part because it
might create conflicts with pedestrian crosswalk audible indications.
The FHWA disagrees because it is essential that an audible device be
available for blind pedestrians because of the quiet operation of light
rail transit vehicles and light rail transit is generally located in
urban areas where pedestrians are prevalent. The FHWA also notes that
if conventional pedestrian signals are used at a traffic control
signal, the accessible pedestrian features would be sufficient provided
that pedestrians are always directed to not be in the crosswalk when a
light-rail vehicle is approaching or occupying the crosswalk location
and therefore text revisions are not necessary to accommodate
pedestrian crosswalk audible indications. The FHWA believes the safety
benefits outweigh the costs associated with the new requirement. The
FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA but relocates the
statement to Section 8C.10.
The NCUTCD suggested adding new GUIDANCE that the top of the signal
foundation should be no more than 4 inches above the surface of the
ground. The NCUTCD stated that the top of the foundation should be at
the same elevation as the crown of the roadway to permit use of
standardized traffic control devices that meet the vertical clearances
shown in Figure 8C-1 (Figure 8D-1 in the 2003 MUTCD). The NCUTCD also
indicated that where site conditions require the top of the foundation
to be at different elevation than the crown of the roadway, then the
shoulder side slope should be re-graded or the height of the signal
mast should be adjusted to maintain the vertical clearance requirements
of Figure 8C-1. The FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested revision in
this final rule.
577. In Figure 8C-1 (Figure 8D-1 in the 2003 MUTCD), Composite
Drawing of Active Traffic Control Devices for Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings Showing Clearances, the FHWA proposed to change gate arm
stripes from diagonal to vertical. The FHWA received no comments and
therefore adopts the revisions as proposed in the NPA in this final
rule. A local DOT suggested clarifying the existing note above the gate
that says, ``Dimension A-B-C and length for appropriate approaching
traffic.'' The FHWA notes that the quantitative dimensions for A, B,
and C are intentionally not specified because these dimensions vary
from one location
[[Page 66854]]
to another based on the geometry of the approach lanes. The text in
Section 8C.04 requires at least three lights on the gate arm. These
lights should be positioned to have the maximum impact on drivers
approaching the gate. The FHWA deletes the existing dimensions and
revises the note to say, ``Minimum of three red lights positioned as
appropriate for approaching traffic'' in this final rule.
578. In retitled Section 8C.02 (Section 8D.02 and 8D.03 in the 2003
MUTCD) Flashing-Light Signals, the FHWA adopts the editorial revisions
as proposed in Section 8C.02 the NPA in this final rule. A State
railroad operator suggested adding a new SUPPORT statement similar to
Section 4D.06 to allow for the use of industry-standard technology such
as light-emitting-diode (LED) signals which might not use optical
lenses. Although not included in the NPA, the FHWA agrees and adopts a
new SUPPORT statement that is similar to the text in Section 4D.06 in
this final rule.
The FHWA also combines the OPTION and STANDARD statements contained
in NPA Section 8C.03 into Section 8C.02 and adopts the new STANDARD as
proposed in the NPA.
579. In Section 8C.04 (Section 8D.04 in the 2003 MUTCD) Automatic
Gates, the FHWA proposed in the NPA 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 also proposed
changes to the stripes on Figures 8C-1, 8C-5, and 8C-6 accordingly. The
diagonal stripes might 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 side of the device that road users
are required to use when they travel past the device. A State DOT, a
city, ATSSA, and a railroad operator agreed with the revision. The
railroad operator also suggested adding GUIDANCE allowing a crossing to
have one gate with vertical stripes and one gate with diagonal stripes
during the implementation period. Two State DOTs and a citizen opposed
the proposed revisions because the change is too subtle for the driver
to notice and the lack of research supporting the revision. The FHWA
disagrees and believes that this revision is worth making because of
its potential to improve safety. The FHWA adopts the language as
proposed in the NPA and adds a SUPPORT statement cross referencing
paragraph 24 of the MUTCD Introduction, which describes two situations
when a non-serviceable device that is non-compliant may be replaced in
kind.
The FHWA adopts into this section the existing OPTION and GUIDANCE
statements regarding light rail transit grade crossings from Section
10D.03 in the 2003 MUTCD.
580. In Section 8C.06 Four Quadrant Gate Systems (Section 8D.05 in
the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adopts the editorial revisions proposed in
the NPA in this final rule. The FHWA also combines the existing
language with appropriate text from Section 10D.04 in the 2003 MUTCD
for light rail transit grade crossings.
581. The FHWA proposed a new Section 8C.06 Wayside Horn Systems in
the NPA. This new section as proposed in the NPA contained 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, which was issued on August 2, 2004.\204\ The Interim Approval
and the proposed new MUTCD text support the regulation adopted by
Federal Railroad Administration mandating the sounding of locomotive
horns at highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR part 222).\205\ A State
DOT opposed the proposed new section because they believe that a
wayside horn system is not a traffic control device. The FHWA disagrees
because a wayside horn system provides warning to traffic and is
important to include in the MUTCD to assure uniform messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ The Interim Approval can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
\205\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUTCD suggested requiring the location and operating
characteristics of the wayside horns to be determined by a diagnostic
team. Based on item 539 above, the NPA proposed definition and proposed
use of diagnostic team term has been removed from the MUTCD. An NCUTCD
member opposed the STANDARD regarding wayside horn systems being
directed towards approaching road users because traffic facing a STOP
sign has no additional obligation to wait for clearance of the train
than traffic waiting at a Crossbuck sign only and traffic controlled by
a signal is obligated to wait until allowed by the signal to proceed. A
local DOT also noted a conflict between the NPA proposed STANDARD in
Section 8C.06 which states that the wayside horn systems shall be
directed towards approaching road users, but provides an exception for
movements that are controlled by a STOP sign or traffic control signal,
and the NPA proposed GUIDANCE which states that wayside horn systems
should be installed for each roadway approach. To clarify the new
provisions and to be consistent with FRA regulations, the FHWA revises
the proposed OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements in the NPA with
references to 49 CFR part 222 and removes the specific requirements and
recommendations in this final rule. This information does not need to
be repeated in the MUTCD.
582. In Section 8C.09 (Section 8D.07 in the 2003 MUTCD) Traffic
Control Signals at or Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA 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
proposed 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 that
cross the tracks. Two State DOTs suggested elevating the GUIDANCE to
STANDARD. The City of Phoenix, AZ, suggested reducing the statement to
an OPTION because of concerns about installation cost and the
additional battery waste. Furthermore, they mentioned that Arizona's
state laws require signals with power outages to be treated as four-way
stop control. The FHWA notes that the proposed paragraph was identical
to the new paragraph adopted in Section 4D.27. In this final rule the
FHWA replaces the proposed GUIDANCE statement with a new SUPPORT
statement referencing Section 4D.27 to eliminate redundancy.
In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add to the 4th
paragraph of the GUIDANCE a statement consistent 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. A State
DOT and a city opposed the proposed deletion of the words ``and the
railroad company'' because they believe it is imperative that the
railroad be
[[Page 66855]]
involved in the timing requirements of a signal system. The FHWA
disagrees because of the need for consistency with Section 8A.01 and
adopts the language as proposed in the NPA in this final rule.
In conjunction with that change, the FHWA adopts the proposed new
STANDARD statement in this final rule that requires that the timing
parameters must be furnished by the jurisdiction so that the railroad
will be able to design the train detection circuitry.
583. In retitled Section 8C.10 Traffic Control Signals at or Near
Highway-LRT Grade Crossings (Section 10D.06 in the NPA), the FHWA
combines the existing language with editorial revisions proposed in the
NPA with existing language with proposed editorial revisions in Section
10D.07 in the NPA for highway traffic signal preemption turning
restrictions.
584. In Section 8C.11 (relocated from Section 10D.08 in the NPA)
Use of Traffic Control Signals for Control of LRT Vehicles at Grade
Crossings, the FHWA adopts the revisions as proposed in the NPA in this
final rule. A city questioned why the existing 2nd GUIDANCE statement
is included in the MUTCD because it describes the type of signals used
to control light rail transit vehicles. They believe that this is only
useful for train operators. The FHWA disagrees because even though
trained light rail transit operators are the only persons who are
directly responding to these special signals, they are able to be
viewed by other road users who begin to understand their meanings as
they watch what light rail transit operators do in response to them.
This is especially true as these signals are also beginning to be used
for exclusive bus lanes. Traffic safety is improved by making these
special signals uniform. The FHWA declines to remove the provision in
this final rule.
585. The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed new Section 8C.12 Grade
Crossing(s) Within or In Close Proximity to Circular Intersections in
this final rule. This new section contains SUPPORT and STANDARD
statements that clarify the need for active traffic control devices
where grade crossings are within or in close proximity to roundabouts,
traffic circles, or circular intersections. Where circular
intersections include or are within 200 feet of a grade crossing, an
engineering study is now required to be performed to determine if
queuing could impact the grade crossing. A State DOT and a consulting
firm agreed with the proposed new Section. A State railroad operator
opposed the proposed new Section because of opposition to roundabouts
being constructed adjacent to grade crossings due to grade crossing
safety concerns. The FHWA agrees that when possible, it is better not
to install roundabouts in close proximity to existing grade crossings
because of the difficulty encountered when trying to clear the tracks
as a train is approaching. When it is unavoidable, this section
includes provisions that are intended to minimize any operational or
safety issues.
A city suggested revising the STANDARD to allow engineering
judgment to determine if queuing could impact a grade crossing. The
FHWA disagrees and retains the requirement for an engineering study
because this situation requires data collection and analysis in order
to make sound judgment. The FHWA in this final rule replaces the words
``within close proximity'' with ``200 feet of'' in the new STANDARD to
give a quantitative dimension in this final rule.
The FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December 31, 2014
(approximately 5 years from the effective date of this final rule) for
the required traffic study at existing locations. The FHWA establishes
this target compliance date because it is important that these studies
be conducted in a timely manner. Because the new requirements involve
conducting engineering studies at existing grade crossings, the FHWA
believes that relying on the systematic upgrading processes that
highway agencies typically use to replace existing signs at the end of
their service lives would not be appropriate, given the safety
implications of not having any means of clearing the track of stopped
motor vehicles when rail traffic is approaching. The FHWA anticipates
that the required traffic studies at existing locations will provide
significant safety benefits to road users.
A State DOT suggested adding lights and gates to the proposed
GUIDANCE list that should be considered for keeping the crossing clear
of traffic or for clearing traffic. The FHWA agrees and in this final
rule revises item C ``Grade crossing regulatory and warning devices''
to include gates, lights, and regulatory signs. A city opposed the
proposed GUIDANCE because the information is related to intersection
design. The FHWA disagrees because the statement provides valuable
suggestions that agencies can implement to keep the grade crossing
clear of traffic or to clear traffic from the grade crossing prior to
the arrival of rail traffic.
586. In retitled Section 8C.13 (relocated from Section 10D.08 in
the 2003 MUTCD) Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals and Crossings at LRT
Grade Crossings, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add to the GUIDANCE a
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 proposed to recommend that the LOOK
sign and/or pedestrian gates should be considered 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 FHWA proposed these changes to provide
consistency with changes in Section 8C.01 in the NPA in item 576 above.
A city agreed with the proposed revisions. The NCUTCD and a State
railroad operator suggested moving all the text in this section to
Chapter 8D Pathway Grade Crossing. The FHWA disagrees because Chapter
8D pertains only to pathways, not to sidewalks. The FHWA adopts the
revisions as proposed in the NPA in this final rule.
587. In Figure 8C-6 (Figure 10D-4 in the 2003 MUTCD) Example of a
Separate Pedestrian Gate, the NCUTCD suggested adding a new
illustration showing a stand-alone pedestrian gate. The FHWA agrees and
adopts a figure that shows a stand-alone pedestrian gate.
588. The FHWA adopts the proposed new Chapter 8D (Chapter 8E in the
NPA) Pathway Grade Crossings, including Sections 8D.01 through 8D.06 in
this final rule. 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 sometimes
cross railroad or light rail transit tracks at grade and it is
important that suitable traffic control devices be used to provide for
safe and effective operation of such crossings. The FHWA also adopts
and incorporates into Chapter 8D material from proposed Chapter 10F
regarding pathway-light rail transit grade crossings.
589. In new Section 8D.03 retitled Pathway Grade Crossing Signs and
Markings, the FHWA adopts the text as proposed in the NPA and also
incorporates material regarding pathway-light rail transit grade
crossings from Section 10F.03, as proposed in the NPA, in this final
rule. A city opposed the STANDARD that requires post mounted signs to
have a minimum mounting height of 4 feet and suggested it be reduced to
a GUIDANCE statement because there are signs such as object marker
signs that should be mounted lower. The FHWA disagrees because Sections
8D.03 and 9B.01 both
[[Page 66856]]
contain a similar 4-foot minimum mounting height requirement for signs
posted for pathways and shared-use paths.
590. The FHWA adopts the proposed new Section 8D.04 (Section 8E.04
in the NPA) Stop Lines, Edge Lines, and Detectable Warnings in this
final rule. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add new GUIDANCE on the
use of stop lines and detectable warning surfaces. A local DOT and a
city suggested revising the 1st GUIDANCE statement as proposed in the
NPA to increase the minimum 2 foot distance between the stop line and
gate or counterweight. The FHWA notes that the GUIDANCE wording uses
the term ``at least'' meaning that there is flexibility to set the stop
line farther back and therefore declines to make the suggested
revision.
A local DOT suggested reducing the requirement to place the stop
lines and detectable warning surfaces a minimum of 12 feet from the
nearest rail because the distance does not allow a user of the crossing
to view the approaching trains. The FHWA disagrees because pedestrians
and bicyclists should be able to see approaching trains from a distance
of 12 feet back from the nearest rail.
A consulting firm agreed with the 2nd GUIDANCE statement while a
State DOT opposed it because it believed that detectable warnings are
not a traffic control device and do not belong in the MUTCD. A State
railroad operator suggested revising the GUIDANCE to add the words ``at
least'' before the 2-foot detectable warning surface width to allow a
3-foot wide detectable surface to be consistent with California design
guidelines, replace the ``upstream'' and ``downstream'' terminology
with ``edge nearest the tracks'' to clarify placement of detectable
surfaces on sidewalks where exit gates or off-quadrant flashing light
signals are used, to reference the placement to the flashing light
signals, and to delete the phrase ``and no closer than the stop line''
to remove the conflict with the 2-foot placement. For consistency with
other Parts in the MUTCD, the FHWA reduces the proposed GUIDANCE
statement for detectable warnings to SUPPORT and references ADAAG for
design and placement of detectable warnings in this final rule.
The NCUTCD suggested adding an OPTION allowing the use of edge
lines on an approach to and across the tracks at a pathway-light rail
transit grade crossing, a station crossing, or sidewalk at a highway-
light rail transit grade crossing. The NCUTCD also suggested adding a
SUPPORT statement about edge lines at skew track angle or multiple
track intersections. The FHWA agrees and adopts the suggested OPTION
and SUPPORT, as information about these optional practices already
allowed by provisions of Part 3 is useful.
591. The FHWA adopts the proposed new Section 8D.05 (Section 8E.05
in the NPA) Passive Devices for Pathway Grade Crossing in this final
rule. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed STANDARD, OPTION, and GUIDANCE
statements for passive devices and incorporates the light-rail grade
crossing provisions from proposed Section 10F.05 in the NPA. The FHWA
does not adopt the proposed GUIDANCE statement regarding the placement
of fencing in this final rule based on comments received and because
fences are not traffic control devices. The FHWA also proposed an
OPTION in Section 10F.05 in the NPA allowing refuge areas at light rail
transit grade crossings. The FHWA does not adopt the proposed OPTION in
this final rule based on the NCUTCD recommendation and because refuge
islands are not traffic control devices.
592. The FHWA adopts the proposed new Section 8D.06 (Section 8E.06
in the NPA) Active Traffic Control Systems for Pathway Grade Crossings,
with the revisions discussed herein, in this final rule. The FHWA also
incorporates into Section 8D.06 pathway-light rail transit crossing
material from Section 10F.06 in the NPA. The NCUTCD agreed with the new
text and suggested several editorial revisions which the FHWA adopts in
this final rule.
A local DOT suggested revising the STANDARD to increase the 1-foot
minimum height for the flashing red lights between the tracks to 4 feet
because the 1-foot minimum will present a tripping hazard for users.
The FHWA disagrees and notes that this was based on a recommendation
provided by the NCUTCD and because pedestrians tend to look down as
they step across tracks rather than look straight ahead.
A State railroad operator suggested revising the last STANDARD to
replace ``active traffic control devices'' with ``a gate arm that
extends across the sidewalk and into the roadway'' because the term
``active traffic control devices'' is too broad, as it could refer to a
predestrian-specific device such as a separate automatic gate. The
recommended language would prevent the placement of separate automatic
gates on the outside of a sidewalk. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision in this final rule.
The NCUTCD suggested revising GUIDANCE regarding the height of
separate automatic gates used for sidewalks so that the minimum height
of the gate arm when lowered is reduced from the proposed value of 3
feet to 2.5 feet and to add a maximum height of 4 feet. A State
railroad operator and a city also suggested adding a maximum height in
the provision. The FHWA agrees that a maximum height should also be
specified so that the gate will not be so high as to be ineffective for
shorter persons and children. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a
revised minimum height of 2.5 feet and a maximum height of 4 feet.
The NCUTCD and a local DOT suggested deleting, or revising to an
OPTION, GUIDANCE paragraph 11 regarding a separate gate mechanism for
sidewalk gates from the roadway gates and making other editorial
changes. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the language as proposed in the
NPA in this final rule, because it is important that pedestrians be
prevented from raising the vehicular gate.
A local DOT suggested adding to the proposed GUIDANCE that a
combination of automatic gates and swing gates could be used to provide
full width coverage of the crossing. The FHWA agrees and adopts the
suggested revision to the GUIDANCE in this final rule.
Discussion of Amendments to Part 9--Traffic Controls for Bicycle
Facilities
593. In Section 9A.03 Definitions Relating to Bicycles, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA 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. While two cities and one
association agreed with this change, a State DOT opposed this change,
indicating that they preferred to use signs and pavement markings.
Another State DOT questioned whether the use of pavement markings alone
was consistent with the function of pavement markings in Part 3, which
indicates that in most cases pavement markings are used to supplement
signs. Because markings can sometimes be used alone to effectively
convey regulations, guidance, or warnings, such as in the case of no-
passing zone markings, the FHWA believes that bicycle lanes can be
effectively designated by markings alone. States may supplement bicycle
lane markings with signs if they choose to do so. The FHWA adopts in
this final rule the proposed change to the definition and relocates
this definition to Section 1A.13 to consolidate all definitions in one
place.
[[Page 66857]]
594. In Section 9B.01 Application and Placement of Signs, the FHWA
proposed in the NPA to revise the STANDARD statement to indicate that
no portion of a sign or its support shall be placed less than 2 feet
laterally from the near edge of the path, or less than 8 feet
vertically over the entire width of the shared-use path. As part of
this change, the FHWA proposed to remove the requirement that signs be
placed a maximum of 6 feet from the near edge of a path. ATSSA, an
NCUTCD member, and a citizen supported this change, while two State
DOTs opposed this change. One of the commenters opposed this change, in
part, because the change would cause the MUTCD to be in conflict with
AASHTO guidance on bicycle facilities.\206\ The FHWA believes that the
AASHTO guide, which is currently undergoing revision, will be changed
to reflect changes in the MUTCD. The FHWA adopts the proposed changes
in this final rule to be more consistent with Part 2 and to respond 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 also modifies
Figure 9B-1 to illustrate the minimum vertical offset information for
overhead signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ ``Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities'', 1999,
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), is available for purchase from AASHTO at the
following Internet Web site: https://bookstore.transportation.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
595. In Section 9B.04, retitled Bike Lane Signs and Plaques (R3-17,
R3-17aP, R3-17bP), the FHWA in this final rule revises 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. A city, an NCUTCD
member, and a citizen agreed with the revisions as proposed in the NPA,
while a State DOT and a city preferred that bike lane signs remain
mandatory. 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 an
optional, rather than a mandatory, condition provides 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 the changes to
the definition of ``bicycle lane'' as discussed in item 593 above.
596. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the NPA proposed new
Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4-11). This Section
includes OPTION and SUPPORT statements regarding the use of this sign,
which is illustrated in Figure 9B-2. While two State DOTs, ATTSA, three
bicycle associations, two cities, and several citizens supported the
proposed new sign, two State DOTs and an NCUTCD member opposed it,
stating that the application of the design should be restricted to
locations with speeds of less than 40 mph and that less experienced
cyclists will likely misunderstand the meaning of the message. Other
commenters suggested modifications to the sign design. The FHWA adopts
this new sign as proposed in the NPA 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.
597. In Section 9B.09 Selective Exclusion Signs (numbered and
titled in the 2003 MUTCD as Section 9B.08 No Bicycles Sign (R5-6)''),
the FHWA in this final rule adopts new text regarding the exclusion of
various designated types of traffic from using particular roadways or
facilities. As part of the change, the FHWA adopts No Skaters (R9-13)
and No Equestrians (R9-14) signs to the text and to Figure 9B-2. While
the NCUTCD and ATSSA both agreed with the changes as proposed in the
NPA, a State DOT suggested that the GUIDANCE be changed to an OPTION
statement. The NCUTCD and another State DOT suggested that the section
be organized to be consistent with the comparable section in Chapter
2B. The FHWA agrees with the reorganization suggestion and incorporates
those changes into the language adopted in this final rule.
598. In retitled Section 9B.11 Bicycle Regulatory Signs (R9-5, R9-
6, R10-4, R10-24, R10-25, and R10-26) (numbered Section 9B.10 in the
2003 MUTCD) the FHWA in this final rule is adopting information about
three new signs for bicycle pushbuttons, consistent with similar text
adopted in Chapter 2B. The FHWA received a comment from the NCUTCD in
support of this change as proposed in the NPA, but suggesting that
paragraph 4 be expanded to allow the use of the PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON
WARNING LIGHTS (with pushbutton symbol) (R10-25) sign in other
appropriate locations where other types of beacons or lights are used
for traffic control for bicyclists, such as beacons at path-roadway
crossings, tunnels, or other locations. The FHWA agrees and in this
final rule adopts this new OPTION based on the NCUTCD's suggestion.
599. In Section 9B.18 Bicycle Warning and Combined Bicycle/
Pedestrian Signs (W11-1 and W11-15) (numbered and titled in the 2003
MUTCD as Section 9B.17 Bicycle Warning Sign (W11-1),) the FHWA in this
final rule adopts the NPA proposed OPTION statement permitting the use
of the 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. Based on comments from the NCUTCD,
several DOTs and others, the design of the sign adopted in this final
rule is changed from what was proposed in the NPA. Further discussion
of this sign can be found above in the discussion of Chapter 2C.
The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to permit a TRAIL X-ING (W11-15P)
supplemental plaque to be mounted below the W11-15 sign. A State DOT
commented that they use a TRAIL CROSSING word message warning sign
(with the word ``crossing'' spelled out rather than abbreviated). The
FHWA does not adopt this word message sign in this final rule, but
notes that agencies are permitted to use word message warning signs
that they feel are most appropriate for their situation. A
transportation consultant suggested that the supplemental plaque should
be allowed to be placed above or below the W11-15 sign. The FHWA
disagrees, because Section 2C.53 requires supplemental warning plaques
to be mounted below the primary sign unless otherwise allowed, and
there is no documented reason to allow it to be above the W11-15 sign.
Therefore the FHWA adopts the text as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA
adopts the proposed illustrations of the W11-15 sign and W11-15P
supplemental plaque configuration in Figure 9B-3. These changes are
consistent with Chapter 2C.
Finally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed changing paragraph 06 to a
GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely allow, that the W11-15 sign
and W11-15P supplemental plaques have a fluorescent yellow-green
background color with a black legend and border. The FHWA received
comments from a State DOT, a city, and a member of the NCUTCD opposed
to this proposed recommendation, because either the agency reserves the
use of the fluorescent yellow-green background color for school-related
uses or because they feel that the research does not
[[Page 66858]]
support safety or operational benefits to support the making of
fluorescent yellow-green background colors a recommended condition. As
a result of these comments, along with comments regarding similar
issues in Part 2, the FHWA adopts this paragraph as an OPTION for
consistency with Section 2C.03
600. In Section 9B.19 Other Bicycle Warning Signs (Section 9B.18 in
the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adopts in this final rule the NPA proposed
change in the legend on the W5-4a sign from ``BIKEWAY NARROWS'' to
``PATH NARROWS.'' The FHWA adopts 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. An NCUTCD member and a citizen agreed with
this proposed change. In conjunction with this change in the text, the
FHWA adopts appropriate changes in Table 9B-1.
601. In Section 9B.20 Bicycle Guide Signs (D1-1b, D1-1c, D1-2b, D1-
2c, D1-3b, D1-3c, D11-1, D11-1c) (numbered and titled in the 2003 MUTCD
as Section 9B.19 Bicycle Route Guide Signs (D11-1),) the FHWA proposed
in the NPA to add several new signs, along with information on their
use. These changes would provide flexibility and potentially reduce
costs for signing bicycle routes in urban areas where multiple routes
intersect or overlap. A State DOT, an NCUTCD member, two associations,
and a citizen all agreed with the changes. While a city generally
supported the signs, it questioned whether the details of the Bike
Route Designation signs needed to be required through the use of
STANDARD statements. The FHWA believes that the level of detail is
needed to make sure that agencies design the signs properly and
consistently. A State DOT recommended that these signs be used only on
shared use paths, not on roadways. The FHWA believes that the bicycle
symbol on the signs distinguishes them from destination signs for
motorists, however to be clear, in this final rule the FHWA adopts a
recommendation that the smaller bike designation signs should not be
used as a substitute for the larger vehicular destination signs when
the message is also intended to be seen by motorists. Along with
additional text regarding the use of the 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 adopts the various new signs to Table 9B-1 and
Figure 9B-4. The FHWA received many comments from NCUTCD members,
ATSSA, State and local DOTs, associations, and citizens in support of
the signs in Figure 9B-4.
602. In Section 9B.21 Bicycle Route Signs (M1-8, M1-8a, M1-9)
(numbered Section 9B.20 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA in this final rule
adopts the NPA proposed 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. The M1-8 sign remains in the MUTCD for use when
agencies do not wish to use a distinctive pictograph, symbol, or
wording.
In addition, the FHWA adopts the proposed change of paragraph 04 to
a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, that 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
adopts in 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 593.
Finally, the FHWA adopts the revised 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. The FHWA received two comments in support of the
proposed changes to this section; however a State DOT commented that
they preferred the old M1-9 sign with the route number larger than the
bicycle symbol and above the symbol. The FHWA believes that the larger
bike symbol with smaller route number will deter motorists from
mistaking the sign for a vehicle route number when observing the sign
from a distance and adopts in this final rule the image as proposed in
the NPA.
603. The FHWA in this final rule revises the content of Section
9B.22 Bicycle Route Sign Auxiliary Plaques (numbered and titled in the
2003 MUTCD as Section 9B.21 Destination Arrow and Supplemental Plaque
Signs for Bicycle Route Signs) considerably. As part of the changes,
the FHWA revises 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 deletes 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, the FHWA deletes the M7 series arrow plaques from this
section and Figure 9B-4 because these duplicate the new sizes of the M5
and M6 auxiliary signs. The FHWA also adds a size of 12 x 6 inches for
selected M3 and M4 series auxiliary signs, and a size of 12 x 9 inches
for all M5 and M6 series auxiliary signs, and refers to these smaller
sizes in this section, Table 9B-1, and Figure 9B-4. These changes will
ensure that route auxiliary designations are consistent between Part 2
and Part 9. The FHWA received a comment from an NCUTCD member in
support of the changes to this section proposed in the NPA. A State DOT
recommended that supplementary plaques be restricted from exceeding the
width of the sign they supplement, however the FHWA feels that this
restriction is not necessary, because agencies do not tend to use
plaques that are wider than the sign that they accompany as long as the
available plaque sizes enable choosing a plaque of equal or less width.
604. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the three new sections
proposed in the NPA following Section 9B.23 Bicycle Parking Area Sign
(D4-3) (Section 9B.22 in the 2003 MUTCD). New Section 9B.24 Reference
Location Signs (D10-1 through D10-3) and Intermediate Reference
Location Signs (D10-1a through D10-3a) contains information regarding
the use of these 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
also naturally lends itself to the application of Reference Location
signs. Defining a standard and uniform design provides more uniform
traveler guidance, reduces the proliferation of non-standard reference
location signs, and encourages the use of these signs where desirable
and appropriate. The signs are proportionately sized for the lower
operating speeds of shared-use paths, using a 6-inch wide panel with
4.5 inch numerals. The text is adapted directly from Section 2H.05
defining the use of these signs for conventional roadways. Although the
FHWA received comments from ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a citizen in
support of this proposed new section, the NCUTCD, several
[[Page 66859]]
bicycle associations, a city and a citizen opposed paragraph 10 that
recommended that the zero distance should begin at the south and west
terminus points, because it does not allow for needed flexibility for
local agencies in setting up reference marker systems on paths. Because
deviations from a recommendation are permitted if there is a good
engineering reason to do so, the FHWA adopts the language regarding the
zero distance in this final rule. A city suggested that placing the
details for the design of the reference location in a STANDARD
statement was excessive; however, the FHWA believes that these
requirements are necessary to make sure that agencies design the signs
properly. In addition to adopting revisions the text, the FHWA adopts
revisions to Figure 9B-4 and Table 9B-1 to include the use of these
signs.
605. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a second new section,
Section 9B.25 Mode-Specific Guide Signs for Shared-Use Paths (D11-1a,
D11-2, D11-3, D11-4), that contains information regarding the use of
signs to guide different types of users to separate pathways where they
are available. The 2003 MUTCD provided tools only to prohibit user
types, not to show which user types are permitted. As a result,
jurisdictions commonly installed varied, non-standard mode permission
signs. The changes adopted are intended to provide clarity and
uniformity for mode-specific guide signs on shared-use paths by adding
four new signs to the MUTCD. The FHWA received comments from an NCUTCD
member and a citizen in support of this proposed new section. In
addition to adopting the new signs in Figure 9B-4 and Table 9B-1, the
FHWA adopts the proposed Figure 9B-8 ``Example of Mode-Specific Guide
Signing on a Shared-Use Path'' to illustrate the use of the proposed
signs.
606. The FHWA adopts in this final rule a new Section 9B.26 Object
Markers. This section contains relocated text and figures from Section
9C.03 of the 2003 MUTCD, to be consistent with a similar move of object
markers from Part 3 to Part 2. The FHWA received a comment from an
NCUTCD member in favor of this change. The NCUTCD and a State DOT
suggested that the object markers be included in a figure so in this
final rule the FHWA includes them in Figure 9B-3 and adds the smaller
size object markers to Table 9B-1. Based on comments from the NCUTCD
and a State DOT, the FHWA also adopts an option to use a
proportionately smaller (6 x 18 inches) version of the Type 3 object
marker for use on shared-use paths. This smaller size will be more
useful and appropriate than the standard size of 12 & 36 inches for
many applications, and will provide adequate visibility and target
value at pathway speeds.
607. The FHWA adopts several changes to Table 9B-1 in this final
rule based on comments to the docket. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, a city,
bicycle associations, and citizens provided comments regarding the R3-
17 sign and R3-17a and R3-17b plaques. As a result, the FHWA changes
the name of the sign to ``Bike Lane'' to be consistent with the actual
wording on the sign and changes the minimum size of the roadway size
for the R3-17 sign to 24 x 18 inches and the sizes of the corresponding
R3-17aP and R3-17bP plaques to 24 x 8 inches.
Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a bicycle
association, the FHWA changes the minimum shared-use path size for the
R5-6 sign to 18 x 18 inches. The FHWA does not agree with comments to
reduce the size of the roadway size of this sign, because there are
more distractions from other signs and traffic control devices in a
roadway environment, and therefore retains the minimum size of 24 x 24
inches for roadway uses in this final rule.
The NCUTCD and several associations suggested that the name of the
W10-1 sign be changed to ``Grade Crossing Advance Warning'' to be
consistent with the description of the W10-1 sign in Chapter 8B. The
FHWA agrees and adopts this change in this final rule. In addition, the
NCUTCD, a State DOT, two cities, and several associations and citizens
suggested that the size of the W10-1 on shared-use paths be reduced.
The FHWA agrees and changes the diameter of the W10-1 sign to 24 inches
for use on shared-use paths.
Based on comments from the NCUTCD and several associations, the
FHWA adopts a row for the W10-9P No Train Horn plaque (12 x 9 inches)
and a row for the W16-2aP XX Feet plaque (18 x 9 inches) for use on
shared-use paths.
The NCUTCD and several associations suggested that the name of the
M1-8 and M1-8a signs be changed to ``Numbered Bicycle Route'' to be
consistent with the intended application of these signs and to reduce
confusion with other non-numbered bicycle route signs. The FHWA agrees
and adopts the name change in this final rule. In addition, based on
comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and several associations, the
FHWA revises the size of the roadway M1-8 and M1-8a signs to 18 x 24
inches for greater visibility.
Finally, based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and
several associations, the FHWA revises the size of the U.S. Bicycle
Route (M1-9) sign to 12 x 18 inches for use on paths to make the size
of this sign consistent with the M1-8 and M1-8a signs.
608. In Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use
Paths, the FHWA in this final rule relocates the last five paragraphs
that were in this section in the 2003 MUTCD to new Section 9B.26, as
discussed in item 606 above.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to expand paragraph 05 to describe
that a solid white line may be used on shared-use paths to separate
different types of users traveling in the same direction. Because
pedestrian use in designated portions of shared-use paths is typically
bi-directional, the NCUTCD, a State DOT, two cities, and several
bicycle associations and citizens opposed the expanded description. The
FHWA agrees and does not adopt the phrase ``traveling in the same
direction'' in this final rule.
609. In Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes, the FHWA in this
final rule incorporates several changes to this Section to correspond
with changes to the definition of ``bicycle lane'' in Section 1A.13 and
signs and plaques for bike lanes in Section 9B.04 (item 595 above). A
State DOT, a city, and an NCUTCD member all supported the changes to
this section that indicate that bike lane signs are optional.
Based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adopts expanded
paragraphs 06 and 07 to include information regarding the marking of
bike lanes in the vicinity of left-turn lanes as well as right-turn
lanes, for consistency with other provisions in Part 9.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to expand the last STANDARD statement
to include ``other circular intersections'' as locations where bicycle
lanes are prohibited. Although the FHWA's intent was 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, the NCUTCD and several bicycle associations
objected to the statement, since there are certain types of larger
circular intersections (such as ones with significant distances between
exits and entrances) where bike lanes may be appropriate based on
engineering judgment. The FHWA agrees and does not adopt the phrase
``other circular intersections'' in this final rule.
610. The FHWA in this final rule adopts the proposed new section at
the end of Chapter 9C numbered and titled Section 9C.07 Shared Lane
Marking. This section contains OPTION,
[[Page 66860]]
GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use of a proposed new
Shared Lane Marking. This pavement marking indicates the appropriate
bicyclist line of travel, and cues motorists to pass with sufficient
clearance, and is based on field research conducted in San Francisco,
CA.\207\ The purpose of this 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 received two comments from NCUTCD members, three State DOTs, four
local jurisdictions, four bicycle associations, and eight citizens in
support of this proposed new section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two State DOTs and one bicycle association expressed concern
regarding paragraph 02 that recommends that the shared lane marking not
be placed on roadways with a speed limit above 35 mph. Because the 35
mph speed limit is a recommendation, agencies may impose a lower
maximum speed limit criterion on the use of this marking if there is a
good engineering reason to do so, therefore the FHWA adopts the
proposed wording in this final rule.
A State DOT, a local DOT, two cities, two bicycle associations, and
a citizen expressed concern regarding the proposed requirement in the
NPA regarding the placement of the shared lane marking when used in a
shared lane with on-street parallel parking. The commenters felt that
the measurements should be recommendations, rather than requirements,
in order to give agencies flexibility in placement of the marking. The
FHWA agrees and in this final rule adopts these measurements as a
GUIDANCE statement in paragraph 04. The FHWA reiterates, however, that
the text provides a minimum distance from the center of the marking to
the face of curb or edge of pavement where there is no curb, so
agencies are free to place the markings at a greater distance if there
is a good engineering reason to do so.
The FHWA received comments from a State DOT, two cities, a bicycle
association and a citizen regarding the recommendation in paragraph 05
that on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel
lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane
Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from
the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. Some commenters felt
that the 4-foot distance was too close to the curb, while others stated
that it is preferable to install the marking closer to the curb. The
FHWA in this final rule adopts the language as proposed in the NPA,
because it is a recommendation for minimum lateral clearances,
therefore engineering judgment can be used if slightly reduced lateral
distances are more appropriate, while larger lateral clearances can
also be implemented.
The FHWA also received comments from three cities and from a
transportation consultant regarding the recommended spacing interval
between the Shared Lane Markings. Some commenters felt that a 250-foot
spacing was too close and some felt that there should not be a
recommended spacing interval at all. The FHWA believes that it is
important to space the markings no more than 250 feet apart so that
users can see the next marking from the previous one, so the FHWA
adopts the recommended 250-foot interval spacing in this final rule.
Since this is a recommended maximum spacing, agencies are free to space
the markings at closer intervals if they feel it is appropriate.
Finally, several commenters expressed confusion, or the need for
clarity, between the use of the Shared Lane Marking and the Bicycles
May Use Full Lane (R4-11) sign. The marking and the sign are two
separate devices, however the FHWA adopts a SUPPORT statement in this
final rule providing a cross reference to the Bicycles May Use Full
Lane sign and clarifies that the two devices are not required to be
used together. In addition to the text, the FHWA in this final rule
illustrates the appropriate design of the marking in adopted Figure 9C-
9 Shared Lane Marking.
Discussion of Amendments to Appendix
611. As previously discussed in this preamble under General
Amendments to the MUTCD, in this final rule the FHWA places information
in a new Appendix A2, with metric equivalent values for all English
unit values used in the MUTCD.
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 is not 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. The economic impact of this
rulemaking will be minimal. Most of the changes in this final rule
provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional applications
for traffic control devices. The FHWA believes that the uniform
application of traffic control devices will greatly improve the traffic
operations efficiency and 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 do 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. This final rule adds some alternative traffic
control devices and only a very limited number of new or changed
requirements. Most of the changes are expanded guidance and
clarification information. The FHWA hereby certifies that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does 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 revisions directed by this action can be phased in
by the States over specified time periods in order to minimize
hardship. The changes made to traffic control devices that would
require an expenditure of funds all have 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
revisions require expenditures by the State and local governments on
Federal-aid projects, they are reimbursable. This does not impose a
Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$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 does not have sufficient
federalism
[[Page 66861]]
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
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
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 will not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and
will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this final rule 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 a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 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.
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,
to eliminate ambiguity, and to 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 does 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 will 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 final rule for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that it does not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655
Design standards, Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Issued on: November 18, 2009.
Jeffrey F. Paniati,
Executive Director.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority of 23 U.S.C
101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), and as discussed in
the preamble, the FHWA amends title 23, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 634--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
0
1. Remove Part 634 .
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
0
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).
0
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), 2009 Edition, FHWA, dated November 4, 2009. 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, telephone 202-366-1993, 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.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 655.603, revise 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, 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.
Except for gated toll roads, roads within private gated properties
where access is restricted at all times are not included in this
definition. Parking areas, driving aisles within parking areas, and
private highway-rail grade
[[Page 66862]]
crossings are also not included in this definition.
* * * * *
Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655--[Amended]
0
5. In Table 1 is amended by revising the daytime chromaticity
coordinates for the color Purple as follows:
Table 1 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Daytime Color Specification Limits for Retroreflective Material With
CIE 2[deg] Standard Observer and 45/0 (0/45) Geometry and CIE Standard Illuminant D65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
Color -----------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Purple.................................. 0.302 0.064 0.310 0.210 0.380 0.255 0.468 0.140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
6. Table 2 is amended by adding the nighttime chromaticity coordinates
for the color Purple as follows:
Table 2 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Nighttime Color Specification Limits for Retroreflective Material
With CIE 2[deg] Standard Observer and Observation Angle of 0.33[deg], Entrance Angle of +5[deg] and CIE Standard
Illuminant A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
Color -----------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Purple.................................. 0.355 0.088 0.385 0.288 0.500 0.350 0.635 0.221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
7. Table 3 is amended by revising the daytime chromaticity coordinates
for the color Fluorescent Pink, and by adding after Fluorescent Pink
the color Fluorescent Red and its daytime chromaticity coordinates, for
retroreflective sign material as follows:
Table 3 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Daytime Color Specification Limits for Fluorescent Retroreflective Material With CIE 2[deg] Standard
Observer and 45/0 (0/45) Geometry and CIE Standard Illuminant D65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
Color -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y x y
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fluorescent Pink.............................................. 0.600 0.340 0.450 0.332 0.430 0.275 0.536 0.230 0.644 0.221
Fluorescent Red............................................... 0.666 0.334 0.613 0.333 0.671 0.275 9.735 0.265 ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
8. Table 3A is amended by adding after Fluorescent Pink the color
Fluorescent Red and its daytime luminance factor limits for
retroreflective sign material as follows: Table 3A to Appendix to Part
655, Subpart F--Daytime Luminance Factors (%) for Fluorescent
Retroreflective Material with CIE 2[deg] Standard Observer and 45/0 (0/
45) Geometry and CIE Standard Illuminant D65.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color Min Max YF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fluorescent Red........................................... 20 30 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
9. Table 4 is amended by adding after Fluorescent Green the color
Fluorescent Red and its nighttime chromaticity coordinates for
retroreflective sign material as follows:
[[Page 66863]]
Table 4 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Nighttime Color Specification Limits for Fluorescent Retroreflective
Material With CIE 2[deg] Standard Observer and Observation Angle of 0.33[deg], Entrance Angle of +5[deg] and CIE
Standard Illuminant A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
Color -----------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fluorescent Red......................... 0.680 0.320 0.645 0.320 0.712 0.253 0.735 0.265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
10. Table 5 is amended by adding after the color Blue the daytime
chromaticity coordinates for Purple retroreflective pavement marking
material as follows:
Table 5 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Daytime Color Specification Limits for Retroreflective Pavement
Marking Material With CIE 2[deg] Standard Observer and 45/0 (0/45) Geometry and CIE Standard Illuminant D65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
Color -----------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Purple.................................. 0.300 0.064 0.309 0.260 0.362 0.295 0.475 0.144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
11. Table 5A is amended by adding after the color Blue the daytime
luminance factors for Purple retroreflective pavement marking material
as follows:
Table 5A to Part 655, Subpart F--Daytime Luminance Factors (%) for
Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material With CIE 2[deg] Standar
Observer and 45/0 (0/45) Geometry and CIE Standard Illuminant D65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color Min Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Purple.............................. 5 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
12. Table 6 is amended by adding after the color Yellow, the nighttime
chromaticity coordinates for Purple retroreflective pavement marking
material as follows:
Table 6 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Nighttime Color Specification Limits for Retroreflective Pavement
Marking Material with CIE 2[deg] Standard Observer, Observation Angle of 1.05[deg], Entrance Angle of
+88.76[deg] and CIE Standard Illuminant A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
Color -----------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Purple.................................. 0.338 0.080 0.425 0.365 0.470 0.385 0.635 0.221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-28322 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P