[Federal Register: November 20, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65495-65583]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no03-12]
[[Page 65495]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices: Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision; Final Rule
[[Page 65496]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-11159]
RIN 2125-AE93
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices: 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 (MUTCD) is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, approved by
the Federal Highway Administration, and recognized as the national
standard for traffic control devices 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 2003 edition of the MUTCD.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective December 22, 2003. 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
December 22, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Huckaby, Office of
Transportation Operations, Room 3408, (202) 366-9064, or Mr. Raymond
Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 4230, (202) 366-0791, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 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 Document Management
System (DMS) at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using
a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal
Register's home page at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.gpo.gov.
Background
On May 21, 2002, at 67 FR 35850, the FHWA published a notice of
proposed amendments (NPA) proposing revisions to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Those changes were proposed to be
designated as Revision No. 2 of the Millennium (2000) edition of the
MUTCD. Interested persons were invited to submit comments to FHWA
Docket No. FHWA-2001-11159. 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 2003 Edition of the
MUTCD. The FHWA believes that the title ``2003 Edition'' would be
easier for readers to follow rather than the title ``Revision No. 2 of
the Millennium (2000) edition.''
A list of all of the items in this final rule and the text of the
2003 edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule changes incorporated,
are available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part
7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, Room 3408, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the list of all
items in this final rule and the text of the 2003 edition of the MUTCD,
with these final rule changes incorporated, are available on the FHWA's
MUTCD Internet site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The previous version of
the MUTCD, the 2000 MUTCD with Revision 1 text incorporated is also
available on this Internet site. The 2003 edition supersedes all
previous editions and revisions of the MUTCD.
Summary of Comments
The FHWA received 293 letters submitted to the docket, containing
over 5,000 individual comments on the MUTCD in general or on one or
more parts, chapters, sections, or paragraphs contained in the MUTCD.
Comments were received from 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. The FHWA has reviewed and analyzed all
the comments received. 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.
Discussion of Adopted General and Global Changes Throughout the MUTCD
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed designating the changes to the MUTCD
as Revision No. 2 of the Millennium (2000) edition of the MUTCD.
Comments were received from the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Traffic Safety Services
Association (ATSSA) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
(the three associations who publish the MUTCD in hard-copy book format)
and from other individuals opposing this proposed designation as
Revision No. 2. The commenters expressed the opinion that the number
and extent of changes are too great in scope to be considered a mere
revision of the 2000 edition and that the MUTCD, with the changes
incorporated, should be designated as a complete new edition of the
MUTCD, to minimize user confusion. The commenters also stated that a
new graphical design for the cover and title pages of each part of the
MUTCD are needed to make the new edition clearly distinguishable by
users from earlier editions. The FHWA agrees with these comments and
designates the MUTCD, with the adopted final rule changes incorporated,
as the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD and also adopts new graphical designs
for the cover and title pages of each part of the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA
revises Table I-1 and all page headers to reflect this designation.
Additionally, the FHWA received comments from ITE, ATSSA, traffic
engineering consultants and private citizens that the proposed
continuation of the 2000 MUTCD's page layout format and graphics
formats is inappropriate and that these elements need improvement to
adequately serve users. Suggestions included reducing the amount of
``white space'' on text pages to reduce the total number of pages in
the MUTCD, using accurate fonts and letter spacing on illustrations of
signs, using more accurate proportioning of lanes and pavement markings
on figures, and various other adjustments to graphics to aid in user
understanding and to make the figures more accurately reflect the
standards,
[[Page 65497]]
guidance, and options contained in the text of the MUTCD. The FHWA
agrees that the page layout and graphics formatting of the 2000 MUTCD
needs to be improved in the 2003 edition to make the document more
usable by the public. Accordingly, in this final rule the FHWA revises
the text page layouts to reduce white space and thereby reduce the
number of text pages by about one-third, while still maintaining good
layout for readability both online and in printed book format. The FHWA
also revises many of the figures in the MUTCD to make sign
illustrations pattern-accurate and illustrations of pavement markings
and other devices more understandable and to accurately reflect
provisions in the MUTCD text.
The FHWA also received many comments about the lack of consistency
between some of the signs and pavement markings illustrated in various
figures in the MUTCD and the illustrations in the ``Standard Highway
Signs'' (SHS) book.\1\ The FHWA agrees that these inconsistencies cause
inordinate confusion to users, and in this final rule the FHWA revises
many of the MUTCD figures to illustrate or refer to all SHS signs that
are consistent with this 2003 MUTCD. This will better serve users by
greatly improving the consistency of the MUTCD with the SHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 2002 Edition is available
for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office Bookstore,
Superintendent of Documents, Room 118, Federal Building, 1000
Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Internet Web site at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/.
It is also available on the FHWA's Web site at
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov and is available for inspection and
copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA Division
Offices prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in the NPA, the FHWA proposed minor grammatical or
style changes to the MUTCD text to improve consistency with related
text or figures, to improve clarity, or to correct minor errors. Where
the FHWA proposed to add new sections within a chapter of the MUTCD,
the FHWA proposed to renumber the sections that followed accordingly.
The FHWA proposed to revise all Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures,
Lists of Tables, and page headers and footers as appropriate to reflect
the proposed changes. The FHWA received many comments, both in general
and on many specific sections throughout the MUTCD, agreeing with these
minor editorial changes. Some commenters opposed the proposed use of
some specific words or phrases and recommended substitute words or
phrases and/or additional minor editorial revisions to correct errors,
improve grammar, clarity, consistency, and accuracy. Where appropriate,
the FHWA incorporates minor editorial revisions and corrections in this
final rule.
The FHWA also received comments on the fact that many of the new
sections proposed in the NPA were to be added at the end of the chapter
in various parts of the MUTCD. Several commenters, particularly State
DOTs, suggested that the new material would be more logically located
near other similar subjects within the chapter rather than at the end.
The FHWA agrees with many of the comments of this nature and makes
editorial changes in the text and figures as appropriate in this final
rule. The FHWA also relocates and renumbers some of the new sections to
appropriate locations within the chapters to enhance user
understanding, and renumbers subsequent sections accordingly.
In the discussions below, the section numbers and titles refer to
those in this final rule, with parenthetical reference to the section
numbers and titles in the NPA and/or the 2000 Edition if different, as
appropriate.
The FHWA also received comments from traffic engineering
consultants and others about inconsistency and errors in the 2000 MUTCD
and in the NPA regarding conversions of English units to metric units.
Accordingly, the FHWA made a comprehensive review of all dimensions and
units of measure in the MUTCD and identified a variety of errors in
conversions of English units to metric units that had occurred during
the process of preparing the 2000 edition of the MUTCD and that had
been perpetuated or inaccurately corrected in the NPA. The FHWA
corrects these metric conversions in this final rule.
In the NPA, to facilitate easy reference, the FHWA also proposed
giving figure numbers and titles to all pages that did not have a
figure number for images of traffic control devices in the 2000 MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposed changing the titles of a number of figures to
clarify a figure as either ``typical'' or ``example(s) of.'' In
general, the FHWA proposed using the word ``typical'' in the title if
the figure portrays preferred or recommended practice, and the words
``example(s) of'' in the title if the figure portrays one or several of
a variety of things that would be acceptable practice with no
recommended preference. Also, the FHWA proposed modifying figures,
where appropriate, to reflect proposed changes in the text. Most of the
commenters agreed with these proposed changes. In a few cases, the FHWA
received comments opposing a proposed change of a specific figure's
title from ``example(s) of'' to ``typical,'' citing reasons why the
figure or figures in question were inaccurately named based on the
FHWA's stated criteria. The FHWA adopts the proposed addition of or
changes to figure numbers and titles with revisions to address comments
as appropriate.
The FHWA also received several comments from the U.S. Access Board
and from organizations representing the blind, visually impaired, and
people with other disabilities, requesting that the MUTCD be changed
throughout to make it fully consistent with the Draft Guidelines for
Accessible Public Rights-of-Way that were published by the Access Board
on June 17, 2002, on its Web site (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.access-board.gov). The
FHWA disagrees because the draft guidelines published by the Access
Board are only a preliminary draft for initial public comments, and
they have not been finalized. The Access Board is currently reviewing
the large number of initial public comments received on the draft and
plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a revised
proposal for Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way in 2004.
After the Access Board completes its rulemaking on this matter and
issues a final rule, the FHWA plans to propose changes to the MUTCD to
make it consistent with the Access Board's guidelines. However, in
recognition of and support for the importance of accessibility issues
related to traffic control devices, in the NPA the FHWA proposed a
variety of changes to the MUTCD to assure consistency with existing
requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq., and other regulatory requirements concerning
accessibility as they pertain to traffic control devices. In this final
rule, the FHWA adopts most of those proposed changes. Further
discussion of accessibility issues may be found elsewhere in this
preamble to this final rule, especially under the discussion of adopted
revisions to Part 6 of the MUTCD, Temporary Traffic Controls.
The FHWA is aware that section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29
U.S.C. 794 (2001), requires that certain electronic and information
technology (EIT) be accessible to individuals with disabilities. By
regulation, 36 CFR 1194.4 (2001), EIT includes information contained on
world wide Web sites. Because the FHWA distributes the MUTCD via the
Internet site (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov), it is aware that it must
comply with section 508, and it has done so by providing, in addition
to the PDF file format, an alternative
[[Page 65498]]
format (hypertext markup language--HTML), that is accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Included within those HTML files are
accessible narrative descriptions of all of the illustrations (figures)
that are contained in the MUTCD. The FHWA notes that, while every
effort has been made to assure complete consistency between the PDF and
HTML file formats, the PDF version is the official version of the MUTCD
and takes precedence over any potentially conflicting text in that may
occur in the HTML version.
A summary of the significant changes for each of the parts of the
MUTCD is included in the following discussion.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to the Introduction
1. On Page i the FHWA adds addresses for four additional
organizations whose publications are referenced in the various parts of
the MUTCD. There were no comments on these additions and the FHWA
adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA, with further revisions to
add Web site addresses for each of the organizations listed, to assist
users of the MUTCD with contacting each of the organizations.
2. In the Introduction, the FHWA revises the second paragraph of
the first STANDARD statement to correct an incorrect reference in the
2000 MUTCD and to accurately reflect the referenced text of the Code of
Federal Regulations and with Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic
Control Devices. There were no comments on these changes. The FHWA
adopts the changes.
In the second SUPPORT statement, the FHWA makes a minor editorial
change to correct the section reference to the Uniform Vehicle Code \2\
in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph to Section 15-116 of the
UVC. The 2000 MUTCD and the NPA incorrectly referenced Section 15-117
of the UVC regarding traffic control devices on private property used
by the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance,''
2000 edition, is published by the National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 107 S. West Street, 110,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. It is available for inspection as
prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. Purchase information is available on
the Web site for the National Committee at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ncutlo.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds a second paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement to
clarify that, except when a specific numeral is required by the MUTCD
text, numerals shown in sign images in the figures that specify times,
distances, speed limits, and weights should be regarded as examples
only, and that the numerals installed on actual signs should be
appropriately altered to fit the specific signing situation. This
clarification is necessary to address comments about some of the sign
images throughout the MUTCD in the NPA.
The FHWA also adds a fourth SUPPORT statement to clarify the
organization of the MUTCD and explain how one could reference portions
of the MUTCD. There were no comments on this SUPPORT statement and the
FHWA adopts it as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA also adds a new STANDARD that lists special phase-in
target compliance dates for various portions of the MUTCD. The purpose
of this list is to provide a convenient reference guide to the user of
phase-in target compliance dates for various portions of the MUTCD. The
FHWA received comments from the City of Plano, Texas, and the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals supporting the
presence of this new text. Some commenters also questioned the use of
the word ``issuance'' in the STANDARD stating that States or other
Federal agencies shall adopt changes to the MUTCD within two years of
issuance. ``Issuance'' in this usage refers to the date that the FHWA
Administrator signs the final rule, which occurs prior to the
publication date and effective date of the final rule. This language is
as proposed in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1) and cannot be changed in the MUTCD
Introduction until the Code of Federal Regulations is changed. Such a
change may be considered in a future rulemaking.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD),
including members of the Railroad-Light Rail Transit Technical
Committee of the NCUTCD opposed the wording in the first paragraph of
the proposed new STANDARD that would require replacement of damaged
devices upon adoption of the MUTCD by the State or other Federal
agency. The commenters stated that replacement of damaged devices is
normal maintenance that should not be covered by this STANDARD. While
it is usually desirable to replace damaged devices with ones that
conform to the current MUTCD, there are times that doing so may not be
practical, or may cause the replacement device to be inconsistent with
other portions of the Manual or other devices in a series, and thereby
cause a potential safety issue for road users. The FHWA agrees and
revises the statement by deleting replacement of damaged devices from
the STANDARD statement and, in conjunction with this, at the end of the
MUTCD Introduction the FHWA adds new OPTION and SUPPORT statements
regarding the replacement of damaged, non-compliant devices as part of
maintenance activities following a crash or other event. The FHWA also
modifies the new STANDARD statement to accurately reflect existing
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations in regard to different
requirements that apply on Federal-aid projects, and to clarify the
FHWA's authority to establish phase-in target compliance dates for
particular changes to the MUTCD.
The NCUTCD, State and local DOTs, and private citizens suggested
changes to some specific proposed special phase-in target compliance
dates. The FHWA deletes the word ``proposed'' from each of the phase-in
target compliance dates which appeared in the NPA, and changes the
phase-in target compliance dates (from what was proposed in the NPA)
for the following: Section 2B.28 Preferential Only Lane Sign Placement
and Application (numbered 2B.50 in the NPA), Section 2B.52 Hazardous
Material Signs (R14-2, R14-3) (numbered 2B.46 in the NPA), Section
2C.30 Speed Reduction Signs (W3-5, W3-5a) (numbered 2C.51 in the NPA),
Section 2D.38 Street Name Sign (D3-1), Section 2D.39 Advance Street
Name Signs (D3-2), Section 2E.28 Interchange Exit Numbering, Section
2I.03 EVACUATION ROUTE Sign (EM-1), Section 4D.12 Flashing Operation of
Traffic Control Signals, Section 4E.07 Countdown Pedestrian Signals,
Section 6D.03 Worker Safety Considerations (numbered 6D.02 in the NPA),
Section 6E.02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, Section 6F.58
Channelizing Devices (numbered 6F.55 in the NPA), Section 6F.63 Type I,
II, or III Barricades (numbered 6F.60 in the NPA), and Part 10 (Traffic
Controls for Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings).
The FHWA also adds phase-in target compliance dates for the
following: Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, Section 2B.06 STOP Sign
Placement, Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, Section 2B.10 YIELD
Sign Placement, Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (numbered 2B.11 in the
NPA), Section 2C.16 NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2) (numbered 2C.14 in the
NPA), Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15)
(numbered 2B.48 in the NPA), Section 2C.34 Two-Way Traffic Sign (W6-3)
(numbered 2C.31 in the NPA), Section 2E.54 Reference Location Signs,
Section 2E.59 Preferential Only Lane Signs, Section 3B.03 Other Yellow
Longitudinal Pavement Markings, Section 3B.17 Crosswalk Markings,
Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, Section 5C.05 NARROW
BRIDGE Sign,
[[Page 65499]]
Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, Section 6F.03 Sign
Placement, 6F.66 Longitudinal Channelizing Barricades (numbered 6F.53
in the NPA), Section 6F.82 Crash Cushions (numbered 6F.78 in the NPA),
and Section 7B.12 Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead Sign (S4-5, S4-5a).
The FHWA is not including in this final rule the following phase-in
target compliance dates that had been proposed in the NPA: Section
3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings,
Section 4E.04 Size, Design, and Illumination of Pedestrian Signal Head
Indications, Sections 4F.04 and 4L.03 (these sections are removed from
this final rule), Section 6F.69 Temporary Raised Islands (numbered
6F.63 in the NPA), and for Section 8B.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
(Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2). Discussion
of these changes, additions, and removals of phase-in target compliance
dates may be found under the discussions of the individual sections.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to the Table of Contents
3. The FHWA condenses the Table of Contents to include only the
list of Parts and Chapters. Each Part continues to begin with a ``table
of contents'' that contains the page number of every section, figure,
and table. This change simplifies the search for an item by those with
visual disabilities by enabling them to advance to the appropriate Part
and then page more quickly and easily. There were no comments on the
Table of Contents and the FHWA adopts the changes.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 1--General
4. In Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices, in the
second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA revises the text
to eliminate redundancy. The FHWA received one editorial comment from a
traffic engineering consultant, and adopts the suggested editorial
changes with minor revision.
5. In Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices, the
FHWA makes a minor editorial change to correct the section reference to
the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in the first sentence of the second
paragraph of the SUPPORT statement to Section 15-116 of the UVC. The
2000 MUTCD and the NPA incorrectly referenced Section 15-117 of the UVC
regarding traffic control devices on private property used by the
public.
6. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes and
Interim Approvals, titled ``Interpretations, Experimentations, and
Changes'' in the NPA, the FHWA changes the first GUIDANCE statement to
a STANDARD statement to require that requests for interpretations,
permission to experiment, interim approval, or changes to the MUTCD
must be submitted to the FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations.
There were no comments on this change.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD and the Minnesota
and Ohio DOTS regarding item E of the second GUIDANCE statement and
item D of the fourth GUIDANCE statement, both of which pertain to
patented or copyrighted traffic control devices. The commenters
suggested that certifying that a ``concept'' for a traffic control
device is not protected by a patent or copyright is vague and difficult
to interpret. The FHWA agrees and inserts an example of a traffic
control device concept in both items to clarify the intent.
Additionally, following the fourth GUIDANCE statement the FHWA adds
SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD statements describing the
``interim approval'' process for the FHWA to approve or allow the use
of new traffic control devices. Seven commenters representing industry
and local governments were all in general support of the new interim
approval process.
The NPA included an additional new STANDARD statement between the
new SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements. In response to comments from the
NCUTCD and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the
FHWA removes as incorrect the proposed STANDARD statement to the effect
that interim approvals will be considered only when submitted by the
public agency or private toll facility responsible for the operations
of the road or street. It is not FHWA's intent to limit requests for
interim approvals to only public agencies or private toll road
authorities. Requests for interim approvals, interpretations, and
changes can be made by anyone. However, requests for experimentation
approvals will continue to be accepted only from public agencies or
private toll road authorities.
The FHWA also modifies Figure 1A-2 to reflect the ``interim
approval'' process and to make the figure more accurately reflect the
text of the MUTCD.
7. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA
modifies the STANDARD statement to update the documents listed to the
latest editions. The FHWA also adds additional sources of information
in the SUPPORT statement and revises the order of the sources of
information, alphabetizing first by source, then by the title of the
document. There were several editorial comments suggesting revisions to
reflect current editions of documents that the FHWA incorporates in
this final rule.
8. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA adds to the STANDARD
statement the assignment of the color fluorescent pink to incident
management to make it easier for road users to follow directions
relating to traffic incidents. This color was referred to as
fluorescent coral in the NPA. The FHWA received several comments from
the NCUTCD, ATSSA, the Ohio, California, Virginia and Missouri DOTs,
and traffic control device manufacturers, regarding this color. ATSSA,
the Virginia DOT, and several traffic control device manufacturers felt
that the color should be called fluorescent pink, other traffic control
device manufacturers agreed with the color coral, and Minnesota DOT
wanted more studies regarding effectiveness of the color. The FHWA
believes that the study \3\ that found this color to be effective is
sufficient and that further study is not needed. The coordinates of the
color box are most appropriately titled ``fluorescent pink,'' and the
FHWA intends for the color to appear pinker in nature, similar to the
sample signs that were studied and found effective, rather than coral.
The FHWA reorders the items in the STANDARD statement so that the
colors appear in alphabetical order, adds the color ``fluorescent
pink,'' and restores the color ``coral'' as unassigned. The color
coordinates for the color fluorescent pink are indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Improvement of Conspicuity of Trailblazing Signs: Phase
III--Evaluation of Fluorescent Colors'', Virginia Transportation
Research Council (VTRC) Report No. FHWA/VTRC 01-CR4, February 2001,
by Neale, Anders, Schreiner, and Brich, may be ordered from VTRC at
the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/index_main.htm.
The color tested and recommended in this report is
referred to as fluorescent coral, however the characteristics (color
box coordinates, etc.) of the color tested are more accurately
described as fluorescent pink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65500]]
The Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) (English:
International Commission on Illumination) chromaticity coordinates
(x,y), defining the corners of the Fluorescent Pink daytime color
region are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.450 0.270
0.590 0.350
0.644 0.290
0.536 0.230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luminance factor limits (Y)
-------------------------------------------------
D65 D150
-------------------------------------------------
Min Max YF Min Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent Pink.............................................. 25 none 15 25 none
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent materials differ from non-fluorescent materials in that
the total luminance is the sum of the luminances due to reflection and
fluorescence. The luminance factor Y of such materials is the sum of
the luminance due to reflection (YR) and the luminance due
to fluorescence (YF). Therefore,
Y=YR+YF. If the value YF is greater
than zero, the material is fluorescent; if YF equals zero,
then the luminance factor Y is equal to YR.
These four pairs of chromaticity coordinates determine the
acceptable color in terms of CIE 1931 Standard Colorimetric System (2
degree standard observer) measured with CIE Standard Illuminant D65 in
accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
standard E991. In addition, the color shall be fluorescent, as
determined by ASTM E1247.\4\ The FHWA amends title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F, to add chromaticity
coordinates and luminance factor limits for the color of fluorescent
pink retroreflective sign materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A list of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
standards is available on the Internet at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.astm.org.
The ASTM International is a global forum for the
development of consensus standards. Standard ASTM E991-98 is titled
``Standard Practice for Color Measurement of Fluorescent
Specimens.'' Standard ASTM E1247-03 is titled ``Standard Practice
for Detecting Fluorescence in Object-Color Specimens by
Spectrophotometry.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, to be consistent with Section 2C.42 Playground Sign
(W15-1), the FHWA adds ``playground warning'' to the list of signs
assigned the fluorescent yellow-green color.
9. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This
Manual, the FHWA revises definitions in the STANDARD statement for:
``Active Grade Crossing Warning System,'' ``Average Day,'' ``Beacon,''
``Crosswalk,'' ``Highway Traffic Signal,'' ``Raised Pavement Marker'',
``Road User,'' ``Shared-Use Path,'' ``Sidewalk,'' ``Sign Illumination''
and ``Traffic Control Device'' to better reflect accepted practice and
terminologies and to provide consistency between the definitions shown
here and in other parts of the Manual. Additionally, the FHWA adds
definitions for ``Crashworthy,'' ``Detectable,'' ``Inherently Low
Emission Vehicle (ILEV),'' ``Pedestrian Facilities,'' and ``Roundabout
Intersection'' because they are used in the MUTCD. There were a few
editorial comments regarding some of these definitions that the FHWA
incorporates in this final rule as appropriate. Also, the FHWA revises
the definition of ``Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV)'' to clarify
that only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to
certify ILEVs.
Additionally, the FHWA removes the definition for ``Preferential
Lane Marking'' because it is no longer used in the MUTCD. There were no
comments regarding this change.
10. In Section 1A.14 Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices,
the FHWA revises the text in the first STANDARD statement to clarify
that the abbreviations for the word messages shown in Table 1A-1 are
the only abbreviations to be used for those word messages. The FHWA
also adds a GUIDANCE statement at the end of this section to give
guidance regarding the consistency of abbreviations within a single
jurisdiction. Additionally, the FHWA revises Tables 1A-1 and 1A-2 to
include additional abbreviations, delete some abbreviations, and modify
some abbreviations, based on Texas research on driver understanding of
abbreviations. The Illinois DOT was opposed to the abbreviations for
northbound, eastbound, and the like, suggesting that the use of ``NB'',
etc. should be allowed. The 2000 Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
study (by Durkop and Dudek) \5\ on which many of the abbreviation
requirements were based found very low driver comprehension rates in
Texas for NB, EB, SB, and WB when used as ``NB Traffic'' or ``US 75
NB.'' The Texas study suggested that a better alternative would be just
the initial letter N, S, E, or W. The FHWA reviewed that study and has
determined that abbreviations such as ``N-BND'' would further enhance
understanding. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the changes to this section
as proposed in the NPA, with minor editorial clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Texas Driver Understanding of Abbreviations for Dynamic
Message Signs'', February 2000, by Durkop and Dudek, Texas
Transportation Institute Report number FHWA/TX-00-1882-1, can be
obtained from the Texas Transportation Institute, phone (979) 845-
4853. A summary of the results was also published in Transportation
Research Record 1748, available for purchase from the Transportation
Research Board at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www4.trb.org/trb/
onlinepubs.nsf/web/homepage? OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 2--Signs
11. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT
statement that the ``general appearance'' of the sign legends, colors
and sizes are shown in the illustrations, because the illustrations may
not exactly correspond to the letter brush stroke widths of the
``Standard Highway Signs'' book and the FHWA central values and
tolerance limits of colors, due to variations in computer display
monitors and printing processes.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding to the STANDARD statement
that, unless otherwise stated in the MUTCD for a specific sign, phone
numbers or Internet addresses shall not be shown on any sign, to reduce
the possibility of driver distraction. While there was one comment from
the NCUTCD in support of this change, there were five comments from the
Arizona, Washington, Virginia, and Illinois DOTs and the City of Plano,
Texas, specifically opposing the language in the NPA prohibiting phone
numbers on signs because these may provide important phone numbers that
are used for services provided to the public by a government agency.
The FHWA agrees that telephone numbers can be useful, but is concerned
about driver distraction and the effect on highway safety. To address
the
[[Page 65501]]
comments, the FHWA revises the STANDARD statement and adds GUIDANCE and
OPTION statements to allow phone numbers and Internet addresses on
signs in certain limited circumstances, minimizing the potential
effects on safety. The language in this final rule permits abbreviated
telephone numbers (four characters or less) on signs. Signs with
telephone numbers of more than four characters and Internet addresses
may be provided in parking and pedestrian areas, or on low-speed
roadways where engineering judgment indicates that vehicles can safely
stop out of the traffic flow to read the sign.
12. In Section 2A.07 Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA revises the
GUIDANCE statement to include safety messages as one of the types of
allowable displays for changeable message signs. There were two
comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
this change, while two commenters representing the Kansas DOT opposed
it. The Kansas DOT stated that to encourage the display of safety
messages on changeable message signs could desensitize the traveling
public towards regulatory, warning, and guidance information that is
displayed at other times. The FHWA adopts the proposed change because
it is included in a GUIDANCE statement, which gives the individual
States the flexibility to permit or not permit safety messages on
changeable message signs.
Additionally, the FHWA adds at the end of the section OPTION,
SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use, design,
and format of safety and other messages so that they do not adversely
affect the usefulness of the sign. There were two comments from the
Kansas DOT opposed to the new OPTION statement, stating that changeable
message signs should be used only when there is a need. Because this is
an OPTION statement, the FHWA believes that it gives any individual
State the flexibility to use this option if it so chooses. To
explicitly reinforce this, the FHWA adds a sentence to the OPTION
statement that State and local agencies may develop and establish a
policy regarding safety and transportation-related message signs, for
both permanent and changeable message signs, which specifies allowable
messages and applications. To mirror and reinforce the information
contained in Table 2A-4, the FHWA also adds to the OPTION statement
that changeable message signs (including portable changeable message
signs) that display a regulatory or warning message may use a black
background with a white, yellow, orange, red, or fluorescent yellow-
green legend as appropriate.
13. In Section 2A.08 Retroreflectivity and Illumination, the FHWA
revises Table 2A-1 by replacing ``Patterns of incandescent light
bulbs'' with ``Incandescent light bulbs'' and by adding ``Light
Emitting Diodes (LEDs)'' to the listed Means of Illumination to reflect
current technology. There were nine comments from the NCUTCD, the City
of Tucson, Arizona, traffic control device manufacturers, and private
citizens supporting this change, particularly the addition of light
emitting diodes (LEDs). To provide additional clarification to the
table, the FHWA creates a separate row in the table for light emitting
diodes under the Means of Illumination and includes symbols or word
messages and portions of the sign border as sign elements to be
illuminated. In addition, based on comments from the NCUTCD, the FHWA
adds to the OPTION statement additional information regarding the use
of LEDs within the face of a sign and in the border of a sign and adds
a new STANDARD statement following this OPTION to specify the color and
flash rate for LEDs used on a sign.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement at the end of
the section referencing information contained in Section 2A.21 Posts
and Mountings on the use of retroreflective material on the sign
support. There was one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this
change. The FHWA adopts this change.
14. In Section 2A.10 Shapes, the FHWA revises Table 2A-3 by
removing the Emergency Evacuation Route Sign from the listed signs for
the circle shape because the FHWA changes the design of this sign to be
a rectangular plate in accordance with other guide signs, as indicated
in Section 2I.03 EVACUATION ROUTE Sign (EM-1). The FHWA received two
comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
this change, and one comment from the Florida DOT opposed to it. The
Florida DOT opposed because it currently uses the circle shape for the
Emergency Evacuation Route Sign and believes that the proposed change
would have a large statewide impact to its evacuation program. The FHWA
notes that the Emergency Evacuation Route Sign has not been changed; it
has just been put onto a white rectangular background so that the
circular shape can be reserved for another use. The FHWA adopts the
change, but to address the Florida DOT's comment, adds a phase-in
target compliance date of 15 years from the date this final rule is
effective for the change in shape, for signs in good condition.
Additionally, the FHWA revises Table 2A-3 to list the Trapezoid
shape for use as ``Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Series'' and
``National Forest Route'' signs. The FHWA received two comments from
the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the NCUTCD in support of this change,
and adopts this change.
15. In Section 2A.11 Sign Colors, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD
statement to read ``The colors to be used on standard signs and their
specific use on these signs shall be as indicated in the applicable
sections of this Manual. The color coordinates and values shall be as
described in 23 CFR, Part 655, Subpart F, Appendix.'' This modification
clarifies that the color requirements apply to all signs in the MUTCD,
not just those in Part 2, and refers to the correct location of the
color coordinates and values. There were no comments on this change.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed using the color coral for incident
management uses, however in response to comments from traffic control
device manufacturers about this section and Part 6, the FHWA changes
this color assignment to fluorescent pink because this name more
clearly describes the color in the color tints. See also the discussion
under Section 1A.12 Color Code, which also applies to this section. As
a result, the FHWA withdraws this proposal to modify the SUPPORT
statement to delete the color coral from the reserved colors, and
retains the text as shown in the 2000 MUTCD which includes the color
coral as a reserved color for a use that will be determined in the
future. Additionally, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT statement that
information regarding color coding of destinations on guide signs is
contained in Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination.
The FHWA also modifies Table 2A-4 by adding a new column on the
right hand side for the color fluorescent pink, by adding a new row
``Incident Management'' to the bottom, by adding a second new row
``Changeable Message Signs'' at the bottom, following Incident
Management, and by adding or revising color designations and notes to
reflect proposed changes in other parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA makes
additional editorial changes to the table, and moves Reference
Location, Street Name, and Destination signs to be listed as Guide
signs, and the Evacuation Route sign to be listed under Information
signs, in response to a comment from Caltrans and to maintain
consistency within the MUTCD.
[[Page 65502]]
16. In Section 2A.12 Dimensions, the FHWA adds a second paragraph
to the SUPPORT statement describing and clarifying the different sizes
of signs, as detailed in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' book. While the
City of Tucson, Arizona, supported the change, there were two comments
from the NCUTCD and the Illinois DOT opposed to this new paragraph. The
NCUTCD stated that this new paragraph introduced redundancy because
this information is included in Sections 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs
and 2C.04 Size of Warning Signs, and the Illinois DOT suggested that
this paragraph was unnecessary. The FHWA agrees that this information
needs to be included in only one place in the Manual, and adopts the
text in this section and deletes this information from Sections 2B.03
and 2C.04. The FHWA revises the last sentence of this paragraph to
clarify that intermediate sized signs are designed to be used on other
highway types.
17. In Section 2A.14 Word Messages, the FHWA modifies the first
GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the specific ratio of 25 mm (1 in)
of letter height per 12 m (40 ft) of legibility distance should be a
minimum. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD supporting this
change and adopts this change.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement after the first
paragraph of GUIDANCE to provide additional information that some
research on sign legibility of older drivers \6\ indicates that a ratio
of 25 mm (1 in) of letter height per 10 m (33 ft) of legibility
distance could be beneficial for addressing the needs of older drivers.
Three commenters from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the sign manufacturing
industry supported this new SUPPORT statement, and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed it. Both opposing
commenters expressed concern that this additional language would add
confusion as to what ratio should be used in designing signs. The FHWA
disagrees with the opposing commenters because SUPPORT statements are
purely informational and have no legal basis for a mandatory or
recommended practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Information about this research is summarized on pages 185
and 186 of the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA
Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for
purchase from The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000. Internet Web site
address at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE heading for guidance on abbreviations
after the new SUPPORT statement.
18. In Section 2A.15 Sign Borders, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD
statement to require that the corners of all sign borders, except for
STOP signs, shall be rounded. The FHWA received several comments from
ATSSA and representatives of the blind community regarding this change.
The commenters misunderstood this statement both in the NPA and in the
2000 MUTCD, thinking that it pertained to the corners of the sign
itself, rather than the sign border, which is included within the sign.
As noted in the next paragraph, the sign itself does not always have to
have rounded corners, but the border (typically black on white) does.
The NPA merely replaced the phrase ``corners of the sign'' with
``corners of all sign borders'' to provide consistency with the section
title, Sign Borders. The FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the
NPA, in this final rule.
The NPA also included a proposal to modify the GUIDANCE statement
to clarify that, where practical, the corners of the sign should be
rounded to fit the border, except for STOP signs. The FHWA received
several comments from ATSSA and representatives of the blind community
supporting the rounding of sign corners. The FHWA received one comment
from a traffic engineering consultant opposing the statement,
suggesting that the phrase ``where practical'' was too vague. The FHWA
agrees and revises this statement to include a reference Section 2E.15
Sign Borders for specific exemptions regarding the rounding of corners
of sign.
19. In Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA
relocates Figures 2A-3, 2A-4, 2A-5, and 2A-6 to Section 2B.37 ONE WAY
Signs (R6-1, R6-2) and removes Figure 2A-7 (figure numbering cited here
reflects 2000 MUTCD). These relocated figures are more appropriate in
Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. The FHWA revises the first SUPPORT
statement to reflect these changes. There were no comments regarding
this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.
The FHWA received several comments from Caltrans, the Ohio DOT, the
City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant regarding
Figures 2A-1 and 2A-2 in the NPA. In response to the comments regarding
the use of the words ``typical'' and ``examples'', the FHWA changes the
figure titles to: ``Figure 2A-1 Examples of Heights and Lateral
Locations of Signs for Typical Installations'' and ``Figure 2A-2
Examples of Locations for Some Typical Signs at Intersections.'' The
FHWA also incorporates editorial comments and notes to the figures in
this final rule.
The FHWA also revises the second paragraph of the first GUIDANCE
statement to state the exceptions to placing signs on separate posts in
list form rather than narrative form, and to clarify that certain
groupings of regulatory signs are also excepted from the recommended
mounting on separate posts. These minor editorial clarifications
respond to a comment from a traffic engineering consultant and reflect
common practice.
20. In Section 2A.17 Overhead Sign Installations, the FHWA modifies
the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that overhead guide signs should be
used on freeways as well as expressways, under certain conditions. The
FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of this change and adopts this change.
The FHWA received one comment from a traffic engineering consultant
suggesting that the last paragraph of the OPTION statement pertaining
to the placement of signs on bridges of freeways and expressways in
order to enhance safety and economy is duplicative and unnecessary. The
FHWA agrees with the comment and makes this minor and editorial
revision to remove this text from this final rule.
21. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA relocates the first
OPTION and SUPPORT statements so that they appear before the last
paragraph of the first STANDARD statement. This change improves the
clarity of the section. The FHWA received one comment from the City of
Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change, and adopts this change. The
FHWA received one comment from a private citizen suggesting that in-
street crosswalk signs are typically mounted much lower than the
heights included in the first STANDARD statement, and that if they are
to be excluded from these criteria, appropriate language should be
included in the final rule. The FHWA agrees that additional language is
needed and adds a new SUPPORT statement at the beginning of the Section
that indicates that the provisions of this section apply unless
specifically stated otherwise for a particular sign elsewhere in the
MUTCD.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a paragraph to the last OPTION
statement indicating that if the vertical clearance of other structures
is less than 4.9 m (16 ft), the vertical clearance to overhead sign
structures or supports may be as low as 0.3 m (1 ft) higher than the
[[Page 65503]]
vertical clearance of the other structures. These lower clearances for
the sign structures are sometimes needed to maximize the visibility of
the signs when low bridge structure or tunnel clearances limit the sign
visibility. There was one editorial comment from the NCUTCD regarding
this change, which the FHWA incorporates in this final rule.
22. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA divides the first
STANDARD statement into a STANDARD and a GUIDANCE statement. The
STANDARD statement refers to the lateral offset of overhead sign
supports, and the GUIDANCE statement refers to the lateral offset of
signs mounted at the roadside. Changing the lateral offset of roadside-
mounted signs to a GUIDANCE provides additional flexibility to
jurisdictions for signs mounted at the roadside. There was one comment
from the NCUTCD in support of this change, the Kansas DOT opposed it,
and Caltrans requested additional clarification. The Kansas DOT opposed
the conversion of the minimum lateral offset for signs mounted at the
roadside to a GUIDANCE, and suggested that it should remain a STANDARD
in order to minimize the chance of allowing signs to be placed
immediately adjacent to the shoulder or the roadway edge. The FHWA
disagrees because it is more appropriate for this item to be a
GUIDANCE, especially given the exemptions in the last OPTION statement.
The FHWA encourages the 12-foot offset, but provides flexibility to
jurisdictions for the placement of signs mounted at the roadside in
places where the 12-foot offsets would not be desirable or practical. A
State may choose to impose a more stringent requirement if it desires.
The FHWA adopts this change, as specified in the NPA, in this final
rule.
Additionally, in the 2000 edition of the MUTCD a new requirement
was established in this section that, if located within the clear zone,
ground-mounted sign supports shall be breakaway, yielding, or shielded
with a barrier or crash cushion and that supports for overhead-mounted
signs shall be shielded with a barrier or crash cushion, but no special
phase-in target compliance date was established at that time. In
response to comments that agencies are encountering difficulties and
economic impacts given the extensive testing of devices that has to
occur in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 \7\ in order to determine and
certify crashworthiness, the FHWA determines that a special target
compliance date is required for the crashworthiness provisions in this
section. In this final rule, the FHWA establishes a phase-in target
compliance date of January 17, 2013 for crashworthiness of sign
supports within the clear zone for roads with posted speed limits of 80
km/h (50 mph) or above. This is consistent with guidance previously
communicated informally to jurisdictions in a variety of training and
presentations by the FHWA Office of Safety regarding roadside safety
and countermeasures for run-off-the-road crashes, and is a reasonable
target date for achieving compliance on high-speed roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NCHRP Report 350, ``Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Performance Evaluation of Highway Features,'' 1993, is available for
downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revisions to Section 2A.20
Position of Signs, to remove the second sentence under the SUPPORT
statement as the references to the figures duplicates other references
elsewhere. Upon further consideration, the FHWA believes that this
section is not necessary and deletes this section from the MUTCD in its
entirety in this final rule. This section does not include any
information that is not already contained elsewhere in the Manual. The
FHWA revises the subsequent section numbers accordingly.
24. In Section 2A.21 Posts and Mountings (numbered Section 2A.22 in
the NPA), the FHWA adds an OPTION statement after the SUPPORT
statement, indicating that a strip of retroreflective material may be
used on the supports of regulatory and warning signs to draw attention
to the sign during nighttime conditions. One consultant and three State
DOTs opposed this new OPTION, but the NCUTCD and several other agencies
supported it. Those opposed stated several reasons, such as difficulty
in deciding which signs should receive a reflective strip, lack of
research support, and consistency. The FHWA agrees that additional
instruction is needed regarding the use of the reflective strip, and
adds the phrase ``Where engineering judgment indicates a need to draw
attention to the sign during nighttime conditions''. Because this is an
OPTION, States that oppose it can choose to not allow this use.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a second STANDARD statement after the
OPTION statement specifying the size, location, and color of the strip
of retroreflective material if it is used. This provides for uniformity
of application. Based on comments received from a traffic engineering
consultant for this section as well as other comments in Section 8B.03
Highway-rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number of
Tracks Sign (R15-2) regarding the placement of the strip in relation to
the ground, the FHWA revises this statement to indicate that the bottom
of the strip be within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the edge of the roadway. The
FHWA adopts this change, along with editorial modifications, in this
final rule.
25. In Section 2A.23 Median Opening Treatments for Divided Highways
with Wide Medians (numbered Section 2A.24 in the NPA and title changed
from 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA removes the GUIDANCE statement that appeared
in the 2000 MUTCD and changes the STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE
statement. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans,
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of these changes, and two
comments from ATSSA and the Minnesota DOT opposing the change from
STANDARD to GUIDANCE. This change makes it recommended rather than
mandatory that intersections on divided highways where the median width
at the median opening is 9 m (30 ft) or more, be signed as two separate
intersections. The commenters suggested that the use of the mandatory
word ``shall'' would provide for greater consistency between
jurisdictions and should be maintained to assist tourists and older
drivers. The FHWA believes that it is important to provide additional
signing flexibility to jurisdictions regarding median openings. A
GUIDANCE statement strongly encourages the practice without mandating
it, and allows for engineering judgment to be used to determine if some
intersections on roadways with medians wider than 9 m (30 ft) might
function better without being signed as two separate intersections.
Therefore, the FHWA adopts the change as specified in the NPA.
26. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the NPA included a
proposal to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at the end of the
section regarding the use of Changeable Message Signs to provide for
the display of regulatory signs. The NCUTCD, the City of Tucson,
Arizona, and a traffic control device manufacturer supported the new
OPTION statement. Caltrans questioned whether the information also
applied to portable changeable message signs. The FHWA agrees that the
OPTION statement applies to more than just regulatory signs, and
removes this OPTION statement from this section and places it in
Section 2A.07 Changeable
[[Page 65504]]
Message Signs, with additional changes to the text. The NCUTCD and a
traffic control device manufacturer supported the new GUIDANCE
statement, however ATSSA and the Wisconsin DOT opposed it. The
Wisconsin DOT stated that regulatory messages on changeable message
signs should only be used to supplement standard ground mounted signs,
rather than as the sole sign, because they cannot be enforced. ATSSA
stated that there are previously identified problems regarding the
contrast in colors of the red prohibition circle on changeable message
signs. The FHWA disagrees with both of these comments and adopts the
GUIDANCE statement in this final rule. Regulatory messages on
changeable message signs can be enforced as long as the jurisdiction
has the authority to enact temporary regulations and as long as the
messages conform to MUTCD requirements. The red prohibitory circle and
slash on a black background, as used on changeable message signs,
generally have better contrast than those used on static signs. The
FHWA adopts the changes to this section with revisions as described
above.
27. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA removes the
SUPPORT statement referencing the ``Standard Highway Signs'' book
because this statement is general and applies to regulatory, warning,
and guide signs, and a similar statement is included in Section 2A.12
Dimensions.
The FHWA modifies Table 2B-1 by adding, removing, and renaming
signs, and by adding additional sign sizes. These changes and new sign
sizes reflect changes in Part 2, are values from the ``Standard Highway
Signs'' book, and reflect regular use by highway agencies. The FHWA
received several editorial comments from the NCUTCD and Caltrans
regarding these changes and incorporates those changes as appropriate.
Additionally, the FHWA increases the sizes of the ONE WAY (R6-2)
sign and the DIVIDED HIGHWAY CROSSING (R6-3, R6-3a) signs for all roads
based on the research \8\ addressing the needs of older road users. The
FHWA adds sign sizes in the ``Expressways'' and ``Freeways'' columns
for these signs and the R6-1 ONE WAY sign because these are the main
signs to alert road users of the divided highway. The FHWA received one
comment from ATSSA supporting these changes. The City of Tucson,
Arizona, opposed the increase in sign size, stating that the current
sign sizes are adequate for urban/city street systems. The FHWA adopts
the sizes as proposed in the NPA because the research indicates these
sizes are needed in most cases for older drivers. However, to address
the comment from the City of Tucson, the FHWA is currently reviewing
ways to better incorporate the needs of urban areas into the MUTCD and
plans to address those needs in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Information about this research is summarized on pages 94-
100 of the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' Report number FHWA-RD-01-03, published by the FHWA
Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for
purchase from The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000. Internet website
address at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years
from the date of this final rule for these sign sizes, for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
governments.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement that signs
larger than those shown in Table 2B-1 may be used. Sometimes there are
special conditions that warrant much larger signs and this flexibility
is needed. There were no comments regarding this change, and the FHWA
adopts this change.
28. In Section 2B.04 STOP Sign (R1-1), the FHWA received three
comments, one from a traffic engineering consultant and two from
private citizens regarding the use of supplemental plaques with multi-
way STOP signs. The FHWA did not propose any change to this section in
the NPA, and these comments are outside the scope of this final rule.
29. In Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement, the FHWA corrects an
error in the STANDARD statement (as published in the 2000 MUTCD) by
changing the word ``correct'' to ``right'' so that the statement reads,
``The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to
which it applies.'' There was one comment from a private citizen
suggesting that the FHWA replace ``traffic lane'' with ``approach'' in
order to avoid this statement being misinterpreted as requiring a
separate sign to the right of each stopped lane on a multi-lane
approach. The FHWA agrees and revises the text accordingly.
Additionally, the NPA included a proposal that other than a DO NOT
ENTER sign, no other sign shall be mounted back-to-back with a STOP
sign, to assure that the shape of the STOP sign is visible to road
users on other approaches to the intersection. The proposed exception
for the DO NOT ENTER sign was to allow flexibility in urban areas where
there may not be enough room to install separate poles for each sign
and both signs must be installed at the corner. While there was one
comment from ATSSA in support of this proposed change, the NCUTCD, the
Arizona, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Illinois DOTs as well as the
Cities of Plano, Texas; Beaverton, Oregon; Kennewick, Washington; and
Tucson, Arizona, opposed this change, stating that it was too
restrictive. The FHWA agrees with the State and local DOTs that there
may be some locations where it may be appropriate to mount signs to the
back of STOP signs, and changes this STANDARD to a GUIDANCE in this
final rule and revises the statement to read, ``Other than a DO NOT
ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in
a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign.'' The FHWA adds a
phase-in target compliance date for this new GUIDANCE of 10 years from
the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good
condition, and adds a SUPPORT statement referencing Section 2A.16
Standardization of Location for further information regarding separate
and combined mounting of signs with STOP signs.
30. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA clarifies
the OPTION statement by adding a reference to STOP signs. The change
states that instead of using a STOP sign, a YIELD sign may be used if
engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the listed
conditions exist. The conditions for using a YIELD sign are not being
changed. The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, the
City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals in general support of the change. A traffic engineering
consultant mistakenly thought that the change represented a major
change in the method of determining if YIELD is the appropriate sign,
and suggested a 10-year phase-in target compliance date. The most
significant change was made in the 2000 MUTCD. The only new concept is
the clarification that YIELD signs would be used ``instead of STOP
signs.'' This is only an OPTION and existing STOP signs that are in
place at intersections where these conditions apply would not be in
violation of the MUTCD. The FHWA adopts the change with minor editorial
revisions in this final rule. There is no need for a long compliance
date to comply with an OPTION. The FHWA notes that the 10-year phase-in
target compliance date for the change in application of YIELD signs is
tied to the effective date of the 2000 MUTCD (January 11, 2011).
Additionally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement after the OPTION
statement to require the use of a YIELD sign to assign right-of-way at
[[Page 65505]]
the entrance to a roundabout intersection. An essential design feature
of a modern roundabout intersection is ``yield-on-entry'' therefore, a
YIELD sign is necessary at all entrances to the roundabout
intersection. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support of
this change, and one comment from the U.S. Access Board opposed to it.
The U.S. Access Board suggested that the pedestrian crossing be moved
away from the entry and exit points of the roundabout intersection to
allow for safer interaction between pedestrians and drivers. This would
create a midblock crossing, and the FHWA believes that the signing and
marking of nearby midblock crosswalks should be determined on a case-
by-case basis using engineering judgment. Thus, the FHWA did not make
changes to this STANDARD, and adopts the new STANDARD statement as
proposed in the NPA.
31. In Section 2B.10 YIELD Sign Placement, the FHWA corrects an
error in the first paragraph of the STANDARD statement by changing the
word ``correct'' to ``right'' so that the first sentence reads, ``The
YIELD sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to
which it applies.'' Additionally, the FHWA adds a new sentence after
the first sentence of the STANDARD statement to require that YIELD
signs shall be placed on both the left and right sides of the
approaches to roundabout intersections with more than one approach lane
on the signed approach. This is in concert with best practices of
modern roundabout intersection design and to assure adequate visibility
of the YIELD signs. There were two comments from ATSSA and the Kansas
DOT in general support of these changes, and the FHWA adopts these
changes, with minor editorial revision.
Additionally, the NPA included a proposal to add a paragraph to the
STANDARD statement that other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no other sign
shall be mounted back-to-back with a YIELD sign, to assure that the
shape of the YIELD sign is visible to road users on other approaches to
the intersection. The proposed exception for the DO NOT ENTER sign was
to allow flexibility in urban areas where there may not be enough room
to install separate poles for each sign and both signs must be
installed at the corner. The FHWA received nine comments from State and
local DOT's opposed to this change, stating that it was too restrictive
(see comments and discussion in Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement). The
FHWA agrees and changes this STANDARD to a GUIDANCE and revises the
statement to read, ``Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be
mounted back-to-back with a YIELD sign in a manner that obscures the
shape of the YIELD sign.'' The FHWA adds a phase-in target compliance
date for this new GUIDANCE of 10 years from the effective date of this
final rule for existing signs in good condition, and also adds a
SUPPORT statement referencing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location
for further information regarding separate and combined mounting of
signs with YIELD signs.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement
stating that, at a roundabout intersection, the face of the YIELD sign
should not be visible from the circulating roadway. This is recommended
to prevent circulating vehicles in the roundabout intersection from
yielding unnecessarily. The FHWA received no comments regarding this
change, and adopts this change.
The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement at the end of the section to
allow the installation of an additional YIELD sign on the left side of
the road and/or the use of a YIELD line at wide-throat intersections.
This provides for improved visibility of the YIELD signs where needed.
The FHWA received no comments regarding this change, and adopts this
change.
32. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2B.11 Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs (R1-5, R1-5a)''. (This section
was numbered Section 2B.52 in the NPA.) These new signs alert road
users of the presence of an unsignalized midblock pedestrian crossing.
The FHWA includes a STANDARD statement, which states that if YIELD
lines are used in advance of an unsignalized marked crosswalk, the
YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (R1-5 or R1-5a) signs, shall be placed 6.1 to
15 m (20 to 50 ft) in advance of the nearest crosswalk line. The
purpose of the STANDARD is to provide for the uniform use and placement
of these signs and improved pedestrian safety.
The FHWA received six comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, Cities of
Tucson, Arizona, and Plano, Texas, the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycle Professionals, and a traffic engineering consultant in support
of this new section. One private citizen opposed it, stating that the
signs are unnecessary because they convey rules of the road, rather
than site-specific regulations. The Wisconsin DOT and Pierce County,
Washington, requested clarification of the placement of these signs. In
response to the comments, the FHWA adds a reference to Section 3B.16
Stop and Yield Lines to provide additional clarity that the yield line
is to be placed adjacent to the Yield Here to Pedestrians sign. The
FHWA adopts this section in this final rule and establishes a phase-in
target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this
final rule for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local governments.
The FHWA received two comments from the Oregon DOT and a traffic
engineering consultant suggesting that this section be expanded to
include STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIAN signs and wording added to allow the
signs at any marked crosswalk not controlled by a signal, stop sign, or
yield sign as an option for States or other agencies with statutes that
require traffic to stop for pedestrians. This goes beyond the scope of
the NPA, and a future NPA would need to be issued for discussion and
comment.
33. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section 2B.12
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a).'' (This section was
numbered Section 2B.53 in the NPA.) These in-street signs remind road
users of the laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian
crossing. The FHWA includes OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements
describing the use, design and application of the In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing (R1-6, R1-6a) signs. These signs are included in the MUTCD in
order to provide for uniformity of these regulatory messages and for
improved pedestrian safety. The FHWA received four comments from ATSSA,
the City of Los Angeles, California, the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycle Professionals, and a traffic engineering consultant in
agreement with the new section as proposed in the NPA. Another five
commenters representing the Florida and Wisconsin DOTs, the Cities of
Los Angeles, California, and Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering
consultant agreed with the sign in general, but suggested wording
changes, including deleting the reference to State law from the sign.
Another five commenters representing the NCUTCD and the Kansas,
Arizona, and Minnesota DOTs opposed the sign and the inclusion of this
section in the MUTCD. Those opposed listed several reasons, including
waiting until the results of a related Transportation Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP)\9\
[[Page 65506]]
study are released, that in-roadway signs should be discouraged for
safety reasons, and that signs that remind drivers to obey the law are
unnecessary. The FHWA disagrees with those opposed to this section
because research, including an experimentation in Redmond,
Washington,\10\ has found that this sign is effective at communicating
important information to drivers and provides for uniformity of these
regulatory messages and for improved pedestrian safety. Also, the TCRP
research cited by some commenters is only just beginning and its scope
of work is too broad to adequately address this specific signing issue.
The use of these signs is optional, and jurisdictions may decide not to
allow the use of these signs. The FHWA adopts this new section and sign
in this final rule, and adds a SUPPORT statement that the provisions of
Section 2A.18 Mounting Height are not applicable to the mounting height
of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Roadway
Crossings'' is a reach study currently in progress. This is a joint
effort between the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) and the Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).
The study is numbered NCHRP Project 3-71 and TCRP D-08. Information
is available at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://rip.trb.org.
\10\ A copy of ``City of Redmond In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
Sign Test'', FHWA Experimentation 2-507(EX), six-month
report by the City of Redmond, June 30, 2003, is available on the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds a new figure numbered and titled ``Figure 2B-2,
``Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs'' (numbered Figure 2B-22 in
the NPA) to illustrate the design of the R1-5, R1-5a, the R1-6, and the
R1-6a signs.
The FHWA renumbers the remaining sections in this chapter.
34. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), numbered Section
2B.11 in the NPA, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to reference
the speed limit signs shown in Figure 2B-1. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed a new, unique design for the metric speed limit sign. The sign
had a red circle around the speed value with a ``km/h'' legend below,
and the supplemental ``km/h'' plaque removed. The FHWA received eight
comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and private citizens in general
support of the new metric speed limit design, and ten comments from the
Oregon and Minnesota DOTs and private citizens opposed to the sign
design. Those opposed cited concerns that the red circle is generally
associated with a prohibitory regulatory message, and that a speed
limit does not fall into that category of message. In response to the
comments, the FHWA revises the sign in this final rule to include a
black circle around the speed value, rather than red. The concept of
placing a circle around the metric speed limit digits was developed to
provide a clear and easily noticed distinction between metric and
English speed limit signs. Because the color red suggests prohibition,
and green is already used as a permissive message with hazardous
materials routing signs, the FHWA requires the black colored circle to
provide distinction for a metric speed limit.
Based on this new design, the FHWA removes the first SUPPORT
statement (from the 2000 MUTCD), as it is no longer needed. The new
design of the metric Speed Limit sign better differentiates a metric
speed limit sign from an English-unit speed limit sign, and also
remedies the possible situation where the ``METRIC'' plaque used in the
old design is damaged or stolen and the sign appears to be an English
units Speed Limit sign with a higher but erroneous value. Other than
comments opposed to the change in the metric sign design, there were no
comments specifically regarding this change, and the FHWA adopts this
change.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new paragraph to the first
GUIDANCE statement indicating that non-statutory speed limits be
reevaluated at least once every five years to determine if any
adjustments would be appropriate. The FHWA received one comment from a
private citizen in support of this change, and four comments from the
NCUTCD, City of Kennewick, Washington; Lake County, Illinois; and
Pierce County, Washington, opposed to the new paragraph. Those opposed
cited concerns about the five-year frequency of review, stating that
there are many roads and streets on which conditions remain stable for
much longer than five years and that conducting speed limit
reevaluations every five years on such roads would be a major burden on
the States and local governments. The FHWA agrees with some of these
concerns, and therefore the FHWA expands the paragraph to clarify that
this review should take place on segments of roadways that have
undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or
surrounding land use since the last review.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed clarifications to the third paragraph
of the GUIDANCE statement to differentiate the rounding of a speed
limit on a sign located on a non-residential street from a sign located
on a residential street. The FHWA received several comments from the
NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant
opposing this change, requesting simpler terminology and the ability
for jurisdictions to round speeds up or down, regardless of street
classification. A traffic engineering consultant suggested less
reliance on the 85th percentile speed. Based on these comments, the
FHWA simplifies the statement to read, ``When a speed limit is to be
posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph of the 85th percentile
speed of free-flowing traffic.''
The FHWA adds a paragraph to the end of the OPTION statement, which
states that a changeable message sign that displays to approaching
drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in
conjunction with a Speed Limit sign. The FHWA received one comment from
a traffic control device manufacturer supporting this change. The FHWA
adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.
The FHWA also adds, following the OPTION statement, a GUIDANCE
statement, which states that if a changeable message sign displaying
approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX KM/H (MPH) or
similar legend should be shown. Changeable message signs displaying the
actual speeds of approaching drivers have been widely used in many
jurisdictions over the past decade or more to enhance driver compliance
with speed limits. However, a variety of colors have been used for the
display of the numerals of the actual speed. For consistency with Table
2A-4 and the MUTCD's general principles of sign colors, FHWA adds to
this GUIDANCE statement that the color should be yellow legend on black
background or the reverse of these colors. The FHWA establishes a 10-
year phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of this
final rule for the color of the legend of the changeable message
portion of the ``YOUR SPEED'' sign, for existing signs in good
condition, to minimize any impacts on State or local governments.
35. In Section 2B.15 Night Speed Limit Sign (R2-3) (numbered
Section 2B.13 in the NPA), while there were no changes proposed in the
NPA, the FHWA makes editorial changes in this section to be consistent
with Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign. In addition, in response to
comments received, the FHWA changes the metric version of the Night
Speed Limit sign in Figure 2B-1 to show a white circle around the
metric speed digits and include the ``km/h'' message all within one
panel. This is necessary for consistency with the adopted concept of
enclosing metric speed limit values in a circle to assure that they are
easily distinguished from speed limits in English units.
36. In Section 2B.16 Minimum Speed Limit Sign (R2-4), numbered
Section 2B.14 in the NPA, the FHWA received
[[Page 65507]]
several comments opposing the design of the metric sign in Figure 2B-3
(numbered Figure 2B-2 in the NPA). The comments were similar to those
received on Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1). (See also the
discussion of that section above.) Because the color red suggests
prohibition, and green is already used as a permissive message with
hazardous materials routing signs, the FHWA requires the black colored
circle to provide distinction for a metric minimum speed limit.
37. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section 2B.17
FINES HIGHER Plaque (R2-6).'' (In the NPA, this new section was
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.15 Fines Higher Sign (R2-6)''). The
FHWA agrees with comments from the NCUTCD and a traffic engineering
consultant suggesting that the term ``sign'' be replaced with
``plaque''. This new section consists of OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD
statements on the uses of the FINES HIGHER plaque to advise road users
when increased fines are imposed for traffic violations within
designated roadway segments. The FINES HIGHER plaque should be
installed below an applicable regulatory or warning sign in a temporary
traffic control zone, a school zone, or other applicable designated
zone. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA specifically in support
of the new section, and one comment from the Wisconsin DOT opposing it.
The Wisconsin DOT stated that the sign is not necessary because these
laws are already State statutes and need not be signed. Because this is
an OPTION, States can choose not to allow the use of this plaque. Many
other States are finding that this sign enhances safety in school zones
and temporary traffic control zones by reminding drivers of a law that
might not always be prevalent on their minds. It also serves to alert
drivers from other States about this law, which may not be the same as
the laws in their home State. The FHWA adopts this new section, with
minor editorial revisions, and renumbers the remaining sections.
38. The FHWA removes Section 2B.16 Reduced Speed Ahead Signs (R2-5)
Series (as numbered and titled in the 2000 MUTCD) because these signs
are warning signs and appear in Chapter 2C in this final rule. The
intended message is more properly categorized as a warning message
rather than a regulatory message.
See discussion in Section 2C.30 Speed Reduction Signs (W3-5, W3-5a)
where FHWA adds the newly designated warning signs. That discussion
applies to this section also. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the removal
of former Section 2B.16 as proposed in the NPA. To minimize any impacts
to State and local governments, in Section 2C.30 the FHWA establishes a
phase-in target compliance date of 15 years from the effective date of
this final rule for existing R2-5 signs in good condition to be changed
to W3-5 or W3-5a signs.
39. In Section 2B.19 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, and
R3-18) (numbered and titled ``Section 2B.17 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-
1 through R3-4)'' in the 2000 MUTCD and in the NPA), the FHWA includes
a new symbol sign which combines the No Left Turn and the No U-turn
symbol signs into one symbol sign (R3-18), and adds to the OPTION and
GUIDANCE statements information on the proper use of the sign. This new
sign will reduce the sign clutter at an intersection where both
movements are restricted and make it easier for road users to
understand the multiple turn restrictions. The FHWA received six
comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, Caltrans and the Cities of Tucson,
Arizona; and Plano, Texas, supporting this new sign. The Virginia DOT
opposed this change due to the fact that Virginia State law already
prohibits U-turns when a No Left Turn sign is present. Because not all
States have this law, the FHWA believes that this sign should be
available for use by States at those locations where both U-turns and
left turns are prohibited. The FHWA adopts the OPTION and GUIDANCE
statements in this final rule. Because it is an OPTION, States are not
obligated to use the new sign.
40. In Section 2B.21 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5,
R3-5a, and R3-7) (numbered Section 2B.19 in the NPA), the FHWA revises
the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the lane control pavement
markings mentioned are lane-use arrow markings. The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change,
and the FHWA adopts this change.
41. In Section 2B.25, Reversible Lane Control Signs (R3-9d, R3-9f
through R3-9i) (numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.23 Reversible Lane
Control Signs (R3-9c through R3-9i)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA
removes the R3-9c and R3-9e signs and all of their references in the
section. Using just the R3-9d sign will improve uniformity and maintain
consistency with the red X symbol used in reversible lane signal
systems. The DO NOT ENTER symbol is intended to be used to prohibit
entry into a roadway or ramp, and using this symbol to prohibit use of
a single lane of a roadway that is otherwise available for travel is
inconsistent and degrades the meaning of the symbol. The FHWA also
revises the first STANDARD statement to clarify that the barriers
mentioned are physical barriers.
Additionally, the FHWA modifies item B of the second OPTION
statement to read, ``An engineering study indicates that the use of the
Reversible Lane Control signs alone would result in an acceptable level
of safety and efficiency.'' This is to clarify that an engineering
study needs to evaluate whether safety and efficiency will be
maintained with signs alone.
The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of these changes, and the FHWA adopts the
changes.
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years
from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.
42. In Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through
R3-15) (numbered and titled Section 2B.48 Preferential Lane Signs (R3-
10 through R3-17) in the NPA), the FHWA changes several GUIDANCE
statements to STANDARD statements to be consistent with requirements of
STANDARDS in other sections of the MUTCD and to ensure that these
critical signs are properly designed and applied to enhance safety and
reduce road user confusion. The FHWA also includes cross-references to
other sections, as appropriate. Additionally, the FHWA revises
information for the R3-10 through R3-14 signs in Table 2B-1 in this
final rule. The FHWA also revises Figure 2B-7 (numbered Figure 2B-21 in
the NPA) to correct errors and illustrate examples of signs consistent
with the text in this final rule. All of these changes respond to
comments received from Caltrans, the Florida and Minnesota DOTs,
traffic engineering consultants, and private citizens requesting
clarity, and they provide consistency with other areas of the MUTCD.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed modifying the first paragraph of the
third GUIDANCE statement regarding types of preferential lane signs for
which the diamond symbol should not be used (because the diamond symbol
is intended to be used only to denote HOV lanes). The restriction of
using the diamond symbol only for HOV lanes is now included in a
STANDARD statement in Section 2B.27 Preferential Only Lanes for High-
Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) (numbered 2B.49 in the NPA), and is cross-
referenced in
[[Page 65508]]
Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15). As a
result, the FHWA is not making the change to the first paragraph of the
third GUIDANCE statement that was proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA changes the last paragraph of the third GUIDANCE statement
(of the 2000 MUTCD) to a fifth STANDARD statement (second in the NPA)
to be consistent with requirements in Section 2A.07 Changeable Message
Signs. These requirements indicate that changeable message signs
serving as HOV signs shall be the required sign size and shall display
the required letter height and legend format that corresponds to the
type of facility and design speed. This change from a recommended
practice to a required practice is made to preclude the use of
insufficiently sized or designed changeable message signs to display
these important regulatory messages for HOV lane use. The FHWA received
one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this change, and one comment
from Caltrans suggesting further clarification. To respond to the
comments, the FHWA inserts an OPTION statement prior to the STANDARD,
indicating appropriate uses of changeable message signs, and the FHWA
includes editorial modifications to the STANDARD.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE statement at the end of
the section stating that the Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV)
(R3-10b) sign should be used when it is permissible for a properly
labeled and certified ILEV, regardless of the number of occupants, to
operate in the HOV lanes and that, when used, the ILEV signs should be
ground mounted in advance of the HOV lanes and at intervals along the
HOV lanes based upon engineering judgment. A uniform sign design and
application is needed to enhance driver understanding and compliance
regarding ILEV use of HOV lanes and also to correspond to changes in
Section 2B.27 Preferential Only Lanes for High Occupancy Vehicles
(HOVs). The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support of this new
statement, and two comments from Caltrans and the Minnesota DOT opposed
to it. The opposing commenters suggested that there are different types
of ILEV vehicles, and that the text needed to be clarified. To respond
to those comments, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement, following the
GUIDANCE, that explains what an ILEV is, similar to the definition in
Section 1A.13, and also providing citations of applicable sections of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The R3-10b sign is recommended
for use when a State or local jurisdiction permits ILEVs to use a
particular HOV lane facility.
The FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-in target compliance date from
the effective date of this final rule for signs in good condition to
comply with the new requirements of Section 2B.26 Preferential Only
Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15), to minimize any impact on State or
local governments.
43. In Section 2B.27 Preferential Only Lanes for High-Occupancy
Vehicles (numbered and titled Section 2B.49 High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) Lanes in the NPA), the FHWA adds a second paragraph to the first
STANDARD statement that the requirements for a minimum number of
occupants in a vehicle to use an HOV lane shall be in effect for most,
or all, of at least one of the usual times during the day when the
demand to travel is greatest (such as morning or afternoon peak travel
periods) and the traffic congestion problems on the roadway and
adjoining transportation corridor are at their worst. The FHWA also
adds in the last paragraph the requirement of a Federal review (as
outlined in Section 2 of the Federal-aid Highway Program Guidance on
HOV Lanes \11\) prior to initiating a proposed project (including a
proposed test or demonstration project) that seeks to significantly
change the operation of the HOV lanes for any length of time. The FHWA
received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in general support of the changes to this section, and one comment from
Caltrans opposed to the specific change regarding Federal review of a
proposed test or demonstration project. Caltrans felt that FHWA review
is not currently required. However, the Federal review is required
because of provisions in Titles 23 and 49 of the United States Code as
well as a variety of commitments, agreements, transportation planning
requirements, and transportation conformity requirements under the
Clean Air Act. The FHWA responds by providing an additional reference
to the Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on HOV Lanes, which gives
very detailed information about the basis of the review and factors
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The ``Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes'' dated March 28, 2001, is available
at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/operations/hovguide01.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to modify the first STANDARD
statement to allow motorcycles to use HOV lanes that received Federal-
aid program funding. The FHWA also proposed to require agencies to
allow a vehicle with less than the required number of occupants to
operate in the HOV lanes if:
A. The vehicle is properly labeled and certified as an ILEV and the
lane is not a bus-only HOV lane; or
B. The HOV lanes are part of a project that is participating in the
FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Value Pricing Pilot Program is an experimental program
to learn the potential of different value pricing approaches for
reducing congestion authorized by Section 1216(a) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Information
is available at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/vppp.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA adopts this requirement as it pertains to motorcycles
because, under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), motorcycles are
specifically identified as not a single-occupant vehicle. However, the
FHWA recognizes that the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in 40 CFR section
88.313-93 permit, but do not require, States to allow ILEVs to use HOV
lanes. Further, the FHWA recognizes that the applicable provisions of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) permit, but
do not require, States to allow vehicles with fewer than two occupants
to operate in HOV lanes if the vehicles are part of a value pricing
program. Therefore, the FHWA revises the paragraph in Section 2B.27
about these uses of HOV lanes to OPTION statements rather than STANDARD
statements.
The FHWA also revises the first SUPPORT statement to clarify the
examples of significant operational changes to HOV lanes. While most of
this information was included in the NPA (and the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA
provides examples in the form of individual items in this final rule
for clarity. The FHWA adds implementing a pricing option to an existing
HOV lane, such as High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane or toll lane to the
list of example items to reflect current practice.
The FHWA modifies this section to add a SUPPORT statement at the
end of the section. The SUPPORT statement states that the Inherently
Low Emissions Vehicle (ILEV) program requirements, certification
program, and other regulatory provisions are developed and administered
through the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). The
U.S. EPA is the only entity with the authority to certify ILEVs.
Vehicle manufacturers must request the U.S. EPA to grant an ILEV
certification for any vehicle to be considered and labeled as meeting
these standards. According to the U.S. EPA,
[[Page 65509]]
1996 was the first year that they certified any ILEVs. The U.S. EPA
regulations specify that ILEVs must meet the emission standards
specified in 40 CFR 88.311-93 and their labeling must be in accordance
with 40 CFR 88.311-93(c).
The changes in Section 2B.27 are also necessary to assure
consistency with the FHWA requirements to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process.
44. In Section 2B.28 Preferential Only Lane Sign Applications and
Placement (numbered Section 2B.50 High-Occupancy Vehicle Sign
Application and Placement in the NPA), in the NPA the FHWA proposed
adding a SUPPORT statement after the GUIDANCE statement, to state that
Figures 2E-44 through 2E-show application and placement examples of HOV
signing for entrances to barrier-separated HOV lanes and direct
entrances to and exits from HOV lanes. The FHWA received four comments
regarding the proposed changes to this section. The NCUTCD and the City
of Tucson, Arizona, supported the changes, the Connecticut DOT
suggested an editorial change to clarify the new figure, and Caltrans
opposed the number of signs required for concurrent-flow HOV lanes. The
FHWA revises the number of signs required for concurrent-flow HOV lanes
to be more consistent with the practice of some leading States with HOV
lanes. Also, the FHWA makes editorial revisions to and reorganizes the
section to add clarity to differentiate between specific situations of
barrier-separated, buffer-separated, concurrent flow, and direct access
ramps as they relate to Preferential Only Lane signing, to address
comments on this and other related sections from agencies that operate
HOV facilities, suggesting that the many provisions of this section
were not consistent with other provisions of the MUTCD and the section
needed clarification and consistency.
The FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-in target compliance date from
the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.
45. In Section 2B.33 Keep Right and Keep Left Signs (R4-7, R4-8)
(numbered Section 2B.28 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the first OPTION
statement that the Keep Left (R4-8) sign may be used at locations where
it is necessary for traffic to pass only to the left of a roadway
feature or obstruction.
The FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the Keep
Right sign should be mounted on the face of, or just in front of, a
pier or other obstruction separating opposite directions of traffic in
the center of the highway such that traffic will have to pass to the
right of the sign.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement following the
GUIDANCE statement indicating that the Keep Right sign shall not be
installed on the right side of the roadway in a position where traffic
must pass to the left of the sign.
The changes in this section clarify the proper uses of Keep Right
and Keep Left signs. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and
the City of Tucson, Arizona, in general support of the changes to this
section, and adopts these changes.
46. In Section 2B.34 DO NOT ENTER Sign (R5-1) (numbered Section
2B.29 in the NPA), the FHWA modifies the GUIDANCE statement with
respect to the placement of the DO NOT ENTER sign. The GUIDANCE states
that, if used, the DO NOT ENTER sign should be placed directly in view
of the road user at the point where a road user could wrongly enter a
divided highway, one-way roadway, or ramp, and includes a reference to
Figure 2B-10 (numbered Figure 2B-8 in the NPA). The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting the overall
changes to this section, and the FHWA adopts these changes.
Additionally, the FHWA renumbers and retitles Figure 2B-2 (as
numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) from ``Typical Wrong-Way Signing for a
Divided Highway'' to ``Figure 2B-10 Example of Wrong-Way Signing for a
Divided Highway with a Median Width of 9 m (30 ft) or Greater''
(numbered Figure 2B-8 in the NPA). The FHWA received two comments from
private citizens in general support of the changes to this figure, and
the FHWA adopts the changes.
47. In Section 2B.36 Selective Exclusion Signs (numbered Section
2B.31 in the NPA), the FHWA changes item H in the SUPPORT statement
from ``Hazardous Cargo'' to ``Hazardous Material'' to reflect the
changes in Section 2B.52 Hazardous Material Signs (R14-2, R14-3). The
FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of this change, and adopts this change. The FHWA received
additional editorial comments to provide consistency with other areas
of the MUTCD, and the FHWA incorporates the comments in this final
rule.
48. In Section 2B.37 ONE WAY Signs (R6-1, R6-2) (numbered Section
2B.32 in the NPA), the FHWA relocates four figures from Section 2A.16
to this section. The FHWA renumbers and retitles Figures 2A-5 and 2A-6
to ``Figure 2B-12. Examples of Locations of ONE WAY Signs (Sheet 1 of
2, Sheet 2 of 2)'' (numbered Figures 2B-10 and 2B-11 in the NPA);
Figure 2A-4 to ``Figure 2B-13. Examples of ONE WAY Signing for Divided
Highways with Medians 9 m (30 ft) or Greater'' (numbered Figure 2B-12
in the NPA); and Figure 2A-3 to ``Figure 2B-14. Examples of ONE WAY
Signing for Divided Highways with Medians Less Than 9 m (30 ft) ''
(numbered Figure 2B-13 in the NPA). The FHWA also adds a new figure,
``Figure 2B-15. Examples of ONE WAY Signing for Divided Highways with
Medians Less Than 9 m (30 ft) and Separated Left-Turn Lanes'' (numbered
Figure 2B-14 in the NPA). These figures are most directly associated
with ONE WAY signs and are most appropriately located in this section,
which contains the text about ONE WAY signs. The FHWA received a few
editorial comments regarding these figures, and incorporates those
changes as appropriate in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the depiction of the optional Keep
Right signs on the medians in Figures 2B-14 and 2B-15 to show them at a
45 degree angle facing the road users on the cross street, to make it
easier for drivers to determine the location of the median nose and to
enter the proper roadway of a divided highway. The FHWA received three
comments from ATSSA and private citizens in support of these changes.
The FHWA adopts the changes to these figures.
49. In Section 2B.40 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping
Signs (numbered Section 2B.35 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the
GUIDANCE statement that where special parking restrictions are imposed
during heavy snowfall, Snow Emergency signs should be installed and
that the legend will vary according to the regulations, but the signs
should be vertical rectangles, having a white background with the upper
part of the plate a red background. Signs of this type are used by many
jurisdictions. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this
change. In addition, the FHWA adds a paragraph at the end of the
GUIDANCE statement regarding the use of the VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8a)
plaque. A final rule adding this information to the 1988 edition of the
MUTCD was adopted in 1998, however this was inadvertently left out of
the 2000 MUTCD.
50. In Section 2B.44 Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R9-2, R9-3)
(numbered Section 2B.39 in the NPA), the FHWA
[[Page 65510]]
modifies the second OPTION statement by changing ``PEDESTRIANS
PROHIBITED'' to ``NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING'' as the proper word message
sign to be used as an alternate to the No Pedestrian Crossing (R9-3a)
symbol sign. ``NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING'' is the intended meaning of the
symbol and more clearly describes the actual restriction of pedestrian
movement. The FHWA received comments from the Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professionals and the City of Tucson, Arizona, specifically
in support of this change, and adopts this change.
The FHWA also received comments from the Florida DOT and the City
of Tucson, Arizona, suggesting that the section does not mention
signalized crossings. These comments are outside the scope of this
rulemaking and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
51. In Section 2B.45 Traffic Signal Signs (R10-1 through R10-21)
(numbered and titled ``Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs (R10-1
through R10-13)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA revises the title to
reflect additional traffic signal signs. These signs are shown in
Figures 2B-18 and 2B-19.
The FHWA adds to the second OPTION statement that the R10-3d sign
may be used if the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only for the
pedestrian to cross to the median. This sign is similar to the existing
R10-3b sign except that next to the WALK symbol is the message ``START
CROSSING TO MEDIAN WATCH FOR VEHICLES.'' The FHWA also modifies Figure
2B-18 (numbered Figure 2B-17 in the NPA) to add illustrations of the
R10-3d sign and the R10-3e sign. The R10-3e sign is a variant
incorporating ``time remaining to finish crossing'' and is consistent
with countdown pedestrian signals as adopted in Part 4. The FHWA
received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
this change and one question from the U.S. Access Board regarding how
this information would be given in audible and vibrotactile formats.
The Access Board stated that, if accessible signals are used at an
intersection where pedestrians should cross only to a median and then
wait until a different phase to complete their crossing, it would be
important for the accessible devices to communicate this fact to the
pedestrian with visual disabilities. This comment actually pertains to
Chapter 4E Pedestrian Signals, and it goes beyond the scope of this
rulemaking and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking. The
FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA revises and relocates the third OPTION
statement (from the 2000 MUTCD) to follow the second STANDARD statement
to indicate that a symbolic NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) sign may be used as
an alternate to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs. The symbolic sign has a
symbolic red ball rather than using the ``No Right Turn'' symbol, to
avoid confusion with the R3-1 (No Right Turn) sign.
In Figure 2B-19 Traffic Signal Signs (numbered Figure 2B-18 in the
NPA), the FHWA received several comments regarding the illustration of
``No Right Turn on Red'' signs. ATSSA and a traffic engineering
consultant agreed with the return of the R10-11 sign and the removal of
the R10-11c and R10-11d signs. The Cities of Plano, Texas, and Los
Angeles, California, and some private citizens were opposed to the
removal of the R10-11c and R10-11d signs, stating that the use of
symbol signs should be encouraged over word signs. The FHWA disagrees
with the opposing commenters because the use of the No Right Turn
symbol sign should be reserved for actual prohibition of all right turn
movements at an intersection to have the appropriate impact on safety.
Extensive use of a No Right Turn on Red sign featuring the No Right
Turn symbol would degrade the influence of the R3-1 sign. The City of
Los Angeles and a private citizen suggested different designs for the
sign. The FHWA disagrees with these different designs because they are
too complex. The FHWA adopts the R10-11 sign with a red ball symbol
included on the bottom line of the sign. The FHWA also revises the sign
number for R10-20b to be R10-20a, and places the word ``or'' between
the two R10-20a signs to clarify that the signs illustrate two examples
of different word messages that can be used to provide times and days.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the second GUIDANCE statement to
indicate that where turns on red after the driver stops are permitted
and the turn signal indication is a RED ARROW, the RIGHT (LEFT) ON RED
ARROW AFTER STOP (R10-17a) sign should be installed adjacent to the RED
ARROW signal indication to conform to the ``Uniform Vehicle Code and
Model Traffic Ordinance'' (UVC) as revised. The revised UVC prohibits
turns on a RED ARROW after stopping unless a sign specifically allowing
the turn is in place. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in
support of this change, and three comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans
and the City of Kennewick, Washington, opposing it. Kennewick,
Washington, opposed this new sign, because the State of Washington
allows the turn on red arrow after stop in certain instances, unless
otherwise prohibited by signs. The FHWA is in favor of maintaining
consistency with the majority of the other States who already have laws
that agree with this meaning of the red arrow.
The NCUTCD opposed this new paragraph as well as the signs, stating
that it is ``inappropriate.'' Without additional explanation, the FHWA
cannot respond to this comment.
Caltrans opposed the new sign suggesting that where turns on red
are permitted after stopping and the signal indication is a RED ARROW,
that changing the signal indication from a RED ARROW to a Red Ball
would be more appropriate than fixing the situation with a sign. The
FHWA agrees that while there may not be many places where the R10-17a
sign is needed, there are intersections with unusual geometrics or
special lane use control for which an all-arrow right-turn signal head
makes sense and from which there is no reason that turns on red should
be prohibited. It is primarily for these situations that the R10-17a
sign should be used. The FHWA adopts use of this sign in this final
rule, with minor modifications.
Additionally, the FHWA relocates the last item in the second
GUIDANCE statement to the first paragraph under the third OPTION
statement (new fourth OPTION statement) and changes it to read that
when right turn on red after stop is permitted and pedestrian
crosswalks are marked, the TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS
(R10-15) sign may be used. This change is necessary to prevent
potential overuse and a reduced effectiveness of the sign. The FHWA
received two comments from ATSSA and a traffic engineering consultant
in support of this change. The U.S. Access Board opposed, stating that
the use of the sign should not be restricted to just marked crosswalks.
The traffic engineering consultant who supported the change also
suggested that the sign would also be useful during the green interval
to remind drivers to yield to pedestrians who are crossing during the
concurrent WALK interval. The FHWA agrees and adds a paragraph to the
OPTION stating that a TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS sign
may be used to remind drivers who are making turns to yield to
pedestrians, especially at intersections where crosswalks are
[[Page 65511]]
marked and right turn on red is permitted.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph to the OPTION
statement allowing the use of supplemental plaques showing times of day
or with the legend WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT below a NO TURN ON RED
sign, to allow the flexibility to restrict turns on red only during
certain times or when a pedestrian conflict is present. The traffic
engineering consultant also supported the use of both of the suggested
plaques. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety presented results
from recent field research indicating that time-of-day restrictions are
effective in reducing right turn on red related safety threats to
pedestrians but the WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT plaque is not because
its vague message makes enforcement difficult.\13\ Based on this
research, the FHWA revises the text to deletes the WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE
PRESENT plaque. Because it is a word message, State and local highway
agencies may still use the WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT plaque
prohibiting right turns on red when pedestrians are present if their
laws so dictate, but they are not encouraged to do so because research
has shown these plaques are ineffective. Finally, to respond to a
comment from a traffic engineering consultant, the FHWA moves the last
paragraph of this OPTION statement regarding the use of Traffic Signal
Speed signs to the end of the second OPTION statement because this
paragraph relates more to the information provided in the second
OPTION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Field Evaluation of Two Methods for Restricting Right
Turn on Red to Promote Pedestrian Safety,'' by Retting, Nitzburg,
Farmer, and Knoblauch, for the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, was published in the January 2002 issue of the ``ITE
Journal,'' a publication of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). Information on obtaining a copy of this publication
is available from ITE at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposed in the NPA to add to the third STANDARD statement
that the EMERGENCY SIGNAL--STOP WHEN FLASHING RED (R10-14) sign shall
be used in conjunction with emergency beacons to correspond with
proposed changes in Part 4 of the MUTCD, which proposed to require the
use of these signs with Emergency Beacons. Due to extensive comments in
opposition to the Emergency Beacon in Part 4, the FHWA does not adopt
these changes in Part 4. (See the discussion of Section 4F.03).
Therefore, the FHWA removes the R10-14 sign, associated text, and
illustration from Part 2.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding to the STANDARD statement the
requirement to use a ``U Turn Yield to Right Turn'' sign when U-turns
on a green arrow signal conflict with right turns on a green arrow
signal. While there were comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and
a traffic engineering consultant in support of this change, the FHWA
received comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, and the City of Kennewick,
Washington, opposed it, stating that the sign would not be understood,
or was inappropriate. The FHWA concurs that there is some possibility
of misunderstanding. Because there is no data to support or refute
these concerns, the FHWA changes this to an OPTION statement, allowing
the use of the sign but not requiring it. The FHWA also modifies
Sections 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications and 4D.09
Unexpected Conflicts During Green or Yellow Intervals accordingly.
52. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2B.46 Photo Enforced Signs (R10-18, R10-19)'' (numbered Section 2B.51
in the NPA.) This new section provides guidance to State and local
agencies on the use of the photo enforcement signs to alert road users
of this type of traffic enforcement. The FHWA includes an OPTION
statement with two paragraphs. The first paragraph states that a
TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-18) sign may be installed at a
jurisdictional boundary to advise road users that some of the traffic
regulations within that jurisdiction are being enforced by photographic
equipment. The second paragraph states that a PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19)
sign may be mounted below a regulatory sign to advise road users that
the regulation is being enforced by photographic equipment.
Additionally, the FHWA includes a STANDARD statement, which states
that if the PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) sign is used below a regulatory
sign, it shall be a rectangle with black legend and border on a white
background.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA and the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this new section and two
comments from the Wisconsin DOT and the Insurance Institute of Highway
Safety opposed to it.
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety stated that placing the
TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED sign at jurisdictional boundaries is vague
with regard to which traffic laws (speed, red light) are photo
enforced. The FHWA disagrees because this sign can be a useful reminder
to drivers to obey all traffic laws, just speed limits and red lights.
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety also suggested that rather
than the general PHOTO ENFORCED regulatory sign, specific regulatory
signs should be developed for both red light cameras and automated
speed enforcement. The FHWA disagrees because the consistent placement
of the PHOTO ENFORCED sign should provide adequate notice and should
have the desired effect on driver behavior.
The Wisconsin DOT noted that not all States allow the use of photo
enforcement. Because use of these signs is optional, States that do not
use photographic enforcement will not need to use these signs.
The FHWA adopts this section in its entirety, as proposed in the
NPA, in this final rule. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target
compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule
for existing signs of different designs that are in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local governments.
53. In Section 2B.52 Hazardous Material Signs (R14-2, R14-3)
(numbered and titled ``Section 2B.46 Hazardous Cargo Signs (R14-2, R14-
3)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA changes the title and revises the
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements to replace ``cargo'' with the word
``material'' and revises the symbol for the Hazardous Material sign
(R14-3) sign to be HM rather than HC, to correspond with Section 2B.36
Selective Exclusion Signs and to reflect the change in terminology in
the industry. The FHWA received three comments from ATSSA, the City of
Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen in support of these changes, and
three comments from private citizens suggesting changes to the design
of the R14-3 sign, particularly changes in the color of the circle
around the letters. The FHWA adopts the sign design as proposed in the
NPA. The FHWA revises the phase-in target compliance date to 10 years
from the effective date of this final rule (the NPA proposed five
years) for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local governments.
54. In Section 2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs (numbered Section 2B.51
in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed to revise the STANDARD statement
to indicate that the symbol for the seat belt symbol is in the
``Standard Highway Signs'' book. The FHWA received one comment from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change. However, consistent
with FHWA's desire to include illustrations of all
[[Page 65512]]
signs from the SHS that are referenced in the MUTCD, as discussed
above, the FHWA retains the symbol for the seat belt symbol, and places
it in a new Figure 2B-22.
55. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, the FHWA
modifies the SUPPORT statement to reflect that ``categories'' not
``applications'' of warning signs are shown in Table 2C-1. This change
makes the text and Table 2C-1 consistent.
Additionally, the FHWA changes the title of Table 2C-1 from
``Application of Warning Signs'' to ``Categories of Warning Signs'' and
adds new roadway related and traffic related signs and supplemental
plaques to the table based on changes in other sections of Chapter 2C.
The change in the title of the table better reflects the actual content
of the table. There was one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in agreement with the overall changes in this section. One traffic
engineering consultant questioned why the Railroad Advance Warning sign
is not listed in the table. This table only includes those signs that
are found in Chapter 2C, not those found in other parts such as Part 8.
The MUTCD has separate sign tables in other Parts as appropriate.
Another traffic engineering consultant questioned why W16-8, W14-1p,
and W14-2p are identified as plaques. The W16-8 plaque must be used in
combination with a W2 or W3 sign according to Section 2C.49 Advance
Street Name Plaque (W16-8, W16-8a), and thus is correctly referred to
as a plaque. Because the W14-1P and W14-2P plaques can be used alone
according to Section 2C.21 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (14-1, W14-1a, W14-
2, W14-2a), the FHWA revises the table to remove the ``P'' designation
from these two signs, and the rectangular forms of these signs are
designated the W14-1a and W14-2a signs.
56. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, based on an editorial
comment from a traffic engineering consultant, the FHWA adds
playgrounds to the listing of signs in the OPTION statement that may
have a black legend and border on a yellow background or a black legend
and border on a fluorescent yellow-green background.
57. In Section 2C.04 Size of Warning Signs, the FHWA removes the
SUPPORT statement referencing the ``Standard Highway Signs'' book
because this statement is general and applies to regulatory, warning,
and guide signs. A similar statement is included in Section 2A.12
Dimensions. The removal of this SUPPORT statement responds to two
comments from the NCUTCD and the Illinois DOT.
The FHWA changes Table 2C-2 to add sizes for the Expressways W1
Series Arrows signs, the Expressways and Freeways W7 Series Truck
Runaway signs, the Expressways and Freeways W12-2P Low Clearance signs,
and to increase the sizes for all roadways except Freeways for the W10-
1 Advance Grade Crossing sign, to enhance visibility of this sign for
all road users, including older drivers. The FHWA received one comment
from the NCUTCD in overall agreement with the changes to the table. The
Oregon DOT suggested that the size for the W1 series signs be 900 x 900
mm (36'' x 36'') for conventional roads because these curvature signs
are very important. The FHWA agrees that these signs are important, but
these signs are in the 750 x 750 mm (30'' x 30'') category because they
are symbol signs that can be recognized from a greater distance than
words can be read.
The FHWA adopts the changes to Table 2C-2 as proposed in the NPA
and adds the W1 Combination series signs to the Diamond shaped category
in this final rule. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance
date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local governments.
58. In Section 2C.05 Placement of Warning Signs, the FHWA changes
the STANDARD statement to a SUPPORT statement, to respond to a comment
from the City of Tucson, Arizona, suggesting that using the phrase
``general requirements'' in a STANDARD statement was not clear. The
FHWA agrees and revises the wording to reference Sections 2A.16 to
2A.21 for information on placement of warning signs.
The FHWA changes Table 2C-4 so that the distances for the placement
of advance warning signs correspond to the values in the 2001 AASHTO ``
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets'' \14\ book and to
make the table easier to use. The FHWA combines the ``Condition B'' and
``Condition C'' columns (as shown in the 2000 MUTCD) and labels them
``Condition B''. The FHWA also adds columns for 90, 100, and 110 km/h
and 60 and 70 mph for the deceleration to the listed advisory speed and
rows for 70 and 75 mph for the Posted or 85th Percentile Speed.
Finally, the FHWA revises the Notes to reflect the other changes taking
place throughout the MUTCD. These changes to Table 2C-4 reflect the
needs of older road users and improve the clarity of the Notes. The
FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and ATSSA in support of the
changes. There were three comments from the Nevada, Wisconsin, and
Oregon DOTs opposed to these changes, suggesting that the sign
placement distances were either too long, or too short. Advanced
placement distances have significantly decreased based on the 2001
AASHTO Policy, and the MUTCD reflects these changes. To address
comments about this table the FHWA removes the word ``minimum'' from
footnote 5 in both sheets of the table, and removes the metric units
from the notes on the English units table, and vice versa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,''
4th Edition, 2001, in both hardcopy and CD-ROM, is available from
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) by telephone (800) 231-3475, facsimile (800) 525-
5562, mail AASHTO, P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716, or at
its Web site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.transportation.org and click on Bookstore.
This document is a guide, based on established practices and
supplemented by research, to provide guidance to the highway
designer to provide for the needs of highway users while maintaining
the integrity of the environment. It is incorporated by reference
into the CFR at 23 CFR 625.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. In Section 2C.06, Horizontal Alignment Signs (W1-1 through W1-
5, W1-11, W1-15) (titled ``Horizontal Alignment Signs (W1-1 through W1-
5)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA revises the section title to reflect
the new Hairpin Curve (W1-11) sign and the 270 Degree Loop (W1-15)
sign.
In the first OPTION statement, the FHWA adds the use of the Hairpin
Curve sign and the 270 Degree Loop sign based on the change in
horizontal alignment. These new signs better portray the severe
curvature for these types of alignment changes. The FHWA received three
comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
supporting the addition of these new signs, and adopts the OPTION
statement regarding these signs.
The FHWA also adds to the GUIDANCE statement a recommendation to
install a One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign or Chevron Alignment
(W1-8) sign on the outside of a turn or curve when the Hairpin Curve
sign or 270-Degree Loop sign is installed. This provides for enhanced
warning to road users of the severe alignment change and may help
reduce run-off-the-road crashes.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a second GUIDANCE statement
following the STANDARD statement. This proposed GUIDANCE recommended
that the need for additional curve warning signs or advisory speed
reduction warning plaques be based on an engineering
[[Page 65513]]
study or on engineering judgment. The FHWA received one comment from
the NCUTCD suggesting that this statement was redundant. The FHWA
agrees with this comment because traffic engineers consider the need
for additional warning signs for curves or turns using engineering
judgment or studies as part of common practice. The FHWA withdraws this
proposal, and deletes this GUIDANCE from this final rule.
The FHWA adds an OPTION statement at the end of the section that
provides a method that may be used to determine the need for additional
speed reduction warning signs. The FHWA includes these optional
criteria for determining the need for additional recommended speed
reduction signs to mitigate the high number of run-off-the-road crashes
along curves and ramps. Similar to their comments in Section 2C.36
Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs (W13-2, W13-3, W13-5), the
NCUTCD Regulatory and Warning Sign Technical Committee, Caltrans and
the City of Kennewick, Washington, suggested deleting this statement as
well as other statements in this section referring to the Curve Speed
sign. Those opposed cited their disagreement with the whole concept of
the Curve Speed sign and the lack of criteria for its use. The FHWA
believes this is a helpful sign to remind drivers of the advisory speed
that should be added for optional use. Most curves are very well
outlined with delineators or chevron signs. However, because crashes
are still occurring, the FHWA believes that this sign could be used to
advantage to remind drivers of the recommended reduction in speed as
they proceed along the curve or ramp. The FHWA includes this statement,
as well as other references to the Curve Speed sign in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA adds metric information to Table 2C-5 to
show the metric speed value of less than or equal to 50 km/h along with
the English unit of less than or equal to 30 mph and shows the metric
speed value of greater than 50 km/h along with the English unit of
greater than 30 mph. The metric values were inadvertently omitted from
the 2000 MUTCD.
60. In Section 2C.07 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory
Speed Signs (W1-1a, W1-2a) (titled ``Combination Horizontal Alignment/
Advisory Speed Sign (W1-9)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the NPA included
several proposed revisions to this section and the addition of Figure
2C-2 to provide for enhanced uniformity of application of these types
of signs and improved safety on curves and turns. While there were two
comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen in
support of the changes, several commenters from the NCUTCD, the
Washington and Wisconsin DOTs, and the Product and Highway Safety
Institute expressed concern.
The NCUTCD Regulatory and Warning Sign Technical Committee
recommended deleting this section and the associated sign images on
Figure 2C-1 because of a lack of consensus in the profession on the
proper application of these signs. The NCUTCD offered to review
applications and develop a recommendation for future consideration. As
a result of the comments received, the FHWA withdraws these proposed
revisions and Figure 2C-2. However, in order to distinguish between the
combination curve signs, the FHWA retains the revised sign codes of W1-
1a and W1-2a instead of W1-9. The FHWA also renumbers subsequent
figures (as numbered in the NPA). After the NCUTCD has reviewed
existing applications of this type of signing (which exist in only a
few States) and makes further recommendations on application and
placement issues, the FHWA may consider changes to this section in a
future rulemaking.
61. In Section 2C.10 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8), the FHWA adds
to the STANDARD statement that a border shall not be used on the
Chevron Alignment sign. This change corrects an error in the 2000
MUTCD. The FHWA adopts this change.
The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD suggesting that the
second OPTION statement be revised to state that multiple Chevron
Alignment signs may be used on the far side of a T-intersection to
inform drivers of a change of horizontal alignment. The FHWA disagrees
because a Two-Direction Large Arrow sign (W1-7) may be used instead.
Chevron signs should be limited to use for curves only. Changes to this
statement may be appropriate for a future rulemaking.
62. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.11 Truck Rollover Warning Signs (W1-13).'' This section was numbered
Section 2C.54 in the NPA. This new section includes OPTION and STANDARD
statements on the use of the Truck Rollover warning sign to warn
drivers of vehicles with a high center of gravity of a curve or turn
having geometric conditions that are prone to cause such vehicles to
lose control and overturn. This new section provides for uniform design
and application of signs for this purpose, using the Pennsylvania sign
design that research found to be most effective in warning truckers of
the condition.\15\ The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD,
ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen in support of
this change, and four comments from the Oregon and Wisconsin DOTs and a
private citizen suggesting that the sign design be revised for clarity.
As a result, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement clarifying that the
curved arrow on the sign shows the direction of the roadway curvature,
and that the truck tips in the opposite direction. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed two versions of the sign. Several commenters from State DOTs
opposed the W1-13a Combination sign, stating that there was too much
information on the sign for the motorist to understand. Based on these
comments, the FHWA removes the W1-13a Combination sign from this final
rule. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10
years from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Ramp Signing for Trucks,'' by the Center for Applied
Research, Inc., December 20, 1989, a research project conducted for
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under contract number
DTFH61-88-C-00048, is available from FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, Virginia 22101, Web
site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.tfhrc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. In Section 2C.12 Hill Signs (W7-1, W7-1a, W7-1b) (numbered
Section 2C.11 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement to
clarify that on longer grades, the Hill sign with distance (W7-3a)
plaque or the combination distance/grade (W7-3b) plaque at periodic
intervals of approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) spacing should be considered.
This change clarifies that the plaques should not be used alone but
should supplement the Hill sign. The FHWA received one comment from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this
change.
64. In Section 2C.13 Truck Escape Ramp Signs (W7-4 Series)
(numbered Section 2C.12 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the STANDARD
statement to indicate that at least one of the W7-4 series warning
signs shall be used when truck escape ramps are installed. This change
clarifies that additional warning signs may be used as conditions
warrant. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change. The FHWA
also adds an illustration of the regulatory RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY (R4-
10) sign on Figure 2B-8 (numbered Figure 2B-6 in the NPA) in this final
rule.
[[Page 65514]]
65. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.14 HILL BLOCKS VIEW Sign (W7-6).'' This section was numbered Section
2C.50 in the NPA. This section includes an OPTION statement on the use
of the HILL BLOCKS VIEW sign in advance of the crest of a vertical
curve to advise road users to reduce speed as they approach and
traverse the hill as only limited sight distance is available. The FHWA
adds this sign because it is in use, fulfills an important need, and
has been found by older driver research \16\ to be well understood by
road users. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant in support of this new
section and the HILL BLOCKS VIEW sign, and seven comments from the
NCUTCD, the Kansas, Minnesota, and Arizona DOTs, as well as Pierce
County, Washington, and a private citizen questioning its
effectiveness. Two commenters representing the Kansas DOT suggested
that the side-road/cross-road warning signs, with the appropriate
advisory speed, are more informative to the driver. Because this sign
may be needed to warn of limited view over a hillcrest where side roads
and cross roads are not present, the FHWA includes this section and the
HILL BLOCKS VIEW sign in this final rule. Because this is an OPTION,
some State and local DOTs may choose to use this sign, and others may
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Information about this research is summarized on pages 235
and 236 of the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA
Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for
purchase from The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000, and at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FHWA includes a GUIDANCE statement, indicating
that when a HILL BLOCKS VIEW sign is used, an Advisory Speed plaque
based on available stopping sight distance should accompany it. The
FHWA includes the plaque because road users should be advised of the
recommended speed for traversing the hillcrest.
66. In Section 2C.15 ROAD NARROWS Sign (W5-1) (numbered Section
2C.13 in the NPA), the FHWA included a proposal in NPA to renumber and
retitle the Narrow Bridge (W5-2a) sign as a new symbolic Road Narrows
(W5-1a) sign. The FHWA proposed these changes because it felt that the
road user's understanding of the symbol is not exclusively as ``narrow
bridge ahead,'' but rather as symbolic of any narrowing of the road,
such as the presence of curb bulb-outs or chicanes. The FHWA received
five comments from the NCUTCD, the Arizona and Minnesota DOTs,
Caltrans, and private citizens opposing this change, stating that the
symbolic sign is unsuitable for the Road Narrows message due to its
depiction of a relatively short distance of narrow roadway, which may
not agree with all narrow roadway situations. The FHWA agrees and
deletes the W5-1a sign (designated W5-2a in the 2000 MUTCD) and
associated OPTION statement as proposed in the NPA, and adopts only the
word message ROAD NARROWS (W5-1) sign in this final rule.
67. In Section 2C.16 NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2) (numbered Section
2C.14 in the NPA), the FHWA removes the reference to the Narrow Bridge
symbol (W5-2b in the NPA, W5-2a in the 2000 MUTCD) sign from the OPTION
statement. This change was proposed in the NPA to reflect the proposed
change of the Narrow Bridge symbol (W5-2b) sign to the Road Narrows
symbol (W5-1a) sign. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, the
Ohio DOT, and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change,
while the Florida DOT and Caltrans opposed it. The Florida DOT felt
that replacing a symbol sign with a word message sign is an exception
to the international movement toward a more symbolic sign vocabulary.
Caltrans indicated that the symbolic graphic provides more information
than the text sign because it indicates a temporary short constriction
in the roadway with the road widening back to normal after the
constriction. Based on comments (see discussion regarding Section 2C.15
ROAD NARROWS Sign (W5-1)), the FHWA deletes the symbol sign in this
final rule, because it's meaning is not clear. The FHWA establishes a
phase-in target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of
this final rule for replacing existing Narrow Bridge symbol signs in
good condition with the word message signs to minimize any impact on
State or local governments.
68. In Section 2C.19 Divided Highway (Road) Ends Sign (W6-2)
(numbered Section 2C.17 in the NPA), the FHWA modifies the GUIDANCE
statement to clarify that a Divided Highway Ends (W6-2) symbol sign
should be used in advance of the end of a section of physically divided
highway (not an intersection or junction) as a warning of two-way
traffic ahead. The reason for this change is that the warning sign
should be placed in advance of, rather than at, the start of the
divided highway section. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change and adopts this
change.
69. In Section 2C.21 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-
2, W14-2a) (numbered Section 2C.19 in the NPA), the FHWA combines
Section 2C.40 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Plaques as numbered in the NPA with
this section because the FHWA redesignates these plaques as signs. The
FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to clarify that when the W14-1 or
W14-2 sign is used, the sign shall be posted as near as practical to
the entry point or at a sufficient advance distance to permit the road
user to avoid the dead end or no outlet condition by turning off, if
possible, at the nearest intersecting street. This change gives
additional flexibility to jurisdictions when posting the sign at the
exact entry point is not practical due to obstructions or other
factors. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and incorporates this change.
The FHWA also received a comment from a traffic engineering
consultant suggesting restoration of text from the 1988 MUTCD, that was
removed in the 2000 MUTCD, restricting the use of the W14-1P and W14-2P
plaques in lieu of the W14-1 and W14-2 signs where traffic can proceed
straight through the intersection into the dead end street. The FHWA
agrees that this is necessary to adequately warn road users and
includes this text as a separate paragraph in the STANDARD statement in
this final rule.
70. In Section 2C.22 Low Clearance Signs (W12-2 and W12-2)
(numbered Section 2C.20 in the NPA), the FHWA clarifies the STANDARD
statement by removing the words ``or minimum structure height.'' This
change clarifies the proper application of Low Clearance signs. The
FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and incorporates the change.
Additionally, the FHWA clarifies the GUIDANCE statement by changing
the phrase ``legal limit'' to ``legal maximum vehicle height'' to
reflect more precisely the proper dimension. The FHWA received two
comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
this change, and one from the Virginia DOT opposed to it. The Virginia
DOT stated that the text in this section differs from the text in
Section 8B.17 Low Ground Clearance Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Sign
(W10-13) (numbered Section 8B.16 in the NPA), where there is no mention
of using distance plaques, and suggests that the text in both sections
should be the same, and that the GUIDANCE statement in this section be
changed to
[[Page 65515]]
an OPTION. The FHWA disagrees with downgrading this paragraph to an
OPTION because drivers of high profile vehicles need this information
where they can still execute a turning maneuver and an OPTION would not
be appropriate. However, in response to this comment, the FHWA adds a
distance plaque to the list of sign types in Section 8B.17.
71. In Section 2C.23 BUMP and DIP Signs (W8-1, W8-2) (numbered
Section 2C.21 in the NPA), the FHWA modifies the second GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that a short stretch of depressed alignment that
might momentarily hide a vehicle should be treated as a no-passing zone
when centerline striping is provided on a two-lane or three-lane road.
The change replaces the word ``may'' with ``might'' to avoid possible
confusion of this GUIDANCE statement as an OPTION statement, and
clarifies that the use of a no-passing zone in this situation only
applies when centerline striping is provided on the road. The FHWA
received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of this change, and adopts this change.
72. In Section 2C.24 SPEED HUMP Sign (W17-1) (numbered Section
2C.22 in the NPA), the FHWA adds a sentence to the OPTION statement to
allow the use of the legend SPEED BUMP instead of the legend SPEED HUMP
on the W17-1 sign. This provides additional flexibility to
jurisdictions and reduces sign inventory. The FHWA received two
comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering
consultant in support of this change, and one comment from the NCUTCD
opposed to it. The NCUTCD stated that speed humps and speed bumps are
not the same and are designed and applied differently, and therefore
should be signed accordingly. While the FHWA agrees that speed humps
and speed bumps are different, the FHWA believes that the general
public does not readily perceive the difference in terminology or
design between speed humps and speed bumps. To allow jurisdictions to
use the terminology that will be best understood locally and to
minimize maintenance issues, the FHWA adopts the OPTION statement as
proposed in the NPA in this final rule. To clarify the intent, the FHWA
adds a new SUPPORT statement immediately following the OPTION that
describes speed humps and speed bumps and that, because the terminology
is not well known by the public, for signing purposes the terms are
interchangeable.
73. In Section 2C.26 SHOULDER Signs (W8-4, W8-9, and W8-9a)
(numbered and titled ``Section 2C.24 SHOULDER and UNEVEN LANES Signs
(W8-4, W8-9, W8-9a, and W8-11)'' in the NPA), the FHWA removes the
UNEVEN LANES (W8-11) sign from the title and section text, as well as
the first SUPPORT and STANDARD statements to move temporary traffic
control applications signs out of Chapter 2C to respond to comments
from the NCUTCD and the Washington DOT.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a STANDARD statement just
before the GUIDANCE statement requiring the use of the SHOULDER DROP
OFF (W8-9a) sign when a shoulder drop-off, adjacent to the travel lane,
exceeds 75 mm (3 in) in depth and is not delineated by portable
barriers. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation in support of this new
STANDARD, and three comments from the Illinois and Minnesota DOTs
opposed to it. Those opposed expressed that the text should remain a
GUIDANCE because requiring the use of SHOULDER DROP OFF signs at all
locations that meet the criteria would be a considerable hardship on
agencies to properly identify all locations and sign them at all times.
The opposing commenters also stated that the public does not fully
understand the differences between the LOW SHOULDER and SHOULDER DROP
OFF signs, and suggested that the LOW SHOULDER sign be omitted. The
FHWA believes that jurisdictions need the proper warning signs to sign
accurately for conditions where the drop off is greater than 75 mm (3
inches) and has not yet been repaired. Accordingly, the FHWA restores
this statement to a GUIDANCE and clarifies the use of the SHOULDER DROP
OFF sign.
74. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD Sign (W8-13).'' (This section was
numbered Section 2C.52 in the NPA.) This new section includes an OPTION
statement on the use of the BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD sign, which states
that the sign may be used in advance of bridges to advise road users as
they approach and traverse the bridge during winter weather conditions.
The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and three comments from the
Kansas and Wisconsin DOTs as well as the City of Plano, Texas, opposed
to it. The opposing commenters indicated that the sign either served no
purpose, or that as an OPTION statement, States may still choose to use
different wording for the sign. The FHWA believes that States should
not use a different wording for a standardized warning sign legend
because that decreases uniformity. The FHWA adopts this new section in
this final rule, but modifies the proposed GUIDANCE to OPTION because
there is no research indicating that display of this sign message
during warm weather causes any safety or operational problem. However,
some agencies feel it is good practice to cover or not display the
message when it is not appropriate. The FHWA also moves this section to
follow Section 2C.25 SLIPPERY WHEN WET because this follows a more
logical order within the chapter.
75. In Section 2C.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-
3, W3-4) (numbered Section 2C.26 in the NPA), the FHWA received several
informational and editorial comments from State DOTs regarding the text
in the OPTION statement about the use of the BE PREPARED TO STOP sign.
One comment from the Oregon DOT suggested that other legends be used
for signs at intersection traffic control in order to preserve the BE
PREPARED TO STOP signs for flagger applications. The FHWA believes that
although the BE PREPARED TO STOP sign is mentioned in Section 6F.29
Flagger Sign (W20-7a, W20-7) in conjunction with the Flagger sign, it
is not intended to be used only for flagger applications. Because this
is an OPTION statement, States are not required to use the BE PREARED
TO STOP sign for non-flagger situations.
The FHWA also received two comments from private citizens
suggesting shortening the message on the sign to PREPARE TO STOP for
conciseness and to allow use of a larger text font. The FHWA disagrees
because PREPARE TO STOP would imply that the condition that must be
stopped for is always present.
The FHWA also clarifies that the reference to a beacon in the
second OPTION statement and the second GUIDANCE statement is a
reference to a warning beacon. This clarification is necessary to be
consistent with prescribed use of warning beacons in Part 4 of the
MUTCD. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of these changes, and the FHWA incorporates these changes.
76. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.30 Speed Reduction Signs (W3-5, W3-5a).'' (This Section was numbered
Section 2C.51 in the NPA.) This new section includes a GUIDANCE
statement, which recommends using the Speed Reduction signs to inform
road users of a reduced speed zone when engineering judgment indicates
the need
[[Page 65516]]
for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead. These
new warning signs replace the R2-5a, b, and c signs because the
intended message is more properly categorized as a warning message
rather than regulatory message. The FHWA received five comments from
ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen in support of
this change, and fourteen comments from several State and local DOTs
opposed to the change. Those who opposed the change indicated that the
existing signs are more recognized by drivers, and therefore have the
desired effect of reducing speeds where needed. Although some of the
opposing commenters, such as the NCUTCD and the Washington DOT, agreed
that the sign should be classified as a warning rather than a
regulatory sign, many still favored use of the existing signs for
economic reasons or indicated disagreement with the design of the
proposed signs.
The FHWA disagrees with the use of an advisory speed plaque with a
word message ``Reduced Speed Ahead'' sign as was suggested by some
commenters. This is an inappropriate use of an advisory speed plaque
and would only serve to further confuse the motoring public about what
the difference is between a (regulatory) speed limit and a (non-
enforceable) advisory speed. The sign proposed in the NPA is the most
logical and the one that best serves the public because it is
consistent with other advance warning signs that warn of a specific
regulation ahead, such as the symbolic Stop Ahead and Yield Ahead
signs. The Canadian MUTCD \17\ has incorporated a similar concept of
speed reduction signs for several decades. The NCUTCD and the Missouri
DOT felt that the proposed sign would be a maintenance burden on
jurisdictions due to having to stock and carry on sign maintenance
vehicles multiple versions of the Speed Reduction sign with different
numerical speed values. In view of Canada's long-standing use of this
concept of speed reduction sign, the FHWA believes that this has not
proven to be an unreasonable maintenance burden in Canada, nor has it
been an unreasonable problem for jurisdictions in the U.S. with other
standard signs in the MUTCD that provide for multiple speed values or
distance values, such as the R2-1 Speed Limit sign, the W12-2 Low
Clearance warning sign, the W13-1 Advisory Speed Plaque, or the W13-2
and W13-3 Exit and Ramp Speed advisory signs. Clear and unambiguous
advance warning of a reduced regulatory speed limit ahead is an
extremely important message that warrants the use of the sign as
proposed in the NPA. The FWHA adopts the language for this section, as
proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada'',
1998, and a December 2002 update, are available for purchase from
the Transportation Association of Canada, at the following URL:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=https://mediant.magma.ca/tacatc/bookstore/bookstore.cfm click on
``Traffic Control''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To respond to comments regarding the costs associated with this
change, the FHWA revises the phase-in target compliance date to 15
years from the effective date of this final rule for existing R2-5
signs in good condition to be changed to W3-5 or W3-5a signs, to
minimize any impact on State or local governments.
The FHWA received several comments from the Arizona DOT and private
citizens suggesting revisions to the design of the W3-5 and W3-5a signs
to make them more legible from longer distances. To address these
comments, the FHWA makes minor refinements to the English unit version
of the W3-5 symbol sign to make the numerals 9 inches high for the 36''
x 36'' sign and 12 inches high for the 48'' x 48'' sign, and adjusts
the layout slightly. The FHWA also deletes the metric alternate of the
W3-5 symbol sign because the numerals on it would be too small. The
only allowable metric version of the Speed Reduction Warning sign is to
be the metric word message W3-5a sign.
Additionally, the FHWA includes a STANDARD statement, which
requires that a Speed Reduction Warning sign be followed by a Speed
Limit (R2-1) sign installed at the beginning of the zone where the
speed limit applies and that the speed limit displayed on the Speed
Reduction sign shall be identical to the speed limit displayed on the
subsequent Speed Limit sign. This is needed to provide for uniform
application of these signs. The Minnesota DOT opposed this new
paragraph, indicating that Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)
already states that an R2-1 sign is required. The FHWA disagrees
because Section 2B.13 does not require that statutory speed limits be
posted, and this new paragraph is needed because it correctly limits
the use of the Speed Reduction signs to only locations that are prior
to ``posted'' speed limits. The FHWA adopts this paragraph in this
final rule.
77. In Section 2C.31 Merge Signs (W4-1, W4-5) (numbered Section
2C.28 in the NPA), the FHWA includes the addition of the new Entering
Roadway Merge (W4-5) sign in the title (referred to as W4-1a in the
NPA). In addition to the title change, the FHWA adds a recommendation
to the GUIDANCE statement, which states that when a Merge sign is to be
installed on an entering roadway that curves before merging with the
major roadway, the Entering Roadway Merge (W4-5) sign should be used.
This sign is recommended for this condition because it better portrays
the actual geometric conditions to road users on the entering roadway.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the City
of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and one comment from the
Minnesota DOT opposing it. The Minnesota DOT indicated that drivers
will not understand the sign, and suggested changing the W4-5 sign to
an ``ENTERING MERGE AREA'' word sign. The FHWA disagrees and believes
that this symbol sign would more accurately inform the drivers on the
ramp that they must merge and adopts the change as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years from
the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.
78. In Section 2C.32 Added Lane Signs (W4-3, W4-6) (numbered
Section 2C.29 in the NPA), the FHWA changes the title to reflect the
addition of the new Entering Roadway Added Lane (W4-6) sign (referred
to as W4-3a in the NPA). In addition to the title change, the FHWA adds
to the GUIDANCE statement, that when an Added Lane sign is to be
installed on a roadway that curves before converging with another
roadway that has a tangent alignment at the point of convergence, the
Entering Roadway Added Lane (W4-6) sign should be used. This sign is
recommended for this condition because it better portrays the actual
geometric conditions to road users on the entering roadway. The FHWA
received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and one comment from the Minnesota
DOT opposed to it. The Minnesota DOT stated that drivers would not
understand the sign. The FHWA disagrees because the orientation of the
symbol on the sign will better convey to drivers on the ramp that they
are about to flow into an added lane. Also, the FHWA notes that this
sign has been used in the State of Washington for the intended
geometric conditions. The FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the
NPA, in this final rule. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target
compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule
for existing signs in good condition to
[[Page 65517]]
minimize any impact on State or local governments.
79. In Section 2C.33 Lane Ends Signs (W4-2, W9-1, W9-2) (numbered
Section 2C.30 in the NPA), the FHWA changes the title of the section to
reflect the addition of the Lane Ends (W4-2) sign (referred to as the
Lane Reduction sign in the NPA.) This symbol sign was included in the
1988 edition of the MUTCD but in the 2000 Edition of the MUTCD it was
deleted from Part 2 due to poor comprehension of the 1988 symbol by
road users. However, in Part 6 of the 2000 MUTCD this symbol sign
continued to be shown in many of the figures, particularly for the
Typical Applications in Chapter 6H, and therefore this symbol sign has
continued to be widely used by State and local highway agencies.
The FHWA believes that a symbolic sign for the Lane Ends message
continues to be needed and in the NPA the FHWA proposed changes the
design of the Lane Ends (W4-2) symbol sign to improve comprehension by
road users. The FHWA received nine comments from the NCUTCD, the
Minnesota DOT, and private citizens opposed to the new sign design and
five comments from the Oregon, Virginia and Wisconsin DOTs as well as
private citizens in support of the new sign design.
The opposing commenters suggested that the new design would not be
understood and also stated that there was not sufficient research to
support the new design. An FHWA human factors research project \18\ has
found that road users very poorly comprehend the meaning of the
previous design of the W4-2 sign. The research found that the old
design is commonly misinterpreted to mean ``merge ahead'' or ``road
narrows'' and does not adequately convey the intended message of a lane
ending (reduction in the number of lanes.) This research also evaluated
an alternative design similar to the design used in Canada but with
more graphic elements (bent arrows.) This study found that
comprehension of the tested alternative symbol was much better than the
old W4-2 design, but because of the complexity of the added graphical
elements (arrows) the legibility distance was less than that of the old
W4-2 design. The FHWA adopts a revised design for the W4-2 sign that is
identical to the design used in Canada for several decades. A study in
Canada \19\ found the Canadian symbol sign to be legible in the range
of 70 to 200 meters, which is better legibility than most symbols. The
FHWA adopts this design in this final rule because the long-standing
Canadian use of this sign indicates it is successful and because having
a uniform design between the U.S. and Canada will benefit cross-border
travelers. Several State DOTs suggested that the OPTION allowing
jurisdictions to modify the Lane Ends sign to represent the actual road
lane configuration be removed. The FHWA agrees and eliminates the
OPTION allowing the sign to be modified. The adopted sign design
conveys that the number of lanes is being reduced by one, regardless of
how many total lanes are on the roadway. The FHWA establishes a phase-
in target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this
final rule for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Evaluation of Selected Potential MUTCD Signs,'' by
Alicandri and Wochinger, 2000, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
report number FHWA-RD-00-053, is available from FHWA Turner-Fairbank
Highway Reserach Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, Virginia
22101, or through their web site at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.tfhrc.gov
.
\19\ ``Age Differences in the Legibility of Symbol Highway
signs,'' by Frank Schieber and Donald Kline, 1994, is available for
downloading at the University of South Dakota's Web site at the
following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.usd.edu/_schieber/pdf/signs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FHWA adds the Lane Ends (W4-2) symbol sign to the
first and second GUIDANCE statements and to the OPTION statement,
indicating that the W4-2 symbol sign is an alternative to the LANE ENDS
MERGE LEFT (RIGHT) (W9-2) word sign. This will provide additional
flexibility to jurisdictions. The FHWA received one comment from
Caltrans opposed to this change, stating that allowing the option to
use word or symbol signs will lead to motorist confusion. The FHWA
disagrees because there are many examples in the MUTCD where
jurisdictions may choose between symbol signs and word message signs
and there is no data indicating this causes confusion. Also, this
provides jurisdictions with more flexibility. The FHWA adopts this
change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.
80. In Section 2C.34 Two-Way Traffic Sign (W6-3) (numbered Section
2C.31 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement that a Two-
Way Traffic sign with an AHEAD (W16-9P) plaque should be used to warn
road users of a transition from a one-way street to a two-lane, two-way
section of roadway. The FHWA makes this addition in response to three
comments received from private citizens regarding this section and a
figure in Section 2B.37 ONE WAY Signs (R6-1, R6-2) (numbered 2B.32 in
the NPA), where use of the sign is also illustrated, indicating that
this revision should be made to clarify the text. The most common use
of the W6-3 sign is along sections of two-lane, two-way roadways. In
the specific case that is illustrated in Section 2B.37, the W6-3 sign
is posted on the one-way street, in advance of where it changes to a
two-way road. Therefore, the use of an AHEAD plaque with the W6-3 sign
is recommended to enhance safety by minimizing possible
misinterpretation of the meaning of the sign in that particular
application. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of
five years from the effective date of this final rule for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
governments.
81. In Section 2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs
(W13-2, W13-3, W13-5) (numbered Section 2C.33 in the NPA), the FHWA
changes the design of the metric exit speed, ramp speed, and curve
speed signs, and advisory speed signs/plaques so that the metric speed
value is within a black circle with ``km/h'' below. This new design
better differentiates between warning signs and plaques with metric
units for speed from those using English units for speed. The FHWA
received two comments from ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in
overall support of changes in this section. Three commenters
representing the Minnesota and Ohio DOTs and a private citizen opposed
the design of the metric exit speed sign, stating that this non-
standard sign may not be recognized and understood by motorists. The
FHWA disagrees and, consistent with decisions regarding the R2-1 sign
in Chapter 2B, the FHWA adopts the metric exit speed sign as proposed
in the NPA.
The FHWA received one comment from the Oregon DOT opposed to the
first STANDARD statement regarding the use of the RAMP SPEED sign in
addition to the EXIT SPEED sign, stating that the added signs clutter
the sign environment and that the warning can more easily be handled
with proper curvature signs with advisory speed plaques. The commenter
suggested that the RAMP SPEED signs be an OPTION rather than a
STANDARD. While the FHWA does not agree with removing the RAMP SPEED
sign from the STANDARD, the FHWA adds a new OPTION paragraph stating
that a Curve or Turn sign with Advisory Speed plaque may be used in
place of a Ramp Speed sign if it is located such that it clearly does
not apply to drivers on the main roadway. The NCUTCD suggested that all
of the references to curves and
[[Page 65518]]
Curve Speed signs be removed from the STANDARD and OPTION statements.
The FHWA disagrees because this is a helpful sign to remind drivers of
the advisory speed. Most curves are very well outlined with delineators
or chevron signs. Because crashes are still occurring on curves, the
FHWA believes that there is a need to remind drivers of the recommended
reduction in speed as they proceed along the curve or ramp. The FHWA
includes this statement, as well as other references to the Curve Speed
sign, in this final rule.
The FHWA also adds a new paragraph to the OPTION stating that,
based on engineering judgment, the Curve Speed sign may be installed on
the inside or the outside of the curve to enhance its visibility. The
FHWA incorporates this new paragraph in this final rule to be
consistent with changes elsewhere in Part 2 of the MUTCD.
The FHWA also adds a new figure numbered and titled ``Figure 2C-7
Example of Advisory Speed Signing for an Exit Ramp.'' This figure
illustrates the use of the Exit Speed sign along the deceleration lane
and the use of the Ramp Speed signs along the actual ramp. The figure
clarifies application of these signs to jurisdictions. Based on
editorial comments suggesting additional clarity to this figure, the
FHWA adopts this new figure, with revisions, in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement at the end of
the section, that the advisory speed may be the 85th percentile speed
of free-flowing traffic, the speed corresponding to a 16-degree ball-
bank indicator reading,\20\ or the speed otherwise determined by an
engineering study due to unusual circumstances. The wording of this
paragraph in this final rule incorporates comments received from the
NCUTCD, the Kansas DOT, a traffic engineering consultant and private
citizens on the proposed wording in the NPA, specifically the ball-bank
test. The FHWA includes this OPTION criteria to enhance the uniformity
of determining the recommended advisory speed and to provide additional
warning to motorists, because highway curves have a crash rate about
three times the rate for highway tangent segments and a run-off-the-
road crash rate about four times the tangent segment rate. The FHWA
also adds a new SUPPORT statement that further describes the ball-bank
indicator reading and its correlation with the 85th percentile speed,
based on research conducted for the Maryland Department of
Transportation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The ball bank indicator reading is a measure of the
overturning force (side friction), measured in degrees, on a vehicle
negotiating a horizontal curve.
\21\ ``Advisory Speeds on Maryland Highways--Technical Report'',
August 1999, by Brudis and Associates, Inc., is available from
Brudis and Associates, 9220 Rumsey Road; Suite 110, Columbia,
Maryland 21045, Phone (410) 884-3607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. In Section 2C.37 Intersection Warning Signs (W2-1 through W2-6)
(numbered Section 2C.34 in the NPA), the FHWA changes the design of the
CIRCULAR INTERSECTION (W2-6) sign to a symbol sign with three rotating
arrows to better portray the operations at circular intersections. The
FHWA received eight comments from ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona,
traffic engineering consultants, and private citizens in support of the
new sign design and six comments from the Kansas, Virginia, and
Wisconsin DOTs as well as the City of Lenexa, Kansas, opposing it. The
commenters who opposed suggested that road users may not understand the
new sign and offered new designs, or stated that the sign in the 2000
MUTCD should be restored. The FHWA adopts the three-arrow sign as
proposed in the NPA because it is consistent with the international
symbol for a roundabout intersection and with FHWA roundabout design
guidance \22\ and has significantly longer recognition distance than
the previous sign. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance
date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Roundabouts: An Informational Guide,'' FHWA, 2000. Report
Number: FHWA-RD-00-067 is available at the following URL:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to educate road users, the FHWA clarifies the first
paragraph of the OPTION statement to include that a TRAFFIC CIRCLE word
message plaque may accompany the Circular Intersection (W2-6) sign
installed in advance of a circular intersection.
Additionally, the FHWA modifies the GUIDANCE statement to clarify
that the Intersection Warning signs, other than the Circular
Intersection Warning symbol (W2-6) sign and the T-intersection symbol
(W2-4) sign, should not be used on approaches controlled by STOP signs,
YIELD signs, or signals. This change, which was suggested by the
NCUTCD, allows the W2-4 sign to be used on the stem of a T-
intersection, regardless of how the intersection is controlled, to
provide additional warning information to road users.
83. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.39 Traffic Signal Signs (W25-1, W25-2).'' (This section was numbered
Section 2C.53 in the NPA.) This new section includes a STANDARD
statement on the use of the ONCOMING TRAFFIC HAS EXTENDED GREEN (W25-1)
and ONCOMING TRAFFIC MAY HAVE EXTENDED GREEN (W25-2) traffic signal
signs. The STANDARD statement requires that, unless a separate left-
turn signal face is provided and is operated as described in Section
4D.06 Application of Steady Signal Indications for Left Turns, if the
possibility exists that a CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indication could be
displayed to an approach from which drivers are turning left
permissively without the simultaneous display of a CIRCULAR YELLOW
signal indication to the opposing approach (see Section 4D.05), either
a W25-1 or a W25-2 sign be installed near the left-most signal head.
The FHWA adds this new section because these signs are adopted in
Chapter 4D as one of several ways to eliminate or reduce safety issues
associated with the ``yellow trap'' (as described in the discussion of
Section 4D.05) in some traffic signal phasing sequences. The FHWA
received three comments from ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a
traffic engineering consultant in support of this new section and
associated signs, and many comments from the NCUTCD, State and local
DOTs, and private citizens opposed to it. The proposed wording of the
signs in the NPA, CAUTION ONCOMING GREEN EXTENDED (W25-1) and CAUTION
ONCOMING GREEN MAY BE EXTENDED (W25-2), stimulated many comments from
the NCUTCD, the Arizona DOT, Pierce County, Washington; the City of
Plano, Texas; and the City of Los Angeles, California, regarding the
use of the word ``Caution,'' stating that the warning sign colors
should communicate to the driver that caution is needed, rather than
explicit use of the word. Many of these same commenters suggested that
the public would not understand the signs, and some jurisdictions are
opposed to allowing any situations in which the ``yellow trap'' can
occur. The FHWA recognizes that there are some locations where no other
signal sequence other than a yellow trap is reasonably feasible due to
unique combinations of intersection geometrics, traffic volumes, and
the like. The FHWA believes that these signs will serve a useful
purpose, and revises the text of the signs to remove the word
``Caution'' and to clarify their meaning.
84. In Section 2C.40 Vehicular Traffic Signs (W8-6, W11-1, W11-5,
W11-5a, W11-8, W11-10, W11-11, W11-12p,
[[Page 65519]]
W11-14) (numbered and titled ``Section 2C.36 Motorized Traffic Signs
(W8-6, W11-5, W11-5a, W11-8, W11-10, W11-10a, W11-12)'' in the NPA),
the FHWA changes the title to be consistent with the changes in Section
2C.41 and to reflect the addition and deletion of some signs from this
section.
The FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, State
DOTs, traffic engineering consultants, and private citizens regarding
specific signs listed in the first OPTION statement, as well as the
signs shown in Figure 2C-9 (numbered Figure 2C-10 in the NPA). The Ohio
DOT suggested that bicycles be included in the list of vehicles in this
statement and removed from the first paragraph of Section 2C.41 because
bicycles are vehicles. The FHWA agrees and, in addition to adding
bicycles and the W11-1 sign to this section, the FHWA adds the W11-11
Golf Cart and W11-14 Horse-Drawn Vehicle signs.
The FHWA adds a sentence in this OPTION that the TRUCK CROSSING
(W8-6) word message sign may be used as an alternate to the Truck
Crossing symbol sign, to provide additional flexibility. The FHWA
received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this
change, and incorporates this change. The FHWA establishes a 10-year
phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of this final
rule for the new symbol signs W11-1, W11-5, W11-5a, W11-11, and the
W11-14 signs, for existing signs in good conditions, to minimize any
impacts on State and local governments.
The FHWA received several comments regarding the sign images in
Figure 2C-9 (numbered Figure 2C-10 in the NPA). The NCUTCD, the
Illinois DOT, and private citizens opposed the W11-5a tractor sign, and
the Virginia DOT supported the sign. Many of the commenters who opposed
the new sign suggested that the existing W11-5 sign is sufficient, and
road users will not distinguish the differences between the two signs.
The W11-5a sign was actually adopted in a 1997 final rule,\23\ and
inadvertently omitted from the 2000 MUTCD. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts
the W11-5a sign in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Final rule on FHWA Docket 95-7, published in the Federal
Register on January 9, 1997, at 62 FR 1363, amended the 1988 MUTCD
to include the ruling on Official Request for Change number II-228
(C) to add an alternative symbol sign W11-5a for farm machinery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four commenters representing State and local DOTs and private
citizens also opposed the new W11-10a truck sign, again stating that
existing W11-10 sign is sufficient, and road users will not distinguish
the differences between the two signs. The FHWA agrees and removes the
W11-10a sign from the MUTCD in this final rule. In addition, based on a
comment from the Ohio DOT, the FHWA separates Figure 2C-9 into two
figures titled ``Figure 2C-9 Vehicular Traffic Signs'' and ``Figure 2C-
10 Nonvehicular Traffic Signs.'' On the figure titled ``Nonvehicular
Traffic Signs,'' the FHWA adds sign images of the W11-7 Equestrian and
W11-9 Handicapped signs. Based on the comments from the NCUTCD and a
private citizen, the FHWA removes the W11-4a Horse-and-Buggy, W11-15
Waterfowl, and the W11-10a construction dump truck signs from Figure
2C-9 as well as the section text. The FHWA believes that only one sign
depicting a horse and buggy and one sign depicting a truck is
necessary. See also the discussion that follows regarding the Waterfowl
Sign.
In the second OPTION statement, the FHWA adds that a supplemental
plaque with the legend SHARE THE ROAD may be mounted below Vehicular
Traffic warning signs. The purpose of this addition is to allow the use
of this sign to provide additional warning to road users. The NCUTCD
suggested that the SHARE THE ROAD plaque be moved to Figure 2C-11 and
removed from this section. The FHWA adds the SHARE THE ROAD plaque to
Figure 2C-11.
85. In Section 2C.41 Nonvehicular Signs (W11-2, W11-3, W11-4, W11-
6, W11-7, W11-9) (numbered Section 2C.37 in the NPA), the FHWA changes
the title to reflect that this section pertains to nonvehicular signs,
not just Crossing signs. The FHWA moves the Bicycle (W11-1), Golf Cart
(W11-11) and Horse-Drawn Vehicle (W11-14) symbol signs from this
section to Section 2C.40 because they represent vehicular signs. This
responds to several comments from State DOTs and traffic engineering
consultants. The FHWA adds the Equestrian (W11-7) symbol sign, which
had been adopted previously as a standard symbol in an amendment to the
1988 MUTCD but which had been inadvertently omitted from the figure
illustrating Nonvehicular Signs in the 2000 MUTCD. Based on comments
from the NCUTCD, State and local DOTs, and private citizens opposed to
the Waterfowl Crossing sign that was proposed in the NPA because of
lack of research showing effectiveness of the symbol, the FHWA
withdraws that sign from the figure and the text of this final rule.
Future research may develop an improved symbol for this message.
The FHWA also revises the second OPTION statement to clarify that
the supplemental plaques such as AHEAD or XX METERS may be used with
the Nonvehicular warning signs, when used in advance of a crossing.
These plaques are specifically intended to provide advance notice to
road users of crossing activity. The FHWA received no comments
regarding this change, and adopts this change.
Additionally, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to specify
that when Nonvehicular warning signs are used at a crossing, the signs
shall be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7p)
plaque showing the location of the crossing. This reflects the fact
that Nonvehicular warning signs can be used either in advance of or at
the crossing, and is consistent with the practice of using the diagonal
downward pointing arrow with other similar signs located at a crossing.
The FHWA received one comment from the Kansas DOT in support of this
change, and one comment from the Oregon DOT opposed to it, stating that
the requirement to use the arrow plaque at all signed crossings adds
excessive signing without much benefit. The Oregon DOT suggested that
use of the arrow plaque remain an option for supplementing any crossing
sign, but not be required. The FHWA notes that the required use of the
plaque was established in the 2000 MUTCD, and at that time the FHWA
established a January 17, 2011 phase-in target compliance date. The
revisions to this STANDARD statement in the 2003 MUTCD merely add
clarity. Consistent use of the arrow plaque at crossings is needed to
educate the public regarding the meaning of the plaque.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the third OPTION statement to state
that Pedestrian, Bicycle, School Advance Crossing, and School Crossing
signs and their related supplemental plaques may have a fluorescent
yellow-green background with a black legend and border. This change
reflects the common practice for supplemental plaques to be of the same
color as the signs they supplement. The FHWA received one comment from
ATSSA in support of this change and adopts this change.
86. In Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) (numbered
Section 2C.42 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the first OPTION statement
to permit the use of an Advisory Speed (W13-1) plaque to supplement any
warning sign to indicate the advisory speed for a condition. The FHWA
received one comment from Pierce County, Washington, suggesting that
the 2000 MUTCD wording be retained, stating that the proposed revision
may
[[Page 65520]]
encourage widespread and ineffective use of the W13-1 plaque. The FHWA
disagrees and adopts the revision in this final rule, changing the
proposed phrase ``recommended speed'' to ``advisory speed'' in this
statement, as well as the STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements for
consistency.
In the STANDARD statement, the FHWA requires the use of the
Advisory Speed plaque where an engineering study indicates a need to
inform road users of the advisory speed for a condition and, if they
are used, the speed shown shall be a multiple of 10 km/h or 5 mph. This
change clarifies which sign should be used when an engineering study
indicates the need to advise road users of the advisory speed and how
to determine what the recommended speed is for the condition. The FHWA
received two comments from the Oregon and Kansas DOTs stating that an
engineering study is an unnecessary expense, and recommended that the
statement be changed to engineering judgment. The OPTION statement
gives the flexibility to use the Advisory Speed plaque where only
engineering judgment has been applied and no study has been performed.
The STANDARD only requires the use of an Advisory Speed plaque where an
engineering study has been performed and shows a need for the plaque.
Because there is no requirement for an engineering study, the FHWA
adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add an OPTION statement at the end
of the section indicating how to determine the advisory speed along a
ramp or curve. The FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD,
Yakima and Pierce Counties in Washington State, and a traffic
engineering consultant opposed to the language in the NPA. As a result,
the FHWA replaces the proposed language with the language adopted in
Section 2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs (W13-2, W13-3,
W13-5). In concert with the changes in Section 2C.36, the FHWA also
repeats the SUPPORT statement that further describes the ball-bank
indicator reading and its correlation with the 85th-percentile speed in
this section. (See also the discussion in Section 2C.36 regarding the
ball-bank indicator reading and its correlation with the 85th
percentile speed.)
87. In Section 2C.47 Supplemental Arrow Plaques (W16-5p, W16-6p,
W16-7p) (numbered Section 2C.43 in the NPA), the FHWA changes the title
to reflect the existence of the diagonally pointing down arrow plaque
and includes the designation in the section text. The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change and
adopts this change. The FHWA also received another editorial comment
from a traffic engineering consultant suggesting that all plaques be
assigned a ``p'' designation to distinguish them as plaques. The FHWA
agrees that this change will provide additional clarity and consistency
and will perform a comprehensive review of the MUTCD to achieve
consistency in this designation in the future. The FHWA will consider
including this in a future rulemaking.
88. The FHWA removes Section 2C.46 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Plaques (W14-
1P, W14-2P), as numbered in the NPA, from the MUTCD. The FHWA changes
the designation of these plaques to signs because they are permitted to
be used alone, and moves the appropriate information to Section 2C.21
DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a) in this final
rule.
89. In Section 2C.50 CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP Plaque (W4-4p)
(numbered Section 2C.27 in the NPA), the FHWA replaces the entire
section (of the 2000 MUTCD) with new OPTION and STANDARD statements.
The OPTION statement specifies that the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP
(W4-4p) plaque may be used in combination with a STOP sign when
engineering judgment indicates that conditions are present that are
causing or could cause drivers to misinterpret the intersection as a
multi-way stop condition. The STANDARD statement specifies that if the
W4-4p plaque is used, it shall be installed below the STOP sign. The
new text for this section is necessary to provide for more uniform
application of this plaque. The FHWA received two comments from the
Cities of Plano, Texas, and Tucson, Arizona, in support of these
changes and one editorial comment from the NCUTCD, which the FHWA
incorporates in this final rule. The FHWA also changes the sign
designation in the title to ``W4-4p'' and changes corresponding text
throughout the section. In response to two comments from private
citizens, the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement that the W4-4p plaque
may use alternate messages such as TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT
STOP or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP when such messages more
accurately describe the traffic controls established at the
intersection.
Additionally, the FHWA removes the arrow from the design of the
plaque to reduce potential confusion and misunderstanding as to whether
the arrow denotes the direction cross traffic is flowing or the
direction toward which the driver is to look for cross traffic. The
FHWA received four comments from the Cities of Plano, Texas, and
Tucson, Arizona, and private citizens in support of this change. The
FHWA received one comment from the Minnesota DOT opposed to it, citing
concerns that removal of the arrow would increase the confusion. The
FHWA believes that the arrow is the source of the confusion and
therefore removes the arrow from the design of the plaque.
90. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.52 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Plaque (W16-11).'' (This section was
numbered Section 2C.48 in the NPA.) This new section includes an OPTION
statement on the use of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Plaque.
Specifically, an HOV (W16-11) plaque may be used to warn drivers in an
HOV lane of a specific condition and to differentiate a warning sign
specific for HOV lanes when the sign is also visible to traffic on the
adjoining general purpose roadway. Additionally the diamond symbol may
be used instead of the word message HOV and, when appropriate, the
words LANE or ONLY may be used. This will enhance road user
understanding of which signs apply to which lanes. The FHWA received
three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of this new section, and adopts this new section, with minor
changes to Figure 2C-11.
91. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2C.53 PHOTO ENFORCED Plaque (W16-10).'' (This section was numbered
Section 2C.49 in the NPA.) This new section includes an OPTION
statement on the use of the PHOTO ENFORCED plaque in advance of
locations of photo enforcement of traffic laws, thereby alerting
motorists of the use of cameras as an enforcement tool. This section
facilitates consistency with the PHOTO ENFORCED plaque for use with
regulatory signs, as described in Section 2B.46 Photo Enforcement Signs
(R10-18, R10-19).
Additionally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement to require that,
if used below a warning sign, the PHOTO ENFORCED plaque be a rectangle
with a black legend and border on a yellow background. This STANDARD
makes the color of the plaque consistent with the color of the warning
sign it supplements.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this new section, and adopts
this section. The Wisconsin DOT stated that some States have statutes
that do not allow
[[Page 65521]]
photo enforcement of traffic regulations, and therefore those States
will not allow the use of these signs. Because this is an optional
plaque used to indicate an optional application, States are not
required to use this plaque.
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years
from the effective date of this final rule for the PHOTO ENFORCED
plaque, for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local governments.
92. In Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination, the
FHWA makes revisions to provide for enhanced uniformity of design and
application of color-coding of destinations in guide signs. The FHWA
adds a SUPPORT statement following the first STANDARD statement, which
states that color coding is sometimes used to help road users
distinguish between multiple potentially confusing destinations. The
SUPPPORT statement gives examples of valuable uses of color coding
including guide signs for roadways approaching or inside an airport
property with multiple terminals serving multiple airlines, and
wayfinding signs for various traffic generator destinations within a
community or area. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD,
the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant
supporting this change, and adopts this change.
The FHWA adds a second STANDARD statement that prohibits the use of
different color sign backgrounds to provide color-coding of
destinations and requires that the color-coding shall be accomplished
by the use of different colored square or rectangular panels on the
face of the guide signs. The FHWA received three comments from the
NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change,
and adopts this change.
The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement, which states that the
different colored panels may include a black or white (whichever
provides the better contrast with the panel color) letter, numeral, or
other appropriate designation to identify the airport terminal or other
destination. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the
City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change, and adopts this
change.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement, which states that
two examples of color-coded guide sign assemblies are shown in Figure
2D-1. Figure 2D-1 is a new figure titled ``Examples of Color-Coded
Destination Guide Signs'' and illustrates two overhead guide signs
examples of color-coded airport terminal destination guide signs and an
example of a color-coded community destination guide sign. The FHWA
received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and a private citizen
supporting this new figure, as well as suggesting editorial changes to
the figure, which the FHWA incorporates in this final rule. The FHWA
received one comment from a representative of an airport suggesting a
separate standard for on-roadway signing at major international
airports. This goes beyond the scope of the NPA, and will have to be
addressed in a future rulemaking.
93. In Section 2D.04 Size of Signs, the FHWA rephrases the first
OPTION statement to clarify that reduced letter height, reduced
interline spacing, and reduced edge spacing may be used on guide signs
if the sign size is limited by factors such as lane width, and vertical
and lateral clearance. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and one
from a private citizen opposed to it. The opposing commenter stated
that allowing the reduction of guide sign dimensions may lead to
substandard sign dimensions being used in situations where it would
otherwise be possible to remove the constraint, and suggests that an
engineering study be performed before substandard guide signs are used.
The FHWA disagrees and believes that, because agencies install guide
signs to provide drivers with needed information, they will not
intentionally and repeatedly use smaller signs based on the revisions
to this OPTION. The FHWA adopts this change, as proposed in the NPA, in
this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a STANDARD statement that
prohibits the use of reduced spacing between the letters or words of
the legend as a means of reducing the overall size of a guide sign, to
provide for enhanced legibility of guide signs, especially for older
road users.
The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA supporting this STANDARD.
Four commenters from State DOTs opposed this language as a STANDARD,
and suggested that it be GUIDANCE to provide necessary flexibility to
deal with unusual situations. The FHWA agrees that this flexibility is
needed in some cases, and adopts this language, with additional
clarifying information, as a GUIDANCE statement in this final rule.
94. In Section 2D.05 Lettering Style, the FHWA revises the second
paragraph of the STANDARD to specify that the lettering for place names
and destinations for conventional road guide signs shall be in capital
letters or combination lower-case letters with initial upper-case
letters and that all other lettering for conventional road guide signs
shall be in capital lettering. To respond to a comment from a private
citizen suggesting complete consistency between the ``Standard Highway
Signs'' book and the MUTCD, the FHWA revises the text slightly from
that proposed in the NPA.
95. In Section 2D.06 Size of Lettering, the FHWA removes the last
paragraph in the STANDARD statement (from the 2000 MUTCD), which
required sign panels to be large enough to accommodate the legend
without crowding. The FHWA modifies that information and includes it in
Section 2D.04 Size of Signs, where it is more appropriately located.
The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change.
One comment from a private citizen suggested that language in this
section be added expressly forbidding the use of mixed case lettering
on conventional-road guide signs unless it is Series E Modified/
Lowercase. The FHWA disagrees because street name signs are guide signs
and they can use mixed case lettering other than E Modified.
96. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, the FHWA received one comment from a
private citizen stating that the first paragraph of the STANDARD
statement indicating that down arrows shall be used only on overhead
guide signs that restrict use of specific lanes to traffic bound for
the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by the arrows, is in
conflict with the optional signs that have down arrows in Figures 2E-
35, 2E-36, and 2E-37. The FHWA agrees that some of the optional signs
depicted in Figures 2E-35, 2E-36, and 2E-37 are in error. The FHWA
revises Figures 2E-35, 2E-36, and 2E-37 by removing the optional signs
as appropriate.
97. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, the FHWA revises the
first paragraph of the fourth STANDARD statement by removing the
reference to the publication ``A Proposal for Uniform County Route
Marker Program on a National Scale'' for design and use of County road
identification signs because this publication is no longer available
from the National Association of Counties or any other source. However,
because the pertinent requirements of that document are still valid,
the FHWA incorporates applicable text from that document into the
STANDARD statement. No new requirements are imposed by this change,
because the
[[Page 65522]]
previously referenced document had been incorporated by reference into
the 2000 MUTCD as well as previous editions.
98. In Section 2D.17 ALTERNATE Auxiliary Signs (M4-1, M4-1a), the
FHWA adds the qualifiers of time or distance to the word ``shorter'' in
the GUIDANCE statement. This addition clarifies that the shorter (time
or distance) or better-constructed route should retain the regular
route number. The ability to define the shorter route in terms of
either time or distance provides additional flexibility. The FHWA
received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
this change, and adopts this change.
99. In Section 2D.23 TEMPORARY Auxiliary Signs (M4-7, M4-7a), the
FHWA changes the title to reflect the addition of the new TEMP (M4-7a)
sign and adds the TEMP (M4-7a) sign to the OPTION and STANDARD
statements. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA,
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts
this change.
100. In Section 2D.26 Directional Arrow Auxiliary Signs (M6
Series), the FHWA removes the M6-8 and M6-9 multiple direction advance
arrow auxiliary signs. These specific arrow signs are not consistent in
design concept with the other Directional Arrow Auxiliary Signs. The
M6-6 and M6-4 signs or separate assemblies for each route direction
should be used instead to provide enhanced clarity to road users. The
FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and the City
of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change.
101. In Section 2D.27 Route Sign Assemblies, the FHWA renumbers
Figure 2D-2 of the 2000 MUTCD to Figure 2D-6 and modifies all three
sheets of the figure to make the sign assemblies illustrated in the
figure consistent with requirements in Section 2D.15 Cardinal Direction
Auxiliary Signs (M3-1 through M3-4) regarding the size of the initial
letter of the Cardinal Direction Auxiliary Signs, and to illustrate
directional assemblies that reflect the most recent practice. The FHWA
received comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in
support of these changes, and a few editorial changes. In this final
rule, the FHWA revises the numbers of the U.S. routes on all three
sheets to conform to the convention of odd numbers for north-south
routes and even numbers for east-west routes. The FHWA also revises the
numbers for all the State routes on these three sheets, even though not
all States adopt the U.S. route numbering convention for their State
routes.
102. In Section 2D.31 Confirming or Reassurance Assemblies, the
FHWA removes from the STANDARD statement the requirement that, if used,
the Confirming Assembly be installed just beyond intersections of
numbered routes.
Additionally, in the first GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA recommends
that a Confirming assembly should be installed just beyond
intersections of numbered routes.
The FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement that states that Confirming
and Reassurance Assemblies are Directional Assemblies.
These changes are adopted because use of the Confirming assembly
beyond intersections with numbered routes should be a recommended
practice rather than completely optional. Confirming assemblies are an
important safety and operational feature that lets the road user know
that he/she is on the correct route just beyond the decision point. The
Confirming assembly provides highly desirable information to road
users. These changes allow flexibility in installing the signs to
adjust to roadside conditions. The FHWA received one comment from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the changes to this section, and
adopts these changes.
103. In Section 2D.34 Destination Signs (D1 Series), the FHWA
changes the title to add sign number designations and changes the
section text to clarify which signs are applicable to the material in
the section. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in overall support to the changes in this section.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed moving material concerning the use of
a sloping arrow at an irregular intersection from the second GUIDANCE
statement (of the 2000 MUTCD) to a new second OPTION statement. The
FHWA received one comment from the Illinois DOT opposed to this change,
suggesting that the term ``irregular'' is not appropriate. The FHWA
agrees and, to address this issue, the FHWA combines the preceding
GUIDANCE and the OPTION into one GUIDANCE statement that reads,
``Unless a sloping arrow will convey a clearer indication of the
direction to be followed, the directional arrows should be horizontal
or vertical.''
104. In Section 2D.36 Distance Signs (D2 Series), the FHWA changes
the title to add sign number designations. The FHWA also changes the
section text to clarify which signs are applicable to the material in
the section, and adds the D2-3 (three destination distance sign), to
reflect all the signs included in the series.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a recommendation in the first
GUIDANCE statement that the distance shown on the sign be the distance
to the center of the central business district, or to the point where
the major north/south and east/west routes serving the city intersect,
or to some point near the center of the city. While two commenters
representing the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported this
change, commenters from the Illinois and Kansas DOTs opposed the
wording. The Kansas DOT suggested that the distance on the sign should
be to a point where the city limits either cross or abut the route. The
FHWA disagrees because many cities have city limits that now encompass
large geographic areas or the entire county, and using the city limit
as a basis for distance would give misleading information to the
driver. The Illinois DOT suggested that the distance be determined on a
community-by-community basis, and that the layout of the community be
considered in relation to the highway being signed. The FHWA agrees
with this suggestion and revises the GUIDANCE accordingly because the
FHWA believes it provides the flexibility to determine distances that
will be better understood and accepted by road users.
105. In Section 2D.38 Street Name Sign (D3-1), the FHWA changes the
title to reflect the appropriate sign designation. In the first
GUIDANCE statement the FHWA adds a recommendation that on multi-lane
streets with speed limits of 60 km/h (40 mph) or more the minimum
letter size should be 200 mm (8 in). Larger letter sizes are needed to
improve sign legibility and safety for older road users. In this same
GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA deletes the recommendation that larger
letter heights be used for Street Name signs mounted overhead because
more specific guidance is added elsewhere in this section. The FHWA
received comments from ATSSA and the Virginia DOT in support of these
changes, while the NCUTCD suggested even larger letter sizes for
lettering on multilane higher-speed streets.
The Oregon and Wisconsin DOTs, the Cities of Tucson, Arizona; and
Plano, Texas; and Pierce County, Washington, opposed the change. The
opposing commenters primarily indicated that this change creates a
financial impact on agencies, and that the larger letter heights will
create longer street name signs that cannot be mounted and maintained
using post top mounts.
[[Page 65523]]
Several commenters suggested that this be an OPTION, rather than
GUIDANCE. The FHWA disagrees. The use of larger letter sizes is not
precluded in the 2000 MUTCD, so it is already an option. Fewer agencies
will convert their street name signs to the larger letter sizes if the
GUIDANCE is reduced to an OPTION. The larger signs will be beneficial
to all road users on higher-speed multi-lane streets, especially older
road users. Also, many jurisdictions use post-top mountings of longer
street name signs with larger letters, taking advantage of
appropriately designed attachment hardware. Because this is GUIDANCE,
rather than a STANDARD, jurisdictions can be used in special
circumstances if determined necessary by the engineer. To mitigate the
financial impact on State or local governments, the FHWA establishes a
phase-in target compliance date of 15 years from the effective date of
this final rule for existing signs in good condition. The phase-in
target compliance date for symbol sizes and 6'' letter sizes for
lettering on ground-mounted Street Name signs on roads that are not
multi-lane streets with speed limits greater than 60 km/h (40 mph)
remains unchanged from that previously established, and is still
January 9, 2012.
The FHWA also adds a clarification to the first OPTION statement.
The OPTION statement in the 2000 MUTCD generally states that a symbol
or letter designation may be used to identify the government
jurisdiction. The FHWA revises the paragraph to provide more
specificity by stating that a symbol or letter designation may be used
on a Street Name sign to identify the governmental jurisdiction, area
of jurisdiction, or other government-approved institution. This change
provides additional flexibility for jurisdictions that install Street
Name signs, allowing them to identify areas of the city, neighborhoods,
and the like. The FHWA received no comments regarding this change, and
adopts this change.
The FHWA adds to the first STANDARD statement that if a symbol or
letter designation is used, the height and width of the symbol or
letter designation shall not exceed the letter height of the sign. This
provides for more uniform Street Name sign design and assures that the
name of the street will have more prominence on the sign than the
jurisdictional symbol or letter designation. The FHWA received one
comment from ATSSA supporting this change, and one editorial comment,
which the FHWA adopts in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed two changes in the second OPTION
statement. First, the FHWA proposed eliminating midblock locations from
the provision concerning locations where Street Name signs may be
installed because Street Name signs are not appropriate at non-
intersection locations. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD
and a local DOT opposed to this revision because there are locations
other than intersections where Street Name signs are appropriate. The
FHWA agrees and withdraws this proposal. Second, the FHWA eliminates
the provision allowing the installation of a supplemental Street Name
sign separately or below an intersection-related warning sign on
intersection approaches because this is an inappropriate use of the
sign. Instead, the Advance Street Name plaque, as described in Section
2C.49 Advance Street Name Plaque (W16-8, W16-8a), is appropriate for
this purpose. The FHWA received no comments regarding this change, and
adopts this change.
The FHWA adopts several changes to the fourth GUIDANCE statement.
First, the FHWA eliminates the recommendation on the color of the
supplemental Street Name sign when it is combined with a warning sign
because this is now termed an Advance Street Name plaque and is
discussed in Section 2C.49.
Second, the FHWA recommends that in urban and suburban areas,
especially where Advance Street Name signs are not used, overhead-
mounted street name signs be considered. If overhead Street Name signs
are used, the lettering should be at least 300 mm (12 in) high in
capital letters or 300 mm (12 in) upper-case letters with 225 mm (9 in)
lower-case letters. The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and the
U.S. Access Board in support of this change, and five from the NCUTCD
and State and local DOTs opposed to it. Those who opposed this change
felt that the signs would be too large, that the size of the sign may
not properly fit on traffic signal mast arms, that wind loading may
also be an issue on mast arms, and that financial impacts would be
high. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule because 300 mm (12
in) letters are superior to 250 mm (10 in) letters in terms of
legibility distance for older drivers as well as all drivers. Lettering
on overhead signs need to be larger than roadside mounted signs to
achieve adequate visibility. The 300 mm (12 in) size is a GUIDANCE, not
a STANDARD, so smaller letters can be used if determined necessary by
the engineer. To mitigate economic impacts, the FHWA establishes a 15-
year phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of this
final rule (rather than January 9, 2012, as proposed in the NPA) for
this paragraph, for existing signs in good condition.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement at the end of the
section referencing Section 2C.49 for information regarding the use of
street name signs as supplemental plaques for use with intersection-
related warning signs. The FHWA received one editorial comment, which
it incorporates in this final rule.
106. The FHWA adds a new section, numbered and titled ``Section
2D.39 Advance Street Name Signs (D3-2)'' that describes the uses,
placement, legend, and lettering sizes for Advance Street Name signs.
The FHWA received two comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a
traffic control device manufacturer supporting this new section, and
several editorial comments that the FHWA adopts in this final rule.
The GUIDANCE includes two separate paragraphs regarding placement
of Advance Street Name signs on arterial highways in rural areas and in
urban areas. The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD and the
Virginia, Minnesota, and Kansas DOTs opposing the language that Advance
Street Name signs be used in advance of all intersections with
exclusive turn lanes in rural areas. The Virginia DOT felt that this
could have a major cost impact. The Kansas DOT felt that Advance Street
Name signs could contribute to sign clutter along major arterials, and
suggested that their use in urban areas be based on an engineering
study. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the language, with minor
modifications, in this final rule. The FHWA strongly encourages the use
of these signs in rural and urban areas as specified in the MUTCD.
These signs, especially in rural areas, are one of the most important
things that can be done to improve older driver safety and convenience,
and they also benefit other drivers. To mitigate economic impacts, the
FHWA establishes a 15-year phase-in target compliance date from the
effective date of this final rule (rather than January 9, 2012, as
proposed in the NPA) for existing signs in good condition.
To respond to a comment by the NCUTCD suggesting that the paragraph
is redundant, the FHWA withdraws the second OPTION statement that was
proposed in the NPA because this information is contained in the first
OPTION statement in this final rule.
To preserve consistency of letter sizes, the FHWA withdraws two
paragraphs from the STANDARD statement that
[[Page 65524]]
were proposed in the NPA, and creates a new GUIDANCE that references
the letter sizes given in Section 2D.38 Street Name Sign (D3-1).
To clarify the intent and recognize common practices regarding the
use of directional arrows on these signs, the FHWA adds a new paragraph
to the last OPTION statement that provides information regarding the
placement of directional arrows.
The FHWA renumbers the following sections accordingly.
107. In Section 2D.45 General Service Signs (D9 Series) (numbered
Section 2D.44 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA adds Electric Vehicle
Charging to the list of services, one or more of which General Services
signs must carry, in accordance with the second STANDARD statement. The
FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support
of this change, and adopts this change. The FHWA also adds an
illustration of the Electric Vehicle Charging sign (D9-11b) to Figure
2D-11.
The FHWA changes the words ``CB Monitoring'' in the fourth OPTION
statement to ``Channel 9 Monitored'' and makes a corresponding change
in item C of the fourth GUIDANCE statement. These changes reflect
current practice and terminology. The FHWA received one comment in
support of these changes from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and adopts
these changes. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date
of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
governments.
Additionally, the FHWA removes references in the fourth OPTION
statement to the Road Conditions Dial 511 (D12-5) sign and adds new
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use and design
of the redesigned TRAVEL INFO CALL 511 (D12-5) sign. These changes
reflect the assignment of 511 as the nationwide traveler information
telephone number. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support
of these changes. The Virginia DOT suggested that the sign legend be
``TRAVEL INFO DIAL 511.'' The FHWA agrees to change ``TRAVELER'' to
``TRAVEL'' in this final rule, however does not agree to use the word
``DIAL'' because it is antiquated terminology. The NCUTCD and Minnesota
suggested that allowing the logo of a transportation agency or traveler
information service to be two times the letter height used in the
legend of the sign, as proposed in the GUIDANCE, was too large. The
FHWA disagrees because some large traveler information agency logos are
more recognizable than the sign text and this instant recognition is
valuable to the traveler.
108. In Section 2D.46 Reference Location Signs (D10-1 through 10-3)
and Intermediate Reference Location Signs (D10-1a through D10-3a)
(numbered and titled ``Section 2D.45 Reference Posts (D10-1 through
D10-3)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the FWHA changes the title and the term
``reference posts'' to ``reference location signs'' throughout the
section to correspond to terminology used throughout the MUTCD. The
FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, the Kentucky,
Wisconsin, and Kansas DOTs, Pierce County, Washington, and private
citizens regarding proposed changes to this section as well as to
Section 2E.54 Reference Location Signs and Enhanced Reference Location
Signs (D10-4, D10-5) in the NPA. The FHWA revises both of these
sections in this final rule. The following paragraphs describe this
final rule, specifically differences between this final rule and the
2000 MUTCD. Where applicable, notations are included to detail where
the language for this final rule reflects comments received.
The FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement at the beginning of the section
to identify two types of reference location signs and their sign
designations: Reference Location signs (D10-1, 2, 3) and Intermediate
Reference Location signs (D10-1a, 2a, 3a).
The FHWA also adds to the first OPTION statement a description of
Intermediate Reference Location signs.
In the first STANDARD statement, the FHWA adds a paragraph
indicating that when Intermediate Reference Location signs are used to
augment the reference location sign system, the Reference Location sign
at the even kilometer (mile) shall display a decimal point and zero
numeral. The FHWA also distinguishes between use on conventional roads
and freeways. The design of reference location signs used on
conventional roads is the same as currently listed in the STANDARD, and
the FHWA includes a minimum sign size of 250 mm (10 in) wide vertical
panel. If reference location signs are used on freeways or expressways,
the FHWA requires that the Reference Location signs contain 250 mm (10
in) white numerals on 300 mm (12 in) wide vertical green panels with a
white border. The FHWA received several comments from State DOTs
suggesting that blue panels be used, or at least included as an option.
Although a blue background has been used by some States in FHWA-
approved experimentations,\24\ the FHWA believes that the standard
green background of the 30-year old ``mile marker'' system should be
used. These signs fit into the category of guidance signs much more
than they do into the category of motorist information signs. The FHWA
does allow the use of blue backgrounds for the Enhanced Reference
Location signs, as described in Section 2E.54. The FHWA also includes
panel heights for one, two, and three digit signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Information on the various designs and colors used for
these experimentations is included in ``Location Marker Signs for
Incident Management,'' September 2001, a report by Didier M. Valdes,
et al., of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayag[uuml]ez, for the
Federal Highway Administration under contract number DTFH61-00-X-
00091-F. This document is available from the Department of Civil
Engineering and Surveying. University of Puerto Rico, Mayag[uuml]ez,
Puerto Rico, 00681-9041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also includes a paragraph in the first STANDARD indicating
how to determine reference location sign distance numbering for routes
within a State, with and without overlaps with other routes. The FHWA
also requires the installation of reference location signs on the right
side of the roadway, except as provided in the OPTION statement. One
commenter suggested that reference location markers be installed in the
median because they are less of a maintenance issue when placed in the
median. The FHWA disagrees because road users generally expect signs to
be mounted on the right side of the roadway.
The FHWA adds an OPTION statement indicating that Reference
Location signs may be installed in the median where conditions limit or
restrict installation on the right side of the roadway. The FHWA
further expands the OPTION, based on comments, to indicate that on two-
lane conventional roadways, Reference Location signs may be installed
on one side of the road only and that they may be installed back-to-
back. The OPTION also states that Reference Location signs may be
placed up to 9 m (30 ft) from the edge of the pavement.
The FHWA also revises the first STANDARD statement to clarify that
the minimum mounting height of reference location signs shall be 4 feet
to the bottom of the sign, to be consistent with the mounting height
for delineators.
To mitigate economic impacts, the FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-
in target compliance date from the effective date of this final rule
for the location and spacing of Reference Location Signs and design of
Intermediate Reference Location Signs, for existing signs in good
condition.
[[Page 65525]]
The FHWA removes the last OPTION statement from the 2000 MUTCD in
this final rule because the signs that the statement refer to are now
called Intermediate Reference Location signs, and are described in more
detail in Section 2E.54.
109. In Section 2D.48 General Information Signs (I Series)
(numbered Section 2D.47 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA removes all
references concerning Adopt-A-Highway signs from the MUTCD. Current
State and local practices pertaining to Adopt-A-Highway signs vary
widely and, in some cases, include the use of commercial logos for
indicating Adopt-A-Highway sponsors. The use of logos has raised deeper
policy issues regarding Federal and State laws concerning advertising
along the right-of-way, general commercialization of the right-of-way,
the safety of motorists and workers, and the ability to raise revenues
for activities such as litter removal. Recent discussions of the
signing criteria in the MUTCD, along with dialogue of several American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
subcommittees, have highlighted that these issues go beyond the current
standards included in the MUTCD. For example, the AASHTO Subcommittee
on Maintenance has argued that several States have existing contracts
that allow a commercial entity to exchange maintenance and litter
pickup services for signs acknowledging the commercial sponsors who pay
for the services. These contracts supplement scarce maintenance
resources for these States. The Subcommittee also noted that the use of
more experienced crews in such arrangements is safer than using
volunteers.
The AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, on the other hand,
has argued that these acknowledgements of the commercial sponsors is an
opening for other types of advertising (including electronic
advertising on overhead dynamic message signs along freeways and at
signalized intersections) and raise serious concerns over driver
distraction, confusion, and crash potential and liability. At the
request of the Subcommittee on Maintenance, the AASHTO Standing
Committee on Highways has established a task force to consider
commercialization within the right-of-way, including, but not limited
to, signage for the Adopt-A-Highway program.
An FHWA policy memorandum dated November 9, 2001 \25\ indicated
that these signs are acknowledgement signs, not advertisements.
However, until the AASHTO study is completed, the FHWA removes all
references to Adopt-A-Highway signs in the MUTCD. The FHWA received two
comments from the NCUTCD and Caltrans in support of this position, and
two from ATSSA and the Connecticut DOT opposed to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Policy memorandum is available for downloading from the
following URL: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-memorandum_adopt-a-highway_110901.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding new OPTION, GUIDANCE, and
STANDARD statements regarding the use of signs to display safety or
transportation-related messages. These messages, such as ``SEAT BELTS
BUCKLED?'' and ``DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE,'' are in common and widespread
use in many jurisdictions and they provide valuable reminders to road
users of important laws. The additions to this section were proposed in
order to provide for consistency in application of these types of
messages on General Information signs and to reduce the possibility of
such signs being misused. The FHWA received four comments from the
NCUTCD, Caltrans, the Minnesota DOT, and a private citizen opposed to
these new statements, stating that they do not regulate, warn or guide
motorists, and should not be encouraged. The FHWA disagrees with these
comments. However, because these statements are duplicative of
statements already contained in Chapter 2A, the FHWA withdraws these
statements from Section 2D.48 in this final rule.
Finally, the FHWA revises the third STANDARD statement replacing
the words ``jurisdiction logos'' with ``boundary'' to provide
additional flexibility to highway agencies to use different colors for
political boundary signs. The FHWA received no comments regarding this
change, and adopts this change.
110. In Section 2D.49 Signing of Named Highways (numbered Section
2D.48 in the 2000 MUTCD), in the first STANDARD statement the FHWA adds
additional requirements for installing memorial signs on the mainline.
These requirements prohibit the use of memorial names on the
directional guide signs, interference with necessary highway signing,
and placement which compromises the safety or efficiency of traffic
flow. The STANDARD statement is identical to the STANDARD statement in
Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing. The FHWA adds this for
consistency and to clarify the acceptable locations to install memorial
signs. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change, and adopts this change.
111. The FHWA adds a new section, numbered and titled ``Section
2D.52 National Scenic Byways Sign (D6-4, D6-4a).'' This section
includes SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD statements that describe the
National Scenic Byways program and the signs that may be placed on
roads designated as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads by the
U.S. Secretary of Transportation. This new section provides for
uniformity of design and application of markers on designated National
Scenic Byways. The FHWA received three comments in support of the new
section and the D6-4 signs. The FHWA incorporates several suggested
clarifications to the proposed language in this final rule, including
revising the SUPPORT statement to remove unnecessary information. In
addition, the FHWA includes the proper color illustration of the D6-4
and D6-4a signs, which features a blue flag and border, red text, and
white background. The black and white version was inadvertently
published in the NPA. The FHWA also adds an illustration of a half-size
D6-4 sign in response to comments.
112. In Section 2E.01 Scope of Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign
Standards, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT to clarify that guide signs for
freeways and expressways are primarily identified by sign name and not
necessarily by a standard sign number. The FHWA incorporates this
additional minor editorial information in this final rule to clarify
the intent of the section.
113. In Section 2E.10 Number of Signs at an Overhead Installation
and Sign Spreading, the FHWA expands the title and relocates the
SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements related to sign spreading from Section
2E.11 Pull-Through Signs to this section because they are more
appropriately associated with sign location installation. The FHWA
received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
supporting this change, and adopts this change.
114. In Section 2E.11 Pull-Through Signs, the FHWA shortens the
title to reflect the relocation of the SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements
that deal with ``sign spreading'' to Section 2E.10 Number of Signs at
an Overhead Installation and Sign Spreading.
In the first sentence in the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA replaces
the words ``only when'' with ``where'' to broaden the use of Pull-
Through signs. The FHWA adopts this change to recognize that Pull-
Through signs can be beneficial in congested traffic for
[[Page 65526]]
road users, especially older drivers, at many locations. The FHWA also
recommends that Pull-Through signs with down arrows be used where
alignment of the through lanes is curved and the exit direction is
straight ahead, where the number of through lanes is not readily
evident, and at multi-lane exits where there is a reduction in the
number of through lanes. The FHWA received three comments from the
NCUTCD, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen supporting
the proposed changes to the text and one comment from a private citizen
opposed to it. The opposing commenter suggested the wording be revised
to clarify that Pull-Through signs be used where there is a reduction
in the number of through lanes because it is not appropriate to
recommend Pull-Through signs at all multi-lane exits. The FHWA agrees
and modifies the text to clarify the use of Pull-Through signs with
down arrows at multi-lane exits where there is a reduction in the
number of through lanes.
115. In Section 2E.13 Size and Style of Letters and Signs, in Table
2E-3, the FHWA adds dimensions for the ``Action Message Word'' row and
adds a row with dimensions for the sizes of ``Numerals and Letter'' for
Gore signs. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD in support of
the changes to this table. Based on an editorial comment, the FHWA
revises the dimensions for the Action Message Word under ``category a''
for major interchanges to make this entry consistent with all of the
other entries on this table.
In Table 2E-4, under item H, Rest Area and Scenic Area Signs, the
FHWA changes the values for Distance Fraction to 250 mm (10 in), and
the values for Distance Word to 300 mm (12 in) to correct an error in
the 2000 MUTCD. A commenter from the Oregon DOT noted this inadvertent
transposition of values and the FHWA agrees with this correction.
116. In Section 2E.19 Diagrammatic Signs, the FHWA proposed in the
NPA to add to item A of the first STANDARD statement the option of
showing each individual lane arrangement, based on research related to
the needs of older road users.\26\ The FHWA also proposed adding a
second illustration to Figure 2E-3 Diagrammatic Sign for a Single-Lane
Left Exit to show two diagrammatic arrows instead of just one. The FHWA
received comments from the NCUTCD, the Kansas DOT, and a private
citizen opposing the new sign design, stating that the size of the sign
would be increased, the message difficult to read, and that additional
guidance should be provided so that readers know how to design the
signs. The FHWA agrees that additional research and study is needed to
refine the design of the individual lane arrangement style of the
diagrammatic sign. Therefore, the FHWA withdraws this proposal to
include the option of showing each individual lane arrangement, as well
as the proposal to add an illustration within Figure 2E-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Information about this research is summarized on pages 190
and 191 of the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA
Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for
purchase from The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000, or at their Web site at
the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA adopts additional editorial changes to improve the graphic
representations in Figures 2E-3 through 2E-7 to be consistent with the
text.
117. In Section 2E.23 Lateral Offset (titled ``Lateral Clearance''
in the 2000 MUTCD and the NPA), the FHWA changes the title to be
consistent with changes in terminology as discussed in Section 2A.19
Lateral Offset.
118. In Section 2E.28 Interchange Exit Numbering, the FHWA revises
the first STANDARD statement to require that a space be included
between the suffix letter and the exit number on an exit number plaque
for multi-exit interchanges. The FHWA received one comment from
Caltrans opposed to this change, suggesting that the FHWA change this
to a GUIDANCE because total width is an issue on signs, especially in
retrofitting signs. The FHWA disagrees and adopts this change because
the space between the exit number and suffix letter is important for
adequate legibility. The FHWA also adds to this STANDARD that exit
numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the
directions of the cross route. This sentence is moved from Section
2E.42 Cloverleaf Interchange because it is more appropriate in this
section.
The FHWA relocates the second OPTION statement (of the 2000 MUTCD)
to the first GUIDANCE statement. Because road users might not expect a
left exit and have difficulty in maneuvering to the left, the FHWA
recommends that the word ``LEFT'' be added to the exit number plaque.
The FHWA received one comment from a private citizen in support of this
change, and six comments from the NCUTCD, and the Minnesota, Kansas,
and Wisconsin DOTs opposed to it. Most of the commenters in opposition
felt the addition of the word ``LEFT'' to the exit number plaque should
be an OPTION, rather than GUIDANCE. The FHWA disagrees and adopts this
change as a GUIDANCE because of numerous complaints of the difficulty
that road users have in knowing when an exit is on the left. Very few
road users know that when the exit plaque is installed on the top left
edge of the sign, it means the exit is on the left.
The FHWA also adds additional text that, for exits that are not
numbered (no exit plaque), a LEFT plaque should be added to the top
left edge of the sign for a left exit. The FHWA adopts this text to
address a comment from a private citizen suggesting that non-numbered
exits needed to be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the
way numbered left exits are signed, to provide for adequate safety at
these locations. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date
of 15 years from the effective date of this final rule for the new
GUIDANCE for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local governments.
The FHWA adds an OPTION statement following the first GUIDANCE
statement, stating that the portion of the exit number plaque
containing the word ``LEFT'' may have a black legend and border on a
yellow background. This OPTION statement mirrors other similar uses of
the black on yellow color pattern for signs and panels associated with
left exits in the MUTCD. The FHWA received three comments from the
NCUTCD, the Minnesota DOT, and a private citizen opposed to this new
statement, but these commenters provided no reasoning for their
opposition. The FHWA adopts the OPTION in this final rule because it is
consistent with the EXIT ONLY and LEFT EXIT color scheme, it further
increases conspicuity of the infrequent left exit, and it is an
optional treatment that jurisdictions may use but is not required.
Additionally, the FHWA removes the EXIT 13 plaque from Figure 2E-3
to reflect the changes in Section 2E.28. The FHWA makes additional
editorial modifications to the figures to correspond with the text and
correct minor errors.
119. In Section 2E.30 Advance Guide Signs, the FHWA modifies the
first GUIDANCE statement to provide necessary clarification for
placement of advance guide signs. This change responds to a comment
from Caltrans stating that clarification on advance sign placement is
necessary to address situations where it is not practical to use three
Advance Guide signs because of very close spacing between interchanges.
This minor change does not add any new requirements and
[[Page 65527]]
provides additional flexibility to jurisdictions to address unique
situations.
In the STANDARD, the FHWA removes the requirement to use the
specific distance message for the 2 km (1 mi) and 4 km (2 mi) Advance
Guide signs, to respond to a question from Caltrans as to why the 1 km
(0.5 mile) sign was not included. All Advance Guide signs shall contain
the appropriate distance message.
120. In Section 2E.34 Exit Gore Signs, the FHWA revises the
STANDARD statement so that it is worded in a manner consistent with the
rest of the MUTCD. The STANDARD statement in this final rule includes a
definition of ``gore'' and indicates that the Exit Gore sign shall be
located in the gore.
The FHWA adds an OPTION statement to allow mounting a panel
indicating the advisory speed the for the ramp below the Exit sign, to
supplement and not replace the exit or ramp advisory speed warning sign
where extra emphasis of an especially low advisory ramp speed is
needed. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD in support of the
new OPTION statement as proposed in the NPA, one comment from Caltrans
requesting additional information, and two comments from Minnesota and
Kansas DOTs opposed to the change, stating that more information was
needed. The FHWA adopts the new OPTION statement with additional
language to clarify the usage of the advisory speed panel and to
emphasize that the supplemental advisory speed panel is not intended to
replace the exit or ramp speed warning sign. This option provides
jurisdictions additional flexibility for reminding road users of the
recommended speed for an especially low-speed exit ramp.
121. In Section 2E.36 Distance Signs, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT
statement after the first STANDARD statement that the minimum size of
route shields identifying a significant destination point appear in
Tables 2E-1 through 2E-4. The FHWA received a comment from Caltrans
that route shields are more commonly used on Distance Signs than text
identification of route numbers. The FHWA agrees with this comment and
believes that route shields are more quickly identifiable by road users
than words. Accordingly, the FHWA revises Figure 2E-22 to show a U.S.
38 route shield rather than a text identification of the route, and
adds an OPTION that the text identification of a route may be shown
instead of a route shield.
122. In Section 2E.42 Cloverleaf Interchange, the FHWA relocates
the last sentence of the STANDARD statement regarding exit numbers to
Section 2E.28 Interchange Exit Numbering because that section deals
with overall interchange exit numbering, and the statement is
applicable to all interchanges, not just cloverleaf interchanges.
Although this change was not included in the NPA, the FHWA includes
this minor editorial change in this final rule to clarify the intent
based on a comment from Caltrans questioning whether the information
regarding exit numbers was applicable only to cloverleaf interchanges.
The FHWA also changes the OPTION to a second GUIDANCE statement to be
consistent with similar GUIDANCE in Section 2E.44 Partial Cloverleaf
Interchange.
123. In Section 2E.43 Cloverleaf Interchange with Collector-
Distributor Roadways, the FHWA adds a new Figure 2E-29 and a SUPPORT
statement referencing Figure 2E-29 for examples of guide signs for full
cloverleaf interchanges with collector-distributor roadways. The FHWA
renumbers subsequent figures accordingly. A figure very similar to new
Figure 2E-29 was in the 1988 MUTCD, but was inadvertently left out of
the 2000 MUTCD. Several commenters pointed out this error and the FHWA
corrects it in this final rule.
124. In Section 2E.49 Signing of Approaches and Connecting
Roadways, the FHWA removes the entire text of the section (from the
2000 MUTCD) and adds new SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and OPTION
statements, as well as five new figures (Figures 2E-34 through 2E-38).
The new statements address sign sequences and sign design for
conventional roads with one lane and multi-lane traffic approaching an
interchange. The new statements also clarify the use of signs for
approaches and connecting roadways in order to better convey to road
users the ramp configuration and the maneuver that a road user would
have to make to get on the desired ramp or connecting roadway. The FHWA
adopts the statements proposed in the NPA, with editorial modifications
to the text and figures to respond to comments and maintain consistency
with changes in other sections. The FHWA also removes from Figures 2E-
28 through 2E-33 the depiction of signing on the roads approaching the
freeway and adds a note cross-referencing to the appropriate Figure 2E-
34 through 2E-38.
125. In Section 2E.51 General Service Signs, the FHWA changes from
three to two the number of meals per day for which a food establishment
should have a continuous operation to serve in item B.2 in the first
GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and
the Wisconsin DOT supporting this change, and three comments from the
Minnesota and Connecticut DOTs and a private citizen opposed to it. The
opposing commenters indicated that restaurants that serve less than
three meals a day are not adequately serving the motoring public, and
that the more stringent criteria should remain, in order to reduce sign
clutter and better serve motorists. The FHWA disagrees because many
restaurants of interest to travelers serve only two meals per day. In
addition, this is consistent with changes made in Section 2F.01
Eligibility regarding eligibility of businesses for Specific Service
Signs. The FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA.
126. In Section 2E.54, the FHWA changes the title from ``Reference
Posts'' to ``Reference Location Signs and Enhanced Reference Location
Signs (D10-4, D10-5)'' to reflect the new Enhanced Reference Location
sign and to be consistent with changes in other chapters of Part 2 of
the MUTCD. The FHWA received comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of these changes. Caltrans and a private citizen suggested
that the abbreviation of kilometer be corrected. The same private
citizen opposed the green color of the signs, stating that a blue
background is used by some States, and opposed the FHWA's proposal to
include the decimal point to indicate the fractional character of the
mile or kilometer in both this section and Section 2D.46 Reference
Location Signs (D10-1 through D10-3) and Intermediate Reference
Location Signs (D10-1a through D10-3a). The FHWA revises both of these
sections to address comments as appropriate, and to provide consistency
with Section 2D.46. The FHWA also adds Figure 2E-45 illustrating the
sign images. The FHWA adopts the decimal point for intermediate signs
because the FHWA believes that this will make it clearer to road users
that it denotes a portion of a mile or kilometer.
To mitigate economic impacts, the FHWA establishes a phase-in
target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this
final rule for the design of Enhanced Reference Location signs and
Intermediate Enhanced Reference Location Signs as specified in the
second STANDARD statement, for existing signs in good condition.
127. In Section 2E.56 Radio Information Signing, the FHWA adds a
SUPPORT statement at the end of the section with a cross-reference to
Section 2D.45 General Service Signs (D9 Series),
[[Page 65528]]
for information about the use and design of a TRAVEL INFO CALL 511
(D12-5) sign. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed the addition of OPTION and
STANDARD statements mirroring text in Section 2D.45, however, the FHWA
believes that a cross-reference to Section 2D.45 is sufficient in this
section.
128. In Section 2E.57 Carpool and Ridesharing Signing (titled
``Carpool Information Signing'' in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the
OPTION statement that Carpool Information signs may include Internet
addresses or telephone numbers within the legend. This exception to a
general prohibition against Internet addresses or telephone numbers
with more than four characters in Section 2A.06 Design of Signs,
reflects long-standing and common current practice and provides for
additional information to road users. The FHWA received two comments
from the Virginia DOT and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
this change, and one from the NCUTCD opposed to it, stating the
inconsistency with Section 2A.06. The FHWA adopts this change, as
proposed in the NPA. Section 2A.06 allows the use of telephone numbers
and Internet addresses when specifically authorized for certain signs
in the MUTCD. A specific exemption is intended to be authorized by
Section 2E.57 for carpool signs. However, to encourage use of shorter
numbers, the FHWA changes the illustration of the Carpool sign (D12-2)
in Figure 2D-12 to show ``*CAR'' rather than a 10-digit number.
Additionally, the FHWA changes the size of the maximum vertical
dimension of the logo or symbol in the STANDARD statement from 900 mm
(36 in) to 450 mm (18 in) to enhance the legibility of the primary
message. The FHWA received no comments regarding this change, and
adopts it in this final rule.
129. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
2E.59 Preferential Only Lane Signs.'' This section was titled ``High-
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Signs'' in the NPA. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed to include STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements
regarding the use and placement of signs for HOV lanes and facilities
and five figures illustrating examples of HOV signing applications. The
FHWA received several comments from Caltrans, the Minnesota DOT, and
private citizens regarding this new section, ranging from editorial
comments to opposition regarding specific statements, to a suggestion
not to include the new section or figures until the section is reviewed
in more detail by the Guide and Motorist Information Sign Technical
Committee of the NCUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter
suggesting that additional time is needed for review. There was ample
time for individuals to review and provide comments on this proposed
section. Also, prior to preparing the NPA, the FHWA considered
available information about the state of the practice of HOV signing.
The FHWA reviewed the docket comments and conducted a thorough revision
of the proposed language to address comments, remove inconsistencies,
and clarify the text as it relates to signing for specific situations
for barrier-separated, buffer-separated, concurrent flow, and direct
access ramps.
One of the private citizens suggested that the section provide
guidance that differentiates between an HOV lane physically ending and
an HOV lane designation ending with the lane continuing as a mixed-flow
lane. The FHWA agrees and clarifies the text and figures to provide
examples of these conditions and guidance for proper signing.
Caltrans suggested that additional information and examples be
provided regarding the use of changeable message signs (CMS), so that
States do not inadvertently implement CMS signs for static, rather than
dynamic signing purposes. The FHWA agrees and includes references to
new Sections 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs and 2B.28 Preferential
Only Lane Sign Application and Placement (numbered Sections 2B.48 and
2B.50 in the 2000 MUTCD) at the beginning of this section and repeats
pertinent information regarding the use of CMS signs in this section.
Caltrans also suggested that the proposed size of ground mounted/
barrier mounted HOV signs was too small to contain all of the necessary
information at the appropriate text size. The FHWA agrees and, in
concert with Section 2B.26, the FHWA modifies the size and layout of
the text that appears in the legend of the R3-10 through R3-14 signs to
be consistent with the other sections in Part 2 regarding size of text
associated with the type of facility.
The FHWA also received several comments from a private citizen
regarding the use of the diamond symbol on the HOV signs. In some
cases, the diamond was inadvertently shown incorrectly and/or
inappropriately on signs in the figures in the NPA. The FHWA clarifies
the use of the diamond symbol and the word ``HOV'' on signs to
correspond with the option that agencies have to use either the diamond
symbol or ``HOV'' that is included in Sections 2B.26 and 2B.28. The
FHWA clarifies the use of the diamond symbol and includes a diamond in
the top left corner of the legend of the guide sign for all guide signs
that appear in the gore areas for exits onto HOV lanes. These guide
signs in gore areas appear in the figures for this section to respond
to comments from a private citizen suggesting additional information on
the gore signs.
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years
from the effective date of this final rule for this new section, for
existing signs in good condition.
130. In Section 2F.01 Eligibility, the FHWA changes from three to
two the number of meals per day for which a food establishment should
have a continuous operation to serve in item B.2 of the fourth GUIDANCE
statement to be consistent with changes in Section 2E.51 General
Service Signs. (See also the discussion in Section 2E.51.)
131. In Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs, the FHWA
changes the second STANDARD statement to require that a logo panel on
signs for conventional roads and ramps not exceed 750 mm (30 in) in
width instead of 600 mm (24 in) to be consistent with the proportions
of panels for freeways and expressways. The FHWA received three
comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in
support of this change, and adopts this change.
132. In Section 2F.08 Double-Exit Interchanges, the FHWA adds to
the OPTION statement that at a double-exit interchange where there are
four logo panels displayed for one of the exits and one or two panels
to be displayed for the other exit, the logo panels may be arranged in
three rows with two panels per row, to make the layout of the sign more
logical. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and one from the Minnesota
DOT opposed to it. The opposing commenter suggested that the signing
concept would confuse motorists. The FHWA believes that the commenter
was confused as to what the sign would look like. Therefore the FHWA
adds an illustration in Figure 2F-1 and believes that there should be
no reason for drivers to be confused with this arrangement. The FHWA
adopts the change.
133. In Chapter 2G TOURIST-ORIENTED DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, the FHWA
changes ``Typical'' to ``Examples of'' in the titles of Figures 2G-1
and 2G-2 because the information shown is only an example of many
acceptable arrangements of signs. The FHWA
[[Page 65529]]
received no comments regarding these changes, and adopts these changes.
134. In Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, in the second
STANDARD statement, the FHWA adds language prohibiting the placement of
tourist-oriented directional signs on conventional roads in urban
areas. This clarifies and strengthens the current requirement that such
signs shall only be used on rural conventional roads.
Also, the FHWA relocates the current first paragraph of the
GUIDANCE statement to become a new second paragraph of the second
STANDARD statement. This change requires, rather than recommends, that
tourist-oriented directional signs incorporate information from and be
used in place of Specific Service signs where both types of signs are
needed at an intersection.
The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of these changes, and adopts these changes.
135. In Section 2G.07 State Policy, the FHWA changes the phrase
``State or Federal laws'' to ``State and Federal laws'' in the STANDARD
statement, to clarify that both types of laws must be heeded. The FHWA
received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of this change, and adopts this change.
136. In Section 2H.08 Placement of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Symbol Signs, the FHWA combines Figures 2H-5 and 2H-6
into a single figure titled ``Figure 2H-5 Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Symbol Signs'' illustrating all approved recreational and
cultural interest symbol signs. The previous titles of Figures 2H-5 and
2H-6 were inaccurate, and the FHWA received a comment from the Arizona
DOT recommending that all currently approved recreational and cultural
interest symbols be shown in the figures of Chapter 2H. The FHWA agrees
and adopts these minor changes for accuracy and consistency.
137. In Section 2H.09 Destination Guide Signs, the FHWA clarifies
in the second STANDARD statement that linear parkway-type highways that
primarily, rather than merely, function as arterial connectors, even if
they also provide access to recreational or cultural interest areas,
shall not qualify for the use of white-on-brown destination guide
signs. The FHWA adopts this change to improve uniformity of guide
signing on these important arterials. The FHWA received two comments
from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this
change, and adopts this change.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding illustrations of trapezoidal-
shaped directional guide signs to Figure 2H-2 to correspond with the
optional use of this shape for recreational or cultural interest area
directional signing as provided for in this section. The FHWA received
two comments from the NCUTCD and the Minnesota DOT opposed to adding
these illustrations, suggesting that the trapezoidal shape not be
included in the figure nor the section text. The trapezoidal shape was
not illustrated in the 2000 MUTCD because it is not widely used, due to
higher costs for sign blanks versus rectangular shaped blanks. However,
some agencies do still use the trapezoidal shape, so it is
inappropriate to remove this option from the text of the MUTCD without
allowing public comment. Therefore, the FHWA includes illustrations of
the trapezoidal shaped signs in Figure 2H-2 in this final rule with a
note identifying them as optional.
138. In Section 2I.03 EVACUATION ROUTE Sign (EM-1), in the first
STANDARD statement, the FHWA changes the design of the EVACUATION ROUTE
(EM-1) sign to a rectanglular sign with a blue circular symbol with a
directional arrow and the legend EVACUATION ROUTE. This change reserves
the circular shape sign exclusively for rail grade crossings and
enhances the conspicuity and legibility of the EVACUATION ROUTE sign.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and three comments from the
Florida and Oregon DOTs and a private citizen opposed to it. The
Florida DOT feels that the change would have a large statewide impact
to their hurricane evacuation signing program. The private citizen felt
that the sign shape should remain circular so that it will continue to
be recognized as a Civil Defense sign, and that changing the shape
creates unnecessary work and expense for agencies. The Oregon DOT
indicated their belief that the new design was too similar to the Trail
Marker sign and, as a result, motorists may not recognize the
Evacuation Route Markers with the appropriate amount of importance. The
FHWA notes that the Emergency Evacuation Route Marker has not been
changed; it has just been put onto a white rectangular background so
that the circular shape can be reserved for another use. The FHWA
adopts the change in this final rule. The FHWA revises the phase-in
target compliance date to 15 years from the effective date of this
final rule (the NPA proposed 10 years) for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a sentence in the first
STANDARD stating that the minimum size for this sign is 600 x 600 mm
(24 x 24 in) and the circular symbol diameter is 2.5 mm (1 in) smaller
than the width of the sign. The FHWA received one comment from the
Arizona DOT suggesting that increasing the minimum size of the EM-1
sign to be the same size as other standard route markers may distract
drivers from other route markers that are far more important for
everyday route guidance, and suggests that the 450 x 450 mm (18 x 18
in) size be left as an available option. The FHWA agrees and removes
this sentence from the STANDARD statement and creates a new table in
Chapter 2I listing sign sizes for the EM-1 through EM-7 signs for two
categories ``Conventional Roads'' and ``Minimum.'' For the EM-1 sign,
the FHWA includes 600 x 600 mm (24 x 24 in) for conventional roads and
450 x 450 mm (18 x 18 in) as the minimum.
In the second STANDARD statement, the FHWA changes the detail
regarding the colors to be used on the EVACUATION ROUTE (EM-1) sign to
correspond with the design changes required by the first STANDARD
statement. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that at least the arrow,
legend and corners of the sign shall be retroreflective. The FHWA
received two comments from ATSSA and a traffic control device
manufacturer opposed to this change, stating that the entire sign needs
to be retroreflective because, in the event of a need to evacuate,
power systems may not be available to externally illuminate these signs
and weather conditions may be extremely poor for visibility. The FHWA
agrees and requires that the entire sign be retroreflective.
The FHWA adds to the second OPTION statement that the legend on the
EVACUATION ROUTE sign may be modified to describe the type of
evacuation route, such as HURRICANE, to provide additional information
to road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments regarding this
change, and adopts this change.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to Figure 2I-1 illustrations of the
HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTE, AREA CLOSED, TRAFFIC CONTROL POINT, MEDICAL
CENTER, and HURRICANE SHELTER signs and illustrations of six new
directional signs for EMERGENCY SHELTER, FALLOUT SHELTER, CHEMICAL
SHELTER, WELFARE CENTER, REGISTRATION CENTER, and DECONTAMINATION
[[Page 65530]]
CENTER signs. The FHWA removes all size notations from the signs in
this figure, and lists the sign sizes under the ``Conventional Roads''
column in the new table in this chapter. The FHWA received two comments
from Caltrans and the Arizona DOT questioning why the EM-1 sign in the
illustration includes the word ``HURRICANE.'' Because this is probably
the most common type of evacuation route that is currently signed in
the U.S., the FHWA uses the hurricane sign in the figure as an example.
To address these comments in this final rule, the FHWA adds an asterisk
to the EM-1 sign and a note stating that HURRICANE is an example of one
type of evacuation route, and that the legend for other types may also
be used, or this line of text may be omitted.
139. In Section 2I.08 Emergency Aid Center Signs (EM-6 Series), the
FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement that the EM-6 series signs shall be
a horizontal rectangle and that the identifying word and the word
``CENTER'', the directional arrow, and the border shall be black on a
white background. Although this text was not included in the NPA, the
FHWA adopts this change in this final rule to clarify the colors of
these signs, consistent with longstanding requirements of the Standard
Highway Signs book for the design of these signs. This does not impose
any new requirements.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 3--Markings
140. In Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations, based on a comment
from the NCUTCD, the FHWA adds a list describing the hierarchy system
for longitudinal lines in order to clarify the intended functions of
various types of longitudinal lines, similar to text that was in
Section 3A.06 of the 2000 MUTCD. This text is most appropriately
located in Section 3A.01.
141. In Section 3A.03 Materials, the FHWA received one comment from
the Motorcycle Safety Foundation requesting that motorcycles be
considered when selecting pavement marking materials, especially
longitudinal markings, because traction is important to motorcyclists.
Because the FHWA did not propose changes to this section in the NPA,
and a change to add ``motorcycles'' could have a significant impact on
agencies, the FHWA declines incorporating any changes at this time.
This goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and would need to be
addressed in a future rulemaking.
142. In Section 3A.04 Colors, the FHWA revises the STANDARD
statement to clarify the use of black markings. Black markings can be
used in conjunction with any other color marking to add contrast to it.
The FHWA removes the existing reference to object markers because it is
not an appropriate reference. The FHWA received one comment from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting these changes to this section. A
traffic control device manufacturer suggested adding a paragraph to
denote that channelizing devices such as tubular markers and
longitudinal channelizers are often used to reinforce white
channelizing lines. The FHWA declines incorporating this comment
because this topic is adequately covered in Section 3F.02 Channelizing
Devices.
Additionally, the FHWA removes the section titled, ``Section 3A.05
Colors of Pavement Markings'' (as it appeared in the NPA) and moves
this information to Section 3A.04. The FHWA renumbers the remaining
sections accordingly.
In response to comments from the NCUTCD and the Wisconsin DOT, the
FHWA removes the reference to white and yellow raised pavement markers,
because raised pavement markers are distinguished from others by their
physical characteristics, rather than color. Raised pavement markers
are described in detail in Section 3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers.
The Ohio DOT and a traffic engineering consultant suggested adding
text in this section to acknowledge that blue raised pavement markers
may be used as fire hydrant locators. The FHWA agrees with this
addition in conjunction with the addition of blue raised pavement
markers to Section 3B.11, and adds a sentence to the STANDARD statement
in Section 3A.04.
143. In Section 3A.05 Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement
Markings (referred to as Section 3A.06 in the NPA), the FHWA received
two comments from the NCUTCD and the Ohio DOT opposed to proposed
changes to the STANDARD statement to remove the descriptions of the
functions of longitudinal pavement markings. The FHWA agrees with these
comments and moves these items to Section 3A.01 Functions and
Limitations. Additionally, the FHWA moves the last item of the
STANDARD, pertaining to lengths of broken and dotted lines, to Section
3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers and revises it to clarify that it
pertains to the spacing of raised pavement markers.
The FHWA deleted ``on rural highways'' from the GUIDANCE statement
to clarify that this guidance refers to all roadway types, not just
rural highways. A private citizen expressed concern that this revision
would imply that the pavement marking section would be applicable to
toll facilities as well. Due to the unique nature of toll plazas, the
citizen suggested that uniformity of toll plaza marking be addressed
before including toll facilities under the blanket of ``all roadway
types.'' While the FHWA realizes that toll plaza applications are not
specifically discussed in the MUTCD, the FHWA plans to study toll plaza
applications and defers that discussion to a future rulemaking. The
FHWA adopts the revision, as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA received one comment from the Washington DOT supporting
the FHWA's proposal to revise the OPTION statement to differentiate
between the dimensions for dotted lines used for line extensions and
lane drop/add markings and the proposed revisions to the dimensions for
the line segments and gaps to be consistent with other sections in Part
3. The Wisconsin DOT opposed this revision, stating that they are using
a higher gap ratio. The Ohio DOT felt that this should be a GUIDANCE
statement. Because changing this to a GUIDANCE may have cost impacts to
agencies, the FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA as an
OPTION, but the FHWA may consider changing it to a GUIDANCE in a future
rulemaking.
144. In Section 3B.01 Yellow Centerline Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA changes the title ``Yellow Centerline and Left Edge
Line Pavement Markings and Warrants'' to ``Yellow Centerline Pavement
Markings and Warrants.'' The FHWA also moves the fourth STANDARD
statement of Section 3B.01 to Section 3B.06 Edge Line Pavement Markings
because edge lines are appropriately covered in Section 3B.06. The FHWA
received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
these changes, and the FHWA adopts these changes.
A traffic engineering consultant suggested that the term ``traffic
lane'' be clarified to specify whether parking lanes and bicycle lanes
were included. The FHWA agrees with this suggestion, and replaces the
phrase ``traffic lane'' with ``lanes for moving motor vehicle traffic''
where appropriate in this section. The FHWA received a comment from a
private citizen in Newton, Massachusetts stating that it is common
practice in the northeast to paint a single yellow centerline stripe on
narrow or low-volumes streets. The commenter suggests additional
language explaining the use of single yellow centerlines be added to
this section to account for the proposed changes to remove the
descriptions of longitudinal
[[Page 65531]]
lines from Section 3A.05 Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement
Markings. As a result of this and other comments received to the
proposed change in Section 3A.05, the FHWA moves the descriptions of
line types to Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations in this final
rule. Accordingly, the FHWA believes that the meaning of solid
centerlines will be clear. Adding additional information regarding
single yellow centerlines requires additional research in the future
and goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
145. In Section 3B.02 No Passing Zone Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA revises the second STANDARD statement to clarify
that no-passing zone markings on approaches to highway-rail grade
crossings shall conform with Section 8B.20 Pavement Markings, and
eliminates the requirement that no passing zone markings be used at
other appropriate locations, to be consistent with Part 8 Traffic
Controls for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, and eliminate overlap with
more specific requirements for no passing zone markings elsewhere in
Section 3B.02. One commenter from Pierce County, Washington, suggested
clarification in this section, as well as in Part 8, that No Passing
Zone striping is not required on roadways that otherwise have no
centerline striping. The FHWA agrees with this comment and incorporates
this clarification into this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the third STANDARD statement to
clarify the dimensions of a no-passing buffer zone, and to eliminate
the buffer zone dimensions specific to areas where no passing zones are
required because of limited passing sight distance. There was one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change.
146. In Section 3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings,
the FHWA revises the text in the first paragraph of the first STANDARD
statement to substitute the phrase ``normal double'' for ``two double''
in the description of the pavement marking requirements for reversible
lanes. In the third paragraph of the first STANDARD statement, the FHWA
clarifies that the pavement marking requirements for a two-way left
turn lane applies to such lanes that are never operated as a reversible
lane. These changes improve the clarity of the requirements and provide
consistency with requirements elsewhere in Chapters 3A and 3B. There
was one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of these
changes.
The FHWA received comments from two traffic engineering consultants
regarding Figure 3B-7, Example of Two-Way Left-Turn Marking
Applications. One commenter suggested that the left turn arrow at the
nose of the left turn bay at the major street be required, rather than
optional. The FHWA believes that a possible upgrade from OPTION or
SUPPORT to GUIDANCE is a significant change and would require
discussion and comment in a future rulemaking. The commenter did not
present sufficient justification for this requirement therefore the
FHWA declines incorporating this comment. A traffic engineering
consultant suggested that the FHWA establish a phase-in target
compliance date for the spacing of two-way left turn lane pavement
markings, which was changed in the 2000 MUTCD. The FHWA agrees and
establishes a five-year phase-in target compliance date from the
effective date of this final rule for markings in good condition.
147. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of the proposal to change the title of Section
3B.04 from ``Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants'' to ``White Lane
Line Pavement Markings and Warrants,'' and to move the fourth STANDARD
statement of Section 3B.04 to Section 3B.06 Edge Line Pavement
Markings, because edge lines are appropriately covered in Section
3B.06. The FHWA adopts these changes.
148. In Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings,
the FHWA changes the gap length for lane drop markings from 3.6 m (12
ft) gaps to 2.7 m (9 ft) gaps in the third OPTION statement to be
consistent with the ratio of other marking gaps. While the City of
Tucson, Arizona, supported this change, the Wisconsin DOT opposed this
revision because they are using a higher gap ratio. The FHWA changed
the gap spacing in the final rule for the 2000 MUTCD, however there
were inconsistencies between the text in Section 3B.05 and Figure 3B-10
of the 2000 MUTCD. The intent of the proposed change was merely to
correct this inconsistency, and therefore the FHWA adopts the wording
as proposed in the NPA.
149. In Section 3B.06 Edge Line Pavement Markings, the FHWA adds to
the STANDARD statement text pertaining to left and right edge lines
that is being moved from Sections 3B.01 Yellow Centerline Pavement
Markings and Warrants and 3B.04 White Lane Line Pavement Markings and
Warrants. These changes result in all edge line pavement marking
information being contained within one section. ATSSA opposed the
reference to ``normal'' lines in these two paragraphs, because
``normal'' lines are defined in Section 3A.05 Widths and Patterns of
Longitudinal Pavement Markings as 4 inches to 6 inches in width. ATSSA
suggests that FHWA require 6-inch lines on all Federal-aid projects,
based on a recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute \27\ that
29 States are using 6-inch or wider longitudinal lines on the roadway
in at least some applications. However, this study did not indicate
that 6-inch lines would improve safety or have better visibility than
4-inch lines. Four-inch lines are adequate. This is a topic for further
study and possibly a future rulemaking. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts
the changes to this section as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``The Use of Wider Longitudinal Pavement Markings,'' Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) Research Report 0024-1, Timothy J.
Gates and H. Gene Hawkins, 2002. This report is available at the
following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ted.tamu.edu/Documents/02-0024-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To respond to a suggestion from a traffic engineering consultant,
the FHWA changes the STANDARD statement to include major driveways in
the locations where edge line markings shall not be continued and to
include major driveways as locations where dotted edge lines extensions
may be used. The addition of ``major driveways'' will clarify the
intent of this section.
The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement, which states that wide
solid edge line markings may be used for greater emphasis. Wide edge
lines can sometimes be useful in reducing run-off-the-road crashes at
curves and this option will provide additional flexibility for
jurisdictions to use these markings where needed.
Additionally, in the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA clarifies that
edge line markings should not be broken for minor driveways, to be
consistent with other areas of the MUTCD.
The FHWA received a comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona,
supporting the changes to this section.
150. In Section 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or
Interchanges, the FHWA received two comments from the Wisconsin DOT and
a traffic engineering consultant regarding the proposed addition to the
GUIDANCE statement on the placement and dimensions of pavement markings
that are continued through intersections and interchanges. The traffic
engineering consultant opposed the proposal that edge lines not be
extended into or continued through intersections or
[[Page 65532]]
interchanges. Accordingly, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement after the
STANDARD statement to indicate that a normal line may be used to extend
a wide line through an intersection. In addition, the FHWA adds an
OPTION statement after the first GUIDANCE to clarify that dotted
extensions of edge lines may be used as line extensions. The FHWA
received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
supporting these changes.
The FHWA clarifies the first paragraph of the second GUIDANCE
statement by including ``major driveways'' to be consistent with other
changes made in this chapter.
151. In Figure 3B-11, Examples of Extensions through Intersections
or Interchanges, the FHWA deletes ``Interchanges'' from the title,
because this figure does not include interchanges, and makes other
modifications to the graphic and legend for clarity.
152. In Figure 3B-12, Examples of Lane Reduction Markings, the FHWA
adds a graphic ``c'', which was contained in the 2000 MUTCD and
incorporates modifications in the graphic to be consistent with changes
in the MUTCD in order to address two comments; one from the NCUTCD and
the other from the Wisconsin DOT suggesting that graphic ``c'' be
added.
153. In Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions, the FHWA
revises the first STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements to change
``diagonal'' to ``tapered'' where it refers to the line type. This
change is as a result of the decision made by the FHWA in Official
Interpretation 3-156 \28\ to correct an error in word usage
and clarify the text. The FHWA received no comments regarding this
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ A copy of the FHWA's Official interpretation 3-156
is available for downloading from the American Traffic Safety
Services Association the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.atssa.com/pubinfo/downloads/10-16-02a.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
154. In Section 3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers, the FHWA changes the
first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD because this is a definition and
all definitions are standards. Because there were several comments from
the NCUTCD, Caltrans, and a traffic control device manufacturer opposed
to specifying 10 mm (0.4 in) as the height of the retroreflective
surface, the FHWA withdraws this proposal due to lack of research to
support a specific height of retroreflective surface and restores the
language to that used in the 2000 MUTCD, indicating that the height of
the device is at least 10 mm (0.4 in).
The FHWA adds an OPTION statement after the STANDARD statement,
which states that blue raised pavement markers may be used to mark the
positions of fire hydrants. This is common practice in many
jurisdictions.
The FHWA adds a second STANDARD statement describing the spacing
for raised pavement markers. This statement is moved from Section 3A.05
Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement Markings (Section 3A.06 in
the NPA).
The FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement at the end of this section
that references the Institute of Transportation Engineers 2001
``Traffic Control Devices Handbook'' \29\ for more information
regarding the spacing of raised pavement markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Traffic Control Devices Handbook,'' Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2001 is available for purchase from
the ITE Bookstore at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ite.org/bookstore/index.asp
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
155. In Section 3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle
Positioning Guides with Other Longitudinal Markings, the FHWA received
one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting the changes
and comments from the NCUTCD and the Ohio DOT suggesting clarifications
and reversion back to some of the 2000 MUTCD text. Accordingly, the
FHWA withdraws this proposal to indicate that raised pavement markers
as positioning guides should be spaced ``no greater than 3N'' and
retains the 2000 MUTCD language of the SUPPORT, indicating that typical
spacing for raised pavement markers as positioning guides is ``2N''.
The FHWA also revises the second OPTION statement to the language of
the 2000 MUTCD for consistency.
To address the Ohio DOT comment and provide agencies with
flexibility in raised pavement marker spacing, the FHWA adds an OPTION
statement to indicate that a spacing of 3N may be used for some
applications on freeways and expressways. A 1997 study by the Ohio
Department of Transportation \30\ found that 120 foot spacing (3N)
spacing is adequate in providing guidance to the wet-night driver on
freeways in some, but not all, circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``A Field Demonstration and Accident Study of 120-Foot
Spacing of Raised Pavement Markers on Ohio Freeways,'' January 2,
1997, by Whit W. Wardell and Mohammad M. Khan, is available from the
Ohio DOT Office of Traffic Engineering, 1980 West Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43223, telephone number (614) 466-3601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
156. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other
Markings, the FHWA's proposal to revise item B1 of the GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that raised pavement markers should not
supplement right edge line markings unless they are spaced closely
enough (no greater than 3 m (10 ft) apart) to approximate the
appearance of a solid line received several opposing comments from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Cincinnati, Ohio, the City of
Phoenix, Arizona, traffic engineering consultants, and private
citizens. In particular opposition, the bicycle community stated that
raised pavement markers cause steering difficulties for bicyclists. The
NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported the proposed changes,
however these commenters expressed that more information was needed on
the proper spacing of raised pavement markers. Accordingly, the FHWA
does not adopt the proposed revision to Item B1 of the GUIDANCE
statement. In the future, the FHWA may engage in rulemaking to address
the use of raised pavement markers on edge lines in locations where
bicycles are not permitted.
In item B.2 of the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA revises the
recommended spacing to be used between raised pavement markers
supplementing broken line markings from 2N to ``no greater than 3N''
because this is an acceptable spacing for most applications. There were
no comments regarding this change. (See also the discussion in Section
3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle Positioning Guides with Other
Longitudinal Markings regarding Ohio's testing of raised pavement
marker spacing.)
Additionally, in item B.5 of the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA
revises the recommended spacing to be used between raised pavement
markers that supplement edge line extensions through freeway
interchanges from N/2 to ``no greater than N'' because this is an
acceptable spacing for most applications. There were no comments
regarding this change.
157. In Section 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for
Pavement Markings, there were several comments from the Washington and
Ohio DOTs and the City of Plano, Texas, opposing the FHWA's proposal to
revise the required spacing between raised pavement markers, while the
NCUTCD supported the proposed change. The FHWA modifies the first
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify raised pavement marker
spacing when used to substitute for broken line markings. The FHWA adds
language to clarify spacing for 4 and 5 marker installations, as well
as to clarify placement of retroreflective or internally illuminated
markers. The FHWA
[[Page 65533]]
eliminates the proposed 10-year phase-in target compliance date,
because no new requirements are being imposed.
The FHWA proposed to revise the second STANDARD statement to change
the spacing of raised pavement markers substituting for dotted lines to
N/4, rather than N/8. The NCUTCD agreed, but the City of Plano, Texas,
opposed it, suggesting that the spacing be ``no greater than N/4.'' The
FHWA agrees with the City of Plano, because it would be consistent with
the first STANDARD statement, and makes this change in this final rule.
158. In Section 3B.15 Transverse Markings, in the first STANDARD
statement the FHWA adds ``yield lines'' and ``speed hump'' markings to
the list of transverse markings required to be white markings.
The FHWA changes the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement to
a STANDARD statement, which requires that pavement marking letters,
numerals, and symbols be installed in accordance with the Pavement
Markings chapter of ``Standard Highway Signs book'' \31\ to be
consistent with requirements elsewhere in the MUTCD and to correct an
oversight in the 2000 MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 2002 Edition is available
for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office Bookstore,
Superintendent of Documenets, Room 118, Federal Building, 1000
Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Internet Web site at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/.
It is also available on the FHWA's Web site at
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ ser-shs--millennium.htm is available for
inspection and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all
FHWA Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of the changes to Section 3B.15.
159. In Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines, in the second paragraph
of the first GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA clarifies that YIELD signs
are an exception to the recommendations on the use of stop lines to be
consistent with the intended use of yield lines. One traffic
engineering consultant suggested that Stop lines should be an OPTION,
because wide crosswalk lines work well. This goes beyond the scope of
this rulemaking and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
The NCUTCD, City of Tucson, Arizona, and The Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professionals agreed with changes to this section. The FHWA
adopts the text as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA modifies the OPTION statement to clarify that yield lines
may also be placed at locations where vehicles are to yield to
pedestrians in compliance with a YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (R1-5 or R1-
5a) sign to correspond with the addition of this new sign to Chapter 2B
Regulatory Signs. There were no comments on this change.
The FHWA revises and adds to the second GUIDANCE statement to
enhance pedestrian safety by indicating the recommended placement of
yield lines at unsignalized midblock crosswalks. One private citizen
suggested that yield lines extend across both directions of travel,
from sidewalk to sidewalk, on both sides of the crosswalk so that all
motorists are aware of the pedestrian crossing. The FHWA disagrees with
this comment because drivers are not approaching the crosswalk from the
left side of the centerline, therefore it would not be appropriate to
place a yield line all the way across the roadway on both sides of the
crosswalk.
The FHWA also adds a new paragraph to the second GUIDANCE statement
regarding placement of yield lines at midblock crosswalks. The Florida
DOT suggested that ``Yield to Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a)'' signs be
used in the vicinity of transit stops. The FHWA disagrees with this
comment because local agencies will likely take the location of transit
stops into consideration when determining where midblock crosswalks
will be installed.
The Oregon DOT requested that an OPTION be added to allow the use
of a stop line with ``Stop Here for Pedestrians'' signs at crosswalks
not controlled by a signal, stop sign, or yield sign. The FHWA
disagrees with this comment, because research has not been conducted to
determine if driver response and obedience to these signs would be
adequate. Research that led to the proposal to add the ``Yield Here to
Pedestrians'' sign and the yield line markings for midblock
uncontrolled pedestrian crossings only evaluated driver response to the
``Yield Here * * *'' sign, and did not evaluate a ``Stop Here * * *''
sign.\32\ The FHWA adopts the text as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``Advance Yield Markings Reduce Motor Vehicle/Pedestrian
Confllicts at Multilane Crosswalks with an Uncontrolled Approach,''
by Van Houten, Malenfant, and Malenfant, and McCusker, 2001. It is
available from the Center for Education and Research in Safety, at
the following URL: ``http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cers-safety.com/
advanceyieldmarkings.pdf.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds a new figure numbered and titled ``Figure 3B-15
Examples of Yield Lines at Unsignalized Midblock Crosswalks'' relating
to the new text, and renumbers all of the following figures in the
chapter accordingly.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement at the end of
the section to emphasize that drivers who yield too close to crosswalks
on multi-lane approaches place pedestrians at risk by blocking other
drivers' view of pedestrians. There were no comments regarding this
change.
160. In Section 3B.17 Crosswalk Markings, the FHWA received several
comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, the City of Plano, Texas, and
traffic engineering consultants regarding proposed changes in the
second GUIDANCE statement increasing the upper limit of the range for
spacing diagonal or longitudinal crosswalk marking lines from 300 to
600 mm (12 to 24 in) to 300 to 1500 mm (12 to 60 in) and specifying the
relationship between marking spacing and line width. The NCUTCD
supported the proposed change, and the other comments suggested
additional clarification. In response to these comments, the FHWA
revises the first GUIDANCE statement to clarify the width of crosswalks
(with transverse lines or with diagonal or longitudinal lines) and to
indicate that the width is measured as the gap between the inside of
the lines. The City of Plano, Texas, requested that options for
different crosswalk patterns be included in the MUTCD. This goes beyond
the scope of this rulemaking and will have to be addressed in a future
rulemaking.
161. In Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, the FHWA
changes the fourth paragraph of the first GUIDANCE statement to clarify
that the longitudinal space between word or symbol message markings
does not apply to the two opposing arrows of a two-way left-turn lane
marking. This change is in response to a comment from Caltrans
requesting clarification.
In addition, the FHWA modifies the third STANDARD statement to
allow the use of STOP markings at the ends of aisles in parking lots
even though there is no STOP sign. The NCUTCD opposed this additional
language, and requested that the language from the 2000 MUTCD be
retained until the broader issue of the MUTCD and private property is
addressed. The FHWA adopts the changes, as proposed in the NPA, because
the MUTCD is applicable to public and private parking lots in a growing
number of States, and the change is very important for parking lot
safety.
162. In Section 3B.21 Curb Markings, in the first paragraph of the
STANDARD statement, the FHWA clarifies that the requirement for signs
to be used with curb markings does not apply if the no parking zone is
controlled by statute or
[[Page 65534]]
local ordinance, to minimize unnecessary sign clutter. The NCUTCD and
the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported this change. In response to a
comment from a private citizen, the FHWA adds additional clarity by
inserting an OPTION statement indicating that curb markings without
signs or word markings may be used to convey a general prohibition of
parking within a specified distance of a stop sign, driveway, fire
hydrant, or crosswalk.
163. In Section 3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings,
the FHWA adds to the second STANDARD statement that more than one
symbol or word marking can be used to mark a preferential lane, that
the word message ``HOV'' is acceptable as a preferential marking
(relocating this from the OPTION statement), and that the ``T'' marking
shall be the light rail transit preferential lane symbol. Additionally,
in the same STANDARD statement, the FHWA requires that symbol or word
markings for each preferential lane use be installed if two or more
preferential lane uses are permitted in a single lane. These changes
provide uniformity for marking of multi-use preferential lanes and
provide a distinctive symbol for light rail transit. The NCUTCD and the
Florida DOT supported this change. Caltrans opposed the ``T'' marking,
stating that the ``T'' marking could be mistaken as the abbreviation
for other uses (such as taxis, trams, and trains). The FHWA adopts the
wording as proposed in the NPA. While possible future research may find
that there is a better marking, there are currently very few
applications of exclusive light rail transit lanes on street. If a
better symbol is indicated by research in the future the FHWA will
address this accordingly in a future rulemaking.
164. In Section 3B.24 Markings for Roundabout Intersections, the
FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement, which prohibits marking bicycle
lanes on roundabout intersections. Many comments, especially from the
bicycling community, agreed with this statement.
As a result of a comment from the New York DOT, the FHWA changes
Item C of the SUPPORT statement to clarify that the flare or widening
for a roundabout intersection approach should allow for proper
operation as needed. This is a critical characteristic of a modern
roundabout intersection. In addition, the FHWA adds a paragraph to the
last OPTION statement regarding the option of using yield lines in
roundabout intersections. The FHWA also adds yield lines to the figures
illustrating roundabout intersection markings to correct an omission
noted by a traffic engineering consultant, regarding yield lines in
roundabout intersections. These minor changes to the SUPPORT, OPTION,
and figures do not impose any new requirements and are considered
editorial in nature.
165. In Section 3C.01 Object Marker Design and Placement Height,
the FHWA adds to the text of the first STANDARD statement the sign
numbers for Type 1 markers for clarity. The FHWA also adds text to
reflect the FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-155(I) \33\ to
clarify the text for Type 2 markers. The FHWA inserts that the minimum
width of both the yellow and black stripes on a Type 3 striped marker
shall be 75 mm (3 in), to provide for uniformity of appearance of these
markers. The FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-in target compliance date
from the effective date of this final rule for existing markers in good
condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ A copy of the FHWA's Official Interpretation number 3-
155(I) is available from the American Traffic Safety Services
Association's web site at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.atssa.com/pubinfo/downloads/5-31-02b.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter suggested that there be a maximum width specified for
the stripes. The FHWA has no information regarding a reasonable maximum
width and therefore additional research is necessary. This issue may be
the subject of a future rulemaking.
166. In Section 3D.01 Delineators, the FHWA changes the STANDARD
statement indicating that delineators are considered guidance devices
rather than warning devices to a SUPPORT statement to be consistent
with other parts of the MUTCD. Two commenters from the NCUTCD and the
City of Tucson, Arizona, supported this change.
167. In Section 3D.04 Delineator Placement and Spacing, in response
to a comment from a traffic engineering consultant, the FHWA adds to
the first GUIDANCE statement a description of the three ways that
delineators can be mounted with guardrail. This text is needed for
consistency with the notes in Figure 3D-1 and to reflect common
practices.
168. In Section 3E.01 Colored Pavements, the FHWA makes several
changes to reflect that red colored pavement is no longer being
considered a traffic control device. The FHWA adds to the SUPPORT
statement that colored pavement located between the crosswalk lines is
not considered to be a traffic control device. The FHWA removes item A
of the STANDARD statement concerning when the color red is used, and
removes the second GUIDANCE statement concerning how the color red is
used. The FHWA received several comments regarding this change from the
NCUTCD, traffic control device manufacturers, and State DOTs, many in
favor and requesting that colored pavement for bicycle lanes also be
included. One commenter from the Arizona DOT expressed concern that the
use of colored pavement may be expanded and used inappropriately, in
the absence of further direction. The FHWA adopts the language as
proposed in the NPA. The use of colored pavement in bicycle lanes is
currently under experimentation and may be appropriate for discussion
in a future rulemaking.
Additionally, in the first GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA adopts text
that recommends that colors that degrade the contrast of white
crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic
control application, not be used for colored pavement located between
crosswalk lines. Four commenters, representing associations for the
blind, agreed with this statement.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 4--Highway Traffic Signals
169. In Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic
Signals, the FHWA removes the definition of ``Emergency Beacons'', to
correspond with FHWA's decision to remove the proposed section numbered
and titled in the NPA ``Section 4F.04 Emergency Beacon'' from this
final rule (see discussion of Section 4F.03 Operation of Emergency-
Vehicle Traffic Control Signals).
The FHWA received three comments from the Missouri DOT and the
cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Plano, Texas, opposed to the proposal to
revise the definition of ``Pedestrian Clearance Time'' to correspond to
proposed changes in the standards contained in Section 4E.10 Pedestrian
Intervals and Signal Phases. The commenters stated that defining
pedestrian clearance time as a standard eliminates the flexibility in
calculating clearance time. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters
because this definition must correspond to the text of Section 4E.10,
and in that section, the FHWA adopts the provision to calculate
pedestrian clearance time from curb to curb and not to allow clearance
time to be calculated to the middle of the farthest lane. (See
discussion of Section 4E.10.) The FHWA adopts the language as proposed
in the NPA.
The FHWA also received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of
Plano, Texas, requesting that the new definitions for ``Separate Left
Turn Signal Face,'' and ``Shared Left Turn Signal Face'' be deleted,
because these phrases are described in Section 4D.06
[[Page 65535]]
Application of Steady Signal Indications for Left Turns, and the
definitions are not completely consistent with practice in some areas
of the country. The FHWA disagrees with these comments and adopts the
language because different jurisdictions do have their own accepted
definitions for these terms that are not necessarily consistent with
the MUTCD, thus it is important to have the MUTCD definitions for these
terms stated at the beginning of this part to avoid misunderstanding.
170. In Section 4B.02 Basis of Installation or Removal of Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA received one comment from Caltrans regarding
the proposal to remove the maximum time limit of one year for signal
poles and cables to remain in place after removal of the signal heads
from item E of the OPTION statement. The commenter requested deleting
this OPTION and not allowing poles to remain in place after removal of
a signal, because the commenter believes that this practice could
result in a potential safety hazard and maintenance responsibilities.
The FHWA adopts the wording proposed in the NPA, because leaving the
poles in place is only an option, and agencies can remove poles if they
believe them to constitute a significant safety problem and/or if they
are reasonably certain that the signal would never be placed back into
service.
171. In Section 4B.03 Advantages and Disadvantages of Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD, local
DOTs, and a private citizen regarding the proposal to revise item B of
the second paragraph of the SUPPORT statement to suggest that signal
timing review and updating be conducted if needed and that every two
years is just one of several possible frequencies of review. The
private citizen suggested that the timeframe reference be lengthened to
``at least every five years'' and strengthened to a STANDARD in order
to encourage jurisdictions to maintain traffic signal timings. The
NCUTCD and the cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Plano, Texas, opposed a
reference to any specific time frame, and suggested that the timeframe
be determined by engineering judgment. The FHWA agrees with the concept
of these comments and revises the sentence to delete the timeframe
reference and to include engineering judgment and significant traffic
flow and/or land use changes in determining the frequency of the review
of signal timing.
172. In Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs and Studies, the
FHWA received one general comment from a traffic engineering consultant
that public transit interests be incorporated when determining the need
for installing a traffic control signal. The commenter suggested that
either a ninth warrant be added to recognize the special needs
associated with bus operations, or one of the current eight warrants be
modified to recognize public transit needs. This goes beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. Research has just started regarding this issue,\34\
and this topic may be suitable for a future rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Roadway
Crossings'' is a research study that is currently in progress. This
is a joint effort between the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) and the Transportation Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP). The study is numbered NCHRP Project 3-71 and TCRF D-08.
Information is available at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://rip.trb.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
173. In Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA received two comments from Caltrans and the
Minnesota DOT opposed to the recommendation in the GUIDANCE statement,
which states that a traffic control signal installed under projected
conditions should be studied again within one year after placing it in
stop-and-go operation to determine if it is still justified and, if it
is not justified, it should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or
removed. Both commenters stated that conducting these follow-up studies
would take additional manpower and could be politically sensitive.
Additionally, the Minnesota DOT suggested that Section 4B.02 Basis of
Installation or Removal of Traffic Control Signals already contains
information related to removing traffic control signals. The Minnesota
DOT also noted that the one-year requirement would conflict with
Warrant 8, which states that one can use projected volumes five years
out. The FHWA revises the language to add, ``Except for locations where
the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a
signal'' at the beginning of the second sentence, in order to correct
the stated conflict of the proposed language with Warrant 8. In terms
of the additional manpower that could potentially be required to
conduct studies, the FHWA believes that the number of follow-up studies
that would need to be conducted would be few and that, in many cases,
the jurisdiction could require the studies to be completed by the
developer's traffic engineer. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed
in the NPA with the above-mentioned modification to avoid conflict with
Warrant 8.
The FHWA received one comment from Caltrans opposed to the proposal
to allow the OPTION of using the left-turn volume on the major-street
as the minor-street volume and the corresponding single direction of
opposing traffic as the major street volume. The commenter felt that
this would allow signals to be installed at non-intersection locations.
The FHWA disagrees with the commenter because this is an OPTION
statement and need not be applied. There are many locations, such as
left turns onto freeway ramps, where the left turn versus opposing
through movement conflict creates the need for a signal. The FHWA
adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA received four comments from Caltrans, the Kansas DOT, the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and a traffic
engineering consultant in general agreement with adding item H to the
OPTION statement, which indicates that bicyclists may be counted as
either vehicles or pedestrians when studying the need for a traffic
control signal. To add clarity and consistency for how this is applied,
as suggested by the Kansas DOT, the FHWA revises this section and
includes this information as a new paragraph within the OPTION and adds
a new SUPPORT statement indicating that bicyclists are usually
considered as vehicles when they are riding in the street, and as
pedestrians when they are clearly using pedestrian facilities.
174. In Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, the
FHWA received several comments regarding the proposal to add a new
OPTION statement to explain the use of 56 percent traffic volumes under
certain conditions and modify Table 4C-1 to include additional criteria
for a combination of Conditions A and B as reflected in the text. Three
commenters, including the NCUTCD, the Ohio DOT, and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, agreed with the use of the 56 percent traffic volumes.
However, six commenters, including Caltrans, the Kansas and North
Carolina DOTs, the City of Kennewick, Washington, and a private
citizen, were opposed to the use of the 56 percent volumes, stating
that the reduced volume allows signals to be installed at locations
with low volumes. The FHWA believes that the use of the 56 percent
volumes has been successfully applied in the past by many jurisdictions
and should be allowed. Because it is an OPTION, jurisdictions have the
ability to decide whether or not this option will be used. The FHWA
adopts the 56 percent column in the table as proposed.
[[Page 65536]]
175. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, based on a
comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA removes the second sentence under
item A of the GUIDANCE statement. The NCUTCD suggested that it is not
necessary to describe the type of actuated operation that should be
used at a traffic control signal, if this warrant is met. The FHWA
agrees that the sentence is unnecessary and duplicative of the first
sentence and makes this minor editorial change to remove this sentence
in this final rule.
176. In Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, based on a
comment from the NCUTCD similar to its comment on Section 4C.05
suggesting that it is not necessary to describe the type of actuated
operation that should be used at a traffic control signal, if this
warrant is met, the FHWA removes the second sentence under item A of
the GUIDANCE statement.
177. In Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience, the FHWA
received several comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, the City of
Kennewick, Washington, and a private citizen regarding the proposed
OPTION explaining the use of 56 percent traffic volumes. The comments
were similar to those received regarding similar proposed wording in
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. The FHWA adopts
the 56 percent column in the table as discussed in Section 4C.02.
178. In Section 4D.01 General, the FHWA removes from the STANDARD
statement the requirement that a traffic control signal be operated in
either a steady (stop-and-go) mode or a flashing mode at all times.
That former requirement was in conflict with other STANDARD statements
in Chapter 4E that require flashing indications (flashing UPRAISED HAND
pedestrian signal indications) to be displayed during an otherwise
steady mode of traffic control signal operation. This change allows
practitioners the flexibility to use flashing indications along with
steady indications where appropriate in a signal sequence to improve
the efficiency or safety of the intersection. The FHWA received
comments from the NCUTCD and the U.S. Access Board supporting the
removal of this requirement, and the FHWA adopts it.
The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the Wisconsin
DOT opposed to the removal of ``within or'' from item B of the STANDARD
statement describing exceptions to locations where STOP signs shall not
be placed in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation. The
FHWA agrees with the commenters who suggested that these words need to
be retained to cover situations where minor driveways or extremely low-
volume roadways intersect within the controlled area. The FHWA
withdraws this proposal and retains the existing language in the 2000
MUTCD.
The FHWA adds a STANDARD statement prior to the GUIDANCE
reiterating text that also appears in Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal
Needs Studies, that restricts signalization of midblock crosswalks if
they are located within 90 m (300 ft) from the nearest traffic control
signal, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict
the progressive movement of traffic. The FHWA believes that repeating
the STANDARD found elsewhere in Part 4 will improve the chances of
readers properly applying this restriction. The FHWA adds this
statement based on a comment received from the NCUTCD recommending this
change.
The FHWA also received three comments regarding the GUIDANCE
statement that the location of signalized midblock crosswalks should be
at least 30 m (100 ft) away from adjacent stop or yield controlled
driveways or streets. The NCUTCD suggested revised wording to clarify
that midblock crosswalks should not be signalized if they are located
within 30 m (100 ft) from adjacent stop or yield controlled driveways
or streets. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and adopts this in
this final rule. One commenter from the City of Tucson, Arizona,
suggested that there are some situations where a signalized midblock
crossing would be less than 30 m (100 ft), and therefore the wording
should be changed to allow flexibility. The FHWA disagrees with the
commenter because the suggested wording will diminish the text to the
point where it is meaningless. Because this is a GUIDANCE, conditions
where there is a good engineering reason to deviate would still be able
to be accommodated without violating the MUTCD. A traffic engineering
consultant questioned the five-year phase-in target compliance date,
stating that it would be a burden for jurisdictions to address existing
locations where signalized midblock crosswalks did not meet the new
criteria within a five-year timeframe. Accordingly, the FHWA changes
the phase-in target compliance date from five years to 10 years from
the effective date of this final rule.
However, the FHWA clarifies that the December 31, 1996, compliance
date established in Official Ruling IV-8 (Sg-44) \35\ issued in 1987 is
not affected by this ``new'' 10-year phase-in target compliance date.
The 1987 ruling was that all ``half-signals'' (signalized pedestrian
crossings where only the major street and the pedestrian crosswalk are
provided with signal indications, and the minor street is stop-sign
controlled) located ``at'' intersections had to be either relocated to
a midblock location or modified to include signalization of the minor
street approaches by December 31, 1996. That date still applies to such
non-conforming signals that were in place as of the 1987 ruling. (Some
of the ``half-signals'' still have not been relocated or modified.) The
new 10-year date is intended to apply only to ``half-signals''
installed after 1987 that may not be immediately at the intersection
but are within 100 feet of a side street or driveway controlled by stop
or yield signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Official Ruling IV-8 (Sg.-44) is described on page OR-IV-4
of the 1988 edition of the MUTCD. This ruling was published in a
final rule in 1987 in the Federal Register at 52 FR 7126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
179. In Section 4D.03 Provisions for Pedestrians, the FHWA received
one comment from a traffic engineering consultant suggesting that
consideration of accessible pedestrian signals be an OPTION, rather
than GUIDANCE. The FHWA strongly disagrees because this GUIDANCE merely
recommends accessible pedestrian signals ``where appropriate'' and
refers to Sections 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and 4E.09
Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors. In those sections, there is
guidance on what conditions should prompt a study and what factors
should be considered, but the decision to use the device is optional.
The FHWA strongly supports provisions in the MUTCD that provide
accommodations for all pedestrians and road users. In addition, the
FHWA feels that by including this as a GUIDANCE, it will encourage more
traffic engineers to consider issues involving pedestrians with
disabilities. The FHWA adopts the changes to this section as proposed
in the NPA.
180. In Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications, the
FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, State DOTs, and a
private citizen regarding the proposal to remove the phrase ``unless
otherwise determined by law'' from the beginning of the STANDARD
statement. While the NCUTCD and a private citizen were in favor of the
change, the Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Oregon DOTs were opposed
to it. Those opposed were concerned that the removal of the
[[Page 65537]]
phrase would cause legal issues within their respective States. The
FHWA adopts the changes as specified in the NPA, because the intent of
this change is to enhance traffic safety by encouraging national
uniformity between States in the meaning of traffic signal indications.
The FHWA received several comments from Caltrans, the Minnesota
DOT, the U.S. Access Board and the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycle Professionals regarding the addition to item A.3 that the
pedestrian does not automatically have the right of way when starting
to cross at the time that a green signal is first shown. The commenters
generally opposed this addition, thinking that it was actually in
conflict with State laws that require vehicles to yield to pedestrians.
Some slower drivers who enter the intersection during the last moments
of the yellow change interval or red clearance interval may not clear
the intersection before the start of the next movement's green
interval. Pedestrians should have a legal requirement to let this
traffic exit the intersection before stepping into the path of an
oncoming vehicle. The FHWA adopts the text as proposed in the NPA,
which corresponds to recent changes in the Uniform Vehicle Code.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The ``Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance,''
2000 edition, is published by the National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO), 107 S. West Street,
110, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. It is available for
inspection at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, 400 7th
Street, SW., Room 3408, Washington, DC 20590, as prescribed at 49
CFR part 7. Purchase information is available on the Web site for
NCUTLO at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ncutlo.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA received one comment from the North Carolina DOT opposing
the addition to item C.2 that a turn on a RED ARROW signal indication
after stopping is allowed only when a sign is in place permitting the
turn on red arrow (to conform to the Uniform Vehicle Code) and the
corresponding removal of the existing OPTION statement at the end of
the section dealing with right-turn on a red arrow. The commenter felt
that the meaning and application of red signal indications should be
the same for red balls and arrows. FHWA disagrees because it believes
that national uniformity and traffic safety will be best served by the
text as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA adopts the proposed text.
181. In Section 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications, the
FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, State and local DOTs,
regarding additions and revisions to item B.4 of the STANDARD
statement. This item lists conditions under which a steady circular
yellow signal indication may be displayed to an approach from which
drivers are turning left. The commenters were particularly concerned
with signal displays that result in what is referred to as the ``yellow
trap.'' A ``yellow trap'' occurs when drivers in the opposing direction
are not simultaneously being shown a circular yellow indication. This
can lead to drivers who are attempting to make a permissive left turn
falsely thinking that the opposing traffic is coming to a stop. The
Minnesota and Oregon DOTs are opposed to allowing any situations in
which the ``yellow trap'' can occur. The FHWA recognizes that there are
some locations where no other signal sequence other than one that
includes a yellow trap is reasonably feasible due to unique
combinations of intersection geometrics and traffic volumes.
Accordingly, the FHWA revises item B.4(c) to account for such
conditions. Additionally, based on changes in Section 2C.39 Traffic
Signal Signs, the FHWA revises the legend of the W25-1 and W25-2 signs
item B.4(c) and (d) to clarify their message, and to be consistent with
Section 2C.39.
The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, the North
Carolina DOT, and the City of Kennewick, Washington, opposed to adding
to item F.2 of the STANDARD statement that would require the use of a
``U Turn Yield to Right Turn'' sign when U-turns on a green arrow
signal conflict with right turns on a green arrow signal. While the
North Carolina DOT agreed with the proposed change to advise U-turn
motorists to yield, the remaining commenters felt that drivers would
not understand the proposed wording on the sign and that additional
research is necessary. The FHWA concurs and, because there is no data
to support or refute those concerns, the FHWA changes this to an OPTION
statement, allowing the use of the sign but not requiring it. This
OPTION statement is located at the end of the section. The FHWA also
modifies Section 2B.45 Traffic Signal Signs accordingly.
182. In Section 4D.06 Application of Steady Signal Indications for
Left Turns, the FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD,
Caltrans, and the Oregon and Minnesota DOTs suggesting clarifying
language to item A in the STANDARD statement that provides for the use
of separate or shared left turn signal faces and separate signal face
sequences for ``permissive only'' mode of operation. The FHWA agrees
and includes additional clarifying language in this final rule.
183. In Section 4D.09 Unexpected Conflicts During Green or Yellow
Intervals, the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, regarding the revision to item A of the STANDARD
statement. These commenters were concerned about the proposal to add an
exception for the situation regarding U-turns as described in item F.2
of Section 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications to the
prohibition of displaying a steady GREEN ARROW or YELLOW ARROW signal
indication to vehicular movements that conflict with other vehicles
moving on a green or yellow signal indication. (See the discussion
regarding Section 4D.05) Accordingly, the FHWA revises item A to be
consistent with the changes in Section 4D.05 that change the text to an
OPTION.
184. In Section 4D.10 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals,
the FHWA received several comments from Caltrans, AAA, and a private
citizen proposing changes to how the yellow change interval and the red
clearance interval are calculated. These comments go beyond the scope
of this rulemaking, and would need to be addressed in a future
rulemaking.
185. In Section 4D.12 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control
Signals, the FHWA received two comments from the cities of Tucson,
Arizona, and Kennewick, Washington, in agreement and two comments from
Caltrans and the Wisconsin DOT opposed to revising the GUIDANCE
statement to eliminate the word ``maximum'' in describing the duration
of six seconds for a steady red clearance interval in the change from
red-red flashing mode to steady (stop and go) mode. Caltrans felt that
the time duration should not be fixed at a specific number of seconds
because of difficulties in timing the interval exactly. The FHWA
disagrees with the opposing comments because less than six seconds is
not enough time to recognize that the signal has stopped flashing, and
more than six seconds is too long, creating unnecessary congestion at
the intersection. Also, modern traffic signal control equipment
provides accurate digital timing of an interval such as this. The FHWA
adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
186. In Section 4D.15 Size, Number, and Location of Signal Faces by
Approach, the FHWA received two comments from AAA and Caltrans
suggesting stronger language to require the use of 300 mm (12 inch)
signal heads, rather than 200 mm (8 inch) signal heads in order to
improve visibility and safety. Because there were no changes to this
wording proposed in
[[Page 65538]]
the NPA, such a change is outside the scope of this rulemaking and
would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
The FHWA received eleven comments from the NCUTCD, State and local
DOTs and a private citizen regarding the proposal to increase the
maximum allowable distance for 300 mm (12 inch) far side signal heads
(without a supplemental near-side signal head) from the stop line to 55
m (180 ft) based on local engineering judgment. Eight commenters,
representing the North Carolina DOT, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Miami-Dade,
Sarasota, and Broward counties in Florida, the City of Boca Raton,
Florida, and a private citizen strongly supported the change. Three
commenters from the NCUTCD, the Minnesota DOT, and the City of Plano,
Texas, were opposed to it, stating concerns about older drivers, poor
weather conditions, and need for additional research data. The FHWA
disagrees with those opposed because experience has shown that 12 inch
signals are adequately visible from 180 feet away in most
circumstances, and this change will provide considerable cost savings
for State and local agencies. If an agency does not want to place
signal heads more than the previous 150-foot distance, they are not
required to do so. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
187. In Section 4D.18 Design, Illumination, and Color of Signal
Sections, the FHWA removes the GUIDANCE statement concerning the color
of signal housings because there is no consensus that yellow signal
housings are universally best in all of the various environments. In
actual practice, far fewer than 50 percent of the signal heads in the
United States are highway yellow. California, New York, and many other
very large jurisdictions require signal heads to be other colors, such
as green, black, gray, or brown. Some states require the front surfaces
of the housings to be black while painting the back surfaces of the
housing yellow. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, supporting the removal of this GUIDANCE. The FHWA adopts the
removal in the final rule.
188. In Section 4E.02 Meaning of Pedestrian Signal Head
Indications, the FHWA received several comments from the U.S. Access
Board and organizations representing the blind community opposed to the
revision of item A of the STANDARD statement to indicate that a
pedestrian does not automatically have the right of way when starting
to cross when a WALK signal is first shown. These comments were
identical to those received for Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular
Signal Indications suggesting that the change was in conflict with
State laws that require vehicles to yield to pedestrians. Some slower
drivers who enter the intersection during the last moments of the
yellow change interval or red clearance interval may not clear the
intersection before the start of the next movement's green interval.
Pedestrians should let this traffic exit the intersection before
stepping into the path of an oncoming vehicle. The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the proposed
change. The FHWA adopts the text as proposed in the NPA, which
corresponds with recent changes in the Uniform Vehicle Code.
189. In Section 4E.03 Application of Pedestrian Signal Heads, the
FHWA received one comment from Caltrans opposing the proposal to delete
item D of the STANDARD statement. The commenter cited potential safety
reasons for objecting to the change in this section. The FHWA agrees
and revises the statement to clarify that that pedestrian signal heads
are required at locations where engineering judgment determines that
multiphase signal indications would confuse pedestrians using a
crosswalk guided only by vehicular signal indications. The language in
the 2000 MUTCD implied that all multiphase signals needed pedestrian
signals, even in the absence of any pedestrian activity.
190. In Section 4E.04 Size, Design, and Illumination of Pedestrian
Signal Head Indications, the FHWA received several comments from
NCUTCD, organizations representing the blind community as well as State
and local DOTs regarding the proposal in the first paragraph of the
STANDARD statement that symbolized messages for pedestrian signal heads
are required to be solid and not allowing the use of ``outline style''
symbols. Five commenters representing NCUTCD and organizations
associated with the blind were in favor of the proposed language, while
four commenters representing the New York DOT, the cities of Kennewick,
Washington, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Tucson, Arizona, and a private
citizen opposed the language. Those opposed to the language expressed
concern that countdown style pedestrian signals would not be permitted,
because many of those that are currently available commercially are of
the outline style, and that new light emitting diode (LED) style
outline symbol pedestrian signal heads that have recently been
installed in cities such as Salt Lake City, Utah have been favorably
received. To address these comments, the FHWA revises the language to
state that all new pedestrian signal head installations shall consist
of solid symbolized messages and that existing pedestrian signal head
indications with lettered or outline style symbol messages may be
retained for the remainder of their useful service life.
The FHWA received several comments from representatives of the
blind community requesting the addition of a new statement indicating
that the intensity of LED pedestrian signal indications should respond
to ambient light. The concern is that during daytime conditions,
persons with low vision benefit from pedestrian signal indications
displayed at their maximum intensity, and at night signals at maximum
intensity create glare conditions for people with low vision, making it
difficult for them to see crosswalk lines and other features that aid
crossing. The addition of a statement regarding ambient light could
have potentially significant impacts on agencies and thus must be
addressed in a future rulemaking. This would require inclusion in a
future NPA for public review and comment. Accordingly, the FHWA
declines to address this comment at this time.
The FHWA adds a seventh paragraph to the STANDARD statement to
specify the flash rate for the flashing upraised hand pedestrian signal
head indication to be consistent with flash rates specified in other
sections of Part 4. There were no comments on this change and the FHWA
adopts this change.
Additionally, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement and a STANDARD
statement at the end of the section to allow and describe the use of an
animated eyes symbol on pedestrian signal heads. Three commenters from
the Kansas and Minnesota DOTs opposed these additions, stating that the
animated eyes might be confusing to pedestrians and questioning their
effectiveness. The FHWA disagrees with the comments because research
37, 38 has documented benefits to alerting pedestrians to
look both ways for approaching vehicles. Because use of these symbols
in an option, jurisdictions can decide not to use this device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Use of Animation in LED Pedestrian Signals to Improve
Pedestrian Safety, Ron VanHouten, et al., ITE Journal, February
1999. This issue of ITE Journal is available for purchase from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ite.org and
click on ``Bookstore''.
\38\ Use of Animated LED `Eyes' Pedestrian Signals to Improve
Pedestrian Safety, Florida Department of Transportation, January
2000. It is available at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www11.myflorida.com/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/research/led_eyes.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65539]]
191. In Section 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, there were
several comments from the Minnesota DOT and representatives of the
blind community regarding the proposed addition to the second paragraph
of the fourth GUIDANCE statement on how sound pressure levels of the
accessible walk signal tone should be measured. Based on those
comments, the FHWA revises the statement to indicate that the sound
pressure level should conform to the requirements of ISO 1996-1:1982
and ISO 1996-2:1987,\39\ rather than explicitly stating the method to
be used when measuring sound pressure levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ These standards are available from the International
Organization for Standardization web site at the following URL:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
192. The FHWA received several comments from NCUTCD, State and
local DOTs, representatives of the blind community and private citizens
regarding the proposal to add a new section numbered and titled
``Section 4E.07 Countdown Pedestrian Signals'' containing OPTION,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements on the design, use, and operation of
countdown pedestrian signals. Countdown pedestrian signals have been
shown by research and experimentation in a variety of cities, such as
San Jose, California,\40\ to be beneficial to pedestrians by providing
additional information to help pedestrians judge the time remaining to
cross the street. Uniformity in the design and operation of countdown
pedestrian signals is needed to minimize pedestrian confusion. Many
commenters, including the NCUTCD, the City of Tucson, Arizona, Lake
County, Illinois, and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals were in agreement with adding the new section, and the
NCUTCD had comments and suggestions regarding the specific wording.
Based on the comments received, the FHWA clarifies the OPTION statement
to indicate that the countdown display informs pedestrians of the
number of seconds remaining in the pedestrian change interval (rather
than the number of seconds remaining to cross the street, as proposed
in the NPA). Additionally, the FHWA clarifies the second STANDARD
statement to reflect that after the countdown displays zero, the
display shall remain dark until the beginning of the next countdown.
The FHWA also clarifies the third STANDARD statement to indicate that
countdown displays shall not be used during the walk interval nor
during the yellow change interval of a concurrent vehicular phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Pedestrian Countdown Signals: An Experimental Evaluation,
Volume 1, by Jan L. Botha, Aleksaner A. Zabyshy, and Jennifer E.
Day--San Jose State University, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, and by Ron L. Northhouse, Jaime O.
Rodriguez, and Tamara L. Nix--City of San Jose Department of
Transportation, May, 2002. A copy is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA clarifies the first GUIDANCE statement to reflect the way
that the countdown timing is controlled as compared to the timing of
the flashing DON'T WALK interval. Most countdown devices manufactured
today contain timers external to the signal controller and they
``learn'' how long the flashing DON'T WALK is and adjust themselves to
time out so that the zero will be reached at the end of the flashing
DON'T WALK. This creates a logistical problem for signalized midblock
crosswalks or exclusive ``scramble'' pedestrian phases. The countdown
timer of most existing devices will not be able to make the zero occur
four seconds prior to the end of flashing DON'T WALK, which is timed by
the controller. The solution for the midblock pedestrian signal
situation is to set the flashing DON'T WALK interval to be 4 seconds
less than the calculated required ``pedestrian crossing time'' and to
also include a 4 second ``red clearance'' interval for the controller
phase that times the pedestrian WALK--DON'T WALK. During the red
clearance interval, a steady DON'T WALK is displayed to the crosswalk
while vehicular traffic continues to have red signals. The pedestrian
clearance time is thus the sum of the flashing DON'T WALK time plus the
4 second red clearance. This method will produce a display for the
pedestrian that is identical to what he/she would see with a countdown
at a crosswalk that has concurrent vehicular movements. Accordingly,
the FHWA clarifies the GUIDANCE statement to read:
If used with a pedestrian signal head that does not have a
concurrent vehicular phase, the pedestrian change interval (flashing
UPRAISED HAND) should be set to be approximately four seconds less
than the required pedestrian crossing time (see Section 4E.10) and
an additional clearance interval (during which steady UPRAISED HAND
is displayed) should be provided prior to the start of the
conflicting vehicular phase. In this case, the countdown display of
the number of remaining seconds should be displayed only during the
display of the flashing UPRAISED HAND, should display zero at the
time when the flashing UPRAISED HAND changes to steady UPRAISED
HAND, and be dark during the additional clearance interval prior to
the conflicting vehicular phase.
The FHWA adopts this new Section 4E.07 with changes and renumbers
the remaining sections in Chapter 4E accordingly. To minimize any
impact on State or local governments, the FHWA establishes phase-in
target compliance dates of 10 years for the hardware and three years
for the operational requirements (sequence of display, timing, etc.)
for existing countdown pedestrian signals in good condition.
193. In Section 4E.08 Pedestrian Detectors, (numbered as Section
4E.07 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA removes from the last STANDARD
statement the sentence that instructional signs are not required if
special purpose pushbuttons are used. The current design of special
purpose pushbuttons does not require a sign to make users aware of
their intended purpose. Additionally, the FHWA adds to the third
GUIDANCE statement comparable text that the special purpose pushbuttons
do not need an instructional sign. One commenter from the City of
Tucson, Arizona, was in support of all proposed changes to the section.
The FHWA received several comments from the U.S. Access Board and
from organizations representing the blind community regarding the
proposal to add an OPTION statement at the end of the section to allow
the use of special pedestrian detectors to provide additional crossing
time for pedestrians with special needs. Those comments indicated that
an extended pushbutton press is the preferred method of calling for
extra pedestrian time. Based on the comments, the FHWA revises the
wording to state, ``At signalized locations with a demonstrated need
and subject to equipment capabilities, pedestrians with special needs
may be provided with additional crossing time by means of an extended
pushbutton press.''
194. In Section 4E.09 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors,
(numbered as Section 4E.08 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA changes the
SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement for consistency because other
definitions in the MUTCD are standards. Additionally, the FHWA
relocates the existing first STANDARD statement to become part of the
new first STANDARD statement at the beginning of the section. There
were no comments on these changes, and the FHWA adopts these changes.
The FHWA received several comments from organizations representing
the blind community opposed to the proposal to retitle Figure 4E-2 from
``Recommended Pushbutton Locations for Accessible Pedestrian Signals''
to ``Typical Locations for Accessible Pedestrian Signals,'' because
these locations for accessible pedestrian
[[Page 65540]]
signals are not common or typical at this point in time. The FHWA
agrees with these comments and withdraws this proposal. Because the
figure illustrates how to apply the GUIDANCE, the title of
``Recommended * * *'' is more accurate than ``Typical * * *'' Three
commenters from associations representing the blind community commented
that the FHWA's arrows symbolizing push buttons in Figure 4E-2 were
incorrectly revised in the NPA. The pushbuttons and arrows are shown
correctly on this figure in the NPA. They were shown incorrectly in the
2000 MUTCD. The FHWA adopts this change as shown in the NPA.
195. In Section 4E.10 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases,
(numbered as Section 4E.09 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA removes from
the first OPTION statement the desire to favor the length of an
opposing signal phase as a condition for using walk intervals as short
as 4 seconds. Three commenters representing associations for the blind
community agreed, and the FHWA adopts this revision.
The FHWA received over 15 comments from State and local DOTs, the
U.S. Access Board, and private citizens regarding the proposal to
increase the pedestrian clearance time so that it is sufficient to
allow the pedestrian to clear the full width of the traveled portion of
the roadway in the second GUIDANCE statement. Six commenters,
representing the U.S. Access Board and associations for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and the blind, were in agreement with the change.
Eight commenters, representing Caltrans, the North Carolina,
Oregon, and Missouri DOTs, the Cities of Campbell, California, and
Dallas, Texas, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the change,
stating cost of retiming, lack of need, increased cycle lengths, and
difficulty with signal progression as the basis for their opposition.
While the FHWA realizes that this is an issue for which there is
significant interest and diverging opinions, the FHWA adopts the
language as proposed in the NPA. Despite some potential impacts on
agencies, the FHWA believes that it is appropriate to better address
pedestrian timing needs and requiring calculation to the far side of
the traveled portion of the roadway is now appropriate for adequate
pedestrian safety. With the increases in the number of coordinated
signal systems, with platoons of vehicles potentially arriving at the
intersection at the start of the green indication, and with more
prevalent aggressive driving behavior, it is a significant safety
concern for pedestrians to be given only enough clearance time that
they are in the middle of a travel lane when the platoon arrives at the
start of green. This change will result in only a very small increase
in the pedestrian clearance time but will significantly enhance
pedestrian safety. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance
date of five years for this GUIDANCE, for existing traffic control
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
governments.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the first paragraph of the last
OPTION statement the option of containing the pedestrian clearance time
within the vehicular green and yellow change intervals. The North
Carolina DOT agreed with this change. The FHWA adopts this change as
proposed in the NPA. However in a directly related issue, the NCUTCD
commented that, in the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement,
revisions should be made to prohibit the flashing of the UPRAISED HAND
(symbolizing DON'T WALK) indication during the yellow change or red
clearance intervals of the concurrent vehicular phase. The NCUTCD
stated that this would give pedestrians approximately 4 to 5 seconds of
extra time to get to the curb or edge of traveled way prior to the
release of opposing traffic, similar to the red clearance interval to
which drivers have become accustomed. The FHWA disagrees with this
comment because to make the prohibition of flashing UPRAISED HAND
extending into the yellow interval apply to all locations without the
countdowns would require the opportunity for additional public notice
and comment in a future rulemaking action due to the potentially large
cost impacts to some jurisdictions that currently have all their
controllers set up to display flashing UPRAISED HAND through the yellow
interval. However, because of the need for consistency, safety, and
uniformity of operation of all countdown pedestrian signal displays,
the FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement in this section stating: ``If
countdown pedestrian signals are used, a steady UPRAISED HAND
(symbolizing DON'T WALK) signal indication shall be displayed during
the yellow change interval and any red clearance interval (prior to a
conflicting green being displayed.) (See Section 4E.07).'' This is for
consistency with requirements for countdown pedestrian signal displays
adopted in Section 4E.07.
196. In Section 4F.01 Applications of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA proposed adding to the OPTION statement the
choice of installing an Emergency Beacon instead of an emergency
vehicle traffic control signal. This corresponded to the proposed new
Section 4F.04 in the NPA that proposed adding Emergency Beacons as an
alternative to Emergency Vehicle Traffic Control Signals. Based on
comments on Section 4F.04, the FHWA is not adopting that section. (See
also the discussion of Section 4F.04). Therefore, the FHWA withdraws
the proposed addition to the OPTION statement in Section 4F.01.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the GUIDANCE statement to recommend
following the provisions of Chapter 4D Traffic Control Signal Features
not only if a numerical signal warrant is met, but also if a decision
is made to install a signal after an engineering study, for consistency
with Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs Study. There was one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change,
and the FHWA adopts this change.
197. In Section 4F.02 Design of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control
Signals, the FHWA revises the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that two
signal faces are required for each major street approach, and that at
least one of those two signal faces should be located over the roadway.
This change is for consistency with Chapter 4D Traffic Control Signal
Features. There was one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in
support of this change. The FHWA adopts this change.
198. The NPA included a proposal by the FHWA to add a new section
following Section 4F.03 Operation of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control
Signals. This proposed new section was numbered and titled ``Section
4F.04 Emergency Beacon'' and contained STANDARDS, SUPPORT, GUIDANCE,
and OPTIONS concerning the design, use, and application of Emergency
Beacons. Five public agencies, the Caltrans and the Minnesota, North
Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin DOTs, commented in opposition to the
addition of this section, citing many concerns with the Emergency
Beacon. Most commenters stated that the proposed new section included
non-standard operations and signal displays that are in conflict with
driver expectation. Concerns expressed included:
(1) The proposed arrangement of colors of indications within the
signal face for an Emergency Beacon is different from all other signal
faces. People with red/green color blindness may perceive it to be
flashing red and green alternately based on indication location within
the signal face;
[[Page 65541]]
(2) Under normal traffic signal operation, signal faces must always
have at least one indication illuminated while the proposed language
requires the signal face to be dark;
(3) Because this is a traffic control signal requiring the motorist
to stop, the requirement for two signal faces per approach should still
hold. A car driving behind a truck may not be able to see the single
indication; and
(4) It is better to keep the operation of this type of a signal
uniform with other traffic control signals.
The public agencies also cited concerns about the validity of the
studies \41\ that were conducted to show that it was a good device.
There was only one comment in favor of the Emergency Beacon and that
was from a traffic control device manufacturer. Due to overwhelming
opposition and valid concerns, the FHWA withdraws this section from
this final rule. While the manufacturer of the device has indicated
some potential benefits to public agencies, including cost savings
compared to a normal Emergency Vehicle Traffic Signal, the serious
issues raised by the commenting public agencies indicate that further
research is needed before the Emergency Beacon could be considered
again in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Special Use Emergency Flashing signals Report'', Archie
Burnham & Associates, prepared for Richard D. Jones, Right-of-Way,
Inc., 1995. This report is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
199. In Section 4G.02 Design of Traffic Control Signals for One-
Lane, Two-Way Facilities, the FHWA changes the GUIDANCE statement,
concerning the applicability of provisions of Chapter 4D Traffic
Control Signal Features to traffic control signals for one-lane two-way
facilities and exceptions to these provisions, to a STANDARD statement.
One commenter from the City of Tucson, Arizona, agreed with this
change. The FHWA adopts this change.
200. In Section 4I.02 Design and Location of Movable Bridge Signals
and Gates, the FHWA removes from item A of the STANDARD statement the
explanation that three-section signal faces with red, yellow and green
signal lenses are generally used if movable bridge operation is quite
frequent. In the NPA, the FHWA also proposed adding comparable text in
a proposed SUPPORT statement, which would follow the third paragraph of
the STANDARD statement. The FHWA received one comment on this change
from the NCUTCD, recommending that the proposed SUPPORT be changed to
GUIDANCE, to make it more in line with the intent of the previous text
in the 2000 MUTCD and to clarify the language. The FHWA incorporates
the NCUTCD's recommended changes in this final rule. In the 2000 MUTCD,
the applicable text was in a STANDARD, so it is inappropriate to change
it to SUPPORT. A recommendation to consider the use of three-section
signal faces when moveable bridge operation is frequent is appropriate,
for safety reasons.
Additionally, the FHWA removes the phrase ``on long bridges or
causeways'' from the last paragraph of the second STANDARD statement
because two sets of gates may be used on bridges or causeways of any
length and what constitutes a long bridge or causeway is not and cannot
be readily defined. There were no comments on this change. The FHWA
adopts this change.
201. In Section 4J.03 Design of Lane-Use Control Signals, the FHWA
adds to the OPTION statement to allow the use of smaller size lane-use
control signal faces for one-way and two-way left turn arrows in areas
with minimal visual clutter and low speeds. The FHWA changes the
definition of low speeds from ``70 km/h (45 mph) or less'' to ``less
than 70 km/h or less than 40 mph'' to be consistent with similar
criteria regarding signal lens sizes in Chapter 4D Traffic Control
Signal Features. There were two comments from the NCUTCD and the City
of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change. The FHWA adopts this
change with minor editorial revisions in this final rule.
202. In Section 4K.04 Speed Limit Sign Beacon, the FHWA adds to the
STANDARD statement a requirement that a Speed Limit Beacon be used only
to supplement a Speed Limit sign. One commenter from the City of
Tucson, Arizona, agreed with this change. The FHWA adopts this change.
203. In Section 4L.01 Application of In-Roadway Lights, the FHWA
revises the SUPPORT statement to include marked crosswalks in advance
of roundabout intersections as additional situations for possible use
of in-roadway lights. In the NPA, highway-rail grade crossings and
highway-light transit rail grade crossings were also included in the
statement, however the FHWA removes those elements due to opposition
expressed by seven commenters from the NCUTCD, railroad agencies,
associations representing railroads, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a
private citizen as well as the lack of sufficient research supporting
its use. One commenter from the City of Plano, Texas, specifically
agreed with adding the use of in-roadway lights at crosswalks in
advance of roundabout intersections.
204. The FHWA received one general comment and two specific
comments regarding Section 4L.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at
Crosswalks. A traffic engineering consultant suggested a SUPPORT
statement be added to discuss possible trip and fall hazards of lights
in crosswalk lines, because they are not readily detected by a blind
person's cane. The U.S. Access Board made two suggestions regarding the
flash rate for in-roadway warning lights and the use of audible and
vibrotactile cues at crossings with in-roadway lights. These comments
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and may be addressed in a
future rulemaking.
205. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new section following
Section 4L.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks. The proposed new
section was numbered and titled ``ion 4L.03 In-Roadway Lights at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings and Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings'
and contained STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements describing the
design, application, and operation of in-roadway warning lights and in-
roadway stop line lights at highway-rail and highway-light rail transit
grade crossings. Based on the comments received from the NCUTCD,
railroad owners, associations representing the railroad industry, the
State DOTs of Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada, and Oregon, the Cities of Plano,
Texas, and Tucson, Arizona, the FHWA determines that the proposed
addition of this section was premature. Although the concept of using
in-roadway flashing lights at grade crossings logically makes sense as
a means of increasing driver observance of the crossing, the details of
colors, locations, and specific applications of in-roadway lights for
grade crossings has not been sufficiently researched to draw
supportable conclusions. Such research is underway in California and
Michigan, but results will not be available for several years. The
commenters in opposition to adding this section make strong arguments
and cite some valid concerns. Therefore, the FHWA withdraws the
proposed section in its entirety in this final rule and will await
research results, prior to consideration of a possible rulemaking on
this subject in the future.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 5--Traffic Control Devices for
Low-Volume Roads
206. In Section 5A.03 Design, the FHWA revises the second paragraph
of the STANDARD statement to refer to sign sizes on low speed, low
volume roads by adding a sentence to this paragraph stating that the
minimum
[[Page 65542]]
sign sizes shall only be used on low-volume roads where the 85th
percentile or posted speed is less than 60 km/h (35 mph). This
additional text was recommended in comments received from the NCUTCD
indicating that the FHWA should provide clarification about the use of
minimum sign sizes on low-volume rural roads. The FHWA believes that it
is necessary to clarify the intent of the minimum sign size, to provide
adequate safety by preventing signs that are too small to be read at
higher speeds from being used on higher speed, low-volume rural roads.
The FHWA received five comments from the NCUTCD, the Oregon and
Minnesota DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant regarding Table
5A-1 Sign Sizes on Low-Volume Roads (titled ``Minimum Sign Sizes on
Low-Volume Roads'' in the NPA and 2000 MUTCD). The NCUTCD suggested a
revised table that includes separate columns for Minimum, Typical, and
Oversized sizes to provide more information to agencies. The FHWA
agrees with this comment and incorporates this revised table into this
final rule. The NPA included a proposal to reduce the minimum size of
the W20-1, W20-7a, W20-7b, W21-1a, and W21-6 signs from 900 x 900 mm
(36 x 36 in) to 600 x 600 mm (24 x 24 in) to be consistent with minimum
sizes of other signs of comparable design. The Minnesota and Oregon
DOTs opposed the reduction in these sign sizes on grounds of worker
safety. The revised table in this final rule includes the 900 x 900 mm
(36 x 36 in) as the typical size and 750 x 750 mm (30 x 30 in) as the
minimum size for the W20-1, W3-4, W20-7b, and W21-1a signs, and shows
750 x 750 mm (30 x 30 in) as the typical size and 600 x 600 mm (24 x 24
in) as the minimum size for the W21-6 sign. Accordingly, this revised
table addresses comments from the DOTs regarding specific sign sizes by
providing three possible sizes, rather than just one size, for all of
the signs. The FHWA also deletes the NO CENTER STRIPE (W8-12) sign from
Table 5A-1 in this final rule, because this sign has little if any
application to low volume roads, and adds the PASS WITH CARE (R4-2) and
the Two-Direction Large Arrow (W1-7) signs.
207. In Section 5B.03 Speed Limit Signs (R2 Series), the FHWA
received five comments from the NCUTCD, the Minnesota, Oregon, and Ohio
DOTs, as well as the City of Tucson, Arizona, regarding the proposal to
revise the illustration of the R2-1 metric speed limit sign in Figure
5B-1 Regulatory Signs on Low-Volume Roads to correspond to a similar
proposed revision in Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. In the NPA, the
proposed design of the metric speed limit sign included the metric
speed value within a red circle with the legend ``km/h'' below it. Two
commenters agreed with the proposal and three opposed it. See
discussion regarding Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs where FHWA changes the
color of the circle to black.
208. In Section 5B.04 Traffic Movement and Prohibition Signs (R3,
R4, R5, R6, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, and R14), the FHWA adds an
illustration of the PASS WITH CARE, (R4-2), sign to accompany the DO
NOT PASS (R4-1) sign in Figure 5B-1 Regulatory Signs on Low-Volume
Roads because agencies commonly use this sign. The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change.
209. In Section 5C.05, the FHWA retitles the section from ``Narrow
Bridge Sign (W5-2a)'' to ``NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2)'' because in
Chapter 2C Warning Signs, the FHWA removes the symbol version of this
sign and requires the use of only the word version of the sign. There
were four comments from the NCUTCD, the Ohio DOT, and the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and the FHWA adopts this
change. Related to this, the FHWA adds a phase-in target compliance
date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for the
replacement of Narrow Bridge symbol signs, consistent with the phase-in
target compliance date for Section 2C.16 NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2).
210. In Section 5C.09 Vehicular Traffic and Nonvehicular Signs (W11
Series and W8-6), the FHWA received two comments from the Arizona and
Ohio DOTs regarding the proposal in the NPA to change the section title
to ``Motorized Traffic and Nonvehicular Signs (W11 Series and W8-6).''
The commenters suggested that the terms should be changed to better
accommodate bicycles. The FHWA agrees and revises the title by changing
``Motorized'' to ``Vehicular,'' consistent with changes made in Chapter
2C.
211. In Section 5C.10 Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1), the FHWA
revises the illustration of the metric advisory speed plaque to
correspond to a similar revision in Chapter 2C. The design of the
metric advisory speed plaque includes the metric speed value within a
black circle with the legend ``km/h'' below it. The FHWA received two
comments supporting the change, and two opposed to it. See discussion
regarding Chapter 2C where FHWA adopts the use of the metric speed
value within a black circle with the legend ``km/h'' below it. That
discussion also applies to this section.
212. In Section 5C.12 NO TRAFFIC SIGNS Sign (W18-1), the FHWA
changes the sign number code in the title and elsewhere in this section
and elsewhere in the MUTCD from ``W16-2'' to ``W18-1''. The W16-2 code
is already assigned to the Distance Ahead Plaque, thus this duplication
is corrected by reassigning the NO TRAFFIC SIGNS Sign code to W18-1.
213. In Section 5F.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign
(R15-1, R15-2), the FHWA revises the last paragraph of the STANDARD
statement to create two new paragraphs, which are duplicates of text
contained in the second standard statement in Section 8B.03 regarding
the use of retroreflective strips. The FHWA incorporates this minor
editorial change for consistency with other sections of the MUTCD.
214. In Section 5F.04, STOP and YIELD Signs, the FHWA removes the
words ``State or local'' from the OPTION statement, to reflect that
jurisdictions responsible for grade crossings may be any level of
government or may be quasi-governmental or non-governmental. One
commenter from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported this change.
However, another comment from the Wisconsin DOT suggested that if the
words ``State and local'' are removed from this section that this
section would then be inconsistent with Section 8B.08 STOP (R1-1) or
YIELD (R1-2) Signs at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, which still refers
to State or local highway agencies. The commenter suggested that this
section contain similar criteria and guidance to that contained in
Section 8B.08. The FHWA agrees in principle; however, it is Sections
2B.04 to 2B.10 that contain the appropriate criteria that should be
referenced. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA and
includes a cross-reference to Sections 2B.04 to 2B.10.
215. In Section 5G.03 Channelization Devices, the FHWA replaces the
second occurrence of the phrase ``temporary traffic control zone'' with
``work space'' in the OPTION statement to correspond with the
appropriate terminology in Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control. There was
one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this
change, and the FHWA adopts this change.
216. In Section 5G.05 Other Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA adds
a SUPPORT statement referring to Figure 5G-1 for some of the signs that
might be applicable in a temporary traffic control zone on a low-volume
road. There were two comments in support of this change from the NCUTCD
and the City of
[[Page 65543]]
Tucson, Arizona, and the FHWA adopts this change.
The FHWA also revises Figure 5G-1 Temporary Traffic Control Signs
on Low-Volume Roads, to change the W20-7a Flagger sign to conform with
the correctly designed sign in Section 6F.29 Flagger Sign (W20-7a, W20-
7). There was one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this change.
The FHWA also changes the metric version of the W13-1 Advisory Speed
Plaque to conform to the use of the black circle for metric speed
values as adopted in Chapter 2C. Two commenters from the Minnesota and
Ohio DOTs were opposed to this change, suggesting that the use of the
color black and the circle symbol are non-standard, and motorists in
the U.S. will not understand. Similar to previous discussions in
Chapter 2C, the FHWA disagrees and adopts the change as proposed in the
NPA. The NCUTCD suggested that the NO CENTER STRIPE (W8-12) sign be
deleted from this figure. The FHWA agrees and deletes the NO CENTER
STRIPE sign from the figure, as well as from Table 5A-1, because this
sign has little if any application to low volume roads.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 6--Temporary Traffic Control
217. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add to a number of places in
sections throughout Part 6, references to ensure that temporary traffic
controls involving or affecting pedestrian walkways and paths account
for the needs of pedestrians with disabilities. These proposed
additions followed the accessibility requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, July
26, 1990. 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213 (as amended)). While the U.S. Access
Board, many private citizens and associations representing the blind
generally agreed with including the accessibility requirements, there
were many comments from private citizens and from the Ohio and Kansas
DOTs suggesting that the multiple references were unnecessarily
repetitive, and should be handled in a different manner in this final
rule. In addition, the Virginia and Oregon DOTs suggested that
requirements based on the proposed ADA Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) \42\ rulings on accessibility of
public rights-of-way should not be incorporated until the new
guidelines are adopted by the U.S. Access Board. The FHWA notes that
the requirements in the MUTCD are not based on the proposed ADAAG
ruling, rather they are based on existing laws, such as the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ``Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities,'' as amended through January 1998, is
published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board (Access Board), 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004-1111. It may be obtained from the Access Board,
or viewed electronically at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on general comments and a suggestion by the NCUTCD, the FHWA
places a common introductory STANDARD statement at the beginning of
Sections 6A.01, 6B.01, 6C.01, 6D.01, 6F.01, 6G.01, 6H.01, and 6I.01 to
emphasize accessibility provisions. The FHWA revises the reference as
the ``Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), title II,
Paragraph 35.130'' to provide a more specific legal reference.
The FHWA also adds a SUPPORT at the beginning of each chapter in
Part 6 that the acronym ``TTC'' refers to ``temporary traffic control''
and replaces the words with the acronym in many places throughout Part
6. This is in response to a comment from a traffic engineering
consultant suggesting that this acronym is well understood and would
reduce unnecessary text.
Additionally, the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD and the
Ohio DOT suggesting that the parenthetical reference ``(drivers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians)'' after ``road users'' be removed, because
the term ``road users'' is already defined as including these entities.
There were also arguments from the Florida DOT, the City and County of
Denver, Colorado, and many private citizens to retain the text as
proposed throughout Part 6 to remind readers of the importance of
considering bicyclists and pedestrians. The FHWA includes the
parenthetical reference the first time it appears in each chapter, and
removes it from many of the remaining occurrences. The FHWA also
revises the parenthetical reference to change ``drivers'' to
``motorists'' and to include pedestrians with disabilities, to reflect
changes to the definition of ``road user'' that FHWA makes in Part 1
and elsewhere in the MUTCD. Additionally, the FHWA adds, in a number of
sections in Part 6, references to the needs of bicyclists through
temporary traffic control zones, as many temporary traffic control
plans affect a substantial amount of bicycle activity. The FHWA
received eight comments from private citizens in support of these
changes, and adopts these changes.
218. In Section 6A.01 General, the FHWA received two comments from
a traffic engineering consultant opposed to the existing second
STANDARD statement regarding the responsibility for temporary traffic
control plans and devices as being that of the public body or official
having jurisdiction for guiding road users. There were no significant
changes to this statement proposed in the NPA, therefore these comments
are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to a number of places in this section
and a number of sections in Part 6, statements that temporary traffic
control principles are applicable to managing traffic incidents along
the roadway because incidents are temporary road or lane closures and
are one of the major causes of congestion. In this regard, the FHWA
adds a new chapter titled ``Chapter 6I Control of Traffic Through
Traffic Incident Management Areas.'' There were no specific comments
regarding the inclusion of traffic incidents in Chapter 6A, and
individual comments regarding Chapter 6I are addressed in the
discussion for that chapter.
219. In Section 6B.01 Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic
Control, the FHWA adds to a number of places in this section references
about accounting for the needs of pedestrians with disabilities,
bicyclists, and traffic incident management responders.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that the
last paragraph of the second SUPPORT be restored to contain the text in
the 2000 MUTCD, which included the sentence, ``While these principles
provide guidance for good temporary traffic control for the
practitioner, they do not establish standards and warrants.'' The
commenters felt that removing this sentence would change the emphasis
of the section to mean that it contains STANDARDs. The FHWA disagrees
and does not include this sentence because it is a generic statement in
reference to fundamental principles. Only the second and last
paragraphs of the section are STANDARDs, the rest are GUIDANCE and
SUPPORT.
The FHWA withdraws the proposal to add to the first and second
GUIDANCE statements that the needs of pedestrians with disabilities
should be considered when planning, designing and establishing a
temporary traffic control zone, because this information is now
contained in a new STANDARD statement at the beginning of the section.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the second GUIDANCE statement that
the needs of commercial vehicle operators should be assessed and
appropriate accommodations made when
[[Page 65544]]
developing a public relations plan for a temporary traffic control
zone. The FHWA received two comments from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and a private citizen supporting
this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.
220. In Section 6C.01 Temporary Traffic Control Plans, the FHWA
adds to the first GUIDANCE statement that planning for all road users
should be part of the planning and design of the temporary traffic
control plan. The FHWA also adds a fourth paragraph to the first
GUIDANCE statement that provisions for effective continuity of
accessible circulation paths for pedestrians should be incorporated
into the temporary traffic control process. Several commenters
suggested editorial revisions for clarity, which the FHWA agrees with
and adopts in this final rule.
221. In Section 6C.02 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, the FHWA
proposed to add a sentence at the end of the SUPPORT statement that the
incident area begins at the first warning sign or vehicle with a
rotating/strobe light and extends to the last temporary traffic control
device or to a point where road users are allowed to return to the
original lane alignment. The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and
the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and one comment
from the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
suggesting that ``warning sign or rotating strobe/lights'' may be too
specific because flares, cones, or other devices might also be used to
warn of an incident ahead. The FHWA agrees that the first responder to
an incident might appropriately use other devices, and revises the text
in this final rule to indicate that the incident management area begins
at the first warning device (such as a sign, light, or cone).
222. In Section 6C.03 Components of Temporary Traffic Control
Zones, the FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, the Illinois DOT, and a private citizen
regarding proposed changes to Figure 6C-1 Component Parts of a
Temporary Traffic Control Zone. The FHWA modifies the drawing to show a
shoulder taper as one of the potential components of a temporary
traffic control zone. The NCUTCD suggested that the shoulder taper
should be removed because no other tapers are shown and a shoulder
taper is not required in the situation pictured. The City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen indicated that the advance
warning area was referenced incorrectly to the beginning of the
shoulder taper, rather than the beginning of the merge taper. The FHWA
believes that the intent of the figure is to show all of the potential
components of a temporary traffic control zone, rather than a specific
example, and the shoulder taper should be included in the figure.
However, the FHWA revises the figure to more accurately show the
shoulder taper in advance of the merge taper, and dimensions the
Advance Warning Area to the start of the merge taper, as suggested by
the two commenters. The FHWA also includes advance warning signs on
both sides of the one-way roadway as suggested by the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen. The FHWA labels the
area above the Work Space as a Buffer Space (longitudinal). The City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen stated that this area
is not considered a buffer space because it is downstream of the Work
Space. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because the OPTION
statement in Section 6C.06 Activity Area indicates that buffer spaces
may be positioned either longitudinally or laterally with respect to
the direction of road user flow, and that the activity area may contain
one or more lateral or longitudinal buffer spaces.
223. In Section 6C.04 Advance Warning Area, the FHWA received
several comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and
private citizens about the sign spacings shown in Table 6C-1 Suggested
Advance Warning Sign Spacing. There were no changes proposed to this
table in the NPA, therefore the comments regarding the distances shown
in this table are outside the scope of this rulemaking and such changes
would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking. The FHWA notes that
these are suggested sign spacings and actual placement may be adjusted
in order to improve sign visibility due to roadway geometry,
intersections or driveways, or other factors, based on engineering
judgment.
224. In Section 6C.06 Activity Area, the FHWA adds a new table
numbered and titled ``Table 6C-2 Stopping Sight Distance as a Function
of Speed.'' This table is identical to Table 6E-1. The current Table
6C-2 is renumbered as Table 6C-3, Taper Length Criteria for Temporary
Traffic Control Zones. The FHWA received two comments from the
Wisconsin DOT and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this new
table, two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggesting that this table be titled ``Guidelines for
Longitudinal Buffer Lengths,'' and three comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and private citizens opposed to the values
in the new table. The commenters who opposed the values in the table
suggested that the values from Table 6E-1 of the 2000 MUTCD should be
used because they represent a buffer length based upon the braking
distance that would provide adequate opportunity to stop before
entering a workspace. These commenters also suggested that the proposed
longer lengths would result in inordinately and unnecessarily long
buffers, which will encourage misuse and potentially lack of use,
particularly in urban areas. The FHWA disagrees because this table is
referenced in an OPTION statement, and practitioners may use discretion
in determining the lengths of longitudinal buffer spaces. The FHWA
adopts the table, as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA adds a reference to new Table 6C-2 to the second OPTION
statement, as these distances may be used to determine the length of
the longitudinal buffer space. The FHWA received two comments from the
Illinois DOT and a private citizen suggesting this change, and the FHWA
revises the statement slightly in this final rule to add clarity.
In the third SUPPORT statement, the FHWA proposed to remove the
phrase ``formidable device'' as well as the reference to arrow panels
as they relate to determining buffer spaces. The FHWA received one
comment from a private citizen in support of this change, and three
comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen opposed it. Those commenters who opposed the change
suggested restoring the 2000 MUTCD wording, or offered alternate
wording. They also suggested that this SUPPORT statement be combined
with the second SUPPORT statement. The FHWA agrees to reword the
sentence in the SUPPORT statement to state, ``When a shadow vehicle,
arrow panel, or changeable message sign is placed in a closed lane in
advance of a work space, only the area upstream of the vehicle, arrow
panel or changeable message sign constitutes the buffer space.'' The
FHWA does not combine the second and third SUPPORT statements in this
final rule.
In the last GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA adds that incident
response storage areas should not extend into any portion of the buffer
space. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that this GUIDANCE should be
a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees because of the flexibility that is
needed to respond to unplanned
[[Page 65545]]
incidents therefore, this statement remains a GUIDANCE in this final
rule.
225. In Section 6C.07 Termination Area, the FHWA clarifies the
STANDARD statement to indicate that temporary traffic control devices
other than END ROAD WORK signs can be used to signify the end of a
termination area. The FHWA received one comment from the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and one comment from a
private citizen opposed to it. The opposing commenter suggested that
the STANDARD statement be deleted or changed to an OPTION because the
many work zones have no deviation from the normal path. The FHWA
disagrees with changing the STANDARD statement because it is clear that
if road users have not been diverted from their normal path, then a
termination area would not be needed, and this section would not apply.
The FHWA adopts the change as proposed in the NPA.
To provide flexibility to jurisdictions, the FHWA adds to the
OPTION statement that a longitudinal buffer space may be used between
the work space and the beginning of the downstream taper. The FHWA
received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to this change, stating
that the paragraph should be deleted because the area between the work
space and the beginning of the downstream taper is not a buffer space.
The FHWA disagrees because such a buffer space could be used in a
variety of locations, such as for a center lane closure on a multi-lane
undivided highway or on a two-lane, one-way operation. The FHWA adopts
this change as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA also received two comments from the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that an additional
paragraph be added to the OPTION stating that the use of END ROAD WORK
signs is optional for most daytime maintenance and utility operations.
The FHWA disagrees that this sentence is needed because there are
several terms within the section to indicate that use of an END ROAD
WORK sign is not mandated for termination areas.
226. In Section 6C.08 Tapers, the FHWA revises the first GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that the appropriate taper length should be
determined using the criteria in Tables 6C-3 and 6C-4 to address a
comment from a private citizen stating that the word ``minimum'' does
not accurately describe the taper lengths in the table. The FHWA agrees
that the change is needed to correct the error, and revises the
GUIDANCE statement in this final rule. The same commenter suggested
that the FHWA also revise the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE
statement, to remove the word ``maximum'' when referring to the
distances between devices in a taper. The FHWA disagrees because it
would not be acceptable to have longer spacing unless there is a good
engineering reason to do so. The FHWA also inserts a new table numbered
and titled, ``Table 6C-4 Formulas for Determining Taper Lengths''
immediately following Table 6C-3. This table contains the formulas that
were included as notes to Table 6C-3 in the NPA, except that they are
included in a tabular format for clarity. This table is also identical
to Table 6H-4.
In the fifth GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA deletes the word
``minimum'' from the description of the length of a downstream taper in
this final rule. The FHWA received two comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting the word
``minimum'' be replaced with the word ``maximum,'' however the FHWA
disagrees. Criteria for downstream tapers, as shown in Table 6C-3
indicate a set distance, not a minimum or maximum length.
The FHWA received three comments from the Ohio DOT, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting changes to
the shifting and downstream taper entries in Table 6C-3. Because there
were no changes proposed to this table (other than the table number),
these comments are outside the scope of the NPA. Such changes would
need to be proposed in a future rulemaking.
The FHWA revises Figure 6C-3 Example of a One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic
Taper to illustrate a downstream longitudinal buffer space (between the
work space and traffic from the open-lane approach); a downstream
taper, noted ``100 ft MAXIMUM;'' shifts the flagger and warning sign
symbols on the open-lane approach accordingly so that the flagger is
stationed well beyond the last cone in the downstream taper; and on
both approaches, shift the END ROAD WORK symbols so that they are
opposite the last warning signs.
227. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA
received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggesting that an OPTION be added after the STANDARD
statement to indicate that where traffic speeds and volumes are low,
and where the work area is short and sight distance is good, vehicular
traffic may be self-regulating. The FHWA disagrees with adding this
language at this time because similar text is already included in the
SUPPORT statement. Changing that SUPPORT to an OPTION may be considered
in a future rulemaking.
The FHWA received two comments from the same commenters suggesting
that the last paragraph of the GUIDANCE be revised to delete pilot cars
as one of the means for controlling opposing traffic flows on a one-
lane roadway where affected traffic is not visible from one end to the
other because a pilot car alone cannot coordinate traffic movements at
both ends of the operation. The FHWA agrees with the commenter and,
rather than deleting the option to use a pilot car, the FHWA clarifies
that a pilot car uses a flagger as defined in Section 6F.54 PILOT CAR
FOLLOW ME Sign (G20-4).
228. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the FHWA proposed
adding a new GUIDANCE statement at the beginning of the section to
indicate that pedestrians of all ages and abilities should be provided
a detectable and usable travel path. The FHWA received one comment from
the NCUTCD opposed to the new GUIDANCE, suggesting that the text be
reworded and classified as a SUPPORT statement. The FHWA disagrees and
adds the introductory STANDARD statement at the beginning of this
section to emphasize accessibility provisions, as discussed above at
the start of the Part 6 discussion.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed modifying the second SUPPORT
statement to include information on other publications that can provide
useful data for assisting the planning for, and the design of,
pedestrian facilities. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD
opposing this language and suggesting that a new Section 6D.02
Accessibility Considerations be added. The FHWA also received three
comments from commenters representing the visually disabled community
suggesting additional wording to clarify that speech messages provided
by an audible information device are more helpful to pedestrians with
disabilities than Braille and raised character signs. The FHWA agrees
with the commenters and withdraws the proposed language. In this final
rule, the FHWA adds Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations and
revises Section 6D.01 by adding two paragraphs to the SUPPORT with more
detailed information describing how to provide information to
pedestrians with visual disabilities via audible messages, and adds a
GUIDANCE statement recommending locator tones be used with pushbuttons,
to be consistent with Part 4 of the MUTCD.
[[Page 65546]]
Additionally, the FHWA proposed adding to the second STANDARD
statement that in addition to visual signage, equivalent information in
alternate formats for pedestrians who have visual disabilities shall be
provided so that they are not trapped on a closed facility. The FHWA
received four comments from the NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to the new
text, stating that it is an unreasonable requirement for all sidewalks,
or that it should be a GUIDANCE, rather than a STANDARD. The NCUTCD,
the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggested
that the text be revised to explicitly state that where pedestrians
with visual disabilities normally use the closed crosswalk, a barrier
detectable by a person with a visual disability traveling with the aid
of a long cane shall be placed across the full width of the closed
crosswalk. The FHWA agrees with the suggested text and adopts that text
in this final rule. The FHWA also received two comments from the City
of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that the
existing first sentence, requiring advance notification of sidewalk
closures by the entity conducting the work was vague. The FHWA agrees
and expands the sentence in this final rule to indicate that advance
notification of sidewalk closures shall be provided to the maintaining
agency.
The FHWA adds to the second SUPPORT statement that pedestrians are
reluctant to add distance or out-of-the-way travel to a destination.
The NCUTCD opposed this new text and three commenters representing
associations for the blind community suggested including additional
text regarding the types of barriers that are detectable by a person
with visual disability. The additional information regarding barrier
types goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the FHWA adopts the
changes as proposed in the NPA.
In the second GUIDANCE, the FHWA proposed adding information about
the general needs of pedestrians with disabilities. The NCUTCD opposed
the additional information, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and
a private citizen requested more information, and three commenters
representing associations for the blind community opposed the text as
written in the NPA, but suggested new text. The FHWA agrees with the
suggested text from the associations for the blind community, which
provides additional information regarding how to communicate with
pedestrians with visual disabilities in order to alert them to blocked
routes, alternate crossings, and sign and signal information. The FHWA
adopts this text in this final rule.
The FHWA proposed to revise item C of the second GUIDANCE statement
to include accessible paths as well as provisions for pedestrians who
have visual disabilities in planning for pedestrians in temporary
traffic control zones. The NCUTCD opposed the revision, suggesting that
this information be included in a new Section 6D.02 Accessibility
Considerations. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen requested additional information regarding how to provide
audible warnings, and three commenters representing associations for
the blind community suggested new wording to incorporate the need to
provide pedestrians with visual disabilities with instructions, as well
as a reference to accessible pedestrian signals. The FHWA agrees with
the suggested text from associations representing the blind community,
and adopts the revised language with the additional information in this
final rule.
The FHWA also adds to the second GUIDANCE statement that a
pedestrian route should not be severed and/or moved for nonconstruction
activities such as parking for vehicles and equipment. The FHWA
received one comment from the Florida DOT in support of this change,
and one comment from the NCUTCD opposed, stating redundancy. The FHWA
adopts the change as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA proposed expanding the third GUIDANCE statement to include
additional information regarding how to delineate a pedestrian footpath
through or around a work site. The NCUTCD opposed the revision,
suggesting a new Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations be added. A
commenter from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen requested additional clarification, and three commenters
representing associations for the blind community suggested rewording
to reference Section 6F.65 Temporary Traffic Barriers as Channelizing
Devices for a description of detectable barriers. To address the
comments, the FHWA clarifies the wording to indicate that if the
previous pedestrian facility was accessible to pedestrians with
disabilities, then the footpath provided during temporary traffic
control should also be accessible, and to denote additional information
regarding grades and use of barriers and channelizing devices.
The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement that wherever it is
feasible, closing off the work site from pedestrian intrusion may be
preferable to channelizing pedestrian traffic along the site with
temporary traffic control devices.
The FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement following the third GUIDANCE
to provide information on how to communicate pedestrian routes to
pedestrians with disabilities. The FHWA received one comment from the
NCUTCD opposed to this new statement, two comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen requesting additional
clarification and three comments from associations representing the
blind community suggesting rewording of the statement to clarify the
use of audible instructions, which the FHWA adopts in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to expand the third GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that fencing should be continuous and detectable.
The FHWA withdraws this proposal because this information is included
in new Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to expand the first paragraph of the
fourth GUIDANCE statement to indicate that ballast and other elements
should not intrude into the accessible passage. The FHWA withdraws this
proposal, because this information is included in new Section 6D.02
Accessibility Considerations in this final rule.
The FHWA expands the last paragraph of the fifth GUIDANCE statement
to clarify that access to work space by equipment as well as workers
across pedestrian walkways should be minimized. The FHWA received one
comment from the NCUTCD opposed to this change, citing disagreement
with the wording regarding accessibility. The FHWA disagrees with the
commenter and adopts the change in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to expand the third paragraph of the
fifth GUIDANCE statement to include information about pedestrian
accessibility and to add a paragraph at the end of the fifth GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that audible information be provided at locations
where a temporary pedestrian crossing is implemented. The FHWA received
one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to these changes, suggesting that
this information is repetitive. The FHWA withdraws these proposals,
because this information is included in new Section 6D.02 Accessibility
Considerations in this final rule.
The FHWA removes the second sentence from the sixth SUPPORT
statement regarding the use of tape,
[[Page 65547]]
rope, and other devices along a designated pathway. The FHWA received
two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen opposed to the removal of the sentence. The commenters did not
provide a justification for their opposition, and the FHWA removes the
sentence in this final rule, because these devices should not be used
where persons with visual disabilities are expected and because use of
these devices is strongly discouraged in any case.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph at the beginning
of the last GUIDANCE statement to indicate that tape, rope, and other
devices are not detectable and should not be used as a control for
pedestrian movements. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD
opposed to this change. The FHWA believes that this information is
important to provide safe passage for persons with visual disabilities
and adopts this text, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule. The
FHWA also expands the (new) second paragraph of this GUIDANCE to
emphasize that pedestrian routes should be preserved in urban and
commercial suburban areas and that alternate routing should be
discouraged. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to
this language; however, to emphasize the importance of pedestrian
routes in these areas, the FHWA adopts this language in this final
rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a SUPPORT statement at the end
of Section 6D.01 to state that the absence of a continuous passage,
including accessible features, might preclude the use of the facility
by pedestrians with disabilities. The FHWA received one comment from
the NCUTCD opposed to this new paragraph, and the FHWA withdraws this
proposal, because this information is included in new Section 6D.02
Accessibility Considerations in this final rule.
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of five
years from the effective date of this final rule for the changes in
this section, which in turn affects many other sections in Part 6.
However, this does not affect the obligations placed on governments by
the ADA laws and regulations.
229. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
6D.02 Accessibility Considerations.'' This new section contains
SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements specific to pedestrian
accessibility, including pedestrians with visual disabilities, in
temporary traffic control zones. The FHWA received several comments
suggesting that the accessibility information that was repeated
throughout Part 6 in the NPA should be consolidated into one location.
While the FHWA includes some accessibility information in each chapter
of Part 6 in this final rule, the FHWA includes this new section to
provide all of the necessary information in one place. The dual
provisions provide the practitioner with the necessary emphasis to
ensure that there is consideration of the accessibility needs for
persons with disabilities in the planning, design, implementation and
operation of temporary traffic control zones. The FHWA strongly
supports provisions in the MUTCD that provide accommodations for all
pedestrians and road users. The FHWA establishes a five year phase-in
target compliance date from the effective date of this final rule for
accessibility considerations in temporary traffic control zones, which
in turn affects many other sections in Part 6.
230. In Section 6D.03 Worker Safety Considerations (numbered and
titled Section 6D.02 Worker Considerations in the NPA), the FHWA
changes the title as suggested by NIOSH, because the first SUPPORT
statement in this section rightly indicates that worker safety is
equally as important as road user safety. The FHWA also adds to the
SUPPORT statement information on the need to separate workers on foot
from moving construction vehicles. The FHWA received one comment from
the NCUTCD opposed to this new language, suggesting that the issues
covered in the new text are covered by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and should not be included in
the MUTCD. The Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America and
NIOSH expressed support for the new language, stating that including
this language in the MUTCD is very important, because it emphasizes the
hazards to workers on foot created by moving construction vehicles and
equipment within the work zone. Comments from the Kansas DOT and NIOSH
suggested editorial revisions, which the FHWA adopts in this final
rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding to the GUIDANCE statement that
workers exposed to the risks of moving roadway traffic or construction
equipment should wear high visibility apparel meeting the requirements
of the American National Standard for High Visibility Safety Apparel
\43\ and labeled as meeting ANSI 107-1999 Standard Performance for
Class 1, 2, or 3 risk exposure. The FHWA received seven comments from
the North American Association of Transportation Safety and Health
Officials (NAATHSO), ATSSA, the Virginia DOT, Caltrans, the Laborers'
Health and Safety Fund of North America, NIOSH, and a traffic control
device manufacturer in support of this change, three of which suggested
stronger language to change this to a STANDARD. The FHWA received
thirteen comments from the NCUTCD, contractors, and State and local
highway agencies opposed to the proposed safety apparel
recommendations. The FHWA adopts the wording, as proposed in the NPA,
but makes changes in Section 6E.02 High Visibility Safety Apparel to
address issues regarding high-visibility flagger safety apparel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ``American National Standard for High Visibility Safety
Apparel,'' ANSI/ISEA 107-1999, 1999 Edition, or equivalent revision,
is available for purchase from ISEA--The Safety Equipment
Association, by telephone (703) 525-1695, facsimile (703) 528-2148,
mail ISEA, 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 808, Arlington, VA 22209.
Also, a summary of information about the three classes of apparel in
the standard is available at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.safetyequipment.org/hivisstd.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While NIOSH supported the proposed wording that a ``competent
person'' be responsible for the worker safety plan within the activity
area, several commenters representing State and local highway agencies
and contractors opposed the language, stating that the phrase was
vague. The FHWA believes that this language is not vague and that it is
specific enough to be reasonably applied by jurisdictions. The FHWA
adopts the text as proposed in the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a phase-in target compliance date of
five years from the effective date of this final rule for this change.
The FHWA received comment from the International Safety Equipment
Association (ISEA) and the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North
America, indicating that worker clothing is an expendable item that
wears out quickly and must be replaced much sooner than five years and
therefore no special phase-in target compliance date is needed. Other
commenters suggested that a shorter phase-in target compliance date is
advisable because of the important safety benefits of high visibility
safety apparel. The FHWA believes that high-visibility safety apparel
for all workers, including supervisors, is very important for safety in
temporary traffic control areas. Not all worker clothing wears out and
is replaced quickly, especially the safety apparel worn on the job site
by supervisors and managers. To provide for a reasonably rapid
implementation of this important change while
[[Page 65548]]
minimizing impacts on State and local governments, the FHWA establishes
a three-year phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of
this final rule for the changes regarding worker safety apparel.
Additionally, in the same GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA adds
``Activity Area'' to the list of key elements of worker safety and
temporary traffic control management that should be considered to
improve worker safety. The FHWA received two comments from Laborers'
Health and Safety Fund of North America and NIOSH in support of this
new text, and one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to it. The NCUTCD
suggested that this text is already covered in Chapter 6B. The FHWA
disagrees because worker safety is very important and early planning is
where many significant worker safety improvements can be made. The FHWA
adopts the new text in this final rule, with minor editorial changes.
The FHWA includes ``Worker Safety Planning'' to the list of key
elements of worker safety and temporary traffic control management that
should be considered to improve worker safety. The worker safety plan
should be in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970, ``General Duty Clause'' Section 5 (a)(1)--Public Law 91-596, 84
Stat. 1590, December 29, 1970, as amended, and with the requirement to
assess worker risk exposures for each job site and job classification
in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Regulations as found in 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2). While NIOSH
supported this new language, there were comments from the NCUTCD, the
Virginia, Kansas, California, and North Carolina DOTs, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to it. The
opposing commenters suggested that the information in this paragraph is
beyond what would be typical MUTCD material. The FHWA disagrees with
the opposing commenters because this is GUIDANCE rather than a
STANDARD, and the FHWA adopts this text to emphasize the importance of
worker safety and to assure that the applicable laws and regulations
are referenced.
The FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement at the end of the section
that contains information previously included in item E of the GUIDANCE
statement regarding the judicious use of special devices to maintain
their effectiveness. The FHWA received one comment from NIOSH opposing
this change, stating that the statement merits continued emphasis in
order to prevent misuse. The FHWA disagrees because the original
placement of this statement in item E made it erroneously appear to be
an OPTION, when in fact it was a SUPPORT. The FHWA adopts the change as
proposed in the NPA.
231. In Section 6E.01 Qualifications for Flaggers, the FHWA
rewrites the GUIDANCE statement in its entirety to describe in terms
more appropriate to a temporary traffic control zone environment the
recommended skills and abilities for a flagger. This change reflects
the state of the practice in flagger selection and training. The FHWA
received no comments regarding this change, and adopts this change.
232. In Section 6E.02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel (titled High-
Visibility Clothing in the NPA), the FHWA proposed to add to the first
STANDARD statement the requirement that flaggers wear safety apparel
meeting the requirements of the American National Standard for High
Visibility Apparel and labeled as meeting ANSI 107-1999 Standard
Performance for Class 3 risk exposure, to improve worker visibility to
approaching road users. While the FHWA received six comments from
ATSSA, the Virginia DOT, the City of Tucson, Arizona, the International
Safety Equipment Association, the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of
North America, and NIOSH in support of using Class 3 high visibility
safety apparel for flaggers under all conditions, there were sixteen
comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, NAATSHO, the South Carolina, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, and Oregon DOTs, contractors, and a private
citizen opposed to it, at least for daytime activity. Several
commenters stated that with the extreme heat conditions in the South,
Midwest, and Western States that their workers endure in the summer,
wearing the required uniform jacket and pants or jumpsuit would create
more health problems. Based on all of the docket comments, the FHWA
agrees that Class 3 high visibility safety apparel for flagger activity
should not be a requirement. Instead, the FHWA establishes that, for
both day and night time activity, Class 2 high visibility safety
apparel shall be required. The FHWA also concludes that for nighttime
flagger activity, Class 3 high visibility safety apparel should be
considered for flagger wear rather than Class 2. Even with the
requirements for flagger stations to be illuminated for night activity
that the FHWA establishes in Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations, Class 3
safety apparel should at least be considered for nighttime flagger wear
because of its increased retroreflective surface area. The FHWA revises
the STANDARD statement and adds a GUIDANCE statement accordingly.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a phase-in target compliance date of
five years for this change. The FHWA received comments from ATSSA and
the Virginia DOT indicating that flagger clothing is considered
expendable because it wears out and must be replaced much sooner than
five years and therefore no special phase-in target compliance date is
needed. Other commenters suggested that a shorter phase-in target
compliance date is advisable because of the important safety benefits
of high visibility safety apparel. The FHWA believes that high-
visibility safety apparel for all flaggers, including supervisors who
sometimes perform this duty, is very important for safety in temporary
traffic control areas. Not all worker clothing wears out and is
replaced quickly, especially the safety apparel worn on the job site by
supervisors and managers. To provide for a reasonably rapid
implementation of this important change while minimizing impacts on
State and local governments, the FHWA establishes a three-year phase-in
target compliance date from the effective date of this final rule for
the changes regarding flagger safety apparel.
233. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the FHWA proposed in
the NPA to add to the OPTION statement other design configurations for
adding white lights to the STOP/SLOW paddle to improve visibility and
conspicuity. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, and the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America in
support of the proposed changes and nine comments from NCUTCD, the
Arizona DOT, Caltrans, private citizens, and traffic control device
manufacturers opposed to it. The opposing commenters suggested that red
and yellow lights should also be permitted, and that the information
regarding the design configurations needed more detail. The FHWA agrees
that these other colors of lights will be helpful to road users at
night, as determined by a New York State study.\44\ Therefore, the FHWA
revises the OPTION statement in this final rule to include the use of
red and yellow lights, as appropriate. The FHWA also adds two new
paragraphs to the following STANDARD statement to provide appropriate
restrictions on the mixing of colors of lights on the STOP
[[Page 65549]]
and SLOW paddles, and well as additional information regarding the
arrangement of lights on the paddles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ A copy of ``Effectiveness of STOP/SLOW Paddles Equipped
With Flashing Red and Flashing Yellow Lights,'' Experiment VI-117(E)
STOP SLOW PADDLE, by Daniel Paddick, P.E., New York State Department
of Transportation, is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA adds to the second STANDARD statement requirements for the
performance of flashing lights that are used on the STOP/SLOW paddle.
These flashing rate values are identical to the flashing rate used in
other parts of the MUTCD. Five commenters representing the New York
State Assembly, traffic control device manufacturers, and a private
citizen suggest that ``triple'' flash modes be allowed; however, the
FHWA disagrees because such high flash rates would appear more like a
flicker than a flash and those rates would be close to the flash rates
that may cause epileptic seizures.\45\ The FHWA adopts the change, as
proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The website of the National Society for Epilepsy, a
professional society in the United Kingdom that specializes in
epilspsy, states that a flash rate of 5 to 30 hertz (flashes per
second) can cause seizures in some people. This information is
available at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epilepsynse.org.uk/pages/info/leaflets/photo.cfm.
A variety of websites of U.S. organizations
also refer to the problem of photosensitivity (triggering of
seizures by flickering lights) among epileptic persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
234. In Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations, the FHWA revises the first
STANDARD statement to indicate that flagger stations shall be located
such that approaching road users will have sufficient distance to stop
at an intended stopping point. The FHWA received one comment from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and two comments
from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
opposed to it. Those who opposed the change suggested that it should be
changed to a GUIDANCE. The FHWA disagrees because it is important that
flagger stations be located where approaching road users can safely
stop, and adopts the change in this final rule.
To enhance worker safety, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement
following the first OPTION statement to indicate that flagger stations
should be located so that an errant vehicle has space to stop without
entering the work space. The FHWA received one comment from the
Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America specifically in
support of this new statement. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that this
statement appear after the first STANDARD statement; however, a
commenter from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen suggested moving it further back in the section to tie in
better with the adjacent statements. The FHWA agrees and adopts this
new GUIDANCE statement in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed changing the first SUPPORT statement
to indicate that the Table 6E-1 provides information regarding the
stopping sight distance as a function of speed. The FHWA received one
comment from the Illinois DOT opposed to this change, stating that the
use of Table 6E-1 is currently clear in the text and title of the table
in the 2000 MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees because the revised SUPPORT
statement matches the new title of the table, which provides the
stopping sight distances for various speeds. The FHWA adopts the
change; however, the FHWA incorporates the text into the following
OPTION statement in this final rule.
The FHWA revises the first OPTION statement to indicate that the
distances shown in Table 6E-1 may be used for the location of a flagger
station. The FHWA received one comment from NIOSH in support of this
change; however, two commenters from Caltrans and the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to it. The
opposing commenters suggested that the FHWA retain the language from
the 2000 MUTCD indicating that the distances may be increased for
downgrades and other conditions that affect stopping distance. The FHWA
agrees and modifies the OPTION statement to include this additional
information in this final rule.
The FHWA changes the title of Table 6E-1 from ``Distance of Flagger
Stations in Advance of the Work Space'' to ``Stopping Sight Distance as
a Function of Speed'' and changes the distance values to be in
agreement with AASHTO's ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets.''\46\ The FHWA received three comments from the Laborers'
Health and Safety Fund of North America, NIOSH, and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,''
4th Edition, 2001, in both hardcopy and CD-ROM, is available from
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) by telephone (800) 231-3475, facsimile (800) 525-
5562, mail AASHTO, P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716, or at
its Web site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.transportation.org and click on Bookstore.
This document is a guide, based on established practices and
supplemented by research, to provide guidance to the highway
designer to provide for the needs of highway users while maintaining
the integrity of the environment. It is incorporated by reference
into the CFR at 23 CFR 625.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FHWA changes the GUIDANCE statement (in the 2000
MUTCD) to a STANDARD statement to indicate that, except in emergency
situations, flagger stations shall be preceded by an advance warning
sign or signs and that, except in emergency situations, flagger
stations shall be illuminated at night. The FHWA believes that anytime
a flagger is active at night, illumination of the flagger station is
important to make the flagger more visible to approaching road users.
The FHWA received one comment from a private citizen suggesting that
more detail be provided to specify the meaning of ``illumination,'' and
five comments from the Kansas and Wisconsin DOTs, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that this
statement remain a GUIDANCE because during emergencies, where flagging
is needed at night, portable lighting units are not always available.
The FHWA agrees that lighting and/or advance warning signs are not
always available for emergency situations, and revises the STANDARD
statement to exclude emergency situations.
235. In Section 6F.01 Types of Devices, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT at
the beginning of this chapter defining the acronym ``TTC'' as discussed
above at the start of the Part 6 discussion. The FHWA also adds a new
SUPPORT statement that includes a reference to the FHWA's policy \47\
requiring that all roadside appurtenances on the National Highway
System meet crashworthy performance criteria and referring to and
repeating the definition of crashworthy as stated in Section 1A.13
Definitions of Words and Phrases in this Manual. The FHWA adds these
statements to consolidate information, to emphasize FHWA policies
regarding accessibility and crashworthiness, and to be consistent with
crashworthiness provisions in Section 6F.03, 6F.58, 6F.53, 6F.66, and
6F.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Information on the FHWA policy is available at the
following URL: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/roadside_hardware.htm_____________________________________-
The FHWA also relocates the final OPTION and SUPPORT statements
from this section, and places them in Section 6F.02 General
Characteristics of Signs, because this information regarding sign
colors is more appropriate in that section. The FHWA makes this minor
editorial change to move these statements for clarity and consolidation
with other text regarding sign colors.
236. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, following
the first STANDARD statement, the FHWA inserts OPTION and SUPPORT
statements regarding the color of warning signs in temporary traffic
control zones. These statements were in Section 6F.01 in the NPA and
2000 MUTCD, however the FHWA moves them to this section in this final
rule where they are more appropriate.
[[Page 65550]]
The FHWA adds to the second OPTION statement that warning and guide
signs used for temporary traffic control of incident management
situations may have a black legend and border on a fluorescent pink
(referred to as coral in the NPA) background. The FHWA received one
comment from the Virginia DOT in support of this change, and one from a
traffic control device manufacturer opposed to it. The opposing
commenter, representing the sign manufacturing industry, suggested that
stronger language changing this to a GUIDANCE would help define the use
of the color for this application and reduce confusion, resulting in
increased recognition and association with incidents on the part of the
road user. The FHWA disagrees because of the unplanned nature of
incidents and the varied agencies and capabilities of first responders,
agencies should have the ability to continue to use orange signs in
incident management situations. Use and experience with the fluorescent
pink color over time will increase awareness. The FHWA adopts the
optional color fluorescent pink in this final rule.
The FHWA adds a new table, numbered and titled, ``Table 6F-1 Sizes
of Temporary Traffic Control Signs'' showing the sizes of temporary
traffic control warning signs to facilitate the proper use of signs in
temporary traffic control zones. This table contains the sizes that
were illustrated with the individual signs in the figures in Chapter 6F
in the NPA. This table consolidates the information in one location for
clarity and easy reference. The FHWA references this table in the
second STANDARD statement. The FHWA also revises the third OPTION
statement to indicate that the dimensions of signs shown in Table 6F-1
may be increased wherever necessary for greater legibility or emphasis.
The FHWA adds this table and makes these changes to respond to a
comment from Caltrans suggesting that a table of sign sizes in Part 6
would better serve users than having the information spread throughout
the part, and to clarify dimensions related to the class of highway on
which the various sizes are recommended. The FHWA also removes sign
sizes from the pages of sign images throughout this chapter, because
this table consolidates all information regarding sign sizes in one
location.
The FHWA revises the wording and changes the last SUPPORT
statement, regarding external sign illumination, to a STANDARD because
of the need for consistency with requirements throughout other areas of
the MUTCD. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen noting this inconsistency and
suggesting that it be corrected, and the FHWA agrees that it is
important to be consistent.
237. In Section 6F.03 Sign Placement, in the first STANDARD
statement, the FHWA adds ``bicycle movements'' to the list of reasons
why in urban areas the distance between the bottom of the sign and the
top of the near edge of the traveled way shall be at least 2.1 m (7
ft), to enhance safety for bicyclists. The FHWA received seven comments
from the City and County of Denver and private citizens in support of
this change, and two comments from the Ohio DOT and a private citizen
opposed to it. The Ohio DOT questioned the relationship between the
presence of a bicycle and sign height. The FHWA believes that because
bicyclists do ride on sidewalks in urban areas, they will have an
effect on signs, especially when riding in a standing position, thus
higher mounting heights are needed. A private citizen felt that this
should not be a STANDARD statement if obvious exceptions exist, unless
they are specifically listed. The FHWA believes that this STANDARD is
consistent with the first paragraph of Section 2A.18 Mounting Height,
which is also a STANDARD. The FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement
(consistent with Section 2A.18) that the mounting heights apply except
as otherwise provided elsewhere in the MUTCD.
Additionally, the FHWA adds language to the STANDARD requiring
signs to be mounted and placed in accordance with Section 4.4 of the
``Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG).''\48\ The FHWA received three
comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and associations
representing the blind community in support of this new text, and
comments from the NCUTCD, the Ohio DOT, and Lake County, Illinois,
opposed to it. The opposing commenters stated several reasons,
including that this statement is repetitive throughout Part 6, that
agencies need the flexibility to use engineering judgment on a case-by-
case basis to determine the appropriate measures in a temporary traffic
control plan, and that the guidelines should be specifically stated in
the MUTCD, rather than referenced. The FHWA disagrees because the ADAAG
guidelines are too voluminous to include directly in the MUTCD and
because ADAAG provides flexibility to determine the need for
accommodation of pedestrians with disabilities and the actual
applications that will be used when necessary. The FHWA adopts the
text, as proposed in the NPA with a modification to address the issue
of need for accommodation. Repetition is important to elevate the
practitioners' awareness on the accommodation of pedestrians with
disabilities and there are specific details in this and other sections
of Part 6 on the installation of devices to satisfy accommodation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ``Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG),'' as amended through January
1998, is published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), 1331 F Street, NW., Suite
1000, Washington, DC 2004-111. It may be obtained from the Access
Board, or viewed electronically at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.access-board.gov/
adaag/html/adaag.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the second GUIDANCE statement that
signs mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft) should not project more than 100
mm (4 in) into pedestrian facilities. This is in accordance with the
``Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines For
Buildings And Facilities (ADAAG).'' The FHWA received two comments from
associations representing the blind community supporting this change,
and comments from the NCUTCD and a traffic engineering consultant
opposed to it. The NCUTCD felt that this information was repetitive and
the traffic engineering consultant suggested that ``sidewalk'' be
removed from the GUIDANCE statement to better accommodate urban
settings where paved sidewalks extend from the curb face to the
building line. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the text as proposed in
the NPA.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a SUPPORT statement indicating
that the design and placement of work zone signs is described elsewhere
in Chapter 6F of the Manual. The FHWA received one comment from the
NCUTCD opposed this, suggesting that this statement is not necessary.
The FHWA agrees and deletes this statement from this final rule.
Additionally, in the 2000 MUTCD, the FHWA established a new
requirement in this section that sign supports for temporary traffic
control devices shall be crashworthy, but no special phase-in target
compliance date was established at that time. Based on comments that
agencies are encountering difficulties and economic impacts given the
extensive testing of devices that has to occur in accordance with NCHRP
Report 350 \49\ in order to determine and
[[Page 65551]]
certify crashworthiness, the FHWA determines that a special phase-in
target compliance date is required for the crashworthiness provision in
this section. In this final rule, the FHWA establishes a phase-in
target compliance date of January 17, 2005 for sign supports for
temporary traffic control devices to be crashworthy. This is consistent
with guidance previously communicated informally to jurisdictions in
training and presentations by the FHWA Office of Safety regarding
roadside safety and countermeasures for run-off-the-road crashes, and
is a reasonable phase-in target date for achieving compliance.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement regarding the type
of sign post to be used in the clear zone. The FHWA received three
comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen opposed to the new GUIDANCE. The City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen suggested that the statement be
strengthened to a STANDARD, in order to require that sign posts placed
in the clear zone be yielding or breakaway. The FHWA disagrees that
this should be a STANDARD because jurisdictions need the flexibility to
address unusual situations, but the FHWA revises the wording of the
GUIDANCE in this final rule to be consistent with other references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ NCHRP Report 350, ``Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Performance Evaluation of Highway Features,'' 1993, is available for
downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement regarding crashworthiness of
sign supports. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting
that this statement is not necessary. The FHWA disagrees because this
statement conveys important information about crashworthiness of sign
supports. The FHWA revises the statement slightly in this final rule to
clarify the language and add a reference to NCHRP Report 350.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding OPTION, GUIDANCE, and OPTION
statements at the end of the section regarding sign supports for long-
term and short-term use. Based on comments, the FHWA removes these
statements from this final rule, because this information is contained
in Section 6F.01 Types of Devices and it is not necessary to repeat it
in this section.
In Figure 6F-2, the FHWA adds the phrase, ``above the traveled
way,'' to the mounting height notes in the figure to be consistent with
the corresponding standard statements in this section.
238. In Section 6F.06 Regulatory Sign Design, the FHWA changes the
first sentence of the SUPPORT statement (in the 2000 MUTCD) to become a
new STANDARD statement at the beginning of the section, stating that
temporary traffic control regulatory signs shall conform to the
standards for regulatory signs presented in Part 2 and in the FHWA's
``Standard Highway Signs'' book. In the 2000 MUTCD, this sentence
contains the word ``shall'' but was inadvertently included in the
SUPPORT statement. This will make this statement consistent with the
remainder of the MUTCD. The remainder of the SUPPORT statement remains
a SUPPORT statement. The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and incorporates
this change in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA identifies the three page images of
regulatory signs that follow page 6F-7 (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD)
as ``Figure 6F-3 Regulatory Signs in Temporary Traffic Control Zones,''
and numbers them Sheets 1 and 2. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that
each page of sign images have a distinct figure number and title;
however, several commenters suggested that the various titles were
confusing. Additionally the FHWA removes all of the sign sizes from the
pages of sign images, because sign sizes are now included in Table 6F-
1.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed increasing the size of the following
signs in Table 6F-1: PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK, SIDEWALK CLOSED, SIDEWALK
CLOSED USE OTHER SIDE, SIDEWALK CLOSED CROSS HERE, and SIDEWALK CLOSED
AHEAD CROSS HERE to make it easier for a pedestrian to read these signs
from across a wide street. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD,
the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to
the larger sign sizes, and one comment from the Connecticut DOT
questioning why the larger signs were needed. The reason for increasing
the size of the signs was to make them more readable from across the
street, and to make them more readable by pedestrians with visual
disabilities. Based on the comments, and FHWA's judgment that 48-inch-
wide signs would be too wide, thus in some cases blocking the sidewalk,
the FHWA restores the size of these signs to 600 x 300 mm (24 x 12 in)
in this final rule. Jurisdictions may use larger sizes when needed and
where feasible.
239. In Section 6F.12 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK Sign (R9-8), the FHWA
adds a STANDARD statement following the OPTION statement that if a
temporary crosswalk is established, it shall be accessible to
pedestrians with disabilities. The FHWA received eight comments from
the City of Tucson, Arizona, the City and County of Denver, and private
citizens in support of this new statement, and one from the NCUTCD
opposed to it. The NCUTCD indicated that the statement was repetitious.
The FHWA agrees; however, repetition is necessary in this case to
elevate awareness, and the FHWA adopts the statement, with an added
reference to the new Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, which
provides additional information about pedestrian accessibility.
240. In Section 6F.13, SIDEWALK CLOSED Signs (R9-9, R9-10, R9-11,
R9-11a), to provide adequate route guidance information to pedestrians,
the FHWA proposed to add to the first GUIDANCE statement that Bicycle/
Pedestrian Detour (M4-9a) or Pedestrian Detour (M4-9b) signs should be
used where pedestrian flow is rerouted. The FHWA received one comment
from the NCUTCD opposed to this new text, suggesting that reference to
these signs is not necessary in this section. The FHWA disagrees and
adopts the references to the M4-9a and M4-9b signs in this final rule.
The SIDEWALK CLOSED signs are used in situations where the normal
pedestrian traffic is rerouted.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT statement that printed
signs are not useful to pedestrians with visual disabilities. In the
NPA, the FHWA proposed to add that accessible pedestrian signals can
provide audible information about closures and alternate routes. The
FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to this additional
text, stating that it was repetitive. The FHWA received three comments
from associations representing the blind community suggesting that the
statement be expanded to provide more useful information about how to
communicate sidewalk closure information to pedestrians with visual
disabilities. The FHWA agrees and incorporates additional information
regarding the use of barriers, detectable barricades, accessible
signage, and audible information.
241. In Section 6F.14 Special Regulatory Signs, the FHWA adds a
SUPPORT statement referencing Section 2B.17 FINES HIGHER PLAQUE for
information regarding the use of the FINES HIGHER sign, because this
sign can be useful in enhancing speed enforcement in temporary traffic
control zones. The FHWA received three comments from ATSSA, the City of
Tucson, Arizona, and the Associated General Contractors of America in
support of this new statement, and one from the NCUTCD opposed to it.
The
[[Page 65552]]
NCUTCD suggested that reference to this sign is not necessary in this
section. The FHWA disagrees and adopts this new statement in this final
rule. Practitioners may not otherwise find that such a sign exists
without the reference in Part 6 where they would typically look for
temporary traffic control signs and the related text.
242. In Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function, Design, and
Application, the FHWA adds to the first OPTION statement that warning
signs used for temporary traffic control incident management situations
may have a black legend and border on a fluorescent pink (referred to
as coral in the NPA) background, as an alternative to black on orange.
This is consistent with changes in Section 6F.02 General
Characteristics of Signs and the new Chapter 6I. The FHWA received one
comment from Lake County, Illinois, opposed to the use of fluorescent
pink, suggesting that highway incident management signing needs to be
consistent with emergency management signing. The FHWA disagrees
because these are two different situations and there is no reason why
these signs need to be the same color. The FHWA adopts the change as
proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, in the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add to the GUIDANCE
statement that where road users include pedestrians, the provision of
supplemental audible or tactile warning information should be
considered for people with visual disabilities. The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this statement,
and four from associations representing the blind community opposed to
it. The NCUTCD suggested that this statement is repetitive. Three
comments from associations representing the blind community suggested
that the statement be revised to provide for supplemental audible
information or detectable barriers or barricades, rather than tactile
information, for pedestrians with visual disabilities. The FHWA agrees
and incorporates these revisions in this final rule. The FHWA also
inserts a SUPPORT statement following the GUIDANCE to clarify how
detectable barriers and barricades assist pedestrians with visual
disabilities.
Additionally, the FHWA identifies the six page images of warning
signs that follow page 6F-13 (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) as
``Figure 6F-4 Warning Signs in Temporary Traffic Control Zones,'' and
numbers them Sheets 1 through 4. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that
each page of sign images have a distinct figure number, however in this
final rule the FHWA numbers these pages similar to the illustrations of
regulatory signs. The FHWA identifies the following page of sign images
``Figure 6F-5 Exit Open and Closed and Detour Signs.''
Similar to comments in Section 2C.30 Speed Reduction Signs, the
FHWA received two comments from the Missouri DOT and Lake County,
Illinois, opposed to changing the Reduced Speed Ahead sign from a
regulatory sign to a warning sign. Consistent with the decision in Part
2, the FHWA changes the Reduced Speed Ahead sign to a warning sign with
sign designations W3-5 and W3-5a.
The FHWA received three comments from the Ohio DOT, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting additional
information regarding the use of the new dump truck symbol warning sign
(W11-10a) to clarify where the sign should be used. Consistent with
Chapter 2C, the FHWA withdraws the proposed new dump truck symbol
warning sign (W11-10a) and instead illustrates the W11-10 truck warning
symbol sign. The FHWA also adds a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 6F.34 Motorized Traffic Signs (W8-6, W11-10),'' to clarify
sign use.
The FHWA received two comments from the Ohio DOT regarding the NO
CENTER STRIPE (W8-12) sign. First, the Ohio DOT suggested that a sign
be added to address the situation when the edge line has been
obliterated. The FHWA believes that this is not usually a situation
that requires warning, because there are many roads that do not have
edge lines, however there is nothing that would prohibit an agency from
developing a special word message warning sign with the legend NO EDGE
LINE that would be similar to the W8-12 sign. Second, the Ohio DOT
opposed the NO CENTER STRIPE sign, suggesting that the legend should
read NO CENTER LINE. The FHWA disagrees because ``centerline'' is a
single word, and to be technically correct would need to be on the same
line. The FHWA believes that the public understands both ``centerline''
and ``center stripe'' equally well, so it adopts the NO CENTER STRIPE
legend on the W8-12 sign in this final rule.
The FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen regarding the BE PREPARED TO STOP
(designated W20-7b in the NPA) sign. Both commenters suggested that a
larger size be used. The FHWA revises the designation for this sign to
be W3-4 throughout Part 6 to maintain consistency with Chapter 2C. The
W3 Series in Chapter 2C has a conventional size of 900 x 900 mm (36 x
36 in), however agencies may choose to use larger sizes where they feel
it is appropriate.
A traffic engineering consultant suggested that the FHWA add a new
section to allow for Special Warning Signs similar to the provision for
Special Regulatory Signs in 6F.14. The FHWA agrees and has included a
new Section 6F.47 Special Warning Signs.
243. In Section 6F.17 ROAD (STREET) WORK Sign (W20-1), in the NPA,
the FHWA proposed adding an OPTION statement indicating that, where
traffic can enter a temporary traffic control zone from a crossroad or
a major (high volume) driveway, an advance warning sign may be used on
the crossroad or major driveway to alert road users. The FHWA received
comments from ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen
in support of this change, and one comment from the NCUTCD suggesting
that this statement be strengthened to a GUIDANCE. The FHWA agrees that
use of the sign on the crossroad is important for safety and changes
this statement to a GUIDANCE in this final rule.
244. In Section 6F.24 the FHWA changes the title of the section
from ``Lane Reduction Sign (W4-2)'' to ``Lane Ends Sign (W4-2)'' to
reflect the sign's name change and to be consistent with Part 2. The
FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support
of this change, and adopts this change. The FHWA received three
comments from the Minnesota DOT, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a private citizen opposed to the new sign design for the W4-2 sign,
which depicts a lane ending. Please refer to the discussion regarding
this sign in Section 2C.33 Lane Ends Signs (W4-2, W9-1, W9-2) above.
245. In Section 6F.27 SLOW TRAFFIC AHEAD Sign (W23-1), the FHWA
proposed changing the sign shape from a rectangle to a diamond. The
FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a private citizen opposed to it to the change in sign shape,
stating that the rectangular sign fits better than a diamond sign on
the back of a moving truck, which is where this sign is primarily used.
The FHWA agrees and illustrates a rectangular shaped W23-1 sign in
Figure 6F-4.
246. In Section 6F.28 EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED, EXIT ONLY Signs (E5-
2, E5-2a, E5-3) (titled EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED Signs (E5-2, E5-2a) in
the NPA), the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement indicating that when an
exit ramp is closed, a black on orange EXIT CLOSED panel should be
placed
[[Page 65553]]
diagonally across the interchange/intersection guide signs to enhance
the information provided to road users. The FHWA received one comment
from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this new GUIDANCE
statement, and five comments from the NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT,
Caltrans, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
opposed to it. The NCUTCD suggested that the GUIDANCE be changed to an
OPTION, because ramp closures may occur for only a short period of
time, and installing EXIT CLOSED panels on freeway guide signs involves
significant effort.
Caltrans and the Wisconsin DOT suggested that the diagonal
orientation of the sign would be especially confusing on guide signs
with more than one exit, because a portion of the street name would be
covered and unreadable for road users desiring to use the exit that is
open. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
suggested that the size of the panel be changed to better cover the
sign. The FHWA disagrees with the opposing comments because it is very
important, particularly for unfamiliar road users, to know that an exit
is closed, and covering only a portion of the message by using the
diagonal placement of the sign gives road users a visual clue as to
what exit is closed. Because this sign may be used for other
applications, the sign size, as proposed in the NPA, is appropriate.
The FHWA adds the EXIT ONLY sign (E5-3) to Figure 6F-5, and changes
the title of the figure to ``Exit Open and Closed and Detour Signs.''
The EXIT ONLY sign has been in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' book for
many years and is used in some applications, so the FHWA determines
that it is to be included in this section to correct an earlier
omission.
247. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
6F.34 Motorized Traffic Signs (W8-6, W11-10).'' The FHWA adds this
section in this final rule for consistency with Section 2C.36 Motorized
Traffic Signs (W8-6, W11-10) and to address comments received in
Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application. This new
section mirrors text in Section 2C.36 Motorized Traffic Signs (W8-6,
W11-10) and includes OPTION and SUPPORT statements clarifying the use
of the Motorized Traffic (W8-6, W11-10) signs to alert road users to
locations where unexpected use of the roadway by construction vehicles
might occur. The FHWA renumbers the subsequent sections accordingly.
248. In Section 6F.38 Signs for Blasting Areas (numbered Section
6F.37 in the NPA), the FHWA removes the GUIDANCE statement from this
section. The GUIDANCE statement included a minimum safe distance of 300
m (1000 ft) for placing warning signs, however this information is
stated as a STANDARD in Sections 6F.40 and 6F.41 (numbered 6F.38 to
6F.40 in the NPA). The FHWA received comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen requesting that this
inconsistency be resolved. The FHWA agrees that the STANDARD should
take precedence and removes the GUIDANCE from Section 6F.38.
249. In Section 6F.40 TURN OFF 2-WAY RADIO AND CELL PHONE Sign
(W22-2) (numbered Section 6F.39 in the NPA), the FHWA received two
comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen opposed to adding the word ``CELL'' to the legend of the W22-2a
sign. The commenters suggested that other mobile phones have the same
risk of causing premature firing of detonators. These commenters also
suggested that the sign needed to be more readable with larger letter
sizes and only three lines of text. The FHWA believes that the sign, as
proposed in the NPA with the word ``CELL'', is appropriate. The
Temporary Traffic Controls Committee of the NCUTCD supported the sign
proposed in the NPA based on information received from representatives
of the blasting industry and the Federal Communication Commission. Even
though there are some other types of mobile phones and radios that can
potentially cause premature firing of detonators, two-way radios and
cell phones constitute the bulk of the devices in use in vehicles
today, and the FHWA believes the terminology is best understood by the
public. The FHWA changes the sign designation from W22-2a to W22-2 in
this final rule, because there is no sign currently designated W22-2.
250. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed combining Sections 6F.41 and
6F.42 (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) into one section numbered and
titled, ``Section 6F.41 Shoulder and UNEVEN LANES Signs (W8-4, W8-9,
W8-9a, and W8-11).'' Although the FHWA received comments from a private
citizen and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation in support of combining
these sections, the NCUTCD suggested that these two sections should not
be combined because they each describe unique applications and having
two separate sections enhances practitioners' understanding. The FHWA
agrees and separates these sections in this final rule into Section
6F.42 Shoulder Signs (W8-4, W8-9, W8-9a) and Section 6F.43 UNEVEN LANES
Sign (W8-11).
In Section 6F.42 Shoulder Signs (W8-4, W8-9, W8-9a), the FHWA
includes an OPTION statement to allow the use of the SOFT SHOULDER sign
to warn of a soft shoulder condition and the LOW SHOULDER sign to warn
of a shoulder condition where there is an elevation difference of less
than 75 mm (3 in) between the shoulder and the travel lane. The FHWA
received two comments in support of these changes from a private
citizen and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and adopts these changes.
The FHWA received two comments from the Illinois DOT and a traffic
engineering consultant opposed to mandating the use of SHOULDER DROP
OFF signs. Those opposed expressed that the text should be a GUIDANCE,
because requiring the use of SHOULDER DROP OFF signs at all locations
that meet the criteria would be a considerable hardship on agencies to
properly identify all locations and sign them at all times. The FHWA
agrees and revises this as to a GUIDANCE and adds clarifying text
consistent with Chapter 2C in this final rule.
In Section 6F.43 UNEVEN LANES Sign (W8-11) (numbered Section 6F.42
in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA maintains the GUIDANCE statement from the
2000 MUTCD text, and adds the phrase ``that are open to travel'' at the
end of the sentence to address a comment received in Section 2C.26
Shoulder Signs suggesting additional information be included regarding
the use of the UNEVEN LANES sign. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed
including the word ``substantial'' in the description of the difference
in elevation between adjacent lanes. The FHWA received four comments
from the NCUTCD, the Illinois DOT, the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that the word
``substantial'' be removed, because it is vague. The FHWA agrees and
adopts the GUIDANCE with modifications in this final rule.
251. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
6F.45 Double Reverse Curve Signs (W24 Series).'' (This section was
numbered Section 6F.43 in the NPA.) This section contains an OPTION
statement regarding the use of the Double Reverse Curve sign when the
tangent distance between two reverse curves is insufficient for a
second Reverse Curve sign to be placed between the curves. The FHWA
received two comments from ATSSA and the City of Tucson,
[[Page 65554]]
Arizona, in support of this new statement, and one from the NCUTCD
suggesting that the word ``insufficient'' be defined as ``less than 180
m (600 feet).'' The FHWA agrees and clarifies the OPTION statement in
this final rule.
This section also contains a STANDARD statement that if a Double
Reverse Curve sign is used, the number of lanes illustrated on the sign
shall be the same as the number of through lanes available to road
users, and the direction of the double reverse curve shall be
appropriately illustrated. The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this new statement, and
three comments from Caltrans, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a private citizen suggesting that illustrating the number of lanes
on the sign may be complex for multi-lane applications. The FHWA adopts
the text in this final rule, because it is important to convey to road
users that all of the lanes continue. Two commenters from City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggested that the
size of the W24 series signs be 1200 x 1200 mm (48 x 48 in). The FHWA
believes that for one and two lane Double Reverse Curve signs, the 900
x 900 mm (36 x 36 in) signs as proposed in the NPA are appropriate, but
that for three or more lanes, larger sizes may be desirable, and there
is nothing preventing agencies from using larger sign sizes.
252. In Section 6F.46 Other Warning Signs (numbered 6F.44 in the
NPA), the FHWA revises the STANDARD statement to reference Section
6F.02 for exceptions to using black legends and borders on orange
backgrounds for warning signs. The FHWA includes this change in this
final rule because it is necessary to be consistent with other sections
of the MUTCD.
253. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
6F.47 Special Warning signs.'' This section contains OPTION and
GUIDANCE statements with information regarding the design of special
warning signs. The FHWA adds this section to this final rule to remind
readers that special word message warning signs may be used. This
section parallels a similar section in Part 2 that allows the use of
special word signs, and adding the section to Part 6 is necessary for
consistency.
254. In Section 6F.48 Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) (numbered
Section 6F.45 in the NPA), the FHWA received comments from the Ohio DOT
opposed to the design of the sign--both the black circle around the
numerals on the metric sign and the use of periods between the letters
for the acronym ``M.P.H.'' on the English-units sign. The FHWA
disagrees that the black circle around the numerals is confusing,
because it is necessary that this sign look different from the English-
unit sign in order to avoid confusion. The FHWA adopts the black circle
on the sign in this final rule. The FHWA agrees that periods are not
necessary in the acronym MPH and removes the periods from the sign
images and from the listing in Table 1A-1, to reflect common practice.
255. In Section 6F.50 Guide Signs (numbered Section 6F.47 in the
NPA), the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement that guide signs used for
temporary traffic control incident management situations may have a
black legend and border on a fluorescent pink (referred to as coral in
the NPA) background as an alternative to black on orange, to correspond
with the change in Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs. The
FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support
of this change, and three comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, a private citizen, and a traffic engineering consultant
suggesting that wording of the STANDARD and the GUIDANCE relating to
the color of additional guide signs in temporary traffic control zones
was inconsistent and confusing. To clarify, the FHWA revises the
STANDARD statement in this final rule to specify that if additional
temporary guide signs are used in temporary traffic control zones, they
shall have a black legend and border on an orange background. The FHWA
also adds a paragraph to the OPTION stating that when permanent
directional or street name signs are used with detour signing, they may
have a white legend on a green background. This will clarify that
street name signs do not need to be on an orange background.
256. In Section 6F.52 END ROAD WORK Sign (G20-2) (numbered Section
6F.49 in the NPA), the FHWA changes the GUIDANCE statement to indicate
that the END ROAD WORK sign should be placed near the end of the
termination area, rather than specify a distance beyond the end of the
temporary traffic control zone as in the 2000 MUTCD. The FHWA received
two comments from the NCUTCD and the Wisconsin DOT opposed to this
change. The NCUTCD suggested that the wording be changed to indicate
that this sign is not always necessary, and the Wisconsin DOT suggested
that a placement distance be included. The FHWA agrees with the NCUTCD
and adds the phrase ``when used'' at the start of the GUIDANCE. Rather
than specifying a distance, the FHWA further clarifies that the END
ROAD WORK sign should be placed near the end of the termination area,
as determined by engineering judgment.
257. In Section 6F.53 Detour Signs and Markers (M4-8, M4-8a, M4-8b,
M4-9, M4-9a, M4-9b, M4-9c, and M4-10) (numbered Section 6F.50 in the
NPA), the FHWA changes the title to include signs specifically for
detouring pedestrians and bicyclists.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the first OPTION statement that
signs used for temporary traffic control of incident management
situations may have a black legend and border on a fluorescent pink
(referred to as coral in the NPA) background, as an alternative to
black on orange, to correspond to changes in Section 6F.02 General
Characteristics of Signs. The FHWA received one comment from the City
of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change, and incorporates this
change.
Additionally, at the end of the second GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA
adds that the Pedestrian/Bicycle Detour (M4-9a) sign should be used
where a pedestrian/bicycle detour route has been established because of
the closing of a pedestrian/bicycle facility to through traffic. In the
NPA, the FHWA proposed that this be a STANDARD, rather than GUIDANCE;
however, the FHWA believes that GUIDANCE is more appropriate and is
consistent with Section 6F.13 Sidewalk Closed Signs. The FHWA adds a
STANDARD statement that if used, the Pedestrian/Bicycle Detour sign
shall have an arrow pointing in the appropriate direction.
Additionally, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement at the end of the
section that an arrow may be on the sign face or on a supplemental
plaque. The Pedestrian/Bicycle Detour (M4-9a) sign or Bicycle Detour
(M4-9c) sign may be used where a pedestrian or bicycle detour route
(not both) has been established because of the closing of that
particular facility to through traffic.
The FHWA received eleven comments from the Florida DOT, the City
and County of Denver, Colorado, the City of Tucson, Arizona, the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and private
citizens in support of the changes to include signs specifically for
detouring pedestrians and bicyclists.
258. In Section 6F.55 Portable Changeable Message Signs (numbered
Section 6F.52 in the NPA), the FHWA adds a sentence at the end of the
first STANDARD statement that each character module shall use at least
a five wide and seven high pixel matrix, based on research regarding
visibility and
[[Page 65555]]
legibility of changeable message signs.\50\ The FHWA received one
comment from the NCUTCD opposing this change, stating that other units
are in use. The FHWA believes that this is a minimum requirement, and
the FHWA includes this sentence in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ ``Changeable Message Sign Visibility,'' Federal Highway
Administration publication number FHWA-RD-94-077, by P.M. Garvey and
D.J. Mace, 1994, is available from FHWA, Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, Virginia 22101. It is
also available for purchase from The National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000. Internet Web
site address at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the first GUIDANCE statement that
for a trailer or large truck mounted sign, the letter height should be
a minimum of 450 mm (18 in). For a service patrol truck mounted sign,
the letter height should be a minimum of 250 mm (10 in). The message
panel should have adjustable display rates (minimum of 3 seconds per
phase) so that the entire message can be read at least twice at the
posted speed, the off-peak 85th percentile prior to work starting, or
the anticipated operating speed. Because the FHWA is retaining the
current guidance that road users should be able to read the entire
message twice, there may be a need in some temporary traffic control
zones to use more than one Portable Changeable Message sign. The FHWA
incorporates these changes in response to research addressing the needs
of older road users.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Information about this research is summarized on pages 253-
263 of the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA
Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for
purchase from The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000. Internet Web site
address at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA received one opposing comment from a traffic engineering
consultant suggesting that legibility depends on several factors and
that, at a minimum, letter heights on trailer or large truck mounted
signs and changeable message signs mounted on service patrol trucks
should be the same, at 450 mm (18 in). The Virginia DOT agreed with
allowing smaller letter heights for service patrol trucks and also
suggested that letter heights for signs used on work vehicles in moving
operations could also be smaller. The FHWA received one opposing
comment from a traffic control device manufacturer suggesting that
letter heights for changeable message signs should be consistent with
the size of lettering on static signs. The FHWA disagrees because the
sign types are entirely different and need to be treated separately.
The FHWA adopts the letter heights as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to the
minimum three second per phase recommendation for the adjustable
display rates, stating that there was no documentation indicating that
three seconds was appropriate. The FHWA disagrees because a minimum
display time needs to be specified for each message phase to give road
users a reasonable chance to read the message before it goes away and,
based on the previously-cited research addressing the needs of older
drivers, believes three seconds is sufficient.
Additionally, for clarity, the FHWA moves the GUIDANCE information
regarding the factors that agencies should take into account when
designing changeable messages from the end of the section to the end of
the first GUIDANCE statement.
Additionally, the FHWA changes and relocates from the first
GUIDANCE statement to the following OPTION statement (based on the 2000
MUTCD) that smaller letter sizes may be used on a sign mounted on a
trailer or large truck provided that the message is legible from a
minimum distance of 200 m (650 ft), or a sign mounted on a service
patrol truck provided that the message is legible from a minimum
distance of 100 m (330 ft). The FHWA received one comment from the
NCUTCD opposed to this paragraph, stating that there is not sufficient
documentation to justify smaller letter sizes. The FHWA adopts the
OPTION as proposed in the NPA, because service patrol trucks are
typically small pick-up trucks on which it is not practical to mount
large signs.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a fourth paragraph to the second
STANDARD statement to clarify that the mounting of Portable Changeable
Message signs on a trailer, a large truck, or a service patrol truck
shall be such that the bottom of the message sign panel shall be a
minimum or 2.1 m (7 ft) above the roadway in urban areas and 1.5 m (5
ft) in rural areas when it is in the operating mode, to correspond with
mounting heights for ground-mounted signs. The FHWA received one
comment from a traffic engineering consultant opposed to these mounting
heights, stating that it is sometimes not practical or necessary to
mount the large, heavy signs this high. The commenter suggested that
this be changed to a GUIDANCE to give more flexibility. The FHWA
retains this as a STANDARD, because the only change from the 2000 MUTCD
is to add that these signs may be mounted lower in rural areas, thereby
giving agencies additional flexibility. Any further changes would
require notice and public comment in a future rulemaking.
The FHWA also consolidates all of the SUPPORT statements in this
section under one heading at the beginning of the section. The FHWA
makes this minor editorial change to better organize the section, based
on a suggestion from a traffic engineering consultant.
259. In Section 6F.56 Arrow Panels (numbered Section 6F.53 in the
NPA), the FHWA adds to the first GUIDANCE statement that an arrow panel
in the arrow mode should be used to advise approaching road users of a
lane closure along major multi-lane roadways in situations involving
heavy traffic volumes, high speeds, and/or limited sight distances, or
at other locations and under other conditions where road users are less
likely to expect such lane closures. The FHWA received one comment from
the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change. The NCUTCD
opposed this change suggesting that ``Sequential Chevron mode'' be
added, because chevron mode is also permitted for arrow panels in this
case. The FHWA agrees and incorporates this change.
The FHWA also revises the last paragraph of this GUIDANCE statement
to clarify that if it is not removed, an arrow panel within the clear
zone should be delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic
control devices if it is not feasible to shield it with a barrier or
crash cushion when it is not in use. The FHWA received one comment from
a private citizen opposed to this change, stating that shielding the
arrow panel with a barrier or crash cushion is impractical. The FHWA
notes that the change proposed in the NPA actually clarified that the
shielding only pertains to arrow panels not in use, and that
retroreflective delineation is acceptable. The FHWA adopts the change
as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA revises the last paragraph of the sixth STANDARD statement
to clarify the language. The FHWA received no comments regarding this
change, and adopts this change. However, the FHWA received two comments
from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
regarding the fifth GUIDANCE statement and the last paragraph of the
last STANDARD statement concerning the use of the word ``shift'' as it
relates to moving traffic over laterally. Because the intent throughout
the MUTCD is that arrow panels are to be used only in merging
operations, not to shift traffic laterally, the FHWA revises these
statements accordingly. The FHWA makes these changes in the final rule,
[[Page 65556]]
due to the comments received and the need to clarify the proper use of
arrow panels.
The FHWA also adds an OPTION at the end of the section to indicate
that a portable changeable message sign may be used to simulate an
arrow panel display. The FHWA received one comment from the Illinois
DOT opposed to this new OPTION, stating that it should be deleted
because portable changeable message signs are not nearly as conspicuous
as arrow panels. The FHWA disagrees because portable changeable message
signs are often used as a supplement to arrow panels well in advance of
the arrow panels where long queues are expected. The FHWA adopts this
new OPTION in this final rule.
260. In Section 6F.58 Channelizing Devices (numbered Section 6F.55
in the NPA), following the first SUPPORT statement, the FHWA proposed
adding a STANDARD statement, GUIDANCE statement, and another STANDARD
statement defining the use of channelizing devices to channelize
pedestrians and that they need to be detectable to users of long canes.
While there were eight comments from the City and County of Denver,
Colorado, and private citizens in support of these new statements, the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggested that
use of these devices should only be necessary at locations that are
likely to be used by pedestrians with visual disabilities. Lake County,
Illinois, opposed this change, stating that the individual highway
agencies should have more flexibility in meeting the ADA Guidelines.
Several representatives of the blind community recommended rewording to
include that the devices should be detectable not only to users of long
canes, but also visible to persons having low vision, because many
persons who are severely visually impaired do not travel with the aid
of a long cane or a guide dog, but rely on their diminished vision for
travel information. Channelizing devices that are made highly visible
by strong contrast are accessible to pedestrians with low vision. The
FHWA agrees and revises the STANDARD statement accordingly. The FHWA
changes the proposed GUIDANCE to an OPTION, because it was
inadvertently classified as a GUIDANCE in the NPA. The FHWA also
modifies this statement, increasing the maximum gap size between the
bottom rail and the ground to 150 mm (6 in) (proposed as 38 mm, 1.5
inches in the NPA) to facilitate drainage.
The FHWA revises the first GUIDANCE statement by removing the
phrase ``in the immediate area'' from the last sentence regarding
fragments or other debris from channeling devices or ballast. The
NCUTCD disagreed with removing this phrase, but did not cite a reason.
The FHWA adopts the sentence as proposed in the NPA because debris and
fragments pose a hazard to road users and workers, even if not in the
immediate area. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen suggested that this statement should be a STANDARD and that all
channelizing devices shall be crashworthy. The FHWA disagrees because
not every channelizing device is required to be crashworthy. The FHWA
adopts the language of this statement as proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a note to Figure 6F-7 (numbered 6F-14
in the NPA), (Sheet 1 of 2) that if drums, cones, or tubular markers
are used to channelize pedestrians, they shall be located such that
there are no gaps between the bases of the devices, in order to create
a continuous bottom, and the height of each individual drum, cone, or
tubular marker shall be no less than 915 mm (36 in) to be detectable to
users of long canes. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD,
the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to
this new note, suggesting that it be revised to indicate that criteria
apply only at locations where the presence of disabled pedestrians is
likely. The FHWA addresses this comment by beginning this note with
``if'' rather than ``when'' in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a note to Figure 6F-7 (numbered 6F-14
in the NPA), (Sheet 2 of 2) that if barricades are used to channelize
pedestrians, there shall be continuous detectable bottom and top rails
with no gaps between individual barricades to be detectable to users of
long canes. The bottom of the bottom rail shall be no higher than 150
mm (6 in) above the ground surface. The top of the top rail shall be no
lower than 915 mm (36 in) above the ground surface. The FHWA received
three comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a private citizen opposed to this new note, suggesting that it be
revised to indicate that criteria apply only at locations where the
presence of disabled pedestrians is likely. The FHWA addresses this
comment by beginning this note with ``if'' rather than ``when'' in this
final rule.
The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that the footnote
regarding nominal lumber dimensions on each of the figures not be
removed as was proposed in the NPA. The FHWA removes this footnote
because devices constructed of lumber have not passed NCHRP 350
crashworthy criteria.
Additionally, in the 2000 MUTCD a new recommendation was
established in this section that channelizing devices in temporary
traffic control zones should be crashworthy. No special phase-in target
compliance date was established at that time. Based on comments that
agencies are encountering difficulties and economic impacts given the
extensive testing of devices that has to occur in accordance with NCHRP
Report 350 \52\ in order to determine and certify crashworthiness, the
FHWA determines that a special phase-in target compliance date is
required for the crashworthiness provision in this section. Therefore,
in this final rule, the FHWA establishes a special phase-in target
compliance date of January 17, 2005, for when channelizing devices in
temporary traffic control zones should be crashworthy. The FHWA
believes this target date of four years from the effective date of the
2000 MUTCD provides agencies with a reasonable period in which to phase
in the use of compliant channelizing devices in temporary traffic
control zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ NCHRP Report 350, ``Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Performance Evaluation of Highway Features,'' 1993, is available for
downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a phase-in target compliance date of
five years from the effective date of this final rule for the changes
in this section regarding pedestrian accessibility (detectability by
users of long canes). Because a five year phase-in target compliance
date has been established for Sections 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations
and 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, which in turn affect many other
sections throughout Part 6, a special phase-in target compliance date
just for Section 6F.58 is not necessary. Accordingly, the FHWA
withdraws the proposed five-year phase-in target compliance date for
accessibility requirements of this section.
261. In Section 6F.59 Cones (numbered Section 6F.56 in the NPA),
the FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement that retroreflectorization of
cones that are more than 900 mm (36 in) in height shall be provided by
horizontal, circumferential, alternating orange and white
retroreflective stripes that are 100 to 150 mm (4 to 6 in) wide. Each
cone shall have a minimum of two orange and two white stripes with the
[[Page 65557]]
top stripe being orange. Any non-retroreflective spaces between the
orange and white stripes shall not exceed 75 mm (3 in) in width. The
FHWA also adds an illustration of a cone more than 900 mm (36 in) in
height to Figure 6F-7 (Sheet 1 of 2). These changes will enhance the
visibility of cones at night and improve safety in temporary traffic
control zones. The FHWA received three comments from the Ohio DOT, the
City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals in support of this new paragraph, and adopts it in this
final rule. The FHWA also adds an illustration of a cone that is more
than 900 mm (36 in) in height to Figure 6F-7 (sheet 1 of 2), to aid in
user understanding. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance
date of five years from the effective date of this final rule for these
changes in order to minimize any impact on State or local governments.
Additionally, in the first GUIDANCE statement the FHWA adds that
cones should not be used for pedestrian channelization or as pedestrian
barriers in temporary traffic control zones on or along sidewalks
unless they are continuous between individual devices and detectable to
users of long canes. Non-continuous, non-detectable series of cones
have been found to be safety problems for pedestrians with visual
disabilities. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to
this new paragraph, suggesting that it is repetitive because
accessibility is addressed elsewhere. The FHWA agrees that it is
repetitive but believes that, in this instance, the repetition is
necessary and the FHWA adopts this paragraph in this final rule.
262. In Section 6F.60 Tubular Markers (numbered Section 6F.57 in
the NPA), the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement that tubular markers
should not be used for pedestrian channelization or as pedestrian
barriers in temporary traffic control zones on or along sidewalks
unless they are continuous between individual devices and detectable to
users of long canes. Non-continuous, non-detectable series of tubular
marker have been found to be safety problems for pedestrians with
visual disabilities. The FHWA received comments from the Cities of
Tucson, Arizona, and Charlotte, North Carolina, the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and a private citizen in support
of this new paragraph. The NCUTCD opposed it, suggesting that it is
repetitive because accessibility is addressed elsewhere. The FHWA
agrees that it is repetitive but believes that, in this instance, the
repetition is necessary and the FHWA adopts this paragraph in this
final rule, with minor editorial changes.
263. In Section 6F.61 Vertical Panels (numbered Section 6F.58 in
the NPA), the FHWA proposed to include in the first STANDARD statement
that vertical panels shall be mounted a minimum of 1050 mm (42 in)
above the pedestrian travel way, so as not to interfere with
pedestrians, and that vertical panels shall be mounted with the bottom
no greater than 300 mm (12 in) above the ground. The FHWA received two
comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals in support of the changes. The
NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
opposed this change stating that the text should be revised so that the
requirements pertained only to those areas where disabled pedestrians
were likely to be present. Because this information regarding
pedestrian accessibility is now included elsewhere in Part 6 in this
final rule, the FHWA withdraws this proposal and retains the text in
the 2000 MUTCD.
264. In Section 6F.62 Drums (numbered Section 6F.59 in the NPA),
the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement that drums should not be used
for pedestrian channelization or as pedestrian barriers in temporary
traffic control zones on or along sidewalks unless they are continuous
between individual devices and detectable to users of long canes. Non-
continuous, non-detectable series of drums have been found to be safety
problems for pedestrians with visual disabilities. The FHWA received
two comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals in support of the changes. The
NCUTCD opposed this change stating that the text regarding
accessibility issues is repetitive. The FHWA disagrees and adopts these
changes in this final rule.
The FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that the last paragraph of
the GUIDANCE statement describing the weighting of drums and need for
drain holes be changed to a STANDARD. This is a topic that is outside
the scope of this rulemaking and may be a subject for further
discussion in a future rulemaking.
265. In Section 6F.63 Type I, II, or III Barricades (numbered
Section 6F.60 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed adding a STANDARD
statement following the first GUIDANCE statement that barricade
supports shall not project into circulation routes more than 100 mm (4
in) from the support between 675 mm (27 in) and 2000 mm (80 in) from
the surface, as described in Section 4.4.1 of the ``Americans With
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines For Buildings And Facilities
(ADAAG).'' Additionally, supports shall not narrow the pedestrian
facility to less than 1200 mm (48 in) in width, with a 1500 x 1500 mm
(60 x 60 in) passing space at least every 60 m (200 ft), as described
in Section 4.3.4 of ADAAG. The FHWA received three comments from the
Ohio DOT, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals in support of this new STANDARD,
and four comments from the NCUTCD, the Connecticut DOT, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to it. The
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggested that
the wording be revised so that these requirements are necessary only in
locations where pedestrians with disabilities are likely to be present.
The Connecticut DOT suggested that this STANDARD conflicts with other
sections of the MUTCD. In response to these comments, the FHWA replaces
the proposed STANDARD with a two-paragraph GUIDANCE statement
containing additional information regarding the width of pedestrian
pathways and the mounting heights of signs in temporary facilities.
In concert with the changes outlined above, the FHWA also changes
the last sentence of the following STANDARD to a GUIDANCE because it
also contains information about the width of accessible passages when
ballast is used. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed this sentence as a
STANDARD. The change to GUIDANCE is necessary for consistency with the
other GUIDANCE in this section.
Additionally, in the 2000 MUTCD the FHWA established a new
recommendation in this section that barricades in temporary traffic
control zones should be crashworthy. No special phase-in target
compliance date was established at that time. Based on comments that
agencies are encountering difficulties and economic impacts given the
extensive testing of devices that has to occur in accordance with NCHRP
Report 350 \53\ in order to determine and certify crashworthiness, the
FHWA determines that a special phase-in target compliance date is
required for the crashworthiness
[[Page 65558]]
provision in this section. In this final rule, the FHWA establishes a
special phase-in target compliance date of January 17, 2005, for when
barricades in temporary traffic control zones should be crashworthy.
The FHWA believes this target date of four years from the effective
date of the 2000 MUTCD provides agencies with a reasonable period in
which to phase in the use of compliant barricades in temporary traffic
control zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ NCHRP Report 350, ``Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Performance Evaluation of Highway Features,'' 1993, is available for
downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://guilliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a phase-in target compliance date of
five years from the effective date of this final rule for the changes
in this section regarding pedestrian accessibility. Because a five year
phase-in target compliance date has been established for Sections 6D.01
Pedestrian Considerations and 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, which
in turn affect many other sections throughout Part 6, a special phase-
in target compliance date just for Section 6F.63 is not necessary.
Accordingly, the FHWA withdraws the proposed five-year phase-in target
compliance date for accessibility requirements of this section.
266. In Section 6F.64 Direction Indicator Barricades (numbered
Section 6F.61 in the NPA), the FHWA makes editorial revisions in the
STANDARD statement to properly describe the direction indicator
barricade. The FHWA incorporates this change in this final rule to
address comments that the term arrow panel in this section was
incorrectly used in the NPA to describe what should be correctly called
a One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign.
267. In Section 6F.65 Temporary Traffic Barriers as Channelizing
Devices (numbered Section 6F.62 in the NPA), the FHWA adds SUPPORT and
STANDARD statements related to the use of temporary traffic barriers as
traffic control devices. These statements are relocated from Section
6G.04 Modifications to Fulfill Special Needs, as they are more
appropriate in this section. The FHWA received two comments from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals in support of these changes, and adopts these changes.
The FHWA received several editorial comments regarding the second
paragraph of the first STANDARD statement, and incorporates these
changes in this final rule to be consistent with other areas of the
MUTCD.
268. The FHWA adds a new section, numbered and titled, Section
6F.66 Longitudinal Channelizing Barricades. (This section was numbered
Section 6F.53 in the NPA.) This section consists of GUIDANCE, OPTION,
and SUPPORT statements relating to the use of longitudinal channelizing
barricades that are lightweight, deformable devices that can be used
singly as Type I, II, or III barricades. The FHWA received two comments
from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycle Professionals in overall support of the text contained within
this new section. The FHWA also received several comments from
equipment suppliers suggesting additional uses for longitudinal
channelizing barricades or modified applications from the proposed text
in the NPA. The FHWA is not implementing these suggestions at this time
because these are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposing the last
sentence of the first SUPPORT, stating that the text was not necessary.
The FHWA agrees and removes the sentence in this final rule.
The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD suggesting that an
additional GUIDANCE statement be added between the first SUPPORT and
OPTION statements to list the characteristics of a barricade. The FHWA
agrees and, for consistency with other sections in Part 6, adds this
new GUIDANCE statement in this final rule.
The FHWA received several comments regarding the last GUIDANCE
statement as it relates to crashworthiness of longitudinal channelizing
barricades. While the NCUTCD was opposed to the first paragraph,
stating that it was not necessary, the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen felt that the GUIDANCE should be
changed to a STANDARD in order to require that longitudinal
channelizing barricades be crashworthy. The FHWA adopts the wording as
proposed in the NPA because the information regarding crashworthiness
is important and readers should understand that these barricades should
not be used to shield pedestrians, including workers, from vehicle
impacts or obstacles. Strengthening this statement to a STANDARD would
require discussion and comment in a future rulemaking. However, for
consistency with the special phase-in target compliance date that the
FHWA established for crashworthiness provisions of other sections in
Part 6, the FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of
January 17, 2005, for crashworthiness of longitudinal channelizing
barricades in temporary traffic control zones. The FHWA believes this
target date of four years from the effective date of the 2000 MUTCD
provides agencies with a reasonable period in which to phase in the use
of compliant longitudinal channelizing barricades in temporary traffic
control zones.
269. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, Section 6F.67
Other Channelizing Devices. This section was numbered Section 6F.64 in
the NPA, and consists of an OPTION statement and a GUIDANCE statement
that there may be channelizing devices other than those already
described in Part 6 that may be used in special situations based on an
engineering study. If used, these other channelizing devices should
conform to the general size, color stripe pattern, retroreflectivity,
and placement characteristics established for the devices described in
Chapter 6F. This use of other channelizing devices was included in
revision number 3 of the 1988 edition of the MUTCD (Section 6F-1 of
that edition) but was inadvertently omitted from the 2000 MUTCD. The
FHWA received one comment from the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycle Professionals in support of this new section, and adopts this
new section in this final rule.
270. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
6F.68 Detectable Edging for Pedestrians.'' This section contains
SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements with information and examples regarding
the use of detectable edging along the length of a facility when
needed. The FHWA includes this new section in this final rule to
respond to comments throughout Part 6 requesting additional information
on detectable edging that is consistent with information available from
the U.S. Access Board, and to consolidate the information on detectable
edging into a single section for clarity.
271. In Section 6F.69 Temporary Raised Islands (numbered Section
6F.65 in the NPA), the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement at the end of the
section that at pedestrian crossing locations, temporary raised islands
shall have an opening or be shortened to provide at least a 1500 mm (60
in) wide pathway for pedestrians. This change is to comply with the ADA
requirements and to provide for all pedestrians, including disabled
pedestrians, a clear and useable facility. The FHWA received one
comment from the NCUTCD opposed to this new statement, indicating that
it was repetitive, and that accessibility is covered elsewhere. The
FHWA disagrees because this is important information regarding the
design of temporary raised islands and adopts the STANDARD as proposed
in the NPA.
[[Page 65559]]
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a phase-in target compliance date of
five years from the effective date of this final rule for the changes
in Section 6F.69 regarding pedestrian accessibility. Because a five-
year phase-in target compliance date has been established for Sections
6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations and 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations,
which in turn affect many other sections throughout Part 6, a special
phase-in target compliance date just for Section 6F.69 is not
necessary. Accordingly, the FHWA withdraws the proposed five-year
phase-in target compliance date for accessibility requirements of this
section.
272. In Section 6F.70 Opposing Traffic Lane Divider (numbered
Section 6F.66 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement that
opposing traffic lane dividers shall not be placed across pedestrian
crossings, to assure that pedestrians have a clear and useable
facility. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change.
273. In Section 6F.71 Pavement Markings (numbered Section 6F.67 in
the NPA), the FHWA proposed to add to the STANDARD statement that to
require that delineation and channelizing devices for use by
pedestrians shall be accessible and detectable to pedestrians who have
disabilities and shall be continuous throughout the temporary traffic
control zone. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to this new
language. The City of Tucson, Arizona, expressed support if the text
was reworded to apply only at locations where persons with disabilities
are likely to pass. The FHWA withdraws this proposal because
accessibility information is included in other sections of Part 6 and
does not need to be repeated here.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revising the last OPTION statement to
specify the amount of time that removable, nonreflective, performed
tape may be used to temporarily cover markings. The FHWA received five
comments from the NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT, the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, a private citizen, and a traffic control device
manufacturer opposing this change, stating that there is not sufficient
documentation to support the notion that temporary tape becomes
ineffective after two weeks. The FHWA agrees and withdraws this
proposal.
Additionally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding a SUPPORT
statement at the end of the section that pavement markings alone are
generally not sufficient for use by pedestrians who have visual
disabilities. Tactile warnings on the roadway surface or audible
devices are usually more helpful to these pedestrians. The FHWA
received four comments from the NCUTCD and associations representing
the blind community opposed to this new SUPPORT statement.
Representatives of the blind community stated that there are currently
no consistently understood tactile markings for roadway surfaces. The
FHWA agrees with the commenters and withdraws this proposal.
274. In Section 6F.72 Temporary Pavement Markings (numbered Section
6F.68 in the NPA), the FHWA modifies the OPTION statement and the
second GUIDANCE statement to indicate the use of DO NOT PASS and PASS
WITH CARE signs is acceptable for temporary situations rather than
pavement markings. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed deleting the use of
the NO PASSING ZONE sign. While the FHWA received one comment from the
City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the changes, the NCUTCD was
opposed to removing the NO PASSING ZONE sign because it felt that use
of the sign should remain an option. The FHWA agrees and restores the
use of the NO PASSING ZONE sign and includes a reference to Section
2C.35 for use of the NO PASSING ZONE sign in this final rule.
275. In Section 6F.75 Lighting Devices (numbered Section 6F.71 in
the NPA), the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement that the maximum
spacing for warning lights should be identical to the channelizing
device space requirements. The FHWA received one comment from the
NCUTCD opposed to this change, suggesting that the proposed wording may
cause practitioners to think that warning lights are needed on all
channelizing devices. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggested rewording the text to clarify that the
statement applies only when warning lights are used to supplement
channelization. The FHWA adopts the change, with editorial changes to
indicate that the requirements apply when warning lights are used to
supplement channelization.
Additionally, the FHWA changes the second SUPPORT statement (in the
2000 MUTCD) to an OPTION statement to more accurately reflect the uses
of lighting devices. The FHWA received one comment from a traffic
engineering consultant opposed to this change, suggesting that, because
this sentence refers specifically to warning beacons, it belongs in
another section. The FHWA disagrees because this statement is generic
and is most appropriate in this section.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding an OPTION statement at the end
of this section stating that vehicle hazard warning signals may only
supplement the rotating lights or strobe lights. The FHWA received
three comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a private citizen opposed to this statement, suggesting that the
statement was repetitive because this information is contained in the
previous STANDARD. The FHWA agrees and withdraws this proposal, and
removes this OPTION from this final rule.
276. In Section 6F.76 Floodlights (numbered Section 6F.72 in the
NPA), the FHWA revises the first GUIDANCE statement by removing
``flagger stations'' from the text and adds a new STANDARD statement,
following the GUIDANCE, to indicate that, except in emergency
situations, flagger stations shall be illuminated at night. The FHWA
incorporates this change in this final rule to retain consistency with
other sections of the MUTCD, such as in Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations,
and to improve flagger visibility during nighttime operations.
The FHWA also adds to the existing STANDARD statement that
floodlighting shall not produce a disabling glare condition for
approaching road users, flaggers, or workers. The FHWA adds flaggers
and workers to the statement based on comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen expressing concerns
about safety of flaggers and workers. The FHWA believes that it is
important and necessary to protect flaggers and workers, as well as
road users, from disabling floodlight glare.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a SUPPORT statement at the end
of the section, that based on research,\54\ 50 lux (5 foot candles) is
a desirable nighttime illumination level where workers are active. The
FHWA received one comment from the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of
North America in support of this new statement. The NCUTCD, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, a private citizen, and NIOSH suggested that
additional information
[[Page 65560]]
should be included regarding illumination levels for other than general
activities. The FHWA agrees and includes information on illumination
levels for general activities and for tasks requiring high levels of
precision and extreme care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Information on ``Illumination Guidelines for Nighttime
Highway Work'', NCHRP Project 5-13, 1993, is summarized in NCHRP
research Results Digest Number 216, December, 1996, which is a
available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board's
bookstore, at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://64.118.69.9/acb1/
showdetl.cfm?& DID=92&Product--ID=2048& CATID=1&series=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
277. In Section 6F.78 Warning Lights (numbered Section 6F.74 in the
NPA), the FHWA adds Type D 360-degree warning lights, as appropriate,
throughout the section to provide more flexibility in the use of
lighting devices. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support
of these changes, and adopts these changes.
The FHWA also changes the first paragraph of the first STANDARD
statement to a SUPPORT statement because it describes what warning
lights are, rather than providing requirements on their use. The FHWA
incorporates this minor editorial change in this final rule because the
language of this statement is more appropriate as a SUPPORT, rather
than a STANDARD.
278. In Section 6F.80 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (numbered
Section 6F.76 in the NPA), to enhance consideration of pedestrian needs
in temporary traffic control zones, the FHWA adds to the first GUIDANCE
statement that, where pedestrian traffic is detoured to a temporary
traffic control signal, agencies should use engineering judgment to
determine if pedestrian signals or accessible pedestrian signals are
needed. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to this
change, stating that the wording is repetitive because accessibility is
already addressed elsewhere. The FHWA disagrees and includes this
paragraph in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add a new STANDARD
statement that indicates that the supports for temporary traffic
control signals shall not encroach into a minimum required pedestrian
pathway width of 1500 mm (60 in), to assure a clear pathway for all
pedestrians, including disabled pedestrians. The FHWA received comments
from the NCUTCD, the Cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to this change. The NCUTCD
stated that the wording is repetitive because accessibility is already
addressed elsewhere. The Cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Charlotte,
North Carolina, and the private citizen suggested that the text be
reworded to apply only to those locations where pedestrians with
disabilities are likely to be present. The FHWA agrees and revises this
paragraph to state that the supports shall not encroach into the
minimum width of a ``pedestrian access route'' (1200 mm/48 in) or an
``alternate circulation path'' (900 mm/36 in) to be consistent with the
various requirements elsewhere in Part 6.
The FHWA also adds to the second SUPPORT statement a new item ``M.
The nature of adjacent land uses (such as residential or commercial)''
to the list of factors related to the design and application of
temporary traffic control signals. The FHWA received one comment from a
private citizen in support of this change, and adopts this change and
re-letters the remaining items.
279. In Section 6F.81 Temporary Traffic Barriers (numbered Section
6F.77 in the NPA), the FHWA modifies the first SUPPORT statement to
more clearly describe the four primary functions of temporary traffic
barriers, by deleting the last two sentences related to the functions
of temporary traffic barriers and adding a portion of text from Section
6G.11 Work Within the Traveled Way of Urban Streets. The FHWA received
one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the changes
to this section, and adopts these changes.
280. In Section 6F.82 Crash Cushions (numbered Section 6F.78 in the
NPA), the FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement that damaged crash
cushions shall be promptly repaired or replaced to maintain their
crashworthiness. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change.
Additionally, in the 2000 MUTCD a new requirement was established
in this section that crash cushions in temporary traffic control zones
shall be crashworthy. No special phase-in target compliance date was
established at that time. Based on comments that agencies are
encountering difficulties and economic impacts given the extensive
testing of devices that has to occur in accordance with NCHRP Report
350 \55\ in order to determine and certify crashworthiness, the FHWA
believes that a special phase-in target compliance date is required for
the crashworthiness provision in this section. Therefore, in this final
rule, the FHWA establishes a special phase-in target compliance date of
January 17, 2005, for crash cushions in temporary traffic control zones
to be crashworthy. The FHWA believes this target date of four years
from the effective date of the 2000 MUTCD provides agencies with a
reasonable period in which to phase in the use of compliant crash
cushions in temporary traffic control zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ NCHRP Report 350, ``Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Performance Evaluation on Highway Features,'' 1993, is available for
downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
281. In Section 6F.84 Rumble Strips (numbered Section 6F.80 in the
NPA), to clarify which applications are used for travel lanes and which
ones are used on the shoulder, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT statement a
description of longitudinal rumble strips, and clarifies throughout the
section which statements refer specifically to longitudinal rumble
strips and which statements refer specifically to transverse rumble
strips. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona,
in support of these changes to this section, and adopts these changes.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement following the
SUPPORT statement that, if it is desirable to use a color other than
the color of the pavement for a longitudinal rumble strip, the color of
the rumble strip shall be the same as the longitudinal line the rumble
strip supplements. If the color of a transverse rumble strip used
within a travel lane is not the color of the pavement, the color of the
rumble strip shall be white. These changes are needed to conform to
general principles for colors of pavement markings. The FHWA received
two comments from the NCUTCD and the Virginia DOT opposed to this new
STANDARD statement suggesting that some jurisdictions have used other
colors, such as yellow and orange. The FHWA believes that white has
been the traditional color used for transverse rumble strips and adopts
this statement in this final rule. The use of other colors would need
further research and may be considered for future rulemaking.
The FHWA also adds to the GUIDANCE statement that transverse rumble
strips should not be placed through pedestrian crossings or on bicycle
routes; should not be placed on roadways used by bicyclists unless a
minimum clear path of 1.2 m (4 ft) is provided at each edge of the
roadway or on each paved shoulder; and that longitudinal rumble strips
should not be placed on the shoulder of a roadway that is used by
bicyclists unless a minimum clear path of 1.2 m (4 ft) is also provided
on the shoulder. These changes will minimize interference caused by
rumble strips to bicyclists using the roadway or shoulder. The FHWA
received one comment from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals in support of these changes. The Wisconsin DOT opposed
them, suggesting that additional text is needed to define the clear
path at the
[[Page 65561]]
edge of the roadway. The FHWA addresses this comment by providing
additional language in this final rule that references the AASHTO Guide
to the Development of Bicycle Facilities, which is listed in Section
1A.11 Relation to Other Publications.
282. In Section 6G.01 Typical Applications, in the NPA the FHWA
proposed adding two SUPPORT statements indicating that temporary
traffic control zones are subject to all accessibility requirements for
use by all types of pedestrians. The FHWA received five comments from
the NCUTCD, the Ohio DOT, the Cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to the wording of these
statements suggesting that it is repetitive because accessibility
issues are already covered elsewhere. To address these comments, while
also stressing the importance of accessibility, the FHWA adds a new
STANDARD statement to the beginning of this section emphasizing
accessibility provisions as required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Additionally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to add a GUIDANCE
statement following the second SUPPORT statement that bicyclists and
pedestrians should not be exposed to unprotected excavations, open
utility access, overhanging equipment, or other hazards. The
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals supported this new
statement. For enhanced clarity, the FHWA removes this paragraph from
this section and moves it, with minor editorial changes, to a new
section numbered and titled, ``Section 6G.05 Work Affecting Pedestrian
and Bicycle Facilities.''
283. In Section 6G.02 Work Duration, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT
statement in this section (and in all other sections in Chapter 6G
except 6G.01, 6G.05, and 6G.14 through 6G.19), providing references to
other chapters and sections of Part 6 of the MUTCD for additional
information regarding the steps to follow when pedestrian or bicycle
facilities are affected by the worksite. Also, the FHWA modifies item C
in the first STANDARD to clarify that short-term stationary work is
defined as daytime work of more than one hour within a single daylight
period. The FHWA received two comments from commenters who did not
understand why the change was necessary. The change is necessary
because the single period of daylight in the summertime can last more
than 12 hours. The FHWA adopts the change as proposed in the NPA.
284. In Section 6G.04 Modifications to Fulfill Special Needs, the
FHWA adds throughout the GUIDANCE statement additional information
related to the need to take into account pedestrian and bicycle usage.
The FHWA received several editorial comments suggesting changes to the
wording proposed in the NPA. The FHWA incorporates many of these
changes and includes additional references to other areas of the MUTCD.
Additionally, the FHWA moves the SUPPORT and STANDARD statements at
the end of the section (in the 2000 MUTCD) to Section 6F.65 Temporary
Traffic Barriers as Channelizing Devices because this text outlining
temporary traffic barriers is more appropriately located in this
section. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to removing these
statements from this section, stating that these statements are
important in this section of modifying the typical applications to
fulfill special needs. The FHWA disagrees and believes that this
information is best covered elsewhere, and does not need to be included
in this section.
285. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, Section 6G.05
Work Affecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. This new section
contains SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements with provisions for
maintaining accessibility for pedestrians as well as bicyclists in
temporary traffic control zones. The information in this section was
proposed elsewhere in the NPA. However, based on comments, the FHWA
believes that this information is best consolidated into one section,
rather than spread throughout all of the sections of Chapter 6G. The
FHWA renumbers the remaining sections accordingly.
286. In Section 6G.06 Work Outside of Shoulder (numbered 6G.05 in
the NPA), the FHWA proposed adding to the first GUIDANCE statement that
pedestrians should be separated from the worksite by appropriate
barriers that maintain accessibility and detectability for pedestrians
with disabilities. Although one commenter from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, supported this new text, the NCUTCD suggested that it was
repetitive. The FHWA disagrees that it is repetitive, but removes this
paragraph from this section and places it in the new section numbered
and titled, ``Section 6G.05 Work Affecting Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities.''
287. In Section 6G.07 Work on the Shoulder with No Encroachment
(numbered Section 6G.06 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed adding to the
first STANDARD statement that, where pedestrian routes are closed,
alternate pedestrian routes shall be provided. A private citizen
supported this new text. The NCUTCD suggested that the STANDARD be
changed to GUIDANCE because this section involves work on the shoulder
with no encroachment, and alternate pedestrian routes will not be
necessary in all locations. The FHWA disagrees with changing this to a
GUIDANCE, but removes this paragraph from this section and places it in
the new section numbered and titled, ``Section 6G.05 Work Affecting
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.''
Additionally, the FHWA proposed adding a sentence to the GUIDANCE
statement that, where feasible, signs should be placed so they do not
narrow any existing pedestrian passage to less than 1500 mm (60 in).
The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, opposed to this new sentence. The NCUTCD stated that it was
repetitive, and the City of Tucson, Arizona, suggested a narrower
passage be permitted. The FHWA removes the entire paragraph from this
section and places it in the new section numbered and titled, ``Section
6G.05 Work Affecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.'' Based on
comments and to be consistent with other sections in Part 6, the FHWA
revises the last sentence of this paragraph to permit existing
pedestrian passages to be narrowed to 1200 mm (48 in) rather than 1500
mm (60 in). In addition, this is consistent with the ADAAG.
288. In Section 6G.08 Work on the Shoulder with Minor Encroachment
(numbered 6G.07 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed adding to the GUIDANCE
statement that, where feasible, pedestrian routes should be protected
or alternate accessible and detectable routes should be provided.
Although the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported this new text, the
NCUTCD suggested that it was repetitive. The FHWA removes this
paragraph from this section, rewords it and classifies it as a STANDARD
to be consistent with ADA requirements and places it in the new section
numbered and titled, ``Section 6G.05 Work Affecting Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities.''
289. In Section 6G.10 Work Within the Traveled Way of Two-Lane
Highways (numbered Section 6G.09 in the NPA), the FHWA proposed adding
to the GUIDANCE statement that pedestrian detours should be avoided
because pedestrians rarely observe them and the cost of providing
accessibility and detectability might outweigh the cost of maintaining
a continuous route. Also, whenever possible, work should be done in a
manner that does not create
[[Page 65562]]
a need to detour pedestrians from existing routes or crossings.
Although the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported this new text, the
NCUTCD suggested that it was repetitive. The FHWA disagrees that it is
repetitive, but removes this paragraph from this section, and places it
in the new section numbered and titled, ``Section 6G.05 Work Affecting
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.''
290. In Section 6G.11 Work Within the Traveled Way of Urban Streets
(numbered 6G.10 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the first STANDARD
statement that, if the temporary traffic control zone affects an
accessible and detectable pedestrian facility, the accessibility and
detectability along the alternate pedestrian route shall be maintained.
The FHWA received one comment from a private citizen in support of this
change, and four comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Tucson, Arizona,
and traffic engineering consultants opposed to it. Most of the opposing
commenters suggested that this statement should be a GUIDANCE, rather
than STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees because this is an existing ADA
requirement. Therefore, the FHWA adopts the text as proposed in the
NPA. Based on a comment from the Florida DOT and for consistency with
the new Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, the FHWA adds
another paragraph to the STANDARD that where transit stops are affected
or relocated because of work activity, agencies shall provide access to
temporary transit stops.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement that work
sites within the intersection should be protected against inadvertent
pedestrian incursion by providing detectable channelizing devices. The
FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD opposed to this new
paragraph, stating that it is repetitive. The FHWA disagrees and adopts
the text with an editorial change.
291. In Section 6G.12 Work Within the Traveled Way of Multi-lane,
Nonaccess Controlled Highways (numbered Section 6G.11 in the NPA), the
FHWA proposed adding to the first SUPPORT statement that Chapter 6D
contains information regarding the steps to follow when pedestrian
facilities are affected by the worksite. Although the City of Tucson,
Arizona, supported this new text, the NCUTCD suggested that it was
repetitive. The FHWA rewords this paragraph to match the same paragraph
that the FHWA places in most of the other sections within Chapter 6G
and places it at the beginning of the first SUPPORT statement.
Additionally, the FHWA moves the information in the second SUPPORT
statement related to the four primary functions of temporary traffic
barriers to Section 6F.81 Traffic Barriers (numbered Section 6F.75 in
the NPA) as they more properly belong in that section.
292. In Section 6G.13 Work Within the Traveled Way at an
Intersection (numbered Section 6G.12 in the NPA), to reinforce proper
contact procedures, the FHWA proposed adding language to the first
STANDARD statement and to the second GUIDANCE statement regarding
contact with the highway agency having jurisdiction at intersections
where pedestrian accessibility problems are anticipated. The FHWA
received several primarily editorial comments regarding these changes.
The NCUTCD suggested that the references to accessibility were
repetitive. Based on a comment from a private citizen, the FHWA changes
the language in the GUIDANCE to a STANDARD to provide greater
consistency by requiring rather than recommending that the entity
conducting the work contact the highway agency having jurisdiction when
working near any (signalized or unsignalized) intersection where
operational, capacity, or pedestrian accessibility problems are
anticipated. If these types of problems are anticipated, it is
important that the highway agency having jurisdiction be contacted even
if it does not involve a signalized intersection.
The FHWA proposed adding a STANDARD statement after the second
GUIDANCE statement that pedestrian crossings shall be protected with a
pedestrian barrier detectable to pedestrians with visual disabilities.
The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to this change
suggesting that this should only be necessary if the crossing is an
accessible pedestrian crossing. The FHWA agrees and revises the
statement and classifies it as a GUIDANCE rather than a STANDARD to be
consistent with new Section 6G.05 Work Affecting Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities.
Additionally, the FHWA modifies item B of the third OPTION
statement to indicate that uniformed law enforcement officers, as well
as flaggers, may be used to direct road users when work is within an
intersection. The FHWA received two comments from the Laborers' Health
and Safety Fund of North America and a private citizen in support of
this change and adopts this change.
293. In Section 6G.14 Work Within the Traveled Way of Freeways and
Expressways (numbered Section 6G.13 in the NPA), the FHWA revises the
first SUPPORT statement to include bicycles in the listing of road
vehicle mix. The FHWA received one comment from the Kansas DOT opposed
to this change, suggesting that bicycles should not be allowed on
freeways. The FHWA adopts this change, with an editorial change to
clarify that bicycles are included in the vehicle mix only if they are
permitted. In some areas of the country, Interstate Routes or other
freeways offer the only access for recreational bicyclists to get
between destinations, and therefore bicycles are permitted. This is a
safety issue that has traditionally been left to the States to decide.
294. In Section 6G.19 Work in the Vicinity of Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings (numbered Section 6G.18 in the NPA), the FHWA clarifies the
second sentence of the STANDARD statement by adding the word
``uniformed'' to describe a law enforcement officer. The FHWA makes
this clarification in this final rule for consistency with other
requirements elsewhere in the MUTCD.
295. The FHWA moves all of the information from Section 6G.19
Control of Traffic Through Traffic Incident Management Areas, as
numbered and titled in the 2000 MUTCD, to a new chapter numbered and
titled ``Chapter 6I Control of Traffic Through Traffic Incident
Management Areas.'' In its place, the FHWA adds a new section numbered
and titled, ``Section 6G.20 Temporary Traffic Control During Nighttime
Hours.'' (This section was numbered Section 6G.19 in the NPA.) This new
section contains SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD statements
regarding the temporary traffic control measures appropriate during
nighttime hours. The FHWA received comments from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America, and
NIOSH in support of the new section. Many expressed that a new section
devoted to temporary traffic control during nighttime hours is needed.
Several commenters suggested that more information was needed to
strengthen the section, and some suggested rewording and additional
text. The NCUTCD favored replacing the proposed text with modified
language developed by the NCUTCD Temporary Traffic Control Technical
Committee. The FHWA agrees that additional information is necessary and
believes the NCUTCD's rewording will clarify the section. Accordingly,
the FHWA revises the text to incorporate and be
[[Page 65563]]
consistent with changes made in other areas of the MUTCD in this final
rule, including the requirement for illuminating flagger stations,
except in emergencies, consistent with Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations,
and additional information on illumination for work areas in general.
296. In Section 6H.01 Typical Applications, the FHWA changes the
Typical Applications figures and their accompanying notes to add more
provisions to accommodate persons with disabilities and pedestrians,
and to correct inadvertent minor errors in the 2000 MUTCD and in the
NPA. These changes reflect the changes to all parts of the MUTCD with
particular reference to Part 6 changes and they make the drawings and
text consistent with other parts of the MUTCD and elsewhere in Part 6.
Additionally, in Table 6H-1 and in the corresponding Typical
Applications, the FHWA changes the titles of Figure 6H-11 from ``Lane
Closure on Low-Volume Two-Lane Road'' to ``Lane Closure on Two-Lane
Road with Low Traffic Volumes,'' Figure 6H-15 from ``Work in Center of
Low-Volume Road'' to ``Work in Center of Road with Low Traffic
Volumes,'' and Figure 6H-16 from ``Surveying Along Centerline of Low-
Volume Road'' to ``Surveying Along Centerline of Road with Low Traffic
Volumes.'' These changes will avoid confusion with material in Part 5
Traffic Control Devices for Low-Volume Roads. Low-volume roads, as
covered in Part 5, are specifically defined in Section 5A.01 Function
as, among other criteria, being outside a built-up area and having a
traffic volume of less than 400 Annual Average Daily Traffic. The
Typical Applications in Part 6 that refer to low volume roads are not
intended to be limited only to roads meeting the limited definition of
Part 5.
The FHWA inserts Table 6H-4 Formulas for Determining Taper Lengths.
This information is the same information as was proposed in the NPA,
except that it is included in a tabular format for clarity.
Additionally, the FHWA includes the following changes to the notes
to the figures of typical applications:
a. Notes for Figure 6H-1: The FHWA replaces item 5 in the STANDARD
statement (of the 2000 MUTCD) with a new item 5 in the OPTION
statement, stating that vehicle hazard warning signals may be used to
supplement high intensity rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe
lights, and a new item 6 in the STANDARD statement, which states that
vehicle hazard warning signals shall not be used instead of the
vehicle's high intensity rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe
lights. The FHWA received no comments regarding these changes. These
same changes have been made in the notes for other figures in Chapter
6H as applicable and as noted below in the discussions of such figures.
The FHWA did receive two comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that item 1 in the GUIDANCE
statement be revised. The suggested change would imply that a single
sign is used, whereas this statement calls for an additional sign to be
used. Because operation of the work vehicles may involve crossing from
the median to the shoulder, all traffic must be warned of such
conditions, and thus a sign on the median lane side and on the shoulder
should be used. Accordingly, the FHWA disagrees with the commenters and
adopts the text as proposed in the NPA.
b. Notes for Figure 6H-2: The FHWA received two comments from the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen objecting to
the terminology for devices to be turned off in blasting zones and the
letter sizes for the W22-2 sign. See discussion of this issue in
Section 6F.40 TURN OFF 2-WAY RADIO AND CELL PHONE Sign (W22-2).
c. Notes for Figure 6H-3: See discussion of items regarding vehicle
hazard warning signals in paragraph a above. That discussion applies to
Figure 6H-3 also. Additionally, the FHWA adds a new item 7 to the
STANDARD statement at the end of the Notes that when paved shoulders
having a width of 2.4 m (8 ft) or more are closed, at least one advance
warning sign shall be used. In addition, channelizing devices shall be
used to close the shoulder in advance to delineate the beginning of the
work space and direct motor vehicle traffic to remain within the
traveled way. The FHWA received no comments regarding these changes,
and adopts these changes.
d. Notes for Figure 6H-4: See discussion of items regarding vehicle
hazard warning signals in paragraph a above. That discussion applies to
Figure 6H-4 also.
e. Notes for Figure 6H-5: The FHWA revises item 4 from a GUIDANCE
statement to a STANDARD statement to clarify that the ends of the
barrier shall be treated in accordance with Section 6F.81 Temporary
Traffic Barriers. The FHWA also removes the word ``(optional)''
following ``crash cushion'' in Figure 6H-5. The FHWA makes these
changes to address two comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting that item 4 as a GUIDANCE
statement is misleading and it needs to be changed to a STANDARD to be
consistent with mandatory safety requirements of Section 6F.81
Temporary Traffic Barriers (numbered as 6F.77 in the NPA). The FHWA
agrees that this change is necessary for consistency, and revises item
4 to a STANDARD statement, with some text changes to correspond with
Section 6F.81.
f. Notes for Figure 6H-6: See discussion of items regarding vehicle
hazard warning signals in paragraph a above. That discussion also
applies to Figure 6H-6.
g. Notes for Figure 6H-7: The FHWA changes item 1 to a SUPPORT
statement. It was inadvertently given a STANDARD heading in the 2000
MUTCD and the NPA, even though it contains no mandatory language. The
FHWA renumbers the remaining items accordingly. The FHWA revises items
5 and 6 (numbered items 4 and 6 in the NPA) to match the notes with the
figure, which illustrates a double reverse curve situation. The FHWA
makes these minor editorial changes to address two comments from the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting
that the notes did not match the new double reverse curve illustration.
The FHWA agrees and makes the changes for consistency.
h. Notes for Figure 6H-8: The FHWA combines items 2 and 3, as
numbered in the NPA, into a single item 2 in the OPTION statement for
clarity and renumbers the following items. The FHWA also adds a new
item 5 to the OPTION statement that cardinal direction plaques may be
used with route signs. The FHWA makes these minor changes to address
two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen suggesting these changes, to be consistent with other sections
in Part 6.
i. Notes for Figure 6H-9: The purpose of Figure 6H-9 is to show
signing for overlapping routes with a detour. The configuration of the
actual work space raised comments from the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen as to what is intended by the
associated signing and barricades. To avoid any confusion, the FHWA
eliminates any reference to an allowance for local traffic and shows
the space as a full road closure between the two intersecting routes.
The FHWA adjusts the barricades and ROAD CLOSED signing accordingly.
The FHWA also changes the double yellow dashed pavement markings to a
single yellow dash in response to a comment from a traffic engineering
consultant that the double yellow dashes are incorrect. The FHWA notes
that the
[[Page 65564]]
markings in this figure are shown for illustrative purposes only.
j. Notes for Figure 6H-10: The FHWA moves item 4 in the OPTION
statement to become a new OPTION item 11, and renumbers the other items
accordingly for improved clarity. The FHWA also replaces item 4 (item 5
in the NPA) with the note regarding buffer space that was added to the
figure in the NPA. The FHWA believes that buffer space is an important
application that is often ignored, and placing the note in the notes as
well as on the figure is appropriate. The FWHA also changes item 5
(item 6 in the NPA) from a GUIDANCE to a STANDARD to be consistent with
Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations, and rewords the statement accordingly.
The flagger and advance sign series are all moved farther upstream in
the figure. Additional space is needed beyond the work area to allow
the traffic in the wrong lane to return to their proper lane without
conflicting with stopped vehicles in the opposite direction. The FHWA
makes these changes in this final rule to address comments from the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting
these changes to be consistent with other areas of the MUTCD.
k. Notes for Figure 6H-11: The FHWA removes item 2 of the STANDARD
statement (from the 2000 MUTCD) because this Typical Application
specifically does not involve the use of flaggers. Typical Application
10 covers the temporary traffic control zone applicable to this
STANDARD, using flaggers. The FHWA received no comments regarding this
change, and adopts this change in this final rule. The FHWA received
two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen suggesting that the Type B flashing warning lights referenced
in the OPTION should be changed to Type A for night work. The FHWA
disagrees because there is no change from the 2000 MUTCD language
elsewhere in Part 6 that would justify changing this note for Figure
6H-11.
l. Notes for Figure 6H-12: The FHWA adds to item 2 of the STANDARD
statement that durations of red clearance intervals shall be adequate
to clear the one-lane section of conflicting vehicles. Additionally,
the FHWA adds a new item 5 to the STANDARD statement that safeguards
shall be incorporated to avoid the possibility of conflicting signal
indications at each end of the temporary traffic control zone. The FHWA
proposed slightly different wording for item 5 in the NPA, however the
FHWA modifies the wording based on a comment from a traffic control
device manufacturer in order to maintain consistency with Section 6F.80
Temporary Traffic Control Signals of the MUTCD. The FHWA renumbers the
remaining items.
m. Notes for Figure 6H-13: The FHWA modifies item 2 of the STANDARD
statement to indicate that a flagger or uniformed law enforcement
officer shall be used during a temporary road closure. Additionally,
the FHWA removes item 3 of the OPTION statement (as numbered in the
2000 MUTCD) because it is not applicable. The FHWA also adds a new item
3 as a GUIDANCE statement, which states that the law enforcement
officer, if used for this application, should follow the procedures of
Sections 6E.04 Flagger Procedures and 6E.05 Regulatory Sign Authority.
This is to encourage law enforcement officers to use proper flagging
devices and procedures for a temporary road closure. The FHWA received
editorial comments on these changes, which the FHWA incorporates as
appropriate in this final rule.
n. Notes for Figure 6H-14: The FHWA adds a new item 6 under
Flagging Method which states, ``At night, flagger stations shall be
illuminated, except in emergencies.'' In response to concerns about the
orientation of the signal heads in the figure, the two overhead traffic
signal heads in each direction have been relocated to show one post
mounted head and one overhead mounted traffic signal head.
o. Notes for Figure 6H-15: The FHWA adds a new item 2 to the
GUIDANCE statement that workers in the roadway should wear high-
visibility safety apparel as described in Section 6D.03 Worker Safety
Considerations. See discussion of items regarding vehicle hazard
warning signals in paragraph a above. The FHWA received comments from
ATSSA and the Virginia DOT suggesting that all workers exposed to
traffic wear high visibility safety apparel, and the statement be
strengthened to a STANDARD. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and
a private citizen felt the new text is unnecessary because it is
obvious that workers should wear high visibility safety apparel. The
FHWA strengthens the existing GUIDANCE statement in 6D.03 to include
that the high visibility safety apparel should meet the requirements of
ISEA ``American National Standard for High-Visibility Safety Apparel''
(see Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications) and labeled as ANSI
107-1999 standard performance for Class 1, 2, or 3 risk exposure and
that a competent person, designated by the employer to be responsible
for the worker safety plan within the activity area of the job site,
should make the selection of the appropriate class of garment. While
this is not a mandate as suggested in two of the docket comments, the
emphasis is significantly heightened from the 2000 MUTCD and does allow
employer flexibility on the use of the high visibility safety apparel
to fit the conditions that exist. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the text
as proposed in the NPA.
p. Notes for Figure 6H-17: The FHWA adds a new item 3 to the
STANDARD statement that if an arrow panel is used, it shall be used in
the caution mode. The FHWA renumbers the remaining items. Additionally,
the FHWA removes item 5 of the GUIDANCE statement (as numbered in the
2000 MUTCD) and moves it to the OPTION statement as part of item 9 that
the use of a truck mounted attenuator is optional on either a shadow
vehicle or a work vehicle. Several commenters suggested an optional
truck mounted attenuator be retained on the work vehicle. The FHWA
agrees and includes the optional attenuator in this final rule.
q. Notes for Figure 6H-19: The FHWA repeats the GUIDANCE items from
the notes for Figure 6H-20 in the notes for Figure 6H-19 to address two
comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen suggesting that these items be added because they are
applicable and necessary for proper use of the typical application. The
FHWA agrees and makes the editorial change to add these notes in this
final rule.
r. Notes for Figure 6H-21: (See discussion of items regarding
vehicle hazard warning signals in paragraph a above.) The NCUTCD
objected to the addition of ``optional'' to the flag tree in the
figure, stating it should be guidance. Optional is consistent with the
text in Section 6F.57 High-Level Warning Devices. Upgrading to a
GUIDANCE condition goes beyond the scope of the NPA and would need to
be addressed in a future rulemaking. Practitioners can choose to make
its use recommended or mandatory in their jurisdictions if appropriate.
s. Notes for Figure 6H-22: In the NPA, the FHWA proposed removing
item 5 (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) from the OPTION statement,
regarding a right-turn island using channelizing devices. The FHWA
received three comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen opposed to this proposal, stating that
the item provides useful information that is not evident from looking
at the figure. The FHWA agrees and restores the text of the 2000
[[Page 65565]]
MUTCD, with editorial changes. The NCUTCD, the Kansas DOT, the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen objected to the
removal of ``optional'' from the arrow panel in the figure. In Section
6F.56 Arrow Panels, the FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE statement on the use
of arrow panels for certain conditions such as multi-lane, high speed,
high volume, limited sight distance or unexpected locations which
applies in this typical application. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the
change deleting ``optional'' from the arrow panel in this final rule.
t. Notes for Figure 6H-24: The NCUTCD objected to the addition of
``optional'' for the buffer space and the NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT,
the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen objected
to the deletion of ``optional'' from the arrow panel in the figure. The
FHWA agrees with the docket comments and withdraws these proposed
changes.
u. Notes for Figure 6H-25: The NCUTCD objected to the term
``optional'' for the flag tree, stating that for work in intersections
the high-level warning device is very useful and it should not be
labeled as optional. Optional is consistent with the text in Section
6F.57 High-Level Warning Devices. Upgrading to a GUIDANCE condition
goes beyond the scope of the NPA, and would need to be addressed in a
future rulemaking. Practitioners can choose to make its use recommended
or mandatory in their jurisdictions, if appropriate. Based on
additional comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen, the FHWA relocates the southbound ROAD WORK AHEAD sign
upstream and dimensions it with respect to the first channelizing
device rather than the intersection.
v. Notes for Figure 6H-26: (See discussion of items regarding
vehicle hazard warning signals in paragraph a above.) The NCUTCD
objected to the term ``optional'' for the flag tree in the Figure.
Similar to figures 6H-21 and 24, ``optional'' is consistent with the
text in Section 6F.57. Practitioners can choose to make its use
recommended or mandatory in their jurisdictions, if appropriate.
w. Notes for Figure 6H-27: (See discussion of items regarding
vehicle hazard warning signals in paragraph a above.) The NCUTCD
objected to the term ``optional'' for the flag tree in the figure.
Similar to Figures 6H-12, 24, and 26, ``optional'' is consistent with
the text in Section 6F.57 High-Level Warning Devices (Flag Trees).
Practitioners can choose to make its use recommended or mandatory in
their jurisdictions, if appropriate. In addition, consistent with
Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations, the FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement
which states, ``At night, flagger stations shall be illuminated, except
in emergencies.''
x. Notes for Figure 6H-28: In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a
new item 3 to the GUIDANCE statement that audible warnings should be
considered where midblock closings and changed crosswalk areas cause
inadequate communication to pedestrians who have visual disabilities.
The FHWA received five comments, including comments from
representatives of the blind community, opposing this new item, and
suggesting rewording. The FHWA agrees and revises this item by changing
the phrase ``audible warning'' to ``audible information devices.''
Additionally, the FHWA adds the use of Type D 360-degree Steady-Burn
warning lights to item 7 of the OPTION statement (as numbered in the
NPA), to provide consistency with other sections in Part 6. There were
no comments regarding this change, and the FHWA adopts this change. The
FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and a traffic engineering
consultant regarding item 1 in the STANDARD statement, suggesting that
the wording be revised for clarity. The FHWA agrees and clarifies the
statement in this final rule to indicate that when crosswalks or other
pedestrian facilities are closed or relocated, the temporary facilities
shall be detectable and shall include accessibility features consistent
with features present in the existing pedestrian facility.
y. Notes for Figure 6H-29: (Refer to the discussion for Figure 6H-
28 regarding item 3 of the GUIDANCE statement and item 1 of the
STANDARD statement). The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggested that an additional advance pedestrian
crossing sign is necessary for eastbound traffic on the east leg of the
intersection. The FHWA agrees and changes the figure accordingly in
this final rule.
z. Notes for Figure 6H-30: The FHWA received comments from the
NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen objecting to the removal of the term ``optional'' for
the arrow panels in the figure. The FHWA modifies the new GUIDANCE
statement in Section 6F.56 Arrow Panels on the placement criteria for
use of arrow panels which will allow optional use in some conditions.
Accordingly, the FHWA withdraws this proposed deletion of ``optional''
from the figure for this Typical Application.
aa. Notes for Figure 6H-31: The FHWA received one comment from
Caltrans suggesting that the metric maximum spacing formula for
channelizing markings, as stated in item 4 of the GUIDANCE, is not
accurate, and needed to be revised to be accurate and to be consistent
with Figure 6H-32. The FHWA agrees that this was a typographical error
and revises this item in this final rule from ``0.1 S km'' to ``0.1 S
m.'' The FHWA also adds the text ``in km/h (mph)'' following ``where S
is the speed.'' The FHWA received three comments suggesting that items
7 and 9 be revised to better correlate with the illustration on Figure
6H-31. The FHWA agrees and revises the items accordingly in this final
rule. In note 7, the words ``Two Lane'' are added before ``Reverse
Curve'' in the first and second sentences of note 7. The FHWA deletes
the first sentence in note 9. Similar to Figure 6H-30, the FHWA also
received four docket comments objecting to the removal of the term
``optional'' for the arrow panels in the figure. For the reasons listed
in paragraph z above, the FHWA withdraws the proposed deletion of
``optional'' from the Figure for this Typical Application.
bb. Notes for Figure 6H-32: In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a
new item 2 to the STANDARD statement requiring at least one advance
warning sign when paved shoulders having a width of 2.4 m (8 ft) or
more are closed and that channelizing devices shall be used to close
the shoulder in advance to delineate the beginning of the work space
and direct motor vehicle traffic to remain within the traveled way. The
FHWA received comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and
a private citizen opposed to this new statement, indicating that this
statement better relates to work exclusively on the shoulder. The FHWA
agrees and changes this statement to a GUIDANCE and clarifies the
statement to indicate that channelizing devices (rather than signs)
should be used to close the shoulder in advance of the merging taper
for a lane closure, to direct vehicular traffic to remain within the
traveled way. The FHWA also adds a new item 4 under GUIDANCE regarding
use of Reverse Curve signs rather than a Double Reverse Curve sign
under certain conditions for consistency with GUIDANCE elsewhere in
Part 6. The FHWA renumbers the remaining items. One docket comment from
the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, suggested that item 6 be
clarified with respect to the start of temporary traffic control near
railroad grade crossings where queues may extend through the crossing.
The FHWA agrees and revises ``transition area'' to ``merging taper.''
The FHWA
[[Page 65566]]
also revises notes 8 and 9 (numbered 7 and 8 in 2000 MUTCD) in response
to comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen about coordination with railroads. The FHWA believes that
additional emphasis is necessary and adds the text ``When a highway-
rail grade crossing exists within the activity area'' to the beginning
of notes 8 and 9. The FHWA received comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen objecting to the
removal of the term ``optional'' for the arrow panels in the Figure.
The FHWA deletes the term optional from the arrow panels in the figure.
Although the FHWA modifies the new GUIDANCE statement in Section 6F.56
Arrow Panels on the placement criteria for use of arrow panels which
will allow optional use in some conditions, in this Typical
Application, the GUIDANCE conditions prevail; i.e. high speed, multi-
lane highway. The FHWA received comments from the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and a private citizen indicating that the distances for
the RIGHT LANE CLOSED signs in the figure are in error. The FHWA agrees
and revises 1500 FT and 450 m to XX FT and XX m.
cc. Notes for Figure 6H-33: (Refer to discussion for Figure 6H-32
regarding the new item 3 that the FHWA had proposed to add as a
STANDARD.) The FHWA proposed removing item 3 of the GUIDANCE statement
(as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) because it was not applicable to the
application depicted. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD,
the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen suggesting
that the item be retained as a SUPPORT rather than GUIDANCE because it
contains useful information suggesting that vehicles, equipment,
workers, and their activities be located on one side of the pavement.
The FHWA agrees and restores this statement as a SUPPORT.
dd. Notes for Figure 6H-34: The FHWA adds a new item to the
STANDARD statement that the information from this figure shall also be
used when work is being performed in the lane adjacent to the median on
a divided highway, and specifies which signs to use for the specific
application in this figure. This is a repeat of an item in the STANDARD
statement in the notes for Figure 6H-33. The FHWA makes this change to
address two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggesting that this STANDARD in Figure 6H-33 is also
applicable to Figure 6H-34. The FHWA agrees that this is needed for
consistency with requirements elsewhere in Part 6 and adopts this
change in this final rule. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggested that the term ``temporary,'' used to describe
an edge line in note 2, be labeled ``interim'' as temporary markings
are to remain in place only two weeks. The FHWA disagrees because
Sections 6F.71 Pavement Markings and 6F.72. Temporary Pavement Markings
provide adequate guidance for short and long term markings and there is
no term ``interim'' used to describe markings. Additionally, the FHWA
received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen indicating that the notes for the crash cushion in the
figure are redundant. The FHWA addresses the comments and provides
necessary consistency with other sections of the MUTCD by revising the
notes and the figure as follows: To maintain consistency with Figure
6H-5, the FHWA revises note 3 (note 2 in the 2000 MUTCD) by deleting
the last sentence. The FHWA adds a new STANDARD item 4 to clarify that
the ends of the barrier shall be treated in accordance with Section
6F.81 Temporary Traffic Barriers. The FHWA also removes the word
(optional) following ``crash cushion'' in Figure 6H-34 and changes the
Section reference from Section 6F.78 to Section 6F.82 Temporary Traffic
Barriers. Additionally, the FHWA received comments from the City of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen stating that the END
ROAD WORK sign in the southbound direction should be labeled as
optional. The FHWA agrees because the ROAD WORK AHEAD sign is optional
in the southbound direction and revises the figure accordingly.
ee. Notes for Figure 6H-35: In the NPA, the FHWA proposed modifying
item 4 of the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that Shadow Vehicle 2
should be equipped with an arrow panel in a caution mode if on the
shoulder. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, the Wisconsin
DOT, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
suggesting that the arrow panel should continue to be used in the arrow
mode rather than the caution mode because, for this mobile operation,
the distance between Shadow Vehicles 2 and 1 simulates a merging taper.
The FHWA agrees and restores the text from the 2000 MUTCD, removing the
phrase ``in caution mode if on the shoulder'' from this final rule. The
FHWA also received one comment from Caltrans that an optional truck
mounted attenuator should be shown on the work vehicle to enhance road
user and worker safety. The FHWA agrees and adds an optional truck
mounted attenuator in the figure in this final rule.
ff. Notes for Figure 6H-36: The FHWA revises item 11 of the OPTION
statement to clarify that the signs to be used are ``Three Lane Reverse
Curve'' signs, rather than ``Triple Lane Shift'' signs. The FHWA makes
this change because it is needed for consistency and to properly
identify the type of sign to be used. The FHWA also received several
comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen related to the temporary barrier and crash cushion in
the figure. Consistent with Figures 6H-5 and 6H-34, the FHWA adds a new
STANDARD item 4 to clarify that where installed, the ends of the
barrier shall be treated in accordance with Section 6F.81 Temporary
Traffic Barriers. The FHWA deletes the parenthetical phrase ``(see
Section 6F.77 for end treatments)'' in item 13 as the new STANDARD item
4 covers this information.
gg. Notes for Figure 6H-37: The FHWA received two comments from the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen objecting to
the deletion of the label ``optional'' from the arrow panels. The FHWA
modifies the new GUIDANCE statement in Section 6F.56 Arrow Panels on
the placement criteria for use of arrow panels which will allow
optional use in some conditions. In this Typical Application, however,
the GUIDANCE conditions prevail; i.e. high speed, multi-lane highway.
Accordingly, the FHWA deletes the term ``optional'' from the arrow
panels in the figure.
hh. Notes for Figure 6H-39: The FHWA received comments from
Caltrans, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private citizen
related to the position and dimensions of the advance sign series in
the northbound direction. To clarify the figure and allow flexibility
for the practitioner, the FHWA changes the distances on the signs from
1500 FT, \1/2\ MILE, 1 MILE to XX FT, XX MILE and XX MILE. The metric
equivalents are also changed accordingly to XX m, XX m and XX km. The
FHWA received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina,
and a private citizen objecting to the deletion of the label
``optional'' from the arrow panels. The FHWA deletes the ``optional''
label because of the modifications made to the new GUIDANCE statement
in Section 6F.56 Arrow Panels on the placement criteria for use of
arrow panels which will allow optional use in some conditions. In this
Typical Application, however, the GUIDANCE conditions prevail; i.e.
high speed, multi-lane highway.
[[Page 65567]]
ii. Notes for Figure 6H-40: The FHWA adds to item 3 that YIELD or
STOP lines should be installed, if needed, across the ramp to indicate
the point at which road users should YIELD or STOP. The FHWA received
two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen suggesting additional information should be included in the
GUIDANCE regarding the placement of YIELD or STOP lines. However, the
FHWA does not add additional language in this final rule because such a
change would require further study and public comment. Additionally,
the FHWA adds a dimension of 7.5 m (25 ft) spacing between channelizing
devices shown on Figure 6H-40. The FHWA includes this additional
guidance, beyond the general guidance in Section 6F.58 Channelizing
Devices about channelizing device spacing, to help improve
channelization specifically in the median crossover by providing a
recommended device spacing to minimize the tendency of vehicles to
drive between devices. The FHWA received one comment from a private
citizen in support of this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.
jj. Figure 6H-41: (See discussion regarding channelizing device
spacing in paragraph ii above.)
kk. Notes for Figure 6H-42: The FHWA removes items 6 and 7 of the
OPTION statement (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) because they are not
applicable to the specific application depicted on Figure 6H-42. In the
NPA, the FHWA proposed renumbering the remaining item. The FHWA
received two comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a
private citizen suggesting that the remaining item, stating that a
buffer may be used, was not clear without the two previous items, which
had been removed. The FHWA agrees and deletes the remaining item (6) in
this final rule because it is unlikely that a buffer will be used for
this application, thus the note is not necessary. (See the discussion
and comments for item gg above regarding the label ``optional'' for the
arrow panels on the figure.)
ll. Notes for Figure 6H-44: The FHWA removes item 5 in the GUIDANCE
statement (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) because it is too vague and
there is no accepted practice to determine how traffic is stabilized.
The FHWA renumbers the remaining items. The FHWA received no comments
regarding this change. (See the discussion and comments for paragraph
gg above regarding the label ``optional'' for the arrow panels on the
figure.)
mm. Notes for Figure 6H-45: The FHWA adds a second sentence to
items 2a and 2e to include changing the mode of the second northbound
and southbound arrow panels respectively from Caution to Right Arrow
and from Right Arrow to Caution. The FHWA received comments suggesting
that these changes are necessary for consistency with Chapter 6F of the
MUTCD. The FHWA agrees and adopts these changes in this final rule.
nn. Notes for Figure 6H-46: The FHWA revises item 9 from GUIDANCE
to a STANDARD consistent with Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations. The
standard states, ``At night, flagger stations shall be illuminated,
except in emergencies.'' This change is necessary to be consistent with
the new STANDARD in Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations.
297. The FHWA adds a new chapter, numbered and titled ``Chapter 6I
Control of Traffic Through Traffic Incident Management Areas.'' This
new chapter contains text from Section 6G.19 Control of Traffic Through
Incident Areas (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) in its entirety with
several modifications and additional information on the use of
temporary traffic control devices for traffic incident management
zones. The new chapter contains a general section as well as sections
on major, intermediate, and minor traffic incidents, and on use of
emergency-vehicle lighting (flashing or rotating beacons or strobes).
This Chapter is included to recognize the importance of safely and
efficiently controlling traffic through traffic incident areas and the
unique characteristics of incidents and the traffic controls that
should be used.
In Section 6I.01 Control of Traffic Through Traffic Incident
Management Areas, the FHWA received comments from Lake County,
Illinois, and the Cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen specifically in support of this new
section, several informational and editorial comments, and some
comments opposed to specific language within the section.
Based on a comment from NIOSH suggesting that a distinction be made
between planned and unplanned events, the FHWA makes a distinction
between planned and unplanned events and removes language in this
section, as well as the entire chapter, referring to planned events.
With pre-planning and coordination between law enforcement and
transportation agencies, most special events, such as a sporting event
or a scheduled visit by a dignitary, would not require the emergency
measures described in this section. This section focuses on management
of emergency and other unforeseen incidents, including motor vehicle
crashes, hazardous materials spills, and natural disasters. All
references to special events are deleted from this chapter.
The FHWA also revises text within this section to be consistent
with changes made in other areas of the MUTCD in this final rule. Such
revisions include clarifying the limits of an incident management area
and designating the color fluorescent pink as an optional background
color for incident management signs. Some commenters felt that the
special color for traffic incident management signing should be
mandatory or recommended rather than an option. The FHWA agrees it
would be desirable for all traffic incident management signs to be the
special color but determines that this is not practical due to the
unplanned nature of such incidents and the wide variety and
capabilities of first responders. The reason that the FHWA establishes
an optional distinctive color (fluorescent pink) for signing for
incident management is to inform drivers that the temporary traffic
controls have been set up for an emergency and therefore this is not a
normal temporary traffic control zone. If incident management
treatments, including the special sign color, are only used for
unforeseen situations, drivers will realize that they need to be
especially alert in incident management situations.
Consistent with Section 2C.33 of the MUTCD, the FHWA adopts the W4-
2 Lane Ends symbol sign but revises its design to be consistent with
the Canadian symbol. (Please refer to the discussion in Section 2C.33).
In response to comments from NIOSH, the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen, the FHWA also revises the third
paragraph of the first GUIDANCE statement that ``first responders'' to
the incident should assess the situation and set up temporary traffic
control related to that assessment. First responders, however, will
likely be too involved with other tasks related to the incident itself
and accordingly the FHWA has deleted ``first'' from this statement. The
statement now recognizes that other responders may perform this
assessment and the associated tasks for temporary traffic control.
In Section 6I.02 Major Traffic Incidents, the FHWA received two
comments from the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and a private
citizen opposed to the first GUIDANCE statement regarding the use of
applicable procedures and devices for traffic incidents that are
anticipated to
[[Page 65568]]
last more than 24 hours. The commenters stated that normal temporary
traffic control procedures should be recommended for any incident
lasting more than a few hours. The FHWA disagrees with these comments
because incidents that are relatively severe can last for most of a
day, and it is appropriate during these incidents to allow the use of
incident management procedures and devices, rather than temporary
traffic control procedures and devices.
Based on comments from NIOSH and the Iowa DOT, the FHWA revises the
third paragraph of the second GUIDANCE statement to add uniformed law
enforcement officers, for consistency with other sections in Part 6.
Based on comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, and a private citizen, the FHWA revises the third GUIDANCE
statement in this final rule to delete the recommendation that
channelizing devices should be used whenever possible if a roadway is
expected to be closed for more than three hours. That recommendation
was inconsistent with the first GUIDANCE statement in this section,
which states that other chapters of Part 6 should be used if the
incident will last more than 24 hours. Finally, the FHWA revises the
last paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement to address a comment from the
NCUTCD suggesting that the reference to using flares for short-term
temporary traffic control be deleted.
In Section 6I.03 Intermediate Traffic Incidents, the FHWA revises
the SUPPORT statement to clarify the duration of intermediate traffic
incidents, based on comments from the NCUTCD and to be consistent with
Section 6I.01 General. The FHWA makes additional revisions to this
section to be consistent with changes as discussed in Section 6I.02
Major Traffic Incidents.
In Section 6I.04 Minor Traffic Incidents, the FHWA revises the
SUPPORT statement to clarify the duration of minor traffic incidents.
The FHWA also removes the first paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement and
adds that paragraph to Sections 6I.01, 6I.02, and 6I.03, as this
recommendation for training of on-scene responders is generally
applicable to all types of traffic incidents but especially major and
intermediate ones.
In Section 6I.05 Use of Emergency-Vehicle Lighting, the FHWA
received one comment from NIOSH opposed to the section, suggesting that
the section does not provide clear, consistent advice on the use of
emergency-vehicle lighting. The FHWA disagrees because the first
sentence of the first paragraph points out that emergency-vehicle
lighting is essential prior to establishing good traffic control and
the second and third paragraphs encourage emergency-vehicle lighting to
be kept to a minimum after good traffic control has been established.
The FHWA adopts this section with an additional GUIDANCE paragraph
stating that vehicle headlights not needed for illumination, or to
provide notice to other road users of the incident response vehicle
being in an unexpected location, should be turned off at night.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 7--Traffic Controls for School
Areas
298. In Section 7A.01 Need for Standards, the FHWA received one
comment from Caltrans suggesting that the STANDARD, which states that
the types of traffic control devices used in school areas shall be
related to the volumes and speed of vehicular traffic, street width,
and the number and age of the students using the crossing, is not
practical because the type of traffic control devices cannot be related
to all of the conditions listed. The FHWA agrees that GUIDANCE, to
provide recommendations rather than a requirement, is appropriate and
revises this statement in the final rule to a GUIDANCE. In addition,
this is consistent with the rest of the GUIDANCE statement in Section
7A.01.
299. In Section 7A.04 Scope, the FHWA received four comments from
the NCUTCD, the Kansas DOT, and the Minnesota DOT opposing the removal
of the second paragraph of the STANDARD restricting the use of portable
school signs. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because Arizona
has extensively used portable school signs, in accordance with Arizona
State laws and Arizona DOT guidelines that have been in effect for
several decades.\56\ The FHWA believes that, when designed and placed
appropriately, portable school signs can be helpful in reducing speed,
increasing road user awareness of the crossing, and enhancing school
pedestrian safety. The FHWA believes that the use of these signs is a
subset of overall ``in-street'' pedestrian devices that the FHWA adopts
in Part 2. In addition, the State of Washington successfully
experimented with in-roadway school warning signs,\57\ as discussed
below under Sections 7B.08 School Advance Warning Assembly (S1-1 with
Supplemental Plaque) and 7B.09 School Crosswalk Warning Assembly (S1-1
with Diagonal Arrow). Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the removal of the
text as specified in the NPA. For consistency with other parts of the
MUTCD, the FHWA also adds an OPTION that in-roadway signs for school
traffic control areas may be used consistent with the requirements of
Sections 7B.08, 7B.09, and 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines'', 30-012,
Arizona Department of Transportation, June 2003, includes Arizona
DOT guidelines for use of portable school signs and citations of
applicable Arizona State laws. This document is available at the
following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.dot.state.az.us/ROADS/traffic/standards/School_Safety/Schoolsafety.pdf.
The longstanding use and success of
these signs in Arizona is reported in ``School Zone Flashers--Do
they Really Slow Traffic?'' by Benjamin E. Burritt, Richard C.
Buchanan, and Eric I. Kalivoda'', an article in ITE Journal, volume
60, number 1, January, 1990, pages 29-31. A copy of this article is
available on the docket. Also, this issue of ITE Journal is
available for purchase from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) at the following URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ite.org and click on
``Bookstore''.
\57\ ``School Zone `Delineator' Project: Summary of Preliminary
Analysis Data'' was prepared in August 2003 by the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission for the Washington State Department of
Transportation, as a part of FHWA-approved experimentation number 7-
16. This document is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
300. In Section 7A.09 Unauthorized Devices and Messages, (titled
Section 7A.09 Removal of Confusing Advertising in the 2000 MUTCD), the
FHWA changes the title to provide consistency with other text in the
MUTCD as well as to avoid conflicting statements to clarify the intent
of this section. Two commenters from the Ohio DOT and Caltrans
suggested that the title of the section be changed to clarify the
intent of the section. The comment from the Ohio DOT also suggested
that the SUPPORT statement be revised to reference Section 1A.01
Purpose of Traffic Control Devices in addition to Section 1A.08
Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices, which is already
referenced. The FHWA agrees that these changes are necessary for
consistency.
301. In Section 7B.01 Size of School Signs, the FHWA revises the
STANDARD statement to indicate that the ``Conventional Road'' size sign
shall be used on public roads, streets, and highways unless engineering
judgment determines that a special sign size would be more appropriate,
and that ``oversized'' sign sizes shall be used on expressways. The
FHWA also revises the OPTION statement to indicate that ``oversized''
sign sizes may be used for application that require increased emphasis,
improved recognition, or increased legibility.
[[Page 65569]]
The FHWA also revises the three size columns of Table 7B-1 to
correspond with the text changes, so that the first column is labeled
``Conventional Road'', the second column is labeled ``Minimum'' and the
third is labeled ``Oversized''. The FHWA proposed several changes to
this table in the NPA to reflect additional new signs, changes in sign
sizes, and deletion of signs. Based on comments from the NCUTCD, the
Virginia and Oregon DOTs, Pierce County, Washington, and a traffic
engineering consultant, the FHWA incorporates additional changes to
these signs in this final rule. These changes in the table reflect
changes throughout Part 7 and make the sizes of supplemental plaques
correspond more closely with the sizes of the signs they supplement.
The sign sizes in this table are also consistent with the sign sizes in
Part 2.
302. In Section 7B.07 Sign Color for School Warning Signs, the FHWA
changes item A in the OPTION statement to ``School Advance Warning
Sign'' to be consistent with other changes in the MUTCD. The FHWA also
changes item D in the OPTION statement to clarify that only the SCHOOL
portion on the School Speed Limit (S5-1) sign may have a fluorescent
yellow-green background. The SCHOOL portion of the sign is the warning
message. The FHWA also adds item H in the OPTION statement to include
the Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead (S4-5, S4-5a) sign in the list of
signs that may have a fluorescent yellow-green background with a black
legend and border.
303. In Section 7B.08 School Advance Warning Assembly (S1-1 with
Supplemental Plaque), to respond to a comment from a traffic
engineering consultant suggesting clarification, the FHWA adds to the
GUIDANCE statement an exception that the School Advance Warning (S1-1)
assembly does not need to be installed along a highway when a physical
barrier, such as fencing, separates school children from the highway.
The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement at the end of the section to
describe the use of the in-street reduced size School Advance Warning
(S1-1) sign and reduced size AHEAD (W16-9p) plaque in advance of a
school crossing. The Washington State DOT performed a before and after
study to determine the effectiveness of this sign. Although a final
report on the evaluation is not complete, a preliminary analysis of the
data \58\ shows that these signs can be effective in reducing speeds in
school zones. Based on this experience, the FHWA determines that this
is an acceptable variation of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
discussed in Section 7B.09 School Crosswalk Warning Assembly (S1-1 with
Diagonal Arrow). This sign will provide an additional tool to increase
the safety of school crossings by enhancing the conspicuity of advance
warnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ``School Zone `Delineator' Project: Summary of Preliminary
Analysis Data'' was prepared in August 2003 by the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission for the Washington State Department of
Transportation, as a part of FHWA-approved experimentation number 7-
16. This document is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For easier reference, the FHWA assigns the page of sign images a
number and title, ``Figure 7B-1 School Area Signs''.
Also, the FHWA adds a new figure numbered and titled, ``Figure 7B-2
Examples of Signing for School Crosswalk Warning Assembly'' to
illustrate the placement of these assemblies as described in Section
7B.09.
Additionally, the FHWA renumbers and retitles Figure 7B-1 (as
numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) to ``Figure 7B-3 Examples of Signing for
School Area Traffic Control with School Speed Limits.'' The FHWA
received a comment in agreement from NCUTCD and a comment in opposition
from a traffic engineering consultant regarding this figure. The
traffic engineering consultant questioned the need to have an ``End
SCHOOL ZONE'' sign. This sign is discussed in Section 7B.13 END SCHOOL
ZONE Sign (S5-2) and its use is appropriately shown in Figure 7B-3.
The FHWA adds a new figure numbered and titled, ``Figure 7B-4 In-
Street Signs in School Areas'' to illustrate the placement of these
signs as described in Sections 7B.08 and 7B.09. The FHWA adds this
figure in this final rule to provide clarity and to assist users in
understanding the sign placement.
304. In Section 7B.09 School Crosswalk Warning Assembly (S1-1 with
Diagonal Arrow), the FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD,
State DOTs, a traffic control device manufacturer, and a private
citizen regarding the proposal to insert an OPTION statement allowing
the use of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6 or R1-6a) signs at
unsignalized midblock crossings. The NCUTCD and the Minnesota DOT were
opposed to allowing the use of the sign, suggesting that there was not
sufficient research to support of the effectiveness of the sign. The
Oregon DOT, a traffic control device manufacturer, and the private
citizen suggested that use of the sign be permitted at all unsignalized
school crossings, not just midblock crossings. As discussed above in
Section 7A.04, the FHWA believes that portable school signs, when
designed and placed appropriately, can be helpful in reducing speed,
enhancing road user awareness of the crossing, and enhancing school
pedestrian safety. The use of these signs is a subset of overall ``in-
street'' pedestrian devices that FHWA adopts in Section 2B.12 In-Street
Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a), and for consistency, the FHWA
adopts their use in Section 7B.09. The FHWA deletes ``midblock'' from
the OPTION in this section and adds language to the STANDARD statement
regarding sign placement and breakaway requirements.
The FHWA adds to the OPTION statement to describe the use of the
reduced size School Advance Warning (S1-1) sign at an unsignalized
school crossing instead of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6 or
R1-6a) sign and to describe the use of the reduced size Diagonal Arrow
(W16-7p) plaque with the reduced size School Advance Warning (S1-1)
sign. Based on successful experience with this in-street version of the
School Crosswalk Warning Assembly in Washington State, as discussed
above under Section 7B.08, the FHWA believes that this is an acceptable
alternative to the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6 or R1-6a) sign
for use at a school crosswalk.
Additionally, the FHWA clarifies the STANDARD statement at the end
of the section to describe the use of the In-street Pedestrian Crossing
sign and the reduced-size in-street School Advance Warning (S1-1)
assembly.
305. In Section 7B.11 School Speed Limit Assembly (S4-1, S4-2, S4-
3, S4-4, S4-6, S5-1) (referred to as Section 7B.11 School Speed Limit
Assembly (S4-1, S4-2, S4-3, S4-4, S5-1) in the NPA), the FHWA received
three comments from the Ohio DOT and traffic engineering consultants
regarding the location of the reduced speed zone in the vicinity of a
school. While there were no proposed changes to this statement in the
NPA, the FHWA changes the location of the speed zone in relation to the
school property line from ``90 m (300 ft)'' to ``30 m (100 ft)'' to
correct an error in the 2000 MUTCD and address the concerns of the
commenters. The FHWA also changes the corresponding dimension shown in
Figure 7B-3.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add to the OPTION statement that
changeable message signs should subscribe to the principles established
in Section 2A.07 Changeable Message Signs and other sections of the
MUTCD,
[[Page 65570]]
for consistency with Section 6F.55 Portable Changeable Message Signs.
The NCUTCD suggested eliminating redundant references to the changeable
message signs. Based on this comment, the FHWA creates a new OPTION
statement after the second STANDARD and moves what was previously the
first paragraph of the OPTION statement to this new OPTION and revises
the wording to include references to Section 2A.07 and 6F.55. The FHWA
deletes the remaining repetitious wording from the second OPTION.
The FHWA adds new paragraphs to the last OPTION statement
indicating that fluorescent yellow-green pixels may be used when
school-related messages are shown on a changeable message sign and that
changeable message signs that display the speed of approaching drivers
my be used in a school speed zone. There were no comments on this
change.
The FHWA also adds information on the use of the FINES HIGHER (R2-
6) sign to advise road users when increased fines are imposed for
traffic violations in school zones. One commenter from the Wisconsin
DOT felt that this sign was not necessary because these laws are
already in the State statutes and the State generally does not make it
a practice to sign all statutory requirements. Because this is an
OPTION statement, any State can decide whether or not to use this sign.
The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA.
306. In Section 7B.12 Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead Sign (S4-5,
S4-5a) (referred to as Section 7B.12 School Reduced Speed Ahead Sign
(S4-5, S4-5a) in the NPA), the FHWA received several comments from the
NCUTCD and State DOTs regarding the use of S4-5 and S4-5a signs. The
Illinois, Oregon, and Wisconsin DOTs and the NCUTCD opposed the use of
these signs in place of the rectangular ``School/Reduced Speed Ahead''
signs, stating that these signs are not needed and do not add much
benefit for the impact they would have on the States. The State DOTs
stated that the S4-5 and S4-5a warning signs may not be as effective as
the rectangular signs.
The FHWA disagrees and adds the S4-5 and S4-5a signs in this final
rule for Part 7 to avoid conflicting sign applications within the
MUTCD. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 15
years from the effective date of this final rule for replacement of
existing regulatory signs in good condition with these warning signs to
minimize any impact on State of local governments.
This is consistent with the decisions in Chapter 2C to add the W3-5
Speed Reduced Ahead signs in symbol and legend designs for English
units and the legend design for metric units. In response to the
NCUTCD's suggestions to enhance the perception and legibility, the FHWA
modifies the design of the W3-5 symbol sign to reduce the height of the
legend ``SPEED'' and ``LIMIT'' while increasing the height of the
numbers of the speed limit. This will provide enhanced perception and
legibility distance.
307. In Section 7C.03 Crosswalk Markings, the FHWA adds a new
SUPPORT statement at the beginning of the section to provide
information on the use of crosswalk markings. The FHWA received one
comment from the City of Tucson supporting all of the changes to this
section as proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE
statement to include extending crosswalk lines to the edge of the
intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between
crosswalks. The FHWA adds this additional wording to be consistent with
changes in Section 3B.17 Crosswalk Markings, and because school
children are pedestrians. To be consistent with Section 3B.17, the FHWA
also adds additional text at the end of the first GUIDANCE statement to
indicate that crosswalks should not be used indiscriminately and that
an engineering study should be performed before placing crosswalks at
locations away from traffic control signals or STOP signs.
308. In Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield Lines, the FHWA revises the
title from ``Stop Line Markings'' to ``Stop and Yield Lines'' and
revises the entire section to appropriately mirror the STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements contained in Part 3. The FHWA
received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
all of the changes. The Oregon DOT suggested adding an OPTION to allow
the use of a stop line with STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS signs at both
intersection and midblock locations at crosswalks not controlled by a
signal, stop sign, or yield sign, in order to help enforce State law
requiring drivers to stop. The FHWA disagrees because STOP HERE FOR
PEDESTRIAN signs with stop lines are not adopted in Section 2B.11 Yield
Here to Pedestrians Signs (R1-5, R1-5a) or Part 3 Markings.
309. In Section 7E.04 Uniform of Adult Crossing Guards and Student
Patrols (referred to as Section 7E.04 Uniform of Adult Guards and
Student Patrols in the NPA), the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement that
adult guards shall wear high-visibility safety apparel labeled as ANSI
107-1999 standard performance for Class 2, and that student patrols
shall wear high-visibility safety apparel labeled as ANSI 107-1999
standard performance for Class 1. This safety apparel will make the
guards and patrols (and the students they are managing) far more
visible to approaching road users. The adopted language in this final
rule includes a slight revision from the NPA that changes the phrase
``high-visibility retroreflective clothing'' to ``high-visibility
safety apparel.'' The FHWA incorporates this change in this final rule
for consistency with terminology used in Part 6 and to avoid any
possible misinterpretation that all clothing worn must meet the ANSI
standard. The FHWA adopts a phase-in target compliance date for these
changes of five years from the effective date of this final rule in
order to minimize any impact on State or local agencies.
310. In Section 7E.05 Operating Procedures for Adult Crossing
Guards (referred to as Section 7E.05 Operating Procedures for Adult
Guards in the NPA), the FHWA received seven comments from the NCUTCD,
State and local DOTs, traffic control device manufacturers, and private
citizens regarding the proposal to add an OPTION statement at the end
of the section to allow the STOP paddle to be modified to enhance the
conspicuity of the paddle by adding white flashing lights. All of the
commenters suggested that the use of red lights also be allowed. The
FHWA agrees and adds the use of red lights to the OPTION.
The FHWA also adds item E to the OPTION statement to indicate that
a series of white lights forming the shapes of the letters in the
legend of a STOP paddle may be used. This is consistent with adopted
changes to Parts 2 and 6 of the MUTCD.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement following the new
OPTION statement to define the acceptable flashing rate of the optional
flashing lights on STOP paddles. This change is consistent with the
flashing rate in other parts of the MUTCD. A traffic control device
manufacturer and private citizen suggested increasing the flash rate to
three times the normal rate. The FHWA disagrees with allowing an
increased flash rate because such a flash rate would be close to the
range of flash rates that may cause epileptic seizures.\59\ The FHWA
adopts the flash
[[Page 65571]]
rate of between 50 and 60 flashes per minute as proposed in the NPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The website of the National Society for Epilepsy, a
professional society in the United Kingdom that specializes in
epilepsy, states that a flash rate fo 5 to 30 hertz (flashes per
second) can cause seizures in some people. This information is
available at the following URL; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epilepsynse.org.uk/pages/info/leaflets/photo.cfm.
A variety of websites of U.S. organizations
also refer to the problem of photosensitivity (triggering fo
seizures by flickering lights) among epileptic persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 8--Traffic Controls for
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
311. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, the FHWA revises the
definitions in the STANDARD statement for: ``Advance Preemption and
Advance Preemption Time'' (change to ``Advance Preemption'' and
``Advance Preemption Time''), ``Clear Storage Distance,'' ``Dynamic
Envelope Delineation'' (change to ``Dynamic Envelope''), ``Maximum
Highway Traffic Signal Preemption Time,'' ``Minimum Track Clearance
Distance,'' ``Pre-signal,'' and ``Queue Clearance Time'' to reflect
accepted practice and terminologies. There were a few editorial
comments regarding some of these definitions that have been
incorporated in this final rule as appropriate.
The FHWA also adds definitions for the following because they are
referred to later in the MUTCD: ``Dynamic Exit Gate Operating Mode,''
``Exit Gate Clearance Time,'' ``Exit Gate Operating Mode,'' ``Flashing-
Light Signals,'' ``Timed Exit Gate Operating Mode,'' ``Wayside
Equipment,'' and ``Vehicle Intrusion Detection Devices'' to reflect
accepted practice and terminologies. There were a few editorial
comments regarding some of these definitions that have been
incorporated in this final rule as appropriate.
Additionally, in response to a comment from Norfolk Southern
Railroad, the FHWA removes the definition for ``Monitored
Interconnected Operation'' because it is not used in the MUTCD. The
FHWA renumbers the remaining definitions accordingly.
312. In Section 8A.02 Use of Standard Devices, Systems, and
Practices, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement following the STANDARD
statement. This GUIDANCE statement is identical to the second GUIDANCE
statement in Section 10A.02 Use of Standard Devices, Systems, and
Practices, and reinforces that Part 1 principles of design, placement,
operation, maintenance, and uniformity of traffic control devices
should be considered for both highway-rail and highway-light rail
transit grade crossings. There was one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change. The Ohio DOT suggested editorial
changes to reduce redundancy in listing types of traffic. The FHWA
agrees and changes the phrase ``drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists''
to ``vehicle operators and pedestrians.'' The Virginia DOT suggested
that the GUIDANCE be changed to a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees because
this statement is not specific enough to be a STANDARD.
313. In Section 8A.03 Uniform Provisions, the FHWA changes the
STANDARD statement to indicate that no sign or signal shall be located
in the center of an undivided highway, except in a ``raised island.''
In the 2000 MUTCD, the text used the phrase ``island with non-mountable
curbs,'' however a traffic engineering consultant suggested a change to
clarify that the curb should not be mountable. The FHWA agrees and
modifies the text, with slight editorial changes, to be consistent with
the AASHTO Green Book.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,''
4th Edition, 2001, in both hardcopy and CD-ROM, is available from
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) by telephone (800) 231-3475, facsimile (800) 525-
5562, mail AASHTO, P.O. Box 96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716, or at
its Web site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.transportation.org and click on Bookstore.
This document is a guide, based on established practices and
supplemented by research, to provide guidance to the highway
designer to provide for the needs of highway users while maintaining
the integrity of the environment. It is incorporated by reference
into the CFR at 23 CFR 625.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
314. In Section 8A.04 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Elimination, the
FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement at the beginning of the section. This
GUIDANCE statement is identical to the first GUIDANCE statement in
Section 10A.04 Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossing Elimination,
and reinforces that both highway-rail and highway-light rail transit
grade crossings are a potential source of congestion and agencies
should conduct engineering studies to determine the cost and benefits
of eliminating such crossings. The FHWA received one comment from the
Wisconsin DOT suggesting that the statement also mention that crossings
are a potential source of crashes. The FHWA agrees and adds the
appropriate text in this final rule.
Additionally, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement at the end of the
section. This OPTION statement is identical to the last OPTION
statement in Section 10A.04 and reinforces that TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE
(R8-9) signs may be temporarily installed at locations where both rail
or light rail transit is eliminated at a highway-rail or highway-light
rail transit grade crossing until the tracks are removed or paved over.
The FHWA received one comment from the New Jersey DOT suggesting that
this new OPTION be made a STANDARD. The FHWA also received a comment
from the U.S. Access Board suggesting that the preceding GUIDANCE, as
it relates to paving over tracks where a railroad is eliminated at a
highway-rail grade crossing, be strengthened by adding a time limit by
which the tracks should be paved over. The FHWA revises the OPTION
statement to indicate that based on engineering judgment, the TRACKS
OUT OF SERVICE sign may be temporarily installed until the tracks are
removed or paved over and that the length of time that the tracks will
be out of service before they are removed or paved over may be
considered in making the decision as to whether to install the sign.
315. In Section 8A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, the FHWA
adds a SUPPORT statement at the beginning of the section. This SUPPORT
statement is identical to the SUPPORT statement in Section 10A.05
Temporary Traffic Control Zones and reinforces that temporary traffic
control planning provides for continuity of operations when the normal
function of a roadway at both a highway-rail and a highway-light rail
transit grade crossing is suspended because of temporary traffic
control operations. The FHWA received one comment from the City of
Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change. The FHWA adopts this
change.
316. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8B.02 Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs.'' This new section contains a
STANDARD and an OPTION statement regarding sign sizes for grade
crossing signs, as well as a reference to a new table numbered and
titled, ``Table 8B-1 Sign Sizes for Grade Crossing Signs.'' The FHWA
adds this section and table to consolidate information previously
contained elsewhere in the MUTCD, make the information more readily
accessible to readers, and for consistency with changes made in Part 2.
The FHWA renumbers the remaining sections accordingly.
317. In Section 8B.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign
and Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2) (numbered and titled ``Section 8B.02
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Signs (R15-1, R15-2, R15-9)''
in the NPA), the FHWA proposed to add an OPTION statement for the
optional use of a new Crossbuck Shield sign. The FHWA received two
[[Page 65572]]
comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and ATSSA in support of the
Crossbuck Shield sign. Sixteen commenters representing the NCUTCD and
its railroad technical committee, railroad owners and associations,
State and local DOTs, and private citizens expressed opposition to the
use of the Crossbuck Shield sign, suggesting that consideration of
these proposed changes be deferred pending the NCUTCD's consideration
of the recommendations of NCHRP Report 470 \61\ regarding requiring the
display of a YIELD sign or a STOP sign where appropriate, in
conjunction with the Crossbuck sign. Given the strong response opposing
the proposal, the FHWA believes that the proposal of the Crossbuck
Shield was premature and removes all text and graphic references
regarding the Crossbuck Shield sign from this final rule. States
currently using the Crossbuck Shield sign under approved
experimentations may request an extension in writing from the FHWA to
continue experimental use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ NCHRP Report 470, ``Traffic Control Devices for Passive
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings'', 2002, is available for
downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following
URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf_____________________________________-
Also, the FHWA revises the second STANDARD statement to clarify the
placement of retroreflective white material on the front and back of
the supports for highway-rail grade crossing Crossbuck signs, to within
0.6 m (2 ft) above the edge of the roadway, except on the side of those
supports where a STOP or YIELD sign or flashing lights have been
installed, or on the back side of supports for Crossbuck signs
installed on one-way streets. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a distance
of 0.3 m (1 ft) from ground level, however the FHWA revises the wording
in this final rule to reflect the many comments that FHWA received from
the NCUTCD and its railroad technical committee, railroad owners and
operators, State DOTs in regions where snowfall is common, and private
citizens suggesting that 0.6 m (2 ft) was more appropriate due to
potential maintenance problems in northern States associated with snow.
In addition, the change from ``near ground level'' to ``above the edge
of the roadway'' responds to many of the same commenters who suggested
that referencing to the height of the edge of the roadway promotes a
more uniform display and is more consistent with other sections of the
MUTCD.
Additionally, the FHWA received one comment from the Connecticut
DOT regarding the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement relating
to minimum lateral clearance for the nearest edge of the Crossbuck sign
to the shoulder or the traveled way. The Connecticut DOT indicated that
the 3.7 m (12 ft) requirement seemed excessive and could affect the
motorist's sight to the sign due to physical limitations in rural
areas. The NPA did not propose any significant changes to this
statement, rather the NPA included editorial changes to add that this
GUIDANCE refers to the ``minimum'' lateral clearance and to clarify
that the greater of 1.8 m (6 feet) from the edge of the shoulder or 3.7
m (12 ft) from the edge of the traveled way in rural areas (whichever
is greater) should be used. Because this is a GUIDANCE, if there is a
good engineering reason for placing the sign closer to the edge of the
roadway, agencies may do so. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed
in the NPA with one punctuation revision.
318. In Section 8B.04 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning
Signs (W10 series) (numbered Section 8B.03 in the NPA), the FHWA
revises the first STANDARD statement, item A, to better define where
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning (W10-1) signs are not
required on an approach to a crossing from a T-intersection with a
parallel highway. Five commenters from the NCUTCD, the Utah Transit
Authority, a traffic engineering consultant and private citizens
opposed the revision, stating that the wording is repeated in the first
paragraph of the second STANDARD statement. One commenter from the
Nevada DOT supported the revisions. The FHWA declines deleting item A
because it discusses a specific situation for which no W10-1 sign is
required on an approach to a grade crossing. Item A refers only to ``T-
intersections'' where W10-3 signs are used in both directions of the
parallel highway. Item A covers approaches where all vehicles crossing
the track have turned onto the approach from the parallel highway,
whereas text in the second STANDARD statement covers all intersections
including 4-way intersections and T-intersections where the track
crosses the top of the intersection. The FHWA adopts the wording as
proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the second STANDARD statement to
clarify the proper use of the W10-2, W10-3, and W10-4 advance warning
signs if the distance from the parallel highway to the railroad tracks
is less than 30 m (100 feet). The FHWA received comments from the
Kansas DOT and Yakima County, Washington, regarding these changes. The
Kansas DOT suggested that these changes would result in the addition of
too many additional railroad signs at a high cost to local
jurisdictions and limited benefit to the traveling public. The FHWA
believes that if the crossing is within 100 feet of the parallel
highway, it is important for adequate safety that turning drivers are
warned that they will encounter a crossing soon after turning.
Yakima County, Washington, suggested that these signs are a
combination of railroad crossing warning and intersection warning
signs, and therefore should be placed in accordance with Chapter 2A and
Table 2C-4. The FHWA agrees and revises the statement in this final
rule to include placing the signs in accordance with the guidelines for
Intersection Warning Signs in Table 2C-4.
319. In Section 8B.06 Turn Restrictions During Preemption (numbered
Section 8B.05 in the NPA), the FHWA received several comments from
members of the NCUTCD Railroad and Light Rail Transit Committee stating
that the committee recommended deleting the track image that appears in
the center of the R3-1a and R3-2a signs, and to call these signs R3-1
and R3-2, because they would become identical to the turn prohibition
signs in Chapter 2B. The committee felt that track depiction is
unnecessary and clutters the signs. The FHWA acknowledges that these
symbol signs involving tracks may need to be re-designed to enhance
clarity and legibility, but rather than to use the R3-1 and R3-2 signs,
the FHWA withdraws the R3-1a and R3-2a signs (with tracks) as proposed
in the NPA and reassigns these signs as word message signs ``NO LEFT/
RIGHT TURN ACROSS TRACKS'' in this final rule. The FHWA believes that
it is important to use signs that clearly convey that turning across
the tracks is prohibited, not necessarily all turns at a location.
320. The FHWA adds a new section titled, ``Section 8B.10 STOP HERE
WHEN FLASHING Sign (R8-10)'' (numbered Section 8B.09 in the NPA), which
contains an OPTION statement describing the use of the STOP HERE WHEN
FLASHING (R8-10) sign as it relates to highway-rail grade crossings.
The FHWA received one comment from NCUTCD in support of the new section
and one comment from the Ohio DOT suggesting that the FHWA revise the
arrow on the STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING (R8-10) sign from a tapered shaft
arrow to a straight shaft arrow. The FHWA agrees and adopts this
change.
321. The FHWA adds a new section titled, ``Section 8B.11 STOP HERE
ON RED Sign (R10-6)'' (numbered Section 8B.10 in the NPA), which
contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and GUIDANCE
[[Page 65573]]
statements describing the use of the STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) sign at
highway-rail grade crossings. The FHWA received comments from the
Wisconsin and New Jersey DOTs suggesting that the SUPPORT statement be
clarified to indicate that the STOP HERE ON RED sign be restricted to
just those crossings where traffic control signals are used to control
traffic, and not used at locations with flashing-light signals. The
FHWA also received several comments from the NCUTCD, railroad
operators, traffic engineering consultants, and private citizens
suggesting that the FHWA remove the term ``traffic gates'' from the
SUPPORT statement because the term is not common in the railroad
industry. The FHWA agrees with both of these comments and incorporates
these clarifications into this final rule. The FHWA renumbers the
remaining sections accordingly.
322. In Section 8B.15 NO SIGNAL Sign (W10-10) or NO GATES OR LIGHTS
Sign (W10-13) (numbered and titled ``Section 8B.12 NO SIGNAL Sign (W10-
10)'' in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement that
the NO GATES OR LIGHTS (W10-13) sign may be used as an alternate to the
NO SIGNAL (W10-10) sign. There was one comment from the New Jersey DOT
opposing this change, stating that they are not in favor of using these
signs at grade crossings. Because the use of these signs is optional,
States can determine whether or not they use these signs. Some States
are interested in using these signs, so the FHWA adopts this change as
proposed in the NPA.
323. In Section 8B.16 LOOK Sign (R15-8), (numbered Section 8B.15 in
the NPA), the FHWA modifies the OPTION statement by removing the
phrase, ``that do not have active warning devices'' to clarify that the
LOOK (R15-8) sign may be mounted at any highway-rail grade crossing.
There was one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of
the change, and two commenters from the Minnesota DOT and a traffic
engineering consultant opposed the change. The traffic engineering
consultant suggested that the LOOK sign should be a warning sign,
rather than a regulatory sign. Because most State laws require road
users to look for trains at a grade crossing, as well as the fact that
this sign regulates pedestrians, the FHWA declines incorporating this
suggestion. The Minnesota DOT, who opposed the change, suggested that
the LOOK sign should only apply to highway-rail grade crossings with
active warning devices. Because this sign is optional and may be used
in areas of significant pedestrian traffic, regardless of traffic
control devices at the crossing, the FHWA disagrees and adopts the
changes as proposed in the NPA.
324. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
8B.19 Skewed Crossing Sign (W10-12)'' (numbered Section 8B.18 in the
NPA), which describes the use of the Skewed Crossing (W10-12) sign at
highway-rail grade crossings when railroad tracks are not perpendicular
to the highway. Four commenters, representing the NCUTCD, Caltrans, the
New Jersey DOT, as well as the City of Tucson, Arizona, agreed with the
changes as proposed, while two commenters from the Nevada DOT suggested
that more research should be conducted regarding the effectiveness of
this sign. The FHWA disagrees that any additional study is needed and
adopts this section in this final rule. One commenter from the Virginia
DOT suggested revisions to the GUIDANCE statement to provide more
guidance on the sign design to appropriately depict the skewed
crossing. The FHWA agrees with this comment and incorporates this
modification into this final rule.
325. In Section 8B.20 Pavement Markings (numbered Section 8B.19 in
the NPA), the FHWA revises the second paragraph of the STANDARD
statement to clarify that a no-passing marking on two-lane highways is
needed only in locations where centerline markings are used. The FHWA
incorporates this change for consistency with changes made in Part 3 in
this final rule.
326. In Section 8B.22 Dynamic Envelope Markings (numbered and
titled Section 8B.18 Dynamic Envelope Delineation in the 2000 MUTCD),
the FHWA retitles this section to clarify that the text refers to
pavement markings.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a second paragraph to the OPTION
statement to clarify that dynamic envelope markings may be installed at
any highway-rail grade crossing unless a Four-Quadrant Gate system is
used.
327. In Section 8C.01 Illumination of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,
the FHWA proposed to change the OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that illumination should be installed at, and
adjacent to, a highway-rail grade crossing when an engineering study
determines such illumination is needed to improve grade crossing
safety. One commenter from the City of Tucson, Arizona, agreed with the
change, however seven commenters, representing the NCUTCD, State and
local DOTs as well as private citizens, opposed changing the OPTION to
a GUIDANCE, stating that this would be very expensive to implement and
that the FHWA should consider the economic impact. The FHWA agrees with
the economic concerns and to address this situation the FHWA adds an
OPTION statement before the GUIDANCE, stating that illumination may be
installed at or adjacent to a highway-rail grade crossing. The FHWA
adopts the change proposed in the NPA to change the OPTION statement to
a GUIDANCE statement; however, this GUIDANCE follows the new OPTION
statement.
328. In Section 8D.01 Introduction, the FHWA revises the first
OPTION statement to clarify that flashing-light signals that are post-
mounted or overhead-mounted may be used separately or in combination
with each other and that flashing-light signals may be used without
automatic gate assemblies as determined by an engineering study. The
FHWA received one comment from the Nevada DOT opposing this change,
stating that this language may enable third parties to apply pressure
to local authorities that approve crossings not to install automatic
gates. The FHWA feels that the decision for the crossing treatment
should be determined by the agency maintaining the roadway after an
engineering study and adopts the change as proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding to the second
OPTION statement information that In-Roadway Stop Line Lights and In-
Roadway Warning Lights may be installed at highway-rail grade crossings
that are controlled by active grade crossing warning systems, as
discussed in Chapter 4L In Roadway Lights. Eleven commenters
representing the NCUTCD, State and local DOTs, railroad operators and
associations, and private citizens opposed this new text. In concert
with determinations made in Chapter 4L, the FHWA withdraws this
proposal and retains the language in the 2000 MUTCD.
329. In Section 8D.02 Flashing-Light Signals, Post-Mounted, the
FHWA modifies the GUIDANCE statement to clarify the sizes of lenses for
use in highway-rail grade crossing flashing-light signals and to
provide guidance for choosing the size of the background behind the
lenses. The FHWA received five comments from the NCUTCD, stating that
the NCUTCD Railroad and Light Rail Transit Committee opposed the
proposed clarification of lens sizes for use in highway-rail grade
crossing flashing-light signals because lens sizes have been understood
for many years in the rail industry. The FHWA disagrees because the
clarifying reference in this section is to Section 4D.15 Size, Number
and Location of Signal Faces by Approach, which contains good advice
[[Page 65574]]
regarding lens sizes that some agencies and other individuals involved
with highway-rail grade crossings may not be aware of. The FHWA adopts
this change as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA received four comments,
primarily from railroad companies, opposing the guidance for choosing
the size of the background behind the lenses because Part 4 does not
contain specified background sizes for any traffic signal. The FHWA
agrees and withdraws this proposal.
330. In Section 8D.04 Automatic Gates, the FHWA received a comment
from a private citizen suggesting that the second paragraph of the
STANDARD statement be revised to include consideration for the unique
requirements associated with constant warning time and other advanced
system devices. The FHWA believes that it is appropriate to make this
change because the features of constant warning time and other advanced
systems do not necessarily provide for an operation of the gates
exactly as described in the paragraph. The FHWA believes that requiring
constant warning time and other advanced systems to have gate
operations exactly as described would be an unreasonable burden on
jurisdictions and is not practical or necessary. Accordingly, the FHWA
revises the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement to provide an
exception to the requirements of this paragraph when a constant warning
time or other advanced system requires otherwise.
331. In Section 8D.05 Four-Quadrant Gate Systems, the FHWA revises
and adds to the GUIDANCE statement information to describe the various
operating modes of exit gates and how they should be used. The FHWA
received five comments suggesting terminology changes that the NCUTCD
Railroad and Light-Rail Transit Committee endorsed. The FHWA agrees and
includes those terminology changes in this final rule. The Committee
also suggested that the GUIDANCE statement regarding placement of exit
gates to provide a safe zone be deleted because this practice is seldom
used. Because Four-Quadrant Gates are a relatively new concept to grade
crossings, the FHWA believes that if space is available, the exit gates
should be set back at least one design vehicle length from the nearest
rail in order to reduce the chances of a vehicle becoming trapped on
the tracks. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the third paragraph of the STANDARD
statement to accommodate constant warning time or other advanced
systems, for the same reasons as discussed above in Section 8D.04.
Based on a comment from a railroad company, the FHWA revises the
third and fourth paragraphs of the GUIDANCE statement to include
coordination with the affected railroad company when determining the
operating mode of exit gates and the Exit Gate Clearance Time.
Additionally, the FHWA changes the title of Figure 8D-2 from
``Typical Location Plan for Flashing-Light Signals and Four-Quadrant
Gates'' to ``Example of Location Plan for Flashing-Light Signals and
Four-Quadrant Gates.'' There were no comments regarding this change,
and the FHWA adopts this change.
332. In Section 8D.07 Traffic Control Signals at or Near Highway-
Rail Grade Crossings, the FHWA received comments from a private citizen
regarding text in the first OPTION and STANDARD statements related to
the use of traffic control signals instead of flashing-light signals at
industrial highway-rail grade crossings and mainline highway-rail grade
crossings. The commenter suggested that the text include additional
language specifying train speeds as part of the criteria. These
comments go beyond the scope of this rulemaking and would need to be
addressed in a future rulemaking.
Following the second paragraph of the second STANDARD statement,
the FHWA adds additional GUIDANCE, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION
statements to better describe the use of pre-signals to improve safety
at highway-rail grade crossings at locations in proximity to
intersections controlled by traffic control signals. The FHWA received
one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting the overall
changes to this section. One comment from the Wisconsin DOT expressed
general support for the new language for preemption, but expressed
concerns regarding the use of pre-signals when the crossing is within
15 m (50 ft) (or within 23 m (75 ft) for a highway that is regularly
used by multi-unit vehicles) of an intersection controlled by a traffic
control signal. This comment is unique to the State of Wisconsin
because they use near-side signal displays at all intersections. The
FHWA believes it is inappropriate to change the MUTCD in this case to
accommodate the practices of one State.
Additionally, the FHWA adds to the last OPTION statement that at
locations where a highway-rail grade crossing is located more than 15m
(50 ft) (or more that 23 m (75 ft) for a highway regularly used by
multi-unit vehicles) from an intersection controlled by a traffic
control signal, a pre-signal may be used if an engineering study
determines a need. The FHWA feels that this addition may improve safety
for this type of highway-rail grade crossing.
The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years
for existing installations to minimize any impact on State or local
governments.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 9--Traffic Controls for
Bicycle Facilities
333. In Section 9A.03 Definitions Relating to Bicycles, the FHWA
adds to the first STANDARD statement a definition for ``Bicycle
Facilities'' because the term is frequently used in Part 9. The FHWA
revises the definition slightly from that proposed in the NPA to
respond to comments suggesting that ``made by public agencies'' be
removed because there are bicycle facilities that are operated by non-
governmental agencies. The FHWA also removes the definition for
``Bicycle Path,'' and removes the remaining occurrences of ``bicycle
path'' from the MUTCD because ``shared use path'' appropriately covers
the term. The FHWA also revises the definition for ``Shared Use Path''
to clarify that it is outside the traveled way. The FHWA renumbers the
remaining items accordingly.
334. In Section 9B.01 Application and Placement of Signs, the FHWA
removes the first SUPPORT statement as it only references Figure 9B-1.
The FHWA now references Figure 9B-1 in the first STANDARD statement
because the sign installation standards shown in Figure 9B-1 are
discussed in this STANDARD. The FHWA received two comments from the
NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the changes to
this section.
Two commenters opposed the standards for sign size, mounting height
and lateral clearance. The New York City DOT stated these standards are
infeasible in dense urban areas, and a traffic engineering consultant
stated that the minimum vertical clearance of 8 feet is less than the
ITE Guidelines for Major Street Design,\62\ which specifies 8.2 feet.
While the FHWA recognizes the importance of these two comments, these
suggestions go beyond the scope of this rulemaking and would need to be
addressed in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ``Guidelines for Urban Major Street Design'', Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 1984. It may be purchased from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers bookstore at the Web site
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
335. In Section 9B.02 Design of Bicycle Signs, the FHWA replaces
the
[[Page 65575]]
term ``bicycle facilities'' with the term ``shared-use path'' in the
first sentence of the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement
because this sentence relates only to shared-use paths and not to on-
street bicycle lanes. Shared-use paths are for the use of pedestrians
(with or without disabilities), skaters, joggers, and other non-
motorized users in addition to bicyclists. There were comments from the
NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT, and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in
agreement with the changes. The NCUTCD suggested that the last sentence
of the STANDARD should retain ``shared use paths.'' The FHWA disagrees
because this sentence states that the minimum sign sizes for bicycle
facilities shall not be used in locations that would apply to other
vehicles, and because the minimum sign size would be too small.
Additionally, the FHWA changes the title of Table 9B-1 from ``Sign
Sizes for Shared-Use Paths'' to ``Minimum Sign Sizes for Bicycle
Facilities'' and separates the column headed ``Minimum Sign Size'' into
two sub columns headed ``Shared-Use Path'' and ``Roadway,'' to better
distinguish between the applications of signs on paths and roadways and
to be consistent with sign sizes used on roadways as described in Part
2. The FHWA also revises Table 9B-1 by adding additional signs to
reflect changes elsewhere in Part 9. There were several comments from
the NCUTCD, local highway agencies, associations representing
bicyclists, and private citizens in support of these changes. The FHWA
received two editorial comments regarding the size of the R1-2 YIELD
sign, and incorporates those changes in this final rule.
336. In Section 9B.03 STOP and YIELD Signs (R1-1, R1-2), the FHWA
modifies the first GUIDANCE statement so that it applies to the
installation of both STOP and YIELD signs, and not exclusively to STOP
signs. The FHWA includes additional editorial changes in this final
rule based on comments received requesting that the term ``bicyclists''
be changed to ``path users'' and ``drivers'' be changed to ``road
users.'' These editorial changes provide for consistent terminology
throughout the MUTCD. Several commenters were in favor of the overall
changes to this section.
337. In Section 9B.04, the FHWA changes the title from ``Bicycle
Lane Signs (R3-16, R3-17)'' to ``Bicycle Lane Signs (R3-17, R3-17a, R3-
17b)'' to reflect the changes to the Bicycle Lane Signs.
Additionally, the FHWA removes existing text in this section in its
entirety and replaces it with new text regarding the use of Bicycle
Lane signs. This modification replaces the existing Bicycle LANE AHEAD
(R3-16), Bicycle LANE ENDS (R3-16a), and RIGHT LANE Bicycle ONLY (R3-
17) signs with a redesigned BIKE LANE (R3-17) sign to be used in
conjunction with new supplemental AHEAD (R3-17a) and ENDS (R3-17b)
plaques. These sign combinations will more clearly provide the
information contained on the old R3-16, R3-16a, R3-17, and R3-17a
signs, and will reduce road user confusion. The FHWA received five
comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, Caltrans, the Metropolitan Planning
Organization of Cincinnati, and the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycle Professionals supporting the changes, stating that the
modifications and redesign of the R13-17 sign and the supplemental
plaques will help reduce motorist confusion and HOV lane conflicts.
The Illinois DOT opposed the elimination of the existing R3-17a,
however the NCUTCD recommended removal of the sign, stating that it was
confusing to road users. Several citizens and local highway agencies
sent letters supporting changes to Figure 9B-2 that include the new R3-
17 BIKE LANE sign. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals, a traffic engineering consultant, and a private citizen
expressed confusion between the text in this section and that in
Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes regarding the use of bike lane
signs in conjunction with a striped bike lane. As a result, the FHWA
modifies text in Section 9C.04 to remove the discrepancy between these
sections.
338. In Section 9B.05 BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES Sign
(R4-4), The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD supporting the
minor changes to this section. Additionally, to respond to a comment
from a private citizen suggesting clarification on the use of this
sign, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement to the end of the section to
clarify that the R4-4 sign should not be used when bicyclists need to
move left because of a right-turn lane drop situation. The FHWA
believes that this GUIDANCE statement is necessary for clarity and for
safety, to reinforce that when there is a right-turn lane drop, it is
the bicyclists who should yield to motor vehicle traffic when moving to
the left, thus the R4-4 sign should not be used in those situations.
339. The FHWA adds a new section following Section 9B.05 BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES Sign (R4-4). The new section is numbered
and titled ``Section 9B.06 Bicycle WRONG WAY Sign and RIDE WITH TRAFFIC
Plaque (R5-1b, R9-3c)'' and provides GUIDANCE and OPTIONS regarding the
design and placement of Bicycle WRONG WAY Signs. The remaining sections
are renumbered accordingly. Sixteen commenters, representing the
NCUTCD, State and local highway agencies as well as private citizens,
supported this new section. One commenter from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, opposed it, stating that WRONG WAY signs are not necessary for
informing users of the normal rules of the road. The FHWA disagrees
because many signs inform drivers of the normal rules of the road, and
the WRONG WAY sign can provide important additional information to
bicyclists. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA, with a
minor editorial change, as suggested in a comment from the City of New
York, to clarify that the RIDE WITH TRAFFIC (R9-3c) sign is actually a
plaque, because it cannot be installed alone.
340. In Section 9B.08 No Bicycles Sign (R5-6) (titled ``Bicycle
Prohibition Sign (R5-6)'' in the NPA), the FHWA changes the sign name
to be consistent with changes in Section 2B.31 SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP
RIGHT. The FHWA believes that this minor change is needed to maintain
consistency with other sections of the MUTCD.
341. In Section 9B.09 No Parking Bike Lane Signs (R7-9, R7-9a)
(referred to as Section 9B.08 No Parking Bicycle Lane Signs (R7-9, R7-
9a) in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA changes the title and the first
STANDARD statement to accurately reflect the name of the sign. Two
commenters representing the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona,
expressed agreement with the changes in this section. One commenter
from New York City expressed concerns that the R7-9 and R7-9a signs
have limited use in a dense urban area because most bike lanes are
along roadways where parking is allowed at the curb. While localities
are seeking signs to prohibit parking in the bike lanes, R7-9 and R7-9a
do not work in these instances. The use of R7-9a could be confusing to
use if curbside parking is allowed. With the change in the bike lane
sign, now R3-17, it further complicates the agency's ability to
regulate parking in bike lanes. The FHWA determines that the R7-9 and
R7-9a signs are not appropriate if curbside parking is allowed. If a
bike lane exists where curbside parking is allowed, pavement markings
will have to be used to communicate which
[[Page 65576]]
portion of the pavement is for parking and which portion of the
pavement is for bike use. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed removing the
R3-17a sign that was available for this purpose. The NCUTCD recommended
removing the R3-17a sign because the sign is even more confusing to
road users. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA
342. In Section 9B.10 Bicycle Regulatory Signs (R9-5, R9-6, R10-3)
(titled Bicycle Regulatory Signs (R9-5, R9-6) in the NPA), the FHWA
removes the first paragraph of the OPTION statement, and includes the
R10-3 sign in the section title. Two commenters representing the NCUTCD
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, expressed agreement with the minor
changes in this section. The FHWA also received one comment from a
private citizen suggesting that the first sentence of the OPTION
statement (as proposed in the NPA) was not necessary, and could be
potentially confusing when taken in context with the three paragraphs
that follow it. The FHWA agrees and removes that sentence in this final
rule. The FHWA also adds the R10-3 sign to the title because the sign's
use is described in this section.
343. The FHWA adds a new section following existing Section 9B.10
(new Section 9B.11) Shared-Use Path Restriction Sign (R9-7). The new
section is numbered and titled ``Section 9B.12 Bicycle Signal Actuation
Sign (R10-22)'' and provides a new sign giving information to
bicyclists on how to best situate themselves within the proposed new
Bicycle Detector pavement marking symbol so that they can actuate the
traffic signal. The remaining sections are renumbered accordingly.
Fifteen commenters, representing the NCUTCD, State and local highway
agencies, as well as private citizens, supported the new section. The
FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA.
344. In Section 9B.16 (formerly Section 9B.14) Bicycle Surface
Condition Warning Sign (W8-10), the FHWA revises the first OPTION
statement to clarify that BUMP, DIP, PAVEMENT ENDS, and any other word
message signs are not supplemental plaques used with the W8-10 sign,
but are instead standard signs to be used independently. The NCUTCD
supported this change. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the
NPA.
345. In Section 9B.17 Bicycle Warning Sign (W11-1) (referred to as
Section 9B.17 Bicycle Crossing Warning Sign (W11-1) in the NPA), the
FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD in support of the changes to
the section, and two comments from traffic engineering consultants
suggesting additional changes. The commenters stated that the sign has
other uses besides warning of a crossing. The FHWA agrees that this
clarifies the use of these signs and changes the title of the section
as well as the sign name and deletes the word ``Crossing.''
346. In Section 9B.18 Other Bicycle Warning Signs, the FHWA
received three comments suggesting that the Narrow Bridge symbol sign
be kept in the MUTCD. (See the discussion regarding Part 2 where FHWA
eliminates the Narrow Bridge symbol sign.) Accordingly, the FHWA adopts
the changes to this section as proposed in the NPA.
347. In Section 9B.19 Bicycle Route Guide Signs (D11-1), the FHWA
received several comments from the NCUTCD and private citizens
supporting the figures and GUIDANCE changes as proposed in the NPA.
Several commenters suggested editorial changes to the figures, which
the FHWA incorporates in this final rule. One traffic engineering
consultant suggested further revisions to clarify the use of stop and
yield signs on paths in conjunction with crosswalk markings. The FHWA
believes that this suggestion goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking
and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
348. In Section 9B.20 Bicycle Route Signs (M1-8, M1-9) (titled
Bicycle Route Markers in the NPA), the FHWA changes ``drivers'' to
``motorists'' in response to an editorial comment. The FHWA received
three comments from private citizens stating that the bike route signs
shown in the MUTCD need improvement to meet the needs of bicyclists who
commute in an urban environment, and to clearly show compass directions
and route designations. This suggestion goes beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. The FHWA adopts the text as described in the NPA.
349. In Section 9C.01 Functions of Markings, the FHWA modifies the
SUPPORT statement to remove the first sentence because it only refers
to roadways with a designated bicycle lane and is not broad enough to
describe markings used for all types of bicycle facilities. There were
two comments from NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting
this change.
350. In Section 9C.02 General Principles, the FHWA adds a new
STANDARD statement after the second GUIDANCE statement. This new
STANDARD statement referring to the colors, widths of lines, and
patterns of lines, and symbols used for bicycle markings is being moved
from Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use Paths to
Section 9C.02 because this text is applicable to all bicycle
facilities, not just shared-use paths, and is more appropriate in this
section than Section 9C.03. The FHWA received two comments from NCUTCD
and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change. One traffic
engineering consultant stated that the portion of the second GUIDANCE
statement that refers to selecting pavement marking materials that
minimize the loss of traction for bicycles under wet conditions should
be a STANDARD. The FHWA disagrees and believes GUIDANCE is strong
enough for this sentence because the traction characteristics of
marking materials are not always known. The FHWA adopts this section,
with minor editorial changes to Figure 9C-4.
351. In Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use
Paths, the FHWA moves the STANDARD statement to Section 9C.02 General
Principles because this text is applicable to all bicycle facilities,
not just shared-use paths and is more appropriate in that section than
Section 9C.03. Two commenters from NCUTCD and the City of Tucson,
Arizona, were in general support of the changes made to this section.
Additionally, the FHWA removes the SUPPORT statement because it
discourages the use of centerlines. There were no specific comments
regarding this change.
The FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement additional information on
the marking of obstructions in a path.
The FHWA moves to the OPTION statement the second item of the
OPTION statement currently in Section 9C.05 Bicycle Detector Symbol
because letter, symbol, and arrow sizes to be used on shared-use paths
represent markings rather than markers. The FHWA received comments in
support of this change, thus the FHWA adopts this change as proposed in
the NPA.
Finally, the FHWA moves the contents of existing Section 9C.06 in
its entirety to Section 9C.03 because this information is more
applicable in Section 9C.03 as it clarifies the design and placement of
marking patterns and object markers on shared-use paths. Several
commenters supported this change.
352. In Section 9C.04 Markings For Bicycle Lanes, the FHWA revises
the first sentence of the STANDARD statement to remove the specific
distance of ``not closer than 20 m (65 ft) from the crossroad'' from
the requirement for placing bicycle lane
[[Page 65577]]
symbols, to provide jurisdictions with additional flexibility. The FHWA
received three comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, Caltrans, and
the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals in general
agreement with changes to this section.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a new item to the STANDARD statement
prohibiting the placement of bicycle lanes to the right of a right turn
only lane. The FHWA received nineteen comments from the NCUTCD, State
and local agencies, as well as from private citizens, in support of
this new statement. One private citizen suggested that this statement
be broadened to also restrict bike lanes from being positioned to the
left of a left turn only lane. This goes beyond the scope of this
rulemaking and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.
The FHWA also adds a new item to the STANDARD statement prohibiting
the placement of bicycle lanes in the circular roadway of a roundabout
intersection because such markings have been found to cause a false
sense of security for bicyclists traveling through the roundabout with
conflicting and turning traffic. This change is consistent with the
state of the practice for roundabout intersection design and is
consistent with changes to Section 3B.24 Markings for Roundabout
Intersections. The FHWA received seventeen comments from the NCUTCD,
State and local highway agencies, and private citizens in support of
this change. The Oregon DOT agreed with the principle of discouraging
the use of bicycle lanes in roundabouts, but suggested that the
statement be a GUIDANCE, rather than a STANDARD, because it is
difficult to foresee all possible circumstances. Given the strong
support for the STANDARD statement, the FHWA adopts the language as a
STANDARD.
The FHWA adds a new paragraph to the SUPPORT statement indicating
that a bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the
right of a right turn lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic
behavior and would violate the expectation of right-turning motorists.
The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this
change.
The FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE statement to establish guidance for
bicycle lane markings at locations where a right through lane becomes
an exclusive right turn lane and at locations where there is a shared
through and right turn lane next to a right turn only lane. Commenters
were generally in agreement with this text; however, the Wisconsin DOT
and a private citizen suggested that the FHWA include a figure to
illustrate the intent of the text. Such a figure would require
discussion and comment, thus it is more appropriate for a future
rulemaking. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
suggested that the GUIDANCE be changed to a STANDARD. The FHWA believes
this should be addressed in a future rulemaking.
The FHWA also adds a GUIDANCE statement and a SUPPORT statement to
provide guidance on not using posts or raised pavement markers to
separate bicycle lanes from adjacent travel lanes because they can
hinder maintenance of the bicycle lane and prevent proper vehicle
merging. While a private citizen and a traffic engineering consultant
supported the changes as proposed in the NPA, several commenters
representing the NCUTCD, the Arizona DOT, the City of Downers Grove,
Illinois, and the League of American Bicyclists, requested that ``curbs
or other physical barriers within the traveled way'' be included as
devices that should not be used to separate bicycle lanes from adjacent
travel lanes. The SUPPORT item following this GUIDANCE addresses this
issue in part. The additional text proposed by the commenters goes
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The FHWA received comments in
agreement with the proposed SUPPORT statement, as well as requests for
revising the language to reorder the text to prioritize the potential
concerns regarding raised devices and bicycle lanes. The FHWA agrees
and adopts the changes with minor revisions.
353. The FHWA removes Section 9C.05 Word Messages and Symbols
Applied to the Pavement and Section 9C.06 Object Markers on Shared-Use
Paths, in their entirety. The FHWA incorporates the information from
these sections into Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on
Shared-Use Paths, as this more properly locates the information. The
FHWA renumbers the remainder of the sections accordingly.
354. The FHWA adds a new Section 9C.05 Bicycle Detector Symbol,
containing an OPTION statement that defines a standard symbol for the
marking of detector locations for traffic signals actuated by
bicyclists. This symbol marking is shown in a new figure numbered and
titled ``Figure 9C-7 Example of Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking.''
The FHWA received sixteen comments from the NCUTCD, State and local
DOTs and private citizens supporting the material in this new section.
Three commenters from Caltrans and private citizens suggested
additional text be added regarding the optimum location for placement
of detectors. The FHWA believes that detector placement is within the
discretion of the agencies.
355. In Section 9C.06 Pavement Markings for Obstructions, the FHWA
received one comment from the NCUTCD supporting the minor changes to
this section and to Figure 9C-8. The FHWA also received two comments
from private citizens who suggested that the entire text of this
section and Figure 9C-8 be removed from the MUTCD because they believe
it could be used by some jurisdictions to justify not fixing serious
road defects. The FHWA disagrees and adopts this section and figure in
the MUTCD; however, the FHWA revises the GUIDANCE as follows: ``In
roadway situations where it is not practical to eliminate a drain grate
or other roadway obstruction that is inappropriate for bicycle travel''
because it may not always be practical to fix the defect.
356. In Section 9D.02 Signal Operations for Bicycles, the FHWA
revises the STANDARD statement to require that signal timing and
actuation be reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of bicyclists
instead of simply requiring the consideration of bicyclists' needs when
timing signals. Many commenters were in support of this change, and
several requested that bicycle detectors be used on all roadways where
bicycle travel is permitted. The FHWA doesn't believe it is necessary
to require bicycle detectors be placed on all roadways where bicycle
travel is permitted, but may address this issue in a future rulemaking.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 10--Traffic Controls for
Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings
357. In Section 10A.01 Introduction, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT
statement at the end of the section to reference Section 8A.01
Introduction for the definitions applicable to Part 10. There were no
comments on this change and the FHWA adopts it.
358. In Section 10A.03 Uniform Provisions, the FHWA changes the
STANDARD statement to indicate that no sign or signal shall be located
in the center of an undivided highway, except in a ``raised island''.
This change is necessary to be consistent with changes as discussed in
Section 8A.03 Uniform Provisions.
Additionally, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement at the end of the
section to reinforce that where the distance between tracks exceeds 30
m (100 ft), additional signs or other appropriate traffic control
devices
[[Page 65578]]
should be used. There were no comments on this change and the FHWA
adopts it.
359. In Section 10A.04 Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossing
Elimination, the FHWA removes language from the second GUIDANCE
statement and adds it to the STANDARD statement that if the existing
traffic control devices at a multiple-track highway-light rail transit
grade crossing become improperly placed or inaccurate because of the
removal of some of the tracks, the existing traffic control devices
shall be relocated and/or modified. The FHWA also adds to the second
GUIDANCE statement that when a roadway is removed from a highway-light
rail transit grade crossing, appropriate signs should be placed at the
end of roadway and other appropriate locations to alert road users that
the road no longer crosses the light rail transit tracks. There were
two comments supporting these proposed changes. The FHWA adopts these
changes.
The FHWA adds to the OPTION statement at the end of the section so
that it is identical to the last OPTION statement in Section 8A.04
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Elimination, and incorporates the same
revisions in this section. Accordingly, the FHWA adds to the OPTION
statement to indicate that, based on engineering judgment, the TRACKS
OUT OF SERVICE sign may be temporarily installed until the tracks are
removed or paved over. Also, agencies may consider the length of time
that the tracks will be out of service before they are removed or paved
over in deciding whether to install the sign.
360. In Section 10A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, the FHWA
combines the two separate STANDARD statements into one STANDARD
statement at the beginning of the section. The FHWA received one
comment in support of this change, and adopts this change.
The FHWA received one comment from a private citizen suggesting
that a new paragraph be added to the end of the GUIDANCE statement to
mirror the GUIDANCE in Section 8A.05 that the width, grade, alignment,
and riding quality of the highway surface at a light rail transit
crossing should, at a minimum, be restored to correspond with the
quality of the approaches to the highway-light rail transit grade
crossing. The FHWA agrees with the comment and adds this language
because this is necessary for consistency with Part 8 of the MUTCD and
would make the temporary light rail crossing as safe as the existing
conditions.
361. In Section 10C.01, the FHWA changes the title from
``Introduction'' to ``Purpose'' to more accurately reflect the contents
of the section and corrects the text in the STANDARD statement to
properly indicate that the design and location of signs shall conform
to all of Part 2. The FHWA received one comment in support of the
changes, and adopts these changes.
362. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number
of Tracks Sign (R15-2) (titled ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
(Crossbuck) Signs (R15-1, R15-2, and R15-9) in the NPA), which provides
information on the use of Crossbuck signs at highway-light rail grade
crossings. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that this section be identical
to Section 8B.02 (as proposed in the NPA) because the use of Crossbuck
signs and the proposed optional Crossbuck Shield signs are applicable
to both highway-light rail transit and highway-rail grade crossings and
it is important to have this information in both parts of the MUTCD.
The FHWA received five comments from the NCUTCD and members of the
Railroad-Light Rail Transit Technical Committee opposed to this
section, stating that the use of these Crossbuck signs in mixed-use
alignments where light rail transit operates in streets in urban areas
is frequently impractical. The FHWA agrees, and clarifies the first
STANDARD statement to indicate that the Crossbuck sign is mandatory for
semiexclusive Light Rail Transit alignments, and creates a new OPTION
statement following the second paragraph of the first STANDARD to
indicate that use of the Crossbuck sign is optional for mixed-use
alignments, either alone or in combination with other traffic control
devices.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add an OPTION statement for the
optional use of a new Crossbuck Shield sign. See the discussion
regarding the removal of all text and graphic references to the
Crossbuck Shield sign in Section 8B.02. Accordingly, the FHWA withdraws
all text and graphic references to the Crossbuck Shield sign in Section
10C.02.
The FHWA revises the third STANDARD statement to require the
placement of retroreflective white material on the front and back of
the supports for highway-light rail transit grade crossing Crossbuck
signs to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the edge of the roadway, except on
the side of those supports where a STOP or YIELD sign or flashing
lights have been installed, or on the back side of supports for
Crossbuck signs installed on one-way streets. This change is necessary
for consistency with changes as discussed in Section 8B.02.
The FHWA renumbers all remaining sections accordingly.
363. In Section 10C.04 STOP (R1-1) or YIELD (R1-2) Signs at
Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings, (numbered and titled
Section 10C.03 STOP or YIELD Signs (R1-1, R1-2, W3-1a, W3-2a) in the
2000 MUTCD), the FHWA renumbers and retitles the section to more
accurately reflect the content of the section.
The FHWA modifies the last sentence of the STANDARD statement to
require agencies to install Stop Ahead (W3-1) and Yield Ahead (W3-2)
Advance Warning Signs when the criteria listed in Section 2C.29 Advance
Traffic Control Signs, is met.
The FHWA adds to the list of characteristics in the GUIDANCE
statement to clarify when STOP or YIELD signs may be used at highway-
light rail transit grade crossings. The FHWA adds characteristics such
as traffic volume, light rail train speed, and the need to sound an
audible signal as well as the location of light rail tracks in relation
to the line of cars waiting to cross. The FHWA received one comment
from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of these changes, and
eight comments from the NCUTCD and members of the NCUTCD's Railroad-
Light Rail Transit Technical Committee opposed to using the light rail
transit speed as one of the characteristics, suggesting that this item
be deleted from the list. The reason cited by those in opposition was
that train speed alone is not a factor in the decision to install STOP
or YIELD signs at light rail transit crossings, provided the other
conditions listed exist. The FHWA disagrees with deleting this item at
this time because FHWA believes research or documentation would be
needed to justify not considering light rail transit speed. The FHWA
adopts these changes as proposed in the NPA.
364. In Section 10C.05 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS Sign (R8-8) (numbered
Section 10C.04 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA adds to the OPTION
statement to clarify that DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) signs may be
placed on both sides of the track, to enhance visibility of the signs
for road users. The FHWA received two comments in support of this
change and adopts this change.
365. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.06 TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE Sign (R8-9)'' describing the use of the
TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE (R8-9) sign at highway-light rail transit grade
[[Page 65579]]
crossings. While this section is identical to Section 8B.09 TRACKS OUT
OF SERVICE, the use of the TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE (R8-9) sign is
applicable to both highway-light rail transit and highway-rail grade
crossings so the FHWA believes that it is important to have this
information in both parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA received one comment
from the Ohio DOT in general support of this new section, and adopts
this new section in this final rule. The FHWA renumbers the remaining
sections accordingly.
366. In Section 10C.07 STOP HERE ON RED Sign (R10-6) (numbered
10C.05 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA clarifies this section to indicate
that the STOP HERE ON RED sign be restricted to just those crossings
where traffic control signals are used to control traffic, and not used
at locations with flashing-light signals to be consistent with changes
as discussed in Section 8B.10 STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING Sign (R10-8).
367. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.08 STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING Sign (R8-10)'' describing the use of the
STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING (R8-10) sign at highway-light rail transit
grade crossings. While this section is identical to Section 8B.10 STOP
HERE WHEN FLASHING, the use of the STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING (R8-10) sign
is applicable to both highway-light rail transit and highway-rail grade
crossings so the FHWA believes that it is important to have this
information in both parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA renumbers the
remaining sections accordingly.
368. In Section 10C.09 Light Rail Transit-Activated Blank-Out Turn
Prohibition Signs (R3-1a, R3-2a) (numbered Section 10C.06 in the 2000
MUTCD), the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement at the end of the section.
This STANDARD statement is identical to the STANDARD statement in
Section 8B.06 Turn Restrictions During Preemption and reinforces that
at both highway-rail and highway-light rail transit grade crossings
turn prohibition signs that are associated with preemption shall be
visible only when the grade crossing restriction is in effect in order
not to cause confusion to road users. The FHWA received one comment
from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the changes to this
section.
In concert with comments regarding Section 8B.06, the FHWA received
several comments from members of the NCUTCD Railroad and Light Rail
Transit Committee recommending deleting the track image that appears in
the center of the R3-1a and R3-2a signs and to call these signs R3-1
and R3-2, because they would become identical to the turn prohibition
signs in Chapter 2B. See the discussion in Section 8B.06 as it applies
to this section as well.
369. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.10 EXEMPT Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Signs (R15-3, W10-1a)''
describing the use of the supplemental EXEMPT Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing (R15-3, W10-1a) signs at highway-light rail transit grade
crossings. While this section is identical to Section 8B.05 EXEMPT
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Signs (R15-3, W10-1a), the use of these
supplemental signs is applicable to both highway-light rail transit and
highway-rail grade crossings, and the FHWA believes that it is
important to have this information in both parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA
received one comment in support of this new section and several
comments from members of the NCUTCD Railroad and Light Rail Transit
Committee recommending deleting this section and the associated sign,
stating that this sign is not applicable to light rail transit
situations. The FHWA adopts this section because there are cases where
this sign may be appropriate. The FHWA adds to the OPTION statement
that where neither the Crossbuck nor Advance Warning sign exist for a
particular crossing, an EXEMPT (R15-3) sign with a white background may
be placed on its own post on the near right side of the approach to the
crossing. The FHWA renumbers the remaining sections accordingly.
370. In Section 10C.13 Light Rail Transit Only Lane Signs (R15-4
Series) (numbered Section 10C.09 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA titles
the figure illustrating regulatory sign panels as ``Figure 10C-2
Regulatory Signs'' and adds to and revises the signs illustrated in the
figure, to be consistent with Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane
Signs, and to reflect changes elsewhere in Part 10. The FHWA received
one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of the changes
to this section and two editorial comments, which the FHWA adopts in
this final rule.
371. In Section 10C.15 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning
Signs (W10 Series) (numbered Section 10C.11 in the 2000 MUTCD), the
FHWA revises the entire section by replacing it with the STANDARD,
OPTION, and GUIDANCE statements also contained in Section 8B.04
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs, including the
revisions as described in Part 8. The use of advance warning signs is
applicable to both highway-light rail transit and highway-rail grade
crossings and the FHWA believes that it is important to have
consistency in the use of these signs so this information is included
in both parts of the MUTCD. Several members of the NCUTCD Railroad and
Light Rail Transit Committee suggested that the title and text within
the section should be ``highway-rail,'' rather than ``highway-light
rail transit'' in several cases because this sign is not exclusive to
light rail transit and this sign section should be identical to Section
8B.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number
of Tracks Sign (R15-2). The FHWA agrees and revises the section title
and appropriate text accordingly in this final rule.
In addition, many commenters suggested deleting item A of the first
STANDARD regarding T-intersections, stating that the wording is
repeated in the first paragraph of the second STANDARD statement. See
the discussion of this issue under Section 8B.04 Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Advance Warning Signs (W10 Series). For these reasons, the
FHWA adopts item A.
The FHWA received two comments from a railroad operator and a
private citizen suggesting changes to item C of the first STANDARD
statement to change ``where active light rail transit grade crossing
traffic controls are in use'' to ``controlled with traffic signals or
stop signs.'' The FHWA disagrees with the suggested change because it
is necessary for this item to correspond to the text in Part 8. This
may be a topic for a future rulemaking to consider changing the text in
both parts. The FHWA adopts item C as proposed in the NPA.
The FHWA also titles the figure illustrating predominantly warning
sign panels as ``Figure 10C-3 Warning Signs and Light Rail Station
Sign'' and adds to and revises the signs illustrated in the figure, to
reflect changes elsewhere in Part 10.
372. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.16 Low Ground Clearance Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Sign (W10-5)''
which describes the use of the Low Ground Clearance (W10-5) sign at
highway-light rail transit grade crossings. In the NPA, the FHWA
proposed that the title of the section and name of the sign be ``Low
Ground Clearance Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossing Sign,''
however the FHWA received four comments suggesting that ``light'' and
``transit'' be deleted because low-ground clearance signs can be used
for grade-crossings
[[Page 65580]]
generally, not just light-rail operations. The FHWA agrees and changes
the section title and sign name in this final rule.
In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to include the same STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements in this section regarding the
use of this sign as was contained in Section 8B.17 Low Ground Clearance
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Sign. The FHWA believes that this is
redundant, and instead includes a SUPPORT statement in this final rule
that references Section 8B.17 for additional information regarding the
use of the W10-5 sign. The FHWA renumbers the remaining sections
accordingly.
373. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.18, Storage Space Signs (W10-11, W10-11a, W10-11b)'' which
describes the use of Storage Space (W10-11) signs at highway-light rail
transit grade crossings. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed including a copy
of the full text from Section 8B.17 Low Ground Clearance Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Sign in this new section. The FHWA received one comment
from the Ohio DOT suggesting that the FHWA cross-reference Section
8B.18 Storage Space Signs, rather than include the full text. The FHWA
agrees and deletes the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement and
the OPTION statements as proposed in the NPA, and adds a SUPPORT
statement indicating that information regarding the use of the W10-11,
W10-11a, and W10-11b signs is contained in Section 8B.18 in this final
rule.
374. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.19 Skewed Crossing Sign (W10-12)'' which describes the use of
Skewed Crossing (W10-12) sign at highway-light rail transit grade
crossings. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to include a copy of the full
text from Section 8B.19 Skewed Crossing Sign in this new section. The
FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the New Jersey DOT in
support of the new section. The Ohio DOT suggested that the FHWA cross-
reference Section 8B.19, rather than include the full text. The FHWA
agrees and deletes the GUIDANCE and STANDARD statements as proposed in
the NPA and adds a SUPPORT statement indicating that information
regarding the use of the W10-12 sign is contained in Section 8B.19. The
FHWA renumbers the remaining sections accordingly.
375. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.21 Emergency Notification Sign (I-13 or I-13a)'' which describes
the use of Emergency Notification (I-13 or I-13a) signs at highway-
light rail transit grade crossings. This section essentially contains
similar information as is contained in Section 8B.12 Emergency
Notification Sign, and the FHWA believes that it is important to have
this information in both parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA received several
comments from members of the NCUTCD Railroad and Light Rail Transit
Committee recommending the FHWA delete this section because these signs
are not applicable in Part 10, especially in urban or downtown areas
where calls to emergency would be 911. The FHWA adopts this section
because not all light rail transit lines run only in downtown areas and
there may be some jurisdictions that may want to use this sign. The
FHWA revises the text to clarify that the intent is to place Emergency
Notification signs on highway-light rail transit grade crossing on
semiexclusive alignments, and the FHWA deletes the sentence from the
GUIDANCE that states that these signs are typically located on the
transit right-of-way. The FHWA renumbers the remaining sections
accordingly.
376. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.23 Pavement Markings'' which describes the use of pavement markings
at highway-light rail transit grade crossings. While this section is
identical to Section 8B.20 Pavement Markings, it is important that the
use of pavement markings at highway-light rail transit and highway-rail
grade crossings is consistent so the FHWA believes that it is important
to have this information in both parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA received
several comments from the Ohio DOT suggesting that information from
Part 8 be cross-referenced, rather than repeating the information in
Part 10. The FHWA includes the full text because there are some
differences in the figures between the two parts.
Additionally, to be consistent with changes made to Part 3, the
FHWA revises the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify
that a no-passing marking on two-lane highways is needed only in
locations where centerline markings are used. The FHWA also adds two
new figures. The first figure is numbered and titled ``Figure 10C-5
Example of Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings at Highway-
Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings'' and illustrates the placement of
warning signs and pavement markings at highway-light rail transit grade
crossings. The second new figure is numbered and titled ``Figure 10C-6
Examples of Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossing Pavement
Markings'' and illustrates the use of R X R and associated pavement
markings at highway-light rail transit grade crossings. These figures
were numbered Figures 10C-10 and 10C-11 in the NPA. While these figures
are identical to Figures 8B-6 and 8B-7, respectively, it is important
that the warning signs and pavement markings at highway-light rail
transit and highway-rail grade crossings are consistent so the FHWA
believes that it is important to have this information in both parts of
the MUTCD.
377. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled ``Section
10C.24 Stop Lines'' which describes the use of stop lines at highway-
light rail transit grade crossings. The FHWA received one comment from
the Ohio DOT suggesting that the FHWA cross-reference Section 8B.21
Stop Lines, rather than include the full text. The FHWA agrees and
deletes the GUIDANCE statement as proposed in the NPA and adds a
SUPPORT statement indicating that information regarding the use of stop
lines at grade crossings is contained in Section 8B.21. The FHWA
renumbers the remaining sections accordingly.
378. In Section 10C.25 Dynamic Envelope Markings (numbered and
titled ``Section 10C.15 Dynamic Envelope Delineation Markings'' in the
2000 MUTCD), the FHWA retitles the section to clarify that the text
refers to pavement markings.
Additionally, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to clarify
that, if used, the pavement marking used to delineate the dynamic
envelope shall be a normal solid white line, contrasting pavement
color, and/or contrasting pavement texture. This STANDARD is identical
to that in Section 8B.22 Dynamic Envelope Markings. The FHWA received
several editorial comments regarding changes to this section and
figures and incorporates the applicable comments in this final rule.
379. In Section 10D.01 Introduction, the FHWA removes the STANDARD
statement because the information is already properly contained in
Section 10A.01 Introduction.
Additionally, in the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add to the OPTION
statement that In-Roadway Stop Line Lights and In-Roadway Warning
Lights may be installed at highway-light rail transit grade crossings
that are controlled by active grade crossing warning systems. The FHWA
received ten comments from the NCUTCD, members of the NCUTCD Railroad
and Light Rail Transit Committee, State DOTs and railroad associations
opposed to allowing the use of In-Roadway
[[Page 65581]]
Lights for this application, stating that there has not been enough
research regarding the effectiveness of In-Roadway Lights. The FHWA
agrees and withdraws this paragraph in this final rule.
380. In Section 10D.02 Flashing Light Signals (numbered Section
10D.04 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA moves this entire section to follow
Section 10D.01 Introduction so that content contained in Sections
10D.01 and 10D.02 appears in the same order as it appears in Part 8.
The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in
support of this change and adopts this change.
381. In Section 10D.03 Automatic Gates, the FHWA changes the last
SUPPORT statement to an OPTION statement to be consistent with the same
language contained in Section 8D.04 Automatic Gates, on how the
effectiveness of gates may be enhanced by the use of channelizing
devices or raised median islands to discourage driving around lowered
automatic gates. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson,
Arizona, in support of this change and adopts this change.
382. In Section 10D.04 Four-Quadrant Gate Systems (numbered Section
10D.02 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA moves this entire section to follow
Section 10D.03 LOOK Sign (R15-8) so that content contained in this
section appears in the same order as it appears in Section 8D.05 Four-
Quadrant Gate Systems.
The FHWA revises and adds to the GUIDANCE statement information to
describe the various operating modes of exit gates and how they should
be used to be consistent with changes as discussed in Section 8D.05
Four-Quadrant Gate Systems.
The same NCUTCD Committee also suggested deleting the GUIDANCE
statement regarding placement of exit gates to provide a safe zone
because this practice is seldom used. Because Four-Quadrant Gates are a
relatively new concept to grade crossings, the FHWA believes that if
space is available, the exit gates should be set back at least one
design vehicle length from the nearest rail in order to reduce the
chances of a vehicle becoming trapped on the tracks. The FHWA adopts
the changes as proposed in the NPA.
Additionally, the FHWA revises the third paragraph of the STANDARD
statement to accommodate constant warning time or other advanced
systems to be consistent with changes as discussed in Section 8D.05
Four-Quadrant Gate Systems.
Based on a comment received from a railroad company regarding
identical text in Section 8D.05, the FHWA revises the third and fourth
paragraphs of the GUIDANCE statement to include coordination with the
affected transit agency when determining the operating mode of exit
gates and the Exit Gate Clearance Time.
383. In Section 10D.08 Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals and
Crossings, the FHWA changes the first OPTION statement (in the 2000
MUTCD) to a GUIDANCE statement to emphasize that if an engineering
study shows that flashing-light signals alone would not provide
sufficient notice of an approaching light rail transit vehicle, the
LOOK (R15-8) sign and/or pedestrian gates should be considered. The
FHWA received several comments from members of the NCUTCD Railroad and
Light Rail Transit Committee recommending that the FHWA keep this
paragraph an OPTION because pedestrian gates are too easily
circumvented and their effectiveness has never been adequately
demonstrated. The FHWA changes the text to a GUIDANCE in this final
rule because if an engineering study has determined that flashing-light
signals are not enough, then the additional measures should be
recommended for consideration, not just permitted.
Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Appendix A1--Congressional
Legislation
384. In Appendix A1 Congressional Legislation, the FHWA adds
Section 306 Motorist Call Boxes to the listing of pertinent sections of
Public Law 104-59--Nov. 28, 1995 (National Highway System Designation
Act of 1995). This section discusses the uses of motorist call boxes
along the National Highway System. No comments were received on this
addition and the FHWA adopts it as proposed in the NPA.
Rulemaking Analyses 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 the 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. 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. 60 l-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action 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, March 22, 1995,
109 Stat. 48). 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 rule does not impose
a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has
determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect
or sufficient federalism implications on States and local governments
that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and local
governments. Nothing in the MUTCD directly preempts any State law or
regulation.
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
[[Page 65582]]
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 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has
determined that this action does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the 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. This is not an economically significant action and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This action would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
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 this 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.
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 7, 2003.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 655, subpart F as follows:
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
0
1. 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).
Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets
and Highways--[Amended]
0
2. Revise Sec. 655.601(a), to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose.
* * * * *
(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), 2003 Edition, FHWA, dated October, 2003. This
publication is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is on file at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. It
is available for inspection and copying at FHWA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Room 3408, Washington, DC 20590, as provided in 49 CFR part 7. The
text is also available from the FHWA Office of Transportation
Operations' Web site at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *
Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655--Alternate Method of Determining the
Color of Retroreflective Sign Materials and Pavement Marking Materials
--[Amended]
0
3. Amend Table 3 by adding (after the color Fluorescent Green) the
color Fluorescent Pink with Chromaticity Coordinates as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromaticity coordinates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Color 1 2 3 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
x y x y x y x y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fluorescent Pink........................ 0.450 0.270 0.590 0.350 0.644 0.290 0.536 0.230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65583]]
0
4. Amend Table 3a by adding (after the color Fluorescent Green) the
color Fluorescent Pink with Luminance Factor Limits (Y) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luminance factor
limits (Y)
Color -----------------------
Min Max YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Fluorescent Pink................................ 25 None 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 03-28673 Filed 11-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P