[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.
----------------------