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

Federal RegisterDec 18, 2000

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket Nos. 97-2295 (Formerly 96-47), 97-3032, 98-3644, 98-4720, 99-5704, 99-6298, 99-6575, and 99-6576]

RIN 2125-AE11, AE25, AE38, AE50, AE58, AE66, AE71, and AE72

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

AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION:

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

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

The final rule is effective January 17, 2001. However, the FHWA is setting later compliance dates for some portions of the MUTCD; see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for further details. Incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the

Federal Register

as of January 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ernest D. L. Huckaby, Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), (202) 366-9064, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 3412, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL)

http://dms.dot.gov.

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg

and the Government Printing Office's web site at

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

The text for the millennium edition of the MUTCD is available from the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations' web site at:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

Background

The FHWA announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD on January 10, 1992, at 57 FR 1134. The purpose of this rewrite effort is to reformat the text for clarity of intended meanings, to include metric dimensions (

i.e.,

both English and metric dimensions will be included in the text) and values for the design and installation of traffic control devices, and to improve the overall organization and discussion of the contents in the MUTCD.

Although the Federal Highway Administrator is responsible for adopting the changes contained in this new millennium edition, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) took the lead in this effort to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD. The NCUTCD is a national organization of individuals from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the American Public Works Association (APWA), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and other organizations that have extensive experience in the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices. The NCUTCD voluntarily assumed the arduous task of rewriting, reformatting and editing the entire 1988 MUTCD into an updated and more user friendly document.

The FHWA reviewed and incorporated most of the NCUTCD's proposals for revising the MUTCD in several

Federal Register

notices of proposed amendments. This document contains the disposition of the comments to the dockets of the notices of proposed amendments which were published in the

Federal Register

shown in the table below. The table also shows the number of letters submitted to each docket and the number of separate comments addressed as part of the FHWA review and deliberation.

Adopted changes to the MUTCD text, as discussed herein, are available on the MUTCD Internet site

(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov).

The final rule text will be available on the MUTCD Internet site in December 2000. Anyone unable to download the text should write to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations, HOTO-1, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Table of Notices of Proposed Amendments Published by FHWA

MUTCD part

Title

Docket number and date

Number of letters

received

Separate comment entries

Part 1

General provisions/Definitions

97-3032

12/05/97

Part 1 (update)

General provisions/Definitions

99-6575

12/30/99

Chapters 2A,D,E,F,I

Signs

98-3644

06/11/98

800

Chapters 2G, 2H

Tourist oriented directional signs, & recreation & cultural interest signs

98-4720

06/24/99

Chapter 2C

Warning signs

99-5704

06/24/99

329

Chapter 2B

Regulatory signs

99-6298

12/21/99

304

Part 3

Markings

97-2295

01/06/97

247

Part 3 (update)

Markings

99-6575

12/30/99

181

Part 4

Signals

97-2295

01/06/97

264

Part 4 (update)

Signals

99-6575

12/30/99

111

578

Part 5

Low volume roads

99-6298

12/21/99

231

Part 6

Temporary traffic control

99-6576

12/30/99

2652

Part 7

Traffic controls for school areas

97-3032

12/05/97

156

Part 8

Traffic control systems for railroad-highway grade crossings

97-2295

01/06/97

210

Part 8 (update)

Highway-rail grade crossings

99-6298

12/21/99

210

Part 9

Traffic controls for bicycles

98-4720

06/24/99

357

Part 10

Traffic controls for highway-light rail grade crossings

99-5704

06/24/99

381

Summary of Comments

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

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 1—General Provisions

The FHWA received 146 comments from 38 commenters concerning Part 1. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999.

1. In Part 1 Introduction, the FHWA is incorporating a discussion on defining the following condition headings: STANDARD, OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT. This change addresses many comments received regarding the difficulty in distinguishing between distinct sections in previous editions of the MUTCD. In the NPA for Part 1, this discussion was covered in Section 1A.10 MUTCD Changes, Interpretations, and Experimentations. Based on docket comments, the FHWA believes it is important for the reader to see this discussion before proceeding to the other sections of the manual. Therefore, the FHWA is moving this discussion to the Introduction.

The FHWA is also changing the way that these condition headings appear throughout the text. The FHWA received many comments expressing a need for improvement in the blocked headings found in the notice of proposed amendments. An explanation of both the terms and new heading style is included in the Introduction.

Also being added is a new STANDARD statement indicating that any traffic control device design or application provision contained in the MUTCD shall be considered in the public domain. The FHWA will not include any copyrighted or patented devices in the MUTCD with the exception of the Interstate Shield, a copyrighted device developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Since this is a frequently asked question, the FHWA has decided to include language in the MUTCD to address this policy.

A new GUIDANCE paragraph is added to Part 1 Introduction to discuss the use of the International System of Units, a modernized version of the Metric system, and English units used throughout the MUTCD. The FHWA recommends that a decision be made to consistently use either the International System of Units (Metric) or English units in the design and installation of traffic control devices.

2. In Table I.1, Evolution of the MUTCD, two other revisions to the 1988 MUTCD are added for a total of seven revisions to the 1988 MUTCD, instead of the five revisions previously shown in the table. The FHWA has also added the new millennium edition to this table.

3. In Section 1A.01 Purpose of Traffic Control Devices, paragraph 1, the term “road users” is referenced. Road user is the preferred term because it encompasses both motorized and non-motorized traffic. The term “road user” is defined in Section 1A.13. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

4. In Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices, under the SUPPORT statement, the term “speed” is added as a variable that governs the design, operation, placement, and location of various traffic control devices. The traveling speed of road users can affect their ability to appropriately respond to the driving task. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

5. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, under the STANDARD statement, the term “colors” is added to the statement that all symbols not shown in the “Standard Highway Signs”

book shall be adopted using the

procedures described in Section 1A.10, “MUTCD Changes, Interpretations, and Experimentations.” The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

Also in this section, an OPTION is added to explain that State and local highway agencies may develop word message signs to notify road users of special regulations or situations. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

6. In Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices, GUIDANCE is added to explain the difference between functional and physical maintenance. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

7. In Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices, under the STANDARD statement, a reference to 23 CFR 655.603 is added to adopt the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control devices, and require that any State or other Federal agency MUTCD shall be in substantial conformance with the national standards. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

8. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices, (titled in the 1999 NPA as “Placement Authority,”) paragraph 1, STANDARD language is added to require that all traffic control devices and any other signs or messages within the street or highway right-of-way shall be placed only as authorized by a public authority or official having jurisdiction for the street or highway. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

“Standard Highway Signs,” FHWA, 1979 Edition is included by reference in the 1988

MUTCD. It is available for purchase from the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.

Also in Section 1A.08, GUIDANCE is added to indicate that any unauthorized traffic control device or any non-essential sign or message placed within the highway right-of-way should be removed. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

9. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment (titled in the 1999 NPA as “Engineering Study or Judgment Required”), a clarification discussion on the difference between engineering study and engineering judgment is added. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to adding this discussion.

Also in Section 1A.09, one commenter stated that the word “required” in the title of this section (titled in the 1999 NPA as “Engineering Study or Judgment Required”), conflicts with the GUIDANCE given in this section. The FHWA agrees and has changed the title of this section to “Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment,” because that title more appropriately conveys the objective of the section.

The same commenter also recommended that the STANDARD statement, which provides that the inclusion of a traffic control device in the MUTCD is not a legal requirement for their installation, be deleted from this section because he did not see its purpose. The FHWA disagrees because the STANDARD statement complements the GUIDANCE paragraphs in this section that discuss that the decision to use a particular device should be made on the basis of an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment.

10. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, and Changes, STANDARD language is added to paragraph 1 to prohibit the design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other than those adopted in the MUTCD, unless the process for an interpretation, experimentation, or change is followed.

Also in Section 1A.10, is a new GUIDANCE statement indicating that any request for permission to experiment with a new traffic control device should contain a legally binding statement certifying that the traffic control device is not protected by a patent or a copyright since patented or copyright protected traffic control devices are not permitted in the MUTCD, except for the Interstate Shield.

11. A new Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases, is added. Definitions in this section are provided for terms that are universally used throughout the MUTCD. The definitions for terms found in only one section of the MUTCD can be found within the specific section. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However, the FHWA did receive editorial comments on some of the definitions, and they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.

12. A new Section 1A.14 Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, is added. These abbreviations shall be the STANDARD for word messages used in conjunction with traffic control devices. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However, the FHWA did receive editorial comments which have been incorporated as minor modifications to the text.

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

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

13. The heading for Chapter 2A is changed from “Introduction and General Standards” to “General Provisions and Standards.” This title better describes the discussion in this chapter. There were no docket comments on this change.

14. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the STANDARD is modified to make the design and application standards for “all” signs dependent on the particular class of highway on which they are used. The 1988 MUTCD only specified “guide” signs rather than “all” signs. The FHWA has also added “special purpose roads” to the list of highway classification definitions in this section. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

15. In Section 2A.07 the title is changed from “Variable Message Signs” to “Changeable Message Signs” which is more commonly used within the transportation field and throughout MUTCD Sections 6F.02 and 6F.52. The FHWA is also referring readers to Section 6F.02 for more detailed discussion on changeable message signs. There were no docket comments on this section.

16. In Section 2A.08 Illumination and Retroreflectivity, two tables are added (Table 2A.1 and 2A.2) to help clarify the text that used to be in Sections 2A.16, 2A.17, and 2A.18 of the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section. In the STANDARD statement, the requirement of sign retroreflectivity or illumination is extended to include guide signs. This requirement applies to all signs unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text for a particular sign or group of signs. The FHWA believes this will improve safety and visibility during adverse ambient conditions. There were no docket comments on this section.

17. In Section 2A.10 Shapes, a new Table 2A.3, Use of Shapes, is added. In this new table, the following shapes are for exclusive use: STOP sign, YIELD sign, pennant, crossbuck, and trapezoid. The trapezoid shape is exclusively for recreational signs. However, as one commenter noted, since most recreational signs currently installed are

rectangular, the FHWA has also included the recreation signs in the guide signs category (see double asterisk in new table).

18. In Section 2A.1l Sign Colors, a new Table 2A.4, Uses of Sign Colors is added. The FHWA has also included a statement that the color coordinates and values shall conform to those shown in the color specifications described in the “Standard Highway Signs” (SHS) Book.

There were no docket comments on this section.

Ibid.

The FHWA believes that including this statement will help promote uniformity of colors where traffic control signs are designed and installed by providing the reader with a specific reference source for determining the proper color coordinates and values.

19. In Section 2A.13 Symbols, paragraph 2 explains that new symbol signs shall be adopted by FHWA based on research evaluation studies to determine comprehension data and recognition/legibility distance for the symbol sign. The FHWA added an OPTION statement for State and/or local highway agencies to conduct these research studies. There were no docket comments on this section.

20. In Section 2A.14 Word Messages, paragraph 2 provides GUIDANCE for determining sign letter heights is added. Sign letter heights should be determined based on 1 inch per 40 feet of legibility distance. The FHWA believes this amendment will improve sign legibility for all road users, especially for older road users whose vision may be diminished. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

In paragraph 5, an OPTION is provided for State and local highway agencies to use the combination of lowercase letters with initial uppercase letters for street name signs. In Section 2A.15 of the 1988 MUTCD, this OPTION only applied to destination guide signs and did not give States this flexibility. The FHWA has also eliminated the restriction for using series B alphabets only on street name signs. States now have the flexibility to use other standard series alphabets, as appropriate. There were no docket comments on this section.

21. In Section 2A.17 Overhead Sign Installations, the FHWA removed the restriction for placing signs on bridges located along only “urban” freeways and expressways in the OPTION statement. Overhead signs may be placed on “any” freeway or expressway bridge where feasible, to enhance safety and economy. This change provides more installation flexibility to State and local highway agencies. There were no docket comments on this section.

22. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, paragraph 7 allows State and local highway agencies the OPTION to adjust the mounting height of signs when the sign supports are located near the edge of the right-of-way on a steep backslope. There were no docket comments on this section.

23. In the first paragraph of Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, a STANDARD is added that requires sign supports within the clear zone to be breakaway or shielded for the safety of the road user particularly in run-off-road incidents. There were no docket comments on this section.

24. In Section 2A.23 Maintenance, GUIDANCE is added to paragraph 2 which recommends that maintenance inspections be conducted both day and night. Although this is a general practice among many engineering and transportation officials, the FHWA believes it is a practice worth reiterating in the MUTCD. There were no docket comments on this section.

25. In Section 2A.24 Wrong-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA has deleted the OPTION and SUPPORT text that appeared in the NPA and modified the figures to more accurately show the typical sign application for wrong-way traffic control. This change helps the text read clearer and is based on the FHWA internal review process which identified inconsistencies, redundancy, and confusion between the text and the accompanying typical figures.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2B—Regulatory Signs

The FHWA received 304 comments from 86 commenters concerning Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.

26. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA received several comments requesting the addition of a table that depicts sign sizes. The FHWA has adopted a similar format to the one recommended by the NCUTCD that expands the sign category headings to cover additional sizes. Table 2B-1 lists sign sizes for Conventional Roads, Expressways, and Freeways, “minimum” and “oversized” signs.

27. In Section 2B.04 STOP Sign, paragraph 3, under the STANDARD statement, we proposed text requiring the use of the 4-way supplemental plaque (R1-3) at intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs. This practice was optional in the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA received one comment in opposition to this adopted change. The FHWA has adopted this requirement because it believes the use of the supplemental plaque will provide additional emphasis and motorist information at the stop location.

The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 3 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the normal service life. This change takes effect immediately for all new installations.

28. The proposed amendment to Section 2B.05 STOP Sign Applications recommended changing the title of this section from “Warrants for Stop Signs” to “STOP Sign Applications.” This change eliminates the misunderstanding created by the term “warrants” which has a “legal sanctions” connotation. No commenters objected to this amendment, therefore the FHWA has changed the section title as proposed.

Several commenters indicated disappointment that the GUIDANCE statement in Section 2B.05, paragraph 1, was not upgraded to a STANDARD since many local governments receive frequent requests for STOP signs to be installed for speed control. Traffic engineers would like to have the language in the MUTCD that would back up their decision when faced with political pressure to install STOP signs to control speed. The FHWA does not consider this sufficient justification to elevate this GUIDANCE to a STANDARD requirement, particularly when you consider the potential impacts on local governments. Two commenters questioned why an engineering study, as opposed to an engineering judgment, was not required in the NPA. The FHWA believes that it is more practical to recommend that an engineering study be done for multi-way stops and that engineering judgment be used for one-way or two-way stops.

29. The FHWA received no objections to the proposed language in Section 2B.06 Stop Sign Placement, changing the language from OPTION to GUIDANCE for using STOP lines to supplement a STOP sign. The FHWA believes that the use of the STOP line will provide the road user with additional information for making safe traffic operation decisions, therefore the proposal is adopted.

Also in this section, under GUIDANCE, the FHWA received no comments objecting to the proposed language stating that the STOP signs should not be placed on the far side of

the intersection. The text has been modified to clarify that when only one sign is installed, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far side of the intersection. This would allow the use of a supplemental STOP sign on the left side which may be appropriate in some cases.

30. In Section 2B.07 Multi-way Stop Sign Applications, paragraph 3, the FHWA added GUIDANCE to recommend that the decision to install Multi-way Stop signs should be based on an engineering study. The FHWA offers the same rationale that was provided in Section 2B.05, which addresses the reasoning for the use of engineering judgment as opposed to engineering study.

Several commenters responded to the GUIDANCE statement (in item C.1) which lists the criteria to consider in an engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation. There is a misunderstanding that the criteria was reduced from 500 to 300 vehicles per hour. The 1988 MUTCD provides for 500 vehicles per hour from all approaches and 200 combined vehicular and pedestrian units per hour from the minor-street approaches. The revised text provides: “1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour * * * ” This is the same criteria presented in a slightly different manner.

Additionally, Item C.2 of the criteria includes bicycle volumes to the combination volume studies of vehicles and pedestrians. The FHWA believes that bicycle travel is an integral part of traffic control considerations. Therefore, this should improve the traffic data when considering installation of traffic control devices. One commenter pointed out that typical count methods do not allow for comprehensive counting of bicycles over long time periods. The FHWA agrees that manual counts are routinely done over an 8-12 hour period in order to gather pedestrian and bicyclist data. It is true that automatic 24-hour counts, typically done by machines with rubber tubes across the roadway, cannot count bicycles; however, video methods offer a highly effective means to capture this data. Since the language is provided under GUIDANCE, the FHWA does not believe that this will cause an inconvenience to traffic engineers.

31. In Section 2B.11 Speed Limit Sign, a sentence is added to the OPTION statement to read: “A changeable message sign that changes for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times.” In the NPA this was suggested as an addition to Section 2B.13 Night Speed Limit Sign. After reconsideration by the FHWA and from comments provided on this issue, it was determined that it be placed in Section 2B.11, because this is not necessarily a night condition.

32. In Section 2B.16 Reduced Speed Ahead Sign (R2-5 series), the FHWA received one comment regarding the proposed assembly method B under OPTION which when applied to a metric assembly, could require a five-sign configuration for an advance notice of change in speed limit. The FHWA believes that since this method is “optional” and not a requirement, its inclusion under OPTION is appropriate.

Also in this section, one comment was received suggesting that the background color for the supplemental plaques in GUIDANCE be changed from the color yellow to white so that motorists will not confuse this sign assembly with the School Speed Limit Sign Assembly. The FHWA agrees and has modified the language to read “When used with Speed Limit assemblies, the supplemental plaques should have a white background with a black legend and border, except for the METRIC plaque (see Section 2B.11).” The FHWA believes that it is essential that the METRIC plaque be distinct to draw attention to the use of metric units in that particular jurisdiction. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after the normal service life. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

33. In Section 2B.17 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 to R3-4) (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.15), the FHWA is combining the language for the Turn Prohibition and the U-Turn Prohibition signs into one section. No negative comments were received for this amendment.

The FHWA received one comment suggesting that the following text be added as an OPTION: “Where ONE WAY signs are used, Turn Prohibition signs may be omitted (see Section 2B.31).” The FHWA agrees and is adding this language because this may reduce the number of sign messages and prevent driver message overload.

34. In Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a and R3-7) (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.16), the FHWA proposed adding a new Mandatory Movement Lane Control Sign (R3-5a) under OPTION to explain to road users that they must stay in the same lane and proceed straight through an intersection. Two comments were received that recommended changing the name of this sign to a “Straight Through Only” sign, which is a more specific description of the sign's intent. The FHWA agrees and is adopting this change.

Also in Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs, a GUIDANCE statement is added to read: “Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs should be accompanied by lane control pavement markings, especially where traffic volumes are high, where there is a high percentage of commercial vehicles, or where other distractions exist.” This was proposed as a requirement in the NPA, which stated that whenever lane use control signs are installed, lane-use pavement markings shall also be installed, and seven commenters objected to this proposal and mentioned that many jurisdictions are successfully using this signing without markings, and that making this condition mandatory may constitute an unfunded mandate creating serious hardships on many jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with these suggestions, and believes that this language is more appropriately included as an OPTION in Section 2B.19.

35. In Section 2B.30 WRONG WAY Sign (R5-1a), the FWHA proposed to include a reference to Figure 2-5a which shows the signing and pavement marking treatments for divided highway intersections with medians 9 m (30 ft). Based on the negative comments received on the proposed figure, the FHWA has revised the figure to only depict WRONG WAY signing. The figure is renumbered Figure 2B-2, “Typical Wrong Way Signing for Divided Highways.”

36. In Section 2B.32 ONE WAY Sign (R6-1, R6-2), the FHWA proposed to change the recommendation regarding placement of the One Way signs from a recommendation to a requirement. The FHWA received one negative comment regarding the change from GUIDANCE to STANDARD, stating the rationale that alley traffic is familiar traffic and that the current practice has been proven over time to be adequate. The FHWA disagrees with this comment and is adopting the proposed amendment. Not

all traffic in alleys will always be familiar traffic, and this new requirement will increase safety by reducing the chance of road users inadvertently making wrong-way movements.

Another commenter to this section suggested adding a compliance period to relieve the cost burden on local agencies. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the normal service life.

37. In Section 2B.35 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, the FHWA inadvertently omitted the proposed text, stating that all street parking signs are to be illuminated or retroreflective. This text is consistent with Section 2A.08 Illumination and Retroreflectivity, which discusses the general provisions and standards for signs. The FHWA believes the language that addresses retroreflectivity and illumination is best discussed as a STANDARD in Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs. The FHWA is adopting the following text: “Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape or similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 1A.08).

38. In Section 2B.37 Emergency Restriction Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.36, paragraph 3), FHWA is providing States with the choice of either using red or black legend and border on a white background for these signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to this adopted change.

39. The 1988 MUTCD contained a sentence that the WALK ON LEFT (R9-1) and NO HITCHHIKING (R9-4) signs do not have to be retroreflective. However, the FHWA is changing this and requiring that all signs, including these pedestrian signs, shall be either illuminated or retroreflective. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to this adopted change.

40. In Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA proposed adding two new symbol signs for NO RIGHT TURN ON RED (R10-11c) and NO LEFT TURN ON RED (R10-11d). Three commenters disagreed with the use of these symbol signs as alternatives to the word legend R10-11a and R10-11b signs. Their concern was that these new symbol signs may be confused with the R3-1R (NO RIGHT TURN) and the R3-1L (NO LEFT TURN) symbol signs and will lead to increased violations for No Right Turn or No Left Turns situations. The FHWA believes that since the use of the proposed signs is an OPTION and not a requirement, that jurisdictions should be able to have the option of using either word message signs or these new symbol signs. Therefore, the text has been modified to read: “A symbolic NO TURN ON RED sign (R10-11c) may be used as an alternate to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs.”

41. The FHWA added two new sections to address High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) signing: Section 2B.49 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and Section 2B.50 High Occupancy Vehicle Sign Applications and Placement. No commenters objected to this amendment.

The FWHA has deleted the R3-18 and R3-19 HOV signs from the text and Table 2B-1. These signs have been replaced by the remaining HOV signs found in Table 2B-1. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 6 years after the effective date of the final rule to minimize any potential impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the normal service life. Immediate compliance is required for all new installations.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2C—Warning Signs

The FHWA received 329 comments from 42 commenters concerning Chapter 2C. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999, under docket number FHWA-1999-5704.

42. The following general changes are in Chapter 2C: the various sizes of warning signs are shown in Table 2C-2; and the sections in 2C are grouped and discussed according to category type and application. Table 2C-1 shows the categories, application, appropriate sections, and sign numbers for the warning signs discussed in Chapter 2C. The table is designed so that it is easy to reference this information. The section topics are grouped by roadway-related, traffic-related, and non-vehicle related categories.

43. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, paragraph 2 includes language that was proposed in the NPA as Section 2C.35 Motorized Traffic Signs. The language indicating that warning signs should be removed or covered when conditions or activities are seasonal or temporary is more appropriate for inclusion in Section 2C.02 which discusses general application for all warning signs. This language is removed from the section on “Motorized Traffic Signs.”

In Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, the minimum sizes of the following signs are increased from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches): Merge Sign (W4-1), Narrow Bridge Sign (W5-2), Two-Way Traffic Sign (W6-3), and the Double Arrow Sign (W12-1). This change makes the minimum size consistent with other signs in the respective sign series and improve the sign visibility for road users, particularly older drivers. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after their normal service life. This change is effective immediately for all new installations.

The FHWA received comments from the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) and an engineering concerning Table 2C-2. The WDOT suggested that all diamond warning signs in this table should be the same size for a given roadway type facility. The example given was that the Curve Sign (W1 Series) requires more decision and reaction time than the Merge Sign (W4 Series). Therefore, the WDOT suggests that the Curve Sign, when used on expressways and freeways, should be at least the same size as shown for the Merge Sign which is 1200 mm x 1200 mm (48 inches by 48 inches). The FHWA agrees that there is a need to further study this issue of sign size consistency, and we will revisit it as part of a future notice of proposed amendments.

An engineering consultant suggested that the FHWA delete the term “standard size” used as a heading in Table 2C-2 because in tort liability cases, the term “standard size” is misunderstood and requires explanation. Based on this comment, the FHWA has revised Table 2C-2 to relate the warning sign sizes to the roadway classification using the following headings: Conventional Roads, Expressway, and Freeway. The FHWA has added a supplemental Table 2C-2a to show the minimum and oversized warning sign sizes.

44. In Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Signs, the discussion for each of the horizontal alignment signs (W1-1 through W1-5) are combined into one section. A Table 2C-4 has been added to provide guidance for determining when to use the horizontal alignment signs based on the number of alignment changes and based on whether or not the advisory speed is

greater than, equal to, or less than 50 km/h (30 mph).

45. In Section 2C.07 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed Sign, a new W1-9 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-9 sign combines the Turn (W1-1) Sign or the Curve (W1-2) Sign with the Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) to create one sign. The FHWA has also included a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA indicated that the W1-9 sign shall be installed within the turn or curve. However, based on the docket comments from the Illinois DOT, the Ohio DOT, and the Ohio Institute of Transportation Engineers, the FHWA has revised paragraph 2 to indicate that this sign shall be installed at the beginning of the turn or curve to give motorists prior warning before they enter the curve. The FHWA also received a comment from Pierce County, Washington indicating that this sign has potential application in urban or lower speed conditions. The FHWA agrees and has included a minimum size of 900 mm x 900 mm (36 x 36 inches) when this sign is used on low speed facilities.

46. In Section 2C.08 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection Sign, a new W1-10 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-10 sign combines the Turn (W1-1) sign or the Curve (W1-2) sign with the Cross Road (W2-1) sign or Side Road (W2-2, W2-3) signs to create one sign. The FHWA has added a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06. The FHWA has deleted the following paragraph which was formerly paragraph 3 in the NPA: “The Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign should not be used if there is adequate roadway length to provide for separate signs showing each of the applicable features.” Based on comments received, the FHWA believes that even when adequate space is available to install separate signs, this combination sign can provide a clearer message to the road user, and the decision to use this sign should be left to the State or local agency's discretion.

47. In Section 2C.10 Chevron Alignment Sign, based on a docket comment that the FHWA received from the Illinois DOT, the FHWA has added an OPTION to install the Chevron Alignment (W1-8) sign on the far side of an intersection to inform road users of a change in horizontal alignment through an intersection.

48. In Section 2C.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs, a new TRUCK ESCAPE RAMP word message (W7-4c) sign is added to the MUTCD. Since this term is more widely and commonly used, the FHWA has included it as an OPTION to the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP word message (W7-4) sign. The FHWA has included GUIDANCE for installing No Parking (R8-3 series) signs near the ramp entrance due to the potential hazard caused by parking at these ramp locations.

49. In Section 2C.13 Road Narrows Sign, an OPTION to use the Advisory Speed (W13-1) plaque with the ROAD NARROWS (W5-1) sign is added.

50. In Section 2C.20 Low Clearance Sign, the use of the Low Clearance (W12-2) sign is required to notify road users of clearances less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height or minimum structure height. Providing this critical information is especially important to operators of large vehicles.

51. A new Section 2C.22 Speed Hump Sign and new word message sign (W17-1) is added. The FHWA received a docket comment from the NCUTCD requesting this new word message sign. With the prevalent application of traffic calming techniques within residential communities and the possibility of States developing their own word message signs, the FHWA believes it is appropriate to include a standard word message sign in the MUTCD. In an effort to promote uniformity and discourage a proliferation of States using a variety of signs, the FHWA adopts the SPEED HUMP sign recommended by the NCUTCD. The addition of this new section means that the section numbers for the sections following 2C.22 are changed.

52. In Section 2C.24 Shoulder Signs, language is added to describe the application of the SOFT SHOULDER (W8-4) sign, the LOW SHOULDER (W8-9) sign, the SHOULDER DROP-OFF (W8-9a) sign, and the UNEVEN LANE (W8-11) sign. These word message signs are also appropriate for use in work zones (MUTCD Part 6). Since Part 6 references the signs but does not include a description, the FHWA has included an application discussion for these signs. The symbols for these existing signs have created confusion and misunderstanding. Therefore, the symbol signs are deleted in lieu of word messages. A phase-in compliance period of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule is provided so that State and local agencies can replace their existing symbol signs with word message signs over the course of the normal service life of the signs.

53. In Section 2C.26 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3 series), all of the Advance Traffic Control signs are combined into one section. The Advance Traffic Control signs include: The Stop Ahead (W3-1a), the Yield Ahead (W3-2a), the Signal Ahead (W3-3), and a new BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign. A new word message sign was submitted as a docket comment from the NCUTCD. This word message sign was already adopted in MUTCD Part 6, Work Zones. The MUTCD Part 6 shows the sign but does not have any descriptive text accompanying the sign. The FHWA believes this word message sign is appropriate for inclusion in both Chapter 2C and Part 6 because it advises road users that they may encounter traffic congestion or stopped traffic caused by traffic signals. This amendment includes descriptive text to discuss the application of the BE PREPARED TO STOP sign.

Also in this section, the FHWA received comments from the city of Bellevue, Washington and the Washington DOT indicating that they have installed Street Name plaques with the Advance Traffic Control signs and have had no negative effects. Therefore, in the first OPTION statement of Section 2C.26 the FHWA has modified the sentence to allow the OPTION of installing a supplemental Street Name plaque above or below any Advance Traffic Control sign rather than just the Signal Ahead sign because it gives States more flexibility.

54. In Section 2C.27 Cross Traffic Does Not Stop plaque, a new (W4-4P) plaque is added. This plaque is intended to warn road users that they are approaching a 2-way stop controlled intersection. This new word message plaque is based on research conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute

and on recommendations included in the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.”

The FHWA believes it is appropriate from a safety standpoint to add this new warning sign to help road users quickly identify the type of stop controlled intersection. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to this new plaque. However, the FHWA did receive a comment suggesting that we add the OPTION to use this plaque on 1-way stop controlled T-intersections and the FHWA has included this modification.

Picha, D.L., C.E. Schuckel, J.A. Parham, and C.T. Mai, “Traffic Control Devices at Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections,” Research Report 1374-IF, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, November 1996.

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

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

appropriate color of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaque. In response to these comments, and since this plaque is intended as a warning message to provide advance notice of an upcoming situation, language is added that the plaque colors are black legend on a yellow background. In State and local jurisdictions where this plaque is intended to regulate traffic, this plaque may be placed on the same post as the STOP sign. When used with the STOP sign, the colors are black legend on a white background.

55. In Section 2C.30, paragraph 4, a new sentence is added that roadway delineation may also be used to notify road users of lane reduction situations. The OPTION to use pavement markings in addition to the Lane Ends signs will provide additional guidance information to the road users.

Also in paragraph 5 of this section, GUIDANCE is included to indicate that, in situations where an extra lane has been added for slower moving traffic, a Lane Ends sign should be installed in advance of the end of the extra lane.

56. In Section 2C.33 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs, GUIDANCE is added to clarify the difference between when the Exit Speed (W13-2) signs and the Ramp Speed (W13-3) signs should be used. Based on deliberation comments made to the docket review, the FHWA has changed the title of this section and included a new Curve Speed (W13-5) sign. This sign was not discussed in the NPA, but the FHWA believes it should be included in the MUTCD because it provides the advisory speed on roads and highways at the beginning of horizontal alignment changes. The Curve Speed sign is designed exactly like the Exit and Ramp Speed sign.

57. In Section 2C.34 Intersection Warning Signs, an OPTION to install an Advance Street Name (W16-8) plaque in conjunction with the intersection warning signs is provided. This change provides helpful advance information to the road user.

Also in this section, the FHWA has added a new Circular Intersection (W2-6) symbol sign that was submitted by the NCUTCD. The FHWA received comments from the Texas, Missouri, and Oregon DOTs in favor of a different symbol that was similar to the roundabout symbol used in Europe. With the advent of traffic calming practices in residential communities, the FHWA believes it is important to take advantage of this opportunity to include a sign in the MUTCD for circular intersections. Until further research can be done on another symbol, the FHWA plans to include the symbol submitted by the NCUTCD and to include language indicating that the symbol be accompanied by an educational word message plaque.

58. A new Section 2C.36 Motorized Traffic Signs is added. Motorized traffic signs are used to alert road users to unexpected entries into the roadway by trucks, farm vehicles, emergency vehicles, and other vehicles.

Also in this section, a new EMERGENCY SIGNAL AHEAD (W11-12) warning sign for use with the Emergency Vehicle (W11-8) symbol sign is added. These two signs are required in advance of all emergency vehicle traffic control signals (Chapter 4F).

Based on FHWA internal comments made during the docket review deliberations, this section has also been revised to include an OPTION to use other word message warning signs to indicate the type of emergency vehicle station ahead (such as rescue squad, etc.) in situations when no emergency signal is present.

59. In Section 2C.37 Crossing Signs, a new design and application for advance crossing and crossing signs is added. In the past, the crossing signs were distinguished from the advance crossing signs by the use of crosswalk lines on the sign. However, people rarely noticed the difference. The FHWA has changed the design of these signs by deleting the crosswalk lines and using one sign for both the advance and the crossing location. The crossing sign when used to provide advance notice to road users is supplemented with the legend “AHEAD” or with an appropriate distance plaque. The crossing sign is used adjacent to crossings and must be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow when the crossing does not have pavement markings. If pavement markings are used to mark the crosswalk, then only the crossing sign is needed and the diagonal downward pointing arrow is optional. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

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

60. Throughout Chapter 2D, the FHWA is replacing the word “marker” with the word “sign,” since these route and auxiliary markers are generally considered signs. The sign numbers, however, will continue to carry the “M” designation (example: M1-4) so that the State's sign inventory will not need to change. Also, a reference to Chapter 2A is included to remind readers to check there for placement, location, and other general criteria for signs, since this information is not repeated in every section. There were no docket comments on this section.

61. In Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination, the STANDARD statement in paragraph 3 is modified to extend the general requirements for retroreflectivity and/or illumination to “all” guide sign messages and legends, unless specific exceptions are provided. This is consistent with Section 2A.08 which requires all signs to be retroreflective and/or illuminated. There were no docket comments on this section.

62. In Section 2D.09 Numbered Highway Systems, a sentence is added to paragraph 5 which states that the highest priority route sign legend shall be placed on top or to the left of the sign panel. This will help the road user better identify the class of roadway (example: Interstate vs. County route). There were no docket comments on this section.

63. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, paragraph 6 allows the OPTION of placing a white sign panel behind the Off-Interstate Business Route signs when they are installed on a green guide sign. This amendment will improve the sign's contrast and conspicuity. There were no docket comments on this section.

64. In Section 2D.15 Cardinal Direction Auxiliary Sign, the first letter of cardinal direction messages is increased by 10 percent. Increasing the first letter of cardinal direction signs such as EAST and WEST, helps the road user in the navigation task by providing a clearer distinction between the similar appearance of these two messages. This same principle is true for the NORTH and SOUTH cardinal directions. This change was previously adopted in revision number 5 to the 1988 MUTCD and is mentioned here to bring attention to the compliance date which was December 31, 1994. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

65. In Section 2D.33 Destination and Distance Signs, the OPTION statement is changed to add the placement of the route sign and cardinal direction within

the destination sign panel. When this option is used, the size of the route sign and cardinal direction auxiliary sign should be at least the minimum size specified for these signs. There were no docket comments on this section.

66. In Section 2D.34 Destination Signs, paragraph 9 recommends that when there are four destinations, they should be shown on two separate sign panels. The FHWA has changed this from a requirement (as shown in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD) to a GUIDANCE in order to allow State and local highway agencies more flexibility. The FHWA believes this change is appropriate since the OPTION in paragraph 10 allows all four destinations on one sign panel in situations where spacing is critical. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

67. In the 1988 edition of the MUTCD, distance signs were required to be placed approximately 500 feet outside the municipal limits or at the edge of the built-up district. Section 2D.37 Location of Distance Signs, eliminates this specific distance requirement and allows the State and local highway agencies the flexibility to determine the appropriate sign location. There were no docket comments on this section.

68. The FHWA received comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and reviewed the recommendations in the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,”

which suggest that a discussion for installing street name signs on overhead mast arms be included in the MUTCD. Since many State and local highway agencies are already using this application and it does improve sign visibility, the FHWA is adopting this as an OPTION in paragraph 11 of Section 2D.38 Street Name Sign. At intersections having two different street names, the FHWA is also adopting the OPTION to show both street names on one panel with appropriate directional arrows. This is consistent with the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook” and will also optimize sign visibility for the road user.

Ibid.

69. In Section 2D.44 General Service Signs, paragraph 15 is changed to eliminate the term “opaque background” since all backgrounds shall be either retroreflective or illuminated as discussed in Section 2D.03. There were no docket comments on this section.

In this same section, an OPTION is added to use the new word message sign “ROAD CONDITION DIAL 511” to notify road users of road and traffic conditions. This is a new OPTION that was not included in the NPA because at the time, it had not been approved by the Federal Communications Commission.

70. The title of Section 2D.45 proposed in the NPA is changed from “Milepost Markers” to “Reference Posts.” This change is based on internal review discussions during the FHWA's deliberation of docket comments. The FHWA has changed the title of this section to “Reference Posts” since this is a more accurate description.

The FHWA has also modified this section in paragraph 11 of the OPTION statement to eliminate the provision for placement of the kilometer (mile) fractions on the back of the post or on a separate small plate. The text in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD was written more for road maintenance and public works activities. This modification is being made to help road users better identify their location in emergency situations.

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

71. Chapters 2E (Guide Signs—Expressway) and 2F (Guide Signs—Freeways) in the 1988 MUTCD are combined into a new Chapter 2E titled “Guide Signs—Freeways and Expressways.” The FHWA did not receive any comments.

72. In Section 2E.05, a STANDARD sentence is added in paragraph 1 to provide that signs which are not illuminated must be retroreflective.

Also in this section, paragraph 4 recommends that all overhead sign installations should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that retroreflection alone will perform effectively. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

73. In Section 2E.06 Characteristics of Urban Signing, the first paragraph adds item H concerning visual clutter from roadside development to the list of features which characterize urban conditions. Growth in business development and environmental changes make this an appropriate item to consider when installing signs since excessive signs may create information overload for some road users and may complicate the navigation task. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

Also in this section, the second paragraph contains a list of special sign treatments for improving travel on urban freeways and expressways. The FHWA is amending item H to this list as follows: “Frequent use of street names as the principal message in guide signs.” This amendment improves the guidance information provided to road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

74. In Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing, the GUIDANCE in paragraph 1 is expanded to include all freeways and expressways in the discussion of classes of highways that should not be signed as memorial highways. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

75. In Section 2E.09 Amount of Legend on Guide Signs, paragraph 1 clarifies the previous GUIDANCE in the 1988 MUTCD which addressed the appropriate number of destinations on major guide signs in general. The FHWA is changing the wording to clarify that not more than two destination names or street names should be shown on the following specific signs: Advance Guide signs or Exit Direction signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

76. In Section 2E.12 Designation of Destinations, paragraph 4 highlights the fact that AASHTO is responsible for the selection of control cities shown on guide signs.

77. In Section 2E.16 Abbreviations, the second paragraph in GUIDANCE provides for using periods on expressway and freeway signs. It provides that periods should not be used except when a cardinal direction is abbreviated as part of a destination name. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

78. In Section 2E.17 Symbols, paragraph 1 requires that symbol designs be essentially like those shown in the MUTCD and the “Standard Highway Signs Book.”

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

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

diagrammatic sign. The recommended number of destinations is two for each sign. However, the FHWA recognizes that there are some special situations where there are more than two principle destinations at the interchange and changing this sentence to GUIDANCE provides more flexibility to State and local highway agencies.

80. In Section 2E.20 Signing for Interchange Lane Drops, the last sentence in paragraph 1 is added to prohibit the use of the EXIT ONLY panel on diagrammatic signs at any major bifurcation or split. This change is intended to eliminate a potentially confusing situation for road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

81. In Section 2E.21 Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA is including GUIDANCE in paragraph 3(a) to indicate that the desirable letter size for changeable message signs is 450 mm (18 inches) or a minimum letter size of 265 mm (10.6 inches). The FHWA is also including additional criteria (as discussed in MUTCD Part 6) for the use of changeable message sign.

82. In Section 2E.24 Lateral Clearance, paragraph 1 adds a discussion on the importance of the clear zone and breakaway supports when determining the horizontal clearance distance for sign installation.

83. In Section 2E.29 Interchange Exit Numbering, paragraph 2 increases the vertical dimension of the exit number panel from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). This change is adopted because it improves the visibility of critical sign information for directing the road users to their destinations. Since the FHWA received comments from North Carolina, Missouri, and Minnesota Departments of Transportation expressing concern regarding the impact of implementing this change for existing installations, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after the normal service life. This change takes effect immediately for all new installations.

Also in this section, the text in the OPTION statement is modified to recommend the use of milepost numbering as the preferred method for interchange exit numbering. Consecutive numbering is optional for those States which are still working towards changing over to milepost numbering. The FHWA received a docket comment from the Ohio Department of Transportation suggesting this change.

Additionally in this section, the FHWA has included an OPTION to add the word “LEFT” to the exit number panel. Since left exits are generally fewer and tend to violate expectancy, the FHWA believes that this OPTION will help the road user identify proper lane placement prior to the exit.

84. In Section 2E.31 Advance Guide Signs, the paragraph 2 GUIDANCE statement includes placement of Advance Guide signs in advance of the exit gore. The distance of an Advance Guide sign is changed from “400m to 1km” to “1 to 2 km (

1/2

to 1 mile)” from the exit gore. This change places the Advance Guide sign back further from the exit gore in order to provide more decision and reaction time to the road user. Although the FHWA did not receive any comments expressing concern with this change, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations in order to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after their normal service life. This change is effective immediately for all new installations.

85. In Section 2E.33 Other Supplemental Guide Signs, paragraph 2 adds GUIDANCE for installing only one supplemental guide sign on each interchange approach. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

86. In Section 2E.34 Exit Direction Signs, paragraph 2 prohibits the use of population figures or other similar information on Exit Direction signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

Also in this section, the second GUIDANCE statement deletes the words “cantilevered support” and allows the Exit Direction sign to be installed on any overhead support located over the exit lane in advance of a gore point.

The change in the last sentence of Section 2E.34, paragraph 10 is revised from that proposed in the NPA in response to a docket comment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of recommending that the Exit Direction sign should be mounted on the face of the overhead structure, the FHWA is changing this to an OPTION to allow more flexibility at those locations that may not have available overhead structures.

87. In Section 2E.41 Signing by Type of Interchange, paragraph 3 provides GUIDANCE that the signing layout should be similar for interchanges which have only one exit ramp in the direction of travel. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

88. In Section 2E.42 Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange, an OPTION is added for installing overhead guide signs at the 1 km (

1/2

mile) and 4 km (2 mile) points. This OPTION is in addition to the required overhead guide signs at the 2 km (1 mile) point and at the theoretical gore of each connecting ramp.

89. In Section 2E.48 Closely-Spaced Interchanges, paragraph 1 is changed from that proposal in the NPA in response to a docket comment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of mandating or requiring that the advance guide signs for the next interchange should be mounted on an overhead structure, the FHWA is changing the GUIDANCE to an OPTION in an effort to allow more flexibility at those locations that may not have available overhead structures.

90. In Section 2E.52 General Service Signs, paragraph 2 adds an OPTION that allows an action message, such as NEXT RIGHT, to be placed on general service signs which do not have exit numbers included on the sign. Figure 2E-38 has been added as an example. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

Also in this section, paragraph 4, GUIDANCE is added that recommends the distances to services should be shown on general service signs when the service is more than 2 km (1 mile) from the interchange.

Additionally, paragraph 4a(1), is changed based on comments from the Ohio Department of Transportation and logo organizations in 9 States, which suggested that the FHWA delete tire repair from the list of criteria for selecting and installing general service signs for gas stations. The FHWA is adopting this modification since the majority of businesses offering gas today, no longer provide tire repair services. This same change applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph 8, item 1.

Also in this section, paragraph 4b(4), 4c(4), and 4f(3) are revised to add “modern sanitary facilities” as a criteria for food, lodging, and camping services.

Additionally, paragraph 4b(2) modifies the number of days that a food service, selected for general service sign, is open. The 1988 MUTCD showed 7 days per week, and the new edition states at least 6 days per week. This amendment also applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph 9, item D(b). This revision to the MUTCD is made in order to comply with the requirement of Federal law, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 214, which was effective on June

9, 1998. There were no docket comments on this section.

Also in this section, a STANDARD is added which requires that general service signs that are operated on a seasonal basis shall be removed or covered during periods when the service is not available. This amendment reduces the chance of road users mistakenly leaving their routes only to find that the particular service is closed. The FHWA received no comments on this section.

91. In Section 2E.57 Radio Information Signing, paragraph 1 allows State and local highway agencies the OPTION of using a word message Radio-Traffic Information (D12-4) sign in conjunction with traffic management systems. The FHWA received no comments on this section.

Also in this section, paragraph 2 establishes three as the maximum number of frequencies shown on each Radio-Traffic Information sign. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this change.

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

92. Since the FHWA has combined chapters 2E and 2F of the 1988 MUTCD into one chapter, the new chapter for Specific Service Signs is Chapter 2F (formerly Chapter 2G in the 1988 MUTCD). There were no docket comments on combining Chapters 2E and 2F.

93. In Section 2F.01 Eligibility, paragraph 4 adopts Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a STANDARD for selecting eligible specific services. This is consistent with the requirements of other Federal programs. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

Also in this section, paragraphs 5 and 12 adopt a new specific service sign category for attraction signs. This increases the Specific Service Sign categories to five (gas, food, lodging, camping, and attractions). There were no docket comments on this section.

Additionally, paragraph 7 is changed from that proposal in the NPA as a result of docket comments received from six logo organizations suggesting that the FHWA modify the discussion for Specific Service Sign eligibility to include the following text shown in bold: “If facilities for the specific service being considered are not available within the 5 km (3 miles) limit or choose not to participate in the program, then the limit of eligibility may be extended in 5 km (3 miles) increments until one or more facilities for the services being considered choose to participate or until 25 km (15 miles) are reached, whichever comes first.” The FHWA is adopting this modification to give states more flexibility in the selection of eligible specific service facilities

In paragraph 9, item (A)(1), under GUIDANCE, the FHWA adds “alternative fuels” to the list of qualification criteria for specific service signs. No comments were received regarding this change.

94. The FHWA received 11 comments from representatives of various State logo organizations requesting that FHWA modify the proposed Section 2F.02 Application, paragraph 2, to allow for up to three types of services to be displayed on a specific service sign (example: gas, food, and lodging). The FHWA is adopting three types of specific services on one sign as the maximum along with the requirement that if three types of services are allowed on one sign, then the logo panels (businesses) shall be limited to two for each type of service. This would allow for a total of six logo panels per sign which is consistent with the STANDARD in Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs. The FHWA believes that this change will give the states more flexibility in the selection of specific service facilities.

Also in this section under the STANDARD statement, paragraph 2 is changed to delete the requirement for a separate sign for each type of specific service at freeway and expressway interchanges.

95. In Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs, the proposed paragraph 2 allowed a maximum of six logo panels for any specific service category shown on a sign. Based on 12 docket comments received from State Departments of Transportation, representatives of various motorist information services, and logo organizations, the FHWA is also amending paragraph 2 to allow a maximum of four logo panels for one of the two service types on the same sign (example: four food logo panels and two lodging logo panels). When four logo panels for one type of service are installed on a sign, the maximum number of logo panels still shall not exceed six. The FHWA believes that this change will give the States more flexibility in the selection of specific service facilities.

Also in this section, the maximum logo panel size for expressway intersections is increased from 900 mm × 600 mm (36 inches × 24 inches) to 1500 mm × 900 mm (60 inches × 36 inches). There were no docket comments on this section.

96. In Section 2F.05 Size of Lettering, Table II-5, “Letter and Numeral Sizes for Specific Service Signs” as shown in the 1988 MUTCD is deleted. In the 1988 MUTCD, a category 1 size was included for use on expressways where access to crossroads was provided by at-grade intersections. The FHWA is deleting Table II-5 and the related categories. The FHWA is adopting a minimum height of 250 mm (10 inches) for all letters and numerals on specific service signs on freeways and expressways, and 150 mm (6 inches) for signs on conventional roads and ramps. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

97. In Section 2F.06 Signs at Interchanges, the requirement for a separate Specific Service sign for each type of services is deleted.

Also in this section, paragraph 2 adds GUIDANCE that specific service ramp signs should be spaced at least 30 m (100 feet) from the exit gore sign, from each other, and from the ramp terminal. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

98. In Section 2F.07 Single-Exit Interchanges, paragraph 4 adds an OPTION to install the exit number panel on top of specific service signs on the freeway or expressway for the single-exit interchanges. There were no docket comments on this section.

99. In Section 2F.09 Signs at Intersections, paragraph 3 deletes the reference to a specific distance at which logo panels should not be displayed because they are visible from the roadway or highway. The FHWA believes that the State and local highway agencies should determine the acceptable visibility limits. The FHWA did not receive any comments regarding this change.

Also in this section, paragraph 6 adds an OPTION to install the NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) and other directional information below the logos on the specific service signs.

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

The FHWA received 52 comments from 10 commenters concerning

Chapter 2G. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.

100. In Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, the FHWA is defining the term “tourist-oriented directional sign.” The term “panel” is also defined in Chapter 1. The FHWA received no comments on the definition.

One commenter suggested defining “immediate area” in the first STANDARD or allowing the States to provide a definition in their State policy. The FHWA believes that defining “immediate area” is best addressed through State policy (Section 2G.07), and is revising that section to include a definition as an element of the policy.

A State transportation department pointed out that requiring the use of tourist-oriented directional signs in place of specific service signing may conflict with State statutes. To avoid conflict with State statutes, the FHWA believes that this text would be better addressed as GUIDANCE, and is changing the section accordingly. This change gives the needed encouragement without eliminating the flexibility that some agencies might need.

Three State transportation departments suggested uniform placement of tourist-oriented directional signs regardless of whether the facility and its on-premise advertising signs are readily visible or not from the roadway. Additionally, one State transportation department recommended a definition of “readily visible from the roadway” be included. The FHWA believes that for positive guidance, tourist-oriented directional signs should be installed regardless of whether or not the facility and/or its on-premise advertising is readily visible from the roadway. The FHWA has deleted this text from the GUIDANCE.

101. In Section 2G.02 Design, the FHWA is including a STANDARD that each tourist-oriented directional panel shall display only one eligible business, service or activity facility. None of the commenters disagreed with this change and the American Traffic Safety Services Association, Inc. commented favorably.

102. In Section 2G.03 Style and Size of Lettering, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) recommended deleting the text related to the legend on rural roads. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and removed it from the GUIDANCE. Using smaller letters on “less important rural roads” is not helpful to the unfamiliar road user. One commenter suggested that text referencing the “Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs and Pavement Markings”

be added. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and is adding it to the STANDARD, since it is the design standard for letters, numerals, and spacing.

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

103. In Section 2G.04 Arrangement and Size of Signs, the FHWA limits the size of a tourist-oriented directional sign to a maximum of 1.8m (6 ft.). One commenter suggested that the limitation should be on the number of panels on the sign, rather than the physical size of the sign. The FHWA agrees that there should be a limitation on the number of panels as well as the size of the sign. A maximum sign size is specified to prevent visual obstructions.

Also, under the first GUIDANCE in Section 2G.04, it was proposed in the NPA that no more than three panels should be displayed on each sign. One State transportation department objected. The FHWA agrees because this may place an undue burden for sign removal on those jurisdictions with existing signs. Therefore, the FHWA will continue to allow display of four panels per tourist-oriented directional sign.

Several comments were received on the text regarding installation of intersection approach signs. The text in the first GUIDANCE contained conflicting language. The FHWA is revising the first GUIDANCE to allow for a straight ahead approach sign and is clarifying that intersection approach signs for tourist-oriented destinations to the left, right and straight ahead should be installed in advance of the intersection and that no more than four panels should be displayed on each sign. The FHWA is adding other clarifications to the text, based on the comments received, including: (1) Recommending the order in which signs should be installed; for consistency signs should appear in the following order: (a) The left turn sign should be located farthest from the intersection, (b) then the right turn sign, and (c) the straight ahead sign located closest to the intersection; (2) recommending that when there are multiple destinations in the same direction that the panels on the tourist-oriented directional sign should be displayed in order based on the destination's distance from the intersection (the closest destination should appear first); (3) clarifying that the left, right or straight ahead turn panels may be combined on the same sign, but that the straight ahead sign should not be combined with a sign displaying both the left and right turn destinations, and (4) allowing signs for destinations in the straight ahead direction when there are signs for destinations in either the left or right direction.

104. In Section 2G.05 Advance Signs, the first OPTION regarding installation of advance signs in the NPA has been moved to the GUIDANCE statement in Section 2G.07 State Policy, which is a more appropriate location. Also, in Section 2G.05, the FHWA is including GUIDANCE to clarify that in cases where directional word messages such as NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) or AHEAD are appropriate for application, this additional information may be added to the 1.8m (6 ft) maximum sign height. None of the commenters disagreed with this change and the American Traffic Safety Services Association, Inc., commented in support of the change. One State transportation department objected to installation of the directional word messages above the business identification panels. The destinations on tourist-oriented directional signs and where to turn are priority information; therefore, the directional word message action should be shown first. There were several comments requesting sign dimensions be shown on the figures. The dimensions were inadvertently left off the figures in the NPA and the dimensions in the 1988 Manual will be used with the appropriate metric conversions.

105. Section 2G.06 Sign Locations, require that the location of all other traffic control devices shall take precedence over the location of tourist-oriented directional signs, and that tourist-oriented directional signs shall not obstruct the road user's view of other traffic control devices. None of the commenters disagreed with this change.

The NCUTCD and two other commenters objected to the exception, found in Section 2G.06 GUIDANCE, for the location of the straight ahead sign. The FHWA agrees and has deleted the exception. For positive guidance, a straight ahead business should have a sign in advance of the intersection.

Also in this section, one commenter suggested that the location of and distance between signs, for the advance signs was excessive. The FHWA believes that locating advance signs 1 km (

1/2

mi) from the intersection is an appropriate distance, but agrees that the

spacing between signs is excessive and has reduced the distance to 152 m (500 ft). Since this is a shorter minimum distance than the current MUTCD, this will not have any impact on State or local highway agencies.

One commenter objected to the phrase in the OPTION paragraph. The Executive Order referenced in the comment was revoked by Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and effective on November 2, 1999. However, the FHWA is modifying this paragraph by deleting “but within the right-of-way” to be consistent with other parts of the Manual which do not reference right-of-way limits for sign placement.

106. In Section 2G.07 State Policy, the FHWA proposed to add the equal opportunity criteria of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241) as a STANDARD condition for destinations to be eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs. One State transportation department and one State chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers objected to including civil rights requirements in the Manual, while the American Traffic Safety Services Association, Inc. supported their inclusion. The FHWA disagrees with these objections to include the civil rights requirements. This paragraph was added as a condition for destinations eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs, because most Federal programs require compliance with Title VI regulations. This paragraph is consistent with Chapter 2F Specific Service Signs.

Also in Section 2G.07, the GUIDANCE statement is revised to include a definition of “immediate area” for the area to be served. “Immediate Area” was used in the first STANDARD of Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, of the NPA. In order to give the State highway agencies more flexibility, the FHWA believes that the definition is best addressed through State policy.

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

The FHWA received 46 comments from eight commenters concerning Chapter 2H. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA is modifying the following recreational and cultural interest signs to improve their visibility and make the sign design less complex: Litter Container (RG-130), Ranger Station (RG-170), Picnic Area (RM-120), Laundry (RA-060), Sleeping Shelter (RA-110) and Interpretative Trail (RL-130).

Also, the FHWA is adopting the following Forest Service symbols

and will include them in the “Standard Highway Signs” book

Motor Home (RM-200), Group Picnicking (RM-220), Group Camping (RM-210), Dog (RG-240), Seaplane (RG-260), Family Restroom (RA-150), Helicopter (RA-160), All-Terrain Vehicle (RL-170), Archer (RL-190), Hang Glider (RL-210), Fishing Pier (RW-160), Hand Launch for Boating (RW-170), Kayak (RW-190), Wind Surf (RW-210) and Chairlift for Skiing (RS-100). The FHWA has only included new or modified symbol signs in the revised manual.

Based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the FHWA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, many of the symbols used by the Forest Service are adopted by reference in the MUTCD. These symbols are referred to as the “88 Forest Service Symbol Signs.”

None of the commenters disagreed with the modified or adopted symbols. However, one State transportation department recommended that we mandate that titles be used with the signs. The FHWA disagrees with the need for this clarification because Section 2A.13 permits an education plate to accompany a symbol sign that is not readily recognizable by the public.

107. In Section 2H.01 Scope, use of recreational and cultural interest signs is expanded by providing the OPTION of using these symbols on directional guide signs found on expressways and freeways. The American Traffic Safety Services Association supported the expanded use of these symbols. Two commenters opposed the expanded use of the symbols suggesting the possible overloading of road users with too many signs along freeways, especially in congested areas. The FHWA disagrees because the GUIDANCE in Section 2H.02 encourages agencies to adopt policies for recreational and cultural interest signing, and cautions agencies not to use them where they might be confused with other traffic control signs.

Also, in this section, the STANDARD paragraph has been removed. General signing requirements are covered in Chapter 2A.

108. In Section 2H.02 Application of Recreational and Cultural Interest Signs, one State transportation department recommended removing the text related to nonvehicular events and amenities. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation because the Manual has jurisdiction over the signing that leads road users to nonvehicular events and amenities such as trails, structures, and facilities.

109. In Section 2H.04 General Design Requirements for Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs, several commenters recommended including examples of the usage and series categories and one State chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers opposed the removal of the Category and Usage Chart. The FHWA agrees with this last recommendation. A Category Chart is included. This chart is similar to the Category and Usage Chart included in the 1988 Manual, except the road/type usage information has been removed. It is no longer appropriate to specify usage since the use of the symbols has been expanded to include both conventional roads and expressways and freeways.

Also, in Section 2H.04, the FHWA has removed the SUPPORT paragraph proposed in the NPA. The use of recreational and cultural interest symbol signs is discussed in Section 2H.01.

110. In Section 2H.05 Symbol Sign Sizes, sign information is discussed in paragraph format. The FHWA received no negative comments regarding the removal of Table II-7, “Sign Sizes.” The American Traffic Safety Services Association recommended that a minimum size of 750 mm × 750 mm (30 in × 30 in) be used for expressway and freeway installation to ensure legibility and increase comprehension commensurate with today's higher speeds and complexities evidenced on these types of roadways. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation. The recommended expressway/freeway sign size text is contained in GUIDANCE.

111. In Section 2H.06 Use of Educational Plaques, GUIDANCE recommends that, if used, the educational plaque should be the same width as the symbol sign. None of the commenters disagreed with this change.

112. One State transportation department recommended deleting the proposed Section 2H.08 Color Format. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and has removed Section 2H.08 as referenced in the NPA, because sign design requirements, including color, are addressed in Section 2H.04.

113. In Section 2H.08 Placement of Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2H.09), one State transportation department suggested that the exception to the vertical mounting height for

symbol signs on low speed, low volume roads is not necessary and may cause some signs to be installed so that they are no longer crashworthy. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation to eliminate the exception. Chapter 2A of the Manual requires all signs within the clear zone to be mounted at 2.1 m (7 ft) in urban areas, and at 1.5m (5 ft) in rural areas.

114. In Section 2H.09 Destination Guide Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2H.10), one State transportation department recommended that both the recreational and cultural interest area symbol signs and destination guide signs be white on brown. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation. The GUIDANCE lists the order of preference for use of shapes and colors. While rectangular, white on green is listed first, States may use rectangular, white on brown. This provides maximum flexibility to the States.

Also, in this section, one State transportation department recommended deleting the requirement that advance guide signs and exit direction signs have the white on green color combination where there are destinations other than a recreational or cultural interest area. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation. Guide signs shall be white on green, except white on brown may be used when solely recreational or cultural interest area destinations are shown.

Several commenters recommended removal of the trapezoidal shape. The FHWA is retaining the GUIDANCE that allows use of the trapezoidal shape. However, the FHWA will consider this recommendation in the future after further study.

115. The FHWA received no objections to deleting Sections 2H.10 through 2H.15 of the 1988 Manual, as proposed in the NPA. These sections gave a general description of the categories of recreation and cultural interest symbol signs.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2I—Emergency Management

116. With the renumbering of Part 2, Chapter 2J is changed to Chapter 2I. The FHWA received a recommendation from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to change the title of Chapter 2I from “Signing for Civil Defense” to “Emergency Management Signing.” The FHWA has adopted this new title and has deleted reference to civil defense because the more prevalent concerns today are from emergency traffic management situations such as natural disasters and chemical warfare threats.

117. In Section 2I.02 Design of Emergency Management Signs, the Civil Defense symbol is deleted from the evacuation route sign. The evacuation route plaque number is changed from CD-1 to EM-1. All of the emergency management sign numbers discussed in Chapter 2I now have the EM prefix.

118. In Section 2I.04 Area Closed Sign, the reference to “dangerous radiological or biological contamination” is deleted since the AREA CLOSED sign is not limited to these type areas but can be used for other emergencies such as natural disasters. The AREA CLOSED sign number is EM-2.

119. In Section 2I.05, the title is changed from “Traffic Regulation Post Sign” to “Traffic Control Point Sign.” The FHWA believes that this is a more appropriate title since these signs are used at checkpoint locations where traffic is stopped and controlled by designated officials.

The sign number for the TRAFFIC CONTROL POINT sign is EM-3.

120. In Section 2I.07, the title is changed to include both a ROAD USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THRU TRAFFIC (EM-5) sign or an AREA USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THRU TRAFFIC (EM-5a) sign. There may be situations when the area use permit may be the more appropriate signing message. Therefore, the FHWA has included the OPTION to use this message as an alternative.

121. In Section 2I.09, the title is changed to “Shelter Directional Sign” which is a more general heading than “Fallout Shelter Directional Sign.” The Shelter Directional Signs may carry one of the following legends: EMERGENCY SHELTER, HURRICANE SHELTER, FALLOUT SHELTER, or CHEMICAL SHELTER.

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

122. In Section 2A.03, the FHWA has deleted the OPTION sentence which indicated that traffic engineering judgment or studies may show that signs would be unnecessary at certain locations. By definition, the purpose of engineering judgment and studies is to determine whether or not a sign or other traffic control device is needed.

123. In Section 2A.18, paragraph 1, the FHWA has decided not to adopt the proposal to require the minimum mounting height of 2.1 m (7 feet) for all signs. This decision is based on crash-worthiness research results

which did not justify universal application of the increased mounting height. It is also based on docket comments received from 8 county highway agencies which opposed the increased mounting height for all signs. The minimum mounting height will remain at 5 feet for rural areas and 7 feet for urban areas where parking and other obstructions to view may occur. This minimum mounting height does not preclude the installation of signs at higher heights.

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

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

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

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

125. In Section 2F.02, paragraph 4, the FHWA has decided not to limit the use of the ATTRACTION to expressways and freeways since in paragraph 5, the other specific service categories may be used on any class of highway.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 3—Markings

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

electronically with this number). Also, the FHWA received 181 comments from 27 commenters in response to docket number 99-6575. The two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion.

126. Chapter A, General Principles, of the 1988 MUTCD is renamed “General.” Several sections within this chapter are more appropriately relocated to Chapter B as follows: (a) Section 3A.08 is moved to 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges, (b) Section 3A.09 is moved to 3B.15 Transverse Markings, and (c) Section 3A.10 is moved to Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines. Section 3A.07 of the 1988 MUTCD discussed the different types of yellow and white lines. This discussion was reorganized and moved to Section 3B. Each type of line in Section 3A.07 is now discussed in the first six sections of Section 3B, which is organized by color of longitudinal lines.

127. In Section 3A.06 Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Line Markings, the FHWA is adding to the OPTION statement a recommended ratio for line segments and gaps for “dotted lines.” One comment was received from a State highway agency recommending that a definition be provided for the wording “or longer gaps.” Since the proposed text did not contain any guidance on the maximum spacing of the longer gaps, the FHWA is including an OPTION statement recommending a maximum ratio of 1:3 for line segments and gaps, respectively, for dotted lines.

128. The section headings on Chapter B, Pavement and Curb Markings, are renamed and reorganized to read as follows:

3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants

3B.02 No-Passing zone Markings

3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings

3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants

3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings

3B.06 Edge Line Markings

3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines

3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges

3B.09 Lane Reductions Transition Markings

3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions

3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers

3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle Positioning Guides with Other Longitudinal Markings

3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other Markings

3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings

3B.15 Transverse Markings

3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines

3B.17 Crosswalk Markings

3B.18 Parking Space Markings

3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings

3B.20 Speed Measurement Markings

3B.21 Curb Markings

3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings

3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motorized Vehicles

3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts

3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections

3B.26 Speed Hump Markings

3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings

129. Sections 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants, 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Markings, and 3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings (all referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.01); Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.02); and 3B.06 Edge Line Markings, and 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines (both referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.03), are modified to include the provisions of the amendments on standards for center line and edge line markings published as a Final Rule at 65 FR 9 on January 3, 2000. There were 96 commenters on the proposed amendments to include the center line and edge line Final Rule into the proposed Section 3B.01 and 3B.03. Sixty-one commenters opposed the proposed text, and 45 of these commenters suggested two technical corrections. Most of the comments opposed to the proposed text were concerned about the warrants for center line and edge line markings which required edge lines on rural roads before center lines. The FHWA agreed with the comments and changed the text to make the warrants for rural center line and edge line markings consistent. Many commenters suggested a technical correction concerning the ADT values in the proposed warrants. The discussion in the final amendments of January 3, 2000 on center line and edge line markings (65 FR 9, January 3, 2000) stated that “The FHWA believes that jurisdictions should be aware of the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and widths of the major roadways now specified in the standards and that the ADTs are an estimate that can be performed at a jurisdiction's judgment.” The FHWA agrees with the commenters and included a SUPPORT statement “If a traffic count is not available, the ADTs described in this section can be estimates that are based on engineering judgment.” Many comments included suggestions that were addressed in the final rule published on January 3, 2000. Many commenters also suggested revisions lowering the STANDARDS, which cannot be accepted because it would adversely impact safety to the traveling public.

As noted in the final amendments for center line and edge line pavement markings, dated January 3, 2000, the compliance date for these sections is January 3, 2003 or when pavement lane markings are replaced within an established pavement marking program, or when the highway is resurfaced or reconstructed, whichever date is earlier.

130. Section 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants, now contains GUIDANCE on the speed definition in the warrants for no-passing zones at curves which was in the 1988 MUTCD in Section 3B.05. The text in the NPA for these warrants reduced the minimum passing sight distances because it was based on posted or statutory speed limits as shown in Table 3B-1. In the 1988 MUTCD, the minimum passing sight distances were determined based on the greater of the off-peak 85th percentile speed or the posted speed limits. The FHWA received eight comments that opposed deleting the use of the 85th percentile speed because using the 85th percentile improves safety. Accordingly, the FHWA is returning to the use of the 85th percentile speed because it agrees that this improves safety.

131. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Pavement Markings and Warrants, the FHWA is changing the first paragraph of the first OPTION to be consistent with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings, the STANDARD for highway-rail grade crossings. The STANDARD will read: “No-passing zone markings shall be used on approaches to highway-rail grade crossings in conformance with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings.” The second paragraph of the first OPTION will remain an OPTION and will read: “No-passing zone markings may also be used at other locations where the prohibition of passing is appropriate.”

132. In Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal

Pavement Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.02 White Longitudinal Line Markings), 11 commenters had concerns about specific wording in the text or details about the figures as proposed and suggested technical or editorial revisions to make them acceptable. Of these suggested revisions, five concerned lane lines within a crosswalk. The FHWA agrees with these comments and the lines are removed from within the crosswalks.

After the NPA was published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, the FHWA noted that text requiring lane line markings was inadvertently omitted from the proposed amendment and was included in the updated text published 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. One comment, received in response to the second NPA, noted that the standard for lane lines on Interstate highways was omitted from the proposed text and that it should be reinserted. The FHWA agrees and is including this STANDARD in the final text.

133. The FHWA is revising the STANDARD for the extension of dotted lines through intersections in Section 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections (referenced in the NPA as 3B.04 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges). One commenter was opposed to the color being the color of the line extended, rather than the color of the line to which it is extended. One commenter was opposed to the width of the marking being the same as the line it extends. The FHWA believes that the proposed text is appropriate because it will provide the most consistent application of dotted line extensions. The FHWA will retain the proposed text in the final version.

Also in this section, paragraph 2, the FHWA added Figure 3B-11, sheet 2 of 2, Typical Pavement Marking Applications (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-9a, Typical Pavement Marking Applications), to show more examples of the use of dotted line markings in intersections. This figure was in response to older driver research that shows that motorists benefit by having these additional markings. The FHWA received nine, mostly editorial, comments. Two commenters suggested reducing the GUIDANCE to an OPTION which would reduce safety. One commenter suggested adding curvature of the roadway to the list of examples where line extensions should be considered. The FHWA agrees to include “* * * on curved roadways * * *” into the final text.

134. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other Markings, and 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.07 Raised Pavement Markers, Retroreflective and Non-Retroreflective), the FHWA received 21 comments about raised pavement markers. Two comments, from northern States, opposed the minimum height of the raised pavement marker. Since the height definition is SUPPORT and not a STANDARD or GUIDANCE, the proposed text is retained. Seven of the comments proposed technical changes to the spacing of the raised pavement markers. Since the space of raised pavement markers is GUIDANCE, the proposed text will be retained until research indicates that different spacing would provide better information to road users. The FHWA received no comments, however, about the color of raised pavement markers conforming to the color of the pavement marking where they are placed. The FHWA received five comments about the use of raised pavement markers at right edge lines. Two comments addressed the use of raised pavement markers in construction work zones. One comment recommended that raised pavement markers be permitted, and another opposed the use of raised pavement markers on right edge lines. Several commenters agreed that raised pavement markers should not be used on right edge lines. Since there is not a consensus on using raised pavement markers on right edge lines at this time, the FHWA is retaining the proposed GUIDANCE that raised pavement parkers should not supplement right edge line markings.

135. In Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.09), paragraphs 2, 4, and 6, the FHWA is adding an optional “Yield Line” marking for use where it is important to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield. Figure 3-24, Typical Yield Line Layout, provides an illustration of these markings. The FHWA received ten comments. Five of the comments opposed the proposal and indicated that the proposed markings were not needed. The FHWA believes that improved public awareness of yield line markings will lead to consistency in the use of the stop line marking for mandatory stops and the yield line when a yield is the appropriate action. Since these markings would be optional, State and local highway agencies would not be required to use them.

Also in this section, the FHWA received one comment which suggested that the wording of the following phrase be clarified as follows: “Where through lanes

of traffic approaching an intersection

become the mandatory turn lanes.” The FHWA is incorporating the above underlined words into the final text to clarify the sentence. The FHWA received two comments suggesting reductions to the use of blue markings to designate parking spaces for persons with disabilities. The FHWA believes the suggestions would reduce the visibility of the markings and is adopting the text as proposed in the NPA.

136. In Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.12), third OPTION, paragraph 5, the FHWA is adding a “Yield Ahead” triangle symbol marking for optional use in advance of intersections where approaching traffic will encounter a YIELD sign. Figure 3B-24 provides an illustration of these markings. The FHWA received 14 comments, of which only four opposed the proposal. Three comments addressed text and figures that had not changed from the 1988 MUTCD and that will be retained. Only one comment opposed the proposed yield ahead markings. The FHWA is adopting the yield ahead marking as proposed in the NPA.

Also in Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, second SUPPORT, the second paragraph states: “Where crossroad channelization of ramp geometry do not make wrong-way movements physically difficult, guidance to a potential wrong-way road user can be provided by placing a lane-use arrow * * *.” The FHWA is changing this SUPPORT to GUIDANCE to be consistent with the GUIDANCE, paragraph B, in Part 2E.50 Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps which states “Where crossroad channelization or ramp geometrics do not make wrong-way movements difficult, a lane-use arrow should be placed in each lane * * *.”

137. In Section 3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.13), the FHWA is differentiating between types of preferential lanes. The diamond pavement marking symbol is for exclusive HOV lane use. In situations where a preferential lane is not an HOV lane, then the word message (Bus, Taxi, etc.) or symbol (Bike, etc.) for the type of traffic allowed would be used. The FHWA received three comments that suggested editorial changes to this section, and it has made one minor editorial change to the second STANDARD, paragraph 2, to include a reference to Figure 3B-25.

138. In Section 3B.21 Curb Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.15), paragraph 5, the FHWA is adding paved median noses to the locations that

should have retroreflective solid yellow markings. This addition is made in response to recommendations for older drivers

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

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

139. In Section 3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motorized Vehicle (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.16), is added to provide the STANDARDS for longitudinal lane line markings for physically and non-physically separated, reversible and non-reversible, and left and right side concurrent flow preferential lanes for motorized vehicles. Table 3B-2 was added to list the standards in a tabular format. Figure 3B-25 provides an illustration of these markings.

Furthermore, GUIDANCE is added on marking the neutral area between a preferential use lane and a regular traffic lane, when the distance between them is greater than 1.2 m (4 ft). The FHWA received eight comments concerning this section. Several comments were about showing a double yellow centerline on the figures. The FHWA believes that since the figures clearly show that there is a median, the use of a double yellow centerline is not appropriate. One commenter suggested using a double white dashed line for the right lane line on concurrent flow HOV lanes. Another commenter suggested that the double wide white longitudinal lines should be double normal white longitudinal lines. The FHWA believes that the longitudinal lines shown in the proposed figures provide reasonable options which will promote uniformity of markings to the road users. The FHWA is retaining the proposed figures in the final version.

140. Section 3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.17), Figure 3B-26 (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-26), Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and Figure 3B-27, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-27), are added to incorporate standard markings for roundabouts to the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with one commenter opposed to this section which suggested a reduction from GUIDANCE to OPTION. The FHWA did receive 14 editorial comments on the text and figures and they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.

141. Section 3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.18), is added to incorporate optional standard markings for other circular intersections including rotaries, traffic circles, and residential traffic calming designs. Figures 3B-26, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and 3B-27, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, provides illustrations of typical markings for other circular intersections. The FHWA received one comment about the placement of the crosswalk in advance of the yield line in the figures. The FHWA believes that the location of the crosswalk in advance of the yield lines as shown in the figures provides the shortest and safest location for pedestrians to walk. The FHWA will retain the proposed figures in the final version.

142. Section 3B.26 Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.19), is added to provide pavement markings to assist motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figures 3B-28, Pavement Markings for Speed Humps, and 3B-29, Pavement Markings for Speed Humps, provide illustrations of typical speed hump markings. The FHWA received 11 comments, none of which opposed having speed hump markings. Most, however, were concerned that the markings were excessive and would be difficult to maintain. The FHWA is retaining the text and figures because these markings are optional and the FHWA is not convinced that the alternate markings are better.

143. Section 3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.20), is added to provide pavement markings to assist motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figure 3B-30, Advance Warning Markings for Speed Humps, provides an illustration of typical advance warning markings for speed humps. The FHWA received four comments. One commenter stated that the advance warning for speed hump markings should not be used because they are similar in appearance to stop lines. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter, because the advance warning markings are a series of transverse bars located in advance of a speed hump, which would not be found at an intersection where a stop bar is located.

144. In Section 3F.02 Channelizing Devices, the FHWA received seven comments on a new STANDARD that states that the color of cones and tube markers used outside construction and maintenance areas shall be the same as the pavement markings. Three comments had concerns about allowing orange as the color of a tubular marker on a white or yellow lane line. One commenter wanted the STANDARD to be more restrictive by excluding orange as a substitute color. Another commenter called the STANDARD difficult to achieve and enforce in practice. The third commenter suggested orange as the predominant color, with permanently mounted tubular markers to be only white. The FHWA will adopt the proposed wording because orange is a universal color for cones and tubular markers. While it is preferable that the color of cones in non-work zones match the color of line that they supplement or are substituted for, the FHWA believes motorists will understand if orange cones or tubular markers are used.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals

The FHWA received 842 comments from 135 commenters concerning Part 4. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, and 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999.

145. For Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic Signals, the FHWA reviewed the text of Part 4 to ensure all terms that need to be explained are defined in this section and that all terms in the definitions are used in the text. Based on this review, the FHWA is adding new definitions for the terms “signal housing” and “walk interval” because these terms are used in the text of Part 4, but were never defined. The definition for “signal installation” is removed because it is no longer used in the text. This section is significantly expanded from four definitions to seventy-one definitions that are being used throughout Part 4.

146. In Section 4C.01 through 4C.09 concerning warrants, the number of warrants are increased from seven, as noted in the 1997 NPA, to eight (The School Crossing Warrant, which was moved to Section 7D.04 in the 1997 NPA, is being moved back to Chapter 4C to keep all the signal warrants together, eliminating the need for the reader to

use two parts of the MUTCD. See 62 FR 693). The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to moving the school crossing warrant from Part 7 back to Part 4.

147. The FHWA inadvertently omitted Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, from the previous NPAs. Section 4C.06 is essentially the same as the 1988 version, with some minor exceptions. The exceptions are:

(1) A new SUPPORT paragraph explaining that the School Crossing Warrant is to be applied in instances where school children crossing the street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic signal. The FHWA is deleting this paragraph from Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, and moving it to Section 4C.06.

(2) To be more consistent with the other STANDARD wording used in the MUTCD, the statement concerning the need for a traffic control signal is changed from “may be warranted when * * *” to “shall be considered when * * *.”

(3) To match the other chapters in Part 4, the FHWA is adding a new STANDARD paragraph which will indicate that, before deciding to install a traffic control signal, “consideration shall be given to implementation of other remedial measures.”

(4) To match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, a new STANDARD paragraph is added to Warrant 5 which will state that the School Crossing warrant shall not be applied within 300 feet of another traffic signal, unless the proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

(5) Due to a desire to assist in the reduction of traffic congestion, a new GUIDANCE paragraph is added that states, “If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.”

(6) The use of pedestrian detectors is changed from an OPTION to a GUIDANCE to match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. The GUIDANCE now reads, “At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian detectors.”

(7) The FHWA is deleting the sentence from the 1988 MUTCD which reads, “Special police supervision and/or enforcement should be provided for a new non-intersection installation” because the effectiveness of this depends on the local traffic characteristics and should be determined by local engineering judgment.

148. In Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA is retaining the phrase “Unless otherwise determined by law” in the first paragraph under STANDARD. Two comments were received, both in opposition to the proposal to delete this phrase in the January 1997 NPA on the basis that the proposed deletion would infringe on the States' rights to have additional or different meaning of signal indications. The FHWA withdrew this proposal in the December 1999 NPA and put the phrase back in this section. The FHWA encourages States and local entities to achieve uniform rules of the road that are in accord with chapter 11, Rules of the Road, in the “Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) and Model Traffic Ordinance,” 1992, published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Alexandria, Virginia.

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

149. In Sections 4D.04, 4D.05, 4D.06, 4D.07, 4D.08, 4D.11, and 4D.16, the text concerned with the use of red arrows is being retained in the MUTCD. In the 1999 NPA, it was suggested that this text be removed for reasons of motorist confusion as to the meaning of the red arrow indication. Comments were received from 8 States, 21 cities, 6 counties, 8 consultants, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), and 9 others that objected to the removal of the red arrow from the MUTCD. Most of the comments pointed out that the red arrow has now been in widespread use for many years, and drivers, including older drivers, understand its meaning and are using it safely. It was pointed out that the research summarized in the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook”

was conducted shortly after the red arrow was introduced; therefore, the education of the motoring public, especially older drivers, was still underway. Most of the comments also pointed out that significant funds would need to be spent to convert to circular red displays for protected only mode left-turn phases, including adding LEFT TURN SIGNAL signs on span wires and mast arms, some of which might not be able to handle the additional load. No comments supporting the removal of red arrows were received. The FHWA agrees with these comments and has decided to retain the text concerned with the use of red arrows in the MUTCD.

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

150. In Section 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications, three commenters questioned the accuracy of item d(3) of the NPA that states a YELLOW ARROW can be terminated by a CIRCULAR YELLOW. The FHWA agrees that this statement is inaccurate and is removing the phrase, “a CIRCULAR YELLOW indication or” from this section. Also, the revised text is now part of item E4 of this section.

151. In Section 4D.06 Application of Steady Signal Indications For Left Turns, the 1999 NPA proposed to add a new STANDARD statement and a new OPTION statement in an attempt to favor the leading protected only mode left-turn phases over the other types of left-turn phasing based on the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.” Comments were received from ten cities, one county, the NCUTCD, and three others that objected to the inclusion of these paragraphs in the MUTCD. Most of the comments mentioned that the decision as to the type of left-turn phasing to use should be made on a case-by-case basis and that a proliferation of leading protected only mode left-turn phases would not be in the interest of anyone, including older drivers. Because there are many legitimate uses for both protected/permissive and lagging left-turn phases, the FHWA is replacing these two paragraphs with an OPTION paragraph regarding special consideration for older drivers in the design of left-turn phasing.

Also in this section, four cities asked that clarifying text allowing the use of “Dallas phasing” be added in compliance with the1993 interpretation request by the Texas Department of Transportation. “Dallas phasing” provides for a protected/permissive (five section) signal to display a circular green for the left turn approach while the through movement approach signal displays a circular red. The FHWA interpreted the MUTCD “to permit “Dallas phasing” if the five section display for the left turn is shielded, hooded, louvered, positioned or designed so that the left turn signal displays are not seen by the through movement driver.” Based on these requests, the FHWA is adding a second means of providing protected/permissive mode left-turn phasing. This second means involves an exclusive left-turn signal face instead of a shared left-turn signal face. Therefore, “Dallas phasing” is allowed in both of the above described situations.

152. In Section 4D.12 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA received one comment that additional information needs to be added to clarify the procedures for changing from flashing to steady mode. The FHWA is adding language to this

section describing the process of changing from either a yellow-red or a red-red flashing mode to a steady mode. This additional language is needed to ensure a safe transition from a flashing to a steady (stop-and-go) operation.

Another commenter stated that a new GUIDANCE paragraph needs to be added to Section 4D.12 to recommend that, for any steady red clearance interval provided during the change from red-red flashing mode to steady (stop-and-go) mode, the minimum duration should be 6 seconds. The FHWA agrees and is adding a new GUIDANCE paragraph to this section.

153. In Section 4D.13 Preemption and Priority Control of Traffic Control Signals, one comment was received that revisions need to be made regarding the shortening or omission of pedestrian intervals in priority control sequences. The FHWA is adding text to this section's STANDARD paragraph to clarify that pedestrian intervals may be omitted if the entire vehicular phase is also omitted.

154. In Section 4D.15, the FHWA is changing the title from “Number and Location of Signal Faces by Approach” to “Size, Number, and Location of Signal Faces by Approach.” This was done based one comment suggesting the information on the size of signal faces is more appropriately contained in this section than as shown in Section 4D.16 Number and Arrangement of Sections in Signal Faces, in the 1999 NPA.

Also in Section 4D.15, a new paragraph D is added to the first GUIDANCE statement listing a fourth recommended reason to use 12 inch signals. This new GUIDANCE is to use 12 inch signals at locations where there is a significant percentage of elderly drivers. Comments received from two States, two cities, the NCUTCD, and one consultant objected to the inclusion of this paragraph in the SUPPORT statement of Section 4D.16 as proposed in the 1999 NPA. Most of the commenters stated that the STANDARDS and GUIDANCE found elsewhere in Chapter 4D adequately address the decision as to which size lenses to use. The FHWA decided the new paragraph D was a more appropriate location for this information.

155. In Section 4D.16, the FHWA is changing the title from “Number and Arrangement of Sections in Signal Faces” to “Number and Arrangement of Signal Sections in Vehicular Traffic Control Signal Faces.” This was done based on a comment suggesting the need to clarify that this section deals only with vehicular traffic control signals. This allows items a, c, and d to be deleted from the proposed STANDARD paragraph since they are not vehicular traffic control signals.

156. In Section 4D.17 Visibility, Shielding, and Positioning of Signal Faces, the FHWA has removed the first sentence of the last SUPPORT paragraph listed in the 1999 NPA. Comments received from three States, three cities, the NCUTCD, and two consultants objected to the inclusion of this sentence describing the size of the backplates in the MUTCD. Most of the comments noted that the use of backplates three times the diameter of the signal would cause infrastructure problems because of inordinate size; a backplate of that size is not needed.

Also in this section and in response to a comment, proposed paragraph 3 in the 1999 NPA under the STANDARD statement, and proposed paragraph 5 in the 1999 NPA under the GUIDANCE statement, are removed because it is not appropriate to aim signal heads in a direction that does not serve drivers at the stop line. Most agencies provide an additional signal face if one is needed to attract the attention of drivers approaching a signal on a curved approach. The FHWA is also adding an OPTION to address the possibility of providing an additional head on the approach.

In response to another comment, the FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE paragraph to Section 4D.17 about the preferability of using visors instead of louvers. The FHWA is adding this paragraph since visors are preferred because they do not diminish light output.

157. In Section 4D.20 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (referenced in the NPA as Section 4D.19), the FHWA is revising the text to remove references to portable traffic control signals (except for the definition of a portable traffic control signal) because a portable traffic control signal is a temporary traffic control signal that is easily moved. Also, the STANDARDS, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT in this section deal with both portable and temporary. The FHWA is changing the definition of a portable traffic control signal to, “A portable traffic control signal shall be defined as a temporary traffic control signal that is designed so that is can be easily transported and reused at different locations.”

158. The FHWA is adding two new sections, 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and 4E.08 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, to provide GUIDANCE and STANDARDS for accessible pedestrian signals and accessible pedestrian signal detectors. Text related to accessible pedestrian signals has also been added in various other sections, such as Sections 4C.01 and 4D.03. This was done in response to numerous comments that were received, including 65 comments from the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board and 16 comments from The Environmental Access Committee of Division Nine of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 4 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations of accessible pedestrian signals and accessible pedestrian signal detectors to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new installations.

159. In Section 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, based on a comment received, the FHWA is adding a phrase to the third STANDARD statement that requires the walk tone to have a faster repetition rate only if the walk tone is similar to the tone for the pushbutton locator tone.

160. In Section 4E.07 Pedestrian Detectors, the FHWA is changing the title proposed in the 1999 NPA as “Pedestrian Signal Timing” to “Pedestrian Detectors,” because the new title accurately reflects information contained in this section. The FHWA is also including a paragraph 8, GUIDANCE, and a paragraph 10, STANDARD, that are part of the 1988 MUTCD, but were inadvertently left out of the NPAs. The GUIDANCE paragraph reads, “If used, special purpose pushbuttons (to be operated only by authorized persons) should include a housing capable of being locked to prevent access by the general public.” The STANDARD paragraph reads, “If used, a pilot light or other means of indication installed with a pedestrian pushbutton shall not be illuminated until actuation. Once it is actuated, it shall remain illuminated until the pedestrian's green or WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication is displayed.”

161. In Section 4E.08 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, a new OPTION paragraph is added that allows the use of pushbutton locator tones with accessible pedestrian signals. This is being added to clarify the rest of the text in Section 4E.08.

Also, based on a comment, the FHWA is adding a new phrase to the second STANDARD statement to read, “When used, pushbutton locator tones shall be easily locatable, shall have a duration of 0.15 seconds or less, and shall repeat at one-second intervals.”

162. In Section 4E.09 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, two commenters objected to the change in the duration of the pedestrian clearance time being calculated to the far side of the traveled way. The 1988 MUTCD text states the duration of the pedestrian clearance time should be calculated to the center of the farthest traveled lane. The proposed change would have added time to flashing DON'T WALK intervals and would have forced many agencies to retime their traffic signal systems. This would place an undue burden on many local and State jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with the two commenters and is reverting to the 1988 MUTCD text that refers to the center of the farthest traveled lane.

Also in this section another commenter stated that a change to the second paragraph in the STANDARD statement is needed to make the sentence accurate. It is only the first portion of the pedestrian clearance time that is comprised of the flashing DON'T WALK interval. The FHWA is revising the text to make it clear that the yellow and red intervals can also be included in the pedestrian clearance time.

163. In Section 4F.02 Design of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA has changed paragraph 5 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD to be consistent with the STANDARD statement in Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs. The STANDARD in Section 2B.40 states that the R10-13 sign, bearing the legend EMERGENCY SIGNAL, shall be used with the emergency-vehicle traffic control signal on each major street approach. In addition, a sentence will be added to Section 4F.02, paragraph 5, to be consistent with the GUIDANCE in Section 2B.40 that the EMERGENCY SIGNAL sign be mounted adjacent to an overhead emergency-vehicle traffic control signal.

164. In Section 4K.03 Warning Beacon, the FHWA is adding the phrase “except for SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign beacons” to the second paragraph in the STANDARD statement to clarify that SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign beacons are allowed to be included within the border of the sign to be consistent with Section 7B.10.

165. In Section 4L.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks, a commenter suggested that the third paragraph in the OPTION statement proposed in the 1999 NPA, concerned with the placement of the lights in the center of lanes and on lane lines be relocated to the GUIDANCE statement. In order to provide clear recommendations to agencies regarding the proper installation of these new optional devices, the FHWA is making this change and also adding the phrase “away from the normal tire track paths” at the end of the paragraph. The paragraph now reads as follows: “If used, In-Roadway Warning Lights should be installed in the center of each travel lane, at the centerline of the roadway, at each edge of the roadway or parking lanes, or at suitable locations away from the normal tire track paths.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 5—Low Volume Roads

The FHWA received 231 comments from 23 commenters concerning Part 5. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.

166. A new Part 5 is added to the MUTCD entitled, “Traffic Control Devices for Low Volume Roads.” After consideration, the NPA's proposed title, “Low Volume Rural Roads” was revised because these roads are not exclusive to rural areas.

167. In Section 5A.01 Function, 16 commenters requested that the maximum volume on low volume roads be raised from the proposed 200 AADT (average annual daily traffic) to 400 AADT. The FHWA agrees and is adopting a maximum volume of 400 AADT because AASHTO uses 400 vehicles per day as the breakpoint for low-volume roads in its current version of “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets.”

Also, recent on-going research conducted by Midwest Research Institute as part of NCHRP 20-7(108) indicates that those geometric design guidelines applicable to roads with AADTs of 400 vehicles per day or less differ from geometric design guidelines normally applied to higher volume. This change provides State and local jurisdictions with more flexibility when installing and maintaining traffic control devices to provide for efficient and safe traffic flow within their fiscal restraints.

“A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets” 1994 Edition (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials-AASHTO).

Also in this section, several commenters requested a change in the proposed definition of low volume roads which restricted these roads to those facilities outside the corporate limits of communities. The FHWA is changing the language to describe low volume roads as facilities lying outside built-up areas of cities, towns and communities. The FHWA is adopting this definition to avoid confusion caused by varying corporate limit treatments practiced by State and local agencies.

Additionally in Section 5A.01, in the STANDARD statement, the classification scheme for low volume roads is being changed to paved and unpaved. This modification replaces the proposed Categories 1 through 3 in this section and throughout Part 5. Several commenters expressed problems with applications of the proposed categories, and the FHWA agrees that the classification change will eliminate most of the confusion.

168. In Section 5A.03 Design, in the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement, proposed Table 5A-1 is mentioned. The heading for this table is changed to “Minimum Sign Sizes for Low Volume Roads,” and a number of signs are eliminated that typically would not be used on low volume roads. The following signs have been removed from Part 5:

R2-3 Night Speed Limit

R3-1 Turn Prohibition

R9-1 WALK ON LEFT FACING TRAFFIC

R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION

R13-1 Weigh Station

R14-1 TRUCK ROUTE

R14-3 Hazardous Cargo Prohibition

The above changes to Table 5A-1 do not prevent a jurisdiction from using the above signs or any other sign in the MUTCD that is appropriate for its roadways.

Also in Table 5A-1, the FHWA has changed minimum sizes for several signs so that all signs in the table are consistent with dimensions published in other parts of the MUTCD. This will not impose any additional requirement to State and local highway agencies. Minimums for the following signs have been modified:

R1-1 STOP

W5-2 NARROW BRIDGE

W8-3 PAVEMENT ENDS

W11-(XX) Entering/Crossing

W10-2, 3, 4 Railroad Crossing Warning

W14-3 NO PASSING ZONE

W20-1 ROAD WORK XX M (FT)

W20-7a Flagger

W20-7b BE PREPARED TO STOP

W21-1a Workers

W21-6 Survey Crews

The above changes to Table 5A-1 will have no impact on State or local jurisdictions.

169. In Section 5C.09 Motorized Traffic and Crossing Signs (W-11 Series and W8-6), the proposed section on seasonal or temporary signing is changed from a STANDARD statement to GUIDANCE statement in the final

MUTCD amendment. Although it is good practice to remove or cover such signs when the activities described will not be occurring for an extended period of time, it is not imperative for low volume roads.

170. In Section 5E.02 Center Line Markings, the FHWA has eliminated the proposed OPTION stating a minimum width for roadways with center line markings. There are no definitive guidelines, supported by research, for such minimums on low volume roads.

171. In Section 5E.05 Object Markers, the FHWA has changed the proposed first phrase of the GUIDANCE statement to an OPTION statement for when to consider to use TYPE III barricades to mark the end of a low volume road. Commenters pointed out that such barriers are typically not warranted for low volume roads and should not be recommended as a general treatment for such facilities.The FHWA agrees because no supporting data has been presented showing that the barricades are needed on all low volume roads.

172. In Section 5F.05 Pavement Markings, the proposed STANDARD statement is removed as it only directed readers to Sections 8B.9 and 8B.10. The proposed SUPPORT statement is changed to GUIDANCE on when to install pavement markings in advance of highway-rail grade crossings on low-volume roads. The FHWA agrees with the commenters who suggested that on a paved road with center line markings, the unfamiliar motorist would have no knowledge of the low AADT and, therefore, would expect highway-rail grade crossing markings. These markings should increase safety at these highway-rail grade crossings. This should have no impact on State or local jurisdictions because this is not a change from the current MUTCD requirements.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 6—Temporary Traffic Control

The FHWA received 2875 comments from 56 commenters concerning Part 6. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 73606 on December 30, 1999.

173. The title of Part 6 is changed from “Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility, and Incident Management Operations” to “Temporary Traffic Control” as indicated in the NPA.

174. In Chapter 6A General, the FHWA has moved a portion of the STANDARD from the end of Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles because it applies to all Chapters of Part 6. The moved portion reads, “There shall be adequate statutory authority for the implementation and enforcement of needed traffic regulations, parking controls, speed zoning, and incident management. Such statutes shall provide sufficient flexibility in the application of traffic control to meet the needs of changing conditions in the temporary traffic control zone.”

175. In Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic Control, paragraph 3b of the GUIDANCE statement, a number of commenters suggested the need to indicate conditions under which permanent traffic control devices do not have to be removed in a temporary traffic control zone. The FHWA is retaining language similar to that used in the 1988 MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993, which clearly indicated which traffic control devices to be used. The last sentence reads, “However, in intermediate-term stationary, short term and mobile operations where visible permanent devices are inconsistent with intended travel paths, devices that highlight or emphasize the appropriate path should be used.”

In Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic Control, paragraph 4c of the GUIDANCE statement, a commenter suggested the need to describe ambient conditions factors. The FHWA is retaining the modifiers “road user volumes, light, and weather” from the 1988 Edition of MUTCD, Revision 3 to describe ambient conditions. This change should have no impact on State or local highway agencies since the FHWA is retaining the current MUTCD requirements.

176. In Section 6C.01 Temporary Traffic Control Plans, the FHWA is adding a fourth GUIDANCE statement to provide additional information on minimizing the need to reduce speed limits in temporary traffic control zones. It reads, “Reduced speed limits should be used only in the specific portion of the temporary traffic control zone where the above conditions or restrictive features are present; however, frequent changes in speed limit should be avoided. A traffic control plan should be designed so that vehicles can safely travel through the temporary traffic control zone with a speed limit reduction of no more than 10 mph. A reduction of more than 10 mph in the speed limit should be used only when required by restrictive features in the temporary traffic control zone. Where restrictive features justify a speed reduction of more than 10 mph, additional driver notification should be provided. The speed limit should be stepped down in advance of the location requiring the lowest speed, and additional warning should be used.” This change will have no economic impact on State and local highway agencies. However, roadway safety and efficiency should increase because research has shown that speed reductions should be no more than a 10 mph increment.

177. A new Section 6C.02 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, is added to the MUTCD to better define temporary traffic control zones. It contains only general information concerned with temporary traffic control zones. A new definition for “temporary traffic control zones” includes a work area or an incident area. In the NPA this text was included as part of the Section 6C-2 Components of Temporary Traffic Control Zones. This change is not adding any new requirements for State or local jurisdictions.

178. Section 6C.03 Components of Temporary Traffic Control Zones (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.2) includes information concerned exclusively with the four components of a temporary traffic control zone,

i.e.,

the advance warning area, the transition area, the activity area, and the termination area. The examples of a work zone area and an incident area are removed from this Section 6C.2 and relocated to Chapter 6G which is concerned with types of temporary traffic control zone activities. In the NPA, the text of Sections 6C.02 and 6C.03 was combined into just one section and four commenters suggested that the NPA language was too cumbersome and recommended that the text be split. The FHWA agrees and has made the change to clarify the text.

179. In Section 6C.06 Activity Area (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.5), Table 6-1, “Guidelines for Length of Minimum Advance Working Area,” was incorrectly titled and located in the NPA. The FHWA is renumbering the table as Table 6E-1, is moving the table to Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations, and re-titling it “Distance of Flagger Station in Advance of Work Space.” This table provides information on the distance a flagger should be in advance of the work area based on the speed of approaching traffic. The information in the table has nothing to do with Activity Areas and lengths of minimum advance working areas.

180. In Section 6C.07 Termination Area (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.6), the FHWA has changed the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition, and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

The GUIDANCE statement dealing with END ROAD WORK signs has been moved to Section 6F.49 END ROAD WORK Sign (G20-2) as it most appropriately goes in the section that describes the sign and not in this section discussing a termination area.

In place of the GUIDANCE statement, an OPTION statement has been added to this section indicating the need for an END ROAD WORK, speed limit, or other sign to indicate to road users that they may resume normal operations. The above changes were made to be consistent throughout the MUTCD and to add guidance to optimize road user performance in temporary traffic control zones.

181. In Section 6C.08 Tapers (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.7), in the sixth proposed SUPPORT statement regarding a One-Lane, Two-Way Taper, the last sentence, “Typically, traffic is controlled by a flagger or temporary traffic control signal.” Seven commenters suggested the need that this and other sections be more specific on providing temporary traffic control for two-way traffic using a one-lane roadway. The FHWA agrees and has changed the text accordingly. The text is being revised and relocated to the sixth GUIDANCE statement in the MUTCD because anywhere two-way traffic is moved in a one-lane of a road, there needs to be some type of temporary traffic control to maintain traffic flow and safety. The GUIDANCE statement reads, “Traffic should be controlled by a flagger or temporary traffic signal (if sight distance is limited), or a STOP or a YIELD sign.” This change should have no impact on State and local jurisdictions while improving road user safety by providing positive direction to road users during temporary traffic control operations.

182. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.9), the FHWA is changing the first proposed GUIDANCE statement indicating the need for some type of temporary traffic control for one-lane, two-way traffic flow operations to a STANDARD. Anywhere two-way traffic is moved in a one-lane of a road, there needs to be some type of temporary traffic control to maintain traffic flow and safety. This change should have no impact on State and local jurisdictions while improving road user safety by providing positive direction to road users during temporary traffic control operations.

183. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the proposed third STANDARD statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement because there are no acceptable measures to judge “when pedestrians are especially vulnerable to impact by errant vehicles, all pedestrians shall be separated and protected by a temporary barrier.” Three commenters recommended this change and the FHWA agrees. The fifth GUIDANCE statement now reads, “When pedestrian and motor vehicle paths are rerouted to a closer proximity to each other, consideration should be given to separating them with a temporary barrier.” This will provide more flexibility to State and local highway agencies and, thereby, reducing the impacts on them.

Also in this section, the first STANDARD statement is relocated from the end of proposed Section 6D.2 Worker Considerations, because it is applicable to both pedestrian and worker safety. These changes were based on comments from the NCUTCD as well as other commenters. The FHWA agrees and it now reads, “the various traffic control provisions for pedestrian and worker safety set forth in this Part shall be applied by qualified persons after appropriate evaluation and engineering judgment.”

184. In Section 6E.01 Qualifications for Flaggers, the FHWA is changing the first proposed SUPPORT sentence to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

185. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the proposed statement “When flashing lights are used at night, the illumination shall not blind drivers.” was questioned by three commenters because there no acceptable measures to determine this. The FHWA agrees and has removed the statement from the second GUIDANCE of this section.

In the second STANDARD the word “red” was inadvertently left out of the NPA. The STANDARD now reads, “When used at nighttime, flags shall be retroreflectorized red.” This is identical wording to that in the 1988 Edition of MUTCD, Revision 3. This should have no impact on State or local governments since the FHWA is retaining the current requirements.

186. In Section 6F.01 Types of Devices, the proposed first SUPPORT statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement and revised to read, “The design and application of temporary traffic control devices used in temporary traffic control zones should consider the needs of all road users.” This change is made to emphasize the need to consider all road users, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and railroads as well as motor vehicle traffic, when designing and applying traffic control devices.

187. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA has added an OPTION statement which retains language from the 1988 MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993, that allows the use of non-black on orange pedestrian warning signs in work zones. The new OPTION statement reads, “In order to maintain the systematic use of yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background for pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs in a jurisdiction, the yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background for pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs may be used in temporary traffic control zones.” This OPTION is modified to include the fluorescent yellow-green color because many jurisdictions have adopted this optional warning sign color for pedestrian, bicyclist and school facilities and locations. In addition, this provides more flexibility to State and local highway agencies to increase awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists in temporary traffic control zones.

188. In Section 6F.03 Sign Placement, the FHWA is adding the GUIDANCE statement, “Neither portable nor permanent sign supports should be located on sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or areas designated for pedestrian or bicycle traffic.” The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety commented on this omission that would allow the placement of temporary traffic control signs to hinder the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. The FHWA agrees and this should not have an impact on State or local governments.

189. In Section 6F.09 LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY Signs (R-11-3, R11-4), the FHWA is changing the first STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE statement to provide more flexibility in signing in rural communities where the temporary traffic control zone may be within a residential block and not kilometers (miles) down a road without intersections.

190. Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function (as referenced in the NPA) has been combined with Section 6F.16 Warning Sign Design and Application (as referenced in the NPA), and renamed, “Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application.” These changes were made because the FHWA agrees with the comments from six commenters that the material in the two sections really belongs together.

Also in Section 6F.15, the STANDARD statement and GUIDANCE statement proposed in the NPA concerning flexible signs are removed as these items are adequately addressed in Section 6F.02 Signs, and in Section 6F.03 Sign Placement. Five commenters indicated this overlap.

191. Section 6F.16 Position of Advance Warning Sign (referenced as

Section 6F.17 in the NPA) has been combined with Section 6F.18 Other Advance Warning Signs (as referenced in the NPA) and Section 6F.19 Application of Warning Signs for Maintenance, Minor Road Work, and Utility Sites (as referenced in the NPA) and has been moved and named, “Section 6F.16 Position of Advance Warning Signs.” These changes were made because the FHWA agrees with the five commenters that indicated the overlap in technical issues in these three sections.

192. In Section 6F.20 ONE LANE ROAD Sign (W20-4) (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.23), the FHWA has moved to Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control, the proposed GUIDANCE statement concerning how to temporarily control two-way traffic on a one-lane roadway. This GUIDANCE statement has been reworded to read, “If traffic on the affected one-lane roadway is not visible from one end to the other, then flagging procedures or traffic signal control should be used to control alternate traffic flows.” This GUIDANCE has been clarified and is more appropriately placed in Section 6C.10.

193. In Section 6F.28 EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED signs (E5-2) (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.31), one commenter suggested that a complementary sign, EXIT CLOSED (E5-2a), was inadvertently left out of the NPA. The FHWA agrees and has included this sign in this section as an OPTION. In temporary traffic control work zones in and around interchanges it is important to provide current traveler information such as notifying motorists that an exit is, in fact, closed. This change provides for uniformity for signs used at exit locations and will have no impact on State or local highway agencies.

194. In Section 6F.52 Portable Changeable Message Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.55), the FHWA is changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement as the statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS. The statement is revised to read, “Portable Changeable Message Signs are traffic control devices with the flexibility to display a variety of messages. Each message consists of either one or two phases, only. Typically, a phase consists of up to three lines of eight characters per line.”

195. In Section 6F.53 ARROW PANELS (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.56), the FHWA is changing the first proposed SUPPORT statement in the NPA to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

Additionally, since arrow panels are similar to portable changeable message signs, the FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE statement to Section 6F.53 identical to the GUIDANCE statement for locating and providing protection for portable changeable message signs. The GUIDANCE statement reads, “An arrow panel should be placed on the shoulder of the roadway or, if practical, further from the traveled lane. It should be delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic control devices or when within the clear zone, shielded with a barrier or crash cushion. When an arrow panel is not being used, it should be removed; if not removed, shielded; or if the previously two options are not feasible, delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic control devices.” This GUIDANCE will maintain traffic flow efficiency and improve safety.

196. In Section 6F.55 Channelizing Devices, Subsection A General (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.58), the FHWA changed the second paragraph of the second SUPPORT paragraph in the NPA “Standard designs of channelizing devices are shown in Figure 6F-06,” to a STANDARD at the beginning of the section. The design dimensions in Figure 6F-06 have always been STANDARDS. One commenter pointed out this discrepancy.

Also in this section, in Subsection D Vertical Panels, the requirement that vertical “panel strip widths shall be 150 mm (6 in), except where panel heights are less than 900 mm (36 in), then 100 mm (4 in) stripes may be used” was inadvertentl

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.