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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A03-28673

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** November 20, 2003
- **Citation:** 68 FR 65496

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-11159]
RIN 2125-AE93
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision

AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads. The purpose of this final rule is to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD, to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control device application. The MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, is being designated as the 2003 edition of the MUTCD.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This final rule is effective December 22, 2003. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of December 22, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ernest Huckaby, Office of Transportation Operations, Room 3408, (202) 366-9064, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 4230, (202) 366-0791, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

This document, the notice of proposed amendments (NPA), and all comments received may be viewed online through the Document Management System (DMS) at
http://dms.dot.gov.
The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site.

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
http://www.archives.gov
and the Government Printing Office's Web page at:
http://www.gpo.gov.

Background

On May 21, 2002, at 67 FR 35850, the FHWA published a notice of proposed amendments (NPA) proposing revisions to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Those changes were proposed to be designated as Revision No. 2 of the Millennium (2000) edition of the MUTCD. Interested persons were invited to submit comments to FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-11159. Based on the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA is issuing a final rule and is designating the MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, as the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD. The FHWA believes that the title “2003 Edition” would be easier for readers to follow rather than the title “Revision No. 2 of the Millennium (2000) edition.”

A list of all of the items in this final rule and the text of the 2003 edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule changes incorporated, are available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, Room 3408, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the list of all items in this final rule and the text of the 2003 edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule changes incorporated, are available on the FHWA's MUTCD Internet site
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
The previous version of the MUTCD, the 2000 MUTCD with Revision 1 text incorporated is also available on this Internet site. The 2003 edition supersedes all previous editions and revisions of the MUTCD.

Summary of Comments

The FHWA received 293 letters submitted to the docket, containing over 5,000 individual comments on the MUTCD in general or on one or more parts, chapters, sections, or paragraphs contained in the MUTCD. Comments were received from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), city and county government agencies, Federal government agencies, consulting firms, private industry, associations, other organizations, and individual private citizens. The FHWA has reviewed and analyzed all the comments received. The significant comments and summaries of the FHWA's analyses and determinations are discussed below. General comments and significant global changes throughout the MUTCD are discussed first, followed by discussion of significant comments and adopted changes in each of the individual Parts of the MUTCD.

Discussion of Adopted General and Global Changes Throughout the MUTCD

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed designating the changes to the MUTCD as Revision No. 2 of the Millennium (2000) edition of the MUTCD. Comments were received from the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (the three associations who publish the MUTCD in hard-copy book format) and from other individuals opposing this proposed designation as Revision No. 2. The commenters expressed the opinion that the number and extent of changes are too great in scope to be considered a mere revision of the 2000 edition and that the MUTCD, with the changes incorporated, should be designated as a complete new edition of the MUTCD, to minimize user confusion. The commenters also stated that a new graphical design for the cover and title pages of each part of the MUTCD are needed to make the new edition clearly distinguishable by users from earlier editions. The FHWA agrees with these comments and designates the MUTCD, with the adopted final rule changes incorporated, as the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD and also adopts new graphical designs for the cover and title pages of each part of the 2003 MUTCD. The FHWA revises Table I-1 and all page headers to reflect this designation.

Additionally, the FHWA received comments from ITE, ATSSA, traffic engineering consultants and private citizens that the proposed continuation of the 2000 MUTCD's page layout format and graphics formats is inappropriate and that these elements need improvement to adequately serve users. Suggestions included reducing the amount of “white space” on text pages to reduce the total number of pages in the MUTCD, using accurate fonts and letter spacing on illustrations of signs, using more accurate proportioning of lanes and pavement markings on figures, and various other adjustments to graphics to aid in user understanding and to make the figures more accurately reflect the standards,

guidance, and options contained in the text of the MUTCD. The FHWA agrees that the page layout and graphics formatting of the 2000 MUTCD needs to be improved in the 2003 edition to make the document more usable by the public. Accordingly, in this final rule the FHWA revises the text page layouts to reduce white space and thereby reduce the number of text pages by about one-third, while still maintaining good layout for readability both online and in printed book format. The FHWA also revises many of the figures in the MUTCD to make sign illustrations pattern-accurate and illustrations of pavement markings and other devices more understandable and to accurately reflect provisions in the MUTCD text.

The FHWA also received many comments about the lack of consistency between some of the signs and pavement markings illustrated in various figures in the MUTCD and the illustrations in the “Standard Highway Signs” (SHS) book.
1

The FHWA agrees that these inconsistencies cause inordinate confusion to users, and in this final rule the FHWA revises many of the MUTCD figures to illustrate or refer to all SHS signs that are consistent with this 2003 MUTCD. This will better serve users by greatly improving the consistency of the MUTCD with the SHS.

1
“Standard Highway Signs,” FHWA, 2002 Edition is available for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office Bookstore, Superintendent of Documents, Room 118, Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Internet Web site at
http://bookstore.gpo.gov.
It is also available on the FHWA's Web site at
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov
and is available for inspection and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA Division Offices prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.

Additionally, in the NPA, the FHWA proposed minor grammatical or style changes to the MUTCD text to improve consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to correct minor errors. Where the FHWA proposed to add new sections within a chapter of the MUTCD, the FHWA proposed to renumber the sections that followed accordingly. The FHWA proposed to revise all Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists of Tables, and page headers and footers as appropriate to reflect the proposed changes. The FHWA received many comments, both in general and on many specific sections throughout the MUTCD, agreeing with these minor editorial changes. Some commenters opposed the proposed use of some specific words or phrases and recommended substitute words or phrases and/or additional minor editorial revisions to correct errors, improve grammar, clarity, consistency, and accuracy. Where appropriate, the FHWA incorporates minor editorial revisions and corrections in this final rule.

The FHWA also received comments on the fact that many of the new sections proposed in the NPA were to be added at the end of the chapter in various parts of the MUTCD. Several commenters, particularly State DOTs, suggested that the new material would be more logically located near other similar subjects within the chapter rather than at the end. The FHWA agrees with many of the comments of this nature and makes editorial changes in the text and figures as appropriate in this final rule. The FHWA also relocates and renumbers some of the new sections to appropriate locations within the chapters to enhance user understanding, and renumbers subsequent sections accordingly.

In the discussions below, the section numbers and titles refer to those in this final rule, with parenthetical reference to the section numbers and titles in the NPA and/or the 2000 Edition if different, as appropriate.

The FHWA also received comments from traffic engineering consultants and others about inconsistency and errors in the 2000 MUTCD and in the NPA regarding conversions of English units to metric units. Accordingly, the FHWA made a comprehensive review of all dimensions and units of measure in the MUTCD and identified a variety of errors in conversions of English units to metric units that had occurred during the process of preparing the 2000 edition of the MUTCD and that had been perpetuated or inaccurately corrected in the NPA. The FHWA corrects these metric conversions in this final rule.

In the NPA, to facilitate easy reference, the FHWA also proposed giving figure numbers and titles to all pages that did not have a figure number for images of traffic control devices in the 2000 MUTCD. The FHWA also proposed changing the titles of a number of figures to clarify a figure as either “typical” or “example(s) of.” In general, the FHWA proposed using the word “typical” in the title if the figure portrays preferred or recommended practice, and the words “example(s) of” in the title if the figure portrays one or several of a variety of things that would be acceptable practice with no recommended preference. Also, the FHWA proposed modifying figures, where appropriate, to reflect proposed changes in the text. Most of the commenters agreed with these proposed changes. In a few cases, the FHWA received comments opposing a proposed change of a specific figure's title from “example(s) of” to “typical,” citing reasons why the figure or figures in question were inaccurately named based on the FHWA's stated criteria. The FHWA adopts the proposed addition of or changes to figure numbers and titles with revisions to address comments as appropriate.

The FHWA also received several comments from the U.S. Access Board and from organizations representing the blind, visually impaired, and people with other disabilities, requesting that the MUTCD be changed throughout to make it fully consistent with the Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way that were published by the Access Board on June 17, 2002, on its Web site (
http://www.access-board.gov
). The FHWA disagrees because the draft guidelines published by the Access Board are only a preliminary draft for initial public comments, and they have not been finalized. The Access Board is currently reviewing the large number of initial public comments received on the draft and plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a revised proposal for Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way in 2004. After the Access Board completes its rulemaking on this matter and issues a final rule, the FHWA plans to propose changes to the MUTCD to make it consistent with the Access Board's guidelines. However, in recognition of and support for the importance of accessibility issues related to traffic control devices, in the NPA the FHWA proposed a variety of changes to the MUTCD to assure consistency with existing requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.
, and other regulatory requirements concerning accessibility as they pertain to traffic control devices. In this final rule, the FHWA adopts most of those proposed changes. Further discussion of accessibility issues may be found elsewhere in this preamble to this final rule, especially under the discussion of adopted revisions to Part 6 of the MUTCD, Temporary Traffic Controls.

The FHWA is aware that section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794 (2001), requires that certain electronic and information technology (EIT) be accessible to individuals with disabilities. By regulation, 36 CFR 1194.4 (2001), EIT includes information contained on world wide Web sites. Because the FHWA distributes the MUTCD via the Internet site (
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov
), it is aware that it must comply with section 508, and it has done so by providing, in addition to the PDF file format, an alternative

format (hypertext markup language—HTML), that is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Included within those HTML files are accessible narrative descriptions of all of the illustrations (figures) that are contained in the MUTCD. The FHWA notes that, while every effort has been made to assure complete consistency between the PDF and HTML file formats, the PDF version is the official version of the MUTCD and takes precedence over any potentially conflicting text in that may occur in the HTML version.

A summary of the significant changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following discussion.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to the Introduction

1. On Page i the FHWA adds addresses for four additional organizations whose publications are referenced in the various parts of the MUTCD. There were no comments on these additions and the FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA, with further revisions to add Web site addresses for each of the organizations listed, to assist users of the MUTCD with contacting each of the organizations.

2. In the Introduction, the FHWA revises the second paragraph of the first STANDARD statement to correct an incorrect reference in the 2000 MUTCD and to accurately reflect the referenced text of the Code of Federal Regulations and with Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices. There were no comments on these changes. The FHWA adopts the changes.

In the second SUPPORT statement, the FHWA makes a minor editorial change to correct the section reference to the Uniform Vehicle Code
2

in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph to Section 15-116 of the UVC. The 2000 MUTCD and the NPA incorrectly referenced Section 15-117 of the UVC regarding traffic control devices on private property used by the public.

2
The “Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance,” 2000 edition, is published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 107 S. West Street, #110, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. It is available for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. Purchase information is available on the Web site for the National Committee at
http://www.ncutlo.org.

The FHWA also adds a second paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that, except when a specific numeral is required by the MUTCD text, numerals shown in sign images in the figures that specify times, distances, speed limits, and weights should be regarded as examples only, and that the numerals installed on actual signs should be appropriately altered to fit the specific signing situation. This clarification is necessary to address comments about some of the sign images throughout the MUTCD in the NPA.

The FHWA also adds a fourth SUPPORT statement to clarify the organization of the MUTCD and explain how one could reference portions of the MUTCD. There were no comments on this SUPPORT statement and the FHWA adopts it as proposed in the NPA.

The FHWA also adds a new STANDARD that lists special phase-in target compliance dates for various portions of the MUTCD. The purpose of this list is to provide a convenient reference guide to the user of phase-in target compliance dates for various portions of the MUTCD. The FHWA received comments from the City of Plano, Texas, and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals supporting the presence of this new text. Some commenters also questioned the use of the word “issuance” in the STANDARD stating that States or other Federal agencies shall adopt changes to the MUTCD within two years of issuance. “Issuance” in this usage refers to the date that the FHWA Administrator signs the final rule, which occurs prior to the publication date and effective date of the final rule. This language is as proposed in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1) and cannot be changed in the MUTCD Introduction until the Code of Federal Regulations is changed. Such a change may be considered in a future rulemaking.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), including members of the Railroad-Light Rail Transit Technical Committee of the NCUTCD opposed the wording in the first paragraph of the proposed new STANDARD that would require replacement of damaged devices upon adoption of the MUTCD by the State or other Federal agency. The commenters stated that replacement of damaged devices is normal maintenance that should not be covered by this STANDARD. While it is usually desirable to replace damaged devices with ones that conform to the current MUTCD, there are times that doing so may not be practical, or may cause the replacement device to be inconsistent with other portions of the Manual or other devices in a series, and thereby cause a potential safety issue for road users. The FHWA agrees and revises the statement by deleting replacement of damaged devices from the STANDARD statement and, in conjunction with this, at the end of the MUTCD Introduction the FHWA adds new OPTION and SUPPORT statements regarding the replacement of damaged, non-compliant devices as part of maintenance activities following a crash or other event. The FHWA also modifies the new STANDARD statement to accurately reflect existing provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations in regard to different requirements that apply on Federal-aid projects, and to clarify the FHWA's authority to establish phase-in target compliance dates for particular changes to the MUTCD.

The NCUTCD, State and local DOTs, and private citizens suggested changes to some specific proposed special phase-in target compliance dates. The FHWA deletes the word “proposed” from each of the phase-in target compliance dates which appeared in the NPA, and changes the phase-in target compliance dates (from what was proposed in the NPA) for the following: Section 2B.28 Preferential Only Lane Sign Placement and Application (numbered 2B.50 in the NPA), Section 2B.52 Hazardous Material Signs (R14-2, R14-3) (numbered 2B.46 in the NPA), Section 2C.30 Speed Reduction Signs (W3-5, W3-5a) (numbered 2C.51 in the NPA), Section 2D.38 Street Name Sign (D3-1), Section 2D.39 Advance Street Name Signs (D3-2), Section 2E.28 Interchange Exit Numbering, Section 2I.03 EVACUATION ROUTE Sign (EM-1), Section 4D.12 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control Signals, Section 4E.07 Countdown Pedestrian Signals, Section 6D.03 Worker Safety Considerations (numbered 6D.02 in the NPA), Section 6E.02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, Section 6F.58 Channelizing Devices (numbered 6F.55 in the NPA), Section 6F.63 Type I, II, or III Barricades (numbered 6F.60 in the NPA), and Part 10 (Traffic Controls for Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings).

The FHWA also adds phase-in target compliance dates for the following: Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement, Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, Section 2B.10 YIELD Sign Placement, Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (numbered 2B.11 in the NPA), Section 2C.16 NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2) (numbered 2C.14 in the NPA), Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15) (numbered 2B.48 in the NPA), Section 2C.34 Two-Way Traffic Sign (W6-3) (numbered 2C.31 in the NPA), Section 2E.54 Reference Location Signs, Section 2E.59 Preferential Only Lane Signs, Section 3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings, Section 3B.17 Crosswalk Markings, Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, Section 5C.05 NARROW BRIDGE Sign,

Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, Section 6F.03 Sign Placement, 6F.66 Longitudinal Channelizing Barricades (numbered 6F.53 in the NPA), Section 6F.82 Crash Cushions (numbered 6F.78 in the NPA), and Section 7B.12 Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead Sign (S4-5, S4-5a).

The FHWA is not including in this final rule the following phase-in target compliance dates that had been proposed in the NPA: Section 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings, Section 4E.04 Size, Design, and Illumination of Pedestrian Signal Head Indications, Sections 4F.04 and 4L.03 (these sections are removed from this final rule), Section 6F.69 Temporary Raised Islands (numbered 6F.63 in the NPA), and for Section 8B.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2). Discussion of these changes, additions, and removals of phase-in target compliance dates may be found under the discussions of the individual sections.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to the Table of Contents

3. The FHWA condenses the Table of Contents to include only the list of Parts and Chapters. Each Part continues to begin with a “table of contents” that contains the page number of every section, figure, and table. This change simplifies the search for an item by those with visual disabilities by enabling them to advance to the appropriate Part and then page more quickly and easily. There were no comments on the Table of Contents and the FHWA adopts the changes.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 1—General

4. In Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices, in the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA revises the text to eliminate redundancy. The FHWA received one editorial comment from a traffic engineering consultant, and adopts the suggested editorial changes with minor revision.

5. In Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA makes a minor editorial change to correct the section reference to the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the SUPPORT statement to Section 15-116 of the UVC. The 2000 MUTCD and the NPA incorrectly referenced Section 15-117 of the UVC regarding traffic control devices on private property used by the public.

6. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes and Interim Approvals, titled “Interpretations, Experimentations, and Changes” in the NPA, the FHWA changes the first GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD statement to require that requests for interpretations, permission to experiment, interim approval, or changes to the MUTCD must be submitted to the FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations. There were no comments on this change.

The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD and the Minnesota and Ohio DOTS regarding item E of the second GUIDANCE statement and item D of the fourth GUIDANCE statement, both of which pertain to patented or copyrighted traffic control devices. The commenters suggested that certifying that a “concept” for a traffic control device is not protected by a patent or copyright is vague and difficult to interpret. The FHWA agrees and inserts an example of a traffic control device concept in both items to clarify the intent.

Additionally, following the fourth GUIDANCE statement the FHWA adds SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD statements describing the “interim approval” process for the FHWA to approve or allow the use of new traffic control devices. Seven commenters representing industry and local governments were all in general support of the new interim approval process.

The NPA included an additional new STANDARD statement between the new SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements. In response to comments from the NCUTCD and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the FHWA removes as incorrect the proposed STANDARD statement to the effect that interim approvals will be considered only when submitted by the public agency or private toll facility responsible for the operations of the road or street. It is not FHWA's intent to limit requests for interim approvals to only public agencies or private toll road authorities. Requests for interim approvals, interpretations, and changes can be made by anyone. However, requests for experimentation approvals will continue to be accepted only from public agencies or private toll road authorities.

The FHWA also modifies Figure 1A-2 to reflect the “interim approval” process and to make the figure more accurately reflect the text of the MUTCD.

7. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to update the documents listed to the latest editions. The FHWA also adds additional sources of information in the SUPPORT statement and revises the order of the sources of information, alphabetizing first by source, then by the title of the document. There were several editorial comments suggesting revisions to reflect current editions of documents that the FHWA incorporates in this final rule.

8. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA adds to the STANDARD statement the assignment of the color fluorescent pink to incident management to make it easier for road users to follow directions relating to traffic incidents. This color was referred to as fluorescent coral in the NPA. The FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, the Ohio, California, Virginia and Missouri DOTs, and traffic control device manufacturers, regarding this color. ATSSA, the Virginia DOT, and several traffic control device manufacturers felt that the color should be called fluorescent pink, other traffic control device manufacturers agreed with the color coral, and Minnesota DOT wanted more studies regarding effectiveness of the color. The FHWA believes that the study
3

that found this color to be effective is sufficient and that further study is not needed. The coordinates of the color box are most appropriately titled “fluorescent pink,” and the FHWA intends for the color to appear pinker in nature, similar to the sample signs that were studied and found effective, rather than coral. The FHWA reorders the items in the STANDARD statement so that the colors appear in alphabetical order, adds the color “fluorescent pink,” and restores the color “coral” as unassigned. The color coordinates for the color fluorescent pink are indicated below.

3
“Improvement of Conspicuity of Trailblazing Signs: Phase III—Evaluation of Fluorescent Colors”, Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) Report No. FHWA/VTRC 01-CR4, February 2001, by Neale, Anders, Schreiner, and Brich, may be ordered from VTRC at the following URL:
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/index_main.htm
. The color tested and recommended in this report is referred to as fluorescent coral, however the characteristics (color box coordinates, etc.) of the color tested are more accurately described as fluorescent pink.

The Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) (English: International Commission on Illumination) chromaticity coordinates (x,y), defining the corners of the Fluorescent Pink daytime color region are as follows:

x
y

0.450
0.270

0.590
0.350

0.644
0.290

0.536
0.230

Luminance factor limits (Y)

D
65

Min
Max

Y
F

D
150

Min
Max

Fluorescent Pink
25
none
15
25
none

Fluorescent materials differ from non-fluorescent materials in that the total luminance is the sum of the luminances due to reflection and fluorescence. The luminance factor Y of such materials is the sum of the luminance due to reflection (Y
R
) and the luminance due to fluorescence (Y
F
). Therefore, Y=Y
R
+Y
F
. If the value Y
F
is greater than zero, the material is fluorescent; if Y
F
equals zero, then the luminance factor Y is equal to Y
R
.

These four pairs of chromaticity coordinates determine the acceptable color in terms of CIE 1931 Standard Colorimetric System (2 degree standard observer) measured with CIE Standard Illuminant D65 in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standard E991. In addition, the color shall be fluorescent, as determined by ASTM E1247.
4

The FHWA amends title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F, to add chromaticity coordinates and luminance factor limits for the color of fluorescent pink retroreflective sign materials.

4
A list of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards is available on the Internet at the following URL:
http://www.astm.org.
The ASTM International is a global forum for the development of consensus standards. Standard ASTM E991-98 is titled “Standard Practice for Color Measurement of Fluorescent Specimens.” Standard ASTM E1247-03 is titled “Standard Practice for Detecting Fluorescence in Object-Color Specimens by Spectrophotometry.”

Additionally, to be consistent with Section 2C.42 Playground Sign (W15-1), the FHWA adds “playground warning” to the list of signs assigned the fluorescent yellow-green color.

9. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This Manual, the FHWA revises definitions in the STANDARD statement for: “Active Grade Crossing Warning System,” “Average Day,” “Beacon,” “Crosswalk,” “Highway Traffic Signal,” “Raised Pavement Marker”, “Road User,” “Shared-Use Path,” “Sidewalk,” “Sign Illumination” and “Traffic Control Device” to better reflect accepted practice and terminologies and to provide consistency between the definitions shown here and in other parts of the Manual. Additionally, the FHWA adds definitions for “Crashworthy,” “Detectable,” “Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV),” “Pedestrian Facilities,” and “Roundabout Intersection” because they are used in the MUTCD. There were a few editorial comments regarding some of these definitions that the FHWA incorporates in this final rule as appropriate. Also, the FHWA revises the definition of “Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV)” to clarify that only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to certify ILEVs.

Additionally, the FHWA removes the definition for “Preferential Lane Marking” because it is no longer used in the MUTCD. There were no comments regarding this change.

10. In Section 1A.14 Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA revises the text in the first STANDARD statement to clarify that the abbreviations for the word messages shown in Table 1A-1 are the only abbreviations to be used for those word messages. The FHWA also adds a GUIDANCE statement at the end of this section to give guidance regarding the consistency of abbreviations within a single jurisdiction. Additionally, the FHWA revises Tables 1A-1 and 1A-2 to include additional abbreviations, delete some abbreviations, and modify some abbreviations, based on Texas research on driver understanding of abbreviations. The Illinois DOT was opposed to the abbreviations for northbound, eastbound, and the like, suggesting that the use of “NB”, etc. should be allowed. The 2000 Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) study (by Durkop and Dudek)
5

on which many of the abbreviation requirements were based found very low driver comprehension rates in Texas for NB, EB, SB, and WB when used as “NB Traffic” or “US 75 NB.” The Texas study suggested that a better alternative would be just the initial letter N, S, E, or W. The FHWA reviewed that study and has determined that abbreviations such as “N-BND” would further enhance understanding. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the changes to this section as proposed in the NPA, with minor editorial clarifications.

5
“Texas Driver Understanding of Abbreviations for Dynamic Message Signs”, February 2000, by Durkop and Dudek, Texas Transportation Institute Report number FHWA/TX-00-1882-1, can be obtained from the Texas Transportation Institute, phone (979) 845-4853. A summary of the results was also published in Transportation Research Record 1748, available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board at the following URL:
http://www4.trb.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf/web/homepage?OpenDocument.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 2—Signs

11. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT statement that the “general appearance” of the sign legends, colors and sizes are shown in the illustrations, because the illustrations may not exactly correspond to the letter brush stroke widths of the “Standard Highway Signs” book and the FHWA central values and tolerance limits of colors, due to variations in computer display monitors and printing processes.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding to the STANDARD statement that, unless otherwise stated in the MUTCD for a specific sign, phone numbers or Internet addresses shall not be shown on any sign, to reduce the possibility of driver distraction. While there was one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this change, there were five comments from the Arizona, Washington, Virginia, and Illinois DOTs and the City of Plano, Texas, specifically opposing the language in the NPA prohibiting phone numbers on signs because these may provide important phone numbers that are used for services provided to the public by a government agency. The FHWA agrees that telephone numbers can be useful, but is concerned about driver distraction and the effect on highway safety. To address the

comments, the FHWA revises the STANDARD statement and adds GUIDANCE and OPTION statements to allow phone numbers and Internet addresses on signs in certain limited circumstances, minimizing the potential effects on safety. The language in this final rule permits abbreviated telephone numbers (four characters or less) on signs. Signs with telephone numbers of more than four characters and Internet addresses may be provided in parking and pedestrian areas, or on low-speed roadways where engineering judgment indicates that vehicles can safely stop out of the traffic flow to read the sign.

12. In Section 2A.07 Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA revises the GUIDANCE statement to include safety messages as one of the types of allowable displays for changeable message signs. There were two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, while two commenters representing the Kansas DOT opposed it. The Kansas DOT stated that to encourage the display of safety messages on changeable message signs could desensitize the traveling public towards regulatory, warning, and guidance information that is displayed at other times. The FHWA adopts the proposed change because it is included in a GUIDANCE statement, which gives the individual States the flexibility to permit or not permit safety messages on changeable message signs.

Additionally, the FHWA adds at the end of the section OPTION, SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use, design, and format of safety and other messages so that they do not adversely affect the usefulness of the sign. There were two comments from the Kansas DOT opposed to the new OPTION statement, stating that changeable message signs should be used only when there is a need. Because this is an OPTION statement, the FHWA believes that it gives any individual State the flexibility to use this option if it so chooses. To explicitly reinforce this, the FHWA adds a sentence to the OPTION statement that State and local agencies may develop and establish a policy regarding safety and transportation-related message signs, for both permanent and changeable message signs, which specifies allowable messages and applications. To mirror and reinforce the information contained in Table 2A-4, the FHWA also adds to the OPTION statement that changeable message signs (including portable changeable message signs) that display a regulatory or warning message may use a black background with a white, yellow, orange, red, or fluorescent yellow-green legend as appropriate.

13. In Section 2A.08 Retroreflectivity and Illumination, the FHWA revises Table 2A-1 by replacing “Patterns of incandescent light bulbs” with “Incandescent light bulbs” and by adding “Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)” to the listed Means of Illumination to reflect current technology. There were nine comments from the NCUTCD, the City of Tucson, Arizona, traffic control device manufacturers, and private citizens supporting this change, particularly the addition of light emitting diodes (LEDs). To provide additional clarification to the table, the FHWA creates a separate row in the table for light emitting diodes under the Means of Illumination and includes symbols or word messages and portions of the sign border as sign elements to be illuminated. In addition, based on comments from the NCUTCD, the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement additional information regarding the use of LEDs within the face of a sign and in the border of a sign and adds a new STANDARD statement following this OPTION to specify the color and flash rate for LEDs used on a sign.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement at the end of the section referencing information contained in Section 2A.21 Posts and Mountings on the use of retroreflective material on the sign support. There was one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this change. The FHWA adopts this change.

14. In Section 2A.10 Shapes, the FHWA revises Table 2A-3 by removing the Emergency Evacuation Route Sign from the listed signs for the circle shape because the FHWA changes the design of this sign to be a rectangular plate in accordance with other guide signs, as indicated in Section 2I.03 EVACUATION ROUTE Sign (EM-1). The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and one comment from the Florida DOT opposed to it. The Florida DOT opposed because it currently uses the circle shape for the Emergency Evacuation Route Sign and believes that the proposed change would have a large statewide impact to its evacuation program. The FHWA notes that the Emergency Evacuation Route Sign has not been changed; it has just been put onto a white rectangular background so that the circular shape can be reserved for another use. The FHWA adopts the change, but to address the Florida DOT's comment, adds a phase-in target compliance date of 15 years from the date this final rule is effective for the change in shape, for signs in good condition.

Additionally, the FHWA revises Table 2A-3 to list the Trapezoid shape for use as “Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Series” and “National Forest Route” signs. The FHWA received two comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the NCUTCD in support of this change, and adopts this change.

15. In Section 2A.11 Sign Colors, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to read “The colors to be used on standard signs and their specific use on these signs shall be as indicated in the applicable sections of this Manual. The color coordinates and values shall be as described in 23 CFR, Part 655, Subpart F, Appendix.” This modification clarifies that the color requirements apply to all signs in the MUTCD, not just those in Part 2, and refers to the correct location of the color coordinates and values. There were no comments on this change.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed using the color coral for incident management uses, however in response to comments from traffic control device manufacturers about this section and Part 6, the FHWA changes this color assignment to fluorescent pink because this name more clearly describes the color in the color tints. See also the discussion under Section 1A.12 Color Code, which also applies to this section. As a result, the FHWA withdraws this proposal to modify the SUPPORT statement to delete the color coral from the reserved colors, and retains the text as shown in the 2000 MUTCD which includes the color coral as a reserved color for a use that will be determined in the future. Additionally, the FHWA adds to the SUPPORT statement that information regarding color coding of destinations on guide signs is contained in Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination.

The FHWA also modifies Table 2A-4 by adding a new column on the right hand side for the color fluorescent pink, by adding a new row “Incident Management” to the bottom, by adding a second new row “Changeable Message Signs” at the bottom, following Incident Management, and by adding or revising color designations and notes to reflect proposed changes in other parts of the MUTCD. The FHWA makes additional editorial changes to the table, and moves Reference Location, Street Name, and Destination signs to be listed as Guide signs, and the Evacuation Route sign to be listed under Information signs, in response to a comment from Caltrans and to maintain consistency within the MUTCD.

16. In Section 2A.12 Dimensions, the FHWA adds a second paragraph to the SUPPORT statement describing and clarifying the different sizes of signs, as detailed in the “Standard Highway Signs” book. While the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported the change, there were two comments from the NCUTCD and the Illinois DOT opposed to this new paragraph. The NCUTCD stated that this new paragraph introduced redundancy because this information is included in Sections 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs and 2C.04 Size of Warning Signs, and the Illinois DOT suggested that this paragraph was unnecessary. The FHWA agrees that this information needs to be included in only one place in the Manual, and adopts the text in this section and deletes this information from Sections 2B.03 and 2C.04. The FHWA revises the last sentence of this paragraph to clarify that intermediate sized signs are designed to be used on other highway types.

17. In Section 2A.14 Word Messages, the FHWA modifies the first GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the specific ratio of 25 mm (1 in) of letter height per 12 m (40 ft) of legibility distance should be a minimum. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD supporting this change and adopts this change.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a new SUPPORT statement after the first paragraph of GUIDANCE to provide additional information that some research on sign legibility of older drivers
6

indicates that a ratio of 25 mm (1 in) of letter height per 10 m (33 ft) of legibility distance could be beneficial for addressing the needs of older drivers. Three commenters from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and the sign manufacturing industry supported this new SUPPORT statement, and the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed it. Both opposing commenters expressed concern that this additional language would add confusion as to what ratio should be used in designing signs. The FHWA disagrees with the opposing commenters because SUPPORT statements are purely informational and have no legal basis for a mandatory or recommended practice.

6
Information about this research is summarized on pages 185 and 186 of the “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for purchase from The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000. Internet Web site address at
http://www.ntis.gov
.

The FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE heading for guidance on abbreviations after the new SUPPORT statement.

18. In Section 2A.15 Sign Borders, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to require that the corners of all sign borders, except for STOP signs, shall be rounded. The FHWA received several comments from ATSSA and representatives of the blind community regarding this change. The commenters misunderstood this statement both in the NPA and in the 2000 MUTCD, thinking that it pertained to the corners of the sign itself, rather than the sign border, which is included within the sign. As noted in the next paragraph, the sign itself does not always have to have rounded corners, but the border (typically black on white) does. The NPA merely replaced the phrase “corners of the sign” with “corners of all sign borders” to provide consistency with the section title, Sign Borders. The FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.

The NPA also included a proposal to modify the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that, where practical, the corners of the sign should be rounded to fit the border, except for STOP signs. The FHWA received several comments from ATSSA and representatives of the blind community supporting the rounding of sign corners. The FHWA received one comment from a traffic engineering consultant opposing the statement, suggesting that the phrase “where practical” was too vague. The FHWA agrees and revises this statement to include a reference Section 2E.15 Sign Borders for specific exemptions regarding the rounding of corners of sign.

19. In Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA relocates Figures 2A-3, 2A-4, 2A-5, and 2A-6 to Section 2B.37 ONE WAY Signs (R6-1, R6-2) and removes Figure 2A-7 (figure numbering cited here reflects 2000 MUTCD). These relocated figures are more appropriate in Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. The FHWA revises the first SUPPORT statement to reflect these changes. There were no comments regarding this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.

The FHWA received several comments from Caltrans, the Ohio DOT, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant regarding Figures 2A-1 and 2A-2 in the NPA. In response to the comments regarding the use of the words “typical” and “examples”, the FHWA changes the figure titles to: “Figure 2A-1 Examples of Heights and Lateral Locations of Signs for Typical Installations” and “Figure 2A-2 Examples of Locations for Some Typical Signs at Intersections.” The FHWA also incorporates editorial comments and notes to the figures in this final rule.

The FHWA also revises the second paragraph of the first GUIDANCE statement to state the exceptions to placing signs on separate posts in list form rather than narrative form, and to clarify that certain groupings of regulatory signs are also excepted from the recommended mounting on separate posts. These minor editorial clarifications respond to a comment from a traffic engineering consultant and reflect common practice.

20. In Section 2A.17 Overhead Sign Installations, the FHWA modifies the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that overhead guide signs should be used on freeways as well as expressways, under certain conditions. The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change and adopts this change.

The FHWA received one comment from a traffic engineering consultant suggesting that the last paragraph of the OPTION statement pertaining to the placement of signs on bridges of freeways and expressways in order to enhance safety and economy is duplicative and unnecessary. The FHWA agrees with the comment and makes this minor and editorial revision to remove this text from this final rule.

21. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA relocates the first OPTION and SUPPORT statements so that they appear before the last paragraph of the first STANDARD statement. This change improves the clarity of the section. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting this change, and adopts this change. The FHWA received one comment from a private citizen suggesting that in-street crosswalk signs are typically mounted much lower than the heights included in the first STANDARD statement, and that if they are to be excluded from these criteria, appropriate language should be included in the final rule. The FHWA agrees that additional language is needed and adds a new SUPPORT statement at the beginning of the Section that indicates that the provisions of this section apply unless specifically stated otherwise for a particular sign elsewhere in the MUTCD.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a paragraph to the last OPTION statement indicating that if the vertical clearance of other structures is less than 4.9 m (16 ft), the vertical clearance to overhead sign structures or supports may be as low as 0.3 m (1 ft) higher than the

vertical clearance of the other structures. These lower clearances for the sign structures are sometimes needed to maximize the visibility of the signs when low bridge structure or tunnel clearances limit the sign visibility. There was one editorial comment from the NCUTCD regarding this change, which the FHWA incorporates in this final rule.

22. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA divides the first STANDARD statement into a STANDARD and a GUIDANCE statement. The STANDARD statement refers to the lateral offset of overhead sign supports, and the GUIDANCE statement refers to the lateral offset of signs mounted at the roadside. Changing the lateral offset of roadside-mounted signs to a GUIDANCE provides additional flexibility to jurisdictions for signs mounted at the roadside. There was one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this change, the Kansas DOT opposed it, and Caltrans requested additional clarification. The Kansas DOT opposed the conversion of the minimum lateral offset for signs mounted at the roadside to a GUIDANCE, and suggested that it should remain a STANDARD in order to minimize the chance of allowing signs to be placed immediately adjacent to the shoulder or the roadway edge. The FHWA disagrees because it is more appropriate for this item to be a GUIDANCE, especially given the exemptions in the last OPTION statement. The FHWA encourages the 12-foot offset, but provides flexibility to jurisdictions for the placement of signs mounted at the roadside in places where the 12-foot offsets would not be desirable or practical. A State may choose to impose a more stringent requirement if it desires. The FHWA adopts this change, as specified in the NPA, in this final rule.

Additionally, in the 2000 edition of the MUTCD a new requirement was established in this section that, if located within the clear zone, ground-mounted sign supports shall be breakaway, yielding, or shielded with a barrier or crash cushion and that supports for overhead-mounted signs shall be shielded with a barrier or crash cushion, but no special phase-in target compliance date was established at that time. In response to comments that agencies are encountering difficulties and economic impacts given the extensive testing of devices that has to occur in accordance with NCHRP Report 350
7

in order to determine and certify crashworthiness, the FHWA determines that a special target compliance date is required for the crashworthiness provisions in this section. In this final rule, the FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of January 17, 2013 for crashworthiness of sign supports within the clear zone for roads with posted speed limits of 80 km/h (50 mph) or above. This is consistent with guidance previously communicated informally to jurisdictions in a variety of training and presentations by the FHWA Office of Safety regarding roadside safety and countermeasures for run-off-the-road crashes, and is a reasonable target date for achieving compliance on high-speed roads.

7
NCHRP Report 350, “Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features,” 1993, is available for downloading from the Transportation Research Board at the following URL:
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_350-a.pdf.

23. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revisions to Section 2A.20 Position of Signs, to remove the second sentence under the SUPPORT statement as the references to the figures duplicates other references elsewhere. Upon further consideration, the FHWA believes that this section is not necessary and deletes this section from the MUTCD in its entirety in this final rule. This section does not include any information that is not already contained elsewhere in the Manual. The FHWA revises the subsequent section numbers accordingly.

24. In Section 2A.21 Posts and Mountings (numbered Section 2A.22 in the NPA), the FHWA adds an OPTION statement after the SUPPORT statement, indicating that a strip of retroreflective material may be used on the supports of regulatory and warning signs to draw attention to the sign during nighttime conditions. One consultant and three State DOTs opposed this new OPTION, but the NCUTCD and several other agencies supported it. Those opposed stated several reasons, such as difficulty in deciding which signs should receive a reflective strip, lack of research support, and consistency. The FHWA agrees that additional instruction is needed regarding the use of the reflective strip, and adds the phrase “Where engineering judgment indicates a need to draw attention to the sign during nighttime conditions”. Because this is an OPTION, States that oppose it can choose to not allow this use.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a second STANDARD statement after the OPTION statement specifying the size, location, and color of the strip of retroreflective material if it is used. This provides for uniformity of application. Based on comments received from a traffic engineering consultant for this section as well as other comments in Section 8B.03 Highway-rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2) regarding the placement of the strip in relation to the ground, the FHWA revises this statement to indicate that the bottom of the strip be within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the edge of the roadway. The FHWA adopts this change, along with editorial modifications, in this final rule.

25. In Section 2A.23 Median Opening Treatments for Divided Highways with Wide Medians (numbered Section 2A.24 in the NPA and title changed from 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA removes the GUIDANCE statement that appeared in the 2000 MUTCD and changes the STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of these changes, and two comments from ATSSA and the Minnesota DOT opposing the change from STANDARD to GUIDANCE. This change makes it recommended rather than mandatory that intersections on divided highways where the median width at the median opening is 9 m (30 ft) or more, be signed as two separate intersections. The commenters suggested that the use of the mandatory word “shall” would provide for greater consistency between jurisdictions and should be maintained to assist tourists and older drivers. The FHWA believes that it is important to provide additional signing flexibility to jurisdictions regarding median openings. A GUIDANCE statement strongly encourages the practice without mandating it, and allows for engineering judgment to be used to determine if some intersections on roadways with medians wider than 9 m (30 ft) might function better without being signed as two separate intersections. Therefore, the FHWA adopts the change as specified in the NPA.

26. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the NPA included a proposal to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at the end of the section regarding the use of Changeable Message Signs to provide for the display of regulatory signs. The NCUTCD, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic control device manufacturer supported the new OPTION statement. Caltrans questioned whether the information also applied to portable changeable message signs. The FHWA agrees that the OPTION statement applies to more than just regulatory signs, and removes this OPTION statement from this section and places it in Section 2A.07 Changeable

Message Signs, with additional changes to the text. The NCUTCD and a traffic control device manufacturer supported the new GUIDANCE statement, however ATSSA and the Wisconsin DOT opposed it. The Wisconsin DOT stated that regulatory messages on changeable message signs should only be used to supplement standard ground mounted signs, rather than as the sole sign, because they cannot be enforced. ATSSA stated that there are previously identified problems regarding the contrast in colors of the red prohibition circle on changeable message signs. The FHWA disagrees with both of these comments and adopts the GUIDANCE statement in this final rule. Regulatory messages on changeable message signs can be enforced as long as the jurisdiction has the authority to enact temporary regulations and as long as the messages conform to MUTCD requirements. The red prohibitory circle and slash on a black background, as used on changeable message signs, generally have better contrast than those used on static signs. The FHWA adopts the changes to this section with revisions as described above.

27. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA removes the SUPPORT statement referencing the “Standard Highway Signs” book because this statement is general and applies to regulatory, warning, and guide signs, and a similar statement is included in Section 2A.12 Dimensions.

The FHWA modifies Table 2B-1 by adding, removing, and renaming signs, and by adding additional sign sizes. These changes and new sign sizes reflect changes in Part 2, are values from the “Standard Highway Signs” book, and reflect regular use by highway agencies. The FHWA received several editorial comments from the NCUTCD and Caltrans regarding these changes and incorporates those changes as appropriate.

Additionally, the FHWA increases the sizes of the ONE WAY (R6-2) sign and the DIVIDED HIGHWAY CROSSING (R6-3, R6-3a) signs for all roads based on the research
8

addressing the needs of older road users. The FHWA adds sign sizes in the “Expressways” and “Freeways” columns for these signs and the R6-1 ONE WAY sign because these are the main signs to alert road users of the divided highway. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA supporting these changes. The City of Tucson, Arizona, opposed the increase in sign size, stating that the current sign sizes are adequate for urban/city street systems. The FHWA adopts the sizes as proposed in the NPA because the research indicates these sizes are needed in most cases for older drivers. However, to address the comment from the City of Tucson, the FHWA is currently reviewing ways to better incorporate the needs of urban areas into the MUTCD and plans to address those needs in a future rulemaking.

8
Information about this research is summarized on pages 94-100 of the “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” Report number FHWA-RD-01-03, published by the FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development, 2001. It is available for purchase from The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6000. Internet website address at
http://www.ntis.gov.

The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years from the date of this final rule for these sign sizes, for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

Additionally, the FHWA adds to the OPTION statement that signs larger than those shown in Table 2B-1 may be used. Sometimes there are special conditions that warrant much larger signs and this flexibility is needed. There were no comments regarding this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.

28. In Section 2B.04 STOP Sign (R1-1), the FHWA received three comments, one from a traffic engineering consultant and two from private citizens regarding the use of supplemental plaques with multi-way STOP signs. The FHWA did not propose any change to this section in the NPA, and these comments are outside the scope of this final rule.

29. In Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement, the FHWA corrects an error in the STANDARD statement (as published in the 2000 MUTCD) by changing the word “correct” to “right” so that the statement reads, “The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies.” There was one comment from a private citizen suggesting that the FHWA replace “traffic lane” with “approach” in order to avoid this statement being misinterpreted as requiring a separate sign to the right of each stopped lane on a multi-lane approach. The FHWA agrees and revises the text accordingly.

Additionally, the NPA included a proposal that other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no other sign shall be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign, to assure that the shape of the STOP sign is visible to road users on other approaches to the intersection. The proposed exception for the DO NOT ENTER sign was to allow flexibility in urban areas where there may not be enough room to install separate poles for each sign and both signs must be installed at the corner. While there was one comment from ATSSA in support of this proposed change, the NCUTCD, the Arizona, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Illinois DOTs as well as the Cities of Plano, Texas; Beaverton, Oregon; Kennewick, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona, opposed this change, stating that it was too restrictive. The FHWA agrees with the State and local DOTs that there may be some locations where it may be appropriate to mount signs to the back of STOP signs, and changes this STANDARD to a GUIDANCE in this final rule and revises the statement to read, “Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign.” The FHWA adds a phase-in target compliance date for this new GUIDANCE of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good condition, and adds a SUPPORT statement referencing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location for further information regarding separate and combined mounting of signs with STOP signs.

30. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA clarifies the OPTION statement by adding a reference to STOP signs. The change states that instead of using a STOP sign, a YIELD sign may be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the listed conditions exist. The conditions for using a YIELD sign are not being changed. The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals in general support of the change. A traffic engineering consultant mistakenly thought that the change represented a major change in the method of determining if YIELD is the appropriate sign, and suggested a 10-year phase-in target compliance date. The most significant change was made in the 2000 MUTCD. The only new concept is the clarification that YIELD signs would be used “instead of STOP signs.” This is only an OPTION and existing STOP signs that are in place at intersections where these conditions apply would not be in violation of the MUTCD. The FHWA adopts the change with minor editorial revisions in this final rule. There is no need for a long compliance date to comply with an OPTION. The FHWA notes that the 10-year phase-in target compliance date for the change in application of YIELD signs is tied to the effective date of the 2000 MUTCD (January 11, 2011).

Additionally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement after the OPTION statement to require the use of a YIELD sign to assign right-of-way at

the entrance to a roundabout intersection. An essential design feature of a modern roundabout intersection is “yield-on-entry” therefore, a YIELD sign is necessary at all entrances to the roundabout intersection. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support of this change, and one comment from the U.S. Access Board opposed to it. The U.S. Access Board suggested that the pedestrian crossing be moved away from the entry and exit points of the roundabout intersection to allow for safer interaction between pedestrians and drivers. This would create a midblock crossing, and the FHWA believes that the signing and marking of nearby midblock crosswalks should be determined on a case-by-case basis using engineering judgment. Thus, the FHWA did not make changes to this STANDARD, and adopts the new STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA.

31. In Section 2B.10 YIELD Sign Placement, the FHWA corrects an error in the first paragraph of the STANDARD statement by changing the word “correct” to “right” so that the first sentence reads, “The YIELD sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies.” Additionally, the FHWA adds a new sentence after the first sentence of the STANDARD statement to require that YIELD signs shall be placed on both the left and right sides of the approaches to roundabout intersections with more than one approach lane on the signed approach. This is in concert with best practices of modern roundabout intersection design and to assure adequate visibility of the YIELD signs. There were two comments from ATSSA and the Kansas DOT in general support of these changes, and the FHWA adopts these changes, with minor editorial revision.

Additionally, the NPA included a proposal to add a paragraph to the STANDARD statement that other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no other sign shall be mounted back-to-back with a YIELD sign, to assure that the shape of the YIELD sign is visible to road users on other approaches to the intersection. The proposed exception for the DO NOT ENTER sign was to allow flexibility in urban areas where there may not be enough room to install separate poles for each sign and both signs must be installed at the corner. The FHWA received nine comments from State and local DOT's opposed to this change, stating that it was too restrictive (see comments and discussion in Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement). The FHWA agrees and changes this STANDARD to a GUIDANCE and revises the statement to read, “Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a YIELD sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the YIELD sign.” The FHWA adds a phase-in target compliance date for this new GUIDANCE of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good condition, and also adds a SUPPORT statement referencing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location for further information regarding separate and combined mounting of signs with YIELD signs.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement stating that, at a roundabout intersection, the face of the YIELD sign should not be visible from the circulating roadway. This is recommended to prevent circulating vehicles in the roundabout intersection from yielding unnecessarily. The FHWA received no comments regarding this change, and adopts this change.

The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement at the end of the section to allow the installation of an additional YIELD sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a YIELD line at wide-throat intersections. This provides for improved visibility of the YIELD signs where needed. The FHWA received no comments regarding this change, and adopts this change.

32. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.11 Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs (R1-5, R1-5a)”. (This section was numbered Section 2B.52 in the NPA.) These new signs alert road users of the presence of an unsignalized midblock pedestrian crossing. The FHWA includes a STANDARD statement, which states that if YIELD lines are used in advance of an unsignalized marked crosswalk, the YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS (R1-5 or R1-5a) signs, shall be placed 6.1 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft) in advance of the nearest crosswalk line. The purpose of the STANDARD is to provide for the uniform use and placement of these signs and improved pedestrian safety.

The FHWA received six comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, Cities of Tucson, Arizona, and Plano, Texas, the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and a traffic engineering consultant in support of this new section. One private citizen opposed it, stating that the signs are unnecessary because they convey rules of the road, rather than site-specific regulations. The Wisconsin DOT and Pierce County, Washington, requested clarification of the placement of these signs. In response to the comments, the FHWA adds a reference to Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines to provide additional clarity that the yield line is to be placed adjacent to the Yield Here to Pedestrians sign. The FHWA adopts this section in this final rule and establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

The FHWA received two comments from the Oregon DOT and a traffic engineering consultant suggesting that this section be expanded to include STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIAN signs and wording added to allow the signs at any marked crosswalk not controlled by a signal, stop sign, or yield sign as an option for States or other agencies with statutes that require traffic to stop for pedestrians. This goes beyond the scope of the NPA, and a future NPA would need to be issued for discussion and comment.

33. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled “Section 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a).” (This section was numbered Section 2B.53 in the NPA.) These in-street signs remind road users of the laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. The FHWA includes OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements describing the use, design and application of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6, R1-6a) signs. These signs are included in the MUTCD in order to provide for uniformity of these regulatory messages and for improved pedestrian safety. The FHWA received four comments from ATSSA, the City of Los Angeles, California, the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and a traffic engineering consultant in agreement with the new section as proposed in the NPA. Another five commenters representing the Florida and Wisconsin DOTs, the Cities of Los Angeles, California, and Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant agreed with the sign in general, but suggested wording changes, including deleting the reference to State law from the sign. Another five commenters representing the NCUTCD and the Kansas, Arizona, and Minnesota DOTs opposed the sign and the inclusion of this section in the MUTCD. Those opposed listed several reasons, including waiting until the results of a related Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)
9

study are released, that in-roadway signs should be discouraged for safety reasons, and that signs that remind drivers to obey the law are unnecessary. The FHWA disagrees with those opposed to this section because research, including an experimentation in Redmond, Washington,
10

has found that this sign is effective at communicating important information to drivers and provides for uniformity of these regulatory messages and for improved pedestrian safety. Also, the TCRP research cited by some commenters is only just beginning and its scope of work is too broad to adequately address this specific signing issue. The use of these signs is optional, and jurisdictions may decide not to allow the use of these signs. The FHWA adopts this new section and sign in this final rule, and adds a SUPPORT statement that the provisions of Section 2A.18 Mounting Height are not applicable to the mounting height of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.

9
“Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Roadway Crossings” is a reach study currently in progress. This is a joint effort between the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Transportation Cooperative Research

Program (TCRP). The study is numbered NCHRP Project 3-71 and TCRP D-08. Information is available at the following URL:
http://rip.trb.org.

10
A copy of “City of Redmond In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Test”, FHWA Experimentation #2-507(EX), six-month report by the City of Redmond, June 30, 2003, is available on the docket.

The FHWA also adds a new figure numbered and titled “Figure 2B-2, “Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs” (numbered Figure 2B-22 in the NPA) to illustrate the design of the R1-5, R1-5a, the R1-6, and the R1-6a signs.

The FHWA renumbers the remaining sections in this chapter.

34. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), numbered Section 2B.11 in the NPA, the FHWA modifies the STANDARD statement to reference the speed limit signs shown in Figure 2B-1. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed a new, unique design for the metric speed limit sign. The sign had a red circle around the speed value with a “km/h” legend below, and the supplemental “km/h” plaque removed. The FHWA received eight comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, and private citizens in general support of the new metric speed limit design, and ten comments from the Oregon and Minnesota DOTs and private citizens opposed to the sign design. Those opposed cited concerns that the red circle is generally associated with a prohibitory regulatory message, and that a speed limit does not fall into that category of message. In response to the comments, the FHWA revises the sign in this final rule to include a black circle around the speed value, rather than red. The concept of placing a circle around the metric speed limit digits was developed to provide a clear and easily noticed distinction between metric and English speed limit signs. Because the color red suggests prohibition, and green is already used as a permissive message with hazardous materials routing signs, the FHWA requires the black colored circle to provide distinction for a metric speed limit.

Based on this new design, the FHWA removes the first SUPPORT statement (from the 2000 MUTCD), as it is no longer needed. The new design of the metric Speed Limit sign better differentiates a metric speed limit sign from an English-unit speed limit sign, and also remedies the possible situation where the “METRIC” plaque used in the old design is damaged or stolen and the sign appears to be an English units Speed Limit sign with a higher but erroneous value. Other than comments opposed to the change in the metric sign design, there were no comments specifically regarding this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE statement indicating that non-statutory speed limits be reevaluated at least once every five years to determine if any adjustments would be appropriate. The FHWA received one comment from a private citizen in support of this change, and four comments from the NCUTCD, City of Kennewick, Washington; Lake County, Illinois; and Pierce County, Washington, opposed to the new paragraph. Those opposed cited concerns about the five-year frequency of review, stating that there are many roads and streets on which conditions remain stable for much longer than five years and that conducting speed limit reevaluations every five years on such roads would be a major burden on the States and local governments. The FHWA agrees with some of these concerns, and therefore the FHWA expands the paragraph to clarify that this review should take place on segments of roadways that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding land use since the last review.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed clarifications to the third paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement to differentiate the rounding of a speed limit on a sign located on a non-residential street from a sign located on a residential street. The FHWA received several comments from the NCUTCD, the Wisconsin DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant opposing this change, requesting simpler terminology and the ability for jurisdictions to round speeds up or down, regardless of street classification. A traffic engineering consultant suggested less reliance on the 85th percentile speed. Based on these comments, the FHWA simplifies the statement to read, “When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.”

The FHWA adds a paragraph to the end of the OPTION statement, which states that a changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign. The FHWA received one comment from a traffic control device manufacturer supporting this change. The FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.

The FHWA also adds, following the OPTION statement, a GUIDANCE statement, which states that if a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX KM/H (MPH) or similar legend should be shown. Changeable message signs displaying the actual speeds of approaching drivers have been widely used in many jurisdictions over the past decade or more to enhance driver compliance with speed limits. However, a variety of colors have been used for the display of the numerals of the actual speed. For consistency with Table 2A-4 and the MUTCD's general principles of sign colors, FHWA adds to this GUIDANCE statement that the color should be yellow legend on black background or the reverse of these colors. The FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of this final rule for the color of the legend of the changeable message portion of the “YOUR SPEED” sign, for existing signs in good condition, to minimize any impacts on State or local governments.

35. In Section 2B.15 Night Speed Limit Sign (R2-3) (numbered Section 2B.13 in the NPA), while there were no changes proposed in the NPA, the FHWA makes editorial changes in this section to be consistent with Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign. In addition, in response to comments received, the FHWA changes the metric version of the Night Speed Limit sign in Figure 2B-1 to show a white circle around the metric speed digits and include the “km/h” message all within one panel. This is necessary for consistency with the adopted concept of enclosing metric speed limit values in a circle to assure that they are easily distinguished from speed limits in English units.

36. In Section 2B.16 Minimum Speed Limit Sign (R2-4), numbered Section 2B.14 in the NPA, the FHWA received

several comments opposing the design of the metric sign in Figure 2B-3 (numbered Figure 2B-2 in the NPA). The comments were similar to those received on Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1). (See also the discussion of that section above.) Because the color red suggests prohibition, and green is already used as a permissive message with hazardous materials routing signs, the FHWA requires the black colored circle to provide distinction for a metric minimum speed limit.

37. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled “Section 2B.17 FINES HIGHER Plaque (R2-6).” (In the NPA, this new section was numbered and titled “Section 2B.15 Fines Higher Sign (R2-6)”). The FHWA agrees with comments from the NCUTCD and a traffic engineering consultant suggesting that the term “sign” be replaced with “plaque”. This new section consists of OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements on the uses of the FINES HIGHER plaque to advise road users when increased fines are imposed for traffic violations within designated roadway segments. The FINES HIGHER plaque should be installed below an applicable regulatory or warning sign in a temporary traffic control zone, a school zone, or other applicable designated zone. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA specifically in support of the new section, and one comment from the Wisconsin DOT opposing it. The Wisconsin DOT stated that the sign is not necessary because these laws are already State statutes and need not be signed. Because this is an OPTION, States can choose not to allow the use of this plaque. Many other States are finding that this sign enhances safety in school zones and temporary traffic control zones by reminding drivers of a law that might not always be prevalent on their minds. It also serves to alert drivers from other States about this law, which may not be the same as the laws in their home State. The FHWA adopts this new section, with minor editorial revisions, and renumbers the remaining sections.

38. The FHWA removes Section 2B.16 Reduced Speed Ahead Signs (R2-5) Series (as numbered and titled in the 2000 MUTCD) because these signs are warning signs and appear in Chapter 2C in this final rule. The intended message is more properly categorized as a warning message rather than a regulatory message.

See discussion in Section 2C.30 Speed Reduction Signs (W3-5, W3-5a) where FHWA adds the newly designated warning signs. That discussion applies to this section also. Accordingly, the FHWA adopts the removal of former Section 2B.16 as proposed in the NPA. To minimize any impacts to State and local governments, in Section 2C.30 the FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 15 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing R2-5 signs in good condition to be changed to W3-5 or W3-5a signs.

39. In Section 2B.19 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, and R3-18) (numbered and titled “Section 2B.17 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4)” in the 2000 MUTCD and in the NPA), the FHWA includes a new symbol sign which combines the No Left Turn and the No U-turn symbol signs into one symbol sign (R3-18), and adds to the OPTION and GUIDANCE statements information on the proper use of the sign. This new sign will reduce the sign clutter at an intersection where both movements are restricted and make it easier for road users to understand the multiple turn restrictions. The FHWA received six comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA, Caltrans and the Cities of Tucson, Arizona; and Plano, Texas, supporting this new sign. The Virginia DOT opposed this change due to the fact that Virginia State law already prohibits U-turns when a No Left Turn sign is present. Because not all States have this law, the FHWA believes that this sign should be available for use by States at those locations where both U-turns and left turns are prohibited. The FHWA adopts the OPTION and GUIDANCE statements in this final rule. Because it is an OPTION, States are not obligated to use the new sign.

40. In Section 2B.21 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, and R3-7) (numbered Section 2B.19 in the NPA), the FHWA revises the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the lane control pavement markings mentioned are lane-use arrow markings. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and the FHWA adopts this change.

41. In Section 2B.25, Reversible Lane Control Signs (R3-9d, R3-9f through R3-9i) (numbered and titled, “Section 2B.23 Reversible Lane Control Signs (R3-9c through R3-9i)” in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA removes the R3-9c and R3-9e signs and all of their references in the section. Using just the R3-9d sign will improve uniformity and maintain consistency with the red X symbol used in reversible lane signal systems. The DO NOT ENTER symbol is intended to be used to prohibit entry into a roadway or ramp, and using this symbol to prohibit use of a single lane of a roadway that is otherwise available for travel is inconsistent and degrades the meaning of the symbol. The FHWA also revises the first STANDARD statement to clarify that the barriers mentioned are physical barriers.

Additionally, the FHWA modifies item B of the second OPTION statement to read, “An engineering study indicates that the use of the Reversible Lane Control signs alone would result in an acceptable level of safety and efficiency.” This is to clarify that an engineering study needs to evaluate whether safety and efficiency will be maintained with signs alone.

The FHWA received four comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of these changes, and the FHWA adopts the changes.

The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

42. In Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15) (numbered and titled Section 2B.48 Preferential Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-17) in the NPA), the FHWA changes several GUIDANCE statements to STANDARD statements to be consistent with requirements of STANDARDS in other sections of the MUTCD and to ensure that these critical signs are properly designed and applied to enhance safety and reduce road user confusion. The FHWA also includes cross-references to other sections, as appropriate. Additionally, the FHWA revises information for the R3-10 through R3-14 signs in Table 2B-1 in this final rule. The FHWA also revises Figure 2B-7 (numbered Figure 2B-21 in the NPA) to correct errors and illustrate examples of signs consistent with the text in this final rule. All of these changes respond to comments received from Caltrans, the Florida and Minnesota DOTs, traffic engineering consultants, and private citizens requesting clarity, and they provide consistency with other areas of the MUTCD.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed modifying the first paragraph of the third GUIDANCE statement regarding types of preferential lane signs for which the diamond symbol should not be used (because the diamond symbol is intended to be used only to denote HOV lanes). The restriction of using the diamond symbol only for HOV lanes is now included in a STANDARD statement in Section 2B.27 Preferential Only Lanes for High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) (numbered 2B.49 in the NPA), and is cross-referenced in

Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15). As a result, the FHWA is not making the change to the first paragraph of the third GUIDANCE statement that was proposed in the NPA.

The FHWA changes the last paragraph of the third GUIDANCE statement (of the 2000 MUTCD) to a fifth STANDARD statement (second in the NPA) to be consistent with requirements in Section 2A.07 Changeable Message Signs. These requirements indicate that changeable message signs serving as HOV signs shall be the required sign size and shall display the required letter height and legend format that corresponds to the type of facility and design speed. This change from a recommended practice to a required practice is made to preclude the use of insufficiently sized or designed changeable message signs to display these important regulatory messages for HOV lane use. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD in support of this change, and one comment from Caltrans suggesting further clarification. To respond to the comments, the FHWA inserts an OPTION statement prior to the STANDARD, indicating appropriate uses of changeable message signs, and the FHWA includes editorial modifications to the STANDARD.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE statement at the end of the section stating that the Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV) (R3-10b) sign should be used when it is permissible for a properly labeled and certified ILEV, regardless of the number of occupants, to operate in the HOV lanes and that, when used, the ILEV signs should be ground mounted in advance of the HOV lanes and at intervals along the HOV lanes based upon engineering judgment. A uniform sign design and application is needed to enhance driver understanding and compliance regarding ILEV use of HOV lanes and also to correspond to changes in Section 2B.27 Preferential Only Lanes for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs). The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support of this new statement, and two comments from Caltrans and the Minnesota DOT opposed to it. The opposing commenters suggested that there are different types of ILEV vehicles, and that the text needed to be clarified. To respond to those comments, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement, following the GUIDANCE, that explains what an ILEV is, similar to the definition in Section 1A.13, and also providing citations of applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The R3-10b sign is recommended for use when a State or local jurisdiction permits ILEVs to use a particular HOV lane facility.

The FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of this final rule for signs in good condition to comply with the new requirements of Section 2B.26 Preferential Only Lane Signs (R3-10 through R3-15), to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

43. In Section 2B.27 Preferential Only Lanes for High-Occupancy Vehicles (numbered and titled Section 2B.49 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes in the NPA), the FHWA adds a second paragraph to the first STANDARD statement that the requirements for a minimum number of occupants in a vehicle to use an HOV lane shall be in effect for most, or all, of at least one of the usual times during the day when the demand to travel is greatest (such as morning or afternoon peak travel periods) and the traffic congestion problems on the roadway and adjoining transportation corridor are at their worst. The FHWA also adds in the last paragraph the requirement of a Federal review (as outlined in Section 2 of the Federal-aid Highway Program Guidance on HOV Lanes
11

) prior to initiating a proposed project (including a proposed test or demonstration project) that seeks to significantly change the operation of the HOV lanes for any length of time. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in general support of the changes to this section, and one comment from Caltrans opposed to the specific change regarding Federal review of a proposed test or demonstration project. Caltrans felt that FHWA review is not currently required. However, the Federal review is required because of provisions in Titles 23 and 49 of the United States Code as well as a variety of commitments, agreements, transportation planning requirements, and transportation conformity requirements under the Clean Air Act. The FHWA responds by providing an additional reference to the Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on HOV Lanes, which gives very detailed information about the basis of the review and factors considered.

11
The “Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes” dated March 28, 2001, is available at the following URL:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/operations/hovguide01.htm
.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to modify the first STANDARD statement to allow motorcycles to use HOV lanes that received Federal-aid program funding. The FHWA also proposed to require agencies to allow a vehicle with less than the required number of occupants to operate in the HOV lanes if:

A. The vehicle is properly labeled and certified as an ILEV and the lane is not a bus-only HOV lane; or

B. The HOV lanes are part of a project that is participating in the FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program.
12

12
The Value Pricing Pilot Program is an experimental program to learn the potential of different value pricing approaches for reducing congestion authorized by Section 1216(a) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Information is available at the following URL:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/vppp.htm
.

The FHWA adopts this requirement as it pertains to motorcycles because, under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), motorcycles are specifically identified as not a single-occupant vehicle. However, the FHWA recognizes that the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in 40 CFR section 88.313-93 permit, but do not require, States to allow ILEVs to use HOV lanes. Further, the FHWA recognizes that the applicable provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) permit, but do not require, States to allow vehicles with fewer than two occupants to operate in HOV lanes if the vehicles are part of a value pricing program. Therefore, the FHWA revises the paragraph in Section 2B.27 about these uses of HOV lanes to OPTION statements rather than STANDARD statements.

The FHWA also revises the first SUPPORT statement to clarify the examples of significant operational changes to HOV lanes. While most of this information was included in the NPA (and the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA provides examples in the form of individual items in this final rule for clarity. The FHWA adds implementing a pricing option to an existing HOV lane, such as High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane or toll lane to the list of example items to reflect current practice.

The FHWA modifies this section to add a SUPPORT statement at the end of the section. The SUPPORT statement states that the Inherently Low Emissions Vehicle (ILEV) program requirements, certification program, and other regulatory provisions are developed and administered through the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). The U.S. EPA is the only entity with the authority to certify ILEVs. Vehicle manufacturers must request the U.S. EPA to grant an ILEV certification for any vehicle to be considered and labeled as meeting these standards. According to the U.S. EPA,

1996 was the first year that they certified any ILEVs. The U.S. EPA regulations specify that ILEVs must meet the emission standards specified in 40 CFR 88.311-93 and their labeling must be in accordance with 40 CFR 88.311-93(c).

The changes in Section 2B.27 are also necessary to assure consistency with the FHWA requirements to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
) process.

44. In Section 2B.28 Preferential Only Lane Sign Applications and Placement (numbered Section 2B.50 High-Occupancy Vehicle Sign Application and Placement in the NPA), in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding a SUPPORT statement after the GUIDANCE statement, to state that Figures 2E-44 through 2E-show application and placement examples of HOV signing for entrances to barrier-separated HOV lanes and direct entrances to and exits from HOV lanes. The FHWA received four comments regarding the proposed changes to this section. The NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, supported the changes, the Connecticut DOT suggested an editorial change to clarify the new figure, and Caltrans opposed the number of signs required for concurrent-flow HOV lanes. The FHWA revises the number of signs required for concurrent-flow HOV lanes to be more consistent with the practice of some leading States with HOV lanes. Also, the FHWA makes editorial revisions to and reorganizes the section to add clarity to differentiate between specific situations of barrier-separated, buffer-separated, concurrent flow, and direct access ramps as they relate to Preferential Only Lane signing, to address comments on this and other related sections from agencies that operate HOV facilities, suggesting that the many provisions of this section were not consistent with other provisions of the MUTCD and the section needed clarification and consistency.

The FHWA establishes a 10-year phase-in target compliance date from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

45. In Section 2B.33 Keep Right and Keep Left Signs (R4-7, R4-8) (numbered Section 2B.28 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the first OPTION statement that the Keep Left (R4-8) sign may be used at locations where it is necessary for traffic to pass only to the left of a roadway feature or obstruction.

The FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that the Keep Right sign should be mounted on the face of, or just in front of, a pier or other obstruction separating opposite directions of traffic in the center of the highway such that traffic will have to pass to the right of the sign.

Additionally, the FHWA adds a new STANDARD statement following the GUIDANCE statement indicating that the Keep Right sign shall not be installed on the right side of the roadway in a position where traffic must pass to the left of the sign.

The changes in this section clarify the proper uses of Keep Right and Keep Left signs. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in general support of the changes to this section, and adopts these changes.

46. In Section 2B.34 DO NOT ENTER Sign (R5-1) (numbered Section 2B.29 in the NPA), the FHWA modifies the GUIDANCE statement with respect to the placement of the DO NOT ENTER sign. The GUIDANCE states that, if used, the DO NOT ENTER sign should be placed directly in view of the road user at the point where a road user could wrongly enter a divided highway, one-way roadway, or ramp, and includes a reference to Figure 2B-10 (numbered Figure 2B-8 in the NPA). The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, supporting the overall changes to this section, and the FHWA adopts these changes.

Additionally, the FHWA renumbers and retitles Figure 2B-2 (as numbered in the 2000 MUTCD) from “Typical Wrong-Way Signing for a Divided Highway” to “Figure 2B-10 Example of Wrong-Way Signing for a Divided Highway with a Median Width of 9 m (30 ft) or Greater” (numbered Figure 2B-8 in the NPA). The FHWA received two comments from private citizens in general support of the changes to this figure, and the FHWA adopts the changes.

47. In Section 2B.36 Selective Exclusion Signs (numbered Section 2B.31 in the NPA), the FHWA changes item H in the SUPPORT statement from “Hazardous Cargo” to “Hazardous Material” to reflect the changes in Section 2B.52 Hazardous Material Signs (R14-2, R14-3). The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change. The FHWA received additional editorial comments to provide consistency with other areas of the MUTCD, and the FHWA incorporates the comments in this final rule.

48. In Section 2B.37 ONE WAY Signs (R6-1, R6-2) (numbered Section 2B.32 in the NPA), the FHWA relocates four figures from Section 2A.16 to this section. The FHWA renumbers and retitles Figures 2A-5 and 2A-6 to “Figure 2B-12. Examples of Locations of ONE WAY Signs (Sheet 1 of 2, Sheet 2 of 2)” (numbered Figures 2B-10 and 2B-11 in the NPA); Figure 2A-4 to “Figure 2B-13. Examples of ONE WAY Signing for Divided Highways with Medians 9 m (30 ft) or Greater” (numbered Figure 2B-12 in the NPA); and Figure 2A-3 to “Figure 2B-14. Examples of ONE WAY Signing for Divided Highways with Medians Less Than 9 m (30 ft) ” (numbered Figure 2B-13 in the NPA). The FHWA also adds a new figure, “Figure 2B-15. Examples of ONE WAY Signing for Divided Highways with Medians Less Than 9 m (30 ft) and Separated Left-Turn Lanes” (numbered Figure 2B-14 in the NPA). These figures are most directly associated with ONE WAY signs and are most appropriately located in this section, which contains the text about ONE WAY signs. The FHWA received a few editorial comments regarding these figures, and incorporates those changes as appropriate in this final rule.

Additionally, the FHWA revises the depiction of the optional Keep Right signs on the medians in Figures 2B-14 and 2B-15 to show them at a 45 degree angle facing the road users on the cross street, to make it easier for drivers to determine the location of the median nose and to enter the proper roadway of a divided highway. The FHWA received three comments from ATSSA and private citizens in support of these changes. The FHWA adopts the changes to these figures.

49. In Section 2B.40 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs (numbered Section 2B.35 in the NPA), the FHWA adds to the GUIDANCE statement that where special parking restrictions are imposed during heavy snowfall, Snow Emergency signs should be installed and that the legend will vary according to the regulations, but the signs should be vertical rectangles, having a white background with the upper part of the plate a red background. Signs of this type are used by many jurisdictions. The FHWA received two comments from the NCUTCD and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change, and adopts this change. In addition, the FHWA adds a paragraph at the end of the GUIDANCE statement regarding the use of the VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8a) plaque. A final rule adding this information to the 1988 edition of the MUTCD was adopted in 1998, however this was inadvertently left out of the 2000 MUTCD.

50. In Section 2B.44 Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R9-2, R9-3) (numbered Section 2B.39 in the NPA), the FHWA

modifies the second OPTION statement by changing “PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITED” to “NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING” as the proper word message sign to be used as an alternate to the No Pedestrian Crossing (R9-3a) symbol sign. “NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING” is the intended meaning of the symbol and more clearly describes the actual restriction of pedestrian movement. The FHWA received comments from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals and the City of Tucson, Arizona, specifically in support of this change, and adopts this change.

The FHWA also received comments from the Florida DOT and the City of Tucson, Arizona, suggesting that the section does not mention signalized crossings. These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking.

51. In Section 2B.45 Traffic Signal Signs (R10-1 through R10-21) (numbered and titled “Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs (R10-1 through R10-13)” in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA revises the title to reflect additional traffic signal signs. These signs are shown in Figures 2B-18 and 2B-19.

The FHWA adds to the second OPTION statement that the R10-3d sign may be used if the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only for the pedestrian to cross to the median. This sign is similar to the existing R10-3b sign except that next to the WALK symbol is the message “START CROSSING TO MEDIAN WATCH FOR VEHICLES.” The FHWA also modifies Figure 2B-18 (numbered Figure 2B-17 in the NPA) to add illustrations of the R10-3d sign and the R10-3e sign. The R10-3e sign is a variant incorporating “time remaining to finish crossing” and is consistent with countdown pedestrian signals as adopted in Part 4. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change and one question from the U.S. Access Board regarding how this information would be given in audible and vibrotactile formats. The Access Board stated that, if accessible signals are used at an intersection where pedestrians should cross only to a median and then wait until a different phase to complete their crossing, it would be important for the accessible devices to communicate this fact to the pedestrian with visual disabilities. This comment actually pertains to Chapter 4E Pedestrian Signals, and it goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and would need to be addressed in a future rulemaking. The FHWA adopts the change, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule.

Additionally, the FHWA revises and relocates the third OPTION statement (from the 2000 MUTCD) to follow the second STANDARD statement to indicate that a symbolic NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) sign may be used as an alternate to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs. The symbolic sign has a symbolic red ball rather than using the “No Right Turn” symbol, to avoid confusion with the R3-1 (No Right Turn) sign.

In Figure 2B-19 Traffic Signal Signs (numbered Figure 2B-18 in the NPA), the FHWA received several comments regarding the illustration of “No Right Turn on Red” signs. ATSSA and a traffic engineering consultant agreed with the return of the R10-11 sign and the removal of the R10-11c and R10-11d signs. The Cities of Plano, Texas, and Los Angeles, California, and some private citizens were opposed to the removal of the R10-11c and R10-11d signs, stating that the use of symbol signs should be encouraged over word signs. The FHWA disagrees with the opposing commenters because the use of the No Right Turn symbol sign should be reserved for actual prohibition of all right turn movements at an intersection to have the appropriate impact on safety. Extensive use of a No Right Turn on Red sign featuring the No Right Turn symbol would degrade the influence of the R3-1 sign. The City of Los Angeles and a private citizen suggested different designs for the sign. The FHWA disagrees with these different designs because they are too complex. The FHWA adopts the R10-11 sign with a red ball symbol included on the bottom line of the sign. The FHWA also revises the sign number for R10-20b to be R10-20a, and places the word “or” between the two R10-20a signs to clarify that the signs illustrate two examples of different word messages that can be used to provide times and days.

Additionally, the FHWA adds to the second GUIDANCE statement to indicate that where turns on red after the driver stops are permitted and the turn signal indication is a RED ARROW, the RIGHT (LEFT) ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP (R10-17a) sign should be installed adjacent to the RED ARROW signal indication to conform to the “Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance” (UVC) as revised. The revised UVC prohibits turns on a RED ARROW after stopping unless a sign specifically allowing the turn is in place. The FHWA received one comment from ATSSA in support of this change, and three comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans and the City of Kennewick, Washington, opposing it. Kennewick, Washington, opposed this new sign, because the State of Washington allows the turn on red arrow after stop in certain instances, unless otherwise prohibited by signs. The FHWA is in favor of maintaining consistency with the majority of the other States who already have laws that agree with this meaning of the red arrow.

The NCUTCD opposed this new paragraph as well as the signs, stating that it is “inappropriate.” Without additional explanation, the FHWA cannot respond to this comment.

Caltrans opposed the new sign suggesting that where turns on red are permitted after stopping and the signal indication is a RED ARROW, that changing the signal indication from a RED ARROW to a Red Ball would be more appropriate than fixing the situation with a sign. The FHWA agrees that while there may not be many places where the R10-17a sign is needed, there are intersections with unusual geometrics or special lane use control for which an all-arrow right-turn signal head makes sense and from which there is no reason that turns on red should be prohibited. It is primarily for these situations that the R10-17a sign should be used. The FHWA adopts use of this sign in this final rule, with minor modifications.

Additionally, the FHWA relocates the last item in the second GUIDANCE statement to the first paragraph under the third OPTION statement (new fourth OPTION statement) and changes it to read that when right turn on red after stop is permitted and pedestrian crosswalks are marked, the TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15) sign may be used. This change is necessary to prevent potential overuse and a reduced effectiveness of the sign. The FHWA received two comments from ATSSA and a traffic engineering consultant in support of this change. The U.S. Access Board opposed, stating that the use of the sign should not be restricted to just marked crosswalks. The traffic engineering consultant who supported the change also suggested that the sign would also be useful during the green interval to remind drivers to yield to pedestrians who are crossing during the concurrent WALK interval. The FHWA agrees and adds a paragraph to the OPTION stating that a TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS sign may be used to remind drivers who are making turns to yield to pedestrians, especially at intersections where crosswalks are

marked and right turn on red is permitted.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph to the OPTION statement allowing the use of supplemental plaques showing times of day or with the legend WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT below a NO TURN ON RED sign, to allow the flexibility to restrict turns on red only during certain times or when a pedestrian conflict is present. The traffic engineering consultant also supported the use of both of the suggested plaques. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety presented results from recent field research indicating that time-of-day restrictions are effective in reducing right turn on red related safety threats to pedestrians but the WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT plaque is not because its vague message makes enforcement difficult.
13

Based on this research, the FHWA revises the text to deletes the WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT plaque. Because it is a word message, State and local highway agencies may still use the WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT plaque prohibiting right turns on red when pedestrians are present if their laws so dictate, but they are not encouraged to do so because research has shown these plaques are ineffective. Finally, to respond to a comment from a traffic engineering consultant, the FHWA moves the last paragraph of this OPTION statement regarding the use of Traffic Signal Speed signs to the end of the second OPTION statement because this paragraph relates more to the information provided in the second OPTION.

13
“Field Evaluation of Two Methods for Restricting Right Turn on Red to Promote Pedestrian Safety,” by Retting, Nitzburg, Farmer, and Knoblauch, for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, was published in the January 2002 issue of the “ITE Journal,” a publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Information on obtaining a copy of this publication is available from ITE at the following URL:
http://www.ite.org.

The FHWA proposed in the NPA to add to the third STANDARD statement that the EMERGENCY SIGNAL—STOP WHEN FLASHING RED (R10-14) sign shall be used in conjunction with emergency beacons to correspond with proposed changes in Part 4 of the MUTCD, which proposed to require the use of these signs with Emergency Beacons. Due to extensive comments in opposition to the Emergency Beacon in Part 4, the FHWA does not adopt these changes in Part 4. (See the discussion of Section 4F.03). Therefore, the FHWA removes the R10-14 sign, associated text, and illustration from Part 2.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding to the STANDARD statement the requirement to use a “U Turn Yield to Right Turn” sign when U-turns on a green arrow signal conflict with right turns on a green arrow signal. While there were comments from the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a traffic engineering consultant in support of this change, the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, Caltrans, and the City of Kennewick, Washington, opposed it, stating that the sign would not be understood, or was inappropriate. The FHWA concurs that there is some possibility of misunderstanding. Because there is no data to support or refute these concerns, the FHWA changes this to an OPTION statement, allowing the use of the sign but not requiring it. The FHWA also modifies Sections 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications and 4D.09 Unexpected Conflicts During Green or Yellow Intervals accordingly.

52. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.46 Photo Enforced Signs (R10-18, R10-19)” (numbered Section 2B.51 in the NPA.) This new section provides guidance to State and local agencies on the use of the photo enforcement signs to alert road users of this type of traffic enforcement. The FHWA includes an OPTION statement with two paragraphs. The first paragraph states that a TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-18) sign may be installed at a jurisdictional boundary to advise road users that some of the traffic regulations within that jurisdiction are being enforced by photographic equipment. The second paragraph states that a PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) sign may be mounted below a regulatory sign to advise road users that the regulation is being enforced by photographic equipment.

Additionally, the FHWA includes a STANDARD statement, which states that if the PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) sign is used below a regulatory sign, it shall be a rectangle with black legend and border on a white background.

The FHWA received three comments from the NCUTCD, ATSSA and the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this new section and two comments from the Wisconsin DOT and the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety opposed to it.

The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety stated that placing the TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED sign at jurisdictional boundaries is vague with regard to which traffic laws (speed, red light) are photo enforced. The FHWA disagrees because this sign can be a useful reminder to drivers to obey all traffic laws, just speed limits and red lights. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety also suggested that rather than the general PHOTO ENFORCED regulatory sign, specific regulatory signs should be developed for both red light cameras and automated speed enforcement. The FHWA disagrees because the consistent placement of the PHOTO ENFORCED sign should provide adequate notice and should have the desired effect on driver behavior.

The Wisconsin DOT noted that not all States allow the use of photo enforcement. Because use of these signs is optional, States that do not use photographic enforcement will not need to use these signs.

The FHWA adopts this section in its entirety, as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule. The FHWA establishes a phase-in target compliance date of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule for existing signs of different designs that are in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

53. In Section 2B.52 Hazardous Material Signs (R14-2, R14-3) (numbered and titled “Section 2B.46 Hazardous Cargo Signs (R14-2, R14-3)” in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA changes the title and revises the OPTION and GUIDANCE statements to replace “cargo” with the word “material” and revises the symbol for the Hazardous Material sign (R14-3) sign to be HM rather than HC, to correspond with Section 2B.36 Selective Exclusion Signs and to reflect the change in terminology in the industry. The FHWA received three comments from ATSSA, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and a private citizen in support of these changes, and three comments from private citizens suggesting changes to the design of the R14-3 sign, particularly changes in the color of the circle around the letters. The FHWA adopts the sign design as proposed in the NPA. The FHWA revises the phase-in target compliance date to 10 years from the effective date of this final rule (the NPA proposed five years) for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local governments.

54. In Section 2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs (numbered Section 2B.51 in the 2000 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed to revise the STANDARD statement to indicate that the symbol for the seat belt symbol is in the “Standard Highway Signs” book. The FHWA received one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in support of this change. However, consistent with FHWA's desire to include illustrations of all

signs from the SHS that are referenced in the MUTCD, as discussed above, the FHWA retains the symbol for the seat belt symbol, and places it in a new Figure 2B-22.

55. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, the FHWA modifies the SUPPORT statement to reflect that “categories” not “applications” of warning signs are shown in Table 2C-1. This change makes the text and Table 2C-1 consistent.

Additionally, the FHWA changes the title of Table 2C-1 from “Application of Warning Signs” to “Categories of Warning Signs” and adds new roadway related and traffic related signs and supplemental plaques to the table based on changes in other sections of Chapter 2C. The change in the title of the table better reflects the actual content of the table. There was one comment from the City of Tucson, Arizona, in agreement with the overall changes in this section. One traffic engineering consultant questioned why the Railroad Advance Warning sign is not listed in the table. This table only includes those signs that are found in Chapter 2C, not those found in other parts such as Part 8. The MUTCD has separate sign tables in other Parts as appropriate. Another traffic engineering consultant questioned why W16-8, W14-1p, and W14-2p are identified as plaques. The W16-8 plaque must be used in combination with a W2 or W3 sign according to Section 2C.49 Advance Street Name Plaque (W16-8, W16-8a), and thus is correctly referred to as a plaque. Because the W14-1P and W14-2P plaques can be used alone according to Section 2C.21 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a), the FHWA revises the table to remove the “P” designation from these two signs, and the rectangular forms of these signs are designated the W14-1a and W14-2a signs.

56. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, based on an editorial comment from a traffic engineering consultant, the FHWA adds playgrounds to the listing of signs in the OPTION statement that may have a black legend and border on a yellow background or a black legend and border on a fluorescent yellow-green background.

57. In Section 2C.04 Size of Warning Signs, the FHWA removes the SUPPORT statement referencing the “Standard Highway Signs” book because this statement is general and applies to regulatory, warning, and guide signs. A similar statement is included in Section 2A.12 Dimensions. The removal of this SUPPORT statement responds to two comments from the NCUTCD and the Illinois DOT.

The FHWA changes Table 2C-2 to add sizes for the Expressways W1 Series Arrows signs, the Expressways and Freeways W7 Series Truck Runaway signs, the Expressways and Freeways W12-2P Low Clearance signs, and to increase the sizes for all roadways except Freeways for the W10-1 Advance Grade Crossing sign, to enhance visibility of this sign for all road users, including older drivers. The FHWA received one comment from the NCUTCD in overall agreement with the changes to the table. The Oregon DOT suggested that the size for the W1 series signs be 900 x 900 mm (36″ x 36″) for conventional roads because these curvature sig

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A03-28673. Public record. Not legal advice.