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

Federal RegisterDec 16, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977]

RIN 2125-AF22

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

AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (also referred to as “the Manual”) is incorporated by reference within our regulations, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads. The purpose of this final rule is to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control device application. The MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, is being designated as the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD.

DATES:

Effective Date:

This final rule is effective January 15, 2010. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of January 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

This document, the notice of proposed amendments (NPA), and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:

http://www.archives.gov

and the Government Printing Office's Web page at:

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

Background

On January 2, 2008, at 73 FR 268, the FHWA published an NPA proposing revisions to the MUTCD. Those changes were proposed to be designated as the next edition of the MUTCD. Interested persons were invited to submit comments to FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977. Based on the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA is issuing a final rule and is designating the MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, as the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD.

The text of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted changes from the 2003 Edition, are available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted changes from the 2003 Edition, are available on the FHWA's MUTCD Internet site

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

The previous version of the MUTCD, the 2003 MUTCD with Revisions 1 and 2 incorporated, is also available on this Internet site. The 2009 Edition supersedes all previous editions and revisions of the MUTCD.

Summary of Comments

The FHWA received 1,841 letters submitted to the docket, containing over 15,000 individual comments on the MUTCD in general or on one or more parts, chapters, sections, or paragraphs contained in the MUTCD. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), city and county government agencies, Federal government agencies, consulting firms, private industry, associations, other organizations, and individual private citizens submitted comments. The FHWA has reviewed and analyzed all of the comments received. The NCUTCD comments included support for all items in the NPA except as otherwise indicated. The significant comments and summaries of the FHWA's analyses and determinations are discussed below. General comments and significant global changes throughout the MUTCD are discussed first, followed by discussion of significant comments and adopted changes in each of the individual Parts of the MUTCD. All of the items discussed below were proposed in the NPA unless otherwise indicated.

Discussion of General Amendments to the MUTCD

1. The FHWA received several general comments from State DOTs, local agencies, associations, and citizens regarding the NPA. Two local agencies, a traffic control device vendor, an association, and two citizens expressed general support for the changes in the MUTCD, such as incorporating into the MUTCD recommendations of the Older Driver Handbook, the Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs, and new technologies. In addition to the overall general comments, some of the commenters had specific comments that relate to the entire MUTCD. Those topics that the FHWA considers to be substantive and non-editorial in nature are discussed in the following items within this section.

2. The NCUTCD submitted a letter suggesting that the FHWA issue a supplemental notice of proposed amendments (SNPA). Fourteen State DOTs, AASHTO, and the Chair of the NCUTCD submitted duplicate copies of the NCUTCD's letter in support of an SNPA. In addition, three State DOTs, a county DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic engineering consultant also stated support for the NCUTCD's letter. The NCUTCD's letter included the following statements in support of an SNPA:

1. The NPA did not include a quantified assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed changes on public agencies and the private sector.

2. More details are needed regarding some of the proposed changes and some of the proposed changes need to be reorganized or reformatted.

3. The extent of the proposed changes and the number of expected comments is such that the final rule would be significantly different from the NPA version, and would therefore constitute a new document which should be reviewed as an SNPA prior to becoming a final rule.

4. Because of the interconnectivity between the language in the various sections, chapters, and parts, a change in one section might have impacts on multiple other sections. Therefore, an SNPA is needed in order to have the opportunity to review additional changes resulting from responses to comments to assess whether they are consistent with each other.

5. There is precedent for issuing multiple proposed rules for changes to the MUTCD.

6. It is essential that the FHWA provide an opportunity to review the FHWA responses to the docket so that implementation and liability changes can be identified, assessed, and discussed before a final rule is published.

7. An SNPA is needed to assess the FHWA response to comments and evaluate the level of engineering flexibility that will be provided in the next edition of the MUTCD.

Five State DOTs, a local agency, nine toll road operators, a major retail business owner, and a traffic engineering consultant also expressed general support for an SNPA.

Two bicycle associations, a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen disagreed with the need for an SNPA and requested that FHWA publish a final rule. The two bicycle associations suggested that if an SNPA were to be published instead of a final rule, the FHWA should issue Interim Approvals for all new devices and applications in Part 9 so that public agencies can begin installing them to improve conditions for bicyclists.

The FHWA carefully reviewed and considered the concerns both for and against issuing an SNPA and decided that an SNPA is not necessary or appropriate. The FHWA determined that the seven specific statements cited by the NCUTCD in support of an SNPA do not justify delaying the finalization of a new edition of the MUTCD that will significantly improve the safety and efficiency of highway travel. Additionally, in making decisions in the final rule regarding the various technical issues cited in the letters from the NCUTCD and others who requested an SNPA, the FHWA has taken into consideration the concerns expressed. To address the concerns, in most cases the FHWA has revised certain provisions to make them less restrictive or has deleted from the final rule certain provisions that were proposed in the NPA, has reorganized and reformatted material to clarify it, and has eliminated specific target compliance dates or established long compliance periods consistent with service lives of the devices. In most cases the new provisions apply only to new installations or reconstructions of devices, and the provisions for systematic upgrading cited in Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations

allow existing noncompliant devices in good condition to remain in place until the end of their service lives, thus minimizing any impacts of new requirements on State or local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel.

The Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/.

3. The FHWA received comments from three local agency DOTs, an association of counties, and a citizen suggesting that there are too many proposed changes to the MUTCD and that many of the changes are too complex. The FHWA believes that continuously updating the MUTCD is necessary in order to incorporate advances in technology, new research results, and state of the practice in traffic control devices. Since the MUTCD's purpose is to improve safety and efficiency, the MUTCD must be revised to remain current with these new technologies and applications.

4. A State DOT, 10 local agency DOTs, an association representing local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant expressed concern that there were too many new STANDARD statements (or GUIDANCE statements elevated to STANDARD statements) in the proposed revisions, and that the large number of changes places an undue financial burden on agencies. The FHWA believes that the changes to the MUTCD will provide improved uniformity in traffic control device applications across the country, thereby increasing safety, and that the additional Standards will not result in undue financial burden on agencies. As discussed under Amendments to the MUTCD Introduction, in the vast majority of cases existing devices in good condition that are not in compliance with new standards can remain in place for the remainder of their service life, thus minimizing any impacts of new requirements on State or local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel.

5. The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and three city DOTs opposing the scope of the changes within the MUTCD and suggesting that many of the changes are more appropriate for a handbook, rather than the MUTCD. Several of the commenters expressed concern that the MUTCD was becoming more prescriptive in nature, thus limiting creativity, flexibility, and judgment. The FHWA believes that the widespread use of the MUTCD by State and local agencies and design professionals, and its importance as a Federal regulation for traffic control devices justifies the level of detail incorporated in the MUTCD. Further, the FHWA believes that sufficient justification has been provided for any new standards and that ample latitude for flexibility and judgment is provided in the application of Guidance and Options in the MUTCD.

6. The FHWA adopts a new cover page for this edition of the MUTCD that maintains general consistency with covers of previous editions, but with changes to give it a distinctive appearance to minimize the possibility of confusion by users. The date of this edition, which is identified on the cover and elsewhere within the document, is the year in which the final rule is issued.

7. The FHWA includes paragraph numbers in the margins for each paragraph of each section for the final page images of this edition of the MUTCD. The FHWA includes these paragraph numbers in order to aid practitioners in referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of future MUTCD notices of proposed amendments. The FHWA posted sample pages on its MUTCD Web site showing four possible methods for paragraph numbering and as part of the NPA asked interested persons to review the sample pages and provide comments to the docket on the paragraph numbering options. Based on comments, the FHWA numbers the paragraphs in the manner that was shown as Alternative #3, with dark numerals outside the margin, and in a font that is easy to read without being distracting.

8. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a citizen provided comments regarding the format of MUTCD pages, print style, numbering of sections, etc. Based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA changes the font of GUIDANCE statements to italics to distinguish them from OPTION and SUPPORT statements. As part of this change, the FHWA eliminates italics from the titles of figures and tables.

9. The FHWA received several comments regarding the use of metric units in the MUTCD. The NCUTCD, six State DOTs, ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and two traffic engineering consultants suggested that the metric units be removed in their entirety or that the English units precede the metric units, and a traffic engineering consultant suggested that the MUTCD continue to be issued with both systems of measurement. Because metric units are not currently used in the U.S. for traffic control device applications, the FHWA determines that only English units are to be used in the MUTCD text, figures, and tables and places metric

equivalent values for all English unit values used in the MUTCD in a new Appendix A2 in this final rule. This preserves the soft conversions of the English to metric values in the MUTCD while also providing a document that is less cumbersome to read and apply. This change is consistent with an Informational Memorandum from FHWA's Executive Director, dated November 25, 2008,

stating that use of metric measurements will now be optional in all FHWA documents, including letters, memoranda, publications, reports, and information on FHWA Web sites.

Informational Memorandum, “Update on Metric Use Requirements for FHWA Documents,” by Jeffrey Paniati, dated November 25, 2008, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/1108metr.cfm.

10. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA incorporates minor changes in text, figures, and tables for grammatical or style consistency, to improve consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to correct minor errors. Where the FHWA adds a new chapter within a part of the MUTCD, a new section within a chapter of the MUTCD, or a new item within a listing, the chapters or sections or items that follow the addition are renumbered or relettered accordingly. All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists of Tables, and page headers and footers are revised as appropriate to reflect the changes.

11. The FHWA modifies figures and tables to reflect changes in the text and adds figures and tables to illustrate new or revised text.

12. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA relocates statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition, the FHWA changes the titles of some sections, figures, and tables in order to more accurately describe the content.

13. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA removes the phrase “reasonably safe” throughout the Manual because it cannot be easily defined, and as a result it is open to too much subjective interpretation. The FHWA received a comment from a local DOT opposed to this revision, stating that there are some circumstances in the MUTCD where the phrase “reasonably safe” reflects real-world conditions, and that removing the phrase could pose a liability problem to State and local agencies in civil litigation. The FHWA disagrees because of the subjectivity of the term and for each occurrence of the term either eliminates or replaces the term with suitable language that is more appropriate.

14. The FHWA changes the references to the book previously titled “Standard Highway Signs” to refer to the current title, “Standard Highway Signs and Markings.” This reflects FHWA's change of the title of that book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes information regarding pavement markings. The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA in support of this change. The FHWA also resolves the inaccuracies between the sign illustrations in the MUTCD and the “Standard Highway Signs and Markings” (SHSM) book to the extent practical in the MUTCD figures.

15. The FHWA conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign codes used throughout the Manual, and revises sign codes in several places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As part of this process, the FHWA revises the term “sign code” to “sign designation” to avoid confusion with other uses of the word “code.” The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA in support of this change. A State DOT opposed sign nomenclature changes, stating that these changes could be complex for agencies that catalog sign inventory databases based on the nomenclature. The FHWA understands the issues related to inventory databases but determines that the nomenclature changes are necessary for consistency. The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA suggesting that the suffix “w” be used for word message signs to avoid confusion with the “a” suffix being used for abbreviations in the route marker series (such as M4-1a and M4-7a). The FHWA disagrees and uses the “a” suffix in sign designations for word message signs that are alternatives to symbol signs, as presented in the NPA. The FHWA uses the “P” suffix for designations for plaques to clarify that these devices must accompany a sign and cannot be used alone. ATSSA supported this change. Also, based on a comment from a citizen, the FHWA adds a column to the sign size tables in Parts 6 and 9 to cite the applicable MUTCD Section for each sign so that MUTCD users can review the pertinent information for each sign. The sign size tables for other Parts of the MUTCD already have this column.

16. Based on a comment from the NCUTCD that a single location should be provided where all definitions can be found, the FHWA places all definitions in Part 1 by relocating to Section 1A.13 all definitions that were previously contained or repeated in the MUTCD Introduction and in Parts 2 through 10 of the 2003 MUTCD and in the NPA.

17. The FHWA adds information in the MUTCD regarding toll plaza applications, because toll facilities are becoming more common and there is a need to provide more consistent use of signs, signals, and markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to enhance safety and convenience for road users. The FHWA adds provisions on toll plaza traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4 that reflect the results of research studies on best practices for traffic control strategies at toll plazas,

FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices,

and FHWA's report on “Strategies for Improving Safety at Toll Collection Facilities.”

The NCUTCD and 10 agencies that operate toll facilities suggested that the toll road related material be placed in a new, separate Part to facilitate the use of this material. The FHWA understands that the toll operators would like to have the information consolidated into one area, but disagrees with adding a separate Part. Instead, the FHWA creates new chapters for toll plazas within Parts 2, 3, and 4 and places the new toll-related material in those chapters.

“State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,” June 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.

“Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,” dated September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.

“Strategies for Improving Safety at Toll Collection Facilities,” Report number FHWA-IF-08-005, May 2008, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/resources/report/toll_summary/index.htm.

18. The FHWA expands the provisions regarding preferential lanes and adds new provisions regarding managed lanes in various parts of the MUTCD to address the increasing complexity and use of these types of lanes. Although four agencies that operate toll facilities expressed support for the need for increased uniformity in traffic control devices on managed lanes for the purposes of improving traffic safety, eight agencies (including some of those who also supported the need for including toll facilities in the MUTCD) expressed concern that the changes will place a financial burden on their agency, and two of these agencies felt that the changes were too restrictive and should reflect recommendations, rather than requirements. The FHWA understands that changes in the MUTCD are often met with financial concerns; however, the FHWA believes that the provisions for systematic upgrading

cited in Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations

will enable changes associated with the final rule to be accommodated without significant expense. The information on preferential and managed lanes is contained primarily in Parts 2 and 3 and is intended to address specific signing and marking issues associated with High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls and other operational strategies on managed lanes, etc. To better facilitate user understanding, the FHWA creates new chapters for preferential and managed lanes in Parts 2 and 3 and places the new and existing material on those subjects in those chapters. In addition, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA eliminates some information regarding preferential lanes that is too specific for the MUTCD because it deals with highway planning and programmatic matters rather than the traffic control devices for preferential lanes.

The Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/.

19. The FHWA received comments from a variety of commenters on subject material that was not included in the NPA. In some cases those comments pertain to existing subject matter in the 2003 Edition that was not proposed for change in the NPA, while in other cases the commenters suggest new material for the MUTCD such as new signs or different traffic control device applications from those included in the 2003 Edition or the NPA. Comments received during the comment period that were outside the scope of this rulemaking are neither discussed in this preamble nor addressed in the final rule. The FHWA appreciates these comments, and might consider some of these ideas for potential future rulemaking activities.

Discussion of Amendments Within the Introduction

20. The FHWA revises paragraph 01 regarding the definition of traffic control devices to reflect that traffic control devices on private roads open to public travel are placed by authority of the private property owner or private official having jurisdiction. A State DOT commented that the existing language and that proposed in the NPA for this paragraph implied that public agencies have the authority to place traffic control devices on private roads open to public travel. The FHWA agrees that clarification is needed and revises the text accordingly.

21. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revisions and additions to the text regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. Two city DOTs, an NCUTCD member, three transportation professionals, a traffic control device vendor, and two citizens all supported the changes, as proposed in the NPA and as currently provided in the CFR, to apply the MUTCD to private roads open to public travel. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and an employee of a State DOT opposed applying the MUTCD to private roads, mostly because of concerns about enforcement of the provisions. The FHWA recognizes that enforcement can only occur when a State includes the requirement to comply with MUTCD in State ordinances, local building codes, development approvals, site plans, etc., and as a result of the potential tort liability to the owners of the private roads. The FHWA believes that public agency traffic engineers are not expected to enforce this provision for existing conditions on private roads open to public travel.

Two State DOTs and two toll road operators suggested that the wording be revised to reflect that toll roads may be operated by public, quasi-public, or private entities and that toll roads are gated and restricted by tolling. The FHWA agrees and revises the language in this final rule and in 23 CFR 655.603(a),

to clarify that, for the purpose of applicability of the MUTCD, toll roads under the jurisdiction of public agencies or authorities or of public-private partnerships are considered to be public facilities, and that “open to public travel” includes private toll roads and roads within shopping centers, airports, sports arenas, and other similar business and/or recreation facilities that are privately owned, but where the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. To address the comments from two toll road operators, this final rule language further clarifies that except for gated toll roads, roads within private gated properties where public access is restricted at all times shall not be considered to be open to public travel.

The

Federal Register

Notice for the Final Rule, dated December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.

The FHWA received several comments from a major retail business operator suggesting that there are many items in the MUTCD that are not easily applicable to parking lots within shopping centers and the driving aisles within those parking lots. The FHWA agrees that, while MUTCD general principles and standard traffic control device designs should be used in parking lots, there are some MUTCD provisions that do not easily translate to conditions typically found in parking lots and parking garages. The FHWA believes that additional future consideration is needed to determine appropriate and feasible standards and guidance for the application of traffic control devices in parking lots. Therefore, the FHWA exempts parking spaces and driving aisles in parking lots, both privately and publicly owned, from MUTCD applicability in this final rule. The MUTCD continues to be applicable to ring roads, roads providing access to or egress from public roads, and circulation roads on private property open to public travel. Accordingly, throughout the MUTCD, where the term “private property open to public travel” was used in the NPA, the FHWA clarifies the term to be “private road open to public travel” and provides a precise definition of that term in Section 1A.13 in this final rule. The FHWA also incorporates these changes into 23 CFR 655.603(a).

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA also modifies the wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove the exemption from MUTCD applicability for military bases, based on a request from the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to include military bases, in order to facilitate road user safety through conformity and consistency with national standards.

22. The FHWA adds SUPPORT paragraph 05 to clarify that pictographs embedded within signs are not in themselves considered traffic control devices and thus the pictographs are not subject to the provisions in paragraph 04 that prohibit patented, copyrighted, or trademarked items. This clarification is necessary to address frequent questions from users of the MUTCD on this subject.

23. In concert with the change to show dimensions throughout the MUTCD in only English units, the FHWA revises the text in paragraphs 13 and 14 to provide a reference to new Appendix A2 for tables converting each of the English unit numerical values to the equivalent Metric values and to recommend that if metric units are to be used in laying out distances or determining sizes of devices, such units should be specified on plan drawings and made known to those responsible for designing, installing, or maintaining traffic control devices.

24. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise the paragraph regarding adoption of MUTCD revisions by the States or other Federal agencies, substantial conformance of State or

other Federal agency MUTCDs or Supplements, and compliance periods for new and existing devices to reflect the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations applicable to the MUTCD that have been in effect since 2006.

In this final rule, the FHWA further revises the text to make it clearer and more easily understood by users. The FHWA divides the single paragraph into several separate paragraphs containing applicable text on certain subjects that are presented in a more logical sequence. New text consistent with the CFR is added regarding compliance of new or reconstructed devices, and Option and Support text regarding replacement of existing noncompliant devices is revised for clarity and relocated from the end of the MUTCD Introduction to follow other related text.

The

Federal Register

Notice for the Final Rule, dated December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.

25. In the NPA, the FHWA asked for comments regarding the possibility of incorporating the phase-in target compliance periods into the body of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and sections in this Final Rule. The FHWA considered this change because the list of target compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more convenient and effective for practitioners to have target compliance periods embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the Manual. The Minnesota DOT has incorporated the target compliance periods into its State MUTCD text, and the FHWA asked whether Minnesota's method is preferable to listing all the target compliance periods in the MUTCD Introduction. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, a State DOT, a toll facility operator, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic control device vendor favored placing the compliance periods within the sections to which that they pertain. The NCUTCD also suggested that a reference be placed in the Introduction to a list of all target compliance dates on the MUTCD Web site. The FHWA understands that there are advantages and disadvantages to placing the target compliance dates within the text. Placing the target compliance dates within the sections to which they apply might result in some agencies delaying action to comply with the provision until the compliance date approaches. As a result, the FHWA continues to provide the target compliance date information in the Introduction, and does not embed the dates within the section text. However, to consolidate and improve the clarity of this information, the FHWA relocates the listing of target compliance dates from the body of the MUTCD Introduction to a new Table I-2.

In new Table I-2, FHWA includes the specific target compliance dates for those items whose dates were determined through previous rulemaking, now that the effective dates are known, and deletes from the listing any items for which the target compliance dates have passed by the date of the publication of this final rule.

The FHWA deletes most of the large number of new target compliance dates that were proposed in the NPA. Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, states that for existing highways “each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, and Federal agency shall have a program as required by 23 U.S.C. 402(a), which shall include provisions for the systematic upgrading of substandard traffic control devices and for the installation of needed devices to achieve conformity with the MUTCD.” Although the FHWA may establish specific target compliance dates to achieve compliance with respect to specific devices, the systematic upgrade program allows public agencies and officials having jurisdiction to upgrade their existing noncompliant devices when the devices are no longer serviceable because they reach the end of their service life or otherwise need to be replaced, or when other events such as highway improvement or reconstruction projects occur, thus minimizing any impacts to State or local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel. Target compliance periods shorter than expected service life have generally only been established in unusual cases when a new MUTCD requirement is deemed to be so critically important from a safety impact standpoint that it justifies earlier replacement of noncompliant existing devices. In some cases, the FHWA has adopted target compliance dates for certain provisions, such as a requirement to do a study or to evaluate the timing of traffic signal clearance intervals, that are not directly related to the service life of a device but which the FHWA believes can be reasonably accommodated within typical agency procedures and practices. The FHWA reviewed all the proposed target compliance dates in the NPA in the context of the CFR language, the general intents stated above, and the comments received, and the FHWA establishes only 12 new target compliance dates in this final rule. Each of these new target dates is discussed in detail under the appropriate item later in this preamble.

Additionally, for new target compliance dates, the FHWA establishes specific dates (December 31 of a particular year) rather than the previous practice of setting target compliance dates as a certain number of years from the effective date of the final rule. The FHWA believes that specific end of calendar year target compliance dates will assist MUTCD users by making the dates clear without the need to determine what date a final rule became effective. It should also be noted that the target compliance dates define the end of the “phase-in compliance period” as discussed for various items in the remainder of this document.

Discussion of Amendments Within Part 1

26. In Section 1A.07, Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA revises paragraphs 01 and 02 to be consistent with the language of 23 CFR 655.603 regarding the applicability of the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel. The FHWA adopts language for these paragraphs in this final rule that is consistent with terminology regarding private roads as discussed above under Introduction to the MUTCD.

The FHWA received a comment from a citizen opposed to changing “bicycle trail” to “bikeways” as proposed in the NPA. However, because the MUTCD defines bikeway as the generic term for any road, street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for bicycle travel, the FHWA retains the word “bikeways” in this final rule.

The FHWA received three comments from local agencies opposed to including the term “private property” because of their belief that the property owner should be responsible for maintaining traffic control devices on private property, not a public agency or other entity. As discussed previously, the FHWA revises the term “private property” to “private roads.” To respond to the comments from the local agencies, the FHWA modifies the language in this final rule to clarify that, in the case of private roads open to public travel, it is the property owner or the private official having jurisdiction who is responsible for traffic control device design, placement, maintenance, operation, and uniformity, consistent with language in the MUTCD Introduction.

The FHWA adds a Support sentence in this final rule about adoption of the national MUTCD, supplements, or State

manuals by all States and a new GUIDANCE paragraph recommending that these State manuals or supplements should be reviewed for specific provisions relating to that State. The NCUTCD recommended these additions and the FHWA agrees that this is necessary to clarify that there is a need to review the specific State Manuals for local requirements.

As requested by the U.S. Military Command, and supported by ATSSA, the FHWA expands paragraph 07 to add the U.S. Military Command to the list of Federal agencies that have adopted the national MUTCD.

Two State DOTs opposed the proposed change of paragraph 08 to a GUIDANCE statement that would recommend that States adopt Section 15-116 of the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) because the adoption of State laws is outside of the control of State DOTs and is in the hands of elected officials. The FHWA retains and adopts this change in this final rule and reiterates that this is GUIDANCE, a statement of recommended but not mandatory practice, and as a result the MUTCD is merely recommending the adoption of this section of the UVC by the States, in accordance with their laws and constitutions.

27. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding a new SUPPORT statement describing certain signs and other devices that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed with the permission of the public agency or official having jurisdiction and a new GUIDANCE statement that such signs and other devices should not be located where they will interfere with or detract from traffic control devices. The FHWA proposed this change to clarify that there are some signs and devices that are placed within the right-of-way for distinct purposes that are not traffic control devices. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, five State DOTs, a local agency, a vendor, and an association agreeing with the proposed SUPPORT statement. A State DOT, a local DOT, and a traffic device vendor suggested that some of the items included in the SUPPORT statement, such as markers to guide snowplow operators, markers that identify fire hydrant locations, markers that identify underground utility locations, and design features such as speed humps are indeed traffic control devices and their application should be standardized by including them in the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with adding explicit standards for these devices in the MUTCD, noting that States may establish requirements for these devices and design features under their adopted policy for use of the public right-of-way. The FHWA adopts the SUPPORT statement, as proposed in the NPA but with minor editorial changes, in this final rule.

Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a toll road operator, the FHWA changes the proposed GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD statement in this final rule to require, rather than just recommend, that such signs and other devices shall not be located where they will interfere with or detract from traffic control devices, since it is important that traffic control devices not be blocked or interfered with. This is also necessary for consistency with other provisions in the MUTCD about device placement, such as the requirements in Sections 2D.50 and 2H.08 that community wayfinding signs and acknowledgement signs shall not be installed in a position where they would obscure the road users' view of other traffic control devices. Signs and other devices that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed within the highway right-of-way have even less importance than community wayfinding and acknowledgement signs.

28. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment, the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and two toll road operators recommending the removal of the existing STANDARD statement stating that the MUTCD shall not be a legal requirement for the installation of traffic control devices, because it is a general provision for all devices in the Manual that is inconsistent with numerous specific requirements elsewhere in the MUTCD that specific devices must be installed, and such requirements are “legal requirements.” The commenters also suggested that this Standard statement may not be consistent with the Guidance statement that immediately follows it. The FHWA agrees that this STANDARD statement is not easily understood by users of the MUTCD outside of the legal profession, but this statement has been the subject of important court interpretations regarding the applicability of the MUTCD and has legal significance beyond its plain meaning. The FHWA believes that, in the future, consideration should be given to removing or revising this statement, but additional legal study should be undertaken before doing so. Therefore, the FHWA decides to retain this STANDARD statement but cautions users of the MUTCD to consult with legal counsel before attempting to ascertain the meaning of the statement.

The FHWA did not propose in the NPA a significant change to the second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement as it appears in the 2003 MUTCD. However, four Kansas counties, the Kansas Association of Counties, and an engineer from Kansas suggested revising the language that recommends that jurisdictions with responsibility for traffic control that do not have engineers on their staffs who are trained and/or experienced in traffic control devices should seek engineering assistance from others. The commenters felt that many applications of the MUTCD are straightforward and well illustrated, and engineering assistance is not needed. As a result, the commenters felt that the language should be revised to recommend engineering assistance only if warranted due to the complexity of the situation. The commenters also recommended removing language about smaller agencies requesting assistance of larger agencies because of liability reasons. The FHWA disagrees with these comments and in this final rule adopts the revisions to the GUIDANCE statement as proposed in the NPA. However, to address the concerns, the FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement noting that, as part of the Federal-aid Program, each State is required to have a Local Technology Assistance Program (LTAP) that provides technical assistance to local highway agencies and that requisite technical training in the application of the principles of the MUTCD and, as needed, engineering assistance, is available from the State's LTAP.

The FHWA received a comment suggesting that the first paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement in the 2003 MUTCD be revised so that the phrase “this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment” cannot be used to ignore Standards based on “engineering judgment,” such as creating new sign symbols. The FHWA agrees that this language conflicts with other statements in the Manual regarding the intent and strength of Standards and in this final rule revises the GUIDANCE statement in Section 1A.09, the definition of the text heading “Standard” in Section 1A.13, and the definitions of engineering judgment and engineering study in Section 1A.13, to resolve the conflict and to make these statements consistent with each other.

29. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to revise paragraph 03 to indicate that electronic submittals of

requests for interpretation, permission to experiment, interim approvals, or changes shall be submitted electronically rather than by standard mail, and proposed to include the e-mail address for such electronic submittals. As part of this change, the FHWA proposed to add an OPTION statement that includes the postal address for mailing of requests in the event that the submitter does not have access to e-mail. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT and two toll road operators recommending that the STANDARD statement be changed to GUIDANCE or SUPPORT as this might not be convenient for all agencies. The FHWA disagrees with these comments as adequate provision for submission by standard mail is provided in the OPTION statement. The FHWA is aware that some written requests that are submitted by standard mail are lost or damaged in the screening of all postal mail that is sent to FHWA headquarters. As a result, e-mail submittals are preferred but standard mail submittals are also allowed. The FHWA adopts in this final rule the STANDARD and OPTION as proposed in the NPA but with minor editorial changes.

The FHWA in this final rule adopts the proposed change of paragraph 20, regarding local jurisdictions informing their State DOT of locations where they are using devices under an Interim Approval, to a GUIDANCE statement (formerly a STANDARD statement in the 2003 MUTCD). The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and two toll road operators in support of the revision and a comment from another State DOT opposed to the revision because of their belief that the local jurisdiction should be required, rather than merely recommended, to notify the State DOT of locations where a traffic control device or application under an interim approval is being used. The FHWA disagrees with this comment as not all State DOTs believe that such notifications are needed and because State DOTs can require such notification when they adopt the MUTCD.

The FHWA received a comment from a State DOT suggesting that a new STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA be expanded to also require that jurisdictions check with their State DOT for official status of an Interim Approval in their State before requesting permission from the FHWA. The FHWA agrees with the concept and adopts a new GUIDANCE paragraph 21 in this final rule about requests for both experimentation and interim approvals, which recommends that local agencies be aware of any State requirements and policies that might apply to these processes.

30. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add four FHWA publications and a publication by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The FHWA publications cover topics such as roundabouts, designing sidewalks and trails for access, older drivers, and ramp management and control. The ANSI publication discusses high-visibility public safety vests. In addition, the FHWA proposed revising the list to reflect current editions of the publications and adding Web site addresses to obtain the documents. The FHWA adopts these new publications and revisions in this final rule. In addition, based on comments from the NCUTCD, a utility commission, and an engineering consultant, the FHWA adds several other new publications that are useful sources of information. These publications include four FHWA documents covering topics in signal timing, signalized intersections, railroad-highway grade crossings, and changeable message signs and an AASHTO publication on pedestrian facilities.

31. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding to the STANDARD statement the assignment of the color purple to indicate facilities or lanes that are allowed to be used only by vehicles equipped with electronic toll collection (ETC) devices. ATSSA, a State DOT, four toll road operators, a traffic control device vendor, and a citizen all supported adding the color purple for signing and marking ETC facilities and lanes. A toll road operator in Florida stated that their past experience has shown that the color purple fades rapidly in Florida and will likely do so in other States with similar climates. A toll road operator in Texas questioned whether there were any purple materials for signs and markings that would meet Texas DOT durability and nighttime standards. The Illinois Tollway expressed a similar concern about challenges in design and application to ensure that effective color contrast is provided under all circumstances. The FHWA disagrees with comments that adequate materials do not exist, particularly with the adjustment in color values discussed below, and incorporates this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes using signs and pavement markings as discussed in the changes in Parts 2 and 3. As a part of the change, in this final rule the FHWA revises the text to reflect the intended general use of the color purple for lanes restricted to use only by vehicles with registered electronic toll accounts, such as in ETC systems utilizing transponders or video/license plate recognition systems to identify a vehicle with a registered toll account. Where a toll lane or facility is not restricted to specific vehicles and any vehicle without a toll account can use a toll lane or facility because a license plate recognition system sends the vehicle owner a bill for the toll, the use of the color purple is inappropriate.

Color specifications for signing and marking materials are contained in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 1 through 6. The FHWA received a comment from a signing material manufacturer stating that the proposed values for the color coordinates in the NPA were too restrictive. Based on retroreflectivity evaluations, the commenter suggested that the daytime chromaticity coordinates for the purple colored sign sheeting be shifted to a redder shade, and that a new set of chromaticity coordinates be generated for a nighttime color that also allows for a redder shift and that might be different from the daytime requirements. A toll road operator suggested that the color purple designated by the chromaticity coordinates is not the same hue as the color their agency currently uses. The FHWA has reviewed the color properties of the purple signing materials available from a variety of manufacturers and adopts daytime and nighttime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign material (Tables 1 and 2) that are slightly revised from the values that were proposed in the NPA. The adopted daytime color coordinates are based on a large series of measurements of various purple materials that are close to or match the Pantone color selected by the EZ-Pass consortium. With the minor adjustments as adopted, there are sufficient materials that meet the values to provide for competition, but without reducing color recognition. The adopted nighttime color coordinates are similar to the nighttime coordinates for purple pavement markings. The FHWA also adopts daytime and nighttime color coordinates and luminance factors for purple retroreflective marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6) as proposed in the NPA. The values for purple in the tables are as indicated below (no change in the existing values for luminance factors for purple as contained in Table 1A):

Table 1—Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Sign Material

0.302

0.064

0.310

0.210

0.380

0.255

0.468

0.140

Table 2—Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Sign Material

0.355

0.088

0.385

0.288

0.500

0.350

0.635

0.221

Table 5—Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material

0.300

0.064

0.309

0.260

0.362

0.295

0.475

0.144

Table 5A—Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material

Minimum

Maximum

Table 6—Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material

0.338

0.380

0.425

0.365

0.470

0.385

0.635

0.221

32. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words and Phrases in This Manual, as discussed previously, the FHWA places all definitions in Part 1 by relocating to Section 1A.13 all definitions that were previously contained or repeated in the MUTCD Introduction and in Parts 2 through 10. In regard to the definitions of the text headings “Standard” and “Guidance,” the FHWA clarifies that the verb “may” is not used in STANDARD or GUIDANCE statements, based on comments from a State DOT. Also based on a State DOT comment, the FHWA further clarifies the definition of STANDARD statements by adding that such statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering studies. This prohibition has always been inherent in the meaning of Standards, but the FHWA is aware of cases where the lack of explicit text to this effect has resulted in the misapplication of engineering judgment or studies. Some agencies believed that Standards could be ignored based on engineering judgment or an engineering study, which is not the case.

Additionally, the FHWA revises the definitions for various words and phrases to better reflect accepted practice and terminologies and for consistency in the usage of these terms in one or more Parts of the MUTCD. Except as specifically discussed, there were a few comments of an editorial nature regarding some of these definitions that the FHWA incorporates in this final rule, as appropriate.

The FHWA proposed in the NPA to specify that the height of a raised pavement marker is not to exceed approximately 1 inch above the road surface, rather than specifying a minimum height, in order to clarify that tubular markers and other similar devices that might be placed on or in the roadway are not raised pavement markers. Based on recommendations from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a traffic control device manufacturer, the FHWA changes the height requirement of a raised pavement marker to not exceed 1 inch for a permanent marker or 2 inches for a temporary flexible marker and references Part 6 for information on temporary flexible markers.

The FHWA clarifies the definition of “intersection” to reflect comments from three State DOTs, two city DOTs, and an NCUTCD member suggesting that several of the items within the definition were confusing and needed clarification. The FHWA also clarifies the definition of “special purpose road” by deleting the phrase “or that provides local access,” because the definition in the 2003 MUTCD was overly broad. The FHWA received comments from two local DOTs in Washington State opposed to the FHWA's proposed clarification that neighborhood residential streets are not special-purpose roads and signing for such streets should be the same as that for other conventional roads. One of those commenters suggested that neighborhood residential streets should be treated differently from other conventional roads and suggested that there should be two classes of conventional roads: High-speed and low-speed. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters and retains the definition, as proposed in the NPA in Section 2A.01, and notes that neighborhood streets are two-lane conventional roads within the definition for “conventional road.”

The FHWA also adds definitions for a variety of new terms to the list of definitions because they are used in the MUTCD and need to be defined. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed using the term “hybrid signal;” however, based on comments from two State DOTs and three city DOTs, the FHWA changes the term “hybrid signal” to “hybrid beacon” throughout the MUTCD to emphasize that it is not intended that approaching vehicles stop at a dark beacon face as they are required to do at a dark traffic control signal in some States. To address comments from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and seven agencies that operate toll facilities, the FHWA adopts the definition for “open road tolling (ORT),” rather than “open road electronic toll collection” as proposed in the NPA, to match current use of the term. To reflect the changes discussed previously in the MUTCD Introduction, in this final rule the FHWA revises the term “private property open to public travel” to “private road open to public travel” and clarifies the definition to reflect that parking areas and driving aisles within parking areas are not included. The FHWA also adds a definition of “parking area” since that term is used in the MUTCD. The FHWA also makes minor revisions to several definitions to improve clarity and consistency, as suggested by comments. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to include in the definition of the term “school zone” that it is an area where special law enforcement activity or increased fines for traffic violations are authorized. An NCUTCD member suggested that such enforcement is not required for the area to be considered a school zone. The FHWA agrees, and deletes that criterion from the definition in this final rule. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, two toll road operators, and an NCUTCD member suggested that the proposed definition of “worker” be revised to include workers that are not on foot, such as equipment operators, toll collectors, etc. In addition, the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a toll road operator suggested that “pathway” also be added to the definition of “worker” since workers on pathways are also subject to potential harm. The FHWA decides to add pathway to the

definition, but does not make the other suggested change, because this definition is general in nature and other specifics about workers are covered in Section 6D.03.

The FHWA received many comments suggesting other new terms be added to the list of definitions. In response to the comments received, the FHWA decides not to add all of the terms suggested, but adds definitions for “accessible pedestrian signal detector,” “altered speed zone,” “attended lane,” “average daily traffic (ADT),” “downstream,” “dropped lane,” “ETC account only lane,” “exact change lane,” “grade crossing,” “lane drop,” “open road tolling point,” “overhead sign,” “plaque,” “post-mounted sign,” “primary signal face,” “pushbutton information message,” “rail traffic,” “signing,” “statutory speed zone,” “supplemental signal face,” “toll booth,” “toll island,” “toll lane,” “toll plaza,” “toll-ticket system,” and “upstream” because they are used in the MUTCD and should be defined.

33. The FHWA adds a new section following Section 1A.13. This new section is numbered and titled Section 1A.14 Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations in This Manual, and contains a STANDARD statement with 42 acronyms and abbreviations and their meanings. The FHWA adds this new section to assist readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the Manual. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed 38 acronyms and abbreviations. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and two State DOTs suggested several more acronyms and abbreviations. The FHWA conducted a review of terms used more than once in the MUTCD text and/or figures and adds five acronyms and their definitions in this final rule. For those terms used only once, the FHWA decides not to include their acronyms and their definitions in this final rule. The FHWA also deletes one of the abbreviations, km/h, that was proposed in the NPA, because of the deletion of metric values from the MUTCD.

34. In Section 1A.15 (numbered Section 1A.14 in the 2003 MUTCD) Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA adds paragraph 02 indicating that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to be abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message Sign (PCMS), the abbreviations shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used and that, unless indicated by an asterisk, these abbreviations shall only be used on PCMSs. The original research

on abbreviations was based on the need to shorten words when used on portable changeable message signs because of the limited number of characters available, unlike fixed-message signs. Many of the abbreviations were developed for words that would not otherwise normally be abbreviated on signs, and the intent was not to abbreviate such words on fixed-message signs. A local DOT opposed adding abbreviations to the MUTCD, preferring instead to allow their use only on a case-by-case basis. The NCUTCD suggested that Table 1A-2 be moved to Part 6 because PCMSs are covered in Chapter 6F; however, the FHWA decides not to relocate the table because PCMSs can be used outside of temporary traffic control zones and some of the abbreviations used on PCMSs apply to applications other than temporary traffic control.

Report number FHWA/RD-81/039 “Human Factors Design of Dynamic Displays” by C.L. Dudek and R.D. Huchingson, Final Report, May 1982, is available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, and at the Web site

: http://www.ntis.gov.

35. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA adds several additional abbreviations for various terms that are often used on signs or markings and for which a single abbreviation for each is needed to enhance uniformity. A traffic engineering consultant opposed the use of the abbreviation AM for two separate meanings (morning and AM radio); however, the FHWA retains the abbreviation for both meanings based on effective use of both abbreviations by several States and because context of use differentiates the meanings. Based on comments from a State DOT and a traffic engineering consultant regarding the use of the abbreviation “LA” for lane, the FHWA places the note “see Table 1A-2” in the column for the abbreviation for lane, and makes subsequent changes in Table 1A-2 to clarify the use of the abbreviation “LN” for use with PCMSs. Another State DOT suggested adding several abbreviations and the FHWA agrees to add abbreviations for “Saint,” “Mount,” and “Mountain” as “ST,” “MT,” and “MTN,” respectively. Although the FHWA proposed an abbreviation for township in the NPA, the FHWA removes this abbreviation from this final rule based on comments from a traffic engineering consultant. The FHWA also removes several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather than abbreviations (such as “D” for diesel on general service signs) and revises several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed. The FHWA removes from Table 1A-1 some words that should not be abbreviated on static signs or large permanent full-matrix changeable message signs.

In concert with these changes to Table 1A-1, the FHWA revises the title of Table 1A-2 to “Abbreviations That Shall Only Be Used on Portable Changeable Message Signs” and adds to Table 1A-2 some of the abbreviations that were removed from Table 1A-1. The FHWA also revises the content of Table 1A-2 to specifically list the abbreviations (some of which can only be used with a prompt word) that are appropriate for use only on PCMSs. A local DOT opposed the abbreviations for downtown and slippery as being unclear. The FHWA disagrees, because the abbreviations are based on research and experience, and retains in this final rule the abbreviations for these terms that were proposed in the NPA. Three State DOTs suggested that the abbreviations for eastbound (and the other directions) be shortened to two letters. While the FHWA agrees that traffic engineers understand the two-letter abbreviations (EB, WB, NB, and SB), research has shown that those abbreviations are not well understood by the public. Two State DOTs suggested that there might be cases where abbreviations need to be used on static signs, and as a result, the FHWA reviewed the list of abbreviations and has added additional asterisks to items that are acceptable for use on permanent CMSs and static signs. As discussed above, the FHWA revises the prompt word for the abbreviation “LN” to include the roadway name and allows the use of the combination “[roadway name] LN” to be used on traffic devices other than PCMSs without the use of the prompt words “Right,” “Left,” or “Center.”

Discussion of Amendments Within Part 2—Signs —General

36. In this final rule, the FHWA reorganizes the information regarding toll road signs and preferential and managed lane signs into two separate chapters. Although the information was not organized in the NPA in this manner, the FHWA received comments from several State and local DOTs, as well as toll road operators, suggesting that the information would be easier to find if it was contained in separate Parts of the MUTCD. As discussed above under General, the FHWA disagrees with adding new Parts but agrees with consolidating this information into new chapters and adopts new Chapters 2F Toll Road Signs and 2G Preferential and Managed Lane Signs in this final rule.

Discussion regarding specific elements of those chapters and comments submitted to the docket are contained in the appropriate sections below.

Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2A

37. In Section 2A.03 Standardization of Application, in the NPA the FHWA proposed deleting paragraph 02, which recommends that signs should be used only where justified by engineering judgment or studies. Although ATSSA agreed with the proposal, three State DOTs, three local DOTs, and two associations suggested retaining the statement because determining the placement of signs is an engineering function. The FHWA agrees and retains the paragraph in this final rule. The FHWA notes that this statement is not a requirement for an engineering study for the determination to use each individual sign because the determination for the use of many regulatory signs is based upon State laws and local agency ordinances.

38. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and the associated OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The FHWA incorporates this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely place for a reader to look for information regarding sign design.

In addition, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds information regarding the use of e-mail addresses to paragraphs 14 and 16. The use of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site addresses. Five State DOTs opposed the provisions and suggested that Internet and e-mail addresses be allowed because they provide important information for travelers, including information about work zones, carpools, and toll facilities. The FHWA agrees that Internet information can be helpful, but adopts the changes as proposed based upon research

that has identified the upper range of driver workload to be 4 bits of information (4 individual characters) before glancing back to the road. E-mail addresses are just as difficult to read and remember as Internet Web site addresses and constitute the same issues for a driver traveling at highway speeds.

“Additional Investigations on Driver Information Overload,” NCHRP Report 488, 2003, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=1324.

Lastly, the FHWA in this final rule relocates and consolidates existing and proposed text concerning the design of pictographs on signs from other sections in chapters 2D, 2E, and 2J to a new paragraph 17 in Section 2A.06. This material on pictographs also incorporates the FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-646(I).

This official interpretation can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_646.htm.

39. The FHWA relocates the information in Section 2A.07 of the 2003 MUTCD to new Chapter 2L in order to consolidate all information on changeable message signs into one chapter.

40. In Section 2A.07 Retroreflectivity and Illumination (Section 2A.08 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the existing GUIDANCE statement to clarify that overhead sign installations on freeways and expressways should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination, and that overhead sign installations on conventional or special purpose roads should be illuminated unless engineering judgment indicates that retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic control device manufacturer all supported the change. A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed the revision, because they felt that illumination of overhead signs, particularly on conventional roadways, is not necessary. In this final rule, the FHWA deletes the existing and proposed guidance about illumination of overhead signs, because the minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for overhead signs that were adopted as Revision 2 of the 2003 MUTCD

provide for adequate performance of these signs. Highway agencies can determine to illuminate overhead signs based on their own policies or on studies of specific problem areas.

Sign retroreflectivity final rule was published in the

Federal Register

at 72 FR 72574 on December 21, 2007 and can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph prohibiting the use of individual LED pixels and groups of LEDs within the background area of a sign, except for the STOP/SLOW paddles used by flaggers and the STOP paddles used by adult crossing guards. The FHWA's intent was to clarify that LEDs are to be used only in the border or in the legend/symbol and not in the background of signs. Although ATSSA supported the clarification, three State DOTs, a local DOT, and a traffic engineering consultant expressed confusion and possible contradiction between this statement and others in the MUTCD. To respond to the need to clarify the statement, and the desire to place all of the information related to LEDs and their application in one place, the FHWA adds paragraphs 07, 08, 11, and 12 to this section in this final rule.

41. On January 22, 2008, after the NPA was published, the FHWA adopted revision Number 2 of the 2003 MUTCD to add minimum maintained retroreflectivity requirements for signs in Section 2A.09 (Section 2A.08 in the NPA) and a new Table 2A-3 detailing minimum retroreflectivity values. The FHWA incorporates that text and table into Section 2A.08 in this final rule, with a minor editorial correction to the table to match the applicable text. The FHWA also in this final rule adds to the table the new Bold Symbol signs (W2-7, 8 Double Side Roads and W11-16-22 Large Animals) that are adopted in Chapter 2C, for consistency and accuracy regarding minimum retroreflectivity values.

42. In Section 2A.10 Sign Colors (Section 2A.11 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add an OPTION statement that allows the use of fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, two local agencies, and an NCUTCD member all supported the use of fluorescent colors, while a traffic engineering consultant opposed the addition of fluorescent colors without guidance on when they should be used. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule with minor editorial revisions in order to give jurisdictions the flexibility to use fluorescent colors when they determine they are needed in order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part of this change, the FHWA revises the color specifications in 23 CFR part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the fluorescent version of the color red, as proposed in the NPA. The color specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and fluorescent pink are already included in those tables of the appendix to 23 CFR part 655, subpart F.

43. The FHWA proposed in the NPA to make several changes to Table 2A-5 Common Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in the text. Specifically, the FHWA proposed to add the color purple for Electronic Toll Collection signs and to remove the use of the color yellow from school signs. The FHWA also proposed to add additional types of Changeable Message Signs and expand the table to include various legend and background colors for those signs, consistent with the

proposed text of proposed new Chapter 2M (numbered Chapter 2L in this final rule) as discussed below. In addition, the FHWA proposed to note that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and yellow background colors may be used. The NCUTCD and ATSSA supported these changes. The FHWA adopts the changes and, for consistency with Section 1A.12, the FHWA adds a footnote to Table 2A-5 to indicate that the color purple is only used on plaques or header panels mounted with other signs and only for lanes restricted to vehicles with registered toll accounts, and that purple is not used as a full sign background, nor is it used for toll lanes with video/license plate recognition that any vehicle without a registered toll account may use.

44. In Section 2A.11 Dimensions (Section 2A.12 in the 2003 MUTCD), in this final rule the FHWA adds new provisions to the STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements regarding the appropriate use of the various columns in the tables throughout the MUTCD that describe sizes for signs on various classes of roads, as proposed in the NPA. While a traffic control device manufacturer supported the referenced tables, a State DOT, two city DOTs, and an NCUTCD member opposed the dimensions, stating that they are too prescriptive, no longer allow jurisdictions to use good engineering judgment in determining sign sizes, and could result in larger signs. The FHWA disagrees, because the sizes specified are appropriate to enable letter sizes sufficient to meet the legibility needs of all drivers, including older drivers. These sizes remain largely unchanged from the 2003 MUTCD and only a few specific sign sizes were increased. The FHWA adopts this language to clarify how the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA also adds language in each of the sections throughout the MUTCD that refer to a sign size table, to refer back to this generally applicable text in Section 2A.11, and deletes repetitive text on use of the various columns in the size tables that appeared in other sections throughout the 2003 MUTCD.

45. In Section 2A.12 Symbols (Section 2A.13 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement and a corresponding OPTION statement at the end of the section prohibiting the use of symbols from one type of sign on a different type of sign, except in limited circumstances or as specifically authorized in the MUTCD. While a State DOT and a local DOT supported these revisions, two other State DOTs and another local DOT opposed the changes and suggested that it would be simpler to use the same symbols for recreational and cultural interest areas on other signs. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because many approved symbols for recreational and cultural area guide signing are not appropriate for use on warning or regulatory signs. The colors and shapes of symbols are designed to have a specific impact depending on the intended use of that type of sign. Intermixing symbols from one type of sign to a different type of sign can affect the impact and can be potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically prohibited. The FHWA adopts this change as proposed in the NPA, with minor editorial revisions.

46. In Section 2A.13 Word Messages (Section 2A.14 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA revises the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend that the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 1 inch of letter height per 30 feet of legibility distance. In conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA deletes the SUPPORT statement that followed this paragraph in the 2003 MUTCD. The NCUTCD and ATSSA supported these changes. Four State DOTs, seven local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen all opposed the change, stating that the larger letter heights would create larger signs, and suggesting that there was a lack of significant research and justification. The FHWA notes that the majority of sign sizes remain the same as the 2003 MUTCD and only a few specific sign designs which had legends too small to be read from an appropriate distance were increased in size. Additionally, signs in good condition may remain in place as long as they are serviceable until they are replaced under the periodic maintenance program of each agency. The FHWA adopts these changes in order to be consistent with recommendations from the Older Driver Handbook

that sign legibility be based on 20/40 vision. Most States allow drivers with 20/40 corrected vision to obtain driver's licenses, and with the increasing numbers of older drivers, the FHWA believes that 20/40 vision should be the basis of letter heights used on signs. This change will generally not impact the design of guide signs because the provisions in the 2003 MUTCD for guide sign letter heights already provided sufficient legibility distances for 20/40 vision in most cases. The sizes of regulatory and warning signs used in some situations will need to be increased to provide for larger letter sizes. Specific changes to sign sizes resulting from the change in letter height are discussed below in the items pertaining to the sign size tables in other chapters in Part 2 and in certain other Parts of the MUTCD.

“Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.

Also see recommendation number II.A(1) in “Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

ATSSA, a State DOT, a research institute, and a traffic engineering consultant suggested that the FHWA add the positive contrast Clearview font into the SHSM and MUTCD based on the research done under the experimental use of the font demonstrating significant legibility enhancements for older drivers. The FHWA did not propose such an addition in the NPA and the FHWA disagrees with the commenters and does not add the font. Although the Clearview font received Interim Approval in September 2004 for positive-contrast guide sign legends only, some research to date has shown that negative contrast mixed-case Clearview legends are not as legible as standard SHSM alphabets. The practicality of maintaining two separate alphabet systems, one for positive-contrast and one for negative-contrast legends, has also been taken into consideration. Further, the alternative alphabet did not undergo any testing on numerals and special characters, which have been reported to be problematic from a legibility standpoint, nor has any testing been performed on a narrower series. It would be premature to categorically adopt the alternative alphabet for a marginal theoretical improvement in legibility where no supporting evidence of a demonstrable improvement has been reported by those agencies who have erected signing using the alternate alphabets. Highway agencies can continue to use the Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs under the provisions of the FHWA's Interim Approval IA-5 dated September 2, 2004.

Interim Approval IA-5 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm.

ATSSA, a State DOT, a local agency, and a citizen supported the FHWA's proposal to eliminate the option to use all upper-case letters for names of places, streets, and highways and to require that such names be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters. However, 5

State DOTs, 10 local DOTs, an NCUTCD member, an association of local counties, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the change and suggested that the use of all upper-case letters remain an option, or that the FHWA change the proposed STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE statement. Many of the commenters expressed concern with cost and thought that while the mixed-case words might be easier to read, the amount of improvement in legibility did not justify the cost. The FHWA adopts the STANDARD requirement for mixed-case lettering for names of places, streets, and highways because published research

supports the enhanced legibility of mixed-case legends in comparison to all upper-case legends. The FHWA also notes that under the systematic upgrading provisions of Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, existing signs in good condition can remain for the remainder of their service life.

Research on this topic is cited and discussed in “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May 2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.

The FHWA also adds text in Section 2A.13 regarding fractions, hyphens, and relationships of upper case to lower case letters in mixed-case words used in word messages in this final rule, for consistency with other MUTCD provisions in Chapters 2D and 2E, information in the SHSM book, and accepted sign design practices necessary for proper sign word message legibility.

47. In Section 2A.14 Sign Borders (Section 2A.15 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA clarifies the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another. The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA in support of this revision and the FHWA adopts the proposed text with editorial revisions in this final rule to better facilitate the use of sign fabrication software with inset borders.

48. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2A.15 Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs. This section contains an OPTION statement regarding the methods that may be used to enhance the conspicuity of standard regulatory, warning, or guide signs and a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of strobe lights as a sign conspicuity enhancement method. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and several State and local DOTs, NCUTCD members, and traffic engineering consultants commented on the various conspicuity enhancement methods proposed in the NPA. Some commenters felt that having a large variety of methods for sign conspicuity would not help with uniformity, and therefore the methods should be deleted altogether, or at least the number of items reduced. Other commenters provided comments about the specific methods. Several commenters suggested that a red strip (item F in the NPA) should only be permitted on signs indicating that a stop, yield, or prohibition is involved with the sign. To avoid confusion, the FHWA does not adopt item F in this final rule. The FHWA believes that adding specific methods for increasing sign conspicuity will actually result in more uniform use of conspicuity methods, because agencies will have access to a list of optional uses, rather than creating an unlimited number of their own methods. The methods contained in the OPTION reflect widespread and successful practices by State and local agencies, and as a result, the FHWA incorporates the methods, with minor editorial changes for consistency with other MUTCD sections, in this final rule.

The New York State DOT opposed the FHWA's proposed prohibition of the use of strobe lights for conspicuity of highway signs, stating that there is no research indicating that their use is dangerous and that information about their use in New York shows that they can have a very positive effect on highway safety. The FHWA disagrees and notes that published reports

on experimentation with the application of strobe lights to traffic signals have not demonstrated lasting safety effects and therefore it is unlikely that application of strobes to other traffic control devices would have lasting effects. The FHWA also notes that New York State has not provided any documentation of positive effects.

“Evaluation of Strobe Lights in Red Lens of Traffic Signals,” by Benjamin H. Cottrell, Virginia Transportation Research Council, was published in 1995 in Transportation Research Record number 1495, which is available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board's bookstore, which can be accessed at the following Internet Web site:

http://pubsindex.trb.org/.

The FHWA incorporates this new section to provide improved uniformity of enhanced conspicuity treatments to benefit road users.

49. The FHWA received several comments associated with Figure 2A-1 Examples of Enhanced Conspicuity for Signs. Many of the comments were the same as those expressed for the written text in Section 2A.15. Based on comments from a State DOT, the FHWA adds two new drawings illustrating the use of the words “NEW” and “NOTICE” on the yellow sign panel and renumbers the drawings accordingly. The FHWA also adds that orange flags may be used on drawing B and deletes the drawing showing the use of a red strip of retroreflective sheeting on a regulatory sign panel.

50. In Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA adds to paragraph 06 an additional recommended criterion for locating signs where they do not obscure the line of sight to approaching vehicles on a major street for drivers who are stopped on minor-street approaches. The FHWA received comments from two State DOTs and a local DOT supporting this proposed revision and the FHWA adopts this change in this final rule to reflect good engineering practice and improved safety.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds to paragraph 10 that the placement of community wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should have a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA received a comment from a State DOT and local DOT in support of this addition and incorporates it in this final rule to clarify the priority of sign type placement, reflecting the addition to the manual of new types of guide signs.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a paragraph to the last GUIDANCE statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP and YIELD signs at intersections, and to clarify that the dimension shown in Figure 2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs from the edge of the traveled way of the intersected roadway is GUIDANCE. A State DOT, a local DOT, and an NCUTCD member agreed with this statement. In this final rule the FHWA moves this statement to Section 2B.10 based on a comment, since the statement is more appropriately related to the content of that section.

51. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD regarding proposed revisions to Figure 2A-2, and as a result, changes the title to “Examples of Heights and Lateral Locations of Sign Installations” to indicate that these are examples and to be consistent with the text in Sections 2A.16, 2A.18, and 2A.19. Although a State DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the use of the 12-foot dimension between the edge of the pavement and the sign in drawings A and D, the FHWA disagrees and retains the 12-foot dimension in this final rule, because the guidance text in Section 2A.19 recommends the 12-foot dimension, and therefore the figure should reflect the text. The FHWA received similar comments about the

lateral offset dimensions in Figure 2A-3; however, the FHWA retains the offsets as shown in the NPA, because the MUTCD text remains unchanged. The dimensions in the figure were merely corrected to maintain consistency with the text.

52. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA adopts the change of paragraph 01 to a STANDARD, as proposed in the NPA, to require that the provisions of this section apply to all signs and object markers, unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the Manual. The FHWA incorporates this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this section are mandatory, including in relation to pedestrian considerations.

The FHWA also clarifies that mounting heights are to be measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level of the edge of the traveled way. The FHWA also adds text to clarify that a minimum height of 7 feet is to be used for signs installed at the side of the road in business, commercial, or residential areas where parking or pedestrian movements are likely to occur, or where the view of the sign might be obstructed, or where signs are installed above sidewalks. In concert with these changes, the FHWA adds that a sign shall not project more than 4 inches into a pedestrian facility if the bottom of a secondary sign that is mounted below another sign is mounted lower than 7 feet. The FHWA had proposed these provisions as a GUIDANCE statement in the NPA; however, based on comments from the Utah DOT and an advocacy group for the blind, the FHWA changes this to a STANDARD statement in this final rule to be consistent with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act as set forth in ADAAG provisions

regarding signs in the vicinity of pedestrian activity and in order to make the mounting height language consistent throughout the Manual. In addition, the FHWA reorganizes the order of the text within the STANDARD statements in this section for clarity.

The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.

53. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA received a comment from a State DOT expressing the need to reconcile the compliance date for the existing statement in this Section that requires post-mounted supports to be crashworthy if in the clear zone. The FHWA notes that there is an existing target compliance date of January 17, 2013, that was established with the final rule

for the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD for crashworthiness of sign supports for roads with posted speed limits of 50 mph or higher. No specific target compliance date was established for roads with posted speed limits of 45 mph or less and for all roads with unposted speed limits. The FHWA believes that no target compliance date is needed for crashworthiness of sign supports on these lower speed roads and that systematic upgrading processes will suffice in ultimately achieving crashworthiness of all sign supports.

The

Federal Register

Notice for this Final Rule, dated November 20, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 224, Page 65496-65583) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/texts/2125-AE67.pdf.

Discussion of Amendments Within Chapter 2B

54. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA adopts the change of paragraph 01 to a STANDARD statement to clarify that regulatory signs are rectangular unless specifically designated otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA also adds a reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings

book for sign design elements.

The current edition of “Standard Highway Signs and Markings,” FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm.

The FHWA also relocates the first two paragraphs of Section 2B.54 of the 2003 MUTCD to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02, because the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word messages and symbols that is more relevant in this section.

55. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA had proposed in the NPA to reference a new Table 2B-2 with minimum sizes for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads. Based on comments from the NCUTCD and an NCUTCD member, the FHWA instead adds a column to Table 2B-1 for multi-lane conventional roads in this final rule, rather than an entire new table. To address these comments, as well as those from two State DOTs, concerning specific regulatory signs identified in Table 2B-1 other than STOP signs, the FHWA also adds two exemptions to the requirement to use the larger sign sizes on multi-lane conventional roads: (1) For the size of signs mounted in the median on the left-hand side of the roadway that are in addition to the signs placed on the right-hand side and (2) for multi-lane conventional roads with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less. The FHWA received comments in opposition to the larger sign sizes, primarily because of cost concerns, from three local DOTs and a traffic engineering consultant. The FHWA disagrees with these comments because any impacts are mitigated by the systematic upgrading provisions (23 CFR 655.603(d)(1)) that enable highway agencies to upgrade to the larger sizes as the existing signs are replaced at the end of their service life. The FHWA believes that the new text and information in the table is necessary to provide signs on multi-lane approaches that are more visible and legible to drivers with visual acuity of 20/40. On multi-lane roads, increased legibility distances are also needed because of the potential blockage of signs by other vehicles.

In the NPA, the FHWA also included a requirement that the minimum size of 36 inches x 36 inches shall be used for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches. While ATSSA, the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a local DOT supported the requirement, a State DOT and six city DOTs opposed the change, particularly as it related to STOP signs on low-speed roads. The FHWA adopts the requirement to use larger STOP signs, because increased STOP sign sizes have been shown to reduce crashes by 19%.

However, the FHWA clarifies the minimum size requirement for STOP signs as 36 inches x 36 inches facing side roads (one or more lanes) where they intersect multi-lane highways that have speed limits of 45 mph or higher. For multi-lane highways or streets that have speed limits of 40 mph or less, the STOP signs on the side-road approaches shall follow the sizes shown for conventional roads in Table 2B-1. STOP signs that face traffic on the multi-lane highway shall be a minimum size of 36 inches x 36 inches.

“Crash Reduction Factors Desktop Reference,” publication number FHWA-SA-07-015, September, 2007, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.transportation.org/sites/scohts/docs/Crash%20Reduction%20Factors%20Desktop%20Reference%2012-19-07.pdf.

Finally, based on a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement that the minimum size for regulatory signs facing traffic on exit and entrance ramps should be the size identified in Table 2B-1 for the mainline roadway classification listed for each of the columns.

56. The FHWA received comments related to specific sign sizes in Table 2B-2 proposed in the NPA. As discussed above, the FHWA combines proposed Table 2B-2 into Table 2B-1 in this final rule. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, two local DOTs, two NCUTCD

members, and a traffic engineering consultant opposed the larger sizes of various signs, including YIELD signs, DO NOT ENTER signs, ONE WAY signs, parking signs, and signs used on traffic signal mast arms. The FHWA adopts the larger sizes as proposed in the NPA because of the critical nature of the information conveyed by these signs. These larger sizes are more legible, especially to older drivers, and therefore these critical message signs merit larger sized legends.

57. The FHWA makes several changes to Table 2B-1 Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These changes include adding more sizes in the “Minimum” column for use in low-speed environments and adding several more signs and supplemental plaques to the table to correspond with other changes within Part 2. A local DOT opposed many of the minimum sizes shown in the table because they are larger than those used in that State's urban areas. The commenter believes that in urban areas the space available for signs along sidewalks and medians can often be very narrow, making it difficult to place larger signs without encroaching into the street, buildings, landscaping, utilities, signals, or pedestrian right-of-way. A traffic engineering consultant questioned the justification for the increased sizes and expressed concern about the wind loading on traffic signal mast arms because of the larger sign sizes. A State DOT and a local DOT also expressed the desire to use smaller sign sizes on traffic signal mast arms and for some other signs. The FHWA reiterates that the increase in sign and plaque sizes is to improve driver recognition and response time, with the intent of meeting the needs of road users with 20/40 visual acuity. Letter heights smaller than 6 inches become problematic in meeting the needs of drivers with 20/40 visual acuity, therefore the FHWA adopts in this final rule the proposed increases in the sizes of signs. The FHWA also received several comments from the NCUTCD and its members suggesting additional revisions beyond those shown in the NPA that the FHWA incorporates in this final rule. These revisions include adding signs to the table that were inadvertently not included in the NPA and adjusting the sizes of some of the signs to reflect the larger letter sizes associated with 20/40 visual acuity as discussed previously under Chapter 2A.

58. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections. This section contains information contained in Section 2B.05 of the 2003 MUTCD. In addition, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds recommendations on the factors that should be considered in establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and YIELD signs. A State DOT and a city DOT supported these new criteria. A State DOT supported the majority of the criteria, but suggested that approach speeds should not be included in the conditions. The FHWA agrees and deletes that condition in this final rule. Two city DOTs suggested that the criteria, particularly item B, required too much data collection, which can be expensive and require resources beyond those available at the local level. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the remaining criteria, because the FHWA believes an engineering evaluation, which includes data collection, needs to be performed for STOP and YIELD sign applications, which are critical right-of-way controls. The additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds paragraph 05, to the existing GUIDANCE statement that YIELD signs should not be used for speed control. The 2003 MUTCD already included the recommendation that STOP signs not be used for speed control. A local DOT supported the addition of YIELD signs to this recommendation; however, a State DOT and a local DOT suggested that the FHWA revise the statement to indicate that STOP and YIELD signs should not be used “exclusively” for speed control, because there are occasions where STOP and YIELD signs serve a secondary purpose as speed control measures. The FHWA disagrees with revising the language and notes that a system of alternating two-way stops remains allowable for neighborhood traffic control.

The FHWA also adds a STANDARD statement that prohibits the use of STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with other traffic control signal operation, except for the cases specified in the STANDARD. Much of this information was in Section 2B.05 of the 2003 MUTCD; however, the FHWA adds a specific case regarding channelized turn lanes to the list of cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used, reflecting common practice.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of STOP signs and YIELD signs on different approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other, except as noted in Section 2B.09. Two State DOTs, a city DOT, and an NCUTCD member opposed this statement because they felt that there are circumstances where this practice should be allowed. The FHWA disagrees, because this prohibition is needed for consistency with the adopted STANDARD statement for use of STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with traffic signal operation, and the FHWA notes that an EXCEPT RIGHT TURN R1-10P plaque is incorporated in this final rule in Section 2B.05 to address many of the situations cited by the commenters.

Finally, the FHWA adds a STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA for the use of folding STOP signs for traffic signal power outages by adding language to the MUTCD that corresponds to Official Interpretation #2-545.

Although two city DOTs opposed this language, in part because of concerns about liability, three State DOTs and a city DOT supported the language, with editorial changes. Many of the comments pertained to incorporating additional information from the Official Interpretation into the MUTCD. The FHWA does not believe that the MUTCD is the appropriate location for this information. The FHWA does, however, revise the text in this final rule to clarify the language on how folding STOP signs are to be installed and manually retrieved in conjunction with signal operation upon restoration of electrical power.

FHWA's Official Interpretation #2-545, April 9, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf.

59. The FHWA renumbers and retitles Section 2B.04 of the 2003 MUTCD to Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and ALL WAY Plaque. As part of this change, the FHWA proposed to revise the STANDARD statement to require the use of the ALL-WAY supplemental plaque if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs, to limit the use of the ALL-WAY plaque to only those locations where all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs, and to prohibit the use of supplemental plaques with the legend 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, etc., below STOP signs. ATSSA, a local DOT, a traffic engineering consultant, and a citizen supported the new requirements, while five State DOTs, four local DOTs and an association representing local DOTs, and a NCUTCD member opposed the proposed requirements. Many of the commenters felt that all or some of the existing 2-WAY, 3-WAY, or 4-WAY plaques should be retained because they are understood by road users, and to replace the signs would be unnecessarily expensive. The FHWA disagrees for two reasons: (1) The ALL-WAY plaque is the same size as the 2-

WAY, 3-WAY, and 4-WAY plaques and the required replacements can be accomplished through the systematic upgrading processes of Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations; and (2) the word message “ALL-WAY” more clearly communicates that all approaches are required to stop, which is critical information for road users facing a STOP control at an intersection. The FHWA adopts the requirements, as proposed, to provide uniformity in the use of supplemental plaques with STOP signs, especially at locations where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs.

The FHWA adds a GUIDANCE statement recommending the use of plaques with appropriate alternate messages, such as TRAFFIC FROM RIGHT DOES NOT STOP, where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection. A city DOT opposed this recommendation, suggesting that it should be either an Option, or eliminated from the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the change to encourage the use of these plaques at intersections that need increased driver awareness regarding an unexpected right-of-way control. A State DOT opposed the revision because the regulatory and warning signs should not be installed on the same post. The FHWA adds language to Section 2A.16 to clarify that these plaques may be posted below a STOP sign.

Finally, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION allowing the use of a new EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque mounted below a STOP sign when an engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping. ATSSA, a State DOT, and a local DOT supported this new plaque and associated language, while a State DOT and a local DOT opposed it, citing their beliefs that it might cause conflicts between vehicles that have to stop with those that do not have to stop and that it will reduce the integrity of the STOP sign. The FHWA disagrees and adopts this change to give agencies flexibility in establishing right-of-way controls for such special conditions. Since this is an optional use, agencies are not required to use this sign. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 12 States have developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose. The adopted sign provides for the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate legend.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 18, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

60. The FHWA relocates much of the information in Section 2B.05 STOP Sign Applications of the 2003 MUTCD to Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections. The FHWA adds additional language to the remaining GUIDANCE statement in Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications that lists conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered. A State DOT supported the language with the criteria for STOP signs, and several commenters provided editorial comments or asked questions. The FHWA reiterates that the language in this section provides agencies with specific and quantitative guidance regarding the use of STOP signs only, while the guidance and criteria set forth in Section 2B.05 encompass the need for right-of-way control in the form of YIELD and STOP conditions. The FHWA also received a comment from a retail owner suggesting that this section does not specifically address the use of STOP signs in parking areas. As discussed previously regarding the MUTCD Introduction, the FHWA exempts parking lots from MUTCD applicability.

61. The FHWA deletes Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement from the 2003 MUTCD because most of the text in this section is incorporated into Section 2B.10 of this final rule.

62. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA clarifies the STANDARD statement by adding that YIELD signs at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the circular roadway. Four State DOTs, two local DOTs, two NCUTCD members, five bicycle/pedestrian advocacy associations, and four citizens supported the changes to this section. A State DOT and a local DOT expressed concern about portions of the section that were removed that would allow YIELD signs to be used instead of STOP signs at some locations and the removal of the visibility requirement for YIELD sign installations. The FHWA disagrees with these commenters because the text changes in Section 2B.09 do not materially change the meaning of the provisions regarding where YIELD signs may be used. The FHWA adopts this change to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reflect the prevailing practices of modern roundabout design.

Two traffic engineering consultants suggested that YIELD signs be prohibited to assign the right-of-way on all approaches to an intersection, other than for a roundabout intersection. The FHWA agrees and clarifies the proposed STANDARD statement in this final rule so that it is explicitly clear that YIELD signs shall not be used to control the right-of-way on all approaches to an intersection, other than for all approaches to a roundabout intersection, for consistency with requirements for traffic signal controlled intersections and STOP controlled intersections.

63. The FHWA retitles Section 2B.10 to “STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement” to reflect the relocation of language regarding STOP sign placement from Section 2B.06 of the 2003 MUTCD to this section.

In the NPA the FHWA proposed to delete the requirement from paragraph 01 that YIELD signs be placed on both the left-hand and right-hand sides of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane and instead makes this a GUIDANCE statement in paragraph 16. In concert with this change, the FHWA also proposed to add an OPTION allowing similar placement of a YIELD sign on the left-hand side of a single lane roundabout approach if a raised splitter island is available. A local DOT and a traffic engineering consultant supported these changes, and the FHWA adopts this language to reflect current practice on signing roundabout approaches and to allow agencies additional flexibility.

To address comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a local DOT, the FHWA relocates the GUIDANCE statement recommending that STOP and YIELD signs not be placed further than 50 feet back from the edge of the pavement of the intersected roadway to this section in this final rule. In the NPA, this statement was proposed in Section 2A.16.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed adding a paragraph to the STANDARD that prohibited the mounting of items other than retroreflective strips on the supports, official traffic control signs, sign installation dates, inventory stickers, anti-vandalism stickers, and bar codes on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs or on their supports. To address a comment from a State DOT suggesting that the FHWA clarify the intent of the language, the FHWA separates the information into three paragraphs in this final rule. Paragraph 04 details the placement of items on the fronts of STOP or Yield signs, paragraph 05 describes items placed on the backs of STOP or Yield signs, and paragraph 06 describes the placement of items on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs supports.

The FHWA also proposed in the NPA to indicate that a sign that is mounted back-to-back with a STOP or YIELD sign should stay within the edges of the STOP or YIELD sign. While two DOTs and an NCUTCD member supported this language, four State DOTs, two local DOTs, and a citizen opposed this language, because they felt that DO NOT ENTER signs should be allowed to be mounted on the back of STOP signs without increasing the size of the STOP sign to the extent required. Two local DOTs and a citizen opposed the language in general, because they felt that a sign mounted on the back of a STOP or YIELD sign would show its bare aluminum side, which would serve to highlight or frame the STOP or YIELD sign. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters because it is critical to assure that the shape of these very important intersection right-of-way signs can be discerned from the opposite direction of approach. The FHWA adopts these changes to clarify the GUIDANCE statement that a sign that is mounted back-to-back with a STOP or YIELD sign should stay within the edges of the STOP or YIELD sign, and adds that, if needed, the size of the STOP or YIELD sign should be increased to accomplish this recommendation.

The FHWA adds paragraph 16 recommending that an additional YIELD sign be placed on the left-hand side of the multi-lane roundabout approach if a raised splitter island is available. A State DOT and a traffic engineering consultant supported this recommendation, while a local agency felt that it should be an option, rather than a recommendation. The FHWA believes that the left-hand side YIELD sign is important for multi-lane approaches to roundabouts due to the curvature at the roundabout entry and this sign should be provided if a splitter island is present. The FHWA adopts the NPA language in this final rule.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds paragraph 19 prohibiting the placement of multiple STOP signs or multiple YIELD signs on the same support facing the same direction. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, and two local DOTs supported this change. The FHWA adopts this change to prohibit this practice, because there have been no studies or research documenting any safety benefits of this practice and it is potentially confusing, and there are many other acceptable and proven methods of adding emphasis, such as detailed in Section 2A.15.

64. The FHWA retitles Section 2B.11 to “Yield Here to Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs” to reflect additional language in the STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statement that FHWA adds to this section regarding the use of Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs. The language is consistent with similar language in Part 7 regarding the placement of these signs, as well as stop and yield lines. The FHWA proposed adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign because some State laws require motorists to come to a full stop for, rather than just yield to, pedestrians in a crosswalk. The NCUTCD, a local DOT, and a bicycle/pedestrian advocacy association supported the changes; however, a State DOT and an NCUTCD member opposed restricting the use of R1-5 Yield (Stop) Here to Pedestrian signs to only multi-lane approaches. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed and notes that these signs were developed as a countermeasure for the multiple threat situations for pedestrians and there is no need for advance yielding (stopping) on a single lane approach to a crosswalk.

In addition, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add STANDARD and OPTION statements at the end of the section regarding the combination use of the Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian (R1-5 series) sign in the vicinity of the Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11-2) sign. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, three State DOTs, four local DOTs, and two traffic consultants who supported the concept, but found the wording confusing. As a result, the FHWA adopts a revised STANDARD statement in this final rule that restricts blocking the view of the W11-2 sign, or placing it on the same post as a R1-5 series sign. The FHWA also adopts paragraph 05 in the OPTION statement to allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) signs have been installed in advance of the crosswalk. The FHWA also allows the use of advance Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs on the approach with AHEAD or distance plaques and In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs at the crosswalk where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian signs have been installed. The FHWA adopts this new language to be consistent with similar language that is being adopted in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's Official Interpretation # 2-566.

FHWA's Official Interpretation #2-566(I), July 27, 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm.

65. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements regarding the use of the new Overhead Pedestrian Crossing (R1-9 or R1-9a) sign that may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a local DOT supported the inclusion of the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs and their design, while another NCUTCD member, two State DOTs, and a local DOT opposed the signs and/or their designs because they wanted more flexibility. The FHWA disagrees with the commenters and adds the text as proposed and this sign, with the design as proposed in the NPA, in this final rule. This is based on the Sign Synthesis Study,

which revealed that some agencies use an overhead sign because it is needed in some applications. The FHWA adds this sign to Table 2B-1, Figure 2B-2, and to the appropriate text and figures in Part 7, for consistency.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 19, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to insert new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements regarding conditions and criteria to be used in determining when In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs should be used at unsignalized intersections. The NCUTCD, an NCUTCD member, 2 State DOTs, and 3 local DOTs opposed the recommended criteria, specifically the criteria to use the signs at crossing locations where there are 25 or more pedestrians per hour. The FHWA agrees and removes the criteria from this final rule, and adopts the OPTION statement allowing highway agencies to develop criteria for determining the applicability of In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA also adds paragraph 03 requiring that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, be placed only in the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island. While an NCUTCD member supported the language, two State DOTs and two local DOTs opposed the language, suggesting that locating this sign in the crosswalk was not the original intent of this device, and that doing so might actually pose a safety issue by distracting or obstructing the pedestrian's or driver's view. The FHWA received comments from a City DOT opposed to the proposed language restricting the location of overhead pedestrian crossing signs to over the roadway at the crosswalk location and

prohibiting the installation of the signs at signalized locations. The commenter felt that there are unique locations where the requirements need to be relaxed to allow flexibility. The FHWA disagrees with these comments, because the experimentation that led to the original inclusion of the R1-6 In-Street Pedestrian Sign in the MUTCD only involved signs located in the street itself, where it is highly visible to the approaching driver, and did not include any application of the R1-6 sign behind the curb. The FHWA does not have any information that would support placement of this sign at locations out of the roadway itself. The FHWA adopts the language in this final rule to be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's Official Interpretation # 7-64(1).

FHWA's Official Interpretation #7-64(I), July 23, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/7_64.htm.

In addition, in the NPA the FHWA proposed revising paragraph 10 to specify that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend and border on a white background, surrounded by an outer fluorescent yellow-green background area, or by a yellow background area. The FHWA adopts this language, with editorial edits, based on comments from two State DOTs suggesting the need to clarify the color of the background area.

The FHWA also proposed revising paragraph 11 to indicate that unless an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed on a physical island, it is to be designed to bend over and then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a vehicle. A local DOT and a traffic control device manufacturer supported this provision, while a State DOT opposed the language, stating that drums, cones, and other types of devices used within roadways are not required to have this ability. The FHWA adopts this language in this final rule because while all signs must be crashworthy, these in-street signs need to have special supports to minimize damage to vehicles and injuries to pedestrians if the signs are struck by a passing vehicle.

Finally, the FHWA adds paragraph 13 that provides requirements for the mounting heights of In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. A traffic control device manufacturer opposed the mounting height requirements; however, FHWA adopts these requirements as proposed in the NPA to preclude incorrect mounting of this sign when it is on an island and to assure that the signs are crashworthy by not being mounted above vehicle windshield height .

Information on the FHWA's crash-testing of in-street signs can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway%5Fdept/policy_guide/road_hardware/breakaway/signsupports.cfm.

66. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add to the STANDARD a statement that speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that includes an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles. A State DOT and a local DOT supported this new language, while a State DOT, a local DOT, and an advocacy association opposed the language because they felt it was too restrictive. In addition, a State DOT, an association of local DOTs, and six local DOTs expressed concern that some roadways do not have volumes that are high enough to allow the collection of speed distributions, and there are some types of roads, such as residential streets and school zones, where the free-flow speed is actually the safety issue. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule to clarify that consideration is to be given to the free-flow speed when determining altered speed zones, and to clarify that statutorily established speed limits, such as those typically established by State laws setting statewide maximum limits for various classes of roads (such as neighborhood roads and school zones), do not require an engineering study. The FHWA also proposed to add a new SUPPORT statement to provide additional information about the difference between a statutory speed limit and an altered speed zone. A citizen opposed the descriptions because he believes they offer a way to avoid doing a proper speed survey and thus enable jurisdictions to post unreasonably low speed limits. The FHWA disagrees, as this is only a SUPPORT statement that does not affect the other provisions regarding studies to establish speed limits, and the FHWA adopts the SUPPORT statement in this final rule to clarify the difference between statutory speed limits and altered speed zones.

The FHWA also proposed to add a new OPTION statement to permit the use of several new plaques (R2-5P series) to be mounted with the Speed Limit Sign when a jurisdiction has a policy of installing speed limit signs only on the streets that enter from a jurisdictional boundary or from a higher-speed street to indicate that the speed limit is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area unless otherwise posted. A State DOT, a local DOT, and a retired traffic engineer supported the new language; however, a State DOT opposed the language, because it felt that such plaques can be difficult to enforce and have the potential to be abused. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter and adopts this change in this final rule, with editorial clarification, to reflect common practice in some urban areas, as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,

and because it is often unnecessary and overly costly to install a speed limit sign on every minor residential street.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 19-20, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

The FHWA also proposed to add paragraph 09 to recommend that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice. One State DOT supported this new recommendation; however, another State DOT opposed this recommendation, stating that to install reduced speed limit signs in advance of every 10 mph reduction in speed would be infeasible. A turnpike authority suggested that speed limit drops of more than 10 mph at a time should be discouraged. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule because the practice of installing reduced speed signs in advance of speed zones with more than a 10 mph reduction has been in place in many States for decades. In addition, some States and local highway agencies have engaged in the practice of establishing speed limits more than 10 mph lower than the rural statutory speed limit when entering a town or commercial area, and road users need to be warned of such situations. The FHWA also adopts this change in order to provide consistency with changes contained in Chapter 2C.

The FHWA clarifies the STANDARD statement proposed in the NPA for the establishment of speed zones on the basis of an engineering study of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles, by adding SUPPORT and OPTION statements in this final rule in response to comments from the NCUTCD. That organization suggested more clarification as to engineering studies that should be conducted to reevaluate non-statutory speed limits and the posting of altered speed zones. The FHWA believes these adopted changes will assist agencies with reevaluating non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have

undergone significant changes since the last review; such as the addition or elimination of parking, change in the number of travel lanes, changes in bicycle lane configuration, or signal coordination and in determining speed limits in speed zones.

As discussed above, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to add in paragraph 01 of the STANDARD statement a requirement that the engineering study that is performed to determine a speed zone shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles. Based on a comment from the Regulatory and Warning Signs Technical Committee of the NCUTCD to include additional guidance and supporting information for the establishment of speed zones in the vicinity of signalized intersections, the FHWA adds paragraph 13 to the GUIDANCE statement to recommend that speed studies on signalized intersection approaches be taken outside the influence area of the traffic control signal, which is generally considered to be approximately

1/2

mile, to avoid obtaining skewed results for the 85th percentile speed. Following this GUIDANCE, the FHWA adds a SUPPORT statement regarding the use of advance warning signs in the vicinity of signalized intersections. The FHWA believes that this new text provides agencies with additional information that is useful in establishing speed zones and gaining motorists' awareness.

Finally, the FHWA adds a new GUIDANCE statement to indicate that Speed Limit signs should not be used to warn of an advisory speed for a roadway condition, based on a comment from the NCUTCD that this is needed for consistency with the provisions of Section 2C.08 Advisory Speed Plaque. The FHWA also adds a reference to Section 2C.08 for information on advisory speed plaques for these conditions.

67. In Section 2B.17 Higher Fines Signs and Plaque, the FHWA proposed changes to OPTION, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and SUPPORT statements. In this final rule, the FHWA revises the existing and proposed text to be consistent with similar provisions in Chapter 6F and Chapter 7B for the application of Higher Fines signs and plaque.

68. The FHWA relocates all of the text from Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Sign of the 2003 MUTCD to Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (see item 66 above).

69. In Section 2B.18 (Section 2B.19 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA changes the title to “Movement Prohibition Signs” to incorporate the inclusion of the No Straight Through (R3-27) sign in the GUIDANCE statement in this section. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, a State DOT, two local DOTs, an association, and two citizens supported this new sign, although some of the commenters also suggested that the signs be allowed for other applications. A State DOT and two local DOTs opposed the new sign because they felt that it was unnecessary. The commenters suggested that the DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign serves the same purpose. The FHWA disagrees and adopts the symbolic No Straight Through sign as proposed in the NPA. The sign is most commonly used for traffic restrictions associated with traffic calming programs. The sign is useful at intersections having four approaches, where the through movement to be prohibited is onto a street or road that does not have a “Do Not Enter” condition, such as when 90-degree turns into the roadway are allowed, but the straight ahead movement into the roadway is prohibited. This new sign uses the standard Canadian MUTCD RB-10 sign as the basis of the design. The FHWA adds an illustration of this new sign to Figure 2B-4.

The FHWA also changes paragraph 09 regarding the use of Turn Prohibition Signs adjacent to signal heads from an OPTION to a GUIDANCE statement. Although a local DOT opposed strengthening this language to a recommendation, the FHWA believes that for conspicuity reasons, these signs should be mounted near the appropriate signal face, and this reflects typical practice. Therefore, the FHWA adopts in this final rule the proposed changes to a recommended practice rather than an option.

Additionally, the FHWA adds new STANDARD and SUPPORT statements at the end of this section to prohibit the use of No Left Turn, No U-Turn, and combination No U-Turn/No Left Turn signs at roundabouts in order to prohibit drivers from turning left onto the circular roadway of a roundabout. The language also indicates that Roundabout Directional Arrow and/or ONE WAY signs are the appropriate signs to indicate the travel direction for this condition. The NCUTCD and two of its members, a State DOT, two local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant supported the proposed language. Some comments in support of the proposal also indicated that there might be unique existing situations where the design of the roundabout is confusing and/or driver expectancy is such that a No Left Turn sign is needed to correct driver behavior at roundabout approaches. The FHWA disagrees with those comments and suggests that the Roundabout Directional Arrow and/or ONE WAY signs can be used to help in those situations. The FHWA adopts the language as proposed in the NPA to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reduce the possibility of confusion for drivers that intend to turn left by circumnavigating the roundabout.

70. In Section 2B.19 (Section 2B.20 of the 2003 MUTCD) Intersection Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposed to add to the GUIDANCE statement that overhead lane control signs should be installed over the appropriate lanes on signalized approaches where lane drops, multiple-lane turns with shared through-and-turn lanes, or other lane-use controls that would be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The NCUTCD, an NCUTCD member, a local DOT, and a citizen supported the language that lane control signs should be mounted overhead. Eight State DOTs and seven local DOTs, however, suggested that placing lane control signs overhead, as well as using oversized post-mounted signs, should be an option, rather than a recommendation, because of the costs involved. The FHWA adopts the recommendation to use overhead signs for the stated conditions, however to address the comments from the DOTs, the FHWA provides additional information in this final rule to clarify alternatives to mounting overhead signs when it is impractical to do so. These changes are adopted to enhance safety and efficiency by providing for more effective signing for potentially confusing intersection configurations.

The FHWA also proposed to add a paragraph at the end of the OPTION statement regarding the types of arrows that may be used on Intersection Lane Control signs at roundabouts. ATSSA, the NCUTCD, an NCUTCD member, a State DOT, and two local DOTs supported the arrow shapes, while another NCUTCD member thought that including four different ways to show each movement lacked uniformity. A traffic engineering consultant supported the various options for arrows because he believes that road users understand and interpret normal lane control arrows better than fish hook arrows. A local DOT suggested that the left-turn arrow should be prohibited from use at roundabout intersections. The FHWA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPA along with “Figure 2B-5 Intersection Lane Control Sign Arrow Options for Roundabouts” illustrating the signs, to reflect current practice for roundabout signing and to correspond with similar options for pavement

marking arrows on roundabout approaches in Part 3. The FHWA notes that human factors research

found that all of the arrow designs shown for roundabout movements were well understood by the public.

“Lane Restriction Signing and Marking for Double-Lane Roundabouts”, Final Report, October 2007, by John A. Molino, Vaughn W. Inman, Bryan J. Katz, and Amanda Emo, for the Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/FinalRoundaboutReport.pdf.

71. In Section 2B.20 (Section 2B.21 in the 2003 MUTCD) Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the first paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that Mandatory Movement Lane Use Control signs shall indicate only the single vehicle movement that is required from each lane, and to clarify the placement of the signs. The FHWA also proposed to add that where three or more lanes are available to through traffic and Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol signs are used, they shall be mounted overhead. A State DOT supported this requirement; however, four State DOTs, three local DOTs, two NCUTCD members, and a citizen opposed the requirement, suggesting that overhead installations are not always practical and that post-mounted R3-5 signs with plaques are sufficient and easily understood. The FHWA disagrees and notes that the intent is to prohibit post-mounted lane use control signs on approaches with three or more through lanes, because the needed lane use information is more visible overhead rather than off to the side where traffic in the adjacent lanes limits the visibility of post-mounted signs. In addition, lane use regulatory signing is to be placed over the lane to which it applies on approaches with three or more through lanes, and not just where one of the lanes changes to a mandatory turn lane or combination turn lane. This is crucial information for motorists and the lack of overhead lane use signing contributes to crashes on multilane approaches to intersections. The FHWA also adopts these changes for consistency with Section 2B.21.

In this final rule, the FHWA changes paragraph 05 from a STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than require, that R3-5 series supplemental plaques (LEFT LANE, TAXI LANE, etc.) for R3-5 series lane control signs on two-lane approaches be mounted above the associated R3-5 sign. Although these changes were not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adopts these changes in response to comments from the NCUTCD and a citizen. The commenters suggested that this statement was more appropriate as a recommendation, and they also indicated that the supplemental plaques should be added above the sign, rather than below, since placing the information at the top of the sign assembly allows drivers to quickly determine if the sign applies to them. The FHWA agrees and incorporates these changes in this final rule.

The FHWA also add paragraphs 06 and 07 in response to a comment from the NCUTCD to clarify the use of R3-7 LEFT (RIGHT) LANE MUST TURN LEFT (RIGHT) Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs, because they are being misused throughout the country. The FHWA agrees and adds these paragraphs in the final rule to clarify where these signs should and should not be used.

Finally, as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds an OPTION statement at the end of this section describing the optional use of the new BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs at the upstream end of the turn lane taper of mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA adds this change to give agencies flexibility to use these new signs to designate the beginning of mandatory turn lanes where needed for enforcement purposes. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and a local DOT supported this change. A State DOT and a NCUTCD member opposed the introduction of the R3-20 sign, because the R3-7 and R3-5 signs are available and therefore they believe that another sign is not needed and would reduce uniformity. The FHWA disagrees, because this new optional sign will provide road users additional information regarding mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA adopts the R3-20 sign, incorporating an editorial suggestion regarding its placement, in this final rule.

72. In Section 2B.21 (Section 2B.22 in the 2003 MUTCD) Optional Movement Lane Control Sign, the FHWA revises the STANDARD statement, as proposed in the NPA, to clarify that, if used, Optional Movement Lane Control signs shall be located in advance of and/or at the intersection where the lane controls apply. This change also provides consistency with Section 2B.20 regarding placement of Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs.

The FHWA also adopts the proposed paragraph 05 requiring that Optional Movement Lane Control (R3-6) signs be mounted overhead if used on an approach where the number of lanes available to through traffic is three or more. Similar to the comments in Section 2B.20, a local DOT supported this change, while two State DOTs, two local DOTs, and two NCUTCD members opposed this change, suggesting that it should be optional rather than recommended. The FHWA disagrees because lane use regulation is critical information for drivers that can be obscured by other traffic on approaches of three or more through lanes when post-mounted.

Similar to comparable provisions in Section 2B.20, in this final rule the FHWA changes paragraph 06 from a STANDARD statement, as proposed in the NPA, to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than require, that R3-5 series supplemental plaques (LEFT LANE, TAXI LANE, etc) for R3-5 series lane control signs on two-lane approaches be mounted above the associated R3-6 sign, for consistency with a similar statement in Section 2B.20.

The FHWA also adds paragraph 08, as proposed in the NPA, prohibiting the use of the word message ONLY when more than one movement is permitted from a lane. The FHWA adopts this change in this final rule to be consistent with other requirements in the MUTCD regarding the use of the term ONLY for lane use.

73. In Section 2B.22 Advance Intersection Lane Control Signs (Section 2B.23 in the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA proposed in the NPA to add paragraph 05 prohibiting the overhead placement of Advance Intersection Lane Control (R3-8) signs where the number of lanes available to traffic on an approach is three or more. In such cases, overhead R3-5 signs are used. The NCUTCD, a State DOT, three local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant pointed out confusing language in the statement proposed in the NPA. The FHWA clarifies the language in this final rule to refer to the total number of lanes, not just through lanes. This section pertains to advance lane use signs, while Section 2B.19 addresses lane use control signs at the intersection.

74. The FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.23 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign. This section, as proposed in the NPA, contained an OPTION statement describing the use of this sign for a lane of a freeway or expressway that is approaching a grade-separated interchange where traffic in the lane is required to depart the roadway onto the exit ramp at the next interchange. As documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,

at least 12 States currently use

this type of regulatory sign for freeway lane drop situations to establish the “must exit” regulation and make it enforceable where warning signs (such as the overhead “Exit Only” black-on-yellow warning plaque on guide signs) and markings alone have proven ineffective. ATSSA, an NCUTCD member, and a local DOT supported the new RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) sign; however, another NCUTCD member opposed the sign because he felt that there are similar signs in the MUTCD that can be used. The FHWA disagrees because there are no other post-mounted regulatory signs that adequately convey this message. The FHWA adopts this section in this final rule with revisions to indicate that this sign may be used to supplement an overhead EXIT ONLY guide sign, in response to a comment from a toll road operator that further clarification was needed to preclude unintended uses of the R3-33 sign.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 22, can be viewed at

the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

75. Although the FHWA did not propose in the NPA any significant changes to Section 2B.24 Two-Way Left Turn Only Signs, the FHWA received comments from three local DOTs suggesting that two-way left turn only signs are no longer necessary because this turn configuration has been in use for long enough that motorists are familiar with its operation. The commenters suggested that two-way left turn only signs be optional, rather than recommended. The FHWA disagrees because the operation of two-way left-turn lanes is a regulatory application requiring motorists to turn left out of the lane rather than using the lane as an auxiliary through lane. Lane markings alone regulate traffic only for NO PASSING zones; therefore two-way left turn only signs are needed. The FHWA retains this section, as it existed in the 2003 MUTCD, with minor editorial changes.

76. Although not proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.25 BEGIN and END Plaques, consisting of an OPTION statement for the optional use of the BEGIN or END plaque and a STANDARD statement that, if the plaque is used, it is to be placed above a regulatory sign. The FHWA adds this new section in response to comments from the NCUTCD that the existing END plaques already contained in Section 2D.22 and the BEGIN plaque proposed in the NPA in Section 2D.23 should be made available for optional use with any regulatory sign. The NCUTCD based its suggestion on recommendation #15 from the Sign Synthesis Study.

The FHWA agrees and adopts this new section, along with an illustration of the plaques in Figure 2B-6, in this final rule.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 22-23, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

77. The FHWA adds a new section titled Section 2B.27 Jughandle Signs. As proposed in the NPA, this section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs for jughandles. A State DOT suggested that road users would be better served by advance guide signing for jug handles, rather than regulatory signing. The FHWA disagrees because regulatory signing is critical for jughandles since the geometry typically requires left turns and U-turns to be made via a right turn, either in advance of or beyond the intersection, and this is contrary to normal driver expectations. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that jughandles are currently in common use in at least six States and the FHWA believes that jughandles are likely to see increasing use in the future in more States in order to improve intersection safety and operations. Therefore, in order to provide agencies with uniform signing practices for several of the most common geometric layouts of jughandles, the FHWA adds this new section along with several new signs and a figure to illustrate their use. ATSSA and a local DOT supported the regulatory signs illustrated in the figure. The NCUTCD suggested editorial changes to the text and to the arrows on some of the signs, which the FHWA adopts in this final rule. Although a local DOT opposed the use of “U Turn and Left Turn” language on the R3-24 signs, the FHWA incorporates the sign designs, as proposed in the NPA, because the sign designs and their applications have effectively been in use in several States for decades and are critical information for road user decisions for the condition of an indirect left turn.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

78. In Section 2B.28 DO NOT PASS Sign (Section 2B.29 of the 2003 MUTCD), in the NPA the FHWA proposed a new symbol sign for the DO NOT PASS (R4-1) Sign. ATSSA, three local DOTs, and two citizens supported the new symbol signs. Although the proposed symbol sign has been in use and is well understood in Europe and Canada (the Canadian MUTCD RB-31 sign) for many decades,

the FHWA does not adopt the symbol sign in this final rule because of comments from the NCUTCD and two of its members, seven State DOTs, and five local DOTs suggesting that U.S. drivers would not understand its meaning. The FHWA agrees that additional human factors testing of the symbol is desirable before future consideration of adoption of this symbol.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

79. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE sign, which contained an OPTION statement describing the use of this word message sign. ATSSA and two local DOTs supported this new sign. Although at least five States use signs to remind road users of the meaning of a solid yellow line for no-passing zones, the NCUTCD and two of its members, eight State DOTs, four local DOTs, and a local association of traffic engineers recommended deleting this section and the associated sign in its entirety because they felt that the proposed sign was not needed. Many stated that the No Passing Pennant (W14-3) warning sign may be used for this purpose. The FHWA agrees and does not adopt this section or the sign in this final rule.

80. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to retitle Section 2B.31 of the 2003 MUTCD to “KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Sign and SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign” to reflect the proposed addition of a new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign in this section. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 19 States use a “Keep Right Except to Pass” sign to legally require vehicles to stay in the right-hand lane of a multi-lane highway except when passing a slower vehicle, and the FHWA feels that a consistent message should be provided to road users. The NCUTCD, an NCUTCD member, ATSSA, and a local DOT supported the new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign. The NCUTCD also noted that the new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign is used for different situations than the SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT sign. The FHWA agrees and adopts

revisions in this final rule to separate the applications of each of the signs, including placing the new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign in its own Section, numbered Section 2B.30 in this final rule.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

81. In Section 2B.31 (numbered Section 2B.32 in the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA retitles the Section to “TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE Sign” and revises the section to discontinue the use of the TRUCK LANE XXX FEET (R4-6) as a regulatory sign because the message is one of guidance information (distance to the start of the truck lane) rather than regulatory in nature. This is consistent with changes in Chapter 2D that add a new guide sign with this message. The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement, as proposed in the NPA, which describes the appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE sign on multi-lane roadways to reduce unnecessary lane changing.

82. In Section 2B.32 Keep Right and Keep Left Signs (numbered Section 2B.33 in the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA adds a new narrow Keep Right (R4-7c) sign that may be installed on narrow medians where there is insufficient lateral clearance for a standard width Keep Right sign. ATSSA, a State DOT, two local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant supported this new sign. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed that this narrower sign may be installed on medians less than 6 feet in width; however, in this final rule the FHWA revises the permitted use of this sign to medians less than 4 feet wide based on a comment from ATSSA. The FHWA adopts this new sign, which is only 12 inches wide rather than the standard 24-inch wide R4-7 sign, to reflect current practice in some States and to provide other agencies with the flexibility to use this sign where applicable.

83. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds three new sections following Section 2B.32. The first new section is numbered and titled Section 2B.33 STAY IN LANE Sign, and contains OPTION and GUIDANCE statements on the use of STAY IN LANE (R4-9) signs and the pavement markings that should be used with them. The second new section is numbered and titled Section 2B.34 RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY Sign, and contains a GUIDANCE statement regarding the use of the RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY sign near truck escape ramp entrances. Both the STAY IN LANE and RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY signs are existing signs illustrated in Figure 2B-10 (Figure 2B-8 of the 2003 MUTCD), but not described in the text of the 2003 MUTCD. The third new section is numbered and titled Section 2B.35 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Signs, and contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD statements regarding three new signs that may be used on two-lane highways where physical turn-out areas are provided for the purpose of giving a group of faster vehicles an opportunity to pass a slow-moving vehicle. ATSSA and a local DOT supported the SLOW VEHICLES WITH XX OR MORE FOLLOWING VEHICLES MUST USE TURN-OUT (R4-12) sign; however, two State DOTs opposed the sign because of safety concerns. As documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,

at least eight States, mostly in the west, use regulatory signs to legally require slow moving vehicles to use the turnout if a certain number of following vehicles are being impeded. Most of the eight States use similar wording on their signs, but there are some variations. The FHWA adds these new signs in this final rule to provide for uniformity of the message.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

84. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA adds a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.36 DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign and DO NOT PASS ON SHOULDER Sign, which contains an OPTION statement regarding the use of these two new signs to inform road users that use of the shoulder as a travel lane or to pass other vehicles is prohibited. ATSSA supported these two new signs. The FHWA adopts these 2 new signs in this final rule because the Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 19 States are using some version of regulatory sign to prohibit driving, turning, and/or passing on shoulders and the FHWA feels that consistent and uniform messages for these purposes should be provided to road users.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

85. In Sections 2B.37 DO NOT ENTER Sign and 2B.38 WRONG WAY Sign (Sections 2B.34 and 2B.35 of the 2003 MUTCD) the FHWA adds SUPPORT statements, as proposed in the NPA. These statements reference Section 2B.41, which allows lower mounting heights for Do Not Enter and Wrong Way signs as a specific exception when an engineering study indicates that it would address wrong-way movements at freeway/expressway exit ramps. The FHWA adopts this exception based on recommendations from the Older Driver handbook

and positive experience in several States.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendation II.D(4d).

86. In Section 2B.39 Selective Exclusion Signs (Section 2B.36 in the 2003 MUTCD), as proposed in the NPA, the FHWA changes the legend of several existing selective exclusion signs to use the word NO rather than PROHIBITED or EXCLUDED, to simplify the messages and make them easier to read from a distance. ATSSA, a State DOT, and a local DOT supported this change. The FHWA also adds the new No Skaters

(

R9-13) and No Equestrians (R9-14) signs to this list, as well as to Figure 2B-11, based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, two NCUTCD members, and several pedestrian/bicycle associations.

To respond to a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adds paragraph 06 to recommend that the NO PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLES (R5-10b) sign, when used on a freeway or expressway exit or entrance ramp, should be installed in a location where it is clearly visible to any pedestrian or bicyclist attempting to enter the limited access facility from a street intersecting the exit ramp.

In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to add two new regulatory signs, AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY to the last OPTION statement to reflect current practice. While ATSSA and a local DOT supported both of these signs, an NCUTCD member suggested that their meaning was so similar that only one sign is needed. The FHWA agrees and adopts the AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY (R5-11) sign in this final rule and deletes the FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY sign.

87. In Figure 2B-26 (Figure 2B-18 in the 2003 MUTCD) Pedestrian Signs and Plaques, the FHWA in this final rule modifies the designs of the R10-3, R10-3a through R10-3e, R10-4 and R10-4a to include the Canadian MUTCD standard symbol for pushbuttons (in addition to the words), as proposed in the NPA, to begin the symbolization of the “pushbutton” message. The FHWA adopts this change to provide better harmony in North American signing design, which is needed as a result of the increased travel between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico resulting from NAFTA. The FHWA is adopting this new pushbutton symbol on several signs throughout the MUTCD.

88. As proposed in the NPA, in Section 2B.40 ONE WAY Signs (Section 2B.37 of the 2003 MUTCD), the FHWA changes paragraph 03 to a STANDARD to require, rather than recommend, that at an intersection with a divided highway having a median width of 30 feet or more, ONE WAY signs be placed on the near right and far left corners of each intersection with the directional roadways to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

In concert with these changes, and based on comments from a State DOT, the FHWA clarifies that, at an intersection with a divided highway that has a median width of less than 30 feet, Keep Right (R4-7) signs shall be installed, visible to traffic on the divided highway and each crossroad approach, and/or ONE WAY signs shall be placed, visible to each crossroad approach, on the near right and far left corners of the intersection. The FHWA also adds an OPTION statement allowing ONE WAY signs to also be placed on the far right corner of an intersection with a divided highway that has a median width of less than 30 feet. The FHWA revises Figures 2B-15 through 2B-17 accordingly.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendations I.E(4), I.K(2), and I.K(3).

The FHWA also adds two STANDARD paragraphs as proposed in the NPA to require two ONE WAY signs for each approach for T-intersections and cross intersections, one on the near side and one on the far side. The FHWA adopts this change to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendations I.K(4) and I.K(5).

The FHWA establishes a target compliance date of December 31, 2019, (approximately 10 years from the effective date of this final rule) for the installation of the additional ONE WAY and/or Keep Right signs required to achieve compliance with these provisions at existing locations. The FHWA establishes this target compliance date because of the demonstrated safety issues associated with wrong-way travel on divided highways and because the FHWA anticipates that installation of the required additional signs at existing locations will provide significant safety benefits to road users. State and local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel can schedule the installation of the additional required signs in conjunction with their programs for maintaining and replacing other signs at existing locations that are worn out or damaged, thus minimizing any impacts.

The FHWA also adds new OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements at the end of the Section regarding the use of ONE WAY signs on central islands of roundabouts. The FHWA adopts this text to promote consistency in signing for roundabouts.

Additionally, to respond to a comment from the NCUTCD and to provide highway agencies with a uniform method of communicating potentially important messages, in this final rule the FHWA adds BEGIN ONE WAY and END ONE WAY signs as optional signs that may be used to notify approaching road users of the beginning point or ending point of a one-way directional roadway. These new optional signs are consistent with existing sign designs. The Signs Synthesis Report

indicates these signs are in use in some States. The FHWA adopts the signs in the text and includes them in Figure 2B-13, and notes that the impact of this addition is mitigated as the use of these signs is optional.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 26, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

89. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA relocates the information from Section 2E.50 of the 2003 MUTCD to a new section numbered and titled Section 2B.41 Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps. The FHWA adopts this change because these types of signs are regulatory in nature, rather than

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

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