National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision, 268-334 [E7-24863]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
268
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 634 and 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
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed
amendments.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
Electronic Access and Filing
SUMMARY: The MUTCD (also referred to
as ‘‘the Manual’’) is incorporated by 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 notice of
proposed amendments is to revise
standards, guidance, options, and
supporting information relating to the
traffic control devices in all parts of the
MUTCD. The proposed changes are
intended to expedite traffic, promote
uniformity, improve safety, and
incorporate technology advances in
traffic control device application. These
proposed changes are being designated
as the next edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver
comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management
Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, or submit
electronically at www.regulations.gov or
fax comments to (202) 493–2251. All
comments should include the docket
number that appears in the heading of
this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Those
desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or may
print the acknowledgment page that
appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
65, Number 70, Page 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Hari Kalla, Office of Transportation
Operations, (202) 366–5915; or
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:
You may submit or retrieve comments
online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: 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: https://www.archives.gov
and the Government Printing Office’s
Web page at: https://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The text, figures, and tables of a
proposed new edition of the MUTCD
incorporating proposed changes from
the current 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, figures, and tables of a
proposed new edition of the MUTCD
incorporating proposed changes from
the current edition are available on the
MUTCD Internet Web site https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The proposed text
is available in two formats. The first
format shows the current MUTCD text
with proposed additions in blue
underlined text and proposed deletions
as red strikeout text, and also includes
notes in green boxes to provide helpful
explanations where text is proposed to
be relocated or where minor edits are
proposed. The second format shows a
‘‘clean’’ version of the complete text
proposed for the next edition of the
MUTCD, with all the proposed changes
incorporated. The complete current
2003 edition of the MUTCD with
Revision No. 1 incorporated is also
available on the same Internet Web site.
This notice of proposed amendments
is being issued to provide an
opportunity for public comment on the
desirability of these proposed
amendments to the MUTCD. Based on
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the comments received and its own
experience, the FHWA may issue a
Final Rule concerning the proposed
changes included in this notice.
The notice of proposed amendments
is being published to address the many
advances in technology, research
results, and improved traffic and safety
management strategies that have
occurred since the 2002 initiation of the
rulemaking process that led to the 2003
edition of the MUTCD. The FHWA
invites comments on these proposed
changes to the MUTCD. The FHWA
requests that commenters cite the page
number and line numbers of the
proposed MUTCD text for which each
specific comment to the docket about
the proposed text is concerned, to help
make the FHWA’s docket comment
review process more efficient.
A summary of the significant
proposed general changes and proposed
changes for each of the parts of the
MUTCD is included in the following
discussion.
Discussion of Proposed General
Amendments to the MUTCD
1. The FHWA proposes to develop a
new cover page for the new edition of
the MUTCD that will maintain general
consistency with covers of previous
editions but with changes to give it a
distinctive appearance, to minimize the
possibility of confusion by users.
Although a new cover page has not yet
been developed and is not illustrated in
the NPA, the FHWA proposes to include
a new cover page design in the edition
of the MUTCD published as the Final
Rule. The FHWA proposes that the date
of the new edition to be identified on
the cover and elsewhere within the
document will be the year in which the
Final Rule is issued.
2. The FHWA proposes to include
paragraph numbers for each section, in
the margins, for the final page images of
the next edition of the MUTCD.
Although the page images shown for the
NPA do not include paragraph numbers,
the FHWA proposes to include them in
the edition of the MUTCD published as
the Final Rule in order to aid
practitioners in referencing the MUTCD,
as well as to assist readers of future
MUTCD notices of proposed
amendments. On the FHWA’s MUTCD
Web site at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov,
along with the proposed MUTCD text,
the FHWA has posted sample pages
showing four possible methods for
paragraph numbering. Interested
persons should review the sample pages
and provide comments to the docket on
the paragraph numbering options.
3. Throughout the MUTCD, the
FHWA proposes minor changes in text
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
and figures for grammatical or style
consistency, to improve consistency
with related text or figures, to improve
clarity, or to correct minor errors. Where
the FHWA proposes to add 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 proposed addition would be
renumbered or relettered accordingly.
All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures,
Lists of Tables, and page headers and
footers would be revised as appropriate
to reflect the proposed changes.
4. The FHWA proposes, where
appropriate, to modify figures and tables
to reflect proposed changes in the text
and to add figures and tables to
illustrate new or revised text.
5. In various sections of the Manual,
the FHWA proposes to relocate
statements or paragraphs in order to
place subject material together in logical
order, to provide continuity, or to
improve flow. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to change the titles of some
sections in order to more accurately
describe the content of the section.
6. The FHWA proposes to remove 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 proposes that each occurrence of
the term either be eliminated or
replaced with suitable language that is
more appropriate.
7. The FHWA proposes to change the
phrase ‘‘bicycle trail’’ to ‘‘bikeway’’ in
several places in the Manual. The
FHWA proposes this change because the
term ‘‘bikeway’’ is a generic term used
for any road, street, or shared-use path
that is specifically designated for
bicycle travel and the term ‘‘bicycle
trail’’ is generally used to designate only
off-road trails or paths that are typically
not constructed to engineering
standards or guidelines, and the
application of the MUTCD to such
bicycle trails would generally be
impractical, inappropriate, and
inadvisable in some locations.
8. The FHWA proposes to change the
references to the book previously titled
‘‘Standard Highway Signs’’ to refer to
the current ‘‘Standard Highway Signs
and Markings.’’ This change is proposed
throughout the MUTCD because the
FHWA is changing the title of that book
to more accurately reflect its content,
which includes information regarding
markings.
9. The FHWA has conducted a
comprehensive review of all of the sign
codes used throughout the Manual, and
proposes to revise sign codes in several
places in order to provide more
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
consistency and clarity. As part of this
process, the FHWA proposes to revise
the term ‘‘sign code’’ to ‘‘sign
designation’’ to avoid confusion with
other uses of the word ‘‘code,’’ and to
use the ‘‘a’’ suffix in sign designations
for word message signs that are
alternatives to symbol signs, use the ‘‘P’’
suffix for sign designations for plaques,
and add ‘‘(M)’’ suffixes for signs that
have metric units.
10. In all Parts of the MUTCD where
sign images are shown in the figures, the
FHWA proposes to add sign images that
are already in the Standard Highway
Signs and Markings book, but not in the
MUTCD, and to update figures to show
proposed new signs or changes to
existing signs.
11. The FHWA proposes to add
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 signing, signals, and
markings in advance of and at toll
plazas, in order to enhance safety and
convenience for road users. The FHWA
proposes to add provisions on toll plaza
traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and
4 that reflect the results of research
study on best practices for traffic control
strategies at toll plazas 1 (referred to
hereafter as the ‘‘Toll Plaza Best
Practices and Recommendations
Report’’) and FHWA’s policy on toll
plaza traffic control devices.2
12. The FHWA proposes to expand
the provisions regarding preferential
lanes and add new provisions regarding
managed lanes in various Parts of the
MUTCD. This proposed information is
contained primarily in Parts 2 and 3,
and is intended to address specific
signing and marking issues associated
with electronic toll collection, High
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable
tolls, etc. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to eliminate 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.
13. In order to further address the
needs of motorcyclists, the FHWA
proposes to add information to Parts 2,
3, and 8 regarding traffic control device
considerations for motorcyclists.
1 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations on
Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June 2006,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
2 ‘‘Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,’’
dated September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/
tcstoll_policy.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
269
14. The FHWA proposes to change the
designations of barricades to Types 1, 2,
and 3 to eliminate the use of roman
numerals because these are the only
devices that are designated by roman
numerals and to be consistent with
other items such as object marker types.
This editorial change would affect the
text of several Parts of the MUTCD.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
the Introduction
15. The FHWA proposes to revise the
first STANDARD statement regarding
the locations where the MUTCD applies.
The FHWA proposes this change to
incorporate recent changes to 23 CFR
655.603(a) 3 that clarify that, for the
purpose of MUTCD applicability, the
phrase ‘‘open to public travel’’ includes
toll roads and roads within shopping
centers, parking lots, airports, sports
arenas, and other similar business and
recreation facilities that are privately
owned but where the public is allowed
to travel without access restrictions. The
FHWA also proposes to modify the
wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove
the military base exemption from the
MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to apply
the provisions in the MUTCD and
modify the CFR based on a request from
the Military Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command to include
military bases in order to facilitate
motorist safety through conformity and
consistency with national standards.
The FHWA agrees that many military
bases are public and contain public
roads that can be freely accessed, and
that the use of such roads by military
personnel from all over the country
makes it especially important for traffic
control devices on military bases to be
in conformance with the national
standards of the MUTCD. As a part of
this change, the FHWA proposes to
indicate that traffic control devices can
be placed by the authority of non-public
agencies, and the MUTCD is recognized
as the national standard for traffic
control devices on public facilities and
private property open to public travel,
as defined above.
16. In the fourth STANDARD
statement, the FHWA proposes to add
that substantial conformance of State or
other Federal agency MUTCDs or
Supplements shall be as defined in 23
CFR 655.603(b)(1), to reflect the
3 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: https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06–
6.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
270
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
incorporation of the definition of that
term into the CFR.4
17. In the listing of target phase-in
compliance dates, FHWA proposes to
include the specific target phase-in
compliance date for those items whose
dates were determined through previous
rulemaking, now that the effective dates
are known. In addition, the FHWA
proposes target phase-in compliance
dates for a number of significant
proposed changes in the NPA. The
FHWA also proposes to delete from the
listing any items for which the target
phase-in compliance dates have already
passed or will be passed by the date of
the publication of the Final Rule
resulting from this NPA. It should also
be noted that the target phase-in
compliance dates define the end of the
‘‘phase-in compliance period’’ as
discussed for various items in the
remainder of this document.
18. Although not specifically shown
in the NPA, the FHWA is considering
incorporating the phase-in compliance
periods into the body of the MUTCD
text throughout the applicable parts and
sections in the Final Rule. The FHWA
is considering this change because the
list of phase-in compliance periods is
lengthy, and it might be more
convenient and effective for
practitioners to have phase-in
compliance periods embedded in the
text, rather than in a different area of the
Manual. The FHWA encourages the
public to view the Minnesota State
Department of Transportation Web site
at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/
trafficeng/otepubl/mutcd/ to
view how Minnesota has incorporated
the phase-in compliance periods into its
State MUTCD text and to provide
comments to the docket on whether
Minnesota’s method is preferable to
listing all the phase-in compliance
periods in the MUTCD Introduction.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 1—General
19. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic
Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to
delete the STANDARD statement from
this section, and place the text in
Section 2A.06, because that section
more appropriately deals with signs,
including their colors and symbols. For
the same reason, text in the OPTION
statement relating to signs only is also
proposed to be relocated to Section
2A.06.
4 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: https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06–
6.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
20. In Section 1A.08 Authority for
Placement of Traffic Control Devices,
the FHWA proposes to add to the
GUIDANCE statement that signs and
other devices (as explained in a
proposed new SUPPORT statement) that
do not have any traffic control purpose
that are placed with the permission of
the public agency or official having
jurisdiction, should be located where
they will not interfere with, or detract
from traffic control devices. The FHWA
proposes 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.
21. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations,
Experimentations, Changes, and Interim
Approvals, the FHWA proposes to
revise the 2nd STANDARD statement to
indicate that electronic submittals of
requests for interpretation, permission
to experiment, interim approvals, or
changes are preferred. The FHWA
proposes to include the e-mail address
for such submittals. As part of this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
an OPTION statement that includes the
postal address for such requests to be
mailed to, in the event that the
submitter does not have access to email.
The FHWA also proposes to revise
and supplement the language regarding
interim approvals for the use of traffic
control devices in order to provide
additional information about the
process and reflect how it has evolved
since the 2003 MUTCD.
22. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other
Publications, the FHWA proposes to
add four FHWA publications and a
publication of the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) to the list of
publications in the SUPPORT statement.
All of these documents are referenced in
other Parts of the MUTCD.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
update the list to reflect current editions
of the publications.
The FHWA also proposes to delete
existing publication 19, the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE)
Recommended Practice titled, ‘‘School
Trip Safety Program Guidelines’’ from
the list of publications because ITE has
rescinded publication of the reference
document and the information from this
publication is included within the
MUTCD text where appropriate.
23. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the
FHWA proposes to add 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) transponders. The
FHWA proposes this change to readily
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
identify such facilities or lanes using
signs and pavement markings as
discussed below in the proposed
changes in Parts 2 and 3. 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 has reviewed color
properties of the purple signing and
marking materials available from a
variety of manufacturers and proposes
to revise the existing daytime color
coordinates for purple retroreflective
sign material (Table 1), add nighttime
color coordinates for purple
retroreflective sign material (Table 2),
and add daytime and nighttime color
coordinates and luminance factors for
purple retroreflective marking material
(Tables 5, 5A, and 6). The proposed
values for purple in the tables are as
indicated below (no change is proposed
for the existing values for luminance
factors for purple as contained in Table
1A):
TABLE 1.—DAYTIME CHROMATICITY
FOR
PURPLE
COORDINATES
RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN MATERIAL
x
y
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302.
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307.
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374.
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457.
Existing 0.064 Proposed 0.064
Existing 0.200 Proposed 0.202
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.247
Existing 0.202 Proposed 0.136
TABLE 2.—NIGHTTIME CHROMATICITY
COORDINATES
FOR
PURPLE
RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN MATERIAL
x
0.300
0.307
0.480
0.530
y
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
0.064
0.150
0.245
0.170
TABLE 5.—DAYTIME CHROMATICITY
COORDINATES
FOR
PURPLE
RETROREFLECTIVE
PAVEMENT
MARKING MATERIAL
x
0.300
0.309
0.362
0.475
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
02JAP2
y
0.064
0.260
0.295
0.144
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5A.—DAYTIME LUMINANCE FACTORS
FOR
PURPLE
RETROREFLECTIVE
PAVEMENT
MARKING MATERIAL
Minimum
Maximum
5 ................................................
15
TABLE 6.—NIGHTTIME CHROMATICITY
COORDINATES
FOR
PURPLE
PAVEMENT
RETROREFLECTIVE
MARKING MATERIAL
x
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
0.338
0.425
0.470
0.635
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
y
0.380
0.365
0.385
0.221
24. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of
Words and Phrases in This Manual, the
FHWA proposes to revise the
definitions for: ‘‘bicycle lane,’’
‘‘changeable message sign,’’ ‘‘contraflow
lane,’’ ‘‘crosswalk,’’ ‘‘flashing,’’
‘‘highway traffic signal,’’ ‘‘intersection,’’
‘‘logo,’’ ‘‘occupancy requirement,’’
‘‘public road,’’ ‘‘raised pavement
marker,’’ ‘‘road user,’’ ‘‘roundabout,’’
‘‘rumble strip,’’ ‘‘sign,’’ ‘‘sign legend,’’
‘‘speed,’’ ‘‘speed limit,’’ ‘‘speed zone,’’
‘‘traffic,’’ and ‘‘traffic control device’’ to
better reflect accepted practice and
terminologies and for consistency in the
usage of these terms in one or more
Parts of the MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposes to add
definitions for the words ‘‘alley,’’
‘‘average annual daily traffic,’’ ‘‘barrierseparated lane,’’ ‘‘bikeway,’’ ‘‘bufferseparated lane,’’ ‘‘circulatory roadway,’’
‘‘contiguous lane,’’ ‘‘electronic toll
collection,’’ ‘‘flagger,’’ ‘‘gate,’’
‘‘highway-light rail transit grade
crossing,’’ ‘‘hybrid signal,’’ ‘‘managed
lane,’’ ‘‘multi-lane,’’ ‘‘open road
electronic toll collection,’’ ‘‘opposing
traffic,’’ ‘‘pathway,’’ ‘‘pictograph,’’
‘‘preferential lane,’’ ‘‘private property
open to public travel,’’ ‘‘public facility,’’
‘‘safe-positioned,’’ ‘‘school,’’ ‘‘school
zone,’’ ‘‘signing,’’ ‘‘splitter island,’’
‘‘symbol,’’ ‘‘turn bay,’’ ‘‘warning light,’’
‘‘worker,’’ and ‘‘yield line’’ to the list of
definitions because they are used in the
MUTCD.
25. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following Section 1A.13.
The proposed new section is numbered
and titled ‘‘Section 1A.14 Meanings of
Acronyms and Abbreviations in This
Manual,’’ and contains a STANDARD
statement with 38 acronyms and
abbreviations and their definitions. The
remaining section in Chapter 1A would
be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
proposes adding this new section to
assist readers with the acronyms and
abbreviations used throughout the
Manual.
26. In existing Section 1A.14 (new
Section 1A.15) Abbreviations Used on
Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA
proposes to add to the 1st STANDARD
statement a paragraph indicating that
the abbreviations listed in Table 1A–2
shall be used only on Portable
Changeable Message Signs and that
when the word messages shown in
Table 1A–2 need to be abbreviated on a
Portable Changeable Message sign, the
abbreviations shown in Table 1A–2
shall be used. The original research 5 on
abbreviations was based on the need to
shorten words when used on portable
changeable message signs due to 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 fixedmessage signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add to
the 2nd GUIDANCE statement a
sentence indicating that punctuation
marks or other characters that are not
letters or numerals should not be used
in abbreviations, unless absolutely
necessary to avoid confusion.
27. In Table 1A–1 Acceptable
Abbreviations, the FHWA proposes to
add 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. The FHWA also
proposes to remove several
abbreviations from Table 1A–1 that are
symbols rather than abbreviations (such
as ‘‘D’’ for diesel on general service
signs), and to revise several
abbreviations based on accepted
practice in the specific context of the
manner in which fixed messages are
developed. The FHWA also proposes to
remove 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 proposes to revise the title of
Table 1A–2 to ‘‘Abbreviations That
Shall Only Be Used on Portable
Changeable Message Signs’’ and add to
Table 1A–2 some of the abbreviations
that would be removed from Table 1A–
1. The FHWA also proposes to revise
5 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, Web site https://
www.ntis.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
271
the content of Table 1A–2 to specifically
list the abbreviations (some of which
can be used only with a prompt word)
that are appropriate only for use on
portable changeable message signs
(PCMS).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 2 Signs
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Part 2—General
28. In December 2005, the FHWA
published a report on the findings of a
synthesis of non-MUTCD traffic
signing.6 The purposes of this synthesis
(hereafter referred to as the Sign
Synthesis Study) were to collect
information on special (non-MUTCD)
sign legends, designs, and symbols used
by the State DOTs and by selected large
cities and counties; to identify
commonalities, such as what special
conditions are the most common
reasons for developing a special sign
and what design elements have been
most commonly used to communicate
the message; and to determine the most
likely candidate sign legends and
symbols for potential inclusion in future
editions of the MUTCD and make
recommendations for standardized sign
designs. The synthesis found that a
considerable number and variety of nonMUTCD signs are in routine use by State
and local highway agencies in the U.S.
In many cases, jurisdictions have used
the flexibility given to them by the
MUTCD to develop and install special
word message signs to communicate
unique traffic regulations or warnings of
conditions that are not specifically
covered in the MUTCD. In some cases
the same word message is used by most
or all States to describe a particular
condition. However, more often there is
considerable variety among the States in
the specific words or phrases used to
communicate the same basic
information to road users. Based on the
information gathered in the synthesis,
the FHWA believes that additional
uniformity is needed for the frequently
used signing not currently included in
the MUTCD and is proposing to add
several new signs throughout the
MUTCD to provide road users with a
uniform message for commonly
encountered conditions. In addition to
describing these proposed new signs in
the MUTCD text, the FHWA proposes to
add images of these proposed signs to
applicable figures throughout the
MUTCD. A brief discussion of each
6 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signing,’’
FHWA, December 2005, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://tcd.tamu.edu/
documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
272
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
proposed new sign is included in the
preamble for each appropriate chapter
or section.
In some cases the FHWA is proposing
new symbol signs that mirror existing
Canadian MUTCD 7 standard symbols
that have been in longstanding use in
that neighboring country. Such symbols
were reviewed as a part of the signing
synthesis. Canada has moved
considerably farther into symbolization
of common regulatory, warning, and
guide/information messages (sometimes
by adopting European symbols) than has
the U.S. The synthesis found several
well-designed Canadian symbols with
intuitively obvious meanings for sign
messages for which some or many States
are using a non-MUTCD word message
sign (often with many variations among
States). The FHWA proposes adopting
some of these Canadian symbols or
close likenesses, with a temporary
educational plaque as needed. The
FHWA believes that this will improve
the harmony of North American signing
in view of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and will
enhance the convenience and safety of
U.S. and international travelers when
driving, riding, or walking.
29. The FHWA proposes to move
object markers from Part 3 to Part 2,
because there has been confusion
regarding the location of object markers
in the MUTCD, and the FHWA feels that
information regarding object markers is
best placed in Part 2. Object markers are
typically fabricated from retroreflective
sheeting mounted on a substrate and
installed on a post and thus are more
like a sign than a marking, and most
public agencies handle object markers
as signs rather than markings.
30. The FHWA proposes to delete the
recommendation that signs should only
be used where justified by engineering
studies or judgment from several places
in Part 2. The FHWA proposes this
change because it is not the intent of the
Manual to make all sign device
installations subject to engineering
oversight. The FHWA understands that
most signs are installed by sign crews
authorized to make field decisions that
are not necessarily reviewed by
engineers or covered by policies
prepared by engineers. These proposed
revisions recognize the current practice
of installing signs throughout the
country and do not detract from the
requirements that engineering studies
must be done under engineering
supervision for very specific traffic
7 The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Canada, 4th Edition, is available for purchase
from the Transportation Association of Canada,
2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario K1G
4J8 Canada, Web site https://www.tac-atc.ca.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
control decisions. However, at the same
time it is not required that an engineer
be involved in the decisions for each
device at every location.
31. The FHWA proposes to update the
existing sign size Tables 2B–1 and 2I–
1 (new Table 2K–1) to reflect proposed
new signs, deleted signs, and changes to
sign sizes. The FHWA proposes to
modify Table 2C–2 from its general
treatment of warning sign sizes to
instead specifically address each sign
similarly to the way it is done in Table
2B–1. Additionally, the FHWA proposes
to add sign size Tables 2D–1, 2E–1, 2F–
1, and 2I–1 to specify the sizes for guide
and motorist information signs that have
a standardized legend.
In Chapters 2B and 2C, the FHWA
proposes to add to the appropriate
OPTION statements that the minimum
overall sign size may be decreased for
signs in alleys with restrictive physical
condition and vehicle usage that limits
installation of the minimum size sign.
The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect the results of the FHWA MUTCD
Urbanization Needs Survey,8 which
included comments from a number of
city traffic engineers that the MUTCD
does not adequately address sign sizes
and application for alley installations.
32. The FHWA proposes to eliminate
the option of all uppercase letters for
names of places, streets, and highways,
and require that these names be
composed of lowercase letters with an
initial uppercase letter. The FHWA
proposes this change, which affects
provisions and figures in various
chapters throughout Part 2, based on
Older Driver research documented in
FHWA reports 9 (referred to hereafter as
the ‘‘Older Driver handbook’’) that
shows significant legibility and
recognition distance benefits versus all
uppercase letters for destinations. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing signs in
8 ‘‘Urbanizing the MUTCD,’’ by W. Scott
Wainwright, 2003, paper no. CB03C184,
Compendium of Papers for the 2003 Institute of
Transportation Engineers Technical Conference, is
available from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (Web site: https://www.ite.org). A
presentation based on the paper can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/FHWA/
MUTCD_Urbanization.ppt.
9 ‘‘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: https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/
01103/coverfront.htm. Also see Recommendation
II.A(2) 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: https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/
cover.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
33. In Chapters 2A and 2E, the FHWA
also proposes to discourage the use of
punctuation, apostrophes, questions
marks or other characters on signs that
are not letters or numerals unless
absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.
The FHWA proposes these changes for
consistency with a similar proposed
change in Section 1A.14 (new Section
1A.15).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2A
34. In Section 2A.01 Function and
Purpose of Signs, the FHWA proposes to
clarify the definition of ‘‘special
purpose road’’ in item D of the
STANDARD statement by deleting the
phrase ‘‘or that provides local access,’’
because the existing definition is overly
broad. FHWA intends to clarify that
neighborhood residential streets are not
special-purpose roads and signing for
such streets should be the same as that
for other conventional roads.
35. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs,
the FHWA proposes to relocate a
STANDARD paragraph regarding
symbols on signs, and its associated
OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03
to this section. The FHWA proposes this
change because Section 2A.06 is the
most likely place for a reader to look for
information regarding sign design.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add information regarding the use of email addresses to the last STANDARD
and OPTION statements. The use of email addresses on signs is to be the
same as Internet Web site addresses. Email 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.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
36. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information in existing Section
2A.07 to proposed new Chapter 2M in
order to consolidate all information on
changeable message signs into one
chapter. The FHWA would renumber
the remaining sections accordingly.
37. In existing Section 2A.08 (new
Section 2A.07) Retroreflectivity and
Illumination, the FHWA proposes to
revise the 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
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
should be illuminated unless
engineering judgment indicates that
retroreflection will perform effectively
without illumination. The FHWA
proposes this change because the
current language implies that written
documentation (engineering study) is
mandatory for the practitioner to decide
that illumination is not needed for signs
on conventional roads. The FHWA
believes that such documentation is not
necessary and therefore the FHWA
proposes to recommend that
engineering judgment be used rather
than require an engineering study.
Overhead sign installations such as
street name signs, lane use signs, and
other smaller sign installations on
conventional roads generally would not
warrant overhead lighting and may be
impractical for structural reasons. Many
overhead sign installations on
conventional roads are on monotube
structures that are not designed to
support overhead lighting.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
paragraph to the last STANDARD
statement to prohibit 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 is to clarify that
LEDs are to be used only in the border
or in the legend/symbol and not in the
background of signs.
38. In existing Section 2A.11 (new
Section 2A.10) Sign Colors, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement
that allows the use of fluorescent colors
when the corresponding color is
required. The FHWA proposes this
change in order to give jurisdictions the
flexibility to use fluorescent colors
when they determine that they are
needed in order to attract additional
attention to the signs. As part of this
proposal, FHWA proposes to revise the
color specifications in title 23 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 655,
appendix to subpart F, Tables 3, 3A, and
4 to add the fluorescent version of the
color red. The color specifications for
fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange
and fluorescent pink are already
included in 23 CFR 655. The FHWA has
reviewed color properties of the
fluorescent red signing and materials
available from a variety of
manufacturers and proposes to add
daytime color coordinates and
luminance factors for fluorescent red
retroreflective sign material (Tables 3
and 3A), and add nighttime color
coordinates for fluorescent red
retroreflective sign material (Table 4).
The proposed values for fluorescent red
in the tables are as indicated below:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
273
TABLE 3.—DAYTIME CHROMATICITY Collection signs and to remove the use
COORDINATES FOR FLUORESCENT of the color yellow from school signs.
RED RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN MATE- The FHWA also proposes to add
additional types of Changeable Message
Signs and expand the table to include
various legend and background colors
x
y
for those signs, consistent with the
0.666 .........................................
0.334 proposed text of proposed new Chapter
0.613 .........................................
0.333 2M as discussed below. In addition, the
0.671 .........................................
0.275 FHWA proposes to note that fluorescent
0.735 .........................................
0.265 versions of orange, red, and yellow
background colors may be used.
40. In existing Section 2A.12 (new
TABLE 3A.—DAYTIME LUMINANCE FACSection 2A.11) Dimensions, the FHWA
TORS
FOR
FLUORESCENT RED proposes to add new provisions to the
RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN MATERIAL
STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements
regarding the appropriate use of the
Minimum
Maximum
YF
various columns in the Tables
20 ......................
30
15 throughout the MUTCD that describe
sizes for signs on various classes of
roads. The FHWA proposes this new
TABLE 4.—NIGHTTIME CHROMATICITY language to clarify how the columns in
COORDINATES FOR FLUORESCENT the sign size tables are intended to be
RED RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN MATE- used. The FHWA also proposes adding
language in each of the sections
RIAL
throughout the MUTCD that refer to a
sign size table, to refer back to this
x
y
generally applicable text in existing
0.680 .........................................
0.320 Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.12), and
0.645 .........................................
0.320 to delete repetitive text on use of the
0.712 .........................................
0.253 various columns in the size tables that
0.735 .........................................
0.265
appears in other sections throughout the
MUTCD.
The FHWA has also reviewed the
41. In existing Section 2A.13 (new
existing daytime color coordinates for
Section 2A.12) Symbols, the FHWA
fluorescent pink retroreflective sign
proposes to add a STANDARD
materials and believes that these
statement and a corresponding OPTION
coordinates are overly restrictive for
statement at the end of the section
current technology. The FHWA
prohibiting the use of symbols from one
proposes to revise the color coordinates type of sign on a different type of sign,
in Table 3 for fluorescent pink, to
except in limited circumstances or as
include a fifth pair of x and y
specifically authorized in the MUTCD.
coordinates, to better define the color of The FHWA proposes this change
fluorescent pink sign sheeting material.
because the colors and shapes of
The proposed values for fluorescent
symbols are designed to have a specific
pink in Table 3 are as follows:
impact depending on the intended use
of that type of sign. Intermixing symbols
TABLE 3.—DAYTIME CHROMATICITY from one type of sign to a different type
COORDINATES FOR FLUORESCENT of sign may not have the same impact
PINK RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN MATE- and may be potentially confusing, and
RIAL
therefore should be specifically
prohibited. The FHWA proposes a
x
y
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
Exist. 0.450 Prop.
Exist. 0.270 Prop.
minimize any impact on State or local
0.600.
0.340
highway agencies.
Exist. 0.590 Prop.
Exist. 0.350 Prop.
42. In existing Section 2A.14 (new
0.450.
0.332
Section 2A.13) Word Messages, the
Exist. 0.644 Prop.
Exist. 0.290 Prop.
FHWA proposes to revise the first
0.430.
0.275
GUIDANCE statement to recommend
Exist. 0.563 Prop.
Exist. 0.230 Prop.
that the minimum specific ratio for
0.536.
0.230
Exist.—Prop. 0.644 ... Exist.;— Prop. 0.290
letter height should be 22 mm (1 in) of
letter height per 9 m (30 ft) of legibility
39. The FHWA proposes to make
distance. In conjunction with this
several changes to Table 2A–4 Common proposed change, the FHWA proposes
Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to
to delete the SUPPORT statement that
proposed changes in the text.
follows this first GUIDANCE statement.
Specifically, the FHWA proposes to add The FHWA proposes these changes in
the color purple for Electronic Toll
order to be consistent with
RIAL
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
274
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook 10 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 proposed change will
generally not impact the design of guide
signs because existing MUTCD
provisions for guide sign letter heights
provide sufficient legibility distances for
20/40 vision in most cases. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. The
sizes of some 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 proposed
change in Section 2A.14 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.
43. In existing Section 2A.15 (new
Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, the FHWA
proposes to clarify the GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that the corner and
border radii on signs should be
concentric with one another. The
FHWA proposes this clarification to
better facilitate the use of sign
fabrication software with inset borders.
44. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign
Borders. The proposed new section is
numbered and titled ‘‘Section 2A.15
Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard
Signs’’ and 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 various conspicuity enhancement
methods proposed reflect widespread
and successful practices by State and
local agencies. The FHWA proposes this
new section to provide improved
uniformity of such treatments to benefit
road users. The remaining sections in
Chapter 2A would be renumbered
accordingly.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
10 ‘‘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: https://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: https://www.tfhrc.gov/
humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
45. In existing Section 2A.16
Standardization of Location, the FHWA
proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE
an additional recommended criterion
for locating signs where they do not
obscure the sight distance to
approaching vehicles on a major street
for drivers who are stopped on minorstreet approaches. The FHWA proposes
this change to reflect good engineering
practice and improve safety.
The FHWA also proposes to add to
the 3rd GUIDANCE statement that the
placement of wayfinding and
acknowledgment guide signs should
have a lower priority than other guide
signs. The FHWA proposes this change
to clarify the priority of sign type
placement, reflecting the proposed
addition to the manual of new types of
guide signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
paragraph to the last GUIDANCE
statement to provide recommendations
on the placement of STOP and YIELD
signs at intersections, to clarify that the
dimension shown in Figure 2A–3 for the
maximum distance of STOP or YIELD
signs from the edge of pavement of the
intersected roadway is GUIDANCE.
46. In Section 2A.18 Mounting
Height, the FHWA proposes to change
the first SUPPORT statement to a
STANDARD 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 proposes this
change to emphasize that the mounting
heights in this section are mandatory,
particularly as they relate to pedestrian
considerations.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
SUPPORT statement that refers the
reader to Chapter 2L for mounting
heights for object markers and clarifies
that the minimum heights given in
combination with crashworthy supports
may not necessarily constitute a
crashworthy sign assembly. The FHWA
proposes this new text to provide
readers with the appropriate references
to materials with additional information
on mounting heights and
crashworthiness.
In addition to reorganizing the text
within the STANDARD statements in
this section, the FHWA proposes to
clarify that mounting heights should be
measured vertically from the bottom of
the sign to the level of the near edge of
the pavement. The FHWA also proposes
to add text to clarify that a minimum
height of 2.1 m (7 ft) 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or where signs are installed above
sidewalks. In concert with these
changes, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement recommending
that a sign not project more than 100
mm (4 in) into a pedestrian facility if the
bottom of a secondary sign that is
mounted below another sign, is
mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft). The
FHWA proposes these changes in order
to make the mounting height language
consistent throughout the Manual, and
to add language that requires
consideration of pedestrian activity in
the vicinity of signs, per ADAAG
provisions.11
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to
the new third STANDARD statement
that where large signs are installed on
multiple breakaway posts, the clearance
from the ground to the bottom of the
sign shall be at least 2.1 m (7 ft), in order
to provide consistency with other parts
of the Manual.
47. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset,
the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement that overhead
sign supports and post-mounted sign
and object marker supports should not
intrude into the usable width of a
sidewalk or other pedestrian facility.
The FHWA proposes this new text to
comply with ADAAG provisions.12
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2B
48. In Section 2B.02 Design of
Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes
changing the first SUPPORT statement
to a STANDARD statement to clarify
that regulatory signs are rectangular
unless specifically designated
otherwise. As part of this change, the
FHWA also proposes adding a reference
to the Standard Highway Signs and
Markings 13 book for sign design
elements.
The FHWA also proposes relocating
the first two paragraphs of existing
Section 2B.54 to a new OPTION
statement in Section 2B.02, because the
paragraphs contain information about
regulatory word messages and symbols
which is more relevant in this section.
49. In Section 2B.03 Size of
Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes
to add a new STANDARD statement at
the end of the section that requires that
11 The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.accessboard.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
12 The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.accessboard.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
13 The current edition of ‘‘Standard Highway
Signs and Markings,’’ FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
minimum sizes for certain regulatory
signs facing traffic on multi-lane
conventional roads shall be as shown on
Table 2B–2, and requiring a specific
minimum size for STOP signs that face
multi-lane approaches. The FHWA
proposes this new text and table 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 due to the
potential blockage of signs by other
vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
50. The FHWA proposes to make
several changes to Table 2B–1
Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These
proposed changes include adding more
sizes in the ‘‘Minimum’’ column for use
in low speed environments. The FHWA
also proposes to add several more signs
and supplemental plaques to the table to
correspond with other proposed
changes within Part 2.
51. The FHWA proposes to add a new
section following Section 2B.03
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2B.04
Right-of-Way at Intersections.’’ This
proposed new section contains
information currently contained in
Section 2B.05. In addition, the FHWA
proposes additional recommendations
on the factors that should be considered
in establishing intersection control and
the use of STOP and YIELD signs. The
proposed additional guidance is
intended to provide a more logical
progression from least restrictive to
more restrictive controls.
The FHWA also proposes to include
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. While
much of this information is in existing
Section 2B.05, the FHWA proposes to
add a specific case regarding
channelized turn lanes to the list of
cases where STOP or YIELD signs can
be used, reflecting common practice.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to
include requirements for the use of
folding STOP signs for traffic signal
power outages by adding language to the
MUTCD that corresponds to Official
Interpretation #2–545.14
52. The FHWA proposes to renumber
and retitle existing Section 2B.04 to
‘‘Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and
14 FHWA’s
Official Interpretation #2–545, April 9,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/
interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
Supplemental Plaques.’’ As part of this
change, the FHWA proposes 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. The FHWA proposes these
changes 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 proposes to add 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. The FHWA proposes
this change to encourage the use of
these plaques at intersections that need
increased driver awareness regarding an
unexpected right-of-way control.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION allowing the use of a proposed
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. The
FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies flexibility in establishing rightof-way controls for such special
conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study 15
found that at least 12 States have
developed 7 different sign messages for
this purpose. The FHWA proposes the
uniform use of the simplest, most
accurate legend.
53. The FHWA proposes to relocate
much of the information in existing
Section 2B.05 (new Section 2B.06)
STOP Sign Applications to the proposed
new Section 2B.04. The FHWA also
proposes to add additional language to
the remaining GUIDANCE statement
that lists conditions under which the
use of a STOP sign should be
considered. This change would provide
agencies with specific and quantitative
guidance regarding the use of STOP
signs.
54. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 2B.06 STOP Sign
Placement from the MUTCD, because
most of the text in this section is
15 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 18, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
275
proposed to be incorporated into
Section 2B.10.
55. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign
Applications, the FHWA proposes to
clarify 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. The
FHWA proposes this change to provide
uniformity in signing at roundabouts
and to reflect the prevailing practices of
modern roundabout design.
56. The FHWA proposes to retitle
Section 2B.10 to ‘‘STOP Sign or YIELD
Sign Placement’’ to reflect the relocation
of language regarding STOP sign
placement from existing Section 2B.06
to this section.
The FHWA proposes to delete the
requirement from the first STANDARD
statement that YIELD signs be placed on
both the left and right sides of
approaches to roundabouts with more
than one lane and instead make this a
recommendation in a GUIDANCE
statement near the end of the Section. In
concert with this change, the FHWA
proposes 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. The FHWA proposes
these changes to reflect current practice
on signing roundabout approaches and
to allow agencies additional flexibility.
The FHWA also proposes to add to
the first STANDARD statement that no
items other than retroreflective strips on
the supports, official traffic control
signs, sign installation dates, or several
other inventory-type items shall be
mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP
or YIELD signs or on their supports. In
conjunction with this proposed change,
the FHWA proposes to clarify the first
GUIDANCE statement 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, and that if needed, the size of the
STOP or YIELD sign should be
increased to accomplish this
recommendation. The FHWA proposes
these changes to clarify the language
that resulted in confusion amongst some
practitioners regarding the placement of
messages on the back of STOP and
YIELD signs and to assure that the shape
of these critical intersection right-of-way
signs can be discerned from the
opposite direction of approach. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies. This
proposed new phase-in compliance
period would supersede the existing
phase-in compliance period (for existing
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
276
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Sections 2B.06 and 2B.10) of 10 years
from the effective date of the Final Rule
for the 2003 edition, or December 20,
2013.
The FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD statement at the end of the
section prohibiting the placement of two
STOP signs or two YIELD signs on the
same support facing the same direction.
The FHWA proposes this change to
prohibit this practice, because it is
potentially confusing and not an
acceptable method of adding emphasis.
57. The FHWA proposes to retitle
Section 2B.11 to ‘‘Yield Here to
Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for
Pedestrians Signs’’ to reflect additional
language that FHWA also proposes to
add to this section regarding the use of
Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs. The
proposed new language would be
consistent with similar language
proposed in Part 7 regarding the
placement of these signs, as well as stop
and yield lines. The FHWA proposes
adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians
sign because some State laws require
motorists to come to a full stop for,
rather than yield to, pedestrians in a
crosswalk.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add STANDARD and OPTION
statements at the end of the section
regarding the combination use of
Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11–2)
signs with the Yield Here to (Stop Here
for) Pedestrian (R1–5 series) sign. The
FHWA proposes these additions to
allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be
mounted overhead but not postmounted where Yield Here to (Stop
Here for) signs have been installed. The
FHWA also proposes to allow 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 proposes this new
language to be consistent with similar
language proposed in Part 7, which is
based on FHWA’s Official Interpretation
#2–566.16
58. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and
Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add STANDARD,
GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
regarding the use of a proposed new
Overhead Pedestrian Crossing (R1–9 or
R1–9a) sign that may be used to remind
road users of laws regarding right-ofway at an unsignalized pedestrian
crosswalk. The FHWA proposes to add
16 FHWA’s Official Interpretation #2–566, July 27,
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/
interpretations/2_566.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
this sign based on the Sign Synthesis
Study,17 which revealed that some
agencies use an overhead sign, because
it is needed in some applications. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies. The
FHWA proposes to add this sign to
Table 2B–1, Figure 2B–2 and to the
appropriate text and figures in Part 7,
for consistency.
The FHWA also proposes to insert
new GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements between the first OPTION
and GUIDANCE statements regarding
conditions and criteria to be used in
determining when In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing signs should be used at
unsignalized intersections. The FHWA
proposes these additional statements to
provide for more uniform application of
these signs and discourage over-use.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
STANDARD statement restricting the
placement of the In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing sign to the roadway at the
crosswalk location on the center line, on
a lane line, or on a median island. In
concert with this change, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement
permitting the W11–2 sign with
downward sloping arrow to be postmounted on the right-hand side of the
street if the Pedestrian Crossing (W11–
2) warning sign is used in combination
with the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
sign. The FHWA proposes this new text
to be consistent with similar language
proposed in Part 7, which is based on
FHWA’s Official Interpretation # 7–
64(1).18
In addition, FHWA proposes to revise
the existing first STANDARD statement
by specifying 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 an outer fluorescent yellow
background area. FHWA proposes this
change to clarify how the sign is to be
designed and to allow the alternate
color of fluorescent yellow.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
4th paragraph of this STANDARD
statement to indicate that unless an InStreet Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed
on a physical island, it is to be designed
to bend over and then bounce back to
17 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 19, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
18 FHWA’s Official Interpretation #7–64(1), July
23, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/
interpretations/7_64.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
its normal vertical position when struck
by a vehicle. The FHWA proposes this
change 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. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
Finally, the FHWA also proposes to
add a STANDARD statement prior to the
last OPTION statement that provides
requirements on the mounting heights
for In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs.
The FHWA proposes this new
STANDARD statement to preclude
incorrect mounting of this sign when it
is on an island.
59. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit
Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD 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.
The FHWA proposes this change 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, do
not require an engineering study. The
FHWA also proposes adding a new
SUPPORT statement to provide
additional information about the
difference between a statutory speed
limit and an altered speed zone.
In addition, the FHWA proposes
relocating and incorporating the
material from existing Section 2B.18
Location of Speed Limit Signs, to this
section. The FHWA proposes this
change in order to place material
regarding the Speed Limit sign in one
section for better clarity and flow.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
new OPTION statement that permits 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. The FHWA proposes
this change to reflect common practice
in some urban areas, as documented by
the Sign Synthesis Study,19 and because
19 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 19–20, can be
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
it is often unnecessary and overly costly
to install a speed limit sign on every
minor residential street.
The FHWA also proposes adding a
new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that a Reduced
Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where
the speed limit is being reduced by
more than 20 km/h or 10 mph, or where
engineering judgment indicates the need
for advance notice. The FHWA proposes
this change in order to provide
consistency with the recommendations
contained in Chapter 2C.
60. The FHWA proposes relocating all
of the text from existing Section 2B.18
Location of Speed Limit Sign to Section
2B.13 Speed Limit Sign. (See item 59
above.)
61. In existing Section 2B.19 (new
Section 2B.18) the FHWA proposes to
change the title to ‘‘Movement
Prohibition Signs’’ to incorporate the
inclusion of the proposed new No
Straight Through (R3–27) sign in the
GUIDANCE statement in this section.
The symbolic No Straight Through 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 proposed
new sign uses the standard Canadian
MUTCD RB–10 sign as the basis of the
design. The FHWA proposes to add an
illustration of this new sign to Figure
2B–3.
The FHWA also proposes changing
the first paragraph of the 2nd OPTION
statement regarding the use of Turn
Prohibition Signs adjacent to signal
heads to a GUIDANCE statement. For
conspicuity reasons, these signs should
be mounted near the appropriate signal
face, and this reflects typical practice.
Therefore, the FHWA proposes to
change this to a recommended practice
rather than an option.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes
adding new STANDARD and SUPPORT
statements at the end of this section to
prohibit the use of No Left Turn, No UTurn, 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 proposed language also indicates
that ONE WAY and/or Roundabout
Directional Arrow signs are the
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
appropriate signs to indicate the travel
direction for this condition. The FHWA
proposes these changes to provide
uniformity in signing at roundabouts
and to reduce the possibility of
confusion for drivers who intend to turn
left by circumnavigating the
roundabout.
62. In existing Section 2B.20 (new
Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane Control
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the
GUIDANCE statement that overhead
lane control signs should be installed
over the appropriate lanes on signalized
approaches where lane drops, multiplelane turns with shared through-and-turn
lanes, or other lane-use controls that
would be unexpected by unfamiliar
road users are present. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent
with proposed changes in Part 4 and to
enhance safety and efficiency by
providing for more effective signing for
these potentially confusing situations.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
The FHWA also proposes 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. The
FHWA also proposes to add a new
figure numbered and titled ‘‘Figure 2B–
5 Intersection Lane Control Sign Arrow
Options for Roundabouts’’ illustrating
the signs. The FHWA proposes to add
this information to reflect current
practice for roundabout signing and to
correspond with similar options
proposed for pavement marking arrows
on roundabout approaches in Part 3.
63. In existing Section 2B.21 (new
Section 2B.20) Mandatory Movement
Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes
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 proposes
to add that where three or more lanes
are available to through traffic and
Mandatory Movement Lane Control
symbol signs are used, these shall be
mounted overhead. The FHWA
proposes these changes for consistency
with existing Section 2B.22 (new
Section 2B.21).
The FHWA also proposes to add an
OPTION statement at the end of this
section describing the optional use of
the proposed new BEGIN RIGHT TURN
LANE (R3–20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN
LANE (R3–20L) signs at the upstream
ends of mandatory turn lanes. The
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
277
FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies flexibility to use these
proposed new signs to designate the
beginning of mandatory turn lanes
where needed for enforcement
purposes.
64. In existing Section 2B.22 (new
Section 2B.21) Optional Movement Lane
Control Sign, the FHWA proposes to
revise the STANDARD statement 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
proposed change also provides
consistency with existing Section 2B.21
(new Section 2B.20) regarding
placement of Movement Lane Control
Signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
STANDARD statement at the end of the
section prohibiting the use of the word
message only when more than one
movement is permitted from a lane. The
FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with other requirements in
the MUTCD regarding the use of the
term ONLY for lane use.
65. In existing Section 2B.23 (new
Section 2B.22) Advance Intersection
Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes
to add a STANDARD at the end of the
section prohibiting the overhead
placement of Advance Intersection Lane
Control (R3–8) signs where the number
of lanes available to through traffic on
an approach is three or more. In such
cases, overhead R3–5 signs are used.
The FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with existing Section 2B.20
(new Section 2B.19).
66. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following new Section
2B.22 (existing Section 2B.23). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2B.23 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT
Sign.’’ This proposed new section
contains 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,20 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 and
markings alone have proven ineffective.
(The overhead ‘‘Exit Only’’ plaque on
20 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 22, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
278
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
guide signs is yellow and is a warning
message.)
67. The FHWA proposes editorial and
organizational changes to existing
Sections 2B.26 through 2B.28 to
improve the consistency and flow of
information and improve its usability by
readers. These proposed changes
involve relocating paragraphs within
and between these sections and
reorganizing the text into five sections.
The sections are numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2B.26 Regulatory Signs for
Preferential Lanes—General,’’ ‘‘Section
2B.27 Preferential Lanes Vehicle
Occupancy Definition Signs,’’ ‘‘Section
2B.28 Preferential Lane Periods of
Operation Signs,’’ ‘‘Section 2B.29
Preferential Lane Ahead Signs,’’ and
‘‘Section 2B.30 Preferential Lane Ends
Signs.’’ As a part of this change, the
FHWA proposes adding STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT
statements regarding regulatory signing
for lanes that are restricted to Electronic
Toll Collection only, as a form of
preferential lane, to provide consistency
in regulatory signing for this
increasingly used management strategy,
and regarding mounting of preferential
lane regulatory signs where lateral
clearance is limited, to reflect existing
practices. The FHWA also proposes
removing text from existing Section
2B.27 regarding the establishment and
revision of high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane operations that is not
directly related to traffic control devices
but is programmatic in nature, and
instead refer to an FHWA program
guidance document that contains this
information.
68. The FHWA proposes to add
several new sign images and to revise
several existing sign images in existing
Figure 2B–7 (new Figure 2B–8)
Examples of Preferential Lane
Regulatory Signs that illustrate the
various regulatory signs used to
designate HOV and bus preferential
lanes, to reflect state of the practice for
improved conspicuity and legibility of
Preferential Lane regulatory signs for
HOV Lanes, and to reflect recent FHWA
policy guidance on traffic control
devices for preferential lane facilities.21
69. The FHWA proposes to add two
sections that further describe regulatory
signing at toll plazas and for managed
lanes. The proposed sections are
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2B.31
Regulatory Signs for Toll Plazas’’ and
‘‘Section 2B.32 Regulatory Signs for
Managed Lanes and ETC Only Lanes.’’
21 This August 3, 2007 FHWA policy
memorandum can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/
preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
The FHWA proposes these new sections
in order to provide consistency and
uniformity in signing practices for these
types of facilities, which are becoming
increasingly common and for which
uniform signing provisions are not
currently contained in the MUTCD. The
proposed provisions generally reflect
available guidance such as the Toll
Plaza Best Practices and
Recommendations report 22 and various
FHWA publications on managed
lanes.23 As a part of these changes, new
symbols that denote exact change and
attended lanes are proposed for use in
toll plaza signing in order to help road
users more quickly identify the proper
lane(s) to choose for the type of toll
payment they will use. A new symbol
that denotes that a toll facility’s ETC
payment system is nationally
interoperable with all other ETC
payment systems is also proposed for
future use as this interoperability is
anticipated to become available in the
next few years. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
70. The FHWA proposes to add a new
section titled, ‘‘Section 2B.33 Jughandle
Signs.’’ The new section contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD, and OPTION
statements regarding the use of
regulatory signs for jughandles.
Regulatory signing for jughandles is
critical because 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 24 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
22 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations on
Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June 2006,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
23 ‘‘Managed Lanes—A Primer,’’ FHWA
publication number FHWA–HOP–05–031, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/
managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf
and ‘‘Managed Lanes—A Cross-Cutting Study,’’
FHWA report number FHWA–HOP–05–037,
November, 2004, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/
crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.
24 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
practices for several of the most
common geometric layouts of
jughandles, the FHWA proposes this
new section along with several new
signs and a figure to illustrate their use.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
71. In existing Section 2B.29 (new
section 2B.34) Do Not Pass Sign, the
FHWA proposes to introduce a new
symbol sign that has been in use and
well understood in Europe and Canada
(the Canadian MUTCD RB–31 sign) for
many decades.25 The FHWA proposes
to add this symbol sign due to the need
to reduce the number of word message
signs, increase symbolization, and
promote better harmony due to
globalization and increasing
international travel. Because this
symbol is new, the FHWA proposes to
allow the use of a DO NOT PASS
educational plaque with this sign. The
FWHA also proposes to allow the
optional continued use of the existing
word message sign.
72. The FHWA proposes to add two
new sections following existing Section
2B.29 (new Section 2B.34). The first
new section, numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN
SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE Sign,’’
contains an OPTION statement
describing the use of this word sign. As
found by the Sign Synthesis Study,26 at
least five States use signs to remind road
users of the meaning of a solid yellow
line for no-passing zones, however,
there is considerable variety in the
wording that is used. The term ‘‘Do No
Pass’’ is preferable because that same
terminology has been used in the R4–1
sign. ‘‘Solid Line’’ is preferable because
it is fewer words and all center lines are
yellow, so it is not necessary to state the
color of the line. ‘‘On Your Side’’ is
simpler and easier to understand than
‘‘right of center line’’ or ‘‘in your lane.’’
Therefore, the FHWA proposes that the
new sign have a standard message of
‘‘Do Not Pass When Solid Line Is On
Your Side’’ in order to provide
consistency and uniformity. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
25 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
26 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
73. The second new proposed section
is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2B.36
DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign
and DO NOT PASS ON SHOULDER
Sign’’ and contains an OPTION
statement regarding the use of these two
proposed new signs to inform road users
that use of the shoulder as a travel lane
or to pass other vehicles is prohibited.
The FHWA proposes these two new
signs because the Sign Synthesis
Study 27 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. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
74. The FHWA proposes to retitle
existing Section 2B.31 (new Section
2B.38) ‘‘SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP
RIGHT Sign and KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT
TO PASS Sign’’ and expand the existing
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements in
this section to add the proposed new
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign.
The Sign Synthesis Study 28 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.
75. The FHWA proposes to retitle
existing Section 2B.32 (new Section
2B.39) to ‘‘TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE
Sign’’ and revise 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 proposed changes in Chapter 2D
that adds a new guide sign with this
message. Also, the FHWA proposes to
add an OPTION that describes the
appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS
USE RIGHT LANE sign on multi-lane
roadways to reduce unnecessary lane
changing.
76. In existing Section 2B.33 (new
Section 2B.40) Keep Right and Keep Left
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new
narrow Keep Right (R4–7c) sign that
27 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
28 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site https://tcd.tamu.edu/
documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
may be installed on narrow median
noses where there is insufficient lateral
clearance for a standard width sign. The
FHWA proposes 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.
77. The FHWA proposes adding three
new sections following existing Section
2B.33 (new Section 2B.40). The first
proposed new section is numbered and
titled ‘‘Section 2B.41 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 proposed new
section is numbered and titled ‘‘Section
2B.42 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 existing Figure 2B–
8 (new Figure 2B–13), but not described
in the existing text of the MUTCD. The
third proposed new section is numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 2B.43 Slow Vehicle
Turn-Out Signs’’ and contains
SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD
statements regarding three proposed
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. As
documented in the Sign Synthesis
Study,29 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 proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for the use of Slow
Vehicle Turn-Out signs to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies. The FHWA proposes adding
these new signs to provide for
uniformity of the message. The
remaining sections in Chapter 2B would
be renumbered accordingly.
78. In existing Sections 2B.34 and
2B.35 (new Sections 2B.44 and 2B.45),
the FHWA proposes to allow lower
mounting heights for Do Not Enter and
Wrong Way signs as a specific exception
when an engineering study indicates
29 ‘‘Synthesis
of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
279
that it would address wrong-way
movements at freeway/expressway
entrance ramps. The FHWA proposes
this exception based on
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook 30 and positive experience in
several States.
79. In existing Section 2B.36 (new
Section 2B.46) Selective Exclusion
Signs, the FHWA proposes to change
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. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add
regulatory AUTHORIZED VEHICLES
ONLY and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
signs to the last OPTION statement to
reflect current practice.
80. In existing Figure 2B–18 (new
Figure 2B–29) Pedestrian Signs and
Plaques, the FHWA proposes to modify
the designs of the R10–3, R10–3a
through R10–3e, R10–4, R10–4a, and
R10–4b to include the Canadian
MUTCD standard symbol for
pushbuttons (in addition to the words),
to begin the symbolization of the
‘‘pushbutton’’ message. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide better
harmony in North American signing
design, which is needed as a result of
the increased travel between the US,
Canada, and Mexico resulting from
NAFTA. The FHWA proposes to use
this new pushbutton symbol on several
signs throughout the MUTCD.
81. In existing Section 2B.37 (new
Section 2B.47) ONE WAY Signs, the
FHWA proposes to change the existing
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD
to require, rather than recommend, that
ONE WAY signs be placed on the near
right, far left, and far right corners of
each intersection with the directional
roadways of divided highways. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The FHWA proposes
to revise Figures 2B–18 through 2B–20
accordingly. In concert with this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to revise the second paragraph of the
OPTION statement to clarify that
agencies may omit the use of certain
ONE WAY signs at intersections with
30 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation II.D(4d).
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
280
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
medians less than 9 m (30 ft). The
FHWA proposes to require the
installation of ONE WAY signs to reflect
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.31
The FHWA also proposes to add two
new paragraphs to the 2nd STANDARD
statement to require two ONE WAY
signs for each approach for Tintersections and cross intersections,
one near side and one far side. The
FHWA proposes this change to reflect
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.32
The FHWA also proposes to add 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 proposes to add this text to
promote consistency in signing for
roundabouts.
82. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2E.50 to a new section numbered and
titled, ‘‘Section 2B.48 Wrong-Way
Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps.’’
The FHWA proposes this change
because these types of signs are
regulatory in nature, rather than guide
signs. The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
83. In existing Section 2B.38 (new
Section 2B.49) Divided Highway
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to
change the first OPTION statement to a
STANDARD and revise the text to
require the use of Divided Highway
Crossing Signs for all approaches to
divided highways in order to encompass
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.33 As part of this proposed
change, the FHWA also proposes to add
an OPTION statement to allow the sign
to be omitted if the divided road has
average annual daily traffic less than
400 vehicles per day and a speed limit
of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less.
The FHWA also proposes changing
the existing 2nd OPTION statement to a
STANDARD in order to require that the
Divided Highway Crossing sign be
located on the near right corner of the
31 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations I.E(4), I.K(2), and I.K(3).
32 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations I.K(4) and I.K(5).
33 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.K(1).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
intersection. As part of this proposed
change, the FHWA also proposes to add
an OPTION statement to permit the
installation of an additional Divided
Highway Crossing sign on the left-hand
side of the approach to supplement the
sign on the near right corner of the
intersection. As in the previous item,
these proposed changes are to
implement recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for the revised provisions on
the use of Divided Highway Crossing
signs at existing locations to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
84. The FHWA proposes adding three
new sections following existing Section
2B.38 (new Section 2B.49). The first
proposed new section is numbered and
titled ‘‘Section 2B.50 Roundabout
Directional Arrow Signs (R6–4, R6–4a,
and R6–4b)’’ and contains STANDARD,
GUIDANCE and OPTION statements on
the use of Roundabout Directional
Arrow Signs. The second proposed new
section is numbered and titled ‘‘Section
2B.51 Roundabout Circulation Sign (R6–
5P)’’ and contains GUIDANCE and
OPTION statements regarding the use of
the Roundabout Circulation Sign at
roundabouts and other circular
intersections. The third proposed new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2B.52 Examples of Roundabout
Signing’’ and it contains a SUPPORT
statement referencing new Figures 2B–
24 through 2B–26 that illustrate
examples of regulatory and warning
signs for roundabouts of various
configurations. The proposed new
SUPPORT statement also references
other areas in the Manual that contain
information on guide signing and
pavement markings at roundabouts. The
remaining sections in Chapter 2B would
be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA
proposes these new sections in order to
add valuable information regarding
regulatory and warning signs at
roundabouts to the MUTCD. The use of
roundabouts has increased over the past
10 years, and it is important that more
detailed information on effective signing
of roundabouts be included in the
Manual in order to have consistency for
road users throughout the country. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing regulatory
signs for roundabouts in good condition
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
85. In existing Section 2B.40 (new
Section 2B.54) Design of Parking,
Standing, and Stopping Signs, the
FHWA proposes several changes to the
colors of the borders of parking signs.
The FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
paragraph of the first STANDARD
statement to reflect that the Parking
Prohibition signs R7–201a, R8–4, and
R8–7 shall have a black legend and
border on a white background, and the
R8–3a sign shall have a black legend
and border and a red circle on a white
background. The FHWA proposes these
changes to reflect the existing designs of
these specific signs.
The FHWA also proposes changing
the last paragraph of the existing
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD
to require that a VAN ACCESSIBLE
plaque be installed below the R7–8 sign
where parking spaces that are reserved
for persons with disabilities are
designated to accommodate wheelchair
vans. The FHWA proposes this change
to reflect Section 502.6 of the Americans
With Disabilities Act.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add a new STANDARD statement
following the (new) 2nd GUIDANCE
statement that specifies the required
colors of the R7–8, R7–8a, and R7–8b
signs, to reflect the existing sign color
schemes for these signs as illustrated in
existing Figure 2B–16 (new Figure 2B–
27).
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add
GUIDANCE and STANDARD statements
prior to the last OPTION statement
regarding the use of proposed new Pay
for Parking and Parking Pay Station
signs where a fee is charged for parking
and a midblock pay station is used
instead of individual parking meters.
The FHWA proposes to add these signs
to reflect current practice in many areas
where cities and towns are replacing
individual parking space meters with a
‘‘pay and display’’ system. The FHWA
proposes a design for the fee station sign
that is very similar to a standard
European symbol, because the results of
the Sign Synthesis Study 34 showed that
several U.S. cities are using a sign very
similar to the European design.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
86. In existing Section 2B.44 (new
Section 2B.58) Pedestrian Crossing
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that No Pedestrian Crossing Signs be
supplemented with detectable guidance,
such as grass strips, landscaping,
planters, fencing, rails, or barriers in
order to provide pedestrians who have
34 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 27, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
visual disabilities with additional
guidance as to where not to cross.
87. In existing Section 2B.45 (new
Section 2B.59) Traffic Signal Signs, the
FHWA proposes to delete the first
existing GUIDANCE statement regarding
the placement of Traffic Signal signs
because locations of signs near signal
faces are proposed to be specifically
recommended for individual signs
where this is appropriate.
To correspond with proposed changes
in Chapter 4E requiring that signs for
pedestrian pushbuttons clearly indicate
which crosswalk signal is actuated by
each pedestrian detector, the FHWA
proposes to revise the first SUPPORT
and OPTION statements in this section
and the sign images in existing Figure
2B–18 (new Figure 2B–29). The
proposed revisions eliminate the use of
the existing R10–1, R10–3 and R10–4
sign designs because these do not
identify a specific crosswalk, and
therefore do not meet the proposed
requirement in Chapter 4E. The FHWA
proposes to redesign those signs and
revise the text in this section to clarify
how to use the R10 series of pushbutton
signs appropriately. The FHWA also
proposes to add paragraphs to the 2nd
OPTION statement regarding the use of
a new R10–25 sign, where a pushbutton
detector has been installed for
pedestrians to activate In-Roadway
Warning Lights or flashing beacons, and
a new R10–24 sign, where a pushbutton
detector has been installed exclusively
for bicyclists, to enable bicyclists to
actuate a separate bike signal phase or
a parallel vehicular green phase at a
signalized crossing. Bikes need less time
to cross than pedestrians, so the push
buttons actuate timing specifically
appropriate for bikes, which is an
operationally efficient strategy. The
FHWA proposes to add both of these
new signs to reflect current practice as
documented by the Sign Synthesis
Study,35 and to provide consistent and
uniform messages for these purposes.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
proposed new FOR MORE CROSSING
TIME—HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2
SECONDS sign to this section and to
illustrate the sign image in existing
Figure 2B–18 (new Figure 2B–29). The
FHWA proposes to add this sign to
correspond with comparable proposed
provisions in Chapter 4E.
The FHWA also proposes to add new
GUIDANCE and OPTION statements in
this section regarding the location of
LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY, LEFT
35 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 29, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
TURN YIELD ON GREEN, and LEFT
TURN SIGNAL YIELD ON GREEN signs,
independently and with an AT SIGNAL
supplemental plaque. The FHWA
proposes these new statements based on
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.36
In the existing 2nd GUIDANCE
statement, the FHWA proposes to add
locations where the skew angle of the
intersection roadways creates difficulty
for older drivers to see traffic
approaching from their left, to the list of
conditions where consideration should
be given to the use of No Turn on Red
signs. The FHWA proposes this change
based on recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook.37
The FHWA proposes to add to the
(new) 4th OPTION statement
information regarding the use of a
blank-out sign instead of a NO TURN
ON RED sign during certain times of the
day or during portions of a signal cycle
where a leading pedestrian interval is
provided. The FHWA proposes this new
text to correspond to other proposed
changes in Part 4 regarding the use of
these signs. The FHWA also proposes to
add information to this OPTION
statement regarding the use of a postmounted NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT
FROM RIGHT LANE sign and a NO
TURN ON RED FROM THIS LANE
(with down arrow) overhead sign that
may be used on signalized approaches
with more than one right-turn lane.
Finally, to correspond with proposed
changes in Part 4 that would add a new
Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, the FHWA
proposes to add to the last STANDARD
statement a paragraph that describes the
use of a CROSSWALK STOP ON RED
sign that is proposed to be required with
pedestrian hybrid signals.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for the
use of proposed new signs and proposed
new sign designs at existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
88. In existing Figure 2B–19 (new
Figure 2B–30) Traffic Signal Signs and
Plaques, the FHWA proposes to change
the design of the TURNING TRAFFIC
MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10–
15) sign to be a symbolic sign. The
FHWA proposes this change to reduce
36 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.H(4).
37 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations I.A(3) and I.I(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
281
the number of words, give a more
precise symbolized message, and make
the sign more conspicuous to road
users. The proposed sign design has
been in extensive use by the New York
City Department of Transportation. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
89. In existing Section 2B.46 (new
Section 2B.60) Photo Enforced Signs
and Figure 2B–1, the FHWA proposes to
replace the existing word message
PHOTO ENFORCED (R10–19) plaque
with a new symbol plaque for Photo
Enforced. The FHWA proposes to retain
the existing word message plaque as an
alternate. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to revise the design of the
TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED
(R10–18) sign to add the symbolic
camera. The FHWA proposes these
changes based on preliminary results of
the ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol Signs’’
study.38
90. The FHWA proposes to add a new
section following existing Section 2B.46
(new Section 2B.60). This new section
is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2B.61
Ramp Metering Signs’’ and contains a
GUIDANCE statement describing the
recommended use of proposed new
regulatory signs that should accompany
ramp control signals. The FHWA
proposes to add these new signs because
ramp metering signals are used in
several States, but there are not standard
signs for them in the MUTCD, so States
have developed a variety of signs, as
documented by the Sign Synthesis
Study.39 In this new Section, the FHWA
proposes two new signs, X VEHICLES
PER GREEN and X VEHICLES PER
GREEN EACH LANE. The FHWA
proposes these new signs to provide
uniformity in ramp meter signing. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
91. In existing Section 2B.50 (new
Section 2B.65) Weigh Station Signs, the
FHWA proposes to change the text of
the R13–1 sign to ‘‘TRUCKS OVER XX
TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH
STATION—NEXT RIGHT’’ to reflect
that the message is regulatory, rather
than guidance. The FHWA proposes a
38 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol
Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins,
and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.pooledfund.org/
documents/TPF–5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
39 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 28–29, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
282
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In addition, in Figure 2B–33, the
FHWA proposes to illustrate the
customary regulatory sign color of a
black legend on a white background,
rather than the allowable option of the
reverse color pattern, for the TRUCKS
OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH
STATION—NEXT RIGHT sign.
92. The FHWA proposes to add a new
section following existing Section 2B.53
(new Section 2B.68). The new section is
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2B.69
Headlight Use Signs’’ and contains
GUIDANCE, SUPPORT, and OPTION
statements that describe the use of
several proposed new signs that may be
used by States that require road users to
turn on their vehicle headlights under
certain weather conditions. The Sign
Synthesis Study 40 found that there is a
wide variation in the legends currently
being used by States for this purpose.
FHWA proposes these new signs to
provide increased uniformity of the
messages for road users. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
93. The FHWA proposes changing the
number and title of existing ‘‘Section
2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs’’ to
‘‘Section 2B.70 Miscellaneous
Regulatory Signs.’’ As discussed in item
48 above, the FHWA proposes to
relocate the existing OPTION statements
from this section to Section 2B.02. The
FHWA also proposes to add a new
OPTION statement regarding the use of
a proposed new FENDER BENDER
MOVE VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL
LANES sign that agencies may use to
inform road users of State laws that
require them to move their vehicles to
the shoulder if they have been involved
in a minor non-injury crash. As an
integral part of active incident
management programs in many urban
areas, an increasing number of States
and cities are using signs requiring
drivers who have been involved in
relatively minor ‘‘fender bender’’ or
non-injury crashes to move their
vehicles to the shoulder. A variety of
sign messages are in use for this
purpose, as documented by the Sign
Synthesis Study.41 The FHWA proposes
40 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 31, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
41 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 31, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
adding this sign because, with the
increasing popularity of these laws and
incident management programs, a
standardized sign legend is needed. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2C—General
94. The FHWA proposes to remove
the following word signs from the
MUTCD, because related symbol signs
have been in use for 35 years, thereby
making these word signs obsolete: HILL
Sign (W7–1b) in existing Section 2C.12,
DIVIDED HIGHWAY (W6–1a) and
DIVIDED ROAD (W6–1b) in existing
Section 2C.18, DIVIDED HIGHWAY
ENDS (W6–2a) and DIVIDED ROAD
ENDS (W6–2b) in Section existing
2C.19, STOP AHEAD (W3–1a) and
YIELD AHEAD (W3–2a) and SIGNAL
AHEAD (W3–3a) in existing Section
2C.29.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2C—Specific
95. In Section 2C.03 Design of
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to
change the last paragraph of the
OPTION to a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend, rather than merely allow, a
fluorescent yellow-green background for
warning signs regarding conditions
associated with pedestrians, bicyclists,
and playgrounds. Also proposed is a
new STANDARD statement that would
require that warning conditions
associated with school buses and
schools have a fluorescent yellow-green
background. The FHWA is also
proposing to revise similar wording in
other sections in Chapter 2C and in Part
7. In the intervening years since the
fluorescent yellow-green background
color was introduced as an option, most
highway agencies have adopted policies
to use this color for school warning
signs and many have also decided to use
it for all warnings associated with
pedestrians and bicycles. This
predominant usage is due to the
enhanced conspicuity provided by
fluorescent yellow-green, particularly
during dawn and twilight periods. The
FHWA proposes these changes in
Section 2C.03 to provide more
uniformity and consistency in school,
pedestrian, and bicycle warning signing.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In place of the existing paragraph in
the OPTION statement, the FHWA
proposes to add two new paragraphs
that describe allowable changes in
warning sign sizes and designs. The
FHWA proposes these changes to
provide agencies with flexibility in
designing signs to meet field conditions,
such as allowing modifications to be
made to the symbols shown on
intersection warning signs in order to
approximate the geometric
configuration of the roadway.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
2nd STANDARD statement that
establishes a minimum size for all
diamond-shaped warning signs facing
traffic on multi-lane conventional roads
of 900 mm × 900 mm (36 in × 36 in).
This proposal is consistent with other
proposed changes as discussed above
regarding existing Section 2A.13 (new
Section 2A.14) that base sign size
dimensions on letter sizes needed for a
visual acuity of 20/40, which results in
larger sign sizes. On multi-lane roads,
increased legibility distances are needed
due to the potential blockage of signs by
other vehicles.
96. The FHWA proposes to revise
Table 2C–2 Warning Sign and Plaque
Sizes to incorporate additional sign
series and to specify that for several
diamond-shaped signs, the minimum
size required for signs facing traffic on
multi-lane conventional roads is 900
mm × 900 mm (36 in. × 36 in). The
FHWA proposes these changes to
provide signs on multi-lane approaches
that are more visible to drivers with
visual acuity of 20/40 and to be
consistent with and incorporate other
proposed changes in Chapter 2C. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
97. In Section 2C.05 Placement of
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to
revise the SUPPORT and GUIDANCE
statements to refer to the use of
Perception-Response Time (PRT), rather
than Perception, Identification,
Emotion, and Volition (PIEV) Time, in
determining the placement of warning
signs. The older terminology of PIEV
Time has been replaced with the current
term Perception-Response Time, which
has come into common use and is the
terminology used in the current
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Policies. The Traffic Control Devices
Handbook 42 addresses both terms but
42 The Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2001, is
available for purchase from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, at the following Internet
Web site: https://www.ite.org. PIEV and PRT are
discussed on pages 34–39.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
correctly identifies PRT as the
terminology now in common use.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to update
the MUTCD using the common
terminology PRT. In addition to
proposed changes in Section 2C.05, the
FHWA proposes to change the notes for
Table 2C–4 by replacing ‘‘PIEV time’’
with ‘‘PRT,’’ as well as other changes in
the notes and values in Table 2C–4 in
order to provide adequate legibility of
warning signs for 20/40 visual acuity.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
revised placement of existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
98. The FHWA proposes to add a new
section after existing Section 2C.05. The
new section is numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment
Warning Signs’’ and contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD, and OPTION
statements regarding the use of the
proposed new Table 2C–5 Horizontal
Alignment Sign Selection, in which the
FHWA proposes a hierarchal approach
to use of these signs and plaques and
proposes to define required,
recommended, and optional warning
signs. The FHWA proposes a standard
to make the requirements applicable to
freeways, expressways, and functionally
classified arterials and collectors over
1,000 average annual daily traffic
(AADT) and an option statement
allowing their use on other roadways.
These road classifications represent
higher volume roadways, a larger
percentage of unfamiliar drivers, and
have the potential to yield the largest
safety benefits in reducing crashes due
to road users’ lack of awareness of a
change in horizontal alignment, as
documented in a recent National
Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) study.43
99. In concert with the changes in the
previous item, the FHWA proposes
several changes to existing Section
2C.06 (new Section 2C.07) Horizontal
Alignment Signs to incorporate the
proposed material in new Table 2C–5
and to provide agencies with additional
information on the appropriate use of
horizontal alignment signs. The FHWA
also proposes to add a new Figure 2C–
2 to illustrate an example of the use of
warning signs for a turn, and to modify
existing Figure 2C–7 (new Figure 2C–3)
to illustrate horizontal alignment signs
for a sharp curve on an exit ramp.
100. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed
Plaque so that it appears earlier in the
Chapter as Section 2C.08 because of its
predominant application with
horizontal alignment warning signs. In
addition, the FHWA proposes several
revisions to the section to incorporate
the proposed new Table 2C–5, and to
require that Advisory Speed plaques be
used where it is determined to be
necessary on the basis of an engineering
study that follows established traffic
engineering practices.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at
the end of the section describing the use
of Advisory Speed plaques at toll
plazas. The FHWA proposes this
additional information to incorporate
toll plaza signing into the MUTCD.
101. In existing Section 2C.10 (new
Section 2C.09) Chevron Alignment Sign,
the FHWA proposes to change the first
sentence of the first OPTION statement
to a STANDARD to require the use of
the Chevron Alignment sign in
accordance with the hierarchy of use as
listed in proposed new Table 2C–5, as
discussed earlier regarding new Section
2C.06. The FHWA also proposes to add
information to the 2nd STANDARD
statement regarding the minimum
installation height of these signs. The
proposed minimum mounting height of
4 feet would be an exception to the
normal minimum mounting height for
signs, based on established practices.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
reference in the GUIDANCE statement
to proposed new Table 2C–6
Approximate Spacing for Chevron
Alignment Signs on Horizontal Curves.
The proposed spacing criteria are based
on research.44
The FHWA also proposes to add a
new STANDARD statement at the end of
the section clarifying conditions in
which the Chevron Alignment sign
should not be used. The FHWA
proposes this new text to preclude
possible misinterpretations of the
appropriate use of this sign.
102. In existing Section 2C.07 (new
Section 2C.10) Combination Horizontal
Alignment/Advisory Speed Signs, the
FHWA proposes to amplify the existing
STANDARD statement in order to
clarify how these signs are to be used.
103. In existing Section 2C.09 (new
Section 2C.12) One-Direction Large
Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add
to the STANDARD statement a
prohibition on the use of a OneDirection Large Arrow sign in the
central island of a roundabout. The
43 NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7, ‘‘A Guide for
Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves,’’ can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_500v7.pdf.
44 FHWA/TX–04/0–4052–1, ‘‘Simplifying
Delineator and Chevron Applications for Horizontal
Curves,’’ dated March 2004, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://tti.tamu.edu/
documents/0–4052–1.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
283
FHWA proposes this change in
conjunction with other proposed
changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to
provide consistency in signing at
roundabouts.
104. In existing Section 2C.11 (new
Section 2C.13) Truck Rollover Warning
Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD statement at the beginning
of the section to require the use of the
Truck Rollover Warning sign on freeway
and expressway ramps in accordance
with the proposed new Table 2C–5.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the existing first OPTION statement to a
GUIDANCE statement to recommend
the use of the Truck Rollover Warning
sign for appropriate conditions.
105. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Section 2C.36 so that it appears
earlier in the Chapter as new Section
2C.14 to consolidate all sections relating
to horizontal alignment in one area of
the chapter for ease of reference and
consistency. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to revise the title of the section
to ‘‘Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed
Signs,’’ as well as the text to remove the
optional Curve Speed sign. The Curve
Speed sign has had only limited usage
and, with the proposed hierarchal
approach to warning signs usage for
horizontal curves, this sign is no longer
needed. The FHWA believes it is
desirable to broaden the consistent
usage of a few signs providing better
driver communications rather than
adding potential driver confusion with
a mixed application of several signing
options.
The FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD to require that the use of
the Advisory Exit Speed and Advisory
Ramp Speed signs on freeway and
expressway ramps be in accordance
with the proposed new Table 2C–5.
In addition, the FHWA proposes
several other clarifications throughout
the section to aid readers on the
placement of advisory speed signs and
plaques.
For all of the proposed changes in
applications of warning signs and
plaques for horizontal curves in new
Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14 and in the
new Table 2C–5, the FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing horizontal alignment signs
in good condition, to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
106. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2C.15 Combination Horizontal
Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp
Speed Signs.’’ The FHWA proposes this
new sign for optional use where ramp
or exit curvature is not apparent to
drivers in the deceleration or exit lane
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
284
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
or where the curvature needs to be
specifically identified as being on the
ramp rather than on the mainline. The
FHWA proposes the design and the use
of this sign based on the Sign Synthesis
Study,45 which found that at least four
States have developed signs for this
purpose, but with varying designs. The
FHWA proposes a uniform design for
this type of sign, to provide consistency
for road users. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
107. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Section 2C.13 Truck Escape
Ramp Signs to Chapter 2F, to reflect the
proposed new classification and design
of these signs as general service signs.
These signs provide guidance and
information messages similar in
function to the signs used for weigh
stations, chain-up areas, and similar
highway features, so it is appropriate for
these signs for truck escape ramps to be
designed as general service signs.
108. In existing Section 2C.18 (new
Section 2C.21) Divided Highway Sign,
the FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD that the Divided Highway
(W6–1) sign shall not be used instead of
a Keep Right (R4–7 series) sign on the
nose of a median island. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect accepted
signing practices and prevent misuse of
the W6–1 sign.
109. In existing Section 2C.19 (new
Section 2C.22) Divided Highway Ends
Sign (W6–2), the FHWA proposes to
revise the existing OPTION statement to
a GUIDANCE statement, recommending
that the Two-Way Traffic (W6–3) sign
should also be used. The FHWA
proposes this change in order to be
consistent with the existing GUIDANCE
in existing Section 2C.34 (new Section
2C.45) that the W6–3 sign should be
used for this condition.
110. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2C.19 (new Section 2C.22). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.23 Freeway or Expressway Ends
Signs’’ and contains OPTION and
GUIDANCE statements regarding the
use of these proposed new signs. The
FHWA proposes these new signs
because there are many locations where
a freeway or expressway ends by
changing to an uncontrolled access
highway, and it is important to warn
drivers of the end of the freeway or
expressway conditions. In other cases,
the need for this type of warning may
be generated by other conditions not
readily apparent to the road user, such
45 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 43, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
as the need for all traffic to exit the
freeway or expressway on exit ramps.
The Sign Synthesis Study 46 found that
at least 21 States have developed their
own standard warning signs for this
purpose but with varying legends and
designs. The FHWA proposes uniform
designs for these signs, to provide
consistency for road users. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
111. The FHWA proposes to change
the title of existing Section 2C.26 (new
Section 2C.30) to ‘‘Shoulder and
Uneven Lanes Signs’’ to incorporate a
proposed new symbolic Shoulder Drop
Off sign and two plaques to warn road
users of either a low shoulder or uneven
lanes. The FHWA proposes this new
sign as a result of the Sign Synthesis
Study,47 which found that symbol signs
and/or different word messages are
being used in at least 13 States to
convey these or similar messages, with
a wide variety of legends and symbol
designs. The States are not consistent in
how these symbol signs are used, with
some being used for uneven lanes and
some for low shoulder or shoulder dropoff conditions. The Canadian MUTCD
prescribes a single standard symbol
warning sign (TC–49) for use to warn of
either a low shoulder or uneven lanes.
The FHWA proposes to adopt the
standard Canadian sign to provide a
single uniform symbol for these
conditions, which are similar in terms
of issues for vehicular control, with
supplemental educational word message
plaques as needed. Adoption of the
Canadian symbol will also aid in
promoting North American harmony of
traffic signing. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add a NO
SHOULDER sign to the option statement
in this section to allow agencies to use
a sign of uniform legend, which would
warn road users that shoulders do not
exist along the roadway. The FHWA
proposes this new sign and its design
based on the ‘‘Sign Synthesis Study,’’ 48
46 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 43–44, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
47 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 37, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
48 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 37, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
which found inconsistencies in the
legends of signs currently in use by the
States for this purpose.
112. The FHWA proposes to change
the title of existing Section 2C.27 (new
Section 2C.31) to ‘‘Surface Condition
Signs’’ in order to incorporate several
additional signs and supplemental
plaques into this section. The FHWA
proposes to add information regarding
the use of supplemental plaques with
legends such as ICE, WHEN WET,
STEEL DECK and EXCESS OIL with the
W8–5 sign to indicate the reason that
the slippery conditions might be
present.
The FHWA also proposes to add
information regarding the existing
LOOSE GRAVEL and ROUGH ROAD
word signs. These signs and plaques
have been illustrated in new Figure 2C–
6 and the Standard Highway Signs book
but have not previously been discussed
in the MUTCD text.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
incorporate the information in existing
Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE
ROAD sign into this section in order to
maintain cohesiveness of information.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a
new symbolic Falling Rocks sign and an
educational plaque to this section to
reflect common practice in many States
to warn road users of the frequent
possibility of rocks falling (or already
fallen) onto the roadway. The Sign
Synthesis Study 49 found a lack of
consistency in the sign legends or
symbols currently in use by the States
for this purpose. To provide consistency
in sign design, the FHWA proposes to
add a symbol sign (along with an
educational plaque for use if needed)
that may be used to warn road users of
falling or fallen rocks, slides, or other
similar situations. Although the most
common sign currently used in the U.S.
is a word sign, Canadian, Mexican,
European, and international standards
use symbols, all of which are very
similar, for this message. The FHWA
proposes to adopt the standard Mexican
MUTCD symbol, because its design
appears to offer the best simplicity and
legibility. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
113. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2C.27 (new Section 2C.31). The new
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
49 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 37–38, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.32 Warning Signs and Plaques for
Motorcyclists’’ and contains SUPPORT
and OPTION statements regarding the
use of two new warning signs and an
associated symbolic plaque that may be
specifically placed to warn
motorcyclists of road surface conditions
that would primarily affect them, such
as grooved or brick pavement and metal
bridge decks. The proposed new signs
are based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study,50 which found a
variety of different messages in use by
the States for these purposes.
Subsequently, a study 51 evaluated
several different motorcycle symbols
and arrangements of such symbols both
within the primary warning sign and as
a supplemental plaque. The study found
that the best legibility distance is
provided by depicting a motorcycle on
a supplementary plaque and that one
particular style of motorcycle provides
the best comprehension of the intended
message. As a result, the FHWA
proposes to adopt word message signs
with standardized legends of GROOVED
PAVEMENT and METAL BRIDGE DECK
and a new supplementary plaque
featuring a side view of a motorcycle.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
114. As discussed above, the FHWA
proposes to incorporate all of the
information contained in existing
Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE
ROAD Sign into new Section 2C.31. The
FHWA proposes to title existing Section
2C.28 (new Section 2C.33) ‘‘NO
CENTER STRIPE Sign,’’ and include an
OPTION statement regarding the use of
the NO CENTER STRIPE Sign. The
FHWA proposes this new language
based on a review of the 2003 MUTCD
and 2004 SHS that revealed that the
MUTCD did not contain language about
this existing sign, which has been
illustrated in Figure 2C–4.
115. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2C.34 Weather Condition
Signs’’ that contains OPTION and
STANDARD statements regarding the
use of three proposed new signs to warn
users of potential adverse weather
50 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 39–40, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
51 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol
Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins,
and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site:https://www.pooledfund.org/
documents/TPF–5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
conditions. The proposed WATCH FOR
FOG, GUSTY WINDS AREA, ROAD
MAY FLOOD, and Depth Gauge signs
are all based on results of the Sign
Synthesis Study 52 that showed that
signs for these purposes were in very
common use in many parts of the
country, but with widely varying
legends. The FHWA proposes to add
uniform designs for these signs to
provide road users with consistent
messages. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State and local
agencies.
116. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2C.36 Advance Ramp Control
Signal Signs’’ that contains OPTION,
GUIDANCE, and STANDARD
statements regarding the use of two
proposed new signs. The FHWA
proposes new RAMP METER AHEAD
and RAMP METERED WHEN
FLASHING signs to provide uniformity
of signing at ramp metering locations,
especially because the practice of ramp
metering continues to grow. The
common existing use of these signs is
documented in the Sign Synthesis
Study 53 and is recommended in the
FHWA’s Ramp Management and
Control Handbook.54 The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
117. In existing Section 2C.30 (new
Section 2C.37), the FHWA proposes to
change the title of the section to
‘‘Reduced Speed Limit Ahead Signs’’ to
reflect the proposed change of the sign
name to be consistent with the Stop
Ahead, Yield Ahead, and Signal Ahead
warning sign names.
The FHWA proposes revising the
GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign
be used where the speed limit is being
reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10
mph, or where engineering judgment
indicates the need for advance notice.
The FHWA believes that reductions in
speed limit of more than 10 mph are
52 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 38–39, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
53 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 34, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
54 ‘‘Ramp Management and Control Handbook,’’
FHWA, January 2006, page 5–29, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/
ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/pdf/
rm_handbook.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
285
unexpected by road users and may
require special actions to reduce speed
before reaching the start of the lower
speed zone, and thus justify the use of
a warning sign. The FHWA proposes
this change in order to provide
consistency for determining where
speed reduction signs should be placed.
This change corresponds to proposed
changes in Section 2B.13.
118. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
2C.30 (new Section 2C.37). The new
section is numbered and titled ‘‘Section
2C.38 DRAWBRDIGE AHEAD Sign
(W3–6)’’ and contains a STANDARD
statement and a figure regarding the use
of this sign. The FHWA proposes this
new Section because existing Section
4I.02 (new Section 4J.02) Design and
Location of Moveable Bridge Signals
and Gates requires the use of the
DRAWBRIDGE AHEAD sign in advance
of all drawbridges. Because the W3
series is used for advance warning signs
and this sign is required in advance of
the condition, it is appropriate to
include the text and a figure in Chapter
2C. The remaining sections in Chapter
2C would be renumbered accordingly.
119. In existing Section 2C.31 (new
Section 2C.39) Merge Signs, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement
at the end of the section to incorporate
a proposed new NO MERGE AREA
supplemental plaque that may be
mounted below an Entering Roadway
Merge sign, a Yield Ahead sign, or a
YIELD sign to warn road users on an
entering roadway or channelized rightturn movement that they will encounter
an abrupt merging situation at the end
of the ramp or turning roadway. When
there are only a few entrance ramps or
channelized right turns in an area that
do not have acceleration lanes, those
few locations do not meet driver
expectations. The FHWA proposes this
plaque based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study 55 that indicated some
States routinely use this plaque to
provide road users with important
warning information for these
conditions.
120. In existing Section 2C.33 (new
Section 2C.41) Lane Ends Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add the W4–7 THRU
TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT (LEFT) sign to
the OPTION statement to allow the use
of this sign, as a supplement to other
signs, to warn road users in the righthand (left-hand) lane that their lane is
about to become a mandatory turn or
exit lane. The FHWA proposes this
55 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 34, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
286
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
change to be consistent with the current
use of that sign in Part 6.
121. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2C.33 (new Section 2C.41). This new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.42 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY
AHEAD Sign.’’ This proposed new
section contains OPTION, STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements
regarding the use of this proposed new
sign to provide advance warning of a
freeway lane drop. The FHWA proposes
to add this sign based on the results of
the Sign Synthesis Study 56 that showed
several States use a similar warning sign
for these conditions, particularly when
overhead guide signs are not present on
which to use EXIT ONLY plaques. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
122. The FHWA proposes to add two
new sections numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2C.43 Toll Road Begins Signs’’
and ‘‘Section 2C.44 Stop Ahead Pay Toll
Sign.’’ Both sections include
GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD
statements regarding the use of these
proposed new signs on toll facilities to
provide for consistency and uniformity
of signing for these messages and to
implement the signing portions of
FHWA’s ‘‘Toll Plaza Traffic Control
Devices Policy.’’ 57 The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing locations to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The remaining sections would
be renumbered accordingly.
123. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2C.34 (new Section 2C.45). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.46 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane
Roadway Sign’’ and contains OPTION
and STANDARD statements regarding
the use of this proposed new sign for
warning of two-way traffic on roads
having three through lanes, with one
lane in one direction and two lanes in
the other direction. The proposed sign
is a variant of the existing W6–1 twoway traffic warning sign. The FHWA
proposes this new sign for optional use
based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study 58 that indicated that
56 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 35, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
57 ‘‘Policy on Traffic Control Strategies for Toll
Plazas,’’ dated October 12, 2006 can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/
tcstoll_policy.htm.
58 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 36, can be viewed at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
several States use this type of sign to
warn drivers of this condition.
124. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve
Speed Signs, to Section 2C.14 in order
to place all horizontal alignment
warning signs in the same area of the
manual.
125. In existing Section 2C.37 (new
Section 2C.48) Intersection Warning
Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the
existing OPTION statement to indicate
that an educational plaque with a
legend such as TRAFFIC CIRCLE or
ROUNDABOUT may be mounted below
a Circular Intersection symbol sign. The
FHWA also proposes to delete from the
GUIDANCE statement, the
recommendation that Circular
Intersection symbol warning signs
should be installed on the approach to
a YIELD sign controlled roundabout.
The FHWA proposes these changes to
provide consistency for roundabout
signing throughout the MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposes to add new
Offset Side Roads and Double Side
Roads symbols for use on Intersection
Warning Signs to the GUIDANCE
statement. The FHWA proposes these
new symbols based on the results of the
Sign Synthesis Study 59 that showed
that variants of the W2–2 sign depicting
offset side roads or two closely spaced
side roads are used in many States, but
the relative distance between the two
side roads and the relative stroke widths
of the roadways varies significantly. As
a result, the FHWA proposes uniform
designs.
126. In existing Section 2C.38 (new
Section 2C.49) Two-Direction Large
Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add
to the STANDARD statement that the
Two-Direction Large Arrow sign shall
not be used in the central island of a
roundabout. The FHWA proposes this
change in conjunction with other
proposed changes in Chapters 2B and
2D to provide consistency in signing at
roundabouts.
127. In existing Section 2C.39 (new
Section 2C.50) Traffic Signal Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD statement that the
provision of flashing yellow arrow
signal faces and flashing red arrow
signal faces are additional exceptions to
the requirement for use of W25–1 or
W25–2 signs, consistent with similar
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
59 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 33, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed changes in Chapter 4D. The
FHWA also proposes a clarification to
the STANDARD statement that W25–1
and W25–2 signs are to be vertical
rectangles, for consistency with existing
Table 2C–2 Warning Sign Sizes, which
indicates that the W25 series signs are
rectangular in shape.
128. In existing Section 2C.40 (new
Section 2C.51) Vehicular Traffic Signs
and existing Section 2C.41 (new Section
2C.52) Nonvehicular Signs, the FHWA
proposes to add OPTION statements
regarding the use of Warning Beacons
and supplemental WHEN FLASHING
plaques to indicate specific periods
when the condition or activity is present
or is likely to be present. The FHWA
proposes these changes to clarify this
allowable use, for consistency with
existing provisions in Part 4 regarding
warning beacons.
129. The FHWA also proposes to add
to the first OPTION statement in
existing Section 2C.40 (new Section
2C.51) information regarding the use of
the Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign
and the TRAIL XING supplemental
plaque. With the increasing mileage of
shared-use paths in the U.S., the
number of places where shared-use
paths, used by both bicyclists and
pedestrians, cross a road or highway is
also increasing. To provide advance
warning of these crossings and to
indicate the location of the crossing
itself, it is currently necessary to use
both the W11–1 (bicycle) and W11–2
(pedestrian) crossing warning signs,
mounted together on the same post, or
sequentially along the road. The Sign
Synthesis Study 60 revealed that several
States have developed combination
signs to simplify and improve the
signing for shared-use path crossings,
using either a single sign with combined
bicycle and pedestrian symbols or a
word message sign with a variety of
different legends. The FHWA proposes
to add this sign for use to serve this
increasing need and to provide a
uniform design for consistency. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
130. In existing Section 2C.41 (new
Section 2C.52) Nonvehicular Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add a new
STANDARD statement that requires
school signs and their related
supplemental plaques to have a
fluorescent yellow-green background
with a black legend and border to be
60 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 42, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
consistent with proposed changes in
Chapter 2A and in Part 7. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the 2nd paragraph of the 3rd OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE to
recommend, rather than merely permit,
the use of fluorescent yellow-green for
pedestrian, bicycle, and playground
nonvehicular warning signs and their
supplemental plaques. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. These
proposed changes are also reflected in
existing Section 2C.42 (new Section
2C.53) Playground Sign and in Chapter
2A and Part 7.
131. In Figure 2C–12 Nonvehicular
Traffic Signs, the FHWA proposes to
add images of new symbolic warning
signs for moose, elk/antelope/caribou,
wild horses (horse without a rider),
burro/donkey, sheep, bighorn sheep,
and bears. The MUTCD includes only
three signs to warn of the possible
crossings of large animals—deer
crossing (W11–3), cattle crossing (W11–
4), and equestrian crossing (horse with
rider, W11–7). The prevalence of other
types of large animals that may cross
roads (and which may cause significant
damage or injury if struck by a vehicle)
has caused at least 16 States to develop
signs (usually symbolic) for warning of
one or more different animal crossings,
as documented in the Sign Synthesis
Study.61 The FHWA proposes adding
the new signs because these animals all
look significantly different from the
three existing animal symbols and the
existing standard MUTCD signs would
not provide an accurate meaning and
adequate warning. Also, because there is
a lack of consistency in the signs
currently being used for this purpose by
the States, the FHWA proposes uniform
symbol designs for consistency. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
132. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2C.42 (new Section 2C.53). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.54 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN
AHEAD Sign’’ and contains OPTION
and GUIDANCE statements regarding
the use of this sign to provide advance
61 ‘‘Synthesis
of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 41–42, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
warning of a change in traffic patterns,
such as revised lane usage, roadway
geometry, or signal phasing. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect existing
practices in many States and numerous
local jurisdictions as documented in the
Sign Synthesis Study 62 and to provide
a uniform legend for this purpose,
consistent with similar proposed
changes in Part 6. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. The
remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
133. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section after proposed new Section
2C.54. This new section is numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 2C.55 Warning
Signs on Median Barriers for
Preferential Lanes’’ and contains
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the use of warning
signs applicable only to preferential
lanes on median barriers. The FHWA
proposes this new section for
consistency with similar existing
provisions for preferential lane
regulatory signs in Chapter 2B and to
reflect existing practices by agencies
operating preferential lane facilities.
The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
134. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque, to
Section 2C.08 in order to place all
horizontal alignment warning signs in
the same area of the manual.
135. In existing Section 2C.47 (new
Section 2C.59) Supplemental Arrow
Plaques, the FHWA proposes to delete
the references to the W16–7 downward
diagonal arrow plaque, because the
W16–7 plaque is not used for the
application described in this section.
The diagonal downward arrow plaque is
only used with Nonvehicular Crossing
warning signs and has a different design
than the W16–5p and W16–6p plaques,
which are the subject of this Section.
136. In existing Section 2C.49 (new
Section 2C.61) Advance Street Name
Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement, and an
accompanying figure, that recommends
the order in which street names should
be displayed on an Advance Street
Name plaque. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistency for road
users.
137. In existing Section 2C.50 (new
Section 2C.62) Cross Traffic Does Not
62 ‘‘Synthesis
of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 33, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
287
Stop, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that plaques with appropriate
alternative messages, such as TRAFFIC
FROM LEFT DOES NOT STOP, be used
at intersections where STOP signs
control all but one approach to the
intersection. The FHWA proposes this
change to be consistent with proposed
changes in Chapter 2B.
138. In existing Section 2C.51 (new
Section 2C.63) SHARE THE ROAD
Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a
new STANDARD that requires that the
SHARE THE ROAD plaque be used only
as a supplement to a Vehicular Traffic
or Nonvehicular sign. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide road
users with more clarity on the type of
vehicle or nonvehicle that may be
present, and because plaques are not
intended for independent use.
139. In existing Section 2C.53 (new
Section 2C.65) Photo Enforced Plaque,
the FHWA proposes replacing the
existing ‘‘PHOTO ENFORCED’’ word
message plaque with a new symbol
plaque designated as W16–10P. The
existing word message plaque would be
retained as an alternate to the new
symbol plaque and its sign number
reassigned as W16–10aP. The proposed
new symbol plaque is illustrated in
Figure 2C–14. The FHWA proposes this
change based on preliminary results of
the ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol Signs’’
study.63
140. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2C.53 (new Section 2C.65). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.66 METRIC Plaque’’ at the end of the
section. This proposed new section
contains a GUIDANCE statement that
recommends the use of the METRIC
plaque above a Weight Limits sign that
shows the load limits in metric units.
This plaque is currently illustrated in
existing Figure 2B–8 and has a
regulatory sign code, even though it has
a black legend on a yellow background
and is intended to warn road users that
the values on the regulatory sign are in
metrics. Accordingly, the FHWA
proposes redesignating this plaque as a
warning plaque and adding text
regarding its use to Chapter 2C.
141. Following proposed Section
2C.66, the FHWA also proposes to add
a new Section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2C.67 NEW Plaque’’ that
describes the use of this optional plaque
that may be mounted above a regulatory
63 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol
Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins,
and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.pooledfund.org/
documents/TPF–5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
288
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sign when a new traffic regulation takes
effect or above an advance warning sign
for a new traffic regulation. The FHWA
proposes that the use of this plaque be
limited to 6 months after the traffic
regulation has been in effect. The
FHWA proposes this new plaque based
on the Sign Synthesis Study,64 which
showed that some States and Canadian
provinces are using similar plaques and
signs for this purpose, and to provide a
uniform plaque design for consistency.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
142. The FHWA also proposes two
additional sections at the end of the
Chapter numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2C.68 LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL
Plaque’’ and ‘‘Section 2C.69 Stop Ahead
Pay Toll Plaque’’ that describe the use
of these proposed new plaques. The
FHWA proposes the use of these
plaques to provide for consistency and
uniformity of signing for these messages
and to implement the signing portions
of FHWA’s ‘‘Toll Plaza Traffic Control
Devices Policy.’’ 65 The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing locations to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2D—General
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
143. In existing Section 2D.28 (new
Section 2D.31) Junction Assembly,
existing Section 2D.29 (new Section
2D.32) Advance Route Turn Assembly,
and existing Section 2D.35 (new Section
2D.42) Location of Destination Signs,
the FHWA proposes to revise the
requirements and recommendations for
the locations of these signs. In new
Section 2D.31, the FHWA proposes
revising the required distances to
recommended distances, and in new
Sections 2D.32 and 2D.42, the FHWA
proposes adding new recommendations
regarding the distances between signs.
The FHWA proposes these changes in
order to provide more flexibility for the
placement of these various signs,
particularly as it relates to rural areas,
and to indicate that the dimensions
shown on Figure 2D–7 are
recommendations.
64 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 33, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
65 ‘‘Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,’’
dated September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/
tcstoll_policy.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2D—Specific
144. In Section 2D.07 Amount of
Legend, the FHWA proposes to revise
the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that
guide signs should be limited to no
more than three lines of destinations,
and that action information should be
provided on guide signs in addition to
the destinations, where appropriate. The
FHWA proposes this change to reduce
confusion regarding the number of lines
on a guide sign and to address the
results of recent NCHRP research on
driver information overload.66
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
revise the OPTION statement and add a
STANDARD statement regarding the use
of pictographs on guide signs. The
FHWA proposes these changes in order
to incorporate information regarding
pictographs in the MUTCD, to reflect
FHWA’s Official Interpretation numbers
2–540(I) 67 and 2–565(I) 68 and to restrict
the maximum size of such pictographs
so that they do not detract from the
primary legend of the signs.
145. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, the
FHWA proposes to make several
revisions to this section to clarify the
use and design of arrows on guide signs.
In the first STANDARD statement, the
FHWA proposes to require that down
arrows on overhead signs shall always
be vertical and positioned directly over
the approximate center of the applicable
lane. However, the FHWA also proposes
to add an OPTION statement that
permits diagonal arrows pointing
diagonally downward on overhead
guide signs only if each arrow is located
directly over the center of the lane and
only for the purpose of emphasizing a
separation of diverging roadways. Some
States have installed overhead guide
signs with downward slanting arrows
that are not centered over the
appropriate lanes, but pointing toward
the center of a lane, only for the purpose
of reducing sign size. The FHWA
believes that overhead signs with arrows
designed and oriented in this fashion
are confusing to drivers because they
imply movement out of a lane. The
FHWA proposes these changes to
prohibit the use of diagonally slanted
down arrows on overhead guide signs to
66 NCHRP Report 488, ‘‘Additional Investigations
on Driver Information Overload’’ 2006, page 65, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_488c.pdf.
67 This official interpretation can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/
2_540.htm.
68 This official interpretation can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/
2_565.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
indicate a specific lane where roadways
do not diverge, in order to reduce this
confusion and assure consistent sign
design practices. In concert with this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to add a paragraph to the STANDARD
statement prohibiting the use of more
than one down and/or diagonal arrow
pointing to the same lane, for the same
reasons. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 15 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add an
OPTION statement to permit the use of
curved-stem arrows that represent the
intended driver paths to destinations
involving left-turn movements on guide
signs on approaches to roundabouts.
The FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the following GUIDANCE statement
that references readers to the
appropriate sections that describe the
principles for such arrows.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise
Figure 2D–2 and the text of Section
2D.08 to describe and illustrate the
various types of arrows used on guide
signs, to clarify appropriate arrow use.
146. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route
Signs, the FHWA proposes to change
the second sentence of the second
OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE
statement to recommend, rather than
just allow, the use of a white square or
rectangle behind the Off-Interstate
Business Route sign when it is used on
a green guide sign. The FHWA proposes
this change to enhance the conspicuity
of the Off-Interstate Business Route sign
in this usage, since the green route sign
alone blends into the green guide sign
background.
147. In Section 2D.12 Design of Route
Sign Auxiliaries, the FHWA proposes to
add a GUIDANCE statement clarifying
that if a route sign and its auxiliary
signs are combined in a single sign, the
background color of the sign should be
green, and a STANDARD that auxiliary
signs shall not be mounted directly to a
guide sign. If placed on a green guide
sign background, the legends of the
auxiliary messages shall be white legend
placed directly on the green
background. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide consistency for
background colors, because background
colors currently in use for this
application are not consistent across the
country and green is the appropriate
background color for a directional guide
sign, and to preclude mis-application of
auxiliary signs on green guide signs.
148. In Section 2D.14 Combination
Junction Sign, the FHWA proposes to
delete the 2nd paragraph of the OPTION
statement that permitted the use of other
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
designs to accommodate State and
county route signs. The FHWA proposes
this change, because it was not the
intent to allow agencies to use their own
unique designs that do not match the
design of the M2–2 sign.
149. The FHWA proposes to add a
section following Section 2D.22. The
new section is numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2D.23 BEGIN Auxiliary Sign’’
and contains OPTION and STANDARD
statements regarding the use of this
proposed new sign where a numbered
route begins. The FHWA proposes this
sign based on the Sign Synthesis
Study 69 that revealed that several States
use an auxiliary BEGIN sign above the
confirming route marker at the start of
a route to provide additional helpful
information to road users. The
remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
150. The FHWA proposes to add two
new sections following existing Section
2D.23 (new Section 2D.24). The two
new sections are numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2D.25 TOLL Auxiliary Sign’’
and ‘‘Section 2D.26 Electronic Toll
Collection Only Auxiliary Signs.’’ The
Signs Synthesis Study 70 found that
some States are using the TOLL
auxiliary sign to provide road users
useful information that a numbered
route is a toll facility. The proposed
Electronic Toll Collection Only
auxiliary sign would complement and
be consistent with signs proposed in
Chapters 2B and 2E to inform road users
that a highway is restricted to use only
by ETC-equipped vehicles. The FHWA
also proposes to add a new Figure 2D–
5 to illustrate these signs. The FHWA
proposes these new signs to provide
consistency and uniformity in signing
applications for toll facilities. The
remaining sections and figures would be
renumbered accordingly. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
151. In existing Section 2D.26 (new
Section 2D.29) Directional Arrow
Auxiliary Signs, the FHWA proposes to
add that a Directional Arrow auxiliary
sign that displays a double-headed
arrow shall not be mounted in advance
of or at a roundabout. The FHWA
proposes this change to eliminate any
possible confusion that would be
created by the use of this sign in the
proximity of a roundabout, where direct
left turns are not allowed.
152. In existing Section 2D.27 (new
Section 2D.30) Route Sign Assemblies,
the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the OPTION statement allowing
diagrammatic route sign formats to be
used on approaches to roundabouts. The
FHWA proposes this change to
incorporate signing for roundabouts in
the MUTCD.
153. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2D.29 (new Section 2D.32). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2D.33 Lane Designation Auxiliary
Signs’’ and contains an OPTION
statement regarding the use of these
optional signs that may be used as a
method to tell road users which lane to
get into to travel a particular numbered
route and direction. The FHWA also
proposes to add an additional
illustration in existing Figure 2D–6 to
illustrate the use of these auxiliary
signs. The FHWA proposes these new
signs based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study,71 which found that at
least seven States use M6 auxiliary signs
stating ‘‘Left Lane,’’ ‘‘Center Lane,’’ or
‘‘Right Lane’’ below route signs in route
sign assemblies. This can be an
economical alternative to one or more
larger green guide signs in certain
situations. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
154. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
2D.30 (new Section 2D.34). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2D.35 Combination Lane Use/
Destination Overhead Guide Sign’’ and
contains OPTION and GUIDANCE
statements, as well as a figure,
describing the use of these optional
signs. The FHWA proposes this new
section, and the associated signs, based
on the Sign Synthesis Study.72 At
complex intersections involving
multiple turn lanes, multiple
destinations, service roads, and/or
various constraints often found in urban
areas that can limit the ability to use of
a series of advance signs, many States
have found it necessary to combine
regulatory lane use information with
destination information onto a single
69 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 52, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
70 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 52, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
71 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 53, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
72 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 45–46, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
289
guide sign or sign assembly, especially
to aid unfamiliar drivers in determining
which lane or lanes to use for a
particular destination. However, there is
no consistency or uniformity in the
colors used, the sign design layouts, or
other aspects of these signs. The FHWA
proposes a uniform design for this type
of sign, to provide consistency for road
users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
155. In existing Section 2D.32 (new
Section 2D.37) Trailblazer Assembly,
the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that if shields or other similar signs are
used to provide route guidance in
following a trail, they should be
designed in accordance with the sizes
and other design principles for route
signs, such as those described in
Sections 2D.10 through 2D.12. The
FHWA proposes this change to address
situations where route signs used for
named trails do not have route numbers.
156. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section that is numbered and titled
‘‘Section 2D.40 Destination Signs at
Roundabouts’’ and contains a
STANDARD, OPTION and SUPPORT
statements, as well as figures, regarding
the use of Destination Signs at
Roundabouts. In particular, the
proposed Section includes information
regarding Exit destination signs, and
associated arrows and diagrammatic
signs for roundabouts. The remaining
sections and figures in Chapter 2D
would be renumbered accordingly.
157. The FHWA also proposes to add
a new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2D.41 Destination Signs at
Jughandles.’’ The FHWA proposes this
new section because guide signing in
advance of a jughandle, in addition to
regulatory signing, which was discussed
in Chapter 2B, is critical to advise
potential left-turn or U-turn drivers of
the need to move to the right and
prepare to execute a right turn either
before or beyond the intersection in
order to reach their destination. The
FHWA proposes optional use of
diagrammatic-style destination signs for
use at jughandles where standard
directional guide signs are insufficient.
A reference to a proposed new figure in
Chapter 2B illustrating both regulatory
and guide signs for jughandles would
also be added. The remaining sections
in Chapter 2D would be renumbered
accordingly.
158. In existing Section 2D.38 (new
Section 2D.45) Street Name Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add a new OPTION
statement to allow the use of a route
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
290
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
shield on Street Name signs to assist
road users who may not otherwise be
able to associate the name of the street
with the route number. The FHWA
proposes to allow the use of these signs
based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study,73 which showed that
several agencies incorporate route
shields into Street Name signs on streets
that are part of a U.S., State, or county
numbered route. Typically route sign
assemblies are only provided on
intersecting roads that are also
numbered routes, and on some very
major unnumbered streets within cities.
Including a route shield within the
Street Name sign provides additional
information for traffic on the lesser
streets that intersect the numbered
route. This is helpful to unfamiliar road
users who may be attempting to find
their way back to a numbered route and
who do not recognize the street name.
159. The FHWA proposes to add a
new table numbered and titled, ‘‘Table
2D–2 Recommended Minimum Letter
Heights on Street Name Signs’’ that
contains information regarding the letter
sizes to be used on Street Name signs
based on the mounting type, road
classification, and speed limit. FHWA
proposes to add information in existing
Section 2D.38 (new Section 2D.45)
related to this new table.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
GUIDANCE to recommend that a
pictograph used on a Street Name sign
to identify a governmental jurisdiction
or other government-approved
institution should be positioned to the
right, rather than the left, of the street
name. The FHWA proposes this change
because the name of the street is the
primary message on the sign and the
pictograph is secondary, and the
primary message should be read first by
being on the left. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 15
years for the placement of the
pictograph to the right of the street
name sign for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add new
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the use of
alternative background colors for Street
Name Signs where a highway agency
determines that this is necessary to
assist road users in determining
jurisdictional authority for roads. The
FHWA proposes that the only
acceptable alternatives to green for the
background color of Street Name signs
73 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 47, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
shall be blue, brown, or black. The
FHWA proposes these new statements
because the MUTCD has not previously
limited the alternate colors, and as a
result, there is wide variation in practice
among jurisdictions. Sometimes
inappropriate colors are being used,
because these are colors reserved for
other traffic control device messages, or
the colors used have poor contrast ratio
between legend and background. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing street
name signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The FHWA also
proposes to add to the OPTION to
specifically allow the border to be
omitted on Street Name signs. The
current text of this section implies, but
does not specifically state, that the
border may be omitted.
160. In existing Section 2D.39 (new
Section 2D.46) Advance Street Name
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add
GUIDANCE statement and a reference to
Figure 2C–14 that recommends the
order in which street names should be
displayed on an Advance Street Name
plaque, in order to provide for improved
consistency in this type of signing.
161. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2E.49 to Chapter 2D to become a new
section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2D.47 Signing on Conventional Roads
on Approaches to Interchanges.’’ The
FHWA proposes this change because the
information in this section, and the
associated figures, are about guide
signing on conventional road
approaches to a freeway, rather than
signing on a freeway.
In this relocated section, the FHWA
proposes to add a STANDARD
statement to require, rather than merely
recommend, that on multi-lane
conventional road approaches to any
freeway interchange, guide signs shall
be provided to identify which direction
of turn is to be made for ramp access
and/or which specific lane to use to
enter each direction of the freeway. This
information is critical for drivers on a
multi-lane approach to an interchange
because it allows drivers to choose the
proper lane in advance and reduces the
need to make last-second lane changes
close to the entrance ramp. The FHWA
believes that the existing GUIDANCE
statements are not strong enough for this
very important need and that this
signing needs to be mandatory. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
162. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2E.50 to Chapter 2D to become a new
section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
2D.48 Freeway Entrance Signs.’’ The
FHWA proposes this change so that all
signing on conventional roads at and in
advance of interchanges with freeways
is located in the same area of the
Manual.
163. The FHWA proposes to add a
new sign to existing Section 2D.40 (new
Section 2D.49) and retitle the section,
‘‘Parking Area or Parking Wayfinding
Sign.’’ The FHWA proposes to add this
new sign, which is a vertical rectangle
with a white letter P in a blue circle
symbol at the top of the sign and a blue
directional arrow at the bottom of the
sign. This sign would be an alternative
to the existing Parking Area directional
sign and would give agencies a
consistent parking guide sign to use in
community wayfinding programs. This
new sign is consistent with the
widespread use of the blue background
and white P as a parking wayfinding
symbol throughout Europe and at many
airports and institutional sites in the
United States.
164. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Sections 2D.42 Rest Area Signs,
2D.43 Scenic Area Signs, and 2D.45
General Service Signs to a new Chapter
titled, ‘‘Chapter 2F General Service
Signs’’ in order to combine information
regarding similar type signs in to one
area of the Manual.
165. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Sections 2D.46 Reference
Location Signs and Intermediate
Reference Location Signs, 2D.47 Traffic
Signal Speed Sign, 2D.48 General
Information Signs, the first four
paragraphs of 2D.49 Signing of Named
Highways, and 2D.50 Trail Signs to a
new Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 2I General
Information Signs.’’
166. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section numbered and titled
‘‘Section 2D.52 Community Wayfinding
Signs’’ that contains SUPPORT,
STANDARD, OPTION and GUIDANCE
statements, as well as two new figures,
regarding the use of community
wayfinding guide signs to direct tourists
and other road users to key civic,
cultural, visitor, and recreational
attractions and other destinations
within a city or a local urbanized or
downtown area. The remaining sections
and figures in Chapter 2D would be
renumbered accordingly.
Many of the cities currently using
community wayfinding signs are using
different colors, design layouts, fonts,
and arrows, and many of these signs are
not well designed to properly serve road
users. The FHWA proposes to add this
section to provide a uniform set of
provisions for design and locations of
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
these signs based on accepted sign
design principles, to achieve
consistency for road users. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 15 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
167. The FHWA proposes to add two
new sections numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2D.53 Truck, Passing, or
Climbing Lane Signs’’ and ‘‘Section
2D.54 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Sign.’’
The FHWA proposes to add Section
2D.53 to be consistent with the
proposed elimination of regulatory truck
lane signs from existing Section 2B.32
(new Section 2B.39). These types of
signs convey guidance information,
rather than regulation.
The FHWA proposes Section 2D.54
based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study,74 which found that
these signs are being used by a number
of States. See also the discussion of this
topic under Chapter 2B above. The
FHWA also proposes to add a new
Figure 2D–21 to illustrate these signs.
The remaining sections and figures in
Chapter 2D would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 2E
168. In section 2E.01 Scope of
Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign
Standards, the FHWA proposes to revise
the STANDARD statement to clarify that
Chapter 2E shall apply to any highway
that meets the definition of freeway or
expressway facilities. The FHWA
proposes this revision to make it clear
that not just the Standards, but also the
Guidance and Option statements in
Chapter 2E apply to freeway and
expressway guide signs. This includes
STANDARD, SUPPORT, AND OPTION
statements that refer to Section 2A.11
Dimensions which clarifies the intended
application of the standard sign designs
in Table 2E–1.
169. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Section 2E.24 Guide Sign
Classification to appear earlier in the
Chapter as Section 2E.03. The FHWA
believes that guide sign classification
should appear earlier in the chapter,
because this section identifies the
various groups of freeway/expressway
guide signs by name. The remaining
74 ‘‘Synthesis
of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 46, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
170. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the existing text of existing Section
2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing to
new Section 2I.07. The FHWA also
proposes to add a new Section 2E.09
titled Signing of Named Highways with
a SUPPORT statement to refer to new
Sections 2D.55 and 2I.07, where
appropriate information is provided
about use of highway names on signing
of unnumbered highways and memorial
signing of routes, bridges, or highway
components.
171. In existing Section 2E.09 (new
Section 2E.10) Amount of Legend on
Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to add
information to the existing GUIDANCE
and OPTION statement, as well as to
add a new STANDARD statement
regarding the use of pictographs on
freeway and expressway guide signs.
This information is similar to that
proposed in Section 2D.07 Amount of
Legend, but maintains the distinct
requirements for freeway/expressway
lines of legend.
172. In existing Section 2E.18 (new
Section 2E.19) Arrows for Interchange
Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to
make several revisions to this section to
clarify the use and design of arrows on
guide signs. The FHWA proposes these
changes to be consistent with proposed
changes in Chapter 2D as discussed
above regarding Section 2D.08. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
173. The FHWA proposes significant
changes to the first STANDARD and
GUIDANCE statements in existing
Section 2E.19 (new Section 2E.20)
Diagrammatic Signs to specify a specific
design for diagrammatic signs for multilane exits that have an optional exit lane
that also carries the through road and
for splits that include an optional lane.
The proposed design features an
upward arrow per lane and is consistent
with the recommendations of the Older
Driver handbook.75 The FHWA believes
that the up arrow per lane style of
diagrammatic signs, including the
appropriate use of EXIT ONLY sign
panels, is the clearest and most effective
method of displaying to road users the
essential information about the proper
and allowable lanes to use to reach their
destinations with this ‘‘option lane’’
lane use for exits. The existing
75 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation II.A(3)
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
291
diagrammatic sign design that attempts
to illustrate optional lane use via dotted
lane lines on a single arrow shaft is too
subtle to be easily recognized and
understood by many road users,
especially older drivers. A recent
study 76 confirmed that the up arrow per
lane diagrammatic design is
significantly superior to the existing
diagrammatic design or enhancements
thereto in terms of providing a longer
decision sight distance and higher rates
of road user comprehension. Because of
the nature of the combination of lane
use and geometry, the FHWA believes
that the proposed new type of
diagrammatic signing should be
mandatory for this type of exit. The
FHWA also proposes to revise the 2nd
STANDARD statement to require the
use of diagrammatic signs at certain
types of cloverleaf interchanges, where:
(1) The outer (non-loop) exit ramp of a
cloverleaf is a multi-lane exit having an
optional exit lane that also carries the
through route, and (2) a cloverleaf
interchange that includes a collectordistributor roadway that is accessed
from the main roadway by a multi-lane
exit having an optional exit lane that
also carries the through route. The
FHWA proposes these changes for
consistency with the general proposed
change to require the proposed new
style of diagrammatic signs for multilane exits that have an optional exit lane
that also carries the through route and
for splits that include an optional lane.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 15 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement at the end of the
section to permit the use of an EXIT XX
km/h (XX MPH) legend at the bottom of
a diagrammatic sign to supplement, but
not to replace, the exit or ramp advisory
speed warning signs where extra
emphasis of an especially low advisory
ramp speed is needed. The Sign
Synthesis Study 77 found that at least
four States have found it necessary to
use similar advisory speed panels with
Exit Direction and/or diagrammatic
guide signs to provide even more
advance notice and emphasis of a very
76 ‘‘Diagrammatic Sign Study—Preliminary
Results,’’ conducted by Gary Golembiewski and
Bryan Katz for the Traffic Control Devices Pooled
Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: https://www.pooledfund.org/documents/
TPF–5_065/PresDiagrammaticSigns.pdf.
77 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 51, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
292
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
low ramp speed, typically because of
curvature.
174. In existing Section 2E.20 (new
Section 2E.21) Signing for Interchange
Lane Drops, the FHWA proposes to
change the first GUIDANCE statement to
a STANDARD statement to require the
use of the EXIT ONLY (down arrow)
sign panel on signing of lane drops on
all overhead advance guide signs for
exits that do not have an ‘‘option lane,’’
and to provide design requirements for
the bottom portion of Exit Direction
signs. The FHWA proposes these
requirements to provide consistency
with other proposed changes in the
Manual, especially related to the use of
arrows that are better understood by
older drivers. The FHWA believes that,
for freeway splits and other interchange
configurations that include a lane drop
but do not involve ‘‘option lanes,’’ the
use of down arrows and EXIT ONLY
sign panels over each lane on the
advance guide signs is the clearest and
most effective method of displaying to
road users the essential information
about the lane drop and about the
proper lane(s) to use to reach their
destinations. The FHWA also believes
that the use of upward diagonal black
arrows within an EXIT ONLY panel at
the bottom of the Exit Direction signs for
such interchanges more clearly
reinforces the lane drop while still
providing upward diagonal arrows in
the direction of the exit. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 15 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
175. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from Section 2E.21
Changeable Message Signs to proposed
new Chapter 2M, where all information
on Changeable Message Signs would be
consolidated. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
176. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Section 2E.24 Guide Sign
Classification to appear earlier in the
Chapter as Section 2E.03. The FHWA
believes that guide sign classification
should appear earlier in the chapter
because this section identifies the
various groups of freeway/expressway
guide signs by name. The remaining
sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
177. In existing Section 2E.28 (new
Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit
Numbering, the FHWA proposes to
revise the 1st STANDARD statement to
require that if suffix letters are used for
exit numbering at a multi-exit
interchange, the suffix letter shall be
included on the exit number plaque and
shall be separated from the exit number
by a space having a width of at least half
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
of the height of the suffix letter. The
FHWA proposes this change in order to
provide practitioners with more
direction on the space between the exit
number and the suffix than was
previously provided in the MUTCD or
the Standard Highway Signs and
Markings book. This will enhance the
legibility of the exit number and help
avoid confusion.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add a paragraph to the 1st STANDARD
statement to make it clear that if suffix
letters are used for exit numbering, an
exit of the same number without a suffix
letter cannot be used.
The FWHA also proposes to delete the
Option statement and replace it with a
new Standard stating that interchange
exit numbering shall use the reference
location exit numbering method and the
consecutive exit numbering method
shall not be used. The FHWA proposes
this change because only 8 of the 50
States still use consecutive exit
numbering and the vast majority of road
users now expect reference location exit
numbering. The FHWA believes that
road users will be best served by
nationwide uniformity of exit
numbering using the reference location
method.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the 2nd paragraph of the first
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD
to require that a Left Exit Number (E1–
5bP) plaque be used at the top left edge
of the sign for numbered exits to the left
to alert users that the exit is to the left,
which is often not expected. This
proposed change also requires that the
‘‘LEFT’’ message be black on a yellow
background.
The FHWA proposes these changes
for consistency of message to drivers
and for consistency with other parts of
the manual. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period for the new
requirements of new Section 2E.27 of 10
years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
178. In existing Section 2E.30 (new
Section 2E.29) Advance Guide Signs
and in existing Section 2E.33 (new
Section 2E.32) Exit Direction Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD
statement to require that a Left Exit
Number (E1–5bP) plaque be used at the
top left edge of the sign for numbered
exits to the left and that a LEFT (E1–
5aP) plaque be added to the top left
edge of the sign for non-numbered exits
to the left. The FHWA proposes this
new text to be consistent with the
proposed changes in existing Section
2E.28 (new Section 2E.27). The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the first sentence of the OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE to
recommend, rather than merely permit,
that the word ‘‘EXIT’’ be omitted from
the bottom line where interchange exit
number plaques are used. The FHWA
proposes this change in order to avoid
duplication of the EXIT message on the
exit number plaque and on the guide
sign.
179. In existing Section 2E.33 (new
Section 2E.32) Exit Direction Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add requirements to
the 2nd STANDARD statement
regarding the use of diagrammatic signs
and the use of plaques with these signs
for left exits. The FHWA proposes this
new text to be consistent with other
proposed changes in the manual
regarding diagrammatic signs and
plaques for left exits. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a
paragraph to the last existing OPTION
statement to permit the use of an EXIT
XX km/h (XX MPH) legend at the
bottom of the Exit Direction sign to
supplement, but not to replace, the exit
or ramp advisory speed warning signs
where extra emphasis of an especially
low advisory ramp speed is needed.
This may be done by adding an EXIT
XX km/h (XX MPH) sign panel to the
face of the Exit Direction sign near the
bottom of the sign or by making the
EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) message a
part of the Exit Direction sign. The Sign
Synthesis Study 78 found that at least
four States have found it necessary to
use similar advisory speed panels with
Exit Direction signs to provide even
more advance notice and emphasis of a
very low ramp speed, typically because
of curvature.
180. In existing Section 2E.34 (new
Section 2E.33) Exit Gore Signs, the
FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD statement to clarify that the
space between the exit number and the
suffix letter on an Exit Gore Sign shall
be the width of at least half of the height
of the suffix letter. This proposed
change correlates to a similar proposed
change in existing Section 2E.28 (new
Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit
Numbering.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
paragraph to the OPTION statement
78 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 51, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
allowing the use of Type 1 object
markers on sign supports below the Exit
Gore sign to improve the visibility of the
gore for exiting drivers. The FHWA
proposes this change based on
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.79
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION paragraph allowing the use of
a vertical rectangular shaped Exit Gore
sign for certain narrow gore areas, and
an OPTION paragraph allowing the use
of an Exit Number (E5–1bP) plaque
above existing Exit Gore (E5–1) signs
only when non-numbered exits are
converted to numbered exits, and a
STANDARD paragraph requiring the use
of the Exit Gore (E5–1a) sign when
replacement of existing assemblies of
the E5–1 and E5–1bP signs becomes
necessary. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide for more uniform
design of Exit Gore signs.
181. In existing Section 2E.41 (new
Section 2E.40), Freeway-to-Freeway
Interchange, the FHWA proposes to add
a STANDARD statement requiring the
use the word ‘‘LEFT’’ at splits where the
off-route movement is to the left, and
the use of diagrammatic signs for
freeway splits with an option lane and
for multi-lane freeway-to-freeway exits
having an option lane. The FHWA
proposes these changes to be consistent
with other proposed changes in the
Manual. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
182. In Section 2E.45 (new Section
2E.44) Diamond Interchange, the FHWA
proposes removing the second sentence
of the first STANDARD statement
regarding the prohibition of cardinal
initials on exit numbers. This sentence
is not applicable for a diamond
interchange, because they have a single
exit ramp. Existing Section 2E.28 (new
Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit
Numbering already contains a
prohibition on the use of cardinal
directions as the suffix of exit numbers.
183. The FHWA proposes to move the
information from existing Section 2E.49
(new Section 2E.48) Signing on
Conventional Road Approaches and
Connecting Roadways to Section 2D.47,
and leave a SUPPORT statement to refer
readers to the appropriate section. The
FHWA proposes this change because the
section and figures are about guide
signing on conventional road
79 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation II.A(4b).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
approaches to a freeway, and therefore,
are more appropriate for Chapter 2D.
184. The FHWA proposes to move a
majority of the information from
existing Section 2E.50 (new Section
2E.49) Wrong-Way Traffic Control at
Interchange Ramps to Section 2B.48,
and leave a SUPPORT statement to refer
readers to the appropriate section. The
FHWA proposes this change because the
section and figure relate more to
regulatory signs than guide signs, and
therefore, are more appropriate for
Chapter 2B.
185. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Sections 2E.51 General Service
Signs, 2E.52 Rest and Scenic Area Signs,
Section 2E.53 Tourist Information and
Welcome Center Signs, Section 2E.56
Radio Information Signing, and 2E.57
Carpool and Rideshare Signing to a new
Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 2F General
Service Signs.’’
186. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Sections 2E.54 Reference
Location Signs and Enhanced Reference
Location Signs and 2E.55 Miscellaneous
Guide Signs to a new Chapter titled,
‘‘Chapter 2I General Information Signs.’’
187. The FHWA proposes to split
existing Section 2E.59 into four sections
and substantially edit the material. The
resulting sections would be numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 2E.51 Preferential
Lane Guide Signs—General,’’ ‘‘Section
2E.52 Guide Signs for Initial Entry
Points to Preferential Lanes,’’ ‘‘Section
2E.53 Guide Signs for Intermediate
Entry Points to Preferential Lanes,’’ and
‘‘Section 2E.54 Guide Signs for Exits
From Preferential Lanes to General
Purpose Lanes or Directly to Another
Highway.’’ The FHWA proposes this
reorganization of material to improve
consistency and understanding by
grouping like material together. In
conjunction with these changes, the
FHWA proposes a variety of changes in
the technical provisions, sign designs,
and figures for preferential lane guide
signing, to reflect the state of practice
and for enhanced sign conspicuity and
legibility and to reflect recent FHWA
policy guidance regarding traffic control
devices for preferential lane facilities.80
The FHWA also proposes new
information in these sections to
incorporate new provisions regarding
managed lanes and lanes reserved only
for vehicles equipped for Electronic Toll
Collection, which are forms of
preferential lanes. With the increasing
use of these types of preferential lanes
and the continuing emphasis on
80 The FHWA’s August 3, 2007 policy
memorandum can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/
preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
293
congestion management, the FHWA
believes it is important for the state of
the practice for signing of such lanes,
based on recent policy and guidance
document,81 to be incorporated into the
MUTCD to enhance signing uniformity.
The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing preferential lane
signing in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
188. The FHWA also proposes to add
six new sections to Chapter 2E that
describe the design and application of
signs at conventional toll facilities and
for ETC facilities. The proposed new
sections are numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2E.55 Toll Facility and Toll
Plaza Guide Signs—General,’’ ‘‘Section
2E.56 Advance Signs for Conventional
Toll Plazas,’’ ‘‘Section 2E.57 Advance
Signs for Toll Plazas on Diverging
Alignments From Open Road ETC Only
Lanes,’’ ‘‘Section 2E.58 Toll Plaza
Canopy Signs,’’ ‘‘Section 2E.59 Guide
Signs for Entrances to ETC-Only
Facilities,’’ and ‘‘Section 2E.60 ETC
Program Information Signs.’’ The FHWA
proposes these new sections and the
associated text and figures to implement
the recommendations of the Toll Plaza
Best Practices and Recommendations
report 82 and to reflect the state of the
practice for electronic toll collection
signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs for toll facility and toll
plaza signing to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
As a part of these changes, the FHWA
proposes to adopt new symbols to
denote exact change and attended lanes,
for use in toll plaza signing. The FHWA
believes that symbols for these messages
will help road users to more quickly
identify the proper lane(s) to choose for
the type of toll payment they will use.
The proposed symbols are similar to
those already in use for these purposes
on some toll facilities in the U.S. as well
as in Europe and Asia, and the FHWA
also believes that such symbols will also
aid in understanding by international
travelers.
The FHWA also proposes a new
symbol to be reserved for use when a
toll facility’s ETC payment system is
nationally interoperable with all other
ETC payment systems. Although such
81 Available FHWA guidance and handbooks on
preferential lanes and managed lanes can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: https://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm.
82 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations on
Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June 2006,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
294
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapters 2F Through 2M
190. The FHWA proposes to add a
new chapter numbered and titled,
‘‘Chapter 2F General Service Signs.’’
This proposed new chapter contains
several sections that the FHWA
proposes to relocate from Chapters 2D
and 2E in order to group similar sign
types in the same area of the Manual.
191. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2F.01 Sizes of General Service
Signs’’ and a new Table 2F–1 to indicate
the sizes of the General Service signs
and plaques. Proposed Sections 2F.02
General Service Signs for Conventional
Roads and 2F.03 General Service Signs
for Freeways and Expressways contain
information in existing Sections 2D.45
and 2E.51, respectively.
192. In existing Section 2E.51 (new
Section 2F.03) the FHWA proposes to
change the design of the D9–16 Truck
Parking general services sign as
illustrated in Figure 2F–1. A recent
study 84 tested several symbols for this
message and found that the message can
be successfully symbolized. The FHWA
proposes to adopt the symbol that was
found to be the easiest to comprehend
and which provides the greatest
legibility distance. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
193. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2F.04 Interstate Oasis Signing’’
that contains SUPPORT, OPTION,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding signing for
facilities that have been designated by
the State within which they are located
as having met the eligibility criteria of
FHWA’s Interstate Oasis Policy.85 The
language of this proposed new section is
based on the signing provisions of the
Interstate Oasis Policy. The FHWA also
proposes the adoption of a unique
symbol for use on separate Interstate
Oasis signs in conjunction with the
word message. Preliminary human
factors testing indicates that the
proposed symbol provides optimum
comprehension, conspicuity, and
legibility. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
194. The FHWA proposes to combine
the text from existing Sections 2D.42,
2D.43 and 2E.52 to create a new section
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2F.05
Rest Area and Other Roadside Area
Signs’’ so that similar information is
located all in one area.
In conjunction with this change, the
FHWA proposes changes to the text that
would be relocated from Sections 2D.42
and 2D.43 to clarify the types of signs
to be used at Rest Areas and at Scenic
and Other Roadside Areas. Existing
Section 2D.42 can be misinterpreted as
meaning that restrooms are required in
order to use the Parking Area, Roadside
Table, Roadside Park, and Picnic Area
signs, which was not FHWA’s intent.
Restrooms are only required at locations
designated as Rest Areas. The FHWA
also proposes to change the
accompanying figures, accordingly.
The FHWA proposes to add two
paragraphs to the OPTION statement at
the end of the section to allow the use
of the telecommunications devices for
the deaf (TDD) Symbol Sign and the
wireless Internet services (Wi-Fi)
Symbol Sign to supplement advance
guide signs for rest areas if such
amenities are available. The FHWA
proposes to add the TDD symbol based
on the results of the Sign Synthesis
Study 86 that showed that several States
are using a similar sign, and because
this sign design is specified by the
Americans With Disabilities Act for use
to indicate facilities that are equipped
with TDD. The FHWA proposes the WiFi symbol sign because many rest areas
are being equipped with wireless
Internet service for road users visiting
these areas and many States are using
word message or symbol signs to
indicate the availability of this service
in the rest area. The FHWA believes that
a uniform symbol is needed for this
rapidly expanding signing practice and
preliminary human factors testing 87
indicates that the proposed symbol
provides optimum comprehension,
conspicuity, and legibility. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
195. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2E.53 to become new section 2F.06
Tourist Information and Welcome
Center Signs. The FHWA proposes this
change, because the material is more in
keeping with the content of proposed
Chapter 2F. Additionally, the FHWA
proposes to revise the design of the D9–
10 Tourist Information general service
sign as illustrated in Figure 2F–1. A
83 ‘‘Managed Lanes—A Primer,’’ FHWA
publication number FHWA–HOP–05–031, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/
managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf
and ‘‘Managed Lanes—A Cross-Cutting Study,’’
FHWA report number FHWA–HOP–05–037,
November, 2004, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/
crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.
84 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol
Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins,
and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.pooledfund.org/
documents/TPF–5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
85 FHWA’s Interstate Oasis Policy, dated October
18, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6–
17367.
86 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, page 48, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
87 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol
Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins,
and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.pooledfund.org/
documents/TPF–5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
national interoperability is not yet
available, toll operators are actively
working on developing interoperability
so that, for example, an EZ-Pass
transponder will work on a California
toll facility’s FasTrak ETC payment
system. When this interoperability
becomes available in the future, it will
take a number of years thereafter for all
toll operators to transition to it and,
during that transition period, there will
be a need for signing to indicate to road
users that a particular toll facility’s
payment system is nationally
interoperable. The FHWA believes that
it is in the best interest of uniformity,
safety, and road user convenience for a
standard symbol to be adopted prior to
the transition period so that it is
available when needed.
189. Finally, the FHWA proposes a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2E.61 Guide Signs for Managed
Lanes’’ to provide SUPPORT,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
information related to guide signing for
managed lanes with operational
strategies such as tolls, vehicle
occupancy requirements, and vehicle
type restrictions that are variable and
put into effect on a real-time basis to
respond to changing conditions. The
FHWA proposes this new section and
the associated material for consistency
with other proposed provisions
regarding signing for preferential lanes
and electronic toll collection, and to
reflect the state of the practice in
managed lanes as documented in FHWA
publications regarding managed lanes.83
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for the
new provisions for guide signs for
managed lanes to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
recent study 88 found that the meaning
of the existing ‘‘question mark’’ symbol
for this service is poorly understood by
road users. The abbreviation ‘‘INFO’’
was fully understood by 96 percent of
the participants in the human factors
testing. Further, the FHWA believes that
the term INFO is understandable in
most languages. Although the legibility
distance of the tested version of ‘‘INFO’’
was less than that of the existing
symbol, the FHWA proposes a design
featuring larger and bolder letters to
provide legibility that is expected to be
comparable to the existing symbol.
196. The proposed new Section 2F.07
Radio Information Signing contains
information from existing Section 2E.56.
In the last OPTION statement, the
FHWA proposes to revise the legend of
the D12–4 sign to use the word ‘‘CALL’’
rather than ‘‘DIAL’’ to be consistent
with the D12–2 and D12–5 signs, and to
reflect current terminology.
197. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2F.08 TRAVEL INFO CALL
511 Sign’’ that incorporates text from
existing Section 2D.45 associated with
this sign.
198. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2E.57 to become new Section 2F.09
Carpool and Ridesharing Signing. The
FHWA proposes this change, because
this material is more in keeping with the
content in proposed Chapter 2F.
199. The FHWA proposes to add two
new sections at the end of the chapter
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2F.10
Brake Check Area Signs’’ and ‘‘Section
2F.11 Chain Up Area Signs.’’ The
FHWA proposes to add these new signs
based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study 89 that revealed that
some States use signs for these specific
purposes. Some States provide off-road
areas (on the shoulder or in a physically
separated rest area type of roadway) for
drivers to install and remove tire chains
during winter weather conditions. Some
States also provide similar areas for
trucks and other vehicles to check their
brakes in advance of the start of a long
downhill grade. The FHWA believes
these types of areas are similar in some
ways and could be considered motorist
services and should be consistent in
color and legend. The FHWA proposes
88 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluation of Symbol
Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins,
and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.pooledfund.org/
documents/TPF–5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
89 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, pages 46–47, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
200. The FHWA proposes to relocate
the information from existing Section
2C.13 to become a new section
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2F.12
Truck Escape Ramp Signs.’’ The FHWA
proposes this change to clarify that
these types of signs convey information
on a form of motorist service (similar to
rest areas, brake check areas, etc.), rather
than warnings. The FHWA also
proposes to relocate the illustrations of
these signs from Chapter 2C to Chapter
2F and change the color scheme of the
signs to white legend on a blue
background. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
201. In existing Section 2F.02 (new
Section 2G.02) Application, the FHWA
proposes to revise the STANDARD
statement to indicate that service types
are allowed to appear on up to two
signs, rather than just one. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect FHWA’s
Interim Approval (IA–9) to Display
More than Six Specific Service Logo
Panels for a Type of Service, dated
September 21, 2006,90 which allows for
up to two specific service signs
containing up to 12 logos for a given
type of service. As part of this change,
the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the GUIDANCE statement indicating
that when a service type is displayed on
two signs, the signs for that service type
should follow one another in
succession.
202. In existing Section 2F.03 (new
Section 2G.03) Logos and Logo Sign
Panels, the FHWA proposes to add to
the GUIDANCE statement that the letter
heights for word message logos should
have the minimum letter heights stated
in Section 2G.05. The FHWA proposes
this change to recommend letter heights
that provide enhanced legibility for
older drivers.
The FHWA also proposes to add
OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and
SUPPORT statements to this section
regarding the use and design of
supplemental messages within the logo
sign panel. The FHWA proposes this
new text to incorporate messages, such
as DIESEL and 24 HOURS, that are
helpful to road users. As part of this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to add a new symbol called the ‘‘RV
90 FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–9, dated
September 21, 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interim_approval/pdf/
ia_9_logopanels.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
295
Friendly’’ symbol that may be used by
businesses that are designed with
facilities to accommodate the on-site
movement and parking of recreational
vehicles. The proposed language was
developed based on the conditions
listed in Interim Approval IA–8, dated
September 6, 2005,91 as well as
additional criteria deemed necessary,
such as alternate RV Friendly symbol
design and placement, and the need for
an engineering study to demonstrate
that a U-turn can be made by RVs, if Uturns are needed to access the RV
Friendly site desiring to be signed as
such.
As part of this proposed change, the
FHWA proposes to include a new
OPTION for the use of the supplemental
message OASIS within the logo panel of
a business that has been designated as
an Interstate Oasis facility. The FHWA
includes this proposed additional
supplemental message to reflect the
Interstate Oasis Program and Policy that
was published in the Federal Register
on October 18, 2002.92
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at
the end of the section regarding the use
of dual logo panels (two smaller logos
on the same panel) on Specific Service
signs. The FHWA bases this proposal on
the results of experimentation and
research in Texas,93 which found that
mixing food and gas logos in a dual logo
panel did not significantly impact the
effectiveness. To minimize the potential
for information overload and to
maximize the legibility of specific
service signs, the FHWA proposes that
dual logos should be used on specific
service signs only when the two
businesses are under the same roof, all
available logo panels are already in use,
and there is no room for additional
logos. The FHWA also proposes that
dual logo panels be limited to two food
businesses or one food and one gas
business. The recommended maximum
number of dual logo panels used on any
one specific service sign is two.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 15 years for the
new provisions of new Section 2G.03 for
91 Interim Approval IA–8 can be viewed at: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm.
92 The Interstate Oasis Program and Policy can be
viewed at: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/respolicy.htm.
93 ‘‘Effects of Adding Dual-Logo Panels to Specific
Service Signs: A Human Factors Study,’’ by H. Gene
Hawkins and Elisabeth R. Rose, 2005, published in
Transportation Research Record number 1918, is
available for purchase from the Transportation
Research Board at the following internet Web site:
https://www.trb.org. A brief summary of the research
results can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/
default.asp?lbid=772254.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
296
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
203. In existing Section 2F.04 (new
Section 2G.04) Number and Size of
Signs and Logo Sign Panels, the FHWA
proposes to add OPTION and
STANDARD statements to permit the
use of, and provide the associated
requirements for, additional logo sign
panels of the same specific service type
when more than six businesses of a
specific service type are eligible for logo
sign panels at the same interchange. The
FHWA proposes to include this
information, based on Interim Approval
(IA–9) to Display More than Six Specific
Service Logo Panels for a Type of
Service, dated September 21, 2006.94
204. In existing Section 2F.05 (new
Section 2G.05) Size of Lettering, the
FHWA proposes to add standards for
minimum letter heights for logo sign
panels consisting only of word legends
that are displayed on the mainlines of
freeways and expressways and on
conventional roads and ramps. The
FHWA proposes these minimum letter
heights to provide letter heights that
will enhance legibility for older drivers.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
205. In existing Section 2F.08 (new
Section 2G.08) Double-Exit
Interchanges, the FHWA proposes to
add a new GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that where a service type is
displayed on two Specific Service signs
at a double-exit interchange, one of the
signs should display the logo panels for
the service type of the businesses that
are accessible from one of the two exits
and the other sign should display the
logo panels for the service type of the
businesses that are accessible from the
other exit. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistency in logo
signing for double-exit interchanges
when a service type is displayed on two
signs.
206. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section after existing Section 2F.08
(new Section 2G.08). The new section is
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2G.09
Specific Service Trailblazer Signs’’ and
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements
regarding these guide signs that are
required along crossroads for facilities
that have logo panels displayed along
the main roadway and ramp, and that
94 FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–9, dated
September 21, 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interim_approval/pdf/
ia_9_logopanels.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
require additional vehicle maneuvers to
reach. The FHWA proposes this new
section and an associated new figure to
enhance the uniformity of this signing
practice which is being used by many
States.
207. In existing Section 2F.09 (new
Section 2G.10) Signs at Intersections,
the FHWA proposes to relocate the first
paragraph of the existing OPTION
statement to the 2nd STANDARD
statement in order to clarify that the
type of service and the action message
or the directional arrow shall all be on
the same line directly above the
business logo panel or below the logo
sign panel.
208. The FHWA proposes to add a
new chapter numbered and titled,
‘‘Chapter 2I General Information Signs.’’
This proposed new chapter contains
several sections that the FHWA
proposes to relocate from Chapters 2D
and 2E in order to group similar sign
types in the same area of the Manual.
209. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Section 2I.01 Sizes of General
Information Signs and a new Table 2I–
1 to indicate sizes of General
Information signs. Proposed new
Sections 2I.02 Reference Location Signs
and Intermediate Reference Location
Signs, 2I.03 Enhanced Reference
Location Signs, 2I.04 Traffic Signal
Speed Sign, 2I.05 General Information
Signs, 2I.06 Miscellaneous Information
Signs, 2I.07 Memorial Signing, and 2I.08
Trail Signs, contain information in
existing Sections 2D.46, 2E.54, 2D.47,
2D.48, 2E.55, 2D.49 and 2D.50,
respectively.
210. In existing Section 2D.47 (new
Section 2I.04) Traffic Signal Speed Sign,
the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the OPTION statement allowing a
changeable message element for the
numerals of the Traffic Signal Speed
sign to be displayed if different system
progression speeds are set for different
times of the day. The FHWA also
proposes to allow a blank-out version of
the Traffic Signal Speed sign to be used
to display the message only during the
times when the system is operated in
coordinated mode. The FHWA proposes
this change to provide agencies with
flexibility to provide for different speeds
at different times of day. The FHWA
also proposes to revise the STANDARD
statement to increase the minimum size
of the Traffic Signal Speed sign from
300 × 450 mm (12 × 18 in) to 600 × 900
mm (24 × 36 in) to provide for suitable
letter sizes.
211. In existing Section 2E.55 (new
Section 2I.06) the FHWA proposes to
replace the phrase ‘‘Miscellaneous
Guide Signs’’ with ‘‘Miscellaneous
Information Signs’’ in the title, in the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
text of the section, and in the associated
figure, to reflect the relocation of this
section into proposed new Chapter 2I.
212. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2I.07 Memorial Signing.’’ This
proposed new section is comprised of
text pertaining to memorial signs, which
is relocated from existing sections 2D.49
and 2E.08. The FHWA proposes to
revise several statements within the
section in order to make the information
in this section regarding memorial
signing consistent with existing Section
2D.49 Signing of Named Highways (new
Section 2D.55).
213. In existing Section 2D.50 (new
Section 2I.08) Trail Signs, the FHWA
proposes to add a STANDARD
statement prohibiting the use of trail
signs on freeways or expressways. The
FHWA proposes this restriction because
trail designations are not appropriate for
freeways and expressways and should
be confined to conventional roads.
214. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 2I.09 Acknowledgement
Signs.’’ This proposed new section
contains SUPPORT, GUIDANCE,
STANDARD, and OPTION statements
regarding the placement and design of
the signs that can be used as a way of
recognizing a company, business, or
volunteer group that provides a
highway-related service. The FHWA
bases the proposed information on the
policy memo ‘‘Optional Use of
Acknowledgment Signs on Highway
Rights-of-Way,’’ dated August 10,
2005.95 The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for the
new provisions for acknowledgement
signs for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
215. In existing Section 2H.04 (new
Section 2J.04) General Design
Requirements for Recreational and
Cultural Interest Area Symbol Guide
Signs, the FHWA proposes to replace
the entire set of recreational and
cultural area symbol signs with a new,
updated, and expanded set of signs,
based on the National Park Service’s
updated Uniguide Standards Manual,96
plus a few United States Forest Service
standard symbol signs for activities not
covered in the Uniguide standards. As
a result, the FHWA proposes to revise
existing Table 2H–1 (new Table 2J–1) to
reflect the new set of signs, as well as
95 FHWA’s Policy Memo can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-mem_ack.htm.
96 Information about the National Park Service’s
Uniguide Standards Manual can be obtained at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.nps.gov/
hfc/acquisition/uniguide.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
figures within Chapter 2I that show
recreational and cultural signs. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
216. In existing Section 2H.07 (new
Section 2J.07) Use of Prohibitive Slash,
the FHWA proposes to clarify the
STANDARD statement to indicate
recreational and cultural interest area
symbol signs for prohibited activities
and items are only to be used within a
recreational or cultural interest area
when a standard regulatory sign for
such a prohibition is not provided in
Chapter 2B. The FHWA also proposes
that for recreational and cultural interest
area prohibitory signs only, the red
diagonal slash is to be placed behind the
symbol, rather than over it in, consistent
with National Park Service standards.
217. In existing Section 2H.08 (new
Section 2J.08) Placement of Recreational
and Cultural Interest Area Symbol
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement allowing the symbol
on the Wildlife Viewing Area sign to be
placed to the left or right of the legend,
and the arrow to be placed below the
symbol. The FHWA proposes the new
binoculars symbol to denote wildlife
viewing areas based on the Sign
Synthesis Study,97 which revealed that
several States and the National Park
Service were already using this symbol
in this manner to design an effective
guide sign.
218. In existing Section 2H.09 (new
Section 2J.09) Destination Guide Signs,
the FHWA proposes to delete the first
sentence of the 2nd STANDARD
statement restricting the use of white on
brown destination guide signs on linear
parkway-type highways that primarily
function as arterial connectors. This
proposed change is the result of an
amended memorandum of
understanding that was signed in 2006
by the National Park Service and the
FHWA.98
219. In existing Section 2I.03 (new
Section 2K.03), Evacuation Route Signs,
the FHWA proposes to reorganize the
paragraphs to provide a more logical
flow. The FHWA also proposes to
include information in the first
STANDARD statement regarding the
design of the proposed Tsunami
Evacuation Route sign. The FHWA
bases the proposed design on a symbol
97 ‘‘Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,’’
FHWA, December 2005, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://tcd.tamu.edu/
documents/rwstc/Signs_SynthesisFinal_Dec2005.pdf.
98 This Memorandum of Understanding can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
currently being used in all Pacific Coast
States.
The FHWA also proposes to clarify
the use of Advance Turn Arrow (M5
series) and Directional Arrow (M6
series) auxiliary signs with Evacuation
Route signs in the first STANDARD and
OPTION statements.
220. In existing Section 2I.08 (new
Section 2K.08) Emergency Aid Center
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement allowing the use of
a fluorescent pink background color
when Emergency Aid Center signs are
used in an incident situation, such as
during the aftermath of a nuclear or
biological attack. The FHWA proposes
this change, because EM–6 Series signs
may be useful for incident situations.
221. In existing Section 2I.09 (new
Section 2K.09) Shelter Directional
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement allowing the use of
a fluorescent pink background color
when Shelter Direction signs are used in
an incident situation, such as during the
aftermath of a nuclear or biological
attack. The FHWA proposes this change,
because EM–7 Series signs may be
useful for incident situations.
222. The FHWA proposes to add a
new chapter numbered and titled,
‘‘Chapter 2L Object Markers, Barricades,
and Gates.’’ This proposed new chapter
contains existing Sections 3C.01
through 3C.04, which are related to
object markers and existing Section
3F.01 on barricades. The FHWA
proposes this new chapter to group
these devices in the same area of the
Manual.
223. In existing Section 3C.02 (new
Section 2L.02) Object Markers for
Obstructions Within the Roadway, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION
statement to clarify that Type 1 or Type
3 markers may be installed on the nose
of a median island at an intersection to
provide additional emphasis. The
FHWA proposes this new statement to
clarify that the application is permitted.
224. In existing Section 3C.03 (new
Section 2L.03) Object Markers for
Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway,
the FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD statement to specify that
Type 2 or Type 3 object markers are to
be used for obstructions not actually
within the roadway and to restrict the
use of Type 1 and Type 4 object markers
for such applications.
225. In existing Section 3C.04 (new
Section 2L.04) Object Markers for Ends
of Roadways, the FHWA proposes to
add to the first STANDARD statement
that if an object marker is used to mark
the end of a roadway, a Type 4 object
marker shall be used. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide clarity
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
297
that the Type 4 object marker is the only
type of object marker to be used to mark
the end of a roadway.
226. The FHWA proposes adding a
new Section 2L.06 Gates, containing
provisions regarding the design and use
of gates for a variety for traffic control
purposes beyond the most common use
at highway-rail grade crossings. The
FHWA proposes this new section in
order to provide for enhanced
uniformity of gates, as they are used in
a wide variety of applications.
227. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter numbered and titled,
‘‘Chapter 2M Changeable Message
Signs.’’ This new chapter contains
information from existing Sections
2A.07 and 2E.21 as well as additional
new information, organized into seven
sections regarding Changeable Message
Signs, specifically regarding the
description, application, legibility and
visibility, design characteristics,
message length and units of
information, installation, and display of
travel times on Changeable Message
Signs. The FHWA proposes this change
to consolidate all information about
changeable message signs into one
location in the Manual and to reflect the
recommendations of extensive research
on changeable message sign legibility,
messaging, and operations conducted
over a period of many years by the
Texas Transportation Institute.99 The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for the new
provisions for Changeable Message
Signs for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 3—Pavement Markings
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Part 3—General
228. The FHWA proposes to remove
references to the blue raised pavement
marker from Part 3. Blue raised
pavement markers have been used to
mark the locations of fire hydrants for
emergency response personnel and are
not intended to communicate a traffic
control message to the general public.
Consistent with the proposed changes in
Section 1A.08 as described in item 20
above, blue raised pavement markers
would not be considered traffic control
devices and therefore the FHWA
believes that requirements for design
and application of such markers should
not be included in the MUTCD.
99 Information on the many research projects on
changeable message signs conducted by the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) can be accessed via
TTI’s Internet Web site at: https://tti.tamu.edu/.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
298
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
immediately adjacent to curbed noses of
raised medians and curbs of islands, or
on top of such curbs. This is an effective
practice commonly used to aid road
users in identifying these channelizing
features at night. The FHWA proposes
this optional use based on
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.102
233. The FHWA proposes to include
arrows in the list of items that are to be
designed in accordance with the
Pavement Markings chapter of the
Standard Highway Signs and Markings
book.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
229. The FHWA proposes to add
information to allow the use of
appropriate route shield pavement
marking symbols (including appropriate
colors) to assist in guiding road users to
their destinations. The use of the red,
white, and blue Interstate shield
marking was authorized by FHWA in
Official Interpretation # 3–162(I).100 The
FHWA also proposes to add a new
figure to illustrate these route shield
pavement markings.
230. In several sections within Part 3,
the FHWA proposes to add new
language to clarify that dotted lane
lines, rather than broken lane lines, are
to be used for non-continuing lanes,
including acceleration lanes,
deceleration lanes, auxiliary lanes, and
lane drops. The FHWA also proposes to
revise the various existing figures in
Chapter 3B that illustrate these
conditions to reflect the proposed
changes. The FHWA proposes these
changes to avoid confusing road users
regarding the function of these lanes
and to improve safety and operations.
As documented in NCHRP Synthesis
356,101 a number of States and other
jurisdictions currently follow this
practice, which is also the standard
practice in Europe and most other
developed countries. The FHWA
believes that the existing use of a
normal broken lane line for these noncontinuing lanes does not adequately
inform road users of the lack of lane
continuity ahead and that standardized
use of dotted lane lines for noncontinuing lanes will better serve this
important purpose in enhancing safety
and uniformity.
231. The FHWA proposes to relocate
Chapter 3C Object Markers and Section
3F.01 Barricades to Part 2 because
readers of the MUTCD have difficulty
finding object markers in the MUTCD
and because most jurisdictions treat
these devices as signs for purposes of
inventory and policy. The FHWA
proposes to place the information on
object markers and barricades in a new
Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 2L Object
Markers and Barricades.’’
232. The FHWA proposes to add
OPTION statements in various sections
within Part 3 to allow use of
retroreflective or internally illuminated
raised pavement markers in the roadway
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 3A
234. In Section 3A.01 Functions and
Limitations, the FHWA proposes
relocating the last paragraph of the
SUPPORT statement, which pertains to
the general functions of longitudinal
lines, to a STANDARD statement in
Section 3A.05, because that section
deals specifically with longitudinal
pavement markings. See item 237 below
for additional information.
235. In Section 3A.03 Materials, the
FHWA proposes to add information to
the SUPPORT statement regarding
marking systems that consist of clumps
or droplets of material with visible open
spaces of bare pavement between the
material droplets. The FHWA proposes
this new text in order to clarify that this
type of marking system is suitable for
use if it meets other marking
requirements of the highway agency.
This also reflects FHWA’s Official
Interpretation #3–196(I), dated July 19,
2006.103
236. In Section 3A.04 Colors, the
FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd
paragraph of the STANDARD statement
to include red delineators, for
consistency with Chapter 3D and to
clarify that the application of red raised
pavement markers and delineators is for
one-way roadways and ramps and for
truck escape ramps, because red is not
intended to be used for these devices on
undivided highways, except in the
special case of truck escape ramps as
provided in existing Section 3D.03.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add a new 6th paragraph to the
STANDARD statement explaining the
use of purple markings to supplement
lane line or edge line markings for toll
100 FHWA’s Official Interpretation #3–162(I),
dated January 28, 2004, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/3–162–I–VA–
S.pdf.
101 NCHRP Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
102 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations #I.C(2), I.C(4f), and I.F(2).
103 FHWA’s Official Interpretation #3–196(I),
dated July 19, 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/3_196.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
plaza approach lanes that are to be used
only by vehicles that are equipped with
ETC transponders. The FHWA proposes
this new STANDARD paragraph to be
consistent with other proposed changes
in the MUTCD regarding the use of the
color purple to readily identify lanes
that are to be used by vehicles equipped
with ETC transponders. (See item 23.)
237. In Section 3A.05, the FHWA
proposes to change the title to
‘‘Functions, Widths, and Patterns of
Longitudinal Pavement Markings,’’ and
to incorporate into a STANDARD
statement the information regarding the
general function of longitudinal lines
from the SUPPPORT statement in
existing Section 3A.01. The FHWA
proposes changing the classification of
this text to a STANDARD for
consistency with requirements in other
sections in Part 3 and to appropriately
reflect how this text has been applied.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the OPTION statement regarding the
lengths of line segments and gaps used
for dotted lines to a GUIDANCE
statement in order to encourage
increased consistency in the dimensions
for dotted lines based on their function.
The recommended dimensions reflect
the most common practice as
documented in NCHRP Synthesis
356.104
238. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following Section 3A.05.
The new section is numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 3A.06 Definitions Relating to
Pavement Markings’’ and contains a
STANDARD statement that defines the
terms ‘‘neutral area,’’ ‘‘physical gore,’’
and ‘‘theoretical gore.’’ The FHWA
proposes this new section to provide
definitions of these terms, because they
are used throughout Part 3 to describe
the use and application of pavement
markings.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 3B
239. In Section 3B.01 Yellow Center
Line Pavement Markings and Warrants,
the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the 2nd STANDARD statement to
specifically prohibit the use of a single
solid yellow line as a center line
marking on a two-way roadway. A
single solid yellow center line marking
has not been allowed by the MUTCD but
some agencies have improperly used it
because of the lack of a specific
prohibition statement.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
SUPPORT statement after the first
104 NCHRP Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
GUIDANCE statement that references
sections of the Uniform Vehicle Code
that contain information regarding left
turns across center line no-passing zone
markings and paved medians. The
information was contained in the 1988
MUTCD, and the lack of this
information in the 2000 and 2003
editions of the MUTCD has generated
the need to provide this in the next
edition.
240. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing
Zone Pavement Markings and Warrants,
the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the first SUPPORT statement that
describes that the values of passing sight
distances shown in Table 3B–1 are for
operational use in marking no-passing
zones and are less than the values used
for geometric design of highways. The
FHWA proposes this in order to provide
clarity and avoid confusion between
operational use of markings and
geometric design.
The FHWA also proposes to add
language to the last paragraph of the 3rd
STANDARD statement specifying that
for this application a buffer zone shall
be a flush median island formed by two
sets of double yellow center line
markings, in order to clarify how to
appropriately mark a buffer zone and to
correspond with the existing illustration
in Figure 3B–5.
The FHWA also proposes to add an
OPTION statement immediately
following the 3rd STANDARD statement
permitting the use of yellow diagonal
markings in the neutral area between
the two sets of no-passing zone
markings, reflecting common practice
for discouraging travel in that area.
241. In Section 3B.03 Other Yellow
Longitudinal Pavement Markings, the
FHWA proposes to change the first
OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE in
order to recommend for certain
conditions, rather than just permit, the
use of arrows with two-way left turn
lanes. The FHWA proposes this change
as a result of the NCHRP Synthesis
356 105 which highlighted a variety of
marking issues for which additional
uniformity could be provided to aid
road users. The synthesis found that the
use of arrows in two-way left-turn lanes
at the start of the lane and at other
locations along the lane as needed is the
predominant practice. The FHWA also
reflects this proposed change in Figures
that contain arrows in two-way left turn
lanes.
242. In Section 3B.04 White Lane Line
Pavement Markings and Warrants, the
105 NCHRP
Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
FHWA proposes to relocate the last
GUIDANCE statement to become the
first GUIDANCE statement (currently
the last GUIDANCE statement) and to
clarify that the lane line marking
requirements do not apply to reversible
lanes, for which the existing text of Part
3 requires the use a different color and
pattern of markings.
The FHWA also proposes to add
requirements to the STANDARD
statement to specify that dotted lines are
required for acceleration, deceleration,
and auxiliary lanes. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
243. In Section 3B.05 Other White
Longitudinal Pavement Markings, the
FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd
STANDARD statement to clarify the
requirements for channelizing lines in
gore areas alongside the ramp and
through lanes for exit ramps and for
entrance ramps. As part of this change,
the FHWA proposes to change the first
existing GUIDANCE statement to a
STANDARD, to require, rather than
recommend, the beginning and ending
points of the channelizing lines, in
order to improve uniformity in
application and to reflect the
predominant practice as documented in
NCHRP Synthesis 356.106 The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The FHWA proposes to
illustrate the proposed changes in
Figure 3B–8.
The FHWA also proposes to add text
to the 2nd OPTION statement
permitting the use of white
retroreflective or internally illuminated
raised pavement markers to supplement
channelizing lines and optional chevron
markings at exit ramp and entrance
ramps for enhanced nighttime visibility,
to reflect recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook.107
244. In Section 3B.07 Warrants for
Use of Edge Lines, the FHWA proposes
to add to the OPTION statement that if
a bicycle lane is marked on the outside
portion of a traveled way, the edge line
that would mark the outside edge of the
106 NCHRP Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
107 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation II.A(4a).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
299
bicycle lane may be omitted, because
the lane line separating the motor
vehicle lane from the bicycle lane can
serve the purpose of the edge line.
245. In Section 3B.08 Extensions
Through Intersections or Interchanges,
the FHWA proposes to revise the first
GUIDANCE statement to add locations
where offset left turn lanes might cause
driver confusion to the listing of
examples where dotted lines extensions
should be used, to reflect
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.108 FHWA also proposes to
add dimensions of the line segments
and gaps for the dotted line extension
markings in order to provide
consistency in the application and for
consistency with the provisions of
Section 3A.05.
246. In Section 3B.09 Lane-Reduction
Transition Markings, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement
after the STANDARD statement that
exempts agencies from the requirement
to place edge lines and/or delineators
along low-speed urban roadways where
curbs clearly define the roadway edge in
a lane reduction transition if supported
by engineering judgment. The FHWA
also proposes revising the 2nd
paragraph of the 2nd GUIDANCE
statement to reference the proposed
exemption of low-speed roadways from
the use of edge line markings. The
FHWA proposes these changes because
on low-speed urban roadways, curbs
often provide adequate delineation of
change of alignment of road edge.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
2nd GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that a dotted lane line be
used approaching a lane reduction,
consistent with the proposed use of
dotted lane lines for other conditions in
which a lane does not continue ahead.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for
existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
247. In Section 3B.10 Approach
Markings for Obstructions, the FHWA
proposes to revise the first STANDARD
statement to clearly indicate that toll
booths at toll plazas are fixed
obstructions that shall be marked
according to the requirements of this
section. The FHWA proposes this
change based on the recommendations
108 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.E(4d).
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
300
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
of the Toll Plazas Best Practices and
Recommendations Report.109
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
change the first OPTION statement to a
GUIDANCE statement to recommend,
rather than just permit, that where
observed speeds exceed posted or
statutory speed limits, longer tapers
should be used. This is consistent with
text already contained in the first
GUIDANCE statement in Section 3B.09.
248. In Section 3B.11 Raised
Pavement Markers, the FHWA proposes
to modify the first STANDARD
statement to specify that the height of a
raised pavement marker is not to exceed
approximately 25 mm (1 in) 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.
The FHWA also proposes to add
STANDARD and SUPPORT statements
that clarify that internally illuminated
raised pavement markers shall be
steadily illuminated and shall not be
flashed, and that flashing raised
pavement markers are considered to be
In-Roadway Lights, consistent with Part
4.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to
add a GUIDANCE statement near the
end of the section that recommends
consideration of the use of more closely
spaced retroreflective pavement markers
where additional emphasis is needed.
This proposed statement incorporates
FHWA Interpretation 3–176(I) 110 into
the Manual and is consistent with
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.111
249. In Section 3B.12 Raised
Pavement Markers as Vehicle
Positioning Guides with Other
Longitudinal Markings, the FHWA
proposes to change the SUPPORT
statement to a GUIDANCE in order to
recommend, rather than just permit, that
the spacing of raised pavement markers
used as positioning guides for typical
conditions should be 2N, where N
equals the length of one line segment
plus one gap. The FHWA proposes this
109 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
110 FHWA Official Interpretation #3–176(I), dated
January 21, 2005, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/3_176.htm.
111 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation III.A(2).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
change to reflect typical practice and to
provide enhanced uniformity.
250. In Section 3B.13 Raised
Pavement Markers Supplementing
Other Markings, the FHWA also
proposes to add a paragraph to the
OPTION statement that provides for the
use of supplemental retroreflective or
internally illuminated raised pavement
markers on horizontal curves to improve
drivers’ visibility of curves. The FHWA
proposes this new text based on
recommendations of the Older Driver
handbook.112
251. In Section 3B.14 Raised
Pavement Markers Substituting for
Pavement Markings, the FHWA
proposes to change the GUIDANCE
statement to a STANDARD requiring
that the color of raised pavement
markers shall simulate the color of the
markings for which they substitute, in
order to assure uniformity of markings
colors.
252. In Section 3B.15 Transverse
Markings, the FHWA proposes to add
arrows and speed reduction markings
(which are proposed new types of
markings, as discussed in item 257
below) to the list of transverse markings
in the STANDARD statement that shall
be white in order to provide clarity and
provide uniformity in applications.
253. The FHWA proposes several
changes to Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield
Lines, as well as to Section 7C.04 Stop
and Yield Signs (in Part 7 Traffic
Controls for School Areas) to clarify the
intended use of stop and yield lines. In
Section 3B.16, the FHWA proposes to
add requirements to the first
STANDARD statement regarding the use
of STOP and YIELD lines, specifically as
they relate to locations where YIELD
(R1–2) signs or Yield Here to
Pedestrians (R1–5 or R1–5a) signs are
used. The FHWA proposes these
changes to assure that stop lines are not
misused to indicate a yield condition or
vice versa. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. As part
of the proposed changes, the FHWA
proposes to require that stop lines shall
not be used at locations on uncontrolled
approaches where drivers are required
by State law to yield to pedestrians. The
FHWA proposes this change in
accordance with FHWA’s Official
Interpretation #3–201(I), dated January
10, 2007.113
The FHWA also proposes to add a
STANDARD statement that requires the
use of Yield Here to Pedestrian (R1–5
and R1–5a) signs at a crosswalk that
crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane
approach when a yield line is used, for
consistency with the existing
requirement in existing Section 2B.11.
The FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement to clarify that
Yield Lines and Yield Here to
Pedestrian signs should not be used in
advance of crosswalks that cross an
approach or departure from a
roundabout. The FHWA proposes this
change because yield lines and signs for
the crosswalk would be too close to the
yield lines and signs at the entry to the
circulatory roadway and could be
confusing to road users.
The FHWA also proposes to add
OPTION and SUPPORT statements that
describe the use of staggered Stop and
Yield lines. Longitudinally offsetting the
stop lines and yield lines on a multilane approach is a common practice that
improves drivers’ view of pedestrians,
improves sight distance for turning
vehicles, and increases the turning
radius for left-turning vehicles.
254. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following Section 3B.16
Stop and Yield Lines. The proposed
new section is numbered and titled
’’Section 3B.17 Do Not Block
Intersection Markings’’ and contains
OPTION and STANDARD statements
regarding use of markings to indicate
that the intersection is not to be
blocked. The remaining sections in
Chapter 3B would be renumbered
accordingly. Do Not Block Intersection
Markings are being used more widely
across the country to improve traffic
flow through intersections. Uniformity
in the use and type of markings is
needed to minimize road user
confusion. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
255. In existing Section 3B.17 (new
Section 3B.18) Crosswalk Markings, the
FHWA proposes adding a paragraph to
the first GUIDANCE statement that
recommends that crosswalk markings
should be located so that the curb ramps
are within the extension of the
crosswalk markings, to be consistent
with provisions in ADAAG 114 and to
112 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation III.A(2).
113 FHWA Official Interpretation #3–201(I), dated
January 10, 2007, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/3_201.htm.
114 The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
provide more consistency for
pedestrians as they negotiate the
crosswalk and curb ramps.
The FHWA also proposes several
additional changes to the first
GUIDANCE statement to reflect the
findings of FHWA report, ‘‘Safety
Effects of Marked versus Unmarked
Crosswalks at Uncontrolled
Locations.’’ 115 The proposed changes
include deleting some of the
requirements for the specific placement
of crosswalk markings and adding
recommendations regarding the
placement of crosswalk markings across
uncontrolled approaches based on
engineering judgment and engineering
studies.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
SUPPORT statement at the end of the
section that incorporates information
regarding detectable warning surfaces
that mark boundaries between
pedestrian and vehicular ways where
there is no raised curb. The proposed
language would be added to the Manual
in response to requests from the U.S.
Access Board, based on ADAAG.116
There has been a notable amount of
confusion among many highway
agencies regarding the proper use of
detectable warning surfaces and where
to find the proper information.
256. In existing Section 3B.19 (new
Section 3B.20), the FHWA proposes to
incorporate the word ‘‘arrow’’ in several
places in the section to reflect that,
although arrows are often not thought of
as symbols, the provisions of this
section are intended to apply to arrows.
As part of this change, the FHWA
proposes to title the Section, ‘‘Pavement
Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings.’’
The FHWA also proposes to move the
2nd paragraph of the existing 2nd
OPTION statement to a new GUIDANCE
statement in order to recommend, rather
than just permit, that the International
Symbol of Accessibility parking space
marking should be placed in each
parking space designated for use by
persons with disabilities, for
consistency with the provisions of the
Americans With Disabilities Act.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
new GUIDANCE statement that
describes the use and placement of laneuse arrows in lanes designated for the
following Internet Web site: https://www.accessboard.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
115 ‘‘Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked
Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations,’’ FHWA
report #HRT–04–100, Charles Zegeer, et al.,
September 2005, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/
04100/04100.pdf.
116 The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.accessboard.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
exclusive use of a turning movement
and in turn bays, in lanes from which
movements are allowed that are
contrary to the normal rules of the road,
and where opposing offset channelized
left-turn lanes exist. The FHWA
proposes this new language to reflect
common practice and provide for
increased uniformity, as highlighted in
the NCHRP Synthesis 356.117 The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add a GUIDANCE statement that
recommends the use of ONLY word
markings to supplement the required
arrow markings where through lanes
approaching an intersection become
mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes revising the
existing 3rd GUIDANCE statement to
add that where through lanes become
mandatory turn or exit lanes, markings
and signs should be placed well in
advance of the turn or exit to provide
additional advance warning to drivers.
The FHWA proposes these changes to
reflect the predominant practice, as
documented by NCHRP Synthesis
356,118 and to enhance safety at these
potentially confusing locations.
The FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD statement near the end of
the section to clarify that the ONLY
word marking is not to be used for lanes
with more than one movement. The
FHWA proposes this change to prevent
road user confusion.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to
expand the existing 4th GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that lane
reduction arrow markings be used on
roadways with a speed limit of 70 km/
h (45 mph) or above, and to recommend
that they be used on roadways with
lower speed limits when determined to
be appropriate based on engineering
judgment. The existing MUTCD allows
the use of lane reduction arrow
markings in an OPTION statement,
however, based on the information in
NCHRP Synthesis 356 119 the FHWA
117 NCHRP
Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, pages 7–
13, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
118 NCHRP Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, pages 6–
7, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
119 NCHRP Synthesis 356, ‘‘Pavement Markings—
Design and Typical Layout Details,’’ 2006, page 32,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
301
believes that, for enhanced safety, they
should be recommended on high-speed
roads in order to provide a clear
indication that the lane reduction
transition is occurring. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
257. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
3B.20 (new Section 3B.21). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
3B.22 Speed Reduction Markings’’ and
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and
GUIDANCE statements regarding these
proposed transverse markings that may
be placed on the roadway within a lane
in a pattern to give drivers the
impression that their speed is
increasing. The FHWA proposes this
new section to reflect the Traffic Control
Devices Pooled Fund Study on speed
reduction markings,120 which found
that these markings can be effective in
reducing speeds at certain locations,
and to provide a standardized design for
such markings in order to provide
uniformity. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing speed reduction pavement
markings in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
258. In existing Section 3B.22 (new
Section 3B.24) Preferential Lane Word
and Symbol Markings, the FHWA
proposes to add information regarding
markings to be used for ETC preferential
lanes to the STANDARD statement, for
consistency with other related proposed
changes in Parts 2 and 3 regarding ETC
only lanes. As a part of this change, the
FHWA also proposes to add new
GUIDANCE regarding the use of
preferential lane symbol and word
markings at key decision points on a
preferential lane, to reflect a recent
FHWA policy memorandum.121 The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
259. The FHWA proposes to edit,
expand, and reorganize existing Section
3B.23 (new Section 3B.25) Preferential
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
120 ‘‘Pavement Markings for Speed Reduction,’’
December 2004, prepared by Bryan J. Katz for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/04100.pdf.
121 The FHWA’s August 3, 2007 policy
memorandum on ‘‘Traffic Control Devices for
Preferential Lane Facilities’’ can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/
preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
302
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motor
Vehicles. The proposed changes in this
section correspond to comparable
sections on preferential lanes in
Chapters 2B and 2E. The resulting
proposed changes in this section
include expanding the first STANDARD
statement to include longitudinal
pavement markings for buffer-separated
left-hand and right-hand side
preferential lanes, and expanding the
2nd STANDARD statement to include
markings for counter-flow preferential
lanes on divided highways. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies. These proposed changes
reflect typical existing practices for the
marking of preferential lanes, as
documented in various FHWA guidance
and handbooks.122
The FHWA also proposes to add new
GUIDANCE regarding the use of dotted
line markings at direct exits from
preferential lane facilities, to reduce the
chances of unintended exit maneuvers,
reflecting a recent FHWA policy
memorandum.123
260. To illustrate the proposed
changes to existing Section 3B.23 (new
Section 3B.25), and to clarify their use,
the FHWA proposes to add more
examples to Figures 3B–31 through 3B–
34 to show the required longitudinal
markings for buffer-separated
preferential lanes and counter-flow
preferential lanes.
261. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
3B.23 (new Section 3B.25). The
proposed new section is numbered and
titled ‘‘Section 3B.26 Chevron and
Diagonal Crosshatching Markings’’ and
contains OPTION, STANDARD, and
GUIDANCE statements on the use of
markings intended to discourage travel
on certain paved areas. In this new
section, the FHWA proposes to
eliminate the optional use of diagonal
markings in gore areas and require
chevron markings because gores
separate traffic flowing in the same
direction and diagonal crosshatching is
inappropriate for that condition. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize
122 Available FHWA guidance and handbooks on
preferential lanes can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
freewaymgmt/hov.htm.
123 The FHWA’s August 3, 2007 policy
memorandum on ‘‘Traffic Control Devices for
Preferential Lane Facilities’’ can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/
preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The remaining sections in
Chapter 3B would be renumbered
accordingly.
262. The FHWA proposes deleting
existing Section 3B.24 Markings for
Roundabout Intersections and existing
Section 3B.25 Markings for Other
Circular Intersections because
information from those sections has
been edited and expanded, and is now
included in proposed new Chapter 3C
(see item 266 below).
263. In existing Section 3B.26 (new
Section 3B.27) Speed Hump Markings,
the FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD to more clearly state that if
speed hump markings are to be used on
a speed hump or a speed table, the only
markings that shall be used are those
shown in Figures 3B.35 and 3B.36.
Because the existing MUTCD language
is not prescriptive, a wide variety of
marking patterns are being used for
speed humps and the FHWA believes
that additional uniformity is needed to
enhance safety. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
264. In existing Section 3B.27 (new
Section 3B.28) Advance Speed Hump
Markings, the FHWA proposes to revise
STANDARD to more clearly specify that
if advance speed hump markings are
used, the only markings that shall be
used are those shown in Fig 3B–37.
Because the existing MUTCD language
is not prescriptive, a wide variety of
marking patterns are being used for
advance speed hump markings and the
FHWA believes that additional
uniformity is needed to enhance safety.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for
existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
265. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
3B.27 (new Section 3B.28). The new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
3B.29 Markings for Toll Plazas’’ and
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements for
the use of pavement markings at toll
plazas. The FHWA proposes this new
section in the MUTCD to reflect the
recommendations of the Toll Plazas Best
Practices and Recommendations
report 124 and to provide uniformity in
pavement markings at toll plazas
because toll plazas have not been
124 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
included in previous editions of the
MUTCD. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 5 years for
existing locations for the
recommendations on the use of solid
lane lines and the requirements for the
design of optional purple markings in
this new section.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapters 3C through 3H
266. As discussed in item 231 above,
the FHWA proposes to move object
markers, contained in existing Chapter
3C, to Part 2. The FHWA proposes to
title Chapter 3C, ‘‘Roundabout
Markings.’’ This proposed new chapter
contains 7 sections that describe
pavement markings at roundabouts,
including lane lines, edge lines, yield
lines, crosswalk markings, and
pavement word, arrow, and symbol
markings. The chapter also includes a
variety of proposed new figures that
illustrate examples of markings for
roundabouts of various geometric and
lane-use configurations. The FHWA
proposes these changes to reflect the
state of the practice for roundabout
markings, especially for multi-lane
roundabouts, the safe and efficient
operation of which necessitates specific
markings to enable road users to choose
the proper lane before entering the
roundabout. The FHWA solicits
comments on whether it is necessary for
all the proposed new figures illustrating
roundabout markings to be added to the
MUTCD or whether some of those
illustrations should be placed in other
documents for reference, such as an
updated version of the Roundabouts
Guide. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for
changes from the existing requirements
and guidance for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
267. In Section 3D.03 Delineator
Application, in the first STANDARD
statement, the FHWA proposes to delete
the exemption of routes that have
substantial portions with large sections
of tangent alignments from those
locations where single delineators shall
be provided on freeways and
expressways. The FHWA proposes this
change because the terms ‘‘substantial
portions’’ and ‘‘large sections’’ cannot
be adequately defined.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
new STANDARD statement indicating
that delineators on the left-hand side of
a two-way roadway shall be white. This
corresponds to the existing requirement
that delineator color shall match the
color of the edge line, but clarifies the
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
intent for this situation, which has been
misinterpreted by some agencies.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a
new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that
delineators should be used wherever
guardrail or other longitudinal barriers
are present in order to provide for
consistency in application. Guardrail
and barriers are typically close to the
roadway and delineation on these
features helps road users be aware of the
potential to collide with them during
conditions of darkness. The proposed
new paragraph reflects existing common
practice. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
delineators on existing guardrail or
existing longitudinal barriers to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
268. In Section 3D.04 Delineator
Placement and Spacing, the FHWA
proposes adding an OPTION at the end
of the section to allow delineators of an
appropriate color to be mounted on the
face of or on top of guardrails or other
longitudinal barriers in a closely-spaced
manner such that they form a
continuous or nearly continuous ribbon
of delineation. This OPTION is
proposed because this application is
becoming more widely used for special
conditions and aids in improving safety
and visibility.
269. The FHWA proposes several
revisions to Chapter 3E Colored
Pavements, Section 3E.01 General, in
order to provide for a more logical flow,
to better emphasize traffic control
device and non-traffic control device
colored pavements, and to reflect
FHWA’s Interpretation 3–169(I) 125 on
non-retroreflective colored pavements.
The resulting language classifies as a
traffic control device any retroreflective
colored pavement between crosswalk
lines and non-retroreflective colored
pavement between crosswalk lines that
is intended to communicate a regulatory
or warning message.
270. As discussed in item 231 above,
the FHWA proposes to move the
discussion of barricades to Part 2. As a
result, the title of chapter 3F would be
‘‘Channelizing Devices.’’
271. In existing section 3F.02 (new
Section 3F.01) Channelizing Devices,
the FHWA proposes to modify the
STANDARD statement so that it is
consistent with Section 6F.59 Cones.
Rather than repeating much of the
information that is already contained in
Section 6F.59, the FHWA proposes to
125 FHWA’s
Official Interpretation 3–169(I), dated
September 1, 2004, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
documents/pdf/3–169-I-FL-S.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
delete the last four paragraphs of the
STANDARD statement and replace them
with a reference to the retroreflectivity
requirements in Sections 6F.58 to 6F.60.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add to the STANDARD statement that
the color of the reflective bands on
channelizing devices shall be white,
except for bands on channelizing
devices that are used to separate traffic
flows in opposing directions, which
shall be yellow. The FHWA proposes
this change to correspond with the
‘‘color code’’ for markings.
272. In Section 3G.01 General
(Chapter 3G Islands), the FHWA
proposes to add the purpose of toll
collection to the definition of island for
traffic control purposes. The FHWA
proposes this change because toll
collection is a unique type of island.
273. In Section 3G.02 Approach-End
Treatment, the FHWA proposes to
change the first OPTION statement to a
SUPPORT statement because bars and
buttons projecting above the pavement
surface in the neutral area between
approach-end markings are not
considered traffic control devices, and
therefore are not regulated by the
MUTCD. In concert with this change,
the FHWA proposes to delete the last
GUIDANCE statement and the first
paragraph of the last OPTION statement.
274. In Section 3G.03 Island Marking
Application, the FHWA proposes
changing the 2nd paragraph of the
STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE
statement because it is not always
practical or necessary for a jurisdiction
to include chevron or diagonal hatching
in the triangular neutral area for all
islands, especially small triangular
channelizing islands at intersections.
275. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section at the end of Chapter 3G.
The proposed new section is numbered
and titled ‘‘Section 3G.07 Pedestrian
Islands and Medians’’ and contains
SUPPORT statements on the purpose of
pedestrian islands and medians as well
as the placement of detectable warnings
at curb ramps. The information
proposed within this section is included
in order to assist practitioners with
meeting the provisions of ADAAG.126
276. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter at the end of Part 3. The
proposed new chapter is numbered and
titled, ‘‘Chapter 3H Rumble Strip
Markings’’ and contains two sections
that describe the use of marking in
conjunction with longitudinal and
transverse rumble strips. Rumble strips
126 The
Americans With Disabilities Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.accessboard.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
303
have been in use for many years and
numerous agencies are considering
increased usage as part of their strategic
highway safety plans. The proposed
chapter is intended to address the use
of markings in combination with rumble
strips.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Part 4—General
277. The FHWA proposes to
reorganize Part 4 to improve the
continuity and flow of information
regarding the application of highway
traffic signals in the MUTCD. Various
paragraphs and sections would be
relocated throughout the part, and the
proposed new organization is reflected
in the descriptions below.
278. The FHWA proposes to replace
the word ‘‘shown’’ when referring to
signal indications with the word
‘‘displayed’’ throughout Part 4. The
FHWA also proposes to remove several
references to ‘‘lenses’’ being
‘‘illuminated’’ and replace these with
references to ‘‘signal indications’’ being
‘‘displayed.’’ The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide for consistency in
terminology and because many newer
signal optical units do not include
lenses.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 4A
279. In Section 4A.02 Definitions
Relating to Highway Traffic Signals, the
FHWA proposes to remove ‘‘signals at
toll plazas’’ from the list of items that
are not included as ‘‘highway traffic
signals’’ in its definition. The FHWA
proposes this change as a result of the
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best
Practices and Recommendations
Report 127 that indicated that signals at
toll plazas have properties that are
similar to some other special uses of
highway traffic signals, and therefore
should be included in the definition.
Also, the FHWA is proposing to add a
new Chapter 4K that provides for the
application of highway traffic signals at
toll plazas.
The FHWA also proposes to add
definitions for ‘‘Hybrid Signal’’ and
‘‘Pedestrian Hybrid Signal’’ to provide
clarity to the difference between normal
traffic control signals and Pedestrian
Hybrid Signals and Emergency Hybrid
Signals, both of which are proposed for
addition to the MUTCD in Part 4.
127 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
304
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The FHWA proposes to add several
items to the definition of ‘‘Intersection,’’
consistent with the proposed revised
definition in Section 1A.12. The FHWA
proposes to add that two roadways
separated by 9 meters (30 feet) or more
shall be separate intersections; however,
if no stopping point is designated
between the two roadways in the
median, the two intersections and the
median between them shall be one
intersection. The FHWA also proposes
to clarify that any part of any vehicle
legally beyond a stopping point is
legally in the intersection, and a vehicle
will remain in the intersection until the
rear of the vehicle has cleared the
intersection or crosswalk. The FHWA
proposes these changes to more clearly
define an intersection with respect to
roadways divided by a median,
particularly as this relates to signal
design and operation.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to
revise the definition for ‘‘Permissive
Mode’’ to include flashing YELLOW
ARROW and flashing RED ARROW
indications for permissive phases, as
well as circular green. The flashing
YELLOW ARROW and flashing RED
ARROW are described in more detail in
subsequent items below.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise
the definitions of ‘‘Signal Face’’ and
‘‘Signal Head’’ to clarify that a signal
face is an assembly of one or more
signal sections, and that a signal head is
an assembly of one or more signal faces.
The FHWA proposes this change to
clarify the meanings because they are
often misstated.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 4B
280. In Section 4B.02 Basis of
Installation or Removal of Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to
change the OPTION statement (with the
exception of the last sentence of item E)
to a GUIDANCE to recommend the steps
that should be taken to remove a traffic
control signal from operation, rather
than merely permit steps to be taken. As
part of this proposed change, the FHWA
proposes to remove the suggested sign
legend ‘‘TRAFFIC SIGNAL UNDER
STUDY FOR REMOVAL’’ from item C,
because the legend for this sign should
be based on applicable circumstances
for the individual intersection, and
therefore a standard message should not
be included in the MUTCD.
The FHWA proposes to add to the
remaining OPTION statement that only
items A and B of the GUIDANCE
statement need to be completed for
temporary traffic control signals,
because items C through E do not apply
to those locations. The FHWA also adds
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
to the remaining OPTION statement that
controller cabinets may remain in place
after removal of traffic signal heads if
the jurisdiction desires to continue
analysis of the traffic signal removal.
281. In Section 4B.04 Alternatives to
Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA
proposes to add two items to the list of
less restrictive alternatives that should
be considered before a traffic control
signal is installed. Proposed item H
discusses revising the geometrics at the
intersection to add pedestrian median
refuge islands and/or curb extensions.
Proposed item L discusses the use of a
pedestrian hybrid signal or in-roadway
warning lights if pedestrian safety is a
major concern at a location. The
remaining items would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes
adding these items because they are
viable potential alternatives to a new
traffic control signal.
282. In Section 4B.05 Adequate
Roadway Capacity, the FHWA proposes
adding a paragraph to the GUIDANCE
statement clarifying that additional
methods for increasing roadway
capacity that do not involve widening a
signalized intersection should be
carefully evaluated. Such methods
could include revising pavement
markings and lane-use assignments
where appropriate. The FHWA proposes
this change to clarify that lower-cost
options should be considered to
increase roadway capacity and
operational efficiency at signalized
intersections.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 4C
283. In Section 4C.01 Studies and
Factors for Justifying Traffic Control
Signals, the FHWA proposes adding a
new Warrant 9, ‘‘Intersection Near a
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing’’ to the list
of warrants. This proposed warrant is
described in more detail in item 287
below.
The FHWA proposes adding a second
paragraph to the first OPTION statement
allowing any four sequential 15-minute
periods to be considered as 1 hour in
signal warrants that require conditions
to be present for a certain number of
hours in order to be satisfied, if the
separate 1-hour periods used in the
analysis do not overlap each other and
both the major and minor street volumes
are for the same specific 1-hour periods.
The FHWA proposes this change to
clarify that the 1-hour periods of peak
traffic volumes may not necessarily
correspond to 60 minutes starting at the
:00 hour on the clock.
284. In Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak
Hour, the FHWA proposes adding to the
OPTION statement that a traffic signal
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
justified only under this warrant may be
operated in flash-mode during the hours
when the warrant is not met. The
FHWA also proposes a GUIDANCE
statement recommending that the signal
be traffic-actuated. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 15
years for this GUIDANCE statement for
existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The FHWA proposes
these changes to encourage efficient
operational strategies, because a traffic
signal justified only under the Peak
Hour warrant may have very low traffic
volumes during much of the day. This
language is similar to existing
provisions in Sections 4C.05 (Pedestrian
Volume Warrant) and 4C.06 (School
Crossing Warrant).
285. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4,
Pedestrian Volume, the FHWA proposes
to change in the STANDARD the criteria
that are to be met in an engineering
study for a traffic signal to be
considered. The FHWA proposes to
replace the existing two criteria with
two new criteria based on vehicular and
pedestrian volumes, and to require that
only one of the criteria be met. The
proposed criteria, and the associated
volume curves, are derived from other
vehicle-based traffic signal warrants and
supplemented with data gathered
during a TCRP/NCHRP study.128 Similar
to other traffic signal warrants, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION
statement following the criteria,
allowing the use of different volume
curves based on the posted or statutory
speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed,
or the location of the intersection. The
FHWA also proposes to revise the
OPTION to reduce the required
pedestrian volumes for this warrant by
as much as 50 percent if the 15thpercentile crossing speed of pedestrians
is less than 1.1 m/sec (3.5 ft/sec). The
FHWA proposes these changes to reflect
the recommendations of the joint TCRP/
NCHRP study that adjustments are
needed in the existing pedestrian
volume warrant. The net effect of the
proposed revisions is as follows: (a) The
pedestrian warrant will be slightly
easier to meet with lower pedestrian
volumes on streets with high vehicle
volumes, and (b) the pedestrian warrant
will be slightly more difficult to meet on
streets with low vehicle volumes.
286. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4,
Pedestrian Volume, and Section 4C.06
Warrant 5, School Crossing, the FHWA
128 ‘‘Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized
Pedestrian Crossings,’’ TCRP Report 112/NCHRP
Report 562, Transportation Research Board, 2006,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
proposes adding recommendations to
the GUIDANCE statement that a traffic
signal installed based on the pedestrian
warrant or school crossing warrant only
should also control the side street or
driveway. When a traffic control signal
is installed at an intersection with stop
signs on the minor street to assist
pedestrians in crossing the major street,
minor street traffic can cross and turn
left into the major street after stopping
during the display of the green on the
major street. This violates driver
expectancies and compromises the
meaning and effectiveness of the green
signal indication. The FHWA believes
that, even if the volume of traffic on the
minor street is low when a signal is
justified based on Warrant 4, it is in the
best interest of traffic safety that the
minor street be signalized also rather
than stop sign controlled. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 15 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
287. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following Section 4C.09.
The proposed new section is numbered
and titled ‘‘Section 4C.10 Warrant 9,
Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing’’ and contains SUPPORT,
STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements describing the new warrant,
which is intended for use in locations
where none of the other eight signal
warrants are met, but the proximity of
the intersection to a highway-rail grade
crossing is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control
signal. The FHWA proposes adding this
new warrant, because some stopcontrolled approaches to intersections
near highway-rail grade crossings
contain a stop line, which is closer to
the track than the length of a large
vehicle, and sight distances may
preclude the vehicle from waiting on
the approach side of the grade crossing
before entering the intersection. Many of
these intersections do not meet one of
the other warrants in the MUTCD
because those warrants use minimum
volume thresholds for considering the
installation of a traffic signal and not the
proximity of a highway-rail grade
crossing. The proposed warrant is based
on recommendations from an NCHRP
research project.129
129 Information about ‘‘Highway Traffic Signal
Warrant for Intersections Near Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings,’’ NCHRP Project 03–76A, can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.trb.org/trbnet/
projectdisplay.asp?projectid=830.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
305
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 4D—General
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 4D—Specific
288. The FHWA proposes a
significant reorganization of Chapter 4D
so that similar subjects are grouped
together in adjacent sections, or
combined into single sections within
the Chapter. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to add the use of flashing
yellow and flashing red arrows in Part
4, which affects many sections within
Chapter 4D.
289. The FHWA also proposes to add
the use of a flashing yellow arrow
indication as an optional alternative to
a circular green for permissive left-turn
and right-turn movements throughout
Part 4, which affects many sections
within Chapter 4D. The proposed text
throughout Chapter 4D incorporates
Interim Approval IA–10, dated March
20, 2006, for flashing yellow arrows
during permissive turn intervals.130 The
Interim Approval and the subsequent
proposed text in the MUTCD are based
on research contained in NCHRP Report
493.131 The research found that the
flashing yellow arrow is the best overall
alternative to the circular green as the
permissive signal display for a left-turn
movement, has a high level of
understanding and correct response by
left-turn drivers and a lower fail-critical
rate than the circular green, and the
flashing yellow arrow display in a
separate signal face for the left-turn
movement offers more versatility in
field application. It is capable of being
operated in any of the various modes of
left-turn operation by time of day, and
is easily programmed to avoid the
‘‘yellow trap’’ associated with some
permissive turns at the end of the
circular green display. The application
of flashing yellow arrow indications for
right-turn movements is a logical
extension of use for left-turns and will
provide jurisdictions with a useful tool
to effectively control a wide variety of
situations involving right turns.
290. The FHWA also proposes to add
information in several places in this
chapter regarding the use of U-turn
arrow indications to reflect the
increasing use of U-turn arrows.
291. In Section 4D.01 General, the
FHWA proposes to add a SUPPORT
statement between the first and second
paragraphs of the STANDARD statement
to clarify the meaning of a seasonal
shutdown. The FHWA proposes to add
this information to incorporate
clarifications into the MUTCD per
Official Interpretation #4–288, dated
April 27, 2005.132
The FHWA proposes to relocate a
paragraph regarding coordination of
traffic control signals within 800 m (0.5
mi) of one another from existing Section
4D.14 and add it to the GUIDANCE
statement. The FHWA also proposes to
add that coordination for such traffic
signals should be considered where a
jurisdictional boundary or a boundary
between different signal systems falls in
between them. The FHWA proposes this
change to encourage jurisdictions to
coordinate traffic signal timing plans
across jurisdictional or system
boundaries. In concert with this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to add a new SUPPORT statement at the
end of this section that contains
information regarding traffic signal
coordination that was previously in
Section 4D.14.
292. In Section 4D.03 Provisions for
Pedestrians, the FHWA proposes to
change the OPTION statement to a
GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than
merely permit, the use of No Pedestrian
Crossing signs at traffic control signal
locations where it is necessary or
desirable to prohibit certain pedestrian
movements, where such movements are
not physically prevented by other
means. The FHWA proposes this change
because if the pedestrian movement is
to be prohibited, a prohibitory sign
should be used.
293. The FHWA proposes to relocate
and retitle existing Section 4D.18 to
‘‘Section 4D.04 Signal Indications—
Design, Illumination, Color, and
Shape.’’ The FHWA proposes to revise
the first STANDARD statement, which
states that letters or numbers shall not
be displayed as part of a vehicular
signal indication. The FHWA proposes
to specifically prohibit vehicular
countdown displays because
countdown indications on vehicular
signal indications and similar methods
of attempting to indicate a ‘‘pre-yellow’’
warning, such as a flashing green
interval, have been found to lengthen
130 FHWA’s Interim Approval #IA–10, dated
March 20, 2006, can be found at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia10_flashyellarrow.pdf.
131 NCHRP Report 493, ‘‘Evaluation of Traffic
Signal Displays for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn
Control,’’ 2003, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
132 FHWA’s Official Interpretation 4–288, dated
April 27, 2005, can be found at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/pdf/4_288.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
306
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
the ‘‘dilemma zone’’ and thereby result
in increased crash rates.133
The FHWA also proposes to provide
an exception to the prohibition on
lettering for toll plaza signals (which is
proposed for addition to the MUTCD,
see item 347 below) because the Toll
Plaza Best Practices and
Recommendations Report 134 indicates
that lettered messages on toll plaza
signals are useful for toll operations
and, with the extremely low speeds in
a toll plaza stopped lane environment,
such messages do not significantly
detract from the signal indications.
The FHWA also proposes to add in
the first STANDARD statement that
strobes or other flashing displays within
or adjacent to red signal indications
shall not be used. The FHWA proposes
this change to clarify that strobes within
traffic signals are not approved traffic
control devices and to be consistent
with FHWA Official Interpretation 4–
263.135 Although FHWA allowed
experimentation with strobes in red
traffic signals in the mid-1980s, the
FHWA made a determination in 1990
not to approve any further
experimentations with strobe lights in
traffic signals, and to terminate all thencurrent experimentations with these
devices. As stated in the Official
Interpretation, research conducted as
part of the experimentation process
showed inconsistent benefits and some
significant disbenefits to the use of
strobes and similar flashing displays.
Any strobes operating within red traffic
signals are not in accordance with the
MUTCD and they are not under any
approved experimentation. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for removing strobes from
existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to
relocate information regarding arrows
from existing Section 4D.16 to the first
STANDARD statement, and to add an
item D to require that U-turn arrows, if
used, be pointed in a manner that
directs the driver through the turn. The
FHWA proposes this change in order to
133 ‘‘Safety Evaluation of a Flashing-Green Light
in a Traffic Signal,’’ by D. Mahalel and D.M. Zaidel,
Traffic Engineering + Control magazine, February,
1985, pages 79–81, is available for purchase from
Hemming Information Services, 32 Vauxhall Bridge
Road, London, SW1V 2SS, England, Web site:
https://www.tecmagazine.com/.
134 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
135 FHWA’s Official Interpretation 4–263, dated
July 2, 2003, can be found at the following Internet
Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/
pdf/4–263-I-FL-s.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
provide U-turn signal arrow indications
for use on signalized approaches where
left turns are prohibited or not
physically possible but U-turns are
allowed and need to be positively
controlled with a protected signal
phase. In such cases, left-turn arrows are
not appropriate.
294. To better organize the
information by subject matter, and to
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add
several sections following Section
4D.04. The proposed new sections are
numbered and titled ‘‘Section 4D.05
Size of Vehicular Signal Indications,’’
‘‘Section 4D.06 Positions of Signal
Indications Within a Signal Face—
General,’’ ‘‘Section 4D.07 Positions of
Signal Indications Within a Vertical
Signal Face,’’ and ‘‘Section 4D.08
Positions of Signal Indications Within a
Horizontal Signal Face.’’ Much of the
information in these proposed new
sections is contained in existing
sections within Chapter 4D, but the text
is revised to pertain to the subject of
each particular section. Significant
additional changes to the sections are
described in items 295 and 296 below.
295. In new Section 4D.05 Size of
Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA
proposes modifying the STANDARD to
require 300 mm (12 in) signal
indications for all new signal
installations. As part of this proposed
change, the FHWA proposes to allow
existing 200 mm (8 in) signal
indications to be retained for the
remainder of their useful life, to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The FHWA proposes
to revise the following OPTION
statement to allow the use of 200 mm
(8 in) signal indications under three
specific circumstances where such use
could be advantageous. The FHWA
proposes these changes to reflect the
predominant current signal design
practice, to reflect the results of
studies 136 that have shown the
significant safety benefits of using 300
mm (12 in) indications, and to make
signal indications more visible to
elderly drivers.
296. In Section 4D.06 Positions of
Signal Indications Within a Signal
Face—General, the FHWA proposes
adding to the STANDARD statement
136 These studies are summarized and
documented in the FHWA report ‘‘Making
Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering
Countermeasures to reduce Red-Light Running,’’
pages 22–23, which can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf and in ‘‘Signalized
Intersections: Informational Guide’’, FHWA
publication number FHWA–HRT–04–091, August
2004, page 283, which can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.tfhrc.gov/
safety/pubs/04091/.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that unless otherwise stated for a
particular application, if a vertical
signal face contains a cluster(s), the face
shall have at least three vertical
positions. The FHWA proposes this
change because road users who are color
vision deficient identify the illuminated
color by its position relative to the other
signal sections.
The FHWA also proposes to add
requirements to the STANDARD
statement for the position of U-turn
arrow signal sections in a signal face.
The FHWA proposes this change to
accommodate the new U-turn arrows as
described previously in item 290.
297. The FHWA also proposes adding
several new figures that illustrate
positioning and arrangements of signal
sections in left turn signal faces (Figures
4D–5 to 4D–11) and right turn signal
faces (Figures 4D–12 to 4D–17). The
FHWA proposes these new figures in
order to enhance understanding and
correct application of the relatively
complex requirements and options for
turn signals.
298. In existing Section 4D.04 (new
Section 4D.09) Meaning of Vehicular
Signal Indications, the FHWA proposes
to add to item A(1) of the STANDARD
statement a requirement that vehicular
traffic turning left yield the right-of-way
to other vehicles approaching from the
opposite direction so closely as to
constitute an immediate hazard. The
FHWA proposes this change to conform
the MUTCD to the Uniform Vehicle
Code and to laws in many States.
The FHWA also proposes to separate
existing item B(1) of the STANDARD
statement into two items to more clearly
indicate the meaning of a steady circular
yellow and a steady yellow arrow to
vehicular traffic. As part of this change,
the FHWA proposes to add that a steady
circular yellow signal indication warns
that the related flashing arrow
movement is being terminated. The
FHWA proposes this change to provide
consistency with the proposed addition
of the applications of flashing yellow
arrows and flashing red arrows.
The FHWA proposes to revise item
C(1) of the STANDARD statement to
clarify that where permitted, vehicles
making a right turn or a left turn from
a one-way street onto another one-way
street when a steady circular red
indication is displayed shall be
governed by the rules applicable to
making a stop at a STOP sign. The
FHWA proposes this change to clarify
the right of way rules for turning after
stopping on a circular red indication.
The FHWA also proposes a revision to
item C(2) related to a steady red arrow
signal indication that is similar in
nature but reflects the different
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
requirements for turning on a red arrows
versus on a circular red.
The FHWA proposes to delete the
information from existing item D of the
STANDARD statement and instead
describe the meanings of flashing
yellow signal indications in a new item
E and flashing red signal indications in
a new item F to more specifically clarify
their meanings to vehicular traffic, to
pedestrians, and when displayed as a
beacon. The FHWA proposes to state in
new item D that a flashing green
indication has no meaning and shall not
be used.
In new item E of the STANDARD
statement, the FHWA proposes to add
an item 2 that describes the use of
flashing yellow arrow indications for
permissive turning movements in the
direction of the arrow. The FHWA
proposes this change to allow agencies
to use the flashing yellow arrow, as an
option to the steady circular green
indication, for intersections with
permitted turning phases. The
effectiveness of the flashing yellow
arrow for this purpose has been
demonstrated as reported in NCHRP
Report 493.137
299. In existing Section 4D.05 (new
Section 4D.10) Application of Steady
Signal Indications, the FHWA proposes
to modify item A(2) in the first
STANDARD to exclude the use of a
circular red signal indication with a
green arrow indication when it is
physically impossible for traffic to go
straight through the intersection, such
as on the stem of a T-intersection. The
FHWA proposes this change to provide
for additional consistency and
uniformity of signal displays for the
stems of T-intersections.
The FHWA proposes to modify item
E(3) in the first STANDARD to permit
the use of a steady yellow arrow
indication to terminate a flashing yellow
arrow or a flashing left-turn red arrow
controlling a permissive left-turn phase.
The FHWA proposes this change to
provide consistency with the proposed
addition of the flashing yellow arrow
indication for permissive left turns. As
documented in NCHRP Report 493,138
the steady yellow arrow was found to be
successful as the change interval display
following the flashing yellow arrow
permissive interval. A subsequent study
137 NCHRP Report 493, ‘‘Evaluation of Traffic
Signal Displays for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn
Control,’’ 2003, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
138 NCHRP Report 493, ‘‘Evaluation of Traffic
Signal Displays for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn
Control,’’ 2003, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
by the University of Wisconsin 139 found
no evidence to suggest that the flashing
yellow arrow permissive indication
negatively affects drivers’ understanding
of the steady yellow change interval
indication. No problems with this
display have been reported to FHWA by
the dozens of highway agencies that
have implemented the flashing yellow
arrow at several hundred intersections
under experimentation or interim
approval.
The FHWA proposes to add new
STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements
at the end of this section that contain
new material related to the proposed
addition of the flashing yellow arrow
and flashing left-turn red arrow, as well
as information previously contained in
portions of existing Sections 4D.08 and
4D.09, along with minor edits.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
restrict the displays of several
combinations of arrow signal
indications of different colors pointing
in the same direction on any one signal
face or as a result of the combination of
displays from multiple signal faces on
an approach. The FHWA proposes this
change to avoid displaying conflicting
or confusing information to road users.
300. To better organize the
information by subject matter, and to
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add
several sections related to signal faces
following Section 4D.10. The proposed
new sections are numbered and titled
‘‘Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces
on an Approach,’’ ‘‘Section 4D.12
Visibility, Aiming, and Shielding of
Signal Faces,’’ ‘‘Section 4D.13 Lateral
Positioning of Signal Faces,’’ ‘‘Section
4D.14 Longitudinal Positioning of
Signal Faces,’’ ‘‘Section 4D.15 Mounting
Height of Signal Faces,’’ and ‘‘Section
4D.16 Lateral Offset (Clearance) of
Signal Faces.’’ Much of the information
in these proposed new sections is
contained in existing sections within
Chapter 4D, but the text is revised to
pertain to the subject of each particular
section. Significant additional changes
to the sections are described in items
301 through 305 below.
301. In new Section 4D.11 Number of
Signal Faces on an Approach, the
FHWA proposes revising item A of the
STANDARD statement to clarify that
two signal faces are required for a
straight-through movement if such
movement exists at a location, even if it
139 An abstract and summary of ‘‘An Evaluation
of Driver Comprehension of Solid Yellow
Indications Resulting from Implementation of
Flashing Yellow Arrow,’’ 2007, by Michael A.
Knodler, David A. Noyce, Kent C. Kacir, and Chris
L. Brehmer, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: https://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/
default.asp?lbid=802137.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
307
is not the major movement, and to
require two signal faces for the major
signalized turning movement if no
straight-through movement exists, such
as on the stem of a T-intersection. The
FHWA proposes these changes to ensure
that the straight-through movement, or
major signalized turning movement in
absence of a straight-through movement,
contain redundant signal faces in case of
one of the signal faces fails, and to
incorporate the FHWA’s Official
Interpretation number 4–295(I).140
The FHWA also proposes adding an
OPTION to allow a single section
GREEN ARROW signal to be used when
there is never a conflicting movement at
an intersection. This single section
signal may be used for a through
movement at a T-intersection if
appropriate geometrics and signing are
placed according to an engineering
study, to allow for free-flow of traffic
where there are no conflicting
movements. The FHWA proposes this
change to incorporate Official
Interpretation 4–255(I) into the
MUTCD.141
The FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement at the end of the
section that outlines the
recommendations for providing and
locating signal faces at intersections
where the posted or statutory speed
limit or the 85th-percentile speed on an
approach exceeds 60 km/h (40 mph). As
documented in the FHWA reports
‘‘Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox
of Engineering Countermeasures to
Reduce Red-Light Running’’ 142 and
‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide,’’ 143 numerous studies have
found significant safety benefits from
locating signal faces overhead rather
than at the roadside, providing one
overhead signal face per through lane
when there is more than one through
lane, providing supplemental near-side
and/or far-side post-mounted faces for
added visibility, and including
backplates on the signal faces.
Additionally, two recent studies, by the
140 FHWA’s Official Interpretation 4–295(I), dated
October 19, 2005, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/4_297.htm.
141 FHWA’s Official Interpretation 4–255(I), dated
February 19, 2003, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
documents/pdf/4–255-I-NE-s.pdf.
142 Pages 17–27 of this report can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
143 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’, FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–
04–091, August 2004, pages 73–75 and 281–282,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
308
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
URS Corporation 144 and by Bradley
University 145 found that reconfiguring
diagonal signal spans to ‘‘box’’ spans or
mast arm layouts with far-side signal
face locations produced significant
reductions in the number of red light
violations and entries into the
intersection late in the yellow change
interval. The FHWA proposes the
addition of this GUIDANCE to reflect
modern signal design practices and to
enhance the safety of signalized
intersections along higher-speed
roadways, where the potential benefits
are greatest. For the same reasons, the
FHWA also proposes that these
recommendations should be considered
as well as for any major urban or
suburban arterial street with four or
more lanes. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 15 years
for existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
302. In place of existing Figure 4D–3
Typical Arrangements of Signal Lenses
in Signal Faces, the FHWA proposes to
add several new figures showing typical
arrangements of signal sections in signal
faces and typical lateral positioning of
signal faces for several different
conditions, including U-turn arrows,
non-turning, and turning situations. The
proposed new figures include Figures
4D–1, 4D–2, and 4D–6 through 4D–18.
The FHWA believes that these new
figures will assist users of the Manual in
understanding and applying the
relatively complex provisions,
especially regarding turning
movements.
303. In new Section 4D.12 Visibility,
Aiming, and Shielding of Signal Faces,
the FHWA proposes to revise the 4th
paragraph of the first GUIDANCE
statement, which was relocated from
existing Section 4D.17, to add that
signal backplates should be used on all
of the signal faces that face an approach
with a posted or statutory speed limit or
where the 85th-percentile speed on the
approach exceeds 60 km/hr (40 mph),
and that signal backplates should be
considered when the speeds are 60 km/
hr (40 mph) or less. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect modern
signal design practices to enhance safety
144 Details on this study, ‘‘Far-Side Signals vs.
Diagonal Span Behavioral Research,’’ project
number 12937724, February 2006, can be obtained
from URS Corporation, 3950 Sparks Drive SE,
Grand Rapids, MI 49546–2420.
145 Evaluation of Signal Mounting Configurations
at Urban Signalized Intersections in Michigan and
Illinois’’ by Kerrie L. Schattler, Matthew T. Christ,
Deborah McAvoy, and Collette M. Glauber, August
1, 2007, may be obtained from the Department of
Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley
University, 1501 West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL
61625.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
by increasing the visibility of signal
faces on higher-speed approaches,
especially for older drivers, to reflect
safety studies as documented in the
FHWA reports ‘‘Signalized Intersection:
Informational Guide’’ 146 and ‘‘Making
Intersections Safer: Toolbox of
Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce
Red Light Running,’’ 147 as well as
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook 148 The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 15 years
for existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add an
OPTION statement allowing the use of
yellow retroreflective strips along the
perimeter of a signal face backplate. The
FHWA proposes this change to increase
the conspicuity of the signal face at
night, and to add language to the
MUTCD in accordance with Interim
Approval IA–1, dated February 2,
2004.149
304. In new Section 4D.13 Lateral
Positioning of Signal Faces, the FHWA
proposes adding a STANDARD
requiring that overhead-mounted turn
signal faces of certain types for
exclusive turn lanes shall be located
directly over the turn lane. The FHWA
proposes this change to ensure that
drivers associate the proper turn signal
face with the exclusive turn lane and
because the research documented in
NCHRP Report 493 150 found that this
location produced the best driver
understanding and correct behavior.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 15 years for
existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
As part of this proposed change in the
preceding paragraph, the FHWA
proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement
that on an approach with an exclusive
146 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’, FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–
04–091, August 2004, pages 288–290, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
147 Page 26 of this report can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
148 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation #I.N(3)
149 The Interim Approval for Use of
Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates,
number IA–1, dated February 6, 2004, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_retroborder.pdf.
150 NCHRP Report 493, ‘‘Evaluation of Traffic
Signal Displays for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn
Control,’’ 2003, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
left-turn lane(s) and opposing vehicular
traffic where a circular green signal
indication is used for permissive left
turns, signal faces containing a circular
green signal indication should not be
post-mounted on the far side median or
located overhead above an exclusive
left-turn lane or the extension of the
lane. The FHWA proposes this change
because NCHRP Report 493 151 found
that the circular green permissive leftturn indication is confusing to some
left-turn drivers who assume it provides
right of way during the permissive
interval. The FHWA believes that
placement of the circular green
indication directly above or in line with
an exclusive left-turn lane exacerbates
the safety issues with this display.
Research 152 found that found that
displaying a circular green signal
indication in a separate signal face
directly over an exclusive left-turn lane
led to a higher left-turn crash rate than
‘‘shared’’ displays placed over the lane
line between the left-turn lane and the
adjacent through lane or to the right of
that line. Placing the signal display over
the lane line or to the right of it helps
to promote the idea that the signal
display with the circular green
indication is being shared by the leftturn and through lanes. This can help
reduce the infrequent but very
dangerous occurrence of the circular
green permissive indication being
misunderstood as a protected ‘‘go’’
indication by left-turn drivers. The
FHWA clarifies that this proposed
recommendation would apply only to
new or reconstructed intersections. The
FHWA also proposes similar wording in
proposed new Sections 4D.18 and
4D.20.
Finally, the FHWA proposes adding a
STANDARD repeating the existing
requirement in existing Section 4D.15
(new Section 4D.10) prohibiting the use
of left-turn arrows in near-right signal
faces and prohibiting the use of rightturn arrows in far-left signal faces when
supplemental post-mounted signal faces
are used. The FHWA proposes this
change for additional emphasis and to
ensure consistency.
305. In new Section 4D.15 Mounting
Height of Signal Faces, the FHWA
proposes to revise the 2nd and 3rd
paragraphs of the STANDARD statement
151 NCHRP Report 493, ‘‘Evaluation of Traffic
Signal Displays for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn
Control,’’ 2003, page 57, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
152 ‘‘An Evaluation of Permissive Left-Turn Signal
Phasing,’’ by Kenneth R. Agent, ITE Journal, Vol.
51, No. 12, December, 1981, pages 16–20, may be
obtained from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (Web site: https://www.ite.org.)
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
to apply the height requirements for
signal housings to any portion of a
highway that can be used by motor
vehicles. Because a shoulder is not
included in the definition of roadway,
the FHWA proposes this change to
ensure that any portion of the highway
on which motor vehicles may travel is
subject to the appropriate height
requirements.
306. To better organize the
information by subject matter, and to
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add
several sections related to signal
indications for turn movements
following new Section 4D.16. The
FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle
existing Section 4D.06 to be ‘‘Section
4D.17 Signal Indications for Left-Turn
Movements—General.’’ Proposed new
Sections 4D.18 through 4D.20 describe
the use of specific signal indications
and signal faces for the permissive only
mode, the protected only mode, and the
protected/permissive mode left-turn
movements, respectively. The FHWA
proposes to renumber and retitle
existing Section 4D.07 to be ‘‘Section
4D.21 Signal Indications for Right-Turn
Movements—General.’’ Proposed new
Sections 4D.22 through 4D.24 describe
the various modes of signalized rightturn movements in the same order as
the left turns. In addition to adding new
material related to the proposed
addition of the flashing yellow arrow
and flashing red arrow, the FHWA
proposes several editorial changes
within each new section to ensure that
the text pertains to the subject of the
particular section. The FHWA proposes
to allow the use of flashing red arrow for
permissive turn movements only in
certain unusual circumstances where an
engineering study determines that each
successive vehicle must come to a full
stop before making the turn
permissively. The FHWA also proposes
to add Figures 4D–6 through 4D–12 and
Figures 4D–13 through 4D–18 to
illustrate positioning and typical signal
faces for each of the modes of left-turn
and right-turn phasing, respectively.
Significant additional changes to the
sections are described in items 307
through 314 below.
307. In new Section 4D.17 Signal
Indications for Left-Turn Movements—
General, the FHWA proposes adding a
STANDARD statement specifying the
requirements for signal indications on
the opposing approach and for
conflicting pedestrian movements
during permissive and protected leftturn movements. The FHWA proposes
this addition for consistency with other
requirements in Part 4. The FHWA also
proposes to prohibit the use of a
protected-only mode left-turn phase
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
which begins or ends at a different time
than the adjacent through movements
unless an exclusive left turn lane is
provided. The FHWA proposes this
change because, without an exclusive
left-turn lane, the operation of a
protected-only mode left-turn phase
forces left-turning vehicles to await the
display of the protected green arrow
while stopped in a lane used by through
vehicles, causing many approaching
through vehicles to abruptly change
lanes to avoid delays, and this can result
in inefficient operations and rear-end
and sideswipe type crashes.153 If an
exclusive left-turn lane is not present
and protected only mode is needed for
the left-turn movement, ‘‘split-phasing,’’
in which the protected left-turn
movement always begins and ends at
the same times in the signal cycle as the
adjacent through movement, can be
used. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes adding an
OPTION to allow the use of static signs
to inform drivers that left-turn arrows
will not be available at certain times of
the day. The FHWA proposes this
change to give agencies an option to
inform motorists of the presence of a
variable mode left turn signal.
308. In new Section 4D.18 Signal
Indications for Permissive Only Mode
Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA
proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow as
permissive left turn signals. The FHWA
proposes this change as part of the
addition of flashing yellow arrow and
flashing red arrow options for
signalizing permissive left-turns.
309. In new Section 4D.19 Signal
Indications for Protected Only Mode
Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA
proposes to eliminate the STANDARD
allowing the use of protected-only mode
signal faces with the combination of
circular red, left-turn yellow arrow, and
left-turn green arrow. The FHWA
proposes this change to enhance
uniformity by requiring States and
municipal agencies to use a left-turn red
arrow instead of a circular red for
protected-only mode left-turn signals.
Red arrow signal indications have been
in use for over 35 years, are extensively
implemented for protected turn
movements in the majority of States, are
well understood by road users, present
153 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’, FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–
04–091, August 2004, page 307, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
309
an unequivocal message regarding what
movement is prohibited when the red
indication is displayed, and eliminate
the need for the use of a supplemental
R10–10 LEFT TURN SIGNAL sign. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing signals in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
310. In new Section 4D.20 Signal
Indications for Protected/Permissive
Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA
proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow signal
indications for protected/permissive
left-turn movements. The FHWA also
proposes adding a GUIDANCE
statement that recommends against
using ‘‘separate’’ signal faces for
protected/permissive left-turn
movements, since they include the
display of a circular green indication
that is located to the left of the lane line
separating the left-turn lane from the
adjacent through lane(s).
311. In new Section 4D.21 Signal
Indications for Right-Turn Movements—
General, the FHWA proposes adding a
STANDARD statement specifying the
requirements for left-turn signal
indications on the opposing approach
and for conflicting pedestrian
movements during permissive and
protected right-turn movements. The
FHWA proposes this addition for
consistency with other requirements in
Part 4. The FHWA also proposes to
prohibit the use of a protected-only
mode right-turn phase which begins or
ends at a different time than the
adjacent through movements unless an
exclusive right turn lane is provided.
Similar to item 307 above for left-turns,
the FHWA proposes this change
because, without an exclusive right-turn
lane, the operation of a protected-only
mode right-turn phase forces rightturning vehicles to await the display of
the protected green arrow while stopped
in a lane used by through vehicles,
causing many approaching through
vehicles to abruptly change lanes to
avoid delays, and this can result in
inefficient operations and rear-end and
sideswipe type crashes. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes adding an
OPTION to allow the use of static or
changeable message signs to inform
drivers that right-turn arrows will not be
available at certain times of the day. The
FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies an option to inform motorists
of the presence of a variable mode right
turn signal.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
310
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
312. In new Section 4D.22 Signal
Indications for Permissive Only Mode
Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA
proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow as
permissive right turn signals. The
FHWA proposes this change as part of
the addition of flashing yellow arrow
and flashing red arrow options for
signalizing permissive right-turns.
313. In new Section 4D.23 Signal
Indications for Protected-Only Mode
Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA
proposes to retain the provision
currently located in existing Section
4D.07 that allows the use of protectedonly mode right-turn signal faces with
the combination of circular red, rightturn yellow arrow, and right-turn green
arrow. Although the use of circular red
indications for protected-only mode leftturns is proposed for elimination in
item 309 above, the FHWA believes that
circular red should be retained for use
with protected-only mode right-turn
movements because of the different
meanings of the circular red and the
right-turn red arrow signal indications
regarding right-turn-on-red after stop.
Circular red would be used in a
protected-only mode right turn signal
face if it is intended to allow right turns
on red after stopping. The FHWA also
proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow signal
indications for protected only mode
right-turn movements.
314. In new Section 4D.24 Signal
Indications for Protected/Permissive
Mode Right-Turn Movements, the
FHWA proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow
arrow and flashing red arrow signal
indications for protected/permissive
right-turn movements. The FHWA also
proposes adding a STANDARD
statement that prohibits the use of
‘‘separate’’ signal faces for protected/
permissive right-turn movements, since
they offer no benefits when compared to
a shared signal face.
315. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 4D.25 Signal Indications for
Approaches With Shared Left-Turn/
Right-Turn Lanes and No Through
Movement.’’ This new section contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD and OPTION
statements regarding this type of lane
that is shared by left-turn and right-turn
movements, which is sometimes
provided on an approach that has no
through movement, such as the stem of
a T-intersection or where the opposite
approach is a one-way roadway in the
opposing direction. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide explicit
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
information regarding shared left-turn/
right-turn lanes, which has not
previously been included in the
MUTCD, and to enhance uniformity of
displays for this application. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 15 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
316. In existing Section 4D.10 (new
Section 4D.26) Yellow Change and Red
Clearance Intervals, the FHWA proposes
to revise the first STANDARD regarding
yellow change intervals to account for
the proposed introduction of the
flashing yellow arrow and flashing red
arrow for permissive turn phases.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the first OPTION statement to a
GUIDANCE, to recommend, rather than
merely permit, a yellow change interval
to be followed by a red clearance
interval to provide additional time
before conflicting movements are
released, when indicated by the
application of engineering practices as
discussed below. The FHWA proposes
this change based on safety studies
indicating the positive effect on safety of
providing a red clearance interval and
surveys indicating that use of a red
clearance interval is a predominant
practice by jurisdictions, as documented
in the FHWA report ‘‘Making
Intersections Safer: Toolbox of
Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce
Red Light Running.’’ 154 The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
second STANDARD statement to
indicate that the durations of the yellow
change interval and, when used, the red
clearance interval, shall be determined
using engineering practices, and to add
a new SUPPORT statement to indicate
that engineering practices for
determining the durations of these
intervals can be found in two Institute
of Transportation Engineers
publications. The FHWA proposes these
changes to enhance safety at signalized
intersections by requiring that accepted
engineering methods be used to
determine the durations of these critical
intervals rather than random or ‘‘rule of
thumb’’ settings, and by recommending
the provision of a red clearance interval
when such accepted engineering
practices indicate such interval is
needed. As documented in the FHWA
report ‘‘Signalized Intersections:
154 Pages 35–36 of this report can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Informational Guide,’’ 155 a variety of
studies from 1985 through 2002 have
found significant safety benefits from
using accepted engineering practices to
determine the durations of yellow and
red clearance intervals. Recent safety
studies 156 have further documented
significant major reductions in crashes
when jurisdictions have revised the
durations of the yellow change and red
clearance intervals using the accepted
engineering practices.
The FHWA also proposes a new
STANDARD statement that requires that
the duration of the yellow change
intervals and red clearance intervals be
within the technical capabilities of the
signal controller, and be consistent from
cycle to cycle in the same timing plan.
The FHWA proposes this change to
accommodate the inherent limitations of
some older mechanical controllers but
provide for consistency of interval
timing.
Finally, the FHWA proposes a new
STANDARD statement at the end of the
section that prohibits the use at a
signalized location of flashing green
indications, countdown vehicular
signals, or similar displays intended to
provide a ‘‘pre-yellow warning’’
interval. Flashing beacons on advance
warning signs on the approach to a
signalized location would be exempted
from the prohibition. The FHWA
proposes this change to clarify the
MUTCD consistent with FHWA Official
Interpretation # 4–246.157
317. In existing Section 4D.13 (new
Section 4D.27) Preemption and Priority
Control of Traffic Control Signals, the
FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE
statement recommending that agencies
provide back-up power supplies for
signals with railroad preemption or that
are coordinated with flashing light
signal systems, with the exception of
traffic control signals interconnected
with light rail transit systems. The
FHWA proposes this change to ensure
that the primary functions of the
155 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’, FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–
04–091, August 2004, pages 209–211, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
156 NCHRP Research Results Digest 299,
November 2005, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_299.pdf. This digest
includes data from the study ‘‘Changes in Crash
Risk Following Retiming of the Traffic Signal
Change Intervals,’’ by R.A. Retting, J.F. Chapline,
and A.F. Williams, as published in Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Volume 34, number 2,
pages 215–220, available from Pergamon Press,
Oxford, NY.
157 Official Interpretation 4–246 can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4–246–I–NY–
S.pdf
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
interconnected signal systems still
function in a safe manner in the event
of a power failure, and for consistency
with similar proposed GUIDANCE in
Part 8. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add an OPTION allowing light rail
transit signal indications to control
preemption or priority control
movements for public transit buses in
‘‘queue jumper’’ lanes or bus rapid
transit in semi-exclusive or mixed-use
alignments. The FHWA proposes this
change to incorporate clarification into
the MUTCD consistent with FHWA
Official Interpretation #10–59(I) and
#10–66(I), to provide additional
flexibility to agencies seeking to reduce
driver confusion with traffic signals
intended to control only mass transit
vehicles.158
318. Following new Section 4D.27,
the FHWA proposes to add several
sections related to the flashing operation
of traffic signals. The proposed sections
are numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 4D.28
Flashing Operation of Traffic Control
Signals—General,’’ ‘‘Section 4D.29
Flashing Operation—Transition Into
Flashing Mode,’’ ‘‘Section 4D.30
Flashing Operation—Signal Indications
During Flashing Mode,’’ and ‘‘Section
4D.31 Flashing Operation—Transition
Out of Flashing Mode.’’ While much of
this information is contained in existing
sections of the MUTCD, the FHWA
proposes to edit, add new information,
and better organize the material to
provide clarity on the flashing operation
of traffic signals, including how to
transition into and out of flashing mode.
Significant additional changes to
existing material are described in items
319 through 322 below.
319. In Section 4D.28 Flashing
Operation of Traffic Control Signals—
General, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION allowing traffic control signals
to be operated in flashing mode on a
scheduled basis during one or more
periods of the day. The FHWA proposes
this change because more efficient
operations may be achieved if the signal
is set to flashing mode when steady
mode (stop and go) operation is not
needed. This change is consistent with
a similar proposed change in Section
4C.04 discussed in item 284 above.
158 FHWA’s Official Interpretations 10–59(I),
dated April 16, 2003, and 10–66(I), dated October
6, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet
Web sites: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/
interpretations/10_59.htm and https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/
10_66.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
320. In Section 4D.29 Flashing
Operation—Transition into Flashing
Mode, the FHWA proposes to add
information to the STANDARD for
terminating the flashing yellow arrow
signal indication when entering flashing
mode. The FHWA proposes this change
as part of the proposed addition of the
flashing yellow arrow indication for
permissive turns.
321. In Section 4D.30 Flashing
Operation—Signal Indications During
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposes to
include a paragraph in the STANDARD
statement that prohibits green signal
indications from being displayed when
a traffic control signal is operated in the
flashing mode, except for single-section
green arrow signal indications as noted
elsewhere in the section. The FHWA
proposes this paragraph to clarify
proper displays during flashing mode.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
STANDARD to allow a signal face
consisting of entirely arrow indications
to flash a yellow arrow indication if it
is intended that turns are to be
permitted after yielding, without a full
stop required, during flashing mode.
The FHWA proposes this change to
provide clarity that this application is
allowed.
322. In Section 4D.31 Flashing
Operation—Transition Out of the
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposes to
add a STANDARD requiring that no
steady green or flashing yellow
indication shall be terminated and
immediately followed by a steady red
indication without first displaying a
steady yellow indication. The FHWA
proposes this change to ensure that road
users receive adequate warning of the
onset of the red indication when the
signal is transitioning from flashing
mode to steady mode.
323. As part of the restructuring of
Chapter 4D, the FHWA proposes to
renumber and revise the titles of
existing Sections 4D.20, 4D.19, and
4D.21 to be ‘‘Section 4D.32 Temporary
and Portable Traffic Control Signals,’’
‘‘Section 4D.33 Lateral Offset of Signal
Supports and Cabinets,’’ and ‘‘Section
4D.34 Use of Signs at Signalized
Locations,’’ respectively.
324. In new Section 4D.34 Use of
Signs at Signalized Locations, the
FHWA proposes to add to the
GUIDANCE statement a
recommendation to use overhead lanecontrol signs where lane-drops,
multiple-lane turns, shared through and
turn lanes, or other lane-use regulations
that may be unexpected by unfamiliar
road users are present. The FHWA
proposes this change to enhance safety
by providing road users with highly
visible notice of the appropriate lane-
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
311
use regulations before approaching an
intersection where these unusual and
unexpected conditions exist. This
change also reflects safety studies as
documented in the FHWA report
‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’ 159 and recommendations from
the Older Driver handbook.160 The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
325. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following Section 4D.34.
The proposed new section is numbered
and titled ‘‘Section 4D.35 Use of
Pavement Markings at Signalized
Locations,’’ and contains paragraphs
relocated from Section 4D.01.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 4E
326. In Section 4E.02 Meaning of
Pedestrian Signal Head Indications, the
FHWA proposes to revise item B of the
STANDARD that defines the meaning of
the flashing UPRAISED HAND
pedestrian signal indication. First, the
FHWA proposes to allow pedestrians
that enter the intersection on a steady
WALKING PERSON indication to
proceed to the far side of the traveled
way unless otherwise directed by signs
or signals to proceed only to a median
or pedestrian refuge area. The FHWA
proposes this change to allow
pedestrians to cross an entire divided
highway and not have to stop at the
median if the signal has been timed to
provide sufficient time for pedestrians
to cross the entire highway. In cases
where the signal timing only provides
enough time for pedestrians to cross to
the median, signs or signals are required
to be provided to direct pedestrians
accordingly. The FHWA also proposes
changes in Section 4E.10 (see item 336
below) for consistency with this change.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
allow pedestrians to enter the
intersection when a countdown
pedestrian signal indication is shown
with the flashing UPRAISED HAND if
they are able to travel to the far side of
the traveled way or to a median by the
time a conflicting vehicular movement
is allowed to proceed. The FHWA
proposes this change because many
pedestrians walk faster than the walking
159 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’, FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–
04–091, August 2004, pages 292–293, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
160 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.M(1).
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
312
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
speeds used to calculate the length of
the pedestrian change interval;
therefore, many pedestrians are easily
able to begin their crossing after the
flashing UPRAISED HAND and
countdown period has started and
complete their crossing during the
displayed countdown period and the
additional buffer period of vehicular
yellow and red clearance intervals. As a
result, pedestrians should be permitted
to make their own determination of
whether or not they have sufficient time
to begin and complete their crossing
during the remaining pedestrian
clearance time. Some jurisdictions using
pedestrian countdown signals, such as
Salt Lake City, Utah, have adopted laws
and ordinances similar to the FHWA’s
proposal.161 The FHWA acknowledges
that this change will require a
coordinated change to the Uniform
Vehicle Code.
327. In Section 4E.03 Application of
Pedestrian Signal Heads, the FHWA
proposes to add a 2nd STANDARD
statement at the end of the section to
explicitly require a steady or flashing
red signal indication to be shown to any
conflicting vehicular movement
perpendicular to a crosswalk with an
associated pedestrian signal head
displaying either a steady WALKING
PERSON or flashing UPRAISED HAND
indication. The FHWA proposes this
addition to reflect sound engineering
practice.
328. In Section 4E.04 Size, Design,
and Illumination of Pedestrian Signal
Head Indications, the FHWA proposes
to revise the first STANDARD statement
to allow the use of a one-section
pedestrian signal head with the
WALKING PERSON and UPRAISED
HAND symbols overlaid upon each
other or side by side. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect Official
Interpretation #4–303,162 dated
February 3, 2006, which clarified that:
‘‘As long as the [signal head] properly
displays the individual upraised hand
and walking person indications, visible
as distinctly separate indications
meeting all other requirements (color,
shape, luminous intensity, etc.), the
light sources comprising the indications
may be overlaid on each other or they
may be side-by-side.’’ The FHWA
proposes to change Figure 4E–1 Typical
161 Salt Lake City ordinance 12.32.055, Pedestrian
Signal Indications, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://66.113.195.234/UT/
Salt%20Lake%20City/11008000000007000.htm.
162 Official Interpretation #4–303 can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/
4_303.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
Pedestrian Signal Indications to reflect
this change.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement
recommending that some form of
automatic dimming be used to reduce
the brilliance of the pedestrian signal
indication if the indication is so bright
as to cause excessive glare in nighttime
conditions. The FHWA proposes this
new recommendation to avoid glare
conditions, which can reduce the
visibility of the indications at night,
similar to the existing GUIDANCE for
vehicular signal indications in Chapter
4D.
329. Both the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Section 504) and the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990 require
that facilities, programs and services be
accessible to persons with disabilities.
The FHWA proposes changes to
Sections 4E.06, 4E.08, and 4E.09 of
MUTCD regarding communication of
pedestrian signal information to
pedestrians with vision, vision and
hearing, or cognitive disabilities to
reflect research 163 conducted under
NCHRP 3–62, Accessible Pedestrian
Signals, and a 5-year project on Blind
Pedestrians’ Access to Complex
Intersections sponsored by the National
Institutes of Health, National Eye
Institute, that has demonstrated that
certain techniques most accurately
communicate information. The
proposed changes also result in making
accessible pedestrian detectors easy to
locate and actuate by persons with
visual or mobility impairments.
Significant proposed changes to existing
material are described in item 330 and
items 332 through 335 below.
330. In Section 4E.06 Accessible
Pedestrian Signals, the FHWA proposes
to change the second STANDARD to
require both audible and vibrotactile
walk indications, and to add
requirements on how audible and
vibrotactile walk indications are to be
provided. The FHWA proposes that
audible indications shall not be
provided during the pedestrian change
interval because research 164 has found
that visually disabled pedestrians need
to concentrate on the sounds of traffic
movement while they are crossing and
audible indications of the flashing
UPRAISED HAND interval would be
distracting from that task. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good
163 Research reports on this topic can be viewed
at the U.S. Access Board’s Internet Web site at:
https://www.access-board.gov/research/aps.htm.
164 Research reports on this topic can be viewed
at the U.S. Access Board’s Internet Web site at:
https://www.access-board.gov/research/aps.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the existing 4th GUIDANCE statement
regarding the loudness of audible
pedestrian walk signals to a
STANDARD. The new STANDARD
bases the loudness of an audible
pedestrian walk signal on the ambient
sound level and provides for louder
volume adjustment in response to an
extended pushbutton press. The FHWA
proposes these changes to allow the
audible pedestrian walk signals to be
heard over the ambient sound level, and
to allow pedestrians with hearing
impairments to receive a louder audible
walk signal. The FHWA also proposes to
add to this STANDARD that an
accessible walk signal shall have the
same duration as the pedestrian walk
signal unless the pedestrian signal rests
in the walk phase and add subsequent
GUIDANCE regarding the recommended
duration and operation of the accessible
walk signal if the pedestrian signal rests
in the walk phase. The FHWA proposes
this change to clarify that the duration
of accessible walk signals is dependent
on whether the signal controller is set to
rest in walk or steady don’t walk in the
absence of conflicting demands.
Following the new STANDARD
statement, the FHWA proposes to add
new GUIDANCE, OPTION, and
SUPPORT statements regarding the
duration, tone, and speech messages of
audible walk indications in order to
clarify their use and application.
The FHWA proposes to modify the
existing 4th STANDARD to require that
speech walk messages only be used
where it is technically infeasible to
install two accessible pedestrian signals
at one corner with the minimum
required separation. The STANDARD
also contains requirements for what
information is allowed in speech
messages. The FHWA also proposes a
GUIDANCE statement that recommends
that the speech messages not state or
imply a command. The FHWA proposes
these changes to clarify when and under
what circumstances speech walk
messages are to be used. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes deleting the
existing last SUPPORT, STANDARD,
and GUIDANCE statements from this
section and replacing them with
information regarding the use of audible
beaconing as an additional feature that
may be provided as a result of an
extended pushbutton press. The FHWA
proposes adding this information,
because while they can be valuable,
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
activating audible beaconing features at
multiple crosswalks at the same
intersection can be confusing to visually
disabled pedestrians, and therefore
audible beaconing should be activated
only when needed.
331. In Section 4E.07 Countdown
Pedestrian Signals, the FHWA proposes
changing the option of using pedestrian
countdown displays to a requirement
for new installations of pedestrian
signals. The proposed STANDARD
requires the use of countdown displays
at all pedestrian signals except where
the duration of the pedestrian change
interval is less than 3 seconds. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for the addition of
pedestrian countdown displays to
existing pedestrian signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. The
FHWA proposes this change to provide
enhanced pedestrian safety because a
multi-year research project involving
crash data for hundreds of locations in
San Francisco 165 showed significant
overall safety benefits and substantial
reductions in the number of pedestrianvehicle crashes when countdown
signals are used, as compared to
locations that did not have the
countdowns.
In addition, the FHWA proposes a
new STANDARD after the first
paragraph of the GUIDANCE that
requires that a pedestrian countdown
signal be dark when the duration of the
green interval for a concurrent vehicular
movement has intentionally been set to
continue beyond the end of the
pedestrian change interval. The FHWA
proposes this change to ensure
consistency with normal pedestrian
signal operations, which requires the
countdown display to be dark whenever
the steady UPRAISED HAND is
displayed.
332. In Section 4E.08 Pedestrian
Detectors, the FHWA proposes changing
the first GUIDANCE statement regarding
the location of a pedestrian pushbutton
to a STANDARD and adding criteria
that are to be met for the location of
pushbuttons. The FHWA proposes to
add GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements that contain additional
information for locations where
constraints make meeting some of the
criteria impractical. The FHWA
proposes these changes to make
pedestrian pushbuttons more accessible
to disabled pedestrians and to
165 ‘‘Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience
With an Extensive Pilot Installation,’’ by
Markowitz, Sciortino, Fleck, and Yee, published in
ITE Journal, January 2006, pages 43–48, is available
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.ite.org.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
pedestrians in general. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 15 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes
modifying the existing first STANDARD
statement to require accessible
pedestrian pushbuttons mounted on the
same pole to be provided with the
accessible features described in Section
4E.09 of the MUTCD. The FHWA also
proposes to change the following
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD
to require that the positioning of the
pushbuttons and legends on the signs
clearly indicate which crosswalk signal
is activated by which pushbutton. The
FHWA proposes these changes to
eliminate ambiguity regarding which
pushbutton a pedestrian must activate
to cross a particular street. The FHWA
also proposes to add to the existing last
STANDARD statement that a when a
pilot light is used at an accessible
pedestrian signal location, each
actuation shall be accompanied by the
speech message ‘‘wait.’’ The FHWA
proposes this change to ensure that the
activation confirmation is available to
pedestrians with impaired vision.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD statement at the end of the
section requiring a FOR MORE
CROSSING TIME: HOLD BUTTON
DOWN FOR 2 SECONDS (R10–32P) sign
if additional crossing time is provided
by means of an extended pushbutton
press. The FHWA proposes this change
to ensure that pedestrians receive
instructions of the use of this feature
and are made aware of the feature’s
existence.
With the exception of the 15 year
period proposed for the new
requirements regarding locations of
pedestrian pushbuttons, for the other
new or revised provisions in Section
4E.08, the FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
333. In Section 4E.09 Accessible
Pedestrian Signal Detectors, the FHWA
proposes to modify the second
STANDARD to require pushbutton
locator tones at accessible pedestrian
signals. As part of this change, the
FHWA proposes to change the following
GUIDANCE statement regarding locator
tones to a STANDARD. The FHWA
proposes this change consistent with
item 330 above. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to change the first paragraph of
the existing first GUIDANCE statement
regarding tactile arrows to a
STANDARD, and relocate it within the
section. The FHWA proposes modifying
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
313
the remainder of the GUIDANCE
statement to reduce redundancy.
The FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD that requires locator tones,
tactile arrows, speech walk messages,
and a speech pushbutton informational
message when two accessible pedestrian
pushbuttons are placed on the same
pole. Additionally, if the clearance time
is sufficient to only cross to the median
of a divided highway, an accessible
pedestrian detector shall be provided on
the median. The FWHA proposes these
changes consistent with item 332 above.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
paragraph to the existing 3rd OPTION
statement allowing the use of an
extended pushbutton press to activate
additional accessible features at a
pedestrian crosswalk. The FHWA
proposes to follow this new paragraph
with a new STANDARD statement that
sets requirements for the amount of time
a pushbutton shall be pressed to activate
the extra features.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD statement at the end of the
section requiring that speech
pushbutton information messages only
play when the walk interval is not
timing. Requirements regarding the
content of these messages are also
contained in this new STANDARD. The
FHWA proposes this change to promote
uniformity in the content of speech
messages.
For the new or revised provisions of
Section 4E.09, the FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
334. The FHWA also proposes to
revise existing Figure 4E–2 to show a
general layout of recommended
pushbutton locations. The FHWA
proposes to add a new Figure numbered
and titled, ‘‘Figure 4E–3 Typical
Pushbutton Locations’’ that shows 8
examples of pushbutton locations for
various sidewalk, ramp, and corner
configurations. The FHWA proposes
these additional figures to help clarify
appropriate locations under different
geometric conditions.
335. In Section 4E.10 Pedestrian
Intervals and Signal Phases, the FHWA
proposes to revise the first STANDARD
to require the steady UPRAISED HAND
indication to be displayed during the
yellow change interval and the red
clearance interval if used as part of the
pedestrian clearance time. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent
with the proposed change in Section
4E.07 to require countdown pedestrian
signal displays. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signals in good condition to
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
314
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
first GUIDANCE statement for
calculating pedestrian clearance times
to use slower walking speeds, except
where extended pushbutton presses or
passive pedestrian detection has been
installed for slower pedestrians to
request additional crossing time as
noted in the OPTION. Another proposed
GUIDANCE statement notes that a lower
speed should be considered if
significant numbers of pedestrians in
wheelchairs or slower pedestrians are
present. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide enhanced pedestrian
safety, based on recent research 166
regarding pedestrian walking speeds.
In addition, based on the same
research, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement recommending
that the total of the walk phase and
pedestrian clearance time should be
long enough to allow a pedestrian to
walk from the pedestrian detector to the
opposite edge of the traveled way at a
speed of 0.9 meters (3 feet) per second.
The FHWA proposes this change to
ensure that slower pedestrians can be
accommodated at longer crosswalks if
they start crossing at the beginning of
the walk phase.
For the changes in recommended
walking speeds and method of
determining pedestrian timing, the
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing signals in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the last existing GUIDANCE to a
STANDARD to require, rather than
merely recommend, that medianmounted pedestrian signals, signing,
and pushbuttons (if actuated) be
provided when the pedestrian clearance
time is sufficient only for crossing from
the curb or shoulder to a median of
sufficient width for a pedestrian to wait.
The FHWA proposes this change to
assure that pedestrians who must wait
on a median or island are provided the
means to actuate a pedestrian phase to
complete the second half of their
crossing. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signals in good condition to
166 Pedestrian walking speed research was
included in ‘‘Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Unsignalized Pedestrian Crossings,’’ TCRP Report
112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation Research
Board, 2006, which can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf. Also see the
article ‘‘The Continuing Evolution of Pedestrian
Walking Speed Assumptions,’’ by LaPlante and
Kaeser, ITE Journal, September 2004, pages 32–40,
available from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Web site: https://www.ite.org.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement that allows a leading
pedestrian interval when a high volume
of pedestrians and turning vehicles are
present. As indicated in the FHWA
report ‘‘Signalized Intersections:
Informational Guide,’’ 167 several studies
have demonstrated that leading
pedestrian intervals can significantly
reduce conflicts for pedestrians. The
FHWA also proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement that gives a
recommended minimum length of the
leading pedestrian interval, reflecting
recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook,168 and the traffic control
devices that should be used to prevent
turning vehicles from crossing the path
of pedestrians during this leading
interval.
Finally, the FHWA proposes an
OPTION statement that permits the
green time for the concurrent vehicular
movement to be set longer than the
pedestrian change interval to allow
vehicles to complete turns after the
pedestrian phase. The FHWA proposes
these changes to include this
application in the MUTCD that is used
by many jurisdictions, and
recommended by the Older Driver
handbook 169 to reduce conflicts
between pedestrians and turning motor
vehicles.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapters 4F through 4L
336. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter to Part 4, numbered and
titled, ‘‘Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid
Signals.’’ The proposed new chapter
would have three sections that describe
the application, design, and operation of
pedestrian hybrid signals. A pedestrian
hybrid signal is a special type of hybrid
signal used to warn and control traffic
at an unsignalized location to assist
pedestrians in crossing a street or
highway at a marked crosswalk. A
pedestrian hybrid signal contains a
circular yellow signal indication
centered below two circular red signal
indications, and shall be dark except
when activated. The remaining Chapters
167 ‘‘Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide’’, FHWA publication number FHWA–HRT–
04–091, August 2004, pages 197–198, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
168 ‘‘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:
https://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.P(6).
169 This 2001 report can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.tfhrc.gov/
humanfac/01105/01–051.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in Part 4 would be re-lettered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this
addition to give agencies additional
flexibility by providing an alternative
method for control of pedestrian
crosswalks that has been found by
research 170 to be highly effective. This
type of device has been used
successfully for many years in Tucson,
Arizona, where it is known as a ‘‘HAWK
Signal.’’ This type of device offers
significant benefits for providing
enhanced safety of pedestrian crossings
where normal traffic control signals
would not be warranted. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
337. As part of this new Chapter, the
FHWA proposes to add three new
figures. Proposed Figures 4F–1 and 4F–
2 contain guidelines for the justification
of installation of pedestrian hybrid
signals on low speed and high speed
roadways, respectively. Proposed Figure
4F–3 shows the proposed sequence of
intervals for a pedestrian hybrid signal.
338. The FHWA proposes changing
the title of existing Chapter 4F (new
Chapter 4G) to ‘‘Traffic Control Signals
and Hybrid Signals for Emergency
Vehicle Access’’ to reflect the proposed
addition of hybrid signals to this
chapter.
339. In existing Section 4F.01 (new
Section 4G.01) Application of
Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control
Signals and Hybrid Signals, the FHWA
proposes adding a paragraph to the
OPTION statement to allow an
emergency-vehicle hybrid signal to be
installed in place of an emergencyvehicle traffic control signal under the
conditions described in Section 4G.04.
The FHWA proposes this change to
accommodate emergency-vehicle hybrid
signals as proposed to be added as
described below.
340. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
4F.03 (new Section 4G.03). The
proposed new section is numbered and
titled ‘‘Section 4G.04 EmergencyVehicle Hybrid Signals’’ and contains
STANDARDS for this type of traffic
signal which will be used in
conjunction with signs to warn and
control traffic at an unsignalized
location where emergency vehicles
enter or cross the street or highway. An
emergency-vehicle hybrid signal
contains a circular yellow signal
170 ‘‘Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized
Pedestrian Crossings,’’ TCRP Report 112/NCHRP
Report 562, Transportation Research Board, 2006,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
indication centered below two circular
red signal indications, and shall be dark
except when activated. The FHWA had
proposed the addition of a somewhat
similar device, the Emergency Beacon,
for the 2003 edition of the MUTCD but
decided not to include it in the Final
Rule due to various concerns about
some details of the device’s design and
operational features and alleged
insufficient experience with the device.
Since that time, additional experience
has been gained with this type of device
and the current proposal to add the
Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Signal is
revised from the previous proposal to
address the earlier design and
operational issues. The FHWA believes
that hybrid signals provide an effective,
alternative method to control traffic at
some locations where emergency
vehicles enter and cross roadways. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signals in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
341. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Figure 4G–1 that illustrates the
Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Signal.
342. In existing Section 4H.01 (new
Section 4I.01) Application of Freeway
Entrance Ramp Control Signals, the
FHWA proposes to delete unnecessary
descriptive language and instead add a
SUPPORT statement referring the reader
to FHWA’s ‘‘Ramp Management and
Control Handbook’’ 171 for information
on conditions that might justify freeway
entrance ramp control signals. The
FHWA proposes this change because
this publication, which was released
after the 2003 MUTCD was published, is
the appropriate place for the
information rather than in the MUTCD.
343. In existing Section 4H.02 (new
Section 4I.02) Design of Freeway
Entrance Ramp Control Signals, the
FHWA proposes to clarify the
STANDARD by requiring the use of at
least two signal faces per ramp on a
single lane ramp or a multiple lane
ramp where green signal indications are
always displayed simultaneously. On a
ramp with multiple lanes where the
green signal indications are not always
displayed simultaneously, (as is the case
in some staggered-release ramp metering
situations in which one lane receives
the green while the other lane is
stopped and then the other lane receives
the green while the first lane is
stopped), the FHWA proposes to require
two signal faces per lane or group of
171 ‘‘Ramp Management and Control Handbook,’’
dated January 2006, FHWA Publication # FHWA–
HOP–06–001 can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/
manual/default.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
315
lanes. The FHWA proposes this change
to incorporate Official Interpretation
#4–294(I) 172 into the MUTCD, which
ensures that each separately controlled
lane or group of lanes has at least two
signal faces displayed. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add an
OPTION to allow ramp control signals
to control some, but not all lanes on a
ramp. The FHWA proposes this change
to reflect the current practice in many
jurisdictions of providing HOV bypass
lanes on ramps. Also, the FHWA
proposes to add text to allow the two
required signal faces to be mounted on
the side of the roadway on the same
pole when only one lane is controlled.
The second signal face may be mounted
lower than the normal mounting height.
The FHWA proposes this change to
incorporate existing practice in many
ramp metering systems, designed to
avoid motorist confusion that could
arise if a signal were mounted on the
side of the ramp where the lane is not
controlled by the signal, due to the
standard lateral separation
requirements.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement recommending
that appropriate regulatory signs such as
ONE VEHICLE PER GREEN should be
installed adjacent to the signal face, and
that special measures should be
considered for freeway to freeway
ramps. The FHWA proposes these
changes to reflect the current practices
in most jurisdictions that operate ramp
metering systems.
344. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following new Section
4I.02. The proposed new section is
numbered and titled ‘‘Section 4I.03
Operation of Freeway Entrance Ramp
Control Signals’’ and contains
GUIDANCE recommending that the
operational strategies for ramp control
signals should be determined prior to
their installation, and that a RAMP
METERED WHEN FLASHING (W3–7)
sign with a warning beacon should be
used for a ramp meter that is only used
during certain portions of the day. The
FHWA proposes these changes to ensure
that a proper operating strategy has been
developed and that road users are
alerted to the presence and operation of
part time ramp meters.
345. In existing Section 4I.02 (new
Section 4J.02) Design and Location of
Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, the
FHWA proposes to revise the first
STANDARD to require the use of 300
mm (12 in) diameter signal indications
on all new movable bridge signals, and
remove the option of using 200 mm (8
in) signal indications. The FHWA
proposes this change to maintain
consistency with the proposed changes
in new Section 4D.05 that require the
use of 300 mm (12 in) diameter signal
indications for new signal faces. The
FHWA also proposes to revise the
STANDARD statement to require that a
stop line be installed on signalized
approaches to a movable span to
indicate the point behind which
vehicles are required to stop. The
FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with other proposed changes
throughout the MUTCD that require a
stop line.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
4th paragraph of the existing 2nd
STANDARD to indicate that the stripes
on movable bridge warning gates shall
be vertical. The FHWA proposes this
change to be consistent with other
proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10 and
the new Section 2L.06 that require
vertical, rather than diagonal, stripes on
warning gates. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
346. In existing Section 4I.03 (new
Section 4J.03) Operation of Movable
Bridge Signals and Gates, the FHWA
proposes to add to the GUIDANCE
statement that traffic signals on adjacent
streets or highways that are
interconnected with drawbridge control
should be preempted by the operation of
the movable bridge in accordance with
Section 4D.27. The FHWA proposes to
add this language to ensure proper
preemption when appropriate.
347. The FHWA proposes to add a
new chapter to Part 4 titled, ‘‘Chapter
4K Toll Plaza Traffic Signals.’’ The
remaining chapters would be relettered
accordingly. This new chapter includes
OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and
SUPPORT statements for traffic control
signals in toll plazas. Items such as the
number and size of signal faces, the
phases which may be displayed, and the
applications of toll plaza traffic signals
to toll plaza operations are discussed in
this chapter. The FHWA proposes this
addition as a result of the
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best
Practices and Recommendations
Report 173 and to provide additional
172 Official Interpretation # 4–294(I), dated
September 30, 2005, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/pdf/4_294.pdf.
173 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
Continued
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
316
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
consistency and uniformity of such
displays for road users. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
348. In existing Section 4K.02 (new
Section 4L.02) Intersection Control
Beacon, the FHWA proposes to add to
the STANDARD statement that that two
horizontally aligned red signal
indications shall be flashed
simultaneously, and two vertically
aligned red signal indications shall be
flashed alternately. The FHWA proposes
this change to avoid horizontally
aligned red signal indications in an
intersection control beacon from being
confused with highway-rail grade
crossing flashing-light signals, and to be
consistent with the existing requirement
for stop beacons in existing Section
4K.05 (new Section 4L.05).
349. In existing Section 4K.03 (new
Section 4L.03) Warning Beacon, the
FHWA proposes to add an item to the
SUPPORT statement to add the typical
use of Warning Beacons in conjunction
with a regulatory or warning sign that
includes the phrase WHEN FLASHING
in its legend to indicate that the
regulation is in effect or that the
condition is present only at certain
times.
The FHWA also proposes to add to
the GUIDANCE statement that warning
beacons used on toll plaza canopies to
call attention to signs denoting
electronic toll collection lanes should be
distinctly separate from lane-use control
signals. The FHWA proposes this
change as a result of the Toll Plazas Best
Practices and Recommendations
Report 174 and to reflect the new
standard requiring a lane-use control
signal above all non-open-road
electronic toll collection lanes. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add to the OPTION statement that
Warning Beacons that are activated by
bicycles and pedestrians may be used as
appropriate to provide additional
warning to approaching vehicles. The
FHWA proposes this change to clarify
the allowable use of pedestrian-actuated
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
174 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
beacons, per FHWA Official
Interpretation # 4–269.175
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement allowing Warning
Beacons mounted on toll plaza islands,
on toll plaza impact attenuators, and on
toll booth ramparts to be mounted at a
height which is appropriate for viewing
in the toll plaza context, even if that
height is lower than the normal
minimum height above the pavement.
The FHWA proposes this change as a
result of the recommendations in the
Toll Plaza Best Practices and
Recommendations Report.176
350. In existing Section 4K.05 (new
Section 4L.05) Stop Beacon, the FHWA
proposes to add to the STANDARD that
a Stop Beacon shall be used only to
supplement a STOP sign, a DO NOT
ENTER sign, or a WRONG WAY sign.
The FHWA proposes this addition to
reflect the meaning of a flashing red
indication and for consistency with
existing Section 4K.03 (new Section
4L.03). As part of this proposed change,
the FHWA proposes to add to the last
paragraph of the STANDARD that the
mounting height range for the bottom of
the signal housing or a Stop Beacon also
applies to the top of a DO NOT ENTER
sign or a WRONG WAY sign, in
addition to a STOP sign.
351. In existing Section 4J.01 (new
Section 4M.01) Application of Lane-Use
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to
add a STANDARD statement requiring
lane-use control signals to indicate lane
open/lane closed status at toll plazas in
lanes that are not Open Road electronic
toll collection lanes. The FHWA also
proposes an OPTION statement that
allows the use of these signals in Open
Road electronic toll collection lanes.
The FHWA proposes these changes as a
result of the recommendations in the
Toll Plaza Best Practices and
Recommendations Report.177 Although
some toll facilities use red-yellow-green
traffic signal indications to indicate lane
open/lane closed status, this is an
antiquated and non-conforming practice
because for several decades the MUTCD
has required the use of standard red X
and downward-pointing green arrow
lane-use control signal indications for
175 FHWA Official Interpretation # 4–269, dated
June 3, 2004, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/pdf/4_269.pdf.
176 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
177 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this specific purpose. The FHWA
proposes a 10-year phase-in compliance
period for this requirement for existing
toll plazas to minimize any impacts on
State or local highway agencies.
352. In existing Section 4J.03 (new
Section 4M.03) Design of Lane-Use
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to
add an Option to the existing
STANDARD that requires that the
bottom of the signal housing of any
lane-use control signal face be at least
4.6 m (15 ft) above the pavement. The
proposed OPTION would allow the
signal to be mounted lower above a toll
plaza lane. If the toll plaza canopy has
a lower vertical clearance above the
roadway than 4.6 m (15 ft), that
clearance controls the height of vehicles
that can use the lane and thus the laneuse control signal can be mounted
below a height of 4.6 m (15 ft) as long
as it is not lower than the bottom of the
canopy. The FHWA proposes this
change as a result of the
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best
Practices and Recommendations
Report.178
353. In existing Section 4L.01 (new
Section 4N.01) Application of InRoadway Lights, the FHWA proposes to
add to the STANDARD statement that
In-Roadway Lights shall only be used
for applications described in this
chapter. The FHWA also proposes to
add to the STANDARD that In-Roadway
Lights be flashed and not steadily
illuminated. The FHWA proposes these
changes to preclude the use of InRoadway Lights for any purpose not
included in this chapter because such
uses have not yet been sufficiently
tested to confirm their effectiveness and
because steadily illuminated lights
could be confused with internally
illuminated raised pavement markings.
354. In Section 4L.02 (new Section
4N.02) In-Roadway Warning Lights at
Crosswalks, the FHWA proposes to
revise the GUIDANCE statement to
account for the lower pedestrian
walking speeds proposed elsewhere in
Part 4 and to ensure consistency in
walking speeds used to calculate
pedestrian intervals. The FHWA also
proposes to add a STANDARD
statement that if pedestrian pushbuttons
are used to actuate the In-Roadway
Lights, a PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON
WARNING LIGHTS sign shall be
mounted adjacent to or integral with
each pedestrian pushbutton. The FHWA
proposes this change to direct users on
how to activate the In-Roadway Lights.
178 ‘‘State of the Practice and Recommendations
on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,’’ June
2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The FHWA also proposes to add a
STANDARD statement requiring
median-mounted pedestrian detectors
when the period of operation is
sufficient for crossing only from a curb
or shoulder to the median of a divided
highway. The FHWA proposes this
change to ensure that pedestrians who
only cross to the median can actuate the
In-Roadway Lights to warn motorists for
the remainder of their crossing, and for
consistency with similar proposed
changes in Section 4E.10.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing In-Roadway Lights in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 5 Traffic Control Devices for LowVolume Roads
355. In Section 5A.01 Function, the
FHWA proposes to change item B of the
STANDARD statement to prohibit
classifying a residential street in a
neighborhood as a low-volume road for
the purposes of Part 5 of the MUTCD.
The FHWA proposes this change to
provide consistency with item A of the
STANDARD which states that lowvolume roads shall be facilities lying
outside the built-up area of Cities,
towns, and communities.
356. In Section 5C.04 Stop Ahead and
Yield Ahead Signs, the FHWA proposes
to delete the OPTION statement that
allows word message signs to be used as
an alternative to symbol signs. The
FHWA proposes this change because the
use of word message Stop Ahead and
Yield Ahead signs are no longer
permitted. This corresponds with a
proposed change in Chapter 2C.
357. In Section 5C.07 Hill Sign, the
FHWA proposes to delete the 2nd
paragraph of the OPTION statement that
permits confining the use of the Hill
sign on low-volume roads to roads
where commercial or recreational
vehicles are anticipated. The FHWA
proposes this change to emphasize that
the use of the Hill sign should be based
on the results of an engineering study of
vehicles and road characteristics, as
stated in the first paragraph of the
OPTION statement.
358. The FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Section 5E.05 Object Markers to
Chapter 5C. The section will be
numbered and titled ‘‘Section 5C.14
Object Markers and Barricades.’’ The
FHWA proposes this change in order to
locate the subject material with other
sections in Part 5 that deal with signs.
This change coincides with the
proposed relocation of object markers
and barricades from Part 3 to Part 2 of
the MUTCD.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
359. In Section 5F.02 Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and
Number of Tracks Plaque, the FHWA
proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of
the STANDARD statement to clarify that
the measurement for the strip of
retroreflective material that is to be
placed on each support is to be from the
Crossbuck sign or the Number of Tracks
sign to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the
ground. The FHWA proposes this
change to be consistent with similar
proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10.
360. In Section 5F.03 Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs,
the FHWA proposes several changes to
the section to reflect that a
supplemental plaque describing the
type of traffic control at a highway-rail
grade crossing shall be used on all lowvolume roads in advance of every
crossing. The FHWA proposes these
changes to be consistent with similar
proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10.
361. In Section 5F.04 STOP and
YIELD Signs, the FHWA proposes
several changes to the section regarding
the use and application of STOP signs
or YIELD signs at highway-rail grade
crossings. The FHWA proposes these
changes to be consistent with similar
proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10 (see
more detailed discussions below).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Part 6—General
362. The FHWA proposes to revise
the Code of Federal Regulations to
delete 23 CFR Part 634 regarding
Worker Visibility. The FHWA proposes
this change in order to incorporate those
provisions into the MUTCD, which is
applicable to all public roads. As such,
23 CFR Part 634 would no longer be
needed because its requirements would
be incorporated into the MUTCD, and
therefore, applicable to all roads open to
public travel in accordance with 23 CFR
Part 655, not just Federal-aid highways.
363. The FHWA proposes to revise
the first SUPPORT statement in Chapter
6A to indicate that the acronym ‘‘TTC,’’
meaning Temporary Traffic Control,
applies to all of Part 6. In conjunction,
the FHWA would delete the first
SUPPORT statement from the remaining
Chapters in Part 6 because it is
repetitive.
364. The FHWA proposes to revise
the first STANDARD statement in
Chapter 6A to indicate that the needs
and control of all road users through a
TTC zone apply to all public facilities
and on private property open to public
travel, in addition to highways. The
FHWA proposes this change to
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
317
incorporate FHWA’s Final Rule to 23
CFR Part 655, dated December 14, 2006,
which provided clarification on the
meaning of roads ‘‘open to public
travel.’’ 179 The FHWA would delete the
first STANDARD statement from the
remaining Chapters in Part 6 because it
repeats this information, which is not
necessary.
365. The FHWA proposes to update
the figures throughout Part 6 to reflect
proposed new or revised signs in Part 2
that are applicable to Temporary Traffic
Control Zones.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapters 6A through 6E
366. In Section 6B.01 Fundamental
Principles of Temporary Traffic Control,
the FHWA proposes to clarify items F
and G of the second GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that it is on highvolume streets and highways that
roadway occupancy should be
scheduled during off-peak hours and
that if significant impacts to roadway
operations are anticipated, early
coordination should occur with officials
having jurisdiction over the affected
streets and providing emergency
services. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide agencies with more
flexibility in allowing roadway
occupancy, particularly for work on
local residential streets and other low
volume streets where temporary traffic
control does not cause a problem during
peak hours and to encourage
communication.
367. In Section 6C.04 Advance
Warning Area, the FHWA proposes to
add information regarding sign spacing
to the end of the GUIDANCE statement,
as well as add a new SUPPORT
statement. The FHWA proposes these
changes to reinforce that the distances
contained in Table 6C–1 are for
guidance purposes and should be
considered minimum, and that the
recommended distances should be
increased based on field conditions.
368. In Section 6C.08 Tapers, the
FHWA proposes to add to the last
GUIDANCE statement that the length of
a short taper should be a minimum of
15 m (50 ft). In addition, the FHWA
proposes to add that a downstream taper
with a length of approximately 30 m
(100 ft) should be used to guide traffic
back into their original lane. The FHWA
proposes these changes to provide
practitioners with more information
179 The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule,
dated December 14, 2006, (Volume 65, Number 70,
Page 75111–75115) can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de066.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
318
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
regarding taper lengths. In particular,
this proposed change provides a
minimum length for a ‘‘short taper,’’
because no length had been provided in
the past, and to reflect the use of a
‘‘downstream taper’’ as has been shown
in various existing figures in Part 6.
369. In Table 6C–3 Taper Length
Criteria for Temporary Traffic Control
Zones, the FHWA proposes to add a
minimum taper length for one-lane,
two-way traffic tapers. The existing
table contained only a maximum length,
and the FHWA believes that it is
important to also state a minimum
length. In concert with this change, the
FHWA proposes to add minimum taper
lengths to existing Figures 6H–10, 6H–
11, 6H–12, 6H–18 and 6H–27 (new
Figures 6I–10, 6I–11, 6I–12, 6I–18 and
6I–27).
370. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, TwoWay Traffic Control, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement
that explicitly allows for the movement
of traffic through a one-lane, two-way
constriction to be self-regulating,
provided that the work space is short,
on a low-volume street or road, and that
road users from both directions are able
to see the traffic approaching from the
opposite direction through and beyond
the work site. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide practitioners with
more flexibility on low-volume, lowspeed roads.
371. In Section 6C.11 Flagger Method
of One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control,
the FHWA proposes to add to the first
GUIDANCE statement that traffic should
be controlled by a flagger at each end of
a constricted section of roadway, unless
a one-lane, two-way TTC zone is short
enough to allow a flagger to see from
one end of the zone to the other. The
FHWA proposes this change to
emphasize that the preferred method of
flagger control is to use two flaggers.
372. The FHWA proposes relocating
the information from existing Section
6F.54 regarding the PILOT CAR
FOLLOW ME Sign and flaggers in
activity areas where a pilot car is being
used, to Section 6C.13 Pilot Car Method
of One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control.
The FHWA proposes this change
because the information is specific to
pilot cars, which are covered in Section
6C.13.
373. The FHWA proposes to relocate
several paragraphs related to accessible
pedestrian facilities from Section 6D.01
Pedestrian Considerations to Section
6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, in
order to consolidate related information
into one section.
374. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian
Considerations, the FHWA proposes to
add to the existing 2nd STANDARD
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
statement that accessibility and
detectability shall be maintained along
an alternate pedestrian route if a TTC
zone affects an accessible and detectable
pedestrian facility. The FHWA proposes
this change to reflect the provisions of
ADAAG.180 Although this requirement
is already included in Section 6G.11,
the FHWA adds it to this section
because it is a pedestrian consideration,
and therefore, consistent with the
content of this section. As part of this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to delete the first sentence of the 3rd
GUIDANCE statement, which conflicts
with the proposed STANDARD.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
delete the 3rd STANDARD statement
regarding the requirement for TTC
devices to be crashworthy because that
requirement is covered in other sections
and does not need to be repeated here.
375. In Section 6D.03 Worker Safety
Considerations, the FHWA proposes to
delete item B in the GUIDANCE
statement because it would be
superseded by new statements that the
FHWA proposes adding later in the
section. The FHWA proposes adding a
new STANDARD statement to
incorporate into the MUTCD the
provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 regarding
the use of high-visibility safety apparel
by workers within the public right-ofway that were published in the Federal
Register on November 24, 2006.181 The
FHWA also proposes adding a new first
paragraph to the existing OPTION
statement that allows first responders
and law enforcement personnel to use
safety apparel meeting a newly
developed American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standard for ‘‘public
safety vests’’ because this type of vest
will better meet the special needs of
these personnel. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 2 years
for worker apparel on non-Federal-aid
highways to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. A
compliance date of November 24, 2008
has already been established for worker
apparel on Federal-aid highways as a
result of 23 CFR Part 634.
376. In Section 6E.02 High-Visibility
Safety Apparel, the FHWA proposes to
make several changes regarding the use
of high-visibility safety apparel by
flaggers during daytime and nighttime
180 The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.accessboard.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
181 The Federal Registrar Notice for the Final
Rule, dated November 24, 2006 (Volume 71,
Number 226, Page 67792–67800) can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6–
19910.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
activity, as well as law by enforcement
personnel within a TTC zone, to reflect
the provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 that
were published in the Federal Register
on November 24, 2006.182 The FHWA
also proposes adding a new OPTION
statement that allows first responders
and law enforcement personnel to use
safety apparel meeting a newly
developed ANSI standard for ‘‘public
safety vests’’ because this type of vest
will better meet their special needs. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 2 years for worker apparel on
non-Federal-aid highways to minimize
any impact on state or local highway
agencies. A compliance date of
November 24, 2008 has already been
established for worker apparel on
Federal-aid highways as a result of 23
CFR Part 634.
377. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling
Devices, the FHWA proposes to change
the first SUPPORT statement to a
STANDARD, and modify the text to
require that flaggers use a STOP/SLOW
paddle, a red flag, or an Automated
Flagger Assistance Device to control
road users through TTC zones. The
FHWA proposes this change in order to
require that one of the three listed
devices be used, and to explicitly delete
‘hand signaling’ from the list of
permitted methods to control traffic. See
item 379 below for additional
discussion.
The FHWA also proposes to add
SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements
prior to the first OPTION statement to
clarify that it is optimal to place a
STOP/SLOW paddle on a rigid staff,
with minimum length of 2.1 m (7 ft), in
order to display a STOP or SLOW
message that is stable and high enough
to be seen by approaching or stopped
traffic. The FHWA proposes the new
language to add clarity to the use of the
staff because the STOP/SLOW paddle is
shown on a staff in existing Figure 6E–
1, however, there is no language in the
existing text regarding the use of the
staff.
378. The FHWA proposes to add three
new sections following Section 6E.03.
The first new section is numbered and
titled, ‘‘Section 6E.04 Automated
Flagger Assistance Devices.’’ This new
section contains SUPPORT,
STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION
statements describing the use of
Automated Flagger Assistance Devices
(AFADs). AFADs are optional devices
182 The Federal Registrar Notice for the Final
Rule, dated November 24, 2006 (Volume 71,
Number 226, Page 67792–67800) can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6–
19910.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
that enable a flagger(s) to be positioned
out of the lane of traffic and are used to
control road users through temporary
traffic control zones. The second new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
6E.05 STOP/SLOW Automated Flagger
Assistance Devices’’ and contains
STANDARD, OPTION, and GUIDANCE
statements describing the use of a
remotely controlled STOP/SLOW sign
on either a trailer or a movable cart
system and a gate arm. The third new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
6E.06 Red/Yellow Lens Automated
Flagger Assistance Devices’’ and
contains STANDARD, OPTION, and
GUIDANCE statements describing the
use of remotely controlled red and
yellow lenses and a gate arm. The
remaining sections in this chapter
would be renumbered accordingly. The
FHWA proposes to incorporate the
AFAD into the MUTCD based on
FHWA’s revised Interim Approval,
dated January 28, 2005.183 The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing Automated
Flagger Assistance Devices in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
379. In existing Section 6E.04 (new
Section 6E.07) Flagger Procedures, the
FHWA proposes to add to the first
STANDARD statement that flaggers
shall use a STOP/SLOW paddle, flag or
an AFAD to control road users, and that
the use of hand movements alone is
prohibited. The FHWA proposes this
additional language to protect the safety
of workers and road users and to
reinforce that hand movements alone
are not an acceptable flagging method.
380. The FHWA also proposes to
relocate GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements from existing Section 6E.05
to the end of new Section 6E.07 because
they reference flagger procedures more
than flagger stations.
381. In existing Section 6E.05 (new
Section 6E.08) Flagger Stations, the
FHWA proposes to add to the
GUIDANCE statement that an escape
route for flaggers should be identified.
The FHWA proposes this text in order
to emphasize the need to provide
flaggers with a way to avoid an errant
vehicle.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapter 6F
382. In Table 6F–1 Sizes of
Temporary Control Signs, the FHWA
proposes to change the minimum size of
the TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC (R1–2aP)
sign to 600 mm x 450 mm (24 in x 18
183 The Revised Interim Approval notice can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_afads012705.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
in) to be consistent with the same sign
in Part 2.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
sizes of certain signs listed in Table 6F–
1 to incorporate sizes that are more
legible for drivers with 20/40 visual
acuity. This is consistent with similar
proposed changes in sign sizes in Part
2.
383. In Section 6F.02 General
Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA
proposes to revise the first OPTION
statement to delete fluorescent redorange and fluorescent yellow-orange
from the alternative colors for orange.
The FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with a similar change in Part
2, and because there are no separate
color specifications for these colors, as
they are both contained within the
single color specification for fluorescent
orange.
384. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following Section 6F.11
STAY IN LANE. The proposed new
section is numbered and titled ‘‘Section
6F.12 Work Zone and Higher Fines
Signs and Plaques.’’ This proposed new
section contains an OPTION statement
describing the use of the WORK ZONE
plaque above a Speed Limit Sign to
emphasize that a reduced speed limit is
in effect within a TTC zone and the
FINES HIGHER, FINES DOUBLED, and
$XX FINE plaques that may be mounted
below the Speed Limit sign if increased
fines are imposed for traffic violations
within the TTC zone, as well as the
associated signs that may be used to
mark the beginning and ends of these
zones. The remaining sections in
Chapter 6F would be renumbered
accordingly.
385. In existing Section 6F.15 (new
Section 6F.16) Warning Sign Function,
Design, and Application, the FHWA
proposes to delete the 2nd STANDARD
statement and the first three paragraphs
of the 3rd OPTION statement, because
they provide sign size information that
is already contained in Section 6F.02.
386. In Section 6F.16 (new Section
6F.17) Position of Advance Warning
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a
paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement recommending that the ROAD
WORK sign be the first advance warning
sign encountered by road users when
multiple advance warning signs are
needed on an approach to a TTC. The
FHWA proposes this new language to
reflect current practice in which the first
sign encountered in advance of a TTC
is the most generic sign.
387. In Figure 6F–4 Warning Signs in
Temporary Traffic Control Zones, the
FHWA proposes to add the STREET
WORK, WORKERS, and FRESH OIL
word signs to the list of optional word
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
319
message signs listed next to the asterisk
at the bottom of the page. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide
practitioners with the flexibility to use
various word message signs in advance
of various types of temporary traffic
control zones.
388. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
6F.28 (new Section 6F.29) EXIT OPEN,
EXIT CLOSED, EXIT ONLY Signs. The
proposed new section is numbered and
titled ‘‘Section 6F.30 NEW TRAFFIC
PATTERN AHEAD Sign (W23–2)’’ and
contains an OPTION statement
describing the use of the NEW TRAFFIC
PATTERN AHEAD sign to provide
advance warning of a change in traffic
patterns, such as revised lane usage,
roadway geometry, or signal phasing.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The remaining
sections in Chapter 6F would be
renumbered accordingly. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect current
practice in many States and numerous
local jurisdictions as documented in the
Sign Synthesis Study 184 and to provide
a uniform legend for this purpose.
389. In existing Section 6F.29 (new
Section 6F.31) Flagger Sign, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION to allow
Flagger signs to remain displayed to
road users for up to 15 minutes when
flagging operations are not occurring
under certain circumstances. The
FHWA proposes this change to reflect
Official Interpretation #6–200(I), which
was issued on September 22, 2004.185
390. In existing Section 6F.42 (new
Section 6F.44) Shoulder Signs, the
FHWA proposes to revise the
GUIDANCE statement to include the
proposed new symbol version of the
Shoulder Drop Off sign and the
supplemental plaque to warn road users
of a low shoulder to be consistent with
this proposed new sign in Chapter 2C.
391. In existing Section 6F.43 (new
Section 6F.45) UNEVEN LANES Sign,
the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION
statement to permit the use of the
proposed new Shoulder Drop Off
symbol sign with an UNEVEN LANES
supplemental plaque instead of the
UNEVEN LANES word sign. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent
with proposed changes in Chapter 2C.
184 184 This December 2005 publication (FHWAHOP–06–074) can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/
rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
185 FHWA Official Interpretation # 6–200, dated
September 22, 2004, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/pdf/6_200.pdf .
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
320
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
392. The FHWA proposes adding a
new section following existing Section
6F.44 (new Section 6F.46) NO CENTER
STRIPE Sign. The proposed new section
is numbered and titled ‘‘Section 6F.47
Reverse Curve Signs (W1–4 Series)’’ and
contains OPTION and STANDARD
statements describing the use of the
Reverse Curve signs to give road users
advance notice of a lane shift. The
remaining sections in Chapter 6F would
be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA
proposes this change to allow for the
use of ‘‘single reverse curve’’ signs
similar to those already allowed in
existing Section 6F.45 for ‘‘double
reverse curve’’ signs.
393. The FHWA proposes relocating
the information from existing Section
6F.54 PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign
(G20–4), to Section 6C.13 because the
information is related specifically to
pilot cars, which are covered in Section
6C.13. The remaining sections in
Chapter 6F would be renumbered
accordingly.
394. In existing Section 6F.55 (new
Section 6F.57) Portable Changeable
Message Signs, the FHWA proposes to
change the first STANDARD statement
to a SUPPORT, as well as to add
additional information because this
statement just provides information,
rather than requirements.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the 2nd paragraph of the first
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD
in order to require that Portable
Changeable Message signs comply with
specific chapters and tables in the
MUTCD.
The FHWA proposes to revise the last
2 paragraphs of the first GUIDANCE
statement to clarify the
recommendations for messages and
phases. As part of these changes, the
FHWA proposes to change the
recommended display time for message
phases, to expand the recommendations
for message lengths and phases and to
delete the OPTION statement.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
last GUIDANCE statement to clarify that
Portable Changeable Message signs
should be placed off the shoulder of the
roadway and behind a traffic barrier, if
practical. The FHWA also proposes to
add additional recommendations
regarding the use of Portable Changeable
Message signs in temporary traffic
control zones.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add a new STANDARD statement in the
middle of the first GUIDANCE statement
that describes the requirements for the
number of phases and number of lines,
placement of messages within each line,
techniques for message display and
interaction between signs if more than
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
one is simultaneously visible to road
users.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for the
new requirements for existing Portable
Changeable Message Signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes all of the
changes in this section to be consistent
with the proposed changes for
permanent Changeable Message signs as
proposed in new Chapter 2M, but with
differences to suit the special nature of
Portable Changeable Message Signs.
These changes are based on extensive
research on changeable message sign
legibility, messaging, and operations
conducted over a period of many years
by the Texas Transportation Institute.186
395. In Figure 6F–6 Advance Warning
Arrow Display Specifications, the
FHWA proposes to add an Alternating
Diamond display as one of the options
for a Flashing Caution display. This
type of display has been found effective
by experimentation in Utah.187
396. In existing Section 6F.58 (new
Section 6F.60) Channelizing Devices,
the FHWA proposes to add to the first
STANDARD statement that all
channelizing devices shall be
crashworthy. As part of this change, the
FHWA proposes to delete from the first
GUIDANCE statement the
recommendation that channelizing
devices be crashworthy because it
would conflict with the proposed
STANDARD. The FHWA proposes these
changes to increase the safety of workers
and road users and to be consistent with
other crashworthiness requirements
throughout Part 6.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
2nd paragraph of the 2nd STANDARD
statement to simplify the requirements
for the placement of channelizing
devices for channelizing pedestrians. As
part of the revisions, the FHWA
proposes to change the minimum
required height of channelizing devices
from 900 mm (36 in) to 800 mm (32 in)
to reflect predominant practice. The
FHWA also proposes to delete the
existing 3rd STANDARD statement
because it is repetitive.
The FHWA proposes to add to the
first GUIDANCE that where multiple
channelizing devices are aligned to form
186 Information on the many research projects on
changeable message signs conducted by the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) can be accessed via
TTI’s Internet Web site at: https://tti.tamu.edu/.
187 ‘‘Dancing Diamonds in Highway Work Zones:
Evaluation of Arrow Panel Caution Displays,’’ Utah
Department of Transportation Report number UT–
02.13, dated June 2002, by Saito and Turley, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.dot.state.ut.us/download.php/tid=297/UT–
02.13.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a continuous pedestrian channelizer,
connection points should be smooth to
optimize long-cane and hand trailing.
The FHWA proposes this additional
language to provide practitioners with
recommendations that will enable
visually impaired pedestrians to
traverse channelized areas more easily.
In addition, the FHWA proposes
adding two new STANDARD statements
and an OPTION statement in the middle
of this section describing the use of
warning lights on channelizing devices.
Many different types of lighting
methods are currently being used,
including flashing, steady-burn, and
sequential. Some lighting methods do
not provide roadway users with the
appropriate message and some are
confusing. Therefore, the FHWA
proposes this language to provide
uniformity in the types of lighting
methods used.
397. In Figure 6F–7 Channelizing
Devices, the FHWA proposes to specify
that the 900 mm (36 in) height of the
Direction Indicator Barricade is a
minimum height. The ‘‘MIN’’ was
inadvertently missing in the 2003
MUTCD.
398. In existing Section 6F.60 (new
Section 6F.62) Tubular Markers, the
FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd
paragraph of the first STANDARD to
clarify the requirements for
reflectorization bands on tubular
markers that are less than 1050 mm (42
in) in height as well as for tubular
markers that are 1050 mm (42 in) or
more in height. The FHWA proposes
this language in order to provide more
clarity on the width and spacing of
reflectorization bands for bands on
tubular markers of different heights.
399. In existing Section 6F.61 (new
Section 6F.63) Vertical Panels, the
FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd
paragraph of the first STANDARD
statement a requirement that clearance
between the bottom of a vertical panel
and the roadway shall be a maximum of
300 mm (12 in). The FHWA proposes
the change to provide consistency
between Figure 6F–7 and the text.
The FHWA also proposes to change
the first OPTION statement to a
STANDARD to require, rather than
merely permit, a panel stripe width of
100 mm (4 in) to be used where the
height of the reflective material on a
vertical panel is 900 mm (36 in) or less.
The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect predominant practice and
encourage uniformity.
400. In existing Section 6F.62 (new
Section 6F.64) Drums, the FHWA
proposes changing the first sentence of
the second GUIDANCE paragraph to a
STANDARD statement to prohibit
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
weighting drums with sand, water, or
any material to the extent that would
make them hazardous to road users or
workers when struck. As part of this
change, the FHWA also proposes
deleting the remaining sentence of this
GUIDANCE statement because drums
shall have closed tops (per the last
sentence of the first STANDARD
statement), which should keep large
amounts of water out of the device,
therefore, reducing the effects of
freezing.
401. In existing Section 6F.63 (new
Section 6F.65) Type 1, 2, or 3
Barricades, the FHWA proposes to add
a new STANDARD after the 4th
paragraph of the first GUIDANCE
statement requiring continuous
detectible bottom and top rails with no
gaps on barricades that are used to
channelize pedestrians. In addition, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION
statement following the proposed
STANDARD that provides the ability to
facilitate drainage between the bottom
rail and the ground surface.
402. In existing Section 6F.64 (new
Section 6F.66) Direction Indicator
Barricades, the FHWA proposes to
delete the first Guidance statement
because it conflicts with the proposed
requirement in existing Section 6F.58
(new Sections 6F.60) that all
channelizing devices shall be
crashworthy, as discussed in item
number 396 above.
403. In existing Section 6F.65 (new
Section 6F.67) Temporary Traffic
Barriers as Channelizing Devices, the
FHWA proposes to change the first
paragraph of the GUIDANCE to a
STANDARD in order to prohibit, rather
than discourage, the use of temporary
traffic barriers for a merging taper,
except in low-speed urban areas. The
FHWA proposes this change to provide
consistency on the use of temporary
traffic barriers within this section.
The FHWA also proposes to add a
STANDARD statement at the end of the
section requiring that temporary traffic
barriers used to channelize pedestrians
meet specific criteria that aid
pedestrians with visual disabilities, to
be consistent with requirements
elsewhere in Part 6.
404. The FHWA proposes retitling
existing Section 6F.66 (new Section
6F.68) to ‘‘Longitudinal Channelizing
Devices,’’ to provide for devices for this
purpose other than just barricades. The
FHWA also proposes to change the first
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD
in order to require that, if longitudinal
channelizing devices are used singly as
Type 1, 2, or 3 barricades, they must
comply with design and placement
characteristics established for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
devices in Chapter 6F. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent
with provisions elsewhere in Chapter
6F.
The FHWA also proposes to delete the
second paragraph of the first OPTION
statement, so as to no longer permit
longitudinal channelizing devices to be
filled with water as ballast. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide
consistency throughout Part 6 because
the FHWA proposes to no longer allow
water to be used as ballast for any
channelizing devices.
405. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
6F.67 (new Section 6F.69), numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 6F.70 Temporary
Lane Separators.’’ This new section
contains OPTION, STANDARD, and
GUIDANCE statements regarding the
use of these optional devices that may
be used to channelize road users, to
divide opposing vehicular traffic lanes,
or divide lanes when two or more lanes
are open in the same direction, and to
provide continuous pedestrian
channelization. The FHWA proposes
these changes to reflect existing
successful practices. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing devices in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
406. In existing Section 6F.69 (new
Section 6F.72) Temporary Raised
Islands, the FHWA proposes to change
the recommended width of temporary
raised islands in the GUIDANCE
statement from 450 mm (18 in) to 300
mm (12 in). The FHWA proposes this
change to facilitate the use of existing
devices that have been successfully
used in many applications.
407. The FHWA proposes to make
several revisions to existing Section
6F.71 (new Section 6F.74) Pavement
Markings, and existing Section 6F.72
(new Section 6F.75), retitled,
‘‘Temporary Markings’’ to clarify,
reduce redundancy, and organize the
text in a more logical order. The
proposed changes include
differentiating the usage of pavement
markings in long-term stationary
temporary traffic control zones from
those used in intermediate-term and
shorter temporary traffic control zones.
The FHWA proposes to clarify that
temporary broken line segments can be
shorter than those required for normal
permanent broken line markings but
that temporary no-passing zone
markings must meet the normal
standards for permanent markings.
408. In existing Section 6F.73 (new
Section 6F.76) retitled ‘‘Temporary
Raised Pavement Markers,’’ the FHWA
proposes to add OPTION, STANDARD,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
321
and GUIDANCE statements at the
beginning and end of the section to
provide more information regarding the
color, patterns, and spacing of raised
pavement markers in temporary traffic
control zones. The proposed changes
repeat certain requirements and
recommendations from Part 3 and also
provide for optional use of temporary
short-term (usually no longer than 14
days) use of a less expensive pattern of
raised pavement markers to substitute
for a broken line marking.
409. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 6F.76 Floodlights,
because floodlights are not traffic
control devices and it is not appropriate
for the MUTCD to have regulatory
language regarding their design or use.
The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
410. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 6F.77 Flashing Warning
Beacons, because the material is already
covered in Chapter 4K and does not
need to be repeated in Part 6.
411. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 6F.79 Steady-Burn
Electric Lamps, because the FHWA
believes that most jurisdictions are
using other types of warning lights,
therefore, making steady-burn electric
lamps obsolete.
412. The FHWA proposes to delete
the 3rd STANDARD in Section 6F.80
Temporary Traffic Control Signals,
because the prohibition against supports
for temporary traffic control devices
encroaching into pedestrian access
routes is covered elsewhere in Part 6
and does not need to be repeated.
In addition, the FHWA proposes
adding a new STANDARD at the end of
the section requiring temporary traffic
signals placed within 60 m (200 ft) of a
highway-rail grade crossing or a
highway-light rail transit grade crossing
to have preemption unless arrangements
are made to prevent traffic from queuing
across the tracks. The FHWA proposes
this change to protect road users from
conflicts with rail crossings in TTC
zones and to be consistent with
provisions in Parts 4 and 8.
413. In Section 6F.81 Temporary
Traffic Barriers, the FHWA proposes to
add in the STANDARD that temporary
traffic barriers, including their end
treatments, shall be crashworthy in
order to correspond with similar
requirements for other roadside devices.
The FHWA also proposes to add several
paragraphs to the end of the 2nd
SUPPORT statement regarding the use
of movable barriers, and describing their
use in existing Figures 6H–45 and 6H–
34 (new Figures 6I–45 and 6I–34). The
FHWA proposes to add this text in
Chapter 6F and delete existing Section
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
322
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
6G.18 Movable Barriers, so that the
information is contained in one
location.
414. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Sections 6F.82 Crash Cushions
and 6F.83 Vehicle Arresting Systems,
because neither crash cushions nor
vehicle arresting systems are traffic
control devices and it is not appropriate
for the MUTCD to have regulatory
language regarding their design or use.
The FHWA believes that adequate and
appropriate guidance on crash cushions
and vehicle arresting systems is readily
available in a variety of FHWA,
AASHTO, ITE, and industry
publications and Web sites, such as the
FHWA Office of Safety’s Roadway
Departure Web site (https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/).
The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
415. In existing Section 6F.84 (new
Section 6F.82) Rumble Strips, the
FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD statement that black and
orange are acceptable colors for
transverse rumble strips in TTC zones.
The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect research showing that in addition
to white, the colors black and orange
work well in TTC zones.188
416. The FHWA proposes to delete
Section 6F.85 Screens, because glare
screens are not traffic control devices
and it is not appropriate for the MUTCD
to have regulatory language regarding
their design or use. The FHWA believes
that adequate and appropriate guidance
on glare screens is readily available in
a variety of FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, and
industry publications and Web sites,
such as the FHWA Office of Safety’s
Roadway Departure Web site (https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/).
The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
417. The FHWA proposes to delete
Section 6F.86 Future and Experimental
Devices, because such devices are
already covered in Part 1.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Chapters 6G Through 6I
418. In Section 6G.01 Typical
Applications, the FHWA proposes to
add a new GUIDANCE statement
recommending that a TTC plan should
be developed for all planned special
events and approved by the highway
agencies having jurisdiction. The FHWA
proposes this change to help assure that
proper traffic controls are installed
188 Report No. K-TRAN: KY–02–3 ‘‘Guidelines for
the Application of Removable Rumble Strips,’’
August 2006 can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: https://www.ksdot.org/idmws/
DocContent.dll?Library=PublicDocs–
dt00mx38&ID=003717523&Page=1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
when planned special events, such as
parades, street fairs, farmers’ markets,
etc. impact traffic, and to respond to a
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) report on this subject.189
419. In Section 6G.11 Work Within
the Traveled Way of Urban Streets, the
FHWA proposes to relocate the first
sentence of the STANDARD statement
to Section 6D.01 because the
information about maintaining
accessibility and detectability along
pedestrian routes is most appropriately
covered in Section 6D.01.
420. In Section 6G.12 Work Within
the Traveled Way of Multi-Lane,
Nonaccess Controlled Highways, the
FHWA proposes to reference existing
Section 6F.65 (new Section 6F.67)
Temporary Traffic Barriers as
Channelization Devices in the first
GUIDANCE statement, and delete the
2nd STANDARD statement and the first
paragraph of the 2nd SUPPORT
statement. The FHWA proposes this
change to eliminate unnecessary
repetition regarding temporary traffic
barriers.
421. As discussed in item 413 above,
the FHWA proposes to delete existing
Section 6G.18 Movable Barriers and
place all information regarding movable
barriers in Section 6F.81.
422. The FHWA proposes to reverse
the order of existing Chapters 6H and 6I
so that Chapter 6H would be Control of
Traffic Through Traffic Incident
Management Areas and Chapter 6I
would be Typical Applications. The
FHWA proposes this change so that the
numerous Typical Application diagrams
will be at the end of Part 6 and to
enhance the position within Part 6 of
the text and figures on incident
management.
423. In existing Section 6I.01 (new
Section 6H.01) General, the FHWA
proposes to add to the STANDARD
statement that the Incident Command
System (ICS) as required by the National
Incident Management System (NIMS)
shall be implemented in traffic incident
management areas. The FHWA proposes
this language per The Department of
Homeland Security and Presidential
Directives (DHSPD) #5 and #8,190 which
require the adoption of the National
Incident Management System and the
189 NTSB Report HAR–04/04, ‘‘Rear End Collision
and Subsequent Vehicle Intrusion into Pedestrian
Space at Certified Farmers’ Market, Santa Monica,
California, July 16, 2003’’, dated August 3, 2004,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http;//ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/HAR0404.pdf.
190 The Department of Homeland Security and
Presidential Directives (DHSPD) #5 and 8 can be
viewed at Internet Web site addresses: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/
20030228–9.html and https://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/12/20031217–6.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Incident Command System by all
Federal, State, tribal and local
governments. These two systems are
required for all planned and unplanned
incidents in the United States.
The FHWA also proposes to add to
the 2nd paragraph of the GUIDANCE
statement that all on-scene responders
and news media personnel should wear
high-visibility apparel. The FHWA
proposes this text to incorporate into the
MUTCD the provisions of 23 CFR Part
634 regarding high-visibility apparel, as
discussed in Section 6D.03 (item 375)
above.
424. In existing Sections 6I.02 (new
Section 6H.02) Major Traffic Incidents
and 6I.03 (new Section 6H.03)
Intermediate Traffic Incidents, the
FHWA proposes to add OPTION
statements near the end of the sections
explaining the use of light sticks at
incidents. The FHWA proposes these
changes to reflect the increasingly
common use of light sticks by
emergency responders as a more
convenient and effective device than
flares.
425. In existing Section 6H.01 (new
Section 6I.01) Typical Applications, the
FHWA proposes changing the Typical
Applications to reflect the proposed
changes to all parts of the MUTCD with
particular reference to proposed Part 6
text and figure changes.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add clarification to the existing second
SUPPORT statement that except for the
notes to the typical applications (which
are clearly classified using headings as
being STANDARD, GUIDANCE,
OPTION, or SUPPORT), the information
presented in the typical applications
can generally be regarded as Guidance.
The FHWA proposes this change to
provide additional information about
the nature of the information in the
Typical Application illustrations.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes the
following changes to the notes to the
figures of typical applications:
a. Notes for existing Figure 6H–4 (new
Figure 6I–4): The FHWA proposes
adding a new item 4 allowing stationary
signs to be omitted if the work is mobile
because the use of such signs is often
not practical with mobile operations.
The FHWA also proposes adding a new
item 9 in the STANDARD statement
stating that vehicle-mounted signs shall
be mounted in a manner such that they
are not obscured by equipment or
supplies, and that sign legends shall be
covered or turned from view when work
is not in progress, for consistency with
similar provisions in the notes for
existing Figure 6H–17 (new Figure 6I–
17).
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
b. Notes for existing Figures 6H–5,
6H–34, and 6H–36 (new Figures 6I–5,
6I–34, and 6I–36): The FHWA proposes
revising the STANDARD statement to
indicate that temporary traffic barriers
shall comply with the provisions of
Section 6F.81. The FHWA proposes this
revision to provide users with clear,
consistent requirements for the use of
temporary traffic barriers.
c. In existing Figures 6H–12 and 6H–
14 (new Figures 6I–12 and 6I–14), the
FHWA proposes to clarify that the
dimension between the nearest signal
face for each approach and the stop line
should be 45 m (150 ft) for 200 mm (8
in) signal indications and 55 m (180 ft)
for 300 mm (12 in) signal indications,
for consistency with provisions of Part
4.
d. Also in existing Figure 6H–14 (new
Figure 6I–14), the FHWA proposes to
delete the NO PASSING ZONE pennant
signs and the DO NOT PASS signs
because they have been illustrated in an
incorrect location and they are not
necessary.
e. Notes for existing Figure 6H–16
(new Figure 6I–16): The FHWA
proposes to add a new item 1 to the
GUIDANCE statement indicating that all
lanes should be a minimum of 3 m (10
ft) in width to be consistent with
guidance in other applications. The
FHWA also proposes deleting existing
item 2 regarding spacing of channelizing
devices because that information is
covered elsewhere in the Manual and
does not need to be repeated here.
f. Notes for existing Figures 6H–31
and 6H–36 (new Figures 6I–31 and 6I–
36): The FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD statement to describe the
use of the Reverse Curve signs. The
FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with the proposed new
section numbered and titled ‘‘Section
6F.47 Reverse Curve Signs.’’ As part of
this change, the FHWA also proposes
deleting existing items in the OPTION
statements regarding the ALL LANES
THRU supplemental plaque because the
reverse curve signs graphically indicate
that message.
g. Notes for existing Figures 6H–37,
6H–38, 6H–39, 6H–42 and 6H–44 (new
Figures 6I–37, 6I–38, 6I–39, 6I–42 and
6I–44): The FHWA proposes adding a
STANDARD note that requires an arrow
panel be used on all freeway lane
closures, and that a separate arrow
panel be used for each closed lane when
more than one freeway lane is closed.
The FHWA believes that an arrow panel
is essential for safety at all lane closures
on freeways due to the high speeds. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 2 years for these arrow board
requirements at existing locations to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
h. Notes for existing Figure 6H–38
(new Figure 6I–38): The FHWA also
proposes to add a STANDARD note that
requires that temporary traffic barriers
comply with the provisions and
requirements in Section 6F.81. The
FHWA proposes this change for
consistency with provisions elsewhere
in Part 6.
i. In existing Figure 6H–38 (new
Figure 6I–38), the FHWA proposes to
change the dimension label for the
single row of channelizing devices in
advance of the traffic split from 30 m
(100 ft) ‘‘MAX’’ to ‘‘MIN’’ to reflect that
the distance labeled is the minimum
distance, not the maximum distance.
The dimension was inadvertently
mislabeled in the 2003 MUTCD.
j. Notes for existing Figure 6H–41
(new Figure 6I–41): The FHWA
proposes adding to item 3 the
recommendation that channelizing
devices should be placed to physically
close the ramp when an exit is closed.
The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect existing practice, and provide for
positive closure instead of just relying
on a sign.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 7 Traffic Controls for School Areas
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Within Part 7—General
426. The FHWA proposes to change
the name of the S1–1 sign from ‘‘School
Advance Warning’’ to ‘‘School’’ sign
throughout Part 7 and in Table 7B–1.
The FHWA proposes this change in
order to simplify the name of the S1–1
sign and to provide flexibility in the
sign’s application and use of the sign
with other signs and plaques to form a
sign assembly.
427. The FHWA also proposes
changing the name of the ‘‘School
Crosswalk Warning Assembly’’ to
‘‘School Crossing Assembly’’ to simplify
its name and to provide additional
flexibility in its usage.
428. In Section 7A.04 Scope, the
FHWA proposes to relocate the existing
OPTION statement to Section 7B.03
because the positioning of in-roadway
signs is more consistent with the subject
of that section.
429. The FHWA proposes to delete
Sections 7A.05 through 7A.10 because
the subjects of those sections are already
covered in other parts of the Manual. In
their place, the FHWA proposes to add
a paragraph to the SUPPORT statement
to Section 7A.04 providing cross
references to the appropriate sections. In
addition, the FHWA proposes to add
that provisions discussed in Part 3 are
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
323
applicable in school areas. The FHWA
proposes these changes to reduce
redundancy in the Manual.
430. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 7A.05 Grade-Separated School
Crossings’’ that contains a SUPPORT
statement regarding the use of gradeseparated crossings for school
pedestrian traffic. Much of the
information in this proposed new
section was previously covered in
existing Chapter 7F Grade Separated
Crossings, which the FHWA proposes to
delete. The FHWA proposes these
changes because grade-separated
crossings are not traffic control devices
regulated by the MUTCD.
431. In Section 7B.01 Size of School
Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete
from the second paragraph of the
STANDARD statement the phrase ‘‘on
public roads, streets, and highways’’
because 23 CFR 655.603 191 now makes
the MUTCD apply to more than just
public roads and thus makes this phrase
inaccurate.
432. In Section 7B.03 Position of
Signs, the FHWA proposes to relocate
an OPTION statement from Section
7A.04 to this section regarding the use
of in-roadway signs because the
information is more consistent with the
subject of this section.
433. In Section 7B.07 Sign Color for
School Warning Signs, the FHWA
proposes to revise this section to make
the use of fluorescent yellow-green as
the background color for all school
warning signs and plaques a
STANDARD rather than an option. The
FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD statement accordingly, and
to delete the associated OPTION and
GUIDANCE statements. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing school warning
signs and plaques in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The FHWA proposes
these changes because the use of
fluorescent yellow-green has become
predominant practice in most
jurisdictions. Fluorescent yellow-green
provides enhanced conspicuity for these
critical signs, especially in dusk and
dawn periods, and the FHWA believes
that uniform use of this background
color for all school warning signs and
plaques will enhance safety and road
user recognition. The FHWA proposes
to revise the background color of school
warning signs and plaques in the figures
throughout Part 7 to reflect this
proposed change.
434. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 7B.08 School Advance
191 See
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
fn. 3 for more information.
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
324
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Warning Assembly, and replace it with
three new sections numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 7B.08 School Sign,’’ ‘‘Section
7B.09 School Area or School Zone
Sign,’’ and ‘‘Section 7B.10 School
Advance Crossing Assembly.’’ The
remaining sections in Chapter 7B would
be renumbered accordingly. As
discussed in item 426 above, the FHWA
proposes this change in order to provide
flexibility in the sign’s application and
use of the sign with other signs and
plaques to form a sign assembly.
435. The FHWA proposes to revise
Section 7B.08 to include one SUPPORT
statement that describes three specific
applications for the School (S1–1) sign.
As part of this new SUPPORT, the
FHWA proposes to add a new figure
numbered and titled, ‘‘Figure 7B–2
Example of Signing for a School Zone,’’
that illustrates the use of the School
(S1–1) sign and the Fines Higher (R2–
6P) plaque. The remaining figures in
Chapter 7B would be renumbered
accordingly. Proposed new Sections
7B.09 through 7B.11 contain additional
STANDARD and OPTION statements for
each of the three uses of the S1–1 sign.
436. In proposed Section 7B.09
School Area or School Zone Sign and
Section 7B.10 School Advance Crossing
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to add
an OPTION statement that permits the
use of a supplemental arrow plaque on
a School (S1–1) sign in locations where
a school area/zone or school crosswalk
that is located on a cross street less than
38 m (125 ft) from the edge of a street
or highway. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide jurisdictions with
flexibility for installing signs where
there is not sufficient distance for
advance signing.
437. In existing Section 7B.09 (new
Section 7B.11) School Crossing
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to add to
the OPTION statement that when used
at a school crossing, the In-Street
Pedestrian sign may use the
schoolchildren symbol (as found on the
S1–1 sign), rather than the single
pedestrian symbol. The FHWA proposes
this change to incorporate Official
Interpretation #7–65(I), which was
issued on September 6, 2004.192 The
FHWA proposes to show these optional
sign designs in existing Figure 7B–4
(new Figure 7B–5).
The FHWA also proposes to add to
the OPTION statement to allow the use
of the proposed new Overhead
Pedestrian Crossing sign (discussed in
Chapter 2B) sign at school crossings and
192 FHWA’s Official Interpretation 7–65(I), dated
September 6, 2004, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/interpretations/pdf/7_65.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
to add a complementary restriction to
the last STANDARD statement
prohibiting the use of this sign at
signalized crossings. The FHWA
proposes these changes to allow
appropriate use of this overhead sign to
enhance the safety of school crossings.
438. In existing Section 7B.10 (new
Section 7B.12) SCHOOL BUS STOP
AHEAD Sign, the FHWA proposes
revising the GUIDANCE statement by
removing the specific distance of 150 m
(500 ft) that a stopped school bus should
be visible to road users, and in its place
inserting a reference to distances given
in Table 2C–4. The FHWA proposes this
change because Table 2C–4 provides
more detailed information about proper
placement of warning signs.
439. In existing Figure 7B–1 School
Area Signs, the FHWA proposes to
replace the existing School Bus Stop
Ahead (S3–1) word message sign with a
symbol sign. The FHWA proposes this
new sign based on positive experiences
in West Virginia, where a symbol sign
for this message has been used for 25 to
30 years 193 and in Canada, where it has
also been used since the 1970s. The
FHWA proposes to use a symbol that is
similar to the Canadian MUTCD 194
standard WC–9 symbol. The proposed
symbol features a school bus with a
depiction of red flashing lights, a busmounted STOP sign, and students
getting on or off the bus. A recent
study 195 found that the proposed
symbol sign was better understood than
the existing word message sign and that
the symbol provides comparable
legibility distance. The FHWA believes
that the replacement of selected word
message signs with well-designed
symbol signs will improve safety in
view of increasing globalization and
non-English speaking road users in the
United States. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to
193 For additional information on West Virginia’s
successful experience with this symbol sign,
contact Mr. Ray Lewis, Staff Engineer—Traffic
Research and Special Projects Traffic Engineering
Division, West Virginia DOT, Division of Highways,
phone: 304–558–8912, email:
rlewise@dot.state.wv.us.
194 The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Canada, 4th Edition, is available for
purchase from the Transportation Association of
Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa,
Ontario K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site https://www.tacatc.ca.
195 Preliminary results from ‘‘Evaluations of
Symbol Signs,’’ conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene
Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control
Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF–5_065/
PresSymbolSign.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
illustration in Figure 7B–1 to clarify that
the S4–1 (time) and S4–6 (Monday–
Friday) plaques may be used together,
but other combinations of plaques are
not allowed.
440. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Section following existing Section
7B.10 (new Section 7B.13), numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 7B.13 SCHOOL
BUS TURN AHEAD Sign (S3–2).’’ This
new section contains an OPTION
statement about the use of this proposed
new sign that can be installed in
advance of locations where there is a
school bus turn around on a roadway at
a location not visible to approaching
users for a distance as determined in
Table 2C–4. The remaining sections in
Chapter 7B would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA also proposes
to add a new Figure 7B–1 Illustrating
the proposed sign. The FHWA proposes
this new sign to provide a standard sign
for applications that fit this need. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
441. In existing Section 7B.11 (new
Section 7B.14) School Speed Limit
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to
change the first paragraph of the 2nd
OPTION statement to a STANDARD to
require, rather than merely permit,
fluorescent yellow-green pixels to be
used when the ‘‘SCHOOL’’ message is
displayed on a changeable message sign
for a school speed limit. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent
with other proposed changes that
require fluorescent yellow-green to be
the standard color for school zone
warning signs.
442. In existing Section 7B.12 (new
Section 7B.15), the FHWA proposes to
change the name of the ‘‘Reduced Speed
School Zone Ahead’’ sign to ‘‘Reduced
School Speed Limit Ahead’’ sign to be
consistent with the Stop Ahead, Yield
Ahead, and Signal Ahead sign names
and to be consistent with the proposed
change in the name of the similar
warning sign in Chapter 2C.
443. In existing Section 7B.13 (new
Section 7B.16) END SCHOOL ZONE
Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD to clarify that the end of a
designated school zone shall be marked
with both an END SCHOOL ZONE sign
and a Speed Limit sign for the section
of highway that follows. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent
with proposed changes to Section 7B.08.
It is important and sometimes legally
necessary to mark the end points of
designated school zones. The use of a
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Speed Limit sign showing the speed
limit for the following section of
highway is required by existing section
2B.13. The FHWA also proposes to
modify figures in Chapter 7B to reflect
these proposed changes. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for installation of END
SCHOOL ZONE signs at existing
locations to minimize any impact on
state or local highway agencies.
444. In Section 7C.03 Crosswalk
Markings, the FHWA proposes to add a
5th paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement recommending that warning
signs be installed for marked crosswalks
at nonintersection locations, and
adequate visibility be provided by
implementing parking prohibitions. The
FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with a similar proposed
change in existing Section 3B.17 (new
Section 3B.18).
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add to the 2nd GUIDANCE statement, a
recommendation that the spacing
between diagonal or longitudinal lines
should not exceed 2.5 times the line
width. The FHWA proposes this change
to be consistent with existing text in
Section 3B.17.
445. In Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield
Lines, the FHWA proposes to
incorporate several changes to be
consistent with proposed changes to
Section 3B.16 with the same title. See
item 262 for more information.
446. In Section 7C.05 Curb Markings
for Parking Regulations, the FHWA
proposes to add to the OPTION
statement that curb markings without
word markings or signs may be used to
convey a general prohibition by statute
of parking within a specified distance of
a STOP sign, driveway, fire hydrant, or
crosswalk. The proposed text is already
contained in existing Section 3B.21
(new Section 3B.22), and the FHWA
believes it is important to restate it in
Section 7C.05 for emphasis and
consistency.
447. In Section 7C.06 Pavement Word
and Symbol Markings, the FHWA
proposes to revise this section to
provide consistency with Section 3B.19
(new Section 3B.20).
448. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Chapter 7D Signals because it is
a small chapter whose only purpose is
to provide reference to Part 4 and
Section 4C.06. The FHWA proposes to
incorporate the references in Section
7A.04 instead. The FHWA would
reletter the remaining chapters
accordingly.
449. In existing Section 7E.01 (new
Section 7D.01) Types of Crossing
Supervision, the FHWA proposes to
delete the reference document, ‘‘Civilian
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
Guards for School Crossings’’ from the
2nd paragraph of the SUPPORT
statement because Northwestern
University is phasing out such
publications and it will not be available
in the future.
450. In existing Section 7E.03 (new
Section 7D.03) Qualifications of Adult
Crossing Guards, the FHWA proposes to
revise the GUIDANCE statement to
indicate that the list represents the
minimum qualifications of adult
crossing guards. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to add three additional
qualifications (new items C, D, and E)
that are similar to applicable provisions
in Section 6E.01 for flaggers.
451. In existing Section 7E.04 (new
Section 7D.04) Uniform of Adult
Crossing Guards and Student Patrols,
the FHWA proposes to delete ‘‘and
Student Patrols’’ from the title of the
section and to delete the second
paragraph of the STANDARD statement,
which relates to the apparel worn by
student patrols. The FHWA believes
that student patrols do not control
vehicular traffic and provisions relating
to student patrols are not appropriate for
the MUTCD. The FHWA also proposes
to delete the first GUIDANCE statement
because most adult crossing guards do
not wear a uniform. In addition, as part
of proposed changes to the STANDARD
statement, the GUIDANCE statement is
no longer necessary. The FHWA
proposes to revise the STANDARD
statement to reflect that law
enforcement officers performing school
crossing supervision shall use highvisibility safety apparel labeled as ANSI
107–2004. The FHWA proposes these
changes to incorporate into the MUTCD
the provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 that
were published in the Federal Register
on November 24, 2006.196 As part of
these proposed changes, the FHWA
proposes to delete the second
GUIDANCE statement because it is
superseded by the new proposed
statements discussed above. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 2 years for crossing guard apparel on
non-Federal-aid highways to minimize
any impact on state or local highway
agencies. A compliance date of
November 24, 2008, has already been
established for worker apparel on
Federal-aid highways as a result of 23
CFR Part 634.
452. In existing Section 7E.05 (new
Section 7D.05) Operating Procedures for
196 The Federal Register Notice was published in
the Federal Register on November 24, 2006
(Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792–67800) and
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E619910.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
325
Adult Crossing Guards, the FHWA
proposes to change the GUIDANCE
statement to a STANDARD, thereby
making all of the paragraphs
requirements, rather than
recommendations. Because the safety of
school children is paramount, it is
important that adult crossing guards
follow specific requirements when
controlling traffic for the purpose of
assisting school children.
453. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 7E.06 Uniformed Law
Enforcement Officers, because the
information is covered in existing
Section 7E.01 (new Section 7D.01). The
remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
454. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Sections 7E.07, 7E.08, and
7E.09 because these sections pertain to
student patrols. The FHWA believes
that student patrols do not control
vehicular traffic and provisions relating
to student patrols are not appropriate for
the MUTCD. The FHWA believes that
adequate and appropriate guidance on
student patrols is readily available from
other sources, such as the American
Automobile Association’s ‘‘School
Safety Patrol Operations Manual.’’ 197
455. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Chapter 7F Grade Separated
Crossings, because the information from
that chapter is to be covered by the
proposed changes to Section 7A.05. (See
item 430 above.)
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 8 Traffic Controls for Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings
456. In Section 8A.01 Introduction,
the FHWA proposes to add the
following definitions: ‘‘Constant
Warning Time Train Detection,’’
‘‘Diagnostic Team,’’ ‘‘Locomotive
Horn,’’ ‘‘Pathway-Rail Grade Crossing,’’
‘‘Quiet Zone,’’ ‘‘Station Crossing,’’ and
‘‘Wayside Horn.’’ The FHWA proposes
adding these definitions because these
words are used in Part 8 and have not
previously been defined.
457. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
8A.04. The new section is numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 8A.05 Illumination
at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings’’ and
contains information previously
included in existing Chapter 8C. The
FHWA proposes to change the
designation of the text in this section to
SUPPORT because illumination is not a
traffic control device and thus should
not be regulated by GUIDANCE and
OPTION language. The FHWA believes
197 This 2004 publication can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.aaa.com/
aaa/049/PublicAffairs/SSPManual.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
326
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
that adequate and appropriate guidance
on illumination of highway-rail grade
crossings is readily available from other
sources, such as the ANSI’s Practice for
Roadway Lighting RP–8, available from
the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America.198
458. The FHWA proposes to make
several changes throughout Chapter 8B
Signs and Markings, to require that a
YIELD sign or STOP sign be installed at
all passive highway-rail grade crossings,
except where train crews always
provide flagging of the crossing to road
users. The FHWA proposes this change
to incorporate information from
FHWA’s Policy Memorandum,
‘‘Guidance for Use of YIELD or STOP
Signs with the Crossbuck Sign at
Passive Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings,’’ 199 dated March 17, 2006,
into the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes
to strengthen the language to a
STANDARD in the MUTCD from the
informational guidance contained in the
policy memo, to require, rather than
recommend, the use of YIELD or STOP
signs in conjunction with the Crossbuck
sign at all passive crossings except
where train crews always provide
flagging to road users. While the
Crossbuck sign is in fact a regulatory
sign that requires vehicles to yield to
trains and stop if necessary, recent
research 200 indicates insufficient road
user understanding of and compliance
with that regulatory requirement when
just the Crossbuck sign is present at
passive crossings. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
459. The FHWA proposes to revise
existing Figures 8B–1 and 8B–6, and to
add a new figure, numbered and titled,
‘‘Figure 8B–2 Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings (Crossbuck) Regulatory Signs
with Separate Posts’’ to reflect the
proposed requirement to install a YIELD
sign or STOP sign at all passive highway
rail-grade crossings, except where train
crews always provide flagging of the
crossing to road users. The remaining
198 Information on obtaining this publication can
be viewed on the following Internet Web site:
https://www.iesna.org/.
199 FHWA’s Policy Memorandum, ‘‘Guidance for
Use of YIELD or STOP Signs with the Crossbuck
Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,’’
dated March 17, 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/
yieldstop_guidememo/yieldstop_policy.htm
200 National Cooperative Highway Research
Report 470 titled ‘‘Traffic Control Devices for
Passive Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings,’’
Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
existing Figures in Chapter 8B would be
renumbered accordingly.
460. In Section 8B.03 Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and
Number of Tracks Plaque, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement
that allows the Crossbuck sign to have
reflectorized red lettering, rather than
the standard black lettering, at nonsignalized crossings. The FHWA
proposes this change to emphasize that
the Crossbuck assigns the right-of-way
to rail traffic at a highway-rail grade
crossing.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
3rd paragraph of the 3rd STANDARD
statement, and the associated figure, to
indicate that measurement for the
retroreflective strip that is placed on the
front and back of the support for the
Crossbuck or Number of Tracks sign is
to be from the ground, rather than the
roadway. The FHWA proposes this
change because there may be some cases
where the ground level at the base of the
sign is higher than the edge of the
roadway.
461. The FHWA proposes to relocate
and retitle existing Section 8B.08 to be,
‘‘Section 8B.04 Use and Meaning of
STOP or YIELD Signs at Passive
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.’’ The
FHWA proposes replacing all of the
existing text with new text that
describes the use of STOP and YIELD
Signs at passive highway-rail grade
crossings, as proposed in item 458
above.
462. The FHWA also proposes to add
a new section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 8B.05 Crossbuck Assemblies
with YIELD Signs or STOP Signs at
Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings’’
to provide information on the use of the
Crossbuck Assemblies as proposed in
item 458 above. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
463. In existing Section 8B.04 (new
Section 8B.06) Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Advance Warning Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add to the first
STANDARD statement a requirement
that a supplemental plaque describing
the type of traffic control at the
highway-rail grade crossing shall be
used with the Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Advance Warning sign (W10–
1). As part of this proposed change, the
FHWA proposes to require the use of a
No Signal (W10–10P) supplemental
plaque in advance of a crossing that
does not have active traffic control
devices, and the use of a new Signal
Ahead (W10–16P) plaque in advance of
a crossing that does have active traffic
control devices. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
agencies. The FHWA proposes to add
the new Signal Ahead (W10–16P)
plaque to existing Figure 8B–2 (new
Figure 8B–3) and Table 8B–1.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add at the end of the 1st STANDARD
statement that a Yield Ahead or a Stop
Ahead Advance Warning Sign shall also
be installed if criteria are met, along
with information regarding the distance
between signs in advance of a highwayrail grade crossing, to emphasize
existing requirements in Part 2.
The FHWA proposes these changes to
improve safety by providing road users
with additional information regarding
traffic control devices at highway-rail
grade crossings, as recommended by
recent research.201 Because of these
proposed changes, the FHWA proposes
to delete existing Section 8B.15 because
the information from that section would
be included in the revisions to Section
8B.04.
In concert with the above proposed
changes, the FHWA proposes to add to
the 2nd STANDARD statement a
requirement that a supplemental plaque
describing the type of traffic control at
a highway-rail grade crossing also be
used with W10–2, W10–3, and W10–4
warning signs where the distance
between the railroad tracks and a
parallel highway is less than 30 m (100
ft). In these situations, the distance to
the tracks does not allow for the use of
a W10–1 sign, but the additional
information provided by the
supplemental plaques is just as
important.
464. In existing Section 8B.10 (new
Section 8B.11) STOP HERE WHEN
FLASHING Sign, the FHWA proposes to
add a new sign designated R8–10a. This
proposed sign is similar in design and
size to the existing R10–6a sign. The
FHWA proposes this new sign in order
to provide a 600 mm × 750 mm (24 in.
× 30 in.) alternate to the R8–10 sign. The
FHWA proposes to add both the
proposed new R8–10a sign and the
existing R10–6a signs to Table 8B–1.
465. The FHWA proposes to rewrite
existing Section 8B.12 (new Section
8B.13) Emergency Notification Sign in
its entirety. The proposed text includes
STANDARD statements that specify the
minimum amount of information to be
placed on Emergency Notification signs,
sign placement, and the proposed sign
color of a white legend and border on
a blue background. The proposed new
201 National Cooperative Highway Research
Report 470 titled ‘‘Traffic Control Devices for
Passive Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings,’’
Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
text includes an OPTION statement that
allows similar information to be
displayed on the enclosure for signal
apparatus at crossings that are equipped
with active traffic control devices. The
proposed new text also includes a
GUIDANCE statement with additional
information on sign retroreflectivity,
sign placement, and sign size. To
illustrate the proposed change, FHWA
would revise Figure 8B–4 and Table 8B–
1 accordingly. The FHWA proposes
these changes to simplify the
requirements for these signs and to
assure that the appropriate information
is displayed on these valuable signs that
provide information to roadway users in
the event of an emergency or signal
malfunction requiring notification to the
railroad. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
466. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 8B.15 because the
information from this section is
included in the proposed revisions to
Section 8B.04. See item 461 above.
467. The FHWA proposes to revise
Section 8B.16 LOOK Sign to indicate
that the LOOK sign may be mounted on
a separate sign post (rather than to give
the option of mounting it as a
supplemental plaque on the Crossbuck
sign) in the immediate vicinity of the
highway-rail grade crossing on the
railroad right-of-way. The FHWA
proposes this change because other
proposed changes require other signs to
be placed on the Crossbuck assembly
and there would be insufficient space
for the LOOK sign.
468. In Section 8B.21 Stop Lines, the
FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD
statement requiring the use of stop lines
on paved roadways at highway-rail
grade crossings that are equipped with
active control devices. This requirement
is currently implied by STANDARD
language in Section 8B.20 and
illustrated in Figure 8B–6. The FHWA
proposes to add this specific
requirement in Section 8B.21 for
clarification and because the stop line
provides road users with a clear
indication of the point behind which
they are required to stop when the
traffic control devices are activated.
469. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Chapter 8C Illumination, and
place the information from this Section
in a new Section numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 8A.05 Illumination at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.’’ See
item 457 above. The remaining Chapters
in Part 8 would be relettered
accordingly.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
470. In existing Section 8D.03 (new
Section 8C.03) Flashing-Light Signals,
Overhead Structures, the FHWA
proposes to add to the STANDARD
statement that except as noted in this
section, flashing-light signals mounted
overhead shall comply with the
applicable provisions of new Section
8C.02. The FHWA proposes this change
to clarify that the requirement in
existing Section 8D.02 (new Section
8C.02) for back-to-back pairs of flashinglight signals on each side of the tracks
when there is highway traffic in both
directions applies also to overhead
mounted flashing light signals.
471. In existing Section 8D.04 (new
Section 8C.04) Automatic Gates, the
FHWA proposes to revise the 4th
paragraph of the STANDARD statement
to indicate that the stripes on gate arms
shall be vertical, rather than 45-degree
diagonal. The FHWA would change the
stripes on Figures 8C–1, 10D–3, and
10D–4 accordingly. The diagonal stripes
tend to encourage road users to drive
around the gates because diagonal
stripes are used on other devices such
as barricades, object markers, etc. to
indicate the direction in which road
users are expected to change their path
of travel. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing stripes on gate arms in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies or
railroad companies.
472. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section after existing Section 8D.05
(new Section 8C.05) numbered and
titled, ‘‘Section 8C.06 Wayside Horn
Systems.’’ This new section contains
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the use of wayside
horn systems to provide directional
audible warning at highway-rail grade
crossings pursuant to the Interim
Approval for the Use of Wayside Horn
Systems, issued August 2, 2004.202 The
Interim Approval and proposed MUTCD
text support the Final Rule adopted by
Federal Railroad Administration
mandating the sounding of locomotive
horns at highway-rail grade crossings
(49 CFR Part 222).203 The FHWA would
renumber the remaining sections in this
chapter accordingly. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 5 years for existing locations to
202 The Interim Approval can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
203 The Federal Register Notice was published on
December 18, 2003, (Volume 68, Number 243, Page
70586–70687) and can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.fra.dot.gov/
downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/
fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
327
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
473. In existing Section 8D.07 (new
Section 8C.08) Traffic Control Signals at
or Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,
the FHWA proposes to add a 3rd
paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement
recommending that back-up power be
supplied to traffic control signals that
have railroad preemption or that are
coordinated with flashing-light signal
systems at a highway-rail grade
crossing. The FHWA proposes to add
this recommendation because railroad
flashing-light signals are typically
provided with standby power supply to
ensure their operation during power
outages and it is important that traffic
signals at or near the crossings also be
provided with standby power during
power outages to help prevent vehicles
from queuing on approaches crossing
tracks. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add a 4th paragraph to the GUIDANCE
statement to conform with Section
8A.01, which states that the highway
agency or authority with jurisdiction
and the regulatory agency with statutory
authority jointly determine the need and
selection of devices at a highway-rail
grade crossing. In conjunction with that
proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to add to the 2nd STANDARD statement
to clarify that the timing parameters
must be furnished by the jurisdiction so
that the railroad will be able to design
the train detection circuitry. The FHWA
proposes these changes, because
railroads often do not have the expertise
or the authority to determine the
preemption operation and timing of the
traffic signals.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to
the last SUPPORT statement to provide
a cross-reference to the proposed new
Section 4C.10, which describes the
Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing signal warrant that is intended
for use at a location where the proximity
to the intersection of a highway-rail
grade crossing on an intersection
approach controlled by a STOP or
YIELD sign is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control
signal.
474. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
8D.07 (new Section 8C.08) numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 8C.09 Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing(s) Within or In Close
Proximity to Roundabouts, Traffic
Circles, or Circular Intersections.’’ This
new section contains SUPPORT,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
328
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
statements that clarify the need for
active traffic control devices where
highway-rail grade crossings are within
or in close proximity to roundabouts,
traffic circles or circular intersections.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for traffic
control devices in good condition at
existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
475. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 8D Quiet
Zone Treatments at Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings.’’ The purpose of this new
Chapter is to add language to support
and directly refer to the Final Rule
adopted by Federal Railroad
Administration regarding quiet zones
established in conjunction with
restrictions on train horns at certain
highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR
Part 222).204
476. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 8E
Pathway-Rail Grade Crossings.’’ The
purpose of this new Chapter is to
provide information for traffic control
devices used at pathway-rail grade
crossings. Shared-use paths and other
similar facilities often cross railroad
tracks and it is important that suitable
traffic control devices be used to
provide for safe and effective operation
of such crossings. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 9 Traffic Controls for Bicycle
Facilities
477. In Section 9A.03 Definitions
Relating to Bicycles, the FHWA
proposes to change the definition of
‘‘bicycle lane’’ to indicate that a bicycle
lane is to be designated by pavement
markings, and that signs may be used to
supplement the markings designating a
bicycle lane, but they are not required.
The FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with proposed changes in
Sections 1A.13 and 9B.04. The FHWA
also proposes to delete the second
sentence of the definition of ‘‘Designed
Bicycle Route’’ and relocate this text to
existing Section 9B.20 (new Section
9B.21) where it is more appropriate.
478. In Section 9B.01 Application and
Placement of Signs, the FHWA proposes
to revise the STANDARD statement to
indicate that no portion of a sign or its
204 The Federal Register Notice was published on
December 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 243, Page
70586–70687) and can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.fra.dot.gov/
downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/
fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
support shall be placed less than 0.6 m
(2 ft) laterally from the near edge of the
path, or less than 2.4 m (8 ft) vertically
over the entire width of the shared-use
path. As part of this change, the FHWA
proposes to remove the requirement that
signs be placed a maximum of 1.8 m (6
ft) from the near edge of a path. The
FHWA proposes this change to be more
consistent with Part 2 and in response
to feedback from practitioners that the
existing MUTCD standards for sign
height and offset can restrict the ability
of agencies to effectively install signs on
many shared-use path locations. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies. The
FHWA also proposes to modify Figure
9B–1 to illustrate the proposed
minimum vertical offset information for
overhead mounted signs.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add to the GUIDANCE statement that
the clearance for overhead signs on
shared-use paths should be adjusted to
accommodate path users requiring more
clearance, such as equestrians or typical
maintenance or emergency vehicles.
479. In Section 9B.04, retitled Bike
Lane Signs and Plaques, the FHWA
proposes to revise the STANDARD and
GUIDANCE statements to clarify that
Bike Lane signs are not required along
bicycle lanes, and to give
recommendations on the placement of
Bike Lane signs and plaques when they
are used. Whether the presence or
absence of the Bicycle Lane sign
provides a clearly measurable benefit in
indicating a designated bicycle lane has
not been conclusively demonstrated.
Amending the MUTCD to make the use
of Bicycle Lane signs with marked
bicycle lanes a recommended, rather
than a mandatory, condition would
provide flexibility for jurisdictions that
do not desire to use the Bicycle Lane
sign, without restricting the ability of
jurisdictions that prefer to use the signs
to continue to do so. These changes are
consistent with proposed changes to the
definition of ‘‘bicycle lane’’ as discussed
in item 477 above.
480. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following Section 9B.05
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9B.06
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4–
11).’’ This Section includes OPTION
and SUPPORT statements regarding the
use of this proposed new sign, which is
illustrated in Figure 9B–2. The FHWA
proposes this new sign, and
accompanying text and figure, to
provide jurisdictions with a consistent
sign design, along with application
information, for locations where it is
important to inform road users that the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists
and motor vehicles to operate side by
side. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
481. The FHWA proposes to change
the title of existing Section 9B.08 (new
Section 9B.09) to ‘‘Selective Exclusion
Signs’’ and add new text regarding the
exclusion of various designated types of
traffic from using particular roadways or
facilities. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. As part of the change,
the FHWA proposes to add No Skaters
(R9–13) and No Equestrians (R9–14)
signs to the text and to Figure 9B–2.
482. In existing Section 9B.10 (new
Section 9B.11) Bicycle Regulatory Signs,
the FHWA proposes to add information
about three proposed new signs for
bicycle pushbuttons, consistent with
similar proposed text in Chapter 2B.
483. In existing Section 9B.17 (new
Section 9B.18), which the FHWA
proposes to retitle, ‘‘Bicycle Warning
and Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian
Signs,’’ the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement permitting the use of
the proposed new Combined Bicycle/
Pedestrian (W11–15) sign where both
bicyclists and pedestrians might be
crossing the roadway, such as at an
intersection with a shared-use path.
Further discussion of this proposed sign
can be found above in the discussion of
existing Section 2C.40 (new Section
2C.51). The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to permit a
TRAIL XING (W11–15P) supplemental
plaque to be mounted below the W11–
15 sign. The FHWA also proposes to
illustrate this configuration in Figure
9B–3. The FHWA proposes these
changes to be consistent with Chapter
2C.
484. In existing Section 9B.18 (new
Section 9B.19) Other Bicycle Warning
Signs, the FHWA proposes to change
the legend on the W5–4a sign from
‘‘BIKEWAY NARROWS’’ to ‘‘PATH
NARROWS.’’ The FHWA proposes this
change because shared-use paths are the
only bikeway type on which the W5–4a
sign is used, therefore, use on other
types of bikeways would be
inappropriate or confusing, and should
not be encouraged. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
State or local highway agencies. In
conjunction with the proposed change
in the text, FHWA proposes to make the
appropriate change in Table 9B–1.
485. In existing Section 9B.19 (new
Section 9B.20), the FHWA proposes to
retitle the section ‘‘Bicycle Guide Signs’’
and add several new signs, along with
information on their use. The FHWA
proposes these changes to provide
flexibility and potentially reduce costs
for signing bicycle routes in urban areas
where multiple routes intersect or
overlap. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. Along with
additional text regarding the use of the
proposed new Alternative Bike Route
Guide (D11–1c) and Bicycle Destination
signs (D1–1b, D1–1c, D1–2b, D1–2c, D1–
3b, and D1–3c), the FHWA proposes
adding the various new signs to Table
9B–1 and Figure 9B–4.
486. In existing Section 9B.20 (new
Section 9B.21) Bicycle Route Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add a new Bicycle
Route (M1–8a) sign that retains the
clear, simple, and uniform design of the
M1–8 sign, but provides an area near the
top of the panel to include a pictograph
or words that are associated with the
route or with the agency that has
jurisdiction over the route. There has
been a significant amount of interest in
allowing agencies to develop unique or
distinctive route number signs for
bicycle routes, in much the same way
that States use distinctive M1–5 signs
for State highways. However, this could
lead to route sign designs that are
unclear and non-uniform. As a result,
the FHWA proposes the new M1–8a
sign to provide a clear, uniform sign.
The M1–8 sign would continue to
remain in the MUTCD for use when
agencies do not wish to use a distinctive
pictograph, symbol, or wording. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
change the existing 2nd OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE to
recommend, rather than merely permit,
a U.S. Bicycle Route number
designation be requested from AASHTO
for a designated bicycle route that
extends through two or more States. The
FHWA also proposes to add this
GUIDANCE the text relocated from the
definition of ‘‘designated bicycle route’’
in Section 9A.03 regarding continuous
routing of bicycle routes, as discussed
above in item 478.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise
the design of the U.S. Bike Route Sign
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
in Figure 9B–4 so that a larger bicycle
is shown on the top part of the sign with
a smaller number below it. The reason
for the change is to present an
immediate impression of a ‘‘bicycle
numbered route’’ rather than a
‘‘highway numbered route which can
also be used by bicyclists’’ and to
provide consistency with AASHTO’s
recommended design for the sign.
487. The FHWA proposes to change
the title of existing Section 9B.21 (new
Section 9B.22) to ‘‘Bicycle Route Sign
Auxiliary Plaques’’ and to revise the
content of the section considerably. As
part of the changes, the FHWA proposes
to revise the size and design of the M4–
11 BEGIN plaque to be consistent with
similar M4 series auxiliary signs in Part
9. The FHWA also proposes to delete
the M4–12 and M4–13 plaques from this
section and Figure 9B–4 because these
duplicate the M4–6 and M4–5 auxiliary
signs. In addition, FHWA proposes to
delete the M7 series arrow plaques from
this section and Figure 9B–4 because
these duplicate the proposed new sizes
of the M5 and M6 auxiliary signs. The
FHWA also proposes to add 300 mm ×
150 mm (12 in × 6 in) sizes for selected
M3 and M4 series auxiliary signs, and
add 300 mm × 225 mm (12 in × 9 in)
sizes for all M5 and M6 series auxiliary
signs, and to refer to these smaller sizes
in this section, Table 9B–1, and Figure
9B–4. These smaller sizes will be
suitable for use with M1–8, M1–8a, and
M1–9 signs. These proposed changes
will ensure that route auxiliary
designations are consistent between Part
2 and Part 9.
488. The FHWA proposes to replace
existing Figure 9B–6 with a new Figure
9B–6 titled, ‘‘Example of Bicycle Guide
Signing’’ that illustrates an example of
guide signing for bicycles, including the
Bicycle Destination signs.
489. The FHWA proposes to add three
new sections following existing Section
9B.22 (new Section 9B.23) Bicycle
Parking Area Sign. The first proposed
new section is numbered and titled,
‘‘Section 9B.24 Reference Location
Signs and Intermediate Reference
Location Signs’’ and contains
information regarding the use of the
signs on shared-use paths. Reference
Location signs (formerly called
mileposts) have been defined in Chapter
2D of the MUTCD since 1971, and have
proven extraordinarily valuable for
traveler information, maintenance and
operations, emergency response, and
numerous other applications. The linear
nature of many shared-use paths would
seem to also naturally lend itself to the
application of Reference Location signs.
However, the use and design of such
signs has not yet been explicitly
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
329
addressed in Part 9 of the MUTCD.
Defining a standard and uniform design
could provide more uniform traveler
guidance, reduce the proliferation of
non-standard reference location signs,
and encourage the use of these signs
where desirable and appropriate. The
proposed signs would be
proportionately sized for the lower
operating speeds of shared-use paths,
using a 150 mm (6 in) wide panel with
113 mm (4.5 in) numerals. The
proposed text is adapted directly from
existing Section 2D.46 defining the use
of these signs for conventional
roadways. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. In addition to
revising the text, the FHWA proposes to
revise Figure 9B–4 and Table 9B–1 to
include the use of these signs.
490. The second proposed new
section is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
9B.25 Mode-Specific Guide Signs for
Shared-Use Paths’’ and contains
information regarding the use of signs to
guide different types of users to separate
pathways where they are available.
Currently, the Manual provides tools
only to prohibit user types, not to show
which user types are permitted. As a
result, jurisdictions are commonly
installing varied, non-standard mode
permission signs. The proposed changes
are intended to provide clarity and
uniformity for mode-specific guide signs
on shared-use paths by adding five new
signs to the MUTCD. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. In
addition to adding the new signs to
Figure 9B–4 and Table 9B–1, the FHWA
proposes to add Figure 9B–8 ‘‘Example
of Mode-Specific Guide Signs on
Shared-Use Paths’’ to illustrate the use
of the proposed signs.
491. The third proposed new section
is numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9B.26
Object Markers.’’ The FHWA proposes
to relocate the text and figures from
Section 9C.03 to this section, to be
consistent with a similar proposed move
of object markers from Part 3 to Part 2.
492. In Section 9C.03 Marking
Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use
Paths, the FHWA proposes to relocate
the last five paragraphs to new Section
9B.26 as discussed in item 491 above.
493. In Section 9C.04 Markings for
Bicycle Lanes, the FHWA proposes
several changes in this Section to
correspond with proposed changes to
the definition of ‘‘bicycle lane’’ in
Section 1A.13 (item 477 above) and
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
330
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
signs and plaques for bike lanes in
Section 9B.04.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
expand the last STANDARD statement
to include ‘‘other circular intersections’’
as locations where bicycle lanes are
prohibited. The FHWA proposes this
additional language to clarify that in
addition to being prohibited on the
circular roadway of a roundabout,
bicycle lanes are not to be provided on
the circular roadway of other circular
intersections.
494. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section at the end of Chapter 9C
numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9C.07
Shared Lane Marking.’’ This new
section contains OPTION, GUIDANCE,
and STANDARD statements regarding
the use of a proposed new Shared Lane
Marking. This proposed new pavement
marking indicates the legal and
appropriate bicyclist line of travel, and
cues motorists to pass with sufficient
clearance, and is based on field research
conducted in San Francisco,
California.205 The purpose of this
proposed new marking is to reduce the
number and severity of bicyclevehicular crashes, particularly crashes
involving bicycles colliding with
suddenly opened doors of parked
vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phasein compliance period of 5 years for
existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. In
addition to the text, the FHWA proposes
to illustrate the appropriate use of the
marking in a new figure, titled, ‘‘Figure
9C–9 Shared Lane Marking.’’
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to
Part 10 Traffic Controls for HighwayLight Rail Grade Crossings
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
495. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
10A.04. The new section is numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 10A.05 Illumination
at Highway-Light Rail Transit
Crossings’’ and contains information
previously included in existing Section
10C.22. The FHWA proposes to change
the designation of the text in this
section to SUPPORT because
illumination is not a traffic control
device and thus should not be regulated
by GUIDANCE and OPTION language. A
similar change is proposed in Part 8—
see item 457 above.
205 ‘‘San Francisco’s Shared Lane Pavement
Markings: Improving Bicycle Safety,’’ Final Report,
February 2004, prepared for the City of San
Francisco Department of Traffic and Parking by Alta
Planning and Design can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.sfmta.com/cms/
uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/
Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report052404.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
496. In Section 10B.01 Introduction,
the FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD and OPTION statements
that Crossbuck Assemblies are also
appropriate traffic control devices at
highway-light rail transit grade
crossings in semi-exclusive alignments,
if an engineering study indicates that
their use would be adequate. The
FHWA also proposes to add to the last
SUPPORT statement that Section 8B.04
and Figures 8B–1, 8B–2, and 8B–6
contain information regarding the use
and placement of Crossbuck
Assemblies. The FHWA proposes these
changes for consistency with changes in
Part 8 as discussed in item 458 above.
497. In Section 10C.02, which the
FHWA proposes to re-title ‘‘Use of
Crossbuck Assemblies at Passive
Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade
Crossings,’’ the FHWA proposes to add
an OPTION that allows the Crossbuck
sign to have reflectorized red lettering,
rather than the standard black lettering,
at non-signalized crossings. The FHWA
proposes this change to emphasize that
the Crossbuck assigns the right-of-way
to LRT traffic at a highway-light rail
transit grade crossing.
The FHWA also proposes to delete the
requirement that Crossbuck signs be
used on each highway approach to
every highway-light rail transit grade
crossing on a semi-exclusive alignment
from the STANDARD statement. The
FHWA proposes this change to reflect
standard practice with most light rail
transit agencies in the U.S. Crossbuck
signs are not typically used at crossings
controlled by traffic signals, particularly
in downtown areas. Crossings within
highway-highway intersections in urban
areas with train speeds of 60 km/h (35
mph) or less are typically controlled by
traffic signals and Crossbuck signs are
not used. Crossbuck signs are not
appropriate for light rail transit
crossings in downtown areas or at
intersections controlled by traffic
signals, since they are believed to be
ineffective and create sign clutter. The
FHWA proposes to revise the OPTION
statement to allow the use of Crossbuck
Assemblies (described in Section 8D.05)
on semiexclusive alignments, to allow
agencies the flexibility to use the
Crossbuck sign if they choose to do so
for certain situations.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the
3rd paragraph of the second
STANDARD statement to clarify that the
strip of reflective material that is
required on Crossbuck Assembly
supports shall be vertical and placed on
the back of the support from the bottom
of the Crossbuck sign to within 0.6 m (2
ft) above the ground. In conjunction
with this change, the FHWA clarifies
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that on Crossbuck Assemblies where the
YIELD or STOP sign is installed on a
separate support, or is omitted in
accordance with Section 8B.04, a
vertical strip of retroreflective white
material, not less than 50 mm (2 in) in
width, shall be used on the front of the
Crossbuck Assembly support from the
bottom of the Crossbuck sign or Number
of Tracks sign to within 0.6 m (2 ft)
above the ground. The FHWA proposes
these changes to clarify the types of
reflective strips to be used, how they are
to be measured, and when they are to
be used.
498. The FHWA proposes to revise
Section 10C.03 LOOK Sign to indicate
that the LOOK sign may be mounted on
a separate sign post (rather than to give
the option of mounting it as a
supplemental plaque on the Crossbuck
sign) in the immediate vicinity of the
highway-light rail grade crossing on the
railroad right-of-way. The FHWA
proposes this change because other
proposed changes require other signs to
be placed on the Crossbuck assembly
and there would be insufficient space
for the LOOK sign.
499. The FHWA proposes to change
the title of Section 10C.04 to ‘‘Use of
STOP or YIELD Signs without
Crossbuck Signs at Highway-Light Rail
Transit Grade Crossings’’ to reflect
proposed changes to this section that
clarify when it is appropriate to use
only STOP or YIELD signs, without the
Crossbuck Sign. As part of the proposed
changes, FHWA proposes to delete the
OPTION statement allowing a STOP or
YIELD sign to be installed on the
Crossbuck post, because this is
proposed to be covered in Sections
10B.01 and 10C.02.
500. In existing Section 10C.08 STOP
HERE WHEN FLASHING Sign
(renumbered Section 10C.07 because the
order of Sections 10C.07 and 10C.08 is
proposed to be reversed to follow the
same order as they are in Part 8), the
FHWA proposes to add a new sign
designated R8–10a. This proposed sign
is similar in design and size to the
existing R10–6a sign. The FHWA
proposes this new sign in order to
provide a 600 mm × 900 mm (24 in x
30 in) alternate to the R8–10 sign. The
FHWA proposes to add both the
proposed new R8–10a sign and the
existing R10–6a signs to Table 8B–1.
501. In Section 10C.15 Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs,
the FHWA proposes to add to the first
STANDARD statement a requirement
that a supplemental plaque describing
the type of traffic control at the
highway-light rail grade crossing shall
be used with the Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Advance Warning sign (W10–
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
1). As part of this proposed change, the
FHWA proposes to require the use of a
No Signal (W10–10P) supplemental
plaque in advance of a crossing that
does not have active traffic control
devices, and the use of a new Signal
Ahead (W10–16P) plaque in advance of
a crossing that does have active traffic
control devices. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for the use of these supplemental
plaques at existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to
add at the end of the 1st STANDARD
that a Yield Ahead or a Stop Ahead
Advance Warning Sign shall also be
installed if criteria are met, along with
information regarding the distance
between signs in advance of a highwaylight rail grade crossing, to emphasize
existing requirements in Part 2.
The FHWA proposes these changes to
improve safety by providing road users
with additional information regarding
traffic control devices at highway-rail
grade crossings as recommended by
recent research.206
502. In Figure 10C–4 Warning Signs
and Light Rail Station Sign, the FHWA
proposes to revise the symbol shown on
the W10–7 sign to utilize the same
symbol of a light rail vehicle as that
used on the I–12 sign. The light rail
vehicle symbol on the existing W10–7
sign was an inadvertent error that the
FHWA proposes to correct so that the
symbols will be consistent. The FHWA
also proposes to add the No Signal
(W10–10P) and Active Control (W10–
16P) plaques to this figure.
503. The FHWA proposes to rewrite
Section 10C.21 Emergency Notification
Sign in its entirety. These proposed
changes are very similar to those
proposed in existing Section 8B.12 (new
Section 8B.13) in item 465 above. The
proposed text includes STANDARD
statements that specify the minimum
amount of information to be placed on
Emergency Notification signs, sign
placement, and the proposed sign color
of a white legend and border on a blue
background. The proposed new text
includes an OPTION statement that
allows similar information to be
displayed on the enclosure for signal
apparatus at crossings that are equipped
with active traffic control devices. The
proposed new text also includes a
GUIDANCE statement with additional
206 National Cooperative Highway Research
Report 470 titled ‘‘Traffic Control Devices for
Passive Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings,’’
Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
information on sign retroreflectivity,
sign placement, and sign size. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies. To
illustrate the proposed change, FHWA
would revise Figure 10C–4. The FHWA
proposes these changes to simplify the
requirements for these signs and to
assure that the appropriate information
is displayed on these valuable signs that
provide information to roadway users in
the event of an emergency or signal
malfunction requiring notification to the
railroad LRT agency.
504. The FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 10C.22 Illumination at
Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings,
and place the information from this
Section in a new Section numbered and
titled, ‘‘Section 10A.05 Illumination at
Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings.’’
The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly. See item 495
above.
505. In existing Section 10C.24 (new
Section 10C.23) Stop Lines, the FHWA
proposes to add a STANDARD
statement requiring the use of stop lines
on paved roadways at highway-light rail
transit grade crossings that are equipped
with active control devices. This
requirement is currently implied by
STANDARD language in Section 10C.22
and illustrated in Figure 10C–2. The
FHWA proposes to add this specific
requirement in Section 10C.24 for
clarification and because the stop line
provides road users with a clear
indication of the point behind which
they are required to stop when the
traffic control devices are activated.
506. In Section 10D.01 Introduction,
the FHWA proposes to change the
OPTION statement to a STANDARD
statement, which will require audible
devices to the provided and operated in
conjunction with flashing-light signals
or traffic control signals where they are
operated at a crossing that is used by
pedestrians. The FHWA proposes this
change because light rail transit vehicles
are often nearly silent, and blind
pedestrians cannot see flashing lights.
Requiring the use of an audible warning
device would assure that information
about the approach of a light rail transit
vehicle is available to persons with
visual disabilities. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
507. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section after existing Section
10D.04 numbered and titled, ‘‘Section
10D.05 Wayside Horn Systems.’’ This
new section contains OPTION,
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
331
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the use of wayside
horn systems to provide directional
audible warning at highway-light rail
grade crossings, pursuant to the Interim
Approval for the Use of Wayside Horn
Systems, issued August 2, 2004.207 The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. See item 472 above
for additional information because this
proposed new section is very similar to
proposed new Section 8C.06. FHWA
would renumber the remaining sections
in this chapter accordingly.
508. In existing Section 10D.08 (new
Section 10D.07) Use of Traffic Control
Signals for Control of Light Rail Transit
Vehicles at Grade Crossings, the FHWA
proposes to change the first paragraph of
the SUPPORT statement to a
GUIDANCE statement, to recommend
that the light rail transit signal
indications shown in Figure 10D–1 be
used to control light rail transit
movements. The existing MUTCD
indicates that the indications shown in
the figure are only examples of
indications that could be used, and
there is no requirement or
recommendation to use these particular
indications. As a result, there is no
uniformity in the light rail transit signal
indications used around the country.
The FHWA believes that such
uniformity is needed and that the
indications shown in Figure 10D–1
should be recommended for use. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing locations
to minimize any impact on State or local
highway or transit agencies.
509. In Figures 10D–3 and 10D–4, the
FHWA proposes to change the striping
on the gate arms from diagonal to
vertical to reflect the proposed striping
change in Section 8D.04.
510. In existing Section 10D.08 (new
Section 10D.09) Pedestrian and Bicycle
Signals and Crossings, the FHWA
proposes to add to the GUIDANCE
statement that an audible device should
be installed, in addition to a Crossbuck
sign, at pedestrian and bicycle crossings
where determined by an engineering
study. The FHWA also proposes to add
that if an engineering study shows that
flashing-light signals with a Crossbuck
sign and an audible device would not
provide sufficient notice of an
approaching light rail transit vehicle,
the LOOK sign and/or pedestrian gates
should be considered. The FHWA
proposes these changes to provide
207 The Interim Approval can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
332
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
consistency with proposed changes in
Section 10D.01 in item 506 above.
511. The FHWA proposes to add a
new section following existing Section
10D.08 (new Section 10D.09) numbered
and titled, ‘‘Section 10D.10 HighwayLight Rail Transit Grade Crossings(s)
Within or In Close Proximity to
Roundabouts, Traffic Circles, or Circular
Intersections.’’ This new section
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and
GUIDANCE statements that clarify the
need for active traffic control devices
where highway-rail grade crossings are
within or in close proximity to
roundabouts, traffic circles, or circular
intersections. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway
agencies.
512. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 10E Quiet
Zone Treatments at Highway-Light Rail
Transit Grade Crossings.’’ The purpose
of this new Chapter is to add language
to support and directly refer to the Final
Rule adopted by Federal Railroad
Administration regarding quiet zones
established in conjunction with
restrictions on train horns at certain
highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR
Part 222) 208 which may have
applicability to certain highway-light
rail transit grade crossings.
513. The FHWA proposes to add a
new Chapter titled, ‘‘Chapter 10F
Pathway-Light Rail Transit Grade
Crossings.’’ The purpose of this new
Chapter is to provide information for
traffic control devices used at pathwayrail grade crossings. Shared-use paths
and other similar facilities often cross
light rail transit tracks and it is
important that suitable traffic control
devices be used to provide for safe and
effective operation of such crossings.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for
existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this
action would not be a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866 or significant
within the meaning of U.S. Department
208 The Federal Register Notice was published on
December 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 243, Page
70586–70687) and can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://www.fra.dot.gov/
downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/
fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. These changes are not
anticipated to adversely affect, in any
material way, any sector of the
economy. Most of the proposed changes
in the MUTCD would provide
additional guidance, clarification, and
optional applications for traffic control
devices. The FHWA believes that the
uniform application of traffic control
devices will greatly improve the traffic
operations efficiency and roadway
safety. The standards, guidance, and
support are also used to create
uniformity and to enhance safety and
mobility at little additional expense to
public agencies or the motoring public.
In addition, these changes would not
create a serious inconsistency with any
other agency’s action or materially alter
the budgetary impact of any
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs. Therefore, a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C.
601–612), the FHWA has evaluated the
effects of these changes on small entities
and has determined that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule would add
some alternative traffic control devices
and only a very limited number of new
or changed requirements. Most of the
proposed changes are expanded
guidance and clarification information.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose
unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22,
1995). The proposed revisions can be
phased in by the States over specified
time periods in order to minimize
hardship. The proposed changes to
traffic control devices that would
require an expenditure of funds all
would have future effective dates
sufficiently long to allow normal
maintenance funds to replace the
devices at the end of the material lifecycle. To the extent the proposed
revisions would require expenditures by
the State and local governments on
Federal-aid projects, they are
reimbursable. This action would not
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $128.1
million or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1532).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 dated August 4, 1999, and the
FHWA has determined that this action
would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism assessment. The FHWA
has also determined that this
rulemaking will not preempt any State
law or State regulation or affect the
States’ ability to discharge traditional
State governmental functions. The
MUTCD is incorporated by reference in
23 CFR part 655, subpart F. These
proposed amendments are in keeping
with the Secretary of Transportation’s
authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315,
and 402(a) to promulgate uniform
guidelines to promote the safe and
efficient use of the highway. The
overriding safety benefits of the
uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD
are shared by all of the State and local
governments, and changes made to this
rule are directed at enhancing safety. To
the extent that these proposed
amendments override any existing State
requirements regarding traffic control
devices, they do so in the interest of
national uniformity.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action
under Executive Order 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that it
would not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes; would not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments; and
would not preempt tribal law.
Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a significant
energy action under that order because
it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
a Statement of Energy Effects under
Executive Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction.
The regulations implementing Executive
Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to
this program.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
333
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paperwork Reduction Act
23 CFR Part 655
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. The FHWA
has determined that this action does not
contain collection information
requirements for purposes of the PRA.
Design standards, Grant programs—
transportation, Highways and roads,
Incorporation by reference, Signs,
Traffic regulations.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This action meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
Issued on: December 14, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing,
under the authority 23 U.S.C. 315, the
FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations parts 634 and
655 as follows:
PART 634—[REMOVED AND
RESERVED]
1. Part 634, as added at 71 FR 67800
(November 24, 2006), is removed and
reserved.
PART 655–TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The FHWA has analyzed this action
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this
action would not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety
that may disproportionately affect
children.
2. The authority citation for part 655
continues to read as follows:
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
*
The FHWA does not anticipate that
this action would affect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action
for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has determined
that it would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number
(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
Information Service Center publishes
the Unified Agenda in April and
October of each year. The RIN contained
in the heading of this document can be
used to cross reference this action with
the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Part 634
Design standards, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference,
Workers, Traffic regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d),
114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32;
and, 49 CFR 1.48(b).
3. Revise paragraph (a) of § 655.601 to
read as follows:
§ 655.601
Purpose.
*
*
*
*
(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Streets and Highways
(MUTCD), lll [date to be inserted]
Edition, FHWA, dated lll [date to be
inserted]. This publication is
incorporated by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51
and is on file at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA call (202) 741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
It is available for inspection and
copying at the Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, as
provided in 49 CFR part 7. The text is
also available from the FHWA Office of
Operations Web site at: http//
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 655.603 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 655.603
Standards.
(a) National MUTCD. The MUTCD
approved by the Federal Highway
Administrator is the national standard
for all traffic control devices installed
on any street, highway, or bicycle trail
open to public travel in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a). For the
purpose of MUTCD applicability, open
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to public travel includes toll roads and
roads within shopping centers, parking
lot areas, 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. Private
gated properties where access is
restricted and private highway-rail
grade crossings are not included in this
definition.
Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655—
[Amended]
5. Amend Table 1 by changing the
daytime chromaticity coordinates for
retroreflective sign material for the color
Purple as follows:
x
Y
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302.
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307.
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374.
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457.
Existing 0.064 Proposed 0.064.
Existing 0.200 Proposed 0.202.
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.247.
Existing 0.202 Proposed 0.136.
6. Amend Table 2 by adding the
nighttime chromaticity coordinates for
retroreflective sign material for the color
Purple as follows:
x
0.300
0.307
0.480
0.530
Y
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
0.064
0.150
0.245
0.170
7. Amend Table 3 by changing the
daytime chromaticity coordinates for
retroreflective sign material for the color
Fluorescent Pink as follows:
x
Y
Existing 0.450 Proposed 0.600.
Existing 0.590 Proposed 0.450.
Existing 0.644 Proposed 0.430.
Existing 0.563 Proposed 0.536.
Existing———Proposed 0.644.
Existing 0.270 Proposed 0.340.
Existing 0.350 Proposed 0.332.
Existing 0.290 Proposed 0.275.
Existing 0.230 Proposed 0.230.
Existing———Proposed 0.290.
8. Amend Table 3 by adding after
Fluorescent Pink the color Fluorescent
Red and its daytime chromaticity
coordinates for retroreflective sign
material as follows:
x
0.666
0.613
0.671
0.735
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
02JAP2
Y
0.334
0.333
0.275
0.265
334
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules
9. Amend Table 3A by adding after
Fluorescent Pink the color Fluorescent
Red and its daytime luminance
coordinates for retroreflective sign
material as follows:
Minimum
Maximum
20 ......................
YF
30
15
10. Amend Table 4 by adding after
Fluorescent Green the color Fluorescent
Red and its nighttime chromaticity
coordinates for retroreflective sign
material as follows:
x
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
0.680 .........................................
0.645 .........................................
0.712 .........................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Dec 31, 2007
Y
0.320
0.320
0.253
Jkt 214001
x
Y
0.735 .........................................
0.265
11. Amend Table 5 by adding after the
color Blue the daytime chromaticity
coordinates for Purple retroreflective
pavement marking material as follows:
x
0.300
0.309
0.362
0.475
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
0.064
0.260
0.295
0.144
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Maximum
5 ................................................
15
13. Amend Table 6 by adding after the
color Yellow the nighttime chromaticity
coordinates for Purple retroreflective
pavement marking material as follows:
Y
12. Amend Table 5A by adding after
the color Blue the daytime luminance
factors for Purple retroreflective
pavement marking material as follows:
PO 00000
Minimum
x
0.338
0.425
0.470
0.635
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
Y
0.080
0.365
0.385
0.221
[FR Doc. E7–24863 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\02JAP2.SGM
02JAP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 268-334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24863]
[[Page 267]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Parts 634 and 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 268]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 634 and 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: Notice of proposed amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD (also referred to as ``the Manual'') is incorporated
by 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 notice of proposed amendments is
to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information
relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The
proposed changes are intended to expedite traffic, promote uniformity,
improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control
device application. These proposed changes are being designated as the
next edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
www.regulations.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 19477-78) or
you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or 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 and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at: 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: https://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web
page at: https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the
MUTCD incorporating proposed changes from the current 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,
figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the MUTCD
incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are available
on the MUTCD Internet Web site https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The proposed
text is available in two formats. The first format shows the current
MUTCD text with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed
deletions as red strikeout text, and also includes notes in green boxes
to provide helpful explanations where text is proposed to be relocated
or where minor edits are proposed. The second format shows a ``clean''
version of the complete text proposed for the next edition of the
MUTCD, with all the proposed changes incorporated. The complete current
2003 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 incorporated is also
available on the same Internet Web site.
This notice of proposed amendments is being issued to provide an
opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed
amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the comments received and its own
experience, the FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed
changes included in this notice.
The notice of proposed amendments is being published to address the
many advances in technology, research results, and improved traffic and
safety management strategies that have occurred since the 2002
initiation of the rulemaking process that led to the 2003 edition of
the MUTCD. The FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the
MUTCD. The FHWA requests that commenters cite the page number and line
numbers of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to
the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make the
FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient.
A summary of the significant proposed general changes and proposed
changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following
discussion.
Discussion of Proposed General Amendments to the MUTCD
1. The FHWA proposes to develop a new cover page for the new
edition of the MUTCD that will maintain general consistency with covers
of previous editions but with changes to give it a distinctive
appearance, to minimize the possibility of confusion by users. Although
a new cover page has not yet been developed and is not illustrated in
the NPA, the FHWA proposes to include a new cover page design in the
edition of the MUTCD published as the Final Rule. The FHWA proposes
that the date of the new edition to be identified on the cover and
elsewhere within the document will be the year in which the Final Rule
is issued.
2. The FHWA proposes to include paragraph numbers for each section,
in the margins, for the final page images of the next edition of the
MUTCD. Although the page images shown for the NPA do not include
paragraph numbers, the FHWA proposes to include them in the edition of
the MUTCD published as the Final Rule in order to aid practitioners in
referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of future MUTCD
notices of proposed amendments. On the FHWA's MUTCD Web site at https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, along with the proposed MUTCD text, the FHWA has
posted sample pages showing four possible methods for paragraph
numbering. Interested persons should review the sample pages and
provide comments to the docket on the paragraph numbering options.
3. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA proposes minor changes in text
[[Page 269]]
and figures for grammatical or style consistency, to improve
consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to
correct minor errors. Where the FHWA proposes to add 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 proposed addition would be renumbered or
relettered accordingly. All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists
of Tables, and page headers and footers would be revised as appropriate
to reflect the proposed changes.
4. The FHWA proposes, where appropriate, to modify figures and
tables to reflect proposed changes in the text and to add figures and
tables to illustrate new or revised text.
5. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA proposes to relocate
statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in
logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition,
the FHWA proposes to change the titles of some sections in order to
more accurately describe the content of the section.
6. The FHWA proposes to remove 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
proposes that each occurrence of the term either be eliminated or
replaced with suitable language that is more appropriate.
7. The FHWA proposes to change the phrase ``bicycle trail'' to
``bikeway'' in several places in the Manual. The FHWA proposes this
change because the term ``bikeway'' is a generic term used for any
road, street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for
bicycle travel and the term ``bicycle trail'' is generally used to
designate only off-road trails or paths that are typically not
constructed to engineering standards or guidelines, and the application
of the MUTCD to such bicycle trails would generally be impractical,
inappropriate, and inadvisable in some locations.
8. The FHWA proposes to change the references to the book
previously titled ``Standard Highway Signs'' to refer to the current
``Standard Highway Signs and Markings.'' This change is proposed
throughout the MUTCD because the FHWA is changing the title of that
book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes information
regarding markings.
9. The FHWA has conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign
codes used throughout the Manual, and proposes to revise sign codes in
several places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As
part of this process, the FHWA proposes to revise the term ``sign
code'' to ``sign designation'' to avoid confusion with other uses of
the word ``code,'' and to use the ``a'' suffix in sign designations for
word message signs that are alternatives to symbol signs, use the ``P''
suffix for sign designations for plaques, and add ``(M)'' suffixes for
signs that have metric units.
10. In all Parts of the MUTCD where sign images are shown in the
figures, the FHWA proposes to add sign images that are already in the
Standard Highway Signs and Markings book, but not in the MUTCD, and to
update figures to show proposed new signs or changes to existing signs.
11. The FHWA proposes to add 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 signing,
signals, and markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to
enhance safety and convenience for road users. The FHWA proposes to add
provisions on toll plaza traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4
that reflect the results of research study on best practices for
traffic control strategies at toll plazas \1\ (referred to hereafter as
the ``Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report'') and
FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/
index.htm.
\2\ ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,'' dated
September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_
policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The FHWA proposes to expand the provisions regarding
preferential lanes and add new provisions regarding managed lanes in
various Parts of the MUTCD. This proposed information is contained
primarily in Parts 2 and 3, and is intended to address specific signing
and marking issues associated with electronic toll collection, High
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls, etc. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to eliminate 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.
13. In order to further address the needs of motorcyclists, the
FHWA proposes to add information to Parts 2, 3, and 8 regarding traffic
control device considerations for motorcyclists.
14. The FHWA proposes to change the designations of barricades to
Types 1, 2, and 3 to eliminate the use of roman numerals because these
are the only devices that are designated by roman numerals and to be
consistent with other items such as object marker types. This editorial
change would affect the text of several Parts of the MUTCD.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction
15. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement
regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. The FHWA proposes this
change to incorporate recent changes to 23 CFR 655.603(a) \3\ that
clarify that, for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase ``open
to public travel'' includes toll roads and roads within shopping
centers, parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar
business and recreation facilities that are privately owned but where
the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. The FHWA
also proposes to modify the wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove the
military base exemption from the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to apply the
provisions in the MUTCD and modify the CFR based on a request from the
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to include
military bases in order to facilitate motorist safety through
conformity and consistency with national standards. The FHWA agrees
that many military bases are public and contain public roads that can
be freely accessed, and that the use of such roads by military
personnel from all over the country makes it especially important for
traffic control devices on military bases to be in conformance with the
national standards of the MUTCD. As a part of this change, the FHWA
proposes to indicate that traffic control devices can be placed by the
authority of non-public agencies, and the MUTCD is recognized as the
national standard for traffic control devices on public facilities and
private property open to public travel, as defined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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: https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_
register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In the fourth STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add that
substantial conformance of State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or
Supplements shall be as defined in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1), to reflect the
[[Page 270]]
incorporation of the definition of that term into the CFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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: https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_
register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In the listing of target phase-in compliance dates, FHWA
proposes to include the specific target phase-in compliance date for
those items whose dates were determined through previous rulemaking,
now that the effective dates are known. In addition, the FHWA proposes
target phase-in compliance dates for a number of significant proposed
changes in the NPA. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the listing
any items for which the target phase-in compliance dates have already
passed or will be passed by the date of the publication of the Final
Rule resulting from this NPA. It should also be noted that the target
phase-in compliance dates define the end of the ``phase-in compliance
period'' as discussed for various items in the remainder of this
document.
18. Although not specifically shown in the NPA, the FHWA is
considering incorporating the phase-in compliance periods into the body
of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and sections in the
Final Rule. The FHWA is considering this change because the list of
phase-in compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more convenient
and effective for practitioners to have phase-in compliance periods
embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the Manual.
The FHWA encourages the public to view the Minnesota State Department
of Transportation Web site at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/
otepubl/mutcd/ to view how Minnesota has incorporated the
phase-in compliance periods into its State MUTCD text and to provide
comments to the docket on whether Minnesota's method is preferable to
listing all the phase-in compliance periods in the MUTCD Introduction.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General
19. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA
proposes to delete the STANDARD statement from this section, and place
the text in Section 2A.06, because that section more appropriately
deals with signs, including their colors and symbols. For the same
reason, text in the OPTION statement relating to signs only is also
proposed to be relocated to Section 2A.06.
20. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control
Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that signs
and other devices (as explained in a proposed new SUPPORT statement)
that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed with the
permission of the public agency or official having jurisdiction, should
be located where they will not interfere with, or detract from traffic
control devices. The FHWA proposes 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.
21. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes,
and Interim Approvals, the FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD
statement to indicate that electronic submittals of requests for
interpretation, permission to experiment, interim approvals, or changes
are preferred. The FHWA proposes to include the e-mail address for such
submittals. As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes an
OPTION statement that includes the postal address for such requests to
be mailed to, in the event that the submitter does not have access to
e-mail.
The FHWA also proposes to revise and supplement the language
regarding interim approvals for the use of traffic control devices in
order to provide additional information about the process and reflect
how it has evolved since the 2003 MUTCD.
22. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA
proposes to add four FHWA publications and a publication of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to the list of
publications in the SUPPORT statement. All of these documents are
referenced in other Parts of the MUTCD.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to update the list to reflect
current editions of the publications.
The FHWA also proposes to delete existing publication 19, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Recommended Practice
titled, ``School Trip Safety Program Guidelines'' from the list of
publications because ITE has rescinded publication of the reference
document and the information from this publication is included within
the MUTCD text where appropriate.
23. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA proposes to add 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) transponders. The FHWA
proposes this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes using
signs and pavement markings as discussed below in the proposed changes
in Parts 2 and 3. 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 has
reviewed color properties of the purple signing and marking materials
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to revise the
existing daytime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign
material (Table 1), add nighttime color coordinates for purple
retroreflective sign material (Table 2), and add daytime and nighttime
color coordinates and luminance factors for purple retroreflective
marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6). The proposed values for purple
in the tables are as indicated below (no change is proposed for the
existing values for luminance factors for purple as contained in Table
1A):
Table 1.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302............. Existing 0.064 Proposed
0.064
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307............. Existing 0.200 Proposed
0.202
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374............. Existing 0.300 Proposed
0.247
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457............. Existing 0.202 Proposed
0.136
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.307...................................................... 0.150
0.480...................................................... 0.245
0.530...................................................... 0.170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.309...................................................... 0.260
0.362...................................................... 0.295
0.475...................................................... 0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 271]]
Table 5A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement
Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......................................................... 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.338...................................................... 0.380
0.425...................................................... 0.365
0.470...................................................... 0.385
0.635...................................................... 0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This
Manual, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions for: ``bicycle
lane,'' ``changeable message sign,'' ``contraflow lane,''
``crosswalk,'' ``flashing,'' ``highway traffic signal,''
``intersection,'' ``logo,'' ``occupancy requirement,'' ``public road,''
``raised pavement marker,'' ``road user,'' ``roundabout,'' ``rumble
strip,'' ``sign,'' ``sign legend,'' ``speed,'' ``speed limit,'' ``speed
zone,'' ``traffic,'' and ``traffic control device'' to better reflect
accepted practice and terminologies and for consistency in the usage of
these terms in one or more Parts of the MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for the words ``alley,''
``average annual daily traffic,'' ``barrier-separated lane,''
``bikeway,'' ``buffer-separated lane,'' ``circulatory roadway,''
``contiguous lane,'' ``electronic toll collection,'' ``flagger,''
``gate,'' ``highway-light rail transit grade crossing,'' ``hybrid
signal,'' ``managed lane,'' ``multi-lane,'' ``open road electronic toll
collection,'' ``opposing traffic,'' ``pathway,'' ``pictograph,''
``preferential lane,'' ``private property open to public travel,''
``public facility,'' ``safe-positioned,'' ``school,'' ``school zone,''
``signing,'' ``splitter island,'' ``symbol,'' ``turn bay,'' ``warning
light,'' ``worker,'' and ``yield line'' to the list of definitions
because they are used in the MUTCD.
25. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 1A.13.
The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 1A.14
Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations in This Manual,'' and contains a
STANDARD statement with 38 acronyms and abbreviations and their
definitions. The remaining section in Chapter 1A would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding this new section to assist
readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the Manual.
26. In existing Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15) Abbreviations
Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the 1st
STANDARD statement a paragraph indicating that the abbreviations listed
in Table 1A-2 shall be used only on Portable Changeable Message Signs
and that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to be
abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message sign, the abbreviations
shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used. The original research \5\ on
abbreviations was based on the need to shorten words when used on
portable changeable message signs due to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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,
Web site https://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE statement a
sentence indicating that punctuation marks or other characters that are
not letters or numerals should not be used in abbreviations, unless
absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.
27. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA proposes to
add 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. The FHWA also proposes to remove
several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather than
abbreviations (such as ``D'' for diesel on general service signs), and
to revise several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the
specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed.
The FHWA also proposes to remove 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 proposes to revise the title of Table 1A-2 to ``Abbreviations
That Shall Only Be Used on Portable Changeable Message Signs'' and add
to Table 1A-2 some of the abbreviations that would be removed from
Table 1A-1. The FHWA also proposes to revise the content of Table 1A-2
to specifically list the abbreviations (some of which can be used only
with a prompt word) that are appropriate only for use on portable
changeable message signs (PCMS).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2 Signs
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 2--General
28. In December 2005, the FHWA published a report on the findings
of a synthesis of non-MUTCD traffic signing.\6\ The purposes of this
synthesis (hereafter referred to as the Sign Synthesis Study) were to
collect information on special (non-MUTCD) sign legends, designs, and
symbols used by the State DOTs and by selected large cities and
counties; to identify commonalities, such as what special conditions
are the most common reasons for developing a special sign and what
design elements have been most commonly used to communicate the
message; and to determine the most likely candidate sign legends and
symbols for potential inclusion in future editions of the MUTCD and
make recommendations for standardized sign designs. The synthesis found
that a considerable number and variety of non-MUTCD signs are in
routine use by State and local highway agencies in the U.S. In many
cases, jurisdictions have used the flexibility given to them by the
MUTCD to develop and install special word message signs to communicate
unique traffic regulations or warnings of conditions that are not
specifically covered in the MUTCD. In some cases the same word message
is used by most or all States to describe a particular condition.
However, more often there is considerable variety among the States in
the specific words or phrases used to communicate the same basic
information to road users. Based on the information gathered in the
synthesis, the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed for
the frequently used signing not currently included in the MUTCD and is
proposing to add several new signs throughout the MUTCD to provide road
users with a uniform message for commonly encountered conditions. In
addition to describing these proposed new signs in the MUTCD text, the
FHWA proposes to add images of these proposed signs to applicable
figures throughout the MUTCD. A brief discussion of each
[[Page 272]]
proposed new sign is included in the preamble for each appropriate
chapter or section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signing,'' FHWA, December
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases the FHWA is proposing new symbol signs that mirror
existing Canadian MUTCD \7\ standard symbols that have been in
longstanding use in that neighboring country. Such symbols were
reviewed as a part of the signing synthesis. Canada has moved
considerably farther into symbolization of common regulatory, warning,
and guide/information messages (sometimes by adopting European symbols)
than has the U.S. The synthesis found several well-designed Canadian
symbols with intuitively obvious meanings for sign messages for which
some or many States are using a non-MUTCD word message sign (often with
many variations among States). The FHWA proposes adopting some of these
Canadian symbols or close likenesses, with a temporary educational
plaque as needed. The FHWA believes that this will improve the harmony
of North American signing in view of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and will enhance the convenience and safety of U.S.
and international travelers when driving, riding, or walking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada,
4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation
Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site https://www.tac-atc.ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. The FHWA proposes to move object markers from Part 3 to Part 2,
because there has been confusion regarding the location of object
markers in the MUTCD, and the FHWA feels that information regarding
object markers is best placed in Part 2. Object markers are typically
fabricated from retroreflective sheeting mounted on a substrate and
installed on a post and thus are more like a sign than a marking, and
most public agencies handle object markers as signs rather than
markings.
30. The FHWA proposes to delete the recommendation that signs
should only be used where justified by engineering studies or judgment
from several places in Part 2. The FHWA proposes this change because it
is not the intent of the Manual to make all sign device installations
subject to engineering oversight. The FHWA understands that most signs
are installed by sign crews authorized to make field decisions that are
not necessarily reviewed by engineers or covered by policies prepared
by engineers. These proposed revisions recognize the current practice
of installing signs throughout the country and do not detract from the
requirements that engineering studies must be done under engineering
supervision for very specific traffic control decisions. However, at
the same time it is not required that an engineer be involved in the
decisions for each device at every location.
31. The FHWA proposes to update the existing sign size Tables 2B-1
and 2I-1 (new Table 2K-1) to reflect proposed new signs, deleted signs,
and changes to sign sizes. The FHWA proposes to modify Table 2C-2 from
its general treatment of warning sign sizes to instead specifically
address each sign similarly to the way it is done in Table 2B-1.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add sign size Tables 2D-1, 2E-1, 2F-
1, and 2I-1 to specify the sizes for guide and motorist information
signs that have a standardized legend.
In Chapters 2B and 2C, the FHWA proposes to add to the appropriate
OPTION statements that the minimum overall sign size may be decreased
for signs in alleys with restrictive physical condition and vehicle
usage that limits installation of the minimum size sign. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect the results of the FHWA MUTCD
Urbanization Needs Survey,\8\ which included comments from a number of
city traffic engineers that the MUTCD does not adequately address sign
sizes and application for alley installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Urbanizing the MUTCD,'' by W. Scott Wainwright, 2003,
paper no. CB03C184, Compendium of Papers for the 2003 Institute of
Transportation Engineers Technical Conference, is available from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (Web site: https://
www.ite.org). A presentation based on the paper can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: https://tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/FHWA/
MUTCD_Urbanization.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. The FHWA proposes to eliminate the option of all uppercase
letters for names of places, streets, and highways, and require that
these names be composed of lowercase letters with an initial uppercase
letter. The FHWA proposes this change, which affects provisions and
figures in various chapters throughout Part 2, based on Older Driver
research documented in FHWA reports \9\ (referred to hereafter as the
``Older Driver handbook'') that shows significant legibility and
recognition distance benefits versus all uppercase letters for
destinations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``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: https://www.tfhrc.gov/
humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm. Also see Recommendation II.A(2) 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: https://www.tfhrc.gov/
humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. In Chapters 2A and 2E, the FHWA also proposes to discourage the
use of punctuation, apostrophes, questions marks or other characters on
signs that are not letters or numerals unless absolutely necessary to
avoid confusion. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with a
similar proposed change in Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2A
34. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the FHWA
proposes to clarify the definition of ``special purpose road'' in item
D of the STANDARD statement by deleting the phrase ``or that provides
local access,'' because the existing definition is overly broad. FHWA
intends to clarify that neighborhood residential streets are not
special-purpose roads and signing for such streets should be the same
as that for other conventional roads.
35. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA proposes to relocate
a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and its associated
OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The FHWA proposes
this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely place for a reader
to look for information regarding sign design.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use
of e-mail addresses to the last STANDARD and OPTION statements. The use
of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site
addresses. 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. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
36. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information in existing
Section 2A.07 to proposed new Chapter 2M in order to consolidate all
information on changeable message signs into one chapter. The FHWA
would renumber the remaining sections accordingly.
37. In existing Section 2A.08 (new Section 2A.07) Retroreflectivity
and Illumination, the FHWA proposes to revise the 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
[[Page 273]]
should be illuminated unless engineering judgment indicates that
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination. The FHWA
proposes this change because the current language implies that written
documentation (engineering study) is mandatory for the practitioner to
decide that illumination is not needed for signs on conventional roads.
The FHWA believes that such documentation is not necessary and
therefore the FHWA proposes to recommend that engineering judgment be
used rather than require an engineering study. Overhead sign
installations such as street name signs, lane use signs, and other
smaller sign installations on conventional roads generally would not
warrant overhead lighting and may be impractical for structural
reasons. Many overhead sign installations on conventional roads are on
monotube structures that are not designed to support overhead lighting.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last STANDARD
statement to prohibit 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 is to clarify that LEDs are to be used only
in the border or in the legend/symbol and not in the background of
signs.
38. In existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.10) Sign Colors, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows the use of
fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The FHWA
proposes this change in order to give jurisdictions the flexibility to
use fluorescent colors when they determine that they are needed in
order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part of this
proposal, FHWA proposes to revise the color specifications in title 23
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F,
Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the fluorescent version of the color red.
The color specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and
fluorescent pink are already included in 23 CFR 655. The FHWA has
reviewed color properties of the fluorescent red signing and materials
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to add daytime
color coordinates and luminance factors for fluorescent red
retroreflective sign material (Tables 3 and 3A), and add nighttime
color coordinates for fluorescent red retroreflective sign material
(Table 4). The proposed values for fluorescent red in the tables are as
indicated below:
Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.666...................................................... 0.334
0.613...................................................... 0.333
0.671...................................................... 0.275
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................................ 30 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.680...................................................... 0.320
0.645...................................................... 0.320
0.712...................................................... 0.253
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA has also reviewed the existing daytime color coordinates for
fluorescent pink retroreflective sign materials and believes that these
coordinates are overly restrictive for current technology. The FHWA
proposes to revise the color coordinates in Table 3 for fluorescent
pink, to include a fifth pair of x and y coordinates, to better define
the color of fluorescent pink sign sheeting material. The proposed
values for fluorescent pink in Table 3 are as follows:
Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Pink
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exist. 0.450 Prop. 0.600.................. Exist. 0.270 Prop. 0.340
Exist. 0.590 Prop. 0.450.................. Exist. 0.350 Prop. 0.332
Exist. 0.644 Prop. 0.430.................. Exist. 0.290 Prop. 0.275
Exist. 0.563 Prop. 0.536.................. Exist. 0.230 Prop. 0.230
Exist.--Prop. 0.644....................... Exist.;-- Prop. 0.290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2A-4 Common
Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in the text.
Specifically, the FHWA proposes 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 proposes 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 as discussed below. In addition, the
FHWA proposes to note that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and
yellow background colors may be used.
40. In existing Section 2A.12 (new Section 2A.11) Dimensions, the
FHWA proposes to add 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. The FHWA proposes this new language to clarify how
the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA
also proposes adding 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 existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.12), and to
delete repetitive text on use of the various columns in the size tables
that appears in other sections throughout the MUTCD.
41. In existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.12) Symbols, the FHWA
proposes to add 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. The FHWA
proposes this change because 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 may not have the same impact and may be
potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically prohibited.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
42. In existing Section 2A.14 (new Section 2A.13) Word Messages,
the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 22 mm (1
in) of letter height per 9 m (30 ft) of legibility distance. In
conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the
SUPPORT statement that follows this first GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA
proposes these changes in order to be consistent with
[[Page 274]]
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \10\ 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 proposed
change will generally not impact the design of guide signs because
existing MUTCD provisions for guide sign letter heights provide
sufficient legibility distances for 20/40 vision in most cases. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The sizes of some 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
proposed change in Section 2A.14 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``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: https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. In existing Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, the
FHWA proposes to clarify the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the
corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another.
The FHWA proposes this clarification to better facilitate the use of
sign fabrication software with inset borders.
44. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders. The proposed new
section is numbered and titled ``Section 2A.15 Enhanced Conspicuity for
Standard Signs'' and 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 various
conspicuity enhancement methods proposed reflect widespread and
successful practices by State and local agencies. The FHWA proposes
this new section to provide improved uniformity of such treatments to
benefit road users. The remaining sections in Chapter 2A would be
renumbered accordingly.
45. In existing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA
proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE an additional recommended
criterion for locating signs where they do not obscure the sight
distance to approaching vehicles on a major street for drivers who are
stopped on minor-street approaches. The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect good engineering practice and improve safety.
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 3rd GUIDANCE statement that
the placement of wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should have
a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA proposes this change
to clarify the priority of sign type placement, reflecting the proposed
addition to the manual of new types of guide signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last GUIDANCE
statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP and YIELD
signs at intersections, to clarify that the dimension shown in Figure
2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs from the edge of
pavement of the intersected roadway is GUIDANCE.
46. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA proposes to change
the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD 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
proposes this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this
section are mandatory, particularly as they relate to pedestrian
considerations.
The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement that refers the
reader to Chapter 2L for mounting heights for object markers and
clarifies that the minimum heights given in combination with
crashworthy supports may not necessarily constitute a crashworthy sign
assembly. The FHWA proposes this new text to provide readers with the
appropriate references to materials with additional information on
mounting heights and crashworthiness.
In addition to reorganizing the text within the STANDARD statements
in this section, the FHWA proposes to clarify that mounting heights
should be measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level
of the near edge of the pavement. The FHWA also proposes to add text to
clarify that a minimum height of 2.1 m (7 ft) 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 proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending that a sign not
project more than 100 mm (4 in) into a pedestrian facility if the
bottom of a secondary sign that is mounted below another sign, is
mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft). The FHWA proposes these changes in
order to make the mounting height language consistent throughout the
Manual, and to add language that requires consideration of pedestrian
activity in the vicinity of signs, per ADAAG provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the new third STANDARD
statement that where large signs are installed on multiple breakaway
posts, the clearance from the ground to the bottom of the sign shall be
at least 2.1 m (7 ft), in order to provide consistency with other parts
of the Manual.
47. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement that overhead sign supports and post-mounted sign
and object marker supports should not intrude into the usable width of
a sidewalk or other pedestrian facility. The FHWA proposes this new
text to comply with ADAAG provisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2B
48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes
changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement to clarify
that regulatory signs are rectangular unless specifically designated
otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA also proposes adding a
reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings \13\ book for sign
design elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The current edition of ``Standard Highway Signs and
Markings,'' FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_
millennium.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes relocating the first two paragraphs of
existing Section 2B.54 to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02,
because the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word
messages and symbols which is more relevant in this section.
49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to
add a new STANDARD statement at the end of the section that requires
that
[[Page 275]]
minimum sizes for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane
conventional roads shall be as shown on Table 2B-2, and requiring a
specific minimum size for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches.
The FHWA proposes this new text and table 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 due to the potential blockage of signs by
other vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
50. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2B-1
Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These proposed changes include adding
more sizes in the ``Minimum'' column for use in low speed environments.
The FHWA also proposes to add several more signs and supplemental
plaques to the table to correspond with other proposed changes within
Part 2.
51. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 2B.03
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections.''
This proposed new section contains information currently contained in
Section 2B.05. In addition, the FHWA proposes additional
recommendations on the factors that should be considered in
establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and YIELD signs.
The proposed additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical
progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.
The FHWA also proposes to include 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. While much of this information is in existing Section 2B.05,
the FHWA proposes to add a specific case regarding channelized turn
lanes to the list of cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used,
reflecting common practice.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to include requirements 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-545, April 9,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section
2B.04 to ``Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and Supplemental Plaques.'' As part
of this change, the FHWA proposes 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. The FHWA proposes these
changes 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 proposes to add 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. The FHWA proposes this change to encourage the use of
these plaques at intersections that need increased driver awareness
regarding an unexpected right-of-way control.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing the use of a
proposed 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. The FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies flexibility in establishing right-of-way controls for such
special conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study \15\ found that at least
12 States have developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose.
The FHWA proposes the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate
legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 18, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
https://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_
Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. The FHWA proposes to relocate much of the information in
existing Section 2B.05 (new Section 2B.06) STOP Sign Applications to
the proposed new Section 2B.04. The FHWA also proposes to add
additional language to the remaining GUIDANCE statement that lists
conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered.
This change would provide agencies with specific and quantitative
guidance regarding the use of STOP signs.
54. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.06 STOP Sign
Placement from the MUTCD, because most of the text in this section is
proposed to be incorporated into Section 2B.10.
55. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA proposes to
clarify 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. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reflect
the prevailing practices of modern roundabout design.
56. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.10 to ``STOP Sign or
YIELD Sign Placement'' to reflect the relocation of language regarding
STOP sign placement from existing Section 2B.06 to this section.
The FHWA proposes to delete the requirement from the first STANDARD
statement that YIELD signs be placed on both the left and right sides
of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane and instead make
t
