National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision, 66730-66863 [E9-28322]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 16, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66730-66863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28322]



[[Page 66729]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Highway Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



23 CFR Part 655



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

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 16, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 66730]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977]
RIN 2125-AF22


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

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

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

    On January 2, 2008, at 73 FR 268, the FHWA published an NPA 
proposing revisions to the MUTCD. Those changes were proposed to be 
designated as the next edition of the MUTCD. Interested persons were 
invited to submit comments to FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977. Based on 
the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA is issuing a 
final rule and is designating the MUTCD, with these changes 
incorporated, as the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD.
    The text of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule 
changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted changes from 
the 2003 Edition, are available for inspection and copying, as 
prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation 
Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Furthermore, the text of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD, with these 
final rule changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted 
changes from the 2003 Edition, are available on the FHWA's MUTCD 
Internet site https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The previous version of the 
MUTCD, the 2003 MUTCD with Revisions 1 and 2 incorporated, is also 
available on this Internet site. The 2009 Edition supersedes all 
previous editions and revisions of the MUTCD.

Summary of Comments

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

Discussion of General Amendments to the MUTCD

    1. The FHWA received several general comments from State DOTs, 
local agencies, associations, and citizens regarding the NPA. Two local 
agencies, a traffic control device vendor, an association, and two 
citizens expressed general support for the changes in the MUTCD, such 
as incorporating into the MUTCD recommendations of the Older Driver 
Handbook, the Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs, and new 
technologies. In addition to the overall general comments, some of the 
commenters had specific comments that relate to the entire MUTCD. Those 
topics that the FHWA considers to be substantive and non-editorial in 
nature are discussed in the following items within this section.
    2. The NCUTCD submitted a letter suggesting that the FHWA issue a 
supplemental notice of proposed amendments (SNPA). Fourteen State DOTs, 
AASHTO, and the Chair of the NCUTCD submitted duplicate copies of the 
NCUTCD's letter in support of an SNPA. In addition, three State DOTs, a 
county DOT, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic engineering consultant also 
stated support for the NCUTCD's letter. The NCUTCD's letter included 
the following statements in support of an SNPA:
    1. The NPA did not include a quantified assessment of the economic 
impacts of the proposed changes on public agencies and the private 
sector.
    2. More details are needed regarding some of the proposed changes 
and some of the proposed changes need to be reorganized or reformatted.
    3. The extent of the proposed changes and the number of expected 
comments is such that the final rule would be significantly different 
from the NPA version, and would therefore constitute a new document 
which should be reviewed as an SNPA prior to becoming a final rule.
    4. Because of the interconnectivity between the language in the 
various sections, chapters, and parts, a change in one section might 
have impacts on multiple other sections. Therefore, an SNPA is needed 
in order to have the opportunity to review additional changes resulting 
from responses to comments to assess whether they are consistent with 
each other.

[[Page 66731]]

    5. There is precedent for issuing multiple proposed rules for 
changes to the MUTCD.
    6. It is essential that the FHWA provide an opportunity to review 
the FHWA responses to the docket so that implementation and liability 
changes can be identified, assessed, and discussed before a final rule 
is published.
    7. An SNPA is needed to assess the FHWA response to comments and 
evaluate the level of engineering flexibility that will be provided in 
the next edition of the MUTCD.
    Five State DOTs, a local agency, nine toll road operators, a major 
retail business owner, and a traffic engineering consultant also 
expressed general support for an SNPA.
    Two bicycle associations, a traffic engineering consultant, and a 
citizen disagreed with the need for an SNPA and requested that FHWA 
publish a final rule. The two bicycle associations suggested that if an 
SNPA were to be published instead of a final rule, the FHWA should 
issue Interim Approvals for all new devices and applications in Part 9 
so that public agencies can begin installing them to improve conditions 
for bicyclists.
    The FHWA carefully reviewed and considered the concerns both for 
and against issuing an SNPA and decided that an SNPA is not necessary 
or appropriate. The FHWA determined that the seven specific statements 
cited by the NCUTCD in support of an SNPA do not justify delaying the 
finalization of a new edition of the MUTCD that will significantly 
improve the safety and efficiency of highway travel. Additionally, in 
making decisions in the final rule regarding the various technical 
issues cited in the letters from the NCUTCD and others who requested an 
SNPA, the FHWA has taken into consideration the concerns expressed. To 
address the concerns, in most cases the FHWA has revised certain 
provisions to make them less restrictive or has deleted from the final 
rule certain provisions that were proposed in the NPA, has reorganized 
and reformatted material to clarify it, and has eliminated specific 
target compliance dates or established long compliance periods 
consistent with service lives of the devices. In most cases the new 
provisions apply only to new installations or reconstructions of 
devices, and the provisions for systematic upgrading cited in Section 
655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations \1\ allow 
existing noncompliant devices in good condition to remain in place 
until the end of their service lives, thus minimizing any impacts of 
new requirements on State or local highway agencies and owners of 
private roads open to public travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The FHWA received comments from three local agency DOTs, an 
association of counties, and a citizen suggesting that there are too 
many proposed changes to the MUTCD and that many of the changes are too 
complex. The FHWA believes that continuously updating the MUTCD is 
necessary in order to incorporate advances in technology, new research 
results, and state of the practice in traffic control devices. Since 
the MUTCD's purpose is to improve safety and efficiency, the MUTCD must 
be revised to remain current with these new technologies and 
applications.
    4. A State DOT, 10 local agency DOTs, an association representing 
local DOTs, and a traffic engineering consultant expressed concern that 
there were too many new STANDARD statements (or GUIDANCE statements 
elevated to STANDARD statements) in the proposed revisions, and that 
the large number of changes places an undue financial burden on 
agencies. The FHWA believes that the changes to the MUTCD will provide 
improved uniformity in traffic control device applications across the 
country, thereby increasing safety, and that the additional Standards 
will not result in undue financial burden on agencies. As discussed 
under Amendments to the MUTCD Introduction, in the vast majority of 
cases existing devices in good condition that are not in compliance 
with new standards can remain in place for the remainder of their 
service life, thus minimizing any impacts of new requirements on State 
or local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public 
travel.
    5. The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and three city DOTs 
opposing the scope of the changes within the MUTCD and suggesting that 
many of the changes are more appropriate for a handbook, rather than 
the MUTCD. Several of the commenters expressed concern that the MUTCD 
was becoming more prescriptive in nature, thus limiting creativity, 
flexibility, and judgment. The FHWA believes that the widespread use of 
the MUTCD by State and local agencies and design professionals, and its 
importance as a Federal regulation for traffic control devices 
justifies the level of detail incorporated in the MUTCD. Further, the 
FHWA believes that sufficient justification has been provided for any 
new standards and that ample latitude for flexibility and judgment is 
provided in the application of Guidance and Options in the MUTCD.
    6. The FHWA adopts a new cover page for this edition of the MUTCD 
that maintains general consistency with covers of previous editions, 
but with changes to give it a distinctive appearance to minimize the 
possibility of confusion by users. The date of this edition, which is 
identified on the cover and elsewhere within the document, is the year 
in which the final rule is issued.
    7. The FHWA includes paragraph numbers in the margins for each 
paragraph of each section for the final page images of this edition of 
the MUTCD. The FHWA includes these paragraph numbers in order to aid 
practitioners in referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of 
future MUTCD notices of proposed amendments. The FHWA posted sample 
pages on its MUTCD Web site showing four possible methods for paragraph 
numbering and as part of the NPA asked interested persons to review the 
sample pages and provide comments to the docket on the paragraph 
numbering options. Based on comments, the FHWA numbers the paragraphs 
in the manner that was shown as Alternative 3, with dark 
numerals outside the margin, and in a font that is easy to read without 
being distracting.
    8. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a citizen provided comments 
regarding the format of MUTCD pages, print style, numbering of 
sections, etc. Based on a comment from the NCUTCD, the FHWA changes the 
font of GUIDANCE statements to italics to distinguish them from OPTION 
and SUPPORT statements. As part of this change, the FHWA eliminates 
italics from the titles of figures and tables.
    9. The FHWA received several comments regarding the use of metric 
units in the MUTCD. The NCUTCD, six State DOTs, ATSSA, an NCUTCD 
member, and two traffic engineering consultants suggested that the 
metric units be removed in their entirety or that the English units 
precede the metric units, and a traffic engineering consultant 
suggested that the MUTCD continue to be issued with both systems of 
measurement. Because metric units are not currently used in the U.S. 
for traffic control device applications, the FHWA determines that only 
English units are to be used in the MUTCD text, figures, and tables and 
places metric

[[Page 66732]]

equivalent values for all English unit values used in the MUTCD in a 
new Appendix A2 in this final rule. This preserves the soft conversions 
of the English to metric values in the MUTCD while also providing a 
document that is less cumbersome to read and apply. This change is 
consistent with an Informational Memorandum from FHWA's Executive 
Director, dated November 25, 2008,\2\ stating that use of metric 
measurements will now be optional in all FHWA documents, including 
letters, memoranda, publications, reports, and information on FHWA Web 
sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Informational Memorandum, ``Update on Metric Use 
Requirements for FHWA Documents,'' by Jeffrey Paniati, dated 
November 25, 2008, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/1108metr.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA incorporates minor changes in 
text, figures, and tables for grammatical or style consistency, to 
improve consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, 
or to correct minor errors. Where the FHWA adds a new chapter within a 
part of the MUTCD, a new section within a chapter of the MUTCD, or a 
new item within a listing, the chapters or sections or items that 
follow the addition are renumbered or relettered accordingly. All 
Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists of Tables, and page headers 
and footers are revised as appropriate to reflect the changes.
    11. The FHWA modifies figures and tables to reflect changes in the 
text and adds figures and tables to illustrate new or revised text.
    12. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA relocates 
statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in 
logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition, 
the FHWA changes the titles of some sections, figures, and tables in 
order to more accurately describe the content.
    13. As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA removes the phrase 
``reasonably safe'' throughout the Manual because it cannot be easily 
defined, and as a result it is open to too much subjective 
interpretation. The FHWA received a comment from a local DOT opposed to 
this revision, stating that there are some circumstances in the MUTCD 
where the phrase ``reasonably safe'' reflects real-world conditions, 
and that removing the phrase could pose a liability problem to State 
and local agencies in civil litigation. The FHWA disagrees because of 
the subjectivity of the term and for each occurrence of the term either 
eliminates or replaces the term with suitable language that is more 
appropriate.
    14. The FHWA changes the references to the book previously titled 
``Standard Highway Signs'' to refer to the current title, ``Standard 
Highway Signs and Markings.'' This reflects FHWA's change of the title 
of that book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes 
information regarding pavement markings. The FHWA received a comment 
from ATSSA in support of this change. The FHWA also resolves the 
inaccuracies between the sign illustrations in the MUTCD and the 
``Standard Highway Signs and Markings'' (SHSM) book to the extent 
practical in the MUTCD figures.
    15. The FHWA conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign 
codes used throughout the Manual, and revises sign codes in several 
places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As part of 
this process, the FHWA revises the term ``sign code'' to ``sign 
designation'' to avoid confusion with other uses of the word ``code.'' 
The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA in support of this change. A 
State DOT opposed sign nomenclature changes, stating that these changes 
could be complex for agencies that catalog sign inventory databases 
based on the nomenclature. The FHWA understands the issues related to 
inventory databases but determines that the nomenclature changes are 
necessary for consistency. The FHWA received a comment from ATSSA 
suggesting that the suffix ``w'' be used for word message signs to 
avoid confusion with the ``a'' suffix being used for abbreviations in 
the route marker series (such as M4-1a and M4-7a). The FHWA disagrees 
and uses the ``a'' suffix in sign designations for word message signs 
that are alternatives to symbol signs, as presented in the NPA. The 
FHWA uses the ``P'' suffix for designations for plaques to clarify that 
these devices must accompany a sign and cannot be used alone. ATSSA 
supported this change. Also, based on a comment from a citizen, the 
FHWA adds a column to the sign size tables in Parts 6 and 9 to cite the 
applicable MUTCD Section for each sign so that MUTCD users can review 
the pertinent information for each sign. The sign size tables for other 
Parts of the MUTCD already have this column.
    16. Based on a comment from the NCUTCD that a single location 
should be provided where all definitions can be found, the FHWA places 
all definitions in Part 1 by relocating to Section 1A.13 all 
definitions that were previously contained or repeated in the MUTCD 
Introduction and in Parts 2 through 10 of the 2003 MUTCD and in the 
NPA.
    17. The FHWA adds information in the MUTCD regarding toll plaza 
applications, because toll facilities are becoming more common and 
there is a need to provide more consistent use of signs, signals, and 
markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to enhance safety 
and convenience for road users. The FHWA adds provisions on toll plaza 
traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4 that reflect the results 
of research studies on best practices for traffic control strategies at 
toll plazas,\3\ FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices,\4\ 
and FHWA's report on ``Strategies for Improving Safety at Toll 
Collection Facilities.'' \5\ The NCUTCD and 10 agencies that operate 
toll facilities suggested that the toll road related material be placed 
in a new, separate Part to facilitate the use of this material. The 
FHWA understands that the toll operators would like to have the 
information consolidated into one area, but disagrees with adding a 
separate Part. Instead, the FHWA creates new chapters for toll plazas 
within Parts 2, 3, and 4 and places the new toll-related material in 
those chapters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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.
    \4\ ``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.
    \5\ ``Strategies for Improving Safety at Toll Collection 
Facilities,'' Report number FHWA-IF-08-005, May 2008, can be viewed 
at the following Internet Web site: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/resources/report/toll_summary/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 66733]]

cited in Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations 
\6\ will enable changes associated with the final rule to be 
accommodated without significant expense. The information on 
preferential and managed lanes is contained primarily in Parts 2 and 3 
and is intended to address specific signing and marking issues 
associated with High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls and 
other operational strategies on managed lanes, etc. To better 
facilitate user understanding, the FHWA creates new chapters for 
preferential and managed lanes in Parts 2 and 3 and places the new and 
existing material on those subjects in those chapters. In addition, as 
proposed in the NPA, the FHWA eliminates some information regarding 
preferential lanes that is too specific for the MUTCD because it deals 
with highway planning and programmatic matters rather than the traffic 
control devices for preferential lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed at the 
following Internet Web site: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/CFR/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Discussion of Amendments Within the Introduction

    20. The FHWA revises paragraph 01 regarding the definition of 
traffic control devices to reflect that traffic control devices on 
private roads open to public travel are placed by authority of the 
private property owner or private official having jurisdiction. A State 
DOT commented that the existing language and that proposed in the NPA 
for this paragraph implied that public agencies have the authority to 
place traffic control devices on private roads open to public travel. 
The FHWA agrees that clarification is needed and revises the text 
accordingly.
    21. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed revisions and additions to the 
text regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. Two city DOTs, an 
NCUTCD member, three transportation professionals, a traffic control 
device vendor, and two citizens all supported the changes, as proposed 
in the NPA and as currently provided in the CFR, to apply the MUTCD to 
private roads open to public travel. Two State DOTs, a local DOT, and 
an employee of a State DOT opposed applying the MUTCD to private roads, 
mostly because of concerns about enforcement of the provisions. The 
FHWA recognizes that enforcement can only occur when a State includes 
the requirement to comply with MUTCD in State ordinances, local 
building codes, development approvals, site plans, etc., and as a 
result of the potential tort liability to the owners of the private 
roads. The FHWA believes that public agency traffic engineers are not 
expected to enforce this provision for existing conditions on private 
roads open to public travel.
    Two State DOTs and two toll road operators suggested that the 
wording be revised to reflect that toll roads may be operated by 
public, quasi-public, or private entities and that toll roads are gated 
and restricted by tolling. The FHWA agrees and revises the language in 
this final rule and in 23 CFR 655.603(a),\7\ to clarify that, for the 
purpose of applicability of the MUTCD, toll roads under the 
jurisdiction of public agencies or authorities or of public-private 
partnerships are considered to be public facilities, and that ``open to 
public travel'' includes private toll roads and roads within shopping 
centers, airports, sports arenas, and other similar business and/or 
recreation facilities that are privately owned, but where the public is 
allowed to travel without access restrictions. To address the comments 
from two toll road operators, this final rule language further 
clarifies that except for gated toll roads, roads within private gated 
properties where public access is restricted at all times shall not be 
considered to be open to public travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA received several comments from a major retail business 
operator suggesting that there are many items in the MUTCD that are not 
easily applicable to parking lots within shopping centers and the 
driving aisles within those parking lots. The FHWA agrees that, while 
MUTCD general principles and standard traffic control device designs 
should be used in parking lots, there are some MUTCD provisions that do 
not easily translate to conditions typically found in parking lots and 
parking garages. The FHWA believes that additional future consideration 
is needed to determine appropriate and feasible standards and guidance 
for the application of traffic control devices in parking lots. 
Therefore, the FHWA exempts parking spaces and driving aisles in 
parking lots, both privately and publicly owned, from MUTCD 
applicability in this final rule. The MUTCD continues to be applicable 
to ring roads, roads providing access to or egress from public roads, 
and circulation roads on private property open to public travel. 
Accordingly, throughout the MUTCD, where the term ``private property 
open to public travel'' was used in the NPA, the FHWA clarifies the 
term to be ``private road open to public travel'' and provides a 
precise definition of that term in Section 1A.13 in this final rule. 
The FHWA also incorporates these changes into 23 CFR 655.603(a).
    As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA also modifies the wording of 23 
CFR 655.603(a) to remove the exemption from MUTCD applicability for 
military bases, based on a request from the Military Surface Deployment 
and Distribution Command to include military bases, in order to 
facilitate road user safety through conformity and consistency with 
national standards.
    22. The FHWA adds SUPPORT paragraph 05 to clarify that pictographs 
embedded within signs are not in themselves considered traffic control 
devices and thus the pictographs are not subject to the provisions in 
paragraph 04 that prohibit patented, copyrighted, or trademarked items. 
This clarification is necessary to address frequent questions from 
users of the MUTCD on this subject.
    23. In concert with the change to show dimensions throughout the 
MUTCD in only English units, the FHWA revises the text in paragraphs 13 
and 14 to provide a reference to new Appendix A2 for tables converting 
each of the English unit numerical values to the equivalent Metric 
values and to recommend that if metric units are to be used in laying 
out distances or determining sizes of devices, such units should be 
specified on plan drawings and made known to those responsible for 
designing, installing, or maintaining traffic control devices.
    24. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to revise the paragraph regarding 
adoption of MUTCD revisions by the States or other Federal agencies, 
substantial conformance of State or

[[Page 66734]]

other Federal agency MUTCDs or Supplements, and compliance periods for 
new and existing devices to reflect the requirements of the Code of 
Federal Regulations applicable to the MUTCD that have been in effect 
since 2006.\8\ In this final rule, the FHWA further revises the text to 
make it clearer and more easily understood by users. The FHWA divides 
the single paragraph into several separate paragraphs containing 
applicable text on certain subjects that are presented in a more 
logical sequence. New text consistent with the CFR is added regarding 
compliance of new or reconstructed devices, and Option and Support text 
regarding replacement of existing noncompliant devices is revised for 
clarity and relocated from the end of the MUTCD Introduction to follow 
other related text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. In the NPA, the FHWA asked for comments regarding the 
possibility of incorporating the phase-in target compliance periods 
into the body of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and 
sections in this Final Rule. The FHWA considered this change because 
the list of target compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more 
convenient and effective for practitioners to have target compliance 
periods embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the 
Manual. The Minnesota DOT has incorporated the target compliance 
periods into its State MUTCD text, and the FHWA asked whether 
Minnesota's method is preferable to listing all the target compliance 
periods in the MUTCD Introduction. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, a State DOT, a 
toll facility operator, an NCUTCD member, and a traffic control device 
vendor favored placing the compliance periods within the sections to 
which that they pertain. The NCUTCD also suggested that a reference be 
placed in the Introduction to a list of all target compliance dates on 
the MUTCD Web site. The FHWA understands that there are advantages and 
disadvantages to placing the target compliance dates within the text. 
Placing the target compliance dates within the sections to which they 
apply might result in some agencies delaying action to comply with the 
provision until the compliance date approaches. As a result, the FHWA 
continues to provide the target compliance date information in the 
Introduction, and does not embed the dates within the section text. 
However, to consolidate and improve the clarity of this information, 
the FHWA relocates the listing of target compliance dates from the body 
of the MUTCD Introduction to a new Table I-2.
    In new Table I-2, FHWA includes the specific target compliance 
dates for those items whose dates were determined through previous 
rulemaking, now that the effective dates are known, and deletes from 
the listing any items for which the target compliance dates have passed 
by the date of the publication of this final rule.
    The FHWA deletes most of the large number of new target compliance 
dates that were proposed in the NPA. Section 655.603(d)(1) of title 23, 
Code of Federal Regulations, states that for existing highways ``each 
State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, and Federal 
agency shall have a program as required by 23 U.S.C. 402(a), which 
shall include provisions for the systematic upgrading of substandard 
traffic control devices and for the installation of needed devices to 
achieve conformity with the MUTCD.'' Although the FHWA may establish 
specific target compliance dates to achieve compliance with respect to 
specific devices, the systematic upgrade program allows public agencies 
and officials having jurisdiction to upgrade their existing 
noncompliant devices when the devices are no longer serviceable because 
they reach the end of their service life or otherwise need to be 
replaced, or when other events such as highway improvement or 
reconstruction projects occur, thus minimizing any impacts to State or 
local highway agencies and owners of private roads open to public 
travel. Target compliance periods shorter than expected service life 
have generally only been established in unusual cases when a new MUTCD 
requirement is deemed to be so critically important from a safety 
impact standpoint that it justifies earlier replacement of noncompliant 
existing devices. In some cases, the FHWA has adopted target compliance 
dates for certain provisions, such as a requirement to do a study or to 
evaluate the timing of traffic signal clearance intervals, that are not 
directly related to the service life of a device but which the FHWA 
believes can be reasonably accommodated within typical agency 
procedures and practices. The FHWA reviewed all the proposed target 
compliance dates in the NPA in the context of the CFR language, the 
general intents stated above, and the comments received, and the FHWA 
establishes only 12 new target compliance dates in this final rule. 
Each of these new target dates is discussed in detail under the 
appropriate item later in this preamble.
    Additionally, for new target compliance dates, the FHWA establishes 
specific dates (December 31 of a particular year) rather than the 
previous practice of setting target compliance dates as a certain 
number of years from the effective date of the final rule. The FHWA 
believes that specific end of calendar year target compliance dates 
will assist MUTCD users by making the dates clear without the need to 
determine what date a final rule became effective. It should also be 
noted that the target compliance dates define the end of the ``phase-in 
compliance period'' as discussed for various items in the remainder of 
this document.

Discussion of Amendments Within Part 1

    26. In Section 1A.07, Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices, 
the FHWA revises paragraphs 01 and 02 to be consistent with the 
language of 23 CFR 655.603 regarding the applicability of the MUTCD as 
the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any 
street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel. The 
FHWA adopts language for these paragraphs in this final rule that is 
consistent with terminology regarding private roads as discussed above 
under Introduction to the MUTCD.
    The FHWA received a comment from a citizen opposed to changing 
``bicycle trail'' to ``bikeways'' as proposed in the NPA. However, 
because the MUTCD defines bikeway as the generic term for any road, 
street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for bicycle 
travel, the FHWA retains the word ``bikeways'' in this final rule.
    The FHWA received three comments from local agencies opposed to 
including the term ``private property'' because of their belief that 
the property owner should be responsible for maintaining traffic 
control devices on private property, not a public agency or other 
entity. As discussed previously, the FHWA revises the term ``private 
property'' to ``private roads.'' To respond to the comments from the 
local agencies, the FHWA modifies the language in this final rule to 
clarify that, in the case of private roads open to public travel, it is 
the property owner or the private official having jurisdiction who is 
responsible for traffic control device design, placement, maintenance, 
operation, and uniformity, consistent with language in the MUTCD 
Introduction.
    The FHWA adds a Support sentence in this final rule about adoption 
of the national MUTCD, supplements, or State

[[Page 66735]]

manuals by all States and a new GUIDANCE paragraph recommending that 
these State manuals or supplements should be reviewed for specific 
provisions relating to that State. The NCUTCD recommended these 
additions and the FHWA agrees that this is necessary to clarify that 
there is a need to review the specific State Manuals for local 
requirements.
    As requested by the U.S. Military Command, and supported by ATSSA, 
the FHWA expands paragraph 07 to add the U.S. Military Command to the 
list of Federal agencies that have adopted the national MUTCD.
    Two State DOTs opposed the proposed change of paragraph 08 to a 
GUIDANCE statement that would recommend that States adopt Section 15-
116 of the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) because the adoption of State 
laws is outside of the control of State DOTs and is in the hands of 
elected officials. The FHWA retains and adopts this change in this 
final rule and reiterates that this is GUIDANCE, a statement of 
recommended but not mandatory practice, and as a result the MUTCD is 
merely recommending the adoption of this section of the UVC by the 
States, in accordance with their laws and constitutions.
    27. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control 
Devices, in the NPA the FHWA proposed adding a new SUPPORT statement 
describing certain signs and other devices that do not have any traffic 
control purpose that are placed with the permission of the public 
agency or official having jurisdiction and a new GUIDANCE statement 
that such signs and other devices should not be located where they will 
interfere with or detract from traffic control devices. The FHWA 
proposed this change to clarify that there are some signs and devices 
that are placed within the right-of-way for distinct purposes that are 
not traffic control devices. The FHWA received comments from the 
NCUTCD, five State DOTs, a local agency, a vendor, and an association 
agreeing with the proposed SUPPORT statement. A State DOT, a local DOT, 
and a traffic device vendor suggested that some of the items included 
in the SUPPORT statement, such as markers to guide snowplow operators, 
markers that identify fire hydrant locations, markers that identify 
underground utility locations, and design features such as speed humps 
are indeed traffic control devices and their application should be 
standardized by including them in the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with 
adding explicit standards for these devices in the MUTCD, noting that 
States may establish requirements for these devices and design features 
under their adopted policy for use of the public right-of-way. The FHWA 
adopts the SUPPORT statement, as proposed in the NPA but with minor 
editorial changes, in this final rule.
    Based on comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and a toll road 
operator, the FHWA changes the proposed GUIDANCE statement to a 
STANDARD statement in this final rule to require, rather than just 
recommend, that such signs and other devices shall not be located where 
they will interfere with or detract from traffic control devices, since 
it is important that traffic control devices not be blocked or 
interfered with. This is also necessary for consistency with other 
provisions in the MUTCD about device placement, such as the 
requirements in Sections 2D.50 and 2H.08 that community wayfinding 
signs and acknowledgement signs shall not be installed in a position 
where they would obscure the road users' view of other traffic control 
devices. Signs and other devices that do not have any traffic control 
purpose that are placed within the highway right-of-way have even less 
importance than community wayfinding and acknowledgement signs.
    28. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment, 
the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT, and two toll 
road operators recommending the removal of the existing STANDARD 
statement stating that the MUTCD shall not be a legal requirement for 
the installation of traffic control devices, because it is a general 
provision for all devices in the Manual that is inconsistent with 
numerous specific requirements elsewhere in the MUTCD that specific 
devices must be installed, and such requirements are ``legal 
requirements.'' The commenters also suggested that this Standard 
statement may not be consistent with the Guidance statement that 
immediately follows it. The FHWA agrees that this STANDARD statement is 
not easily understood by users of the MUTCD outside of the legal 
profession, but this statement has been the subject of important court 
interpretations regarding the applicability of the MUTCD and has legal 
significance beyond its plain meaning. The FHWA believes that, in the 
future, consideration should be given to removing or revising this 
statement, but additional legal study should be undertaken before doing 
so. Therefore, the FHWA decides to retain this STANDARD statement but 
cautions users of the MUTCD to consult with legal counsel before 
attempting to ascertain the meaning of the statement.
    The FHWA did not propose in the NPA a significant change to the 
second paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement as it appears in the 2003 
MUTCD. However, four Kansas counties, the Kansas Association of 
Counties, and an engineer from Kansas suggested revising the language 
that recommends that jurisdictions with responsibility for traffic 
control that do not have engineers on their staffs who are trained and/
or experienced in traffic control devices should seek engineering 
assistance from others. The commenters felt that many applications of 
the MUTCD are straightforward and well illustrated, and engineering 
assistance is not needed. As a result, the commenters felt that the 
language should be revised to recommend engineering assistance only if 
warranted due to the complexity of the situation. The commenters also 
recommended removing language about smaller agencies requesting 
assistance of larger agencies because of liability reasons. The FHWA 
disagrees with these comments and in this final rule adopts the 
revisions to the GUIDANCE statement as proposed in the NPA. However, to 
address the concerns, the FHWA also adds a SUPPORT statement noting 
that, as part of the Federal-aid Program, each State is required to 
have a Local Technology Assistance Program (LTAP) that provides 
technical assistance to local highway agencies and that requisite 
technical training in the application of the principles of the MUTCD 
and, as needed, engineering assistance, is available from the State's 
LTAP.
    The FHWA received a comment suggesting that the first paragraph of 
the GUIDANCE statement in the 2003 MUTCD be revised so that the phrase 
``this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering 
judgment'' cannot be used to ignore Standards based on ``engineering 
judgment,'' such as creating new sign symbols. The FHWA agrees that 
this language conflicts with other statements in the Manual regarding 
the intent and strength of Standards and in this final rule revises the 
GUIDANCE statement in Section 1A.09, the definition of the text heading 
``Standard'' in Section 1A.13, and the definitions of engineering 
judgment and engineering study in Section 1A.13, to resolve the 
conflict and to make these statements consistent with each other.
    29. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, 
and Interim Approvals, in the NPA the FHWA proposed to revise paragraph 
03 to indicate that electronic submittals of

[[Page 66736]]

requests for interpretation, permission to experiment, interim 
approvals, or changes shall be submitted electronically rather than by 
standard mail, and proposed to include the e-mail address for such 
electronic submittals. As part of this change, the FHWA proposed to add 
an OPTION statement that includes the postal address for mailing of 
requests in the event that the submitter does not have access to e-
mail. The FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD, a State DOT and two 
toll road operators recommending that the STANDARD statement be changed 
to GUIDANCE or SUPPORT as this might not be convenient for all 
agencies. The FHWA disagrees with these comments as adequate provision 
for submission by standard mail is provided in the OPTION statement. 
The FHWA is aware that some written requests that are submitted by 
standard mail are lost or damaged in the screening of all postal mail 
that is sent to FHWA headquarters. As a result, e-mail submittals are 
preferred but standard mail submittals are also allowed. The FHWA 
adopts in this final rule the STANDARD and OPTION as proposed in the 
NPA but with minor editorial changes.
    The FHWA in this final rule adopts the proposed change of paragraph 
20, regarding local jurisdictions informing their State DOT of 
locations where they are using devices under an Interim Approval, to a 
GUIDANCE statement (formerly a STANDARD statement in the 2003 MUTCD). 
The FHWA received comments from a State DOT and two toll road operators 
in support of the revision and a comment from another State DOT opposed 
to the revision because of their belief that the local jurisdiction 
should be required, rather than merely recommended, to notify the State 
DOT of locations where a traffic control device or application under an 
interim approval is being used. The FHWA disagrees with this comment as 
not all State DOTs believe that such notifications are needed and 
because State DOTs can require such notification when they adopt the 
MUTCD.
    The FHWA received a comment from a State DOT suggesting that a new 
STANDARD statement as proposed in the NPA be expanded to also require 
that jurisdictions check with their State DOT for official status of an 
Interim Approval in their State before requesting permission from the 
FHWA. The FHWA agrees with the concept and adopts a new GUIDANCE 
paragraph 21 in this final rule about requests for both experimentation 
and interim approvals, which recommends that local agencies be aware of 
any State requirements and policies that might apply to these 
processes.
    30. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA 
proposed in the NPA to add four FHWA publications and a publication by 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The FHWA publications 
cover topics such as roundabouts, designing sidewalks and trails for 
access, older drivers, and ramp management and control. The ANSI 
publication discusses high-visibility public safety vests. In addition, 
the FHWA proposed revising the list to reflect current editions of the 
publications and adding Web site addresses to obtain the documents. The 
FHWA adopts these new publications and revisions in this final rule. In 
addition, based on comments from the NCUTCD, a utility commission, and 
an engineering consultant, the FHWA adds several other new publications 
that are useful sources of information. These publications include four 
FHWA documents covering topics in signal timing, signalized 
intersections, railroad-highway grade crossings, and changeable message 
signs and an AASHTO publication on pedestrian facilities.
    31. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, in the NPA the FHWA proposed 
adding to the STANDARD statement the assignment of the color purple to 
indicate facilities or lanes that are allowed to be used only by 
vehicles equipped with electronic toll collection (ETC) devices. ATSSA, 
a State DOT, four toll road operators, a traffic control device vendor, 
and a citizen all supported adding the color purple for signing and 
marking ETC facilities and lanes. A toll road operator in Florida 
stated that their past experience has shown that the color purple fades 
rapidly in Florida and will likely do so in other States with similar 
climates. A toll road operator in Texas questioned whether there were 
any purple materials for signs and markings that would meet Texas DOT 
durability and nighttime standards. The Illinois Tollway expressed a 
similar concern about challenges in design and application to ensure 
that effective color contrast is provided under all circumstances. The 
FHWA disagrees with comments that adequate materials do not exist, 
particularly with the adjustment in color values discussed below, and 
incorporates this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes 
using signs and pavement markings as discussed in the changes in Parts 
2 and 3. As a part of the change, in this final rule the FHWA revises 
the text to reflect the intended general use of the color purple for 
lanes restricted to use only by vehicles with registered electronic 
toll accounts, such as in ETC systems utilizing transponders or video/
license plate recognition systems to identify a vehicle with a 
registered toll account. Where a toll lane or facility is not 
restricted to specific vehicles and any vehicle without a toll account 
can use a toll lane or facility because a license plate recognition 
system sends the vehicle owner a bill for the toll, the use of the 
color purple is inappropriate.
    Color specifications for signing and marking materials are 
contained in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, 
appendix to subpart F, Tables 1 through 6. The FHWA received a comment 
from a signing material manufacturer stating that the proposed values 
for the color coordinates in the NPA were too restrictive. Based on 
retroreflectivity evaluations, the commenter suggested that the daytime 
chromaticity coordinates for the purple colored sign sheeting be 
shifted to a redder shade, and that a new set of chromaticity 
coordinates be generated for a nighttime color that also allows for a 
redder shift and that might be different from the daytime requirements. 
A toll road operator suggested that the color purple designated by the 
chromaticity coordinates is not the same hue as the color their agency 
currently uses. The FHWA has reviewed the color properties of the 
purple signing materials available from a variety of manufacturers and 
adopts daytime and nighttime color coordinates for purple 
retroreflective sign material (Tables 1 and 2) that are slightly 
revised from the values that were proposed in the NPA. The adopted 
daytime color coordinates are based on a large series of measurements 
of various purple materials that are close to or match the Pantone 
color selected by the EZ-Pass consortium. With the minor adjustments as 
adopted, there are sufficient materials that meet the values to provide 
for competition, but without reducing color recognition. The adopted 
nighttime color coordinates are similar to the nighttime coordinates 
for purple pavement markings. The FHWA also adopts daytime and 
nighttime color coordinates and luminance factors for purple 
retroreflective marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6) as proposed in 
the NPA. The values for purple in the tables are as indicated below (no 
change in the existing values for luminance factors for purple as 
contained in Table 1A):

[[Page 66737]]



  Table 1--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                              Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  0.302                                0.064
                  0.310                                0.210
                  0.380                                0.255
                  0.468                                0.140
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 2--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                              Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  0.355                                0.088
                  0.385                                0.288
                  0.500                                0.350
                  0.635                                0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
                        Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 x                                    y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  0.300                                0.064
                  0.309                                0.260
                  0.362                                0.295
                  0.475                                0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 5A--Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement
                            Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Minimum                              Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words and Phrases in 
This Manual, as discussed previously, the FHWA places all definitions 
in Part 1 by relocating to Section 1A.13 all definitions that were 
previously contained or repeated in the MUTCD Introduction and in Parts 
2 through 10. In regard to the definitions of the text headings 
``Standard'' and ``Guidance,'' the FHWA clarifies that the verb ``may'' 
is not used in STANDARD or GUIDANCE statements, based on comments from 
a State DOT. Also based on a State DOT comment, the FHWA further 
clarifies the definition of STANDARD statements by adding that such 
statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering 
judgment or engineering studies. This prohibition has always been 
inherent in the meaning of Standards, but the FHWA is aware of cases 
where the lack of explicit text to this effect has resulted in the 
misapplication of engineering judgment or studies. Some agencies 
believed that Standards could be ignored based on engineering judgment 
or an engineering study, which is not the case.
    Additionally, the FHWA revises the definitions for various words 
and phrases to better reflect accepted practice and terminologies and 
for consistency in the usage of these terms in one or more Parts of the 
MUTCD. Except as specifically discussed, there were a few comments of 
an editorial nature regarding some of these definitions that the FHWA 
incorporates in this final rule, as appropriate.
    The FHWA proposed in the NPA to specify that the height of a raised 
pavement marker is not to exceed approximately 1 inch above the road 
surface, rather than specifying a minimum height, in order to clarify 
that tubular markers and other similar devices that might be placed on 
or in the roadway are not raised pavement markers. Based on 
recommendations from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and a traffic control 
device manufacturer, the FHWA changes the height requirement of a 
raised pavement marker to not exceed 1 inch for a permanent marker or 2 
inches for a temporary flexible marker and references Part 6 for 
information on temporary flexible markers.
    The FHWA clarifies the definition of ``intersection'' to reflect 
comments from three State DOTs, two city DOTs, and an NCUTCD member 
suggesting that several of the items within the definition were 
confusing and needed clarification. The FHWA also clarifies the 
definition of ``special purpose road'' by deleting the phrase ``or that 
provides local access,'' because the definition in the 2003 MUTCD was 
overly broad. The FHWA received comments from two local DOTs in 
Washington State opposed to the FHWA's proposed clarification that 
neighborhood residential streets are not special-purpose roads and 
signing for such streets should be the same as that for other 
conventional roads. One of those commenters suggested that neighborhood 
residential streets should be treated differently from other 
conventional roads and suggested that there should be two classes of 
conventional roads: High-speed and low-speed. The FHWA disagrees with 
the commenters and retains the definition, as proposed in the NPA in 
Section 2A.01, and notes that neighborhood streets are two-lane 
conventional roads within the definition for ``conventional road.''
    The FHWA also adds definitions for a variety of new terms to the 
list of definitions because they are used in the MUTCD and need to be 
defined. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed using the term ``hybrid 
signal;'' however, based on comments from two State DOTs and three city 
DOTs, the FHWA changes the term ``hybrid signal'' to ``hybrid beacon'' 
throughout the MUTCD to emphasize that it is not intended that 
approaching vehicles stop at a dark beacon face as they are required to 
do at a dark traffic control signal in some States. To address comments 
from the NCUTCD, two State DOTs, and seven agencies that operate toll 
facilities, the FHWA adopts the definition for ``open road tolling 
(ORT),'' rather than ``open road electronic toll collection'' as 
proposed in the NPA, to match current use of the term. To reflect the 
changes discussed previously in the MUTCD Introduction, in this final 
rule the FHWA revises the term ``private property open to public 
travel'' to ``private road open to public travel'' and clarifies the 
definition to reflect that parking areas and driving aisles within 
parking areas are not included. The FHWA also adds a definition of 
``parking area'' since that term is used in the MUTCD. The FHWA also 
makes minor revisions to several definitions to improve clarity and 
consistency, as suggested by comments. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed to 
include in the definition of the term ``school zone'' that it is an 
area where special law enforcement activity or increased fines for 
traffic violations are authorized. An NCUTCD member suggested that such 
enforcement is not required for the area to be considered a school 
zone. The FHWA agrees, and deletes that criterion from the definition 
in this final rule. The NCUTCD, two State DOTs, two toll road 
operators, and an NCUTCD member suggested that the proposed definition 
of ``worker'' be revised to include workers that are not on foot, such 
as equipment operators, toll collectors, etc. In addition, the NCUTCD, 
a State DOT, and a toll road operator suggested that ``pathway'' also 
be added to the definition of ``worker'' since workers on pathways are 
also subject to potential harm. The FHWA decides to add pathway to the

[[Page 66738]]

definition, but does not make the other suggested change, because this 
definition is general in nature and other specifics about workers are 
covered in Section 6D.03.
    The FHWA received many comments suggesting other new terms be added 
to the list of definitions. In response to the comments received, the 
FHWA decides not to add all of the terms suggested, but adds 
definitions for ``accessible pedestrian signal detector,'' ``altered 
speed zone,'' ``attended lane,'' ``average daily traffic (ADT),'' 
``downstream,'' ``dropped lane,'' ``ETC account only lane,'' ``exact 
change lane,'' ``grade crossing,'' ``lane drop,'' ``open road tolling 
point,'' ``overhead sign,'' ``plaque,'' ``post-mounted sign,'' 
``primary signal face,'' ``pushbutton information message,'' ``rail 
traffic,'' ``signing,'' ``statutory speed zone,'' ``supplemental signal 
face,'' ``toll booth,'' ``toll island,'' ``toll lane,'' ``toll plaza,'' 
``toll-ticket system,'' and ``upstream'' because they are used in the 
MUTCD and should be defined.
    33. The FHWA adds a new section following Section 1A.13. This new 
section is numbered and titled Section 1A.14 Meanings of Acronyms and 
Abbreviations in This Manual, and contains a STANDARD statement with 42 
acronyms and abbreviations and their meanings. The FHWA adds this new 
section to assist readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used 
throughout the Manual. In the NPA, the FHWA proposed 38 acronyms and 
abbreviations. The NCUTCD, ATSSA, and two State DOTs suggested several 
more acronyms and abbreviations. The FHWA conducted a review of terms 
used more than once in the MUTCD text and/or fig