[Federal Register: December 18, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78923-78958]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18de00-11]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket Nos. 97-2295 (Formerly 96-47), 97-3032, 98-3644, 98-4720,
99-5704, 99-6298, 99-6575, and 99-6576]
RIN 2125-AE11, AE25, AE38, AE50, AE58, AE66, AE71, and AE72

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

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

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

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

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

DATES: The final rule is effective January 17, 2001. However, the FHWA
is setting later compliance dates for some portions of the MUTCD; see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further details.
Incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the regulations
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 17,
2001.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web
site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
The text for the millennium edition of the MUTCD is available from
the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations' web site at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

Background

The FHWA announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD on
January 10, 1992, at 57 FR 1134. The purpose of this rewrite effort is
to reformat the text for clarity of intended meanings, to include
metric dimensions (i.e., both English and metric dimensions will be
included in the text) and values for the design and installation of
traffic control devices, and to improve the overall organization and
discussion of the contents in the MUTCD.
Although the Federal Highway Administrator is responsible for
adopting the changes contained in this new millennium edition, the
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) took the
lead in this effort to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD. The NCUTCD is a
national organization of individuals from the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National
Association of County Engineers (NACE), the American Public Works
Association (APWA), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
and other organizations that have extensive experience in the
installation and maintenance of traffic control devices. The NCUTCD
voluntarily assumed the arduous task of rewriting, reformatting and
editing the entire 1988 MUTCD into an updated and more user friendly
document.
The FHWA reviewed and incorporated most of the NCUTCD's proposals
for revising the MUTCD in several Federal Register notices of proposed
amendments. This document contains the disposition of the comments to
the dockets of the notices of proposed amendments which were published
in the Federal Register shown in the table below. The table also shows
the number of letters submitted to each docket and the number of
separate comments addressed as part of the FHWA review and
deliberation.
Adopted changes to the MUTCD text, as discussed herein, are
available on the MUTCD Internet site (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov). The
final rule text will be available on the MUTCD Internet site in
December 2000. Anyone unable to download the text should write to the
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations,
HOTO-1, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Table of Notices of Proposed Amendments Published by FHWA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket Number of Separate
MUTCD part Title number and letters comment
date received entries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1.................................... General provisions/ 97-3032 24 86
Definitions. 12/05/97
Part 1 (update)........................... General provisions/ 99-6575 14 60
Definitions. 12/30/99
Chapters 2A,D,E,F,I....................... Signs........................ 98-3644 47 800
06/11/98
Chapters 2G, 2H........................... Tourist oriented directional 98-4720 80 95
signs, & recreation & 06/24/99
cultural interest signs.

[[Page 78924]]

Chapter 2C................................ Warning signs................ 99-5704 42 329
06/24/99
Chapter 2B................................ Regulatory signs............. 99-6298 86 304
12/21/99
Part 3.................................... Markings..................... 97-2295 40 247
01/06/97
Part 3 (update)........................... Markings..................... 99-6575 27 181
12/30/99
Part 4.................................... Signals...................... 97-2295 24 264
01/06/97
Part 4 (update)........................... Signals...................... 99-6575 111 578
12/30/99
Part 5.................................... Low volume roads............. 99-6298 23 231
12/21/99
Part 6.................................... Temporary traffic control.... 99-6576 56 2652
12/30/99
Part 7.................................... Traffic controls for school 97-3032 20 156
areas. 12/05/97
Part 8.................................... Traffic control systems for 97-2295 29 210
railroad-highway grade 01/06/97
crossings.
Part 8 (update)........................... Highway-rail grade crossings. 99-6298 23 210
12/21/99
Part 9.................................... Traffic controls for bicycles 98-4720 79 357
06/24/99
Part 10................................... Traffic controls for highway- 99-5704 46 381
light rail grade crossings. 06/24/99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments

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

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 1--General Provisions

The FHWA received 146 comments from 38 commenters concerning Part
1. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at
62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30,
1999.
1. In Part 1 Introduction, the FHWA is incorporating a discussion
on defining the following condition headings: STANDARD, OPTION,
GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT. This change addresses many comments received
regarding the difficulty in distinguishing between distinct sections in
previous editions of the MUTCD. In the NPA for Part 1, this discussion
was covered in Section 1A.10 MUTCD Changes, Interpretations, and
Experimentations. Based on docket comments, the FHWA believes it is
important for the reader to see this discussion before proceeding to
the other sections of the manual. Therefore, the FHWA is moving this
discussion to the Introduction.
The FHWA is also changing the way that these condition headings
appear throughout the text. The FHWA received many comments expressing
a need for improvement in the blocked headings found in the notice of
proposed amendments. An explanation of both the terms and new heading
style is included in the Introduction.
Also being added is a new STANDARD statement indicating that any
traffic control device design or application provision contained in the
MUTCD shall be considered in the public domain. The FHWA will not
include any copyrighted or patented devices in the MUTCD with the
exception of the Interstate Shield, a copyrighted device developed by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). Since this is a frequently asked question, the FHWA has
decided to include language in the MUTCD to address this policy.
A new GUIDANCE paragraph is added to Part 1 Introduction to discuss
the use of the International System of Units, a modernized version of
the Metric system, and English units used throughout the MUTCD. The
FHWA recommends that a decision be made to consistently use either the
International System of Units (Metric) or English units in the design
and installation of traffic control devices.
2. In Table I.1, Evolution of the MUTCD, two other revisions to the
1988 MUTCD are added for a total of seven revisions to the 1988 MUTCD,
instead of the five revisions previously shown in the table. The FHWA
has also added the new millennium edition to this table.
3. In Section 1A.01 Purpose of Traffic Control Devices, paragraph
1, the term ``road users'' is referenced. Road user is the preferred
term because it encompasses both motorized and non-motorized traffic.
The term ``road user'' is defined in Section 1A.13. The FHWA did not
receive any docket comments on this change.
4. In Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices, under
the SUPPORT statement, the term ``speed'' is added as a variable that
governs the design, operation, placement, and location of various
traffic control devices. The traveling speed of road users can affect
their ability to appropriately respond to the driving task. The FHWA
did not receive any docket comments on this change.
5. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, under the
STANDARD statement, the term ``colors'' is added to the statement that
all symbols not shown in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' 1 book shall
be adopted using the

[[Page 78925]]

procedures described in Section 1A.10, ``MUTCD Changes,
Interpretations, and Experimentations.'' The FHWA did not receive any
docket comments on this change.
Also in this section, an OPTION is added to explain that State and
local highway agencies may develop word message signs to notify road
users of special regulations or situations. The FHWA did not receive
any docket comments on this change.
6. In Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices,
GUIDANCE is added to explain the difference between functional and
physical maintenance. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on
this change.
7. In Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices,
under the STANDARD statement, a reference to 23 CFR 655.603 is added to
adopt the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control
devices, and require that any State or other Federal agency MUTCD shall
be in substantial conformance with the national standards. The FHWA did
not receive any docket comments on this change.
8. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control
Devices, (titled in the 1999 NPA as ``Placement Authority,'') paragraph
1, STANDARD language is added to require that all traffic control
devices and any other signs or messages within the street or highway
right-of-way shall be placed only as authorized by a public authority
or official having jurisdiction for the street or highway. The FHWA did
not receive any docket comments on this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the 1988 MUTCD. It is available for purchase from
the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, PO Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection
and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA
Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also in Section 1A.08, GUIDANCE is added to indicate that any
unauthorized traffic control device or any non-essential sign or
message placed within the highway right-of-way should be removed. The
FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.
9. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment
(titled in the 1999 NPA as ``Engineering Study or Judgment Required''),
a clarification discussion on the difference between engineering study
and engineering judgment is added. The FHWA did not receive any docket
comments opposed to adding this discussion.
Also in Section 1A.09, one commenter stated that the word
``required'' in the title of this section (titled in the 1999 NPA as
``Engineering Study or Judgment Required''), conflicts with the
GUIDANCE given in this section. The FHWA agrees and has changed the
title of this section to ``Engineering Study and Engineering
Judgment,'' because that title more appropriately conveys the objective
of the section.
The same commenter also recommended that the STANDARD statement,
which provides that the inclusion of a traffic control device in the
MUTCD is not a legal requirement for their installation, be deleted
from this section because he did not see its purpose. The FHWA
disagrees because the STANDARD statement complements the GUIDANCE
paragraphs in this section that discuss that the decision to use a
particular device should be made on the basis of an engineering study
or the application of engineering judgment.
10. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, and
Changes, STANDARD language is added to paragraph 1 to prohibit the
design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other
than those adopted in the MUTCD, unless the process for an
interpretation, experimentation, or change is followed.
Also in Section 1A.10, is a new GUIDANCE statement indicating that
any request for permission to experiment with a new traffic control
device should contain a legally binding statement certifying that the
traffic control device is not protected by a patent or a copyright
since patented or copyright protected traffic control devices are not
permitted in the MUTCD, except for the Interstate Shield.
11. A new Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases, is added.
Definitions in this section are provided for terms that are universally
used throughout the MUTCD. The definitions for terms found in only one
section of the MUTCD can be found within the specific section. The FHWA
did not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However,
the FHWA did receive editorial comments on some of the definitions, and
they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.
12. A new Section 1A.14 Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control
Devices, is added. These abbreviations shall be the STANDARD for word
messages used in conjunction with traffic control devices. The FHWA did
not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However, the
FHWA did receive editorial comments which have been incorporated as
minor modifications to the text.

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

[[Page 78926]]

rectangular, the FHWA has also included the recreation signs in the
guide signs category (see double asterisk in new table).
18. In Section 2A.1l Sign Colors, a new Table 2A.4, Uses of Sign
Colors is added. The FHWA has also included a statement that the color
coordinates and values shall conform to those shown in the color
specifications described in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' (SHS)
Book.2 There were no docket comments on this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA believes that including this statement will help promote
uniformity of colors where traffic control signs are designed and
installed by providing the reader with a specific reference source for
determining the proper color coordinates and values.
19. In Section 2A.13 Symbols, paragraph 2 explains that new symbol
signs shall be adopted by FHWA based on research evaluation studies to
determine comprehension data and recognition/legibility distance for
the symbol sign. The FHWA added an OPTION statement for State and/or
local highway agencies to conduct these research studies. There were no
docket comments on this section.
20. In Section 2A.14 Word Messages, paragraph 2 provides GUIDANCE
for determining sign letter heights is added. Sign letter heights
should be determined based on 1 inch per 40 feet of legibility
distance. The FHWA believes this amendment will improve sign legibility
for all road users, especially for older road users whose vision may be
diminished. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.
In paragraph 5, an OPTION is provided for State and local highway
agencies to use the combination of lowercase letters with initial
uppercase letters for street name signs. In Section 2A.15 of the 1988
MUTCD, this OPTION only applied to destination guide signs and did not
give States this flexibility. The FHWA has also eliminated the
restriction for using series B alphabets only on street name signs.
States now have the flexibility to use other standard series alphabets,
as appropriate. There were no docket comments on this section.
21. In Section 2A.17 Overhead Sign Installations, the FHWA removed
the restriction for placing signs on bridges located along only
``urban'' freeways and expressways in the OPTION statement. Overhead
signs may be placed on ``any'' freeway or expressway bridge where
feasible, to enhance safety and economy. This change provides more
installation flexibility to State and local highway agencies. There
were no docket comments on this section.
22. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, paragraph 7 allows State and
local highway agencies the OPTION to adjust the mounting height of
signs when the sign supports are located near the edge of the right-of-
way on a steep backslope. There were no docket comments on this
section.
23. In the first paragraph of Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, a
STANDARD is added that requires sign supports within the clear zone to
be breakaway or shielded for the safety of the road user particularly
in run-off-road incidents. There were no docket comments on this
section.
24. In Section 2A.23 Maintenance, GUIDANCE is added to paragraph 2
which recommends that maintenance inspections be conducted both day and
night. Although this is a general practice among many engineering and
transportation officials, the FHWA believes it is a practice worth
reiterating in the MUTCD. There were no docket comments on this
section.
25. In Section 2A.24 Wrong-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA has
deleted the OPTION and SUPPORT text that appeared in the NPA and
modified the figures to more accurately show the typical sign
application for wrong-way traffic control. This change helps the text
read clearer and is based on the FHWA internal review process which
identified inconsistencies, redundancy, and confusion between the text
and the accompanying typical figures.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2B--Regulatory Signs

The FHWA received 304 comments from 86 commenters concerning
Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. Only the technical (not editorial)
comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed
amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.
26. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA received
several comments requesting the addition of a table that depicts sign
sizes. The FHWA has adopted a similar format to the one recommended by
the NCUTCD that expands the sign category headings to cover additional
sizes. Table 2B-1 lists sign sizes for Conventional Roads, Expressways,
and Freeways, ``minimum'' and ``oversized'' signs.
27. In Section 2B.04 STOP Sign, paragraph 3, under the STANDARD
statement, we proposed text requiring the use of the 4-way supplemental
plaque (R1-3) at intersections where all approaches are controlled by
STOP signs. This practice was optional in the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA
received one comment in opposition to this adopted change. The FHWA has
adopted this requirement because it believes the use of the
supplemental plaque will provide additional emphasis and motorist
information at the stop location.
The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 3 years after
the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to
minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This
period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the
normal service life. This change takes effect immediately for all new
installations.
28. The proposed amendment to Section 2B.05 STOP Sign Applications
recommended changing the title of this section from ``Warrants for Stop
Signs'' to ``STOP Sign Applications.'' This change eliminates the
misunderstanding created by the term ``warrants'' which has a ``legal
sanctions'' connotation. No commenters objected to this amendment,
therefore the FHWA has changed the section title as proposed.
Several commenters indicated disappointment that the GUIDANCE
statement in Section 2B.05, paragraph 1, was not upgraded to a STANDARD
since many local governments receive frequent requests for STOP signs
to be installed for speed control. Traffic engineers would like to have
the language in the MUTCD that would back up their decision when faced
with political pressure to install STOP signs to control speed. The
FHWA does not consider this sufficient justification to elevate this
GUIDANCE to a STANDARD requirement, particularly when you consider the
potential impacts on local governments. Two commenters questioned why
an engineering study, as opposed to an engineering judgment, was not
required in the NPA. The FHWA believes that it is more practical to
recommend that an engineering study be done for multi-way stops and
that engineering judgment be used for one-way or two-way stops.
29. The FHWA received no objections to the proposed language in
Section 2B.06 Stop Sign Placement, changing the language from OPTION to
GUIDANCE for using STOP lines to supplement a STOP sign. The FHWA
believes that the use of the STOP line will provide the road user with
additional information for making safe traffic operation decisions,
therefore the proposal is adopted.
Also in this section, under GUIDANCE, the FHWA received no comments
objecting to the proposed language stating that the STOP signs should
not be placed on the far side of

[[Page 78927]]

the intersection. The text has been modified to clarify that when only
one sign is installed, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far
side of the intersection. This would allow the use of a supplemental
STOP sign on the left side which may be appropriate in some cases.
30. In Section 2B.07 Multi-way Stop Sign Applications, paragraph 3,
the FHWA added GUIDANCE to recommend that the decision to install
Multi-way Stop signs should be based on an engineering study. The FHWA
offers the same rationale that was provided in Section 2B.05, which
addresses the reasoning for the use of engineering judgment as opposed
to engineering study.
Several commenters responded to the GUIDANCE statement (in item
C.1) which lists the criteria to consider in an engineering study for a
multi-way STOP sign installation. There is a misunderstanding that the
criteria was reduced from 500 to 300 vehicles per hour. The 1988 MUTCD
provides for 500 vehicles per hour from all approaches and 200 combined
vehicular and pedestrian units per hour from the minor-street
approaches. The revised text provides: ``1. The vehicular volume
entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of
both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight
hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per
hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor-street
vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest
hour * * * '' This is the same criteria presented in a slightly
different manner.
Additionally, Item C.2 of the criteria includes bicycle volumes to
the combination volume studies of vehicles and pedestrians. The FHWA
believes that bicycle travel is an integral part of traffic control
considerations. Therefore, this should improve the traffic data when
considering installation of traffic control devices. One commenter
pointed out that typical count methods do not allow for comprehensive
counting of bicycles over long time periods. The FHWA agrees that
manual counts are routinely done over an 8-12 hour period in order to
gather pedestrian and bicyclist data. It is true that automatic 24-hour
counts, typically done by machines with rubber tubes across the
roadway, cannot count bicycles; however, video methods offer a highly
effective means to capture this data. Since the language is provided
under GUIDANCE, the FHWA does not believe that this will cause an
inconvenience to traffic engineers.
31. In Section 2B.11 Speed Limit Sign, a sentence is added to the
OPTION statement to read: ``A changeable message sign that changes for
traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the
appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times.'' In the NPA this
was suggested as an addition to Section 2B.13 Night Speed Limit Sign.
After reconsideration by the FHWA and from comments provided on this
issue, it was determined that it be placed in Section 2B.11, because
this is not necessarily a night condition.
32. In Section 2B.16 Reduced Speed Ahead Sign (R2-5 series), the
FHWA received one comment regarding the proposed assembly method B
under OPTION which when applied to a metric assembly, could require a
five-sign configuration for an advance notice of change in speed limit.
The FHWA believes that since this method is ``optional'' and not a
requirement, its inclusion under OPTION is appropriate.
Also in this section, one comment was received suggesting that the
background color for the supplemental plaques in GUIDANCE be changed
from the color yellow to white so that motorists will not confuse this
sign assembly with the School Speed Limit Sign Assembly. The FHWA
agrees and has modified the language to read ``When used with Speed
Limit assemblies, the supplemental plaques should have a white
background with a black legend and border, except for the METRIC plaque
(see Section 2B.11).'' The FHWA believes that it is essential that the
METRIC plaque be distinct to draw attention to the use of metric units
in that particular jurisdiction. The FHWA is providing a phase-in
compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final
rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local
highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing
signs after the normal service life. This change is effective
immediately for new sign installations.
33. In Section 2B.17 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 to R3-4)
(referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.15), the FHWA is combining the
language for the Turn Prohibition and the U-Turn Prohibition signs into
one section. No negative comments were received for this amendment.
The FHWA received one comment suggesting that the following text be
added as an OPTION: ``Where ONE WAY signs are used, Turn Prohibition
signs may be omitted (see Section 2B.31).'' The FHWA agrees and is
adding this language because this may reduce the number of sign
messages and prevent driver message overload.
34. In Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5,
R3-5a and R3-7) (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.16), the FHWA
proposed adding a new Mandatory Movement Lane Control Sign (R3-5a)
under OPTION to explain to road users that they must stay in the same
lane and proceed straight through an intersection. Two comments were
received that recommended changing the name of this sign to a
``Straight Through Only'' sign, which is a more specific description of
the sign's intent. The FHWA agrees and is adopting this change.
Also in Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs, a
GUIDANCE statement is added to read: ``Mandatory Movement Lane Control
signs should be accompanied by lane control pavement markings,
especially where traffic volumes are high, where there is a high
percentage of commercial vehicles, or where other distractions exist.''
This was proposed as a requirement in the NPA, which stated that
whenever lane use control signs are installed, lane-use pavement
markings shall also be installed, and seven commenters objected to this
proposal and mentioned that many jurisdictions are successfully using
this signing without markings, and that making this condition mandatory
may constitute an unfunded mandate creating serious hardships on many
jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with these suggestions, and believes
that this language is more appropriately included as an OPTION in
Section 2B.19.
35. In Section 2B.30 WRONG WAY Sign (R5-1a), the FWHA proposed to
include a reference to Figure 2-5a which shows the signing and pavement
marking treatments for divided highway intersections with medians 9 m
(30 ft). Based on the negative comments received on the proposed
figure, the FHWA has revised the figure to only depict WRONG WAY
signing. The figure is renumbered Figure 2B-2, ``Typical Wrong Way
Signing for Divided Highways.''
36. In Section 2B.32 ONE WAY Sign (R6-1, R6-2), the FHWA proposed
to change the recommendation regarding placement of the One Way signs
from a recommendation to a requirement. The FHWA received one negative
comment regarding the change from GUIDANCE to STANDARD, stating the
rationale that alley traffic is familiar traffic and that the current
practice has been proven over time to be adequate. The FHWA disagrees
with this comment and is adopting the proposed amendment. Not

[[Page 78928]]

all traffic in alleys will always be familiar traffic, and this new
requirement will increase safety by reducing the chance of road users
inadvertently making wrong-way movements.
Another commenter to this section suggested adding a compliance
period to relieve the cost burden on local agencies. The FHWA is
providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective
date of this final rule to minimize any impact on State and local
highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the
existing signs after the normal service life.
37. In Section 2B.35 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping
Signs, the FHWA inadvertently omitted the proposed text, stating that
all street parking signs are to be illuminated or retroreflective. This
text is consistent with Section 2A.08 Illumination and
Retroreflectivity, which discusses the general provisions and standards
for signs. The FHWA believes the language that addresses
retroreflectivity and illumination is best discussed as a STANDARD in
Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs. The FHWA is adopting the
following text: ``Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or
illuminated to show the same shape or similar color by both day and
night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text
discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 1A.08).
38. In Section 2B.37 Emergency Restriction Signs (referenced in the
NPA as Section 2B.36, paragraph 3), FHWA is providing States with the
choice of either using red or black legend and border on a white
background for these signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments
opposed to this adopted change.
39. The 1988 MUTCD contained a sentence that the WALK ON LEFT (R9-
1) and NO HITCHHIKING (R9-4) signs do not have to be retroreflective.
However, the FHWA is changing this and requiring that all signs,
including these pedestrian signs, shall be either illuminated or
retroreflective. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to this
adopted change.
40. In Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA proposed adding
two new symbol signs for NO RIGHT TURN ON RED (R10-11c) and NO LEFT
TURN ON RED (R10-11d). Three commenters disagreed with the use of these
symbol signs as alternatives to the word legend R10-11a and R10-11b
signs. Their concern was that these new symbol signs may be confused
with the R3-1R (NO RIGHT TURN) and the R3-1L (NO LEFT TURN) symbol
signs and will lead to increased violations for No Right Turn or No
Left Turns situations. The FHWA believes that since the use of the
proposed signs is an OPTION and not a requirement, that jurisdictions
should be able to have the option of using either word message signs or
these new symbol signs. Therefore, the text has been modified to read:
``A symbolic NO TURN ON RED sign (R10-11c) may be used as an alternate
to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs.''
41. The FHWA added two new sections to address High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) signing: Section 2B.49 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and
Section 2B.50 High Occupancy Vehicle Sign Applications and Placement.
No commenters objected to this amendment.
The FWHA has deleted the R3-18 and R3-19 HOV signs from the text
and Table 2B-1. These signs have been replaced by the remaining HOV
signs found in Table 2B-1. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance
period of 6 years after the effective date of the final rule to
minimize any potential impact on State and local highway agencies. This
period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the
normal service life. Immediate compliance is required for all new
installations.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2C--Warning Signs

The FHWA received 329 comments from 42 commenters concerning
Chapter 2C. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64
FR 33802 on June 24, 1999, under docket number FHWA-1999-5704.
42. The following general changes are in Chapter 2C: the various
sizes of warning signs are shown in Table 2C-2; and the sections in 2C
are grouped and discussed according to category type and application.
Table 2C-1 shows the categories, application, appropriate sections, and
sign numbers for the warning signs discussed in Chapter 2C. The table
is designed so that it is easy to reference this information. The
section topics are grouped by roadway-related, traffic-related, and
non-vehicle related categories.
43. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, paragraph 2
includes language that was proposed in the NPA as Section 2C.35
Motorized Traffic Signs. The language indicating that warning signs
should be removed or covered when conditions or activities are seasonal
or temporary is more appropriate for inclusion in Section 2C.02 which
discusses general application for all warning signs. This language is
removed from the section on ``Motorized Traffic Signs.''
In Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, the minimum sizes of the
following signs are increased from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30
inches): Merge Sign (W4-1), Narrow Bridge Sign (W5-2), Two-Way Traffic
Sign (W6-3), and the Double Arrow Sign (W12-1). This change makes the
minimum size consistent with other signs in the respective sign series
and improve the sign visibility for road users, particularly older
drivers. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years
after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations
to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies.
This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after their
normal service life. This change is effective immediately for all new
installations.
The FHWA received comments from the Washington Department of
Transportation (WDOT) and an engineering concerning Table 2C-2. The
WDOT suggested that all diamond warning signs in this table should be
the same size for a given roadway type facility. The example given was
that the Curve Sign (W1 Series) requires more decision and reaction
time than the Merge Sign (W4 Series). Therefore, the WDOT suggests that
the Curve Sign, when used on expressways and freeways, should be at
least the same size as shown for the Merge Sign which is 1200 mm x 1200
mm (48 inches by 48 inches). The FHWA agrees that there is a need to
further study this issue of sign size consistency, and we will revisit
it as part of a future notice of proposed amendments.
An engineering consultant suggested that the FHWA delete the term
``standard size'' used as a heading in Table 2C-2 because in tort
liability cases, the term ``standard size'' is misunderstood and
requires explanation. Based on this comment, the FHWA has revised Table
2C-2 to relate the warning sign sizes to the roadway classification
using the following headings: Conventional Roads, Expressway, and
Freeway. The FHWA has added a supplemental Table 2C-2a to show the
minimum and oversized warning sign sizes.
44. In Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Signs, the discussion for
each of the horizontal alignment signs (W1-1 through W1-5) are combined
into one section. A Table 2C-4 has been added to provide guidance for
determining when to use the horizontal alignment signs based on the
number of alignment changes and based on whether or not the advisory
speed is

[[Page 78929]]

greater than, equal to, or less than 50 km/h (30 mph).
45. In Section 2C.07 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory
Speed Sign, a new W1-9 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-9 sign
combines the Turn (W1-1) Sign or the Curve (W1-2) Sign with the
Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) to create one sign. The FHWA has also
included a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment
Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA indicated that the W1-9 sign shall be
installed within the turn or curve. However, based on the docket
comments from the Illinois DOT, the Ohio DOT, and the Ohio Institute of
Transportation Engineers, the FHWA has revised paragraph 2 to indicate
that this sign shall be installed at the beginning of the turn or curve
to give motorists prior warning before they enter the curve. The FHWA
also received a comment from Pierce County, Washington indicating that
this sign has potential application in urban or lower speed conditions.
The FHWA agrees and has included a minimum size of 900 mm x 900 mm (36
x 36 inches) when this sign is used on low speed facilities.
46. In Section 2C.08 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection
Sign, a new W1-10 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-10 sign combines
the Turn (W1-1) sign or the Curve (W1-2) sign with the Cross Road (W2-
1) sign or Side Road (W2-2, W2-3) signs to create one sign. The FHWA
has added a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06. The FHWA has
deleted the following paragraph which was formerly paragraph 3 in the
NPA: ``The Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign should
not be used if there is adequate roadway length to provide for separate
signs showing each of the applicable features.'' Based on comments
received, the FHWA believes that even when adequate space is available
to install separate signs, this combination sign can provide a clearer
message to the road user, and the decision to use this sign should be
left to the State or local agency's discretion.
47. In Section 2C.10 Chevron Alignment Sign, based on a docket
comment that the FHWA received from the Illinois DOT, the FHWA has
added an OPTION to install the Chevron Alignment (W1-8) sign on the far
side of an intersection to inform road users of a change in horizontal
alignment through an intersection.
48. In Section 2C.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs, a new TRUCK ESCAPE
RAMP word message (W7-4c) sign is added to the MUTCD. Since this term
is more widely and commonly used, the FHWA has included it as an OPTION
to the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP word message (W7-4) sign. The FHWA has
included GUIDANCE for installing No Parking (R8-3 series) signs near
the ramp entrance due to the potential hazard caused by parking at
these ramp locations.
49. In Section 2C.13 Road Narrows Sign, an OPTION to use the
Advisory Speed (W13-1) plaque with the ROAD NARROWS (W5-1) sign is
added.
50. In Section 2C.20 Low Clearance Sign, the use of the Low
Clearance (W12-2) sign is required to notify road users of clearances
less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height or
minimum structure height. Providing this critical information is
especially important to operators of large vehicles.
51. A new Section 2C.22 Speed Hump Sign and new word message sign
(W17-1) is added. The FHWA received a docket comment from the NCUTCD
requesting this new word message sign. With the prevalent application
of traffic calming techniques within residential communities and the
possibility of States developing their own word message signs, the FHWA
believes it is appropriate to include a standard word message sign in
the MUTCD. In an effort to promote uniformity and discourage a
proliferation of States using a variety of signs, the FHWA adopts the
SPEED HUMP sign recommended by the NCUTCD. The addition of this new
section means that the section numbers for the sections following 2C.22
are changed.
52. In Section 2C.24 Shoulder Signs, language is added to describe
the application of the SOFT SHOULDER (W8-4) sign, the LOW SHOULDER (W8-
9) sign, the SHOULDER DROP-OFF (W8-9a) sign, and the UNEVEN LANE (W8-
11) sign. These word message signs are also appropriate for use in work
zones (MUTCD Part 6). Since Part 6 references the signs but does not
include a description, the FHWA has included an application discussion
for these signs. The symbols for these existing signs have created
confusion and misunderstanding. Therefore, the symbol signs are deleted
in lieu of word messages. A phase-in compliance period of 10 years from
the effective date of this final rule is provided so that State and
local agencies can replace their existing symbol signs with word
message signs over the course of the normal service life of the signs.
53. In Section 2C.26 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3 series), all
of the Advance Traffic Control signs are combined into one section. The
Advance Traffic Control signs include: The Stop Ahead (W3-1a), the
Yield Ahead (W3-2a), the Signal Ahead (W3-3), and a new BE PREPARED TO
STOP (W3-4) sign. A new word message sign was submitted as a docket
comment from the NCUTCD. This word message sign was already adopted in
MUTCD Part 6, Work Zones. The MUTCD Part 6 shows the sign but does not
have any descriptive text accompanying the sign. The FHWA believes this
word message sign is appropriate for inclusion in both Chapter 2C and
Part 6 because it advises road users that they may encounter traffic
congestion or stopped traffic caused by traffic signals. This amendment
includes descriptive text to discuss the application of the BE PREPARED
TO STOP sign.
Also in this section, the FHWA received comments from the city of
Bellevue, Washington and the Washington DOT indicating that they have
installed Street Name plaques with the Advance Traffic Control signs
and have had no negative effects. Therefore, in the first OPTION
statement of Section 2C.26 the FHWA has modified the sentence to allow
the OPTION of installing a supplemental Street Name plaque above or
below any Advance Traffic Control sign rather than just the Signal
Ahead sign because it gives States more flexibility.
54. In Section 2C.27 Cross Traffic Does Not Stop plaque, a new (W4-
4P) plaque is added. This plaque is intended to warn road users that
they are approaching a 2-way stop controlled intersection. This new
word message plaque is based on research conducted by the Texas
Transportation Institute 3 and on recommendations included in the
``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.'' 4 The FHWA believes it is
appropriate from a safety standpoint to add this new warning sign to
help road users quickly identify the type of stop controlled
intersection. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to
this new plaque. However, the FHWA did receive a comment suggesting
that we add the OPTION to use this plaque on 1-way stop controlled T-
intersections and the FHWA has included this modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Picha, D.L., C.E. Schuckel, J.A. Parham, and C.T. Mai,
``Traffic Control Devices at Two-Way Stop Controlled
Intersections,'' Research Report 1374-IF, Texas Transportation
Institute, College Station, Texas, November 1996.
4 ``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,'' Report No. 1 FHWA-
RD-97-135, available from the FHWA Research and Technology Report
Center, 9701 Philadelphia Court, Unit Q, Lanham, Maryland 20706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 78930]]

appropriate color of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaque. In
response to these comments, and since this plaque is intended as a
warning message to provide advance notice of an upcoming situation,
language is added that the plaque colors are black legend on a yellow
background. In State and local jurisdictions where this plaque is
intended to regulate traffic, this plaque may be placed on the same
post as the STOP sign. When used with the STOP sign, the colors are
black legend on a white background.
55. In Section 2C.30, paragraph 4, a new sentence is added that
roadway delineation may also be used to notify road users of lane
reduction situations. The OPTION to use pavement markings in addition
to the Lane Ends signs will provide additional guidance information to
the road users.
Also in paragraph 5 of this section, GUIDANCE is included to
indicate that, in situations where an extra lane has been added for
slower moving traffic, a Lane Ends sign should be installed in advance
of the end of the extra lane.
56. In Section 2C.33 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs,
GUIDANCE is added to clarify the difference between when the Exit Speed
(W13-2) signs and the Ramp Speed (W13-3) signs should be used. Based on
deliberation comments made to the docket review, the FHWA has changed
the title of this section and included a new Curve Speed (W13-5) sign.
This sign was not discussed in the NPA, but the FHWA believes it should
be included in the MUTCD because it provides the advisory speed on
roads and highways at the beginning of horizontal alignment changes.
The Curve Speed sign is designed exactly like the Exit and Ramp Speed
sign.
57. In Section 2C.34 Intersection Warning Signs, an OPTION to
install an Advance Street Name (W16-8) plaque in conjunction with the
intersection warning signs is provided. This change provides helpful
advance information to the road user.
Also in this section, the FHWA has added a new Circular
Intersection (W2-6) symbol sign that was submitted by the NCUTCD. The
FHWA received comments from the Texas, Missouri, and Oregon DOTs in
favor of a different symbol that was similar to the roundabout symbol
used in Europe. With the advent of traffic calming practices in
residential communities, the FHWA believes it is important to take
advantage of this opportunity to include a sign in the MUTCD for
circular intersections. Until further research can be done on another
symbol, the FHWA plans to include the symbol submitted by the NCUTCD
and to include language indicating that the symbol be accompanied by an
educational word message plaque.
58. A new Section 2C.36 Motorized Traffic Signs is added. Motorized
traffic signs are used to alert road users to unexpected entries into
the roadway by trucks, farm vehicles, emergency vehicles, and other
vehicles.
Also in this section, a new EMERGENCY SIGNAL AHEAD (W11-12) warning
sign for use with the Emergency Vehicle (W11-8) symbol sign is added.
These two signs are required in advance of all emergency vehicle
traffic control signals (Chapter 4F).
Based on FHWA internal comments made during the docket review
deliberations, this section has also been revised to include an OPTION
to use other word message warning signs to indicate the type of
emergency vehicle station ahead (such as rescue squad, etc.) in
situations when no emergency signal is present.
59. In Section 2C.37 Crossing Signs, a new design and application
for advance crossing and crossing signs is added. In the past, the
crossing signs were distinguished from the advance crossing signs by
the use of crosswalk lines on the sign. However, people rarely noticed
the difference. The FHWA has changed the design of these signs by
deleting the crosswalk lines and using one sign for both the advance
and the crossing location. The crossing sign when used to provide
advance notice to road users is supplemented with the legend ``AHEAD''
or with an appropriate distance plaque. The crossing sign is used
adjacent to crossings and must be supplemented with a diagonal downward
pointing arrow when the crossing does not have pavement markings. If
pavement markings are used to mark the crosswalk, then only the
crossing sign is needed and the diagonal downward pointing arrow is
optional. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10
years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to
minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is
effective immediately for new sign installations.

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

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts
2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are
addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA)
was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.
60. Throughout Chapter 2D, the FHWA is replacing the word
``marker'' with the word ``sign,'' since these route and auxiliary
markers are generally considered signs. The sign numbers, however, will
continue to carry the ``M'' designation (example: M1-4) so that the
State's sign inventory will not need to change. Also, a reference to
Chapter 2A is included to remind readers to check there for placement,
location, and other general criteria for signs, since this information
is not repeated in every section. There were no docket comments on this
section.
61. In Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination, the
STANDARD statement in paragraph 3 is modified to extend the general
requirements for retroreflectivity and/or illumination to ``all'' guide
sign messages and legends, unless specific exceptions are provided.
This is consistent with Section 2A.08 which requires all signs to be
retroreflective and/or illuminated. There were no docket comments on
this section.
62. In Section 2D.09 Numbered Highway Systems, a sentence is added
to paragraph 5 which states that the highest priority route sign legend
shall be placed on top or to the left of the sign panel. This will help
the road user better identify the class of roadway (example: Interstate
vs. County route). There were no docket comments on this section.
63. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, paragraph 6 allows the
OPTION of placing a white sign panel behind the Off-Interstate Business
Route signs when they are installed on a green guide sign. This
amendment will improve the sign's contrast and conspicuity. There were
no docket comments on this section.
64. In Section 2D.15 Cardinal Direction Auxiliary Sign, the first
letter of cardinal direction messages is increased by 10 percent.
Increasing the first letter of cardinal direction signs such as EAST
and WEST, helps the road user in the navigation task by providing a
clearer distinction between the similar appearance of these two
messages. This same principle is true for the NORTH and SOUTH cardinal
directions. This change was previously adopted in revision number 5 to
the 1988 MUTCD and is mentioned here to bring attention to the
compliance date which was December 31, 1994. The FHWA received no
docket comments on this section.
65. In Section 2D.33 Destination and Distance Signs, the OPTION
statement is changed to add the placement of the route sign and
cardinal direction within

[[Page 78931]]

the destination sign panel. When this option is used, the size of the
route sign and cardinal direction auxiliary sign should be at least the
minimum size specified for these signs. There were no docket comments
on this section.
66. In Section 2D.34 Destination Signs, paragraph 9 recommends that
when there are four destinations, they should be shown on two separate
sign panels. The FHWA has changed this from a requirement (as shown in
the 1988 edition of the MUTCD) to a GUIDANCE in order to allow State
and local highway agencies more flexibility. The FHWA believes this
change is appropriate since the OPTION in paragraph 10 allows all four
destinations on one sign panel in situations where spacing is critical.
The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.
67. In the 1988 edition of the MUTCD, distance signs were required
to be placed approximately 500 feet outside the municipal limits or at
the edge of the built-up district. Section 2D.37 Location of Distance
Signs, eliminates this specific distance requirement and allows the
State and local highway agencies the flexibility to determine the
appropriate sign location. There were no docket comments on this
section.
68. The FHWA received comments from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and reviewed the recommendations in the ``Older Driver
Highway Design Handbook,'' 5 which suggest that a discussion for
installing street name signs on overhead mast arms be included in the
MUTCD. Since many State and local highway agencies are already using
this application and it does improve sign visibility, the FHWA is
adopting this as an OPTION in paragraph 11 of Section 2D.38 Street Name
Sign. At intersections having two different street names, the FHWA is
also adopting the OPTION to show both street names on one panel with
appropriate directional arrows. This is consistent with the ``Older
Driver Highway Design Handbook'' and will also optimize sign visibility
for the road user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

69. In Section 2D.44 General Service Signs, paragraph 15 is changed
to eliminate the term ``opaque background'' since all backgrounds shall
be either retroreflective or illuminated as discussed in Section 2D.03.
There were no docket comments on this section.
In this same section, an OPTION is added to use the new word
message sign ``ROAD CONDITION DIAL 511'' to notify road users of road
and traffic conditions. This is a new OPTION that was not included in
the NPA because at the time, it had not been approved by the Federal
Communications Commission.
70. The title of Section 2D.45 proposed in the NPA is changed from
``Milepost Markers'' to ``Reference Posts.'' This change is based on
internal review discussions during the FHWA's deliberation of docket
comments. The FHWA has changed the title of this section to ``Reference
Posts'' since this is a more accurate description.
The FHWA has also modified this section in paragraph 11 of the
OPTION statement to eliminate the provision for placement of the
kilometer (mile) fractions on the back of the post or on a separate
small plate. The text in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD was written more
for road maintenance and public works activities. This modification is
being made to help road users better identify their location in
emergency situations.

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

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

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

[[Page 78932]]

diagrammatic sign. The recommended number of destinations is two for
each sign. However, the FHWA recognizes that there are some special
situations where there are more than two principle destinations at the
interchange and changing this sentence to GUIDANCE provides more
flexibility to State and local highway agencies.
80. In Section 2E.20 Signing for Interchange Lane Drops, the last
sentence in paragraph 1 is added to prohibit the use of the EXIT ONLY
panel on diagrammatic signs at any major bifurcation or split. This
change is intended to eliminate a potentially confusing situation for
road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments.
81. In Section 2E.21 Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA is
including GUIDANCE in paragraph 3(a) to indicate that the desirable
letter size for changeable message signs is 450 mm (18 inches) or a
minimum letter size of 265 mm (10.6 inches). The FHWA is also including
additional criteria (as discussed in MUTCD Part 6) for the use of
changeable message sign.
82. In Section 2E.24 Lateral Clearance, paragraph 1 adds a
discussion on the importance of the clear zone and breakaway supports
when determining the horizontal clearance distance for sign
installation.
83. In Section 2E.29 Interchange Exit Numbering, paragraph 2
increases the vertical dimension of the exit number panel from 600 mm
(24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). This change is adopted because it
improves the visibility of critical sign information for directing the
road users to their destinations. Since the FHWA received comments from
North Carolina, Missouri, and Minnesota Departments of Transportation
expressing concern regarding the impact of implementing this change for
existing installations, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance
period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for
existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and
local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of
existing signs after the normal service life. This change takes effect
immediately for all new installations.
Also in this section, the text in the OPTION statement is modified
to recommend the use of milepost numbering as the preferred method for
interchange exit numbering. Consecutive numbering is optional for those
States which are still working towards changing over to milepost
numbering. The FHWA received a docket comment from the Ohio Department
of Transportation suggesting this change.
Additionally in this section, the FHWA has included an OPTION to
add the word ``LEFT'' to the exit number panel. Since left exits are
generally fewer and tend to violate expectancy, the FHWA believes that
this OPTION will help the road user identify proper lane placement
prior to the exit.
84. In Section 2E.31 Advance Guide Signs, the paragraph 2 GUIDANCE
statement includes placement of Advance Guide signs in advance of the
exit gore. The distance of an Advance Guide sign is changed from ``400m
to 1km'' to ``1 to 2 km (1/2 to 1 mile)'' from the exit gore. This
change places the Advance Guide sign back further from the exit gore in
order to provide more decision and reaction time to the road user.
Although the FHWA did not receive any comments expressing concern with
this change, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7
years after the effective date of this final rule for existing
installations in order to minimize any potential impact to State and
local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the
existing signs after their normal service life. This change is
effective immediately for all new installations.
85. In Section 2E.33 Other Supplemental Guide Signs, paragraph 2
adds GUIDANCE for installing only one supplemental guide sign on each
interchange approach. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this
section.
86. In Section 2E.34 Exit Direction Signs, paragraph 2 prohibits
the use of population figures or other similar information on Exit
Direction signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.
Also in this section, the second GUIDANCE statement deletes the
words ``cantilevered support'' and allows the Exit Direction sign to be
installed on any overhead support located over the exit lane in advance
of a gore point.
The change in the last sentence of Section 2E.34, paragraph 10 is
revised from that proposed in the NPA in response to a docket comment
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of
recommending that the Exit Direction sign should be mounted on the face
of the overhead structure, the FHWA is changing this to an OPTION to
allow more flexibility at those locations that may not have available
overhead structures.
87. In Section 2E.41 Signing by Type of Interchange, paragraph 3
provides GUIDANCE that the signing layout should be similar for
interchanges which have only one exit ramp in the direction of travel.
The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.
88. In Section 2E.42 Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange, an OPTION is
added for installing overhead guide signs at the 1 km (1/2 mile) and
4 km (2 mile) points. This OPTION is in addition to the required
overhead guide signs at the 2 km (1 mile) point and at the theoretical
gore of each connecting ramp.
89. In Section 2E.48 Closely-Spaced Interchanges, paragraph 1 is
changed from that proposal in the NPA in response to a docket comment
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of mandating
or requiring that the advance guide signs for the next interchange
should be mounted on an overhead structure, the FHWA is changing the
GUIDANCE to an OPTION in an effort to allow more flexibility at those
locations that may not have available overhead structures.
90. In Section 2E.52 General Service Signs, paragraph 2 adds an
OPTION that allows an action message, such as NEXT RIGHT, to be placed
on general service signs which do not have exit numbers included on the
sign. Figure 2E-38 has been added as an example. The FHWA did not
receive any comments on this section.
Also in this section, paragraph 4, GUIDANCE is added that
recommends the distances to services should be shown on general service
signs when the service is more than 2 km (1 mile) from the interchange.
Additionally, paragraph 4a(1), is changed based on comments from
the Ohio Department of Transportation and logo organizations in 9
States, which suggested that the FHWA delete tire repair from the list
of criteria for selecting and installing general service signs for gas
stations. The FHWA is adopting this modification since the majority of
businesses offering gas today, no longer provide tire repair services.
This same change applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph 8, item 1.
Also in this section, paragraph 4b(4), 4c(4), and 4f(3) are revised
to add ``modern sanitary facilities'' as a criteria for food, lodging,
and camping services.
Additionally, paragraph 4b(2) modifies the number of days that a
food service, selected for general service sign, is open. The 1988
MUTCD showed 7 days per week, and the new edition states at least 6
days per week. This amendment also applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph
9, item D(b). This revision to the MUTCD is made in order to comply
with the requirement of Federal law, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 214,
which was effective on June

[[Page 78933]]

9, 1998. There were no docket comments on this section.
Also in this section, a STANDARD is added which requires that
general service signs that are operated on a seasonal basis shall be
removed or covered during periods when the service is not available.
This amendment reduces the chance of road users mistakenly leaving
their routes only to find that the particular service is closed. The
FHWA received no comments on this section.
91. In Section 2E.57 Radio Information Signing, paragraph 1 allows
State and local highway agencies the OPTION of using a word message
Radio-Traffic Information (D12-4) sign in conjunction with traffic
management systems. The FHWA received no comments on this section.
Also in this section, paragraph 2 establishes three as the maximum
number of frequencies shown on each Radio-Traffic Information sign. The
FHWA did not receive any comments on this change.

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

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts
2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are
addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA)
was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.
92. Since the FHWA has combined chapters 2E and 2F of the 1988
MUTCD into one chapter, the new chapter for Specific Service Signs is
Chapter 2F (formerly Chapter 2G in the 1988 MUTCD). There were no
docket comments on combining Chapters 2E and 2F.
93. In Section 2F.01 Eligibility, paragraph 4 adopts Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a STANDARD for selecting eligible
specific services. This is consistent with the requirements of other
Federal programs. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.
Also in this section, paragraphs 5 and 12 adopt a new specific
service sign category for attraction signs. This increases the Specific
Service Sign categories to five (gas, food, lodging, camping, and
attractions). There were no docket comments on this section.
Additionally, paragraph 7 is changed from that proposal in the NPA
as a result of docket comments received from six logo organizations
suggesting that the FHWA modify the discussion for Specific Service
Sign eligibility to include the following text shown in bold: ``If
facilities for the specific service being considered are not available
within the 5 km (3 miles) limit or choose not to participate in the
program, then the limit of eligibility may be extended in 5 km (3
miles) increments until one or more facilities for the services being
considered choose to participate or until 25 km (15 miles) are reached,
whichever comes first.'' The FHWA is adopting this modification to give
states more flexibility in the selection of eligible specific service
facilities
In paragraph 9, item (A)(1), under GUIDANCE, the FHWA adds
``alternative fuels'' to the list of qualification criteria for
specific service signs. No comments were received regarding this
change.
94. The FHWA received 11 comments from representatives of various
State logo organizations requesting that FHWA modify the proposed
Section 2F.02 Application, paragraph 2, to allow for up to three types
of services to be displayed on a specific service sign (example: gas,
food, and lodging). The FHWA is adopting three types of specific
services on one sign as the maximum along with the requirement that if
three types of services are allowed on one sign, then the logo panels
(businesses) shall be limited to two for each type of service. This
would allow for a total of six logo panels per sign which is consistent
with the STANDARD in Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs.
The FHWA believes that this change will give the states more
flexibility in the selection of specific service facilities.
Also in this section under the STANDARD statement, paragraph 2 is
changed to delete the requirement for a separate sign for each type of
specific service at freeway and expressway interchanges.
95. In Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs, the
proposed paragraph 2 allowed a maximum of six logo panels for any
specific service category shown on a sign. Based on 12 docket comments
received from State Departments of Transportation, representatives of
various motorist information services, and logo organizations, the FHWA
is also amending paragraph 2 to allow a maximum of four logo panels for
one of the two service types on the same sign (example: four food logo
panels and two lodging logo panels). When four logo panels for one type
of service are installed on a sign, the maximum number of logo panels
still shall not exceed six. The FHWA believes that this change will
give the States more flexibility in the selection of specific service
facilities.
Also in this section, the maximum logo panel size for expressway
intersections is increased from 900 mm x 600 mm (36 inches x 24
inches) to 1500 mm x 900 mm (60 inches x 36 inches). There were no
docket comments on this section.
96. In Section 2F.05 Size of Lettering, Table II-5, ``Letter and
Numeral Sizes for Specific Service Signs'' as shown in the 1988 MUTCD
is deleted. In the 1988 MUTCD, a category 1 size was included for use
on expressways where access to crossroads was provided by at-grade
intersections. The FHWA is deleting Table II-5 and the related
categories. The FHWA is adopting a minimum height of 250 mm (10 inches)
for all letters and numerals on specific service signs on freeways and
expressways, and 150 mm (6 inches) for signs on conventional roads and
ramps. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years
after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to
minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is
effective immediately for new sign installations.
97. In Section 2F.06 Signs at Interchanges, the requirement for a
separate Specific Service sign for each type of services is deleted.
Also in this section, paragraph 2 adds GUIDANCE that specific
service ramp signs should be spaced at least 30 m (100 feet) from the
exit gore sign, from each other, and from the ramp terminal. The FHWA
received no docket comments on this section.
98. In Section 2F.07 Single-Exit Interchanges, paragraph 4 adds an
OPTION to install the exit number panel on top of specific service
signs on the freeway or expressway for the single-exit interchanges.
There were no docket comments on this section.
99. In Section 2F.09 Signs at Intersections, paragraph 3 deletes
the reference to a specific distance at which logo panels should not be
displayed because they are visible from the roadway or highway. The
FHWA believes that the State and local highway agencies should
determine the acceptable visibility limits. The FHWA did not receive
any comments regarding this change.
Also in this section, paragraph 6 adds an OPTION to install the
NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) and other directional information below the logos on
the specific service signs.

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

The FHWA received 52 comments from 10 commenters concerning

[[Page 78934]]

Chapter 2G. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed
in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was
published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.
100. In Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, the FHWA is defining
the term ``tourist-oriented directional sign.'' The term ``panel'' is
also defined in Chapter 1. The FHWA received no comments on the
definition.
One commenter suggested defining ``immediate area'' in the first
STANDARD or allowing the States to provide a definition in their State
policy. The FHWA believes that defining ``immediate area'' is best
addressed through State policy (Section 2G.07), and is revising that
section to include a definition as an element of the policy.
A State transportation department pointed out that requiring the
use of tourist-oriented directional signs in place of specific service
signing may conflict with State statutes. To avoid conflict with State
statutes, the FHWA believes that this text would be better addressed as
GUIDANCE, and is changing the section accordingly. This change gives
the needed encouragement without eliminating the flexibility that some
agencies might need.
Three State transportation departments suggested uniform placement
of tourist-oriented directional signs regardless of whether the
facility and its on-premise advertising signs are readily visible or
not from the roadway. Additionally, one State transportation department
recommended a definition of ``readily visible from the roadway'' be
included. The FHWA believes that for positive guidance, tourist-
oriented directional signs should be installed regardless of whether or
not the facility and/or its on-premise advertising is readily visible
from the roadway. The FHWA has deleted this text from the GUIDANCE.
101. In Section 2G.02 Design, the FHWA is including a STANDARD that
each tourist-oriented directional panel shall display only one eligible
business, service or activity facility. None of the commenters
disagreed with this change and the American Traffic Safety Services
Association, Inc. commented favorably.
102. In Section 2G.03 Style and Size of Lettering, the National
Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) recommended
deleting the text related to the legend on rural roads. The FHWA agrees
with this recommendation and removed it from the GUIDANCE. Using
smaller letters on ``less important rural roads'' is not helpful to the
unfamiliar road user. One commenter suggested that text referencing the
``Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs and Pavement Markings'' 7 be
added. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and is adding it to the
STANDARD, since it is the design standard for letters, numerals, and
spacing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

103. In Section 2G.04 Arrangement and Size of Signs, the FHWA
limits the size of a tourist-oriented directional sign to a maximum of
1.8m (6 ft.). One commenter suggested that the limitation should be on
the number of panels on the sign, rather than the physical size of the
sign. The FHWA agrees that there should be a limitation on the number
of panels as well as the size of the sign. A maximum sign size is
specified to prevent visual obstructions.
Also, under the first GUIDANCE in Section 2G.04, it was proposed in
the NPA that no more than three panels should be displayed on each
sign. One State transportation department objected. The FHWA agrees
because this may place an undue burden for sign removal on those
jurisdictions with existing signs. Therefore, the FHWA will continue to
allow display of four panels per tourist-oriented directional sign.
Several comments were received on the text regarding installation
of intersection approach signs. The text in the first GUIDANCE
contained conflicting language. The FHWA is revising the first GUIDANCE
to allow for a straight ahead approach sign and is clarifying that
intersection approach signs for tourist-oriented destinations to the
left, right and straight ahead should be installed in advance of the
intersection and that no more than four panels should be displayed on
each sign. The FHWA is adding other clarifications to the text, based
on the comments received, including: (1) Recommending the order in
which signs should be installed; for consistency signs should appear in
the following order: (a) The left turn sign should be located farthest
from the intersection, (b) then the right turn sign, and (c) the
straight ahead sign located closest to the intersection; (2)
recommending that when there are multiple destinations in the same
direction that the panels on the tourist-oriented directional sign
should be displayed in order based on the destination's distance from
the intersection (the closest destination should appear first); (3)
clarifying that the left, right or straight ahead turn panels may be
combined on the same sign, but that the straight ahead sign should not
be combined with a sign displaying both the left and right turn
destinations, and (4) allowing signs for destinations in the straight
ahead direction when there are signs for destinations in either the
left or right direction.
104. In Section 2G.05 Advance Signs, the first OPTION regarding
installation of advance signs in the NPA has been moved to the GUIDANCE
statement in Section 2G.07 State Policy, which is a more appropriate
location. Also, in Section 2G.05, the FHWA is including GUIDANCE to
clarify that in cases where directional word messages such as NEXT
RIGHT (LEFT) or AHEAD are appropriate for application, this additional
information may be added to the 1.8m (6 ft) maximum sign height. None
of the commenters disagreed with this change and the American Traffic
Safety Services Association, Inc., commented in support of the change.
One State transportation department objected to installation of the
directional word messages above the business identification panels. The
destinations on tourist-oriented directional signs and where to turn
are priority information; therefore, the directional word message
action should be shown first. There were several comments requesting
sign dimensions be shown on the figures. The dimensions were
inadvertently left off the figures in the NPA and the dimensions in the
1988 Manual will be used with the appropriate metric conversions.
105. Section 2G.06 Sign Locations, require that the location of all
other traffic control devices shall take precedence over the location
of tourist-oriented directional signs, and that tourist-oriented
directional signs shall not obstruct the road user's view of other
traffic control devices. None of the commenters disagreed with this
change.
The NCUTCD and two other commenters objected to the exception,
found in Section 2G.06 GUIDANCE, for the location of the straight ahead
sign. The FHWA agrees and has deleted the exception. For positive
guidance, a straight ahead business should have a sign in advance of
the intersection.
Also in this section, one commenter suggested that the location of
and distance between signs, for the advance signs was excessive. The
FHWA believes that locating advance signs 1 km (1/2 mi) from the
intersection is an appropriate distance, but agrees that the

[[Page 78935]]

spacing between signs is excessive and has reduced the distance to 152
m (500 ft). Since this is a shorter minimum distance than the current
MUTCD, this will not have any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
One commenter objected to the phrase in the OPTION paragraph. The
Executive Order referenced in the comment was revoked by Executive
Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and effective on November 2, 1999.
However, the FHWA is modifying this paragraph by deleting ``but within
the right-of-way'' to be consistent with other parts of the Manual
which do not reference right-of-way limits for sign placement.
106. In Section 2G.07 State Policy, the FHWA proposed to add the
equal opportunity criteria of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241) as a STANDARD condition for destinations
to be eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs. One State
transportation department and one State chapter of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers objected to including civil rights
requirements in the Manual, while the American Traffic Safety Services
Association, Inc. supported their inclusion. The FHWA disagrees with
these objections to include the civil rights requirements. This
paragraph was added as a condition for destinations eligible for
tourist-oriented directional signs, because most Federal programs
require compliance with Title VI regulations. This paragraph is
consistent with Chapter 2F Specific Service Signs.
Also in Section 2G.07, the GUIDANCE statement is revised to include
a definition of ``immediate area'' for the area to be served.
``Immediate Area'' was used in the first STANDARD of Section 2G.01
Purpose and Application, of the NPA. In order to give the State highway
agencies more flexibility, the FHWA believes that the definition is
best addressed through State policy.

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

The FHWA received 46 comments from eight commenters concerning
Chapter 2H. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed
in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was
published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.
As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA is modifying the following
recreational and cultural interest signs to improve their visibility
and make the sign design less complex: Litter Container (RG-130),
Ranger Station (RG-170), Picnic Area (RM-120), Laundry (RA-060),
Sleeping Shelter (RA-110) and Interpretative Trail (RL-130).
Also, the FHWA is adopting the following Forest Service symbols 8
and will include them in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' book 9 Motor
Home (RM-200), Group Picnicking (RM-220), Group Camping (RM-210), Dog
(RG-240), Seaplane (RG-260), Family Restroom (RA-150), Helicopter (RA-
160), All-Terrain Vehicle (RL-170), Archer (RL-190), Hang Glider (RL-
210), Fishing Pier (RW-160), Hand Launch for Boating (RW-170), Kayak
(RW-190), Wind Surf (RW-210) and Chairlift for Skiing (RS-100). The
FHWA has only included new or modified symbol signs in the revised
manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 Based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the FHWA and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, many of the
symbols used by the Forest Service are adopted by reference in the
MUTCD. These symbols are referred to as the ``88 Forest Service
Symbol Signs.''
9 ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition is included
by reference in the 2000 MUTCD. It is available for purchase from
the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, PO Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. It is available for inspection
and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all FHWA
Division Offices as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the commenters disagreed with the modified or adopted
symbols. However, one State transportation department recommended that
we mandate that titles be used with the signs. The FHWA disagrees with
the need for this clarification because Section 2A.13 permits an
education plate to accompany a symbol sign that is not readily
recognizable by the public.
107. In Section 2H.01 Scope, use of recreational and cultural
interest signs is expanded by providing the OPTION of using these
symbols on directional guide signs found on expressways and freeways.
The American Traffic Safety Services Association supported the expanded
use of these symbols. Two commenters opposed the expanded use of the
symbols suggesting the possible overloading of road users with too many
signs along freeways, especially in congested areas. The FHWA disagrees
because the GUIDANCE in Section 2H.02 encourages agencies to adopt
policies for recreational and cultural interest signing, and cautions
agencies not to use them where they might be confused with other
traffic control signs.
Also, in this section, the STANDARD paragraph has been removed.
General signing requirements are covered in Chapter 2A.
108. In Section 2H.02 Application of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Signs, one State transportation department recommended
removing the text related to nonvehicular events and amenities. The
FHWA disagrees with the recommendation because the Manual has
jurisdiction over the signing that leads road users to nonvehicular
events and amenities such as trails, structures, and facilities.
109. In Section 2H.04 General Design Requirements for Recreational
and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs, several commenters recommended
including examples of the usage and series categories and one State
chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers opposed the
removal of the Category and Usage Chart. The FHWA agrees with this last
recommendation. A Category Chart is included. This chart is similar to
the Category and Usage Chart included in the 1988 Manual, except the
road/type usage information has been removed. It is no longer
appropriate to specify usage since the use of the symbols has been
expanded to include both conventional roads and expressways and
freeways.
Also, in Section 2H.04, the FHWA has removed the SUPPORT paragraph
proposed in the NPA. The use of recreational and cultural interest
symbol signs is discussed in Section 2H.01.
110. In Section 2H.05 Symbol Sign Sizes, sign information is
discussed in paragraph format. The FHWA received no negative comments
regarding the removal of Table II-7, ``Sign Sizes.'' The American
Traffic Safety Services Association recommended that a minimum size of
750 mm x 750 mm (30 in x 30 in) be used for expressway and freeway
installation to ensure legibility and increase comprehension
commensurate with today's higher speeds and complexities evidenced on
these types of roadways. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation. The
recommended expressway/freeway sign size text is contained in GUIDANCE.
111. In Section 2H.06 Use of Educational Plaques, GUIDANCE
recommends that, if used, the educational plaque should be the same
width as the symbol sign. None of the commenters disagreed with this
change.
112. One State transportation department recommended deleting the
proposed Section 2H.08 Color Format. The FHWA agrees with this
recommendation and has removed Section 2H.08 as referenced in the NPA,
because sign design requirements, including color, are addressed in
Section 2H.04.
113. In Section 2H.08 Placement of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Symbol Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2H.09),
one State transportation department suggested that the exception to the
vertical mounting height for

[[Page 78936]]

symbol signs on low speed, low volume roads is not necessary and may
cause some signs to be installed so that they are no longer
crashworthy. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation to eliminate
the exception. Chapter 2A of the Manual requires all signs within the
clear zone to be mounted at 2.1 m (7 ft) in urban areas, and at 1.5m (5
ft) in rural areas.
114. In Section 2H.09 Destination Guide Signs (referenced in the
NPA as Section 2H.10), one State transportation department recommended
that both the recreational and cultural interest area symbol signs and
destination guide signs be white on brown. The FHWA disagrees with the
recommendation. The GUIDANCE lists the order of preference for use of
shapes and colors. While rectangular, white on green is listed first,
States may use rectangular, white on brown. This provides maximum
flexibility to the States.
Also, in this section, one State transportation department
recommended deleting the requirement that advance guide signs and exit
direction signs have the white on green color combination where there
are destinations other than a recreational or cultural interest area.
The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation. Guide signs shall be white
on green, except white on brown may be used when solely recreational or
cultural interest area destinations are shown.
Several commenters recommended removal of the trapezoidal shape.
The FHWA is retaining the GUIDANCE that allows use of the trapezoidal
shape. However, the FHWA will consider this recommendation in the
future after further study.
115. The FHWA received no objections to deleting Sections 2H.10
through 2H.15 of the 1988 Manual, as proposed in the NPA. These
sections gave a general description of the categories of recreation and
cultural interest symbol signs.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Chapter 2I--Emergency
Management

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

122. In Section 2A.03, the FHWA has deleted the OPTION sentence
which indicated that traffic engineering judgment or studies may show
that signs would be unnecessary at certain locations. By definition,
the purpose of engineering judgment and studies is to determine whether
or not a sign or other traffic control device is needed.
123. In Section 2A.18, paragraph 1, the FHWA has decided not to
adopt the proposal to require the minimum mounting height of 2.1 m (7
feet) for all signs. This decision is based on crash-worthiness
research results 10 which did not justify universal application of
the increased mounting height. It is also based on docket comments
received from 8 county highway agencies which opposed the increased
mounting height for all signs. The minimum mounting height will remain
at 5 feet for rural areas and 7 feet for urban areas where parking and
other obstructions to view may occur. This minimum mounting height does
not preclude the installation of signs at higher heights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts
2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are
addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA)
was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.
125. In Section 2F.02, paragraph 4, the FHWA has decided not to
limit the use of the ATTRACTION to expressways and freeways since in
paragraph 5, the other specific service categories may be used on any
class of highway.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 3--Markings

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

[[Page 78937]]

electronically with this number). Also, the FHWA received 181 comments
from 27 commenters in response to docket number 99-6575. The two
notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 691 on
January 6, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. Only the
technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion.
126. Chapter A, General Principles, of the 1988 MUTCD is renamed
``General.'' Several sections within this chapter are more
appropriately relocated to Chapter B as follows: (a) Section 3A.08 is
moved to 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges, (b)
Section 3A.09 is moved to 3B.15 Transverse Markings, and (c) Section
3A.10 is moved to Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines. Section
3A.07 of the 1988 MUTCD discussed the different types of yellow and
white lines. This discussion was reorganized and moved to Section 3B.
Each type of line in Section 3A.07 is now discussed in the first six
sections of Section 3B, which is organized by color of longitudinal
lines.
127. In Section 3A.06 Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Line
Markings, the FHWA is adding to the OPTION statement a recommended
ratio for line segments and gaps for ``dotted lines.'' One comment was
received from a State highway agency recommending that a definition be
provided for the wording ``or longer gaps.'' Since the proposed text
did not contain any guidance on the maximum spacing of the longer gaps,
the FHWA is including an OPTION statement recommending a maximum ratio
of 1:3 for line segments and gaps, respectively, for dotted lines.
128. The section headings on Chapter B, Pavement and Curb Markings,
are renamed and reorganized to read as follows:

3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings
and Warrants
3B.02 No-Passing zone Markings
3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings
3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and
Warrants
3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings
3B.06 Edge Line Markings
3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines
3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges
3B.09 Lane Reductions Transition Markings
3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions
3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers
3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle Positioning Guides with Other
Longitudinal Markings
3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other Markings
3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings
3B.15 Transverse Markings
3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines
3B.17 Crosswalk Markings
3B.18 Parking Space Markings
3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings
3B.20 Speed Measurement Markings
3B.21 Curb Markings
3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings
3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motorized Vehicles
3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts
3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections
3B.26 Speed Hump Markings
3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings

129. Sections 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line
Pavement Markings and Warrants, 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Markings, and
3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings (all referenced in
the NPA as Section 3B.01); Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and
Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White
Longitudinal Pavement Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.02);
and 3B.06 Edge Line Markings, and 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines
(both referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.03), are modified to include
the provisions of the amendments on standards for center line and edge
line markings published as a Final Rule at 65 FR 9 on January 3, 2000.
There were 96 commenters on the proposed amendments to include the
center line and edge line Final Rule into the proposed Section 3B.01
and 3B.03. Sixty-one commenters opposed the proposed text, and 45 of
these commenters suggested two technical corrections. Most of the
comments opposed to the proposed text were concerned about the warrants
for center line and edge line markings which required edge lines on
rural roads before center lines. The FHWA agreed with the comments and
changed the text to make the warrants for rural center line and edge
line markings consistent. Many commenters suggested a technical
correction concerning the ADT values in the proposed warrants. The
discussion in the final amendments of January 3, 2000 on center line
and edge line markings (65 FR 9, January 3, 2000) stated that ``The
FHWA believes that jurisdictions should be aware of the average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes and widths of the major roadways now specified in
the standards and that the ADTs are an estimate that can be performed
at a jurisdiction's judgment.'' The FHWA agrees with the commenters and
included a SUPPORT statement ``If a traffic count is not available, the
ADTs described in this section can be estimates that are based on
engineering judgment.'' Many comments included suggestions that were
addressed in the final rule published on January 3, 2000. Many
commenters also suggested revisions lowering the STANDARDS, which
cannot be accepted because it would adversely impact safety to the
traveling public.
As noted in the final amendments for center line and edge line
pavement markings, dated January 3, 2000, the compliance date for these
sections is January 3, 2003 or when pavement lane markings are replaced
within an established pavement marking program, or when the highway is
resurfaced or reconstructed, whichever date is earlier.
130. Section 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line
Pavement Markings and Warrants, now contains GUIDANCE on the speed
definition in the warrants for no-passing zones at curves which was in
the 1988 MUTCD in Section 3B.05. The text in the NPA for these warrants
reduced the minimum passing sight distances because it was based on
posted or statutory speed limits as shown in Table 3B-1. In the 1988
MUTCD, the minimum passing sight distances were determined based on the
greater of the off-peak 85th percentile speed or the posted speed
limits. The FHWA received eight comments that opposed deleting the use
of the 85th percentile speed because using the 85th percentile improves
safety. Accordingly, the FHWA is returning to the use of the 85th
percentile speed because it agrees that this improves safety.
131. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA is changing the first paragraph of the first OPTION
to be consistent with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings, the STANDARD for
highway-rail grade crossings. The STANDARD will read: ``No-passing zone
markings shall be used on approaches to highway-rail grade crossings in
conformance with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings.'' The second
paragraph of the first OPTION will remain an OPTION and will read:
``No-passing zone markings may also be used at other locations where
the prohibition of passing is appropriate.''
132. In Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line
Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal

[[Page 78938]]

Pavement Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.02 White Longitudinal
Line Markings), 11 commenters had concerns about specific wording in
the text or details about the figures as proposed and suggested
technical or editorial revisions to make them acceptable. Of these
suggested revisions, five concerned lane lines within a crosswalk. The
FHWA agrees with these comments and the lines are removed from within
the crosswalks.
After the NPA was published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, the
FHWA noted that text requiring lane line markings was inadvertently
omitted from the proposed amendment and was included in the updated
text published 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. One comment, received
in response to the second NPA, noted that the standard for lane lines
on Interstate highways was omitted from the proposed text and that it
should be reinserted. The FHWA agrees and is including this STANDARD in
the final text.
133. The FHWA is revising the STANDARD for the extension of dotted
lines through intersections in Section 3B.08 Extensions Through
Intersections (referenced in the NPA as 3B.04 Extensions Through
Intersections or Interchanges). One commenter was opposed to the color
being the color of the line extended, rather than the color of the line
to which it is extended. One commenter was opposed to the width of the
marking being the same as the line it extends. The FHWA believes that
the proposed text is appropriate because it will provide the most
consistent application of dotted line extensions. The FHWA will retain
the proposed text in the final version.
Also in this section, paragraph 2, the FHWA added Figure 3B-11,
sheet 2 of 2, Typical Pavement Marking Applications (referenced in the
NPA as Figure 3-9a, Typical Pavement Marking Applications), to show
more examples of the use of dotted line markings in intersections. This
figure was in response to older driver research that shows that
motorists benefit by having these additional markings. The FHWA
received nine, mostly editorial, comments. Two commenters suggested
reducing the GUIDANCE to an OPTION which would reduce safety. One
commenter suggested adding curvature of the roadway to the list of
examples where line extensions should be considered. The FHWA agrees to
include ``* * * on curved roadways * * *'' into the final text.
134. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other
Markings, and 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement
Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.07 Raised Pavement Markers,
Retroreflective and Non-Retroreflective), the FHWA received 21 comments
about raised pavement markers. Two comments, from northern States,
opposed the minimum height of the raised pavement marker. Since the
height definition is SUPPORT and not a STANDARD or GUIDANCE, the
proposed text is retained. Seven of the comments proposed technical
changes to the spacing of the raised pavement markers. Since the space
of raised pavement markers is GUIDANCE, the proposed text will be
retained until research indicates that different spacing would provide
better information to road users. The FHWA received no comments,
however, about the color of raised pavement markers conforming to the
color of the pavement marking where they are placed. The FHWA received
five comments about the use of raised pavement markers at right edge
lines. Two comments addressed the use of raised pavement markers in
construction work zones. One comment recommended that raised pavement
markers be permitted, and another opposed the use of raised pavement
markers on right edge lines. Several commenters agreed that raised
pavement markers should not be used on right edge lines. Since there is
not a consensus on using raised pavement markers on right edge lines at
this time, the FHWA is retaining the proposed GUIDANCE that raised
pavement parkers should not supplement right edge line markings.
135. In Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines (referenced in the NPA
as Section 3B.09), paragraphs 2, 4, and 6, the FHWA is adding an
optional ``Yield Line'' marking for use where it is important to
indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield. Figure
3-24, Typical Yield Line Layout, provides an illustration of these
markings. The FHWA received ten comments. Five of the comments opposed
the proposal and indicated that the proposed markings were not needed.
The FHWA believes that improved public awareness of yield line markings
will lead to consistency in the use of the stop line marking for
mandatory stops and the yield line when a yield is the appropriate
action. Since these markings would be optional, State and local highway
agencies would not be required to use them.
Also in this section, the FHWA received one comment which suggested
that the wording of the following phrase be clarified as follows:
``Where through lanes of traffic approaching an intersection become the
mandatory turn lanes.'' The FHWA is incorporating the above underlined
words into the final text to clarify the sentence. The FHWA received
two comments suggesting reductions to the use of blue markings to
designate parking spaces for persons with disabilities. The FHWA
believes the suggestions would reduce the visibility of the markings
and is adopting the text as proposed in the NPA.
136. In Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings (referenced
in the NPA as Section 3B.12), third OPTION, paragraph 5, the FHWA is
adding a ``Yield Ahead'' triangle symbol marking for optional use in
advance of intersections where approaching traffic will encounter a
YIELD sign. Figure 3B-24 provides an illustration of these markings.
The FHWA received 14 comments, of which only four opposed the proposal.
Three comments addressed text and figures that had not changed from the
1988 MUTCD and that will be retained. Only one comment opposed the
proposed yield ahead markings. The FHWA is adopting the yield ahead
marking as proposed in the NPA.
Also in Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, second
SUPPORT, the second paragraph states: ``Where crossroad channelization
of ramp geometry do not make wrong-way movements physically difficult,
guidance to a potential wrong-way road user can be provided by placing
a lane-use arrow * * *.'' The FHWA is changing this SUPPORT to GUIDANCE
to be consistent with the GUIDANCE, paragraph B, in Part 2E.50 Wrong-
Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps which states ``Where crossroad
channelization or ramp geometrics do not make wrong-way movements
difficult, a lane-use arrow should be placed in each lane * * *.''
137. In Section 3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings
(referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.13), the FHWA is differentiating
between types of preferential lanes. The diamond pavement marking
symbol is for exclusive HOV lane use. In situations where a
preferential lane is not an HOV lane, then the word message (Bus, Taxi,
etc.) or symbol (Bike, etc.) for the type of traffic allowed would be
used. The FHWA received three comments that suggested editorial changes
to this section, and it has made one minor editorial change to the
second STANDARD, paragraph 2, to include a reference to Figure 3B-25.
138. In Section 3B.21 Curb Markings (referenced in the NPA as
3B.15), paragraph 5, the FHWA is adding paved median noses to the
locations that

[[Page 78939]]

should have retroreflective solid yellow markings. This addition is
made in response to recommendations for older drivers 11, which shows
the benefits of having these additional markings. The FHWA received two
comments which suggested that the text be changed to an OPTION, and one
technical comment that suggested that additional guidance be included
on the placement of the markings. The FHWA is adopting the text as
proposed in the NPA because the FHWA believes that retroreflective
markings should be placed to increase the visibility of paved median
noses. The FHWA also believes that the portion of the paved median nose
that should be marked should be left to each jurisdiction's judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

139. In Section 3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for
Motorized Vehicle (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.16), is added to
provide the STANDARDS for longitudinal lane line markings for
physically and non-physically separated, reversible and non-reversible,
and left and right side concurrent flow preferential lanes for
motorized vehicles. Table 3B-2 was added to list the standards in a
tabular format. Figure 3B-25 provides an illustration of these
markings.
Furthermore, GUIDANCE is added on marking the neutral area between
a preferential use lane and a regular traffic lane, when the distance
between them is greater than 1.2 m (4 ft). The FHWA received eight
comments concerning this section. Several comments were about showing a
double yellow centerline on the figures. The FHWA believes that since
the figures clearly show that there is a median, the use of a double
yellow centerline is not appropriate. One commenter suggested using a
double white dashed line for the right lane line on concurrent flow HOV
lanes. Another commenter suggested that the double wide white
longitudinal lines should be double normal white longitudinal lines.
The FHWA believes that the longitudinal lines shown in the proposed
figures provide reasonable options which will promote uniformity of
markings to the road users. The FHWA is retaining the proposed figures
in the final version.
140. Section 3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts (referenced in the NPA
as Section 3B.17), Figure 3B-26 (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-26),
Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and Figure 3B-27,
Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, (referenced in the NPA
as Figure 3-27), are added to incorporate standard markings for
roundabouts to the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with one commenter opposed
to this section which suggested a reduction from GUIDANCE to OPTION.
The FHWA did receive 14 editorial comments on the text and figures and
they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.
141. Section 3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections
(referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.18), is added to incorporate
optional standard markings for other circular intersections including
rotaries, traffic circles, and residential traffic calming designs.
Figures 3B-26, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and 3B-
27, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, provides
illustrations of typical markings for other circular intersections. The
FHWA received one comment about the placement of the crosswalk in
advance of the yield line in the figures. The FHWA believes that the
location of the crosswalk in advance of the yield lines as shown in the
figures provides the shortest and safest location for pedestrians to
walk. The FHWA will retain the proposed figures in the final version.
142. Section 3B.26 Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the NPA as
Section 3B.19), is added to provide pavement markings to assist
motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figures 3B-28,
Pavement Markings for Speed Humps, and 3B-29, Pavement Markings for
Speed Humps, provide illustrations of typical speed hump markings. The
FHWA received 11 comments, none of which opposed having speed hump
markings. Most, however, were concerned that the markings were
excessive and would be difficult to maintain. The FHWA is retaining the
text and figures because these markings are optional and the FHWA is
not convinced that the alternate markings are better.
143. Section 3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the
NPA as 3B.20), is added to provide pavement markings to assist
motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figure 3B-30,
Advance Warning Markings for Speed Humps, provides an illustration of
typical advance warning markings for speed humps. The FHWA received
four comments. One commenter stated that the advance warning for speed
hump markings should not be used because they are similar in appearance
to stop lines. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter, because the
advance warning markings are a series of transverse bars located in
advance of a speed hump, which would not be found at an intersection
where a stop bar is located.
144. In Section 3F.02 Channelizing Devices, the FHWA received seven
comments on a new STANDARD that states that the color of cones and tube
markers used outside construction and maintenance areas shall be the
same as the pavement markings. Three comments had concerns about
allowing orange as the color of a tubular marker on a white or yellow
lane line. One commenter wanted the STANDARD to be more restrictive by
excluding orange as a substitute color. Another commenter called the
STANDARD difficult to achieve and enforce in practice. The third
commenter suggested orange as the predominant color, with permanently
mounted tubular markers to be only white. The FHWA will adopt the
proposed wording because orange is a universal color for cones and
tubular markers. While it is preferable that the color of cones in non-
work zones match the color of line that they supplement or are
substituted for, the FHWA believes motorists will understand if orange
cones or tubular markers are used.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part 4--Highway Traffic Signals

The FHWA received 842 comments from 135 commenters concerning Part
4. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this
discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at
62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, and 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999.
145. For Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic
Signals, the FHWA reviewed the text of Part 4 to ensure all terms that
need to be explained are defined in this section and that all terms in
the definitions are used in the text. Based on this review, the FHWA is
adding new definitions for the terms ``signal housing'' and ``walk
interval'' because these terms are used in the text of Part 4, but were
never defined. The definition for ``signal installation'' is removed
because it is no longer used in the text. This section is significantly
expanded from four definitions to seventy-one definitions that are
being used throughout Part 4.
146. In Section 4C.01 through 4C.09 concerning warrants, the number
of warrants are increased from seven, as noted in the 1997 NPA, to
eight (The School Crossing Warrant, which was moved to Section 7D.04 in
the 1997 NPA, is being moved back to Chapter 4C to keep all the signal
warrants together, eliminating the need for the reader to

[[Page 78940]]

use two parts of the MUTCD. See 62 FR 693). The FHWA did not receive
any comments opposed to moving the school crossing warrant from Part 7
back to Part 4.
147. The FHWA inadvertently omitted Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School
Crossing, from the previous NPAs. Section 4C.06 is essentially the same
as the 1988 version, with some minor exceptions. The exceptions are:
(1) A new SUPPORT paragraph explaining that the School Crossing
Warrant is to be applied in instances where school children crossing
the street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic
signal. The FHWA is deleting this paragraph from Warrant 4, Pedestrian
Volume, and moving it to Section 4C.06.
(2) To be more consistent with the other STANDARD wording used in
the MUTCD, the statement concerning the need for a traffic control
signal is changed from ``may be warranted when * * *'' to ``shall be
considered when * * *.''
(3) To match the other chapters in Part 4, the FHWA is adding a new
STANDARD paragraph which will indicate that, before deciding to install
a traffic control signal, ``consideration shall be given to
implementation of other remedial measures.''
(4) To match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, a new STANDARD paragraph
is added to Warrant 5 which will state that the School Crossing warrant
shall not be applied within 300 feet of another traffic signal, unless
the proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of
traffic.
(5) Due to a desire to assist in the reduction of traffic
congestion, a new GUIDANCE paragraph is added that states, ``If
installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be
coordinated.''
(6) The use of pedestrian detectors is changed from an OPTION to a
GUIDANCE to match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. The GUIDANCE now reads,
``At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-
actuated and should include pedestrian detectors.''
(7) The FHWA is deleting the sentence from the 1988 MUTCD which
reads, ``Special police supervision and/or enforcement should be
provided for a new non-intersection installation'' because the
effectiveness of this depends on the local traffic characteristics and
should be determined by local engineering judgment.
148. In Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications, the
FHWA is retaining the phrase ``Unless otherwise determined by law'' in
the first paragraph under STANDARD. Two comments were received, both in
opposition to the proposal to delete this phrase in the January 1997
NPA on the basis that the proposed deletion would infringe on the
States' rights to have additional or different meaning of signal
indications. The FHWA withdrew this proposal in the December 1999 NPA