National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways |
|---|
|
Victor M. Mendez
Federal Highway Administration
June 17, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36132-36134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14266]
[[Page 36132]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2012-0118]
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notification; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is
incorporated in our regulations, approved by the Federal Highway
Administration, and recognized as the national standard for traffic
control devices used on all streets, highways, bikeways, and private
roads open to public travel. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and
in particular its emphasis on burden-reduction and on retrospective
analysis of existing rules, a Request for Comments was published on
January 11, 2013, to solicit input on potential formats for
restructuring the MUTCD into two documents, one that would be subject
to rulemaking and one that would contain supplemental information that
is not subject to rulemaking. One hundred and sixty-nine unique letters
were received and this document provides a summary of the input from
these letters. Given the lack of support from the MUTCD user community,
the FHWA will not proceed with restructuring the MUTCD into two
documents at this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the program
discussed herein, contact Mr. Chung Eng, MUTCD Team Leader, FHWA Office
of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-8043 or via email at
chung.eng@dot.gov. For legal questions, please contact Mr. William
Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397, or via email at
william.winne@dot.gov. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, all comments, and the request for comments notice
may be viewed on line through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The docket identification number is FHWA-2012-
0118. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Request for Comments
On January 11, 2013, the FHWA published a Request for Comments at
78 FR 2347 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) soliciting input on the option
of splitting the material in the MUTCD into two separate documents in
the interest of providing a simpler, streamlined MUTCD that would be
easier to use, and that would address concerns regarding its increasing
size and complexity. Two potential formats for dividing the MUTCD
content into a streamlined MUTCD and a companion Applications
Supplement were presented for consideration along with nine specific
questions. The specific questions posed in the Request for Comments
were primarily based on the premise that splitting the MUTCD into two
documents would be the preferred solution.
Summary of Responses
The FHWA received comments from 40 State DOT representatives, 26
local agencies, 17 associations, 34 consultants, 3 vendors and 49
private citizens. Out of 169 unique letters received, 155 (92%) of the
letters were either against splitting the MUTCD into 2 separate
documents, or recommended postponing any action to split the manual
pending results from the ongoing National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) strategic planning effort, which are expected to be
available in January 2014. The strategic planning effort will be
addressing many issues that would impact future MUTCD content and
structure, including consideration of an MUTCD that would consist of
more than one volume.
At least one-half of the State DOT's, local agencies, associations,
consultants, citizens, stakeholders, and vendors who commented all
suggested waiting until the NCHRP strategic planning effort was
complete before making a decision about splitting the MUTCD content. In
addition to requesting that the FHWA wait for the results of the NCHRP
strategic planning effort, many State and local agencies, associations,
and consultants suggested that if a decision were to be made to
restructure the MUTCD in any significant way, it would be critical for
FHWA to partner with stakeholders, to develop content for a
restructured MUTCD.
In addition to requesting public comment on the option of splitting
the material in the MUTCD into two separate documents, the FHWA
requested input on nine questions, many of which were directly related
to the concept of splitting the MUTCD into two documents. Given the
significant number of responses against splitting the manual, this
discussion of the comments will focus primarily on the rationale
commenters gave for their opposition or concerns related to splitting
the manual as well as input from commenters on alternatives to
splitting the manual. Should the results of the NCHRP strategic
planning effort reveal that separating the MUTCD into more than one
volume is desirable; the input from commenters directly related to the
specifics of splitting the MUTCD into two documents will be analyzed in
further detail as part of developing the next edition of the MUTCD.
Several commenters, including State and local agencies as well as
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, indicated that the amount of
information in the MUTCD and resulting size is not the issue; rather,
the organization of the information is far more critical. In addition,
many commenters felt that separating the material into two documents
could potentially increase, rather than decrease, the amount of
material included in the MUTCD. Commenters felt that working from two
books would cause unnecessary confusion because users would have to
determine how to correctly apply the information from two different
documents. Ultimately, commenters felt that uniformity in application
of the MUTCD's provisions could begin to degrade as practitioners
navigate between the two documents, leading to a potential decrease in
safety. Finally, several commenters expressed concern that an
Applications Supplement would be difficult for the FHWA to maintain in
a consistent, timely manner and could potentially experience the same
fate as the Traffic Engineering Manual, which was developed to
supplement the 1978 MUTCD, but was not updated.
Aside from the potential difficulties associated with using two
documents, several commenters raised issues regarding the legal status
of the applications document. Commenters expressed concerns that some
State or local agencies may choose not to recognize or use the
Applications Supplement, and those who may need the supplemental
information the most may not refer to the Applications
[[Page 36133]]
Supplement because it is not required. Furthermore, public agencies
suggested that the standard for due care in tort liability cases could
be negatively impacted since material in the Applications Supplement
would no longer be part of the national standard. An association, a
consultant, and a vendor stated that some agencies could find
themselves under political pressure to ignore the Guidance statements
in the Applications Supplement, since it is not required.
Over 30 State DOTs adopt either their own State MUTCD or adopt the
National MUTCD with a State Supplement. Many State DOTs also develop
their own policies based on the National MUTCD. Commenters indicated
that creating two separate documents would make it more difficult for
those agencies that choose to adopt both manuals to adapt their own
material into the MUTCD and Applications Supplement and incorporate the
materials into policy.
Several State and local DOT's, and consultants suggested that the
proposed split does not meet the intent of the Executive Order 13563 to
conduct a government wide review of rules and regulations that are
``outdated'' or ``unnecessary.'' One of the commenters stated that the
MUTCD is neither outdated nor unnecessary. The MUTCD is incorporated in
Federal regulations as the national standard for traffic control
devices, and in some States is adopted as part of the State code. The
commenter suggested that there has not been a comprehensive analysis to
suggest that restructuring the MUTCD would be the most appropriate
means of accomplishing the goals of this Executive Order. Some of the
comments suggested that reorganizing and streamlining the content would
be more consistent with the objectives of the Executive Order than
splitting the content into two documents. Other comments suggested that
splitting the MUTCD provides more burden on the FHWA, State DOT's, and
local agencies because more resources will be required to review and
manage two documents (or four if a State creates its own supplements
for each document) as compared to one document.
Within their answers to the question on other potential options for
splitting the MUTCD, four State DOT's, five local agencies, two
associations, seven consultants, and four citizens suggested
alternatives to the method FHWA proposed splitting the content. Some of
the alternatives included separating Part 2 (signs) from the rest of
the MUTCD, separating Part 6 (temporary traffic control) from the rest
of the MUTCD, providing a multivolume document and limiting the
rulemaking to one volume, and splitting the content so that one
document is for ``simple'' jurisdiction settings and the second is for
more ``complex'' jurisdiction settings. Other commenters said they
support exploring other alternatives. Five State DOT's, six local
agencies, nine citizens, three associations, and two consultants
suggested reorganizing or streamlining the MUTCD instead of splitting
the content.
As the FHWA moves forward, we will explore several of the
reorganizing and streamlining suggestions to make the next edition of
the MUTCD more user-friendly. The FHWA is reviewing options to better
organize the technical content so that MUTCD users can find information
more easily. Such options range from reorganizing information within
individual parts and sections of the MUTCD to reviewing content to
identify redundant or unnecessary language that could be removed. To
help users find information more quickly, the FHWA may separate
especially lengthy sections into several shorter sections. The FHWA is
reviewing opportunities to add more figures and tables to replace
corresponding text; as well as reassessing the size and content of the
figures themselves.
In addition to formatting and reorganizing, the FHWA is exploring
new enhancements to make the MUTCD content easier to find. Preliminary
options for the electronic version are adding cross-indexing, exploring
ways to expand hot links and pop-ups as well as smart search options.
The FHWA realizes more and more users are likely to use the electronic
version and therefore it needs to be developed in such a manner that it
can be used from a number of electronic devices including computers,
tablets, and smart phones. Enhancing search capabilities and
incorporating additional hot links, pop-ups for definitions, and
graphics, for example, are all components that are under consideration
as the FHWA develops ideas for the next edition of the MUTCD.
A few commenters suggested presenting traffic control device
information more in a modular, tabular format, such as a ``fact sheet''
and provided examples. The FHWA is reviewing some alternatives to do
this; however, it is unclear at this time where this material would be
located. It could be included within the MUTCD or as part of an
applications document or the Standard Highway Signs Manual. Other
commenters requested narrative guidance for traffic control devices.
This narrative may also be appropriate in a separate accompanying
document.
In addition to providing comments about the MUTCD structure and
content, several commenters provided input related to the process used
to regulate the MUTCD. Clearly, many commenters felt that stakeholder
input into Standards in the MUTCD is a critical component of the
rulemaking process even though it can be cumbersome and lengthy. Some
commenters suggested that a mechanism for distinguishing between
regulatory information, subject to rulemaking, and guidance or
supplementary information, not subject to rulemaking, could provide a
means for reducing the burden associated with the rulemaking process.
In such a scenario there was consent that the material should still be
contained within one document, rather than split into two documents.
Commenters were also asked to describe the use of the printed
version of the MUTCD within their agency compared to the electronic
version and which version they preferred to use along with their
rationale. The FHWA received comments from 29 State DOT's, 10
associations, 10 local agencies, 11 consultants, 13 citizens, 1
committee, and 1 vendor stating that they or their organization use
both the printed and electronic versions and suggested that both the
electronic and printed versions should be maintained. Several of the
commenters noted that while the electronic version is commonly used,
there is also a need to retain the MUTCD as a printable document to
provide project documentation or to highlight a specific statement when
communicating within their agency or with project stakeholders. The
FHWA received comments from four State DOT's, four local agencies, one
association, three consultants, and three citizens stating a preference
for the electronic version. The commenters who preferred the electronic
version cited the ability to search quickly for information, easier
navigation through hotlinks/bookmarks, portability, and having the
flexibility to build in enhanced features now and in the future as key
reasons as to why they preferred the electronic version. The FHWA
received comments from one State DOT, three associations, three local
agencies, and one citizen stating a preference for the printed version.
The commenters who preferred the printed version stated that field
personnel do not have access to the electronic version, not all workers
have access to computers, and convenience of use in an office
environment as their primary
[[Page 36134]]
reason for preferring the printed version.
Conclusion
Given the lack of support from the MUTCD user community, the FHWA
will not proceed with splitting the MUTCD into two documents at this
time. Instead, we will focus on options that would make the MUTCD
easier to use. We believe that focusing on these types of options while
continuing to explore ways to enhance and streamline the current MUTCD
updating process will best serve the user community. The FHWA will use
the valuable information offered in the responses to guide our approach
to updating the MUTCD.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.85.
Issued On: June 8, 2013.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-14266 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P