Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Compliance Dates |
|---|
Topics: Federal Highway Administration
|
Shailen Bhatt
November 30, 2010
[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 74128-74131]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30no10-150]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2010-0159-]
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Compliance
Dates
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on compliance dates for highway
agencies to upgrade their existing non-compliant traffic control
devices to comply with certain requirements established in the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This notice asks for
responses to a series of questions about compliance dates, their
benefits and economic impacts, and other related issues.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or fax comments to (202) 493-
2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal
eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments must
include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document.
All comments received will be available for examination and copying at
the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may
print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments in any one 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). Anyone 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://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the program
discussed herein, contact Mr. Hari Kalla, MUTCD Team Leader, FHWA
Office of Operations, (202) 366-5915, or via e-mail at
hari.kalla@dot.gov. For legal questions, please contact Mr. Raymond
Cuprill, Senior Attorney Advisor, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202) 366-1392, or via e-mail at raymond.cuprill@dot.gov. Business
hours for the FHWA are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission
and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section
of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from
Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register and the Government Printing Office's Web page at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
The MUTCD is incorporated by reference within Federal regulations
at 23 CFR Part 655, approved by FHWA, and recognized as the national
standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads. When new
provisions are adopted in a new edition or revision of the MUTCD, any
new or reconstructed traffic control devices being installed after
adoption are generally required to be in compliance with the new
provisions. Existing devices in the field that do not meet the new
MUTCD provisions are expected to be upgraded by highway agencies over
time to meet the new provisions via a systematic upgrading process, but
there are no specific dates for required completion of the upgrades.
The Code of Federal Regulations, at 23 CFR 655.603(d)(1), authorizes
FHWA to establish target compliance dates for compliance of particular
existing devices. The FHWA establishes such compliance dates via the
Federal rulemaking process.
The Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the MUTCD \1\ established 12
new specific compliance dates in Table I-2 for upgrading existing
devices to comply with certain new provisions adopted in that edition.
Table I-2 in the 2009 MUTCD also included 46 other compliance dates
that had not been reached by 2009 that were established in previous
Final Rules in 2000,\2\ 2003,\3\ and 2007 \4\ for new provisions
adopted in those Final Rules. The FHWA is aware of concerns on the part
of some State and local highway agencies about the potential impacts of
MUTCD compliance dates in the current economic downturn, which has
significantly reduced the resources available to such agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 74 FR 66732, December 16, 2009.
\2\ 65 FR 78923, December 18, 2000.
\3\ 68 FR 65496, November 20, 2003.
\4\ 72 FR 72574, December 21, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose of This Notice
The FHWA is interested in examining the issues of the safety
benefits provided by traffic control device uniformity and the economic
hardships to State and local governments that might result from
specific compliance dates for upgrading some non-compliant existing
devices.
[[Page 74129]]
The purpose of this notice is to present a general discussion of
issues related to MUTCD compliance dates, to present a discussion of
existing compliance dates for seven specific 2009 MUTCD provisions, and
to request comments and input on those issues and dates. This notice
also includes a series of specific questions for which the FHWA
requests input on each.
While there are questions presented on specific aspects of MUTCD
compliance dates, comments and input may be offered on any part of this
notice.
The FHWA is seeking comments from all interested parties to help
FHWA in further examining these issues and evaluating potential future
alternative courses of action, including additional rulemaking.
Discussion of General Compliance Date Issues
The FHWA has established MUTCD compliance dates for upgrading
existing non-compliant devices based on what it believes to be a
reasonable balance of the safety benefits afforded by uniformity of
traffic control devices and the economic costs to agencies to achieve
compliance. Highway agencies are allowed to use systematic upgrading
programs (without specific compliance dates) to upgrade their existing
devices in the field to meet the vast majority of all new MUTCD
provisions. For example, the 2009 MUTCD requires that the lettering on
street name signs shall be composed of combination of lower-case
letters with initial upper case letters. However, there is no specific
compliance date for replacement of existing Street Name signs that use
all capital lettering. Existing Street Name signs using all capital
letters can remain in place until they need to be replaced due to end
of service life or some other reason. As a result, agencies do not
incur any additional cost to meet this MUTCD requirement. In addition,
FHWA has established specific compliance dates predominantly based on
the useful service life of devices. This approach enables highway
agencies to defer upgrading non-compliant devices until the device
wears out, is damaged or destroyed, or is replaced due to other events
such as highway reconstruction, thus minimizing economic impacts.
In the 2009 MUTCD, specific compliance dates were established for
only 12 of the hundreds of new provisions that were adopted with that
new edition. In those 12 cases, FHWA determined that the safety
benefits that the traveling public would derive from those new
provisions were so critical that compliance of existing devices in the
field potentially prior to the end of their service lives was
necessary. Traffic control device upgrades are eligible for use of
Federal-aid highway funds, thus mitigating the impacts on State and
local highway agencies.
The FHWA understands that there are many competing demands on State
and local government resources, particularly to highway and public
works agencies, that State and local governments must balance with
highway safety and traffic control device uniformity in allocating
their limited resources. The FHWA also believes that traffic control
device uniformity is important to the safety of not only of motor
vehicles, but also of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users,
and as such this uniformity provides important benefits to society. The
MUTCD was originally developed in 1930s because of the consensus among
State and local governments, organizations representing motorists, and
many safety-related organizations, that traffic control device
uniformity was essential to reducing crashes and the deaths, injuries,
and property damage that results from crashes. The 1966 Highway Safety
Act \5\ further recognized the safety benefits of traffic control
device uniformity by legislating the change in status of the MUTCD from
a recommended practice with voluntary compliance to a national standard
with mandatory compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 89-564, 80 Stat. 731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, FHWA believes that the establishment of specific
compliance dates for limited numbers of new MUTCD requirements is
effective in achieving uniformity for those critical items.
Requirements with specific compliance dates receive much greater
attention and upgrading action by highway agencies because of the
potential for tort liability and the potential loss of Federal-aid
funds.
Discussion of Specific Compliance Dates
The FHWA has identified three compliance dates established in the
December 2007 Final Rule on maintaining minimum sign retroreflectivity
and four of the new compliance dates established in the Final Rule for
the 2009 edition of the MUTCD that might potentially present the
greatest challenges to overcome. A discussion of each follows.
Maintaining Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity (Section 2A.08)
On December 21, 2007, the Final Rule for revision number 2 of the
2003 edition of the MUTCD was issued regarding maintaining minimum
levels of sign retroreflectivity. This rulemaking was in response to a
statutory requirement.\6\ As a part of this Final Rule, three specific
compliance dates were established regarding the new requirements: (1)
January 22, 2012 (4 years)--implementation and continued use of an
assessment or management method that is designed to maintain traffic
sign retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels; (2)
January 22, 2015 (7 years)--replacement of regulatory, warning, and
post-mounted guide (except street name) signs that are identified using
the assessment or management method as failing to meet the established
minimum levels; and (3) January 22, 2018 (10 years)--replacement of
street name signs and overhead guide signs that are identified using
the assessment or management method as failing to meet the established
minimum levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 406 of the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Pub. L. 102-388; October 6,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new minimum sign retroreflectivity requirements were intended
to assure adequate nighttime visibility of traffic signs, especially
for older drivers, but with significant safety benefits for all
drivers, as clearly documented by research.\7\ Further, the 7-year and
10-year compliance periods were set based on expected service life of
sign sheeting materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ D. Ripley. Quantifying the Safety Benefits of Traffic
Control Devices--Benefit-Cost Analysis of Traffic Sign Upgrades.
Accepted for publication in the proceedings of the 2005 Mid-
Continent Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa, August 2005. This paper
can be found at http://tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/MinRetro/MinRetro.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Way Signs (Section 2B.40)
On December 16, 2009, the Final Rule for the 2009 edition of the
MUTCD was issued and a compliance date of December 31, 2019, (10 years)
was established for upgrading existing field locations to comply with a
new requirement for the number and location of One-Way regulatory
signs. The new requirement is that One-Way signs shall be installed on
the near-right and far-left corners of each intersection with the
directional roadways of a divided highway having a median width of 30
feet or more. This was a recommendation (Guidance) in the 2003 MUTCD
that was strengthened to a requirement (Standard) in the 2009 MUTCD.
Some highway agencies already have a policy, per the 2003 guidance,
to install near-right and far-left One-Way signs at each directional
roadway intersection of their divided highways with medians 30 feet or
wider.
[[Page 74130]]
However, agencies that did not comply with the 2003 guidance at all or
only at some of the applicable intersections now must change their
policy for use of One-Way signs at newly constructed intersections,
and, by the end of 2019, install any additional One-Way signs needed at
their existing locations to meet the Standard. Even though 10 years is
allowed for this work to be done, this might constitute a burden for
some agencies with significant mileage of divided highways with medians
30 feet or wider.
The strengthening of this provision to a Standard was based on
safety research as detailed in the Older Driver Handbook.\8\ Further,
the 10-year compliance date for existing locations was established in
consideration of the demonstrated safety issues associated with wrong-
way travel on divided highways and because FHWA anticipates that
installation of the required additional signs at existing locations
will provide significant safety benefits to road users. The FHWA
believes that State and local highway agencies and owners of private
roads open to public travel can schedule the installation of the
additional required signs in conjunction with their programs for
maintaining and replacing other signs at existing locations along
divided highways that are worn out or damaged, thus minimizing any
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://
www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.E(4),
I.K(2), and I.K(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs (Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14)
The 2009 MUTCD established new requirements that engineering
practices shall be used to determine the appropriate advisory speed on
horizontal curves and requiring a hierarchal approach to determine the
use of various horizontal alignment warning signs, including Turn or
Curve signs, Advisory Speed plaques, Chevrons and Large Arrow signs,
and Exit Speed/Ramp Speed signs. For these signs, the Table 2C-5 matrix
of ``Required, Recommended, or Optional'' must be used to determine use
of each type of sign, based on the difference between the speed limit
on the approach and the advisory speed of the curve. The new
requirement applies to arterials and collectors with an Average Annual
Daily Traffic volume of over 1,000 vehicles per day. A compliance date
of December 31, 2019 (10 years), was established for upgrading signing
at existing field locations to comply with the new horizontal alignment
warning sign requirements.
Even though 10 years is allowed for this work to be done, this
might constitute a burden for some agencies with a network of higher
volume arterial and collector roads having large numbers of horizontal
curves.
The new requirement for use of engineering practices to determine
advisory speeds for curves and to use Table 2C-5 to determine the
required, recommended, and optional use of horizontal alignment warning
signs and plaques was determined to be needed because fatalities at
horizontal curves account for 25 percent of all highway fatalities,
even though horizontal curves are only a small portion of the nation's
highway mileage, and because the past application of engineering
judgment for determination of advisory speeds and horizontal curve
signing, without specific uniform criteria, has not sufficiently
improved the safety performance of horizontal curves. Also, the 10-year
compliance date was established because of the demonstrated safety
issues associated with run-off-the-road crashes at horizontal curves
and because FHWA anticipates that a uniform method of determining
advisory speeds and installation of the required additional signs at
existing locations will provide significant safety benefits to road
users. The FHWA believes that State and local highway agencies and
owners of private roads open to public travel can schedule the
installation of the additional required signs in conjunction with their
programs for maintaining and replacing other signs at existing
locations that are worn out or damaged, thus minimizing any financial
impacts.
Yellow Change Intervals and Red Clearance Intervals (Section 4D.26)
The 2009 MUTCD established a new requirement that durations of
yellow change intervals and red clearance intervals for traffic signals
shall be determined using engineering practices, such as the kinematic
formulas published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers that
take into account approach speeds, deceleration rates of stopping
vehicles, intersection width, and roadway grades. Previously, the MUTCD
did not require or recommend any particular methods for determining the
durations of these critical safety intervals in the traffic signal
sequence. A compliance date of December 31, 2014 (5 years), or when
timing adjustments are made to the individual intersection and/or
corridor, whichever occurs first, was established for highway agencies
to use engineering practices to determine times for the yellow change
intervals and red clearance interval at their existing signalized
locations and to revise the timing of those intervals based on the
determinations.
Many highway agencies have been using engineering practices to
determine yellow change interval and red clearance interval durations.
However, there are some agencies that have been using jurisdiction-wide
constant durations, ``rules of thumb,'' or assigning durations to these
intervals without applying any engineering factors. Such highway
agencies might be burdened by the need to evaluate all their signalized
intersections and adjust the durations of the yellow change intervals
and red clearance intervals to comply with the new requirement within
the 5-year compliance period.
As documented in the FHWA report ``Signalized Intersections:
Informational Guide,'' \9\ a variety of studies from 1985 through 2002
found significant safety benefits from using accepted engineering
practices to determine the durations of yellow change and red clearance
intervals. Subsequent safety studies \10\ have further documented
significant major reductions in crashes when jurisdictions have revised
the durations of the yellow change and red clearance intervals using
accepted engineering practices. The 5-year compliance date was
established because of the demonstrated safety benefits, as discussed
above, of proper engineering-based timing of these critical signal
intervals, and because traffic signals and signal control equipment
have a very long service life (30 to 50 years is not uncommon) and very
long intervals between signal timing adjustments are typical at many
traffic signal locations in many jurisdictions. The FHWA believes that
relying on systematic upgrading provisions, based on service life, to
achieve compliance with this critical timing need would take an
inordinately long time, to the detriment of road user safety. The FHWA
believes that State and local highway agencies and owners
[[Page 74131]]
of private roads open to public travel can minimize any impact of this
signal timing requirement by adopting a policy that determines
durations of yellow change and red clearance intervals that is based on
engineering practices and then by applying that policy whenever an
existing individual signal location or system of interconnected
locations is being checked or adjusted for any reason, such as
investigation of citizen complaints or routine maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 209-211, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/
safety/pubs/04091/.
\10\ NCHRP Research Results Digest 299, November 2005, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_299.pdf. This digest
includes data from the study ``Changes in Crash Risk Following
Retiming of the Traffic Signal Change Intervals,'' by R.A. Retting,
J.F. Chapline, and A.F. Williams, as published in Accident Analysis
and Prevention, Volume 34, number 2, pages 215-220, available from
Pergamon Press, Oxford, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases (Section 4E.06)
The 2009 MUTCD established a new requirement for pedestrian signals
that the pedestrian change interval (flashing upraised orange hand)
shall not extend into the red clearance interval and shall be followed
by a buffer interval of at least 3 seconds. Previously, it was
allowable to continue the flashing orange hand display into and through
the vehicular red clearance interval, and thus there was no requirement
for any pedestrian safety ``buffer time'' between the end of the
flashing orange hand display and the start of green for conflicting
traffic on the street being crossed by pedestrians. A compliance date
of December 31, 2014 (5 years), or when timing adjustments are made to
the individual intersection and/or corridor, whichever occurs first,
was established for this new requirement.
Most highway agencies have operated their pedestrian signals so
that the flashing upraised hand terminates no later than the start of
the yellow change interval for parallel vehicular traffic. With this
display sequence, the yellow time and any red clearance time serves as
the buffer interval and would comply with the new requirement. However,
there are some highway agencies that have made it a practice at some or
all of their signals to extend the flashing orange hand to the end of
the yellow change interval or even all the way to the end of the red
clearance interval. Most such pedestrian signal displays do not provide
the required minimum 3 seconds after the end of the flashing orange
hand as a margin of safety that allows a pedestrian who underestimates
the time needed to cross a roadway, with or without a countdown
display, to better avoid a conflict with vehicles. Highway agencies
that have existing pedestrian signals operated in this manner might be
burdened by the need to adjust the control equipment and/or durations
of timing intervals to comply with the new requirement within the 5-
year compliance period.
The FHWA established the 5-year compliance date because of the
demonstrated safety issues associated with pedestrian crossings at
traffic signals, the need for consistent display of signal indications
for pedestrians, and the pedestrian confusion that would likely occur
as a result of a long-term mixing of a variety of pedestrian signal
displays associated with the pedestrian clearance interval. Traffic
signals and signal control equipment have a very long service life (30
to 50 years is not uncommon) and very long intervals between signal
retiming are typical at many traffic signal locations in many
jurisdictions. The FHWA believes that relying on systematic upgrading,
based on service life, to achieve compliance with this critical timing
need would take an inordinately long time, to the detriment of
pedestrian safety. The FHWA believes that State and local highway
agencies and owners of private roads open to public travel can minimize
any impact of this signal timing requirement by adopting a policy for
timing and display of pedestrian change intervals in relation to
vehicular intervals in compliance with Section 4E.06 and then by
applying that policy whenever an existing individual signal location or
system of interconnected locations is being checked or adjusted for any
reason, such as investigation of citizen complaints or routine
maintenance.
Questions
A series of seven specific questions regarding MUTCD compliance
dates are listed below, for which the FHWA requests input on each, to
help further examine this issue.
The seven questions are as follows:
1. What, if any, difficulties does your organization anticipate in
meeting the seven MUTCD compliance dates discussed above for upgrading
existing non-compliant devices in the field?
2. Are there one or more of these seven compliance dates that are
more problematic than the others for your organization? If so, which
ones, and why?
3. If some or all of these seven compliance dates were extended,
how long do you estimate it would take to complete the necessary
traffic control device upgrades?
4. What safety or other impacts would result from extending some or
all of these seven compliance dates?
5. Are there other MUTCD compliance dates not described in this
notice that are problematic for your organization? If yes, which ones,
and why?
6. What considerations should be applied to establish new
compliance dates in the MUTCD?
7. What other comments or input do you wish to provide to FHWA
regarding MUTCD compliance dates for upgrading existing traffic control
devices?
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Issued on: November 18, 2010.
Shailen Bhatt,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-29587 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P