[Federal Register: July 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45623-45631]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jy04-37]
[[Page 45623]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-15149]
RIN 2125-AE98
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Maintaining
Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments (NPA) to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD); request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, is
incorporated by reference at 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. The FHWA
proposes to amend the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways (MUTCD) to include methods to maintain traffic
sign retroreflectivity. The proposed maintenance methods would
establish a basis for improving nighttime visibility of traffic signs
to promote safety, enhance traffic operations, and facilitate comfort
and convenience for all drivers. The proposed changes would be
designated as Revision No. 2 to the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.
All comments should include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document or fax comments to (202)
493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (follow the on-line
instructions for submitted comments). All comments received will be
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those
desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that
appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Persons making comments 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 may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter J. Hatzi, Office of Safety
Design (HSA-10), (202) 366-8036, or Raymond Cuprill, Office of the
Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
Interested parties may submit or retrieve comments online through
the Document Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.
Acceptable formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for
Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code
Information Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF),
and WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission, retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An
electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a computer,
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://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The MUTCD is available for inspection and copying as prescribed in
49 CFR part 7 and on the FHWA's Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
This notice is being issued to provide an opportunity for public
comment on the desirability of proposed amendments to Section 1A.11
Relation to Other Documents, Section 2A.09 Minimum Retroreflectivity,
and Section 2A.22 Maintenance concerning sign retroreflectivity. Based
on the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA may issue a
final rule concerning the proposed changes included in this notice and
would be incorporated by reference into 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. The
2003 Edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 2 changes incorporated as
proposed in this amendment is also available on the Web site.
One of the FHWA's primary goals is to improve safety on the
nation's roads.\1\ Approximately 42,000 people have been killed on U.S.
roads each year for the last eight years.\2\ While nearly a quarter of
travel occurs at night,\3\ about one-half of traffic fatalities occur
during nighttime hours.\4\ There are many reasons for this disparity.
However, the FHWA expects that improvements to the nighttime visibility
of traffic signs will help drivers better navigate the roads at night
and thus promote safety and mobility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plan. This document can be
viewed at the Internet Web site: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/2003plan/index.htm
.
\2\ ``Traffic Safety Facts 2001: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the
General Estimates System,'' Publication NO. DOT HS 809484 December
2002. This document can be viewed at the Internet Web site: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/ncsa/tsfann/tsf2001.pdf
.
\3\ Federal Highway Administration and The Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey,
(23.3% of vehicle miles traveled occur between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m.).
This document can be viewed at the Internet Web site: http://nhts.ornl.gov
.
\4\ ``Traffic Safety Facts 2001: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the
General Estimates System,'' Publication NO. DOT HS 809484 December
2002. This document can be viewed at Internet Web site: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/ncsa/tsfann/tsf2001.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of traffic control devices, as well as the principles
for their use, is to promote highway safety and efficiency by providing
for the orderly movement of all road users. Those devices notify road
users of regulations and provide warning and guidance needed for the
safe, uniform, and efficient operation of traffic.
The MUTCD requires that traffic signs be illuminated or
retroreflective to enhance nighttime visibility.\5\ Most sign faces are
made with retroreflective sheeting material to enhance the visibility
of signs and their messages at night. Retroreflectivity, one factor
associated with night visibility, is the property of a material to
redirect light back towards its source. In the case of a traffic sign,
light is redirected back from the sign face toward the vehicle's
headlamps, making the sign visible to the driver. Available sign
sheeting materials offer different degrees of retroreflectivity, making
some signs
[[Page 45624]]
appear brighter than others. The brightness of the sign is also a
function of the age of the sign face material, as well as the size of
vehicle, type of headlamps, the driver's visual capabilities, and the
environmental conditions. In general, the higher the retroreflectivity
level the brighter the sign will appear to a driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition,''
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, November 2003. This document can be viewed at the
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The retroreflectivity of signs gradually deteriorates over time
making signs progressively less visible (i.e., bright) at night. As
signs lose their retroreflective properties, their effectiveness in
communicating regulatory, warning, and guidance messages to road users
diminishes to the point where they cannot be seen or read. Thus to
maintain effectiveness, signs must be replaced before they reach the
end of their useful retroreflective life. Until recently, little
information was available about the levels of retroreflectivity
necessary to meet the needs of drivers and thereby define the useful
life of signs. FHWA research has led to the development of minimum
maintained levels of traffic sign retroreflectivity for regulatory,
warning, and guide signs for currently available materials, vehicle
fleet characteristics, and capabilities of the driving population.
Further, new methods have evolved for assessing and managing the
retroreflectivity of existing signs on the road network. Sign
assessment methods involve the evaluation of a sign's retroreflectivity
by nighttime visual inspection or measurement of retroreflectivity
using an appropriate instrument. Visual and numeric criteria based upon
the minimum retroreflectivity needs of drivers are used to judge
whether the sign has adequate night visibility. Sign management methods
involve tracking or predicting the retroreflective life of individual
signs, and scheduling for replacement those approaching the minimum
levels.
Darkness significantly hides many of the visual cues used by
drivers to interpret roadway alignment (including objects such as
signs, pavement markings, and roadside barriers). Retroreflective
treatments or illumination increases the visibility of these objects to
provide information directly or restore the visual cues needed by the
driver to safely navigate the road at night.
Maintaining minimum levels of traffic sign retroreflectivity on the
nation's roads is becoming increasingly important as the driving
population ages. Older drivers have diminished visual capabilities that
are most apparent under dark conditions.\6\ Currently, 26.2 million
drivers are 65 or older and by 2010 an estimated 33.7 million drivers
will be 65 or older.\7\ Traffic signs that are easier to see and read
can help all drivers (not just the elderly) at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Information about this research is summarized on page 206 of
the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,''
Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA Office of Safety
Research and Development, 2001. It is available for purchase from
the Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
(703) 605-6000. Internet Web site address at http://www.ntis.gov.
\7\ Federal Highway Administration and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey.
This document can be viewed at the Internet Web site: http://nhts.ornl.gov
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MUTCD, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, and is
recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on
all public roads. The Secretary of Transportation's authority to
establish these standards was established in 23 U.S.C. 109, and the
Secretary has delegated that authority to the Federal Highway
Administration, as stated in 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8). The FHWA is proposing
changes to the MUTCD to improve night visibility for drivers by
establishing a benchmark for adequacy of traffic signs that are
currently in place and those that will be installed in the future.
Improved night visibility of traffic signs is expected to promote
safety and mobility on the nation's roads.
History of Sign Retroreflectivity
Requirements for nighttime sign visibility have been included in
every version of the MUTCD, since the first edition in 1935. The 2003
Edition of the MUTCD continues to address the visibility of signs.\8\
Some of the pertinent MUTCD sections include: Sections 1A.03 through
1A.05, dealing with design, placement, operation, and maintenance of
traffic control devices, and Section 2A.22 Maintenance. Sign
retroreflectivity is specifically addressed in Section 2A.08
Retroreflectivity and Illumination, which states, ``[r]egulatory,
warning, and guide signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to
show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless
specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion in this Manual of
a particular sign or group of signs.'' This language has essentially
remained unchanged since 1971. The FHWA also added Section 2A.09
Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels in the MUTCD Millennium Edition.
Section 2A.09 serves as a placeholder for the results of the rulemaking
addressed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition,''
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, October 2003. This document can be viewed at the
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993, the Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to
revise the MUTCD to include a standard for minimum levels of
retroreflectivity that must be maintained for traffic signs and
pavement markings, which apply to all roads open to public travel.\9\
The FHWA already had an active research program investigating the
nighttime visibility of traffic control devices to meet driver needs.
In 1993, the FHWA responded to the congressional mandate by publishing
a set of research recommendations for minimum maintained sign
retroreflectivity levels.\10\ A series of tables was presented in the
research report to establish minimum maintained retroreflectivity
levels for regulatory, warning, and side-mounted and overhead guide
signs. These tables set minimum levels for various factors including
sign size, roadway speed limit, type of sign face material, and nature
of the sign legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ United States Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Public Law 102-388, 106 Stat.
1520, Section 406.
\10\ Paniati, J.F. and Mace, D.J., ``Minimum Retroreflectivity
Requirements for Traffic Signs,'' FHWA-RD-93-077, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, three national workshops were conducted to educate State
and local highway agency personnel and solicit their input regarding
the initial set of minimum maintained sign retroreflectivity levels.
The findings from these workshops, combined with an increased knowledge
of both driver needs and the performance of retroreflective materials
and their durability, were used to revise the initial set of minimum
maintained retroreflectivity levels. The revised minimum levels were
published in 1998 in a report entitled ``An Implementation Guide for
Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements for Traffic Signs.'' \11\ One of
the most evident changes was the removal of minimum levels of
retroreflectivity for overhead signs because of unresolved issues with
vehicle headlamp performance specifications and the difficulty of
measuring overhead sign retroreflectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ McGee, H.W. and Paniati, J. F., ``An Implementation Guide
for Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements for Traffic Signs,''
FHWA-RD-97-052, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45625]]
Also in 1998, a report entitled ``Impacts on State and Local
Agencies for Maintaining Traffic Signs Within Minimum Retroreflectivity
Guidelines'' presented the findings of a survey and analyses related to
the expected impacts of the proposed minimum maintained
retroreflectivity levels.\12\ The report estimated that about five
percent of the signs under State jurisdiction and eight percent of the
signs under local jurisdiction would not meet the proposed minimum
levels and would have to be replaced. The report concluded that the
one-time replacement costs would be $32 million for State agencies, and
$144 million for local agencies. It also stated that the cost impacts
to agencies would be small if the minimum maintained retroreflectivity
levels were phased in over a sufficiently long period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ McGee, H.W. and Taori, S., ``Impacts on State and Local
Agencies for Maintaining Traffic Signs Within Retroreflectivity
Guidelines,'' FHWA-RD-97-053, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Near completion of the 1998 work on the revised minimum levels, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revised the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS 108), so that vehicle owners
could easily aim and adjust their headlamps and therefore reduce the
variability associated with headlamp aim. FMVSS 108 is the document
that sets the minimum and maximum luminous intensities for headlamps,
headlamp mounting heights, and standardization of headlamps on new
vehicles sold in the U.S. after 1968. Since that time, there have been
several changes. Because of these changes, the FHWA conducted
additional research to develop minimum maintained retroreflectivity
levels for overhead guide signs and street name signs, which were not
included in the minimum levels published in 1998. The research for
overhead guide signs and street name signs was completed in early
2001.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Carlson, P.J. and Hawkins, H.G., ``Minimum
Retroreflectivity Levels for Overhead Guide Signs and Street Name
Signs,'' FHWA-RD-03-082, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003. A copy of this report
is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the significant findings of the research was the need to
update some of the fundamental inputs on headlights, vehicle type (and
hence headlight height), and driver capabilities to reflect the current
vehicle fleet and older driver population in the development of minimum
maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs. Consequently,
additional research was sponsored by the FHWA to update the inputs and
develop an updated set of minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels
for traffic signs in the U.S. This work was completed in 2003 and has
become the basis for this rulemaking.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Carlson, P.J. and Hawkins, H.G., ``Updated Minimum
Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs,'' FHWA-RD-03-081, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, 2003. A copy of this report is available on the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least two significant events happened during the development of
the proposed minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels. The first was
the formation of the Special Task Force on Retroreflectivity by the
AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. The objective of the Task Force
was to review the proposed minimum maintained levels for
retroreflectivity (both traffic signs and pavement markings) and
provide implementation recommendations to the FHWA. In 2000, the
AASHTO's Board of Directors approved the Task Force's resolution that
included several recommendations.\15\ One of the key recommendations
was that the minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic
signs not be included in the MUTCD. Another key recommendation was that
the proposed minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic
signs should be revised to be clear and unambiguous and consolidated so
they can be easily and properly applied. The AASHTO also recommended a
six year phase-in compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ AASHTO Policy Resolution, ``Minimum Retroreflectivity of
Signs and Pavement Markings,'' December 2000. A copy of this AASHTO
resolution is available at the following Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/retrost.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second significant activity occurred during the summer of 2002.
The FHWA conducted a second round of national workshops to solicit
input from transportation agency personnel concerning the implications
of the revised minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic
signs and the proposed changes to the MUTCD to adopt the minimum
levels.\16\ Feedback from these workshops led to refinement of the
consolidated table of minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels,
definition of methods for assessing and managing the retroreflectivity
of in-place signs, formulation of language for the MUTCD, and
development of implementation recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Hawkins, H.G., Carlson, P.J., Schertz, G.F., and Opiela,
K.S., ``Workshops on Nighttime Visibility of Traffic Signs: Summary
of Workshop Findings,'' FHWA-SA-03-002, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Amendment
The purpose of this notice of proposed amendments (NPA) is to
obtain public comment on proposed amendments to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include methods to maintain traffic
sign retroreflectivity. The FHWA seeks comment on the proposed changes
to the Introduction, Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications,
Section 2A.09 Minimum Retroreflectivity, and 2A.22 Maintenance. Minimum
maintained retroreflectivity levels associated with the above-mentioned
methods are contained in the FHWA document ``Maintaining Traffic Sign
Retroreflectivity.'' \17\ ``Maintaining Traffic Sign
Retroreflectivity'' is included as an appendix to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A copy of the FHWA report ``Maintaining Traffic Sign
Retroreflectivity,'' Publication No. FHWA-SA-03-027, October 2003 is
available as an appendix to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) definition of the
term ``standard'' is ``a concept established by authority, custom, or
agreement to serve as a model or rule in a measurement of quality or
the establishment of a practice or procedure.''\18\ This proposed
amendment to the MUTCD is intended to meet that definition. In
addition, feedback received during FHWA sponsored workshops reinforced
the importance of not only sign retroreflectivity, but also nighttime
visibility of signs. This feedback led to the emphasis in this proposal
on actual methods to assess and maintain sign retroreflectivity, and
not just establishment of minimum thresholds for retroreflectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Compilation of ASTM [American Society of Testing
Materials] Standard Definitions'', Eighth Edition, ASTM Publication
Code Number 03-001094-42, 1994. A copy of this document is available
from the ASTM at 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103. Internet at
the following URL: http://www.astm.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes to the MUTCD by sections are as follows:
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction
1. In the Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD
statement a seven-year target compliance date for Section 2A.09 Minimum
Retroreflectivity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in target compliance
period for implementation of seven years for ground mounted signs and
ten years for overhead signs from the effective date of the final rule
for Revision No. 2 of the 2003 MUTCD to
[[Page 45626]]
minimize any impact on State or local governments. The FHWA believes a
target compliance period of seven years would allow State and local
agencies to replace their engineering grade sign sheeting within a
normal replacement period of a commonly-accepted seven year service
life. The FHWA proposes a ten year compliance period for overhead signs
to allow an extended period of time due to the longer service life
typically used for those signs.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General
2. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA
proposes to add the publication ``Maintaining Traffic Sign
Retroreflectivity'' to the list of other publications that are useful
sources. ``Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity'' is included as
an appendix to the preamble.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2--Signs
3. In Section 2A.09 Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels, the FHWA
proposes changing the title of the section by deleting the word
``levels'' from the title to better describe the content of the
section. The FHWA proposes to replace the SUPPORT statement with new
SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements that refer to minimum sign
retroreflectivity.
In the SUPPORT statement, the FHWA proposes to provide a reference
to Section 2A.22 Maintenance, stating that retroreflectivity is one of
several factors associated with maintaining nighttime sign visibility.
In the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA proposes to indicate that
except for those signs specifically identified in the OPTION statement,
one or more of the assessment or management methods described in this
section should be used to maintain sign retroreflectivity above the
minimum levels identified in the FHWA document ``Maintaining Traffic
Sign Retroreflectivity.''\19\ The methods are visual nighttime
inspection (including three procedures: calibration signs, consistent
parameters, and comparison panels), measured sign retroreflectivity,
expected sign life, blanket replacement, and control signs. The
GUIDANCE statement includes a brief description of each method and the
following SUPPORT statement includes a reference to ``Maintaining
Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity'' that provides more information about
these methods and their association to minimum maintained
retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs. As part of the descriptions
of the various methods in the GUIDANCE, the FHWA proposes to include a
statement that signs that have retroreflectivity below the minimum
levels should be replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A copy of the FHWA report ``Maintaining Traffic Sign
Retroreflectivity,'' Publication No. FHWA-SA-03-027, October 2003 is
available as an appendix to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the OPTION statement, the FHWA proposes to list several sign
series that agencies may exclude from the proposed assessment methods
and minimum maintained sign retroreflectivity levels. The FHWA proposes
to exclude these sign series, because additional research is needed to
support establishment of minimum retroreflectivity levels for these
signs. The sign series that the FHWA proposes to exclude are: (1)
Parking, Standing, and Stopping signs (R7 and R8 series), (2) Walking,
Hitchhiking, and Crossing signs (R9 series, R10-1 through R10-4b), (3)
Adopt-A-Highway series, (4) All signs with blue or brown backgrounds,
and (5) Bikeway signs that are intended for exclusive use by bicyclists
and/or pedestrians. This list will not exclude those signs from
existing MUTCD retroreflectivity and maintenance requirements and
guidance.
4. In Section 2A.22 Maintenance, the FHWA proposes changing the
first paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement by replacing the phrase
``adequate retroreflectivity'' with ``retroreflectivity levels as
indicated in Section 2A.09.'' The reference to Section 2A.09 Minimum
Retroreflectivity, enables readers to access information specific to
retroreflectivity more easily. The FHWA proposes a new sentence that
reads, ``Maintenance activities should consider proper position,
cleanliness, legibility, and daytime and nighttime visibility of a
sign.''
Appendix to the Preamble--Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity
Traffic signs provide an important means of communicating
information to road users and they need to be visible to be effective.
The 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) addresses
sign visibility in several sections, including 1A.03, 1A.04, 1A.05,
2A.08, and 2A.22. Visibility is addressed in portions of these sections
through factors such as design, placement, operation, maintenance, and
uniformity.
The concept of visibility encompasses many different considerations
and is difficult to quantify as an overall measure. Specific metrics
such as conspicuity, legibility, or retroreflectivity are used to
represent the various elements that contribute to visibility.
Conspicuity is the ability to identify a target (such as a sign) from
its surroundings. It is what helps the user to first see a sign.
Legibility is the ability to identify the message (content) of the
target. It is what helps the user to read the sign.
The nighttime environment presents many sign visibility challenges.
At night, road users cannot see as many visual cues as they can in the
day. This places greater reliance on signs and other traffic control
devices. To provide nighttime sign visibility, most signs are made from
retroreflective sheeting. Retroreflectivity is the property of a
material to redirect light back toward the originating source. It is
what helps make a sign conspicuous and legible.
Existing procedures and technologies for measuring sign
retroreflectivity provide one, but not the only, metric for quantifying
nighttime sign visibility. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has focused significant attention on retroreflectivity in recent years,
including developing research recommendations for minimum maintained
levels of sign retroreflectivity.
Sign location and orientation also impact sign visibility. Signs
placed outside of the driver's cone of vision may not be seen by the
driver even though they meet other visibility criteria. Likewise, signs
behind obstructions (such as a structure or vegetation) may meet some
visibility criteria, but can't be seen by drivers. To provide maximum
effectiveness, signs should be designed, placed, and maintained in a
manner that is consistent with MUTCD guidelines.
This document provides recommendations and general information
about minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels and the methods that
can be used to maintain sign retroreflectivity. Information contained
in this document is intended for policy-makers and managers.
Retroreflectivity Maintenance
There are several methods that agencies can use to maintain sign
retroreflectivity above the minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels
that FHWA has developed through research. These minimum
retroreflectivity levels were developed to provide transportation
agencies with a general target for maintaining sign retroreflectivity.
The existence of minimum retroreflectivity levels is not intended to
imply that agencies need to measure the retroreflectivity of every sign
in their jurisdictions. Instead, these methods provide agencies with
options
[[Page 45627]]
that will help to improve nighttime sign visibility.
Sign maintenance methods can be divided into two groups--assessment
methods and management methods. Assessment methods involve the actual
evaluation of individual signs, while management methods involve
tracking and/or predicting the retroreflectivity of signs. The FHWA has
identified several assessment and management methods for maintaining
sign retroreflectivity in a manner that is consistent with the minimum
retroreflectivity levels. Agencies also have the flexibility to develop
their own methods for maintaining sign retroreflectivity.
Assessment Methods
The assessment methods require evaluation of individual signs
within an agency's jurisdiction. There are two basic assessment
methods--visual assessment and retroreflectivity measurement.
Visual Nighttime Inspection Method
In the visual nighttime inspection method, agency personnel assess
the nighttime visibility of their signs. The visual inspection method
is probably the most consistent with current practices at many
agencies. Visual inspections are also recommended in Section 2A.22 of
the MUTCD.
In the visual inspection method, the inspector assesses the
visibility and retroreflectivity of the traffic signs as he/she
approaches the signs. Signs need to be replaced if they do not meet the
comparison defined in the appropriate procedure. The following
recommendations provide general guidance on how to conduct the
inspections:
Agencies develop guidelines and procedures for inspectors
to use in conducting the nighttime inspections. Inspectors are trained
on the use of these procedures.
The inspection is conducted at normal roadway operating
speeds. If it is necessary to slow or stop the vehicle to read the
sign, the sign typically needs to be replaced. Signs are normally
inspected from the travel lane.
The inspection is conducted using the low beam headlights.
It is better not to use the bright beams for inspections as they create
higher illuminance levels at the sign and make it appear brighter than
it would to a driver using low beams.
Signs are normally evaluated at a typical viewing distance
for each sign, one that provides a driver with adequate time for an
appropriate response.
In addition to the above recommendations, one or more of the
following procedures are used in conducting visual nighttime
inspections.
Calibration Signs Procedure
Calibration signs are viewed prior to conducting the nighttime
inspection. The calibration signs have retroreflectivity levels at or
above the minimum levels. These signs are set up where the inspectors
can view the calibration signs in a manner similar to how they will
conduct the nighttime inspection. The inspector uses the visual
appearance of the calibration sign to establish the evaluation
threshold for that night's inspection activities. The following factors
provide additional information on the use of this procedure:
Calibration signs are needed for each color of sign for
which there are minimum levels.
The calibration signs are viewed at typical viewing
distances and from the same vehicle that will be used for conducting
the inspections.
The calibration signs need to be properly stored between
inspections so that the retroreflectivity of the calibration signs does
not deteriorate over time. Calibration sign retroreflectivity is
checked at periodic intervals to ensure that the calibration panels
have the appropriate retroreflectivity levels.
Field signs need to be replaced if the inspector judges a
sign to be less bright than the appropriate calibration sign.
Consistent Parameters Procedure
The same factors that were used to develop the minimum levels are
used in conducting the inspections. These factors include:
Using a full-size sport utility vehicle or pick-up to
conduct the inspection.
Using a model year 2000 or newer vehicle for the
inspection.
Using an inspector age 60 or older.
Signs are viewed at the typical viewing distance for that
sign.
Signs need to be replaced if they are not legible to the
inspector.
Comparison Panels Procedure
Small comparison panels are used to assess the retroreflectivity of
questionable signs. The comparison panels are fabricated at
retroreflectivity levels that are at or above the minimum levels. When
the retroreflectivity of a sign is considered to be questionable, a
comparison panel is attached to the sign and the sign/panel combination
is viewed by the inspector. If the comparison panel appears brighter
than the sign, the sign needs to be replaced.
Measured Retroreflectivity Method
In this method, the retroreflectivity of a sign is measured and
directly compared to the minimum level appropriate to that sign. If the
sign retroreflectivity is lower than the minimum levels, the sign needs
to be replaced. The following factors provide additional information
about measuring sign retroreflectivity:
ASTM E1709, Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Retroreflective Signs Using a Portable Retroreflectometer, provides a
standard method for measuring sign retroreflectivity using a handheld
retroreflectometer.
A sign needs to be replaced if the average
retroreflectivity value is less than the appropriate minimum level.
Management Methods
The management methods provide an agency with the ability to
maintain sign retroreflectivity without having to devote significant
effort into assessing individual signs. There are three basic types of
management methods--replacing signs based on age, blanket replacement
of large numbers of signs at appropriate intervals, and using a sample
of control signs to determine when to replace equivalent signs.
Expected Sign Life Method
In this method, individual signs are replaced before they reach the
end of their expected service life. The expected service life is based
on the time required for the retroreflective material to degrade to the
minimum retroreflectivity levels. The following factors provide
additional information about using this method:
The expected service life of a sign can be based on
several different sources of information, such as:
--Sign sheeting warranties.
--Sign test deck measurements.
--Measurements of actual signs.
An agency will need a method of identifying the age of
individual signs. Potential methods include:
--A sticker or other label attached to the sign that identifies the
year of fabrication, installation, or replacement.
--A sign management system that can identify the age of individual
signs.
Blanket Replacement Method
In this method, an agency replaces all the signs in an area/
corridor, or of a given type, at specified intervals. An agency that
uses this method does not need to track the age or assess the
retroreflectivity of individual signs. The following factors provide
additional
[[Page 45628]]
information about the use of this procedure:
Replacement zones can be based on an area, corridor, or
sign type.
The replacement interval for the area/corridor, or sign
type, is based on the expected sign life for the affected signs.
All signs within a replacement area/corridor/type are
typically replaced, even if the sign was recently installed.
Control Sign Method
In this method, a control sample of signs is used to represent the
total population of an agency's signs. The retroreflectivity of the
control signs is monitored at appropriate intervals and sign
replacement is based on the performance of the control signs. The
following factors provide additional information about using this
method:
An agency develops a sampling plan to determine the
appropriate number of control signs needed to represent the agency's
sign population.
Control signs may be actual signs in the field or signs
installed in a maintenance yard to serve specifically as control signs.
The retroreflectivity of the control signs should be
monitored following the procedures outlined for one of the assessment
methods.
All field signs represented by the control sample need to
be replaced before the retroreflectivity levels of the control sample
reach the minimum levels.
Sign Replacement
All of the sign retroreflectivity maintenance methods indicate that
signs need to be replaced when they do not meet the threshold criteria
for the individual method. In maintaining sign retroreflectivity, an
agency may want to consider the interval before the next assessment or
management event as part of the sign evaluation and replacement
process. In some cases, it may be appropriate to replace a sign even
though it is above the threshold criteria because it could be expected
to drop below the threshold criteria before the next assessment/
management event.
Sign Exclusions
The following signs may be excluded from the various methods of
maintaining sign retroreflectivity:
Parking, Standing, and Stopping signs (R7 and R8 series).
Walking/Hitchhiking/Crossing signs (R9 series, R10-1
through R10-4b).
Adopt-A-Highway signs.
All signs with blue or brown backgrounds.
Bikeways which are not immediately adjacent to a roadway
and that are intended for exclusive use by bicyclists and/or
pedestrians.
Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels
Since the early 1990s, the FHWA has sponsored several different
efforts to develop research recommendations for minimum
retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs. These efforts represent
various attempts to define and refine the concept of minimum maintained
sign retroreflectivity. Initial minimum retroreflectivity levels were
developed through research in 1993 (1). These levels were revised in
1998 through further research (2). Updated minimum levels were
developed in 2003 (3) and are the ones that FHWA proposes for use. A
paper describes the evolution of the research to develop minimum levels
of sign retroreflectivity (4).
The updated minimum levels of sign retroreflectivity are generally
similar in magnitude to levels published previously, but represent
several refinements and updates. The following improvements were
incorporated into the 2003 updated levels:
An improved computer model was used to develop the minimum
levels.
Additional sheeting types were incorporated into the
minimum levels.
Headlamp (headlight) performance was updated to represent
the model year 2000 vehicle fleet.
Vehicle size was increased to represent the greater
prevalence of sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks.
The luminance level needed for legibility was increased to
better accommodate older drivers.
Minimum retroreflectivity levels were consolidated across
more sheeting types to reduce the number of minimum levels.
The updated minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels are shown
in the following table. They represent the most current research
recommendations, and are recommended by FHWA, but are limited to the
current knowledge of the nighttime luminance requirements of traffic
signs. The assumptions and limitations associated with the development
of these levels are described in the research report (3). It should be
noted that there may be situations where, based on engineering
judgment, an agency may want to provide greater retroreflectivity.
Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheeting type (ASTM D4956-01a)
Sign color Criteria -----------------------------------------------------
I II III VII VIII IX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White on Red....................... See Note 1........... 35//7
----------
Black on Orange or Yellow.......... See Note 2........... * 50
----------
See Note 3........... * 75
----------
Black on White..................... ..................... 50
----------
White on Green..................... Overhead............. *//7 *//15 *//25 250//25
----------
Shoulder............. *//7 120//15
------------------------------------
Notes:
----------
Levels in cells represent legend retroreflectivity // background retroreflectivity (for positive contrast
signs). Units are cd/lx/m\2\ measured at an observation angle of 0.2[deg] and an entrance angle of -4.0[deg].
1 Minimum Contrast Ratio >= 3:1 (white retroreflectivity / red retroreflectivity).
2 For text signs measuring 48 inches or more and all bold symbol signs.
3 For text signs measuring less than 48 inches and all fine symbol signs.
* Sheeting type should not be used.
[[Page 45629]]
Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bold Symbol Signs......................................... W1-1--Turn.
W1-2--Curve.
W1-3--Reverse Turn.
W1-4--Reverse Curve.
W1-5--Winding Road.
W1-6--Large Single Arrow.
W1-7--Large Double Arrow.
W1-8--Chevron.
W1-9--Turn & Advisory Speed.
W1-10--Horizontal Alignment &
Intersection.
W2-1--Cross Road.
W2-2, W2-3--Side Road.
W2-4--T Intersection.
W2-5--Y Intersection.
W2-6--Circular Intersection.
W3-1a--Stop Ahead.
W3-2a--Yield Ahead.
W3-3--Signal Ahead.
W4-3--Added Lane.
W6-1--Divided Highway Begins.
W6-2--Divided Highway Ends.
W6-3--Two-Way Traffic.
W10-1, -2, -3, -4--Highway-
Railroad Intersection Advance Warning.
W11-2--Pedestrian Crossing.
W11-3--Deer Crossing.
W11-4--Cattle Crossing.
W11-5--Farm Equipment.
W11-5p, -6p, -7p--Pointing
Arrow Plaques.
W11-8--Fire Station.
W11-10--Truck Crossing.
W12-1--Double Arrow.
Fine Symbol Signs......................................... All symbol signs not listed in the bold
category are considered fine symbol
signs.
Special Case Signs (for requirements in addition to yellow W3-1a--Stop Ahead.
color addressed in above table). Red retroreflectivity >= 7.
W3-2a--Yield Ahead
Red retroreflectivity >= 7,
White retroreflectivity >= 35.
W3-3--Signal Ahead.
Red retroreflectivity >= 7,
Green retroreflectivity >= 7.
W14-3--No Passing Zone, W4-4p--
Cross Traffic Does Not Stop, or W13-2, -
3, -1, -5--Ramp & Curve Speed Advisory
Plaques.
Use largest sign dimension to
find proper category in above table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Paniati, J.F. and Mace, D.J., Minimum Retroreflectivity
Requirements for Traffic Signs, Technical Report. FHWA-RD-93-077,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, October 1993.
2. McGee, H.W. and Paniati, J.F., An Implementation Guide for
Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements for Traffic Signs. FHWA-RD-97-
052, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1998.
3. Carlson, P.J. and Hawkins, H.G., Updated Minimum
Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs. FHWA-RD-03-081, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003.
4. Carlson, P.J., Hawkins, H.G., Schertz, G.F., Opiela, K.S., and
Mace, D.J., Developing Updated Minimum In-Service Retroreflectivity
Levels for Traffic Signs, accepted for publication in the
Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 2003.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this
document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file
comments received after the comment closing date and will consider late
comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the
FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information
becoming available after the comment closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final
rule may be published at any time after the close of the comment
period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, because of the substantial public interest in the
retroreflectivity of traffic signs. This rulemaking addresses comments
received in response to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
request for regulatory reform nominations from the public. The OMB is
required to submit an annual report to Congress on the costs and
benefits of Federal regulations. The 2002 report included
recommendations for regulatory reform that OMB requested from the
public.\20\ One recommendation was that the FHWA should establish
standards for minimum levels of
[[Page 45630]]
brightness of traffic signs.\21\ The FHWA has identified this
rulemaking as responsive to that recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ A copy of the OMB report ``Stimulating Smarter Regulation:
2002 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulation and
Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities'' is
available at the following Web address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/summaries_nominations_final.pdf
.
\21\ A complete compilation of comments received by OMB is
available at the following Web address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/key_comments.html.
Comment number 93 includes the
recommendation concerning the retroreflectivity of traffic signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would
cause minimal additional expense to public agencies. In 2003, the FHWA
updated its analysis of the cost impacts to State and local agencies to
reflect higher material costs due to inflation, an increase in the
proportion of signs that would be replaced with higher-level sign
sheeting material, and changes in the overall mileage of State and
local roads. The findings of the 2003 analysis show that the costs of
the proposed action to State and local agencies would be less than $100
million per year. The proposed seven-year regulation implementation
period for ground mounted signs would allow State and local agencies to
delay replacement of recently-placed Type I signs until they have
reached their commonly-accepted seven-year service life. The proposed
ten-year compliance period for overhead signs would allow an extended
period of time due to the longer service life typically used for those
signs.
The FHWA has considered the costs and benefits associated with this
rulemaking and believes that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Currently, the MUTCD requires that traffic signs be illuminated or
retroreflective to enhance nighttime visibility. The changes proposed
in this notice provide additional guidance, clarification, and
flexibility in maintaining traffic sign retroreflectivity that is
already required by the MUTCD. The proposed maintenance methods
consider changes in the composition of the vehicle population, vehicle
headlamp design, and the demographics of drivers. The FHWA expects that
the proposed maintenance methods will help to promote safety and
mobility on the nation's roads and will result in minimum additional
expense to public agencies or the motoring public.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed
action on small entities, including small governments. The FHWA
certifies that this proposed action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The FHWA analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated
August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action
would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism
implications on States and local governments that would limit the
policy making discretion of the States and local governments. Nothing
in the MUTCD directly preempts any State law or regulation.
The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart
F. These proposed amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of
Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to
promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of
the highway.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This notice of proposed amendments would not impose unfounded
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). The findings of the impacts
analysis indicate that this proposed action will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year. In
addition, sign replacement is eligible for up to 100 percent Federal-
aid funding--this applies to local jurisdictions and tribal
governments, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(c).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed action does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the purposes of the PRA.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, to eliminate ambiguity, and to reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. This is not an economically significant proposed action
and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed action would not affect a taking of private property
or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this is not a
significant energy action under that order because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
[[Page 45631]]
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR 655
Design standards, Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Authority: (23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 109(d), 114(a), 135,
217, 307, 315, and 402(a); sec. 406(a), Pub. L. 102-388, 106 Stat.
1520, 1564; 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).)
Issued on: July 26, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-17409 Filed 7-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P