[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1364-1373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-196]
[[Page 1363]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Highway Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
23 CFR Part 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Revision of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1364]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket 95-8]
RIN 2125-AD57
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Revision of the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains amendments to the MUTCD which have been
adopted by the FHWA for inclusion therein. The MUTCD is incorporated by
reference in 23 CFR Part 655, Subpart F and recognized as the national
standard for traffic control devices on all public roads. The
amendments affect various parts of the MUTCD and are intended to
expedite traffic, improve safety and provide a more uniform application
of highway signs, signals, and markings.
DATES: The final rule is effective January 9, 1997. Incorporation by
reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of January 9, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Linda L. Brown, Office of
Highway Safety (202) 366-2192, Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 3416, Washington,
DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MUTCD, 1988 Edition is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. It
may be purchased for $44 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954,
Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. The purchase of the MUTCD includes the new
MUTCD Part VI, Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for Street and
Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Incident Management
Operation published September 1993.
The FHWA both receives and initiates requests for amendments to the
MUTCD. Each request is assigned an identification number which
indicates by Roman numeral, the organizational part of the MUTCD
affected and, by Arabic numeral, the order in which the request was
received. This document contains the disposition of proposed changes
which were published on June 12, 1995, at 60 FR 31008. Text changes
required as a result of amendments contained herein will be distributed
to everyone currently appearing on the FHWA Federal Register mailing
list and will be published in the next edition of the MUTCD. Those
wishing to be added to this Federal Register mailing list should write
to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Safety, HHS-
10, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
The FHWA has reviewed the comments received in response to FHWA
Docket No. 95-8 and other information related to the MUTCD and these
proposals. The FHWA is acting on the following requests for change to
the 1988 edition of the MUTCD. Each action and its basis is summarized
below:
Request I-10(C)--Standardization of Traffic Control Devices on Private
Property
This amendment to the MUTCD adds language to section 1A-3 to
encourage each State to adopt Section 15-117 of the Uniform Vehicle
Code (UVC). This section of the UVC states that traffic control devices
used on private property (e.g. shopping center, business complex or
sports arena) open to the public shall be installed and maintained
pursuant to the standards contained in the MUTCD. Although adoption of
this amendment as a vehicle code is a State decision, we believe that
it is in the interest of the public's safety that we strongly encourage
the use of standard traffic control devices on private property open to
public travel.
The FHWA received a total of 29 comments in response to this change
to the MUTCD. Twenty-six comments supported this amendment to extend
the provisions contained in the MUTCD to all streets and highways open
to public travel, regardless of ownership. Three of the 29 comments
opposed including this language in the MUTCD but agreed with the idea
of encouraging traffic control devices on private property at the
State's option.
This change will not impose any additional costs on State and local
highway jurisdictions but will encourage uniformity of traffic control
devices.
Request I-12(C)--Add New Highway Classification for Special Purpose
Roads
Although 20 of the 28 comments in response to this request were in
favor of the concept to add a new highway classification and
appropriate standards to the MUTCD to address the special needs for low
volume and low speed road signs, most comments indicated that further
study is needed to define appropriate categories and standards. The
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) is
developing proposed text for the MUTCD on traffic control devices for
low-volume roads.
The FHWA believes that the information contained in the NCUTCD
proposal will provide more substantive data. Additional information
will be published in a future notice of proposed rulemaking and the
public will be given another opportunity to review and comment. This
request is deferred until that time.
Request II-118(C)--Standard Motorcycle Warning Sign
The FHWA conducted research evaluation on seven possible motorcycle
symbol signs to warn motorcyclists of possible hazardous roadway
conditions. Since the motorcycle symbols did poorly in the motorist
comprehension test, the FHWA is not adopting a standard symbol at this
time. Twenty-two of the 27 people responding to this request agreed
with this FHWA position. The evaluation results indicated that the
intended message is difficult to portray. Generally, the motorist is
used to seeing the hazard for which the driver is being warned shown in
the sign. Many of the incorrect test responses indicated that the signs
were warning of a ``hazard'' and the presence of ``motorcycles'' ahead.
The FHWA will research this concept further and try to develop a
symbol sign which may be understood by both the motorist and the
motorcyclist. Meanwhile, the FHWA recommends that the State and local
highway agencies develop special word message signs as allowed in MUTCD
section 2C-40 and use existing symbol signs to warn both motorcyclists
and motorists of specific hazardous roadway conditions.
Request II-120(C)--Standard Warning Sign for Substandard Vertical
Curves Over Railroad Crossing (W10-5)
The FHWA is adopting a new advance symbol sign for railroad grade
crossings where conditions are sufficiently abrupt to create a hang-up
of long wheelbase vehicles or trailers with low ground clearance. The
MUTCD already contains provisions for the placement of special word
message signs where there is a need to give advance notice of special
hazardous conditions at railroad grade crossings. Based on conducted
research, the FHWA amends the MUTCD to also
[[Page 1365]]
include the following new warning symbol sign for ``Low Ground
Clearances'' (W10-5) which may be used at these special locations:
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.000
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
This symbol is used by the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) and is similar to the research symbol tested
and found to be acceptable with the truck driver population. Sometimes
a change from word messages to symbols requires time for public
education and transition. New warning and regulatory symbol signs such
as this that may not be readily recognizable by the public, shall be
accompanied by an educational plaque which is to remain in place for at
least 3 years after initial installation. Advisory messages and speed
plates may also be used to supplement these signs. The appropriate
color is yellow background with black symbol and border. This
information is included as a new section 8B-11 to the MUTCD.
Since the decision for a State or local highway jurisdiction to use
this sign is optional, no additional costs are imposed.
Request II-138(C)--Stop Sign Placement
The FHWA received 21 out of 30 comments in agreement with the 50
feet maximum placement distance for intersection Stop Signs as shown in
Figure 2-2. Nine of the comments which opposed the 50 feet maximum felt
that more placement flexibility was needed. Although the FHWA believes
that 50 feet is an optimum distance for sign conspicuity reasons, we do
recognize that there may be times when flexibility is needed. It is
important to note that Figure 2.2 is a typical drawing and not a
standard drawing. A typical drawing provides recommended practice for
the design, application, and installation of traffic control devices.
In this specific case, 50 feet is the recommended maximum placement
distance for the Stop Sign unless an engineering study by a State or
local highway agency determines that an increased distance is needed.
MUTCD Section 2A-21 is modified to reflect the flexibility allowed
in this typical drawing. This change will not impose any additional
costs on State or local highway jurisdictions.
Request II-179(C)--Don't Drink and Drive Symbol Sign
The FHWA received requests from concerned citizens including
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to adopt a symbol sign in the
MUTCD to deter the drinking public from driving while intoxicated.
Based on research studies and docket comments, the FHWA does not intend
to include a symbol in the MUTCD. However, State and local highway
agencies do have the option of developing special regulatory word
message signs such as ``Drive Sober'' and other appropriate word
messages as provided in Section 2B-44 of the MUTCD.
The FHWA Office of Research and Development collected comprehension
and recognition data for several variations of symbol signs but found
the word message sign to be better. The FHWA initially proposed to add
the word message ``Drive Sober'' sign into MUTCD section 2B-44 ``Other
Regulatory Signs,'' instead of a symbol sign because it performed very
well in the evaluation study. Its message of ``drive sober'' covers
both drivers under the influence of alcohol and drivers under the
influence of illicit drugs. Based upon the comments we received, there
was wide variation in what the appropriate word message should be for
this sign.
The FHWA received 31 comments in response to this change to the
MUTCD. A total of seventy-seven percent (24 of 31) of the respondents
oppose the use of this sign. Of the 23 percent that support the sign,
12 percent want its use limited or made optional. There were also four
related letters addressed to the Office of Highway Safety regarding a
``Drunk Driving Victim Memorial Sign Program'' that is being tried in
Oregon and Washington. Although the results of this program are not yet
available, these letters imply support of a ``Drive Sober'' sign. The
inclusion of these additional letters change the numbers to 69 percent
(24 of 35) in opposition and 31 percent (11 of 35) in support. The
primary reasons given in the comments for opposing the sign are as
follows:
1. No need for sign,
2. Will encourage vandalism,
3. Costly to install and maintain,
4. It does not regulate, warn or give guidance.
[[Page 1366]]
Request II-193(C)--Logos on Specific Service Signs
This item is more of a clarification rather than a change to the
MUTCD. The FHWA is modifying the language in section 2G-5.2 to clarify
that a business LOGO can be either a business identification symbol,
trademark, or a word message. When a business LOGO is a word message
then it should have a blue background with a white legend and border.
Twenty-one of the 25 comments received agree with this clarification.
This amendment does not impose any additional requirements or costs to
State and local highway jurisdictions.
Request II-194(C)--Recycling Collection Center Sign (I-11)
This amendment adopts a symbol sign for Recycling Collection
Centers (I-11). Since the symbol is already in use and recognized by
the public, the FHWA intends to include this symbol in MUTCD Section
2D-48 for directing motorists to recycling centers. Twenty one of the
26 comments received supported this symbol. These signs should not be
used on freeways and expressways. If used on these facilities, the
recycling center sign is considered as one of the supplemental sign
destinations. Since the decision for a State or local highway
jurisdiction to use this sign is optional, no additional costs are
imposed.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.001
Request II-199(C)--Reclassify Reduced Speed Signs From Regulatory
Series to Warning Series
This request to reclassify the Reduced Speed Signs as a warning
sign rather than regulatory sign is denied. Twenty of the 27 comments
received supported this decision.
All of the speed limit signing series are currently regulatory. The
Reduced Speed Ahead signs perform adequately as regulatory signs. The
commenters indicated, and FHWA agrees, there is not a need to change
this sign from a regulatory sign to a warning sign. The driver is
familiar with the current signing.
Additionally, to change the present signs from black on white to
black on yellow would impose an unnecessary cost burden to the State
and local highway jurisdictions.
Request II-204(C)--Golf Cart Crossing Symbol
The FHWA received a request from both Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
Palm Desert, California, to develop a warning symbol for golf cart
crossings. Palm Desert has also indicated the need to warn motorists to
share the roadway with these slower moving vehicles. There are really
two issues to address in this section: (1) The need for a golf cart
crossing symbol, and (2) The need for a sign to warn motorists to share
the roadway with the slower moving golf carts.
(1) The need for a golf cart crossing symbol:
A total of 73 percent (19 of 26) of the respondents agree that a
standard symbol sign is needed for golf cart crossings. A total of 27
percent (7 of 26) were opposed to a standard symbol sign for golf cart
crossings.
(2) The need for a sign to warn motorists to share the roadway with
the slower moving golf carts:
A total of 42 percent (11 of 26) of the respondents agree that
there may be a need for a sign to warn motorists to share the roadway
with the slower moving golf carts. A total of 58 percent (15 of 26) of
the respondents opposed the use of such a sign because they feel these
golf carts should not be sharing the roadway since they do not meet the
safety requirements of motor vehicles.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 1367]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.002
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
Based on modifications to the conducted research, the FHWA approves
the ``Golf Cart Crossing'' warning symbol sign (W11-11) shown above.
This new warning symbol shall be accompanied by an educational plaque
which is to remain in place for at least 3 years after initial
installation (see MUTCD section 2A-13). This same symbol may also be
used at the State's discretion in those situations where it is
necessary to warn motorists to share the road with golf carts and other
slower-moving forms of transportation, such as bicycles and mopeds.
This amendment does not impose any additional costs on State or local
highway jurisdictions. The ``Share the Road'' sign is addressed in more
detail in Request II-228(C).
Request II-205(C)--Mandatory Turn Sign Alternatives
After further review of this request to allow the mandatory
movement overhead sign (R3-5) to be post-mounted as an alternate to the
mandatory turn word message sign (R3-7), the FHWA has decided not to
approve this application. Although 19 of the 27 comments received
agreed with FHWA's initial position to relax the requirements in this
section of the MUTCD, the FHWA is concerned that the single arrow and
word message ``ONLY'' on a post-mounted R3-5 sign does not adequately
indicate to the motorist the applicable lanes for the required
movement. Eight of the 27 comments received also expressed this
concern. The FHWA is also concerned about the increased cost associated
with the need for higher sign posts and additional warning panels.
Therefore, this request for change to the MUTCD is denied.
Request II-209(C)--Signs for the Disabled
The signs for two types of facilities designated for persons with
disabilities were considered in this request: (1) The sign for ``Van
Accessible'' parking and (2) the sign for telephone facilities
accessible to the hearing impaired.
The MUTCD section 2B-31 is amended to add a ``Van Accessible'' sign
(R7-8a) for placement below the Reserved Parking sign (R7-8) where
parking spaces are designed to accommodate wheelchair-accessible vans.
The ``Van Accessible'' sign should have green legend on a white
background or the same colors as any alternate design used for R7-8. If
used as a guide sign, the ``Van Accessible'' sign should have white
legend on a blue background and include a directional arrow. Twenty-one
of the twenty-eight comments supported this amendment. Since use of the
sign is optional for State or local highway jurisdictions, no
additional costs are imposed.
The request to add to the MUTCD the special hearing impaired
telephone symbols for text telephones and for assistive listening
systems is denied. Sixteen of the twenty-eight comments received
opposed the use of this signing. Most comments expressed concern
regarding the types of signs and many comments indicated that other
adequate types of signs and information are available for these
accessible facilities. Also these facilities increasingly are being
provided at many public facilities and through mobile telephone. The
road user's misunderstanding of the symbol and the proliferation of
signs were also concerns discussed in the comments.
Request II-211(C)--Non-Carrier Airport Symbol
This request to adopt a new symbol sign to distinguish non-carrier
airports is denied. Although the FHWA is not adopting a new symbol,
provisions are contained in MUTCD section 2D-48 for distinguishing
between different types of transportation facilities. They provide for
the use of a supplemental plaque with the specific name of the
facility.
The text in MUTCD section 2D-48 is expanded to specifically address
airport signing. The text indicates that supplemental plaques with the
name of the airport may be used below the current airport symbol sign
(I-5). The addition of the airport name to the guide sign provides
specific and commonly used destination information which the motorist
can readily associate with their destination and type of airport
service available, including commercial and/or non-carrier services.
Eighteen of the twenty-five comments received agreed with this FHWA
position.
Request II-212(C)--Increased Letter Size of Street Name Signs
The section 2D-39 of the MUTCD is modified to increase the
recommended letter sizes for street name signs to a minimum of 6 inch
uppercase letters, 4\1/2\ inch lowercase letters, and 3 inch letters
for street abbreviations or city sections (e.g., Avenue, Road, NW.).
However, for local roads with speed limits 25 mph or less, the existing
MUTCD language is modified to provide an option for the continued use
of a minimum 4 inch uppercase letter size with 2 inch lowercase letters
for street abbreviations or city sections. All street name signs are
required to be retroreflective.
Twenty-seven of the forty comments agreed with the proposed
changes. However, many of these and of the opposing comments indicated
that for roads with low volume and low speeds, the current letter sizes
are adequate. The 4-inch option was added in response to these concerns
and because it reduces associated costs of installing larger sign
posts.
[[Page 1368]]
Since the recommended change from 4 inch to 6 inch letter size may
impose some additional costs on State and local jurisdictions, the FHWA
is establishing a compliance date for the installation of street name
signs. The compliance date is 15 years after the issue date of this
final rule or as signs are replaced within the 15 year period. This
will allow replacement after a normal service life of the signs.
Request II-214(C)--Golf Course Recreational Area
This request to include a symbol sign for guiding motorists to golf
courses is denied. Although 13 of the 24 comments supported the use of
a symbol, the type of symbols recommended varied widely in design. The
comments opposing the use of a symbol, including those from States with
many golf courses, indicated that word messages such as ``Public Golf
Course'' or the golf course name are more effective for the guide
signs. Comments also indicated concerns regarding sign proliferation
particularly associated with a seasonal or low traffic generating
facility.
Request II-215(C)--Regulatory and Street Name Signs on Same Post
This amendment to the MUTCD allows the option of installing
regulatory and street name signs on the same sign post. Twenty-three of
the twenty-seven comments supported this amendment since its use may
simplify the sign installation process and improve motorist guidance
information. Two of the four commenters who opposed adoption agree with
the concept, but disagree with the requirement for vertical separation
of 6 inches. The purpose of vertical separation is to ensure that the
shape of the sign, particularly the STOP sign, is recognized by
motorists.
Sections 2B and 2D are changed to allow this alternate application.
Vertical separation of the signs is not required as long as the shape
of the signs are not compromised. This amendment does not impose any
additional requirements or costs to State and local highway
jurisdictions.
Request II-218(C)--Reduce Number of Panels Shown on Directional
Assemblies
This amendment to reduce the amount of information displayed on
directional assemblies by displaying only one route shield and route
number with appropriate cardinal directions and arrows is denied.
Experience and performance history indicate that the present system
performs well and the public understands it. Although 16 of the 25
comments supported the concept of reducing the amount of information
displayed, many expressed concern that the proposed assembly method may
be confusing.
Request II-224(C)--Cellular Phone Sign for Emergency Situations
The proposed cellular phone symbol sign for use in emergency
situations is denied. However, the FHWA will conduct further research
and will consider other alternates for a symbol including those
submitted in the docket responses. The FHWA received a total of 24
comments in response to this proposal. Many of the 21 comments in
agreement with the proposal expressed concern that this particular
symbol was confusing. Although they agreed with the concept of a sign
to inform the motorist how to dial for emergency assistance, they
recommended a word message sign instead of the symbol.
Until an appropriate symbol is developed through research, the FHWA
recommends using a word message sign similar to the standard D12-3
sign. The sign would read, ``Emergency Dial----'' along with the
appropriate number to dial. MUTCD section 2D-45 is revised to reflect
this change. This amendment will not impose any additional requirement
or costs on State and local highway jurisdictions.
Request II-225(C)--Local Transit Logo and Carpool Symbol
This amendment increases the maximum vertical dimension of transit
system logos on Park and Ride signs to 36 inches for freeways and
expressways. All 25 of the comments received supported this change. The
larger signs will provide greater legibility on high speed facilities
such as freeway and expressways and sections 2D and 2E are revised
accordingly. This amendment will not impose any additional requirements
or costs on State and local highway jurisdictions.
Request II-226(C)--General Motorist Service Signing for Alternative
Fuels
The FHWA revises MUTCD sections 2D-45 and 2F-33 to include within
the current ``GAS'' category for general services the use of word
message alternative fuel designations for compressed natural gas (CNG)
and electric vehicle (EV) charging. As an option, the D9-11 symbol sign
may be used with the appropriate letter abbreviations substituted for
the appropriate alternative fuel. The FHWA will conduct research on an
appropriate symbol sign for electric vehicle charging.
Twenty-one of the thirty comments received agreed that signing for
alternative fuels is needed. With the increasing number of vehicles
using alternative fuels in response to the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, consideration of additional signs to provide availability
information to the motorist has merit. This change allows States and
local highway agencies to place signs for whatever alternative fuels
are available at various locations. Since the decision for a State or
local highway jurisdiction to use this sign is optional, no additional
costs are imposed.
Request II-228(C)--Share the Road Warning Signs
This amendment to the MUTCD adds a new section 2C-39 to include a
discussion regarding the ``Share the Road'' word message sign (W16-1)
which may be used with the farm machinery symbol (W11-5), the bicycle
symbol (W11-1), and other appropriate symbol signs where a need exists
to warn drivers to share the road with other modes of roadway
transportation. The ``Share the Road'' sign shall have a yellow
background with black message and shall be rectangular as shown below.
This amendment also adopts an updated version of the farm machinery
symbol also shown below (W11-5a). This symbol may be used as an
alternate to the W11-5 symbol currently shown in the MUTCD. The FHWA
conducted research on the ``Share the Road with Farm Equipment'' sign
and, based on the results of the study, found that the adopted sign's
meaning comprehension rate was 92 percent and its action comprehension
rate was 100 percent. The results indicated that almost all drivers
were aware of the meaning the sign conveyed and the appropriate action
to be taken.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 1369]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.003
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
There were 49 comments received of which 38 agreed with the FHWA
position, 10 opposed and one was undecided. This amendment does not
impose any additional requirements or costs on State and local highway
jurisdictions.
Request II-229(C)--General Service Sign for Truck Parking
This amendment to MUTCD section 2D-45 and 2F-33 permits the word
message ``Truck Parking'' to be included on General Motorist Service
Signs. Twenty-five of the twenty-eight comments received agreed with
this concept and indicated that they would like a symbol sign for truck
parking. The FHWA intends to conduct a research evaluation to develop
an appropriate symbol for truck parking. In the interim, State and
local highway agencies have the option of using the word message
``Truck Parking'' sign (D9-15) in conjunction with other general
motorist service information signs. The word message ``Truck Parking''
should be placed on a panel below the other general motorist services.
This change does not impose any additional requirements or costs on
State and local highway jurisdictions.
Request II-241(C)--Overhead Guide Sign Arrows
This request to improve overhead guide signs by using consistent
directional arrows which point upwards and which indicate if the
roadway turns left or right is denied. Nineteen of the thirty comments
received opposed this request. Eight commenters agreed and three were
undecided.
Upon FHWA's initial observation, this request for change appeared
to have the potential of providing more consistent, timely, and useful
information to the motorist. However, further review suggests a
departure from the established standards would require additional in-
depth research and analysis before making such a significant change. A
change of this nature has the potential of imposing extreme burden and
additional costs to the States. Therefore, the FHWA is denying this
request due to the absence of further data to substantiate the change.
Experience and history in the use of the arrows indicate no adverse
problems.
Request II-246(C)--Adopt-A-Highway Signs
This request to include a standard sign in the MUTCD for ``Adopt-A-
Highway'' programs is denied because of the wide variances in the
suggested size of signs, the background and letter colors, the lateral
placement, and the frequency of placement for these signs. In many
cases, standardizing of these signs would result in adverse local
publicity, decreased participation, and would impose unnecessary cost
burdens on State and local highway jurisdictions. However, because of
the national interest in the Adopt-A-Highway program, the FHWA is
modifying the MUTCD section 2D-48 to include general guidance for
States to follow when establishing this local program.
The FHWA received 35 comments in response to this request to
include standards for the design and placement of ``Adopt-A-Highway''
signs in the MUTCD. Twenty-two of the comments agreed with the idea of
having standards but many of those who agreed were not consistent in
their recommended design and placement standards. Thirteen of the
thirty-five comments opposed the idea of standards. Fifty percent of
those opposing were State highway agencies.
Request III-54(C)--Variation of Line Width and Spacing for
Crosswalks
This request to increase the maximum spacing for crosswalks from 24
inches to 48 inches with a maximum spacing not to exceed twice the line
width is denied. The FHWA received 29 comments to this docket, of which
18 were in agreement with FHWA's position. Eleven of the eighteen were
State highway agencies and two were cities.
The FHWA considers the current maximum longitudinal spacing of 24
inches adequate in that the crossing area is highly visible and
recognizable both for the motorist and for the pedestrian. In addition,
the FHWA has no record of any operational problems related to the
standard 24-inch maximum spacing. Since the FHWA has no statistical
data to show that the proposed 48-inch maximum spacing would not
adversely affect visibility, we hesitate to change the MUTCD without
evaluation data which supports the design safety of the proposed
crosswalk configuration. Therefore, this request is denied.
[[Page 1370]]
Request III-68(C)--Lane Drop Marking Pattern
This approved amendment to the MUTCD adds lane drop marking
patterns to section 3A-6 which describes widths and patterns of
longitudinal lines. Since lane drop markings are already described in
the fourth paragraph of MUTCD section 3B-11, it is appropriate to
include a discussion in section 3A-6. This amendment also changes the
term ``special marking'' as used in section 3B-11 to ``lane drop
marking.'' In addition, the lane drop marking is not restricted to
interchange ramps but is also available for use with mandatory lane
drops on arterial streets and highways. Twenty-four of the twenty-six
comments received agreed with this change.
This change does not impose any additional requirements or costs on
State and local highway jurisdictions but instead furthers consistency
and clarity in traffic control and operations.
Request IV-47(C)--Use of Steady and Flashing Downward Yellow Arrows
in Lane Control Signals
This approved amendment to the MUTCD allows lane control signals to
be darkened on non-reversible freeway lanes. The FHWA also is denying
further experimentation with the flashing and steady DOWNWARD YELLOW
ARROW because the Minnesota evaluation report found that the
experimental YELLOW ARROW was not understood by motorists. The FHWA
received a total of 22 comments in response to this change to the
MUTCD. Four of the comments disagreed with FHWA's recommendation to
darken signals because it may imply that a signal is not functioning.
The FHWA does not believe that this will create a problem since other
special types of signals such as ramp metering signals are currently
allowed to be darkened when not in use and there have been no
identified problems with this practice.
This change does not impose any additional costs on State and local
highway jurisdictions but will encourage uniformity of traffic control
devices.
Request IV-95(C)--Intersection Control Beacons
This approved amendment to MUTCD section 4E-3, Intersection Control
Beacons, involves two separate issues. The first amendment requires a
beacon on each intersection approach that is controlled by a ``RED''
Intersection Control Beacon. Although the original request for change
suggested two beacons, the FHWA believes that in the majority of
situations, one beacon would provide adequate visibility. Twenty-one of
the twenty-three comments received agreed with the FHWA position.
However, section 4E-3 currently allows for the use of a supplemental
beacon if needed.
The second issue involves mandatory use of a STOP sign in
conjunction with a red intersection control beacon. The FHWA received
no adverse comments to this request for change. Therefore, the next to
last paragraph in section 4E-3 is modified to require a STOP sign in
conjunction with a flashing red intersection control beacon.
This amendment does not impose any significant increase in costs on
State and local highway jurisdictions.
Request IV-118(C )--Relocate Section 4C, Signal Warrants
This amendment redesignates the MUTCD section 4C, Warrants for
Traffic Signals, as the new section 4B, and the current section 4B,
Traffic Control Signals, as the new section 4C. This transposition
allows the MUTCD users to determine, firstly, if a signal is warranted
and, secondly, to read the description for signal design and
application.
The FHWA received a total of 24 comments in response to this change
to the MUTCD. All but one of the comments agreed to transposing
sections 4B and 4C.
This change does not impose any additional costs on State and local
highway jurisdictions.
Request IV-122(C )--Disabled Pedestrians
This request included two items. The first item included in this
request was the concept of allowing a second signal button that permits
additional time for slow walking pedestrians to cross the roadway.
There is nothing currently in the MUTCD to prevent highway agencies
from extending the pedestrian crossing interval in areas of
demonstrated need. Therefore this request is denied. Twenty-one of the
twenty-seven comments received were opposed to this concept of a second
signal button. Some of the other major concerns expressed with the
installation of the second button are the following:
1. The MUTCD already allows a highway agency to establish
pedestrian signal timing to accommodate the needs of the user at the
specific location.
2. The second button would just be another button for all
pedestrians to push and then the signal would likely be using the
longer timing every cycle.
3. Intermittent, longer, pedestrian clearance intervals may
jeopardize coordination flow.
The second request was to allow the installation of pedestrian
detectors that are easily activated for pedestrians with physical
disabilities. There were no adverse comments addressing this issue. The
FHWA adopts this recommendation and is including it as an option in
MUTCD section 4B-29.
This change which allows the option of installing easily activated
pedestrian detectors for persons with physical disabilities does not
impose any additional costs on State and local highway jurisdictions.
Request IV-124(C)--Educational Plaque for Pedestrian Signals
This amendment will allow the use of an educational plaque that can
be used in conjunction with pedestrian signal indications. The FHWA is
adopting the use of this optional educational plaque where both symbol-
type and word message pedestrian signal indications are used.
A total of 27 of the 30 comments received agreed with the use of
the educational plaque. The wording of the plaque shown in the notice
of proposed rulemaking has been slightly modified to reflect the
following comments:
1. After the wording DONT START use FINISH CROSSING IF STARTED.
2. Pedestrians should be aware of all vehicles, not just turning
cars.
3. The highlighted flashing hand symbol is more easily understood.
4. All intersections do not have marked crosswalks.
5. Eliminate the wording WAIT ON CURB because all intersections do
not have curbs.
6. Many intersections in the United States do not have push buttons
for operating signals and, therefore, the bottom section of the sign
with the caption ``TO CROSS. . .PUSH BUTTON'' should be made optional.
7. Since both symbols and word messages are allowed for pedestrian
signal indications, two plaque designs are necessary.
This change will not impose any additional costs on States and
local jurisdictions.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 1371]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.004
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
Note: Word message (R10-3c) may be used in place of WALK/DON'T
WALK symbol.
Request VI-88(C)--Emergency Flashers
This amendment to the MUTCD allows the use of vehicle hazard
warning signals to supplement rotating dome or strobe lights as
flashing identification beacons.
The intent of the original request was to allow the use of
emergency flashers (vehicle hazard warning signals) or rotating domes
and strobe lights on maintenance vehicles.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FHWA originally proposed
to allow the use of emergency flashers on maintenance vehicles during
normal daytime maintenance operations without addressing the issue of
rotating domes and strobe lights.
From a review of the comments, the intent of the amendment as
originally stated in the NPRM was evidently not clear. The FHWA
received a total of 26 comments in response to this change to the
MUTCD. Eleven comments agreed, eight opposed and seven suggested use as
a supplement. Some respondents viewed it as allowing vehicle hazard
warning signals to be used in lieu of rotating domes and strobe lights.
Other commenters viewed the amendment as allowing them to be used in
addition to rotating domes and strobe lights.
The FHWA believes it may bolster motorists'' safety if the
difference in what the motorist expects between seeing a disabled
vehicle or from seeing a work area is preserved. Therefore, the FHWA
adopts the optional use of vehicular hazard warning signals as a
supplement to rotating domes or strobe lights and MUTCD section 6F-7c
is changed accordingly.
This change does not impose any additional costs on State and local
jurisdictions but encourages uniformity of traffic control devices.
Request VII-2(C)--School Bus Stop Ahead Symbol Sign
This request to adopt the School Bus Stop Ahead symbol sign
submitted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation is denied.
This symbol did not perform well in the FHWA research study. In
addition, 23 of the 30 comments in response to this request were either
opposed or indicated that further study is needed to define a more
appropriate symbol.
This request is denied but FHWA will conduct further research and
will consider other alternates for a symbol including those submitted
by respondents.
Request VIII-26(C)--Maximum Flash Rate at Railroad Highway Grade
Crossings
This approved amendment increases the maximum flash rate from 55 to
65 flashes per minute. This will make the AAR Signal Manual of
Recommended Practices, the Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Handbook,
and the MUTCD all compatible with one another. In addition, this
amendment is compatible with research and standard practices.
All 27 of the comments received were in support of this amendment.
This change imposes no additional costs on State and local highway
jurisdictions but will encourage uniformity of traffic control devices.
Request VIII-29(C)--Symbol for Railroad Advance Warning Sign
The request to replace the standard round Railroad Advance Warning
Sign(W10-1) with a diamond-shaped sign is denied. The W10-1 sign is
intentionally unique from other warning signs and is intended to convey
to motorists the special attention they need to apply when approaching
a railroad highway grade crossing.
All but one of the twenty-nine comments supported the FHWA
position.
Request VIII-30(C)--Symbol for Number of Tracks Sign
The request to replace the word message ``Tracks'' in the standard
Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2) with a symbol showing railroad tracks is
denied.
Twenty-six of the twenty-seven comments received were in support of
denying this amendment because the current sign is well understood and
the proposed sign offered no proven benefit.
[[Page 1372]]
Request VIII-36(C)--Signs and Markings for No Lane Change Zones at
Railroad Crossings
The request to require pavement markings at railroad-highway grade
crossings to prohibit vehicle lane changing on the tracks when there
are two or more lanes in one direction is denied. All 26 comments
received supported the FHWA recommendation that this request not be
adopted.
No-passing markings continue to be required on 2-lane, 2-way
roadways approaching railroad-highway grade crossings as discussed in
Section 8B-4 of the MUTCD. The MUTCD already contains provisions for
pavement markings and signing where an engineering study determines a
need to prohibit lane change movements in the vicinity of multi-lane
approaches to railroad highway grade crossings.
Request VIII-37(C)--Fast Train Signs
This request to develop a warning sign and warrants for its use on
approaches to high speed (80 to 110 mph) rail crossings that may or may
not be equipped with automatic warning devices is deferred. Warrants
are a set of criteria that can be used to define the relative need for
and appropriateness of traffic signs. Of the 27 comments received for
this request, 14 supported and 13 opposed its adoption. There was
little consensus on the message to be used on the sign although several
of the respondents suggested a succinct message, such as ``HIGH SPEED
TRAINS'' or ``FAST TRAIN.'' Several of those supporting this request
suggested that it be republished when more specific information on the
size, shape, and warrants for the sign are developed.
The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Technical Committee of the
NCUTCD is currently developing a proposal on the shape, message, and
warrants for use of this sign. The FHWA believes that the information
in this NCUTCD proposal will provide more substantive data upon which
to evaluate this request. This request will be published with
additional information in a future notice of proposed rulemaking which
will provide another opportunity for the public to review and comment.
Request VIII-38(C)--Supplementary Plaques on STOP and YIELD Signs Used
at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
The request to permit the use of a supplementary plaque with STOP
or YIELD Signs at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings to indicate the
number of tracks or to WATCH FOR SECOND TRAIN is deferred. The proposal
to include the number of tracks sign under the STOP or YIELD sign,
received 27 comments of which 17 supported, 8 opposed, and 2 were
undecided. A number of those supporting this proposal requested that
the number of tracks sign be black and yellow rather than red and white
as proposed.
The proposal to include the supplemental plaque message ``WATCH FOR
SECOND TRAIN,'' received 27 comments of which 9 supported, 16 opposed,
and 2 were undecided. Many of those opposed expressed concern that such
a long message would detract from the purpose of the STOP or YIELD
sign.
The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Technical Committee of the
NCUTCD is currently evaluating this proposal concerning the color and
message length of this sign. The FHWA believes that the information
provided in this NCUTCD proposal will provide more substantive data
upon which to evaluate this request. This request will be published
with this additional information in a future notice of proposed
rulemaking which will provide another opportunity for the public to
review and comment.
Request VIII-39(C)--Warrants for Warning Devices at Railroad-
Highway Grade Crossings With High-Speed Train Operations
This request to include recommended warrants for use of warning
devices at railroad crossings hosting high speed trains (80 to 110 mph)
is deferred. There were 26 comments received of which 23 supported, 2
opposed and 1 was undecided. The two that opposed adoption felt that
warrants for warning devices at railroad-highway grade crossings should
be the same whether or not high-speed trains were involved. None of the
26 comments suggested specific warrants to be used. Until specific
warrants can be developed this request is deferred.
The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Technical Committee of the
NCUTCD is currently addressing this issue of warrants for warning
devices. The FHWA believes that the information developed by the NCUTCD
will provide more substantive data upon which to evaluate this request.
This request will be published with proposed warrants in a future
notice of proposed rulemaking which will provide another opportunity
for the public to review and comment.
Request VIII-40(C)--Placement of the Crossing Identification Number
Tag
The request to include in Part VIII standards for the design and
placement of the U.S. DOT/AAR National Rail-Highway Crossing Inventory
number plate is deferred. There were 23 comments received of which 18
supported, 3 opposed, and 2 were undecided. The 3 that opposed this
request expressed the opinion that this number plate is not a traffic
control device and does not belong in the MUTCD.
The FHWA number plate can provide valuable information to identify
a specific crossing to authorities in an emergency situation (i.e.
stalled vehicle on tracks), and the number should be displayed in a
prominent and consistent location at all railroad-highway grade
crossings. Since this identification plate is displayed on railroad
right-of-way, its location should be agreed to by the railroads, FRA,
and the FHWA. Until the placement issue is resolved this request is
deferred. This request will be published with proposed location of the
number plate in a future notice of proposed rulemaking which will
provide another opportunity for the public to review and comment.
Request IX-6(I)--Marking Hazardous Bicycle Conditions
The language in MUTCD section 9C-6 is modified to clarify that
object markers as discussed in this section, not only apply to bicycle
trails which are exclusively for bicycles but to any roadway open to
bicycle travel. Twenty-one of the twenty-three comments agreed with
this change. This change is editorial and does not impose any
additional costs to the State and local jurisdictions.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. Most of the changes in this
notice provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional
applications for traffic control devices. The FHWA expects that
application uniformity will improve at little additional expense to
public agencies or the motoring public. Therefore, a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
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. This final rule
adds some alternative
[[Page 1373]]
traffic control devices and only a very limited number of new or
changed requirements. Most of the changes are expanded guidance and
clarification information. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA hereby
certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The MUTCD is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, which requires
that changes to the national standards issued by the FHWA shall be
adopted by the States or other Federal agencies within two years of
issuance. These 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. To the extent that these amendments override any existing
State requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the
interests of national uniformity.
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
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, and Traffic regulations.
The FHWA hereby amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 655 as set forth below.
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 109(d), 114(a), 135, 217,
307, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32 and; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets
and Highways [Amended]
2. In Sec. 655.601, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose.
* * * * *
(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), FHWA, 1988, including revision No.1 dated January 17,
1990, Revision No. 2 dated March 17, 1992, Revision No. 3 dated
September 3, 1993, Errata No. 1 to the 1988 MUTCD Revision 3, dated
November 1994, Revision No. 4 dated November 1, 1994, and Revision No.
5 dated December 24, 1996. This publication is incorporated by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is
on file at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. The 1988 MUTCD, including
Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993, may be purchased from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, Stock No. 650-001-00001-0.
The amendments to the MUTCD titled, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 1,''
dated January 17, 1990, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 2'' dated March 17,
1992, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 3,'' dated September 3, 1993, ``1988
MUTCD Errata No. 1 to Revision No. 3,'' dated November 1994, ``1988
MUTCD Revision No. 4,'' dated November 1, 1994, and ``1988 MUTCD
Revision No. 5,'' dated December 24, 1996 are available from the
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Safety, HHS-10, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. These documents are
available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7,
apppendix D.
* * * * *
Issued on: December 24, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-196 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P