[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31008-31037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14310]




[[Page 31007]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





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; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 112 / Monday, June 12, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules   
[[Page 31008]] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. 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: Notice of proposed amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices (MUTCD); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, 
subpart F, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control 
on all public roads. After the current 1988 Edition of the MUTCD was 
published, a decision was made by the FHWA on January 6, 1988, at 53 FR 
236, to postpone rulemaking on all requests for revisions to the MUTCD 
except those changes which would signficantly impact safety. The FHWA 
announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD on January 10, 
1992, at 57 FR 1134. This effort is still underway and as work 
progresses, many changes and modifications are being identified. The 
FHWA is inviting comments on proposed changes which have been received 
to date. As other changes are received, they will be published in a 
future rulemaking. These changes affect various parts of the MUTCD and 
are intended to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety 
and traffic control device application, and provide a clearer 
understanding of the principles contained in the MUTCD.

DATES: Submit comments on or before September 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 95-8, 
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments received will be available for 
examination at the above address between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., 
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. Those desiring 
notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this notice 
of proposed amendments or a copy of the proposed text contact Mr. 
Ernest Huckaby, Office of Highway Safety, (202) 366-9064, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Room 3419, 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 is available for inspection and 
copying as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7, appendix D. It may be purchased 
for $44.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, Stock No. 050-001-00308-2.
    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 notice is being issued to provide an opportunity to comment on 
the desirability of proposed amendments to the MUTCD. Based on comments 
submitted in response to this notice and upon its own experience, the 
FHWA will issue a final rule concerning these requests.

Index of Requests

General Provisions (Part I)

    (1) Request I-10(C)--Standardization of Traffic Control Devices on 
Private Property.
    (2) Request I-12(C)--Add New Highway Classification for Special 
Purpose Roads.

Signs (Part II)

    (3) Request II-118(C)--Standard Motorcycle Warning Sign.
    (4) Request II-120(C)--Standard Warning Sign for Substandard 
Vertical Curves Over Railroad Crossing.
    (5) Request II-138(C)--Stop Sign Placement.
    (6) Request II-179(C)--Don't Drink and Drive Symbol Sign.
    (7) Request II-193(C)--Logos on Specific Service Signs.
    (8) Request II-194(C)--Recycling Collection Center Sign.
    (9) Request II-199(C)--Reclassify Reduced Speed Signs from 
Regulatory to Warning.
    (10) Request II-204(C)--Golf Cart Crossing Symbol.
    (11) Request II-205(C)--Mandatory Turn Sign Alternatives.
    (12) Request II-209(C)--Signing for the Disabled.
    (13) Request II-211(C)--Non-Carrier Airport Symbol.
    (14) Request II-212(C)--Increased Letter Size of Street Name Signs.
    (15) Request II-214(C)--Golf Course Recreational Area Symbol.
    (16) Request II-215(C)--Regulatory and Street Name Signs on Same 
Post.
    (17) Request II-218(C)--Reduce Number of Panels Shown on 
Directional Assemblies.
    (18) Request II-224(C)--Cellular Phone Signing for Emergency 
Situations.
    (19) Request II-225(C)--Local Transit Logo and Carpool Symbol.
    (20) Request II-226(C)--General Motorist Service Signing for 
Alternative Fuels.
    (21) Request II-228(C)--``Share The Road'' Warning Signs.
    (22) Request II-229(C)--General Service Sign (Truck Parking 
Symbol).
    (23) Request II-241(C)--Overhead Guide Sign Arrows.
    (24) Request II-246(C)--Adopt-a-Highway Signs.

Markings (Part III)

    (25) Request III-54(C)--Variation of Line Width and Spacing for 
Crosswalks.
    (26) Request III-68(C)--Lane Drop Marking Pattern.

Signals (Part IV)

    (27) Request IV-47(C)--Use of Steady and Flashing Downward Yellow 
Arrows in Lane Control Signals.
    (28) Request IV-95(C)--Intersection Control Beacon.
    (29) Request IV-118(C)--Relocate MUTCD Section 4C, Signal Warrants.
    (30) Request IV-122(C)--Disabled Pedestrians.
    (31) Request IV-124(C)--Educational Plaque for Pedestrian Signals.

Construction and Maintenance (Part VI)

    (32) Request VI-88(C)--Emergency Flashers

School Areas (Part VII)

    (33) Request VII-2(C)--School Bus Stop Ahead Symbol Sign.

Railroad Crossings (Part VIII)

    (34) Request VIII-26(C)--Maximum Flash Rate at Railroad Highway 
Grade Crossings.
    (35) Request VIII-29(C)--Symbol for Railroad Advance Warning Sign.
    (36) Request VIII-30(C)--Symbol for Number of Tracks Sign.
    (37) Request VIII-36(C)--Signs and Markings for No Lane Change 
Zones at Railroad Crossings.
    (38) Request VIII-37(C)--Fast Train Signs.
    (39) Request VIII-38(C)--Supplementary Plaques on STOP and YIELD 
Signs Used at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings.
    (40) Request VIII-39(C)--Warrants for Warning Devices at Railroad-
Highway Grade Crossings with High Speed Train Operations. 
[[Page 31009]] 
    (41) Request VIII-40(C)--Placement of the Crossing Identification 
Number Tag.

Bicycle Facilities (IX)

    (42) Request IX-6(I)--Marking Hazardous Bicycle Conditions.

Discussion of Requests

    The FHWA proposes to act on the above requests as follows:

General Provisions (Part I)

(1) Request I-10(C)--Standardization of Traffic Control Devices on 
Private Property
    In October 1989, the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) submitted a policy resolution to the 
FHWA recommending that each State be encouraged 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 open to the public 
shall be installed and maintained pursuant to the standards contained 
in the MUTCD.
    The FHWA concurs with and supports the AASHTO resolution because it 
would extend the provisions contained in the MUTCD to all streets and 
highways open to public travel, regardless of ownership. The FHWA 
proposes to add language to MUTCD section 1A-3 encouraging each State 
to adopt section 15-117 of the UVC.
(2) Request I-12(C)--Add New Highway Classification for Special Purpose 
Roads
    An interagency task force comprised of representatives from the 
U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Federal Highway 
Administration conducted a study under the Coordinated Federal Lands 
Highway Technology Implementation Program (CTIP) to examine the MUTCD 
and identify those standards which should be revised to provide more 
reasonable and prudent application standards for roads with very low 
traffic volumes in remote rural areas.
     The major thrust of the proposed change is to add a new highway 
classification to the MUTCD for special purpose roads and a new set of 
standards to address the special signing needs of these low volume, low 
speed roads. The recommendations in the report are to allow 18'' x 18'' 
signs for these special purpose roads. The CTIP committee did not 
define either low speed or low volume. However, the intent of the study 
was to address special purpose roads as defined in the AASHTO Policy on 
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. These roads include 
recreation roads, resource development roads, and local service roads. 
The FHWA solicits comments on this proposal.

Signs (Part II)

(3) Request II-118(C)--Standard Motorcycle Warning Sign
    The American Motorcycle Association requested that the MUTCD be 
amended to include a sign to warn motorcyclists of hazardous road 
conditions. The FHWA conducted an evaluation of seven possible designs 
to warn motorcyclists of grooved pavements, five which incorporated a 
motorcycle symbol with the words ``grooved pavement'' and two which 
used word messages only. Although symbolic signs are usually preferable 
because they can be understood more quickly than words, the motorcycle 
symbol signs in this study did poorly in the motorist comprehension 
test. The evaluation study indicated that this may be because the 
concept is a difficult one to portray based on typical usage of warning 
signs. Generally the hazard of which drivers are warned is portrayed 
within the diamond sign. Many of the test group subjects saw the signs 
as a warning to drivers of ``something'' and motorcycles ahead. An 
example of an incorrect response given was, ``Warning: Grooved Pavement 
and Motorcycles Ahead.''
    Therefore, the FHWA recommends that in areas where road conditions 
may be particularly hazardous for motorcyclists, the State highway 
agencies should develop appropriate word message signs. The FHWA 
recommends using a rectangular warning panel with a word message such 
as ``Motorcycles: Watch for Grooved Pavements.'' Since MUTCD section 
2C-40 already contains provisions which allow the design of warning 
signs for special conditions, the FHWA believes a change to the MUTCD 
is not required.
(4) Request II-120(C)--Standard Warning Signs for Substandard Vertical 
Curves Over Railroad Crossings.
    At certain locations, there is a need to alert drivers, especially 
those that drive vehicles with low under clearance, of differences in 
elevation between an approach roadway and a railroad track bed. Low 
profile vehicles have the potential of getting stalled at these types 
of railroad crossings. This could lead to an accident with a train, or 
at the very least, disrupt traffic. In other instances, motorists could 
possibly lose control of their cars when traversing such crossings 
without sufficient advance warning.
    The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) 
has proposed a new MUTCD section 8B-11, Humped Crossings, which the 
FHWA proposes to include in the next edition of the manual. The NCUTCD 
is also developing an appropriate sign for this special situation. 
After the sign is developed, the FHWA will include both the text and 
the sign in a future notice of proposed rulemaking.
(5) Request II-138(C)--Stop Sign Placement
    The current MUTCD Figure 2-2 shows a typical example for placement 
of Stop Signs at wide throat intersections. This figure represents an 
intersection that usually is designed for heavier than normal volumes 
of long wheelbase vehicles which require larger turning radii. A Stop 
line pavement marking is also shown with the Stop Sign. The Stop Sign 
can be appropriately placed a maximum of 50 feet from the stop line.
    The NCUTCD and the City of Phoenix propose that this maximum 
distance be deleted so that intersections with greater radii are also 
covered.
    The FHWA does not recommend placing the Stop Sign back more than 50 
feet. Placing the Stop Sign at a maximum of 50 feet from the stop line 
keeps the sign well within the driver's cone of vision. Installing it 
back farther may place the sign so far from the stop line and the cross 
street that the intended operation may present confusion to the general 
motorist. Raised or marked islands and/or channelized intersections are 
alternative applications which may be used at these special locations.
(6) Request II-179(C)--Don't Drink and Drive Symbol Sign
    The FHWA has received requests from concerned citizens and Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to include a symbol sign in the MUTCD to 
deter the drinking public from driving while intoxicated. The FHWA 
Office of Research and Development collected recognition and 
comprehension data for several variations of this sign. As a result of 
this research, the FHWA proposes to add the proposed symbol (as shown 
below) into MUTCD section 2B-44 ``Other Regulatory Signs,'' because it 
performed very well in the evaluation study and its message of ``drive 
sober'' covers both drivers under the influence of alcohol and drivers 
under the influence of illicit drugs. As proposed, the sign's legend 
and border would be black, the circle green, and the background white.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31010]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.001



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
[[Page 31011]] (7) Request II-193(C)--Logos on Specific Service Signs
    The NCUTCD has requested that the following sentence in MUTCD 
section 2G-5.2 be deleted: ``Logos should have a blue background with a 
white legend and border.'' Because of the way it is written, it seems 
to control corporate logo designs. It was not the intent of the FHWA to 
control corporate logo designs. The sentence is correct and should not 
be deleted, although the FHWA agrees that it could be more clearly 
written. Therefore, the following additional sentence is proposed: ``A 
business LOGO can be either a business identification symbol/trademark 
or a word message. If the business LOGO is a word message, then it 
should have a blue background with a white legend and border.'' This 
clarification will be included in the MUTCD rewrite effort.
(8) Request II-194(C)--Recycling Collection Center Sign
    The Florida Department of Transportation recommended that the MUTCD 
include a Recycling Collection Center Sign in view of new State laws 
and initiatives to prevent waste and protect the environment. The 
purpose of the sign is to direct motorists to recycling collection 
centers. The recycling symbol suggested by Florida is the one developed 
for use by the Recycled Paperboard Division of the American Paper 
Institute of New York.
    Since this symbol is already in use and recognized by the public, 
the FHWA proposes to include this symbol in MUTCD section 2D-48, 
``General Information Signs.'' These signs should not be used on 
freeways and expressways. If used on these facilities, the recycling 
center sign should be considered as one of the supplemental sign 
destinations.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31012]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.002



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 31013]]

(9) Request II-199(C)--Reclassify Reduced Speed Ahead Sign Series
    Florida's Palm Beach County Department of Engineering and Public 
Works submitted a request to the FHWA to consider reclassifying the R2-
5 series of signs as warning rather than regulatory signs. As presently 
worded, the R2-5 series signs convey an advance warning to motorists 
that there is a change in the regulatory speed limit ahead. Palm Beach 
County's proposed change would make the relationship between the 
``Reduced Speed Ahead'' and ``Speed Limit'' signs similar to the 
relationship between the ``Stop Ahead'' and ``Stop'' signs.
    The FHWA proposes to deny this request since, from a traffic 
operational standpoint, these signs perform adequately as regulatory 
signs. To change the present signs from black on white to black on 
yellow signs would impose an unnecessary cost burden to the State and 
local highway agencies.
(10) 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. The information received from Palm Desert's Public Works 
Department indicates that the golf cart is used in this area as an 
alternate, non-polluting source of transportation. They have indicated 
a need for not only a golf cart crossing symbol but also for a sign to 
warn motorists to share the roadway with these slower moving vehicles.
    The FHWA is conducting a research effort to determine what type of 
signing is appropriate for safely accommodating these special-use 
vehicles along the roadway. The FHWA is also interested in receiving 
public comments and suggestions regarding this proposal.
(11) Request II-205(C)--Mandatory Turn Sign Alternatives
    The FHWA received a request from a citizen in Florida who suggests 
that the Mandatory Movement Sign (R3-5) be optionally permitted as a 
post-mounted sign because the symbol appears to be more understandable 
than the mandatory turn word message sign (R3-7), particularly for 
persons speaking foreign languages.
    The R3-5 symbol sign as discussed in MUTCD section 2B-17 is 
intended for overhead mounting and the R3-7 word message sign is 
intended for post mounting. These mandatory movement signs are included 
in a series of lane use control signs for the purpose of communicating 
lane designation information to the driver. These signs help position 
the motorist in the appropriate lane for the desired traffic movement.
    The FHWA proposes to make the present requirements of the MUTCD 
less restrictive and allow either of the designated overhead and post-
mounted signs to be used interchangeably. Such a change would impose no 
additional financial costs or burden on the State highway agency.
(12) Request II-209(C)--Signing for the Disabled
    On July 26, 1991, the United States Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board published accessibility 
guidelines at 56 FR 35408 (36 CFR part 1191) which require that at 
least one in eight reserved parking spaces for the disabled be designed 
to accommodate vans. These parking spaces are required to be identified 
by a parking sign showing the international symbol of access (wheel-
chair symbol) with a supplemental ``Van Accessible'' sign mounted 
below.
    The MUTCD already contains a standard reserved parking sign (R7-8) 
for the disabled. However, it does not contain any discussion on the 
design and application of the new ``Van Accessible'' sign. Therefore, 
the FHWA proposes to include the ``Van Accessible'' sign as a 
supplement to the standard R7-8 regulatory sign. When used, this word 
message sign should have a white background with black or green legend. 
Reverse background and legend colors may be used as an alternate. Where 
a guide sign is needed to direct motorists to special van-accessible 
parking facilities, the proposed ``Van Accessible'' sign should have a 
white legend on blue background with an appropriate directional arrow.
    The FHWA proposes to add the design dimensions for this sign to the 
Standard Highway Signs Book and to add appropriate text to the MUTCD 
section 2B-31, ``Urban Parking and Stopping Signs.'' The FHWA believes 
that this proposed amendment would impose no significant financial 
burden on State and local highway agencies because the ``Van Accessible 
Sign'' is intended for use only at parking locations where traffic laws 
and statutes apply.
    The accessibility guidelines at 36 CFR part 1191 also contain 
construction requirements for accessible buildings or facilities. The 
guidelines identify facilities and elements thereof which are required 
to be signed as accessible. Buildings required to be accessible shall 
use the international symbol of accessibility as shown in figure (a) 
below. In addition, building requirements are also provided for signing 
facilities which have public text telephones and assistive listening 
systems. The symbol for text telephones is shown in figure (b) and the 
symbol for assistive listening systems is shown in figure (c).

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31014]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.003



[[Page 31015]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.004



[[Page 31016]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.005



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 31017]]

    The FHWA received a request from a citizen to install the telephone 
symbols along the Interstate system to direct motorists to the 
buildings and facilities which are accessible for the hearing impaired. 
The FHWA is soliciting public input as to whether or not this request 
has merit and can be practically implemented. Should such signs be used 
in conjunction with General Service signs and/or Specific Service 
signs, or could they stand alone? Once motorists were directed to the 
appropriate freeway exit, they would still need to be guided to the 
appropriate building or facility. Does a series of confirming sign 
assemblies need to be installed to reassure the traveler that they are 
headed in the right direction? Are the proposed sign designs legible to 
the motorist at high speeds? Will the motorist comprehend the intended 
sign message? What effect will this proposed change have on the local 
level? How is information of this nature currently made available to 
the hearing-impaired community?
    Your response to these questions or any other comments which you 
may be able to provide will help us to reach an appropriate decision 
regarding this request.
(13) Request II-211(C)--Non-Carrier Airport Symbol
    The AASHTO submitted a resolution to the FHWA recommending a new 
symbol sign in the MUTCD to identify non-carrier airports. Non-carrier 
airports are airports which do not provide commercial or scheduled air 
service.
    The MUTCD section 2D-48, ``General Information Signs,'' contains 
provisions for signing routes leading to a transportation facility, 
including a symbol for airports. Rather than adopting a different 
symbol sign for non-carrier airports, the FHWA prefers the use of the 
standard airport symbol (I-5) along with a supplemental plaque to 
indicate the specific name of the non-carrier airport. The FHWA 
believes that this would be easier for the motorist to recognize and 
comprehend as opposed to trying to distinguish the difference between 
two airplane symbols. From a distance and at high speeds, the two 
airplane symbols could appear very similar to the motorist.
    Although the FHWA does not intend to adopt a new symbol sign for 
non-carrier airports, it does propose to include a discussion in the 
MUTCD on these two types of airport signing. When used, these signs 
will be considered supplemental guide signs which are appropriate for 
use on the Interstate, other freeways, and conventional State highways. 
However, adequate trailblazing signs would have to be in place prior to 
installing these airport signs.
(14) Request II-212(C)--Increased Letter Size of Street Name Signs
    The NCUTCD submitted a request to the FHWA to improve the 
visibility of street name signs by increasing the minimum letter size 
from 4 inches to 6 inches. If uppercase and lowercase letters are used, 
then the uppercase letters would be 6 inches with 4\1/2\ inch lowercase 
letters. Abbreviated lettering to indicate the type of street or 
section of city (e.g., Ave., N.W., etc.) would be at least 3 inches 
instead of 2 inches. The NCUTCD also recommends that retroreflectivity 
be required on all street name signs.
    The FHWA recognizes the need to improve sign visibility and 
legibility, particularly for the older driver population. The 
Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report No. 218, 
``Transportation in an Aging Society,'' identified highway and street 
name signs as a major concern for older drivers. The FHWA proposes to 
increase the letter size of signs and include the recommended 
dimensions in MUTCD section 2D-39. Since this proposed amendment would 
impose some additional costs on State and local highway officials, the 
FHWA would establish an implementation period.
(15) Request II-214(C)--Golf Course Recreational Area Symbol
    The Montana Department of Transportation (MTDOT) submitted a 
request to the FHWA to include a symbol in the Recreational and 
Cultural Interest Area Signs (MUTCD section 2H) to direct motorists to 
golf courses. This symbol would be white on a brown background and it 
would be included in the RG or RL series.
    The proposed symbol submitted by the MTDOT and shown below needs to 
be evaluated along with other possible designs to determine if they can 
be safely seen, read, and comprehended by the motorists without 
creating any traffic operational problems. The FHWA is soliciting 
comments on the proposed design. The FHWA is also interested in 
receiving other possible designs for evaluation purposes. The FHWA does 
not have any conclusive evaluation data at this time to make an 
informed decision concerning the proposed sign.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31018]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.006



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 31019]]

(16) Request II-215(C)--Regulatory and Street Name Signs on Same Post.
    The Public Works Department in Cary, North Carolina, submitted a 
request to the FHWA to include the installation of a Street Name Guide 
Sign on the same post with a Regulatory Sign as a standard traffic 
control device application. After reviewing the evaluation report 
submitted by the North Carolina State University's Department of Civil 
Engineering, the FHWA finds that the proposal has merit as an alternate 
application and makes the following recommendations: (1) If the two 
signs are placed on one sign post, the proper location of the 
Regulatory Sign should not be compromised by the Street Name Sign; and 
(2) there should be vertical separation between the top and the bottom 
of both signs. This separation should not be less than 6 inches. This 
would make it clearer to the motorist that these are two distinct signs 
with two distinct messages.
    The FHWA proposes to adopt this arrangement as an alternate 
application since its use may simplify the sign installation process 
and improve motorist guidance information. Since this amendment would 
impose no requirements or additional costs on highway agencies, the 
FHWA believes an implementation period would not be necessary.
(17) Request II-218(C)--Reduce Number of Panels Displayed on 
Directional Assemblies.
    A citizen from Richmond, Virginia, has requested a change to 
directional assembly installations to reduce the amount of information 
displayed. Instead of displaying a route shield and route number for 
each direction of travel, the route marker assembly would display only 
one route shield and route number with appropriate cardinal directions 
and arrows.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31020]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.007



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    [[Page 31021]] The FHWA proposes to adopt this request for change 
as an optional application for use in situations where an engineering 
study determines that motorist confusion would not result. This 
proposal would impose no additional requirements or costs on highway 
agencies; therefore, an implementation period would not be necessary.
(18) Request II-224(C)--Cellular Phone Signing for Emergency 
Situations.
    The Massachusetts Highway Department has submitted a request to 
include a State Police Cellular Phone Sign into the MUTCD. The proposed 
sign (as shown below) contains the standard telephone symbol (D9-1) and 
the standard police sign (D9-14). One of the prerequisites for adopting 
any proposed sign is that the sign message must be uniformly understood 
by motorists and not create traffic safety or operational problems. 
Consideration is given to the sign's target value, conspicuity, and 
legibility. The FHWA is concerned that the antenna shown in the 
proposed sign drawing may not be legible to the motorist at certain 
distances and speeds. The FHWA is also concerned that some motorists 
may not comprehend the sign's intended message.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31022]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.008



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    [[Page 31023]] Therefore, the FHWA recommends using a word message 
sign similar to the standard D12-3 sign. The sign would read, ``Police 
Monitor Cellular Phone'' along with the appropriate number to dial 
(which may vary from region to region). This proposal would impose no 
requirements or additional costs on highway agencies.
(19) Request II-225(C)--Local Transit Logo and Carpool Symbol
    The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) submitted a request 
to the FHWA to allow the maximum vertical dimension of transit system 
logos on Park and Ride Signs to be increased to 36 inches for freeways 
and expressways. Currently, MUTCD section 2D-41 specifies a maximum 
logo size of 18 inches.
    The FHWA concurs in this request. Larger signs provide greater 
legibility on high speed facilities such as freeways and expressways. 
Therefore, the FHWA proposes to change the last sentence in the second 
paragraph of MUTCD section 2D-41 to read, ``The maximum vertical 
dimension of the local transit logo and/or carpool symbol is 36 
inches.'' This amendment would impose no additional requirements or 
costs on highway agencies.
(20) Request II-226(C)--General Motorist Service Signing for 
Alternative Fuels
    The FHWA has received a second request from the TXDOT asking us to 
expand the provisions for General Motorist Services Signs to include an 
additional category of ``Alternative Fuels.'' This signing would 
include the following fuels: propane, compressed natural gas, ethanol, 
and methanol. The TXDOT proposal recommended installing a separate, 
stand-alone service sign dedicated to alternative fuels. This service 
sign would be separate from the conventional general motorist services.
    The FHWA agrees that the increasing number of vehicles using 
alternative fuels (in response to, among other things, the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990) warrants consideration of additional signs 
meant to provide availability information to motorists, particularly on 
freeways. The FHWA solicits public comments and suggestions concerning 
this proposal. The FHWA is also interested in receiving any typical 
application drawings to show how these signs may be installed, if 
adopted.
(21) Request II-228(C)--``Share the Road'' Warning Signs
    A citizen from Rudolph, Ohio, supported by a number of Farm Bureaus 
in the State of Ohio requested that the FHWA improve the standard 
highway farm machinery symbol sign (W11-5) to more accurately depict 
modern farm equipment. In addition, the sign should warn motorists to 
watch for slow moving farm machinery not only crossing the roadway but 
also traveling along the roadway.
    The FHWA agrees that there is a need for a series of signs to warn 
motorist to ``share the road'' with various roadway transportation 
modes. ``Share the road'' signs have been requested for not only farm 
machinery but, also for golf carts and bicycles.
    The FHWA is conducting a research study to develop an appropriate 
sign for these situations. Public comments and suggestions are 
welcomed. Our goal is to find a method of communicating to the driver 
these two related but different warning messages: (1) crossing the 
roadway and (2) traveling along the roadway.
(22) II-229(C)--General Service Sign (Truck Parking Symbol)
    This request from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) 
is to include ``TRUCK PARKING'' as an eligible message which can be 
included on General Service Signs as discussed in MUTCD sections 2D-45, 
2E-37, and 2F-33. This sign is only to be used where public or private 
parking facilities are provided near a freeway or expressway 
interchange.
    The MDOT has experimentally used these signs since 1990 and has 
found the number of illegally parked trucks on shoulders and ramp 
acceleration/deceleration lanes has dropped, with a substantial 
reduction in accidents and fatalities. In addition, truck use of rest 
areas has decreased while use of privately managed truck stops has 
increased.
    While symbol signing is used for other General Service Signs, this 
request is to use the word message ``TRUCK PARKING'' above these 
symbols as shown in the diagram below. The FHWA supports the overall 
concept of this proposal and invites comments on the concept of using 
the word message ``TRUCK PARKING'' with other general service symbol 
signs. We also welcome suggestions for a ``TRUCK PARKING'' symbol.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31024]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.009



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
[[Page 31025]] (23) Request II-241(C)--Overhead Guide Sign Arrows
    The FHWA received a request from a citizen in Hartsdale, New York, 
concerning improving overhead guide signs by using consistent 
directional arrows which point upwards and which indicate if the 
roadway turns to the left or to the right. This suggestion is based on 
the belief that the current downward pointing arrows are misleading and 
confusing to the motorist. In MUTCD sections 2D-8 and 2E-15 downward 
pointing arrows are currently classified as pull-through arrows for the 
purpose of assigning proper lanes for traffic continuing along a 
specified route. However, the citizen sugggests that this intended 
message is neither helpful nor even understood by many motorists.
    The FHWA is considering this request for change, since it has the 
potential to provide more consistent, timely, and useful information to 
the motorist. The FHWA is soliciting comments on the feasibility and 
effect of implementing this proposed change to the MUTCD.
(24) Request II-246(C)--Adopt-A-Highway Signs
    The Adopt-A-Highway Program provides free litter removal to the 
jurisdiction responsible for roadway maintenance in exchange for the 
right to display a small sign recognizing the group removing the 
litter. Since the program's inception in the fall of 1985, at least 34 
States now have implemented Adopt-A-Highway Programs. Some of the 
States using the program limit participation to civic groups, while 
others allow display of commercial messages. There is also a wide 
variance in the size of the recognition signs allowed to be displayed 
within the highway right-of-way, varying from 2 feet by 4 feet to 6 
feet by 12 feet. In addition, the background and letter color of these 
signs varies from State to State. There is also variance in the lateral 
placement and the frequency of placement of these signs.
    The FHWA proposes to include standards for the Adopt-A-Highway sign 
in MUTCD section 2D-48, General Information Signs. We are interested in 
recommendations regarding maximum and minimum sizes, background and 
message colors, and sign placement criteria, including lateral 
placement and frequency of placement.

Markings (Part III)

(25) Request III-54(C)--Variation of Line Width and Spacing for 
Crosswalks
    The Kansas Department of Transportation (KSDOT) and the NCUTCD have 
requested a change to section 3B-18 of the MUTCD. The last paragraph of 
this section of the MUTCD currently states that the longitudinal 
crosswalk lines should be spaced 12 to 24 inches apart. This proposed 
change would increase the maximum spacing from 24 to 48 inches with a 
maximum spacing not to exceed twice the line width.
    Presently, we have no statistical data to show that the proposed 
maximum spacing of 48 inches will not adversely affect visibility. The 
possibility exists that a crosswalk area could end up with only one 
longitudinal marking on a 12-foot roadway. The FHWA agrees that from an 
installation and maintenance standpoint the use of wider spacings is 
more economical. However, the FHWA does not wish to see pedestrian 
safety compromised. The current maximum longitudinal spacing of 24 
inches is so the crossing area will be highly visible and recognizable 
both for the motorist and for the pedestrian.
    The FHWA hesitates to change the MUTCD without evaluation data 
which supports the design safety of the proposed crosswalk 
configuration. Since there are no operational problems relative to the 
standard 24-inch maximum spacing, the FHWA intends to deny this request 
for change.
(26) Request III-68(C)--Lane Drop Marking Pattern.
    The Montgomery County Department of Transportation in Rockville, 
Maryland, has requested that MUTCD section 3A-6 be modified to include 
the lane drop marking pattern since this section of the MUTCD contains 
descriptions for various widths and patterns of longitudinal lines. 
Lane drop marking patterns are currently described in the fourth 
paragraph of MUTCD section 3B-11. Since section 3A-6 describes widths 
and patterns of longitudinal lines, the FHWA agrees that the lane drop 
marking pattern should also be included in this section of the MUTCD.
    Additionally, Montgomery County suggested that the term ``special 
marking'' as used in the fourth paragraph of section 3B-11 should be 
changed to ``lane drop marking'' and that the use of this marking 
pattern should not be restricted to interchange ramps, but should also 
be available for use with mandatory lane drops on arterial streets and 
highways.
    In order to further consistency and clarity in traffic operation 
messages, the FHWA proposes to adopt the above changes to the MUTCD. 
These amendments would impose no additional requirements or costs on 
highway agencies.

Signals (Part IV)

(27) Request IV-47(C)--Use of Steady and Flashing Yellow Arrows in Lane 
Control Signals
    The Minnesota and Texas Departments of Transportation (MNDOT and 
TXDOT) have proposed MUTCD changes to the YELLOW lane-use control 
signal indication used on freeways. The MNDOT also proposed changing 
the MUTCD to allow darkening of lane control signals that are used for 
non-reversible freeway lane operation.
    MUTCD Section 4E-9 provides the following meanings for YELLOW lane-
use control signal indications:
    1. A steady YELLOW X means that a driver should prepare to vacate, 
in a safe manner, the lane over which the signal is located because a 
lane control change is being made. The driver should avoid occupying 
that lane when a steady RED X is displayed.
    2. A flashing YELLOW X over a lane means that a driver is permitted 
to use that lane for a left turn. The driver is cautioned that he may 
be sharing that lane with opposite flow left-turning vehicles.
    The MNDOT identified a need to provide an additional signal message 
when incidents, maintenance activities, or congestion require drivers 
using these reversible lanes to exercise caution. MNDOT conducted an 
experimentation with two new lane use control signal indications:
    1. A steady Downward YELLOW ARROW meaning the same as a steady 
YELLOW X.
    2. A Flashing Downward YELLOW ARROW meaning that a driver is 
permitted to cautiously use the freeway lane over which the signal is 
located.
    The research showed that 84% of the respondents interpreted the 
proposed steady YELLOW ARROW as meaning the driver may use this lane, 
but should use extra caution. The intended meaning should have been the 
same as the steady YELLOW X definition above. The understanding rate 
for the proposed Flashing Downward YELLOW ARROW was 50% which means 
that one-half of the respondents incorrectly interpreted its meaning.
    In order to not mislead drivers, the MNDOT also proposed darkening 
the lane control signals when they were not in operation.
    The TXDOT provided an alternate proposal to keep the MUTCD meanings 
for lane-use control signals and add a new lane control indication--a 
steady [[Page 31026]] Downward YELLOW ARROW. The meaning of this new 
lane control indication would be that the driver can use this lane with 
caution. However, because of the lack of understanding of the Flashing 
and Steady Downward YELLOW ARROWS FHWA does not support this proposed 
change to the MUTCD.
    The FHWA proposes the following:
    1. To revise MUTCD section 4E-12 to allow darkening of lane control 
signals that are used on non-reversible freeway lanes;
    2. To deny the MNDOT's request for change in the MUTCD relative to 
the use of steady and flashing YELLOW ARROW lane control signals;
    3. To deny the TXDOT's request for a change to allow the use of 
steady YELLOW ARROW lane control signals; and
    4. To permit the MNDOT and the TXDOT to conduct further 
experimentation in the use of steady and flashing yellow arrow lane 
control signals.
    The NCUTCD concurs with the FHWA's position. The proposed change to 
allow darkening of lane control signals on non-reversible freeway lanes 
would impose no additional cost on highway agencies.
(28) Request IV-95(C)--Intersection Control Beacons
    The Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army, 
suggested that two beacons and a stop sign should be required on each 
intersection approach controlled by a ``RED'' Intersection Control 
Beacon. An Intersection Control Beacon consists of one or more sections 
of a standard traffic signal head, having flashing CIRCULAR YELLOW or 
CIRCULAR RED indications in each face.
    The FHWA believes that in the majority of situations, one signal 
indication would provide adequate visibility. However, for added 
visibility the first paragraph of section 4E-3 already allows the use 
of supplemental beacons.
    To provide a back-up for the Intersection Control Beacon in the 
event of a bulb burn out, the NCUTCD proposed that a mandatory 
requirement for a STOP sign is necessary. The FHWA agrees, and proposes 
to amend the MUTCD to require a STOP sign as backup for the 
Intersection Control Beacon. This amendment would impose no significant 
increase in costs to highway agencies.
(29) Request IV-118(C)--Relocate Section 4C, Signal Warrants
    The NCUTCD has requested that MUTCD section 4C, ``Warrants for 
Traffic Signals,'' be relocated before section 4B, ``Traffic Control 
Signals.'' This text relocation will allow a user of the MUTCD to 
determine if signals are justified before looking at the text that 
describes signals and their design.
    The FHWA supports this proposed amendment. This amendment would 
impose no additional costs on highway agencies.
(30) Request IV-122(C)--Disabled Pedestrians
    A citizen in Marysville, California, suggested that the MUTCD be 
revised to better address the needs of older and disabled pedestrians. 
It was suggested that pedestrian detectors (usually push button) be 
easily activated for pedestrians with physical disability. It was also 
suggested that a system, known as the ``Turtle Crosswalk'' and 
developed at the University of Alberta, be implemented at intersections 
where pedestrian signals are installed. This system provides a second 
push button that allows additional time for slower walking pedestrians 
to cross the roadway. The second button would only be activated by 
pedestrians needing additional time to cross the roadway.
    The FHWA agrees with this amendment and proposes to add the 
following paragraph after the first paragraph in section 4B-29:
    Pedestrian detectors (push buttons) should be easily activated. At 
signalized intersections with demonstrated need, a second detector with 
instructional signing may be installed to provide additional crossing 
time for slower walking pedestrians.
    This amendment may impose some additional costs on highway 
agencies; therefore, an implementation period would be established.
(31) Request IV-124(C)--Educational Plaque for Pedestrian Signals
    The City of San Buenaventura, California, developed a sign to 
improve pedestrian understanding of the WALK and DONT WALK indications 
at signalized intersections. The sign is proposed to be used at 
locations with either word or symbol pedestrian crossing messages. The 
signs would be installed where at least 10 pedestrians an hour use the 
crosswalk and at other high traffic-generating areas, such as, 
hospitals and schools.
    The FHWA does not feel that the sign should be mandatory at all 
intersections where pedestrian indications are located. The location 
for these signs should be left to engineering judgment. The sign design 
and wording is shown below. Alternative designs or wording are welcome.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31027]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.010



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 31028]]

    The FHWA is soliciting public comments and suggestions concerning 
this proposal.
(32) Request VI-88(C)--Emergency Flashers
    Southern Bell requested that section 6F-7c of Revision 3 to the 
MUTCD be amended to allow the use of emergency flashers on maintenance 
vehicles during normal daytime maintenance operations.
    Southern Bell operates a large number of small service vehicles 
that provide telecommunication services to businesses and residential 
homes. Southern Bell feels that the operation of emergency flashers, in 
addition to rotating domes and strobe lights, are appropriate for these 
vehicles.
    After review of this matter, the FHWA has found no research or 
operational experience that shows emergency flashers create an unsafe 
condition. Accordingly, the FHWA proposes to allow the use of emergency 
flashers on maintenance vehicles during normal daytime maintenance 
operations. This would give public agencies an alternative method for 
displaying flashing beacons.
(33) Request VII-2(C)--School Bus Stop Ahead Symbol Sign
    The North Carolina Department of Transportation has submitted a 
symbol sign for use as an alternate to the ``School Bus Stop Ahead'' 
word messsage sign. The proposed warning sign depicts a bus with the 
extended signal arm with the Stop Sign as shown below.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31029]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.011



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    [[Page 31030]] Since the MUTCD does not contain a symbol for the 
school bus sign, the FHWA proposes to adopt the symbol sign shown above 
and include it as an option in MUTCD section 7B-11. This proposal would 
not impose any additional financial burden on the State and local 
highway agencies.
(34) Request VIII-26(C)--Maximum Flash Rate at Railroad Highway Grade 
Crossings
    This request is from the NCUTCD. The MUTCD currently requires that 
flashing light units at railroad-highway grade crossings shall flash 
alternately. Each incandescent lamp shall flash between a minimum of 35 
and a maximum of 55 flashes per minute. The AAR Signal Manual of 
Recommended Practices has recommended flash rates of 45 minimum and 65 
maximum per minute. The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 
discusses flash rates between a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 65. 
These higher flash rates are supported by research. Some railroads are 
already reportedly using equipment that provides flash rates up to 60 
per minute.
    In order to insure that all three of the above documents are 
compatible, it is recommended that the MUTCD be revised to provide for 
a flash rate of 35 minimum and 65 maximum. This change will impose no 
additional requirements or additional costs. The FHWA supports this 
change.
(35) Request VIII-29(C)--Symbol for Railroad Advance Warning Sign
    This request from a private citizen in Chelterham, Pennsylvania, is 
to replace the standard round Railroad Advance Warning Sign (W10-1) 
with diamond shaped sign(s) as shown below. The rational for this 
change is that the proposed warning signs are similar to other standard 
warning sign ``crossing'' messages as contained in the MUTCD.
    The FHWA is not in favor of this proposal. The round Advance 
Warning 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.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31031]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.012



[[Page 31032]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.013



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 31033]]

(36) Request VIII-30(C)--Symbol for Number of Tracks Sign
    This request from a private citizen in Chelterham, Pennsylvania, is 
to replace the standard Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2) with a symbol 
sign showing tracks instead of the word ``TRACKS.'' The symbol is shown 
below. The purpose stated for this request is to provide better 
understanding of traffic control signs for non-English speaking 
drivers.
    The FHWA proposes to deny this request. The FHWA does not have any 
data to indicate that the standard Number of Tracks Sign is 
misunderstood by drivers.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31034]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.014


BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
[[Page 31035]] (37) Request VIII-36(C)--Signs and Markings for No Lane 
Change Zones at Railroad Crossings
    The FHWA received a request from a private citizen in Pompano 
Beach, Florida, to require markings at railroad-highway grade crossings 
to prohibit vehicle lane changing on the tracks when there are two or 
more lanes in one direction. It was also recommended that longitudinal 
markings be placed 75 feet before a crossing and 75 feet beyond a 
crossing. These markings would designate a ``safety zone'' where no 
lane changing would be permitted.
    The FHWA does not support adopting this as a MUTCD requirement 
because it believes that the implementation of ``no passing zones'' 
should be determined at each specific crossing based on an engineering 
study of that crossing.
(38) Request VIII-37(C)--Fast Train Signs
    This request, from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is 
for the development of a warning sign and warrants for use on 
approaches to high speed rail crossings that may or may not be already 
equipped with automatic warning devices. This warning sign would be a 
yellow diamond or circle and contain a message such as: ``LOOK FOR HIGH 
SPEED TRAINS;'' or ``BEWARE FAST TRAINS.'' A supplemental plaque 
indicating the number of tracks is also proposed. This sign would only 
be used at crossings where high speed trains (80 to 110 mph) operate. 
The FHWA invites comments on the shape, message, and criteria for 
application of this proposed sign.
(39) Request VIII-38(C)--Supplementary Plaques on STOP and YIELD Signs 
Used at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
    This second request from the FRA is to permit the use of a 
supplementary plaque with STOP or YIELD Signs at railroad-highway grade 
crossings. The supplementary plaque would have a red background and 
white lettering with messages such as: 2-TRACKS; or WATCH FOR SECOND 
TRAIN; etc. The FHWA invites comments on the appropriateness of the 
proposed supplementary plaques. The FHWA is concerned that a lengthy 
message will result in a supplemental sign which may detract from the 
regulatory message of STOP or YIELD.
(40) Request VIII-39(C)--Warrants for Warning Devices at Railroad-
Highway Grade Crossings With High Speed Train Operations
    This third request from the FRA is to include in Part VIII of the 
MUTCD recommended application criteria (warrants) for the use of 
warning devices, i.e., signs, active advance warning signs, flashers, 
gates, four-quadrant gates, gates with median barriers, constant 
warning time circuitry and/or means (loops) for vehicle detection at 
crossings hosting high speed trains (80 to 110 mph). The FHWA supports 
this proposal, as it is important that applications be standardized and 
uniform. Highway users should encounter similar warning systems for 
similar railroad-highway grade crossing situations throughout the 
country. The FHWA invites comments on the warrants which should be 
applied for warning devices at railroad-highway grade crossings where 
high speed train operations are present.
(41) Request VIII-40(C)--Placement of the Crossing Identification 
Number Tag
    This fourth request from the FRA is to include in Part VIII of the 
MUTCD the standards for the design and placement of the U.S. DOT/AAR 
National Rail-Highway Crossing Inventory number plate. This proposal 
would specify the sign size, material used, and the location of the 
plate at the crossing. The FHWA supports this proposal for the 
uniformity of location and durability of this tag.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 31036]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP12JN95.015



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

[[Page 31037]]

(42) Request IX-6(I)--Marking Hazardous Bicycle Conditions
    The FHWA received an inquiry from a consulting engineer in Salem, 
Oregon, concerning whether or not the discussion in MUTCD section 9C-6 
and the accompanying figure 9-7 is intended for bicycle facilities 
only. The diagram and discussion apply to any roadway situation where a 
hazardous drain, grate, or any other roadway condition may be hazardous 
to the bicyclist. The FHWA intends to include this clarification in the 
next edition of the MUTCD.

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 
proposed 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 notice of 
proposed rulemaking adds some alternative traffic control devices and 
only a very limited number of new or changed requirements. Most of the 
proposed 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 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. To the extent that these amendmends 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, Traffic regulations.

(23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a), 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32, 655.601, 
655.602, and 655.603; 49 CFR 1.48)

    Issued on: June 1, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-14310 Filed 6-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P