[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