[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1364-1373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-196]



[[Page 1363]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Highway Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



23 CFR Part 655



National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Revision of the Manual 
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 1364]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket 95-8]
RIN 2125-AD57


National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Revision of the 
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices (MUTCD).

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

SUMMARY: This document contains amendments to the MUTCD which have been 
adopted by the FHWA for inclusion therein. The MUTCD is incorporated by 
reference in 23 CFR Part 655, Subpart F and recognized as the national 
standard for traffic control devices on all public roads. The 
amendments affect various parts of the MUTCD and are intended to 
expedite traffic, improve safety and provide a more uniform application 
of highway signs, signals, and markings.

DATES: The final rule is effective January 9, 1997. Incorporation by 
reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Linda L. Brown, Office of 
Highway Safety (202) 366-2192, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 3416, Washington, 
DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MUTCD, 1988 Edition is available for 
inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7, Appendix D. It 
may be purchased for $44 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, 
Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. The purchase of the MUTCD includes the new 
MUTCD Part VI, Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for Street and 
Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Incident Management 
Operation published September 1993.
    The FHWA both receives and initiates requests for amendments to the 
MUTCD. Each request is assigned an identification number which 
indicates by Roman numeral, the organizational part of the MUTCD 
affected and, by Arabic numeral, the order in which the request was 
received. This document contains the disposition of proposed changes 
which were published on June 12, 1995, at 60 FR 31008. Text changes 
required as a result of amendments contained herein will be distributed 
to everyone currently appearing on the FHWA Federal Register mailing 
list and will be published in the next edition of the MUTCD. Those 
wishing to be added to this Federal Register mailing list should write 
to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Safety, HHS-
10, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    The FHWA has reviewed the comments received in response to FHWA 
Docket No. 95-8 and other information related to the MUTCD and these 
proposals. The FHWA is acting on the following requests for change to 
the 1988 edition of the MUTCD. Each action and its basis is summarized 
below:

Request I-10(C)--Standardization of Traffic Control Devices on Private 
Property

    This amendment to the MUTCD adds language to section 1A-3 to 
encourage each State to adopt Section 15-117 of the Uniform Vehicle 
Code (UVC). This section of the UVC states that traffic control devices 
used on private property (e.g. shopping center, business complex or 
sports arena) open to the public shall be installed and maintained 
pursuant to the standards contained in the MUTCD. Although adoption of 
this amendment as a vehicle code is a State decision, we believe that 
it is in the interest of the public's safety that we strongly encourage 
the use of standard traffic control devices on private property open to 
public travel.
    The FHWA received a total of 29 comments in response to this change 
to the MUTCD. Twenty-six comments supported this amendment to extend 
the provisions contained in the MUTCD to all streets and highways open 
to public travel, regardless of ownership. Three of the 29 comments 
opposed including this language in the MUTCD but agreed with the idea 
of encouraging traffic control devices on private property at the 
State's option.
    This change will not impose any additional costs on State and local 
highway jurisdictions but will encourage uniformity of traffic control 
devices.

Request I-12(C)--Add New Highway Classification for Special Purpose 
Roads

    Although 20 of the 28 comments in response to this request were in 
favor of the concept to add a new highway classification and 
appropriate standards to the MUTCD to address the special needs for low 
volume and low speed road signs, most comments indicated that further 
study is needed to define appropriate categories and standards. The 
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) is 
developing proposed text for the MUTCD on traffic control devices for 
low-volume roads.
    The FHWA believes that the information contained in the NCUTCD 
proposal will provide more substantive data. Additional information 
will be published in a future notice of proposed rulemaking and the 
public will be given another opportunity to review and comment. This 
request is deferred until that time.

Request II-118(C)--Standard Motorcycle Warning Sign

    The FHWA conducted research evaluation on seven possible motorcycle 
symbol signs to warn motorcyclists of possible hazardous roadway 
conditions. Since the motorcycle symbols did poorly in the motorist 
comprehension test, the FHWA is not adopting a standard symbol at this 
time. Twenty-two of the 27 people responding to this request agreed 
with this FHWA position. The evaluation results indicated that the 
intended message is difficult to portray. Generally, the motorist is 
used to seeing the hazard for which the driver is being warned shown in 
the sign. Many of the incorrect test responses indicated that the signs 
were warning of a ``hazard'' and the presence of ``motorcycles'' ahead.
    The FHWA will research this concept further and try to develop a 
symbol sign which may be understood by both the motorist and the 
motorcyclist. Meanwhile, the FHWA recommends that the State and local 
highway agencies develop special word message signs as allowed in MUTCD 
section 2C-40 and use existing symbol signs to warn both motorcyclists 
and motorists of specific hazardous roadway conditions.

Request II-120(C)--Standard Warning Sign for Substandard Vertical 
Curves Over Railroad Crossing (W10-5)

    The FHWA is adopting a new advance symbol sign for railroad grade 
crossings where conditions are sufficiently abrupt to create a hang-up 
of long wheelbase vehicles or trailers with low ground clearance. The 
MUTCD already contains provisions for the placement of special word 
message signs where there is a need to give advance notice of special 
hazardous conditions at railroad grade crossings. Based on conducted 
research, the FHWA amends the MUTCD to also

[[Page 1365]]

include the following new warning symbol sign for ``Low Ground 
Clearances'' (W10-5) which may be used at these special locations:

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.000


BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

    This symbol is used by the New York State Department of 
Transportation (NYSDOT) and is similar to the research symbol tested 
and found to be acceptable with the truck driver population. Sometimes 
a change from word messages to symbols requires time for public 
education and transition. New warning and regulatory symbol signs such 
as this that may not be readily recognizable by the public, shall be 
accompanied by an educational plaque which is to remain in place for at 
least 3 years after initial installation. Advisory messages and speed 
plates may also be used to supplement these signs. The appropriate 
color is yellow background with black symbol and border. This 
information is included as a new section 8B-11 to the MUTCD.
    Since the decision for a State or local highway jurisdiction to use 
this sign is optional, no additional costs are imposed.

Request II-138(C)--Stop Sign Placement

    The FHWA received 21 out of 30 comments in agreement with the 50 
feet maximum placement distance for intersection Stop Signs as shown in 
Figure 2-2. Nine of the comments which opposed the 50 feet maximum felt 
that more placement flexibility was needed. Although the FHWA believes 
that 50 feet is an optimum distance for sign conspicuity reasons, we do 
recognize that there may be times when flexibility is needed. It is 
important to note that Figure 2.2 is a typical drawing and not a 
standard drawing. A typical drawing provides recommended practice for 
the design, application, and installation of traffic control devices. 
In this specific case, 50 feet is the recommended maximum placement 
distance for the Stop Sign unless an engineering study by a State or 
local highway agency determines that an increased distance is needed.
    MUTCD Section 2A-21 is modified to reflect the flexibility allowed 
in this typical drawing. This change will not impose any additional 
costs on State or local highway jurisdictions.

Request II-179(C)--Don't Drink and Drive Symbol Sign

    The FHWA received requests from concerned citizens including 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to adopt a symbol sign in the 
MUTCD to deter the drinking public from driving while intoxicated. 
Based on research studies and docket comments, the FHWA does not intend 
to include a symbol in the MUTCD. However, State and local highway 
agencies do have the option of developing special regulatory word 
message signs such as ``Drive Sober'' and other appropriate word 
messages as provided in Section 2B-44 of the MUTCD.
    The FHWA Office of Research and Development collected comprehension 
and recognition data for several variations of symbol signs but found 
the word message sign to be better. The FHWA initially proposed to add 
the word message ``Drive Sober'' sign into MUTCD section 2B-44 ``Other 
Regulatory Signs,'' instead of a symbol sign because it performed very 
well in the evaluation study. Its message of ``drive sober'' covers 
both drivers under the influence of alcohol and drivers under the 
influence of illicit drugs. Based upon the comments we received, there 
was wide variation in what the appropriate word message should be for 
this sign.
    The FHWA received 31 comments in response to this change to the 
MUTCD. A total of seventy-seven percent (24 of 31) of the respondents 
oppose the use of this sign. Of the 23 percent that support the sign, 
12 percent want its use limited or made optional. There were also four 
related letters addressed to the Office of Highway Safety regarding a 
``Drunk Driving Victim Memorial Sign Program'' that is being tried in 
Oregon and Washington. Although the results of this program are not yet 
available, these letters imply support of a ``Drive Sober'' sign. The 
inclusion of these additional letters change the numbers to 69 percent 
(24 of 35) in opposition and 31 percent (11 of 35) in support. The 
primary reasons given in the comments for opposing the sign are as 
follows:
    1. No need for sign,
    2. Will encourage vandalism,
    3. Costly to install and maintain,
    4. It does not regulate, warn or give guidance.

[[Page 1366]]

Request II-193(C)--Logos on Specific Service Signs

    This item is more of a clarification rather than a change to the 
MUTCD. The FHWA is modifying the language in section 2G-5.2 to clarify 
that a business LOGO can be either a business identification symbol, 
trademark, or a word message. When a business LOGO is a word message 
then it should have a blue background with a white legend and border. 
Twenty-one of the 25 comments received agree with this clarification. 
This amendment does not impose any additional requirements or costs to 
State and local highway jurisdictions.

Request II-194(C)--Recycling Collection Center Sign (I-11)

    This amendment adopts a symbol sign for Recycling Collection 
Centers (I-11). Since the symbol is already in use and recognized by 
the public, the FHWA intends to include this symbol in MUTCD Section 
2D-48 for directing motorists to recycling centers. Twenty one of the 
26 comments received supported this symbol. These signs should not be 
used on freeways and expressways. If used on these facilities, the 
recycling center sign is considered as one of the supplemental sign 
destinations. Since the decision for a State or local highway 
jurisdiction to use this sign is optional, no additional costs are 
imposed.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.001


Request II-199(C)--Reclassify Reduced Speed Signs From Regulatory 
Series to Warning Series

    This request to reclassify the Reduced Speed Signs as a warning 
sign rather than regulatory sign is denied. Twenty of the 27 comments 
received supported this decision.
    All of the speed limit signing series are currently regulatory. The 
Reduced Speed Ahead signs perform adequately as regulatory signs. The 
commenters indicated, and FHWA agrees, there is not a need to change 
this sign from a regulatory sign to a warning sign. The driver is 
familiar with the current signing.
    Additionally, to change the present signs from black on white to 
black on yellow would impose an unnecessary cost burden to the State 
and local highway jurisdictions.

Request II-204(C)--Golf Cart Crossing Symbol

    The FHWA received a request from both Virginia Beach, Virginia, and 
Palm Desert, California, to develop a warning symbol for golf cart 
crossings. Palm Desert has also indicated the need to warn motorists to 
share the roadway with these slower moving vehicles. There are really 
two issues to address in this section: (1) The need for a golf cart 
crossing symbol, and (2) The need for a sign to warn motorists to share 
the roadway with the slower moving golf carts.
    (1) The need for a golf cart crossing symbol:
    A total of 73 percent (19 of 26) of the respondents agree that a 
standard symbol sign is needed for golf cart crossings. A total of 27 
percent (7 of 26) were opposed to a standard symbol sign for golf cart 
crossings.
    (2) The need for a sign to warn motorists to share the roadway with 
the slower moving golf carts:
    A total of 42 percent (11 of 26) of the respondents agree that 
there may be a need for a sign to warn motorists to share the roadway 
with the slower moving golf carts. A total of 58 percent (15 of 26) of 
the respondents opposed the use of such a sign because they feel these 
golf carts should not be sharing the roadway since they do not meet the 
safety requirements of motor vehicles.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


[[Page 1367]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.002



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    Based on modifications to the conducted research, the FHWA approves 
the ``Golf Cart Crossing'' warning symbol sign (W11-11) shown above. 
This new warning symbol shall be accompanied by an educational plaque 
which is to remain in place for at least 3 years after initial 
installation (see MUTCD section 2A-13). This same symbol may also be 
used at the State's discretion in those situations where it is 
necessary to warn motorists to share the road with golf carts and other 
slower-moving forms of transportation, such as bicycles and mopeds. 
This amendment does not impose any additional costs on State or local 
highway jurisdictions. The ``Share the Road'' sign is addressed in more 
detail in Request II-228(C).

Request II-205(C)--Mandatory Turn Sign Alternatives

    After further review of this request to allow the mandatory 
movement overhead sign (R3-5) to be post-mounted as an alternate to the 
mandatory turn word message sign (R3-7), the FHWA has decided not to 
approve this application. Although 19 of the 27 comments received 
agreed with FHWA's initial position to relax the requirements in this 
section of the MUTCD, the FHWA is concerned that the single arrow and 
word message ``ONLY'' on a post-mounted R3-5 sign does not adequately 
indicate to the motorist the applicable lanes for the required 
movement. Eight of the 27 comments received also expressed this 
concern. The FHWA is also concerned about the increased cost associated 
with the need for higher sign posts and additional warning panels. 
Therefore, this request for change to the MUTCD is denied.

Request II-209(C)--Signs for the Disabled

    The signs for two types of facilities designated for persons with 
disabilities were considered in this request: (1) The sign for ``Van 
Accessible'' parking and (2) the sign for telephone facilities 
accessible to the hearing impaired.
    The MUTCD section 2B-31 is amended to add a ``Van Accessible'' sign 
(R7-8a) for placement below the Reserved Parking sign (R7-8) where 
parking spaces are designed to accommodate wheelchair-accessible vans. 
The ``Van Accessible'' sign should have green legend on a white 
background or the same colors as any alternate design used for R7-8. If 
used as a guide sign, the ``Van Accessible'' sign should have white 
legend on a blue background and include a directional arrow. Twenty-one 
of the twenty-eight comments supported this amendment. Since use of the 
sign is optional for State or local highway jurisdictions, no 
additional costs are imposed.
    The request to add to the MUTCD the special hearing impaired 
telephone symbols for text telephones and for assistive listening 
systems is denied. Sixteen of the twenty-eight comments received 
opposed the use of this signing. Most comments expressed concern 
regarding the types of signs and many comments indicated that other 
adequate types of signs and information are available for these 
accessible facilities. Also these facilities increasingly are being 
provided at many public facilities and through mobile telephone. The 
road user's misunderstanding of the symbol and the proliferation of 
signs were also concerns discussed in the comments.

Request II-211(C)--Non-Carrier Airport Symbol

    This request to adopt a new symbol sign to distinguish non-carrier 
airports is denied. Although the FHWA is not adopting a new symbol, 
provisions are contained in MUTCD section 2D-48 for distinguishing 
between different types of transportation facilities. They provide for 
the use of a supplemental plaque with the specific name of the 
facility.
    The text in MUTCD section 2D-48 is expanded to specifically address 
airport signing. The text indicates that supplemental plaques with the 
name of the airport may be used below the current airport symbol sign 
(I-5). The addition of the airport name to the guide sign provides 
specific and commonly used destination information which the motorist 
can readily associate with their destination and type of airport 
service available, including commercial and/or non-carrier services. 
Eighteen of the twenty-five comments received agreed with this FHWA 
position.

Request II-212(C)--Increased Letter Size of Street Name Signs

    The section 2D-39 of the MUTCD is modified to increase the 
recommended letter sizes for street name signs to a minimum of 6 inch 
uppercase letters, 4\1/2\ inch lowercase letters, and 3 inch letters 
for street abbreviations or city sections (e.g., Avenue, Road, NW.). 
However, for local roads with speed limits 25 mph or less, the existing 
MUTCD language is modified to provide an option for the continued use 
of a minimum 4 inch uppercase letter size with 2 inch lowercase letters 
for street abbreviations or city sections. All street name signs are 
required to be retroreflective.
    Twenty-seven of the forty comments agreed with the proposed 
changes. However, many of these and of the opposing comments indicated 
that for roads with low volume and low speeds, the current letter sizes 
are adequate. The 4-inch option was added in response to these concerns 
and because it reduces associated costs of installing larger sign 
posts.

[[Page 1368]]

    Since the recommended change from 4 inch to 6 inch letter size may 
impose some additional costs on State and local jurisdictions, the FHWA 
is establishing a compliance date for the installation of street name 
signs. The compliance date is 15 years after the issue date of this 
final rule or as signs are replaced within the 15 year period. This 
will allow replacement after a normal service life of the signs.

Request II-214(C)--Golf Course Recreational Area

    This request to include a symbol sign for guiding motorists to golf 
courses is denied. Although 13 of the 24 comments supported the use of 
a symbol, the type of symbols recommended varied widely in design. The 
comments opposing the use of a symbol, including those from States with 
many golf courses, indicated that word messages such as ``Public Golf 
Course'' or the golf course name are more effective for the guide 
signs. Comments also indicated concerns regarding sign proliferation 
particularly associated with a seasonal or low traffic generating 
facility.

Request II-215(C)--Regulatory and Street Name Signs on Same Post

    This amendment to the MUTCD allows the option of installing 
regulatory and street name signs on the same sign post. Twenty-three of 
the twenty-seven comments supported this amendment since its use may 
simplify the sign installation process and improve motorist guidance 
information. Two of the four commenters who opposed adoption agree with 
the concept, but disagree with the requirement for vertical separation 
of 6 inches. The purpose of vertical separation is to ensure that the 
shape of the sign, particularly the STOP sign, is recognized by 
motorists.
    Sections 2B and 2D are changed to allow this alternate application. 
Vertical separation of the signs is not required as long as the shape 
of the signs are not compromised. This amendment does not impose any 
additional requirements or costs to State and local highway 
jurisdictions.

Request II-218(C)--Reduce Number of Panels Shown on Directional 
Assemblies

    This amendment to reduce the amount of information displayed on 
directional assemblies by displaying only one route shield and route 
number with appropriate cardinal directions and arrows is denied. 
Experience and performance history indicate that the present system 
performs well and the public understands it. Although 16 of the 25 
comments supported the concept of reducing the amount of information 
displayed, many expressed concern that the proposed assembly method may 
be confusing.

Request II-224(C)--Cellular Phone Sign for Emergency Situations

    The proposed cellular phone symbol sign for use in emergency 
situations is denied. However, the FHWA will conduct further research 
and will consider other alternates for a symbol including those 
submitted in the docket responses. The FHWA received a total of 24 
comments in response to this proposal. Many of the 21 comments in 
agreement with the proposal expressed concern that this particular 
symbol was confusing. Although they agreed with the concept of a sign 
to inform the motorist how to dial for emergency assistance, they 
recommended a word message sign instead of the symbol.
    Until an appropriate symbol is developed through research, the FHWA 
recommends using a word message sign similar to the standard D12-3 
sign. The sign would read, ``Emergency Dial----'' along with the 
appropriate number to dial. MUTCD section 2D-45 is revised to reflect 
this change. This amendment will not impose any additional requirement 
or costs on State and local highway jurisdictions.

Request II-225(C)--Local Transit Logo and Carpool Symbol

    This amendment increases the maximum vertical dimension of transit 
system logos on Park and Ride signs to 36 inches for freeways and 
expressways. All 25 of the comments received supported this change. The 
larger signs will provide greater legibility on high speed facilities 
such as freeway and expressways and sections 2D and 2E are revised 
accordingly. This amendment will not impose any additional requirements 
or costs on State and local highway jurisdictions.

Request II-226(C)--General Motorist Service Signing for Alternative 
Fuels

    The FHWA revises MUTCD sections 2D-45 and 2F-33 to include within 
the current ``GAS'' category for general services the use of word 
message alternative fuel designations for compressed natural gas (CNG) 
and electric vehicle (EV) charging. As an option, the D9-11 symbol sign 
may be used with the appropriate letter abbreviations substituted for 
the appropriate alternative fuel. The FHWA will conduct research on an 
appropriate symbol sign for electric vehicle charging.
    Twenty-one of the thirty comments received agreed that signing for 
alternative fuels is needed. With the increasing number of vehicles 
using alternative fuels in response to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, consideration of additional signs to provide availability 
information to the motorist has merit. This change allows States and 
local highway agencies to place signs for whatever alternative fuels 
are available at various locations. Since the decision for a State or 
local highway jurisdiction to use this sign is optional, no additional 
costs are imposed.

Request II-228(C)--Share the Road Warning Signs

    This amendment to the MUTCD adds a new section 2C-39 to include a 
discussion regarding the ``Share the Road'' word message sign (W16-1) 
which may be used with the farm machinery symbol (W11-5), the bicycle 
symbol (W11-1), and other appropriate symbol signs where a need exists 
to warn drivers to share the road with other modes of roadway 
transportation. The ``Share the Road'' sign shall have a yellow 
background with black message and shall be rectangular as shown below.
    This amendment also adopts an updated version of the farm machinery 
symbol also shown below (W11-5a). This symbol may be used as an 
alternate to the W11-5 symbol currently shown in the MUTCD. The FHWA 
conducted research on the ``Share the Road with Farm Equipment'' sign 
and, based on the results of the study, found that the adopted sign's 
meaning comprehension rate was 92 percent and its action comprehension 
rate was 100 percent. The results indicated that almost all drivers 
were aware of the meaning the sign conveyed and the appropriate action 
to be taken.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


[[Page 1369]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.003



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

    There were 49 comments received of which 38 agreed with the FHWA 
position, 10 opposed and one was undecided. This amendment does not 
impose any additional requirements or costs on State and local highway 
jurisdictions.

Request II-229(C)--General Service Sign for Truck Parking

    This amendment to MUTCD section 2D-45 and 2F-33 permits the word 
message ``Truck Parking'' to be included on General Motorist Service 
Signs. Twenty-five of the twenty-eight comments received agreed with 
this concept and indicated that they would like a symbol sign for truck 
parking. The FHWA intends to conduct a research evaluation to develop 
an appropriate symbol for truck parking. In the interim, State and 
local highway agencies have the option of using the word message 
``Truck Parking'' sign (D9-15) in conjunction with other general 
motorist service information signs. The word message ``Truck Parking'' 
should be placed on a panel below the other general motorist services.
    This change does not impose any additional requirements or costs on 
State and local highway jurisdictions.

Request II-241(C)--Overhead Guide Sign Arrows

    This request to improve overhead guide signs by using consistent 
directional arrows which point upwards and which indicate if the 
roadway turns left or right is denied. Nineteen of the thirty comments 
received opposed this request. Eight commenters agreed and three were 
undecided.
    Upon FHWA's initial observation, this request for change appeared 
to have the potential of providing more consistent, timely, and useful 
information to the motorist. However, further review suggests a 
departure from the established standards would require additional in-
depth research and analysis before making such a significant change. A 
change of this nature has the potential of imposing extreme burden and 
additional costs to the States. Therefore, the FHWA is denying this 
request due to the absence of further data to substantiate the change. 
Experience and history in the use of the arrows indicate no adverse 
problems.

Request II-246(C)--Adopt-A-Highway Signs

    This request to include a standard sign in the MUTCD for ``Adopt-A-
Highway'' programs is denied because of the wide variances in the 
suggested size of signs, the background and letter colors, the lateral 
placement, and the frequency of placement for these signs. In many 
cases, standardizing of these signs would result in adverse local 
publicity, decreased participation, and would impose unnecessary cost 
burdens on State and local highway jurisdictions. However, because of 
the national interest in the Adopt-A-Highway program, the FHWA is 
modifying the MUTCD section 2D-48 to include general guidance for 
States to follow when establishing this local program.
    The FHWA received 35 comments in response to this request to 
include standards for the design and placement of ``Adopt-A-Highway'' 
signs in the MUTCD. Twenty-two of the comments agreed with the idea of 
having standards but many of those who agreed were not consistent in 
their recommended design and placement standards. Thirteen of the 
thirty-five comments opposed the idea of standards. Fifty percent of 
those opposing were State highway agencies.

Request III-54(C)--Variation of Line Width and Spacing for 
Crosswalks

    This request to increase the maximum spacing for crosswalks from 24 
inches to 48 inches with a maximum spacing not to exceed twice the line 
width is denied. The FHWA received 29 comments to this docket, of which 
18 were in agreement with FHWA's position. Eleven of the eighteen were 
State highway agencies and two were cities.
    The FHWA considers the current maximum longitudinal spacing of 24 
inches adequate in that the crossing area is highly visible and 
recognizable both for the motorist and for the pedestrian. In addition, 
the FHWA has no record of any operational problems related to the 
standard 24-inch maximum spacing. Since the FHWA has no statistical 
data to show that the proposed 48-inch maximum spacing would not 
adversely affect visibility, we hesitate to change the MUTCD without 
evaluation data which supports the design safety of the proposed 
crosswalk configuration. Therefore, this request is denied.

[[Page 1370]]

Request III-68(C)--Lane Drop Marking Pattern

    This approved amendment to the MUTCD adds lane drop marking 
patterns to section 3A-6 which describes widths and patterns of 
longitudinal lines. Since lane drop markings are already described in 
the fourth paragraph of MUTCD section 3B-11, it is appropriate to 
include a discussion in section 3A-6. This amendment also changes the 
term ``special marking'' as used in section 3B-11 to ``lane drop 
marking.'' In addition, the lane drop marking is not restricted to 
interchange ramps but is also available for use with mandatory lane 
drops on arterial streets and highways. Twenty-four of the twenty-six 
comments received agreed with this change.
    This change does not impose any additional requirements or costs on 
State and local highway jurisdictions but instead furthers consistency 
and clarity in traffic control and operations.

Request IV-47(C)--Use of Steady and Flashing Downward Yellow Arrows 
in Lane Control Signals

    This approved amendment to the MUTCD allows lane control signals to 
be darkened on non-reversible freeway lanes. The FHWA also is denying 
further experimentation with the flashing and steady DOWNWARD YELLOW 
ARROW because the Minnesota evaluation report found that the 
experimental YELLOW ARROW was not understood by motorists. The FHWA 
received a total of 22 comments in response to this change to the 
MUTCD. Four of the comments disagreed with FHWA's recommendation to 
darken signals because it may imply that a signal is not functioning. 
The FHWA does not believe that this will create a problem since other 
special types of signals such as ramp metering signals are currently 
allowed to be darkened when not in use and there have been no 
identified problems with this practice.
    This change does not impose any additional costs on State and local 
highway jurisdictions but will encourage uniformity of traffic control 
devices.

Request IV-95(C)--Intersection Control Beacons

    This approved amendment to MUTCD section 4E-3, Intersection Control 
Beacons, involves two separate issues. The first amendment requires a 
beacon on each intersection approach that is controlled by a ``RED'' 
Intersection Control Beacon. Although the original request for change 
suggested two beacons, the FHWA believes that in the majority of 
situations, one beacon would provide adequate visibility. Twenty-one of 
the twenty-three comments received agreed with the FHWA position. 
However, section 4E-3 currently allows for the use of a supplemental 
beacon if needed.
    The second issue involves mandatory use of a STOP sign in 
conjunction with a red intersection control beacon. The FHWA received 
no adverse comments to this request for change. Therefore, the next to 
last paragraph in section 4E-3 is modified to require a STOP sign in 
conjunction with a flashing red intersection control beacon.
    This amendment does not impose any significant increase in costs on 
State and local highway jurisdictions.

Request IV-118(C )--Relocate Section 4C, Signal Warrants

    This amendment redesignates the MUTCD section 4C, Warrants for 
Traffic Signals, as the new section 4B, and the current section 4B, 
Traffic Control Signals, as the new section 4C. This transposition 
allows the MUTCD users to determine, firstly, if a signal is warranted 
and, secondly, to read the description for signal design and 
application.
    The FHWA received a total of 24 comments in response to this change 
to the MUTCD. All but one of the comments agreed to transposing 
sections 4B and 4C.
    This change does not impose any additional costs on State and local 
highway jurisdictions.

Request IV-122(C )--Disabled Pedestrians

    This request included two items. The first item included in this 
request was the concept of allowing a second signal button that permits 
additional time for slow walking pedestrians to cross the roadway. 
There is nothing currently in the MUTCD to prevent highway agencies 
from extending the pedestrian crossing interval in areas of 
demonstrated need. Therefore this request is denied. Twenty-one of the 
twenty-seven comments received were opposed to this concept of a second 
signal button. Some of the other major concerns expressed with the 
installation of the second button are the following:
    1. The MUTCD already allows a highway agency to establish 
pedestrian signal timing to accommodate the needs of the user at the 
specific location.
    2. The second button would just be another button for all 
pedestrians to push and then the signal would likely be using the 
longer timing every cycle.
    3. Intermittent, longer, pedestrian clearance intervals may 
jeopardize coordination flow.
    The second request was to allow the installation of pedestrian 
detectors that are easily activated for pedestrians with physical 
disabilities. There were no adverse comments addressing this issue. The 
FHWA adopts this recommendation and is including it as an option in 
MUTCD section 4B-29.
    This change which allows the option of installing easily activated 
pedestrian detectors for persons with physical disabilities does not 
impose any additional costs on State and local highway jurisdictions.

Request IV-124(C)--Educational Plaque for Pedestrian Signals

    This amendment will allow the use of an educational plaque that can 
be used in conjunction with pedestrian signal indications. The FHWA is 
adopting the use of this optional educational plaque where both symbol-
type and word message pedestrian signal indications are used.
    A total of 27 of the 30 comments received agreed with the use of 
the educational plaque. The wording of the plaque shown in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking has been slightly modified to reflect the 
following comments:
    1. After the wording DONT START use FINISH CROSSING IF STARTED.
    2. Pedestrians should be aware of all vehicles, not just turning 
cars.
    3. The highlighted flashing hand symbol is more easily understood.
    4. All intersections do not have marked crosswalks.
    5. Eliminate the wording WAIT ON CURB because all intersections do 
not have curbs.
    6. Many intersections in the United States do not have push buttons 
for operating signals and, therefore, the bottom section of the sign 
with the caption ``TO CROSS. . .PUSH BUTTON'' should be made optional.
    7. Since both symbols and word messages are allowed for pedestrian 
signal indications, two plaque designs are necessary.
    This change will not impose any additional costs on States and 
local jurisdictions.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


[[Page 1371]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA97.004



BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

    Note: Word message (R10-3c) may be used in place of WALK/DON'T 
WALK symbol.

Request VI-88(C)--Emergency Flashers

    This amendment to the MUTCD allows the use of vehicle hazard 
warning signals to supplement rotating dome or strobe lights as 
flashing identification beacons.
    The intent of the original request was to allow the use of 
emergency flashers (vehicle hazard warning signals) or rotating domes 
and strobe lights on maintenance vehicles.
    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FHWA originally proposed 
to allow the use of emergency flashers on maintenance vehicles during 
normal daytime maintenance operations without addressing the issue of 
rotating domes and strobe lights.
    From a review of the comments, the intent of the amendment as 
originally stated in the NPRM was evidently not clear. The FHWA 
received a total of 26 comments in response to this change to the 
MUTCD. Eleven comments agreed, eight opposed and seven suggested use as 
a supplement. Some respondents viewed it as allowing vehicle hazard 
warning signals to be used in lieu of rotating domes and strobe lights. 
Other commenters viewed the amendment as allowing them to be used in 
addition to rotating domes and strobe lights.
    The FHWA believes it may bolster motorists'' safety if the 
difference in what the motorist expects between seeing a disabled 
vehicle or from seeing a work area is preserved. Therefore, the FHWA 
adopts the optional use of vehicular hazard warning signals as a 
supplement to rotating domes or strobe lights and MUTCD section 6F-7c 
is changed accordingly.
    This change does not impose any additional costs on State and local 
jurisdictions but encourages uniformity of traffic control devices.

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

    This request to adopt the School Bus Stop Ahead symbol sign 
submitted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation is denied. 
This symbol did not perform well in the FHWA research study. In 
addition, 23 of the 30 comments in response to this request were either 
opposed or indicated that further study is needed to define a more 
appropriate symbol.
    This request is denied but FHWA will conduct further research and 
will consider other alternates for a symbol including those submitted 
by respondents.

Request VIII-26(C)--Maximum Flash Rate at Railroad Highway Grade 
Crossings

    This approved amendment increases the maximum flash rate from 55 to 
65 flashes per minute. This will make the AAR Signal Manual of 
Recommended Practices, the Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, 
and the MUTCD all compatible with one another. In addition, this 
amendment is compatible with research and standard practices.
    All 27 of the comments received were in support of this amendment. 
This change imposes no additional costs on State and local highway 
jurisdictions but will encourage uniformity of traffic control devices.

Request VIII-29(C)--Symbol for Railroad Advance Warning Sign

    The request to replace the standard round Railroad Advance Warning 
Sign(W10-1) with a diamond-shaped sign is denied. The W10-1 sign is 
intentionally unique from other warning signs and is intended to convey 
to motorists the special attention they need to apply when approaching 
a railroad highway grade crossing.
    All but one of the twenty-nine comments supported the FHWA 
position.

Request VIII-30(C)--Symbol for Number of Tracks Sign

    The request to replace the word message ``Tracks'' in the standard 
Number of Tracks Sign (R15-2) with a symbol showing railroad tracks is 
denied.
    Twenty-six of the twenty-seven comments received were in support of 
denying this amendment because the current sign is well understood and 
the proposed sign offered no proven benefit.

[[Page 1372]]

Request VIII-36(C)--Signs and Markings for No Lane Change Zones at 
Railroad Crossings

    The request to require pavement markings at railroad-highway grade 
crossings to prohibit vehicle lane changing on the tracks when there 
are two or more lanes in one direction is denied. All 26 comments 
received supported the FHWA recommendation that this request not be 
adopted.
    No-passing markings continue to be required on 2-lane, 2-way 
roadways approaching railroad-highway grade crossings as discussed in 
Section 8B-4 of the MUTCD. The MUTCD already contains provisions for 
pavement markings and signing where an engineering study determines a 
need to prohibit lane change movements in the vicinity of multi-lane 
approaches to railroad highway grade crossings.

Request VIII-37(C)--Fast Train Signs

    This request to develop a warning sign and warrants for its use on 
approaches to high speed (80 to 110 mph) rail crossings that may or may 
not be equipped with automatic warning devices is deferred. Warrants 
are a set of criteria that can be used to define the relative need for 
and appropriateness of traffic signs. Of the 27 comments received for 
this request, 14 supported and 13 opposed its adoption. There was 
little consensus on the message to be used on the sign although several 
of the respondents suggested a succinct message, such as ``HIGH SPEED 
TRAINS'' or ``FAST TRAIN.'' Several of those supporting this request 
suggested that it be republished when more specific information on the 
size, shape, and warrants for the sign are developed.
    The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Technical Committee of the 
NCUTCD is currently developing a proposal on the shape, message, and 
warrants for use of this sign. The FHWA believes that the information 
in this NCUTCD proposal will provide more substantive data upon which 
to evaluate this request. This request will be published with 
additional information in a future notice of proposed rulemaking which 
will provide another opportunity for the public to review and comment.

Request VIII-38(C)--Supplementary Plaques on STOP and YIELD Signs Used 
at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings

    The request to permit the use of a supplementary plaque with STOP 
or YIELD Signs at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings to indicate the 
number of tracks or to WATCH FOR SECOND TRAIN is deferred. The proposal 
to include the number of tracks sign under the STOP or YIELD sign, 
received 27 comments of which 17 supported, 8 opposed, and 2 were 
undecided. A number of those supporting this proposal requested that 
the number of tracks sign be black and yellow rather than red and white 
as proposed.
    The proposal to include the supplemental plaque message ``WATCH FOR 
SECOND TRAIN,'' received 27 comments of which 9 supported, 16 opposed, 
and 2 were undecided. Many of those opposed expressed concern that such 
a long message would detract from the purpose of the STOP or YIELD 
sign.
    The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Technical Committee of the 
NCUTCD is currently evaluating this proposal concerning the color and 
message length of this sign. The FHWA believes that the information 
provided in this NCUTCD proposal will provide more substantive data 
upon which to evaluate this request. This request will be published 
with this additional information in a future notice of proposed 
rulemaking which will provide another opportunity for the public to 
review and comment.

Request VIII-39(C)--Warrants for Warning Devices at Railroad- 
Highway Grade Crossings With High-Speed Train Operations

    This request to include recommended warrants for use of warning 
devices at railroad crossings hosting high speed trains (80 to 110 mph) 
is deferred. There were 26 comments received of which 23 supported, 2 
opposed and 1 was undecided. The two that opposed adoption felt that 
warrants for warning devices at railroad-highway grade crossings should 
be the same whether or not high-speed trains were involved. None of the 
26 comments suggested specific warrants to be used. Until specific 
warrants can be developed this request is deferred.
    The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Technical Committee of the 
NCUTCD is currently addressing this issue of warrants for warning 
devices. The FHWA believes that the information developed by the NCUTCD 
will provide more substantive data upon which to evaluate this request. 
This request will be published with proposed warrants in a future 
notice of proposed rulemaking which will provide another opportunity 
for the public to review and comment.

Request VIII-40(C)--Placement of the Crossing Identification Number 
Tag

    The request to include in Part VIII standards for the design and 
placement of the U.S. DOT/AAR National Rail-Highway Crossing Inventory 
number plate is deferred. There were 23 comments received of which 18 
supported, 3 opposed, and 2 were undecided. The 3 that opposed this 
request expressed the opinion that this number plate is not a traffic 
control device and does not belong in the MUTCD.
    The FHWA number plate can provide valuable information to identify 
a specific crossing to authorities in an emergency situation (i.e. 
stalled vehicle on tracks), and the number should be displayed in a 
prominent and consistent location at all railroad-highway grade 
crossings. Since this identification plate is displayed on railroad 
right-of-way, its location should be agreed to by the railroads, FRA, 
and the FHWA. Until the placement issue is resolved this request is 
deferred. This request will be published with proposed location of the 
number plate in a future notice of proposed rulemaking which will 
provide another opportunity for the public to review and comment.

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

    The language in MUTCD section 9C-6 is modified to clarify that 
object markers as discussed in this section, not only apply to bicycle 
trails which are exclusively for bicycles but to any roadway open to 
bicycle travel. Twenty-one of the twenty-three comments agreed with 
this change. This change is editorial and does not impose any 
additional costs to the State and local jurisdictions.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic 
impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. Most of the changes in this 
notice provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional 
applications for traffic control devices. The FHWA expects that 
application uniformity will improve at little additional expense to 
public agencies or the motoring public. Therefore, a full regulatory 
evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed 
action on small entities, including small governments. This final rule 
adds some alternative

[[Page 1373]]

traffic control devices and only a very limited number of new or 
changed requirements. Most of the changes are expanded guidance and 
clarification information. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA hereby 
certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The MUTCD is 
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, which requires 
that changes to the national standards issued by the FHWA shall be 
adopted by the States or other Federal agencies within two years of 
issuance. These amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of 
Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to 
promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of 
the highway. To the extent that these amendments override any existing 
State requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the 
interests of national uniformity.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.
    List of Subjects in 23 CFR 655
    Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and 
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, and Traffic regulations.

    The FHWA hereby amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal 
Regulations, part 655 as set forth below.

PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 109(d), 114(a), 135, 217, 
307, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32 and; 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets 
and Highways [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 655.601, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 655.601  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD), FHWA, 1988, including revision No.1 dated January 17, 
1990, Revision No. 2 dated March 17, 1992, Revision No. 3 dated 
September 3, 1993, Errata No. 1 to the 1988 MUTCD Revision 3, dated 
November 1994, Revision No. 4 dated November 1, 1994, and Revision No. 
5 dated December 24, 1996. This publication is incorporated by 
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is 
on file at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. The 1988 MUTCD, including 
Revision No. 3 dated September 3, 1993, may be purchased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, Stock No. 650-001-00001-0. 
The amendments to the MUTCD titled, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 1,'' 
dated January 17, 1990, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 2'' dated March 17, 
1992, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 3,'' dated September 3, 1993, ``1988 
MUTCD Errata No. 1 to Revision No. 3,'' dated November 1994, ``1988 
MUTCD Revision No. 4,'' dated November 1, 1994, and ``1988 MUTCD 
Revision No. 5,'' dated December 24, 1996 are available from the 
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Safety, HHS-10, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. These documents are 
available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, 
apppendix D.
* * * * *
    Issued on: December 24, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-196 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P