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

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