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

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