[Federal Register: June 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 118)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 33546-33550] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19jn98-14] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 655 [FHWA Docket 96-9; FHWA-97-2281] RIN 2125-AD89 National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Pedestrian, Bicycle, and School Warning Signs AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Final amendment to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This document contains an amendment to the MUTCD which has been adopted by the FHWA for inclusion therein. The amendment revises sections of the MUTCD to permit the optional use of fluorescent yellow green (FYG) warning signs related to pedestrian, bicycle, and school applications. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in FHWA's regulations on traffic control devices on Federal-aid and other streets and highways, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices on all public roads. This amendment is intended to expedite traffic, improve safety and provide a more uniform application of highway signs, signals, and markings. DATES: The final rule is effective on June 19, 1998. Incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 19, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Huckaby, Office of Highway Safety (202) 366-9064; or Mr. Ray Cuprill, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1377, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 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: Electronic Access Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): http:/ [[Page 33547]] /dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. The text for Parts I, II, VII, and IX of the MUTCD is available from the FHWA Office of Highway Safety (HHS-10) or from the FHWA Home Page at the URL: http://www.ohs.fhwa.dot.gov/devices/mutcd.html Background The 1988 MUTCD is available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7. It may be purchased for $44 (Domestic) or $55 (Foreign) 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 1993 revision of Part VI, Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Incident Management Operation, dated 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 amendment contains the disposition of a proposed change which was published on June 7, 1996, at 61 FR 29234. Text changes required as a result of amendments contained herein will be distributed to everyone currently appearing on the FHWA, Office of Highway Safety, 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. Summary of Comments The FHWA has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposed amendment and other information related to the MUTCD. The FHWA is acting on the following request for change to the 1988 edition of the MUTCD. This amendment to the MUTCD allows the use of fluorescent yellow green (FYG) as an optional color for Advance Pedestrian Crossing Sign (W11-2), Pedestrian Crossing Sign (W11A-2), Bicycle Crossing Sign (W11- 1), School Advance Sign (S1-1), School Crossing Sign (S2-1), and School Bus Stop Ahead Sign (S3-1). The FHWA received 141 comments in response to the proposed amendment, of which 110 agreed with the FHWA's position; 21 opposed; and 10 were either undecided or suggested recommendations not addressed in the NPRM. The FHWA received 12 comments suggesting this color be adopted for use in incident management. The FHWA is currently conducting research with the States of New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia on the appropriate color for incident management. Included in this research is FYG. Upon conclusion of the research rulemaking action will be considered. The notice of proposed amendment published on June 7, 1996, included a vague and incomplete reference to the Pedestrian Crossing Sign and the Advance Pedestrian Crossing Sign. Both signs were intended to be embraced by the amendment permitting optional FYG use. Inadvertently, however, the former was referenced by name only; the latter was referenced by sign number only, although dual (name and sign number) references were included for each of the other signs involved in the amendment. The FHWA believes, however, that it is appropriate to include both the Pedestrian and Advance Pedestrian Crossing Signs in the amendment adopted here. Although comment was not specifically invited concerning the Advance Pedestrian Crossing Sign by name, we note that the sign is equivalent in context to the School Advance Sign which received no opposing comments. Moreover, because the amendment provides for optional installation of FYG signs, inclusion of both the Pedestrian and Advance Pedestrian Crossing Signs should not impose any hardship or result in any detriment. Conversely, failure to include both signs within the scope of the amendment adopted at this time could unduly burden those municipalities that choose to install FYG signs, but would then have to do so under different installation schedules for the Pedestrian Crossing and Advance Pedestrian Crossing Signs. Sequential installation of the signs would contradict the FHWA's recommendation that a systematic approach be used to install the signs, potentially resulting in negative safety implications. Indeed, several commenters questioned the advisability of not including both the Pedestrian Crossing and Advance Pedestrian Crossing Signs. Further, several commenters indicated that a mixing of FYG and standard yellow signs, resulting from failure to include both in this notice, could lead to motorists' confusion and should not be permitted. Pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes are a serious problem in the United States. A total of 5,412 pedestrians were reported killed and another 82,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes in 1996. An estimated 59,000 bicyclists were injured and 761 were killed in motor vehicle collisions in 1996. Of the 41,907 people who lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 1996, 13 percent were pedestrians and 2 percent were bicyclists (Traffic Safety Facts 1996 (NHTSA)). Although a drop in pedestrian fatalities has occurred in recent years, a serious problem continues to exist in the United States relative to pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and injuries. The DOT Secretarial Initiative for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety is a new effort to promote walking and bicycling as a safe, healthy, and efficient way to travel. By the year 2000, the Secretarial Initiative will have attempted to decrease by 10 percent the number of injuries and fatalities occurring to bicyclists and pedestrians, and to double the national percentage of transportation trips made by walking or bicycling. As reported in the NPRM, the FHWA conducted a nationwide study during 1993-1995. North Carolina State University, Civil Engineering Department, took part in this study and performed an in-depth research study in the use of FYG warning signs. The study involved eight sites in multiple pedestrian environments in multiple cities. The overall results of the study indicate that FYG warning signs produced only marginal improvement in perceived safety at the crossing sites. At three of the crossing sites studied, the evaluation indicated a significant reduction in the number of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, as well as a significant increase in the percentage of vehicles slowing or stopping. Public opinion surveys reflected a strong indication that the FYG warnings do ``stand out'' and were associated with the need for caution. (Source: ``Field Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow Green Pedestrian Warning Signs,'' M.S. Thesis, K.L. Clark, North Carolina State University, 1994.) [[Page 33548]] Over the last 26 months, the FHWA has approved 28 jurisdictions to experiment with FYG warning signs. Several of the jurisdictions that have taken part in the experimentation have indicated that the use of the FYG warning signs meets pedestrian safety needs and have requested permission to install additional signs. Many other jurisdictions have expressed an interest in their use and are awaiting the FHWA final rule. Of the 141 comments received in response to the NPRM, 23 represented jurisdictions that either participated in the original two- year experimentation, or that are currently experimenting with FYG, submitted comments. Of those jurisdictions, 22 were in agreement with the proposed optional use, and 1 opposed the proposal. The City of Chicago has recently implemented a ``Safe Route to School Program'' for the Chicago Board of Education. This program is a direct result of crashes involving motorists and children in school zones. The City of Chicago has requested and been granted approval to experiment with FYG signs at 10 school crossings that have been identified as ``problem locations.'' Installation of the first FYG sign received media attention and its use has been well received by elected officials, the Board of Education, and the public. In many instances, jurisdictions have publicized the installation of the FYG signs and have received positive responses from educators, parents, students, and motorists. The NPRM received favorable comments and overwhelming support from local governments, including police departments and public school systems, in addition to special interest groups and the general public. National organizations with safety interests, such as the National Safety Council, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the American Automobile Association (AAA-Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi), have all responded very positively to the use of FYG warning signs. Many of the public comments received in response to the NPRM voiced common concerns that will be addressed individually. The NPRM addressed the cost increase of fluorescent sheeting material as one and a half times as much as the high intensity sign material. The FHWA estimated the cost of the fluorescent sheeting material to be $7.45 per sq.ft. versus the high intensity sign material at $5.32 per sq.ft. These costs considered sign blank, sheeting material, and labor costs for a 30'' x 30'' sign. Several docket comments stated that FYG sheeting material ($4.90 per sq. ft.) actually costs only 30 percent more than high intensity sign material ($3.75 per sq.ft.) When comparing total installed sign costs (fabrication, hardware, installation, and labor costs), the actual cost difference would only be 7 percent ($17.74 per sq. ft. versus $18.90 per sq. ft.) for a 30'' School Crossing Sign. The FHWA agrees with this cost statement as these costs follow along with the cost evaluation method using the Bellomo-McGee calculation. (Source: 1987 study conducted by Bellomo-McGee for the FHWA, ``Retroreflectivity of Roadway Signs for Adequate Visibility: A Guide,'' (FHWA/DF-88/001).) The FHWA is also concerned with the cost burden on State and local transportation agencies and believes the ``optional'' use as opposed to an unfunded mandate will relieve the agencies of an undue cost burden. The overall installation cost for the sign is not much different because the sheeting cost is only a small amount of the total cost of a sign installation. There is concern that the NPRM gave conflicting guidance in proposing a ``systematic approach'' at locations selected for use of the FYG warning signs, and the ``gradual phase-in'' as part of ``routine maintenance.'' Historically, when signs are installed at the same time, they generally deteriorate beyond usefulness at the same time and need to be replaced at the same time. Signs that are taken down to comply with the ``systematic approach'' and that are in a usable condition may be used again at other locations. Additionally, signs can be taken down and refurbished with new sheeting material and used again at new locations. Several commenters believe the use of FYG warning signs should be implemented as a mandatory (shall) condition in the MUTCD, rather than an optional condition as proposed in the NPRM. Designation of FYG signs as an option fits in with the present character of the MUTCD which allows the State and local transportation agencies to make a determination on use of traffic control devices that may be beneficial to some locations. An example is the use of channelizing devices in work zones with the optional use of tubular markers, cones, and drums. This is a positive step in allowing State and local agencies to address their safety needs and avoids an undue burden on their budgets. Concern has been expressed over the ``novelty effect'' of the FYG signs. While there is always the possibility of a ``novelty'' effect which could decrease the benefits over time, the experimentation procedures took into consideration the possibility of the novelty effect on drivers by instructing the implementing agency to allow at least 30 days between the time the experimental signs were installed and the time the study proceeded. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) publishes standard test methods, specifications, practices, guides, classifications, and terminology. These standards are developed voluntarily and used voluntarily. They become legally binding only when a government body makes them so, or when they are cited in a contract. Specifically, ASTM E991 describes procedures for measuring the color of fluorescent specimens as they would be perceived when illuminated by daylight, and for calculating tristimulus values and chromaticity coordinates for these conditions. ASTM E1247 provides spectrophotometric methods for identifying the presence of fluorescence in object-color specimens. There is some concern regarding the use of ASTM E991 and E1247 for determining compliance with specifications listed in the NPRM. It was mentioned that most State and local agencies would not have the instrumentation necessary to accurately measure fluorescence specifications. This is not deemed a critical concern as the testing for FYG would be no different than what is done in field offices now. Most States currently have the capability to do initial testing of retroreflectivity. When a State purchases sign material, the manufacturer certifies the specifications; however, some States reserve the option to do their own lab work. The Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) (English: International Commission on Illumination) chromaticity coordinates (x,y), defining the corner of the Fluorescent Yellow Green daytime color region, are stated in the table below. Several docket comments received mentioned that the Y values were omitted from the NPRM; therefore, the Y values have been inserted in the table below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x y Y Y<INF>F ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.387............ 0.610 50 20 0.368............ 0.539 ................ ................ 0.421............ 0.486 ................ ................ 0.460............ 0.540 ................ ................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fluorescent materials differ from non-fluorescent materials in that the total luminance is the sum of the luminances due to reflection and fluorescence. The luminance factor Y of such materials is the sum of the luminance due to reflection (Y<INF>R</INF>) and the luminance due to fluorescence (Y<INF>F</INF>). Therefore, Y=Y<INF>R</INF>+Y<INF>F</INF>. If the value of Y<INF>F</INF> is greater than zero, [[Page 33549]] the material is fluorescent; if Y<INF>F</INF> equals zero, then the luminance factor Y is equal to Y<INF>R</INF>. These four pairs of chromaticity coordinates determine the acceptable color in terms of the CIE 1931 Standard Colorimetric System (2 degree standard observer) measured with CIE Standard Illuminant D65 in accordance with ASTM E991. In addition, the color shall be fluorescent, as determined by ASTM E1247. 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. The change in this notice provides additional guidance, clarification, and optional application 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 action on small entities. This final amendment allows the optional use of alternative traffic control devices and the changes adopted here merely provide expanded guidance and clarification on the selection of appropriate traffic control devices. 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. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rulemaking relates to the Federal-aid Highway Program which is a financial assistance program in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal government, and thus is excluded from the definition of Federal mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 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 1995, 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, as amended (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 Part 655 Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs, 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 2. In section 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 1, 1994,'' Revision No. 4 dated November 1, 1994, Revision No. 4a (modified) dated February 19, 1998, Revision No. 5 dated December 24, 1996, and Revision No. 6, dated June 19, 1998. 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 1, 1994, ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 4,'' dated November 1, 1994, ``Revision No. 4a(modified),'' dated February 19, 1998, and ``1988 MUTCD Revision No. 5,'' dated December 24, 1996, and Revision No. 6 dated June 19, 1998 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. * * * * * [[Page 33550]] Issued: June 9, 1998. Kenneth R. Wykle, Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. 98-15882 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P