[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29234-29235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14261]
[[Page 29233]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Highway Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
23 CFR Part 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; Revision of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Pedestrian, Bicycle, and School
Warning Signs; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 29234]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. 96-9]
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: Notice of proposed amendment to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655,
subpart F, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control
on all public roads. After the current 1988 Edition of the MUTCD was
published, a decision was made by the FHWA on January 6, 1988, at 53 FR
236, to postpone rulemaking on all requests for revisions to the MUTCD
except those changes which would significantly 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 proposed. The FHWA
is inviting comments on a proposed change to the MUTCD which would
assign the color fluorescent yellow green as an optional color for
pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 96-9,
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 amendment contact Mr. Ernest Huckaby, Office of Highway
Safety, Room 3416, (202) 366-9064, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, Office of
Chief Counsel, Room 4217, (202) 366-0834, Department of Transportation,
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: 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 initiated by the FHWA to provide an
opportunity for comment on the desirability of the proposed amendment
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 this request.
Background
Request I-16(C)--Fluorescent Strong Yellow Green Signs
The FHWA is exploring new technology to improve transportation
safety and the effectiveness of traffic control devices. The FHWA is
working to reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle accidents
through the use of the new color called fluorescent yellow green,
formerly called strong yellow green in the MUTCD. The word
``fluorescent'' more accurately describes the nature of the proposed
color. Fluorescent colors not only reflect light, as do nonfluorescent
colors, but they also emit additional light. For this reason,
fluorescent colors appear brighter than similar nonfluorescent colors.
A fluorescent yellow green sign will stand out from its background,
commanding the attention of drivers approaching school zones and
pedestrian and bicycle crossings. This color is one of four unassigned
colors contained in the MUTCD for use on highways.
Studies
The FHWA has initiated and completed two studies with the use of
fluorescent yellow green signs--a pilot sudy in conjunction with the
National Park Service and a nationwide study. Copies of the final
reports from the pilot study and the 24 participants in the nationwide
study are available for review in FHWA Docket No. 96-9 in the FHWA
Docket Room at the address listed above. In early 1992, an FHWA pilot
study was completed by the National Park Service which examined the
effects of fluorescent yellow green crossing signs on motorist behavior
at five pedestrian and bicycle crossings in the Washington, D.C. area.
The scope of this study included before and after observations at five
sites on the George Washington and Rock Creek Parkways, where the new
crossing signs were installed, and at one comparison site where no
changes were made. The pilot study was limited in scope to recreational
crossings. While the results were positive, further studies were
recommended to examine the effectiveness of the sign in other States
and under other crossing conditions, such as, nonrecreational use and
school crossings.
In early 1993, the FHWA conducted a nationwide study to evaluate
the fluorescent yellow green on school, as well as pedestrian and
bicycle, crossing signs. A total of 57 jurisdictions were given
permission to participate in the study. Guidance was provided for
evaluation design and site selection criteria. Field observations
consisted of behavioral data used to measure motorist, pedestrian, and
bicyclist actions, and volume counts used to provide a measure of
exposure. In addition to collecting behavior data and volume counts,
speed data was also collected to determine if the new crossing signs
had an effect on the speed profile. Public opinion surveys were also
distributed randomly to persons who traveled through the study area and
to staff members and parents in schools which were a part of the study.
Of the 57 original jurisdictions, 24 of the participants responded
with final report recommendations. Two major issues were mentioned
concerning the adoption of fluorescent yellow green. The first issue
involved the cost of the fluorescent yellow green sheeting material.
This material costs more than one and a half times as much as the High
Intensity sign material. A gradual phase-in is recommended as part of
routine maintenance in view of the cost and number of replacements
necessary. Another major issue is that the novelty effect may wear off
and over time the fluorescent yellow green signs may be regarded as the
standard yellow signs are now.
Overall evaluation results showed that the fluorescent yellow green
signs had only marginal effects in improving the behavior of motorists.
At the few sites where the number of motorists slowing or stopping for
pedestrians or bicyclists did increase, the amount of increase was not
significant. The fluorescent yellow green signs had little
[[Page 29235]]
or no noticeable effect on the speed of motor vehicles. The greatest
impact from the study was found in the public opinion surveys. Survey
comments indicated a positive response to the new signs. It was evident
from the survey results that the signs were very effective in getting
the attention of motorists. Many people felt the fluorescent yellow
green signs would increase pedestrian safety.
Proposed Change to MUTCD
Although the evaluation data showed only marginal effects in
improving the behavior of motorists, the FHWA's review and examination
of the studies and public surveys described above appear to indicate
that this new color warning sign would improve the conspicuity of the
sign message and is very effective in getting the attention of
motorists during daylight conditions. The FHWA proposes to adopt the
fluorescent yellow green as an optional color for Pedestrian Crossing
Sign (W11-2), Bicycle Crossing Sign (W11-1), School Advance Sign (S1-
1), School Crossing Sign (S2-1), and School Bus Stop Ahead Sign (S3-1).
If a State or local highway agency elects to use the fluorescent yellow
green signs at these specified locations, the FHWA recommends that a
systematic approach be used to install these signs. For example, if a
specific school area is identified as a candidate for fluorescent
yellow green, then all school signs installed in that immediate area
should be fluorescent yellow green. The mixing of standard yellow and
fluorescent yellow green within a selected site area should be avoided.
The Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) (English:
International Commission on Illumination) chromaticity coordinates
(x,y), defining the corners of the Fluorescent Yellow Green daytime
color region, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.387.............................. 0.610
0.460.............................. 0.540
0.421.............................. 0.486
0.368.............................. 0.539
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The chromaticity limits given above supersede the color Brilliant
Yellow Green, issued by the National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices in May 1969, which is no longer applicable.
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 proposed in this
notice provides 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. 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. The proposed amendment is 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 this amendment would override any
existing State requirements regarding traffic control devices, it does
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 (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, 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: May 28, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14261 Filed 6-06-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
