| HOME | SEARCH | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | HELP | ||
 |
 |
|
|
| Montana Administrative Register Notice 18-137 | No. 23 12/06/2012 | |
|
||
| Prev | Next | ||
|
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
TO: All Concerned Persons 1. On October 11, 2012 the Department of Transportation published MAR Notice No. 18-137 pertaining to the proposed adoption, amendment, and repeal of the above-stated rules at page 1912 of the 2012 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 19. 2. The department has amended the following rules as proposed: ARM 18.6.402, 18.6.403, 18.6.404, 18.6.405, 18.6.406, 18.6.408, 18.6.409, 18.6.421, 18.6.423, 18.6.430, 18.6.431, 18.6.433, 18.6.434, 18.6.435, and 18.6.436. 3. The department has adopted New Rule I (18.6.410) as proposed. 4. The department has repealed ARM 18.6.401 as proposed. 5. The department has amended the following rules as proposed, but with the following changes from the original proposal, new matter underlined, deleted matter interlined: 18.6.407 SPECIFIC SERVICE RAMP SIGNS (1) remains as proposed. (2) Where the qualified business is located more than one mile from the interchange, mileage may also be given on the specific service ramp sign. (3) through (5) remain as proposed. AUTH: 60-5-503, MCA IMP: 60-5-513, MCA 18.6.420 TOURIST-ORIENTED DIRECTIONAL SIGNS (TODS) – GENERAL (1) remains as proposed.
(3) through (7) remain as proposed, but are renumbered (2) through (6). AUTH: 60-5-503, MCA IMP: 60-5-519, 60-5-520, 60-5-521, MCA 18.6.422 DESIGN OF TOURIST-ORIENTED DIRECTIONAL SIGNS (TODS) AND PANELS (1) (2) through (6) remain as proposed. AUTH: 60-5-503, MCA IMP: 60-5-521, MCA 18.6.432 MAINTENANCE (1) through (4) remain as proposed. (5) The department, at its cost, shall remove a motorist information sign if the location of the sign is required for highway purposes or activities including construction, reconstruction or maintenance. The department may re-erect any motorist information sign removed for highway purposes, at an approved substitute location, if possible, but has no obligation to relocate a sign or compensate for its removal.
(7) The department shall remove a motorist information sign if the department determines the placement or condition of the motorist information sign endangers the health, safety, or welfare of the public, or in the event the motorist information sign has become inconsistent or in violation of statute or administrative rule. The department has no obligation to compensate for a motorist information sign removal. AUTH: 60-5-503, MCA IMP: 60-5-505, MCA 6. The department has thoroughly considered the comments and testimony received. A summary of the comments received and the department's responses are as follows: COMMENT #1: One comment was received stating ARM §18.6.402(1) and (20) and ARM §18.6.409(1) should be consistent in how they define "business sign" or "logo sign panel." Consistency should also be used in the terms "specific service signs" or "specific information sign" within ARM 18.6.409. RESPONSE #1: The department notes the definitions of "Business sign" and "Specific information sign" are contained in statute at Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 60-5-502(1) and (7), and are repeated verbatim in the administrative rule at ARM 18.6.402(1) and (20). The department cannot change statutory wording in administrative rules. The department is aware, however, that the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) does not use identical wording to the Montana statutes, therefore the department sought, in the proposed rule language, to coordinate the two sources and use both statutory terms and MUTCD terms which refer to the same items. The department notes the resulting rule language is not "inconsistent," but rather more broadly worded in using both statutory terms and MUTCD terms for the same items or concepts. ARM 18.6.409(1) uses the term "specific service sign," which is the MUTCD term for what is called "specific information sign" in Montana Code Annotated, but the two terms are synonymous, merely from different sources. COMMENT #2: One comment was received stating ARM 18.6.402(23), 18.6.420(2) and 18.6.422(1) should be consistent in defining or describing the term "tourist-oriented directional sign" and "TODS." RESPONSE #2: The department agrees with the comment, insofar as the cited rules use both statutory and MUTCD language for the same item, that of a tourist-oriented directional sign. The department must adhere to statutory language, thus ARM 18.6.420(23) cannot be changed. However, the department will amend ARM 18.6.420(2) and 18.6.422(1) as shown above to delete the MUTCD language describing or defining a TODS, as the term has already been defined in rule using statutory language at ARM 18.6.402(23), and the MUTCD descriptions are therefore not necessary and may create confusion.
COMMENT #3: One comment was received stating ARM 18.6.407(2) is confusing in stating that if the business is further than one mile, the mileage may be given on the ramp sign, while later stating the ramp signs should include distances to all facilities. The comment stated the language is confusing as to whether the mileage should only be given if the facility is more than one mile or whether an attempt should be made to always indicate mileage to the facility. RESPONSE #3: The department agrees with the comment and will amend the rule as shown above.
COMMENT #4: One comment was received stating that ARM 18.6.408(3) states the number of logo sign panels shall be limited to four, which is in conformity with the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), however the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) has recommended to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that this language be amended in the next edition of the MUTCD to increase the number of logo sign panels from four to six. The comment stated the department may consider amending the language in ARM 18.6.408(3) to state the number of logo sign panels shall conform to the requirements of the current MUTCD, to avoid having to revise this section at a later date. RESPONSE #4: The department notes it must adhere to the current 2009 MUTCD, as this manual has been adopted by the department. If the MUTCD is updated in the future, the administrative rules may be amended to conform to the updates.
COMMENT #5: One comment was received stating ARM 18.6.420(4) conforms to the current MUTCD in stating "a facility shall be eligible for TODS only if it derives its major portion of income or visitors… from road users not residing in the area of the facility." The comment stating the NCUTCD has recommended to the FHWA that this be changed from "shall" to "should." The comment stated the department may consider amending the language in ARM 18.6.420(4) to state the facility must be eligibility requirements as outlined in the MUTCD to avoid having to revise this section at a later date. RESPONSE #5: See response to Comment #4 above.
COMMENT #6: One comment was received stating ARM 18.6.420(5) is confusing as it implies a business that cannot qualify for a permitted "off-premise" sign would be granted a TODS sign even if it is visible from the roadway. The comment stated it is unclear why any business that is visible from the main traveled road would be eligible for a TODS sign since the purpose of the TODS is to direct motorists to businesses which are not visible from the main traveled roadway. RESPONSE #6: The department's intent is to assist Montana businesses that exist in largely rural areas, where no opportunities for off-premise permitted advertising are possible due to a lack of qualifying commercial activities in the area. Instead, the statute allows the department to create a rule setting forth criteria to allow TODS for businesses which are visible from a roadway, but may desire additional signs at farther distances or other locations along the roadway. The department notes the rule specifically states the business must meet all criteria for a TODS sign, thus not every commercial business would be eligible, but the rule does create additional opportunities for eligible businesses which desire signage and additional tourist opportunities for motorists traveling through the rural areas. COMMENT #7: One comment was received stating ARM 18.6.420(6) conforms to the current MUTCD in stating that where both TODS and LOGO signs would be needed at the same intersection, the TODS should be used in place of the LOGO sign. The comment stating the NCUTCD has recommended to the FHWA that this language be removed in its entirety in the next edition of the MUTCD. The comment stated the department may consider amending the language in ARM 18.6.420(6) to avoid having to revise this section at a later date. RESPONSE #7: See response to comment #4 above. COMMENT #8: One comment was received stating ARM 18.6.432(4) – (6) which requires the franchisee to pay the costs of relocation of any signs as necessary for highway improvements, maintenance or construction provides significant unknown variables for the franchisee, whose costs could far exceed revenues generated by the fees paid by participants. The comment stated that if I-90 were widened, requiring the removal and reinstallation of all of the sign structures, ARM 18.6.432(6) would require the franchisee to bear those costs, however the franchisee would never be able to recover those costs from the annual participation fees. The comment stated that other transportation agencies include the removal, relocation or reinstallation of the signs in the bid package for the project which affects the current placement of the signs. The comment suggested language be substituted in the rule which states "the department will be responsible for coordinating required modification, removal and replacement of specific service sign structures involved in department and local construction projects, and the franchisee will resume total responsibility for those signs at project completion." RESPONSE #8: The department agrees with the comment and will amend the rule as shown above. The department will assume responsibility for costs of removal and relocation (where possible) of motorist information signs when necessary for highway purposes such as construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of highways. COMMENT #9: One comment was received in support of New Rule I on Supplemental Message signs and the recognition of RV Access signs. RESPONSE #9: The department acknowledges the comment in support. /s/ Carol Grell Morris /s/ Timothy W. Reardon Carol Grell Morris Timothy W. Reardon Rule Reviewer Director Department of Transportation Certified to the Secretary of State November 26, 2012. |
A directory of state agencies is available online at http://www.mt.gov/govt/agencylisting.asp.
For questions about the organization of the ARM or this web site, contact [email protected].
