Revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Part IISigns

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-3644]

RIN 2125-AE38

Revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Part

II--Signs

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments 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, approved by the Federal Highway Administrator, and

recognized as the national standard for traffic control on all public

roads. The FHWA announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD

on January 10, 1992, at 57 FR

[[Page 31951]]

1134. Due to the voluminous amount of text, the revision is being

undertaken in phases. This notice of proposed amendment represents the

third phase of the MUTCD rewrite effort and includes changes proposed

to the following sections of the MUTCD:

1. 2A--General Provisions and Standards

2. 2D--Guide Signs--Conventional Roads

3. 2E--Guide Signs--Freeways and Expressways

4. 2F--Specific Service Signs

5. 2I--Signing for Civil Defense

The purpose of this effort is to rewrite and reformat the text for

clarity and consistency of intended meanings; to include metric

dimensions and values for the design and installation of traffic

control devices; to improve the overall organization and discussion of

the contents in the MUTCD; and to propose changes to the MUTCD that

will enhance the mobility of all road users, promote uniformity,

improve traffic safety by reducing the potential for run-off-road

incidents, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control

device application.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 11, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Signed, written comments should refer to the docket number

that appears at the top of this document and must be submitted to the

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for

examination at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 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 the notice

of proposed amendments contact Ms. Linda Brown, Office of Highway

Safety, Room 3414, (202) 366-2192, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, Office of

the Chief Counsel, Room 4217, (202) 366-0834, Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

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://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 Federal Register

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may

reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/

su__docs.

The proposed text for Chapters 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I of the MUTCD

is available from the FHWA, Office of Highway Safety (HHS-10). It is

also available on the FHWA home page at the following URL: http://

www.ohs.fhwa.dot.gov/devices/mutcd.html.

Background

The 1988 MUTCD (which includes Part 6, Revision 3, dated September

1993) is available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR

Part 7. It may be purchased for $57 (Domestic) or $71.25 (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. This

notice is being issued to provide an opportunity for public comment on

the desirability of proposed amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the

comments submitted and upon its own experience, the FHWA will issue a

final rule concerning the proposed changes included in this notice.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD)

is a national organization of individuals from the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute

of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the National Association of County

Engineers (NACE), the American Public Works Association (APWA), and

other organizations that have extensive experience in the installation

and maintenance of traffic control devices. The NCUTCD voluntarily

assumed the arduous task of rewriting and reformatting the MUTCD and

submitted a request for changes to the FHWA. The NCUTCD proposal is

available from the U.S. DOT Docket (see address above). Pursuant to 23

CFR Part 655, the FHWA is responsible for approval of changes to the

MUTCD.

Although the MUTCD will be revised in its entirety, it will be done

in phases due to the voluminous amount of text. The FHWA has reviewed

the NCUTCD's recommendations for MUTCD Part III--Markings, Part IV--

Signals, and Part VIII--Traffic Control for Roadway-Rail Intersections.

The proposed text for Parts III, IV, and VIII was published as Phase 1

of the MUTCD rewrite effort in a previous notice of proposed amendment,

dated January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691. The FHWA also has reviewed the

NCUTCD's recommendations for MUTCD Part I--General Provisions and Part

VII--Traffic Controls for School Areas. The proposed text for Parts I

and VII were published as Phase 2 of the MUTCD rewrite effort in a

notice of proposed amendment dated December 5, 1997, at 62 FR 64324.

This notice of proposed amendment is for Phase 3 of the MUTCD

rewrite effort and includes the proposed text for: MUTCD Chapter 2A--

General Provisions and Standards; Chapter 2D--Guide Signs--Conventional

Roads; Chapter 2E--Guide Signs--Expressways and Freeways; Chapter 2F--

Specific Service Signs; and Chapter 2I--Signing for Civil Defense. In

order to achieve consistency, this notice also embraces revisions

proposed in Phase 1 or 2 of this process that affect chapters in Part

II. The public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the

remaining parts of the MUTCD in a future notice of proposed amendment.

The FHWA invites comments on the proposed text for the above listed

chapters of Part II. A summary of the significant changes contained in

these chapters is provided in this notice of proposed amendment.

As indicated in previous notices, the proposed new style of the

MUTCD would be a 3-ring binder with 8\1/2\ x 11 inch pages. Each part

of the MUTCD would be printed separately in a bound format and then

included in the 3-ring binder. If someone needed to reference

information on a specific part of the MUTCD, it would be easy to remove

that individual part from the binder. The proposed new text would be in

column format and contain four categories as follows: (1) Standards--

representing ``shall'' conditions; (2) Guidance--representing

``should'' conditions; (3) Options--representing ``may'' conditions;

and (4) Support--representing descriptive and/or general information.

This new format would make it easier to distinguish standards,

guidance, and optional conditions for the design, placement, and

application of traffic control devices. For review purposes during this

rewrite effort, dimensions will be shown in both metric and English

units. This will make it easier to compare text shown in the 1988

Edition with the proposed new edition. The adopted final version of the

new MUTCD, however, will be solely in metric units.

This effort to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD will be an ongoing

activity over the next two years. Some of the other issues which will

be addressed in a future notice of proposed amendment are: Minimum

retroreflectivity standards for signs and pavement markings; signing

for low-volume rural

[[Page 31952]]

roads; and traffic control for light-rail grade crossings. These

proposed changes to the MUTCD are intended to enhance the mobility of

all road users, promote uniformity, improve traffic safety for

pedestrians and bicyclists, reduce the potential for run-off-road

incidents, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control

device application.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2A--General Provisions

and Standards

The FHWA proposes to change the chapter title to ``General

Provisions and Standards.''

In Section 2A.1, paragraph 5, the FHWA proposes changing the first

sentence so that the design and application standards for ``all'' signs

(not just ``guide'' signs) are dependent on the particular class of

highway on which they are used. The FHWA also proposes adding ``Special

Purpose Road'' to the list of highway classification definitions.

In Section 2A.3, the FHWA proposes to add a sentence to inform

readers that in some cases engineering studies may show that signs are

not necessary at certain locations. The general public is familiar with

the concept of conducting an engineering study to determine if signs

are necessary at a certain location. It is important to point out,

however, that the reverse of this concept is also possible.

In Section 2A.7, the FHWA proposes changing the title from

``variable message signs'' to ``changeable message signs.'' For

consistency of terminology, the FHWA proposes the term ``changeable

message signs'' since it is more commonly used within the

transportation field and it is used throughout the text in MUTCD Part

6F.2, Revision 3. Also in paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes adding a

sentence to refer readers to Section 6F.2 which provides additional

discussion on changeable message signs used in temporary traffic

control zones. FHWA recognizes the expanded and increased use of

changeable message signs particularly in the area of intelligent

traffic control. We are interested in receiving comments and guidance

on your experiences with designing, installing, and maintaining

changeable message signs.

The FHWA proposes to combine Sections 2A-16, 17, and 18 of the 1988

MUTCD into proposed new Section 2A.8, Illumination and

Retroreflectivity. The FHWA also proposes to include two new tables to

help clarify the discussion contained in the text for Section 2A.8

(Table 2A.2 and Table 2A.3).

In Section 2A.8, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to extend the

general requirements of sign retroreflectivity or illumination to

``all'' signs, not just regulatory and warning signs. This requirement

would apply to all signs unless specifically stated otherwise in the

MUTCD text for a particular sign or group of signs. The FHWA believes

this will improve safety and visibility during adverse ambient

conditions. After the FHWA has developed minimum retroreflectivity

levels, the FHWA would include this information as GUIDANCE in the

proposed new Section 2A.9.

In Section 2A.10, the FHWA proposes to include the discussion of

shapes in a table format for clarity and ease of reading. The FHWA also

proposes to expand the number of shapes for exclusive use. In Section

2A-10 of the 1988 MUTCD, the STOP and YIELD signs were the only signs

with an exclusive shape. The FHWA proposes to include the Pennant,

Crossbuck, and Trapezoid as exclusive shapes.

In Section 2A.11, the FHWA proposes to include the discussion on

colors in a table format for clarity and ease of reading. Also in

Section 2A.11, the FHWA proposes to include a statement that the color

coordinates and values shall conform to those shown in the color

specifications described on page 6-39 of the ``Standard Highway Signs''

(SHS) Book. 1 The FHWA believes that including this

statement will help promote uniformity of colors where traffic control

signs are designed and installed by providing the reader with a

specific reference source for determining the proper color coordinates

and values.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 Edition (Metric) is

included by reference in the 1988 MUTCD. It is available for

inspection and copying at the FHWA Washington Headquarters and all

FHWA Division and Region Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 2A.13, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add a sentence

to explain that new symbol signs shall be adopted by FHWA based on

research evaluation studies to determine the road users comprehension

and recognition of the sign. The FHWA is also proposing to add an

option that State and/or local highway agencies may conduct this

research.

In Section 2A.14, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes adding GUIDANCE

for determining sign letter heights. Sign letter heights should be

determined based on 1 inch per 40 feet of legibility distance. The FHWA

believes this would improve safety for all road users and especially

for older road users whose vision may be diminished.

In Section 2A-15 of the 1988 MUTCD, only destination guide signs

could combine the use of upper-case and lower-case letters. The FHWA

proposes in Section 2A.14 to include an OPTION that allows the use of

upper-case and lower-case letters on street name signs in addition to

destination signs. This is consistent with the language in the final

rule dated January 9, 1997, which discusses increased letter sizes on

street name signs. The FHWA also proposes deleting the restriction of

using series B alphabets only on street name signs. Other standard

series alphabets could be used as appropriate.

In the last paragraph of Section 2A.17 in the proposed new text,

the FHWA has moved the discussion on bridge sign supports currently in

Section 2A-28 to this section on Overhead Sign Installations. The 1988

MUTCD states that ``on urban freeways and expressways . . . signs may

be placed on bridges.'' In the proposed new edition of the MUTCD, the

FHWA proposes to delete the word ``urban'' so that this sign

application is not limited to urban freeways and expressways. In

addition, the FHWA proposes to reduce this information from GUIDANCE to

an OPTION condition in order to allow the traffic engineer more

flexibility.

In Section 2A.18, the FHWA proposes to change the minimum mounting

height for all signs to 2.1 m (7 feet). This would include signs in

rural districts. In the 1988 MUTCD, the mounting height was 7 feet for

signs only in urban districts, in work zones, or in areas where parking

or pedestrian movement occurs. The proposed change is recommended based

on research studies that show safety benefits can be derived from

moving the sign panel out of the danger zone where the sign may become

a projectile and result in road user injuries if struck by an errant

vehicle. In addition, the FHWA proposes to indicate a STANDARD minimum

mounting height for supplemental plaques of 1.2 m (4 feet), rather than

referring to a variable height measured in terms of the main sign.

In paragraph 6 of Section 2A.18, the FHWA proposes including an

OPTION that allows flexibility in the mounting height of signs

installed on steep backslopes. In the last paragraph of Section 2A.18,

the FHWA proposes adding a SUPPORT discussion on the term ``clear

zone'' as defined in the AASHTO ``Roadside Design Guide.'' 2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The ``Roadside Design Guide,'' 1989, is available for

purchase from the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 444 North Capitol Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20001. It is available for inspection from the FHWA

Washington Headquarters and all FHWA Division and Region Offices as

prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31953]]

Section 2A.19 discusses the minimum lateral offset outside the

roadway for freeway and expressway signs. The FHWA proposes to add a

STANDARD to the first paragraph that requires sign supports within the

clear zone to be breakaway or shielded for the safety of the road user

particularly in run-off-road incidents.

In paragraph 2 of Section 2A.23, the FHWA proposes to include day

and night inspections as a part of sign maintenance. Although this is

general practice among many engineering and transportation officials,

we believe it is a practice worth reiterating in the MUTCD.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2D--Guide Signs--

Conventional Roads

Throughout Chapter 2D, the FHWA proposes to replace the word

``marker'' with the word ``sign,'' since these route and auxiliary

markers are generally considered signs. The sign numbers will continue

to carry the ``M'' designation (example: M1-4). Also throughout Chapter

2D it is important for the reader to remember to refer to Chapter 2A

for placement, location, and other general criteria for signs, since

this information is not repeated in every section.

In Section 2D.3, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to extend the

general requirement for retroreflectivity to all guide sign messages

and legends unless specific exceptions are provided. This is consistent

with the proposed text in Section 2A.8 which requires retroreflectivity

of all signs.

In Section 2D.9, paragraph 5 discusses route system signing and the

order of preference for the priority legend. The FHWA proposes to

include a STANDARD sentence stating that the highest priority legend

shall be placed on the top or to the left of the sign panel. This would

help the road user better identify the class of roadway (example:

Interstate vs. County roadway).

In Section 2D.11, paragraph 6, the FHWA proposes to include a

sentence that allows the OPTION of placing a white panel behind the

Off-Interstate Business Route signs when they are installed on a green

guide sign. This would help road users by improving the sign's contrast

and conspicuity.

In Section 2D.15, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to re-emphasize

the 10 percent increase in size for the first letter of cardinal

direction messages. Although this change was adopted in a previous

final rule, we are reiterating our intent to strongly encourage States

and local transportation departments to implement this change during

their normal sign replacement and maintenance schedules. Increasing the

first letter of cardinal directions, such as EAST and WEST, helps the

road user in the navigation task by providing a clearer distinction

between the similar appearance of these two messages. The same

principle is true for the NORTH and SOUTH cardinal directions.

In Section 2D.33, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to add an option

that allows the route sign and the cardinal direction to be included

within the destination sign panel. We are also proposing to include

guidance on the minimum sizes for these signs to ensure that they are

readable by the road user.

Paragraph 5 of Section 2D-35 in the 1988 Edition of the MUTCD

required that destination signs with four destinations shall be shown

on two separate sign panels. In Section 2D.34, paragraph 9 of the

proposed text, the FHWA proposes to change this requirement from a

``shall'' to a ``should'' condition. We propose this change since the

MUTCD currently allows the option of placing all four destinations on a

single panel in situations where spacing is critical. Based on this, it

seems reasonable to ``recommend'' rather than to ``require'' the use of

two sign panels.

In paragraph 2 of Section 2D-38 in the 1988 Edition of the MUTCD,

distance signs were required to be placed approximately 500 feet

outside the municipal limits or at the edge of the built-up district.

In the proposed text for new Section 2D.37, the FHWA proposes to delete

this specific distance requirement and allow the State and local

transportation departments the flexibility to determine the appropriate

sign location.

In paragraph 9, Section 2D-45 in the 1988 Edition of the MUTCD,

general service signs and accompanying supplemental plaques could have

either a retroreflective or an opaque blue background. Since the FHWA

proposes to require all guide signs to be retroreflective (see Section

2D.3), opaque backgrounds would be no longer allowed. This change is

reflected in the proposed text for new section 2D.44, paragraph 15.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2E--Guide Signs--

Expressways and Freeways

The FHWA proposes to combine Chapters 2E (Guide Signs--Expressway)

and 2F (Guide Signs--Freeway) in the 1988 Edition of the MUTCD into a

new Chapter 2E-- Freeway and Expressway Guide Signs.

In Section 2E.5, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to require that

signs must be either retroreflectorized or independently illuminated.

The 1988 MUTCD classified this provision as a GUIDANCE condition. The

proposed new text would classify it as a STANDARD condition. The FHWA

also proposes to use the term ``independent illumination'' since it may

include, but is not limited to, ``internal illumination.''

In Section 2E.5, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to recommend that

all overhead sign installations should be illuminated if an engineering

study shows that retroreflection alone will not perform effectively.

This proposed change would improve the visibility of overhead signs,

particularly at night.

In Section 2E.6, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to add visual

clutter from roadside development to the list of features which

characterize urban conditions. Growth in business development and

environmental changes make this an appropriate item to consider when

installing signs since excessive signs may create information overload

for some road users and may complicate the navigation task.

In Section 2E.6, paragraph 2, the FHWA lists special sign

treatments for improving travel on urban freeways and expressways. The

FHWA proposes to add the following to this list: ``Frequent use of

street names as the principal message in guide signs.'' This would

improve the guidance information provided to road users.

In Section 2E.8, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to expand the

GUIDANCE for certain classes of highways that should not be signed as

memorial highways. Instead of just applying to Interstate routes, the

FHWA proposes to expand the GUIDANCE to include all freeways and

expressways.

In Section 2E.9, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to clarify the

GUIDANCE in the 1988 MUTCD which addresses the appropriate amount of

legend on guide signs. Instead of the words ``Not more than two

destination names * * * on any single major guide sign,'' the FHWA

proposes to change the wording to ``on any Advance Guide or Exit

Direction sign.'' The FHWA proposes to indicate these specific types of

major guide signs instead of guide signs in general.

In Section 2E.12, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes to add language to

highlight the fact that States are responsible for the selection of

control cities shown on guide signs.

In Section 2E.16, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION

that clarifies the proper use of periods on

[[Page 31954]]

guide signs. Periods may be used, but only when abbreviating a cardinal

direction as part of a destination name. Although this is an implied

practice, the FHWA believes it should be specifically stated in the

MUTCD.

In Section 2E.17, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to require that

symbol designs be essentially like those shown in the MUTCD. In the

1988 MUTCD this was recommended practice instead of required practice.

In Section 2E.19, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to require the

practice of showing only one destination for each directional arrowhead

on diagrammatic signs. In the 1988 MUTCD this was an OPTION rather than

STANDARD practice. This proposed change would make it clearer for the

road users to select the proper lane for their destinations.

In Section 2E.20, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to add a new

STANDARD which would prohibit the use of the EXIT ONLY panel on

diagrammatic signs at any major bifurcation or split. This proposed

change is aimed at eliminating potentially confusing situations for the

road users.

In Section 2E.21, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to include a

larger letter height of 450 mm (18 inches) for changeable message

signs. The FHWA also proposes to include additional criteria for the

use of changeable message signs based on the text in Part VI of the

1988 MUTCD. This proposed change would improve the visibility of signs

for the road user.

In Section 2E.24, paragraph 1, the FHWA has proposed to include

reference to the importance of the clear zones and breakaway supports

when determining the horizontal clearance distance for sign

installation. These principles are important considerations for

reducing the potential for run-off-road incidents.

In Section 2E.29, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to increase the

vertical dimension of the exit number sign panel which includes the

word EXIT, the appropriate exit number, and the suffix letter A or B

(on multi-exit interchanges). The proposed change would increase the

vertical dimension from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). This

change would improve the visibility of signs for the road user.

In Section 2E.31, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to change the

GUIDANCE for placement of Advance Guide signs in advance of the exit

gore from: ``400m to 1 km'' (\1/4\ to \1/2\ miles) to: ``1 to 2 km''

(\1/2\ to 1 mile).

In Section 2E.31, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to require that

the word EXIT be omitted from the bottom line of Advance Guide sign

text where interchange exit numbers are used. The FHWA proposes to

change this from an OPTION to STANDARD practice.

In Section 2E.33, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to recommend that

only one supplemental guide sign should be used on each interchange

approach. The FHWA proposes to change this from optional to recommended

practice.

In Section 2E.34, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD

that population figures or other similar information shall not be used

on Exit Direction signs.

In Section 2E.34, paragraph 7, the FHWA proposes to highlight the

GUIDANCE which is in the 1988 MUTCD concerning the proper placement of

the exit number panels. The placement of the exit number panel on the

proper side of the sign would help the road users select the

appropriate exit lane.

In Section 2E.34, the last sentence of paragraph 10, the FHWA

proposes to allow the States more flexibility to use any type of

overhead support for installing the Exit Direction sign. Presently

cantilevered supports are specified.

In Section 2E.41, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to include

GUIDANCE that the signing layout should be similar for interchanges

which have only one exit ramp in the direction of travel. This proposed

change is intended to promote uniformity.

In Section 2E.42, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION

for installing overhead guide signs at freeway to freeway interchanges

at the 1 km (\1/2\ mile) point in advance of the theoretical gore of

each connecting ramp.

The following changes are proposed in Section 2E.52:

1. In paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add a new option that an

action message, such as NEXT RIGHT, may be used on general road user

service signs which do not have exit numbers included on the sign. A

new figure (2E-38) has also been added.

2. In paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes to provide specific guidance

for General Service signs that include distances. Distances to services

should be shown when the service is more than 2 km (1 mile) from the

interchange.

3. In paragraph 4b, the FHWA proposes to add ``modern sanitary

facilities'' as a criteria for food establishments since most

restaurants have restroom facilities. Also in paragraph 4b, the FHWA

proposes modifying the recommended number of days that a food service

displayed on a service sign is open. The FHWA proposes to modify the

text from ``7'' days a week to ``6 or 7'' days a week. The current

guidance in the MUTCD already permits a State to develop a specific

service sign policy with a ``less than 7 days a week'' criteria.

However, this proposed change would provide a clearer example of the

possible alternative criteria that States may use to provide the road

user more information about desired service. The proposed changes would

not impose additional requirements or costs on State or local highway

agencies.

4. In paragraph 5, the FHWA proposes a new STANDARD which would

require that General Road Service signs that are operated on a seasonal

basis shall be removed or covered during periods when the service is

not available. This reduces the chance of road users mistakenly leaving

their routes only to find that the particular service is closed.

In Section 2E.57, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION

which allows Radio-Traffic Information signs (D12-4) to be used in

conjunction with traffic management systems. The D12-4 is a proposed

new word message sign.

In Section 2E.57, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to reduce the

maximum number of frequencies shown on the Radio Information signs from

4 to 3. In addition, the FHWA proposes to include a new figure which

illustrates this concept and to change the text from an OPTION

condition to a STANDARD condition.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2F--Specific Service

Signs

Due to the proposed consolidation of Chapters 2E (Expressway Guide

Signs) and 2F (Freeway Guide Signs) of the 1988 MUTCD Edition into a

combined Chapter 2E, the FHWA proposes to move the discussion in 2G

(Specific Service Signs) to a new Chapter 2F.

Throughout Chapter 2F the following terms are used consistently

with the following specific meaning: logo sign panel, sign, and sign

assembly. The term ``logo sign panel'' is a smaller separate sign panel

which would be placed on a specific service sign and onto which a logo

is placed. The term ``sign'' means a larger sign panel with white

legend, white border and blue background onto which the logo sign

panels are placed. A ``sign assembly'' consists of more than one sign.

In Section 2F.1, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes to classify the

equal opportunity criteria (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

as a STANDARD,

[[Page 31955]]

since most Federal programs require compliance with Title VI

regulations.

In Section 2F.1, paragraphs 5 and 12, the FHWA proposes to add an

ATTRACTIONS category to the types of Specific Service signs. The FHWA

proposes to add the ATTRACTIONS category to the four service categories

which are currently contained in the MUTCD (gas, food, lodging, and

camping). This change was requested by the Kentucky Department of

Transportation and is numbered and titled Request II-264(C), ``Specific

Service Logo for Tourist Attraction Signs.'' Specific Service signs for

this type of service are being installed and studied with FHWA

experimental approval on a limited basis in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and

Pennsylvania under experimental requests II-227(Ex), II-232(Ex), and

II-260(Ex). These experiments are due for completion between 1999 and

2001 and contain sign criteria similar to the criteria proposed for the

MUTCD. Interim study reports from Kentucky and the New York State

Thruway indicate that programs with these signs are successfully

assisting road user, increasing business, and reducing billboard demand

regarding tourism and attractions, with no impact on highway safety and

operations. Other States are expressing similar interests and FHWA

anticipates additional positive results from the experimentations.

In Section 2F.1, paragraph 8, the FHWA proposes guidance that

allows for alternative fuels on specific Service sign logos. Also, in

Section 2F.3, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes an option which allows for

alternative fuel legends on the bottom of logo panels. These proposed

changes are consistent with the scope of use for alternative fuels on

general service signs which was published as a final rule in the

Federal Register dated January 9, 1997. The request number for this

change was II-226(C)--General Motorist Service Signing for Alternative

Fuels.

In Section 2F.1, paragraph 9, the FHWA proposes modifying the

recommended number of days that a food service is open from ``7'' days

a week to ``6 or 7'' days a week. The FHWA also proposes to add an

option in Section 2F.3, paragraph 4, which would allow food service

facilities that are open only 6 days a week to display the day that the

facility is closed at the bottom of the logo panel. The current

guidance in MUTCD Section 2G-5.7 permits a State to develop a Specific

Service sign policy with a less than 7 days a week criteria. However,

these proposed changes provide a clearer example of possible

alternative criteria that States may use to provide the road user more

information about desired service. The proposed changes would not

impose additional requirements or costs on State or local highway

agencies.

In Section 2F.2, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to allow the

maximum of two service types to be placed on any specific service sign

at any interchange or intersection. Based on this proposed change, the

FHWA also proposes to eliminate the requirement in Section 2G-5.5 of

the 1988 MUTCD for a separate sign at freeway and expressway

interchanges for each service type. Also, the related ``remote rural''

exception criteria for these signs for both interchanges and

intersections would be deleted. These proposed changes would allow for

additional sign designs and would not impose any additional costs to

the States.

In Section 2G-5.5 of the MUTCD 1988 Edition, the recommended

maximum number of logos for a Specific Service sign (or sign assembly)

is six for the GAS services and four logos for food, lodging, and

camping services. In the proposed new Section 2F.4, paragraph 2, the

FHWA proposes to recommend a maximum of six logos for a sign in any of

the service categories. This request for change was submitted by the

NCUTCD. It was originally designated as part of request number II-

161(C) and is also being considered as a part of request number II-

193(C). The FHWA is aware that some States commonly allow 6 logos on

the signs for any of the four types of services and for the

experimental attraction service signs. The States have not reported any

negative impacts. Based on the proposed six logo maximum for each sign,

the FHWA also proposes to require a maximum of three logo panels for

each of the two allowable service types contained on any sign or sign

assembly instead of the two logo panels maximum for each service type

as currently required in Sections 2G-5.5 and 2G-5.6. The FHWA believes

that few highway jurisdictions allow and few sign installations

currently contain more than the proposed maximum number of logos. Since

the State and local highway jurisdictions have the option to use less

than the maximum six logos, the proposed changes would not impose any

significant additional costs.

In Section 2F.4, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to allow for any

expressway intersection the maximum logo panel size of 1500 mm (60

inches) by 900 mm (36 inches). In Section 2G-5.3, Table II-4 of the

1988 MUTCD, the maximum size for expressway intersections is 900 mm (36

inches) by 600 mm (24 inches). This change would give the States and

local transportation departments greater latitude in the selection of

sign sizes and would not impose any additional costs.

In Section 2F.5, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the

two intersection categories as shown in Section 2G-5.4, Table II-5, of

the 1988 MUTCD and to establish a minimum letter height of 250 mm (10

inches) for all service signs on freeways and expressways. The FHWA

also proposes to increase the minimum letter height for service signs

on ramps and conventional highways from 100 mm (4 inches) to 150 mm (6

inches). The compliance date is proposed to be 10 years after the

effective date of the final rule or as signs are replaced within the 10

year period. This would allow for replacement after the normal service

life of the signs.

In Section 2F.6, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the

requirement of a separate sign panel for each specific service sign

category displayed. Also in paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to allow a

maximum of two service categories to be displayed on any specific

service sign panel at any expressway interchange or intersection. The

limitation to ``remote rural'' interchanges and intersections has been

deleted.

In Section 2F.6, paragraph 2, and as noted on Figure 2F-2, the FHWA

proposes adding guidance that specific service ramp signs should be

spaced at least 30 m (100 ft) from the exit gore sign, from each other,

and from the ramp terminal. This proposed GUIDANCE was recommended by

the NCUTCD based on a survey which they conducted of the practices of

18 State transportation departments.

In Section 2F.7, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes adding an option to

allow the exit number panel on the top of Specific Service signs on the

freeway or expressway for the single-exit interchanges. Also, in

Section 2F.9, paragraph 5, the FHWA proposes adding an option to allow

for the NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) and other directional legends to be placed

below the logos on the signs for intersections as is shown in figure 2-

47 of the 1988 MUTCD. Currently, these legends are required to be

located on the same line above the logos as the service type word

message. The proposed changes would allow the Specific Service signs to

be consistent with other guide sign designs.

In Section 2F.9, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to allow the State

and local transportation departments to determine acceptable visibility

limits.

[[Page 31956]]

Section 2G-5.6 of the 1988 MUTCD recommends that logos should not be

displayed for services and qualified facilities which are visible

within 90 m (300 feet) of the intersection.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2I--Signing for Civil

Defense

Based on the changes in section numbering for Part II, the FHWA

proposes to number the Signing for Civil Defense as Chapter 2I instead

of 2J. The only other proposed change to this chapter is to reformat

the text so that Standards, Guidance, Option, and Support conditions

are clearly indicated.

Discussion of Adopted Amendments to Part II of the 1988 MUTCD

The following adopted changes were published in a previous Federal

Register final rule dated January 9, 1997 and are highlighted in this

discussion of proposed changes for purpose of consistency:

1. In Section 2D.38 of the proposed text, the FHWA has added

language for the increased minimum letter size of street name signs. In

the Federal Register final rule dated January 9, 1997, the minimum

letter size was increased from 4 inches to 6 inches for streets with

speeds greater than 25 miles per hour.

2. In Section 2D.44, the FHWA has added language for the

Alternative Fuel, Truck Parking, and Cellular Phone Emergency Signs.

3. In Section 2D.47, the FHWA has added language for the Non-

Carrier Airport, Adopt-A-Highway, and Recycling Collection Center

signs.

4. In Section 2E.52, paragraph 4a, the FHWA has included language

for the Compressed Natural Gas, Electric Vehicle Charging, and other

alternative fuel signs.

5. In Section 2E.52, paragraph 14, the FHWA has added language on

Truck Parking signs which is consistent with what was adopted by the

final rule referenced above.

6. In Section 2E.58, paragraph 2, the FHWA has added language which

increases the maximum vertical size of a symbol or logo Carpool

Information sign to 900 mm (36 inches).

7. In section 2F.3, paragraph 1, the FHWA has included the standard

definition for logo for specific service signs.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available

for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received

after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be

considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a Final

Rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to

late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket

relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing

date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for

new material.

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 new standards and other

changes proposed in this notice are intended to improve traffic

operations and provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional

applications for traffic control devices. The FHWA expects that these

proposed changes will create uniformity and enhance safety and mobility

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. This notice of proposed rulemaking adds some

new and alternative traffic control devices and traffic control device

applications. The proposed new standards and other changes are intended

to enhance traffic operations, improve roadway safety, expand guidance

and navigation information provided to road users, and clarify traffic

control device application and practices. As noted previously, expenses

to implement or comply with the proposed changes would be minimal, if

any. Therefore, the FHWA hereby certifies that these proposed revisions

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). 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. The proposed amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of

Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to

promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of

the highway. To the extent that 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

[[Page 31957]]

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; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: June 4, 1998.

Gloria J. Jeff,

Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-15607 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P