```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31950-31957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15607]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
```