[Federal Register: June 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 112)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31950-31957]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jn98-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <SUP>1</SUP> 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.'' <SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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