DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-6298]
Revision of the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
Regulatory Signs, Low Volume Rural Roads, and Traffic Control for
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
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 1134.
This document proposes new text for the MUTCD in Chapter 2B--
Regulatory Signs, Part 5--Traffic Control Devices for Low-Volume Rural
Roads, and Part 8--Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
(update information). The purpose of this rewrite effort is to reformat
the text for clarity of intended meanings, to include metric dimensions
and values for the design and installation of traffic control devices,
and to improve the overall organization and discussion of the contents
in the MUTCD. The proposed changes included herein are intended to
expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate
technology advances in traffic control device application.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 30, 2000.
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 9 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,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the notice
of proposed amendments contact Ms. Linda Brown, Office of
Transportation Operations, Room 3408, (202) 366-2192, or Mr. Raymond
Cuprill, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 4217, (202) 366-0834, Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Internet users may 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 notice of proposed amendment may be
downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's
home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing
Office's database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
The text for the proposed sections of the MUTCD is available from
the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1) or from the FHWA
Home Page at the URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/operations/mutcd. Please
note that the current proposed sections contained in this docket for
MUTCD Chapters 2B, Part 5, and Part 8 will take approximately 8 weeks
from the date of publication before they will be available at this web
The 1988 MUTCD with its revisions are available for inspection and
copying as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7. It may be purchased for $57.00
(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 received and its own
experience, the FHWA may issue a final rule concerning the proposed
changes included in this notice.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD)
has taken the lead in this effort to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD.
The 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. The NCUTCD proposal is available from the U.S. DOT Dockets (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 is being
completed in phases due to the enormous volume of text. The FHWA
reviewed the NCUTCD's proposal for MUTCD Part 3--Markings, Part 4--
Signals, and Part 8--Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Intersections.
The summary of proposed changes for Parts 3, 4, and 8 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 reviewed the
NCUTCD's proposal for Part 1--General Provisions and Part 7--Traffic
Control for School Areas. The summary of proposed changes for Parts 1
and 7 was published as phase 2 of the MUTCD rewrite effort in a
previous notice of proposed amendment dated December 5, 1997, at 62 FR
64324. The FHWA reviewed the NCUTCD's proposal for Chapter 2A--General
Provisions and Standards for Signs, Chapter 2D--Guide Signs for
Conventional Roads, Chapter 2E--Guide Signs--Freeways and Expressways,
Chapter 2F--Specific Service Signs, and Chapter 2I--Signing for Civil
Defense. The summary of proposed changes for Chapters 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F,
and 2I was published as Phase 3 of the MUTCD rewrite effort in a
previous notice of proposed amendment dated June 11, 1998, at 63 FR
31950. The summary of proposed changes for Chapters 2G--Tourist
Oriented Directional Signs, Chapter 2H--Recreational and Cultural
Interest Signs, and Part 9--Traffic Control for Bicycles was published
as Phase 4 of the MUTCD rewrite effort in a previous notice of proposed
amendment dated June 24, 1999, at 64 FR 33802. The summary of proposed
changes for Chapter 2C--Warning Signs and Part 10--Traffic Control for
Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings was published as Phase 5 of
the MUTCD rewrite effort in a previous notice of proposed amendment
dated June 24, 1999, at 64 FR 33806.
This notice of proposed amendments is Phase 6 of the MUTCD rewrite
effort and includes the summary of proposed changes for MUTCD Chapter
2B, Part 5, and update information for previously published proposed
changes to Part 8. 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 remaining parts include Part 6--Traffic Control
for Construction, Maintenance, Utility, and Incident Management and
updates to the following previously published parts of the MUTCD: Part
1--Definitions; Part 3-- Markings; and Part 4--Signals.
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. The
adopted final version of the new MUTCD will be in metric and English
units. Dual units will be shown in the MUTCD particularly for speed
limits, guide sign distances, and other measurements which the public
The FHWA invites comments on the proposed text for MUTCD chapter
2B, part 5, and part 8 update. A summary of the proposed significant
changes contained in these sections are included in the following
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2B--Regulatory Signs
The following items are the most significant proposed revisions to
1. In Section 2B.1, the FHWA proposes to delete the sentence
indicating that all regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or
illuminated since this information is covered in Section 2A.8 which
provide general requirements for all signs, including regulatory signs.
2. In Section 2B.3, the FHWA proposes to include an explanation of
when various sign sizes should be used based on the roadway
classification. This information is currently shown in the ``Standard
Highway Signs'' book.<SUP>1</SUP> However, we believe it is worth
mentioning in the MUTCD text as well.
\1\ ``Standard Highway Signs,'' FHWA, 1979 (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
Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
3. In Section 2B.3, the FHWA proposes to add Table 2B.1 which
shows the sign codes, the standard sign sizes, and applicable MUTCD
sections for more detailed information. The FHWA believes that having
this information in a table format will provide an easy and quick
reference for the readers. In an effort to improve sign visibility, the
FHWA also proposes to increase the standard letter size for the
Table Showing Signs With Proposed Increased Standard Letter Sizes
Sign Code Proposed standard size
Two-Way Left Turn Only....... R3-9b........................ 750mm x 1050mm (30'' x 42'').
Center Lane Buses and HOV 2+ R3-11........................ 1050mm x 1500mm (42'' x 60'').
Do Not Enter................. R5-1......................... 900mm x 900mm (36'' x 36'').
Pedestrians and Bicycles R5-10b....................... 900mm x 600mm (36'' x 24'').
Pedestrians Prohibited....... R5-10c....................... 750mm x 450mm (30'' x 18'').
One Way...................... R6-1......................... 900mm x 900mm (36'' x 36'').
One Way...................... R6-2......................... 900mm x 900mm (36'' x 36'').
Divided Highway.............. R6-3 and 3a.................. 900mm x 900mm (36'' x 36'').
No Parking/Restricted Times.. R7-200....................... 500mm x 450mm (20'' x 18'').
Hitch Hiking Prohibited R9-4a........................ 600mm x 600mm (24'' x 24'').
Left on Green Arrow Only..... R10-5........................ 900mm x 1200mm (36'' x 48'').
Use Lane with Green Arrow.... R10-8........................ 750mm x 900mm (30'' x 36'').
Left (Right) Turn Signal..... R10-10....................... 750mm x 900mm (30'' x 36'').
Left Turn Yield on Green Ball R10-12....................... 750mm x 900mm (30'' x 36'').
No Trucks Over 7000 lbs Empty R12-3........................ 750mm x 900mm (30'' x 36'').
4. In Section 2B.4, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to require the
use of the 4-WAY supplemental plaque (R1-3) at intersections where all
approaches are controlled by STOP signs. In the 1988 MUTCD this was a
recommended practice. However, the FHWA believes that due to the
increased aggressive driving behavior, disregard of STOP signs, and the
hazardous nature of these type intersections, the required use of the
4-WAY supplemental plaque will provide additional emphasis and motorist
information at these locations.
5. In Section 2B.5, the FHWA proposes to change the title from
``Warrants for Stop Signs'' to ``Stop Sign Application.'' This proposed
change attempts to eliminate the misunderstanding created by the term
``warrants'' which has a ``legal sanctions'' connotation. The GUIDANCE
provided in Section 2B.5 for installing STOP signs is not intended to
be a legal sanction or authorization, but instead is intended to list
possible situations where these signs could be appropriate based on an
6. In Section 2B.5, paragraph 6, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE
to describe the appropriate street to stop traffic in a two-way STOP
7. In Section 2B.5, paragraph 7, the FHWA proposes to include
considerations that may help engineers and other transportation
officials decide the appropriate street to install STOP signs at 2-WAY
8. In Section 2B.5, paragraph 9, the FHWA proposes to include
SUPPORT information to clarify to the reader that restrictions on the
use of STOP signs as discussed in section 2B.5 also apply to Multiway
STOP signs (section 2B.7).
9. In Section 2B.6, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes to change the
following sentence from an OPTION condition to a GUIDANCE condition:
``Stop lines, when used to supplement a STOP sign, should be located at
the point where the road user should stop.'' The use of pavement
markings helps to reinforce sign and other traffic control device
messages. We believe that recommending the use of the STOP line
provides the road user with additional information on which to make
safe traffic operation decisions.
10. In Section 2B.6, paragraph 5, the FHWA proposes to add a
sentence which states that STOP signs should not be placed on the far-
side of the intersection. Although this is not new guidance and is
shown in many of the typical figures in the 1988 MUTCD, we believe that
it is appropriate to include this proposed text to eliminate any
11. In Section 2B.7, the FHWA proposes to add the word
``application'' to the title since this term is more descriptive of the
information contained in this section on multi-way stop signs. In
Section 2B.7, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE to
recommend that the decision to install Multiway Stop signs should be
based on an engineering study.
12. In Section 2B.7, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to specifically
state that the decision to install multi-way stop signs should be based
on an engineering study. Although this recommended GUIDANCE is usually
followed, the FHWA believes it is appropriate to include this general
practice in the MUTCD text.
13. In Section 2B.7, paragraph 3, the FHWA also proposes to
recommend criteria that should be considered in the engineering study.
This proposed change also eliminates the misunderstood term
``warrants'' and uses instead the term ``engineering study.'' The
recommended criteria are generally consistent with the text in the 1988
MUTCD except for the following proposed changes:
(a) In item 3a which discusses minimum vehicle volumes at
intersections where multiway stop signs are considered, the FHWA
proposes to change ``500 vehicles per hour'' to ``300 vehicles per
hour.'' This proposed change allows more consideration flexibility and
allows more intersections to qualify for multiway stop sign
(b) In item 3b, the FHWA proposes to add bicycle volumes to the
combination volume studies of vehicles and pedestrians. Bicycle travel
is one of the FHWA's program emphasis areas identified in our strategic
plan. The FHWA believes that bicycle travel should be an integral part
of traffic control considerations.
(c) In item 4, the FHWA proposes to provide a means for combining
data on the accident experience and volume counts when considering the
installation of multiway stop signs.
14. The discussion in Section 2B.7, paragraph 3, provides primary
criteria for consideration when installing Multiway Stop signs. In
Section 2B.7, paragraph 4, the FHWA proposes to include additional
supporting criteria for consideration. Also in paragraph 4,
the FHWA proposes to add a crosss-reference to a proposed new section
2C.31 which discusses the optional use of a new ``CROSS TRAFFIC DOES
NOT STOP sign'' at multiway stop intersections. This proposed sign may
be used where engineering study indicates drivers frequently mistake 2-
way and multiway stop controlled intersections.
15. The FHWA proposes to separate the discussion on Yield signs to
cover general design and purpose for Yield signs (Section 2B.8);
``Yield Sign Application'' (Section 2B.9); and ``Yield Sign Placement''
(Section 2B.10). This proposed change also avoids the use of the
misunderstood term ``warrants.''
16. In Section 2B.10, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to change the
following sentence from a GUIDANCE condition to a STANDARD condition:
``The YIELD sign shall be located as close as practical to the
intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road
user.'' The FHWA believes that enhancing sign visibility will help
improve intersection safety and reduce intersection crashes. This same
change is proposed for STOP signs in Section 2B.6, paragraph 2.
17. In Section 2B-8 of the 1988 MUTCD, the following sentence was
included: ``YIELD signs should not be used on the through roadway of
expressways.'' The FHWA proposes not to include this sentence in the
new Section 2B.10, ``Yield Sign Application.'' The reason for not
including this sentence is to avoid potential conflict with YIELD signs
installed at signalized intersections on expressways for the purpose of
controlling right-turn movements.
18. In Section 2B.11, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes the following
revisions to help clarify the design and application of the Truck Speed
Sign. The ``TRUCKS 40'' sign currently shown in the 1988 MUTCD is
intended to be the supplemental plaque message that is required for use
below the Speed Limit Sign (R2-1). The FHWA proposes to assign the
``TRUCKS 40'' supplemental plaque the sign code (R2-2P). The R2-2P
supplemental plaque is not to be used independently. The FHWA also
proposes to clarify that the legend ``TRUCKS 40'' may also be included
within the same panel as the Speed Limit Sign (R2-1).
In addition to the above clarification, the FHWA proposes to modify
the 1988 MUTCD to explain that a Truck Speed Sign (R2-2) contains the
legend ``TRUCKS 40 MPH'' or ``TRUCK SPEED 40'' and is used
independently. The FHWA proposes to develop a design drawing for the
R2-2 independent Truck Speed Sign and to include the design in the
``Standard Highway Signs'' book.
19. In Section 2B.11, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to designate 3
as the maximum number of speed limits displayed on any one speed limit
sign or assembly sign. In the 1988 MUTCD this was recommended GUIDANCE.
The FHWA proposes to change this to STANDARD practice because 3 speed
limits is the maximum amount of information that the road user can
safely read and comprehend.
20. In Section 2B.12, Paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add another
option for day and night speed limits using changeable message signs
that change for traffic and ambient conditions provided that the
appropriate speeds are shown at the proper times. This proposed change
will allow Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology for
changeable message signs.
21. In Section 2B.14, paragraph 6, the FHWA proposes to include an
optional method for installing Reduced Speed Ahead (R2-5 series) signs
which are intended to advise road users of the appropriate speed limit
change ahead. The proposed optional method discussed in item 2 was
submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The proposed
optional method would use an assembly consisting of the Speed Limit
Sign (R2-1) with the supplemental legend plaque ``BEGIN'' mounted above
the R2-1 sign and the supplemental distance plaque (\1/4\ mile, etc.)
mounted below the R2-1 sign. The recommended color for the supplemental
plaques is yellow.
22. In Section 2B.15, the FHWA proposes to combine the discussion
for the Turn Prohibition and the U-Turn Prohibition signs into one
section since they are both related.
23. In Section 2B.15, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to reword this
sentence and classify it as a STANDARD since the Turn Prohibition Signs
(R3-1 to R3-4) are the appropriate and standard signs for use where
turns are prohibited.
24. In Section 2B.15, paragraph 5, the FHWA proposes to change the
condition for installing turn prohibition signs (R3-1 to R3-4) adjacent
to a signal face from an OPTION to GUIDANCE. In situations where
signals are present, placing the turn prohibition sign adjacent to the
signal face is recommended because it enhances the sign's visibility
and improves the road user's ability to see the sign placed in this
25. In Section 2B.15, paragraph 6, in addition to recommending the
installation of an overhead-mounted turn prohibition sign at signalized
intersections, the FHWA proposes to include a sentence stating that
installing a post-mounted turn prohibition sign to supplement the
overhead sign is an OPTION.
26. In Section 2B.16, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to add a new
Intersection Lane Control Sign (R3-5a) which may be used to explain to
road users that they must stay in the same lane and proceed straight
through an intersection.
27. In Section 2B.16, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to add a new
requirement that whenever lane use control signs are installed, lane-
use pavement markings shall also be installed. This requirement would
apply whether the lane-use control message was for mandatory or
optional traffic movements. In the 1988 MUTCD the use of pavement
markings was recommended, but not required, for mandatory movement
situations only. This proposed change to require lane-use pavement
markings and signs in both mandatory and optional traffic movement
situations will benefit the road users by providing additional
information to assist them in the decisionmaking tasks involved with
perceiving and executing safe and appropriate traffic maneuvers. This
proposed change is also consistent with the proposed text for
mandatory-turn pavement markings discussed in Chapter 3B.12. Requiring
pavement markings along with lane-use control signs means that road
users who may not see the sign (particularly ground-mounted signs) may
have an opportunity to see the pavement marking and react accordingly.
This is a practice that is successfully used in Europe and it is called
``horizontal signing.'' European traffic engineers have found that the
redundancy provided by horizontal signing is a very important element
of attaining and improving both traffic efficiency and safety for road
users. The FHWA proposes a 10 year compliance period based on the
effective date of the MUTCD final rule. This would allow States time to
implement this proposed change.
28. In Section 2B.16, paragraphs 6 and 7, the FHWA proposes to add
language to distinguish between when overhead and ground mounted
intersection lane-use control signs are used. The following language is
proposed: ``When the number of through lanes for an approach is two or
less, the intersection lane-use control signs (R3-5, R3-6, or R3-8) may
be either overhead or ground mounted. When the number of approach lanes
is three or more, these intersection
lane-use control signs should be mounted overhead.'' This proposed
change considers the visibility needs of the road user based on the
number of lanes at the intersection approach, particularly in
situations where the road user's view may be obstructed by other
vehicles in the adjacent lanes.
29. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 2B.17 that specifically
addresses the standard application and placement location for mandatory
movement lane-use control signs (R3-5 and R3-7). The FHWA proposes to
clarify the placement location for these signs. In paragraph 1, the
FHWA proposes to clarify that the word message ``LEFT LANE MUST TURN
LEFT'' (R3-7) sign shall be for ground mounting only.
In paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to change the 1988 MUTCD text to
indicate that the ``LEFT OR RIGHT TURN ONLY'' (R3-5) symbol sign can be
either ground mounted or overhead mounted. This is also consistent with
the proposed language in Section 2B.15, paragraph 5. In paragraph 3,
the FHWA also proposes to add a new design standard for the R3-5 symbol
sign. A proposed word message plaque LEFT LANE, CENTER LANE, etc. would
be required below the R3-5 symbol sign so that the road user will know
which lane applies to the sign.
30. In Section 2B-18, the FHWA proposes to expand the discussion on
the Optional Movement Lane-Use Control (R3-6) sign and include the
discussion in a new separate section. In paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes
to specifically state that the Optional Movement Lane-Use Control (R3-
6) sign shall be installed at the intersection location.
In paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to specifically state that the
Optional Movement Lane-Use Control (R3-6) sign shall indicate all
permissible lane movements at the intersection.
31. In Section 2B.19, the FHWA proposes to classify the Double Turn
Lane-Use Control (R3-8) sign as an Advance Intersection Lane-Use
Control sign. The FHWA also proposes to provide placement guidance that
indicates the R3-8 sign would be installed in advance of the tapers or
at the beginning of the turn lane so that road users can determine in
advance their appropriate vehicle placement for lane changes.
32. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 2B.21, ``Reversible Lane
Control Signs.'' The use of reversible lane traffic control is a
practice which is commonly used throughout the United States and it is
appropriate for the MUTCD to provide design, application, and placement
In paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to add a discussion on the
purpose and use of the Reversible Lane Control signs (R3-9c to R3-9i).
A diagram of these new signs are shown in the proposed text for section
2B.20. The FHWA also proposes to include a statement that the
reversible lane control signs may be either static or changeable
message signs. The FHWA supports the use of changeable message signs
especially in situations where real time motorist information is needed
for changing traffic conditions.
33. In Section 2B.21, paragraph 2, although the Reversible Lane
Control signs may be either ground or overhead mounted, the FHWA
proposes to require that when ground mounted Reversible Lane Control
signs are used, they shall be used as a supplement to overhead signs or
signals. The ground mounted sign will provide the road user with
additional information and an added opportunity to view the sign
message and react accordingly.
34. In Section 2B.21, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to require the
use of Reversible Lane Control signs at locations where it is
determined by a traffic engineering study that lane use control signals
or barriers are not necessary to operate a reversible lane.
35. There are times when jurisdictions responsible for traffic
control may want to exercise the option of installing only pavement
markings and reversible lane control signs rather than lane control
signals to reverse traffic flow. In Section 2B.21, paragraph 4, the
FHWA proposes 3 conditions that must be considered before a decision is
made to reverse traffic flow with the use of only pavement markings and
reversible lane control signs.
36. In Section 2B.21, paragraph 5, the FHWA proposes to refer the
reader to a new Table 2B.2 which describes the meanings of symbols and
legends used on reversible lane control signs. In paragraph 5 through
8, the FHWA proposes to provide a discussion for the appropriate design
principles of reversible lane control signs.
37. In Section 2B.21, paragraphs 9 through 12, the FHWA proposes to
provide a discussion for the appropriate placement principles for
reversible lane control signs. The new signs R3-9g, R3-9h are proposed
for advance reversible lane control application and the R3-9i sign is
proposed for use at the termination of the reversible lane control.
38. In Section 2B.21, paragraph 13, the FHWA proposes to require
that the Turn Prohibition signs be mounted overhead and separate from
the Reversible Lane Control signs. In paragraph 14, the FHWA proposes
to recommend that when the Turn Prohibition signs are used, a message
stating the distance of the prohibition (example, NEXT 1 MILE) should
be included on the sign.
39. In Section 2B.21, paragraph 17, the FHWA proposes to recommend
that where left turning vehicles may impact the traffic safety and
operational efficiency of reversible lanes, consideration should be
given to prohibiting left and U-turns for a specified time period.
40. In Section 2B.26, the FHWA proposes to change the title from
``Signs for Uphill Traffic Lanes'' to ``Slow Moving Traffic Lane
Signs.'' Since slow moving traffic is not only attributed to ``uphill''
roadway conditions, the FHWA proposes to delete the reference to uphill
traffic and use the term ``slow moving traffic'' instead.
41. In Section 2B.26, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to recommend
that the TRUCK LANE XX FEET sign (R4-6) should be installed in advance
of the TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE (R4-5) sign. In the 1988 edition of the
MUTCD this is an optional condition which means that the sign may or
may not be installed. The FHWA believes that changing this to a
recommended condition will provide the road user with important
advanced information that will aid in the driver's decisionmaking task.
42. In Section 2B.26, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to add a
sentence to explain that the SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT sign (R4-3) may
be used as a supplement or alternative to the TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE
sign (R4-5). This is particularly useful in situations where the slower
traffic may not be just truck traffic.
43. In Section 2B.29, paragraph 1, the FHWA proposes to include a
reference to direct readers to Figure 2-5a which shows the signing and
pavement marking treatments for divided highway intersections with
medians 9 m (30 ft.) or wider. The FHWA proposes to revise the figure
shown in the 1988 MUTCD. The figure currently shown in the 1988 MUTCD
shows two diagrams: one for divided highways with medians less than 9 m
(30 ft.) and one for divided highways with medians 9 m (30 ft.) or
wider. The proposed new figure for medians 9 m (30 ft.) or wider is
expanded to show stop lines, wrong-way pavement markings, and pavement
markings which show the vehicle turning path. This figure was one of
the recommendations included in the ``Older Driver Highway Design
Handbook.'' <SUP>2</SUP> It is intended to reduce the potential
wrong-way movements for drivers turning left from the minor roadway.
This proposed figure is shown in the proposed text for Chapter 2B for
docket comment purposes. If adopted, it will replace the figure
currently shown in Chapter 2A.
\2\ ``Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,'' Report No. FHWA-
RD-99-045, available from the FHWA Research and Technology Report
Center, 9701 Philadelphia Court,Unit Q, Lanham, Maryland 20706.
44. In Section 2B.30, paragraph 6, the FHWA proposes to clarify
that the PEDESTRIAN PROHIBITED signs (R9-3a or R5-10c) should be
installed so as to be clearly visible to pedestrians at a location
where an alternative route or path is available. Pedestrian safety is a
program emphasis area for the FHWA and we believe that this proposed
change will help reduce the potential for pedestrians to walk in unsafe
45. In Section 2B.31, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to change the
recommendation regarding placement of the One Way signs (R6-1 and R6-2)
to a requirement. The FHWA believes that requiring the placement of the
One Way sign parallel to the one-way street at all alleys or roadway
intersections to one way streets will: (1) Give motorists clearer
directions, and (2) make traffic operations safer by reducing the
chance of road users inadvertently making wrong-way movements.
46. In Section 2B.32, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to modify the
text to allow the option of placing the Divided Highway Crossing signs
(R6-3 and R6-3a) beneath the STOP or YIELD signs. In the 1988 MUTCD
this option only applied to the STOP sign.
47. In Sections 2B.33, 2B.34, and 2B.35, the FHWA proposes to
eliminate the distinction between urban and rural parking, stopping,
and standing signs since the design and placement principles for both
urban and rural conditions are substantially the same. The FHWA also
proposes to separate the discussion on design and placement of these
signs into individual sections (2B.34 and 2B.35).
48. In Section 2B.34, ``Design of Parking, Stopping, and Standing
Signs,'' the FHWA proposes to require all street parking signs to be
illuminated or retroreflective. This proposed change is consistent with
Section 2A.8 which discusses the general provisions and standards for
49. In Section 2B.35, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to include a
sentence indicating that the spacing of parking signs should be based
on legibility and sign orientation. The FHWA believes this is helpful
placement guidance to follow when making sure that the parking signs
are visible, particularly with regards to the surrounding traffic
setting. This guidance would include such considerations as the roadway
geometry and surrounding conditions--such as curves or shrubbery that
may hinder sign visibility.
50. In the title for section 2B.36, the FHWA proposes to change the
title from ``Emergency Parking Signs'' to ``Emergency Restriction
Signs.'' This proposed change will allow the section to cover not just
the EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY (R8-4) sign but other emergency restriction
signs such as the EMERGENCY STOPPING (R8-7) and DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS
51. In section 2B.36, paragraph 3, the FHWA proposes to allow the
choice of using either the color red or black for the legend on
emergency restriction signs R8-4, R8-7, and R8-8. Red is the color
designated in section 1A of the Manual for restrictions and prohibition
signs and black is the color designated for regulatory signs. The FHWA
believes that either of these colors is appropriate. The background for
these signs will remain white.
52. The 1988 MUTCD contains a sentence that the WALK ON LEFT (R9-1)
and NO HITCH HIKING (R9-4) signs do not need to be retroreflective. The
FHWA proposes to change the 1988 MUTCD by requiring that all signs,
including pedestrian signs, shall be either retroreflective or
illuminated to increase their visibility to road users. This proposed
new requirement applies to all pedestrian signs and includes Section
2B.37, ``Walk on Left and No Hitch Hiking Signs,'' Section 2B.38,
``Pedestrian Crossing Signs,'' and Section 2B.39, ``Traffic Signal
53. In Section 2B.39, paragraphs 7 and 10, the FHWA proposes to add
2 new symbol signs for NO RIGHT TURN ON RED (R10-11c) and NO LEFT TURN
ON RED (R10-11d). These new symbol signs would combine the standard NO
RIGHT TURN (R3-1) and NO LEFT TURN (R3-2) symbols with the legend ``ON
54. In Section 2B.39, paragraph 12, the FHWA proposes to add 2 new
signs for use with emergency beacon installations. These 2 proposed
word message signs are: EMERGENCY SIGNAL (R10-13) and EMERGENCY SIGNAL/
STOP WHEN FLASHING RED (R10-14).
55. The FHWA proposes to add a new section 2B.48 that will include
provisions for the design and operation of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes and a new section 2B.49 that will address the application and
placement for HOV signs. Significant deployment has occurred with HOV
lanes used on roadway facilities throughout the United States and the
FHWA believes it is appropriate to address design, application and
placement of signs and pavement markings for these special facilities.
The language proposed for section 2B.48 would provide agencies that own
and operate HOV lanes with an overall discussion on HOV signing
principles. In addition to this proposed new section, the FHWA proposes
the following MUTCD changes related to HOV lanes:
(a) The FHWA proposes to revise the R3-10 through R3-15
preferential lane signs (see proposed section 2B.22). These signs would
be specifically designated for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes which
by definition include carpools, vanpools, and buses carrying at least
two or more persons. The word message ``restricted lane'' shown on the
R3-10, R3-12, R3-13, and R3-15 would be revised to identify the type of
preferential vehicle traffic allowed in the lane (example: HOV lane,
bus lane, or taxi lane.) When the preferential lane is for high
occupancy vehicles, the word message ``HOV'' would be required along
with the minimum allowable vehicle occupancy level (example: HOV 2+).
The minimum allowable vehicle occupancy level would vary based on the
level established for a particular facility by the State or local
The diamond symbol is proposed for exclusive HOV use lanes. In
situations where a preferential lane is not an HOV lane but is reserved
for bus and/or taxi use, then the word message ``BUS (or TAXI)'' would
replace the message on the R3-10 through R3-15 signs. The sign number
for these proposed new signs would be R3-10a, R3-11a, etc. NOTE: In the
proposed changes for MUTCD Part 9--Bicycles, the FHWA has proposed to
delete the diamond symbol from the R3-16 and R3-17 ``Bicycle Lane''
signs since the diamond symbol has become synonymous with high
occupancy vehicle lanes. The FHWA also proposes to add a new HOV
supplemental plaque (R3-5c) to the text in proposed section 2B.17,
``Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs.'' This plaque would be used
with the R3-5 ground mounted sign on HOV facilities to indicate the
appropriate mandatory lane movement.
(b) The FHWA proposes to add the following definitions in Part 1:
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)--a motor vehicle carrying at least two
or more persons, including carpools, vanpools, and buses. The agencies
own and operate HOV lanes have the authority and responsibility to
determine the occupancy requirements for vehicles operating in HOV
lanes, except that no fewer than 2 occupants per vehicle may be
HOV lane--any preferential lane designated for exclusive use by
HOVs for all or part of a day--including a designated lane on a
freeway, other highway, street, or independent roadway on a separate
Occupancy requirement--any restriction that regulates the use of a
facility for any period of the day based on a specified number of
persons in a vehicle.
Occupants--the number of people in a car, truck, bus, or other
Concurrent flow HOV lane--an HOV lane that is operated in the same
direction as the adjacent mixed flow lanes, separated from the adjacent
general purpose freeway lanes by a standard lane stripe, painted
buffer, or barrier.
Contraflow lane--a lane operating in a direction opposite to the
normal flow of traffic designated for peak direction of travel during
at least a portion of the day. Contraflow lanes are usually separated
from the off-peak direction lanes by plastic pylons, moveable or
(c) The FHWA proposes to also include provisions for HOV signs and
markings to MUTCD Chapter 2E--Guide Signs--Freeways and Expressways and
MUTCD Part 3--Markings.
Discussion of Proposed New Part 5--Traffic Control Devices for Low
Volume Rural Roads
1. The FHWA proposes adding a new Part 5, ``Traffic Control Devices
For Low Volume Rural Roads.'' The current Part 5 (Islands) is proposed
to be incorporated into Part 3 as discussed in the notice of proposed
amendment dated January 6, 1997, at 62 FR 691. The intent is to have a
part of the MUTCD dedicated to those low volume facilities that
constitute a high percentage of the total road miles in the United
States. The goal of Part 5 is to provide standards and guidance for
traffic control devices that are unique to or most applicable to low
volume roadways. Part 5 is currently designed to reference other
applicable sections of the MUTCD relative to standards and guidance for
traffic control devices that are appropriate for low volume roads but
are also applicable to higher class facilities. An alternative format
could be to eliminate a separate Part 5 and place the small amount of
information that is applicable only to low volume rural roads in other
appropriate sections of the MUTCD.
2. In Section 5A.1, the FHWA proposes to define low volume roads as
those facilities that lie outside the corporate limits of communities
and have a traffic volume of less than 200 AADT (average annual daily
3. In Section 5A.1, the FHWA proposes to provide three categories
of low volume rural roads for use throughout Part 5:
Category 1--Unimproved roadways
Category 2--Graded drained earth or gravel roadways
Category 3--Paved roadways
4. The FHWA is proposing to add to Part 5 typical figures for those
signs that may have metric message. These include SPEED LIMIT sign (R2-
1), NIGHT Speed sign (R2-3), LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY (R11-3), WEIGHT LIMIT
sign (R12-1), Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1), NEXT XX M (FT) sign (W7-
3a), ROAD WORK XX M (FT) sign (W20-1), and Supplemental Plate (W16-1).
5. In Section 5.A.2, the FHWA proposes options for the deployment
of traffic control devices on low volume rural roads that vary from
what is, typically, appropriate for higher class facilities.
6. In Section 5A.4, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes, for low volume
roads, an option to allow a 0.6 m (2 ft) offset from the edge of a
shoulder, or roadway without shoulders, to the near edge of a sign.
This varies from the recommended offset of 1.8 m (6 ft) from the edge
of the shoulder or 3.6 m (12 ft) from the edge of the traveled way,
where no shoulder exists, as published in Section 2A.24 of the 1988
MUTCD; or 1.8 m (6 ft) from the shoulder or traveled way as proposed in
Section 2A.19 published in the notice of proposed amendment dated June
11, 1998, at 63 FR 31950. The proposed option would be allowed on low
volume roads if roadside features such as terrain, shrubbery, and/or
trees prevent lateral placement in accordance with Section 2A.19.
7. In Section 5B.2, the FHWA proposes adding supplemental criteria
for use with the warrant criteria in Sections 2B.4 through 2B.8 of the
1988 MUTCD to guide the installation of Stop and Yield signs on low
volume rural roads.
8. In Section 5C.11, the FHWA proposes adding a new NO TRAFFIC
SIGNS warning sign for optional use on Category 1 roads (unimproved
roadways with less than 200 AADT) as proposed by the National Committee
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The FHWA is aware that some low
volume rural roads have no signs and that NO TRAFFIC SIGNS warning
signs could alert road users for safety purposes.
9. In Section 5E.2, the FHWA proposes adding additional criteria
for considering centerline installation on Category 3 roads (paved
roads with less than 200 AADT) that supplement the criteria proposed in
Chapter 3B published in the notice of proposed amendment dated January
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 8--Traffic Control for
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Update)
The summary of proposed changes for Part 8 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. Since that time, a number of
tragic highway-rail grade crossing crashes have occurred. Following the
Fox River Grove, Illinois school bus crash, the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT) decided to build upon its 1994
Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan by forming an internal USDOT
Task Force to review the decisionmaking process for designing,
constructing, and operating rail crossings and provide recommendations.
The following proposed changes are based on the Highway-Rail Crossing
Safety Action Plan, the USDOT Task Force Implementation Report dated
June 1, 1997, and the National Transportation Safety Board
recommendations. These proposed changes are intended as updates to the
previously published notice of proposed amendment (NPA) dated January
1. Based on the notice of proposed amendments published December 5,
1997 at 62 FR 64324, the title of Part 8 would be changed from
``Traffic Control for Roadway-Rail Intersections'' to ``Traffic Control
for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' This new terminology is
incorporated in the language in this notice of proposed amendments.
2. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8A.1, paragraph 5, to
include 16 terms specific to highway-rail grade crossing traffic
control devices. The definitions for these following terms are included
in the proposed text: (1) Minimum Track Clearance Distance; (2) Clear
Storage Distance; (3) Preemption; (4) Interconnection; (5) Monitored
Interconnected Operation; (6) Minimum Warning Time--Through Train
Movements; (7) Right-of-Way Transfer Time; (8) Queue Clearance Time;
(9) Separation Time; (10) Maximum Preemption Time; (11) Advance
Preemption and Advance Preemption
Time; (12) Simultaneous Preemption; (13) Pre-Signal; (14) Cantilevered
Signal Structure; (15) Design Vehicle; and (16) Dynamic Envelope.
3. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8A.2, paragraph 6 to clarify
the fact that all highway-rail grade crossings shall comply with the
MUTCD as stated in 23 CFR 655.603(b). The FHWA also proposes to also
add a new discussion in paragraphs 2 and 3 to allow the option of using
the national highway-rail intersection (HRI) architecture as a method
for conducting an engineering study to determine the method for linking
the highway, vehicles, and traffic management systems with rail
operations and wayside equipment. <SUP>3</SUP>
\3\ Available from Federal Railroad Administration, 4007th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
4. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8A.4, paragraph 5, by
changing the following sentence from a recommendation (GUIDANCE) to a
mandatory (STANDARD) condition: ``If the existing traffic control
devices at a multiple-track crossing become improperly placed or
inaccurate because of the removal of the tracks, the existing devices
shall be relocated and/or modified.''
5. The FHWA proposes to update the last paragraph of Section 8A.5
by changing the following sentence from a recommendation (GUIDANCE) to
a mandatory (STANDARD) condition: ``If a highway-rail grade crossing
exists either within or in the vicinity or roadway work activities,
then lane restrictions, flagging, or other operations shall not be
performed in a manner that would cause vehicles to stop on the railroad
tracks with no means to escape.''
6. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8A.6 to describe the
dynamic envelope clearance concept and provide standards and guidance
for delineating this clearance required for the train and its cargo
7. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8A.7 to discuss the
application of Storage Space Signs (W10-11 and 11a) which are intended
to warn road users of locations where vehicle storage space is limited
between the railroad tracks and the adjacent highway intersection.
8. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8A.8 to define private
highway-rail grade crossings and to discuss issues related to these
9. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8B.2, paragraph 3. If
crossbuck signs are installed back-to-back, any retroreflective
material used on the back of one crossbuck blade would be blocked by
the second mounted crossbuck sign. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to
modify the language in this section accordingly.
10. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8B.2, paragraph 4, to
require retroreflective material to be used on supports at all highway-
rail grade crossings, not just passive highway-rail grade crossings.
This proposed change would improve visibility of the grade crossing
11. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8B.3 by adding a new
paragraph 6 under GUIDANCE to read, ``Where the distance between the
railroad and the parallel highway from edge of track to edge of highway
is less than 30 m (100 feet), it is not necessary to install a W10-1
sign if the W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4 signs are used on the parallel
highway.'' The purpose of this proposed change is to reduce the sign
clutter on highways where there is less than 30 m (100 feet) between
the highway-rail grade crossing and a highway intersection.
12. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8B.7, paragraph 1, by
adding a new phrase to the end of this paragraph that would read, ``* *
* in accordance with Chapter 2C.'' The FHWA believes that this addition
would help ensure that STOP AHEAD (W3-1a) or YIELD AHEAD (W3-2a)
advance warning signs are used.
13. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8B.9 to discuss the
application and placement of highway-rail crossing identification signs
and 1-800 numbers to provide a means for emergency notification. The
former Section 8B.9 published in the January 6, 1997, notice would
become Section 8B.14, ``Pavement Markings.''
14. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8B.10 to provide a sign
for use on class 5 or higher railroad tracks where trains may exceed
130 km (80 mph). The former Section 8B.10 published in the January 6,
1997, notice would become Section 8B.15, ``Stop Lines.''
15. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8B.11 to provide a sign
for use at highway-rail grade crossings which have the Federal Railroad
Administration's authorization for trains not to sound horns. The
former Section 8B.11 published in the January 6, 1997, notice would
become Section 8B.16, ``Low Ground Clearance Crossings.''
16. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8B.12 to provide a sign
to warn road users that a particular highway-rail grade crossing is not
equipped with automated signals.
17. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8B.13 to provide a sign
for use at highway-rail grade crossings without active warning devices.
This regulatory sign would direct road users to look for approaching
18. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8C.1, paragraph 2 to
indicate that luminares shall be located so that they do not impose
unnecessary glare on approaching road users.
19. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8D.2 to move paragraph 10
from a recommendation (GUIDANCE) to a mandatory (STANDARD) condition.
The paragraph will read: ``Flashing-light signals shall be placed to
the right of approaching highway traffic on all highway approaches to a
crossing. They shall be located laterally with respect to the highway
in conformance with Figure 8-5. This shall not apply where such
location would adversely affect signal visibility.'' The FHWA proposes
this change because we believe flashing-light signals shall always be
placed on the right side of the road where people expect to receive
20. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 8D.2 to delete the last
sentence of paragraph 6. The reason for this proposed change is to
avoid limiting the type of technology used to charge the batteries for
highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.
21. In Section 8D.4, the FHWA proposes to include a discussion to
require that the approach lane gate arms be designed to fail safe in
the down position. This is consistent with the discussion already
covered in Section 8D.5 for exit lane gate arms.
22. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 8D.5 to provide
standards and guidance for Four Quadrant Gate Systems. Four Quadrant
Gate Systems consists of a series of automatic gates used as an adjunct
to flashing lights to control traffic on all lanes at the highway-rail
23. The FHWA proposes to update Section 8D. 6 of the previously
published January 6, 1997, notice (see section 8D.7 in this proposed
update for Part 8.) The FHWA proposes to change paragraph 2 to indicate
that traffic control signals shall not be used on roadways at highway-
rail grade crossings in lieu of gates and/or flashing lights where
train speeds are greater than 32 km/h (20 mph). The FHWA also proposes
to add the following 2 new paragraphs: (1) At the end of the GUIDANCE
for this section the FHWA proposes to recommend that a NO TURN ON RED
sign should be used where a pre-signal is installed at an
interconnected highway-rail grade crossing near a signalized
intersection with a storage problem; and (2) The FHWA proposes a new
OPTION which would allow the highway traffic signals
to be mounted on the same cantilevered device as the railroad flashing
lights in situations where the highway-rail grade crossing and the
highway intersection are in close proximity and when determined
feasible by an engineering study.
Rulemaking Analysis 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
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action will not be
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 safety, 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
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 improve traffic operations and safety, expand guidance, and clarify
application of traffic control devices. 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 of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in
the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and
it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation. The MUTCD is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, which requires
that changes to the national standards issued by the FHWA shall be
adopted by the States or other Federal agencies within two years of
issuance. The proposed amendment is in keeping with the Secretary of
Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to
promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of
the highway. To the extent that this amendment would override any
existing State requirements regarding traffic control devices, it does
so in the interests of national uniformity.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
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
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655
Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 114(a), 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR
1.32; 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued on: December 13, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-32907 Filed 12-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P