[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 146 (Friday, July 30, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45623-45631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17409]



[[Page 45623]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-15149]
RIN 2125-AE98


National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Maintaining 
Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments (NPA) to the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD); request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The MUTCD, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, is 
incorporated by reference at 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. The FHWA 
proposes to amend the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 
Streets and Highways (MUTCD) to include methods to maintain traffic 
sign retroreflectivity. The proposed maintenance methods would 
establish a basis for improving nighttime visibility of traffic signs 
to promote safety, enhance traffic operations, and facilitate comfort 
and convenience for all drivers. The proposed changes would be 
designated as Revision No. 2 to the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should include the docket number 
that appears in the heading of this document or fax comments to (202) 
493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (follow the on-line 
instructions for submitted comments). All comments received will be 
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. 
to 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 or may print the acknowledgment page that 
appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to 
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). Persons making comments may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 70, pages 19477-78), or may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter J. Hatzi, Office of Safety 
Design (HSA-10), (202) 366-8036, or Raymond Cuprill, Office of the 
Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    Interested parties may submit or retrieve comments online through 
the Document Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. 
Acceptable formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for 
Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code 
Information Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), 
and WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each 
day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission, retrieval help and 
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An 
electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a computer, 
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.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page 
at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The MUTCD is available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 
49 CFR part 7 and on the FHWA's Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. 
This notice is being issued to provide an opportunity for public 
comment on the desirability of proposed amendments to Section 1A.11 
Relation to Other Documents, Section 2A.09 Minimum Retroreflectivity, 
and Section 2A.22 Maintenance concerning sign retroreflectivity. Based 
on the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA may issue a 
final rule concerning the proposed changes included in this notice and 
would be incorporated by reference into 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. The 
2003 Edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 2 changes incorporated as 
proposed in this amendment is also available on the Web site.
    One of the FHWA's primary goals is to improve safety on the 
nation's roads.\1\ Approximately 42,000 people have been killed on U.S. 
roads each year for the last eight years.\2\ While nearly a quarter of 
travel occurs at night,\3\ about one-half of traffic fatalities occur 
during nighttime hours.\4\ There are many reasons for this disparity. 
However, the FHWA expects that improvements to the nighttime visibility 
of traffic signs will help drivers better navigate the roads at night 
and thus promote safety and mobility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plan. This document can be 
viewed at the Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/2003plan/index.htm.
    \2\ ``Traffic Safety Facts 2001: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle 
Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the 
General Estimates System,'' Publication NO. DOT HS 809484 December 
2002. This document can be viewed at the Internet Web site: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/ncsa/tsfann/tsf2001.pdf.
    \3\ Federal Highway Administration and The Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, 
(23.3% of vehicle miles traveled occur between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m.). 
This document can be viewed at the Internet Web site: http://nhts.ornl.gov.
    \4\ ``Traffic Safety Facts 2001: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle 
Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the 
General Estimates System,'' Publication NO. DOT HS 809484 December 
2002. This document can be viewed at Internet Web site: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/ncsa/tsfann/tsf2001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of traffic control devices, as well as the principles 
for their use, is to promote highway safety and efficiency by providing 
for the orderly movement of all road users. Those devices notify road 
users of regulations and provide warning and guidance needed for the 
safe, uniform, and efficient operation of traffic.
    The MUTCD requires that traffic signs be illuminated or 
retroreflective to enhance nighttime visibility.\5\ Most sign faces are 
made with retroreflective sheeting material to enhance the visibility 
of signs and their messages at night. Retroreflectivity, one factor 
associated with night visibility, is the property of a material to 
redirect light back towards its source. In the case of a traffic sign, 
light is redirected back from the sign face toward the vehicle's 
headlamps, making the sign visible to the driver. Available sign 
sheeting materials offer different degrees of retroreflectivity, making 
some signs

[[Page 45624]]

appear brighter than others. The brightness of the sign is also a 
function of the age of the sign face material, as well as the size of 
vehicle, type of headlamps, the driver's visual capabilities, and the 
environmental conditions. In general, the higher the retroreflectivity 
level the brighter the sign will appear to a driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition,'' 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
Washington, DC, November 2003. This document can be viewed at the 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The retroreflectivity of signs gradually deteriorates over time 
making signs progressively less visible (i.e., bright) at night. As 
signs lose their retroreflective properties, their effectiveness in 
communicating regulatory, warning, and guidance messages to road users 
diminishes to the point where they cannot be seen or read. Thus to 
maintain effectiveness, signs must be replaced before they reach the 
end of their useful retroreflective life. Until recently, little 
information was available about the levels of retroreflectivity 
necessary to meet the needs of drivers and thereby define the useful 
life of signs. FHWA research has led to the development of minimum 
maintained levels of traffic sign retroreflectivity for regulatory, 
warning, and guide signs for currently available materials, vehicle 
fleet characteristics, and capabilities of the driving population. 
Further, new methods have evolved for assessing and managing the 
retroreflectivity of existing signs on the road network. Sign 
assessment methods involve the evaluation of a sign's retroreflectivity 
by nighttime visual inspection or measurement of retroreflectivity 
using an appropriate instrument. Visual and numeric criteria based upon 
the minimum retroreflectivity needs of drivers are used to judge 
whether the sign has adequate night visibility. Sign management methods 
involve tracking or predicting the retroreflective life of individual 
signs, and scheduling for replacement those approaching the minimum 
levels.
    Darkness significantly hides many of the visual cues used by 
drivers to interpret roadway alignment (including objects such as 
signs, pavement markings, and roadside barriers). Retroreflective 
treatments or illumination increases the visibility of these objects to 
provide information directly or restore the visual cues needed by the 
driver to safely navigate the road at night.
    Maintaining minimum levels of traffic sign retroreflectivity on the 
nation's roads is becoming increasingly important as the driving 
population ages. Older drivers have diminished visual capabilities that 
are most apparent under dark conditions.\6\ Currently, 26.2 million 
drivers are 65 or older and by 2010 an estimated 33.7 million drivers 
will be 65 or older.\7\ Traffic signs that are easier to see and read 
can help all drivers (not just the elderly) at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Information about this research is summarized on page 206 of 
the ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,'' 
Report number FHWA-RD-01-103, published by the FHWA Office of Safety 
Research and Development, 2001. It is available for purchase from 
the Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, 
(703) 605-6000. Internet Web site address at http://www.ntis.gov.
    \7\ Federal Highway Administration and the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey. 
This document can be viewed at the Internet Web site: http://nhts.ornl.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MUTCD, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, is 
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, and is 
recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on 
all public roads. The Secretary of Transportation's authority to 
establish these standards was established in 23 U.S.C. 109, and the 
Secretary has delegated that authority to the Federal Highway 
Administration, as stated in 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8). The FHWA is proposing 
changes to the MUTCD to improve night visibility for drivers by 
establishing a benchmark for adequacy of traffic signs that are 
currently in place and those that will be installed in the future. 
Improved night visibility of traffic signs is expected to promote 
safety and mobility on the nation's roads.

History of Sign Retroreflectivity

    Requirements for nighttime sign visibility have been included in 
every version of the MUTCD, since the first edition in 1935. The 2003 
Edition of the MUTCD continues to address the visibility of signs.\8\ 
Some of the pertinent MUTCD sections include: Sections 1A.03 through 
1A.05, dealing with design, placement, operation, and maintenance of 
traffic control devices, and Section 2A.22 Maintenance. Sign 
retroreflectivity is specifically addressed in Section 2A.08 
Retroreflectivity and Illumination, which states, ``[r]egulatory, 
warning, and guide signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to 
show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless 
specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion in this Manual of 
a particular sign or group of signs.'' This language has essentially 
remained unchanged since 1971. The FHWA also added Section 2A.09 
Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels in the MUTCD Millennium Edition. 
Section 2A.09 serves as a placeholder for the results of the rulemaking 
addressed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition,'' 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
Washington, DC, October 2003. This document can be viewed at the 
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1993, the Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to 
revise the MUTCD to include a standard for minimum levels of 
retroreflectivity that must be maintained for traffic signs and 
pavement markings, which apply to all roads open to public travel.\9\ 
The FHWA already had an active research program investigating the 
nighttime visibility of traffic control devices to meet driver needs. 
In 1993, the FHWA responded to the congressional mandate by publishing 
a set of research recommendations for minimum maintained sign 
retroreflectivity levels.\10\ A series of tables was presented in the 
research report to establish minimum maintained retroreflectivity 
levels for regulatory, warning, and side-mounted and overhead guide 
signs. These tables set minimum levels for various factors including 
sign size, roadway speed limit, type of sign face material, and nature 
of the sign legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ United States Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Public Law 102-388, 106 Stat. 
1520, Section 406.
    \10\ Paniati, J.F. and Mace, D.J., ``Minimum Retroreflectivity 
Requirements for Traffic Signs,'' FHWA-RD-93-077, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 
October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1995, three national workshops were conducted to educate State 
and local highway agency personnel and solicit their input regarding 
the initial set of minimum maintained sign retroreflectivity levels. 
The findings from these workshops, combined with an increased knowledge 
of both driver needs and the performance of retroreflective materials 
and their durability, were used to revise the initial set of minimum 
maintained retroreflectivity levels. The revised minimum levels were 
published in 1998 in a report entitled ``An Implementation Guide for 
Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements for Traffic Signs.'' \11\ One of 
the most evident changes was the removal of minimum levels of 
retroreflectivity for overhead signs because of unresolved issues with 
vehicle headlamp performance specifications and the difficulty of 
measuring overhead sign retroreflectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ McGee, H.W. and Paniati, J. F., ``An Implementation Guide 
for Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements for Traffic Signs,'' 
FHWA-RD-97-052, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration, Washington, DC, 1998.

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

[[Page 45625]]

    Also in 1998, a report entitled ``Impacts on State and Local 
Agencies for Maintaining Traffic Signs Within Minimum Retroreflectivity 
Guidelines'' presented the findings of a survey and analyses related to 
the expected impacts of the proposed minimum maintained 
retroreflectivity levels.\12\ The report estimated that about five 
percent of the signs under State jurisdiction and eight percent of the 
signs under local jurisdiction would not meet the proposed minimum 
levels and would have to be replaced. The report concluded that the 
one-time replacement costs would be $32 million for State agencies, and 
$144 million for local agencies. It also stated that the cost impacts 
to agencies would be small if the minimum maintained retroreflectivity 
levels were phased in over a sufficiently long period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ McGee, H.W. and Taori, S., ``Impacts on State and Local 
Agencies for Maintaining Traffic Signs Within Retroreflectivity 
Guidelines,'' FHWA-RD-97-053, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Near completion of the 1998 work on the revised minimum levels, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revised the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS 108), so that vehicle owners 
could easily aim and adjust their headlamps and therefore reduce the 
variability associated with headlamp aim. FMVSS 108 is the document 
that sets the minimum and maximum luminous intensities for headlamps, 
headlamp mounting heights, and standardization of headlamps on new 
vehicles sold in the U.S. after 1968. Since that time, there have been 
several changes. Because of these changes, the FHWA conducted 
additional research to develop minimum maintained retroreflectivity 
levels for overhead guide signs and street name signs, which were not 
included in the minimum levels published in 1998. The research for 
overhead guide signs and street name signs was completed in early 
2001.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Carlson, P.J. and Hawkins, H.G., ``Minimum 
Retroreflectivity Levels for Overhead Guide Signs and Street Name 
Signs,'' FHWA-RD-03-082, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003. A copy of this report 
is available on the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the significant findings of the research was the need to 
update some of the fundamental inputs on headlights, vehicle type (and 
hence headlight height), and driver capabilities to reflect the current 
vehicle fleet and older driver population in the development of minimum 
maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs. Consequently, 
additional research was sponsored by the FHWA to update the inputs and 
develop an updated set of minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels 
for traffic signs in the U.S. This work was completed in 2003 and has 
become the basis for this rulemaking.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Carlson, P.J. and Hawkins, H.G., ``Updated Minimum 
Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs,'' FHWA-RD-03-081, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
Washington, DC, 2003. A copy of this report is available on the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At least two significant events happened during the development of 
the proposed minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels. The first was 
the formation of the Special Task Force on Retroreflectivity by the 
AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. The objective of the Task Force 
was to review the proposed minimum maintained levels for 
retroreflectivity (both traffic signs and pavement markings) and 
provide implementation recommendations to the FHWA. In 2000, the 
AASHTO's Board of Directors approved the Task Force's resolution that 
included several recommendations.\15\ One of the key recommendations 
was that the minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic 
signs not be included in the MUTCD. Another key recommendation was that 
the proposed minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic 
signs should be revised to be clear and unambiguous and consolidated so 
they can be easily and properly applied. The AASHTO also recommended a 
six year phase-in compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AASHTO Policy Resolution, ``Minimum Retroreflectivity of 
Signs and Pavement Markings,'' December 2000. A copy of this AASHTO 
resolution is available at the following Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/retrost.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second significant activity occurred during the summer of 2002. 
The FHWA conducted a second round of national workshops to solicit 
input from transportation agency personnel concerning the implications 
of the revised minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic 
signs and the proposed changes to the MUTCD to adopt the minimum 
levels.\16\ Feedback from these workshops led to refinement of the 
consolidated table of minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels, 
definition of methods for assessing and managing the retroreflectivity 
of in-place signs, formulation of language for the MUTCD, and 
development of implementation recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Hawkins, H.G., Carlson, P.J., Schertz, G.F., and Opiela, 
K.S., ``Workshops on Nighttime Visibility of Traffic Signs: Summary 
of Workshop Findings,'' FHWA-SA-03-002, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment

    The purpose of this notice of proposed amendments (NPA) is to 
obtain public comment on proposed amendments to the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include methods to maintain traffic 
sign retroreflectivity. The FHWA seeks comment on the proposed changes 
to the Introduction, Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, 
Section 2A.09 Minimum Retroreflectivity, and 2A.22 Maintenance. Minimum 
maintained retroreflectivity levels associated with the above-mentioned 
methods are contained in the FHWA document ``Maintaining Traffic Sign 
Retroreflectivity.'' \17\ ``Maintaining Traffic Sign 
Retroreflectivity'' is included as an appendix to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A copy of the FHWA report ``Maintaining Traffic Sign 
Retroreflectivity,'' Publication No. FHWA-SA-03-027, October 2003 is 
available as an appendix to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) definition of the 
term ``standard'' is ``a concept established by authority, custom, or 
agreement to serve as a model or rule in a measurement of quality or 
the establishment of a practice or procedure.''\18\ This proposed 
amendment to the MUTCD is intended to meet that definition. In 
addition, feedback received during FHWA sponsored workshops reinforced 
the importance of not only sign retroreflectivity, but also nighttime 
visibility of signs. This feedback led to the emphasis in this proposal 
on actual methods to assess and maintain sign retroreflectivity, and 
not just establishment of minimum thresholds for retroreflectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``Compilation of ASTM [American Society of Testing 
Materials] Standard Definitions'', Eighth Edition, ASTM Publication 
Code Number 03-001094-42, 1994. A copy of this document is available 
from the ASTM at 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103. Internet at 
the following URL: http://www.astm.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the MUTCD by sections are as follows:

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction

    1. In the Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD 
statement a seven-year target compliance date for Section 2A.09 Minimum 
Retroreflectivity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in target compliance 
period for implementation of seven years for ground mounted signs and 
ten years for overhead signs from the effective date of the final rule 
for Revision No. 2 of the 2003 MUTCD to

[[Page 45626]]

minimize any impact on State or local governments. The FHWA believes a 
target compliance period of seven years would allow State and local 
agencies to replace their engineering grade sign sheeting within a 
normal replacement period of a commonly-accepted seven year service 
life. The FHWA proposes a ten year compliance period for overhead signs 
to allow an extended period of time due to the longer service life 
typically used for those signs.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General

    2. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA 
proposes to add the publication ``Maintaining Traffic Sign 
Retroreflectivity'' to the list of other publications that are useful 
sources. ``Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity'' is included as 
an appendix to the preamble.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2--Signs

    3. In Section 2A.09 Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels, the FHWA 
proposes changing the title of the section by deleting the word 
``levels'' from the title to better describe the content of the 
section. The FHWA proposes to replace the SUPPORT statement with new 
SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements that refer to minimum sign 
retroreflectivity.
    In the SUPPORT statement, the FHWA proposes to provide a reference 
to Section 2A.22 Maintenance, stating that retroreflectivity is one of 
several factors associated with maintaining nighttime sign visibility.
    In the GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA proposes to indicate that 
except for those signs specifically identified in the OPTION statement, 
one or more of the assessment or management methods described in this 
section should be used to maintain sign retroreflectivity above the 
minimum levels identified in the FHWA document ``Maintaining Traffic 
Sign Retroreflectivity.''\19\ The methods are visual nighttime 
inspection (including three procedures: calibration signs, consistent 
parameters, and comparison panels), measured sign retroreflectivity, 
expected sign life, blanket replacement, and control signs. The 
GUIDANCE statement includes a brief description of each method and the 
following SUPPORT statement includes a reference to ``Maintaining 
Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity'' that provides more information about 
these methods and their association to minimum maintained 
retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs. As part of the descriptions 
of the various methods in the GUIDANCE, the FHWA proposes to include a 
statement that signs that have retroreflectivity below the minimum 
levels should be replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A copy of the FHWA report ``Maintaining Traffic Sign 
Retroreflectivity,'' Publication No. FHWA-SA-03-027, October 2003 is 
available as an appendix to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the OPTION statement, the FHWA proposes to list several sign 
series that agencies may exclude from the proposed assessment methods 
and minimum maintained sign retroreflectivity levels. The FHWA proposes 
to exclude these sign series, because additional research is needed to 
support establishment of minimum retroreflectivity levels for these 
signs. The sign series that the FHWA proposes to exclude are: (1) 
Parking, Standing, and Stopping signs (R7 and R8 series), (2) Walking, 
Hitchhiking, and Crossing signs (R9 series, R10-1 through R10-4b), (3) 
Adopt-A-Highway series, (4) All signs with blue or brown backgrounds, 
and (5) Bikeway signs that are intended for exclusive use by bicyclists 
and/or pedestrians. This list will not exclude those signs from 
existing MUTCD retroreflectivity and maintenance requirements and 
guidance.
    4. In Section 2A.22 Maintenance, the FHWA proposes changing the 
first paragraph of the GUIDANCE statement by replacing the phrase 
``adequate retroreflectivity'' with ``retroreflectivity levels as 
indicated in Section 2A.09.'' The reference to Section 2A.09 Minimum 
Retroreflectivity, enables readers to access information specific to 
retroreflectivity more easily. The FHWA proposes a new sentence that 
reads, ``Maintenance activities should consider proper position, 
cleanliness, legibility, and daytime and nighttime visibility of a 
sign.''

Appendix to the Preamble--Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity

    Traffic signs provide an important means of communicating 
information to road users and they need to be visible to be effective. 
The 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) addresses 
sign visibility in several sections, including 1A.03, 1A.04, 1A.05, 
2A.08, and 2A.22. Visibility is addressed in portions of these sections 
through factors such as design, placement, operation, maintenance, and 
uniformity.
    The concept of visibility encompasses many different considerations 
and is difficult to quantify as an overall measure. Specific metrics 
such as conspicuity, legibility, or retroreflectivity are used to 
represent the various elements that contribute to visibility. 
Conspicuity is the ability to identify a target (such as a sign) from 
its surroundings. It is what helps the user to first see a sign. 
Legibility is the ability to identify the message (content) of the 
target. It is what helps the user to read the sign.
    The nighttime environment presents many sign visibility challenges. 
At night, road users cannot see as many visual cues as they can in the 
day. This places greater reliance on signs and other traffic control 
devices. To provide nighttime sign visibility, most signs are made from 
retroreflective sheeting. Retroreflectivity is the property of a 
material to redirect light back toward the originating source. It is 
what helps make a sign conspicuous and legible.
    Existing procedures and technologies for measuring sign 
retroreflectivity provide one, but not the only, metric for quantifying 
nighttime sign visibility. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
has focused significant attention on retroreflectivity in recent years, 
including developing research recommendations for minimum maintained 
levels of sign retroreflectivity.
    Sign location and orientation also impact sign visibility. Signs 
placed outside of the driver's cone of vision may not be seen by the 
driver even though they meet other visibility criteria. Likewise, signs 
behind obstructions (such as a structure or vegetation) may meet some 
visibility criteria, but can't be seen by drivers. To provide maximum 
effectiveness, signs should be designed, placed, and maintained in a 
manner that is consistent with MUTCD guidelines.
    This document provides recommendations and general information 
about minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels and the methods that 
can be used to maintain sign retroreflectivity. Information contained 
in this document is intended for policy-makers and managers.

Retroreflectivity Maintenance

    There are several methods that agencies can use to maintain sign 
retroreflectivity above the minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels 
that FHWA has developed through research. These minimum 
retroreflectivity levels were developed to provide transportation 
agencies with a general target for maintaining sign retroreflectivity. 
The existence of minimum retroreflectivity levels is not intended to 
imply that agencies need to measure the retroreflectivity of every sign 
in their jurisdictions. Instead, these methods provide agencies with 
options

[[Page 45627]]

that will help to improve nighttime sign visibility.
    Sign maintenance methods can be divided into two groups--assessment 
methods and management methods. Assessment methods involve the actual 
evaluation of individual signs, while management methods involve 
tracking and/or predicting the retroreflectivity of signs. The FHWA has 
identified several assessment and management methods for maintaining 
sign retroreflectivity in a manner that is consistent with the minimum 
retroreflectivity levels. Agencies also have the flexibility to develop 
their own methods for maintaining sign retroreflectivity.

Assessment Methods

    The assessment methods require evaluation of individual signs 
within an agency's jurisdiction. There are two basic assessment 
methods--visual assessment and retroreflectivity measurement.

Visual Nighttime Inspection Method

    In the visual nighttime inspection method, agency personnel assess 
the nighttime visibility of their signs. The visual inspection method 
is probably the most consistent with current practices at many 
agencies. Visual inspections are also recommended in Section 2A.22 of 
the MUTCD.
    In the visual inspection method, the inspector assesses the 
visibility and retroreflectivity of the traffic signs as he/she 
approaches the signs. Signs need to be replaced if they do not meet the 
comparison defined in the appropriate procedure. The following 
recommendations provide general guidance on how to conduct the 
inspections:
     Agencies develop guidelines and procedures for inspectors 
to use in conducting the nighttime inspections. Inspectors are trained 
on the use of these procedures.
     The inspection is conducted at normal roadway operating 
speeds. If it is necessary to slow or stop the vehicle to read the 
sign, the sign typically needs to be replaced. Signs are normally 
inspected from the travel lane.
     The inspection is conducted using the low beam headlights. 
It is better not to use the bright beams for inspections as they create 
higher illuminance levels at the sign and make it appear brighter than 
it would to a driver using low beams.
     Signs are normally evaluated at a typical viewing distance 
for each sign, one that provides a driver with adequate time for an 
appropriate response.
    In addition to the above recommendations, one or more of the 
following procedures are used in conducting visual nighttime 
inspections.
Calibration Signs Procedure
    Calibration signs are viewed prior to conducting the nighttime 
inspection. The calibration signs have retroreflectivity levels at or 
above the minimum levels. These signs are set up where the inspectors 
can view the calibration signs in a manner similar to how they will 
conduct the nighttime inspection. The inspector uses the visual 
appearance of the calibration sign to establish the evaluation 
threshold for that night's inspection activities. The following factors 
provide additional information on the use of this procedure:
     Calibration signs are needed for each color of sign for 
which there are minimum levels.
     The calibration signs are viewed at typical viewing 
distances and from the same vehicle that will be used for conducting 
the inspections.
     The calibration signs need to be properly stored between 
inspections so that the retroreflectivity of the calibration signs does 
not deteriorate over time. Calibration sign retroreflectivity is 
checked at periodic intervals to ensure that the calibration panels 
have the appropriate retroreflectivity levels.
     Field signs need to be replaced if the inspector judges a 
sign to be less bright than the appropriate calibration sign.
Consistent Parameters Procedure
    The same factors that were used to develop the minimum levels are 
used in conducting the inspections. These factors include:
     Using a full-size sport utility vehicle or pick-up to 
conduct the inspection.
     Using a model year 2000 or newer vehicle for the 
inspection.
     Using an inspector age 60 or older.
     Signs are viewed at the typical viewing distance for that 
sign.
     Signs need to be replaced if they are not legible to the 
inspector.
Comparison Panels Procedure
    Small comparison panels are used to assess the retroreflectivity of 
questionable signs. The comparison panels are fabricated at 
retroreflectivity levels that are at or above the minimum levels. When 
the retroreflectivity of a sign is considered to be questionable, a 
comparison panel is attached to the sign and the sign/panel combination 
is viewed by the inspector. If the comparison panel appears brighter 
than the sign, the sign needs to be replaced.

Measured Retroreflectivity Method

    In this method, the retroreflectivity of a sign is measured and 
directly compared to the minimum level appropriate to that sign. If the 
sign retroreflectivity is lower than the minimum levels, the sign needs 
to be replaced. The following factors provide additional information 
about measuring sign retroreflectivity:
     ASTM E1709, Standard Test Method for Measurement of 
Retroreflective Signs Using a Portable Retroreflectometer, provides a 
standard method for measuring sign retroreflectivity using a handheld 
retroreflectometer.
     A sign needs to be replaced if the average 
retroreflectivity value is less than the appropriate minimum level.

Management Methods

    The management methods provide an agency with the ability to 
maintain sign retroreflectivity without having to devote significant 
effort into assessing individual signs. There are three basic types of 
management methods--replacing signs based on age, blanket replacement 
of large numbers of signs at appropriate intervals, and using a sample 
of control signs to determine when to replace equivalent signs.

Expected Sign Life Method

    In this method, individual signs are replaced before they reach the 
end of their expected service life. The expected service life is based 
on the time required for the retroreflective material to degrade to the 
minimum retroreflectivity levels. The following factors provide 
additional information about using this method:
     The expected service life of a sign can be based on 
several different sources of information, such as:

--Sign sheeting warranties.
--Sign test deck measurements.
--Measurements of actual signs.

     An agency will need a method of identifying the age of 
individual signs. Potential methods include:

--A sticker or other label attached to the sign that identifies the 
year of fabrication, installation, or replacement.
--A sign management system that can identify the age of individual 
signs.

Blanket Replacement Method

    In this method, an agency replaces all the signs in an area/
corridor, or of a given type, at specified intervals. An agency that 
uses this method does not need to track the age or assess the 
retroreflectivity of individual signs. The following factors provide 
additional

[[Page 45628]]

information about the use of this procedure:
     Replacement zones can be based on an area, corridor, or 
sign type.
     The replacement interval for the area/corridor, or sign 
type, is based on the expected sign life for the affected signs.
     All signs within a replacement area/corridor/type are 
typically replaced, even if the sign was recently installed.

Control Sign Method

    In this method, a control sample of signs is used to represent the 
total population of an agency's signs. The retroreflectivity of the 
control signs is monitored at appropriate intervals and sign 
replacement is based on the performance of the control signs. The 
following factors provide additional information about using this 
method:
     An agency develops a sampling plan to determine the 
appropriate number of control signs needed to represent the agency's 
sign population.
     Control signs may be actual signs in the field or signs 
installed in a maintenance yard to serve specifically as control signs.
     The retroreflectivity of the control signs should be 
monitored following the procedures outlined for one of the assessment 
methods.
     All field signs represented by the control sample need to 
be replaced before the retroreflectivity levels of the control sample 
reach the minimum levels.

Sign Replacement

    All of the sign retroreflectivity maintenance methods indicate that 
signs need to be replaced when they do not meet the threshold criteria 
for the individual method. In maintaining sign retroreflectivity, an 
agency may want to consider the interval before the next assessment or 
management event as part of the sign evaluation and replacement 
process. In some cases, it may be appropriate to replace a sign even 
though it is above the threshold criteria because it could be expected 
to drop below the threshold criteria before the next assessment/
management event.

Sign Exclusions

    The following signs may be excluded from the various methods of 
maintaining sign retroreflectivity:
     Parking, Standing, and Stopping signs (R7 and R8 series).
     Walking/Hitchhiking/Crossing signs (R9 series, R10-1 
through R10-4b).
     Adopt-A-Highway signs.
     All signs with blue or brown backgrounds.
     Bikeways which are not immediately adjacent to a roadway 
and that are intended for exclusive use by bicyclists and/or 
pedestrians.

Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels

    Since the early 1990s, the FHWA has sponsored several different 
efforts to develop research recommendations for minimum 
retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs. These efforts represent 
various attempts to define and refine the concept of minimum maintained 
sign retroreflectivity. Initial minimum retroreflectivity levels were 
developed through research in 1993 (1). These levels were revised in 
1998 through further research (2). Updated minimum levels were 
developed in 2003 (3) and are the ones that FHWA proposes for use. A 
paper describes the evolution of the research to develop minimum levels 
of sign retroreflectivity (4).
    The updated minimum levels of sign retroreflectivity are generally 
similar in magnitude to levels published previously, but represent 
several refinements and updates. The following improvements were 
incorporated into the 2003 updated levels:
     An improved computer model was used to develop the minimum 
levels.
     Additional sheeting types were incorporated into the 
minimum levels.
     Headlamp (headlight) performance was updated to represent 
the model year 2000 vehicle fleet.
     Vehicle size was increased to represent the greater 
prevalence of sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks.
     The luminance level needed for legibility was increased to 
better accommodate older drivers.
     Minimum retroreflectivity levels were consolidated across 
more sheeting types to reduce the number of minimum levels.
    The updated minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels are shown 
in the following table. They represent the most current research 
recommendations, and are recommended by FHWA, but are limited to the 
current knowledge of the nighttime luminance requirements of traffic 
signs. The assumptions and limitations associated with the development 
of these levels are described in the research report (3). It should be 
noted that there may be situations where, based on engineering 
judgment, an agency may want to provide greater retroreflectivity.

                                   Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Sheeting type (ASTM D4956-01a)
             Sign color                     Criteria       -----------------------------------------------------
                                                               I        II      III      VII      VIII      IX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White on Red.......................  See Note 1...........                          35//7
                                                           ----------
Black on Orange or Yellow..........  See Note 2...........        *                       50
                                                           ----------
                                     See Note 3...........        *                       75
                                                           ----------
Black on White.....................  .....................                           50
                                                           ----------
White on Green.....................  Overhead.............     *//7    *//15    *//25           250//25
                                                           ----------
                                     Shoulder.............     *//7                    120//15
------------------------------------
 Notes:
                                                           ----------
Levels in cells represent legend retroreflectivity // background retroreflectivity (for positive contrast
 signs). Units are cd/lx/m\2\ measured at an observation angle of 0.2[deg] and an entrance angle of -4.0[deg].
1 Minimum Contrast Ratio >= 3:1 (white retroreflectivity / red retroreflectivity).
2 For text signs measuring 48 inches or more and all bold symbol signs.
3 For text signs measuring less than 48 inches and all fine symbol signs.
* Sheeting type should not be used.


[[Page 45629]]


                             Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bold Symbol Signs.........................................   W1-1--Turn.
                                                             W1-2--Curve.
                                                             W1-3--Reverse Turn.
                                                             W1-4--Reverse Curve.
                                                             W1-5--Winding Road.
                                                             W1-6--Large Single Arrow.
                                                             W1-7--Large Double Arrow.
                                                             W1-8--Chevron.
                                                             W1-9--Turn & Advisory Speed.
                                                             W1-10--Horizontal Alignment &
                                                             Intersection.
                                                             W2-1--Cross Road.
                                                             W2-2, W2-3--Side Road.
                                                             W2-4--T Intersection.
                                                             W2-5--Y Intersection.
                                                             W2-6--Circular Intersection.
                                                             W3-1a--Stop Ahead.
                                                             W3-2a--Yield Ahead.
                                                             W3-3--Signal Ahead.
                                                             W4-3--Added Lane.
                                                             W6-1--Divided Highway Begins.
                                                             W6-2--Divided Highway Ends.
                                                             W6-3--Two-Way Traffic.
                                                             W10-1, -2, -3, -4--Highway-
                                                             Railroad Intersection Advance Warning.
                                                             W11-2--Pedestrian Crossing.
                                                             W11-3--Deer Crossing.
                                                             W11-4--Cattle Crossing.
                                                             W11-5--Farm Equipment.
                                                             W11-5p, -6p, -7p--Pointing
                                                             Arrow Plaques.
                                                             W11-8--Fire Station.
                                                             W11-10--Truck Crossing.
                                                             W12-1--Double Arrow.
Fine Symbol Signs.........................................  All symbol signs not listed in the bold
                                                             category are considered fine symbol
                                                             signs.
Special Case Signs (for requirements in addition to yellow   W3-1a--Stop Ahead.
 color addressed in above table).                            Red retroreflectivity >= 7.
                                                             W3-2a--Yield Ahead
                                                             Red retroreflectivity >= 7,
                                                             White retroreflectivity >= 35.
                                                             W3-3--Signal Ahead.
                                                             Red retroreflectivity >= 7,
                                                             Green retroreflectivity >= 7.
                                                             W14-3--No Passing Zone, W4-4p--
                                                             Cross Traffic Does Not Stop, or W13-2, -
                                                             3, -1, -5--Ramp & Curve Speed Advisory
                                                             Plaques.
                                                             Use largest sign dimension to
                                                             find proper category in above table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

    1. Paniati, J.F. and Mace, D.J., Minimum Retroreflectivity 
Requirements for Traffic Signs, Technical Report. FHWA-RD-93-077, 
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, October 1993.
    2. McGee, H.W. and Paniati, J.F., An Implementation Guide for 
Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements for Traffic Signs. FHWA-RD-97-
052, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1998.
    3. Carlson, P.J. and Hawkins, H.G., Updated Minimum 
Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs. FHWA-RD-03-081, Federal 
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003.
    4. Carlson, P.J., Hawkins, H.G., Schertz, G.F., Opiela, K.S., and 
Mace, D.J., Developing Updated Minimum In-Service Retroreflectivity 
Levels for Traffic Signs, accepted for publication in the 
Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research Board, 
Washington, DC, 2003.

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 using the docket number appearing at the top of this 
document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file 
comments received after the comment closing date and will consider late 
comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the 
FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information 
becoming available after the comment closing date, and interested 
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final 
rule may be published at any time after the close of the comment 
period.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under 
the regulatory policies and procedures of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, because of the substantial public interest in the 
retroreflectivity of traffic signs. This rulemaking addresses comments 
received in response to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
request for regulatory reform nominations from the public. The OMB is 
required to submit an annual report to Congress on the costs and 
benefits of Federal regulations. The 2002 report included 
recommendations for regulatory reform that OMB requested from the 
public.\20\ One recommendation was that the FHWA should establish 
standards for minimum levels of

[[Page 45630]]

brightness of traffic signs.\21\ The FHWA has identified this 
rulemaking as responsive to that recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A copy of the OMB report ``Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 
2002 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulation and 
Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities'' is 
available at the following Web address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/summaries_nominations_final.pdf.
    \21\ A complete compilation of comments received by OMB is 
available at the following Web address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/key_comments.html. Comment number 93 includes the 
recommendation concerning the retroreflectivity of traffic signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would 
cause minimal additional expense to public agencies. In 2003, the FHWA 
updated its analysis of the cost impacts to State and local agencies to 
reflect higher material costs due to inflation, an increase in the 
proportion of signs that would be replaced with higher-level sign 
sheeting material, and changes in the overall mileage of State and 
local roads. The findings of the 2003 analysis show that the costs of 
the proposed action to State and local agencies would be less than $100 
million per year. The proposed seven-year regulation implementation 
period for ground mounted signs would allow State and local agencies to 
delay replacement of recently-placed Type I signs until they have 
reached their commonly-accepted seven-year service life. The proposed 
ten-year compliance period for overhead signs would allow an extended 
period of time due to the longer service life typically used for those 
signs.
    The FHWA has considered the costs and benefits associated with this 
rulemaking and believes that the benefits outweigh the costs. 
Currently, the MUTCD requires that traffic signs be illuminated or 
retroreflective to enhance nighttime visibility. The changes proposed 
in this notice provide additional guidance, clarification, and 
flexibility in maintaining traffic sign retroreflectivity that is 
already required by the MUTCD. The proposed maintenance methods 
consider changes in the composition of the vehicle population, vehicle 
headlamp design, and the demographics of drivers. The FHWA expects that 
the proposed maintenance methods will help to promote safety and 
mobility on the nation's roads and will result in minimum additional 
expense to public agencies or the motoring public.

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, including small governments. The FHWA 
certifies that this proposed action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The FHWA analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated 
August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action 
would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism 
implications on States and local governments that would limit the 
policy making discretion of the States and local governments. Nothing 
in the MUTCD directly preempts any State law or regulation.
    The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart 
F. These 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.

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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This notice of proposed amendments would not impose unfounded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). The findings of the impacts 
analysis indicate that this proposed action will not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year. In 
addition, sign replacement is eligible for up to 100 percent Federal-
aid funding--this applies to local jurisdictions and tribal 
governments, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(c).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has 
determined that this proposed action does not contain a collection of 
information requirement for the purposes of the PRA.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, to eliminate ambiguity, and to reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks. This is not an economically significant proposed action 
and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposed action would not affect a taking of private property 
or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this is not a 
significant energy action under that order because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy 
Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment.

[[Page 45631]]

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 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR 655

    Design standards, Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and 
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.

    Authority: (23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 105, 109(d), 114(a), 135, 
217, 307, 315, and 402(a); sec. 406(a), Pub. L. 102-388, 106 Stat. 
1520, 1564; 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).)

    Issued on: July 26, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-17409 Filed 7-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P