[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87672-87696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 470, 635 and 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001]
RIN 2125-AF85


National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD) (also referred to as ``the Manual'') is incorporated 
by reference within our regulations, approved by FHWA, and recognized 
as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public 
roads, bikeways, or private roads open to public travel. The purpose of 
this final rule is to revise Standard, Guidance, Option provisions, and 
supporting information, relating to the traffic control devices in all 
parts of the MUTCD to improve safety for all road users by promoting 
uniformity, and to incorporate new provisions that reflect

[[Page 87673]]

technological advances in traffic control device application. The 
MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, is being designated as the 11th 
Edition of the MUTCD.

DATES: Effective on January 18, 2024. The incorporation by reference of 
the publication listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the 
Office of the Federal Register as of January 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Sylvester, Office of 
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-2161, [email protected], or 
Mr. William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397, 
[email protected], Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This document, the notice of proposed amendments (NPA), and all 
comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking 
portal at: www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval 
help and guidelines are available under the help section of the 
website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please 
follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also 
be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's homepage at: 
www.federalregister.gov and the Government Printing Office's web page 
at: www.GovInfo.gov.

Executive Summary

    The Department of Transportation is committed to securing a future 
without serious roadway injuries or fatalities. Our approach is guided 
by our National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) \1\ which was released 
in January 2022 and adopts the Safe System Approach as the guiding 
paradigm to address roadway safety. One of the 5 objectives of the Safe 
System Approach is Safer Roads. There are many factors that go into 
making a road safe, including the surrounding land use, the geometric 
design of the roadway, and the uniform and consistent application of 
traffic control devices. The MUTCD is a set of technical criteria for 
the latter, and does not preclude action that State, local, or tribal 
decision makers might take on the first two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Information on the NRSS can be viewed at the following Web 
address: https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MUTCD is part of an overall DOT strategy that includes process 
and outreach changes. This document will be supplemented by a process 
improvement to increase the frequency of MUTCD updates to a 4-year 
cycle, seek a wider range of stakeholders to review and develop 
recommendations, and include educational components that help 
practitioners understand the use and applicability of the document.
    The FHWA has developed a Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative 
\2\ (PSCi) which identifies countermeasures and strategies effective in 
reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and strongly 
encourages transportation agencies to consider implementing tools to 
improve safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Information on the PSCi can be viewed at the following Web 
address: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking satisfies a Congressional requirement that was part 
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

I. Intended Use

    The MUTCD is developed and organized for the purpose of 
establishing national standards for traffic control devices on any 
roadway, bikeway, or shared-use path that is open to public travel. It 
is not intended to inform State or local policy on the design and 
character of communities or the geometric design of roadways, to 
prioritize a travel mode, or to influence land use or access by any 
mode of travel. Relevant local authorities and roadway owners determine 
land use, such as transit-oriented development, and roadway design to 
safely and conveniently prioritize walking, bicycling, public transit, 
motor-vehicle travel, or a combination of modes. The DOT is committed 
to securing a future without serious roadway injuries or fatalities and 
released the NRSS which adopts a Safe System Approach as the guiding 
paradigm to address roadway safety. As described in the NRSS, roadway 
design strongly influences how people use roadways. The environment 
around the roadway system, including land use and the intersections of 
highways, roads, and streets with other transportation modes such as 
rail and transit, also shapes the safety risks borne by the traveling 
public. The FHWA has developed the PSCi which identifies 
countermeasures and strategies effective in reducing roadway fatalities 
and serious injuries, and strongly encourages transportation agencies 
to consider implementing tools to improve safety. Following local 
determination of a roadway design, the MUTCD governs how traffic 
control devices communicate the design intent to the road user to 
safely and efficiently navigate the roadway system.

II. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This final rule is intended to improve safety, with a focus on 
vulnerable road users, streamline processes, and reduce burdens on 
State and local agencies by including many of the successful devices or 
applications that have resulted from nearly 200 official experiments 
that FHWA has approved, including pedestrian safety enhancements such 
as the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon, proven treatments that help 
bicyclists navigate the street more easily such as bicycle signal 
faces, congestion-reduction strategies such as variable speed limits 
for speed harmonization, and devices for traffic management 
applications such as dynamic lane control and shoulder use. In 
addition, this final rule adopts new signing to direct electric vehicle 
users to charging stations and the inclusion of numerous treatments for 
bicycle and transit lanes.
    The rule updates the technical provisions to reflect advances in 
technologies and safety and operational practices, incorporate recent 
trends and innovations, and set the stage for automated driving systems 
as those systems continue to take shape. This final rule promotes 
uniformity and incorporates technological advances in traffic control 
device design and application, and will ultimately improve and promote 
the safety, inclusion, and mobility of all road users and efficient 
utilization of roads that are open to public travel.
    With this 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA addresses any existing 
provisions that might have contributed to situations that inhibit or 
contravene the purpose of a nationwide standard for traffic control 
devices. The provisions of the MUTCD establish this national standard 
by adopting only those devices that, by clearly communicating the 
roadway design and operational intent to the road user, promote the 
safety, inclusion, and mobility of all road users and the efficient 
utilization of the highways and streets through an uninterrupted, 
uniform system of signs, signals, and markings as road users travel 
within and between jurisdictions. Uniformity and consistency in 
message, placement, and operation of traffic control devices have been 
shown to accommodate the expectancy of the road user, resulting in a 
more predictable response, contributing to improved road user safety 
overall. The system of uniform

[[Page 87674]]

traffic control devices works in concert with the natural tendencies of 
the road user in the various high-judgment situations that the road 
user will encounter.

Safety

    Uniform traffic control devices are critical to ensuring safety 
across the roadway network, and are part of the Safe System 
Approach,\3\ adopted by DOT. The Safe System Approach addresses every 
aspect of reducing crash risks, including safer road users, safer 
speeds, safer roads, safer vehicles, and safer post-crash care. Traffic 
control devices influence three of these factors by guiding roadway 
users toward uniform and predictable behavior; directing roadway users 
on safe operating speeds; and, in conjunction with roadway 
infrastructure, separating users in time and space. This approach can 
prevent crashes and reduce the kinetic energy transfer that can result 
in human injury or death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), defined the safe 
system approach as ``a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the 
risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into 
consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) 
accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration 
likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of 
the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into 
consideration vulnerable road users.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a focus on the safe mobility of vulnerable road users 
\4\ is prominent throughout this new edition and is expected to be a 
focus in future rulemaking, anticipated to be issued on a quadrennial 
cycle. Consideration of roadway context as an important factor has 
informed many of the new provisions wherever practicable. In 
particular, those applications in which differing roadway environments 
and road user needs are critical to the decisions on the types of 
traffic control devices under consideration have been emphasized or 
expanded upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Title 23 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C.) section 
148(a), Highway Safety Improvement Program, states a ``vulnerable 
road user'' means a non-motorist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope and Applicability

    Notwithstanding this focus, it is important for users of the MUTCD 
to be mindful that its scope is limited to traffic control devices: the 
signs, signals, and markings, and how they appear, operate, and are 
used. While its provisions are founded in safety, the MUTCD is not a 
roadway design manual, nor is it a comprehensive safety manual. The 
geometric and other design features of the roadway, such as curbs, 
barriers, intersection corner radii, and number and width of lanes, 
have a significant influence on safety and, in many cases, road user 
compliance with the traffic control devices selected. Likewise, it is 
not a policy or directive on how jurisdictions are to use their 
roadways to provide for efficient mobility of people and goods through 
their communities, or which travel modes are to have priority in the 
overall roadway network. Indeed, nothing in the MUTCD restricts a 
community from designing walkable, transit-oriented roadways or high-
speed highways as that community determines appropriate to serve its 
needs. Rather, the MUTCD is about directly communicating with the road 
user, in an effective manner, about how the roadway is intended to be 
used in the context and constraints of its physical space, design 
features, and surrounding environment.
    With its human-centered foundation, the MUTCD has always been about 
the road user; establishing uniformity in message to accommodate 
expectancy and behavior, informed by the body of knowledge based on 
decades of human factors research, to provide for the safe and 
efficient mobility. Reflecting our changing environment, that research 
basis continues to expand and evolve as new trends and applications 
emerge. While strictly a technical manual, the primacy of the road user 
is at the heart of the MUTCD's many technical provisions. The changes 
adopted in the new edition seek to emphasize the importance of the road 
users--each with varying capabilities and limitations, traveling by 
different modes--in the design and application of traffic control 
devices.
    Finally, with this final rule, FHWA fulfills certain statutory 
requirements of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which explicitly calls 
for a new edition of the MUTCD to be issued in a timely manner and be 
updated on a quadrennial cycle, as well as a number of specific items 
related to the MUTCD.

III. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in 
Question

    Key items in this final rule include the following:
    Incorporation of provisional traffic control devices currently 
under Interim Approval, including pedestrian-actuated rectangular 
rapid-flashing beacons at uncontrolled marked crosswalks, green-colored 
pavement for bicycle lanes, red-colored pavement for transit lanes, and 
a new traffic signal warrant based on crash experience;
    Improvements to safety and accessibility for pedestrians, including 
the location of pushbuttons at signalized crosswalks, crosswalk marking 
patterns, and accommodations in work zones;
    Expanded traffic control devices to improve safety and operation 
for bicyclists, including intersection bicycle boxes, two-stage turn 
boxes, bicycle traffic signal faces, and a new design for the U.S. 
Bicycle Route sign;
    Additional signing options for direction to electric vehicle 
charging services;
    Considerations for agencies to prepare roadways for automated 
vehicle technologies and to support the safe deployment of automated 
driving systems;
    Clarifications on patented and proprietary traffic control devices 
to foster and promote innovation; and
    Safety and operational improvements, including revised procedures 
for the posting of speed limits, new criteria for warning signs for 
horizontal alignment changes, and new application of traffic control 
devices for part-time travel on shoulders to manage congestion.
    In addition, this regulatory action amends the following:

23 CFR part 470, subpart A, Appendix C;
23 CFR 635.309(o);
23 CFR 655.603(b)(3); and
23 CFR 655.603, Appendix to Subpart F

IV. Costs and Benefits

    The FHWA has estimated the costs and evaluated potential benefits 
of this rulemaking and believes the rulemaking is being proposed in a 
manner that fulfills the requirements under 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR 
part 655, while also providing flexibility for State and local 
agencies. The estimated national costs are documented in the economic 
analysis report titled, ``Assessment of Economic Impacts of Amendment 
to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (11th Edition); Final 
Rule Economic Impact Assessment,'' which is available on the docket.
    The final rule results in clarification of language and 
organization of the MUTCD, increased flexibility and alternatives for 
agencies, relaxation of certain Standard provisions to Guidance, and 
the introduction of new traffic devices. For the purposes of this 
analysis, where revisions improve the clarity of existing content, 
those revisions have been considered non-substantive. All other 
revisions are considered substantive as they materially change the 
requirements of the MUTCD.
    The Economic Impact Analysis provides estimates of general 
administrative costs associated with incorporating and executing the 
MUTCD including training costs.

[[Page 87675]]

Second, the incremental costs associated with revisions to provisions 
of the MUTCD are calculated.
    This final rule provides quantitative estimates of the expected 
compliance costs associated with the proposed substantive revisions. 
There are 138 substantive revisions with minimal or no impact. These 
revisions materially change the MUTCD requirements but have no cost 
impacts or minimal cost impacts.
    The remaining nine substantive revisions have quantifiable economic 
impacts. The costs of the revision could be estimated fully for only 
five of these, and partially for one other. Across these six 
substantive revisions for which costs can be quantified, along with the 
administrative costs, the total estimated cost measured in 2020 dollars 
is $59.7 million when discounted to 2020 at 7 percent. These costs are 
estimated as the sum of the effort required for adoption and training 
of the MUTCD, the price of the traffic control device and the removal 
and installation costs of the device, applied to the current and future 
deployment rate of the traffic control device, considering the 
compliance date for the provision relating to the device. The revisions 
differ in their compliance dates, the date after which the traffic 
control devices must comply with the MUTCD revisions. The cost 
estimates reflect whether the revision includes a compliance date. For 
those changes for which a compliance date is not specified, the 
analysis assumes that agencies would make traffic control devices 
comply with the revisions at the end of the service life of a device 
while, for those with a compliance date, the analysis assumes that 
agencies would bring non-compliant traffic control devices into 
compliance proportionally each year until the compliance date. The 
analysis cannot account for agencies that might decide to set their own 
compliance dates for those items that do not have a compliance date in 
the national MUTCD. The analysis period is 10 years starting with an 
implementation date of 2023 and extending through 2032. The costs of 
four substantive revisions could not be estimated due to lack of 
information, but all are expected to have net benefits based on per-
unit or per-mile costs and benefits of the proposed revision. Costs for 
each substantive revision with appreciable impacts are estimated based 
on the cost of the traffic control device, the removal and installation 
costs of the device, the current and future deployment of the traffic 
control device, and the compliance date if applicable.
    The benefits of the revisions include operational and safety 
benefits. Operational benefits include the capacity of the traffic 
control device to convey necessary information to road users, 
accessibility benefits for pedestrians with vision disabilities, and 
mobility impacts from efficient operation. In some cases, the safety 
benefits are measured by the revision's impact on crash surrogate 
measures because of the limitations of analyzing the direct impact of 
traffic control devices on crash rates. However, in most cases the 
impact on crash surrogate measures does not provide an expressed crash 
reduction capability of the traffic control. Therefore, the benefits of 
these revisions could not be quantified.
    For each substantive revision with measurable costs, FHWA expects 
that the benefits will exceed costs. Based on the qualitative and 
quantitative information presented, FHWA expects that, in general, the 
potential benefits of the rulemaking will exceed its costs.

Background

    On December 14, 2020, at 85 FR 80898, FHWA published a Notice of 
Proposed Amendments (NPA) proposing revisions to the MUTCD. Those 
changes were proposed to be designated as the next edition of the 
MUTCD. Interested persons were invited to submit comments to FHWA 
Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001.
    After the close of the public comment period, the President signed 
into law the BIL, enacted as the IIJA, (Pub. L. 117-58, Nov. 15, 2021). 
Section 11129 of BIL amended 23 U.S.C. 109(d) to require that a new 
edition of the MUTCD be issued not later than 18 months after the 
enactment of BIL, and every 4 years thereafter; and to articulate more 
explicitly the role of traffic control devices, which is to ``promote 
the safety, inclusion, and mobility of all users and efficient 
utilization of the highways.''
    Section 11135 of BIL required that the MUTCD be updated, to the 
greatest extent practicable, to provide for the protection of 
vulnerable road users; the safe testing of automated vehicle technology 
and safe integration of automated vehicles onto public streets; 
appropriate use of changeable message signs (CMS) to enhance safety; 
the minimum retroreflectivity of traffic control devices, including 
pavement markings; and any additional recommendations made by the 
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD).
    In this final rule, FHWA takes steps to fulfill certain 
requirements of BIL. For example, the adoption of rectangular rapid-
flashing beacons and bicycle signal faces will improve the safety of 
vulnerable road users; a completely new part of the Manual is dedicated 
to traffic control devices to accommodate driving automation systems; 
the provisions on CMS are greatly expanded to address traffic safety 
messages with more clarification and detail; and FHWA published a final 
rule \5\ on August 5, 2022, at 87 FR 47921, establishing minimum 
retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Designated as Revision 3 of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received and its own experience, FHWA is 
issuing a final rule and is designating the MUTCD, with these changes 
incorporated, as the 11th Edition of the MUTCD.
    The text of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, with these final rule 
changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted changes from 
the 2009 Edition, are available for inspection and copying, as 
prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation 
Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 
Furthermore, the text of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, with these 
final rule changes incorporated, and documents showing the adopted 
changes from the 2009 Edition, are available on the FHWA's MUTCD 
internet site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The previous edition of the 
MUTCD, the 2009 MUTCD with Revisions 1, 2, and 3 incorporated, is also 
available on this internet site for reference. The 11th Edition 
supersedes all previous editions and revisions of the MUTCD.

Summary of Comments

    The FHWA received more than 17,000 submissions to the docket, 
containing over 100,000 individual comments on the MUTCD in general or 
on one or more parts, chapters, sections, or paragraphs contained in 
the MUTCD. The State departments of transportation (State DOT), city 
and county government agencies, Federal Government agencies, NCUTCD, 
consulting firms, private industry, associations, other organizations, 
and individual private citizens submitted comments. The FHWA has 
reviewed and analyzed all comments received. The significant items and 
summaries of the associated public comments, and FHWA's analyses and 
determinations, are discussed below. In addition to the following 
discussion, Preamble Tables that show the proposed items in the NPA and 
the dispositions in the final rule for each are available on the

[[Page 87676]]

MUTCD website and in the docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion of Amendments to the MUTCD

    The following represents a summary of significant topics of 
interest identified based on comments received from State DOTs, local 
agencies, associations, and citizens regarding the NPA. These items are 
summarized by corresponding parts of the MUTCD.
Part 1. General
Compliance Dates
    Compliance dates for four provisions are adopted in this final 
rule. The compliance dates are summarized in Table 1B-1 of the MUTCD 
and are described in detail herein. In addition, one compliance date 
from a previous rulemaking \6\ remains in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 87 FR 47921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 2B.64, Paragraph 14 requires that an additional Weight 
Limit sign, with an advisory distance or directional legend, shall be 
located in advance of the applicable section of highway or structure so 
that prohibited vehicles can detour or turn around prior to the limit 
zone. The NPA proposed changes to give operators of vehicles affected 
by weight limit restrictions adequate information about the distance to 
the restricted area so that they can properly change their route and to 
minimize potential damage to highway infrastructure as a result of an 
overweight vehicle; however, there was no compliance date proposed for 
these changes. Based on comments and to provide further clarity in this 
final rule, the two separate paragraphs from the 2009 edition are 
retained but the proposed elevation of the Guidance to a Standard is 
adopted with added text to clarify that the first Standard relates to 
posting at the applicable section of highway and structure, rather than 
in advance. The FHWA adds a compliance date of 5 years for the Standard 
in Paragraph 14 requiring the posting of the additional Weight Limit 
sign with the advisory distance or directional legend. The FHWA 
believes a 5-year compliance date is appropriate based on the critical 
nature of the infrastructure in that it allows agencies up to 2 years 
to adopt the MUTCD and 3 additional years for agencies to program, 
fund, and install any devices necessary
    In Section 2C.25, based on comments from the NTSB, the Standard 
which redesignated the W12-2 sign as an advance sign is adopted with 
revised language to warn road users of vertical clearances less than 14 
feet 6 inches, or vertical clearances less than 12 inches above the 
statutory maximum vehicle height, whichever is greater. All States have 
statutory maximum vehicle heights of 13 feet 6 inches or greater, thus 
making the 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height the 
prevailing criterion. However, in the interest of clarity and safety, 
the specific language for clearances less than 14 feet 6 inches is 
added to make it abundantly clear that signing for lesser vertical 
clearances is required. Further, the use of the existing W12-2a and new 
W12-2b signs is adopted as an Option to supplement, rather than be used 
in lieu of, the advance warning sign. The FHWA also adopts the Guidance 
as proposed in Paragraph 8 which recommends that for an arch or other 
structure under which the clearance varies greatly, two or more Low 
Clearance Overhead (W12-2a or 12-2b) signs should be installed on the 
structure itself to indicate the portions of the roadway over which the 
low clearance applies. This change was based on recommendations from 
NTSB H-14-11 \7\ to provide signing indicating the proper lane of 
travel for overheight vehicles traveling under an arched structure. The 
FHWA received comments relating to the proposed compliance dates for a 
guidance statement and confusion about the applicability based on the 
structure type. In this final rule FHWA clarifies their applicability 
to arch or similar type varying height structures and the application 
of a compliance date when a sign is not required, in the case of the 
recommendation for posting in Paragraph 8. Based on the critical nature 
of the infrastructure, FHWA adopts a compliance date of 5 years for 
both Paragraph 1 (required posting of the low clearance in advance of 
the structure) and Paragraph 8 (recommended posting of variable low 
clearances on the structure, unless determined based on engineering 
considerations that the recommended posting is not needed at that 
location).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a previous and separate rulemaking, a standard for the minimum 
level of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for pavement 
markings was established along with a compliance date which became 
Revision 3 to the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. As a result, FHWA 
incorporates the provisions from that completed rulemaking into Section 
3A.05. The compliance provision is only for implementation and 
continued use of a method that is designed to maintain 
retroreflectivity of longitudinal pavement markings, and the compliance 
date is September 6, 2026.
    The NPA included a compliance date of 5 years for the new Guidance 
in Section 8B.16 recommending the installation of Low Ground Clearance 
and/or Vehicle Exclusion and detour signs for vehicles with low ground 
clearances that might become immobilized or hung up on high-profile 
grade crossings due to their undercarriages being too low to clear the 
roadway profile at the track crossing. The proposed compliance date 
applied only to those locations with known histories of vehicle hang-
ups occurring, because sufficient geometric criteria do not currently 
exist for agencies to evaluate crossings to determine the specific 
types of vehicles that could experience hang-up situations. Comments on 
this section acknowledged the value of detour signing for low clearance 
vehicles in certain cases but suggested there are too many variables in 
terms of geometric conditions and the types of vehicles and vehicle 
combinations to adequately identify the risk of these vehicles hanging 
up at a grade crossing. There were also comments that suggested signing 
for all vehicles that could potentially hang up at crossings would 
result in excessive signing and driver confusion. There were also 
comments about the proposed compliance date, suggesting instead that 
devices should be brought into compliance through routine maintenance 
operations. Despite the challenges, FHWA acknowledges the need, as 
recommended in the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
recommendation H-18-024, to provide guidance to agencies to help 
identify and address high-profile crossings, especially those that are 
known from past experience to be subject to specific vehicle type hang-
ups. The text provides Guidance and Support to assist agencies in 
addressing these situations through signing. The compliance date 
applies to known potential vehicle hang-up locations that are currently 
identified by agencies through their grade crossing inventory. The FHWA 
adopts the Guidance and Support statements as proposed, including 
compliance dates.
    The NPA included a compliance date of 10 years for evaluation and 
installation of appropriate treatments), including preemption, movement 
prohibition, pre-signals, or queue cutter signals, for highway traffic 
signals located at or near grade crossings. Commenters indicated that 
the costs to evaluate and implement these treatments at highway traffic 
signals can be significant and may not align with

[[Page 87677]]

the agency's other priorities. Commenters also pointed out that the 
number of impacted locations varies greatly by State creating a 
significant challenge for some States to meet the proposed compliance 
date. Comments suggested that devices should be brought into compliance 
through the systematic replacement and upgrade of traffic control 
devices and not subject to a compliance date. This final rule adopts 
the compliance date for Sections 8D.09 through 8D.12 with revisions to 
require only an assessment and determination of appropriate treatment 
to reach compliance at specific locations. Agencies will be granted 
flexibility to determine the schedule for installation of improvements 
based on availability of funding and other safety priorities through 
the systematic replacement and upgrade of traffic control devices as 
currently prescribed in the MUTCD for other traffic control devices.
Experimentation
    The FHWA recognizes the importance of innovation in traffic control 
devices for the improvement of traffic safety and operations, 
particularly for vulnerable road users and automated vehicles. The 
FHWA, in this final rule, greatly expands this section in a number of 
areas to better help practitioners in preparing experimentation plans. 
In the NPA, FHWA proposed to create a new section specifically related 
to experimentation, now Section 1B.06 (formerly part of Section 1A.10 
in the 2009 MUTCD), with Standard, Support, and Guidance paragraphs 
describing the experimentation process, which provides for evaluation 
of new traffic control devices or applications under controlled 
conditions. As part of those changes, FHWA clarified the existing 
paragraph regarding the elements to be provided in an agency's request 
for experimentation from a Guidance to a Standard, and expanded the 
requirements, including specification of the timing of submitting semi-
annual progress reports documenting the approved experiments.
    Many commenters supported the need for experimentation and 
thoughtful process associated with it to provide uniformity and safety 
for road users; however, many commenters stated that they believe the 
experimentation process is getting more complicated. Commenters 
suggested that the existing process hinders innovation to the point of 
it becoming impossible to pursue due to the steps and time required. As 
a result, some agencies stated that resource restrictions prevent them 
from engaging in experimentation and therefore only a handful of 
States/agencies can afford to experiment. Several organizations and 
State and local departments of transportation suggested FHWA retain the 
experimentation process as Guidance, as opposed to Standards, and 
simplify it. Several commenters also suggested that the requirement for 
devices to be free from protection by patents, trademarks, etc. is 
overly burdensome and stifles innovation. They suggested that FHWA 
allow targeted patented and proprietary products to be used in the 
experimentation process without patent holders having to forfeit their 
proprietary protections and allow FHWA to consider these products based 
on their safety impacts, rather than having them precluded from the 
experimentation process before their benefits are known. Other comments 
ranged from allowing agencies to use engineering judgement to determine 
the appropriate course of action without making a request for 
experimentation to allowing the default assumption that 
experimentations may stay in place beyond the end of the 
experimentation period unless FHWA determines that the experimentation 
has created an unacceptable safety or operational issue. There were 
also several comments about the experimentations themselves, including 
the requirement for control sites, and the desire to coordinate 
research resources to support local agencies with data collection 
efforts and research partnerships.
    In consideration of the comments, FHWA adopts a new Option to 
streamline the process for requesting official experimentation. This 
new Option allows a requesting agency to submit an abstract of the 
experimental concept for preliminary review of its viability and 
potential alignment with other ongoing or previous research on the 
concept. The FHWA frequently engages with agencies prior to submission 
of an official request, and the new Option should reduce burdens on 
agencies by deferring or eliminating the need to develop a full 
research plan in the event that FHWA identifies a solution that 
complies with the MUTCD.
    An agency will sometimes submit a request for experimentation with 
a new device or application to address a need that, instead, could be 
addressed with devices that comply with the MUTCD. If an existing 
compliant solution is identified, the need for experimentation to 
develop and consider a new device or application is eliminated. To 
further assist agencies in preparing requests for experimentation, 
clarifying language is added stating that if one of the required items 
is not applicable for the specific device or application, those items 
are required to be addressed in the request with a brief explanation as 
to their non-applicability. The FHWA adopts this change to confirm that 
each of the required items has been addressed, even if some of the 
items do not apply to the particular type of experimental device or 
application or based on the evaluation methodology.
    The FHWA retains the Standard requiring official approval to 
experiment with a traffic control device that does not comply with the 
provisions of the MUTCD on any street, highway, bikeway, or site 
roadway open to public travel. This Standard is a clarifying statement 
of the existing process that is necessary to limit use of non-compliant 
devices or applications and minimize any safety risk from experimental 
features, help ensure that experiments contain adequate provisions to 
determine effectiveness, and provide national documentation of results. 
The experimentation process ensures that efforts to solve safety or 
operational problems with new traffic control devices employ objective, 
data-driven approaches rather than subjective, anecdotal, or stochastic 
approaches that could result in unintended adverse effects. The FHWA 
understands that the experimentation process is of concern due to the 
level of analysis required, which can take time and financial 
resources. However, the MUTCD is the national standard for traffic 
control devices; therefore, deviation requires specific permission 
through experimentation approval. It is important to understand that 
nothing about the experimentation process prevents States or local 
communities from making decisions regarding the geometric design or 
land use pattern of a community for any reason, including to improve 
safety for vulnerable road users. The parameters regarding 
experimentation are intended to help ensure the experimental 
application does not introduce unintended risk or confusion into the 
transportation network due to noncompliant traffic control devices or 
applications. The type and level of analysis associated with 
experimentation helps ensure experimentation provides useful 
information for later decisionmaking on additional research, potential 
revisions to the MUTCD, or advancement of a concept through Interim 
Approval pending rulemaking. Therefore, the required basic elements for 
all experiments do not change though the specifics of how they are 
applied vary by the device being evaluated and the

[[Page 87678]]

context of its use. In many cases, simple experimentation provisions 
can fully address the necessary basic requirements and often in ways 
that are not prohibitively expensive. For example, field evaluation of 
a new device intended to improve motorist yielding at crosswalks might 
require only simple vehicle yielding counts by a trained observer at 
various intervals over a period of time to compare conditions before 
and after implementation. The cost of experimentation is completely 
dependent on the type of analysis needed to adequately evaluate the 
device or application.
    The FHWA retains the existing MUTCD prohibition on patented or 
proprietary traffic control devices, including under experimental 
consideration, and adds language to clarify that this provision is 
actually a limitation that applies to traffic control devices, but not 
necessarily to certain aspects of those devices, such as their 
component parts. The FHWA has sufficient rationale for precluding 
patented devices in the MUTCD, including a long-standing history of 
uniformity issues when patented devices were used on roadways. Given 
that the purpose of experimentation is to test devices or applications 
for national applicability and potential or eventual inclusion in the 
MUTCD, allowing patented devices into the experimentation process would 
serve no purpose because eventual inclusion of a device into the MUTCD 
would still require relinquishing those rights. Further clarification 
on the extent to which the MUTCD limits and allows patented items is 
provided in Section 1D.06.
    The FHWA also retains the existing provision subjecting 
experimental traffic control devices to removal following the 
conclusion of the experiment. Requiring the removal of experimental 
devices after an experiment has ended when those devices are not being 
considered for adoption in the MUTCD is necessary for consistency with 
the MUTCD being the national standard for traffic control devices, with 
non-compliant devices only being allowed during experimentation. 
Experimental devices that are shown to be sufficiently effective based 
on appropriate levels of experimentation are sometimes issued an 
Interim Approval official ruling and then become available for use by 
all agencies requesting their use. Experimental devices that lead to 
Interim Approvals are generally allowed to remain in place after the 
experimentation period during the Interim Approval issuance process.
    Control sites, which are sites with similar characteristics to the 
experimentation site but without the experimental treatment itself, are 
typically considered essential for scientifically sound research on 
traffic control devices, as they allow for comparison of data to 
minimize the effects of variables that are not part of the study. 
However, FHWA agrees that for certain types of device evaluations or 
applications control sites may not be necessary to ensure sound 
research results. The FHWA therefore revises that requirement to allow 
for other equivalent evaluation methodologies to be used. In addition, 
a clarifying support statement is added allowing a single 
experimentation request from multiple jurisdictions wanting to 
experiment with the same device. Similarly, jurisdictions can 
potentially be added to an approved existing experiment underway by a 
different jurisdiction, thereby reducing the time and expense in 
experimenting with a device. This approach differs greatly from Interim 
Approval, as the sites in the added jurisdictions are required to be 
evaluated under the same experimentation plan.
    Lastly, FHWA is developing experimentation guidelines separate from 
the MUTCD that will provide helpful direction in planning, submitting, 
and evaluating an MUTCD experiment with traffic control devices. The 
experimentation guidelines will include background information on 
research, how to find assistance, and practical examples of device 
experimentation across different levels of complexity. In response to 
noted concerns, the guidelines will seek to streamline understanding of 
experimentation with traffic control devices, as well as reduce 
financial or institutional barriers that local agencies, in particular, 
might experience in this area. This document is currently in 
development and will be published after the completion of this 
rulemaking.
Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment
    In proposed Section 1D.05 (now Section 1D.03), FHWA proposed to 
provide new Standard, Guidance, and Support paragraphs to supplement 
existing Guidance and Support. The new text is based on FHWA Official 
Ruling No. 1(09)-1 (I) \8\ and clarifies the application of engineering 
study and engineering judgment to the selection and specification of 
traffic control devices for implementation. Among the areas covered are 
the extent to which the specialized training and experience of an 
engineer are involved in traffic control device decisions and 
activities, and the authority of a jurisdiction or agency to make and 
implement those decisions, for the purpose of ensuring that facilities 
open to public travel meet a high level of safety that the public 
expects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1 (I) can be viewed at the 
following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/1_09_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes clarify the role of trained engineers as important 
advisors whose engineering studies are valuable inputs in the overall 
decisionmaking process. Several commenters expressed concern over the 
definitions of engineering judgment and engineering study, indicating 
that others besides engineers or those under the supervision of an 
engineer should be allowed to make decisions about traffic control 
device application and activities.
    The primary concern expressed was that small public agencies may 
not have staff that meets these requirements and therefore should be 
allowed to make those types of decisions regardless of engineering 
oversight. In response to these concerns, FHWA adopts the proposed 
language with minor edits noting that the text does not require every 
traffic control device decision to be made by an engineer or be made 
under the supervision of an engineer. However, decisions requiring 
engineering judgment and engineering study do require the specialized 
training and experience of an engineer, or someone acting under the 
supervision or direction of an engineer, to ensure the public 
facilities meet a high level of safety expected by the public for 
clarity, comprehension and legibility of message, as well as uniformity 
of application of traffic control devices in similar situations. The 
selection, design, and application of traffic control devices are 
inherently engineering functions. Traffic control device activities, 
such as installing and maintaining traffic control devices, are 
engineering functions conducted in accordance with plans, 
specifications, or other functions developed by and under the 
supervision or direction of an engineer. Engineers have a specific 
level of responsibility and accountability under professional licensure 
and are subject to a professional board and code of ethics. When 
necessary, there are many ways in which local communities are able to 
obtain engineering guidance including, but not limited to, the use of 
consultants and local transportation assistance type programs (Local 
Technical Assistance

[[Page 87679]]

Program,\9\ or similar). Other resources, such as handbooks and field 
installation manuals, are available for select traffic control 
activities for which the direct supervision of an engineer might not be 
necessary. Such resources are developed by an engineering organization 
and adopted by the State or county transportation agency for use on 
roadways within their boundaries, including for local roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Information about LTAP can be found at FHWA's Local Aid 
Support site at the following Web address: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/clas/ltap/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further clarify the intent of the provisions, FHWA adopts 
additional language to explain that the MUTCD does not mandate, and is 
not intending to imply, that an engineer must make the final decision 
whether to implement or execute the determination or advice of an 
engineer by installing or constructing the traffic control device to 
the engineer's specification in the field. Rather, the engineer, 
individual under supervision or direction of an engineer, or other 
individual as duly authorized by State law to engage in the practice of 
engineering, develops an engineering-based solution that includes the 
specifications for selection and placement of traffic control devices. 
The responsibility for a final decision to implement traffic control 
solutions rests with the agency (or owner) having jurisdiction over the 
roadway, after consultation with and based on advice from the engineer, 
to ensure that the design and operational intent of the facility are 
safely and effectively conveyed to road users. In many cases, it might 
be an engineer to whom the agency has delegated that authority. In 
other cases, such as with smaller agencies or owners of private roads 
open to public travel, it is the roadway owner that makes the decision 
on implementation, similarly following consultation with an engineer on 
the selection, design, and application of the specific traffic control 
device at the specific location to communicate safely and effectively 
with the road user.
    In the final rule, the section is renumbered to Section 1D.03.
Part 2. Signs
Speed Limit Setting
    Speed control and management are important elements in reducing 
fatalities and serious injuries, particularly on roadways where 
vehicles and vulnerable road users mix. States and local jurisdictions 
should set appropriate speed limits to reduce the significant risks 
drivers impose on others, vulnerable road users, and on themselves. In 
the NPA, FHWA proposed to reorganize and revise material in Section 
2B.21 (formerly 2B.13 of the 2009 MUTCD) Speed Limit Sign (R2-1) based 
on the recommendation of the NTSB \10\ to review how speed limits are 
determined. The NPA proposed to clarify the factors that should be 
considered when establishing or reevaluating non-statutory speed limits 
within speed zones, and to reinforce that other factors, in addition to 
the 85th-percentile speed,\11\ have a role in setting speed limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NTSB report ``Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving 
Passenger Vehicles,'' can be viewed at the following Web address: 
www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf.
    \11\ 85th-Percentile Speed is the speed at or below which 85 
percent of the motor vehicles travel, which is sometimes used to 
provide an indication of the free-flow operating speed the roadway 
for determining traffic control device applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speeding is one of the largest and most persistent contributing 
factors in fatal traffic crashes, resulting in nearly 100,000 
fatalities over the past decade.\12\ The DOT's NRSS adopts a Safe 
System Approach which includes a focus on Safer Speeds as a core tenet 
and recognizes that achieving safe speeds requires a multi-faceted 
approach that leverages road design and other infrastructure 
interventions, speed limit setting, education, and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speeding 
Traffic Safety Facts 2021 Data, report DOT HA 813 473, July 2023: 
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past several editions, FHWA has sought opportunities to 
reduce the amount of superfluous or duplicative content for purposes of 
streamlining the MUTCD and improving its usability, especially when 
that content is outside the scope of the MUTCD, which is the 
appearance, operation, and other aspects of traffic control devices--
signs, signals, and markings. A number of commenters suggested that the 
MUTCD should not contain procedures on how to set speed limits, and 
that it is beyond its scope. The FHWA will assess the viability of 
removing the speed limit setting provisions from the MUTCD in a future 
rulemaking. This topic is discussed in more detail later in this 
section.
    A large number of comments on the setting of speed limits were 
received from organizations, public jurisdictions, and individuals. 
Many comments were based on a presumption that speed limits are 
required to be set at the 85th-percentile speed. However, this 
presumption is inaccurate. There is no existing or new requirement that 
a speed limit must be set at the 85th-percentile speed. The MUTCD 
allows for roadway owners and engineers to consider a wide variety of 
other factors in the engineering study including road characteristics, 
roadside development and environment, pedestrian activity, parking, and 
crash experience. All these factors (including speed distribution) are 
analyzed as part of the required engineering study and it is through 
that comprehensive analysis that the appropriate speed limit is 
determined. Further, the MUTCD addresses only non-statutory speed 
limits. The MUTCD does not preclude States or localities from passing 
laws to set statutory speed limits. Comments varied broadly in scope 
and with recommendations that were sometimes conflicting in nature. For 
example, some commenters recommended completely removing the 85th-
percentile speed as a factor to consider in an engineering study and 
instead requiring the Safe System approach. Others recommended 
retaining the 85th-percentile speed as a factor because it is a 
relevant data point that can be important as an indicator that other 
modifications or speed management strategies might be needed to achieve 
compliance or some level of a self-enforcing road or street design. 
Still other commenters suggested removing all material relating to 
speed limit setting from the MUTCD.
    The FHWA is in general agreement with removing provisions from the 
MUTCD that fall outside its scope, particularly when that information 
can be found in another source. As mentioned earlier, FHWA has sought 
opportunities to reduce certain content for purposes of streamlining 
the MUTCD and improving its usability. The NPA did not propose complete 
removal of all speed limit setting material as, at this time, there is 
not an authoritative alternative document on this topic to which 
practitioners could be directed. Removal of this information under the 
current rulemaking would leave practitioners without a comprehensive, 
updated, data-driven reference from an authoritative source outside the 
MUTCD, as well as potential gaps in available information. (Development 
of such a comprehensive guide for speed limit setting is in progress 
and is discussed later in this section.) Therefore, in this final rule 
FHWA retains provisions on setting non-statutory speed limits in 
Section 2B.21 but with updates and revisions to state the entire range 
of factors, recommended for consideration in the engineering study to 
set a speed limit. In addition, the revised provisions clarify the role 
of speed distribution in

[[Page 87680]]

the engineering study in differing roadway contexts and environments.
    The NPA solicited comments on two specific recommendations of the 
NTSB report: (1) the removal of the 85th-percentile speed as a 
consideration in setting non-statutory speed limits and (2) a 
requirement to use an expert system to validate a speed limit that has 
been determined through engineering study. Commenters were also 
requested to address likely outcomes if one or more of the other 
recommendations in the report, such as increased automated enforcement, 
were not implemented in conjunction with the speed-setting 
recommendations outlined in the report. Very few commenters addressed 
these questions directly, but many commenters incorporated their views 
on the first question especially into their overall comments on the NPA 
language in Section 2B.21, as described earlier. The FHWA reviewed and 
considered all comments on Section 2B.21 in making the determinations 
for this final rule that are described herein.
    Safety is the DOT's priority. In furtherance of improving safety, 
in consideration of the comments received, and to further FHWA's 
statutory obligation under Section 11135 of BIL to provide for the 
protection of vulnerable road users, FHWA adopts the proposed NPA 
change to remove speed distribution from the existing Standard and 
instead include it in the Guidance provision among the recommended 
factors for the engineering study. The FHWA also adopts in this 
Standard a requirement that roadway context be considered in setting 
speed limits. The updated Guidance provision provides details on six 
factors to consider in engineering studies on setting speed limits, 
including roadway environment, roadway characteristics, geographic 
context, crash experience, speed distribution, and analysis of speed 
trends. This change clarifies that the engineering study is not just 
limited to the speed distribution and that the context of the roadway 
is part of the study. The Guidance also clarifies that on urban and 
suburban arterials and rural main streets, the 85th-percentile speed 
should not be used as the sole consideration in setting speed limits.
    The FHWA emphasizes that there is no existing or new requirement 
that a speed limit must be set at the 85th-percentile speed. Rather, 
the 85th-percentile speed is included as one of the factors, as 
referenced in the preceding paragraph, recommended for consideration as 
a meaningful data point within the engineering study and is a potential 
indicator that other modifications or speed management strategies might 
be needed to achieve compliance or some level of a self-enforcing 
design. This aspect of the engineering study is critical because, just 
as speed limits need to reflect the road design, the road design 
similarly needs to reflect the desired operating speed. The FHWA also 
emphasizes that the relative weight given to each of the recommended 
factors in the engineering study will depend on the context of the 
location under study and that the MUTCD does not prioritize any one 
factor over another.
    The FHWA revises the Guidance provision to provide additional 
flexibility in applying the factors that should be considered in the 
required engineering study. Also, FHWA adds the 50th-percentile 
(median) speed as recommended for consideration along with the 85th-
percentile speed, because speed limits set below the 50th-percentile 
speed tend to encourage excessive violations and an analysis of both 
data points is appropriate as part of an engineering study. The FHWA 
adds Guidance for agencies to consider measures other than traffic 
control devices to help achieve desired vehicle operating speeds, when 
the 85th-percentile speed is appreciably greater than the posted speed 
limit or where past speed studies have indicated consistent increases 
in operating speeds. These measures include changes to geometric 
features and other speed-reduction countermeasures.
    The FHWA retains the proposed Guidance provision recommending, but 
not requiring, that the speed limit be set within 5 mph of the 85th-
percentile speed only on freeways and expressways, and on rural 
highways outside urban areas or urbanized conditions, as these are the 
types of facilities where the other factors (such as vulnerable road 
users) generally do not exist such that this Guidance is appropriate. 
As Guidance, this provision provides sufficient flexibility to apply 
unique engineering considerations that might exist; however, FHWA 
provides additional context by describing this applicability when all 
factors described in Paragraph 7 have been considered and determined to 
be non-mitigating or are not present and the factors described in the 
new Guidance Paragraph 8 have been considered. In addition, FHWA 
clarifies that factors other than speed distribution should be 
considered during an engineering study when setting a non-statutory or 
posted speed limit, depending on the site conditions of the specific 
location.
    The FHWA introduces new Support information at the beginning of the 
section that discusses applying the provisions to set appropriate speed 
limits on non-limited access facilities where vehicle operators are 
more likely to encounter other road users, such as pedestrians and 
bicyclists, as well as clarify the application of expert systems and 
the Safe System approach.\13\ The new Support provision clarifies that 
a range of factors can influence the speed limit determined in the 
engineering study. These factors include land-use context, pedestrian 
and bicyclist activity, crash history, intersection spacing, driveway 
density, roadway geometry, roadside conditions, roadway functional 
classification, traffic volume, and observed speeds. The engineering 
study will determine which of the recommended factors will prevail in 
setting the appropriate speed limit and the new provisions are intended 
to ensure that practitioners consider all road users when setting a 
speed limit. The FHWA believes that the changes adopted as described 
herein will result in improved safety through the setting of speed 
limits that more appropriately reflect their environment and the mix of 
road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support and better emphasize the importance of roadway context 
in speed limit setting, FHWA is coordinating as a separate effort the 
development of a new, comprehensive Speed Limit Setting document to 
assist practitioners with information on the available tools and how 
factors for consideration can be used as part of the engineering study 
in setting a non-statutory speed limit. In conjunction with this 
effort, FHWA will assess the viability of removing the speed limit 
setting provisions from the MUTCD and will consider such a revision for 
a future rulemaking.
Electric Vehicles and Alternative Fuels
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed several revisions related to signing for 
electric vehicle (EV) charging and alternative fuels using General and 
Specific Service signs. General Service signs display words or symbols 
to eligible motorist services available along a freeway, expressway, or 
conventional road. Eligible services include food, gas, EV charging, 
lodging, camping, public telephone, hospital, or tourist information. 
Specific Service signs are display specific business identification 
logos of eligible of commercial motorist services available along a 
freeway or expressway. Business identification logos are grouped by 
eligible service category; eligible service categories for Specific 
Service signs are gas, EV charging, food, lodging, camping, and

[[Page 87681]]

attractions. Both General Service and Specific Service signs used on 
freeways and expressways require trailblazing signs providing 
directional information from an exit ramp all the way to the service 
site when the service is not visible from the exit ramp intersection 
with the crossroad.
    Alternative Fuels Corridor signs inform road users of the highway 
segments that have been designated by FHWA as ``Corridor Ready,'' and 
use either General Service or Specific Service signs in advance of each 
interchange or intersection for the fuel service along that corridor. 
Eligible fuel services for Alternative Fuels Corridors are electric 
vehicle charging, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquid 
propane gas, and hydrogen. The FHWA proposed to incorporate information 
related to EV charging and parking signing based on FHWA's Memorandum 
on Regulatory Signs for Electric Vehicle Charging and Parking 
Facilities.\14\ The FHWA also proposed to incorporate technical 
provisions based on FHWA's Policy Memorandum, ``MUTCD-Signing for 
Designated Alternative Fuels Corridors,'' issued December 21, 2016.\15\ 
The market for alternative fuel vehicles and specifically EVs has 
evolved significantly in recent years, as has the demand for such 
vehicles and their corresponding fueling/charging infrastructure. 
Comments on the NPA reflected this shift and focused on signing for EV 
charging services and Alternative Fuels Corridors by requesting 
additional flexibilities to include EV charging services on Specific 
Service Signs and EV charging supplemental messages on business 
identification (logo) sign panels for other types of services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FHWA's Memorandum, ``Regulatory Signs for Electric Vehicle 
Charging and Parking Facilities,'' issued June 17, 2013, can be 
viewed at the following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/rsevcpfmemo/.
    \15\ FHWA Policy Memorandum, ``MUTCD-Signing for Designated 
Alternative Fuels Corridors,'' issued December 21, 2016, can be 
viewed at the following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/alt_fuel_corridors/index.htm. Since the publication 
of the NPA this memorandum has been superseded by FHWA's February 
16, 2023, Memorandum on the same topic: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/signing_alt_fuel_corridors/index.htm. The 
substantive provisions relating to the signing of EV charging 
services remained unchanged in the 2023 memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA agrees with these comments and is adding several 
provisions to the MUTCD to ensure adequate flexibility is available to 
sign for EV charging services and Alternative Fuels Corridors. For 
Alternative Fuels Corridors, FHWA adds technical provisions from FHWA's 
Policy Memorandum, ``MUTCD-Signing for Designated Alternative Fuels 
Corridors,'' to the MUTCD in Chapter 2H, Section 2H.14. The provisions 
establish the Alternative Fuels Corridor signs in the MUTCD and clarify 
use of General Service Signs and directional assemblies to guide 
motorists to EV charging services. The final rule also includes new 
figures in MUTCD Section 2H.14 showing typical sign layouts along an 
Alternative Fuels Corridor and the use of EV charging General Service 
signs. As part of these changes, FHWA adds clarity in the final rule 
that directional trailblazing signing all the way to the charging 
service site is required when General Service signs are used.
    The FHWA also adds a new Specific Service sign category in Chapter 
2J for EV charging. The existing general provisions for Specific 
Service signs apply equally to EV charging Specific Service signs. The 
eligibility to have an EV charging business identification sign panel 
on a sign generally reflects eligibility criteria for National Electric 
Vehicle Infrastructure funding and other types of fueling services. To 
reflect public comments, the final rule also allows EV charging 
supplemental messages be added to the bottom of a business 
identification sign panel used on other categories of Specific Service 
signs (food, lodging, etc.) if the EV charging service at that business 
meets the same eligibility criteria for the EV charging General Service 
signs. As with all Specific Service signs, directional signing from the 
freeway to the EV charging service is required if the direction to the 
site is unclear or additional guidance is needed such as when 
subsequent turns onto other roads are required.
AMBER Alerts on CMS
    In Section 2L.02, the NPA proposed a new Guidance statement 
recommending that America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response 
(AMBER) alerts should not preempt messages related to traffic or travel 
conditions, should be as brief as possible, and should not include 
other information, such as detailed descriptions of persons, vehicles, 
or license plate numbers.
    Several State DOTs and the NCUTCD suggested that information 
regarding the vehicle, including the license plate, are essential 
pieces of information and are currently used for AMBER alert messaging. 
One State DOT shared its experience with using only a general vehicle 
description that resulted in generating an overwhelming number of 911 
calls. Commenters indicated that more detailed information, such as the 
license plate number is necessary for AMBER alerts to be effective.
    In response to comments, FHWA removes the Guidance specifically 
discouraging the use of descriptions of persons, vehicles, or license 
plate numbers as part of AMBER alert messages on CMS in the final rule. 
Guidance is retained that AMBER alert messages should be kept as brief 
as possible to address the potential of overloading road users with 
detailed information and, when possible, use other sources to convey 
that detailed information associated with the alert. Also, FHWA retains 
the proposed Guidance that AMBER alerts should not preempt messages 
related to traffic or travel conditions to ensure road user have real-
time changing traffic and travel conditions requiring immediate 
motorist response. The FHWA believes the final rule is responsive to 
commenters and promotes the appropriate use of CMS to enhance public 
safety, consistent with Section 11135 of BIL.
Safety Messages on Changeable Message Signs
    In Chapter 2L, FHWA proposed several provisions in the NPA related 
to safety messages on CMS. The NPA included new Guidance and Standard 
paragraphs in Section 2L.02 regarding the appropriate and allowable use 
of traffic safety campaign messages on CMS displays. The FHWA proposed 
this new language to clarify that safety and transportation-related 
messages--which had been and would continue to be allowed--should be 
clear and direct, and meaningful to the road user on the roadway that 
the message is displayed. The FHWA recommended that messages with 
obscure meaning, references to popular culture, that are intended to be 
humorous, or otherwise use nonstandard syntax for a traffic control 
device, not be displayed because they can be misunderstood or 
understood only by a limited segment of road users and, therefore, 
degrade the overall effectiveness of the sign as an official traffic 
control device. The FHWA proposed a Standard that only traffic safety 
campaign messages that are part of an active, coordinated safety 
campaign that uses other media forms as its primary means of outreach 
be displayed on CMS, such that the CMS message would be a supplement to 
the overall campaign that employs other media and/or tools to promote 
the message.
    While a number of commenters expressed support for the proposed 
provisions on traffic safety messages on CMS, others expressed 
opposition and

[[Page 87682]]

suggested that the provisions should be less restrictive. Several 
commenters suggested moving all information related to traffic safety 
messages to a single section. Many commenters expressed concern that 
messages outside of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA)-developed enforcement campaign slogans would not be allowed 
under the proposed revision. While some commenters did request more 
flexibility in safety messaging and CMS use in general, many commenters 
supported the proposed provisions to help stem what they viewed as 
overuse or inappropriate uses of CMS. Some commenters believed that the 
NPA should explicitly restrict specific types of messages and even 
develop a standardized library of acceptable messages.
    In response to comments, FHWA places all information related to 
traffic safety campaign messages in Section 2L.07. In addition, as it 
was not the intent to restrict safety campaign messages only to those 
on the NHTSA Communications Calendar, FHWA revises the applicable 
Guidance provision so as not to imply that an agency is precluded from 
developing and displaying messages of its own traffic safety campaigns 
separate from the NHTSA campaigns.
    The provisions on message construction and content, as proposed, 
are largely consistent with past and current human factors research in 
the areas of driver information overload, comprehension, the general 
principles for effective traffic control devices, and, specifically, 
messaging on CMS. These considerations were also the basis for FHWA's 
2021 policy memorandum on CMS \16\ use that was developed in 
collaboration with NHTSA. The Guidance provisions, as adopted, can be 
deviated from based on engineering judgement. However, FHWA believes 
these are important considerations as not to diminish respect for the 
sign when used in other traffic-related scenarios for regulatory, 
warning, and guidance under prevailing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 2(09)-174 (I), ``Uses of and 
Nonstandard Syntax on Changeable Message Signs,'' can be viewed at 
the following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_09_174.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3. Markings
Normal Line Width (4-Inch to 6-Inch Width)
    Based on comments to the NPA, a review of the relevant research, 
and the potential beneficial impacts of the recent final rule \17\ 
related to maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity that will 
increase pavement marking visibility, changing the width of normal and 
wide longitudinal lines is not adopted in the final rule and the 
existing provisions on longitudinal pavement marking width from the 
2009 Edition are retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual 
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; 
Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Final Rule, 87 FR 
47921, August 5, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 3A.04 Functions, Widths, and Patterns of Longitudinal 
Pavement Markings, in the Standard describing the widths and patterns 
of longitudinal lines, FHWA proposed in the NPA to revise the width of 
normal lines to indicate that 6-inch-wide lines are to be used for 
freeways, expressways, and ramps as well as for all other roadways with 
speed limits greater than 40 mph and that 4- to 6-inch-wide lines are 
to be used for all other roadways. The FHWA proposed this change to 
improve visibility and consistency on ``high-speed'' facilities and 
based on research showing improved machine vision detectability.
    The FHWA also proposed to change the definition of a wide line to 
at least 8 inches in width if 4-inch or 5-inch normal lines are used, 
and at least 10 inches in width if 6-inch normal lines are used. This 
change was proposed to clarify the definition based on varying 
practices for ``normal'' width lines and to reduce the impact on 
agencies that use 6-inch lines as their ``normal'' width.
    In addition, FHWA proposed to add a new Guidance statement 
regarding the width of the discernible space separating the parallel 
lines of a double line so that they can be recognized as a double line 
rather than two, separate disassociated single lines.
    The FHWA received several comments opposed to the new requirement 
for 6-inch-wide normal lines due to the additional cost. Commenters 
suggested that the financial impact was underrepresented since the 
change is not a one-time cost but also increased life-cycle costs 
related to ongoing maintenance with pavement resurfacing and marking 
``refreshing.'' Some commenters also suggested that the extent of the 
proposed 6-inch requirement was not supported by research. A number of 
agencies stated they may decide not to install markings at all on 
roadways that do not meet the warrants for centerlines and edge lines 
in Sections 3B.02 and 3B.10 based on the increased cost of 6-inch 
markings, which may result in increased crashes. Several studies have 
shown that the presence of longitudinal pavement markings decreases 
crashes, including on roadways where the MUTCD provisions do not 
require or recommend the markings.18 19 Some commenters also 
stated additional research is needed for human road users, as well as 
driving automation systems, to determine the actual discernable limits 
for distinguishing between a normal and wide line and the discernable 
space between double lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Sun, X., and S. Das. A Comprehensive Study on Pavement Edge 
Line Implementation. FHWA/LA.13/508, April 2014 can be viewed at the 
following Web address: https://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/pdf/2014/FR_508.pdf.
    \19\ Tsyganov, A., R. Machemehl, and N. Warrenchuk. Safety 
Impact of Edge Lines on Rural Two-Lane Highways in Texas. FHWA/TX-
05/0-5009-1, September 2005 can be viewed at the following Web 
address: https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/0_5090_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Support statements are added to inform practitioners 
that based on research documented in FHWA's Wider Edge Lines Proven 
Safety Countermeasure,\20\ 6-inch edge lines can provide a safety 
benefit over the minimum 4-inch edge lines on all facility types (e.g., 
freeways, multilane divided and undivided highways, two-lane highways) 
in both urban and rural areas. A reference to Section 5B.02 is also 
included to inform practitioners of the longitudinal pavement marking 
considerations relevant to driving automation systems. These changes 
will provide agencies information and the flexibility to determine 
where to use wider longitudinal lines based on data specific to their 
roadways, consistent with FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures for 
Roadway Departure.\21\ Further, the proposed Guidance statement 
regarding the width of the discernible space separating the parallel 
lines of a double line is adopted with revision to specify the space 
should not exceed two times the line width of a single line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FHWA Office of Safety Proven Safety Countermeasure on Wider 
Edge Lines (FHWA-SA-21-055) can be accessed at the following Web 
address: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-08/PSC_New_Wider%20Edge%20Lines_508.pdf.
    \21\ FHWA Office of Safety Proven Safety Countermeasures on 
Roadway Departure can be accessed at the following Web address: 
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retroreflectivity
    When FHWA released the NPA for the 11th Edition, a separate 
rulemaking remained in progress to revise the MUTCD to include a 
Standard for the minimum level of retroreflectivity that must be 
maintained for pavement markings. Therefore, FHWA designated

[[Page 87683]]

Section 3A.05 Maintaining Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity as 
reserved for the future provisions from the separate FHWA rulemaking, 
without any proposed text. Several commenters endorsed the inclusion of 
language in this final rule based on current research to facilitate 
both human vision and automotive cameras. It was noted that driving 
automation systems use pavement markings for guidance, and minimum 
retroreflectivity levels would enhance system reliability. A comment 
was made to exclude minimum retroreflectivity requirements for roads 
closed to the public at night as the installation could otherwise be 
cost prohibitive where they are not currently installed, namely on park 
roadways.
    The FHWA published the final rule on pavement marking minimum 
retroreflectivity on August 5, 2022 (87 FR 47921), which became 
Revision 3 to the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. As a result, FHWA 
incorporates the provisions from that completed rulemaking which 
include Support, Options, Guidance, and Standards regarding minimum 
maintained retroreflectivity levels for longitudinal pavement markings 
on all roadways open to public travel with speed limits of 35 mph and 
greater. Option statements define markings that may be excluded from 
the provisions of maintaining minimum retroreflectivity based on 
conditions such as ambient light levels, daily volume, and type of 
marking (e.g., dotted extension lines, curb markings, parking space 
markings, and shared-use path markings). The compliance date 
established by the final rule on pavement marking minimum 
retroreflectivity remains in effect and is added to Table 1B-1 in this 
final rule.
Marked Crosswalks
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed to add a new Section 3C.02 Applications 
of Crosswalk Markings, containing several paragraphs from existing 
Section 3B.18. As part of this, FHWA proposed several revisions to 
clarify placement of crosswalks. A new Standard paragraph proposed in 
Section 3C.01 is adopted with revisions and located in Section 3C.02 in 
the final rule, since it includes requirements specific to the 
application of crosswalk markings. The Standard requires, after the 
agency or official having authority makes the determination to legally 
establish a crosswalk at a non-intersection location, that crosswalk 
markings shall be provided. The FHWA believes this is appropriate as it 
will improve safety, by clearly identifying the requirements of 
crosswalk markings at non-intersection locations which will help alert 
road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point and provide 
guidance for pedestrians by defining and delineating paths across 
roadways, particularly vulnerable road users, in conformance with 
Section 11135 of the BIL.
    In the NPA, FHWA retained some text unchanged from the 2009 MUTCD 
Section 3B.18, including the existing Guidance Paragraph 7 recommending 
crosswalk markings be installed where engineering judgment indicates 
they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s) at 
locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches 
controlled by STOP or YIELD signs.
    Many commenters indicated that crosswalk markings should be 
required (rather than recommended) at all crosswalks regardless of 
location, and particularly at signalized intersections. In response to 
comments, FHWA revises propose Paragraph 5 (now Paragraph 1), to 
indicate crosswalk markings should be installed at locations controlled 
by traffic control signals and adds an Option (Paragraph 2) to allow 
the crosswalk to remain unmarked if engineering judgement indicates 
they are not needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing 
path(s).
    The FHWA believes that requiring all crosswalks to be marked in all 
locations would be a substantial change that would benefit from a 
review of relevant research to include stop lines, consideration of the 
impacts to signalized intersections in rural areas with no pedestrian 
facilities, consideration of the impacts to agencies with a significant 
number of intersections controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign, and 
additional public comment before being considered for adoption in the 
MUTCD as a Standard.
    Changes to existing Guidance Paragraph 8 are adopted in Section 
3C.02 Paragraph 4, with revisions in response to comments, with the 
intent to remove language which may have been previously misinterpreted 
as simply discouraging or avoiding the installation of crosswalks. 
Although not new Guidance, due to the importance of vulnerable road 
user safety, it is vital to reiterate the existing recommendation to 
conduct an engineering study in order to determine whether providing a 
marked crosswalk alone is safe for locations not controlled by a 
traffic signal or STOP or YIELD sign, or if additional traffic control 
devices and other measures should be considered to reduce traffic 
speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance the conspicuity of the 
crossing, or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, as further 
discussed in the revised existing Guidance Paragraph 9 (now Section 
3C.03 Paragraph 6). The agency (or owner) having jurisdiction over the 
roadway is ultimately responsible for the decisions on what, and where, 
to build and the engineering study recommended aims to guide the 
recommended traffic control devices at the determined location.
    In the final rule, FHWA revises the criteria to be considered in 
the recommended engineering study. In addition to the distance from 
adjacent signalized intersections, the distance to other controlled 
crossings should be considered. The existing pedestrian volume and 
delay criteria were expanded to include bicyclists, projected volumes, 
paths of travel, the ages and abilities of road users, and the location 
or frequency of public transit stops to guide practitioners on 
additional factors to consider in determining where to mark crosswalks 
away from controlled locations. An important factor is roadway context; 
on roadways where adjacent land use suggests that trips could be served 
by varied modes, it is important to provide safe crossings. Including 
projected volumes in the recommended engineering study can address 
concerns that pedestrian and bicycle demand may not be captured by a 
traffic count, as locations without an established crosswalk might be 
avoided by some pedestrians and bicyclists. Once the appropriate 
traffic control devices are installed, consistent with the adopted 
Paragraph 6 discussed below, to establish a safe crosswalk, the volume 
of pedestrians and bicyclists may increase due to the new or improved 
crossing. The existing criterion of the geometry of the location was 
expanded to specify the horizontal and vertical geometry of the 
crossing location to highlight the importance of stopping sight 
distance and visibility of road users utilizing a crosswalk and the 
potential effect on vulnerable road user safety. Analysis of available 
gaps was also raised as a potential criterion for consideration in the 
recommended engineering study and FHWA believes this is included in 
pedestrian and bicyclist delays. The FHWA also received comments 
suggesting additional changes such as crash history and using 
pedestrian walking speeds in lieu of ages and abilities, specific 
warrants for crosswalks, or minimum spacing of crosswalks be included 
in the criteria of an engineering study. The FHWA believes crash 
history could be considered an ``other appropriate factor'' (item N) to 
be considered in the engineering study, but the other

[[Page 87684]]

suggested changes from commenters would require further research before 
being considered in a future rulemaking effort.
    Changes to existing Guidance Paragraph 9 are adopted as Paragraph 6 
in Section 3C.02, with editorial revisions in response to comments. In 
order to protect vulnerable road users, FHWA provides recommendations 
of specific conditions where the installation of additional traffic 
control devices, and other measures, instead of simply marking a new 
crosswalk with signs alone, should be considered, consistent with 
FHWA's Guide for Improving Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing 
Locations.\22\ The recommendation is intended to improve pedestrian 
safety at uncontrolled crossing locations with posted speed limits 40 
mph or greater and at locations where there is a crash threat due to 
multiple lane crossings or limited sight distance by encouraging the 
installation of additional traffic control devices or other measures, 
as appropriate, beyond the basic marked crosswalks and warning signs. 
Some of these additional measures include other traffic control devices 
and applications designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing 
distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide 
active warning of pedestrian presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FHWA's Guide for Improving Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing 
Locations (FHWA-SA-17-072) can be accessed at the following Web 
address: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-07/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aesthetic Surface Treatments in Crosswalks, Islands, Medians, 
Shoulders, and Sidewalk Extensions
General Discussion
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed changes to address applications of 
colored pavements, making a distinction between the use of color in a 
traffic control device application (e.g., red-colored pavement for 
public transit systems, and green-colored pavement for bike lanes) 
versus as an aesthetic surface treatment that is not intended to serve 
a traffic control purpose. Commenters addressed a number of issues 
surrounding aesthetic surface treatments, often with disparate views. 
Along with those views expressed, commenters also generally 
acknowledged that there is a lack of research or safety data, positive 
or negative, to support the proposed provisions on aesthetic surface 
treatments; how individuals with vision disabilities are impacted by 
different surface treatments with varying colors or patterns; and 
concerns with machine vision and driving automation systems' ability to 
detect and process nonuniform aesthetic treatments. In this final rule, 
FHWA maintains the distinction between colored pavements that serve a 
traffic control purpose, and aesthetic surface treatments, whether 
colored or not, that are applied for aesthetic purposes only and are 
not intended to serve a traffic control purpose.
    The FHWA emphasizes that agencies that wish to employ surface 
treatments for aesthetic purposes in various scenarios have the 
flexibility to do so, as applicable Federal, State, and local laws and 
policies allow. However, the MUTCD does not prohibit the use of 
aesthetic surface treatments (including visually complex treatments, 
the designs of which might be characterized more as ``artistic'' in 
their composition), except in limited situations as described in more 
detail throughout this section. This includes the use of aesthetic 
surface treatments between the transverse lines within a crosswalk, in 
islands, in medians, in shoulders, within sidewalk extensions 
designated by pavement markings, or in other areas outside of the 
traveled way provided that the aesthetic surface treatment does not 
mimic, obscure, or otherwise adversely impact the effectiveness of 
other traffic control devices, such as other pavement markings in that 
location.
    Determination as to whether a surface treatment obscures or 
otherwise adversely impacts the traffic control devices is made by the 
State or local agency that owns and operates the roadway, taking into 
consideration any other Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, and 
policies governing the use of highway right-of-way unrelated to the 
MUTCD. The FHWA emphasizes that safety should be the top priority in 
making such determinations and, in many situations, the use of one of 
the high-visibility crosswalk patterns or the addition of other traffic 
control devices might instead be the appropriate measure to improve 
safety. New provisions are included in the final rule with the intent 
to provide agencies with information on reducing the likelihood of any 
aesthetic surface treatments compromising the effectiveness of traffic 
control devices by maintaining separation and contrast. The FHWA also 
adopts several provisions to help ensure that vulnerable road user 
safety is maintained, recognizing that agencies have the flexibility to 
make decisions taking into consideration a number of factors.
    Although aesthetic surface treatments most often involve the use of 
single or multiple colors, the MUTCD employs the term ``colored 
pavement'' to refer exclusively to traffic control devices as 
contrasted with aesthetic surface treatments that might incorporate 
color. Colored pavement for traffic control purposes is optional and 
supplements other standard markings. Specific color applications for 
traffic control purposes include green-colored bicycle lanes, purple-
colored electronic toll lanes, red-colored transit lanes, white for 
channelizing, and yellow for median islands and channelizing. The 
provisions for aesthetic surface treatments are included within the 
Colored Pavements Chapter of the MUTCD to distinguish them from colored 
pavements that are traffic control devices, and to clarify how an 
aesthetic surface treatment might interact with a traffic control 
device so as not to adversely impact the effectiveness of the traffic 
control device.
    The new edition of the MUTCD only addresses those colored pavements 
that are traffic control devices, or those aesthetic surface treatments 
that interact with traffic control devices, as the scope of the MUTCD 
is limited to traffic control devices. Colored pavements used for 
traffic control purposes communicate regulations, guidance, and 
warnings to road users; supplement other standard markings with 
standard, solid color applications to pavement; and meet 
retroreflectivity criteria where applicable in accordance with the 
MUTCD.
    In contrast, surface treatments that are purely aesthetic do not 
include retroreflective elements; do not communicate regulations, 
guidance, warnings, or other information to road users; and do not 
interfere with or mimic traffic control devices. These aesthetic 
surface treatments are sometimes referred to as ``street murals'' or 
``asphalt art,'' and might be a single solid color, or their designs 
might include multiple colors. Because these treatments are generally 
outside the scope of the MUTCD, the MUTCD does not prohibit them within 
the roadway right-of-way. Rather, as may be allowed by other Federal, 
State, or local statute, regulation, or policy, the determination of 
the acceptability of aesthetic surface treatments on street or highway 
right-of-way is determined by local or State authorities that have 
jurisdiction over the roadway. Therefore, the determination as to 
whether a particular aesthetic surface treatment is acceptable for use 
in the highway right-of-way falls outside the scope and provisions of 
the MUTCD except to the extent that the

[[Page 87685]]

treatment might interfere with or mimic a traffic control device.
Continuing Research
    Due to the interest in aesthetic surface treatments on travel 
pavements for over a decade, and the heightened interest in the more 
complex or artistic types of aesthetic surface applications in more 
recent years, in the NPA, FHWA requested comment on how more intricate 
designs and bright colors around standardized crosswalk markings 
improve the safety or operations at and around the crosswalk, while 
maintaining the recognition of the crosswalk. Jurisdictions often cite 
safety as the rationale for these types of installations. The FHWA 
requested that commenters support their position by providing 
quantifiable and objective data that they had collected or were aware 
of, such as from human factors evaluations or other studies. 
Specifically, FHWA sought information pertaining to the safety and 
navigation of road users, and any effects of non-standard designs on 
pedestrians with low visual acuity or other vision impairments. The 
FHWA also sought data on the ability of machine vision of driving 
automation systems to detect accurately and react appropriately to the 
markings as a crosswalk.
    Some commenters stated that, to their knowledge, aesthetically 
treated crosswalks do not contribute to a degradation of road user 
safety; however, substantive quantifiable and objective data to support 
this position were not provided. Some commenters suggested that 
additional research be conducted to formulate appropriate regulations 
consisting of appropriate applications, designs, and materials before 
moving forward.
    As mentioned earlier, FHWA has been aware that this area is of 
interest for communities and, in response to longstanding concerns, is 
conducting research on the safety implications of various types of 
surface treatments in crosswalks. The FHWA will use the results to 
inform potential changes to the MUTCD and/or the need for additional 
research into vulnerable road user safety at crosswalks.
    The FHWA is also aware of a study conducted on the potential safety 
effects of ``asphalt art'' \23\ which was published after the NPA 
docket closed. The study report concludes that there is a correlation 
between asphalt art and improved safety, though it could not establish 
or infer causation, in part due to the confounding of a number of 
variables including other improvements made concurrently, and the 
inability to determine whether the art itself, additional traffic 
control, roadway, or roadside improvements resulted in the improvement. 
For example, it is generally accepted that a narrowing of the street or 
traveled way, such as with pavement markings to create sidewalk 
extensions or channelization, can reduce vehicle operating speeds. The 
extent to which the addition of aesthetic treatments within the 
reclaimed pavement at many of the study sites either contributed to, or 
inhibited, an improvement in safety could not be determined or was not 
reported. For this reason and, as stated in the study, to determine 
whether surface treatments individually contribute to vulnerable road 
user safety, FHWA is conducting research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Asphalt Art Safety Study prepared by Sam Schwartz, a TYLin 
Company, for Bloomberg Philanthropies, April 2022, can be viewed at 
the following Web address: https://www.samschwartz.com/asphalt-art-safety-study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in response to comments, FHWA will continue to gather 
more data on the use of colored pavements that are part of traffic 
control markings to learn more about their overall safety impacts, with 
a particular focus on people with disabilities, including those with 
low visual acuity or cognitive impairments. The FHWA is in the process 
of completing closed-course research on the impacts of a subset of 
surface treatments in crosswalks consisting of brick patterns, multiple 
color arrangements, or more complex geometric designs using multiple 
colors in combination with different underlying standard crosswalk 
patterns. This research specifically includes pedestrians with low 
vision as research participants, in addition to pedestrians and 
drivers. The FHWA is pursuing additional open-course research to 
support the closed-course research. Upon statistically significant 
research results or measures of effectiveness from additional open-
course studies suggesting there is a direct impact on vulnerable road 
user safety, further updates to the regulations surrounding surface 
treatments, beyond those updates included in this rule, might be 
considered in a future rulemaking effort. Similarly, this issue may be 
revisited based on the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board's (U.S. Access Board) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (``PROWAG'') 
rulemaking \24\ and other research into tactile wayfinding in 
transportation environments,\25\ particularly when considering 
crosswalks and sidewalk extensions designated by pavement markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board's Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the 
Public Right-of-Way (RIN 3014-AA26) can be accessed at the following 
Web address: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=3014-AA26.
    \25\ NCHRP 17-94 Tactile Walking Surface Indicators To Aid 
Wayfinding For Visually Impaired Travelers In Multimodal Travel 
which is managed under TCRP B-46 Tactile Wayfinding in 
Transportation Settings for Travelers Who Are Blind or Visually 
Impaired and can be accessed at the following Web address: https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colored Pavement as a Traffic Control Device
    In Section 3H.01 (existing Section 3G.01), retitled, 
``Standardization of Application,'' FHWA adopts a new Standard 
paragraph limiting the use of colored pavement as a traffic control 
device only to where it supplements other markings. The FHWA adopts 
this change to improve upon the established widespread system of 
uniformity in the application of colored pavement used as a traffic 
control device. This requirement does not apply to colored pavements 
used as a purely aesthetic surface treatment. The proposed Standard 
regarding the colors to be used for colored pavement is not adopted, as 
an existing Standard paragraph in this Section already contains these 
requirements as they apply to colored pavements used as a traffic 
control device.
    The FHWA adopts a new section numbered and titled, ``Section 3H.02 
Materials,'' to provide agencies with information to assist in the 
selection of appropriate colored pavement materials to improve road 
user safety. This section is adopted with revisions in response to 
comments; however, the proposed Support paragraph regarding wear of 
colored pavement is not adopted in the final rule, since it is not 
related to the use of a traffic control device, and the maintenance of 
traffic control devices is covered in other sections. Some commenters 
requested additional specific information on appropriate skid 
resistance values considering all road users. Historically, standard 
specifications for construction, including colored pavement or pavement 
marking material specifications containing specific skid resistance 
values or coefficients of friction, are developed by the individual 
State and local agencies based on their specific needs. As a minimum 
skid resistance value may have an impact on vulnerable road user 
safety, FHWA will review available research and information to inform 
potential future

[[Page 87686]]

changes to the MUTCD or to another resource as appropriate.
Aesthetic Surface Treatments--Interaction With Traffic Control Devices
    The FHWA proposed to add a new section numbered and titled, 
``Section 3H.03 Aesthetic Treatments in Crosswalks,'' with two 
paragraphs from existing Section 3G.01 and new Standard, Guidance, 
Option, and Support to reflect FHWA's Official Ruling No. 3(09)-24 (I) 
which was issued in response to a trend by some agencies toward 
installing treatments on roadway pavement that go beyond the basic 
aesthetics of the paving materials and instead include bright colors, 
visually complex graphics, images, or words. Some commenters supported 
the proposed changes noting the specific needs of people with low 
visual acuity or other vision impairments, along with the limited 
abilities of machine vision, to discern variations in surface 
treatments from standard markings. Other commenters stated that there 
is no evidence that suggests adverse impacts from these treatments on 
roadways with a posted speed limit above 30 mph. Many comments also 
indicated a lack of research that suggests surface treatments in 
general create safety concerns, and the proposed Standards are 
unfounded. Other commenters suggested that any regulation of aesthetic 
surface treatments is inappropriate in the MUTCD as they are not 
traffic control devices.
    While FHWA agrees that aesthetic surface treatments are not traffic 
control devices, FHWA believes that this proposed section is 
appropriate because of the interaction with official traffic control 
devices that such treatments frequently pose. As stated earlier, it is 
important that these treatments not resemble or interfere with the 
uniform appearance of traffic control devices, as that could confuse 
and distract road users. In response to comments, FHWA limits the 
Standards, Guidance, and Support included in the MUTCD regarding 
aesthetic surface treatments to those provisions that are necessary to 
help ensure pedestrian safety and the accessibility of individuals with 
disabilities, and to minimize any adverse impacts to the effectiveness 
of traffic control devices. As described earlier, the MUTCD does not 
prohibit the application of aesthetic surface treatments within the 
roadway. However, the MUTCD does limit their use or character to the 
extent that they interact with or relate to traffic control devices. In 
addition, the use of these treatments could be subject to other 
Federal, State, or local regulations and policies unrelated to the 
MUTCD. Those other regulations or policies might prohibit or otherwise 
limit the use of aesthetic surface treatments in some situations. In 
other words, aesthetic surface treatments are not of themselves 
prohibited by the MUTCD, but the MUTCD limits how the treatments might 
overshadow the nature of traffic control devices such as marked 
crosswalks. Transportation agencies implement aesthetic treatments at 
their own risk as permissible by local, State, and other Federal laws, 
regulations, and policies; as long as the treatments do not interfere 
with, confuse, or obstruct traffic control devices for any users, 
especially people with disabilities, including those with low visual 
acuity; and, ultimately, subject to an overall assessment of road user 
safety.
Aesthetic Surface Treatments--Maintaining Separation and Contrast
    The FHWA adopts the newly proposed Section with a revised title, 
``3H.03 Aesthetic Surface Treatments'' in response to comments that 
questioned the perceived restrictions by lack of specific language on 
aesthetic surface treatments at other locations such as islands, 
medians, shoulders, sidewalk extensions designated by pavement 
markings, or other areas outside the traveled way. New provisions are 
included in the final rule with the intent to provide agencies 
information on how to prevent aesthetic surface treatments from 
compromising the effectiveness of traffic control devices by 
maintaining separation and contrast. Existing Support Paragraph 2 from 
existing Section 3G.01, is relocated to Section 3H.01 with edits, and 
additional revisions are made to the final rule in Sections 3H.01, 
3J.03 and 3J.07 to clarify the difference between colored pavements 
used as traffic control devices and aesthetic surface treatments, and 
the considerations in the use of aesthetic surface treatments.
    In the NPA, FHWA also proposed to add a new section numbered and 
titled, ``Section 3J.07 Curb Extensions Designated by Pavement 
Markings'' to include Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option 
paragraphs to improve consistency and uniformity when the application 
of pavement markings is to be used to create an extension of the 
sidewalk in the roadway pavement. The term ``curb extension'' was used 
in the NPA to refer to roadway pavement that is reclaimed and 
designated for non-vehicular use. However, the term ``sidewalk 
extension'' is adopted in the final rule because it more accurately 
describes the purpose of the concept and emphasizes the redesignation 
of that portion of the roadway exclusively for pedestrian use. The term 
is also in established use in several design resources and, therefore, 
will enhance consistency. In some cases, after evaluating the site-
specific context, it may be determined that redesignation of the area 
as a sidewalk extension, which reduces roadway crossing distances but 
places pedestrians closer to vehicular traffic, is not appropriate. A 
new Support statement is also adopted referencing the applicable 
sections for channelizing lines, edge lines, and diagonal markings, 
which can be used to modify the street or highway design (e.g., 
horizontal alignment, traveled-way width, sight distance, or similar) 
for speed management and channelizing, but the marked area is retained 
as part of the roadway rather than be redesignated as a pedestrian 
space.
    Several additional Guidance, Option, and Support paragraphs in 
Section 3J.07 that were proposed in the NPA are adopted with 
significant edits and clarifications in the final rule to provide 
context and considerations to improve vulnerable road user safety and 
provide accessibility, particularly for individuals with low visual 
acuity or other vision disabilities. While FHWA agrees that 
accessibility concerns should be considered for these areas, defining 
the conditions under which accessibility infrastructure is or is not 
required is beyond the scope of the MUTCD and would be covered either 
explicitly or implicitly under other regulations, such as accessibility 
standards that may be adopted by DOT or DOJ under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In 
response to comments, and consistent with definitions contained within 
the MUTCD, an additional Standard is adopted in the final rule 
prohibiting the extension of crosswalk markings through sidewalk 
extensions designated by pavement markings, which would represent that 
the area is still part of the roadway, rather than an extension of the 
sidewalk. Extending the crosswalk markings through this area would be 
confusing to individuals with low visual acuity who rely on the 
crosswalk markings as one of the cues to confirm that they have left 
the sidewalk and entered the street where vehicular traffic is present. 
However, the proposed Guidance recommending that adequate provisions be 
made for pedestrians with disabilities through the sidewalk extension, 
between the physical curb ramp and the start of the crosswalk at the 
new edge of the traveled way as designated by the pavement marking, is

[[Page 87687]]

not adopted as this is outside the scope of the MUTCD. In addition, the 
recommendation to use colored pavements in sidewalk extensions where 
pedestrian travel is expected is not adopted as this area is outside of 
the traveled way, and the details of the type of surface treatment 
used, if any, would not be subject to the provisions of the MUTCD 
except where it meets the pavement marking that defines the limits of 
the pavement open to vehicular travel. Accordingly, FHWA adopts a 
requirement that if aesthetic surface treatments are used in sidewalk 
extensions, they shall not be retroreflective as they are not traffic 
control devices.
    Comments were received that question the stipulation that the 
right-of-way is dedicated exclusively to highway-related functions, 
which undermines ``placemaking'' efforts. The proposed language was a 
reference to existing regulations that codify requirements related to 
the use of highway right-of-way.\26\ Notwithstanding, in response to 
comments, FHWA does not adopt the NPA proposed Guidance recommending 
that a policy for using aesthetic surface treatments in crosswalks 
should be considered if an agency determines that the use or design is 
appropriate for the right-of-way, since these treatments are adequately 
addressed in other provisions. Similarly, the Guidance recommending a 
speed limit threshold for which aesthetic crosswalk treatments should 
only be considered is not adopted. To ensure that the safety of road 
users remain the primary consideration, two additional Standards are 
adopted requiring that aesthetic surface treatments not interfere with 
traffic control devices, and that the colors used for aesthetic surface 
treatments not be standard traffic control device colors. The proposed 
Standard requiring aesthetic surface treatments not be of a surface 
that can confuse vision-impaired pedestrians that rely on tactile 
treatments or cues for navigation is adopted with editorial revision. 
Additional Guidance is also adopted in the final rule with 
recommendations to provide a gap between standard markings delineating 
areas and aesthetic surface treatments such that contrast is provided 
and the treatments do not interfere with traffic control devices. The 
proposed Standard prohibiting the use of advertising, pictographs, 
symbols, multiple color arrangements, and retroreflectivity in patterns 
that constitute a purely aesthetic surface treatment is revised with a 
prohibition on advertising and retroreflectivity retained in the 
Standard. Guidance is adopted to recommend against the use of 
pictographs and symbols with an additional recommendation not to use 
illusions. The proposed Support statements relating to materials for 
aesthetic surface treatments within the limits of crosswalks are also 
adopted with revision; specifically, paving materials such as setts or 
cobbles are removed, and Support is added relating to the surface of 
the crosswalk, the needs of pedestrians, and the requirements of the 
U.S. Department of Justice 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible 
Design.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 23 CFR 1.23(b).
    \27\ September 15, 2010. 28 CFR 35 and 36, Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments questioned the need for the Standard statement requiring 
aesthetic treatments to be designed such that they do not encourage 
road users to loiter or linger in the crosswalk, engage in the pattern, 
or otherwise not vacate the street in an expedient manner. The FHWA 
disagrees that the Standards and Guidance placing limitations on 
aesthetic treatments are unfounded as road user safety is the primary 
concern and visual distractions to vehicle operators in general are 
known to be a potential safety risk, especially to vulnerable road 
users. Many of the surface treatments that have been used are designed 
to draw the attention of road users to the treatment and, therefore, 
away from navigating the roadway environment. Thus, without adequate 
research data to determine the actual safety risk of different types of 
treatments, FHWA believes it is necessary to limit the use of surface 
treatments to ensure vulnerable road user safety. Where such treatments 
were being considered as a measure to improve pedestrian safety, FHWA 
believes the appropriate measure, instead, is to use one of the high-
visibility crosswalk patterns, which are supported by research for 
visibility and conspicuity, strengthening the provisions for the 
protection of vulnerable users, consistent with section 11135 of BIL.
Part 4. Highway Traffic Signals
Accessibility
    In an effort to improve accessibility to provide for the protection 
of vulnerable road users while not getting ahead of the then-pending 
PROWAG rulemaking, FHWA proposed numerous changes to improve 
accessibility in Parts 4 and 6. In Part 4, the proposed changes were to 
recommend, rather than provide an option, to use accessible pedestrian 
signals (APS) at all pedestrian signals, including pretimed traffic 
control signals or non-actuated approaches as well as at pedestrian 
hybrid beacons (PHB). Further, FHWA proposed to recommend the use of an 
audible information device (AID) at rectangular rapid flashing beacons, 
pedestrian-actuated warning beacon, and in-roadway warning lights at 
crosswalks.
    In Part 6, FHWA proposed to add a new requirement in accordance 
with 28 CFR 35.160(a)(1) to take appropriate steps to ensure that 
communications with applicants, participants, members of the public, 
and companions with disabilities are as effective as communications 
with others. In addition, FHWA proposed to revise several Standards to 
remove text related to ``where pedestrians with disabilities normally 
use'' or ``where it is determined that the accommodations of 
pedestrians with disabilities is necessary'' to strengthen requirements 
for accessible features and remove ambiguity on when they should be 
implemented. The proposed changes in Part 6 were slightly broader than 
proposed changes in Part 4 because changes for temporary traffic 
control devices are easier for agencies to adopt since the devices are 
temporary and are purchased and installed as part of an active 
construction or maintenance project.
    The FHWA received a large number of comments related to the 
proposed changes encouraging the incorporation of PROWAG and to 
strengthen accessibility requirements. The comments stated that FHWA 
should adopt positions of greatly increased accessibility requirements 
similar to what was anticipated in the final rule for PROWAG. Other 
commenters, including many State DOTs and local agencies opposed 
significant accessibility changes based on their concerns with the cost 
impact and the significant level of effort to implement widescale 
increased accessibility measures, especially if there was not a 
demonstrated need for such accommodations at a specific location. The 
FHWA notes that at the time of publication of the NPA, the U.S. Access 
Board had not concluded its rulemaking and the provisions of a 
potential final rule were unknown. The U.S. Access Board has since 
finalized its rulemaking process for PROWAG (88 FR 53604, August 8, 
2023; effective date September 7, 20203). Therefore, FHWA did not have 
the opportunity to seek public comment on adopting the provisions of 
the PROWAG final rule during the course of this rulemaking. As such, 
FHWA only adopts the proposed

[[Page 87688]]

NPA revisions that strengthen the provisions for the protection of 
vulnerable users, consistent with section 11135 of BIL. The FHWA 
anticipates the MUTCD undergoing further rulemaking to address sections 
affected by the final PROWAG. In the meantime, DOT has initiated a 
rulemaking to incorporate the PROWAG into the ADA regulations of the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation: Transportation for Individuals With 
Disabilities; Adoption of Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian 
Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (RIN 2105-AF05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traffic Control Signal Needs Study (Reexamine Signal Warrants and 
Changing Signal Warrants From Standard to Guidance)
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed to change all paragraphs describing the 
application of the traffic signal warrant criterion to be considered in 
an engineering study for installing a new traffic control signal from 
Standard to Guidance. The FHWA proposed this change to provide agencies 
flexibility in performing signal warrant analyses.
    There were many comments for and against the change from Standard 
to Guidance. Commenters who supported the change agreed agencies would 
have more flexibility to consider ``other factors'' rather than the 
perceived heavy reliance placed on the numerical analysis. In their 
opinion, this leads to many agencies refusing to consider a traffic 
control signal in cases where a signal may be deemed beneficial, but 
the volume warrants are not met. Commenters who opposed the change were 
concerned with the cost impact associated with receiving pressure to 
install new signals where signals may not be appropriate. While not 
proposed in the NPA, FHWA received several comments stating that there 
is a need to rethink all traffic signal warrants believing them to be 
outdated and based on consensus rather than research. The FHWA notes 
that additional research is in progress through a National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study \29\ examining updates to the 
vehicular and pedestrian volume thresholds for traffic control signals, 
pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian-actuated warning 
devices. In addition to pedestrian and vehicular volumes, the research 
is also examining latent pedestrian demand, land-use, and context to 
develop additional tools to assist in determining the appropriate 
traffic control device to improve safety for pedestrians. Following the 
issuance of this final rule, FHWA will explore opportunities for new 
research to reexamine the remaining signal warrants for potential 
updates and will consider research-based updates to a future revision 
to the MUTCD or through Interim Approval, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NCHRP 03-143, Framework and Toolkit for Selecting 
Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, can be viewed at the following Web 
address: https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=5125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed signal warrant language change 
from Standard to Guidance to reinforce that other factors, beyond the 
warrants, be considered as part of the engineering study to justify 
installation of traffic control signals. With this revision, agencies 
will have more flexibility to consider other relevant factors in 
addition to reliance on the numerical warrants analysis alone. While 
there is concern from some commenters who opposed the change that there 
could be increased costs associated with installing more traffic 
control signals and increased pressure to install new signals where 
they might not be appropriate, the adopted text provides agencies the 
necessary flexibility to consider all relevant factors in determining 
the need for a traffic control signal. The safe and efficient movement 
of all road users is the primary consideration in the engineering study 
to determine whether a traffic control signal should be installed 
rather than some other type of control or roadway configuration. 
Control by a traffic signal does not necessarily result in improved 
safety in every case. In some cases, a traffic signal at an 
inappropriate location could adversely impact safety for one or more 
road users. The purpose of the engineering study is to evaluate all 
relevant factors based on the specific location. The warrants are 
elements of the engineering study along with any other relevant 
factors. These additional considerations form the basis for conducting 
an engineering study and the results of the warrants analysis portion 
of the study is not intended to be the only or the overriding 
consideration. Agencies can, in fact, install a traffic control signal 
if a warrant is not met, but they are required to conduct the 
engineering study that demonstrates that the installation of a signal 
will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection, 
which includes documentation of the rationale (i.e., the warrants 
analysis and consideration of other factors).
Signal Warrants--Crash Warrant
    In Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience, FHWA proposed to 
revise Item B in Paragraph 2 to include updated signal warrant criteria 
for 1-year and 3-year periods, crash type, and severity, as well as 
major street speed and intersection location (urban vs. rural context).
    In conjunction with this change, FHWA proposed to add additional 
Support language regarding the critical minor-street volume, and a new 
Option paragraph that accompanies new tables related to criteria for 
considering traffic control signals in rural areas. The FHWA proposed 
these changes based on Interim Approval 19 and findings contained in 
NCHRP Project 07-18, ``Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic Signals.'' 
The research resulted in updated criteria, which is based on either 1 
year or 3 years of recent crash experience, for the number of crashes 
portion of Warrant 7.
    Comments included a mixture of support and concern. Some commenters 
suggested that this approach is not consistent with Vision Zero and 
Safe System approaches in that it is reactive instead of proactive. For 
rural intersections, there also was concern the threshold for the 
number of crashes increased over the existing threshold in the 2009 
MUTCD. Other commenters (primarily State DOTs) expressed concerns the 
lower thresholds for urban settings may result in the overuse of 
signals and disregard for using other safety alternatives at 
intersections. The commenters who supported the change appreciated that 
the values were updated based on research and noted that the various 
thresholds and tables provided engineers more flexibility to perform 
the signal warrant study.
    The FHWA adopts the revisions to Warrant 7 in the final rule. Based 
on comments received, FHWA adds an Option in the final rule allowing 
agencies to calibrate Highway Safety Manual safety performance 
functions (SPFs) to their own crash data or develop their own SPFs to 
produce agency specific average crash frequency values. When documented 
as part of the engineering study, these agency specific crash frequency 
values may be used instead of the values shown in Tables 4C-2 through 
4C-5 when applying the Crash Experience signal warrant.
Pedestrian Signals at Signalized Intersections
    In Section 4D.02, Provisions for Pedestrians, FHWA proposed in the 
NPA to add a new Guidance statement recommending pedestrian signal 
heads at each marked crosswalk controlled by a traffic control signal. 
The installation of pedestrian signal heads at intersections controlled 
by a traffic control signal is currently at the

[[Page 87689]]

discretion of the agency. Agencies may exercise engineering judgement 
to determine if pedestrian signal heads are needed, or if a vehicular 
signal face for a concurrent vehicle movement, and visible to 
pedestrians, is sufficient.
    The FHWA received numerous comments (including from multiple State 
DOTs and cities) suggesting strengthening the proposed Guidance to a 
Standard to require, rather than recommend, pedestrian signal heads if 
marked crosswalks are present at signalized intersections. A smaller 
number of commenters supported the addition of the new Guidance as 
proposed.
    The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed Guidance that recommends the 
installation of pedestrian signal heads for each marked crosswalk 
controlled by a traffic control signal and also adopts the NPA proposed 
Option that allows agencies to apply engineering judgment to use 
pedestrian signal heads under other conditions. Based on the comments 
suggesting pedestrian signal heads be required at all signalized 
intersections, FHWA will consider for a future rulemaking after further 
evaluation of the potential implications and benefits. This issue may 
also be revisited based on the PROWAG rulemaking by the U.S. Access 
Board. These changes are being adopted to improve the protection of 
vulnerable users consistent with Section 11135 of BIL.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals Engineering Study Requirement
    In Section 4I.01 (existing Section 4E.01) Pedestrian Signal Heads, 
FHWA proposed in the NPA to modify Paragraph 2 to better align with the 
recommendation for an engineering study with specific factors for 
consideration as outlined in Section 4K.01.
    The intent of the proposed NPA text was misinterpreted by many 
reviewers. There were many comments pointing out that an engineering 
study should not be required before installing APS. Many commenters 
suggested APS should be installed at all traffic control signals and 
PHBs where pedestrian signal heads are used, and that agencies should 
not have to justify the need for APS by conducting an engineering study 
based on the factors listed in Section 4K.01.
    Upon consideration of all comments received, FHWA is removing all 
text from the MUTCD discussing when APS ``should'' be considered or 
provided. The decision of when to use APS is subject to requirements of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Notably, since the 2009 edition of the 
MUTCD, multiple courts have recognized that the ADA and Rehabilitation 
Act require jurisdictions to make their pedestrian signals accessible. 
See Am. Council of Blind of Metro. Chicago v. City of Chicago, No. 19 C 
6322, __F. Supp. 3d __, 2023 WL 2744596, at **6-8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 
2023); Am. Council of Blind of New York, Inc. v. City of New York, 495 
F. Supp. 3d 211, 232-38, 241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Scharff v. Cnty. of 
Nassau, No. 10 CV 4208 DRH AKT, 2014 WL 2454639, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. June 
2, 2014). As with other sections of the MUTCD that address certain 
accessibility issues, FHWA refers users to the applicable ADA and 
Rehabilitation Act requirements and limits discussion of APS to 
technical specifications. The MUTCD does, however, include language in 
Support statements with information about the importance of APS in 
general and, in particular, at certain kinds of crossings.
Warrants for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
    In Section 4J.01 (Section 4F.01 of the 2009 MUTCD) Application of 
PHB, FHWA proposed to add a new Option to allow the reduction of the 
signal warrant criteria for pedestrian volume crossing the major street 
by as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of 
pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. The FHWA proposed this 
change for consistency with traffic control signal Warrant 4, 
Pedestrian Volume.
    The FHWA also proposed to add an Option to allow the separate 
application of the major-street traffic volumes criteria in each 
direction when there is a divided street having a median of sufficient 
width for pedestrians to wait in accordance with Official Ruling No. 
4(09)-25 (I) \30\ and for consistency with the proposed change in 
Section 4C.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-25 (I), ``Application of 
the Pedestrian Volume Warrant on Divided Roadways,'' can be viewed 
at the following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_25.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the NCUTCD and engineering organizations agreed with the 
proposed changes in the NPA for Section 4J.01, the majority of the 
comments were related to the current MUTCD text regarding the volume 
thresholds, where no revisions were proposed. General themes of the 
comments included: (1) Suggestions to add other warrants or factors 
such as distance to adjacent pedestrian crosswalks, crash experience, 
using FHWA's Guide for Improving Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing 
Locations \31\ surrounding land use and density, and using FHWA's Safe 
Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) guidance,\32\ (2) Changes to 
the minimum thresholds in Figures 4J-1 and 4J-2, and (3) Adding 
Guidance that aims to make major streets safe to cross at regular 
intervals by establishing Guidance on the distance people can be 
expected to walk to get to a crosswalk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/docs/STEP-guide-improving-ped-safety.pdf.
    \32\ https://highways.dot.gov/safety/pedestrian-bicyclist/step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA retains the NPA language, including the existing vehicular 
and pedestrian volume threshold figures, based on the following 
considerations. The PHBs are addressed in the FHWA Proven Safety 
Countermeasure Initiative (FHWA-SA-21-045) \33\ as a safety strategy to 
address pedestrian crash risk. The PHB is an intermediate option 
between a flashing beacon and a full pedestrian signal because it 
assigns right-of-way and provides positive stop control. It also allows 
motorists to proceed once pedestrians have cleared their side of the 
travel lane(s), reducing vehicle delay and congestion, often in urban 
conditions where congestion can impact the quality of life of 
surrounding residents and business owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/pedestrian-hybrid-beacons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments suggesting changes that were not proposed 
in the NPA, the existing vehicular and pedestrian thresholds were 
determined based on research and are substantially lower than the 
pedestrian volume warrants for a traffic control signal, primarily due 
to the trade-off in efficiency since vehicular traffic can move during 
the flashing red interval (concurrent with flashing Don't Walk) if the 
crosswalk is clear. Further, the NPA added new Options to provide more 
flexibility in justifying the installation of PHBs with a significant 
reduction in the threshold volumes based on lower walking speeds and 
the consideration of other factors that may support the installation of 
PHBs at locations where the thresholds are not met. These proposed 
Options are adopted in this Final Rule.
    An NCHRP study \34\ is underway that will review the existing 
volume thresholds and make recommendations on pedestrian warrants based 
on many scenarios for PHBs as well as traffic control signals and 
pedestrian actuated warning devices. This information will

[[Page 87690]]

be used to consider revisions to vehicular and pedestrian volume 
thresholds in a future edition of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ NCHRP 03-143, Framework and Toolkit for Selecting 
Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, can be viewed at the following Web 
address: https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=5125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA believes the provisions, as adopted, further FHWA's 
statutory obligation under Section 11135 of BIL to provide for the 
protection of vulnerable road users by providing more flexibility for 
engineers to justify installation of PHBs.
Emergency Vehicle Preemption
    In new ``Section 4F.19 Preemption Control of Traffic Control 
Signals'' consisting of paragraphs from Section 4D.27 of the 2009 
MUTCD, FHWA proposed to revise the Standard regarding preemption 
control transitions to remove the current provision that allows the 
pedestrian change interval to be truncated during emergency vehicle 
preemption. The current provision potentially exposes vulnerable road 
users to great risk if they are crossing the street and their 
pedestrian indication is terminated mid-crossing to permit the signal 
to change to green on that approach in preparation for an approaching 
emergency response vehicle. The FHWA proposed this change to enhance 
the protection of vulnerable road users during emergency preemption 
operations at traffic control signals. Truncating the pedestrian change 
interval would still be allowed only when the traffic control signal is 
being preempted because a boat is approaching a movable bridge or 
because rail traffic is approaching a grade crossing, as emergency 
vehicles and buses generally have the ability to slow, stop, or alter 
their course if necessary to avoid a collision, which is not the case 
of boats and rail traffic.
    The FHWA received many comments on different sides of the issue. 
Some commenters supported the change since the existing method could 
potentially compromise pedestrian safety if pedestrians had not cleared 
the crosswalk during the transition into preemption control. Other 
comments opposed the change saying the effectiveness of the emergency 
vehicle preemption will be greatly diminished or made completely 
ineffective due to increased delay, especially in congested conditions. 
Some comments suggested the requirement did not go far enough in that 
it continued to allow pedestrian change interval to be preempted for 
signals associated with boat and rail traffic. The FHWA believes there 
is insufficient data on the magnitude of these potential issues and 
therefore does not adopt the proposed Standard that would prohibit the 
truncation of the pedestrian change interval during the transition into 
preemption control. Also, FHWA revises the existing Standard and adds 
an Option to further clarify what is allowed and what is prohibited by 
the existing provisions.
Bicycle Signal Faces at Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
    The FHWA proposed a prohibition of bicycle signal faces at 
pedestrian hybrid beacons in a new Chapter 4H, consistent with Interim 
Approval 16 (IA-16), which states, ``bicycle signal faces shall not be 
used in any manner with respect to the design and operation of a 
pedestrian hybrid beacon.'' \35\ Though comments varied on this change, 
a number of commenters expressed concern that such a change would leave 
no solution to improve safety for bicyclists. However, the change is 
actually intended to address the fact that bicyclists are vulnerable 
road users and that they benefit from applying a safe system approach, 
which is to separate them in time and space from conflicting traffic 
movements. Where the crossing is a shared-use path or bicycle traffic 
is otherwise expected, the use of the PHB could contravene this 
approach. This specific issue is discussed in detail in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Interim Approval 16 can be accessed at the following Web 
address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the commenters supported the proposed text to prohibit 
bicycle signal faces at PHBs, including some city and State 
transportation agencies. However, a number of the public comments 
opposed the prohibition of bicycle signal faces at PHBs, noting that 
some agencies currently have these in operation (Portland, Oregon; and 
Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona.) without any known safety issues. Some 
commenters suggested that the prohibition of bicycle signal faces with 
a PHB would not allow for bicycle movements (since bicyclists are not 
pedestrians) when PHBs are used at neighborhood bikeway or trail 
crossings. Other commenters noted the known problem with bicycles 
entering crosswalks controlled by PHBs during the flashing red and 
flashing Don't Walk interval, suggesting that this conflict can be 
addressed by allowing bicycle signal faces.
    The FHWA retains the NPA language that prohibits bicycle signal 
faces at PHBs based on the following considerations. Intersections of 
streets and shared-use paths are a vehicle-vehicle intersection because 
bicycles operate as vehicles in this situation. The PHB was developed 
as a pedestrian-specific device based on representative pedestrian 
behavior and characteristics. A pedestrian-type traffic control would 
not be appropriate for bicycle traffic operating as vehicles with much 
higher relative speeds than pedestrians and therefore violates road 
user expectancy and introduces a safety risk for bicyclists due to the 
manner in which the clearance interval operates. The clearance interval 
for a PHB allows roadway traffic to proceed after stopping during the 
flashing red interval as pedestrians clear the crosswalk during the 
flashing Don't Walk interval. The slower speed of pedestrians provides 
for visibility of pedestrians and adequate detection time by the 
vehicle operator, in contrast with the relatively higher speed of 
bicycle traffic that might enter the crossing more suddenly.
    The FHWA notes that the suggestion that bicycle traffic would not 
be allowed at a crossing with a PHB absent a bicycle signal face tends 
to disregard the fact that other treatments could be considered to 
accommodate the safe mobility of bicyclists. Further, each traffic 
control device is developed for specific purposes. Therefore, it is not 
correct to assume generally that any traffic control device can be 
applied in any condition or be adapted to conditions for which it was 
not intended without evaluation of its efficacy under those conditions 
that differ, including for differences in the types of road users and 
their distinct behaviors and needs. The PHB is an intermediate solution 
between a flashing beacon and a full signal because it assigns right-
of-way and provides positive stop control, but then allows roadway 
traffic to proceed once pedestrians have cleared their side of the 
travel lane(s), reducing vehicle delay and congestion, often in urban 
conditions where congestion can impact the quality of life of 
surrounding residents and business owners. In the absence of a similar 
intermediate option for bicycles operating as vehicles, operation of a 
fully signalized crossing is a potential solution, with little 
difference in the infrastructure compared with a PHB. The FHWA believes 
that an agency would decide to prioritize safety considerations for 
bicyclists as vulnerable road users over congestion or delay concerns 
for roadway traffic in such a case. These considerations are part of 
the process for determining the potential effects on the surrounding 
community environment, including residents and business owners.
    In practice, some of the agencies that have installed bicycle 
signals with PHBs, as referenced by commenters, have done so in a 
manner that violates

[[Page 87691]]

the provisions of the MUTCD for the operation of the PHB, shortening 
the flashing red interval to a mere few seconds while extending the 
steady red, allowing the pedestrian clearance (flashing Don't Walk) 
interval during the steady red facing roadway traffic (along with the 
green and yellow bicycle signal intervals). In effect, these agencies 
are operating the PHBs as full signals, but have modified their phasing 
in a noncompliant manner in order to circumvent the warrants for a 
traffic control signal. As described earlier, an agency may decide that 
a full signal is the appropriate solution at a shared-used path 
crossing if there is appreciable bicycle demand. Further, the 
noncompliant operation of the PHB presents expectancy violations to 
both the pedestrian and roadway vehicle operator, potentially putting 
vulnerable road users at risk. The FHWA believes the provisions, as 
adopted, meet FHWA's statutory obligation under Section 11135 of BIL to 
provide for the protection of vulnerable road users to the extent 
practicable based on available research on the operation of PHBs as a 
pedestrian safety treatment.
    Following the issuance of this final rule, FHWA will seek 
opportunities to explore and evaluate data on variations in PHBs that 
might safely accommodate bicycle signal face use at crossings and, 
potentially, new research on this topic as might be determined 
necessary to evaluate such factors as the appropriate clearance 
interval, adequate separation of pedestrians and bicyclists at the 
signal, actuation of the bicycle signal, and representative bicyclist 
and driver behavior at various types of signal indications or 
combinations thereof.
    Finally, as emphasized previously, roadway owners have the 
authority to consider other treatments to accommodate the safe mobility 
of bicyclists, whether traffic control devices whose applications 
comply with the MUTCD, or other strategies, such as geometric or 
roadway configuration changes.
Part 5. Automated Vehicles
    Part 5 in the NPA was retitled for Automated Vehicles (AV) and 
included all new content. (In the NPA, the provisions for Low-Volume 
Roads in Part 5 of the 2009 MUTCD were proposed for integration into 
the other parts of the MUTCD.) The purpose of this new part is to 
provide agencies with general considerations for vehicle automation as 
they assess their infrastructure needs, prepare their roadways for AV 
technologies, and to support the safe integration of AVs. The NPA 
proposed two chapters for Part 5, with a third chapter reserved for 
future considerations. The first chapter, Chapter 5A, covered the 
purpose and scope, the definition of terms and other general 
information on design and use considerations for roadways intended to 
accommodate AVs operations. Chapter 5B ``Provisions for Traffic Control 
Devices'' contains six sections providing provisions beneficial to AV 
operations on signs, markings, traffic signals, and temporary traffic 
control, as well as traffic control at railroad and light rail transit 
grade crossings, and on bicycle facilities.
    The overarching comments on this Part ranged from general support 
to concerns it will create a cost burden on transportation agencies and 
suggesting the removal of the Part. Other comments proposed moving the 
elements of Part 5 directly into the applicable chapters of the MUTCD 
(Parts 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9). Comments in opposition to Part 5 as a 
whole or recommending the provisions in Part 5 simply be moved into the 
other chapters of the MUTCD, indicate confusion by commenters on the 
intended purpose of adding Part 5 to the MUTCD. The intended purpose of 
Part 5 is to identify traffic control device considerations for AVs 
operations on roadways specifically being designed to accommodate these 
vehicles.
    There were also comments on the technical basis of some provisions. 
Some commenters questioned the need for a prescribed light-emitting 
diode (LED) refresh rate for electronic message signs and traffic 
signals, as well as graphical markings on signs intended to be 
recognizable by vision-based driving automation systems to enhance sign 
recognition by these systems. Also, there were comments received on the 
proposed Standard and Guidance statements in Section 5B.04 that 
described the use and removal of pavement markings in work zones. 
Commenters noted that the provisions in this section were redundant or 
in conflict with similar provisions in Chapter 6J of the Manual.
    The FHWA adopts the new Part 5 with modified Support language 
emphasizing that Part 5 contains provisions that are exclusively for 
those agencies seeking to better accommodate driving automation systems 
to support AVs, and therefore are not specifically for consideration on 
other roadways. This change is done to address the confusion suggesting 
the provision in this Part will necessarily increase agency costs. In 
alignment with this change, the title is changed to ``Traffic Control 
Device Considerations for Automated Vehicles'' to more accurately 
reflect the contents of this new Part.
    To address a safety concern of a technology brought up by 
commenters that could negatively impact recognition and legibility of 
signs by human drivers, FHWA adds a Standard stating that when scanning 
graphics of any type are used on a sign for support of driving 
automation systems, the scanning graphics shall not be visible to the 
human eye and the sign shall have no apparent loss of resolution or 
recognition to road users. Also, in response to comments, the final 
rule deletes specifications regarding refresh rates and instead 
indicates that agencies should consider the refresh rate of LEDs on 
CMS. This language will allow agencies to use the refresh rate that is 
most appropriate for the prevailing driving automation systems 
technologies as this technology advances.
    Also, in response to comments, sections within Chapter 5B are 
restructured to more clearly state the specific traffic control device 
provisions. Further, in response to comments, the proposed Standards in 
Section 5B.04 regarding the use and removal of pavement markings in 
work zones are removed in this final rule, as they are redundant to 
similar provisions in Chapter 6J. Two new Support statements are added 
that reference the appropriate provisions in Sections 6J.01 and 6J.02 
regarding the use and removal of pavement markings in work zones. The 
proposed Standard requiring the removing or obliterating pavement 
markings that are no longer applicable as soon as practicable is 
changed to Guidance to be consistent with similar provisions in Section 
6J.01. Also, an additional Support statement is added that emphasizes 
the potential for misinterpretation by driving automation systems of 
pavement markings not fully removed or removed in a manner that causes 
pavement scarring, which can facilitate erroneous vehicle positioning 
in work zones. The new Part 5 addresses the requirement in BIL to 
update the MUTCD for the safe integration of AVs onto public streets.
Part 8. Traffic Control for Railroad and Light Rail Transit Grade 
Crossings
Diagnostic Team
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed Standards, Guidance, and Options in Part 
8 that define the Diagnostic Team and its role in determining the 
appropriate traffic control devices at grade crossings. The language in 
the NPA was proposed to be consistent with 49 CFR part 222 (a Federal 
Railroad Administration regulation) and because there are many 
variables to be

[[Page 87692]]

considered and multiple entities that need to be engaged to evaluate 
and implement traffic control devices at grade crossings. Depending on 
the crossing location, these entities include agencies representing the 
highway, railroad, transit, and a regulatory agency with statutory 
authority (when applicable).
    Comments on the NPA noted that in some States, the State or the 
regulatory agency holds statutory authority for approval of traffic 
control devices at grade crossings and therefore the Diagnostic Team 
could evaluate but would not approve the grade crossing traffic control 
devices. Commentors also expressed confusion over the types of changes 
that necessitate convening a Diagnostic Team and concern with the 
challenges of assembling a Diagnostic Team. Some comments also 
suggested that all references to the Diagnostic Team be removed from 
Part 8. Other commenters, including organizations representing large 
numbers of members supported the text proposed in the NPA.
    The FHWA incorporates editorial revisions in the final rule to 
clarify the role of the Diagnostic Team, which is to evaluate and 
recommend traffic control devices. These revisions are made to avoid 
conflicts with State statutes that give approval authority to the State 
or to the regulatory agency with statutory authority. The revisions 
also provide a more complete list of the types of changes that require 
the Diagnostic Team to conduct an engineering study. The Option 
statement proposed in the NPA clarifies that general maintenance 
activities and minor operational changes may be made without review by 
a Diagnostic Team. In the final rule, FHWA also moves the reference to 
quiet zones to an Option statement because 49 CFR part 222 does not 
require a Diagnostic Team review to establish a quiet zone, but they 
may conduct an engineering study and recommend that a quiet zone be 
considered by the responsible public authority.
Part 9. Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities
Bicycles as Vehicles
    State and local laws and ordinances define where it is legal to 
ride a bicycle. Roadway owners and local communities may choose land 
use or facility design to promote bicyclist safety. The MUTCD, however, 
governs the traffic control devices and markings used on those 
facilities to improve bicyclist safety and mobility wherever State and 
local authorities have deemed it legal to ride on a bicycle.
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed to add Support to Section 9A.01 stating 
that with few exceptions, such as when allowed to ride on a sidewalk or 
where some bicycle-specific traffic control devices are installed, 
bicycles are either legally defined as vehicles or a bicyclist is 
legally assigned the same rights and duties of an operator of a motor 
vehicle as governed by State and local law. The FHWA received several 
comments stating that the proposed Support language was overly broad 
and cited examples of where various State laws did not reflect what the 
proposed Support language was asserting.
    The FHWA agrees with the commenters and revises the Support 
language to focus exclusively on bicyclist operation on roadways, 
rather than where it might be allowed on sidewalks or other facilities. 
The FHWA believes these provisions will help strengthen the protection 
of vulnerable users consistent with Section 11135 of BIL.
Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box
    The FHWA proposed to add a new Section in Chapter 9B on regulatory 
signing for Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes that includes Support, 
Standard, and Options. The Standards defined conditions for which a 
two-stage turn box shall be provided and corresponding regulatory signs 
necessary to convey that information. The Option allowed for an 
appropriately sized Street Name sign to be installed with the All Turns 
From Bike Lane sign to identify the cross street where the turn box 
will be available.
    Commenters suggested the proposed Standard defining specific 
conditions when a two-stage bicycle turn box is required be changed to 
Option and those conditions be modified to provide further clarity. 
Commenters also requested that the Standards requiring specific 
regulatory signs be used when bicyclists are being legally required to 
use a two-stage bicycle turn box be changed to Guidance. Similarly, 
commenters recommended the Standards requiring the mounting location of 
these regulatory signs also be changed to Guidance. Based on these 
comments and further review, FHWA changes the Standard that defined 
specific conditions when a two-stage bicycle turn box would be required 
to a Support statement that simply describes certain situations where a 
two-stage bicycle turn box can be used to facilitate bicycle turning 
movements. In alignment with this change, FHWA provides clarifying 
modifications to the description of those situations.
    The FHWA retains the Standards requiring specific regulatory signs 
be used when bicyclists are required to use a two-stage bicycle turn 
box and the Standards requiring the appropriate mounting location of 
these signs. The FHWA retains these Standards to ensure bicyclists have 
this necessary regulatory information on the jurisdictional prescribed 
use of the bicycle turn box. These Standards will help ensure the 
safety of bicyclists and reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other 
traffic.
    Also, to address a vehicle movement conflict that could compromise 
the safety of bicyclists, FHWA adds new Guidance that two-stage bicycle 
turn boxes should be located outside of the path of right-turning 
vehicle traffic, and where a turn box is located within the path of 
right-turning vehicle traffic, a NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) sign should be 
used.
    The FHWA believes these provisions will help strengthen the 
protection of vulnerable users consistent with Section 11135 of BIL.
Bend-Outs at Intersections
    In the NPA, FHWA proposed to add Support, Option, and Guidance 
statements in Section 9E.02 related to the shifting of buffer-separated 
or separated bicycle lanes. The Option allows for bicycle lanes to be 
shifted closer to or further away from the adjacent general-purpose 
lane. The Guidance indicates the bicycle lanes should not be shifted 
away from the general-purpose lane unless there is sufficient space for 
a vehicle to queue between the general-purpose lane and extension of 
the bicycle lane.
    Many commenters opposed the Guidance statement that a buffer-
separated or separated bicycle lane should not be shifted away from the 
adjacent general-purpose lane at an intersection unless there is 
sufficient space for a vehicle to queue between the general-purpose 
lane and the extension of the bicycle lane. Commenters stated that it 
went counter to best practices and there was sufficient experience to 
show it to be safe practice. In consideration of the comments received 
and further review, FHWA is not adopting this proposed Guidance 
statement. Rather, FHWA is adding a Support statement that shifting a 
bicycle lane away from a general-purpose lane at an intersection can 
create space for vehicles to queue and has safety benefits. This change 
provides more flexibility and FHWA believes these provisions will help 
strengthen the protection of vulnerable users consistent with section 
11135 of BIL.

[[Page 87693]]

Counter-Flow Bike Lanes
    In the proposed new Section 9E.08 Counter-Flow Bicycle Lanes, FHWA 
proposed a Standard prohibiting locating a counter-flow bicycle lane 
between the general-purpose lane and on-street parallel parking lane 
for motor vehicles. This prohibition was added due to safety concerns 
for bicyclists as a motorist may not have line of sight of oncoming 
bicyclists when maneuvering their parked vehicle to reenter the 
general-purpose travel way, which would require crossing the counter-
flow bicycle lane with potentially very limited visibility.
    Commenters suggested that the proposed Standard which would 
prohibit locating a counter-flow bike lane between a general-purpose 
lane and an on-street parallel parking lane would preclude situations 
when it is impractical to locate the lane elsewhere, such as between 
the curb and the parking lane. Commenters further suggested that 
locating the counter-flow bicycle lane between a general-purpose lane 
and an on-street parking lane has been done in a number of 
municipalities without documented safety issues.
    The FHWA agrees that there may be situations where it would be 
impractical to locate a counter-flow elsewhere as local agencies may 
have limited options for creating and maintaining connected bicycle 
networks. However, placing bicycle lanes between the curb and an on-
street parallel parking lane provides bicyclists a buffer from motor 
vehicle traffic to improve safety. Considering this, FHWA changes this 
Standard to Guidance, which will allow for engineering judgment or 
study to determine when it might be necessary to locate a counter-flow 
bike lane adjacent to the general-purpose lane. The FHWA believes this 
provides sufficient flexibility to agencies in designing their bicycle 
facilities while meeting FHWA's statutory obligation under Section 
11135 of BIL to provide for the protection of vulnerable road users.
Termination of Interim Approvals
    In addition to the changes adopted in the 11th Edition of the 
MUTCD, FHWA terminates the Interim Approvals for those provisional 
devices or applications that have been incorporated into this final 
rule, either in whole or part. Agencies that had received Interim 
Approval for those items listed are released from the requirement to 
maintain and update a list of locations at which the provisional 
devices or applications have been implemented. Any future installations 
of the device or application previously subject to Interim Approval 
must comply with the provisions as stated in the 11th Edition of the 
MUTCD, and any provisions in the Interim Approval that conflict with 
the provisions adopted in the 11th Edition of the MUTCD are no longer 
valid. Existing installations that do not comply with the provisions 
adopted in the 11th Edition of the MUTCD must be brought into 
compliance by the compliance date established in this final rule, if 
applicable, or through systematic replacement and upgrade of traffic 
control devices if a compliance date is not specified. The following 
Interim Approvals are terminated with this final rule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Interim  approval                Title             Date  Issued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA-5..........................  Clearview Font for             3/28/2018
                                 Positive-Contrast
                                 Legends on Guide
                                 Signs (Reinstated).
IA-12.........................  Traffic Signal Photo          11/12/2010
                                 Enforced Signs.
IA-13.........................  Alternative Electric            4/1/2011
                                 Vehicle Charging
                                 General Service
                                 Symbol Sign.
IA-14.........................  Green-Colored                  4/15/2011
                                 Pavement for Bike
                                 Lanes.
IA-15.........................  Alternative Design              6/1/2012
                                 for the U.S. Bicycle
                                 Route (M1-9) Sign.
IA-16.........................  Bicycle Signal Faces.         12/24/2013
IA-17.........................  Three-Section                  8/12/2014
                                 Flashing Yellow
                                 Arrow Signal Faces.
IA-18.........................  Intersection Bicycle          10/12/2016
                                 Boxes.
IA-19.........................  Alternative Signal             2/24/2017
                                 Warrant 7--Crash
                                 Experience.
IA-20.........................  Two-Stage Bicycle              7/23/2017
                                 Turn Boxes.
IA-21.........................  Pedestrian-Actuated            3/20/2018
                                 Rectangular Rapid-
                                 Flashing Beacons at
                                 Uncontrolled Marked
                                 Crosswalks.
IA-22.........................  Red-Colored Pavement           12/4/2019
                                 for Transit Lanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The FHWA is incorporating by reference the more current versions of 
the manuals listed herein.
    The FHWA's 2009 ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 
Streets and Highways,'' including Revisions No. 1 and No. 2, dated May 
2012, and No. 3 dated August 2022, are replaced with a new edition of 
the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD), 11th Edition, FHWA, December 2023). This document was 
developed by FHWA to define the standards used by road managers 
nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all 
public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public 
travel.
    The document that FHWA is incorporating by reference is reasonably 
available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs, local agencies, 
and Tribal governments carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. The 
text, figures, and tables of the new edition of the MUTCD incorporating 
the proposed changes from the current edition are available for 
inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at FHWA Office 
of Transportation Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. Further, the text, figures, and tables of the new edition of the 
MUTCD incorporating changes from the current edition are available on 
the MUTCD website http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov and on the docket for this 
rulemaking. The specific details are discussed in greater detail 
elsewhere in this preamble.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
as amended by the E.O. 14094. Most of the changes in this final rule 
provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional applications 
for traffic control devices. The FHWA believes that the uniform 
application of traffic control devices will greatly improve the traffic 
operations efficiency and roadway safety. The Standards, Guidance, and 
Support are also used to create uniformity and to enhance safety and 
mobility at little additional expense to public agencies or the 
motoring

[[Page 87694]]

public. The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $200 
million or more. For the substantive revisions for which costs can be 
quantified, along with the administrative costs, the total estimated 
cost measured in 2020 dollars is $59.7 million when discounted to 2020 
at 7 percent. A copy of the Economic Impact Assessment is available on 
the docket for this rulemaking. This rule will not adversely affect in 
a material way the economy, any sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities. These changes 
do not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or 
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes on 
small entities and has determined that it is not anticipated to not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This final rule adds some alternative traffic control devices 
and only a very limited number of new or changed requirements. Most of 
the changes are expanded guidance and clarification information. This 
rule will primarily affect State and local governments and toll road 
authorities. The revisions directed by this action can be phased in by 
the States over specified time periods in order to minimize hardship. 
The changes made to traffic control devices that would require an 
expenditure of funds all have future effective dates sufficiently long 
to allow normal maintenance funds to replace the devices at the end of 
the material life-cycle. To the extent the revisions require 
expenditures by the State and local governments on Federal-aid 
projects, they are reimbursable. The FHWA hereby certifies that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 
March 22, 1995). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 
202(a)) requires agencies to prepare a written statement, which 
includes estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing ``any rule 
that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment 
for inflation is $177 million, using the most current (2022) Implicit 
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. The revisions directed 
by this action can be phased in by the States over specified time 
periods in order to minimize hardship. The changes made to traffic 
control devices that would require an expenditure of funds all have 
future effective dates sufficiently long to allow normal maintenance 
funds to replace the devices at the end of the material life-cycle. To 
the extent the revisions require expenditures by the State and local 
governments on Federal-aid projects, they are reimbursable. This does 
not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $177 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that may have a substantial, direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The FHWA analyzed this action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 and determined that 
this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also 
determined that this final rule would not preempt any State law or 
State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional 
State governmental functions.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13175 and determined 
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.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. FHWA has 
determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice 
issues.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. 
Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, 
for further information.

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 for each collection of information they conduct, 
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that 
this action does not contain collection information requirements for 
purposes of the PRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
has determined that it will not have any significant effect on the 
quality of the environment and is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 
771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, 
regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the 
criteria for categorical exclusions under the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations and under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not 
require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. The FHWA does not 
anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule; no unusual 
circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

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.

[[Page 87695]]

List of Subjects

23 CFR part 470

    Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and roads.

23 CFR part 635

    Grant programs--Transportation, Highways and roads, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

23 CFR part 655

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

    Issued on under authority designated in 49 CFR 1.81.

Shailen P. Bhatt,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA revises title 23, Code of 
Federal Regulations, parts 470, 635, and 655, as set forth below:

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

PART 470--HIGHWAY SYSTEMS

0
1. Revise the authority citation for Part 470 to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2), 103(c), 134, 135, and 315; and 
49 CFR 1.85.

Subpart A--Federal-Aid Highway Systems

0
2. Amend Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 470 by
0
a. Revising the section ``Policy'';
0
b. Under ``Conditions'', revising paragraph 5; and
0
c. Removing the section ``Sign Details''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 470--Policy for the Signing and 
Numbering of Future Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of 
the NHS Designation Act of 1995 or Designated Under 23 U.S.C. 
103(c)(4)(B)

Policy

    State transportation agencies are permitted to erect 
informational signs along a federally designated future Interstate 
corridor only after the specific route location has been established 
for the route to be constructed to Interstate design standards.

Conditions

* * * * *
    5. Signing and other identification of a future Interstate route 
segment must comply with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.
* * * * *

PART 635--CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

0
3. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 1525 and 1303 of Pub. L. 112-141, Sec. 1503 
of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 23 U.S.C. 101 (note), 109, 112, 
113, 114, 116, 119, 128, and 315; 31 U.S.C. 6505; 42 U.S.C. 3334, 
4601 et seq.; Sec. 1041(a), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 23 CFR 
1.32; 49 CFR 1.85(a)(1).

0
4. Amend Sec.  635.309 by revising paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.309  Authorization.

* * * * *
    (o) The FHWA has determined that, where applicable, provisions are 
included in the PS&E that require the erection of funding source signs 
that comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 
Streets and Highways, for the life of the construction project, in 
accordance with section 154 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 
1970, as amended (Pub. L. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894; primarily codified in 
42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.;) (Uniform Act).
* * * * *

PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 655 to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.85.

0
6. Amend Sec.  655.601 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  655.601  Purpose

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD), 11th Edition, FHWA, December 2023.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  655.603 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  655.603  Standards

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Where State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or Supplements are 
required, they shall be in substantial conformance with the national 
MUTCD. Substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or Supplement 
shall conform as a minimum to the Standard statements included in the 
national MUTCD. The FHWA Division Administrators and Associate 
Administrator for the Federal Lands Highway Program may grant 
exceptions in cases where a State MUTCD or Supplement cannot conform to 
Standard statements in the national MUTCD because of the requirements 
of a specific State law that was in effect prior to January 16, 2007, 
provided that the Division Administrator or Associate Administrator 
determines based on information available and documentation received 
from the State that the non-conformance does not create a safety 
concern. The Guidance statements contained in the national MUTCD shall 
also be in the State MUTCD or Supplement unless the reason for not 
including it is satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment, 
specific conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study. A 
State MUTCD or Supplement shall not contain Standard, Guidance, or 
Option statements that contravene or negate Standard or Guidance 
statements in the national MUTCD. In addition to a State MUTCD or 
Supplement, supplemental documents that a State issues, including but 
not limited to policies, directives, standard drawings or details, and 
specifications, shall not contravene or negate Standard or Guidance 
statements in the national MUTCD. The FHWA Division Administrators 
shall approve the State MUTCDs and Supplements that are in substantial 
conformance as defined heretofore with the national MUTCD. The FHWA 
Associate Administrator of the Federal Lands Highway Program shall 
approve other Federal land management agencies' MUTCDs and Supplements 
that are in substantial conformance as defined heretofore with the 
national MUTCD. The FHWA Division Administrators and the FHWA Associate 
Administrators for the Federal Lands Highway Program have the 
flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis the degree of 
variation allowed in a State MUTCD or Supplement to accommodate 
existing State laws as described heretofore, for the express purpose of 
amending such laws over time.

0
8. Amend Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655 by:
0
a. In paragraph 6 removing the word ``nine'' and adding in its place 
the word ``ten''; and
0
b. Adding Table 7.
    The addition reads as follows:

Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655--Alternate Method of Determining the 
Color of Retroreflective Sign Materials and Pavement Marking Materials

* * * * *

[[Page 87696]]



       Table 7 to Appendix to Part 655, Subpart F--Daytime Color Specification Limits for Non-Retroreflective Materials Used for Colored Pavements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Chromaticity coordinates
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Color                                   1                         2                         3                         4
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       x            y            x            y            x            y            x            y
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green...........................................        0.230        0.714        0.266        0.460        0.367        0.480        0.367        0.584
Red.............................................        0.420        0.330        0.450        0.380        0.560        0.370        0.540        0.320
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-27178 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P