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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-26789

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** December 14, 2020
- **Citation:** 85 FR 80898

## Text

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:

Proposed rule; notice of proposed amendments (NPA).

SUMMARY:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) is incorporated in FHWA regulations and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads. The purpose of this NPA is to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The proposed changes are intended to update the technical provisions to reflect advances in technologies and operational practices, incorporate recent trends and innovations, and set the stage for automated driving systems as those continue to take shape. The proposed changes would promote uniformity and incorporate technology advances in the traffic control device application, and ultimately improve and promote the safe and efficient utilization of roads that are open to public travel. These proposed changes are being designated as the 11th edition of the MUTCD.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2021. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:

To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:

•
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Go to
http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

•
Mail:
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

•
Hand Delivery:
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329;

•
Instructions:
You must include the agency name and docket number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Kevin Sylvester, Office of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-2161,
Kevin.Sylvester@dot.gov,
or Mr. William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397,
William.Winne@dot.gov,
Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
http://www.regulations.gov.
The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
https://www.federalregister.gov.

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This regulatory action seeks to collect comments from the public on proposed revisions to the MUTCD. The proposed changes are intended to streamline processes and reduce burdens on State and local agencies by including many of the successful devices or applications that have resulted from over 180 official experiments that FHWA has approved, including congestion-reduction strategies such as variable speed limits, dynamic lane control and shoulder use, and pedestrian safety enhancements such as the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon.

The proposed changes would update the technical provisions to reflect advances in technologies and operational practices, incorporate recent trends and innovations, and set the stage for automated driving systems as those systems continue to take shape. These changes would promote uniformity and incorporate technological advances in traffic control device design and application, and ultimately improve and promote the safe and efficient utilization of roads that are open to public travel.

With this proposed rule, FHWA seeks to address any existing provisions that might have contributed to situations that inhibit or contravene the purpose of a nationwide standard for traffic control devices, which is to promote the safe and efficient utilization of the highways and streets through an uninterrupted uniform system of signs, signals, and markings as road users travel between jurisdictions. Uniformity and consistency in message, placement, and operation of traffic control devices have been shown to address the expectancy of the road user, resulting in a more predictable response. The system of uniform 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.

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

Key proposed changes in this NPA 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;

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, new application of traffic control devices for part-time travel on shoulders to manage congestion, and new application of traffic control devices at busway crossings.

In addition, this regulatory action amends the following:

23 CFR part 470, subpart A, appendix C;

23 CFR 635.309(o); and

23 CFR 655.603(b)(1).

III. Costs and Benefits

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 agencies. The estimated national costs are documented in the economic analysis report titled, “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Assessment of Economic Impacts of Notice of Proposed Amendment,” which is available on the docket.

The proposed rulemaking introduces a variety of revisions resulting in clarification of language and organization of the MUTCD, deregulation through increased flexibility and alternatives for agencies, deregulation through relaxation of standards 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.

This NPA provides quantitative estimates of the expected compliance costs associated with the proposed substantive revisions. There are 132 substantive revisions in total. There are 124 substantive revisions with minimal or no impact, including the introduction of 37 new traffic control device applications. These revisions materially change the MUTCD requirements but have no cost impacts or minimal cost impacts.

The remaining eight substantive revisions have quantifiable economic impacts. For the three substantive revisions for which costs can be quantified, the total estimated cost measured in 2018 dollars is $541,978 when discounted to 2018 at 7 percent; and $589,667 when discounted at 3 percent. These costs are estimated as the sum of 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 proposed 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 proposed revision includes a compliance date. For those proposed changes without a compliance date, the analysis assumes that agencies would make traffic control devices comply with the proposed revisions at the end of the service life of a device. For those proposed changes with a compliance date, the analysis assumes that agencies would upgrade non-conforming traffic control devices through systematic upgrading, proportionally each year until the compliance date. The analysis period is 10 years starting with an implementation date of 2021 and extending through 2030. The costs of five 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 and any mobility impacts from efficient operation. Currently, no specific data or studies exist to measure operational benefits or efficiency gains, and these benefits are evaluated qualitatively. Ideally, safety benefits would be measured by the revision's impact on crashes, but there are no data that correlate the direct impact of traffic control devices with crash rates, and the safety benefits of these revisions could not be quantified. Potential safety benefits are evaluated qualitatively as well.

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

This rule is proposed under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a), which give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to promulgate uniform provisions to promote the safe and efficient utilization of the highways. This authority is delegated to FHWA under 49 CFR 1.85.

The text, figures, and tables of a proposed 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 a proposed new edition of the MUTCD incorporating changes from the current edition are available on the MUTCD website
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
The proposed text is available in two formats. The first format shows the current MUTCD text with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed deletions as red strikeout text, and also includes notes in green boxes to provide helpful explanations where text is proposed to be relocated or where minor edits are proposed. The second format shows a “clean” version of the complete text proposed for the next edition of the MUTCD, with all the proposed changes incorporated. Though the proposed text, figures, and tables are available only as separate documents for inspection, all three elements will be integrated when the new edition of the MUTCD is published in a consistent format, similar to the current edition. The complete current 2009 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 and Revision No. 2 incorporated is also available on the same website.

This NPA is being issued to provide an opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed amendments to the MUTCD. This NPA does not address the proposals contained in FHWA's ongoing rulemaking titled, “Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity,” (RIN 2125-AF34; Docket No. FHWA-2009-0139) at 82 FR 770 (January 4, 2017). Based on the comments received and its own experience, FHWA may issue a final rule concerning the proposed changes included in this document.

The NPA is being published to address the many advances in technology, research results, and improved traffic and safety management strategies that have occurred since the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the MUTCD. FHWA requests that commenters cite the page number and line numbers of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient. A form is provided on the docket to simplify the comment submission process. FHWA requests that commenters download and utilize this form to submit comments the docket, but it is not required.

A summary of the proposed general changes and proposed changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following discussion. In general, the proposed changes are based on the goal of achieving uniformity in the appearance, meaning, application, and other critical attributes of traffic control devices to promote the safe and efficient utilization of the streets and highways. 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 which, in turn, results in a safer, more efficient operation of the roads nationwide. It is under this premise that the provisions of the MUTCD are developed and promulgated. These proposals are based on the best available research, professional judgment, and data demonstrating that road user confusion would be avoided had a non-uniform traffic control device been uniform. Where this NPA proposes regulatory requirements prescribing specific conduct that regulated entities must adopt, FHWA has determined that these regulations are necessary to address the compelling need for nationwide uniformity to ensure the safety and efficiency of the traveling public.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1 General

1. As part of the reorganization, FHWA proposes to delete the existing Introduction and relocate most of that material into a proposed expanded/restructured Part 1. The purpose of this consolidation is to present more logically the general information about the MUTCD and traffic control devices and to eliminate duplicative material that appears in both the Introduction and sections of Part 1. As a part of this change, FHWA also proposes to remove the existing text and table regarding the historical development of the MUTCD and paragraphs pertaining to the use of metric units, as this material is not needed in the MUTCD or can be instead posted on the MUTCD website for those who are interested in it.

In addition to the changes described herein and shown in the proposed text of the MUTCD, FHWA proposes a new format for each specific traffic control device that is consistent with the format currently used in Part 4 of the Manual, which uses all upper-case letters for each type of traffic signal indication (
e.g.,
“CIRCULAR RED signal indication”). For example, the title of a sign would be shown in the MUTCD as “SPEED LIMIT sign” instead of “Speed Limit sign,” “CHEVRON ALIGNMENT sign” instead of “Chevron Alignment sign,” and “EXIT DIRECTION sign” instead of “Exit Direction sign.” (The sign title would not depend on whether any word legend on a sign is displayed in upper-case or upper- and lower-case letters.) A similar format would be used for pavement markings: “NORMAL WIDTH DOTTED WHITE lane line” instead of “normal width dotted white lane line,” “WIDE SOLID WHITE line” instead of “wide solid white line,” “DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW line” instead of “double solid yellow line,” and “CHEVRON HATCH markings” instead of “chevron hatch markings.” This proposed change is not shown in the proposed text of the MUTCD, but would be incorporated in the new edition of the MUTCD if adopted in the Final Rule. FHWA requests comment on this reformatting proposal for implementation throughout the entire Manual.

2. In the proposed consolidated Part 1, FHWA proposes to reorganize the retained material from the existing Introduction and existing Part 1 into four new chapters, to create a more logical flow of information and make it easier for users to find the content they need. The four chapters of the new Part 1 are Chapter 1A (General), Chapter 1B (Legal Requirements for Traffic Control Devices), Chapter 1C (Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used In This Manual), and Chapter 1D (Provisions Applicable to Traffic Control Devices in General).

3. In Chapter 1A General, FHWA proposes to create Section 1A.01, titled, “Purpose of the MUTCD,” with new text recommended by Item 525 of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.
1

FHWA proposes this revision because a clear statement of the MUTCD's purpose is critical in defining what content should be in the MUTCD and how that content should be used.

1
“20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,” National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, January 9, 2014, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.

4. In Section 1A.02 (existing Section 1A.01), FHWA proposes to retitle the section to “Traffic Control Devices—Definition.” FHWA also proposes to change the Standard (relocated from the Introduction, Paragraph 1) to Support, restating and referring to the definition of “traffic control devices” (as proposed to be revised in Section 1C.02). FHWA also proposes to add a new Support paragraph about infrastructure elements and certain operational devices, to explain that these are not considered traffic control devices. FHWA proposes these revisions to align proposed content and material being relocated from the Introduction and from other sections within existing Part 1.

FHWA also proposes to include a new list item (labeled “F”), stating that messages displayed on changeable message signs for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) alerts and homeland security information during declared states of emergency are not being considered as traffic control devices and, therefore, provisions regarding their design and use are not included in the MUTCD. FHWA proposes this revision because these two types of messages are specific exceptions to the use of a traffic control device expressly allowed by statute. They are referenced in the MUTCD because the device on which they are displayed is a traffic control device, even though the specific messages are not traffic control device messages.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to relocate the Standard and Support pertaining to advertising to Section 1D.09. FHWA proposes this revision to align proposed content and material in each Section.

5. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1A.03, titled, “Target Road Users,” with new text recommended by Item 526 of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.
2

The proposed text describes the characteristics of the two groups of target road users for traffic control devices—operators of vehicles (including bicyclists) and pedestrians. FHWA proposes this revision because proper use of traffic control devices can be optimized by stating the expectations for road users responding to the traffic control devices.

2
“20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan” can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.

6. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1A.04, titled, “Use of the MUTCD,” with two new Standard paragraphs and one new Guidance paragraph consisting of text recommended by items 528 and 529 of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD, plus additional text relocated from the Introduction.
3

The proposed text establishes minimum qualifications for those responsible for performing traffic control device activities in order to reduce the potential for unqualified individuals performing traffic control device activities, specifically recommending that traffic control device decisions should be made with consideration of multiple factors.

3

Ibid.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to change Support paragraphs to provide clarity and to reflect the new use of unnumbered sub-chapter headings.

7. In Section 1A.05 (existing Section 1A.11) Relation to Other Publications, FHWA proposes to add three additional publications to the list of useful sources of information (“Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware” 2009 Edition

AASHTO, “Equipment and Materials Standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers” 1988 Edition ITE, and “Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads: Light Emitting Diode (LED) Vehicle Arrow Traffic Signal Supplement” 2007 Edition ITE). FHWA also proposes to delete four publications from the existing list of useful sources of information (“Roundabouts—An Informational Guide (FHWA-RD-00-067)” 2000 Edition FHWA, “Purchase Specification for Flashing and Steady Burn Warning Lights” 1981 Edition ITE, “Traffic Detector Handbook” 1991 Edition ITE, and “Traffic Signal Lamps” 1980 Edition ITE). Lastly, FHWA proposes to update several of the listed publication editions. FHWA proposes these revisions to reflect the most current and applicable supporting publications and to delete any references to publications that are obsolete or have been superseded. In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes Standard and Support paragraphs to explain how specific editions of the resources listed apply to the new edition of the MUTCD.

8. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1A.06, titled, “Uniform Vehicle Code—Rules of the Road,” with text relocated from the existing Introduction and from existing Section 1A.02, plus additional new Support text to explain the current status of the Uniform Vehicle Code. FHWA proposes these revisions to provide clear guidance on the application of the Uniform Vehicle Code.

9. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1B.01, titled, “National Standard,” with text relocated from the existing Introduction. As a part of this change, FHWA proposes to revise existing Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, of the Introduction, from a Standard to a Support, as it is a statement of fact rather than a mandate of the MUTCD.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard indicating the types of facilities to which the MUTCD shall apply and not apply, per 23 CFR 655.603(a). FHWA proposes this revision to make the MUTCD easier for users to understand its applicability, particularly for smaller agencies and individual owners of roads open to public travel.

10. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1B.02, titled, “State Adoption and Conformance,” with text relocated from the existing Introduction and existing Section 1A.07. FHWA proposes this revision to consolidate information about the adoption of the MUTCD by States and other Federal agencies and substantial conformance of State MUTCDs and Supplements.

FHWA also proposes a new Standard paragraph to clarify the fact that, in addition to State MUTCDs or Supplements, any policies, directives, or other supplemental documents that a State or other agency might issue to address traffic control devices are considered supplements to the MUTCD and must be in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD. This proposed change is for clarification purposes and does not represent a change to existing requirements.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add Guidance indicating that traffic control devices that have been granted Interim Approval, but which have not yet been adopted into the national MUTCD, should not be included in State MUTCDs or Supplements. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify the process for such cases because the technical conditions or status of an Interim Approval are provisional in nature and can change before adoption into the MUTCD. Adoption into State Manuals or Supplements can create a burden for those States for which a legislative change would be required to comply with any new or revised provisions that FHWA might issue. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that an Interim Approval can accommodate flexibility by responding readily to any changes that might become necessary.

11. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1B.03, titled, “Compliance of Devices,” with text relocated from the existing Introduction and existing Sections 1A.07 and 1A.10. FHWA proposes this revision to consolidate information regarding the compliance of traffic control devices to streamline and improve the usability of the MUTCD.

FHWA also proposes to revise an existing Standard relocated from Section 1A.07 to Support. FHWA proposes this revision since the statement is of fact rather than a mandate of the MUTCD.

FHWA also proposes to add a new Support paragraph clarifying the status of devices or applications not specifically addressed in the Manual. FHWA proposes this revision to address a common misperception that an application of a device is allowed if it is not explicitly prohibited in the Manual, even if that application is not addressed in the Manual. In those cases in which there might be some question as to whether an application that is not specifically mentioned in the MUTCD might be allowed, an individual is encouraged to seek an official interpretation, in which FHWA can evaluate whether such application is consistent with the provisions for that device and whether it would adversely impact uniformity.

FHWA also proposes to combine a Standard paragraph and an Option paragraph regarding the replacement of non-compliant traffic control devices, relocated from the Introduction, into a single Standard. FHWA proposes this revision to streamline existing language.

FHWA also proposes to remove 12 rows in Table 1B-1 (existing Table I-2), titled, “Target Compliance Dates Established by the FHWA.” FHWA proposes this revision since these rows contain requirements with previously established compliance dates that have passed or will have passed by the date of the publication of the Final Rule resulting from this NPA. Related to this proposed change, FHWA proposes to delete additional compliance dates from the table that are in effect at the time this NPA is published, but expire prior to the effective date of the Final Rule.

FHWA also proposes to add three new compliance dates to Table 1B-1 (existing Table I-2). For Section 2C.25 Low Clearance Signs, the compliance date of five years from the effective date of the final rule for this edition applies to the proposed new Standard requiring that if used, Low Clearance Overhead signs shall indicate the portion of the structure with low clearance if the posted clearance does not apply to the entire structure to indicate the point of applicability. The proposed changes were based on recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) H-14-11
4

to provide signing indicating the proper lane of travel for over height vehicles traveling under an arched structure.

4
The NTSB report can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf.

For Section 8B.16 High-Profile Grading Crossings, the compliance date of five years from the effective date of the final rule for this edition applies to the proposed new Guidance recommending the installation of Low Ground Clearance and/or Vehicle Exclusion and detour signs for vehicles with low ground clearances that might hang up on high-profile grade crossings. The proposed compliance date applies only to those locations with known histories of vehicle hang-ups occurring because sufficient geometric criteria do not currently exist by which agencies could evaluate crossings to determine the specific types of vehicles that could be problematic. The proposed changes were based on recommendation from

NTSB H-18-24
5

to provide signing for high-profile grade crossings.

5
The NTSB report can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1801.pdf.

For Section 8D.10 through 8D.13 Highway Traffic Signals at or Near Grading Crossings, the compliance date of ten years from the effective date of the final rule for this edition applies to the determination and installation of the appropriate treatment (preemption, movement prohibition, pre-signals, or queue cutter signals) at highway-rail grade crossings in close proximity to signalized intersections. FHWA proposes this compliance date due to the high potential for train-vehicle crashes at locations where a vehicle traveling in a platoon can come to a stop on a crossing unintentionally due to a queue from a downstream signalized intersection.

12. FHWA proposes to replace existing Section 1A.10 with seven new Sections numbered from 1B.03 through 1B.09. The seven new Sections are Section 1B.03 (Compliance of Devices), Section 1B.04 (Issuance of Official Rulings Related to this Manual), Section 1B.05 (Official Interpretations), Section 1B.06 (Experimentation), Section 1B.07 (Changes to the MUTCD), Section 1B.08 (Interim Approvals), and Section 1B.09 (Requesting Official Interpretations, Experiments, Changes to the MUTCD, or Interim Approvals). FHWA proposes this revision to improve the organization of material regarding official interpretations, experimentations, changes to the MUTCD, interim approvals, and procedures for requesting any of these actions.

13. In proposed Section 1B.06 Experimentation, FHWA proposes to revise existing Section 1A.10, Paragraph 11, and change from Guidance to Standard. In addition, FHWA proposes to add Standards, Support, and Guidance paragraphs further addressing the experimentation process. FHWA proposes these revisions to clarify and streamline the experimentation process for agencies wishing to experiment with novel traffic control devices or applications.

14. In proposed Section 1B.08 Interim Approvals, FHWA proposes to revise existing Section 1A.10, Paragraph 18, and change from Guidance to Standard. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify and streamline the interim approval process.

15. In proposed Section 1B.09 Requesting Official Interpretations, Experiments, Changes to the MUTCD, or Interim Approvals, FHWA proposes to add Support paragraphs to provide further clarity on official rulings.

16. In proposed new Chapter 1C Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in this Manual, FHWA proposes to replace existing Section 1A.13 with two new Sections. Section 1C.01, titled, “Definitions of Headings Used in this Manual” would cover definitions of the headings used in the MUTCD (such as Standard, Guidance, etc.). Section 1C.02, titled, “Definitions of Words and Phrases Used in this Manual” would cover definitions of the words and phrases used in the MUTCD. FHWA proposes this revision to provide clarity between definitions of the headings and definitions of words and phrases used throughout the Manual.

FHWA also proposes to revise the definition of a Standard in Section 1C.01 to indicate that in limited cases, the results of a documented engineering study might indicate that a deviation from one or more requirements of a Standard provision to be appropriate. FHWA proposes this revision based on Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I).
6

6
Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I), dated October 1, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=30.

17. In proposed Section 1C.02 Definitions of Words and Phrases Used in this Manual, FHWA proposes to
revise
the existing definitions for the following: “active grade crossing warning system,” “actuated operation,” “actuation,” “channelizing line markings,” “constant warning time train detection,” “conventional road,” “crashworthy,” “delineator,” “emergency-vehicle traffic control signal,” “engineering judgement,” “engineering study,” “flashing,” “full-actuated operation,” “highway traffic signal,” “in-roadway lights,” “intersection,” “logo,” “median,” “minimum track clearance distance,” “overhead sign,” “parking area,” “paved,” “pedestrian clearance time,” “pedestrian facility,” “pictograph,” “preemption,” “pre-signal,” “private road open to public travel,” “queue clearance time,” “quiet zone,” “raised pavement marker,” “road user,” “semi-actuated operation,” “sign,” “sign panel,” “sequence of indications,” “statutory speed limit,” “traffic,” “traffic control device,” “traffic control signal (traffic signal),” and “worker.” FHWA proposes these revisions to reflect accepted practice and terminologies, and for consistency in the usage of these terms in the MUTCD. The proposed revision to the definition of “engineering study” is a specific recommendation of Item 531 of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.
7

7
“20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,” National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, January 9, 2014, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.

FHWA also proposes to
add
definitions for the following: “active grade crossing,” “agency,” “application,” “bicycle signal face,” “bicycle symbol signal indication,” “blank-out sign,” “busway,” “diagnostic team,” “driveway,” “driving aisle,” “dynamic message sign,” “engineer,” “exclusive alignment,” “fail-safe,” “four-quadrant gate system,” “general-purpose lane,” “gore area,” “identification marker,” “jughandle turn,” “loading zone,” “low-volume rural road,” “mixed-use alignment,” “on-street parking,” “option lane,” “parking space,” “professional engineer (P.E.),” “queue cutter signal,” “reconstructed,” “rectangular rapid-flashing beacon,” “right-of-way, public highway,” “semi-exclusive alignment,” “serviceable,” “shoulder,” “sidewalk grade crossing,” “signal dimming,” “site roadways open to public travel,” “swing gate,” “through train,” “toll road (facility),” “uncontrolled approach,” and “variable message sign.” FHWA proposes these revisions because these terms either are used or are proposed for use in the MUTCD.

In addition, FHWA proposes to
delete
the existing definitions for the following: “advance preemption,” “advance preemption time,” “average day,” “cantilevered signal structure,” “concurrent flow preferential lane,” “end of roadway marker,” “interval sequence,” “maximum highway traffic signal preemption time,” “minimum warning time,” “right-of-way transfer time,” “simultaneous preemption,” and “wayside equipment.” FHWA proposes these revisions because these terms are either proposed for deletion from the Manual as part of this document or used only once in a specific section of the Manual.

FHWA also proposes to delete the definition for “safe-positioned” and relocate this information to Part 6. FHWA proposes this revision because this term is only used in that Part of the MUTCD.

FHWA also proposes to delete the definitions for “average day,” “cantilevered signal structure,” “concurrent flow preferential lane,” and “end-of-roadway marker.” FHWA proposes these revisions because these

terms are not used anywhere in the MUTCD.

18. In Section 1C.03 (existing Section 1A.14), retitled, “Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Manual,” FHWA proposes to delete the acronyms/abbreviations “EPA” and “TDD” and relocate the information to Part 2. FHWA proposes these revisions because these terms are only used in that Part of the MUTCD.

FHWA also proposes to delete the acronyms/abbreviations “HOT,” “HOTM,” “HOTO,” “PCMS,” and “RRPM.” FHWA proposes these revisions because the terms are not used in the MUTCD text.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add the abbreviations “cd/lx/m
2
,” “ft,” “in,” and “mi.” FHWA proposes these revisions because these abbreviations for light intensity and distances are used throughout the MUTCD.

19. In Section 1D.01 (existing Section 1A.02), retitled, “Purpose and Principles of Traffic Control Devices,” FHWA proposes to revise the title to reflect the content with the proposed relocation of a paragraph from existing Section 1A.01 to this section. Also, FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance about what makes a traffic control device effective by changing “meet five basic requirements” to “be consistent with these principles.” FHWA proposes these revisions to clarify that the principles are recommendations rather than requirements, as they are contained within a Guidance provision.

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard indicating that traffic control devices used on site roadways open to the public shall have the same shape, color, and meaning as those required by the MUTCD, unless exceptions are noted in the Manual.

20. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1D.02, titled, “Traffic Control Device Characteristics and Activities,” with new text recommended by Item 527 of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.
8

The proposed text describes seven characteristics and activities associated with traffic control devices. FHWA proposes this revision since clarifying distinctions between types of traffic control device activities would assist agencies in establishing the qualifications needed to perform the selected activities.

8
“20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,” National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, January 9, 2014, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.

21. FHWA proposes to combine existing Sections 1A.07 and 1A.08 into a single Section 1D.04, titled, “Responsibility and Authority for Traffic Control Devices.” With this revision, FHWA proposes to delete the last two sentences of Paragraph 1 as this text is redundant with Section 1B.

FHWA also proposes to relocate several existing paragraphs since they better align with content presented in other Sections.

FHWA also proposes to delete an existing Support paragraph since all States have a law on the adoption of, and have adopted, the MUTCD.

FHWA also proposes to delete an existing Guidance paragraph since this text is redundant to paragraphs contained in other Sections.

FHWA also proposes to revise an existing Standard paragraph to change the word “advertisements” to “public announcements or notices” because the existing term can be misinterpreted to refer only to announcements of a commercial nature.

In addition, FHWA proposes to delete an existing Guidance paragraph because the Standard paragraphs in this and other sections define (1) the authorization for placement and, by inference, removal of traffic control devices; and (2) the criteria or warrants for the installation of traffic control devices.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add two additional Support paragraphs to emphasize further that the highway right-of-way is reserved for highway related purposes in accordance with 23 CFR 1.23(b), and that States may adopt restrictions on outdoor advertising that resembles official traffic control devices, which is required by 23 CFR 750.180 in certain cases.

22. In Section 1D.05 (existing Section 1A.09) Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment, FHWA proposes to revise existing Support paragraphs. FHWA proposes this revision based on Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I),
9

and to emphasize a clear understanding of the application of engineering studies and engineering judgement in this Manual.

9
Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I), dated October 1, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=30.

23. In Section 1D.06 (existing Section 1A.03) Design of Traffic Control Devices, FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance to clarify that a traffic control device's design should be modified only in unusual circumstances based on an engineering study or engineering judgment.

FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard requiring that shapes that are exclusive to a particular sign, such as the octagon for the STOP sign, shall not be obscured by another sign mounted on the back of the assembly. This proposed change is consistent with existing provisions in proposed Section 2B.18 (existing Section 2B.10). FHWA proposes this revision to ensure that sign shapes that are of critical importance are easily recognized, because their unique shapes instantly convey a unique message to road users.

Lastly, FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard indicating that colors shall be consistent across the face of a sign or panel, and that color gradients shall not be allowed. FHWA proposes this revision to provide clarification due to the technological capabilities of sign printers, which have entered the market in just the last few years.

24. In Section 1D.07 (existing Section 1A.12) Color Code, FHWA proposes to add a Standard indicating that colors shall be used only as prescribed in this Manual for specific devices or applications. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify that the listed color definitions are general designations and do not mean that any color can be applied in any combination or orientation for non-standard signs. This proposed change is for clarification purposes and does not represent a change to existing requirements.

25. FHWA proposes to create a new Section 1D.08, titled, “Public Domain, Copyrights, and Patents,” with new Standard and Support paragraphs. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify the existing provisions on this topic with respect to traffic control devices, and that the meaning, appearance, operation, and application of traffic control devices as a road user experiences them shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright due to its adverse impact on the very uniformity the MUTCD is intended to promote. However, their method of assembly, their method of manufacture, and their component parts can be, and often are, protected.

Uniformity in the display of traffic control devices is central to the underlying foundation of the MUTCD. As such, FHWA establishes the criteria therein with uniformity in mind, including a limitation on patents, trademarks, and copyrights associated with traffic control devices. This limited prohibition on intellectual property associated with a traffic control device is stated in the MUTCD to be associated with the device's “design and

application provision contained in [the] Manual.”
10

10
From the Introduction, Paragraph 4, 2009 MUTCD, which is available at the following internet website:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.

FHWA occasionally receives requests to approve patented traffic control device concepts for potential open-road experimentation under the MUTCD provisions, with the ultimate intent of having the devices adopted in the provisions of the MUTCD through rulemaking. FHWA believes that those involved in the development of new traffic control devices, as well as highway agencies being requested to experiment with these devices, could benefit from further clarification of the term “design and application provision” of a traffic control device as provided for in the MUTCD, to understand better which aspects of devices can be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.

In addition, FHWA continues to receive inquiries related to its recent rulemaking
11

that rescinded regulations related to the procurement of patented or proprietary products on highway projects, which did not change the patent provisions of the MUTCD. Some stakeholders believed that the removal of restrictions on the procurement of patented or proprietary products either did extend or should have extended to the patent provisions of the MUTCD as well. However, the limitation in the MUTCD is based on uniformity and its purpose is separate and distinct from 23 CFR 635.411, which addresses the procedures for the procurement of proprietary products in highway construction using Federal-aid funds. The MUTCD limitation on proprietary products necessarily excludes proprietary traffic control devices which claim protection on the message conveyed. The purpose of this limitation is to ensure uniformity in the message. However, any other aspects of a device may be patented so long as the appearance, audible message, or other aspects of the message conveyed remain freely reproducible by all without infringing on any proprietary rights or interests.

11
84 FR 51023 (September 27, 2019).

The proposed MUTCD language, along with this document, provides further clarification and background on this subject matter. The information clarifies what aspects of a traffic control device can and cannot be patented or otherwise protected. In general, the component parts of a traffic control device may be patented or otherwise protected, but how the device is to appear and operate to the observer (
i.e.,
how it would be specified in the MUTCD) must remain in the public domain and must not be covered by any patent that would preclude others from freely producing the traffic control device. As a result, the road user will always experience the same traffic control device for similar conditions in the same way.

The purpose of addressing this aspect of traffic control devices is due to the adverse effect that protections on what the road user experiences would have on uniformity in the message to the road user. By virtue of patent or other protections on the message itself, alternate messages would have to be allowed to address the same conditions so as not to include infringement by competitors.

Based on the varying views that the public has expressed in the past on this topic, FHWA requests that commenters provide sufficient detail and explanation of how the proposal or alternatives would support both uniformity and cost-effectiveness of traffic control devices, and enable their manufacture without infringement on protections enjoyed by patent holders. Specific references should be made to the proposed MUTCD text and to the explanation provided in this document.

26. FHWA proposes to create a new Section 1D.09 Advertising, with text relocated from existing Section 1A.01. In this Section, FHWA proposes to add Acknowledgment signs to the existing items that are not considered advertising, consistent with existing text in Part 2 for that type of sign.

27. In Section 1D.10 (existing Section 1A.15) Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, FHWA proposes to revise an existing Guidance paragraph to be consistent with the notes in Table 1D-2 (existing Table 1A-2).

28. In Section 1D.11 (existing Section 1A.04) Placement and Operation of Traffic Control Devices, FHWA proposes to add a Standard statement that, before any new highway, site roadway open to public travel, detour, or temporary route is opened to public travel, all necessary traffic control devices shall be in place. FHWA proposes this revision to consolidate similar Guidance text in existing Section 3A.01 regarding markings and similar Standard text in existing Section 6B.01 regarding signs, and because it is important that all necessary traffic control devices be in place before new roads, detours, or temporary routes are opened to public travel.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2A Signs—General

29. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, FHWA proposes to delete existing P3 referencing definitions for various roadway types, because the information is repetitive and not necessary.

FHWA also proposes to revise this Section to expand on the language from existing P1 regarding the use of signs on a frequent basis to confirm rules of the road or statutes. FHWA proposes a new Guidance provision recommending that agencies use temporary signs when determined necessary to advise of new regulations or as part of an educational campaign. FHWA also adds a recommendation on the placement of permanent signs for rules of the road in adjacent jurisdictions. FHWA proposes this new paragraph to limit the amount of signing along a given route to reduce sign clutter and the informational load imposed on the road user and to reduce sign maintenance burdens on the responsible maintaining agency.

30. In Section 2A.02 (existing Section 2A.03) Standardization of Application, FHWA proposes to add a Support paragraph relocating certain information from existing Part 5 regarding the use of traffic control devices on low-volume rural roads. FHWA proposes to redistribute the provisions of existing Part 5 among the remaining parts.

FHWA also proposes to delete the second sentence of the Standard paragraph because the statement is redundant and is implied throughout the Manual.

31. In Section 2A.04 (existing Section 2A.06) Design of Signs, FHWA proposes to eliminate the provision in the existing Standard P8 that allows for minor changes to the proportion of symbols. FHWA proposes this change because symbol designs are standardized for recognition based on the specific proportions of the symbol, and this statement contradicts the subsequent standard.

FHWA also proposes to delete the existing Option P10 because the subject of orientation is addressed in Section 2A.09 (existing Section 2A.12).

FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard to clarify that, except where explicitly allowed, the substitution of a word legend for a symbol legend is prohibited where the standard sign legend uses the specific symbol, as it contravenes uniformity in recognition and messaging to road users. This proposed change is for clarification purposes and does not represent a change to existing requirements, and is consistent with changes included in the 2009 MUTCD, which discontinued a number of alternate standard signs with word legends for which the primary standard sign included a symbol legend.

FHWA proposes to add a new Standard that prohibits an alternative sign design or dimensions when there is a standard sign provided in the Manual or detailed in the “Standard Highway Signs” publication, except where specifically allowed. FHWA also proposes a related Standard for standardized sign layouts that might have a variable length legend, but otherwise have a standard dimension. FHWA proposes this change because the standardized designs are often of recognizable form as well as message.

FHWA also proposes to add a Support paragraph regarding the use of special word legend signs that may be unclear to road users. FHWA proposes this addition to encourage evaluation of such signs to determine comprehension or possible misinterpretation.

FHWA proposes to delete Guidance P15 and revise Standard P14 that describes provisions related to the range of allowable information and graphical symbols affixed to the face and back of a sign. FHWA updates this paragraph to reflect similar forms of information to those listed in the existing P14 and proposes to prohibit the following additional items unless otherwise specified for a specific sign: Telephone numbers, metadata tags (“hash-tags”), quick-response (QR) codes, bar codes, or other graphics for optical scanning. In conjunction with this change, FHWA proposes to revise Option P16 to allow for the use of these items for signs that are intended and oriented for viewing by pedestrians only. FHWA proposes these changes to consolidate like information.

FHWA proposes to revise the Standard regarding pictographs to require that they be devoid of QR codes, bar codes, or other graphics designed for optical scanning for the purpose of obtaining information to be consistent with the Standard language described above.

FHWA proposes to add a Standard to clarify the existing prohibition of Business Identification (formerly Logo) sign panels from being displayed on signs except as specifically provided in the Manual. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying requirement.

FHWA proposes to reiterate and expand the existing Standard from Section 2B.10 prohibiting items other than traffic control signs from being mounted on the back of a sign.

FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

32. In Section 2A.05 (existing Section 2A.09) Shapes, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance provision with recommendations for mounting a diamond-shaped warning sign where lateral space is constrained. FHWA also proposes a new Option to allow a vertically oriented rectangle for the legend of the warning sign when the methods contained in the Guidance are impractical. Further, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard prohibiting other modifications to sign shapes, such as cutting off the left and right points of a diamond, resulting in a vertical hexagon. FHWA proposes these changes to ensure consistency and recognition of sign shapes and to clarify that “modifying” a sign to fit into constrained locations cannot result in a new, non-standard shape.

33. In Section 2A.07 (existing 2A.11) “Dimensions,” FHWA proposes to add a Standard to prohibit the use of larger sign sizes where a maximum allowable sign size is prescribed. FHWA proposes this to provide consistency in sign dimensions.

FHWA also proposes to revise existing Guidance P8 to allow for specific exceptions to the increase in size of supplemental plaques for larger signs. FHWA proposes this change because some plaques are not allowed to be enlarged beyond the size specified.

34. In Section 2A.08 (existing Section 2A.13) Word Messages, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard requiring all word messages to be aligned horizontally across a sign, reading left to right, except as provided otherwise in the Manual. FHWA proposes this change to allow for signs that require a vertically oriented message, such as Reference Location signs and the Depth Gauge sign, and to make explicit that words are prohibited on retroreflective sign post strips for enhanced conspicuity. Though this requirement has always been inherent in the designs of the standardized signs in the MUTCD, the proposed statement clarifies the intent.

FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement that requires distances displayed on signs to be in a fraction format, not decimal, except as provided otherwise in the Manual. FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with language found in other Chapters and standardized signs throughout the Manual.

35. In Section 2A.09 (existing Section 2A.12) Symbols, FHWA proposes to clarify the Guidance statement to indicate that new standardized warning or regulatory symbol signs should be accompanied by an educational plaque where engineering judgment determines that the plaque would improve road user comprehension during the transition from word message to symbol signs.

FHWA also proposes to change the existing Option regarding the use of mirror images of symbols from a Guidance to an Option to allow the use of mirror images, rather than recommend their use, thereby allowing more flexibility.

Finally, FHWA proposes to eliminate the Option to use recreational and cultural interest area guide sign symbols on streets or highways outside of a recreational and cultural interest area. FHWA proposes this change for consistency with other proposed changes in Chapter 2M.

36. In section 2A.10 (existing Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, FHWA proposes to revise the Standard by incorporating language from existing Section 2E.16 requiring the border of a sign be the same color as the legend to outline the shape and ease recognition.

FHWA proposes this change to account for the proposed elimination of the Standard in Section 2E.16 and provide more specific justification for the Standard, and because this provision applies to all signs in general.

FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance to recommend that, on unusually large signs with oversized letter heights and other legend elements, the border width be 2
1/2
inches wide and not exceed 3 inches in width.

FHWA also proposes to add a Support statement that provides reference to Section 2A.20 (existing Section 2A.07) regarding the use of LED units within the border of a sign.

37. In Section 2A.11 (existing Section 2A.15) Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs, FHWA proposes to revise Option P1 to add a maximum period of 6 months for the NEW plaque to be displayed, adding DO NOT ENTER and WRONG WAY signs to the signs that are not allowed to be supplemented by a warning beacon, and allow a rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) to supplement a Pedestrian or School warning sign at an uncontrolled, midblock crosswalk. FHWA proposes these changes based on common practice and the proposed addition of the RRFB to the Manual (proposed Chapter 4L).

FHWA proposes to delete the existing Standard prohibiting the use of the NEW plaque alone, because plaques by definition may not be used alone. As a result, this text is unnecessary.

FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard to clarify that the display of

any legend or other information on the retroreflective strip on a sign support is prohibited. FHWA adds this Standard because some agencies have added vertically arranged supplemental legends in substandard letter sizes on retroreflective strips. The existing Option allowing retroreflective strips does not allow for supplemental legends. FHWA adds this language to clarify the existing provisions.

FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement that prohibits the installation of duplicate signs on the same post facing the same direction of traffic. The allowable methods of enhancing conspicuity do not currently allow this practice, and FHWA proposes this addition to clarify that current practices of this type are not appropriate means for enhancing conspicuity.

38. In Section 2A.12 (existing Section 2A.16) Standardization of Location, FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 2A-5 to illustrate the relative locations of Regulatory, Warning, and Guide Signs on an urban signalized intersection approach to help clarify typical signing at these complex situations for practitioners.

FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of the existing Standard to a Guidance, because the use of the posted or 85th-percentile speed for determining the appropriate sign spacing is just one factor, and there may be other factors that are more appropriate. Changing this to a Guidance statement provides agencies with more flexibility to use the factors they determine, through engineering judgment or study, to be most appropriate.

FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance provision to recommend that where certain signs indicate an action by a road user in the left lane or at the left-hand side of a one-way road, such as Merge signs, the sign should be located on the left-hand side of the roadway. In the case of a divided road, the sign should be located in the median if adequate width is available.

FHWA also proposes revising the existing Guidance to recommend that at locations where there are conflicts between the installation of regulatory and warning signs and a guide sign, that the guide sign should be relocated to another appropriate location where it would still be effective. FHWA also proposes the recommendation that in other cases, such as at a decision point, the guide sign should take precedence over other signs whose locations are not as critical to an immediate decision or action necessary by the road user. In all cases, careful attention should be given to minimizing sign clutter. FHWA proposes this additional information to reinforce the importance of separating critical regulatory and warning information from guidance information so that road users are not overloaded with important information all at one location.

39. In Section 2A.14 (existing Section 2A.18) Mounting Height, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard stating that minimum mounting heights prescribed in this Section shall not supersede those necessary for crash performance of sign installations that are required to be crashworthy. FHWA proposes this change to remind users of the importance of crash performance of sign installations that are required to be crashworthy, as stated in existing provisions of the Manual.

40. In Section 2A.15 (existing Section 2A.19) Lateral Offset, FHWA proposes to relocate existing P7 to Section 2A.17 (existing Section 2A.21) because the Option statement permitting the use of existing supports is more appropriate in the Posts and Mountings section. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to delete P8 because the Standard is unrelated to the lateral offset of the sign installation and serves no purpose since the location is prescribed under other provisions in the Manual.

41. In Section 2A.17 (existing Section 2A.21) Posts and Mountings, FHWA proposes to add the Option statement relocated from Section 2A.15 (existing Section 2A.19) permitting the use of existing supports. As part of this change, FHWA proposes to add a Support statement referring readers to lateral and height placement criteria for Guidance and Standards contained in this Manual for such signs.

FHWA also proposes to delete the Option paragraph regarding adding retroreflective strips to sign posts because it is redundant to Section 2A.11 (existing Section 2A.15). In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to retain a reference and relocate the Standard paragraph to Section 2A.11 (existing Section 2A.15).

FHWA also proposes to add a Standard with requirements regarding the placement of equipment for powering electronic components of a sign, including solar panels, when such equipment is mounted to a sign support. FHWA proposes these requirements to retain crashworthiness performance of the sign installation as well as to avoid obscuring the face or shape of the sign.

42. FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber existing Section 2A.04 Excessive Use of Signs, to Section 2A.19. FHWA proposes clarifications in P1 recommending signs should be used and located judiciously, minimizing their proliferation in order to maintain their effectiveness; that signs should be used conservatively; and that sign clutter be avoided. FHWA also proposes to modify the second sentence to specify that route signs and directional guide signs for primary routes and destinations should be used frequently at strategic locations because their use promotes efficient operations by keeping road users informed of their location.

In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a new Support statement describing sign clutter consistent with Official Ruling No. 2-669(I)
12

as well as information regarding vanity signs, which are signs that are requested by an interested party, but are not essential for, or have no relation to, traffic control. As part of these changes, FHWA also proposes new Guidance statements recommending that signs and other traffic control devices be installed and maintained from a systematic standpoint rather than individually. FHWA proposes these changes because of the increased proliferation of signs, often installed separately over time, which reduces the effectiveness of signs and distracts road users at decision points and other locations requiring heightened attention.

12
FHWA's Official Ruling No. 2-669(I), dated November 20, 2009, can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_669.htm.

43. In Section 2A.20 (existing Section 2A.07), retitled, “Retroreflection and Illumination,” FHWA proposes to add a new Standard that requires the use of an opaque or non-retroreflective material for a black legend or background. Under headlamp illumination, retroreflective black appears as white, which creates a conflict with the existing requirement for signs to appear similar under daytime and nighttime conditions. FHWA proposes this addition to resolve this conflict.

FHWA also proposes to add two Support statements regarding the use of LED units. In concert with these additions, FHWA also proposes to revise existing Standards P7 through P10 and add two new Standards regarding the pitch and placement along the edge of a sign to incorporate additional provisions for LED units to ensure that adequate legibility would be maintained.

44. In Section 2A.21 (existing Section 2A.08) Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity, FHWA proposes to add to Guidance recommendations for the visual inspection and revised assessment or management methods that should be used to maintain sign

retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels in Table 2A-5 (existing Table 2A-3) and that signs that are below the minimum levels should be replaced. In addition, FHWA proposes to add paragraph headings to define which methods are management methods and which are assessment methods, and to include the three procedures that make up the visual assessment method. FHWA proposes these additions to clarify the types of methods and to place information that is currently available in other resources in one location.

45. In Section 2A.22 (existing Section 2A.23), retitled, “Median Opening Treatments for Divided Highways,” FHWA proposes to delete the existing Guidance and add new recommendations for signing a divided highway crossing as separate intersections when specific conditions are present. FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2A-6 to illustrate the new recommendations. FHWA proposes these changes to provide additional details for road user safety, based on the results of recently completed research on this topic.
13

13
“Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-Way Movements” NCHRP 881, 2018, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates

46. As part of the reorganization to improve usability of the MUTCD, FHWA proposes to include subchapter headings in Chapter 2B to organize sections into related groupings. FHWA proposes the following subchapters in Chapter 2B: General; Signing for Right-of-Way at Intersections; Speed Limit Signs and Plaques; Movement and Lane Control Signs; Passing Keep Right and Slow Traffic Signs; Selective Exclusion Signs; Do Not Enter, Wrong Way; One-Way and Related Signs and Plaques; Parking, Standing, Stopping, and Emergency Signs; Pedestrian Signs; Traffic Signal Signs; Road Closed and Weight Limit Signs; Other Regulatory Signs, and Barricades and Gates.

47. In Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs, FHWA proposes to delete portions of existing Standard P3 and all of P4 requiring signs to be the same shape and similar color by day and by night and restricting street lighting use for sign illumination, because the information is repetitive and covered elsewhere in the Manual.

48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P2 and P3 because they are already covered in existing Section 2A.06.

FHWA also proposes to revise P5 from Guidance to Standard. FHWA also proposes to apply the Standard to LED signs for a part-time message and indicate the color scheme of regulatory messages displayed with LEDs. In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes adding an Option and two Standard paragraphs pertaining to the use of LEDs in the border of a sign and the display of regulatory signs in a full matrix changeable message sign, respectively. FHWA proposes these changes to provide uniformity in the application LEDs in traffic control signs and changeable message signs. These changes are necessary to ensure a consistent appearance in the sign legend regardless of the type of display, whether static, illuminated, or changeable.

49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, FHWA proposes to add a Standard statement regarding the size of regulatory signs on low-volume roads with operating speeds of 30 mph or less, to capture the language provided in the existing Part 5 text that has been redistributed among the remaining parts. FHWA also proposes to delete P6, requiring the use of 36″ x 36″ STOP signs on multi-lane approaches, because that requirement already exists in existing P3 and Table 2B-1. FHWA also proposes to delete P7 and P8 requiring the use of 36″ x 36″ STOP signs on side roads that intersect with multi-lane streets of 45 mph or higher speed limits, even if the side road is not multi-lane, because this may place an undue burden on agencies to change existing 30″x 30″ signs at such locations.

FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance P9 and add a new Guidance paragraph to allow the use of single lane or multi-lane conventional road sign sizes on ramps that connect expressways or freeways to intersections with a conventional roadway. FHWA proposes this change, because the operating characteristics of exit ramps connecting expressways or freeways to other expressways or freeways are different from those connecting expressways or freeways to conventional roads. As a result, signs on exit ramps connecting to conventional roads do not require the larger size signs associated with a freeway or an expressway.

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring the use of a near side NO TURN ON RED or RIGHT (LEFT) ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP sign, as applicable, to supplement a far side, single-lane sized R10-11, R10-11a, R10-11b, or R10-17a sign when the distance between the stop line and the far side sign is more than 120 feet. FHWA proposes this to provide additional signing for turning vehicles at the near side of the intersection to supplement the far side sign at an increased distance.

50. FHWA proposes to delete existing Sections 2B.04 (Right-of-Way at Intersections), 2B.06 (STOP Sign Applications), 2B.07 (Multi-Way Stop Applications), and 2B.09 (YIELD Sign Applications) and replace them with new Sections 2B.06 through 2B.18, as described below, to address comprehensively the need for warrants for no control, yield control, stop control, or all-way stop control. FHWA proposes these changes to incorporate the results of a NCHRP Project 03-109,
14

which proposed general considerations, alternatives to changing right-of-way control, and forms of unsignalized control from least restrictive to most restrictive, beginning with no control and concluding with all-way stop control.

14
Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the Type of Control for Unsignalized Intersections,
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172596.aspx.

51. In Section 2B.04 (existing Section 2B.05) STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL-WAY Plaque (R1-3P), FHWA proposes to delete P5 regarding the use of the ALL-WAY Plaque because it is redundant with the preceding paragraph.

52. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.06 General Considerations,” incorporating some paragraphs from existing Section 2B.04 and proposed new general Support and Guidance paragraphs regarding signing for right-of-way at intersections. FHWA proposes adding the Support regarding the types of right-of-way control that can exist at an unsignalized intersection based on the research results of NCHRP Project 03-109.
15

FHWA proposes adding Item G, suggesting the presence of a grade crossing near an intersection as a factor to consider when selecting a form of traffic control. FHWA proposes this additional item to address the potential for resultant queues at an intersection that may extend toward a nearby grade crossing.

15
Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the Type of Control for Unsignalized Intersections,
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172596.aspx.

53. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.07 Determining the Minor Road for Unsignalized Intersections,” that includes one Guidance paragraph from existing Section 2B.04 and one additional Guidance regarding criteria for selecting the minor road to be

controlled by YIELD or STOP signs. FHWA proposes these criteria based on the result of NCHRP Project 03-109.
16

16

Ibid.

54. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.08 Right-of-Way Intersection Control Considerations,” with proposed new Guidance paragraphs regarding the alternative treatments to consider prior to converting to a more restrictive right-of-way control.

55. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.09 No Intersection Control,” consisting of new Guidance and Option statements regarding factors to consider when making a decision not to use intersection control. FHWA proposes this new section specifically to include information in the MUTCD regarding conditions for consideration when determining the need for intersection control.

56. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.10 Yield Control,” consisting of some text relocated from existing Sections 2B.06 and 2B.09, plus new Guidance paragraphs regarding the use of YIELD signs to control an intersection. FHWA proposes this change to combine information regarding yield control in one location.

57. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.11 Minor Road Stop Control,” consisting of one paragraph relocated from existing Section 2B.06, plus proposed new Guidance paragraphs regarding stop control on the minor road approach only. FHWA proposes this new section to provide information specific to the use of stop control on a minor approach.

58. FHWA proposes to add new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.12 All-Way Stop Control,” consisting of one paragraph relocated from existing Section 2B.07 and proposed new Guidance and Standard paragraphs regarding warrants for all-way stop control. FHWA proposes this new section to clarify the application of all-way stop control and provide an introduction to the proposed new sections (Sections 2B.13 through 2B.17) related to all-way stop control warrants.

59. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.13 All-Way Stop Control Warrant A: Crash Experience,” consisting of one proposed new Option paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop control based on crash experience.

60. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B. 14 All-Way Stop Control Warrant B: Sight Distance,” consisting of a portion of one Support paragraph relocated from existing Section 2B.07, plus a proposed new Option paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop control based on sight distance.

61. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.15 All-Way Stop Control Warrant C: Transition to Signal Control or YIELD Control at a Roundabout,” consisting of one proposed Option paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop control based on a transition plan to convert an intersection to signal control.

62. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.16 All-Way Stop Control Warrant D: 8-Hour Volume (Vehicle, Pedestrians, Bicycles),” consisting of one proposed new Option paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop control based on the criteria included in Table 2B-2.

63. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.17 All-Way Stop Control Warrant E: Other Factors,” consisting of portions of an existing Option paragraph relocated from existing Section 2B.07, plus one proposed new Option paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop control based on other factors.

64. In Section 2B.18 (existing Section 2B.10) STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement, FHWA proposes to remove existing Standard P4 through P6 restricting the use of inventory stickers and other items on STOP and YIELD signs, because those restrictions apply to all signs, not just STOP and YIELD signs, and therefor and proposes to relocate this text to Chapter 2A.

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance limiting supplemental plaques used in conjunction with a STOP or YIELD sign to those specified in the MUTCD. FHWA proposes this change to ensure consistency in the use of supplemental plaques mounted beneath STOP and YIELD signs.

FHWA also proposes to add an Option allowing the use of a TO TRAFFIC IN CIRCLE (R1-2bP) or TO ALL LANES (R1-2cP) plaque, mounted below the YIELD sign, for locations where drivers must yield to traffic in a multi-lane roundabout. FHWA proposes this option to address situations that occur when drivers at a multi-lane roundabout are not anticipating the vehicle in the inside lane to maneuver to exit the roundabout.

65. In section 2B.19 (existing Section 2B.11) Yield Here to Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series),” FHWA proposes to add a Support statement describing the intent of the R1-5 series signs, which is to mitigate scenarios associated with pedestrian and vehicle visibility.

FHWA proposes to revise the first sentence of Standard P1 to address confusion on the existing limitation of the R1-5 series signs that are only appropriate for use on multi-lane approaches where there is a multiple-threat scenario that can block other drivers' and pedestrians' views of one another. FHWA also proposes to change the last sentence of Standard P1 to correct an oversight in the 2009 Edition, prohibiting, rather than allowing, the use of the STATE LAW legend to be displayed at the top of these signs because the sign applies to the specific location for yielding or stopping in advance of a specific crosswalk that is occupied, rather than to the general requirement to yield or stop at occupied crosswalks.

In addition, FHWA proposes to change the advance placement distance portion of Guidance P2 to a Standard, requiring that the R1-5 series signs be placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of the nearest crosswalk line to ensure that they adequately mitigate the multiple-threat scenario on a multi-lane approach, which places pedestrians at risk when a second vehicle blocks other drivers' view of pedestrians and the pedestrians' view of the vehicles approaching in the adjacent lanes. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the placement of the signs does not interfere with signs at the intersection and/or potentially cause misinterpretation as a Stop-controlled intersection either by approaching traffic or traffic on the cross street, as FHWA has observed in practice.

FHWA also proposes to add an Option for the R1-5a and R1-5c signs with the schoolchildren symbol in place of the pedestrian symbol, provided that the signs are only used in advance of a marked crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach within school zones. FHWA proposes this change to reflect Official Interpretation 2(09)-40(I),
17

allowing the use of the schoolchildren symbol in the R1-5 series signs, similar to the R1-6 series In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs when used at an unsignalized school crossing.

17
FHWA's Official Ruling No. 2(09)-40(I), June 4, 2012, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_09_40.htm.

66. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.12, “Section 2B.20 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian

and Trail Crossing Signs (R1-6 and R1-9 Series)” to reflect the additional proposed Trail Crossing sign. FHWA also proposes to revise existing Standard P3 through P5 to include the proposed new Trail Crossing sign.

FHWA proposes to clarify in Standard P3 that no more than one in-street sign shall be placed in the roadway, on a lane line for a one-way roadway application, or on a median island. FHWA proposes this change to minimize sign proliferation in the roadway and to prevent potential distraction due to an overuse of signs at a single location. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying requirement, in response to an apparent misinterpretation of the existing provisions as evidenced by a number of technical inquiries and observations of noncompliant field deployments.

FHWA proposes to change existing Option P7 to a Standard and add a new Standard to require that if used, the In-Street or Overhead Pedestrian or Trail Crossing sign shall be used as a supplement to a Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) or Trail Crossing (W11-15) warning sign with a diagonal downward-pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque at the crosswalk location. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that if an in-street or overhead sign is used, that the appropriate non-vehicular warning sign is in place to ensure uniformity in application at crosswalks. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which does not change the existing underlying requirement, in response to an apparent misinterpretation of the existing provisions as evidenced by a number of technical inquiries and observations of noncompliant field deployments.

FHWA proposes to add an Option allowing In-Street Pedestrian or Trail Crossing signs to be mounted back to back in the median or on the centerline of an undivided roadway. FHWA proposes this option to minimize the number of in-street obstructions at the crossing.

FHWA also proposes to clarify in Standard P8 that the In-Street Pedestrian or Trail Crossing sign and the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing or Trail sign shall not be used at crosswalks on approaches controlled by a traffic control signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon, or an emergency vehicle hybrid beacon. FHWA proposes this clarification to eliminate conflict between the sign that says STOP or YIELD and a green signal indication on a traffic control signal or hybrid beacon. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement permitting the use of the In-Street Pedestrian and Overhead Pedestrian and Trail Crossing sign at intersections or midblock pedestrian crossings with flashing beacons, because flashing beacons do not display a green indication, and therefore the use of this sign would not conflict with the signal indication.

Finally, FHWA proposes to reword existing Option P15 to clarify that both the in-street and overhead mountings of signs may be used together at the same crosswalk.

67. In Section 2B.21 (existing 2B.13) Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), FHWA proposes to reorganize and revise material based on the NTSB's recommendation
18

to review how speed limits are determined. FHWA proposes to move and revise Guidance P10, 12, and 13 and Option P16 to earlier in the section to clarify the factors that should be considered when establishing or reevaluating speed limits within speed zones. FHWA proposes changes to reinforce the stated understanding that other factors, in addition to the 85th-percentile speed, have a role in setting speed limits. FHWA retains reference to 85th-percentile speed as a factor that should be considered, particularly for freeways and expressways, as well as for rural highways, except those in urbanized locations within rural regions. FHWA also retains reference to the setting of speed zones in broad terms, thereby allowing agencies to establish detailed criteria based upon national guidance or based upon research, outside the MUTCD. In addition to providing comment on this proposed change, FHWA also requests comment on the following additional recommendations of the NTSB report: (1) Removal of the 85th-percentile speed as a consideration in setting speed limits regardless of the type of roadway (this recommendation was based in part on the assumption that that the 85th-percentile speed can increase over time as a result of the posted speed limit); and (2) the requirement to use an expert system to validate a speed limit that has been determined through engineering study. Commenters are 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.

18
NTSB report “Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles,” can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf.

FHWA also proposes to add Support to this section directing users to FHWA's Engineering Speed Limits web page, which provides information on where to find additional resources on the methods and practices for setting Speed Limits for specific segments of roads as well as tools to assist practitioners, such as USLIMITS2.

FHWA also proposes to change the second sentence of P4 from Standard to Guidance to recommend, rather than require, that additional Speed Limit signs be installed beyond major intersections and at other locations where it is necessary to remind road users of the applicable speed limit. FHWA proposes this change because engineering judgment is involved to determine what constitutes a major intersection.

FHWA also proposes to modify existing paragraph 9 to reference the Reduced Variable Speed Zone (W3-5b) and Truck Speed Zone (W3-5c) signs in conjunction with their addition to Chapter 2C. As part of this change, FHWA also proposes to add an Option for the use of an END VARIABLE SPEED LIMIT (R2-13) sign at the downstream end of a variable speed zone to provide notice to road users of the termination of the zone.

FHWA also proposes, in conjunction with the above, a Standard statement requiring an END TRUCK SPEED LIMIT (R2-14) sign be installed at the downstream end of the zone. This Standard is necessary to ensure that road users receive notice of the termination of a truck speed zone where trucks are allowed to resume the general regulatory speed limit.

In addition, FHWA proposes to revise existing P18 to replace the term “changeable message sign” with “variable speed limit sign” to reflect the sign type more accurately. FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement requiring the variable speed limit sign legend “SPEED LIMIT” to be a black legend on a white retroreflective background, consistent with the standard legend and background on a Speed Limit sign. FHWA also proposes in this Standard statement to require the variable speed limit legend on a variable speed limit sign to be indicated by white LEDs on an opaque black background. FHWA proposes to add this Standard to clarify the text, as indicated in Official Ruling No. 2(09)-3(I).

Finally, FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P19 and Guidance P20 and add a Support statement referencing Section 2C.14 for provisions for the use of a Vehicle Speed Feedback sign, to group that information in Chapter 2C Warning signs.

68. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.14 to “Section 2B.22 Vehicle Speed Limit Plaques (R2-2P Series)” to reflect proposed changes in the section to clarify that a legend similar to TRUCKS XX may be used for other vehicles on a speed limit plaque. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with more flexibility in speed limit signing for various vehicle types, and to streamline processes by making it easier for agencies to specify and fabricate such plaques by standardizing the more common legends.

69. FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.16 to “Section 2B.24 Minimum Speed Limit Plaque (R2-4P) and Combined Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits (R2-4a) Sign” to reflect both the plaque and sign that are currently discussed in the existing Section. In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes to add a sentence to the existing Standard to clarify that the R2-4P plaque, if used, must be installed below the R2-1 sign, which is a stated condition of the existing Option paragraph that immediately follows. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying condition of the Option.

70. In Section 2B.25 (existing Section 2B.17) Higher Fines Signs and Plaque (R2-6P, R2-10, and R2-11), FHWA proposes to change the first sentence of existing Standard P1 to Guidance to reflect the recommendation, rather than the requirement, to use a BEGIN HIGHER FINES ZONE (R2-10) sign or a FINES HIGHER (R2-6P) plaque to provide notice to road users. This proposed change would give agencies more flexibility in determining whether to install such signs and plaques, particularly those States that have higher fines by statute in school zones, work zones, and other locations.

71. In Section 2B.26 (existing Section 2B.18) Movement Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, R3-18, and R3-27), FHWA proposes to add a Guidance recommending the use of Movement Prohibition signs only to prohibit a turn or through movement from an entire approach and not to designate movements that are required or permitted from a specific lane or lanes on a multi-lane approach. FHWA proposes this additional language to prevent the use of multiple conflicting movement prohibition signs along an approach where lane use signs and pavement markings would be more appropriate.

FHWA proposes to revise the first item under Option P12 to replace the term “changeable message sign” with less specific language describing the operation of the sign. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add a Standard statement regarding the use of blank-out LED signs and the allowable LED colors, to reflect current practice.

FHWA also proposes to add a new Option statement to allow the use of permanently mounted signs incorporating a supplementary legend showing the vehicle class restriction where the movement restriction applies to certain vehicle classes. FHWA proposes to add this language to provide agencies with flexibility in signing movement prohibitions for various vehicle classes without having to mount a plaque.

FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement describing the design of the blank-out part-time electronic display for the Movement Prohibition sign. This Standard is necessary to ensure design consistency and uniformity in appearance with static signs used for the same purpose.

72. In Section 2B.27 (existing Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane Control Signs (R3-5 through R3-8), FHWA proposes to change Standard P6 to Guidance to reinforce that the use of an overhead intersection lane control sign on one lane of an approach does not require the use of overhead intersection lane control signs on the other lanes of that same approach, yet such signs can be used. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a slight modification to Guidance P3 to clarify the independent use of signs. FHWA proposes this change to clarify the application of these signs and eliminate potential confusion with the use of the signs.

FHWA also proposes to remove Option P7 as the mounting requirements are specifically outlined in the specific Intersection Lane Control sections that follow.

73. In Section 2B.28 (existing Section 2B.20) Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, R3-7, R3-19 Series, and R3-20), FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of Standard P1 to Guidance to provide flexibility as to where to place certain Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs.

In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes to revise existing Standard P3 to prohibit explicitly the R3-7 sign from being mounted at the far side of the intersection, incorporating the existing Standard P1 that requires these signs to be located in advance of the intersection. FHWA proposes this change to reinforce the existing requirement, which is intended to avoid confusion with the sign applying to a downstream intersection as has been demonstrated in practice. If a sign at the far side of the intersection is determined to be needed, then the proposed revision to Standard P1 would allow for other signs to be mounted overhead and aligned with each lane adjacent to the signals. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying requirement.

FHWA also proposes to delete the first phrase of Standard P4, which specifies the use of the Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol signs when the number of lanes available to through traffic is three or more. FHWA proposes to remove this requirement to promote uniformity, since there is already an existing post-mounted version of the sign (R3-7). In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P5 in this section.

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending the use of the EXCEPT BUSES or EXCEPT BICYCLES plaque where the lane restriction does not apply to buses or bicycles.

FHWA also proposes to delete existing Option P9 regarding the back-to-back mounting of a Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5) sign for a left-turn lane and Keep Right (R4-7) signs, because the Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5) sign is for overhead mounting and therefore installing a Keep Right (R4-7) sign on the back is not appropriate.

FHWA proposes to add an Option allowing the use of proposed new post-mounted LANE FOR LEFT TURN ONLY and LANE FOR U AND LEFT TURNS ONLY (R3-19 series) signs on the median at the start of the taper to be used in situations where a left-turn lane is added at a median location. FHWA proposes these new signs to standardize the message for which a number of States use a variation.

FHWA proposes to revise Option P11 to indicate that the BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and the BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs may be used in situations where the turn lane may not be apparent. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify when it is appropriate to use the sign because other standard signs exist to indicate a mandatory turn lane.

FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance statement describing the recommended use of the DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER (R4-17) sign at locations where the transition from a paved shoulder to a mandatory turn lane might not be apparent and traffic regularly enters the shoulder to access the turn lane. FHWA proposes this language to clarify the method to address this condition. Use of the

BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE sign is not intended for these situations.

74. In Section 2B.29 (existing Section 2B.21) Optional Movement Lane Control Sign (R3-6 Series), FHWA proposes to change the 2nd sentence of Standard P1 to Guidance to provide flexibility as to where to place the Optional Movement Lane Control signs.

FHWA proposes to add a standard U- and Left-Turn symbol Optional Movement Lane Control sign R3-6a and a standard oblique multiple left symbol Optional Movement Lane Control sign R3-6b with specific reference in the Standard P1. FHWA proposes this change to provide for left-turn lanes from which a U-turn is allowed, such as at median left-turn lanes as well as where there are multiple left turn angled movements that can be made from the lane.

FHWA proposes to relocate and revise existing Standard P5 to incorporate the requirement that the Optional Movement Lane Control sign be mounted overhead in Standard P1. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P6, because Optional Movement Lane Control signs are mounted overhead, not post-mounted. The R3-8 Advance Intersection Lane Controls signs are post-mounted.

FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P7 because the arrows on the sign indicate permitted movements and the text “OK” is repetitive and not needed.

75. In Section 2B.31 (existing Section 2B.22) Advance Intersection Lane Control Signs (R3-8 Series), FHWA proposes to add TAXI, BUS, BIKE or bicycle symbol to the allowable word messages that may be used within the border in combination with arrow symbols on Advance Intersection Lane Control signs. FHWA proposes to remove OK and ALL from the optional word messages as the lane control arrows are indicating this movement as allowable.

In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement allowing the R3-8 sign to be modified to show the bicycle lane with a white legend on a black background where bicycle lane is between two general purpose lanes. FHWA proposes these changes to provide additional options for alerting motor vehicles and bicyclists of appropriate lane usage in advance of an intersection.

FHWA also proposes to change existing Guidance P3 to clarify that the Advance Intersection Lane Control sign should be placed either along the lane tapers or at the beginning of the turn lane. FHWA proposes this change because, if used in advance of the lane tapers, the sign and the available lanes would not match; therefore, the sign would not help a driver discern which lanes are added and could result in uncertainty due to its ambiguous message.

FHWA proposes a new Standard statement to prohibit mounting an Advance Intersection Lane Control sign at the far side of an intersection to which it applies. FHWA proposes this statement to reinforce placement in advance of the intersection either along the lane tapers or at the beginning of the turn lane. This Standard is necessary in order to avoid potential confusion with the sign applying to a downstream intersection.

FHWA proposes a new Standard statement requiring the R3-5bP and R3-5fP to be mounted above the R3-8 sign, when the R3-8 sign only shows the two outermost lanes of the roadway. FHWA adds this sign to display a complete message to the road user to comprehend the application when not all of the lanes are being shown on the R3-8 series sign.

76. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.23 “Section 2B.31 Right (Left) Lane Must Exit Signs (R3-33, R3-33a)” to provide specific reference to and information regarding the use of the proposed new R3-33a sign, a vertical rectangle version of the R3-33 sign for use in limited right-of-way situations.

77. In Section 2B.33 (existing Section 2B.25) BEGIN and END Plaques (R3-9cP, R3-9dP), FHWA proposes to delete the Standard statement, and instead proposes to incorporate the proper placement of the plaque into the Option statement, because placement of the plaque does not warrant a Standard statement.

78. In Section 2B.34 (existing Section 2B.26) Reversible Lane Control Signs (R3-9e through R3-9i), FHWA proposes to add an Option statement indicating that where longitudinal barriers separate opposing directions of traffic, the R3-9g or R3-9h signs may be omitted.

FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement to provide for consistency between parking signs and reversible lane signs where curb parking is allowed. FHWA proposes this to avoid confusion.

79. In section 2B.38 KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Sign (R4-16) and SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign (R4-3), FHWA proposes to make revisions to Option P1 and Guidance P2 to clarify that the KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign is to be used where there are two lanes in one direction of travel. As currently written, “multi-lane” implies that no matter how many lanes are present, all traffic should be in the right lane. The meaning of this sign is to indicate that the left lane is for passing only; therefore, the message on the sign is only appropriate for roadways with two-lanes in the same direction of travel.

80. In Section 2B.40 (existing Section 2B.32), retitled, “Keep Right and Keep Left Signs (R4-7 Series, R4-8 Series),” FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance statement recommending the word legend (R4-7a, R4-7b, R4-8a, or R4-8b) signs should be used instead of the symbol (R4-7 or R4-8) signs to emphasize the degree of curvature away from the approach direction where the approach end of the island channelizes traffic away from the approach direction, such as on a loop ramp, to define the intended uses of signs that have similar legends better.

FHWA also proposes additional Option, Support, and Standard statements regarding the use of the Keep Right sign on medians on divided highways, as the result of recent research,
19

to provide more clarity regarding the proper use and placement of these signs.

19
NCHRP Report 881 “Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,” can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.

81. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “2B.45 ALL TRAFFIC Sign (R4-20) and RIGHT (LEFT) TURN ONLY Sign (R4-21)” to include new Options, Guidance, and Standards regarding the use of the subject signs. FHWA proposes to add this section to allow for additional signs at intersections where movement prohibition and One-Way signs do not adequately convey the allowable direction of travel.

82. In Section 2B.46 (existing Section 2B.39) Selective Exclusion Signs, FHWA proposes to add provisions for a new No Snowmobiles Symbol sign (R9-15) that may be used where snowmobiles are prohibited on roadways or shared-use paths. FHWA proposes this new symbol sign based on research indicating that this symbol has high recognition value.
20

FHWA also proposes to include provisions for the NO THRU TRAFFIC, NO THRU TRUCKS, AND EXCEPT LOCAL DELIVERIES plaque as typical exclusion messages to reflect common practice.

20
“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs”, FHWA, December 2005, p. 19, can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34772/dot_34772_DS1.pdf.

FHWA also proposes to add a reference to R5-10, which would replace the current R5-10a sign. FHWA

proposes to revise the R5-10a to include the legend “ON FREEWAY” below the primary legend.

Finally, FHWA proposes to eliminate the word legend version of the NO TRUCKS (R5-2a) as an alternate to the No Trucks (R5-2) symbol sign. FHWA proposes this change for consistency with word message signs where a symbol sign exists.

83. In the proposed Sub-Chapter DO NOT ENTER, WRONG WAY, AND ONE-WAY Signs and Related Signs and Plaques, FHWA proposes to reorganize the sections so signs associated with wrong-way movements are consecutive sections rather intermixed with Selective Exclusion signs. In concert with these changes, FHWA proposes to provide clarifications and correct inconsistencies between the text and figures related to wrong-way movement signing, as the result of recent research.
21

21
NCHRP Report 881 “Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,” can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.

84. In Section 2B.47 (existing 2B.37), “DO NOT ENTER Sign (R5-1),” FHWA proposes, as the result of recent research,
22

to clarify Standard P1 to require DO NOT ENTER signing where a two-way roadway becomes a one-way roadway and near the downstream end of an interchange exit ramp. FHWA proposes to add a Standard paragraph requiring a DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign be installed at an intersection with a divided highway where the crossing functions as two separate intersections, except on low speed urban streets. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add Option statements allowing the use of DO NOT ENTER signs at an intersection with a divided highway where crossing functions as a single intersection, as well as allowing the omission of DO NOT ENTER signs at an intersection with a low speed urban street that is a divided highway at a crossing that functions as two separate intersections. As part of these changes, FHWA proposes to recommend that if used at an intersection with a divided highway that functions as a single intersection, DO NOT ENTER signs should be placed on the outside edge of the roadway facing traffic that might enter the roadway in the wrong direction. Finally, FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P4, since it is incorporated in the proposed new language in this section.

22

Ibid.

FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement regarding the use of white or red LEDs within the border of the DO NOT ENTER sign to enhance the conspicuity of the sign.

85. In Section 2B.48 (existing Section 2B.38) WRONG WAY Sign (R5-1a), FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending the WRONG WAY sign be placed on the same side of the road as the DO NOT ENTER sign. FHWA proposes this language, as the result of recent research,
23

to provide additional notification to road users that they are not to enter the roadway and clarify the placement of the WRONG WAY sign as it supplements the DO NOT ENTER sign.

23
NCHRP Report 881 “Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,” can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.

FHWA proposes to add an Option statement allowing the use of white or red LEDs within the border to enhance the conspicuity of the sign.

86. In section 2B.49 (existing 2B.41) Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps, FHWA proposes to add items F (Lane control or movement prohibition signs) and G (Keep Right signs) as traffic control devices that may be used to supplement the signs and pavement markings at interchange exit ramp terminals where the ramp intersects a crossroad in such a manner that wrong-way entry could inadvertently be made. FHWA proposes this new language, as the result of recent research, to provide additional tools for agencies to use to prevent vehicles from entering interchange exit ramps in the wrong direction.

FHWA proposes to add a new Option statement for the use of a NO LEFT TURN (R3-2) sign on the left side of interchange entrance ramps where the ramp merges with the through roadway and the design of the interchange does not clearly make evident the direction of traffic. This text supports the sign shown in existing Figure 2B-19. FHWA also proposes that a supplemental R3-2 sign may be located on the right side of the entrance ramp at the gore if one is installed on the left to provide agencies with greater flexibilities in signing for wrong-way traffic control.

FHWA also proposes a new Option statement and accompanying figure for the use of a ONE WAY sign and/or a NO TURNS (R3-3) sign on interchange entrance ramps where the ramp merges with the through roadway and the design clearly indicates the direction of flow, to provide agencies with greater flexibilities in signing for wrong-way traffic control.

FHWA proposes to delete Option P5 referencing special needs or prohibitive information. FHWA proposes this change because the statement is nonspecific and Chapter 2A already contains language specifying that a decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment.

In addition, FHWA revises Option P6 to clarify that the low mounting height for an independent installation of a DO NOT ENTER or WRONG WAY sign is for locations along the exit ramp rather than at the intersection with the crossroad. FHWA also proposes an Option to allow the installation of a low-mounted WRONG WAY sign on the DO NOT ENTER assembly at the intersection with the crossroad, provided that the DO NOT ENTER sign is mounted at a height consistent with the requirements for signs in general. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the basic signing is at the typical mounting height a road user would expect to see, while still allowing signs at a lower mounting height as a supplement that are intended for a potentially disoriented driver whose vision might be focused at a lower height.

87. In Section 2B.50 (existing Section 2B.40) ONE WAY Signs (R6-1, R6-2), FHWA proposes, as the result of recent research,
24

to replace all language describing an intersection with a divided highway that has a median width at the intersection itself of 30 feet with proposed new language that describes the crossing of a roadway with a divided highway as an intersection operating as single or separate intersections. FHWA proposes these changes because it is important to base the application of ONE WAY signing on how the intersection functions, rather than the width of the median.

24
NCHRP Report 881 “Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,” can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.

FHWA also proposes to revise Option P11 to indicate that a One-Direction Large Arrow sign may be used instead of or in addition to a ONE WAY sign in the central island of a circular intersection. FHWA proposes this change to reflect the proposed removal of the Roundabout Directional Arrow from the MUTCD.

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a Standard statement specifying that when a One-Direction Large Arrow sign is used without a ONE WAY sign, the R6-5P plaque shall be mounted below the Yield sign on the approach to a roundabout. FHWA proposes this to ensure that when only the One-

Direction Large Arrow is used that a regulatory message indicating the direction of movements is provided.

FHWA also proposes to delete P10 and 13 because they are duplicative and contradictory, respectively, and therefore not necessary to include in the MUTCD.

88. In Section 2B.51 (existing 2B.42) Divided Highway Crossing Signs (R6-3, R6-3a), FHWA proposes similar changes as the result of recent research,
25

as described in proposed Section 2A.22, to the text regarding the description of a divided highway at a crossing that functions as separate intersection(s), rather than referring to the median width at the intersection.

25
NCHRP Report 881 “Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,” can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.

89. FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber existing Section 2B.44 as “Section 2B.52 Roundabout Circulation Plaque (R6-5P).”

90. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.43 Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs, because the design of the R6-4 series signs, for which there are 3 versions, confounds a warning sign with a regulation and, as a result, have become prone to misuse. To address the condition for which these signs were intended, this proposed change also includes associated changes to the use of ONE WAY signs and the Large Arrow sign, as described above.

91. As discussed above, FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber existing Section 2B.44 as “Section 2B. 51 Roundabout Circulation Plaque (R6-5P).”

92. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.45 Examples of Roundabout Signing. Roundabouts have become very common. The figures have been retained in Chapter 2B; however, a separate section dedicated to examples is not needed.

93. In Section 2B.53 (existing Section 2B.46) Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series), FHWA proposes to expand the Support statement to categorize parking signs into two categories: Prohibited parking and permitted parking with restrictions and provide examples of each category.

94. In Section 2B.54 (existing Section 2B.47) Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, FHWA proposes to revise Standard paragraphs 2-4 to incorporate the proposed prohibitive and permissive parking sign classifications and provide additional information on the design of such signs in order to maintain consistency in general sign design, while also allowing flexibility for agencies to modify legends for specific regulations.

To improve consistency in the information provided in parking signs, FHWA proposes to expand the list of parking information that should be displayed on signs existing in Guidance P5 to include qualifying or supplementary information, exemptions to the restriction of prohibition, and tow-away message or symbol.

FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring the times and days for which parking regulations are in effect to be displayed on the signs if they are not in effect all times of day or all days of the week. FHWA proposes this to ensure consistent signing methods in order to improve clarity for drivers wanting to park.

FHWA proposes to modify Option P18 regarding the use of word message plaques with the R8-3 series signs. FHWA proposes to remove the EXCEPT SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS (R8-3bP), LOADING ZONE (R8-3gP), and X:XX A.M to X:XX P.M.(R8-3hP) plaques as these are generally in urban conditions and are already covered by the R7 series parking signs. FHWA proposes to modify the ON PAVEMENT (R8-3cP), ON BRIDGE (R8-3dP), ON TRACKS (R8-3eP), and EXCEPT ON SHOULDERS (R8-3fP) by removing the plaque designations and combining the word legends with the standard NO PARKING symbol (R8-3) sign.

FHWA proposes to change the legend of the Emergency Snow Route (R7-203) sign to “Snow Emergency Route” to be consistent with the prevailing current practice and the fact that the restrictions apply during a declared snow emergency.

FHWA proposes several changes in this section to incorporate electronic payment, change the term “pay parking” to “metered parking” and other editorial changes to reflect current practice and commonly used nomenclature. This includes a proposed Option statement to accompany a proposed new Mobile Parking Payment plaque that may be installed below a Metered Parking sign.

FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement to allow the display of maximum time limits that vary by time of day or day of the week on the R7-20 sign to be omitted and instead displayed on the multi-space parking meter so that they are visible to pedestrians as they make payments.

FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement immediately preceding existing Standard P8, to reiterate the existing requirement that the Accessible Parking (R7-8) sign display only the official International Symbol of Accessibility and not a modification thereof. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying requirement in Chapter 2A.

FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement to incorporate provisions for Electronic Vehicle parking. The proposed language is based on FHWA's Memorandum on Regulatory Signs for Electric Vehicle Charging and Parking Facilities.
26

26
FHWA's Memorandum on Regulatory Signs for Electric Vehicle Charging and Parking Facilities can be accessed at the following web address:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/   rsevcpfmemo/.

FHWA proposes to delete the second and third sentences of existing Option P14 regarding the color of the bus symbol and the use of transit logos on the R7-107 sign, or alternates, because the text is not necessary and the use of transit logos on a sign may not be practical. In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes to delete the existing R7-7 sign, because the R7-107, as well as the R7-107a sign, are more distinguishable, and there is no need for an additional sign.

FHWA proposes to delete P19 and 20 regarding color coding of parking time limits. FHWA proposes this change to streamline the design of parking signs and because the standard colors of the parking signs have specific meanings as prescribed by the manual. In addition, the time limits are adequately displayed by the numbers on the signs.

Finally, FHWA proposes new Guidance paragraphs at the end of the section regarding the use of legends other than those on standard parking signs and the letter height of the principal legend. FHWA proposes these new paragraphs to provide agencies flexibility in creating specific signs while maintaining uniformity in design provisions.

95. In Section 2B.55 (existing Section 2B.48) Placement of Parking, Stopping, and Standing Signs, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending signs placed at the head of perpendicular parking stalls to be parallel to the roadway facing the parking stall. FHWA proposes this addition to promote uniformity and clarity in signing parking stalls.

FHWA proposes to change P4 from a Standard to a Guidance to recommend, rather than require mounting parking signs back to back at the transition point between two parking zones, to provide jurisdictions with flexibility when it might be impractical to mount signs back-to-back.

FHWA also proposes to relocate and revise the Option statement regarding

the use of signs to display blanket regulations from existing Section 2B.47 to this section, because this section deals specifically with sign placement.

96. In Section 2B.56 (existing Section 2B.49) Emergency Restriction Signs (R8-4, R8-7, R8-8), FHWA proposes to move existing Standard P3 to the beginning of the section and delete the color red as a legend color, for consistency with non-standard legends, as only black legends are allowed on Emergency Restriction signs.

97. In Section 2B.57 (existing Section 2B.50), “WALK ON LEFT FACING TRAFFIC and No Hitchhiking Signs (R9-1, R9-4, R9-4a),” FHWA proposes to change Standard P2 to Guidance to allow agencies greater flexibility in the installation of the signs.

98. In Section 2B.59 (existing Section 2B.52) Traffic Signal Pedestrian and Bicycle Actuation Signs (R10-1 through R10-4, and R10-24 through R10-26), FHWA proposes to revise Standard P1 to clarify that where manual actuation of a traffic signal is required for pedestrians or bicyclists to call a signal phase to cross a roadway, traffic signs related to pushbuttons at those traffic signals are required. FHWA proposes this change to reduce the burden of sign installation on agencies.

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new sign to the Option statement, allowing for the use of a PUSH BUTTON IS FOR AUDIBLE MESSAGE ONLY (R10-3j) sign to provide agencies with the option where a pedestrian pushbutton is only used to activate accessible pedestrian features. Similarly, FHWA proposes to add a new sign to the Option statement allowing for the use of a sign that indicates the pedestrian button can be activated by either pushing or waving.

Lastly, FHWA proposes to modify the legend of the R10-25 sign to “PUSH BUTTON FOR WARNING LIGHTS—WAIT FOR GAP IN TRAFFIC.” FHWA proposes this change because these signs are used only at uncontrolled crosswalk locations where pedestrian-activated warning beacons only alert approaching traffic to the presence of a pedestrian, but do not assign right-of-way to conflicting traffic streams, such as with a traffic signal or hybrid-beacon. In such cases, pedestrians are required to wait for an acceptable gap in vehicular traffic and not enter the roadway in the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

99. In Section 2B.60 (existing Section 2B.53) Traffic Signal Signs (R10-5 through R10-30), FHWA proposes to add Option and Guidance for the use of a text version of a LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW ARROW (R10-12a) sign with Flashing Yellow Arrow signals. FHWA proposes this change to promote uniformity in the use of signing for these signal applications.

FHWA proposes to add new Standard, Support, Guidance, and Option statements regarding the use of a proposed new LEFT TURN YIELD TO Bicycles (R10-12b) sign to provide agencies with information regarding the use of this sign to notify turning motorists of the possibility for unexpected conflicting bicycle movement at certain locations.

FHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED—YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10-23a) sign as an alternative to the R10-23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study
27

evaluated the comprehension and le

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-26789. Public record. Not legal advice.