80898 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

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 highjudgment 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, greencolored pavement for bicycle lanes, redcolored 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80899 

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 nonconforming 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80900 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

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/wpcontent/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-VisionNCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf. 

2 ‘‘20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan’’ can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf. 

3 Ibid. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80901 

4The NTSB report can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/ 

investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ 

HAR1401.pdf. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80902 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

5The NTSB report can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/ 

investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ 

HAR1801.pdf. 

6Official 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. 

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/wpcontent/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-VisionNCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf. 

NTSB H–18–24 5 to provide signing for 

high-profile grade crossings. 

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

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,’’ ‘‘fullactuated 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,’’ ‘‘semiactuated 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

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,’’ ‘‘generalpurpose 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 rapidflashing 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80903 

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/wpcontent/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-VisionNCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf. 

9Official 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. 

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/m2,’’ ‘‘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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80904 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

10From the Introduction, Paragraph 4, 2009 

MUTCD, which is available at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/. 

11 84 FR 51023 (September 27, 2019). 

application provision contained in [the] 

Manual.’’ 10

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. 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80905 

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 21⁄2 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80906 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

12FHWA’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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80907 

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. 

14Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the 

Type of Control for Unsignalized Intersections, 

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172596.aspx. 

15Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the 

Type of Control for Unsignalized Intersections, 

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172596.aspx. 

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

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 Rightof-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; OneWay 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. 

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 rightof-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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80908 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

16 Ibid. 

17FHWA’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. 

controlled by YIELD or STOP signs. 

FHWA proposes these criteria based on 

the result of NCHRP Project 03–109.16

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 rightof-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 allway 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 multiplethreat 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 multiplethreat 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. 

66. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2B.12, ‘‘Section 

2B.20 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80909 

18NTSB 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. 

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 InStreet 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 85thpercentile 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 85thpercentile 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. 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80910 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

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 backto-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 postmounted 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80911 

19NCHRP 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. 

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. 

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 Uand 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-ofway 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. 

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. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

reference to R5–10, which would 

replace the current R5–10a sign. FHWA 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80912 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

21NCHRP 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. 

22 Ibid. 

23NCHRP 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. 

24NCHRP 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 OneVerDate Sep<11>2014 03:26 Dec 12, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14DEP2.SGM 14DEP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80913 

25NCHRP 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. 

26FHWA’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/. 

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. 

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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80914 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

27 ‘‘Comprehension and Legibility of Selected 

Symbol Signs Phase IV’’ Pooled Fund Study can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

www.pooledfund.org/Document/Download/7559. 

28FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–12, November 

12, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia12/index.htm. 

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 pedestrianactivated warning beacons only alert 

approaching traffic to the presence of a 

pedestrian, but do not assign right-ofway 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 legibility of various alternatives for 

signing at midblock hybrid beacon 

pedestrian crossings. The results 

indicated that no significant differences 

were found between the alternatives; 

however, they did highlight the need for 

a sign, at least initially, while drivers 

are learning what actions to take based 

on the flashing beacon. As a result, 

FHWA proposes to add a word message 

sign for jurisdictions that determine the 

operational need at pedestrian hybrid 

beacons. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option for a STOP HERE ON 

FLASHING RED (R10–14b) sign to 

provide extra emphasis at an 

emergency-vehicle hybrid beacon. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard to accompany a proposed new 

optional Turning Vehicles Stop for 

Pedestrians (R10–15a) sign to remind 

drivers who are making turns to stop for 

pedestrians, which shall be used only in 

jurisdictions where laws, ordinances, or 

resolutions specifically require that a 

driver must stop for a pedestrian. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add an 

Option statement allowing the use of a 

U TURN SIGNAL (R10–10a) sign 

adjacent to a signal face that exclusively 

controls a U turn movement. 

100. In Section 2B.61 (existing 

Section 2B.54) No Turn on Red Signs 

(R10–11 Series, R10–17a, and R10–30), 

FHWA proposes to change the 

designations of the No Turn on Red 

signs such that the word only message 

signs are designated R10–11 and 10–11a 

and the NO TURN ON RED with the 

symbolic circular red sign is designated 

as R10–11b. FHWA proposes this 

change to designate consecutively the 

word only message sign designations. 

FHWA proposes to relocate existing 

Option P4 and revise Option P5 to 

indicate that a blank-out sign is the 

primary Option for displaying a parttime NO TURN ON RED restriction. In 

concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes an Option statement that 

allows the use of white LEDs in the 

border, and activated during periods of 

turn prohibition, to enhance sign 

conspicuity. 

101. In Section 2B.62 (existing 

Section 2B.55), retitled, ‘‘Photo 

Enforced Signs and Plaques (R10–18, 

R10–19P, R10–19aP, R10–18a),’’ FHWA 

proposes to add a new optional Traffic 

Signal Photo Enforced (R10–18a) sign 

that may be installed on an approach to 

a signalized location where red-light 

cameras are present on any approach to 

the signalized location. FHWA proposes 

this new sign, and associated Option 

and Standard provisions, in accordance 

with Interim Approval (IA–12) issued 

November 12, 2010.28

102. In Section 2B.66 (existing 

Section 2B.59) Weight Limit Signs 

(R12–1 through R12–7), FHWA 

proposes to add Guidance statements 

regarding the use of weight limit signs 

to indicate a structure has a vehicle 

weight restriction. FHWA proposes to 

add a Guidance statement 

recommending that the term used for 

units shown on weight limit signs be 

consistent within a State or region with 

respect to pounds or tons. FHWA also 

proposes that the vehicle weight 

restrictions be depicted based on gross 

vehicle weight, and that weight per axle 

or empty vehicle weight should only be 

used when required by local laws to 

depict weight restrictions in that 

manner. In conjunction with this 

change, FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Guidance P2 and P4 regarding 

axle weight limits. FHWA proposes this 

change, in concert with the new Option 

provisions related to Specialized 

Hauling Vehicles and the proposed 

R12–6 sign which allows for a more 

comprehensive posting gross weight 

based on axle configurations and 

vehicle types. The proposed sign allows 

for distinguishing a single-unit vehicle 

and a combination vehicle while 

restricting to other vehicle types or 

reducing the mobility of vehicles that 

should not be restricted. 

FHWA proposes to delete existing 

Guidance P3 regarding restrictions on 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80915 

trucks in residential areas, because the 

sign is not conveying a weight 

restriction, but rather a selective 

prohibition of trucks in a neighborhood. 

A new NO THRU TRUCKS sign is being 

proposed in conjunction with this 

change in 2B.52 to convey more 

effectively the intent of the restriction. 

FHWA also proposes to add Support 

and Option provisions related to 

Specialized Hauling Vehicles, which are 

single-unit trucks with closely spaced 

axles, for which weight limit signs 

displaying restrictions based on the 

number of axles may be used. 

FHWA proposes to add several 

Standard statements regarding the 

symbols shown on the R12–5 and R12– 

6 Weight Limit signs. The symbols used 

are required to apply to all trucks of the 

type shown (single-unit, single-trailer or 

multi-trailer) regardless of the shape of 

the vehicle. Symbolic representations of 

other vehicle shapes or modifications of 

standard symbols shall not be used in 

accordance with existing requirements 

in Chapter 2A. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement recommending that 

Weight Limit signs show no more than 

3 symbols in order to promote driver 

comprehension. 

FHWA proposes to incorporate 

Guidance P7 into Standard P6 to 

require, rather than recommend that, if 

used, the Weight Limit sign, with an 

advisory distance ahead legend, shall be 

located in advance of the applicable 

section of highway or structure so that 

prohibited vehicles can detour or turn 

around prior to the limit zone. FHWA 

proposes this change to give vehicles 

affected by weight limit restrictions 

adequate information about the distance 

to the restricted area so that they can 

properly change their route and to 

minimize potential damage to highway 

infrastructure as a result of an 

overweight vehicle. 

FHWA proposes provisions for the 

use of proposed new Emergency Vehicle 

Weight limit signs to address conditions 

where emergency vehicles can create 

higher load effects compared to legal 

loads. The R12–7 sign is for 

independent use and the R12–7aP 

plaque is for use only in a sign assembly 

below a primary regulatory Weight 

Limit sign. 

103. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2B.60 to ‘‘Section 

2B.68 Vehicle Inspection Area Signs 

(R13–1 Series)’’ to provide more 

flexibility in the use of R13–1 signs for 

various types of inspections. In concert 

with this change, FHWA proposes to 

add an Option statement allowing 

modification to the legend to match the 

specific type of inspection conducted at 

that station. FHWA also proposes to 

delete the existing Option statement 

allowing the reverse color combinations 

of the signs in order to support 

uniformity. 

104. In Section 2B.68 (existing 

Section 2B.61) TRUCK ROUTE Sign 

(R14–1), FHWA proposes to change 

Option P2 to Support and revise the 

statement to provide specific reference 

to existing Section 2D.20 regarding the 

use of the TRUCK auxiliary sign on 

numbered alternative routes. FHWA 

proposes this change so as not to 

duplicate or conflict with the 

information contained in Chapter 2D. 

105. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2B.71 Move Over or Reduce Speed Sign 

(R16–3)’’ with an Option statement 

regarding the use of the subject sign to 

require motorists to change lanes and/or 

reduce speed when passing stopped 

emergency vehicles on the shoulder. 

106. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2B.65 to ‘‘Section 

2B.71 Minor Crashes Move Vehicles 

from Travel Lanes Sign (R16–4)’’ and 

rephrase the subject sign from ‘‘FENDER 

BENDER’’ to ‘‘MINOR CRASHES.’’ 

FHWA proposes this change to align 

better with the various State laws and 

describe the type of crashes for which 

the sign is intended. 

107. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2B.73 No Hand-Held Phones by Driver 

Signs (R16–15, R16–15a)’’ with an 

Option statement regarding the use of 

the subject sign, as State law applies, to 

notify drivers that they are prohibited 

from using hand-held telephones while 

driving. 

108. In Section 2B.77 (existing 

Section 2B.68) Gates, FHWA proposes 

to delete Support P2 through P4 as they 

are not needed. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing Standard P5 to include a 

minimum width of the reflective 

sheeting. FHWA proposes this change to 

be consistent with the information 

provided in Part 8. 

FHWA also proposes to delete 

existing Standard P9 and 10 and 

Guidance P12 regarding lateral offset of 

the gate arm and support, because this 

is addressed in AASHTO design criteria 

and reflects a design aspect better suited 

for other design manuals. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2C Warning Signs and Object 

Markers 

109. As part of the reorganization to 

improve usability of the MUTCD, 

FHWA proposes to include subchapter 

headings in Chapter 2C to organize 

sections into related groupings. FHWA 

proposes the following subchapters in 

Chapter 2C: General, Horizontal 

Alignment Warning Signs, Vertical 

Grade Warning Signs and Plaques, 

Roadway Geometry Warning Signs, 

Roadway and Weather Condition Signs 

and Plaques, Traffic Control and 

Intersection Signs and Plaques, Merging 

and Passing Signs and Plaques, 

Miscellaneous Warning Signs, 

Supplemental Plaques, and Object 

Markers. 

110. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 2C.01 Function of 

Warning Signs because this information 

is captured in Chapters 1A and 2A. 

111. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2C.02 to ‘‘Section 

2C.01 Function and Application of 

Warning Signs.’’ FHWA also proposes to 

add a new Standard, referencing the 

existing requirements in Chapter 2A, 

requiring that all warning signs shall be 

retroreflective or illuminated. FHWA 

proposes this change for consistency 

with Section 2B.01. 

FHWA also proposes to delete all the 

Option and Support statements because 

they restate information already covered 

in Chapter 1A. 

112. In Section 2C.02 (existing 

Section 2C.03) Design of Warning Signs, 

FHWA proposes to add a Support 

regarding the use of shapes other than 

diamond-shaped for freeway overhead 

installations and a reference to Chapter 

2A for information on modifications 

where lateral space is constrained. 

FHWA proposes to revise Option P4 

to clarify that word message warning 

signs other than those provided in this 

Manual may be developed and installed 

by State and local highway agencies for 

conditions not addressed by standard 

signs. FHWA proposes this additional 

language to clarify the allowable use of 

word message warning signs that are not 

in the MUTCD. FHWA proposes this 

clarification in response to an apparent 

misinterpretation of the existing 

provisions, in which noncompliant field 

deployments have unnecessarily 

modified the word legends of standard 

signs where used for the condition 

stated in the MUTCD. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add an 

Option statement allowing the use of 

static or flashing LEDs within the sign 

border to enhance the conspicuity of the 

sign. 

113. In Section 2C.03 (existing 

Section 2C.04) Size of Warning Signs, 

FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance 

paragraph regarding the minimum size 

of diamond-shaped warning signs to 

restrict the provision to exit and 

entrance ramps at major interchanges 

connecting an expressway or freeway 

with an expressway or freeway. FHWA 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80916 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

29 ‘‘Traffic Control Device Guidelines for Curves,’’ 

Preliminary Draft Final Report, NCHRP Report 03– 

106, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ 

nchrp/docs/NCHRP03-106_FR.pdf. 

30 ‘‘Traffic Control Device Guidelines for Curves,’’ 

Preliminary Draft Final Report, NCHRP Report 03– 

106, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ 

nchrp/docs/NCHRP03-106_FR.pdf. 

also proposes to add a new Guidance 

statement recommending 36′′ x 36′′ as 

the minimum size for all diamondshaped warning signs facing traffic on 

exit and entrance ramps at all other 

interchanges. FHWA proposes these 

changes because the operating 

characteristics of a single lane ramp can 

be closer to that of a single lane 

conventional roadway than that of a 

freeway, with the exception of freeway/ 

expressway to freeway/expressway 

connections. The proposed language 

reaffirms the minimum recommended 

sizes and larger sizes can be used based 

on engineering judgement, when 

appropriate. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement regarding the size of 

warning signs used on low-volume rural 

roads with operating speeds of 30 mph 

or less to capture language in existing 

Part 5 FHWA proposes to redistribute 

among the remaining parts. 

114. In Section 2C.04 (existing 

Section 2C.05) Placement of Warning 

Signs, FHWA proposes to delete the 

second sentence of P3 because it is not 

needed as the preceding guidance 

discusses placement with respect to 

perception-reaction time and the use of 

engineering judgment as well as 

referencing Section 2A for the 

placement of warning signs. 

FHWA also proposes to delete P6 

regarding the placement of warning 

signs that advise road users about 

conditions that are not related to a 

specific location, and instead include 

that information in Table 2C–4. 

FHWA also proposes updates to Table 

2C–4 by referencing the 2018 AASHTO 

Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 7th Edition and 

providing for advance placement 

distances at higher speeds. FHWA also 

proposes to modify Condition B to place 

the AASHTO Stopping Sight Distance 

minimum design guidelines in the ‘‘0’’ 

column for STOP conditions placing 

Advance Traffic Control signs further in 

advance of the intersection providing 

greater advance notice of the critical 

intersection stop condition, a factor of 

safety for legibility distance, and more 

space on the intersection approach for 

lane control and guide signing. 

115. In Section 2C.05 (existing 

Section 2C.06), retitled, ‘‘Horizontal 

Alignment Warning Signs—General,’’ 

FHWA proposes to delete the Standard 

statement regarding use of horizontal 

alignment warning signs. Instead, 

FHWA proposes new Option and 

Guidance statements regarding various 

treatments, including items other than 

traffic control devices, and factors to 

consider for other traffic control devices 

to warn road users of a change in 

horizontal alignment or to provide 

guidance in navigation. FHWA also 

proposes to delete existing Table 2C–5 

and replace it with two tables in 

proposed Section 2C.06. As part of this 

change, FHWA proposes to move the 

portion of the Standard related to speed 

differential to proposed Section 2C.06 

so that it appears in the same section 

with the referenced tables. FHWA 

proposes these changes based on a 

research study 29 that evaluated advance 

warning treatments at horizontal curves. 

116. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled ‘‘Section 

2C.06 Device Selection for Changes in 

Horizontal Alignment.’’ This proposed 

new section contains Standard, Support, 

and Option statements, as well as new 

tables, to assist practitioners in 

determining the type of device to be 

used in advance of horizontal curves on 

freeways, expressways, and roadways. 

FHWA proposes this new section to 

assist practitioners with the selection of 

the appropriate device for warning of a 

change in horizontal alignment. 

117. In Section 2C.07 Horizontal 

Alignment Signs (W1–1 through W1–5, 

W1–11, W1–15), FHWA proposes to edit 

and move P2 from a Standard to 

Guidance. FHWA proposes to 

recommend the use of a Turn (W1–1) 

sign instead of a Curve sign in advance 

of curves where the advisory speed is 

half or less of the posted speed or a 

speed differential of 25 mph or more. 

FHWA proposes these changes to allow 

engineering judgment if a Turn sign 

does not fit the field conditions. Also, 

the proposed change in criteria to a 

speed differential limits the use of the 

Turn sign where the sign would 

otherwise be required on lower speed 

roadways with small differentials 

between the posted speed and the 

advisory speed. 

118. In Section 2C.08 (existing 

Section 2C.09) Chevron Alignment Sign 

(W1–8), FHWA proposes to add Option 

and Standard statements regarding the 

use of LEDs when used within Chevron 

Alignment signs to enhance the 

conspicuity. 

119. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 2C.10 Combination 

Supplemental Horizontal Alignment/ 

Advisory Speed Signs (W1–1a, W1–2a), 

because there is considerable evidence 

that the signs are not being used as a 

supplement in accordance with the 

Standard, since many take on the form 

of an Advance Warning sign and are 

placed in advance, rather than at the 

location of the hazard. To address the 

need to remind road users of the 

advisory speed at a location 

downstream of the advance warning 

location, FHWA proposes the 

Confirmation Advisory Speed Plaque 

(W13–1aP) described in proposed 

Section 2C.59. 

120. In Section 2C.10 (existing 

Section 2C.12) One-Direction Large 

Arrow Sign (W1–6), FHWA proposes to 

revise Option P1 to allow use of the 

One-Direction Large Arrow sign either 

as a supplement or alternative to 

Chevron Alignment signs or delineators 

to delineate a change in horizontal 

alignment. FHWA proposes this change 

to reflect the results of a recent study on 

driver response to traffic control 

devices 30 and resulting desire to revise 

MUTCD language to clarify the use of 

devices in areas with change in 

horizontal alignment. 

FHWA also proposes to delete 

Standard paragraph 7 prohibiting the 

use of the One-Direction Large Arrow 

sign in the central island of a 

roundabout and instead proposes to 

allow its use in a new Option. FHWA 

proposes to allow the use of the sign in 

conjunction with the proposed changes 

to remove existing Section 2B.43 for 

Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

provide agencies with an Option to use 

a warning sign within the roundabout 

instead of, or in addition to, a One-Way 

sign to direct traffic counter-clockwise 

around the central island. As part of 

these changes, FHWA proposes to add 

a Support statement referencing figures 

in Chapter 2B that show examples of 

regulatory and warning signs for 

roundabouts. 

121. In Section 2C.11 (existing 

Section 2C.13), retitled, ‘‘Truck Rollover 

Sign (W1–13),’’ FHWA proposes to 

revise the existing Option statement to 

be more specific regarding locations 

where it may be appropriate to use the 

sign in lieu of a horizontal alignment 

warning sign. In addition, FHWA 

proposes to add a Guidance statement 

regarding the placement of the Truck 

Rollover sign. FHWA also proposes to 

add an Option allowing the use of a 

Vehicle Speed Feedback (W13–20) sign 

in conjunction with a Truck Rollover 

Warning sign. 

122. FHWA proposes to combine 

existing Sections 2C.14 and 2C.15 and 

renumber and retitle the resulting 

section as, ‘‘Section 2C.12 Advisory Exit 

and Ramp Speed Signs (W13–2 and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80917 

W13–3) and Combination Horizontal 

Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp 

Speed Signs (W13–6 through W13–13).’’ 

FHWA proposes to add Standard, 

Guidance, and Option statements 

clarifying the use of these signs, 

including how they are to be used 

together, where applicable. FHWA also 

proposes to reference the proposed new 

tables in Section 2C.06. 

In the proposed new Standard, FHWA 

proposes to require that the ramp 

geometries depicted on the Advisory 

Exit or Ramp Speed signs be limited to 

the standard designs of the proposed 

Combination Horizontal Alignment/ 

Advisory Exit Speed and Combination 

Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Ramp 

Speed signs. While this limitation is 

implicit in the existing provisions of 

Section 2A.04 (existing Section 2A.06) 

that prohibit alternatives to standard 

signs or other uses of symbols, FHWA 

believes that a specific statement in this 

proposed Section would help to ensure 

that the proposed Combination signs are 

used only for those conditions at exit 

ramps that are atypical or unexpected. 

This limitation would minimize overuse 

of the Combination signs, which could 

result in a reduction of their 

effectiveness. Where typical or expected 

geometry exists at or near the ramp 

terminal, the Advisory Exit or Ramp 

Speed (W13–2 or W13–3) signs would 

continue to be used. FHWA proposes 

these new signs to provide agencies and 

practitioners greater flexibility to sign 

for various unexpected conditions at or 

near ramp terminals. In addition to the 

existing signs in the Manual that display 

the 270-degree loop arrow (W13–6 and 

W13–7), FHWA proposes Exit and 

Ramp Combination signs depicting the 

following geometric conditions: The 

180-degree horseshoe curve arrow, the 

90-degree turn arrow, and the truck 

rollover symbol and arrow. In this new 

Standard, FHWA also proposes to 

incorporate an existing requirement 

previously contained in Table 2C–5 for 

the use of Advisory Exit Speed and 

Advisory Ramp Speed signs on turning 

roadway exits and ramps when the 

difference between the speed limit and 

the advisory speed is 20 mph or greater. 

FHWA also proposes to recommend 

in a new Guidance that the Advisory 

Exit Speed and Advisory Ramp Speed 

signs on turning roadway ramps be used 

when the difference between the speed 

limit and the advisory speed is 15 mph 

or greater. FHWA also proposes to add 

that Regulatory Speed Limit signs 

should not be located in the vicinity of 

exit ramps or deceleration lanes, 

particularly where they would conflict 

with the advisory speed displayed on 

the Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed signs. 

In a revised Option, where there is a 

need to remind road users of the 

recommended advisory speed, FHWA 

proposes to allow a horizontal 

alignment warning sign with an 

advisory speed plaque to be installed at 

a downstream location along the ramp. 

FHWA proposes new Guidance for 

the installation of a horizontal 

alignment warning sign if there are 

changes to the ramp curvature and the 

subsequent curves have advisory speeds 

that are lower than the initial ramp 

curve speed. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

for the use of the One-Direction Large 

Arrow (W1–6) sign beyond the exit gore 

on the outside of the curve to provide 

additional warning of an immediate 

change in curvature. 

FHWA proposes the changes in this 

new combined section to clarify the use 

of these signs and provide additional 

flexibility for their use on ramps where 

the speed differential is small, or where 

road users need reminding of the 

advisory speed. 

123. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.13 Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign 

(W13–20, W13–20aP),’’ that contains 

Option, Standard, and Guidance 

paragraphs regarding the use of an LED 

sign to displays the speed of an 

approaching vehicle back to the vehicle 

operator to provide warning to drivers 

of their speed in relation to either a 

speed limit or horizontal alignment 

warning advisory speed sign. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

additional information regarding the use 

of these signs and plaques, as well as 

references to other portions of the 

Manual to assist with uniformity in the 

use of the signs and plaques. 

124. In Section 2C.14 (existing 

Section 2C.16) Hill Signs (W7–1, W7– 

1a), FHWA proposes to remove the 

Standard in P5 requiring that the 

percent grade supplemental plaque be 

placed below the Hill (W7–1) sign as the 

Standard for the placement of a plaque 

below a sign is contained in Section 

2C.57 ‘‘Use of Supplemental Warning 

Plaques.’’ FHWA proposes this change 

to remove unnecessary or repetitive 

content and streamline the Manual. 

125. In Section 2C.16 (existing 

Section 2C.18) HILL BLOCKS VIEW 

Sign (W7–6), FHWA proposes to revise 

the Option and to add Guidance to 

indicate that the HILL BLOCKS VIEW 

sign may be used on the approach to a 

crest vertical curve where the vertical 

curvature provides inadequate stopping 

sight distance at the posted speed limit, 

and that where such curve results in a 

sight distance obstruction to a specific 

condition beyond the crest of the 

vertical curve, the sign for the specific 

condition beyond the vertical crest 

should be used rather than the HILL 

BLOCKS VIEW sign. FHWA proposes 

these changes to provide agencies with 

options to provide more specific 

guidance to conditions to road users 

about conditions ahead. 

126. In Section 2C.18 (existing 

Section 2C.20), retitled, ‘‘NARROW 

BRIDGE and NARROW UNDERPASS 

Signs (W5–2, W5–2a)’’ and in Section 

2C.19 (existing Section 2C.21), retitled, 

‘‘ONE LANE BRIDGE and ONE LANE 

UNDERPASS Signs (W5–3, W5–3a),’’ 

FHWA proposes to add Option 

statements that allow for the respective 

sign to be omitted on low-volume rural 

roads to capture language from existing 

Part 5 that FHWA proposes to 

redistribute among the remaining parts. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

NARROW UNDERPASS and ONE LANE 

UNDERPASS signs where the same 

conditions exist for an underpass. 

127. In Section 2C.24 (existing 

Section 2C.26), retitled, ‘‘DEAD END, 

NO OUTLET, and ROAD ENDS Signs 

(W14–1, W14–1a, W14–2, W14–2a, W8– 

26, W8–26a),’’ FHWA proposes to 

change the term ‘‘cul-de-sac’’ to ‘‘turnaround’’ in Option P1 to reflect the 

roadway geometry more accurately. 

FHWA proposes to delete Standard P4 

prescribing the design of the sign, 

because sign design details are required 

to comply with existing requirements in 

Chapter 2A. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Option for signs for ROAD ENDS and 

STREET ENDS for use on the approach 

to the end of a conventional road or 

street. In concert with these new signs, 

FHWA also proposes a Guidance 

paragraph recommending the use of 

object markers to mark the end of the 

road or street if the new signs are used, 

presuming that the need for the sign 

would be based on low visibility of the 

end of the road or street. FHWA also 

proposes a Standard statement 

prohibiting the use of the proposed new 

ROAD ENDS and STREET ENDS signs 

at the entrance to a dead end road or 

street as the DEAD END and NO 

OUTLET signs are designated 

specifically for that purpose. 

128. In existing Section 2C.27, 

renumbered and retitled, ‘‘Section 2C.25 

Low Clearance Signs (W12–2, W12–2a, 

W12–2b),’’ FHWA proposes several 

revisions to clarify the signing practice 

for locations where the clearance is less 

than 12 inches above the statutory 

maximum vehicle height. FHWA 

proposes these changes to provide 

agencies with additional information for 

placing signs in advance of and on 

structures with low clearance. The 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80918 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

31NTSB Safety Recommendation H–14–11, is 

available at the following internet website: https:// 

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/ 

Reports/HAR1401.pdf. 

32 Intersection Conflict Warning System Human 

Factors: Final Report, dated November 2016 can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ 

16061/16061.pdf. 

33Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Signing can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34772/dot_34772_

DS1.pdf. 

proposed changes were based on 

recommendations from NTSB H–14–11 

to provide signing indicating the proper 

lane of travel for over height vehicles 

traveling under an arched structure.31

As part of these changes, FHWA 

proposes to designate the existing W12– 

2 sign as a Low Clearance Ahead sign, 

and the existing W12–2a and a proposed 

new W12–2b sign as a Low Clearance 

Overhead sign, to indicate the portion of 

the structure with low clearance if the 

posted clearance does not apply to the 

entire structure. FHWA proposes a 

compliance date of 5 years based on the 

critical nature of the infrastructure. 

129. In Section 2C.26 (existing 

Section 2C.28) BUMP and DIP Signs 

(W8–1, W8–2), FHWA proposes to 

change P3 from a Standard to a 

Guidance statement to discourage, 

rather than prohibit, the use of the DIP 

sign at a short stretch of depressed 

alignment that might hide a vehicle 

momentarily. FHWA proposes this 

change to give agencies more flexibility 

in the placement of the DIP sign. 

130. In Section 2C.28 (existing 

Section 2C.39) DRAW BRIDGE Sign 

(W3–6), FHWA proposes to delete the 

exception for use of a DRAW BRIDGE 

sign in urban conditions because it is 

not necessary. 

131. In Section 2C.30 (existing 

Section 2C.31) Shoulder Signs (W8–4, 

W8–9, W8–17, W8–23, and W8–25), 

FHWA proposes to delete Standard P7 

requiring that Shoulder signs be placed 

in advance of the condition, because 

that requirement is applicable to almost 

all warning signs, and therefore is not 

needed as a separate Standard in this 

section. 

132. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.34 NO TRAFFIC SIGNS Sign (W18– 

1),’’ that contains an Option statement 

that captures language from existing 

Part 5 that FHWA proposes to 

redistribute among the remaining parts. 

133. In Section 2C.35 Weather 

Condition Signs (W8–18, W8–19, W8– 

21, and W8–22), FHWA proposes to 

change Standard P2 to a Guidance to 

provide agencies with flexibility in the 

placement of the Depth Gauge sign. 

134. In Section 2C.36 Advance Traffic 

Control Signs (W3–1, W3–2, W3–3, W3– 

4), FHWA proposes to change the last 

sentence of Standard P1 related to 

visibility criteria for traffic control 

signals based on distances specified in 

Table 4D–2 to a Guidance to allow 

agencies more flexibility. 

FHWA also proposes to combine and 

revise existing Option statements to 

allow for the use of LEDs within the 

border of the sign to enhance 

conspicuity. 

135. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.37 Actuated Advance Intersection 

Signs (W2–10 through W2–12),’’ that 

contains Support, Option, and Standard 

paragraphs regarding the use of 

Actuated Advance Intersection Signs to 

allow agencies flexibility in 

implementing warning systems in the 

vicinity of traffic signals or other 

intersection conflict areas. FHWA 

proposes these signs, and the associated 

legends, based on information from a 

Pooled Fund Study.32

136. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2C.52 as, 

‘‘Section 2C.39 NEW TRAFFIC 

PATTERN and SIGNAL OPERATION 

AHEAD Signs (W23–2, W23–2a)’’ to add 

a proposed new optional sign that 

agencies may use to warn road users of 

changes in signal phasing. 

137. In Section 2C.40 (existing 

Section 2C.38) Reduced Speed Limit 

Ahead Signs, FHWA proposes to add 

the Variable Speed Zone (W3–5b) and 

Truck Speed Zone (W3–5c) Ahead signs 

in the Guidance and Standard 

paragraphs to provide agencies with 

standard signs to be used to inform road 

users in advance of these reduced speed 

zone types. 

138. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.41 WATCH FOR STOPPED TRAFFIC 

Sign (W23–3).’’ The new section 

contains an Option to use a new 

WATCH FOR STOPPED TRAFFIC Sign 

(W23–3) to warn road users of the 

possibility of vehicles stopped 

unexpectedly in the travel lane. FHWA 

proposes this change based on Synthesis 

of Non-MUTCD Signing,33 which found 

that at least 20 State agencies currently 

use a sign that warns of the possibility 

of stopped or almost stopped traffic due 

to turns or other unexpected conditions, 

and therefore recommends adding the 

sign to the MUTCD. In accordance with 

this recommendation, FHWA proposes 

to add the W23–3 to Figure 2C–4 and 

Table 2C–1. 

139. In Section 2C.42 (existing 

Section 2C.46) Intersection Warning 

Signs (W2–1 through W2–8), FHWA 

proposes to remove Option P5 regarding 

the design of intersection warning signs 

to remove language that implies certain 

classifications of roadways at an 

intersection may be of lesser 

importance. 

FHWA proposes to revise Guidance 

P8 to exclude Grade Crossing and 

Intersection Advance Warning (W10–2 

and W10–3) signs from Intersection 

Warning signs that are prohibited on 

approaches controlled by STOP signs, 

YIELD signs, or signals. FHWA proposes 

this change because of the safety 

importance associated with these signs. 

140. In Section 2C.43 (existing 

Section 2C.47) Two–Direction Large 

Arrow Sign (W1–7), FHWA proposes to 

delete Standard P4 prohibiting the use 

of a Two–Direction Large Arrow Sign in 

the central island of a roundabout. 

FHWA proposes this change because the 

MUTCD provides considerable guidance 

and numerous examples of proper 

signing at roundabouts and the use of 

the sign as described in the statement is 

contrary to the definition of a 

roundabout and relevant MUTCD 

provisions. 

141. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2C.48 to ‘‘2C.44 

Traffic Signal Oncoming Extended 

Green Signs (W25–1, W25–2).’’ FHWA 

proposes to delete the last sentence of 

Standard P1 regarding the sign shape 

and orientation because the design is 

standardized. 

142. In Section 2C.45 (existing 

Section 2C.40) Merge Signs (W4–1, W4– 

5), FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph with 

recommendations for the orientation 

and location of the Merge signs. FHWA 

also proposes to add a new Figure 2C– 

11 illustrating the use of Merge signs. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to change the 

existing Guidance P7 to a Standard to 

prohibit the Merge sign from being used 

for a lane reduction rather than a 

merging roadway. FHWA proposes this 

change to clarify the purpose of the 

signs because standard signs already 

exist to sign for the condition of a lane 

termination and the Merge symbol sign 

is not intended for any general merging 

action. Rather, it is intended specifically 

for the condition in which two 

roadways merge, such as two ramps or 

a ramp and main highway. 

143. In Section 2C.46 (existing 

Section 2C.41), ‘‘Added Lane Signs 

(W4–3, W4–6),’’ FHWA proposes to add 

a new Guidance paragraph with 

recommendations for the orientation 

and location of the Added Lane signs. 

FHWA also proposes to illustrate the 

use of the Added Lane signs on new 

Figure 2C–12. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80919 

34 ‘‘Comprehension and Legibility of Selected 

Service Symbol Signs Phase IV’’ Final Report, dated 

December 2017 can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://pooledfund.org/Document/ 

Download/7559. 

35The Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Signing can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34772/dot_34772_

DS1.pdf. 

144. In Section 2C.47 (existing 

Section 2C.42), retitled ‘‘Lane Ends 

Signs (W4–2, W9–1),’’ FHWA proposes 

several changes to reflect the proposed 

deletion of the LANE ENDS MERGE 

LEFT (RIGHT) (W9–2) sign. FHWA 

proposes deleting this sign, and instead 

adds new Support and Guidance 

statements to clarify the use of the Lane 

Ends (W4–2) and RIGHT (LEFT) LANE 

ENDS (W9–1) signs, including how to 

use them together, where applicable, to 

warn road users of the reduction in the 

number of lanes. FHWA proposes a 

Guidance statement to clarify the Lane 

Ends (W4–2) sign should be used to 

indicate the approximate location of the 

start of the lane taper. FHWA proposes 

these changes and the deletion of the 

W9–2 sign to provide consistency in 

signing for a reduction in the number of 

lanes, as the W9–2 sign is a word 

message for which a symbol sign (W4– 

2) already exists. In addition, a research 

study 34 which examined the use of 

these signs, as well as new alternatives, 

showed that the W4–2 and W9–1 had 

the best recognition, while the W9–2 

sign had a greater legibility distance. 

FHWA proposes a new Option that 

allows the W9–1 sign to be located at 

the far-side of the intersection on lowspeed roads in urban environments 

where space is limited at a signalized 

intersection. FHWA also proposes 

allowing supplemental RIGHT (LEFT) 

LANE ENDS (W9–1) signs upstream of 

the W9–1 that is installed at the advance 

placement distance. 

FHWA proposes a new Guidance 

statement to recommend that if 

supplemental W9–1 signs are installed, 

a Distance plaque should be installed 

below the W9–1 sign. 

145. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Section numbered and titled, ‘‘2C.48 

Lanes Merge Signs (W9–4, W4–8)’’ and 

proposes new LANES MERGE (W9–4) 

and Single-Lane Transition (W4–8) 

signs to warn of the reduction of two 

lanes to one in the same direction of 

travel. 

FHWA proposes new Guidance 

paragraphs for the Lanes Merge (W9–4) 

sign to be used to warn that the traffic 

lane is merging with the adjacent lane 

and a merging maneuver would be 

required, and for the Single-Lane 

Transition (W4–8) sign to be used to 

indicate the approximate location of the 

start of the lane taper. 

146. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.49 HEAVY MERGE FROM LEFT 

(RIGHT) Sign (W4–7).’’ The new section 

contains an Option to use a new HEAVY 

MERGE FROM LEFT (RIGHT) XX FT 

Sign (W4–7) to provide supplemental 

warning to advise road users of 

congested lanes at interchanges. A sign 

with the legend THRU TRAFFIC 

MERGE LEFT (RIGHT) was proposed in 

the 2008 NPA but was not adopted in 

the Final Rule. FHWA received a 

request to include the THRU TRAFFIC 

sign based on the Synthesis of NonMUTCD Signing,35 which found that at 

least 11 State agencies currently use 

such a sign and it should therefore be 

added to the MUTCD. FHWA proposes 

to add the W4–7 with a HEAVY MERGE 

FROM LEFT (RIGHT) XX FT legend to 

Figure 2C–8 and Table 2C–2 as this 

legend depicts the warning to drivers 

more accurately of the potential for a 

large volume of entering traffic rather 

than the THRU TRAFFIC legend, which 

warns through traffic to vacate those 

lanes, because it implies that the lane is 

ending. The MUTCD already contains 

standard signs to indicate that a lane is 

either ending or is for exit traffic only. 

147. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2C.43 to ‘‘Section 

2C.50 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE FOR EXIT 

ONLY Sign (W9–7).’’ FHWA also 

proposes to delete Standard P2 

regarding the sign shape and color 

because the design is standardized. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option statement that allows for the 

addition of a third line of legend that 

displays the distance to the exit if it is 

more than 1 mile away. 

148. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.52 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane 

Roadway Sign (W6–5, W6–5a)’’ with an 

Option and Standard statement 

associated with the new sign. FHWA 

proposes this new optional sign to 

provide agencies with a standardized 

sign to use in locations where such a 

sign may be necessary to provide road 

users with the proper warning for the 

roadway configuration. 

149. In Section 2C.54 (existing 

Section 2C.49), ‘‘Vehicular Traffic 

Warning Signs (W8–6, W11–1, W11–5, 

W11–8, W11–10, W11–11, W11–12P, 

W11–14, W11–15, and W11–15a),’’ 

FHWA proposes eliminating sign W11– 

5a because the secondary version of the 

Farm Machinery sign is isometric and 

inconsistent with the standard symbol 

design principles. 

FHWA also proposes to add the IN 

STREET and IN ROAD optional 

supplemental plaques to expand the 

options available to agencies to indicate 

that non-motorized users may be in the 

roadway. FHWA proposes to delete the 

SHARE THE ROAD supplemental 

plaque, as discussed below. 

150. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle existing Section 2C.08 as, 

‘‘Section 2C.59 Advisory Speed Plaque 

(W13–1P) and Confirmation Advisory 

Speed Plaque (W13–1aP)’’ to reflect the 

proposed addition of a new use for the 

optional plaque to supplement a OneDirection Large Arrow Sign (W1–6) to 

remind road users of the advisory speed 

through the curve. The proposed W13– 

1aP plaque is redesignated from E13–1P, 

which is an existing plaque currently 

allowed beneath Exit Gore signs to 

confirm the advisory exit speed posted 

at an upstream location. FHWA 

proposes to resdesignate this plaque and 

expand its use to the similar application 

on the outside of the beginning of any 

alignment change following a 

Horizontal Alignment Advance Warning 

sign assembly. The proposed expanded 

use of this plaque would replace the 

existing Combination Horizontal 

Alignment/Advisory Speed signs in 

existing Section 2C.10. In concert with 

this change, FHWA proposes a new 

Standard paragraph limiting the 

allowable use of the Confirmation 

Advisory Speed plaque only to 

supplement a One-Direction Large 

Arrow (W1–6) or an Exit Gore (E5–1 

series) sign and not as a separate sign 

installation. FHWA proposes this 

limitation on the use of the plaque 

because the plaque was designed and 

intended specifically for these two uses, 

which are to supplement, near the 

beginning of the alignment change, an 

advisory speed that is posted at the 

advance location in an Advance 

Warning sign assembly. 

FHWA also proposes to delete 

existing Items A through C in Support 

P7 and all of Support P8, and instead 

refer to the Traffic Control Devices 

Handbook for information on 

established engineering practices for 

determining advisory speeds for a 

horizontal curves. As part of this 

change, FHWA proposes to add items A 

through E, which list established 

engineering practices. 

151. In Section 2C.60 (existing 

Section 2C.62) NEW Plaque (W16–15P), 

FHWA proposes to delete Standard P2 

prohibiting the NEW plaque from being 

used alone because Section 2C.57 

(existing Section 2C.53) already 

contains a similar Standard. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

Standard P3 to Guidance to give 

agencies more flexibility to retain the 

NEW plaque longer than 6 months after 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80920 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

36The Article, ‘‘Bicycles May Use Full Lane’’ 

Signage Communicates U.S. Roadway Rules and 

Increases Perception of Safety,’’ by George Hess and 

M. Nils Peterson, published August 28, 2015, can 

be viewed at the following internet website: https:// 

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ 

journal.pone.0136973#sec013. 

37 ‘‘Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for 

Airport Terminals and Landside,’’ TRB’s Airport 

Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 52, 

2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/ 

165910.aspx. 

the regulation has been in effect, if 

necessary. 

152. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 2C.60 SHARE THE 

ROAD Plaque (W16–1P) and replace it 

with a new proposed Section 2C.66 IN 

ROAD and IN STREET Plaques (W16– 

1P, W16–1aP) that contains Option and 

Standard statements regarding the use of 

these optional signs to warn drivers to 

watch for other forms of slower 

transportation traveling along the 

highway, such as bicycles, golf carts, or 

horse-drawn vehicles. Since its 

adoption in the 2000 MUTCD, 

research 36 has shown that the ‘‘share 

the road’’ message when applied to 

bicyclists does not adequately 

communicate the responsibilities of 

either user group on the roadway. Road 

users are unclear whether ‘‘share the 

road’’ means that drivers should give 

space when passing or that bicyclists 

should pull to the side to allow drivers 

to pass. FHWA is proposing the IN 

ROAD/IN STREET plaques to replace 

the SHARE THE ROAD plaque based on 

this research and for consistency with 

all in road vehicle types. 

153. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2C.67 Except Bicycles Plaque (W16– 

20P).’’ The new section contains an 

Option to use a new Except Bicycles 

plaque below a warning sign where it is 

appropriate to notify bicyclists that the 

conditions depicted by a warning sign 

are not applicable to bicycles. An 

example is a roadway which terminates 

as a dead end or cul-de-sac but serves 

as a continuous route for bicycle travel 

through the use of connecting paths or 

barrier opening and the plaque would 

be used to supplement a DEAD END or 

NO OUTLET warning sign. This section 

also includes a new Standard statement 

that if used with a warning sign, the 

plaque shall be a rectangle with a black 

legend and border on a yellow 

background, consistent with similar 

provisions for the color of supplemental 

plaques. 

154. In Section 2C.71 (existing 

Section 2C.65) Object Markers for 

Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway, 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

permitting the use of Type 2 or Type 3 

object markers to mark an obstruction 

adjacent to the roadway. The existing 

MUTCD has a Standard that currently 

implies this optional use of Type 2 and 

Type 3 object markers. FHWA proposes 

this change to clarify the intent of the 

provisions. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

existing Standard P2 and P3 to 

Guidance and revise the language 

regarding object markers applied to 

approach ends of guardrail and other 

roadway appurtenances to specify crash 

cushion terminals as the other roadway 

appurtenances. The revision also 

recommends that the Type 3 object 

marker should be directly affixed, 

without a substrate, and generally 

conform to the size and shape of the 

approach end of the guardrail or crash 

cushion. FHWA proposes this change 

because the term ‘‘roadway 

appurtenances’’ is not defined in the 

MUTCD and FHWA wants to eliminate 

any potential confusion that may occur 

between this Guidance paragraph and 

the existing Support statement in this 

section which lists numerous 

obstructions where object markers are 

applied. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2D Guide Signs—Conventional 

Roads 

As part of the reorganization to 

improve usability of the MUTCD, 

FHWA proposes to include subchapter 

headings in Chapter 2D to organize 

sections into related groupings. FHWA 

proposes the following subchapters in 

Chapter 2D and associated sections 

(referenced to the proposed section 

numbers): General Design (Sections 

2D.01 through 2D.08), Route Signs and 

Auxiliary Plaques (Sections 2D.09 

through 2D.28), Sign Assemblies 

(Sections 2D.29 through 2D.34), 

Destination and Distance Signs 

(Sections 2D.35 through 2D.44), Street 

Name and Parking Signs (Sections 2D.45 

through 2D.48), Freeway Entrance Signs 

(Sections 2D.49 and 2D.50), Weigh 

Station, Truck, and Crossover Signs 

(Sections 2D.51 through 2D.54) and 

Other Guide Signs (Sections 2D.55 

through 2D.59). 

155. In Section 2D.01 (existing 

Section 2D.02), retitled, ‘‘Scope of 

Conventional Road Guide Sign 

Standards and Application,’’ FHWA 

proposes to relocate existing Guidance 

and Support statements regarding lowvolume roads from Chapter 5D. FHWA 

proposes the change to place all related 

material regarding guide signs together. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement recommending that the 

primary or control destinations 

displayed on guide signs be meaningful 

to road uses in navigation and 

orientation, and that such destinations 

be identifiable on official maps. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

consistency in the use of destinations on 

guide signs. 

FHWA also proposes a new Support 

statement to indicate that guide signs, 

other than Street Name signs, are 

generally not used on low-volume rural 

roads, except as needed to guide road 

users back to major roadways. 

FHWA also proposes to add new 

Support and Guidance statements, along 

with a new figure, describing signing for 

airport facility roadways. This 

information is based on a study by the 

National Academy of Sciences 37 that 

examined airport roadway user 

informational needs and limitations. 

156. In Section 2D.05 (existing 

Section 2D.06), FHWA proposes to add 

a Standard statement that the minimum 

letter and numeral height of the 

principal legend on conventional road 

overhead signs be at least 12 inches in 

height for upper-case letters and 9 

inches in height for lower-case letters. 

An Option is also proposed to allow 

10.67 inches in height for upper case 

letters and 8 inches in height for lowercase letters for such roadways with 

posted speed limits of 40 miles per hour 

or less. FHWA proposes this change to 

ensure adequate letter height to meet 

road user legibility needs for 

conventional roadway overhead guide 

signs based on speed of travel. 

157. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2D.07 Abbreviations.’’ FHWA proposes 

to relocate information from existing 

Section 2E.17 to Chapter 2D because it 

also applies to guide signs for 

conventional roadways. FHWA also 

proposes to add a new figure and two 

new tables that are specific to the use of 

the types of abbreviations described in 

this Section. 

FHWA proposes a new Support 

statement identifying that the use of 

commonly recognized abbreviations for 

certain words can be useful in reducing 

the complexity of the sign message. 

158. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, FHWA 

proposes to designate ‘‘curved-stem 

arrows’’ as ‘‘Type E directional arrows’’ 

and that they be associated exclusively 

with circular intersections. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

consistency in terminology throughout 

the Manual. In concert with this change, 

FHWA proposes several revisions 

within this section to reflect this 

terminology and to provide additional 

flexibility for agencies to represent 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80921 

intended driver paths on guide signs for 

circular intersections. 

159. In Section 2D.09 Numbered 

Highway Systems, FHWA proposes to 

revise the Standard regarding route 

system order preference to provide an 

exception to the order because there 

may be instances where a different 

prioritization might better accommodate 

driver expectancy. In concert with the 

Standard revision, FHWA also proposes 

to add an Option statement allowing the 

modification of the prioritization of 

route systems. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard reflecting the existing 

requirement that Interstate route 

numbering be approved by FHWA 

consistent with 23 CFR 470.115(a). 

160. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route 

Signs, FHWA proposes to revise the first 

Standard paragraph to clarify the 

requirement that Interstate Route, OffInterstate Business Route, U.S. Route, 

State Route, County Route, and Forest 

Route sign legends are required to 

comply with existing requirements in 

Chapter 2A. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Standard paragraph regarding County 

Route sign dimensions to require a 

minimum size of 24 x 24 inches for 

consistency with the minimum sizes for 

other Route signs. 

FHWA also proposes to revise Option 

paragraph 4 to designate the existing 

optional sign (Interstate Route sign that 

includes the State name) as M1–1a and 

to allow the optional use of this sign in 

place of the M1–1 sign when the 

Interstate Route sign is used in a Route 

Sign assembly. In concert with this 

change, FHWA proposes a new 

Standard statement limiting the use of 

the M1–1a sign to Route Sign assemblies 

to clarify that the allowable optional use 

does not extend to other types of signs, 

such as when the Interstate Route sign 

is used within a guide sign, to limit the 

informational load imposed on the road 

user and because the relative scale of 

the State name to other legend elements 

displayed on the guide sign would be 

considerably smaller. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Option P7 and P16 statements regarding 

Route Signs used on a green guide sign 

that allow for the use of a white or 

yellow background to improve contrast, 

because FHWA has revised the design of 

the Off-Interstate Business Route and 

County Route signs to include a wider 

border to address contrast. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard statement to reiterate the 

existing requirement of the legend on 

State Route signs to conform to 

Standard Alphabets, for consistency. 

FHWA proposes this change as a 

conforming edit, which would not 

change the existing underlying 

requirement in Chapter 2A. 

FHWA proposes to amend the 

subsequent Guidance paragraph to limit 

the use of complex graphics to maintain 

consistency. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Standard paragraph regarding Route 

Signs for parks and forest roads to 

clarify the existing requirement to 

comply with the existing provisions of 

Chapter 2A, and to clarify that the 

provisions for the design of park and 

forest Route signs apply to non-National 

Forest routes. 

161. In Section 2D.12, retitled, 

‘‘Design of Route Sign Auxiliary 

Plaques,’’ FHWA proposes to delete the 

Guidance paragraph regarding Route 

Signs of larger heights because the sizes 

are standardized based on roadway 

classification, corresponding to the 

Route Sign sizes. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

existing Guidance paragraph to a 

Standard regarding the color and design 

of a combination route sign with 

auxiliary plaques into a single guide 

sign, consistent with sign color 

requirements for guide signs elsewhere 

in the MUTCD. 

162. In Section 2D.16, retitled, 

‘‘Auxiliary Plaque for Alternative 

Routes (M4–1P through M4–4P),’’ 

FHWA proposes to modify the section 

title because the Option and Standard 

paragraphs contained within this 

section do not apply to the entire M4 

series of signs. 

163. In Section 2D.17, retitled, 

‘‘ALTERNATE Auxiliary Plaques (M4– 

1P, M4–1aP),’’ FHWA proposes to add 

a Standard paragraph to prohibit the use 

of the M4–1P Series plaques to sign 

alternative routing not officially 

incorporated into the numbered 

highway system, such as alternative 

routings for incident management or 

emergency detours. FHWA proposes 

this additional paragraph to ensure the 

M4–1P Series plaques are used in a 

consistent manner with their stated 

meaning in this section. 

164. In Section 2D.29 Route Sign 

Assemblies, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance paragraph and new figure 

recommending that when more than 

four Route signs are needed in a single 

Advance Route Turn or Directional 

assembly, the Route signs should be 

mounted in a Guide sign. FHWA 

proposes this guidance as this would 

reduce the significant informational 

load on the road user of such assemblies 

by reducing the repetition of the 

cardinal direction and directional 

arrows. 

FHWA also proposes an Option 

paragraph allowing Route Signs to be 

omitted for routes that are part of an 

agency’s internal numbering system, 

such as for maintenance or other 

purposes, and are not publicly mapped 

or intended to be used for navigational 

purposes by the general public. FHWA 

proposes this Option to allow agencies 

flexibility as to whether to post signs in 

certain areas. 

165. In Section 2D.34 (existing 

Section 2D.35) Trailblazer Assembly, 

FHWA proposes to revise the Option 

statement to clarify the use of a Cardinal 

Direction auxiliary plaque only for 

routes that provide access to one 

direction of the route. 

166. In Section 2D.35 (existing 

Section 2D.36) Destination and Distance 

Signs, FHWA proposes to relocate a 

Guidance paragraph previously 

contained in Section 5D.01 regarding 

destination names on low-volume roads. 

167. In Section 2D.36 (existing 

Section 2D.37) Designation Signs (D1 

Series), FHWA proposes to add a new 

Support paragraph to describe the use of 

overhead destination guide signs on 

multi-lane conventional roadways with 

complex or unusual roadway 

alignments to help drivers. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option paragraph suggesting overhead 

signs using the Arrow-Per-Lane sign 

design configuration may be used to 

provide lane assignments for some or all 

lane designations at the approach to a 

multi-lane intersection for clarification. 

168. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2D.37 Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane 

Destination Guide Signs,’’ to provide 

information, requirements, guidance, 

and a figure related to the use of these 

signs on multi-lane conventional 

roadway intersections, often associated 

with complex or unusual roadway 

alignments using innovative 

intersection designs to improve traffic 

flow and safety. 

169. In Section 2D.39 (existing 

Section 2D.38) Destination Signs at 

Circular Intersections, FHWA proposes 

to revise the Support paragraph 

regarding the use of diagrammatic guide 

signs for circular intersections to help 

ensure that the basic principles of 

limiting the amount of legend and 

aligning the arrows with each 

destination are applied. FHWA 

proposes this clarification to aid road 

users in understanding the sign and 

navigation through the area. 

170. In Section 2D.40 (existing 

Section 2D.39) Destination Signs at 

Jughandles, FHWA proposes to delete 

the Option allowing the use of 

diagrammatic guide signs depicting the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80922 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

travel path and turns through several 

intersections, because diagrammatic 

signs are limited to circular or 

successive intersections. 

171. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2D.41 Destination Signs at Intersections 

with Indirect Turning Movements,’’ that 

contains a Guidance paragraph 

regarding the use of guide signs and 

pavement markings to direct traffic, and 

a new figure illustrating examples of 

destination signs at intersections with 

indirect turning movements. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

agencies with examples of proper 

signing for locations with displaced left 

turn and intercepted crossroad 

intersections, which are newer 

intersection designs and becoming more 

common in practice and provide for 

consistency. 

172. In Section 2D.45 (existing 

Section 2D.43), retitled, ‘‘Street Name 

Signs (D3–1, D3–1a),’’ FHWA proposes 

to add a Guidance paragraph regarding 

the use of Street Name signs at 

intersections of freeway exit ramps with 

cross roads to help minimize the 

potential for wrong-way movements 

onto the freeway ramp. 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

regarding the engineering 

considerations that should be used to 

determine the letter heights used on 

Street Name signs at specific locations. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Support paragraph regarding minimum 

letter heights to clarify that the 

minimum letter heights apply to the 

roadway that each sign faces, rather 

than to the street that has its name 

displayed on the Street Name sign. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option paragraph to allow different 

letter heights in a sign assembly based 

on the speed limit in order to clarify 

that agencies may use different letter 

heights on different signs at the same 

intersection. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing Option P9 to clarify that the 

letter height of the street name 

descriptor, the directional legend, or 

any other supplemental legend on the 

D3–1 and D3–1a signs may be smaller 

than that of the street name itself, while 

maintaining the letter size proportions 

between the street name and 

supplemental information on the sign. 

In concert with this Option, FHWA 

proposes to add Guidance that smaller 

letter legend should be at least twothirds of the letter height of the street 

name itself, but not less than 3 inches 

for the initial upper-case letters and not 

less than 2.25 inches for the lower-case 

letters for adequate legibility. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to change the 

remainder of the first sentence and the 

second sentence in existing Option in 

P9 regarding the use of conventional 

abbreviations for all information on the 

Street Name sign other than the street 

name itself to Guidance, and to provide 

a new table of acceptable street name 

descriptors and a table of street name 

descriptors that should not be used. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

provide consistency with guide signs 

and to encourage the use of 

conventional abbreviations to reduce 

the size of the sign and for more rapid 

recognition. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement regarding the 

proportional letter height of a 

supplemental legend to be consistent 

with guide signs and the letter heights 

that are used. 

FHWA also proposes to add Option 

and Guidance statements allowing the 

use of block or house numbers as a 

supplemental legend on Street Name 

signs and recommending the 

application of house numbers for the 

left and right blocks of the cross street. 

FHWA also proposes to delete a 

sentence in existing P14 regarding 

requirements for sign color and 

retroreflectivity because allowable 

colors for the legend and border are 

already included in existing P18 of this 

section and requirements for 

retroreflectivity are covered in existing 

Section 2A.07. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement regarding the 

omission of the border on a postmounted Street Name sign to clarify that 

the decision to omit the border should 

be based on factors related to providing 

for adequate recognition of the sign by 

road users. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement that recommends 

that Street Name signs display the street 

name on both sides of the sign to 

facilitate navigation for pedestrians. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Option regarding the use of arrows 

where the same road has two different 

street names. Additional information 

has been added to clarify that this 

option is not allowed where arrows 

would point in a movement direction 

that is not allowed. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance paragraph regarding streets or 

segments thereof that have been 

memorialized or dedicated. Second 

Street Name signs should not be used to 

display the memorial or dedication 

name. Memorial or Dedication signs 

should be located to minimize 

conspicuity the potential for confusion 

by road users. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a 

Support statement referring users to 

Section 2I for information on the 

identification of streets at overcrossings 

and undercrossings. 

173. In Section 2D.46 (existing 

Section 2D.44), retitled, ‘‘Advance 

Street Name Signs (D3–2 Series),’’ 

FHWA proposes to revise the Standard 

statement regarding the legend and 

background color of Advance Street 

Name signs to clarify that the use of 

alternative colors is prohibited, 

repeating an existing Standard 

statement from Section 2D.43. FHWA 

proposes this change as a conforming 

edit, which would not change the 

existing underlying requirement, to 

clarify that Advance Street Name signs 

must have green backgrounds. 

174. In Section 2D.47 Parking Area 

Guide Sign (D4–1), FHWA proposes to 

revise the Standard paragraph to delete 

the design and color information for the 

sign, because design is standardized in 

accordance with the existing 

requirements in Chapter 2A. 

175. In Section 2D.49 (existing 

Section 2D.45) Signing on Conventional 

Roads on Approaches to Interchanges, 

FHWA proposes to add a Support 

statement that provides reference to new 

figures that offer examples of guide 

signing for single-point urban 

intersection and transposed-alignment 

crossroads, which are becoming more 

common in practice. 

176. In Section 2D.51 (existing 

Section 2D.49), WEIGH STATION 

Signing (D8 Series), FHWA proposes to 

add a Support paragraph that defines 

the areas where certain vehicles might 

be directed to stop to be weighed or 

inspected and that such an area can be 

permanent or a temporary mobile 

facility. FHWA adds this provision to 

give agencies more flexibility. 

FHWA proposes to revise existing 

Standard P2, and reference the figure, to 

indicate the appropriate sequence of 

signs for Weigh Station signing on a 

conventional highway and revises the 

sign terminology to match the typical 

sequence of other types of guide signs. 

The resulting sign sequence includes 

Advance Weigh Station Distance, Weigh 

Station Next Right, and Weigh Station 

Exit Direction Signs. In concert with 

this change, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement recommending an 

Exit Gore sign with the same basic 

legend as the Weigh Station Exit 

Direction sign be used to emphasize the 

entrance to the weigh station. FHWA 

proposes these revisions to provide 

more clarity on Weigh Station signing. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option statement that allows the use of 

the alternate legend COMMERCIAL 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80923 

38FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–42(I), April, 

21, 2017, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/6_09_42.htm. 

VEHICLE INSPECTION AREA for the 

D8 series Weigh Station signs. FHWA 

proposes this revision to be consistent 

with the type of activity being 

conducted at the station. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard statement indicating what 

when the WEIGH STATION legend of 

the D8 series signs is replaced with the 

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION 

AREA legend, the WEIGH STATION 

legend of the R13–1 sign shall be 

replaced with the alternate legend 

INSPECTION area. FHWA proposes this 

change for consistency in sign legends. 

177. FHWA proposes to relocate and 

renumber existing Section 2D.54 as 

Section 2D.52 Crossover Signs (D13–1, 

D13–2). FHWA proposes to delete 

portions of existing Standard P2 and all 

of Standard P5 pertaining to the design 

of the Crossover and Advance Crossover 

signs because the language is 

unnecessary since the sign designs are 

standardized in accordance with the 

existing requirements in Chapter 2A. 

178. In Section 2D.53 (existing 

Section 2D.51), retitled, ‘‘Truck and 

Passing Lane Signs (D17–1, D17–2, 

D17–3, and D17–4),’’ FHWA proposes to 

revise the existing Guidance statement 

to remove the word ‘‘NEXT’’ from a 

Truck Lane sign used immediately in 

advance of a truck lane in order to 

reserve the use of the word ‘‘NEXT’’ for 

areas where there is a series of extra 

lanes added along a highway for trucks 

to use, as proposed in the new Guidance 

statement. In concert with this change, 

FHWA proposes to recommend that the 

sign include a distance of 1⁄2 mile in the 

legend. As part of these changes, FHWA 

clarifies that a truck lane is a lane added 

to the right of the travel lane to be used 

by trucks and other slow-moving 

vehicles. This allows the faster vehicles 

to pass without leaving the travel lane. 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

statements describing the use of Passing 

Lane and Next Passing Lane signs in a 

similar manner as Truck Lane signs. As 

part of these changes, FHWA 

distinguishes that a passing lane is an 

added lane to the left of the travel lane 

to be used by vehicle passing those in 

the travel lane. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

existing Option allowing alternate 

legends, because provisions for the use 

of Passing Lane signs are proposed in 

the new Guidance. In addition, because 

a climbing lane is simply another name 

for a truck lane, FHWA proposes to 

remove this option to improve on 

uniformity in signing. 

FHWA also proposes a new Support 

statement to include a new figure that 

illustrates an example of signing for an 

intermittent passing lane. FHWA 

proposes to add this information to 

provide practitioners with needed 

guidance on the use of these signs, and 

their respective locations. 

179. In existing Section 2D.54, 

renumbered and retitled, ‘‘Section 2D.54 

Emergency and Slow Vehicle Turn-Out 

Signs (D17–5 through D17–7),’’ FHWA 

proposes to add a Guidance paragraph 

regarding the recommended use of 

emergency turn-out advance and 

directional signs including placement 

location ranges consistent with advance 

guide sign placement and deceleration 

distance for lower speed maneuvers. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

figure illustrating an example of signing 

for an emergency turn-out. 

180. In Section 2D.55 (existing 

Section 2D.50) Community Wayfinding 

Signs, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance paragraph recommending the 

evaluation of the entire existing system 

of signs for serviceability and general 

conformance with the Manual when a 

community wayfinding guide sign 

system is being considered. FHWA 

proposes this new Guidance because the 

condition and serviceability of existing 

higher priority signs, such as regulatory, 

warning, and major Designation signs, 

should have priority over the 

installation of the new community 

wayfinding signs. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

existing Guidance statement regarding 

the shape of wayfinding guide signs to 

a Standard to eliminate conflict with 

overall sign shape requirements. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement regarding the 

letters, numerals, and other characters 

should be composed of the Standard 

Alphabets in accordance with the 

provisions of Chapter 2A to maintain 

consistency of signs. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard paragraph requiring 

conventional lettering style, prohibiting 

the use of italic, oblique, script, highly 

decorative, or other unusual forms. 

FHWA proposes this new Standard to 

help identify letter style types that, by 

their nature, would not meet the letter 

style requirements provided in this 

section for maintaining adequate 

legibility under driving conditions. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Standard paragraph pertaining to 

internet and email addresses to be 

consistent with changes made to the 

same provision in Section 1D.09. 

181. FHWA proposes to retitle Section 

2D.56 (existing Section 2D.53), ‘‘Signing 

of Named Highways for Mapping and 

Address Purposes,’’ to clarify the intent 

of the section. 

FHWA also proposes to add a Support 

paragraph to provide information that 

distinguishes between highway names, 

which are used for navigation and 

mapping, and memorial, honorary, or 

secondary names, which are not 

considered to be highway names. This 

information is needed for agencies to 

understand the applicability of the 

Standard, Guidance, and Option 

statements in this section. 

182. In Section 2D.57 (existing 

Section 2D.55), retitled, ‘‘National 

Scenic Byways Sign and Plaque (D6–4, 

D6–4aP),’’ FHWA proposes a new 

Support statement to indicate that 

direction along routes and to sites is 

related to touring maps rather than 

directional signing and route marking of 

the byway itself. 

FHWA also proposes to add four 

Guidance paragraphs regarding the 

placement of signs displaying the name 

of the byway and associated byway 

Directional Assemblies. FHWA 

proposes these guidance statements to 

encourage uniformity and to separate 

Route Directional Assemblies from 

byway Directional Assemblies. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard that prohibits the use of the 

Byway sign or plaque as part of a guide 

sign assembly, as these signs are 

intended only for use in independent 

Directional Assemblies. FHWA 

proposes this change as a conforming 

edit, which would not change the 

existing underlying requirement, 

consistent with the existing Standard 

requiring that other signs have primary 

visibility. 

183. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2D.58 State-Designated Scenic Byway, 

Historic Trail, and Auto Tour Route 

Signs,’’ that contains relocated 

provisions from existing Section 2H.07, 

Auto Tour Routes, as well as new 

provisions for State scenic byway and 

historic trails. FHWA proposes this new 

Section to address inconsistencies in 

how these facilities are signed. 

184. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2D.59 EMERGENCY ROUTE and 

EMERGENCY ROUTE TO Signs and 

Plaques’’ that contains provisions and 

accompanying figure for permanently 

signing emergency routes for the 

purposes of corridor management. 

FHWA proposes these changes based on 

Official Ruling No. 6(09)–42(I) 38

‘‘Signing for Rerouting Due to Traffic 

Incidents.’’ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80924 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2E Guide Signs-Freeways and 

Expressways 

185. As part of the reorganization to 

improve usability of the MUTCD, 

FHWA proposes to include subchapter 

headings in Chapter 2E to organize 

sections into related groupings. FHWA 

proposes the following subchapters in 

Chapter 2E: General, Sign Design, 

Installation, Guide Signing for 

Interchanges, Other Guide Signs, Signs 

for Intersections at Grade, and Interface 

with Conventional Roadways. 

186. In Section 2E.01 Scope of 

Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign 

Standards, FHWA proposes to add 

Support, Option, Guidance, and 

Standard statements regarding the 

application of design provisions for 

freeway and expressway guide signs in 

tunnels, which can present unique 

challenges not encountered elsewhere 

due to the extended and continuous 

distances of constrained vertical and 

horizontal clearances in which to place 

signs. FHWA proposes these new 

provisions to provide flexibility to 

standard sign layouts when needed to 

accommodate such situations in 

tunnels. 

187. In Section 2E.06 (existing Section 

2E.09) Signing of Named Highways, 

FHWA proposes to change P1 from 

Support to Guidance to recommend, not 

just state, that signing of named 

highways should comply with 

provisions of Section 2D.56. FHWA 

proposes this change to convey more 

effectively what was intended by the 

existing Support statement. 

188. In Section 2E.07 (existing Section 

2E.13) Designation of Destinations, 

FHWA proposes to add Support and 

Guidance statements, as well as a new 

figure, regarding signing for destinations 

that are accessed from different exits in 

opposing directions of travel. FHWA 

proposes these new provisions to 

provide clarity and flexibility regarding 

the appropriate signing for destinations 

based on the local roadway network. 

189. In Section 2E.08 (existing Section 

2E.04) General, FHWA proposes to 

delete the Standard statement regarding 

standard traffic sign shapes and colors 

because the provisions are already 

covered in Chapter 2A. FHWA proposes 

this change to remove unnecessary and 

repetitive content and streamline the 

Manual to improve its usability. 

190. In Section 2E.12 (existing Section 

2E.14) Size and Style of Letters and 

Signs, FHWA proposes to revise the 

Standard paragraph regarding the 

minimum numeral and letter sizes to be 

as shown in the ‘‘Overhead’’ columns of 

Tables 2E–2 and 2E–4. FHWA proposes 

this change to clarify the application of 

the ‘‘Overhead’’ columns when a larger 

size is specified in the same tables based 

on interchange classification. 

191. In Section 2E.14 (existing Section 

2E.16) Sign Borders, FHWA proposes to 

relocate the Standard statement 

regarding the color of the sign border to 

Section 2A.14, because that section 

already contains information about sign 

borders, while maintaining the 

recommendations on border width, as 

that is commonly needed information 

for the larger size signs on these types 

of highways. FHWA proposes this 

change to remove unnecessary or 

repetitive content and streamline the 

Manual to improve its usability. 

192. In Section 2E.15 (existing Section 

2E.10), FHWA proposes to add a 

Support statement to describe the use of 

street names on Advance guide and Exit 

Direction signs, based on the number of 

interchanges that serve a community. 

FHWA proposes this new statement, 

including references to other sections 

with Chapter 2E, to provide users with 

additional information regarding proper 

and efficient community interchange 

signing. 

193. In Section 2E.16 (existing Section 

2E.17) Abbreviations, FHWA proposes 

to delete the Guidance and Standard 

paragraphs and replace them with a new 

Standard that requires abbreviations on 

freeway and expressway guide signs to 

comply with Section 2D.07. FHWA 

proposes this change to remove 

repetitive content and streamline the 

Manual to improve its usability. 

194. In Section 2E.17 (existing Section 

2E.18) Symbols, FHWA proposes to 

delete the Standard paragraph regarding 

symbol designs because it duplicates 

language in Section 2A.12. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Option statement permitting the use of 

educational plaques below symbol signs 

where needed. FHWA proposes this 

change because symbols, if used on 

freeway or expressway signs, are 

incorporated into the legend of the sign, 

and the addition of an educational 

plaque could distort and overly 

complicate the intended message. 

195. In Section 2E.18 (existing Section 

2E.19) Arrows for Interchange Guide 

Signs, FHWA proposes several editorial 

changes to attain consistency in the 

placement of arrows on Exit Direction 

guide signs, depending on their 

placement either overhead or postmounted, and position over the exit 

lane. FHWA also proposes a new figure 

to illustrate the provisions. 

196. In Section 2E.20 (existing Section 

2E.26) Lateral Offset, FHWA proposes to 

add an exception to permit a narrower 

lateral offset for sign supports when 

shielded by a rigid barrier. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide greater 

design flexibility for agencies. 

197. In Section 2E.21 (existing Section 

2E.30) Interchange Guide Signs, FHWA 

proposes to change P3 from Guidance to 

Support, to provide references to 

applicable provisions related to sign 

descriptions and the order in which 

they appear at the approach to and 

beyond an interchange. FHWA makes 

this change because the provisions for 

each are contained in the individual 

sections. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

wording of P4 to clarify the intent that 

the use of Supplemental Guide signing 

should be minimized. 

198. In Section 2E.22 (existing Section 

2E.31) Interchange Exit Numbering, 

FHWA proposes to provide specific 

requirements for exit number suffix 

assignments and order based on 

direction of travel and interchange 

numbering, while deleting a size 

requirement for the Exit Number plaque 

that is standardized in existing Table 

2E–1. FHWA proposes this change to 

improve interchange exit numbering 

consistency in response to driver 

expectancy, and to reduce unnecessary 

duplication of information. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

existing Guidance statement regarding 

exit number plaques for right-side exits 

to a Standard for consistency in 

placement of exit number plaques and 

consistency with similar provisions for 

left-side exits. 

199. In Section 2E.23 (existing Section 

2E.33) retitled, ‘‘Advance Guide Signs 

(E1 Series),’’ FHWA proposes to add a 

new Standard requiring at least one 

Advance guide sign for all interchange 

classifications with two exceptions. 

FHWA proposes this change to clarify 

the intent of existing language, which 

confounds the criteria for locating the 

sign with the criteria for when to use the 

sign. FHWA believes it is important to 

provide at least one guide sign in 

advance of a freeway or expressway 

interchange because advance notice of 

exits provides road users the time 

necessary to change lanes to position 

themselves to take an exit safely, 

avoiding last-minute weaving conflicts 

and erratic maneuvers. This 

requirement has been implicit in 

subsequent sections but not as clearly 

stated for Advance guide signs as it is 

for Exit Direction signs. 

FHWA proposes to modify P4 to 

recommend displaying distances to the 

nearest 100 feet on Advance guide signs 

less than 1⁄4 mile from the exit. FHWA 

also proposes to change the last 

sentence from Guidance to Standard 

requiring, instead of recommending, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80925 

39 Information on the concept of irradiation and 

disability glade can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ 

doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2003.tb03080.x. 

that fractions of a mile be displayed 

rather than decimals, for all cases to aid 

in quick recognition of the sign message. 

FHWA proposes this change to 

eliminate conflicts with other 

provisions of the Manual. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Standard requiring that an Exit 

Number (E1–5P through E1–5eP) plaque 

be positioned at the top right-hand edge 

of the sign for numbered exits to the 

right. FHWA proposes this change 

clarifying the position of the plaque for 

consistency with similar provisions for 

Exit Direction signs. 

FHWA also proposes to change P10 

regarding omitting the word EXIT(S) 

from the distance message where 

interchange numbering is used from 

Guidance to Standard and incorporate 

the provision into P9. FHWA proposes 

this change for consistency in sign 

legend and to reduce unnecessary 

legend on signs. 

FHWA proposes to revise the 

paragraph regarding the use of 

Interchange Sequence signs, clarifying 

that the recommended distance of 800 

feet is between the theoretical gores of 

successive interchange entrance and 

exit ramps. FHWA proposes this change 

because the existing language is 

ambiguous and can imply that the 

distance is between the interchange 

crossroads, which is not relevant to the 

locations of ramps between which signs 

can be located. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to delete the 

Option statement allowing the W16–16P 

plaque to be installed below the 

Advance guide sign. FHWA proposes 

this change because the current 

language does not promote uniformity. 

The provision for locating the W16–16P 

at the top of sign is Guidance, which 

provides sufficient flexibility for an 

agency to decide differently based on 

engineering factors when necessary. 

FHWA believes that the presence of an 

Exit Number plaque is not sufficient 

justification for a categorical Option. 

200. In Section 2E.24 (existing Section 

2E.40) retitled, ‘‘Interchange Sequence 

Signs (E9–1 Series, E9–2 Series),’’ 

FHWA proposes to change the existing 

Option statement regarding signing for 

closely spaced interchanges to a 

Support to be consistent with the 

language provided in existing Sections 

2E.33 and 2E.50. 

FHWA also proposes to switch the 

order of existing Guidance P3 and P2 

and revise the language to match that of 

Section 2E.23 Advance Guide Signs 

with respect to the use of Interchange 

Sequence signs where there is less than 

800 feet between the theoretical gores of 

successive interchange entrance or exit 

ramps. 

FHWA also proposes to change P5 

from Support to Standard to describe 

the proper use of Interchange Sequence 

signs and require the display of the next 

two or three interchanges by name or 

route number with distances to the 

nearest 1⁄4 mile. FHWA proposes this 

change because, by definition, these 

signs are intended for use in a series and 

to provide consistency in the signing for 

the sequence of the closely spaced 

interchanges. 

201. In Section 2E.25 (existing Section 

2E.36) retitled, ‘‘Exit Direction Signs (E4 

Series),’’ FHWA proposes to change the 

existing Guidance statement regarding 

placement of the exit number plaque on 

signs for numbered exits to the right to 

a Standard. FHWA proposes this change 

to provide consistent placement of exit 

number plaques for numbered exits to 

the left and right. This proposed change 

is a companion to the existing 

requirement that exit number plaques 

for numbered exits to the left are 

required to be on the left-hand edge of 

the sign, thereby meeting driver 

expectation in similar situations. 

FHWA also proposes to change P14 

from an Option to Guidance to 

recommend, instead of allowing, the 

overhead Exit Direction sign for the 

second exit to be placed either on the 

overcrossing structure or on a separate 

structure immediately in front of the 

overcrossing structure. FHWA proposes 

this change for consistency with signing 

provisions for cloverleaf interchanges 

and to clarify the fact that overhead 

mounting is recommended in this 

situation. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option allowing the use of warning 

beacons with the E13–2 sign panel. In 

concert with this change, FHWA also 

proposes to add a Standard requiring 

the warning beacons to be placed at 

least 12 inches from the edges of the 

E13–2 sign panel, from the edge of the 

sign, and from any other legend within 

the guide sign, to provide adequate 

space around the beacons to reduce 

glare that can adversely impact the 

legibility of the sign legend, consistent 

with existing provisions in Chapter 4L 

of the MUTCD.39 FHWA proposes these 

changes because the use of warning 

beacons is implied by Figure 2E–7 

(existing Figure 2E–31), but no 

provisions previously existed in Chapter 

2E that would allow the beacons within 

the sign face. 

Similar to the change discussed in the 

previous item, FHWA proposes to delete 

the Option statement regarding the 

placement of the W16–16P plaque 

because it does not promote uniformity. 

202. In Section 2E.26 (existing Section 

2E.37) retitled, ‘‘Exit Gore Signs and 

Plaque (E5–1 Series),’’ FHWA proposes 

to clarify that Exit Gore signs are 

required for each ramp that departs from 

the main roadway of a freeway or 

expressway. 

FHWA also proposes to modify P5 to 

specify a height of 4 feet above the 

ground line for installing the optional 

Type 1 object markers on supports to 

Exit Gore signs. 

203. In Section 2E.27 (existing Section 

2E.12) retitled, ‘‘Pull-Through Signs 

(E6–1 Series and E6–2 Series),’’ FHWA 

proposes to revise the Guidance 

statement to indicate that Pull-Through 

signs should not be used at exits that are 

signed with Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane 

or Diagrammatic guide signs. FHWA 

proposes to add this exception because 

signing for option lanes is unique, and 

because either the Overhead Arrow-perLane or Diagrammatic guide sign 

designs are required to be used for all 

freeway and expressway splits that 

include an option lane, and both of 

those sign designs already provide the 

through roadway direction guidance to 

road users. 

204. In Section 2E.28 (existing Section 

2E.24) Signing for Interchange Lane 

Drops, FHWA proposes to add an 

Option statement allowing the exit 

arrow to be positioned to the left or right 

of the words ‘‘EXIT ONLY’’ when the 

position of the sign panel is constrained. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

agencies flexibility in sign design where 

needed due to size constraints. 

FHWA also proposes to modify 

Standard P6 to clarify that in retrofit 

situations where the E11–1a and E11–1b 

sign panels are used, the references to 

the white down arrow apply to Advance 

guide signs. FHWA also proposes to add 

a provision regarding placement of the 

E11–1a and E11–1b sign panels when 

used on Exit Direction signs. Similarly, 

FHWA proposes to clarify that the 

position specified for the E11–1c sign 

panel requirement for retrofit situations 

applies to Advance guide signs. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance provision to accommodate 

lane drop situations where it is 

impossible to locate an Advance guide 

sign either overhead or above the 

dropped lane for the down arrow to 

point to the dropped lane. This 

provision is intended to be used 

sparingly and only in limited situations. 

To compensate for this otherwise 

inconsistent condition, the addition of a 

post-mounted warning sign is 

recommended. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80926 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

40FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 2(09)–5(I), October 

22, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/2_09_5.htm. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement, and accompanying 

example figure, recommending the use 

of overhead and or post-mounted 

warning signs where a mainline lane is 

dropped immediately after an exit ramp. 

FHWA proposes this recommendation 

to provide additional warning to road 

users of a lane drop. 

205. In Section 2E.29 (existing Section 

2E.43) Signing by Type of Interchange, 

FHWA proposes to delete the Standard 

that requires interchange guide signing 

to be consistent for each type of 

interchange along a route, because there 

are instances where the signing for 

similar interchanges along a route 

would need to vary due to interchange 

spacing and other geometric features. In 

concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes to revise the Guidance to 

recommend that the signing layout be 

similar for interchanges of the same 

type. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Guidance provision recommending that 

the main roadway major guide signing 

should be determined by the specific 

interchange type for that particular 

direction of travel where a single 

interchange combines a different type of 

ramp configuration for each direction of 

travel. 

FHWA proposes to add two figures to 

this section to provide practitioners 

with examples for interchange signing. 

Figure 2E–15 shows an example of 

signing for a complex interchange that 

combines intermediate interchange 

ramps within a major interchange, and 

Figure 2E–16 shows an example of 

signing for an interchange exit ramp 

with a downstream split. 

206. In Section 2E.31 (existing Section 

2E.48) Diamond Interchange, FHWA 

proposes to delete P2 regarding the 

EXIT message because the requirements 

are redundant with Section 2E.22 

(existing Section 2E.31) and Section 

2E.23 (existing Section 2E.33). 

FHWA also proposes to delete P5 

Option regarding the use of Advisory 

Exit Speed signs based on an 

engineering study, and revise to refer 

instead to the provisions contained in 

Chapter 2C that cover the Advisory Exit 

Speed signs to determine when they are 

necessary. FHWA proposes this change 

to remove redundant and potentially 

conflicting information, thus 

streamlining the Manual and improving 

its ease of use. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes a new 

Guidance provision to recommend that 

a Destination guide sign be placed along 

the ramp where traffic is allowed to turn 

in either direction onto the crossroad. 

FHWA proposes this provision, which 

reflects common practice, to 

accommodate the road user’s 

expectancy of positive, continuous 

guidance in signing to a destination that 

is displayed on the highway on an 

approach to an interchange. 

207. In Section 2E.32 (existing Section 

2E.49) Diamond Interchange in Urban 

Area, FHWA proposes to revise the 

existing Option provision regarding 

closely spaced interchanges to clarify 

that the distances under consideration 

are those specified in another Section of 

Chapter 2E. FHWA proposes this change 

to improve the usability of the Manual. 

208. In Section 2E.33 (existing Section 

2E.45) Cloverleaf Interchange, FHWA 

proposes to revise the Standard 

statement to remove redundant 

information contained in Section 2E.23 

(existing Section 2E.33) and Section 

2E.26 (existing Section 2E.37). 

209. In Section 2E.34 (existing Section 

2E.46) Cloverleaf Interchange with 

Collector-Distributor Roadways, FHWA 

proposes to revise the existing Option 

provision regarding exit numbering to 

Guidance. FHWA proposes this change 

to accommodate driver expectancy by 

more consistently numbering these 

types of interchanges and more readily 

facilitate navigation, in concert with 

other changes in this Chapter to make 

exit numbering more consistent. FHWA 

believes that Guidance should still 

provide sufficient discretion to States in 

those limited situations where 

conditions might warrant. 

210. In Section 2E.35 (existing Section 

2E.47) Partial Cloverleaf Interchange, 

FHWA proposes to delete P3 regarding 

post-mounted Exit Gore signs because 

the requirement is redundant with 

Section 2E.26 (existing Section 2E.37). 

211. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2E.36 Collector-Distributor Roadways 

for Successive Interchanges,’’ with 

Support and Guidance statements, along 

with a new Figure 2E–21, describing 

signing for collector-distributor 

roadways that provide access to 

multiple interchanges. FHWA proposes 

this new section to assist agencies with 

signing these configurations. 

212. In Section 2E.37 (existing Section 

2E.44) Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange, 

FHWA proposes to change the existing 

Standard paragraph regarding splits 

where the off-route movements to the 

left to a Support statement to refer users 

to Section 2E.23 for the use of the Left 

Exit Number plaque. Similarly, FHWA 

proposes to add a reference to Section 

2E.39 and Section 2E.40 for use of 

Overhead Arrow-per-lane or 

Diagrammatic guide signs for freeway 

splits with an option lane and for multilane freeway-to-freeway exits having an 

option lane. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard requiring the signing for the 

roadway for the off-route to be signed as 

an exit from the main route, requiring 

that signs comply with Section 2E.22 to 

provide continuity in exit numbering 

along the route, and that the distance 

messages on the Advance guide signs 

comply with Section 2E.23. FHWA 

proposes this change for signing 

consistency and continuity in 

navigational guidance, which reduces 

potential confusion to road users, thus 

improving operation and safety. 

FHWA proposes to delete the Option 

regarding the omission of the control 

city on Pull-Through signs because 

there is no requirement to display the 

control city on a Pull-Through sign. 

FHWA proposes to change P8 from an 

Option to a Guidance statement to 

recommend that the Advisory Exit 

Speed (W13–2) be used where an 

engineering study shows that it is 

necessary. FHWA proposes this change 

to be consistent with the same change 

in Section 2E.31 (existing Section 

2E.48). 

Finally, FHWA proposes to delete the 

Option regarding extra emphasis of an 

especially low advisory ramp speed 

because it is redundant with Section 

2E.25 (existing Section 2E.36). 

213. FHWA proposes to add a section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2E.38 

Freeway Split with Dedicated Lanes,’’ to 

provide Standard and Guidance 

paragraphs regarding freeway splits 

with dedicated lanes to accompany 

Figure 2E–24 (existing Figure 2E–34). 

FHWA proposes this new section to 

provide important information about 

guide signing for freeway splits with 

dedicated lanes that was previously 

implied by existing 2E.14, but not 

described in the text. 

214. In Section 2E.40 (existing Section 

2E.21) Design of Overhead Arrow-perLane Guide Signs for Option Lanes, 

FHWA revises P2 to clarify the 

requirement to use Overhead Arrowper-Lane guide signs at ‘‘reconstructed’’ 

locations on freeways and expressways. 

In accordance with Official Ruling No. 

2(09)–5(I),40 a ‘‘reconstructed’’ location 

is defined as one where the replacement 

of an existing sign support structure is 

necessitated by reconstruction. 

FHWA proposes to add an Option 

statement and accompanying figure 

permitting signs indicating destinations 

to be added along unusually long gore 

areas with narrow lane marking tapers. 

FHWA proposes this to allow agencies 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80927 

41 ‘‘Sports Logo Evaluation Report,’’ Perez, W. et 

al., November 2011. 

to add these signs to reinforce positive 

guidance. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option permitting the use of warning 

beacons with the E13–2 sign panel 

when used on an Overhead Arrow-perLane guide sign, consistent with similar 

changes proposed for Exit Direction 

signs. 

215. In Section 2E.41 (existing Section 

2E.22) Design of Freeway and 

Expressway Diagrammatic Guide Signs 

for Option Lanes, FHWA proposes to 

add a Standard statement clarifying that 

it is not allowed to use a diagrammatic 

guide sign on the mainline to depict a 

downstream split of an exit ramp. 

FHWA proposes this change to clarify 

the existing provisions, which allow 

only the depiction of the simplified 

geometric configuration at the exit 

departure, but not beyond the 

bifurcation, to avoid an undue 

informational load imposed on road 

users. FHWA proposes to include this 

clarification to address situations that 

have been observed in practice. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option permitting the use of warning 

beacons with the E13–2 sign panel 

when used on a Diagrammatic guide 

sign, consistent with similar changes 

proposed for Exit Direction signs. 

As an alternative to these changes, 

FHWA proposes to delete in its entirety 

Section 2E.41 and the concept of 

Freeway and Expressway diagrammatic 

guide signs for option lanes. FHWA 

offers this alternative proposal because 

most States have now had experience 

implementing overhead arrow-per-lane 

signs, which have been shown to be 

superior to diagrammatic signs at option 

lanes, especially for older road users; 

and because FHWA also proposes the 

Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane 

sign (Section 2E.42), which would allay 

concerns expressed in response to the 

NPA for the 2009 MUTCD regarding 

excessive sign sizes or costs at nonmajor interchange exits with an option 

lane. This alternative proposal would 

retain the diagrammatic sign concept for 

conventional roads and for circular 

roads to show general or relative 

direction, but not lane use indicated by 

lane lines within the diagrammatic 

arrow, as diagrammatic signs have been 

shown to be ineffective for that purpose. 

FHWA seeks comment from the public 

on this alternative proposal, including 

the technical merits, advantages and 

disadvantages, and comparative cost 

information. 

216. In Section 2E.42 (existing Section 

2E.23) Signing for Intermediate and 

Minor Interchange Multi-Lane Exits 

with an Option Lane, FHWA proposes 

to add a Guidance statement as well as 

revise existing Guidance statements 

recommending the use of a modified 

form of the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane 

guide signs at exit locations with an 

option lane that also carries the through 

route. FHWA also proposes to add 

figures to provide examples. FHWA 

proposes these revisions to provide 

practitioners with provisions to sign this 

type of exit, which can often be 

confusing to road users, in a uniform, 

consistent manner. 

217. In Section 2E.45 (existing Section 

2E.34), retitled, ‘‘Next Exit Plaques (E2– 

1P, E2–1aP),’’ FHWA proposes to delete 

the Option statement regarding the Next 

Exit plaque with one or two lines 

because the designs are standardized. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to 

incorporate the Support information 

regarding the desirable use of the Next 

Exit plaque designs into a Guidance 

statement because the language 

establishes a preferred practice. 

218. FHWA proposes to add a section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2E.48 

Post-Interchange Travel Time Sign (E7– 

4 Series)’’ with Support and Standard 

paragraphs regarding a new PostInterchange Travel Time Sign. FHWA 

proposes this new sign series because at 

certain locations on freeways and 

expressways it may be more meaningful 

to road users to display the travel time 

rather than the distance to a destination, 

and to standardize the sign designs to 

ensure that an undue informational load 

is not imposed on the road user. 

219. FHWA proposes to add a section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2E.49 

Distance and Travel Time Sign and 

Comparative Travel Time Sign (E7–5, 

E7–6)’’ with Support, Standard, and 

Guidance paragraphs regarding the new 

Distance and Travel Time Sign (E7–5) 

and the Comparative Travel Time Sign 

(E7–6). FHWA proposes these new signs 

because some locations on freeways and 

expressways might benefit from a travel 

time message displayed with the 

distance or comparative travel times for 

alternative routes to a common 

destination, and to standardize the sign 

designs to ensure that an undue 

informational load is not imposed on 

the road user. 

220. In Section 2E.50 (existing Section 

2E.35), retitled, ‘‘Supplemental Guide 

Signs (E3 Series),’’ FHWA proposes to 

add a new Guidance paragraph 

recommending limiting Supplemental 

guide signs to situations where there is 

a demonstrated need to sign for more 

than two primary destinations from an 

interchange. FHWA proposes this 

change because, consistent with the 

established guidelines for the use of 

Supplemental guide signs, most 

interchanges would not have a need for 

Supplemental guide signs, and it is 

important to limit amount of 

information provided to drivers to that 

which is necessary for basic 

navigational purposes. 

FHWA also proposes to relocate and 

revise existing Guidance P5 to earlier in 

the section, recommending that 

Supplemental guide signs should not be 

used unless the destination meets the 

criteria established by the State or 

agency policy. FHWA proposes this 

addition because use of a policy is 

important to establishing and retaining 

signing consistency and signing is for 

justified destination only. 

FHWA proposes to revise existing 

Guidance to limit the number of lines of 

destination information to no more than 

three, retaining the limit of the number 

of destinations to two, consistent with 

other destination guide signs. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance recommending that a 

Supplemental guide sign not be 

installed in the same location with or 

where it would detract from guide signs 

for a different interchange. 

FHWA proposes to add a Standard 

that prohibits signing more than four 

supplemental traffic generator 

destinations from a single interchange 

along the main roadway, consistent with 

the limitation on the number of 

Supplemental guide signs and the 

number of destinations allowed on each 

sign allowed at each interchange. 

FHWA proposes to add a Standard 

that prohibits the installation of 

supplemental guide signs at the same 

location as Advance guide, Exit 

Direction, or other signs related to the 

exit. FHWA adds this Standard because 

the function of a Supplemental guide 

sign is to supplement the major guide 

signs at a separate location with nonprimary destination information so as 

not to increase the informational load 

displayed on the Advance guide and 

Exit Direction signs. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard that classifies guide signs for 

recreational or cultural interest 

destinations as Supplemental guide 

signs, except where the interchange 

provides direct access to such a 

destination and is therefore displayed 

on the Advance guide and Exit 

Direction signs. 

Finally, FHWA proposes several 

changes near the end of the section to 

reflect the results of a human factors 

evaluation of pictographs 41 that 

revealed that pictographs are not 

effective, resulting in longer or 

additional glances, or both, toward 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80928 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

42FHWA Official Ruling No. 2–650(E), ‘‘Sports 

Team Logos on Guide Signs.’’ 

Guide signs on which they are used, and 

the subsequent termination of Official 

Ruling No. 2–650(E).42 FHWA proposes 

to delete the Option statement allowing 

pictographs on a Supplemental guide 

sign and add a Standard statement that 

prohibits the use of pictographs on 

supplemental guide signs, except for 

transit system pictographs on the Park— 

Ride supplemental guide sign, and add 

a Guidance statement regarding the use 

and size of transit pictograph and the 

carpool symbol on the Park-Ride 

Supplemental guide sign. Finally, 

FHWA proposes to delete existing 

Standards P8, P10, and P11 regarding 

the use of pictographs as general 

conditions on the use of pictographs 

would be addressed in Chapter 2A. 

Since there would be no provision 

explicitly allowing use of a pictograph, 

such use, therefore, would be 

prohibited. 

221. In Section 2E.51 (existing Section 

2E.41) retitled, ‘‘Community 

Interchanges Identification Signs (E9–4 

Series, E9–5 Series),’’ FHWA proposes 

to add a Guidance statement 

recommending that the legend 

displayed on the Advance Guide and 

Exit Direction signs for each interchange 

should be consistent with the 

interchange names displayed on the 

Community Interchanges Identification 

sign, and that the name of the 

community should not be repeated on 

the Advance guide and Exit Direction 

signs. FHWA proposes this new 

Guidance to maintain uniformity in 

signing for Community Interchanges. 

222. In Section 2E.52 (existing Section 

2E.42), retitled, ‘‘NEXT XX EXITS Sign 

(E9–3 Series),’’ FHWA proposes to add 

a Guidance statement recommending 

that the legend displayed on the 

Advance Guide and Exit Direction signs 

for each interchange should not display 

the region or area name that is displayed 

on the NEXT XX Exits sign. FHWA 

proposes this new Guidance to maintain 

uniformity in this type of signing and to 

reduce the informational load within a 

guide sign sequence. 

223. In Section 2E.53 (existing Section 

2E.54) Weigh Station Signing, FHWA 

proposes to add Support, Standard, 

Option and Guidance statements, as 

well as a new figure, to provide 

provisions for the standard sign 

sequence for a Weigh Station on an 

expressway or freeway to align better 

with typical signing conventions used 

on these types of roadways and to 

provide flexibility in the legend to allow 

an alternate message COMMERCIAL 

VEHICLE INSPECTION AREA, where 

appropriate. These changes are in 

concert with proposed changes in 

Chapter 2D. As part of these changes, 

FHWA proposes to delete the existing 

Standard statement, since the proposed 

new text replaces the existing standard. 

224. In Section 2E.54 (existing Section 

2E.27) Route Signs and Trailblazer 

Assemblies, FHWA proposes to delete 

the Standard statement regarding the 

color of the route sign shield for the 

Interstate Highway System sign, as the 

design is standardized and must comply 

with the existing provisions of Chapter 

2A. 

225. In Section 2E.55 (existing Section 

2E.28) Eisenhower Interstate System 

Signs (M1–10, M1–10a), FHWA 

proposes to incorporate the existing 

Guidance into the Standard that follows. 

This change is consistent with the intent 

of the design of the M1–10a sign, which 

uses a letter style designed for facilities 

that are not part of an Interstate main 

roadway or ramps. FHWA believes the 

M1–10 sign provides sufficient 

opportunity for agencies to sign 

Interstates and agencies may use this 

sign in place of the M1–10a sign if they 

wish to have a single standard, as the 

M1–10a sign is not required to be used. 

226. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2E.56 

Signs for Route Diversion by Vehicle 

Class’’ that includes Support, Guidance, 

and Option statements and an 

associated figure showing an example of 

signing for a route diversion based on 

vehicle class. FHWA proposes these 

provisions to create a more uniform 

approach to diversion signing based on 

vehicle class. 

227. In Section 2E.57 (existing Section 

2E.29) Signs for Intersections at Grade, 

FHWA proposes to replace the existing 

Option with a paragraph allowing exit 

numbering to be maintained when a 

freeway or expressway route is 

interrupted by a short segment of atgrade intersections. FHWA proposes 

this change because the existing Option 

is inconsistent with grade-separated 

roadway signing principles and the new 

Option allows continuity in navigation 

and signing along the length of an 

otherwise grade-separated route. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2F Toll Road Signs 

228. As part of the reorganization to 

improve usability of the MUTCD, 

FHWA proposes to include subchapter 

headings in Chapter 2F to organize 

sections into related groupings. FHWA 

proposes the following subchapters in 

Chapter 2F: General, Regulatory Signs, 

Warning Signs, and Guide Signs. FHWA 

proposes to include a list at the 

beginning of the section to assist users 

in finding the appropriate sections. 

229. In Section 2F.02, FHWA 

proposes to retitle the section ‘‘Sizes of 

Toll Road Signs and Electronic Toll 

Collection (ETC) System Pictographs’’ to 

reflect the proposed relocation of 

material from existing Section 2F.04 to 

this section. 

230. In Section 2F.03, FHWA 

proposes to retitle the section, ‘‘Color’’ 

to reflect the content of the section more 

accurately. 

231. In Section 2F.04 (existing Section 

2F.05) Regulatory Signs for Toll Plazas, 

FHWA proposes to change Option P8 

pertaining to speed limit sign placement 

at toll plazas to Guidance to describe the 

intent of the provision better. 

232. In Section 2F.05 (existing Section 

2F.12) retitled, ‘‘Electronic Toll 

Collection (ETC) Account-Only 

Regulatory Sign and Plaque (R3–31, R3– 

32P),’’ FHWA proposes to change the 

ETC Account-Only and NO CASH sign 

designations from auxiliary to 

regulatory sign and plaque for 

consistency with a similar change to toll 

auxiliary signs. 

233. In Sections 2F.06 through 2F.09, 

FHWA proposes to add the Take Ticket 

(W9–6e) Advance Warning sign, Take 

Ticket (W9–6bP, W9–6gP) advance 

warning plaque, Stop Ahead Take 

Ticket (W9–6f) warning sign, and Stop 

Ahead Take Ticket (W9–6hP) warning 

plaque, respectively. FHWA proposes 

these new signs and plaques to provide 

practitioners with a standard sign for 

use on those facilities where tickets are 

issued to determine the length of travel 

for assessing toll fees. 

In Sections 2F.06 through 2F.09, 

FHWA also proposes to delete the last 

sentence of the Standard requiring that 

the legend PAY TOLL shall be replaced 

with a suitable legend such as TAKE 

TICKET where road users entering a toll 

ticket facility are issued a toll ticket. 

In Sections 2F.06 through 2F.08, 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

that a Take Ticket Advance Warning 

sign should be installed overhead at 

approximately 1 mile and 1⁄2 mile in 

advance of mainline toll plazas to 

provide sufficient advance warning to 

road users of this required action. 

234. In Section 2F.10 retitled, ‘‘LAST 

EXIT BEFORE TOLL Warning Plaques 

(W16–16P, W16–16aP),’’ FHWA 

proposes to add a new W16–16aP 

plaque as a two-line alternative to the 

W16–16P plaque. FHWA proposes this 

change to provide agencies design 

flexibility where the plaque is used 

above a narrow-width guide sign. 

FHWA also proposes to require the 

Exit Number Plaque, if used, to be 

installed above the LAST EXIT BEFORE 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80929 

43Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study: 

Comprehension and Legibility of Selected Symbol 

Signs, Phase III, dated June 2012 is available at the 

following internet website: https://

www.pooledfund.org/details/study/281. 

TOLL plaque for numbered exits. 

FHWA proposes this change to reiterate 

and clarify the existing requirements in 

Chapter 2E for the position of the Exit 

Number plaque. FHWA proposes this 

change as a conforming edit, which 

would not change the existing 

underlying requirement. 

FHWA proposes to delete the 

Standard, since the design of the W16– 

16P is standardized and compliance is 

required in accordance with the existing 

provisions of Chapter 2A. 

235. In Section 2F.11 retitled, ‘‘TOLL 

Warning Plaque (W16–17P),’’ FHWA 

proposes to change the TOLL auxiliary 

sign from the Marker series (M4–15) to 

a warning plaque and change the 

designation of the sign accordingly. 

FHWA proposes this change because the 

yellow background with black legend 

‘‘TOLL’’ is used to call drivers’ attention 

to the tolled condition of a highway or 

highway segment to which they are 

being guided and is not consistently 

used in the same manner as an auxiliary 

sign. 

236. In Section 2F.12 (existing Section 

2F.13) Toll Facility and Toll Plaza 

Guide Signs—General, FHWA proposes 

to add an Option to allow a State Toll 

Route system sign to be used in lieu of 

the State Route sign in combination 

with the TOLL warning plaque. FHWA 

proposes this change to allow those 

States that have developed a unique 

Route Sign design for tolled State 

highways to continue to use those types 

of signs whose designs conform to the 

prescribed criteria, rather than requiring 

a separate auxiliary sign. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard statement requiring State Toll 

Route signs to incorporate the word 

TOLL into its design using the same 

letter height, legend, background colors, 

and overall plaque dimensions specified 

for the W16–20P plaque. FHWA 

proposes this change to maintain 

uniform legibility criteria for either 

method. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

supplement an existing Standard 

statement prohibiting the modification 

of Interstate, Off-Interstate, and U.S. 

Route signs for tolled facilities. FHWA 

proposes this change to maintain 

uniformity of these signs because they 

apply to national systems. FHWA 

proposes this change as a conforming 

edit, which would not change the 

existing underlying requirement, as 

modification of these signs has never 

been allowed. 

FHWA also proposes to modify 

existing Standard P20 to require, rather 

than allow as an Option, the 

incorporation of the Toll Taker (M4–17) 

symbol panel in signs for attended lanes 

at toll plazas. In concert with this 

change, FHWA also proposes changing 

the Standard for word messages such as 

FULL SERVICE, CASH, CHANGE, or 

RECEIPTS to an Option to supplement 

the required symbol panel. FHWA 

proposes this change to standardize and 

use symbols in place of word messages 

where a symbol has been developed that 

provides at least equivalent levels of 

comprehension, legibility, and 

recognition, based on relevant 

research.43

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a 

Standard statement requiring the use of 

an Overhead-Arrow-Per-Lane Guide 

sign in advance of a location where the 

mainline lanes split to separate traffic 

entering Open-Road ETC lanes from 

lanes entering a toll plaza where other 

methods of payment are accepted and 

an option lane is provided at the split. 

FHWA proposes this standard to be 

consistent with the use of OverheadArrow-Per Lane Guide signs in Chapter 

2E where there is a split in the highway 

with an option lane. 

237. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2F.13 Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) 

Signs—General,’’ that contains 

information from paragraphs 9 through 

paragraph 17 of existing Section 2F.13. 

FHWA also proposes to relocate the 

existing Option statement regarding the 

use of a toll highway by non-registered 

toll account program drivers to new 

Section 2F.18. 

238. In Section 2F.17 Guide Signs for 

Entrances to ETC Account-Only 

Facilities, FHWA proposes to relocate 

and modify an Option statement from 

existing Section 2F.18 to permit a 

separate information sign displaying the 

route number, TOLL warning panel, and 

the legend NO CASH within the 

sequence of the advance guide signs on 

the approach to the entrance to an ETC 

Account-Only facility, which is already 

depicted in existing Figure 2F–6. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

agencies flexibility to use additional 

advance signing if needed. 

FHWA also proposes an Option to 

allow the Exit Gore signs for entrance 

ramps to ETC Account-Only facilities to 

incorporate the pictograph of the ETC 

payment system with the word ONLY in 

the header panel or plaque. FHWA 

proposes this change to allow agencies 

to reinforce that an ETC account is 

required to use the facility. 

239. FHWA proposes to add two new 

sections numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2F.18 Guide Signs for Entrances to ETCOnly Facilities’’ and ‘‘Section 2F.19 

Guide Signs for ETC-Only Entrance 

Ramps to Non-Toll Highway’’ that 

contain provisions related to guide signs 

on facilities that are electronically tolled 

but do not require an ETC account. 

FHWA proposes to add these sections 

because of the increasing use of ETCOnly facilities. The proposed new 

provisions are intended to provide 

consistent and uniform signing, much of 

which is already depicted in existing 

figures within this Chapter. 

240. In proposed new Section 2F.18, 

FHWA proposes to include a new 

Standard regarding signs used to 

identify ETC-Only facilities that collect 

tolls by post-travel billing of registered 

vehicle owners through postal mail, 

including if an ETC account program 

registration is also accepted. In concert 

with this change, FHWA proposes to 

add an Option allowing the addition of 

a plaque with the legend NO CASH on 

these signs. 

FHWA also proposes to include an 

Option statement providing flexibility to 

display pictographs for other accepted 

ETC toll programs on separate 

information signs if the post-travel 

billing program also allows payment 

through those ETC accounts without 

restriction in the agencies’ primary ETC 

program. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option statement for flexibility 

regarding signs that may be used to let 

motorist know if a surcharge is added to 

the toll amount for those not registered 

in toll account program. 

241. In proposed new Section 2F.19, 

FHWA proposes to add Standard 

statement requiring guide signs for these 

ramps to comply with the provisions of 

2F.18 to ensure consistency in signing 

between toll facilities and ramps. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option statement allowing a NO–TOLL 

panel to be included on the top of the 

Exit Gore sign for an exit that provides 

access to the facility without charging a 

toll to provide clarification to the 

drivers. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2G Preferential and Managed 

Lane Signs 

242. In Section 2G.01 Scope, FHWA 

proposes to add a new Standard 

statement excluding bike lanes from the 

provisions of the Chapter unless 

otherwise provided. FHWA proposes 

this change because, in general, 

information specific to bike lanes is 

included in Part 9. 

243. In Section 2G.03 Regulatory 

Signs for Preferential Lanes—General, 

FHWA proposes to revise Option P14 to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80930 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

increase the minimum vertical clearance 

from 14 feet to 17 feet for post-mounted 

preferential lane regulatory signs on a 

median barrier where lateral clearance 

is limited. FHWA proposes this change 

for consistency with Standard P15 

which references a requirement in 

Section 2A.18 to provide a 17-foot 

minimum vertical clearance for 

overhead signs that are over the lane or 

shoulder. FHWA proposes similar 

changes in 2G.08, ‘‘Warning Signs on 

Median Barriers for Preferential Lanes,’’ 

and Section 2G.10, ‘‘Preferential Lane 

Guide Signs—General.’’ 

FHWA also proposes to delete Option 

P19 and Standard P20 allowing the 

HOV abbreviation or the diamond 

symbol on signs because all the 

standard signs for HOV lanes include 

the diamond symbol and therefore the 

option is not needed. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to relocate 

paragraphs 23 through 26 from Section 

2G.03 to Section 2G.16. 

244. In Section 2G.04 retitled, 

‘‘Vehicle Occupancy Definition Signs 

(R3–10 Series and R3–13 Series),’’ 

FHWA proposes to remove Guidance 

paragraphs 4 and 5, because the legend 

format of these signs is standardized 

and must comply with existing 

requirements of Chapter 2A. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

Standards in paragraphs 9 and 10 and 

add an Option to allow, rather than 

require, the placement interval of 1⁄2

mile for R3–11a and R3–10 signs along 

the length of an HOV lane where access 

is denied, to provide agencies greater 

flexibility. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to revise the 

last Guidance statement to specify that 

the Preferential Lane regulatory sign 

sequence spacing of 800 to 1,000 feet is 

applicable to freeways and expressways 

and proposes to recommend that sign 

spacing on conventional roads should 

be determined by engineering judgment 

based on speed, block length, distances 

from adjacent intersections, and other 

site-specific considerations. FHWA 

proposes these changes due to the 

differences in types and speeds of 

conventional roads and the need to 

provide agencies with more flexibility to 

provide appropriate signing based on 

site-specific conditions. 

245. In Section 2G.05 retitled, 

‘‘Preferential Lane Operation Signs (R3– 

11 Series, R3–14 Series),’’ FHWA 

proposes to change the Guidance 

statement regarding the size of postmounted R3–11 series signs to a 

Support statement to describe why the 

sizes are standardized. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement regarding 

increasing the height of the R3–11 series 

signs for locations where regulations are 

in place more than one time period of 

the day to accommodate additional lines 

of legend. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change the requirement to show 24 

HOURS when a preferential lane 

restriction is in effect on a full-time 

basis to an Option. FHWA proposes this 

change because typically traffic 

regulations are assumed to be in effect 

on a full-time basis. However, FHWA 

retains the option to use the 24 HOURS 

legend because there are situations 

where it is necessary to reinforce that a 

restriction is in place at all times as part 

of a change in operation or where 

several facilities in the same area have 

different hours of operation. 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

statement that allows the use of posted 

mounted Periods of Operation (R3–11 

series) signs instead of overhead Periods 

of Operation (R3–14 series) signs on 

conventional roads with preferential 

lane operations. FHWA proposes this 

option to provide clarity to an existing 

provision. 

FHWA proposes to delete existing 

Guidance P13 recommending the use of 

overhead or post-mounted Period of 

Operations signs at periodic intervals 

along the length of a contiguous or 

buffer-separated preferential lane where 

continuous access with the adjacent 

general-purpose lanes is provided, 

because the use of these signs is 

required a Section 2G.05 Standard. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Option P15 regarding the use of 

overhead Periods of Operation (R3–14 

series) signs at the beginning or entry 

points and/or at intermediate points 

along preferential lanes on conventional 

roads, because stating this as an Option 

is unnecessary. 

246. In Section 2G.07 retitled, 

‘‘Preferential Lane Ends Signs (R3–12a, 

R3–12b, R3–12c, R3–12d, R3–12g, R3– 

12h, R3–15b, R3–15c, R3–15e),’’ FHWA 

proposes to specify that the 

requirements for installing a Preferential 

Lane Ends sign 1⁄2 mile in advance of 

the termination of the lane or where it 

becomes a general-purpose lane apply 

specifically to freeways and 

expressways. FHWA also proposes to 

add a new Guidance statement to 

determine the location of the 

Preferential Lane Ends sign on 

conventional roads based on 

engineering judgment. FHWA proposes 

these changes due to the differences in 

types and speeds of conventional roads 

and to provide agencies with more 

flexibility to provide appropriate 

signing based on site-specific 

conditions. 

247. In Section 2G.11 retitled, 

‘‘Signing for Initial Entry Points to 

Preferential Lanes,’’ FHWA proposes to 

add a new Standard to require an 

Advance Guide sign approximately 1 

mile in advance of the entry point 

where a general-purpose lane becomes a 

preferential lane that does not provide 

continuous access with the adjacent 

general-purpose lanes. FHWA also 

proposes to require a yellow panel with 

black legend and border displaying a 

down arrow and the word ONLY on the 

Advance Guide and Entrance Direction 

signs and to add a new Figure to 

illustrate an example of these signs. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

road users with sufficient advance 

notice to change lanes if they desire to 

continue in the general-purpose lanes, 

consistent with signing for dropped 

lanes at interchanges. 

FHWA also proposes to indicate that 

several of the Standards and Guidance 

in this section apply to freeways and 

expressways, because such provisions 

are not appropriate for conventional 

roads. 

248. In Section 2G.17 (existing 

Section 2G.16) Signs for Priced 

Managed Lanes—General, FHWA 

proposes to delete the last Standard 

statement regarding the use of the 

diamond symbol because it is redundant 

with the provisions of Section 2G.03. 

249. In Section 2G.19 (existing 

Section 2G.18) Guide Signs for Priced 

Managed Lanes, FHWA proposes to add 

a new Standard statement and 

accompanying figure prohibiting the use 

of ETC-account pictographs on the 

primary guide sign directing traffic to 

the managed lane when registration in 

a toll-account program is not required 

for travel in a managed lane in which 

tolls are charged. In such cases, FHWA 

proposes that the purple header panel 

shall be replaced with a warning header 

panel with a black legend and border on 

yellow background displaying the word 

TOLL. FHWA proposes this change to 

provide consistency in signing for toll 

facilities where registration is not 

required for travel for the purpose of 

improving traffic efficiency and safety. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option provision allowing the legend 

TOLL BILLED BY MAIL ONLY on a 

separate information sign within the 

sequence of primary guide signs in 

advance of an entrance to the managed 

lane if the managed lane does not accept 

toll payments from an ETC account 

system and collects tolls only by posttravel billing of registered vehicle 

owners. 

FHWA proposes to add another 

Option allowing pictographs of the 

accepted ETC account programs and the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80931 

legend TOLL BILLED BY MAIL on a 

separate information sign within the 

sequence of primary guide signs in 

advance of an entrance to the managed 

lane if the managed lane accepts 

payments from registered ETC accounts 

but does not require registration to use 

the lane. 

250. In new Section 2G.20, Signs for 

Part-Time Travel on a Shoulder— 

General, FHWA proposes to add a 

Support statement regarding the general 

applicability of part-time travel on 

shoulders and factors to consider when 

planning traffic control for such 

operations. FHWA also proposes to add 

a figure showing an example of signing 

for part-time travel on a shoulder. 

FHWA proposes a Standard stating 

that shoulders open to travel on a 

permanent full-time basis shall be 

signed and marked as a standard travel 

lane to be consistent with other travel 

lanes open on a full-time basis and to 

accommodate the expectancy of road 

users. 

251. In new Section 2G.21, Regulatory 

Signs and Plaques for Part-Time Travel 

on a Shoulder, FHWA proposes a 

Standard requiring signs and plaques to 

notify road users of the periods of 

operation that travel is allowed on a 

paved shoulder. FHWA proposes to 

require the use of a Part-Time Travel on 

Shoulder Operation (R3–51) sign where 

traffic is allowed to travel on the 

shoulder during certain fixed periods of 

operation and the use of the Part-Time 

Travel on Shoulder Variable Operation 

(R3–51d) sign with two flashing beacons 

mounted above it when the period of 

operation is variable. FHWA proposes 

these two signs to provide road users 

with specific signing that distinguishes 

between fixed period and variable 

operation, along with beacons to 

indicate when use of the shoulders is 

allowed for variable operation. FHWA 

also proposes to require the use of 

Selective Exclusion plaques to convey 

any restriction on certain types of 

vehicles. 

FHWA also proposes an Option to 

allow an EMERGENCY STOPPING 

ONLY OTHER TIMES (R3–51cP) plaque 

to be mounted below the R3–51 sign if 

the Selective Exclusion plaques are not 

used. 

FHWA proposes Guidance 

recommending the use of the TRAVEL 

ON SHOULDER BEGINS 1⁄2 MILE (R3– 

52c) sign be used in advance of the 

location where part-time travel on the 

shoulder first begins followed by the DO 

NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER (R4–17) 

sign appropriately spaced downstream 

in order to provide road users with 

additional information regarding the use 

of the shoulder. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard 

requiring use of the TRAVEL ON 

SHOULDER ENDS (R3–52A), END 

TRAVEL ON SHOULDER (R3–52), and 

DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER (R4– 

17) signs, appropriately sequenced, to 

indicate the termination of the shoulder 

travel allowance. FHWA proposes this 

sequence of signs to provide consistency 

in signing and improve safety at all 

locations that allow part-time travel on 

shoulder by providing a common 

understanding of when shoulder travel 

is no longer allowed. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance 

regarding the BEGIN EXIT LANE (R3– 

56) sign, the EMERGENCY STOPPING 

ONLY (R8–7) sign, and the TO TRAFFIC 

ON SHOULDER (R3–57P) plaque used 

at the beginning of deceleration lanes 

where traffic is allowed to enter during 

the periods that travel is prohibited on 

the shoulder, at turnouts provided for 

emergency stopping during periods 

when travel is allowed on the shoulder, 

and below YIELD signs where traffic on 

an entrance ramp is required to yield to 

traffic using the shoulder, respectively. 

FHWA proposes these 

recommendations to provide traffic 

control devices to manage traffic more 

effectively in these circumstances. 

252. In new Section 2G.22, Warning 

Signs for Part-Time Travel on a 

Shoulder, FHWA proposes Guidance to 

use the TRAFFIC USING SHOULDER 

(W3–9) sign at entrances to freeways 

and expressways where part-time 

shoulder travel is allowed in order to 

provide adequate warning to entering 

traffic. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option to use the W3–9 sign on 

conventional roads where traffic that is 

required to stop for or yield to the 

through street or highway on which 

part-time travel is allowed on the 

shoulder, to provide flexibility for this 

sign’s use. 

253. In new Section 2G.23, Guide 

Signs for Part-Time Travel on a 

Shoulder, FHWA proposes a Standard 

that the Advance and Exit Direction 

guide signs shall be modified to include 

a blank-out or changeable EXIT ONLY 

message if an interchange lane drop is 

created during the periods when a 

shoulder is open to travel. This is to 

ensure adequate warning to road user 

and create consistency with 

requirements for such guide signs in 

similar lane configurations. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard 

requiring other Guide signs used in 

conjunction with these facilities to be 

compliant with the provision of 

Chapters 2D and 2E to ensure 

consistency of all guide signs on the 

roadway. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance 

recommending the use of Emergency 

Turn-Out directional signs (D17–6) 

where turnouts are provided for 

emergency stopping to provide road 

users with notice of where stopping is 

allowed in the case of an emergency. 

254. In new Section 2G.24, Lane-Use 

Control Signals for Part-Time Travel on 

a Shoulder, FHWA proposes an Option 

to allow the use of overhead lane-use 

control signals to indicate when a 

shoulder is open or closed to travel. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard that 

when lane-use control signals are used 

for part-time travel on a shoulder, they 

shall follow the provisions of Chapter 

4T; that lane-use control signals are not 

required to be used on adjacent travel 

lanes; and that a steady red X signal 

indication shall be used to close the 

shoulder to all travel except 

emergencies. FHWA also proposes to 

require that when part-time travel on a 

shoulder is allowed for variable periods 

of operation, lane-use control signals 

shall be used and evenly spaced 

approximately evenly 1⁄2 mile or less 

and centered over the shoulder to 

indicate the status of the shoulder travel 

allowance. FHWA proposes the use of 

the green down arrow during times 

when travel is allowed on the shoulder, 

a yellow X just before the shoulder is to 

be closed to travel, and a red X when 

shoulder travel is discontinued. As part 

of this proposal, FHWA proposes to 

require that during the period when the 

shoulder is open to travel, a lane-use 

control signal that continuously 

displays a yellow X be used 

approximately 1⁄2 mile in advance of the 

location where part-time travel on the 

shoulder ends, and then displays a red 

X when the travel on shoulder ends. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to require the 

use of a lane-use control signal with a 

red X display at all times at the location 

where part-time travel on the shoulder 

ends. For part-time travel on shoulder 

with variable periods of operation, 

FHWA proposes an Option allowing the 

use of post-mounted TRAVEL ON 

SHOULDER ALLOWED WHEN 

FLASHING (R3–51d) signs with flashing 

beacons be used lieu of the lane-use 

control signals at the same intervals. 

FHWA also proposes an Option 

allowing the use of the TRAVEL ON 

SHOULDER ON GREEN ARROW ONLY 

(R3–51e) sign with a lane-use control 

signal. The R3–51e sign may be 

mounted adjacent to the signal head, 

elsewhere on the signal support, or postmounted next to, or in advance of, the 

signal. FHWA proposes these additions 

to provide consistency with other laneuse control signal applications. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80932 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

44FHWA Official Ruling No. 2–650(E), ‘‘Sports 

Team Logos on Guide Signs.’’ 

45 ‘‘Sports Logo Evaluation Report,’’ Perez, W. et 

al., November 2011. 

255. In new Section 2G.25, Lane-Use 

Control Signals for Active Lane 

Management on Freeway and 

Expressways, FHWA proposes a 

Standard that lane-use control signals 

used in this application shall be 

compliant with the provisions of 

Chapter 4T to ensure consistency across 

all applications to road users. 

FHWA also proposes an Option to 

allow a steady yellow X signal 

indication to be displayed on one or 

more lane-use control signals in 

advance of the steady yellow X signal 

indication required before on the last 

signal before the point of lane closure. 

FHWA proposes this to provide 

flexibility where more advance warning 

of a lane closure ahead is considered 

necessary. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard that 

lane-use control signals shall be used 

only to supplement temporary traffic 

control devices when used during a 

planned road closure. FHWA proposes 

this language to clarify the existing 

requirement for temporary traffic 

control devices in this application as 

provided for in Part 6 of the MUTCD. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance on 

spacing lane-use control signals at 1⁄2

mile intervals, or closer spacing when 

certain geometric conditions exist, or 

when intervening interchange ramps are 

not adequately served by 1⁄2-mile 

spacing. This is to ensure road users 

have adequate warning of lane-use 

restrictions at all times. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance to 

minimize the combining of lane-use 

control signals with overhead sign 

structures. This is proposed to minimize 

the informational load on the road user 

and avoid conflict or incorrect 

messaging. 

256. In new Section 2G.26, Variable 

Speed Limits for Active Traffic 

Management on Freeways and 

Expressways, FHWA proposes a 

Standard requiring the regulatory speed 

display on a changeable speed limit 

signs comply with Paragraph 2 of 

Section 2B.22 of the MUTCD. This is 

proposed to ensure that variable speed 

limit sign designs are consistent across 

all roadways to improve recognition, 

which leads to better traffic operations 

and increased safety. 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

that the location and positioning of 

Variable Speed Limit signs should 

associate the speed displayed on them 

to the lane or lanes intended to be 

regulated to avoid potential confusion 

as to the applicability of the speed limit. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance that 

variable speed limit signs, in addition to 

post-interchange placement, should be 

spaced based on an engineering study 

considering multiple factors including 

known congestion points to adjust the 

operating speed to minimize the extent 

of vehicle queuing and improve safety. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2H General Information Signs 

257. In Section 2H.01 (existing 

Section 2H.02) retitled, ‘‘Scope,’’ FHWA 

proposes to add a Standard indicating 

there are circumstances where 

descriptive messages not relevant to 

navigation and orientation shall not be 

included in the legends of General 

Information signs. This clarification is 

needed to ensure that traffic control 

devices are employed only for their 

intended purpose of regulating, 

warning, and guiding road users. 

FHWA proposes to revise existing P3 

to provide an exception for the color 

and shape of State Welcome signs, 

Acknowledgement signs, and 

Alternative Fuels Corridor signs, rather 

than jurisdictional boundary signs. 

FHWA also proposes to re-designate 

all signs in this Chapter to be consistent 

with the alphanumeric designations for 

all other signs in the Manual. 

258. In Section 2H.02 (existing 

Section 2H.01) Sizes of General 

Information Signs, FHWA proposes to 

revise the Option allowing sign sizes to 

be larger than those contained in Table 

2H–1 to add an exception that larger 

sizes may not be used where a 

maximum allowable size is specified. 

FHWA proposes this change to restrict 

the use of over-sized signs only to those 

situations where appropriate. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Recycling Collection Center (I–11) 

symbol sign from the MUTCD because 

residential and curbside recycling make 

the need for this sign obsolete and 

separate Recycling Centers, apart from 

waste disposal facilities, generally do 

not exist anymore. 

FHWA proposes to relocate existing 

Standard P14 regarding the height of a 

pictograph on a political boundary 

General Information sign to new Section 

2H.05 to consolidate information in one 

location. 

259. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Section 2H.03 titled, ‘‘Airport Signs,’’ 

which contains portions of existing 

Section 2H.02. FHWA proposes to add 

a new Standard prohibiting the use of 

airport pictographs or other graphical 

representation of the specific airport 

with or in place of the specific airport 

name on guide signs. FHWA proposes 

this change in concert with similar 

changes throughout the Manual based 

on human factors research 44 45 that 

demonstrated observers generally 

required longer reading times for signs 

that added pictographs, while the 

pictographs themselves did not improve 

comprehension of the sign message. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change the provision regarding 

trailblazer signs from a Standard to 

Guidance to recommend, and not 

require, these signs prior to the airport 

guide signs. FHWA proposes this 

change to make the provisions more 

flexible in applying engineering 

judgment in specific situations. 

260. In Section 2H.04 (existing 

Section 2H.03) Traffic Signal Speed 

Sign (I1–1), FHWA proposes to add a 

new Standard requiring the electronicdisplay changeable section of the Traffic 

Signal Speed sign to be a white legend 

on a black opaque or green background. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

uniformity for this portion of the sign, 

consistent with the provisions for 

changeable message signs that allow the 

background portion of the sign to match 

the static sign. 

FHWA also proposes to remove the 

Standard describing the minimum size 

of the Traffic Signal Speed Sign as that 

information is contained in existing 

Table 2H–1. 

261. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2H.05 Jurisdictional Boundary (I2–1) 

Signs,’’ to provide Option, Guidance, 

Standard and Support statements 

specifically related to Jurisdictional 

Boundary signs, which are referred to as 

Political Boundary signs in the current 

MUTCD. FHWA proposes this new 

section in concert with the proposed 

change in Section 2H.01 (existing 

Section 2H.02) to differentiate between 

State Welcome signs and Jurisdictional 

Boundary signs. 

262. FHWA proposes to renumber and 

retitle section 2H.04 Miscellaneous 

Information Signs (I2–2) to, ‘‘Section 

2H.06, Geographic Feature (I2–2) Sign,’’ 

and to make appropriate sign title 

changes throughout this section to have 

the sign title better align with the stated 

intent of these signs, which is to orient 

road users on the roadway based on 

geographic features. 

263. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2H.07 State Welcome Signs,’’ to provide 

information regarding the design, 

placement, and function of State 

Welcome signs, which have a different 

purpose from Jurisdictional Boundary 

signs that identify and mark State lines. 

The new section contains provisions for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80933 

46FHWA Order 5160.1A, issued April 7, 2014, 

can be viewed at the following internet website: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/ 

orders/51601a.cfm. 

47FHWA Order 5160.1, issued March 13, 2012, 

can be viewed at the following internet website: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/ 

orders/51601.cfm. 

48FHWA Order 5160.1A, issued April 7, 2014, 

can be viewed at the following internet website: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/ 

orders/51601a.cfm. 

the location, display, and size of State 

Welcome signs. 

264. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2H.08 Future Interstate Signs (I2–4, I2– 

4a),’’ to provide provisions for Future 

Interstate Route and Future Interstate 

Corridor signing along an existing route 

that has been designated to be 

reconstructed as an Interstate route or 

along an existing route adjacent to a 

corridor through which an Interstate 

route will be constructed. The new 

section contains provisions for the 

location, spacing, and legend of Future 

Interstate and Future Interstate Corridor 

signs. In concert with this change, 

FHWA amends 23 CFR part 470, subpart 

A, appendix C, ‘‘Policy for the Signing 

and Numbering of Future Interstate 

Corridors Designated by Section 332 of 

the NHS Designation Act of 1995 or 

Designated Under 23 U.S.C. 

103(c)(4)(B).’’ Specifically, FHWA 

proposes to delete the existing text of 

the section entitled, ‘‘Sign Details,’’ and 

instead refer to the MUTCD for any 

criteria involving highway signing for 

this purpose. 

265. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2H.09 Project Information Sign (I2–5)’’ 

with Support and Standard statements 

related to signs that are used to provide 

limited information about ongoing 

highway construction projects. FHWA 

proposes this section to standardize the 

design and use of signs provided for in 

23 CFR 635.309(o). In concert with this 

change, FHWA proposes to amend 23 

CFR 635.309(o) to refer to the MUTCD 

for any criteria involving Project 

Information signs. 

266. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2H.10 Grade Separation Identification 

Signs (I2–43, I2–43a),’’ to provide 

Option and Guidance on these signs 

used for identifying a grade separation 

from another highway or transportation 

facility such as a railway, bikeway, or 

pathway. 

267. In Section 2H.11 (existing 

Section 2H.05), retitled, ‘‘Reference 

Location Signs (D10–1 through D10–3) 

and Intermediate Reference Location 

Signs (D10–1a through D10–3a),’’ 

FHWA proposes to revise the Option to 

indicate that Intermediate Reference 

Location (D10–1a to D10–3a) signs may 

also be installed at two tenths of a mile 

or one-half mile intervals. 

FHWA also proposes to delete two 

Standard Statements in this section 

describing the sign design requirements 

as these designs are standardized and 

must comply with the existing 

provisions of Chapter 2A. 

268. In Section 2H.12 (existing 

Section 2H.06), retitled, ‘‘Enhanced 

Reference Location Signs (D10–4) and 

Intermediate Enhanced Reference 

Location Signs (D10–5),’’ FHWA 

proposes to add a Standard statement to 

clarify that the display of a decimal 

point and zero numeral is required on 

Intermediate Enhanced Reference 

Location (D10–5) signs used at the 

integer mile point. FHWA proposes this 

addition to improve recognition of the 

sign message through the use of a 

consistent numbering nomenclature and 

provide consistency with the same 

requirement in Section 2H.10 for 

Reference Location Signs (D10–4) and 

Intermediate Reference Location Signs 

(D10–5). 

FHWA also proposes to remove the 

allowance of blue background enhanced 

reference location signs, requiring them 

to be green, to establish uniformity. 

FHWA also proposes to remove the 

sign design provisions for these signs as 

the designs are standardized and are 

required to comply with the existing 

provisions of Chapter 2A. 

269. FHWA proposes to relocate 

Section 2H.07, ‘‘Auto Tour Route 

Signs,’’ to Chapter 2D and combine with 

Section 2D.57, ‘‘State-Designated Scenic 

Byway, Historic Trail, and Auto Tour 

Route Signs.’’ 

270. In Section 2H.13 (existing 

Section 2H.08) retitled, 

‘‘Acknowledgment Signs and Plaques 

(I20 Series),’’ FHWA proposes several 

revisions to reflect FHWA Order No. 

5160.1 A,46 that cancels FHWA Order 

5160.1,47 both of which are related to 

FHWA Policy on Sponsorship 

Acknowledgement and Agreements 

within the Public Right-of-Way. FHWA 

proposes this change to minimize the 

number of additional signs and 

informational load imposed on road 

users. 

FHWA proposes to change the 

Guidance related to acknowledgment 

sign policy provisions to a Standard to 

ensure sign design and placement of 

these signs does not conflict with other 

provisions in the MUTCD. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard requiring that 

Acknowledgment signs and plaques 

have a white legend on a blue 

background and be independent postmounted roadside installations only and 

not be overhead-mounted. This change 

is proposed to ensure these signs are 

consistent with other service type signs 

and maintain their purpose of 

acknowledging sponsors of services 

only. 

FHWA proposes to add an Option 

allowing new Rest Area and Welcome 

Center Acknowledgement signs (I20–4 

and I20–4a) that provides the name of 

the rest area and welcome center 

sponsor. In concert with this change, 

FHWA proposes a new Standard 

prohibiting the names or representations 

of specific products or services provided 

by the sponsor within the rest area to be 

included on the sign. FHWA also 

proposes to add a Standard prohibiting 

the use of program names or slogans on 

rest area guide signs or other traffic 

control devices. 

FHWA proposes to revise the 

Standard paragraph regarding 

acknowledgment signs and plaque 

designs to include additional provisions 

related to orientation, dimension, area 

of the sign, and sizing the sign based on 

standard sizes specified in Table 2I–1. 

FHWA proposes these changes so that 

the MUTCD provisions for these signs 

are consistent with FHWA Order 

5160.1A 48 and sign size requirements 

established earlier in this Chapter. 

FHWA proposes an Option paragraph 

allowing for the name of the 

municipality or neighborhood in which 

the sponsoring outlet of a business is 

located if there are multiple locations in 

the same area. FHWA proposes this 

change to allow for the acknowledgment 

of the specific franchisee in cases in 

which the corporation itself is not the 

sponsor. 

FHWA proposes to add an Option 

permitting Acknowledgement plaques 

to be mounted below General Service 

signs to acknowledge a sponsor of a 

corridor- or region- based highwayrelated service including Radio-Weather 

Information (D12–1), Radio-Traffic 

Information (D12–1a), TRAVEL INFO 

CALL 511 (D12–5 and D12–5a), and 

Roadside Assistance (D12–6) signs. In 

concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes Standard paragraphs 

prohibiting the installation of an 

Acknowledgment plaque in conjunction 

with other signs or traffic control 

devices and limiting the legend that can 

be displayed on an Acknowledgment 

plaque. 

271. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2H.14 Alternative Fuels Corridor Sign’’ 

to provide Standard, Option, Guidance, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80934 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

49FHWA Policy Memorandum, ‘‘MUTCD— 

Signing for Designated Alternative Fuels 

Corridors,’’ issued December 21, 2016, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/alt_fuel_

corridors/index.htm. 

and Support provisions for the use of 

Alternative Fuels Corridor signs. FHWA 

also proposes new Figures 2H–9 and 

2H–10 to illustrate Alternative Fuels 

Corridor Sign Assembly examples and 

an Alternative Fuels Corridor Signing 

layout example, respectively. This 

section adds the provisions of FHWA 

policy memorandum entitled, 

‘‘MUTCD—Signing for Designated 

Alternative Fuels Corridors,’’ dated 

December 21, 2016.49

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2I General Service Signs 

272. In Section 2I.02 General Service 

Signs for Conventional Roads, FHWA 

proposes a new Standard paragraph 

limiting the use of the Hospital sign to 

facilities that operate on a full-time 

basis. FHWA proposes this change to 

accommodate the expectation of road 

users that a hospital operates on a fulltime basis. In concert with this change, 

FHWA proposes an Option paragraph 

allowing the Emergency Medical 

Services sign to be used for medical care 

facilities that operate only on a parttime basis. 

273. In Section 2I.03 General Service 

Signs for Freeways and Expressways, 

FHWA proposes a new Guidance 

paragraph recommending the use of D9– 

18 or D9–18a signs for numbered 

interchanges. FHWA also proposes new 

Support and Option statements 

regarding motorist expectations for 

facilities providing alternative fuels, as 

well as policy criteria for alternative 

fuel vehicles to address issues specific 

to alternative fuel vehicles. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

Standard requiring sign space be left 

blank for future services to a Guidance 

to provide agencies with greater 

flexibility based on the agency’s 

knowledge of local conditions. 

274. In Section 2I.04 retitled, 

‘‘Interstate Oasis Signing (D5–12 

Series),’’ FHWA proposes to delete the 

Guidance recommending that names or 

logos of businesses designated as 

Interstate Oasis not be included in the 

Interstate Oasis sign and instead 

proposes to add a new Option 

permitting the name of the business 

designated as an Interstate Oasis to be 

provided below the Interstate Oasis 

legend on the D5–12 sign if Specific 

Service signing is not used at the 

interchange. FHWA proposes this 

change based on experience with 

signing for the Interstate Oasis areas and 

recognizing that it may be appropriate to 

include business names. 

FHWA proposes to delete Guidance 

text indicating that Interstate Oasis signs 

should have a white legend with a letter 

height of at least 10 inches and a white 

border on a blue background as the 

designs of these signs are standardized 

and must comply with the existing 

provisions of Chapter 2A. 

FHWA proposes to delete the 

Interstate Oasis symbol panel, along 

with the related Standard, based on 

poor comprehension of the symbol and 

the fact that no State currently uses the 

symbol. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Interstate Oasis Directional (D5–12b) 

sign to provide road users the direction 

and distance to the Interstate Oasis from 

an exit ramp. 

275. In Section 2I.08, retitled, 

‘‘Tourist Information and Welcome 

Center Signs (D5–7 Series, D5–8),’’ 

FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance 

statement regarding the supplemental 

signs installed with Tourist Information 

or Welcome Center signs to suggest 

limiting the number of supplemental 

sign panels to three (3). FHWA proposes 

this change for consistency with other 

provisions in Part 2 related to the 

amount of information on a sign legend 

and driver comprehension, thus 

minimizing the informational load 

imposed on drivers. 

276. In Section 2I.09, retitled, ‘‘Radio 

Information Signing (D12–1 Series),’’ 

FHWA proposes to add two new signs: 

(1) A Radio-Traffic Information (D12– 

1a) sign and (2) an Urgent Message 

When Flashing (D12–1bP) plaque. 

FHWA also proposes to add an Option 

statement allowing the Urgent Message 

When Flashing plaque to be mounted 

below a D12–1 or D12–1a sign when 

supplemented by warning beacons that 

flash only when a message related to 

adverse travel conditions is being 

broadcast. FHWA proposes these 

changes to provide additional signs that 

may be beneficial to agencies that 

provide radio services. As discussed in 

the following two items, FHWA 

proposes to create two new sections that 

contain material from existing Section 

2I.09 to assist practitioners better in 

finding information. 

277. FHWA proposes add a new 

section, numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2I.10 Channel 9 Monitored Sign (D12– 

3)’’ containing existing Option and 

Standard statements from Section 2I.09 

pertaining to the Channel 9 Monitored 

Sign (D12–3). 

278. FHWA proposes a new section, 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2I.11 

EMERGENCY CALL XX Sign (D12–4)’’ 

containing an existing Option statement 

from Section 2I.09 pertaining to the 

EMERGENCY CALL XX Sign (D12–4). 

279. In Section 2I.12 (existing Section 

2I.10), ‘‘TRAVEL INFO CALL 511 Signs 

(D12–5, D12–5a),’’ FHWA proposes to 

revise the Option statement to allow a 

pictograph of the transportation agency, 

or the travel information service or 

program to be displayed in place of the 

TRAVEL INFO CALL 511 legend on the 

D12–5a sign. This is proposed to 

provide agencies greater flexibility in 

program identification. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Guidance paragraph related to the 

maximum pictograph height and add a 

new Standard establishing the 

maximum height of the transportation 

agency or travel information service or 

program pictograph to be the height of 

the 511 pictograph that would otherwise 

be used on the D12–5a sign for the type 

of roadway it is located. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

uniformity in the size of travel 

information signing. 

280. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2I.13 Roadside Assistance Sign (D12– 

6),’’ which would permit the use of a 

new Roadside Assistance sign along a 

highway that is served by an authorized 

road assistance program with authorized 

service vehicles and personnel that 

provide roadside vehicle repair 

assistance to road users free of charge. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

agencies with a consistent sign that 

would be recognized by road users. 

281. In Section 2I.14 (existing Section 

2I.11), retitled, ‘‘Carpool and 

Ridesharing Signing (D12–2),’’ FHWA 

proposes to revise the existing Standard 

to add a maximum horizontal 

dimension of 30 inches for consistency 

with similar applications to maintain 

primacy of other more critical signs. 

FHWA also proposes to remove the 

existing Guidance pertaining to legend, 

border, and background colors as the 

design requirements of this sign are 

standardized and must comply with the 

existing provisions of Chapter 2A. 

282. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2I.15 Signing for Truck Parking 

Availability (D9–16b through D9–16e),’’ 

with Option, Standard, Support, and 

Guidance statements, as well as two 

new figures, related to the use of Truck 

Parking Availability General Service 

signs that may be used to display the 

number of available truck parking 

spaces at roadside areas such as rest 

areas, welcome centers, and weigh 

stations, and at facilities off a highway 

that are open to the public and provide 

parking for commercial vehicles. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80935 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2J Specific Service Signs 

283. FHWA proposes to replace 

‘‘logo’’ with ‘‘business identification’’ 

signs throughout Chapters 2J and 2K to 

recognize that a word legend can and 

often is used in lieu of a logo to identify 

the business on the Specific Service 

sign. This generally occurs when the 

business to be identified does not have 

a logo, their logo is not widely 

recognized, or their logo is otherwise 

unsuitable for display on the sign. The 

reclassification does not change the 

allowance for a business or service 

provider to use a corporate logo on a 

Specific Service sign. 

284. In Section 2J.01 Eligibility, 

FHWA proposes to delete the 24-hour 

Pharmacy Specific Service category 

because there has been little demand 

and most pharmacies that did obtain a 

logo on a Specific Service sign have 

since withdrawn from the associated 

agency program. Instead, the 24-hour 

pharmacy would remain as General 

Service only. FHWA also proposes to 

remove references to 24-hour 

pharmacies from Section 2J.02. 

FHWA also proposes to remove 

alternative fuels from the qualifications 

for a GAS business identification sign 

panel to eliminate any potential driver 

expectancy confusion should a facility 

offer one or more of the many 

alternative fuels only and not gasoline. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

existing Guidance P10 to Standard, 

because it is important for States to have 

a statewide policy for Specific Signing 

for the program to be successfully 

implemented in a consistent manner. 

Such policies already exist in a majority 

of the States. 

285. In Section 2J.02 Application, 

FHWA proposes to delete 24-hour 

Pharmacy Specific Service category 

from Standard P2 because there has 

been little demand and most pharmacies 

that did obtain a logo on a Specific 

Service sign have since withdrawn from 

the associated agency program. FHWA 

also proposes to revise existing P2 to 

address the display of distances 

explicitly to eligible facilities on the 

Specific Service signs on the approach 

to the interchange. While this practice 

has never been allowed, FHWA 

proposes this language to provide 

clarification based on the results of 

official experimentation and studies 

demonstrating that the display of 

distances requires too much time to read 

and reduces the effectiveness of these 

signs. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard statement prohibiting the 

inclusion of business identification sign 

panels for alternative fuel facilities on 

GAS Specific Service Signs for those 

facilities that offer only alternative fuels, 

but not gasoline. This addition is 

because driver expectancy for 

businesses on the GAS sign is that the 

business sells gasoline, even if one of 

the several alternative fuels might also 

be available. In concert with this 

change, FHWA also proposes to add a 

Support paragraph identifying the 

option to sign for alternative fuel 

facilities with General Service signs and 

directing users to Chapter 2I for more 

information on those provisions. 

FHWA also proposes Standard, 

Guidance, and Support statements 

limiting the allowable number of 

business identification sign panels for 

each Specific Service to six and 

recommending that when there are more 

than six eligible facilities for one or 

more categories of service, General 

Service signs for those services should 

be used instead. The proposed Support 

statement explains that Specific Service 

signs are intended for areas primarily 

rural in character, and that when 

services at an interchange are abundant, 

the character of the area is no longer 

primarily rural and the need to identify 

specific types or brands of facilities is 

generally unnecessary and General 

Service signs would be more 

appropriate. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement recommending that 

the ATTRACTION Specific Service sign 

should have no more than four business 

identification sign panels. FHWA 

proposes to explain in the Support 

statement that, because of the 

considerable variation in the types of 

attractions found on these signs, and the 

fact that many do not include well 

known services or national logos, it is 

generally more difficult and requires 

significantly more time to decipher 

between types of attractions shown on 

an ATTRACTION sign than for other 

categories of Specific Service signs 

where the types of facilities are more 

uniform. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing Standard P3 to clarify that 

configurations or arrangements of logo 

sign panels other than those listed are 

not allowed. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance and a new Option statement 

recommending that if a service is no 

longer available from an interchange or 

intersection, then the legend displaying 

the service type and direction 

information should be removed, or may 

only be covered if there is indication 

that this service may become available 

in the near future. This is proposed so 

that the road user does not misinterpret 

the sign as indicating that this type of 

service is still available, similar to the 

message on a General Service sign. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Figure 2J–1 to illustrate an example of 

General Service Signs in Conjunction 

with Specific Service Signs. 

286. In Section 2J.03 Logos and 

Business Identification Sign Panels, 

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance 

statement recommending that graphic or 

trademarked logos used on a logo sign 

panel should be consistent with the onpremise business identification signs at 

the location of the business that are 

visible from the roadway. FHWA 

proposes this recommendation to 

provide consistency between the logo 

sign panel and the signing on the 

business and accommodate driver 

expectancy and positive guidance. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Option allowing the border to be 

omitted where business identification 

symbols or trademarks are used alone 

for a logo. FHWA proposes this change 

to ensure consistent apparent size and 

visibility of the individual logos. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Standard regarding supplemental 

messages on logo sign panels to prohibit 

specifically additional amenities or 

products unrelated to the service 

category because those items are 

considered promotional advertising. 

FHWA proposes this revision to clarify 

the existing provisions, which do not 

allow for such messages. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard explicitly prohibiting the 

display of messages related to the 

promotion or availability of logo space 

on Specific Service signs. 

Further, FHWA proposes to add an 

Option to clarify that supplemental 

messages identifying an alternative fuel 

available may be added only to the 

business identification sign panels on 

the GAS Specific Services sign for a gas 

facility that provides that alternative 

fuel in addition to, rather than in lieu 

of, gasoline. FHWA proposes this 

change as a clarification of the Option 

provision allowing supplemental 

messages for essential motorist 

information and to accommodate driver 

expectancy of the nature of the services 

displayed. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Guidance provision regarding the 

legend and background colors of the 

supplemental messages, recommending 

they be a black legend on a yellow 

background for that portion of the 

business identification sign panel. 

FHWA proposes this change to make it 

easier for motorists to recognize 

supplemental information that is critical 

to their decision making. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80936 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

50The research report can be viewed at the 

following internet website: http://conf.tac-atc.ca/ 

english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/ 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Option and Standard for the alternative 

circular RV ACCESS supplemental 

message to standardize the RV ACCESS 

supplemental message for consistency. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to revise the 

Standard regarding business 

identification sign panel displays to 

prohibit a panel from displaying more 

than one name or identification logo/ 

trademark for the same business and to 

prohibit marketing slogans. This 

Standard also does not allow a sign 

panel to be used to display messages 

related to the promotion or availability 

of adding a business identification sign 

panel. FHWA proposes this change 

because promotional advertising is not 

allowed on traffic control devices. 

287. In Section 2J.06 Signs at

Interchanges, FHWA proposes a 

revision to the Standard indicating that 

Specific Service signs shall not be used 

at freeway-to-freeway interchanges, 

except at ramps that also provide access 

to a conventional road within that 

interchange. FHWA proposes this to 

ensure drivers are not confused by 

indicating a service is available on the 

freeway itself. 

To complement the existing Guidance 

providing recommended minimum 

spacing between Specific Service ramp 

signs, FHWA also proposes 

recommended minimum spacing 

between Specific Service ramp signs 

and other signs along the ramp. FHWA 

proposes this change to ensure that 

adequate spacing between critical 

destination, warning, and regulatory 

signs along the ramp is maintained. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Figure 2J–6 to illustrate an example of 

Specific Services Signing for a 

Conventional Road Accessed within a 

Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange. 

288. In Section 2J.07 Single-Exit

Interchanges, FHWA proposes to revise 

Standard P2 to clarify that the provision 

applies only to those ramps that allow 

a traffic to turn in either direction of the 

crossroad. FHWA proposes this 

clarification to provide greater 

flexibility to agencies by not requiring 

the ramp signs when the ramp requires 

all traffic to turn in one direction of the 

crossroad, resulting in cost savings to 

agencies and participating businesses. 

FHWA proposes to change the 

Guidance statement to an Option 

statement to allow, rather than 

recommend that Specific Service ramp 

signs display distances to a facility 

when not visible from the ramp 

intersection. FHWA proposes this 

change to provide agencies greater 

flexibility in determining whether to 

display the distance on Specific Service 

ramp signs. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement that recommends 

distances of less than 1⁄4 mile, when 

displayed, be displayed to the nearest 

1⁄10 mile. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to delete the 

Option allowing the use of an exit 

number plaque on Specific Service signs 

in advance of an interchange, because 

the standardized sign already contains 

the exit number. 

289. FHWA proposes to add a new

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

2J.09 Collector-Distributor Roadways for 

Successive Interchanges,’’ to include 

Support, Guidance, and Standard 

statements regarding signing for a 

collector-distributor roadway that 

provides access to multiple 

interchanges. This proposal includes 

requirements and recommendation on 

the number and location of signs based 

on the number of service facilities 

available at the multiple interchanges. 

FHWA proposes this new Section to 

address the application of mainline 

Specific Service signing when more 

than one interchange is accessed from 

the collector-distributor roadway. 

FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 

2J–7 to illustrate an example of Specific 

Services Signing from CollectorDistributor Road. 

290. In Section 2J.11 (existing Section

2J.10) Signs at Intersections, FHWA 

proposes to delete Standard P1 that 

requires that the specific service 

information be incorporated into the 

tourist-oriented directional signs at 

intersections on conventional roads or 

expressways when both tourist-oriented 

directional signs and Specific Service 

signs are needed. FHWA proposes 

removing this requirement to provide 

agencies the flexibility to provide 

continuity of information on these sign 

types as may be expected by road users. 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

recommending that sufficient space be 

provided between these different types 

of signs used at the same intersection so 

that the road user is not overloaded with 

information, and a requirement that if 

sufficient space is not available to add 

these signs to the other guide, warning, 

and regulatory signs that either or both 

of these service sign types shall not be 

used. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Guidance to remind users that the use 

of Specific Service signs in non-rural or 

conventional roadways is subject to an 

engineering study in compliance with 

Section 2J.01. 

291. In renumbered Section 2J.12

Signing Policy, FHWA proposes to 

change to a Standard the 

recommendation that each highway 

agency that elects to use Specific 

Service signs establish a general signing 

policy and add a requirement for a 

Statewide policy on the eligibility of 

service providers. FHWA proposes this 

change to ensure that States have a 

policy on eligible businesses for their 

Specific Service sign program that 

provides businesses equitable and 

consistent qualifications for signs, 

thereby meeting road user expectations 

while maintaining the recommendations 

on minimum sign policy criteria to be 

considered. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2K Tourist-Oriented 

Directional Signs 

292. In Section 2K.01 Purpose and

Application, FHWA proposes to revise 

the requirement in Standard P4 to 

clarify that tourist-oriented directional 

signs shall be limited to use on rural 

highways. FHWA also proposes to 

change the terminology from ‘‘rural 

conventional roads’’ to ‘‘rural 

highways’’ to match that used for such 

facilities as provided in Section 1C.02 

for clarity. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

requirement in Standard P5 that the 

specific service information be 

incorporated into the tourist-oriented 

directional signs at intersections on 

conventional roads or expressways 

when both tourist-oriented directional 

signs and Specific Service signs are 

needed. This is proposed for 

consistency with the removal of the 

same requirement in Section 2J.11 

(existing Section 2J.10). 

293. In Section 2K.02 Design, FHWA

proposes to add a new Standard 

requiring recreational and cultural 

interest area symbols to be white on a 

brown background. In addition, 

business identification sign panels shall 

not exceed 24 inches in width and 15 

inches in height. FHWA proposes these 

requirements to comply with sign colors 

as required in Chapter 2A and ensure 

the business identification sign panels 

are proportional in size with a touristoriented sign. 

294. In Section 2K.04 Arrangement

and Size of Signs, FHWA proposes to 

change the Guidance regarding the 

maximum number of signs installed in 

each assembly from four to three to be 

consistent with guidance provided in 

Section 2E.10 that no more than two 

destination names or street names 

should be displayed on any Advance 

Guide sign or Exit Direction sign, and 

consistency with research completed by 

the Quebec Ministry of Transport 50 that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80937 

conf2010/docs/j4/audet.pdf. 

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2L Changeable 

Message Signs 

found road users cannot adequately 

process the information when more than 

three destination panels are present in 

a sign assembly. 

295. In Section 2L.01 Description of 

Changeable Message Signs, FHWA 

proposes to add a paragraph to the 

Support statement to clarify that 

Changeable Message Signs (CMS) are 

traffic control devices, and therefore 

fundamental principles for the design 

and application apply, regardless of the 

type of message. The statement further 

explains that Chapter 2L is not a standalone chapter and criteria and use of 

engineering processes in other areas of 

the MUTCD also apply to CMS. 

FHWA proposes to relocate and revise 

Standard P3 to Section 2L.02, because 

this language applies to the applications 

of CMS and not the description of them. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Standard prohibiting information other 

than inventory or maintenance-related 

information from being displayed on the 

front or back of a CMS or portable CMS. 

This prohibition also includes names or 

logos of the manufacturer either in the 

message display or on the exterior 

housing. FHWA proposes this change to 

ensure the traffic control messages 

displayed on these signs are not 

compromised by other miscellaneous or 

promotional information, consistent 

with the provisions for all traffic control 

devices. 

296. In Section 2L.02 Applications of 

Changeable Message Signs, FHWA 

proposes to relocate and revise Standard 

P3 from Section 2L.01 because this 

language applies to the applications of 

CMS and not the description of them. 

As part of the revisions, FHWA 

proposes to clarify that CMS are to 

display only information as provided for 

in this chapter and other types of 

messages not related to traffic control 

and not provided for in this chapter 

shall not be displayed on CMS. FHWA 

proposes this additional language to 

promote uniformity in the use of CMS 

and to discourage the use CMS to 

display messages not provided for in the 

MUTCD, ensuring that the CMS adhere 

to the basic principles of an effective 

traffic control device that are stated in 

the existing provisions of Part 1. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

existing Option P2 to a Guidance and 

move the statement earlier in this 

section to clarify the types of messages 

to be used on CMS in support of the 

proposed Standard relocated from 

Section 2L.01. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Guidance statement recommending that 

CMS not be used in place of static guide 

sign messages except for blank-out type 

signs used to display regulatory, 

warning, and guidance information that 

routinely reoccurs but only on a parttime basis. In addition, only elements of 

a sign that are subject to change should 

be in an electronic display. FHWA 

proposes these changes to help ensure 

consistency in sign design by 

controlling the potential variability of 

information that should not change on 

a sign. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to delete 

Support Item D, messages pertaining to 

control at crossing situations, from the 

list of types of messages for which CMS 

are applicable. FHWA proposes this 

change, because ‘‘control at crossings’’ 

is not well understood and such 

messages would be covered under the 

other more general categories within the 

list, such as ‘‘Warning situations’’ or 

‘‘Traffic regulations.’’ 

FHWA proposes to change existing 

Guidance P3 to a Standard to require 

that agencies that have permanently 

installed or positioned CMS have a 

policy regarding their use and the 

display of all types of messages used on 

CMS. Such policies shall define the 

types of messages that would be 

allowed, the priority of messages, the 

syntax of messages, the timing of 

messages, and other important 

messaging elements to ensure messages 

displayed meet the basic principles that 

govern the design and use of traffic 

control devices in general and traffic 

signs in particular as provided for in the 

MUTCD. In concert with this change, 

FHWA proposes that State and local 

agencies that use CMS that are not 

permanently installed or positioned 

should develop and establish a similar 

policy. FHWA proposes these changes 

in order to ensure urgent and real-time 

traffic operational and safety messages 

developed to address varying roadway 

and traffic conditions are easily 

understood, timely, and relevant. 

FHWA proposes to include 

recommendations specific to the display 

of AMBER alerts, including limiting the 

length of messages, and details, such as 

description of persons, vehicles or 

license plate numbers. In addition, 

FHWA proposes to add a new Standard 

paragraph prohibiting other ‘‘alert’’ 

messages that are not related to traffic or 

travel conditions that are not otherwise 

permitted in P2. FHWA proposes this to 

emphasize that AMBER alert messages 

are a result of a statutory requirement 

and are the only ‘‘alert’’ exception to the 

statute that requires traffic control 

devices to be related to traffic control. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Support P4 to clarify examples of 

acceptable traffic safety campaign 

supporting and transportation-related 

messages. 

FHWA also proposes to add new 

Guidance and Standard paragraphs 

regarding the appropriate and allowable 

use of traffic safety campaign messages 

on CMS displays. FHWA proposes this 

new language to clarify that safety and 

transportation-related messages should 

be clear and direct, and meaningful to 

the road user on the roadway that the 

message is displayed. FHWA 

recommends that messages with obscure 

meaning, references to popular culture, 

that are intended to be humorous, or 

otherwise use nonstandard syntax, not 

be displayed because they can be 

misunderstood or understood only by a 

limited segment of road users and, 

therefore, degrade the overall 

effectiveness of the sign as an official 

traffic control device. FHWA proposes 

in the Standard that only traffic safety 

campaign messages that are part of an 

active, coordinated safety campaign that 

uses other media forms as its primary 

means of outreach be displayed on 

CMS. Based on the widely varying 

views that have been expressed on the 

topic of uses of CMS and message 

content, including the use of 

unconventional syntax and humor, 

FHWA requests that commenters 

provide sufficient detail and 

explanation of how their position would 

maintain the uniformity and 

effectiveness of CMS for their intended 

purpose of displaying real-time traffic 

regulatory, warning, or guidance 

information. FHWA requests that 

commenters address, in particular, the 

use of CMS for messages outside the 

scope of traffic-related messages, such 

as those that are intended only to 

modify driver behavior, the frequency 

and extent of use for this purpose, and 

its overall effect on the efficacy of traffic 

messages when displayed. Specific 

references should be made to the 

proposed MUTCD text and the 

explanation provided in this document. 

In addition, FHWA requests that 

commenters provide supporting 

objective and empirical data, such as 

those from human factors evaluations, 

engineering studies, and similar 

nonsubjective assessments. 

FHWA also proposes Support, 

Standard, and Guidance statements 

regarding the use of messages related to 

homeland security and emergencies that 

affect traffic patterns, movement, or 

present other situations that are 

atypical. FHWA proposes these 

statements to provide provisions for 

messaging on CMS for such events 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80938 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

while maintain the integrity of and 

respect for CMS as a traffic control 

device. 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

that safety campaigns using CMS should 

include coordinated enforcement efforts 

when penalties or enforcement 

warnings are part of the CMS message 

displayed to road users. FHWA 

proposes this to maintain the credibility 

of these signs and improve safety. 

297. In Section 2L.03 Legibility and 

Visibility of Changeable Message Signs, 

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance 

statement specifying that changeable 

message regulatory and warning signs 

displayed individually or as part of the 

legend of a larger sign should conform 

to the minimum size requirements as 

the static versions of those signs. FHWA 

also proposes to add a Figure 

illustrating an example. FHWA 

proposes this change to ensure that all 

components of a sign legend’s legibility 

are maintained for all road users. 

298. FHWA proposes to change the 

title of existing Section 2L.04 to ‘‘Design 

Characteristics of Messages,’’ to describe 

better the content of the section. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Standard paragraph requiring portable 

CMS used as an arrow board with 

flashing or sequential display for a lane 

closure to conform with provisions in 

Section 6F.61. FHWA proposes this 

change for consistency of device 

operation used for the same application, 

because a CMS used in this manner is 

operating as an arrow board, which is 

allowed to have dynamic display. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Standard paragraph requiring all 

message displays on CMS, whether for 

regulatory, warning, or guidance 

information on traffic operations, or for 

other allowable message types as 

defined in the section, follow the same 

design and display principles found in 

the MUTCD used for other traffic 

control signs, except as provided 

elsewhere in this chapter. FHWA 

proposes this Standard to promote 

uniformity in the display of CMS and 

maintaining its effectiveness as a traffic 

control device. 

FHWA also proposes to provide 

Guidance that warning beacons should 

not be used on CMS for the purpose of 

drawing attention to certain types of 

messages over others, but instead 

should be limited to those messages that 

are critical to real-time conditions on a 

more frequent basis. FHWA proposes 

this provision to ensure that CMS 

maintain the same level of respect of 

road users expected of all traffic control 

devices at all times, regardless of 

message being displayed. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Guidance P6 regarding CMS word 

message lettering heights to clarify what 

types of CMS the letter heights apply to, 

and to clarify that the provisions do not 

apply to blank-out signs. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

existing Guidance P15 regarding legend 

color when there is a black background 

to a Standard for sign consistency since 

changeable message signs can 

accommodate multiple colors. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the last 

sentence of Support P17 regarding 

newer technologies of CMS and add 

reference to a new figure that provides 

a comparative example of the effects of 

varying pixel densities. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Guidance P18 to recommend where an 

LED matrix is used to form the 

changeable legend, signs with pixel 

spacing greater than 20mm should 

display only word legends, and no 

symbols or route shields. FHWA 

proposes this change based on a review 

of manufacturer products and visual 

inspections of the appearance of legends 

on these types of signs, which indicate 

that these signs do not provide adequate 

resolution to display symbols with 

sufficient clarity for road user instant 

recognition and therefore should only 

be use for word messages. 

299. In Section 2L.05 Message Length 

and Units of Information, FHWA 

proposes to revise Standard P4 to clarify 

that when a CMS contains more than 

one message phase, each phase shall be 

communicated so that the road user may 

understand each phase by itself 

regardless of the sequence in which it is 

read, and the message shall have the 

same meaning regardless of the 

sequence it is read. FHWA proposes this 

change, because it is important that road 

users be able to understand the intent of 

the message if they can only read one 

of the phases or when the phases are 

read in different order. 

FHWA proposes to delete Standard P5 

since the text is already covered in 

Section 2L.04. 

FHWA proposes to change Guidance 

P8 to an Option to clarify that adding 

additional CMS is an option available to 

agencies for displaying longer messages 

that would require more than two 

phases, which is the most number of 

phases allowed on a CMS. 

FHWA proposes to change and 

relocate Guidance P9 regarding 

abbreviations within a CMS message to 

a Standard. FHWA proposes this change 

because the provisions contained in the 

referenced Section are Standards. 

FHWA also proposes to add a Support 

paragraph that provides reference to two 

proposed new tables that list examples 

of message construction for CMS. 

FHWA proposes these tables to ensure 

that message recognition, 

comprehension, and effectiveness is 

maintained for all road users. 

300. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2L.06 

Frequency of Display of Messages.’’ In 

this new section, FHWA proposes 

Support and Guidance paragraphs to 

address the potential for habituation to 

changeable message signs due to 

excessive use for the display of 

messages that are not related to realtime traffic conditions. 

301. FHWA proposes a new Section 

2L.07 titled, ‘‘Travel Time Messages.’’ In 

this new Section, FHWA proposes a 

Guidance paragraph limiting the 

number of travel times displayed to one 

when destination and distance are used 

as the point of reference, also proposing 

an Option to display up to two travel 

times when reference-location-based 

exit numbering is used as the point of 

reference in place of destination and 

distance. FHWA proposes this new 

Section based on the established 

principles regarding informational load 

and the road user’s ability to process 

information while operating a vehicle in 

traffic. 

302. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 2L.08 

Traffic Safety Campaign Messages.’’ In 

this new section, FHWA proposes 

Support, Guidance, and Standard 

paragraphs describing the display of 

traffic safety campaign messages as an 

ancillary use of CMS. FHWA proposes 

a Guidance paragraph recommending 

that traffic safety campaign messages be 

coordinated with the national safety 

campaigns on NHTSA’s 

communications calendar. Lastly, 

FHWA proposes a Standard paragraph 

that requires traffic control messages to 

have primacy over traffic safety 

campaign messages. FHWA proposes 

this new Section to ensure that CMS be 

used only for their intended purpose 

and that traffic-related messages take 

precedence over other types of 

allowable messages. 

303. In Section 2L.09 (existing Section 

2L.06) retitled, ‘‘Location of Permanent 

Changeable Message Signs,’’ FHWA 

proposes to add a Support paragraph 

that provides reference to factors that 

should be considered when deciding on 

proposed locations for CMS. FHWA 

proposes this change as proper location 

of signs helps ensure that message 

recognition, comprehension, and 

sufficient reaction time is maintained 

for all road users. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80939 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2M Recreational and Cultural 

Interest Area Signs 

304. In Section 2M.02 Application of 

Recreational and Cultural Interest Area 

Signs, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Standard paragraph requiring that 

standard symbols prescribed outside of 

this section within the Manual that are 

used on a roadway outside of a 

recreational and cultural interest area 

shall use the design and size as 

prescribed. FHWA proposes this change 

to clarify existing standards that 

prohibit the use of alternative symbol 

signs. The legend and color of the sign 

shall be as prescribed for the standard 

symbol sign. In concert with that 

change, FHWA proposes to add a table, 

referenced in the Support statement, 

that indicates which symbols are for use 

only within recreational and cultural 

interest area facilities. 

305. In Section 2M.04 General Design 

Requirements for Recreational and 

Cultural Interest Area Symbol Guide 

Signs, FHWA proposes to add two new 

Standard statements requiring that 

symbols contained in Chapters 2H and 

2I used in conjunction with recreational 

and cultural interest area signing on 

roadways outside a recreational and 

cultural interest facility shall have the 

legend and background color of the 

symbol sign as prescribed in those 

respective chapters. FHWA proposes 

this change as a clarification that the 

standard colors for General Information 

and General Service signs are applicable 

even when located with a recreational 

or cultural interest area destination and 

that brown as a sign background color 

applies only to recreational and cultural 

interest destinations or activities. 

306. In Section 2M.06 Use of 

Educational Plaques, FHWA proposes to 

delete the Guidance recommending that 

the educational plaque remain in place 

for at least 3 years after the initial 

installation. FHWA proposes this 

deletion to provide agencies with 

greater flexibility and for consistency 

with similar provisions elsewhere in the 

MUTCD. 

307. In Section 2M.07, retitled, ‘‘Use 

of Prohibitive Circle and Diagonal for 

Non-Road Applications,’’ FHWA 

proposes to revise Standard P1 to 

provide reference to the existing 

requirements of Chapter 2A to ensure 

consistency in sign design. 

308. In Section 2M.08 Placement of 

Recreational and Cultural Interest Area 

Symbol Signs, FHWA proposes to delete 

Option P3 regarding the placement of 

the symbol on the Wildlife Viewing 

Area sign. FHWA proposes this deletion 

to ensure consistency in sign designs. 

309. In Section 2M.09 Destination 

Guide Signs, FHWA proposes to change 

the Guidance paragraph regarding the 

shape and colors of destination guide 

signs to a Standard and limit the shape 

of Supplemental Guide signs to 

rectangular with an Option to use a 

trapezoidal shape sign on conventional 

roadways. In concert with this change, 

FHWA also proposes to add a Standard 

describing the required shape of the 

trapezoidal sign when used with a 

directional arrow. FHWA proposes 

these changes to eliminate a conflict 

with existing standards that define the 

exclusive uses of sign shapes in Chapter 

2A and does not result in a new 

requirement. 

310. In Section 2M.10 Memorial or 

Dedication Signing, FHWA proposes to 

delete the Option language related to the 

installation of memorial or dedication 

signing along the mainline if installation 

off the main roadway is not practical. 

FHWA proposes this change because an 

Option is not needed for deviation from 

a Guidance paragraph based on 

engineering judgment and the 

provisions for locating such signs on the 

highway are provided in the existing 

Standard provision. 

FHWA also proposes to revise and 

expand the existing Guidance statement 

and change an existing Option to 

Guidance regarding the design of 

memorial or dedication signs. FHWA 

also proposes to add a Guidance 

paragraph referencing Section 2A.03 for 

locating memorial or dedication signs to 

ensure adequate visibility of higher 

priority signs. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Standard prohibiting memorial or 

dedication signs from displaying a 

legend that implies that the highway has 

been officially renamed. FHWA 

proposes this change to ensure positive 

guidance, consistency, and 

minimization of confusion in the 

information displayed to road users 

along a particular route. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Chapter 2N Emergency Management 

Signs 

311. In Chapter 2N, retitled, 

‘‘Emergency Management Signs,’’ 

FHWA proposes to revise the 

designations of all standard signs to 

conform to the dual-numbering 

convention used throughout the rest of 

the MUTCD. For example, EM–1 would 

be redesignated EM1–1. This change 

would result in each Section’s title 

reflecting a revised sign numbering 

convention. 

312. In Section 2N.02, retitled, 

‘‘Design and Use of Emergency 

Management Signs,’’ FHWA proposes to 

revise Standard P2 to clarify that signs 

normally in place that conflict with 

Emergency Management signs shall be 

removed or covered until such time as 

the Emergency Management signs are no 

longer necessary. FHWA proposes to 

expand the Standard to indicate that 

except for Evacuation Route signs, 

Emergency Management signs that are 

no longer necessitated by the emergency 

shall be promptly removed and signs 

that normally provide guidance, 

warning, or regulation that were 

removed or covered during the 

emergency shall be promptly displayed 

again. FHWA proposes these changes to 

provide clarity in the appropriate use of 

Emergency Management signs. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

Standard P3 to a Support statement 

regarding the Federal Government 

providing guidance to the States as 

necessitated by changing circumstances 

because it is outside the scope of the 

MUTCD to make such a requirement 

that does not involve traffic control 

devices. 

313. In Section 2N.03, retitled, 

‘‘Evacuation Route Signs (EM1 Series),’’ 

FHWA proposes to delete certain design 

information provided in Standard P1 

because the design is standardized and 

must comply with the existing 

provisions of Chapter 2A. 

FHWA proposes to relocate Option 

text regarding Advance Turn and 

Directional Arrow auxiliary plaques to 

Standard P3. The new Standard text 

would require that Advance Turn and 

Directional Arrow auxiliary signs have a 

white arrow and border on a blue 

background when used with EM1–2 

series signs to provide consistency with 

similar provisions of Chapter 2D, which 

requires the colors of auxiliary plaques 

to be consistent with the route sign in 

a directional assembly. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

Option permitting the use of an 

approved Emergency Management 

symbol near the bottom of an 

Evacuation Route sign because the Civil 

Defense pictograph is no longer used in 

emergency management applications. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

Standard statement to a Guidance 

statement regarding placement of the 

Evacuation Route sign in advance of an 

approved evacuation route. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement recommending the 

use of the specific Evacuation Route 

(EM1–2 series) be limited to areas where 

different evacuation conditions use 

different evacuation routes to minimize 

unnecessary use of additional sign 

legends and associated auxiliary 

plaques instead of the general 

Evacuation Route (EM1–1) sign. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80940 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

51ATSSA Report, ‘‘Evaluation of the Effects of 

Pavement Marking Width on Detectability by 

Machine Vision: 4-Inch vs 6-Inch Markings’’ 2018 

can be viewed at the following internet website: 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/ 

Communications/Booklet_2018PMForMV4vs6in_

FinalReport.pdf. 

52NCHRP 20–106(6) Report in Progress ‘‘Road 

Markings for Machine Vision’’ 2019 can be viewed 

at the following internet website: https://

apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?

ProjectID=4004. 

53NCHRP Report 605, ‘‘Passing Sight Distance 

Criteria’’ 2008, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ 

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_605.pdf. 

314. In Section 2N.04, retitled, ‘‘Area 

Closed Sign (EM2–1),’’ FHWA proposes 

to change the Standard to a Guidance to 

recommend, rather than require, the 

provisions related to AREA CLOSED 

sign placement, to provide agencies 

with flexibility. 

315. In Section 2N.05, retitled, 

‘‘Traffic Control Point Sign (EM2–2),’’ 

FHWA proposes to change the usage 

provisions of the first three paragraphs 

in the Standard statement to Guidance 

to provide agencies with greater 

flexibility. FHWA also proposes to 

delete the Standard describing the 

design of the TRAFFIC CONTROL 

POINT sign, because the design is 

standardized. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Part 3—Pavement Markings 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within Part 3—General 

316. FHWA proposes to reorganize 

Part 3 to improve the continuity and 

flow of information regarding the 

application of markings in the MUTCD 

by relocating various paragraphs and 

sections throughout the part, dividing 

long sections into several sections each 

having a clearly understandable title 

and function, and creating a new 

Chapter 3C Crosswalks to compile 

information across multiple chapters 

into one location. The proposed 

reorganization is reflected in the 

descriptions below. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within Chapter 3A 

317. In Section 3A.01 (existing 

Section 3A.02) Standardization of 

Application, FHWA proposes to relocate 

existing P2 to Part 1 to make this 

provision applicable to all traffic control 

devices. FHWA proposes this change 

because all traffic control devices, not 

just markings, should be in place prior 

to the opening of any new highway or 

private road open to public travel. 

318. In Section 3A.02 (existing 

Section 3A.04) Materials, FHWA 

proposes changing existing P2 from 

Support to Option because the use of 

clumps or droplets of material is 

permissible and the statement is more 

appropriate as an Option. 

FHWA also proposes to relocate 

existing P5 to Section 3G.04 (existing 

Section 3F.04) because it describes 

delineator placement. 

319. In Section 3A.03 (existing 

Section 3A.05) Colors, FHWA proposes 

to clarify that the use of black markings 

is an Option that can be used to enhance 

the contrast of markings on a lightcolored pavement. 

FHWA also proposes to relocate 

information regarding purple markings 

to Chapter 3F (existing Chapter 3E) 

Markings for Toll Plazas and Chapter 3H 

(existing Chapter 3G) Colored Pavement 

and retain a reference to those locations. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change existing P7 from Option to 

Standard since markings that simulate 

official route signs, when used, shall 

have the same colors as those used for 

the signs. FHWA proposes this change 

to ensure uniformity in the application 

that aids in recognition of the message. 

320. In Section 3A.04 (existing 

Section 3A.06) Functions, Widths, and 

Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement 

Markings, FHWA proposes to add Item 

E to the list of general functions of 

longitudinal lines to clarify the 

functions of dotted lane lines and dotted 

lines used as a lane line or edge line 

extensions. 

In the list of widths and patterns of 

longitudinal lines, FHWA proposes to 

indicate that 6-inch wide lines are to be 

used for freeways, expressways, and 

ramps as well as for all other roadways 

with speed limits greater than 40 mph 

and that 4- to 6-inch wide lines are to 

be used for all other roadways. FHWA 

proposes this change to improve 

visibility and consistency on ‘‘high 

speed’’ facilities and based on research 

showing improved machine vision 

detectability.51 52

FHWA also proposes to change the 

definition of a wide line to at least 8 

inches in width if 4-inch or 5-inch 

normal lines are used, and at least 10 

inches in width if 6-inch normal lines 

are used. This change is proposed to 

clarify the definition based on varying 

practices for ‘‘normal’’ width lines and 

to reduce the impact on agencies that 

use 6 inch lines as their ‘‘normal’’ 

width. 

Also, FHWA proposes to expand the 

definition for a double line to clarify 

that the pavement surface must be 

visible between the lines except when 

contrast markings are used based on 

FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 3(09)-41(I). 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Guidance statement regarding the 

width of the discernible space 

separating the parallel lines of a double 

line so that they can be recognized as a 

double line rather than two, separate 

disassociated single lines. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within Chapter 3B 

321. In Section 3B.01, retitled, 

‘‘Yellow Center Line Pavement 

Markings,’’ FHWA proposes revising P6 

to specify that reversible lanes and twoway left turn lanes are exceptions to the 

requirement for two normal solid yellow 

lines for undivided roadways with four 

or more lanes. The proposed provisions 

explicitly state exceptions that are 

currently implied in existing Section 

3B.03. 

322. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 3B.02 

Warrants for Yellow Center Lines’’ 

comprised of existing P9 through P13 

from existing Section 3B.01. FHWA 

proposes this change to make it easier 

to locate the warrant information. 

323. In Section 3B.03 (existing 

Section 3B.02), retitled, ‘‘No-Passing 

Zone Pavement Markings,’’ FHWA 

proposes to change the second and third 

sentences in existing P4 from Standard 

to Support because they contain design 

information and not traffic control 

device requirements and are supported 

by an NCHRP research report.53

FHWA also proposes to change 

existing P9 from Option to Support 

because no-passing zone signing 

information is contained in Part 2. 

In addition, FHWA proposes deleting 

existing P14–P16 since they are 

redundant with existing provisions 

contained in Section 3B.12 (existing 

Section 3B.09). 

324. FHWA proposes to separate 

existing Section 3B.03 into two new 

sections, titled, ‘‘Section 3B.04 Yellow 

Pavement Markings for Reversible 

Lanes’’ and ‘‘Section 3J.03 Islands 

Designated by Pavement Markings’’ to 

separate the content for islands into the 

chapter devoted to marking and 

delineation of islands. 

325. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 3B.05 

Pavement Markings for Two-Way LeftTurn Lanes’’ containing P3 through P5 

from existing Section 3B.03 and P28 

through P30 from existing Section 

3B.20. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph to discourage 

extending two-way left-turn lane 

markings to intersections and proposes 

to add a Support statement indicating 

that two-way left turn lanes can be 

transitioned to exclusive left turn lanes. 

FHWA proposes to modify Figure 3B–7 

to correspond to the new 

recommendations. FHWA proposes this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80941 

54NCHRP 20–106(6) Report in Progress ‘‘Road 

Markings for Machine Vision’’ 2019 can be viewed 

at the following internet website: https://

apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/ 

TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4004. 

change to improve intersection safety by 

minimizing conflict between 

corresponding left-turn movements. 

326. In Section 3B.06 (existing 

Section 3B.04), retitled, ‘‘White Lane 

Line Pavement Markings,’’ FHWA 

proposes to expand existing P25 by 

changing existing P26 from Option to 

Guidance to recommend, rather than 

just allow, solid white lane lines on 

approaches to intersections to separate 

adjacent mandatory turn lanes, and to 

add a recommended use of solid white 

lane lines at toll collection points to 

separate toll lanes, payment methods, 

channelized movements, or 

obstructions. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option paragraph allowing solid white 

lane lines to separate contiguous 

through traffic lanes on an approach to 

an intersection, to separate through 

traffic lanes from auxiliary lanes, and on 

approaches to crosswalks across multilane roadways, reflecting a common 

current practice. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

new Option and Support paragraphs for 

providing curved transitions where an 

edge line, channelizing line, or dotted 

extension line changes direction. FHWA 

proposes this change based on the 

recognition that many agencies 

currently use curved, rather than 

angular, transitions for changes in 

direction. 

327. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 3B.07 

White Lane Line Markings for NonContinuing Lanes’’ consisting of P6– 

P19, and P23 of existing Section 3B.04. 

FHWA proposes to revise existing 

Standard P13 to add a new Item C 

requiring a wide dotted white lane line 

in advance of freeway route splits with 

an option lane. FHWA proposes this 

change to provide consistency with 

existing requirements for similar 

situations in which traffic in one of the 

lanes must depart from the main route. 

In concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes to add Drawing E showing an 

example of a route split with option 

lane to Figure 3B–10 Examples of 

Applications of Freeway and 

Expressway Lane-Drop Markings. 

FHWA also proposes to change two 

Options to Standards requiring dotted 

white line extensions for deceleration 

lanes at exit ramps and for acceleration 

lanes at entrance ramps based on 

recommendations from the National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices’ (NCUTCD) CAV Task Force 

and NCHRP 20–102(06).54

328. In Section 3B.08 (existing 

Section 3B.05), retitled, ‘‘Channelizing 

Lines,’’ FHWA proposes to change 

existing P2 from Option to Support 

because the information about 

channelizing lines provides general 

information and does not provide an 

option. 

FHWA also proposes to add two new 

Standard paragraphs requiring 

channelizing lines on both sides of the 

neutral area for bifurcations created 

from open-road tolling lanes that bypass 

a conventional toll plaza and on both 

sides of the neutral area formed at 

access and egress points to and from a 

managed-lane facility. FHWA proposes 

this change to guide road users around 

the neutral area either to general 

purpose lanes or the tolling and/or 

managed lanes. 

In addition, FHWA also proposes to 

modify existing P3 to change 

‘‘channelizing lines’’ to ‘‘neutral area’’ 

regarding the requirement that other 

markings in the area be white. In 

addition, FHWA proposes a new 

Support listing chevron markings, 

retroreflective raised pavement markers, 

and internally illuminated raised 

pavement markers as items within the 

neutral area, with section references. 

329. In Section 3B.09 (existing 

Section 3B.06), FHWA proposes to add 

a Guidance recommending that edge 

lines on two-lane roadways should be at 

least 6 inches wide, regardless of the 

width of the normal line used on the 

roadway. FHWA proposes to modify 

existing P2 from Standard to Guidance 

to recommend against, instead of 

prohibit, the use of edge line markings 

through intersections or major 

driveways. FHWA proposes this change 

to provide additional practitioner 

flexibility. 

FHWA also proposes to add 

exceptions for dotted edge line 

extensions and the part of the 

intersection with no intersection 

approach (such as the top of a Tintersection) since these are locations 

where edge lines are commonly used in 

practice. 

330. In Section 3B.11 (existing 

Section 3B.08), retitled, ‘‘Application of 

Pavement Markings Through 

Intersections or Interchanges,’’ FHWA 

proposes to change part of P1 requiring 

that pavement markings extended into 

or continued through an intersection or 

interchange be the same width from 

Standard to Guidance. FHWA proposes 

this change because the combination of 

the provision with the existing Option 

in P2 is more appropriate as Guidance 

and the application can be determined 

using engineering judgment. 

FHWA also proposes to relocate to 

this section an existing Standard 

requiring that extensions of center lines 

through intersections, if used, shall be 

dotted lines. This Standard is an 

existing requirement contained only in 

a Note on existing Figure 3B–13 (D) 

Examples of Lane Extensions through 

Intersections. This Note is proposed for 

deletion from the figure to avoid 

duplication. 

FHWA proposes to relocate P2 from 

Section 3B.09 (existing Section 3B.06) 

and change from Standard to Guidance 

for restricting the use of edge line 

extensions through intersections. FHWA 

also proposes to relocate and revise P5 

from Section 3B.09 (existing Section 

3B.06) for maintaining edge lines at 

driveways that do not meet the 

definition of an intersection. FHWA 

proposes the relocations to consolidate 

provisions regarding markings through 

intersections. 

Also, FHWA proposes to modify 

Standard P6 to provide an exception to 

allow solid lines to extend edge lines 

through intersections or major driveway 

when there is no intersecting approach. 

FHWA proposes this change based on 

feedback from designers so markings 

will send intended effect and not 

communicate a conflict where none 

exists, and to provide additional user 

flexibility for situations like the top of 

a T-intersection when the prohibition of 

solid lines through the intersection is 

not applicable. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Guidance paragraph recommending 

that solid lines not be used to extend 

edge lines into or through intersections 

or major driveways except through that 

part of the intersection with no 

intersecting approach (such as at the top 

of a T-intersection). FHWA proposes 

this change to provide drivers a visual 

cue of side street traffic. 

Further, FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Guidance P8 because the 

information is related to design and not 

traffic control device uniformity. 

331. In Section 3B.12 (existing 

Section 3B.09), retitled, ‘‘LaneReduction Transitions,’’ FHWA 

proposes to revise the Standard P3 to 

state the criteria for lane-reduction 

transitions more clearly, rather than 

referring to the Figure, which contains 

elements that are required, 

recommended, and optional. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph and list for 

recommended markings for lanereduction transitions, comprising 

information throughout the Section and 

contained in existing Figure 3B–14. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80942 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

55TTI Report FHWA/TX–10/0–5890–1 

‘‘Guidelines for the Use of Pavement Marking 

Symbols at Freeway Interchanges’’ 2009, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5890- 

1.pdf. 

FHWA also proposes to delete all the 

notes in Figure 3B–14 and retitle it to 

‘‘Examples of Applications of Lane 

Reduction Transitions.’’ 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option paragraph permitting the 

minimum taper length to be less than 

100 feet on roadways where operating 

speed is less than 25 mph based on 

common practice and to provide 

practitioner flexibility on low speed 

roadways. 

332. In Section 3B.13 (existing 

Section 3B.10), Approach Markings for 

Obstructions, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option paragraph allowing the 

minimum taper length to be less than 

100 feet on site roadways open to public 

travel where the operating speed is less 

than 25 mph based on engineering 

judgment to provide practitioner 

flexibility on low speed roadways. 

333. In Section 3B.17 (existing 

Section 3B.14) Raised Pavement 

Markers Substituting for Pavement 

Markings, FHWA proposes to upgrade 

existing Guidance P8 from existing 

Section 3B.11 to a Standard and relocate 

it to Section 3B.17, to require that nonretroreflective raised pavement markers 

shall not be used alone, without 

supplemental retroreflective or 

internally illuminated markers, as a 

substitute for other types of pavement 

markings due to lack of retroreflectivity 

and difficulty for machine vision 

systems. 

334. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 3B.15 Transverse 

Markings because transverse markings 

are already defined in Part 1 and the 

section does not provide information 

related to the application or operation of 

traffic control devices. 

335. In Section 3B.18 (existing 

Section 3B.23), retitled, ‘‘Curb Markings 

for Parking Regulations,’’ FHWA 

proposes to change P2 related to curb 

markings for parking regulations from 

Standard to Guidance to allow 

engineering judgment to determine if 

signs should be provided based on site 

conditions. 

FHWA also proposes to change P6 

from Support to Guidance because 

yellow and white curb markings used 

frequently for curb delineation and 

visibility of parking regulations should 

be established through the installation 

of standard signs and the provision is 

more appropriate as a recommendation. 

336. In Section 3B.19 (existing 

Section 3B.16), Stop and Yield Lines, 

FHWA proposes to change existing P3 

from Option to Standard to require, 

rather than just allow, a Yield (R1–2) 

sign, Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1–5 or 

R1–5a), or Bikes Yield to Pedestrians 

(R9–6) sign, or some other traffic control 

device that requires vehicles to Yield 

when installing a yield line. This 

change clarifies ambiguity in the 

previous Option statement that the 

pavement marking cannot be installed 

without an enforceable regulatory sign. 

FHWA also proposes a new Support 

paragraph to provide a reference to 

Section 9B.12 regarding a sign signing 

applicable to bicycles also subject to a 

yielding requirement at a crosswalk. 

337. In Section 3B.20, retitled, ‘‘Word, 

Symbol, and Arrow Pavement 

Markings—General,’’ FHWA proposes to 

add a new Option paragraph allowing 

pavement words, symbols, and arrows 

to be reduced in size no less than 1⁄4

size, but in relative proportion to the 

associated full-size word, symbol, or 

arrow on roadways where the operating 

speed is less than 25 mph to provide 

practitioner flexibility on low speed 

roadways. 

FHWA also proposes to delete 

existing Standard P3 because it not 

needed to explain that word, symbol, 

and arrow markings shall be white, 

except as otherwise provided. 

338. In new Section 3B.21 titled, 

‘‘Word Pavement Markings’’ that is 

comprised of P5, P7, P14, P15, P26, P32, 

and P33 from existing Section 3B.20, 

FHWA proposes to delete the existing 

Standard P14 that allows the word 

STOP to be used in conjunction with a 

stop line but does not require a STOP 

sign. FHWA proposes this change 

because the MUTCD explicitly does not 

apply to driving aisles within parking 

areas per Section 1A, and a STOP sign 

is required with a stop line for all 

situations that are covered by the 

MUTCD. 

Also, FHWA proposes to revise 

existing Guidance P5 to note that the 

bicycle detector symbol is not intended 

to be 6 feet or more in height. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to delete 

the second sentence of existing 

paragraph 26 since this is related to 

traffic control design and not uniformity 

of the application. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option paragraph allowing the ONLY 

word marking to be used or to 

supplement a preferential lane work or 

symbol marking based on common 

practices. 

339. In new Section 3B.22 titled, 

‘‘Symbol Pavement Markings’’ that is 

comprised of P12, P16, P17, P18, and 

P19 from existing Section 3B.20, FHWA 

proposes two Guidance statements 

related to the use of route shield 

markings in option lanes based on a TTI 

study.55

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option paragraph allowing the use of a 

pedestrian symbol pavement marking 

that may be used on portions of 

facilities such as shared-use paths that 

are reserved exclusively for pedestrian 

use. 

340. In Section 3B.25 (existing 

Section 3B.24), retitled, ‘‘Chevron and 

Diagonal Markings,’’ FHWA proposes to 

delete the term ‘‘crosshatch’’ and 

instead just use the words ‘‘chevron’’ 

and ‘‘diagonal’’ to describe the marking 

better and provide more situations 

where each can be used. 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

existing Option paragraph into separate 

Guidance paragraphs for chevron and 

diagonal markings to recommend the 

intended applications for each. FHWA 

based this on the NCUTCD CAV Task 

Force and Automated Driving Systems 

Task Force joint recommendations that 

were approved by the Markings 

Technical Committee in June 2019. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Guidance paragraph recommending 

white markings for diagonal markings 

used in on-street no-parking zones and 

a new Option to allow lines used for 

diagonal markings in no-parking zones 

to be 4 inches wide. 

Further, FHWA proposes to modify a 

Guidance paragraph to recommend that 

the lines used for chevron and diagonal 

markings to be at least 4 inches wide on 

roadways where the operating speed is 

less than 25 mph to provide practitioner 

flexibility on low speed roadways. 

341. In Section 3B.27 (existing 

Section 3B.19) Parking Space Markings, 

FHWA proposes to revise the Standard 

by adding the phrase ‘‘on-street’’ to 

describe the parking space markings 

that shall be white. FHWA proposes this 

change to clarify that off-street parking 

space markings, such as those used in 

shopping center parking lots, are not 

governed by the MUTCD as provided in 

Item C of Paragraph 3 in the existing 

Introduction. 

342. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 3B.21 Speed 

Measurement Markings because they are 

not traffic control devices. In concert 

with this change, FHWA proposes to 

remove the optional speed measurement 

marking shown on Figure 3B–10, 

‘‘Examples of Applications of Freeway 

and Expressway Lane-Drop Markings.’’ 

343. In Section 3B.28 (existing 

Section 3B.22) Speed Reduction 

Markings, FHWA proposes to change 

the second sentence in P3 from 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80943 

56 ‘‘Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: 

Informational Report (AIIR)’’ FHWA–HRT–06–090, 

April 2009, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ 

research/safety/09060/. 

57FHWA Report FHWA–HRT–04–100 ‘‘Safety 

Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at 

Uncontrolled Locations’’ 2005 can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ 

04100/. 

58 ‘‘Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study’’ 

FHWA–HRT–10–068, November 2010, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ 

pedbike/10068/index.cfm. 

Standard to Guidance regarding 

longitudinal spacing between speed 

reduction markings. FHWA proposes 

this change to allow engineering 

judgment to determine the longitudinal 

pattern of the markings based on the site 

conditions. 

344. In Section 3B.29 (existing 

Section 3B.25) Speed Hump Markings, 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

paragraph allowing discontinuing center 

line markings, lane line markings, and 

edge line markings on the profile of the 

speed hump. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard paragraph requiring installing 

crosswalk markings when a speed hump 

specifically incorporates a crossing 

movement for pedestrians, bicycles, or 

equestrians. 

345. FHWA proposes adding a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3B.31 Markings for Diamond 

Interchange with Transposed Alignment 

Crossroad’’ which contains Standards, 

Guidance, and Support for markings 

used at these types of interchanges. 

FHWA proposes to add this information 

based on an FHWA research study 56

that has shown that there is potential for 

wrong-way movements, especially at the 

crossing points, at these unconventional 

interchanges. The new information 

contains proposed Standards for edge 

lines, lane use arrows, and wrong-way 

arrows as well as a restriction for flush 

median islands. The section also 

contains proposed Guidance 

recommending edge and lane line 

extensions through the crossing points 

and a Support paragraph referencing 

crosswalk and pedestrian movement 

information in Section 3C.11 and 9G.05. 

FHWA also proposes to add Figure 3B– 

29 to illustrate an example of markings 

at this type of interchange. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within New Chapter 3C 

346. In Section 3C.01 (existing 

Section 3B.18), retitled, ‘‘General,’’ 

FHWA proposes to change a Support 

statement to a Standard paragraph 

requiring crosswalk markings at nonintersection crossing locations to 

improve safety for pedestrians at 

locations where vehicles may not expect 

pedestrian crossings. The previous 

Support required crosswalk markings to 

mark the crosswalk legally at nonintersection locations. FHWA proposes 

to revise this Support into a Standard to 

identify clearly the requirements of 

crosswalk markings at non-intersection 

locations. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard paragraph requiring that 

paving materials used to function as 

transverse lines to establish a marked 

crosswalk shall be white and 

retroreflective. FHWA also proposes 

that the paving materials be required to 

use a white additive in the mixture to 

produce a white surface. FHWA 

proposes this change to improve target 

value and visibility of the crosswalk for 

pedestrian safety and to fulfill the 

retroreflectivity requirement for traffic 

control devices, when paving materials, 

instead of pavement markings, are used 

to define the marked crosswalk. 

347. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.02 Applications of Crosswalk 

Markings,’’ containing P7–P10 of 

existing Section 3B.18. FHWA proposes 

to modify Guidance P8 regarding 

criteria for engineering studies for 

crosswalk across uncontrolled roadways 

to include pedestrian ages, and to 

change ‘‘posted or statutory speed limit’’ 

to ‘‘speed limit or the 85th-percentile 

speed.’’ 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Guidance P9 to discourage the 

installation of crosswalks across 

uncontrolled roadways at locations with 

posted speed limits 40 mph or greater 

and locations where there is a crash 

threat due to multiple lane crossings or 

limited sight distance. FHWA proposes 

this change to reduce pedestrian crash 

potential and based on an FHWA 

study.57

348. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.03 Design of Crosswalk Markings,’’ 

containing P4, P11, P12, and P17 of 

existing Section 3B.18. FHWA also 

proposes to add new Standard 

paragraphs requiring a minimum width 

of 6 feet for marked crosswalks and a 

minimum width of 8 feet for crosswalks 

at non-intersections and where the 

posted speed limit is 40 mph or greater. 

FHWA proposes this change to improve 

the visibility and recognition of 

pedestrian crosswalks. 

FHWA also proposes to modify 

Guidance P11 to recommend using 

high-visibility crosswalk markings at 

marked crosswalks at non-intersection 

locations to reduce pedestrian crash 

potential. FHWA further proposes to 

reduce the second Guidance sentence in 

P11 to an Option regarding improving 

visibility by parking prohibitions on the 

approach to marked crosswalks. 

In addition, FHWA proposes changing 

P17 from a Guidance to Standard 

requiring, rather than recommending, 

crosswalk markings to be located so that 

the curb ramps are within the extension 

of the crosswalk markings, where curb 

ramps are provided. FHWA proposes 

this change to accommodate users with 

visual disabilities better. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph recommending that 

transverse crosswalk markings extend 

the full width of the pavement or edge 

of intersecting crosswalk to discourage 

diagonal crossing between crosswalks. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

provide consistency in crosswalk 

applications. 

349. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.04 Basic Crosswalks,’’ with new 

Support and Option paragraphs to 

provide information about basic 

crosswalks, which are comprised of two 

parallel transverse lines. FHWA also 

proposes to provide a new Figure 3C– 

1 illustrating basic crosswalks. 

350. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.05 High-Visibility Crosswalks,’’ to 

provide Support, Option, Standard, and 

Guidance paragraphs about the various 

types of high-visibility crosswalks 

including longitudinal bar, 

perpendicular, and double-paired 

designs. FHWA proposes this section to 

provide agencies with three standard 

alternatives to improve crosswalk 

visibility when desired consistent with 

an FHWA research study.58 FHWA also 

proposes to illustrate these crosswalk 

types in Figure 3C–2. 

351. FHWA proposes to add new 

sections numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.06 Longitudinal Bar Crosswalks,’’ 

‘‘Section 3C.07 Perpendicular 

Crosswalks,’’ and ‘‘Section 3C.08 

Longitudinal Bar Pair Crosswalks,’’ to 

provide provisions related to the design 

and spacing for the three new types of 

high-visibility crosswalks. 

352. FHWA proposes to create a new 

Section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.10 Crosswalks for Exclusive 

Pedestrian Phases that Permit Diagonal 

Crossings,’’ for crosswalks for exclusive 

pedestrian phases that permit diagonal 

crossing, containing P16 of existing 

Section 3B.18. FHWA also proposes to 

add a new Guidance paragraph 

recommending that the segments of the 

crosswalk markings that facilitate the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80944 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

59 ‘‘Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: 

Informational Report (AIIR)’’ FHWA–HRT–09–060, 

April 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ 

research/safety/09060/09060.pdf. 

60 ‘‘Roundabouts: An Informational Guide’’ 

NCHRP Report 672, 2010 can be viewed at the 

following internet website: http://www.trb.org/ 

Publications/Blurbs/164470.aspx. 

61 ‘‘Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 

Second Edition’’ NCHRP 672, 2010, can be viewed 

at the following internet website: http://

onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_

672.pdf. 

62 ‘‘A Guide for Implementing Bus On Shoulder 

(BOS) Systems’’ TCRP Report 151, 2012, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/166878.aspx. 

diagonal crossing should not use highvisibility crosswalk markings since 

diagonal crossings are typically 

permitted only when all vehicular 

movements are stopped at a signalized 

intersection and because high-visibility 

diagonal markings through the 

intersection could be confusing to 

turning vehicles. 

353. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3C.11 Crosswalks at Diamond 

Interchanges with a Transposed 

Alignment Crossroad’’ to provide 

Support, Guidance, and Option 

paragraphs regarding pedestrian 

movements through these 

unconventional interchanges. FHWA 

proposes this new section based on 

information contained in a research 

study 59 that found that pedestrian 

movements require special 

considerations to avoid violating driver 

expectancy or disorienting pedestrians. 

FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 

3C–3 to illustrate locations of pedestrian 

crossings at diamond interchanges with 

a transposed alignment crossroad. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within Chapter 3D (Existing Chapter 

3C) 

354. FHWA proposes to retitle 

Chapter 3D (existing Chapter 3C) to 

‘‘Circular Intersection Markings’’ 

because the provisions apply to a 

variety of circular intersections, not just 

roundabouts. 

355. In Section 3D.01 (existing 

Section 3C.01) General, FHWA proposes 

to modify Guidance P3 to recommend 

that markings should supplement signs 

to help road users select the proper lane 

in the approach to the circular roadway 

to avoid changing lanes through the 

departure of the circular roadway based 

on an NCHRP Report.60

356. In Section 3D.02 (existing 

Section 3C.02) White Lane Line 

Pavement Markings for Roundabouts, 

FHWA proposes two new Option 

paragraphs related to longer lane lines 

and striped buffer spaces to help 

vehicles navigate the roundabout. 

357. In Section 3D.04 (existing 

Section 3C.04) Yield Lines for 

Roundabouts, FHWA proposes to 

upgrade part of existing Option P1 to a 

Standard to require that a yield line be 

used on the entries before entering 

multi-line roundabouts. For single-lane 

roundabouts, the Option remains to 

allow a yield line on the entry before 

entering the roundabout. 

358. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3D.06 Arrow Pavement Markings for 

Roundabouts’’ containing revisions to 

P1 and P4–P6 from existing Section 

3C.06. FHWA proposes new Guidance 

paragraphs to recommend not using 

lane-use arrows on single-lane 

approaches to circular intersections. 

FHWA also proposes to add Guidance 

for two-lane approaches to circular 

intersections and for approaches with 

dual left or dual right turns. FHWA 

proposes these changes to improve 

consistency in the application of laneuse arrows at circular intersections 

based on an NCHRP study.61

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Standard paragraph prohibiting 

lane-use arrow pavement markings 

between a crosswalk and wide dotted 

line(s) entering the circular roadway. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

road users need adequate advance 

notification of the permitted movements 

within each lane and this area of the 

approach is often obscured by stopped 

vehicles. 

Further, FHWA proposes to change 

the Option P6 to Guidance to 

recommend, rather than just allow, laneuse arrows on the roundabout 

approaches to match the type of arrows 

(normal or elongated) used on the 

corresponding regulatory lane-use signs, 

to improve consistency between signing 

and markings for better driver 

comprehension. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within Chapter 3E (Existing Chapter 3D) 

359. FHWA proposes to revise the 

title of Chapter 3E (existing Chapter 3D) 

to ‘‘Preferential Lane Markings for 

Motor Vehicles’’ to exclude bicycles and 

move all bicycle lane information to 

Part 9. 

360. In Section 3E.02 (existing Section 

3D.02), retitled, ‘‘Longitudinal 

Markings,’’ FHWA proposes to revise P3 

to reference Table 3E–1 (existing Table 

3D–1), create a new Table 3E–2 

Standard Edge and Center Line 

Markings for Counter-Flow Preferential 

Lanes, revise P9 and P10 to reference 

new Table 3E–2, and remove redundant 

text. FHWA proposes to make these 

changes to clarify the preferential lane 

marking requirements and improve 

readability. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph recommending that 

buffer space for a conventional road 

should be designed so that it is not 

misinterpreted as a bicycle lane or other 

type of lane. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

new Figure 3E–4 to illustrate an 

example of pavement markings used for 

counter-flow preferential lanes on 

divided highways. 

361. In Section 3E.03 (existing Section 

3D.01) Preferential Lane Word and 

Symbol Markings, FHWA proposes to 

change existing P3 regarding 

preferential lane longitudinal markings, 

word, and symbol markings at the 

downstream end of the lane from 

Standard to Guidance to provide 

agencies the flexibility to determine the 

ideal location based on site conditions. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Standard P6 and combine with P2 and 

remove Item C. Bicycle Lane since 

preferential lanes for bicycles are 

covered in Part 9 and no longer apply 

in this Chapter and Section. FHWA also 

proposes to add BUS STOP and TAXI 

STAND as required word markings for 

their respective uses in preferential 

lanes based on common practices. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change P7 regarding preferential lanes 

with two or more permitted uses in the 

same lane from Standard to Guidance to 

remove the requirement for providing 

both symbols or words and instead 

allow engineering judgment to prioritize 

and select either symbols or word 

markings, or both. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes new Standard 

and Support paragraphs restricting the 

use of word or symbol markings 

denoting motorcycle and Inherently 

Low Emission Vehicles (ILEV). FHWA 

proposes this change because 

motorcycle and ILEV vehicle use is 

communicated using regulatory signing 

to complement high occupancy vehicle 

regulations and simplifies enforcement 

functions. 

362. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3E.04 Markings for Part-Time Travel on 

a Shoulder’’ to provide Standard, 

Guidance, Option, and Support 

paragraphs for situations where 

shoulders are designated for use during 

peak hour conditions to increase 

roadway capacity. FHWA proposes this 

change based on a Transit Cooperative 

Research Program Report 62 as well as to 

address increasing needs of agencies to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80945 

63FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 3(09)-24 (I), dated 

August 15, 2013, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/3_09_24.htm. 

add roadway capacity in constrained 

urban areas. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Figures 3E–5 and 3E–6 to illustrate an 

example of markings for part time travel 

on a shoulder. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

Within Chapter 3F (Existing Chapter 3E) 

Through Chapter 3K (Existing Chapter 

3J) 

363. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3F.02 Longitudinal Markings’’ 

consisting of P5–P8 from existing 

Section 3E.01. In this section, FHWA 

proposes to add two new Guidance 

paragraphs recommending solid white 

lane line markings to separate toll lanes, 

payment methods, or to channelize 

movements at toll plazas and that the 

solid lines should begin at the upstream 

end of the full-width toll lane and 

continue to the toll plaza. 

In existing P6 from existing Section 

3E.01, FHWA proposes to change part of 

the Standard paragraph for maximum 

widths of purple solid longitudinal 

markings to Guidance to provide 

additional practitioner flexibility. 

364. In Section 3G.03 (existing 

Section 3F.03), retitled, ‘‘Application,’’ 

FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance 

paragraph recommending using 

delineators of the appropriate color to 

indicate lane-reduction transitions 

where either an outside or inside lane 

merges into an adjacent lane. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

consistency in the application of 

delineators proposed in other Sections. 

365. In Section 3H.01 (existing 

Section 3G.01), retitled, 

‘‘Standardization of Application,’’ 

FHWA proposes to add two new 

Standard paragraphs limiting the use of 

colored pavement only where it 

supplements other markings and 

prohibiting colors other than those 

specified in Chapter 3H (existing 

Chapter 3G) Colored Pavement. FHWA 

proposes this change to improve upon 

the previously established widespread 

system of uniformity in the application 

of colored pavement. 

366. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.02 Materials’’ to add new Option, 

Standard, Guidance, and Support 

paragraphs related to retroreflectivity, 

minimizing the loss of traction, 

differentials in skid resistance, and 

abnormal wear in colored pavement. 

FHWA proposes this section to provide 

agencies with information to assist in 

the selection of appropriate colored 

pavement materials to improve road 

user safety. 

367. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.03 Aesthetic Treatments in 

Crosswalks,’’ with P2 and P6 from 

existing Section 3G.01 and to add new 

Standard, Guidance, Option, and 

Support paragraphs describing 

appropriate use of aesthetic treatments 

within crosswalks and to provide 

examples of acceptable materials and 

patterns. FHWA also proposes to add a 

new Figure 3H–1 to illustrate examples 

of acceptable materials for interior 

portions of crosswalks. FHWA proposes 

these changes to reflect FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 3(09)–24(I),63 which was 

issued in response to a trend by some 

agencies toward installing aesthetic 

treatments on roadway pavement that 

include bright colors, visually complex 

graphics, images, or words. FHWA 

believes that this proposed section is 

necessary because it is important that 

these treatments not resemble or 

interfere with the uniform appearance of 

traffic control devices, which could 

confuse and distract road users. 

FHWA’s longstanding position is that 

these treatments, which are intended to 

draw the attention of the road user, can 

distract from the task of operating a 

vehicle or crossing the roadway as a 

pedestrian, and that many of the goals 

of an agency installing these treatments 

can be accomplished through other 

means that do not alter or compromise 

the uniform appearance of traffic control 

devices. 

Based on the varying views that the 

public has expressed on this topic, 

FHWA requests that commenters 

provide sufficient detail and 

explanation of how their position would 

maintain the uniformity and recognition 

of crosswalk markings. Since these 

types of aesthetic treatments oftentimes 

are installed with the stated purpose of 

improving safety (in addition to 

establishing community identity or for 

‘‘placemaking’’ purposes), FHWA 

requests comment on how allowing 

more intricate designs and bright colors 

around standardized crosswalk 

markings improves the safety or 

operations at and around the crosswalk, 

while maintaining the recognition of the 

crosswalk. FHWA requests that 

commenters support their position by 

providing quantifiable and objective 

data, such as from human factors 

evaluations, about the safety and 

operation of vehicular and street traffic, 

safety and navigation of pedestrians, 

any assessments of the effects of 

nonstandard designs on pedestrians 

with low visual acuity or other vision 

impairments, and the ability of machine 

vision of autonomous vehicles to detect 

accurately and react appropriately to the 

markings as a crosswalk or, if not 

installed with a crosswalk, other type of 

marking. 

368. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.04 Yellow-Colored Pavement’’ to 

include Standard paragraphs limiting 

use of yellow-colored pavement to flush 

or raised median islands separating 

traffic flow in opposite directions, lefthand shoulders of divided highways, 

and left-hand shoulders of one-way 

streets or ramps. 

FHWA also proposes to add Standard 

paragraphs restricting yellow-colored 

pavement from being incorporated into 

reversible lanes, two-way left-turn lanes, 

or channelizing islands where traffic 

travels in the same general direction on 

both sides to be consistent with other 

provisions—existing and proposed—in 

the Manual. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option paragraph to indicate where 

yellow-colored pavement may be 

applied along a roadway. 

Further, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Figure 3H–2 to illustrate an 

example of the use of yellow-colored 

pavement. 

369. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.05 White-Colored Pavement’’ to 

include Standard paragraphs limiting 

use of white-colored pavement to flush 

or raised island where traffic passes on 

both sides in the same direction, righthand shoulders, exit gore areas, and 

entrance gore areas. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance paragraph recommending 

certain limitations on its use and Option 

paragraphs stating where it may be 

applied along a roadway to be 

consistent with other provisions— 

existing and proposed—in the Manual. 

Further, FHWA proposes to provide a 

new Figure 3H–3 to illustrate an 

example of the use of white-colored 

pavement. 

370. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.06 Green-Colored Pavement for 

Bicycle Facilities’’ to include Standard 

paragraphs establishing the use of greencolored pavement for a variety of 

bicycle facilities and prohibiting its use 

on shared-use paths, shared-lane 

markings, crosswalks, and on separated 

bicycle lanes on an independent 

alignment. 

FHWA also proposes Option 

paragraphs stating where green-colored 

pavement can be applied and Guidance 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80946 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

64FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–14, April 15, 

2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia14/index.htm. 

65FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–22, December 4, 

2019, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia22/index.htm. 

recommending installation of regulatory 

and guide signing with green-colored 

pavement. 

Further, FHWA proposes to provide a 

new Figure 3H–4 and revise Figures in 

Part 9 to illustrate examples of greencolored pavement. FHWA proposes 

these changes based on Interim 

Approval No. 14.64

371. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.07 Red-Colored Pavement for Public 

Transit Systems’’ to include Standard 

paragraphs establishing the use of redcolored pavement for lanes where 

general purpose traffic is not allowed 

and requiring regulatory signs 

establishing the allowable use of the 

lane. 

FHWA also proposes Option 

paragraphs stating where red-colored 

pavement can be applied and a 

Guidance paragraph recommending redcolored pavement not be used on public 

transit facilities separated from the 

roadway or on exclusive alignments. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

provide a new Figure 3H–5 to illustrate 

an example of the use of red-colored 

pavement. FHWA proposes these 

changes based on Interim Approval 

22 65 and the results of multiple 

experimentations across the country, 

including in the following jurisdictions: 

City of Chicago, IL; the City of New 

York, NY; the District of Columbia; the 

City of Santa Rosa, CA; and San Diego 

County, CA. 

372. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.08 Purple-Colored Pavement for 

Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) 

Account-Only Preferential Lanes’’ to 

include Standard paragraphs limiting 

use of purple-colored pavement to lanes 

approaching toll plazas that are 

restricted to registered ETC accounts 

and lanes approaching an Open Road 

Tolling (ORT) collection facility, and 

prohibiting its use on an approach that 

also facilitates other payment methods 

downstream. 

FHWA also proposes Standard 

paragraphs regarding the use of 

longitudinal and edge lines to flank the 

purple-colored pavement. 

In addition, FHWA proposes an 

Option paragraph allowing its use for 

the entire length of the toll lane or ORT 

collection facility or for only a portion 

(or portions). Further, FHWA proposes 

to provide a new Figure 3H–6 to 

illustrate an example of the use of 

purple-colored pavement. 

373. In Section 3I.01 (existing Section 

3H.01) Channelizing Devices, FHWA 

proposes to add an Option paragraph to 

clarify that orange-colored channelizing 

devices are allowed to emphasize 

pavement markings outside of 

temporary traffic control zones, as long 

as the devices are not permanent. 

FHWA proposes to add this Option to 

facilitate use of channelizing devices in 

emergency incidents and planned 

special events, because it is usually not 

practical for police officers or other 

authorized personnel to obtain and 

deploy channelizing devices that match 

the color of the existing pavement 

markings. 

FHWA also proposes to delete P5 

since this information is related to 

maintenance and not related to traffic 

control device uniformity. 

374. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3I.02 Tubular Markers’’ to include 

Standard, Guidance, and Option 

paragraphs to provide size requirements 

and recommended spacing. FHWA 

proposes this change because the use of 

tubular markers have become more 

common and to enhance uniformity. 

375. FHWA proposes to revise the 

title of Chapter 3J (existing Chapter 3I) 

to ‘‘Marking and Delineation of Islands 

and Curb Extensions’’ to be more 

descriptive on the content regarding 

islands in this Chapter. 

376. In Section 3J.02 (existing Section 

3I.02) Approach-End Treatment, FHWA 

proposes modifying existing P1 to 

recommend either an approach-end 

treatment, or curb markings, or both at 

the ends of islands first approached by 

traffic. FHWA proposes this change to 

improve operations and safety at islands 

and decision points, and to meet driver 

expectation when encountering these 

facilities. 

FHWA also proposes to revise P3 to 

add a recommendation for raised bars or 

buttons that project more than 1 inch 

above the pavement surface to be 

marked with retroreflective materials. 

FHWA proposes this change to enhance 

conspicuity. 

377. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3J.03 Islands Designated by Pavement 

Markings’’ to include new Standard 

paragraphs for pavement marking color 

requirements for islands and to clarify 

criteria for islands previously located 

throughout Part 3. FHWA also proposes 

a new Option paragraph allowing both 

chevron and diagonal markings of the 

same color within the same island. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

improve consistency in the application 

of islands designated by pavement 

markings. 

378. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3J.04 Curb Markings for Raised Island’’ 

to include existing P7–P12 from existing 

Section 3B.23 and P2 of existing Section 

3I.04. 

FHWA also proposes to change P10 

from Support to Option to allow curb 

markings to be discontinued where the 

curbs of the islands become parallel to 

the direction of traffic flow or where the 

island is illuminated or marked with 

delineators, based on engineering 

judgment or study. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change P11 from Support to Option to 

allow curb markings to be omitted at 

openings in a continuous median island 

based on engineering judgment or study. 

379. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3J.05 Pavement Markings for Raised 

Islands’’ to include a Standard, Options, 

Guidance, and Support paragraphs for 

the application of approach-end 

treatments, channelizing lines, edge 

lines, and chevron or diagonal markings 

for raised islands. FHWA proposes these 

changes to improve consistency in the 

application of markings for raised 

islands, to improve operations and 

safety at islands and decision points, 

and to meet driver expectation when 

encountering these facilities. 

FHWA also proposes to provide a new 

Figure 3J–3 to illustrate an example of 

the use of diagonal markings in buffer 

areas between the channelizing line and 

the raised island. 

380. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3J.07 Curb Extensions Designated by 

Pavement Markings’’ to include 

Support, Standard, Guidance, and 

Option paragraphs for the application of 

curb extension pavement markings. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

improve consistency in the application 

of markings for curb extensions and 

uniformity when the application of 

pavement markings is to be used. 

381. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 3I.03 Island Marking 

Application and existing Section 3I.04 

Island Marking Colors since the 

paragraphs were either relocated to 

other sections, are redundant with other 

MUTCD provisions, or are not related to 

uniformity. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals 

382. FHWA proposes to reorganize 

Part 4 by dividing some existing long 

chapters and sections into several 

chapters and/or several sections, each 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80947 

66FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–17, August 12, 

2014, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia17/index.htm. 

67FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-15(I), 

December 12, 2011, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_15.htm. 

68 ‘‘Evaluation of the Flashing Yellow Arrow 

(FYA) Permissive Left-Turn and Yellow Arrow 

Change Indications in Protected/Permissive LeftTurn Control: The Impact of Separate and Shared 

Yellow Signal Sections and Head Arrangements,’’ 

NCHRP Project 20–07/Task 283, June 2014, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/171653.aspx. 

69FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–16, December 

24, 2013, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia16/index.htm. 

70FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–59(I), 

September 12, 2016, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_59.htm. 

having a clearly understandable title, 

and by moving certain material to new 

locations within Part 4 to consolidate 

similar information in one place. In 

some cases, this involves the proposed 

creation of new chapters and sections 

that do not exist in the 2009 MUTCD. 

FHWA believes this proposed 

reorganization would create a more 

logical flow of information and make it 

easier for users to find the content they 

need. In addition, FHWA proposes to 

delete text from various sections where 

such material duplicates or is very 

similar to existing text in other sections 

within Part 4 or elsewhere in the 

MUTCD. These reorganizations and 

elimination of redundancies are 

editorial in nature and do not 

significantly change the technical 

content or meaning, except as otherwise 

discussed below. 

383. FHWA proposes to allow the 

optional use of three-section signal faces 

using flashing yellow arrow (FYA) 

signal indications that use the middle 

section to show both the FYA and the 

steady yellow arrow in Section 4F.08 

(existing Section 4D.02) retitled, ‘‘Signal 

Indications for Protected/Permissive 

Mode Right-Turn Movements in a 

Shared Signal Face’’ and Section 4F.15 

(existing Section 4D.24) retitled, ‘‘Signal 

Indications for Protected/Permissive 

Mode Right-Turn Movements in a 

Separate Signal Face.’’ This change 

would allow agencies to convert 

existing three-section protected-only 

left- and right-turn signal faces to threesection FYA signal faces, and provide 

more opportunities to implement 

variable mode left- and right-turn 

phasing. 

Similarly, FHWA also proposes to 

allow the option of displaying both the 

FYA and the steady yellow arrow in the 

same section for five-section shared leftturn/right-turn signal faces operating in 

protected/permissive mode in Section 

4F.02 (existing Section 4D.17) Signal 

Indications for Left-Turn Movements— 

General, 4F.09 (existing Section 4E.21) 

Signal Indications for Right-Turn 

Movements—General, and Section 

4F.16 (existing Section 4D.25) retitled, 

‘‘Signal Indications for Approaches with 

Shared Left-Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and 

No Through Movement.’’ FHWA 

proposes these changes based on 

Interim Approval 17,66 FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 4(09)–15(I),67 and supporting 

research.68 FHWA also proposes 

revisions to various paragraphs and 

sections throughout the part to reflect 

these proposed changes. 

384. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

4A.05 Meanings of Bicycle Symbol 

Signal Indications.’’ This section defines 

the meaning of the proposed bicycle 

traffic signal indications for bicyclists, 

described in proposed Chapter 4H, 

based on Interim Approval 16.69

385. In Section 4A.08 (existing 

Section 4D.34) Use of Signs at 

Signalized Locations, FHWA proposes 

to change P5 from Standard to Guidance 

to provide agencies flexibility, based on 

engineering judgement, to achieve an 

appropriate balance in visibility for both 

traffic signal signs and traffic signal 

faces. The proposed text maintains 

priority for the visibility of the traffic 

signal faces. 

386. In Section 4B.02, retitled, ‘‘Basis 

of Installation of Traffic Control 

Signals,’’ FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance paragraph recommending 

against using traffic control signals to 

penalize drivers who are speeding. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

speeding issues should be addressed 

through a programmatic approach and 

through roadway design features, rather 

than through traffic control signals. 

387. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 4B.05 Adequate 

Roadway Capacity because the 

information does not relate to traffic 

control uniformity and instead 

discusses roadway design philosophy 

and therefore is not appropriate in the 

MUTCD. 

388. In Section 4B.05 (existing 

Section 4B.04) Alternatives to Traffic 

Control Signals, FHWA proposes to 

clarify in Option Item M that to reduce 

vehicular conflicts, a roundabout is an 

alternative to a traffic control signal. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

Support statement referencing Part 8 

regarding installation of roundabouts in 

proximity to grade crossings. FHWA 

proposes these changes to reflect 

Official Change Request 4(09)–76(C). 

389. In Section 4C.01 Studies and 

Factors for Justifying Traffic Control 

Signals, FHWA proposes to add an 

exception for temporary traffic signals to 

the Standard paragraph requiring an 

engineering study to justify a traffic 

control signal. FHWA also proposes to 

clarify in Guidance P10 that if a minorstreet approach has an exclusive leftturn lane, the approach should either be 

analyzed as a two-lane approach based 

on the sum of the traffic volumes using 

both lanes or as a one-lane approach 

based on only the traffic volume in the 

approach lane with the highest volume. 

FHWA also proposes to change P12 

from Guidance to Option to allow 

agencies to determine whether a 

location with a wide median is 

considered as one or two intersections 

for a signal warrant analysis based on 

the site-specific conditions. FHWA 

proposes these changes to allow 

additional flexibility. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement referring to the 

alternatives to traffic control signals 

listed in Section 4B.05. FHWA proposes 

this change to reflect Official Change 

Request 4(09)–76(C) and to remind users 

of the Manual that there are several 

alternatives to traffic control signals. 

390. In Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, 

Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, Section 

4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular 

Volume, Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak 

Hour, Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, 

Pedestrian Volume, Section 4C.06 

Warrant 5, School Crossing, Section 

4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal 

System, Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash 

Experience, Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, 

Roadway Network, and Section 4C.10 

Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade 

Crossing, FHWA proposes to change all 

paragraphs describing the application of 

the signal warrant criterion to be 

considered in an engineering study for 

installing a new traffic control signal 

from Standard to Guidance. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

agencies flexibility in performing signal 

warrant analyses. 

391. In Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, 

Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, Section 

4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular 

Volume, Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak 

Hour, and Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, 

Crash Experience, FHWA proposes to 

change the description of minor-street 

approaches from higher volume to more 

critical based on FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 4(09)–59(I).70

392. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, 

Pedestrian Volume, FHWA proposes to 

add an Option allowing the criteria to be 

applied separately to each direction of 

vehicular traffic where there is a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80948 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

71FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–25(I), 

November 19, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_25.htm. 72FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–19, February 24, 

2017, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia19/index.htm. 73 ‘‘Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic Signals,’’ 

NCHRP 07–18, July 5, 2014, can be viewed at the 

following internet website: http://www.trb.org/ 

Main/Blurbs/171359.aspx. 

74FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-1(I), 

February 22, 2010, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_001.htm. 

75FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–16, December 

24, 2013, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia16/index.htm. 

divided street having a median of 

sufficient width for pedestrians to wait. 

This option is a variation of the second 

sentence of Item B in Paragraph 2 of 

Section 4C.05 in the 2003 MUTCD and 

is proposed by FHWA based on Official 

Ruling No. 4(09)–25(I).71

FHWA also proposes to change P4 

prohibiting the application of the 

Pedestrian Volume warrant if the 

distance to the nearest traffic control 

signal or Stop sign is within 300 feet 

from Standard to Guidance. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide more 

flexibility for agencies when 

considering installation of traffic signals 

for pedestrian crossings. 

393. In Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, 

Crash Experience, FHWA proposes to 

revise Item B in P2 to include updated 

signal warrant criteria for 1-year and 3- 

year periods, crash type, and severity, as 

well as major street speed and 

intersection location. In conjunction 

with this change, FHWA proposes to 

add additional Support language 

regarding the critical minor-street 

volume, and a new Option paragraph 

that accompanies new tables related to 

criteria for considering traffic control 

signals in rural areas. FHWA proposes 

these changes based on Interim 

Approval 19 72 and findings contained 

in a research study.73

394. In Section 4D.01 General, add a 

new Standard paragraph requiring the 

design and operation of traffic control 

signals to take into consideration the 

needs of all modes of traffic to enhance 

mobility and safety for all modes of 

travel. 

FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph recommending that 

covers placed over traffic control signal 

faces not in operation include the 

backplate if it has a yellow 

retroreflective strip. The new paragraph 

also recommends that if a traffic signal 

with a retroreflective backplate is turned 

away it should not be oriented such that 

the backplate border will reflect light 

back to road users on any approaches to 

the intersection. FHWA proposes this 

change based on Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–1(I).74

FHWA also proposes to change P7 

restricting signalizing midblock 

crosswalks if they are located within 

300 feet of the nearest traffic control 

signal from Standard to Guidance. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

more flexibility for agencies when 

considering placement of midblock 

crosswalks. 

395. In Section 4D.02 (existing 

Section 4D.03) Provisions for 

Pedestrians, FHWA proposes to delete 

P2 in concert with the new Standard 

added in Section 4D.01 and relocate and 

revise P1 and relocate P3 from existing 

Section 4E.03 to this Section. 

FHWA also proposes to delete 

Standard P3 and add a new Guidance 

paragraph recommending pedestrian 

signal heads at each marked crosswalk 

at a location controlled by a traffic 

control signal. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to revise 

existing Guidance in P4 to align better 

with the recommendation for an 

engineering study with specific factors 

for consideration as outlined in Section 

4K.01. 

396. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

4D.03 Provisions for Bicyclists,’’ with an 

Option to allow bicycle signal faces to 

be used where it is desired to provide 

separate signal indications to control 

bicycle movements at a traffic control 

signal, and a reference to new Chapter 

4H Bicycle Signal Faces. FHWA 

proposes this change due to the 

increasing bicycle activity and bicycle 

infrastructure deployment throughout 

the Country and based on Interim 

Approval 16.75

397. In Section 4D.05 (existing 

Section 4D.12) Visibility, Aiming, and 

Shielding of Signal Faces, FHWA 

proposes to change P1, P2, P3, P7, and 

P13 from Standard to Guidance to 

provide agencies flexibility in locating 

signal faces. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard prohibiting the use of ancillary 

legends on signal face backplates. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

backplates are used to improve the 

contrast between the traffic signal and 

its surroundings, and adding a legend 

reduces the contrast and could reduce 

driver comprehension. Section 2B.60 

(existing Section 2B.53) allows the 

installation of signs adjacent to signal 

faces to provide the purpose or 

operation, as needed. 

398. In Section 4D.06 (existing 

Section 4D.13) Lateral Positioning of 

Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Guidance paragraph recommending 

locating separate turn signal faces at 

least 3 feet, horizontally and vertically, 

from the nearest traffic signal face for a 

different movement on the same 

approach. FHWA proposes this change 

to minimize driver confusion and 

enhance signal visibility. 

FHWA proposes to change P7 from 

Standard to Guidance to provide 

agencies flexibility in locating signal 

faces. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Standard P10 for supplemental postmounted signal faces to clarify that the 

intent is to prohibit the display of leftturn arrows to the right of adjacent 

through and right-turn lanes, and not to 

prohibit such a display if an 

opportunity is available to post-mount a 

signal face that is to the immediate right 

of the left-turn lanes. FHWA proposes a 

similar change for the display of rightturn arrows. 

399. In Section 4D.07 (existing 

Section 4D.14) Longitudinal Positioning 

of Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to 

delete Item A.3 of P1 because it 

redundant with information contained 

in Section 4D.06 (existing Section 

4D.13). 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

existing Item B of P1 from Standard to 

Guidance to provide agencies flexibility 

when deciding where to install 

supplemental near-side signal faces. 

400. In Section 4D.08 (existing 

Section 4D.15) Mounting Height of 

Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to change 

all Standards related to the maximum 

height for vehicular signal faces from 

Standard to Guidance. FHWA proposes 

this change because increasing 

maximum heights does not impact the 

safety of road and sidewalk users and 

therefore agencies should have the 

flexibility to do so where they deem it 

advisable to meet site conditions. 

401. In Section 4D.09 (existing 

Section 4D.16) Lateral Offset (Clearance) 

of Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to 

change the Standard paragraph to 

Guidance to provide agencies flexibility 

when designing signal face placement. 

402. In Section 4D.10 (existing 

Section 4D.32) Temporary and Portable 

Traffic Control Signals, FHWA proposes 

to delete Item C in P4 because existing 

Item D supersedes it, and to provide 

agencies more flexibility in temporary 

traffic signal control operations. In 

concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes to add a new Option 

permitting temporary traffic signals to 

operate in semi-actuated mode instead 

of being placed in flashing mode. 

403. In Section 4E.01 (existing Section 

4D.06) Signal Indications—Design, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80949 

76FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–28(I), 

January 25, 2013, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_28.htm. 

77FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–7(I), 

February 8, 2011, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_7.htm. 

78An inventory of FHWA’s Official Rulings can 

be viewed at the following internet website: https:// 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp. 

79 Ibid. 

Illumination, Color, and Shape, FHWA 

proposes to revise P9 to require that 

displays meet the minimum 

requirements of ‘‘Equipment and 

Materials Standards of the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers’’ for signal 

optical units that use incandescent 

lamps within optical assemblies that 

include lenses. FHWA also proposes to 

add the requirements of the publications 

entitled, ‘‘Vehicle Traffic Control Signal 

Heads: Light Emitting Diode (LED) 

Circular Signal Supplement’’ and 

‘‘Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads: 

Light Emitting Diode (LED) Vehicle 

Arrow Traffic Signal Supplement’’ that 

pertain to the aspects of the signal head 

design that affect the display of the 

signal indications shall be met for light 

emitting diode (LED) traffic signal 

modules, except during nighttime 

conditions, which is addressed in the 

revised paragraph 11. FHWA proposes 

this change based on Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–28(I).76

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change P11 from Standard to Support 

and combine with P12 because it 

contains general information about 

signal lenses and is not a requirement 

for traffic control signals. 

404. In Section 4E.02 (existing Section 

4D.07) Size of Vehicular Signal 

Indications, FHWA proposes to require 

all arrow signal indications to be 

twelve-inch to enhance safety and 

conspicuity of the arrow legend. FHWA 

also proposes to modify the existing 

Option to allow 8-inch circular 

indications in a flashing beacon based 

on Official Ruling No. 4(09)–7(I).77

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option allowing the use of different 

sizes of signal indications in the same 

face or signal head. This option is a 

variation of P5 of Section 4D.15 in the 

2003 MUTCD. Even though this was 

implied in the 2009 MUTCD, this new 

Option would provide agencies explicit 

flexibility to install twelve-inch arrows 

with eight-inch circular displays if the 

conditions permit eight-inch circular 

displays. 

405. In Section 4F.01 (existing Section 

4D.05), retitled, ‘‘Application of Steady 

and Flashing Signal Indications during 

Steady (Stop-and-Go) Operation,’’ 

FHWA proposes to add items E and G 

to Standard P3 to include provisions for 

flashing red arrow and flashing yellow 

arrow signal indications for steady 

(stop-and-go) mode of operation. FHWA 

proposes this change to clarify the 

application of flashing signal 

indications in steady (stop-and-go) 

mode based on their addition to the 

2009 MUTCD. FHWA also proposes to 

clarify in Item H that except for under 

certain circumstances, a steady green 

arrow signal indication shall be 

displayed only to allow vehicular 

movements in the direction indicated, 

that are not in conflict with other 

vehicles moving on a green or yellow 

signal indication, even if the other 

vehicles are required to yield the rightof-way to the traffic moving on the 

GREEN ARROW signal indication. 

FHWA proposes this clarification to 

reflect Official Change Request 4(09)– 

75(C).78

FHWA proposes to expand existing 

Option P5 to include conditions where 

a steady straight-through green arrow 

may be used to discourage wrong-way 

turns. FHWA proposes this clarification 

to reflect Official Change Request 4(09)– 

75(C).79

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard, prior to existing Standard 

P13, for signal displays on separate 

signal faces at pre-signals for left-turn 

and/or right-turn lanes that extend from 

the downstream signalized intersection 

back to and across a grade crossing. 

FHWA proposes this change to permit 

agencies to display straight-through 

green arrow with circular red or circular 

yellow on the same approach to the presignal to improve safety by discouraging 

road users from inadvertently turning 

onto railroad or light rail transit (LRT) 

tracks. 

406. In Section 4F.02 (existing Section 

4D.17) Signal Indications for Left-Turn 

Movements—General, FHWA proposes 

to change P1 from Standard to Support 

because the paragraph provides 

information regarding the applicability 

of signal indications for U-turns to the 

left and is more appropriate as a 

Support statement. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Standard P5 to prohibit explicitly the 

simultaneous display of a protected leftturn movement with opposing right-turn 

green arrow or yellow arrow signal 

indication unless there are separate 

departure lanes available and there are 

pavement markings or a channelizing 

island clearly indicating which 

departure lane to use. This prohibition 

has been implicit in the description of 

what constitutes conflicting movements 

elsewhere in Part 4, but FHWA proposes 

this change to be specific about 

conflicting movements between leftturns and opposing right-turns. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

modify Standard P6 to clarify which 

signal displays are prohibited when a 

combined left-turn/through lane exists 

on an approach. 

FHWA proposes similar changes in 

Section 4F.09 (existing Section 4D.21) 

for right-turn movements. 

407. In new ‘‘Section 4F.04 Signal 

Indications for Permissive Only Mode 

Left-Turn Movements in a Separate 

Signal Face,’’ new ‘‘Section 4F.06 Signal 

Indications for Protected Only Mode 

Left-Turn Movements in a Separate 

Signal Face,’’ new ‘‘Section 4F.08 Signal 

Indications for Protected/Permissive 

Mode Left-Turn Movements in a 

Separate Signal Face,’’ new ‘‘Section 

4F.11 Signal Indications for Permissive 

Only Mode Right-Turn Movements in a 

Separate Signal Face,’’ new ‘‘Section 

4F.13 Signal Indications for Protected 

Only Mode Right-Turn Movements in a 

Separate Signal Face,’’ and new 

‘‘Section 4F.15 Signal Indications for 

Protected/Permissive Mode Right-Turn 

Movements in a Separate Signal Face,’’ 

FHWA proposes to add a new Standard 

in each section prohibiting the use of a 

separate turn signal face on an approach 

that does not include an exclusive turn 

lane. FHWA proposes this change 

because if an exclusive lane does not 

exist, then a separate turn signal face 

should not be provided because both the 

turning and through vehicles share the 

same lane and a separate turn signal 

face can be confusing to road users in 

this situation. 

408. In new ‘‘Section 4F.06 Signal 

Indications for Protected Only Mode 

Left-Turn Movements in a Separate 

Signal Face’’ which consists of P3 of 

existing Section 4D.19, FHWA proposes 

to delete the reference to signal 

instruction sign and requirement for the 

LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY (R10– 

5) sign. FHWA proposes this change to 

remove the undefined term ‘‘signal 

instruction sign’’ and to provide 

additional flexibility for the use of 

traffic signal signs for separate left-turn 

signal faces operating in a protected 

only mode. 

FHWA proposes a similar revision to 

new ‘‘Section 4F.13 Signal Indications 

for Protected Only Mode Right-Turn 

Movements in a Separate Signal Face’’ 

which consists of P3 of existing Section 

4D.23 to delete the reference to signal 

instruction sign and requirement for the 

RIGHT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY 

(R10–5a) sign. 

409. In new ‘‘Section 4F.08 Signal 

Indications for Protected/Permissive 

Mode Left-Turn Movements in a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80950 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

80 ‘‘Highway–Railroad Grade Crossing Collision, 

Midland, Texas, Accident Report’’ NTSB/HAR–13/ 

02, November 15, 2012, can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/ 

investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ 

HAR1302.pdf. 

Separate Signal Face’’ which consists of 

P3–P6 of existing Section 4D.20, FHWA 

proposes to modify the Standard (P1 in 

existing Section 4D.20) to allow the 

display of a steady left-turn red arrow 

immediately following the steady leftturn yellow arrow signal indication to 

provide a red clearance interval, 

enabling the opposing traffic to start up 

before releasing the permissive left-turn 

movement. 

410. In Section 4F.09 (existing Section 

4D.21), Signal Indications for RightTurn Movements—General, FHWA 

proposes to delete P6 to allow, when 

needed, a yellow change interval for the 

right-turn movement when the status of 

the right-turn operation is changing 

from permissive to protected within any 

given signal sequence. FHWA proposes 

this change because this yellow change 

interval is frequently needed when a 

right-turn overlap is the next phase in 

order to allow opposing permissive leftturn traffic to clear the intersection. 

411. In new ‘‘Section 4F.15 Signal 

Indications for Protected/Permissive 

Mode Right-Turn Movements in a 

Separate Signal Face,’’ which is 

comprised of existing P2–P6 of existing 

Section 4D.24, FHWA proposes to allow 

the display of a steady right-turn red 

arrow signal indication immediately 

following the steady right-turn yellow 

arrow signal indication to provide a red 

clearance interval, enabling the 

opposing traffic to start up before 

releasing the permissive right-turn 

movement. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

requirement to display a steady rightturn yellow arrow and if needed, steady 

right-turn red arrow following the 

flashing right-turn yellow arrow for 

permissive right-turn movements 

changing to protected right-turn 

movements when there is an opposing 

permissive left-turn movement that is 

being terminated simultaneously. 

FHWA proposes this change because a 

yellow change interval and red 

clearance interval might be needed 

during a right-turn overlap to allow 

opposing permissive left-turn traffic to 

clear the intersection. 

412. In Section 4F.16 (existing Section 

4D.25), retitled, ‘‘Signal Indications for 

Approaches with No Through 

Movement,’’ FHWA proposes to expand 

information regarding signal displays in 

situations where all traffic on an 

approach must turn onto the 

intersecting roadway. Existing Section 

4D.25 does not address situations for 

approaches where there is no through 

movement and there is not a shared leftturn/right-turn lane or the lanes operate 

with variable lane-use regulations. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option to allow the continuous display 

of a steady circular red signal indication 

during time when the traffic control 

signal is being operated in steady (stopand-go) mode. FHWA proposes to add a 

new Standard prohibiting the display of 

circular green and circular yellow signal 

indications to an approach with no 

through movement and an approach 

speed 35 mph or greater, to an approach 

where the one-way roadway that 

opposes the approach is an exit ramp 

from a freeway or expressway, or to an 

approach where the one-way roadway 

that opposes the approach has a speed 

limit of 35 mph or greater. FHWA 

proposes the new Option and Standards 

to improve safety by minimizing the 

potential for road users driving straight 

through in the wrong direction onto a 

one-way roadway or exit ramp. 

413. In Section 4F.17 (existing Section 

4D.26) Yellow Change and Red 

Clearance Intervals, FHWA proposes to 

change P2 from Standard to Support 

because the paragraph describes the 

function of a yellow change interval, 

rather than specific requirements. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

Support P7 to reference ‘‘Guidelines for 

Determining Traffic Signal Change and 

Clearance Intervals: A Recommended 

Practice of the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers,’’ which 

contains the current practices for 

determining the duration of yellow 

change and red clearance intervals. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to revise 

Guidance P14 to recommend the 

maximum duration of yellow change 

interval for through movements should 

be 6 seconds and for turning movements 

should be 7 seconds. As part of this 

change, FHWA proposes to delete the 

second sentence of Guidance P14 and 

Guidance P15. FHWA proposes these 

changes to reflect new guidance in the 

new ITE publication. 

414. In new ‘‘Section 4F.19 

Preemption Control of Traffic Control 

Signals’’ consisting of paragraphs from 

existing Section 4D.27, FHWA proposes 

to revise the Standard regarding 

preemption control transitions to permit 

the shortening or omission of any 

pedestrian change interval only when 

the traffic control signal is being 

preempted because a boat is 

approaching a movable bridge or 

because rail traffic is approaching a 

grade crossing. FHWA proposes this 

change to improve pedestrian safety. 

The existing MUTCD allows the 

shortening or omission of the pedestrian 

change interval regardless of the reason. 

Unlike boats and trains, emergency 

vehicles and buses generally have the 

ability to slow, stop, or alter their course 

if necessary to avoid a collision. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option permitting the display of a 

distinctive indication to inform law 

enforcement personnel who are 

escorting traffic that the traffic control 

signal has changed because it has been 

preempted. FHWA proposes this change 

based on an NTSB recommendation 

from the results of their investigation 

into the causes of the fatal truck/train 

crash that occurred in Midland, Texas, 

when law enforcement officers were 

escorting a parade.80

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

modify P11 to recommend that backup 

power supply for traffic control signals 

with railroad preemption or coordinated 

with flashing-light signal systems 

should provide a minimum operating 

period sufficient to allow the 

implementation of alternative traffic 

control during a power outage. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

agencies with more guidance on the 

duration for backup power supplies. 

415. In Section 4G.02 (existing 4D.29) 

Flashing Operation—Transition Into 

Flash Mode, FHWA proposes to change 

P1 from Standard to Option because the 

language does not provide a 

requirement and is more appropriate as 

an Option. 

416. In Section 4G.04 (existing 

Section 4D.31) Flashing Operation— 

Transition Out of Flashing Mode, 

FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance 

paragraph providing two recommended 

display sequences for transitioning out 

of yellow-red flashing mode where there 

is a common major-street green interval. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

existing recommendation for display 

sequences for transitioning out of 

yellow-red flashing mode where there is 

not a common major-street green 

interval to provide a steady yellow 

signal indication followed by a steady 

red clearance interval on the major 

traffic movement on the major street. 

FHWA proposes these changes for safety 

and consistency in signal operations. 

417. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Chapter, numbered and titled, Chapter 

4H Bicycle Signals, that includes 

provisions for the application, design, 

and operation of bicycle signals. This 

chapter contains twelve sections and 

provisions related to the use, warrants, 

application, size, placement, mounting 

height, intensity and light distribution, 

and yellow change and red clearance 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80951 

81FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–16, December 

24, 2013, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia16/index.htm. 

82An inventory of FHWA’s Official Rulings can 

be viewed at the following internet website: https:// 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp. 

83 ‘‘MUTCD Experimentation with Countdown 

Pedestrian Signals and Change Intervals,’’ Delaware 

Center for Transportation, University of Delaware, 

October 2011, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://sites.udel.edu/dct/files/ 

2013/10/Rpt.-211-Pedestrian-Signals-2d65hei.pdf. 

84FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-25(I), 

November 19, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_25.htm. 

intervals for Bicycle Signal Faces. These 

sections and provisions are generally 

consistent with provisions for traffic 

control signals. A bicycle signal face 

consists of RED BICYCLE, YELLOW 

BICYCLE, and GREEN BICYCLE symbol 

signal indications that controls bicycle 

movements from a designated bicycle 

lane or from a separate facility, such as 

a shared use path. The proposed 

provisions are based on the Interim 

Approval 16 81 and multiple 

experimentations across the Country. 

One notable change from IA–16 is the 

removal of the green arrow signal 

indication requirement when there are 

conflicts with motor vehicles moving 

concurrently from an adjacent lane. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

agencies with an option to control 

bikeways or bicycle lanes at signalized 

intersections. 

418. In existing Section 4E.03 

Application of Pedestrian Signal Heads, 

FHWA proposes to delete the section 

and relocate P1 and P3 to Section 4D.02. 

FHWA proposes to delete P2 in concert 

with the proposed new Guidance in 

Section 4D.02 that provides additional 

flexibility to use pedestrian signals. 

419. In Section 4I.01 (existing Section 

4E.01) Pedestrian Signal Heads, FHWA 

proposes to modify P2 to align better 

with the recommendation for an 

engineering study with specific factors 

for consideration as outlined in Section 

4K.01. 

420. In Section 4I.02 (existing Section 

4E.04) Size, Design, and Illumination of 

Pedestrian Signal Head Indications, 

FHWA proposes to revise P3 and add 

new Standard and Guidance paragraphs 

to provide more accurate references to 

the ITE standards for pedestrian signal 

heads. 

FHWA also proposes to change P5 

from Standard to Guidance. FHWA 

proposes this change for clarification 

and because the Walking Person and 

Upraised Hand symbols could be 

slightly visible to pedestrians at the far 

end of a crosswalk when not 

illuminated, due to sun phantom and 

other visual phenomena. 

421. In Section 4I.03 (existing Section 

4E.05) Location and Height of 

Pedestrian Signal Heads, FHWA 

proposes to change Standard P2 to 

Guidance to provide agencies with 

flexibility in the location of pedestrians 

signal heads with respect to vehicular 

signal heads when mounted on the same 

support. 

422. In Section 4I.04 (existing Section 

4E.07) Countdown Pedestrian Signals, 

FHWA proposes to clarify Standard P6 

that countdown displays shall not be 

used during the red clearance interval of 

a concurrent vehicular phase that is 

ending simultaneously with or after the 

end of the pedestrian phase because 

countdown displays sometimes overlap 

across more than one vehicular phase 

and are used during the red clearance 

interval of the first overlapped phase. 

423. In Section 4I.05 (existing Section 

4E.08) Pedestrian Detectors, FHWA 

proposes adding an Option to address 

the need for ‘‘touch-free’’ pedestrian 

push buttons. 

FHWA also proposes in Guidance P4 

to clarify ‘‘easy activation’’ of pedestrian 

push buttons as no more than 5 pounds 

of force to activate to reflect 

accessibility requirements contained in 

the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), 

309.4 Operable Parts. FHWA also 

proposes several additional criteria for 

pushbutton locations to provide 

practitioners with additional guidance 

related to the placement of pedestrian 

push buttons in relation to curb ramps, 

crosswalks, shoulders, and the edge of 

pavement, as well as recommending a 

minimum 4-foot continuous clear width 

for a pedestrian access route. These 

proposed changes reflect Official 

Change Request 4(09)–77(C).82

FHWA also proposes to delete P17 

since this is a repeat of P23 in existing 

4E.11. 

424. In Section 4I.06 (existing Section 

4E.06) Pedestrian Intervals and Signal 

Phases, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Standard requiring the display of a 

flashing red signal indication when the 

pedestrian signal heads at a pedestrian 

hybrid beacon are displaying a flashing 

Upraised Hand signal indication. FHWA 

proposes this change to be consistent 

with the specified operation of 

pedestrian hybrid beacons in new 

Section 4J.03 (existing Section 4F.03). 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing P4 to reduce the minimum 

buffer interval from 3 seconds to 2 

seconds. FHWA proposes this change 

based on the results of an official 

experiment that was performed by the 

Delaware DOT.83 The experiment 

concluded there was no statistically 

significant difference from a safety 

perspective when the minimum buffer 

interval was reduced from 3 seconds to 

2 seconds. FHWA proposes this change 

to provide additional flexibility to 

agencies in optimizing the timing of 

traffic signals. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to revise 

existing P7 to recommend calculating 

pedestrian clearance time based on 

crossing distance measured from the 

edge of the pavement and not from the 

shoulder or edge of the traveled way. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

pedestrians who are waiting for a walk 

indication typically do not feel safe 

waiting on a paved shoulder and instead 

wait at the edge of the pavement. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a 

Standard requiring the minimum 

required time for the Walk interval be 

displayed in addition to the time 

provided for the leading pedestrian 

interval at locations where leading 

pedestrian intervals are being utilized 

without accessible pedestrian signals. 

FHWA proposes this change to align 

with accessible pedestrian signal 

guidance throughout Part 4. 

425. In Section 4J.01 (existing Section 

4F.01) Application of Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacons, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Option to allow the reduction of the 

signal warrant criteria for pedestrian 

volume crossing the major street by as 

much as 50 percent if the 15thpercentile crossing speed of pedestrians 

is less than 3.5 feet per second. FHWA 

proposes this change for consistency 

with traffic control signal Warrant 4, 

Pedestrian Volume. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option to allow the separate application 

of the major-street traffic volumes 

criteria in each direction when there is 

a divided street having a median of 

sufficient width for pedestrians to wait 

in accordance with Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–25(I) 84 and for consistency with 

the proposed change in Section 4C.05. 

426. In Section 4J.02 (existing Section 

4F.02) Design of Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacons, FHWA proposes to add Item E 

in Standard P1 requiring a Stop sign for 

the minor-street approach when a 

pedestrian hybrid beacon is installed at 

or immediately adjacent to an 

intersection. FHWA also proposes to 

delete existing items A and C of 

Guidance P4 regarding placement of 

pedestrian hybrid beacons with respect 

to side streets and driveways and the 

installation of signs and pavement 

markings. FHWA proposes these 

changes based on an FHWA evaluation 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80952 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

85 ‘‘Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian 

Crossing Treatment,’’ FHWA June 2010, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ 

10042/10042.pdf. 86 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund 

Study—‘‘Comprehension and Legibility of Selected 

Symbol Signs Phase IV’’ can be found at the 

following internet website: https://pooledfund.org/ 

Document/Download/7559. 

87FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-32(I), March 

21, 2013, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_32.htm. 

88FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–14(I), August 

8, 2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_14.htm. 

89FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–3(I), July 30, 

2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_3.htm. 

study of field implementations 85 of 

pedestrian hybrid beacons installed at 

or near intersections, which found that 

there were no significant safety or 

operational problems with such 

locations. 

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance 

statement recommending accessible 

pedestrian signals be installed in 

conjunction with a pedestrian hybrid 

beacon in response to Official Change 

Request 4(09)–42(C). 

FHWA also proposes to change the 

first sentence of Standard P8 to an 

Option, allowing the CROSSWALK 

STOP ON RED or STOP ON RED– 

PROCEED ON FLASHING RED WHEN 

CLEAR signs to be installed facing each 

major street approach to provide 

agencies flexibility on where to locate 

these signs. FHWA proposes these 

changes based on the field experience of 

agencies that have extensively used 

pedestrian hybrid beacons. 

The 2017 Traffic Control Devices 

Pooled Fund Study—‘‘Comprehension 

and Legibility of Selected Symbol Signs 

Phase IV’’ 86 evaluated the 

comprehension and legibility of various 

alternatives for signing at midblock 

hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The 

results indicated that no significant 

differences were found between the 

alternatives; however, they did highlight 

the need for a sign, at least initially, 

while drivers are learning what actions 

to take based on the flashing beacon. As 

a result, FHWA proposes to add a word 

message sign for jurisdictions that 

determine the operational need at 

pedestrian hybrid beacons. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

prohibiting the use of bicycle signal 

faces at a pedestrian hybrid beacon. 

FHWA proposes this because the speed 

at which bicyclists are able to enter and 

traverse the crosswalk would make it 

unsafe to allow a green or yellow 

bicycle symbol signal indication to be 

shown at the same time that a flashing 

red signal indication is shown to 

motorists. If the motorists are shown a 

steady red signal indication for the 

entire length of time that the bicycle 

signal face is showing a green or yellow 

bicycle symbol signal indication and a 

red clearance interval, the hybrid 

beacon would essentially be functioning 

as a traffic control signal, and not as a 

pedestrian hybrid beacon. 

427. In Section 4J.03 (existing Section 

4F.03) Operation of Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacons, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph recommending that 

pedestrian hybrid beacons operated as 

part of a coordinated signal system 

should not have a variable flashing 

yellow interval duration on a cycle-bycycle basis. FHWA also proposes new 

Guidance that the pedestrian hybrid 

beacon should remain in the dark 

condition after a pedestrian actuation 

has been received until the point in the 

background cycle when the flashing 

yellow interval needs to begin to 

maintain the system coordination. 

FHWA proposes this change in 

accordance with Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–32(I).87

Further, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option allowing the pedestrian 

hybrid beacon to remain in dark 

condition after a pedestrian actuation 

until the minimum dark time has been 

provided, if the minimum dark time has 

been set on the controller. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option allowing the use of a steady red 

clearance interval after the steady 

yellow change interval. FHWA also 

proposes to add an Option allowing the 

alternating flashing CIRCULAR RED 

signal indications to continue for a short 

period after the pedestrian change 

interval has terminated to provide a 

buffer interval for pedestrians. FHWA 

proposes these two new Options to 

increase safety and in accordance with 

Official Ruling No. 4(09)–14(I).88

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option to allow a pedestrian hybrid 

beacon in close proximity to an active 

grade crossing to be preempted. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a 

Standard requiring a pedestrian hybrid 

beacon to flash circular yellow signal 

indications to each major street 

approach and requiring the pedestrian 

signal heads to revert to the dark 

condition when placed into a flashing 

mode by a conflict monitor or manual 

switch. The proper signal and 

pedestrian displays for pedestrian 

hybrid beacons placed into flashing 

mode are not addressed in the current 

MUTCD and this new standard is 

intended to provide uniformity and 

consistency for road users. 

428. FHWA proposes to change 

existing Option P9 to Guidance and 

revise the text to recommend pedestrian 

push buttons be used to activate the 

accessible pedestrian signals at 

locations where it is not necessary for 

pedestrians to push a push button 

detector to receive a WALKING 

PERSON signal indication, and to 

provide information in non-visual 

formats. FHWA proposes this revision 

to align with accessible pedestrian 

signal guidance throughout Part 4. 

429. In Section 4K.03 (existing 

Section 4E.11), retitled, ‘‘Walk 

Indications,’’ FHWA proposes to revise 

Standard P7 to clarify the existing 

requirements for a percussive tone for 

the audible walk indications. The only 

exception is for locations with two 

accessible pedestrian signals on the 

same corner, or on a median, that are 

associated with different phases and are 

located less than 10 feet apart, in which 

case a speech message is required for 

the audible walk indication. FHWA 

proposes this change in accordance with 

Official Ruling No. 4(09)–3(I).89

FHWA proposes to delete the second 

sentence in Support P14 allowing the 

use of transmitted speech messages, 

because there is no assurance that all 

impacted pedestrians would have a 

transmitter. 

FHWA proposes to remove the second 

sentence of Standard P17 limiting the 

use of speech walk messages to specific 

locations. FHWA proposes this revision 

to avoid redundancy, since this is 

addressed in greater detail, in P8. 

FHWA also proposes to change P17 

through P20 from Standard to Guidance 

to provide agencies flexibility in 

developing speech walk messages. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

requiring accessible pedestrian signal 

speech messages in a language other 

than English to follow the message first 

stated in English. FHWA proposes this 

change to establish consistency in the 

order of such messages when an 

optional secondary message in a 

language other than English is used, 

thereby meeting the expectancy of 

pedestrians. 

430. In Section 4K.04 (existing 

Section 4E.12), retitled, ‘‘Vibrotactile 

Arrows and Locator Tones,’’ FHWA 

proposes to revise P1 and P2 to clarify 

the requirements for vibrotactile arrows 

and locator tones to improve safety for 

pedestrians with visual disabilities. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option to 

allow the pushbutton locator tone to 

default to deactivated mode during 

periods when the steady UPRAISED 

HAND is displayed for the associated 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80953 

90FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–26(I), 

January 25, 2013, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_26.htm. 

91NCHRP Web-Only Document 117A can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_

w117a.pdf. 

92FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–21, March 20, 

2018, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia21/index.htm. 

93 ‘‘Driver-Yielding Results for Three Rectangular 

Rapid-Flash Patterns—Overview,’’ TTI, June 18, 

2014, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://tti.tamu.edu/2014/06/18/new-rapidflash-beacon/. ‘‘Driver-Yielding Results for Three 

Rectangular Rapid-Flash Patterns—Executive 

Summary,’’ TTI, June 17, 2014, can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://

static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI2014-5.pdf. 

94FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4–376 (I), 

December 9, 2009, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_376.htm. FHWA’s 

Official Ruling No. 4(09)-5 (I), August 12, 2010, can 

be viewed at the following internet website: http:// 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_

09_5.htm. FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-17 (I), 

January 9, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_17.htm. FHWA’s 

Official Ruling No. 4(09)-21 (I), June 13, 2012, can 

be viewed at the following internet website: http:// 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_

09_21.htm. FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-22 (I), 

August 8, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_22.htm. FHWA’s 

Official Ruling No. 4(09)-24 (I), September 27, 2012, 

can be viewed at the following internet website: 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_24.htm. FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 4(09)-37 (I), October 9, 2013, can be 

viewed at the following internet website: http://

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_

09_37.htm. FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)-38 (I), 

October 22, 2013, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_38.htm. FHWA’s 

Official Ruling No. 4(09)-41 (I), July 25, 2014, can 

be viewed at the following internet website: http:// 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_

09_41.htm. 

95FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–6(I), January 

5, 2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_6.htm. 

crosswalk if a passive pedestrian 

detection system is implemented that 

activates the locator tone when a 

pedestrian is present within a 12-foot 

radius from the push button location, in 

accordance with Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–26(I).90

In addition, FHWA proposes to 

change the second portion of P6 from 

Standard to Guidance to recommend, 

rather than require, that pushbutton 

locator tones to be audible 6 to 12 feet 

from the pushbutton, or to the building 

line, whichever is less. FHWA proposes 

this change to provide agencies 

additional flexibility in locating 

pushbutton locator tones and 

pushbuttons. 

431. In Section 4K.05 (existing 

Section 4E.13), retitled, ‘‘Extended Push 

Button Press Features,’’ FHWA proposes 

to change P7 from Option to Guidance 

to recommend that audible beaconing be 

initiated by an extended pushbutton 

press. FHWA makes this change to 

provide more consistent applications of 

audible beaconing. 

FHWA also proposes to add a value 

of 100 dBA for the maximum volume of 

the pushbutton locator tone during the 

pedestrian change interval and to 

require that the loudspeaker be mounted 

at the far end of the crosswalk at a 

height of 7 to 10 feet above the 

pavement. FHWA proposes this change 

to be consistent with existing provisions 

for accessible pedestrian signals in 

Section 4E.11, which are based on 

‘‘NCHRP 3–62 Accessible Pedestrian 

Signals: A Guide to Best Practices.’’ 91

Further, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Guidance paragraph recommending 

that the audible beaconing loudspeaker 

at the far end of the crosswalk should 

be within the width of the crosswalk. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option to permit the sound level of 

the accessible pedestrian signal walk 

indication and subsequent pushbutton 

locator tone to be increased by an 

extended pushbutton press. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

improve accessible pedestrian signals 

for pedestrians with vision disabilities. 

432. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Chapter numbered and titled, ‘‘Chapter 

4L Rectangular Rapid-Flashing 

Beacons’’ (RRFBs) that includes three 

new sections and provisions for the 

application, design, and operation of 

rectangular rapid flashing beacons used 

to supplement pedestrian warning signs. 

RRFBs consist of two rapidly-flashed 

rectangular-shaped yellow indications, 

each with an LED-array based pulsing 

light source. The proposed provisions 

are based on the Interim Approval 21,92

a research study 93 performed on the 

effectiveness of various flash patterns, 

and FHWA official interpretations 94

and experimentations. One notable 

revision from the IA–22 is a new 

Standard requiring the design of the 

RRFBs to conform to the requirements 

for post-mounted or overhead 

placement described in paragraph 3 of 

Section 4L.02 if used at intersections. 

RRFBs have been shown to achieve high 

rates of compliance at a low relative cost 

in comparison to other more restrictive 

devices that provide comparable results, 

and they have been shown to provide an 

enhanced level of pedestrian safety at 

uncontrolled crosswalks that has been 

previously unattainable without costly 

and delay-producing full traffic 

signalization. 

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance 

statement in Section 4L.02 to 

recommend the use of audible 

information devices with RRFBs to 

assist pedestrians with vision 

disabilities. FHWA proposes this 

revision to provide additional assistance 

due to the lack of audible traffic cues. 

433. In Section 4M.03 (existing 

Section 4G.03) Operation of EmergencyVehicle Traffic Control Signals, FHWA 

proposes to change P3 and P4 from 

Standard to Guidance to provide 

agencies additional flexibility in the 

operation of emergency-vehicle traffic 

control signals and warning beacons. 

434. In new ‘‘Section 4N.03 Operation 

of Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Beacons,’’ 

consisting of paragraphs from existing 

Section 4G.04, FHWA proposes to add 

a Standard requiring the beacon faces to 

display flashing yellow signal 

indications to each approach on the 

major street if placed into flashing mode 

by a conflict monitor or manual switch. 

FHWA proposes this change for 

consistency with requirements for traffic 

control signals. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option to allow an emergencyvehicle hybrid beacon in close 

proximity to an active grade crossing to 

be preempted. 

435. In Section 4P.02 (existing Section 

4I.02) Design of Freeway Entrance Ramp 

Control Signals, FHWA proposes to 

reorder the paragraphs and revise 

existing P3 to clarify that a minimum of 

two signal faces shall be provided on 

ramps that have one controlled lane as 

well as ramps that have more than one 

controlled lane and the ramp control 

signals are operated such that green 

signal indications are always displayed 

simultaneously to all of the controlled 

lanes on the ramp. 

For locations where there is more 

than one lane on an entrance ramp and 

the ramp control signals are not 

operated such that the green signal 

indications are always displayed 

simultaneously, FHWA proposes to split 

the requirements between two-lane 

entrance ramps and entrance ramps 

with three or more lanes. For two-lane 

entrance ramps that are separately 

controlled, at least two ramp control 

signals shall be provided for each lane. 

For three or more entrance ramp lanes 

that are separately controlled, one ramp 

control signal shall be provided over the 

approximate center of each lane. FHWA 

proposes these changes in accordance 

with Official Ruling No. 4(09)–6(I).95

FHWA also proposes a new Option to 

expand the existing exception to the 

requirement of 8-foot minimum lateral 

separation of signal faces for one-lane 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80954 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

96 Information on the concept of irradiation and 

disability glade can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ 

doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2003.tb03080.x. 

97FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–7(I), 

February 8, 2011, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/4_09_7.htm. 

98FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–11(I), June 

29, 2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_11.htm. 

entrance ramps to apply to entrance 

ramps with two or more controlled 

lanes. FHWA proposes this change for 

consistency with single-lane ramps. 

Further, FHWA proposes to change P6 

from Standard to Guidance to provide 

agencies additional flexibility in the 

location and design of ramp control 

signals. 

436. In Section 4P.03 (existing 4I.03) 

Operation of Freeway Entrance Ramp 

Control Signals, FHWA proposes to 

revise Standard P3 to prohibit the use of 

flashing light emitting diode (LED) units 

within the legend or border of signs to 

inform road users that ramp control 

signal is in operation. FHWA also 

proposes similar revisions to Section 

4S.03 (existing Section 4L.03) Warning 

Beacon and Section 4S.04 (existing 

Section 4L.04) Speed Limit Sign Beacon 

to prohibit the use of flashing LED units 

within the legend or border of signs to 

inform road users that a regulation is in 

effect or that a condition is present. 

FHWA believes that warning beacons 

should be used to inform road users that 

a regulation is in effect and that flashing 

LED lights within the border or legend 

of the sign should only provide added 

conspicuity to sign legends. 

437. In Section 4Q.02 (existing 

Section 4J.02) Design and Location of 

Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, 

FHWA proposes to change P9, the last 

sentence of P13, P16, and P20 from 

Standard to Guidance and change P12 

from Standard to Support to provide 

agencies with more flexibility in the 

design of movable bridge signals, gates, 

and signs. 

438. In Section 4S.01 (existing Section 

4L.01) General Design and Operation of 

Flashing Beacons, FHWA proposes to 

revise Standard P4 to discontinue the 

existing allowance of a beacon within 

the border of a sign for School Speed 

Limit Sign Beacons. FHWA proposes 

this change because under certain light 

and weather conditions, the flashing 

beacon causes irradiation that can 

obscure the sign message if the beacon 

is within the sign or too close to the sign 

legend. This proposal is consistent with 

research demonstrating the 

phenomenon of irradiation or disability 

glare.96 FHWA also proposes a 

corresponding revision to Section 4S.04 

(existing Section 4L.04) Speed Limit 

Sign Beacon. 

FHWA also proposes to add 

Interchange Exit Direction signs with 

advisory speed panels as an exception 

to the Standard prohibiting flashing 

beacons within the border of the sign. 

FHWA proposes this revision to clarify 

the existing practice and for consistency 

with Figure 2E–27. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard establishing eight-inch and 

twelve-inch as the two nominal 

diameter sizes for flashing beacon signal 

indications in accordance with Official 

Ruling No. 4(09)–7(I).97

439. In Section 4S.02 (existing Section 

4L.02) Intersection Control Beacon, 

FHWA proposes to add a new Standard 

requiring twelve-inch signal indications 

for Intersection Control Beacons facing 

approaches where road users view both 

flashing beacon indications and laneuse control signal indications 

simultaneously or where the nearest 

flashing beacon signal face is more than 

120 feet beyond the stop line, unless a 

supplemental near-side flashing beacon 

signal face is provided. FHWA also 

proposes a new Guidance 

recommending twelve-inch signal 

indications for Intersection Control 

Beacons facing approaches where the 

speed is 40 mph or higher or where 

post-mounted flashing beacon signal 

faces are used. FHWA proposes these 

changes to increase the signal indication 

visibility for the road users and for 

consistency with provisions for traffic 

control signals. 

440. In Section 4S.03 (existing Section 

4L.03) Warning Beacon, FHWA 

proposes to delete P5 requiring a 

minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 

19 feet clearance above the pavement for 

warning beacons suspended over the 

roadway. FHWA proposes this change 

because P2 in new Section 4S.01 

adequately addresses clearances and in 

accordance with Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–11(I).98

FHWA also proposes to modify P11 to 

specify that the BE PREPARED TO 

STOP (W3–4) sign and a WHEN 

FLASHING (W16–13P) plaque is the 

traffic signal warning sign assembly that 

may be used with the Warning Beacon 

interconnected with a traffic signal 

controller. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement to recommend the 

use of audible information devices with 

pedestrian-actuated Warning Beacons to 

assist pedestrians with visual 

disabilities. FHWA proposes this 

revision to provide additional assistance 

due to the potential lack of audible 

traffic cues. 

FHWA proposes adding a new 

Standard prohibiting the use of 

vibrotactile and percussive indications 

in conjunction with audible information 

devices at pedestrian-actuated Warning 

Beacons at a pedestrian crossing. FHWA 

also proposes a new Guidance 

recommending that, if used, the audible 

message should be a speech message 

that says, ‘‘Yellow lights are flashing’’ 

and should be spoken twice. FHWA 

proposes these changes because the 

vibrotactile and percussive indications 

are reserved for the Walk indication. 

441. In Section 4S.04 (existing Section 

4L.04) Speed Limit Sign Beacon, FHWA 

proposes to delete the second sentence 

of P2 to provide agencies more 

flexibility in arranging two or more 

indications. 

FHWA also proposes to modify P3 to 

expand the provision beyond two signal 

indications to address situations where 

four signal indications are used. 

442. In Section 4S.05 (existing Section 

4L.05) Stop Beacon, FHWA proposes to 

change P3 from Standard to Guidance to 

provide agencies flexibility in designing 

and installing the Stop Beacon with the 

Stop, Do Not Enter, and Wrong Way 

signs. 

443. In Section 4T.01 (existing 

Section 4M.01) Application of Lane-Use 

Control Signals, FHWA proposes to add 

a new Option allowing the use of a USE 

LANE(S) WITH GREEN ARROW (R10– 

8) sign in conjunction with lane-use 

control signals, for consistency with 

Section 2B.62 (existing Section 2B.53). 

444. In Section 4T.03 (existing 

Section 4M.03) Design of Lane-Use 

Control Signals, FHWA proposes to 

change P6 through P10 from Standard to 

Guidance to provide agencies flexibility 

in the design of lane-use control signals. 

445. In Section 4T.04 (existing 

Section 4M.04) Operation of Lane-Use 

Control Signals, FHWA proposes to 

change the second sentence of P3 from 

Standard to Guidance to allow agencies 

flexibility in the duration of the Red X 

signal indication display. 

446. In Section 4U.01 (existing 

Section 4N.01), retitled, ‘‘Application of 

In-Roadway Warning Lights,’’ FHWA 

proposes to relocate and change P3 from 

Standard to Guidance to provide 

agencies additional flexibility in 

designing the height above the roadway 

surface of in-roadway warning lights. 

447. In Section 4U.02 (existing 

Section 4N.02) In-Roadway Warning 

Lights at Crosswalks, FHWA proposes to 

add a Guidance statement 

recommending audible information 

devices be used with In-Roadway 

Warning Lights to provide assistance for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80955 

99The Society of Automotive Engineers’ Standard 

SAE J3016 can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://www.sae.org/news/2019/01/saeupdates-j3016-automated-driving-graphic. 

pedestrians with visual disabilities. 

FHWA proposes this revision to provide 

additional assistance due to the 

potential lack of audible traffic cues. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

prohibiting the use of vibrotactile and 

percussive indications in conjunction 

with audible information devices at InRoadway Warning Lights. FHWA also 

proposes new Guidance recommending 

that, if used, the audible message should 

be a speech message that says, ‘‘Yellow 

lights are flashing’’ and should be 

spoken twice. FHWA proposes these 

changes because the vibrotactile and 

percussive indications are reserved for 

the Walk indication and pedestrians 

with vision disabilities could 

misinterpret the device as an accessible 

pedestrian signal. 

Discussion of Proposed New Part 5 

Automated Vehicles 

448. As part of the relocation of 

material related to low-volume roads to 

other parts within the Manual, FHWA 

proposes to provide content and retitle 

Part 5 Automated Vehicles. FHWA 

proposes all new content for this part. 

The purpose of this new part is to 

provide agencies with general 

considerations for vehicle automation as 

they assess their infrastructure needs, 

prepare their roadways for automated 

vehicle (AV) technologies, and to 

support the safe deployment of AVs. 

449. FHWA proposes a new ‘‘Section 

5A.01 Purpose and Scope’’ which 

contains a Support statement with 

general information about AV 

technologies, the MUTCD, and the 

purpose of the new part. 

450. In new ‘‘Section 5A.02 Overview 

of Connected and Automated Vehicles,’’ 

FHWA proposes to include a Support 

statement describing various types of 

AV technology and sensors used by 

AVs. 

451. In new ‘‘Section 5A.03 Definition 

of Terms,’’ FHWA proposes to include 

a Support statement with several 

definitions for terms used extensively in 

AV technology. The definitions 

proposed are summarized from those 

found in the Society of Automotive 

Engineers Standard SAE J3016.99 The 

proposed terms include: Automated 

Driving Systems, Advanced Driver 

Assistance Systems, Automation Levels, 

Cooperative Automation, Driving 

Automation Systems (DAS), Dynamic 

Driving Task, and Operational Design 

Domain. 

452. In new ‘‘Section 5A.04 Traffic 

Control Device and Use 

Considerations,’’ FHWA proposes a 

Support statement that describes the 

challenges related to the interaction 

between traffic control devices and 

DAS. 

FHWA also proposes to include a 

Guidance statement recommending 

agencies adopt maintenance policies or 

practices that consider both the human 

vehicle operator and DAS technology 

needs, and to use engineering judgment 

to determine traffic control device 

selection and placement with similar 

consideration. 

FHWA also proposes Support and 

Guidance statements regarding the 

fundamental principles and 

considerations to be applied in 

evaluating traffic control devices and 

other maintenance to support of AV 

technologies during maintenance and 

infrastructure improvements. 

453. FHWA proposes a new chapter 

titled, ‘‘Chapter 5B Provisions for Traffic 

Control Devices’’ with sections 

regarding signs, markings, traffic 

signals, and temporary traffic control, as 

well as provisions for traffic control at 

railroad and light rail transit grade 

crossings, and traffic control for bicycle 

facilities. 

454. In new ‘‘Section 5B.01 Signs,’’ 

FHWA proposes to include Support and 

Guidance statements regarding signs. In 

the Guidance statement, FHWA 

recommends that signs be clearly 

associated to the specific lane/road to 

which they apply, such as parallel roads 

with different speed limits and that 

information spreading practices be 

employed to minimize informational 

load. FHWA also proposes that standard 

sign designs be retained as much as 

possible. Finally, FHWA proposes that 

the illuminated portion of electronic 

signs should have a standard refresh/ 

flicker rate, greater than 200 Hz. FHWA 

proposes this language to accommodate 

machine vision technology, while also 

helping human drivers. 

455. In new ‘‘Section 5B.02 

Markings,’’ FHWA proposes to include 

Support and Guidance statements with 

a list of considerations that should be 

used to accommodate machine vision 

used to support the automation of 

vehicles and benefit the performance of 

the human vehicle operator. Most of 

these considerations are addressed in 

more detail in Part 3 and references are 

provided to the primary Sections. These 

considerations include uniform line 

widths, the use of dotted edge line 

extensions along all entrance and exit 

ramps, along all auxiliary lanes, and 

along all tapers where a deceleration or 

auxiliary lane is added, use of chevron 

markings in exit gore areas, continuous 

markings in work zones and in all lane 

transitions, and minimum dimensions 

for dashed lines. FHWA also proposes 

to recommend that raised pavement 

markers not be used as a substitute for 

markings and that decorative elements 

in crosswalks be avoided to minimize 

any potential confusion for automated 

systems. 

456. In new ‘‘Section 5B.03 Highway 

Traffic Signals,’’ FHWA proposes to 

include a Guidance statement with a list 

of considerations that should be used to 

accommodate machine vision used to 

support the automation of vehicles and 

benefit the performance of the human 

vehicle operator. The list includes 

consistency along a corridor of traffic 

signal design and placement with 

respect to approach lanes, and 

consistent LED refresh rates greater than 

200 Hz. 

In concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes a Support statement describing 

the challenges in achieving corridorbased consistency necessary for 

machine vision. Information is provided 

on the benefits of using vehicle-toinfrastructure (V2I) technology for 

traffic signal systems to address 

inconsistencies in a corridor. 

457. In new ‘‘Section 5B.04 

Temporary Traffic Control,’’ FHWA 

proposes Guidance and Standard 

statements regarding the use of signs 

and pavement markings to 

accommodate machine vision better and 

benefit the performance of the human 

vehicle operator in and through work 

zones. FHWA proposes that type of 

signs, spacing, and mounting height 

should follow the requirements in Part 

6 and that the END ROAD WORK sign 

should be used to establish the end of 

the work zone. 

In the Standard, FHWA proposes 

existing pavement markings be 

maintained in all long-term stationary 

temporary traffic control zones in 

accordance with other referenced areas 

of the Manual. FHWA also proposes 

pavement markings match the 

alignment of the markings in place at 

both ends of the Temporary Traffic 

Control (TTC) zone and that they be 

placed along the entire length of any 

paved detour or temporary roadway 

prior to the detour or roadway being 

opened to road users. FHWA also 

proposes pavement markings in the 

temporary traveled way that are no 

longer applicable be removed or 

obliterated as soon as practical. As part 

of this requirement, FHWA proposes 

that pavement marking obliteration 

remove the non-applicable pavement 

marking material, the obliteration 

method minimize pavement scarring, 

and painting over existing pavement 

markings with black paint or spraying 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80956 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

100 ‘‘Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 

95, Cranbury, New Jersey, June 7, 2014,’’ NTSB/ 

HAR–15/02, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://ntsb.gov/investigations/ 

AccidentReports/Pages/har1502.aspx. 

with asphalt shall not be accepted as a 

substitute for removal or obliteration. 

FHWA proposes these changes to 

accommodate machine vision of AVs, 

which might not have the capabilities to 

distinguish between markings that 

appear to conflict with one another in 

the same way that a human road user 

can. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a Guidance 

statement to recommend provisions to 

enhance the visibility of vertical panels, 

tubes, and other channelizing devices, 

as well as markings, to accommodate 

machine vision as well as human 

vehicle operators. 

458. In new ‘‘Section 5B.05 Traffic 

Control for Railroad and Light Rail 

Transit Grade Crossings,’’ FHWA 

proposes a Guidance statement 

recommending that placement of signs 

and markings be consistent within a 

corridor at both passive and active 

highway-rail grade crossings. In 

addition, FHWA proposes Guidance 

recommending that V2I communication 

be employed at a highway-rail grade 

crossing. Finally, FHWA proposes a 

Support statement recommending signs 

and pavement marking associated with 

railroad crossings and tracks that are no 

longer active be removed. FHWA 

proposes this language to accommodate 

machine vision better and benefit the 

performance of the human vehicle 

operator. 

459. In new ‘‘Section 5B.06 Traffic 

Control for Bicycle Facilities,’’ FHWA 

proposes a Guidance statement 

recommending that bicycle facilities be 

segregated from other vehicle traffic 

using physical barriers where 

practicable and that road markings are 

needed to denote the end of a bike lane 

that is merged with traffic. FHWA 

proposes this language to accommodate 

machine vision better and benefit the 

performance of the human vehicle 

operator. 

460. FHWA proposes to reserve 

Chapter 5C for potential future 

provisions. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control 

461. FHWA proposes to reorganize 

Part 6 by dividing some existing long 

chapters and sections into several 

chapters and/or several sections, each 

having a clearly understandable title, 

and by moving certain material to new 

locations within Part 6 to consolidate 

similar information in one place. In 

some cases, this involves the proposed 

creation of new Chapters and Sections 

that do not exist in the 2009 MUTCD. 

FHWA believes this proposed 

reorganization would create a more 

logical flow of information and make it 

easier for users to find the content they 

need. In addition, FHWA proposes to 

delete text from various sections where 

such material duplicates or is very 

similar to existing text in other sections 

within Part 6 or elsewhere in the 

MUTCD. These reorganizations and 

elimination of redundancies are 

editorial in nature and do not 

significantly change the technical 

content or meaning, except as otherwise 

discussed below. 

462. Throughout Part 6, FHWA 

proposes to make various editorial 

revisions to eliminate the use of 

unacceptably vague and undefined 

terms, such as ‘‘reasonably safe,’’ 

replacing such phrases with more 

appropriate language. 

463. FHWA is proposing to revise 

several Guidance statements related to 

sidewalk closure during construction 

and accessible pedestrian access. Under 

Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), all State and 

local governments are required to take 

appropriate steps to ensure that their 

communications with people with 

disabilities are as effective as 

communications with others. [28 CFR 

35.160(a)]. Effective communication 

means that whatever information is 

conveyed by or on behalf of a public 

entity must be as clear and 

understandable to people with 

disabilities as it is for people who do 

not have disabilities. The ADA requires 

public entities to furnish auxiliary aids 

and services—which include the 

acquisition or modification of 

equipment or devices—where necessary 

to afford individuals with disabilities an 

equal opportunity to participate in, and 

enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, 

or activity of a public entity. [28 CFR 

35.160(b)(1)]. The provision of 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way is generally recognized as a 

service provided by the public entity 

that owns such facilities. See, e.g., 

Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 

1073 (9th Cir. 2002). When sidewalks 

are closed temporarily due to 

construction, it is important for the 

closure to be communicated to 

pedestrians in a manner that is 

accessible to pedestrians with vision 

loss. FHWA proposes to strengthen the 

language in Part 6 to address this need. 

Under Title II of the ADA, all State 

and local governments must operate 

services, programs, and activities, 

including pedestrian facilities in public 

street rights-of-way, such that, when 

viewed in their entirety, they are readily 

accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities. The ADA requires that 

a public entity’s newly constructed 

facilities be made accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities 

to the extent that it is not structurally 

impracticable to do so. The ADA also 

requires that, when an existing facility 

is altered, the altered facility be made 

accessible and usable by individuals 

with disabilities to the maximum extent 

feasible. Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, generally 

referred to as Section 504, includes 

similar requirements for public entities 

that receive Federal financial assistance. 

FHWA proposes to eliminate text that 

refers to a level of usage by pedestrians 

with disabilities as a basis for taking 

certain accessibility-related actions 

because the need to comply with the 

ADA does not depend on the frequency 

with which the facility is used by 

pedestrians with disabilities. FHWA 

also proposes to eliminate text 

suggesting that the accommodation of 

pedestrians with disabilities is 

sometimes unnecessary. 

464. In conjunction with the 

elimination of existing Part 5 LowVolume Rural Roads, FHWA proposes 

to add a new Support paragraph in 

Section 6A.01 General regarding 

temporary traffic controls on lowvolume rural roads. FHWA also 

proposes to change the last two 

sentences of existing P10 from Standard 

to Guidance, to make this information 

regarding statutory authority to be 

consistent with similar information in 

Part 1. 

465. In Section 6A.02 (existing 

Section 6B.01) Fundamental Principles 

of Temporary Traffic Control, FHWA 

proposes to add information on the 

spacing and number of signs in the 

advance warning area in order to 

address excessive queue lengths based 

on the findings of NTSB/HAR–15/02 

Multivehicle Work Zone Crash I–95 

Cranbury, New Jersey.100 FHWA 

proposes to clarify the language in the 

Guidance statement of paragraph 7 parts 

3A and 3B pertaining to pedestrian 

accessibility in accordance with 28 CFR 

35.160(a)(1), which requires a public 

entity to take appropriate steps to 

ensure that communications with 

applicants, participants, members of the 

public, and companions with 

disabilities are as effective as 

communications with others. 

466. FHWA proposes to divide 

existing Section 6F.01 Types of TTC 

Devices into two new sections, 6A.03 

‘‘TTC Devices’’ and 6A.04 

‘‘Crashworthiness of TTC Devices.’’ 

FHWA proposes to revise the Standard 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80957 

101FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–2(I), April 

1, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/6_09_002.htm. 

102FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–4(I), May 

10, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/6_09_004.htm. 

103FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–12(I), 

February 1, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/6_09_12.htm. 

104FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–37(I), June 

1, 2016, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/6_09_37.htm. 

105FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–1(I), March 

10, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/6_09_001.htm. 

106FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–16(I), 

September 20, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/6_09_16.htm. 

107FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–15(I), 

September 19, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/6_09_15.htm. 

paragraph in new Section 6A.03 

defining ‘‘traffic control devices’’ and 

the Support paragraph in Section 6A.04 

regarding crashworthiness to be 

consistent with the revised definitions 

proposed for these terms in Part 1. 

467. In Section 6B.01 (existing 

Section 6C.01) Temporary Traffic 

Control Plans, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement recommending the 

development of a TTC plan for any 

activity, either planned or unplanned, 

that will affect road users, because TTC 

plans for such activities are an 

important element of roadway safety. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to delete the 

last three sentences of the Guidance 

paragraph about pedestrians with 

disabilities because this information is 

covered elsewhere in Part 6. 

468. In Section 6B.04 (existing 

Section 6C.04) Advance Warning Area, 

FHWA proposes to change the second 

sentence in P4 from Guidance to Option 

to clarify the intent of the language. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

flexibility for cases such as low-speed 

residential streets. 

469. In Section 6B.05 (existing 

Section 6C.05) Transition Area, FHWA 

proposes to clarify the intent of the 

Standard Statement by adding that 

signs, arrow boards, and/or 

channelizing devices are the appropriate 

devices for directing road users from the 

normal path to a new path, except in the 

case of short-term mobile operations. 

470. In Section 6B.08 (existing 

Section 6C.08) Tapers, FHWA proposes 

to delete the first sentence of Guidance 

P15, because the use of flaggers or 

temporary traffic control signals is 

covered elsewhere. 

471. In Section 6C.02 (existing 

Section 6D.01) Pedestrian 

Considerations, FHWA proposes to edit 

and change existing P3 from Standard to 

Guidance because advance notification 

of a sidewalk closing is not always 

possible, especially in emergencies, 

therefore it is not appropriate to require 

advance notification. FHWA also 

proposes to delete the second sentence 

of existing P4 regarding adequate 

pedestrian access in TTC zones to 

eliminate repetition with Section 6B.03 

(existing Section 6C.03). In addition, 

FHWA proposes to add an Option 

statement about accommodating 

pedestrians if a short-term work zone is 

attended by project personnel, in order 

to provide more flexibility while 

maintaining pedestrian safety and 

convenience. FHWA also proposes to 

add a Guidance statement to 

recommend designing TTC zones to 

minimize conflicts between vehicular 

and pedestrian movements due to the 

likelihood of high pedestrian presence 

in roadways open to public travel to 

enhance pedestrian safety. FHWA 

further proposes to delete the existing 

second sentence of P22 about the 

upstream leading ends of temporary 

traffic barrier because this information 

is adequately covered in Section 6M.02 

(existing Section 6F.85). 

472. In Section 6C.03 (existing 

Section 6D.02) Accessibility 

Consideration, FHWA proposes to 

eliminate the first portion of the second 

sentence in existing paragraph 3 that 

refers to a level of usage by pedestrians 

with disabilities as a basis for taking 

certain accessibility-related actions 

because the need to comply with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act does 

not depend on the frequency with 

which the facility is used by pedestrians 

with disabilities. 

473. In Section 6C.05 (existing 

Section 6E.02) High-Visibility Safety 

Apparel, FHWA proposes to update the 

text to reflect the latest ANSI Standard 

107 dated 2015, per Official Ruling Nos. 

6(09)–2(I),101 6(09)–4(I),102 6(09)– 

12(I),103 and 6(09)–37(I),104 and in 

concert with these changes proposes to 

delete repetitive information covered by 

the ANSI standard. 

474. In Section 6D.02 STOP/SLOW 

Paddle for Hand-Signaling, FHWA 

proposes to delete the second, third, and 

fourth sentences of the Standard 

regarding the design details of this 

device, because those details are 

standardized and must comply with the 

existing provisions of Chapter 2A. 

FHWA also proposes to add an Option 

to allow the use of a STOP/STOP or 

SLOW/SLOW paddle in certain 

situations where appropriate, to provide 

additional flexibility. 

475. In proposed Section 6D.03 Flag 

for Hand-Signaling, FHWA proposes to 

incorporate information about the color 

of flags to allow an alternate color of 

fluorescent orange-red based on Official 

Ruling No. 6(09)–1(I) 105 to provide 

flexibility during emergency situations. 

476. In Section 6D.05 (existing 

Section 6E.07) Flagger Procedures, 

FHWA proposes to revise P2 to reflect 

Official Ruling No. 6(09)–16(I) 106

related to the use of hand movements 

alone by uniformed law enforcement 

officers to control road users 

approaching a TTC zone. FHWA also 

proposes further revisions to P2 that are 

intended to allow hand movements 

alone by uniformed law enforcement 

officers when directing traffic at special 

events. FHWA proposes to add an 

Option to allow the use of a STOP/ 

STOP or SLOW/SLOW paddle in certain 

situations where appropriate, consistent 

with a similar proposed Option in 

Section 6D.02. 

477. In Section 6D.06 (existing 

Section 6E.08) Flagger Stations, FHWA 

proposes to change P1 from Standard to 

Guidance, since the required flagger 

station location may not achievable in 

some geometric conditions and signing 

would have to be relied upon. 

478. In Section 6E.04 (existing Section 

6C.13) Pilot Car Method, FHWA 

proposes to revise the Standard 

statement to allow mounting of the sign 

on top of the pilot vehicle as well as on 

the rear, and to clarify that pilot car 

operations shall be coordinated with 

flagging or other control methods, as 

this is necessary for safety. FHWA also 

proposes to add a new Standard to 

require a flagger to operate an 

Automated Flagger Assistance Device 

(AFAD) in pilot car operations based on 

Official Ruling No. 6(09)–15(I) 107 to 

clarify that an AFAD is not a temporary 

traffic control signal and should not be 

operated in an automatic manner. 

479. In conjunction with the 

elimination of existing Part 5 LowVolume Rural Roads, FHWA proposes 

to revise P9 of Section 6F.01 (existing 

Section 6F.02) General Characteristics of 

TTC Zone Signs, to integrate 

information about low-volume rural 

roads and to reduce the speed below 

which minimum sign sizes can be used 

from 35 mph to 30 mph. FHWA 

proposes to change P10 of this Section 

from Standard to Guidance because 

there may be cases where it is necessary 

to deviate from standard sign sizes in 

increments other than in 6-inches. 

FHWA proposes to remove the 

requirement in P14 for sign material to 

have a smooth, sealed outer surface, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80958 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

108FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–11(I), 

January 3, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/6_09_11.htm. 

109FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–14(I), 

August 8, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/6_09_014.htm. 

110FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–18(I), 

December 4, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/6_09_18.htm. 

since such requirement is not 

appropriate for the MUTCD. 

480. In Section 6F.02 (existing Section 

6F.03) Sign Placement, FHWA proposes 

to remove the support statement of 

existing paragraph 18 because NCHRP 

Report 350 is no longer a valid method 

of determining crashworthiness. 

481. In Section 6G.07 (existing 

Section 6F.11) STAY IN LANE Signs 

(R4–9, R4–9a), FHWA proposes the 

STAY IN LANE TO MERGE POINT (R4– 

9a) sign to support the Late Merge 

option in Section 6N.19. 

482. In Section 6G.10 (existing 

Section 6F.14) SIDEWALK CLOSED 

Signs (R9–9, R9–10, R9–11, R9–11a), 

FHWA proposes to delete the last 

sentence in the support statement of 

existing paragraph 6 because it 

contradicts the Standard in 6C.03 

Accessibility Considerations. 

483. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Section 6G.11 Turn Off 2-Way Radio 

and Cellphone (R22–2) Sign and 

relocate the information about this sign 

(which is currently numbered W22–2) 

from existing Section 6F.42 to this new 

section, because the sign conveys a 

regulatory message rather than a 

warning message. 

484. In Section 6H.01 (existing 

Section 6F.16) Warning Sign Function, 

Design, and Application, FHWA 

proposes to change the last phrase of 

existing P2 (new P3) regarding 

fluorescent yellow-green backgrounds 

from Standard to Option to be 

consistent with Part 2. 

485. In Section 6H.03 (existing 

Section 6F.18) ROAD (STREET) WORK 

Sign (W20–1), FHWA proposes to 

change P3 from Standard to Option 

because the primary legend is specified 

in the ‘‘Standard Highway Signs’’ 

publication, and the allowable alternate 

legends are covered by the new Option. 

486. In Section 6H.04 (existing 

Section 6F.19) DETOUR Sign (W20–2), 

FHWA proposes to change P2 from 

Standard to Option because the primary 

legend is specified in the ‘‘Standard 

Highway Signs’’ publication, and the 

allowable alternate legends are covered 

by the new Option. 

487. In Section 6H.05 (existing 

Section 6F.20) ROAD (STREET) 

CLOSED Sign (W20–3), FHWA proposes 

to change P2 from Standard to Option 

because the primary legend is specified 

in the ‘‘Standard Highway Signs’’ 

publication, and the allowable alternate 

legends are covered by the new Option. 

488. In Section 6H.06 (existing 

Section 6F.21) ONE LANE ROAD Sign 

(W20–4), FHWA proposes to change the 

second sentence of P2 from Standard to 

Option because the primary legend is 

specified in the ‘‘Standard Highway 

Signs’’ publication, and the allowable 

alternate legends are covered by the new 

Option. 

489. In Section 6H.07, retitled, 

(existing Section 6F.22) ‘‘Lane(s) Closed 

Signs (W20–5, W20–5a, and W9–3),’’ 

FHWA proposes to change part of P2 

from Standard to Option because the 

allowable alternate legends are covered 

by the new Option. FHWA also 

proposes to combine existing Section 

6F.23 The CENTER LANE CLOSED 

AHEAD (W9–3) sign into this section 

since Section 6H.07 includes all the 

other lane closure signs. 

490. In Section 6H.08 (existing 

Section 6F.24) Lane Ends (W4–2, W9– 

2a) signs, FHWA proposes the Merge 

Here Take Turns (W9–2a) sign to 

identify the merge point and to take 

turns merging during Late Merge 

applications. 

491. In Section 6H.24 (existing 

Section 6F.39) UTILITY WORK Sign 

(W21–7), FHWA proposes to change P3 

from Standard to Option because the 

primary legend is specified in the 

‘‘Standard Highway Signs’’ publication, 

and the allowable alternate legends are 

covered by the new Option. 

492. In Section 6H.25 (existing 

Section 6F.40) Signs for Blasting Areas, 

FHWA proposes to consolidate existing 

Sections 6F.40 thru 6F.43 since they all 

relate to signs in blasting areas. FHWA 

also proposes to revise P2 to reflect the 

change of the W22–2 sign to a regulatory 

sign because the sign is requiring an 

action and not warning about a hazard. 

493. In Section 6J.01 (existing Section 

6F.77) Pavement Markings in TTC 

Zones, FHWA proposes to change the 

first two sentences of P4 from Standard 

to Guidance, because ‘‘as soon as 

practical’’ is not defined and 

obliteration of pavement markings 

cannot always be complete and without 

significant scarring. 

494. In Section 6J.03 (existing Section 

6F.79) Temporary Raised Pavement 

Markers, FHWA proposes to revise the 

required spacing for temporary raised 

pavement markers in P3 and P4 to 

simplify layout in the field by providing 

specific distances rather than equations. 

495. In Section 6K.01 (existing 

Section 6F.63) Channelizing Devices— 

General, FHWA proposes to add P10 

and revise P12 to reflect changes 

associated with Official Ruling No. 

6(09)–11(I).108 Also, FHWA proposes to 

change existing P18 from a Standard to 

a Guidance statement because 

‘‘significant amount’’ is not defined. 

496. FHWA proposes to create a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

6K.02 Pedestrian Channeling Devices’’ 

that contains information relocated from 

existing Section 6F.63 plus new 

Standard, Guidance, Option, and 

Support information specific to 

pedestrian channelizing devices. Within 

this new section, FHWA proposes to 

add a new figure, Figure 6K–2, 

illustrating an example of a pedestrian 

channelizing device, including handtrailing for visually-disabled 

pedestrians. 

497. In Section 6K.07 (existing 

Section 6F.68) Type 1, 2, or 3 

Barricades, FHWA proposes to change 

the second sentence of P22 from 

Standard to Guidance, because 

‘‘adequate’’ is not defined and cannot be 

achieved in all geometric conditions. 

498. FHWA proposes to revise Section 

6K.11 (existing Section 6F.72) 

Temporary Lane Separators, to reflect 

the intended use of these devices more 

accurately. FHWA proposes to revise 

the two Standard statements and to add 

a new Guidance statement to clarify the 

design if these devices and to indicate 

that temporary lane separators should 

not be used to shield obstacles or 

provide positive protection for workers 

for pedestrians. FHWA also proposes to 

revise P5 to reflect the intentional 

movement of temporary lane separators 

in a TTC zone per Official Ruling No. 

6(09)–14(I).109

499. FHWA proposes to revise Section 

6L.01 (existing Section 6F.84) 

Temporary Traffic Control Signals to 

conform to proposed changes in Section 

4K.01. 

500. In Section 6L.03 (existing Section 

6E.05) STOP/SLOW Automated Flagger 

Assistance Devices, FHWA proposes to 

add an Option for use of a new WAIT 

ON STOP–GO ON SLOW sign 

combining the messages of the two 

existing signs, to provide additional 

flexibility. 

501. In Section 6L.05 (existing Section 

6F.60) Portable Changeable Message 

Signs, FHWA proposes to revise P19 

regarding the use of portable changeable 

message signs to simulate an Arrow 

Board display, per Official Ruling No. 

6(09)–18(I).110

502. In Section 6L.07 (existing Section 

6F.83), retitled, ‘‘Flashing Beacons and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80959 

111 ‘‘Motorcoach Collision with Crash Attenuator 

in Gore Area US Highway 101, San Jose, CA,’’ 

NTSB Recommendation H–17–002 can be viewed at 

the following internet website: https://

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/_

layouts/ntsb.recsearch/ 

Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-17-002. 

Warning Lights,’’ FHWA proposes to 

relocate a portion of Standard P11 from 

existing Section 6F.63 pertaining to the 

use of flashing warning lights in order 

to place this information in the 

appropriate section. FHWA also 

proposes to revise existing P9 to clarify 

that the only allowable use of a series 

of sequential flashing warning lights is 

on channelized devices that form a 

merging taper. 

503. FHWA proposes to add a new 

Section 6M.01 General, consisting of a 

Support statement to introduce the 

proposed new Chapter 6M, in which is 

grouped the existing information 

concerning TTC zone design features 

and devices that are not traffic control 

devices. 

504. In Section 6M.02 (existing 

Section 6F.85) Positive Protection and 

Temporary Traffic Barriers, FHWA 

proposes to change P4 from Guidance to 

Standard to improve worker safety 

within the work zone. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing P8 and delete P9 and P10 to 

broaden the description of movable 

barriers. 

505. In Section 6M.04 (existing 

Section 6F.74) Detectable Edging for 

Pedestrians, FHWA proposes to 

eliminate the first portion of the first 

sentence in P2 that refers to a level of 

usage by pedestrians with disabilities as 

a basis for taking certain accessibilityrelated actions because the need to 

comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act does not depend on the 

frequency with which the facility is 

used by pedestrians with disabilities 

and to correct the edging distance in the 

second sentence of existing P2 from 6 

inches to 8 inches to be consistent with 

new Section 6K.02 

506. In Section 6M.05 (existing 

Section 6F.86) Crash Cushions, FHWA 

proposes to delete the last existing 

Guidance paragraph about use of these 

devices in accordance with 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

instead insert this into P5 as part of the 

Standard statement, to consolidate 

information about design and use. 

507. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 6F.81 Lighting Devices, 

because such devices are not defined. 

As part of this change, FHWA proposes 

to relocate two of the existing 

paragraphs to Sections 6L.07 and 

6N.01.510. 

508. In Section 6M.08 (existing 

Section 6F.82) retitled, ‘‘Lighting for 

Night Work,’’ FHWA proposes to change 

existing P4 from a Standard to a 

Guidance statement to reflect the intent 

to minimize glare caused by 

floodlighting. FHWA proposes to add 

two new sentences to existing P5 to 

recommend that lighting should be 

sufficient so as to identify a worker 

clearly as a person and care should be 

taken to minimize the potential for 

shadows to conceal workers within the 

work area. 

509. In Section 6N.01 (existing 

Section 6G.02) Work Duration, FHWA 

proposes to change P2 from Standard to 

Guidance to allow flexibility in the 

definition of the five categories of work 

duration at a location. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Support to describe the rolling 

roadblock method for temporary traffic 

control based on findings from the 

NTSB H–17–2 Bus Crash-US 101 San 

Jose, California.111

510. In Section 6N.04 (existing 

Section 6G.05) Work Affecting 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, 

FHWA proposes to add new Guidance, 

Support, and Standard statements, to 

provide additional information for 

accommodating bicycles through TTC 

zones. 

511. In Section 6N.05 (existing 

Section 6G.06) Work Outside of the 

Shoulder, FHWA proposes to revise 

from Option to Guidance a sentence 

about the use of a SHOULDER WORK 

sign if work vehicles are on the 

shoulder, for enhanced safety. 

512. In Section 6N.13 (existing 

Section 6G.14) Work Within the 

Traveled Way of a Freeway or 

Expressway, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Support on the spacing and 

number of since in the advance warning 

area due to excessive queue lengths 

based on the findings of NTSB/HAR–15/ 

02 Multivehicle Work Zone Crash I–95 

Cranbury, New Jersey. 

513. In Section 6N.14 (existing 

Section 6G.15) Two-Lane, Two-Way 

Traffic on One Roadway of a Normally 

Divided Highway, FHWA proposes to 

revise P2 to clarify that Opposing Lane 

Traffic Divider (W6–4) signs on flexible 

supports are one of the types of devices 

that can be used to separate opposing 

vehicular traffic. 

514. FHWA proposes to add Section 

6N.19 Late Merge to provide Guidance 

and Option statements to provide 

consistency when utilizing the Late 

Merge concept with lane closures. 

515. In Section 6O.01 (existing 

Section 6I.01) General, FHWA proposes 

to include an explanation to incorporate 

estimated time durations in the 

planning and training initial incident 

estimate. FHWA also proposes to revise 

P8 to include an explanation of safe 

positioning of emergency vehicles 

arriving at an incident. This information 

is currently included in Part 1 in the 

definition of the term ‘‘safe-positioned’’ 

but, as noted previously, the definition 

is being deleted since the term is only 

used in Section 6O.01. 

516. In Section 6P.01 (existing Section 

6H.01) Typical Applications, FHWA 

proposes to add eight new Typical 

Application figures along with notes to 

accompany them. New Figures 6P–47 

through 6P–51 illustrate and describe 

five different situations involving work 

impacting bicycle facilities, to 

supplement proposed new text 

information in Section 6N.04 (existing 

Section 6G.05). New Figures 6P–52 

through 6P–54 illustrate and describe 

procedures for work at a roundabout. In 

addition, FHWA proposes to revise the 

existing drawings and/or notes for the 

following existing figures in Chapter 6P 

(existing Chapter 6H): 

a. Notes for Figure 6P–3 (existing 

Figure 6H–3) Work on Shoulders: 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

note regarding the use of positive 

protection devices. 

b. Notes for Figure 6P–4 (existing 

Figure 6H–4) Short Duration or Mobile 

Operation on a Shoulder: FHWA 

proposes to add a new option note 

regarding the use of positive protection 

devices. 

c. Notes for Figure 6P–6 (existing 

Figure 6H–6) Shoulder Work with 

Minor Encroachment: FHWA proposes 

to add a new Option note regarding the 

use of positive protection devices. 

d. Notes for Figure 6P–7 (existing 

Figure 6H–7) Road Closure with a 

Diversion: FHWA proposes to revise 

existing note 10 from Option to 

Guidance, to recommend rather than 

merely allow the use of delineators 

along the diversion. 

e. Notes for Figure 6P–10 (existing 

Figure 6H–10) Lane Closure on a TwoLane Road Using Flaggers: FHWA 

proposes to add a new Option note 

regarding the use of positive protection 

devices. 

f. Notes for Figure 6P–11 (existing 

Figure 6H–11) Lane Closure on a TwoLane Road with Low Traffic Volumes: 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

note regarding the use of positive 

protection devices. 

g. Notes for Figure 6P–12 (existing 

Figure 6H–12) Lane Closure on a TwoLane Road Using Traffic Control 

Signals: FHWA proposes to revise 

Standard note 4 by deleting the 

requirement to use stop lines for 

intermediate-term closures, to provide 

additional flexibility. FHWA also 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80960 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

112FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 6(09)–7(I), June 1, 

2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/6_09_7.htm. 

proposes to add a new Option note 

regarding the use of positive protection 

devices. 

h. Notes for Figure 6P–13 (existing 

Figure 6H–13) Temporary Road Closure: 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

note regarding the use of positive 

protection devices. 

i. Notes for Figure 6P–14 (existing 

Figure 6H–14) Haul Road Crossing: 

FHWA proposes to revise Standard note 

7a for completeness and clarity, and to 

add new Standard note 7b and 

Guidance note 11 pertaining to the use 

of actuated signal operation per Official 

Ruling No. 6(09)–7(I).112

j. Notes for Figure 6P–15 (existing 

Figure 6H–15) Work in the Center of a 

Road with Low Traffic Volumes: FHWA 

proposes to add a new Option note 

regarding the use of positive protection 

devices. 

k. Notes for Figure 6P–17 (existing 

Figure 6H–17) Mobile Operations on a 

Two-Lane Road: FHWA proposes to add 

a new Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

l. Notes for Figure 6P–18 (existing 

Figure 6H–18) Lane Closure on a Minor 

Street: FHWA proposes to add a new 

Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

m. Notes for Figure 6P–21 (existing 

Figure 6H–21) Lane Closure on the Near 

Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes 

to add a new Option note regarding the 

use of positive protection devices. 

n. Figure 6P–22 (existing Figure 6H– 

22) Right-Hand Lane Closure on the Far 

Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes 

to revise the drawing in this figure to 

correspond with proposed changes in 

the notes for the figure as follows. In 

Option note 2, FHWA proposes to 

relocate the third sentence to Support 

for consistency with the notes for other 

similar figures. FHWA also proposes to 

add a new Option note regarding the use 

of continuous channelizers and a new 

Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

o. Notes for Figure 6P–23 (existing 

Figure 6H–23) Left-Hand Lane Closure 

on the Far Side of an Intersection: 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

note regarding the use of positive 

protection devices. 

p. Figure 6P–24 (existing Figure 6H– 

24) Half Road Closure on the Far Side 

of an Intersection: FHWA proposes to 

revise the drawing in this figure to 

remove the optional temporary 

markings and also to correspond with 

the proposed addition of a new Option 

note regarding the use of continuous 

channelizers and a new Option note 

regarding the use of positive protection 

devices. 

q. Figure 6P–25 (existing Figure 6H– 

25) Multiple Lane Closures at an 

Intersection: FHWA proposes to revise 

the drawing in this figure to correspond 

with proposed changes in the notes for 

the figure as follows. FHWA proposes to 

delete Guidance note 1 regarding 

placement of a LEFT LANE MUST 

TURN LEFT sign. FHWA also proposes 

to add a new Option note regarding the 

use of positive protection devices. 

r. Notes for Figure 6P–27 (existing 

Figure 6H–27) Closure at the Side of an 

Intersection: FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

s. Figure 6P–28 (existing Figure 6H– 

28) Sidewalk Detour or Diversion: 

FHWA proposes to revise the drawing 

in this figure to correspond with the 

proposed changes in the notes for the 

figure as follows, to correspond with 

text changes in new Section 6N.04 

(existing Section 6G.05). FHWA 

proposes to delete existing Standard 

note 1 and replace it with five new 

Standard notes. In addition, FHWA 

proposes to delete existing Guidance 

note 2 and replace it with two new 

Guidance notes, and to add one new 

Option note. FHWA also proposes to 

change the existing Guidance note 3 to 

a Standard in order to comply with 28 

CFR 35.160(a)(1). These proposed 

changes are to correct discrepancies 

between the figure for Sidewalk 

Diversion and other sections in Part 6. 

t. Figure 6P–29 (existing Figure 6H– 

29) Crosswalk Closures and Pedestrian 

Detours: FHWA proposes to add two 

new Standard statements and move the 

existing Guidance statement 3 to a 

Standard in order to comply with 28 

CFR 35.160(a)(1). 

u. Notes for Figure 6P–30 (existing 

Figure 6H–30) Interior Lane Closure on 

a Multi-Lane Street: FHWA proposes to 

add a new Option note regarding the use 

of positive protection devices. 

v. Notes for Figure 6P–31 (existing 

Figure 6H–31) Lane Closure on a Street 

with Uneven Directional Volumes: 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

note regarding the use of positive 

protection devices. 

w. Notes for Figure 6P–32 (existing 

Figure 6H–32) Half Road Closure on a 

Multi-Lane, High-Speed Highway: 

FHWA proposes to add a new Option 

note regarding the use of positive 

protection devices. 

x. Notes for Figure 6P–33 (existing 

Figure 6H–33) Stationary Lane Closure 

on a Divided Highway: FHWA proposes 

to add a new Option note regarding the 

use of positive protection devices. 

y. Notes for Figure 6P–35 (existing 

Figure 6H–35) Mobile Operation on a 

Multi-Lane Road: FHWA proposes to 

add a new Option note regarding the use 

of positive protection devices. 

z. Notes for Figure 6P–37 (existing 

Figure 6H–37) Double Lane Closure on 

a Freeway: FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

aa. Notes for Figure 6P–38 (existing 

Figure 6H–38) Interior Lane Closure on 

a Freeway: FHWA proposes to delete 

two Guidance statements regarding 

visibility of the arrow boards because 

the statements are not needed and not 

consistent with the notes of other 

similar figures. FHWA proposes to add 

an Option Statement to allow the use of 

a truck mounted attenuator to improve 

worker safety. FHWA also proposes to 

add a new Option note regarding the use 

of positive protection devices. 

bb. Notes for Figure 6P–40 (existing 

Figure 6H–40) Median Crossover for an 

Entrance Ramp: FHWA proposes to add 

a new Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

cc. Notes for Figure 6P–41 (existing 

Figure 6H–41) Median Crossover for an 

Exit Ramp: FHWA proposes to add a 

new Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

dd. Notes for Figure 6P–42 (existing 

Figure 6H–42) Work in the Vicinity of 

an Exit Ramp: FHWA proposes to add 

a new Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

ee. Notes for Figure 6P–43 (existing 

Figure 6H–43) Partial Exit Ramp 

Closure: FHWA proposes to add a new 

Option note regarding the use of 

positive protection devices. 

ff. Notes for Figure 6P–44 (existing 

Figure 6H–44) Work in the Vicinity of 

an Entrance Ramp: FHWA proposes to 

add a new Option note regarding the use 

of positive protection devices. 

gg. Notes for Figure 6P–46 (existing 

Figure 6H–46) Work in the Vicinity of 

a Grade Crossing: FHWA proposes to 

add a new Option note regarding the use 

of positive protection devices. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Part 7 Traffic Control for School Areas 

517. As part of the reorganization, 

FHWA proposes to consolidate Chapter 

7A into two sections numbered and 

titled, ‘‘Section 7A.01 Introduction’’ and 

‘‘Section 7A.02 School Route Plans and 

School Crossings.’’ The two sections 

consist of provisions from existing 

Section 7A.01 through Section 7A.04. 

518. 520. In Section 7A.01 

‘‘Introduction,’’ FHWA proposes to 

change existing P1 in Section 7A.04 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80961 

113FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 7(09)–3(I), August 

17, 2020, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

reqdetails.asp?id=1150. 

114FHWA/TX–09/0–5470–1, ‘‘Speeds in School 

Zones,’’ can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5470- 

1.pdf. 

from a Standard to Support because the 

general information in this paragraph 

describing the scope of Part 7 is more 

appropriate as a Support statement. 

FHWA also proposes to delete 

existing Support P2–4 and the first 

sentence of P5 that contain references to 

other sections, chapters, and parts in the 

Manual, because this text is 

unnecessary. The MUTCD users are 

accustomed to knowing that other areas 

of the Manual should be consulted 

when working in Part 7, because school 

areas include signs, pavement markings, 

and traffic signals. FHWA retains the 

reference to the School Crossing signal 

warrant, because it is specific to school 

areas. 

519. FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Section 7A.03 School Crossing 

Criteria. FHWA proposes to delete 

Support P1, because the information is 

not needed in the MUTCD, and relocate 

P2 to Section 7D.01 in order to place 

information about gaps in traffic with 

similar information in new Section 

7D.01 (existing Section 7D.03). 

520. FHWA proposes to consolidate 

and combine information from existing 

Sections 7B.01 through 7B.07 into one 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

7B.01 Design of School Signs.’’ FHWA 

proposes to delete Standards and 

Guidance that are covered in Section 

2A.11 as the information is redundant. 

521. FHWA also proposes to create a 

new section numbered and titled, 

‘‘Section 7B.02 School Area Signs and 

Plaques’’ using information from 

existing Sections 7B.08 through Section 

7B.10. 

FHWA proposes to change Standard 

P1 in existing Section 7B.10 to 

Guidance because many States have 

higher fines by statute in school zones, 

work zones, and other locations. 

Retaining this as a Standard may have 

an unintended consequence of placing a 

financial burden on States and 

municipalities to sign for every location 

where there are increased fines; 

therefore, FHWA believes that the use of 

engineering judgment is more 

appropriate. 

FHWA also proposes to add new 

Guidance, Standard, and Option 

paragraphs to clarify the application of 

Higher Fines Signs and Plaques in 

school areas based on Official Ruling 

No. 7(09)–3(I).113

522. FHWA proposes to create a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

7B.03 School Crossing Signs’’ by 

combining information from existing 

Sections 7B.11 and Section 7B.12. 

FHWA also proposes to change a 

portion of Standard P3 in existing 

Section 7B.12 prohibiting the use of 

School Crossing assemblies on 

approaches controlled by a YIELD sign 

to Guidance. FHWA proposes this 

change to revert back to the language in 

the 2003 MUTCD. NCUTCD suggested 

this change because the language in the 

2009 Edition that prohibited the use of 

School Crossing assemblies on 

approaches controlled by a STOP or a 

YIELD sign was too restrictive. An 

NCUTCD task force working on this 

issue cited that the School Crossing 

assembly provides beneficial guidance 

to road users on approaches where 

vehicles are not required to stop; 

therefore, prohibiting their use where 

YIELD signs are placed could have a 

negative effect on the safety of school 

children. In conjunction with this 

change, FHWA proposes two new 

Options allowing a School Crossing 

Assembly on Yield approaches to 

roundabouts and channelized right turn 

lanes controlled by a Yield sign. Also, 

FHWA proposes to allow a Yield Here 

To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians (R1–5a 

or R1–5c) sign in advance of a marked 

crosswalk on a multi-lane approach in 

a school zone in accordance with the 

provisions in Section 2B.20. 

FHWA proposes to change existing 

Options P4, P5, P6, and existing 

Standard P8 in existing Section 7B.12 to 

clarify the application of In-Street 

Pedestrian Crossing (R1–6 or R1–6a) 

sign, In-Street School Crossing (R1–6b 

or R1–6c) sign, Overhead Pedestrian 

Crossing (R1–9 or R1–9a) sign, and 12- 

inch reduced size in-street School (S1– 

1) sign may be used at school crossings 

on approaches that are not controlled by 

a traffic control signal, a pedestrian 

hybrid beacon, or emergency vehicle 

hybrid beacon. FHWA proposes these 

changes to eliminate any potential 

confusion whether the various types of 

beacons are considered unsignalized 

intersections. 

FHWA proposes to modify the name 

of the In-Street Schoolchildren Crossing 

sign to In-Street School Crossing sign to 

be more consistent with other signs that 

it supplements and more accurately 

describe the use of the sign. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add an 

Option to allow an In-Street Pedestrian 

Crossing or In-Street School Crossing 

sign at intersections or midblock 

crossings with flashing beacons. 

523. FHWA proposes to retitle Section 

7B.04 (existing Section 7B.13) ‘‘School 

Bus Stop Signs’’ and incorporate 

information from existing Section 7B.14. 

524. FHWA proposed to add a new 

Section 7B.05 ‘‘School Bus Stop When 

Flashing Signs.’’ In this section FHWA 

proposes a new sign, ‘‘STOP FOR 

SCHOOL BUS WHEN RED LIGHTS 

FLASH’’ to remind drivers of the 

requirement to stop for school buses 

when the flashing red lights on the 

school bus are in operation. FHWA 

proposes this new sign in response to a 

recommendation from the NCUTCD as 

many States currently use variations of 

regulatory word messages for this 

purpose. The new sign would 

standardize the message for drivers. 

525. FHWA proposes to retitle Section 

7B.06 (existing Section 7B.15) ‘‘School 

Speed Limit Signs and Plaques’’ and 

incorporate information from existing 

Section 7B.16. 

FHWA proposes to change Standard 

P3 in existing Section 7B.15 to 

Guidance to allow flexibility on 

required signing for fines in school 

zones based on engineering judgment. 

Many States have higher fines by statute 

in school zones, work zones, and other 

locations; therefore, requiring the use of 

the FINES HIGHER, FINES DOUBLE, or 

$XX FINE plaques could place an undue 

burden on States and municipalities to 

sign for every location where there are 

increased fines. 

Also, FHWA proposes to revise 

existing Guidance P7 to recommend that 

the maximum beginning point of a 

reduced school speed limit zone in 

advance of school grounds is 500 feet. 

The recommendation was suggested by 

the NCUTCD and based on the results 

of research conducted on Speeds in 

School Zones.114

Lastly, FHWAproposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph to clarify that 

duplicate plaques for fines should be 

omitted if other traffic violations in 

addition to exceeding the speed limit 

are subject to higher fines based on 

Official Ruling No. 7(09)–3(I). 

526. In Section 7D.01 (existing 

Section 7D.03) ‘‘Qualifications of Adult 

Crossing Guards,’’ FHWA proposes to 

incorporate the existing Option from 

existing Section 7D.02. 

527. In Section 7D.02 (existing 

Section 7D.05) ‘‘Operating Procedures 

for Adult Crossing Guards,’’ FHWA 

proposes to incorporate the existing 

Standard from existing Section 7D.04. 

Also, FHWA proposes to add a 

Standard requiring that the STOP 

paddle comply with the provisions for 

a STOP/SLOW paddle and provide a 

reference to Section 6D.02 for 

information. FHWA also adds a 

reference to STOP paddles in Section 

6D.02. Note: this proposed new 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80962 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

115The ‘‘Manual for Railway Engineering’’ can be 

viewed at the following internet website: https://

www.arema.org/AREMA_MBRR/AREMAStore/ 

MRE.aspx. 

116The ‘‘Communications & Signals Manual’’ can 

be viewed at the following internet website: https:// 

www.arema.org/AREMA_MBRR/AREMAStore/ 

Communications_Signals_2019.aspx. 

117 Ibid. 

language is intended to state an existing 

requirement specifically regarding the 

provisions of the STOP paddle and is 

not a new requirement. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Options P4 and P5 and 

Standard P6 regarding the flashing 

lights because it is redundant 

information that is contained in Section 

6E.03. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Part 8 Traffic Control for Railroad and 

Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings 

528. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, 

FHWA proposes a new Support 

statement that the highway agency or 

authority with jurisdiction, the 

regulatory agency with statutory 

authority, and the railroad company or 

transit agency jointly perform the 

engineering study of grade crossings and 

the traffic control devices that are 

associated with them. FHWA proposes 

this new language to encourage 

coordination and cooperation between 

the appropriate knowledgeable parties 

of interest. 

FHWA also proposes new Support 

statements regarding grade crossing 

warning systems, which complement 

the existing support statement about 

traffic control systems at grade 

crossings. 

529. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8A.02 

Highway-LRT Grade Crossings,’’ which 

is comprised of existing P8 through 12 

of Section 8A.01. FHWA proposes to 

revise Item B to highlight that LRT has 

the right-of-way over other road users at 

grade crossings and intersections in a 

semi-exclusive alignment, and to revise 

Item C to highlight that LRT does not 

have the right-of-way over other road 

users at grade crossings and 

intersections in a mixed-use alignment. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

clarity regarding right-of-way at semiexclusive and mixed-use alignments. 

FHWA also proposes a revised 

Guidance statement to recommend that 

if a highway-LRT grade crossing is 

equipped with a flashing-light signal 

system and is located within 200 feet of 

an intersection or midblock controlled 

by a traffic control signal, a pedestrian 

hybrid beacon, or an emergency-vehicle 

hybrid beacon, the highway traffic 

signal should be provided with 

preemption. FHWA proposes this 

change to encourage use of preemption 

in such locations. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a new 

Option statement allowing the use of 

traffic signal priority or preemption if 

determined to be appropriate by a 

Diagnostic Team when LRT vehicles are 

operating in a mixed-use alignment. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

there might be locations where traffic 

signal priority or preemption is 

appropriate. 

530. In Section 8A.03 (existing 

Section 8A.02), retitled, ‘‘Use of 

Standard Devices, Systems, and 

Practices at Grade Crossings,’’ FHWA 

proposes new Standard paragraphs to 

require that the Diagnostic Team shall 

reach a determination through 

consensus, documented in an 

engineering study, on new grade 

crossing traffic control systems and on 

proposed changes to an existing grade 

crossing traffic control system. FHWA 

proposes this change, consistent with 49 

CFR part 222, appendix F, because there 

are a large number of significant 

variables to be considered and no single 

standard system of traffic control 

devices is universally applicable for all 

grade crossings. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

statement that general maintenance 

activities or minor operational changes 

to the grade crossing traffic control 

system that do not have a negative 

impact on the overall operation of the 

traffic control system can be made 

without a Diagnostic Team. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

agencies with more flexibility and to 

reduce the burden on Diagnostic Team 

members for minor changes. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph to recommend that 

the Diagnostic Team distributes the 

determination made regarding traffic 

control system at a grade crossing to the 

Diagnostic Team members. FHWA 

proposes this change to encourage 

documentation of the decisions made 

regarding traffic control systems at grade 

crossings. 

531. In Section 8A.04 (existing 

Section 8A.03) Use of Standard Devices, 

Systems, and Practices at Highway-LRT 

Grade Crossings, FHWA proposes to 

delete several Support, Standard, 

Guidance, and Option paragraphs, 

because most of this text is now 

proposed to be incorporated into 

Sections 8A.02 and 8A.03. 

532. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8A.05 

Engineering Studies at Grade Crossings’’ 

comprised of P2 through P4 of existing 

Section 8A.02 and P5 of existing Section 

8A.03 as part of the reorganization to 

group similar information together. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement recommending the factors to 

be considered in the determining which 

traffic control devices are appropriate to 

install at a grade crossing. 

533. In Section 8A.06 (existing 

Section 8A.04) Uniform Provisions, 

FHWA proposes a new Guidance 

paragraph regarding raised median 

islands installed supplemental to an 

automatic gate to discourage road users 

from driving around a lowered gate. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement discouraging the 

use of two-way center left turn lanes in 

the immediate vicinity of grade 

crossings and recommending other 

treatments. FHWA proposes this change 

because two-way left turn lanes at grade 

crossings are problematic, especially 

when automatic gates are or may be 

installed. Only extending gates to the 

center of the two-way left turn lane on 

both sides of the crossing insufficiently 

discourages road users in that lane from 

circumventing the gates and is in 

conflict with 49 CFR 234.223. This 

practice is consistent with the American 

Railway Engineering and Maintenanceof-Way Association (AREMA) Manual 

for Railway Engineering (MRE),115

current edition and the AREMA 

Communication & Signals Manual.116

534. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8A.07 

Minimum Track Clearance Distance’’ to 

provide Support statements regarding 

the minimum track clearance distance at 

a grade crossing. FHWA proposes this 

new section to describe more fully the 

applications of Minimum Track 

Clearance Distance that are too lengthy 

and complex to be included with the 

definition in Part 1. All uses of the term 

within other sections of Part 8 include 

a cross reference to Section 8A.07 so 

that readers would know where to go to 

find out how this term is applied. 

535. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8A.08 

Adjacent Grade Crossings’’ to provide 

Support and Guidance statements for 

adjacent grade crossings. FHWA 

proposes this new section, because it is 

important to treat closely-spaced grade 

crossings properly, which sometimes 

result from separate railroads or a 

railroad and an LRT alignment 

operating in parallel corridors. FHWA 

also includes a reference to Part 3.1.11 

of the ‘‘AREMA Communications & 

Signals Manual’’ 117 for more 

information about adjacent grade 

crossings that are located within 200 

feet of each other. 

536. In Section 8A.09 (existing 

Section 8A.05) Grade Crossing 

Elimination, FHWA proposes a new 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80963 

118FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)–7 (I), April 8, 

2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/8_09_7.htm. 

Option statement permitting an 

engineering study to determine the costs 

and benefits of eliminating a crossing 

that appears to be redundant or 

unnecessary. In concert with this 

change, FHWA proposes to add 

Guidance paragraphs recommending the 

engineering study and subsequent steps 

for eliminating the grade crossing if it is 

determined to be appropriate. This 

replaces the existing Guidance 

statement about eliminating grade 

crossings that cannot be justified. 

FHWA proposes this new material to 

provide practitioners with information 

to assist with eliminating grade 

crossings, which are a potential source 

of crashes and congestion. FHWA also 

proposes to delete a Guidance paragraph 

that seemed to recommend that 

engineering studies regarding potential 

grade crossing elimination should be 

conducted for every grade crossing. 

537. In Section 8A.12 (existing 

Section 8C.12) Grade Crossings Within 

or In Close Proximity to Circular 

Intersections, FHWA proposes to change 

the Standard regarding an engineering 

study to determine queuing impacts to 

a Guidance statement to provide 

agencies with more flexibility in the 

engineering study and design of grade 

crossings near circular intersection. 

538. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8A.13 

Busway Grade Crossings’’ to provide 

Standards, Guidance, Support, and 

Option statements for busway grade 

warning and crossing systems. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

standardization of traffic control devices 

for grade crossings of highways with 

busways. 

539. In Section 8A.14 (existing 

Section 8A.08) Temporary Traffic 

Control Zones, FHWA proposes a new 

Guidance paragraph regarding 

temporary traffic control zones that 

extend over grade crossings equipped 

with automatic gates and either one-lane 

two-way or reversible lane operation is 

used. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Guidance paragraph recommending the 

preparation of a traffic control plan 

when traffic is detoured over an existing 

grade crossing with passive warning 

devices. FHWA proposes this change 

because it is important to analyze traffic 

safety during detours. 

540. In Section 8B.02 Sizes of Grade 

Crossing Signs, FHWA proposes to 

clarify that the sizes shown in Table 8B– 

1 are minimum sizes. FHWA also 

proposes to change the minimum 

required size of a Yield sign at multilane conventional road grade crossings 

from 48′′× 48′′ to 36′′× 36.′′ FHWA 

proposes this change to provide clarity 

regarding the requirements of the sign 

size and based on Official Ruling No. 

8(09)–7(I).118

541. In Section 8B.03 Grade Crossing 

(Crossbuck) Sign (R15–1) and Number 

of Tracks Plaque (R15–2P) at Active and 

Passive Grade Crossings, FHWA 

proposes to upgrade an existing Option 

to a Standard to require a minimum of 

one Crossbuck sign on each highway 

approach to a gated highway-LRT grade 

crossing on a semi-exclusive alignment. 

FHWA proposes this change to make 

sure that road users understand why a 

gate is present. 

FHWA proposes to revise existing 

Paragraph 5 to require the Number of 

Tracks plaque below the Crossbuck sign 

where there are two or more tracks at a 

grade crossing, regardless of the 

presence of automatic gates. This 

revision is necessary because the 

presence of two or more tracks at a 

crossing adds complexity for road users 

and additional risks, such as in 

situations in which trains occupy both 

tracks, where the tracks are spaced such 

that a vehicle could become stuck 

between the tracks, or where the 

visibility of the second track is limited. 

This revision would improve safety by 

providing uniformity for multitrack 

crossings that would accommodate the 

expectancy of the road user. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing Paragraph 7 to reduce the 

requirement for retroreflective white 

material on the back of the Crossbuck 

sign to apply only to passive grade 

crossings. FHWA proposes this change 

because active grade crossings have 

signals or warning lights for traffic 

control device conspicuity. 

FHWA also proposes new Standard 

paragraphs regarding minimum lateral 

clearance between the edge of the 

Crossbuck sign and the face of a vertical 

curb, edge of traveled way, and/or edge 

of paved or surfaced shoulder. FHWA 

proposes this change to be consistent 

with the dimensions shown in Figure 

8B–3 for Crossbuck Assemblies and to 

be consistent with Paragraphs 6, 7, and 

8 of existing Section 8C.01. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement recommending the Crossbuck 

sign to be at least 12 feet from the center 

of the nearest track. FHWA proposes 

this change to formalize the dimensions 

shown on Figure 8D–2. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

paragraph recommending the mounting 

height to the center of Crossbuck signs 

to be approximately 9 feet and an 

Option to adjust the height based on 

local conditions and to accommodate 

signs below the Crossbuck sign. FHWA 

proposes this change to clarify the 

dimension shown on Figure 8B–2. 

542. In Section 8B.04 Crossbuck 

Assemblies with YIELD or STOP Signs 

at Passive Grade Crossings, FHWA 

proposes a new Guidance paragraph 

recommending the use of a STOP sign 

at the Crossbuck Assembly where a 

passive grade crossing is located at the 

stem of a T-intersection with inadequate 

clear storage area between the tracks 

and the parallel roadway. FHWA also 

proposes that if a STOP sign is installed, 

consideration should also be given to 

installing a YIELD sign at the highwayhighway intersection. FHWA proposes 

this new text to provide practitioners 

with additional information for 

crossings with this geometry. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

paragraph requiring a Yield sign and TO 

TRAINS (R15–9P) supplemental plaque 

when Crossbuck Assemblies are used 

within the limits of a highway-highway 

intersection controlled by a traffic 

control signal not interconnected with 

the grade crossing and not preempted by 

the approach of rail traffic. FHWA also 

proposes to prohibit the use of a Stop 

sign with the Crossbuck Assembly in 

this situation. FHWA proposes this 

change for consistency with Section 

4A.08 (existing Section 4D.34) regarding 

the use of stop signs with traffic control 

signals. 

FHWA proposes to revise existing 

Paragraph 10 regarding YIELD and 

STOP sign mounting heights on 

Crossbuck Assemblies to require at least 

5 feet in rural areas and at least 7 feet 

in areas where parking or pedestrian 

movements are likely to occur. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

consistency throughout the Manual 

regarding vertical mounting height. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

existing Guidance paragraph regarding a 

Crossbuck Assembly on a separate 

support than the Crossbuck sign, to 

clarify the recommended location of 

YIELD or STOP sign in relationship to 

the Crossbuck sign and to clarify the 

lateral clearances from a curb or edge of 

traveled way. FHWA proposes this 

change to provide consistency 

throughout the Manual regarding lateral 

offset. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

existing Standards regarding the vertical 

strip of retroreflective white material on 

a Crossbuck support to clarify that a 

white retroreflective strip wrapped 

around a round support satisfies the 

requirement as long at the round 

support has an outside diameter of at 

least 2 inches. FHWA proposes this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80964 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

119FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)–1(I), March 

10, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/8_09_001.htm. 

120 ‘‘Collision Between Freight Train and Charter 

Motorcoach at High-Profile Highway-Railroad 

Grade Crossing, Biloxi, Mississippi, March 7, 

2017,’’ NTSB/HAR1801, can be viewed at the 

following internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/ 

investigations/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/ 

Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-024. 

121 49 CFR 234.311. 

122 49 CFR 234.309. 

change to provide clarity regarding the 

requirements of the white retroreflective 

strip and based on Official Ruling No. 

8(09)–1(I).119

543. In Section 8B.05 Use of STOP 

(R1–1) or YIELD (R1–2) Signs without 

Crossbuck Signs at Highway-LRT Grade 

Crossings, FHWA proposes to eliminate 

the Guidance statement regarding LRT 

speed and replace it with a Guidance 

statement in Section 8D.04 (Use of 

Active Traffic control Systems at LRT 

Grade Crossings) with recommendations 

for active traffic control systems where 

LRT operating speeds are less than 25 

mph unless an engineering study 

determines that passive devices would 

provide adequate control. FHWA 

proposes this change based on the 

stopping distance of LRT vehicles at 

speeds less than 25 mph and consistent 

with industry practice. 

544. In Section 8B.06 Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning Signs (W10–1 

through W10–4), FHWA proposes to 

modify the Standard statement to 

remove the requirement at all highwayLRT grade crossing in semi-exclusive 

alignments and add a condition that the 

warning signs are not required where 

Crossbuck signs are not used. FHWA 

proposes these changes to reduce the 

number of locations where Grade 

Crossing Advance Warning Signs are 

required at highway-LRT grade 

crossings. 

545. In Section 8B.07 (existing 

Section 8B.09) DO NOT STOP ON 

TRACKS Sign (R8–8), FHWA proposes 

a new Guidance paragraph 

recommending the use of a DO NOT 

STOP ON TRACKS (R8–8) sign if a 

traffic control signal is installed within 

200 feet downstream from a grade 

crossing such that highway vehicle 

queues are likely to extend onto the 

tracks except where a pre-signal is 

installed. FHWA proposes this change 

to improve safety at grade crossings near 

signalized intersections. 

FHWA also proposes to revise 

existing Paragraph 1 to separate the 

provision into two paragraphs and to 

delete the text regarding an engineering 

study. FHWA proposes this change to 

provide agencies more latitude in 

installing the R8–8 sign based on 

engineering judgment. 

546. In Section 8B.08 (existing 

Section 8B.10) TRACKS OUT OF 

SERVICE Sign (R8–9), FHWA proposes 

a new Option statement allowing 

warning signs such as Low Ground 

Clearance Crossing (W10–5) and 

Skewed Crossing (W10–12) to be left in 

place after tracks are taken out of service 

to warn road users about physical 

roadway conditions that are still 

present. FHWA proposes this change to 

provide agencies with flexibility to 

retain signs for a longer period than 

other traffic control devices at the 

crossing. 

FHWA also proposes two new 

Standards requiring that Emergency 

Notification System (I–13) signs be 

retained at grade crossings that are out 

of service until the tracks are removed 

or covered. Emergency Notification 

System signs provide emergency contact 

information for the railroad responsible 

for the crossing. Retaining the existing 

signs until the tracks are removed 

would ensure a contact number is 

available for road users to reach if there 

is a safety concern or another issue that 

requires the railroad to be contacted. 

547. FHWA proposes new Option and 

Support statements in Section 8B.16 

(existing Section 8B.23) to address 

warning, selective exclusion, and detour 

signing for additional vehicle types and 

combinations that may encounter hangup situations at low ground clearance 

crossings. The proposed changes are in 

response to NTSB recommendation H– 

18–24.120

548. FHWA proposes to relocate 

existing Section 8.17 LOOK Sign (R15– 

8) to Section 9B.21 to allow the use of 

a LOOK sign on a shared-use path or 

separated bikeway at a grade crossing. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

these signs are no longer to be installed 

to communicate with drivers, as the 

YIELD or STOP sign on the Crossbuck 

Assemblies at passive crossings imply 

that motorists should look for rail 

traffic. An Option was also added in 

Section 8E.03 for using LOOK signs for 

pathways and sidewalks. 

549. In Section 8B.20 (existing 

Section 8B.24) Storage Space Signs 

(W10–11, W10–11a, W10–11b), FHWA 

proposes a new Standard paragraph that 

clarifies that the Storage Space sign 

shall not be used as a replacement for 

the Advanced Warning (W10–1) sign 

and that the signs shall be mounted on 

separate posts. FHWA proposes this 

change because it is important that the 

Advance Warning sign have priority 

over the Storage Space sign. 

550. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8B.23 

Next Crossing Plaques (W10–14P and 

W10–14aP)’’ to provide Option 

statements describing where the NEXT 

CROSSING (W10–12P) plaque and USE 

NEXT CROSSING (W10–14aP) plaque 

may be mounted. 

551. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8B.24 

ROUGH CROSSING Plaque (W10–15P)’’ 

to provide an Option statement for the 

installation of the ROUGH CROSSING 

(W10–15P) plaque. 

552. In Section 8B.26 (existing 

Section 8B.18) Emergency Notification 

System Sign (I–13), FHWA proposes 

changing P1 from Guidance to Standard 

to require installing Emergency 

Notification signs for all highway-rail 

grade crossings and all highway-LRT 

grade crossings on semi-exclusive 

alignments. FHWA proposes this change 

to be consistent with regulations 

promulgated by the FRA.121

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

paragraph requiring minimum width 

and height dimensions, as well as 

number and letter heights for the 

Emergency Notification sign to be 

consistent with new requirements 

promulgated by the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). FHWA also 

proposes changing the provision for the 

sign to be retroreflective from Guidance 

to a Standard to be consistent with 

requirements promulgated by the 

FRA.122

FHWA proposes an Option statement 

allowing the seven-character grade 

crossing inventory number to be shown 

on the sign as a black legend on a white 

rectangular background. FHWA 

proposes this change to allow additional 

flexibility. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement recommending Emergency 

Notification signs be attached to the 

Crossbuck Assemblies or grade crossing 

signal masts on the right-hand side of 

each roadway approach to the grade 

crossing. FHWA proposes this 

recommendation to provide uniformity 

in sign placement. 

Finally, FHWA proposes an Option 

statement to allow Emergency 

Notification signs to be located on a 

separate post and permitting additional 

Emergency Notification signs to be 

installed at a grade crossing. 

553. FHWA proposes relocating the 

pavement markings sections from 

Chapter 8B and placing them in a new 

Chapter 8C to make it easier for the 

reader to find text in the MUTCD. 

FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8C.01 

Purpose and Application’’ to provide 

Support statements to describe the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80965 

purpose and application of markings at 

grade crossings to provide context for 

the remainder of new Chapter 8C. 

554. In Section 8C.02 (existing 

Section 8B.27) Pavement Markings, 

FHWA proposes a Standard statement 

incorporating an existing requirement 

that pavement markings be placed in 

each approach lane on all paved 

approaches to highway-LRT grade 

crossings where a Crossbuck sign is 

placed at the grade crossing. FHWA 

proposes this change in conjunction 

with making the first three paragraphs 

of this section applicable only to 

highway-rail grade crossings. FHWA 

proposes this change as a conforming 

edit, which would not change the 

existing underlying requirement. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

statement that if pavement markings are 

used on a multi-lane approach to a 

grade crossing, identical markings shall 

be placed in each approach lane that 

crosses the tracks. FHWA proposes this 

change because pavement markings 

serve an important function to warn 

road users of the presence of a grade 

crossing and drivers will always be able 

to see the full message even when traffic 

is stopped in adjacent lanes by having 

the entire symbol placed in their own 

lane. 

FHWA also proposes to delete a 

portion of P5 recommending that the X 

symbol and letters at grade crossings to 

be elongated. FHWA proposes this 

change because the standard layout for 

the symbol is already elongated. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a new 

Guidance statement recommending that 

if supplemental pavement marking 

symbols are placed between the Grade 

Crossing Advance Warning sign and the 

grade crossing, then the downstream 

transverse line should be at least 50 feet 

in advance of the stop or yield line at 

the grade crossing. FHWA proposes this 

change to provide uniform placement of 

the supplemental pavement marking 

symbols and to avoid the appearance 

that the downstream transverse line is 

the stop line or that the downstream 

transverse line and the stop line form a 

crosswalk. 

555. In Section 8C.03 (existing section 

8B.28) Stop and Yield Lines, FHWA 

proposes to modify the last Guidance 

and Standard statements in this section 

to clarify the location of stop lines 

where active traffic control devices are 

used. 

556. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8C.04 

Lane-Use Arrow Markings’’ to provide a 

Standard and Guidance on the 

placement of lane-use arrow markings. 

FHWA proposes this change to address 

recent train-auto crashes in which a 

roadway user made an improper turn 

and turned onto the railroad tracks 

rather than at an adjacent intersection 

immediately beyond the grade crossing. 

In these crashes, an arrow pavement 

marking denoting an exclusive lane was 

located on the roadway between the 

stop line for the grade crossing and the 

track area.30. FHWA proposes a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

8C.05 Edge Lines, Lane Lines, Raised 

Pavement Markers, and Tubular 

Markers’’ to provide Guidance, Option, 

and Standard statements regarding the 

use of edge lines, lane lines, raised 

pavement markers, and tubular markers 

on an approach to a grade crossing. 

FHWA proposes this addition to address 

recent train-auto crashes in which a 

roadway user made an improper turn 

and turned onto the railroad tracks 

rather than at an adjacent intersection 

immediately beyond the grade crossing. 

In these crashes, the roadway edge line 

stopped near the stop line for the grade 

crossing and did not continue across the 

track area. 

557. In Section 8C.06 (existing 

Section 8B.29) Dynamic Envelope 

Markings, FHWA proposes to delete the 

Support statement describing dynamic 

envelope markings because the 

definition is covered in Part 1. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

existing Standard statement to allow 

dynamic envelope markings to be up to 

24 inches wide. This change is proposed 

to provide agencies with more flexibility 

to improve visibility and to provide 

easier maintenance of the markings. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Option paragraph allowing white crosshatching lines to be placed on the 

highway pavement within the dynamic 

envelope as a supplement to the 4-inch 

normal solid white lines and in areas 

adjacent to the dynamic envelope where 

vehicles are not intended to stop or 

stand. FHWA proposes this addition, as 

well as a figure with examples, to 

provide agencies with additional 

options to emphasize the dynamic 

envelope and discourage vehicles from 

stopping in the approach to the dynamic 

envelope. 

558. In Section 8D.01 (existing 

Section 8C.01) Introduction, FHWA 

proposes to add a Guidance statement 

recommending that when the automatic 

gate is in its upright position, no portion 

of the physical features of flashing-light 

signals and gates should be closer than 

12 feet from the center of the nearest 

track. FHWA proposes this language to 

provide adequate vertical clearance in 

the vicinity of the tracks and to 

formalize the dimensions shown in 

Figure 8D–2 (existing Figure 8C–2). 

FHWA also proposes to eliminate the 

Support statement in existing Paragraph 

15 regarding LRT typical speeds through 

semi-exclusive and mixed-use 

alignment because the statement does 

not add useful information. In concert 

with this change, FHWA proposes to 

relocate existing Paragraph 16 to the 

beginning of the Section with the other 

Support statements. 

559. In Section 8D.02 (existing 

Section 8C.02) Flashing-Light Signals, 

FHWA proposes to add a Guidance 

statement, and an accompanying 

Support statement regarding the 

placement of the Number of Tracks 

plaque with respect to the flashing-light 

backgrounds, as well as the Crossbuck 

sign. 

FHWA also proposes adding a 

Guidance paragraph recommending that 

if flashing-light signals are used, at least 

one pair of flashing lights should be 

provided for each approach lane of the 

roadway. FHWA proposes this 

Guidance to provide uniform flashing 

light signals across the roadway. 

FHWA proposes three Guidance 

paragraphs to provide text that supports 

the dimensions for placement and 

mounting shown in Figure 8D–1 

(existing Figure 8C–1). 

FHWA also proposes Guidance 

paragraphs recommending that where 

the storage distance for vehicles 

approaching a grade crossing is less 

than a design vehicle length, the 

Diagnostic Team should consider 

providing additional flashing-light 

signals aligned toward the movement 

turning toward the grade crossing. 

FHWA also recommends that the 

Diagnostic Team consider the use of 

additional flashing-light signals to 

provide supplemental warning to 

pedestrians. FHWA proposes these 

changes to provide additional warning 

of the grade crossing. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to delete the 

last Standard statement in this section, 

because the provisions are covered 

elsewhere. 

560. In Section 8D.03 (existing 

Section 8C.04) Automatic Gates, FHWA 

proposes a Standard requiring the width 

of the retroreflective sheeting on the 

front of the gate arm to be at least 4 

inches. FHWA proposes this addition to 

provide an adequate width of material 

for visibility. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard 

statement requiring that except for the 

continuously illuminated light at the tip 

of the gate, the left-most flashing gate 

light in each additional pair of lights 

flashes simultaneously with the lefthand light of the flashing-light signals 

and the right-most flashing gate light in 

each additional pair of lights flashes 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80966 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

123 ‘‘Highway/Railroad Accident Report Collision 

of Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad 

Corporation (METRA) Train and Transportation 

Joint Agreement School District 47/155 School Bus 

at Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing in Fox River 

Grove, Illinois on October 25, 1995’’ NTSB/HAR– 

96/02, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/ 

AccidentReports/Reports/HAR9602.pdf. 

simultaneously with the right-hand light 

of the flashing-light signals. FHWA 

proposes this addition to provide 

uniformity in flashing patterns between 

the flashing-light signals and the 

flashing lights on the gate. 

FHWA proposes a Guidance 

paragraph with recommendations for 

the location of the tip of the automatic 

gate arm when it is in the down position 

relative to the center of the nearest 

track. FHWA proposes this addition to 

support the dimensions shown in Figure 

8D–2 (existing Figure 8C–2). 

Finally, FHWA proposes Guidance 

paragraphs with recommendations for 

the length, height, and position of the 

automatic gate arm. FHWA proposes 

these additions to support the 

dimensions shown in Figure 8D–1 

(existing Figure 8C–1). 

561. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8D.04 

Use of Active Traffic Control Systems at 

LRT Grade Crossings’’ that replaces 

existing Sections 8C.03 and 8C.05. 

FHWA also proposes active traffic 

control system Standards for highwayLRT grade crossings based on the 

maximum operating speed of the LRT 

vehicles. Where the maximum LRT 

operating speed exceeds 40 mph, active 

traffic control systems with automatic 

gates would be required. Where the 

maximum LRT operating speed is 

greater than 25 mph but is less than 40 

mph, active traffic control systems 

would be required and automatic gates 

would be optional. FHWA proposes this 

change based on the safety experience of 

modern LRT systems and to replace 

paragraphs that were previously in 

existing Section 8C.03. 

FHWA also proposes a Guidance 

statement with recommendations for 

active traffic control systems where LRT 

operating speeds are less than 25 mph 

unless an engineering study determines 

that passive devices would provide 

adequate control. 

FHWA also proposes a Guidance 

statement with a recommendation not to 

use a traffic control signal alone at 

locations that are not intersections and 

LRT speeds are above 20 mph. 

562. In Section 8D.05 (existing 

Section 8C.06), retitled, ‘‘Exit Gate and 

Four-Quadrant Gate Systems,’’ FHWA 

proposes to add Support paragraphs to 

clarify the difference between Exit Gate 

systems and Four-Quadrant Systems. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard 

statement to require the queue clearance 

time be long enough to permit the exit 

gate arm to lower after a design vehicle 

of maximum length is clear of the 

minimum track clearance distance 

where a Four-Quadrant Gate system is 

present. This proposed Standard is 

necessary to ensure that vehicles can 

clear the tracks safely without becoming 

entrapped between the gates on the 

tracks while a train is approaching. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement recommending that 

exit gates be independently controlled 

for each direction of roadway traffic. 

FHWA proposes these additions to 

provide consistency with industry 

practice. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to delete 

existing Paragraph 17 because this 

recommendation resulted in exit gates 

being located significantly further from 

the grade crossing than the entrance 

gates. 

563. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8D.07 

Another Train Coming’’ to provide 

Guidance and Support for a new traffic 

control device to provide warning of 

another train approaching a grade 

crossing. FHWA proposes this addition 

to provide practitioners with 

information for uniform application. 

564. In Section 8D.09 (containing 

portions of existing Section 8C.09), 

retitled, ‘‘Use of Traffic Control Signals 

at Grade Crossings,’’ FHWA proposes an 

edit to the Option that allows traffic 

control signals be used instead of 

flashing-light signals to control road 

users at industrial highway-rail grade 

crossings and other places where the 

maximum speed of trains is 10 mph or 

less. FHWA proposes this change to 

include a specific train speed to 

improve clarity and to be consistent 

with FRA track classifications. 

565. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8D.10 

Preemption of Highway Traffic Signals 

at or Near Grade Crossings.’’ Several of 

the paragraphs in the proposed new 

section are from existing Section 8C.09. 

FHWA also proposes new Standards, 

Guidance, Options, and Support 

statements regarding traffic signal 

preemption at grade crossings. FHWA 

proposes this new material to provide 

consistency with the changes in the 

industry resulting from the investigation 

into the causes of the fatal train/school 

bus crash in Fox River Grove, Illinois.123

FHWA proposes new Support 

statements about the systems that are 

involved in preemption. FHWA 

proposes the change to provide agencies 

with additional background information 

about preemption. 

FHWA also proposes changes to 

Guidance to include additional 

measures for situations where the traffic 

signal is located farther than 200 feet 

from the grade crossing. FHWA 

proposes the change to provide 

additional information to agencies to 

improve safety at grade crossing that do 

not have preemption. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

paragraphs to provide additional 

recommendations for the use of active 

grade crossing warning systems near 

traffic signals, the use of automatic gates 

at traffic signals with preemption, and 

the annual inspection of the preemption 

operation. FHWA proposes the changes 

to reflect industry practices resulting 

from investigation of train/vehicle 

crashes. 

FHWA proposes a new Standard 

paragraph that requires preemption 

where traffic signal faces are located 

within 50 feet of a grade crossing that 

has flashing-light signals. FHWA 

proposes this change to avoid display of 

traffic signal indications that conflict 

with the flashing-light signal system. 

FHWA also proposes new Support 

and Option statements to provide 

additional information about doublebreak and supervised circuits. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

practitioners with information to make 

the preemption fail-safe. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

statements to provide recommendations 

for locations with track detection 

circuits at passive grade crossings and 

left turn movements at a preempted 

traffic signal downstream from a grade 

crossing. FHWA proposes the changes 

to provide agencies with 

recommendations for situations that are 

not addressed in the existing MUTCD. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

and Support statements to describe the 

considerations and recommendations 

for application of simultaneous and 

advance preemption. FHWA proposes 

these changes to provide practitioners 

with more information to improve 

consistency in the application of 

preemption. 

FHWA also proposes new Standard 

statements regarding the end of the track 

clearance interval. FHWA proposes 

these changes to prohibit the track 

clearance interval from being terminated 

too early in situations when there is 

variability in train approach times. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement recommending the use of 

advanced preemption with exit gates. 

FHWA proposes this change because 

additional preemption time is needed 

for the safe operation of the exit gate 

system. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80967 

124FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)–19(I), 

November 5, 2014, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/8_09_19.htm. 

125FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)–19(I), 

November 5, 2014, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/8_09_19.htm. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

statements recommending the ability of 

traffic signal equipment to restart or 

reservice preemption requests. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

consistent preemption operation where 

train movements may stop or start on 

the approach to the grade crossing. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

statement to prohibit the flashing mode 

of a traffic signal from beginning until 

rail traffic has entered the grade 

crossing. FHWA proposes this change to 

prevent road user confusion that could 

result in stopping on the tracks. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a new 

Standard paragraph to require 

evaluation of the priority of preemption 

calls when both boats and trains operate 

at a grade crossing. FHWA proposes this 

change to require agencies to resolve 

competing preemption requests. 

566. In Section 8D.11 (existing 

Section 8B.08), retitled, ‘‘Movements 

Prohibited During Preemption,’’ FHWA 

proposes new Guidance and Option 

statements that prohibit movements 

towards a grade crossing using traffic 

signal indications and blank-out signs. 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

more detailed recommendations and 

information to agencies for the 

prohibition of permissive-only turn 

movements, protected-only turn 

movements and straight-through 

movements towards a grade crossing. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

statements for the recommended use of 

LRT-activated blank-out signs. FHWA 

proposes this change to improve 

consistency in the application of the 

signs. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a revised 

Standard that requires blank-out signs 

used in preemption be activated only 

when the preemption is active. FHWA 

proposes this change to improve the 

consistent operation of the signs. 

567. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8D.12 

Pre-Signals at or Near Grade Crossings.’’ 

Several of the paragraphs in this 

proposed new section are from existing 

Section 8C.09. 

FHWA proposes revised and new 

Standards that require red signal 

indications to be displayed during 

preemption. FHWA proposes the change 

to prevent conflicting indications 

between the pre-signal and the grade 

crossing flashing-light signal system. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

paragraph to recommend measures at 

downstream traffic signals. FHWA 

proposes this change to reduce vehicles 

queuing from a downstream signal 

through a grade crossing. 

FHWA also proposes revised and new 

Options for the green interval. FHWA 

proposes this change to provide 

agencies with additional information 

and flexibility in the operation of a presignal. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

statement to define the calculation of 

the queue clearance time. FHWA 

proposes the change to improve safety 

of road users by ensuring the queue 

clearance time is long enough to clear 

vehicles out of the grade crossing after 

the pre-signal indications turn red. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

paragraphs to provide recommendations 

for indications over turn lanes that 

extend from a downstream intersection 

through a pre-signal. FHWA proposes 

the change to avoid road user confusion 

between indications at a pre-signal and 

a downstream traffic signal and based 

on Official Ruling No. 8(09)–19(I).124

FHWA also proposes new Standards 

and Support paragraphs that require 

agencies to use specific indications at a 

pre-signal. FHWA proposes the change 

to improve safety by discouraging road 

users from inadvertently turning onto 

railroad or LRT tracks. 

Finally, FHWA proposes new Option 

statements for the location of pre-signal 

indications and additional signing. 

FHWA proposes the changes to provide 

agencies with flexibility to install 

indications where they will be most 

visible and effective. 

568. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8D.13 

Queue Cutter Signals at or Near Grade 

Crossings’’ for the placement and 

implementation of queue cutter signals 

near grade crossings. 

FHWA proposes new Support and 

Option statements to provide 

information about the application, and 

operation of queue cutter signals. 

FHWA proposes the change to allow 

agencies explicitly to install queue 

cutter signals which are not addressed 

in the existing MUTCD. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

paragraph that requires agencies to use 

specific indications at a queue cutter 

signal. FHWA proposes the change to 

improve safety by discouraging road 

users from inadvertently turning onto 

railroad or LRT tracks. 

FHWA also proposes new Options for 

the locations of queue cutter 

indications. FHWA proposes the 

changes to provide agencies with 

flexibility to install indications where 

they will be most visible and effective. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

and Options for signing associated with 

the queue cutter. FHWA proposes the 

changes to provide agencies with 

flexibility to install signing that 

discourages road users from stopping in 

the grade crossing. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

and Options for the operation of queue 

cutter signals. FHWA proposes the 

change to provide recommendations for 

the safe and effective operation of the 

signal. 

FHWA also proposes new Standards 

that require interconnection and 

preemption of a queue cutter signal. 

FHWA proposes the change to require 

uniform application and to prevent 

conflicting or confusing displays by the 

queue cutter signal and flashing-light 

signal system. 

FHWA also proposes new Guidance 

and Support paragraphs to provide 

recommendations and information for 

indications over turn lanes that extend 

from a downstream intersection through 

a queue cutter. FHWA proposes the 

change to avoid road user confusion 

between indications at a pre-signal and 

a downstream traffic signal. 

FHWA also proposes new Standards 

and Support statements to require 

additional measures for situations 

where a turn lane from a downstream 

intersection is controlled separately 

from through movements at a queue 

cutter signal. FHWA proposes the 

change to avoid road user confusion 

when different indications are displayed 

in adjacent lanes at a queue cutter signal 

and based on Official Ruling No. 8(09)– 

19(I).125

Finally, FHWA proposes new Support 

statements that provides information 

differentiating a queue cutter signal and 

a queue jump signal. FHWA proposes 

the change to prevent confusion by 

users of the MUTCD. 

569. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8D.14 

Warning Beacons or LED-Enhanced 

Warning Signs at Grade Crossings’’ for 

the utilization, activation, and operation 

of warning beacons and LED-enhanced 

warning signs at grade crossings. 

FHWA proposes new Option and 

Support paragraphs to provide 

information about the considerations 

and application of warning beacons and 

enhanced signs. FHWA proposes the 

change to provide consistency in the use 

of these devices. 

FHWA also proposes new Standard 

and Support statements to require 

preemption interconnection to control 

the activation of warning beacons and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80968 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

enhanced signs at grade crossings. 

FHWA proposes the change to improve 

safety through the consistent and failsafe operation of the devices. 

FHWA also proposes new Option and 

Guidance statements to recommend the 

timing of warning beacon and sign 

activation. FHWA proposes the change 

to provide for consistent operation of 

the devices. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a new 

Guidance paragraph that recommends 

the use of back-up power for warning 

beacons and enhanced signs. FHWA 

proposes the change to reflect best 

practices for devices at grade crossings. 

570. In Section 8D.15 (existing 

Section 8C.10) Traffic Control Signals at 

or Near Highway-LRT Grade Crossings, 

FHWA proposes to delete existing P16 

that recommends that all existing 

turning movements toward the 

highway-LRT grade crossing be 

prohibited when a signalized 

intersection is preempted and located 

within 200 feet of a highway-LRT grade 

crossing. FHWA proposes the change 

because the Guidance is redundant with 

new Section 8D.10. 

571. In Section 8D.16 (existing 

Section 8C.11), retitled, ‘‘Use of LRT 

Signals for Control of LRT Vehicles at 

Highway-LRT Grade Crossings,’’ FHWA 

proposes to delete Paragraph 1 

recommending special LRT signal 

indications for LRT movements in semiexclusive alignments at non-gated grade 

crossings that are equipped with traffic 

control signals. FHWA proposes this 

change to be consistent with the 

updated definition of a semi-exclusive 

LRT alignment. 

FHWA also proposes to delete the 

LRT traffic signal configurations in 

Figure 8D–3 (existing Figure 8C–3). 

FHWA proposes this change to provide 

agencies with more flexibility in the 

design of LRT signal configurations. 

FHWA proposes to add Guidance, 

Standard, and Option statements 

regarding the positioning of signal faces 

used to control LRT movements, 

requiring special LRT signal indications 

to be white, and providing the option to 

allow individual LRT signal sections to 

be displayed to form clustered signal 

faces, or for multiple LRT signal 

indications to be displayed using a 

single housing. FHWA proposes these 

changes to improve consistency in the 

use of LRT signal indications. 

572. In Section 8E.01 (existing Section 

8D.01) Purpose, FHWA proposes to 

include sidewalks in the provisions in 

Chapter 8E (existing Chapter 8D). 

FHWA also proposes a new Figure 8E– 

1 and accompanying text to illustrate 

and describe the difference between a 

pathway grade crossing and a sidewalk 

grade crossing. FHWA proposes these 

changes, as well as the following 

proposed changes in Chapter 8E, 

because additional focus has been 

placed on accessibility for all modes of 

travel at grade crossings, and as 

ridership has increased on light rail, 

commuter rail, and passenger rail 

facilities, pedestrian interaction with 

trains has led to an increasing trend in 

pedestrian and rail incidents. 

573. In Section 8E.02 (existing Section 

8D.02) Use of Standard Devices, 

Systems, and Practices, FHWA proposes 

a new Guidance statement 

recommending that the pathway or 

sidewalk user’s ability to detect the 

presence of approaching rail traffic 

should be considered in determining the 

type and placement of traffic control 

devices at grade crossings, and that a 

Diagnostic Team should design and 

develop the traffic control devices. 

FHWA also proposes a Support 

statement and accompanying new 

figures describing the pathway and 

sidewalk design that best enhances 

pedestrian safety at grade crossings. 

574. In Section 8E.03 (existing Section 

8D.03), retitled, ‘‘Pathway and Sidewalk 

Grade Crossing Signs and Markings,’’ 

FHWA proposes a new Guidance 

statement to recommend a 10-foot 

vertical clearance between overhead 

traffic control devices and the pathway 

surface directly under the sign or device 

on pathways used by equestrians. 

FHWA also proposes Standard 

statements requiring that if overhead 

traffic control devices are placed above 

sidewalks, the clearance from the 

bottom edge of the device to the 

sidewalk surface directly under the sign 

or device to be at least 7 feet, and traffic 

control devices mounted adjacent to 

sidewalks that are mounted at a height 

of less than 7 feet must be at least 2 feet 

laterally offset from the sidewalk. 

FHWA proposes this change to 

incorporate existing provisions of Parts 

2 and 4, which require a minimum 

mounting height of 7 feet when a traffic 

control device extends above the 

sidewalk. Restatement of these 

provisions within Part 8 is necessary to 

minimize situations where pedestrians 

may hit their heads and become injured 

while walking under a sign, signal, or 

other device. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance and 

Option statements for utilizing and 

mounting the LOOK (R15–8) sign and 

the Skewed Crossing (W10–12) sign. 

FHWA also proposes accompanying 

revised and new figures to illustrate the 

application of signing and pavement 

markings for pathways and sidewalk 

grade crossings. 

FHWA proposes all of the changes in 

this section to be consistent with other 

areas of the MUTCD. 

575. In Section 8E.04 (existing Section 

8D.04) Stop Lines, Edge Lines, and 

Detectable Warnings, FHWA proposes a 

new Guidance statement and 

accompanying new figure 

recommending that pavement markings 

be installed in advance of the pathway 

grade crossing if pathway users include 

those who travel faster than pedestrians 

and that a stop line be provided at a 

pathway grade crossing if the surface 

where the marking is to be applied is 

capable of retaining the application of 

the marking. FHWA also proposes an 

Option that allows a stop line to be 

provided at a sidewalk grade crossing if 

the surface where the marking is to be 

applied is capable of retaining the 

marking. 

FHWA also proposes Standard and 

Guidance statements, consistent with 

existing provisions in Part 3, regarding 

the design, implementation, and 

utilization of detectable warnings based 

on ADAAG criteria and to provide 

clarity for the new figures that address 

this issue. These provisions are 

restatements of the existing 

requirements of Part 3, which were 

previously referenced only in a Support 

statement. FHWA proposes these 

changes as conforming edits, which 

would not change the existing 

underlying provisions. 

576. In Section 8E.05 (existing Section 

8D.05), retitled, ‘‘Passive Traffic Control 

Devices—Crossbuck Assemblies,’’ 

FHWA proposes changes to the 

Standard paragraph, requiring a 

Crossbuck Assembly to be installed on 

each approach to the pathway or 

sidewalk grade crossing when the 

nearest edge of a pathway or sidewalk 

grade crossing is located more than 25 

feet from the center of the nearest traffic 

control warning device at a grade 

crossing. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

statement allowing the retroreflective 

strip on the back of the support to be 

omitted on the Crossbuck support at a 

pathway or sidewalk grade crossing. 

Finally, FHWA proposes a new 

Standard statement and accompanying 

new figure requiring the minimum 

height of Crossbuck Assemblies 

installed on pathways or sidewalks to be 

4 feet where the lateral offset to the 

nearest edge of the sign is at least 2 feet 

and 7 feet where the lateral offset to the 

nearest edge of the sign is less than 2 

feet. The proposed Standard also 

requires the minimum lateral offset to 

be 0 feet for sidewalks and 2 feet for 

pathways. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80969 

126FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)–3(I), August 

24, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/8_09_3.htm. 

577. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8E.06 

Passive Traffic Control Devices—Swing 

Gates, Fencing, and Pedestrian Barriers’’ 

for designing and implementing swing 

gates, fencing, and pedestrian barriers. 

FHWA proposes new Support and 

Option statements for the application of 

automatic gates and swing gates for 

sidewalk or pathway grade crossings. 

FHWA proposes the change to provide 

agencies with more information for the 

consistent and safe application of these 

measures. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement for the signing recommended 

on swing gates. FHWA proposes the 

change to provide pedestrians with clear 

messages about the use of the swing 

gate. 

Finally, FHWA also proposes a new 

Support paragraph and accompanying 

revised figure for the application of 

fencing near sidewalk or pathway grade 

crossings. FHWA proposes the change 

to provide agencies with information 

about measures that improve the 

effectiveness of automatic and swing 

gates at sidewalk and pathway grade 

crossings. 

578. In Section 8E.07 (existing Section 

8D.06), retitled, ‘‘Active Traffic Control 

Systems,’’ FHWA proposes new 

Standard paragraphs and accompanying 

revised figure requiring an active traffic 

control system at pathway-LRT and 

sidewalk-LRT grade crossings where 

LRT operating speeds on a semiexclusive alignment exceed 25 mph. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Standard requiring an active traffic 

control system, including automatic 

gates at pathway-LRT and sidewalk-LRT 

grade crossings where LRT operating 

speeds on a semi-exclusive alignment 

exceed 40 mph. Both proposed new 

Standards include an exception to omit 

flashing-light signals, bells, and other 

audible warning devices when the 

pathway or sidewalk grade crossing is 

located within 25 feet of an active 

warning device that is equipped with 

those devices. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

statement that allows additional pairs of 

flashing-light signals, bells, or other 

audible warning devices to be installed 

on the active traffic control devices at a 

grade crossing for pathway or sidewalk 

users approaching the grade crossing 

from the back side of those devices. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes a new 

Guidance statement recommending that 

if there is space, a pedestrian refuge area 

or island should be provided between 

the tracks and the roadway where 

railroad or LRT tracks in a semiexclusive alignment are immediately 

adjacent to a roadway. 

579. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8E.08 

Active Traffic Control Devices— 

Signals,’’ for pedestrian signal heads, 

flashing red lights, and other active 

traffic control devices at pathway and 

sidewalk grade crossings. Some of the 

material in this section was relocated 

from existing Section 8C.13 and has 

been reorganized to provide all relevant 

information for flashing-light signals at 

pathway and sidewalk grade crossings 

in one section. 

FHWA proposes new Standard and 

Support paragraphs that prohibit the use 

of pedestrian signal heads at pathway 

and sidewalk grade crossings. FHWA 

proposes the change to improve 

pedestrian safety and prevent user 

confusion at grade crossings. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

statement that allows the use of 

pedestrian signal heads at pathway and 

sidewalk grade crossings with LRT. 

FHWA proposes the change to provide 

agencies with flexibility where the LRT 

movements are controlled by a traffic 

signal. 

FHWA also proposes new Standards 

for flashing-light signals at pathway and 

sidewalk grade crossings. FHWA 

proposes the changes to provide 

uniformity in the design and operation 

of flashing-light signals. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement for use of pedestrian gates in 

situations where flashing-light signals 

have not been effective. FHWA proposes 

the change to improve pedestrian safety 

at pathway and sidewalk grade 

crossings. 

Finally, FHWA also proposes changes 

to an existing Guidance statement to 

clarify that flashing-light signals are 

recommended along semi-exclusive LRT 

alignments. FHWA proposes the change 

to improve pedestrian safety at LRT 

grade crossings which typically have 

much higher volumes of pedestrians 

and rail traffic. 

580. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8E.09 

Active Traffic Control Devices— 

Automatic Pedestrian Gates,’’ for the 

design, utilization, and implementation 

of automatic pedestrian gates including 

accompanying figures. Some of the 

material in this section was relocated 

from existing Section 8D.06 and has 

been reorganized to provide all relevant 

information for automatic gates at 

pathway and sidewalk grade crossings 

in one section. 

FHWA proposes a new Standard 

statement to require automatic 

pedestrian gates, swing gates and 

fencing for pathway and sidewalk grade 

crossings where trains are permitted to 

travel 80 miles per hour and higher. 

FHWA proposes this change for 

pedestrian safety at grade crossings 

where higher speed trains operate. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

statement to recommend an emergency 

escape route at automatic pedestrian 

gates. FHWA proposes this change to 

reflect industry best practices in the 

design of automatic pedestrian gates. 

FHWA also proposes new Standards 

to require at least one red light on the 

automatic pedestrian gate arm and if 

there is more than one red light, they 

must be flashed in an alternating 

pattern. FHWA also proposes a new 

Option to omit the red light if the 

pathway or sidewalk crossing is within 

25 feet of the roadway grade crossing. 

FHWA proposes this change for 

consistency with Section 8D.03, while 

providing agencies flexibility where the 

pathway or sidewalk grade crossing is in 

close proximity to automatic gates for 

the roadway grade crossing. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

statement to clarify that a separate 

pedestrian gate is not required if the 

vehicular gate mechanism does not 

allow it to be raised by a pedestrian 

raising the pedestrian gate arm based on 

Official Ruling No. 8(09)–3(I).126

Finally, FHWA proposes new Option 

and Guidance statements to provide 

information about the use of horizontal 

hanging bars from a pedestrian gate arm. 

581. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 8E.10 

Active Traffic Control Devices— 

Multiple-Track Pathway or Sidewalk 

Grade Crossing’’ that contains the first 

sentence of P1 in existing Section 8C.13. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 

Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle 

Facilities 

582. FHWA proposes to consolidate 

existing Sections 9A.02 through 9A.04 

into one section numbered and retitled, 

‘‘Section 9A.01 General.’’ This section 

provides an overview of traffic control 

devices on bicycle facilities and 

describes some of the benefits and 

limitations thereof. 

583. FHWA proposes to remove 

existing Sections 9A.01, 9A.05, 9A.06, 

9A.07, and 9A.08 because they are not 

needed. 

584. FHWA proposes to replace and 

retitle Section 9A.02 ‘‘Standardization 

of Application for Signing,’’ which 

includes Standard, Guidance, and 

Option statements from existing 

Sections 9B.01 and 9B.02. FHWA 

proposes to change P4 and P5 in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80970 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

existing Section 9B.01 from Standard to 

Guidance to provide agencies the 

discretion in placement of sign supports 

to accommodate field conditions that 

may require modifications during 

design or sign installation. 

Lastly, FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option statement allowing 18′′ x 18′′ 

warning signs that are only applicable to 

bicyclists and pedestrians. FHWA 

proposes this change to allow agencies 

to use smaller signs where appropriate. 

585. FHWA proposes to relocate and 

consolidate existing Sections 9C.01 and 

9C.02 into a replaced and retitled, 

Section 9A.03 ‘‘Standardization of 

Application for Markings.’’ FHWA also 

proposes to remove Guidance about 

using bikeway design guides because 

the sentence did not provide any 

specific information. 

FHWA also proposes to modify the 

existing Standard in Section 9C.02 

requiring reflectorized markings on 

bikeways to require that pavement 

markings on bicycle facilities that must 

be visible at night be retroreflective 

unless the pavement markings are 

visible under provided lighting. FHWA 

proposes this change to clarify when 

retroreflectivity is required. 

FHWA also proposes to add new 

Guidance paragraphs discouraging 

raised pavement markers with bicycle 

lanes or shared-use paths and also 

recommending that if raised pavement 

markers used around bicycle facilities 

that they are not immediately adjacent 

to the travel path of bicycles. FHWA 

proposes this Guidance because raised 

pavement markers create collision 

potential for bicyclists by placing fixed 

objects immediately adjacent to the 

travel path of the bicyclist. 

586. FHWA proposes to separate 

existing Chapter 9B Signs into three 

chapters—retitle Chapter 9B to 

‘‘Regulatory Signs,’’ add a new Chapter 

9C ‘‘Warning Signs and Object 

Markers,’’ and add a new Chapter 9D 

‘‘Guide and Service Signs.’’ In addition, 

FHWA proposes to separate Table 9B– 

1 Bicycle Facility Sign and Plaque 

Minimum Sizes into three tables—Table 

9B–1 for regulatory signs, Table 9C–1 

for warning signs and object markers, 

and Table 9D–1 for guide and service 

signs. These changes are for consistency 

with how signs are organized in Part 2 

and to make it easier to locate bicyclerelated signs by sign type. 

587. In Section 9B.01 (existing 

Section 9B.03) STOP and YIELD Signs 

(R1–1, R1–2), FHWA proposes adding a 

Standard that prohibits a STOP sign or 

a YIELD sign from being installed in 

conjunction with a bicycle signal face. 

FHWA proposes this restriction to 

provide uniformity in the application of 

signals and to avoid conflicts between 

bicycle signal indications and signs. 

588. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.02 Except Bicycles Plaque (R3– 

7bP).’’ This section describes the use of 

this plaque for circumstances where 

bicycles are exempt from regulatory 

restrictions that apply to other traffic. 

FHWA proposes new Standard 

paragraphs to prevent Except Bicycles 

Plaques from conflicting with STOP 

signs or YIELD signs and requires the 

plaques to be placed below the 

regulatory sign that it supplements. 

FHWA also proposes new Figure 9B–1 

to show examples of how the Except 

Bicycles Plaque can be applied. FHWA 

proposes this new section because there 

are circumstances where it is 

appropriate to exempt bicyclists from 

regulatory restrictions applied to other 

traffic. 

589. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.03 Advance Intersection Lane 

Control Signs for Bicycle Lanes (R3–8 

Series)’’ to provide Standard, Guidance, 

Option, and Support statements for 

accommodating bicycle lanes on the 

R3–8 series of signing where determined 

to be appropriate. FHWA proposes this 

new section because improper 

dissemination of this information can 

result in unwieldy sign designs or 

legends. The amount of information that 

can be legibly displayed and 

comprehended by road users on signs or 

in signing sequence on the same 

approach to an intersection is limited. 

The number and combination of 

permissible movements by both the 

motor vehicle and the bicycle may be 

numerous, thereby complicating the 

cognitive task of the road user at a 

decision point. 

590. In Section 9B.04, retitled, ‘‘Bike 

Lane Signs and Plaques (R3–17, R3– 

17aP, R3–5hP),’’ FHWA proposes 

changing a portion of the existing 

Guidance regarding the placement of 

Bike Lane signs and plaques 

periodically along the bicycle lane to an 

Option in order to give agencies the 

discretion of sign placement when 

developing a policy for the use of Bike 

Lane signs. As part of this change, 

FHWA also proposes to allow the use of 

other regulatory plaques such as BEGIN 

(M4–14) and END (M4–6) with Bike 

Lane signs. 

FHWA also proposes adding Option 

statements allowing the use of a BIKE 

LANE plaque to supplement Mandatory 

Movement Lane Control signs in places 

where only a single bicycle movement 

is permitted from the bicycle lane and 

to supplement Optional Movement Lane 

Control signs where two or more 

movements from a bicycle lane are 

permitted in order to prevent 

operational problems. FHWA proposes 

these additional statements to provide 

uniformity in signing. 

591. In Section 9B.08 (existing 

Section 9B.09) Selective Exclusion 

Signs, FHWA proposes the deletion of 

the Standard requiring that Selective 

Exclusion signs clearly indicate the type 

of traffic that is excluded. FHWA 

proposes this change, because the 

Selective Exclusion signs specify the 

user type, therefore a separate Standard 

statement is not necessary. 

592. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.10 Back-In Parking Sign (R7–10).’’ 

This section provides Option and 

Support statements and a figure 

regarding the application of the 

proposed new R7–10 sign, which may 

be used where back-in angle parking is 

required by motor vehicles due to the 

presence of a bike lane. 

593. In Section 9B.11, retitled, 

‘‘Bicycles Use Ped Signal (R9–5),’’ 

FHWA proposes a new Option to 

remind drivers making turns that a 

Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians 

(R10–15) or Left Turns Yield to Bicycles 

(R10–12b) sign may be used. Also, to 

increase uniformity in placement 

location, FHWA proposes new 

Guidance for the location and 

installation of the R9–5 sign to 

recommend placement where bicyclists 

cross the street. 

594. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.12 Bicycles Yield to Peds Sign (R9– 

6).’’ While this sign exists in Section 

9B.11 of the 2009 MUTCD, FHWA 

proposes to add additional Standard 

paragraphs regarding the application 

and use of this sign, along with a new 

figure, to provide practitioners with 

additional information and to promote 

uniformity in its use. 

595. In Section 9B.14 (existing 

Section 9B.06), FHWA proposes to 

change the legend of the existing R4–11 

(Bicycles May Use Full Lane) sign to 

‘‘Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane.’’ 

The standardized sizes of the sign 

would not change and the proposed 

legend would continue to be of 

commensurate size for its application, 

ensuring adequate levels of legibility 

and recognition. FHWA proposes this 

change because the legend of the 

existing sign, which was introduced in 

the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, 

conveys a warning message on a 

regulatory sign while the proposed 

legend would be consistent with 

regulatory signs that display notification 

of vehicle codes governing rules of the 

road. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80971 

In addition to this change, FHWA 

proposes to redesignate this sign from 

R4–11 to R9–20. FHWA proposes this 

change to group this sign with several 

other proposed bicycle-related signs 

with the R9 series designations. 

596. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.15 Bicycle Passing Clearance Sign 

(R4–19)’’ to describe the use of this 

proposed new sign. 

Option and Guidance paragraphs are 

added to provide details on the use and 

restrictions of this sign that is only 

allowed in jurisdictions that have 

passed a law or ordinance specifying a 

specific passing clearance. 

597. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.16 Bicycles Use Shoulder Only Sign 

(R9–21)’’ to describe the use of this 

proposed new sign that is an option to 

use on freeways or expressways. Also, 

FHWA proposes a new plaque R5–10dP 

that is an option to use on freeways to 

prohibit bicycles on ramps leading to an 

adjacent or parallel freeway. The 

Guidance provided in this section 

proposes that the Bicycles Use Shoulder 

Only sign (R9–21) only be placed 

adjacent to the on-ramp or entrance to 

the freeway at or near the location 

where the full-width should resume 

beyond the entrance ramp taper. FHWA 

proposes this sign because there are 

places where bicycles are permitted on 

a freeway but are required to travel on 

an available and usable shoulder. 

598. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.17 Signing for Bicycles on Freeways 

and Expressways’’ to provide Standard, 

Option, and Support paragraphs along 

with a new figure, for bicycle signing on 

freeways and expressways. FHWA 

proposes to add a new Bicycles Must 

Exit (R9–22) sign that is required in 

advance of a location where a freeway 

or expressway becomes prohibited to 

bicycle travel. FHWA also proposes a 

new Standard requiring the No 

Bicycling Sign (R5–6) be placed 

downstream from the ramp departure 

point where the prohibited segment of 

freeway or expressway begins. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

uniformity in signing for bicycles on 

freeways and expressways. 

599. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.18 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box 

Regulatory Signing (R9–23 series).’’ 

FHWA proposes Standard, Option, and 

Support for the new sign as well as a 

new Figure 9B–5 that illustrates 

required signing for two-stage turn 

boxes that are used to simplify the 

turning task for bicyclists at certain 

intersections. 

600. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.19 Bicycle Jughandle Signs (R9–24, 

R9–25, R9–26, and R9–27 Series).’’ 

FHWA proposes the new section to 

define a bicycle jughandle turn and 

provide Guidance, Option, and Support, 

as well as a new Figure 9B–6, that 

illustrates signing for such locations. 

601. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.20 Bicycle Actuation Signs (R10–4, 

R10–22, R10–24, R10–25, and R10–26),’’ 

created from paragraphs in existing 

Section 9B.11 and Section 9B.13. FHWA 

proposes to rename sign R10–22 from 

‘‘Bicycle Signal Actuation’’ to ‘‘Bicycle 

Detector.’’ Also, FHWA proposes to add 

a Guidance paragraph giving 

recommendations on where to place 

Bicycle Detector signs. 

602. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.21 LEFT TURN YIELD TO Bicycles 

Sign (R10–12b)’’ to provide information 

regarding the proposed new R10–12b 

sign and refers the user to Section 

2B.53. FHWA proposes this change 

because road users approaching a 

signalized intersection with opposing 

counter-flow bicycle lanes may not 

expect to yield to oncoming bicycles. 

603. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.22 Bicycle SIGNAL Signs (R10–40, 

R10–40a, R10–41, R10–41a, R10–41b).’’ 

FHWA proposes this new section in 

concert with the addition of bicycle 

signal faces in the MUTCD. The 

proposed Standard in this section 

requires that a Bicycle Signal sign be 

installed immediately adjacent to every 

bicycle signal face to inform road users 

that the specialized signal control face 

is intended only for bicyclists. FHWA 

proposes this new section to be 

consistent with past FHWA action and 

proposed changes to Part 4 to establish 

uniform signal control indications for 

bicycles on a national basis, which 

would improve bicyclist safety, 

especially at locations where separate 

signal phases are provided for motorvehicle and bicycle traffic. 

604. In Section 9B.23 (existing 

Section 8.17) LOOK Sign (R15–8), 

FHWA proposes to relocate this section 

from Part 8 and allow the use of a LOOK 

sign on a shared-use path or separated 

bikeway at a railroad or LRT grade 

crossing. 

605. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9B.25 General Service Signing for 

Bikeways’’ to provide information 

regarding General Service signs and 

their applicability for bicycles as 

referenced in Chapter 2I. 

606. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9C.05 Except Bicycles Plaque (W16– 

20P)’’ to provide information regarding 

a proposed new plaque that can be used 

to notify bicyclists that a warning sign 

is not applicable to them. 

607. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9C.06 Bicycle Cross Traffic Warning 

Plaques (W16–21P, W21–16aP)’’ to 

provide information regarding a 

proposed new plaque recommended for 

use below a STOP sign in isolated 

locations to alert motor vehicles of 

unexpected bicycle traffic. 

608. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9C.07 Bicycle Lane Ends Warning Sign 

(W9–5) and Bicycle Merging Sign (W9– 

5a)’’ to provide Support, Option, and 

Guidance for two new signs, W9–5 and 

W9–5a that can be used to alert road 

users when a bicycle lane is ending or 

a bicycle merge is occurring. 

609. In Section 9C.08 (existing 

Section 9B.19) Other Bicycle Warning 

Signs, FHWA proposes an Option to use 

a plaque displaying the legend IN ROAD 

(W16–1p and W16–1aP) with the 

Bicycle Warning Sign (W11–1) to 

communicate to bicycles and motor 

vehicles that bicycles are in the road. 

The SHARE THE ROAD plaque has 

been removed from the MUTCD based 

on research indicating that road users 

do not understand the intended 

message. 

610. In Section 9C.09 (existing 

Section 9B.26) Object Markers, FHWA 

proposes to delete existing P3 and P4 

regarding how markers are striped and 

instead reference Section 2C.69. 

611. In Section 9D.01 (part of existing 

Section 9B.20), retitled, ‘‘Bicycle 

Destination Signs (D1–1b, D1–1c, D1– 

2b, D1–2c, D1–3b, D1–3c),’’ FHWA 

proposes to change the Guidance 

regarding the substitution of Bicycle 

Destination signs for vehicular 

destination signs to a Standard to be 

consistent with existing provisions in 

existing Section 9B.02. FHWA proposes 

this change to prohibit the use of 

smaller size Bicycle Destination signs 

when the message is also intended to be 

applicable to motorists as well as 

address an existing conflict in the 

MUTCD. 

FHWA also proposes to add a new 

Support paragraph regarding the 

purpose of Bicycle Destination signs 

and example locations for placement. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option statement to permit Destination 

signs and Street Name signs to be 

installed instead of or in addition to 

Bicycle Destination signs if the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80972 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

127FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 9(09)–20(I), July 

29, 2011, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/9_09_20.htm. 

128FHWA’s Interim Approval IA–15, June 1, 

2012, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interim_approval/ia15/index.htm. 

129FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 9(09)–39(I), 

December 26, 2012, can be viewed at the following 

internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interpretations/9_09_39.htm. 

Destination or Street Name sign applies 

to motorists and bicyclists. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option statement to permit the use 

of an oversized bicycle symbol as the 

top line of a Bicycle Destination sign 

instead of individual bicycle symbols 

for each of the destination/distance 

lines. FHWA proposes this option to 

facilitate legibility on these signs and in 

accordance with FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 9(09)–20(I).127

Also, FHWA proposes Guidance to 

clarify that the bicycle symbol should be 

to the left of the destination legend 

where the arrow is located at the 

extreme right. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a 

Guidance statement to discourage 

displaying travel times on Bicycle 

Destination signs. FHWA proposes this 

recommendation because travel times 

vary greatly by bicycle user speed and 

experience. Further, in terms of bike 

travel, the travel time does not provide 

any useful information that a distance 

would not already provide. 

612. FHWA proposes to create a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.02 BIKE ROUTE Guide Signs (D11– 

1, D11–1c, D11–1d, D11–1e, D11–1f, 

D11–1g)’’ that contains relocated 

paragraphs from existing Section 9B.20 

and new D11–1d, D11–1e, D11–1f, and 

D11–1g signs. FHWA proposes to add 

these new signs to provide alternative 

layouts and eliminate the potential need 

for an additional, separate sign on the 

same post. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Guidance statement to discourage 

displaying travel times on BIKE ROUTE 

Guide signs or Alternative BIKE ROUTE 

guide signs in concert with the 

proposed change in Section 9D.01 

(existing Section 9B.20). 

613. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.03 BIKE ROUTE Plaque (D11–1bP)’’ 

to provide two new Options for 

installing the D11–1bP plaque to 

supplement the Alternative BIKE 

ROUTE Guide (D11–1c) sign and a 

Street Name (D3–1) sign, in addition to 

the Option contained in P3 of existing 

Section 9B.25 to supplement the Bicycle 

Directional (D11–1a) sign. FHWA also 

proposes to add three new Standards 

regarding the use of the proposed new 

sign. 

614. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.04 Numbered Bikeway Systems’’ to 

provide Support, Guidance, Standard, 

and Option statements, as well as a new 

Figure 9D–3, describing the proper 

signing for numbered bicycle routes. 

FHWA proposes this new section to 

provide uniformity in the numbering 

and signing of bicycle route systems. 

615. In Section 9D.05 (existing 

Section 9B.21), retitled, ‘‘Numbered 

Bicycle Route Signs (M1–8, M1–8a),’’ 

FHWA proposes a new Standard to 

require a bicycle symbol when the 

Numbered Bicycle Route (M1–8, M1–8a) 

sign is used on a roadway so that the 

bicycle route can be distinguished from 

other numbered route systems. FHWA 

also proposes new Guidance to clarify 

the dimensions and placement of use of 

a pictograph, if used, on these signs. 

FHWA also proposes to relocate text 

related to U.S. Bicycle Route (M1–9) 

signs to new Sections 9D.02, 9D.04, and 

9D.07. 

616. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.06 Non-Numbered Bicycle Route 

Sign (M1–8b, M1–8c)’’ to provide 

Support, Option, Standard, and 

Guidance statements on the use and 

design of the Non-Numbered Bicycle 

Route (M1–8b, M1–8c) sign. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

information for signing bicycle routes 

that are designated specifically by name 

or established using a distinctive route 

identity but are excluded from a 

numbered route system. 

617. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.07 U.S. Bicycle Route Sign (M1–9)’’ 

containing paragraphs from existing 

Section 9B.21. FHWA also proposes to 

change the M1–9 sign layout in 

accordance with FHWA Interim 

Approval IA–15.128

618. In Section 9D.08 (existing 

Section 9B.22) Bicycle Route Sign 

Auxiliary Plaques, FHWA proposes a 

new Standard to require the route sign 

and auxiliary plaques for bikeways to be 

installed on independent assemblies if a 

designated or numbered bicycle route is 

concurrent with a numbered highway. 

FHWA proposes this change to 

minimize road user confusion in route 

signing. 

FHWA also proposes to add a 

Standard prohibiting installing route 

signs for bikeways on guide signs or 

overhead because these signs are 

typically intended for motorists and 

bicyclists may not expect or be able to 

view the legends. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add 

an Option permitting route assemblies 

for a designated or numbered bicycle 

route to be installed at locations and 

distances other than those prescribed in 

Chapter 2B based on FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 9(09)–39(I).129

Also, FHWA proposes adding 

clarification to the Guidance paragraph 

regarding the M4–8 plaque and that the 

sign color should match the color 

combination of the route for uniformity. 

FHWA proposes a new Guidance 

paragraph regarding minimum route 

sign sizes to improve visibility. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

to require the Junction, Cardinal 

Direction, or Alternative Route auxiliary 

plaque be installed above the Bicycle 

Route sign, and the Advance Turn 

Arrow or Directional Arrow auxiliary 

plaque be installed below the Bicycle 

Route sign where both are used on the 

same sign assembly. FHWA proposes 

this new section to provide uniformity 

in placement of auxiliary plaques on 

sign assemblies. 

Also, FHWA proposes to delete the 

Option statement regarding destination 

sign mounting because it is redundant 

with Paragraph 4 of existing Section 

9D.20. 

FHWA proposes a new Standard 

regarding the usage of Bicycle Route 

Sign assembly that shall consist of a 

route sign and auxiliary sign. FHWA 

proposes this new Standard to improve 

uniformity and for consistency with 

provisions for other Route Sign 

assemblies, which provide positive 

direction to road users. 

Also, FHWA proposes Guidance to 

clarify that Bicycle Route Sign 

assemblies should be installed on all 

approaches where bicycle routes meet 

other bicycle routes. This Guidance 

would improve bicycle network 

wayfinding. 

In addition, FHWA proposes new a 

Standard regarding the arrangement of 

information displayed on groups of 

assemblies for bicycle routes to improve 

uniformity and consistency with 

existing provisions for other types of 

assemblies, which facilitates recognition 

by the road user. FHWA proposes a new 

Option allowing Bicycle Route Sign 

assemblies to be installed on common 

supports with numbered highway routes 

to reduce sign clutter. 

Also, FHWA proposes new Standard 

and Option statements for the required 

signing of the Junction assembly and the 

optional placement in advance of an 

intersection to improvement uniformity 

and wayfinding for bicyclists. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80973 

Finally, FHWA proposes new 

Standard, Guidance, Option, and 

Support statements for bicycle route 

signs regarding the use and layout of 

Directional signs or Directional 

assemblies to improve uniformity and 

wayfinding for bicyclists. 

619. In Section 9D.09 (existing 

Section 9B.23), retitled, ‘‘Bicycle 

Parking Signs (D4–3, D4–4),’’ FHWA 

proposes to delete the Standard 

regarding the color of the legend and 

border because the color for guide signs 

is covered elsewhere. 

FHWA also proposes to add an 

Option permitting a new BicycleSharing Station (D4–4) sign to be 

installed to provide directional 

information to a designated bicycle 

sharing system. FHWA proposes to add 

a Guidance recommending that, if used, 

the Bicycle-Sharing Station sign should 

be used in conjunction with a regulated 

bicycle-sharing system. FHWA proposes 

these changes to establish uniformity 

with signing for these new bicycle 

facilities. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to add a 

new Standard reiterating existing 

prohibitions on promotional 

advertising, business logos, or other 

identification that would convey the 

involvement of a public-private 

partnership, in accordance with the 

existing provisions of Section 1A.02 that 

prohibit promotional advertising on 

traffic control devices. 

620. In Section 9D.10 (existing 

Section 9B.24) Reference Location Signs 

(D10–1 through D10–3) and 

Intermediate Reference Location Signs 

(D10–1a through D10–3a), FHWA 

proposes to delete existing Standard P5 

regarding the design of reference 

location signs because minimum sign 

sizes are specified in the existing table 

and sign designs are standardized and 

must comply with the existing 

provisions of Chapter 2A. 

FHWA also proposes to change 

existing P4 and P6 regarding the use of 

decimal points and a zero numeral on 

the integer mile point on intermediate 

reference location signs and the 

placement of reference location signs 

from a Standard to a Guidance to 

provide agencies flexibility in mile 

point displays and sign placement. 

621. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.12 Destination Guide Signs for 

Shared-Use Paths (D11–10a, D11–10b, 

D11–10c)’’ to provide Support, 

Standard, Guidance, and Option 

statements regarding the application of 

Destination Guide signs for shared-use 

paths. FHWA proposes new Standards 

that require the destination guide signs 

on shared-use paths, when used, to be 

retroreflective and limits the use of 

symbols to allowable modes on the 

path. FHWA also proposes new 

Standards related to sign content and 

layout requirements, including arrows, 

lettering, and pictographs. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

practitioners information for shared-use 

path signing, the need for which has 

increased in recent years, as evidenced 

by an increasing number of technical 

inquiries that FHWA has answered 

regarding this type of signing. 

622. FHWA proposes to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

9D.13 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box 

Guide Signing (D11–20 series)’’ with 

Standard, Option, and Support 

statements related to the use of the 

guide signs for two-stage bicycle turn 

boxes. FHWA also proposes a new 

Figure 9D–6 that illustrates the guide 

signing for two-stage turn boxes that are 

used to simplify the turning task for 

bicyclists at certain intersections. 

623. In Section 9E.01 (part of existing 

Section 9C.04), retitled, ‘‘Bicycle 

Lanes,’’ FHWA proposes to revise the 

Standard to require the use of bicycle 

lane symbol or word markings, in 

addition to longitudinal pavement 

markings, to define bicycle lanes. In 

concert with this change, FHWA 

proposes to add an Option statement 

permitting the use of the word marking 

BIKE LANE as an alternative to the 

bicycle symbol. FHWA proposes these 

changes to inform road users of the 

bicycle lane and to reduce wrong-way 

bicycling. 

In addition, FHWA proposes adding 

clarification to the Guidance regarding 

the placement of the first symbol or 

word denoting a bicycle lane. This 

proposed change makes the bicycle 

markings consistent with preferential 

lane word and symbol markings. 

FHWA also proposes a new Option 

allowing the use of arrow markings in 

conjunction with the bicycle lane 

symbol or word markings. 

Finally, FHWA proposes to add a 

Standard prohibiting the bicycle symbol 

or BIKE LANE pavement word marking 

and the pavement marking arrow in a 

shoulder. FHWA also proposes to 

require that a portion of the travel way 

cannot be established as both a shoulder 

and a bicycle lane because each serves 

a different use and has differing 

regulations that apply. The uniform 

marking of each type would minimize 

any confusion and accommodate the 

expectancy of the road user. 

624. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.02 

Bicycle Lanes at Intersection 

Approaches,’’ which contains material 

from existing Section 9C.04. 

FHWA proposes a new Option 

statement to allow a bicycle lane to be 

located on the outside of a turn lane if 

a bicycle signal face is used and the 

signal phasing and signing eliminates 

potential conflicts. 

FHWA also proposes a new Standard 

that requires bicycle lanes located at an 

intersection approach between 

contiguous lanes for motor vehicle 

movements be marked with a bicycle 

symbol and arrow pavement markings. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard to 

prohibit bicycle lanes from being 

marked as contiguous with a general 

purpose turn lane, either with dotted or 

any other line markings. FHWA 

proposes these additions to alert motor 

vehicles of the presence of bicyclists 

and prevent potential conflicts. 

In addition, FHWA proposes Option, 

Guidance, and Support statements for 

shifting over of buffer separated or 

separated bike lanes at intersections to 

improve visibility for motor vehicles 

and bicycles to account for 

developments in bicycle facility design 

since 2009 edition of the MUTCD. 

Finally, FHWA proposes new Option, 

Standard, and Support statements and a 

new figure to provide an option and 

requirements for the use of mixing 

zones, which are when general purpose 

and bike lanes must share the same 

space through an intersection. 

625. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.03 

Extensions of Bicycle Lanes through 

Intersections’’ to provide Support, 

Standard, Guidance, and Option 

statements on the application of bicycle 

lane extensions. In this section, FHWA 

proposes to clarify that shared-lane 

markings and chevrons shall not be 

used through intersections. This is not 

a new Standard, rather a clarification of 

the Standard in existing Section 9C.07 

and of the use of chevrons. FHWA 

proposes new Standard statements 

requiring only dotted lane lines for 

extensions of bike lanes through 

intersections, and requiring lane 

extension markings to extend bufferseparated or separated bicycle lanes 

through intersections and driveways. As 

part of these changes, FHWA proposes 

Support and Guidance statements 

regarding pavement markings for 

bicycle lanes through intersections. 

FHWA also adds a Standard requiring 

the lateral limits of bicycle lane 

extensions through intersections when 

the bicycle lane is contiguous to a 

crosswalk. FHWA proposes this new 

section because the uniform application 

of extensions of bicycle lanes through 

intersections assists all users of the 

intersection in identifying where 

bicyclists are expected to operate. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80974 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

130 ‘‘Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 

Second Edition’’ NCHRP 672, 2010, can be viewed 

at the following internet website: http://

onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_

672.pdf. 

626. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.04 

Bicycle Lanes at Driveways’’ to provide 

options for bicycle lanes at or through 

driveways. FHWA proposes this new 

section to provide practitioners with 

options for marking bicycle lanes in the 

vicinity of driveways and to promote 

the uniform application of these 

treatments. 

627. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.05 

Bicycle Lanes at Circular Intersections,’’ 

which contains material relocated from 

existing section 9C.04. FHWA proposes 

additional Support statements related to 

the use of shared-lane markings and 

bicycles on the sidewalk at circular 

intersections, since bicycle lanes are 

already prohibited through circular 

intersections. 

628. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.06 

Buffer-Separated Bicycle Lanes’’ to 

provide practitioners with Support, 

Standard, Guidance, and Option 

statements and a new figure to provide 

information on the application of bufferseparated bicycle lanes. FHWA 

proposes new Standards that provide 

requirements on the buffer-separated 

bicycle lines, including line types, 

markings in the buffer, width, location, 

and color. FHWA proposes this new 

section and associated figure, because 

providing a buffer space between a 

bicycle lane and a travel lane can reduce 

vehicle encroachment into the bicycle 

lane and reduce crashes between a 

bicyclist and open vehicle doors in a 

parking lane. In addition, the provisions 

of this Section would promote 

uniformity in the use of this treatment 

in accordance with existing traffic 

control devices in Section 3B.25 

(existing Section 3B.24) and Chapter 3E 

(existing Chapter 3D). 

629. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.07 

Separated Bicycle Lanes’’ to provide 

Support, Standard, Option, and 

Guidance statements, along with a new 

figure, for the application of separated 

bicycle lanes. FHWA proposes Standard 

statements requiring a buffer space 

between parking spaces and separated 

bicycle lanes, buffer space markings, 

restrictions for edge line and lane line 

colors, and requiring directional arrows. 

FHWA also proposes Standards related 

to requirements for signalization with 

two-way separated bicycle lanes and 

prohibiting right turns on red across 

separated bicycle lanes when bicycle 

traffic is allowed to proceed through the 

intersection. FHWA proposes this new 

section to provide practitioners 

information for uniformity in 

application to promote the safe and 

efficient operation of the bicycle lanes 

by reducing conflicts between bicycles 

and pedestrians accessing parked 

vehicles, and between bicycles and 

motor vehicles turning across their path 

on separate traffic signal phases. 

630. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.08 

Counter-Flow Bicycle Lanes’’ to provide 

Support, Standard, and Guidance 

statements, along with a new figure, for 

the application of counter-flow bicycle 

lanes, which is when one direction 

bicycle lanes travel the opposite 

direction of the general traffic that is 

also traveling in one direction. FHWA 

proposes Guidance to recommend that a 

counter-flow bicycle lane be placed on 

the right-hand side of the road with 

opposing traffic on the left. 

FHWA also proposes a Standard 

requiring double yellow line markings, 

a painted median island, raised median 

island, or some form of physical 

separation to define the counter-flow 

bicycle lane where the speed limit is 30 

mph or less. When the speed limit is 35 

mph or greater, FHWA proposes a 

Standard requiring a buffer, a painted 

median, raised median island, or 

another form of physical separation to 

ensure safe operation through adequate 

separation between opposing flows of 

bicycles and motor vehicles. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes new 

Standards and Guidance for required 

and recommended signing and 

signalization for counter-flow bicycle 

lanes. FHWA proposes this new section 

to provide practitioners information for 

uniformity in application. 

631. In Section 9E.09 (existing Section 

9C.07) Shared-Lane Marking, FHWA 

proposes to revise the Guidance to 

recommend that shared-lane markings 

not be used on roadways with a posted 

speed limit of 40 mph or above, instead 

of 35 mph or above per the 2009 version 

of the Manual. 

FHWA also proposes to revise the 

Standard to expand the listing of 

locations where shared-lane markings 

are prohibited. FHWA proposes this 

change to include some of the new 

applications that are proposed in this 

NPA but are not in the 2009 Edition of 

the Manual, and to address field 

experience with this marking since it 

was adopted in the 2009 MUTCD. 

In addition, FHWA provides new 

Guidance statements on the placement 

of shared-lane markings and the use of 

Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane (R9– 

20, resdesignated from R4–11) signs. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes new Options 

and an associated figure, for 

implementation of shared-lane markings 

in places where the width of the 

roadway is insufficient to continue a 

bike lane or separate bikeway on 

approach to the intersection. FHWA 

proposes this new section to provide 

practitioners discretion when 

developing a policy for the use of the 

shared-lane markings on intersection 

approaches. 

632. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.10 

Shared-Lane Markings for Circular 

Intersections’’ to provide Guidance and 

Support statements recommending that 

shared-lane markings not be used in the 

circulatory roadway of multi-lane 

circular intersections. FHWA proposes 

this new section to assist practitioners 

with providing uniform treatments of 

shared-use paths in the vicinity of 

circular intersections based on an 

NCHRP study.130

633. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.11 

Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes’’ to 

provide Support, Standard, Option, and 

Guidance statements, as well as two 

new figures, to describe the application 

of two-stage bicycle turn boxes. FHWA 

proposes Standards to provide 

requirements on location, pavement 

markings, arrows, and passive detection 

of bicycles at traffic signals. As twostage bicycle turn boxes are intended to 

be positioned within an intersection for 

bicyclists to queue safely, these 

Standards define what is required to 

make those spaces both safe and 

operationally effective for bicyclists at 

traffic signals. 

In addition, FHWA proposes 

Guidance to consider the peak hour 

bicycle demand and adjacent land uses 

for the size of the bicycle turn box. 

FHWA also proposes an Option to use 

green colored pavement with an 

associated Standard that requires the 

entire turn box to be green colored 

pavement when used. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes a Standard 

that requires a full-time turns-on-red 

prohibition where the path of vehicles 

lawfully turning right on red would pass 

through the bicycle turn box. FHWA 

proposes this section to describe the 

proper use of this new application that 

simplifies the turning task for bicyclists. 

634. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.12 

Bicycle Box’’ to provide Option, 

Standard, Guidance, and Support 

statements and a new figure, to describe 

the application of a bicycle box. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance 

recommending consideration of motor 

vehicle and bicycle conflicts for when 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80975 

131 ‘‘Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: 

Informational Report (AIIR)’’ FHWA–HRT–09–060, 

April 2010, can be viewed at the following internet 

website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ 

research/safety/09060/09060.pdf. 

the bicycle box should be used, 

recommending that a bicycle lane be 

used on the approach to a bicycle box, 

and recommending that a bicycle box 

not be contiguous with a crosswalk. 

In addition, FHWA proposes 

Standards requiring locations, markings, 

signal yellow change and red clearance 

intervals, and countdown pedestrian 

signals when the bicycle box extends 

across more than one approach lane of 

motor vehicles. FHWA proposes these 

changes to mitigate the potential 

conflict between bicyclists crossing a 

bicycle box across multiple lanes while 

motor vehicle traffic is given a green 

indication to move into the intersection. 

Lastly, FHWA also proposes an 

Option to use green colored pavement 

with an associated Standard that 

requires the entire bicycle box to be 

green colored pavement when used. 

FHWA proposes this addition to 

describe the proper use of this new 

application that increases the visibility 

of stopped bicyclists on the approach to 

a signalized intersection when the 

signal is red. 

635. In Section 9E.13 (existing Section 

9C.03), retitled, ‘‘Shared-Use Paths,’’ 

FHWA proposes a new Option and 

Standard, and accompanying figure, to 

provide additional design options for 

pavement markings. 

FHWA also proposes a new Guidance 

that the crossing areas for bicyclists 

should use green-colored pavement in 

order to distinguish between the 

crosswalk for pedestrians and the 

crossing area for bicyclists. FHWA 

proposes this new Guidance in concert 

with the proposal to add green-colored 

pavement for bicycle facilities. 

636. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.14 

Bicycle Route Pavement Markings’’ to 

provide Option, Standard, and 

Guidance statements, as well as a new 

figure, for the application of pavement 

markings to simulate route auxiliary 

plaques and Bicycle Route Guide signs 

to provide navigational guidance for 

bicyclists and pedestrians on shared-use 

paths, separated bikeways on 

independent alignment, and on 

improved trails. 

Also, FHWA proposes Standards to 

limit the use of route markers on bicycle 

lanes, separated bikeways in the 

roadway, or on roadways where the 

shared-use path runs contiguous or 

concurrent with a street or highway. 

Lastly, FHWA also proposes a 

Guidance to require that pavement 

markings simulating official guide signs 

for bicycle routes be supplemental to 

the sign(s) and shall not be a substitute 

for the sign(s), with an associated 

Guidance that recommends a systematic 

methodology of locating signs and 

bicycle route pavement markings. 

FHWA proposes this new section to 

provide uniformity for this new 

practice. 

637. In Section 9E.15 (existing Section 

9C.05) Bicycle Detector Symbol, FHWA 

proposes the addition of an Option 

statement that allows WAIT HERE FOR 

GREEN word markings to be placed on 

the pavement immediately below the 

bicycle detector symbol to help 

bicyclists know to stop on the bicycle 

detector symbol. 

638. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9E.17 

Raised Devices’’ to provide Support, 

Option, Standard, and Guidance 

statements for the application of raised 

devices in coordination with bicycle 

facilities. FHWA proposes a Standard 

that channelizing devices shall not 

incorporate the color green, consistent 

with an existing requirement in Part 3 

that the color of channelizing devices 

shall match the color of the pavement 

markings they supplement. FHWA 

proposes this requirement to reiterate 

the existing requirement because some 

bicycle facilities utilize optional greencolored pavement to supplement the 

required white or yellow markings and 

the existing requirement could imply 

that the color of the channelizing 

devices are allowed to match the color 

of the pavement (green, in this case) 

rather than the color of the pavement 

marking. FHWA proposes this change as 

a conforming edit, which would not 

change the existing underlying 

requirement. 

FHWA also proposes Guidance 

statements that the channelizing devices 

should be tubular markers, and that the 

selection of a raised device consider the 

collision potential of both the post and 

the base. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes Guidance to 

recommend that if used in bufferseparated bicycle lanes, channelizing 

devices should be placed in the buffer 

space and at least one foot from the 

longitudinal bicycle lane pavement 

marking. FHWA proposes this new 

section because the purpose of 

channelizing devices is to emphasize 

pavement marking patterns associated 

with bicycle facilities. 

639. FHWA proposes a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 9F.02 

Bicycle Signal Face’’ to provide a 

reference to Chapter 4H on the design 

and application of bicycle signal faces 

and Section 9B.22 for the Bicycle 

SIGNAL sign. 

640. FHWA proposes a new chapter 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Chapter 9G 

Bicycle Accommodations at Alternative 

Intersections.’’ This new chapter 

contains six proposed new sections 

numbered and titled as follows: 

‘‘Section 9G.01 General,’’ ‘‘Section 

9G.02 Displaced Left-Turn 

Intersection,’’ ‘‘Section 9G.03 Median UTurn Intersection,’’ ‘‘Section 9G.04 

Intercepted Crossroad Intersection,’’ 

‘‘Section 9G.05 Restricted Crossing 

Intersection,’’ and ‘‘Section 9G.06 

Diamond Interchange with TransposedAlignment Crossroad’’ to provide 

practitioners with information on how 

to accommodate bicyclists through these 

various types of alternate intersections. 

FHWA also proposes four new figures 

demonstrating examples of the bicycle 

accommodations at alternative 

intersections. The information in these 

proposed sections, along with the 

accompanying figures, are based on 

supporting research.131

641. In proposed Section 9G.01 

General, FHWA proposes a Support that 

clarifies that the Chapter describes 

examples for the application and 

accommodation of bicycle traffic at 

alternative intersections but is not a 

requirement to provide the bicycle 

traffic control herein. 

642. In proposed Section 9G.02 

Displaced Left Turn Intersection, FHWA 

proposes Guidance to recommend that a 

left-turning bicycle movement should 

transition to an independent alignment 

that facilitates the bicycle to a two-stage 

turn box where bicycle lanes or sharedlane markings are used on the major 

street approaching a displaced left-turn 

intersection. 

643. In proposed Section 9G.03 

Median U-turn Intersection, FHWA 

recommends Guidance that a two-stage 

bicycle turn box should be used where 

left-turning bicycles need to be 

accommodated at median U-Turn 

intersections. 

644. In proposed Section 9G.04 

Intercepted Crossroad Intersection, 

FHWA recommends Guidance that 

shared-lane markings should be 

discontinued on a single lane 

intersection approach on cross streets 

and the bicycle movement should be 

transitioned to a bicycle lane contiguous 

to the exclusive right or left turn lane for 

motor vehicles. 

645. In proposed Section 9G.05 

Restricted Crossing Intersection, FHWA 

proposes Guidance to recommend that 

bicycle destination or bicycle route 

guide signs should be used at restricted 

crossing intersections where it is 

demonstrated that it would be difficult 

for bicycle movements. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80976 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

132Federal Register notice of Interim Approval 

IA–5 recension (81 FR 4083, Jan. 25, 2016) can be 

viewed at the following website: https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-01-25/html/ 

2016-01383.htm. 

133The Joint Explanatory Statement House Report 

115–237 can be viewed at the following website: 

https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt237/CRPT115hrpt237.pdf. 

134The December 13, 2016, Request for 

Information on Clearview font (81 FR 89888, Dec. 

13, 2016) can be viewed at the following website: 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12- 

13/html/2016-29819.htm. 

135https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_

approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf. 

136 Information on FHWA reinstatement of IA–5 

can be viewed at the following website: https://

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm. 

646. In proposed Section 9G.06 

Diamond Interchange with TransposedAlignment Crossroad, FHWA proposes 

Guidance to recommend destination 

guide signs for shared-use paths to 

transition pedestrian and bicycle travel 

to and from the median of the 

transposed alignment where a shareduse path is used. 

647. In Appendix A1, FHWA 

proposes to retitle the section to 

‘‘Congressional Actions’’ and add a new 

option to allow an alternative letter style 

for destination legends on freeway and 

expressway guide signs. For clarity in 

application, FHWA designates this letter 

style, commonly referred to as 

‘‘Clearview 5–W,’’ as ‘‘Series E 

(modified)—Alternative.’’ In concert 

with this change, FHWA proposes a 

Standard provision to define the 

applicability and scope of this letter 

style because the design criteria differ 

from those of the Standard Alphabets. 

FHWA proposes these provisions to 

address the operational effect of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2018 that required FHWA to, ‘‘. . . 

reinstate Interim Approval IA–5, 

relating to the provisional use of an 

alternative lettering style on certain 

highway guide signs, as it existed before 

its termination, as announced in the 

Federal Register on January 25, 2016 

(81 FR 4083).’’ FHWA requests 

comments on the proposed revisions to 

Appendix A1 as well as the proposal to 

add ‘‘Series E (modified)—Alternative’’ 

to Appendix A1. 

FHWA granted Interim Approval (IA– 

5) to use Clearview 5–W in certain 

applications on September 2, 2004, 

based on early research that suggested 

improvements in sign legibility. FHWA 

rescinded this Interim Approval on 

January 25, 2016,132 after subsequent 

research and a more thorough review of 

the early research finding showed no 

discernable improvement. In addition, it 

became apparent that having a separate 

optional letter style with different 

design criteria caused confusion in sign 

design and layouts resulting in 

inappropriate and sometime ineffective 

signs. However, the Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (section 125 

of Division L) required FHWA to 

reinstate Interim Approval IA–5 for that 

fiscal year. In addition, the Joint 

Explanatory Statement House Report 

115–237 133 directed FHWA to conduct 

a comprehensive review of the research 

on this alternative font and report on the 

safety and cost implications of the 

decision while fully addressing the 

comments submitted by affected States 

during the December 13, 2016, Request 

for Information 134 related to the 

alternative font. FHWA reviewed the 

comments submitted and conducted a 

comprehensive analysis of all research 

identified as being associated with the 

alternative font and submitted the 

Report on Highway Guide Sign Fonts,135

to Congress with the findings of these 

reviews. As a result of this 

Congressional action, FHWA reinstated 

Interim Approval IA–5 on March 18, 

2018.136 Though not required, Interim 

Approval IA–5 has been allowed to 

continue past the end of that fiscal year 

so that FHWA could request comments 

on potential inclusion of this alternative 

letter style as part of the MUTCD. 

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51 

FHWA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference the more current versions of 

the manuals listed herein. 

FHWA’s 2009 ‘‘Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways,’’ including Revisions No. 1 

and No. 2, dated May 2012 would be 

replaced with a more current edition the 

MUTCD. This document was developed 

by FHWA to define the standards used 

by road managers nationwide to install 

and maintain traffic control devices on 

all public streets, highways, bikeways, 

and private roads open to public travel. 

The document that FHWA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference is 

reasonably available to interested 

parties, primarily State DOTs, local 

agencies, and tribal governments 

carrying out Federal-aid highway 

projects. The text, figures, and tables of 

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. The specific standards are 

discussed in greater detail elsewhere in 

this preamble. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), Executive Order 

13771 (Reducing Regulations and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs), and 49 

CFR Part 5 (DOT Rulemaking 

Procedures) 

The proposed rule is a nonsignificant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

action complies with EOs 12866, 13563, 

and 13771 to improve regulation. These 

changes are not anticipated to affect 

adversely, in any material way, any 

sector of the economy. Most of the 

proposed changes in the MUTCD would 

provide additional guidance, 

clarification, and optional applications 

for traffic control devices. FHWA 

believes that the uniform application of 

traffic control devices supports 

efficiency of traffic operations and 

roadway safety. The standards, 

guidance, and support are also used to 

create uniformity and to enhance safety 

and mobility at little additional expense 

to public agencies or the motoring 

public. In addition, these changes 

would not create a serious inconsistency 

with any other agency’s action or 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

any entitlements, grants, user fees, or 

loan programs. Therefore, a full 

regulatory impact analysis is not 

required. An assessment of the potential 

economic impacts is available on the 

docket. FHWA requests public comment 

on all aspects of this analysis including 

data sources, methodology, and 

assumptions. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80977 

FHWA has considered the provisions 

of this NPA in relation to the regulatory 

policies found in 49 CFR 5.5 and has 

determined that the proposals contained 

herein are consistent with the policies 

governing the development and 

issuance of regulations. These include 

policies that there should be no more 

regulations than necessary, regulations 

should specify performance objectives, 

and, where they impose burdens, 

regulations should be narrowly tailored 

to address identified market failures or 

specific statutory mandates. 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. 

Finally, this proposed rule is not an 

E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it 

is not significant under E.O. 12866. 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 where 

appropriate, and the introduction of 

new traffic devices. For the purposes of 

this analysis, where revisions increase 

the clarity of existing content, those 

revisions have been considered nonsubstantive. 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: 

• Weight Limit signs (proposed 

Section 2B.66); 

• Normal longitudinal line widths 

(proposed Section 3A.04); 

• Wide longitudinal line widths 

(proposed Section 3A.04); 

• Stop and yield lines (proposed 

Section 3B.19); 

• Markings for diamond interchange 

with transposed-alignment crossroad 

(proposed Section 3B.31); 

• Markings for part-time travel on a 

shoulder (proposed Section 3E.04); 

• Accessible pedestrian signals and 

audible information devices (proposed 

Sections 4K.01, 4J.02, 4L.02, 4S.03, and 

4U.02); and 

• Stop and Yield signs on bicycle 

facilities (proposed Section 9B.01). 

For the three substantive revisions for 

which costs can be quantified, the total 

10-year 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 permile 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 

appreciable costs, FHWA believe 

expects that the benefits will exceed the 

costs. Based on the qualitative and 

quantitative information presented, 

FHWA expects that, in general, the 

potential benefits of the rulemaking will 

exceed the costs. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this action on small entities. 

Based on the evaluation, FHWA 

anticipates that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule would add some 

new traffic control devices and only a 

limited number of new or changed 

requirements associated with existing 

topic areas, as well as new topic areas 

that were not previously addressed. 

Most of the proposed changes are 

expanded guidance and clarification 

information. Therefore, FHWA certifies 

that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

FHWA has determined that this NPA 

will not impose unfunded mandates as 

defined by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 

March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The 

proposed revisions can be phased in by 

the States over specified time periods in 

order to minimize hardship. Unless a 

compliance date is specified, the 

proposed changes to traffic control 

devices that would require an 

expenditure of funds allow for normal 

maintenance funds to replace the 

devices at the end of the material lifecycle. To the extent the proposed 

revisions would require expenditures by 

State and local governments on Federalaid projects, they are reimbursable. This 

regulatory action will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $155,000,000 or more 

in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In 

addition, the definition of ‘‘Federal 

mandate’’ in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act excludes financial 

assistance of the type in which State, 

local, or Tribal governments have 

authority to adjust their participation in 

the program in accordance with changes 

made in the program by the Federal 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
80978 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

Government. The Federal-aid highway 

program permits this type of flexibility. 

FHWA will publish a final analysis, 

including its response to public 

comments, when it publishes a final 

rule. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

FHWA has analyzed this action in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA 

has determined that this action will not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

federalism assessment. FHWA has also 

determined that this action will not 

preempt any State law or State 

regulation or affect the States’ ability to 

discharge traditional State governmental 

functions. The MUTCD is incorporated 

by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart 

F. These proposed amendments are in 

keeping with the Secretary of 

Transportation’s authority under 23 

U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to 

promulgate uniform guidelines to 

promote the safe and efficient 

utilization of the highways. The 

overriding safety benefits of the 

uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD 

are shared by all of the State and local 

governments, and changes made to this 

rule are directed at enhancing safety. To 

the extent that these proposed 

amendments override any existing State 

requirements regarding traffic control 

devices, they do so in the interest of 

national uniformity. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities apply to this program. Local 

entities should refer to the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance Program 

Number 20.205, Highway Planning and 

Construction, for further information. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. FHWA has 

determined that this action does not 

contain collection information 

requirements for purposes of the PRA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

FHWA has analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has determined 

that this action would not have any 

effect on the quality of the human and 

natural environment because it only 

would make technical changes and 

incorporate by reference the latest 

versions of design standards and 

standard specifications previously 

adopted and incorporated by reference 

under 23 CFR part 625 and would 

remove the corresponding outdated or 

superseded versions of these standards 

and specifications. The proposed rule 

qualifies as a categorical exclusion to 

NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FHWA has analyzed this action under 

E.O. 13175 and believes that it would 

not have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes; would not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian tribal governments; and 

would not preempt Tribal law. 

Therefore, a tribal summary impact 

statement is not required. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects 

23 CFR Part 470 

Grant programs—transportation, 

Highways and roads. 

23 CFR Part 635 

Grant programs—transportation, 

Highways and roads, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

23 CFR Part 655 

Design standards, Grant programs— 

transportation, Highways and roads, 

Incorporation by reference, Signs, 

Traffic regulations. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR part 1.85(a)(1). 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code 

of Federal Regulations, parts 470, 635, 

and 655, as set forth below: 

Title 23—Highways 

PART 470—HIGHWAY SYSTEMS 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

470 to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2), 103(c), 134, 

135, and 315; and 49 CFR 1.85. 

■ 2. Amend appendix C to subpart A of 

part 470 by revising the Policy 

paragraph and Conditions paragraph 5 

and removing the Sign Details heading 

and accompanying paragraphs 1 

through 4 to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 470— 

Policy for the Signing and Numbering 

of Future Interstate Corridors 

Designated by Section 332 of the NHS 

Designation Act of 1995 or Designated 

Under 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(4)(B) 

Policy 

State transportation agencies are permitted 

to erect informational signs along a federally 

designated future Interstate corridor only 

after the specific route location has been 

established for the route to be constructed to 

Interstate design standards. 

Conditions 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Signing and other identification of 

a future Interstate route segment must 

comply with the provisions of the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways. 

* * * * * 

PART 635—CONSTRUCTION AND 

MAINTENANCE 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 635 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 1525 and 1303 of Pub. 

L. 112–141, Sec. 1503 of Pub. L. 109–59, 119 

Stat. 1144; 23 U.S.C. 101 (note), 109, 112, 

113, 114, 116, 119, 128, and 315; 31 U.S.C. 

6505; 42 U.S.C. 3334, 4601 et seq.; Sec. 

1041(a), Pub. L. 102–240, 105 Stat. 1914; 23 

CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.85(a)(1). 

■ 4. Amend § 635.309 by revising 

paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 635.309 Authorization. 

* * * * * 

(o) The FHWA has determined that, 

where applicable, provisions are 

included in the PS&E that require the 

erection of funding source signs that 

comply with the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways, for the life of the 

construction project, in accordance with 

section 154 of the Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended (Pub. L. 91–646, 84 Stat. 1894; 

primarily codified in 42 U.S.C. 4601 et 

seq.;) (Uniform Act). 

* * * * * 

PART 655—TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 

■ 5. Revise the authority citation for part 

655 to read as follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80979 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 

114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; 

and, 49 CFR 1.85. 

■ 6. Amend § 655.601: 

a. In the introductory text to 

paragraph (d), by removing the text 

‘‘below’’ and ‘‘call (202) 741–6030’’ and 

adding in their places ‘‘paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section’’ and ‘‘email 

fedreg.legal@nara.gov’’, respectively; 

and 

b. By revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 655.601 Purpose. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways 

(MUTCD), 11th Edition, FHWA, dated 

[date to be determined]. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 655.603 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 655.603 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Where State or other Federal 

agency MUTCDs or supplements are 

required, they shall be in substantial 

conformance with the national MUTCD. 

Substantial conformance means that the 

State MUTCD or supplement shall 

conform as a minimum to the standard 

statements included in the national 

MUTCD. The FHWA Division 

Administrators and Associate 

Administrator for the Federal Lands 

Highway Program may grant exceptions 

in cases where a State MUTCD or 

supplement cannot conform to standard 

statements in the national MUTCD 

because of the requirements of a specific 

State law that was in effect prior to 

January 16, 2007, provided that the 

Division Administrator or Associate 

Administrator determines based on 

information available and 

documentation received from the State 

that the non-conformance does not 

create a safety concern. The guidance 

statements contained in the national 

MUTCD shall also be in the State 

Manual or supplement unless the reason 

for not including it is satisfactorily 

explained based on engineering 

judgment, specific conflicting State law, 

or a documented engineering study. A 

State MUTCD or supplement shall not 

contain standard, guidance, or option 

statements that contravene or negate 

standard or guidance statements in the 

national MUTCD. In addition to a State 

MUTCD or supplement, supplemental 

documents that a State issues, including 

but not limited to policies, directives, 

standard drawings or details, and 

specifications, shall not contravene or 

negate standard or guidance statements 

in the national MUTCD. The FHWA 

Division Administrators shall approve 

the State MUTCDs and supplements 

that are in substantial conformance as 

defined in this paragraph (b)(1) with the 

national MUTCD. The FHWA Associate 

Administrator of the Federal Lands 

Highway Program shall approve other 

Federal land management agencies’ 

MUTCDs and supplements that are in 

substantial conformance as defined in 

this paragraph (b)(1) with the national 

MUTCD. The FHWA Division 

Administrators and the FHWA 

Associate Administrators for the Federal 

Lands Highway Program have the 

flexibility to determine on a case-bycase basis the degree of variation 

allowed in a State MUTCD or 

supplement to accommodate existing 

State laws as described in this 

paragraph (b)(1), for the express purpose 

of amending such laws over time. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–26789 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2