87672 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

to Congress of international agreements. 

For further background, see the final 

rule at 88 FR 67643. 

The Department provided 30 days for 

public comment. No comments were 

received. 

Amendment to § 181.4 

The Department is removing the 

phrase ‘‘no single criterion or factor by 

itself is determinative’’ from 

§ 181.4(b)(3)(i). The words were 

included in error, and this change is 

intended to avoid the regulation being 

interpreted to mean that a non-binding 

instrument could only constitute a 

qualifying non-binding instrument if 

multiple factors among those listed in 

(b)(3)(i)(A) through (G) weighed in favor 

of its significance. 

Regulatory Analysis 

Administrative Procedures Act 

As with the original rulemaking, the 

Department is issuing this rule as a final 

rule, asserting the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption to the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). We are 

past the deadline provided by Congress 

to implement this rule, also past the 

effective date of the statute itself. See 

the final rule for more information. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive 

Order 13272: Small Business 

This rulemaking is hereby certified as 

not expected to have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rulemaking does not constitute a 

major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, 

for purposes of congressional review of 

agency rulemaking. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally 

requires agencies to prepare a statement 

before proposing any rule that may 

result in an annual expenditure of $100 

million or more by State, local, or tribal 

governments, or by the private sector. 

This rule will not result in any such 

expenditure nor would it significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: 

Federalism and Executive Order 13175, 

Impact on Tribes 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of national government. Nor will 

the regulations have federalism 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132. 

This rule will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 

do not apply to this rulemaking. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 14094; 

13563: Regulatory Review 

This rule has been drafted in 

accordance with the principles of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, and 13563. The 

rulemaking is mandated by a 

Congressional statute; therefore, 

Congress determined that the benefits of 

this rulemaking outweigh the costs. This 

rule has been determined to be a 

significant rulemaking under Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule has been reviewed in light 

of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, 

minimize litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

agencies must obtain approval from 

OMB for each collection of information 

they conduct, sponsor, or require 

through regulation. This rule contains 

no new collection of information 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 181 

Treaties. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

State Department amends 22 CFR part 

181 as follows: 

PART 181—COORDINATION, 

REPORTING AND PUBLICATION OF 

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 

■ 1. The authority section for part 181 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 1 U.S.C. 112a, 112b; and 22 

U.S.C. 2651a. 

■ 2. In § 181.43, revise paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 181.4 Criteria with respect to qualifying 

non-binding instruments. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Consistent with 1 U.S.C. 

112b(k)(5)(A)(ii)(I), and except for a 

non-binding instrument referred to in 1 

U.S.C. 112b(k)(5)(B), a non-binding 

instrument that could reasonably be 

expected to have a significant impact on 

the foreign policy of the United States, 

and that meets the other elements set 

out in 1 U.S.C. 112b(k)(5), is a 

qualifying non-binding instrument 

within the meaning of the Act. The 

degree of significance of any particular 

instrument requires an objective 

wholistic assessment. In deciding 

whether a particular instrument meets 

the significance standard, the entire 

context of the transaction, including the 

factors set out below and the 

expectations and intent of the 

participants, must be taken into 

account. Factors that may be relevant in 

determining whether a non-binding 

instrument could reasonably be 

expected to have a significant impact on 

the foreign policy of the United States 

include whether, and to what extent, the 

instrument: 

* * * * * 

Joshua L. Dorosin, 

Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27837 Filed 12–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Parts 470, 635 and 655 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2020–0001] 

RIN 2125–AF85 

National Standards for Traffic Control 

Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways; Revision 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways (MUTCD) (also referred to as 

‘‘the Manual’’) is incorporated by 

reference within our regulations, 

approved by FHWA, and recognized as 

the national standard for traffic control 

devices used on all public roads, 

bikeways, or private roads open to 

public travel. The purpose of this final 

rule is to revise Standard, Guidance, 

Option provisions, and supporting 

information, relating to the traffic 

control devices in all parts of the 

MUTCD to improve safety for all road 

users by promoting uniformity, and to 

incorporate new provisions that reflect 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87673 

1 Information on the NRSS can be viewed at the 

following Web address: https://

www.transportation.gov/NRSS. 

2 Information on the PSCi can be viewed at the 

following Web address: https://highways.dot.gov/ 

safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. 

technological advances in traffic control 

device application. The MUTCD, with 

these changes incorporated, is being 

designated as the 11th Edition of the 

MUTCD. 

DATES: Effective on January 18, 2024. 

The incorporation by reference of the 

publication listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Office 

of the Federal Register as of January 18, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Kevin Sylvester, Office of 

Transportation Operations, (202) 366– 

2161, 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 

This document, the notice of 

proposed amendments (NPA), and all 

comments received may be viewed 

online through the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at: www.regulations.gov. 

Electronic submission and retrieval help 

and guidelines are available under the 

help section of the website. It is 

available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. Please follow the 

instructions. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

homepage at: www.federalregister.gov 

and the Government Printing Office’s 

web page at: www.GovInfo.gov. 

Executive Summary 

The Department of Transportation is 

committed to securing a future without 

serious roadway injuries or fatalities. 

Our approach is guided by our National 

Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) 1

which was released in January 2022 and 

adopts the Safe System Approach as the 

guiding paradigm to address roadway 

safety. One of the 5 objectives of the 

Safe System Approach is Safer Roads. 

There are many factors that go into 

making a road safe, including the 

surrounding land use, the geometric 

design of the roadway, and the uniform 

and consistent application of traffic 

control devices. The MUTCD is a set of 

technical criteria for the latter, and does 

not preclude action that State, local, or 

tribal decision makers might take on the 

first two. 

The MUTCD is part of an overall DOT 

strategy that includes process and 

outreach changes. This document will 

be supplemented by a process 

improvement to increase the frequency 

of MUTCD updates to a 4-year cycle, 

seek a wider range of stakeholders to 

review and develop recommendations, 

and include educational components 

that help practitioners understand the 

use and applicability of the document. 

The FHWA has developed a Proven 

Safety Countermeasures initiative 2

(PSCi) which identifies 

countermeasures and strategies effective 

in reducing roadway fatalities and 

serious injuries, and strongly 

encourages transportation agencies to 

consider implementing tools to improve 

safety. 

This rulemaking satisfies a 

Congressional requirement that was part 

of the Infrastructure Investment and 

Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law. 

I. Intended Use 

The MUTCD is developed and 

organized for the purpose of 

establishing national standards for 

traffic control devices on any roadway, 

bikeway, or shared-use path that is open 

to public travel. It is not intended to 

inform State or local policy on the 

design and character of communities or 

the geometric design of roadways, to 

prioritize a travel mode, or to influence 

land use or access by any mode of 

travel. Relevant local authorities and 

roadway owners determine land use, 

such as transit-oriented development, 

and roadway design to safely and 

conveniently prioritize walking, 

bicycling, public transit, motor-vehicle 

travel, or a combination of modes. The 

DOT is committed to securing a future 

without serious roadway injuries or 

fatalities and released the NRSS which 

adopts a Safe System Approach as the 

guiding paradigm to address roadway 

safety. As described in the NRSS, 

roadway design strongly influences how 

people use roadways. The environment 

around the roadway system, including 

land use and the intersections of 

highways, roads, and streets with other 

transportation modes such as rail and 

transit, also shapes the safety risks 

borne by the traveling public. The 

FHWA has developed the PSCi which 

identifies countermeasures and 

strategies effective in reducing roadway 

fatalities and serious injuries, and 

strongly encourages transportation 

agencies to consider implementing tools 

to improve safety. Following local 

determination of a roadway design, the 

MUTCD governs how traffic control 

devices communicate the design intent 

to the road user to safely and efficiently 

navigate the roadway system. 

II. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

This final rule is intended to improve 

safety, with a focus on vulnerable road 

users, streamline processes, and reduce 

burdens on State and local agencies by 

including many of the successful 

devices or applications that have 

resulted from nearly 200 official 

experiments that FHWA has approved, 

including pedestrian safety 

enhancements such as the rectangular 

rapid-flashing beacon, proven 

treatments that help bicyclists navigate 

the street more easily such as bicycle 

signal faces, congestion-reduction 

strategies such as variable speed limits 

for speed harmonization, and devices 

for traffic management applications 

such as dynamic lane control and 

shoulder use. In addition, this final rule 

adopts new signing to direct electric 

vehicle users to charging stations and 

the inclusion of numerous treatments 

for bicycle and transit lanes. 

The rule updates the technical 

provisions to reflect advances in 

technologies and safety and operational 

practices, incorporate recent trends and 

innovations, and set the stage for 

automated driving systems as those 

systems continue to take shape. This 

final rule promotes uniformity and 

incorporates technological advances in 

traffic control device design and 

application, and will ultimately 

improve and promote the safety, 

inclusion, and mobility of all road users 

and efficient utilization of roads that are 

open to public travel. 

With this 11th Edition of the MUTCD, 

FHWA addresses any existing 

provisions that might have contributed 

to situations that inhibit or contravene 

the purpose of a nationwide standard 

for traffic control devices. The 

provisions of the MUTCD establish this 

national standard by adopting only 

those devices that, by clearly 

communicating the roadway design and 

operational intent to the road user, 

promote the safety, inclusion, and 

mobility of all road users and the 

efficient utilization of the highways and 

streets through an uninterrupted, 

uniform system of signs, signals, and 

markings as road users travel within and 

between jurisdictions. Uniformity and 

consistency in message, placement, and 

operation of traffic control devices have 

been shown to accommodate the 

expectancy of the road user, resulting in 

a more predictable response, 

contributing to improved road user 

safety overall. The system of uniform 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87674 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

3The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted 

as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), 

defined the safe system approach as ‘‘a roadway 

design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of 

injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into 

consideration the possibility and likelihood of 

human error; (ii) accommodates human injury 

tolerance by taking into consideration likely 

accident types, resulting impact forces, and the 

ability of the human body to withstand impact 

forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable 

road users.’’ 

4Title 23 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C.) 

section 148(a), Highway Safety Improvement 

Program, states a ‘‘vulnerable road user’’ means a 

non-motorist. 

traffic control devices works in concert 

with the natural tendencies of the road 

user in the various high-judgment 

situations that the road user will 

encounter. 

Safety 

Uniform traffic control devices are 

critical to ensuring safety across the 

roadway network, and are part of the 

Safe System Approach,3 adopted by 

DOT. The Safe System Approach 

addresses every aspect of reducing crash 

risks, including safer road users, safer 

speeds, safer roads, safer vehicles, and 

safer post-crash care. Traffic control 

devices influence three of these factors 

by guiding roadway users toward 

uniform and predictable behavior; 

directing roadway users on safe 

operating speeds; and, in conjunction 

with roadway infrastructure, separating 

users in time and space. This approach 

can prevent crashes and reduce the 

kinetic energy transfer that can result in 

human injury or death. 

In addition, a focus on the safe 

mobility of vulnerable road users 4 is 

prominent throughout this new edition 

and is expected to be a focus in future 

rulemaking, anticipated to be issued on 

a quadrennial cycle. Consideration of 

roadway context as an important factor 

has informed many of the new 

provisions wherever practicable. In 

particular, those applications in which 

differing roadway environments and 

road user needs are critical to the 

decisions on the types of traffic control 

devices under consideration have been 

emphasized or expanded upon. 

Scope and Applicability 

Notwithstanding this focus, it is 

important for users of the MUTCD to be 

mindful that its scope is limited to 

traffic control devices: the signs, signals, 

and markings, and how they appear, 

operate, and are used. While its 

provisions are founded in safety, the 

MUTCD is not a roadway design 

manual, nor is it a comprehensive safety 

manual. The geometric and other design 

features of the roadway, such as curbs, 

barriers, intersection corner radii, and 

number and width of lanes, have a 

significant influence on safety and, in 

many cases, road user compliance with 

the traffic control devices selected. 

Likewise, it is not a policy or directive 

on how jurisdictions are to use their 

roadways to provide for efficient 

mobility of people and goods through 

their communities, or which travel 

modes are to have priority in the overall 

roadway network. Indeed, nothing in 

the MUTCD restricts a community from 

designing walkable, transit-oriented 

roadways or high-speed highways as 

that community determines appropriate 

to serve its needs. Rather, the MUTCD 

is about directly communicating with 

the road user, in an effective manner, 

about how the roadway is intended to 

be used in the context and constraints 

of its physical space, design features, 

and surrounding environment. 

With its human-centered foundation, 

the MUTCD has always been about the 

road user; establishing uniformity in 

message to accommodate expectancy 

and behavior, informed by the body of 

knowledge based on decades of human 

factors research, to provide for the safe 

and efficient mobility. Reflecting our 

changing environment, that research 

basis continues to expand and evolve as 

new trends and applications emerge. 

While strictly a technical manual, the 

primacy of the road user is at the heart 

of the MUTCD’s many technical 

provisions. The changes adopted in the 

new edition seek to emphasize the 

importance of the road users—each with 

varying capabilities and limitations, 

traveling by different modes—in the 

design and application of traffic control 

devices. 

Finally, with this final rule, FHWA 

fulfills certain statutory requirements of 

the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), 

enacted as the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act (IIJA), which explicitly 

calls for a new edition of the MUTCD 

to be issued in a timely manner and be 

updated on a quadrennial cycle, as well 

as a number of specific items related to 

the MUTCD. 

III. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

Key items in this final rule include 

the following: 

Incorporation of provisional traffic 

control devices currently under Interim 

Approval, including pedestrian-actuated 

rectangular rapid-flashing beacons at 

uncontrolled marked crosswalks, 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; 

Additional signing options for 

direction to electric vehicle charging 

services; 

Considerations for agencies to prepare 

roadways for automated vehicle 

technologies and to support the safe 

deployment of automated driving 

systems; 

Clarifications on patented and 

proprietary traffic control devices to 

foster and promote innovation; and 

Safety and operational improvements, 

including revised procedures for the 

posting of speed limits, new criteria for 

warning signs for horizontal alignment 

changes, and new application of traffic 

control devices for part-time travel on 

shoulders to manage congestion. 

In addition, this regulatory action 

amends the following: 

23 CFR part 470, subpart A, Appendix C; 

23 CFR 635.309(o); 

23 CFR 655.603(b)(3); and 

23 CFR 655.603, Appendix to Subpart F 

IV. Costs and Benefits 

The FHWA has estimated the costs 

and evaluated potential benefits of this 

rulemaking and believes the rulemaking 

is being proposed in a manner that 

fulfills the requirements under 23 U.S.C. 

109(d) and 23 CFR part 655, while also 

providing flexibility for State and local 

agencies. The estimated national costs 

are documented in the economic 

analysis report titled, ‘‘Assessment of 

Economic Impacts of Amendment to the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (11th Edition); Final Rule 

Economic Impact Assessment,’’ which 

is available on the docket. 

The final rule results in clarification 

of language and organization of the 

MUTCD, increased flexibility and 

alternatives for agencies, relaxation of 

certain Standard provisions to 

Guidance, and the introduction of new 

traffic devices. For the purposes of this 

analysis, where revisions improve the 

clarity of existing content, those 

revisions have been considered nonsubstantive. All other revisions are 

considered substantive as they 

materially change the requirements of 

the MUTCD. 

The Economic Impact Analysis 

provides estimates of general 

administrative costs associated with 

incorporating and executing the 

MUTCD including training costs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87675 

5 Designated as Revision 3 of the 2009 Edition of 

the MUTCD. 

Second, the incremental costs 

associated with revisions to provisions 

of the MUTCD are calculated. 

This final rule provides quantitative 

estimates of the expected compliance 

costs associated with the proposed 

substantive revisions. There are 138 

substantive revisions with minimal or 

no impact. These revisions materially 

change the MUTCD requirements but 

have no cost impacts or minimal cost 

impacts. 

The remaining nine substantive 

revisions have quantifiable economic 

impacts. The costs of the revision could 

be estimated fully for only five of these, 

and partially for one other. Across these 

six substantive revisions for which costs 

can be quantified, along with the 

administrative costs, the total estimated 

cost measured in 2020 dollars is $59.7 

million when discounted to 2020 at 7 

percent. These costs are estimated as the 

sum of the effort required for adoption 

and training of the MUTCD, the price of 

the traffic control device and the 

removal and installation costs of the 

device, applied to the current and future 

deployment rate of the traffic control 

device, considering the compliance date 

for the provision relating to the device. 

The revisions differ in their compliance 

dates, the date after which the traffic 

control devices must comply with the 

MUTCD revisions. The cost estimates 

reflect whether the revision includes a 

compliance date. For those changes for 

which a compliance date is not 

specified, the analysis assumes that 

agencies would make traffic control 

devices comply with the revisions at the 

end of the service life of a device while, 

for those with a compliance date, the 

analysis assumes that agencies would 

bring non-compliant traffic control 

devices into compliance proportionally 

each year until the compliance date. 

The analysis cannot account for 

agencies that might decide to set their 

own compliance dates for those items 

that do not have a compliance date in 

the national MUTCD. The analysis 

period is 10 years starting with an 

implementation date of 2023 and 

extending through 2032. The costs of 

four substantive revisions could not be 

estimated due to lack of information, 

but all are expected to have net benefits 

based on per-unit or per-mile costs and 

benefits of the proposed revision. Costs 

for each substantive revision with 

appreciable impacts are estimated based 

on the cost of the traffic control device, 

the removal and installation costs of the 

device, the current and future 

deployment of the traffic control device, 

and the compliance date if applicable. 

The benefits of the revisions include 

operational and safety benefits. 

Operational benefits include the 

capacity of the traffic control device to 

convey necessary information to road 

users, accessibility benefits for 

pedestrians with vision disabilities, and 

mobility impacts from efficient 

operation. In some cases, the safety 

benefits are measured by the revision’s 

impact on crash surrogate measures 

because of the limitations of analyzing 

the direct impact of traffic control 

devices on crash rates. However, in 

most cases the impact on crash 

surrogate measures does not provide an 

expressed crash reduction capability of 

the traffic control. Therefore, the 

benefits of these revisions could not be 

quantified. 

For each substantive revision with 

measurable costs, FHWA expects that 

the benefits will exceed costs. Based on 

the qualitative and quantitative 

information presented, FHWA expects 

that, in general, the potential benefits of 

the rulemaking will exceed its costs. 

Background 

On December 14, 2020, at 85 FR 

80898, FHWA published a Notice of 

Proposed Amendments (NPA) 

proposing revisions to the MUTCD. 

Those changes were proposed to be 

designated as the next edition of the 

MUTCD. Interested persons were 

invited to submit comments to FHWA 

Docket No. FHWA–2020–0001. 

After the close of the public comment 

period, the President signed into law the 

BIL, enacted as the IIJA, (Pub. L. 117– 

58, Nov. 15, 2021). Section 11129 of BIL 

amended 23 U.S.C. 109(d) to require 

that a new edition of the MUTCD be 

issued not later than 18 months after the 

enactment of BIL, and every 4 years 

thereafter; and to articulate more 

explicitly the role of traffic control 

devices, which is to ‘‘promote the 

safety, inclusion, and mobility of all 

users and efficient utilization of the 

highways.’’ 

Section 11135 of BIL required that the 

MUTCD be updated, to the greatest 

extent practicable, to provide for the 

protection of vulnerable road users; the 

safe testing of automated vehicle 

technology and safe integration of 

automated vehicles onto public streets; 

appropriate use of changeable message 

signs (CMS) to enhance safety; the 

minimum retroreflectivity of traffic 

control devices, including pavement 

markings; and any additional 

recommendations made by the National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (NCUTCD). 

In this final rule, FHWA takes steps 

to fulfill certain requirements of BIL. 

For example, the adoption of 

rectangular rapid-flashing beacons and 

bicycle signal faces will improve the 

safety of vulnerable road users; a 

completely new part of the Manual is 

dedicated to traffic control devices to 

accommodate driving automation 

systems; the provisions on CMS are 

greatly expanded to address traffic 

safety messages with more clarification 

and detail; and FHWA published a final 

rule 5 on August 5, 2022, at 87 FR 

47921, establishing minimum 

retroreflectivity levels for pavement 

markings. 

Based on the comments received and 

its own experience, FHWA is issuing a 

final rule and is designating the 

MUTCD, with these changes 

incorporated, as the 11th Edition of the 

MUTCD. 

The text of the 11th Edition of the 

MUTCD, with these final rule changes 

incorporated, and documents showing 

the adopted changes from the 2009 

Edition, are available for inspection and 

copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, 

at the FHWA Office of Transportation 

Operations (HOTO–1), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Furthermore, the text of the 11th Edition 

of the MUTCD, with these final rule 

changes incorporated, and documents 

showing the adopted changes from the 

2009 Edition, are available on the 

FHWA’s MUTCD internet site http://

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The previous 

edition of the MUTCD, the 2009 

MUTCD with Revisions 1, 2, and 3 

incorporated, is also available on this 

internet site for reference. The 11th 

Edition supersedes all previous editions 

and revisions of the MUTCD. 

Summary of Comments 

The FHWA received more than 17,000 

submissions to the docket, containing 

over 100,000 individual comments on 

the MUTCD in general or on one or 

more parts, chapters, sections, or 

paragraphs contained in the MUTCD. 

The State departments of transportation 

(State DOT), city and county 

government agencies, Federal 

Government agencies, NCUTCD, 

consulting firms, private industry, 

associations, other organizations, and 

individual private citizens submitted 

comments. The FHWA has reviewed 

and analyzed all comments received. 

The significant items and summaries of 

the associated public comments, and 

FHWA’s analyses and determinations, 

are discussed below. In addition to the 

following discussion, Preamble Tables 

that show the proposed items in the 

NPA and the dispositions in the final 

rule for each are available on the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87676 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

6 87 FR 47921. 

7https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/

AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf. 

MUTCD website and in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Discussion of Amendments to the 

MUTCD 

The following represents a summary 

of significant topics of interest 

identified based on comments received 

from State DOTs, local agencies, 

associations, and citizens regarding the 

NPA. These items are summarized by 

corresponding parts of the MUTCD. 

Part 1. General 

Compliance Dates 

Compliance dates for four provisions 

are adopted in this final rule. The 

compliance dates are summarized in 

Table 1B–1 of the MUTCD and are 

described in detail herein. In addition, 

one compliance date from a previous 

rulemaking 6 remains in effect. 

In Section 2B.64, Paragraph 14 

requires that an additional Weight Limit 

sign, with an advisory distance or 

directional legend, shall be located in 

advance of the applicable section of 

highway or structure so that prohibited 

vehicles can detour or turn around prior 

to the limit zone. The NPA proposed 

changes to give operators of vehicles 

affected by weight limit restrictions 

adequate information about the distance 

to the restricted area so that they can 

properly change their route and to 

minimize potential damage to highway 

infrastructure as a result of an 

overweight vehicle; however, there was 

no compliance date proposed for these 

changes. Based on comments and to 

provide further clarity in this final rule, 

the two separate paragraphs from the 

2009 edition are retained but the 

proposed elevation of the Guidance to a 

Standard is adopted with added text to 

clarify that the first Standard relates to 

posting at the applicable section of 

highway and structure, rather than in 

advance. The FHWA adds a compliance 

date of 5 years for the Standard in 

Paragraph 14 requiring the posting of 

the additional Weight Limit sign with 

the advisory distance or directional 

legend. The FHWA believes a 5-year 

compliance date is appropriate based on 

the critical nature of the infrastructure 

in that it allows agencies up to 2 years 

to adopt the MUTCD and 3 additional 

years for agencies to program, fund, and 

install any devices necessary 

In Section 2C.25, based on comments 

from the NTSB, the Standard which 

redesignated the W12–2 sign as an 

advance sign is adopted with revised 

language to warn road users of vertical 

clearances less than 14 feet 6 inches, or 

vertical clearances less than 12 inches 

above the statutory maximum vehicle 

height, whichever is greater. All States 

have statutory maximum vehicle heights 

of 13 feet 6 inches or greater, thus 

making the 12 inches above the 

statutory maximum vehicle height the 

prevailing criterion. However, in the 

interest of clarity and safety, the specific 

language for clearances less than 14 feet 

6 inches is added to make it abundantly 

clear that signing for lesser vertical 

clearances is required. Further, the use 

of the existing W12–2a and new W12– 

2b signs is adopted as an Option to 

supplement, rather than be used in lieu 

of, the advance warning sign. The 

FHWA also adopts the Guidance as 

proposed in Paragraph 8 which 

recommends that for an arch or other 

structure under which the clearance 

varies greatly, two or more Low 

Clearance Overhead (W12–2a or 12–2b) 

signs should be installed on the 

structure itself to indicate the portions 

of the roadway over which the low 

clearance applies. This change was 

based on recommendations from NTSB 

H–14–11 7 to provide signing indicating 

the proper lane of travel for overheight 

vehicles traveling under an arched 

structure. The FHWA received 

comments relating to the proposed 

compliance dates for a guidance 

statement and confusion about the 

applicability based on the structure 

type. In this final rule FHWA clarifies 

their applicability to arch or similar 

type varying height structures and the 

application of a compliance date when 

a sign is not required, in the case of the 

recommendation for posting in 

Paragraph 8. Based on the critical nature 

of the infrastructure, FHWA adopts a 

compliance date of 5 years for both 

Paragraph 1 (required posting of the low 

clearance in advance of the structure) 

and Paragraph 8 (recommended posting 

of variable low clearances on the 

structure, unless determined based on 

engineering considerations that the 

recommended posting is not needed at 

that location). 

In a previous and separate 

rulemaking, a standard for the minimum 

level of retroreflectivity that must be 

maintained for pavement markings was 

established along with a compliance 

date which became Revision 3 to the 

2009 edition of the MUTCD. As a result, 

FHWA incorporates the provisions from 

that completed rulemaking into Section 

3A.05. The compliance provision is 

only for implementation and continued 

use of a method that is designed to 

maintain retroreflectivity of longitudinal 

pavement markings, and the compliance 

date is September 6, 2026. 

The NPA included a compliance date 

of 5 years for the new Guidance in 

Section 8B.16 recommending the 

installation of Low Ground Clearance 

and/or Vehicle Exclusion and detour 

signs for vehicles with low ground 

clearances that might become 

immobilized or hung up on high-profile 

grade crossings due to their 

undercarriages being too low to clear the 

roadway profile at the track crossing. 

The proposed compliance date applied 

only to those locations with known 

histories of vehicle hang-ups occurring, 

because sufficient geometric criteria do 

not currently exist for agencies to 

evaluate crossings to determine the 

specific types of vehicles that could 

experience hang-up situations. 

Comments on this section 

acknowledged the value of detour 

signing for low clearance vehicles in 

certain cases but suggested there are too 

many variables in terms of geometric 

conditions and the types of vehicles and 

vehicle combinations to adequately 

identify the risk of these vehicles 

hanging up at a grade crossing. There 

were also comments that suggested 

signing for all vehicles that could 

potentially hang up at crossings would 

result in excessive signing and driver 

confusion. There were also comments 

about the proposed compliance date, 

suggesting instead that devices should 

be brought into compliance through 

routine maintenance operations. Despite 

the challenges, FHWA acknowledges 

the need, as recommended in the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) recommendation H–18–024, to 

provide guidance to agencies to help 

identify and address high-profile 

crossings, especially those that are 

known from past experience to be 

subject to specific vehicle type hangups. The text provides Guidance and 

Support to assist agencies in addressing 

these situations through signing. The 

compliance date applies to known 

potential vehicle hang-up locations that 

are currently identified by agencies 

through their grade crossing inventory. 

The FHWA adopts the Guidance and 

Support statements as proposed, 

including compliance dates. 

The NPA included a compliance date 

of 10 years for evaluation and 

installation of appropriate treatments), 

including preemption, movement 

prohibition, pre-signals, or queue cutter 

signals, for highway traffic signals 

located at or near grade crossings. 

Commenters indicated that the costs to 

evaluate and implement these 

treatments at highway traffic signals can 

be significant and may not align with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87677 

the agency’s other priorities. 

Commenters also pointed out that the 

number of impacted locations varies 

greatly by State creating a significant 

challenge for some States to meet the 

proposed compliance date. Comments 

suggested that devices should be 

brought into compliance through the 

systematic replacement and upgrade of 

traffic control devices and not subject to 

a compliance date. This final rule 

adopts the compliance date for Sections 

8D.09 through 8D.12 with revisions to 

require only an assessment and 

determination of appropriate treatment 

to reach compliance at specific 

locations. Agencies will be granted 

flexibility to determine the schedule for 

installation of improvements based on 

availability of funding and other safety 

priorities through the systematic 

replacement and upgrade of traffic 

control devices as currently prescribed 

in the MUTCD for other traffic control 

devices. 

Experimentation 

The FHWA recognizes the importance 

of innovation in traffic control devices 

for the improvement of traffic safety and 

operations, particularly for vulnerable 

road users and automated vehicles. The 

FHWA, in this final rule, greatly 

expands this section in a number of 

areas to better help practitioners in 

preparing experimentation plans. In the 

NPA, FHWA proposed to create a new 

section specifically related to 

experimentation, now Section 1B.06 

(formerly part of Section 1A.10 in the 

2009 MUTCD), with Standard, Support, 

and Guidance paragraphs describing the 

experimentation process, which 

provides for evaluation of new traffic 

control devices or applications under 

controlled conditions. As part of those 

changes, FHWA clarified the existing 

paragraph regarding the elements to be 

provided in an agency’s request for 

experimentation from a Guidance to a 

Standard, and expanded the 

requirements, including specification of 

the timing of submitting semi-annual 

progress reports documenting the 

approved experiments. 

Many commenters supported the need 

for experimentation and thoughtful 

process associated with it to provide 

uniformity and safety for road users; 

however, many commenters stated that 

they believe the experimentation 

process is getting more complicated. 

Commenters suggested that the existing 

process hinders innovation to the point 

of it becoming impossible to pursue due 

to the steps and time required. As a 

result, some agencies stated that 

resource restrictions prevent them from 

engaging in experimentation and 

therefore only a handful of States/ 

agencies can afford to experiment. 

Several organizations and State and 

local departments of transportation 

suggested FHWA retain the 

experimentation process as Guidance, as 

opposed to Standards, and simplify it. 

Several commenters also suggested that 

the requirement for devices to be free 

from protection by patents, trademarks, 

etc. is overly burdensome and stifles 

innovation. They suggested that FHWA 

allow targeted patented and proprietary 

products to be used in the 

experimentation process without patent 

holders having to forfeit their 

proprietary protections and allow 

FHWA to consider these products based 

on their safety impacts, rather than 

having them precluded from the 

experimentation process before their 

benefits are known. Other comments 

ranged from allowing agencies to use 

engineering judgement to determine the 

appropriate course of action without 

making a request for experimentation to 

allowing the default assumption that 

experimentations may stay in place 

beyond the end of the experimentation 

period unless FHWA determines that 

the experimentation has created an 

unacceptable safety or operational issue. 

There were also several comments about 

the experimentations themselves, 

including the requirement for control 

sites, and the desire to coordinate 

research resources to support local 

agencies with data collection efforts and 

research partnerships. 

In consideration of the comments, 

FHWA adopts a new Option to 

streamline the process for requesting 

official experimentation. This new 

Option allows a requesting agency to 

submit an abstract of the experimental 

concept for preliminary review of its 

viability and potential alignment with 

other ongoing or previous research on 

the concept. The FHWA frequently 

engages with agencies prior to 

submission of an official request, and 

the new Option should reduce burdens 

on agencies by deferring or eliminating 

the need to develop a full research plan 

in the event that FHWA identifies a 

solution that complies with the 

MUTCD. 

An agency will sometimes submit a 

request for experimentation with a new 

device or application to address a need 

that, instead, could be addressed with 

devices that comply with the MUTCD. 

If an existing compliant solution is 

identified, the need for experimentation 

to develop and consider a new device or 

application is eliminated. To further 

assist agencies in preparing requests for 

experimentation, clarifying language is 

added stating that if one of the required 

items is not applicable for the specific 

device or application, those items are 

required to be addressed in the request 

with a brief explanation as to their nonapplicability. The FHWA adopts this 

change to confirm that each of the 

required items has been addressed, even 

if some of the items do not apply to the 

particular type of experimental device 

or application or based on the 

evaluation methodology. 

The FHWA retains the Standard 

requiring official approval to 

experiment with a traffic control device 

that does not comply with the 

provisions of the MUTCD on any street, 

highway, bikeway, or site roadway open 

to public travel. This Standard is a 

clarifying statement of the existing 

process that is necessary to limit use of 

non-compliant devices or applications 

and minimize any safety risk from 

experimental features, help ensure that 

experiments contain adequate 

provisions to determine effectiveness, 

and provide national documentation of 

results. The experimentation process 

ensures that efforts to solve safety or 

operational problems with new traffic 

control devices employ objective, datadriven approaches rather than 

subjective, anecdotal, or stochastic 

approaches that could result in 

unintended adverse effects. The FHWA 

understands that the experimentation 

process is of concern due to the level of 

analysis required, which can take time 

and financial resources. However, the 

MUTCD is the national standard for 

traffic control devices; therefore, 

deviation requires specific permission 

through experimentation approval. It is 

important to understand that nothing 

about the experimentation process 

prevents States or local communities 

from making decisions regarding the 

geometric design or land use pattern of 

a community for any reason, including 

to improve safety for vulnerable road 

users. The parameters regarding 

experimentation are intended to help 

ensure the experimental application 

does not introduce unintended risk or 

confusion into the transportation 

network due to noncompliant traffic 

control devices or applications. The 

type and level of analysis associated 

with experimentation helps ensure 

experimentation provides useful 

information for later decisionmaking on 

additional research, potential revisions 

to the MUTCD, or advancement of a 

concept through Interim Approval 

pending rulemaking. Therefore, the 

required basic elements for all 

experiments do not change though the 

specifics of how they are applied vary 

by the device being evaluated and the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87678 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

8FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 1(09)–1 (I) can be 

viewed at the following Web address: https://

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/ 

1_09_1.pdf. 

context of its use. In many cases, simple 

experimentation provisions can fully 

address the necessary basic 

requirements and often in ways that are 

not prohibitively expensive. For 

example, field evaluation of a new 

device intended to improve motorist 

yielding at crosswalks might require 

only simple vehicle yielding counts by 

a trained observer at various intervals 

over a period of time to compare 

conditions before and after 

implementation. The cost of 

experimentation is completely 

dependent on the type of analysis 

needed to adequately evaluate the 

device or application. 

The FHWA retains the existing 

MUTCD prohibition on patented or 

proprietary traffic control devices, 

including under experimental 

consideration, and adds language to 

clarify that this provision is actually a 

limitation that applies to traffic control 

devices, but not necessarily to certain 

aspects of those devices, such as their 

component parts. The FHWA has 

sufficient rationale for precluding 

patented devices in the MUTCD, 

including a long-standing history of 

uniformity issues when patented 

devices were used on roadways. Given 

that the purpose of experimentation is 

to test devices or applications for 

national applicability and potential or 

eventual inclusion in the MUTCD, 

allowing patented devices into the 

experimentation process would serve no 

purpose because eventual inclusion of a 

device into the MUTCD would still 

require relinquishing those rights. 

Further clarification on the extent to 

which the MUTCD limits and allows 

patented items is provided in Section 

1D.06. 

The FHWA also retains the existing 

provision subjecting experimental traffic 

control devices to removal following the 

conclusion of the experiment. Requiring 

the removal of experimental devices 

after an experiment has ended when 

those devices are not being considered 

for adoption in the MUTCD is necessary 

for consistency with the MUTCD being 

the national standard for traffic control 

devices, with non-compliant devices 

only being allowed during 

experimentation. Experimental devices 

that are shown to be sufficiently 

effective based on appropriate levels of 

experimentation are sometimes issued 

an Interim Approval official ruling and 

then become available for use by all 

agencies requesting their use. 

Experimental devices that lead to 

Interim Approvals are generally allowed 

to remain in place after the 

experimentation period during the 

Interim Approval issuance process. 

Control sites, which are sites with 

similar characteristics to the 

experimentation site but without the 

experimental treatment itself, are 

typically considered essential for 

scientifically sound research on traffic 

control devices, as they allow for 

comparison of data to minimize the 

effects of variables that are not part of 

the study. However, FHWA agrees that 

for certain types of device evaluations or 

applications control sites may not be 

necessary to ensure sound research 

results. The FHWA therefore revises 

that requirement to allow for other 

equivalent evaluation methodologies to 

be used. In addition, a clarifying 

support statement is added allowing a 

single experimentation request from 

multiple jurisdictions wanting to 

experiment with the same device. 

Similarly, jurisdictions can potentially 

be added to an approved existing 

experiment underway by a different 

jurisdiction, thereby reducing the time 

and expense in experimenting with a 

device. This approach differs greatly 

from Interim Approval, as the sites in 

the added jurisdictions are required to 

be evaluated under the same 

experimentation plan. 

Lastly, FHWA is developing 

experimentation guidelines separate 

from the MUTCD that will provide 

helpful direction in planning, 

submitting, and evaluating an MUTCD 

experiment with traffic control devices. 

The experimentation guidelines will 

include background information on 

research, how to find assistance, and 

practical examples of device 

experimentation across different levels 

of complexity. In response to noted 

concerns, the guidelines will seek to 

streamline understanding of 

experimentation with traffic control 

devices, as well as reduce financial or 

institutional barriers that local agencies, 

in particular, might experience in this 

area. This document is currently in 

development and will be published after 

the completion of this rulemaking. 

Engineering Study and Engineering 

Judgment 

In proposed Section 1D.05 (now 

Section 1D.03), FHWA proposed to 

provide new Standard, Guidance, and 

Support paragraphs to supplement 

existing Guidance and Support. The 

new text is based on FHWA Official 

Ruling No. 1(09)–1 (I) 8 and clarifies the 

application of engineering study and 

engineering judgment to the selection 

and specification of traffic control 

devices for implementation. Among the 

areas covered are the extent to which 

the specialized training and experience 

of an engineer are involved in traffic 

control device decisions and activities, 

and the authority of a jurisdiction or 

agency to make and implement those 

decisions, for the purpose of ensuring 

that facilities open to public travel meet 

a high level of safety that the public 

expects. 

The changes clarify the role of trained 

engineers as important advisors whose 

engineering studies are valuable inputs 

in the overall decisionmaking process. 

Several commenters expressed concern 

over the definitions of engineering 

judgment and engineering study, 

indicating that others besides engineers 

or those under the supervision of an 

engineer should be allowed to make 

decisions about traffic control device 

application and activities. 

The primary concern expressed was 

that small public agencies may not have 

staff that meets these requirements and 

therefore should be allowed to make 

those types of decisions regardless of 

engineering oversight. In response to 

these concerns, FHWA adopts the 

proposed language with minor edits 

noting that the text does not require 

every traffic control device decision to 

be made by an engineer or be made 

under the supervision of an engineer. 

However, decisions requiring 

engineering judgment and engineering 

study do require the specialized training 

and experience of an engineer, or 

someone acting under the supervision 

or direction of an engineer, to ensure the 

public facilities meet a high level of 

safety expected by the public for clarity, 

comprehension and legibility of 

message, as well as uniformity of 

application of traffic control devices in 

similar situations. The selection, design, 

and application of traffic control devices 

are inherently engineering functions. 

Traffic control device activities, such as 

installing and maintaining traffic 

control devices, are engineering 

functions conducted in accordance with 

plans, specifications, or other functions 

developed by and under the supervision 

or direction of an engineer. Engineers 

have a specific level of responsibility 

and accountability under professional 

licensure and are subject to a 

professional board and code of ethics. 

When necessary, there are many ways in 

which local communities are able to 

obtain engineering guidance including, 

but not limited to, the use of consultants 

and local transportation assistance type 

programs (Local Technical Assistance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87679 

9 Information about LTAP can be found at 

FHWA’s Local Aid Support site at the following 

Web address: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/clas/ltap/. 

10NTSB report ‘‘Reducing Speeding-Related 

Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles,’’ can be 

viewed at the following Web address: 

www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/ 

SS1701.pdf. 

11 85th-Percentile Speed is the speed at or below 

which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel, 

which is sometimes used to provide an indication 

of the free-flow operating speed the roadway for 

determining traffic control device applications. 

12National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Speeding Traffic Safety Facts 2021 

Data, report DOT HA 813 473, July 2023: https:// 

crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/82. 

Program,9 or similar). Other resources, 

such as handbooks and field installation 

manuals, are available for select traffic 

control activities for which the direct 

supervision of an engineer might not be 

necessary. Such resources are developed 

by an engineering organization and 

adopted by the State or county 

transportation agency for use on 

roadways within their boundaries, 

including for local roadways. 

To further clarify the intent of the 

provisions, FHWA adopts additional 

language to explain that the MUTCD 

does not mandate, and is not intending 

to imply, that an engineer must make 

the final decision whether to implement 

or execute the determination or advice 

of an engineer by installing or 

constructing the traffic control device to 

the engineer’s specification in the field. 

Rather, the engineer, individual under 

supervision or direction of an engineer, 

or other individual as duly authorized 

by State law to engage in the practice of 

engineering, develops an engineeringbased solution that includes the 

specifications for selection and 

placement of traffic control devices. The 

responsibility for a final decision to 

implement traffic control solutions rests 

with the agency (or owner) having 

jurisdiction over the roadway, after 

consultation with and based on advice 

from the engineer, to ensure that the 

design and operational intent of the 

facility are safely and effectively 

conveyed to road users. In many cases, 

it might be an engineer to whom the 

agency has delegated that authority. In 

other cases, such as with smaller 

agencies or owners of private roads 

open to public travel, it is the roadway 

owner that makes the decision on 

implementation, similarly following 

consultation with an engineer on the 

selection, design, and application of the 

specific traffic control device at the 

specific location to communicate safely 

and effectively with the road user. 

In the final rule, the section is 

renumbered to Section 1D.03. 

Part 2. Signs 

Speed Limit Setting 

Speed control and management are 

important elements in reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries, 

particularly on roadways where vehicles 

and vulnerable road users mix. States 

and local jurisdictions should set 

appropriate speed limits to reduce the 

significant risks drivers impose on 

others, vulnerable road users, and on 

themselves. In the NPA, FHWA 

proposed to reorganize and revise 

material in Section 2B.21 (formerly 

2B.13 of the 2009 MUTCD) Speed Limit 

Sign (R2–1) based on the 

recommendation of the NTSB10 to 

review how speed limits are 

determined. The NPA proposed to 

clarify the factors that should be 

considered when establishing or 

reevaluating non-statutory speed limits 

within speed zones, and to reinforce 

that other factors, in addition to the 

85th-percentile speed,11 have a role in 

setting speed limits. 

Speeding is one of the largest and 

most persistent contributing factors in 

fatal traffic crashes, resulting in nearly 

100,000 fatalities over the past decade.12

The DOT’s NRSS adopts a Safe System 

Approach which includes a focus on 

Safer Speeds as a core tenet and 

recognizes that achieving safe speeds 

requires a multi-faceted approach that 

leverages road design and other 

infrastructure interventions, speed limit 

setting, education, and enforcement. 

Over the past several editions, FHWA 

has sought opportunities to reduce the 

amount of superfluous or duplicative 

content for purposes of streamlining the 

MUTCD and improving its usability, 

especially when that content is outside 

the scope of the MUTCD, which is the 

appearance, operation, and other 

aspects of traffic control devices—signs, 

signals, and markings. A number of 

commenters suggested that the MUTCD 

should not contain procedures on how 

to set speed limits, and that it is beyond 

its scope. The FHWA will assess the 

viability of removing the speed limit 

setting provisions from the MUTCD in 

a future rulemaking. This topic is 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

A large number of comments on the 

setting of speed limits were received 

from organizations, public jurisdictions, 

and individuals. Many comments were 

based on a presumption that speed 

limits are required to be set at the 85thpercentile speed. However, this 

presumption is inaccurate. There is no 

existing or new requirement that a 

speed limit must be set at the 85thpercentile speed. The MUTCD allows 

for roadway owners and engineers to 

consider a wide variety of other factors 

in the engineering study including road 

characteristics, roadside development 

and environment, pedestrian activity, 

parking, and crash experience. All these 

factors (including speed distribution) 

are analyzed as part of the required 

engineering study and it is through that 

comprehensive analysis that the 

appropriate speed limit is determined. 

Further, the MUTCD addresses only 

non-statutory speed limits. The MUTCD 

does not preclude States or localities 

from passing laws to set statutory speed 

limits. Comments varied broadly in 

scope and with recommendations that 

were sometimes conflicting in nature. 

For example, some commenters 

recommended completely removing the 

85th-percentile speed as a factor to 

consider in an engineering study and 

instead requiring the Safe System 

approach. Others recommended 

retaining the 85th-percentile speed as a 

factor because it is a relevant data point 

that can be important as an indicator 

that other modifications or speed 

management strategies might be needed 

to achieve compliance or some level of 

a self-enforcing road or street design. 

Still other commenters suggested 

removing all material relating to speed 

limit setting from the MUTCD. 

The FHWA is in general agreement 

with removing provisions from the 

MUTCD that fall outside its scope, 

particularly when that information can 

be found in another source. As 

mentioned earlier, FHWA has sought 

opportunities to reduce certain content 

for purposes of streamlining the 

MUTCD and improving its usability. 

The NPA did not propose complete 

removal of all speed limit setting 

material as, at this time, there is not an 

authoritative alternative document on 

this topic to which practitioners could 

be directed. Removal of this information 

under the current rulemaking would 

leave practitioners without a 

comprehensive, updated, data-driven 

reference from an authoritative source 

outside the MUTCD, as well as potential 

gaps in available information. 

(Development of such a comprehensive 

guide for speed limit setting is in 

progress and is discussed later in this 

section.) Therefore, in this final rule 

FHWA retains provisions on setting 

non-statutory speed limits in Section 

2B.21 but with updates and revisions to 

state the entire range of factors, 

recommended for consideration in the 

engineering study to set a speed limit. 

In addition, the revised provisions 

clarify the role of speed distribution in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87680 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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

the engineering study in differing 

roadway contexts and environments. 

The NPA solicited comments on two 

specific recommendations of the NTSB 

report: (1) the removal of the 85thpercentile speed as a consideration in 

setting non-statutory speed limits and 

(2) a requirement to use an expert 

system to validate a speed limit that has 

been determined through engineering 

study. Commenters were also requested 

to address likely outcomes if one or 

more of the other recommendations in 

the report, such as increased automated 

enforcement, were not implemented in 

conjunction with the speed-setting 

recommendations outlined in the report. 

Very few commenters addressed these 

questions directly, but many 

commenters incorporated their views on 

the first question especially into their 

overall comments on the NPA language 

in Section 2B.21, as described earlier. 

The FHWA reviewed and considered all 

comments on Section 2B.21 in making 

the determinations for this final rule 

that are described herein. 

Safety is the DOT’s priority. In 

furtherance of improving safety, in 

consideration of the comments received, 

and to further FHWA’s statutory 

obligation under Section 11135 of BIL to 

provide for the protection of vulnerable 

road users, FHWA adopts the proposed 

NPA change to remove speed 

distribution from the existing Standard 

and instead include it in the Guidance 

provision among the recommended 

factors for the engineering study. The 

FHWA also adopts in this Standard a 

requirement that roadway context be 

considered in setting speed limits. The 

updated Guidance provision provides 

details on six factors to consider in 

engineering studies on setting speed 

limits, including roadway environment, 

roadway characteristics, geographic 

context, crash experience, speed 

distribution, and analysis of speed 

trends. This change clarifies that the 

engineering study is not just limited to 

the speed distribution and that the 

context of the roadway is part of the 

study. The Guidance also clarifies that 

on urban and suburban arterials and 

rural main streets, the 85th-percentile 

speed should not be used as the sole 

consideration in setting speed limits. 

The FHWA emphasizes that there is 

no existing or new requirement that a 

speed limit must be set at the 85thpercentile speed. Rather, the 85thpercentile speed is included as one of 

the factors, as referenced in the 

preceding paragraph, recommended for 

consideration as a meaningful data 

point within the engineering study and 

is a potential indicator that other 

modifications or speed management 

strategies might be needed to achieve 

compliance or some level of a selfenforcing design. This aspect of the 

engineering study is critical because, 

just as speed limits need to reflect the 

road design, the road design similarly 

needs to reflect the desired operating 

speed. The FHWA also emphasizes that 

the relative weight given to each of the 

recommended factors in the engineering 

study will depend on the context of the 

location under study and that the 

MUTCD does not prioritize any one 

factor over another. 

The FHWA revises the Guidance 

provision to provide additional 

flexibility in applying the factors that 

should be considered in the required 

engineering study. Also, FHWA adds 

the 50th-percentile (median) speed as 

recommended for consideration along 

with the 85th-percentile speed, because 

speed limits set below the 50thpercentile speed tend to encourage 

excessive violations and an analysis of 

both data points is appropriate as part 

of an engineering study. The FHWA 

adds Guidance for agencies to consider 

measures other than traffic control 

devices to help achieve desired vehicle 

operating speeds, when the 85thpercentile speed is appreciably greater 

than the posted speed limit or where 

past speed studies have indicated 

consistent increases in operating speeds. 

These measures include changes to 

geometric features and other speedreduction countermeasures. 

The FHWA retains the proposed 

Guidance provision recommending, but 

not requiring, that the speed limit be set 

within 5 mph of the 85th-percentile 

speed only on freeways and 

expressways, and on rural highways 

outside urban areas or urbanized 

conditions, as these are the types of 

facilities where the other factors (such 

as vulnerable road users) generally do 

not exist such that this Guidance is 

appropriate. As Guidance, this 

provision provides sufficient flexibility 

to apply unique engineering 

considerations that might exist; 

however, FHWA provides additional 

context by describing this applicability 

when all factors described in Paragraph 

7 have been considered and determined 

to be non-mitigating or are not present 

and the factors described in the new 

Guidance Paragraph 8 have been 

considered. In addition, FHWA clarifies 

that factors other than speed 

distribution should be considered 

during an engineering study when 

setting a non-statutory or posted speed 

limit, depending on the site conditions 

of the specific location. 

The FHWA introduces new Support 

information at the beginning of the 

section that discusses applying the 

provisions to set appropriate speed 

limits on non-limited access facilities 

where vehicle operators are more likely 

to encounter other road users, such as 

pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as 

clarify the application of expert systems 

and the Safe System approach.13 The 

new Support provision clarifies that a 

range of factors can influence the speed 

limit determined in the engineering 

study. These factors include land-use 

context, pedestrian and bicyclist 

activity, crash history, intersection 

spacing, driveway density, roadway 

geometry, roadside conditions, roadway 

functional classification, traffic volume, 

and observed speeds. The engineering 

study will determine which of the 

recommended factors will prevail in 

setting the appropriate speed limit and 

the new provisions are intended to 

ensure that practitioners consider all 

road users when setting a speed limit. 

The FHWA believes that the changes 

adopted as described herein will result 

in improved safety through the setting 

of speed limits that more appropriately 

reflect their environment and the mix of 

road users. 

To support and better emphasize the 

importance of roadway context in speed 

limit setting, FHWA is coordinating as 

a separate effort the development of a 

new, comprehensive Speed Limit 

Setting document to assist practitioners 

with information on the available tools 

and how factors for consideration can be 

used as part of the engineering study in 

setting a non-statutory speed limit. In 

conjunction with this effort, FHWA will 

assess the viability of removing the 

speed limit setting provisions from the 

MUTCD and will consider such a 

revision for a future rulemaking. 

Electric Vehicles and Alternative Fuels 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed several 

revisions related to signing for electric 

vehicle (EV) charging and alternative 

fuels using General and Specific Service 

signs. General Service signs display 

words or symbols to eligible motorist 

services available along a freeway, 

expressway, or conventional road. 

Eligible services include food, gas, EV 

charging, lodging, camping, public 

telephone, hospital, or tourist 

information. Specific Service signs are 

display specific business identification 

logos of eligible of commercial motorist 

services available along a freeway or 

expressway. Business identification 

logos are grouped by eligible service 

category; eligible service categories for 

Specific Service signs are gas, EV 

charging, food, lodging, camping, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87681 

14FHWA’s Memorandum, ‘‘Regulatory Signs for 

Electric Vehicle Charging and Parking Facilities,’’ 

issued June 17, 2013, can be viewed at the 

following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/policy/rsevcpfmemo/. 

15FHWA Policy Memorandum, ‘‘MUTCD-Signing 

for Designated Alternative Fuels Corridors,’’ issued 

December 21, 2016, can be viewed at the following 

Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

policy/alt_fuel_corridors/index.htm. Since the 

publication of the NPA this memorandum has been 

superseded by FHWA’s February 16, 2023, 

Memorandum on the same topic: https://mutcd.

fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/signing_alt_fuel_

corridors/index.htm. The substantive provisions 

relating to the signing of EV charging services 

remained unchanged in the 2023 memo. 

attractions. Both General Service and 

Specific Service signs used on freeways 

and expressways require trailblazing 

signs providing directional information 

from an exit ramp all the way to the 

service site when the service is not 

visible from the exit ramp intersection 

with the crossroad. 

Alternative Fuels Corridor signs 

inform road users of the highway 

segments that have been designated by 

FHWA as ‘‘Corridor Ready,’’ and use 

either General Service or Specific 

Service signs in advance of each 

interchange or intersection for the fuel 

service along that corridor. Eligible fuel 

services for Alternative Fuels Corridors 

are electric vehicle charging, 

compressed natural gas, liquefied 

natural gas, liquid propane gas, and 

hydrogen. The FHWA proposed to 

incorporate information related to EV 

charging and parking signing based on 

FHWA’s Memorandum on Regulatory 

Signs for Electric Vehicle Charging and 

Parking Facilities.14 The FHWA also 

proposed to incorporate technical 

provisions based on FHWA’s Policy 

Memorandum, ‘‘MUTCD-Signing for 

Designated Alternative Fuels 

Corridors,’’ issued December 21, 2016.15

The market for alternative fuel vehicles 

and specifically EVs has evolved 

significantly in recent years, as has the 

demand for such vehicles and their 

corresponding fueling/charging 

infrastructure. Comments on the NPA 

reflected this shift and focused on 

signing for EV charging services and 

Alternative Fuels Corridors by 

requesting additional flexibilities to 

include EV charging services on 

Specific Service Signs and EV charging 

supplemental messages on business 

identification (logo) sign panels for 

other types of services. 

The FHWA agrees with these 

comments and is adding several 

provisions to the MUTCD to ensure 

adequate flexibility is available to sign 

for EV charging services and Alternative 

Fuels Corridors. For Alternative Fuels 

Corridors, FHWA adds technical 

provisions from FHWA’s Policy 

Memorandum, ‘‘MUTCD-Signing for 

Designated Alternative Fuels 

Corridors,’’ to the MUTCD in Chapter 

2H, Section 2H.14. The provisions 

establish the Alternative Fuels Corridor 

signs in the MUTCD and clarify use of 

General Service Signs and directional 

assemblies to guide motorists to EV 

charging services. The final rule also 

includes new figures in MUTCD Section 

2H.14 showing typical sign layouts 

along an Alternative Fuels Corridor and 

the use of EV charging General Service 

signs. As part of these changes, FHWA 

adds clarity in the final rule that 

directional trailblazing signing all the 

way to the charging service site is 

required when General Service signs are 

used. 

The FHWA also adds a new Specific 

Service sign category in Chapter 2J for 

EV charging. The existing general 

provisions for Specific Service signs 

apply equally to EV charging Specific 

Service signs. The eligibility to have an 

EV charging business identification sign 

panel on a sign generally reflects 

eligibility criteria for National Electric 

Vehicle Infrastructure funding and other 

types of fueling services. To reflect 

public comments, the final rule also 

allows EV charging supplemental 

messages be added to the bottom of a 

business identification sign panel used 

on other categories of Specific Service 

signs (food, lodging, etc.) if the EV 

charging service at that business meets 

the same eligibility criteria for the EV 

charging General Service signs. As with 

all Specific Service signs, directional 

signing from the freeway to the EV 

charging service is required if the 

direction to the site is unclear or 

additional guidance is needed such as 

when subsequent turns onto other roads 

are required. 

AMBER Alerts on CMS 

In Section 2L.02, the NPA proposed a 

new Guidance statement recommending 

that America’s Missing: Broadcast 

Emergency Response (AMBER) alerts 

should not preempt messages related to 

traffic or travel conditions, should be as 

brief as possible, and should not include 

other information, such as detailed 

descriptions of persons, vehicles, or 

license plate numbers. 

Several State DOTs and the NCUTCD 

suggested that information regarding the 

vehicle, including the license plate, are 

essential pieces of information and are 

currently used for AMBER alert 

messaging. One State DOT shared its 

experience with using only a general 

vehicle description that resulted in 

generating an overwhelming number of 

911 calls. Commenters indicated that 

more detailed information, such as the 

license plate number is necessary for 

AMBER alerts to be effective. 

In response to comments, FHWA 

removes the Guidance specifically 

discouraging the use of descriptions of 

persons, vehicles, or license plate 

numbers as part of AMBER alert 

messages on CMS in the final rule. 

Guidance is retained that AMBER alert 

messages should be kept as brief as 

possible to address the potential of 

overloading road users with detailed 

information and, when possible, use 

other sources to convey that detailed 

information associated with the alert. 

Also, FHWA retains the proposed 

Guidance that AMBER alerts should not 

preempt messages related to traffic or 

travel conditions to ensure road user 

have real-time changing traffic and 

travel conditions requiring immediate 

motorist response. The FHWA believes 

the final rule is responsive to 

commenters and promotes the 

appropriate use of CMS to enhance 

public safety, consistent with Section 

11135 of BIL. 

Safety Messages on Changeable Message 

Signs 

In Chapter 2L, FHWA proposed 

several provisions in the NPA related to 

safety messages on CMS. The NPA 

included new Guidance and Standard 

paragraphs in Section 2L.02 regarding 

the appropriate and allowable use of 

traffic safety campaign messages on 

CMS displays. The FHWA proposed this 

new language to clarify that safety and 

transportation-related messages—which 

had been and would continue to be 

allowed—should be clear and direct, 

and meaningful to the road user on the 

roadway that the message is displayed. 

The FHWA recommended that messages 

with obscure meaning, references to 

popular culture, that are intended to be 

humorous, or otherwise use 

nonstandard syntax for a traffic control 

device, not be displayed because they 

can be misunderstood or understood 

only by a limited segment of road users 

and, therefore, degrade the overall 

effectiveness of the sign as an official 

traffic control device. The FHWA 

proposed a Standard that only traffic 

safety campaign messages that are part 

of an active, coordinated safety 

campaign that uses other media forms as 

its primary means of outreach be 

displayed on CMS, such that the CMS 

message would be a supplement to the 

overall campaign that employs other 

media and/or tools to promote the 

message. 

While a number of commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

provisions on traffic safety messages on 

CMS, others expressed opposition and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87682 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

16FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 2(09)-174 (I), ‘‘Uses 

of and Nonstandard Syntax on Changeable Message 

Signs,’’ can be viewed at the following Web 

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

interpretations/2_09_174.htm. 

17National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 

Streets and Highways; Maintaining Pavement 

Marking Retroreflectivity Final Rule, 87 FR 47921, 

August 5, 2022. 

18Sun, X., and S. Das. A Comprehensive Study 

on Pavement Edge Line Implementation. FHWA/ 

LA.13/508, April 2014 can be viewed at the 

following Web address: https://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/ 

pdf/2014/FR_508.pdf. 

19Tsyganov, A., R. Machemehl, and N. 

Warrenchuk. Safety Impact of Edge Lines on Rural 

Two-Lane Highways in Texas. FHWA/TX–05/0– 

5009–1, September 2005 can be viewed at the 

following Web address: https://ctr.utexas.edu/wpcontent/uploads/pubs/0_5090_1.pdf. 

20FHWA Office of Safety Proven Safety 

Countermeasure on Wider Edge Lines (FHWA–SA– 

21–055) can be accessed at the following Web 

address: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/ 

fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-08/PSC_New_

Wider%20Edge%20Lines_508.pdf. 

21FHWA Office of Safety Proven Safety 

Countermeasures on Roadway Departure can be 

accessed at the following Web address: https://

highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safetycountermeasures. 

suggested that the provisions should be 

less restrictive. Several commenters 

suggested moving all information 

related to traffic safety messages to a 

single section. Many commenters 

expressed concern that messages 

outside of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA)- 

developed enforcement campaign 

slogans would not be allowed under the 

proposed revision. While some 

commenters did request more flexibility 

in safety messaging and CMS use in 

general, many commenters supported 

the proposed provisions to help stem 

what they viewed as overuse or 

inappropriate uses of CMS. Some 

commenters believed that the NPA 

should explicitly restrict specific types 

of messages and even develop a 

standardized library of acceptable 

messages. 

In response to comments, FHWA 

places all information related to traffic 

safety campaign messages in Section 

2L.07. In addition, as it was not the 

intent to restrict safety campaign 

messages only to those on the NHTSA 

Communications Calendar, FHWA 

revises the applicable Guidance 

provision so as not to imply that an 

agency is precluded from developing 

and displaying messages of its own 

traffic safety campaigns separate from 

the NHTSA campaigns. 

The provisions on message 

construction and content, as proposed, 

are largely consistent with past and 

current human factors research in the 

areas of driver information overload, 

comprehension, the general principles 

for effective traffic control devices, and, 

specifically, messaging on CMS. These 

considerations were also the basis for 

FHWA’s 2021 policy memorandum on 

CMS 16 use that was developed in 

collaboration with NHTSA. The 

Guidance provisions, as adopted, can be 

deviated from based on engineering 

judgement. However, FHWA believes 

these are important considerations as 

not to diminish respect for the sign 

when used in other traffic-related 

scenarios for regulatory, warning, and 

guidance under prevailing conditions. 

Part 3. Markings 

Normal Line Width (4-Inch to 6-Inch 

Width) 

Based on comments to the NPA, a 

review of the relevant research, and the 

potential beneficial impacts of the 

recent final rule 17 related to 

maintaining pavement marking 

retroreflectivity that will increase 

pavement marking visibility, changing 

the width of normal and wide 

longitudinal lines is not adopted in the 

final rule and the existing provisions on 

longitudinal pavement marking width 

from the 2009 Edition are retained. 

In Section 3A.04 Functions, Widths, 

and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement 

Markings, in the Standard describing 

the widths and patterns of longitudinal 

lines, FHWA proposed in the NPA to 

revise the width of normal lines to 

indicate that 6-inch-wide lines are to be 

used for freeways, expressways, and 

ramps as well as for all other roadways 

with speed limits greater than 40 mph 

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

be used for all other roadways. The 

FHWA proposed this change to improve 

visibility and consistency on ‘‘highspeed’’ facilities and based on research 

showing improved machine vision 

detectability. 

The FHWA also proposed to change 

the definition of a wide line to at least 

8 inches in width if 4-inch or 5-inch 

normal lines are used, and at least 10 

inches in width if 6-inch normal lines 

are used. This change was proposed to 

clarify the definition based on varying 

practices for ‘‘normal’’ width lines and 

to reduce the impact on agencies that 

use 6-inch lines as their ‘‘normal’’ 

width. 

In addition, FHWA proposed to add a 

new Guidance statement regarding the 

width of the discernible space 

separating the parallel lines of a double 

line so that they can be recognized as a 

double line rather than two, separate 

disassociated single lines. 

The FHWA received several 

comments opposed to the new 

requirement for 6-inch-wide normal 

lines due to the additional cost. 

Commenters suggested that the financial 

impact was underrepresented since the 

change is not a one-time cost but also 

increased life-cycle costs related to 

ongoing maintenance with pavement 

resurfacing and marking ‘‘refreshing.’’ 

Some commenters also suggested that 

the extent of the proposed 6-inch 

requirement was not supported by 

research. A number of agencies stated 

they may decide not to install markings 

at all on roadways that do not meet the 

warrants for centerlines and edge lines 

in Sections 3B.02 and 3B.10 based on 

the increased cost of 6-inch markings, 

which may result in increased crashes. 

Several studies have shown that the 

presence of longitudinal pavement 

markings decreases crashes, including 

on roadways where the MUTCD 

provisions do not require or recommend 

the markings.18 19 Some commenters 

also stated additional research is needed 

for human road users, as well as driving 

automation systems, to determine the 

actual discernable limits for 

distinguishing between a normal and 

wide line and the discernable space 

between double lines. 

Additional Support statements are 

added to inform practitioners that based 

on research documented in FHWA’s 

Wider Edge Lines Proven Safety 

Countermeasure,20 6-inch edge lines can 

provide a safety benefit over the 

minimum 4-inch edge lines on all 

facility types (e.g., freeways, multilane 

divided and undivided highways, twolane highways) in both urban and rural 

areas. A reference to Section 5B.02 is 

also included to inform practitioners of 

the longitudinal pavement marking 

considerations relevant to driving 

automation systems. These changes will 

provide agencies information and the 

flexibility to determine where to use 

wider longitudinal lines based on data 

specific to their roadways, consistent 

with FHWA’s Proven Safety 

Countermeasures for Roadway 

Departure.21 Further, the proposed 

Guidance statement regarding the width 

of the discernible space separating the 

parallel lines of a double line is adopted 

with revision to specify the space 

should not exceed two times the line 

width of a single line. 

Retroreflectivity 

When FHWA released the NPA for the 

11th Edition, a separate rulemaking 

remained in progress to revise the 

MUTCD to include a Standard for the 

minimum level of retroreflectivity that 

must be maintained for pavement 

markings. Therefore, FHWA designated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87683 

Section 3A.05 Maintaining Minimum 

Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity as 

reserved for the future provisions from 

the separate FHWA rulemaking, without 

any proposed text. Several commenters 

endorsed the inclusion of language in 

this final rule based on current research 

to facilitate both human vision and 

automotive cameras. It was noted that 

driving automation systems use 

pavement markings for guidance, and 

minimum retroreflectivity levels would 

enhance system reliability. A comment 

was made to exclude minimum 

retroreflectivity requirements for roads 

closed to the public at night as the 

installation could otherwise be cost 

prohibitive where they are not currently 

installed, namely on park roadways. 

The FHWA published the final rule 

on pavement marking minimum 

retroreflectivity on August 5, 2022 (87 

FR 47921), which became Revision 3 to 

the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. As a 

result, FHWA incorporates the 

provisions from that completed 

rulemaking which include Support, 

Options, Guidance, and Standards 

regarding minimum maintained 

retroreflectivity levels for longitudinal 

pavement markings on all roadways 

open to public travel with speed limits 

of 35 mph and greater. Option 

statements define markings that may be 

excluded from the provisions of 

maintaining minimum retroreflectivity 

based on conditions such as ambient 

light levels, daily volume, and type of 

marking (e.g., dotted extension lines, 

curb markings, parking space markings, 

and shared-use path markings). The 

compliance date established by the final 

rule on pavement marking minimum 

retroreflectivity remains in effect and is 

added to Table 1B–1 in this final rule. 

Marked Crosswalks 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed to add 

a new Section 3C.02 Applications of 

Crosswalk Markings, containing several 

paragraphs from existing Section 3B.18. 

As part of this, FHWA proposed several 

revisions to clarify placement of 

crosswalks. A new Standard paragraph 

proposed in Section 3C.01 is adopted 

with revisions and located in Section 

3C.02 in the final rule, since it includes 

requirements specific to the application 

of crosswalk markings. The Standard 

requires, after the agency or official 

having authority makes the 

determination to legally establish a 

crosswalk at a non-intersection location, 

that crosswalk markings shall be 

provided. The FHWA believes this is 

appropriate as it will improve safety, by 

clearly identifying the requirements of 

crosswalk markings at non-intersection 

locations which will help alert road 

users of a designated pedestrian 

crossing point and provide guidance for 

pedestrians by defining and delineating 

paths across roadways, particularly 

vulnerable road users, in conformance 

with Section 11135 of the BIL. 

In the NPA, FHWA retained some text 

unchanged from the 2009 MUTCD 

Section 3B.18, including the existing 

Guidance Paragraph 7 recommending 

crosswalk markings be installed where 

engineering judgment indicates they are 

needed to direct pedestrians to the 

proper crossing path(s) at locations 

controlled by traffic control signals or 

on approaches controlled by STOP or 

YIELD signs. 

Many commenters indicated that 

crosswalk markings should be required 

(rather than recommended) at all 

crosswalks regardless of location, and 

particularly at signalized intersections. 

In response to comments, FHWA revises 

propose Paragraph 5 (now Paragraph 1), 

to indicate crosswalk markings should 

be installed at locations controlled by 

traffic control signals and adds an 

Option (Paragraph 2) to allow the 

crosswalk to remain unmarked if 

engineering judgement indicates they 

are not needed to direct pedestrians to 

the proper crossing path(s). 

The FHWA believes that requiring all 

crosswalks to be marked in all locations 

would be a substantial change that 

would benefit from a review of relevant 

research to include stop lines, 

consideration of the impacts to 

signalized intersections in rural areas 

with no pedestrian facilities, 

consideration of the impacts to agencies 

with a significant number of 

intersections controlled by a STOP or 

YIELD sign, and additional public 

comment before being considered for 

adoption in the MUTCD as a Standard. 

Changes to existing Guidance 

Paragraph 8 are adopted in Section 

3C.02 Paragraph 4, with revisions in 

response to comments, with the intent 

to remove language which may have 

been previously misinterpreted as 

simply discouraging or avoiding the 

installation of crosswalks. Although not 

new Guidance, due to the importance of 

vulnerable road user safety, it is vital to 

reiterate the existing recommendation to 

conduct an engineering study in order 

to determine whether providing a 

marked crosswalk alone is safe for 

locations not controlled by a traffic 

signal or STOP or YIELD sign, or if 

additional traffic control devices and 

other measures should be considered to 

reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing 

distances, enhance the conspicuity of 

the crossing, or provide active warning 

of pedestrian presence, as further 

discussed in the revised existing 

Guidance Paragraph 9 (now Section 

3C.03 Paragraph 6). The agency (or 

owner) having jurisdiction over the 

roadway is ultimately responsible for 

the decisions on what, and where, to 

build and the engineering study 

recommended aims to guide the 

recommended traffic control devices at 

the determined location. 

In the final rule, FHWA revises the 

criteria to be considered in the 

recommended engineering study. In 

addition to the distance from adjacent 

signalized intersections, the distance to 

other controlled crossings should be 

considered. The existing pedestrian 

volume and delay criteria were 

expanded to include bicyclists, 

projected volumes, paths of travel, the 

ages and abilities of road users, and the 

location or frequency of public transit 

stops to guide practitioners on 

additional factors to consider in 

determining where to mark crosswalks 

away from controlled locations. An 

important factor is roadway context; on 

roadways where adjacent land use 

suggests that trips could be served by 

varied modes, it is important to provide 

safe crossings. Including projected 

volumes in the recommended 

engineering study can address concerns 

that pedestrian and bicycle demand may 

not be captured by a traffic count, as 

locations without an established 

crosswalk might be avoided by some 

pedestrians and bicyclists. Once the 

appropriate traffic control devices are 

installed, consistent with the adopted 

Paragraph 6 discussed below, to 

establish a safe crosswalk, the volume of 

pedestrians and bicyclists may increase 

due to the new or improved crossing. 

The existing criterion of the geometry of 

the location was expanded to specify 

the horizontal and vertical geometry of 

the crossing location to highlight the 

importance of stopping sight distance 

and visibility of road users utilizing a 

crosswalk and the potential effect on 

vulnerable road user safety. Analysis of 

available gaps was also raised as a 

potential criterion for consideration in 

the recommended engineering study 

and FHWA believes this is included in 

pedestrian and bicyclist delays. The 

FHWA also received comments 

suggesting additional changes such as 

crash history and using pedestrian 

walking speeds in lieu of ages and 

abilities, specific warrants for 

crosswalks, or minimum spacing of 

crosswalks be included in the criteria of 

an engineering study. The FHWA 

believes crash history could be 

considered an ‘‘other appropriate 

factor’’ (item N) to be considered in the 

engineering study, but the other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87684 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

22FHWA’s Guide for Improving Safety at 

Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (FHWA–SA–17– 

072) can be accessed at the following Web address: 

https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/ 

2022-07/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_

at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf. 

suggested changes from commenters 

would require further research before 

being considered in a future rulemaking 

effort. 

Changes to existing Guidance 

Paragraph 9 are adopted as Paragraph 6 

in Section 3C.02, with editorial 

revisions in response to comments. In 

order to protect vulnerable road users, 

FHWA provides recommendations of 

specific conditions where the 

installation of additional traffic control 

devices, and other measures, instead of 

simply marking a new crosswalk with 

signs alone, should be considered, 

consistent with FHWA’s Guide for 

Improving Safety at Uncontrolled 

Crossing Locations.22 The 

recommendation is intended to improve 

pedestrian safety at uncontrolled 

crossing locations with posted speed 

limits 40 mph or greater and at locations 

where there is a crash threat due to 

multiple lane crossings or limited sight 

distance by encouraging the installation 

of additional traffic control devices or 

other measures, as appropriate, beyond 

the basic marked crosswalks and 

warning signs. Some of these additional 

measures include other traffic control 

devices and applications designed to 

reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing 

distances, enhance driver awareness of 

the crossing, and/or provide active 

warning of pedestrian presence. 

Aesthetic Surface Treatments in 

Crosswalks, Islands, Medians, 

Shoulders, and Sidewalk Extensions 

General Discussion 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed changes 

to address applications of colored 

pavements, making a distinction 

between the use of color in a traffic 

control device application (e.g., redcolored pavement for public transit 

systems, and green-colored pavement 

for bike lanes) versus as an aesthetic 

surface treatment that is not intended to 

serve a traffic control purpose. 

Commenters addressed a number of 

issues surrounding aesthetic surface 

treatments, often with disparate views. 

Along with those views expressed, 

commenters also generally 

acknowledged that there is a lack of 

research or safety data, positive or 

negative, to support the proposed 

provisions on aesthetic surface 

treatments; how individuals with vision 

disabilities are impacted by different 

surface treatments with varying colors 

or patterns; and concerns with machine 

vision and driving automation systems’ 

ability to detect and process nonuniform 

aesthetic treatments. In this final rule, 

FHWA maintains the distinction 

between colored pavements that serve a 

traffic control purpose, and aesthetic 

surface treatments, whether colored or 

not, that are applied for aesthetic 

purposes only and are not intended to 

serve a traffic control purpose. 

The FHWA emphasizes that agencies 

that wish to employ surface treatments 

for aesthetic purposes in various 

scenarios have the flexibility to do so, 

as applicable Federal, State, and local 

laws and policies allow. However, the 

MUTCD does not prohibit the use of 

aesthetic surface treatments (including 

visually complex treatments, the 

designs of which might be characterized 

more as ‘‘artistic’’ in their composition), 

except in limited situations as described 

in more detail throughout this section. 

This includes the use of aesthetic 

surface treatments between the 

transverse lines within a crosswalk, in 

islands, in medians, in shoulders, 

within sidewalk extensions designated 

by pavement markings, or in other areas 

outside of the traveled way provided 

that the aesthetic surface treatment does 

not mimic, obscure, or otherwise 

adversely impact the effectiveness of 

other traffic control devices, such as 

other pavement markings in that 

location. 

Determination as to whether a surface 

treatment obscures or otherwise 

adversely impacts the traffic control 

devices is made by the State or local 

agency that owns and operates the 

roadway, taking into consideration any 

other Federal, State, or local laws, 

regulations, and policies governing the 

use of highway right-of-way unrelated to 

the MUTCD. The FHWA emphasizes 

that safety should be the top priority in 

making such determinations and, in 

many situations, the use of one of the 

high-visibility crosswalk patterns or the 

addition of other traffic control devices 

might instead be the appropriate 

measure to improve safety. New 

provisions are included in the final rule 

with the intent to provide agencies with 

information on reducing the likelihood 

of any aesthetic surface treatments 

compromising the effectiveness of traffic 

control devices by maintaining 

separation and contrast. The FHWA also 

adopts several provisions to help ensure 

that vulnerable road user safety is 

maintained, recognizing that agencies 

have the flexibility to make decisions 

taking into consideration a number of 

factors. 

Although aesthetic surface treatments 

most often involve the use of single or 

multiple colors, the MUTCD employs 

the term ‘‘colored pavement’’ to refer 

exclusively to traffic control devices as 

contrasted with aesthetic surface 

treatments that might incorporate color. 

Colored pavement for traffic control 

purposes is optional and supplements 

other standard markings. Specific color 

applications for traffic control purposes 

include green-colored bicycle lanes, 

purple-colored electronic toll lanes, redcolored transit lanes, white for 

channelizing, and yellow for median 

islands and channelizing. The 

provisions for aesthetic surface 

treatments are included within the 

Colored Pavements Chapter of the 

MUTCD to distinguish them from 

colored pavements that are traffic 

control devices, and to clarify how an 

aesthetic surface treatment might 

interact with a traffic control device so 

as not to adversely impact the 

effectiveness of the traffic control 

device. 

The new edition of the MUTCD only 

addresses those colored pavements that 

are traffic control devices, or those 

aesthetic surface treatments that interact 

with traffic control devices, as the scope 

of the MUTCD is limited to traffic 

control devices. Colored pavements 

used for traffic control purposes 

communicate regulations, guidance, and 

warnings to road users; supplement 

other standard markings with standard, 

solid color applications to pavement; 

and meet retroreflectivity criteria where 

applicable in accordance with the 

MUTCD. 

In contrast, surface treatments that are 

purely aesthetic do not include 

retroreflective elements; do not 

communicate regulations, guidance, 

warnings, or other information to road 

users; and do not interfere with or 

mimic traffic control devices. These 

aesthetic surface treatments are 

sometimes referred to as ‘‘street murals’’ 

or ‘‘asphalt art,’’ and might be a single 

solid color, or their designs might 

include multiple colors. Because these 

treatments are generally outside the 

scope of the MUTCD, the MUTCD does 

not prohibit them within the roadway 

right-of-way. Rather, as may be allowed 

by other Federal, State, or local statute, 

regulation, or policy, the determination 

of the acceptability of aesthetic surface 

treatments on street or highway right-ofway is determined by local or State 

authorities that have jurisdiction over 

the roadway. Therefore, the 

determination as to whether a particular 

aesthetic surface treatment is acceptable 

for use in the highway right-of-way falls 

outside the scope and provisions of the 

MUTCD except to the extent that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87685 

23Asphalt Art Safety Study prepared by Sam 

Schwartz, a TYLin Company, for Bloomberg 

Philanthropies, April 2022, can be viewed at the 

following Web address: https://

www.samschwartz.com/asphalt-art-safety-study. 

24Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board’s Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way 

(RIN 3014–AA26) can be accessed at the following 

Web address: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=3014- 

AA26. 

25NCHRP 17–94 Tactile Walking Surface 

Indicators To Aid Wayfinding For Visually 

Impaired Travelers In Multimodal Travel which is 

managed under TCRP B–46 Tactile Wayfinding in 

Transportation Settings for Travelers Who Are 

Blind or Visually Impaired and can be accessed at 

the following Web address: https://apps.trb.org/ 

cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?

ProjectID=4513. 

treatment might interfere with or mimic 

a traffic control device. 

Continuing Research 

Due to the interest in aesthetic surface 

treatments on travel pavements for over 

a decade, and the heightened interest in 

the more complex or artistic types of 

aesthetic surface applications in more 

recent years, in the NPA, FHWA 

requested comment on how more 

intricate designs and bright colors 

around standardized crosswalk 

markings improve the safety or 

operations at and around the crosswalk, 

while maintaining the recognition of the 

crosswalk. Jurisdictions often cite safety 

as the rationale for these types of 

installations. The FHWA requested that 

commenters support their position by 

providing quantifiable and objective 

data that they had collected or were 

aware of, such as from human factors 

evaluations or other studies. 

Specifically, FHWA sought information 

pertaining to the safety and navigation 

of road users, and any effects of nonstandard designs on pedestrians with 

low visual acuity or other vision 

impairments. The FHWA also sought 

data on the ability of machine vision of 

driving automation systems to detect 

accurately and react appropriately to the 

markings as a crosswalk. 

Some commenters stated that, to their 

knowledge, aesthetically treated 

crosswalks do not contribute to a 

degradation of road user safety; 

however, substantive quantifiable and 

objective data to support this position 

were not provided. Some commenters 

suggested that additional research be 

conducted to formulate appropriate 

regulations consisting of appropriate 

applications, designs, and materials 

before moving forward. 

As mentioned earlier, FHWA has been 

aware that this area is of interest for 

communities and, in response to 

longstanding concerns, is conducting 

research on the safety implications of 

various types of surface treatments in 

crosswalks. The FHWA will use the 

results to inform potential changes to 

the MUTCD and/or the need for 

additional research into vulnerable road 

user safety at crosswalks. 

The FHWA is also aware of a study 

conducted on the potential safety effects 

of ‘‘asphalt art’’ 23 which was published 

after the NPA docket closed. The study 

report concludes that there is a 

correlation between asphalt art and 

improved safety, though it could not 

establish or infer causation, in part due 

to the confounding of a number of 

variables including other improvements 

made concurrently, and the inability to 

determine whether the art itself, 

additional traffic control, roadway, or 

roadside improvements resulted in the 

improvement. For example, it is 

generally accepted that a narrowing of 

the street or traveled way, such as with 

pavement markings to create sidewalk 

extensions or channelization, can 

reduce vehicle operating speeds. The 

extent to which the addition of aesthetic 

treatments within the reclaimed 

pavement at many of the study sites 

either contributed to, or inhibited, an 

improvement in safety could not be 

determined or was not reported. For this 

reason and, as stated in the study, to 

determine whether surface treatments 

individually contribute to vulnerable 

road user safety, FHWA is conducting 

research. 

In addition, in response to comments, 

FHWA will continue to gather more 

data on the use of colored pavements 

that are part of traffic control markings 

to learn more about their overall safety 

impacts, with a particular focus on 

people with disabilities, including those 

with low visual acuity or cognitive 

impairments. The FHWA is in the 

process of completing closed-course 

research on the impacts of a subset of 

surface treatments in crosswalks 

consisting of brick patterns, multiple 

color arrangements, or more complex 

geometric designs using multiple colors 

in combination with different 

underlying standard crosswalk patterns. 

This research specifically includes 

pedestrians with low vision as research 

participants, in addition to pedestrians 

and drivers. The FHWA is pursuing 

additional open-course research to 

support the closed-course research. 

Upon statistically significant research 

results or measures of effectiveness from 

additional open-course studies 

suggesting there is a direct impact on 

vulnerable road user safety, further 

updates to the regulations surrounding 

surface treatments, beyond those 

updates included in this rule, might be 

considered in a future rulemaking effort. 

Similarly, this issue may be revisited 

based on the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board’s (U.S. Access Board) 

Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way 

(‘‘PROWAG’’) rulemaking 24 and other 

research into tactile wayfinding in 

transportation environments,25

particularly when considering 

crosswalks and sidewalk extensions 

designated by pavement markings. 

Colored Pavement as a Traffic Control 

Device 

In Section 3H.01 (existing Section 

3G.01), retitled, ‘‘Standardization of 

Application,’’ FHWA adopts a new 

Standard paragraph limiting the use of 

colored pavement as a traffic control 

device only to where it supplements 

other markings. The FHWA adopts this 

change to improve upon the established 

widespread system of uniformity in the 

application of colored pavement used as 

a traffic control device. This 

requirement does not apply to colored 

pavements used as a purely aesthetic 

surface treatment. The proposed 

Standard regarding the colors to be used 

for colored pavement is not adopted, as 

an existing Standard paragraph in this 

Section already contains these 

requirements as they apply to colored 

pavements used as a traffic control 

device. 

The FHWA adopts a new section 

numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 3H.02 

Materials,’’ to provide agencies with 

information to assist in the selection of 

appropriate colored pavement materials 

to improve road user safety. This section 

is adopted with revisions in response to 

comments; however, the proposed 

Support paragraph regarding wear of 

colored pavement is not adopted in the 

final rule, since it is not related to the 

use of a traffic control device, and the 

maintenance of traffic control devices is 

covered in other sections. Some 

commenters requested additional 

specific information on appropriate skid 

resistance values considering all road 

users. Historically, standard 

specifications for construction, 

including colored pavement or 

pavement marking material 

specifications containing specific skid 

resistance values or coefficients of 

friction, are developed by the individual 

State and local agencies based on their 

specific needs. As a minimum skid 

resistance value may have an impact on 

vulnerable road user safety, FHWA will 

review available research and 

information to inform potential future 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87686 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

changes to the MUTCD or to another 

resource as appropriate. 

Aesthetic Surface Treatments— 

Interaction With Traffic Control Devices 

The FHWA proposed to add a new 

section numbered and titled, ‘‘Section 

3H.03 Aesthetic Treatments in 

Crosswalks,’’ with two paragraphs from 

existing Section 3G.01 and new 

Standard, Guidance, Option, and 

Support to reflect FHWA’s Official 

Ruling No. 3(09)–24 (I) which was 

issued in response to a trend by some 

agencies toward installing treatments on 

roadway pavement that go beyond the 

basic aesthetics of the paving materials 

and instead include bright colors, 

visually complex graphics, images, or 

words. Some commenters supported the 

proposed changes noting the specific 

needs of people with low visual acuity 

or other vision impairments, along with 

the limited abilities of machine vision, 

to discern variations in surface 

treatments from standard markings. 

Other commenters stated that there is no 

evidence that suggests adverse impacts 

from these treatments on roadways with 

a posted speed limit above 30 mph. 

Many comments also indicated a lack of 

research that suggests surface treatments 

in general create safety concerns, and 

the proposed Standards are unfounded. 

Other commenters suggested that any 

regulation of aesthetic surface 

treatments is inappropriate in the 

MUTCD as they are not traffic control 

devices. 

While FHWA agrees that aesthetic 

surface treatments are not traffic control 

devices, FHWA believes that this 

proposed section is appropriate because 

of the interaction with official traffic 

control devices that such treatments 

frequently pose. As stated earlier, it is 

important that these treatments not 

resemble or interfere with the uniform 

appearance of traffic control devices, as 

that could confuse and distract road 

users. In response to comments, FHWA 

limits the Standards, Guidance, and 

Support included in the MUTCD 

regarding aesthetic surface treatments to 

those provisions that are necessary to 

help ensure pedestrian safety and the 

accessibility of individuals with 

disabilities, and to minimize any 

adverse impacts to the effectiveness of 

traffic control devices. As described 

earlier, the MUTCD does not prohibit 

the application of aesthetic surface 

treatments within the roadway. 

However, the MUTCD does limit their 

use or character to the extent that they 

interact with or relate to traffic control 

devices. In addition, the use of these 

treatments could be subject to other 

Federal, State, or local regulations and 

policies unrelated to the MUTCD. Those 

other regulations or policies might 

prohibit or otherwise limit the use of 

aesthetic surface treatments in some 

situations. In other words, aesthetic 

surface treatments are not of themselves 

prohibited by the MUTCD, but the 

MUTCD limits how the treatments 

might overshadow the nature of traffic 

control devices such as marked 

crosswalks. Transportation agencies 

implement aesthetic treatments at their 

own risk as permissible by local, State, 

and other Federal laws, regulations, and 

policies; as long as the treatments do not 

interfere with, confuse, or obstruct 

traffic control devices for any users, 

especially people with disabilities, 

including those with low visual acuity; 

and, ultimately, subject to an overall 

assessment of road user safety. 

Aesthetic Surface Treatments— 

Maintaining Separation and Contrast 

The FHWA adopts the newly 

proposed Section with a revised title, 

‘‘3H.03 Aesthetic Surface Treatments’’ 

in response to comments that 

questioned the perceived restrictions by 

lack of specific language on aesthetic 

surface treatments at other locations 

such as islands, medians, shoulders, 

sidewalk extensions designated by 

pavement markings, or other areas 

outside the traveled way. New 

provisions are included in the final rule 

with the intent to provide agencies 

information on how to prevent aesthetic 

surface treatments from compromising 

the effectiveness of traffic control 

devices by maintaining separation and 

contrast. Existing Support Paragraph 2 

from existing Section 3G.01, is relocated 

to Section 3H.01 with edits, and 

additional revisions are made to the 

final rule in Sections 3H.01, 3J.03 and 

3J.07 to clarify the difference between 

colored pavements used as traffic 

control devices and aesthetic surface 

treatments, and the considerations in 

the use of aesthetic surface treatments. 

In the NPA, FHWA also proposed to 

add a new section numbered and titled, 

‘‘Section 3J.07 Curb Extensions 

Designated by Pavement Markings’’ to 

include Support, Standard, Guidance, 

and Option paragraphs to improve 

consistency and uniformity when the 

application of pavement markings is to 

be used to create an extension of the 

sidewalk in the roadway pavement. The 

term ‘‘curb extension’’ was used in the 

NPA to refer to roadway pavement that 

is reclaimed and designated for nonvehicular use. However, the term 

‘‘sidewalk extension’’ is adopted in the 

final rule because it more accurately 

describes the purpose of the concept 

and emphasizes the redesignation of 

that portion of the roadway exclusively 

for pedestrian use. The term is also in 

established use in several design 

resources and, therefore, will enhance 

consistency. In some cases, after 

evaluating the site-specific context, it 

may be determined that redesignation of 

the area as a sidewalk extension, which 

reduces roadway crossing distances but 

places pedestrians closer to vehicular 

traffic, is not appropriate. A new 

Support statement is also adopted 

referencing the applicable sections for 

channelizing lines, edge lines, and 

diagonal markings, which can be used 

to modify the street or highway design 

(e.g., horizontal alignment, traveled-way 

width, sight distance, or similar) for 

speed management and channelizing, 

but the marked area is retained as part 

of the roadway rather than be 

redesignated as a pedestrian space. 

Several additional Guidance, Option, 

and Support paragraphs in Section 3J.07 

that were proposed in the NPA are 

adopted with significant edits and 

clarifications in the final rule to provide 

context and considerations to improve 

vulnerable road user safety and provide 

accessibility, particularly for 

individuals with low visual acuity or 

other vision disabilities. While FHWA 

agrees that accessibility concerns should 

be considered for these areas, defining 

the conditions under which 

accessibility infrastructure is or is not 

required is beyond the scope of the 

MUTCD and would be covered either 

explicitly or implicitly under other 

regulations, such as accessibility 

standards that may be adopted by DOT 

or DOJ under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In response 

to comments, and consistent with 

definitions contained within the 

MUTCD, an additional Standard is 

adopted in the final rule prohibiting the 

extension of crosswalk markings 

through sidewalk extensions designated 

by pavement markings, which would 

represent that the area is still part of the 

roadway, rather than an extension of the 

sidewalk. Extending the crosswalk 

markings through this area would be 

confusing to individuals with low visual 

acuity who rely on the crosswalk 

markings as one of the cues to confirm 

that they have left the sidewalk and 

entered the street where vehicular traffic 

is present. However, the proposed 

Guidance recommending that adequate 

provisions be made for pedestrians with 

disabilities through the sidewalk 

extension, between the physical curb 

ramp and the start of the crosswalk at 

the new edge of the traveled way as 

designated by the pavement marking, is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87687 

26 23 CFR 1.23(b). 

27September 15, 2010. 28 CFR 35 and 36, 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

not adopted as this is outside the scope 

of the MUTCD. In addition, the 

recommendation to use colored 

pavements in sidewalk extensions 

where pedestrian travel is expected is 

not adopted as this area is outside of the 

traveled way, and the details of the type 

of surface treatment used, if any, would 

not be subject to the provisions of the 

MUTCD except where it meets the 

pavement marking that defines the 

limits of the pavement open to vehicular 

travel. Accordingly, FHWA adopts a 

requirement that if aesthetic surface 

treatments are used in sidewalk 

extensions, they shall not be 

retroreflective as they are not traffic 

control devices. 

Comments were received that 

question the stipulation that the rightof-way is dedicated exclusively to 

highway-related functions, which 

undermines ‘‘placemaking’’ efforts. The 

proposed language was a reference to 

existing regulations that codify 

requirements related to the use of 

highway right-of-way.26

Notwithstanding, in response to 

comments, FHWA does not adopt the 

NPA proposed Guidance recommending 

that a policy for using aesthetic surface 

treatments in crosswalks should be 

considered if an agency determines that 

the use or design is appropriate for the 

right-of-way, since these treatments are 

adequately addressed in other 

provisions. Similarly, the Guidance 

recommending a speed limit threshold 

for which aesthetic crosswalk 

treatments should only be considered is 

not adopted. To ensure that the safety of 

road users remain the primary 

consideration, two additional Standards 

are adopted requiring that aesthetic 

surface treatments not interfere with 

traffic control devices, and that the 

colors used for aesthetic surface 

treatments not be standard traffic 

control device colors. The proposed 

Standard requiring aesthetic surface 

treatments not be of a surface that can 

confuse vision-impaired pedestrians 

that rely on tactile treatments or cues for 

navigation is adopted with editorial 

revision. Additional Guidance is also 

adopted in the final rule with 

recommendations to provide a gap 

between standard markings delineating 

areas and aesthetic surface treatments 

such that contrast is provided and the 

treatments do not interfere with traffic 

control devices. The proposed Standard 

prohibiting the use of advertising, 

pictographs, symbols, multiple color 

arrangements, and retroreflectivity in 

patterns that constitute a purely 

aesthetic surface treatment is revised 

with a prohibition on advertising and 

retroreflectivity retained in the 

Standard. Guidance is adopted to 

recommend against the use of 

pictographs and symbols with an 

additional recommendation not to use 

illusions. The proposed Support 

statements relating to materials for 

aesthetic surface treatments within the 

limits of crosswalks are also adopted 

with revision; specifically, paving 

materials such as setts or cobbles are 

removed, and Support is added relating 

to the surface of the crosswalk, the 

needs of pedestrians, and the 

requirements of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design.27

Comments questioned the need for 

the Standard statement requiring 

aesthetic treatments to be designed such 

that they do not encourage road users to 

loiter or linger in the crosswalk, engage 

in the pattern, or otherwise not vacate 

the street in an expedient manner. The 

FHWA disagrees that the Standards and 

Guidance placing limitations on 

aesthetic treatments are unfounded as 

road user safety is the primary concern 

and visual distractions to vehicle 

operators in general are known to be a 

potential safety risk, especially to 

vulnerable road users. Many of the 

surface treatments that have been used 

are designed to draw the attention of 

road users to the treatment and, 

therefore, away from navigating the 

roadway environment. Thus, without 

adequate research data to determine the 

actual safety risk of different types of 

treatments, FHWA believes it is 

necessary to limit the use of surface 

treatments to ensure vulnerable road 

user safety. Where such treatments were 

being considered as a measure to 

improve pedestrian safety, FHWA 

believes the appropriate measure, 

instead, is to use one of the highvisibility crosswalk patterns, which are 

supported by research for visibility and 

conspicuity, strengthening the 

provisions for the protection of 

vulnerable users, consistent with 

section 11135 of BIL. 

Part 4. Highway Traffic Signals 

Accessibility 

In an effort to improve accessibility to 

provide for the protection of vulnerable 

road users while not getting ahead of the 

then-pending PROWAG rulemaking, 

FHWA proposed numerous changes to 

improve accessibility in Parts 4 and 6. 

In Part 4, the proposed changes were to 

recommend, rather than provide an 

option, to use accessible pedestrian 

signals (APS) at all pedestrian signals, 

including pretimed traffic control 

signals or non-actuated approaches as 

well as at pedestrian hybrid beacons 

(PHB). Further, FHWA proposed to 

recommend the use of an audible 

information device (AID) at rectangular 

rapid flashing beacons, pedestrianactuated warning beacon, and inroadway warning lights at crosswalks. 

In Part 6, FHWA proposed to add a 

new requirement in accordance with 28 

CFR 35.160(a)(1) to take appropriate 

steps to ensure that communications 

with applicants, participants, members 

of the public, and companions with 

disabilities are as effective as 

communications with others. In 

addition, FHWA proposed to revise 

several Standards to remove text related 

to ‘‘where pedestrians with disabilities 

normally use’’ or ‘‘where it is 

determined that the accommodations of 

pedestrians with disabilities is 

necessary’’ to strengthen requirements 

for accessible features and remove 

ambiguity on when they should be 

implemented. The proposed changes in 

Part 6 were slightly broader than 

proposed changes in Part 4 because 

changes for temporary traffic control 

devices are easier for agencies to adopt 

since the devices are temporary and are 

purchased and installed as part of an 

active construction or maintenance 

project. 

The FHWA received a large number of 

comments related to the proposed 

changes encouraging the incorporation 

of PROWAG and to strengthen 

accessibility requirements. The 

comments stated that FHWA should 

adopt positions of greatly increased 

accessibility requirements similar to 

what was anticipated in the final rule 

for PROWAG. Other commenters, 

including many State DOTs and local 

agencies opposed significant 

accessibility changes based on their 

concerns with the cost impact and the 

significant level of effort to implement 

widescale increased accessibility 

measures, especially if there was not a 

demonstrated need for such 

accommodations at a specific location. 

The FHWA notes that at the time of 

publication of the NPA, the U.S. Access 

Board had not concluded its rulemaking 

and the provisions of a potential final 

rule were unknown. The U.S. Access 

Board has since finalized its rulemaking 

process for PROWAG (88 FR 53604, 

August 8, 2023; effective date 

September 7, 20203). Therefore, FHWA 

did not have the opportunity to seek 

public comment on adopting the 

provisions of the PROWAG final rule 

during the course of this rulemaking. As 

such, FHWA only adopts the proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87688 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

28See U.S. Department of Transportation, Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation: Transportation 

for Individuals With Disabilities; Adoption of 

Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in 

the Public Right-of-Way (RIN 2105–AF05). 29NCHRP 03–143, Framework and Toolkit for 

Selecting Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, can be 

viewed at the following Web address: https://

apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.

asp?ProjectID=5125. 

NPA revisions that strengthen the 

provisions for the protection of 

vulnerable users, consistent with 

section 11135 of BIL. The FHWA 

anticipates the MUTCD undergoing 

further rulemaking to address sections 

affected by the final PROWAG. In the 

meantime, DOT has initiated a 

rulemaking to incorporate the PROWAG 

into the ADA regulations of the Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation.28

Traffic Control Signal Needs Study 

(Reexamine Signal Warrants and 

Changing Signal Warrants From 

Standard to Guidance) 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed to 

change all paragraphs describing the 

application of the traffic signal warrant 

criterion to be considered in an 

engineering study for installing a new 

traffic control signal from Standard to 

Guidance. The FHWA proposed this 

change to provide agencies flexibility in 

performing signal warrant analyses. 

There were many comments for and 

against the change from Standard to 

Guidance. Commenters who supported 

the change agreed agencies would have 

more flexibility to consider ‘‘other 

factors’’ rather than the perceived heavy 

reliance placed on the numerical 

analysis. In their opinion, this leads to 

many agencies refusing to consider a 

traffic control signal in cases where a 

signal may be deemed beneficial, but 

the volume warrants are not met. 

Commenters who opposed the change 

were concerned with the cost impact 

associated with receiving pressure to 

install new signals where signals may 

not be appropriate. While not proposed 

in the NPA, FHWA received several 

comments stating that there is a need to 

rethink all traffic signal warrants 

believing them to be outdated and based 

on consensus rather than research. The 

FHWA notes that additional research is 

in progress through a National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP) study 29 examining updates to 

the vehicular and pedestrian volume 

thresholds for traffic control signals, 

pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other 

pedestrian-actuated warning devices. In 

addition to pedestrian and vehicular 

volumes, the research is also examining 

latent pedestrian demand, land-use, and 

context to develop additional tools to 

assist in determining the appropriate 

traffic control device to improve safety 

for pedestrians. Following the issuance 

of this final rule, FHWA will explore 

opportunities for new research to 

reexamine the remaining signal 

warrants for potential updates and will 

consider research-based updates to a 

future revision to the MUTCD or 

through Interim Approval, as 

appropriate. 

The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed 

signal warrant language change from 

Standard to Guidance to reinforce that 

other factors, beyond the warrants, be 

considered as part of the engineering 

study to justify installation of traffic 

control signals. With this revision, 

agencies will have more flexibility to 

consider other relevant factors in 

addition to reliance on the numerical 

warrants analysis alone. While there is 

concern from some commenters who 

opposed the change that there could be 

increased costs associated with 

installing more traffic control signals 

and increased pressure to install new 

signals where they might not be 

appropriate, the adopted text provides 

agencies the necessary flexibility to 

consider all relevant factors in 

determining the need for a traffic 

control signal. The safe and efficient 

movement of all road users is the 

primary consideration in the 

engineering study to determine whether 

a traffic control signal should be 

installed rather than some other type of 

control or roadway configuration. 

Control by a traffic signal does not 

necessarily result in improved safety in 

every case. In some cases, a traffic signal 

at an inappropriate location could 

adversely impact safety for one or more 

road users. The purpose of the 

engineering study is to evaluate all 

relevant factors based on the specific 

location. The warrants are elements of 

the engineering study along with any 

other relevant factors. These additional 

considerations form the basis for 

conducting an engineering study and 

the results of the warrants analysis 

portion of the study is not intended to 

be the only or the overriding 

consideration. Agencies can, in fact, 

install a traffic control signal if a 

warrant is not met, but they are required 

to conduct the engineering study that 

demonstrates that the installation of a 

signal will improve the overall safety 

and/or operation of the intersection, 

which includes documentation of the 

rationale (i.e., the warrants analysis and 

consideration of other factors). 

Signal Warrants—Crash Warrant 

In Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash 

Experience, FHWA proposed to revise 

Item B in Paragraph 2 to include 

updated signal warrant criteria for 1- 

year and 3-year periods, crash type, and 

severity, as well as major street speed 

and intersection location (urban vs. 

rural context). 

In conjunction with this change, 

FHWA proposed to add additional 

Support language regarding the critical 

minor-street volume, and a new Option 

paragraph that accompanies new tables 

related to criteria for considering traffic 

control signals in rural areas. The 

FHWA proposed these changes based on 

Interim Approval 19 and findings 

contained in NCHRP Project 07–18, 

‘‘Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic 

Signals.’’ The research resulted in 

updated criteria, which is based on 

either 1 year or 3 years of recent crash 

experience, for the number of crashes 

portion of Warrant 7. 

Comments included a mixture of 

support and concern. Some commenters 

suggested that this approach is not 

consistent with Vision Zero and Safe 

System approaches in that it is reactive 

instead of proactive. For rural 

intersections, there also was concern the 

threshold for the number of crashes 

increased over the existing threshold in 

the 2009 MUTCD. Other commenters 

(primarily State DOTs) expressed 

concerns the lower thresholds for urban 

settings may result in the overuse of 

signals and disregard for using other 

safety alternatives at intersections. The 

commenters who supported the change 

appreciated that the values were 

updated based on research and noted 

that the various thresholds and tables 

provided engineers more flexibility to 

perform the signal warrant study. 

The FHWA adopts the revisions to 

Warrant 7 in the final rule. Based on 

comments received, FHWA adds an 

Option in the final rule allowing 

agencies to calibrate Highway Safety 

Manual safety performance functions 

(SPFs) to their own crash data or 

develop their own SPFs to produce 

agency specific average crash frequency 

values. When documented as part of the 

engineering study, these agency specific 

crash frequency values may be used 

instead of the values shown in Tables 

4C–2 through 4C–5 when applying the 

Crash Experience signal warrant. 

Pedestrian Signals at Signalized 

Intersections 

In Section 4D.02, Provisions for 

Pedestrians, FHWA proposed in the 

NPA to add a new Guidance statement 

recommending pedestrian signal heads 

at each marked crosswalk controlled by 

a traffic control signal. The installation 

of pedestrian signal heads at 

intersections controlled by a traffic 

control signal is currently at the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87689 

30FHWA’s Official Ruling No. 4(09)–25 (I), 

‘‘Application of the Pedestrian Volume Warrant on 

Divided Roadways,’’ can be viewed at the following 

Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

interpretations/4_09_25.htm. 

31https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/

everydaycounts/edc_5/docs/STEP-guide-improvingped-safety.pdf. 

32https://highways.dot.gov/safety/pedestrianbicyclist/step. 

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

34NCHRP 03–143, Framework and Toolkit for 

Selecting Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, can be 

viewed at the following Web address: https://

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

ProjectID=5125. 

discretion of the agency. Agencies may 

exercise engineering judgement to 

determine if pedestrian signal heads are 

needed, or if a vehicular signal face for 

a concurrent vehicle movement, and 

visible to pedestrians, is sufficient. 

The FHWA received numerous 

comments (including from multiple 

State DOTs and cities) suggesting 

strengthening the proposed Guidance to 

a Standard to require, rather than 

recommend, pedestrian signal heads if 

marked crosswalks are present at 

signalized intersections. A smaller 

number of commenters supported the 

addition of the new Guidance as 

proposed. 

The FHWA adopts the NPA proposed 

Guidance that recommends the 

installation of pedestrian signal heads 

for each marked crosswalk controlled by 

a traffic control signal and also adopts 

the NPA proposed Option that allows 

agencies to apply engineering judgment 

to use pedestrian signal heads under 

other conditions. Based on the 

comments suggesting pedestrian signal 

heads be required at all signalized 

intersections, FHWA will consider for a 

future rulemaking after further 

evaluation of the potential implications 

and benefits. This issue may also be 

revisited based on the PROWAG 

rulemaking by the U.S. Access Board. 

These changes are being adopted to 

improve the protection of vulnerable 

users consistent with Section 11135 of 

BIL. 

Accessible Pedestrian Signals 

Engineering Study Requirement 

In Section 4I.01 (existing Section 

4E.01) Pedestrian Signal Heads, FHWA 

proposed in the NPA to modify 

Paragraph 2 to better align with the 

recommendation for an engineering 

study with specific factors for 

consideration as outlined in Section 

4K.01. 

The intent of the proposed NPA text 

was misinterpreted by many reviewers. 

There were many comments pointing 

out that an engineering study should not 

be required before installing APS. Many 

commenters suggested APS should be 

installed at all traffic control signals and 

PHBs where pedestrian signal heads are 

used, and that agencies should not have 

to justify the need for APS by 

conducting an engineering study based 

on the factors listed in Section 4K.01. 

Upon consideration of all comments 

received, FHWA is removing all text 

from the MUTCD discussing when APS 

‘‘should’’ be considered or provided. 

The decision of when to use APS is 

subject to requirements of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973. Notably, since the 2009 edition of 

the MUTCD, multiple courts have 

recognized that the ADA and 

Rehabilitation Act require jurisdictions 

to make their pedestrian signals 

accessible. See Am. Council of Blind of 

Metro. Chicago v. City of Chicago, No. 

19 C 6322, __F. Supp. 3d __, 2023 WL 

2744596, at **6–8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 

2023); Am. Council of Blind of New 

York, Inc. v. City of New York, 495 F. 

Supp. 3d 211, 232–38, 241–42 (S.D.N.Y. 

2020); Scharff v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 10 

CV 4208 DRH AKT, 2014 WL 2454639, 

at *12 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2014). As with 

other sections of the MUTCD that 

address certain accessibility issues, 

FHWA refers users to the applicable 

ADA and Rehabilitation Act 

requirements and limits discussion of 

APS to technical specifications. The 

MUTCD does, however, include 

language in Support statements with 

information about the importance of 

APS in general and, in particular, at 

certain kinds of crossings. 

Warrants for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons 

In Section 4J.01 (Section 4F.01 of the 

2009 MUTCD) Application of PHB, 

FHWA proposed to add a new Option 

to allow the reduction of the signal 

warrant criteria for pedestrian volume 

crossing the major street by as much as 

50 percent if the 15th-percentile 

crossing speed of pedestrians is less 

than 3.5 feet per second. The FHWA 

proposed this change for consistency 

with traffic control signal Warrant 4, 

Pedestrian Volume. 

The FHWA also proposed to add an 

Option to allow the separate application 

of the major-street traffic volumes 

criteria in each direction when there is 

a divided street having a median of 

sufficient width for pedestrians to wait 

in accordance with Official Ruling No. 

4(09)–25 (I) 30 and for consistency with 

the proposed change in Section 4C.05. 

While the NCUTCD and engineering 

organizations agreed with the proposed 

changes in the NPA for Section 4J.01, 

the majority of the comments were 

related to the current MUTCD text 

regarding the volume thresholds, where 

no revisions were proposed. General 

themes of the comments included: (1) 

Suggestions to add other warrants or 

factors such as distance to adjacent 

pedestrian crosswalks, crash experience, 

using FHWA’s Guide for Improving 

Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing 

Locations 31 surrounding land use and 

density, and using FHWA’s Safe 

Transportation for Every Pedestrian 

(STEP) guidance,32 (2) Changes to the 

minimum thresholds in Figures 4J–1 

and 4J–2, and (3) Adding Guidance that 

aims to make major streets safe to cross 

at regular intervals by establishing 

Guidance on the distance people can be 

expected to walk to get to a crosswalk. 

The FHWA retains the NPA language, 

including the existing vehicular and 

pedestrian volume threshold figures, 

based on the following considerations. 

The PHBs are addressed in the FHWA 

Proven Safety Countermeasure Initiative 

(FHWA–SA–21–045) 33 as a safety 

strategy to address pedestrian crash risk. 

The PHB is an intermediate option 

between a flashing beacon and a full 

pedestrian signal because it assigns 

right-of-way and provides positive stop 

control. It also allows motorists to 

proceed once pedestrians have cleared 

their side of the travel lane(s), reducing 

vehicle delay and congestion, often in 

urban conditions where congestion can 

impact the quality of life of surrounding 

residents and business owners. 

In response to comments suggesting 

changes that were not proposed in the 

NPA, the existing vehicular and 

pedestrian thresholds were determined 

based on research and are substantially 

lower than the pedestrian volume 

warrants for a traffic control signal, 

primarily due to the trade-off in 

efficiency since vehicular traffic can 

move during the flashing red interval 

(concurrent with flashing Don’t Walk) if 

the crosswalk is clear. Further, the NPA 

added new Options to provide more 

flexibility in justifying the installation 

of PHBs with a significant reduction in 

the threshold volumes based on lower 

walking speeds and the consideration of 

other factors that may support the 

installation of PHBs at locations where 

the thresholds are not met. These 

proposed Options are adopted in this 

Final Rule. 

An NCHRP study 34 is underway that 

will review the existing volume 

thresholds and make recommendations 

on pedestrian warrants based on many 

scenarios for PHBs as well as traffic 

control signals and pedestrian actuated 

warning devices. This information will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87690 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

35 Interim Approval 16 can be accessed at the 

following Web address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

resources/interim_approval/ia16. 

be used to consider revisions to 

vehicular and pedestrian volume 

thresholds in a future edition of the 

MUTCD. 

The FHWA believes the provisions, as 

adopted, further FHWA’s statutory 

obligation under Section 11135 of BIL to 

provide for the protection of vulnerable 

road users by providing more flexibility 

for engineers to justify installation of 

PHBs. 

Emergency Vehicle Preemption 

In new ‘‘Section 4F.19 Preemption 

Control of Traffic Control Signals’’ 

consisting of paragraphs from Section 

4D.27 of the 2009 MUTCD, FHWA 

proposed to revise the Standard 

regarding preemption control transitions 

to remove the current provision that 

allows the pedestrian change interval to 

be truncated during emergency vehicle 

preemption. The current provision 

potentially exposes vulnerable road 

users to great risk if they are crossing 

the street and their pedestrian 

indication is terminated mid-crossing to 

permit the signal to change to green on 

that approach in preparation for an 

approaching emergency response 

vehicle. The FHWA proposed this 

change to enhance the protection of 

vulnerable road users during emergency 

preemption operations at traffic control 

signals. Truncating the pedestrian 

change interval would still be allowed 

only when the traffic control signal is 

being preempted because a boat is 

approaching a movable bridge or 

because rail traffic is approaching a 

grade crossing, as emergency vehicles 

and buses generally have the ability to 

slow, stop, or alter their course if 

necessary to avoid a collision, which is 

not the case of boats and rail traffic. 

The FHWA received many comments 

on different sides of the issue. Some 

commenters supported the change since 

the existing method could potentially 

compromise pedestrian safety if 

pedestrians had not cleared the 

crosswalk during the transition into 

preemption control. Other comments 

opposed the change saying the 

effectiveness of the emergency vehicle 

preemption will be greatly diminished 

or made completely ineffective due to 

increased delay, especially in congested 

conditions. Some comments suggested 

the requirement did not go far enough 

in that it continued to allow pedestrian 

change interval to be preempted for 

signals associated with boat and rail 

traffic. The FHWA believes there is 

insufficient data on the magnitude of 

these potential issues and therefore does 

not adopt the proposed Standard that 

would prohibit the truncation of the 

pedestrian change interval during the 

transition into preemption control. Also, 

FHWA revises the existing Standard and 

adds an Option to further clarify what 

is allowed and what is prohibited by the 

existing provisions. 

Bicycle Signal Faces at Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacons 

The FHWA proposed a prohibition of 

bicycle signal faces at pedestrian hybrid 

beacons in a new Chapter 4H, consistent 

with Interim Approval 16 (IA–16), 

which states, ‘‘bicycle signal faces shall 

not be used in any manner with respect 

to the design and operation of a 

pedestrian hybrid beacon.’’ 35 Though 

comments varied on this change, a 

number of commenters expressed 

concern that such a change would leave 

no solution to improve safety for 

bicyclists. However, the change is 

actually intended to address the fact 

that bicyclists are vulnerable road users 

and that they benefit from applying a 

safe system approach, which is to 

separate them in time and space from 

conflicting traffic movements. Where 

the crossing is a shared-use path or 

bicycle traffic is otherwise expected, the 

use of the PHB could contravene this 

approach. This specific issue is 

discussed in detail in this section. 

Some of the commenters supported 

the proposed text to prohibit bicycle 

signal faces at PHBs, including some 

city and State transportation agencies. 

However, a number of the public 

comments opposed the prohibition of 

bicycle signal faces at PHBs, noting that 

some agencies currently have these in 

operation (Portland, Oregon; and 

Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona.) without 

any known safety issues. Some 

commenters suggested that the 

prohibition of bicycle signal faces with 

a PHB would not allow for bicycle 

movements (since bicyclists are not 

pedestrians) when PHBs are used at 

neighborhood bikeway or trail crossings. 

Other commenters noted the known 

problem with bicycles entering 

crosswalks controlled by PHBs during 

the flashing red and flashing Don’t Walk 

interval, suggesting that this conflict can 

be addressed by allowing bicycle signal 

faces. 

The FHWA retains the NPA language 

that prohibits bicycle signal faces at 

PHBs based on the following 

considerations. Intersections of streets 

and shared-use paths are a vehiclevehicle intersection because bicycles 

operate as vehicles in this situation. The 

PHB was developed as a pedestrianspecific device based on representative 

pedestrian behavior and characteristics. 

A pedestrian-type traffic control would 

not be appropriate for bicycle traffic 

operating as vehicles with much higher 

relative speeds than pedestrians and 

therefore violates road user expectancy 

and introduces a safety risk for 

bicyclists due to the manner in which 

the clearance interval operates. The 

clearance interval for a PHB allows 

roadway traffic to proceed after stopping 

during the flashing red interval as 

pedestrians clear the crosswalk during 

the flashing Don’t Walk interval. The 

slower speed of pedestrians provides for 

visibility of pedestrians and adequate 

detection time by the vehicle operator, 

in contrast with the relatively higher 

speed of bicycle traffic that might enter 

the crossing more suddenly. 

The FHWA notes that the suggestion 

that bicycle traffic would not be allowed 

at a crossing with a PHB absent a 

bicycle signal face tends to disregard the 

fact that other treatments could be 

considered to accommodate the safe 

mobility of bicyclists. Further, each 

traffic control device is developed for 

specific purposes. Therefore, it is not 

correct to assume generally that any 

traffic control device can be applied in 

any condition or be adapted to 

conditions for which it was not 

intended without evaluation of its 

efficacy under those conditions that 

differ, including for differences in the 

types of road users and their distinct 

behaviors and needs. The PHB is an 

intermediate solution between a 

flashing beacon and a full signal 

because it assigns right-of-way and 

provides positive stop control, but then 

allows roadway traffic to proceed once 

pedestrians have cleared their side of 

the travel lane(s), reducing vehicle delay 

and congestion, often in urban 

conditions where congestion can impact 

the quality of life of surrounding 

residents and business owners. In the 

absence of a similar intermediate option 

for bicycles operating as vehicles, 

operation of a fully signalized crossing 

is a potential solution, with little 

difference in the infrastructure 

compared with a PHB. The FHWA 

believes that an agency would decide to 

prioritize safety considerations for 

bicyclists as vulnerable road users over 

congestion or delay concerns for 

roadway traffic in such a case. These 

considerations are part of the process for 

determining the potential effects on the 

surrounding community environment, 

including residents and business 

owners. 

In practice, some of the agencies that 

have installed bicycle signals with 

PHBs, as referenced by commenters, 

have done so in a manner that violates 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87691 

the provisions of the MUTCD for the 

operation of the PHB, shortening the 

flashing red interval to a mere few 

seconds while extending the steady red, 

allowing the pedestrian clearance 

(flashing Don’t Walk) interval during the 

steady red facing roadway traffic (along 

with the green and yellow bicycle signal 

intervals). In effect, these agencies are 

operating the PHBs as full signals, but 

have modified their phasing in a 

noncompliant manner in order to 

circumvent the warrants for a traffic 

control signal. As described earlier, an 

agency may decide that a full signal is 

the appropriate solution at a sharedused path crossing if there is 

appreciable bicycle demand. Further, 

the noncompliant operation of the PHB 

presents expectancy violations to both 

the pedestrian and roadway vehicle 

operator, potentially putting vulnerable 

road users at risk. The FHWA believes 

the provisions, as adopted, meet 

FHWA’s statutory obligation under 

Section 11135 of BIL to provide for the 

protection of vulnerable road users to 

the extent practicable based on available 

research on the operation of PHBs as a 

pedestrian safety treatment. 

Following the issuance of this final 

rule, FHWA will seek opportunities to 

explore and evaluate data on variations 

in PHBs that might safely accommodate 

bicycle signal face use at crossings and, 

potentially, new research on this topic 

as might be determined necessary to 

evaluate such factors as the appropriate 

clearance interval, adequate separation 

of pedestrians and bicyclists at the 

signal, actuation of the bicycle signal, 

and representative bicyclist and driver 

behavior at various types of signal 

indications or combinations thereof. 

Finally, as emphasized previously, 

roadway owners have the authority to 

consider other treatments to 

accommodate the safe mobility of 

bicyclists, whether traffic control 

devices whose applications comply 

with the MUTCD, or other strategies, 

such as geometric or roadway 

configuration changes. 

Part 5. Automated Vehicles 

Part 5 in the NPA was retitled for 

Automated Vehicles (AV) and included 

all new content. (In the NPA, the 

provisions for Low-Volume Roads in 

Part 5 of the 2009 MUTCD were 

proposed for integration into the other 

parts of the MUTCD.) The purpose of 

this new part is to provide agencies with 

general considerations for vehicle 

automation as they assess their 

infrastructure needs, prepare their 

roadways for AV technologies, and to 

support the safe integration of AVs. The 

NPA proposed two chapters for Part 5, 

with a third chapter reserved for future 

considerations. The first chapter, 

Chapter 5A, covered the purpose and 

scope, the definition of terms and other 

general information on design and use 

considerations for roadways intended to 

accommodate AVs operations. Chapter 

5B ‘‘Provisions for Traffic Control 

Devices’’ contains six sections providing 

provisions beneficial to AV operations 

on signs, markings, traffic signals, and 

temporary traffic control, as well as 

traffic control at railroad and light rail 

transit grade crossings, and on bicycle 

facilities. 

The overarching comments on this 

Part ranged from general support to 

concerns it will create a cost burden on 

transportation agencies and suggesting 

the removal of the Part. Other comments 

proposed moving the elements of Part 5 

directly into the applicable chapters of 

the MUTCD (Parts 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9). 

Comments in opposition to Part 5 as a 

whole or recommending the provisions 

in Part 5 simply be moved into the other 

chapters of the MUTCD, indicate 

confusion by commenters on the 

intended purpose of adding Part 5 to the 

MUTCD. The intended purpose of Part 

5 is to identify traffic control device 

considerations for AVs operations on 

roadways specifically being designed to 

accommodate these vehicles. 

There were also comments on the 

technical basis of some provisions. 

Some commenters questioned the need 

for a prescribed light-emitting diode 

(LED) refresh rate for electronic message 

signs and traffic signals, as well as 

graphical markings on signs intended to 

be recognizable by vision-based driving 

automation systems to enhance sign 

recognition by these systems. Also, 

there were comments received on the 

proposed Standard and Guidance 

statements in Section 5B.04 that 

described the use and removal of 

pavement markings in work zones. 

Commenters noted that the provisions 

in this section were redundant or in 

conflict with similar provisions in 

Chapter 6J of the Manual. 

The FHWA adopts the new Part 5 

with modified Support language 

emphasizing that Part 5 contains 

provisions that are exclusively for those 

agencies seeking to better accommodate 

driving automation systems to support 

AVs, and therefore are not specifically 

for consideration on other roadways. 

This change is done to address the 

confusion suggesting the provision in 

this Part will necessarily increase 

agency costs. In alignment with this 

change, the title is changed to ‘‘Traffic 

Control Device Considerations for 

Automated Vehicles’’ to more accurately 

reflect the contents of this new Part. 

To address a safety concern of a 

technology brought up by commenters 

that could negatively impact recognition 

and legibility of signs by human drivers, 

FHWA adds a Standard stating that 

when scanning graphics of any type are 

used on a sign for support of driving 

automation systems, the scanning 

graphics shall not be visible to the 

human eye and the sign shall have no 

apparent loss of resolution or 

recognition to road users. Also, in 

response to comments, the final rule 

deletes specifications regarding refresh 

rates and instead indicates that agencies 

should consider the refresh rate of LEDs 

on CMS. This language will allow 

agencies to use the refresh rate that is 

most appropriate for the prevailing 

driving automation systems 

technologies as this technology 

advances. 

Also, in response to comments, 

sections within Chapter 5B are 

restructured to more clearly state the 

specific traffic control device 

provisions. Further, in response to 

comments, the proposed Standards in 

Section 5B.04 regarding the use and 

removal of pavement markings in work 

zones are removed in this final rule, as 

they are redundant to similar provisions 

in Chapter 6J. Two new Support 

statements are added that reference the 

appropriate provisions in Sections 6J.01 

and 6J.02 regarding the use and removal 

of pavement markings in work zones. 

The proposed Standard requiring the 

removing or obliterating pavement 

markings that are no longer applicable 

as soon as practicable is changed to 

Guidance to be consistent with similar 

provisions in Section 6J.01. Also, an 

additional Support statement is added 

that emphasizes the potential for 

misinterpretation by driving automation 

systems of pavement markings not fully 

removed or removed in a manner that 

causes pavement scarring, which can 

facilitate erroneous vehicle positioning 

in work zones. The new Part 5 addresses 

the requirement in BIL to update the 

MUTCD for the safe integration of AVs 

onto public streets. 

Part 8. Traffic Control for Railroad and 

Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings 

Diagnostic Team 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed 

Standards, Guidance, and Options in 

Part 8 that define the Diagnostic Team 

and its role in determining the 

appropriate traffic control devices at 

grade crossings. The language in the 

NPA was proposed to be consistent with 

49 CFR part 222 (a Federal Railroad 

Administration regulation) and because 

there are many variables to be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87692 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

considered and multiple entities that 

need to be engaged to evaluate and 

implement traffic control devices at 

grade crossings. Depending on the 

crossing location, these entities include 

agencies representing the highway, 

railroad, transit, and a regulatory agency 

with statutory authority (when 

applicable). 

Comments on the NPA noted that in 

some States, the State or the regulatory 

agency holds statutory authority for 

approval of traffic control devices at 

grade crossings and therefore the 

Diagnostic Team could evaluate but 

would not approve the grade crossing 

traffic control devices. Commentors also 

expressed confusion over the types of 

changes that necessitate convening a 

Diagnostic Team and concern with the 

challenges of assembling a Diagnostic 

Team. Some comments also suggested 

that all references to the Diagnostic 

Team be removed from Part 8. Other 

commenters, including organizations 

representing large numbers of members 

supported the text proposed in the NPA. 

The FHWA incorporates editorial 

revisions in the final rule to clarify the 

role of the Diagnostic Team, which is to 

evaluate and recommend traffic control 

devices. These revisions are made to 

avoid conflicts with State statutes that 

give approval authority to the State or 

to the regulatory agency with statutory 

authority. The revisions also provide a 

more complete list of the types of 

changes that require the Diagnostic 

Team to conduct an engineering study. 

The Option statement proposed in the 

NPA clarifies that general maintenance 

activities and minor operational changes 

may be made without review by a 

Diagnostic Team. In the final rule, 

FHWA also moves the reference to quiet 

zones to an Option statement because 49 

CFR part 222 does not require a 

Diagnostic Team review to establish a 

quiet zone, but they may conduct an 

engineering study and recommend that 

a quiet zone be considered by the 

responsible public authority. 

Part 9. Traffic Control for Bicycle 

Facilities 

Bicycles as Vehicles 

State and local laws and ordinances 

define where it is legal to ride a bicycle. 

Roadway owners and local communities 

may choose land use or facility design 

to promote bicyclist safety. The 

MUTCD, however, governs the traffic 

control devices and markings used on 

those facilities to improve bicyclist 

safety and mobility wherever State and 

local authorities have deemed it legal to 

ride on a bicycle. 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed to add 

Support to Section 9A.01 stating that 

with few exceptions, such as when 

allowed to ride on a sidewalk or where 

some bicycle-specific traffic control 

devices are installed, bicycles are either 

legally defined as vehicles or a bicyclist 

is legally assigned the same rights and 

duties of an operator of a motor vehicle 

as governed by State and local law. The 

FHWA received several comments 

stating that the proposed Support 

language was overly broad and cited 

examples of where various State laws 

did not reflect what the proposed 

Support language was asserting. 

The FHWA agrees with the 

commenters and revises the Support 

language to focus exclusively on 

bicyclist operation on roadways, rather 

than where it might be allowed on 

sidewalks or other facilities. The FHWA 

believes these provisions will help 

strengthen the protection of vulnerable 

users consistent with Section 11135 of 

BIL. 

Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box 

The FHWA proposed to add a new 

Section in Chapter 9B on regulatory 

signing for Two-Stage Bicycle Turn 

Boxes that includes Support, Standard, 

and Options. The Standards defined 

conditions for which a two-stage turn 

box shall be provided and 

corresponding regulatory signs 

necessary to convey that information. 

The Option allowed for an appropriately 

sized Street Name sign to be installed 

with the All Turns From Bike Lane sign 

to identify the cross street where the 

turn box will be available. 

Commenters suggested the proposed 

Standard defining specific conditions 

when a two-stage bicycle turn box is 

required be changed to Option and 

those conditions be modified to provide 

further clarity. Commenters also 

requested that the Standards requiring 

specific regulatory signs be used when 

bicyclists are being legally required to 

use a two-stage bicycle turn box be 

changed to Guidance. Similarly, 

commenters recommended the 

Standards requiring the mounting 

location of these regulatory signs also be 

changed to Guidance. Based on these 

comments and further review, FHWA 

changes the Standard that defined 

specific conditions when a two-stage 

bicycle turn box would be required to a 

Support statement that simply describes 

certain situations where a two-stage 

bicycle turn box can be used to facilitate 

bicycle turning movements. In 

alignment with this change, FHWA 

provides clarifying modifications to the 

description of those situations. 

The FHWA retains the Standards 

requiring specific regulatory signs be 

used when bicyclists are required to use 

a two-stage bicycle turn box and the 

Standards requiring the appropriate 

mounting location of these signs. The 

FHWA retains these Standards to ensure 

bicyclists have this necessary regulatory 

information on the jurisdictional 

prescribed use of the bicycle turn box. 

These Standards will help ensure the 

safety of bicyclists and reduce conflicts 

between bicyclists and other traffic. 

Also, to address a vehicle movement 

conflict that could compromise the 

safety of bicyclists, FHWA adds new 

Guidance that two-stage bicycle turn 

boxes should be located outside of the 

path of right-turning vehicle traffic, and 

where a turn box is located within the 

path of right-turning vehicle traffic, a 

NO TURN ON RED (R10–11) sign 

should be used. 

The FHWA believes these provisions 

will help strengthen the protection of 

vulnerable users consistent with Section 

11135 of BIL. 

Bend-Outs at Intersections 

In the NPA, FHWA proposed to add 

Support, Option, and Guidance 

statements in Section 9E.02 related to 

the shifting of buffer-separated or 

separated bicycle lanes. The Option 

allows for bicycle lanes to be shifted 

closer to or further away from the 

adjacent general-purpose lane. The 

Guidance indicates the bicycle lanes 

should not be shifted away from the 

general-purpose lane unless there is 

sufficient space for a vehicle to queue 

between the general-purpose lane and 

extension of the bicycle lane. 

Many commenters opposed the 

Guidance statement that a bufferseparated or separated bicycle lane 

should not be shifted away from the 

adjacent general-purpose lane at an 

intersection unless there is sufficient 

space for a vehicle to queue between the 

general-purpose lane and the extension 

of the bicycle lane. Commenters stated 

that it went counter to best practices 

and there was sufficient experience to 

show it to be safe practice. In 

consideration of the comments received 

and further review, FHWA is not 

adopting this proposed Guidance 

statement. Rather, FHWA is adding a 

Support statement that shifting a bicycle 

lane away from a general-purpose lane 

at an intersection can create space for 

vehicles to queue and has safety 

benefits. This change provides more 

flexibility and FHWA believes these 

provisions will help strengthen the 

protection of vulnerable users consistent 

with section 11135 of BIL. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87693 

Counter-Flow Bike Lanes 

In the proposed new Section 9E.08 

Counter-Flow Bicycle Lanes, FHWA 

proposed a Standard prohibiting 

locating a counter-flow bicycle lane 

between the general-purpose lane and 

on-street parallel parking lane for motor 

vehicles. This prohibition was added 

due to safety concerns for bicyclists as 

a motorist may not have line of sight of 

oncoming bicyclists when maneuvering 

their parked vehicle to reenter the 

general-purpose travel way, which 

would require crossing the counter-flow 

bicycle lane with potentially very 

limited visibility. 

Commenters suggested that the 

proposed Standard which would 

prohibit locating a counter-flow bike 

lane between a general-purpose lane 

and an on-street parallel parking lane 

would preclude situations when it is 

impractical to locate the lane elsewhere, 

such as between the curb and the 

parking lane. Commenters further 

suggested that locating the counter-flow 

bicycle lane between a general-purpose 

lane and an on-street parking lane has 

been done in a number of municipalities 

without documented safety issues. 

The FHWA agrees that there may be 

situations where it would be impractical 

to locate a counter-flow elsewhere as 

local agencies may have limited options 

for creating and maintaining connected 

bicycle networks. However, placing 

bicycle lanes between the curb and an 

on-street parallel parking lane provides 

bicyclists a buffer from motor vehicle 

traffic to improve safety. Considering 

this, FHWA changes this Standard to 

Guidance, which will allow for 

engineering judgment or study to 

determine when it might be necessary to 

locate a counter-flow bike lane adjacent 

to the general-purpose lane. The FHWA 

believes this provides sufficient 

flexibility to agencies in designing their 

bicycle facilities while meeting FHWA’s 

statutory obligation under Section 

11135 of BIL to provide for the 

protection of vulnerable road users. 

Termination of Interim Approvals 

In addition to the changes adopted in 

the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA 

terminates the Interim Approvals for 

those provisional devices or 

applications that have been 

incorporated into this final rule, either 

in whole or part. Agencies that had 

received Interim Approval for those 

items listed are released from the 

requirement to maintain and update a 

list of locations at which the provisional 

devices or applications have been 

implemented. Any future installations 

of the device or application previously 

subject to Interim Approval must 

comply with the provisions as stated in 

the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, and any 

provisions in the Interim Approval that 

conflict with the provisions adopted in 

the 11th Edition of the MUTCD are no 

longer valid. Existing installations that 

do not comply with the provisions 

adopted in the 11th Edition of the 

MUTCD must be brought into 

compliance by the compliance date 

established in this final rule, if 

applicable, or through systematic 

replacement and upgrade of traffic 

control devices if a compliance date is 

not specified. The following Interim 

Approvals are terminated with this final 

rule: 

Interim 

approval Title Date Issued 

IA–5 ............................... Clearview Font for Positive-Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (Reinstated) ................................... 3/28/2018 

IA–12 ............................. Traffic Signal Photo Enforced Signs ................................................................................................. 11/12/2010 

IA–13 ............................. Alternative Electric Vehicle Charging General Service Symbol Sign ............................................... 4/1/2011 

IA–14 ............................. Green-Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes ......................................................................................... 4/15/2011 

IA–15 ............................. Alternative Design for the U.S. Bicycle Route (M1–9) Sign ............................................................. 6/1/2012 

IA–16 ............................. Bicycle Signal Faces ......................................................................................................................... 12/24/2013 

IA–17 ............................. Three-Section Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Faces ......................................................................... 8/12/2014 

IA–18 ............................. Intersection Bicycle Boxes ................................................................................................................. 10/12/2016 

IA–19 ............................. Alternative Signal Warrant 7—Crash Experience ............................................................................. 2/24/2017 

IA–20 ............................. Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes ......................................................................................................... 7/23/2017 

IA–21 ............................. Pedestrian-Actuated Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks ... 3/20/2018 

IA–22 ............................. Red-Colored Pavement for Transit Lanes ......................................................................................... 12/4/2019 

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51 

The FHWA is incorporating by 

reference the more current versions of 

the manuals listed herein. 

The FHWA’s 2009 ‘‘Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 

Streets and Highways,’’ including 

Revisions No. 1 and No. 2, dated May 

2012, and No. 3 dated August 2022, are 

replaced with a new edition of the 

MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways (MUTCD), 11th Edition, 

FHWA, December 2023). This document 

was developed by FHWA to define the 

standards used by road managers 

nationwide to install and maintain 

traffic control devices on all public 

streets, highways, bikeways, and private 

roads open to public travel. 

The document that FHWA is 

incorporating by reference is reasonably 

available to interested parties, primarily 

State DOTs, local agencies, and Tribal 

governments carrying out Federal-aid 

highway projects. The text, figures, and 

tables of the new edition of the MUTCD 

incorporating the proposed changes 

from the current edition are available for 

inspection and copying, as prescribed in 

49 CFR part 7, at FHWA Office of 

Transportation Operations, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. Further, the text, figures, and 

tables of the new edition of the MUTCD 

incorporating changes from the current 

edition are available on the MUTCD 

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

on the docket for this rulemaking. The 

specific details are discussed in greater 

detail elsewhere in this preamble. 

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has determined that this 

action is a significant regulatory action 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866, as amended by the E.O. 

14094. Most of the changes in this final 

rule provide additional guidance, 

clarification, and optional applications 

for traffic control devices. The FHWA 

believes that the uniform application of 

traffic control devices will greatly 

improve the traffic operations efficiency 

and roadway safety. The Standards, 

Guidance, and Support are also used to 

create uniformity and to enhance safety 

and mobility at little additional expense 

to public agencies or the motoring 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87694 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

public. The rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $200 million 

or more. For the substantive revisions 

for which costs can be quantified, along 

with the administrative costs, the total 

estimated cost measured in 2020 dollars 

is $59.7 million when discounted to 

2020 at 7 percent. A copy of the 

Economic Impact Assessment is 

available on the docket for this 

rulemaking. This rule will not adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, 

any sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

territorial, or Tribal governments or 

communities. These changes do not 

create a serious inconsistency with any 

other agency’s action or materially alter 

the budgetary impact of any 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

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

601–612), FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of these changes on small entities 

and has determined that it is not 

anticipated to not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This final rule 

adds some alternative traffic control 

devices and only a very limited number 

of new or changed requirements. Most 

of the changes are expanded guidance 

and clarification information. This rule 

will primarily affect State and local 

governments and toll road authorities. 

The revisions directed by this action can 

be phased in by the States over specified 

time periods in order to minimize 

hardship. The changes made to traffic 

control devices that would require an 

expenditure of funds all have future 

effective dates sufficiently long to allow 

normal maintenance funds to replace 

the devices at the end of the material 

life-cycle. To the extent the revisions 

require expenditures by the State and 

local governments on Federal-aid 

projects, they are reimbursable. The 

FHWA hereby certifies that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule does not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (section 202(a)) requires agencies 

to prepare a written statement, which 

includes estimates of anticipated 

impacts, before proposing ‘‘any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any one year.’’ The current threshold 

after adjustment for inflation is $177 

million, using the most current (2022) 

Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross 

Domestic Product. The revisions 

directed by this action can be phased in 

by the States over specified time periods 

in order to minimize hardship. The 

changes made to traffic control devices 

that would require an expenditure of 

funds all have future effective dates 

sufficiently long to allow normal 

maintenance funds to replace the 

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

require expenditures by the State and 

local governments on Federal-aid 

projects, they are reimbursable. This 

does not impose a Federal mandate 

resulting in the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$177 million or more in any one year (2 

U.S.C. 1532). 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that may have a 

substantial, direct effect on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The FHWA 

analyzed this action in accordance with 

the principles and criteria contained in 

E.O. 13132 and determined that this 

action would not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

The FHWA has also determined that 

this final rule would not preempt any 

State law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under E.O. 13175 and determined that 

it will not have substantial direct effects 

on one or more Indian Tribes; will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian Tribal governments; and 

will not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, 

a Tribal summary impact statement is 

not required. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal 

agency make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities 

on minorities and low-income 

populations. FHWA has determined that 

this rule does not raise any 

environmental justice issues. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities apply to this program. Local 

entities should refer to the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance Program 

Number 20.205, Highway Planning and 

Construction, for further information. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

has determined that this action does not 

contain collection information 

requirements for purposes of the PRA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 

determined that it will not have any 

significant effect on the quality of the 

environment and is categorically 

excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), 

which applies to the promulgation of 

rules, regulations, and directives. 

Categorically excluded actions meet the 

criteria for categorical exclusions under 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations and under 23 CFR 

771.117(a) and normally do not require 

any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. 

The FHWA does not anticipate any 

adverse environmental impacts from 

this rule; no unusual circumstances are 

present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 87695 

List of Subjects 

23 CFR part 470 

Grant programs—Transportation, 

Highways and roads. 

23 CFR part 635 

Grant programs—Transportation, 

Highways and roads, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

23 CFR part 655 

Design standards, Grant programs— 

Transportation, Highways and roads, 

Incorporation by reference, Signs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Traffic regulations. 

Issued on under authority designated in 49 

CFR 1.81. 

Shailen P. Bhatt, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA revises title 23, Code of Federal 

Regulations, parts 470, 635, and 655, as 

set forth below: 

TITLE 23—HIGHWAYS 

PART 470—HIGHWAY SYSTEMS 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for Part 

470 to read as follows: 

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

135, and 315; and 49 CFR 1.85. 

Subpart A—Federal-Aid Highway 

Systems 

■ 2. Amend Appendix C to Subpart A of 

Part 470 by 

■ a. Revising the section ‘‘Policy’’; 

■ b. Under ‘‘Conditions’’, revising 

paragraph 5; and 

■ c. Removing the section ‘‘Sign 

Details’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 470— 

Policy for the Signing and Numbering 

of Future Interstate Corridors 

Designated by Section 332 of the NHS 

Designation Act of 1995 or Designated 

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

Policy 

State transportation agencies are permitted 

to erect informational signs along a federally 

designated future Interstate corridor only 

after the specific route location has been 

established for the route to be constructed to 

Interstate design standards. 

Conditions 

* * * * * 

5. Signing and other identification of a 

future Interstate route segment must comply 

with the provisions of the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets 

and Highways. 

* * * * * 

PART 635—CONSTRUCTION AND 

MAINTENANCE 

■ 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: 

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 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, 

December 2023. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

MUTCD or Supplement unless the 

reason for not including it is 

satisfactorily explained based on 

engineering judgment, specific 

conflicting State law, or a documented 

engineering study. A State MUTCD or 

Supplement shall not contain Standard, 

Guidance, or Option statements that 

contravene or negate Standard or 

Guidance statements in the national 

MUTCD. In addition to a State MUTCD 

or Supplement, supplemental 

documents that a State issues, including 

but not limited to policies, directives, 

standard drawings or details, and 

specifications, shall not contravene or 

negate Standard or Guidance statements 

in the national MUTCD. The FHWA 

Division Administrators shall approve 

the State MUTCDs and Supplements 

that are in substantial conformance as 

defined heretofore with the national 

MUTCD. The FHWA Associate 

Administrator of the Federal Lands 

Highway Program shall approve other 

Federal land management agencies’ 

MUTCDs and Supplements that are in 

substantial conformance as defined 

heretofore with the national MUTCD. 

The FHWA Division Administrators and 

the FHWA Associate Administrators for 

the Federal Lands Highway Program 

have the flexibility to determine on a 

case-by-case basis the degree of 

variation allowed in a State MUTCD or 

Supplement to accommodate existing 

State laws as described heretofore, for 

the express purpose of amending such 

laws over time. 

■ 8. Amend Appendix to Subpart F of 

Part 655 by: 

■ a. In paragraph 6 removing the word 

‘‘nine’’ and adding in its place the word 

‘‘ten’’; and 

■ b. Adding Table 7. 

The addition reads as follows: 

Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655— 

Alternate Method of Determining the 

Color of Retroreflective Sign Materials 

and Pavement Marking Materials 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
87696 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 19, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO APPENDIX TO PART 655, SUBPART F—DAYTIME COLOR SPECIFICATION LIMITS FOR NON-RETROREFLECTIVE

MATERIALS USED FOR COLORED PAVEMENTS

Color 

Chromaticity coordinates 

1 2 3 4 

x y x y x y x y 

Green ............................... 0.230 0.714 0.266 0.460 0.367 0.480 0.367 0.584 

Red ................................... 0.420 0.330 0.450 0.380 0.560 0.370 0.540 0.320 

[FR Doc. 2023–27178 Filed 12–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 

[TD 9984] 

RIN 1545–BN59 

De Minimis Error Safe Harbor 

Exceptions to Penalties for Failure To 

File Correct Information Returns or 

Furnish Correct Payee Statements 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains final 

regulations implementing statutory safe 

harbor rules that protect persons 

required to file information returns or to 

furnish payee statements from penalties 

under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) 

for failure to file correct information 

returns or furnish correct payee 

statements. The statutory safe harbor 

rules treat information returns and 

payee statements with erroneous dollar 

amounts as correct returns or statements 

for certain penalty purposes if the errors 

are de minimis in dollar amount. The 

final regulations also prescribe the time 

and manner in which a payee may elect 

not to have the statutory safe harbor 

rules apply. In addition, these final 

regulations update dollar amounts, 

definitions, and references in existing 

regulations relating to information 

return and payee statement penalties to 

reflect various statutory amendments to 

the Code that are not accounted for in 

the existing regulations. Finally, the 

final regulations provide rules relating 

to the reporting of basis of securities by 

brokers as this reporting relates to the de 

minimis error safe harbor rules. The 

final regulations affect persons required 

to either file information returns or to 

furnish payee statements (filers) and the 

recipients of payee statements (payees). 

DATES: 

Effective date: These regulations are 

effective on December 19, 2023. 

Applicability dates: For dates of 

applicability, see §§ 1.6045–1(d)(6)(ix) 

and (q), 301.6721–1(j), 301.6722–1(g), 

and 301.6724–1(o). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Wu at (202) 317–6845 (not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document contains final 

regulations to amend the Income Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under 

section 6045(g) of the Code and the 

Procedure and Administration 

Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under 

sections 6721, 6722, and 6724 of the 

Code. In particular, the final regulations 

implement two statutory safe harbors 

that except certain de minimis errors in 

reporting correct dollar amounts on 

information returns and payee 

statements from the penalty for failure 

to file correct information returns 

imposed by section 6721 and the 

penalty for failure to furnish correct 

payee statements imposed by section 

6722 (de minimis error safe harbor 

exceptions). The de minimis error safe 

harbor exceptions are found in sections 

6721(c)(3) and 6722(c)(3), which were 

added to the Code by section 202 of the 

Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes 

Act of 2015 (PATH Act), enacted as 

division Q of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 

114–113, 129 Stat. 2242, 3076–78 

(2015). Under sections 6721(c)(3) and 

6722(c)(3), an error in a reported dollar 

amount generally is ‘‘de minimis’’ if the 

difference between any single amount 

reported in error and the correct amount 

required to be reported does not exceed 

$100. If such a difference is with respect 

to reporting an amount of tax withheld, 

the difference may not be more than 

$25. 

On October 17, 2018, the Department 

of the Treasury (Treasury Department) 

and the IRS published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (REG–118826–16) 

in the Federal Register (83 FR 52726) 

containing proposed regulations to 

implement the de minimis error safe 

harbor exceptions, as well as to update 

dollar amounts, definitions, and 

references reflecting various statutory 

amendments to the Code that are not 

accounted for in provisions of existing 

regulations relating to information 

return and payee statement penalties 

(proposed regulations). The proposed 

regulations were issued following a 

notice announcing and describing 

regulations intended to be issued under 

sections 6721, 6722, and 6724. See 

Notice 2017–09, 2017–4 I.R.B. 542 

(January 23, 2017). 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

received six written comments in 

response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. All of the written 

comments responding to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov or upon 

request. Some comments merely 

expressed appreciation for the proposed 

regulations. No public hearing was 

requested or held. After consideration of 

the written comments, the proposed 

regulations are adopted as modified by 

this Treasury Decision. 

Summary of Comments and 

Explanation of Revisions 

This Summary of Comments and 

Explanation of Revisions section 

addresses the substantive comments in 

response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking that disagreed with or 

requested clarification of the proposed 

regulations. See the Explanation of 

Provisions section of REG–118826–16 

for a detailed explanation of the 

proposed regulations. 

I. Effect of the Regulations on Tax 

Compliance 

One comment stated that the 

proposed regulations ‘‘will increase the 

amount of regulation we have when it 

comes to ‘failure to file cases’ in the 

US.’’ The comment did not describe 

how the proposed regulations would 

increase the amount of regulation 

applicable to ‘‘failure to file cases.’’ The 

Treasury Department and the IRS note 

that the regulations implement statutory 

provisions providing certain protections 

to filers and payees, and the amount of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1