Amendment Process

Seven editions in 35 years. Obviously, the MUTCD is a dynamic publication that has adapted to changes in travel patterns, needs, and emerging technologies and materials. Over the years those changes have resulted from research, experimentation, and practical experience, with the best and most effective devices and practices being implemented.

Because of the potential for change, FHWA officials continually review and consider requests for interpretations, experimentations, and changes to the information contained in the MUTCD. This section examines the process by which decisions are made to revise, amend, or create MUTCD standards.

Amendment Process for Revising the MUTCD

When the FHWA assumed responsibility for updating the MUTCD in 1979, the agency announced that it would process all future changes to the MUTCD through notices in the Federal Register. This means that before any suggested revision is accepted, it must go through the 2-step Federal Register rulemaking process, a process designed to ensure public involvement:

1. Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) FHWA publishes requests for changes to the MUTCD in the Federal Register to give the public an opportunity to provide comments. These public comments are considered in making a Final Rule. Click here to view the Notice of Proposed Amendments.
2. Final Ruling (FR) The Final Rule describes the FHWA's final decision concerning requests for changes to the MUTCD. This decision can include the following: adopt a change, defer the change, pending further research, or adopt a modification to the change. Based on docket comments and or other additional information received.

Click here to view a flowchart of the amendment process (PDF file, 6K)

This above process is important because it ensures that all parties have the opportunity to offer opinions and concerns about proposed changes to the MUTCD. The FHWA considers all comments (whether from private individuals, trade organizations, or the NCUTCD) before issuing a Final Rule, which is also published in the Federal Register.

Request an Interpretation

If you are unclear about an existing standard, or would like clarification or interpretation or a proposed or adopted amendment, submit your written request to: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO), 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Change or Update an MUTCD Standard

If you feel that a change should be made to an existing standard in the MUTCD, or you believe that there should be a new standard added, submit your written request for changes for MUTCD standards to Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO), 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. If the FHWA concludes that the change has merit, it will begin the Rulemaking Process outlined above.

For additional information, refer to the wording of MUTCD Section IA.10 (Changes, Interpretations, and Experimentations)

To Conduct an Experimentation

If you think you have an idea for a new traffic control device or a different application of an existing device that will improve driver safety, but the device hasn't been included in the MUTCD, it is possible to experiment with the device or its use. This experimentation is conducted in a controlled setting.

All requests for experimentation should originate with the State/local highway agency or toll operator responsible for managing the roadway or controlled setting where experiment will take place. That organization forwards the request to the FHWA - with a courtesy copy to the FHWA Division Office. The FHWA must approve the experiment before it begins. Requests may also be forwarded directly to the FHWA Division Office, and the Division Office can submit the request to the FHWA Headquarters Office. All requests must include:

1. A statement of the nature of the problem, including data that justifies the need for a new device or application.
2. Describe the proposed change, how it was developed, how it deviates from the current standard.
3. Any illustration(s) that enhance understanding of the device or its use.
4. Supporting data that explains how the experimental device was developed, if it has been tried, the adequacy of its performance, and the process by which the device was chosen or applied.
5. An agreement to restore the experimental site to a condition that complies with the provisions of the MUTCD within 3 months following completion of the experiment. The agreement must also provide that the sponsoring agency will terminate the experiment at any time if it determines that the experiment directly or indirectly causes significant safety hazards. If the experiment demonstrates an improvement, the device or application may remain in place as a request is made to update the MUTCD and an official rulemaking action occurs.
6. An agreement to provide semiannual progress reports for the duration of the experimentation and to provide a copy of the final results to the Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO) within three months of the conclusion of the experiment. HOTO may terminate approval of the experimentation if these reports are not provided on schedule.

Click here to view a flowchart of the experimentation process (PDF file, 7K)

A successful experiment is one where the research results show that the public understands the new device or application, the device or application generally performs as intended, and the device does not cause adverse conditions. The "experimenter" must evaluate conditions both before and after installation of the experimental device and describe the measurements of effectiveness (MOEs) of the safety benefits and traffic benefits (e.g., better visibility, reduced congestion).