empty cell
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) arrows logo
Knowledge bar
Knowledge > Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions - Part 1 - General

The following list of questions relates to the MUTCD Part 1 General:

  1. Does the MUTCD contain information about particular brands or manufacturers of equipment?
  2. My agency is interested in using a new device that a manufacturer has developed, but it's not covered in the MUTCD. Can we use it?
  3. The process for experimentation seems somewhat long and potentially burdensome. What is the advantage to a State or local jurisdiction for getting FHWA approval and conducting an approved experimentation?
  4. What is the definition of a "successful" experiment?
  5. Is there a process for experimental devices approved in one State to be used in another State?
  6. When FHWA issues an Interim Approval, does that mean that all jurisdictions can start using the new type of device or design?
  7. There are some "gray areas" where the MUTCD text or figures aren't clear in what exactly is required, allowed, or prohibited. Is there a way to get official clarification of meaning or intent for things like this?
  8. What is the process for changing or updating the MUTCD?
  9. In Section 1A.13, the definition of "Standard" contains a new sentence that was not included in the 2003 definition--"Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study." This seems to limit the ability of engineers to be flexible in applying Standards to a given location. Why was this sentence added?

Part 1 - General: Frequently Asked Questions

  1. Q: Does the MUTCD contain information about particular brands or manufacturers of equipment?

A: The MUTCD contains provisions governing the design and use of types of devices, not individual products. The MUTCD does not include any copyrighted or patented devices. All types of devices shown or described in the MUTCD or included in an FHWA experimentation are in the public domain. They are available for reproduction without prior approval. The only exception is the Interstate route sign design, which is copyrighted by AASHTO and reproduction of which must be approved by AASHTO.

Return to Top

  1. Q: My agency is interested in using a new device that a manufacturer has developed, but it's not covered in the MUTCD. Can we use it?

A: Before a new product is used on a street or highway open to the public, the agency having jurisdiction over the roadway must ensure the device conforms to the provisions of the MUTCD. New designs, devices, or applications not covered in or not in compliance with the MUTCD can only be used on roads open to the public if FHWA experimentation approval is received. Inventors or manufacturers of new devices should work with State or local highway agencies that are interested in using the device to address known problems that they feel existing standard MUTCD devices are insufficiently effective in solving. Experimentation approval must be requested from FHWA by the highway agency having jurisdiction over the road on which the experimental device is proposed to be installed. See Section 1A.10 and the Experimentations page on this web site for details on what information must be included in the experimentation request. One of the most important items is a well thought out and scientifically credible plan for evaluating the effects of the experimental device. The question should be asked, "How can we judge if this device is superior to existing devices, in terms of improving safety or efficiency of traffic operations?" Measures of effectiveness need to be determined, data needs to be collected to evaluate the device in terms of those measures, and a scientifically appropriate statistical method must be applied to analyze the data. The FHWA Office of Transportation Operations reviews the request and, if it is satisfactory, will send an approval letter to the requesting agency.

Return to Top

  1. Q: The process for experimentation seems somewhat long and potentially burdensome. What is the advantage to a State or local jurisdiction for getting FHWA approval and conducting an approved experimentation?

A: Jurisdictions that install new non-MUTCD compliant devices without FHWA experimentation approval expose themselves to considerable potential legal liability for deaths, injuries, or property damage, particularly if a crash occurs that a plaintiff claims was caused by being confused by an unfamiliar non-standard device or application. There is never a total shield from potential liability, but FHWA experimentation approval should significantly reduce it. Also, the data and conclusions from experimentations can support or refute the effectiveness of such devices in improving safety or mobility. Successful experiments often lead to changes in the MUTCD, benefiting all road users in all States.

Return to Top

  1. Q: What is the definition of a "successful" experiment?

A: Generally, an experiment is considered successful when the completed evaluation shows that the new device or application is well understood by road users, does what it is intended to do, does not cause adverse conditions, and enhances safety and/or other measures of effectiveness as compared to existing standard devices. However, there are many degrees of success, not all of which automatically indicate an experimental device should be considered for the MUTCD. For example, successful use at one or a few locations in one jurisdiction usually is not sufficient to justify an MUTCD change. Successful experimentations with a device by multiple jurisdictions in different geographic areas of the country may be considered as more convincing evidence of potential applicability for the MUTCD.

Return to Top

  1. Q: Is there a process for experimental devices approved in one State to be used in another State?

A: FHWA's approval of experimentation with a particular device by one State or local agency does not mean that other States or local agencies can automatically use that same device. The FHWA Office of Transportation Operations must receive a request to experiment from each interested jurisdiction responsible for installing the experimental device. To help expedite the preparation of the experimentation request, FHWA headquarters can provide the State or local highway agency with a copy of previously approved experimentations. To help expedite the review process, the State or local highway agency can check with the FHWA Division Office to see if the experimentation request may be submitted directly to FHWA headquarters with a courtesy copy to the Division Office.

Return to Top

  1. Q: When FHWA issues an Interim Approval, does that mean that all jurisdictions can start using the new type of device or design?

A: No, Interim Approval is not a blanket approval for use by all jurisdictions. However, any agency that wants to use a new device or design for which FHWA has issued an Interim Approval can easily receive FHWA approval to use it. Unlike experimentation, Interim Approvals have already undergone successful testing and evaluation, so FHWA does not require data collection or evaluations as a condition of a jurisdiction receiving approval to use an Interim Approval item. Also unlike experimentation, a State can ask FHWA to grant permission for Statewide use of an Interim Approval item by all State and local highway agencies in the State. Refer to the discussion of Interim Approval in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD, and also refer to the information on the Interim Approvals page of the MUTCD website.

Return to Top

  1. Q: There are some "gray areas" where the MUTCD text or figures aren't clear in what exactly is required, allowed, or prohibited. Is there a way to get official clarification of meaning or intent for things like this?

A: Yes, the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations will, on request, provide an Official MUTCD Interpretation for any item that is thought to be unclear. Refer to Section 1A.10 for more information on Official Interpretations. Also, refer to the information on the Official Interpretations page of the MUTCD website.

Return to Top

  1. Q: What is the process for changing or updating the MUTCD?

A: Review the Amendment Process page of this website for the process for updating the MUTCD. Send written requests for changes to the MUTCD provisions to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO) via email at MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.gov. If email is not possible, postal mail should be sent to 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. For additional information on what must be included in the request, refer to Section 1A.10 (Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals). The FHWA will consider suggestions of merit for proposed future rulemaking actions.

Return to Top

  1. Q: In Section 1A.13, the definition of "Standard" contains a new sentence that was not included in the 2003 definition--"Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study." This seems to limit the ability of engineers to be flexible in applying Standards to a given location. Why was this sentence added?

A: The new sentence is consistent with the FHWA's longstanding interpretation of Standard statements, which are very different from Guidance statements in the MUTCD. Since the 2000 edition of the MUTCD, the word "shall" in a Standard statement has been identified as denoting a "required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice" whereas the word "should" in a Guidance statement has been identified as denoting a "recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate." With each subsequent revision or new edition of the MUTCD, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, in its recommendations, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in its decisions, have consciously made carefully-considered choices on whether a provision is to be a Standard or a Guidance statement based on these definitions. It has been clearly understood that "shall" conditions are mandatory in all cases and that if flexibility is needed to allow deviations based on engineering judgment or study, then a Guidance statement is appropriate, or else one or more Options are added to modify the Standard and thereby provide some specific flexibility.

Return to Top

Return to Frequently Asked Questions.