[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75111-75115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21228]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2005-23182]
RIN 2125-AF16


Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets and 
Highways; Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is revising its regulation that prescribes procedures 
for obtaining basic uniformity of traffic control devices on Federal-
aid and other streets and highways. This final rule makes some 
nomenclature changes, removes outdated references, and provides 
clarification on the meaning of roads ``open to public travel'' and 
``substantial conformance.''

DATES: Effective January 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of 
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0791, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. 
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all of 
the comments received may be viewed online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is available 24 
hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval 
help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web 
site.
    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by 
accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.archives.gov or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara. An electronic version of this document may 
also be downloaded at the FHWA Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.

Background

    The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), also 
referred to as the Manual, is developed and approved by the Federal 
Highway Administration and recognized as the national standard for all 
traffic control

[[Page 75112]]

devices installed on any street, highway, or shared-use path open to 
public travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a). It is 
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations at 23 
CFR part 655. The FHWA proposed a number of changes to 23 CFR 655 in 
order to update its regulations. The FHWA proposed removing certain 
outdated references, making certain nomenclature changes, and providing 
clarification of certain terms.

Discussion of Comments Received to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM)

    On April 25, 2006, the FHWA published a NPRM in the Federal 
Register at 71 FR 23877 to provide an opportunity for public comment on 
the proposed changes to 23 CFR part 655. In response to the NPRM, the 
FHWA received comments to the docket from 20 entities, including 4 
national associations, 8 State transportation agencies (California, 
Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and 
Minnesota), 2 city transportation agencies (City of Phoenix and City of 
Tucson), 1 private company (KDD and Associates), and 4 private 
individuals. The national associations included the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), the American Traffic 
Safety Services Association (ATSSA), and the National Committee on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD). One of the 20 docket 
submissions was a request from the NCUTCD for a time extension of the 
docket comment period. In response to this request, on June 14, 2006, 
the FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register at 71 FR 34297 to 
extend the comment closing date from June 26, 2006, to July 21, 2006.
    While four of the docket submissions addressed all of the proposed 
changes, the majority of the letters to the docket addressed specific 
proposed changes. The FHWA considered each of these comments in 
adopting this final rule. These issues are identified and addressed 
under the appropriate section below.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Changes

Section 655.601 Purpose

    The FHWA is removing the reference to the Standard Alphabets for 
Highway Signs (SAHS) by removing paragraph (b). The SAHS, 1966 Edition, 
is outdated and no longer exists as a separate document. The FHWA now 
publishes the SAHS as part of the Standard Highway Signs (SHS) Book. 
The SHS Book is referenced in MUTCD Section 1A.11 and throughout MUTCD 
Part 2. The SHS Book is also posted on the MUTCD Web page at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The FHWA received five comments in support of this 
change and no comments opposed. This change will be adopted without 
modification in the final rule.

Section 655.603 Standards

``Open to Public Travel''
    The FHWA is revising the language in 23 CFR 655.603(a) to clarify 
that, for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase ``open to 
public travel'' includes toll roads and roads within shopping centers, 
parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar business and 
recreation facilities that are privately owned but where the public is 
allowed to travel without access restrictions. Military bases and other 
gated properties where access is restricted and private railroad grade 
crossings are not included in the term ``open to public travel.''
    Eleven comments generally supported this clarification but offered 
potential areas of concern for consideration by the FHWA, and one 
comment opposed this clarification. Based on the comments received, the 
FHWA has modified the clarification to include parking lots on the list 
of examples where the term ``open to public travel'' applies, and to 
include military bases and other gated properties as examples of what 
is not included in the term. We have also indicated that the 
clarification of ``open to public travel'' is for the purpose of MUTCD 
applicability only. It is important to note that FHWA's intent is only 
to provide some general examples of what is meant by ``open to public 
travel'' because we recognize that it would not be possible to list 
them all.
    Of the 11 docket comments in support of this clarification, some 
expressed the following concerns: (1) This could create an unreasonable 
State responsibility to mandate compliance without the necessary 
authority; (2) Without enforcement, the intent of this change would be 
undermined; (3) It is not reasonable to expect all private property 
owners to have the means and expertise to place and maintain standard 
traffic control devices; and (4) The language needs to consider State 
law.
    The FHWA does not believe it is necessary for State and/or local 
highway agencies to have specific authority or enforcement 
responsibility for traffic control devices on private roads. This 
change to 23 CFR part 655 does not require State or local agencies to 
police the private properties open to public travel to ensure 
compliance with the MUTCD. However, this change does make it clear that 
private roads open to public travel are subject to the same traffic 
control standards as public streets and highways. Therefore, owners or 
parties responsible for such private roads are encouraged to bring the 
traffic control devices into compliance with the MUTCD and other 
applicable State Manuals.
    The FHWA believes that the change to 23 CFR 655.603(a) will clarify 
the application of this term, create awareness of the applicability of 
the MUTCD to certain private properties, improve safety, and increase 
the uniformity of traffic control devices on roads used by the general 
public.
``Substantial Conformance''
    23 CFR 655.603(b)(1) provides that where State or other Federal 
agency MUTCDs or supplements are required, they shall be in 
``substantial conformance'' with the National MUTCD as approved by the 
FHWA Division Administrator. The FHWA proposed to define ``substantial 
conformance'' to mean that the State MUTCD or supplement shall conform 
as a minimum to the standard statements included in the National MUTCD. 
Standard statements in the MUTCD describe required practices and are 
indicated by the term ``shall.'' The FHWA also proposed to define 
``substantial conformance'' to mean that the guidance statements 
contained in the National MUTCD also are expected to be in the State 
Manual or supplement unless the reason for not including it is 
satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment or a documented 
engineering study. Guidance statements in the MUTCD describe 
recommended practices and are indicated by the term ``should.'' Under 
the proposed definition, a State Manual or supplement could not be less 
prescriptive than the MUTCD but it could be more prescriptive; meaning, 
for example, that a guidance or ``should'' statement in the National 
MUTCD could not be an option in the State Manual, but that it could be 
a standard or ``shall'' statement. The Division Administrator and the 
FHWA Associate Administrator of the Federal Lands Highway Program have 
the flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis the degree of 
variation allowed.
    Seven comments generally supported this change but offered 
potential areas of concern for consideration by the FHWA, and 10 
comments opposed this proposed change. Some of the areas of

[[Page 75113]]

concern from those who supported the change included the following: (1) 
Agree that there needs to be a definition but do not agree that all 
``shalls'' must be included. (2) Agree, but what happens if States have 
specific legislation which conflicts with the standards. (3) The 
proposed definition is fundamentally sound, but will be challenging to 
meet because of statutory laws that differ from the MUTCD. (4) This 
change puts unfair liability on cities, particularly the part of the 
definition that suggests State Manuals or supplements cannot be less 
prescriptive than the National MUTCD. In urban conditions, there may be 
any number of reasons why a less prescriptive proposal would still meet 
the goal of providing adequate uniformity (i.e., the MUTCD requires 
overhead signs for all HOV but in urban areas this may not be 
possible).
    Some of the comments from those opposed to this change included the 
following: (1) A State's right to use alternative techniques that are 
equal to or better than the MUTCD should be protected. (2) The 
definition does not allow flexibility to accommodate State and local 
issues. (3) States should retain the option to deviate from standard 
statements. (4) In some situations, legislative action would put the 
State in conflict with the National MUTCD.
    The FHWA agrees with the comments above that suggest this 
regulation should address the impact of State laws that may force non-
conformance with the National MUTCD and should allow more flexibility 
to accommodate State and local issues. Therefore, in addition to the 
definition provided for substantial conformance as it applies to the 
standard statements in the National MUTCD, the FHWA is also adding the 
following sentence to 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1) to address these comments: 
``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 the effective date of this final rule, 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.'' In 
addition to the definition for substantial conformance as it applies to 
the guidance statements in the National MUTCD, the FHWA is modifying 
the sentence to read: ``The guidance statements contained in the 
National MUTCD shall also be in the State Manual or supplement unless 
the reason for not including it is satisfactorily explained based on 
engineering judgment, specific conflicting State law, or a documented 
engineering study.'' Finally, since the FHWA is adding flexibility in 
the description of substantial conformance as it relates to standard 
and guidance statements in the National MUTCD, the FHWA agrees that 
describing State Manuals or supplements in terms of being either ``less 
prescriptive'' or ``more prescriptive'' is not necessary and the 
language has been removed from this final rule.
    These additional comments were also submitted to the docket and 
were handled as follows: (1) Defining substantial conformance should be 
left up to the Division Office in each State. (2) Eliminates right of 
practitioner to exercise engineering judgment and destroys the only 
current method by which FHWA employees get to consult and exchange 
ideas with practitioners. (3) States should not have to incur cost of 
engineering study to deviate from guidance statements. The FHWA 
believes that the concern about the Division Office involvement is 
already addressed because the Division Administrator is an integral 
part of the process for adopting State Manuals or supplements and this 
does not change by incorporating any of these changes in the final 
rule. The FHWA believes that the comment about ``engineering judgment'' 
is also addressed in that States have a choice of using engineering 
judgment to explain deviations from the guidance statements and unlike 
an engineering study, engineering judgment does not involve a cost. One 
comment suggested that FHWA should conduct a thorough review of State 
exceptions or supplements and search for ways to improve the 2003 MUTCD 
before making this change. The FHWA believes that this comment is 
beyond the intent of this rulemaking activity.
``Issuance Date''
    In the current Sec.  655.603(b)(1), States or other Federal 
agencies are required to adopt the National MUTCD within 2 years of 
issuance any changes. The term ``issuance date'' is incorrect 
nomenclature and the FHWA is changing this term to ``effective date.'' 
The effective date occurs 30 days after a final rule is published in 
the Federal Register in order to allow parties affected by the rule a 
reasonable time to prepare for the effective date of a rule, or to take 
any other action which a final rule may prompt. The FHWA is also moving 
this discussion to new paragraph (b)(3). The FHWA received four 
comments in support of this change and no comments opposed. This change 
will be adopted without modification in the final rule.
Two-Year Adoption Period for States That Automatically Adopt the MUTCD
    The FHWA is revising the second sentence in Sec.  655.603(b)(1) to 
include language that will provide the Division Administrators and the 
Associate Administrator of the Federal Lands Highway Program the 
flexibility to allow States that automatically adopt the MUTCD 
immediately upon the effective date, the option of a 2-year adoption 
period. This will give States the opportunity to use their existing 
stocks of certain noncompliant traffic control devices and complete 
construction projects with previously approved plans that have certain 
non-compliant traffic control devices under the new MUTCD. The FHWA is 
also moving this discussion to new Sec.  655.603(b)(3). The FHWA 
received five comments in support of this change and no comments 
opposed. This change will be adopted without modification in the final 
rule.
Reorganization and Editorial Changes
    In 23 CFR 655.603(b)(2), the FHWA is combining the first sentence, 
which gives the FHWA Associate Administrator of the Federal Lands 
Highway Program approval authority for Federal land management 
agencies' MUTCDs, with the discussion in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1) which 
discusses the Division Administrator's authority to approve State 
MUTCDs and supplements. The second sentence in paragraph (b)(2) will 
now become the first and only sentence for paragraph (b)(2).
    The FHWA is amending Sec.  655.603(c) by removing footnote number 
and footnote reference ``2'' and adding in its place footnote number 
and footnote reference ``1''.
    The FHWA is moving the discussion in Sec.  655.603(d)(4) to Sec.  
655.603(d)(1). The discussion in Sec.  655.603(d)(4) about the FHWA's 
option to establish target dates for achieving compliance with changes 
in the MUTCD is more appropriate for inclusion in Sec.  655.603(d)(1). 
Therefore, Sec.  655.603(d)(4) is removed.
    The FHWA is removing Sec.  655.603(e). This paragraph was 
originally included when the Specific Service Sign Program was first 
adopted on January 23, 1969, so that interested persons would be 
directed to the MUTCD for more details. Since the Specific Service Sign 
Program has been in the MUTCD for 35 years and

[[Page 75114]]

the public is very familiar with this program, the FHWA believes that 
this information is no longer necessary or appropriate for inclusion in 
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations.
    The FHWA received three comments in support and no comments opposed 
to the above reorganization and editorial changes. These changes will 
be adopted without modification in the final rule.

Section 655.604 Achieving Basic Uniformity

    In Sec.  655.604, paragraphs (a) and (b) indicate that the 
systematic upgrading of existing traffic control devices and 
installation of devices should be based on inventories made in 
accordance with 23 CFR 1204.4. That section refers to a program 
required by the former Highway Safety Program Standard Number 13, 
Traffic Engineering Services (23 CFR 1204.4), a NHTSA regulation that 
no longer exists. Therefore, the FHWA is removing this reference to 23 
CFR 1204.4. The FHWA received five comments in support of this change 
and no comments opposed. Two of the comments that supported this change 
and understood why we are removing the outdated reference, did not 
agree with downgrading the contents of 23 CFR 1204.4 from standards to 
guidelines. This particular comment is outside the scope of this effort 
to update the information in 23 CFR part 655 and has not been addressed 
in this document. This change will be adopted without modification in 
the final rule.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action would not be a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of U.S. Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. These changes are not anticipated 
to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. 
The FHWA expects that these changes will provide clarity at little or 
no additional expense to public agencies or the motoring public. In 
addition, these changes would not create a serious inconsistency with 
any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of 
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Therefore, a 
full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes 
on small entities and has determined that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule updates the authorities of the FHWA and referenced 
documents regarding MUTCD compliance on existing highways. Such updates 
will provide transportation entities with the appropriate points of 
contact regarding the MUTCD. The FHWA hereby certifies that these 
revisions would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 
March 22, 1995). This action will not result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 
1532).

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and 
the FHWA has 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 rulemaking will 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 Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and 
would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact 
statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant 
energy action under that order because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 
13211 is not required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has 
determined that this action does not contain collection information 
requirements for purposes of the PRA.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not concern an 
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately 
affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking 
of private property or otherwise have taking implications under 
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment.

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

[[Page 75115]]

October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document 
can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655

    Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and 
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.

    Issued on: December 7, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends title 23, Code of 
Federal Regulations, part 655, subpart F as follows:

PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 655 continues 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 1.48(b).


Sec.  655.601  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  655.601 by removing paragraph (b) and by redesignating 
paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.

0
3. Amend Sec.  655.603 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b); amending 
paragraph (c), by redesignating footnote 2 as footnote 1; by revising 
paragraph (d)(1); and by removing paragraphs (d)(4) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  655.603  Standards.

    (a) National MUTCD. The MUTCD approved by the Federal Highway 
Administrator is the national standard for all traffic control devices 
installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public 
travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a). For the purpose 
of MUTCD applicability, open to public travel includes toll roads and 
roads within shopping centers, parking lot areas, airports, sports 
arenas, and other similar business and/or recreation facilities that 
are privately owned but where the public is allowed to travel without 
access restrictions. Military bases and other gated properties where 
access is restricted and private highway-rail grade crossings are not 
included in this definition.
    (b) State or other Federal MUTCD. (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 the effective date of this final rule, provided that the 
Division Administrator or Associate Administrator determines based on 
information available and documentation received from the State that 
the non-conformance does not create a safety concern. The guidance 
statements contained in the National MUTCD shall also be in the State 
Manual or supplement unless the reason for not including it is 
satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment, specific 
conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study. The FHWA 
Division Administrators shall approve the State MUTCDs and supplements 
that are in substantial conformance 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 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.
    (2) States and other Federal agencies are encouraged to adopt the 
National MUTCD in its entirety as their official Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices.
    (3) States and other Federal agencies shall adopt changes issued by 
the FHWA to the National MUTCD within two years from the effective date 
of the final rule. For those States that automatically adopt the MUTCD 
immediately upon the effective date of the latest edition or revision 
of the MUTCD, the FHWA Division Administrators have the flexibility to 
allow these States to install certain devices from existing inventory 
or previously approved construction plans that comply with the previous 
MUTCD during the two-year adoption period.
* * * * *
    (d) Compliance--(1) Existing highways. Each State, in cooperation 
with its political subdivisions, and Federal agency shall have a 
program as required by 23 U.S.C. 402(a), which shall include provisions 
for the systematic upgrading of substandard traffic control devices and 
for the installation of needed devices to achieve conformity with the 
MUTCD. The FHWA may establish target dates of achieving compliance with 
changes to specific devices in the MUTCD.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (a) and the first sentence of 
paragraph (b) of Sec.  655.604 to read as follows:


Sec.  655.604  Achieving basic uniformity.

    (a) Programs. Programs for the orderly and systematic upgrading of 
existing traffic control devices or the installation of needed traffic 
control devices on or off the Federal-aid system should be based on 
inventories made in accordance with the Highway Safety Program 
Guideline 21, ``Roadway Safety.'' * * *
    (b) Inventory. An inventory of all traffic control devices is 
recommended in the Highway Safety Program Guideline 21, ``Roadway 
Safety.'' * * *
[FR Doc. E6-21228 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P