[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69815-69819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2004-17321]
RIN 2125-AF02


National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Specific 
Service and General Service Signing for 24-Hour Pharmacies

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA published an interim final rule on May 10, 2004, that 
amended the 2003 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices (MUTCD) to permit the use of Specific Service and General 
Service signing to assist motorists in locating licensed 24-hour 
pharmacy services open to the public. Those changes were designated as 
Revision No. 1 to the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD, and they became 
effective on July 21, 2004. In the interim final rule, the FHWA 
provided a 50-day comment period for the public to review and make 
comment on the technical details. The FHWA adopts as final the interim 
rule for Revision No. 1, with certain changes to the technical details 
to address pertinent comments to the docket. The MUTCD is incorporated 
by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, and recognized as the 
national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 3, 2005. The incorporation 
by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Huckaby, Office of 
Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), (202) 366-9064, or Mr. Raymond 
Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
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 and all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket 
Facility, Room PL-401, may be viewed through the Docket Management 
System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is available 24 hours each 
day, 365 days each year. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are 
available under the help section of this Web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a 
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the 
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 
512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's 
home page at http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing 
Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.

Background

    On January 23, 2004, the President signed, thereby enacting into 
law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2004 (the Act), 
Public Law 108-199, 118 Stat. 3. Division F of the Act (the 
Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2004, at 118 Stat. 279), Title I, section 124, directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to amend the MUTCD to include a provision permitting 
information to be provided to motorists to assist motorists in locating 
licensed 24-hour pharmacy services open to the public. The Act also 
allows placement of logo panels that display information disclosing the 
names or logos of pharmacies that are located within three miles of an 
interchange on the Federal-aid system.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal-aid systems are defined in 23 U.S.C. 101 and 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA published an interim final rule on May 10, 2004, at 69 FR 
25828, that amended the 2003 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices (MUTCD) to implement the requirements of the Act and 
provide for the uniformity of signing for pharmacy services when 
jurisdictions choose to install such signs. Those changes were 
designated as Revision No. 1 to the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD, and they 
became effective on July 21, 2004. In the interim final rule, the FHWA 
provided a 50-day comment period for the public to review and make 
comment on the technical details. Based on the comments received and 
its own experience, the FHWA is adopting as final the interim rule for 
Revision No. 1, with certain changes to the technical details to 
address pertinent comments to the docket.
    The text of this Revision No. 1 and the text of the 2003 Edition of 
the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 final text incorporated are available for 
inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7 at the FHWA 
Office of Transportation Operations. Furthermore, final Revision No. 1 
changes are available on the MUTCD Internet site (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov). The entire MUTCD text with final Revision No. 1 
text incorporated is also available on this Internet site.

Summary of Comments

    The FHWA received 36 letters submitted to the docket, of which four 
were duplicates of letters previously submitted to the docket. Comments 
were received from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices (NCUTCD), four State Departments of Transportation, four 
members of Congress and a Senator all representing the State of 
Illinois, two national organizations representing pharmacy businesses, 
six other national organizations representing a variety of interests, 
nine organizations representing retail merchants or drug stores in 
individual States, one major national chain drug store company, and 
four individual private citizens. The FHWA has reviewed and analyzed 
all the comments received. General comments are discussed first, 
followed by discussion of significant comments and adopted changes in 
each of the individual sections of the MUTCD affected by this final 
rule.

Discussion of General Comments--Part 2 Signs

    Nearly all the letters to the docket expressed either support for 
or opposition to the general concept of adding signing for 24-hour 
pharmacies to the MUTCD. The comments from the four members of Congress 
and the Senator representing the State of Illinois were in support of 
the changes. The FHWA was required by the law described above to add 
pharmacy signing to the MUTCD and, as a result, the interim final rule 
solicited comments only on the technical details of the signing and not 
the general concept. The comments we received in opposition to the 
general concept provided insufficient information to suggest that the 
FHWA should seek legislative relief at this time.

[[Page 69816]]

Discussion of Section 2D.45 General Service Signs (D9 Series)

    A private citizen commented that the MUTCD changes included in the 
interim final rule went beyond the legislative mandate by including 
General Service signs as well as Specific Service (logo) signs, and 
that this was inappropriate. Although General Service signs for 24-hour 
pharmacies were not specifically mentioned in the law, these were 
addressed in the interim final rule because some States have no program 
for Specific Service signs and only use General Service signs. Also, in 
urban areas it is often impractical to provide Specific Service signing 
due to close spacing of interchanges and, in these conditions, many 
States use General Service signs instead as a stand-alone supplemental 
sign (such as the D9-18 or D9-18a) or as sets of individual D9 series 
signs attached to (supplementing) interchange guide signs. Therefore, 
the FHWA retains the General Service signs for 24-hour pharmacies in 
this final rule.
    A national association representing pharmacists commented that 
eligibility for signing should be extended to pharmacies that are open 
less than 24 hours per day. Many other commenters, however, supported 
limiting the signing eligibility to 24-hour pharmacies, stating that 
there is a need for access to pharmacy services 24 hours a day and that 
signing leading travelers to a closed pharmacy would not be in the 
public interest. Because of these reasons and the fact that the 
legislation was specific in directing that eligibility be limited to 
24-hour pharmacies, the FHWA declines to make any change to the 24 
hours per day criterion for eligibility for General Service signing as 
contained in the interim final rule. This discussion and decision also 
apply to the similar criterion for pharmacy signing eligibility as 
stated in other applicable sections of Part 2 of the MUTCD, and the 
FHWA makes minor editorial changes to the text of various sections in 
Part 2 to add the words ``24-hour'' preceding ``pharmacy'' where needed 
for clarity.
    A national association representing chain drug stores commented 
that the signing eligibility requirement for a licensed pharmacist to 
be on duty ``at all times'' and ``7 days per week'' are too inflexible, 
since pharmacists could be ``on a break'' and since some 24-hour 
pharmacies are closed on some holidays. The FHWA declines to make a 
change in these requirements as stated in the interim final rule. The 
FHWA believes that the intent of the legislation is to assure that road 
users can locate pharmacy services that are available at all times. A 
pharmacist can be on a ``break'' and still be on duty in the pharmacy, 
and in all probability will also be present on the pharmacy premises 
during the break. The service availability criterion for other 24 hours 
per day services, such as hospitals, emergency services, etc., is 
stated as ``24 hour service, 7 days per week'' in Section 2D.45 and 
these facilities are in fact open for service on holidays. States could 
make provisions in their service signing eligibility policies to 
account for pharmacist breaks and holidays, particularly if their 
individual State laws make reference to these situations and how they 
are to be handled.
    The NCUTCD and a private citizen commented that the eligibility 
criteria for pharmacy signing should be modified to add that a State-
licensed pharmacist must be ``present'' as well as ``on duty'' 24 hours 
per day, 7 days per week. The FHWA agrees with this comment and changes 
the text of Sections 2D.45, 2E.51, and 2F.01 accordingly. For a 
pharmacy to truly offer its prescription-dispensing services on a 24 
hours per day basis, it is necessary that a licensed pharmacist be 
physically present at all times. It is possible for a pharmacist to be 
``on duty'' in the employ of the individual pharmacy or of the pharmacy 
chain company that owns or operates the pharmacy, but not physically 
present (such as one ``late night'' pharmacist ``shared'' between two 
or more stores in a given city or region). If a pharmacist must travel 
to the pharmacy from some other location during late night hours if a 
road user needs his or her services, delays would result in filling the 
needed prescription. This would be inconsistent with the intent of the 
legislation. Adding the requirement for a licensed pharmacist to be 
``present'' as well as on duty clarifies the intent.
    The American Pharmacists Association (APhA), a national 
organization representing pharmacists, suggested that the D9-20 
pharmacy symbol sign shown in Figure 2D-11 General Service Signs in the 
interim final rule should use a different design. Specifically, the 
APhA suggested that the ``One Symbol for Pharmacy'' design be used 
instead of the bold ``Rx'' symbol. The design of that symbol (hereafter 
referred to as ``the APhA symbol''), features an ``Rx'' with the ``x'' 
visually less distinct from the ``R'' than in the symbol used by the 
FHWA in the interim final rule (hereafter referred to as ``the FHWA 
symbol''). Also, inside the loop of the ``R'' of the APhA symbol are 
graphical stylized representations of three human figures (a man, a 
woman, and a child.) The APhA symbol is more visually cluttered than 
the FHWA symbol and would therefore provide a legibility distance 
considerably less than that of the FHWA symbol. There is no research 
indicating that the APhA symbol is more recognizable by the traveling 
public than the FHWA symbol. The FHWA believes that the simplicity and 
boldness of the FHWA symbol will aid in recognition, conspicuity, and 
legibility for road users, as compared to the APhA symbol. Also, the 
APhA comments state that that organization trademarked the APhA symbol 
in 1993. Because patented or trademarked symbols cannot be included in 
the MUTCD, the FHWA would require that the symbol be released to the 
public domain. Although the comments indicate that APhA would be 
willing to allow the FHWA to use the symbol, that is different from 
placing it into the public domain. It is likely that the APhA would 
want to retain its trademark so that the symbol could be used for other 
purposes regarding pharmacies and pharmacists, such as letterhead, 
business signs, etc. For these reasons, the FHWA believes that the 
pharmacy symbol shown for the D9-20 sign in the interim final rule is a 
better alternative to the APhA symbol and therefore makes no change in 
the symbol design.
    The NCUTCD, 3 State highway authorities, and one private citizen 
suggested that the D9-20a ``24 HR'' plaque shown with the D9-20 
pharmacy symbol in Figure 2D-11 in the interim final rule should be 
eliminated. These commenters stated that ``24 HR'' plaques are not 
required in the MUTCD for other services that must be available 24 
hours per day in order to be eligible for signing (such as hospitals 
and emergency services).
    A comment from a national chain drug store company supported the 
``24 HR'' plaque because of the information and benefit it provides to 
travelers.
    The FHWA believes that, although other services that must operate 
24 hours per day to be eligible for signing do not require the use of a 
``24 HR'' plaque, there is good reason to require the D9-20a ``24 HR'' 
plaque with the D9-20 Pharmacy symbol. Most road users expect and 
understand that a hospital must be open 24 hours per day; however, this 
is not the case with pharmacies. Most pharmacies are not open 24 hours 
per day, but the legislation specifically limits eligibility to 24-hour 
pharmacies. Therefore, it is necessary that road users being guided to 
a 24-hour pharmacy by these signs be advised that it is in fact a 24-
hour pharmacy that can be accessed via the signed exit. Otherwise, 
there would be

[[Page 69817]]

doubt in the road user's mind as to whether or not to exit if he or she 
were seeking the pharmacy services during the middle of the night. 
Also, if the plaque were made an option rather than a requirement, then 
some States might use it and others would not, and this lack of uniform 
application would lead to road user confusion. The FHWA retains the 
required use of the D9-20a plaque with the D9-20 pharmacy symbol sign 
as stated in the interim final rule.

Discussion of Section 2E.51 General Services Signs

    As stated earlier in the discussion of comments on Section 2D.45 
General Service Signs, the FHWA retains the required use of the D9-20a 
``24 HR'' plaque with the D9-20 pharmacy symbol General Service sign. 
For consistency with the principles stated in that discussion, the FHWA 
modifies Figure 2E-42 Examples of General Service Signs (with Exit 
Numbering) accordingly. In the D9-18 sign (with six service symbols) 
shown as the lower right sign of the 4 signs shown in the figure, the 
``Rx'' symbol is shifted slightly upward on the sign so that it is 
closer to the lodging symbol above it, and the legend ``24 HR'' is 
added underneath the ``Rx'' symbol. Also, in the D9-18a sign shown as 
the lower left sign of the 4 signs shown in the figure, the legend ``24 
HR'' is added to precede the word ``PHARMACY''.
    The NCUTCD commented that the order of the services shown on the 
D9-18a word message sign in the lower left of the figure should be 
modified so that ``24 HR PHARMACY'' would be above ``HOSPITAL.'' The 
NCUTCD stated that this would avoid potential confusion with a hospital 
that has a pharmacy. The FHWA agrees with this comment and makes the 
change in Figure 2E-42. Some hospitals have pharmacies that serve 
hospital inpatients but not travelers, and a road user could 
misinterpret the two last lines of the D9-18a word message sign as 
being a single phrase ``hospital pharmacy,'' rather than two separate 
services, and infer that the pharmacy services might not be available 
to the traveler. Changing the order of the services such that hospital 
is on the bottom line will help prevent such a misinterpretation. For 
consistency with this change in the figure, the FHWA also modifies the 
last sentence of the fourth Option statement of Section 2E.51 to delete 
the phrase ``in the last position.''

Discussion of Section 2F.01 Eligibility

    A few commenters suggested that the maximum distance of 3 miles 
from an interchange on the Federal-aid highway system to be eligible 
for pharmacy signing should be extended to up to 15 miles in cases 
where eligible pharmacies do not exist within 3 miles. These commenters 
cited the existing Option statement in Section 2F.01 that provides for 
extending the distance limit up to a maximum of 15 miles from an 
interchange for signing eligibility for other services, such as gas, 
food, and lodging, if those facilities within 3 miles are not available 
or choose not to participate in the program.
    Other commenters stated their specific support of limiting 
eligibility to pharmacies within 3 miles and not extending that limit. 
These commenters stated that requiring the pharmacy to be within 3 
miles is self-limiting and serve the best interests of travelers in 
need of pharmacy services. Further, the legislation was specific in 
directing that eligibility be limited to pharmacies within 3 miles of 
an interchange on the Federal-aid highway system. Accordingly, the FHWA 
declines to make any change to the maximum distance of 3 miles as a 
criterion for eligibility for Specific Service signing as contained in 
the interim final rule. This discussion and decision also apply to the 
similar criterion for pharmacy signing eligibility as stated in other 
applicable sections of Part 2 of the MUTCD.
    A State highway authority commented that the phrase ``in either 
direction'' in both the last paragraph of the second Standard statement 
and the first paragraph of the second Guidance statement should be 
revised to ``in any direction'' to clarify that pharmacies are not 
limited to only one direction from an interchange. The FHWA agrees with 
this comment and makes this editorial change in both places in this 
final rule. ``Any direction'' is more accurate and inclusive than 
``either direction,'' since there could be more than two directions 
that can be traveled away from a given interchange.

Discussion of Section 2F.02 Application

    In the interim final rule, the first paragraph of the Option 
statement was modified to remove the list of various services that may 
be signed on any class of highway. The resulting text of this paragraph 
in the interim final rule stated, ``Specific Service signs may be used 
on any class of highway.'' The NCUTCD recommended that this wording is 
unnecessary because it repeats a similar statement that is in the first 
Option statement in Section 2F.01. The FHWA agrees that this is an 
unnecessary duplication and removes the first paragraph of the Option 
statement in Section 2F.02 in this final rule.

Discussion of Chapter 2H Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Signs

    Comments from the NCUTCD, one State highway authority, and one 
private citizen opposed the addition of the RM-230 24-Hour Pharmacy 
symbol sign in the series of brown and white recreational and cultural 
interest area symbol signs. These commenters stated that pharmacy 
signing is not needed as a recreational area sign.
    A national chain drug store company stated its support for adding 
the RM-230 sign in Chapter 2H, citing consistency with similar brown 
and white symbol signs for gas, food, and lodging that are included in 
Chapter 2H. The FHWA agrees and declines to remove the RM-230 sign that 
was included in Chapter 2H in the interim final rule. Brown and white 
symbol signs for gas, food, and lodging are included in Chapter 2H 
because these services are often available within recreational areas 
such as National Parks, and thus there can be a need to provide guide 
signing to those facilities from the park entrance road or from other 
areas within the park. Also, there are certain park roadways in some 
urbanized areas, such as National Historical Parkways, and some linear 
park roads such as adjacent to Grand Tetons National Park, that also 
provide access to nearby towns and cities where 24-hour pharmacies may 
exist and may meet the criteria for signing. Chapter 2H provides for 
the use of brown and white General Service signing on park roadways. 
Therefore, it is appropriate and consistent to include in Chapter 2H a 
brown and white version of the pharmacy symbol sign for use if General 
Service signing for a 24-hour pharmacy is needed on a roadway of this 
type.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. Including 24-hour pharmacies in 
General and Specific Service signs is required by law (see section 124 
Division F, Title I, of Public Law 108-199, January 23, 2004). States 
and other jurisdictions are not required to install signs for pharmacy 
services,

[[Page 69818]]

but if they elect to do so, these amendments to the MUTCD will create 
uniformity in how the Pharmacy signs are used on public roads. These 
changes will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the 
economy. In addition, these changes will 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; nor will the changes raise any novel legal or policy issues. 
Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 
96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this 
action on small entities and has determined that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This action adds General Service and Specific Service signing 
for optional use by States to provide motorist information concerning 
pharmacies in order to aid the traveling public. States are not 
included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. 
For these reasons, the RFA does not apply and the FHWA 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 final rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 
109 Stat. 48). This final rule will not result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 
1532). States and other jurisdictions are not required to install signs 
for pharmacy services, but if they elect to do so, these amendments to 
the MUTCD will create uniformity in how the signs are used on public 
roads.

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 
it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial 
direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that 
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. The FHWA has 
also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or 
State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional 
State governmental functions.
    The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart 
F. These amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of 
Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to 
promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of 
the highway. The overriding safety benefits of the uniformity 
prescribed by the MUTCD are shared by all of the State and local 
governments, and changes made to this rule are directed at enhancing 
safety. To the extent that these amendments override any existing State 
requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the 
interest of national uniformity.

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 of 1995

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and believes 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. The requirements set forth in this final 
rule do not directly affect one or more Indian tribes. 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 this is not a significant 
energy action under that order because it is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 12630, 
Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this action will 
effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under Executive Order 12630.

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 will not cause an 
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately 
affect children.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 655

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

    Issued on: November 22, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA adopts as final the interim 
final rule published May 10, 2004 (69 FR 25828), with the following 
change:

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).

[[Page 69819]]

Subpart F--Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets 
and Highways--[Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec. 655.601(a), to read as follows:


Sec.  655.601  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD), 2003 Edition, including Revision No.1, FHWA, dated 
November 2004. This publication is incorporated by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is on file at 
the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA). For information 
on the availability of this material at NARA call (202) 741-6030, or go 
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. It is available for inspection and 
copying at the Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Room 3408, Washington, DC 20590, as provided in 49 CFR part 7. The text 
is also available from the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations' 
Web site at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-26417 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P