[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1446-1454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-391]



[[Page 1445]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Highway Administration



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



23 CFR Parts 655 and 940



Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards; Final 
Rule



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



Federal Transit Administration



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



Federal Transit Administration National ITS Architecture Policy on 
Transit Projects; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 1446]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 655 and 940

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5899]
RIN 2125-AE65


Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to issue a final rule to 
implement section 5206(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21), enacted on June 9, 1998, which required Intelligent 
Transportation System (ITS) projects funded through the highway trust 
fund to conform to the National ITS Architecture and applicable 
standards. Because it is highly unlikely that the entire National ITS 
Architecture would be fully implemented by any single metropolitan area 
or State, this rule requires that the National ITS Architecture be used 
to develop a local implementation of the National ITS Architecture, 
which is referred to as a ``regional ITS architecture.'' Therefore, 
conformance with the National ITS Architecture is defined under this 
rule as development of a regional ITS architecture within four years 
after the first ITS project advancing to final design, and the 
subsequent adherence of ITS projects to the regional ITS architecture. 
The regional ITS architecture is based on the National ITS Architecture 
and consist of several parts including the system functional 
requirements and information exchanges with planned and existing 
systems and subsystems and identification of applicable standards, and 
would be tailored to address the local situation and ITS investment 
needs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Mr. Bob 
Rupert, (202) 366-2194, Office of Travel Management (HOTM-1) and Mr. 
Michael Freitas, (202) 366-9292, ITS Joint Program Office (HOIT-1). For 
legal information: Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(HCC-32), (202) 366-1346, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Docket 
Management System (DMS) at: http//dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 
6 to 8), Rich Text Format (RTF), American Standard Code Information 
Interchange (ASCII) (TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and 
WordPerfect (version 7 to 8). 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 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 also reach the Office of the Federal 
Register's home page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government 
Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. The 
document may also be viewed at the DOT's ITS web page at http://www.its.dot.gov.

Background

    A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) concerning this rule was 
published at 65 FR 33994 on May 25, 2000, and an extension of the 
comment period to September 23, 2000, was published at 65 FR 45942 on 
July 26, 2000.
    In the NPRM on this rule, the FHWA had proposed that the regional 
ITS architecture follow from the ITS integration strategy proposed in 
another NPRM entitled ``Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning'' published at 65 FR 33922 on May 25, 2000. 
That rule is being developed according to a different schedule and will 
be issued separately. For this reason, all references to the proposed 
integration strategy have been removed from this rule. However, it is 
still the intent of this rule that regional ITS architectures be based 
on established, collaborative transportation planning processes. The 
other major changes to the final rule relate to options for developing 
a regional ITS architecture and the time allowed to develop such an 
architecture. Additional changes to the final rule largely deal with 
clarification of terms, improved language dealing with staging and 
grandfathering issues, and clarification of use of ITS standards.
    Intelligent Transportation Systems represent the application of 
information processing, communications technologies, advanced control 
strategies, and electronics to the field of transportation. Information 
technology in general is most effective and cost beneficial when 
systems are integrated and interoperable. The greatest benefits in 
terms of safety, efficiency, and costs are realized when electronic 
systems are systematically integrated to form a whole in which 
information is shared with all and systems are interoperable.
    In the transportation sector, successful ITS integration and 
interoperability require addressing two different and yet fundamental 
issues; that of technical and institutional integration. Technical 
integration of electronic systems is a complex issue that requires 
considerable up-front planning and meticulous execution for electronic 
information to be stored and accessed by various parts of a system. 
Institutional integration involves coordination between various 
agencies and jurisdictions to achieve seamless operations and/or 
interoperability.
    In order to achieve effective institutional integration of systems, 
agencies and jurisdictions must agree on the benefits of ITS and the 
value of being part of an integrated system. They must agree on roles, 
responsibilities, and shared operational strategies. Finally, they must 
agree on standards and, in some cases, technologies and operating 
procedures to ensure interoperability. In some instances, there may be 
multiple standards that could be implemented for a single interface. In 
this case, agencies will need to agree on a common standard or agree to 
implement a technical translator that will allow dissimilar standards 
to interoperate. This coordination effort is a considerable task that 
will happen over time, not all at once. Transportation organizations, 
such as, transit properties, State and local transportation agencies, 
and metropolitan planning organizations must be fully committed to 
achieving institutional integration in order for integration to be 
successful. The transportation agencies must also coordinate with 
agencies for which transportation is a key, but not a primary part of 
their business, such as, emergency management and law enforcement 
agencies.
    Successfully dealing with both the technical and institutional 
issues requires a high-level conceptual view of the future system and 
careful, comprehensive planning. The framework for the system is 
referred to as the architecture. The architecture defines the system 
components, key functions, the organizations involved, and the type of 
information shared

[[Page 1447]]

between organizations and parts of the system. The architecture is, 
therefore, fundamental to successful system implementation, 
integration, and interoperability.
    Additional background information may be found in docket number 
FHWA-99-5899.

The National ITS Architecture

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 
Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, initiated Federal funding for the 
ITS program. The program at that time was largely focused on research 
and development and operational tests of technologies. A key part of 
the program was the development of the National ITS Architecture. The 
National ITS Architecture provides a common structure for the design of 
ITS systems. The architecture defines the functions that could be 
performed to satisfy user requirements and how the various elements of 
the system might connect to share information. It is not a system 
design, nor is it a design concept. However, it does define the 
framework around which multiple design approaches can be developed, 
each one specifically tailored to meet the needs of the user, while 
maintaining the benefits of a common approach.
    The National ITS Architecture, Version 3.0 can be obtained from the 
ITS Joint Program Office of the DOT in CD-ROM format and on the ITS web 
site http://www.its.dot.gov. The effort to develop a common national 
system architecture to guide the evolution of ITS in the United States 
over the next 20 years and beyond has been managed since September 1993 
by the DOT. The National ITS Architecture describes in detail what 
types of interfaces should exist between ITS components and how they 
will exchange information and work together to deliver the given ITS 
user service requirements.
    The National ITS Architecture and standards can be used to guide 
multi-level government and private-sector business planners in 
developing and deploying nationally compatible systems. By ensuring 
system compatibility, the DOT hopes to accelerate ITS integration 
nationwide and develop a strong, diverse marketplace for related 
products and services.
    It is highly unlikely that the entire National ITS Architecture 
will be fully implemented by any single metropolitan area or State. For 
example, the National ITS Architecture contains information flows for 
an Automated Highway System that is unlikely to be part of most 
regional implementations. However, the National ITS Architecture has 
considerable value as a framework for local governments in the 
development of regional ITS architectures by identifying the many 
functions and information sharing opportunities that may be desired. It 
can assist local governments with both of the key elements: technical 
interoperability and institutional coordination.
    The National ITS Architecture, because it aids in the development 
of a high-level conceptual view of a future system, can assist local 
governments in identifying applications that will support their future 
transportation needs. From an institutional coordination perspective, 
the National ITS Architecture helps local transportation planners to 
identify other stakeholders who may need to be involved and to identify 
potential integration opportunities. From a technical interoperability 
perspective, the National ITS Architecture provides a logical and 
physical architecture and process specifications to guide the design of 
a system. The National ITS Architecture also identifies interfaces 
where standards may apply, further supporting interoperability.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

    As noted above, section 5206(e) of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 
112 Stat. 457, requires ITS projects funded from the highway trust fund 
to conform to the National ITS Architecture, applicable or provisional 
standards, and protocols. One of the findings of Congress in section 
5202 of the TEA-21, is that continued investment in systems integration 
is needed to accelerate the rate at which ITS is incorporated into the 
national surface transportation network. Two of the purposes of the ITS 
program, noted in section 5203(b) of the TEA-21, are to expedite the 
deployment and integration of ITS, and to improve regional cooperation 
and operations planning for effective ITS deployment. Use of the 
National ITS Architecture provides significant benefits to local 
transportation planners and deployers as follows:
    1. The National ITS Architecture provides assistance with technical 
design. It saves considerable design time because physical and logical 
architectures are already defined.
    2. Information flows and process specifications are defined in the 
National ITS Architecture, allowing local governments to accelerate the 
process of defining system functionality.
    3. The architecture identifies standards that will support 
interoperability now and into the future, but it leaves selection of 
technologies to local decisionmakers.
    4. The architecture provides a sound engineering framework for 
integrating multiple applications and services in a region.

ITS Architecture and Standards NPRM

Discussion of Comments

    The FHWA received 105 comments on this docket from a wide range of 
stakeholders, including major industry associations, State departments 
of transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and 
local agencies. The comments were generally favorable about the scope 
and content, but requested additional clarification and guidance on 
implementation of specific items. On many issues, some commenters 
wanted more specific requirements, while others wanted more 
flexibility. Most commenters, including major industry associations and 
public sector agencies, agreed with the overall scope, but some felt 
that the specifics might be difficult to implement and asked for 
clarification of key terms. A few commenters wanted the FHWA to reduce 
the number of requirements or convert the rulemaking into a guidance 
activity until more ITS deployment experience is gained.
    In summary, the FHWA received a large number of generally favorable 
comments about the NPRM that suggested minor specific changes and 
expressed a need for further guidance on implementation. Since the 
general tenor of the comments was positive, the FHWA has kept the scope 
of the NPRM and made appropriate clarifications to the text of the 
final rule to address concerns raised in comments. In response to the 
many comments requesting it, starting in early 2001, the FHWA will also 
provide a program of guidance, training, and technical support to 
assist with the implementation of this rule. The following is a 
detailed discussion of the comments and their disposition, organized by 
subject matter.

Section 940.3  Definitions

    ITS Project. There were 34 comments submitted to the docket 
concerning the definition of an ITS project. Many of the commenters 
felt the definition was not clear enough, was too broad, or was too 
subject to interpretation. Some comments questioned how much of a 
project's budget would have to be spent on ITS before a project would 
be considered an ITS project. Some suggested specific language to more 
narrowly define an ITS project by

[[Page 1448]]

focusing on the portion of the overall project that is actually ITS or 
by suggesting language that would narrow the definition of an ITS 
project to only include projects which introduce new or changed 
integration opportunities.
    Since the intent of this rule and the supporting legislation is to 
facilitate the deployment of integrated ITS systems, it is the position 
of the FHWA that the definition of an ITS project must be fairly broad 
to include any ITS system being funded with highway trust fund dollars. 
It is only by properly considering all planned ITS investments in the 
development of a regional ITS architecture that the integration 
opportunities and needs can even be identified. This consideration 
should be carried out in the development of an architecture prior to 
the specific project being advanced. If, in the development of a 
regional ITS architecture, it is determined that a specific planned 
project offers no real integration opportunities for the region, then 
the impact of this rule on that specific project is minimal.
    As a response to the comments concerning the clarity of the 
definition, the definition of an ITS project has been slightly modified 
to remove the examples since they were considered misleading. The FHWA 
recognizes that any definition will be subject to interpretation by the 
stakeholders and acknowledges the need for guidance in this area to 
ensure clear and consistent interpretation of this rule. Guidance on 
what constitutes an ITS project (including examples) will be developed 
to assist the various stakeholders, including the FHWA Division 
Offices, to better understand what projects should be considered ITS 
projects.
    Region. There were 26 comments submitted related to the definition 
of a region. Seven comments supported the open definition provided in 
the NPRM, arguing that the possible integration opportunities in an 
area should define the region and that there were too many possible 
variations to allow a restrictive definition. Six commenters who 
expressed concern over varying conditions interpreted the definition to 
mean Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). Five comments suggested an MPA 
was too restrictive. Eight other comments indicated that the proposed 
definition of a region did not clearly identify what entity would have 
the lead in developing a regional ITS architecture or thought the 
definition implied the MPO should have the lead. Nine comments 
suggested various limits or boundaries to fit specific situations. Ten 
comments expressed a need for greater clarification of the definition 
for a region.
    The intent of the proposed definition was to allow considerable 
flexibility on the part of the stakeholders in defining the boundaries 
of a region to best meet their identified integration opportunities. 
While there was no intent to generally restrict the definition to MPAs 
or States, the FHWA determined that regional ITS architectures should 
be based on an integration strategy that was developed by an MPO or 
State as part of its transportation planning process.
    Given that the final rule does not require or reference an 
integration strategy, the FHWA feels a need to provide more specific 
guidance on the definition of a region. As such, the definition of a 
region has been revised to indicate that the MPA should be the minimum 
area considered when establishing the boundaries of a region for 
purposes of developing a regional ITS architecture within a 
metropolitan area. This should not be interpreted to mean that a region 
must be an MPA, or no less than an MPA, but the MPA and all the 
agencies and jurisdictions within the MPA should be at least considered 
for inclusion in the process of developing a regional ITS architecture 
within a metropolitan area. This rule is silent on other possible 
limits or minimum areas for defining a region, relying on the flexible 
nature of this rule to accommodate those special circumstances. The 
FHWA also acknowledges it is possible that overlapping regions could be 
defined and overlapping regional ITS architectures be developed to meet 
the needs of the regions.
    Other Definitions. There were 20 comments suggesting that other 
terms used in the NPRM be defined. These included ``interoperability,'' 
``standards,'' ``concept of operations,'' ``conceptual design,'' and 
``integration strategy.'' Several of these are no longer used in the 
final rule and, therefore, were not defined. Other terms, such as 
``interoperability'' and ``standards,'' were determined to be common 
terms whose definition did not effect the implementation of the final 
rule. Furthermore, language regarding standards conformity has been 
clarified in the body of the final rule.

Section 940.5  Policy

    Twenty-eight commenters addressed the issue of consistency between 
the two related FHWA notices of proposed rulemaking (23 CFR parts 940 
and 1410) and the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) notice (FTA 
Docket No. FTA-99-6417) on National ITS Architecture published at 65 FR 
34002 on May 25, 2000. The comments revealed a lack of understanding 
about the relationship between the regional ITS architecture and the 
integration strategy proposed as part of the revisions to FHWA's 
transportation planning rules. There were five comments suggesting a 
single DOT rule addressing how all ITS projects would meet the National 
ITS Architecture conformance requirements of the TEA-21 instead of an 
FHWA rule for highway projects and an FTA policy for transit projects. 
Four other comments acknowledged the need for two policies, but 
recommended they articulate the same process.
    A final transportation planning rule is being developed on a 
different schedule than this rule, and comments regarding the portions 
of the National ITS Architecture conformity process included in the 
transportation planning rule will be addressed as it proceeds toward 
issuance. The FHWA and FTA have chosen to go forward with policies that 
have been developed cooperatively to implement the National ITS 
Architecture conformance process. This FHWA rule and the parallel FTA 
policy have been developed without reference to the proposed changes to 
the transportation planning process, including no mention of the 
development of an integration strategy. However, the policy statement 
of this rule notes a link to established transportation planning 
processes, as provided under 23 CFR part 450. This rule fully supports 
these collaborative methods for establishing transportation goals and 
objectives, and does not provide a mechanism for introducing projects 
outside of the transportation planning processes.
    This final rule on National ITS Architecture conformance and the 
FTA policy on the same subject have been developed cooperatively and 
coordinated among the agencies to ensure compatible processes. Any 
differences between this rule and the parallel FTA policy are intended 
to address differences in highway and transit project development and 
the way the FHWA and the FTA administer projects and funds.
    Fifteen commenters questioned the need for an integration strategy, 
and the relationship between the strategy and the regional ITS 
architecture.
    Given the fact that proposed revisions to the FHWA's transportation 
planning rules are being developed according to a different schedule, 
this rule has been revised to remove any references to an integration 
strategy. Comments regarding the integration strategy will be addressed 
in the final transportation

[[Page 1449]]

planning rule, and the discussion of the regional ITS architecture in 
Sec. 940.9 has been revised to clarify its content.

Section 940.7  Applicability

    A few commenters noted that the proposed rule had not addressed the 
TEA-21 language that allows for the Secretary to authorize certain 
exceptions to the conformity provision. These exceptions relate to 
those projects designed to achieve specific research objectives or, if 
three stated criteria are met, to those intended to upgrade or expand 
an ITS system in existence on the date of enactment of the TEA-21. The 
legislation also included a general exemption for funds used strictly 
for operations and maintenance of an ITS system in existence on the 
date of enactment of the TEA-21.
    The FHWA acknowledges this omission and has included the 
appropriate language in this section of the rule.

Section 940.9  Regional ITS Architecture

    Several comments were received related to the way the proposed rule 
referred to developing regional ITS architectures. Eight comments, from 
State agencies and metropolitan planning organizations, supported an 
incremental approach to developing regional ITS architectures, starting 
with project ITS architectures and building them together. Four other 
comments, from metropolitan planning organizations and industry 
associations, noted that an ad hoc regional ITS architecture developed 
incrementally through projects would result in an architecture less 
robust than if there were a single, initial effort to develop it.
    Also, thirteen comments from the Association of American State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and a number of States 
recommended extending the time for developing regional ITS 
architectures, as the proposed two year implementation would be too 
short. Ten of the commenters preferred four years in order to acquire 
the necessary resources for developing regional ITS architectures.
    Most commenters were in agreement with the content of the regional 
ITS architecture as defined in the proposed rule. However, there were 
19 comments that dealt with confusion over the definition of both 
``conceptual design'' and ``concept of operations.'' In addition, there 
were 17 other comments on the makeup of the stakeholders, involvement 
of the private sector, and the need and desirability of ``agreements'' 
between stakeholders.
    The comments indicated confusion regarding the development of 
regional ITS architectures, and especially so in discussing the period 
of time for their development. Therefore, the final rule has clarified 
the time period for developing regional ITS architectures by adopting 
the proposed extension to four years subsequent to beginning to deploy 
ITS projects (Sec. 940.9(c)), or four years from the effective date of 
this rule for those areas that are currently deploying ITS projects 
(Sec. 940.9(b)). In clarifying the time for development, this rule has 
eliminated any references to specific methods for developing regional 
ITS architectures. By not prescribing any methods, the rule provides 
flexibility to a region in deciding how it should develop its regional 
ITS architecture. Guidance and information related to developing 
regional ITS architectures is available from FHWA Division Offices and 
from the ITS web site, http://www.its.dot.gov, and will be expanded to 
provide assistance in meeting the intent of the rule.
    Both the terms ``conceptual design'' and ``concept of operations'' 
have been deleted from the final rule. In their stead are descriptions 
of the content that is expected to form the basis for a regional ITS 
architecture. This content has not significantly changed from that 
defined in the NPRM but is now contained in Sec. 940.9(d). The level of 
detail required is to the architecture flow level as defined in the 
National ITS Architecture. The regional ITS architecture must identify 
how agencies, modes, and systems will interact and operate if the 
architecture is to fulfill the objective of promoting ITS integration 
within a region.
    The relevant stakeholders for a region will vary from region to 
region. The list articulated in Sec. 940.9(a) is representative only 
and not meant to be inclusive or exclusive. On the specific issue of 
private sector participation, if the private sector is deploying ITS 
systems in a region or otherwise providing an ITS-based service, it 
would be appropriate to engage them in the development of a regional 
ITS architecture. Because of these variations from region to region, 
the FHWA felt it inappropriate to attempt to define an all inclusive 
list of stakeholders. The group of relevant stakeholders will be a 
function of how the region is defined and how transportation services 
are provided to the public. Section 940.9(d)(4) specifies that in the 
development of the regional ITS architecture, it shall include ``any 
agreements (existing or new) required for operations.'' The 
formalization of these types of agreements is at the discretion of the 
region and participating stakeholders.
    There were 14 comments from a broad range of organizations 
questioning how existing regional ITS architectures, strategic plans or 
ITS Early Deployment Plans would be treated under this rule. It is the 
intent of the FHWA that any existing ITS planning documents should be 
used to the extent practical to meet the requirements of this rule. If 
a regional ITS architecture is in place, is up to date, and addresses 
all the requirements of a regional ITS architecture as described in 
this rule, there is no requirement to develop a ``new'' one. If the 
existing regional ITS architecture does not address all the 
requirements of the rule, it may be possible to update it so that it 
meets the regional ITS architecture requirements of this rule. What is 
necessary is that the end result is an architecture that meets the 
requirements of this rule and properly addresses the ITS deployments 
and integration opportunities of that region. This issue is 
specifically addressed in Sec. 940.9(e) of this rule.
    There were five comments related to the impact of this rule on 
legacy systems (i.e., ITS systems already in place) and requesting some 
sort of ``grandfathering'' for them. The language in Sec. 940.11(g) of 
the final rule clarifies the grandfathering or staging aspects of the 
process. The final rule does not require any changes or modifications 
to existing systems to conform to the National ITS Architecture. It is 
very likely that a regional ITS architecture developed by the local 
agencies and other stakeholders would call for changes to legacy 
systems over time to support desired integration. However, such changes 
would not be required by the FHWA; they would be agreed upon by the 
appropriate stakeholders as part of the development of the regional ITS 
architecture.
    There were 15 comments dealing with the maintenance process and 
status of the National ITS Architecture. Two comments suggested the 
need for the FHWA to formally adopt the National ITS Architecture. Four 
other comments also supported the formalization of a process for 
maintaining or updating it with the full opportunity for public input.
    Conformance with the National ITS Architecture is interpreted to 
mean the use of the National ITS Architecture to develop a regional ITS 
architecture, and the subsequent adherence of all ITS projects to that 
regional ITS architecture. This rule requires that the National ITS 
Architecture be used as a resource in developing a regional ITS 
architecture.

[[Page 1450]]

    As a technical resource, it is important that the National ITS 
Architecture be maintained and updated as necessary in response to user 
input or to add new user services, but formal adoption of the National 
ITS Architecture is not necessary. However, the FHWA recognizes the 
need to maintain the National ITS Architecture and to establish an open 
process for configuration control that includes public participation. 
The process currently used by the DOT to maintain the National ITS 
Architecture is very rigorous and involves significant public 
participation. That process is currently being reviewed by the DOT with 
the intent of establishing a configuration management process that 
engages the public at key stages and ensures a consensus for updating 
the National ITS Architecture.
    Four comments suggested that this rule should not be implemented 
until the National ITS Architecture was complete. The National ITS 
Architecture will never stop evolving since there always is a potential 
need to regularly update it as more is learned about ITS deployment. 
The FHWA believes the National ITS Architecture is developed to a stage 
where it can be used as a resource in developing regional ITS 
architectures, as required by this rule.
    Seventeen comments asked the FHWA to define the agency that is 
responsible for the development and maintenance of the regional ITS 
architecture; specifically MPOs and/or the State as those entities that 
are already responsible for the planning process.
    The FHWA did not define the responsibility for either creating or 
maintaining the regional ITS architecture to a specific entity because 
of the diversity of transportation agencies and their roles across the 
country. It is recognized that in some regions traditional State and 
MPO boundaries may not meet the needs of the traveling public or the 
transportation community. This is also why the FHWA did not rigidly 
define a region. The FHWA encourages MPOs and States to include the 
development of their regional ITS architectures as part of their 
transportation planning processes. However, the decision is best left 
to the region to determine the approach that best reflects their needs, 
as indicated in Sec. 940.9. It is clear that the value of a regional 
ITS architecture will only be realized if that architecture is 
maintained through time. However, in accepting Federal funds under 
title 23, U.S.C., the State is ultimately responsible for complying 
with Federal requirements, as provided in 23 U.S.C. 106 and 133.
    Four commenters noted that the proposed rule did not adequately 
address planning for, or committing to, a defined level of operations 
and maintenance.
    The final rule addresses this concern on two primary levels, in the 
development of the regional ITS architecture and the development of 
individual projects. Section 940.9(d)(4) specifies that in the 
development of the regional ITS architecture, it shall include ``any 
agreements (existing or new) required for operations.'' The 
formalization of these types of agreements is at the discretion of the 
region and participating stakeholders.
    Also, relative to operations and management at a project level, 
Sec. 940.11(c)(7) specifies that the systems engineering analysis 
(required of all ITS projects) includes ``procedures and resources 
necessary for the operations and management of the system.''

Section 940.11  Project Implementation

    In addition to the comments on regional ITS architecture 
development noted above, the docket received 86 comments on systems 
engineering and project implementation. These comments revealed that 
the structure of the NPRM in discussing regional ITS architecture 
development, project systems engineering analysis, and project 
implementation was confusing and difficult to read.
    To clarify these portions of the rule, the systems engineering and 
project implementation sections of the NPRM have been combined into 
Sec. 940.11, Project Implementation. Also, paragraphs that were in the 
regional ITS architecture section of the NPRM that discussed major ITS 
projects and the requirements for developing project level ITS 
architectures have been rewritten to clarify their applicability. Since 
these paragraphs deal with project development issues, they have been 
moved to Sec. 940.11(e). A definition for ``project level ITS 
architecture'' was added in Sec. 940.3 and a description of its 
contents provided in Sec. 940.11(e).
    The docket received 33 comments regarding systems engineering and 
the systems engineering analysis section of the proposed rule. Most of 
the comments related to the definition, the process not being necessary 
except for very large projects, and confusion as to how these 
requirements relate to existing FHWA policy.
    In response to the docket comments, the definition of systems 
engineering in Sec. 940.3 has been clarified and is more consistent 
with accepted practice. In order to provide consistency in the regional 
ITS architecture process, the systems engineering analysis detailed in 
Secs. 940.11(a) through 940.11(c) must apply to all ITS projects 
regardless of size or budget. However, the analysis should be on a 
scale commensurate with project scope. To allow for the greatest 
flexibility at the State and local level, in Sec. 940.11(c), a minimum 
number of elements have been clearly identified for inclusion in the 
systems engineering analysis. Many of those elements are currently 
required as provided in 23 CFR 655.409, which this rule replaces. 
Recognizing the change in some current practices this type of analysis 
will require, the FHWA intends to issue guidance, training, and 
technical support in early 2001 to help stakeholders meet the 
requirements of the final rule.
    Fifty-three comments were submitted regarding ITS standards and 
interoperability tests. The commenters expressed concern about 
requiring the use of ITS standards and interoperability tests 
prematurely, the impact on legacy systems of requiring ITS standards, 
and confusion regarding the term ``adopted by the DOT.''
    In response to the comments, the FHWA has significantly modified 
the final rule to eliminate reference to the use of standards and 
interoperability tests prior to adoption in Sec. 940.11(f). Section 
940.11(g) addresses the applicability of standards to legacy systems. 
It is not the intent of the DOT to formally adopt any standard before 
the standard is mature; and also, not all ITS standards should, or 
will, be formally adopted by the DOT. Formal adoption of a standard 
means that the DOT will go through the rulemaking process, including a 
period of public comment, for all standards that are considered 
candidates for adoption.
    The DOT has developed a set of criteria to determine when a 
standard could be considered for formal adoption. These criteria 
include, at a minimum, the following elements:
    1. The standard has been approved by a Standard Development 
Organization (SDO).
    2. The standard has been successfully tested in real world 
applications as appropriate.
    3. The standard has received some degree of acceptance by the 
community served by the standard.
    4. Products exist to implement the standard.
    5. There is adequate documentation to support the use of the 
standard.
    6. There is training available in the use of the standard where 
applicable.

[[Page 1451]]

    Therefore, the intent of the rule is to require the use of a 
standard only when these criteria have been met, and there has been a 
separate rulemaking on adoption of the standard.
    The only interoperability tests that are currently contemplated by 
the DOT are those associated with the Commercial Vehicle Operations 
(CVO) program. These tests are currently being used by States deploying 
CVO systems and will follow a similar set of criteria for adoption as 
those defined for standards.

Section 940.13  Project Administration

    There were nine comments related to how conformity with the final 
rule would be determined, and by whom. There were 11 comments about how 
conformity with the regional ITS architecture would be determined, and 
by whom. Six comments specifically suggested methods for determining 
conformance, including a process similar to current Federal planning 
oversight procedures. Six other commenters suggested that determination 
be made by the MPO or State. For either case, the comments reflected a 
lack of clarity as to what documentation would be necessary. There were 
six related comments suggesting the level of documentation be 
commensurate with the scale of the planned ITS investments in the 
region.
    In Sec. 940.13 of the final rule, the FHWA has attempted to clarify 
the process for determining conformance. Conformance of an ITS project 
with a regional ITS architecture shall be made prior to authorization 
of funding for project construction or implementation as provided in 23 
U.S.C. 106 and 133. We do not intend to create new oversight procedures 
beyond those provided in 23 U.S.C. 106 and 133, but in those cases 
where oversight and approval for ITS projects is assumed by the State, 
the State will be responsible for ensuring compliance with this 
regulation and the FHWA's oversight will be through existing processes.
    There were 14 comments concerning the documentation requirements of 
the proposed rule and generally suggesting they be reduced. Certainly 
the development of a regional ITS architecture and evidence of 
conformance of a specific project to that regional ITS architecture 
implies some level of documentation be developed. However, to allow 
flexibility on the part of the State or local agency in demonstrating 
compliance with the final rule, no specific documentation is required 
to be developed or submitted to the FHWA for review or approval. The 
FHWA recognizes the need to be able to scale the regional ITS 
architecture and the associated documentation to the needs of the 
region. Section 940.9(a) of the final rule contains specific language 
allowing such scaling.

Summary of Requirements

I. The Regional ITS Architecture

    This final rule on the ITS Architecture and Standards requires the 
development of a local implementation of the National ITS Architecture 
referred to as a regional ITS architecture. The regional ITS 
architecture is tailored to meet local needs, meaning that it does not 
address the entire National ITS Architecture and can also address 
services not included in the National ITS Architecture. The regional 
ITS architecture shall contain a description of the region and the 
identification of the participating agencies and other stakeholders; 
the roles and responsibilities of the participating agencies and other 
stakeholders; any agreements needed for operation; system functional 
requirements; interface requirements and information exchanges with 
planned and existing systems; identification of applicable standards; 
and the sequence of projects necessary for implementation. Any changes 
made in a project design that impact the regional ITS architecture 
shall be identified and the appropriate revisions made and agreed to in 
the regional ITS architecture.
    Any region that is currently implementing ITS projects shall have a 
regional ITS architecture within four years of the effective date of 
this rule. All other regions not currently implementing ITS projects 
shall have a regional ITS architecture within four years of the first 
ITS project for that region advancing to final design. In this context, 
a region is a geographical area that is based on local needs for 
sharing information and coordinating operational strategies among 
multiple projects. A region can be specified at a metropolitan, 
Statewide, multi-State, or corridor level. Within a metropolitan area, 
the metropolitan planning area should be the minimum area that is 
considered when establishing the boundaries of a region for purposes of 
developing a regional ITS architecture. A regional approach promotes 
integration of transportation systems. The size of the region should 
reflect the breadth of the integration of transportation systems.

II. Project Development

    Additionally, this rule requires that all ITS projects be developed 
using a systems engineering analysis. All ITS projects that have not 
yet advanced to final design are required to conform to the system 
engineering requirements in Sec. 940.11 upon the effective date of this 
rule. Any ITS project that has advanced to final design by the 
effective date of this rule is exempt from the requirements of 
Sec. 940.11. When the regional ITS architecture is completed, project 
development will be based on the relevant portions of it which the 
project implements. Prior to completion of the regional ITS 
architecture, major ITS projects will develop project level ITS 
architectures that are coordinated with the development of the regional 
ITS architecture. ITS projects will be required to use applicable ITS 
standards and interoperability tests that have been officially adopted 
by the DOT. Where multiple standards exist, it will be the 
responsibility of the stakeholders to determine how best to achieve the 
interoperability they desire.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 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 Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic 
impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. This determination is based 
upon preliminary and final regulatory assessments prepared for this 
action that indicate that the annual impact of the rule will not exceed 
$100 million nor will it adversely affect the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health, safety, or 
State, local, or tribal governments. In addition, the agency has 
determined that these changes will not interfere with any action taken 
or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the 
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs. Copies of the preliminary and final regulatory assessments 
are included in the docket.
Costs
    The FHWA prepared a preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for the 
NPRM and comments were solicited. That analysis estimated the total 
costs of this rule over 10 years to be between $38.1 million and $44.4 
million (the net present value over 10 years was between $22.3 million 
and $31.2 million). The annual constant dollar impact was estimated to 
range between $3.2 million and $4.4 million. We believe that the

[[Page 1452]]

cost estimates as stated in the PRE are negligible. The FHWA received 
only one comment in response to the PRE. That commenter, the Capital 
District Transportation Committee of Albany, New York suggested that 
our cost estimates were too low, but provided no further detail or 
rationale which would cause us to reconsider or increase our cost 
estimates in the initial regulatory evaluation.
    These 10-year cost estimates set forth in the PRE included 
transportation planning cost increases, to MPOs ranging from $10.8 
million to $13.5 million, and to States from $5.2 million to $7.8 
million associated with our initial requirement to develop an ITS 
integration strategy that was proposed as part of the metropolitan and 
statewide planning rulemaking effort. The agency now plans to advance 
that proposed ITS integration strategy in the planning rule on a 
different time schedule than this final rule. Thus, the costs 
originally set forth in the PRE for the ITS integration strategy have 
been eliminated from the final cost estimate in the final regulatory 
evaluation (FRE) for this rule.
    In the FRE, the agency estimates the cost of this rule to be 
between $1 million an $16 million over ten years, which are the 
estimated costs of this rule to implementing agencies for the 
development of the regional ITS architectures. These costs do not 
include any potential additional implementation costs for individual 
projects which are expected to be minimal and were extremely difficult 
to estimate. Thus, the costs to the industry are less than that 
originally estimated in the agency's NPRM.

Benefits

    In the PRE, the FHWA indicated that the non-monetary benefits 
derived from the proposed action included savings from the avoidance of 
duplicative development, reduced overall development time, and earlier 
detection of potential incompatibilities. We stated that, as with 
project implementation impacts, the benefits of the rule are very 
difficult to quantify in monetary terms. Thus, we estimated that the 
coordination guidance provided through implementation of the rule could 
provide savings of approximately $150,000 to any potential entity 
seeking to comply with the requirements of section 5206(e) of the TEA-
21 as compared with an entity having to undertake compliance 
individually. The costs may be offset by benefits derived from the 
reduction of duplicative deployments, reduced overall development time, 
and earlier detection of potential incompatibilities.
    In developing a final regulatory evaluation for this action, we did 
not denote a significant change in any of the benefits anticipated by 
this rule. This is so notwithstanding the fact that our planning costs 
for the ITS integration strategy have been eliminated from the final 
cost estimate. The primary benefits of this action that result from 
avoidance of duplicative development, reduced overall development time, 
and earlier detection of potential incompatibilities will remain the 
same.
    In sum the agency believes that the option chosen in this action 
will be most effective at helping us to implement the requirements of 
section 5206(e) of the TEA-21. In developing the rule, the FHWA has 
sought to allow broad discretion to those entities impacted, in levels 
of response and approach that are appropriate to particular plans and 
projects, while conforming to the requirements of the TEA-21. The FHWA 
has considered the costs and benefits of effective implementation of 
ITS through careful and comprehensive planning. Based upon the 
information above, the agency anticipates that the economic impact 
associated with this rulemaking action is minimal and a full regulatory 
evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated, through the regulatory assessment, 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. Small businesses and small organizations are 
not subject to this rule, which applies to government entities only. 
Since Sec. 940.9(a) of this rule provides for regional ITS 
architectures to be developed on a scale commensurate with the scope of 
ITS investment in the region, and Sec. 940.11(b) provides for the ITS 
project systems engineering analysis to be on a scale commensurate with 
the project scope, compliance requirements will vary with the magnitude 
of the ITS requirements of the entity. Small, less complex ITS projects 
have correspondingly small compliance documentation requirements, 
thereby accommodating the interest of small government entities. Small 
entities, primarily transit agencies, are accommodated through these 
scaling provisions that impose only limited requirements on small ITS 
activities. For these reasons, the FHWA certifies that this action will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This action does 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 rule will not result in an expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

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 does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action does not 
preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the State's ability 
to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

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 information collection requirements 
for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520.

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)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

[[Page 1453]]

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Government 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347), and has determined that this action will 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 October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this proposed action with 
the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

23 CFR Part 655

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

23 CFR Part 940

    Design standards, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and 
roads, Intelligent transportation systems.

    Issued on: January 2, 2001.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends Chapter I of 
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 655--[AMENDED]

    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).

Subpart D--[Removed and reserved]

    2. Remove and reserve subpart D of part 655, consisting of 
Secs. 655.401, 655.403, 655.405, 655.407, 655.409, 655.411.

    3. Add a new subchapter K, consisting of part 940, to read as 
follows:

Subchapter K--Intelligent Transportation Systems

PART 940--INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND 
STANDARDS

Sec.
940.1   Purpose.
940.3   Definitions.
940.5   Policy.
940.7   Applicability.
940.9   Regional ITS architecture.
940.11   Project implementation.
940.13   Project administration.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101, 106, 109, 133, 315, and 508; sec 
5206(e), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 457 (23 U.S.C. 502 note); and 
49 CFR 1.48.


Sec. 940.1  Purpose.

    This regulation provides policies and procedures for implementing 
section 5206(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 457, pertaining to conformance 
with the National Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and 
Standards.


Sec. 940.3  Definitions.

    Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) means electronics, 
communications, or information processing used singly or in combination 
to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system.
    ITS project means any project that in whole or in part funds the 
acquisition of technologies or systems of technologies that provide or 
significantly contribute to the provision of one or more ITS user 
services as defined in the National ITS Architecture.
    Major ITS project means any ITS project that implements part of a 
regional ITS initiative that is multi-jurisdictional, multi-modal, or 
otherwise affects regional integration of ITS systems.
    National ITS Architecture (also ``national architecture'') means a 
common framework for ITS interoperability. The National ITS 
Architecture comprises the logical architecture and physical 
architecture which satisfy a defined set of user services. The National 
ITS Architecture is maintained by the United States Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and is available on the DOT web site at http://www.its.dot.gov.
    Project level ITS architecture is a framework that identifies the 
institutional agreement and technical integration necessary to 
interface a major ITS project with other ITS projects and systems.
    Region is the geographical area that identifies the boundaries of 
the regional ITS architecture and is defined by and based on the needs 
of the participating agencies and other stakeholders. In metropolitan 
areas, a region should be no less than the boundaries of the 
metropolitan planning area.
    Regional ITS architecture means a regional framework for ensuring 
institutional agreement and technical integration for the 
implementation of ITS projects or groups of projects.
    Systems engineering is a structured process for arriving at a final 
design of a system. The final design is selected from a number of 
alternatives that would accomplish the same objectives and considers 
the total life-cycle of the project including not only the technical 
merits of potential solutions but also the costs and relative value of 
alternatives.


Sec. 940.5  Policy.

    ITS projects shall conform to the National ITS Architecture and 
standards in accordance with the requirements contained in this part. 
Conformance with the National ITS Architecture is interpreted to mean 
the use of the National ITS Architecture to develop a regional ITS 
architecture, and the subsequent adherence of all ITS projects to that 
regional ITS architecture. Development of the regional ITS architecture 
should be consistent with the transportation planning process for 
Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning.


Sec. 940.7  Applicability.

    (a) All ITS projects that are funded in whole or in part with the 
highway trust fund, including those on the National Highway System 
(NHS) and on non-NHS facilities, are subject to these provisions.
    (b) The Secretary may authorize exceptions for:
    (1) Projects designed to achieve specific research objectives 
outlined in the National ITS Program Plan under section 5205 of the 
TEA-21, or the Surface Transportation Research and Development 
Strategic Plan developed under 23 U.S.C. 508; or
    (2) The upgrade or expansion of an ITS system in existence on the 
date of enactment of the TEA-21, if the Secretary determines that the 
upgrade or expansion:
    (i) Would not adversely affect the goals or purposes of Subtitle C 
(Intelligent Transportation Systems Act of 1998) of the TEA-21;
    (ii) Is carried out before the end of the useful life of such 
system; and

[[Page 1454]]

    (iii) Is cost-effective as compared to alternatives that would meet 
the conformity requirement of this rule.
    (c) These provisions do not apply to funds used for operations and 
maintenance of an ITS system in existence on June 9, 1998.


Sec. 940.9  Regional ITS architecture.

    (a) A regional ITS architecture shall be developed to guide the 
development of ITS projects and programs and be consistent with ITS 
strategies and projects contained in applicable transportation plans. 
The National ITS Architecture shall be used as a resource in the 
development of the regional ITS architecture. The regional ITS 
architecture shall be on a scale commensurate with the scope of ITS 
investment in the region. Provision should be made to include 
participation from the following agencies, as appropriate, in the 
development of the regional ITS architecture: Highway agencies; public 
safety agencies (e.g., police, fire, emergency/medical); transit 
operators; Federal lands agencies; State motor carrier agencies; and 
other operating agencies necessary to fully address regional ITS 
integration.
    (b) Any region that is currently implementing ITS projects shall 
have a regional ITS architecture by February 7, 2005.
    (c) All other regions not currently implementing ITS projects shall 
have a regional ITS architecture within four years of the first ITS 
project for that region advancing to final design.
    (d) The regional ITS architecture shall include, at a minimum, the 
following:
    (1) A description of the region;
    (2) Identification of participating agencies and other 
stakeholders;
    (3) An operational concept that identifies the roles and 
responsibilities of participating agencies and stakeholders in the 
operation and implementation of the systems included in the regional 
ITS architecture;
    (4) Any agreements (existing or new) required for operations, 
including at a minimum those affecting ITS project interoperability, 
utilization of ITS related standards, and the operation of the projects 
identified in the regional ITS architecture;
    (5) System functional requirements;
    (6) Interface requirements and information exchanges with planned 
and existing systems and subsystems (for example, subsystems and 
architecture flows as defined in the National ITS Architecture);
    (7) Identification of ITS standards supporting regional and 
national interoperability; and
    (8) The sequence of projects required for implementation.
    (e) Existing regional ITS architectures that meet all of the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section shall be considered to 
satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
    (f) The agencies and other stakeholders participating in the 
development of the regional ITS architecture shall develop and 
implement procedures and responsibilities for maintaining it, as needs 
evolve within the region.


Sec. 940.11  Project implementation.

    (a) All ITS projects funded with highway trust funds shall be based 
on a systems engineering analysis.
    (b) The analysis should be on a scale commensurate with the project 
scope.
    (c) The systems engineering analysis shall include, at a minimum:
    (1) Identification of portions of the regional ITS architecture 
being implemented (or if a regional ITS architecture does not exist, 
the applicable portions of the National ITS Architecture);
    (2) Identification of participating agencies roles and 
responsibilities;
    (3) Requirements definitions;
    (4) Analysis of alternative system configurations and technology 
options to meet requirements;
    (5) Procurement options;
    (6) Identification of applicable ITS standards and testing 
procedures; and
    (7) Procedures and resources necessary for operations and 
management of the system.
    (d) Upon completion of the regional ITS architecture required in 
Secs. 940.9(b) or 940.9(c), the final design of all ITS projects funded 
with highway trust funds shall accommodate the interface requirements 
and information exchanges as specified in the regional ITS 
architecture. If the final design of the ITS project is inconsistent 
with the regional ITS architecture, then the regional ITS architecture 
shall be updated as provided in the process defined in Sec. 940.9(f) to 
reflect the changes.
    (e) Prior to the completion of the regional ITS architecture, any 
major ITS project funded with highway trust funds that advances to 
final design shall have a project level ITS architecture that is 
coordinated with the development of the regional ITS architecture. The 
final design of the major ITS project shall accommodate the interface 
requirements and information exchanges as specified in this project 
level ITS architecture. If the project final design is inconsistent 
with the project level ITS architecture, then the project level ITS 
architecture shall be updated to reflect the changes. The project level 
ITS architecture is based on the results of the systems engineering 
analysis, and includes the following:
    (1) A description of the scope of the ITS project;
    (2) An operational concept that identifies the roles and 
responsibilities of participating agencies and stakeholders in the 
operation and implementation of the ITS project;
    (3) Functional requirements of the ITS project;
    (4) Interface requirements and information exchanges between the 
ITS project and other planned and existing systems and subsystems; and
    (5) Identification of applicable ITS standards.
    (f) All ITS projects funded with highway trust funds shall use 
applicable ITS standards and interoperability tests that have been 
officially adopted through rulemaking by the DOT.
    (g) Any ITS project that has advanced to final design by February 
7, 2001 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (d) through (f) 
of this section.


Sec. 940.13  Project administration.

    (a) Prior to authorization of highway trust funds for construction 
or implementation of ITS projects, compliance with Sec. 940.11 shall be 
demonstrated.
    (b) Compliance with this part will be monitored under Federal-aid 
oversight procedures as provided under 23 U.S.C. 106 and 133.

[FR Doc. 01-391 Filed 1-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P