[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