Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51762-51772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 950

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-06-23597]
RIN 2125-AF07

Interoperability Requirements, Standards, or Performance
Specifications for Automated Toll Collection Systems

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is adding a new part to the Code of Federal
Regulations, to add regulations specifying the interoperability
requirements for automated toll collection systems for the facilities
that are tolled under any of the tolling programs contained in section
1604 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Specifically, this
rulemaking requires facilities operating with authority under section
1604 of SAFETEA-LU to use electronic toll collection (ETC) systems and
to maximize their system's interoperability with other toll facilities.
Although a nationwide interoperability standard has not yet been
established, this rule seeks to accelerate progress toward achieving
nationwide interoperability by requiring these facilities to upgrade
their ETC systems to the national standards whenever adopted.

DATES: This rule becomes effective November 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rupert, FHWA Office of
Operations, (202) 366-2194 or Mr. Michael Harkins, Attorney Advisor,
FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366- 4928, Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all
comments received may be viewed on line through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24
hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions.
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by
accessing the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov
and the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.

Background

History

Section 1604 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144)
includes provisions related to tolling of highways and facilities.
Specifically, section 1604 establishes or amends three tolling
programs: (1) The Value Pricing Pilot Program; (2) the Express Lanes
Demonstration Program; and (3) the Interstate System Construction Toll
Pilot Program. For each toll program under this section, section
1604(b)(6) requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate a
final rule specifying requirements, standards, or performance
specifications for automated toll collection systems.
Section 1604(b)(6) also requires that in developing the final rule
to maximize the interoperability of electronic collection systems, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable:
(1) Accelerate progress toward the national goal of achieving a
nationwide interoperable ETC system;
(2) Take into account the use of noncash electronic technology
currently deployed within an appropriate geographical area of travel
and the noncash electronic technology likely to be in use within the
next 5 years; and
(3) Minimize additional costs and maximize convenience to users of
toll facility and to the toll facility owner or operator.
An NPRM proposing the creation of a new Part 950 of 23 CFR was
published on September 20, 2007, at 72 FR 53736. The purpose was to
comply with the mandate of section 1604(b)(6) of SAFETEA-LU to
promulgate a final rule specifying the requirements, standards, or
performance specifications for automated toll collection systems
implemented under section 1604. As stated in the NPRM, FHWA does not
believe that it can effectively establish a

[[Page 51763]]

national standard at this time. However, FHWA believes that requiring
toll agencies to take interoperability issues into consideration in
developing their toll collections systems addresses the objective of
the statute to accelerate progress toward the goal of nationwide
interoperability.
FHWA held two public meetings and received 40 responses to the
NPRM. A major focus of the comments was that the current IntelliDrive
\SM\ Program (formerly referenced as the Vehicle Infrastructure
Integration or VII Program) is expected to result in establishing
interoperable ETC standards using the 5.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band of the
communications spectrum allocated for IntelliDrive \SM\ by the Federal
Communications Commission. Commenters stated that efforts at this time
to develop an interoperability standard prior to realization of the
standards from the IntelliDrive \SM\ program were seen as being
counterproductive and imposed unnecessary costs without apparent
benefits to toll operators.

Summary Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the NPRM

The following presents an overview of the comments received in
response to the NPRM.

Profile of Respondents

Comments were submitted by a representative cross-section of
roadway tolling organizations and an individual. The respondents
included tolling agencies or commissions; State departments of
transportation; an automobile manufacturer; an international
organization representing the interests of tolling authorities and
supporting services; automobile trade associations; a government
coalition; an association of tolling authorities; and individual firms
providing tolling equipment and supporting services. The international
organization representing the interests of tolling authorities that
provided comments was the International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike
Association (IBTTA) which is comprised of 280 members in 25 countries.
The government coalition comments were provided by the I-95 Corridor
Coalition which is comprised of 17 transportation authorities located
along Interstate 95. The association of tolling authorities' comments
were provided by E-ZPass Interagency Group (IAG) which is comprised of
23 agencies in 12 States. The automobile trade association comments
were provided by the VII Consortium which is comprised of 6 automobile
manufacturers and the DOT through a cooperative agreement, and the
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) which is
comprised of 14 international automobile manufacturers.
There were 40 entries into the docket for comments on the proposed
rule. Of these entries, 10 were letters of transmittal. Three were
posted by FHWA (the proposed rule, a copy of the presentation material
used by the FHWA during the public meetings, and the minutes of the
proceedings of the public meeting). Two entries were requests to
reschedule the public meeting or to hold an additional meeting (a
second public meeting was held). And one entry was a duplicate of a
previous entry. Of the remaining 23 entries into the docket, the
comment of 8 entries was to endorse the E-ZPass IAG's comments.
Half of the respondents expressed support of FHWA's basic goal of
improving mobility through national tolling interoperability. However,
most emphasized the importance of considering existing regional
interoperability standards and the financial investments that have been
made in them throughout the United States during the establishment of
national standards, and that the national standard should be backward
compatible to them.
The respondents directed their comments within four categories.
These categories are general comments, comments directed to the NPRM
preamble, comments directed to specific sections of the proposed rule,
and comments directed to the questions contained in the NPRM. The
following summarizes the comments within each category.

General Comments

Most of the general comments received are reflected in the
following excerpts taken from the comments of IBTTA:
[cir] Some members are concerned that an effort by the Federal
Government to establish a technical standard for ETC is premature
without having a better understanding and recognition of the financial
needs and methods of the toll agencies in assuring financial
interoperability. More research is needed on the transition and
coordination of ``back rooms.''
[cir] Even though the NPRM clearly establishes a narrow scope for
the application of interoperability standards, some members are
concerned that codification of a ``standard to be determined'' will
give Congress the impression that ETC interoperability is a function
subject to their control. In reality, interoperability is more
accurately a function of the agencies running the toll facilities and
their relationships with other toll operators.
[cir] The NPRM language suggests a potential for creating conflict
with existing State laws, as in the case of California which requires
all toll operators to use Title 21 compliant systems.
[cir] Though the current proposal makes no effort to set an ETC
standard, it alludes to a future period when FHWA concurrence would be
required on technology selection and could potentially require the use
of an ETC system incompatible with the State's requirements. Many IBTTA
members are concerned about this possibility.
[cir] The NPRM is vague in establishing a time frame for compliance
at such time as a Federal standard might be established. Electronic
toll collection represents an enormous investment of capital in the
transponders and associated data and communications systems. Toll
agencies require adequate time to amortize prior investments and
facilitate the very complex logistics needed to replace millions of
transponders among their customers.
[cir] Is there a business case to be made for national
interoperability? More analysis is needed to determine if sufficient
value exists, for example, for the occasional traveler from California
to pay their toll in New Hampshire with their California-based account.
The tens of millions of dollars it would cost the toll industry to
establish national account reciprocity may not be worth the limited
benefit to a few consumers.
[cir] Barring a significant infusion of Federal funding into a
tolling system that has historically been denied Federal support raises
the issue of a potential unfunded Federal mandate that would be borne
by the customers of current and future toll facilities.
The FHWA appreciates IBTTA's candor and has carefully considered
their recommendations. The FHWA believes that this rule accommodates
the concerns expressed.
This rule requires toll agencies to consider regional
interoperability, which should mitigate potential conflicts with State
laws and FHWA's review, and concurrence will ensure the selection of
the toll collection technique addresses regional interoperability
concerns.
Also, FHWA concurs that the complexity associated with ``back
office'' billing and financial issues requires caution in addressing
interoperability. We will cooperate with the industry in identifying,
studying, and addressing accountability issues in nationwide
interoperable ETC.

[[Page 51764]]

Additionally, this rule does not create Federal standards for
automated toll collection. If and when FHWA creates such standards, a
separate rulemaking action will be required. Any future rulemaking
action would address business concerns with nationwide standardization,
including the economic analysis of the cost and benefit distribution.
Also, any interested party would be permitted to submit comments to
FHWA to consider in developing the final rule as part of the rulemaking
process.
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) requested
clarification from FHWA on whether NCTA is considered ``eligible'' by
FHWA's proposed rulemaking and whether they fall under section
1604(b)(6) of the SAFETEA-LU provisions. It is unclear from NCTA's
comment exactly what NCTA is asking FHWA to clarify with respect to its
eligibility. With respect to funding, the Value Pricing Pilot Program
is the only 1604 toll program with funding. Under the Value Pricing
Pilot Program, State and local governments and other public authorities
are eligible grant recipients. Since NCTA appears to be a public
authority, NCTA is eligible to receive a grant under the Value Pricing
Pilot Program. Also, NCTA may apply directly for toll authority under
the Value Pricing Pilot Program and Express Lanes Demonstration
Program, and jointly with North Carolina DOT for toll authority under
the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program. If NCTA receives
toll authority under any of these toll programs, NCTA would be subject
to the requirements of this rule.
Comments directed at the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The following comments were received in response to the background
information provided in the NPRM.

[72 FR 53738, first paragraph]

The AIAM pointed out that, in addition to the Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), other standards development
organizations are involved in developing standards for 5.9 GHz
Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC), particularly the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) (see SAE standard J2735).
The omission of the contribution of SAE in the development of
standards related to DSRC in the background discussion was not
intentional, and FHWA acknowledges the efforts of SAE.

[72 FR 53738, second paragraph]

The AIAM also commented that if the requirements document
referenced in the NPRM is the document OmniAir recently circulated
entitled ``Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII), Tolling and
Payment Applications Concept of Operations,'' there are some
fundamental assumptions in that document that need to be revised based
on a consensus of the major IntelliDrive \SM\ stakeholders. This
document has not yet been sufficiently vetted with the affected
IntelliDrive\SM\ stakeholders.
The OmniAir document referenced in the NPRM is its Electronic
Payment Services National Interoperability Specification, which
predates the VII document noted by the AIAM.

[72 FR 53738, paragraph under heading ``DOT Outreach Efforts'']

With reference to the NPRM's statement about IBTTA sharing
information on their activities, AIAM commented that although ETC
represents an important subset of the intended uses of 5.9 GHz DSRC,
there are other major stakeholders planning higher-priority safety uses
of 5.9 GHz DSRC with whose requirements the ETC requirements must be
harmonized. The toll collection interoperability requirements and
specifications should therefore be framed within the constraints of the
overall IntelliDrive \SM\ system and a National IntelliDrive \SM\
Program, which take into account both technical and policy requirements
of the major stakeholders anticipated to use this IntelliDrive \SM\
system.
The FHWA concurs with the potential of IntelliDrive \SM\ to address
a range of applications beyond toll collection; however, this
rulemaking does not specifically address the requirements of
IntelliDrive \SM\.

Comments Directed at Specific Sections of the Proposed New Part 950 to
23 CFR

Section 950.1 Purpose

Raytheon commented that this section states that the proposed
regulations establish interoperability requirements, standards, and
performance specifications, but does not present or establish
performance specifications in the proposed regulations. The FHWA
concurs and herein revises section 950.1 to reflect that the purpose of
the rule is to establish interoperability requirements.

Section 950.3 Definitions

Washington DOT and Raytheon commented that the ETC definition is
too restrictive. They suggested that the language be strengthened to
indicate a preference for the use of ETC where tolls are collected at
highway speed and vehicles are not required to slow down. They
recommended that the definition of ETC be changed to read:

``Electronic toll collection (ETC) is defined as the ability for
vehicle operators to automatically pay tolls without altering their
driving speed or course.''

They noted that if this change were made, then there would be no
need for a definition of DSRC, because the term DSRC is never used in
the proposed rule. Similar comments were made by others in response to
the questions in the NPRM. The FHWA concurs and substantially adopts
the alternate definition of ETC in section 950.3.

Section 950.5 Requirements to use electronic toll collection technology

Washington and Texas DOT, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, and several toll support firms indicated support of section
950.5(a), if the definition of ETC in section 950.3 is generalized. As
noted previously, FHWA concurs and the definitions in section 950.3
have been modified to remove reference to radio communication and to
clarify the collection of tolls without altering speed or course.
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP commented that this section appears
to contain ambiguous language when stating cash payments are allowed
when the use of such methods do not create an unsafe condition. The
commenter proposed that all cash tolling facilities are unsafe due to
the stopping of traffic. The commenter based this on a National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report following a fatal accident at
a cash tolling facility where the toll plaza was in the main stream of
traffic. As demonstrated in the NTSB report, toll plazas in main lanes
of travel may present some risks, which is one of the reasons these
regulations prohibit toll booths from being located in the main lanes
of travel. While FHWA believes that ETC systems are essential to
facilitating efficient and safe operating conditions, FHWA wants toll
collection agencies to provide a means for travelers that may not be
enrolled in an ETC system to use the facility without incurring a legal
infraction. The FHWA believes that toll agencies are capable of
designing and implementing the necessary specifications that ensure the
safe and efficient operation of a toll facility in accordance with the
standards in this rule. Therefore, FHWA has not made any changes as a
result of this comment.

[[Page 51765]]

Section 950.7 Interoperability requirements

The Washington DOT requested a description and more information
about the design documents that will be required or needed by FHWA to
provide concurrence on system design and a definition of non-cash
electronic technology. They also requested clarification of the
sentence, ``* * * only applies if tolls are imposed on a facility after
the effective date of this rule.'' They noted that Washington State's
Route 167 high occupancy toll (HOT) lane facility toll system is in
design, but tolls are not yet being collected and inquired if FHWA
would consider a system that is in design to meet this rule.
The FHWA will require the same design documentation that is
routinely required for a Federal-aid project as specified in 23 CFR
part 940. This documentation must show compliance with 23 CFR 950.7 of
this rule.
If a facility is granted toll authority under a section 1604 toll
program and tolls are not imposed at the time this rule becomes
effective, the requirements of this rule apply. Section 1604 toll
programs include only the Value Pricing Pilot Program, Express Lanes
Demonstration Program, and Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot
Program. However, this rule does not apply, for example, to facilities
granted toll authority under section 166 of Title 23 of the United
States Code, i.e., conversion of high occupancy vehicle to HOT
facilities.
Raytheon expressed concern that some of the proposed requirements
in sections 950.7(b) and 950.7(c) could actually inhibit progress
toward the deployment of a next generation national system based on
open standards. They expressed concerns that if FHWA approval is
required, and if such approval demands that proposed toll system
designs maximize compatibility with the most widely deployed DSRC
devices, then agencies seeking approval will have no incentive to
specify tolling systems with advanced capabilities or open standards.
This could extend and expand the use of some proprietary or stagnant
technologies beyond their natural lifetime, and could diminish
innovation, competition, and user convenience. They suggested that any
FHWA approval process would need to carefully balance the benefits of
technological innovation with those of legacy system compatibility. In
some cases it may be financially or technically impractical to support
multiple technologies concurrently, and the benefits of a new or more
capable technology may outweigh the benefits of supporting ``legacy''
users.
The FHWA appreciates the concern expressed by Raytheon. The intent
of the rule is to advance interoperability and is not technology
specific. It is incumbent on the tolling authority to demonstrate how
it is addressing interoperability, including the incorporation of any
emerging technologies. The review and concurrence by FHWA will evaluate
the information provided by the tolling authority toward achieving
interoperability. Accordingly, FHWA has made two changes to this rule.
First, FHWA has modified subsection 950.7(b) to clarify that FHWA's
concurrence is not intended to force the use of any particular type of
technology, and subsection 950.7(c) to clarify that FHWA's concurrence
will give appropriate weight to current and future interoperability
with toll facilities. Second, FHWA has added a new subsection 950.7(f)
to expressly provide that the rule is technology neutral.
TransCore commented that the NPRM states that ETC systems already
in operation will not be subject to the present rulemaking. However,
the NPRM further states in subsection 950.7(e) that ``* * * any change
to the facility's toll collection system after the effective date of
the final rule would be subject to the regulations proposed in this
rule.'' TransCore believes that this proposed language was unclear as
to whether the rule would apply to facilities that change in technology
or change in facility size. TransCore believes that because adoption of
a national standard is not urgent, regions that use existing
technologies to meet their current and future needs should not be
hampered from expanding their networks or unduly forced to change
anything in their systems unless they have compelling internal reasons
to do so.
The FHWA believes that the intent and wording of this section
provides the flexibility needed to permit an assessment based on
regional needs and requirements. The FHWA concurs with the need to
clarify section 950.7(e) and modified it to clarify that changes to the
method or technology for collecting tolls would cause the facility to
be subject to this rule.

Summary of Responses to NPRM's Request for Comment Questions

The NPRM requested comments on six questions to provide additional
information for this or potential future rulemaking actions. Twelve of
the respondents submitted specific comments to these questions.
Comments on the questions were received from two tolling authorities
(NCTA and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), two State
departments of transportation (California and Texas), one automobile
manufacturer (General Motors), two automobile trade associations (AIAM,
Inc. and VII Consortium), one international tolling and supporting
services association (IBTTA), one tolling authority association (E-
ZPass IAG), and three tolling systems firms (Mark IV IVHS, Raytheon
Highway Transportation Management Systems, and TransCore). Their
responses are summarized below.

1. How should a national electronic toll collection standard be
pursued?

In the NPRM, the background discussion states that to ensure
national interoperability, an ETC standard would need to include
interoperability consideration for both the ``front-end'' toll
collection communications technology and the ``back-office'' operations
of properly identifying and accounting for ETC activities. None of the
respondents disagreed with this premise and several suggested that the
pursuit of a national standard should address both.
Back-office activities identified for standardization included the
data exchanges that govern transaction details, financial reciprocity
and settlement, and customer service and accounting. This includes the
sharing of customer information regarding account status and includes
confidential information such as name, address, credit card
information, and vehicle owner information. Several commenters
suggested that the financial aspect can be addressed by business
agreements that include standards that identify and validate the
transponders and standards for reporting toll activities and settling
payments.
The IAG proposed that the business agreements and processing
standards developed by the IAG be accepted by FHWA as a basis for
developing the financial and administrative aspects of national
interoperability. Others suggested that the regional solutions to
interoperability such as the IAG should be studied to extract the
lessons learned, but TransCore felt that most of these consolidations
were done in a ``brute-force'' way that is not readily extrapolated to
a full national system. The tolling Concept of Operations document
generated by OmniAir was also suggested as a good resource document for
the back-office standards.
It was pointed out that back-office standardization is further
complicated

[[Page 51766]]

by the many and varied restrictions and requirements bound into the
local authority's existing bonding agreements and other binding
documents. Many of these requirements and restrictions must be handled
legally before any further consolidation actions can be taken.
The FHWA appreciates the comments and information provided by the
respondents concerning the back-office and financial perspectives to be
considered when developing a national interoperable tolling standard.
For the front-end standardization activities, several commented
that any effort to develop interoperability standards at the lane-level
should support existing technologies. A common front-end technology was
identified as desirable in the long run, but it is not necessarily the
only solution. Several commented that an interoperable lane-level
solution is relatively easy to achieve today using multiprotocol
readers, but cannot be implemented because of intellectual property and
patent restrictions. It was suggested that FHWA should focus its
efforts on making existing regional systems interoperable through
negotiation to mitigate these restrictions that prevent existing
proprietary systems' interoperability on an interim basis while working
toward an open national standard.
The FHWA concurs that lane-level interoperability is potentially
easier to accomplish than back-office interoperability because of
advances in communication technology, but there may be issues related
to intellectual property rights. All of these responses are valuable
inputs in consideration of future development of Federal standards
either for vehicle-to-roadside communications or back-office
transactions.
As part of the interoperability effort, several respondents
encouraged FHWA to improve the accuracy, timeliness, and accessibility
of Department of Motor Vehicle or Motor Vehicle Commission records
across the United States. The commenters indicated that tolling
agencies need cost-effective access to accurate license plate
information. The FHWA was also encouraged to work with the States to
establish a more consistent look and coding structure of license
plates. The FHWA will use these recommendations in considering future
rulemaking for toll collection interoperability standards and in
developing any guidance related to automated toll collection systems.
Several commented that interoperability standards should be open to
new technologies and governed by data exchange standards. TransCore
commented that there should be no attempt to specify or dictate
specific technologies to be used for toll collection, noting that radio
frequency identification, global positioning system, and video
technologies all play a role in modern toll collection systems.
TransCore recommended that any technology standards imposed should, at
a minimum, allow these proven approaches to continue to develop, while
simultaneously encouraging new technologies that can further improve
toll collection efficiencies. The FHWA concurs and believes the
modifications to the rule related to technology neutrality clarify the
use of technology independent solutions.
Over one-half of those responding to the NPRM's questions indicated
that a national toll collection standard should be pursued as an
integrated part of the overall National IntelliDrive\SM\ Program. They
indicated that toll collection systems should use standard interfaces
that are being defined for the IntelliDrive\SM\ system and should
function within the operational rules of a National IntelliDrive\SM\
Program to provide an integrated technical and policy framework that
supports nationwide interoperability beyond the confines of the tolling
applications. General Motors indicated that safety applications should
have the highest priority.
It was pointed out that government and industry are working
cooperatively in IEEE technical committees to define 5.9 GHz DSRC
standards and with OmniAir to define 5.9 GHz interoperability testing
and e-payment transaction standards enabling back-office
interoperability. These efforts should be continued. The IAG also noted
that pilot projects should be initiated to validate the resulting
standards.
Several respondents observed that the NPRM suggests that some sort
of interim standard is necessary. They contended that implementation of
an interim standard to be followed by a federally developed 5.9 GHz
DSRC standard will place undue financial, operational, and logistical
burdens on those entities covered by the rule without any real prospect
of attaining the goal of national interoperability. One respondent
stated, ``The proposed rule should be set aside in favor of the
inevitable adoption of 5.9 GHz DSRC standards.''
With the exception of the comment that the rule suggests imposing
interim standards, the responses and comments above reinforce
statements presented in the proposed rule. Specifically, the General
Discussion of the Proposal section of the NPRM stated that, ``the
Department does not believe that it can effectively establish a
national standard at this time.'' The General Discussion also states
that standards published as a result of the DSRC program may form the
basis for future rulemaking to establish standards for a nationwide
interoperable toll collection system. The FHWA agrees that any 5.9 GHz
toll standards should be developed in concert with the IntelliDrive\SM\
Program. The Department continues to support the IntelliDrive\SM\
program and related activities including the IEEE, SAE and OmniAir
efforts described previously.
One commented that the national standard should be developed with
the FHWA supplying funds to multiple vendors to develop prototype
equipment which is then tested for interoperability and specification
compliance by an independent contractor.
Several commented that when a national interoperability standard is
adopted, there will need to be a significant window of time for toll
agencies to migrate to this standard to allow toll agencies to fully
amortize their existing system costs and facilitate the complex
logistics needed to replace millions of transponders among their
customers.
These comments are appropriate considerations if future rulemaking
actions are undertaken to identify and adopt a national standard for
automated toll collection interoperability. These responses and
comments do not necessitate any changes to this rule.

2. What aspects of electronic toll collection should be standardized?

Many of the responses to this question were variations of the
responses provided to question 1 that the front-end, lane-level
solution, and the back-office data processing solution should be
considered for standardization. The communications protocols, message
sets, and all data flows for all transactions should be an open
specification. Advancing standards that are independent of any specific
technology allows toll operators the ability to fully amortize existing
investments in roadside infrastructure and on-board units, while
allowing for technological evolution and innovation to create new
functionality, accuracy, and efficiency.
Several respondents emphasized standardization for the data
structures, and the format and rules for exchanging ETC that support
the full spectrum of ETC functions to clear the transactions and
successfully transfer funds between account holders and facility
operators. It

[[Page 51767]]

was suggested that the FHWA should develop technology-neutral unified
standards for data exchange that address transaction details, financial
reciprocity and settlement, customer service and accounting, and
revenue collection enforcement. One respondent noted that the most
important aspects to be standardized are the data structures, formats,
and exchange protocols that support the full spectrum of ETC functions.
The NCTA commented that, ``Until a true standard file specification
for all on-board unit transactions exists, FHWA should either select
the most suitable file specification in operation or facilitate
creation of a bridge file specification that includes minimum
information as to the issuer of the account, the class of the vehicle,
the vehicle weight, and the entry and exit point for transactions
occurring on a closed system roadway.''
Several suggested a standardized vehicle classification system such
that agencies have common framework for metrics, such as vehicle size,
axles and configurations to appropriately determine the toll charge.
The IAG repeated its recommendation that the E-ZPass standards
provide a basis until such time as a uniform, low cost, easily
verifiable point of service payment system is established and accepted.
Several commented that a national clearinghouse should be used for
financial transactions with the suggestion that the credit card
transaction system may be a good model to study. The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey observed that ``Existing ETC systems in the
U.S. have largely been developed by having some combination of toll
operators, systems integrators and back office contractors providing
the financial clearing functions for toll reciprocity and settlement.
This has resulted in inherent inefficiencies, redundant investments and
systems, and delays from extended financial settlement processes. As
the U.S. considers electronic tolling interoperability, the focus
should be on more fully integrating established financial institutions
in the financial clearing functions.''
At the lane level, it was suggested that it is important to avoid
specifying a single technical approach to allow the industry to take
maximum advantage of new technologies as they emerge. As a general
statement, the eventual standards should not be overly prescriptive and
should allow as much latitude as possible to the local toll
authorities.
General Motors suggested that regulatory requirements for ETC
devices must help ensure that operation does not interfere with other
vehicle signal transmissions, operations, and functionality. The
standard should specify testing to specific performance criteria
stipulated in the regulations for vehicle-based ETC and for automated
tolling booths to allow developers of on-board vehicle devices to
develop and validate independent of the manufacturers of the automated
tolling booth technology. Testable performance criteria were mentioned
by several other responders as well.
Both of the automobile associations indicated that the Human
Machine Interface in the vehicle, or other internal vehicle system
components or operations, should not be standardized and are not part
of the IntelliDrive\SM\ system. Further, the applications themselves
should not be standardized; rather message sets should be standardized
to support interoperability allowing for proprietary application
differentiation and innovation.
Mark IV IVHS, Inc. indicated that, in the short-term, none of the
aspects should be standardized pending the outcome of the 5.9 GHz
program. In the long-term, both technical and financial compatibility
aspects should be standardized, although the latter is not an absolute
requirement, as the same device can be registered for use in multiple
systems with different accounts.
The FHWA appreciates the comments and contributions of the
respondents. The information provided will serve as valuable input if a
national interoperability tolling standard is developed. Since this
rule does not address development of a specific standard, no changes
are needed based on these comments.

3. How critical is the timing for establishing a national electronic
toll collection standard?

One-third of the respondents considered the timing to be non-
critical, with one referring to it as a ``back-burner'' issue. Another
respondent felt the timing of the proposed rule is ill-conceived and
counter to the federally sponsored 5.9 GHz DSRC effort. The California
DOT commented that the timing of a national standard is critical. They
suggested that it should have a rapid development time with an
aggressive implementation plan.
Almost one-half of the respondents felt it was important to
harmonize the timing for establishment of a national ETC standard with
the overall National IntelliDrive\SM\ Program development and potential
deployment. This is considered important so that consensus on common
issues can be maintained. Such harmonization would help to foster
coordinated deployment of the necessary vehicle, infrastructure
communications equipment, and complementary applications. Several
commenters indicated that the tolling community should take advantage
of the capabilities afforded by the national IntelliDrive\SM\
initiative, but it is not practical to mandate its use in the near
future.
General Motors suggested that regulatory requirements for ETC
systems should be paced to, and coordinated with, the standards for
vehicle safety and mobility applications. The IAG observed that a
critical concern with the 5.9 GHz system is the rollout of the fleet
and the timing for massive capital investments in roadside equipment to
support a small portion of the users. A program, providing for an
initial in-vehicle device that is provided as an after market
transponder, could make the establishment of a national standard more
realistic.
The IAG stated that establishment of a national standard must be
done in a manner that takes into consideration existing standards and
the financial investments made in deployed systems. They emphasized
that it is important that any call for implementation recognize that
the E-ZPass network alone has over 3,000 toll lanes, which would have
to be equipped or renovated to make the overall system work. The time
to replace or supplement existing systems would be critical since most
lanes must operate with daily traffic. They believe that at least a 4-
year window would be necessary between the date on which the standards
are established and the day the ETC systems are expected to be fully
operational. Another respondent suggested it should be fully deployed
within 5 years of adoption.
Several respondents stated that hardware interoperability is
available to any who need it through use of multimode, multiprotocol
devices that are available today. It was suggested that FHWA should
explore facilitating a negotiation process to mitigate current patent
restrictions to allow agencies to utilize multiprotocol readers. This
should be accompanied by the timely implementation of the data
interchanges, financial, and procedural requirements to allow current
and future interoperable systems.
As noted previously, FHWA concurs that any national interoperable
tolling standard developed for the 5.9 GHz DSRC effort must be
coordinated with

[[Page 51768]]

the overall IntelliDrive\SM\ Program. Implementation and adoption of
any future standard must address the transition to the new standard and
consider current and future investments by the tolling authorities.

4. How should the national standard incorporate current technologies
and functions?

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey recommended that a
plan for national interoperability should begin with an evaluation of
the applicability of the E-ZPass standards for data exchange, file
formats and financial reciprocity, and settlement practices to a
national approach. The Texas DOT suggested that the first step was to
emphasize video aspects that enhance ETC and establish uniform
standards for the collection of data between the camera, the
classification system, and the data network. The second step was to
establish standards to create a national data repository to facilitate
the exchange of information between agencies, similar to that used by
the credit card industry. The IBTTA suggested that any national
standard should incorporate the functions articulated by IBTTA's ETC
performance specification document.
A majority of the respondents stated that compatibility with
existing standards should be incorporated in a national
interoperability standard to lessen the impact of transitioning from
regional standards to the national standards. Any movement toward a
national standard must recognize that there is a large investment in
place in roadside equipment, transponders, and multiyear back-office
contracts that support regional interoperability today. Several noted
that the migration period must include a transitional period for the
current technologies to operate in parallel with the national standard
until tolling agencies are assured it mirrors and captures all of the
transactions that the legacy system capture. One respondent commented,
``It would be unconscionable to develop a national standard that does
not recognize the investment made in ETC systems and accommodate the
existing technologies and functions.''
Several respondents recommended integrating the ETC standard into
the overall IntelliDrive\SM\ technology approach so that compatibility
with planned technologies under development will be ensured, including
the collective agreement of the major IntelliDrive\SM\ stakeholders.
General Motors suggested that national interoperability standards
should focus on performance-based standards that include requirements
to ensure ETC devices do not impact vehicle operation and safety
communications.
Raytheon suggested that a national 5.9 GHz DSRC standard should not
incorporate legacy technologies; rather, it should focus on the next
generation. They also suggested that current tolling functions will
apply to future systems. However, Raytheon does not believe that it is
necessary or efficient for FHWA to standardize all tolling functions
and performance parameters.
The comments above will provide valuable input should a national
interoperable tolling standard be developed and adopted in the future.
As noted previously, this rule does not impose the creation of
standard; hence, there are no changes needed to the rule.

5. How should the national standard allow for changes in technologies
over time?

A number of the responses reiterated points made in response to
previous questions. The point reiterated that the standard should
provide a way for any system to evolve over time, but remain backward
compatible for a reasonable time. Electronic identification appears to
remain the most cost-effective means going forward, but other forms of
electronic identification will also be important and should be
anticipated and provided for in the standards. The standard should
emphasize approach rather than a technology, device, or vendor. It was
again noted that the national standard should be harmonized with the
IntelliDrive\SM\ program.
The Texas DOT recommended that technology should be viewed as a
tool to support the interoperable network, by focusing on not only ETC,
but also the supporting agreements, networks, and procedures, plus
video tolling so that changes in technology can be more easily
integrated into the manner in which revenue is collected. Several
others responded that if there are to be changes in any of the
standardized fundamental technologies, these changes should always be
accomplished in a way that allows backward compatibility to support
existing vehicles and infrastructure equipment. General Motors
suggested focusing on performance-based requirements with open-
standards developed through industry voluntary consensus process
consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995.
It was suggested that the national standard must provide for
flexibility to handle future methods for charging a toll to customers
by providing expandability within the financial standards to associate
potential multiple devices and business rules to an account. The
standards should extend beyond today's norms for ETC by considering
electronic payment systems that would employ more ubiquitous data
collection, account management, and payment methods than are available
in today's transponder-based electronic tolling business models.
Several suggested that a national ETC standard should focus on the
data protocol, how the data is stored in a device, and how it is
presented to the toll agency, not the means by which the data is
transmitted. Similarly, the automobile manufacturers' associations
suggested that by focusing on standards for message sets, rather than
applications, innovation in applications development may proceed
unabated. Similarly, by not standardizing the vehicle human machine
interface, automobile manufacturers may proceed rapidly with innovation
and product differentiation in this area to best meet the needs of
their customers.
Mark IV noted that toll operators must be allowed to realize the
safety, efficiency, and environmental benefits of the investments they
have made and commitments to amortization schedules. They must be
allowed to make their own decisions on conversion based upon the
financial, operational, political, and practical considerations unique
to their organization.
The FHWA generally agrees with the comments. They will provide
valuable input should a national interoperable tolling standard be
developed and adopted in the future. As noted previously, this rule
does not impose the creation of standards; hence, there are no changes
needed to the rule.

6. What are the personal privacy aspects of a national electronic toll
collection standard and the technologies that may be used to achieve
it?

All of the respondents expressed the importance of preservation of
personal privacy. However, Mark IV IVHS commented that there are no
personal privacy aspects related to the technology. They indicated that
privacy issues should be legislated rather than regulated and, in that
context are beyond the scope of this proposed rule.
The NCTA recommended that privacy principles be developed under the
national ETC standard to ensure that individuals using the national
standard equipped vehicles may be able to do so anonymously. They
recommended that personal information used within a national standards
program should be limited to information necessary to carry out an
articulated and valid national standard purpose.

[[Page 51769]]

More than one-half responded that transaction information, spending
patterns, and all information related to the personal and financial
sources backing an account should be adequately protected. Personal
information including account status, credit card information, address
information, and travel must be kept private and used solely for the
collection of tolls and fines. If the standards accommodate devices
that exchange information for multiple purposes, there should be
safeguards to ensure that the data flow involving payment transactions
is unique and not able to be replicated by legitimate equipment
designed for other purposes.
The NCTA noted that, for the collection of tolls for non-toll
applications, it recommends the practice of utilizing fair information
practices, such as notice and consent by patrons that will establish
their agreement that certain private information will be used in the
conduct of the business function in which they have agreed to
participate. The national standard must contain the tools necessary for
the careful protection of personal information and set limits that can
be audited on how long personal information will be retained by users
and administrators in a national program. The national standard must
also provide the opportunity for a customer to terminate their
participation (i.e., opt-out) in a non-ETC function.
The automobile manufacturers' associations noted that the VII
Coalition has devoted considerable effort and consensus-building into
the development and adoption of the ``VII Privacy Policies Framework.''
This document forms the basis for privacy rules expected to govern a
National IntelliDrive\SM\ Program. As a potential IntelliDrive\SM\
application, it is important that ETC systems intending to use the
IntelliDrive\SM\ system are designed in ways that meet the principles
and limits expressed in the ``VII Privacy Policies Framework.''
Raytheon suggested that FHWA should consider requiring that the
subject privacy policies be developed in accordance with specific
recognized guidelines such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development Privacy Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy or the
more recently developed Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Privacy
Framework.
The previous comments provide valuable input toward potential
development of national interoperable tolling standards, or guidance
for implementing toll collection interoperability. The comments
reiterate the need for privacy policies as required in section 950.5(c)
of this rule. No changes to the rule are needed based on these
comments.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

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

The FHWA has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is significant
within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. This action is considered significant because of the
substantial State and local government and public interest in the
requirements for automated toll collection systems. This rule provides
interoperability requirements, standards, or performance specifications
for toll projects initiated under section 1604 of SAFETEA-LU that use
ETC. Section 1604 of SAFETEA-LU establishes or amends three tolling
programs: (1) The Value Pricing Pilot Program, which has a maximum of
15 cooperative agreements; (2) the Express Lanes Demonstration Program,
which has a maximum of 15 tolling projects; and (3) the Interstate
System Construction Toll Pilot Program, which has a maximum of three
tolling projects. This rule only establishes conditions on a Federal
grant of authority for toll programs under section 1604 and does not
require a State to impose tolls on any particular facility nor mandate
how a State or toll authority operates, maintains or enforces its
tolling program.
It is expected that the economic costs of this rule will be minimal
while the benefits could be significant. These changes are not
anticipated to adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the
economy. Since this rule only applies to new projects initiated under
section 1604 of SAFETEA-LU, no significant encumbrances are added to
the project's design or implementation.
Interoperability will afford potential reductions in implementation
and operating costs in several ways for the implementing agencies and
the public. First, it will allow the leveraging of existing resources,
specifically the toll transponders that are being used by vehicle
operators. By designing for interoperability, a new ETC project will
not need to distribute as many toll transponders as it would if it
designed a unique toll collection system. The public users will not
need to purchase or fund additional devices and accounts. According to
the proceedings of a seminar conducted by the World Bank Group in March
1999, agencies implementing a toll facility may realize additional cost
savings of installed equipment of $5,000 per toll collecting lane for
ETC versus traditional manual methods.\1\ Studies indicate that the
costs for adding ETC to existing or already constructed roadways varies
from $1.7 million (in 2005 dollars) for seven collection sites along 26
miles of Interstate route 5 in San Diego \2\ to $35.7 million for 31
miles of roadway in Dade County, Florida.\3\ Different levels of
communication and technology infrastructure help account for the
variation in implementation costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Seminar proceedings on ``Tolling Options'' from ``Asian Toll
Road Development in an Era of Financial Crisis,'' March 1999, World
Bank Group and the Japanese Ministry of Construction. Link: http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/toll_rds.htm#options.
\2\ I-5 North Coast Managed Lanes Value Pricing Study: Concept
Plan Volume 1, prepared by PBConsult for the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG), California; April 2006. Link to Portable
document format (PDF) file: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1227_5523.pdf.
\3\ Miami-Dade Expressway Authority: Open Road Tolling Master
Plan 2007-2011, prepared by Dade Transportation Consultants for
Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, Florida; March 2006. Link ITS Costs
database: http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/9A6D1C1362BD54C3852573EC0049CD49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, the operating cost for an electronic toll lane is less than
one-tenth that of a standard lane. A 1997 report indicated that the
Oklahoma Turnpike Authority spent approximately $16,000 per year on the
operational cost of an ETC lane. In contrast, the Authority spent
approximately $176,000 per year to operate a manual toll collection
lane. While this report represents a rural implementation, and may not
be fully representative of a more metropolitan implementation with a
great number of transactions, the increased number of tolled lanes and
the cost savings of automating toll collection lanes versus staffed
lanes provides for similar cost savings for operations.
Third, there are also environmental savings associated with
congestion reduction. Increasing access to electronic toll lanes will
decrease time spent waiting to pay tolls. As an example of reduced
delays, attended toll collection facilities can process approximately
300 vehicles per hour, or 12 seconds per vehicle. Dedicated ETC
facilities can process approximately 1,200 vehicles per hour, or 3
seconds per vehicle.\4\ Using a conservative

[[Page 51770]]

estimate for a queue of four vehicles for processing per lane, the
delay for not using ETC equals 36 seconds. During peak periods, queues
would be longer and delays increased. When multiplied by the number of
transactions, these time savings can be considerable based on the value
of $15+ per hour that an average person in the United States earns.
While the total savings are dependant on how many new systems are
built, they could be considerable. Costs would be dependent on the
methods that are instituted to collect payments. For example, it may
take longer to pay using a lane that allows for multiple types of
payment as opposed to lanes dedicated to ETC or barrier-free collection
techniques. However, the Department believes that these differences
would be minimal or more than offset by the delays caused by current
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Tollways Volume 2, Number 3, by IBTTA, 2005; The Path to
Open Road Tolling, by Timothy O. Gallagher and Harold W. Worrall,
pgs. 11-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toll plazas and barriers reduce a facility's throughput of
vehicles, resulting in traffic congestion and its associated hazards as
the demand and volume of vehicles increase. Electronic tolling helps to
mitigate congestion by eliminating the bottlenecks caused by toll
plazas and barriers. For example, in 1995, researchers compared vehicle
throughput on lanes with manual toll collections versus ETC on the
Tappan Zee Bridge in New York. The manual collection lane accommodated
up to 400 to 450 vehicles per hour while an electronic lane peaked at
1,000 vehicles per hour.\5\ Also, in another example, the E-ZPass ETC
system saved commuters approximately 2.1 million hours of delay on the
New Jersey Turnpike in 2000.\6\ An evaluation from Florida indicated
that enhancing ETC with open road tolling decreased delay by 50 percent
for manual cash customers and by 55 percent for automatic coin machine
customers, and increased speed by 57 percent in the open road tolling
lanes. The addition of open road tolling also decreased crashes by an
estimated 22 to 26 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Lennon, L. ``Tappan Zee Bridge E-ZPass System Traffic and
Environmental Studies,'' Paper presented at the 64th ITE Annual
Meeting: 1995. ITS Benefits Database Link: http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/BFFD6D277991A8C385269610051E2BE.
\6\ Operational and Traffic Benefits of E-ZPass to the New
Jersey Turnpike, Prepared by the Wilbur Smith Associates for the New
Jersey Turnpike Authority, New Jersey: August 2001. ITS Benefits
Database Link: http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/78B2ACEBB79ED67785256AC0006E29ED.
\7\ Klodzinski, J. and Gordin, E. and Al-Deek, H. M.
``Evaluation of Impacts from Deployment of an Open Road Tolling
Concept for a Mainline Toll Plaza.'' Paper presented at the 86th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 2007.
ITS Benefits Database Link: http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/0786EF6A8384D176852573E5006D0C33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, this rule will result in only minimal costs to those
affected. In addition, 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. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on
small entities and has determined that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not change the roles or responsibilities of small
entities in ETC projects. The rule neither improves nor worsens small
entities' opportunities to participate in ETC projects, so it results
in no economic effect on the small entities. For these reasons, FHWA
certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48).
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). This rule only
establishes conditions on a Federal grant of authority for toll
programs under section 1604 and does not require a State, public
authority, or private entity designated by a State, to impose tolls on
any particular facility nor mandates how a State or toll authority
operates, maintains or enforces its tolling program.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and FHWA has determined
that this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also
determined that this action will not preempt any State law or State
regulation or affect the States' 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 do not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action will not cause any
environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately
affect children.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that this

[[Page 51771]]

action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The rule
addresses interoperability requirements, standards, or performance
specifications for toll projects initiated under section 1604 of
SAFETEA-LU that use ETC and would not impose any direct compliance
requirements on Indian tribal governments.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that this
is not a significant energy action under that order since it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.

Regulation Identification Number

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 950

Communications equipment, Electronic products, Highways and roads,
Motor vehicles, Radio, Telecommunication, Transportation.

Issued on: September 29, 2009.
Victor Mendez,
Administrator.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA adds a new part 950 to
subchapter K, chapter I, title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, to read
as follows:

PART 950--ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION

Sec.
950.1 Purpose.
950.3 Definitions.
950.5 Requirement to use electronic toll collection technology.
950.7 Interoperability requirements.
950.9 Enforcement.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109, 315; sec. 1604(b)(5) and (b)(6), Pub.
L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 49 CFR 1.48.

Sec. 950.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish interoperability
requirements for toll facilities that are tolled under section 1604 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) that use
electronic toll collection.

Sec. 950.3 Definitions.

As used in this part:
1604 toll program refers to any of the tolling programs authorized
under section 1604 of SAFETEA-LU. These programs include the Value
Pricing Pilot Program, the Express Lanes Demonstration Program, and the
Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program.
Electronic toll collection means the ability for vehicle operators
to pay tolls automatically without slowing down from normal highway
speeds.
Toll agency means the relevant public or private entity or entities
to which toll authority has been granted for a facility under a 1604
toll program.

Sec. 950.5 Requirement to use electronic toll collection technology.

(a) Any toll agency operating a toll facility pursuant to authority
under a 1604 toll program shall use an electronic toll collection
system as the method for collecting tolls from vehicle operators for
the use of the facility unless the toll agency can demonstrate to the
FHWA that some other method is either more economically efficient or
will make the facility operate more safely. If a facility is collecting
tolls pursuant to section 1604(b) of SAFETEA-LU, the toll agency shall
only use electronic toll collection systems. Nothing in this subsection
shall prevent a toll agency from using cash payment methods, such as
toll booths, in areas that are not located in the toll facility's lanes
of travel if the location and use of such methods do not create unsafe
operating conditions on the toll facility.
(b) A toll agency using electronic toll collection technology must
develop and implement reasonable methods to enable vehicle operators
that are not enrolled in a toll collection program that is
interoperable with the toll collection system of the relevant toll
facility to use the facility.
(c) A toll agency using electronic toll collection technology must
develop, implement, and make publicly available privacy policies to
safeguard the disclosure of any data that may be collected through such
technology concerning any user of a toll facility operating pursuant to
authority under a 1604 toll program, but is not required to submit such
policies to FHWA for approval.

Sec. 950.7 Interoperability requirements.

(a) For any toll facility operating pursuant to authority under a
1604 toll program, the toll agency shall--
(1) Identify the projected users of the facility;
(2) Identify the predominant toll collection systems likely
utilized by the users of the facility; and
(3) Identify the noncash electronic technology likely to be in use
within the next five years in that area.
(b) Based on the identification conducted under subsection (a), the
toll agency shall receive the FHWA's concurrence that the facility's
toll collection system's standards and design meet the requirements of
this part.
(c) In requesting the FHWA's concurrence, the toll agency shall
demonstrate to the FHWA that the selected toll collection system and
technology achieves the highest reasonable degree of interoperability
both with technology currently in use at other existing toll facilities
and with technology likely to be in use at toll facilities within the
next five years in that area. The toll agency shall explain to the FHWA
how the toll collection system takes into account both the use of
noncash electronic technology currently deployed within an appropriate
geographic area of travel (as defined by the toll agency) and the
noncash electronic technology likely to be in use within the next five
years in that area. FHWA, in determining whether to concur in the toll
agency's proposal, will give appropriate weight to current and future
interoperability with toll facilities in that area. The facility's toll
collection system design shall include the communications requirements
between roadside equipment and toll transponders, as well as accounting
compatibility requirements in order to ensure that users of the toll
facilities are properly identified and tolls are charged to the
appropriate account of the user.
(d) A toll agency that operates any toll facility pursuant to
authority under a 1604 toll program must upgrade its toll collection
system to meet any applicable standards and interoperability tests that
have been officially adopted through rulemaking by the FHWA.
(e) With respect to facilities that are tolled pursuant to the
Value Pricing Pilot Program, this part only applies if tolls are
imposed on a facility after the effective date of this rule. However,
such facility is subject to this part if the facility's toll collection
system's method or technology used to collect tolls from vehicle
operators is changed or

[[Page 51772]]

upgraded after the effective date of the regulations in this part.
(f) Nothing in this part shall be construed as requiring the use of
any particular type of electronic toll collection technology. However,
any such toll collection technology must meet the interoperability
requirement of this section.

Sec. 950.9 Enforcement.

(a) The tolling authority of any facility operating pursuant to
authority under a 1604 toll program shall be suspended in the event the
relevant toll agency is not in compliance with this part within six (6)
months of receiving a written notice of non-compliance from FHWA. If
the toll agency demonstrates that it is taking the necessary steps to
come into compliance within a reasonable period of time, FHWA shall
extend such tolling authority.
(b) The FHWA may take other action as may be appropriate, including
action pursuant to Sec. 1.36 of this title.

[FR Doc. E9-24296 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P