63408 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., E.T.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring notification of

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard/envelope.

Interested parties are invited to send

comments regarding any aspect of this

information collection, including, but

not limited to: (1) the necessity and

utility of the information collection for

the proper performance of the functions

of the FHWA; (2) the accuracy of the

estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

collected information; and (4) ways to

minimize the collection burden without

reducing the quality of the collected

information. Comments submitted in

response to this notice will be

summarized and/or included in the

request for OMB renewal of this

information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mohan Pillay, Office of Engineering,

(202) 366–4655, Federal Highway

Administration, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

E.T., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Emergency Relief Funding

Applications.

OMB Number: 2125–0525.

Background: 23 U.S.C. 125 requires

States to submit an application for

emergency relief (ER) funds to the

Federal Highway Administration. The

ER funds are established for the repair

or reconstruction of Federal-aid

highways and Federal roads which are

found to have suffered serious damage

by natural disasters over a wide area or

serious damage from catastrophic

failures. The information is needed for

the FHWA to fulfill its statutory

obligations regarding funding

determinations on emergency work to

repair highway facilities. The

requirements covering the FHWA ER

program are contained in 23 CFR part

668.

Respondents: State Highway

Agencies.

Estimated Annual Burden on

Respondents: The amount of time

required depends on the nature of the

event, the extent of damage, among

other things, and varies widely among

applications by the same State and

among States. On the average, it is

estimated to require approximately 150

hours of professional staff time

(engineering) plus 50 hours of

secretarial staff time (typing and editing)

for a total of 200 hours per application.

The estimated average annual burden

for all respondents per year would be

7,200 hours (i.e., 36 applications times

200 hours per application).

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 125; 23 CFR 668.

Issued on: November 18, 1997.

Diana Zeidel,

Deputy Associate Administrator for

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–31173 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement;

Henderson and Warren Counties,

Illinois

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

will be prepared for the construction of

U.S. Route 34 as a four-lane highway.

The proposed project will extend from

east of the Village of Gulfport in

Henderson County, Illinois to the

vicinity of Monmouth in Warren

County, Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Johnson, Environmental

Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, 3250 Executive Park

Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703,

Phone: (217) 492–4600

Dale E. Risinger, District Engineer,

Illinois Department of Transportation,

401 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois

61602–1111, Phone: (309) 671–3333.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed action is the construction of a

four-lane divided highway in

Henderson and Warren Counties,

Illinois which will be approximately 47

km (29 miles) in length. The project will

begin just east of Gulfport, Illinois

extending east through a corridor in the

vicinity of U.S. Route 34, ending east of

Monmouth, Illinois. The proposed

project may bypass communities within

its limits.

The proposed action will enhance

traffic access, improve traffic

circulation, provide safer and more

efficient access to the urban area,

provide a divided highway design for

high operating speeds and continuity

from the Illinois/Iowa border to I–74 in

Galesburg, Illinois. Primary

environmental resources which may be

impacted are local property tax income,

agricultural land and wetlands.

Alternatives under consideration

include: (1) Taking no action or (2)

improvement of the existing two-lane

roadway to a four-lane facility between

Gulfport and U.S. Route 67 including

improvement of the existing northwest

bypass around Monmouth. Several

proposed alignment alternatives will be

evaluated.

The scoping process undertaken as

part of this proposed project will

include distribution of a scoping

information packet, coordination with

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies, and review sessions as

needed. A formal scoping information

packet may be obtained from one to the

contact persons listed above.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to the proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, a comprehensive public

involvement program will be

undertaken. A public meeting

concerning the proposed action will be

held in the study area prior to the public

hearing. Public notice will be given of

the time and place of the meeting and

hearing. The Draft EIS will be available

for public agency review and comment

and suggestions are invited from all

interested parties. Comments or

questions concerning this proposed

action and the EIS should be directed to

the FHWA or Illinois Department of

Transportation contact persons.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205 Highway Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernment consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on: November 14, 1997.

Dennis Johnson,

Environmental Engineer, Springfield.

[FR Doc. 97–31291 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–97–2320; FHWA–

96–46]

Achieving Interoperability in Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS) With

Dedicated Short Range

Communications (DSRC)

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice; extension

of comment period.

SUMMARY: The FHWA published a

notice in the Federal Register on

January 6, 1997 (62 FR 791), in which

the agency requested comments on three

items of concern relating to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63409

implementation of dedicated short range

communication (DSRC) systems

specified in the Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS) National

Architecture. These issues are

paraphrased as follows:

(1) Should the FHWA require that

DSRC systems purchased with Federalaid highway funding meet draft

standard specifications?

(2) Should the FHWA require that

DSRC systems purchased with Federalaid highway funding meet an escalating

interoperability formula (e.g., start with

national interoperability of all

commercial vehicle operations (CVO)

applications and gradually transition

stepwise over time to national

interoperability of all federally-funded

DSRC applications)?

(3) Should a single DSRC standard be

developed for all applications in ITS

projects with Federal-aid highway

funding?

The comment period for this notice

was scheduled to close on February 1,

1997. The FHWA solicits further public

comment on this issue; therefore, it is

extending the comment period until

January 27, 1998.

DATES: Comments must be received no

later than January 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All signed, written

comments should refer to the docket

number that appears at the top of this

document and must be submitted to the

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001. All

comments received will be available for

examination at the above address

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring notification of

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or

postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical and programmatic questions

contact: Mr. Michael P. Onder, ITS Joint

Program Office, (202) 366–2639. For

legal questions contact: Ms. Beverly M.

Russell, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202) 366–1355. Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ITS program of the United States

Department of Transportation (USDOT)

was established by the Congress in the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L.

102–240, 105 Stat. 1914. In section

6053(b) of the ISTEA, the Congress

directed the USDOT to develop and

implement standards and protocols to

promote widespread use and evaluation

of ITS technology as a component of the

nation’s surface transportation systems.

A precursor to the development of

standards has been the formation of a

National ITS Architecture. The

architecture describes how system

components should work and interact,

and includes recommendations for

which kinds of communication system

media are used for data transmission

among the various components.

The USDOT began an intensive

National ITS Architecture development

program in December 1994, and

concluded with an architecture that

supports 30 ITS user services in July

1996. The National ITS Architecture

envisions a transportation system in

which DSRC is the favored method of

wireless communications between

vehicles and roadside subsystems for

CVO, for Electronic Toll and Traffic

Management (ETTM), and for several

other important, but less prevalent, ITS

applications. In ITS reauthorization

legislation, for fiscal years 1998 or 1999,

it is expected that the USDOT will be

directed to ensure conformance with the

National ITS Architecture and its

implementing standards for ITS

deployment projects using Federal-aid

highway funds, thus ensuring the

highest effectiveness and benefits for the

funds expended.

The Vehicle/Roadside Air Interface

Problem

Currently, interoperability does not

exist between the DSRC equipment of

different manufacturers. The DSRC

standards governing the wireless

communication between the

transponder and reader, and the

message sets in this wireless air

interface exchange that are required for

interoperability, are not yet applied to

ITS project deployment.

Interoperability, in this case, is the

ability of any given roadside reader or

interrogation device to meaningfully

query, send or receive, and process data

from any given transponder mounted in

a vehicle, regardless of which

manufacturer produced either the reader

or transponder. In order for wireless

communication between vehicles and

roadside—a fundamental enabling

technology for ITS—to take place

successfully, DSRC standards must be

established at levels one and two of the

International Standards Organization’s

Open Systems Interconnect (OSI)

reference model, which deal with the

‘‘air interface’’ and the physical

properties of the system. Furthermore,

for the DSRC applications to be a viable

alternative for commercial fleets, it is

essential that interoperability exist on a

nationwide basis.

Over the past several years, the DSRC

industry has been unable to agree upon

a viable path for DSRC standardization.

If the FHWA continues to allow Federalaid highway funds to be invested in

noncompatible systems, the magnitude

of the problem will continue to escalate.

Unless the DSRC industry can identify

a solution to the remaining areas of noninteroperability soon, the FHWA will be

forced to seek a process to develop and

apply a standard as an interoperability

solution to support long term

deployment of DSRC using Federal-aid

highway funds, and therein halt the

proliferation of non-interoperable DSRC

systems.

Discussion of Comments

A total of 21 comments were received

in response to the initial notice

soliciting comments on January 6, 1997.

These comments represent the opinions

of 29 entities. The comments received in

response to each question are described

immediately after a restatement of each

question. The first question is

subdivided into three parts for clear

delineation of the salient aspects of the

responses. The remaining two questions

are briefly stated with their respective

responses from the public.

Questions and Responses

1(a). Should the FHWA require that

the DSRC systems purchased with

Federal-aid highway funds meet draft

standard specification, such as that of

the American Society for Testing

Materials (ASTM) proposed Draft No. 6

DSRC standard and the Committee for

European Normalization (CEN) draft

documents N473, N474, and N505, prior

to their formal adoption as industry

standards in an effort to reduce the

proliferation of non-interoperable

systems?

The responses were evenly divided on

the question of whether Federal-aid

funds should be tied to conformance

with draft standards.

Comments from manufacturers were

divided. Those manufacturers with

products that meet, or are close to

meeting, the ASTM draft DSRC

standards were in favor of using a draft

standard rather than a fully adopted

national standard. The majority of the

manufacturers, and some of the public

and user agencies, stated that the CEN

pre-standards are not suitable for North

America. It was suggested that current

work on the ASTM standard covering

North American use of the 902 and 928

megahertz (MHZ) band for the DSRC
63410 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

capability should be completed and,

then, a long-term transition to the 5.8

gigahertz (GHz) band should be

developed.

A majority of the commenters from

the public and user agencies rejected

use of the ASTM draft DSRC standards.

They stated that the existing ASTM

draft DSRC standards are not

interoperable and would not ensure

interoperability.

A few system integrators commented

that requiring conformance with the

ASTM draft DSRC standards would

force all manufacturers to support

preparation of the final standard, thus

accelerating the effort to establish and

publish the national standards.

1(b). Should the FHWA include

message set requirement, such as, the

Commercial Vehicle Information

Systems and Networks Dedicated Short

Range Communications Interface

Requirements of April 2, 1996 (The

Johns Hopkins University-Applied

Physics Lab)?

A majority of commenters agreed that

message set requirements are needed in

the DSRC standards.

Manufacturers commented that

message set requirements should be part

of the standard, but that they would

rather work with a fully defined and

adopted DSRC standard.

Comments from the public and user

agencies varied depending on the

particular DSRC application in use;

however, a majority stated that message

set requirements should be incorporated

into the DSRC standard to the extent

practicable.

The system integrators believed that

including message set requirements as a

portion of the DSRC standard is

necessary and would help force

commitment to reach an agreement on

the DSRC standard.

1(c). Should compliance with specific

draft DSRC standards be required for

CVO application only; for both CVO and

ETTM application; or for CVO, ETTM,

and additional applications?

A slight majority of commenters

favored requiring compliance with the

ASTM draft DSRC standard for

application to CVO and ETTM.

Comments from manufacturers were

divided on adopting an ASTM draft

DSRC standard. One half of this group

stated that the availability of Federal-aid

highway funds should be tied only to a

fully defined and endorsed DSRC

standard; while the other half supported

the adoption of a specific ASTM draft

standard. There was a divergence of

views on the extent of applicability of

a DSRC standard. Some stated that users

of simple applications should not have

to pay for the needs of complex

applications. Others supported a single

DSRC standard for all applications.

Another group would adopt a single

DSRC standard applicable to both CVO

and ETTM applications.

Public and user agency responses

were slightly varied, with all supporting

application of a DSRC standard to CVO.

A majority favored application of the

DSRC standard to both CVO and ETTM.

A few commenters favored a single

DSRC standard for all DSRC

applications.

Comments from the system integrators

supported a widely applicable DSRC

standard. This group supported

immediate establishment of rules for use

of the ASTM draft DSRC standard as a

prerequisite for Federal-aid highway

funding. According to the system

integrators, even a draft DSRC standard

could be used as a mechanism to move

all parties to agreement on the final

endorsed DSRC standard.

2. Should the FHWA require that

DSRC systems purchased with Federalaid highway funds meet an escalating

interoperability formula? An example

would be that, initially, all CVO

applications must be nationally

interoperable; later, all new (after some

specified later date) ETTM systems and

system upgrades must be interoperable

with CVO applications; and, finally, all

other new (after another specified even

later date) and upgrading DSRC

applications must be interoperable with

CVO applications.

The FHWA believes that nationwide

interoperability is critical for the

efficient operation of vehicles using

DSRC equipment crossing the nation,

especially commercial vehicles, and,

thus, requires a national focus. The

ETTM programs, on the other hand, and

possibly other DSRC applications are

more focused on regional travel, with

the exception of commercial carriers.

Thus, it may not be practical to require

all users of DSRC equipment to adhere

immediately to a national DSRC

standard. Instead, a transition to

national interoperability may be the best

approach.

A significant majority (60 percent) of

all commenters favored use of a DSRC

standard with an escalating

interoperability formula as a

prerequisite for use of Federal-aid

highway funds.

A large majority of the DSRC

equipment manufacturers and the DSRC

system integrators responded favorably

to the use of an escalating

interoperability formula.

Comments from public and user

agencies were divided on support for

application of the escalating

interoperability formulas as a

prerequisite for use of Federal-aid

highway funds. The public and user

agencies strongly supported continued

use of existing equipment, including

both transponders and readers, when a

DSRC standard is established.

3. Should a single DSRC standard be

developed for all DSRC applications, or

should separate standards be developed

with an assumption that trucks and

buses, and perhaps other users, would

likely require separate technology to

perform those functions?

The FHWA recognizes that the CVO

and ETTM applications, as well as other

DSRC applications, have different

requirements that have also shaped the

design and operation of the DSRC

equipment. While it may be desirable to

have a single DSRC standard, it may not

be practical. A possible alternative

measure would be to have a single

DSRC standard with standard fields,

such as, vehicle identifier and message

set identifier, but with different message

sets for each application.

A majority (64 percent) of all nonFederal respondents favored use of a

single DSRC standard for all

applications as a prerequisite for use of

Federal-aid funds.

The DSRC equipment manufacturers

and the DSRC system integrators

unanimously favored development and

endorsement of an appropriately

designed single DSRC standard, and its

use for all ITS applications of DSRC, as

a prerequisite for use of Federal-aid

highway funds.

Comments from the public and user

agencies were more divided on their

responses for and against a single DSRC

standard. Some of the agencies seemed

to favor a single DSRC standard with

multiple applications under its

umbrella, which would provide

interoperability, but possibly with

different optional features (such as,

different message sets) for the different

applications. This is differentiated from

the scenario implied by those questions

asked in the January 6 notice; namely,

a single DSRC standard with all of its

requirements applicable to all DSRC

applications.

Conclusions

The USDOT has a strong desire to

facilitate development and acceptance

of standards that best serve the industry

and the users of ITS technology. The

USDOT is relying on the DSRC industry

and users of ITS technology to come to

agreement on the national DSRC

standards. The FHWA has demonstrated

its willingness to assist in this process

by funding ASTM, a standards

development organization, for this

purpose. Also, the FHWA has been
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63411

participating in all discussions

sponsored by the Intelligent

Transportation Society of America (ITS

America) that have been taking place

between DSRC users and manufacturers.

The FHWA understands that significant

progress has been made toward

agreement on a broad DSRC standard in

the ASTM Draft No. 7 DSRC standard,

prepared with industry and user

participation. It is clear that the DSRC

industry and users have been striving to

make progress on the national DSRC

standards—many work on their own

time and at their own expense. The

USDOT is sincerely appreciative for this

cooperative effort, and will continue to

encourage the DSRC industry to do its

part. The need for national

interoperability for CVO applications is

becoming more critical. Also, the total

national investment in noninteroperable ETTM equipment

continues to grow rapidly. The USDOT

would prefer that the DSRC industry

and users set the necessary DSRC

standards through a consensus building

process among the DSRC vendor and

user communities, which the USDOT is

sponsoring through ITS America. It is

imperative that the DSRC standards be

ready for ballot by the end of 1997. If

the ballottable standard is not available

by that time, for publication by June

1998, of the endorsed DSRC standards,

a meeting will be held under the ITS

America auspices between the USDOT,

the DSRC users, and the manufacturers

to determine the extent of the delay. If

a significant impasse to progress

remains at the conclusion of that

meeting, the USDOT will initiate a

rulemaking action to establish the

necessary standards to allow

interoperability between DSRC

applications.

(Sec. 6053(b), Pub. L. 102–240, 105 Stat.

1914; 23 U.S.C. 307 note; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: November 19, 1997.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31243 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–97–2907]

Outdoor Advertising Control

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Nevada Department of

Transportation (NVDOT) proposes to

amend the Highway Beautification

Federal/State Agreement dated January

21, 1972, between the United States of

America represented by the Secretary of

Transportation and the State of Nevada.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to FHWA Docket FHWA–97–

2907, the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT

Docket Room PL–401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

All comments received will be available

for examination at the above address

between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring notification of

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope/postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert A. Johnson, Chief, Program

Services Division, Office of Real Estate

Services, HRE–20, (202) 366–2020; or

Mr. Robert Black, Office of Chief

Counsel, HCC–31, (202) 366–1359,

Federal Highway Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Highway Beautification Act of 1965

(HBA), codified at 23 U.S.C. § 131,

requires States to provide effective

control of outdoor advertising in the

areas adjacent to both the Interstate

System and Federal-aid primary system.

States must provide effective control as

a condition of receiving their full

apportionment of Federal-aid Highway

Funds. Effective control of outdoor

advertising includes prohibiting the

erection of new advertising signs except

for certain categories of signs listed at

§ 131(c).

One of these sign categories, ‘‘off

premise’’ signs, may be allowed by a

State in zoned or unzoned commercial

or industrial areas. Signs in such areas

must conform to the requirements of an

agreement between the State and the

Federal Government which establishes

size, lighting, and spacing criteria

consistent with customary use. The

agreement between Nevada and the

FHWA was executed January 21, 1972.

The 1972 agreement states that the

State of Nevada may permit signs to be

erected no closer than 500 feet from an

intersection outside ‘‘incorporated

villages and cities.’’ The amendment to

the agreement, the exact language of

which is set forth below, would use the

term ‘‘urbanized area boundaries’’ as

defined by 23 U.S.C. § 101(a) in place of

‘‘incorporated villages and cities.’’

In April 1980 the FHWA adopted a

procedure to be followed if a State

requested a change in the Federal/State

agreement. A State must first submit its

proposed change, along with the reasons

for the change and the effects of such

change, to the FHWA Division Office.

The Division, Region, and headquarters

offices all review and comment on the

proposal. If the concept is approved, the

State must then hold public hearings on

the proposed change to receive

comments from the public. If the State

then wishes to amend the agreement, it

must submit: (1) the justification for the

change; (2) the record of the hearings;

and (3) an assessment of the impact.

These are summarized and published in

the Federal Register for comments.

Comments on the proposed amended

agreement will then be evaluated by the

FHWA. The FHWA will then decide if

the agreement should be amended as

proposed and will publish its decision

in the Federal Register. An amended

agreement will then be sent to the State

for signature.

Nevada has completed the above

procedure up to the point of publishing

in the Federal Register. No negative

comments were received in response to

the State’s public hearings on this

proposed change, and several

supportive comments were received.

Nevada’s formal request provides

justification for the proposed revision to

the 1972 Federal/State Agreement. The

primary issue is that the term

‘‘urbanized area boundaries’’ would be

more consistent with the Code of

Federal Regulations (23 CFR 750,

Subpart G) which speaks primarily of

urban areas, rather than incorporated

cities, towns, or villages. The change in

the agreement is aimed primarily at

effective control of billboards in Clark

County (Las Vegas), Nevada, where a

vast part of the metropolitan area is

outside the incorporated city limits of

Las Vegas. The State of Nevada believes

that this change in the agreement could

allow between 20 and 24 new billboard

sites primarily in the Las Vegas area.

The State maintains that this would

result in minimal aesthetic impact

because the urban areas are generally

developed and contain numerous onpremise signs.

The Proposed Change

The Federal/State Agreement ‘‘For

Carrying Out the National Policy

Relative to Control of Outdoor

Advertising in Areas Adjacent to the

National System of Interstate and

Defense Highways and the Federal-Aid

Primary System’’ made and entered on

January 21, 1972, between the United

States of America represented by the

Secretary of Transportation acting by

and through the Federal Highway