68418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority and Issuance 

■ For the reasons set forth above, the 

Federal Trade Commission amends 16 

CFR part 1 as follows: 

■ 1. Amend part 1 by adding a new 

subpart N (consisting of § 1.100) to read 

as follows: 

Subpart N—Administrative Wage 

Garnishment 

Sec 

1.100 Administrative wage garnishment. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46; 31 U.S.C. 3720D; 

31 CFR 285.11(f). 

§ 1.100 Administrative wage garnishment. 

(a) General. The Commission may use 

administrative wage garnishment for 

debts, including those referred to 

Financial Management Service, 

Department of Treasury, for crossservicing. Regulations in 31 CFR 285.11 

govern the collection of delinquent 

nontax debts owed to federal agencies 

through administrative garnishment of 

non-Federal wages. Whenever the 

Financial Management Service collects 

such a debt for the Commission using 

administrative wage garnishment, the 

statutory administrative requirements in 

31 CFR 285.11 will govern. 

(b) Hearing official. Any hearing 

required to establish the Commission’s 

right to collect a debt through 

administrative wage garnishment shall 

be conducted by a qualified individual 

selected at the discretion of the 

Chairman of the Commission, as 

specified in 31 CFR 285.11. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Richard C. Donohue, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28045 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 511 

RIN 2125–AF19 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Section 1201 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) requires the 

Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 

to establish a Real-Time System 

Management Information Program that 

provides, in all States, the capability to 

monitor, in real-time, the traffic and 

travel conditions of the major highways 

of the United States and to share these 

data with State and local governments 

and with the traveling public. This rule 

establishes minimum parameters and 

requirements for States to make 

available and share traffic and travel 

conditions information via real-time 

information programs. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

23, 2010. Establishment of the real-time 

information program for traffic and 

travel conditions reporting along the 

Interstate system highways shall be 

completed no later than November 8, 

2014. Establishment of the real-time 

information program for traffic and 

travel conditions reporting along the 

State-designated metropolitan area 

routes of significance shall be 

completed no later than November 8, 

2016. Comments must be received on or 

before December 23, 2010. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Rupert, FHWA Office of 

Operations, (202) 366–2194, or via 

e-mail at robert.rupert@dot.gov. For 

legal questions, please contact Ms. Lisa 

MacPhee, Attorney Advisor, FHWA 

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366– 

1392, or via e-mail at 

lisa.macphee@dot.gov. 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 and Filing 

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 Office of the Federal Register’s home 

page at http://www.archives.gov or the 

Government Printing Office’s Web page 

at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara. 

Comments may be submitted 

electronically to the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

should include the docket number that 

appears in the heading of this 

document. All comments received will 

be available for examination and 

copying at the above address from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments in 

any one of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, or 

labor union). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Background 

History 

Under the heading of ‘‘Congestion 

Relief,’’ section 1201 of SAFETEA–LU 

(Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 

2005) requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish a Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program to provide, in all States, the 

capability to monitor, in real-time, the 

traffic and travel conditions of the major 

highways of the United States and to 

share that information to improve the 

security of the surface transportation 

system, to address congestion problems, 

to support improved response to 

weather events and surface 

transportation incidents, and to 

facilitate national and regional highway 

traveler information. The purposes of 

the Real-Time System Management 

Information Program are to: 

(1) Establish, in all States, a system of 

basic real-time information for 

managing and operating the surface 

transportation system; 

(2) Identify longer range real-time 

highway and transit monitoring needs 

and develop plans and strategies for 

meeting such needs; and 

(3) Provide the capability and means 

to share that data with State and local 

governments and the traveling public. 

Section 1201(c)(1) of SAFETEA–LU 

states that as State and local 

governments develop or update regional 

intelligent transportation system (ITS) 

architectures, described in 23 CFR 

940.9, such governments shall explicitly 

address real-time highway and transit 

information needs and the systems 

needed to meet such needs, including 

addressing coverage, monitoring 

systems, data fusion and archiving, and 

methods of exchanging or sharing 

highway and transit information. The 

FHWA envisions that States carrying 

out updates of regional ITS architectures 

would consider broadening the 

geographic coverage area for gathering 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68419 

and reporting traffic and travel 

conditions. 

These regulations do not impose any 

requirement for a State to apply any 

particular technology, any particular 

technology-dependent application, or 

any particular business approach for 

establishing a real-time information 

program. States and other public 

agencies are instead encouraged to 

consider any salient technology, 

technology-dependent application, and 

business approach options that yield 

information products consistent with 

the requirements set forth in this rule. 

States are encouraged to work with 

value added information providers to 

establish real-time information 

programs. Value added information 

providers presently and in the future 

will create information products for 

commercial use, for sale to a customer 

base, or for other commercial enterprise 

purposes. Based upon this rule, such 

products could be derived from 

information from public sector sources 

in addition to the private sector’s own 

capabilities for creating information 

content. 

The extent of the final rule is solely 

the provision of real-time information. It 

does not require the dissemination of 

the information in any particular 

manner, just that the State make said 

information available. The final rule 

does not require or mandate a particular 

technology nor on a technologydependant application. States 

establishing a real-time information 

program would be able to employ any 

solution chosen to make information 

available. States and public agencies can 

enter into collaborative agreements with 

the private sector for establishing the 

program and gathering data. States and 

public agencies could purchase value 

added information products from value 

added information providers. States and 

public agencies could apply 

combinations of these, and other 

approaches to establish a successful 

real-time information program. 

A Request for Comments was 

published on May 4, 2006, at 71 FR 

26399, that presented a proposed scope 

for a Real-Time System Management 

Information Program. Using responses 

to this request, an NPRM proposing the 

creation of a new part 511 of 23 CFR 

was published on January 14, 2009, at 

74 FR 1993. The purpose was to propose 

the establishment of minimum 

parameters and requirements for States 

to make available traffic and travel 

conditions information via real-time 

information programs. 

A two-stage implementation was 

proposed in the NPRM that included the 

Interstate highway system as the first 

stage for coverage within 2 years, 

followed by other routes of significance 

as identified by the States within 

4 years. The real-time information 

elements include lane or road closures 

because of traffic incidents and work 

zones, road weather observations, and, 

in metropolitan areas with populations 

greater than one million, travel times. 

The timeframes proposed for the 

information were 20 minutes outside of 

applicable metropolitan areas and 

10 minutes for information in the 

metropolitan areas (except for roadway 

weather observations that remained at 

20 minutes). It was proposed that the 

information be 85 percent accurate and 

available 90 percent of the time. 

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 Commenters 

Comments were submitted by a 

representative cross-section of State and 

local agencies, business organizations, 

and individuals that will be affected by 

the Real-Time System Management 

Information Program established 

through this rule. The docket contained 

comments from 35 parties, two of which 

were duplicates. The commenters 

included 16 State departments of 

transportation (DOT); one automobile 

manufacturer; 2 State associations, the 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

and the Northwest Passage Pooled Fund 

Study; the Intelligent Transportation 

Society of America, a technical 

association; Texas Transportation 

Institute (TTI), a university research 

center; the Vehicle Traffic Information 

Coalition, a trade association; 3 traffic 

information providers; the 511 

Coalition, a public/private traffic 

information coalition; 2 traffic 

information related software and 

equipment providers; 2 metropolitan 

planning organizations; a public safety 

operations and communications agency; 

and 2 individuals. 

Overall, the commenters supported 

the goals of the proposed rule, namely 

collecting traffic information and 

making it available to other public and 

private entities. The comments from 

commercial companies tended to favor 

deployment to an even broader base 

than that specified in the proposed rule 

with the same or more aggressive 

schedule. Although several State DOTs 

commented that the data collection 

goals were already being met or were 

achievable in the proposed time frame, 

over two thirds of the DOTs indicated 

that the proposed schedule was too 

short, or that the deployment of the 

mandated capability would be too 

expensive. The AASHTO noted in its 

comments that AASHTO members 

believe the goals of the NPRM are good 

but would not be attainable for several 

of the members in the time frame 

proposed. The AASHTO also 

commented on the potential 

coordination challenges and conflicts 

among the existing federally-required 

processes related to regional ITS 

architectures and to transportation 

planning and the proposed real-time 

system management information 

program. 

The AASHTO commented that FHWA 

needs to consider employing a phased 

approach, establishing goals and targets 

for the program with much longer 

timelines. The AASHTO and the States 

also recommend that any Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program be based on implementing the 

State and regional ITS architectures and 

be based on regionally determined 

customer needs. Finally, AASHTO and 

the States asked FHWA to recognize that 

the proposed Real-Time System 

Management Information Program will 

have significant fiscal impacts to the 

States for implementing the necessary 

ITS capabilities initially and for ongoing 

operating and maintenance of the 

systems over time. 

The FHWA has reviewed and 

analyzed the comments received and 

thanks the commenters for their 

insightful input. Based on other input 

from DOTs and on FHWA’s 

observations of the various traffic and 

information systems that States and 

local agencies have deployed, the 

FHWA continues to find that many 

States have already accomplished much 

of the work necessary to establish their 

real-time information program and that 

the costs are containable within the 

funding eligibility categories identified 

by the rule. However, agencies almost 

unanimously responded that the 2-year 

time frame proposed in the NPRM to 

develop the information program was 

insufficient due to constraints imposed 

by their existing planning and budgeting 

cycles. Many agencies indicated that 

additional time was necessary to enable 

eligible funding categories to be 

programmed to develop their real-time 

management information program. 

Consequently, the FHWA reevaluated 

the consequences of extending the 

period of implementation. The FHWA 

concluded that a 4-year compliance date 

of the rule is an appropriate time frame 

for States to establish the real-time 

information program for traffic and 

travel conditions that encompass all 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
68420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Interstate highways operated by the 

State. Further, FHWA found appropriate 

a 6-year effective date to establish the 

real-time information program along the 

State-designated metropolitan area 

routes of significance. The additional 

time provided by the rule is expected to 

afford States adequate time to establish 

their real-time information management 

program in concert with their other 

needs, priorities, and budgets. 

Another area of concern expressed by 

a majority of DOTs is the accuracy that 

will be required of the data they are to 

share and expectations about how the 

program will be monitored. The TTI 

commented that a number of 

implementation details are not specified 

in the proposed rule. The TTI cited 

examples of how State agencies will 

know if their data meet the quality 

requirements, what evaluation guidance 

will be used, and how often agencies are 

to evaluate accuracy or timeliness. 

Kansas DOT (KDOT) further elaborated 

by commenting that many of the 

elements that are proposed to be 

provided will be subjectively measured 

or difficult to measure accurately. KDOT 

recommended that FHWA provide more 

information regarding the flexibility that 

States will have to determine levels of 

accuracy States can set or are able to 

achieve. KDOT further commented that 

FHWA needs to provide more 

information regarding expectations of 

how States would monitor performance 

or measure accuracy of the information. 

The FHWA agrees philosophically 

that a highly detailed set of data quality 

statistics and an associated validation 

process are desirable. However, 

achievement of specific parameters and 

methodologies requires identifying in 

detail the intended usage for the data 

and the technology to be used for its 

acquisition. The FHWA believes that 

adopting this approach would place 

limitations on the use of the data that 

were not intended or desired, and in 

many instances would impose an 

unnecessary cost on agencies while 

attempting to comply with more 

detailed requirements. However, FHWA 

does acknowledge that, based on the 

comments received, additional 

clarification is needed for the effective 

implementation of the program. In 

response, and as suggested by a number 

of commenters, modifications have been 

incorporated into sec. 511.311(b) to 

better define the collaborative 

responsibilities and contributions of the 

State and the FHWA Division Office 

during the creation of the real-time 

information management program to 

include the identification of the 

processes to be used by the States in 

gauging and assuring the quality of the 

information to be made available by the 

real-time system management 

information program. 

Several commenters included 

discussions about the methods used to 

disseminate the information. The 

methods and technologies to 

disseminate or distribute the 

information available from the RealTime System Management Information 

Program are not within the scope of the 

regulation. In fulfilling the requirements 

of sec. 1201 of SAFETEA–LU, this 

regulation establishes a base level of 

information for traffic and travel 

conditions for all States. To provide 

agencies maximum latitude in their use 

of the information and the use of the 

information by their partners, the rule 

does not specify requirements or details 

related to information distribution 

methods. States and other public 

agencies are instead encouraged to 

consider any salient technology, 

technology-dependent application, and 

business approach options that yield 

information products consistent with 

the requirements set forth in this rule. 

Many DOTs expressed concern about 

the proposed rule’s requirements to 

provide roadway weather information, 

with particular concern expressed about 

the 20 minute update requirement. The 

California DOT agreed that weather 

information is vital but noted that there 

are numerous providers currently in the 

business, and suggested that the 

requirements be diminished. The KDOT 

commented that it is relatively easy to 

report weather information through 

existing weather stations but it is more 

difficult to produce road information 

that is useful to the motorist, and that 

updating this information every 20 

minutes is not feasible without large 

investments in unproven technology. 

After further review, the FHWA agrees 

that the proposed requirements for 

weather information exceed the 

proposed requirements for other travel 

conditions and are not as uniformly 

applicable for all States. To be 

consistent with information for other 

travel conditions under the Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program, sec. 511.309(a)(3) of the rule 

has been modified to indicate that the 

State’s Real-Time System Management 

Information Program is required to 

provide confirmed weather related 

hazardous driving conditions and 

roadway- or lane-closure information, 

and that the information made available 

is to be updated within 20 minutes of 

notice of a changed condition. 

A number of agencies commented on 

the difficulty of providing travel time 

data on the non-Interstate roadways 

designated as routes of significance. The 

Michigan DOT (MDOT) remarks 

summarized these concerns in its 

comments, noting that the MDOT does 

not believe there is a current system or 

algorithm that can be implemented at a 

reasonable cost that can collect travel 

times on surface streets. The FHWA 

agrees with this comment. Accordingly, 

the definition for traffic and travel 

conditions in sec. 511.303 removes the 

extent and degree of congested 

conditions as one of the characteristics 

of traffic and travel conditions and the 

requirements are modified in sec. 

511.309(a)(4) for the real-time system 

management system to make available 

travel time information in metropolitan 

areas only on Interstate and other 

limited-access roadways that are 

designated as routes of significance. 

In the NPRM, the FHWA requested 

comments on the viability and 

practicality for including transit event 

information. With the exception of one 

individual and the Chicago Office of 

Emergency Management and 

Communications, the commenters did 

not encourage including transit 

information. AASHTO’s response was, 

‘‘We recognize the value of reporting 

transit information along with roadway 

information through similar channels to 

the end user. However, there are 

significant challenges associated with 

achieving this goal. A real-time system 

management information program 

requiring transit information would 

require agreements with transit agencies 

over which the state DOT has no 

control.’’ NAVTEQ recommended that 

instead of including transit event 

information in this rule that a parallel 

outreach and rule-making process be 

established to develop the transit 

portion of the program. Based on this 

input the FHWA determined that 

including transit event information 

delivery from a real-time information 

program is not practical at this time. 

The FHWA requested comments on 

the viability and practicality for using 

varying roadway segment lengths for 

conveying travel time for a real-time 

information program. AASHTO, several 

DOTs, and INRIX indicated that 

requiring segment lengths as part of the 

rule will make it difficult for many 

agencies to comply. The Pennsylvania 

DOT pointed out that imposing 

maximum segment lengths potentially 

eliminates public-private partnerships 

from occurring. The AASHTO requested 

in its comments that States have 

flexibility to work with FHWA to 

develop provisions for traffic and travel 

time reporting that are specific to each 

State’s individual situation. After 

evaluating the comments received 

regarding specifying roadway segment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68421 

1The ‘‘Regulatory Cost Analysis of Proposed 

Rulemaking’’ assumed a cost of $76,789 per mile to 

instrument a freeway to gather information 

consistent with that proposed in this rulemaking. A 

project undertaken by the I–95 Corridor Coalition 

that procured real-time information from a private 

provider (INRIX) used a data acquisition cost model 

that provides traffic flow information consistent 

with the information proposed in this rulemaking 

for a cost of $9,535 per mile, amortized over 10 

years. Information about the I–95 Coalition project 

is available at http://www.i95coalition.org. 

lengths for conveying travel time in the 

rule, FHWA concurs with AASHTO’s 

recommendation and has not added 

specifications for roadway segment 

lengths referenced in sec. 511.309(a)(4) 

in the regulation. 

In the NPRM discussion of Executive 

Order 12866, the FHWA requested 

comments on the economic analysis of 

the proposed regulations including 

appropriateness of using the Georgia 

Navigator study in the ‘‘Regulatory Cost 

Analysis of Proposed Rulemaking’’ to 

estimate benefits. INRIX commented 

that the estimates using data from the 

Navigator study dramatically overstate 

costs associated with urban area traffic 

monitoring. INRIX contends that the 

data collection technologies Navigator 

uses are much more expensive than 

currently available data collection 

technologies. Since the choice of 

technologies is to be determined by the 

agencies, INRIX’s comment indicates 

the analysis performed may be 

conservative in some cases. The KDOT 

concurred with AASHTO’s comments 

agreeing with the benefit-cost analysis 

that shows a positive return on 

investment. However, AASHTO also 

identifies two concerns: The cost 

associated with trying to measure travel 

times on signalized arterial streets, and 

a request for the cost of variable message 

signs to be considered in the analysis. 

As discussed previously, the 

requirement to deliver travel time on 

arterial streets has been removed from 

the rule, which alleviates the first 

concern. Regarding the second concern, 

specific delivery methods or 

technologies are not within the scope of 

this regulation. FHWA determined that 

the cost of these signs is not relevant as 

the rule pertains only to making the 

real-time information available and does 

not include the delivery mechanism or 

the costs associated with the 

mechanism. 

The FHWA also requested comments 

regarding how DOTs anticipated they 

will comply with the proposed 

regulations, including technologies and 

cost. The ‘‘Regulatory Cost Analysis of 

Proposed Rulemaking’’ assumed a 

traditional device-based approach for 

estimating costs to ensure a conservative 

(high) implementation estimate as a 

basis. Other techniques for gathering 

traffic flow information, such as those 

offered by the private sector, could 

result in implementation costs that are 

87 percent lower.1

The MDOT and Virginia DOT (VDOT) 

submitted cost estimates. The MDOT 

noted a number of activities that it 

believed needed to be completed to 

properly implement the Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program as proposed. These activities 

included developing a real-time cell 

phone application to be used by field 

personnel for lane closures and 

openings, developing a central 

application to receive the field reports 

and transmit those reports to other 

systems and the public, developing 

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) 

interfaces with every 911 call center and 

CAD implementation in the State of 

Michigan, and maintaining additional 

staff on a 24-hour basis, with at least 

one person needed to handle each of 

MDOT’s seven regions and possibly 

more in the Detroit metropolitan area. 

MDOT estimated that the system will 

cost $55,000,000 to $85,000,000 to 

develop. Of this, $28,000,000 to 

$56,000,000 is for deployment of an 

extensive roadway weather information 

system that likely is not required for a 

real-time information program. 

At the low end of the cost range, 

VDOT commented that for it to fully 

comply with aspects of the proposed 

rule, an expansion of existing data 

services and of CAD and transportation 

operations center integration efforts 

would be required. To meet the 

requirements for real-time traveler 

information, including travel times, 

VDOT noted that it would likely expand 

an existing data services contract to 

receive data for approximately 1,200 

miles of Interstate, estimated to require 

a minimum investment of $1,000,000 

per year. The VDOT further commented 

that it would need to integrate 

information from approximately 60 of 

the 127 local 911 centers in Virginia. 

The VDOT estimates that the 

approximate cost to integrate a 911 

center with a transportation operations 

center is $125,000, for a total statewide 

capital cost of $7,500,000, plus 

increased costs for operations, 

maintenance and hosting services. The 

VDOT commented that FHWA should 

consider funding this effort with an 

annual commitment of $2M, based on 

VDOT’s ability to only apply a limited 

level of funding over the next few years. 

The differences in the two agencies’ 

comments related to the costs for 

implementing the regulation reflect the 

different levels of existing capabilities 

and reinforce the need to allow 

flexibility to the States in identifying 

roadways beyond the Interstate routes to 

be included in the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program. The 

considerable differences in the two 

agencies’ interpretations of the proposed 

requirements confirms the need for 

implementation guidance that FHWA 

will develop for DOTs as assistance in 

the development of their real-time 

information programs. Later in this 

document, the FHWA is requesting 

additional comments on the cost benefit 

analysis to obtain more specific 

information in order to achieve the 

objectives of the statute and the rule to 

ensure an optimal benefit and cost 

balance. 

Comments Directed at Specific Sections 

of the Proposed New 23 CFR Part 511 

Section 511.301—Purpose 

As indicated previously, almost every 

response supports the goals of the 

proposed rule. A common comment 

among all responders is ‘‘we support the 

desire of FHWA to promote advances in 

the delivery of traveler information,’’ 

and the NPRM was praised for being 

well meaning and ultimately beneficial 

as travelers will be more informed than 

they are today. However, as already 

discussed and as presented in 

subsequent sections, commenters did 

not uniformly support all of FHWA’s 

approaches to achieving those goals. 

Section 511.303—Definitions 

In the NPRM, definitions were 

included in proposed § 511.305, but for 

this final rule to be consistent with 

other regulations, definitions are in 

§ 511.303. 

As indicated earlier, comments were 

received requesting clarification about 

the definition of ‘‘accuracy,’’ and a 

similar clarification concerning roadway 

weather conditions. In both cases, the 

definitions for these terms and related 

language in § 511.303 have been 

supplemented to clarify these 

distinctions. 

INRIX suggested that the term ‘‘(e.g., 

volume and speed are * * *)’’ used in 

the definition for ‘‘availability’’ be 

changed to ‘‘(e.g., speed and travel 

time)’’ since volume is only used one 

time in the rule, and only for illustrative 

purposes. The TTI suggested 

eliminating definitions for 

‘‘accessibility’’ and ‘‘coverage’’ as these 

terms are not used in the proposed rule. 

The FHWA agrees with these comments 

and § 511.303 of the rule has been 

modified accordingly. 

Comments on subsequent sections of 

the proposed rule that are discussed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
68422 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

elsewhere resulted in including 

additional definitions in the rule. The 

definitions of ‘‘full construction 

activities’’ and the definition of ‘‘routes 

of significance’’ have been added to 

§ 511.303. 

Although no specific comments were 

received concerning the ‘‘traffic and 

travel conditions’’ definition allowing 

the reporting of predicted conditions, 

this clause was determined to be 

unnecessary and was removed from 

§ 511.303. 

Section 511.307—Eligibility for Federal 

Funding 

Section 511.307 outlines the 

eligibility of Federal funding to plan 

and deploy the real-time monitoring 

elements and the project applications to 

establish a real-time information 

program on Interstate and non-Interstate 

highways. Almost all agencies 

commented that establishing a real-time 

information program either costs too 

much or puts a financial hardship on 

them, and requested that dedicated 

funding be provided. Addressing this 

request for dedicated funding is beyond 

the purview of the rule. However, 

additional comments indicated financial 

burdens were due to the inability of 

agencies to use eligible funds within the 

time frame specified in the rule due to 

their planning and budgeting cycles. As 

indicated previously, FHWA 

determined that extending completion 

of establishing the real-time information 

program for traffic and travel conditions 

will facilitate State and local agencies 

use of the eligible funds identified in 

this section. 

The AASHTO, five DOTs, and INRIX 

identified funding for the operation and 

maintenance costs of a Real-Time 

System Information Management 

Program as a barrier to its 

implementation. In several instances the 

comments also indicated a 

misunderstanding of the eligibility of 

the operating and maintenance costs of 

such a system for Federal funding. The 

funds identified in § 511.307 Eligibility 

for Federal funding of the final rule may 

be applied to the operating and 

maintenance costs of a Real-Time 

System Information Management 

Program. The Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA–21) reinforces 

the Federal commitment to manage and 

operate the Nation’s transportation 

system. Under TEA–21, the Federal-aid 

Highway Program continues eligibility 

of operating costs for traffic monitoring, 

management, and control. The 

legislation defines operating costs as 

including labor costs, administrative 

costs, costs of utilities and rent, and 

other costs associated with the 

continuous management and operation 

of traffic systems. Additional 

information concerning operating cost 

eligibility under the Federal-aid 

Highway Program can be found at URL: 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travelinfo/

resources/ops_memo.htm. To more 

completely illustrate funding eligibility, 

the final rule’s language has been 

modified to include an explicit 

reference to the eligibility of operations, 

including applicable preventative 

maintenance to ensure reliable 

operations, for funding. 

Section 511.309—Provisions for Traffic 

and Travel Time Conditions Reporting 

Section 511.309 presents the 

timeliness, accuracy, and availability 

provisions that the real-time 

information programs are subject to for 

reporting traffic and travel time 

conditions; and authorizes use of legacy 

or new mechanisms to establish the 

real-time information programs. Almost 

all of the commenters included a 

comment on one or more of the 

proposed provisions with most 

expressing concern that many of the 

requirements were not achievable. The 

San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC) 

commended FHWA for basing the 

proposed requirements on the work of 

an industry group such as the 511 

Coalition. However, MTC expressed 

concerns about translating the 

recommended goals from the industry 

group to required minimum 

requirements for the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program and 

commented that there needs to be some 

tailoring of the recommendations. In 

contrast, several companies viewed the 

requirements differently and 

commented that more restrictive 

provisions should be specified. For 

example, NAVTEQ commented that the 

final rule should reduce the timeliness 

requirements from 10 and 20 minutes 

(urban and rural) to 5 and 10 minutes. 

BMW also commented that 5 minutes or 

less was more appropriate, but also 

indicated that the reduced time limits 

initially should be treated as goals. The 

following summarizes the responses to 

this section. 

511.309(a)(1) Construction Activities 

The NPRM proposed a timeliness 

requirement for providing full 

construction activities from the time of 

occurrence of 20 minutes or less for 

highways outside of metropolitan areas 

and 10 minutes or less for highways 

within metropolitan areas. As noted 

previously, many DOTs described the 

difficulty of obtaining construction 

activity information in rural areas and 

asserted that the cost to provide 

construction activity information 

specified in the proposed rule would 

greatly exceed any potential benefit. 

They also requested clarification of the 

expectations intended in the time 

thresholds. The FHWA finds many of 

the difficulties described by the 

proposed rule to be valid and has 

included the definition for ‘‘full 

construction activities’’ in § 511.301 and 

has modified the rule language in 

§ 511.309(a)(1) to clarify which 

construction activities that close or 

reopen roads and lanes are to be 

reported, how quickly the information is 

to be made available, and the 

information update requirements. 

Section 511.309(a)(2) Roadway or Lane 

Blocking Incidents and Events 

Section 511.309(a)(2) presents the 

requirements for providing information 

about roadway or lane blocking traffic 

incidents. The requirements for 

providing this information are similar to 

those specified in § 511.309(a)(1) above, 

and received similar comments. Many 

commenters requested clarification 

related to whether the reporting 

requirement for traffic incidents was 

related to the time of the occurrence of 

the incident or to the verification of the 

incident. The FHWA has modified the 

rule language in § 511.309(a)(2) to 

clarify the requirements of the 

information to be made available are 

based on when the traffic incident is 

verified. 

Section 511.309(a)(3) Roadway Weather 

Observations 

Section 511.309(a)(3) presents the 

requirements for delivering roadway 

weather observations. As discussed 

earlier, many DOTs expressed concern 

about the timeliness requirements in the 

proposed rule that the roadway weather 

observation information was to be made 

available. They also requested 

clarification of the information to be 

reported. The FHWA has modified the 

rule language in § 511.309(a)(3) to 

clarify that the minimum reporting 

requirements are for weather conditions 

that result in hazardous driving 

conditions or roadway and lane 

closures. 

Section 511.309(a)(4) Travel Time 

Information 

Section 511.309(a)(4) presents the 

requirement for providing updated 

travel time information along highways 

within metropolitan areas. In response 

to comments that practical algorithms 

and systems to derive travel times on 

roadways currently exist only for 

limited access highways, the rule’s 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68423 

language in § 511.309(a)(4) has been 

modified to clarify the minimum 

requirement for updated travel time 

information is for Interstate and 

designated routes of significance in the 

Metropolitan Areas that are limited 

access highways. 

Section 511.309(a)(5) Information 

Accuracy and Section 511.309(a)(6) 

Information Availability 

In response to requests for 

clarification of the accuracy and 

availability relationship from several 

agencies, the rule’s language in 

§ 511.311(b) has been modified as noted 

below. 

Section 511.311(b) Real-Time 

Information Program Establishment— 

Data Quality 

Section 511.311(b) requires States to 

develop methods by which data quality 

can be ensured to the data consumer. 

Several agencies questioned how 

timeliness, availability, and accuracy 

will be measured. They asked what are 

FHWA’s expectations for how DOTs 

will monitor the program. The rule’s 

language in § 511.311(b) has been 

modified to afford flexibility to States in 

meeting quality requirements based on 

the methods they select to implement 

the Real-Time System Management 

Information Program. The States shall 

develop procedures or processes for 

measuring and ensuring the quality of 

the information provided under the 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program, and receive 

concurrence from FHWA on the 

selected processes. The States shall 

demonstrate how the selected processes 

measure the quality of the information 

in meeting the requirements of sections 

511.309(a)(5) and 511.309(a)(6) and 

provide for remedial actions to maintain 

the required levels of quality. 

Section 511.311(c) Real-Time 

Information Program Establishment— 

Participation 

Agencies that should participate in 

implementation of a real-time 

information program are listed in 

§ 511.311(c). The comments generally 

acknowledged that significant 

cooperation is desired, but mentioned 

drawbacks of requiring multiple 

partners. Several DOTs pointed out that 

State agencies cannot verify the 

accuracy or timeliness of data from 

another agency. Commenters also 

pointed out that widespread agency 

participation will necessitate education 

and training be provided for first 

responders such as county/local law 

enforcement and fire departments. The 

FHWA recognizes the institutional 

difficulties that must be resolved for 

multiagency participation in a real-time 

information program, but continues to 

believe that the benefits realized far 

exceed the efforts required to craft a 

successful program. 

Section 511.311(d) Real-Time 

Information Program Establishment— 

Update of Regional ITS Architecture 

Section 511.311(d) discusses the 

requirement that States and regions that 

have created a Regional ITS architecture 

are required to maintain and update the 

architecture, and indicates in broad 

terms the general factors that must be 

addressed by the updated architecture 

including featuring the components and 

functionality of the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program. 

Several comments mistakenly applied 

the regional ITS architecture general 

factors to the requirements of the RealTime System Management Information 

Program. The AASHTO commented that 

the State and regional ITS architectures 

that have been developed are based on 

regionally determined customer needs 

and may have identified other higher 

priority needs in their architecture than 

those identified in the NPRM. The 

AASHTO notes that this may present a 

particular concern to the State agencies 

if funding has already been allocated to 

those areas. Many commenters 

expressed that the 2 year time frame is 

too short for some States and regions to 

address their regional ITS architecture 

issues. For this reason, among others, 

FHWA has extended the time 

requirement in sections 511.311(e) and 

511.313(d) to establish the real-time 

information program to 4 years after 

publication of final rule. 

The San Francisco Bay Area MTC 

commented that, while § 511.311(d) 

requires ITS architectures to be updated 

to reflect the requirements of the RealTime System Management Information 

Program, some ITS architectures may 

already include requirements for the 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program. The MTC 

comments that § 511.311(d) should be 

modified to require ITS architectures to 

be evaluated to determine if updates are 

needed to reflect the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program, and 

that those that do not adequately reflect 

the Real-Time System Management 

Information Program should be updated 

accordingly. The FHWA agrees with this 

comment and the rule language in 

§ 511.311(d) has been modified to 

require evaluation of ITS architectures 

to determine whether they need to be 

updated to reflect requirements of the 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program. 

Section 511.311(e) Real-Time 

Information Program Establishment— 

Effective Date 

Section 511.311(e), which specifies an 

effective date of 2 years after publication 

to establish a Real-Time System 

Management Information Program, drew 

many responses. As reported earlier, 

based on the comments received, FHWA 

has changed the § 511.311(e) to require 

establishment of the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program for 

traffic and travel conditions reporting 

along the Interstate system highway 

within 4 years after the date of the rule’s 

publication. 

Section 511.313(b) Metropolitan Area 

Real-Time Information Program 

Supplement—Requirement 

Metropolitan Areas are required to 

implement a Real-Time System 

Management Information Program on 

both Interstates and routes of 

significance in the Metropolitan Area. 

The term ‘‘Metropolitan Area’’ is 

intended to allow options for either the 

State or the Metropolitan Area’s local 

government agency to implement the 

program, based on what works best for 

each location. 

Section 511.313(c) Metropolitan Area 

Real-Time Information Program 

Supplement—Routes of Significance 

Several DOTs submitted questions 

concerning designation of ‘‘routes of 

significance’’ in metropolitan areas. 

Several of the commenters observed that 

success of these provisions require 

cooperation between the agencies and 

FHWA concerning priorities, funding, 

and staffing, and that consultation with 

FHWA is necessary to define their 

specific system. The FHWA concurs 

with these observations. Furthermore, 

upon reviewing this section, the specific 

responses to the questions raised are 

dependent upon local conditions and 

should be resolved through a dialogue 

between the local agencies and their 

respective FHWA Divisions. In response 

to the comments received about ‘‘routes 

of significance,’’ its definition is 

included in § 511.303 

As indicated, many of the DOTs 

responding to the NPRM identified the 

4-year time requirement to establish 

routes of significance real-time 

information program to be unattainable. 

Based on these comments, § 511.313(c) 

of the rule has been changed to indicate 

a 6-year time requirement for 

implementation of the Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program on ‘‘routes of significance’’ in 

Metropolitan Areas. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
68424 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 511.313(d) Metropolitan Area 

Real-Time Information Program 

Supplement—Effective Date 

As indicated earlier, AASHTO and 

many of the DOTs responding to the 

NPRM identified the 2-year time 

requirement to establish the 

Metropolitan Area real-time information 

program to be unattainable. The rule 

now allows 4-years for establishment of 

the program in Interstate routes in 

Metropolitan Areas. 

Section 511.315 Program 

Administration 

Section 511.315 concerns compliance 

with the rule and the ability for FHWA 

to withhold highway trust funds based 

on compliance. Many DOTs were 

concerned about that possibility and 

wanted to know more about how 

compliance would be assessed and 

judged. As stated previously, 

§ 511.311(b) of the rule has been edited 

to provide additional parameters 

regarding data quality and 

completeness, and to include language 

that describes the compliance 

verification processes to be applied in 

each State, as agreed between the State 

and FHWA. Section 511.315 states that 

procedures normally available to FHWA 

for Federal-aid actions are also 

applicable to actions related to the RealTime System Management Information 

Program. Paragraph (a) of § 511.315 has 

been deleted because the subsection 

presented a potential ambiguity or 

contradiction in requiring compliance 

prior to approving projects to establish 

the Real-Time System Management 

Information Program. The proposed 

§ 511.315(a) provisions are included in 

the remaining paragraph of § 511.315 by 

including a reference to ITS project 

administration contained in 23 CFR 

940.13. 

Request for Comments 

While the FHWA is issuing this final 

rule, which will become effective on the 

dates noted above, the FHWA is also 

seeking additional comments relating to 

the costs and benefits of the Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program and general information about 

current and planned programs. 

Although the Regulatory Cost Analysis 

found in the docket for this rulemaking 

attempts to capture the scope of costs 

and benefits associated with this rule, it 

is challenging to determine a 

comprehensive picture of costs and 

benefits given the flexibility of 

approaches that can be used and the 

limitations of the current studies. 

The FHWA seeks comments related to 

the following: 

(1) What are the costs and benefits of 

each individual provision required 

under rule? If some provisions have net 

costs, would certain modifications to 

those provisions lead to net benefits? 

(2) What are the impacts of requiring 

these provisions on States and 

Metropolitan Areas (do some States and 

Metropolitan Areas realize net costs 

instead of net benefits)? If some States 

and Metropolitan Areas realize net 

costs, would certain modifications to 

provisions ensure net benefits? 

(3) Is there a specific, alternative 

approach to calculating costs and 

benefits that would be more appropriate 

than the current use of the Atlanta 

Navigator Study? 

(4) Although information 

dissemination to the public is not 

within scope of this rule, it is important 

to understand how information is 

typically disseminated so that the 

technologies used to collect and monitor 

data is compatible with technologies 

used to disseminate this information. 

This is especially important to keep up 

with new technological advances and to 

ensure that States use the most effective, 

low cost methods to both collect and 

disseminate information. 

(A) What technologies will States use 

to collect and monitor information 

under this rule? 

(B) What technologies are States 

planning to use to disseminate this 

information or what are they already 

using? 

(C) Do the technologies States plan to 

use present any interoperability issues? 

Do they allow for use of advanced 

technologies that could be the most 

cost-effective means of collecting and 

disseminating this information? 

(D) Are there any structural 

impediments to using low-cost 

advanced technologies in the future 

given the provisions and specifications 

contained in this rule? 

(E) Given the research investment into 

wireless communications systems in the 

5.9 GHz spectrum for Intelligent 

Transportation Systems applications, to 

what extent could systems in this 

spectrum also be used to fulfill the 

requirements of this rule and/or enable 

other applications? 

(F) Given that there are legacy 

technologies in place now, and that 

there are new technologies on the 

horizon that are being adopted, how can 

we ensure that investments made today 

to comply with this rule are sustainable 

over the long term? 

(5) This rule defines Metropolitan 

Areas to mean the geographic areas 

designated as Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas by the Office of Management and 

Budget with a population exceeding 

1,000,000 inhabitants. Is this population 

criterion appropriate, rather than 

considering traffic, commuting times, or 

other considerations? 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has determined that this 

rule is an economically significant 

rulemaking action within the meaning 

of Executive Order 12866 and is a 

significant rulemaking action within the 

meaning of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rule establishes 

provisions and parameters for States to 

implement real-time monitoring of the 

transportation system as mandated in 

section 1201 of SAFETEA–LU. The 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program is a newly created 

and complex program, receiving no 

dedicated Federal funding. This action 

is considered significant because of the 

substantial State and local government, 

and public interest in the information 

products enabled through this program. 

This rule does not adversely affect, in 

a material way, any sector of the 

economy. This rule sets forth provisions 

and parameters for State DOTs to 

implement on Interstate highways and 

maintain from 2010 until 2019 an 

effective Real-Time System Management 

Information Program, which will result 

in some cost impacts to States or 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs). This period would reflect the 

establishment of real-time information 

programs plus a 7-year period of 

operation. The 7-year period of 

operation assumes that equipment and 

supporting material for the real-time 

information program is fully replaceable 

after the operational life cycle. The 

FHWA has conducted a cost analysis 

identifying each of the proposed 

regulatory changes that would have a 

significant cost impact for MPOs or 

DOTs. This cost analysis is included as 

a separate document, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Cost Analysis of Proposed 

Rulemaking,’’ and is available for review 

in the docket. Based on the cost 

analysis, FHWA estimates that the net 

present value of the estimated costs and 

benefits through 2021 represents at least 

a $315 million benefit to American 

travelers and taxpayers, corresponding 

to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. In addition, 

the DOTs have the flexibility to use 

most other Federal highway dollars 

including Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality (CMAQ) program and Surface 

Transportation Program (STP) funds for 

real-time monitoring program 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68425 

implementation. Additionally, State 

Planning and Research funds can be 

applied fully towards the planning of 

real-time monitoring projects. 

Based on the annual costs and the 

annual benefits noted above, the 

following table summarizes the 

annualized costs, benefits, and net 

benefits (in million $) at discount rates 

of 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612) FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this action on small entities. 

The FHWA has determined that States 

and MPOs are not included in the 

definition of small entity set forth in 

5 U.S.C. 601. Small governmental 

jurisdictions are limited to 

representations of populations of less 

than 50,000. MPOs, by definition, 

represent urbanized areas having a 

minimum population of 50,000. The 

FHWA certifies that this action does not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 1041–4; 109 Stat. 48) requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a written 

assessment of the costs, benefits, and 

other effects of proposed or final rules 

that include a Federal mandate likely to 

result in the expenditure by States, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation to $141.3 million 

in 2008 dollars). Before promulgating a 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires the agency to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objective of the rule. The provisions 

of section 205 do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the agency 

to adopt an alternative other than the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the agency 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation of why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

This final rule does not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

UMRA. The definition of ‘‘Federal 

Mandate’’ in the UMRA excludes 

financial assistance of the type in which 

State, local, or tribal governments have 

authority to adjust their participation in 

the program in accordance with changes 

made in the program by the Federal 

Government. (2 U.S.C. 658, 1502) The 

Federal-aid highway program permits 

this type of flexibility. Conditions for 

obtaining Federal grant funds, including 

new conditions on existing grant 

programs, are not considered Federal 

Mandates under the law. States have the 

flexibility to offset the costs of this 

statutory requirement by amending their 

responsibilities for financing and 

carrying out their program, and any 

additional costs resulting from this 

Federal action can be offset by changes 

in State or local policies. 

The effects of this rule are discussed 

earlier in the preamble and in the 

‘‘Regulatory Cost Analysis of Proposed 

Rulemaking’’ contained in the docket for 

this rulemaking. The FHWA has taken 

care to craft the final rule for this 

statutory requirement in such a way that 

offers States broad flexibility to 

minimize costs of compliance with the 

standard. Because the rule is neither 

centered on a particular technology nor 

on a technology-dependent application, 

these documents consider a number of 

alternatives and provide a number of 

technological choices. This rule 

provides a phased implementation 

approach and limits the content 

requirements for a real-time information 

system only to those needed to provide 

congestion relief. Additionally, while no 

new funding is available for this 

program, to the extent that the final rule 

will require expenditures by State, local, 

or tribal governments, these activities 

will not be unfunded mandates because 

States and MPOs are afforded flexibility 

to use their National Highway System, 

CMAQ, and STP Federal-aid 

apportionments for activities related to 

the planning and deployment of realtime monitoring elements that advance 

the goals of the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program. How 

the States use these funds is only 

limited by the statutory and regulatory 

grant requirements and conditions. As 

such, the agency has chosen the most 

cost-effective alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rulemaking. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, and the FHWA has determined 

that this action does not have sufficient 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULESER08NO10.022</GPH>
68426 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2Based upon the table ‘‘Freeway Miles Under 

Traffic Surveillance’’ from the 2007 Metropolitan 

Summary survey. This table is retrievable from the 

ITS Deployment Statistics Web site, available at the 

following URL: http://www.itsdeployment.

its.dot.gov/Results.asp?year=2007&rpt=M&filter=1

&ID=307. 

3Burden hour calculation based on 8,760 hours 

per year multiplied by the number of locations (17). 

4Based upon the ‘‘Locations with 511 Services’’ 

information available at the following URL: 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/511/. As of July 2009 

there are 39 known 511 systems in operation. 

5Based on the page ‘‘Travel times on DMS 

Status,’’ available at the following URL: http:// 

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travelinfo/dms/. 

6This estimated benefit is documented in Table 

1 on Page 14 of the Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis 

of Proposed Rulemaking included in this docket. 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism assessment. 

The FHWA has also determined that 

this action would not preempt any State 

law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. The 

FHWA contacted the National 

Governors’ Association in writing about 

this determination. The National 

Governors’ Association did not respond. 

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 (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. 

The FHWA has determined that this 

rule contains a requirement for data and 

information to be collected and 

maintained in the support of operational 

decisions that affect the safety and 

mobility of the traveling public related 

to information on construction 

activities, including implementing and 

removing lane closures; roadway or lane 

blocking traffic incident information; 

roadway or lane blocking roadway 

weather conditions; and calculated 

travel times along highway segments. In 

order to streamline the process, FHWA 

requested that OMB approve a single 

information collection clearance for all 

of the data in this regulation. The RealTime System Management Information 

Program supports the collection of 

transportation system data, including 

the use of automated methods, with the 

transportation system data available for 

other use. The Real-Time System 

Management Information Program itself 

does not produce informational or 

reporting products that are required by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

or other entities in the Federal 

Government. 

Commenters to this information 

collection include DOTs from all 50 

States, Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia. The FHWA estimates that 17 

States presently do not appear to 

provide real-time information on a 

continual basis to the public or to other 

States using conventional information 

dissemination technologies.2 The 

FHWA estimates that a total of 148,920 

burden hours per year would be 

imposed on these non-Federal entities 

to provide all the required information 

to comply with the proposed regulation 

requirements for real-time information 

programs.3

Further, there are 36 States operating 

at least one 511 traveler information 

dissemination service that provide 

nearly all of the information categories 

identified in this proposed regulation.4

The automated systems that gather the 

input for delivery for 511 also convey 

information via Dynamic Message Signs 

(DMS) for en-route travelers. The use of 

DMS is common for conveying travel 

time information messages. Based on 

known reports for 511 delivery services 

and for travel time messages on DMS in 

metropolitan areas 5 a more accurate 

calculation of the burden hours is 

possible. For all 36 States known to 

provide automated real-time traveler 

information: All 36 States provide 

construction activities information; all 

36 States provide roadway incident 

information; and 31 States provide 

roadway weather observations. Of the 

49 metropolitan areas currently subject 

to the provisions of travel time 

information required by this regulation, 

33 provide travel time information on 

highway segments. 

The estimated total burden to provide 

the additional information needed to 

attain full compliance with the 

proposed regulation includes 148,920 

burden hours for States with no 

observable real-time information 

capability, plus 140,160 burden hours 

for subject metropolitan areas to deliver 

travel time information, plus 43,800 

burden hours for States with real-time 

information capabilities to deliver 

weather observation updates. The total 

estimated burden, therefore, is 332,880 

hours for automated sources to deliver 

the information categories identified in 

this regulation. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed this 

proposed action for the purpose of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has 

determined that the establishment of the 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program, as required by the 

Congress in SAFETEA–LU, may yield a 

$384 million benefit from the reduction 

of greenhouse gas emissions and also 

from reductions of fuel consumption 6

and has determined that this rule will 

not significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. The promulgation 

of regulations has been identified as a 

categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 

771.117(c)(20). 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference 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) 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. The FHWA certifies that this 

action would 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 

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 final rule addresses 

provisions and parameters for the RealTime System Management Information 

Program and would not impose any 

direct compliance requirements on 

Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a 

tribal summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

We have analyzed this proposed 

action under Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68427 

We have determined that the final rule 

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. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

Executive Order 12898 requires that 

each Federal agency make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations. The 

FHWA has determined that this final 

rule does not raise any environmental 

justice issues. 

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 511 

Grant programs—transportation, 

Highway traffic safety, Highways and 

roads, Transportation, Travel, Travel 

restrictions. 

Issued on: October 22, 2010. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA adds a new part 511, to Title 23, 

Code of Federal Regulations, to read as 

follows: 

PART 511—REAL-TIME SYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 

PROGRAM 

Subpart A—[Reserved] 

Subpart B—[Reserved] 

Subpart C—Real-Time System Management 

Information Program 

Sec. 

511.301 Purpose. 

511.303 Definitions. 

511.305 Policy. 

511.307 Eligibility for Federal funding. 

511.309 Provisions for traffic and travel 

conditions reporting. 

511.311 Real-time information program 

establishment. 

511.313 Metropolitan area real-time 

information program supplement. 

511.315 Program administration. 

Authority: Section 1201, Pub. L. 109–59; 

23 U.S.C. 315; 23 U.S.C. 120; 49 CFR 1.48. 

Subpart A—[Reserved] 

Subpart B—[Reserved] 

Subpart C—Real-Time System 

Management Information Program 

§ 511.301 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to establish 

the provisions and parameters for the 

Real-Time System Management 

Information Program. These provisions 

implement Subsections 1201(a)(1), 

(a)(2), and (c)(1) of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59; 

119 Stat. 1144), pertaining to Congestion 

Relief. 

§ 511.303 Definitions. 

Unless otherwise specified in this 

part, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) 

are applicable to this subpart. As used 

in this part: 

Accuracy means the measure or 

degree of agreement between a data 

value or set of values and a source 

assumed to be correct. 

Availability means the degree to 

which data values are present in the 

attributes (e.g., speed and travel time are 

attributes of traffic) that require them. 

Availability is typically described in 

terms of percentages or number of data 

values. 

Congestion means the level at which 

transportation system performance is 

unacceptable due to excessive travel 

times and delays. 

Data quality means the fitness of data 

for all purposes that require such data. 

Full construction activities mean 

roadway construction or maintenance 

activities that affect travel conditions by 

closing and reopening roadways or 

lanes. 

Metropolitan areas means the 

geographic areas designated as 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the 

Office of Management and Budget in the 

Executive Office of the President with a 

population exceeding 1,000,000 

inhabitants. 

Real-time information program means 

the program by which States gather and 

make available the data for traffic and 

travel conditions. Such means may 

involve State-only activity (including 

cooperative activities engaging multiple 

State agencies), State partnership with 

commercial providers of value-added 

information products, or other effective 

means that enable the State to satisfy the 

provisions for traffic and travel time 

conditions reporting stated in this 

section. 

Routes of significance are nonInterstate roadways in metropolitan 

areas that are designated by States as 

meriting the collection and provision of 

information related to traffic and travel 

conditions. Factors to be considered in 

designating routes of significance 

include roadway safety (e.g., crash rate, 

routes affected by environmental 

events), public safety (e.g., routes used 

for evacuations), economic productivity, 

severity and frequency of congestion, 

and utility of the highway to serve as a 

diversion route for congestion locations. 

All public roadways including arterial 

highways, toll facilities and other 

facilities that apply end user pricing 

mechanisms shall be considered when 

designating routes of significance. In 

identifying these routes, States shall 

apply the collaborative practices and 

procedures that are used for compliance 

with 23 CFR part 940 and 23 CFR part 

420. 

Statewide incident reporting system 

means a statewide system for facilitating 

the real-time electronic reporting of 

surface transportation incidents to a 

central location for use in monitoring 

the event, providing accurate traveler 

information, and responding to the 

incident as appropriate. This definition 

is consistent with Public Law 109–59; 

119 Stat. 1144, Section 1201(f). 

Timeliness means the degree to which 

data values or a set of values are 

provided at the time required or 

specified. 

Traffic and travel conditions means 

the characteristics that the traveling 

public experiences. Traffic and travel 

conditions include, but are not limited 

to, the following characteristics: 

(1) Road or lane closures because of 

construction, traffic incidents, or other 

events; 

(2) Roadway weather or other 

environmental conditions restricting or 

adversely affecting travel; and 

(3) Travel times or speeds on limited 

access roadways in metropolitan areas 

that experience recurring congestion. 

Validity means the degree to which 

data values fall within the respective 

domain of acceptable values. 

Value-added information products 

means crafted products intended for 

commercial use, for sale to a customer 

base, or for other commercial enterprise 

purposes. These products may be 

derived from information gathered by 

States and may be created from other 

party or proprietary sources. These 

products may be created using the 

unique means of the value-added 

information provider. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
68428 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 511.305 Policy. 

This part establishes the provisions 

and parameters for the Real-Time 

System Management Information 

Program for State DOTs, other 

responsible agencies, and partnerships 

with other commercial entities in 

establishing real-time information 

programs that provide accessibility to 

traffic and travel conditions information 

by other public agencies, the traveling 

public, and by other parties who may 

deliver value-added information 

products. 

§ 511.307 Eligibility for Federal funding. 

(a) Subject to project approval by the 

Secretary, a State may obligate funds 

apportioned to the State under Title 23 

U.S.C. sections 104(b)(1), also known as 

National Highway System funds, 

104(b)(2), also known as CMAQ 

Improvement funds, and 104(b)(3), also 

known as STP funds, for activities 

relating to the planning, deployment 

and operation, including preventative 

maintenance, of real-time monitoring 

elements that advance the goals and 

purposes of the Real-Time System 

Management Information Program. The 

SPC funds, apportioned according to 23 

U.S.C. 505(a), may be applied to the 

development and implementation of a 

real-time information program. 

(b) Those project applications to 

establish a real-time information 

program solely for Interstate System 

highways are entitled to a Federal share 

of 90 percent of the total project cost, 

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(a). Those 

project applications to establish a realtime information program for nonInterstate highways are entitled to a 

Federal share of 80 percent of the total 

project cost, as per 23 U.S.C. 120(b). 

§ 511.309 Provisions for traffic and travel 

conditions reporting. 

(a) Minimum requirements for traffic 

and travel conditions made available by 

real-time information programs are: 

(1) Construction activities. The 

timeliness for the availability of 

information about full construction 

activities that close or reopen roadways 

or lanes will be 20 minutes or less from 

the time of the closure for highways 

outside of Metropolitan Areas. For 

roadways within Metropolitan Areas, 

the timeliness for the availability of 

information about full construction 

activities that close or reopen roadways 

or lanes will be 10 minutes or less from 

the time of the closure or reopening. 

Short-term or intermittent lane closures 

of limited duration that are less than the 

required reporting times are not 

included as a minimum requirement 

under this section. 

(2) Roadway or lane blocking 

incidents. The timeliness for the 

availability of information related to 

roadway or lane blocking traffic 

incidents will be 20 minutes or less 

from the time that the incident is 

verified for highways outside of 

Metropolitan Areas. For roadways 

within Metropolitan Areas, the 

timeliness for the availability of 

information related to roadway or lane 

blocking traffic incidents will be 10 

minutes or less from the time that the 

incident is verified. 

(3) Roadway weather observations. 

The timeliness for the availability of 

information about hazardous driving 

conditions and roadway or lane closures 

or blockages because of adverse weather 

conditions will be 20 minutes or less 

from the time the hazardous conditions, 

blockage, or closure is observed. 

(4) Travel time information. The 

timeliness for the availability of travel 

time information along limited access 

roadway segments within Metropolitan 

Areas, as defined under this subpart, 

will be 10 minutes or less from the time 

that the travel time calculation is 

completed. 

(5) Information accuracy. The 

designed accuracy for a real-time 

information program shall be 85 percent 

accurate at a minimum, or have a 

maximum error rate of 15 percent. 

(6) Information availability. The 

designed availability for a real-time 

information program shall be 90 percent 

available at a minimum. 

(b) Real-time information programs 

may be established using legacy 

monitoring mechanisms applied to the 

highways, using a statewide incident 

reporting system, using new monitoring 

mechanisms applied to the highways, 

using value-added information 

products, or using a combination of 

monitoring mechanisms and valueadded information products. 

§ 511.311 Real-time information program 

establishment. 

(a) Requirement. States shall establish 

real-time information programs that are 

consistent with the parameters defined 

under § 511.309. The real-time 

information program shall be 

established to take advantage of the 

existing traffic and travel condition 

monitoring capabilities, and build upon 

them where applicable. The real-time 

information program shall include 

traffic and travel condition information 

for, as a minimum, all the Interstate 

highways operated by the State. In 

addition, the real-time information 

program shall complement current 

transportation performance reporting 

systems by making it easier to gather or 

enhance required information. 

(b) Data quality. States shall develop 

the methods by which data quality can 

be ensured to the data consumers. The 

criteria for defining the validity of traffic 

and travel conditions made available 

from real-time information programs 

shall be established by the States in 

collaboration with their partners for 

establishing the programs. States shall 

receive FHWA’s concurrence that the 

selected methods provide reasonable 

checks of the quality of the information 

made available by the real-time 

information program. In requesting 

FHWA’s concurrence, the State shall 

demonstrate to FHWA how the selected 

methods gauge the accuracy and 

availability of the real-time information 

and the remedial actions if the 

information quality falls below the 

levels described in § 511.309(a)(5) and 

§ 511.309(a)(6). 

(c) Participation. The establishment, 

or the enhancement, of a real-time 

information program should include 

participation from the following 

agencies: Highway agencies; public 

safety agencies (e.g., police, fire, 

emergency/medical); transit operators; 

and other operating agencies necessary 

to sustain mobility through the region 

and/or the metropolitan area. Nothing in 

this subpart is intended to alter the 

existing relationships among State, 

regional, and local agencies. 

(d) Update of Regional ITS 

Architecture. All States and regions that 

have created a Regional ITS 

Architecture in accordance with Section 

940 in Title 23 CFR shall evaluate their 

Regional ITS Architectures to determine 

whether the Regional ITS Architectures 

explicitly address real-time highway 

and transit information needs and the 

methods needed to meet such needs. 

Traffic and travel conditions monitoring 

needs for all Interstate system highways 

shall be considered. If necessary, the 

Regional ITS Architectures shall be 

updated to address coverage, monitoring 

systems, data fusion and archiving, and 

accessibility to highway and transit 

information for other States and for 

value added information product 

providers. The Regional ITS 

Architecture shall feature the 

components and functionality of the 

real-time information program. 

(e) Effective date. Establishment of the 

real-time information program for traffic 

and travel conditions on the Interstate 

system highways shall be completed no 

later than November 8, 2014. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68429 

§ 511.313 Metropolitan Area real-time 

information program supplement. 

(a) Applicability. Metropolitan Areas 

as defined under this subpart. 

(b) Requirement. Metropolitan Areas 

shall establish a real-time information 

program for traffic and travel conditions 

reporting with the same provisions 

described in § 511.311. 

(c) Routes of significance. States shall 

designate metropolitan areas, nonInterstate highways that are routes of 

significance as defined under this 

subpart. In identifying the metropolitan 

routes of significance, States shall 

collaborate with local or regional 

agencies using existing coordination 

methods. Nothing in this subpart is 

intended to alter the existing 

relationships among State, regional, and 

local agencies. 

(d) Effective date. Establishment of 

the real-time information program for 

traffic and travel conditions reporting 

along the Metropolitan Area Interstate 

system highways shall be completed no 

later than November 8, 2014. 

Establishment of the real-time 

information program for traffic and 

travel conditions reporting along the 

State-designated metropolitan area 

routes of significance shall be 

completed no later than November 8, 

2016. 

§ 511.315 Program administration. 

Compliance with this subpart will be 

monitored under Federal-aid oversight 

procedures as provided under 23 U.S.C. 

106 and 133, 23 CFR 1.36, and 23 CFR 

940.13. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27987 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1926 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0066] 

RIN 1218–AC01 

Cranes and Derricks in Construction; 

Approval of Information Collection 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of the Office 

of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

approval of information collection 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: On August 9, 2010, OSHA 

published a final rule revising the 

Cranes and Derricks Standard and 

related sections of the Construction 

Standard to update and specify industry 

work practices necessary to protect 

employees during the use of cranes and 

derricks in construction. That final 

standard also addressed advances in the 

designs of cranes and derricks, related 

hazards, and the qualifications of 

employees needed to operate them 

safely. Those requirements contained 

information collection requirements for 

which approval was needed from the 

Office of Management and Budget. This 

document announces that OMB has 

approved those collection of 

information requirements and makes the 

appropriate regulatory change to reflect 

that approval. The OMB approval 

number is 1218–0261. 

DATES: Effective November 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Room N–3609, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2222. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA 

published a final rule for the Cranes and 

Derricks in Construction standard on 

August 9, 2010 (75 FR 47905–48177), 

after determining that hazards related to 

cranes and derricks used in construction 

pose a significant risk of injury or death 

to employees in the workplace. These 

requirements are necessary to provide 

protection from these hazards. The final 

rule becomes effective on November 8, 

2010. As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA–95) (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Register 

notice for the Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction final rule states that 

employers do not have to comply with 

the collection of information 

requirements until OMB approves those 

collection of information requirements 

and the Department of Labor publishes 

a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing this approval and the 

control number assigned by OMB to the 

Cranes and Derricks in Construction’s 

collection of information requirements. 

Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency may 

not conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless: (1) The collection of 

information displays a current valid 

OMB control number and (2) the agency 

informs members of the public required 

to respond to the collection of 

information that they are not required to 

do so unless the agency displays a 

currently valid OMB control number for 

the collection of information. 

On August 9, 2010, the Department of 

Labor submitted the Cranes and 

Derricks in Construction information 

collection request for the final rule to 

OMB for approval in accordance with 

PRA–95. On November 1, 2010, OMB 

approved the collections of information 

contained in the final rule and assigned 

these collections of information OMB 

Control Number 1218–0261, titled 

‘‘Cranes and Derricks in Construction 

(29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC).’’ The 

approval for collecting the information 

expires on November 30, 2013. 

The final Cranes and Derricks 

standard imposes new information 

collection requirements for purposes of 

PRA–95. These requirements impose a 

duty to produce and maintain records 

on employers that implement controls 

and take other measures to protect 

workers from hazards related to cranes 

and derricks used in construction. 

Accordingly, construction businesses 

with employees who operate or work in 

the vicinity of cranes and derricks must 

have, as applicable, the following 

documents on file and available at the 

job site: Equipment ratings, employee 

training records, written authorizations 

from qualified individuals, and 

qualification program audits. During an 

inspection, OSHA will have access to 

the records to determine compliance 

under conditions specified by the 

standard. An employer’s failure to 

generate and disclose the information 

required in this standard will affect 

significantly the Agency’s effort to 

control and reduce injuries and fatalities 

related to the use of cranes and derricks 

in construction. 

The table below identifies the new 

collections of information contained in 

the final rule. 

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL STANDARD

29 CFR 1926.1402(c)(2) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii). 

29 CFR 1926.1403(b) and 1926.1406(b) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(2)(i). 

29 CFR 1926.1404(f)(2) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(5)(ii) and (c)(5)(iv). 

29 CFR 1926.1404(j) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(5)(iii). 

29 CFR 1926.1404(m)(1)(i) 29 CFR 1926.1427(h)(1)(i) and (ii). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES