1446 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 655 and 940

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–99–5899]

RIN 2125–AE65

Intelligent Transportation System

Architecture and Standards

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document

is to issue a final rule to implement

section 5206(e) of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21), enacted on June 9, 1998, which

required Intelligent Transportation

System (ITS) projects funded through

the highway trust fund to conform to the

National ITS Architecture and

applicable standards. Because it is

highly unlikely that the entire National

ITS Architecture would be fully

implemented by any single metropolitan

area or State, this rule requires that the

National ITS Architecture be used to

develop a local implementation of the

National ITS Architecture, which is

referred to as a ‘‘regional ITS

architecture.’’ Therefore, conformance

with the National ITS Architecture is

defined under this rule as development

of a regional ITS architecture within

four years after the first ITS project

advancing to final design, and the

subsequent adherence of ITS projects to

the regional ITS architecture. The

regional ITS architecture is based on the

National ITS Architecture and consist of

several parts including the system

functional requirements and

information exchanges with planned

and existing systems and subsystems

and identification of applicable

standards, and would be tailored to

address the local situation and ITS

investment needs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information: Mr. Bob Rupert,

(202) 366–2194, Office of Travel

Management (HOTM–1) and Mr.

Michael Freitas, (202) 366–9292, ITS

Joint Program Office (HOIT–1). For legal

information: Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office

of the Chief Counsel (HCC–32), (202)

366–1346, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

You may submit or retrieve comments

online through the Docket Management

System (DMS) at: http//dmses.dot.gov/

submit. Acceptable formats include: MS

Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for

Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich Text Format

(RTF), American Standard Code

Information Interchange (ASCII) (TXT),

Portable Document Format (PDF), and

WordPerfect (version 7 to 8). The DMS

is available 24 hours each day, 365 days

each year. Electronic submission and

retrieval help and guidelines are

available under the help section of the

web site.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded by using a

computer, modem, and suitable

communications software from the

Government Printing Office’s Electronic

Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–

1661. Internet users may also reach the

Office of the Federal Register’s home

page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and

the Government Printing Office’s web

page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/

nara. The document may also be viewed

at the DOT’s ITS web page at http://

www.its.dot.gov.

Background

A notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) concerning this rule was

published at 65 FR 33994 on May 25,

2000, and an extension of the comment

period to September 23, 2000, was

published at 65 FR 45942 on July 26,

2000.

In the NPRM on this rule, the FHWA

had proposed that the regional ITS

architecture follow from the ITS

integration strategy proposed in another

NPRM entitled ‘‘Statewide

Transportation Planning; Metropolitan

Transportation Planning’’ published at

65 FR 33922 on May 25, 2000. That rule

is being developed according to a

different schedule and will be issued

separately. For this reason, all

references to the proposed integration

strategy have been removed from this

rule. However, it is still the intent of

this rule that regional ITS architectures

be based on established, collaborative

transportation planning processes. The

other major changes to the final rule

relate to options for developing a

regional ITS architecture and the time

allowed to develop such an architecture.

Additional changes to the final rule

largely deal with clarification of terms,

improved language dealing with staging

and grandfathering issues, and

clarification of use of ITS standards.

Intelligent Transportation Systems

represent the application of information

processing, communications

technologies, advanced control

strategies, and electronics to the field of

transportation. Information technology

in general is most effective and cost

beneficial when systems are integrated

and interoperable. The greatest benefits

in terms of safety, efficiency, and costs

are realized when electronic systems are

systematically integrated to form a

whole in which information is shared

with all and systems are interoperable.

In the transportation sector,

successful ITS integration and

interoperability require addressing two

different and yet fundamental issues;

that of technical and institutional

integration. Technical integration of

electronic systems is a complex issue

that requires considerable up-front

planning and meticulous execution for

electronic information to be stored and

accessed by various parts of a system.

Institutional integration involves

coordination between various agencies

and jurisdictions to achieve seamless

operations and/or interoperability.

In order to achieve effective

institutional integration of systems,

agencies and jurisdictions must agree on

the benefits of ITS and the value of

being part of an integrated system. They

must agree on roles, responsibilities,

and shared operational strategies.

Finally, they must agree on standards

and, in some cases, technologies and

operating procedures to ensure

interoperability. In some instances,

there may be multiple standards that

could be implemented for a single

interface. In this case, agencies will

need to agree on a common standard or

agree to implement a technical

translator that will allow dissimilar

standards to interoperate. This

coordination effort is a considerable task

that will happen over time, not all at

once. Transportation organizations,

such as, transit properties, State and

local transportation agencies, and

metropolitan planning organizations

must be fully committed to achieving

institutional integration in order for

integration to be successful. The

transportation agencies must also

coordinate with agencies for which

transportation is a key, but not a

primary part of their business, such as,

emergency management and law

enforcement agencies.

Successfully dealing with both the

technical and institutional issues

requires a high-level conceptual view of

the future system and careful,

comprehensive planning. The

framework for the system is referred to

as the architecture. The architecture

defines the system components, key

functions, the organizations involved,

and the type of information shared

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1447

between organizations and parts of the

system. The architecture is, therefore,

fundamental to successful system

implementation, integration, and

interoperability.

Additional background information

may be found in docket number FHWA–

99–5899.

The National ITS Architecture

The Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,

Public Law 102–240, 105 Stat. 1914,

initiated Federal funding for the ITS

program. The program at that time was

largely focused on research and

development and operational tests of

technologies. A key part of the program

was the development of the National

ITS Architecture. The National ITS

Architecture provides a common

structure for the design of ITS systems.

The architecture defines the functions

that could be performed to satisfy user

requirements and how the various

elements of the system might connect to

share information. It is not a system

design, nor is it a design concept.

However, it does define the framework

around which multiple design

approaches can be developed, each one

specifically tailored to meet the needs of

the user, while maintaining the benefits

of a common approach.

The National ITS Architecture,

Version 3.0 can be obtained from the

ITS Joint Program Office of the DOT in

CD–ROM format and on the ITS web

site http://www.its.dot.gov. The effort to

develop a common national system

architecture to guide the evolution of

ITS in the United States over the next

20 years and beyond has been managed

since September 1993 by the DOT. The

National ITS Architecture describes in

detail what types of interfaces should

exist between ITS components and how

they will exchange information and

work together to deliver the given ITS

user service requirements.

The National ITS Architecture and

standards can be used to guide multilevel government and private-sector

business planners in developing and

deploying nationally compatible

systems. By ensuring system

compatibility, the DOT hopes to

accelerate ITS integration nationwide

and develop a strong, diverse

marketplace for related products and

services.

It is highly unlikely that the entire

National ITS Architecture will be fully

implemented by any single metropolitan

area or State. For example, the National

ITS Architecture contains information

flows for an Automated Highway

System that is unlikely to be part of

most regional implementations.

However, the National ITS Architecture

has considerable value as a framework

for local governments in the

development of regional ITS

architectures by identifying the many

functions and information sharing

opportunities that may be desired. It can

assist local governments with both of

the key elements: technical

interoperability and institutional

coordination.

The National ITS Architecture,

because it aids in the development of a

high-level conceptual view of a future

system, can assist local governments in

identifying applications that will

support their future transportation

needs. From an institutional

coordination perspective, the National

ITS Architecture helps local

transportation planners to identify other

stakeholders who may need to be

involved and to identify potential

integration opportunities. From a

technical interoperability perspective,

the National ITS Architecture provides

a logical and physical architecture and

process specifications to guide the

design of a system. The National ITS

Architecture also identifies interfaces

where standards may apply, further

supporting interoperability.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century

As noted above, section 5206(e) of the

TEA–21, Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat.

457, requires ITS projects funded from

the highway trust fund to conform to the

National ITS Architecture, applicable or

provisional standards, and protocols.

One of the findings of Congress in

section 5202 of the TEA–21, is that

continued investment in systems

integration is needed to accelerate the

rate at which ITS is incorporated into

the national surface transportation

network. Two of the purposes of the ITS

program, noted in section 5203(b) of the

TEA–21, are to expedite the deployment

and integration of ITS, and to improve

regional cooperation and operations

planning for effective ITS deployment.

Use of the National ITS Architecture

provides significant benefits to local

transportation planners and deployers

as follows:

1. The National ITS Architecture

provides assistance with technical

design. It saves considerable design time

because physical and logical

architectures are already defined.

2. Information flows and process

specifications are defined in the

National ITS Architecture, allowing

local governments to accelerate the

process of defining system functionality.

3. The architecture identifies

standards that will support

interoperability now and into the future,

but it leaves selection of technologies to

local decisionmakers.

4. The architecture provides a sound

engineering framework for integrating

multiple applications and services in a

region.

ITS Architecture and Standards NPRM

Discussion of Comments

The FHWA received 105 comments

on this docket from a wide range of

stakeholders, including major industry

associations, State departments of

transportation, Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPOs), and local

agencies. The comments were generally

favorable about the scope and content,

but requested additional clarification

and guidance on implementation of

specific items. On many issues, some

commenters wanted more specific

requirements, while others wanted more

flexibility. Most commenters, including

major industry associations and public

sector agencies, agreed with the overall

scope, but some felt that the specifics

might be difficult to implement and

asked for clarification of key terms. A

few commenters wanted the FHWA to

reduce the number of requirements or

convert the rulemaking into a guidance

activity until more ITS deployment

experience is gained.

In summary, the FHWA received a

large number of generally favorable

comments about the NPRM that

suggested minor specific changes and

expressed a need for further guidance

on implementation. Since the general

tenor of the comments was positive, the

FHWA has kept the scope of the NPRM

and made appropriate clarifications to

the text of the final rule to address

concerns raised in comments. In

response to the many comments

requesting it, starting in early 2001, the

FHWA will also provide a program of

guidance, training, and technical

support to assist with the

implementation of this rule. The

following is a detailed discussion of the

comments and their disposition,

organized by subject matter.

Section 940.3 Definitions

ITS Project. There were 34 comments

submitted to the docket concerning the

definition of an ITS project. Many of the

commenters felt the definition was not

clear enough, was too broad, or was too

subject to interpretation. Some

comments questioned how much of a

project’s budget would have to be spent

on ITS before a project would be

considered an ITS project. Some

suggested specific language to more

narrowly define an ITS project by

1448 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

focusing on the portion of the overall

project that is actually ITS or by

suggesting language that would narrow

the definition of an ITS project to only

include projects which introduce new

or changed integration opportunities.

Since the intent of this rule and the

supporting legislation is to facilitate the

deployment of integrated ITS systems, it

is the position of the FHWA that the

definition of an ITS project must be

fairly broad to include any ITS system

being funded with highway trust fund

dollars. It is only by properly

considering all planned ITS investments

in the development of a regional ITS

architecture that the integration

opportunities and needs can even be

identified. This consideration should be

carried out in the development of an

architecture prior to the specific project

being advanced. If, in the development

of a regional ITS architecture, it is

determined that a specific planned

project offers no real integration

opportunities for the region, then the

impact of this rule on that specific

project is minimal.

As a response to the comments

concerning the clarity of the definition,

the definition of an ITS project has been

slightly modified to remove the

examples since they were considered

misleading. The FHWA recognizes that

any definition will be subject to

interpretation by the stakeholders and

acknowledges the need for guidance in

this area to ensure clear and consistent

interpretation of this rule. Guidance on

what constitutes an ITS project

(including examples) will be developed

to assist the various stakeholders,

including the FHWA Division Offices,

to better understand what projects

should be considered ITS projects.

Region. There were 26 comments

submitted related to the definition of a

region. Seven comments supported the

open definition provided in the NPRM,

arguing that the possible integration

opportunities in an area should define

the region and that there were too many

possible variations to allow a restrictive

definition. Six commenters who

expressed concern over varying

conditions interpreted the definition to

mean Metropolitan Planning Area

(MPA). Five comments suggested an

MPA was too restrictive. Eight other

comments indicated that the proposed

definition of a region did not clearly

identify what entity would have the

lead in developing a regional ITS

architecture or thought the definition

implied the MPO should have the lead.

Nine comments suggested various limits

or boundaries to fit specific situations.

Ten comments expressed a need for

greater clarification of the definition for

a region.

The intent of the proposed definition

was to allow considerable flexibility on

the part of the stakeholders in defining

the boundaries of a region to best meet

their identified integration

opportunities. While there was no intent

to generally restrict the definition to

MPAs or States, the FHWA determined

that regional ITS architectures should be

based on an integration strategy that was

developed by an MPO or State as part

of its transportation planning process.

Given that the final rule does not

require or reference an integration

strategy, the FHWA feels a need to

provide more specific guidance on the

definition of a region. As such, the

definition of a region has been revised

to indicate that the MPA should be the

minimum area considered when

establishing the boundaries of a region

for purposes of developing a regional

ITS architecture within a metropolitan

area. This should not be interpreted to

mean that a region must be an MPA, or

no less than an MPA, but the MPA and

all the agencies and jurisdictions within

the MPA should be at least considered

for inclusion in the process of

developing a regional ITS architecture

within a metropolitan area. This rule is

silent on other possible limits or

minimum areas for defining a region,

relying on the flexible nature of this rule

to accommodate those special

circumstances. The FHWA also

acknowledges it is possible that

overlapping regions could be defined

and overlapping regional ITS

architectures be developed to meet the

needs of the regions.

Other Definitions. There were 20

comments suggesting that other terms

used in the NPRM be defined. These

included ‘‘interoperability,’’

‘‘standards,’’ ‘‘concept of operations,’’

‘‘conceptual design,’’ and ‘‘integration

strategy.’’ Several of these are no longer

used in the final rule and, therefore,

were not defined. Other terms, such as

‘‘interoperability’’ and ‘‘standards,’’

were determined to be common terms

whose definition did not effect the

implementation of the final rule.

Furthermore, language regarding

standards conformity has been clarified

in the body of the final rule.

Section 940.5 Policy

Twenty-eight commenters addressed

the issue of consistency between the

two related FHWA notices of proposed

rulemaking (23 CFR parts 940 and 1410)

and the Federal Transit

Administration’s (FTA) notice (FTA

Docket No. FTA–99–6417) on National

ITS Architecture published at 65 FR

34002 on May 25, 2000. The comments

revealed a lack of understanding about

the relationship between the regional

ITS architecture and the integration

strategy proposed as part of the

revisions to FHWA’s transportation

planning rules. There were five

comments suggesting a single DOT rule

addressing how all ITS projects would

meet the National ITS Architecture

conformance requirements of the TEA–

21 instead of an FHWA rule for highway

projects and an FTA policy for transit

projects. Four other comments

acknowledged the need for two policies,

but recommended they articulate the

same process.

A final transportation planning rule is

being developed on a different schedule

than this rule, and comments regarding

the portions of the National ITS

Architecture conformity process

included in the transportation planning

rule will be addressed as it proceeds

toward issuance. The FHWA and FTA

have chosen to go forward with policies

that have been developed cooperatively

to implement the National ITS

Architecture conformance process. This

FHWA rule and the parallel FTA policy

have been developed without reference

to the proposed changes to the

transportation planning process,

including no mention of the

development of an integration strategy.

However, the policy statement of this

rule notes a link to established

transportation planning processes, as

provided under 23 CFR part 450. This

rule fully supports these collaborative

methods for establishing transportation

goals and objectives, and does not

provide a mechanism for introducing

projects outside of the transportation

planning processes.

This final rule on National ITS

Architecture conformance and the FTA

policy on the same subject have been

developed cooperatively and

coordinated among the agencies to

ensure compatible processes. Any

differences between this rule and the

parallel FTA policy are intended to

address differences in highway and

transit project development and the way

the FHWA and the FTA administer

projects and funds.

Fifteen commenters questioned the

need for an integration strategy, and the

relationship between the strategy and

the regional ITS architecture.

Given the fact that proposed revisions

to the FHWA’s transportation planning

rules are being developed according to

a different schedule, this rule has been

revised to remove any references to an

integration strategy. Comments

regarding the integration strategy will be

addressed in the final transportation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1449

planning rule, and the discussion of the

regional ITS architecture in § 940.9 has

been revised to clarify its content.

Section 940.7 Applicability

A few commenters noted that the

proposed rule had not addressed the

TEA–21 language that allows for the

Secretary to authorize certain

exceptions to the conformity provision.

These exceptions relate to those projects

designed to achieve specific research

objectives or, if three stated criteria are

met, to those intended to upgrade or

expand an ITS system in existence on

the date of enactment of the TEA–21.

The legislation also included a general

exemption for funds used strictly for

operations and maintenance of an ITS

system in existence on the date of

enactment of the TEA–21.

The FHWA acknowledges this

omission and has included the

appropriate language in this section of

the rule.

Section 940.9 Regional ITS

Architecture

Several comments were received

related to the way the proposed rule

referred to developing regional ITS

architectures. Eight comments, from

State agencies and metropolitan

planning organizations, supported an

incremental approach to developing

regional ITS architectures, starting with

project ITS architectures and building

them together. Four other comments,

from metropolitan planning

organizations and industry associations,

noted that an ad hoc regional ITS

architecture developed incrementally

through projects would result in an

architecture less robust than if there

were a single, initial effort to develop it.

Also, thirteen comments from the

Association of American State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

and a number of States recommended

extending the time for developing

regional ITS architectures, as the

proposed two year implementation

would be too short. Ten of the

commenters preferred four years in

order to acquire the necessary resources

for developing regional ITS

architectures.

Most commenters were in agreement

with the content of the regional ITS

architecture as defined in the proposed

rule. However, there were 19 comments

that dealt with confusion over the

definition of both ‘‘conceptual design’’

and ‘‘concept of operations.’’ In

addition, there were 17 other comments

on the makeup of the stakeholders,

involvement of the private sector, and

the need and desirability of

‘‘agreements’’ between stakeholders.

The comments indicated confusion

regarding the development of regional

ITS architectures, and especially so in

discussing the period of time for their

development. Therefore, the final rule

has clarified the time period for

developing regional ITS architectures by

adopting the proposed extension to four

years subsequent to beginning to deploy

ITS projects (§ 940.9(c)), or four years

from the effective date of this rule for

those areas that are currently deploying

ITS projects (§ 940.9(b)). In clarifying

the time for development, this rule has

eliminated any references to specific

methods for developing regional ITS

architectures. By not prescribing any

methods, the rule provides flexibility to

a region in deciding how it should

develop its regional ITS architecture.

Guidance and information related to

developing regional ITS architectures is

available from FHWA Division Offices

and from the ITS web site, http://

www.its.dot.gov, and will be expanded

to provide assistance in meeting the

intent of the rule.

Both the terms ‘‘conceptual design’’

and ‘‘concept of operations’’ have been

deleted from the final rule. In their stead

are descriptions of the content that is

expected to form the basis for a regional

ITS architecture. This content has not

significantly changed from that defined

in the NPRM but is now contained in

§ 940.9(d). The level of detail required is

to the architecture flow level as defined

in the National ITS Architecture. The

regional ITS architecture must identify

how agencies, modes, and systems will

interact and operate if the architecture

is to fulfill the objective of promoting

ITS integration within a region.

The relevant stakeholders for a region

will vary from region to region. The list

articulated in § 940.9(a) is representative

only and not meant to be inclusive or

exclusive. On the specific issue of

private sector participation, if the

private sector is deploying ITS systems

in a region or otherwise providing an

ITS-based service, it would be

appropriate to engage them in the

development of a regional ITS

architecture. Because of these variations

from region to region, the FHWA felt it

inappropriate to attempt to define an all

inclusive list of stakeholders. The group

of relevant stakeholders will be a

function of how the region is defined

and how transportation services are

provided to the public. Section

940.9(d)(4) specifies that in the

development of the regional ITS

architecture, it shall include ‘‘any

agreements (existing or new) required

for operations.’’ The formalization of

these types of agreements is at the

discretion of the region and

participating stakeholders.

There were 14 comments from a broad

range of organizations questioning how

existing regional ITS architectures,

strategic plans or ITS Early Deployment

Plans would be treated under this rule.

It is the intent of the FHWA that any

existing ITS planning documents should

be used to the extent practical to meet

the requirements of this rule. If a

regional ITS architecture is in place, is

up to date, and addresses all the

requirements of a regional ITS

architecture as described in this rule,

there is no requirement to develop a

‘‘new’’ one. If the existing regional ITS

architecture does not address all the

requirements of the rule, it may be

possible to update it so that it meets the

regional ITS architecture requirements

of this rule. What is necessary is that the

end result is an architecture that meets

the requirements of this rule and

properly addresses the ITS deployments

and integration opportunities of that

region. This issue is specifically

addressed in § 940.9(e) of this rule.

There were five comments related to

the impact of this rule on legacy systems

(i.e., ITS systems already in place) and

requesting some sort of

‘‘grandfathering’’ for them. The language

in § 940.11(g) of the final rule clarifies

the grandfathering or staging aspects of

the process. The final rule does not

require any changes or modifications to

existing systems to conform to the

National ITS Architecture. It is very

likely that a regional ITS architecture

developed by the local agencies and

other stakeholders would call for

changes to legacy systems over time to

support desired integration. However,

such changes would not be required by

the FHWA; they would be agreed upon

by the appropriate stakeholders as part

of the development of the regional ITS

architecture.

There were 15 comments dealing with

the maintenance process and status of

the National ITS Architecture. Two

comments suggested the need for the

FHWA to formally adopt the National

ITS Architecture. Four other comments

also supported the formalization of a

process for maintaining or updating it

with the full opportunity for public

input.

Conformance with the National ITS

Architecture is interpreted to mean the

use of the National ITS Architecture to

develop a regional ITS architecture, and

the subsequent adherence of all ITS

projects to that regional ITS

architecture. This rule requires that the

National ITS Architecture be used as a

resource in developing a regional ITS

architecture.

1450 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

As a technical resource, it is

important that the National ITS

Architecture be maintained and updated

as necessary in response to user input

or to add new user services, but formal

adoption of the National ITS

Architecture is not necessary. However,

the FHWA recognizes the need to

maintain the National ITS Architecture

and to establish an open process for

configuration control that includes

public participation. The process

currently used by the DOT to maintain

the National ITS Architecture is very

rigorous and involves significant public

participation. That process is currently

being reviewed by the DOT with the

intent of establishing a configuration

management process that engages the

public at key stages and ensures a

consensus for updating the National ITS

Architecture.

Four comments suggested that this

rule should not be implemented until

the National ITS Architecture was

complete. The National ITS

Architecture will never stop evolving

since there always is a potential need to

regularly update it as more is learned

about ITS deployment. The FHWA

believes the National ITS Architecture is

developed to a stage where it can be

used as a resource in developing

regional ITS architectures, as required

by this rule.

Seventeen comments asked the

FHWA to define the agency that is

responsible for the development and

maintenance of the regional ITS

architecture; specifically MPOs and/or

the State as those entities that are

already responsible for the planning

process.

The FHWA did not define the

responsibility for either creating or

maintaining the regional ITS

architecture to a specific entity because

of the diversity of transportation

agencies and their roles across the

country. It is recognized that in some

regions traditional State and MPO

boundaries may not meet the needs of

the traveling public or the

transportation community. This is also

why the FHWA did not rigidly define a

region. The FHWA encourages MPOs

and States to include the development

of their regional ITS architectures as

part of their transportation planning

processes. However, the decision is best

left to the region to determine the

approach that best reflects their needs,

as indicated in § 940.9. It is clear that

the value of a regional ITS architecture

will only be realized if that architecture

is maintained through time. However, in

accepting Federal funds under title 23,

U.S.C., the State is ultimately

responsible for complying with Federal

requirements, as provided in 23 U.S.C.

106 and 133.

Four commenters noted that the

proposed rule did not adequately

address planning for, or committing to,

a defined level of operations and

maintenance.

The final rule addresses this concern

on two primary levels, in the

development of the regional ITS

architecture and the development of

individual projects. Section 940.9(d)(4)

specifies that in the development of the

regional ITS architecture, it shall

include ‘‘any agreements (existing or

new) required for operations.’’ The

formalization of these types of

agreements is at the discretion of the

region and participating stakeholders.

Also, relative to operations and

management at a project level,

§ 940.11(c)(7) specifies that the systems

engineering analysis (required of all ITS

projects) includes ‘‘procedures and

resources necessary for the operations

and management of the system.’’

Section 940.11 Project Implementation

In addition to the comments on

regional ITS architecture development

noted above, the docket received 86

comments on systems engineering and

project implementation. These

comments revealed that the structure of

the NPRM in discussing regional ITS

architecture development, project

systems engineering analysis, and

project implementation was confusing

and difficult to read.

To clarify these portions of the rule,

the systems engineering and project

implementation sections of the NPRM

have been combined into § 940.11,

Project Implementation. Also,

paragraphs that were in the regional ITS

architecture section of the NPRM that

discussed major ITS projects and the

requirements for developing project

level ITS architectures have been

rewritten to clarify their applicability.

Since these paragraphs deal with project

development issues, they have been

moved to § 940.11(e). A definition for

‘‘project level ITS architecture’’ was

added in § 940.3 and a description of its

contents provided in § 940.11(e).

The docket received 33 comments

regarding systems engineering and the

systems engineering analysis section of

the proposed rule. Most of the

comments related to the definition, the

process not being necessary except for

very large projects, and confusion as to

how these requirements relate to

existing FHWA policy.

In response to the docket comments,

the definition of systems engineering in

§ 940.3 has been clarified and is more

consistent with accepted practice. In

order to provide consistency in the

regional ITS architecture process, the

systems engineering analysis detailed in

§§ 940.11(a) through 940.11(c) must

apply to all ITS projects regardless of

size or budget. However, the analysis

should be on a scale commensurate with

project scope. To allow for the greatest

flexibility at the State and local level, in

§ 940.11(c), a minimum number of

elements have been clearly identified

for inclusion in the systems engineering

analysis. Many of those elements are

currently required as provided in 23

CFR 655.409, which this rule replaces.

Recognizing the change in some current

practices this type of analysis will

require, the FHWA intends to issue

guidance, training, and technical

support in early 2001 to help

stakeholders meet the requirements of

the final rule.

Fifty-three comments were submitted

regarding ITS standards and

interoperability tests. The commenters

expressed concern about requiring the

use of ITS standards and

interoperability tests prematurely, the

impact on legacy systems of requiring

ITS standards, and confusion regarding

the term ‘‘adopted by the DOT.’’

In response to the comments, the

FHWA has significantly modified the

final rule to eliminate reference to the

use of standards and interoperability

tests prior to adoption in § 940.11(f).

Section 940.11(g) addresses the

applicability of standards to legacy

systems. It is not the intent of the DOT

to formally adopt any standard before

the standard is mature; and also, not all

ITS standards should, or will, be

formally adopted by the DOT. Formal

adoption of a standard means that the

DOT will go through the rulemaking

process, including a period of public

comment, for all standards that are

considered candidates for adoption.

The DOT has developed a set of

criteria to determine when a standard

could be considered for formal

adoption. These criteria include, at a

minimum, the following elements:

1. The standard has been approved by

a Standard Development Organization

(SDO).

2. The standard has been successfully

tested in real world applications as

appropriate.

3. The standard has received some

degree of acceptance by the community

served by the standard.

4. Products exist to implement the

standard.

5. There is adequate documentation to

support the use of the standard.

6. There is training available in the

use of the standard where applicable.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1451

Therefore, the intent of the rule is to

require the use of a standard only when

these criteria have been met, and there

has been a separate rulemaking on

adoption of the standard.

The only interoperability tests that are

currently contemplated by the DOT are

those associated with the Commercial

Vehicle Operations (CVO) program.

These tests are currently being used by

States deploying CVO systems and will

follow a similar set of criteria for

adoption as those defined for standards.

Section 940.13 Project Administration

There were nine comments related to

how conformity with the final rule

would be determined, and by whom.

There were 11 comments about how

conformity with the regional ITS

architecture would be determined, and

by whom. Six comments specifically

suggested methods for determining

conformance, including a process

similar to current Federal planning

oversight procedures. Six other

commenters suggested that

determination be made by the MPO or

State. For either case, the comments

reflected a lack of clarity as to what

documentation would be necessary.

There were six related comments

suggesting the level of documentation

be commensurate with the scale of the

planned ITS investments in the region.

In § 940.13 of the final rule, the

FHWA has attempted to clarify the

process for determining conformance.

Conformance of an ITS project with a

regional ITS architecture shall be made

prior to authorization of funding for

project construction or implementation

as provided in 23 U.S.C. 106 and 133.

We do not intend to create new

oversight procedures beyond those

provided in 23 U.S.C. 106 and 133, but

in those cases where oversight and

approval for ITS projects is assumed by

the State, the State will be responsible

for ensuring compliance with this

regulation and the FHWA’s oversight

will be through existing processes.

There were 14 comments concerning

the documentation requirements of the

proposed rule and generally suggesting

they be reduced. Certainly the

development of a regional ITS

architecture and evidence of

conformance of a specific project to that

regional ITS architecture implies some

level of documentation be developed.

However, to allow flexibility on the part

of the State or local agency in

demonstrating compliance with the

final rule, no specific documentation is

required to be developed or submitted

to the FHWA for review or approval.

The FHWA recognizes the need to be

able to scale the regional ITS

architecture and the associated

documentation to the needs of the

region. Section 940.9(a) of the final rule

contains specific language allowing

such scaling.

Summary of Requirements

I. The Regional ITS Architecture

This final rule on the ITS Architecture

and Standards requires the development

of a local implementation of the

National ITS Architecture referred to as

a regional ITS architecture. The regional

ITS architecture is tailored to meet local

needs, meaning that it does not address

the entire National ITS Architecture and

can also address services not included

in the National ITS Architecture. The

regional ITS architecture shall contain a

description of the region and the

identification of the participating

agencies and other stakeholders; the

roles and responsibilities of the

participating agencies and other

stakeholders; any agreements needed for

operation; system functional

requirements; interface requirements

and information exchanges with

planned and existing systems;

identification of applicable standards;

and the sequence of projects necessary

for implementation. Any changes made

in a project design that impact the

regional ITS architecture shall be

identified and the appropriate revisions

made and agreed to in the regional ITS

architecture.

Any region that is currently

implementing ITS projects shall have a

regional ITS architecture within four

years of the effective date of this rule.

All other regions not currently

implementing ITS projects shall have a

regional ITS architecture within four

years of the first ITS project for that

region advancing to final design. In this

context, a region is a geographical area

that is based on local needs for sharing

information and coordinating

operational strategies among multiple

projects. A region can be specified at a

metropolitan, Statewide, multi-State, or

corridor level. Within a metropolitan

area, the metropolitan planning area

should be the minimum area that is

considered when establishing the

boundaries of a region for purposes of

developing a regional ITS architecture.

A regional approach promotes

integration of transportation systems.

The size of the region should reflect the

breadth of the integration of

transportation systems.

II. Project Development

Additionally, this rule requires that

all ITS projects be developed using a

systems engineering analysis. All ITS

projects that have not yet advanced to

final design are required to conform to

the system engineering requirements in

§ 940.11 upon the effective date of this

rule. Any ITS project that has advanced

to final design by the effective date of

this rule is exempt from the

requirements of § 940.11. When the

regional ITS architecture is completed,

project development will be based on

the relevant portions of it which the

project implements. Prior to completion

of the regional ITS architecture, major

ITS projects will develop project level

ITS architectures that are coordinated

with the development of the regional

ITS architecture. ITS projects will be

required to use applicable ITS standards

and interoperability tests that have been

officially adopted by the DOT. Where

multiple standards exist, it will be the

responsibility of the stakeholders to

determine how best to achieve the

interoperability they desire.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this

action is not a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866 or significant within the

meaning of the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. It is anticipated that the

economic impact of this rulemaking will

be minimal. This determination is based

upon preliminary and final regulatory

assessments prepared for this action that

indicate that the annual impact of the

rule will not exceed $100 million nor

will it adversely affect the economy, a

sector of the economy, productivity,

jobs, the environment, public health,

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments. In addition, the agency

has determined that these changes will

not interfere with any action taken or

planned by another agency and will not

materially alter the budgetary impact of

any entitlements, grants, user fees, or

loan programs. Copies of the

preliminary and final regulatory

assessments are included in the docket.

Costs

The FHWA prepared a preliminary

regulatory evaluation (PRE) for the

NPRM and comments were solicited.

That analysis estimated the total costs of

this rule over 10 years to be between

$38.1 million and $44.4 million (the net

present value over 10 years was between

$22.3 million and $31.2 million). The

annual constant dollar impact was

estimated to range between $3.2 million

and $4.4 million. We believe that the

1452 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

cost estimates as stated in the PRE are

negligible. The FHWA received only

one comment in response to the PRE.

That commenter, the Capital District

Transportation Committee of Albany,

New York suggested that our cost

estimates were too low, but provided no

further detail or rationale which would

cause us to reconsider or increase our

cost estimates in the initial regulatory

evaluation.

These 10-year cost estimates set forth

in the PRE included transportation

planning cost increases, to MPOs

ranging from $10.8 million to $13.5

million, and to States from $5.2 million

to $7.8 million associated with our

initial requirement to develop an ITS

integration strategy that was proposed

as part of the metropolitan and

statewide planning rulemaking effort.

The agency now plans to advance that

proposed ITS integration strategy in the

planning rule on a different time

schedule than this final rule. Thus, the

costs originally set forth in the PRE for

the ITS integration strategy have been

eliminated from the final cost estimate

in the final regulatory evaluation (FRE)

for this rule.

In the FRE, the agency estimates the

cost of this rule to be between $1

million an $16 million over ten years,

which are the estimated costs of this

rule to implementing agencies for the

development of the regional ITS

architectures. These costs do not

include any potential additional

implementation costs for individual

projects which are expected to be

minimal and were extremely difficult to

estimate. Thus, the costs to the industry

are less than that originally estimated in

the agency’s NPRM.

Benefits

In the PRE, the FHWA indicated that

the non-monetary benefits derived from

the proposed action included savings

from the avoidance of duplicative

development, reduced overall

development time, and earlier detection

of potential incompatibilities. We stated

that, as with project implementation

impacts, the benefits of the rule are very

difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

Thus, we estimated that the

coordination guidance provided through

implementation of the rule could

provide savings of approximately

$150,000 to any potential entity seeking

to comply with the requirements of

section 5206(e) of the TEA–21 as

compared with an entity having to

undertake compliance individually. The

costs may be offset by benefits derived

from the reduction of duplicative

deployments, reduced overall

development time, and earlier detection

of potential incompatibilities.

In developing a final regulatory

evaluation for this action, we did not

denote a significant change in any of the

benefits anticipated by this rule. This is

so notwithstanding the fact that our

planning costs for the ITS integration

strategy have been eliminated from the

final cost estimate. The primary benefits

of this action that result from avoidance

of duplicative development, reduced

overall development time, and earlier

detection of potential incompatibilities

will remain the same.

In sum the agency believes that the

option chosen in this action will be

most effective at helping us to

implement the requirements of section

5206(e) of the TEA–21. In developing

the rule, the FHWA has sought to allow

broad discretion to those entities

impacted, in levels of response and

approach that are appropriate to

particular plans and projects, while

conforming to the requirements of the

TEA–21. The FHWA has considered the

costs and benefits of effective

implementation of ITS through careful

and comprehensive planning. Based

upon the information above, the agency

anticipates that the economic impact

associated with this rulemaking action

is minimal and a full regulatory

evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated, through the

regulatory assessment, the effects of this

action on small entities and has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small businesses and small

organizations are not subject to this rule,

which applies to government entities

only. Since § 940.9(a) of this rule

provides for regional ITS architectures

to be developed on a scale

commensurate with the scope of ITS

investment in the region, and

§ 940.11(b) provides for the ITS project

systems engineering analysis to be on a

scale commensurate with the project

scope, compliance requirements will

vary with the magnitude of the ITS

requirements of the entity. Small, less

complex ITS projects have

correspondingly small compliance

documentation requirements, thereby

accommodating the interest of small

government entities. Small entities,

primarily transit agencies, are

accommodated through these scaling

provisions that impose only limited

requirements on small ITS activities.

For these reasons, the FHWA certifies

that this action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This action does not impose

unfunded mandates as defined by the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995, 109

Stat. 48). This rule will not result in an

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the

FHWA has determined that this action

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a federalism assessment. The FHWA

has also determined that this action

does not preempt any State law or State

regulation or affect the State’s ability to

discharge traditional State governmental

functions.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway planning and construction.

The regulations implementing Executive

Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This action does not contain

information collection requirements for

the purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This action meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform, to minimize litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce

burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of

Children)

We have analyzed this action under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1453

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of

Private Property)

This rule does not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Government Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action

for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), and

has determined that this action will not

have any effect on the quality of the

environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this proposed

action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

23 CFR Part 655

Design standards, Grant programstransportation, Highways and roads,

Incorporation by reference, Signs and

symbols, Traffic regulations.

23 CFR Part 940

Design standards, Grant programstransportation, Highways and roads,

Intelligent transportation systems.

Issued on: January 2, 2001.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FHWA amends Chapter I of title 23,

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

PART 655—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 655

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d),

114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32,

and 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart D—[Removed and reserved]

2. Remove and reserve subpart D of

part 655, consisting of §§ 655.401,

655.403, 655.405, 655.407, 655.409,

655.411.

3. Add a new subchapter K, consisting

of part 940, to read as follows:

Subchapter K—Intelligent Transportation

Systems

PART 940—INTELLIGENT

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS

Sec.

940.1 Purpose.

940.3 Definitions.

940.5 Policy.

940.7 Applicability.

940.9 Regional ITS architecture.

940.11 Project implementation.

940.13 Project administration.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101, 106, 109, 133,

315, and 508; sec 5206(e), Public Law 105–

178, 112 Stat. 457 (23 U.S.C. 502 note); and

49 CFR 1.48.

§ 940.1 Purpose.

This regulation provides policies and

procedures for implementing section

5206(e) of the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21st Century (TEA–21), Public

Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 457, pertaining

to conformance with the National

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Architecture and Standards.

§ 940.3 Definitions.

Intelligent Transportation System

(ITS) means electronics,

communications, or information

processing used singly or in

combination to improve the efficiency

or safety of a surface transportation

system.

ITS project means any project that in

whole or in part funds the acquisition

of technologies or systems of

technologies that provide or

significantly contribute to the provision

of one or more ITS user services as

defined in the National ITS

Architecture.

Major ITS project means any ITS

project that implements part of a

regional ITS initiative that is multijurisdictional, multi-modal, or

otherwise affects regional integration of

ITS systems.

National ITS Architecture (also

‘‘national architecture’’) means a

common framework for ITS

interoperability. The National ITS

Architecture comprises the logical

architecture and physical architecture

which satisfy a defined set of user

services. The National ITS Architecture

is maintained by the United States

Department of Transportation (DOT)

and is available on the DOT web site at

http://www.its.dot.gov.

Project level ITS architecture is a

framework that identifies the

institutional agreement and technical

integration necessary to interface a

major ITS project with other ITS

projects and systems.

Region is the geographical area that

identifies the boundaries of the regional

ITS architecture and is defined by and

based on the needs of the participating

agencies and other stakeholders. In

metropolitan areas, a region should be

no less than the boundaries of the

metropolitan planning area.

Regional ITS architecture means a

regional framework for ensuring

institutional agreement and technical

integration for the implementation of

ITS projects or groups of projects.

Systems engineering is a structured

process for arriving at a final design of

a system. The final design is selected

from a number of alternatives that

would accomplish the same objectives

and considers the total life-cycle of the

project including not only the technical

merits of potential solutions but also the

costs and relative value of alternatives.

§ 940.5 Policy.

ITS projects shall conform to the

National ITS Architecture and standards

in accordance with the requirements

contained in this part. Conformance

with the National ITS Architecture is

interpreted to mean the use of the

National ITS Architecture to develop a

regional ITS architecture, and the

subsequent adherence of all ITS projects

to that regional ITS architecture.

Development of the regional ITS

architecture should be consistent with

the transportation planning process for

Statewide and Metropolitan

Transportation Planning.

§ 940.7 Applicability.

(a) All ITS projects that are funded in

whole or in part with the highway trust

fund, including those on the National

Highway System (NHS) and on nonNHS facilities, are subject to these

provisions.

(b) The Secretary may authorize

exceptions for:

(1) Projects designed to achieve

specific research objectives outlined in

the National ITS Program Plan under

section 5205 of the TEA–21, or the

Surface Transportation Research and

Development Strategic Plan developed

under 23 U.S.C. 508; or

(2) The upgrade or expansion of an

ITS system in existence on the date of

enactment of the TEA–21, if the

Secretary determines that the upgrade or

expansion:

(i) Would not adversely affect the

goals or purposes of Subtitle C

(Intelligent Transportation Systems Act

of 1998) of the TEA–21;

(ii) Is carried out before the end of the

useful life of such system; and

1454 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) Is cost-effective as compared to

alternatives that would meet the

conformity requirement of this rule.

(c) These provisions do not apply to

funds used for operations and

maintenance of an ITS system in

existence on June 9, 1998.

§ 940.9 Regional ITS architecture.

(a) A regional ITS architecture shall

be developed to guide the development

of ITS projects and programs and be

consistent with ITS strategies and

projects contained in applicable

transportation plans. The National ITS

Architecture shall be used as a resource

in the development of the regional ITS

architecture. The regional ITS

architecture shall be on a scale

commensurate with the scope of ITS

investment in the region. Provision

should be made to include participation

from the following agencies, as

appropriate, in the development of the

regional ITS architecture: Highway

agencies; public safety agencies (e.g.,

police, fire, emergency/medical); transit

operators; Federal lands agencies; State

motor carrier agencies; and other

operating agencies necessary to fully

address regional ITS integration.

(b) Any region that is currently

implementing ITS projects shall have a

regional ITS architecture by February 7,

2005.

(c) All other regions not currently

implementing ITS projects shall have a

regional ITS architecture within four

years of the first ITS project for that

region advancing to final design.

(d) The regional ITS architecture shall

include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) A description of the region;

(2) Identification of participating

agencies and other stakeholders;

(3) An operational concept that

identifies the roles and responsibilities

of participating agencies and

stakeholders in the operation and

implementation of the systems included

in the regional ITS architecture;

(4) Any agreements (existing or new)

required for operations, including at a

minimum those affecting ITS project

interoperability, utilization of ITS

related standards, and the operation of

the projects identified in the regional

ITS architecture;

(5) System functional requirements;

(6) Interface requirements and

information exchanges with planned

and existing systems and subsystems

(for example, subsystems and

architecture flows as defined in the

National ITS Architecture);

(7) Identification of ITS standards

supporting regional and national

interoperability; and

(8) The sequence of projects required

for implementation.

(e) Existing regional ITS architectures

that meet all of the requirements of

paragraph (d) of this section shall be

considered to satisfy the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section.

(f) The agencies and other

stakeholders participating in the

development of the regional ITS

architecture shall develop and

implement procedures and

responsibilities for maintaining it, as

needs evolve within the region.

§ 940.11 Project implementation.

(a) All ITS projects funded with

highway trust funds shall be based on

a systems engineering analysis.

(b) The analysis should be on a scale

commensurate with the project scope.

(c) The systems engineering analysis

shall include, at a minimum:

(1) Identification of portions of the

regional ITS architecture being

implemented (or if a regional ITS

architecture does not exist, the

applicable portions of the National ITS

Architecture);

(2) Identification of participating

agencies roles and responsibilities;

(3) Requirements definitions;

(4) Analysis of alternative system

configurations and technology options

to meet requirements;

(5) Procurement options;

(6) Identification of applicable ITS

standards and testing procedures; and

(7) Procedures and resources

necessary for operations and

management of the system.

(d) Upon completion of the regional

ITS architecture required in §§ 940.9(b)

or 940.9(c), the final design of all ITS

projects funded with highway trust

funds shall accommodate the interface

requirements and information

exchanges as specified in the regional

ITS architecture. If the final design of

the ITS project is inconsistent with the

regional ITS architecture, then the

regional ITS architecture shall be

updated as provided in the process

defined in § 940.9(f) to reflect the

changes.

(e) Prior to the completion of the

regional ITS architecture, any major ITS

project funded with highway trust funds

that advances to final design shall have

a project level ITS architecture that is

coordinated with the development of

the regional ITS architecture. The final

design of the major ITS project shall

accommodate the interface requirements

and information exchanges as specified

in this project level ITS architecture. If

the project final design is inconsistent

with the project level ITS architecture,

then the project level ITS architecture

shall be updated to reflect the changes.

The project level ITS architecture is

based on the results of the systems

engineering analysis, and includes the

following:

(1) A description of the scope of the

ITS project;

(2) An operational concept that

identifies the roles and responsibilities

of participating agencies and

stakeholders in the operation and

implementation of the ITS project;

(3) Functional requirements of the ITS

project;

(4) Interface requirements and

information exchanges between the ITS

project and other planned and existing

systems and subsystems; and

(5) Identification of applicable ITS

standards.

(f) All ITS projects funded with

highway trust funds shall use applicable

ITS standards and interoperability tests

that have been officially adopted

through rulemaking by the DOT.

(g) Any ITS project that has advanced

to final design by February 7, 2001 is

exempt from the requirements of

paragraphs (d) through (f) of this

section.

§ 940.13 Project administration.

(a) Prior to authorization of highway

trust funds for construction or

implementation of ITS projects,

compliance with § 940.11 shall be

demonstrated.

(b) Compliance with this part will be

monitored under Federal-aid oversight

procedures as provided under 23 U.S.C.

106 and 133.

[FR Doc. 01–391 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P