[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1455-1459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-392]
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 /
Notices
[[Page 1455]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Transit Administration National ITS Architecture Policy
on Transit Projects
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the FTA
National ITS Architecture Policy on Transit Projects, which is defined
in this document. The National ITS Architecture Policy is a product of
statutory changes made by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178) enacted on June 9, 1998. The
National ITS Architecture Policy is also a product of the Request for
Comment on the National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy for Project
Development that was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2000.
Because it is highly unlikely that the entire National ITS Architecture
would be fully implemented by any single metropolitan area or State,
this policy 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
policy 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 consists 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.
DATE: Effective Date: This policy is effective from February 7, 2001.
ADDRESSES: For FTA staff, Federal Transit Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Technical Information: Ron Boenau,
Chief, Advanced Public Transportation Systems Division (TRI-11), at
(202) 366-0195 or Brian Cronin, Advanced Public Transportation Systems
Division (TRI-11), at (202) 366-8841. For Legal Information: Richard
Wong, Office of the Chief Council (202) 366-1936. The policy is posted
on the FTA website on the Internet under http://www.fta.dot.gov.
Electronic Access: An electronic copy of this document may be
downloaded 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 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.
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, for the Request for Comment that was issued on
May 25, 2000 which were used to clarify this Policy, by using the
universal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. It is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions
online for more information and help. The docket number for the Request
for Comment was FTA-99-6417.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a Request for
Comment on May 25, 2000, to implement section 5206(e) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub.L. 105-
178), which was enacted on June 9, 1998.
Section 5206(e) of TEA-21 requires that the Secretary of the DOT
must
Ensure that intelligent transportation system projects carried
out using funds made available from the Highway Trust Fund, * * *
conform to the national architecture, applicable standards or
provisional standards, and protocols developed under subsection(a).
The objectives for the FTA's National ITS Architecture Policy for
Transit Projects are to:
Provide requirements for ITS project development for
projects implemented wholly or partially with highway trust funds.
Achieve system integration of ITS projects funded through
the highway trust fund with other transportation projects planned for
the region, which will thereby enable electronic information and data
sharing for advanced management and operations of the ITS
infrastructure.
Engage stakeholders (state DOT's, transit agencies, public
safety agencies, other transportation operating agencies) in the
project development and implementation process.
Facilitate future expansion capability of the ITS
infrastructure.
Save design time through use of the National ITS
Architecture requirements definitions and market packages.
FTA has developed this policy to meet the TEA-21 requirement
contained in Section 5206(e) and the DOT/FTA goal to encourage
effective deployment of ITS projects. Additionally, DOT and FTA
encourage the coordination of local ITS strategies and projects to help
meet national and local goals for mobility, accessibility, safety,
security, economic growth and trade, and the environment.
The National ITS Architecture documents were developed by the US
DOT, and are updated on an as-needed basis. Current work to update the
National ITS Architecture is the Archive Data User Service, which
provides the ability to store and process data over an extended period
of time. FTA is pursuing the addition of a Rail ITS program for travel
management, vehicles, and users. New versions of the documents, when
they are issued, will be available from the US DOT on the DOT website
at www.its.dot.gov. Version 3.0 is the latest version of the National
ITS Architecture.
The first section of this policy contains a complete analysis of
and response to the comments provided to the docket. The remainder of
the Notice contains the FTA National ITS Architecture Policy for
Transit Projects.
II. Public Comments
Eighteen comments were submitted to the FTA National ITS
Architecture Consistency Policy for Project Development docket by the
September 23, 2000, close of the comment period. Comments were
submitted by transit operators (3), state and local governments (5),
metropolitan planning organizations (4), industry associations (3), and
consultants (3). As indicated earlier, a complete analysis and response
to the docket comments is provided. In order to facilitate focused
comments, FTA asked a series of questions about the policy. The public
comment section is organized first by analysis and response to the
specific questions asked; second by responses to comments not
specifically related to one of the nine questions; and finally by an
explanation of other changes. In general, the comments received were
positive. Therefore, the FTA has kept the scope of the policy and made
appropriate clarifications to the text of the policy to address
concerns raised in comments. In response to the many comments
requesting it, the FTA, in association with the ITS Joint Program
Office, in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will also provide
a program of guidance, training, and technical
[[Page 1456]]
support to assist with the implementation of this policy.
Questions
1. Do reviewers understand the definition of a major ITS investment
as defined in Section IV, ``Regional ITS Architecture,'' or is more
clarification needed, and if so please explain?
Comments: Nine commenters submitted responses to this question. In
general, commenters found the definition confusing, and did not
understand why major ITS projects need to be called out over other ITS
projects. One commenter noted that small dollar projects can have a
major impact on future development, while an expensive system may have
no impact. Another commenter was unclear about the term ``supporting
national interoperability.''
Response: Of specific concern to the agency is the timing in which
requirements for this policy are enacted. As such, the terms ``major
ITS investment'' and ``major ITS project'' were provided so as to
distinguish between projects that will require immediate correlation to
the regional ITS architecture and those that do not. The term ``major
ITS investment'' was also found to be redundant to ``major ITS
project'' and was removed from the policy. Guidance on the
classification of ``ITS projects'' and ``major ITS projects'' will be
provided upon enactment of the policy.
2. Do reviewers understand the definition of an ITS project, or is
more clarification needed, and if so please explain?
Comments: Nine commenters submitted responses to this question.
Commenters found this term less confusing than ``major ITS
investments,'' but requested more clarification. Some commenters
proposed alternative language or asked for clarification on particular
examples.
Response: The agency has clarified the definition by deleting the
potentially ambiguous examples provided and will develop guidance
material that provides examples of projects that will be considered ITS
projects and those that will not be considered ITS projects. In
general, unless a technology project is implementing one of the ITS
user services defined in the National ITS Architecture, it would not be
considered an ITS project.
3. Do reviewers understand the difference between a ``major ITS
investment,'' and an ``ITS project'', or is more clarification needed,
and if so please explain?
Comments: Eight commenters submitted responses to this question.
Commenters had mixed responses, as some commenters found the
differences to be clear, while others requested that guidance material
be provided to further explain the differences. Commenters did suggest
that a ``project'' is a ``project'' and should not be quantified in
terms of dollar amounts.
Response: As described in the response to question 1, the agency
has removed the term ``major ITS investment'' and will provide guidance
on the term ``ITS project.''
4. Are the requirements for development of a Regional ITS
Architecture clear? If not, what is not clear about the requirement?
Comment: Nine commenters provided responses to the question. Most
commenters found the requirements to be unclear and/or did not agree
with the requirements. One commenter suggested that a region will have
different definitions. One commenter noted that a concept of operations
and conceptual design are normally conducted at the project level. One
commenter requested clarification as to the appropriate place to
program projects, in the regional ITS architecture, or in the planning
process.
Response: Of specific concern to the agency is providing a flexible
policy that allows the transportation stakeholders to define their
region and the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder during
the development of a regional ITS architecture. As such, the agency has
clarified the requirements of a regional ITS architecture and also
removed the specific requirements for a Concept of Operations and a
Conceptual Design. Instead, the agency has listed the specific
requirements for a regional ITS architecture and has left the
development, documentation, and maintenance of the regional ITS
architecture to the stakeholders involved. Also, the region is defined
as ``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. Additional guidance on this topic will
be provided after enactment of the policy.
5. What additional guidance, if any, is required to explain how to
implement this proposed policy?
Comments: Ten commenters provided responses to this question. All
the comments called for additional guidance on the specifics of
implementing this policy. Commenters requested guidance on the
definition of a ``region,'' the ownership of the regional ITS
architecture, determination of stakeholders, regional ITS architecture
maintenance, certification and simplification of definitions. One
commenter requested that the policy be limited to only the ITS
Integration Requirements defined in the Metropolitan and Statewide
Planning NPRM.
Response: The agency will provide guidance materials to address the
comments suggested. The ITS Integration Strategy, as defined in the
NPRM, is part of the planning process and as such does not
satisfactorily address project level requirements.
6. The proposed rule allows regions to develop a Regional
Architecture as a separate activity, or incrementally, as major ITS
investments are developed within a region. Do reviewers anticipate
particular difficulties with implementing and documenting either
approach?
Comments: Nine commenters provided responses to this question.
Commenters largely did not favor one approach over the other. One
commenter suggested that a regional ITS architecture with a twenty year
time horizon is impractical and infeasible. One commenter suggested
that either approach would require additional staff resources.
Response: The agency was concerned about the time horizon and
development process needed to create a regional ITS architecture within
the time period required and as a result suggested both an incremental
and initial comprehensive approach. Based on the responses, the agency
has modified the policy to be silent on the approach used to develop
the regional ITS architecture. Instead, the agency focused on the
products included in the regional ITS architecture, the effective date
of the requirements, and the catalyst for requiring the development of
a regional ITS architecture.
7. Do reviewers understand the relationships between the
Integration Strategy, the Regional ITS Architecture, and the ITS
Project Architecture?
Comment: Seven commenters provided a response to this question. In
general, commenters did not understand the relationship between the
Integration Strategy, regional ITS architecture, and the ITS Project
Architecture. One commenter suggested that flexibility in application
of project architecture must be maintained to accommodate legacy
systems and to take advantage of technological innovation, while
maintaining the outcome of interoperability, where applicable.
Response: The Agency is concerned with linkage between the planning
process and the project development process. However, this policy only
deals with the project level requirements.
[[Page 1457]]
Planning level requirements, including the Integration Strategy, will
be explained as the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Process
rulemaking process is advanced. This policy only requires that the
regional ITS architecture should be consistent with the transportation
planning process. A definition for a project level ITS architecture has
been added to the policy.
8. What additional guidance, if any, is required regarding phasing
of this rule?
Comments: Six commenters submitted responses to this question. In
general, the commenters stated that the phasing was clear. However, one
commenter requested a three-year phase-in period. Several commenters
requested that existing projects be exempt from the policy.
Response: The agency has clarified the policy statements that refer
to the project status and the applicability of this policy. Projects
that have reached final design by the date of this policy are exempt
from the policy requirements. The agency has extended the time period
for regional ITS architecture development to four years. Any region
that is currently implementing ITS projects shall have a regional
architecture within four years of the effective date of the final
policy. All other regions not currently implementing ITS projects shall
have a regional ITS architecture in place within four years of the
first ITS project for that region advancing to final design.
9. Are the oversight and documentation requirements clear? If not,
what is not clear about the requirements?
Comments: Eight commenters submitted responses to this question.
Commenters in general requested more guidance from FTA on oversight and
documentation requirements, but few provided suggestions to clarify the
requirements. One commenter suggested that checklists to verify
consistency requirements will be needed. Other commenters suggested
that self-certification should be allowed, but also needs to be clearly
defined.
Response: The agency will continue to use normal existing oversight
procedures to review grantee compliance with FTA policies and
regulations. Normal oversight procedures include the annual risk
assessment of grantees performed by regional office staff, triennial
reviews, planning process reviews, and project management oversight
reviews, as applicable. In TEA-21, FTA was granted authority to use
oversight funds to provide technical assistance to grantees in which
oversight activities suggested non-compliance with agency policies and
regulations. FTA is using oversight funds to specifically hire
contractors with ITS experience who will monitor and assist grantees
who are at risk of NOT meeting the National ITS Architecture Policy
requirements. Additional guidance on oversight and documentation
requirements will be provided.
Additional Comments
One commenter suggested that the proposed guidance circular
requires that all of the agencies in a region agree before a project
can be implemented, thus conferring ``veto'' power over the project.
The agency does not intend for the policy to halt ITS deployment in
areas where agencies cannot agree on project designs. As part of the
regional ITS Architecture development, the agencies can agree to
disagree, however, the regional ITS architecture should include a
representation of the stand-alone ITS deployments.
One commenter suggests that the proposal infers that existing
agreements between agencies will now need to be amended or redone,
which would result in a halt in operations of successful ITS projects
and prevent the completion of other ITS projects. In response to the
comment, the agency has clarified the regional ITS architecture
requirements to specify that existing agreements that address the
regional ITS architecture requirements are sufficient and that new
agreements are not necessarily required.
One commenter noted that a definition of ITS was not included in
the policy. The commenter suggested that the definition provided in
TEA-21 section 5206(e) should be included in the policy. The agency
agrees and has added the definition of ITS to the list of definitions.
However, the legislative definition of ITS is broad and other
commenters have suggested that if the policy is written to include
every new piece of electronics or hardware, then the policy would be
too limiting. As a result, the policy is intended to apply only to
projects meeting the definition of an ``ITS project'' listed in the
``Definitions'' section of the policy.
One commenter suggested that DOT should ensure that the Federal
Highway Administration's (FHWA's) regulation and the FTA policy have
the same statutory standing and that their requirements in ITS planning
and deployment be consistent if not identical. The FTA and FHWA have
different processes and procedures for project development. Therefore,
the FHWA has issued a regulation, and FTA has issued the policy. The
policy language in each document is consistent and will be carried out
in a coordinated fashion, as applicable under FTA and FHWA project
management and oversight procedures. FTA and FHWA planning procedures
are a joint regulation and as such will be identical.
FTA received some comments regarding the use of standards. Several
comments concern the premature use of required standards and
interoperability tests, their impact on legacy systems, and confusion
regarding the term ``adopted by the USDOT.''
In response to the comments, FTA has significantly modified the
final policy to eliminate reference to the use of standards and
interoperability tests prior to adoption through formal rulemaking. It
is not the intent of the USDOT to formally adopt any standard before
the standard is mature; also, not all ITS standards should, or will, be
formally adopted by the USDOT. The only interoperability tests that are
currently contemplated by the USDOT 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.
Other Changes
Several commenters expressed concern about linkages to the planning
rule and the integration strategy. Comments regarding the portions of
the National ITS Architecture conformity process included in the
proposed transportation planning rule will be addressed as that rule
proceeds to its issuance. The FHWA rule and the parallel FTA policy
have been developed without direct 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 guidance notes a link to transportation planning processes, and
fully supports those collaborative methods for establishing
transportation goals and objectives.
Policy Contents
I. Purpose
II. Definitions
III. Policy
IV. Applicability
V. Regional ITS Architecture
VI. Project Implementation
VII. Project Oversight
VIII. FTA Guidance
I. Purpose
This policy provides procedures for implementing section 5206(e) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
[[Page 1458]]
Century, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 547, pertaining to conformance
with the National Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and
Standards.
II. Definitions
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) means electronics,
communications or information processing used singly or in combination
to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system.
ITS project means any project that in whole or in part funds the
acquisition of technologies or systems of technologies that provide or
significantly contribute to the provision of one or more ITS user
services as defined in the National ITS Architecture.
Major ITS project means any ITS project that implements part of a
regional ITS initiative that is multi-jurisdictional, multi-modal, or
otherwise affects regional integration of ITS systems.
National ITS Architecture (also ``national architecture'') means a
common framework for ITS interoperability. The National ITS
Architecture comprises the logical architecture and physical
architecture which satisfy a defined set of user services. The National
ITS Architecture is maintained by U.S. DOT (Department of
Transportation) 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. A region can be
specified at a metropolitan, Statewide, multi-State, or corridor level.
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.
III. 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 in support of integration 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
(49 CFR part 613 and 621).
IV. Applicability
(a) All ITS projects that are funded in whole or in part with the
Highway Trust Fund (including the mass transit account) 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
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century or the Surface
Transportation Research and Development Strategic Plan developed under
section 5208 of Title 23, United States Code; or
2. The upgrade or expansion of an ITS system in existence on the
date of enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
if the Secretary determines that the upgrade or expansion--
a. Would not adversely affect the goals or purposes of Subtitle C
(Intelligent Transportation Systems) of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century and
b. Is carried out before the end of the useful life of such system;
and
c. 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.
V. 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
agencies; 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 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 integration of ITS projects;
interoperability of different ITS technologies, 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;
(8) The sequence of projects required for implementation of the
regional ITS architecture.
(e) Existing regional ITS architectures that meet all of the
requirements of section V(d) shall be considered to satisfy the
requirements of V(a).
(f) The agencies and other stakeholders participating in the
development of the regional ITS architecture shall develop and
implement procedures and responsibilities for maintaining the regional
ITS architecture, as needs evolve within the region.
VI. Project Implementation
(a) All ITS projects funded with mass transit funds from the
highway trust
[[Page 1459]]
fund 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) Analysis of financing and 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
section V, 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 per the process defined in V(f) to reflect the changes.
(e) Prior to 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 architecture, then the project level ITS architecture
shall be updated to reflect the changes. The project level ITS
architecture is based on 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
(b) All ITS projects funded with Mass Transit Funds from the
Highway Trust Funds shall use applicable ITS standards and
interoperability tests that have been officially adopted through
rulemaking by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT).
(c) Any ITS project that has advanced to final design by (effective
date of policy) is exempt from the requirements of VI.
VII. Project Oversight
(a) Prior to authorization of Mass Transit Funds from the Highway
Trust Fund for acquisition or implementation of ITS projects, grantees
shall self-certify compliance with sections V and VI. Compliance with
this policy shall be monitored under normal FTA oversight procedures,
to include annual risk assessments, triennial reviews, and program
management oversight reviews as applicable.
(b) Compliance with the following FTA Circulars shall also be
certified:
C5010.1C, Grant Management Guidelines
C6100.1B, Application Instructions and Program Management
Guidelines
VIII. FTA Guidance
FTA will develop appropriate guidance materials regarding the
National ITS Architecture Consistency Policy.
Issued on: January 2, 2001.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-392 Filed 1-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P