Achieving Interoperability in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) With Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-97-2320; FHWA-96-46]

Achieving Interoperability in Intelligent Transportation Systems

(ITS) With Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC)

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register on January

6, 1997 (62 FR 791), in which the agency requested comments on three

items of concern relating to the

[[Page 63409]]

implementation of dedicated short range communication (DSRC) systems

specified in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) National

Architecture. These issues are paraphrased as follows:

(1) Should the FHWA require that DSRC systems purchased with

Federal-aid highway funding meet draft standard specifications?

(2) Should the FHWA require that DSRC systems purchased with

Federal-aid highway funding meet an escalating interoperability formula

(e.g., start with national interoperability of all commercial vehicle

operations (CVO) applications and gradually transition stepwise over

time to national interoperability of all federally-funded DSRC

applications)?

(3) Should a single DSRC standard be developed for all applications

in ITS projects with Federal-aid highway funding?

The comment period for this notice was scheduled to close on

February 1, 1997. The FHWA solicits further public comment on this

issue; therefore, it is extending the comment period until January 27,

1998.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than January 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All signed, written comments should refer to the docket

number that appears at the top of this document and must be submitted

to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available

for examination at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed,

stamped envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and programmatic

questions contact: Mr. Michael P. Onder, ITS Joint Program Office,

(202) 366-2639. For legal questions contact: Ms. Beverly M. Russell,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1355. Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ITS program of the United States Department of Transportation

(USDOT) was established by the Congress in the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105

Stat. 1914. In section 6053(b) of the ISTEA, the Congress directed the

USDOT to develop and implement standards and protocols to promote

widespread use and evaluation of ITS technology as a component of the

nation's surface transportation systems. A precursor to the development

of standards has been the formation of a National ITS Architecture. The

architecture describes how system components should work and interact,

and includes recommendations for which kinds of communication system

media are used for data transmission among the various components.

The USDOT began an intensive National ITS Architecture development

program in December 1994, and concluded with an architecture that

supports 30 ITS user services in July 1996. The National ITS

Architecture envisions a transportation system in which DSRC is the

favored method of wireless communications between vehicles and roadside

subsystems for CVO, for Electronic Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM),

and for several other important, but less prevalent, ITS applications.

In ITS reauthorization legislation, for fiscal years 1998 or 1999, it

is expected that the USDOT will be directed to ensure conformance with

the National ITS Architecture and its implementing standards for ITS

deployment projects using Federal-aid highway funds, thus ensuring the

highest effectiveness and benefits for the funds expended.

The Vehicle/Roadside Air Interface Problem

Currently, interoperability does not exist between the DSRC

equipment of different manufacturers. The DSRC standards governing the

wireless communication between the transponder and reader, and the

message sets in this wireless air interface exchange that are required

for interoperability, are not yet applied to ITS project deployment.

Interoperability, in this case, is the ability of any given roadside

reader or interrogation device to meaningfully query, send or receive,

and process data from any given transponder mounted in a vehicle,

regardless of which manufacturer produced either the reader or

transponder. In order for wireless communication between vehicles and

roadside--a fundamental enabling technology for ITS--to take place

successfully, DSRC standards must be established at levels one and two

of the International Standards Organization's Open Systems Interconnect

(OSI) reference model, which deal with the ``air interface'' and the

physical properties of the system. Furthermore, for the DSRC

applications to be a viable alternative for commercial fleets, it is

essential that interoperability exist on a nationwide basis.

Over the past several years, the DSRC industry has been unable to

agree upon a viable path for DSRC standardization. If the FHWA

continues to allow Federal-aid highway funds to be invested in

noncompatible systems, the magnitude of the problem will continue to

escalate. Unless the DSRC industry can identify a solution to the

remaining areas of non-interoperability soon, the FHWA will be forced

to seek a process to develop and apply a standard as an

interoperability solution to support long term deployment of DSRC using

Federal-aid highway funds, and therein halt the proliferation of non-

interoperable DSRC systems.

Discussion of Comments

A total of 21 comments were received in response to the initial

notice soliciting comments on January 6, 1997. These comments represent

the opinions of 29 entities. The comments received in response to each

question are described immediately after a restatement of each

question. The first question is subdivided into three parts for clear

delineation of the salient aspects of the responses. The remaining two

questions are briefly stated with their respective responses from the

public.

Questions and Responses

1(a). Should the FHWA require that the DSRC systems purchased with

Federal-aid highway funds meet draft standard specification, such as

that of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) proposed

Draft No. 6 DSRC standard and the Committee for European Normalization

(CEN) draft documents N473, N474, and N505, prior to their formal

adoption as industry standards in an effort to reduce the proliferation

of non-interoperable systems?

The responses were evenly divided on the question of whether

Federal-aid funds should be tied to conformance with draft standards.

Comments from manufacturers were divided. Those manufacturers with

products that meet, or are close to meeting, the ASTM draft DSRC

standards were in favor of using a draft standard rather than a fully

adopted national standard. The majority of the manufacturers, and some

of the public and user agencies, stated that the CEN pre-standards are

not suitable for North America. It was suggested that current work on

the ASTM standard covering North American use of the 902 and 928

megahertz (MHZ) band for the DSRC

[[Page 63410]]

capability should be completed and, then, a long-term transition to the

5.8 gigahertz (GHz) band should be developed.

A majority of the commenters from the public and user agencies

rejected use of the ASTM draft DSRC standards. They stated that the

existing ASTM draft DSRC standards are not interoperable and would not

ensure interoperability.

A few system integrators commented that requiring conformance with

the ASTM draft DSRC standards would force all manufacturers to support

preparation of the final standard, thus accelerating the effort to

establish and publish the national standards.

1(b). Should the FHWA include message set requirement, such as, the

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Dedicated Short

Range Communications Interface Requirements of April 2, 1996 (The Johns

Hopkins University-Applied Physics Lab)?

A majority of commenters agreed that message set requirements are

needed in the DSRC standards.

Manufacturers commented that message set requirements should be

part of the standard, but that they would rather work with a fully

defined and adopted DSRC standard.

Comments from the public and user agencies varied depending on the

particular DSRC application in use; however, a majority stated that

message set requirements should be incorporated into the DSRC standard

to the extent practicable.

The system integrators believed that including message set

requirements as a portion of the DSRC standard is necessary and would

help force commitment to reach an agreement on the DSRC standard.

1(c). Should compliance with specific draft DSRC standards be

required for CVO application only; for both CVO and ETTM application;

or for CVO, ETTM, and additional applications?

A slight majority of commenters favored requiring compliance with

the ASTM draft DSRC standard for application to CVO and ETTM.

Comments from manufacturers were divided on adopting an ASTM draft

DSRC standard. One half of this group stated that the availability of

Federal-aid highway funds should be tied only to a fully defined and

endorsed DSRC standard; while the other half supported the adoption of

a specific ASTM draft standard. There was a divergence of views on the

extent of applicability of a DSRC standard. Some stated that users of

simple applications should not have to pay for the needs of complex

applications. Others supported a single DSRC standard for all

applications. Another group would adopt a single DSRC standard

applicable to both CVO and ETTM applications.

Public and user agency responses were slightly varied, with all

supporting application of a DSRC standard to CVO. A majority favored

application of the DSRC standard to both CVO and ETTM. A few commenters

favored a single DSRC standard for all DSRC applications.

Comments from the system integrators supported a widely applicable

DSRC standard. This group supported immediate establishment of rules

for use of the ASTM draft DSRC standard as a prerequisite for Federal-

aid highway funding. According to the system integrators, even a draft

DSRC standard could be used as a mechanism to move all parties to

agreement on the final endorsed DSRC standard.

2. Should the FHWA require that DSRC systems purchased with

Federal-aid highway funds meet an escalating interoperability formula?

An example would be that, initially, all CVO applications must be

nationally interoperable; later, all new (after some specified later

date) ETTM systems and system upgrades must be interoperable with CVO

applications; and, finally, all other new (after another specified even

later date) and upgrading DSRC applications must be interoperable with

CVO applications.

The FHWA believes that nationwide interoperability is critical for

the efficient operation of vehicles using DSRC equipment crossing the

nation, especially commercial vehicles, and, thus, requires a national

focus. The ETTM programs, on the other hand, and possibly other DSRC

applications are more focused on regional travel, with the exception of

commercial carriers. Thus, it may not be practical to require all users

of DSRC equipment to adhere immediately to a national DSRC standard.

Instead, a transition to national interoperability may be the best

approach.

A significant majority (60 percent) of all commenters favored use

of a DSRC standard with an escalating interoperability formula as a

prerequisite for use of Federal-aid highway funds.

A large majority of the DSRC equipment manufacturers and the DSRC

system integrators responded favorably to the use of an escalating

interoperability formula.

Comments from public and user agencies were divided on support for

application of the escalating interoperability formulas as a

prerequisite for use of Federal-aid highway funds. The public and user

agencies strongly supported continued use of existing equipment,

including both transponders and readers, when a DSRC standard is

established.

3. Should a single DSRC standard be developed for all DSRC

applications, or should separate standards be developed with an

assumption that trucks and buses, and perhaps other users, would likely

require separate technology to perform those functions?

The FHWA recognizes that the CVO and ETTM applications, as well as

other DSRC applications, have different requirements that have also

shaped the design and operation of the DSRC equipment. While it may be

desirable to have a single DSRC standard, it may not be practical. A

possible alternative measure would be to have a single DSRC standard

with standard fields, such as, vehicle identifier and message set

identifier, but with different message sets for each application.

A majority (64 percent) of all non-Federal respondents favored use

of a single DSRC standard for all applications as a prerequisite for

use of Federal-aid funds.

The DSRC equipment manufacturers and the DSRC system integrators

unanimously favored development and endorsement of an appropriately

designed single DSRC standard, and its use for all ITS applications of

DSRC, as a prerequisite for use of Federal-aid highway funds.

Comments from the public and user agencies were more divided on

their responses for and against a single DSRC standard. Some of the

agencies seemed to favor a single DSRC standard with multiple

applications under its umbrella, which would provide interoperability,

but possibly with different optional features (such as, different

message sets) for the different applications. This is differentiated

from the scenario implied by those questions asked in the January 6

notice; namely, a single DSRC standard with all of its requirements

applicable to all DSRC applications.

Conclusions

The USDOT has a strong desire to facilitate development and

acceptance of standards that best serve the industry and the users of

ITS technology. The USDOT is relying on the DSRC industry and users of

ITS technology to come to agreement on the national DSRC standards. The

FHWA has demonstrated its willingness to assist in this process by

funding ASTM, a standards development organization, for this purpose.

Also, the FHWA has been

[[Page 63411]]

participating in all discussions sponsored by the Intelligent

Transportation Society of America (ITS America) that have been taking

place between DSRC users and manufacturers. The FHWA understands that

significant progress has been made toward agreement on a broad DSRC

standard in the ASTM Draft No. 7 DSRC standard, prepared with industry

and user participation. It is clear that the DSRC industry and users

have been striving to make progress on the national DSRC standards--

many work on their own time and at their own expense. The USDOT is

sincerely appreciative for this cooperative effort, and will continue

to encourage the DSRC industry to do its part. The need for national

interoperability for CVO applications is becoming more critical. Also,

the total national investment in non-interoperable ETTM equipment

continues to grow rapidly. The USDOT would prefer that the DSRC

industry and users set the necessary DSRC standards through a consensus

building process among the DSRC vendor and user communities, which the

USDOT is sponsoring through ITS America. It is imperative that the DSRC

standards be ready for ballot by the end of 1997. If the ballottable

standard is not available by that time, for publication by June 1998,

of the endorsed DSRC standards, a meeting will be held under the ITS

America auspices between the USDOT, the DSRC users, and the

manufacturers to determine the extent of the delay. If a significant

impasse to progress remains at the conclusion of that meeting, the

USDOT will initiate a rulemaking action to establish the necessary

standards to allow interoperability between DSRC applications.

(Sec. 6053(b), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 23 U.S.C. 307 note;

49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: November 19, 1997.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

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

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P