[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63408-63411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31243]


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

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