[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
