*Pages 1--78 from Microsoft Word - 35563* Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Dedicated Short- Range Communication Services in the 5.850- 5.925 GHz Band (5.9 GHz Band) Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate the 5.850- 5.925 GHz Band to the Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent Transportation Services ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WT Docket No. 01- 90 ET Docket No. 98- 95 RM- 9096 REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: December 17, 2003 Released: February 10, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell and Commissioner Adelstein issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. No. I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 5 III. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6 A. Creation and Development of ITS ....................................................................................... 6 B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ........................................................................................ 10 IV. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 11 A. Technical Rules for Interoperability and Protection of Public Safety Communications ................................................................................................................ 11 1. Necessity of a Standard for DSRC............................................................................... 11 2. Selection of a Standard for DSRC ............................................................................... 18 3. The ASTM- DSRC Standard ........................................................................................ 23 a. DSRC Operations................................................................................................... 23 b. Band Plan............................................................................................................... 25 c. Control Channel Priority for Safety/ Public Safety Communications .................... 30 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 2 d. Power Limits .......................................................................................................... 35 e. Emission Limits ..................................................................................................... 36 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 3 4. Other Technical Matters .............................................................................................. 38 a. Antenna Height ...................................................................................................... 39 b. Duty Cycle Limit for Control Channel (Channel 178) .......................................... 41 c. RF Exposure........................................................................................................... 42 5. Equipment Certification............................................................................................... 44 B. Definitional Issues ............................................................................................................. 45 1. Intelligent Transportation Radio Service ..................................................................... 45 2. DSRC Service .............................................................................................................. 46 C. Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 50 1. Roadside Units (RSUs)................................................................................................ 50 2. On Board Units (OBUs)............................................................................................... 52 D. Licensing Plan.................................................................................................................... 53 1. DSRC- to –DSRC Issues .............................................................................................. 53 a. RSUs ...................................................................................................................... 53 b. OBUs...................................................................................................................... 62 2. Government Radar Operations- to- DSRC .................................................................... 68 3. Fixed Satellite Service Uplinks- to- DSRC ................................................................... 74 E. General Application, Licensing, and Processing Rules ..................................................... 81 F. Canadian and Mexican Coordination................................................................................. 84 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................... 86 A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis................................................................................ 86 B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.......................................................................................... 87 C. Further Information............................................................................................................ 88 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES.......................................................................................................... 90 APPENDICES Appendix A – Final Rules Appendix B – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Appendix C – List of DSRC- based ITS Applications Appendix D – List of Commenters Appendix E – ASTM 5.9 GHz DSRC Standards Writing Group Participants Appendix F – RSU Registration Data 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 7 7. In 1993, DOT, its partners, and ITS America began developing a national architecture 15 to implement ITS services. 16 Completed in 1996, and amended from time- to- time, the National Architecture 17 currently identifies thirty- four ITS User Services, 18 which are divided into one or more of the eight User Service Bundles. 19 Recognizing the need to convey information between vehicles and roadside infrastructure in the development of ITS, the National Architecture identifies DSRC as critical for deploying many ITS User Services; 20 such uses are generally called DSRC- based ITS applications. 21 8. In 1997, ITS America petitioned the Commission to allocate seventy- five megahertz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for ITS, in particular for DSRC. 22 The following year, in 1998, Congress passed and the President signed into law the TEA- 21, 23 which directed (Continued from previous page) at 1 (Apr. 29, 2003). Although, ITS America is no longer DOT’s FAC on ITS matters, it is still required by TEA- 21 to work with DOT to develop and update as necessary, the National ITS Program Plan. See Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, Pub. L. 105- 178, 112 Stat. 107 § 5205( a)( 1) (1998) (TEA- 21). 15 TEA- 21 subsequently required the use of the National Architecture. Section 5206( a) of TEA- 21 states: Consistent with section 12( d) of the National Technology and Advancement Act of 1995 . . ., the Secretary shall develop, implement, and maintain a national architecture and supporting standards and protocols to promote the widespread use and evaluation of intelligent transportation system technology as a component of the surface transportation systems of the United States. 16 U. S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems, The National Architecture for ITS: A Framework for Integrated Transportation into the 21 st Century (1996) at 2. 17 The National Architecture establishes the types of information and communication that are needed to support various ITS services, how data should be shared and used by which physical entities, and the types of standards that are needed to facilitate sharing of information. ITS relies on the interaction among three “layers” of infrastructure, the transportation layer, the communications layer, and the institutional layer. The transportation layer is the physical ITS infrastructure composed of travelers, vehicles, and roadside equipment. The communications layer is the information infrastructure that connects elements of the transportation layer, thus allowing coordination and sharing among systems and people. The institutional layer is composed of organizations. Id. at 4. 18 ITS America states that as “expected use of the band increases in the future, new and unforeseen applications will be deployed consistent with the ITS User Service Bundles.” See July Ex Parte Comments at 24. Since the July Ex Parte Comments were filed, two new applications have been developed “Road Departure Prevention” and “Lange Merge Crash Avoidance.” See Letter from Paul Samuel Smith, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Transportation to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission, Attachment (Nov. 4, 2003). 19 July Ex Parte Comments at 24- 25. The eight service bundles are listed in Appendix C. 20 U. S. Department of Transportation, Background: DSRC Allocation to Support Intelligent Transportation Systems (Apr. 1997) at http:// www. its. dot. gov/ tcomm/ dsrcbk. htm. 21 See Status Report at 5- 6. 22 ITS America Allocation Petition at 1. DSRC is currently used for non- multilateration systems in the Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) in the 902- 928 MHz band, primarily for electronic toll collection (ETC). Non-multilateration LMS systems use narrowband technology to transmit data to and from vehicles passing through a particular location. The LMS also includes multilateration systems. Multilateration LMS systems use spread spectrum technology to locate vehicles or other moving objects with great accuracy throughout a wide geographic area. LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4695, 4697 ¶ 4. 23 See supra note 14. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 8 the Commission, in consultation with DOT, to consider the spectrum needs “for the operation of intelligent transportation systems, including spectrum for the dedicated short- range vehicle- to-wayside wireless standard,” 24 DSRC. TEA- 21 also directed DOT to promote, through the National Architecture, interoperability among ITS technologies implemented throughout the United States. 25 In October 1999, the Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band for DSRC- based ITS applications and adopted basic technical rules for DSRC operations. The Government’s Radiolocation Service (i. e., for use by high- powered military radar systems) and non-Government Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) uplink operations are co- primary in the 5.9 GHz band. 26 Additionally, Amateur Radio Services have a secondary allocation in the 5.9 GHz band and Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) devices may operate in the 5.85- 5.875 GHz portion. 9. Subsequent to the Commission’s allocation of the 5.9 GHz band to the mobile service for use by DSRC systems, ITS America, as the FAC to DOT, began to hold stakeholder workshops, panel discussions, and other industry meetings to develop a consensus on how to achieve national interoperability in the deployment of DSRC- based ITS user services. 27 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an agency of DOT, entered into a cooperative agreement 28 with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 29 to develop a national, interoperable standard for DSRC equipment operating in the 5.9 GHz band. On October 6, 2000, ITS America filed a Status Report with the Commission, which addressed licensing and service rules and deployment strategies for DSRC. On March 22, 2001, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) sought comment on the Status Report. 30 On May 10, 2002, the ASTM Subcommittee E17.51 31 selected the ASTM- DSRC Standard, which uses 24 TEA- 21 § 5206( f). 25 Section 5206( a) of TEA- 21 states: (2) Interoperability and efficiency.— To the maximum extent practicable, the national architecture shall promote interoperability among, and efficiency of, intelligent transportation system technologies implemented throughout the United States. (3) Use of standards development organizations.— In carrying out this section, the Secretary may use the services of such standards development organizations as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 26 See 47 C. F. R. § 2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations. 27 Status Report at ii. 28 See Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century; Critical Intelligent Transportation Standards, Notice, 66 Fed. Reg. 20517 (Apr. 23, 2001), where the FHWA states that, in response to the requirements of TEA- 21, it entered into cooperative agreements with five Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), including ASTM, to accelerate the development of ITS standards that would promote national interoperability. FHWA further states that the standards developed under this program are “consensus standards and will remain the property of the SDO under which they were developed.” See also Status Report at 11- 12. 29 According to ITS America, ASTM is a participating member of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). See July Ex Parte Comments at 13. 30 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment Regarding Intelligent Transportation System Applications Using Dedicated Short Range Communications, Public Notice, DA 01- 686 (WTB PSPWD rel. Mar. 16, 2001) (corrected Mar. 22, 2001) (Bureau Public Notice). 31 See Appendix E for a list of the Standards Writing Group participants. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 9 Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), as the standard for DSRC- based ITS applications in the 5.9 GHz band. 32 B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 10. On November 7, 2002, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) regarding the service rules for the DSRCS in the 5.9 GHz band. 33 Generally, the NPRM sought comment on licensing and service rules proposed by DOT and ITS America. 34 Specifically, ITS America recommended that we incorporate into our rules the ASTM- DSRC Standard, which includes a band plan and technical rules; permit both public safety and non- public safety DSRC-based ITS applications in the 5.9 GHz band; license the roadside units, the fixed or portable DSRC transceiver by site; require frequency coordination using the Part 90 model; license the on- board units, the mobile transceivers generally mounted in motor vehicles, by rule; and amend the definition of DSRC service to permit a voice interface to warn drivers of hazardous conditions and to prohibit Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) or CMRS- like services in the band. We received thirty- five comments and thirteen reply comments in response to the NPRM. Subsequently, on June 10, 2003, the Standards Writing Group, 35 an ASTM working group, approved the ASTM- DSRC Standard for DSRC operations. 36 IV. DISCUSSION A. Technical Rules for Interoperability and Protection of Public Safety Communications 1. Necessity of a Standard for DSRC 11. Background. In the NPRM, we noted that TEA- 21 requires the Secretary of DOT to promote “interoperability” among ITS technologies implemented throughout the United States and it appears to contemplate the adoption of a wireless standard as a means of achieving this “interoperability.” 37 We sought comment on the meaning of “interoperability” within the context of the DSRCS. Specifically, we invited comment on whether public safety DSRC- based ITS applications should be interoperable or whether both public safety and non- public safety DSRC-based ITS applications should be interoperable. 38 Further, we requested comment on whether 32 ASTM, Standard Specification for Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Roadside and Vehicle Systems – 5 GHz Band Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, Designation: E 2213- 03 (published September 2003) (ASTM- DSRC Standard). See July Ex Parte Comments at 1- 2, 13. 33 Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 23136 (2002) (NPRM). 34 July Ex Parte Comments (filed in response to the Bureau Public Notice). See also note 14, supra (DOT does not intend to revisit ITS America’s technical and licensing proposals). 35 The Standards Writing Group was formed by ASTM in June 1999 to develop user requirements for DSRC and to draft open and interoperable standards. See July Ex Parte Comments at 12- 14. 36 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1( approved July 10, 2003). 37 See NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23142- 43, 23157 ¶¶ 7, 31. 38 Id. at 23158 ¶ 33. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 10 adopting a technical standard would promote interoperability and, if so, whether to adopt Layers 1, the Physical Layer, and 2, the Medium Access Control Layer, of the ASTM- DSRC Standard, which the ASTM and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) developed as the means of achieving interoperability. 39 12. All commenters, except QUALCOMM, 40 urge us to adopt a standard citing the current lack of interoperability among DSRC operations in the 900 MHz band, wherein there is no standard, and the critical need for 5.9 GHz band DSRC units to be interoperable nationwide. QUALCOMM recommends that the focus, at this juncture, should be on developing higher layer application interoperability specifications rather than lower- level interoperability, which it indicates can be achieved in a number of different ways, such as through the use of multi- mode devices. 41 However, DOT states that “historical experience is . . . instructive” 42 because electronic toll collection (ETC) in the 902- 928 MHz band, which is the only other allocation for DSRC, is plagued with proprietary systems for individual toll or regulatory entities that cause incompatibility and/ or interference that hampers interstate commerce. 43 Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory (Johns Hopkins) maintains that equipment costs are multiplied because a motorist, such as a commercial vehicle operator, must purchase more than one transponder, i. e., on- board unit, 44 per state or region. Some states have more than one toll system, which often have incompatible ETC systems. 45 These multiple transponders degrade performance and reliability and increase the potential for interference of ETCs. 46 For the individual states, new start- up costs are higher and “many potential new services and their value-added benefits to the nation are not realized because of this entry cost.” 47 According to the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA), several regions or states have attempted to address interoperability issues among their ETC systems through a patchwork of 39 Id. at 23155 ¶ 28. 40 QUALCOMM Reply Comments at 8 (urges neutrality and leaving the selection of technology to licensees). 41 QUALCOMM Reply Comments at 3- 4. 42 DOT Comments at 3. 43 Id. DSRC licensees in the LMS have continued to express concern that they will be required to migrate from the 902- 928 MHz band to the 5.9 GHz band before they are ready to do so. E- ZPass indicates that while it is anticipated that existing Electronic Toll Collection operations in the 902- 928 MHz band will migrate over time to the 5. 9 GHz band, an extended implementation process requiring dual transitional operations in both the 902- 928 MHz band and 5.9 GHz band will be necessary. E- ZPass Comments at iii. Johns Hopkins notes that FHWA requires Commercial Vehicle Operations projects receiving federal funds to comply with a 902- 928 MHz standard, commonly referred to as the Sandwich Specification. Johns Hopkins Comments at 5. Commenters also note the significant amount of public investment in DSRC operations in the 902- 928 MHz band. For instance, IBTTA reports that over $1. 5 billion has been invested in Electronic Toll Collections (ETCs) in the 902- 928 MHz band. IBTTA Comments at 2. As we stated in the NPRM and we reiterate here, we do not have plans, at this time, to require DSRC- based ITS systems operating in the 902- 928 MHz band to relocate to the 5.9 GHz band. 44 Johns Hopkins Comments at 4. 45 July Ex Parte Comments at 30. 46 Id. 47 Id. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 11 multi- mode readers and transponders, resulting in complex, proprietary systems that limit ETC system performance. 48 DOT states that “[ o] nly such standards can realistically spur the advancement and deployment of DSRC technology in ways that will make a difference to the safety and efficiency of the nation’s surface transportation system.” 49 13. Discussion. As a general rule, the Commission does not select a single standard for equipment, leaving the selection of technology to its licensees. 50 Nonetheless, as most commenters advise, we are persuaded that adopting a standard for the DSRCS is appropriate for four reasons: interoperability, robust safety/ public safety communications, to promote deployment of DSRC while reducing costs, and consistency with Congressional intent. 14. Interoperability. The primary goals of DSRC- based ITS applications are to increase the safety and efficiency of the nation’s surface transportation system. To accomplish these goals, DOT envisions a 5.9 GHz DSRCS unit (On- Board Unit or OBU) in every vehicle, working in conjunction with a substantial infrastructure of DSRCS roadside units (RSUs). Information would be transmitted between OBUs and RSUs and between OBUs. Without an interoperability standard that enables units to communicate with one another regardless of location, equipment used, or the licensee, the overall effectiveness of the national DSRC operations would be drastically reduced. 51 As the Commission acknowledged in the NPRM, 52 and as we reaffirm here, the importance on both the societal and individual level of effective DSRC- based ITS applications, especially the safety applications such as crash avoidance and intersection collision avoidance, cannot be underestimated. 53 15. Robust safety/ public safety communications. Timeliness and reliability are essential components in this service 54 because DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band will be used for, among other things, crash avoidance applications involving vehicle- to- vehicle 48 IBTTA Comments at 3. 49 DOT Comments at 4- 5. 50 See, e. g., NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23157 ¶ 32. 51 We agree that the interoperability problems experienced among ETCs are instructive here because ETC is the most widely- deployed DSRC- based ITS application, to date. 52 See NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23154 ¶ 26. 53 In 2002, there were 6, 315,309 motor vehicle crashes, see Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES) at 7 (date) at http:// www-nrd. nhtsa. dot. gov/ pdf/ nrd- 30/ NCSA/ Rpts/ 2003/ Assess02. pdf in which 42, 815 people were killed and 2, 926,000 were injured. See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002 Annual Assessment Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatality and Injury Estimates for 2002. Each year, more than 1. 8 million crashes occur at intersections. See Federal Highway Administration, Stop Red Light Running at http:// safety. fhwa. dot. gov/ fourth level/ pro_ res_ srlr_ facts. htm. In 1998, there were 937,966 road departure crashes. See Department of Transportation, IVI 8 Major Problem Areas, http:// www. its. dot. gov/ ivi/ 8MPA. html. Over the last five years, on average, about 760 people have been killed by motor vehicles in work zones each year. 53 Federal Highway Administration, Work Zone Facts, http:// safety. fhwa. dot. gov/ fourth; eve;/ pro_ res_ wzs_ facts. htm. 54 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 7. 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 12 communications and intersection collision avoidance applications. 55 As such, we further conclude that it is paramount that such communications be protected from interference given the consequences to the traveling public should any one of the safety applications fail due to unacceptable error rates or delay. In this connection, we also agree with the commenters that non- public safety use of the 5.9 GHz band would be inappropriate if such use would degrade the safety/ public safety applications. 56 16. Promote deployment of nationwide DSRC- based ITS applications. We agree with the commenters that adopting a standard will reduce overall implementation costs and accelerate deployment of DSRC- based ITS applications. The record clearly establishes that non- public safety use of this band is essential to promote the early deployment of all DSRC applications. In this connection, we further find that adopting a standard that includes technical rules to prevent degradation of public safety applications serves the public interest by allowing non- public safety use of the band, which promotes DSRC deployment nationwide. If we do not adopt a single standard, DOT 57 and ITS America maintain that equipment developers will adopt a wait- and- see approach on how the market develops or “create proprietary technologies in the hopes of grabbing market share and shutting out other competitors.” 58 There is further concern that this scenario would result in a “fragmented market for DSRC products and services, higher costs for all, and ‘stovepipe’ deployments that are not interoperable.” 59 Many commenters also relate that a market limited to public safety users would be relatively small” 60 whereas a single standard would promote DSRC deployment while providing public safety entities and the public with the benefit of the economies of scale resulting from the larger market. 61 17. Consistent with Congressional intent. Finally, we believe adoption of an interoperability standard is consistent with Congress’ intent when it adopted legislation concerning DSRCS. 62 In this connection, we note that the FHWA reported to Congress that 55 DOT has identified four types of collisions that account for nearly 80 percent of highway crashes: (1) intersection collisions; (2) rear- end collisions; (3) road departure collisions; and (4) lane changes and merge collisions. See http:// www. its. dot. gov/ ivi/ 3DC. html. 56 ARINC Incorporated Comments at 7 (“ if a mandatory standard is not adopted, one or more companies could introduce radio techniques in the band that would be incompatible and could interfere with safety operations”). 57 DOT Comments at 4- 5 (ITS program offers the potential to save thousands of lives each year, but “current indications are that this potential is less likely to be reached without a market sizable enough to attract private investment in technological advances and cost reductions necessary to appeal to the traveling public.”). 58 Id. at 9. 59 Id. 60 See e. g., DOT Comments at 4. See also ITS America Comments at 8. 61 Id., E- ZPass Comments at 4; IBTTA Comments at 2 (market will be larger if both public safety and non- public safety DSRC- based ITS applications use the same standard, original equipment manufacturers would introduce OBUs as original manufactured hardware). See paras. 6, 8. 62 The DSRC program was created by Congress. The congressional legislation creating this program required DOT to develop and implement standards and protocols to the extent practicable to promote compatibility between DSRC systems operating across the nation. Later legislation directed DOT to promote interoperability through a National Architecture. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 13 adoption of a standard for DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band was a “critical standard” for the development of ITS. 63 Accordingly, we further believe that adopting a standard would meet the goals of TEA- 21 and be a significant step towards achieving the goals of the national ITS program to increase the safety and efficiency of the nation’s surface transportation system. 2. Selection of a Standard for DSRC 18. Based on the record before us, we will require all DSRCS operations in the 5.9 GHz band to comply with the ASTM- DSRC Standard. We note that most commenters urge this approach, and that the record presents no alternative standard or other technical rules that would both achieve interoperability and allow open eligibility. In this connection, we recognize that use of the ASTM- DSRC Standard will require compliance with certain technical parameters, such as power limits and receiver performance specifications, upon which interoperability does not depend. We nonetheless believe, based on the record of this proceeding, that requiring compliance with all aspects of the Standard is critical to the success of the DSRC service, which is an integral component of the ITS program. Specifically, even those components of the standard that do not directly serve interoperability goals serve an interference management purpose which will facilitate effective and robust public safety communications. Similarly, requiring use of equipment that meets the ASTM- DSRC Standard will help ensure that an adequate market develops for equipment that will meet the needs of the public safety DSRCS licensees. In short, the record has convinced us that if this service is to succeed in facilitating rapid deployment of ITS technologies to improve the safety of our nation’s roadways, all DSRCS licensees should be required to use only ASTM- DSRC compliant equipment. 19. As detailed in the NPRM, the ASTM- DSRC Standard, is based on the IEEE 802.11 and 802.11a standards and was developed by the ASTM under a cooperative agreement with the FHWA. 64 ASTM operates as a consensus- based organization in accordance with the operating principles of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI); ASTM is a participating member of ANSI. 65 ASTM, through the Standards Writing Group, 66 developed the ASTM- DSRC Standard, which was approved on July 10, 2003 and published in September 2003. 67 The ASTM- DSRC Standard “is a product of a rigorous and concerted effort, for several years, which involved extensive participation of a broad cross section of the international, scientific, manufacturing, and user communities. Consensus was reached amongst these 63 U. S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems: Critical Standards at 19 (June 1999). 64 See NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23155 ¶ 28. 65 See July Ex Parte Comments at 13. 66 See Appendix E for a list of Standards Writing Group participants. See also note 18, supra. 67 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 14 participants who came from diverse interests, technical backgrounds and experiences.” 68 In this connection, DOT as well as NTIA urge us to adopt the ASTM- DSRC Standard into our Rules. 69 20. Given that 802.11a equipment is readily available, adopting the ASTM- DSRC Standard will promote the rapid development and deployment of DSRC equipment. 70 Moreover, as ITS America notes, the ASTM- DSRC Standard “is written to be a technical baseline for equipment and service developers to compete on the basis of performance, quality, and different forms of DSRC applications.” 71 In this connection, we also note that adopting the ASTM- DSRC standard does not unduly restrict technical innovation given the long life- cycle of motor vehicles. 72 Rather, this long life cycle makes “backward” compatibility critical as DSRC- based ITS applications continue to develop and evolve in the future. In this connection, Nissan explains that, generally, the lower protocol layers of the standard are implemented in silicon chip sets, while the upper layers are implemented in software. Thus, according to Nissan, our adoption of the lower layers would ensure the long- term stability of the hardware while permitting the upper layers to evolve through software upgrades. 73 Moreover, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers advises that the ASTM standards development process appears capable of making certain that revisions to the ASTM- DSRC Standard “will continue to support earlier implementations of the standard, thus ensuring long- term stability in the fundamental technical hardware basis for DSRC.” 74 21. We note that two commenters that support adoption of the ASTM- DSRC Standard would have us codify exceptions for equipment designed for special use or limited applications. 75 We decline to do so by rule, however, given the weight of the record in support of 68 E- ZPass Comments at 7- 8; TransCore Corporation Comments at 4- 5 (ASTM is an ANSI- accredited Standards Development Organization (SDO), which ensures that the standard was developed and approved in an open and fair process.). 69 See DOT Comments at 6; NTIA Comments at 17 (there “would be a substantial public benefit in facilitating national interoperability of DSRC technology.”). 70 E- ZPass Comments at 8 (because the ASTM- DSRC Standard is based on the widely used IEEE 802.11 and 802.11a, a large manufacturing base of compatible devices already exists); Highway Electronics Comments at 2 (the “[ s] ister 802 technologies are becoming the standard for wired Local Area, Medium Area, and Wide Area Network (LAN, MAN, WAN) implementations,” thus, the “required use of the technology in the ITS Band will support the seamless extension of the LAN, MAN, and WAN systems into the WLAN mobile environment.”); TransCore Corporation Comments at 4 (“ adoption of the ASTM- DSRC standard will speed market acceptance, create additional incentives for manufacturers to design and develop mass market – and niche market – equipment, and provide a platform upon which to support future innovative products.”). 71 ITS America Comments at 7; Intersil Corporation Comments at 6 (adoption of Layers 1 and 2 would provide for “coexistence without interference,” thus enabling different services to operate in close proximity). 72 See, e. g., Nissan North America, Inc. Comments at 5 (modern automobiles have a long life cycle in comparison with consumer electronics devices, in many cases extending to ten years or more). 73 See Nissan North America, Inc. Comments at 6. 74 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 11. 75 Siemens Transportation System Comments at 7 (private internal systems do not need to be interoperable and, in the case of mass transit systems, interoperability may put them at increased risk of interference from other systems). TransCore Comments at 11 (the Commission should not foreclose the design and development of low-( continued….) 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 15 an interoperability standard for all DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band. Nonetheless, we also recognize that provisions of the ASTM- DSRC Standard are rigorous and detailed, which could impede the deployment of future technological advances in the DSRCS. As DSRC technology develops, any waiver requests 76 will be reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with DOT as appropriate. 22. ITS America and several other commenters urge us to adopt a rule today that automatically requires new equipment to meet future versions of the ASTM- DSRC Standard 77 and these suggestions are well taken. We recognize that the standard will be revised in the future to reflect technological advances. Nonetheless, we decline to adopt an “automatic update” rule given the rigorous and detailed mandates of the ASTM- DSRC Standard. In this connection, we are concerned that future revisions could impact a widespread incumbent base. 78 Therefore, at this time, we are adopting the existing version of the ASTM- DSRC Standard and will consider future revisions as they arise. As noted in paragraph 20, supra, we anticipate that all revisions will be “backward” compatible, i. e., will continue to support earlier implementations of the standard, thus ensuring long- term stability in the fundamental technical hardware basis for DSRC. 3. The ASTM- DSRC Standard a. DSRC Operations 23. DSRC provides highly reliable real- time data communications with a rapidly moving vehicle. 79 The ASTM- DSRC Standard is an extension of IEEE 802.11 80 and IEEE 802.11a 81 for vehicles traveling at high speeds. The ASTM- DSRC Standard describes a medium access control layer (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specification for wireless connectivity using DSRC services. 82 The ASTM- DSRC Standard enables wireless communications over short distances between information sources and transactions stations on the roadside and mobile radio units, between mobile units, and between portable units and mobile units. 83 DSRC operations generally occur over line- of- sight distances of less than 1000 meters between roadside units and mostly high speed (up to 120 mph), but occasionally stopped and slow moving (Continued from previous page) cost simple devices that do not implement all of the capabilities contained in the adopted standard, but provide useful applications without interfering with other DSRC devices). 76 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.925. 77 ITS America Comments at 11. 78 See PSWN Reply Comments at 6 (Commission should regularly review the ASTM- DSRC Standard to ensure that it remains current). 79 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1; Status Report at 5- 6. 80 Wireless LAN Medium Access Control and Physical Layer Specifications. See ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1. 81 Wireless LAN Medium Access Control and Physical Layer Specifications High- Speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHz Band. See ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1. 82 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1. 83 Id. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 16 vehicles, or between high speed vehicles. 84 DSRC operations will use short- range, low- power data transmissions of limited duration. 85 According to ITS America, 86 the majority of DSRC-based ITS wireless transmissions will occur either between vehicles or between a moving vehicle and a fixed transmitter in a line- of- sight, point- to- point, or point- to- multipoint configuration. 87 In many instances, ITS America states that the vehicle will be traveling at highway speeds and will quickly pass through the “communications zone” of a fixed transmitter. 88 24. In- vehicle communications units are called On- Board Units (OBUs). 89 An OBU is a DSRC transceiver that is normally mounted in or on a vehicle, but which in some instances may be a portable unit. 90 An OBU can be operational while a vehicle or person is either mobile or stationary. 91 OBUs receive and contend for time to transmit on one or more radio frequency (RF) channels. 92 Except where specifically excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle operation or human passage is permitted. 93 Communication units that are fixed along the roadside, over the road on gantries or poles, or off the road in private or public areas are called RSUs. 94 An RSU is a DSRC transceiver that is mounted along a roadside or pedestrian passageway. 95 An RSU may also be mounted on a vehicle or is hand carried, but it may only operate when the vehicle or hand carried unit is stationary. 96 An RSU transmits data to or exchanges data with OBUs in its communications zone. 97 The ASTM- DSRC Standard also establishes band segments as well as other technical and operating parameters, most significantly a “control channel,” which is described below. b. Band Plan 25. Background. The Commission sought comment on the band plan proposed by ITS America, which would divide the 5.9 GHz band into the following channels: seven, ten- 84 Id. 85 July Ex Parte Comments at 48. 86 See Status Report at 4- 5. 87 July Ex Parte Comments at 27. 88 Id. 89 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 1- 2. 90 Id. 91 Id. 92 Id. at 1- 2. 93 Id. at 2. 94 Id. 95 Id. 96 Id. 97 Id. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 17 megahertz channels consisting of one Control Channel (Channel 178) and six Service Channels (Channels 172, 174, 176, 180, 182, and 184) and one, five megahertz channel, which would be held in reserve. 98 Under the ITS America plan, Channel 172 was designated for vehicle- to-vehicle communications and Channel 184 was for high power public safety and non- public safety DSRC operations. Non- public safety applications were secondary to existing public safety applications on Channel 184. Channels 174 and 176 and Channels 180 and 182 could be combined to produce two twenty- megahertz channels, Channel 175 and 181, respectively. We sought comment on ITS America’s proposal, invited alternative proposals, and asked whether we should establish a different channel bandwidth. 99 26. The ASTM- DSRC band plan is supported by all commenters: no commenter recommends changing the size of the channels. Johns Hopkins explains that the sizes were developed to support DSRC in a mobile, high multi- path environment and that channels smaller than ten megahertz would not meet these performance requirements. 100 Sirit Technologies recommends using the five megahertz reserve channel for safety applications or non- public safety applications that do not fully comply with the standard; for instance, simple one- way or two- way data transmissions, such as vehicle identification. 101 27. Discussion. The channels (or segmentations) are an essential component of the ASTM- DSRC Standard that we are adopting herein. 102 In this connection, we note that the band plan reflects a harmonization with Canada and Mexico, and that it is divided into channels that are adequate to support the fundamental band communications needs. 103 We acknowledge the timing concerns raised by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and QUALCOMM as to adopting the band plan before the upper layers of the standard (Layer 3 and above) are final. 104 We agree that our action today is by no means the only prerequisite of DSRC deployment in the 5.9 GHz band. Nonetheless, DOT, which Congress directed to deploy ITS and ensure interoperability, advises that mandatory standards are required to achieve this goal. 105 98 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23159- 60 ¶ 36. 99 Id. at ¶ 38. 100 Johns Hopkins Comments at 18. 101 Sirit Technologies Comments at 2- 3. 102 See e. g., ASTM- DSRC Standard at 10; 3M Comments at 3 (“ channelization is necessary for interoperability”). 103 See Highway Electronics Comments at 1- 2. 104 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 11 (“[ u] ntil agreement is achieved on the upper layers of the DSRC standard, it is premature to achieve the level of specificity proposed regarding the band plan.”); QUALCOMM Incorporated Reply Comments at 3 (until the full set of system specifications have been developed, e. g., specifications for security protocol, control channel operation, and overall system operation, it is premature to mandate the use of the band plan proposed by ITS America). 105 DOT Comments at 2. “The promise of a market that is nationwide in scope and inclusive of safety and other purposes would in turn provide the necessary incentive to industry to invest in the development of DSRC technologies. The 5. 9 GHz band offers the potential to realize these benefits to the fullest. The first condition to the creation of such a market is the adoption of mandatory technical standards (cite omitted). Only such standards can realistically spur the advancement and deployment of DSRC technology in ways that will make a significant difference to the safety and efficiency of the nation’s surface transportation system. [Moreover, DOT worked with ASTM to develop the ASTM- DSRC standard, and DOT urges the Commission to adopt it.]” Id. at 6. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 18 Additionally, we note that five megahertz is reserved to accommodate future, unforeseen developments. 106 Accordingly, we decline the Sirit Technologies proposal to allow use of the five megahertz at this time. 28. The ASTM- DSRC Standard was approved and published in September 2003. With the exception of the reserve channel (which is simply not discussed in the standard), ITS America’s channel plan is generally consistent with the band plan of the ASTM- DSRC Standard. ITS America proposes, however, use- designations that are not included in the standard for Channels 172 and 184. We are addressing these proposals in this section of the item for convenience. Several commenters, including ITS America, propose a change to Channel 172. As originally proposed, Channel 172 would be dedicated for public safety and non- public safety vehicle- to- vehicle communications. According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, however, they are studying vehicle safety applications that require not only vehicle- to- vehicle communications, but also vehicle- to- roadside communications. 107 Because these applications need a channel of high availability, low latency, and limited message duration, commenters recommend reserving Channel 172 for applications that require a channel of high availability and low latency. 108 These include applications that involve accident avoidance and mitigation techniques. 109 In November 2003, ITS America clarified that Channel 172 should be designated for “vehicle safety and other high priority applications to prevent lower priority transmissions from limiting the availability of the channel or increasing the latency of the communications on the channel.” 110 Similarly, ITS America recommends that Channel 184 be designated for long range public safety applications and intersection collision applications. 111 29. Based on the record before us, we believe it is premature to adopt rules that reserve certain service channels for specific applications. We note that virtually all commenters agree that both public safety and non- public safety users should be eligible for licensing on all channels, subject to priority for safety/ public safety. Further, as expressed by commenters, we believe channel assignments are best addressed under the priority levels of the Control Channel protocol. This will give transportation experts additional flexibility in system design and should not have a negative impact on interoperability. Finally, we note that DSRC system design is in its infancy and we expect further development and refinement. Thus, we may need to revisit this issue in the future once we have gained more experience with DSRC operations. For reference, the DSRCS band plan is set forth in the following table. 106 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 9- 10 § 8.8.3.3. 107 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 13. 108 ITS America Comments at 21. 109 ARINC Comments at 4. 110 Ex Parte Comments of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America from Robert B. Kelly, counsel to ITS America, to Federal Communications Commission at 3 (filed Nov. 14, 2003). See also Nissan North America, Inc. Comments at 6 (recommends dedicating Channel 172 to ensure that vehicle safety applications can migrate away if the Control Channel reaches its capacity limits). 111 July Ex Parte Comments at Appendix D. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 19 c. Control Channel Priority for Safety/ Public Safety Communications 30. Control Channel protocol. Channel 178 is the Control Channel, 112 a single (ten megahertz) channel accessible throughout the country 113 that establishes a communications link between an RSU and an OBU or between OBUs. 114 OBUs are required to listen to the Control Channel every few hundred milliseconds to check for public safety messages. 115 The length of messages on the Control Channel can vary, but are generally kept short to permit maximum access to the Control Channel. 116 When tuned to the Control Channel, all RSUs and OBUs, by default will listen for a transmission. 117 If an RSU or an OBU desires to transmit a message, but detects the broadcast of another message on the Control Channel, it must wait before attempting to transmit. 118 An OBU or an RSU initiates a “request to send” (RTS) and the Control Channel will grant time first to high priority, i. e., a public safety communications, then to lower priority non- public safety communications. 119 If an RSU or an OBU leaves the Control Channel to communicate on a service channel, a timer, defined by mandatory data transfer time limits, will be activated to indicate it should return to the Control Channel to listen for additional transmissions and distinguish between priority and non- priority calls. 120 In this connection, the Control Channel implements the priority given to public safety communications through a priority interruption capability. 121 Specifically, the Control Channel operates using a “set of rules 112 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 10, Table 8. 113 Johns Hopkins Comments at 18. 114 Highway Electronics Comments, Appendix at 1. The Control Channel is used for roadside- to- vehicle, vehicle-to- roadside, and vehicle- to- vehicle, communications and it must be accessed on a periodic basis by every OBU and RSU operating in the 5. 9 GHz band. Johns Hopkins Comments at 10- 11. 115 Johns Hopkins Comments at 10. 116 Id. 117 Id. 118 Id. 119 Id. 120 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 2. Johns Hopkins Comments at 11. 5.850 GHz 5.925 GHz 5850- 5855 CH172 CH174 CH176 CH178 CH180 CH182 CH184 reserve service service service control service service service 5 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz CH175 CH181 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 20 to provide a Quality of Service (QoS) that includes access time, access priority, and channel capacity service” to RSUs and OBU (“ the Control Channel protocol”). 122 31. Priority framework. As a preliminary matter, we observe that given the low power of RSUs and other interference- mitigation provisions of the ASTM- DSRC Standard, interference disputes among DSRCS operations should be rare. Thus, in the context of the DSRCS, “priority” is largely a matter of how messages are ranked and sent under the Control Channel protocol. That is, a higher priority communication will precede or interrupt a lower or non- priority communication, whenever necessary, in which case the lower or non- priority communication will be sent or resent after the higher priority communication is completed. In reviewing the record of this proceeding, we find that Control Channel protocol is capable of giving access priority to public safety communications, thereby ensuring that non- public safety use of the band does not degrade public safety communications. 123 We note, however, that the upper layers of the ASTM- DSRC Standard, which will establish one or more levels of public safety priority over non- public safety communications, are still under development. 124 Given this circumstance, we are adopting the following priority framework based on the record before us. 125 32. Safety of life. First, DSRCS communications involving the imminent safety of life— whether by traditional public safety entities, i. e., state and local governments, or by nongovernmental entities, e. g., vehicle- to- vehicle collision avoidance— must have access priority over all other DSRCS communications. 33. Public safety vs. non- public safety. Next, public safety communications— whether by traditional public safety entities or other entities— have access priority over all DSRCS communications except safety of life communications. Should a dispute arise between public safety and non- public safety users, i. e., a dispute or scenario not contemplated/ governed by the Control Channel protocol, communications by the following entities will be presumed to be “public safety” priority communications: state and local governments, possessions, territories, districts, and authorities (including mass transit and toll authorities). 126 34. Safety/ public safety vs. safety/ public safety. Finally, in the event of disputes involving classifications or rankings of DSRCS- based ITS applications within the safety and/ or public safety priority levels of the Control Channel protocol, we anticipate that the parties will (Continued from previous page) 121 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 2. See also Highway Electronics Comments, Appendix at 1. 122 Id. 123 See para. 15, supra (non- public safety use of the 5.9 GHz band would be inappropriate if such use would degrade the safety/ public safety applications). 124 ASTM- DSRC Standard at 2 § 4.1.1.2( 4). 125 Hence, we need not license non- public safety applications on a secondary basis, as suggested by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Port Authority Comments at 2. Additionally, we observe that the control channel priority for DSRCS operations does not alter the relationship between the co- primary allocations. 126 Accord Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 180 ¶ 53 (1998) (adopted "bright line" eligibility criteria under which governmental entities are presumed eligible for licensing on public safety spectrum. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 23 services considered in Parts 22, 24, and 90. Consequently, STS recommends that out- of- band emissions for DSRC equipment be attenuated according to the formula: 43 + 10 log (P). 133 37. We understand STS’s rationale in its desire to use a less restrictive mask formula, but are also aware of the uniqueness of the DSRC/ ITS evolving network, and the diversity of applications to be carried on this 5.9 GHz band. Specifically, it is projected that the density of microwave links will be much higher in this band than for current microwave bands, because RSU transceivers will be placed in close proximity to one another, anywhere from 100 to 1000 meters apart. Such high density requires a more rigorous mask to accomplish the desired sharing of the spectrum. Furthermore, since the development of this band is at its early stages, there is no sufficient empirical data to support the assumption that the STS proposed formula will guard against possible harmful interference among users in such a high density of electromagnetic links environment. We conclude, therefore, that it is safer and in the public interest, given the current development of the band, to use the emission mask and formulas in the ASTM- DSRC Standard as the technical regulatory framework for the band. We reserve discretion to revisit this issue after empirical data become available to construct a reasonable and appropriate propagation model. Finally, given that the ASTM- DSRC Standard contains emission mask limits, we believe that Mark IV’s concerns have been addressed by the adoption of the ASTM- DSRC Standard. 134 Nonetheless, because the limits we adopt today are similar to the out- of- band requirements adopted in the 4.9 GHz proceeding, 135 we observe that the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) has petitioned for reconsideration of the emissions mask and out- of- band requirements adopted therein. 136 Given this recent experience at 4.9 GHz, we reserve discretion to revisit this issue after empirical data becomes available to construct a reasonable and appropriate propagation model. 4. Other Technical Matters 38. We believe that our adoption of the ASTM- DSRC Standard addresses the bulk of the technical issues concerning DSRC operations. Nonetheless, certain technical matters require additional discussion at this juncture. a. Antenna Height 39. Antenna Height. The ASTM- DSRC Standard contains requirements for antenna input power limits, EIRPs, and an antenna position calibration for OBU antennas. The ASTM standard requests that antenna height deviations from the nominal 0.25 meters above ground be reported in increments of 0.1 meter, for the purpose of making accurate calculations of the 133 STS Comments at 8- 9. 134 See, e. g., Highway Electronics Comments at 1- 2 (ASTM- DSRC spectral mask requirements are necessary for the interference free adjacent channel operation of multiple RSUs and OBUs). 135 The out- of- band spectral power density limit for operations in the 4. 9 GHz band contained in 47 C. F. R. § 90. 210( l)( 6) is -53 dBm/ MHz. See In the Matter of The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use, Memorandum Opinion and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 00- 32, 18 FCC Rcd 9152 (2002). 136 See Petition for Reconsideration of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), WT Docket 00- 32, filed July 30, 2003. See also Siemens Transportation System Comments at 8- 9, indicating that the 55 = 10 LogP is too stringent for DSRCS. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 24 vehicle’s location. Additionally, ITS America proposed to correct the maximum output from RSUs by a factor of 20 log (Ht/ 6), where Ht is the height of the antenna in meters, in those cases where the antenna height above ground falls between 6 and 15 meters, with a maximum authorized EIRP of 33 dBm for antenna heights of 6 meters or more. 137 3M, however, states that the antenna height correction factor is not required in the DSRC service. 138 Specifically, 3M states that DSRC communications use the minimum radio frequency (RF) power necessary to complete a communication link regardless of the maximum operating power and that the two- ray propagation model is too simplistic to be applicable to the DSRC radio service. 139 Furthermore, 3M asserts that the two- ray propagation model should not be used for DSRC operations because roadway surfaces are usually curved to aide runoff of water, a clear line- of- sight propagation path is not always available when a receiving vehicle is behind another vehicle, and a clear propagation path for the reflected ray is not always available because of intervening vehicles that are present in an urban environment. 140 40. The record before us, as well as our experience with land mobile operations generally, 141 persuades us that an antenna height correction factor for DSRC is appropriate to minimize the potential for interference. Although 3M raises concerns focused largely on the specific correction factors recommended by ITS America, the record before us does not include sufficient technical information to support adoption of any other correction factor. Specifically, we find no compelling arguments supported by actual data in the urban and rural environments, or on a proven propagation prediction model, that would support adoption of another correction factor. Additionally, the ASTM standard does not specify an antenna height correction factor, but specifies maximum power and EIRP levels. We understand that the possibility of direct adjacent harmful interference, and interference in the form of unwanted harmonics, becomes a greater threat as the EIRP and antenna height of the RSU increases, and find ITS America’s recommendation complementary to the standard’s intention of protecting adjacent users from harmful interference. Nonetheless, we reserve discretion to revisit the adequacy of these parameters if a propagation model more appropriate for DSRC operations in urban and rural areas is developed. 142 137 July Ex Parte Comments, Appendix C at 9. 138 3M Comments at 4. 139 Id. 140 Id. at 5. 141 See generally 47 C. F. R. § 90. 205. 142 On November 14, 2003, ITS America reported that the Standards Writing Group voted to delete the following sentence from the antenna height correction factor proposed by ITS America in its July Ex Parte Comments at 9: “The maximum authorized effective isotropic radiated power (‘ EIRP’) is 33 dBm for any Roadside Unit installation where the antenna height is six meters or greater above the roadway bed surface.” ITS America stated that the additional restriction contained in this sentence will result in inadvertent drop- off in channels with higher EIRP limits and is unnecessary n light of other protections to guard against potential harmful interference. See Letter from Robert B. Kelly, Esq., counsel to ITS America, to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission at 2 (Nov. 14, 2003). 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 25 b. Duty Cycle Limit for Control Channel (Channel 178) 41. At the time of the NPRM, ITS America indicated that the duty cycle for the Control Channel should be 200 µsec at intervals of less than 100 msec. 143 In discussing ITS America’s proposal, ARINC notes that ASTM is in the process of developing a standard that will describe the mechanisms and required limits of the Control Channel operation. 144 On November 7, 2003, however, ITS America proposed a duty cycle limit for the control channel. 145 Specifically, ITS America proposed no limit for public safety applications and a maximum data transmission duration of 750 µsec and 580 µsec for non- public safety RSUs and OBUs, respectively with a minimum interval between data transmissions of 20 msec and 100 msec, respectively. These limits are not contained in the ASTM- DSRC Standard and we did not receive any comment on this latest proposal. We therefore conclude that the record is insufficient to support adopting such limitations. We note that the Commission’s rules require licensees to restrict all transmissions to the minimum practical transmission time and that communications involving the imminent safety of life or property are to be accorded priority to all licensees. 146 As noted earlier, the Control Channel Standard is still under development. 147 c. RF Exposure 42. OBUs may operate as either a mobile or a portable transmitter with respect to Sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 of the Commission’s Rules to comply with RF exposure requirements. 148 In mobile configurations, OBU antennas are normally mounted on vehicles where the antennas can be located with sufficient distance from passengers for meeting RF exposure requirements. A separation distance of 50 cm between the antenna and persons is necessary at the maximum output of 30 W EIRP to ensure compliance. This distance should be easily achieved in most vehicle configurations. By implementing specific antenna installation requirements to ensure compliance, routine MPE evaluation (Section 2.1091) would be unnecessary. In portable configurations, i. e., when the transmitting device is designed to be used within 20 cm of the body of the user, ITS America recommends a maximum output power of 1.0 mW. 149 We note that the specific absorption rate (SAR) limit for portable transmitters is 1.6 W/ kg (Section 2.1093) and that it would take 1.6 mW or more to exceed the SAR limit. Therefore, we find that ITS America’s proposal is reasonable approach to limit exposure to radiofrequency radiation. In this connection, we consider that under ITS America’s approach, certification of portable OBUs will not require SAR evaluations to demonstrate compliance with our RF exposure rules. 143 July Ex Parte Comments at 60. 144 ARINC Comments at 10. 145 See Letter from Mark D. Johnson, Esq., counsel to ITS America, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Attachment (Nov. 7, 2003). 146 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 403( c) and (d). See also discussion of control channel protocol at paras. 0- 31, supra. 147 See para. 31, supra. 148 47 C. F. R. §§ 2.1091, 2.1093. 149 See July Ex Parte at 12. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 26 43. RSUs are mostly intended to be fixed- mounted on road sides and structures at street intersections but may be mounted in a vehicle or hand carried and operated while stationary. Given that RSUs may only operate when stationary, a minimum separation distance of 50 cm or more can be easily maintained with specific antenna installation procedures to ensure compliance at the maximum output of 30 W EIRP. However, when a stationary RSU is operated in a vehicle mounted or hand carried configuration at higher output power or using high gain antennas, the RSU operator must maintain a minimum separation distance from the antenna to ensure RF exposure compliance. Since RSUs are intended to be used by persons employed in public safety or industrial/ business occupations and should not be available to the general public, occupational/ controlled exposure limits and occupational RF exposure training (see Sections 2.1091 and 2.1093) are applicable. We emphasize that users of hand carried RSUs will need to be able to control their exposure condition and duration to qualify for occupational/ controlled limits. This is typically accomplished through RF exposure training instructions. 5. Equipment Certification 44. The Commission sought comment on whether we should require DSRC devices to be certified under our Rules to ensure that they meet our electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and emission requirements in Part 2. We agree with the majority of commenters, including DOT, NTIA, and ITS America, that we should require that DSRC equipment operating in the 5.9 GHz band be certified according to the procedures in Parts 2, 90, and 95 of our Rules, because these devices will be widely deployed and non- compliance with our requirements could cause serious interference problems. 150 Consequently, we require all transponders, transmitters, and transceivers, whether associated with RSUs or OBUs used in the DSRCS to be certified in accordance with subpart M of Part 90 and subpart L of Part 95, and subpart J of Part 2 of our Rules. In the NPRM, we also sought comment on whether the definition of interoperability in the context of DSRC, should include equipment compatibility, so that OBUs and RSUs from different vendors would be interchangeable. Thus, an OBU or RSU manufactured by vendor X would be able to communicate and exchange information with an OBU or RSU manufactured by vendor Y. The Commission also sought comment on whether to adopt equipment performance specifications, such as receiver standards, to reduce the likelihood of interference between devices. Given our adoption of the ASTM- DSRC Standard, however, we now conclude that the definition of “interoperability” 151 and whether to adopt separate equipment performance specifications are largely irrelevant to the DSRCS. In this connection, test procedures to demonstrate compliance with the ASTM- DSRC Standard shall be left to the industry to develop. Compliance with the standard will also be left to industry to determine how to best achieve. To ensure compliance, applicants will be required to supply a statement that the equipment was tested and complies with the ASTM- DSRC Standard, as a prerequisite for certification. 152 150 DOT Comments at 6; NTIA Comments at 17; ITS America Comments at 20. 151 See 47 C. F. R. § 90.7. 152 Given that we are adopting the ASTM- DSRC Standard, we clarify that the definition of “interoperability,” 47 C. F. R. § 90. 7, is largely irrelevant to DSRC. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 27 B. Definitional Issues 1. Intelligent Transportation Radio Service 45. The Intelligent Transportation Radio Service was established by the Commission “for the purpose of integrating radio- based technologies into the nation’s transportation infrastructure” 153 and is comprised of the Location and Monitoring Service, grandfathered automatic vehicle monitoring systems, and DSRC. 154 In the NPRM, we invited comment on whether to amend Section 90.350 of our Rules 155 to limit the use of the Intelligent Transportation radio service to the integration of radio- based technologies to the “nation’s surface transportation infrastructure” rather than to the “nation’s transportation infrastructure.” 156 We received only one comment on this issue; the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) favored making this change as more consistent with the language of ISTEA and TEA- 21. 157 Upon further consideration, we conclude that retaining the current definition of the Intelligent Transportation Radio Service best serves the public interest by promoting flexible use of the band. We further conclude that that the current definition is not contrary to ISTEA and TEA- 21. In reaching this conclusion, we consider that DOT did not comment on this issue. Accordingly, to promote the flexible use of the 5.9 GHz band, we decline to amend Section 90.350 of our Rules. 2. DSRC Service 46. Background. Because the number and kinds of DSRC- based ITS applications continue to evolve, we sought comment on whether the definition of DSRC service in Section 90.7 of the Commission’s Rules would include all of the DSRC- based ITS applications envisioned for the band. Section 90.7 defines “Dedicated Short Range Communication Services” as The use of non- voice radio techniques to transfer data over short distances between roadside and mobile radio units, between mobile units, and between portable and mobile units to perform operations related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety and other intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of public and commercial environments. DSRC systems may also transmit status and instructional messages related to the units involved. 158 Specifically, we sought comment on whether to delete the term “non- voice”, which would permit the conversion of certain types of data transmissions into voice messages using Voice- over- IP, Voice XML, or another packet radio technique that would “store and forward” the message. 159 153 47 C. F. R. § 90.350 (emphasis added). 154 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 90. 351, 90. 363, and 90. 371. 155 47 C. F. R. § 90.350. 156 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23181 ¶ 82. 157 Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Comments at 13. 158 47 C. F. R. § 90.7. See also 47 C. F. R. § 90. 371( a). 159 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23147 ¶ 16. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 28 To promote the flexible use of the band, the Commission sought comment on whether to replace the phrase “in a variety of public and commercial environments” with the phrase “in a variety of environments.” 160 We noted that these issues are directly related to eligibility. 47. Discussion. Although one commenter 161 opposed deleting the term “non- voice” from the definition of DSRC service, we are persuaded by the reasoning of the other commenters who favored such a change, in particular DOT. 162 DOT indicated that it has been conducting research on how to provide motorists with safety- related information, such as work zones or road condition warnings, without unduly distracting the driver. 163 DOT reports that although its research is not complete, a “voice interface seems to be the most appropriate way to present this information.” 164 Consequently, we intend to delete the term “non- voice” from the definition of DSRC service. 48. As noted above, we sought comment on whether to replace the phrase “in a variety of public and commercial environments” with “in a variety of environments.” According to ITS America, changing “and commercial environments” to “and private environments,” should be coupled with deleting the phrase “non- voice” to ensure that the 5.9 GHz band cannot be used for CMRS or CMRS- like service. 165 In addition to ITS America, Mark IV Industries and Intersil recommended that we expressly exclude the provision of CMRS service or CMRS- type service from the band instead of adopting ambiguous language that could be misinterpreted later. 166 Two commenters, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and TransCore, favored the alternative phrasing. 167 49. Although the majority of commenters supported ITS America’s approach, we shall replace the phrase “and commercial environments” with “in a variety of environments” to preserve flexible use of the 5.9 GHz band. In this connection, we find that the record does not provide a technical basis for excluding CMRS as a definitional matter. Thus, provided that a CMRS operation meets all DSRC service rules, such operation is consistent with our allocation. 168 In sum, on review of the record in this proceeding, we believe that we should amend the definition of DSRC Service as follows: 160 Id. 161 3M Comments at 2. 162 See E- ZPass Comments at 5; ARINC Comments at 2; New York Thruway Comments at 3; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 7; Telecommunications Officials Comments at 2; UC Davis Comments at 1; MTA Bridges & Tunnels Comments at 2; NENA Comments at 2; AASHTO Comments at 4. 163 DOT Comments at 7. 164 Id. 165 ITS America Comments at 20- 21. 166 Mark IV Industries Reply Comments at 4; Intersil Corporation Comments 4. 167 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 7- 8. TransCore, LP Comments at 6. 168 Allocation Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18221. We note that any CMRS operations would be subject to E-911 and other CMRS requirements. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 29 The use of radio techniques to transfer information over short distances between roadside and mobile radio units, between mobile units, and between portable and mobile units to perform operations related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety and other intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of environments. DSRC systems may also transmit status and instructional messages related to the units involved. C. Eligibility 1. Roadside Units (RSUs) 50. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the 5.9 GHz band should be used primarily for public safety purposes. 169 We also sought comment on how to define public safety; whether public safety and non- public safety licensees should share the band as recommended by ITS America; and how to define non- public safety use, if such uses are allowed. 51. Discussion. We continue to believe that public safety communications must have priority over non- public safety communications and we provide for such priority, supra. 170 However, the record in this proceeding indicates that public safety DSRC- based ITS applications will benefit from open eligibility through the economies of scale achieved through the development of a larger market consisting of public safety and non- public safety entities. We believe that open eligibility is appropriate in this service, with different technical rules where necessary. This decision is also consistent with Section 257 of the Act, in which Congress articulated a “national policy” in favor of “vigorous economic competition” and the elimination of barriers to market entry by a new generation of telecommunications providers. 171 Accordingly, the only restriction on eligibility will be that required by Section 310( a) of the Communications Act, i. e., foreign governments or representatives of foreign governments. 172 2. On Board Units (OBUs) 52. DOT envisions that OBUs will be installed in every new vehicle sold or manufactured in the United States, 173 and most of these OBUs will not be associated with any particular RSUs. Taken with our “open eligibility” decision for RSU licensing, we find “open eligibility” to be appropriate for OBUs as well. Accordingly, all motorists will be eligible to operate OBUs unless barred by statute. 174 169 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23149 ¶ 18. 170 See paras 23- 38, supra. 171 See 47 U. S. C. § 257. 172 See 47 U. S. C. § 310( a). For the licensing requirements for RSUs, see paras. 57- 59, infra. 173 July Ex Parte Comments at 45 (equipping all new vehicles with OBUs is a primary goal of DOT). See also Ex Parte Comments of the United States Department of Transportation, from Paul Samuel Smith, Esq., DOT, at 7 (filed Nov. 5, 2003). 174 See, e. g., note 172, supra and accompanying text. For the licensing requirements for OBUs, see paras. 62- 67, infra. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 30 D. Licensing Plan 1. DSRC- to –DSRC Issues a. RSUs 53. In the NPRM, we requested comment on whether to license RSUs by site or by geographic area. We also specifically asked commenters to propose other methods of licensing RSUs, such as licensing by rule. The majority of commenters, including ITS America and NTIA favor site- based licensing, 175 although DOT indicates only that it favors a licensing plan that ensures national interoperability and uniform technical standards. 176 The commenters who favor site- based licensing argue that geographic area licensing promotes exclusivity, whereas the ASTM- DSRC Standard was developed to promote shared use. 177 Specifically, the ASTM- DSRC Standard was developed based on licensees operating within localized “communications zones” with the RSUs transmitting at ranges less than 1000 meters; 178 geographic area licensing, in contrast, is most appropriate, according to commenters, where a service requires high- power 360 degree coverage. 179 54. Commenters in favor of site- based licensing argue that the ASTM- DSRC Standard was developed based on a site- specific licensing scheme. 180 These commenters believe that site- based licensing better achieves the goal of interoperability because it enables public safety and non- public safety entities to share frequencies. 181 It is more spectrum efficient because it maximizes the number of entities using the spectrum and allows close- spacing and overlapping communications zones. 182 It will enable more intensive spectrum sharing and frequency reuse. 183 It will spur rapid deployment of DSRC– based ITS applications because it will permit the use of factory installed OBUs for use throughout the country and not limited to one geographic area. 184 Site- based licensing will “facilitate the coordination process that is necessary to avoid interference between DSRC RSUs and high power Government radar systems.” 185 To prevent new RSU deployments from causing harmful interference to existing DSRCS systems, ITS America would require RSU applications to be frequency coordinated by a 175 ITS America Comments at 12; NTIA Comments at 6- 7. 176 DOT Comments at 8. 177 See ITS America Comments at 11- 12. 178 NTIA Comments at 6. 179 ITS America Reply Comments at 11. 180 TransCore Reply Comments at 3 181 ITS America Comments at 13- 14. 182 ITS America Reply Comments at 11; Johns Hopkins Comments at 14. 183 TransCore Reply Comments at 3 184 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Reply Comments at 3. 185 NTIA Comments at i. See also 47 C. F. R. § 90. 371( b). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 31 Commission- certified frequency coordinator for the private land mobile radio services. 186 The Commission in turn would license each RSU for specific service channels, based on the coordinator’s recommendation, as well as the Control Channel. 187 Site- based licensing could be facilitated by the use of high technology “smart antennas” 188 55. Although these commenters recognize that site- based licensing is more administratively difficult for the Commission than geographic area licensing, they believe there are many ways to lessen this burden. 189 Specifically, commenters recommend coordination of RSU location by frequency coordinators and management of the applications through the Commission’s ULS. 190 ITS America recommends that we use a ribbon or corridor licensing approach for public safety entities, such as freeway authorities, transit agencies, and others that will need to place multiple RSUs “across a large geographic area that will likely cross several jurisdictional boundaries.” 191 Other commenters recommend a “blanket” approach under Section 90.353( i) of our Rules for these types of public safety entities. 192 Not all commenters favored site- based licensing. Others favored geographic- area licensing as less cumbersome. 193 Intersil Corporation recommended a licensing by rule approach through the use of a commercially operated web site and private frequency coordination. 194 56. Based on our analysis of the record before us and the goals and objectives we are trying to accomplish, we believe that a nonexclusive geographic area licensing approach, described below, has the benefits of site- based licensing and the efficiencies and administrative benefits associated with geographic area licensing. Accordingly, we are adopting non- exclusive geographic area licenses. To address the concerns raised in support of frequency coordination and site- by- site licensing, we also adopt a post- license registration requirement. 57. Non- exclusive geographic area licensing. Non- exclusive area licensing is flexible, especially in light of the technical characteristics of DSRCS, i. e., low power and short range. Moreover, geographic area licensing can accommodate many different licensees offering different DSRC- based ITS applications, which we believe will promote the use of the 5.9 GHz 186 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 175. See also July Ex Parte Comments at 65- 66. 187 July Ex Parte Comments at 65- 66. 188 John Hopkins Comments at 14. Johns Hopkins states that the “use of high frequency/ short wavelength combined with new higher dielectric microwave materials permits tiny, inexpensive antenna arrays, and patches to be customized to service any communication zone requirement. Coverage initially granted to an RSU to serve a broad area could later be adjusted when new RSUs enter the area.” Id. (citations omitted). 189 ITS America Comments at 15. 190 Id. at 15- 16. 191 ITS America Reply Comments at 12. 192 Mark IV Industries Comments at 9. 193 See National Assoc. of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors/ National League of Cities Comments at 3. See also National Emergency Number Association at 3. 194 Intersil Corporation Reply Comments at 4 n. 10. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 32 band and the development of new and innovative DSRC services. Moreover, geographic area licensing is preferable to site- based licensing, in this instance, because geographic area licensing involves significantly less expense than site based licensing. Thus, given the low power of RSUs, the interference- mitigation provisions of the ASTM- DSRC Standard, and that the potential number of sites could be in the tens of thousands, we conclude that the burden and expense that site licensing (even if we authorized several sites per license) would impose on applicants and the Commission is unwarranted. Similarly, we find that mandatory frequency coordination will not be necessary because the ASTM- DSRC Standard will promote the sharing between DSRC operations in this band such that imposing the cost and delay of mandatory frequency coordination is unwarranted. Moreover, we are concerned that licensing RSUs for less than all of the service channels would impede DSRCS flexibility in using the band with the other co- primary allocations. 195 Accordingly, we adopt non- exclusive geographic- area licensing for DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band. 196 58. With regard to governmental entities, we believe that a geographic- area licensing plan based on that entity’s legal jurisdictional area of operations is most appropriate. With regard to non- governmental entities, we believe that they can be licensed based on each applicant’s area- of- operation, i. e., by county, state, multi- state, or nationwide. We will determine applicant qualifications for these non- exclusive geographic- area licenses in accordance with FCC Form 601 and our Rules. Those applicants who are approved will each be granted a non- exclusive license for the geographic- area requested, i. e., county, state etc. 197 There is no limit to the number of non- exclusive geographic- area licenses that may be granted for this band. Because such licenses serve as a prerequisite of registering individual RSUs located within the licensed geographic area, each licensee will be authorized for seventy- megahertz of co- primary spectrum, 5.855- 5.925 GHz. Authorizing licensees for all of the 5.9 GHz band, except for the reserve, 198 and adopting the ASTM- DSRC Standard, which channelizes the spectrum, are complementary. This spectrum will not be subject to any aggregation limit, so each licensee will use channels in accordance with the ASTM- DSRC Standard. 59. Post license registration requirement. As noted, we believe that most of the concerns raised in support of site- by- site licensing can be addressed through a post- license 195 In allocating the 5. 9 GHz band for DSRC operations, the Commission noted, in part, that seventy- five megahertz of spectrum “will provide the flexibility needed to share the spectrum with incumbent operations.” Allocation Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 18225 ¶ 9. See also, ET Docket No. 98- 95, DOT Reply Comments at 3 (DOT cited an ARINC study that “in order to avoid potential interference from incumbent users in the 5.9 GHz band, an allocation of 75 MHz” was necessary “as a practical matter.”). 196 Because licenses will be non- exclusive, there will be no mutual exclusivity between or among applications. Consequently, our competitive bidding authority is not implicated. See BBA Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 22, 715 ¶ 14. Given that we are not authorizing licenses via competitive bidding, we have no need to address in this Report and Order the various competitive bidding- related issues that were raised in the NPRM, which included matters of competitive bidding design, designated entities, bidding credits, application and payment procedures, reporting requirements, collusion issues, and unjust enrichment. See NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd 23, 179- 81 ¶¶ 75- 81. 197 47 C. F. R. §§ 1.913- 1. 917. FCC Form 601 – Application for Authorization in the Wireless Radio Service. 198 At this time, we are not adopting licensing and service rules for the five megahertz reserve located in the 5. 850-5.855 portion of the 5. 9 GHz band. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 33 registration process somewhat similar to the one we adopted in our 70- 80- 90 GHz Report and Order. 199 We believe that the registration process must be streamlined, particularly in light of the potential for thousands of coordinated RSUs in this band. Licensees will register RSU sites, channels, and other relevant data on the Universal Licensing System (ULS) under the call sign of the relevant license. 200 Nonetheless, we observe that there may be administrative benefits to having RSU registrations maintained in a third- party (i. e., non- FCC) database. Given that the DSRCS is evolving, we will continue to collaborate with DOT in considering whether it would be prudent to have RSU registrations housed on a system other than ULS. 201 Given that the post license registration process will also implement the requirement to coordinate certain DSRC stations through NTIA, see paragraph 73, infra, we will consult with NTIA prior to any change in the registration process we adopt today. 60. Licensees must register each RSU in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) and authority to operate a given RSU begins after the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) screens the filing and posts the registration on the ULS. The Bureau will use an automated “overnight batch” program to screen registration filings and RSUs that do not require additional processing will be posted within one business day (for electronically filed registrations). RSU registrations are subject, inter alia, to the requirements of Section 1.923 of the Commission’s rules (antenna structure registration, 202 environmental concerns, 203 international coordination, 204 and quiet zones 205 ). Additionally, RSUs at locations subject to NTIA coordination (see § 90.371( b) of this part) may not begin operation until NTIA approval is received. RSU registrations that raise these issues may require additional time to process. Accordingly, licensees must plan ahead given that authority to operate does not begin until the registration process is completed. 206 61. DSRCS Interference Disputes. Given the low power of RSUs and the interference- mitigation provisions of the ASTM- DSRC Standard, interference disputes among DSRC operations should be rare. Nonetheless, we clarify that in the event a dispute arises, it is 199 See Allocations and Service Rules for the 71- 76 GHz, 81- 86 GHz and 92- 95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318 (2003) (70- 80- 90 GHz Report and Order). 200 This information is described with more specificity in Appendix F. 201 By comparison, in the 70- 80- 90 GHz Report and Order, we determined that non- Federal Government links will be registered in a third- party (i. e., non- FCC) database after an interim period. See 70- 80- 90 GHz Report and Order at ¶ 50. 202 See 47 C. F. R. § 1. 923( d) citing 47 C. F. R. Part 17. 203 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.1307. 204 See, e. g. 47 C. F. R. § 1.928 (regarding frequency coordination arrangements between the United States and Canada). 205 47 C. F. R. § 1.924. 206 Accord 70- 80- 90 GHz Report and Order at ¶ 56 (the Commission believes the licensee is in the best position to determine the nature of its operations and whether those operations impact certain settings). 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 34 to be resolved using the priority framework set forth in paragraph 31, supra. 207 If a dispute arises between non- public safety RSU licensees, the licensee of the later- registered RSU must accommodate the operation of the early registered RSU, i. e., interference protection rights would be date- sensitive, based on the date that the RSU is first registered and the later registered RSU would have to modify its operations. 208 b. OBUs 62. With regard to OBUs, we noted in the NPRM that there could be two kinds of OBUs, those associated with an RSU and those not associated with an RSU. 209 In this context, we invited comment on whether the OBU associated with an RSU should be licensed under the associated RSU’s license. With regard to OBUs not associated with an RSU, we requested comment on whether to license them by rule, or authorize their use as unlicensed under Part 15 of our Rules. 210 63. As a preliminary matter, we note that there is contradictory information in the record concerning whether there are OBUs that are associated with an RSU. ITS America notes that “while there will be instances where a licensee will deploy a number of On- Board Units for communication with its Roadside Units, it is expected that the majority of On- Board Units will be deployed without any association with a particular licensee or fixed system.” 211 Johns Hopkins, however, states that because “OBUs are general purpose devices, supporting a wide range of both private and public services throughout the nation, it is impossible to associate these OBUs with a single system.” 212 From ITS America’s statement in the First Proposed Band Plan, it appears that not all OBUs are general purpose OBUs; some OBUs are used for public safety purposes only. For instance, ITS America indicated that public safety vehicles would have two OBUs, with the second OBU, which does not use the Control Channel, used for intersection applications, such as “Emergency Vehicle Signal Pre- emption.” 213 It appears, from this description, that this second OBU would be associated with a fixed system. We note that several commenters, especially toll agencies, support licensing OBUs under the associated RSU license. 214 207 We clarify that this prioritization only applies between DSRC operations and does not affect interference rights relative to the other services operating in this spectrum. 208 Because registration filing dates may be time- sensitive and given the minimal burden involved in filing a new registration for an RSU that needs to change locations or channels, we will limit the capability to modify site registrations. 209 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23167 ¶¶ 52- 53. 210 47 C. F. R. Part 15. 211 ITS America Comments at 19. 212 Johns Hopkins Comments at 12. 213 First Proposed band Plan at 7. 214 See IBTTA Comments at 7; North Texas Tollway Authority Comments at 2; Maine Turnpike Authority Comments at 2; Delaware Department of Transportation Comments at 2; Siemens Transportation System Comments at 6. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 35 64. Regardless of this inconsistency in the record, the majority of commenters favor licensing all OBUs by rule. Specifically, these commenters note that licensing by rule is consistent with the technical characteristics of OBUs. 215 A licensing by rule regime would require OBUs to comply with transmission power limits, and specific rules on timing intervals and length of transmission, especially concerning the Control Channel, as found in the ASTM-DSRC Standard. 216 Other commenters note that licensing OBUs by rule balances the operational characteristics of the OBUs with providing the license status necessary for full operation. 217 Commenters also claim that licensing OBUs by rule would enhance the development of new devices as well as speed production and market growth. 218 65. Most commenters oppose unlicensed operations under Part 15 for any DSRC-based ITS application, whether associated or not associated with a fixed system. These commenters maintain that Part 15 does not provide the needed technical protection necessary for DSRC operations. 219 NTIA agrees with these commenters and states that Part 15 would not offer sufficient protection for public safety and safety- related services, which could prohibit the deployment of critical public safety DSRC applications, thus potentially reducing the overall public benefits envisioned for DSRC. 220 Nissan argues that DSRC operations under Part 15 are “likely to cause interference with safety applications in terms of reduced channel availability and capacity, especially regarding the control channel, as well as increased latency.” 221 The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers argues against unlicensed operations, stating that radio frequency interference from unlicensed devices and their noncompliance with channel controls and the message prioritization framework would undermine the projected effectiveness of vehicle safety enhancements made possible by DSRC; therefore, unlicensed devices may have the ability to cause these same safety applications to fail during emergencies, putting lives and property unnecessarily at risk. 222 66. In supporting unlicensed operations under Part 15, Intersil Corporation maintains that those opposed to unlicensed operation of OBUs underestimate the technical control available under Part 15: Intersil notes that some Part 15 devices are subject to extremely detailed technical rules and there is “extensive precedent for controlling any needed transmitter characteristics under Part 15.” 223 Again, we note that DOT did not comment on licensing issues, instead asking 215 ITS America Reply Comments at 15. 216 Id. at 16. 217 E- ZPass Reply Comments at 6. 218 E- ZPass Comments at 12. 219 ITS America Reply Comments at 16. 220 NTIA Comments at ii. 221 Nissan Comments at 7. 222 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Reply Comments at 2. 223 Intersil Corporation Reply Comments at 4- 5. 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 36 that whatever option we choose should support interoperability and uniform technical standards. 224 67. We note that authorizing unlicensed operations is an efficient means to promote a variety of operations, under certain technical requirements to ensure that they do not cause interference, even if an allocation does not exist for those operations. In this case, ITS DSRC applications have a primary allocation in the Mobile Service and our “license by rule” mechanism is an appropriate method to allow widespread deployment of OBUs without unnecessarily burdensome individual licensing requirements. We believe this approach is consistent with the ASTM- DSRC Standard and is particularly appropriate here because the 5.9 GHz band will be shared among millions of motorists, and thus, there will be no mutual exclusivity between users. In addition, “licensing by rule” will minimize regulatory procedures and thus facilitate deployment while protecting public safety communications. Further, we do not think the “license- by- rule” approach will threaten the protection of public safety operations because such protections are addressed through the operating standards adopted herein, rather than through an individual licensing mechanism. 2. Government Radar Operations- to- DSRC 68. Background. In 1999 the Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band to the DSRCS. 225 Because this seventy- five megahertz of spectrum is co- allocated on a co- primary basis for both Federal Government and non- Federal Government use, coordination between non-Federal Government (private entities and state and local governments) and Federal Government operations is of critical interest. Accordingly, in the Allocation Report and Order, the Commission adopted Section 90.371( b), which provides that “DSRCS stations operating in the 5.9 GHz band shall not receive protection from Government radar services in operation prior to the establishment of the DSRCS station.” 226 The rule further requires that operation of DSRCS stations within seventy- five kilometers of fifty- nine locations (current or future Government radar sites that DoD reported to the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) in 1997) must be coordinated through NTIA. 227 In the NPRM, we noted that new Government radar installations that may be deployed subsequent to DSRC implementation must coordinate with incumbent DSRC operations. 228 In this connection, we requested comment on whether we should adopt specific provisions to forestall interference from new high power government radar operations to the DSRC Control Channel. 69. Discussion. The Federal Government is the largest incumbent user of the 5.9 GHz band. 229 According to NTIA, the Department of Defense (DOD) uses fixed, transportable, 224 DOT Comments at 8. 225 Allocation Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 18225 ¶ 9. The DSRCS also shares the band on a co- primary basis with Fixed Satellite Service uplinks. 226 47 C. F. R. § 90.371( b). 227 Id. See also NTIA Comments at 14. 228 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23171 ¶ 58 citing Allocation Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 18228 ¶ 14. 229 NTIA Comments at 3. 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 37 and mobile radars for surveillance, test range instrumentation, airborne transponders, and experimental testing. 230 DOD uses these radars extensively in support of national and military test range operations in the tracking and control of manned and unmanned airborne vehicles. 231 The NTIA reports that “[ t] he potential interference between these incumbent military systems and DSRC stations was addressed to the satisfaction of the DoD . . . and resulted in the coordination zones” 232 found in Section 90.371( b) of our Rules. NTIA states that Section 90.371( b) strikes “a reasonable balance between establishing new services that will benefit the public and allow[ ing] for the continued operation of Government radar systems to support national defense.” 233 In this connection, the Commission adopted the coordination zones in Section 90.371( b) as a result of studies sponsored by DOT and performed by NTIA’s Institute for Telecommunication Sciences in 1997. 234 At the time of the testing, DoD provided IRAC with a list of all existing and planned locations for Government radar in the 5.9 GHz band that would require coordination. 235 Because an American standard had not yet been developed, at the time of the testing, the Institute used the European and Japanese standard to perform all the testing and analysis. 236 DOT states that this analysis considered worst- case scenarios to ensure the degree of protection and flexibility described by DoD, but it did not examine mitigation techniques to reduce the coordination zones. 237 The electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) tests and analysis were the basis for developing the coordination zones established in Section 90.371( b). 238 70. Given these changes since the 1997 study, DOT plans to conduct another study using the details of the ASTM- DSRC Standard that have been finalized to determine the 230 Id. at 11. 231 Id. 232 NTIA Comments at 11- 12. 233 Id. at 4. 234 Id. at 13. See also Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing of a Dedicated Short- Range Communication System, Report 98- 352 (1998). 235 NTIA Comments at 14. 236 Id. at 13. These studies included electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) tests of DSRC equipment and . . . analysis of interference to DSRC receivers. To examine potential interference, the EMC testing used simulated radar signals that were coupled into the DSRC receiver considering both co- channel and off- channel radar operations. The radar signals were selected to represent the range of parameters used by both existing radars and possible future radar designs. As a result of the EMC testing, it was determined that improved DSRC system performance in the presence of interfering radar signals may be achieved through the use of shorter DSRC data packets and possibly through the use of forward error correction (FEC) into the DSRC coding scheme. Based on the EMC tests, an analysis was performed that considered other factors such as antenna coupling and separation distances, which could provide additional protection to DSRC receivers. Id. 237 DOT Comments at 9. 238 NTIA Comments at 13. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 38 effectiveness of the current coordination zones listed in Section 90.371( b) of our Rules. 239 DOT reports that the new study, to be performed by DOT in cooperation with DoD, will examine the effectiveness that mitigation techniques, such as terrain shielding, directional antennas, and RF fencing could have on a case- by- case basis, as well as future radar pulse waves. 240 71. According to NTIA, DoD has expressed the concern that, in light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Government radars may be used to support homeland defense. 241 Because of the limited amount of spectrum available for future radar development, it is likely that these new radar systems will be developed for use in the 5.9 GHz band. 242 Moreover, NTIA relates that this expanded role of government radar may result in deployment of radars in areas other than the fifty- nine sites listed in Section 90.371( b) of our Rules. 243 NTIA notes that some of these sites could include cities and highways where DSRC equipment is expected to be used. 244 NTIA further relates that DoD is concerned that this expanded deployment of 5.9 GHz radars could increase the potential for interference with DSRC operations. 245 72. NTIA recommends that the Commission wait until the conclusion of the new testing before adopting any additional provisions to prevent interference from future Government radar operations. 246 We agree and will follow the recommendation. Additionally, given that DoD may deploy radars in areas other than the fifty- nine sites listed in Section 90.371( b), we delegate authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to update this list. 247 73. We will use the post- license registration process to implement the NTIA coordination requirement of Section 90.371( b). Specifically, ULS will be programmed to refer RSU registrations through NTIA that are within seventy- five kilometers of any of the existing Government radar sites listed in Section 90.371( b). In this connection, ULS will notify the licensee that the site is not registered pending NTIA coordination, which will be accomplished under the existing coordination process, i. e., coordination with NTIA through IRAC. 248 While 239 NTIA Comments at 15. As noted below, we will examine the results of the study before amending the coordination zones. 240 DOT Comments at 9; NTIA Comments at 15. 241 NTIA Comments at 14. 242 Id. 243 Id. 244 Id. 245 Id. 246 Id. at 15. 247 Once a Federal Government assignment is made it will be protected and the staff will update the ULS database, accordingly. 248 We note that the filing date of the proposed RSU registration will serve as the licensee’s date stamp relative to any “first- in- time” issues. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 39 this process remains in effect, NTIA has informed us, it will, through the IRAC’s Frequency Assignment Subcommittee, coordinate requests within fourteen working days of receipt. 249 3. Fixed Satellite Service Uplinks- to- DSRC 74. Background. The 5.9 GHz band, is known in the satellite industry as the “extended C- band” and is used to provide uplinks for intercontinental FSS services and is adjacent to the more heavily used “C- band” FSS uplink spectrum at 5.925- 6.425 GHz.” 250 According to the Satellite Industry Association (SIA), the “extended C- band” and the “C- band” are among the principle frequency bands for the global FSS industry. 251 We note that the C- band is extensively used by the Fixed Service for point- to- point microwave, although we did not receive comment from any Fixed Service provider regarding DSRC operations. 75. NTIA’s Institute for Telecommunications Services also studied the potential for interference from FSS uplink operations into DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band. 252 The Institute for Telecommunications Services found that there is a limited scope of potential co-channel interference to DSRC operations from FSS earth stations because they use highly directional antennas and the number of FSS earth stations is limited. The DOT concluded that there was a minor, but irreducible need for coordination between FSS earth stations and DSRC operations if they are within 2 miles of each other. 253 76. The Commission did not adopt a coordination requirement between DSRC and FSS operations in the Allocation Report and Order, stating that it would most likely be unnecessary, but also stating that it would consider the matter in a future proceeding. 254 PanAmSat petitioned for reconsideration of this issue and suggested that without coordination procedures, widespread DSRC deployment could give rise to extensive areas where future FSS earth station would be excluded. PanAmSat also suggests that the level of DSRC deployment should account for the “noise floor” that is present from FSS uplinks. 255 We dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration in the NPRM as moot because the issues raised by PanAmSat would be addressed in this proceeding. 256 We then sought comment on whether prior coordination between DSRC operations and FSS uplinks is necessary. 257 The Commission further sought 249 NTIA has further indicated that it will provide a website indicating the applications that it has received from the Commission, the date received, the date action is complete, and the status. NTIA will provide the location of that site via a public notice. 250 Satellite Industry Association Reply Comments at 2- 3. 251 Id. at 3. 252 DOT Comments at 8. See also Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, NTIA, Measured Occupancy of 5850- 5925 MHz and Adjacent 5- GHz Spectrum in the United States (1999) (FSS Study). 253 FSS Study at ix. 254 Allocation Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 18228 ¶ 15. 255 PanAmSat Corporation, Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification at 2 (filed Dec. 27, 1999). 256 NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 23139 ¶ 3. 257 Id. at 23170 ¶ 57. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 40 comment on whether, in light of incumbent and potential future FSS operations, the ASTM-DSRC Standard would provide robust and reliable DSRC operations. 258 We further asked whether DSRC equipment and operations should take into account the “noise floor” that is present from FSS uplink transmissions. 259 We were particularly interested in whether FSS uplink transmissions in the 5.9 GHz band would interfere with the DSRC Control Channel. 260 The commenters identify two interrelated issues: “noise floor” and “prior coordination. We will next address these issues. 77. Discussion. Regarding the first issue, PanAmSat and SIA maintain that we should establish a “noise floor” to ensure that DSRC equipment can withstand out- of- band emissions from FSS earth stations operating in the adjacent conventional C- band at 5.925- 6.425 GHz. 261 In fact, SIA states that, through the Commission’s FSS earth station operational rules 262 combined with minimum permissible earth station elevation angle, the Commission has established such a noise floor with respect to out- of- band emissions from conventional C- band earth stations. 263 ITS America emphasizes that in developing the ASTM- DSRC Standard, the Standards Writing Group considered and took steps to mitigate the potential from in- band and out- of- band emissions from the C- band satellite operations. 264 For instance, ITS America notes that the Standards Writing Group located the Control Channel in the middle of the band. 265 ITS America further notes that Channel 184, which will be used for high- powered DSRC operations (1000 meters or less) most frequently in cities, is located at the lower end of the C- band at 5915- 5925 MHz, which should not result in interference because the existing satellite uplinks are located in areas away from population centers. 266 Moreover, ITS America asserts that out- of-band emissions from these FSS earth stations will likely be no greater than out- of- band emissions from the higher power operations in Channel 184. 267 We did not receive any comment from Fixed Service point- to- point microwave providers on this issue. 78. Regarding the second issue, “prior coordination,” SIA contends that prior coordination is necessary between new DSRC operations and existing earth station teleports and new earth station teleports and existing DSRC operations. 268 Both ITS America and DOT contend that DOT’s FSS Study showed that the potential for interference between FSS uplinks 258 Id. 259 Id. 260 Id. 261 PanAmSat Comments at 1; Satellite Industry Association Reply Comments at 5. 262 The FSS earth station operational rules are 47 C. F. R. §§ 25. 202( f), 25. 209, 25. 211, 25. 212. 263 SIA Reply Comments a 7. 264 ITS America Reply Comments at 19. 265 Id. 266 Id. 267 Id. 268 Satellite Industry Association Reply Comments at 8- 9. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 324 41 and DSRC operations is minimal because the FSS uplinks in the C band use a very narrow emission footprint on the ground, and that interference can be avoided through the use of a frequency coordinator and the use of mitigation techniques, such as terrain shielding, directional antennas, and radio frequency fencing. 269 ITS America contends that licensees can locate RSUs outside any potential satellite uplink interference area. 270 SIA further recommends that we establish protection and coordination provisions modeled after Section 90.371( b) for FSS earth stations and DSRC stations. 271 Under such a provision, prior coordination would be necessary only in identified geographic regions. 79. In November 2003, ITS America and SIA reported that they are discussing the development of a sharing protocol between DSRC and FSS operations in the 5.9 GHz band. 272 The parties state that significant progress has been made in these discussions and they are hopeful that an agreement will be reached. In this connection, SIA avers that given the complexity of these issues and that industry discussions remain ongoing, the Commission should defer any decision on DSRC- FSS sharing until after the ongoing technical studies and industry discussions have been completed, and the parties have had an opportunity to present their conclusions. 80. We commend the efforts of ITS America and members of the satellite industry to resolve these issues. Because the record does not contain an analysis of the ASTM- DSRC Standard relative to FSS uplinks, and given the ongoing industry study and discussions, we agree that a decision on these issues would be premature. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we will not adopt rule changes at this juncture but will reserve the right to revisit this issue if necessary once the results of the industry study and discussions are known. Given the importance of sa