**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | WT Docket No. 01-90          |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Amendment of the Commission's    | ) | ET Docket No. 98-95          |
| Rules                            |   |                              |
|                                  | ) | RM-9096                      |
| 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          | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**[MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER]{.smallcaps}**

**Adopted: July 20, 2006 Released: July 26, 2006**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph

I. Introduction and executive summary 1

II\. background 2

III\. discussion 6

A. Site Registration and Third Party Database Manager 6

B. Channels 172 and 184 13

C. Emission Mask 18

D. Fixed Satellite Service Coordination 20

E. Construction Requirements 26

F. Public Safety On-Board Units 29

G. Antenna Height Correction Factor 32

H. Dual-Band DSRC 34

I. Further Proceedings 35

IV\. procedural matters 37

A. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 37

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 38

APPENDICES:

Appendix A -- Final Rules

Appendix B -- Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Appendix C -- Parties

# Introduction AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* (*MO&O*), we consider four
    petitions for reconsideration filed respectively by the 3M Company,
    ARINC Incorporated, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
    and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory on September
    2, 2004.[^1] Each petitioner seeks reconsideration of the
    Commission's December 17, 2003 *Report and Order,* which adopted
    licensing and service rules for the Dedicated Short Range
    Communications (DSRC) Service in the Intelligent Transportation
    Systems (ITS) Radio Service, located in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band
    (5.9 GHz band).[^2] In this *MO&O*, we reach the following key
    decisions:

-   *New Channel Designations.* We designate Channel 172 (frequencies
    5.855-5.865 GHz) exclusively for vehicle-to-vehicle safety
    communications for accident avoidance and mitigation, and safety of
    life and property applications; and designate Channel 184
    (frequencies 5.915-5.925 GHz) exclusively for high-power,
    longer-distance communications to be used for public safety
    applications involving safety of life and property, including road
    intersection collision mitigation.

-   *Site Construction and Priorities.* We amend our rules to require
    licensees to file a notice of construction with the Commission for
    each site registered and to clarify that site priority attaches to
    prior registered sites that have been fully constructed within the
    requisite twelve-month construction period.

-   *Increased Power.* We amend the power reduction rule to only apply
    to DSRC Roadside Unit antenna height only between eight and fifteen
    meters, thereby providing increased flexibility and reduced
    implementation costs.

-   We decline to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adopt rules that would implement a software-based prior frequency
    coordination protocol that directs or recommends that licensees use
    particular service channels, or that would establish a third party
    database manager to coordinate and maintain site registrations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Amend the current emission mask applicable to DSRC Class D devices,
    pending further developments and recommendations from the ASTM
    E17.51 DSRC Standards Writing Group.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adopt rules governing frequency coordination between DSRC licensees
    and Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) licensees, pending results of
    studies of interference methodology and ongoing industry
    discussions.

-   Adopt a rule establishing a separate class of On-Board Units to be
    used exclusively by public safety eligibles, *i.e.,* "public safety
    OBUs."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Require dual-band DSRC devices to be uniquely identified in order to
    be used to provide DSRC services in the 5.9 GHz band.

    Our action today furthers the Commission's goal of implementing
    widespread deployment of DSRC systems in the ITS Radio Service[^3]
    in order to promote the safety of life and property of the traveling
    public and to improve the efficiency of the nation's surface
    transportation infrastructure.

# background

2.  The ITS program was created by Congress in the Intermodal Surface
    Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,[^4] and is administered by
    the Department of Transportation (DOT). The program uses advanced
    electronics to improve traveler safety, decrease traffic congestion,
    facilitate the reduction of air pollution, and conserve vital fossil
    fuels.[^5] Pursuant to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^
    Century,[^6] the Commission, in consultation with the DOT, allocated
    the 5.850-5.925 GHz band to DSRC in October 1999.[^7] On November 7,
    2002, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
    (*NPRM*) [^8] seeking comment on proposed DSRC service rules in the
    5.9 GHz band, and on December 17, 2003, it adopted the DSRC service
    rules.[^9]

3.  To promote the widespread use and evaluation of intelligent
    vehicle-highway systems technology, the Commission in the *DSRC
    Report and Order* adopted, *inter alia,* the ASTM E2213-03 Standard
    (ASTM-DSRC), which was supported by most commenters and which had
    been developed under an accredited standard setting process.[^10] To
    achieve interoperability, allow open eligibility, and encourage the
    development of a market for equipment that will meet the needs of
    public safety DSRC licensees, the rules adopted by the Commission
    require all DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band to comply with the
    ASTM-DSRC standard. DSRC Roadside Units (RSUs) (*i.e.,*
    communication units that are fixed along the roadside) are licensed
    under Part 90 Subpart M of the Commission's rules ("Intelligent
    Transportation Systems Radio Service").[^11] On-Board Units (OBUs)
    (*i.e.,* in-vehicle communications units) are licensed by rule under
    new Subpart L of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules.[^12] Licensees
    receive non-exclusive geographic-area licenses authorizing operation
    on seventy of the seventy-five megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band.[^13]

4.  On September 2, 2004, 3M, ARINC, ITS America and JHU/APL filed
    petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of the *DSRC
    Report and Order.* Petitioners request that the Commission: (1)
    modify its site registration process to include certain active
    spectrum management techniques that could identify harmful
    interference between stations prior to deployment or
    operation;[^14] (2) modify its Universal Licensing System (ULS) to
    accommodate active registration or consider whether one or more
    third parties should function as site registration database
    managers;[^15] (3) require DSRC licensees to provide a notice of
    construction within twelve months after registration, and assign
    priority rights based on the date of construction notification,
    rather than on the date of registration in the database;[^16] (4)
    designate Channel 172 exclusively for high-availability, low-latency
    public safety communications,[^17] and designate Channel 184 for
    longer-range, high power public safety DSRC systems;[^18] (5) revise
    the DSRC Class D emission mask;[^19] (6) amend Section 90.375 of the
    Rules, to create a separate class of OBUs for exclusive use by
    public safety eligibles;[^20] (7) revise Section 90.377(b) of the
    Rules, the antenna height correction factor requirement intended to
    minimize potential interference;[^21] (8) require that dual-band
    DSRC devices must be uniquely identified to provide DSRC services in
    the 5.9 GHz band;[^22] and (9) keep Docket WT 01-90 open for future
    consideration of revisions to the ASTM DSRC Standard.[^23] We
    received comments in opposition to, and in support of, the foregoing
    requests. Parties filing comments, reply comments, *ex parte*
    submissions and presentations in this proceeding are listed in
    Appendix C.

5.  On August 5, 2005, ARINC filed an *ex parte* submission advancing
    the purported benefits of a third party site registration manager
    (SRM) to oversee the site registration process. In its submission,
    ARINC argued that relying on a message access priority framework for
    DSRC "would not adequately address RF \[radio frequency\]
    concerns."[^24] In support of the need for an SRM, ARINC cites the
    Commission's implementation of Advance Site Review Interference
    Analysis for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 and 92-95 GHz bands, where a third
    party site registration manager is used for a similar purpose.[^25]
    In addition, ARINC claims that the priority access framework for
    DSRC is not sufficient to "adequately address frequency sharing
    issues," and that therefore another mechanism is needed to "balance"
    DSRC priority access requirements.[^26] ARINC proposes that an SRM
    would serve the following functions: (1) advance site review
    interference analysis; (2) identification of RSU sites requiring
    coordination with Government radar sites; (3) management of the site
    registration database, and (4) interference dispute resolution.[^27]
    ARINC also argues that a priority access framework,[^28] which it
    expects to be included in a new ASTM standard being developed, would
    be inadequate because it would "not adequately address frequency
    sharing issues" in the band.[^29] ARINC also asserts that a
    "listen-before-send" protocol[^30] (which it also expects in the new
    ASTM standard being developed) could be overwhelmed by interference
    problems under various scenarios,[^31] and that flexibility in
    channel selection is required to maximize reliable access for low
    latency, public safety communications applications.[^32]

# discussion

## Site Registration and Third Party Database Manager

6.  In the *DSRC Report and Order,* the Commission adopted a
    non-exclusive geographic area licensing scheme, coupled with a
    post-license registration requirement similar to that adopted in the
    *70/80/90 GHz Report and Order.*[^33] The Commission determined that
    this approach strikes the appropriate balance between the benefits
    of site-based licensing and the efficiencies and administrative
    convenience of geographic area licensing.[^34]

7.  In their petitions, ARINC, ITS America, and JHU/APL each urge the
    Commission to augment its licensing approach for RSUs to include
    "active" spectrum management techniques.[^35] ARINC, in its
    subsequent *ex parte* filing, claims that the message access
    priority framework for DSRC is not sufficient, by itself, to create
    the most appropriate DSRC RF environment.[^36] To facilitate proper
    frequency assignment, ARINC supports the concept of site
    registration management endorsed by Comsearch.[^37] Under ARINC's
    approach, licensees must register for particular service
    channels[^38] established using a software-driven, frequency
    coordination analysis integral to the site registration
    process.[^39] ARINC observes that the recommended approach is
    similar to the site review interference analysis procedures adopted
    for the "Above 70 GHz Service,"[^40] and claims that the proposed
    process would identify potential interference before DSRC stations
    are deployed, thus making it easier to define interference
    mitigation parameters and minimize post-registration conflicts.[^41]
    ARINC, ITS America, JHU/APL and DOT all support this notion of a
    third party database manager to handle site registrations.[^42]

8.  In its August 5, 2005 *Ex Parte,* ARINC submits that an SRM is
    necessary because the priority access framework and the
    listen-before-send protocol, which it anticipates will be addressed
    in the current ASTM DSRC standard, do not "adequately address
    frequency sharing issues, especially in a multi-repeater
    environment."[^43] It also posits that "multiple adjacent repeaters
    may all be seeking to use the same Service Channel"[^44] such that
    low-priority messages could overwhelm time-sensitive, low-latency,
    high priority safety of life and public safety messages. It submits
    that the possibility of such interference could be avoided by an SRM
    who applied "channel load balancing" in advance of the activation of
    the repeaters.[^45]

9.  *Decision.* In the *DSRC Report and Order*, the Commission stated
    that the asserted benefits of an "active" site-based licensing
    scheme, including frequency coordination, were outweighed by the
    flexibility, economies of scale, and administrative efficiency of
    geographic licensing.[^46] The Commission's decision rested on the
    fact that DSRC is a low power, short range system, and on the
    interference mitigation mechanisms incorporated into the ASTM-DRC
    standard. As explained below, the proponents of site-based systems
    with prior frequency coordination have not persuaded us that
    geographical licensing for this service is deficient and should be
    abandoned.

10. The analogies that ARINC has made between DSRC and the Wireless
    Medical Telemetry Service, and DSRC and the 70/80/90 GHz fixed
    microwave service, are not persuasive. First, Section 95.1115 of the
    Commission's Rules contains specific operating parameter limitation
    criteria that may be used by a frequency coordinator to predict
    interference to WMTS devices.[^47] Because no comparable criteria
    exist for DSRC, there are no usable metrics from which a frequency
    coordinator can make an interference determination. Second, the
    interference analysis procedures used in the 70/80/90 GHz fixed
    microwave service are inapplicable here because, *inter alia,*
    70/80/90 GHz systems are highly directional point-to-point systems,
    whereas DSRC uses a base station in a mobile environment where the
    antennas are not highly directional. Moreover, fixed microwave
    systems typically use elevated antennas, whereas DSRC devices
    operate at low power with antennas that will be located near the
    roadway level. Because the DSRC signals are rapidly attenuated by
    surrounding foliage, terrain, structures, *etc*., they will have far
    less interference potential.[^48] The Commission, in the *DSRC
    Report and Order,* concluded that the benefits of frequency
    coordination in this service would be at best marginal, and would
    introduce an unnecessary degree of complexity and cost relative to
    geographical licensing.

11. Finally, we believe that our reservation of Channel 172 for public
    safety high availability, low power (33 dBm), low-latency
    applications[^49] also argues against requiring frequency
    coordination of DSRC systems. Reserving Channel 172 for public
    safety applications in which low latency channels are essential,
    eliminates the possibility that non-public safety co-channel
    stations, in a shared-channel environment, could interfere with
    critical vehicle-to-vehicle crash avoidance functions. Similarly,
    the dedication of Channel 184 exclusively for higher-power (40 dBm),
    longer-distance public safety applications, such as intersection
    violation mitigation, lessens interference concerns and further
    obviates the need for DSRC frequency coordination.

12. The Commission concluded in the *DSRC Report and Order* that safe,
    economical and efficient operation of DSRC systems can be maintained
    without the need for frequency coordination. The proponents of such
    a requirement have presented no new information that persuades us to
    alter this conclusion, particularly given that we have addressed
    their safety concerns via other, less burdensome means. Accordingly,
    we decline to adopt ARINC's recommendation to establish a third
    party DSRC database manager.

## Channels 172 and 184

13. In the *DSRC Report and Order,* the Commission declined to designate
    Channels 172 (5.855-5.865 GHz) and 184 (5.915-5.925 GHz) for public
    safety-related applications,[^50] as advocated by ITS America.
    Earlier in the proceeding, ITS America argued that Channel 172
    should be designated for "vehicle [safety]{.underline} 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."[^51] ITS America also
    recommended that Channel 184 be designated for long range public
    safety applications and intersection collision applications.[^52]
    However, in the *DSRC Report and Order,* the Commission found it
    premature to adopt rules that would reserve certain channels for
    specific applications.[^53] Instead, citing overwhelming support by
    commenters, the Commission concluded that, consistent with an open
    channel structure, both public safety and non-public safety users
    should be eligible for licensing on all channels, subject to the
    priority for public safety.[^54]

14. In its petition, ARINC supports special designations for Channels
    172 and 184, for applications that involve accident avoidance and
    mitigation techniques.[^55] ITS America supports a special
    designation for Channel 172, suggesting that a specific channel
    designated for vehicle safety applications would ensure timely,
    adequate capacity for the core safety applications that are a
    critical component of ITS.[^56] The Alliance of Automobile
    Manufacturers (Alliance) filed *ex parte* comments in support of
    ARINC and ITS America with respect to Channel 172.[^57]

15. ARINC argues that Channel 172 should receive special designation
    because increasing numbers of DSRC-equipped vehicles could
    eventually lead to saturation of the DSRC control channel, rendering
    it unsuitable for high availability, low latency purposes.[^58] It
    cites a joint project by certain Alliance members and DOT that
    confirms that "high priority messages -- while still enjoying better
    performance than routine ones \-- . . . \[can be\] nevertheless
    slowed down by . . . \[a high\] channel occupancy level."[^59] To
    foreclose that possibility, ARINC proposes that the system migrate
    public safety applications to Channel 172 before the control channel
    becomes fully saturated, and that Channel 172 should be reserved
    strictly for "high availability, low-latency" vehicle--to-vehicle
    collision avoidance and mitigation.[^60] ARINC recommends that
    Channel 184 be designated the primary channel for high-power,
    coordinated RSU applications that will be used by public safety
    licensees "for 'signal light preemption' applications for emergency
    and transit vehicles,"[^61] and points out that these applications
    require higher power because of the greater distances involved.[^62]
    Both ARINC and Alliance urge us to act promptly on the Channel 172
    proposal before RSUs are licensed and incumbent operations become
    established, and point out that timely action is important because
    automobile manufacturers require significant lead time to integrate
    DSRC devices into future vehicles.[^63]

16. Based on the record before us, we agree with ARINC and Alliance that
    vehicle-to-vehicle collision avoidance and mitigation applications
    are exceptionally time-sensitive and should not be conducted on
    potentially congested channels.[^64] Although the Commission has
    long recognized that shared use of spectrum promotes spectrum
    efficiency,[^65] there are cases in which public safety concerns
    dictate exclusive use of frequencies.[^66] We believe that such is
    the case here where the delay associated with shared use of a
    time-critical DRSC channel could be literally life-threatening in
    the context of collision avoidance. Thus, we agree that there should
    be an exclusive-use DSRC channel (Channel 172) for public safety
    applications involving safety of life and property, including
    vehicle-to-vehicle collision avoidance and mitigation. Were this
    channel shared and only given priority when needed, the requirement
    to electronically identify and execute the priority event---even if
    measured only in milliseconds---could result in an otherwise
    avoidable vehicular collision. By dedicating Channel 172 for public
    safety applications, we significantly reduce the potential for
    interference that would otherwise be expected were the channel
    shared with non-public safety applications, which in turn reduces
    the chance that a few milliseconds communications delay could defeat
    measures crucial to avoiding a collision between vehicles.

17. We disagree, however, with the suggestion that Channel 172 be
    dedicated strictly to "high availability, low--latency" use.[^67]
    First, the record does not set forth a specific definition of this
    term, which we understand to include safety applications including
    communications between vehicles and infrastructure (such as
    highway/rail collision warning) and communications between vehicles
    (such as blind spot warning).[^68] In addition, we believe that
    precluding non-public safety use of the channel will adequately
    protect public safety uses from harmful delay by significantly
    reducing the channel's occupancy level.[^69] Moreover, our decision
    to designate Channel 184, a higher power channel, for public safety
    applications involving safety of life and property, as requested, in
    the recognition that applications such as traffic signal preemption
    are conducted over greater distances than other applications and
    therefore require higher power for reliable operation, will further
    reduce occupancy of Channel 172. Moreover, we are concerned that an
    unnecessarily restrictive definition of permissible uses for Channel
    172 could exclude other types of public safety applications
    contemplated or subsequently developed for this channel. Therefore,
    the rules adopted today provide that Channel 172 may be used both
    for vehicle-to-vehicle collision avoidance or mitigation and other
    safety of life and property applications.

## Emission Mask

18. In the *DSRC Report and Order*, the Commission adopted the ASTM
    E2213-03 DSRC technical standard for OBUs and RSUs,[^70] but stated
    that it would revisit the technical standard as DSRC technology
    develops.[^71] Our current Rules contain four emission masks
    corresponding to Class A, B, C and D DSRC devices.[^72] The emission
    mask for Class D DSRC devices is: 0 dBr (dB relative to the maximum
    power spectral density of the signal) at a frequency offset of plus
    or minus 4.5 MHz from the center frequency, -35 dBr at an offset of
    plus or minus 5.0 MHz, -45 dBr at an offset of plus or minus 5.5
    MHz, -55 dBr at an offset of plus or minus 10 MHz, and -65 dBr at an
    offset of 15 MHz. 3M argues that the Class D emission mask is too
    restrictive, may make Class D devices unaffordable, and has not been
    commercially proven.[^73] It recommends that the Commission forgo
    implementing the Class D emission mask until valid technical limits
    can be defined.

19. While the *DSRC Report and Order* indicated that the Commission
    would exercise its discretion to revisit the emission mask issue, we
    foresee that problems could arise if we were to forgo implementation
    of the Class D mask at this time. For example, without a Class D
    mask, users could be unable to operate equipment at the highest
    permitted power level of 28.8 dBm, a power level which may be
    necessary for longer range applications.[^74] 3M has also expressed
    its concerns to the ASTM Working Group, resulting in the Working
    Group adopting a recommendation that the approval of licenses for
    Class 4 (Class D) operation be delayed until evidence is provided
    that equipment compliant with the Class D emissions mask is
    commercially realizable.[^75] Because more study is needed to
    understand the implications of alternative courses of action, we
    encourage 3M to continue working with the ASTM Working Group on this
    issue, as we believe it appropriate for the ASTM E17.51 DSRC
    Standards Writing Group to evaluate the question of whether a
    revision to the Class D mask is appropriate, and then incorporate
    any necessary changes into the DSRC Standard. In sum, the
    information provided to date does not warrant revising or deleting
    the Class D emission mask and we therefore decline to do so.
    However, we retain discretion to revisit the matter at such time as
    the ASTM E17.51 DSRC Standards Writing Group may determine that
    revisions are necessary.

## Fixed Satellite Service Coordination

20. In both the *DSRC Report and Order* and the *Allocation Report and
    Order,* the Commission declined to adopt a coordination requirement
    governing DSRC Service and Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)
    operations.[^76] At that time, ITS America and SIA reported that
    they were discussing the development of a sharing protocol.[^77] The
    Commission found that the effect of the ASTM-DSRC Standard relative
    to FSS uplinks had not fully been analyzed and noted that industry
    study and discussions remained ongoing.[^78] Accordingly, the
    Commission declined to adopt coordination requirements.

21. Following the release of the *DSRC Report and Order*, ITS America,
    members of the DSRC Standards Development Group and SIA formed the
    FSS Interference Study Group (FSSISG) to investigate interference
    issues.[^79] Based upon an apparently soon-to-be-released
    report,[^80] JHU/APL concludes that "there is potential for
    interference to the DSRC service from existing FSS earth stations,"
    and recommends interference assessment and channel allocation via
    third party coordination.[^81] JHU/APL disagrees with NTIA's earlier
    FSS Study in which NTIA found that co-channel operations of DSRC
    systems and FSS systems can be avoided through existing frequency
    coordination mechanisms.[^82]

22. Specifically, JHU/APL argues that the use of interference zones[^83]
    should become the primary tool in the licensing of both future RSUs
    and FSS earth stations.[^84] JHU/APL asserts that applicants can
    determine the interference zone by assessing the worst case
    emissions from an FSS earth station, and comparing that information
    to the interference objective/threshold of the affected DSRC
    devices.[^85] The FSS Interference Study Group selected nine earth
    station sites to represent the different FSS-satellite
    orientations.[^86] When this analysis is applied to existing FSS
    earth station sites, it is assumed that any DSRC device operation
    within this zone could experience interference and may require a
    more detailed interference analysis prior to acquiring an operating
    license.[^87] However, any DSRC device operating outside this zone
    could be assured that it would not encounter interference from the
    subject earth station.[^88] JHU/APL maintains that its coordination
    scheme for the installation of DSRC RSUs incurs only one additional
    step in the existing in-band licensing framework between co-primary
    services.[^89]

23. SIA seeks revisions to our rules to protect FSS/DSRC operations,
    which would: (i) define interference contours for FSS, (ii) require
    applicants for RSUs within these zones to make detailed interference
    assessments, (iii) decline to license DSRC stations until the
    applicants complete the "interference contours" assessment for
    in-band cases, and (iv) require the design of DSRC stations to be
    compatible with the out-of-band emission levels for FSS earth
    stations established pursuant to Section 25.202 of our Rules.[^90]
    We also note that SIA indicates that the FSSISG remains in the
    process of finalizing the \"interference contours\" for each of the
    existing in-band FSS sites.[^91]

24. Similarly, ARINC seeks rule revisions such that prior to registering
    a proposed RSU site, a DSRC licensee would have to conduct an
    interference analysis of the potential for each proposed site to
    cause interference or receive interference from incumbent systems in
    the band.[^92] ARINC asserts that this analysis would be based upon
    interference protection criteria, which still must be
    developed.[^93] Finally, ARINC maintains that technical studies,
    including recommended analysis standards, have been largely
    completed,[^94] that discussions between the DSRC and FSS industries
    will continue,[^95] and that updated information will be provided to
    the Commission as events warrant.[^96]

25. While commenters generally agree that an interference analysis may
    be necessary to determine FSS interference to DSRC devices, they
    also indicate that the final results of the FSSISG's study are not
    yet completed.[^97] We believe that because the record lacks a
    complete analysis of the ASTM-DSRC Standard relative to FSS uplinks,
    and given that discussions and contour studies within the industry
    apparently have continued,[^98] a decision at this time would be
    premature. Accordingly, we encourage the industry to reach consensus
    on a DSRC/FSS interference methodology, at which time we will
    consider appropriate changes to the DSRC rules. We caution, however,
    that DSRC devices that begin operation prior to resolution of this
    issue will be subject to any coordination requirements that are
    ultimately adopted.

## Construction Requirements

26. ARINC asks that we clarify that Section 1.946(d) of the Rules[^99]
    requires licensees to "provide notice to the registration database"
    of the date when the licensee constructs and places an RSU site into
    operation,[^100] and that failure to provide the notification will
    result in the automatic purging of the site registration from the
    database.[^101] ARINC also requests that we authorize priority
    rights for protection against interference for non-public safety
    licensees on the date that construction notification is provided to
    the database and only for Channels 180, 181, and 182.[^102]

27. We agree with ARINC that requiring construction notification poses
    no undue burden on licensees and will increase the accuracy of the
    Commission's licensing records and facilitate the overall assignment
    of unused spectrum.[^103] Accordingly, we will require licensees to
    notify the Commission of the date when the licensee constructs and
    places an RSU site into operation. Furthermore, if the construction
    period expires without notice of construction and operation being
    filed, the site registration will be placed in Termination Pending
    status, and will be terminated automatically if the licensee does
    not file a timely petition for rulemaking.[^104] As noted in the
    *DSRC Report and Order*, the purpose of our construction
    notification is to maintain the integrity of the information in the
    relevant databases by correctly reflecting the actual record,[^105]
    and we conclude that requiring construction notification furthers
    this purpose. Licensees whose RSU sites are registered prior to the
    release of this *MO&O* are not required to file construction
    notifications for the sites. However, we remind those licensees that
    Section 90.155(i) of our Rules[^106] still requires that these
    grandfathered locations be constructed within one year of their
    respective registration dates or the authority to operate the RSU
    cancels automatically. Thus, we grant ARINC's petition as to this
    construction notification to the extent discussed above.

28. ARINC also argues that interference protection should be based on
    the date the licensee places an RSU site into operation, in order to
    avoid creating a further incentive for licensees to register
    speculative sites, making those sites unavailable to other licensees
    who may be in a better position to actually construct and operate
    from those stations.[^107] We disagree. The construction period
    rules were designed to afford all licensees adequate time to
    construct their facilities.[^108] Although it may be true that
    planning, staffing and financing advantages might allow one licensee
    to construct sooner than another, deeming a licensee the "winner" in
    a race for interference protection serves no apparent productive
    purpose. Indeed it could unfairly prejudice licensees who, through
    no fault of their own, cannot construct facilities as rapidly as
    other licensees with greater resources. Accordingly, we decline to
    adopt ARINC's "first in time" proposal.

## Public Safety On-Board Units

29. In the *NPRM*, the Commission noted that there were two types of
    OBUs, those associated with a specific fixed system and those not
    associated with a fixed system.[^109] In the *DSRC Report and
    Order,* the Commission decided to license OBUs by rule under Part 95
    of the Commission's rules.[^110] Although ARINC supports the
    Commission's decision, it asserts that continuing industry
    discussions after the release of the *DSRC Report and Order*
    highlighted the need for the establishment of a separate class of
    OBUs to be used exclusively by public safety eligibles -- public
    safety OBUs or PSOBUs.[^111] ARINC asserts that PSOBUs are allowed
    by the ASTM-DSRC Standard to operate at higher power than other
    OBUs, may be operated while mobile as well as when stationary, and
    will be capable of transmitting beacons and actions frames to other
    OBUs to provide channel assignments and other instructions.[^112]

30. Accordingly, ARINC requests that we modify our rules to accommodate
    the use of PSOBUs by public safety eligibles.[^113] ARINC states
    that this class of OBUs would provide public safety personnel
    operational flexibility in configuring capabilities in response to
    exigent situations without the cost or delay otherwise attendant on
    the registration and construction of an RSU.[^114] This flexibility
    includes the ability to provide channel assignments and operating
    instructions to OBUs.[^115]

31. We find that it is premature to address this matter. As JHU/APL
    notes, the subject of appropriate categories for DSRC devices "is
    still being written . . . by the DSRC Standards Writing
    Group."[^116] Similar to our reasoning on the emission mask issue
    addressed herein,[^117] we believe it would be more appropriate for
    the DSRC Standards Writing Group to complete its evaluation of this
    subject and incorporate any necessary changes into the DSRC Standard
    before we consider incorporating the principles into our rules on an
    *ad hoc*, piecemeal basis. Accordingly, we decline to adopt another
    class of OBUs at this time.

## Antenna Height Correction Factor

32. Section 90.377 of our Rules[^118] requires that RSUs with antenna
    elevations from between six and fifteen meters[^119] must operate at
    reduced power levels as a function of their antenna height, where
    the reduction in power level in dB is given by 20 log (Ht/6), where
    Ht is the height of the radiation center of the antenna in
    meters.[^120] 3M essentially argues that this power reduction
    requirement, at least as it applies to public safety priority
    systems, is excessive and unnecessary, because the reduced power
    would limit the range within which emergency responders could
    preempt traffic lights unless multiple antennas were installed to
    control a single intersection.[^121] It contends that the "data
    bursts" used for intersection control are sufficiently brief that
    they offer little interference potential and that an acceptable
    compromise between range and interference potential would result if
    we (a) applied the power reduction factor only to RSUs with antenna
    heights greater than eight meters; or (b) exempted public safety
    priority systems from the power reduction rule.[^122] ARINC agrees
    with 3M that the power reduction should apply only to antenna
    heights above eight meters, but opposes 3M's request that the
    antenna correction factor not apply to public safety priority
    systems because of the potential for interference inherent in higher
    RSU antenna elevations.[^123]

33. 3M is currently involved in the research and development of DSRC
    intersection priority control systems, and we credit its
    representation that maintaining the current power reduction factor
    could restrict system range unless additional, and more costly,
    antennas were installed at each controlled intersection.[^124] We
    agree with ARINC that modifying the antenna factor to 20 log (Ht/8)
    does not undermine the technical provisions in the ASTM
    standard.[^125] While we understand that the modified antenna factor
    will also permit stations higher power,[^126] we agree with 3M that
    considering the short duration of communications, harmful
    interference to other licensees is unlikely.[^127] However, we are
    concerned that a blanket exemption from the power reduction
    requirement for public safety systems could result in unacceptable
    increases in potential interference.[^128] Accordingly, we amend the
    power reduction rule to apply only to RSU antenna heights between
    eight and fifteen meters, but apply the rule to all users.

## Dual-Band DSRC

34. ARINC observes that DSRC services were envisioned in both the 5.9
    GHz ITS band and the adjoining Unlicensed National Information
    Infrastructure (UNII) band at 5.725-7.825 GHz, but is concerned that
    dual band operation, involving an adjacent unlicensed service, could
    result in unauthorized use of the 5.9 GHz band.[^129] It therefore
    requests that DSRC devices have a "unique identifier or other
    mechanism to be authorized and/or enabled to provide DSRC services
    in the 5.9 GHz band."[^130] ARINC's comments, without more, are too
    speculative and non-specific to warrant Commission action at this
    time. Indeed, ARINC itself notes that the issue it raises is still
    preliminary and is under consideration by the Institute of
    Electrical and Electronics Engineers.[^131] Accordingly, we decline
    to take action on the request at this time.

## Further Proceedings

35. As stated in the *DSRC Report and Order,* we recognize that the
    ASTM-DSRC Standard will be subject to future revision in order to
    reflect technological advances.[^132] However, in consideration of
    the "rigorous and detailed mandates" of the standard and how future
    revisions might affect a "widespread" incumbent base, we
    specifically declined to adopt an "automatic update" rule.[^133]
    ARINC now suggests that the instant docket be "kept open" until a
    revised ASTM DSRC Standard is developed and the public is afforded
    an opportunity for review and comment.[^134] Since the Commission's
    adoption of the ASTM-DSRC Standard in February 2004, the ASTM E17.51
    DSRC Standards Writing Group has prepared several revisions to the
    standard,[^135] and ARINC notes that the revisions are expected to
    be voted on by ASTM members in the near future, then published
    shortly thereafter.[^136]

36. *Decision.* We recognize that the ASTM-DSRC Standard may be subject
    to periodic revisions in the future. We will accept proposals filed
    in this docket to incorporate revisions to the ASTM standard from
    the ASTM E17.51 DSRC Standards Writing Group upon publication of the
    revisions referred to *supra.*[^137]

#  Procedural Matters

## Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

37. As required by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), *see* 5
    U.S.C. § 604, the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final
    Regulatory Certification for the *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* and
    is included at Appendix B.

    **V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

38. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 302,
    303(f) and (r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1, 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332, this
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order* is ADOPTED.

39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Parts 90 and 95 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 90, 95, ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix
    A, effective sixty days after publication of this *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order* in the Federal Register.

40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405,
    and Section 1.106(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.106(a)(1), the petitions for reconsideration of 3M Company, ARINC
    Incorporated, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, and
    Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, filed on
    September 2, 2004 in WT Docket 01-90, ARE GRANTED IN PART to the
    extent discussed herein, and otherwise ARE DENIED.

41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, including the
    Supplemental Final Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

> Federal Communications Commission
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary
>
> **APPENDIX A**
>
> **FINAL RULES**

Parts 1, 90, and 95 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:

**I. PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE**

1.  The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

    AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and
    325(e).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
42. Section 1.946 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
    follows:

**§ 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

. (d) [Licensee notification of compliance]{.underline}. A licensee who
commences service or operations within the construction period or meets
its coverage or substantial services obligations within the coverage
period must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601. The
notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the
applicable construction or coverage period. Where the authorization is
site-specific, if service or operations have begun using some, but not
all, of the authorized transmitters, the notification must show to which
specific transmitters it applies.

\* \* \* \* \*

**II. PART 90 -- PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

43. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

    AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
    303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

\* \* \* \* \*

44. Section 90.155 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.155 Time in which station must be placed in operation.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) in the 5850-5925 MHz band must be
placed in operation within 12 months from the date of registration (see
§ 90.375 of this part) or the authority to operate the RSUs cancels
automatically (see § 1.955 of this chapter). Such registration date(s)
do not change the overall renewal period of the single license.
Licensees must notify the Commission in accordance with § 1.946 of this
chapter when registered units are placed in operation within their
construction period.

45. Section 90.377 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 90.377 Frequencies available; maximum EIRP and antenna height, and
priority communications.**

\(a\) Licensees shall transmit only the power (EIRP) needed to
communicate with an OBU within the communications zone and must take
steps to limit the Roadside Unit (RSU) signal within the zone to the
maximum extent practicable.

\(b\) Frequencies available for assignment to eligible applicants within
the 5850-5925 MHz band for RSUs and the maximum EIRP permitted for an
RSU with an antenna height not exceeding 8 meters above the roadway bed
surface are specified in the table below. Where two EIRP limits are
given, the higher limit is permitted only for state or local
governmental entities.

\\1\\ An RSU may employ an antenna with a height exceeding 8 meters but
not exceeding 15 meters provided the EIRP specified in the table above
is reduced by a factor of 20 log(Ht/8) in dB where Ht is the height of
the radiation center of the antenna in meters above the roadway bed
surface. The EIRP is measured as the maximum EIRP toward the horizon or
horizontal, whichever is greater, of the gain associated with the main
or center of the transmission beam. The RSU antenna height shall not
exceed 15 meters above the roadway bed surface.

\\2\\ Channel 172 is designated for public safety applications involving
safety of life and property.

\\3\\ Channel Nos. 174/176 may be combined to create a twenty megahertz
channel, designated Channel No. 175. Channels 180/182 may be combined to
create a twenty-megahertz channel, designated Channel No. 181.

\\4\\ Channel 184 is designated for public safety applications involving
safety of life and property. Only those entities meeting the
requirements of 90.373(a) are eligible to hold an authorization to
operate on this channel.

\(c\) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e), non-reserve DSRCS
channels are available on a shared basis only for use in accordance with
the Commission's Rules. All licensees shall cooperate in the selection
and use of channels in order to reduce interference. This includes
monitoring for communications in progress and any other measures as may
be necessary to minimize interference. Licensees of RSUs suffering or
causing harmful interference within a communications zone are expected
to cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Commission may
impose restrictions including specifying the transmitter power, antenna
height and direction, additional filtering, or area or hours of
operation of the stations concerned. Further the use of any channel at a
given geographical location may be denied when, in the judgment of the
Commission, its use at that location is not in the public interest; use
of any such channel may be restricted as to specified geographical
areas, maximum power, or such other operating conditions, contained in
this part or in the station authorization.

\(d\) *Safety/public safety priority*. The following access priority
governs all DSRCS operations:

\(1\) communications involving the safety of life have access priority
over all other DSRCS communications;

\(2\) subject to a control channel priority system management strategy
(see ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard at § 4.1.1.2(4)), DSRCS communications
involving public safety have access priority over all other DSRC
communications not listed in paragraph (d)(1). Roadside Units (RSUs)
operated by state or local governmental entities are presumptively
engaged in public safety priority communications.

\(e\) *Non-priority communications*. DSRCS communications not listed in
paragraph (d) are non-priority communications. If a dispute arises
concerning non-priority communications, the licensee of the
later-registered RSU must accommodate the operation of the early
registered RSU, *i.e.*, interference protection rights are
date-sensitive, based on the date that the RSU is first registered (see
§ 90.375 of this part) and the later-registered RSU must modify its
operations to resolve the dispute in accordance with paragraph (f).

\(f\) Except as otherwise provided in the ASTM-DSRC Standard (see §
90.379 of this part) for the purposes of paragraph (e), objectionable
interference will be considered to exist when the Commission receives a
complaint and the difference in signal strength between the
earlier-registered RSU and the later-registered RSU (anywhere within the
earlier-registered RSU's communication zone) is 18 dB or less
(co-channel). Later-registered RSUs causing objectionable interference
must correct the interference immediately unless written consent is
obtained from the licensee of the earlier-registered RSU.

**III. PART 95 -- PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES**

46. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:

    AUTHORITY: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
    U.S.C. 154, 303.

    5\. Section 95.1511 is amended to read as follows:

    **§ 95.1511 Frequencies available.**

\(a\) The following table indicates the channel designations of
frequencies available for assignment to eligible applicants within the
5850-5925 MHz band for On-Board Units (OBUs):^1^

  ------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
  **Channel No.**           **Channel Use**        **Frequency Range
                                                   (MHz)**

  170                       Reserved               5850-5855

  172                       Service Channel^2^     5855-5865

  174                       Service Channel        5865-5875

  175                       Service Channel^3^     5865-5885

  176                       Service Channel        5875-5885

  178                       Control Channel        5885-5895

  180                       Service Channel        5895-5905

  181                       Service Channel^3^     5895-5915

  182                       Service Channel        5905-5915

  184                       Service Channel^4^     5915-5925
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------

\\1\\ The maximum output power for portable DSRCS-OBUs is 1.0 mW. See
§ 95.639(i).

\\2\\ Channel 172 is designated for public safety applications involving
safety of life and property.

\\3\\ Channel Nos. 174/176 may be combined to create a twenty megahertz
channel, designated Channel No. 175. Channels 180/182 may be combined to
create a twenty-megahertz\
channel, designated Channel No. 181.

\\4\\ Channel 184 is designated for public safety applications involving
safety of life and property.

\(b\) Except as provided in paragraph (c), non-reserve DSRCS channels
are available on a shared basis only for use in accordance with the
Commission's Rules. All licensees shall cooperate in the selection and
use of channels in order to reduce interference. This includes
monitoring for communications in progress and any other measures as may
be necessary to minimize interference. Licensees suffering or causing
harmful interference within a communications zone are expected to
cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Commission may
impose restrictions, including specifying the transmitter power, antenna
height and direction, additional filtering, or area or hours of
operation of the stations concerned. Further, the use of any channel at
a given geographical location may be denied when, in the judgment of the
Commission, its use at that location is not in the public interest; the
use of any channel may be restricted as to specified geographical areas,
maximum power, or such other operating conditions, contained in this
part or in the station authorization.

\(c\) *Safety/public safety priority*. The following access priority
governs all DSRCS operations:

\(1\) communications involving the safety of life have access priority
over all other DSRCS communications;

\(2\) subject to a control channel priority system management strategy
(see ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard at § 4.1.1.2(4)), DSRCS communications
involving public safety have access priority over all other DSRC
communications not listed in paragraph (c)(1). On-Board Units (OBUs)
operated by state or local governmental entities are presumptively
engaged in public safety priority communications.

\(d\) *Non-priority communications*. DSRCS communications not listed in
paragraph (c) are non-priority communications. If a dispute arises
concerning non-priority DSRCS-OBU communications with Roadside Units
(RSUs), the provisions of §§ 90.377(e) and (f) of this chapter will
apply. Disputes concerning non-priority DSRCS-OBU communications not
associated with RSUs are governed by paragraph (b) of this section.

APPENDIX B

SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION

1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^138] a
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was
incorporated in the *DSRC Report and Order.*[^139] In view of the fact
that we have adopted further rule amendments in this *Memorandum Opinion
and Order (MO&O)*, we have included this Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification. This Certification conforms to the RFA.[^140]

2\. The RFA requires that regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared
for rulemaking proceedings unless the agency certifies that \"the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.\" The RFA generally defines
\"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the term \"small
business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
jurisdiction.\" In addition, the term \"small business\" has the same
meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).

3\. This *Memorandum Opinion and Order* amends our rules to require
licensees to file a notice of construction to the Commission for each
site registered and clarify that site priority attaches to prior
registered sites that have fully constructed within the twelve month
construction period; amends the antenna height correction factor adopted
for DSRC to increase flexibility and reduce implementation costs to
public safety, and designates Channel 172 (5.855-5.865 GHz) for
vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications for accident avoidance and
mitigation, and Channel 184 (5.915-5.925 GHz) for high- power,
longer-distance communications for public safety applications and road
intersection vehicular collision mitigation. These rule changes are not
expected to affect the cost of DSRC equipment or implementation.
Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this *Memorandum Opinion
and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

4\. The Commission will send a copy of the *Memorandum Opinion and
Order,* including a copy of this final certification, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* and this
certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. A copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and
Order* and (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.[^141]

**APPENDIX C**

**LIST OF PETITIONERS AND COMMENTERS**

**[Petitioners]{.underline}**

3M Company (3M)

ARINC, Incorporated (ARINC)

Applied Physics Laboratory of John Hopkins University (JHU/APL)

Intelligent Transport Society of America (ITS America)

**[Commenter]{.underline}**

ARINC

**[Reply Commenters]{.underline}**

3M

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)

ARINC

Mark IV IVHS, Inc. (Mark IV)

Raytheon Company (Raytheon)

Satellite Industry Association (SIA)

SIRIT Technologies (SIRIT)

TransCore (Transcore)

JHU/APL

**[Ex Partes]{.underline}**

ARINC

Comsearch

DSRC/FSS Industry Working Group (jointly sponsored by ITS America,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offices
(AASHTO) and SIA

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

Alliance

[^1]: *See* 3M Company (3M), Petition For Reconsideration (filed Sept.
    2, 2004) by Edmund J. Ring (3M Petition); ARINC Incorporated
    (ARINC), Petition For Reconsideration and/or Clarification of ARINC,
    Incorporated (filed Sept. 2, 2004) by Robert B. Kelly, Esq., of the
    law firm of Squires, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. (ARINC Petition);
    Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America),
    Petition For Reconsideration or Clarification, WT Docket 01-90
    (filed Sept. 2, 2004) by Neil D. Schuster (ITS America Petition);
    and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL),
    Comments to Federal Communications Commission (filed Sept. 2, 2004)
    by Robert T. Soranno and Ronald K. Char (JHU/APL Petition).

[^2]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Dedicated
    Short-Range Communication Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9
    GHz Band), WT Docket No. 01-90, *Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 2458
    (2004) (*DSRC Report and Order*)*.* On September 30, 2004, the
    Bureau issued a public notice providing additional information on
    the licensing and transmitter location registration process for
    DSRC. *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Details
    Concerning the Licensing and Transmitter Location Registration
    Process for the Dedicated Short Range Communications Service in the
    Intelligent Transportation Service, *Public Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd 954
    (PSCID WTB 2004).

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.371.

[^4]: *See* § 6051 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
    Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991) (ISTEA).

[^5]: *See* ISTEA § 6053(b). Section 6053(b) states:

    The Secretary shall develop and implement standards and protocols to
    promote the widespread use and evaluation of intelligent
    vehicle-highway systems technology as a component of the Nation's
    surface transportation systems. To the extent practicable, such
    standards and protocols shall promote compatibility among
    intelligent vehicle-highway systems technologies implemented
    throughout the States. In carrying out this subsection, the
    Secretary may use the services of such existing standards-setting
    organizations as the Secretary determines appropriate.

[^6]: *See* Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century, Pub. L.
    105-178, 112 Stat. 107 § 5206(f) (1998) (TEA-21).

[^7]: *See* 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, ET Docket No. 98-95, *Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 18221
    (1999) (*Allocation Report and Order*).

[^8]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Dedicated
    Short Range Communication Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9
    GHz Band), WT Docket No. 01-90, and Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of
    the Commission's Rules to Allocate the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band to the
    Mobile Services for Dedicated Short Range Communications of
    Intelligent Transportation Services, ET Docket No. 98-95, RM 9096,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 23136 (2002)
    (*NPRM*).

[^9]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, note 2, *supra*.

[^10]: *See* American Society for Testing and Materials (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).

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart M.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart L.

[^13]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2489 ¶ 58.

[^14]: *See* ARINC Petition at 3-6; ARINC August 5, 2005 *Ex Parte* at
    8-9; ITS America Petition at 2; JHU Petition at 2, 14.

[^15]: *See* ARINC Petition at 11.

[^16]: *See Id.* at 12-13.

[^17]: ITS America Petition at 2-3.

[^18]: *See* ARINC Petition at 15-17; *see also* DOT *Ex Parte*
    submission (filed Nov. 23, 2004) at 1.

[^19]: *See* 3M Petition at 12-14.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.375. *See* ARINC Petition at 19-20.

[^21]: *See* 3M Petition at 4-8.

[^22]: *See* ARINC Petition at 14.

[^23]: *See id.* at ii. We also note that the Satellite Industry
    Association (SIA) urges that the Commission should delay the
    licensing of DSRC stations until technical studies to define
    interference contours are conducted. *See* SIA reply comments (filed
    Oct. 27, 2004) at 1.

[^24]: ARINC August 5, 2005 *Ex Parte* at 6.

[^25]: *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*); Allocations
    and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands,
    WT Docket 02-146, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 20 FCC Rcd 4889
    (2005).

[^26]: ARINC August 5, 2005 *Ex Parte* at 6.

    ^?^ *See Id.* at 8-9.

[^27]: *Id.* at 6-8.

[^28]: In a priority access framework, higher priority messages, *i.e.,*
    safety-of-life first followed by public safety, would precede lower
    priority or non-priority messages.

[^29]: *Id.* at 6.

[^30]: Under a "listen-before-send" protocol, prior to sending messages,
    communications equipment first listens for any other transmissions,
    and then sends the information only if no other transmissions are
    detected.

[^31]: Potential scenarios could include, ARINC states, situations where
    two messages to be transmitted contain the same priority
    designations. *Id.* at 7.

[^32]: *See id.* at 8.

[^33]: *See* *70/80/90 GHz Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 23318,
    23339-342 ¶¶ 48-57 (2003).

[^34]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2485 ¶ 56.

[^35]: *See* ARINC Petition at 3-4; ITS America Petition at 2; JHU/APL
    Petition at 12.

[^36]: *See* ARINC August 5, 2005 *Ex Parte* at 5-9.

[^37]: *See* Comsearch *Ex Parte* at 4.

[^38]: Service Channels are channels specifically assigned or designated
    based on frequency coordinator recommendation.

[^39]: *See* ARINC Petition at 4-7.

[^40]: *See* ARINC August 5, 2005 *Ex Parte* at 10-11, *citing*
    Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands,
    WT Docket No. 02-146, 18 FCC Rcd 23318, 23338 (2003). *See also,*
    Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands,
    WT Docket No. 02-146, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd
    4889, 4894 ¶ 11 (2005) (*70/80/90 GHz MO&O*).

[^41]: *See id*. at 6-7, 12-13. ARINC asserts that the analysis would be
    conducted based on established interference protection criteria, but
    that the relevant protection criteria would need to be developed.
    *Id.* at 13 n.35.

[^42]: *See id*. at 15; ITS America Petition at 1-2; JHU/APL Petition at
    12.

[^43]: ARINC Aug. 5, 2005 *Ex Parte* at 6.

[^44]: *Id.* at 7.

[^45]: *Id.*

[^46]: *See DSRC Report and Order* 19 FCC Rcd at 2487 ¶ 57.

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 95.1115.

[^48]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.377*.*

[^49]: *See* paragraphs 16-17, *infra*.

[^50]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2473 ¶ 29.

[^51]: ITS America *Ex Parte* Comments (filed Nov. 14, 2003) (emphasis
    in original). *See also DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2473 ¶
    28.

[^52]: *See* ITS America *Ex Parte* Comments (filed Nov. 14, 2003):
    Status Report and Recommendations for Licensing and Service Rules
    for the DSRC Spectrum in the 5850-5925 MHz Band from Mark D.
    Johnson, counsel to ITS America, to Federal Communications
    Commission (filed July 9, 2002) at Appendix D*. See also DSRC Report
    and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2473 ¶ 28.

[^53]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2473 ¶ 29.

[^54]: *Id.*

[^55]: *See* ARINC Petition at 15-17; ITS America Petition at 2-3 (ITS
    America filed its petition on this issue only with respect to
    Channel 172).

[^56]: ITS America did not comment on the reservation of Channel 184.
    *See* ITS America Petition at 2-3.

[^57]: *See* Alliance *Ex Parte* Comments at 1.

[^58]: ARINC Petition at 16.

[^59]: Alliance *Ex Parte* Comments at 3-5, *citing* a report prepared
    by the Vehicle Safety Communications Project, a joint project
    involving certain Alliance members and the Department of
    Transportation.

[^60]: *See* ARINC Petition at 16.

[^61]: *Id.* at 17. ARINC states that with DSRC signal light preemption,
    "the signal lights at an intersection can be turned to green or held
    green longer before an oncoming police car or bus, creating a 'green
    wave' and allowing higher priority vehicles to reach their
    destination faster or maintain their route timing." *Id.*

[^62]: *Id.*

[^63]: *See* ARINC Petition at 16; *see* Alliance *Ex Parte* Comments at
    4.

[^64]: *See* ARINC Petition at 15-17; *see* Alliance *Ex Parte* Comments
    at 4.

[^65]: Section 90.173 of the Commission's Rules states that private land
    mobile radio frequencies are available on a shared basis and will
    not be assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee, unless
    specifically excepted under Part 90 of the Commission's rules. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 90.173(a). Section 90.173(b) also provides that
    licensees shall cooperate in the use of frequencies in order to
    reduce interference and to make the most efficient use of the
    spectrum authorized, and that licensees of stations suffering or
    causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and to
    resolve the problem of interference by mutually satisfactory
    arrangements. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(b). Section 90.403 contains
    operating requirements, such as restriction of transmissions to the
    minimum practicable transmission time and monitoring of the
    transmitting frequency for communications in progress. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 90.403. *See also, e.g.,* Spectrum Efficiency in the
    Private Land Mobile Radio Bands in Use Prior to 1968, PR Docket No.
    91-170, *Notice of Inquiry,* 6 FCC Rcd 4126, 4129 ¶ 22 (1991); Part
    74, Subpart F of the Commission's Rules to Permit Shared Use of
    Broadcast Auxiliary Facilities with Other Broadcast and
    Non-broadcast Entities and to Establish New Licensing Policies for
    Television Broadcast Auxiliary Stations, BC Docket No. 81-794,
    *Report and Order,* 93 FCC 2d 570, 573 ¶10 (1983).

[^66]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.429, 1.106; *Hazel-Atlas
    Co. v. Hartford Co.*, 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944), *Greater
    Boston Television Corporation v. FCC*, 463 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir.
    1971); *KIRO, Inc., v. FCC*, 438 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Radio
    Para La Raza, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 40 FCC 2d 1102 (1973);
    ADF Communications, Inc.; Applications for a New 470 MHz Radio
    Station in Boston, Massachusetts, File No. A007179, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd 17037, 17038 (1999).

[^67]: *See* ARINC Petition at 15.

[^68]: *See* Alliance *Ex Parte* Comments at 6.

[^69]: We believe that vehicle-to-vehicle collision avoidance and
    mitigation communications will not suffer delays from being on the
    same channel as other public safety operations since collision
    avoidance will likely have the highest priority, enabling it to
    precede or interrupt other public safety communication.

[^70]: *See* 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
    also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.379, 95.1509.

[^71]: *See DSRC Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 2470 ¶¶ 21-22.

[^72]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.379. Also, in the *4.9 GHz* proceeding, the
    Commission adopted two of the emission masks from the ASTM-DSRC
    standard: the Class A mask \-- for low power (20 dBm and less), and
    the Class C mask \-- for higher power operations. *See* The 4.9 GHz
    Band Transferred from Federal Government Use, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, WT Docket No. 00-32, 19 FCC Rcd 22325, 2237-329 ¶¶ 5-13
    (2004).

[^73]: *See* 3M Petition at 12-14.

[^74]: *See* ASTM DSRC Standard at 11.

[^75]: See 3M petition at 13-14.

[^76]: *See DSRC Report and Order* 19 FCC Rcd at 2492-94 ¶¶ 76-80;
    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, ET
    Docket No. 98-95, *Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 18221, 18228 ¶ 15
    (1999) (*Allocation Report and Order*).

[^77]: *See id.* at 2494 ¶ 79.

[^78]: *See id.* at 2494 ¶ 80; JHU/APL Petition at 2 n.1, *citing* Frank
    H. Sanders, "Measured Occupancy of 5850-5925 MHz and Adjacent 5-GHz
    Spectrum in the United States," NTIA Report 00-373 to U.S.
    Department of Commerce, William M. Daley, Secretary, December 1999
    (FSS Study); *see also* JHU/APL Petition, Enclosure to
    SSD-PL-04-0457 at 4: Formation of the FSS Interference Study Group
    (membership comprised of participants from the Federal Highway
    Administration, ITS America, JHU/APL, ARINC, Mitretek Systems and
    SIA (PanAmSat, New Skies, and Intelsat)).

[^79]: JHU/APL Petition, Enclosure to SSD-PL-04-0457 at 3-4.

[^80]: *See* JHU/APL Petition at 4. To date, the Commission has not
    received this study nor notice of release of this study.

[^81]: *Id*. at 1-2. SIA concurs in this assessment of the interference
    potential to DSRC stations from in-band and adjacent FSS earth
    stations. *See* SIA reply comments at 1.

[^82]: JHU/APL Petition, Enclosure to SSD-PL-04-0457 at 2-4 *citing* FSS
    Study.

[^83]: The interference contour, *i.e.,* mitigation zone plot, is a
    composite mapping of all of the worst case side lobe and rear lobe
    emissions from an earth station to a specified interference
    objective as a function of its licensed latitudinal and longitudinal
    arcs. *Id.* at 5. It is a graphical representation of the effects of
    the earth station transmitter's power, the RSU antenna gain, the
    RSU's maximum permissible interference power criteria and the earth
    station horizon gain. *Id*. at 5-6.

[^84]: *Id.* at 6.

[^85]: *Id.* at 10.

[^86]: The nine sites were in Atlanta, Georgia; Boston, Massachusetts;
    Fargo, North Dakota; Brewster, Washington; San Francisco,
    California; Three Peaks, California; Lincoln, Nebraska; Miami,
    Florida; and DeSoto, Texas. JHU/APL Petition, Enclosure to
    SSD-PL-04-0457 at 6. The group chose these sites to represent the
    northern, central and southern portions of the east coast, west cost
    and central United States. *Id*.

[^87]: JHU/APL Petition, Enclosure to SSD-PL-04-0457 at 10.

[^88]: *Id*.

[^89]: *Id*. at 11.

[^90]: SIA reply comments at 1-2.

[^91]: *Id.* at 2.

[^92]: ARINC Petition at 9.

[^93]: ARINC *Ex Parte* at 13 n.35.

[^94]: *See* ARINC Petition at 21.

[^95]: *Id.* The two industry groups initiated discussions to ascertain
    the potential for harmful interference, and to develop a "sharing
    protocol" for DSRC and FSS operations. *See also* ARINC *Ex Parte*
    at 9 n.20.

[^96]: ARINC Petition at 21.

[^97]: *See* ARINC Petition at 21; JHU/APL Petition at 4; and SIA
    comments at 2.

[^98]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2494 ¶¶ 79-80. Also
    *see* SIA reply comments at 2.

[^99]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(d) provides that a licensee that commences
    service or operations within the construction period or meets its
    coverage or substantial service obligations within the coverage
    period must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601.

[^100]: *See* ARINC Petition at 12-13.

[^101]: *Id.* at 13.

[^102]: *Id.*

[^103]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Enhance its
    Universal Licensing System to More Accurately Reflect Termination of
    Unconstructed Licenses, *Public Notice,* 20 FCC Rcd 1455 (WTB 2005).

[^104]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Deployment of
    "Auto-Term," the Automated Feature in its Universal Licensing System
    That Identifies Unconstructed Stations Resulting in Automatic
    Termination of Licensees, *Public Notice,*21 FCC Rcd 163 (WTB 2006).

[^105]: *See DSRC Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 2495 ¶ 83.

[^106]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.155(i).

[^107]: *See* ARINC Petition at 13.

[^108]:
    > Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish New Personal
    > Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Memorandum
    > Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 4957 (1994) (purpose of construction
    > requirement is to make \[spectrum\] available to as many
    > communities as possible and ensure that the spectrum is used
    > effectively); *see also* Winstar Wireless Fiber Corporation and
    > New Winstar Spectrum, LLC, *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 7118, 7124 ¶ 15
    > (PSPWD WTB 2002) (underlying purpose of the construction
    > requirement includes ensuring the effective use of spectrum;
    > recovering licenses quickly from licensees unable to construct).

[^109]: *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23167 ¶ 51.

[^110]: *See DSRC Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 2485 ¶ 67.

[^111]: ARINC Petition at 19.

[^112]: *Id*.

[^113]: *Id.* at 19-20.

[^114]: *Id.* at 19.

[^115]: *Id.*

[^116]: JHU/APL, Enclosure SSD-PL-04-0457 at 14.

[^117]: *See* paragraphs 18-19, *supra.*

[^118]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.377.

[^119]: An RSU may not employ an antenna height that exceeds 15 meters
    above the roadway bed surface. *See id.*

[^120]: *See id.* The reduction factor employed was proposed by ITS
    America. *See* *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23177-8 ¶ 72 *citing* Ex Parte
    Comments of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America:
    Status Report and Recommendations for Licensing and Service Rules
    for the DSRC Spectrum in the 5850-5925 MHz Band from Mark D.
    Johnson, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey to Federal Communications
    Commission at 19 (filed July 9, 2002) (July Ex Parte Comments).

[^121]: *See* 3M Petition at 5-8.

[^122]: *See id.* at 2; *see* 3M *Ex Parte* Comments (filed Oct. 31,
    2003) at 10.

[^123]: ARINC Comments on 3M's Petition For Reconsideration at 5-6.

[^124]: *See* 3M Petition at ii, 1-2.

[^125]: ARINC Comments on 3M's Petition For Reconsideration at 5-6.

[^126]: For example, at a height of ten meters, the 20 log (Ht/6)
    formula requires a 4.44 dB reduction in power, while the 20 log
    (Ht/8) formula only requires a 1.94 dB reduction, a 2.5 dB increase
    (or a proportional increase in power of 7/9) permitted under the new
    formula.

[^127]: *See* 3M *Ex Parte* at 9.

[^128]: ARINC Comments on 3 M's Petition For Reconsideration at 7.

[^129]: ARINC Petition at 14.

[^130]: *Id.*

[^131]: *Id.* The IEEE is a non-profit, technical professional
    association of more than 360,000 individual members in approximately
    175 countries. It publishes technical papers, conducts conferences
    and consensus-based standards activities. *See*
    [http://www.ieee.org.]{.underline}

[^132]: *See DSRC Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 2470 ¶ 22.

[^133]: *Id.* With respect to the term "automatic update," ITS America
    and several other commenters urged the adoption of a rule that
    automatically requires new equipment to meet future versions of the
    ASTM-DSRC Standard. *See* *id.*

[^134]: *See* ARINC Petition at 19.

[^135]: *Id.* at 18.

[^136]: *Id.* at 19. ARINC expected the revisions to be voted on in late
    2005, but that has not yet occurred.

[^137]: Pursuant to the Commission's rules, parties may initiate a new
    proceeding by filing a petition for rule making or the Commission
    may institute such a proceeding on its own motion. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.411. In either event, a new docket number will be assigned. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 1.413(d).

[^138]: Regulatory Flexibility Act § 603, 5 U.S.C. § 603 (2005).

[^139]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Dedicated
    Short-Range Communication Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9
    GHz Band), *Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 2458, 2496 ¶ 87 (2004)
    (*DSRC Report and Order*)*.*

[^140]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^141]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).