**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          | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**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]{.smallcaps}**

[Para. No.]{.underline}

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

d\. Power Limits 35

e\. Emission Limits 36

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

# Introduction

1.  In this proceeding, we are adopting licensing and service rules for
    the Dedicated Short Range Communications Service (DSRCS) in the
    Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Radio Service in the
    5.850-5.925 GHz band (5.9 GHz band). We believe that the rules we
    adopt today further the important Commission goal of striking a
    sound balance between \"flexible\" rules that more easily facilitate
    the development and offering of new and innovative services and the
    \"command and control\" approach that is often regarded as necessary
    for effective public safety communications. We also believe that
    this approach is particularly appropriate in the context of the
    transportation industry, which involves protecting the safety of the
    traveling public.

2.  DSRC provides the critical communications link for intelligent
    transportation systems,[^1] which according to the Secretary of
    Transportation, are the key to achieving the United States
    Department of Transportation's (DOT) number one priority, reducing
    highway fatalities.[^2] Each year, hazards or driver error lead to
    more than six million crashes that---

-   cause nearly 43,000 deaths and 3 million injuries;

-   cost "more than \$230 billion dollars; and

-   consume a greater share of the Nation's health care costs than any
    other cause of illness injury." [^3]

3.  Time is critical in crash avoidance---at 70 miles per hour, a
    vehicle travels more than 100 feet every second.[^4] Dedicated
    short-range communications (DSRC), which involves vehicle-to-vehicle
    and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, can save lives by
    warning drivers of an impending dangerous condition or event in time
    to take corrective or evasive actions. For example, one life-saving
    ITS application made possible by DSRC is intersection collision
    avoidance (*e.g.*, audible alarm: "Intersection ahead with red light
    -- STOP."). The intersection collision avoidance application will
    use roadside speed and location sensing equipment, DSRC equipment,
    in-vehicle signing and trajectory computing and control electronics
    to help drivers avoid intersection collisions, the most prevalent
    type of traffic accident in the U.S. Intersection collision
    avoidance functions through the application of the "three Ps" --
    perceive, process, and present. First, sensors perceive the
    location, trajectory and speed of other vehicles. Next, processors
    calculate the likelihood of a collision and avoidance actions.
    Finally, information is presented to the driver in one of three
    forms: information on threats; instructions regarding evasive
    actions; or a partial system take-over of control of the vehicle.
    For example, a driver can be alerted when a high speed vehicle is
    approaching as she waits to cross a roadway. In addition, drivers
    can receive warning of an approaching vehicle about to run a red
    light or of the speed of on-coming vehicles when making a left
    turn.[^5] Our decision today to adopt a technical standard for all
    DSRC devices promotes a nationwide solution to the transportation
    safety challenges faced by all Americans.

4.  The inefficiency of our surface transportation system also has costs
    on both the societal and individual level. According to one study,
    in 2000 the seventy-five largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6
    billion vehicle-hours of delay resulting in 5.7 billion gallons of
    wasted fuel, and \$67.5 billion in lost productivity.[^6] DSRC in
    the 5.9 GHz band will provide a critical link necessary for
    intelligent transportation systems to reduce these delays.

# executive summary

5.  In this *Report and Order*, we establish service rules to govern the
    licensing and use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz band (5.9 GHz band) for the
    Dedicated Short Range Communication Service (DSRCS) in the ITS[^7]
    radio service. Specifically, in this *Report and Order*:

-   We note that DOT envisions DSRC units in every new motor vehicle for
    life-saving communications. To ensure interoperability and robust
    safety/public safety[^8] communications among these DSRC devices
    nationwide, we adopt the standard supported by most commenters and
    developed under an accredited standard setting process (ASTM
    E2213-03 or "ASTM-DSRC").

-   We conclude that it is possible to license both public safety and
    non-public safety use of the 5.9 GHz band. Accordingly, we adopt
    open eligibility for licensing and technical rules, most of which
    are embodied in the ASTM-DSRC standard, aimed at creating a
    framework that ensures priority for public safety communications.

-   We license DSRC Roadside Units (RSUs), communication units that are
    fixed along the roadside, under subpart M (Intelligent
    Transportation Radio Service) of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules.
    Licensees will receive non-exclusive geographic-area licenses
    authorizing operation on seventy megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band. We
    also adopt a framework whereby licensees would register RSUs by site
    and segment(s).

-   We license On-Board Units (OBUs), in-vehicle communications units,
    by rule under new subpart L of Part 95 of our Rules.

# background

## Creation and Development of ITS

6.  Congress created the ITS[^9] program, a national program
    administered by the DOT in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
    Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).[^10] Congress established goals for
    the ITS program that would incorporate technology and advanced
    electronics into the nation's surface transportation infrastructure
    to improve traveler safety, decrease traffic congestion, facilitate
    the reduction of air pollution, and conserve vital fossil
    fuels.[^11] DOT selected the Intelligent Transportation Society of
    America (ITS America) [^12] as its Federal Advisory Committee
    (FAC)[^13] on ITS matters.[^14]

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 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 Orthogonal Frequency
    Division Multiplexing (OFDM), as the standard for DSRC-based ITS
    applications in the 5.9 GHz band.[^32]

## 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]

# Discussion

## Technical Rules for Interoperability and Protection of Public Safety Communications 

### 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
    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 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
    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 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.

### 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 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 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.

### The ASTM-DSRC Standard

#### 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 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.

#### 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-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] 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.

#### 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 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 seek resolution of such disputes by
    the appropriate Federal, state, or local transportation agency(s),
    in the first instance, as these issues are most appropriately
    resolved by the agency(s) with expertise in transportation matters.
    In this connection and based on the record before us, we clarify
    that it would be permissible for the Control Channel protocol to
    prioritize: Channel 172 for safety communications that involve
    vehicle safety and other high priority applications, and Channel 184
    for high power public safety and intersection collision
    applications.[^127]

#### Power Limits

35. *Power limits*. In the *Allocation Report and Order*, the Commission
    limited the peak transmit output power over the frequency band of
    operations to no more than 750 mW (28.8 dBm), and the maximum EIRP
    to no more than 30 W (44.8 dBm).[^128] In its petition, Mark IV
    Industries argued that the 750 mW (28.8 dBm) maximum output power
    was overly restrictive and should be replaced with an antenna input
    power of up to 4 watts (36 dBm).[^129] Mark IV Industries also
    states that maximum output power limit does not account for cable
    loss in cases where a transmitter and the antenna are separated by a
    large distance. However, in its comments to the *NPRM*, Mark IV
    Industries supported the adoption of the ASTM-DSRC Standard, which
    contains power level specifications for each channel, for both
    public safety and non-public safety RSUs and OBUs. We also note that
    the overwhelming majority of commenters supported the Standard.
    Thus, it appears that Mark IV Industries' concerns are satisfied by
    the incorporation of the ASTM-DSRC Standard into our Rules. The
    relevant provisions of the ASTM-DSRC Standard establish an overall
    maximum allowable EIRP at 44.8 dBm (30 W), and the maximum allowable
    device output power at 28.8 dBm (750 mW). A device is allowed to
    transmit more power to overcome cable losses to the antenna as long
    as the antenna input power does not exceed +28.8 dBm and the EIRP
    does not exceed +44.8 dBm.[^130] Further, specific channels and
    categories of uses have additional limitations, under the ASTM-DSRC
    Standard,[^131] mainly:

-   Public Safety and Private RSU installations operating in DSRC
    Channels 172, 174, 175 and 176 are used to implement small and
    medium range operations. RSU installation transmissions in DSRC
    Channels 172, 174, 176 shall not exceed 28.8 dBm antenna input power
    and 33 dBm EIRP. RSU installation transmissions in DSRC Channel 175
    shall not exceed 10 dBm antenna input power and 23 dBm EIRP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Public Safety RSU installation transmissions in DSRC Channel 178
    shall not exceed 28.8 dBm antenna input power and 44.8 dBm EIRP.
    Private RSU installation transmissions in DSRC Channel 178 shall not
    exceed 28.8 dBm antenna input power and 33 dBm EIRP.

-   The DSRC Channels 180, 181, and 182 are used to implement small zone
    operations. Public Safety and Private RSU installations in these
    DSRC channels shall not exceed 10 dBm antenna input power and 23 dBm
    EIRP. These installations shall use an antenna with a minimum 6 dBi
    gain. Interfering emissions from an RSU installation in these DSRC
    channels shall not exceed a maximum received power level of -76 dBm
    at 15 m from the installation being evaluated. The received power
    level is measured at 1.2 m above the ground with a 0 dBi antenna.

-   Public Safety RSU and OBU operations in DSRC Channel 184 shall not
    exceed 28.8 dBm antenna input power and 40 dBm EIRP. Private RSU
    operations in DSRC Channel 184 shall not exceed 28.8 dBm antenna
    input power and 33 dBm EIRP.

-   Private OBU operations in DSRC Channels 172, 174, 176, 178, and 184
    shall not exceed 28.8 dBm antenna input power and 33 dBm EIRP.
    Private OBU operations in DSRC Channel 175 shall not exceed 10 dBm
    antenna input power and 23 dBm EIRP. Private OBU operations in DSRC
    Channels 180, 181, and 182 shall not exceed 20 dBm antenna input
    power and 23 dBm EIRP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Public Safety OBU operations in DSRC Channels 172, 174, and 176
    shall not exceed 28.8 dBm antenna input power and 33 dBm EIRP.
    Public Safety OBU operations in DSRC Channel 175 shall not exceed 10
    dBm antenna input power and 23 dBm EIRP.

-   Public Safety OBU operations in Channel 178 shall not exceed 28.8
    dBm antenna input power and 44.8 dBm EIRP.

-   RSUs and OBUs shall transmit only the power needed to communicate
    over the distance required by the application being supported.

#### Emission Limits

36. In the *NPRM,* we requested comments on whether the attenuation
    schedule for the emissions mask in Section 90.210(k)(3) was
    adequate, or whether a Mark IV Industries' (Mark IV's) proposal to
    limit emissions according to the formula: 55+ 10 log (P) (P is power
    in Watts), should be adopted.[^132] Siemens Transportation Systems
    (STS) responded that the out-of-band emissions limits for many
    services, such as those managed under Parts 22, 24, and 90, only
    require attenuation according to the formula: 43 + 10 log (P).
    Furthermore, STS asserts that power densities associated with ITS
    services would likely be lower than power densities for the 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.

### 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.

#### 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 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]

#### 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 *µ*sec 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 *µ*sec and 580 *µ*sec 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]

#### 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.

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.

### 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]

## Definitional Issues 

### 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.

### 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] 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:

> 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.

## Eligibility

### 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]

### 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]

## Licensing Plan

### DSRC-to --DSRC Issues

#### 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
    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 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 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 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]

#### 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]

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 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.

### 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, 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 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 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]

### 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 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 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 safety/public safety
    applications in the DSRC, we urge the parties to conclude the
    technical study as quickly as possible to ensure that the ASTM-DSRC
    Standard will be able to provide robust and reliable DSRC operations
    near FSS uplink sites.[^273]

## General Application, Licensing, and Processing Rules

81. *Background*. In the *NPRM*, we proposed to apply the application,
    licensing, and processing rules set forth in Part 90, Subpart G and
    in Part 1, Subpart F of our Rules for public safety and for
    non-public safety licensees in the event that we selected a
    licensing framework that did not result in mutually exclusive
    applications.[^274] We also sought comment on construction or
    coverage requirements, license terms, and renewal expectancy.[^275]

82. *Discussion*. In light of the record of this proceeding and our
    decision to adopt a non-exclusive geographic area licensing scheme,
    we will apply the application, licensing, and processing rules set
    forth in Part 90, subpart G of the Commission's Rules[^276] for both
    public safety and non-public safety applicants as we proposed. We
    believe that applying Part 90, Subpart G to both public safety and
    non-public safety applicants enables sharing of the band and is
    consistent with other services subject to Part 90. As discussed,
    *supra*, CMRS is not excluded from the definition of DSRC.
    Nonetheless, except for applications that specify interconnection
    with the public switched network, we adopt a presumption that DSRC
    is private mobile radio service (PMRS). Therefore, only applicants
    that elect interconnected common carrier status will be required to
    provide the information that CMRS applicants must submit in order to
    address the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310(b) of the
    Act.[^277]

83. *Construction requirements*. ITS America recommends that we require
    both public safety and non-public safety RSUs to be placed in
    operation within twelve months from the date of license grant or the
    authorization cancels immediately.[^278] We believe that the
    overarching purpose of our requirements in this setting, concerning
    construction, modification,[^279] and discontinuance of RSUs is to
    maintain the integrity of the information in the relevant databases
    by correctly reflecting the actual record concerning these
    issues.[^280] Therefore, we will adopt the 12-month construction
    requirement found in Section 90.155 of our Rules[^281] and clarify
    that in this setting, each construction period will commence on the
    date that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau posts an RSU
    registration on the database. However, we will not require licensees
    to file notifications of compliance for each RSU as is ordinarily
    required by Section 1.946(d) of the Commission's Rules. We will
    instead rely on licensees to withdraw unconstructed or discontinued
    RSUs from the registration database. We reserve the discretion to
    revisit this issue if our experience with DSRCS indicates that
    additional measures are necessary.

## Canadian and Mexican Coordination

84. *Background*. In the *NPRM*, we noted that we do not have
    international agreements between, and among the United States,
    Mexico, and Canada concerning the 5.9 GHz band spectrum for ITS
    applications.[^282] We further noted that although the agreement
    with the Canadian Government, "Agreement Concerning the Coordination
    and Use of Radio Frequencies Above Thirty Megacycles per Second,"
    with Annex, as amended, applies to the 5.850-5.925 GHz band, no
    agreement is in place for the current ITS allocation.[^283] As a
    consequence, we stated that licensees may be subject to future
    agreements with Canada and Mexico and therefore may be subject to
    further modification. We requested comment on whether to adopt
    certain interim requirements for terrestrial licenses along these
    borders, and to provide that licensees will be subject to the
    provisions contained within future agreements between and among the
    three countries. Until such time as agreements with Mexico and
    Canada become effective, we proposed to apply the same technical
    restrictions at the border that we adopt for operation between
    service areas, *i.e.* operations must not cause harmful interference
    across the borders.[^284] Commenters on this issue noted the
    importance of spectrum harmonization across the borders.

85. *Discussion*. The record before us reflects that DSRCS operations in
    the 5.9 GHz band may be subject to future agreements with Canada and
    Mexico. As such, we could either prohibit DSRCS operations in border
    areas pending agreements or authorize DSRCS operations in border
    areas subject to modifications or future agreements. We conclude
    that the latter approach is appropriate because DSRCS operates at
    relatively low power levels that are unlikely to cause harmful
    interference to operations in Canada or Mexico. Moreover, the record
    before us reflects that Canada[^285] has allocated the 5.9 GHz band
    for DSRC use and that Mexico[^286] may allocate the 5.9 GHz band for
    DSRC use. Accordingly, we are adopting a rule that DSRCS operations
    in border areas (1) must not cause harmful interference to stations
    in Canada or Mexico (that are licensed in accordance with the
    international table of frequency allocations for Region 2, *see* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.106) and (2) are issued conditionally, subject to
    modifications or future agreements with Canada or Mexico.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

86. This *Report and Order* includes a Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis at Appendix B.

## Paperwork Reduction Analysis

87. This *Report and Order* contains either a new or modified
    information collection. As part of the Commission's continuing
    effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity
    to comment on revision to the information collections contained in
    the *Report and Order* as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
    1995.[^287] Public and agency comments are due ***\[60 days after
    date of publication in the Federal Register\]***. Comments should
    address:

-   Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practical utility.

-   The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates.

-   Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
    collected.

-   Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information technology.

    Written comments by the public on the new or modified information
    collections are due ***\[60 days from date of publication in the
    Federal Register.\]*** Written comments must be submitted by the
    public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested
    parties on the new and/or modified information collections on or
    before ***\[60 days from date of publication in the Federal
    Register.\]*** In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a
    copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act comments on the information
    collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judith B.
    Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th
    Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer,
    Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 via the
    Internet to <Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov> or by fax to 202-395-5167.

## Further Information

88. For further information concerning the *Report and Order,* contact
    Nancy M. Zaczek regarding legal maters, and/or Gerardo Mejia
    regarding engineering matters via phone at (202) 418-0680, via
    TTY (202) 1418-7233, via e-mail at <Nancy.Zaczek@fcc.gov>;
    <Gerardo.Mejia@fcc.gov>, respectively, or via regular mail at
    Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.

89. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette,
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or
    via e-mail to <bmillin@fcc.gov>. This *Report and Order* can be
    downloaded at <http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html#orders>.

# Ordering clauses

90. 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
    *Report and Order* is ADOPTED.

91. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 0, 1, 2, 90, and 95 of the
    Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective
    sixty days after publication in the Federal Register. Information
    collection contained in these rules will be effective upon OMB
    approval.

92. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this REPORT AND ORDER, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, 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 0, 1, 2, 90, and 95 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are amended as follows:

**I.** **PART 0 -- COMMISSION ORGANIZATION**

1\. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless
otherwise noted.

2\. Section 0.331 is amended as follows:

**§ 0.331 Authority delegated.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) *Authority concerning rulemaking proceedings.* The Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau shall not have the authority to act upon
notices of proposed rulemaking and inquiry, final orders in rulemaking
proceedings and inquiry proceedings, and reports arising from any of the
foregoing except such orders involving ministerial conforming amendments
to rule parts, or orders conforming any of the applicable rules to
formally adopted international conventions or agreements where novel
questions of fact, law, or policy are not involved. In addition,
revisions to the airport terminal use list in § 90.35(c)(61) of this
chapter and revisions to the Government Radiolocation list in §
90.371(b) of this chapter need not be referred to the Commission. Also,
the addition of new Marine VHF frequency coordination committee(s) to
§  80.514 of this chapter need not be referred to the Commission if they
do not involve novel questions of fact, policy or law, as well as
requests by the United States Coast Guard to:

[]{.mark}

\* \* \* \* \*

[]{.mark}

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

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

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

2\. Paragraph (d) of section 1.946 is amended by adding the following
sentence at the end of paragraph (d) as follows:

**§ 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \* This notification requirement is not applicable to
authorizations subject to post-license registration requirements under
the Dedicated Short-Range Communication Service (DSRCS), subpart M of
part 90 of this chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

**III. PART 2 -- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO MATTERS; GENERAL RULES
AND REGULATIONS**

1\. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

2\. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
follows:

**§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations**

\* \* \* \* \*

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+---+
| 5650-7250 |           |           |           |           | Page 57 |   |
| MHz (SHF) |           |           |           |           |         |   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+---+
| Inte      |           |           | United    |           | FCC     |   |
| rnational |           |           | States    |           | Rule    |   |
| Table     |           |           | Table     |           | Part(s) |   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+---+
| Region 1  | Region 2  | > Region  | Federal   | No        |         |   |
|           |           | > 3       | G         | n-Federal |         |   |
|           |           |           | overnment | G         |         |   |
|           |           |           |           | overnment |         |   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+---+
| 5850      | 5850      | 5850      | 5650-5925 | 5850      | ISM     |   |
| -- 5925   | -- 5925   | -- 5925   |           | -- 5925   | Eq      |   |
|           |           |           | RADI      |           | uipment |   |
| FIXED     | FIXED     | FIXED     | OLOCATION | FIXED-    | (18)    |   |
|           |           |           | G2        | SATELLITE |         |   |
| FIXED-    | FIXED-    | FIXED-    |           |           | Private |   |
| SATELLITE | SATELLITE | SATELLITE | S5.150    | (Earth-   | Land    |   |
|           |           |           | US245     | to-space) |         |   |
| (Earth-   | (Earth-   | (Earth-   |           |           | Mobile  |   |
| to-space) | to-space) | to-space) |           | US245     | (90)    |   |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |   |
| MOBILE    | MOBILE    | MOBILE    |           | MOBILE    | P       |   |
|           |           |           |           | NG160     | ersonal |   |
| S5.150    | Amateur   | Radi      |           |           | Radio   |   |
|           |           | olocation |           | Amateur   |         |   |
|           | Radi      |           |           |           | S       |   |
|           | olocation | S5.150    |           | S5.150    | ervices |   |
|           |           |           |           |           | (95)    |   |
|           | S5.150    |           |           |           |         |   |
|           |           |           |           |           | Amateur |   |
|           |           |           |           |           | (97)    |   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+---+
|           |           |           |           |           |         |   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+---+

\* \* \* \* \*

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

1.  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).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
93. Section 90.7 is amended by revising the definition of "Dedicated
    Short Range Communications Services" and adding the definitions of
    "Communications Zone," "On-Board Unit (OBU)," "Roadside Unit (RSU),"
    and "Roadway bed surface", as follows:

    \* \* \* \* \*

    *Dedicated Short-Range Communications Services (DSRCS).* The use of
    radio techniques to transfer data over short distances between
    roadside and mobile 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.
    DSRCS systems may also transmit status and instructional messages
    related to the units involved.

    \* \* \* \* \*

    *Communications Zone.* The service area associated with an
    individual fixed Roadside Unit (RSU). The communications zone is
    determined based on the RSU equipment class specified in section
    90.375 of this part.

    \* \* \* \* \*

*On-Board Unit (OBU).* An On-Board Unit is a DSRCS transceiver that is
normally mounted in or on a vehicle, or which in some instances may be a
portable unit. An OBU can be operational while a vehicle or person is
either mobile or stationary. The OBUs receive and contend for time to
transmit on one or more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where
specifically excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle
operation or human passage is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles
are licensed by rule under part 95 of this chapter and communicate with
Roadside Units (RSUs) and other OBUs. Portable OBUs are also licensed by
rule under part 95 of this chapter. OBU operations in the Unlicensed
National Information Infrastructure (UNII) Bands follow the rules in
those bands.

\* \* \* \* \*

*Roadside Unit (RSU).* A Roadside Unit is a DSRC transceiver that is
mounted along a road or pedestrian passageway. 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. Furthermore, an RSU
operating under this part is restricted to the location where it is
licensed to operate. However, portable or hand-held RSUs are permitted
to operate where they do not interfere with a site-licensed operation. A
RSU broadcasts data to OBUs or exchanges data with OBUs in its
communications zone. An RSU also provides channel assignments and
operating instructions to OBUs in its communications zone, when
required.

*Roadway bed surface.* For DSRCS, the road surface at ground level.

\* \* \* \* \*

94. Section 90.20 is amended by inserting the following in the table at
    paragraph (c)(3) before the entry referencing the 10,550 to 10,680
    band, and adding a new paragraph (d)(86) to read as follows:

    **§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool.**

    \* \* \* \* \*

    \(c\) \* \* \* \* \*

    \(3\) *Frequencies.* \* \* \*

    PUBLIC SAFETY POOL FREQUENCY TABLE

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Frequency or    | Class of        | Limitations     | Coordinator     |
| band            | station(s)      |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| 5850-5925       | Base or mobile  | 86\.            | Not applicable  |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

\* \* \* \* \*

(d) \* \* \* \* \*

    \(86\) Subpart M of this part contains rules for assignment of
    frequencies in the 5850-5925 MHz band.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
95. Section 90.35 is amended by inserting the following in the table at
    paragraph (b)(3) before the entry referencing the 10,550 to 10,680
    band, and adding a new paragraph (c)(90) to read as follows:

**§ 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(3\) *Frequencies.* \* \* \*

INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS POOL FREQUENCY TABLE

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Frequency or    | Class of        | Limitations     | Coordinator     |
| band            | station(s)      |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| 5850-5925       | \...            | 90\.            | Not applicable  |
|                 | \...do\...\.... |                 |                 |
| \* \* \* \* \*  |                 | \* \* \* \* \*  | \* \* \* \* \*  |
|                 | \* \* \* \* \*  |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

\(c\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(90\) Subpart M of this part contains rules for assignment of
frequencies in the 5850-5925 MHz band.

96. Section 90.149 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as
    follows:

**§ 90.149 License term.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) Non-exclusive geographic area licenses for DSRCS Roadside Units
(RSUs) in the 5850-5925 MHz band will be issued for a term not to exceed
ten years from the date of original issuance or renewal. The
registration dates of individual RSUs (see § 90.375 of this part) will
not change the overall renewal period of the single license.

\* \* \* \* \*

97. Section 90.155 is amended by adding a new 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.

\* \* \* \* \*

98. Section 90.157 is amended as follows:

**§ 90.157 Discontinuance of station operation.**

\(a\) A station license shall cancel automatically upon permanent
discontinuance of operations. Unless stated otherwise in this part or in
a station authorization, for the purposes of this section, any station
which has not operated for one year or more is considered to have been
permanently discontinued.

\(b\) For DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) in the 5850-5925 MHz band, it is
the DSRCS licensee's responsibility to delete from the registration
database any RSUs that have been discontinued.

> \* \* \* \* \*

99. Section 90.175(j) is amended by adding a new subparagraph (17) to
    read as follows:

    **§ 90.175 Frequency coordination requirements.**

    \* \* \* \* \*

    \(j\) The following applications need not be accompanied by evidence
    of frequency coordination:

    \* \* \* \* \*

    \(17\) Applications for DSRCS licenses (as well as registrations for
    Roadside Units) in the 5850-5925 GHz band.

    \* \* \* \* \*

100. Section 90.179 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 90.179 Shared use of radio stations.**

     \* \* \* \* \*

     \(f\) Above 800 MHz, shared use on a for-profit private carrier
     basis is permitted only by SMR, Private Carrier Paging, LMS, and
     DSRCS licensees. See subparts M, P, and S of this part.

     \* \* \* \* \*

101. Section 90.205 is amended by revising paragraph (p) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 90.205 Power and antenna height limits.**

     \* \* \* \* \*

\(p\) *5850-5925 MHz*. Power and height limitations are specified in
subpart M of this part.

\* \* \* \* \*

102. Section 90.210 is amended by revising the entry for "5850-5925 MHz"
     and adding footnote 4 in the table that follows the introductory
     paragraph, and by revising paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 90.210 Emission masks.**

     **\* \* \* \* \***

     Applicable Emission Masks

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Mask for equipment Mask for equipment

Frequency band (MHz) with Audio low without audio low

pass filter pass filter

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

\* \* \*

5850-5925 \\4\\ \...\...\...\...\...\...\..... - - - - - -

\\4\\ DSRCS Roadside Units equipment in the 5850-5925 MHz band is
governed under subpart M of this part.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(k\) \* \* \*

\(3\) *Other transmitters.* For all other transmitters authorized under
subpart M that operate in the 902-928 MHz band, the peak power of any
emission shall be attenuated below the power of the highest emission
contained within the licensee\'s sub-band in accordance with the
following schedule:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) In the 902-928 MHz band, the resolution bandwidth of the
instrumentation used to measure the emission power shall be 100 kHz,
except that, in regard to paragraph (2) of this section, a minimum
spectrum analyzer resolution bandwidth of 300 Hz shall be used for
measurement center frequencies with 1 MHz of the edge of the authorized
subband. The video filter bandwidth shall not be less than the
resolution bandwidth.

\* \* \* \* \*

103. Section 90.213 is amended by revising footnote 10 to read as
     follows:

     **§ 90.213 Frequency stability.**

     \* \* \* \* \*

     \\10\\ Except for DSRCS equipment in the 5850-5925 MHz band,
     frequency stability is to be specified in the station
     authorization. Frequency stability for DSRCS equipment in the
     5850-5925 MHz band is specified in subpart M of this part.

     \* \* \* \* \*

104. Subpart M, is amended by inserting the following heading before
     Section 90.371 to read as follows:

     \* \* \* \* \*

     REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LICENSING AND USE OF FREQUENCIES IN THE
     5850-5925 MHz BAND FOR DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
     (DSRCS)

     \* \* \* \* \*

105. Section 90.371 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
     read as follows:

     **§ 90.371 Dedicated short-range communications service (DSRCS).**

     \(a\) These provisions pertain to systems in the 5850-5925 MHz band
     for Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service (DSRCS). DSRCS
     systems use radio techniques to transfer data over short distances
     between roadside and mobile 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. DSRCS systems may also transmit status and
     instructional messages related to the units involved. DSRCS
     Roadside Units are authorized under this part. DSRCS On-Board Units
     are authorized under part 95 of this chapter.

     \(b\) DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) operating in the band 5850-5925
     MHz shall not receive protection from Government Radiolocation
     services in operation prior to the establishment of the DSRCS
     station. Operation of DSRCS RSU stations within 75 kilometers of
     the locations listed in the table below must be coordinated through
     the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

     \* \* \* \* \*

     \(c\) NTIA may authorize additional Government Radiolocation
     services. Once a new Federal assignment is made, the Commission's
     Universal Licensing System database will be updated, accordingly,
     to protect the new Federal assignment and the list in paragraph(b)
     of this section will be updated as soon as practicable.

106. Add § 90.373 to read as follows:

     **§ 90.373 Eligibility in the DSRCS.**

     The following entities are eligible to hold an authorization to
     operate Roadside units in the DSRCS:

     \(a\) Any territory, possession, state, city, county, town or
     similar governmental entity.

     \(b\) Any entity meeting the eligibility requirements of §§ 90.33
     or 90.35 of this part.

107. Add § 90.375 to read as follows:

     **§ 90.375 RSU license areas, communication zones and
     registrations**

\(a\) DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) in the 5850-5925 MHz band are licensed
on the basis of non-exclusive geographic areas. Governmental applicants
will be issued a geographic area license based on the geo-political area
encompassing the legal jurisdiction of the entity. All other applicants
will be issued a geographic area license for their proposed area of
operation based on county(s), state(s) or nationwide.

\(b\) Applicants who are approved in accordance with FCC Form 601 will
be granted non-exclusive licenses for all non-reserved DSRCS frequencies
(see § 90.377 of this part). Such licenses serve as a prerequisite of
registering individual RSUs located within the licensed geographic area
described in paragraph (a). Licensees must register each RSU in the
Universal Licensing System (ULS) before operating such RSU. RSU
registrations are subject, [inter]{.underline} [alia]{.underline}, to
the requirements of § 1.923 of this chapter as applicable (antenna
structure registration, environmental concerns, international
coordination, and quiet zones). Additionally, RSUs at locations subject
to NTIA coordination (see § 90.371(b) of this part) may not begin
operation until NTIA approval is received. Registrations are not
effective until the Commission posts them on the ULS.

\(c\) Licensees must operate each RSU in accordance with the
Commission's Rules and the registration data posted on the ULS for such
RSU. Licensees must register each RSU for the smallest communication
zone needed (for the DSRC-based intelligent transportation systems
application) using one of the following four communication zones:

  ------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
  **RSU Class**      **Max. Output Power        **Communications Zone**
                     (dBm)** ^1^                

  A                  0                          15 meters

  B                  10                         100 meters

  C                  20                         400 meters

  D                  28.8                       1000 meters
  ------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------

\\1\\ The ASTM-DSRC Standard (see § 90.379) limits output power to 28.8
dBm but allows more power to overcome cable losses to the antenna as
long as the antenna input power does not exceed 28.8 dBm and the EIRP
does not exceed 44.8 dBm. However, specific channels and categories of
uses have additional limitations under the ASTM-DSRC Standard.

108. Add § 90.377 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 6 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.

  ------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------
  **Channel    **Frequency Range       **Max. EIRP^1^     **Channel Use**
  No.**        (MHz)**                 (dBm)**            

  170          5850-5855                                  Reserved

  172          5855-5865               33                 Service Channel

  174          5865-5875               33                 Service Channel

  175          5865-5885               23                 Service
                                                          Channel^2^

  176          5875-5885               33                 Service Channel

  178          5885-5895               33 / 44.8          Control channel

  180          5895-5905               23                 Service Channel

  181          5895-5915               23                 Service
                                                          Channel^2^

  182          5905-5915               23                 Service Channel

  184          5915-5925               33 / 40            Service Channel
  ------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------

\\1\\ An RSU may employ an antenna with a height exceeding 6 meters but
not exceeding 15 meters provided the EIRP specified in the table above
is reduced by a factor of 20 log(Ht/6) 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 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.

\(c\) 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; 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.

\(d\) *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.

109. Add § 90.379 to read as follows:

     **§ 90.379 ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard (ASTM-DSRC Standard).**

     Roadside Units operating in the 5850-5925 MHz band shall comply
     with the following technical standards, which are incorporated by
     reference: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
     E2213-03, 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 published
     September 2003 (ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard). The Director of the
     Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in
     accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 C.F.R. part 51. Copies may be
     inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^
     Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the Office of the Federal
     Register, 800 N. Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC. Copies of the
     ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard can be obtained from ASTM
     International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West
     Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may also be obtained from ASTM
     via the Internet at [http://www.astm.org](http://www.astm.org/).

110. Add Section 90.383 to read as follows:

**§ 90.383 RSU sites near the U.S./Canada or U.S./Mexico border.**

Until such time as agreements between the United States and Canada or
the United States and Mexico, as applicable, become effective governing
border area use of the 5850-5925 MHz band for DSRCS, authorizations to
operate Roadside Units (RSUs) are granted subject to the following
conditions:

\(a\) RSUs must not cause harmful interference to stations in Canada or
Mexico that are licensed in accordance with the international table of
frequency allocations for Region 2 (see § 2.106 of this chapter) and
must accept any interference that may be caused by such stations.

\(b\) Authority to operate DSRCS Roadside Units is subject to
modifications and future agreements between the United States and Canada
or the United States and Mexico, as applicable.

111. Section 90.425(d) is amended by adding a new paragraph (10) to read
     as follows:

**§ 90.425 Station identification.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \*

\(10\) It is a Roadside Unit in a DSRCS system.

\* \* \* \* \*

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

1.  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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
112. Section 95.401 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are the Citizens Band Radio Services?**

     \* \* \* \* \*

     \(g\) Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units
     (DSRCS-OBUs). The rules for this service are contained in subpart L
     of this part. DSRCS-OBUs may communicate with DSRCS Roadside Units
     (RSUs), which are authorized under part 90 of this chapter. DSRCS,
     RSU, and OBU are defined in § 90.7 of this chapter.

     \* \* \* \* \*

113. Section 95.601 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 95.601   Basis and purpose.**

This section provides the technical standards to which each
*transmitter* (apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a
source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of being radiated) used
or intended to be used in a station authorized in any of the Personal
Radio Services must comply. This section also provides requirements for
obtaining certification for such transmitters. The Personal Radio
Services are the GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) \-- subpart A, the
Family Radio Service (FRS) \-- subpart B, the R/C (Radio Control Radio
Service) \-- subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio Service) \-- subpart
D, the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS) \-- subpart G, the Wireless
Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) \-- subpart H, the Medical Implants
Communication Service (MICS) \-- subpart I, the Multi-Use Radio Service
(MURS) \-- subpart J, and Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service
On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs) -- subpart L.

114. Section 95.603 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 95.603 Certification required.**

     **\* \* \* \* \***

     \(h\) Each Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board
     Unit (DSRCS-OBU) that operates or is intended to operate in the
     DSRCS (5.850-5.925 GHz) must be certified in accordance with
     subpart L of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.

115. Section 95.605 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 95.605 Certification procedures.**

Any entity may request certification for its transmitter when the
transmitter is used in the GMRS, FRS, R/C, CB, IVDS, LPRS, MURS, or MICS
following the procedures in part 2 of this chapter. Medical implant
transmitters shall be tested for emissions and EIRP limit compliance
while enclosed in a medium that simulates human body tissue in
accordance with the procedures in § 95.639(g). Frequency stability
testing for MICS transmitters shall be performed over the temperature
range set forth in § 95.628. Dedicated Short-Range Communications
Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs) must be certified in accordance with
subpart L of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.

116. Section 95.631 is amended by adding a new paragraph (k) to read as
     follows:

**§ 95.631  ** **Emission types.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(k\) DSRCS-OBUs are governed under subpart L of this part.

117. Section 95.633 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as
     follows:

**§95.633  ** **Emission bandwidth.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(g\) DSRCS-OBUs are governed under subpart L of this part.

118. Section 95.635 is amended by adding a DSRC-OBU designation to the
     Table and a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

     **§ 95.635 Unwanted radiation.**

     \(a\) \* \* \*

     \(b\) \* \* \*

  ---------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------
  Transmitter            Emission type             Applicable paragraphs
                                                   (b)

  \* \* \* \* \*         \* \* \* \* \*            \* \* \* \* \*

  DSRCS-OBU              As specified in paragraph 
                         (f)                       
  ---------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) DSRCS-OBUs are governed under subpart L of this part.

119. Section 95.637 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 95.637  ** **Modulation standards.**

     \* \* \* \* \*

     \(f\) DSRCS-OBUs are governed under subpart L of this part.

120. Section 95.639 is amended by adding a new paragraph (i) to read as
     follows:

     **§ 95.639 Maximum transmitter power.**

     \* \* \* \* \*

     \(i\) DSRCS-OBUs are governed under subpart L of this part, except
     the maximum output power for portable DSRCS-OBUs is 1.0 mW. For
     purposes of this paragraph, a portable is a transmitting device
     designed to be used so that the radiating structure(s) of the
     device is/are within 20 centimeters of the body of the user.

121. Add Section 95.643 below the existing heading "CERTIFICATION
     REQUIREMENTS" to read as follows:

     **§ 95.643 DSRCS-OBU certification.**

     Sections 95.645 through 95.655 do not apply to certification of
     DSRCS-OBUs. DSRCS-OBUs must be certified in accordance with subpart
     L of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.

122. Part 95 is amended by adding a new Subpart L to read as follows:

     **Subpart L --Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board
     Units (DSRCS-OBUs)**

     **§ 95.1501 Scope.**

     This subpart sets out the regulations governing Dedicated
     Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs) in
     the 5850-5925 MHz band. DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) are authorized
     under part 90 of this chapter and DSRCS, RSU, and OBU are defined
     in § 90.7 of this chapter.

     **§ 95.1503 Eligibility.**

     All entities for which the Commission has licensing authority are
     authorized by rule to operate an FCC certified On-Board Unit in
     accordance with the rules contained in this subpart. No individual
     FCC license will be issued. (The FCC does not have authority to
     license foreign governments or their representatives, nor stations
     belonging to and operated by the United States Government.)

**§ 95.1505 Authorized locations.**

Operation of DSRCS On-Board Units is authorized anywhere CB station
operation is permitted under § 95.405.

**§ 95.1507 Station Identification.**

A DSRCS On-Board Unit is not required to transmit an FCC station
identification announcement.

**§ 95.1509 ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard.**

On-Board Units operating in the 5850-5925 MHz band shall comply with the
following technical standards, which are incorporated by reference:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E2213-03, 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 published September 2003 (ASTM E2213-03 DSRC
Standard). The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
C.F.R. part 51. Copies may be inspected at the Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Copies of the ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard can be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. Copies may also be obtained from ASTM via the Internet at
[http://www.astm.org](http://www.astm.org/).

**§ 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        5855-5865

  174                       Service Channel        5865-5875

  175                       Service Channel ^2^    5865-5885

  176                       Service Channel        5875-5885

  178                       Control channel        5885-5895

  180                       Service Channel        5895-5905

  181                       Service Channel ^2^    5895-5915

  182                       Service Channel        5905-5915

  184                       Service Channel        5915-5925
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------

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

\\2\\ 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.

\(b\) 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

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

> As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^288] an Initial
> Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
> of Proposed Rule Making* (*NPRM*).[^289] The Commission sought written
> public comment on the proposals in the *NPRM*, including comment on
> the IRFA. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the
> IRFA; we nonetheless discuss certain general comments below. This
> present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the
> RFA.[^290]

**Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

> In this *Report and Order*, we adopt licensing, service, and operating
> rules for the 5.850-5.925 GHz band for use by Dedicated Short Range
> Communications (DSRC) Services in the provision of Intelligent
> Transportation Systems (ITS) services. DSRC communications are used
> for the wireless transfer of data over short distances between
> roadside and mobile 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. This action is
> taken in response to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^
> Century,[^291] which requires the Commission, in consultation with the
> Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), to
> consider the spectrum needs for DSRC. This action will assist DOT's
> goal of using advanced electronics and technology to increase the
> safety and efficiency of the nation's surface transportation system.

**Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA:**

> No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.
> Generally, the comments supported permitting both public safety and
> non-public safety uses in the 5.9 GHz band, with non-public safety
> uses secondary. Commenters supported the adoption of the ASTM-DSRC
> Standard into the Commission's Rules. They further supported
> site-based licensing, frequency coordination, and the use of the
> Universal Licensing System.

**Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply**

> The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
> feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
> affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^292] The RFA defines the
> term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms \"small
> business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
> jurisdiction.\"[^293] In addition, the term \"small business\" has the
> same meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the Small
> Business Act.^.^[^294] 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).[^295] A small organization is
> generally \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
> and operated and is not dominant in its field.\"[^296] Nationwide, as
> of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^297]
> The term \"small governmental jurisdiction\" is defined as
> "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts,
> or special districts, with a population of less than fifty
> thousand."[^298] As of 1997, there were about 87,453 governmental
> jurisdictions in the United States.[^299] This number includes 39,044
> county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546
> (approximately 96.2%) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of
> which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus we estimate the
> number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or
> fewer.
>
> The rules we adopt today will affect users of public safety radio
> services. These rules may also affect manufacturers of radio
> communications equipment. An analysis of the number of small
> businesses that may be affected follows. We also note that nationwide,
> there are approximately 22.4 million small businesses, total,
> according to the SBA data.[^300]
>
> *Small Businesses Sharing Spectrum with Public Safety Radio Services
> and Governmental Entities.* As a general matter, Public Safety Radio
> Services include police, fire, local government, forestry
> conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical
> services.[^301] Private entities that using DSRC-based ITS
> applications may be licensed in the 5.9 GHz band on a secondary basis
> to public safety radio services.
>
> Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business
> size standard for wireless small businesses within the two separate
> categories of Paging[^302] and Cellular and Other Wireless
> Telecommunications. [^303] Under both SBA categories, a wireless
> business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the
> Commission's most recent data,[^304] 1,761 companies reported that
> they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. Of these 1,761
> companies, an estimated 1,175 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 586
> have more than 1,500 employees.[^305] Consequently, the Commission
> estimates that most wireless service providers are small entities that
> may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
>
> The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
> specifically applicable to Dedicated Short-Range Communications
> Manufacturers (DSRC Manufacturers). However, the SBA has established a
> small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and
> Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. Under this standard,
> firms are considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees.[^306]
> Census data for 1997 indicate that, for that year, there were a total
> of 1,215 establishments[^307] in this category.[^308] Of those, there
> were 1150 that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had
> employment of 500 to 999. The percentage of wireless equipment
> manufacturers to total manufacturers in this category is approximately
> 61.35%,[^309] so we estimate that the number of wireless equipment
> manufacturers with employment under 500 was actually closer to 706,
> with an additional 23 establishments having employment of between 500
> and 999. Given the above, we estimate that the majority of wireless
> communications equipment manufacturers are small.

**Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

> Applicants for licenses to provide DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band
> those licensees must submit license applications through the Universal
> Licensing System using Form 601, and follow the service rules at 47
> C.F.R. Part 90.[^310] These licenses are not subject to spectrum
> auctions although, they will be subject to licensing and regulatory
> fees.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered

> The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
> that it has considered in reaching its determinations, which may
> include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) the
> establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
> timetables that take into account the resources available to small
> entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
> compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
> entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards;
> and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
> for small entities.[^311]
>
> Regarding our decision to permit open eligibility for licensing in the
> 5.9 GHz, *see* paras. 50-51, *supra*, we do not believe that there
> will be any significant effect on small entities. Any interested and
> qualified entity may apply for a license.
>
> Regarding our decision to use non-exclusive geographic area licensing,
> *see* paras. 57-59, *supra*, we do not believe that there will be any
> significant adverse effect on small entities. We believe that this
> licensing approach will actually benefit small entities by enabling
> them to obtain licenses to provide a DSRC service. We further believe
> this decision benefits small entities by eliminating the costs
> associated with frequency coordination. Because of the short range of
> this service (less than 1000 meters), resulting in relatively lower
> costs, we believe that small entities will be attracted to this
> service.
>
> Regarding our decision to require the use of the ASTM-DSRC Standard,
> *see* paras. 18-22, *supra*, we do not believe that there will be any
> adverse effect on small entities. We believe that this decision will
> benefit small entities. We required the ASTM-DSRC Standard for all
> DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band, which we anticipate will, in
> turn, reduce the cost of the DSRC devices.

**Report to Congress**

> The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order*, including
> this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
> Congressional Review Act.[^312] In addition, the Commission will send
> a copy of this *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, to the Chief
> Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of
> this *Report and Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
> published in the Federal Register.[^313]

**APPENDIX C**

**List of DSRC-based ITS Applications**

[(Eight User Service Bundles Identified by the National
Architecture)]{.underline}

The eight safety related service bundles identified by the National
Architecture are as follows:

**Travel and Traffic Management**, comprised of

-   Probe Data Collection

-   Traffic Information

**Maintenance Construction Operations**, comprised of

-   In-Vehicle Signing

    -   Work Zone Warning

    -   Highway/Rail Intersection Warning

    -   Road Condition Warning

**Public Transit Management**, comprised of

-   Transit Vehicle Data Transfer (gate and yard)

-   Transit Vehicle Signal Priority

**Electronic Payment**, comprised of

-   Toll Collection

-   Gas Payment

-   Drive-Thru Payment

-   Rental Car Processing

-   Parking Lot Payment

**Commercial Vehicle Operations** (CVO), comprised of

-   Main Screening

-   Border Clearance

-   CVO Driver's Daily Log

-   Unique CVO Fleet Management

-   CVO Truck Stop Data Transfer

**Emergency Management**, comprised of

-   In-Vehicle Signing

    -   Work Zone Warning

    -   Highway/Rail Intersection Warning

    -   Road Condition Warning

-   On-Board Safety Data Transfer

-   Vehicle Safety Inspection

-   Emergency Vehicle Video Relay

-   Emergency Vehicle Approach Warning

**Advanced Vehicle Safety Systems**, comprised of

-   Intersection Collision Avoidance

-   Road Departure

-   Lane Merge

-   In-Vehicle Signing

    -   Work Zone Warning

    -   Highway/Rail Intersection Warning

    -   Road Condition Warning

-   Vehicle-to-Vehicle

    -   Vehicle Stopped or Slowing

    -   Vehicle/Vehicle Collision Avoidance

    -   Imminent Collision Warning

-   Rollover Warning

-   Low Bridge Warning

**Information Management** comprised of

-   Main Screening

-   Border Clearance

-   Access Control Rental Car Processing

-   Unique CVO Fleet Management

-   CVO Truck Stop Data Transfer

-   Locomotive Fuel Monitoring

-   Locomotive Data Transfer

**APPENDIX D**

**LIST OF COMMENTERS**

**[Comments]{.underline}**

3M

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ARINC Incorporated

Association of American Railroads

BD Industries

BMW Group

Delaware Department of Transportation

E-470 Public Highway Authority

E-Z Pass Interagency Group

Highway Electronics

Intelligent Transportation Society of America

International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Association

International Municipal Signal Association

Intersil Corporation

Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory

Maine Turnpike Authority

Mark IV Industries, LTD, I.V.H.S. Division

MTA Bridges and Tunnels

National Assoc. of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors/National
League of Cities

National Emergency Number Association

Nissan North America, Inc.

National Radio Astronomy Observatory

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

New York State Thruway Authority

North Texas Tollway Authority

PanAmSat

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey-Tunnels, Bridges, & Terminals
Department

Public Safety Wireless Network

Siemens Transportation System

Sirit Technologies

Texas Department of Transportation

TransCore, LP

United States Department of Transportation

University of California, Davis-AHMCT Research Center

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

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., Technical
Affairs Comm.

E-Z Pass Interagency Group

Florida Department of Transportation

Intelligent Transportation Society of America

Intersil Corporation

Mark IV Industries, Ltd., I.V.H.S. Division

MTA Bridges and Tunnels

OmniAir Consortium, Inc.

Public Safety Wireless Network

QUALCOMM Incorporated

Satellite Industry Association

TransCore, LP

**APPENDIX E**

**ASTM 5.9 GHz DSRC STANDARDS WRITING GROUP PARTICIPANTS**

3-M

AASHTO

Acunia

Amtech

ARINC

Armstrong Consulting

Atheros

Caltrans

Diamler-Chrysler

Denso

GM

GTRI

Highway Electronics

Hitachi

IDMICRO

IMEC

Intersil

Intelligent Transportation Society of America

Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory

King County Metro Transit

Mark IV Industries, LTD, I.V.H.S. Division

MiCom Spa

Michigan Department of Transportation

Mitretek

Motorola

Nissan

New York State Thruway Authority

OKI Electric

PATH

Raytheon

Sirit Technologies

Sumitomo Electric

Technocom

Toshiba

TransCore, LP

Visteon

Washington State Department of Transportation

Wi-Lan

**APPENDIX F**

**Roadside Units \-- REGISTRATION DATA**

**[Fields]{.underline}**

1\. Call sign

2\. Licensee name

3\. RSU identification number

4\. RSU site coordinates

5\. Channel number(s)

6\. Equipment class

7\. Power

8\. Antenna height

9\. Antenna manufacturer & model

10\. Antenna gain

11\. Antenna azimuth

13\. Antenna elevation angle

14\. Registration date

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: In re 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
Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent
Transportation Services (ET Docket No. 98-95, RM-9096)*.

Smart radio technology means smarter highways, safer roads and a more
secure homeland. By our action today, the Commission takes a giant step
toward ensuring that all Americans have access to these life saving
services provided through advanced telecommunications platforms. The
Commission also demonstrates its continued commitment to assisting the
United States Department of Transportation (DOT) in improving the safety
and efficiency of the nation's surface transportation infrastructure
through the use of Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Service
in the 5.9 GHz band. DSRC provides critical communications links for
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) systems, and is essential to
achieving a top priority of the DOT, reducing highway fatalities.

Specifically, in this *ITS Report and Order*, the Commission adopts the
interoperability standard (ASTM E2213-02 or "ASTM-DSRC) supported
overwhelmingly by the commenters and developed through an accredited
standard setting process. The Report and Order makes it possible to
license both public safety and non-public safety use of the 5.9 GHz band
and will provide for open eligibility for licensing and technical rules,
most of which are embodied in the standard. The Commission will also
license DSRC Roadside Units (RSUs) that will receive non-exclusive
geographic-area licenses utilizing seventy megahertz of the 5.9GHz band
and will help provide a framework that ensures priority for public
safety communications. Finally, although significant progress has been
made in the industry discussion protocol regarding the sharing of DSRC
and FSS operations in the 5.9 GHz band, the Commission has deferred a
decision on the matter until the ongoing technical studies and industry
discussions are completed. Give the importance of public safety
applications in the DSRC, I urge the parties to conclude their
discussions to ensure that the ASTM-DSRC Standard will provide reliable
and robust operations.

I would like to thank the staffs of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration under the leadership of Michael D. Gallagher,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information, and the Department of Transportation, headed by Norman Y.
Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, for working closely with us to
develop rules that will bring the benefits of this technology to our
citizens.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: In re Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Dedicated
Short-Range Communication Services in the 5.8250-5.925 GHz Band (5.9 GHz
Band); WT Docket No. 01-90*

Today's Order represents another important step in improving the safety
and efficiency of our Nation's surface transportation system. I am very
pleased to support any role the Commission can play in reducing the more
than six million crashes and over 43,000 deaths experienced each year in
this country. The potential of dedicated short-range communications
services is enormous. I am optimistic that the rules we adopt today will
further enable the wide-scale and interoperable deployment of these
systems in the near future.

Our item today is particularly noteworthy because it reflects the
continued collaborative approach between all sectors of the government
and the automotive industry. The Department of Transportation and ITS
America in particular have played a leading role in the development of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). I am pleased that we are able
to continue these efforts by adopting the ASTM-DSRC Standard. This also
helps fulfill the laudable goal of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21^st^ Century (TEA-21) to promote interoperability of ITS systems
across the United States. I had the privilege of working on TEA-21 when
I was a staffer in the Senate so it is particularly exciting for me to
oversee implementation of the Act from this position.

Finally, I am also pleased that the item acknowledges the ongoing
discussions between NTIA and DOT and between the Satellite Industry
Association and ITS America regarding potential interference to current
and future operations in and around the 5.9 GHz band. As touched on
above, the development of DSRC systems really is a cooperative and
ongoing effort. I commend the parties for their continued discussions on
how best to resolve potential interference issues, and look forward to
hearing the results of their studies and collaborations.

[^1]: Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Transportation, DOT, Address
    at the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative National Meeting and
    Demonstration (June 25, 2003)
    (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/shane06252003.htm).

[^2]: Press Release, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mineta Announces
    Opening of Crash-Preventing "Intelligent Intersection" Test Facility
    (June 24, 2003) (http://www.its.dot.gov/press/fhw2003.htm).

[^3]: U.S. DOT (<http://www.its.dot.gov/ivi/mission.html>). Over ninety
    percent of crashes result from driver error. *Id.* *See also*
    Intelligent Safety Efforts in America, Jeffrey F. Paniati, Director,
    Intelligent Transportation Systems, U.S. Department of
    Transportation (presentation at 10^th^ ITS World Congress, Madrid,
    Spain, on Nov. 17, 2003)
    (<http://www.its.dot.gov/speeches/madridvii2003.ppt>).

[^4]: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Comments at 7.

[^5]: *See* ITS America Petition for Rulemaking, RM 9096, ET Docket No.
    98-95 at 28-29 (filed May 19, 1997) (ITS America Allocation
    Petition)*.* Other ITS safety applications envisioned to promote
    crash avoidance are road departure warning (*e.g.*, audible alarm:
    "Driver Alert! Vehicle is headed off the road.") and lane merge
    ("Unsafe to merge left/right!"). See Appendix C for a list of safety
    and other DSRC-based ITS applications.

[^6]: Federal Highway Administration, Congestion Mitigation at
    <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/congest2.htm>.

[^7]: Section 6059 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
    Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991) (ISTEA) defines
    ITS as:

    The development or application of electronics, communications, or
    information processing (including advanced traffic management
    systems, commercial vehicle operations, advanced traveler
    information systems, commercial and advanced vehicle control
    systems, advanced public transportation systems, satellite vehicle
    tracking systems, and advanced vehicle communications systems) used
    singly or in combination to improve the efficiency and safety of
    surface transportation systems.

    ISTEA § 6059.

[^8]: We refer herein to "safety/public safety" communication
    interchangeably because DSRCS involves both safety of life
    communication transmitted from any vehicle, *e.g.,*
    vehicle-to-vehicle imminent crash warnings, as well as communication
    transmitted by public safety entities, *e.g.*,
    infrastructure-to-vehicle intersection collision warnings.

[^9]: Originally entitled "Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems"
    ("IVHS"). *See* ISTEA.

[^10]: ISTEA § 6051.

[^11]: *See* ISTEA § 6052(b). Section 6053(b) of ISTEA states that:

    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.

[^12]: ITS America, a Federal Advisory Committee to DOT, was first
    organized in 1991 and is a non-profit, educational association. Its
    members are drawn from the business, academic, and government
    sectors. ITS America has over 600 members. Over 350 of its members
    represent corporations involved in providing transportation of goods
    and services, 135 members represent federal, state, and municipal
    transportation agencies, and fifty members represent research
    institutions and universities. *See* Status Report on Licensing and
    Service Issues and Deployment Strategies for DSRC-Based Intelligent
    Transportation Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (filed by ITS
    America on Oct. 6, 2000) at 4-5 (Status Report)*.* *See 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, counsel to ITS America, to Federal Communications
    Commission at 19 (filed July 9, 2002) (July *Ex Parte* Comments).

[^13]: *See* Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770
    (1972) *codified at* 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

[^14]: Until March 17, 2003, DOT recognized ITS America as its FAC on
    ITS matters, including DSRC. DOT indicates that this change in
    status "does not suggest an intention on the part of DOT to revisit
    positions taken on technical standards and licensing and service
    rules proposed by ITS America. . . ." Letter from Paul Samuel Smith,
    Senior Attorney, United States Department of Transportation to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission 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 System*s (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 Error: Reference source not found.

[^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.

[^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 Error: Reference source not found, *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.

[^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.*

[^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](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.^?^ 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.

[^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.

[^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 Error: Reference source not found,
    *supra*.

[^67]: ASTM-DSRC Standard at 1.

[^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-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.*

[^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.*

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^127]: Non-public safety vs. non-public safety DSRCS disputes are
    addressed at para. 61, *infra*.

[^128]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.205(o) (1999) (currently § 90.205(p)). *See
    also Allocation* *Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 18221, 18232 ¶ 24.

[^129]: Mark IV Petition at 2. *See also* Intersil Comments at 13.

[^130]: ITS America recommends a maximum power limit for portable OBUs
    of 1.0 mW. *See* July *Ex Parte* at 12. We are adopting this
    recommendation to limit exposure to radiofrequency radiation. *See*
    paras. 42-43, *infra*.

[^131]: *See* ASTM-DSRC Standard at 10-11, § 8.9.1.

[^132]: *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23176 ¶ 70 citing, ET Docket No. 98-95,
    Mark IV Petition at 2.

[^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.

[^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).

[^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. -31, *supra.*

[^147]: *See* para. 31, *supra.*

[^148]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1091, 2.1093.

[^149]: *See* July *Ex Parte* at 12.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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 Error: Reference source not found*, supra* and
    accompanying text. For the licensing requirements for OBUs, see
    paras. 62-67, *infra.*

[^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).

[^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.

[^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.

[^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).

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^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.

[^269]: ITS America Reply Comments at 19-20; DOT Comments at 9.

[^270]: ITS America Reply Comments at 19.

[^271]: Satellite Industry Association Reply Comments at 9.

[^272]: *See* Letter from Robert B. Kelly, Esq., counsel to ITS America,
    to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (Nov. 14, 2003); Letter from Richard
    DalBello, President, SIA to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (Nov. 19, 2003).

[^273]: We also observe that the post-license registration process that
    we are adopting may facilitate spectrum sharing.

[^274]: *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23173 ¶ 63.

[^275]: *Id.* at 23173 ¶ 64.

[^276]: 47 C.F.R. Part 90, subpart G.

[^277]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.5 (Citizenship).

[^278]: July *Ex Parte* Comments at 66.

[^279]: *See* note Error: Reference source not found *supra*, concerning
    "modifications" to RSU registrations.

[^280]: In this setting, if the construction requirement is not met,
    although the licensee will not be barred from re-registering and
    constructing the RSU later, it will lose the original registration
    date for the purpose of resolving time-sensitive disputes between
    non-public safety RSU licensees. See para. 61, *supra*.

[^281]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.155.

[^282]: *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23178 ¶ 74.

[^283]: *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23178-79 ¶ 74 *citing* Exchange of Notes
    at Ottawa, Canada, October 24, 1962. Entered into force October 24,
    1962. *See* USA: T*reaties and Other International Acts Series*
    (TIAS) 5205; CAN: *Canada Treaty Series* (CTS) 1962 No. 15.
    *Agreement for Revision to Technical Annex to the Agreement of
    October 24, 1962* (TIAS 5205/CTS 1962 No. 15) Effected by Exchange
    of Notes at Ottawa, Canada, June 16 and 24, 1965. Entered into force
    June 24, 1965. USA: TIAS 5833/CAN: CTS 1962 No. 15, as amended June
    24, 1965.

[^284]: *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23179 ¶ 74.

[^285]: *See* ASTM-DSRC Standard at 9-10 § 8.8.3.3 and Table 8. *See
    also* *NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23178-79, n.333 citing July *Ex Parte*
    Comments at 17. (ITS America reported that Industry Canada was in
    the process of allocating the 5.855-5.925 GHz band for DSRC
    applications and that "Spectrum Management, Radio Standard
    Specification, Location and Monitoring Service," a proposed
    nationwide Canadian standard, would likely be adopted and include
    the same channelization plan as specified in the ASTM-DSRC
    Standard.)

[^286]: *See e.g.*, note Error: Reference source not found, *supra* and
    accompanying text.

[^287]: *See* Pub. L. No. 104-13.

[^288]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
    CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1996 (SBREFA).

[^289]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Dedicated
    Short-Range Communication Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9
    GHz Band), *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 01-90, 17
    FCC Rcd 23136, 23185 (Appendix A) (2002).

[^290]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604. We note that we could also certify this
    action under the RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 605.

[^291]: Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century, Pub. L.
    105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998) (TEA-21).

[^292]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^293]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^294]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^295]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^296]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^297]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^298]: 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

[^299]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492.

[^300]: See SBA, *Programs and Services*, SBA Pamphlet no. CO-0028, at
    page 40 ( July 2002).

[^301]: *See* Subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that
    serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony
    (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
    material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of
    private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units
    under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also
    include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
    entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325
    forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state
    departments of conservation and private forest organizations that
    set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground
    crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance
    licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid
    other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
    traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for
    emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
    emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include
    medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped
    persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,
    establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities,
    and emergency repair of public communications facilities.

[^302]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513321 (changed to 517211 in October 2002).

[^303]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513322 (changed to 517212 in October 2002).

[^304]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3, (May
    2002).

[^305]: *Id*.

[^306]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^307]: The number of \"establishments\" is a less helpful indicator of
    small business prevalence in this context than would be the number
    of \"firms\" or \"companies,\" because the latter take into account
    the concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical
    location for an entity is an establishment, even though that
    location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the
    numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this
    category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this
    category, the census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to
    give the total number of such entities for 1997, which was 1,089.

[^308]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, \"Industry Statistics by Employment Size,\" Table 4,
    NAICS code 334220 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^309]: *Id*. Table 5, \"Industry Statistics by Industry and Primary
    Product Class Specialization: 1997.\"

[^310]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.913(a)(1).

[^311]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^312]: *See generally,* 5 U.S.C. § 801 (a)(1)(A).

[^313]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).