Connected Vehicle Certification Program - MW121410B Deliverable Binder
Task Summary Task 1 – Mapping the CV/CS Landscape Task 2 – Overview of the Connected
Vehicle Certification System Task 3 – State and Local Needs Assessment Task 4 – Gap Analysis & Recommendations
Created for:
Recipient:
Cooperative Transportation Systems Pooled Fund Study 351 McCormick Road P.O. Box 4000742 Charlottesville, VA 22904 From:
Timothy J. McGuckin Executive Director OmniAir Consortium, Inc. 11343 Sunset Hills Road Reston, VA 20190 (O) 703-766-5005 (M) 202-276-8483 (Fax) 703-579-1067 [email protected] www.omniair.org
May 2012
Certification Program for Cooperative System/Connected Vehicle Technologies - Summary of the Project UVA RFP#: MW121410B
Project Role Name Organization Program Manager/Author Tim McGuckin OmniAir Consortium Lead Author Ron Meyers Atkins Lead Author Mike Brown Southwest Research Institute Lead Author Ted Osinski MET Laboratories Lead Author Steve Ezar Standards Management Supporting Author Jules Madey NY State Thruway Authority Supporting Author Randy Roebuck Federal Signal Technology Supporting Author Steve Novosad Atkins Supporting Author Edward Mulka JAFA Technologies
Introduction
The goal of this project was to develop the foundational knowledge needed to inform PFS members on certification issues, providing information to facilitate a uniform and consistent certification framework necessary to future deployment of Cooperative System/Connected Vehicle (CS/CV) technologies. The study had two components: 1) understanding the current landscape of certification activities in this space; and, 2) assessing and analyzing state and local needs to ensure conformance and promote interoperability for CS/CV deployments. The tasks in this project are described below: Task 1: Mapping of the CS/CV Certification Landscape – The team provided a summary of the interconnected certification initiatives within, adjacent to, or impacting the CS/CV community, emphasizing current points of state & local relevance. The deliverable was structured using a mind-map methodology to capture certification activities, deliverables and roles of the participating entities. Task 2: Overview of the proposed CS/CV Certification System – The objective was to provide deeper insight into the certification world identified in Task 1. The team collected and synthesized industry deliverables specific to CS/CV certification programs and analyzed several current certification programs of relevant technologies which served as a benchmark for an infrastructure operator-focused CS/CV program. Task 3: State and Local Needs Assessment - The objective was to establish and quantify state and local needs for the deployment of a CS/CV certification program. This research was conducted through detailed interviews and surveys to determine the needs of state & local authorities and how much variability there was in this target population. Task 4: Gap Analysis and Recommendations - The objective was to identify the connections and disconnection between the needs of the state & local infrastructure operators and the current CS/CV certification initiatives. The deliverable addressed how well the proposed work in certification tracks with the needs of the state & local authorities. This deliverable also identified key actions to promote state/local positions in the development of national CS/CV certification apparatus and to move certification programs toward deployment.
Task 1 – Mapping of the Connected Vehicle Landscape Certification Program for Connected Vehicle (RFP#: MW121410B) Created for:
Recipient:
Center for Transportation Studies University of Virginia 351 McCormick Road P.O. Box 400742 Charlottesville, VA 22904 From:
Timothy J. McGuckin Executive Director OmniAir Consortium, Inc. 105 N. Virginia Ave, Suite 206 Falls Church, VA 22046 (O) 703-531-1817 (M) 202-276-8483 (Fax) 703-531-1819 [email protected] www.omniair.org
June 6, 2011
2
Table of Contents Task 1 Overview...............................................................................................................................................................3
Connected Vehicle Content Map..............................................................................................................................4
Design Methodology ................................................................................................................................................4
Functionality .................................................................................................................................................................7
3
Task 1 Overview The objective of Task 1 is to provide a summary view of the interconnected initiatives that comprise the Connected Vehicle community. During our initial phone conference with the Pooled Study team it was clear that the group wanted more than a simple and static document. The team discussed “dynamic” and “actionable” work products that will enable the group to progress toward the goal of cooperative and intelligent transportation systems. To that end, we constructed a series of interactive maps of the Connected Vehicle space to visually convey the goals, relationships and content of the organizations in this sector. Since the space is ever expanding with new projects commencing often, the deliverable is not just a static document, but a tool for the Client to track the expansion and progress of the sector. The technology used to produce this deliverable is a product cloud computing-based platform called Mindomo, which produces interactive, multimedia-rich mind maps. These maps will enable the Client to click through the various branches of the Connected Vehicle universe and open web pages, videos, audio files, presentations and whitepapers. At the end of OmniAir’s engagement, the Client will receive full access to the editing features of the application. This will allow the client to continually add/edit/delete the map’s branches and the embedded content to reflect the real-time changes in the industry for as long as the Client wants to use the tool. This document is simply to transmit the readiness of the Task 1 deliverable, which is the content within the application. We suggest a webinar be conducted as soon as possible to walk through the application and demonstrate the functionality.
Notes: 1. Currently this structure is cloud-based with a license held by an OmniAir member organization.
There are various ways we can structure access and content storage as we move forward. 2. The nature of this tool is that it is not a snapshot of the sector but an ongoing real-time account
of what research is being conducted and what content is available. Because of this fact, the embedding and linking to content is an ongoing task and will be done by the OmniAir team throughout the engagement period. At the end of the engagement, a session will be held to train the client on how to use the application and maintain the content.
4
Connected Vehicle Content Map
Design Methodology
The three main branches of the map structure are the USDOT’s Connected Vehicle focus areas, Non-DOT Connected Vehicle Projects, and USDOT/RITA’s Connected Vehicle Suppliers. These multiple paths will allow the user to drill into content from various perspectives. For example, if someone wanted to see what work OmniAir is doing you can find it by either going to OmniAir as an organization under the Supplier path, or find the OmniAir documents under the Connected Vehicle Technology path. We used the USDOT’s structure as the central path and point of reference for the other industry research that is being conducted.
Top Level or HOME
5
Following are several views of maps deeper in the structure.
Home map with branches
Connected Vehicle Technology Map One level below Home map, accessed by clicking on “Connected Vehicle Technology” subtopic of Home map
6
Close up of Connected Vehicle Technology map level. Notice paper clip icon indicating attachment, globe icon for web link, and embedded YouTube video.
Connected Vehicle Technology map with branches opened. Click back up to home map with Home button
7
Functionality
The Mindomo application is developed to mirror Office 2007 applications with the tool ribbon on the top of the work space. Its primary function is the creation of mind maps, but with integration of content and interactivity functionality that is not present in other applications that we previewed.
Features and Functionality
Intuitive user interface Mind map creation functionality on open canvas for unlimited subtopic branches Ability to embed multimedia tools such as
o Web links (Http, Https, ftp, email) o Image o Video o Audio o Link to other maps and topics/subtopics o Ability to add notes, tasks, comments to topics/subtopics o Ability for online collaboration and screen share with other contributors with integrated
chat function
As the engagement period continues, the OmniAir team will further develop the branch structure and embedded content. The client’s input is eagerly welcomed as we move through the engagement as to how you would like the content structured and presented.
View of map creation/editing interface
Connected Vehicle Certification Program Task 2 - Overview of the Connected Vehicle Certification System Created for:
Recipient:
Cooperative Transportation Systems Pooled Fund Study 351 McCormick Road P.O. Box 4000742 Charlottesville, VA 22904 From:
Timothy J. McGuckin Executive Director OmniAir Consortium, Inc. 105 N. Virginia Ave, Suite 206 Falls Church, VA 22046 (O) 703-531-1817 (M) 202-276-8483 (Fax) 703-531-1819 [email protected] www.omniair.org
August 17, 2011
August 11, 2011 Page 2
CONTENTS
Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
Certification Program – Key Elements and Characteristics ............................................................ 5
Connected Vehicle Certification System....................................................................................... 11
Description................................................................................................................................. 11
Organizational Structure ........................................................................................................... 11
Certification System Attributes ................................................................................................. 16
Technology Structure ................................................................................................................ 19
Certification Status in the USDOT Connected Vehicle Program................................................... 23
August 11, 2011 Page 3
INTRODUCTION
The objective of Task 2 is to provide a summary view of the work efforts and outcomes specific to certification for the Connected Vehicle program. The definition of what are the Connected Vehicle boundaries is still being defined and the direction from the USDOT for certification is that it be ‘protocol‐agnostic’ and that the national certification program should be able to facilitate any protocol, any device and any application. Given that foundation, the task was no longer to develop a certification program, but to create a certification system that can house multiple certification programs. OmniAir’s initial steps in developing this system was to model currently successful and relevant product certification programs in hopes of gleaning the features and attributes that contribute to their sustainability and ultimately applying these best practices to needs of the Connected Vehicle and Cooperative System. The following document is divided into two parts. The first part summarizes previous research with three currently successful certification programs and examines them through several perspectives; Structural Elements (Organizational Design, Technology Infrastructure, Financial Models), Addressing User Needs, and Program Attributes. The second part of the document describes the organization, processes and technical requirements of the Connected Vehicle Certification System. This system is still evolving but was conceived with many of the features that contributed to the success of the modeled certification programs.
August 11, 2011 Page 4
PART I – CERTIFICATION PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
August 11, 2011 Page 5
CERTIFICATION PROGRAM – KEY ELEMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
In previous research, OmniAir conducted a scan of certification programs within the wireless
communication sector with the intent of learning from these current industry certification models and
applying there core characteristics to the Connected Vehicle Certification System. We reviewed the
certification programs developed for WiMAX, CDMA and Bluetooth communication protocols. To reveal
the common characteristics, we examined their structural elements, how they address user needs and
the program attributes that contribute to their sustainability.
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
The certification programs surveyed exhibited similar characteristics in structural elements to increase
program efficiency, sustainability and be responsive to market needs. Three elements of compare
include organizational design, technology infrastructure and financial models.
Organizational Design
Typically, a certification program scheme owner is an industry driven organization such as a professional
society or trade association. These types of non‐profit organizations depend on industry representatives
to provide the technical skills and resources necessary to manage a program designed to benefit the
business segment. To effectively manage sector‐wide programs a committee structure is established to
allocate responsibilities. Although committee titles may differ between organizations the functions
remain consistent:
Oversight Committee – There is typically an oversight committee that is responsible for establishing the
strategic direction of the certification program and supervision of the tactical implementation. This
group has cross‐industry representation and a balanced view between the players within the sector’s
supply chain (user, vendor, and operators). Through a consensus process the group determines the
scope of the certification program and approves changes to the program such as a new market
endorsement or certification profile.
Policy Committee – Another committee type develops the policies and procedures required to
implement the strategic initiatives of the Oversight Committee. This committee focuses on process flow
defining how the vendor, testing facility and certification body will interact.
Technical Committee – This group focuses on the technical aspects of the test specifications and
requirements of each endorsement of certification profile. This group may also be the one responsible
for establishing the requirements and accrediting the independent testing facilities.
August 11, 2011 Page 6
Technology Infrastructure
A commonality among the surveyed certification programs is the presence of a technology
infrastructure to automate the information hand‐offs between the roles within the certification cycle.
Below is a description of how the roles would interact with the technology platform:
Device Vendor
Submit application for certification
If program has multiple testing requirements the vendor would be instructed as to the specific
testing plan that they will be required to meet
Ability to receive cost quotation and choose testing facility (if more than one is available)
Receive testing results
Receive certification
Testing Facility
Receive application from device vendor
Receive test plan that vendor is applying for
Provide cost quotation
Input testing results
Certification Body
View applications that are in system
Receive test data from testing facility
Alert device vendor of certification decision
Financial Models
The financial model chosen must be one that meets the needs of the certification body (and
constituents) and provides the correct balance of efficiency and sustainability of the system. Some of
the scenarios presented in the models include:
Certification scheme owner licensing fee – Required fee paid by the vendor to be allowed to
carry the certification program’s mark
Certification body fee – Fee paid by vendor for verification and oversight services provided by
certification body
Testing fees – Fees paid by the vendor to the lab for testing
Authorized lab fees – Fees paid by the lab to the certification body or the scheme owner to be
allowed to test against the certification program
August 11, 2011 Page 7
Membership Fee – Fees paid by the vendor (also open to operator) to the certification body
Devise Fee – Fee paid by the vendor to the certification body to certify their devises on a per
device basis
Test Plan Fee – Fee paid by the authorized testing facility (passed onto vendor) to the
certification body to use the certification body’s test plan
ADDRESSING USER NEEDS
The certification program must have the proper processes and structure to meet the needs of the
various users that interact with the program. The typical users within a certification program consist of
the vendor, the certification body, the testing facility and the end user of the product.
Network Operators – The network operators are the users that will specify and integrate the devices
into their infrastructure. Their needs from a certification program are going to be driven by factors that
will help them incorporate devices efficiently and effectively as to not degrade the functionality of the
infrastructure. Key aspects include:
Interoperability – The network operators need to know that the devices they purchase for their
network will all work seamlessly. Certification that establishes device interoperability across
vendors provides assurance that their network will continue to operate regardless of the device
manufacturer
Product Reliability – The operators have a financial risk that needs to be managed by a
certification program that assures product reliability.
Features/Functionality Communication – A certification program communicates the tested and
approved features and functionality of a device. If a certification program has various
endorsements or classifications the operator needs to be aware of which products carry which
endorsements to ensure network compatibility
Device Manufacturer (Vendor) – The manufacturers are the organizations that provide the inputs for
the certification process as required by the end user. They need a system that will enable them to meet
the requirements of their customer in a manner that adds as little cost as possible to the overall value
chain.
Limits Liability – A device vendor that manufactures a product that meets product performance
and device interoperability standards of a certification program is given a level of product
liability protection
Marketing & Sales – Conforming to the standards of a certification program can aid a vendor in
the marketing/sales of their product. It communicates the approved features/functionality of
the product to the customer and provides a level of competitive advantage over those products
that cannot meet the requirements. It provides market entrance into those markets that
require certification
August 11, 2011 Page 8
Testing Facility – An integral component to a certification program is the testing entity. Their needs are
linked to the overall efficiency of the certification system.
Consistency of testing methods – As the implementer of the certification program a key user
need for the testing facility is the consistency of the testing methods and procedures.
End User ‐ The end user is the consumer that is ultimately using or interacting with the devices that are
part of the operator’s network.
User Confidence – The ‘network affect’ is a critical component to the success of communication
technologies. The technology will be increasingly successful as more people adopt and grow the
network, expanding the value for each member of the network.
PROGRAM ATTRIBUTES
The Connected Vehicle program is anticipated to be the intersection of current and future
communication protocols to create an interoperable network of mobile device, vehicle and
infrastructure. We chose to model the certification programs of WiMax, CDMA, and Bluetooth because
they are among the current protocols that are likely to be within the Connected Vehicle boundaries and
can teach lessons on fundamental program attributes. What we learned from these successful
programs was that Adaptability and Accessibility must be structured into the program to account for
changes in market conditions and retention of program efficiencies.
Adaptability
The features and functionalities of devices (both hardware and applications) within the certification
program will eventually expand beyond the current scope of the certification program. The program
must have the ability to add or subtract technical requirements without disrupting the overall
certification scheme (certification profiles, endorsements, etc.).
Each program supports a technology and a market that depends on flexible deployment of the protocol.
The anticipated growth is based on a phased approach and new instillations must be interoperable with
existing network components and devices for a basic level of common requirements. CDMA in
particular enables a specific market to add requirements beyond the core CDMA testing and still
have the testing done within the same certification framework. This adaptability allows for
individual markets to drive unique requirements and yet ensure core level interoperability.
August 11, 2011 Page 9
Accessibility
A common goal for all of the programs is to minimize the cost of certification across the supply chain
while maximizing the benefits of certification. If the process is too cumbersome and inefficient the
incremental cost of certification will outweigh the benefit and be a barrier to deployment. To overcome
this potential obstacle, all of the groups have looked to technology as a bridge between all parties of the
certification value chain.
The technology hub connects all of the roles and provides access to the information in a way that is
most useful to each of the parties. The processes and technical infrastructure must be such that
organizations, with different needs, can interface with the system and perform the tasks they
require. The technology infrastructure at the center of the program enables a vendor, a testing
lab or a network operator to interact with the system in the way they need. Along with the
requirement for accessibility comes the need to protect the data coming in and out of the
system. The technology infrastructure will incorporate proper credentialing to ensure the
confidentiality of data.
August 11, 2011 Page 10
PART II – CONNECTED VEHICLE CERTIFICATION SYSTEM
August 11, 2011 Page 11
CONNECTED VEHICLE CERTIFICATION SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Connected Vehicle Certification System (CVCS) is to support the Connected
Vehicle vision to “bring connectivity to the U.S. surface transportation system through the
application of powerful advanced wireless technologies – which can enable transformative
change.” The CVCS will accomplish this by ensuring interoperability among the various devices,
communication protocols and applications that are within the Connected Vehicle ecosystem.
The Connected Vehicle environment as proposed by the USDOT is a future state of technology
integration. As such, there is no current certification system. While the communications
industry has established certain certification programs such as Wi‐Fi, WiMax, CDMA, Bluetooth,
and others, there is no singular certification program that identifies requirements enabling the
various protocols to integrate in one larger environment. The CVCS is a ‘greenfield’ project to
create a certification nexus with and across communication protocols, mobile devices,
stationary devices and applications.
The Connected Vehicle Certification System was created with the pillars of Adaptability and
Accessibility in mind. These embedded qualities are critical to the system’s functionality as it
needs to accept and process an application or device that is operating on any current or future
communication protocol.
The following sections describe the organizational structure, technology infrastructure and
process attributes.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
CVCS FORUM
The Connected Vehicle Certification System Forum is a cross‐industry organization representing
the key stakeholders of the Connected Vehicle Environment. This group is the “scheme owner”
of the Connected Vehicle Certification System (CVCS) and ultimately responsible for the
development and implementation of the system’s policies and procedures
August 11, 2011 Page 12
Function
A certification program that is cross‐ industry (automotive, infrastructure, device manufacturer)
and cross‐protocol (Wi‐Fi, BlueTooth, 5.9 GHz, WiMax, etc.) requires an oversight organization
that includes both sector and technology representatives. The Forum brings all interested and
impacted parties together in one membership organization to develop and approve the testing
requirements necessary in the Connected Vehicle environment.
Membership
The membership of the CVCS Forum is open to all interested and affected parties of the
Connected Vehicle environment. The core membership categories are:
Regulatory – This includes federal, state and local regulatory authorities such as NHTSA, Federal
Highway and state DoT
Producer – This includes the manufacturers and developers of the applications and hardware
that create the Connected Vehicle network, the categories include:
Device Vendor – The vendors that manufacturers the radio devices that comprise the
hardware portion of the connected vehicle network
Application Vendor – The vendor that develops the applications that run over the
devices
User – The users are those organizations that use the applications and devices that are certified
within the CVCS
Technology Interest Groups – The external interest groups that represent the communication
protocols that are included in the Connected Vehicle environment
Testing Laboratories – The testing facilities that become accredited to perform the CVCS test
suites and conduct the testing
August 11, 2011 Page 13
CVCS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Function
The Board will develop and approve the organizational policies, bylaws and establish the
strategic direction of the Forum. The board has direct supervision of the Forum’s Executive
Director and oversight of the board committees which include:
Executive Committee
Steering Committee
Funding Committee
Membership Committee
Membership
The minimum number of Board members is seven with a maximum to be established by the
initial sitting board.
August 11, 2011 Page 14
CVCS MANAGMENT COMMITTEE
Function
The Management Committee (MC) is responsible for approval and implementation of the
outputs of the Operating Committee (OC) and Technical Committee (TC). The MC is the link
between the strategic direction of the Board and the tactical policies of the TC and OC. The
members assure that work of the TC and OC is in alignment with the Board’s strategic direction.
Their responsibilities include:
Approve new profiles developed by Technical Committee
Approve new endorsements developed by Technical Committee
Approve new Test plan developed by Technical Committee
Authorizes test laboratories based on recommendations by Technical Committee
Approves organizational policies and procedures developed by Operating Committee
Second level of appeals for both technical and procedure related grievances based on
CVCS procedure
Membership
The committee is chaired by Forum’s Executive Director and is comprised by an established
number of member representatives. The member representative will be appointed by the
Board with the number of seats to be determined as a percentage of total membership.
OPERATING COMMITTEE
Function
The Operating Committee’s core responsibilities revolve around the procedures, forms and
guidance document development that establish the operating framework of the CVCS. They
are also responsible for maintaining a relationship with the management organizations of
external certification programs (CCF, WiMax Forum, Wi‐F Alliance, etc.) and standard
development organizations (SAE, IEEE etc.) to coordinate industry efforts. Examples of the
Operating Committee’s outputs include:
CVCS Process Guide
CVCS Portal User Guide
August 11, 2011 Page 15
All forms that live within the CVCS Portal
Quality manual and all associated and referenced procedures
Membership
The committee membership is appointed by the Board from the Forum’s general membership
with a chairman elected from the committee membership. The Executive Director will have
direct oversight responsibility of the Operating Committee
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Function
The technical committee’s core responsibilities revolve around the technical aspects of the
certification programs within the CVCS. The intent of the CVCS is to have multiple certification
programs operate under one umbrella system, requiring significant resources to develop test
plans or work with outside organizations to coordinate the development of technical
requirements. The TC is also the first level of appeal for product/testing related grievances.
Examples of the outputs of the TC include:
Creation of new test plan or coordinated work with outside committee to develop test
plan
Technical requirements for new Profile, Endorsement or Scale
Reviews accreditation assessment results for new or current Authorized Testing
Laboratories (ATL)
Reviews applicable test data (from ATL or vendor of self‐declaration)
Membership
The committee membership is appointed by the Board from the Forum’s general membership
with a chairman elected from the committee membership. The Executive Director will have
direct oversight responsibility of the Technical Committee.
August 11, 2011 Page 16
CERTIFICATION SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES
The adaptability of the CVCS depends on how the various certification programs fit within the
framework of the overall system. The following diagram depicts the CVCS and associated
programs and the various Profiles and Endorsements that make the adaptability possible.
To meet the Connected Vehicle objectives of certifying any application, device or protocol that
operates within the Connected Vehicle environment a flexible framework has to be created
that has various levels of certification that are delineated by Profile, Endorsement and Class.
The application’s purpose will dictate the certification level based on the criticality of the
information delivered such as “life threatening situation”. Each device and appropriate
applications need to be “Classified” which determines the certification “need” level. All device
classes need to “conform” to its requirements and have interoperability among its peers.
August 11, 2011 Page 17
CERTIFICATION PROFILES
The CVCS is divided into profile types to categorize differing certification needs. We project an
initial three types of profiles; Network, Device/Protocol, Service/Application.
Network – Defines network parameters
Device/Protocol – Defines device/protocol level requirements
Service/Application – Defines application level requirements
CERTIFICATION ENDORSEMENTS
Within the profiles there are Endorsements that further specify the requirements of testing.
Within each Endorsement there may be multiple certification programs that reflect the needs
of a specific network, device/protocol or application.
Although separated through Profiles it is recognized that there must be a connection point
between protocols and applications within the test plans because of the functional relationship.
In the envisioned fully‐open architecture of Connected Vehicle, applications should not be
limited to specific wireless communication mediums or protocols; and there may be several
mediums or protocols available (e.g. DSRC, cellular, Wi‐Fi, etc.) to provide vehicle connectivity
in support of the various Connected Vehicle applications. A possible mechanism (as an
example), is for applications to declare their communications requirements (throughput,
latency, etc.) to a middleware “Communications Manager” (CM) that would select the best
available communication medium and protocol to satisfy the application’s need under the
current conditions. The CM enabler would route message traffic between the applications and
their respective chosen wireless communications handlers, and may even change
mediums/protocols dynamically as either the needs of the application(s) and/or the available
connectivity changes, or to balance communications loading. This CM middleware layer also
provides a clear demarcation between communications devices and applications for the
purposes of design, implementation and test/certification. Communication devices could be
certified independently to meet specific, quantitative requirements for protocol/standards
compliance, throughput, latency, range, interoperability, etc. independent of any application
which may eventually utilize the device. Similarly, applications could be validated to meet
functional requirements assuming that wireless interface data requirements are being satisfied.
The separation of certification Profiles and Endorsements enables the CVCS to institute various
sets of policies and procedures. For example, one test plan could require third party
certification and another test plan could allow self‐declaration of conformance. Although
August 11, 2011 Page 18
separate, these different certification plans can be linked together through an overarching set
of requirements that must be followed for all Connected Vehicle applications. These overall
program requirements are linked to the application test plans through an Endorsement
Requirement Scale.
ENDORSEMENT SCALES
The CVCS Technical Committee creates these scales for each Endorsement which specifies
criteria that must be present for all applications within an Endorsement category. Because not
all applications within an Endorsement category may require the same level of rigor, each
Endorsement Scale has multiple classes. The Technical Committee establishes quantitative
parameters around each class. During the certification submittal process the vendor provides
information that will place their application within one of the classes. This will determine which
CVCS requirements they must conform to along with the specific requirements of the test plan.
For example, a safety application that has “safety of life” implications would qualify as a Class III
Safety application. In order to complete certification they must conform to all requirements as
specified in the test plan as well as a Fail‐Safe requirement determine by the Endorsement and
Class structure.
August 11, 2011 Page 19
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURE
PLATFORM
The CVCS Portal is an electronic certification system that provides connectivity and access to all
of the stakeholders of the certification process. This centralized repository of all certification
program data enables each user type to interact with the data in the manner that is meaningful
to their role. Each user type will have a unique interface with the platform to upload, download
or view the data that is required for their role.
The roles interacting with the CVCS Portal include:
Connected Vehicle Device Manufacturer – Manufacturer of an OBE or RSE to be certified by
ICS. Manufacturer must interact with ICS to gain certification.
Connected Vehicle Application Developer – Developer of application that falls within ICS
application parameters. Developer must interact with the CVCS system to gain certification
August 11, 2011 Page 20
Authorized Testing Lab – The labs authorized to perform testing against the various
certification profiles. The labs interact with the CVCS system to accept an application for
certification and submit test results
Infrastructure Operator – The operator is responsible for setting system requirements and
making purchasing decisions for components of their infrastructure. They interact with the
CVCS to verify product certification status. They must also have an understanding of the
technical requirements throughout the profiles and various endorsements and the impact on
interoperability.
Certification System Administrator – As the administrator of the certification system, the
committees of the CVCS Forum (Technical Committee, Operations Committee) will have distinct
roles and interfaces with the CVCS Portal.
Technical Committee
o Views/approves accreditation data on the ATLs
o Views/endorses or rejects laboratory supplied test data and forward results to
Management Committee for disposition
o Responds to appeal action
o Updates test plan criteria in database
Operations Committee
o Update all form, user guides and procedures that live within the CVCS Portal
Management Committee
o Disposition results forwarded by Technical Committee to either award
certification or recommend testing remediation plan
o Update QPL and issues the certificate generation request to Certificate
Authority. Certificate allows the device, service or application to use the
system.
August 11, 2011 Page 21
PROCESS
The following diagram portrays the process flow of the CVCS:
Following is an operational scenario describing the sequences between the program users and
the CVCS portal.
Vendor
Vendor (device manufacturer of application developer) makes the decision that
pursuing CVCS certification is in the best interest of their product
Vendor logs into the CVCS Portal
Creates vendor profile
Selects desired certification Profile and Endorsement
Enters product data
Confirms test plan associated with selected profiles and CVCS requirements
August 11, 2011 Page 22
Selects laboratory for testing from list of authorized testing facilities
Sends product to laboratory for testing and pays appropriate fees
After testing, reviews results with laboratory. If failed, follow prescribed
remediation plan, if passed acknowledge and have lab send to CVCS Forum for
granting of certification
Authorized Testing Lab
Receives and maintains authorization status with CVCS Forum
Receives applicant’s request for quote
Review application and test plan requested and provides quote back to applicant
through the CVCS Portal
After quote acceptance by vendor , communicate logistics of testing to applicant
Perform the testing as dictated by the testing plan
Reviews test report with vendor and send to CVCS Forum if acknowledge by
vendor
Submit testing report back into the CVCS Portal
Technical Committee of the CVCS Forum
Receives alert that new testing data is in system
Reviews test report, applicant data (self‐declaration if applicable)
Makes recommendation to the Management Committee to award certification
or remediation testing
Management Committee of the CVCS Forum
Alerts vendor of certification decision and sends certification documentation and
provides authorization for software certificate generation if applicable
Updates Certified Product List (CPL)
Users (Infrastructure operator/ Vehicle manufacturer)
When making purchasing decision for infrastructure devices the users would
consult the CVCS Portal to determine certification requirements
Consult CVCS Portal to confirm products certification status
August 11, 2011 Page 23
CERTIFICATION STATUS IN THE USDOT CONNECTED VEHICLE PROGRAM
USDOT is initiating a larger scale “Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot” to test different aspects of
Connected Vehicle components. A major component is the wireless communication device
residing on the vehicle and on the road infrastructure. There are several types of 5.9GHz DSRC
devices that will be tested: 1) Here I Am (HIA), 2) Aftermarket Safety Device (ASD), 3) Integrated
Safety Device and 4) Roadside Units (RSU). These device types must be capable of two‐way
communication and demonstrate conformance to the requirements, including interoperability
and non‐interference.
USDOT has authorized OmniAir to develop and conduct the aspect of the certification pilot that
qualifies the “Here I Am (HIA)” 5.9 GHz devices which will be used/deployed in the Safety Pilot.
The Pilot plans for 3,000 devices, most of which will be HIA devices (80% to 90%). As such, HIA
devices will be the most populated component in terms of proving WSM (Wave Short Message)
transmissions. This certification pilot will evaluate the certification process, test procedures,
test tools and its documentation to conduct screening and qualification testing with HIA
product from multiple vendors. USDOT has procured the HIA product samples from five
vendors and OmniAir will evaluate them, allowing the Safety Pilot Conductor (a contractor to be
determined) to select from a variety of vendors groups of HIA devices deployed for Safety Pilot
needs. This certification pilot allows the process to be tested and evaluated before addressing
more complex components / elements of certification such as integrated 5.9 GHz DSRC devices
and connected vehicle applications.
USDOT expects that a third party contractor/facility will test OmniAir’s certification process and
tools by running “Aftermarket Safety” device candidates, which have more functionality,
through ‘OmniAir’s’ program. This ‘use’ of the OmniAir process would fine‐tune the process
and yield additional experience with conducting certifications, as well as testing the adaptability
of the process, i.e. how well it handles different product types.
Note: It appears the other device types such as RSU, integrated OBU and heavy vehicle OBU
devices are being self‐declared compliant through the manufacturer or testing efforts of other
development groups such as CAMP (the Automotive Manufacturers Consortium). This means
that in effect, we have distinct qualifying processes, which in OmniAir’s opinion, poses a risk to
interoperability in the field. OmniAir staff has made USDOT aware of this risk.
Connected Vehicle Certification Program Task 3 - State and Local Needs Assessment Created for:
Recipient:
Cooperative Transportation Systems Pooled Fund Study 351 McCormick Road P.O. Box 4000742 Charlottesville, VA 22904 From:
Timothy J. McGuckin Executive Director OmniAir Consortium, Inc. 105 N. Virginia Ave, Suite 206 Falls Church, VA 22046 (O) 703-531-1817 (M) 202-276-8483 (Fax) 703-531-1819 [email protected] www.omniair.org
November 21st 2011
November 21st 2011 Page 2
CONTENTS
Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
Part I – Interview Results ................................................................................................................ 8
Part II – Summary Survey Questions Derived from Original Questionnaire ................................ 65
Part III – Observations and Preliminary Analysis .......................................................................... 67
November 21st 2011 Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper reports the results of interviews conducted on behalf of the Cooperative
Systems/Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study concerning state and local needs relative to the
establishment of a Connected Vehicle Certification Program. It also provides preliminary
analysis of comments collected during the interview process.
A set of interview participants, comprised of members from agencies currently involved with
the Pooled Fund Study was identified, provided a questionnaire, and interviewed during the
time span from October 5th, 2011 to November 9, 2011. The questionnaire and interviews
solicited participant response on a number of topics ranging from questions concerning general
awareness of Connected Vehicle programs to specific questions regarding deployment plans,
system security policies, and implementation. Topics also included questions intended to solicit
opinions and feedback on where such emerging programs may fit within current state and local
agency structures. All were geared to help establish a general understanding of concerns and
needs from the state and local perspective.
Several common threads emerged in the responses that were gathered. First, there seems to
be unanimous agreement that the USDOT role is critical for the success of any Connected
Vehicle Certification Program. Further, Connected Vehicle devices must be governed by open
standards and be interoperable, with program and product development that is championed at
a national level. Second, there is a strong common desire that there be a mechanism to ensure
compliance and proper function of these devices. Respondents generally agreed that an
organized, effective, impartial, and consistent certification body or program would contribute
greatly to instill confidence in device performance, standards compliance, and reliability. Lastly,
there is a common desire that the USDOT continue to lead, guide, and coordinate certain
aspects of Connected Vehicle standardization and certification until at least a point where the
technology is considered mature and its utilization is better understood and further integrated
into the mainstream operations of state and local transportation agencies.
Agencies within state and local organizations that are involved with traffic operations,
signalization systems, and freeway management will likely be responsible for some facet of
approval, design, integration, or implementation of Connected Vehicle systems. Agency
resources are likely to include in‐house staff, in‐house consultant staff, outside
consultants/contractors, and others. However, all will likely be working under the direction of a
state or local official with overall responsibility for traffic operations.
In summary, state and local entities desire support and guidance that will reduce their risks of
implementation, ownership, and operation of Connected Vehicle systems. Most agree that
technical risks can be mitigated through product evaluation and certification against mature
November 21st 2011 Page 4
and well‐crafted functional specifications. Most appear to desire national guidance and
development of technical specifications that allow competitive bidding of equipment from a
qualified group of manufacturers.
Participants also felt there is value in certification and marking/branding. Most wish that
equipment be validated and vetted through testing, pilot projects, and perhaps formal
certification. If executed properly, certification and marking of connected vehicle equipment
would help establish state and local confidence in products.
Finally, state and local agencies desire national guidance on deployment and use of Connected
Vehicle technologies. The need for USDOT leadership emerged as a common theme. Multiple
participants referenced mainstream organizations and publications, such as AASHTO and the
MUTCD, as having possible applicability. Such organizations and publications help establish
and document “best practices” and this is often used to support and defend decisions made by
local and regional agencies. All respondents indicated interest in legal and liability issues
concerning the Connected Vehicle technology and most drew parallels to familiar liability issues
that often surround proper roadway/sign designs and proper operation of signals and other
traffic control devices. Beyond helping to establish guidance, foster uniformity, and facilitate
information exchange, the “best practice” and rules/guidance established by such stakeholder
groups and publications were noted by respondents as often being valuable in the defense of
local and state agencies during legal challenges.
Overall, there appears to be a strong case for a well‐structured and well‐executed certification
program for Connected Vehicle devices. The keys to the success of such a program will be its
basis on stable, well‐vetted, comprehensive standards; and the establishment of an entity able
to coordinate and establish rules that will ensure comprehensive, impartial, consistent, and
credible independent product evaluations and certification.
The interviews and data compilation described herein allow preliminary development of a
needs list that can be used to determine future action items. Needs and desires expressed by
participants included:
The need and desire for continued USDOT leadership in Connected Vehicle
specifications that can simply be adopted by state and local agencies.
The need to promote general awareness of Connected Vehicle technology and the real‐
world applications it will likely support in the near future. Awareness is currently very
limited, and this is a program/technology that is expected to involve direct presentation
of information (traffic data, warnings, etc.) to drivers. For instance, traffic signals are
familiar to the public; Signal Phasing and Timing (SpaT) information is not.
November 21st 2011 Page 5
The need and desire for USDOT to consider legacy equipment and backwards
compatibility as they work to advance Connected Vehicle technology.
The need for a “one‐stop” certification or Qualified Product List (QPL) program. State
and local agencies may not have the resources or familiarity with these devices to pick
“good” from “bad.” A listing of validated products or a credible certification mark to
identify quality, reliable products would be helpful.
The need for national guidance on product development and deployment that fosters
uniformity and interoperability. Consider models such as the MUTCD and NTCIP.
The need for state and local agencies to have convenient mechanisms (forum, web
portal, working group, etc.) to express their needs/desires/concerns directly to USDOT
Connected Vehicle Program leadership.
The desire for, and possible establishment of, a concise set of “guiding principles” that
the USDOT should consider for various aspects of Connected Vehicle technology
development and deployment. Examples might include “ensure future device
specifications take into account legacy system needs,” “consider ease of deployment
and maintenance, etc.
Desire for increased awareness and sharing of “best practices,” including policies, data
use/data sharing agreements, and general mainstreaming of Connected Vehicle
technology and devices.
Desire for high‐level “architecture” documents.
The need for national policy, guidance, or other resources that will help limit state and
local liability for damages or injury that may somehow arise from, or relate to,
Connected Vehicle systems that are chosen for deployment and operation.
The need to make the complexity of Connected Vehicle technology simple. While the
underpinnings of Connected Vehicle must be complex, the end product must be
reasonably simple to deploy, operate, and understand. Traffic Signal Systems and their
communication networks are complicated and specialized. Most citizens are not even
aware of the infrastructure and equipment required for signalization. They are,
however, very aware and familiar with “traffic lights.”
November 21st 2011 Page 6
INTRODUCTION
The objective of Task 3 is to establish and quantify state and local needs for the deployment of a Cooperative System/Connected Vehicle Certification Program. This research was conducted through interviews and surveys to determine the needs of state and local authorities and how much variability there is in this target population. A questionnaire document was created that included 52 questions divided into 6 categories. A group of pooled fund study participants was identified as interview candidates and were contacted to request their participation. The interviewees were sent the questionnaire ahead of time. The following is a list of participants contacted who responded with written responses to the questionnaire or participated in telephone interviews.
Person Agency Greg Larson CalTrans
Elizabeth Birriel FDOT
Faisal Saleem MCDOT
Ray Starr MnDOT
Rick McDonough NYDOT
Gary Piotrowicz RCOC
Barry Pelilis Transport Canada
Melissa Lance VDOT
John Corbin WisDOT
Bill Legg WashDOT
The results of the interviews and responses were used to create a short survey that is focused on items which solicited the greatest amount of response and interest from the pool of initial participants. This survey instrument may be distributed in the future to gather additional data from a broader group of participants. The summary survey is much shorter and only takes a few minutes to complete. The survey provides the Pooled Fund Study (PFS) with a mechanism to reach out to other agencies to gain their perspective on Cooperative System/Connection Vehicle certification. The questions in the summary survey were selected and refined based on review and analysis of responses from the participants identified above and includes questions concerning key issues that appeared to have a high interest among the initial interview participants. The following sections are divided into three parts. The first part summarizes the responses received from the interviewees in a tabular format. The second part contains the survey questions that were derived from the interviews. The survey can be formatted, possibly as a web‐based instrument, and used by the PFS to solicit input from additional agencies. An example of the survey, in electronic form, can be placed online for the PFS’s convenience.
November 21st 2011 Page 7
The third part contains a compilation of observations that were made during the interviews, data gathering, and subsequent organization of materials. Additional analysis is planned as a separate task (Task 4) within the Pooled Fund Study project. However, preliminary analysis was possible during this task, so the team involved has taken the opportunity to identify and note certain trends which appeared during the course of this portion of the project. These trends and preliminary analysis show both the commonality and variability of the interviewees and, in turn, state and local needs concerning a Connected Vehicle Certification Program.
November 21st 2011 Page 8
PART I – INTERVIEW RESULTS
The following table provides the summarized responses that were received during the oral and
written interviews conducted.
Category Questions Responses
Awareness and
Involvement
1. Is your organization
familiar with Connected
Vehicle systems and
devices?
Yes. Made investments and have program. New
executive team may not be aware of Connected
Vehicle.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Highly. Yes.
Yes.
Yes. Some individuals are very familiar, but across
organization ‐ probably not so much.
Yes.
2. Does your organization
envision Connected
Vehicle systems as part of
your future traffic
management strategies
and systems?
Yes. Supports Commercial Vehicle Operations in
particular.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
To be determined. It depends upon the results of
November 21st 2011 Page 9
Category Questions Responses
tests such as the safety pilot. If the systems are
demonstrated to provide significant safety and
mobility benefits, they would be considered among
other safety and mobility solutions.
Most likely, if the system as currently conceptualized
materializes.
Yes. A number of provinces and municipalities are
aware and considering technology, but how it will be
implemented and mature is yet to be determined.
Yes.
3. How important is your
organization’s level of
direct involvement with
the USDOT Connected
Vehicle Program?
Important, but more important that USDOT address
and manage certain aspects for states to successfully
deploy. USDOT must lead and promote
interoperability. Without USDOT leading and
managing national effort it will not be successful.
Direct involvement is important.
Important and we are very much involved with USDOT
and others (ITE, for instance).
Very important.
Involvement with the USDOT's program is important
and has been beneficial in moving forward with
various pilot projects related to connected vehicles.
Important.
Important.
Involvement is important. Our agency is more
involved at higher level. We do not typically deploy or
operate, but establish policy. In that sense, it is very
important to be involved at the committee and
November 21st 2011 Page 10
Category Questions Responses
working group levels.
4. Does your organization
already have plans to
deploy Connected Vehicle
infrastructure? If so, for
what application and
when?
We have deployed Infrastructure for pilot projects and
want to deploy more. It is important note that future
upgrades and maintaining backwards compatibility are
important issues. Upgrades and advances in
technology MUST BE COORDINATED. While RITA and
other entities are to be commended for their work in
laying early groundwork and establishing program
momentum, their specialty is research. Research
needs and focus do not always match the needs and
focus of those who must deploy and operate this
equipment. USDOT must be more cooperative and
considerate of current state deployment needs.
USDOT must strive to ensure everyone is in unison and
give additional consideration to real world needs.
Currently in planning stage. We have plans but have
not identified what and where. Our agency goal is to
have something on the ground within 1‐3 years.
Funding is set aside and areas of application and
interest exist.
Yes. In planning stages. Current concepts being
explored involve multimodal signal operations.
Concepts developed for incident management and
emergency vehicle priority. Likely to involve JAE 2735
SpAT messages, actuated signals, and vehicle
detection.
Yes. Test bed deployed and in process of update.
System includes a variety of DSRC equipment at
November 21st 2011 Page 11
Category Questions Responses
actuated intersections.
Yes. Deployed test bed, but that is all. There have
been no additional deployments primarily because of
uncertainty as to what to put in. If product was
mature, we would be adopting and deploying at every
new intersection, maybe. We would likely consider
DSRC roadside equipment as another tool to stick in
the design toolbox.
We have had the infrastructure side of a Cooperative
Intersection Collision Avoidance System ‐ Stop Sign
Assist (CICAS‐SSA) system operational in the field for
nearly 2 years, with a dynamic sign providing
information to the public. As part of a pilot project we
are doing now, we will test providing the warning in
the vehicle through use of DSRC from the roadside.
This test will involve 5 vehicles at one test intersection.
No current plans.
No plans for production, but several in planning stages
for pilot deployment. Very interested in commercial
vehicle applications (weigh/clear for border crossings,
etc.). CVO is viewed as low hanging fruit and early
opportunity. There may not be as many privacy
concerns with CVO since commercial vehicle operators
are already regulated and familiar with other forms of
monitoring and governance (electronic permitting,
etc.). Therefore, there is less likely to be a “big
November 21st 2011 Page 12
Category Questions Responses
brother” perception.
Yes. We have deployed hardware and software on a
limited test bed corridor. This effort was one of many
initial activities to support safety pilot deployment and
future long‐term operation of Connected Vehicle
systems and technologies. Our next steps are in the
planning stage, with Concepts of Operation currently
under development for continued Connected Vehicle
V2I use cases and operation.
5. Is your organization aware
that the USDOT has
awarded contracts to
multiple vendors for the
manufacture of Roadside
Equipment and Vehicle
Awareness Devices?
Yes
Yes
Yes. Aware, but not familiar with the details.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes in the context of the safety pilot, but nothing in
November 21st 2011 Page 13
Category Questions Responses
production. Aware of some activities through AASHTO
working group and VDOT pooled fund study.
6. If your organization were
to purchase a Connected
Vehicle device from the
USDOT selected vendors,
would your organization
expect the device to be
certified interoperable?
“Absolutely”. If that doesn’t occur, justification for
purchase would be difficult or impossible.
Yes. Certainly a preference.
Absolutely.
Yes. I am a researcher. I can do things in a test bed
environment. In the long run, there is preference for
certification. Whether that is in‐house or 3rd party
may be determined later.
Yes
Yes, although my understanding is that the standards
are still being refined, such that interoperability may
only exist at a specific point in time among devices
being tested against the same version of a standard.
For example, I understand that the security approach
is still being debated, and so devices manufactured
now may not interoperate with devices manufactured
once there is a final security standard.
Most likely, depending on what “certified” means
November 21st 2011 Page 14
Category Questions Responses
Yes. We would hope it would be. However,
understand that prototypes may not be. For
production devices and systems you would absolutely
expect that they be certified interoperable.
7. Does your organization
plan to perform your own
evaluation or certification
of Connected Vehicle
devices or plan to have a
3rd party certify devices? If
so, Why?
No. We want it to be evaluated and certified already.
Uncertain. Prefer 3rd party. In‐house evaluation may
be cost prohibitive.
To the point that we are comfortable with product.
This would likely include pilot project field testing, etc.
Essentially, this is similar to existing processes we use
to evaluate the operational effectiveness of any new
device.
We have the ability, though we would prefer a 3rd
party and perhaps some sort of in‐house/3rd party
balance.
3rd party. We do not want to commit resources, etc.
to that effort. Want interoperability certification done
by others.
At this point we are using the devices in an
experimental phase, and we would probably have our
contractor evaluate compatibility of devices. This is
because there is currently no 3rd party device certifier
that I know of. In the long term the industry should
take care of the whole issue and we should not have
November 21st 2011 Page 15
Category Questions Responses
to do anything. If we buy an Ethernet device or
Bluetooth device or Windows software, etc., we can
safely assume that some reasonable amount of
certification or testing to standards has been done by
the manufacturer.
Hard to say at this point.
To be determined.
We expect to perform at least some level of product
evaluation to gain confidence in proposed devices,
such as testing at our internal research facilities, pilot
project deployments, etc. We expect that the process
will be similar to what is done for any new device
introduced into our state transportation system. We
have a history of evaluating and approving equipment
for our statewide Approved Product List (APL) and
believe this process will also benefit USDOT by
providing feedback and lessons learned.
8. Does your organization
currently work with other
agencies on the design and
deployment of cooperative
systems?
Yes.
Yes. More with the research side, particularly
University Partners and AASHTO group.
We have a number of partnerships, both public and
private
November 21st 2011 Page 16
Category Questions Responses
Yes. Our test bed is a partnership. We also have
partnerships with Universities.
Yes. Almost every test bed is a partnership.
No. We have one test project. However we partner
with Universities. At lease one university in our area
has done some work with DSRC.
Yes, via AASHTO and the CV PFS
Yes. CVO, rail, etc.
Yes.
9. What role does your
organization play in
interstate road operations,
arterial roadways,
signalization, commercial
vehicle
operations/permitting,
tolling, transit system
information, 511 and
others?
Statewide interstate and state highway owner and
maintainer. We operate 511 and fund all transit
operations. We are not involved with tolling (tolling is
operated by specific authorities designed to do so).
We are the lead agency for Federal Motor Carrier
Safety.
Interstate and arterial operations, signalization, 511.
All roads except for 2 counties and cities.
Primary scope is arterial roads, signalizations.
November 21st 2011 Page 17
Category Questions Responses
Regional Archive Data Server.
A little to do with all, a lot to do with many.
Responsible for building, operating, maintaining all
interstates and start routes. Responsible for
approximately 5000 signals statewide, out of
approximately 40000. Others are operated by
counties/cities. Responsible for CV permitting, tolling
is handled mostly by regional agencies. 511 is run by
regional agencies. About to launch state highway 511.
Many state signals are transferred to local agencies. If
state signals are given to locals, locals take all
responsibility from that point forward.
Yes. CVO, Tolling, Transit, 511 no. Others maybe.
We do all the items on your list except for transit
system information. That is done by the transit
authority.
We are a state DOT and have activities and
responsibilities in all listed areas.
Facilitator/leaders on 511, CVO (Road Safety). Much
of the rest is carried forth by local agencies though we
likely provide some level of funding.
We work on all of the items mentioned in this list,
though our direct involvement with tolling and transit
information is limited.
November 21st 2011 Page 18
Category Questions Responses
10. What would help establish
confidence that Connected
Vehicle equipment from
one vendor is likely to be
interoperable and
interchangeable with
similar equipment from
others?
Have an entity to test and guarantee interoperability.
There is a need to ensure what is bought will work
when taken out of the box. It is important to do pilot
deployments; pure research and reports are good first
steps, but not sufficient. States have to justify new
technology and if it does not work will be difficult to
get funding.
Established Standards. For instance NTCIP, etc. has
done a lot to advance interoperability for some
devices.
Test bed for local evaluation of equipment from
different vendors. Also, national standards. For
example, DMS NTCIP standards have afforded
standardization. OBE will be portable device so
national standards and interoperability are critical
Safety pilot and adherence to standards. Evidence
that equipment works in a close to real‐world
scenario.
A golden stamp. Kidding aside, certification by an
organization that is effective and supported by users.
For instance, the UL listing model is attractive.
Near term is really experimental stuff and I would
assume we would need to have our contractor ensure
interoperability. In the long term, this should be taken
November 21st 2011 Page 19
Category Questions Responses
care of by the manufacturers to the point where we
need not concern ourselves with it much. When there
is a widespread deployment of in‐vehicle and roadside
equipment, anyone whose equipment does not work
according the standard will not be in business long.
They will need to make sure it is right before they sell
it.
A true 3rd party managed certification program
Projects like safety pilot are good first step. Goal is
that pilots establish good level of confidence prior to
widespread deployment/production.
1. Establish standards and protocols for all vendors to
follow. 2. Having a testing facility to verify and certify
devices. 3. Operational evaluation and review of
detailed test reports and data from independent
testing entities. A similar process is followed for the
review and approval of other devices (such as traffic
signals, controllers, ITS equipment, etc.) already. Our
agency already relies upon a centralized statewide
program to evaluate products against state
requirements and national standards and accepts
independent lab reports as evidence that certain
requirements are met.
Federal
Governance
11. Is your organization aware
of any Connected Vehicle
Yes. OmniAir only. Details are not tremendously
important but conceptually at a high level, the idea of
November 21st 2011 Page 20
Category Questions Responses
certification programs
provided/supported by the
USDOT?
certification and a certification program is desirable.
Yes. Aware of OmniAir certification program activities.
Yes.
Only aware of OmniAir.
Very little. Pooled fund, OmniAir, and nothing else.
Not a lot of knowledge about OmniAir, but is aware of
that organization.
Just the pilot version being tested as part of the Safety
pilot test. OmniAir is somehow involved, but I do not
know if their efforts are sanctioned by the USDOT.
I am aware of the work being done to determine what
this will look like and the issues that need to be
addressed
Yes. OmniAir and perhaps some activities associated
with Safety Pilot. 80% of what I have heard is
knowledge gained from AASHTO working group.
Yes, though statewide agency awareness is probably
limited only to those that have had significant
November 21st 2011 Page 21
Category Questions Responses
firsthand exposure to the USDOT Connected Vehicle
Program.
12. Does your organization
believe that the USDOT
should provide a single
certification program for
Connected Vehicle
technology?
Single process, yes. Single entity or firm, not so much.
The end result being consistent and endorsed by
USDOT is desirable.
“I think it would be ideal”
Yes, that would be important. Something that
supports uniformity. For instance, many traffic control
devices (signs, signals, etc.) are evaluated against
MUTCD and other requirements.
Yes as long as it doesn’t become too costly. USDOT
should take a leadership role.
Yes. There needs to be a single point of governance
for consistency.
The definition of Connected Vehicle technology is
restricted to DSRC for this question. I think it would be
better if the industry took care of it rather than the
government.
Probably.
November 21st 2011 Page 22
Category Questions Responses
In a perfect world, yes, but doubtful it will end up this
way. The more likely result that I can envision would
be a system where USDOT has some degree of
oversight and influence from policy and program
perspective, but others would actually do the testing
and certification (execution and delivery).
A single certification program would seem to make
sense. This could be a single entity or a consistently
executed program whereby multiple certification
bodies (test labs, etc.) could contribute. Whatever
certification is ultimately established should be based
on consistent standards and consistent testing.
13. What testing directly
conducted on behalf of the
USDOT by independent
third parties would help
your organization select
Connected Vehicle
equipment?
Uniform interoperability testing to nationally
supported and endorsed requirements, etc.
QPL list for RSEs, equipments. Pick list of vendors
would be helpful.
If it is an independent IEEE or USDOT endorsed.
Skeptical if that could be comprised of a Vendor group.
Test climate, environment, functionality prescribed in
standards. Same as signal controllers.
Standards based interoperability testing. It is
expected to plug and go. How good is it? Rugged,
hardened, etc.
November 21st 2011 Page 23
Category Questions Responses
I do not know. An assurance by the USDOT that they
have convinced themselves that the devices on their
approved products lists are interoperable would be
what I would be looking for. Besides the equipment, I
would want some assurance that software
applications offered for sale by vendors will operate
properly with other software and with the hardware.
Not sure at this time
Pilot demonstrations helpful. If there was a 3rd party
organization such as UL. Reputation, credibility,
impartiality, and financial independence of such an
organization is critical.
Functional testing, environmental testing, and
interoperability testing would all be beneficial. Our
agency currently considers independent third party
testing in the evaluation and certification of ITS
equipment and other traffic control devices. We also
expect to use our test bed as a production system that
will help load testing of devices.
Requirements and
Regulation
14. What restrictions, if any,
do your organizational
policies and laws place on
purchasing devices used
Procurement rules must be followed. Often
determined by volume. If it is consistently and
frequently used then APL/QPL is desirable.
November 21st 2011 Page 24
Category Questions Responses
within your transportation
system?
Purchasing rules, including a qualified vendors list.
Purchasing rules. Should integrate with existing
system. For instance, if CV equipment requires change
to controller or other legacy.
Typical purchasing requirements and rules. Statewide
specifications govern and possible rules associated
with getting on APL.
Anything over 15,000 needs to be bid.
Mostly policies and laws designed to ensure open
competition and fair prices. Not much related to
certifications.
This is too broad of a question to respond to. We, as
well as the State have many laws and policies that
apply to purchasing
Standard procurement rules and competitive bidding
with functional requirements. At this time, it
purchasing is probably more restricted by
procurement policy than technical policy.
Our agency has purchasing and procurement rules. In
November 21st 2011 Page 25
Category Questions Responses
addition, devices used within the transportation
system are often required to meet our published
statewide Specifications and be listed on the Approved
Product List (APL).
15. What restrictions, if any,
do your organizational
policies and laws place on
purchasing devices
certified by a third party?
None. Restrictions written into RFP.
Purchasing rules.
None; up to technical group to accept
Our agency prefers competitive bidding. Currently buy
parts that are 3rd party certified and look for specific
standards like UL.
Unaware of any restrictive provisions.
There is no general policy or law related to 3rd party
certification. This would be determined on a case by
case by the agency for the particular procurement at
hand.
Unknown.
None. Third party certifications and test results are
often accepted to verify or confirm that a product
functions as required.
November 21st 2011 Page 26
Category Questions Responses
16. Would your organization
consider paying fees to
third parties to perform
testing on your behalf?
Unlikely. It is more typical for the cost of testing to be
handled by the product manufacturer and reflected in
the cost of the product.
Unsure. Depends on the price.
We do that already. For instance consultant
evaluations and/or University partnerships.
Yes.
Yes, but depends on structure. Would prefer it not be
direct payment, etc. Either federally handled or fees,
etc. paid by vendors.
In the near term as the industry is still immature it
may be necessary. In the long term we should not pay
for it directly. We do not pay directly for UL listing or
other common certifications today.
Not known at this time
May pay for testing as component of pilot projects,
etc. but unlikely.
Unlikely that it would be done directly. However, our
November 21st 2011 Page 27
Category Questions Responses
agency does pay fees for services (for instance, for
consultants to perform testing activities). We also
perform internal product evaluations (for listing
devices on the APL and QPL). In addition, we regularly
sponsor university research that may include some
degree of testing. For products and devices, the
responsibility to provide 3rd party test results and
evidence of compliance with requirements is often
placed on manufacturers that submit products for
APL/QPL consideration.
17. Would your organization
pay fees to access
independent test results
performed on connected
vehicle equipment,
applications, or services?
No. The end result is important (device is certified),
not necessarily the test data.
Possibly. University partners may be paid for testing
services to approve products. We would accept the
results of partner testing.
Uncertain at this point. Prefer that USDOT lead effort
to that level of detail. For instance, routers, switches,
etc. are trusted given the UL mark. If USDOT says it
conforms to the standard, the manufacturer certifies
that it does, and there is evidence, then that would be
sufficient.
Uncertain but possible.
Product Certification Mark would likely be sufficient.
The detailed test data is probably not necessary and
we likely do not have internal resources that the data
November 21st 2011 Page 28
Category Questions Responses
would make sense.
We may require independent test results but would
hope we would not have to pay for it. We require 3rd
party test results for traffic signal controllers and LED
signal indications, but we do not pay for it. Usually the
manufacturer gets the testing done for a specific
model of their device and uses the same test results
for all the customers.
Not known at this time.
Yes, if appropriate. For instance, we contract with
firms for security screenings. Seems to make fiscal
sense that if a group had test data available for a fee
that it could be purchased and reviewed rather than
starting from scratch.
Unlikely, though we typically require equipment
manufacturers to provide such results as part of
product evaluations for APL/QPL listing.
18. What agreements would
be required to allow other
agencies with Connected
Vehicle devices to
interface with your
organization’s Connected
Vehicle devices?
To be determined.
Uncertain of exact agreement, but would likely
necessitate some sort of MOU or equivalent to
establish and understanding of need, use, etc. Our
DOT does not have internal attorneys/general counsel.
Attorney General’s office provides legal services.
November 21st 2011 Page 29
Category Questions Responses
Leverage guidelines for agreements.
We have an operations partnership that helps us
establish regional partnerships and data exchange
agreements, etc.
Permits for encroachment, installation, etc. Data
sharing agreements. Service level agreement. No
particular model. Development and additional
thought necessary for future.
Uncertain at this point. There needs to be agreement
on a number of points. National uniformity is critical
and conformance to standards and certification is buy‐
in evidence of that agreement.
The question is too general to give a specific answer.
It would depend upon the specific application.
Not known at this time
Not applicable. Contribution agreements exist for
certain things. Our organization would
encourage/facilitate users, but most likely not actually
execute agreements.
Our organization commonly executes MOUs and other
November 21st 2011 Page 30
Category Questions Responses
agreements for data sharing, system connections,
maintenance, etc. Suspect that Connected Vehicle
systems and data could follow existing agreement
models. Our organization has a legal department that
would likely be involved with such.
19. Does your organization
produce or use a statewide
Qualified Products List or
equivalent?
QPL
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
We do for certain items.
Yes.
Yes. Maintain a number of prequalified list, but
probably not applicable to CV at this time. Provinces
and municipalities.
Yes.
November 21st 2011 Page 31
Category Questions Responses
20. What are your
organization’s processes
and procedures for listing
equipment on a Qualified
Products List or
equivalent?
See online.
See VDOT QPL website, etc.
See online. MAG standards in RFP and vendors are
qualified per contract.
See online. Lab under Traffic Operations, Electrical.
Check website.
n/a
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/products/index.html
n/a
Would likely encourage groups of stakeholders to
develop/agree upon such a list for CV, but it would
most likely by implemented/executed by others.
The process is documented online. For the APL, it
involves a 3‐step submittal process.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/trafficoperations/Traf_Sys/
terl/apl2.shtm
November 21st 2011 Page 32
Category Questions Responses
21. Does your organization
require vendors to pay a
fee to have their product
tested for the Qualified
Products List?
No.
See VDOT QPL website, etc.
N/A
Do not believe so. Check website.
No.
It depends, and we may expect the vendor to provide
products for evaluation at no cost
N/A
No.
22. How would a new
technology (i.e.,
Connected Vehicle)
become part of your
organization’s overall
qualified products
program?
Likely if there were dozens/hundreds
TBD
N/A
November 21st 2011 Page 33
Category Questions Responses
Hope that someone else is putting up RSEs, but
uncertain that there is a business model that supports
it. We should be SpaT info providers that provide
access to controller information, but not necessarily
own and operate the RSE. Perhaps a model similar to
what is done with certain red‐light enforcement
systems. We give them access to determine signal
state, but they handle everything else.
Yes. It is another traffic management device and
should be on QPLs that govern controllers, signals, etc.
We would have to determine that it is an appropriate
item to have on an approved products list versus
specifying it in detail in construction project. Then we
would need to develop a specification that vendors
would need to meet to get on the list. We would post
the specs and the process on our website. We would
evaluate the products of vendors that request to get
on the list. We sometimes grant provisional approval
such that we allow the vendor to try to get contractors
to use their device on our projects for some limited
amount of time. Following provisional deployments
we will determine if they are fully approved to be on
the list.
Not known at this time
N/A
November 21st 2011 Page 34
Category Questions Responses
It is likely that Connected Vehicle equipment,
particularly devices resident in roadside cabinets
would be considered and evaluated for listing on the
APL.
23. If your organization plans
to include Connected
Vehicle devices as part of
your organization’s
qualified products
program, would your
organization request
additional budget or would
this fall under your
organization’s current
budget?
Falls under current process.
TBD
N/A
If we did, we would likely ask for budget change and
end up with unfunded mandate.
It is unlikely we will get new money.
Not known at this time
N/A
Uncertain, though additional budget to perform the
additional work required would certainly be desirable
and helpful with resource allocation. We currently
have a full workload to evaluate APL products. If
Connected Vehicle devices are to be added as a
priority, then additional funding would be desired.
November 21st 2011 Page 35
Category Questions Responses
24. Does your organization
plan to develop or already
have requirements or
specifications for
Connected Vehicle
devices? If not, what
would your first Point of
Contact be to develop your
organization’s
requirements or
specifications for CV
devices?
Yes. Through following existing federal requirements
and adoption. #1 requirement is interoperability.
Project specifications done for existing projects.
No current specifications. Desire is to use
requirements established through pooled‐fund study
and AASHTO, etc. and then adopt those standards
Procurements and specifications to date were more
for research purposes. Future requirements would
likely be included in a supplement.
Depends on which way they go. If they are
responsible for RSE then yes, would try and use
National standards, but would likely write their own
because that is what they traditionally do. Highly
dependent on business model.
No. Prefer that be nationally directed, promoted.
Technology and products are not mature enough at
this point to tell how things
We do not currently have specifications for these
devices. Because the devices are still basically in an
experimental stage, we would only be developing
specs as part of a pilot test project, and would
probably have our contractor develop the specs.
November 21st 2011 Page 36
Category Questions Responses
No
Yes. Our organization would work with local and
regional operators to establish a minimum common
functional specification for national use. A North
American Specification, or perhaps global
specification, makes sense in the CV context.
We are currently in the preliminary stage of
developing procurement documents for RSEs. If
deployment and use of Connected Vehicle equipment
expands, we would likely take action to develop
statewide specifications for Connected Vehicle
roadside equipment. Our office would almost
certainly be the POC for requirements and
specifications for Connected Vehicle devices use in our
state.
25. Would your organization
consider becoming a third
party certification house
for Connected Vehicle
devices?
Extremely unlikely. Unfunded.
Probably not due to resources (staff/facilities).
However, University partners may have interest.
Do not believe that this is our role.
No
No
November 21st 2011 Page 37
Category Questions Responses
No
Not known at this time
Probably Not
Yes. It would depend upon coordination with USDOT’s
existing effort, the business case, and cost/benefit.
26. Would your organization
consider and be able to
perform in‐house testing
and pay fees (initial and
recurring) to become an
accredited Connected
Vehicle test facility?
Extremely unlikely.
Probably Not
N/A
No
N/A
No
Not known at this time
November 21st 2011 Page 38
Category Questions Responses
Possibly on a very limited basis.
We would likely consider and be able to perform in‐
house testing to some level. It is uncertain whether
we would be willing to pay fees for accreditation.
However, paying fees for accreditation is not
unprecedented.
27. What acceptance criteria
does your organization
generally consider for
electronics (such as
modems or Ethernet
switches) used on roadway
projects and signalized
intersections?
Requirements developed through past projects or
federal program requirements. Handful of types.
Minimum specifications statewide would likely cover
RSEs. Particularly about the ruggedness.
To be determined.
UL and internal testing. Case by case depending on
product.
NEMA. Typically manufacturer self certification.
Often gravitate towards field proven.
We do not have standard acceptance criteria. For
traffic signal equipment we sometimes use an
environmental chamber and test equipment to test
samples of the equipment to verify it is good. This is
not certification however.
Varies depending on the device and its application
November 21st 2011 Page 39
Category Questions Responses
N/A
We publish statewide specifications that contain
minimum requirements for Ethernet switches and
other electronics used on roadway projects. We
consider a variety of acceptance criteria in order to
evaluate and list such devices on the APL.
Legal
Responsibilities
28. Are there concerns within
your organization
regarding liability issues
that might be associated
with CV? If so, please
explain.
Same as other concerns nationally re: conceptual
issues with data privacy, etc. Crash avoidance and
other applications likely will elevate issues. To some
degree, similar discussions re: CCTV and privacy
Awareness is probably limited due to newness of
technology. Early adoption and deployment will likely
be focused on the “less controversial” applications. In‐
house fleets and other participants that are viewed
“low‐risk” likely. Start with own fleet and move
toward public acceptance
Yes. That is why it would be good to have MUTCD
content or other national guidance. For example –
accident at non‐signalized intersection. Lawyer says
sign was not good. Operators are protected by
national standards for sign design, etc. to mitigate
liability.
November 21st 2011 Page 40
Category Questions Responses
Yes. For instance, what happens if SPaT for
warning/collision avoidance malfunctions and results
in injury? We would ideally like to minimize liability.
Just the lawyers. Anything of this nature will have
legal and liability issues, but that alone is not the
reason not to do something. Just need protection and
appropriate legislation, etc. Certainly no more liability
than a signal, stop sign, etc.
Yes. Some of these are safety critical systems. Even
though it is OK to have a traffic signal without an RSE,
if we do have an RSE there may be expectation that
we keep it functional. This may end up making this to
be a very high priority maintenance item, delaying
completion of other maintenance needs. Anything
that connects to a traffic signal control cabinet is a
potential liability concern.
Yes, liability is always a concern particularly if we are
deploying life/safety systems such as traffic signals
Yes. Absolutely from a Road safety perspective. It
needs to be explored. Involves regulatory mandate,
like NHTSA – equipment in vehicles is often federally
mandated. For instance, Feds mandate seatbelts in
vehicles, States enforce use.
November 21st 2011 Page 41
Category Questions Responses
Yes, somewhat. Liability is always a concern for any
DOT or system operator. That is why it is good to have
national guidance on how enabling technologies or
methods are implemented. For instance, the MUTCD
has content for national guidance on many items.
National standards often afford a degree of protection
by helping define best practices.
29. Is your organization
interested in investigating
liabilities associated with
implementing, deploying,
or certifying CV programs?
In due time. Somewhat in process. Watching Fed
activities in this area closely. For instance, USDOT
governance round table discussion with privacy and
governance issues. More such activities would be
beneficial. Federal guidelines, etc. may be helpful for
consistency. Different levels of liabilities and
acknowledgement required for different applications.
Example: CVO has and needs private information.
Would prefer to see USDOT champion these issues.
Believes this is an appropriate role for the USDOT.
Yes. Liability is important to any public agency. Very
interested.
Yes.
Will be vetted through deployment, best practice, etc.
and knowledge sharing from groups and agencies
directly involved.
For CV to become an operational system rather than
November 21st 2011 Page 42
Category Questions Responses
research, we would need to investigate liabilities. At
this point it is all research.
It is probably too early for this.
Yes.
Yes. Our organization likely has established
protections for certain liability, but it would be good to
know how it may be applied to Connected Vehicle and
other new technologies, programs, etc.
30. Does your organization
have existing laws that
apply to device
certification?
No.
To be determined.
Mostly governed by standards.
Uncertain. Check website.
No.
We are required to have a listing by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory, such as UL, for electrical
equipment. That is about it.
November 21st 2011 Page 43
Category Questions Responses
We do not have laws as an organization, the State has
laws and we also follow federal laws. I do not know
any current relationship to device certification.
Yes, although specifics are uncertain.
Yes.
31. Will your organization be
willing to accept
responsibility for devices
that are certified by your
organization?
Do not plan to certify.
Uncertain.
N/A.
Yes.
N/A.
In the near term, while the devices are experimental,
we would probably need to have our contractor make
sure everything works. In the long term, the industry
should make sure everything works. We are routinely
responsible for accepting traffic signal control
equipment and other devices based upon our own
inspection, etc. We would not call that certification,
November 21st 2011 Page 44
Category Questions Responses
but rather acceptance.
Not known at this time.
To be determined.
Certification and listing on the APL does not relieve the
manufacturer of responsibility. It is unlikely that our
state would ever accept such responsibility.
32. Has your organization
been authorized by the
FCC to operate 5.9 GHZ
equipment associated with
Connected Vehicle
systems?
Yes
Uncertain.
No at this time.
Yes; office of radio communications handles
statewide.
Uncertain. Assume that someone has coordinated and
obtained this for the Federal test beds.
Uncertain.
November 21st 2011 Page 45
Category Questions Responses
Yes.
Yes. 5.9 has been set aside, but no licensees known at
this time.
Yes.
33. Is your organization
familiar with the process
of obtaining authorization
from the FCC to utilize the
5.9 GHZ band?
Yes.
Uncertain.
Somewhat.
Yes. Have office of radio telecommunication that
handles FCC licensure issues, etc.
Not intimately familiar.
We could figure it out. We have an internal office
representative for granting use of spectrum for public
safety. They would know how to obtain the necessary
authority.
We have license for the frequency.
November 21st 2011 Page 46
Category Questions Responses
Yes, but details to be determined.
Yes.
34. Would your organization
require assistance in
obtaining authorization
from the FCC to utilize the
5.9 GHZ band?
No.
Uncertain.
Yes.
Not necessary.
Yes.
No.
N/A.
Yes, particularly in border regions.
No.
Connected Vehicle
Network Design,
Deployment, and
November 21st 2011 Page 47
Category Questions Responses
Security
35. What Security Certificate
requirements has your
organization implemented
for IT networks?
Following best practice.
All ITS networks are closed networks and require
security. Security of networks is typically handled/
administered regionally.
We generate our own.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
We have requirements, though I am not familiar with
the details.
IT group looks after this based upon best practice.
Network security generally follows established best
practices based on the specifics of the network and
data in question.
November 21st 2011 Page 48
Category Questions Responses
36. What Security Certificate
requirements is your
organization planning for
IT networks?
Following best practice.
Uncertain.
Following best practice.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
We have requirements, though I am not familiar with
them.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
37. Does your organization
currently operate IPv6
networks?
Ability, but not yet.
Yes. Mostly in the core.
November 21st 2011 Page 49
Category Questions Responses
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Few, if at all.
Other than a handful of specialty applications, we
primarily operate IPv4 networks.
38. Has your organization
determined who will be
primarily responsible for
architecting and designing
CV data networks and
access points (RSEs)?
Yes, follow typical ITS Program process same as any
other ITS devices.
Central Operations & Security Division plus installing
contractors.
In‐house forces or contractors under the direction of
the Traffic Management Division.
No. Hopeful that there will be a business model that
makes it attractive to others.
November 21st 2011 Page 50
Category Questions Responses
We want list or QPL that gives locals comfort in
selecting equipment that has been certified and
vetted. They will most likely be responsible and a list
of such equipment would help product selection, etc.
No.
It is too early to consider this.
To be determined.
Deployment will likely be done by the Traffic
Operations/ITS program through contractors, and
potentially in‐house personnel.
39. Has your organization
determined who will be
primarily responsible for
the deployment of DSRC
RSE devices?
Yes, follow typical ITS Program process same as any
other ITS devices.
Central Operations & Security Division plus installing
contractors.
In‐house forces or contractors under the direction of
the Traffic Management Division.
No. Hopeful that there will be a business model that
makes it attractive to others.
November 21st 2011 Page 51
Category Questions Responses
No.
It is too early to consider this.
To be determined.
Deployment will likely be done by the Traffic
Operations/ITS program through contractors, and
potentially in‐house personnel.
40. Has your organization
considered how you plan
to handle network and
data security in DSRC
systems?
Yes. Following best practice, but still work in progress
given infancy of system.
Plan established.
Yes. Ongoing research to identify need, understand
intricacies, and deployment ramifications.
If we are responsible, then we will adopt best practice
and established standards
Too early to tell. Hopefully it will not require huge
technical burden on the part of those responsible for
deployment and operation.
November 21st 2011 Page 52
Category Questions Responses
My understanding is that how to do security with
DSRC is still being debated. I assume we would follow
whatever system is agreed upon at the national level.
It is too early to consider this.
To be determined.
Yes, it has been considered but is not mature.
Additional work in this area is necessary and it seems
too early to tell exactly how this will be handled in
mature deployments using stable products.
41. As part of the device
certification process,
would your organization
generate a security
certificate or expect to
obtain a certificate from a
third party?
Yes. Global security certificate may be desirable.
Expect 3rd party to verify.
Uncertain. Depends on technical details and need.
Testing should be done on closed system before
coming on open system
Uncertain.
Uncertain. Prefer not to be in the business of
generating certifications. We would expect 3rd parties
to provide
November 21st 2011 Page 53
Category Questions Responses
Too early to tell. Hopefully it will not require huge
technical burden .
Too soon to know.
Not known at this time.
To be determined.
Uncertain.
42. If your organization has
devices certified by a third
party, would you
organization expect to
receive a security
certificate as part of the
certification process?
Yes.
Uncertain. Security area needs work and vetting out
realities.
Uncertain.
Uncertain. Security area needs work and vetting out
realities.
Too early to tell.
Too soon to know.
November 21st 2011 Page 54
Category Questions Responses
Not known at this time.
To be determined.
Uncertain.
Technical
43. Does your organization
consider Connected
Vehicle devices and
products that are used as
part of a traffic control
system to be traffic control
devices?
Yes.
To be determined.
Yes.
No, but it is difficult to say. However, the MUTCD
would clearly establish things considered as traffic
control devices.
Absolutely part of our traffic control system, not
necessarily a traffic control device.
If they become part of a traffic control system they
would be traffic control devices.
November 21st 2011 Page 55
Category Questions Responses
Probably.
Yes. This is where we see the future of traffic control
moving – integrated systems.
Yes.
44. Does your organization
consider certifications or
approvals when selecting
products for use in your
organization’s
communications systems
such as UL, WiFi, etc.
Yes.
Yes, certifications and approvals are important to
ensure products operate as required. Helps establish
that technology is proven and vetted.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
The law requires listing for electrical equipment by a
nationally recognized testing lab, such as UL. This
does not apply to plug‐in devices, only to hardwired
electrical equipment. For things like WiFi, we just
assume the manufacture has it covered.
November 21st 2011 Page 56
Category Questions Responses
Yes.
Not applicable. More likely the role of consultants,
etc.
Yes.
45. If your organization has a
testing laboratory/facility,
how large is it? Is it
indoor, outdoor or both?
Yes, but more associated with materials (concrete,
asphalt, etc.).
Yes. Local university has lab. University staff only.
Also have a small lab (radio lab) as part of state
maintenance office.
Approximately 3 miles with 6 intersections.
Yes. Both. 80 acre campus that does material testing,
electronics testing, etc
No.
We have a testing facility for testing materials for road
construction, such as concrete cores or rebar, etc. We
also have a pavement testing facility with various
pavement test sections and a bypass, as well as a 2
mile closed loop test track for testing pavement on
low volume roads. We do not have a lab specifically
November 21st 2011 Page 57
Category Questions Responses
for testing electronic equipment. We test traffic signal
control equipment at our signal maintenance shop.
Yes, we do both indoor and outdoor testing, mostly
focused on construction materials. We also do
electronics testing in our regional Signal Shops
Yes. Indoor and outdoor test facilities. Contractor
operated, agency owned. Also have communication
research center campus that specializes in
military/commercial wireless, etc.
Yes. Our state has multiple testing facilities, including
indoor and outdoor areas including intersections, a
test tracks, small roads, and outdoor fields.
46. Does your testing facility
include a test track or area
that will accommodate
vehicles drive tests?
N/A.
Yes.
It is an active roadway. Otherwise, mostly indoor
facilities.
We have a signalized intersection.
N/A.
November 21st 2011 Page 58
Category Questions Responses
It could.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
47. Is your organization’s
facility capable of being
certified to avoid
interference with
government and other
proprietary frequencies?
N/A.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Yes.
N/A.
Uncertain.
Yes, but doing would depend on the level of effort
required and the benefit of doing so.
November 21st 2011 Page 59
Category Questions Responses
Yes.
Uncertain, but probably.
48. Would your organization
plan to purchase a
Connected Vehicle device
such as Roadside
Equipment from a single
vendor or multiple
vendors?
Prefer multiple viable for competition, etc.
Uncertain.
Uncertain.
Multiple preferred for competition.
Would like to see one, but the reality will be multiple.
It depends on if there are multiple vendors that
provide what we need. If more than one vendor can
provide what we need, multiple vendors is better.
Uncertain.
For long‐term, competitive solicitation is likely
preferred. However, for pilots and other preliminary
deployments a single vendor may be preferable.
November 21st 2011 Page 60
Category Questions Responses
Our organization prefers competitive solicitations
based on standard requirements. Therefore, it is likely
that we will ultimately purchase RSEs from multiple
vendors, though individual deployments may use
devices from a single vendor.
49. Does your organization
plan to purchase in‐vehicle
devices such as Vehicle
Awareness Devices and
Onboard Equipment for
use in fleet vehicles?
Possibly. Need additional information regarding value
and benefits. Too early to tell. Traction control status
for road conditions may be of future benefit, but may
not be available due to proprietary aspects of vehicle
OBD designs. Going to have to be a change in OEMs
position on what data they will provide off the bus.
Would purchase devices and install if the cost benefit
ratio is there.
Yes.
Currently already have in certain fleet vehicles.
Uncertain. Currently considering use in research
vehicles (transit, commercial, and other test vehicles).
Broader distribution uncertain. Have OBEs for testing.
Have vehicles that were donated. Plan to install
limited OBEs for research only.
Yes – only if we ever buy another vehicle.
Not at this time. There needs to be a reason to do so,
November 21st 2011 Page 61
Category Questions Responses
an application that will provide value immediately.
We already have substantial deployment of some
types of this equipment in our maintenance fleet.
Possibly, particularly with pilot projects. For instance,
a pilot Ecofleet has been done in the past for
alternative fuel experimental fleets.
Limited purchase of in‐vehicle devices is likely to
support Connected Vehicle pilot projects and
operational evaluations.
50. Would your organization
purchase in‐vehicle devices
such as Vehicle Awareness
Devices and Onboard
Equipment for use by
other agencies or for
distribution to public
volunteers?
Yes.
Maybe for other Agencies. Uncertain for volunteers.
Possibly. Prefer the other agency or entity purchase.
Primarily for research and in limited quantity.
Only as part of research or testing.
As part of our IntelliDrive for Safety, Mobility and User
Fees project, we have 150 volunteers with smart
phones with special software, and will have a total of
November 21st 2011 Page 62
Category Questions Responses
500 when the project is complete. Only about 5 of
these will have DSRC, which will work with the CICAS‐
SSA system which is already operational in the field.
We purchased these through the contractor who is
responsible for building the whole system for the test
project.
Unlikely unless it was part of a demonstration type of
project.
Absolutely yes. Very likely could be a component of
various projects.
Possibly, but unlikely. Would prefer the other agency
or entity purchase.
51. Would your organization
plan to purchase Vehicle
Awareness Devices and
Onboard Equipment from
a single vendor or multiple
vendors for a statewide
deployment?
Prefer multiple viable for competition.
Statewide deployment unlikely. Single vs. multiple
depends on project needs, etc. For instance,
statewide backbone is single vendor, but other devices
(such as layer2 switches, etc.) are typical multiple.
Competitive solicitation.
Multiple.
November 21st 2011 Page 63
Category Questions Responses
Multiple.
If CV becomes an actual operational system rather
than research, we would want multiple vendors if we
were going to do a statewide deployment.
Uncertain.
If it is COTS equipment and claimed to be
interoperable, then preference towards multiple. If it
involves more customization and development, then a
single vendor is likely preferred.
Competitive solicitation.
52. How would your
organization verify
interoperability of other
agencies Connected
Vehicle devices with your
organization’s Connected
Vehicle devices? Would
this even be an issue for
your organization?
Hopeful that certification process to national
standards will solve this issue.
Definitely an issue. Uncertain of the “how”, but
interoperability is key. Ensuring standards and
certification of devices is a large piece of the need.
Everyone needs to be moving forward in the same
path and working with the USDOT program to help
mesh all participants.
Great issue, but hope to test, exchange applications
November 21st 2011 Page 64
Category Questions Responses
Some degree of in‐house verification. Certification
would likely help address the concern.
Everyone in the “system” needs to be consistent and
interoperable. Certification would assist that.
Whatever project installed devices requiring
interoperability with another system would require
the contractor to ensure it did interoperate.
Uncertain.
It is an issue, but we would likely facilitate. Actual
inter‐jurisdictional interoperability checks would likely
be the responsibility of the owner/operator. 511
model, for instance.
Operational testing (system acceptance testing) would
likely be required on any project and would be a last
step to ensure interoperability and proper function.
However, steps along the way, such as an independent
certification of interoperability or a successful APL
evaluation, etc. would also establish confidence in
device interoperability.
November 21st 2011 Page 65
PART II – SUMMARY SURVEY QUESTIONS DERIVED FROM ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
The following table includes the survey questions that appeared to capture the essence of the
wide variety of topics covered during the initial interviews. The project team feels that these
questions are the most appropriate for creating a summary survey instrument that can be
provided to additional agencies to gain further information about their needs and opinions on
Cooperative System/Connected Vehicle Certification.
Question Number
Survey Question Possible Responses
1 Does your organization have plans to deploy Connected Vehicle infrastructure or projects?
Yes/No
2 How important is it that Connected Vehicle devices be interoperable and conformant to established standards?
Scale from Not Important to Absolutely Critical
3
Would your organization prefer to perform in‐house evaluation or certification of Connected Vehicle devices or would you prefer that they are certified interoperable and conformant to national standards by an independent 3rd party?
Pick from:
In‐house, 3rd Party, or Combination of Both.
4
Would a certification program based on national/international standards help establish your confidence that Connected Vehicle equipment from one vendor is interoperable and interchangeable with similar equipment from others?
Yes/No
5
Would you prefer that the USDOT establish a single certification program for Connected Vehicle technology or leave certification to others (such as States or Device Manufacturers)?
Pick from USDOT or Others
6 Does your organization produce or use a Qualified Products List or equivalent for products associated with your transportation systems?
Yes/No
7
Does your organization prefer to develop your own specifications for Connected Vehicle devices or adopt specifications for Connected Vehicle devices to use in contract documents for construction, procurement, etc.?
Scale from Prefer to develop specifications completely in‐house to prefer to adopt specifications produced by others.
8 Is your organization interested in investigating liabilities associated with implementing, deploying, or certifying CV programs?
Yes/No
November 21st 2011 Page 66
Question Number
Survey Question Possible Responses
9 Has your organization been authorized by the FCC to operate 5.9 GHZ equipment associated with Connected Vehicle systems?
Yes/No
10 Has your organization determined who will be primarily responsible for architecting and designing CV data networks and access points (RSEs) within your jurisdiction?
Scale from in‐house staff/consultants to outside 3rd parties.
11 Do product certifications or approvals such as WiFi, UL, FCC, CE, or others influence your selection of products?
Scale from “Has no influence” to “Has significant influence”
November 21st 2011 Page 67
PART III – OBSERVATIONS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
During the course of interviewing and organizing the responses, some observations were made
pertaining to how the agencies viewed certain areas of the Connected Vehicle program and
device certification. In‐depth analysis is the scope of Task 4 of this project; however, this task
provided an opportunity for preliminary analysis. As the responses were being organized, some
trends were identified. These trends were of two types; common and variability. On many
items, the agencies were all in agreement while on other items the agencies had wide ranging
opinions.
One of the strongest trends identified was that the agencies felt that the USDOT had to be
directly involved in certain key areas of the certification process. The agencies felt that the
USDOT had to provide leadership and guidance for interoperability testing. The USDOT did not
have to perform the testing, but rather should provide (develop or endorse) the standards
against which other entities would perform certification testing. The agencies felt that there
did not need to be a single certification entity, but there had to be a single point of contact for
overseeing the testing program. The majority of the agencies were not interested in developing
standards, test procedures, or performing certification testing. The agencies felt that was the
role of the USDOT and any certification bodies that the USDOT used. If a national rollout of
Connected Vehicle technology is going to be successful, the USDOT must provide the
foundation for certification testing such that a manufacturer’s device will operate properly
regardless of where it may be deployed in the US. Most agencies agreed that if they purchased
Connected Vehicle devices from the USDOT preferred vendors that they would expect the
devices to already be guaranteed interoperable. A few would perform additional testing by
selecting random units from different vendors and perform their own in house tests. The
agencies are expecting that a third party under USDOT direction will perform the
interoperability testing.
Many agencies already have, or have plans to, deploy Connected Vehicle technology. Many
agencies referred to having test beds either in‐use or in development. Signal Phasing and
Timing (SPaT), in vehicle device, and data gathering are examples of the types of technologies
and applications that are being investigated. The agencies are using passenger vehicles and
commercial vehicles in their testing and some are considering deploying the technology on
fleets such as snowplows and other maintenance vehicles.
These agencies vary in their responsibilities for managing roadways. Some primarily manage
expressways while others manage arterials and a few manage both. When looking at traffic
management operations, the agencies are all involved in some level of traffic management
ranging from signal systems to 511, tolling transit, and commercial vehicles. These agencies
November 21st 2011 Page 68
plan to incorporate Connected Vehicle technology into mainstream traffic management
operations at some point. However, their adoption of Connected Vehicle technology depends
greatly on how these systems mature and perform in the relatively near future.
Interoperability of the in‐vehicle devices is crucial to agencies being able to collect, process, and
use data from in‐vehicle devices. Agencies are looking at ways to use the data to improve
operations and provide data to the vehicles so that drivers can make informed decisions
regarding routing and environmental factors as well as other potential in‐vehicle applications.
Again, interoperability is the key for traffic management centers to communicate information
to all in vehicle devices no matter where the location of the device.
Many of the agencies had differing ideas on how interoperability among the in‐vehicle and
roadside devices should be achieved. Some believed that had a single, third party certification
agency would be sufficient. Other agencies felt that continued research and testing of the
devices through pilot programs and model deployments such as the ongoing Safety Pilot model
deployment are necessary to ensure long term viability of device interoperability. Agencies had
concerns over devices being backwards compatible and continued interoperability as newer
versions of the devices are released. This is a big concern because technology is turning over at
a much faster rate than vehicle fleets. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that multiple
versions of a product could be deployed and then added complexity introduced by having
multiple vendors providing those products. In such cases, backwards compatibility as well as
interoperability is crucial to the long term success of such Connected Vehicle systems.
Connected Vehicle Certification Program Task 4 – Gap Analysis Created for:
Recipient:
Cooperative Transportation Systems Pooled Fund Study 351 McCormick Road P.O. Box 4000742 Charlottesville, VA 22904 From:
Timothy J. McGuckin Executive Director OmniAir Consortium, Inc. 11343 Sunset Hills Road Reston, VA 20190 (O) 703-766-5005 (M) 202-276-8483 (Fax) 703-579-1067 [email protected] www.omniair.org
March 30th 2012
March 2012 Page 2
CONTENTS
Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
Part I – Identified Gaps ................................................................................................................... 6
Part II – Gap Analysis....................................................................................................................... 9
Part III – Gap Closure Recommendations ..................................................................................... 12
Ideas for Future Activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17
March 2012 Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a USDOT national initiative, the ‘Connected Vehicle’ is part of the overall Intelligent Transportation System Program as broadly planned at the federal level. However, the deployment of Cooperative System and Connected Vehicle technologies will be implemented at a local level with many of the intricacies of infrastructure management and interoperability falling to state and local transportation operating authorities. These deployments are expected to include vehicle‐to‐infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle‐to‐vehicle (V2V) applications. Automakers are actively designing and incorporating V2V connected vehicle components into their next generation of automobiles. While V2V advancements are happening at a relatively fast rate, V2I deployments have been limited to a handful of pilot projects for experimentation. While automakers possess research and development resources as part of their normal business model, infrastructure owner/operators do not. A number of other differences between these groups and the specific needs of operating authorities are also factors that continue to impact the advancement and progress of V2I systems. Within this context, it is important that the needs of these operating authorities are considered and reflected in initiative planning and implementation tactics.
A critical component to the overall success of national, interoperable Cooperative System and Connected Vehicle deployments is a robust independent third party certification process that ensures performance and interoperability of said technologies and systems. This project has investigated the current landscape of certification activity in this space, assessed the needs of state and local infrastructure owners, and identified the gaps that exist between current activity and state local needs. As a result of this effort, an actionable certification‐related set of recommendations that further promote state & local efforts to deploy cooperative and connected transportation systems – that work – was created for the identified gaps.
March 2012 Page 4
Mindomo is a web‐based software product that produces interactive, multimedia‐rich “mind maps” of information relevant to a topic. The maps employ hyperlinks and other internet‐style navigation tools. The Connected Vehicle mind map site enables users to click through various branches of the Connected Vehicle universe and open web pages, videos, audio files, papers, and presentations – all with information relevant to certification. The map’s branches can be updated to reflect the real‐time changes in the industry.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout this project, the needs of the state and local transportation operating authorities have been gathered, analyzed, and documented. The final stage of the project is to take the identified gaps, analyze them and develop recommendations for closing those gaps. The objective of Task 4 is to provide an understanding of the connections and disconnections between the needs of the state/local authorities and the current Connected Vehicle initiative. This task was accomplished using the results of Task 3 as the starting point to conduct a gap analysis of the current work and future direction of Connected Vehicle initiatives and the needs of the state/local entities. Specifically, the project:
Addressed how well the proposed work in certification tracks with the needs of the state and local authorities.
Identified key actions to promote the state/local position and continue to move the certification program toward deployment.
Developed a foundational strategy of how to assure that a certification program meets a state’s needs.
To perform the gap analysis, the following activities were undertaken:
1. Use accepted analysis methods to compare current state of Connected Vehicle certification efforts (in terms of addressing state and local needs) against the state’s and local agency’s actual needs as identified through the efforts of Task 3; and
2. Develop recommendations and proposed next steps to close the gaps and extend the states’ and local agency’s needs into the Connected Vehicle certification efforts
There are five general items associated with the gap analysis performed on this project.
1. Determine the gap analysis focus. 2. Identify the current baseline based on metrics or attributes. 3. Identify the goals. 4. Identify the gaps between current baseline and the goals. 5. Develop recommendations to fill the gaps.
Each phase of the PFS project has contributed to, informed and enabled Task 4.
Task 1 comprised of an initial summary of the interconnected initiatives that comprised the connected vehicle community and was developed using a software product called Mindomo (see box). The major activities of Task 1 were as follows:
March 2012 Page 5
Conference call with PFS which set the course for the development of a dynamic and actionable work product. The team selected Mindomo as the tool of choice.
Literature search, web‐based research, and analysis were performed to indentify the branches and leaves of the Mindomo maps.
The Mindomo maps were designed based on this research. Three main branches were identified; USDOT’s Connected Vehicle Focus areas, Non‐DOT Connected Vehicle Projects, and USDOT/RITA’s Connected Vehicle Suppliers.
Using the data gathered, the Mindomo maps were created and shared with the PFS.
For Task 2, the objective was to provide a summary view of the efforts and outcomes specific to certification for the Connected Vehicle program. The purpose was to create an understanding of what is envisioned and what states and local operators will likely have to interact with when deploying certified connected vehicle systems. The major activities of Task 2 were as follows:
Modeled currently successful and relevant product certification programs in hopes of gleaning the features and attributes that contribute to their sustainability.
Researched with three currently successful certification programs and examined them through several perspectives; Structural Elements (Organizational Design, Technology Infrastructure, Financial Models), Addressing User Needs, and Program Attributes.
Described the organization, processes and technical requirements of the Connected Vehicle Certification System.
In Task 3 OmniAir interviewed select PFS stakeholders to gather data critical to determining the current status of the stakeholder’s connected vehicle activities and their long term needs and desires for connected vehicle devices and certification. Major activities of Task 3 included:
Developed a set of interview questions to be used for the PFS stakeholder interviews.
Conducted interviews with the PFS group to determine the status of Connected Vehicle and certification activities.
Combined the responses into a single, generic set of answers for each question.
Developed a set of online survey questions. The survey could be provided to other agencies to gain similar input on the most critical issues identified in the interviews.
Documented the findings and presented the findings to the PFS stakeholders.
Using the results of Task 3, Task 4 established the current certification baseline, ascertained the stakeholders’ certification goals, identified gaps and developed recommendations for closing these gaps.
March 2012 Page 6
PART I – IDENTIFIED GAPS
This document is divided into three sections. Part I describes the gaps that have been identified based on differences between the baseline and the goals. Part II discusses the analysis performed and the findings uncovered as a result of the analysis of these gaps. Part III provides a set of recommendations on how these gaps could be closed and/or removed altogether.
A number of state and local user needs were uncovered and described during Task 3. Those
needs have been considered and compared against the current certification baseline and the
desired goals. The baseline and goals were employed in Part II and Part III to analyze the gaps
and develop and document recommendations to close these gaps.
OmniAir is in a unique position to provide a deep understanding of the multiple and
interrelated activities that are currently underway in the Connected Vehicle arena. Its
membership includes individuals and companies active in various sectors of the transportation
operations and technology community, both from industry and government. In addition to
their participation in OmniAir, they are directly involved in several Connected Vehicle Program
projects addressing policy and architecture design, system design and implementation, device
qualification and product certification. Their experience ranges from the inception of the ITS
program in the 1990’s, the 1999 FCC allocation of 5.9GHz DSRC for connected vehicle activities,
the subsequent vehicle infrastructure integration program, IntelliDrive and most recently, the
USDOT Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot. OmniAir members are contributing and shaping the
future adoption of connected vehicle technologies and the applications this technology is
expected to support.
The ongoing participation and activity of OmniAir members in many facets of the Connected
Vehicle program allowed the group involved with the development and review of this report to
consider and contribute from a wide variety of perspectives. This is particularly important
considering the multiple stakeholders impacted by the Connected Vehicle initiative. While the
focus of this study is on state and user needs, it is critical that they not be studied in a vacuum
without involvement and review by contributors with other pertinent backgrounds and unique
but complementary perspectives.
As part of Task 3, PFS stakeholders were interviewed in depth. OmniAir documented that
according to the group, there is a need for:
USDOT oversight of a Connected Vehicle Certification Program
A global certification/interoperability entity
Promoting public awareness of CV/CS
Addressing backward compatibility of CV/CS equipment
March 2012 Page 7
A continuing Connected Vehicle standards development program
Direct communication with USDOT
Guiding principles on procurement, deployment and operations and maintenance
Awareness of other connected vehicle implementers and their activities
Incorporating CV/CS into the National ITS Architecture
National policy and guidance resources to limit deployers’ liability.
Simplifying the concept for road operators to increase understanding/acceptance.
During interviews conducted for Task 3, stakeholders were asked to share their current work,
experiences and concerns as they pertained to Connected Vehicle activities and certification.
Answers ranged from “not doing much (or anything at all)” to “implementing test beds”. Taking
into consideration all the responses and evaluating where the majority of the stakeholders
were positioned, the current baseline was established. The following list is considered to be a
summary of the current baseline (for more detail, see the Task 3 deliverable):
Local stakeholder /USDOT Interaction occurs largely through the PFS Group whose
members attend USDOT sponsored webinars and public meetings and initiate their own
meetings with USDOT.
Local stakeholders have limited test facilities and in‐house technical expertise. Though
they may test ITS technologies, no local stakeholders have formal certification programs
for connected vehicle technologies. USDOT has no single certification program or entity
to develop and manage the certification processes required to ensure interoperability
for connected vehicle/cooperative systems.
Local stakeholders have limited formal published standards for connected vehicle and
they indicated they do not intend to develop their own. They believe that only national
standards (perhaps international) would support successful, interoperable systems.
USDOT also has only limited standards. What exists is either largely developed based
upon, or relies upon, adoption of other standards and the efforts of other standards
development organizations and groups such as the Society of Automotive Engineers’
Message Set Standard ‘J2735.’
Local stakeholders have no formal outreach programs to inform the public about
connected vehicle technology, use cases, interoperability or certification. USDOT’s
national outreach is limited and for Connected Vehicle, is in its infancy (for instance, the
Connected Vehicle Driver’s Clinics currently being conducted).
Local stakeholder information sharing is minimal outside of the PFS; national
information sharing is limited and typically done through public meetings.
Examination of the stakeholder needs showed that there were groups of needs that could be
combined together into a single goal. These goals are the ones that stakeholders are looking at
March 2012 Page 8
to achieve the level of satisfaction and confidence needed for certification of connected vehicle
devices. These goals are identified in the first column of the table below. The second column
identifies the needs that created the goal.
Goal Identified Needs
High level of USDOT interaction
USDOT Oversight of Certification Program Direct communication with USDOT
Guiding principles on procurement, deployment and
operations and maintenance
National Policy and Guidance resources to limit liability of local agencies that deploy connected vehicle systems
Single certification entity Global Certification/Interoperability Entity
Utilize the Systems Engineering
process
Develop standards
Address backward compatibility of CV/CS equipment
Incorporate CV/CS into ITS Architecture
Perform outreach and education Promote Public Awareness of CV/CS
Simplify the concept for road operators
Knowledge sharing Awareness of other connected vehicle implementers
and their activities
These goals are mapped to the current baseline in the table below:
Current Baseline Goal
Local stakeholder /USDOT Interaction is largely through
the PFS and attendance at USDOT sponsored webinars
and public meetings
High level of USDOT interaction
Local stakeholders ‐ test facilities; national – no single
certification/interoperability entity/set of processes
Single certification entity/set of
processes
Local stakeholders – no standards. National standards
such as J2735 for developers
Utilize the Systems Engineering
process
Local outreach ‐ none; national outreach limited Perform outreach and education
Local information sharing is minimal; national
information sharing done through public meetings Knowledge sharing
March 2012 Page 9
PART II – GAP ANALYSIS
The purpose of gap analysis is to determine the differences (gaps) between what stakeholders
say they need (recommendations) versus what they say they have (current baseline). Below
are detailed observations made during the execution of Task 3 and the analysis performed in
Task 4.
USDOT Leadership
In studying the interview responses, stakeholders expressed a strong desire to have the USDOT
provide significant leadership (vision, guidance, and support) in connected vehicle activities and
certification while also respecting local and regional input and diversity. The stakeholders
expressed that USDOT must champion certain high‐level governance issues and be the catalyst
for further development and deployment of emerging technologies and products. USDOT
needs to regulate certifications, provide guidance (and funding) for operating and maintaining
devices, provide vetted national standards for easy adoption by state and local agencies, and
support stakeholders’ need for consistency and enforceability. Having national guidance and
defined national best practices is also important to local stakeholders because it offers a degree
of liability protection in much the same way as other national standards and guidelines (such as
AASHTO standards, the MUTCD, and others). USDOT is working with the Crash Avoidance
Metrics Partnership (CAMP) using the J2735 standard communication protocol to perform
vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications. This same protocol is used to communicate from in‐
vehicle devices to roadside equipment (RSE). This is an example of the type of USDOT
leadership needed; where the USDOT is ensuring that private sector companies are complying
with the established standards of the program.
Single Certification Body / Program – But Preserve Some Autonomy for States
Stakeholders also strongly expressed a desire to have a single certification body that would
develop the standard certification processes, oversee device certification using these processes,
and report directly to the USDOT. This baseline activity is also related to the desired “high level
involvement” of USDOT. Stakeholders concurred that having a single certification entity was
acceptable, but there would be a need for multiple certification testing labs. Some
stakeholders who have testing facilities indicated they would consider being a certification
facility. These stakeholders said that regardless of the devices being certified, they would test
them in their facilities to qualify the devices just as they do many other traditional traffic
control devices, such as signalized intersection equipment and intelligent transportation system
(ITS) device. By comparison, USDOT does not have an official single certification program or a
single certification entity (under contract or otherwise). Currently, the OmniAir Consortium is
March 2012 Page 10
under contract with USDOT to develop test processes, test procedures, the test apparatus, and
qualify the performance of Vehicle Awareness Devices for interoperable deployment in the
Safety Pilot Model Deployment (SPMD). USDOT has additional entities (i.e., BAH, SAIC, Battelle,
Cambridge Systematics) under contract to test/qualify other types of SPMD devices and all
entities work cooperatively.
The Public – Key to Acceptance
Stakeholders also held a common belief that a successful cooperative system/connected
vehicle deployment is highly dependent on gaining the public’s acceptance and confidence in
connected vehicle technologies and applications. To date, there has not been a significant
marketing effort by USDOT to publicize connected vehicle to the general public. There has
been limited public exposure by way of press releases and media interest regarding trade show
activities and other industry showcase forums, but not a concerted effort for public outreach.
However, the pilot projects and implementation of V2V technology by automakers is fast
approaching a point where a significant outreach campaign may be appropriate and necessary.
Over the past six months prior to this report, CAMP (in conjunction with the USDOT) has
conducted six driver clinics around the country to gauge how the general driving public reacts
to the safety systems developed by the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) members of
CAMP.
As stakeholders begin to deploy connected vehicle technology, educating the driving public will
be crucial to gaining acceptance of the technology and the desire by the driving public to adopt
and utilize features that are enabled by the technology. The National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration (NHTSA) must also play a pivotal role educating the driving public should
it rule favorably in 2013 to require that all vehicles be equipped with a connected vehicle
device. Since local agencies will be largely responsible for the deployment of the technology
and interfacing with their constituents, they will need resources and support that allows them
to effectively communicate the benefits of the technology to the public at large. In addition to
the benefits, they must also be able to gain public trust and acceptance of the security and
safety of connected vehicle devices and applications.
Communications
Connected Vehicle is a national deployment. While there will be early adopters and
implementations that are performed somewhat in isolation, this technology is ultimately
expected to permeate all vehicles and all portions of the country. Communication between the
operating agencies deploying the technology, the USDOT, and the OEMs who will both deploy
(in vehicle) and utilize the technology (for instance, infrastructure supported information) is
critical to the success and acceptance of the technology. Currently, information is disseminated
March 2012 Page 11
by the USDOT through outreach and public meetings. OEMs that are part of CAMP periodically
disseminate information through the USDOT. Local agencies are either planning or have only
recently deployed test bed and demonstration systems.
Being able to share information with the USDOT and CAMP is important, but equally important
is communication between the local agencies that are planning connected vehicle
deployments. The PFS Group is potentially an important mechanism for agencies to exchange
information and ideas especially regarding device certification, a critical precursor to effective
connected vehicle / cooperative system technologies. However, what body or forum will serve
to facilitate exchange and solicit input from local and state operators in moving forward? Such
coordination and stakeholder input forums will be necessary throughout the lifespan of
connected vehicle. Agencies have to be confident that devices moving into and out of their
jurisdictions are interoperable. To this end, they will need a program framework that supports
and addresses this, and other, future needs. Future certification entities and programs such as
those envisioned and proposed by OmniAir (based on widely accepted and successful models
from other industries) are also important catalysts. Vigilant guardians are needed to ensure
that devices meet specifications, function properly (i.e. in an interoperable manner), are safe,
and meet the needs set forth by the USDOT, state departments of transportation, local
agencies that deploy equipment, and other stakeholders.
March 2012 Page 12
PART III – GAP CLOSURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Part III identifies and lists recommendations for reducing gaps between the current baseline
and the goals. It should be noted that some of the recommendations will be outside the direct
control of the PFS stakeholders, but the PFS can exert its influence to create positive activities
to reduce the gaps. Each of the items described below is directly followed by a recommended
action that would help close gaps associated with that particular topic.
Recommendations for Gap Closure
Gap #1
With regards to USDOT oversight and leadership, the USDOT is currently leading and
championing the program through financial support and direct involvement in several ongoing
technical research areas. SPMD is a good example. However, the USDOT’s emphasis has been
largely on V2V and CAMP. Much less emphasis has been placed on V2I applications and
research – items of high importance to road operators. As a result, several agencies have
initiated their own plans to study, architect, and implement V2I, and as witnessed by this study,
this also includes how to deploy certified devices. These agencies need to voice their concerns
to USDOT over the lack of focus on V2I in the program as a whole, and also in terms of
certification. V2I system manufacturers have voiced their concerns at multiple public meetings,
but with additional support from public agencies, the USDOT is more likely to pick up its pace
on involvement, guidance, and leadership with regards to V2I.
Goal Addressed: High level of USDOT interaction
Recommendation #1: PFS stakeholders must accelerate dialogue, perhaps with a focus on
interoperability assurance, with USDOT through the PFS Group and at USDOT‐led public
meetings and webinars. Stakeholders could provide white papers, findings, and data to
USDOT on their V2I activities that speak to the topics of certification and interoperability
assurance needs.
Gap #2
PFS stakeholders should participate in as many public workshops in person or via webinar as
possible and voice their needs and concerns directly to the USDOT. The Connected Vehicle
program is being shaped at a national level, and local agencies must strongly voice their input
into the concepts that are being considered and developed today. To accomplish this item,
some local agencies send representatives to a variety of workshops. These activities range from
technical discussions about devices, systems and technologies to workshops that discuss the
March 2012 Page 13
development of operational concepts for certain applications. Because of the flurry of work
being performed for connected vehicle, it is important for local agencies to reach out to their
USDOT and FHWA peers to explore resources and options for active participation. Since
interoperability is a fundamental requirement to successful deployments, locals must clearly
voice their needs for connected vehicle and CV/CS certification that ensures device compliance
to CV/CS standards. We recommend that PFS members (or another capable group with similar
interest and/or expertise) work with USDOT to establish and conduct a CV/CS summit. The
summit should be a stakeholder forum open to interested local agencies, the USDOT, FHWA,
and VOLPE to discuss how to get devices certified and cooperative systems in place to support
the technology. AASHTO may be an organization that can also serve to promote or establish
such an event, or perhaps another SDO or consortium.
Goals Addressed: High level of USDOT interaction; Knowledge sharing
Recommendation #2: The PFS work with USDOT to establish a V2I connected vehicle summit.
Gap #3
The PFS stakeholders expressed a desire for USDOT to develop a document or set of documents
that the local agencies could reference when legal, privacy or other similar questions are raised
related to CV/CS. Again, we recommend that the PFS reach out to the USDOT and voice their
desire and need for documentation that captures national guidance and recommended best
practices in a manner similar to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Likewise, the USDOT should stress the importance of uniform message presentation to
automakers and other interface designers that may be unfamiliar with their guidance. For
example, graphic design and message consistency for in‐vehicle displays should be held to
standards of uniformity similar to those that already exist for traditional signage.
Goals Addressed: High level of USDOT interaction; Knowledge sharing
Recommendation #3: The PFS should identify the documentation needed for USDOT to
support the development of CV/CS and expedite the broad sharing of this documentation.
Gap #4
When examining the certification process, it is important to the PFS stakeholders that there be
a single entity to develop, manage, and operate the certification process under the guidance
and oversight of the USDOT. There currently exist a number of testing facilities that can either
test connected vehicle devices or could ramp up and be qualified to perform such testing.
March 2012 Page 14
Conversely, other than the OmniAir Consortium, there are no entities that have demonstrated
the capacity or interest in developing and governing a certification program and framework
that ensures consistent, impartial, predictable, and repeatable device certification and
interoperability testing. OmniAir is engaged in discussions with USDOT to become a prime
connected vehicle device certification entity.
Goal Addressed: Single certification entity
Recommendation #4: The PFS should analyze OmniAir and any other identified certification
entity and advocate a position. As per the interviews, PFS members reported a desire that a
single certification entity become the national connected vehicle certification entity to
USDOT.
Gap #5
The USDOT uses the Systems Engineering (SE) process for the different research areas it is
developing. In the case of Dynamic Mobility Applications (DMA), the SE process is being used to
develop operational concepts for the application bundles that were selected. The ‘Applications
for the Environment: Real Time Information Synthesis’ (AERIS) is developing its operational
concept for its program. These operational concepts are being fleshed out at public meetings
where the USDOT is soliciting input from public agencies to guide the development of these
research areas. It is important for the PFS stakeholders to be actively involved in these public
meetings to ensure that the product being developed can be useful to traffic operations, as
local agencies responsible for local and regional transportation systems will likely be tasked or
impacted by certain facets of AERIS. Without local agency input, there is the possibility that the
systems and applications developed will not be conducive to the way roadway networks are
managed. The PFS as a whole could reach out to USDOT and offer to gather and consolidate
feedback (from within the PFS and possibly beyond) on AERIS and other DMA, and provide it to
the USDOT to help guide further development and research in these areas. Early involvement
by local agencies in the SE process will ensure these applications and systems are properly
certified to meet the security needs of the local agencies. These applications and systems need
to operate on certified connected vehicle devices that would likely involved issues such as
backwards compatibility. The PFS’ involvement in the development and implementation of
these systems and applications is crucial to ensuring successful deployments of certified
equipment.
Goal Addressed: Utilize the 'Systems Engineering' process
March 2012 Page 15
Recommendation #5: The PFS should develop a plan to support the DMA and AERIS research
areas and implement the plan with USDOT cognizant of the need for certification of
performance and interoperability.
Gap #6
As the ability to get information inside the vehicle is becoming increasingly easier and
mainstream, it is critical that the USDOT mount a campaign to “get the word out” about
connected vehicle technology. As the NHTSA 2013 decision draws closer, the need to provide
an understanding of the benefits and positive aspects of the technology must get
communicated to the driving public. Otherwise, it is possible that purely commercial interests
and OEMs will overtake the technology and it will become more entertainment and
infotainment‐focused. Local agencies are going to need the backing of the USDOT to help
educate the driving public. Because of privacy and other intangible issues, connected vehicle
technology could have a tough road to go before gaining mainstream acceptance. A standard
certification body (much like the role Underwriters Laboratory (UL) plays in the electronics
industry) could go a long way in helping road operators gain the driving public’s confidence in
this new technology. In general, people feel safe and confident if an appliance or other
electrical device has the “UL” mark. The connected vehicle devices (and applications) need to
attain a similar level of consumer confidence and a recognizable mark can help promote and
achieve that goal. The PFS stakeholders can solicit the USDOT to move forward with a single
certification entity or program that becomes the standard bearer for the safety and compliance
of connected vehicle technology in much the same way that UL and other certification bodies
have achieved for their respective industries.
Goals Addressed: Perform outreach and education; Single certification entity
Recommendation #6: PFS should encourage USDOT to utilize a standard certification body
that could be used to provide input to efforts to develop connected vehicle public awareness
campaigns and perform local public awareness in areas where connected vehicle is being
implemented and tested.
Gap #7
Finally, a key to all of these recommendations is the ability for the local agencies responsible for
connected vehicle infrastructure deployment and USDOT to have an effective, open line of
communication. It is crucial that local and state agencies have ample opportunity to regularly
discuss the technology, applications, certifications, devices and other aspects of the connected
March 2012 Page 16
vehicle program with the USDOT. The concept of connected vehicle has grown immensely from
V2V and V2I safety applications to a whole host of applications that provide improved safety,
improved mobility, entertainment, and infotainment. The PFS should encourage a regular
discussion with USDOT on the aspects of the technology that matter most to it. These
discussions should include the topics of devices, certifications, applications, data (V2I), OEMs
(V2V), driving public acceptance and confidence, among others. The USDOT could establish a
blog and secure website where agencies could exchange information with the USDOT as well as
other local agencies. In terms of interoperability assurance (testing, certification, etc) the PFS
as a group should voice their expectations and concerns to the USDOT in order to ensure that
the local deployments do not become islands and can communicate with devices as they enter
and cross regions. Connected Vehicle is a large and complex system. It is a dynamic one that
grows on an almost daily basis as public agencies and private companies invest in the
development of systems and applications. What they are investing in is the promise that
connected vehicle holds for improving the safety and efficiency of our roads as well as the
myriad other governmental and commercial applications that have been envisioned and
explored to date.
Goals Addressed: Knowledge sharing
Recommendation #7: PFS should define clear communications channels to USDOT that will
enhance the communications between the local agency deployers, the USDOT, and the OEMs.
March 2012 Page 17
IDEAS FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES
As a result of the recommendations and discussion with the PFS stakeholders, the OmniAir
team offers the following list of recommended activities. These activities are ones that the PFS
could perform or have OmniAir for them. They are as follows:
1. Establish a procurement process that recognizes the special nature of standards‐based
interoperable technology intended for broad adoption
As the USDOT continues to qualify devices for the Safety Pilot for the purposes of a test
that begets data to be used to inform a future deployment decision, PFS stakeholders
are also looking to procure devices for their own use at this time. While USDOT is
working to establish a preferred supplier list, this list will be focused on Safety Pilot and
its specific applications.
Additionally, there are suppliers that have or are developing devices that are not being
qualified by the USDOT. To leverage the availability of standards‐based interoperable
connected vehicle technologies – and not withstanding the restrictions several states
have in terms of procurement – the PFS could develop a template standardized /
harmonized procurement process stakeholders could incorporate into their
procurement processes. While state procurement policies evolve very slowly (for good
reason), the value here is in identifying ‘procurement policy’ as a barrier to the adoption
of certified systems, which is in itself a valuable acknowledgement. A key element of
this template process is that is would allow suppliers to compete for state procurements
regardless of being on a preferred supplier list for USDOT purposes. In effect, for the
state there could be a ‘PFS’ / or ‘certified system’ preferred supplier list. In order to
create this, the PFS could be the entity to lead the development and publishing of set
specifications for each device type (vehicle awareness device, RSE, OBE, ADS) the states
are interested in procuring. The specifications should be based off current, credible
specifications (such as USDOT specifications for Connected Vehicle technologies), but
tailored for the PFS’ own use and applications. Another key task, led by PFS, would be
to qualify these suppliers’ devices via an apparatus that ensures they meet
specifications and standards, and for all ‘qualified’ devices, that they work in an
interoperable manner. The PFS would coordinate with USDOT to ensure the device
specifications evolve in a way that ensures this.
The value of this task – procurement standards and a uniform qualification process – is
that PFS stakeholders could continue to advance deployment of applications important
to them at their pace, rather than at the test‐centric, safety‐critical‐oriented pace of the
USDOT Connected Vehicle Program
March 2012 Page 18
2. Establish a testing/certification program that reflects the nature of connected vehicle
deployment
As PFS stakeholders prepare to deploy device infrastructure, there will be a need to test
the devices selected in a way that reflects the special nature of the technology, i.e. it’s
intend to be interoperable nationally. The PFS should take advantage of stakeholders
who have testing facilities that can support connected vehicle device infrastructure
testing. If stakeholders do not have adequate facilities, PFS should reach out to testing
organizations, such as OmniAir, to conduct testing on their behalf. Regardless of where
testing is done, it is very important – to ensure interoperability – that a set of processes,
procedures, and standard test apparatus be developed that all stakeholders can trust
and take advantage of to qualify devices that must work across jurisdictional borders.
This is especially important for stakeholders who plan to deploy the same device from
multiple suppliers.
The value of this task – establishing a connected vehicle testing program for the state
stakeholders can enable states to deploy ‘their’ applications at their pace and do so in a
way – via certification and interoperability assurance – that reduces risk.
3. Conduct a Connected Vehicle Application Education Program
As states begin to test and ultimately deploy connected vehicle device infrastructure, a
targeted outreach program to three key stakeholders: 1) state and local DOT staff, 2)
local decision‐makers; and 3) the public, could reduce resistance to this ‘new
technology’ – resistance typically stemming from people’s misperceptions about it. One
way to improve understanding and build support for these applications would be to
describe connected vehicle applications in the form of ‘stories’ that resonate with state
department of transportation personnel.
Today, there are many stories, articles, features and press releases that provide the
many flavors of what connected vehicle is purported to be. Few of them are targeted to
state employees, the local road engineer, the decision makers at local government, or
the public in general. It’s imperative to reach out to these connected vehicle
‘constituents’ and educate them on what connected vehicle is and what applications are
feasible, what are being tested, where these applications are being tested, and why
these applications were selected. Getting these stakeholders’ buy in early will go a long
way to establishing confidence in connected vehicle as the applications become more
sophisticated and safety‐critical.
March 2012 Page 19
The value of this task – getting out in front of a new technology with a proactive
educational program increases buy‐in by people who will make the decisions to fund,
procure and even champion the technology to others.
4. Establish standard practices and means for in‐vehicle warnings to counter the potential
for distracted driving
One of the most important aspects of connected vehicle technology will be
communicating with the driver and/or passengers in an effective manner without
distracting them. There are two parts to this issue. First, the data being communicated
to the vehicle which in turn would communicate the data to the driver must be of the
same format whether the data comes from another vehicle or from roadside
infrastructure installed, operated and often maintained by state of local transportation
departments. The OEMs currently are using a common protocol based on the J2735
message set. The local agencies, working with USDOT, must work collaboratively with
the OEMs to ensure the standards are adhered to.
Secondly, the OEMs are using this feature as a means to differentiate themselves from
their competition. For example, in order to warn a driver of a blind spot vehicle, one
manufacturer rumbles/vibrates the driver’s seat on the seat surface side corresponding
to the side where the vehicle is approaching; another manufacture uses directional
lighting to indicate the side where the vehicle is approaching; a third uses a vocal
warning; and still others use some combination of these warning types. This
inconsistency could lead to more harm than good. A driver whose private vehicle
rumbles, but who rents a car with directional lighting may have no idea what the
directional lighting means or even pay attention to it. Standards inside the vehicle are
going to be critical so that drivers know what actions to take when a warning is issued,
be it rumbling, lighting or audible). As stakeholders deploy infrastructure devices, a
coordinated approach will benefit both ‘sides.’ For example, states could collaborate
with OEMs, inviting them to bring their vehicles to the test deployment. The states
should emphasize to the OEMs that commonality between the OEMs regarding their
approaches to specific warnings can be crucial to a successful deployment. The PFS
group could offer to host driver clinics for the OEMs to bring their vehicles for selected
members of the driving public to test and gain feedback. The bottom line is that
automated warnings that require the driver to potentially take evasive action must be
implemented the same way as seat belts or airbags were deployed. The devices all work
in the same manner and provide the same level of protection, but are consistently built
into vehicles in the same manner, producing the same results.
March 2012 Page 20
The value of this task – distracted driving is an issue the connected vehicle should not
make it worse. Road operators bear the brunt of distracted driver‐caused accidents.
The states, by leading a standards effort here with OEMs, can help make sure that
Connected Vehicle deployments advance safety, not aggravate it.
5. Create a regular exchange with NHTSA to ensure state’s recommendations are
considered and applied
As state stakeholders design, implement, and support their deployments, a regular
dialogue should be held between it, the USDOT and NHTSA. Assuming NHTSA rules
favorably in 2013 to require DSRC devices in vehicles, USDOT and NHTSA will continue
to need vast amounts of data and insights that can be used to advance the technology
properly.
Value of this task ‐ having a formal means for states to collect and provide their
thoughts, opinions, and lessons learned will help shape the future of the connected
vehicle technology in ways that benefit states and their constituents. It will help ensure
that deployment specifically answers the requirements of the ‘infrastructure side’ of
connected vehicle.