connected vehicle certification program - mw121410b · connected vehicle certification program -...

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:



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


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.


PART I – CERTIFICATION PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS


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.


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


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


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.


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.


PART II – CONNECTED VEHICLE CERTIFICATION SYSTEM


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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:



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


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


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.


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.”


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.


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.


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



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



working group levels.


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



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



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



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



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.


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



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.


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



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.



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.



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



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



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



firsthand exposure to the USDOT Connected Vehicle

Program.


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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.


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



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.



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 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



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.


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.



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




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



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.


N/A



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.


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.




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.



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.


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



No


Probably Not

Yes. It would depend upon coordination with USDOT’s

existing effort, the business case, and cost/benefit.


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




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



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.



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.



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.


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



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.


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.



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,



but rather acceptance.


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.



Yes.

Yes. 5.9 has been set aside, but no licensees known at

this time.

Yes.


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.



Yes, but details to be determined.

Yes.


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



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.



36. What Security Certificate

requirements is your

organization planning for

IT networks?


Uncertain.


Uncertain.

Uncertain.

Uncertain.

We have requirements, though I am not familiar with

them.

Uncertain.

Uncertain.


currently operate IPv6

networks?

Ability, but not yet.

Yes. Mostly in the core.



Uncertain.

Uncertain.

Uncertain.

Uncertain.

Few, if at all.

Other than a handful of specialty applications, we

primarily operate IPv4 networks.


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.



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.


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.



No.


To be determined.

Deployment will likely be done by the Traffic

Operations/ITS program through contractors, and

potentially in‐house personnel.


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.



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.


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



Too early to tell. Hopefully it will not require huge

technical burden .

Too soon to know.


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.




To be determined.

Uncertain.

Technical


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.



Probably.

Yes. This is where we see the future of traffic control

moving – integrated systems.

Yes.


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.



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



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.



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.



Yes.

Uncertain, but probably.


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.



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.


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,



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.


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



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.


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.



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



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.


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


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”


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


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:


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.

connected vehicle certification program - mw121410b · connected vehicle certification program -...

Documents