Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ET Docket No. 19-138

COMMENTS OF

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

Tom Stricker

Vice President

Product Regulatory Affairs

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

325 7th Street NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 463-6824

March 9, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ……………..………………………….…….…1

II. THE ENTIRE 5.9 GHZ BAND SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ……………………………………………….….…....3

A. The Proposal to Abandon Previous Sharing-Focused Approach

is Troubling ………………………………………………………………….……...3

B. There is Alignment Among Those Focused on Transportation Safety ……..……....4

C. Existing and Anticipated Applications Will Likely Be Lost if

Spectrum is Repurposed………………………………………………….………….7

D. Automation and Sensors do not Diminish the Need for Spectrum …….……………9

E. Other Portions of Spectrum are Insufficient for Transportation

Safety Purposes …………………………………………………………………….11

F. Other Regions of the World are Looking to Increase, not Reduce,

Spectrum Allocations ………………………………………………………………12

G. The Potential of the Technology Should Not be Discounted……………………….13

H. The Regulatory Certainty Proposed by the Commission is not

the Regulatory Certainty Sought by Manufacturers and

Infrastructure Providers……………………………………………………………...15

III. THE POTENTIAL FOR HARMFUL INTERFERENEC TO

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY MUST BE FULLY ASSESSED………………………17

IV. THE COMMISSION’S COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN INCOMPLETE…………….19

V. DECISIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS SHOULD

BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED………………………………………………………21

A. Only Proven Technologies Should be Permitted in the Band………………………..22

B. Interoperability Should be Preserved………………………………………………... 23

C. Technologies Should be Able to Evolve in the Future………………………………. 24

D. Spectral Efficiency Should be Contemplated ………………………………………..25

E. Cost is an Important Consideration…………………………………………………. 26

VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER A NEW APPROACH……………………27

VII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..28

1

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The Commission has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) relating to the

use of the 5.9 GHz band.1 The NPRM proposes to repurpose 45 MHz away from incumbent

intelligent transportation systems (“ITS”) to unlicensed use. The NPRM further proposes to

repurpose 20 MHz of the remaining 30 MHz of spectrum away from Dedicated Short Range

Communication (“DSRC”) to Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (“C-V2X”). Toyota Motor North

America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”), is pleased to offer

comments on this proposal. As the first company in the world to deploy vehicle-to-vehicle

(“V2V”) communication, incorporating DSRC technology into some of its vehicles in Japan

beginning in 2015, and as a company that remains committed to reducing crashes and improving

safety, Toyota is dedicated to ensuring that ITS can be deployed in the United States in a way that

maximizes transportation safety benefits for consumers.

In the Comments below, Toyota strongly urges the Commission to maintain the entire 75

MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for ITS. The Commission’s unexpected and dramatic shift

from its long-standing focus on sharing the band between transportation safety and unlicensed uses

to a proposal to permanently repurpose more than half of the spectrum away from transportation

safety is disappointing and should be rejected. Toyota reminds the Commission that a wide and

diverse group of stakeholders with a strong and enduring commitment to transportation safety are

united in wanting all 75 MHz of spectrum preserved for ITS. Reducing the amount of spectrum

available for transportation means that important applications that have been developed or are

under development will likely not be offered in the United States and that the full potential of the

1 In the Matter of Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34

FCC Rcd 12603, ¶12 (2019) (“NPRM”)

2

technology to advance transportation safety will not be realized. Toyota further addresses the

Commission’s faulty assertions that automated technology has diminished the need for ITS

spectrum and that smaller spectrum allocations in other parts of the world are sufficient to meet

the needs of transportation stakeholders. Unfortunately, with this NPRM, the Commission misses

a unique and long-overdue opportunity to provide automakers and infrastructure providers with

the regulatory certainty that will spur wide-scale deployment of this important technology.

Moreover, there are significant concerns about the potential for harmful interference to

transportation safety communications under the Commission’s proposal. If the Commission

decides to move forward with its proposal to repurpose spectrum to unlicensed uses, this potential

for harmful interference must be fully considered and appropriately addressed. At the same time,

by failing to adequately consider the benefits lost by repurposing spectrum away from

transportation safety, the cost-benefit analysis contained within the NPRM is incomplete and

should be revisited.

With respect to decisions about which communication protocol or protocols to permit to

operate in the band for transportation purposes, Toyota encourages the Commission to consider

several important factors. Specifically, the Commission should consider whether a technology is

proven, whether interoperability is preserved, whether technologies can evolve in the future,

whether spectral efficiency is maintained, and whether the cost of a technology may stunt

deployment.

Finally, Toyota proposes a new approach that the Commission could take to provide the

auto industry and infrastructure providers the regulatory certainty they are seeking to make the

most effective and efficient use of the 5.9 GHz band to advance transportation safety.

3

II. THE ENTIRE 5.9 GHZ BAND SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

A. The Proposal to Abandon Previous Sharing-Focused Approach is Troubling

This NPRM marks an unexpected and sharp departure from efforts that have been underway

at the Commission since 2013 with respect to the 5.9 GHz band. Up until now, the Commission’s

efforts have rightfully been focused on determining whether spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band

could be shared between licensed incumbent transportation safety uses and unlicensed uses. Now,

the Commission is proposing to repurpose more than half of the spectrum away from transportation

safety altogether.

This dramatic shift in approach is premised on a conclusion by the Commission that resolving

questions about co-existence and the sharing of unlicensed operations with DSRC is “difficult”

and that it will take “time and effort” to complete Phases II and III of the existing testing plan.2

We fundamentally disagree with the Commission’s proposal to abandon the existing testing

plan. We appreciate that testing and validation of sharing solutions has taken longer than originally

hoped. However, we note that the Commission itself has not approached the testing with a sense

of urgency and inexplicably delayed release of the Phase I test results for more than a year after

the testing was completed. Regardless, we certainly do not believe that the answer to difficult

questions or the alternative to testing that requires considerable time or effort is to unjustly reduce

the amount of spectrum available to incumbent transportation uses. We also note that the

Commission’s proposal to abandon the testing plan unfairly strands the time, effort, and resources

that have already been invested by stakeholders – including automotive stakeholders - in the

development and implementation of potential sharing solutions, testing plans, and prototype

2 Id. at ¶12

4

devices. For that reason, we urge the Commission to remain committed to the testing plan and

continue to explore whether the 5.9 GHz band can be safely shared between transportation safety

communication and unlicensed uses.

B. There is Alignment Among Those Focused on Transportation Safety

Stakeholders who are genuinely committed to improving transportation safety and reducing

traffic crashes are united in believing that the entire 75 MHz of spectrum should be preserved for

ITS. Many of these stakeholders have weighed in directly with the Commission. These

stakeholders include AAA, Advocates for Highway Safety, Alabama Department of

Transportation, Alaska Department of Transportation, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,

the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American

Trucking Associations, Aptiv, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arkansas Department of

Transportation, Association of Global Automakers, Autotalks, Bay Area California Metropolitan

Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, Center for Auto Safety,

Colorado Department of Transportation, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Consumer

Reports, Continental, Delaware Department of Transportation, Denso, District of Columbia

Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation, General Motors, Georgia

Department of Transportation, Governors Highway Safety Association, Hawaii Department of

Transportation, Idaho Department of Transportation, IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee,

IEEE 1609 DSRC Working Group, Illinois Department of Transportation, Indiana Department of

Transportation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, International Association of Fire Chiefs,

International Association of Fire Fighters, Iowa Department of Transportation, Kansas Department

5

of Transportation, Kentucky Department of Transportation, Louisiana Department of

Transportation, Macomb County Department of Roads (Michigan), Maine Department of

Transportation, Maricopa County DOT (Arizona), Maryland Department of Transportation,

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation, Minnesota

Department of Transportation, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Missouri Department of

Transportation, Montana Department of Transportation, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Motor

Equipment Manufacturers Association, NAFA Fleet Management Association, National

Association of State EMS Officials, National Safety Council, National Sheriff’s Council, Nebraska

Department of Transportation, Nevada Department of Transportation, New Hampshire

Department of Transportation, New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Mexico

Department of Transportation, New York City DOT, New York State Department of

Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Dakota Department of

Transportation, NXP Semiconductors, Ohio Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Department

of Transportation, OmniAir Consortium, Oregon Department of Transportation, Panasonic,

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Puerto Rico

Department of Transportation and Public Works, Road Commission for Oakland County

(Michigan), Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Safe Kids Worldwide, Securing

America’s Future Energy, South Carolina Department of Transportation, South Dakota

Department of Transportation, Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority (Florida),

Tennessee Department of Transportation, Texas Department of Transportation, Toyota,

Transportation Research Board, Trucks and Engine Manufacturers Association, U.S. Department

of Transportation, U.S. Representative Colin Z. Allred, U.S. Representative Troy Balderson, U.S.

Representative Anthony Brown, U.S. Representative Julia Brownley, U.S. Representative Andre

6

Carson, U.S. Representative Steve Cohen, U.S. Representative Sharice Davids, U.S.

Representative Peter DeFazio (Chairman, House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee), U.S.

Representative Mark DeSaulnier, U.S. Representative Abby Finkenauer, U.S. Representative

Lizzie Fletcher, U.S. Representative Jesus G. “Chuy” Garcia, U.S. Representative Bob Gibbs, U.S.

Representative Jennifer Gonzalez Colon, U.S. Representative Sam Graves (Ranking Member,

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee), U.S. Representative Jared Huffman, U.S.

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative

Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative Daniel Lipinski, U.S. Representative Alan Lowenthal, U.S.

Representative Stephen Lynch, U.S. Representative Tom Malinowski, U.S. Representative Sean

Patrick Maloney, U.S. Representative Carol D. Miller, U.S. Representative Paul Mitchell, U.S.

Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, U.S. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton

(Chairwoman, House Highways & Transit Subcommittee), U.S. Representative Chris Pappas, U.S.

Representative Donald Payne, Jr., U.S. Representative Harley Rouda, U.S. Representative David

Rouzer, U.S. Representative Albio Sires, U.S. Representative Ross Spano, U.S. Representative

Greg Stanton, U.S. Representative Dana Titus, U.S. Representative Frederica Wilson, U.S.

Representative Don Young, Utah Department of Transportation, Vermont Agency of

Transportation, Volvo Group, Washington State Department of Transportation, West Virginia

Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and Wyoming

Department of Transportation.

Unfortunately, the proposal put forth by the Commission ignores the legitimate concerns of

this broad and diverse group of safety-focused stakeholders and instead seeks to satisfy the

demands of a vocal group of companies who will directly profit from the use of this spectrum for

unlicensed uses, including by providing Wi-Fi to paying customers and for data offloading.

7

C. Existing and Anticipated Applications Will Likely Be Lost if Spectrum is Repurposed

The Commission states its belief in the NPRM that “ITS users can be accommodated in a

significantly smaller spectrum space,”3 but does not offer any evidence or data to support this

contention. In fact, the Commission’s belief is at odds with the conclusion of those who are

deploying, or interested in deploying, the technology that at least 75 MHz of spectrum is needed

to support current and anticipated applications. Vehicle manufacturers and infrastructure providers

have been clear that a decision to reduce the amount of spectrum available for ITS means that at

least some applications are unlikely to be offered. 4 Important safety-related applications –

including vehicle sensor data sharing, merge assist, red light warnings, work zone warnings,

dangerous road condition warnings, emergency vehicle preemption, and emergency vehicle alerts

– are potentially at risk. In addition, applications that have the potential to improve traffic

efficiency, reduce emissions, and make travel more convenient – such as platooning, cooperative

adaptive cruise control, optimal speed advisories, and transit signal priority – are far less likely to

be deployed.

The CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium (“CAR 2 CAR Consortium”) recently released

a comprehensive report that quantifies the spectrum needs for ITS in both Europe and the United

States that supports this contention.5 The report is included as Appendix A. As part of its analysis,

the CAR 2 CAR Consortium summarizes the spectrum needs of V2V, vehicle-to-infrastructure

(V2I), and vehicle-to--pedestrian (V2P) communication known today, which includes the BSM

3 Id. at ¶20 4 See e.g., Comments of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers, Intelligent

Transportation Society of America, and Denso International America, Inc., ET Docket No. 13-49, pp. 6-7, (July 7,

2016) 5 See Position Paper on Road Safety and Road Efficiency Spectrum Needs in the 5.9 GHz for C-ITS and

Cooperative Automated Driving, Car 2 Car Communication Consortium, available at https://www.car-2-

car.org/fileadmin/documents/General_Documents/C2CCC_TR_2050_Spectrum_Needs.pdf (February 28, 2020)

8

(Basic Safety Message), SPAT (signal phase and timing), MAP (road/lane topology and traffic

maneuver), IVI (in-vehicle information), other I2V (infrastructure-to-vehicle) messages, PSM

(Personal Safety Messages), PCM (Platooning Control Messages), CPM (Collective Perception

Messages), and MCM (Maneuver Control Messages). The analysis concludes that the minimum

basic spectrum needs for these known message types is 67 MHz for urban environments and 72

MHz for suburban and rural environments. Based on the CAR 2 CAR Consortium analysis, any

smaller allocation in any of these environments would necessarily mean that some of the known

message types could not be supported and that any future innovation with respect to new message

types would be precluded.

To further appreciate the impact of its proposal, the Commission should review the industry

consensus channel usage plan for DSRC standardized by SAE.6 The channel usage plan identifies

applications that have been developed or are under development that will be provided in each of

the seven channels. A drastic reduction in the amount of spectrum available to DSRC means that

at least some of the applications reflected on the DSRC channel usage plan will likely be lost to

the United States market. Reducing the applications that can be provided will – without doubt –

significantly limit the ability of the technology to realize its full potential.

In addition, it is important to note that the Commission’s proposal will impact existing pilots

and deployments. As the Commission knows, General Motors began deploying DSRC on its

Cadillac CTS models in 2017 and, in 2018, announced that it would build on-board units into a

high-volume Cadillac CTS by 2023 and expand the deployment to all Cadillac models thereafter.7

6 See Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) Systems Engineering Process Guidance for SAE J2945/0

Documents and Common Design Concepts, SAE J2945_201712 (2017) 7 See Letter from Maryann L. Combs, Vice President of Global Vehicle Safety, General Motors, to Marlene H.

Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission, ET Docket No. 13-49 (April 18, 2019)

9

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are currently 123 planned or operational

connected vehicle deployment locations in the United States using the 5.9 GHz band, more than

18,000 vehicles that have been deployed with aftermarket ITS devices, and over 6,000

infrastructure ITS devices have been installed at the roadside in 25 states.8 It is our understanding

that all seven channels are being used to support these pilots and deployments. In some cases, we

understand that six out of seven channels are being used to support applications and services in

some of the larger-scale deployments, including those in Tampa and New York City. Clearly, any

decision to repurpose any of these channels away from transportation safety will have an

immediate and detrimental impact on these current deployments.

D. Automation and Sensors Do Not Diminish the Need for Spectrum

In the NPRM, the Commission once again claims that, because automated technologies have

surpassed some of the functions that were originally envisioned to be performed by DSRC, the

need for ITS is dramatically diminished.9 This claim is made without support and despite repeated

refutations to the contrary by automakers, automotive suppliers, the U.S. Department of

Transportation, and others transportation safety experts.

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation released an NPRM to mandate DSRC in future

vehicles. In the NPRM, the U.S. Department of Transportation specifically considered the

relationship between V2V communication and vehicle-resident sensor-based crash avoidance

systems and flatly rejected the assertion that V2V technology should not be pursued because

onboard sensing systems exist in the marketplace. The U.S. Department of Transportation

8 See Preserving the 5.9 GHz Safety Band for Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, available at

https://www.transportation.gov/research-and-technology/preserving-59ghz-safety-band-transportation-0 (2020) 9 NPRM at ¶4

10

concluded that V2V communication can provide warnings in several scenarios where vehicle-

based sensors and cameras cannot, such as vehicles approaching at intersections.10 The U.S.

Department of Transportation specifically noted that communication-based systems do not have

the same line-of-sight limitations and have longer perception range than sensor-based technologies,

providing improved warning time.11 The U.S. Department of Transportation further concluded that,

for vehicles with on-board sensors, V2V communication offers a fundamentally different, but

complementary, source of information that can significantly enhance the reliability and accuracy

of the information available from the on-board sensors, including by validating a return from a

vehicle-based sensor and reducing the number of false warnings.12 In the end, the U.S. Department

of Transportation concluded that V2V technology would enhance the functionality of both types

of systems and, together, would provide even greater benefits than either system alone.13

The current U.S. Department of Transportation has reiterated this conclusion on multiple

occasions. In Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0), the

U.S. Department of Transportation rejected the claim that autonomous vehicle technology

eliminates the need for V2V and V2I. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Transportation noted

that “[c]ommunication both between vehicles (V2V) and with the surrounding environment (V2X)

is an important complementary technology that is expected to enhance the benefits of automation

at all levels.”14 This conclusion was recently reiterated in the Preliminary Technical Analysis that

the U.S. Department of Transportation released in December. In that analysis, the U.S. Department

10 See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications, 49 CFR Part 572, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, p. 3866 (2017) (“NHTSA NPRM”) 11 Id. at p. 3855 12 Id. 13 Id. at 3865 14 See Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0, U.S. Department of Transportation,

available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/automated-

vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-vehicle-30.pdf, p.13 (2018)

11

of Transportation noted that “virtually every automotive manufacturer has acknowledged the

important role that V2X communications can play in enhancing safety, extending operational

design domain, and improving interactions with other vehicles and the infrastructure. For example,

V2X can allow [Automated Driving System] vehicles to easily and reliably communicate with

emergency response vehicles, with traffic signals, and with other infrastructure messaging (such

as location of work zones, temporary lane closures, and numerous other messages that can help an

ADS vehicle navigate along its intended path).”15 We strongly urge the Commission to defer to

the informed and expert opinion of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the federal agency

specifically charged with transportation safety, on this point.

In fact, the emergence of automation may very well increase the industry’s need for V2V

communication. V2V can enable sensor data sharing between vehicles. Coupled with novel sensor

fusion and artificial intelligence techniques, the sensor data from neighboring vehicles has the

potential to strengthen the overall robustness and social utility of autonomous vehicles. For

example, one car may “see” something that another car cannot “see” (e.g. a child running out in

the road, a patch of ice, etc.) and can share that information with the other vehicle using V2V

technology. This promising use case, which is already in standardization, will simply not be

possible under the proposal put forward by the Commission.

E. Other Portions of Spectrum are Insufficient for Transportation Safety Purposes

The Commission seeks comment on whether there are other portions of spectrum that can

support these sorts of safety-critical transportation communications. The simple answer is no.

15 See Preliminary Technical Assessment - Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM: Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band [ET

Docket No. 19-138], U.S. Department of Transportation, available at

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/research-and-technology/359811/preliminary-technical-

assessment-fcc-59-ghz-nprm-05dec2019-final.pdf, p. 4 (2019) (“Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM”)

12

Any speculation that commercial cellular spectrum can meet the reliability and latency

requirements for this type of communication is unlikely to prove itself out. First, cellular coverage

is far from ubiquitous. This means that cooperative collision avoidance systems and other

imminent safety alerts would not be available in regions or areas without cellular coverage,

including many rural parts of this country. Second, today’s cellular networks rarely support

broadcast services. As a result, the dissemination of a BSM (for example) to fifty neighboring

vehicles would require fifty times as much bandwidth in a cellular implementation compared to

direct V2X communication in 5.9 GHz. Even in a future cellular network with broadcast support,

each BSM may consume twice as much scarce bandwidth (uplink-then-downlink) as could occur

in direct V2X communication using 5.9 GHz. Third, use of commercial cellular services for

transportation safety would require constant and significant coordination among cellular service

providers, cellular device manufacturers, transportation agencies, and vehicle equipment

manufacturers that would make the deployment of the technology considerably more complex than

what is enabled in the 5.9 GHz band. Finally, there are significant customer costs associated with

access to any cellular network that are not present with direct V2X communication in the 5.9 GHz

band. These additional costs would potentially put the technology out of financial reach for many

consumers.

F. Other Regions of the World are Looking to Increase, Not Reduce, Spectrum

Allocations

The Commission notes that other parts of the world have allocated less spectrum for ITS and

uses this as partial justification for its decision to reduce the amount of spectrum available for these

systems in the United States. The Commission ignores the fact that countries and regions with

smaller allocations believe that their current allocations are insufficient.

13

For example, Europe has long maintained an allocation for ITS in the 5.9 GHz band that is

equivalent to the United States but just recently increased the allocation from 70 MHz to 80 MHz

and expanded the portion allocated for road safety from 30 MHz to 50 MHz.16 Similarly, China

has currently allocated 20 MHz for basic ITS technology but is already studying a significant

expansion of spectrum for more advanced services, such as platooning and cooperative automation.

There is widespread recognition in these countries and regions – by both stakeholders and

government – that more spectrum is needed for the technology. Importantly, this shared

acknowledgement from regulators has provided confidence to vehicle manufacturers and others to

move forward with mass deployment of ITS.

At the end of the day, the Commission’s goal should be to put the United States in a leadership

position in terms of its ability to realize the full potential of this transportation safety technology.

The Commission should strive to ensure that the United States has the most advanced and most

effective cooperative crash avoidance network in the world. Instead, by using spectrum allocations

in other parts of the world as a ceiling (and not a floor), the Commission is essentially guaranteeing

that the United States will be unable to achieve this sort of global leadership.

G. The Potential of the Technology Should Not be Discounted

The Commission continues to assert that V2X technology “has not lived up to its potential”

and that therefore most of the spectrum should be repurposed for Wi-Fi.17 This reasoning is

fundamentally flawed.

16 See Electronic Communications Committee Decision (08)01: The harmonized use of the 5875-5925 MHz

frequency band for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) (2008); See also Minutes of the 52nd ECC Meeting,

Doc. ECC(20)055 (March 6, 2020) 17 NPRM at ¶1

14

While the full potential of this technology has not yet been realized, the potential has been

demonstrated and validated and is being actively pursued by eager stakeholders throughout the

country. A decision by the Commission to repurpose the spectrum at this critical time merely

guarantees that a technology that is well on its way to realizing its potential will never do so.

First, the Commission continues to ignore the important progress that has been made. As we’ve

explained to the Commission before, the technology has progressed significantly since the

Commission made its channelization decisions in 2006. From 2007-2009, the industry focused on

the development of the technology itself and the standards that would be needed to support the

technology. In 2010-2011, the industry conducted acceptance trials in a number of different

geographic locations, confirming that the technology would be one that people wanted. From

2011-2013, the industry and the United States government conducted large scale testing and pilot

programs, including in Ann Arbor, to verify the maturity of the standards, the interoperability of

the technology, and the safety benefits of mass deployment. In 2015, the industry released

deployment-ready standards. In 2016, deployments began taking place across the country and, in

2017, the first DSRC-enabled production vehicles hit the United States market.

Moreover, there is no doubt that deployment of the technology has been negatively impacted

by the regulatory uncertainty that the Commission has perpetuated over the last seven years about

continued access to the entire band for transportation safety purposes. The Commission has also

taken overt action to depress deployment. Companies have been actively discouraged by members

of the Commission from moving forward with aggressive deployment strategies and the

Commission has purposefully failed to act on pending license applications. Just recently, the

15

Commission went so far as to stop accepting license applications altogether.18 The undeniable

reality is that, over the last seven years, the Commission has simply not wanted this technology to

reach its full potential and has gone out of its way to ensure that it did not.

Finally, if the Commission is genuinely interested in advancing transportation safety and in

ensuring that ITS communication technology can live up to its potential, it would refrain from

repurposing spectrum away from this very goal. A decision by the Commission to repurpose most

of the spectrum away from transportation safety and to fragment the remaining spectrum between

non-interoperable communication technologies is likely to further depress deployments, all but

ensuring that the technology will never live up to its full potential and that the expansive range of

important safety benefits that the technology can offer will never be realized.

H. The Regulatory Certainty Proposed by the Commission is Not the Regulatory

Certainty Sought by Manufacturers and Infrastructure Providers

The Commission correctly notes that industry has been urging it to provide regulatory certainty.

However, the Commission’s proposal is far from the regulatory certainty that industry has been

seeking.

The lack of regulatory clarity that contributed to Toyota’s decision to pause its product plans

in the United States market was specifically around whether DSRC would continue to have

interference-free access to the entire 5.9 GHz band. As Toyota stated in its filing: “For any

company seeking to deploy this safety technology at a mass scale, the chance that DSRC operations

could be subject to harmful interference from unlicensed operations or other technologies should

they be permitted in the band, that channels used for DSRC could be reallocated after services

18 See Public Notice, Wireless Communications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announce

Temporary Filing Freeze on the Acceptance and Processing of Part 90 Applications for Certain 5850-5925 MHz (5.9

GHz) Spectrum, DA 19-1298 (2019)

16

using those channels have entered the market, or that spectrally-inefficient band fragmentation

could impair the ability to expand DSRC services and applications over time creates a substantial

and arguably insurmountable risk.”19 The Commission’s proposal to grant unlicensed operation

exclusive use of the lower 45 MHz of the band without any consideration of the potential harmful

interference to transportation safety communication in the upper part of the band, to reallocate

channels away from DSRC after DSRC services using those channels have entered the market,

and to fragment the band and impair the ability to expand DSRC services over time does not in

any way address the risks and obstacles Toyota faced in moving forward with its product plans.

Indeed, by removing 60% of ITS capacity, failing to propose any U-NII-4 out-of-band-emission

limit for the truncated ITS band, and limiting the spectrum available for incumbent DSRC

operations to no more than 10 MHz, the Commission’s proposal is far worse than what was feared

one year ago.

Moreover, in the NPRM, the Commission seems to be opening the door to transitioning all ITS

uses out of the 5.9 GHz band. The Commission specifically asks whether “there are other spectrum

bands that might be better suited for supporting ITS applications….Commentators that support

maintaining some 5.9 GHz band spectrum for ITS applications should specify the specific

transportation and vehicular safety-related functions to be accommodated in the band and how

much bandwidth in this particular band is necessary to achieve those respective functional

capabilities.”20 By asking transportation safety stakeholders to defend the need for even the

remaining 30 MHz of spectrum, the Commission seems to be setting the stage for a future

proceeding to repurpose even more spectrum away from transportation safety. Any hint by the

19 See Letter from Hilary M. Cain, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, Toyota, to Marlene H. Dortch, ET

Docket 13-49, GN Docket No. 18-357 (April 26, 2019) 20 NPRM at ¶61

17

Commission that the remaining 30 MHz is still up for grabs or that its allocation for transportation

safety communications may be eliminated in the future continues the regulatory uncertainty that

has plagued the deployment of this technology since the Commission first initiated its proceeding

in 2013.

III. THE POTENTIAL FOR HARMFUL INTERFERENCE TO TRANSPORTATIN

SAFETY MUST BE FULLY ASSESSED

In the NPRM, the Commission has failed to evaluate or even consider whether unlicensed

operations in the lower 45 MHz will result in harmful interference to transportation safety

communications in the upper 30 MHz. The potential for harmful interference must be fully

assessed and addressed before any decision is made by the Commission to permit unlicensed

operations in the lower part of the band. To fail to do so is a clear abdication of the Commission’s

responsibilities to protect incumbent technologies. Simply put, the perceived difficulty of testing

to assess whether harmful interference exists cannot be a legitimate justification to conclude such

interference does not exist. Doing so puts the public at risk.

As the Commission may be aware, preliminary technical analysis by the U.S. Department

of Transportation concludes that “interference will occur” under the Commission’s proposal.21 As

the U.S. Department of Transportation states, such interference raises the question of the reliability

of ITS communications in the configuration proposed by the Commission.22 In other words, the

presence of harmful interference will quite possibly make most or all of the 30 MHz of spectrum

unusable for safety critical crash avoidance applications. In the end, rather than compressing

transportation safety communications into only 30 MHz of spectrum, the Commission may be

21 See Preliminary Technical Assessment, Preliminary Testing: Out-of-Channel Interference (Out-of-Band

Emissions), U.S. Department of Transportation, available at

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/research-and-technology/360181/oobe-energy-59-safety-

band-final-120619.pdf (2019) (“Preliminary Testing”) 22 Id.

18

functionally eliminating all spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for transportation safety

communications.

To this end, if the Commission decides to repurpose spectrum in the lower part of the band

to unlicensed use over the objection of Toyota and other transportations safety stakeholders, the

Commission should certainly establish strict out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limits that will avoid

harmful interference to transportation safety communications remaining within the band. In order

to provide enough protection to transportation safety communications occurring throughout 5.895

– 5.925 GHz, the emissions at or above 5.895 GHz should not exceed an EIRP of -27 dBm/MHz.

As the Commission knows, this would be consistent with the emissions limits for the U-NII-I and

U-NII-2A bands. Adoption of the U-NII-I and U-NII-2A emissions limits, and not the U-NII-3

emissions limits, is justified because operations in the proposed U-NII-4 band will be immediately

adjacent to transportation safety communications in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. This is contrast to

the existing U-NII-3 band which is separated from transportation safety communications by a 5

MHz guard band.

We note that, even at this proposed OOBE level, there is a potential for harmful

interference to transportation safety communications, particularly if an unlicensed device

operating below 5.895 GHz is transmitting from within – or immediately adjacent to – a vehicle.

This potential for harmful interference should be fully considered and addressed by the

Commission.

Alternatively, the Commission may wish to consider reserving spectrum to protect

transportation safety communications occurring in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. A 10 MHz guard

band could be created at the upper end of the proposed U-NII-4 band between 5.885-5.895 GHz.

This configuration would preserve a total of 160 MHz of contiguous spectrum between the U-NII-

19

3 and proposed U-NII-4 bands (5.725 – 5.885 GHz) for unlicensed use. We recognize that such a

configuration may require unlicensed users to make some minor adjustments or modifications to

their devices but believe that such adjustments or modifications would be appropriate to ensure

that transportation safety communications are protected from harmful interference.

IV. THE COMMISSION’S COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN INCOMPLETE

The proposal by the Commission to repurpose spectrum away from transportation safety to

unlicensed use represents a clear value judgment. The NPRM represents a judgment by the

Commission that the value to society of additional spectrum for Wi-Fi for entertainment and

convenience purposes is greater than the value to society in improving transportation safety and

reducing traffic crashes. We disagree with this value judgment. As a company that is committed

to reducing traffic injuries and fatalities, we believe that the transportation safety benefits that can

be realized with this technology are of greater overall benefit to our society than the incremental

value of 45 MHz of additional spectrum for Wi-Fi.

Unfortunately, the benefits and costs section of the NPRM is extraordinarily one-sided,

focusing almost exclusively on the benefits of making additional spectrum available to unlicensed

use. While the Commission briefly explores the benefits associated with retaining 30 MHz for

transportation safety, it completely and inexplicably ignores the benefits that are lost by

repurposing 45 MHz away from transportation safety. We certainly share the perspective of the

U.S. Department of Transportation in its Preliminary Technical Analysis that the Commission

must appropriately conduct a rigorous analysis of the economic benefits of retaining the entire 75

20

MHz of spectrum for transportation safety or repurposing 45 MHz of spectrum to unlicensed use

and retaining only 30 MHz of spectrum to transportation safety.23

The benefits lost by a decision to repurpose spectrum away from transportation safety may

include such things as lives saved, medical costs eliminated, emergency service costs prevented,

insurance administration costs reduced, congestion costs mitigated, property damage and loss

eliminated, workplace losses avoided, greater productivity, improved mobility and transportation

efficiency, greater fuel savings, and faster responses to public safety and emergency response

situations. In fact, the NPRM put forward by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

in 2017 to mandate V2V technology in future vehicles speculated that the proposed rule – which

included only two BSM-based safety applications - would have provided between $53 and $71

billion in benefits from avoiding motor vehicle crashes.24 Since this benefit analysis was based on

only a small fraction of the applications expected to be offered across the full 75 MHz of spectrum

and did not include all benefits that could be realized by ITS communication, it is quite likely that

the benefits lost by repurposing the spectrum away from transportation safety outweigh the Wi-

Fi-related benefits claimed by the RAND study funded by Wi-Fi advocates.

In addition, the Commission should examine whether the benefits associated with

providing an additional 45 MHz of spectrum to unlicensed uses would be reduced in any way if

an additional 1200 MHz of spectrum is made available to unlicensed use in the 6 GHz band, as

under consideration by the Commission. While the RAND study cited by the Commission briefly

addresses the 6 GHz proceeding, it only does so in the context of whether the 6 GHz proceeding

23 Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM at p. 4 24 NHTSA NPRM at p. 3858

21

would have any impact on the demand for Wi-Fi.25 Since the basis of the Commission’s decision

to repurpose spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band is that “demand for spectrum to support unlicensed use

has… intensified,” the more important question for the Commission’s current analysis is whether

the 6 GHz proceeding will have any impact on the supply of Wi-Fi to meet the intensified need.26

Presumably, it will. An additional 1200 MHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band will almost

certainly reduce the incremental value of 45 MHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi in the 5.9 GHz band.

Finally, the Commission should consider that a non-contiguous 160 MHz unlicensed

channel is already possible under IEEE standards and available using 80 MHz of spectrum in the

U-NII-I band and 80 MHz in the U-NII-3 band.27 While we understand that the use of two non-

contiguous 80 MHz channels may be somewhat more difficult or marginally more costly to Wi-Fi

providers, the Commission should explore whether this option is more appropriate than

repurposing limited spectrum away from transportation safety.

V. DECISIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY

CONSIDERED

In the NPRM, the Commission proposes repurposing at least 20 MHz away from DSRC to C-

V2X. However, the NPRM does not specify whether the C-V2X technology that it is proposing to

be used is LTE V2X or 5G NRV2X. We note that these are two distinct technologies and cannot

be used at the same time in the same channel. As a critical foundational matter, the Commission

should clarify whether it is proposing to repurpose 20 MHz to LTE V2X or to 5G NR V2X.

25 See The Potential Economic Value of Unlicensed Spectrum in the 5.9 GHz Frequency Band: Insights for Future

Spectrum Allocation Policy; Diana Gehlhaus Carew, Nicholas Martin, Marjory S. Blumenthal, Philip Armour, Jesse

Lastunen, p. 38 26 NPRM at ¶ 14 27 See IEEE Std. 802.11-2016, IEEE Standard for Information technology – Telecommunications and information

exchange between systems: Local and metropolitan area networks – Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN

Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, IEEE Standards Association, at Clause

21 (2016)

22

In determining which transportation safety technology or technologies to support in the 5.9

GHz band, the Commission should carefully consider the following five factors: (1) whether a

technology is proven; (2) whether a technology is interoperable with any other transportation

safety technologies permitted in the band; (3) whether a technology can evolve over time; (4)

whether the use of the band is spectrally efficient; and (5) whether a technology is more cost

effective than alternative technologies.

A. Only Proven Technologies Should be Permitted in the Band

The Commission should be reluctant to repurpose spectrum to any technology that is not yet

proven. At this moment, DSRC remains the only transportation safety communication protocol

that has been proven and validated for transportation safety communication.

While we appreciate the extensive work that is being done to develop LTE V2X and 5G NR

V2X, the reality is that the technology is still very much under development. As the U.S.

Department of Transportation notes in its Preliminary Technical Analysis, the NPRM “relies

significantly on a technology still in development.”28 The U.S. Department of Transportation

cautions that “a shift of this nature needs to be based upon independent and objective analysis that

includes not only the spectral performance of the technology, but also the safety performance given

that it will be applied to safety-of-life applications.”29 We wholeheartedly agree with the U.S.

Department of Transportation. Before LTE V2X could be used for crash-imminent safety purposes,

it would need to be validated with the same rigor and at the same scale as DSRC has already been

validated.

28 Concerns with Draft FCC NPRM, at p. 2 29 Id.

23

While testing and demonstration of LTE V2X is still ongoing, standards are still being refined,

and technical performance requirements are still being specified, some preliminary analysis

conducted by Toyota indicates that LTE V2X performs worse than DSRC as vehicle density

increases. These preliminary results, which are attached as Appendix B, show persistent packet

loss and performance degradation for LTE V2X when the distances between vehicles is relatively

short.

With respect to 5G NR V2X, the standards have not yet been finalized by 3GPP. By all

accounts, the development of the technology is at best several years behind the development of

LTE V2X. As with LTE V2X, before being permitted to operate in the band, the technology should

be tested and validated at scale and in vehicle dense situations to confirm that it can effectively

support safety critical communication.

B. Interoperability Should be Preserved

As the Commission notes in the NPRM, in its 2004 Report & Order allocating the 5.9 GHz

band for ITS, the Commission established a requirement to conform to a single communication

standard.30 In establishing this requirement, the Commission recognized that interoperability is an

essential element in realizing the societal and individual benefits of the crash avoidance

applications enabled by V2V and V2I communication.31 We believe this was rightfully decided,

and strongly urge the Commission not to abandon that premise. In fact, we assert that

interoperability is one of the most important factors for the Commission to consider in determining

30 See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Dedicated Short-Range Communication

Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band (5.9 GHz Band); Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to

Allocate the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band to the Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent

Transportation Services; WT Docket No. 01-90, ET Docket No. 98-95, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2458, at p.

11 (2004). 31 Id.

24

which transportation safety technology or technologies should be permitted to operate in the 5.9

GHz band.

By its very definition, a cooperative safety technology – in which devices communicate

directly with each other - needs to be cooperative. The societal and individual benefits of the

technology will undoubtedly diminish if the Commission enables a fragmented market of non-

interoperable communication technologies.

As the Commission knows, neither LTE V2X nor 5G NR V2X are interoperable with DSRC.

Allowing LTE V2X or 5G NR V2X to operate in the upper 20 MHz channel and preserving one

10 MHz channel for DSRC establishes the very sort of fragmented, non-interoperable market that

the Commission should seek to avoid.

C. Technologies Should be Able to Evolve in the Future

In the NPRM, the Commission claims to be interested in providing for continued improvement

of transportation safety into the future. 32 We share this interest. When considering which

technology or technologies should be permitted to operate in the band, the Commission should

focus on whether a technology can evolve.

The Commission has already been informed that work is currently underway in IEEE to

produce a Next Generation (NGV) V2X standard that will be backwards compatible with DSRC.

The IEEE NGV V2X standard provides a clear same-channel evolution path for DSRC.

At this point in time, it is not clear whether future C-V2X technologies will be designed to be

backwards compatible to 5G NR V2X. However, because these future C-V2X technologies have

32 NPRM at ¶10

25

not yet been developed, it is at least conceivable that backwards compatibility to 5G NR V2X

could be built in to them. To that end, if the Commission decides to permit 5G NR V2X to operate

in the band, we urge the Commission to require that future C-V2X technologies be backwards

compatible with 5G NR V2X.

As the Commission is aware, 5G NR V2X is not being designed to be backwards compatible

to LTE V2X. Since 5G NR V2X is also not capable of same-channel coexistence with LTE V2X,

a decision to permit LTE V2X in a channel locks in LTE V2X as the only C-V2X technology that

can be used in that channel – now and into the future. Without additional spectrum being made

available, there simply is no evolution path for LTE V2X. To put it simply, LTE V2X is the only

technology under consideration today by the Commission that cannot evolve within a single

channel.

D. Spectral Efficiency Should be Contemplated

Toyota and other stakeholders have consistently expressed concerns to the Commission about

spectral efficiency in the 5.9 GHz band. At a time when the Commission is appropriately focused

on promoting spectral efficiency, it makes little sense to duplicate identical or nearly-identical

transportation safety services on distinct channels.

The concerns about spectral efficiency are vastly greater under the Commission’s proposal to

reduce the amount of spectrum available to transportation safety by more than 60 percent. With

only one 20 MHz channel and one 10 MHz channel, it would be contrary to the Commission’s

worthy goal of achieving the efficient use of spectrum to allow for services to be duplicated using

different protocols in separate channels.

26

To that end, if the Commission decides to maintain DSRC in the 10 MHz channel and to

repurpose 20 MHz to an LTE V2X channel or an 5G NR V2X channel, we urge the Commission

to designate only one of these channels (and, hence, only one communication protocol) for the

transmission of the BSM. Under this plan, the other channel (and other communication protocol)

would be used to support applications that are not reliant on the BSM. Although far from ideal,

this approach would maximize the safety services that could be supported within such a limited

amount of spectrum for transportation safety.

That being said, we note that the decision to repurpose any of the transportation safety spectrum

to C-V2X is not the most efficient use of the spectrum. As the Commission knows, because of

persistent packet loss and attendant duplicate packet transmission, C-V2X requires the use of a 20

MHz channel to transmit communications that DSRC can support in a 10 MHz channel. This

means that DSRC can theoretically support twice as many applications than C-V2X in the same

amount of spectrum.

E. Cost is an Important Consideration

If the Commission is interested in the rapid deployment of transportation safety applications

in the 5.9 GHz band, the Commission should consider the comparative cost to consumers,

automakers, and infrastructure providers of various technology options. If the spectrum is divided

between DSRC and LTE V2X or between DSRC and 5G NR V2X, infrastructure providers and

automakers who wish to participate fully in a cooperative transportation safety system would be

forced to invest in both technologies. This means deploying vehicle and infrastructure that

incorporates both DSRC and LTE V2X or both DSRC and 5G NR V2X at potentially double the

cost. This contrasts with a single technology solution that would offer the same level of societal

and individual benefits at potentially half the cost.

27

In addition, the Commission should carefully consider whether any of the technologies being

proposed for transportation safety communications have additional costs for consumers and

infrastructure providers. This could include costs associated with intellectual property licensing or

required subscriptions or data service plans that may end up making the technology cost-

prohibitive and out of reach for many consumers.

VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER A NEW APPROACH

It is clear that consumers will be best-served, and transportation safety will be most

improved, through an interoperable transportation safety network. It is also clear that considerable

disagreement remains among stakeholders about which communication protocol is preferable.

Because we are fully committed to promoting transportation safety and dedicated to realizing the

full potential of a cooperative transportation system, we believe the time has come for stakeholders

to coalesce around the broader goal of interoperability and commit to resolving this seemingly

intractable debate about which technology is preferable.

Since the U.S. Department of Transportation is the federal agency that is charged with

advancing transportation safety and is therefore best-positioned to make a decision about which

technology is most likely to improve transportation safety, we propose that the U.S. Department

of Transportation be charged with identifying to the Commission within a specified period

(perhaps 12-18 months) a single communication protocol that automakers and infrastructure

providers will utilize going forward. At that point in time, the Commission would incorporate the

identified protocol into its rules. If the U.S. Department of Transportation identifies either DSRC

or 5G NR V2X, the Commission should draft its rules to also permit into the band any future

technology that is interoperable and backwards compatible in the same channel with the identified

protocol. (Such a requirement would not be necessary if the U.S. Department of Transportation

28

identifies LTE V2X since future C-V2X technologies will not be backwards compatible to LTE

V2X.)

It is our strong belief that this approach should be allowed to proceed with respect to the

entire 75 MHz band of spectrum currently allocated to ITS. To ensure rapid deployment of the

technology identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation and incorporated into the

Commission’s rules, the Commission should consider adopting buildout requirements. The

buildout requirements and incentives proposed by the Association of Global Automakers in its Ex

Parte filing from May of 2019 could serve as a starting point.33

Even if - over the objection of Toyota and other stakeholders - the Commission proceeds

with its decision to repurpose 45 MHz away from transportation safety, the need to identify a single

communication protocol remains. In fact, because of the significant challenges associated with

maximizing the transportation safety applications that can be provided in the dramatically reduced

amount of spectrum proposed by the Commission, the need to settle on a single communication

protocol is arguably even greater.

If the Commission proceeds with the approach proposed in the NPRM, we expect that

deployment of transportation safety technologies will generally be stunted. For that reason, a

buildout requirement would be inappropriate.

VII. CONCLUSION

The NPRM represents a dramatic and disappointing shift in approach to the 5.9 GHz band

by the Commission. A decision to repurpose more than 60% of the spectrum away from

33 See Letter from Scott Delacourt, Counsel to Global Automakers, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, ET. Docket No. 13-49, GN Docket No. 18-357 (May 21, 2019)

29

transportation safety and to unlicensed use will have a devastating impact on the ability of the ITS

technology to reach its greatest potential and to fully deliver on its promise to reduce traffic crashes.

Toyota is frustrated that the safety benefits of this technology continue to be minimized, discounted,

and disregarded by those who seek access to the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed uses. In order to

avoid the seemingly inevitable loss of some applications to the United States market and the

needless impact on existing deployments, we strongly urge the Commission to maintain all 75

MHz of spectrum for transportation safety.