This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-13 
entitled 'Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Vehicle 
Technologies Expected to Offer Safety Benefits, but a Variety of 
Deployment Challenges Exist' which was released on November 1, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

November 2013: 

Intelligent Transportation Systems: 

Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies Expected to Offer Safety Benefits, but 
a Variety of Deployment Challenges Exist: 

GAO-14-13: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-13, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2011, 5.3 million vehicle crashes in the United States resulted in 
more than 2.2 million injuries and about 32,000 fatalities. While 
improvements in automobile safety have reduced the number of 
fatalities in recent decades, DOT has worked with the automobile 
industry to develop V2V technologies, through which vehicles are 
capable of warning drivers of imminent collisions by sharing data, 
including information on speed and location, with nearby vehicles. GAO 
was asked to review the status of V2V technologies. GAO examined (1) 
the state of development of V2V technologies and their anticipated 
benefits; (2) the challenges, if any, that will affect the deployment 
of these technologies and what actions, if any, DOT is taking to 
address them; and (3) what is known about the potential costs 
associated with these technologies. 

GAO reviewed documentation on V2V technology-related efforts by DOT 
and automobile manufacturers, visited a pilot study of V2V 
technologies in Michigan, and interviewed DOT officials, automobile 
manufacturers, and 21 experts identified by the National Academies of 
Sciences. Experts were selected based on their level of knowledge and 
to represent a variety of subject areas related to V2V technology 
development. 

DOT and the Federal Communications Commission reviewed a draft of this 
report and provided technical comments which were incorporated as 
appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

The development of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies has 
progressed to the point of real world testing, and if broadly 
deployed, they are anticipated to offer significant safety benefits. 
Efforts by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the 
automobile industry have focused on developing: 1) in-vehicle 
components such as hardware to facilitate communications among 
vehicles, 2) safety software applications to analyze data and identify 
potential collisions, 3) vehicle features that warn drivers, and 4) a 
national communication security system to ensure trust in the data 
transmitted among vehicles. According to DOT, if widely deployed, V2V 
technologies could provide warnings to drivers in as much as 76 
percent of potential multi-vehicle collisions involving at least one 
light vehicle, such as a passenger car. Ultimately, however, the level 
of benefits realized will depend on the extent of the deployment of 
these technologies and the effectiveness of V2V warnings in eliciting 
appropriate driver responses. The continued progress of V2V technology 
development hinges on a decision that the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to make in late 2013 on how to 
proceed regarding these technologies. One option would be to pursue a 
rulemaking requiring their inclusion in new vehicles. 

The deployment of V2V technologies faces a number of challenges, which 
DOT is working with the automobile industry to address. According to 
experts, DOT officials, automobile manufacturers, and other 
stakeholders GAO interviewed, these challenges include: 1) finalizing 
the technical framework and management framework of a V2V 
communication security system, which will be unique in its size and 
structure; 2) ensuring that the possible sharing with other wireless 
users of the radio-frequency spectrum used by V2V communications will 
not adversely affect V2V technology’s performance; 3) ensuring that 
drivers respond appropriately to warnings of potential collisions; 4) 
addressing the uncertainty related to potential liability issues posed 
by V2V technologies; and 5) addressing any concerns the public may 
have, including those related to privacy. DOT is collaborating with 
automobile manufacturers and others to find potential technical and 
policy solutions to these challenges and plans to continue these 
efforts. Although V2V technologies are being tested in a real-world 
pilot that will end in February 2014, DOT officials stated that they 
cannot fully plan for deployment until NHTSA decides how to proceed 
later this year. 

DOT and the automobile industry are currently analyzing the total 
costs associated with V2V technologies, which include the costs of 
both in-vehicle components and a communication security system. All of 
the automobile manufacturers GAO interviewed said that it is difficult 
to estimate in-vehicle V2V component costs at this time because too 
many factors—such as future production volumes and the time frame of 
deployment—remain unknown. The costs associated with a V2V 
communication security system also remain unknown as the specifics of 
the system’s technical framework and management structure are not yet 
finalized. While the costs of in-vehicle V2V components may be modest 
relative to the price of a new vehicle, some experts noted that the 
potential costs associated with the operation of a V2V communication 
security system could be significant. Further, it is currently unclear 
who-—consumers, automobile manufacturers, DOT, state and local 
governments, or others—-would pay the costs associated with a V2V 
communication security system. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-13]. For more 
information, contact Dave Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOT and Industry Have Developed and Piloted V2V Technologies, Which 
Offer Potentially Significant Safety Benefits If Broadly Deployed: 

DOT Is Working with the Automobile Industry to Address a Number of V2V 
Technology Deployment Challenges: 

Costs of V2V Technologies Are Being Studied and Are Likely to Be 
Influenced by Various Factors Including Specifics of V2V Communication 
Security System: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for Experts Identified by the 
National Academies of Sciences: 

Appendix III: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment 
of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Subject Matter Experts Interviewed: 

Table 2: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment of 
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Example of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications and a Warning 
Scenario: 

Figure 2: Components of a Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Avoidance System: 

Figure 3: Examples of Crash Scenarios and Vehicle-to-Vehicle 
Applications: 

Abbreviations: 

CAMP: Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership: 

CVT: connected vehicle technologies: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DSRC: dedicated short-range communications: 

FCC: Federal Communications Commission: 

GHz: gigahertz: 

ITS: intelligent transportation systems: 

LiDAR: light detection and ranging: 

MHz: megahertz: 

NAS: National Academies of Sciences: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: 

RADAR: radio detection and ranging: 

RITA: Research and Innovative Technology Administration: 

VIIC: Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium: 

VSC: Vehicle Safety Communications: 

V2V: vehicle-to-vehicle: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 1, 2013: 

The Honorable Lamar Smith: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John J. Duncan: 
The Honorable Ralph Hall: 
The Honorable Randy Hultgren: 
House of Representatives: 

Every year, motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in 
numerous injuries and deaths and high economic costs. For example, 
according to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 5.3 million police-reported 
vehicle crashes occurred in the United States in 2011, resulting in 
about 32,000 fatalities and more than 2.2 million injuries.[Footnote 1] 

NHTSA aims to reduce injuries, deaths, and economic losses resulting 
from motor vehicle crashes through a number of actions, such as 
establishing safety standards for motor vehicles[Footnote 2] and 
conducting research that supports vehicle safety. NHTSA's safety 
standards cover various aspects of vehicle safety, such as brakes, 
headlights, seat belts, air bags, and child restraints. Improvements 
in automobile safety that aim to protect drivers and occupants in the 
event of a collision--including features such as seat belts and 
airbags--have reduced fatalities. Recently, however, the automobile 
industry has begun to introduce technologies that are intended to 
prevent accidents. Crash avoidance technologies, which use sensors 
such as cameras and radar, can observe a vehicle's visible 
surroundings and issue warnings to the driver when certain types of 
collisions with other vehicles or obstacles appear to be imminent. 
[Footnote 3] 

DOT and the automobile industry have been conducting research on new 
types of technologies to prevent crashes--called vehicle-to-vehicle 
(V2V) technologies--in recent years. These technologies facilitate the 
sharing of data, such as vehicle speed and location, among vehicles to 
warn drivers of potential collisions. Based on the data shared, V2V 
technologies are capable of warning drivers of imminent collisions, 
including some that sensor-based crash avoidance technologies would be 
unable to detect.[Footnote 4] DOT's efforts related to these 
technologies are being led by NHTSA and the Intelligent Transportation 
Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office within DOT's Research and 
Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). According to NHTSA, if 
V2V technologies are widely deployed, they have the potential to 
address 76 percent of multi-vehicle crashes involving at least one 
light vehicle by providing warnings to drivers. In late 2013, NHTSA is 
planning to announce further actions it will take regarding these 
technologies for passenger vehicles, including potentially announcing 
intent to pursue future regulatory action, such as a proposed 
rulemaking to mandate the installation of V2V technologies in newly 
manufactured passenger vehicles.[Footnote 5] The inclusion of V2V 
technologies in newly manufactured vehicles could increase vehicle 
costs. 

You asked us to examine the development and possible future deployment 
of V2V technologies. We examined: (1) the state of development of V2V 
technologies and their anticipated benefits; (2) the challenges, if 
any, that will affect the deployment of these technologies, and what 
actions, if any, DOT is taking to address them; and (3) what is known 
about the potential costs associated with these technologies for 
automobile manufacturers and consumers. 

To address these issues, we reviewed documentation relevant to the V2V 
technology research efforts of DOT and the automobile industry, such 
as DOT's ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014 Progress Update 2012 
and documentation related to DOT's efforts to estimate the potential 
benefits of V2V technologies. We interviewed NHTSA and RITA officials 
about these efforts. We also visited the DOT-sponsored V2V Safety 
Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and received a 
demonstration of V2V technologies in the Detroit area from automobile 
manufacturers working on the development of these technologies. 
[Footnote 6] We conducted structured interviews with 21 experts 
identified by the National Academies of Sciences as knowledgeable in 
the areas of V2V technology development and interoperability, 
technology deployment, production of light-duty passenger vehicles, 
data privacy and security, legal and policy issues, and human factors 
[Footnote 7] issues related to V2V technologies. The structured 
interviews included asking selected experts to rate the extent to 
which a series of issues--which we identified based on initial 
interviews with automobile manufacturers, DOT, and others--present 
challenges to the deployment of V2V technologies. We selected experts 
who represented both domestic and international automobile 
manufacturers, suppliers of V2V devices, a telecommunications company, 
and state governments, as well as automotive industry experts and 
academic researchers. In addition, we interviewed representatives of 
10 automobile manufacturers involved in collaborative V2V technology 
development efforts, a V2V device supplier, and associations 
knowledgeable about the development of V2V technologies. We also 
interviewed officials with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
about the use of radio-frequency spectrum by V2V communications. 
Further details about our scope and methodology can be found in 
appendix I. Our structured guide for interviewing experts is 
reproduced in appendix II. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to November 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Although there were about 32,000 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 
the United States in 2011, the number has generally declined in recent 
years. According to NHTSA, the rate of 1.10 fatalities per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled in 2011 represented an all-time low and was 28 
percent lower than the rate of 1.52 in 2001.[Footnote 8] DOT has 
attributed reductions in fatality rates to several factors, including 
increased use of in-vehicle safety features such as safety belts and a 
reduction in fatalities related to alcohol-impaired driving. 

In recent years, automobile manufacturers have begun to equip some 
newly manufactured vehicles with sensor-based crash avoidance 
technologies intended to prevent accidents and further reduce the 
number of fatalities. These technologies employ sensors such as 
cameras, radio detection and ranging, and light detection and ranging 
[Footnote 9] to observe a vehicle's surroundings.[Footnote 10] A 
vehicle equipped with such technologies is capable of detecting 
potential collisions with other vehicles or obstacles within a range 
of about 150 meters (about 500 feet) and alerting drivers through 
applications such as forward collision warnings and lane departure 
warnings;[Footnote 11] however, such warnings are limited to the 
threats within the field of view of the vehicle's sensors. 

DOT has worked with the automobile industry and others to lead and 
fund research on connected vehicle technologies, which include V2V 
technologies as well as vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. From 
fiscal years 2003 through 2012, the funding DOT has made available for 
efforts on connected vehicle technologies, part of its Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS)[Footnote 12] research program, totaled 
about $445 million and ranged from a low of $17 million in 2008 to a 
high of $84 million in 2011.[Footnote 13] In a connected vehicle 
environment, data is shared wirelessly among vehicles (V2V 
communications) or between vehicles and infrastructure (vehicle-to-
infrastructure communications) using dedicated short-range 
communications (DSRC), a technology similar to Wi-Fi that offers a 
link through which vehicles and infrastructure can transmit messages 
over a range of about 300 to 500 meters (about 1,000 to 1,600 feet). 
Based on analysis of internal data and data received from other 
vehicles, a vehicle equipped with V2V technologies is able to issue a 
warning to its driver when a collision with another similarly equipped 
vehicle could occur. The range of V2V communications is not only 
greater than that of existing sensor-based technologies, but due to 
the sharing of data between vehicles, V2V technologies are capable of 
alerting drivers to potential collisions that are not visible to 
existing sensor-based technologies, such as a stopped vehicle blocked 
from view or a moving vehicle at a blind intersection (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Example of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications and a Warning 
Scenario: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO. 

Note: In this scenario, the truck and sports utility vehicle are at 
risk of colliding because the drivers are unable to see one another 
approaching the intersection and the stop sign is not visible to the 
driver of the truck. Both drivers would receive warnings of a potential 
collision, allowing them to take actions to avoid it. 

[End of figure] 

While V2V technologies send and receive data among vehicles, vehicle-
to-infrastructure technologies send and receive data between vehicles 
and infrastructure, such as traffic signals. Vehicle-to-infrastructure 
technologies could offer additional safety features that V2V 
technologies cannot, such as providing drivers with additional 
warnings when traffic signals are about to change, warnings that could 
help reduce collisions at intersections. In addition, these 
technologies can offer potential mobility and environmental benefits; 
for example, they can collect, analyze, and provide drivers with data 
on upcoming roadway and traffic conditions and suggest alternate 
routes when roadways are congested.[Footnote 14] 

In addition to federal efforts, automobile manufacturers have formed a 
number of consortia to research and develop V2V communication-based 
technologies and have collaborated with DOT on these efforts. Since 
2002, DOT has awarded $77 million in funding, under cost-sharing 
agreements to support projects related to V2V technologies, to a 
number of consortia established by the Crash Avoidance Metrics 
Partnership (CAMP). This partnership between Ford Motor Company and 
General Motors, L.L.C. is currently working with 6 other automobile 
manufacturers through the Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) 3 
Consortium to collaboratively address safety issues through 
advancements in vehicle communications.[Footnote 15] Additionally, the 
Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium (VIIC) was created in 
2005 and is currently comprised of 10 automobile manufacturers with 
the goal of identifying and promoting policy solutions needed to 
support the development and deployment of V2V and vehicle-to-
infrastructure technologies.[Footnote 16] 

The automobile industry (as well as some technology companies such as 
Google) is also working to develop autonomous vehicle technologies, 
which would control steering, acceleration, and braking without a 
driver's input.[Footnote 17] Some automobile manufacturers have 
started to introduce semi-autonomous sensor-based technologies capable 
of reducing a vehicle's speed through adaptive cruise control[Footnote 
18] or even stopping a vehicle through automatic braking when a 
collision is imminent. Autonomous vehicles are being designed with the 
intent that a driver is needed to provide destination or navigation 
information, but not needed to control the vehicle. 

Because V2V communications depend upon DSRC technology to transmit 
data among vehicles, the deployment of V2V technologies will require 
use of the radio-frequency spectrum. FCC has allocated spectrum for 
use by DSRC technologies that are part of DOT's ITS research program. 
[Footnote 19] Specifically, in 1999, FCC allocated 75 megahertz (MHz) 
of spectrum[Footnote 20]--the 5.850 to 5.925 gigahertz (GHz) band (5.9 
GHz band)--for the primary purpose of improving transportation safety 
and adopted basic technical rules for DSRC operations.[Footnote 21] In 
2003, FCC established licensing and service rules for the 5.9 GHz band 
to provide a short-range, wireless link for transferring information 
between vehicles and roadside systems.[Footnote 22] However, the 
President and Congress have responded to growing demand for wireless 
broadband services by making changes in the law to promote efficient 
use of spectrum, including the band previously set aside for use by 
DSRC-based technologies. For example, the Middle Class Tax Relief and 
Job Creation Act of 2012 required the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) to conduct a study evaluating 
spectrum-sharing technologies and the potential risk to federal users 
if unlicensed devices[Footnote 23] were allowed to operate in the 5.9 
GHz band.[Footnote 24] 

Given the potential benefits of V2V technologies, NHTSA has said it 
will decide by the end of 2013 how it will proceed with respect to 
these technologies for passenger vehicles. According to NHTSA 
officials, they are considering several possible actions, including 
announcing NHTSA's intent to pursue future regulatory action, such as 
a proposed rulemaking to mandate the installation of these 
technologies in newly manufactured passenger vehicles[Footnote 25] and 
continuing to research and develop these technologies for passenger 
vehicles. 

DOT and Industry Have Developed and Piloted V2V Technologies, Which 
Offer Potentially Significant Safety Benefits If Broadly Deployed: 

Efforts by DOT and the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies 
have reached the point at which they have been tested in a 12-month, 
real world pilot that will conclude in February 2014. These efforts 
have focused on developing and testing needed components including 
hardware to send and receive data among vehicles, software 
applications to analyze data and identify potential collisions, 
vehicle features that issue warnings to drivers of these potential 
collisions, and a security system to ensure trust in the data that are 
being communicated among vehicles. According to DOT, once deployed, 
V2V technologies have the potential to address--by providing warnings 
to drivers--76 percent of all potential multi-vehicle crashes 
involving at least one light-duty vehicle.[Footnote 26] However, the 
potential benefits of V2V technologies are dependent upon a number of 
factors including their deployment levels, how drivers respond to 
warning messages, and the deployment of other safety technologies that 
can provide similar benefits. 

Development of V2V Technologies Has Evolved to Include a Real World 
Pilot: 

Recent and ongoing V2V technology development efforts have been 
working toward the expected late 2013 NHTSA decision as the next major 
milestone. DOT, for example, has focused on research and analysis that 
can provide input for and facilitate its upcoming decision. Most of 
the 21 experts and 9 automobile manufacturers we spoke with told us 
that they expect NHTSA's decision to help determine the progress of 
continued development and eventual deployment of V2V technologies. 

Development of these technologies has progressed to the point of real 
world testing. DOT has sponsored and provided approximately 80 percent 
of the funding for a pilot test called the Safety Pilot Model 
Deployment (Safety Pilot). This project--in which DOT has partnered 
with the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium--has been conducted by the University 
of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and is taking place in 
Ann Arbor, Michigan, from August 2012 to February 2014. The primary 
goals of this pilot are to test the effectiveness of V2V technologies 
in real world situations and to measure their potential benefits. In 
total, about 2,700 passenger vehicles were equipped with these 
technologies in order to participate in the Safety Pilot.[Footnote 27] 
NHTSA plans to release findings from the Safety Pilot in the fall of 
2014. DOT is considering the data from the first 6 months of the 
pilot, along with other information, in working toward a decision by 
late 2013 on how to proceed with V2V technologies.[Footnote 28] 

Efforts by DOT and the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies 
have focused on both in-vehicle components as well as a security 
system that manages V2V communications and ensures trust in the data 
being transmitted among vehicles (see fig. 2). Examples of in-vehicle 
components include: 

* V2V hardware, including DSRC radios, cables, and antennae to send 
and receive data and GPS chips used to determine vehicle location. 

* Software applications that analyze data such as location, speed, and 
brake status and, based on that analysis, predict when collisions are 
imminent. DOT has worked with automobile manufacturers to determine 
the most relevant applications based on common crash scenarios and to 
define, develop, and test these to inform and support NHTSA's V2V 
technology decision later this year. 

* A driver-vehicle interface that--based on the data analysis 
conducted by the V2V software applications--provides a warning to the 
driver through vehicle features such as sounds, lights, or seat 
vibrations when a collision may be imminent.[Footnote 29] Existing 
sensor-based crash avoidance technologies also provide warnings to 
drivers through similar mechanisms. DOT has been developing guidelines 
for automobile manufacturers in implementing driver-vehicle interfaces. 

Figure 2: Components of a Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Avoidance System: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Communication security system: 
Provides and verifies V2V security certificates to ensure trust 
between vehicles. 

In-vehicle components: 

GPS, DSRC antennae; 

Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) radio: Receives and 
transmits data through antennae; 

GPS receiver: 
* Provides vehicle position and time to DSRC radio; 
* Provides timekeeping signal for applications; 

Memory: Stores security certificates, application data, and
other information; 

Safety application electronic control unit: Runs safety applications; 

This in-vehicle equipment can consist of either a single, integrated 
unit or a discrete set of components. 

Driver-vehicle interface: 
Generates warning issued to driver. 

Vehicle’s internal communications network: 
Existing network that interconnects components. 

Sources: Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership and GAO. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to in-vehicle V2V components, an external communication 
security system is needed to ensure that data being transmitted among 
vehicles are secure and trusted and have not been altered in the 
transmission process. Initial research and proposals by DOT and the 
automobile industry on the design of a communication security system 
have focused on a public key infrastructure system.[Footnote 30] Such 
a system provides security certificates to vehicles which indicate to 
other vehicles that the data being transmitted are to be trusted 
because they are valid and have not been altered. Public key 
infrastructure is used to provide security for many other types of 
data transmissions and transactions, including online banking and 
Internet commerce. According to CAMP VSC 3 officials, in-vehicle V2V 
equipment must be able to detect and automatically report potentially 
misbehaving devices--such as devices that are malfunctioning, used 
maliciously, or hacked--to a communication security system. The 
communication security system must also detect and automatically 
revoke certificates from vehicles with such devices. Vehicles would 
receive certificates from a security certificate management authority. 
However, the technical specifications of how certificates will be 
provided, how often they will be validated, and who will manage this 
system have not yet been fully defined. According to DOT officials, a 
prototype V2V communication security system was developed and tested 
as part of the Safety Pilot, but that system's design would need 
additional enhancements to be used for a full deployment. 

In-vehicle V2V components could be factory built into new vehicles and 
fully integrated with existing internal electronics and networks. DOT 
and the automobile industry have also worked on developing retrofit 
and aftermarket V2V devices. Such devices would be installed in a 
vehicle post-manufacture and might not be fully integrated with the 
vehicle and its existing internal electronics and network. Such 
aftermarket devices might not have access to all of a vehicle's data, 
such as brake status or steering wheel angle. As a result, they could 
provide a less robust set of data to other vehicles and could generate 
fewer or less precise warning messages to drivers. One specific type 
of aftermarket device that the automobile industry has worked to 
develop would only transmit a basic data set about a vehicle's speed 
and location to other vehicles equipped with V2V technologies; this 
device would neither receive data from other vehicles nor provide a 
driver with a warning message, but would interact with the V2V 
communication security system. DOT is now working with the automobile 
industry to determine additional standards for such devices to ensure 
that they work on all types of vehicles and adhere to communication 
standards to ensure the integrity and security of their data 
transmission. 

Because V2V communications involve the sharing of data among different 
devices and vehicles of various makes and models, they require 
technical standards to ensure interoperability. DOT and the automobile 
industry have worked through international standards organizations 
such as SAE International and the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronic Engineers to develop and set standards to facilitate V2V 
communications. These efforts have focused on standardizing the data 
elements that vehicles transmit and the means through which data are 
transmitted.[Footnote 31] 

Although V2V technologies have undergone real-world testing and most 
experts we interviewed believed that no major technical challenges 
remain in the development of in-vehicle V2V components, some experts 
voiced concerns about two technical issues--GPS accuracy and potential 
channel congestion--issues that DOT and the automobile industry 
continue to study. 

* Three experts we interviewed expressed concern that GPS used by V2V 
technologies may not provide sufficiently accurate vehicle position 
for some V2V applications. Two experts also suggested that the means 
through which V2V technologies use GPS to determine vehicle position 
(called "relative positioning"[Footnote 32]) may not be accurate 
enough, given the need for precise vehicle location data to support 
V2V software applications. According to DOT officials, however, the 
department has collected data on the performance of GPS and V2V 
communications over 20,000 miles in diverse geographic and 
environmental conditions and is confident that the automotive-grade 
GPS being used for V2V safety applications is sufficiently accurate. 
Nevertheless, DOT continues to work to address this issue through 
research to identify the best means to determine vehicle location 
through relative positioning. DOT also collected additional data 
during the Safety Pilot to help ensure that GPS positioning 
limitations do not negatively affect the performance of V2V 
technologies. 

* Two experts noted that, given the volume of V2V data that would be 
transmitted in high-traffic areas such as busy highways, channel 
congestion on the frequency used by V2V communications could result in 
delayed transmissions of V2V data. DOT and automobile manufacturers 
continue to engage in collaborative efforts and sponsor relevant 
studies to determine the point at which channel congestion might occur 
and determine potential solutions, such as limiting the frequency of 
V2V data transmissions in high-traffic situations without compromising 
safety.[Footnote 33] 

In the longer term, V2V technology development efforts are likely to 
complement efforts to continue to develop and deploy other sensor-
based crash avoidance technologies and autonomous vehicle 
technologies. NHTSA's Administrator stated in May 2013 that DOT sees 
these three types of technologies as being part of an evolution from 
vehicles with limited automatic controls to vehicles with fully 
autonomous self-driving capabilities. NHTSA's preliminary statement of 
policy on vehicle automation, issued in May 2013, recognizes the 
potential benefits of automation and its relationship to V2V 
technologies.[Footnote 34] According to DOT officials, DOT's 2015 to 
2019 ITS strategic plan, expected to be issued in early 2014, will 
describe DOT's planned activities in this area. Furthermore, a recent 
report by an automotive industry consulting firm stated that the 
convergence of sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and connected 
vehicle technologies will be needed to enable truly autonomous 
vehicles, given the benefits and downsides of each type of 
technology.[Footnote 35] Five experts and one automobile manufacturer 
we interviewed said that V2V technologies are a key part of the 
industry's road map to vehicle automation. 

V2V Technologies Have Potential to Provide Significant Safety Benefits 
Only after Broad Deployment: 

V2V technologies are expected to offer significant safety benefits by 
helping drivers avoid collisions in a number of collision scenarios. 
The automobile industry has worked with DOT to develop safety 
applications for rear-end, intersection, and lane-change crash 
scenarios. (See figure 3 for examples of V2V safety applications and a 
go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-13] for a video 
that demonstrates selected applications warning drivers of potential 
collisions.) According to NHTSA, these prevalent crash scenarios 
represent the majority of all vehicle crashes. Because automobiles 
cannot currently take autonomous actions--such as braking--based on 
data gathered by V2V technologies, drivers must act on V2V warnings to 
prevent collisions from happening. These crash scenario applications 
are being tested in the Safety Pilot, and DOT and the automobile 
industry have collected data to determine how to improve the accuracy 
of the applications. DOT is currently conducting a benefits assessment 
based in part on the first 6 months of data from the Safety Pilot to 
inform the decision NHTSA plans to make in late 2013.[Footnote 36] 
DOT's Volpe Center[Footnote 37] is conducting this benefits 
assessment, which, according to DOT, uses a methodology to determine 
how many vehicle collisions would be prevented through the use of V2V 
technologies in a number of different types of collision scenarios. 
The result will be an estimate of the effectiveness of V2V safety 
applications. 

Figure 3: Examples of Crash Scenarios and Vehicle-to-Vehicle 
Applications: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Scenario and warning type: Rear end collision scenario: 
Forward collision warning: Approaching a vehicle that is decelerating 
or stopped; 
Scenario example: illustration. 

Scenario and warning type: Rear end collision scenario: 
Emergency electronic brake light warning: Approaching a vehicle 
braking hard or stopped in roadway but not visible due to obstructions; 
Scenario example: illustration. 

Scenario and warning type: Lane change scenario: 
Blind spot warning: Beginning lane change that could encroach on the 
travel lane of another vehicle traveling in the same direction; can 
detect vehicles already in or soon to be in blind spot; 
Scenario example: illustration. 

Scenario and warning type: Lane change scenario: 
Do not pass warning: Encroaching onto the travel lane of another 
vehicle traveling in opposite direction; 
Scenario example: illustration. 

Scenario and warning type: Intersection scenario: 
Intersection warning: Encroaching onto the travel lane of another 
vehicle with whom driver is crossing paths at a blind intersection or 
an intersection without a traffic signal; 
Scenario example: illustration. 

To view a video demonstration of selected V2V safety applications, go 
to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-13]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership 
information. 

Note: Sensor-based crash avoidance technologies can, in some instances, 
provide warnings in forward collision, blind spot, and do not pass 
scenarios. 

[End of figure] 

In May 2013, DOT reported that V2V technologies have the potential to 
address--by providing warnings to drivers--76 percent of all potential 
multi-vehicle crashes involving at least one light vehicle.[Footnote 
38] While the majority of experts we interviewed agreed that 76 
percent is plausible as a maximum level, this estimate is an upper 
limit of the potential safety benefits of V2V technologies which 
assumes their full deployment across the U.S. vehicle fleet. This 
estimate also assumes that V2V technologies provide warnings in all 
potential crash scenarios involving at least two vehicles equipped 
with these technologies. The actual number of crashes prevented by V2V 
technologies will depend on a number of factors, including the 
following: 

* Deployment Levels: According to DOT, the safety benefits of V2V 
technologies will be maximized with near full deployment across the 
U.S. vehicle fleet. However, even if NHTSA pursues a rulemaking 
requiring installation of these technologies in new vehicles, it could 
take a number of years until benefits are fully realized due to the 
rate of turnover of the fleet. According to one automobile 
manufacturer we interviewed, given the rate of new vehicle sales, it 
can take up to 20 years for the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to turn 
over. It may be possible to see some benefits at lower levels of 
deployment, as was seen in the number of interactions among 
participating vehicles in the Safety Pilot, according to DOT.[Footnote 
39] Also, aftermarket devices that allow existing vehicles to be 
equipped with V2V devices could help speed deployment. However, three 
experts we interviewed expressed concern that drivers may not see 
value in purchasing aftermarket devices, which could limit their 
adoption. 

* Driver response: The benefits of V2V technologies will also depend 
on how well drivers respond to warning messages. If drivers do not 
take appropriate action in response to warnings, then the benefits of 
V2V technologies could be reduced. For example, if drivers do not 
respond to warnings quickly enough--due to distraction, impairment, or 
other reasons--they may not be able to avoid a collision. Furthermore, 
if safety applications offer too many false warnings when no imminent 
threat exists, drivers could begin to ignore valid warnings or not 
respond to them quickly enough. For example, the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety reported that as many as 41 percent of drivers of 
certain makes of vehicles with sensor-based lane departure warning 
systems found the systems "annoying" due to false alarms and 
unnecessary warnings.[Footnote 40] 

* Deployment of other safety technologies: The potential benefits 
solely attributable to V2V technologies will also depend on the market 
penetration and effectiveness of sensor-based crash avoidance 
technologies. These existing technologies are able to address some of 
the same crash scenarios as V2V safety applications and their market 
penetration is likely to increase in the future. While there are cases 
where V2V technologies can provide safety benefits where sensor-based 
crash avoidance technologies cannot--such as around a curve or when 
detecting an unseen stopped car--there are some V2V technology 
collision scenarios that sensor-based crash avoidance technologies can 
also address. For example, cameras and radar can be used to provide 
drivers with forward collision warnings or lane change warnings when 
another vehicle is in a blind spot. In addition, vehicles in the 
future may use V2V technologies and sensor-based crash avoidance 
technologies to complement one another. For example, future vehicles 
may be able to use V2V data to validate sensor data and provide 
drivers with more accurate and certain warnings as well as to help 
execute more reliable automated control actions such as braking. The 
benefits attributable to V2V technologies will depend on how these 
technologies work together and the market penetration of these 
technologies. According to DOT officials, the department's methodology 
for estimating the safety benefits of V2V technologies will account 
for the benefits of sensor-based crash avoidance technologies by 
estimating their penetration and effectiveness in avoiding collisions. 

DOT Is Working with the Automobile Industry to Address a Number of V2V 
Technology Deployment Challenges: 

While V2V technologies have been tested in real world settings, a 
number of challenges exist to their wide-scale deployment and the 
realization of their potential benefits. DOT has been collaborating 
with automobile manufacturers and others to identify potential 
solutions to these challenges and is planning continued efforts to 
support the eventual deployment of V2V technologies. As part of these 
efforts, the department has been considering various policy options, 
such as options for managing the V2V communication security system. 
However, future DOT actions to address some of these issues will not 
be finalized until after NHTSA decides how the agency will proceed 
with V2V technologies later this year. 

V2V Technology Deployment Challenges and Efforts to Address Them: 

According to experts we interviewed, DOT officials, automobile 
manufacturers, and other stakeholders, the deployment of V2V 
technologies faces a number of challenges, including: (1) finalizing 
the technical framework and management structure of a V2V 
communication security system to ensure trust among vehicles, (2) 
ensuring that the possible sharing of the band of radio-frequency 
spectrum used by V2V communications will not adversely affect their 
performance, (3) considering human factors to ensure that drivers 
respond appropriately to V2V warnings, (4) addressing the uncertainty 
related to potential liability issues posed by V2V technologies, and 
(5) addressing any concerns the public may have about V2V 
technologies, including those related to privacy.[Footnote 41] 

Framework of V2V Communication Security System: 

As discussed earlier, a security system capable of detecting, 
reporting, and revoking the credentials of vehicles found to be 
sharing inaccurate information will be needed to ensure trust in the 
V2V data transmitted among vehicles. Final plans and policies for the 
V2V communication security system--including its technical framework 
and management structure--have not yet been developed and will need to 
be finalized prior to V2V technology deployment. 

* Technical framework: Of the 21 experts we interviewed, 12 cited the 
technical development of a V2V communication security system as a 
great or very great challenge to the deployment of V2V technologies. 
One expert told us that it is challenging to establish technical 
specifications for a system that attempts to maintain users' privacy 
while providing security for over-the-air transmission of data. 
Another expert noted that a public key infrastructure system the size 
of the one needed to support the nationwide deployment of V2V 
technologies has never been developed before; the sheer magnitude of 
the system will pose challenges to its development. Both the manner 
through which V2V communication security certificates will be provided 
to vehicles and how often they will be provided need to be determined. 
Some proposals call for using DSRC-equipped roadside infrastructure to 
provide security certificates, while other proposals call for using 
non-DSRC communications technologies such as cellular. 

* Management structure: How a V2V communication security system will 
be managed has not yet been determined and the delineation of relevant 
roles and responsibilities could be difficult. Twelve of the experts 
we interviewed cited the establishment of a management framework for a 
security system as a great or very great challenge to V2V technology 
deployment. Because no similar institutions exist, many questions 
remain about how such a system should be structured and who should 
manage it. One expert suggested that deciding which approach is most 
appropriate involves weighing competing philosophies. The expert added 
that developing the management structure could prove more difficult 
than developing the technical aspects of the security system. 

DOT has researched options to address the technical framework of a V2V 
communication security system and officials noted that additional 
technical and policy analyses are under way that will determine the 
specifics by early 2014. DOT officials stated that a framework that 
meets the technical requirements of CAMP will be finalized and 
subsequently prototyped and tested. As mentioned earlier, a prototype 
technical framework for issuing and managing security certificates has 
been tested as part of the Safety Pilot. DOT officials told us that 
there were no significant technical challenges identified during the 
development of this framework but noted that additional analysis 
related to the detection and revocation of credentials from vehicles 
found to be sharing inaccurate information is needed. In preparation 
for the testing of the Safety Pilot's prototype technical framework, 
DOT conducted research on the risks associated with such a system and 
identified potential approaches to address those risks.[Footnote 42] 
In addition, the department held public workshops in April 2012 to 
bring together various stakeholders to discuss issues related to a V2V 
communication security system.[Footnote 43] DOT officials explained 
that NHTSA is currently engaging a firm with expertise in information 
security systems to perform a review that will help inform the 
eventual technical specifications of a V2V communication security 
system. Although various technical frameworks are being considered, 
limits to DOT's authority could limit the viability of some options. 
For example, according to DOT officials, the department does not have 
the legal authority to require the installation of roadside 
infrastructure to support a V2V communication security system because, 
aside from roads on federal lands, the federal government does not own 
or operate U.S. roadways. 

In addition, DOT has worked with automobile manufacturers through the 
VIIC to examine potential management structures for a V2V 
communication security system. However, officials told us that it 
would be premature to comment on what the management structure will 
look like without knowing whether the agency will pursue a rulemaking 
related to V2V technologies. As part of its research on the technical 
framework of a V2V communication security system, DOT also sought 
stakeholder input on the potential management structure and identified 
three potential options: 

* Federal model: DOT officials explained that, if the federal 
government were to provide the security management services required 
to support V2V technologies, it most likely would do so through a 
service contract that would include specific provisions to ensure 
adequate market access, privacy and security controls, and reporting 
and continuity of services. According to DOT, the department has 
appropriate legal authority to pursue this model but does not have 
sufficient resources to introduce such a structure at this time. 

* Public-Private model: Under a public-private partnership, the 
security system would be jointly owned and managed by the federal 
government and private entities. DOT officials stated that statutory 
authority would be needed to create a public-private management 
structure that is vested with the authority that Congress deems 
necessary and appropriate to finance and operate a V2V communication 
security system. DOT officials added that the required legal authority 
would likely need to include authorization to establish and collect 
fees on behalf of the entity and possibly provisions addressing 
liability, privacy, data ownership, and security requirements 
applicable to such a system. 

* Private model: DOT officials stated that its current legal authority 
and resources have led NHTSA to focus primarily on working with 
stakeholders to develop a viable private model. DOT officials 
suggested that, through an agreement with a privately owned and 
operated security management provider, a private model could be used 
to support a V2V communication security system. Aside from any aspects 
specifically detailed in the agreement, DOT suggested that the 
governance and financing of a private management structure would 
depend on what entity constitutes and owns the entity. 

Potential Spectrum Sharing: 

In response to requirements in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012,[Footnote 44] FCC issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in February 2013 that requested comments on allowing 
unlicensed devices to share the 5.9 GHz band of the radio-frequency 
spectrum that had been previously set aside for the use of DSRC-based 
ITS applications such as V2V technologies.[Footnote 45] The proposed 
modifications would provide access to additional spectrum with 
consistent technical requirements, resulting in faster data speeds by 
allowing unlicensed devices to use wider bandwidth channels. Existing 
FCC regulations[Footnote 46] are designed to ensure that unlicensed 
devices do not cause interference with licensed users and require 
operators of unlicensed devices to immediately correct the problem or 
cease operation if interference occurs.[Footnote 47] NTIA completed an 
evaluation in January 2013 in response to requirements in the act that 
it study spectrum-sharing technologies and the risks to federal users 
associated with allowing unlicensed devices to share the 5.9 GHz band. 
NTIA concluded that further work was needed to determine whether and 
how the risks identified can be mitigated and is currently 
collaborating with federal and industry stakeholders, as well as FCC, 
to conduct a quantitative analysis of potential mitigation strategies. 
[Footnote 48] FCC officials told us that they are unlikely to act 
further on a rulemaking in this area until NTIA's analysis is 
complete.[Footnote 49] 

Although existing FCC regulations are designed to ensure that 
unlicensed devices do not cause interference, four automobile 
manufacturers and 16 experts we interviewed expressed concern or 
uncertainty about the potential effects of allowing unlicensed devices 
to share the 5.9 GHz band. One automobile industry group said that its 
members are not opposed to opening the 5.9 GHz band for sharing but 
emphasized the importance of understanding the implications of doing 
so to ensure that it will not hinder critical V2V safety applications. 
As part of the federal rulemaking process, FCC sought public comments 
on potential approaches to help minimize any potential harmful 
interference.[Footnote 50] In response, one automobile manufacturer 
wrote that it is very concerned that V2V technologies and unlicensed 
devices will not be able to coexist on the 5.9 GHz band. This 
automobile manufacturer recommended that FCC proceed with extreme 
caution when allowing sharing of the 5.9 GHz band, stating that V2V 
technologies cannot tolerate harmful interference and suggesting that 
every potential signal loss could render V2V communications 
ineffective at a moment in which they could protect drivers' lives. 
Members of the VIIC also noted that the development and testing of V2V 
technologies has always assumed use of the 5.9 GHz band. Because of 
this, one expert we interviewed suggested that opening the 5.9 GHz 
band for sharing would create an added burden for both automobile 
manufacturers and suppliers, which would have to consider technical 
steps to make coexistence with unlicensed devices feasible and conduct 
additional testing to maintain confidence that V2V technologies will 
work as envisioned. In addition, DOT coordinated with NTIA to submit 
its concern through comments to FCC that sharing the allocation could 
degrade the performance of V2V safety applications. 

As NTIA continues its analysis of potential risk mitigation 
strategies, DOT officials told us that the department is working 
cooperatively with the agency to examine spectrum-sharing arrangements 
that have been proposed for the 5 GHz band and expects results of this 
analysis to be available in spring 2014. According to DOT officials, 
the automobile and Wi-Fi industries are discussing other possible 
spectrum sharing techniques but specific approaches have not yet been 
defined. 

Human Factors: 

Because V2V technologies require drivers to take actions based on 
warning messages,[Footnote 51] the ultimate effectiveness and safety 
benefits of V2V technologies depend upon how well drivers respond to 
the warnings. Addressing the human factors that affect how drivers 
will respond includes minimizing the risk that drivers could become 
too familiar with or overly reliant upon warnings over time and fail 
to exercise due diligence in responding to them, assessing the risk 
that V2V warnings could distract drivers and present new safety 
issues, and determining what types of V2V warnings will maximize 
driver response. 

The challenges posed by human factors are in many ways similar to 
those posed by sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and some 
other vehicle technologies. However, human factors issues may present 
even greater challenges to V2V technologies. One automobile 
manufacturer explained that, since not all vehicles in the United 
States will be equipped with V2V technologies in the early years of 
their deployment, it is unknown how drivers will adjust their behavior 
to account for the fact that not all of the vehicles on the road are 
capable of providing data. By contrast, with sensor-based 
technologies, drivers know that their vehicle's warning system is not 
dependent on the presence of similar technologies in nearby vehicles. 
Further, the potential introduction of aftermarket V2V devices with a 
lower level of integration with a vehicle's existing internal network 
could create additional human factors challenges if aftermarket device 
warning messages and data are less robust than fully integrated 
systems. For these reasons, one automobile manufacturer said that it 
is unrealistic to expect aftermarket devices to perform in all 
situations. 

Automobile manufacturers have already developed different approaches 
to issuing warnings to drivers for existing sensor-based crash 
avoidance technologies. Three experts we interviewed suggested that 
the manner in which V2V warnings are issued to drivers should be 
allowed to vary among automobile manufacturers once basic standards 
are put in place. However, two experts suggested that the manner in 
which V2V warnings are issued to drivers should be similar across 
vehicles to avoid the confusion that might arise from receiving 
different types of warnings in similar situations when driving a 
different vehicle (e.g., a rental car). 

NHTSA has a research program in place to develop human factors 
principles that may be used by automobile manufacturers and suppliers 
as they design and deploy V2V technology and other safety technology 
driver-vehicle interfaces that provide warnings to drivers. This 
program is evaluating alternative approaches to issuing warnings 
relative to effectiveness and potential driver distraction. In 
addition, DOT has surveyed drivers participating in the Safety Pilot 
about driver distraction, in addition to other topics, and collected 
data on driver responses to various V2V warnings. NHTSA has also 
sponsored other research on driver warnings--including initial 
research on the potential standardization of warnings across 
automobile manufacturers--and is planning to complete a compendium of 
research findings in late 2013. Based on research in this area, NHTSA 
has worked with stakeholders to develop design principles for V2V 
driver-vehicle interfaces, which NHTSA plans to publish in April 2014. 
[Footnote 52] DOT continues to determine next steps in this area. 
[Footnote 53] 

Liability Issues: 

Six automobile manufacturers and 17 experts we interviewed expressed 
concern about the challenge posed by uncertainties related to 
potential liability in the event of a collision involving vehicles 
equipped with V2V technologies. This challenge is manifested in a 
number of potential liability issues and questions that are unanswered 
at this time: 

* One automobile manufacturer said that because V2V technologies offer 
warnings that are based in part on data transmitted by other vehicles--
as opposed to sensor-based systems that collect data solely from a 
vehicle's surroundings--it could be harder to determine whether fault 
for a collision between vehicles equipped with V2V technologies lies 
with one of the drivers, an automobile manufacturer, the manufacturer 
of a V2V device, or another party. 

* One expert suggested that, because V2V data may be needed to 
determine fault in the event of a collision, there could be challenges 
in determining who owns the data transmitted between vehicles. This 
expert suggested that establishing rules regarding V2V data ownership 
would, in the event of a collision, help to answer questions about 
which parties have access to the data. 

* There may be challenges in determining liability if V2V technologies 
do not work appropriately--for example, if data transmission is 
delayed due to channel congestion, hacking into the system, or 
inaccurate GPS readings. 

* Four automobile manufacturers shared their concern that the 
introduction of aftermarket V2V devices into vehicles already on the 
road would create additional liability issues. One automobile 
manufacturer explained that this is because it is difficult to 
integrate aftermarket devices into a vehicle's existing internal 
network, potentially making it more difficult to gather and transmit 
the same degree of information as a fully integrated device and, 
therefore, making it more difficult to determine the cause of a 
collision. 

Automobile manufacturers may be reluctant to move forward with plans 
to install V2V technologies in their newly manufactured vehicles 
because of the uncertainty that accompanies these liability issues. 
Citing some automobile manufacturers' concerns about the liability 
risks posed by V2V technologies, members of the VIIC have suggested 
that additional work needs to be done to estimate the potential 
liability and risks associated with the deployment of V2V technologies 
and determine ways to mitigate that risk. One automobile manufacturer 
and two experts suggested that congressional action could be needed to 
limit the liability levels of automobile manufacturers in the event of 
a V2V device malfunction. One of these experts suggested that 
legislation setting forth liability limits for V2V devices that are 
shown to meet certification tests and function according to 
regulations and standards may be appropriate. However, one expert 
suggested that all vehicle technologies involve liability issues and 
that if the automobile industry ensures that V2V technologies work 
properly before deployment, V2V technologies should not pose any 
greater liability risks than existing sensor-based crash avoidance 
technologies. 

DOT officials told us that they do not believe that V2V technologies 
pose any greater liability issues for automobile manufacturers than 
existing sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and therefore do 
not believe that related legislation is necessary. One expert we 
interviewed suggested that DOT should help guide the process of 
determining who or what entity owns the data transmitted between 
vehicles by V2V technologies as that knowledge would make it easier to 
determine liability in the event of a crash. Another expert suggested 
that DOT will have a role to play in helping to address liability 
issues once the specifics of the future deployment of these 
technologies become clearer. 

Public Acceptance: 

DOT and the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium conducted Driver Acceptance Clinics 
in 2011 and 2012 to obtain volunteer drivers' feedback on V2V 
technologies, among other purposes, and participants rated the 
desirability and usefulness of these technologies highly.[Footnote 54] 
However, according to stakeholders and experts we interviewed, 
obtaining broad public acceptance could present a challenge to 
deployment, as concerns related to driver privacy and the limited 
potential benefits of V2V technologies in the early years of their 
deployment could impede overall public acceptance of these 
technologies. 

* Privacy concerns: Public interest groups we interviewed said that 
overcoming concerns about privacy under a system that involves the 
sharing of data among vehicles will pose a challenge. One group 
suggested that the possibility that V2V data could be obtained by 
third parties such as law enforcement agencies could harm the 
deployment of these technologies. Similarly, one expert suggested that 
public acceptance of V2V technologies might be limited without rules 
prohibiting the use of vehicles' speed and location data to issue 
tickets or track drivers' movements. Three experts we interviewed 
suggested that legislation may be needed to limit the potential use of 
V2V data. Representatives of automobile manufacturers that are members 
of the VIIC stated that, although the security system under 
development is being designed to ensure data privacy through a 
structure that prevents the association of a vehicle's V2V 
communication security certificates with any unique identifier of 
drivers of their vehicles, the potential perception of a lack of 
privacy is a challenge. Further, one automobile manufacturer that is 
part of the VIIC said that it could be difficult to explain how V2V 
technologies work to the public without raising concerns related to 
privacy.[Footnote 55] 

* Perception of functionality: Public acceptance of V2V technologies 
could also be negatively affected by drivers' perception of the 
technologies' limited functionality, especially when few vehicles are 
equipped with V2V devices in early years. As mentioned earlier, when 
there are few equipped vehicles on the roads, drivers may see limited 
benefits of V2V technologies as they may not frequently encounter 
similarly equipped vehicles and infrequently receive warning messages 
in potential collision scenarios. Some experts said that limited 
benefits in the early years of deployment might pose challenges to 
consumer acceptance of V2V technologies. For this reason, six experts 
we interviewed suggested that the simultaneous introduction of 
applications with mobility applications would help provide benefits to 
drivers when deployment is low. For example, one expert suggested that 
mobility applications capable of helping drivers avoid congested roads 
or notifying them of a broken-down car ahead in the roadway would 
provide more apparent benefits to drivers, even with a low rate of 
deployment of V2V technologies.[Footnote 56] In addition, seven 
experts we interviewed suggested that it would be helpful for either 
DOT or automobile manufacturers to reach out to customers to 
communicate the potential safety benefits of V2V technologies in 
advance of deployment in order to increase public acceptance of these 
technologies. 

DOT officials told us that the department recognizes that public 
acceptance needs to be considered for the deployment of V2V 
technologies and noted that they have worked closely with automobile 
manufacturers and other stakeholders to develop a technical approach 
that limits risks to individual privacy. DOT officials have emphasized 
the need to distinguish between the ability to identify bad actors 
through a V2V communication security system and the ability to monitor 
the movements of individual vehicles. DOT stated that as currently 
conceived, a V2V communication security system would contain multiple 
technical, physical, and organizational controls to minimize privacy 
risks--including the risk of vehicle tracking by individuals and 
government or commercial entities. According to DOT officials, after 
NHTSA decides whether to proceed with a rulemaking and it is known 
what entity will provide the security for V2V technologies, the 
department will perform a comprehensive Privacy Impact Assessment, as 
required by law,[Footnote 57] to determine how to balance individual 
privacy, data security, and safety. DOT officials have emphasized 
that, to ensure transparency, it will be important to communicate what 
V2V data is generated by a vehicle, the extent to which it can be 
linked to drivers, and who or what entities--both legally and 
technologically--will be able to collect, use, and share the data. DOT 
officials told us that the department will continue to assess any 
risks to privacy posed by the introduction of V2V technologies and 
identify mitigation measures to minimize those risks as more aspects 
of a system of V2V communications are defined. DOT officials also said 
that, since its current authority to regulate the interception and use 
of V2V data is limited, the department might express a strong policy 
preference or make recommendations to Congress for limitations on the 
use of V2V data by entities over which the department lacks regulatory 
authority. 

DOT officials told us that the department does not currently have a 
specific plan about how to proceed with public outreach efforts 
because NHTSA has not yet decided whether a rulemaking is appropriate 
at this time. Additional DOT efforts to address other challenges 
facing the deployment of V2V technologies could help increase their 
public acceptance. For example, DOT is collecting data from the Safety 
Pilot regarding the acceptance of V2V technologies by participating 
drivers. Furthermore, DOT's ongoing development of guidelines for the 
implementation of driver-vehicle interfaces to address human factors 
challenges could help increase overall acceptance of these 
technologies. In addition, DOT has plans for further research on 
vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies, which could provide additional 
safety benefits and enable the types of mobility applications that 
some experts suggested could help increase public acceptance of V2V 
technologies. Further, DOT is working with industry stakeholders to 
develop clear certification standards for aftermarket devices, along 
with all other V2V devices, and is considering incentives to encourage 
drivers to purchase these devices. 

Status of DOT Planning for V2V Technology Deployment: 

DOT has indicated that its 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic plan--currently 
under development and expected to be issued in early 2014--will focus 
on the challenges facing the deployment of V2V technologies. As noted 
earlier, DOT officials told us that they do not want to take certain 
actions, such as determining the structure of a V2V communication 
security system, until after NHTSA's late 2013 decision on how to 
proceed regarding V2V technologies. DOT has stated that the 
department's forthcoming plan will include details of near term 
efforts to further develop the technical framework and management 
structure of a V2V communication security system and consideration of 
incentives needed to support the eventual deployment of V2V 
technologies to the U.S. vehicle fleet. In addition, DOT plans to 
develop an understanding of how the public views connected vehicle 
technologies and their benefits in order to develop effective methods 
for describing the value of V2V technologies to users in the context 
of partial deployment. 

According to DOT, the strategic vision for the 2015 to 2019 ITS 
strategic plan is to improve safety, mobility, and environmental 
mitigation through connected vehicles and to enable a transportation 
system that builds upon the capabilities of V2V technologies and 
vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. In line with this goal, as 
noted earlier, DOT is planning for additional research, including 
research conducted with the automobile industry, into vehicle-to-
infrastructure technologies. In addition, by defining how an automated 
vehicle fleet can be introduced with limited impact to current 
infrastructure and researching how increases in the degree of 
automation of the U.S. vehicle fleet could have liability implications 
for stakeholders, DOT has stated that it plans to prepare for the 
introduction of autonomous vehicles to a connected vehicle environment 
featuring both V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. 

Costs of V2V Technologies Are Being Studied and Are Likely to Be 
Influenced by Various Factors Including Specifics of V2V Communication 
Security System: 

DOT and the automobile industry, through the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium, 
are currently analyzing the total costs of deploying V2V technologies, 
which include the costs of in-vehicle components and the costs 
associated with a V2V communication security system. DOT is currently 
obtaining estimates of the costs of in-vehicle V2V components from 
automobile manufacturers and industry suppliers and has engaged a 
contractor to study the potential costs of providing V2V 
communications security through a number of possible technical and 
management options. NHTSA will use these cost estimates to inform its 
decision on how to proceed with V2V technologies later this year. In 
addition, the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium is now conducting an independent 
analysis of potential security system costs. According to an official 
with that organization, this study should be completed in late 2013 
and the consortium will provide input and comments on the key 
assumptions of DOT's cost study as well. Despite these efforts, all of 
the automobile manufacturers we interviewed told us that they had not 
yet completed any formal studies estimating V2V technology costs. We 
also conducted a literature search for published studies discussing 
potential V2V technology costs and were unable to identify any such 
studies. Finally, we asked the experts we interviewed to identify 
studies on the potential costs of deploying V2V technologies; none of 
the 21 experts were able to identify any studies beyond those now 
being conducted by DOT or the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium. 

All of the automobile manufacturers we interviewed said that it is 
difficult to estimate the costs of in-vehicle V2V components at this 
time because too many factors remain unknown. According to both 
automobile manufacturers and experts we interviewed, a number of 
factors will influence the costs of in-vehicle V2V components: 

* Volume: Five experts and two automobile manufacturers we interviewed 
pointed out that as the volume of V2V components produced increases, 
the per-unit costs are likely to decrease due to the economies of 
scale in manufacturing. Thus, a federal requirement that automobile 
manufacturers install V2V technologies in newly manufactured vehicles 
would likely result in lower per-vehicle costs of in-vehicle V2V 
components than would otherwise be the case. 

* Time frames: The costs of in-vehicle components of V2V technologies 
may decline over time due to technological advances. Two automobile 
manufacturers we interviewed said that both the automobile and 
consumer electronics industries have been successful at driving down 
the costs of other technologies over time and suggested that this also 
may occur with the cost of in-vehicle V2V components. 

* Degree of integration with existing vehicle technologies: Automobile 
manufacturers already install sensor-based crash avoidance 
technologies in some vehicle models. The extent to which V2V 
technologies are integrated with the existing components of these and 
other technologies that use similar components will influence the 
costs of V2V technologies. For example, vehicles that already have GPS 
chips installed for navigation purposes may not need an additional GPS 
chip specifically for V2V technologies purposes. One expert and one 
automobile manufacturer we interviewed explained that automobile 
companies have been successful in integrating different technologies 
in their vehicles in recent years, resulting in reduced costs. 

* Federal requirements: The specifics of any federal regulation 
regarding V2V technologies, including any possible regulation 
mandating their installation in new vehicles, would likely influence 
costs. For example, the introduction of requirements related to V2V 
technological specifications and standards, the use of hardware for 
V2V components, and the use of V2V safety applications would influence 
the ultimate costs of V2V technologies. 

Although the costs of in-vehicle V2V components are difficult to 
estimate at this time, they may be modest compared to the price of a 
new vehicle. According to CAMP VSC 3 Consortium representatives, in-
vehicle V2V components--including the DSRC components and GPS receiver--
are already commercially available at a relatively low cost. A CAMP 
VSC 3 representative noted that although members of the partnership 
are unable to discuss potential V2V technology costs with one another 
due to antitrust concerns, they have agreed to focus their V2V 
technology development efforts on limiting their costs as much as 
possible. As a result, compared to the average sale price of a new 
vehicle--about $31,000 in 2012, according to the National Automobile 
Dealers Association--the potential costs of these physical components 
may not add significantly to a vehicle's price. One expert we 
interviewed estimated that the costs of V2V components would add less 
than one percent to the price of a new vehicle. These costs may be 
less than the costs of sensor-based crash avoidance technologies, 
according to one industry association we interviewed, because sensors 
are more expensive. 

At this time, the potential costs associated with a V2V communication 
security system are unknown as specifics of a security system remain 
undetermined. One expert we interviewed explained that since it is not 
yet known how the security system will look or how it will be 
organized or managed, no one has a good handle on those costs. 
According to DOT officials, how often vehicles must communicate with 
the security system and requirements of how security certificates will 
be provided will influence the ultimate cost of a V2V communication 
security system. Furthermore, it is currently not only difficult to 
estimate the potential costs, but unclear who or what entity--
consumers, automobile manufacturers, DOT, state and local governments, 
or others--would pay the costs. Determining who or what entity will 
fund the system will likely prove challenging. 

Although the potential costs of a V2V communication security system 
are unknown at this time, eight experts we interviewed noted that 
either these costs, or the costs of roadside equipment that may be 
needed, could be significant. One expert said that, given the need for 
continuous operation of a security system, the costs are likely to be 
much greater than the costs of in-vehicle V2V components. Potential 
sources of funding may also face challenges in providing it. For 
example, if roadside equipment is needed to support a security system, 
it could be costly in a nationwide deployment. Participants in a 2012 
DOT-hosted workshop focused on connected vehicle security[Footnote 58] 
noted that the costs of roadside equipment could range between $25,000 
and $30,000 per installation, a cost that many state and local 
governments would find prohibitive if they were responsible for its 
financing.[Footnote 59] In addition, three experts whom we interviewed 
said that the costs of ongoing maintenance and operation of such 
installations could also prove prohibitive. According to DOT 
officials, however, the potential costs of roadside equipment could be 
much lower if its installation were to be integrated into already 
planned construction work at selected sites. They also noted that 
these costs should decline over time due to declining costs of 
technologies and increased volumes of production. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Transportation 
and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission for review 
and comment. DOT and FCC both provided comments via email that were 
technical in nature. We incorporated these comments as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman of the 
FCC. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 
website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff that made significant 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Singed by: 

David J. Wise: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address all of our objectives, we reviewed documentation of the 
efforts of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and automobile 
manufacturers related to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies, such 
as the department's ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014 Progress 
Update 2012 and documentation on completed and ongoing research. We 
also interviewed officials from DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) and the Research and Innovative Technology 
Administration (RITA) about these efforts. We also interviewed 
officials with the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) Vehicle 
Safety Communications (VSC) 3 Consortium as well as, both collectively 
and individually, representatives from all of the following automobile 
manufacturers that currently comprise the Vehicle Infrastructure 
Integration Consortium: BMW, Chrysler, Ford,[Footnote 60] General 
Motors, Honda, Hyundai-Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, and 
Volkswagen. We also interviewed a V2V device supplier and 
representatives of industry and public interest groups knowledgeable 
on the topic of V2V technologies, such as the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers and the American Automobile Association. 

In addition, we collaborated with the National Academies of Sciences 
(NAS) to identify and recruit experts in vehicle-to-vehicle 
technologies. We provided NAS with criteria for selecting experts, 
which included: (1) type and depth of experience, including 
recognition in the professional community and relevance of any 
published work; (2) employment history and professional affiliations, 
including any potential conflicts of interest; and (3) other relevant 
experts' recommendations. NAS initially identified 35 experts 
knowledgeable in the areas of V2V technology development and 
interoperability, technology deployment, production of light-duty 
passenger vehicles, data privacy and security, legal and policy 
issues, and human factors issues related to V2V technologies. From 
that list, we selected and conducted structured interviews with 21 
experts who represented domestic and international automobile 
manufacturers, suppliers of V2V devices, a telecommunications company, 
and state governments, as well as automotive industry experts and 
academic researchers (see table 1 for list of experts interviewed). In 
conducting our structured interviews, we used a standardized interview 
guide (see appendix II) to obtain consistent answers. During these 
interviews we asked, among other things, for expert views on the state 
of development of V2V technologies, the potential benefits of V2V 
technologies, their potential costs, and DOT's role in developing V2V 
technologies. We also asked for each expert's views on a number of 
already defined potential challenges facing the deployment of V2V 
technologies. We determined this initial list of potential challenges 
after initial interviews with DOT, industry associations, select 
automobile manufacturers, and other interest groups knowledgeable 
about V2V technologies. Prior to conducting the interviews, we 
pretested the structured interview guide with two of the selected 
experts to ensure our questions were worded appropriately and could be 
administered consistently. After conducting these interviews, we 
conducted a content analysis of expert responses relevant to each 
objective and counted the rating of each potential challenge 
discussed. See appendix III for a count of the ratings provided by 
experts on potential challenges facing deployment of V2V technologies. 

Table 1: Subject Matter Experts Interviewed: 

Name: Roger Berg; 
Affiliation[A]: DENSO. 

Name: Chris Body; 
Affiliation[A]: Kapsch TrafficCom. 

Name: John Campbell; 
Affiliation[A]: Battelle. 

Name: Susan Chrysler; 
Affiliation[A]: University of Iowa. 

Name: Richard Deering; 
Affiliation[A]: Richard Deering Associates. 

Name: Thomas Dingus; 
Affiliation[A]: Virginia Tech. 

Name: Dorothy Glancy; 
Affiliation[A]: Santa Clara University School of Law. 

Name: John Kenney; 
Affiliation[A]: Toyota. 

Name: Bob Koeberlein; 
Affiliation[A]: Idaho Transportation Department. 

Name: Greg Krueger; 
Affiliation[A]: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 

Name: Mike Manser; 
Affiliation[A]: University of Minnesota. 

Name: Jim Misener; 
Affiliation[A]: Independent consultant. 

Name: Ravi Puvvala; 
Affiliation[A]: Savari. 

Name: Bob Rausch; 
Affiliation[A]: Transcore. 

Name: Russell Shields; 
Affiliation[A]: Ygomi. 

Name: Steve Shladover; 
Affiliation[A]: California Partners for Advanced Transportation 
Technology (PATH). 

Name: Mike Shulman; 
Affiliation[A]: Ford Motor Company. 

Name: Kirk Steudle; 
Affiliation[A]: Michigan Department of Transportation. 

Name: Mitch Tseng; 
Affiliation[A]: Tseng Infoserv. 

Name: Bryant Walker Smith; 
Affiliation[A]: Stanford Law School. 

Name: William Whyte; 
Affiliation[A]: Security Innovation. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] We interviewed experts as individuals, not as representatives of 
any institution. We provide information on institutions to help readers 
identify experts. 

[End of table] 

We completed a literature search to obtain documentation, studies, and 
articles related to our objectives. Although this report focuses upon 
V2V technologies, our literature search was broadened to include any 
relevant work published in the past 10 years that was related to terms 
including "vehicle-to-vehicle communications," "vehicle-to-
infrastructure communications," "vehicle-to-roadside communications," 
or "intelligent vehicle highway systems." 

To specifically address the state of development of V2V technologies 
and their anticipated benefits, we conducted a site visit to Ann 
Arbor, Michigan, where we interviewed researchers from the University 
of Michigan Transportation Research Institute who are managing the 
Safety Pilot Model Deployment and toured areas of the city in which 
related infrastructure was installed. We also interviewed automobile 
manufacturers' CAMP VSC 3 Consortium representatives in Farmington 
Hills, Michigan, and received a demonstration of V2V safety warnings 
in multiple potential crash scenarios. We also reviewed DOT's May 2013 
Description of Light-Vehicle Pre-Crash Scenarios for Safety 
Applications Based on Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications report that 
estimates potential benefits of V2V technologies. 

In addition, to specifically address the challenges facing the 
deployment of V2V technologies, we interviewed officials from the 
Federal Communications Commission and a privacy group to obtain their 
views on the potential challenges of spectrum allocation and data 
privacy, respectively, related to deployment of V2V technologies. 

To specifically address the potential costs associated with V2V 
technologies, we discussed efforts to estimate costs with DOT and 
representatives of the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium and reviewed relevant 
documentation, such as the April 2012 public workshop entitled 
Enabling a Secure Environment for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-
to-Infrastructure (V2I) Transactions, which DOT organized to 
facilitate discussion of communications security structures under 
development among public and private stakeholders. In addition, we 
asked all automobile manufacturers we interviewed about the potential 
costs of V2V technologies. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through November 
2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Structured Interview Guide for Experts Identified by the 
National Academies of Sciences: 

Questions for Connected Vehicle Technology Experts: 

(Experts identified by the Transportation Research Board of the 
National Academies): 

Overview of GAO Review of Connected Vehicle Technologies: 

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) is undertaking 
work looking at the use of connected vehicle technologies (CVT) 
involving vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. These technologies 
allow vehicles to wirelessly communicate with one another through 
Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC); share data, such as data 
on vehicle location and speed; and provide drivers with warnings of 
potential collisions. GAO is examining these technologies at the 
request of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on 
Highways and Transit. Specifically, we are examining: 

(1) the progress of development of connected vehicle technologies that 
involve vehicle-to-vehicle communications and their anticipated 
benefits; 

(2) the challenges that affect the development and deployment of these 
technologies and their potential costs; and: 

(3) how the U.S. Department of Transportation is leading efforts to 
address these challenges. 

Our work is limited to CVTs involving V2V communications and we are not 
including vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications beyond the 
extent to which infrastructure may be needed to support V2V 
communications. We are reviewing efforts in the United States and not 
in other countries. In addition, our work is limited to passenger 
vehicles and we are not including commercial and transit uses. 

Please keep the following in mind as you consider your responses to the 
questions: 

* We use the term "stakeholders" to indicate organizations that have 
been or are expected to be involved in the development or deployment of 
CVTs involving V2V communications including, but not limited to, 
automobile manufacturers, parts suppliers, government agencies, and 
telecommunications companies. 

* We use the term "CVTs involving V2V communications" to include 
devices that send and receive data, safety applications (such as 
Forward Collision Warning and Emergency Electronic Brake Lights 
Warning) that analyze data and provide warnings through driver-vehicle 
interfaces, and any security system(s) that may be needed to help 
establish trust between vehicles sharing data. 

* We use the term "V2V devices" to represent the devices now being 
tested in the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan: 
[Footnote 62] 

(1) Fully-integrated devices: these devices would be installed during 
vehicle production and send, receive and analyze vehicle data to 
generate driver warnings of potential collisions. Because they are 
fully integrated into vehicles, they can analyze additional vehicle 
data--such as steering wheel angle, acceleration rate, brake status and 
turn signal status--to provide more robust warnings to drivers and 
provide more complete data to other vehicles. 

(2) Aftermarket safety devices: these devices, installed after vehicle 
production, send, receive, and analyze vehicle data to generate 
warnings of potential collisions. However, because they are not 
integrated with vehicles' electronics architecture and are thus unable 
to consider additional data, these devices may be limited in their 
warnings and driver-vehicle interface. 

(3) Vehicle awareness devices: these devices are installed after 
vehicle production and are not connected to any vehicle systems. They 
send data on a vehicle's location and speed which may be received by 
other vehicles, but these devices do not generate driver warnings. 

Status and Benefits of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle 
Technologies: 

1) Please discuss your views of the status of development of CVTs that 
involve V2V communications in the United States, including progress 
made and successes to date. 

2) In your opinion, what are some of the greatest potential benefits of 
CVTs that involve V2V communications? 

a. Which potential V2V applications are likely to offer the greatest 
benefits and why? 

3) What work, in your opinion, needs to be completed before such 
technologies are commercially feasible and available in the U.S.? 

a. In your opinion, what is a realistic timeframe in which automobile 
manufacturers might begin to install these technologies in new vehicles 
being manufactured for the U.S. vehicle fleet? 

4) According to a 2007 report by the U.S. DOT, CVTs involving V2V 
communications have the potential to address up to 76 percent of 
unimpaired roadway crashes, which could have the potential to greatly 
reduce the number of roadway fatalities that occur each year. 

a. What views, if any, do you have on DOT's projection of these 
technologies' potential benefits? 

b. Other than this study and DOT's Safety Pilot Driver Clinics and 
Model Deployment, are you aware of any other studies that estimate the 
potential benefits of V2V technologies? 

Costs of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle Technologies: 

5) To your knowledge, are there any studies that estimate the potential 
future costs associated with the deployment of CVTs involving V2V 
communications? 

a. Specifically, are you aware of any work that has been done to 
estimate the costs associated with the deployment of (1) fully-
integrated devices, (2) aftermarket safety devices, and (3) vehicle 
awareness devices? 

6) To your knowledge, are there any studies that estimate the potential 
costs of the type(s) of security system(s) needed to support CVTs 
involving V2V communications, including any infrastructure that such a 
security system may require? 

7) What factors may affect the costs associated with the deployment of 
CVTs involving V2V communications? 

Challenges Associated with Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle 
Technologies: 

8) In your opinion, to what extent does each of the following issues 
present a challenge to the development and eventual deployment of CVTs 
that involve V2V communications? (Place only one 'x' in each row below 
to indicate your response): 

a. Technical challenges in the development of each of the following V2V 
technologies: 

V2V devices: 
Very great challenge: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

V2V safety applications: 
Very great challenge: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

Driver-vehicle interface: 
Very great challenge: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss the technical challenges being faced in the 
development of CVTs involving V2V communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

b. Technical development of a data security system to help establish 
trust between vehicles sharing information: 
Very great challenge: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss any challenges posed by issues of technical 
development of a data security system to the development and 
deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

c. Standardization to ensure interoperability among different types of 
devices and vehicles: 
Very great challenge: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please describe the challenge that ensuring the interoperability of 
CVTs involving V2V communications presents to development and 
deployment of these technologies. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

d. Deployment of V2V devices and applications into a great enough 
percentage of the U.S. vehicle fleet to realize significant benefits: 
Very great challenge: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

1. Please discuss the challenge(s) associated with the process of 
deploying V2V technologies across the U.S. vehicle fleet. 

a. Please discuss any challenges presented by the potential need for 
less-than fully integrated aftermarket V2V devices. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

e. Costs of deploying CVTs involving V2V communications (including V2V 
devices, safety applications, driver-vehicle interface, and security 
system): 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss any challenge(s) posed by the costs associated with 
specific aspects of the deployment of CVTs involving V2V 
communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

f. Potential need for roadside equipment required to support security 
system: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss the extent to which the potential need for roadside 
equipment to support V2V technologies may or may not present a 
challenge(s). 

ii. Please discuss the extent to which financing any roadside equipment 
needed for a system of V2V technologies may or may not present a 
challenge(s). 

iii. Does this issue present different challenges for different 
relevant stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iv. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

g. Establishment of a framework, including determination of roles and 
responsibilities, for management of a security system to support a V2V 
environment: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss the challenge(s) associated with the establishment 
of a governance structure for the management of a security system to 
support CVTs involving V2V communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing 
this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

h. Establishing acceptable end user privacy: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss any challenges posed by issues of end user privacy to 
the development and/or deployment of V2V technologies. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

i. Public acceptance: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss the challenge of public acceptance to the development 
and deployment of V2V technologies. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

j. Use of DSRC technology at 5.9 GHz frequency band: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss any challenge(s) presented by the decision to use 
DSRC technology to establish V2V communications to date and in the 
future. 

ii. The Federal Communications Commission allocated 75 MHz of spectrum 
in the 5.9 GHz band for vehicle safety and mobility applications. 
Please discuss any implications of the possibility of making the 
bandwidth set aside for CVTs for other uses. 

iii. Does this issue present different challenges for different 
relevant stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iv. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

k. Human factors for V2V communications (e.g. how warning messages 
affect driver performance): 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss the challenges that human factors pose to the 
development and eventual deployment of CVTs that involve V2V 
communications. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

l. Liability issues (i.e. uncertainty related to legal responsibility 
for vehicle crashes after broad deployment of V2V devices): 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

i. Please discuss the extent to which the broad introduction of V2V 
technologies to the U.S. vehicle fleet may pose potential challenges 
related to liability. 

ii. Does this issue present different challenges for different relevant 
stakeholders? If so, please discuss. 

iii. Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are 
addressing this challenge and any additional steps they should take. 

9) What additional challenges, if any, exist in the ongoing development 
and eventual deployment of CVTs that involve V2V communications? For 
each additional challenge, please discuss its extent, how it presents 
different challenges for different relevant stakeholders, and how well 
DOT and other stakeholders are addressing it and additional steps that 
they should take. 

a. ____________________: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

b. ____________________: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

c. ____________________: 
Great challenge: 
Moderate challenge: 
Slight challenge: 
No challenge: 
Don't know: 

U.S. DOT's Role in Connected Vehicle Technologies: 

10) In your view, how well is U.S. DOT carrying out the following 
efforts related to the development and deployment of CVTs involving V2V 
communications? 

a. Evaluating the potential safety benefits of CVTs involving V2V 
communications: 

b. Considering the potential costs of deploying CVTs involving V2V 
communications: 

c. Supporting the development of V2V safety applications. 

d. Conducting development and testing of V2V devices and promoting the 
development of technical standards. 

e. Communicating and collaborating with key stakeholders, including 
automobile manufacturers and suppliers and other interested parties. 

f. Identifying policies to help lead to deployment of CVTs involving 
V2V communications. 

11) Please discuss how, in your opinion, each of the following possible 
actions regarding CVTs involving V2V communications would affect 
automobile manufacturer costs, new vehicle costs, vehicle production, 
and deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications: 

a. A federal mandate for automobile manufacturers to install equipment 
necessary to support V2V safety applications? 

b. The inclusion of V2V safety applications in NHTSA's New Car 
Assessment Program?[Footnote 63] 

c. Continued research and development? 

12) Do you have any views not already discussed on the development and 
deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications, including any 
additional actions U.S. DOT should take? 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment 
of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies: 

As part of our review, we conducted 21 structured interviews with 
individuals identified by the National Academies of Sciences to be 
experts on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies (see table 1 in 
appendix I for list of experts interviewed). In conducting these 
structured interviews, we used a standardized interview guide (see 
Appendix II) to obtain consistent answers. During these interviews we 
asked, among other things, for each expert's views on a number of 
already defined potential challenges facing the deployment of V2V 
technologies. The ratings provided by the experts for each of the 
potential challenges discussed are shown in table 2 below. To inform 
our discussion of the challenges facing the deployment of V2V 
technologies, we considered these ratings as well as experts' 
responses to open-ended questions. 

Table 2: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment of 
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies: 

Potential Challenge: Technical challenges in the development of each of 
the following V2V technologies: 

V2V devices; 
Very great challenge: 0; 
Great challenge: 2; 
Moderate challenge: 9; 
Slight challenge: 7; 
No challenge: 2; 
Don't know: 1. 

V2V safety applications; 
Very great challenge: 0; 
Great challenge: 3; 
Moderate challenge: 12; 
Slight challenge: 4; 
No challenge: 1; 
Don't know: 1. 

Driver-vehicle interface; 
Very great challenge: 4; 
Great challenge: 1; 
Moderate challenge: 9; 
Slight challenge: 5; 
No challenge: 1; 
Don't know: 1. 

Potential Challenge: Technical development of a data security system to 
help establish trust between vehicles sharing information; 
Very great challenge: 6; 
Great challenge: 6; 
Moderate challenge: 4; 
Slight challenge: 3; 
No challenge: 0; 
Don't know: 2. 

Potential Challenge: Standardization to ensure interoperability among 
different types of devices and vehicles; 
Very great challenge: 1; 
Great challenge: 6; 
Moderate challenge: 6; 
Slight challenge: 6; 
No challenge: 2; 
Don't know: 0. 

Potential Challenge: Deployment of V2V devices and applications into a 
great enough percentage of the U.S. vehicle fleet to realize 
significant benefits; 
Very great challenge: 4; 
Great challenge: 4; 
Moderate challenge: 8; 
Slight challenge: 2; 
No challenge: 0; 
Don't know: 3. 

Potential Challenge: Costs of deploying connected vehicle technologies 
involving V2V communications (including V2V devices, safety 
applications, driver-vehicle interface, and security system); 
Very great challenge: 2; 
Great challenge: 4; 
Moderate challenge: 4; 
Slight challenge: 7; 
No challenge: 3; 
Don't know: 1. 

Potential Challenge: Potential need for roadside equipment required to 
support security system; 
Very great challenge: 1; 
Great challenge: 8; 
Moderate challenge: 6; 
Slight challenge: 3; 
No challenge: 0; 
Don't know: 3. 

Potential Challenge: Establishment of a framework, including 
determination of roles and responsibilities, for management of a 
security system to support a V2V environment; 
Very great challenge: 4; 
Great challenge: 8; 
Moderate challenge: 6; 
Slight challenge: 1; 
No challenge: 1; 
Don't know: 1. 

Potential Challenge: Establishing acceptable end user privacy; 
Very great challenge: 6; 
Great challenge: 1; 
Moderate challenge: 7; 
Slight challenge: 4; 
No challenge: 1; 
Don't know: 2. 

Potential Challenge: Public acceptance; 
Very great challenge: 2; 
Great challenge: 7; 
Moderate challenge: 7; 
Slight challenge: 3; 
No challenge: 1; 
Don't know: 1. 

Potential Challenge: Use of DSRC technology at 5.9 GHz frequency band; 
Very great challenge: 6; 
Great challenge: 4; 
Moderate challenge: 5; 
Slight challenge: 1; 
No challenge: 0; 
Don't know: 5. 

Potential Challenge: Human factors for V2V communications (e.g. how 
warning messages affect driver performance); 
Very great challenge: 4; 
Great challenge: 3; 
Moderate challenge: 6; 
Slight challenge: 5; 
No challenge: 0; 
Don't know: 3. 

Potential Challenge: Liability issues (i.e. uncertainty related to 
legal responsibility for vehicle crashes after broad deployment of 
V2V devices); 
Very great challenge: 4; 
Great challenge: 4; 
Moderate challenge: 5; 
Slight challenge: 3; 
No challenge: 0; 
Don't know: 5. 

Source: GAO analysis of structured interviews with experts identified 
by the National Academies of Sciences. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David Wise, (202) 512-2834, or wised@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Assistant 
Director; Melissa Bodeau; Leia Dickerson; David Hooper; Terence Lam; 
Maren McAvoy; Josh Ormond; Madhav Panwar; Matthew Rosenberg; Chad 
Williams; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In addition, NHTSA has estimated that motor vehicle crashes had 
economic costs--including productivity losses, property damages, and 
medical costs--of $230 billion in 2000 (about $304 billion in 2013 
dollars). See L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle 
Crashes (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2002). NHTSA has a study under way 
to update crash cost estimates and expects to issue results by the end 
of 2013. 

[2] 49 USC §§ 30101 and 30111. 

[3] In some cases, certain vehicles can take action without driver 
input, such as emergency braking, based on such warnings. In addition, 
such technologies can use sensors to alert drivers when a vehicle is 
moving out of its lane of travel without use of a turn signal. 

[4] The automobile industry has also been researching and developing 
autonomous vehicle technologies. These would allow for vehicle 
operation without direct driver input. 

[5] NHTSA will complement this 2013 decision with a 2014 decision on 
introducing such technology for commercial vehicles, including trucks 
and buses. The Federal Highway Administration is developing guidance 
for release in 2015 to assist state departments of transportation to 
adapt to these new technologies. 

[6] DOT collaborated with a consortium of automobile manufacturers to 
sponsor the Safety Pilot Model Deployment, a pilot test being 
conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 
Institute that is taking place in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The pilot began 
in August 2012 and is scheduled to end in February 2014. 

[7] The term "human factors" refers broadly to how humans' abilities, 
characteristics, and limitations interact with the design of the 
equipment they use and the environments in which they function. 

[8] However, NHTSA's preliminary data for 2012 indicate that the total 
number of traffic fatalities increased to approximately 34,000 and the 
rate of traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 
increased to approximately 1.16. 

[9] Radio detection and ranging, or RADAR, is a method of detecting 
objects and determining their position, velocity, or other 
characteristics by analysis of high frequency radio waves reflected 
from their surfaces. Light detection and ranging, or LiDAR, uses a 
narrow beam to transmit infrared light pulses to a target, which then 
travel back again. Measurement of the elapsed time of the light beam 
to reach the vehicle and return computes the vehicle's distance from 
the operator. 

[10] In November 2012, the National Transportation Safety Board urged 
NHTSA to establish performance standards for crash-avoidance 
technologies and mandate that such technologies be included as 
standard equipment in motor vehicles. Currently, sensor-based crash 
avoidance technologies are not required to be installed in new 
vehicles. In 2010, NHTSA announced plans to mandate the installation 
of rear-mounted video cameras and in-vehicle displays in all new 
passenger vehicles by September 2014 but has not yet established rules 
governing the placement or minimum field of vision of such cameras. 

[11] A forward collision warning system can issue a warning to drivers 
when their vehicle is about to collide with a vehicle in front of 
them. Lane departure warnings can alert a driver when their vehicle 
begins to veer outside of a lane of travel without the driver 
activating a turn signal. 

[12] ITS technologies consist of a range of communications, 
electronics, and computer technologies, such as systems that collect 
real-time traffic data and transmit information to the public via 
means such as dynamic message signs, ramp meters to improve the flow 
of traffic on freeways, and synchronized traffic signals that are 
adjusted in response to traffic conditions. 

[13] DOT's early work on connected vehicle technologies focused on 
vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. The department increased its 
focus on V2V technologies because they are projected to produce the 
majority of connected vehicle technology safety benefits and they do 
not require the same level of infrastructure investment as vehicle-to-
infrastructure technologies. DOT officials indicated that the 
department plans to increase its focus on vehicle-to-infrastructure 
technologies starting in 2015. 

[14] Vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies can also provide 
additional safety benefits. For example, they can provide drivers with 
information regarding safe speeds and road conditions such as work 
zones and, for example, warn drivers when they may be approaching a 
curve at an unsafe speed. 

[15] The CAMP VSC 3 Consortium is currently comprised of Ford Motor 
Company; General Motors Holdings LLC; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; 
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.; Mercedes-Benz Research & 
Development North America, Inc.; Nissan Technical Center North 
America; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; 
and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 

[16] VIIC is currently comprised of BMW of North America, LLC; 
Chrysler Group LLC; Ford Motor Company; General Motors Holdings LLC; 
Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.; 
Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, Inc.; Nissan 
Technical Center North America; Toyota Motor Engineering & 
Manufacturing North America, Inc.; and Volkswagen Group of America, 
Inc. 

[17] A number of states have enacted legislation permitting the 
operation of these vehicles under certain conditions and, according to 
Google, its fleet of autonomous vehicles had logged more than 300,000 
miles as of August 2012. In May 2013, DOT announced plans for research 
on safety issues related to autonomous vehicles and offered 
recommendations for states related to the testing, licensing, and 
regulation of these vehicles. 

[18] Vehicles with adaptive cruise control are able to adjust their 
own speed based on the distance between the vehicle and vehicles ahead 
in order to maintain a safe distance. 

[19] Allocation involves segmenting spectrum, the natural resources 
used for wireless communication, into bands of frequencies that are 
designated for use by particular types of services. FCC manages 
spectrum use for nonfederal users, including commercial, private, and 
state and local government users; the Department of Commerce's 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration manages 
spectrum for federal users (47 U.S.C. §§ 303, 305). See GAO, 
Commercial Spectrum: Plans and Actions to Meet Future Needs, Including 
Continued Use of Auctions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-118] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 
2011). 

[20] In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's 
Rules to Allocate the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band to the Mobile Service for 
Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent Transportation 
Services, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18221 (1999). 

[21] Radio frequencies are grouped into bands and are measured in 
units of Hertz, or cycles per second. The term megahertz (MHz) refers 
to millions of Hertz and gigahertz (GHz) to billions of Hertz. The 
Hertz unit of measurement is used to refer to both the quantity of 
spectrum (such as 75 MHz of spectrum) and the frequency bands (such as 
the 5.850-5.925 GHz band). 

[22] 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 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 (2004) (FCC 03-324). 

[23] Traditional unlicensed equipment consists of low powered devices 
that operate in a limited geographic range, such as garage door 
openers and devices that offer wireless access to the Internet. They 
include Wi-Fi-enabled local area networks and fixed outdoor broadband 
transceivers used by wireless Internet service providers to connect 
devices to broadband networks. 

[24] Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 
112-96, § 6406, 126 Stat. 156, 231 (2012). 

[25] In July 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board 
recommended that NHTSA develop minimum performance standards for 
connected vehicle technologies and require their installation on all 
newly manufactured highway vehicles. 

[26] DOT defines light-duty vehicles as passenger cars, vans, 
minivans, sport utility vehicles or light pickup trucks with gross 
vehicle weight less than or equal to 10,000 lbs. 

[27] The eight members of CAMP each provided eight vehicles that were 
fully integrated with V2V components for the Safety Pilot. The 
remainder of the vehicles involved were equipped with aftermarket and 
retrofit V2V devices. These devices were not fully integrated with the 
vehicle or not installed during vehicle production. In addition, 79 
commercial vehicles and 88 transit vehicles were equipped with V2V 
devices and tested as part of the Safety Pilot. 

[28] According to DOT, the department may release some information 
from its data analysis in relation to making this decision. 

[29] For example, for potential collisions involving vehicles in a 
driver's blind spot, one automobile manufacturer's vehicles provided 
three short low-pitched beeps repeated three times, an orange light in 
the side view mirror, and a vibration on the side of the driver's seat 
in the direction of the potential collision. 

[30] Public key infrastructure describes the hardware, software, 
people, policies, and procedures needed to create, manage, store, 
distribute, and revoke digital certificates. Public key infrastructure 
forms the foundation of the approach to V2V communications security by 
employing a "public key" to authenticate a sender or encrypt data 
being sent in a message, thereby producing trusted and secure 
messages. A public key infrastructure typically involves a certificate 
authority that issues and verifies digital certificates, which 
includes the public key, a directory that holds the certificates and a 
certificate management and distribution system. 

[31] DOT has also been involved in efforts with the European Union and 
Japan to help set international standards for V2V technologies. For 
example, RITA has signed Implementing arrangements with both the 
European Union and Japan to cooperate on research programs and support 
global standards to ensure interoperability of systems. For more 
information see U.S. Department of Transportation International 
Deployment of Cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems -
Bilateral Efforts of the European Commission and the United States 
Department of Transportation FHWA-JPO-12-081 (Washington, D.C.: 
October 2012). 

[32] Through "relative positioning," a vehicle's location is 
determined relative to other vehicles. 

[33] V2V technologies normally transmit data 10 times per second. 

[34] NHTSA views vehicle automation as progressing along various 
levels of automation from having only certain vehicle functions such 
as braking independently automated to the point at which the vehicle 
is fully automated and the driver provides no control over the vehicle 
during travel. 

[35] KPMG and Center for Automotive Research, Self-Driving Cars: The 
Next Revolution. 

[36] As noted previously, the Safety Pilot will end in February 2014. 
DOT plans to finalize its assessment and release its complete findings 
by fall 2014. 

[37] The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, part of 
RITA, is a fee-for-service organization that performs work for DOT as 
well as other federal, state, local, and international agencies and 
entities. 

[38] United States Department of Transportation, Description of Light-
Vehicle Pre-Crash Scenarios for Safety Applications Based on Vehicle-
to-Vehicle Communications, (Washington, D.C.: May 2013). 

[39] According to DOT, based on early data on vehicle interactions in 
the Safety Pilot, there has been a sufficient level of vehicle 
interactions to analyze the performance capability of the 
applications, examine driver response to warnings, and evaluate 
unintended consequences. 

[40] Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Status Report, Vol. 47, 
No. 5, (Arlington, VA.: July 3, 2012). 

[41] After identifying a series of potential challenges facing the 
development and deployment of V2V technologies through preliminary 
interviews with DOT officials, two automobile industry groups, two 
automobile manufacturers, representatives of CAMP and the VIIC, and 
others, we asked experts identified by the National Academies of 
Sciences to discuss the extent to which each may pose a challenge. 
After interviewing 21 experts, in addition to automobile manufacturers 
and DOT officials, we counted the experts' ratings of potential 
challenges facing the development and deployment of V2V technologies 
and conducted a content analysis of their relevant responses. See 
appendix I for further details on our methodology and appendix III for 
a summary of the ratings provided by experts for each of the potential 
challenges discussed. 

[42] U.S. Department of Transportation, An Approach to Communications 
Security for a Communications Data Delivery System for V2V/V2I Safety: 
Technical Description and Identification of Policy and Institutional 
Issues, FHWA-JPO-11-130 (Washington, D.C.: November 2011). 

[43] U.S. Department of Transportation, Enabling a Secure Environment 
for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) 
Transactions: April 2012 Public Workshop Proceedings, FHWA-JPO-12-072 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2012). 

[44] Sec. 6406 of Act. Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 231. 

[45] In the Matter of Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to 
Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices 
in the 5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 1769 
(2013). 

[46] 47 C.F.R. § 15.5. 

[47] In its February 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC stated 
that unlicensed devices typically operate at very low power over 
relatively short distances and often employ various techniques, such 
as dynamic spectrum access or listen-before-talk protocols, to reduce 
the interference risk to others as well as themselves. The primary 
operating condition for unlicensed devices is that the operator must 
accept whatever interference is received and must correct whatever 
interference is caused. 

[48] See Department of Commerce, Evaluation of the 5350-5470 MHz and 
5850-5925 MHz Bands Pursuant to Section 6406(b) of the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Washington, D.C.: January 
2013). 

[49] FCC officials told us that they expect NTIA to finalize its 
recommendations for FCC by December 2014 and that, while FCC has 
generally stated that it would wait for the outcome of NTIA's studies 
before acting, FCC reserves the right, based on the record developed 
in the proceeding or changed circumstances, to act prior to that time. 

[50] 78 Fed. Reg. 21320, April 10, 2013. 

[51] As discussed earlier, warnings messages can be provided in a 
number of forms, including beeps or other audio warnings, bright 
lights, and seat vibrations. 

[52] According to DOT officials, these principles address how to 
minimize the potential for driver distraction. They include a 
conceptual framework that will address, among other things, how to 
time the presentation of warning messages to drivers and how to 
prioritize multiple messages. 

[53] For example, DOT plans to develop a driver-vehicle interface 
software-evaluation tool that will allow the automobile industry to 
evaluate the distraction potential of possible types of driver-vehicle 
interfaces. According to DOT officials, this tool will be finalized in 
2015. 

[54] Six clinics were conducted across the country between August 2011 
and January 2012. The goals of the clinics were to promote V2V 
technologies, to assess their performance and reliability, and to 
obtain drivers' feedback. Over 90 percent of participants said that 
they would like to have V2V technology features in their vehicles and 
almost 80 percent reported having a high level of understanding of how 
these technologies work. 

[55] We have previously reported on the challenges faced in protecting 
the privacy of consumer data collected by private companies, noting 
that entities have not consistently implemented recommended practices, 
such as notifying users about the collection of their data and placing 
limits on the retention of data, or consistently disclosed which third 
parties are given access to such information. See GAO, Mobile Device 
Location Data: Additional Federal Actions Could Help Protect Consumer 
Privacy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-903] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2012). 

[56] However, such mobility applications may require the deployment of 
vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. 

[57] Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 
Div. H, §522, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268. The objective of a Privacy Impact 
Assessment is to determine if collected personal information data is 
necessary and relevant. These assessments are used to identify and 
address information privacy when planning, developing, implementing, 
and operating individual agency information management systems and 
integrated information systems. They assess security and privacy risks 
associated with operating information systems that collect, access, 
use, or disseminate personal information. 

[58] DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Enabling a 
Secure Environment for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I) Transactions: April 2012 Public Workshop, 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2012). 

[59] As we have reported in the past, funding constraints have posed a 
significant challenge to the deployment of intelligent transportation 
systems technologies by state and local governments. See GAO, 
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration and 
Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage 
Congestion, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-308] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012). 

[60] While we interviewed Ford as part of group meetings with the 
Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium and the CAMP VSC3 
Consortium and interviewed a Ford official as an expert identified by 
the National Academies of Sciences, we did not otherwise individually 
interview Ford. 

[61] These devices are wireless and include components such as a GPS 
chip to determine vehicle location and an antenna for data 
transmission at 5.9 GHz using DSRC. Vehicles with these devices 
transmit data on vehicle location and speed (called "basic safety 
messages"). 

[62] Doing so would enable automobile manufacturers to earn higher 
government safety ratings for vehicles that support V2V safety 
applications. For more information on the New Car Assessment Program, 
please see [hyperlink, http://www.safecar.gov]. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]