11 June 2021 Notice of Ex Parte Marlene H. Dortch Secretary, Federal Communications Commission 45L Street NE Washington, DC

11 June 2021

Notice of Ex Parte

Marlene H. Dortch Secretary, Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street NE Washington, DC 20554

Re: Petition to Amend the Commission’s Rules to Allow Next-Generation Wireless Charging Technology for Electric Vehicles Under Part 18, RM-11815; Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, ET Docket No. 19-226.

Dear Ms. Dortch:

The Federal Communications Commission is, today, positioned to make an enormous contribution to the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) – and thus the fight against climate change – in the United States. To that end, on 9 June 2021, Morris Kesler, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer of WiTricity Corporation (“WiTricity”) and Ky Sealy, Senior Principal Engineer at WiTricity, met with Ron Repasi, Ira Keltz, Jamison Prime, Michael Ha, and Martin Doczkat of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). They were joined by Rashmi Doshi, Shiva Goel, and I of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP. We discussed the need to modify Section 18.305 to enable next- generation wireless EV charging in the 79-90 kHz band as proposed by Toyota, Ford, BMW, Nissan, SAE, Qualcomm, and Mercedes.1 WiTricity is a leading provider of wireless EV charging technology. WiTricity is the largest and best-funded U.S. company in the wireless EV charging market. It has been working since 2007 to commercialize wireless power technology invented at MIT. Because of how well its solution works for EVs, WiTricity has partnered on research and development with almost every major automotive OEM. It has licensed its technology to Toyota and Aptiv, among other OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers, and charging devices featuring its technology have already made it to production on a BMW 5-series and the McLaren Speedtail supercar. WiTricity’s EV chargers transfer power using magnetic resonance with a fundamental frequency of 85 kHz. They are not radiative, and they do not harvest energy from RF transmissions. They are every bit as efficient as conductive chargers, even when the charging pad is not perfectly positioned, and even when charging through pavement and asphalt. They are safe, weather-

1 See Petition for Rulemaking of BMW of North America, LLC, Ford Motor Company, Nissan North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor North America, Inc., RM-11815 (filed Sept. 5, 2018) (“Automaker Petition”); Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd. 11,687, ¶ 145 & n.390 (2019) (“Wireless Power Transfer NPRM”) (discussing the Automaker Petition); Comments of Mercedes Benz Research & Development North America, Inc. and Qualcomm Inc., RM-11815 (filed Oct. 22, 2018); Letter from Jesse Schneider, Chair, SAE Wireless Power Transfer & Alignment, SAE J2954 Task Force, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, RM-11815, ET Docket No. 19-226 (filed May 17, 2021) (“SAE Letter”).

tolerant, and interoperable with any capture device that meets SAE standards. Because of these characteristics, they are easily installed in driveways, garages, and public charging stations for operation with virtually any vehicle. They are, in short, the ideal solution for the “hands-free” charging of EVs. Mass EV adoption depends on next-generation wireless EV charging. Industry and government are hard at work to increase the supply of EVs in the United States.2 But no EV effort, no matter how well-financed, will work by pushing on a string. However badly automakers want to sell EVs, their investment will only pay off if American consumers want to buy them—and wireless charging is essential to achieving consumer acceptance at scale. Experience shows that EV consumers cannot always remember to plug in their vehicles and, understandably, do not want to be stranded if they forget. The general problem of charging EVs is so significant that approximately 1 in 5 California EV users are switching back to internal combustion.3 With quick, “hands-free” wireless charging available in their homes, public garages, and around town, however, consumers would be able park and go about their lives knowing their car will be ready for the next trip. These devices also make it possible to deploy charging stations in more public locations—and can make public charging stations easier to use. A rule change would accelerate next-generation wireless EV charging. The Commission’s rules already permit magnetic resonance charging systems like WiTricity’s to operate as ISM devices under Part 18.4 Because the FCC has not specifically identified the 79-90 kHz band for ISM, however, Section 18.305 imposes field strength limits on these devices. Those limits translate to a maximum magnetic field strength of 60.6 dBµA/m at 10 meters at the fundamental frequency used for charging (85 kHz). But recent data suggests that just a single point increase in charging satisfaction would decrease a consumer’s odds of EV discontinuance by a staggering 19%5—and raising the field strength would allow for much faster “hands-free” charging. By lifting the limit to 82.8 dBµA/m at 10 meters, U.S. consumers would gain immediate access to even more efficient and faster wireless chargers, including devices that can add range up to three times as quickly, charge an EV battery from empty

2 Benjamin Preston, Here Are Automakers’ Plans for Adding More Electric Vehicles to Their Lineups, Consumer Reports (Apr. 26, 2021), https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the- us-market/ (“A record number of almost 100 pure electric EV models is set to debut by the end of 2024 if all goes according to plan.”); Niraj Chokshi, Biden’s Push for Electric Cars: $174 Billion, 10 Years and a Bit of Luck, New York Times (Mar. 31, 2021), https://www nytimes.com/2021/03/31/business/biden-electric-vehicles- infrastructure html (explaining that the Administration’s new infrastructure plans include “up to $174 billion to encourage Americans to switch to” EVs and compete against “China, which leads the world in the use of electric cars” and “has done much more … to speed up the installation of chargers”). 3 Scott Hardman and Gil Tal, Discontinuance Among California’s Electric Vehicle Buyers: Why are Some Consumers Abandoning Electric Vehicles?, University of California, Davis (Apr. 2021) (“Hardman and Tal”), https://escholarship.org/content/qt11n6f4hs/qt11n6f4hs.pdf?t=qs7ss2. 4 See Grant of Equipment Authorization, BRUSA Elektronik AG, FCC ID 2AK2AICS115C (granted Mar. 26, 2019) (authorizing magnetic resonance charging device that uses WiTricity’s licensed technology). 5 Hardman and Tal at 20. Marlene H. Dortch 11 June 2021 Page 3 of 4

to full overnight, and add enough range for a typical commute in less than an hour.6 The world is now moving ahead with the technology—the U.S. must also. Standards organizations and international regulators have paved the way to deploy next-generation wireless EV charging around the globe—and have confirmed that the technology poses no policy concerns in the process. For example, in October 2020, SAE International adopted a standard for wireless EV chargers operating in 79-90 kHz that incorporates an increased limit of 82.8 dBµA/m at 10 meters.7 As part of the standards-setting process, SAE worked with FDA officials to address questions around compatibility with pacemakers.8 By incorporating EMF limits stricter than the ones proposed by the Commission, SAE also ensured that devices meeting its standard pose no conceivable human exposure concern.9 In addition, SAE conducted an interference study in collaboration with the Amateur Radio Relay League and International Amateur Radio Union.10 That study, which the U.S. recently contributed to ITU-R as a consensus document, likewise showed that chargers operating in conformity with SAE’s standard pose no RF interference issues. The SAE standard is global and is being harmonized with other standards published by IEC and ISO. It also is being harmonized with standards bodies in China—which adopted a national “GB” standard incorporating WPT-EV in the 79-90 kHz band last year. Building on the standard, MIIT, the Chinese regulator, recently proposed to adopt a higher emission limit. Japan already has a limit adequate for higher powered wireless charging. WiTricity and the automakers also have made significant progress at the ITU, CEPT, and CISPR to develop a consensus around higher-power EV charging. ITU-R Recommendation SM.2110 now fully supports WPT-EV operation in the 79-90 kHz band, and wireless charging proponents have been working collaboratively with amateur radio and European broadcasting interests to update related reports currently under revision.11 Finally, ANSI is very close to publishing a separate testing standard—ANSI ASC C63.30—governing EMC measurement for these devices.12 While the FCC need not wait for ANSI ASC C63.30 to move forward on updating its rules, it can leverage the standard in the certification process to ensure compliance once the rules change. Indeed, the ANSI standard has been developed with active involvement from OET Lab staff and is already sufficiently advanced for the Commission to use it for testing. The Commission has two paths available toward a new rule—but it must act quickly. In September 2018, Toyota, Ford, BMW, and Nissan petitioned for a rulemaking to increase the limit

6 SAE Letter at 3. 7 Id. 8 SAE Letter at 5. 9 Id. 10 Id. at 4-5; Radio Communication Study Groups, Proposed Revisions to Working Document Towards a Preliminary Draft Revision of Report ITU-R SM.2451 (Apr. 2, 2021), https://uspreps.ntia.gov/file/445/download?token=F6_gHWi5. 11 See SAE Letter at 2, 4-5. 12 Status of C63 Standards (June 3, 2021), http://www.c63.org/documents/misc/matrix/c63_standards htm. Marlene H. Dortch 11 June 2021 Page 4 of 4 for wireless EV chargers.13 In the 2019 Wireless Power Transfer NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the issues raised in that Petition.14 As a result, the most straightforward path toward adopting a new rule would be to address the Section 18.305 limit in the pending wireless power transfer proceeding. Because the SAE standard shows that these devices easily comply with EMF limits suggested in ICNIRP 2010 and ISO 14117, the Commission can do so comfortably before tackling the broader issues raised in the Wireless Power Transfer NPRM concerning these frequencies.15 In light of the many recent developments described above, a refresh of the record could be appropriate. If the Commission agrees, it should seek comments focused on the 82.8 dBµA/m limit in an OET public notice. Alternatively, the Commission could simply initiate the narrow rulemaking sought in the Automaker Petition and issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking. While WiTricity does not believe this longer procedure is necessary, it welcomes any action to move ahead towards new rules.

Sincerely,

Scott Blake Harris Counsel to WiTricity Corporation cc: Meeting attendees

13 See generally Automaker Petition. 14 See Wireless Power Transfer NPRM ¶¶ 137-38 & n.373 (noting the recent “evolution of wireless power transfer devices,” including WPT-EV systems “designed for relatively close coupling” and operation at “frequencies below 100 kHz”); id. ¶ 145 & n.390 (specifically referencing the Automaker Petition and seeking comment on the “frequency bands … most suitable for wireless power transfer” and the “steps … required” to accommodate WPT systems while protecting other frequency uses). 15 See id. ¶¶ 122-123 (proposing to adopt EMF limits consistent with ICNIRP 2010 for frequencies between 3 kHz and 10 MHz).