[Federal Register: May 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23032-23040]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my05-5]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 2, and 15
[ET Docket No. 03-108; FCC 05-57]
Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document modifies the Commission's rules to reflect
ongoing technical developments in cognitive radio technologies. In
light of the Commission's experience with these rules, the Commission
is modifying and clarifying the equipment rules to further facilitate
the development and deployment of software defined and cognitive
radios. These actions are taken to facilitate opportunities for
flexible, efficient, and reliable spectrum use by radio equipment
employing cognitive radio technologies and enable a full realization of
their potential benefits.
DATES: Effective August 2, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail: Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, ET Docket No. 03-108, FCC 05-57, adopted March 10, 2005 and
released March 11, 2005. The full text of this document is available on
the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also
available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and
Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail
FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.
Summary of the Report and Order
1. An accelerating trend in radio technologies has been the use of
software in radios to define their transmission characteristics. The
incorporation of cognitive radio technologies to allow the more
efficient use of spectrum is also becoming increasingly common. As
demonstrated in this and earlier proceedings, this Commission has a
continuing commitment to recognize these important new technologies and
make any necessary changes to its rules and processes to facilitate
their development in the public interest.
2. Over the past several years, manufacturers have increased the
computer processing capabilities of radio system technologies. As a
result, radio systems are increasingly incorporating software into
their operating design. Incorporating software programming capabilities
into radios can make basic functions easier to implement and more
flexible. As the capabilities have advanced, radio systems have been
gaining increased abilities to be ``cognitive''--to adapt their
behavior based on external factors. This ``ability to adapt'' is
opening up a vast potential for more flexible and intensive use of
spectrum.
3. On December 17, 2003, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and Order, 69 FR 7397, February 17, 2004, (``NPRM'') in this
proceeding to explore the uses of cognitive radio technology to
facilitate improved spectrum access. The NPRM addressed: (1) The
capabilities of cognitive radios, (2) permitting higher power by
unlicensed devices in rural or other areas of limited spectrum use, (3)
enabling the development of secondary markets in spectrum use,
including interruptible spectrum leasing, (4) applications of cognitive
radio technology to dynamically coordinated spectrum sharing, and (5)
software defined radio and cognitive radio equipment authorization rule
changes. A total of 56 parties filed comments and 14 parties filed
reply comments in response to the NPRM.
Discussion
4. The development of cognitive radio technology has been and will
continue to be evolutionary in nature. As the technology evolves, our
intent is to delete, change, or adopt rules in phases so as to ensure
that our rules facilitate the market-based development and deployment
of these technologies. In this Report and Order, we first cover in some
detail various wide-ranging efforts being undertaken today by both
government and industry to further in the near term the development of
cognitive capabilities in software-based radio systems and in the
longer term the evolution into fully capable cognitive radio systems.
5. To facilitate the market-based development and introduction of
new technologies into the market, we addressed certain issues in the
Report and Order that have arisen with respect to the certification of
software-based radio equipment. Based on our experience and the
comments in the record, we modify and clarify certain of
[[Page 23033]]
our rules that address software defined radios to facilitate the market
based development of this technology. Specifically, we require radios
in which the software that controls the RF operating parameters is
designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the
manufacturer to comply with the rules for software defined radios,
including the requirement to incorporate security features to prevent
unauthorized modifications to the software. We also modify the
definition of software defined radio to include devices where a
software change could make the device non-compliant with the
Commission's radio frequency emission rules. We are eliminating the
rule that the manufacturer supply radio software (source code) to the
Commission upon request for certification because such software is
generally not useful for certification review and may have become an
unnecessary barrier to entry. We always retain the right to request and
examine any component (whether software or hardware) of a specific
radio system when needed for certification under Commission rules. We
are requiring that the manufacturer supply a functional description of
the radio software that controls its RF characteristics and a
description of the means that will be used to protect that software
from unauthorized tampering. Furthermore, since these descriptions are
apt to involve proprietary intellectual property, we will make
provisions to keep these specific items confidential, for Commission
use only.
6. The Report and Order also considered the technical measures that
a cognitive radio could incorporate to enable secondary use of
spectrum, yet allow the use of such spectrum to quickly and reliably
revert back to the licensee when necessary. We conclude that such
measures are, or will be, technically feasible, but see no need to
adopt any particular technical model for interruptible spectrum
leasing.
Cognitive Radio Technology Developments
7. The efforts being undertaken by industry, often working with
governmental agencies, standards bodies, and others to research,
develop, and implement various software-defined radio and cognitive
radio capabilities have been striking. These accomplishments were made
possible through various advanced radio technologies such as those of
the Department of Defense Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) in
development of a common software architecture and the first actual
software defined radios. Industry, working in conjunction with the
military, is also taking a lead in developing and implementing new
technologies and is serving as the impetus for further technical
developments that should spur the commercial deployment of SDRs and
cognitive radios. In addition, efforts are underway within industry
forums and standards organizations to adopt internationally accepted
standards for software defined radios and cognitive radios. These
efforts and the resultant technical developments undoubtedly will lead
to even greater flexibility in the future, with some touting the
ultimate adoption of radios incorporating a cognition cycle as the
foundation for a fully flexible cognitive radio.
8. The advent of cognitive radios and associated technologies has
the potential to initiate a new era in radio frequency spectrum
utilization. With radios that are able to recognize spectrum
availability and able to negotiate protocols for rapid reconfiguration,
these radios will employ software defined radio technologies to change
their operational characteristics and open new opportunities for
spectrum use. As highlighted in our NPRM, applications such as dynamic
spectrum sharing, interruptible spectrum sharing, and rapidly
reconfigurable secondary markets in spectrum use will be attainable
with cognitive radios.
Enabling Cognitive and Software Defined Radio
9. In this section, we are making certain changes to our current
rules and clarifying them in other respects. First we are modifying the
definition of software defined radio to include radios that employ
software that determines not just the operating parameters, but also
the circumstances under which the radio transmits pursuant to those
parameters. We clarify that equipment that is designed or expected to
be modified by a party other than the manufacturer must be certified as
software defined radios and comply with security requirements to
prevent unauthorized modifications to the radio frequency operating
parameters. We also clarify the security requirements that such
equipment must meet.
10. In addition to these changes, we make several other changes to
the authorization requirements for software defined radios. We find
that the specific rule that requires manufacturers to supply a copy of
their radio software (source code) to the Commission upon request is
unnecessary because such software is generally not useful for
certification review and may have become an unnecessary barrier to
entry. In addition, the Commission already has authority to request to
request and examine any component (whether software or hardware) of a
radio system when needed for certification under Commission rules. We
therefore delete this requirement as discussed below. Further, we
clearly define the information about the radio software that must be
submitted with applications for software defined radios. Additionally,
we allow certification of certain part 15 unlicensed transmitters that
have the technical capability of operating outside part 15 frequency
bands, provided the equipment incorporates features to limit operation
to authorized frequencies when used in the United States.
Cognitive and Software Defined Radio Security
a. Software Defined Radio Definition and Applicability of Rules
11. To reflect new kinds of conditions sometimes being included in
our certification rules, we are broadening the definition of software
defined radio to include devices where a software change could change
not only the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type
or maximum output power, but also the circumstances under which a
transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules. For example,
to make available otherwise unusable spectrum, we have required that
certain radio transmitters include a DFS algorithm that further
conditions use of spectrum beyond frequency range, modulation type, and
maximum output. We are also changing the rules to require certain
equipment to comply with the rules for software defined radios,
including the requirement to incorporate security features to prevent
unauthorized modifications to the software that controls the RF
operating parameters. Specifically, we are requiring equipment in which
the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters is
designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the
manufacturer to comply with the rules for software defined radios.
Because this change is limited to radios that contain RF affecting
software that is third party modifiable, we believe that this change
will affect only a small subset of equipment available in the
marketplace today. We are making no change to the authorization
requirements for the vast majority of devices such as cellular/PCS
telephones, Wi-Fi equipment and two-way radios where the software that
[[Page 23034]]
controls the RF operating parameters is not designed or expected to be
modified by a party other than the manufacturer.
12. We have modified our definition of software defined radio
because, under recent rules, certain software changes that do not
directly affect the technical operating parameters affect whether the
device can be certified under our rules. The direct effects are
addressed in the current definition of a software defined radio:
frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either
radiated or conducted). Our rules, however, now sometimes require
additional radio functions such as DFS to prevent interference to other
users. Even though these functions are being implemented and controlled
by software in a radio, they do not currently fall within the
definition of a software defined radio.
13. We are changing the definition of software defined radio to
address software changes that directly or indirectly affect the
compliance of a device with the Commission's rules. The modified
definition will read as follows.
Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in
which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type
or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the
circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance
with Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software
without making any changes to hardware components that affect the
radio frequency emissions.
14. We are also changing the applicability of our rules to address
software defined radios with relevant software that is designed or
expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer. If a
radio is not certified as a software defined radio, a manufacturer is
not required to demonstrate in the equipment certification process that
it incorporates features designed to prevent unauthorized changes to
the software that would permit violation of Commission rules the
equipment's certification, thus increasing the risk of interference to
authorized radio services. We find that such a showing is in the public
interest when a radio's RF-affecting software is designed or expected
to be modified by a third party other than the manufacturer. In
addition to minimizing the potential for unauthorized modifications to
software defined radios, these changes will benefit manufacturers by
allowing them to take advantage of the streamlined Class III permissive
change procedure when they develop revised software that affects the RF
operating parameters of the radio.
15. We find that the rules we are adopting that require the
certification of certain radios as software defined radios will not be
unduly burdensome on manufacturers or restrain the development of
technology. Only a relatively small number of radios will be affected
by this requirement because most RF affecting radio software is not
designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the
manufacturer, and we are not changing the rules for radios that are not
designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the
manufacturer. Thus, there will be no change to the authorization
requirement for the vast majority of devices including cellular/PCS
telephones, land mobile transceivers and Wi-Fi equipment, provided the
software that directly or indirectly controls the RF emissions of these
devices is not designed or expected to be modified by a party other
than the manufacturer. Also, manufacturers of radios that are software
modifiable typically already take steps to prevent unauthorized
modifications to the software in a radio, so we expect that only rarely
will manufacturers have to make significant design changes to comply
with the security requirements. In addition, as discussed below, we are
adopting changes to simplify the information that must be submitted
with an application for a software defined radio. Finally, we find that
the requirements we are adopting are consistent with the Commission's
authority under section 302 of the Communications Act to make
reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest, which
govern the interference potential of radio frequency devices.
16. We find that the standard we are adopting adequately protects
against interference to other users. We disagree with the commenters
who argue that only radios that can be remotely modified in large
numbers should be required to be certified as software defined radios.
We first find this definitional standard to be too difficult to apply.
We also note that a radio that lacks security features to prevent
unauthorized changes to the RF operating parameters could be easily
modifiable to operate in unauthorized bands, and therefore has a high
potential to interfere with authorized users in many different bands,
including public safety bands. We therefore find that the requirement
to certify certain radios as software defined radios should apply to
all radios which are software modifiable by the user, not just those
which could be remotely modified in large numbers.
17. Permissive changes to software defined radios. We are modifying
the Class III permissive change rule, Sec. 2.1043(b)(3), to make the
wording consistent with the modified definition of software defined
radio adopted. Additionally, we are setting forth a policy for
permissive changes to radios that were approved before the effective
date of the rules adopted in this Report and Order. Specifically, when
a grantee wishes to make a permissive change to a previously approved
device, the device will continue to be classified in the same manner
that it was at the time it was originally certified, i.e., software
defined or non-software defined radio. Thus, a device that was approved
as a non-software defined radio before the rules adopted herein become
effective will not have to be re-certified as a software defined radio
even if it meets the new standard for mandatory certification as a
software defined radio. A device that was certified as a software
defined radio will continue to be treated as such when a request for a
permissive change is filed. Parties should note that we are not
changing the requirement that Class III changes are permitted only for
software defined radios in which no Class II changes have been made
from the originally approved device.
b. Security Requirements for Software Defined Radios
18. We are clarifying the requirements in the rules that are
intended to prevent unauthorized changes to the operating parameters of
software defined radios. The Commission's equipment approval rules
currently require that manufacturers take steps to ensure that only
software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be
loaded into such a radio. The current rule states that the software
must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with frequencies,
output power, modulation types or other parameters outside of those
that were approved. Manufacturers may use authentication codes or any
other means to meet these requirements, and must describe the methods
in their application for equipment authorization.
19. We find that the current approach that manufacturers take steps
to prevent unauthorized changes to the software in a radio, but does
not require the use of specific security measures, is the most
appropriate method to ensure the security of software defined radios.
This approach allows manufacturers to respond to improvements in
security technology more quickly and with the best solutions for a
particular product
[[Page 23035]]
because no Commission action is necessary to permit manufacturers to
use new security technologies. Therefore, we are maintaining the
current security requirement. The record shows that manufacturers are
aware of the need to incorporate security measures in software defined
radios and are in fact doing so. We note that NTIA has recommended
that, as a long term goal, we consider requiring ``Protection
Profiles''--an approach currently under consideration in the SDR
Forum--as part of the equipment certification process for software
defined radios. After industry progresses further in its deliberations,
we may consider the possible applicability of Protection Profiles, or
certain concepts of Protection Profiles, to equipment certification in
a future proceeding that addresses the security of software defined and
cognitive radios.
20. Our security requirements for software defined radios give
manufacturers flexibility to determine the appropriate security
measures for a device. However, manufacturers also have the
responsibility to choose security measures that can not be easily
defeated by unintended parties. In the event that a software defined
radio is found to be easily modifiable by end users, we would expect
the responsible party as defined by our rules to immediately cease
marketing the equipment and to take steps to ensure that future
production of the equipment complies with the rules. Any potential
forfeiture for non-compliance with the software defined radio security
requirements would be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account all relevant factors, in the same manner as forfeitures are
considered for non-compliant hardware-based equipment. In determining
whether to issue any forfeiture penalties for a non-compliant device,
the Commission takes into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree
of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
other matters as may be relevant and appropriate. The Commission has
specific guidelines for assessing forfeitures, but may issue higher or
lower forfeitures than provided in the guidelines, issue no forfeiture
at all, or apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by
statute.
21. We decline to establish specific limitations on the responsible
party's liability for a device that incorporates specific type(s) of
security measures in the event that it is later determined that
unauthorized modifications can be easily made to the radio frequency
operating parameters of the device. The responsible party's liability
for a non-compliant device is most appropriately determined on a case-
by-case basis. Further, we agree with Intel that such an approach could
be counterproductive because manufacturers would tend to design
equipment to incorporate specific security features and may have little
incentive to design equipment with robust security features, especially
where more secure features add cost to a device. However, the
Commission may consider compliance with industry security standards as
a factor in determining the responsible party's liability.
22. We are simplifying the structure of the rules for software
defined radios by moving the security requirements for software defined
radios from Sec. 2.932(e) into Sec. 2.944. Section 2.944 currently
contains a requirement for parties to submit a copy of radio software
to the Commission upon request. We are changing that requirement as
well as the applicability of the security requirements for software
defined radios. We are placing the requirements for software defined
radios into a single rule section, Sec. 2.944, for easier reference.
We are also modifying Sec. 2.1033, which lists the information to be
included in an application for certification, to make clear that an
application for certification of a software defined radio must include
the information specified in the revised Sec. 2.944.
23. As part of the revisions to Sec. 2.944, we are providing
specific examples of the types of security measures that the Commission
may consider to be acceptable for preventing unauthorized modifications
to equipment. These examples are intended only to provide guidance to
industry, and the use of one or more of these methods in a particular
device should not be construed to limit a manufacturer's liability or
responsibility to take appropriate corrective action in the event that
parties other than the manufacturer are able to make unauthorized
modifications to a device. This section will state that manufacturers
may use any reasonable means to prevent impermissible modifications to
the radio software including, but not limited to, the following and
must describe the method(s) used for a particular device in the
application for certification:
The use of a private network that allows only
authenticated users to download software.
Coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify
that new software can be legally loaded into a device.
Electronic signatures in software.
c. Amateur Equipment and D/A Converters
24. In the NPRM, we proposed to exempt manufactured software
defined radios that are designed to operate solely in amateur bands
from any mandatory declaration and certification requirements, provided
the equipment incorporates features in hardware to prevent operation
outside of amateur bands. We also sought comment on the need to
restrict the mass marketing of high-speed digital-to-analog (D/A)
converters that could be diverted for use as radio transmitters. No
parties have provided any information that shows that software
programmable amateur transceivers or high-speed D/A converters present
any significantly greater risk of interference to authorized radio
services than hardware radios. Therefore, we decline to adopt any new
regulations for amateur transceivers or D/A converters at this time.
However, we note that certain unauthorized modifications of amateur
transmitters are unlawful, and may revisit both of these issues in the
future if misuse of such devices results in significant interference to
authorized spectrum users.
Submission of Radio Software
25. We are removing the requirement that an applicant for
authorization of a software defined radio or the grantee or other party
responsible for the compliance of a software defined radio submit a
copy of the software that controls the radio frequency operating
parameters upon request. We find that a copy of software source code is
generally not be a useful aid in determining whether unauthorized
changes have been made to the operating parameters of a device because
software changes that have no effect on these parameters are frequently
made by manufacturers. We also are concerned that this specific rule
may be overly burdensome because we have observed that some equipment
that could be authorized under the rules for software defined radios is
not being authorized under these rules. The fact that the software in a
device being marketed may differ somewhat from software previously
supplied to the Commission would not necessarily indicate that any
unauthorized changes have been made to a device's RF affecting
operating parameters. In the event that questions arise about the
compliance of a particular device, the
[[Page 23036]]
Commission has the authority to request and examine any component
(whether software or hardware) of a radio system when needed for
certification under Commission rules without the need for a specific
requirement to submit radio software. Grantees of equipment
certification are required to maintain records of equipment
specifications and any changes that may affect compliance and must make
these records available for inspection by the Commission. Further, the
party responsible for the compliance of the device or any party who
markets the device must supply a sample of the device to the Commission
upon request.
26. We are adopting a requirement to submit a high level software
operational description or flow diagram. The requirement we are
adopting is analogous to the requirements in the rules that were
developed for hardware based equipment that require applicants for
equipment certification to supply a block diagram, schematic diagram
and a brief description of the circuit functions of a device, along
with a statement describing how the device operates. In this regard,
the software operational description or flow diagram must describe or
show how the RF functions in the radio, including the modulation type,
operating frequency and power level are controlled or modified by
software, and must describe the security or authentication methods that
are incorporated to prevent unauthorized software changes. The
description can include text, logic or flow diagrams, state
descriptions or other material that provides the Commission's staff
with a reasonable understanding of the operation of a device being
certified and whether the device complies with the rules. The
Commission's staff will work with applicants for certification to
ensure that these requirements are clear and will issue appropriate
additional guidance as necessary.
27. We agree with comments that information on how software within
a software defined radio operates would be company proprietary
information and that making this information publicly available would
result in competitive harm to a manufacturer. Further, we find that
information on the security methods that manufacturers employ to
prevent unauthorized modifications to the RF operating parameters of a
device would be considered company proprietary information.
Additionally, making information on security measures publicly
available could assist unauthorized parties in determining ways to
defeat them. We also conclude that, if we were to make information on
software defined radio operation and security measures generally
available to the public, entities seeking equipment certification may
not provide sufficient information for the Commission to determine
whether the device at issue would operate in compliance with our rules.
Accordingly, we will modify Sec. 0.457(d) of the rules to state that
the descriptions of the security features and software operation for a
software defined radio are presumptively protected from public
disclosure and will not routinely be made available for public
inspection. This presumptive protection will apply only to the
descriptions of the security features and software operation for a
software defined radio and not to any other exhibits in the application
for certification which will normally be made available for public
inspection after grant of the application. An applicant for
certification of a software defined radio must file a specific request
and pay the appropriate filing fee to have other exhibits in the
application held confidential, assuming the exhibits are eligible for
confidential treatment. To avoid possible delays in processing
applications, applicants should ensure that exhibits for which
confidential treatment is automatically afforded or for which it is
requested are clearly identified and that these exhibits do not contain
information that is not eligible for such treatment.
28. We decline to allow TCBs to certify software defined radios at
this time. The changes that we are adopting to automatically afford
confidential treatment to the description of software and security
features in software defined radio applications address the
confidentiality concerns of parties who requested that TCBs be allowed
to certify software defined radios to protect this information from
public disclosure. Additionally, as the Commission has previously
stated, because software defined radio is a new technology, TCBs will
not be permitted to certify software defined radios until the
Commission has more experience with them and can properly advise TCBs
on how to apply the applicable rules. The Commission's Laboratory
maintains a list of types of devices, including software defined
radios, that TCBs are excluded from certifying. The Laboratory will
remove software defined radios from this exclusion list when it
determines that TCBs are capable of certifying them.
Automatic Frequency Selection by Unlicensed Devices
29. We are changing part 15 of the rules to allow certification of
unlicensed transmitters that are capable of operation outside of
permissible part 15 frequency bands, provided the transmitters
incorporate an automatic frequency selection mechanism to ensure that
they operate only on frequencies where unlicensed operation is
permitted when operated in the United States.
30. We will allow certification of part 15 devices that operate
outside permissible frequency bands using a master/client model. The
terms ``master'' and ``client'' were defined in the U-NII proceeding
for U-NII devices. We will define these terms for other types of part
15 devices consistent with the U-NII definitions. That is, a master
device will be defined as a device operating in a mode in which it has
the capability to transmit without receiving an enabling signal. In
this mode it is able to select a channel and initiate a network by
sending enabling signals to other devices. A network always has at
least one device operating in master mode. A client device will be
defined as a device operating in a mode in which the transmissions of
the device are under control of the master. A device in client mode is
not able to initiate a network. We, of course, require master devices
marketed within the United States to operate only in permissible part
15 frequency bands, which will ensure that they enable operation of
client devices only within permissible part 15 frequency bands.
Manufacturers that wish to market master devices that are hardware-
capable of operating outside of permissible part 15 frequency bands for
use in other countries, but use software to limit their operation to
permissible part 15 frequency bands, must incorporate security features
into them to limit the operating frequency range for devices marketed
in the United States and must certify the devices as software defined
radios. Different software can then be installed in master devices that
are used outside of the United States to change the operating frequency
range for use in other countries. Client devices that can also act as
master devices must meet the certification requirements of a master
device, and thus must be certified as software defined radios if the
manufacturer wishes to incorporate additional frequency bands for use
in other countries.
31. We will allow the certification of client devices such as
wireless LAN cards used in desktop or notebook computers if they have
the capability of operating outside permissible part 15 frequency
bands. Client devices may transmit only under the control of a master
device. Because master devices are limited to operation on permissible
[[Page 23037]]
part 15 frequencies, they will direct client devices to operate on only
permissible part 15 frequencies.
32. The changes we have adopted will benefit manufacturers by
allowing production of devices that can be used in multiple countries,
thus reducing equipment costs. At the same time, the requirement to
limit the frequency range of master devices sold in the United States
will minimize the likelihood that devices will operate outside
permissible frequency bands and cause interference to authorized
services.
Interruptible Spectrum Leasing
33. In this section, we are describing the technical methods that a
cognitive radio could use to enable interruptible secondary use of
licensed spectrum by other parties. The concepts in this section would
apply to lessors who want a high level assurance of reclaiming leased
spectrum when they need it. We find that there are technologies
available now or under development that could safely allow for
interruptible spectrum leasing. We find that cognitive radio
technologies, or even trunked radio technologies, would allow
implementation of the following general principles that interested
parties state would be essential to enable interruptible leased use of
spectrum:
1. The licensee must have positive control as to when the lessee
can access the spectrum.
2. The licensee must have positive control to terminate the use of
the spectrum by the lessee so it can revert back to the licensee's use.
3. Reversion must occur immediately upon action by the licensee
unless that licensee has made specific provisions for a slower
reversion time.
4. The equipment used by the licensee and the lessee must perform
access and reversion functions with an extremely high degree of
reliability.
5. The equipment used by the licensee and the lessee must
incorporate security features to prevent inadvertent misuse of, and to
thwart malicious misuse of, the licensee's spectrum.
34. There are at least three different technical approaches that
currently exist or are under development that a licensee could employ
that would comply with the intent of these principles and enable
interruptible spectrum leasing. One approach would be for a licensee to
allow leasing using an existing trunked system. A trunked system uses a
central controller to select the operating frequencies of radios in the
system. When a radio is ready to begin transmitting, it sends a request
for an operating frequency to a central controller over a control
channel. The controller dynamically assigns an operating frequency to
that radio and the other radios with which it communicates. Such a
centralized system could be used to assign channels to radios operating
under the terms of a lease, or de-assign channels when a licensee needs
to use the spectrum. This could be done through a wireless control
channel as is currently done to assign channels to radios in the
system. Alternatively, information about leased channel availability
could be provided by the trunked system controller to the lessee's
equipment through a wired link.
35. The beacon approach proposed in the NPRM and described above is
similar to a trunked system in that it uses a centralized controller to
enable operation of lessee's equipment. The beacon could operate either
on a frequency licensed to the public safety entity or on a separate
control frequency in another band. The approach would require
additional infrastructure such as the beacon transmitters and radios
that are capable of receiving the beacon and adjusting their operation
in response to the beacon signal.
36. A third method that could enable leased use of spectrum is by
an exchange of ``tokens'' sent to the lessee's devices. Token
approaches rely on the encrypted exchange of unique information to
verify a user's identity when opening and maintaining a secure
communications exchange. Tokens would provide a means of ensuring that
lessees transmit only on available frequencies when they receive an
electronic token authorizing them to do so. These tokens could also
enforce terms of a lease such as the specific period of time that
transmission on a frequency is allowed, thus providing a licensee with
a high level of confidence that lessees will vacate the spectrum when
required under the terms of the lease. Such token technology is already
in use in other resource allocation problems, such as the enforcement
of software license terms and avoiding data transmission conflicts
between computers on local area networks.
37. At this point, we see no need to adopt any particular technical
model for interruptible spectrum leasing. Ultimately, a licensee must
itself be satisfied that the technical mechanism being implemented
under a lease does in fact provide it with the ability in real time to
reclaim use of its spectrum when necessary.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, Facilitating Opportunities
for Flexible, Efficient, and Reliable Spectrum Use Employing Cognitive
Radio Technologies (NPRM).\2\ The Commission sought written public
comments on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the
IRFA.\3\ This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conforms to the
RFA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\2\ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order in ET Docket
No. 03-108, 18 FCC Rcd 26859 (2003), 69 FR 7397, February 17, 2004.
\3\ Id.
\4\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
39. Advances in technology are creating the potential for radio
systems to use radio spectrum more intensively and more efficiently
than in the past. Software-defined and cognitive, or ``smart,'' radios
are allowing and will increasingly allow more intensive access to, and
use of, spectrum than possible with traditional, hardware-based radio
systems. In this Report and Order, the Commission continues the process
of modifying the rules to reflect these ongoing technical developments
in radio technologies. The Commission first adopted rules for software
defined radios in 2001, recognizing that manufacturers were beginning
to use software to help determine the RF characteristics of radios, and
that the equipment rules, which assumed hardware changes were needed to
modify a radio's behavior, held the potential of discouraging
development of software defined radios by requiring repeated approvals
for repeated software changes. In light of the Commission's experience
with these rules, and the record in this proceeding, it is modifying
and clarifying the equipment rules to further facilitate the
development and deployment of software defined and cognitive radios.
40. In the Report and Order, the Commission makes several changes
to parts 2 and 15 of the rules. Specifically, it:
(1) Eliminates the requirement for applicants and grantees of
certification of software defined radios to supply a copy of the
software that controls the RF
[[Page 23038]]
operating parameters of the radio upon request;
(2) Requires applicants for certification of software defined
radios to supply a high level operational description of the software
that controls the radio frequency operating parameters;
(3) Requires that radios in which the software that controls the RF
operating parameters is designed or expected to be modified by a party
other than the manufacturer to incorporate a means to prevent
unauthorized software changes, and requires such radios to be certified
as software defined radios;
(4) Allows certification of unlicensed transmitters that have the
capability of operating outside permissible part 15 frequency bands,
provided the transmitters incorporate a software control to limit
operation to permissible part 15 frequency bands when used in the
United States.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
41. None.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Rules Apply
42. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\5\ The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern''
under section 3 of the Small Business Act.\6\ Under the Small Business
Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and
(3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\6\ Id. 601(3).
\7\ Id. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers
43. The SBA has established a small business size standard for
radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment
manufacturing. Under this standard, firms are considered small if they
have 750 or fewer employees.\8\ Census Bureau data for 1997 indicate
that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments \9\ in
this category.\10\ Of those, there were 1,150 that had employment under
500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. The
percentage of wireless equipment manufacturers in this category is
approximately 61.35 percent,\11\ so the Commission estimates that the
number of wireless equipment manufacturers with employment under 500
was actually closer to 706, with and additional 23 establishments
having employment of between 500 and 999. Given the above, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless communications
equipment manufacturers are small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 1997 Economic Census, Manufacturing, Industry Series, Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing, Document No. E97M-3342B (August 1999), at 9; 1997
Economic Census, Manufacturing, Industry Series, Other
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Document No. EC97M-3342C
(September 1999), at 9 (both available at http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/97ecmani.html
).
\9\ The number of ``establishments'' is a less helpful indicator
of small business prevalence in this context than would be the
number of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the latter take into
account the concept of common ownership or control. Any single
physical locations for an entity is an establishment, even though
that location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the
numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this
category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this
category, the Census breaks out data for firms or companies only to
give the total number of such entities for 1997, which was 1,089.
\10\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
Manufacturing, ``Industry Statistics by Employment Size,'' Table 4,
NAICS code 334220 (issued August 1999).
\11\ Id. Table 5, ``Industry Statistics by Industry and Primary
Product Class Specialization: 1997.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
44. Unlicensed transmitters are required to be certified before
they can be imported into or marketed within the United States. The
certification process requires the manufacturer or other party
responsible for compliance to have the equipment tested and
electronically file an application form, measurement report and other
information on the equipment with the Commission or a designated
Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB). Software defined radios at
present may be approved only by the Commission and not by TCBs,
although the Commission has stated that it will eventually allow TCBs
to approve them. The Report and Order does not change this requirement.
45. Applicants for certification of a software defined radio will
be required to supply a high level operational description of the
software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters.
46. Manufacturers of radios in which the software that controls the
radio frequency operating parameters is designed or expected to be
modified by a party other than the manufacturer must incorporate a
means to prevent unauthorized software changes that must be described
in the application for certification. Such software changeable radios
must be declared as software defined radios in the application for
certification. Most radios at the present are not software modifiable,
and manufacturers of those that are generally already take steps to
prevent unauthorized modifications, so we expect that only rarely would
manufacturers have to redesign equipment to comply with this
requirement.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
47. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. The Commission sought comment in the NPRM about whether it
should make compliance with the software defined radio rules, including
the requirement to demonstrate that a radio incorporates security
features, mandatory rather than optional for certain types of radio
transmitters. Based on the comments received, the Commission made these
requirements mandatory only for the small subset of radio transmitters
in which the software that controls the radio frequency operating
parameters is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than
the manufacturer. This change will ensure that radio transmitters can
not be easily modified and cause interference to authorized services,
while minimizing the filing burden on applicants for certification by
requiring only a small number of devices to be certified as software
defined radios.
49. The Commission simplified the filing requirements for software
defined radios to benefit all entities, including
[[Page 23039]]
small entities. It eliminated the requirement to supply software source
code upon request because such software is not generally useful for
certification review and may have become an unnecessary barrier to
entry. The Commission will instead require the submission of a software
description at the time of certification as supported by a number of
parties in comments. Because such a description would generally be
considered company proprietary information, the Commission will
automatically hold such information confidential without the need for
applicants for certification to file a specific request for
confidentiality and pay a fee. Eliminating the need to file a specific
confidentiality request and pay a fee is expected to benefit small
entities that have fewer resources to comply with regulatory
requirements.
F. Congressional Review Act
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including FRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Ordering Clauses
50. Parts 0, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules are amended as
specified in rule changes, effective August 2, 2005. This action is
taken pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and
303(r).
51. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and
Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 0, 2, and 15
Communications equipment, Radio. Report and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 2, and 15 as follows:
PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
0
2. Section 0.457 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Applications for equipment authorizations (type acceptance,
type approval, certification, or advance approval of subscription
television systems), and materials relating to such applications, are
not routinely available for public inspection prior to the effective
date of the authorization. The effective date of the authorization
will, upon request, be deferred to a date no earlier than that
specified by the applicant. Following the effective date of the
authorization, the application and related materials (including
technical specifications and test measurements) will be made available
for inspection upon request (See Sec. 0.460). Portions of applications
for equipment certification of scanning receivers and related materials
will not be made available for inspection. This information includes
that necessary to prevent modification of scanning receivers to receive
Cellular Service frequencies, such as schematic diagrams, technical
narratives describing equipment operation, and relevant design details.
Portions of applications for equipment certification of software
defined radios that describe the operation of the device's software and
security features will not be made available for inspection.
* * * * *
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303 and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
4. Section 2.1(c) is amended by revising the following definition of
``software defined radio'' to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1 Terms and definitions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in
which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or
maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the
circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with
Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software without
making any changes to hardware components that affect the radio
frequency emissions.
* * * * *
Sec. 2.932 [Amended]
0
5. Section 2.932 is amended by removing paragraph (e).
0
6. Section 2.944 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.944 Software defined radios.
(a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that
has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the
radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter
with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other
radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved.
Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a
private network that allows only authenticated users to download
software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that
is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally
loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the
methods in their application for equipment authorization.
(b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be
modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the
operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum
output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under
which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules,
must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and
must be certified as a software defined radio.
(c) Applications for certification of software defined radios must
include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the
software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters.
0
7. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding new paragraphs (b)(12) and
(c)(18) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1033 Application for certification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 23040]]
(12) An application for certification of a software defined radio
must include the information required by Sec. 2.944.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(18) An application for certification of a software defined radio
must include the information required by Sec. 2.944.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 2.1043 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the
software of a software defined radio transmitter that change the
frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either
radiated or conducted) outside the parameters previously approved, or
that change the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in
accordance with Commission rules. When a Class III permissive change is
made, the grantee shall supply the Commission with a description of the
changes and test results showing that the equipment complies with the
applicable rules with the new software loaded, including compliance
with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The modified software
shall not be loaded into the equipment, and the equipment shall not be
marketed with the modified software under the existing grant of
certification, prior to acknowledgement by the Commission that the
change is acceptable. Class III changes are permitted only for
equipment in which no Class II changes have been made from the
originally approved device.
Note to paragraph (b)(3): Any software change that degrades
spurious and out-of-band emissions previously reported to the
Commission at the time of initial certification would be considered
a change in frequency or modulation and would require a Class III
permissive change or new equipment authorization application.
* * * * *
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
9. The authority citation of part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544.
0
10. Section 15.202 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.202 Certified operating frequency range
Client devices that operate in a master/client network may be
certified if they have the capability of operating outside permissible
part 15 frequency bands, provided they operate on only permissible part
15 frequencies under the control of the master device with which they
communicate. Master devices marketed within the United States must be
limited to operation on permissible part 15 frequencies. Client devices
that can also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a
master device. For the purposes of this section, a master device is
defined as a device operating in a mode in which it has the capability
to transmit without receiving an enabling signal. In this mode it is
able to select a channel and initiate a network by sending enabling
signals to other devices. A network always has at least one device
operating in master mode. A client device is defined as a device
operating in a mode in which the transmissions of the device are under
control of the master. A device in client mode is not able to initiate
a network.
[FR Doc. 05-8808 Filed 5-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P