[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 341-345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-63]



[[Page 341]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 2

[ET Docket No. 00-47; FCC 00-430]


Software Defined Radios

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to streamline the equipment 
authorization procedures for software defined radios. Specifically, we 
propose to define software defined radios as a new class of equipment 
with equipment authorization rules that reflect the additional 
flexibility incorporated into such radios. We believe that these 
changes will facilitate the deployment and use of this new promising 
technology. The frequency and technology agility of software defined 
radios could increase the use of presently underutilized frequency 
bands.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2001, and 
reply comments on or before May 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
Magalie Roman Salas, Office of Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-7506.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 00-47, FCC 00-430, adopted December 
7, 2000, and released December 8, 2000. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available on the Commission's Internet site, at 
www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-
A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased 
from the Commission's duplication contractor, International 
Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW Washington, 
DC 20036. Comments may be sent as an electronic file via the Internet 
to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by e-mail to [email protected].

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making

    1. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) responds to a Notice 
of Inquiry (NOI) in this proceeding, 65 FR 17246, March 31, 2000. The 
NOI sought comments on a number of issues related to software defined 
radios. These issues included the current state of technology, how this 
technology could facilitate interoperability between radio services, 
how it could improve spectrum efficiency and spectrum sharing, and what 
changes may be required in the equipment approval process.
    2. The NPRM proposes to amend part 2 of our rules to streamline the 
equipment authorization procedures for software defined radios (SDR). 
Specifically, we propose to define software defined radios as a new 
class of equipment with equipment authorization rules that reflect the 
additional flexibility incorporated into such radios. We propose to 
permit equipment manufacturers to make changes in the frequency, power 
and modulation of such radios without the need to file a new equipment 
authorization application with the Commission. We also propose to 
permit electronic labeling so that a third party may modify a radio's 
technical parameters without having to return to the manufacturer for 
re-labeling. We believe that these changes will facilitate the 
deployment and use of this new promising technology. The frequency and 
technology agility of software defined radios could increase the use of 
presently underutilized frequency bands.
    3. We recognize that there is no universally accepted definition of 
a software defined radio. We stated in the NOI that many radios now 
contain microprocessor technology that can control functions such as 
frequency and power. Until recently, these functions were controlled by 
firmware installed at the factory and are not readily changeable by the 
user. To facilitate the development of these types of radios, we 
propose a new, more flexible equipment approval process. We propose the 
following definition of software defined radio to delineate what types 
of devices fall within the proposed new rules.

    A software defined radio is a radio that includes a transmitter 
in which the operating parameters of the transmitter, including the 
frequency range, modulation type or maximum radiated or conducted 
output power can be altered by making a change in software without 
making any hardware changes.

    We seek comments on the sufficiency of this definition or any 
alternative definitions that may be more appropriate.
    4. We believe that some relaxation of the current equipment 
authorization procedures is appropriate. Thus, we propose to develop a 
more streamlined authorization procedure for changes to software 
defined radios. Specifically, we propose that changes in the frequency, 
power, and modulation type of a software defined radio could be 
authorized as a new class of permissive change, which we propose to 
designate as Class III. This would eliminate the need to re-label 
equipment when new software is loaded and would streamline the filing 
procedure for changes to approved devices. Software changes that do not 
affect these operating parameters would be treated as Class I 
permissive changes, so no filing would be required for them. The 
applicant for a Class III change would submit test data showing that 
the equipment complies with the applicable requirements for the 
service(s) or rule parts under which it will operate with the new 
software loaded. The applicant would also have to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The Commission 
would notify the applicant by letter when a permissive change is 
granted. Once a Class III permissive change has been granted for new 
software that affects the operating parameters, the software could be 
loaded into units in the field. The record in the Commission's database 
for each authorized device would show the approved frequency range(s), 
power and modulation type(s) as it does now. Additional frequency 
ranges or other new technical parameters would be added to the database 
record for an authorization when a permissive change is granted.
    5. We propose that the original certification application must 
identify the equipment as a software defined radio, and that only the 
grantee of the authorization for a software defined radio may file for 
a Class III permissive change. We also propose that Class III 
permissive changes may only be made to equipment in which no hardware 
changes have been made from the originally approved device to eliminate 
ambiguity about which hardware and software combinations have been 
approved. We recognize that while the filing procedure for permissive 
changes is streamlined, Commission staff is still required to perform a 
technical review of the new test data for compliance with the rules. 
Therefore, we propose to apply the filing fee for certification of 
transmitters used in licensed services to the new Class III permissive 
changes to reflect the staff time required to process these changes.
    6. We seek comments on whether a new class of permissive change 
should be established, the type of information that should be submitted 
to show compliance with the service rules and

[[Page 342]]

RF exposure requirements, the appropriate filing fee for such changes, 
whether parties other than the grantee should be allowed to file for 
permissive changes.
    7. In addition, we seek comments on whether this new class of 
permissive change should be limited to software changes only, whether 
we should allow a combination of hardware and software permissive 
changes in a single device, whether there is a need for applicants to 
submit a copy of radio software to the Commission, and whether we 
should place limits on the number of hardware and software combinations 
under a single approval. We further seek comment on the benefits of the 
proposed new permissive change compared to the existing requirement for 
new identification numbers if we allow the alternative labeling method 
described in the NPRM.
    8. We believe that a major benefit of software defined radios will 
be the ability of manufacturers to produce radios intended to be 
programmed by third parties with unique or specialized application 
software. To help realize this benefit, we are proposing an option for 
software defined radios to be equipped with an ``electronic label'' to 
display the FCC identification number by means of a light emitting 
diode (LED) display, a liquid crystal display (LCD) screen or other 
similar method. This would provide a method to re-label equipment in 
the field if a new approval were obtained by a third party for a 
previously approved device. The information would have to be readily 
accessible in a manner that allows it to be easily viewed. We request 
comments on this proposal, including whether there is a need for this 
capability, the type of display that should be required, the means that 
should be required for accessing the information, and the information 
to be displayed. We recognize that not all transmitters that are 
potentially programmable would normally have an LED, LCD or similar 
display, so we also request comments on whether manufacturers would 
need to add such displays to take advantage of the electronic labeling 
capability. We also seek comments on whether electronic labeling should 
be permitted for other types of equipment besides software defined 
radios.
    9. We tentatively conclude that a means will be necessary to avoid 
unauthorized modifications to software that could affect the compliance 
of a radio. While we believe we may eventually have to adopt rules 
addressing software authentication, we believe it would be premature 
for us to propose specific requirements for authentication while 
standards are still under development. Accordingly, at this time we are 
proposing a more general requirement that manufacturers must take steps 
to ensure that only software that is part of a hardware/software 
combination approved by the Commission or a TCB can be loaded into a 
radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the radio with 
frequencies, output power, modulation types or other parameters outside 
of those that were approved. Manufacturers may use authentication or 
any other means to meet these requirements, and must describe the 
methods in their application for equipment authorization. The grantee 
of an equipment authorization is responsible for ensuring the integrity 
of the authentication or security system. Failure to do so could result 
in the revocation of the authorization. We believe that this proposal 
would protect against harmful interference and safety hazards from 
software defined radios without interfering with the development of the 
technology. We request comments on this proposal, including whether it 
could impede legitimate third party software developers from developing 
applications for software defined radios. We also seek comments on the 
types of authentication standards that are likely to be developed, 
whether the standards should be industry developed or government 
sponsored, whether the standards should be voluntary or mandatory, and 
whether these standards would be applicable to all types of software 
defined radio equipment.
    10. We believe that the rule changes we are proposing will allow 
manufacturers greater flexibility in obtaining approval for software 
defined radios and will facilitate deployment of this equipment to 
consumers. We further believe that the proposed requirements for 
authentication of software will provide a safeguard against 
unauthorized modifications of approved equipment. However, we recognize 
that a non-compliant software defined radio has the potential to 
interfere with other radio services due to its potential to operate in 
multiple frequency bands. Therefore, we request comments on whether we 
should enhance our enforcement capabilities and what particular changes 
we should make. For example, should we establish requirements 
prohibiting manufacturers or grantees from knowingly marketing software 
that would cause a software defined radio to operate in violation of 
the Commission's rules? We request comments on this and any other 
matters that may be pertinent to software defined radios.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments provided in paragraph 38 of this NPRM. 
The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).\2\ In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    12. A number of parties are currently developing software defined 
radio technology. In a software defined radio, functions that were 
carried out by hardware in the past are performed by software. This 
means that the operating parameters of the radio, such as the frequency 
and type of modulation, could be readily changed in the field. The 
current rules do not prohibit software programmable radios. However, 
they require a new approval and a new identification number on a 
permanently affixed label when changes to the frequency, power or type 
of modulation are made. The requirement to re-label equipment in the 
field when a change is made could tend to discourage deployment of 
software defined radios to consumers. Therefore, we are proposing 
changes to our equipment authorization rules to facilitate such 
deployment. These changes would streamline the equipment approval 
process for software defined radios and would reduce the filing burden 
on applicants.

B. Legal Basis

    13. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(i), 301, 
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as

[[Page 343]]

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 
307.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    14. 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, herein adopted.\4\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\6\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \5\ Id. 601(6).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless 
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are 
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \7\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities 
applicable to Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF 
Manufacturers). Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is 
the definition under the SBA rules applicable to manufacturers of 
``Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.'' 
According to the SBA's regulation, an RF manufacturer must have 750 or 
fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business.\8\ Census 
Bureau data indicates that there are 858 companies in the United States 
that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications 
equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees 
and would be classified as small entities.\9\ We believe that many of 
the companies that manufacture RF equipment may qualify as small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 
Code 3663.
    \9\ See U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of 
Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC 
category 3663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    16. We propose to establish a new class of ``permissive change'' 
for software defined radios when changes are made to the software that 
affect the frequency, power or type of modulation. This class of change 
would require the manufacturer to submit a description of the software 
changes to the FCC or a designated Telecommunications Certification 
Body (TCB). The manufacturer would also be required to submit test data 
showing that the radio complies with the technical standards in our 
rules with the new software loaded. The new software could not be 
loaded into radios until the FCC or TCB notifies the manufacturer that 
the changes are acceptable. The original FCC identification number for 
the equipment could continue to be used, so no re-labeling would be 
required.
    17. We also proposed to allow an ``electronic label'' to be used on 
software defined radio transmitters as an alternative to the 
permanently affixed label the rules currently require. The equipment 
would display the FCC identification number by means of a liquid 
crystal display or similar screen.
    18. We further proposed that manufacturers must take steps to 
ensure that only software that has been approved by the FCC or a TCB 
can be loaded into a transmitter. 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.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    19. 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.
    20. We considered three alternatives to streamline the requirements 
for software defined radios, which will reduce the burden on small 
entities.
    (a) The first alternative, which we proposed in the NPRM, would 
permit changes in the frequency, power, and modulation type of a 
software defined radio to be authorized as a new class of permissive 
change. A new FCC identification number is not required for permissive 
changes, so there would be no need to re-label equipment when new 
software that changes the operating parameters is loaded. Permissive 
changes only require filing test data showing that the equipment 
complies with the applicable requirements in the rules with the new 
software. A complete application with exhibits including block 
diagrams, schematic diagrams, photographs and the users' manual is not 
required. Only the party holding the grant of equipment authorization 
my file for permissive changes.
    (b) The second alternative, which we proposed as an option in the 
NPRM, is to allow the FCC identification number to be displayed 
electronically rather than on a permanently affixed label. A major 
benefit of software defined radios will be the ability of manufacturers 
to produce radios intended to be programmed by third parties, including 
small entities, which could develop unique or specialized application 
software. The ``electronic label'' would help realize this benefit. It 
would provide a method to re-label equipment in the field without 
having to change a physical label if a new approval were obtained by a 
third party for a previously approved device.
    (c) The third alternative we considered is to allow software 
changes to be approved under the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) 
procedure. DoC is a self-approval procedure in which the manufacturer 
has the equipment tested for compliance at an accredited laboratory. 
Once the equipment has been found to comply, it may be marketed without 
any approval from the FCC or a TCB. Although this alternative would 
reduce the burden on small entities, we declined to propose it because 
we believe that most radio transmitters require a higher level of 
oversight to ensure that they comply with the rules to prevent 
interference and protect users from excessive RF radiation. Certain 
radio transmitters are already permitted to be self-approved, and we 
are not proposing any change in the authorization requirements for 
them.

[[Page 344]]

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    21. None.
    22. Accordingly, It is Ordered that pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 
307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 
154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, and 307, this Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making Is Adopted.
    23. It is Further Ordered that the Commission's Consumer 
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a copy of 
this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

47 CFR Part 2

    Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed, parts 1 and 2 of title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309.

    2. Section 1.1103 is amended by adding a new entry to the table to 
read as follows:


Sec. 1.1103  Schedule of charges for equipment authorization, 
experimental radio services, and international telecommunications 
settlements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                     FCC Form No.         Fee amount   Payment type code         Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Certification
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
f. Class III permissive changes.  731 & 159                         495  ECC                  Federal
                                                                                               Communications
                                                                                               Commission,
                                                                                               Equipment
                                                                                               Approval
                                                                                               Services, P.O.
                                                                                               Box 358315,
                                                                                               Pittsburgh, PA
                                                                                               15251-5315.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

    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.

    4. In Sec. 2.1, paragraph (c) is amended by adding the following 
definition in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1  Terms and definition.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in 
which the operating parameters of the transmitter, including the 
frequency range, modulation type and maximum radiated or conducted 
output power can be altered by making a change in software without 
making any hardware changes.
* * * * *
    5. Section 2.925 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) 
as (f) and (g), respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 2.925  Identification of equipment.

* * * * *
    (e) A software defined radio may be equipped with a means such as a 
user display screen to display the information normally contained in 
the nameplate or label. The information must be readily accessible.
* * * * *
    6. Section 2.932 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 2.932  Modification of equipment.

* * * * *
    (e) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that 
has been approved by the FCC or a TCB can be loaded into a transmitter. 
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.
    7. Section 2.1043 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 2.1043  Changes in certificated equipment.

    (a) Except for Class III permissive changes, changes to the basic 
frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or 
data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit 
or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed 
without application for and authorization of a new grant of 
certification. Variations in electrical or mechanical construction, 
other than these indicated items, are permitted provided the variations 
either do not affect the characteristics required to be reported to the 
Commission or the variations are made in compliance with the other 
provisions of this section.
    (b) Three classes of permissive changes may be made in certificated 
equipment without requiring a new application for and grant of 
certification. None of the classes of changes shall result in a change 
in identification.
    (1) A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the 
equipment which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the 
manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is 
granted. No filing with the Commission is required for a Class I 
permissive change.
    (2) A Class II permissive change includes those modifications which 
degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission 
at the time of the initial certification. Such degraded performance 
must still meet the minimum requirements of the applicable rules. When 
a Class II permissive change is made by the grantee, the grantee shall 
supply the Commission with complete information and the results of 
tests of the characteristics affected by such change. The modified 
equipment shall not be

[[Page 345]]

marketed under the existing grant of certification prior to 
acknowledgement by the Commission that the change is acceptable.
    (3) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the 
software of a software defined radio transmitter that affect the 
frequency, modulation type, output power or maximum field strength. 
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 
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.
    (4) Class III permissive changes may only be made by the original 
grantee. Class I and Class II permissive changes may only be made by 
the original grantee, except as specified further.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-63 Filed 1-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U