[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7397-7411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3240]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 90

[ET Docket No. 03-108 and ET Docket No. 00-47; FCC 03-322]


Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document we are seeking to facilitate opportunities 
for flexible, efficient, and reliable spectrum use employing cognitive 
radio technologies. We are seeking comment generally on how we should 
modify our rules to enable more effective use of cognitive radio 
technologies, including potential applications across a variety of 
scenarios involving both licensed spectrum and unlicensed devices. By 
initiating this proceeding, we recognize the importance of new 
cognitive radio technologies, which are likely to become more prevalent 
over the next few years and which hold tremendous promise in helping to 
facilitate more effective and efficient access to spectrum. We seek to 
ensure that our rules and policies do not inadvertently hinder 
development and deployment of such technologies, but instead enable a 
full realization of their potential benefits.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 3, 2004, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before June 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail: [email protected], or James 
Miller, (202) 418-7351 TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making and Order, ET Docket No. 03-108 and ET Docket 
No. 00-47, FCC 03-322, adopted December 17, 2003 and released December 
30, 2003. The full text of this document is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 
(Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 
complete text of this document also may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor,

[[Page 7398]]

Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, 
DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. 
Alternate formats are available to persons with disabilities by 
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365.
    Pursuant to Sec.Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before May 
3, 2004, and reply comments on or before June 1, 2004. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or 
by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments filed 
through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to 
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an 
electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking 
numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters 
must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the 
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in 
reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number.
    All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office 
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Filings can be 
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 
continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). 
The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 
or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The 
filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight 
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express mail, and Priority Mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order

    1. The growth of wireless services over the past several years 
demonstrates the vast and growing demand of American businesses, 
consumers, and government for spectrum-based communication links. 
Spectrum access, efficiency, and reliability have become critical 
public policy issues. Advances in technology are creating the potential 
for radio systems to use spectrum more intensively and more efficiently 
than in the past. Among these advances are cognitive radio technologies 
that can make possible more intensive and efficient spectrum use by 
licensees within their own networks, and by spectrum users sharing 
spectrum access on a negotiated or an opportunistic basis. These 
technologies include, among other things, the ability of devices to 
determine their location, sense spectrum use by neighboring devices, 
change frequency, adjust output power, and even alter transmission 
parameters and characteristics. Cognitive radio technologies open 
spectrum for use in space, time, and frequency dimensions that until 
now have been unavailable. Such technologies are employed today in 
applications such as wireless LANs and mobile wireless service 
networks, and promise greater future benefits.
    2. The ability of cognitive radio technologies to adapt a radio's 
use of spectrum to the real-time conditions of its operating 
environment offers regulators, licensees, and the public the potential 
for more flexible, efficient, and comprehensive use of available 
spectrum while reducing the risk of harmful interference. The important 
potential of these technologies emerges at a crucial time, as the 
Commission addresses increasingly more complex questions of improving 
access to and increasing usage of the finite spectrum available, while 
also seeking to maintain efficiency and reliability in spectrum use. 
The Spectrum Policy Task Force (``SPTF''), in its 2002 Report, 
concluded, among other things, that smart radio technologies can enable 
better and more intensive access to spectrum and recommended that the 
Commission strive to remove regulatory barriers to their use.
    3. We undertake this proceeding to explore all the uses of 
cognitive radio technology to facilitate the improved spectrum use made 
possible by the emergence of the powerful real-time processing 
capabilities of cognitive radio technologies. We also seek comment on 
how our rules and enforcement policies should address possible 
regulatory concerns posed by authorizing spectrum access based on a 
radio frequency (RF) device's ability to reliably gather and process 
real-time information about its RF environment or on the ability of 
device and/or users to cooperatively negotiate for spectrum access. We 
propose and seek comment on rules intended to allow a full realization 
of the potential of these technologies under all our regulatory models 
for spectrum based services.
    4. In the NPRM we first consider in some detail the technical 
capabilities that are or could be incorporated into cognitive radio 
systems and seek comment on possible additional capabilities. We then 
address several specific applications of these technologies. Among the 
various areas in which cognitive radio technologies may provide 
potential benefits are: permitting the use of higher power by 
unlicensed devices in rural or other areas of limited spectrum use, 
facilitating secondary markets in spectrum, enabling possible real-time 
frequency coordination (such as between NGSO satellite and other 
services), facilitating interoperability among different radio systems, 
and allowing for more extensive deployment of mesh networks. We finally 
consider our equipment authorization rules, and whether changes should 
be made to these rules to reflect the growing importance of cognitive 
radio technologies.
    5. In a number of areas, we propose specific rule changes to help 
enable devices using cognitive radio technologies. For instance, we set 
out a proposal under which unlicensed devices employing certain 
cognitive radio capabilities would be permitted to transmit at higher 
power levels in rural areas and other areas of limited spectrum use. We 
also include a detailed technical model for spectrum leasing based on 
cognitive radio capabilities that would assure a licensee that it would 
be able to interrupt a lessee's use and reclaim spectrum in real time 
when the need arises. Such a model would appear to be most directly 
applicable to leasing by public safety entities if we decide to permit 
such leasing, but also important to other

[[Page 7399]]

licensees interested in leasing spectrum. We also set out proposals: to 
streamline our rules that require that a copy of certain devices' radio 
software be supplied to the Commission, to clarify when devices must be 
certified under the software defined radio rules, and to allow 
unlicensed devices to automatically select their transmit frequency 
band based upon the country of operation. Finally, in light of the 
initiation of this proceeding, we are closing the Software Defined 
Radio proceeding in ET Docket No. 00-47.
    6. In the NPRM, we first explore the benefits of cognitive radio 
technology use for spectrum management and regulation and the broad 
capabilities that such technology could encompass. We intend to use 
this framework for further analysis of specific applications of this 
technology. We also seek comment and set forth proposals regarding 
specific applications: rural markets and unlicensed devices, public 
sector spectrum leasing, dynamically coordinated spectrum sharing, 
interoperability between communication systems, and mesh networks. We 
are further proposing changes to our equipment authorization processes 
to accommodate software-defined radios and cognitive radio systems.

Cognitive Radio Capabilities

    7. Cognitive radio technologies have the potential to provide a 
number of benefits that would result in increased access to spectrum 
and also make new and improved communication services available to the 
public. A cognitive radio could negotiate cooperatively with other 
spectrum users to enable more efficient sharing of spectrum. A 
cognitive radio could also identify portions of the spectrum that are 
unused at a specific time or location and transmit in such unused 
``white spaces,'' resulting in more intense, more efficient use of the 
spectrum while avoiding interference to other users. Cognitive radio 
technology could also be used to facilitate interoperability between or 
among communication systems in which frequency bands and/or 
transmission formats differ. For example, cognitive radio could select 
the appropriate operating frequency and transmission format, or it 
could act as a ``bridge'' between two systems by receiving signals at 
one frequency and format and retransmitting them at a different 
frequency and format. Cognitive radio technology can also help advance 
specific Commission policies, such as facilitating the use of secondary 
markets in spectrum and improving access to spectrum in rural areas.
    8. Cognitive radio systems can be deployed in network-centric, 
distributed, ad hoc, and mesh architectures, and serve the needs of 
both licensed and unlicensed applications. For example, cognitive 
radios can function either by employing cognitive capabilities within a 
network base station that in turn controls multiple individual handsets 
or by incorporating capabilities within individual devices.
    9. There are a number of capabilities that can be incorporated into 
cognitive radios. A first is frequency agility, which is the ability of 
a radio to change its operating frequency, combined with a method to 
dynamically select the appropriate operating frequency based on the 
sensing of signals from other transmitters or on some other method. A 
second is adaptive modulation that can modify transmission 
characteristics and waveforms to exploit opportunities to use spectrum. 
A third capability is transmit power control, which allows transmission 
at the allowable limits when necessary, but reduces the transmitter 
power to a lower level to allow greater sharing of spectrum when higher 
power operation is not necessary. A fourth capability that a cognitive 
radio could incorporate is the ability to determine its location and 
the location of other transmitters, and then select the appropriate 
operating parameters such as the power and frequency allowed at its 
location. Fifth, a cognitive radio could incorporate a mechanism that 
would enable sharing of spectrum under the terms of an agreement 
between a licensee and a third party. Parties may eventually be able to 
negotiate for spectrum use on an ad hoc or real-time basis, without the 
need for prior agreements between all parties. In addition to these 
capabilities, any SDR, including a cognitive radio, could incorporate 
security features to permit only authorized use and prevent 
unauthorized modifications. We seek comment on what other features and 
capabilities a cognitive radio could incorporate.
    10. While cognitive radios could incorporate all of the 
capabilities listed above and possibly others, the types of 
technologies that would need to be employed in a particular device 
would vary based on the frequency bands where the equipment is deployed 
and the types of services authorized to operate in those bands. 
Multiple capabilities may in all likelihood be used simultaneously in 
cognitive processing. For example, devices sensing unused spectrum may 
rely on frequency agility in selecting their band of operations and 
adaptive modulation techniques in setting the power, frequency and type 
of signal transmitted. Devices might further manage their signals with 
the location of themselves and other transmitters in mind. Negotiations 
and exchanges with other users might also occur, contributing to the 
increased efficiency and reduction of interference for all spectrum 
users. We review each of these capabilities in the NPRM and seek 
comment how cognitive radio capabilities might function together to 
achieve spectrum access, efficiency and interference mitigation. (See 
paragraphs 24 through 30 of the NPRM).
    11. We seek comment on all issues related to the application of 
cognitive radio technology, including the frequency bands and services 
that are most likely to benefit from this technology. We conclude that 
we should continue to prohibit unlicensed devices from emitting in 
designated restricted bands, which include many bands used for Federal 
Government operations, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
    12. The capabilities that can be employed in cognitive radios could 
be applied in a variety of specific applications and could bring about 
significant changes in how people approach the use of spectrum. Some 
applications could make more efficient use of spectrum and others could 
facilitate the introduction of new uses. Some applications could likely 
be introduced under existing rules, whereas other applications may 
require specific rule changes.

Application: Rural Markets and Unlicensed Devices

    13. In its Report, the Spectrum Policy Task Force recommended that 
the Commission explore ways to improve access to spectrum in rural 
areas. The Commission recently adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making 
in Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum Based Service to Rural Areas 
and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies to Provide 
Spectrum Based Services (Rural Services NPRM), 68 FR 64050, November 
11, 2003, to consider proposals for facilitating access to spectrum 
based services in rural areas. This Rural Services NPRM addresses 
licensed spectrum use, and states that the Commission will consider 
unlicensed spectrum use in rural areas in a separate proceeding. We 
note that the Rural Services NPRM seeks comment on a definition of 
rural areas.
    14. The lower population density and the greater distances between 
people in

[[Page 7400]]

rural areas can make it difficult for certain types of unlicensed 
operations at the current part 15 limits to provide adequate signal 
coverage. Such operations include Wireless Internet Service Providers 
(WISPs) and wireless LANs operated between buildings or other locations 
with a large separation between transmitters. These operations could 
potentially benefit from higher power limits in rural areas, which 
would result in greater transmission range. Because spectrum is 
generally not as intensively used in rural areas, it may be possible 
for unlicensed devices to operate at higher power levels in those areas 
without causing harmful interference to authorized services. The 
application of cognitive radio technology could help ensure that 
devices limit their higher power operation to only rural areas.
    15. Devices such as transmitters used by WISPs and wireless LANs 
often operate under the part 15 spread spectrum rules in Sec. 15.247. 
In addition, any type of operation (e.g., cordless phones, wireless 
cameras, fleet management devices) is permitted in certain bands under 
Sec. 15.249. The power limits currently permitted vary depending on the 
frequency band and in some cases the signal characteristics, such as 
the number of hopping channels for spread spectrum devices.
    16. Permitting unlicensed devices to operate at higher power levels 
in rural areas could help provide improved access to spectrum in those 
areas by permitting greater transmission range and therefore greater 
coverage areas. Accordingly, we propose to allow higher power operation 
for certain types of unlicensed devices in certain circumstances, that 
should benefit consumers in rural areas. We note that while licensed 
devices are typically licensed for use in a specified geographic area 
at a specific maximum power level, unlicensed devices generally have no 
geographic restrictions on operation and can be used in any location. 
Because spectrum use in rural areas is generally extremely low, 
measuring spectrum occupancy is a method that could potentially be used 
to determine when a device is in a rural area and is eligible to 
operate at higher power. We propose to permit higher power operation by 
unlicensed devices in any area that has limited spectrum use, provided 
the device has capabilities to determine whether it is in an area with 
limited spectrum use. This proposal will benefit persons living in 
rural areas as well as persons living in other areas that may be 
underserved by spectrum based services.
    17. We propose to implement these changes by adding a new rule 
section that applies specifically to cognitive radio devices operating 
in the industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) bands on the 
frequencies specified in Sec.Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 of the rules. This 
proposed rule section would permit higher power operation for cognitive 
devices than these sections currently allow, provided that the devices 
meet all the other requirements of Sec.Sec. 15.247 and 15.249, and that 
the devices incorporate certain features to determine that they are in 
an area with limited spectrum use. We also propose to require that 
unlicensed devices capable of higher power operation in areas of 
limited spectrum use incorporate TPC capabilities that, when the device 
is operating at greater than 1 Watt, will limit its power output to the 
minimum level necessary for reliable communications. We do not propose 
any changes to the current Sec.Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 for non-cognitive 
radio devices. The proposed rule for cognitive devices references all 
the current requirements in these sections at this time, which include 
requirements for spread spectrum systems to use specific channel 
spacings, channel bandwidths, power spectral density or number of 
hopping channels. These requirements were established to facilitate 
spectrum sharing with licensed services and between unlicensed 
operations. However, in areas where spectrum use is low, all of the 
current requirements in the spread spectrum rules to facilitate 
spectrum sharing may not be necessary due to the limited number of 
users in such areas. Because cognitive devices could determine when 
spectrum is in use and avoid transmission on those frequencies, it may 
be possible to relax some of the current requirements in the rules in 
addition to raising the maximum power for cognitive devices operated in 
areas with limited spectrum use without causing interference to other 
users.
    18. We propose to allow a transmitter power increase of up to 6 
times (approximately 8 dB) higher than the current limits in the 902-
928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands under Sec. 15.247 of 
the rules, and in the 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, 5725-5875 MHz and 
24.0-24.25 GHz bands under Sec. 15.249 of the rules. This increase is 
consistent with the Commission's recent proposal in ET Docket 03-201 to 
permit a power increase of 8 dB for spread spectrum systems using 
sectorized antennas. This proposal would increase the signal range by a 
factor of up to 2.5 and increase the coverage area by a factor of six 
as compared to the current limits, which would be particularly 
beneficial for wireless LAN and WISP uses. Specifically, the proposed 
maximum transmitter power levels or maximum field strength levels in 
areas with limited spectrum use would be:
    a. Spread Spectrum Devices (Sec. 15.247):
     6 watts for digital transmission systems and the 
following frequency hopping systems: Systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz 
band using at least 75 hopping channels, all systems in the 5725-5850 
MHz band and systems in the 902-928 MHz band using at least 50 hopping 
channels
     1.5 watts for frequency hopping systems in the 
902-928 MHz band using at least 25, but fewer than 50 hopping channels
     0.75 watts for frequency hopping systems in the 
2400-2483.5 MHz band using fewer than 75 hopping channels
    b. Unlicensed operation in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz and 24 GHz 
bands (Sec. 15.249):
     125 millivolts per meter at a distance of 3 
meters in the 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5875 MHz bands
     625 millivolts per meter at a distance of 3 
meters in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band.
    19. We note that all of the bands where higher power operation is 
proposed are allocated on a primary basis for ISM equipment, which is 
generally not susceptible to interference from other devices. However, 
each of these bands is also used by licensed services that are entitled 
to protection from interference by part 15 devices. For example, the 
902-928 MHz band is used by the Location and Monitoring Service (LMS), 
and all of these bands are used by Amateur Radio licensees. Because we 
are proposing to both limit higher power operation to areas with 
limited spectrum use and require devices to sense spectrum use before 
commencing transmissions, we believe that implementation of this 
proposal would not significantly increase the interference potential to 
licensed services that operate in one or more of the subject ISM bands. 
We seek comment on this view. We also seek comment on whether any 
particular licensed uses of these bands or portions thereof should 
receive greater protection or be excluded from this proposal?
    20. We seek comment on these proposals, including whether higher 
power operation should be permitted in all frequency bands under 
Sec.Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 of the rules, and whether there should be 
any restrictions on the

[[Page 7401]]

applications or types of devices that may operate at higher power. We 
also seek comment on whether there are any requirements currently in 
the rules that could be relaxed or eliminated for cognitive radio 
devices. For example, in addition to the requirements for spread 
spectrum devices, Sec. 15.247(h) contains a provision that prohibits 
the synchronization of the timing of hop sets in a non-cognitive way to 
prevent a group of devices from monopolizing the use of the spectrum 
and blocking other devices from transmitting. Could this section be 
eliminated for cognitive devices without adversely affecting spectrum 
sharing? We also seek comment on whether we should exempt devices 
operating under the control of a master controller from complying with 
DFS or other requirements.
    21. We further seek comment on whether higher power operation 
should be permitted for devices operating under any other sections in 
part 15. For example, Sec. 15.209 allows operation at a low level in 
almost any frequency band other than the TV bands and certain 
designated restricted bands. Should higher power operation be allowed 
under that section? We seek comment on whether the increased levels we 
are proposing are sufficient to be of benefit to WISPs, wireless LANs 
or other unlicensed operations in areas with limited spectrum use, and 
how much of an increase in service area these levels would allow in 
practice. We also seek comment on whether these power increases are 
likely to result in interference to other users, and the sufficiency of 
our proposal that TPC be used to ensure that these higher power 
unlicensed devices satisfy the applicable power limits--both inside and 
outside areas of limited spectrum use.
    22. We propose that devices operating under the new rule section 
comply with the same harmonic and out-of-band emission limits as 
devices operating under Sec.Sec. 15.247 and 15.249 of the rules. The 
current harmonic emission limits for devices operating under Sec. 
15.249 are independent of the in-band power. Theses limits are 500 
microvolts per meter at a distance of three meters for devices 
operating in the 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5875 MHz bands, 
and 2500 microvolts per meter at a distance of three meters for devices 
operating in the 24.0-24.25 GHz band. The out-of-band emission limit 
for devices operating under Sec. 15.249, 50 dB below the in-band 
emission limit, is a function of the in-band field strength. For 
devices operating under Sec. 15.247, the limit for out-of-band 
emissions that fall within designated restricted bands is also 
independent of the in-band power. However, the Section 15.247 limit for 
out-of-band emissions that fall outside restricted bands, 20 dB below 
the in-band power, is a function of the in-band power. We seek comment 
on whether we should adjust the limits so that out-of-band emissions 
from equipment operating at higher power levels are no greater than the 
current rules allow. Additionally, we note that the 2400-2483.5 MHz 
band is adjacent to the mobile satellite service downlink band at 
2483.5-2500 MHz. We seek comment on the effect that raising the power 
of unlicensed devices could have on satellite receive terminals in the 
adjacent band.
    23. Also, we note the presence of federal radiolocation operations 
in the 5725-5925 MHz frequency band. The Department of Defense operates 
fixed, transportable and mobile radars that are used primarily for 
surveillance, test range, instrumentation, airborne transponders, and 
experimental testing. These radars are used extensively in support of 
national and military test range operations in the tracking and control 
of manned and unmanned airborne vehicles. Many of the installations 
where these radars operate are located in rural areas. We seek comment 
on the potential effects of our proposal, including its cognitive radio 
safeguards, on such federal radiolocation operations.
    24. We propose that unlicensed devices be permitted to operate at 
higher power in areas with limited spectrum use. We propose that 
limited spectrum use be defined as the authorized band of operation, 
e.g., the 2400-2483.5 MHz band, having a certain percentage of spectrum 
unused. We propose to define ``unused spectrum'' for this purpose as 
spectrum with a measured aggregate noise plus interference power no 
greater than 30 dB above the calculated thermal noise floor within a 
measurement bandwidth of 1.25 MHz, which is the same value specified 
for unlicensed PCS devices. We also propose that a device must be able 
to sense across the entire authorized band of operation to determine 
spectrum occupancy before commencing transmissions at higher power. We 
seek comment on these proposals, including the specific percentage of 
spectrum that must be vacant for a band to be considered ``empty 
enough'' to allow higher power transmission. We seek comment on the 
specific 30 dB monitoring threshold level proposed in these bands. 
Because some devices that operate in the spread spectrum bands hop 
frequency and may not be on a particular frequency at a given instance 
in time, we seek comment on how long a device must sense a band of 
spectrum to determine it is unused before the device can transmit at 
higher power. We also seek comment on the type of receive antenna that 
should be used in measuring spectrum occupancy, whether the proposed 
monitoring threshold is reasonable and how wide a frequency band should 
be monitored to make this determination. We further seek comment on the 
capabilities a device needs to determine when spectrum is empty enough, 
whether the required capabilities are achievable now or in the near 
future, and whether they could be economically incorporated into 
devices.
    25. We propose to require that unlicensed devices operating at 
higher power levels continue to comply with the current RF safety 
requirements. We recognize that although it may be relatively easy for 
a WISP provider to increase its power, for instance, from a central 
base station, a user's ability to increase its power on the return path 
may be constrained due to battery or RF safety issues. However, the use 
of properly designed sectorized receive antennas, coupled with their 
inherent gain, at the central site could overcome this perceived 
limitation. We seek comment on whether there are any possible problems 
with unlicensed devices operating at higher power levels meeting the RF 
safety limits.
    26. It seems apparent that allowing some devices in a band to 
operate with higher power could block the use of lower power devices, 
resulting in a situation where certain devices would not be able to 
operate. We therefore seek comment on whether a device operating at 
higher power should have to re-sense spectrum use at periodic intervals 
to determine whether other users are attempting to transmit. If so, how 
often should it re-sense? Would such a requirement have undesirable 
effects, such as requiring a WISP to lower power or turn off 
completely, and possibly lose a connection when another device such as 
a cordless telephone comes on the air, or causing users of lower power 
devices to simply cease operating if they received interference? 
Alternatively, should there be a requirement for devices operating at a 
higher power level to shut down for some period of time at a set 
interval to allow an opportunity for other devices to access spectrum? 
If so, what would be the appropriate time intervals?
    27. We seek comment on alternative methods, such as geo-location, 
that a device could use to determine if it is in a rural area, and 
whether a combination of techniques should be required. If a

[[Page 7402]]

cognitive radio device relied on geo-location, we would defer to WTB 
Docket No. 03-202 for an appropriate definition of rural area. We seek 
comment in this docket on the positional accuracy necessary if a geo-
location technology such as GPS were used. How would a device using 
geo-location access a table or database showing where operation is 
permitted, and who would be responsible for maintaining the database? 
Should the geo-location technology be required to be incorporated 
within the device? How would the device react if it were unable to 
determine its exact position, for example, if it were to be indoors? 
Could some surrogate method, such as measuring the number of AM or FM 
broadcast signals in an area prove useful as an alternative optional 
method for identifying an area that is sparsely populated from a 
spectrum perspective where higher power operation could be permitted? 
We also seek comment on whether alternative approaches such as 
registration should be permitted to authorize operation under higher 
power limits in rural areas. Finally, we seek comment on whether there 
are any special enforcement issues when cognitive radio technologies 
are used to permit the higher power operation we have proposed.

Application: Secondary Markets

    28. We recently took several steps in the Secondary Markets Report 
and Order, 68 FR 66252, November 25, 2003 and Further NPRM (Secondary 
Markets Order), 68 FR 66232, November 25, 2003, to facilitate and 
streamline the ability of spectrum users to gain access to licensed 
spectrum by entering into spectrum leasing arrangements on reasonable 
market-driven terms between the private parties. Specifically, we 
adopted rules to remove regulatory uncertainty and establish clear 
policies and rules concerning leasing arrangements. In many Wireless 
Radio Services, licensees are now free to enter into voluntary leasing 
transactions with spectrum users seeking access to a licensee's 
spectrum. While the flexible framework facilitating spectrum leasing 
arrangements does not impose any special technical requirements or 
constraints on such transactions, in some cases these arrangements may 
be made easier through the use of emerging technologies like cognitive 
radio. As discussed in our Secondary Markets Order, the ability of 
potential spectrum lessees to identify available leasing opportunities 
and negotiate with licensees, e.g., access mechanism, is important for 
successful secondary market transactions. Also, mechanisms to ensure 
that licensees can reclaim their spectrum from spectrum lessees, e.g., 
reversion mechanisms, are an important consideration for many 
licensees. The Further NPRM portion of the Secondary Markets Order 
seeks comment on changes needed in licensing policies or in the 
provision of licensing information to facilitate development of such a 
secondary marketplace in spectrum. The Further NPRM also acknowledged 
the Commission's plans to conduct a separate proceeding on cognitive 
radio that might, inter alia, address the issue of technical 
requirements for possible leasing of public safety spectrum.
    29. Licensees and potential lessees could exchange information via 
a communication link identifying the spectrum that would be leased as 
well as the then current terms and conditions for its use. The licensee 
could, in this manner, control access to and keep track of third party 
use of leased spectrum by, for example, an exchange of ``tokens'' sent 
to the lessee's devices. Security of such transactions can be 
reinforced using technologies like the modern Public Key Infrastructure 
(PKI) mechanisms used widely by industry today. We seek comment on 
technical methods that might be used to provide information necessary 
for leasing and how a device would ``enforce'' the terms of the lease. 
Although the Commission may not need to adopt specific technical 
requirements for these mechanisms, we seek comment on whether the 
Commission could reduce uncertainties that may inhibit leasing 
transactions by encouraging voluntary technical standards for access to 
a licensee's spectrum. What approaches to facilitating spectrum leasing 
transactions could best achieve the goals of our flexible and market-
driven policies for spectrum leasing?

Interruptible Spectrum Leasing

    30. In the NPRM, we seek comment on potential mechanisms for 
lessees to access spectrum by means of cognitive radio technology that 
would provide licensees with the ability to rapidly regain the use of 
the spectrum when needed. Technology that provides licensees with 
highly reliable and near-instant access to leased spectrum could be 
beneficial to a wide variety of spectrum users, such as satellite, 
cellular, PCS and private radio network licensees, and we accordingly 
are seeking comment generally on what steps might facilitate the use of 
this technology. For instance, specifying the technical methods of 
accessing and reclaiming spectrum could benefit both licensees and 
potential lessees by standardizing equipment designs, thus lowering 
equipment, and therefore transaction, costs. An important potential 
application of this framework is to possible public safety spectrum 
leasing, where access to, as well as reliable and secure use of, 
spectrum are critical and the public interest may require strong 
technical assurances. Therefore, with respect to that particular 
application, we are seeking comment inter alia on whether, if we decide 
to permit public safety leasing, we should identify one or more 
specific technical approaches in its rules to be employed by lessees, 
either at the discretion of the public safety licensee or on a 
mandatory basis under our rules.
    31. We focus here on technical measures for ensuring return of 
spectrum to the primary licensee under pre-designated conditions. 
Cognitive radio technologies can be used both to identify spectrum that 
is available for leased use and to ensure that it reverts to the 
licensee under the prescribed conditions. In particular, we set forth 
the details of a ``beacon'' approach that would ensure that licensees 
would retain real-time access to their leased spectrum. Of course, the 
beacon and other approaches described in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the 
NPRM are not necessarily the only ones that could facilitate leased 
access to spectrum while providing licensees with the ability to 
reclaim it quickly with ultra-high reliability. We therefore seek 
comment on other methods that could achieve the same goals, and how 
these methods should be reflected in our rules.
    32. We seek particular comment on the beacon approach, which 
appears to provide the reliability necessary for some leasing 
arrangements, and can incorporate features needed for secure access, 
yet offers reasonable cost and acceptable complexity to implement and 
maintain. For example, applying this approach to a public safety 
leasing scenario, the public safety licensee would have control of the 
beacon and thus could directly regain control of the spectrum when 
needed. The beacon approach also allows a licensee to incorporate both 
access and reversion techniques into a technical solution, if it so 
desires. The lessee's device would have to incorporate the capability 
to check for the beacon signal at prescribed intervals. If the lessee's 
transmitter failed to receive a properly authenticated beacon signal 
for a prescribed time period, it would be programmed to assume access 
is no longer authorized and would cease use of the leased spectrum. The 
licensee would have the ability to reclaim the

[[Page 7403]]

use of its spectrum after the prescribed listening period. In addition, 
the licensee's access, return, or reversion of its spectrum would not 
be impeded by unfavorable signal propagation because no explicit order 
to the lessee is necessary to terminate the lessee's use.
    33. We also seek comment on how information about permissible 
leased uses of spectrum could be exchanged via a technical mechanism, 
such as a beacon signal, and on the cognitive capabilities that 
equipment used by a lessee must have, such as DFS, TPC and geo-location 
determination, to work with the chosen technical mechanism. For 
example, the negotiation of spectrum leasing opportunities would most 
likely require information about spectrum availability, e.g., which 
channels, scope of authorized service area, and the characteristics of 
the spectrum available, e.g., modulation, power limits. Other necessary 
information might include the amount of spectrum available, its 
expected duration, and perhaps its cost. Different technical 
information would be needed depending on the nature of the service, 
frequency bands employed, minimum acceptable quality of service 
requirements, and other characteristics of licensed and leased spectrum 
users. We recognize that some of this information might be provided in 
the negotiation of a long-term leasing agreement. However, cognitive 
radio technology could be designed to allow licensees to make this 
information available on a real-time basis and allow automated 
negotiation of the terms of leased access. In any case, any access 
mechanism would have to be consistent with the legal framework 
providing for secondary market transactions in spectrum that we adopt 
in our separate proceeding on secondary markets.
    34. We seek comment on technical methods that might be used by a 
beacon approach, including those associated with a real-time automated 
negotiation of leased use rights. In this regard, we describe below 
several specific technical proposals for a beacon mechanism and the 
equipment that could be used by the spectrum lessees. As noted above, 
the beacon need not necessarily be in the form of an RF signal, but 
could be a physical connection like fiber, copper or coaxial cable and 
achieve the same results because the key factor of the beacon is the 
presence of the encrypted signal controlled by the licensee. First, 
under our proposal, the beacon signal would be sent either constantly 
or no less frequently than once per second so equipment used by lessees 
will be able to quickly detect the absence of an authorized beacon 
signal. Second, to protect against unauthorized use of spectrum, the 
beacon would contain information on the channel(s) available to prevent 
unauthorized use of channels by lessees. In addition, the beacon would 
include the time of day and an electronic signature to prevent 
``spoofing,'' whereby an unauthorized third-party originates a rogue 
beacon signal or retransmits an earlier beacon signal. The beacon's 
electronic signature should be sufficiently robust to make generating a 
rogue signal extremely difficult, e.g., use 128-bit encryption, but we 
seek comment on what level of security would be needed to protect 
against unauthorized use. While we seek comment on the need for the 
Commission to define the technical requirements of beacon signatures in 
order to avoid possible harm from licensees using duplicitous 
signatures, we recognize that ongoing industry efforts towards 
standards, such as for public safety communications, might address such 
issues without need for regulatory oversight. We also seek comment 
whether multiple beacons should be required in the event that a 
licensee wishes to make multiple channels or frequency bands available 
to multiple lessees.
    35. Under such a beacon proposal, cognitive devices used by 
spectrum lessees could incorporate these and other technical safeguards 
to ensure that use of the spectrum by the licensee would not be 
compromised. For example, devices would be capable of frequency agility 
to allow operation only on the channels or frequencies designated as 
available by the licensee and avoid operation on any other frequencies. 
We seek comment on other approaches that might be used to constrain 
leased use to authorized channels. We thus seek comment on all of the 
proposals regarding access/reversion and on alternatives that may 
provide similar levels of reliability, security, and implementation 
complexity.
    36. Public Safety Leasing. In addition to seeking comment on the 
application of technical access/reversion models to possible public 
safety leasing, we also seek comment here on particular technical 
issues that would appear to have particular relevance to possible 
public safety leasing. For example, would changes in modulation type or 
other parameters as opposed to a cessation of transmission be 
sufficient in the event a public safety licensee needs to reclaim 
spectrum? We also anticipate that transmitters operated on leased 
public safety frequencies would incorporate TPC so the public safety 
licensee could specify the appropriate operating power, and would be 
programmed to detect a properly authenticated public safety beacon 
within two seconds or cease use of the leased spectrum. We seek comment 
on these proposals, as well as on alternatives to the proposed signal 
and reversion times that could offer acceptable reversion capability to 
the public safety licensee. Additionally, other cognitive radio 
technologies may offer alternative approaches to the proposed beacon 
approach. We seek comment on any alternatives that may also achieve our 
goals, e.g., reliability, security, rapid reversion, etc., for public 
safety spectrum leasing.
    37. The speed with which a public safety licensee can reclaim 
access to its licensed spectrum will be an important consideration in 
any reliable public safety reversion mechanism. In many instances, 
public safety use, for example, may not spike within a few seconds in 
response to emergencies but is more likely to grow at a rapid non-
linear rate. Under such usage, instantaneous reversion may be 
unnecessary, and an appropriate reversion return time may be 
identified. We seek comment on whether and how cognitive radio 
technologies could be employed to permit the ``tiering'' of leased 
channels, which could make some channels available under a system with 
fast turnaround and other channels with slower turnaround. We also seek 
comment on public safety use and what appropriate minimums for time to 
return and at what rates are needed from usage patterns. We seek 
comment on whether beacon technology would best be implemented in 
multiple-channel trunked base stations; and whether one or more 
channels in such base stations could serve the beacon function. We also 
seek comment on how use of beacon-based technology could guard against 
interference when, on occasion, radios in a given system operate in the 
direct mode, i.e., a mobile or portable radio communicating directly 
with another mobile or portable radio without the signals going through 
the base station.
    38. We also seek comment specifically on how the goals for public 
safety access to spectrum should be achieved, including any alternative 
features that proposed technical solutions should employ, and on other 
considerations important to addressing the technical aspects of public 
safety spectrum leasing transactions. In this regard, we recognize that 
although public safety licensees would want to retain control of any 
cognitive based technology used to ensure the reversion of leased

[[Page 7404]]

spectrum, the acquisition of the technology may be funded by lessee(s), 
subject to the terms of a negotiated lease.
    39. Although these specific issues may be of particular import to 
possible public safety leasing, we also seek comment on them in the 
context of interruptible leasing by licensees other than public safety 
entities.
    40. Other Issues. We also seek comment on how to ensure that 
lessees of spectrum do not inadvertently transmit outside the 
licensee's authorized area and cause harm to other users. In general, 
we assume that a beacon transmitting in a licensed public safety 
frequency band at the same power level normally used in the band would 
provide coverage over the public safety entity's licensed area. This 
should act as a safeguard against lessee operation beyond the licensed 
service area because the lessee's radio will not be able to receive the 
beacon beyond a certain distance. However, because the coverage area of 
a beacon may not precisely match the licensee's service area and could 
extend beyond the service area, it may be possible for a lessee to 
receive a beacon signal outside the authorized service area. We seek 
comment on whether there are technical mechanisms that could be used to 
ensure that lessees operate only within the geographic limitations of 
the license.

Other Applications of Cognitive Radio Technology

Dynamically Coordinated Spectrum Sharing

    41. Coordination of Licensed Operations. Under current policies, 
co-frequency spectrum sharing among licensed services is usually 
accomplished with formalized procedures. These ``prior coordination'' 
procedures generally require applicants and licensees to identify and 
address the interference potential of their proposed spectrum use with 
incumbent users in an engineering analysis performed prior to filing an 
application. Typically these engineering analyses are based on ``worst 
case'' assumptions, even if the ``worst case'' occurs relatively 
infrequently. Prior coordination approaches are generally practical and 
spectrally efficient when sharing conditions do not change 
significantly over time. Prior coordinated sharing in the C-Band 
between GSO FSS and terrestrial fixed services (FS) did not result in 
significant underutilized spectrum because early GSO earth stations 
operated with a limited number of transponders on a single satellite 
and both the earth station and the FS facilities' directionality 
remained constant. Today GSO earth stations are usually coordinated for 
more than one satellite orbit position and transponder configuration, 
often called ``full-band, full-arc'' to support business models that 
supply satellite capacity on demand, such as with ``teleport'' 
providers, and also ensure systems can rapidly respond to satellite 
failures without interference. Such coordination scenarios may offer 
opportunities for dynamically coordinated spectrum reuse. (See 
discussion in paragraphs 70 through 72 in the NPRM).
    42. We seek comment on ways that we may encourage the use of 
dynamic coordination approaches. For example, what incentives or 
regulatory frameworks for dynamic coordination approaches might 
facilitate satellite and terrestrial coordinated sharing. What 
coordination procedures would be appropriate for terrestrial to 
terrestrial sharing? Could satellite providers employ a spectrum 
reversion mechanism discussed above to permit real-time coordinated use 
without unreasonable risk of interference to their operations? Would 
financial incentives encouraging dynamic coordination approaches be 
warranted? Could our secondary market spectrum leasing provide a 
framework for such financial incentives? Would explicitly making 
dynamic coordination an option in our existing coordination procedures 
be in the public interest?

Facilitating Interoperability Between Communication Systems

    43. An important focus of the Commission has been the facilitation 
of interoperability among non-federal public safety entities. Cognitive 
radio technologies offer urgently needed solutions to the increasingly 
crucial interoperability demands facing first-responders and other 
licensed users. The Act and our rules currently provide a regulatory 
framework for interoperability. This framework includes various 
Commission efforts to facilitate interoperability between non-federal 
entities at the national, regional, state-wide and local level. Also of 
importance is interoperability between non-federal public safety 
entities and federal government first responders. Cognitive radio 
technologies addressed in this proceeding offer a new means of reducing 
risks to safety of life and national security by increasing the 
opportunities for first responders interoperability.
    44. Both industry and government bodies are actively addressing the 
complex issues posed by the need for interoperable communication 
between public safety entities. The Public Safety National Coordination 
Committee (NCC) recently made recommendations on interoperability and 
other related issues in their report to the Commission. The 
Commission's Office of Homeland Security is also exploring potential 
changes to the Commission's technical rules, policies, procedures, or 
practices that would facilitate development of cognitive radio 
technology to enhance public safety communications.
    45. Cognitive radio devices' capability to automatically or with 
some user input identify systems and users that need bridging, could 
facilitate interoperability under our existing regulatory framework. 
Devices capable of sensing and identifying signals could dynamically 
respond to new jurisdictions seeking to deploy interoperable systems. 
Devices could, in real time, adapt waveforms received from one system 
and change their modulation formats (such as APCO25 to FM) and 
frequencies and facilitate interoperability with other systems. For 
example, during their response to the Pentagon attack, Arlington County 
Fire's ability to communicate with firemen reporting from other 
jurisdiction would not have been limited to their supply of radios to 
distribute. A device could simply have bridged communications from any 
jurisdictions arriving with their own radios. Cognitive radio devices 
could also be used to connect to password protected databases available 
for public safety use that could help identify the kinds of frequencies 
and waveforms that dynamic interoperability would need to bridge. 
Devices could also perform this interoperability bridging using 
encryption technology when secure communications are required. Such a 
feature might be very useful for federal entities utilizing secure 
communications systems that assume responsibility for coordinating 
rescue and response efforts. FBI entities who assume control of 
coordinating such efforts may need to bridge from secure communication 
systems in order to communicate with certain non-federal entities. 
Cognitive radios may also contribute to the provision of E911 by 
providing a bridge between systems using different air interfaces to 
provide wireless E911 services. We seek comment on how cognitive radio 
technologies can facilitate interoperability between systems. We also 
seek comment on any rule changes necessary to take advantage of these 
benefits for interoperability between systems. We also seek comment on 
how

[[Page 7405]]

cognitive radio technologies can provide support to wireless E911 
services.

Mesh Networks

    46. Emerging technologies, such as ``mesh'' networks, rely on each 
node in an RF network to collect and disseminate information and 
optimize spectrum use by relaying messages through the RF network. We 
seek comment on the application of this technology and possible rule 
changes needed to facilitate the use of these technologies.
    47. In a mesh network, each transmitter interacts on a peer-to-peer 
basis with other nearby transmitters, while also sending and receiving 
messages mimicking a router that relays messages to and from 
neighboring transmitters. Through this relaying process, a message can 
be routed through other transmitters to its destination based on the 
current conditions of the network. The received power at an antenna is 
reduced as the distance from a transmitter increases, and thus more 
power is required to transmit to a receiver farther away. Mesh networks 
function by ``whispering'' at low power to a neighbor rather than 
``yelling'' at a high-power to a node far away. This approach may be 
spectrally more efficient than simply transmitting directly to a 
desired receiver at some distance and provide for better sharing 
scenarios. We seek comment how such techniques could be applied to 
facilitate our goals of improved spectrum sharing.
    48. Mesh networks can allow radio use to expand to areas beyond the 
reach of network base stations, yet enable multiple users to avoid 
interference to each other. This capability could make it possible to 
deploy operations in areas where line of site is obstructed or 
unavailable and the propagation characteristics of the band would 
otherwise require unobstructed line of site. For example, such a 
capability could be helpful for both licensed and unlicensed operations 
in the microwave bands where common obstructions such as trees limit 
the ability to deploy services with low power. We seek comment how this 
technology might serve our efforts to facilitate broadband 
communication services to consumers, and any rule changes that might be 
necessary. We also seek comment on the impact that mesh networks will 
have on the aggregate interference to licensed services.
    49. The ability of mesh networks to ``self-heal'' by responding to 
failures in the network may offer important benefits for ensuring 
network reliability. If one link in a mesh network fails, a message can 
be routed to its destination through alternate links. In this way all 
transmissions from the nodes of a mesh network operate in coordinated 
manner, in the same manner that Internet routers intelligently respond 
to outages by routing traffic around failures. We seek comment on how 
such capabilities could improve the reliability of wireless operations.

SDR and Cognitive Radio Equipment Authorization Rule Changes

    50. Although the SDR rules were adopted over two years ago, to date 
no manufacturers have filed applications to certify a device under our 
new SDR rules. However, devices have been certified that would meet the 
Commission's broad definition of an SDR, but the manufacturer did not 
choose to declare them as such at the time of certification. We, 
therefore, do not know whether these devices incorporate features to 
prevent unauthorized changes to the operating parameters because there 
is no requirement to incorporate security features in a transmitter 
that is not declared as an SDR. Thus, we are concerned about the 
potential for parties to make unauthorized changes to software 
programmable radios after they are manufactured and first sold which 
could result in harmful interference to authorized services. Further, 
we note that manufacturers are now developing transmitters that are 
``partitioned'' into two or more physical sections connected by wires, 
where one section houses the control software and another contains the 
RF transmission functions. We, therefore, believe it is time to revisit 
the SDR rules to determine if changes are needed concerning whether the 
SDR rules should be permissive or mandatory, the types of security 
features that an SDR must incorporate, and the approval process for 
SDRs that are contained in modular transmitters.

Proposals for Part 2 Rule Changes

    51. Submission of radio software. The rules require the applicant, 
grantee, or other party responsible for compliance of an SDR to submit 
a copy of the software source code that controls the device's radio 
frequency operating parameters to the Commission upon request. This 
requirement is analogous to the requirement to supply photographs and 
circuit diagrams for hardware based devices and was added to assist in 
enforcement by allowing the Commission's staff to obtain information it 
could examine to determine if unauthorized changes had been made.
    52. Because of the expected complexity and variations in the 
programming languages of the software used to control radio operating 
parameters, examining radio software is unlikely to be an effective way 
to determine whether unauthorized changes have been made to a device. 
Source code generally cannot be directly compared to the software 
loaded within a device because the source code is compiled before 
loading and additional changes to the code may be made in the loading 
process. Even if there were a way to compare software, manufacturers 
are permitted to make changes to the software that have no effect on 
the operating parameters at any time without notice to the Commission, 
and it could prove difficult for the Commission's staff to determine 
whether such changes affect the compliance of a device. A high level 
description of the radio software and flow diagram of how it works 
would be more useful in understanding the operation of a device than a 
copy of the software. We therefore propose to delete the requirement 
that grantees or applicants supply a copy of their radio software upon 
request, and propose to add a less burdensome requirement that 
applicants supply a description and flow diagram of the software that 
controls the radio operating parameters. The existing requirement in 
the rules that certified equipment must comply with the applicable 
technical rules appears to be a sufficient safeguard against 
unauthorized changes to equipment. Further, the rules require that an 
applicant or grantee supply a sample of a device to the Commission upon 
request that we can test to determine if a device is compliant. 
Grantees are also required to maintain records of equipment 
specifications and any changes that may affect compliance, which must 
be made available for inspection by the Commission.
    53. Applicability of SDR Rules. The current rules allow a 
manufacturer to declare that a particular radio is an SDR when the 
application for equipment authorization is filed, but currently do not 
require this declaration. By not declaring a radio as an SDR, the 
manufacturer is not required to incorporate the necessary security 
features to ensure that only software that is part of an approved 
hardware/software combination can be loaded. This means that a radio 
can be potentially modifiable, and perhaps easily so, to operate with 
parameters not permitted by the rules, or to operate outside those that 
were approved for the device, thus increasing the risk of

[[Page 7406]]

interference to authorized radio services. However, not all radios that 
meet the broad definition of an SDR are easily modifiable after 
manufacture. We seek comment on the need for a requirement that 
manufacturers/importers declare certain equipment as SDRs, including 
the benefits of such a requirement in reducing interference and its 
possible burdens on manufacturers. We also seek comment on the types of 
devices to which this requirement should apply, including how the rules 
should distinguish between transmitters that must be identified as SDRs 
and those that need not be. Our goal for such a requirement is to 
minimize the possibility of unauthorized operation of software 
programmable radios, yet avoid imposing new requirements on 
manufacturers whose equipment meet the definition of SDR but are 
designed in a manner such that the transmission control software is not 
easily modified. For example, should we require that transmitters into 
which software can be loaded to change the operating parameters after 
manufacture be declared as SDRs, and that they comply with the 
requirements for SDRs, including incorporation of a means to prevent 
unauthorized software changes? Should this requirement apply to 
transmitters in which the software can be modified through means such 
as a physical interface to a personal computer or other device, an 
over-the-air download, use of a keypad or buttons on the device, or by 
replacing a board, card or chip that is not permanently attached to the 
device? Should this requirement apply to radios that can only be 
reprogrammed by the manufacturer or service center using proprietary 
software that has some form of security protection?
    54. We further seek comment on whether a requirement to declare 
certain devices as SDRs should apply to transmitter modules. The 
Commission recently proposed in a separate proceeding providing 
manufacturers additional flexibility for authorization of transmitter 
modules that are partitioned into separate radio front ends and 
firmware provided they use digital keys to ensure that only a radio 
front end and firmware that have been certified together may operate 
together. Would the proposed partitioning and digital key requirements 
for transmitter modules be sufficient to protect against unauthorized 
software modifications of modules and eliminate the need to require 
modules to be declared as SDRs?
    55. Equipment used by amateur radio operators is generally exempt 
from a certification requirement. We have maintained this policy to 
encourage innovation and experimentation in the Amateur Radio Service. 
However, we are concerned that it may be possible for parties to modify 
SDRs marketed as amateur equipment to operate in frequencies bands not 
allocated to the Amateur Radio Service if appropriate security measures 
are not employed. However, we do not wish to prevent licensed amateurs 
from building or modifying equipment, including SDRs that operate only 
in amateur bands in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, we propose 
that manufactured SDRs that are designed to operate solely in amateur 
bands are exempt from the mandatory declaration and certification 
requirements, provided the equipment incorporates features in hardware 
to prevent operation outside of amateur bands. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    56. At present there is a clear distinction between radio 
transmitter technology, regulated under Sec. 2.801(a) of our rules and 
various radio service rules, and personal computer technology, 
regulated in a much less restrictive way under Subpart B of part 15 of 
our rules. However, increasing computer speeds and speeds of digital-
to-analog converters (DAC) may well blur this distinction. A general 
purpose computer capable of outputting digital samples at rates in the 
million sample/seconds range or higher could be connected to a general 
purpose high-power, high-speed DAC card which could effectively 
function as a radio transmitter. The marketing of such computers, DACs, 
and software to make them interact could undermine our present 
equipment authorization program at the risk of increasing interference 
to legitimate spectrum users since none of them would be subject to the 
normal authorization requirements. At present this is not a problem, 
but we wish to consider modest steps now to help ensure that this 
scenario does not become a serious problem.
    57. While such high-speed DACs are presently marketed to the 
scientific community at high unit costs, we are not aware of any which 
are marketed as consumer items. We seek comment on whether we need to 
restrict the mass marketing of high-speed DACs that could be diverted 
for use as radio transmitters and whether we can do so without 
adversely affecting other uses of such computer peripherals or the 
marketing of computer peripherals that cannot be misused. We seek 
comment on one possible approach as well as welcoming alternative 
proposals. Would it make sense to require that digital-to-analog 
converters marketed as computer peripherals that (1) operate at more 
than one million digital input samples/second, (2) have output power 
levels greater than 100 mW and, (3) have an output connector for the 
analog output be limited in marketing to commercial, industrial and 
business users as we require for Class A digital devices? Would it be 
preferable to characterize such systems in terms of output frequency 
and bandwidth rather than input sampling rate? What sampling rate and 
power limits would be needed to avoid impacting DACs that might have a 
legitimate consumer use such as, for video systems and other media 
applications? Is there a practical way to incorporate security features 
that would limit the frequency range or other operating parameters of 
these devices? We also seek comment on the specific types of devices 
that would be affected and the potential burden on manufacturers.
    58. Security and authentication requirements. The rules require 
that manufacturers take steps to ensure that only software that is part 
of an approved hardware/software combination can be loaded into an SDR. 
The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with 
frequencies, output power, modulation types or other parameters outside 
the range 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. In adopting these requirements, the Commission stated 
that it may have to specify more detailed security requirements at a 
later date as SDR technology develops.
    59. We seek comment on whether any modifications are necessary to 
the security and authentication requirements in the rules. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether the current rules provide 
adequate safeguards against unauthorized modifications to SDRs. We also 
seek comment on whether more explicit security requirements are 
necessary, such as requiring electronic signatures in software to 
verify the software's authenticity. We further seek comment on what 
should happen in the event that reasonable security methods ultimately 
are broken. Should there be limits to a manufacturer's responsibility 
if, for example, the manufacturer follows an accepted industry standard 
for security? If manufacturers' responsibility is limited, how would 
the Commission enforce its rules, e.g., if interference occurs, against 
the users of unauthorized software or the creators/

[[Page 7407]]

distributors of unauthorized software? At least one party has proposed 
rule changes to clarify how a manufacturer can comply with the 
requirements of Sec. 2.932(e) of our rules, and to define the standard 
of care to be applied. We seek comment whether defining compliance 
using ``commercially reasonable measures,'' or some other standard, 
such as ``industry accepted practice,'' would appropriately balance our 
goals for ensuring compliance with our rules and burdens on 
manufacturers. As described, device with cognitive capabilities may be 
subject to new forms of abuse to which other devices are not 
susceptible. Of course, devices with cognitive capabilities would 
generally require certification by the Commission, and thus are subject 
to the marketing and use restrictions of Sec. 2.803. We seek comment on 
how we can enable the use of cognitive radio technologies, but prevent 
abuses. Are there features that could be incorporated into devices to 
help detect attempts to physically tamper with spectrum sensing and 
geo-location technologies built into devices? Could devices be designed 
to detect alterations to control software or databases and cease 
operation if such alterations are detected?

Proposals for Part 15 Rule Changes

    60. Automatic frequency selection for unlicensed devices. Many 
frequency bands where unlicensed operation is permitted are not 
harmonized worldwide. For example, in the United States, unlicensed 
operation is permitted in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band, while in other 
countries operation is permitted in the 2400-2500 MHz band. The 2483.5-
2500 MHz band is used for the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) in the 
United States and is a restricted band under part 15, therefore 
unlicensed devices are not permitted to transmit in that band to 
prevent interference to the MSS. Unlicensed transmitters are now being 
manufactured in which the frequency range of operation can be software 
selectable. However, a transmitter can not be approved in the United 
States unless it is capable of complying with the technical 
requirements of the rule part under which it will be operated. 
Therefore, an unlicensed transmitter that is capable of operation 
outside permitted bands of operation under part 15 of the rules cannot 
be certified for operation in the United States.
    61. Manufacturers would like the ability to certify devices to 
operate over a wider frequency range than is permitted in the United 
States, provided the devices incorporate some sort of technology that 
selects the appropriate operating frequency ranges based on the country 
in which they are used. A device could limit its operation to 
authorized frequencies when used in the United States, but could 
operate on additional frequencies as permitted in other countries. This 
approach could allow the production of devices that could be used 
worldwide, or at least in a number of different countries, and 
eliminate the need for manufacturers to produce multiple versions of a 
device for use in different countries.
    62. Allowing certification of frequency selectable wireless devices 
could benefit consumers and manufacturers by reducing production costs 
and allowing production of devices that can be used in both the United 
States and other countries. We therefore propose to allow certification 
of part 15 devices that are capable of operating on non-part 15 
frequencies. We propose to require that such devices incorporate DFS to 
select the appropriate operating frequency based on the country of 
operation and must operate on only part 15 frequencies when used in the 
United States. In addition, we propose that such devices must 
incorporate a means to determine the country of operation. There are 
several methods that a device could use to make this determination. One 
is to incorporate geo-location capability, such as GPS, combined with a 
database, to determine the device's geographic location. Alternatively, 
a device could rely on information provided by another device to 
determine the country of operation or the permissible frequency band. 
For example, a device such as a wireless LAN card could rely on a 
network access point to select the appropriate operating frequency 
band. Under that scenario, it would be necessary to assure that the 
network access point is capable of determining its location and 
communicating that information to a connected device. We seek comment 
on this proposal; in particular, the means that a device should employ 
to determine its country of operation and select the appropriate 
operating frequency range. Are there methods other than the ones 
described above that could be employed? How should a device respond if 
it is unable to determine its geographic location? If the frequency 
band or country of operation is determined by an external device such 
as a network access point, what specific requirements should apply to 
different types of devices used in a system such as wireless LAN cards 
and network access points? We also seek comment on how to assure that 
users cannot select an unauthorized frequency range or easily modify 
devices to operate in unauthorized frequency ranges. Consistent with 
our proposals above, we seek comment on whether devices in which the 
operating frequency range can be selected through software should be 
required to be declared as SDRs, and therefore required to meet the 
security and authentication requirements for SDRs to prevent 
unauthorized modifications.

Pre-Certification Testing Requirements for Cognitive Radios

    63. Transmitters must be tested to show compliance with the 
applicable technical requirements before they can be certified. For 
unlicensed transmitters, both the technical requirements and the test 
procedures are specified in part 15 of the rules. For transmitters used 
in licensed services, the technical requirements are contained in the 
rule part for a particular service, and the test procedures are 
specified in part 2 of the rules. The types of tests specified in these 
procedures include field strength, output power, spurious emissions, 
occupied bandwidth and frequency stability. We seek comment on the new 
types of tests that will be required in two broad areas--unlicensed and 
licensed transmitters.
    64. Tests required for unlicensed devices. We are proposing to 
allow unlicensed transmitters to operate at higher power levels in 
areas with limited spectrum use. In order to make the determination as 
to when higher power operation is permissible, the transmitter must 
have the ability to scan the spectrum to determine occupancy. To verify 
whether a device has the capabilities that we ultimately decide are 
necessary, there are potentially a number of specific tests that may 
have to be performed on a specific device. These tests would include:
     Determine the frequency range that can be 
scanned by device.
     Measure the scanning resolution bandwidth.
     Determine the sensitivity of the scanning 
receiver used to examine spectrum occupancy.
     Test the ability of the device to correctly 
determine spectrum occupancy based on presence of various standardized 
input test signals.
     Determine time period to monitor before 
declaring that the spectrum is not occupied.
     Ensure transmitter power control adjusts to the 
correct level.
     Time to revisit a portion of the spectrum to 
ensure that it is still unused.

[[Page 7408]]

     Response time to vacate a portion of the 
spectrum when it is determined that the spectrum is being used.
    65. We seek comment on the above tests as well as on any other 
tests that may be needed to assure compliance by unlicensed devices 
with the SDR and any new cognitive radio rules, as well as a more 
detailed description of the measurement procedures that could be used. 
For testing a device's response to various standardized input signals, 
we seek comment on the frequencies, types and levels of the signals 
that should be used. Should there be a series of input signal tests 
required, and if so, what should they be? We also seek comment on 
whether the Commission should develop such test procedures or whether 
they should be developed through an industry standards organization 
such as ANSI.
    66. Tests required for interruptible radios. We previously 
discussed that cognitive radios could conceivably share spectrum with 
other services, such as public safety or commercial users. Such sharing 
could be facilitated by use of a reversion mechanism, as proposed for 
public safety frequencies, that causes the cognitive radio to cease 
transmission when the primary user of the spectrum needs to use it. The 
reversion mechanism could be the loss of a beacon signal or there could 
be some other control signal telling the cognitive radio to cease 
transmission. In order to assure that the reversion mechanism works 
properly, certain new tests may be needed for radios using one of these 
technologies. We seek comment on the testing criteria may be 
appropriate for an RF beacon based system. Likewise, we seek comment on 
what testing criteria may be appropriate for beacon systems whose 
signal is not delivered over the air. We seek comment on whether these 
tests are appropriate, and whether additional tests should be required:
     Ability of the radio to sense a beacon or other 
control signal on the appropriate frequency or from another source.
     Minimum receive sensitivity for the control 
signal.
     Response time to vacate channel when beacon 
signal is lost or other control signal orders cessation of 
transmission.
    67. Other required tests specific to cognitive radios. In addition 
to the specific cases described above, there may be a need to establish 
a more general framework for testing cognitive radios. We seek comment 
on the need for the following tests for different types of cognitive 
radio technology.
    68. Listen-before-talk systems scan one or more frequency ranges to 
determine whether there are any other users present before 
transmission. The following tests may be appropriate for listen-before-
talk systems:
     Determining the frequency band that is scanned 
by device.
     Measuring the scanning resolution bandwidth.
     Sensitivity of the scanning receiver used to 
determine spectrum occupancy.
     Ability of the device to select an operating 
frequency and power level based the presence of various standardized 
test input signals.
     Determine time period to monitor before 
declaring that the spectrum is not occupied.
     Time to revisit a portion of the spectrum to 
ensure that it is still unused.
     Response time to vacate a portion of the 
spectrum when it is determined that the spectrum is being used.

We seek comment on the need for these tests and on any other tests that 
may be needed for listen-before-talk systems. For testing a device's 
response to various standardized input signals, we seek comment on the 
frequencies, types and levels of the signals that should be used. 
Should we require a series of input signal tests, and if so, how many?
    69. Geo-location systems use GPS or some other method to determine 
the transmitter's location. A database can be used to determine the 
transmitter's proximity to other devices that need to be protected from 
interference. The following tests may be necessary for devices that use 
geo-location. We seek comment on the need for these tests and for any 
other tests that may be required for radios that incorporate geo-
location technology:
     Ability to correctly identify its location based 
on GPS or some other method.
     Ability to access database to correctly 
determine location and authorized operating parameters of other 
transmitters in the vicinity.
     Device response when geo-location signal is lost 
or can not be found.
    70. Cognitive radios may allow transmissions using new or novel 
formats. For example, it may be possible to divide a signal so 
transmissions occur simultaneously using multiple non-contiguous 
frequency blocks. Such waveforms could potentially result in more 
efficient use of spectrum by allowing small unused blocks of spectrum 
to be ``combined'' into larger, more useful blocks of spectrum. 
However, this type of technology raises some novel measurement issues 
because the Commission did not envision its use when developed the 
rules. We therefore seek comment on the following questions related to 
this technology.
     How should the transmit power be measured to 
determine compliance with the power limits? Should the measurement be 
of the power per channel, the total power over all channels, or some 
other measurement?
     How can the bandwidth be measured?
     How should the modulation type be defined?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    71. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 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 on the NPRM provided in paragraph 11 of 
the NRPM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    72. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we propose several 
changes to parts 2, 15, 90 and other parts of the rules. Specifically, 
we propose to:
    (1) Eliminate the requirement for applicants and grantees of 
equipment authorization to supply a copy of the software that controls 
the operating parameters of a software defined radio, but add a new 
requirement that applicants for equipment authorization supply a 
description and flow diagram showing how the radio software operates
    (2) Require that certain radios that meet the definition of a 
software defined radio must be declared as such at the time of filing 
the certification application, and that they must incorporate a means 
to prevent unauthorized software changes that could change the 
operating parameters of the radio.
    (3) Permit certification of wireless LAN cards that incorporate 
additional

[[Page 7409]]

frequency bands for use in other countries, but limit their operation 
to authorized frequencies in the United States,
    (4) Permit certain unlicensed devices to operate at higher power 
levels in areas with limited spectrum use;
    (5) Allow equipment to be developed that could allow public safety 
entities to lease spectrum on a temporary basis but reclaim it 
immediately when necessary.
    73. These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to 
manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who 
provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a 
growing number of wireless internet service providers (WISPs) are using 
unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve the needs of 
consumers. WISPs around the country are providing an alternative high-
speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to 
arrive. The higher power limits proposed herein will help to foster a 
viable last mile solution for delivering Internet services, other data 
applications, or even video and voice services to underserved, rural, 
or isolated communities.
    74. These proposals could also benefit public sector entities by 
allowing the development of ``smart'' equipment that could enable the 
leasing of public sector spectrum to generate needed revenue, but would 
contain safeguards that allow the spectrum to be reclaimed by the 
public sector entity in the event of an emergency.

B. Legal Basis

    75. 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 amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 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

    76. 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.\3\ 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.\4\ 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).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \4\ Id. 601(3).
    \5\ Id. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturers
    77. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities 
applicable to unlicensed communications devices manufacturers. 
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition application to 
manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications 
Equipment. Under the SBA's regulations, a Radio and Television 
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturer must 
have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business 
concern.\6\ Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,215 U.S. 
establishments that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and 
wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of these 
establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as 
small entities.\7\ The remaining 65 establishments have 500 or more 
employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have 
fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that there are at least 
1,150 small manufacturers of radio and television broadcasting and 
wireless communications equipment, and possibly there are more that 
operate with more than 500 but fewer than 750 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
    \7\ Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series--
Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The 
amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small 
business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499 
employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees 
existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to 
calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WISPs and Other Wireless Telecommunication Service Providers
    78. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunication, which consists of all 
such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.\8\ According to Census 
Bureau data for 1997, in this category there was a total of 977 firms 
that operated for the entire year.\9\ Of this total, 965 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more.\10\ Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (changed from 513322 in 
October 2002).
    \9\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of 
Organization), ``Table 5, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000).
    \10\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have 1,500 or fewer employees; the 
largest category provided is ``Firms with 1,000 employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    79. Both licensed and unlicensed transmitters are already required 
to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure as a 
prerequisite to marketing and importation, and the proposals in this 
proceeding would not change that requirement. There would, however, be 
several changes to the compliance requirements.
    80. Software defined radios in which the software can be easily 
changed after manufacture would have to be declared as software defined 
radios at the time the application for certification is filed. This 
would be a change from the current process, in which declaring a device 
as a software defined radio is optional. A software defined radio must 
incorporate security features to prevent unauthorized software changes 
that affect the operating parameters, and the applicant must describe 
them in the certification application. We do not expect that this would 
be a significant compliance burden because manufacturers of radios that 
would be affected by this requirement generally already take steps to 
ensure the security of the radio software.
    81. Unlicensed transmitters that would be permitted to operate at 
higher power in rural and other areas with limited spectrum would have 
to incorporate sensing capabilities to ensure that higher power 
operations could occur only in areas where it is permitted. The 
applicant for certification would have to demonstrate in the 
application that the equipment meets the requirements.

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

    82. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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 and 
reporting requirements

[[Page 7410]]

under the rule for such 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.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. If the rules proposed in this notice are adopted, we believe 
they would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities because the rules will impose the following costs: 
(1) Compliance with equipment technical requirements, such as 
incorporating cognitive capabilities into devices capable of higher 
power or multi-band operation or using a beacon or other mechanism to 
enable leased use of spectrum, and (2) compliance with reporting 
requirements, such as declaring certain radios as software defined 
radios and supplying certain information about the equipment to the 
Commission. However, the burdens for complying with the proposed rules 
would be the same for both large and small entities. Therefore, there 
would be no differential and adverse impact on smaller entities. 
Further, the proposals in this NPRM are beneficial to both large and 
small entities. Because we believe that the economic impact of the 
proposed rules on smaller entities would be, in this setting, 
beneficial rather than adverse, we believe it would be premature to 
consider specific alternatives to the proposed rules. However, we 
solicit comment on any such alternatives commenters may wish to suggest 
for the purpose of facilitating the Commission's intention to minimize 
any adverse impact on smaller entities.

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

    84. None.

Ordering Clauses

    85. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 
303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is 
hereby adopted.
    86. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, ET Docket No. 00-47 is 
terminated.
    87. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 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 in 47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 90

    Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2, 15 and 90 to read as 
follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303 and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.

    2. Section 2.944 is revised to read as follows.


Sec. 2.944  Submission of radio software description.

    Applications for certification of software defined radios must 
include a description and flow diagram of the software that controls 
the radio frequency operating parameters.
    3. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(12), (b)(13) 
and (c)(17) to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1033  Application for certification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (12) Applications for certification of software defined radios must 
include the information required by Sec.Sec. 2.932(e) and 2.944.
    (13) Applications for certification of radios operated pursuant to 
Sec. 90.xxx must demonstrate compliance with the requirements in Sec. 
90.yyy.
    (c) * * *
    (17) Applications for certification of software defined radios must 
include the information required by Sec.Sec. 2.932(e) and 2.944.
* * * * *

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

    4. The authority citation of part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.

    5. Add Sec. 15.202 to read as follows:


Sec. 15.202  Certified operating frequency range.

    Certification may be obtained for a device that is capable of 
operating on frequencies not permitted by this part, provided the 
device incorporates DFS and operates on only United States frequencies 
when operated in the United States.
    6. Add Sec. 15.206 to read as follows:


Sec. 15.206  Cognitive radio devices.

    (a) Devices operating under the provisions of Sec. 15.247 may 
operate with a power level six times greater than the maximum permitted 
in these sections under the conditions specified in paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (b) Devices operating under the provisions of Sec. 15.249 may 
operate with a field strength level 2.5 higher than the maximum 
permitted in this section under the conditions specified in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (c) Intentional radiators operating may operate at the higher power 
limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section subject to 
the following conditions:
    (1) Devices must incorporate a mechanism for monitoring the entire 
band that its transmissions are permitted to occupy.
    (2) Devices must monitor for signals exceeding a monitoring 
threshold of 30 dB above the thermal noise power within a measurement 
bandwidth of 1.25 MHz.
    (3) Devices may operate at higher power if signals exceeding the 
monitoring threshold are detected in less than XX% of the band in which 
they are permitted to operate.
    (4) Devices must incorporate transmit power control to limit their 
power output to no greater than the maximum normally permitted in 
Sec.Sec. 15.247 or 15.249 when the criteria in paragraph (c)(3) is not 
met or when higher power operation is not necessary for reliable 
communications.

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

    7. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

    8. Add Sec. 90.xxx to read as follows:


Sec. 90.XXX  Secondary Leasing of a Public Safety License.

    Secondary Leasing of a Public Safety License shall operate subject 
to the following minimum reversion technical requirements:
    (1) Devices operating under this rule must employ mechanisms for 
the immediate, reliable, and secure preemption by and reversion to the

[[Page 7411]]

primary public safety licensee. Devices must employ such mechanisms as 
required to ensure they operate lawfully and in compliance with the 
leasing agreements authorized in this part.
    (2) Devices employing a Beacon Signal Detector mechanism as 
provided in Sec. xx.xxx of this part shall be in compliance with the 
minimum reversion technical requirements of this rule.
    9. Add Sec. 90.yyy to read as follows:


Sec. 90.yyy  Technical Requirements: Beacon Signal Detector Leasing 
Operations.

    Operations conducted under the rules governing secondary leasing 
agreements in Sec. xx.xxx of this part may operate subject to a beacon 
system satisfying the following criteria:
    (1) Public Safety licensees shall transmit a beacon signal no less 
frequently than once per second specifying the frequency or frequencies 
available for use, the time of day and a secure identifying signature 
of the Public Safety Licensee Leasor.
    (2) Devices operating under Sec. xx.xxx of this part must detect 
the Public Safety Licensee's beacon signal or cease operations within 
two seconds. Devices must also incorporate a means to select the 
transmission frequency specified in the Public Safety Licensee's beacon 
signal.

[FR Doc. 04-3240 Filed 2-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P