Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | ET Docket No. 00-47          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Authorization and Use of         | ** |                              |
| Software Defined Radios          |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**FIRST Report and Order**

**Adopted: September 13, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  By this action, we amend Part 2 of our rules to create a new class
    of equipment for software defined radios (SDRs) with streamlined
    equipment authorization procedures. We anticipate that software
    defined radio technology will allow manufacturers to develop
    reconfigurable transmitters or transceivers that can be
    multi-service, multi-standard, multi-mode, and multi-band.
    Specifically, we are amending our equipment authorization rules to
    permit equipment manufacturers to make changes in the frequency,
    power and modulation parameters of such radios without the need to
    file a new equipment authorization application with the Commission.
    We will also permit electronic labeling so that a third party may
    modify a radio\'s technical parameters without having to return it
    to the manufacturer for re-labeling. These changes will facilitate
    the deployment and use of this promising new technology, which we
    believe will facilitate more efficient use of the spectrum.

# BACKGROUND

2.  Traditionally, radio transmitters must be approved for a specific
    set of technical parameters, including operating frequencies, output
    power, and types of radio frequency emissions. If any of these
    parameters are changed, the rules have required the grantee to apply
    for a new approval and wait until the approval is issued before the
    unit may be marketed with the changes.[^1] Those rules were
    developed to address radio characteristics defined by hardware where
    actual physical changes to equipment were necessary to change
    operating parameters.

3.  In comparison, in a software defined radio, operating parameters
    such as the frequency and modulation type are determined by
    software. The software generates a stream of digital data
    representing the desired radio signal, which is then converted to
    the actual radio signal that is transmitted.[^2] The fact that these
    parameters are determined by software means that a software defined
    radio could be programmed to transmit and receive on any frequency
    and to use any desired transmission format within the limits of its
    hardware design. This affords the user substantial flexibility to
    operate in multiple radio services consistent with the Commission's
    operating and service rules. The operating parameters of a software
    defined radio could be altered in the field by a software change.
    This is a significant technological advancement from traditional
    radios where technical characteristics are fixed at the time of
    manufacture and subsequently cannot be easily modified. However,
    this programmability requires changes to our equipment authorization
    rules to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the increased
    flexibility in software defined radios while ensuring that such
    equipment complies with our technical requirements.

4.  In March 2000, the Commission issued a *Notice of Inquiry* seeking
    information from the public on a number of issues raised by the
    development of software defined radios.[^3] Subsequently, in
    December 2000, the Commission issued a *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* (*Notice*) that proposed to define software defined radios
    as a new class of equipment and to simplify the authorization
    requirements for such equipment.[^4] Fourteen parties filed comments
    in response to the *Notice*, and eight parties filed reply comments.
    A list of parties responding is included in Appendix B.

# Discussion

5.  Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that it is desirable to
    revise our equipment authorization rules to accommodate the
    flexibility offered by software defined radios. The ability of
    software defined radios to be reprogrammed to new operating
    parameters in the field could have far reaching implications for the
    way the Commission allocates and licenses spectrum and authorizes
    radio equipment. Software defined radios could allow more efficient
    use of spectrum by facilitating spectrum sharing and by allowing
    equipment to be reprogrammed to more efficient modulation types.
    Their ability to be programmed could also enhance interoperability
    between different radio services. We find that it is possible to
    provide this flexibility in a manner that will ensure that software
    defined radios operate in compliance with the rules for the service
    in which they will operate. We therefore are adopting a definition
    of software defined radio and a streamlined procedure for making
    changes to the operating parameters of software defined radios. We
    are also adopting rules to permit electronic labeling of software
    defined radios and to require manufacturers to take steps to prevent
    unauthorized software modifications. These changes will provide
    greater flexibility to manufacturers to facilitate the deployment of
    software defined radios while fulfilling our statutory requirement
    to protect the public from harmful interference.[^5] We will
    consider additional rule changes in the future as software defined
    radio technology advances.

## Definition of Software Defined Radio

6.  The *Notice* proposed to define a software defined radio, for
    regulatory purposes, as "...a radio that includes a transmitter in
    which the operating parameters of the transmitter, including the
    frequency range, modulation type or maximum radiated or conducted
    output power can be altered by making a change in software without
    making any hardware changes."[^6] We indicated that this definition
    was not intended to cover devices that use software simply to
    control functions such as power or frequency within a range approved
    by the Commission.[^7] Receivers would not be covered under this
    definition.[^8]

7.  A number of parties recommended changes to our proposed definition
    of software defined radio. For example, Hypres, the SDR Forum and
    AirNet believe that the frequency range, modulation type and output
    power should [all]{.underline} be software programmable for a radio
    to be classified as a software defined radio.[^9] Motorola and the
    SDR Forum believe that a radio must be programmable in the field to
    be classified as a software defined radio.[^10] The SDR Forum
    recommends including radios that use software to reconfigure
    existing firmware or hardware logic in the definition, while
    Cingular recommends excluding from the definition radios that use
    software simply to switch between different hardware defined power
    or frequency parameters.[^11] Motorola believes that certain
    hardware changes such as installing memory containing new software
    should be permitted under the definition.[^12] Nortel believes that
    the definition should take into account different levels of
    software, such as software, middleware and firmware. AirNet believes
    that the definition should provide a clearer and more concise
    interpretation of what constitutes a software change and a hardware
    change.[^13] Cingular and NTIA believe that the definition of a
    software defined radio should include receivers because radios often
    have both transmit and receive capabilities.[^14]

8.  Based on the comments received, we are adopting the following
    regulatory definition for software defined radio that requires that
    at least one of the three operating parameters of frequency,
    modulation type or output power be software programmable. Our
    purpose in adopting this expansive definition of software defined
    radio is to foster development of this promising technology and to
    enable manufacturers to take advantage of the streamlined equipment
    authorization process, if they so desire.[^15]

> *Software Defined Radio.* A radio that includes a transmitter in which
> the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or
> maximum output power (either radiated or conducted) can be altered by
> making a change in software without making any changes to hardware
> components that affect the radio frequency emissions.

As suggested by Motorola and the SDR Forum, changes such as the
installation of memory modules and the reconfiguration of existing
hardware or firmware logic would be permitted under this definition. We
find that such changes should not exclude a radio from being considered
software definable. However, we disagree that the definition needs to
take into account different levels of software as suggested by Nortel,
because that would make the definition unnecessarily complicated. We
decline to require a radio to be programmable in the field for it to be
classified as a software defined radio. This could limit manufacturers'
flexibility to make software definable radios that can be re-programmed
to different operating modes post-manufacture at the factory but that
are not intended for field re-programming. We also decline to include
receivers in the definition for software defined radios. Receivers are
subject to manufacturer's self-approval and have a relatively low
potential for interference to radio services, so there is no need for
the same regulatory changes for receivers that there is for
transmitters.

## Authorization Requirements

9.  As noted above, the rules currently require most radio transmitters
    to be approved by the Commission or a designated Telecommunication
    Certification Body (TCB) before they may be marketed. When changes
    are made to the operating frequencies, output power, or types of
    radio frequency emissions of an authorized transmitter, the grantee
    is required to apply for a new approval and wait until the approval
    is issued before the equipment may be marketed with the
    changes.[^16]

10. The rules allow two classes of "permissive changes" for authorized
    equipment without requiring a new approval. [^17] Class I permissive
    changes include modifications that do not degrade the RF emissions
    from a device at the time of initial certification and do not
    require any filing with the Commission.[^18] Class II permissive
    changes include modifications other than frequency, modulation or
    power that degrade the RF emissions from a device reported at the
    time of the initial certification.[^19] Class II changes are
    authorized through a streamlined filing procedure that does not
    require the filing of a complete application form with all exhibits
    normally required for a new approval. Instead, the applicant simply
    files a description of the changes and measurement results showing
    the changed equipment continues to comply with the rules.

11. The transmitter authorization rules were developed at a time when
    transmitters were hardware based. At that time, changes to the
    frequency, modulation type, and power output of a transmitter were
    performed by making changes to the layout and physical components of
    electronic circuits. Such changes essentially resulted in a new
    device, so we required a complete new application form with all
    exhibits and required a new identification number on the device.
    However, in a software defined radio, changes to these operating
    parameters can be accomplished through a software change with no
    change in hardware. Requiring manufacturers to obtain a new approval
    for equipment when changes are made only to the software is
    unnecessarily burdensome because a new identification number must be
    used and the equipment already in the field may have to be recalled
    for re-labeling by the manufacturer. Therefore, we proposed in the
    *Notice* to develop a more streamlined authorization procedure for
    changes to the operating parameters of software defined radios.[^20]

### Class III permissive change

12. We proposed that any changes in frequency, power, or modulation type
    of a software defined radio may be authorized as a new class of
    permissive change, which we proposed to designate as Class III. This
    would streamline the filing procedure for changes to approved
    software defined radios and would eliminate the need for a new
    identification number. We also proposed to require that the
    applicant for a Class III change submit test data showing that the
    equipment complies with the applicable requirements for the
    service(s) or rule parts under which the equipment will operate with
    the new software. The applicant would have to demonstrate compliance
    with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The Commission would
    notify the applicant when a permissive change is granted. Once a
    Class III permissive change was granted for a software defined radio
    with changes that affect the operating parameters, the new software
    could be loaded into units in the field. The record in the
    Commission's database for each authorized device would be amended to
    show the approved frequency range(s), power and modulation type(s)
    as it does now. Additional frequency ranges or other new technical
    parameters would be added to the database record for an
    authorization when a permissive change is granted.

13. The comments generally support the proposed new Class III permissive
    change, although some parties recommend specific changes or
    clarifications to certain aspects of our proposal.[^21] The SDR
    Forum believes that allowing Class III changes would be a major
    improvement over the current rules.[^22] Motorola states that the
    proposed Class III change can enable a more dynamic environment for
    changes than originally envisioned, while at the same time ensuring
    that interference and safety concerns are not compromised.[^23] API
    believes that the proposed Class III change is sound and provides
    greater workability than alternative filing procedures.[^24]
    However, Nortel believes that we should allow software defined
    radios to be approved under the Declaration of Conformity (DoC)
    procedure.[^25] AirNet states it is not clear how the Class III
    change will streamline the authorization process because the testing
    and demonstrating compliance provisions appear to be the same as the
    original certification.[^26]

14. We conclude that the proposed Class III change will benefit
    manufacturers by streamlining the equipment approval process.
    Manufacturers will no longer need to file a complete application
    form or much of the information required with a new certification
    application, which includes photographs, circuit diagrams and a
    description of the equipment.[^27] In addition, permissive changes
    to existing equipment are processed on a faster track than new
    certifications. We find that the proposed Class III permissive
    change strikes the appropriate balance between reducing the
    regulatory burden on manufacturers and protecting the public from
    interference and safety hazards from radio equipment. Accordingly,
    we are adopting the Class III permissive change for software defined
    radios.[^28] Additional issues related to this new permissive change
    are discussed below.

15. We find that self-approval is not appropriate for software defined
    radios at this time. As we stated in the *Notice*, equipment is
    generally placed in the self-approval category after the Commission
    has gained some assurance that manufacturers can and do produce
    equipment that complies with the rules.[^29] Given the early state
    of software defined radio technology, some experience with the
    equipment is necessary before we can determine whether self-approval
    is appropriate. We expect to re-evaluate the appropriateness of
    allowing manufacturers' self-approval for software defined radios in
    a future proceeding.

### Identification as a software defined radio.

16. The *Notice* proposed that Class III changes would only be permitted
    for a transmitter that was identified as a software defined radio in
    the original application for certification.[^30] The purpose of this
    proposal was to identify which devices would be subject to the new
    rules. Motorola believes that Class III changes should be permitted
    to any capable radio without having required an original declaration
    as a software defined radio because it would eliminate concerns over
    the precise definition of the equipment.[^31] Nortel believes that
    the Commission should develop a mechanism to reclassify previously
    approved devices as software defined radios even if they were not
    originally identified as such.

17. We will require the applicant to identify a software defined radio
    at the time an original application is filed in order for it to be
    eligible for Class III permissive changes. This will allow the
    application reviewer to determine which requirements the equipment
    must meet, such as the security features and labeling discussed
    below, and whether the applicant has demonstrated compliance with
    them. When applying for a Class III permissive change, the applicant
    must reference the initial declaration. We decline to establish a
    mechanism to reclassify previously approved devices as software
    defined radios. We find that such an approach would unnecessarily
    complicate the application process. Furthermore, additional
    supplementary information for existing equipment would have to be
    filed in any event. We note, however, that this approach would not
    prohibit the filing of a new request for an authorization as a
    software defined radio, permitting the device to be subsequently
    eligible for Class III permissive changes.

### Third party permissive changes

18. We proposed to allow only the party holding the grant of equipment
    authorization for a software defined radio to file for a Class III
    permissive change.[^32] The reason is that the party holding the
    grant of equipment authorization, which is indicated by the
    identification number, is responsible for ensuring that equipment
    complies with the rules.[^33] When a permissive change is made, the
    same identification number is used, indicating that the same party
    continues to be responsible for compliance with the rules. Allowing
    other parties to make permissive changes could result in questions
    of which party is liable if the changed equipment is subsequently
    found to be non-compliant.

19. Hypres, Nortel, Elite, Intel, Clearwire and the SDR Forum believe
    that the Commission should allow Class III permissive changes by
    third parties.[^34] Hypres states that allowing parties other than
    the grantee to make changes will allow software developers to port
    their software to new hardware platforms without going through the
    manufacturer of each product.[^35] Intel believes that the benefit
    of Class III changes will come in the enabling of thousands of
    independent developers, not simply easing the restrictions on the
    one original manufacturer.[^36] The SDR Forum states that the
    Commission should not bar third parties from filing for Class III
    changes because that decision should be made in the marketplace
    rather than the regulations.[^37] However, Motorola believes there
    are many potential problems in allowing third parties to make
    software changes, such as if the original manufacturer were to make
    hardware changes at a different time than a third party made
    software changes.[^38] AT&T believes that Class III permissive
    changes should be limited to the original grantee to ensure that no
    unauthorized modifications are made.[^39] Intel and the SDR Forum
    are concerned that our proposed rules could be interpreted to mean
    that third parties could not change application software in a radio
    that does not affect the radio frequency emissions.[^40]

20. We adopt our proposal to allow Class III changes to be requested
    only by the grantee of equipment authorization to eliminate
    ambiguities about which party is responsible for the compliance of a
    device. This approach would not preclude third parties from being
    able to modify software defined radios in the field. We agree with
    the comments that it is desirable to provide a means to allow third
    parties to develop new and innovative software for software defined
    radios. This can be accomplished in two ways. First, the original
    grantee may authorize a third party to file an application with the
    Commission on its behalf as we permit now.[^41] The original grantee
    would continue to be responsible for the continued compliance of the
    device. The second way is for a third party to obtain a new
    identification number for a device and become the party responsible
    for its compliance. The new identification number can be placed on
    the equipment through electronic labeling as discussed below. The
    rules we are adopting allow any party to install or make changes to
    application or other software in a radio that does not affect the
    authorized operating parameters.[^42]

### Combined hardware and software changes

21. We proposed to allow Class III permissive changes only for equipment
    in which no hardware changes have been made from the originally
    approved device because this would eliminate ambiguity about which
    hardware and software combinations have been approved.[^43] However,
    the *Notice* sought comments on whether we should allow a
    combination of hardware and software permissive changes in a single
    device.[^44]

22. Some parties believe that combinations of hardware and software
    changes should be permitted.[^45] Motorola recommends that we allow
    a Class III change to reflect concurrent changes to both software
    and hardware, when the hardware does not degrade desired, or
    increase undesired, emissions.[^46] Motorola also recommends that
    Class III changes be permitted to a radio that has previously
    undergone a Class II change in hardware.[^47] Nortel believes that
    allowing associated changes to hardware along with a Class III
    change may be necessary to obtain the best efficiencies that SDR
    systems have to offer, particularly in the early years of software
    defined radio development.[^48] However, other parties believe that
    Class III changes should only be permitted on equipment that has had
    no hardware changes since the original approval.[^49] API believes
    that combined hardware and software changes should not be permitted
    to protect users from combinations of changes that could have
    unknown or dangerous effects.[^50] FLEWUG and AirNet agree that our
    proposal would eliminate ambiguity about which hardware and software
    combinations have been approved.[^51] NTIA and Elite believe that
    Class III changes should not be permitted on equipment that has had
    hardware changes until the Commission has gained experience with
    this type of change.[^52]

23. We will permit combinations of Class III permissive changes and
    Class I permissive changes to hardware in a single device. Class I
    changes do not degrade the radio frequency emissions from a device,
    so allowing such combinations of hardware and software changes
    should not cause any compliance problems. However, at this time we
    will not permit Class III changes to be combined with Class II
    hardware changes that could affect radio frequency emissions. This
    could cause ambiguity in which combinations of hardware and software
    are approved in a radio, making enforcement of the rules difficult.
    Also, as some comments noted, combinations of changes made at
    different times could have unknown effects on the interference
    potential and RF safety of a radio. In addition, we question whether
    a radio in which any hardware changes are necessary to change
    operating parameters should even be considered a software defined
    radio. However, we will consider revisiting this issue as the
    Commission and industry gain greater experience with software
    defined radios.

### Limit on the number of hardware and software combinations

24. The *Notice* sought comment on whether we should limit the number of
    hardware and software combinations permitted under a single
    authorization.[^53] We noted that some transmitters are tested with
    multiple antennas to ensure they will comply in every configuration
    in which they will be used, and that allowing software variations
    could increase the number of hardware and software combinations
    existing under a single approval.[^54] Motorola and Clearwire
    believe that no limit should be placed on the number of hardware and
    software combinations included under a single approval.[^55]
    Motorola states that this would tend to inhibit common platforms
    that support a large variety of software configurations.[^56]
    However, API believes that the number of Class III changes for a
    single device should be limited to aid the Commission in policing
    compliance with the rules.[^57]

25. We agree with the commenting parties who argue that no limit should
    be placed on the number of hardware and software combinations. Such
    limits could inhibit common hardware platforms. We have no reason to
    expect that such a large number of combinations will exist for a
    particular device that a determination of compliance would be
    difficult. As noted above, we will not permit hardware changes that
    degrade the operating parameters to be made after the initial
    approval, which will help limit the number of hardware/software
    combinations under a single approval. We will continue to monitor
    this area and revisit this issue in the future if warranted.

### Copy of radio software

26. The *Notice* sought comments on whether there is a need for
    applicants to submit a copy of radio software to the Commission. API
    believes that there is a need to supply software for analysis and
    enforcement purposes.[^58] Clearwire believes that the applicant
    should submit either the software or unique identification
    information for the software with the Commission. However, Hypres,
    Motorola, Nortel and AirNet do not believe supplying a copy of the
    software is necessary.[^59] Nortel states that review of the code
    would be difficult and a burden on the Commission.[^60] AirNet is
    concerned that the software could reveal trade secrets, discourage
    manufacturers from designating equipment as software defined radios,
    and be a burden for the Commission to keep confidential.[^61]

27. Review of software code by the staff would be difficult and time
    consuming and would not necessarily assist in determining whether a
    device complies with the rules. We believe that obtaining a copy of
    the code from an applicant would not be necessary for determining
    compliance in the great majority of cases. Accordingly, we will not
    routinely require applicants to supply a copy of the radio software.
    However, we believe cases may arise wherein the staff may need to
    examine the software code used in a device as part of determining
    its compliance. We therefore may require the submission of software
    code on request.[^62]

### Filing fees

28. The *Notice* proposed to apply the filing fee for certification of
    transmitters used in licensed services to the new Class III
    permissive changes to reflect the staff time required to process
    these changes.[^63] AirNet states that the filing fee should be
    reflective of the streamlined process.[^64] Nortel notes that even
    under the streamlined procedures, the Commission will be required to
    perform various tasks, including reviewing filings and updating
    databases, and that the filing fees would ensure that the Commission
    has adequate resources to timely conduct the necessary reviews and
    approvals.[^65]

29. While the filing procedure for permissive changes has been
    streamlined, Commission staff is still required to perform a
    technical review of the test data for compliance with the rules. We
    are therefore adopting the fee we proposed for Class III permissive
    changes. This fee reflects the expected review time for Class III
    changes and is the same as we require for approval of transmitters
    used in licensed services. Where a radio will operate under multiple
    rule parts, requiring increased review time, we will charge multiple
    fees as currently set out in the rules.[^66]

## Software Modifications

30. We tentatively concluded in the *Notice* that a means will be
    necessary to avoid unauthorized modifications to software that could
    affect the compliance of a radio. Because groups such as the SDR
    Forum and ETSI are still in the process of developing standards for
    encryption and digital signatures that could be used in software
    defined radios, we declined to propose specific requirements for
    authentication. Instead, we proposed a more general requirement that
    manufacturers take steps to ensure that only software that is part
    of a hardware/software combination approved by the Commission or a
    TCB can be loaded into a radio.[^67] The radio software must not
    allow users to operate the radio with frequencies, output power,
    modulation types or other parameters outside of those that were
    approved. We proposed to allow manufacturers to use any appropriate
    means to meet these requirements and require them to describe the
    methods in the application for equipment authorization. [^68]

31. The comments generally agreed with our proposals regarding software
    modifications. For example, the SDR Forum supports requiring
    equipment manufacturers to guard against unauthorized downloads,
    while leaving the choice of the specific method up to the
    manufacturer.[^69] Intel states that the Commission appropriately
    refrains from proposing specific requirements for authentication and
    that the market can be expected to continue to develop solutions to
    maintain the integrity of wireless networks.[^70] Clearwire believes
    that the manufacturer should be responsible for ensuring that
    unauthorized parties cannot modify the software.[^71] Hypres does
    not believe it is necessary for the Commission to make detailed
    rules about the security system to be used, only that the system is
    described in the application for certification.[^72] Cingular wants
    the rules to expressly state that Commission approval can only be
    obtained upon a showing that unauthorized software modifications
    cannot be made, and that the authorization should be conditioned
    upon the continued integrity of the authentication or security
    system.[^73] AirNet believes that manufacturers should have
    sufficient leeway to tailor authentication and security efforts to
    their specific needs.[^74] NTIA believes that the Commission, in
    coordination with industry representatives, should examine security
    features such as authentication protocols that could be used to
    prevent unauthorized modifications to RF parameters.[^75]

32. We find that a means is necessary to ensure that software changes
    cannot be made to a radio that will cause it to operate with
    parameters outside of those that were approved in order to prevent
    interference to authorized radio services. We decline to set
    specific security or authentication requirements at this time
    because they could hinder the development of the technology used to
    provide such security and could have the potential to be unduly
    burdensome on manufacturers. We note that industry groups are still
    in the process of developing security standards. We continue to
    believe that the best approach is to rely on a general requirement
    that manufacturers take adequate steps to prevent unauthorized
    changes to the software that drives their equipment. This will allow
    manufacturers flexibility to develop innovative software defined
    transmitting equipment while at the same time providing for
    oversight of the adequacy of such steps through the equipment
    authorization process. Accordingly, we are adopting the proposal in
    the *Notice* that manufacturers must take steps to prevent
    unauthorized software changes to a software defined radio. The
    precise methods of ensuring the integrity of the software in a radio
    will be left to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer must document
    the methods in the application for equipment authorization. However,
    it is possible that we may have to specify more detailed security
    requirements at a later date as software defined radio technology
    develops. Our intent is to focus on results that security efforts
    should achieve rather than the means that must be used. The SDR
    Forum has indicated that it is continuing to develop methods for the
    security and authentication of radio software and that it will
    report its findings to the Commission.[^76] We will consider further
    input from industry and other government agencies in determining
    whether more detailed security requirements are necessary. We
    encourage all interested parties to submit relevant information
    within one year of adoption of this order.

## Labeling

33. A major benefit of software defined radios will be the ability of
    manufacturers to produce radios intended to be programmed by third
    parties with unique or specialized software. To help realize this
    benefit, we proposed an option that would allow software defined
    radios to be equipped with an "electronic label" to display the FCC
    identification number by means of a light emitting diode (LED)
    display, a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other similar
    method.[^77] This would provide a method to re-label equipment in
    the field if a new approval were obtained by a third party for a
    previously approved device. We requested comments on whether there
    is a need for this capability, the means that should be required for
    accessing the information, and the information to be displayed.[^78]

### Need for electronic labeling

34. The SDR Forum supports electronic labeling because such labeling
    would avoid the need for expensive and inefficient physical
    labeling.[^79] API also supports electronic labeling, arguing that
    end users would benefit from the ability to modify equipment labels
    in the field.[^80] Motorola states that electronic labeling would
    simplify the process of delivering new products to market and would
    allow more information to be accessed than can be printed on a
    physical label.[^81] In addition, several parties support permitting
    electronic labeling for equipment other than software defined
    radios.[^82] However, Clearwire does not believe that electronic
    labels showing multiple FCC identification numbers are the best
    solution for showing which modes of operation are authorized for a
    particular radio. It believes that a single FCC identification
    number should be used for each hardware implementation, and that a
    publicly available database should list the software versions,
    operating parameters and parties responsible for the software.[^83]

35. We will permit electronic labeling for software defined radios as
    proposed. This option will avoid the need for physical re-labeling
    of equipment when a party other than the original grantee makes
    changes to the radio software. We do not agree with Clearwire's
    proposal to require only a single identification number on each
    device. As we stated above, the FCC identification number is the
    indicator of which party is responsible for the compliance of a
    device and we have determined that only the original grantee may
    make changes to the operating parameters under the original
    identification number. At this time, we are only permitting
    electronic labeling for software defined radios.

### Type of display

36. Several parties believe that we should allow means other than an LED
    or LCD screen for displaying the labeling information. Motorola
    believes that electronic labeling could take the form of a visible
    display device or an alternative means of extracting the
    information, such as a terminal.[^84] Nortel believes that we should
    allow technologies such as web-based tools to display the label
    information.[^85] Hypres does not believe it is feasible to
    incorporate a display on every software defined radio in a system
    because units may be mounted in closed cabinets. It believes that we
    should permit the identification numbers to be displayed on a
    central screen or remotely over the air.[^86] AirNet states that
    there is a need for a means to display the identification
    information of equipment without integrated LED or LCD
    displays.[^87] NTIA believes that any form of electronic labeling
    should be visible when the power is removed from the equipment.[^88]

37. We are limiting electronic labeling to software defined radios with
    an LED, LCD or similar display device at this time because it would
    be significantly more difficult to an investigator or user to obtain
    the label information through a remote terminal or other device. As
    proposed, we are requiring that the electronic label be readily
    accessible, which could include, for example, a menu option or a
    hotkey. Additionally, the user manual must include information on
    how to access the electronic label. We are not requiring that the
    electronic labeling be visible when the power, such as the battery
    pack, is removed from the device. This would burden manufacturers by
    requiring them to install a backup battery and possibly additional
    switches and circuitry to display the identification information.

### Information to be displayed

38. Cingular believes that electronic labels should display the FCC
    identification number, and that the display should change
    automatically based upon the hardware and software installed.[^89]
    The SDR Forum believes that nothing about the required
    identification information should change, other than the means of
    display.[^90] NTIA believes that all the information currently
    required on the label could be made available on the user display
    screen.[^91] NTIA also wants the Commission to make clear what other
    information must be included on the electronic label, such as the
    authorized emissions or other regulated radio parameters.[^92]

39. We agree with Cingular and will only require that the FCC
    identification number(s) associated with the software running in the
    radio be displayed on the electronic label. The other information
    that NTIA suggested including on the label is already in the
    Commission's database under the FCC identification number. The
    database is available to the public through our Internet site, so we
    do not believe it is not necessary to require information on the
    operating parameters on the electronic label.[^93] Manufacturers may
    design their equipment to display any additional information they
    wish beyond what we require.

## Other Matters

### Testing

40. We tentatively concluded in the *Notice* that software defined radio
    technology has not matured to the point where it is possible to
    predict the radio frequency characteristics of a radio from either
    the hardware or software alone.[^94] Therefore, we proposed that
    each combination of hardware and software that a radio supports
    should be tested because it is the only way to ensure that equipment
    complies with the technical standards in our rules to prevent
    interference and to protect users from excessive RF radiation. We
    anticipated that testing each hardware/software combination that
    will be used in a software defined radio would be no more burdensome
    than testing each mode in which a radio operates, which is the
    existing process.

41. Motorola agrees that hardware and software should be tested together
    to ensure compliance with the emission requirements, and that such
    testing is no more burdensome than the current policies for
    multi-mode, multi-band devices.[^95] NTIA, Cingular and Elite also
    believe that hardware/software combinations should be tested for
    approval to ensure that equipment complies with the rules.[^96] NTIA
    wants the proposed rules clarified on whether all possible
    combinations of installed software need to be tested and how the
    removal of software will be addressed.[^97] Hypres believes that
    testing each hardware/software combination is a reasonable initial
    approach, but that changes will be necessary as hardware and
    software offerings proliferate.[^98] However, Vanu believes that
    testing each hardware/software combination could be burdensome.[^99]
    It states that a software defined radio could be divided
    functionally into a transmitter unit that generates the
    radiofrequency signal and a separate hardware regulated signal
    processing unit that provides the baseband signal to the
    transmitter.[^100] Vanu proposes that only the software that
    controls the transmit hardware be tested and that the signal
    processing software need not be evaluated.[^101]

42. As proposed, we will require that software defined radios be tested
    for compliance with each software application under which the radio
    will operate. Except as provided below, where the hardware portion
    of the software defined radio can support multiple software
    applications, we will not require that the device be tested with
    combinations of software. We find no reason to believe that the
    presence of additional compliant software applications in the radio
    would affect the radio\'s performance or raise additional compliance
    issues. Where the radio is capable of operating with multiple
    software applications simultaneously, that is, the software defined
    radio can transmit simultaneously multiple signals or in multiple
    frequency bands, we will require that the radio be tested to ensure
    that the device complies with all applicable rules. For this case,
    we believe that additional testing is needed. For example, software
    defined radios that enable multiple simultaneous carriers could
    raise compliance issues with RF safety limits because the total
    output power would be increased or could produce intermodulation
    products that would result in emissions higher than those permitted
    under the rules. We anticipate that a relatively small number of
    software defined radios will have this capability to transmit
    multiple signals. We believe that this approach reasonably balances
    our need to ensure that devices comply with our rules and do not
    cause interference with the concerns expressed by some parties
    regarding burdensome testing requirements.

### Certification by Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs)

43. In General Docket 98-68, we established the requirements for TCBs
    that are allowed to approve equipment in the same manner as the
    Commission.[^102] In that proceeding, we stated that while we
    intended to use TCBs to certify a broad range of equipment, we found
    that certain functions should continue to be performed by the
    Commission. The functions included certifying new or unique
    equipment for which the rules or requirements do not exist or for
    which the application of the rules is not clear.[^103] Because
    software defined radios are a new technology and many questions
    about the application of the rules may arise, we tentatively
    concluded in the *Notice* that TCBs should not be permitted to
    certify software defined radios or approve permissive changes to
    software defined radios for at least six months after the effective
    date of final rules adopted in this proceeding.[^104]

44. Elite agrees that TCBs should not be permitted to certify software
    defined radios for at least six months after final rules are
    adopted.[^105] NTIA believes that TCBs should not be permitted to
    certify software defined radios for at least two years to allow the
    Commission to verify that the current procedures and rules are
    sufficient.[^106] AT&T wants the Commission to specify an indefinite
    time period during which only the Commission can certify software
    defined radios and should only permit TCBs to certify them when the
    time is appropriate.[^107]

45. We believe that six months is a reasonable minimum time period to
    allow the Commission to gain experience with software defined radios
    and determine whether TCBs should be permitted to certify them. As
    the SDR Forum noted, we proposed six months only as a marker for
    reassessment and may extend the time period if necessary.[^108]
    Accordingly, TCBs will not be permitted to certify software defined
    radios until at least six months after the effective date of the
    rules adopted in this proceeding. The Chief of the Office of
    Engineering and Technology acting under the existing delegated
    authority will determine when TCBs may certify software defined
    radios and will announce this decision by public notice.[^109]

### Enforcement

46. We recognized in the *Notice* that a non-compliant software defined
    radio has the potential to interfere with other radio services due
    to its potential to operate in multiple frequency bands.[^110] We
    requested comments on whether we should enhance our enforcement
    capabilities due to the development of software defined radios and
    what particular changes we should make.[^111]

47. Some parties believe that no changes in the Commission's enforcement
    capabilities are necessary.[^112] The SDR Forum states that no
    enhanced enforcement capabilities are required for software defined
    radios because the existing safeguards are sufficient.[^113] AirNet
    believes that software defined radios pose no more threat than other
    radio devices, and that the Commission's existing enforcement
    capability is more than adequate to prevent unauthorized
    modifications.[^114] However, other parties call for increased
    enforcement capabilities.[^115] API believes there is a need for
    enhanced enforcement capabilities because non-complying software
    defined radios could interfere with users who maintain critical
    infrastructure facilities. Elite recommends that the Commission
    enhance its enforcement capabilities because software defined radios
    could cause interference in multiple bands.[^116] It states that the
    penalties for non-compliance should be severe enough to serve as a
    true deterrent.[^117] Cingular wants the Commission to assess heavy
    forfeitures when interference is caused by a software defined radio
    that is not operating in accordance with its authorized
    parameters.[^118]

48. We are not planning to increase our enforcement capabilities
    specifically for software defined radios because we have no reason
    at this time to expect significant compliance problems. However, we
    note that more of the routine application processing that has
    previously been handled by the Commission is now being performed by
    TCBs. This shifting of the workload will free up resources at our
    Laboratory that can be used to increase post-market surveillance on
    all types of equipment, including software defined radios. We cannot
    increase the maximum fines that may be issued for non-compliant
    equipment because they are limited by statute.[^119] We will
    carefully assess the deployment of software defined radios in the
    market to determine whether any increased enforcement efforts are
    warranted and, if appropriate, whether other actions such as a
    faster revocation procedure for the authorizations of non-compliant
    software defined radios may be necessary.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

49. [Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}. The Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this First Report and Order,
    pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, is
    contained in Appendix C.

50. [Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis]{.underline}. This First Report
    and Order contains either new or modified information collection(s)
    subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted
    to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
    Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other
    Federal agencies are invited to comment. Public and agency comments
    are due **\[60 days after date of publication in the Federal
    Register.\]** Comments should address: (a) whether the new or
    modified collection of information is necessary for the proper
    performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
    the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
    the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
    utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
    minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information technology.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

51. IT IS ORDERED, that Parts 1 and 2 of the Commission's Rules and
    Regulations ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix A **\[effective 120
    days after publication in the Federal Register\]**. This action is
    taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
    304, 307 and 332(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304,
    307 and 332(b).

52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    First Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

53. For further information regarding this First Report and Order,
    contact Hugh L. Van Tuyl, (202) 418-7506, Office of Engineering and
    Technology.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas Secretary

# APPENDIX a: FINAL RULES {#appendix-a-final-rules .unnumbered}

For the reasons set forth above, Parts 1 and 2 of Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE**

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

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

2.  Section 1.1103 is revised by adding the following new entry to the
    table:

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

+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| Action          | FCC     | Fee | Pay  | Address                    |
|                 | Form    | amo | ment |                            |
|                 | No.     | unt | type |                            |
|                 |         |     | code |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| 1\.             |         | 5   |      |                            |
| Certification:  |         | 4.  |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| \* \* \* \* \*  |         | 5   |      |                            |
|                 |         | 5.  |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| > f\. Class III | Ele     | 495 | ECC  | Federal Communications     |
| > permissive    | ctronic |     |      | Commission, Equipment      |
| > changes.      | 731 &   |     |      | Approval Services, P.O.    |
|                 | Ele     |     |      | Box 358315, Pittsburgh, PA |
|                 | ctronic |     |      | 15251-5315                 |
|                 | or      |     |      |                            |
|                 | Paper   |     |      |                            |
|                 | 159...  |     |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+
| \* \* \* \* \*  |         | 5   |      |                            |
|                 |         | 6.  |      |                            |
+-----------------+---------+-----+------+----------------------------+

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

3.  The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

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

4.  Section 2.1 is amended by adding the following definition:

**§ 2.1 Terms and definition.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(c\) \* \* \*

*Software defined radio.* A radio that includes a transmitter in which
the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum
output power (either radiated or conducted) can be altered by making a
change in software without making any changes to hardware components
that affect the radio frequency emissions.

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 2.925 is proposed to be revised by adding a new
    paragraph (e) and re-designating the existing paragraphs (e) and (f)
    as (f) and (g).

**§ 2.925 Identification of equipment.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(e\) A software defined radio may be equipped with a means such as a
user display screen to display the FCC identification number normally
contained in the nameplate or label. The information must be readily
accessible, and the user manual must describe how to access the
electronic display.

**\* \* \* \* \***

6.  Section 2.932 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e):

**§2.932 Modification of equipment.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that
has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into such
a radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter
with frequencies, output power, modulation types or other parameters
outside of those that were approved. Manufacturers may use
authentication codes or any other means to meet these requirements, and
must describe the methods in their application for equipment
authorization.

7.  A new Section 2.944 is added to read as follows:

**§ 2.944 Submission of radio software**

The grantee or other party responsible for compliance of a software
defined radio, or the applicant for authorization of a software defined
radio shall submit a copy of the software that controls the radio
frequency operating parameters upon request by the Commission. Failure
to comply with such a request within 14 days or such additional time as
the Commission may allow may be cause for denial of authorization,
forfeiture pursuant to § 1.80 of this chapter, or other administrative
sanctions.

8.  Section 2.1043 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.**

\(a\) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, changes to
the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including
clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator
circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be
performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of
certification. Variations in electrical or mechanical construction,
other than these indicated items, are permitted provided the variations
either do not affect the characteristics required to be reported to the
Commission or the variations are made in compliance with the other
provisions of this section. Changes to the software installed in a
transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not
require a filing with the Commission and may be made by parties other
than the holder of the grant of certification.

\(b\) Three classes of permissive changes may be made in certificated
equipment without requiring a new application for and grant of
certification. None of the classes of changes shall result in a change
in identification.

\(1\) A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the
equipment which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the
manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is
granted. No filing with the Commission is required for a Class I
permissive change.

\(2\) A Class II permissive change includes those modifications which
degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission at
the time of the initial certification. Such degraded performance must
still meet the minimum requirements of the applicable rules. When a
Class II permissive change is made by the grantee, the grantee shall
supply the Commission with complete information and the results of tests
of the characteristics affected by such change. The modified equipment
shall not be marketed under the existing grant of certification prior to
acknowledgement by the Commission that the change is acceptable.

\(3\) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the
software of a software defined radio transmitter that change the
frequency, modulation type, output power or maximum field strength
outside the parameters previously approved. When a Class III permissive
change is made, the grantee shall supply the Commission with a
description of the changes and test results showing that the equipment
complies with the applicable rules with the new software loaded,
including compliance with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The
modified software shall not be loaded into equipment, and the equipment
shall not be marketed with the modified software under the existing
grant of certification, prior to acknowledgement by the Commission that
the change is acceptable. A copy of the software shall be submitted to
the Commission upon request. Class III changes are permitted only for
equipment in which no Class II changes have been made from the
originally approved device.

Note: Any software change that degrades spurious and out-of-band
emissions previously reported to the Commission at the time of initial
certification would be considered a change in frequency or modulation
and would require a Class III permissive change or new equipment
authorization application.

\(4\) Class I and Class II permissive changes may only be made by the
holder of the grant of certification, except as specified below.

**\* \* \* \* \***

# Appendix B: List of Parties Filing Comments {#appendix-b-list-of-parties-filing-comments .unnumbered}

[Comments]{.underline}

## AirNet Communications (AirNet)

## American Petroleum Institute (API)

1.  AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T)

## Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)

2.  Clearwire Technologies, Inc. (Clearwire)

## Elite Electronic Engineering (Elite)

3.  Federal Law Enforcement Wireless User's Group (FLEWUG)

4.  Hypres, Inc. (Hypres)

## Intel Corporation (Intel)

## Motorola

5.  Nortel Networks, Inc. (Nortel)

## National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

## SDR Forum

6.  Vanu, Inc. (Vanu)

[Reply comments]{.underline}

## AirNet Communications (AirNet)

## Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)

1.  Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)

## Intel Corporation (Intel)

2.  National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

## SDR Forum

## Sprint PCS

3.  Vanu, Inc. (Vanu)

# Appendix C: final regulatory flexibility analysis {#appendix-c-final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^120] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, Authorization and Use of Software Defined
Radios.*[^121] The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the *Notice*, including comment on the IRFA. This present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^122]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the *First Report and Order.***

We are adopting changes to our equipment authorization rules in this
Order to facilitate the deployment of software defined radios. The rule
changes will streamline the equipment approval process and reduce the
burden on applicants by eliminating the need to file a complete new
application and physically re-label equipment when changes are made to
the frequency, modulation type or output power of a software defined
radio. In a software defined radio, functions that were carried out by
hardware in the past are performed by software. This means that the
operating parameters of the radio, such as the frequency and type of
modulation, could be readily changed in the field. The rules previously
required a complete new application and a new identification number on a
permanently affixed label when changes to these operating parameters
were made. The previous requirements could have discouraged the
deployment of software defined radios to consumers.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments In Response
to the IRFA**

No comments were submitted directly in response to the IRFA. In
addition, we have carefully examined all comments filed in response to
the *Notice* and have determined that none specifically address the
effect of the proposed rules on small entities.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
Rules Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted.[^123] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^124] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^125] A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.[^126]

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF
Manufacturers). Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is
the definition under the SBA rules applicable to manufacturers of
\"Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.\"
According to the SBA\'s regulation, an RF manufacturer must have 750 or
fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business.[^127] Census
Bureau data indicates that there are 858 companies in the United States
that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications
equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and
would be classified as small entities.[^128] We believe that many of the
companies that manufacture RF equipment may qualify as small entities.

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

We are establishing a new class of "permissive change" for software
defined radios when changes are made to the software that affect the
frequency, power or type of modulation. This class of change will
require the manufacturer to submit a description of the software changes
to the FCC or a designated Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB).
The manufacturer will also be required to submit test data showing that
the radio complies with the technical standards in our rules with the
new software loaded. The new software cannot be loaded into radios until
the FCC or TCB notifies the manufacturer that the changes are
acceptable. The original FCC identification number for the equipment can
continue to be used, so no re-labeling is required.[^129]

We are also allowing an "electronic label" to be used on software
defined radio transmitters as an alternative to the permanently affixed
label the rules require for other types of devices. The equipment can
display the FCC identification number by means of a liquid crystal
display or similar screen.[^130]

We are requiring manufacturers to take steps to ensure that only
software that has been approved by the FCC or a TCB can be loaded into a
transmitter. The software must not allow the user to operate the
transmitter with frequencies, output power, modulation types or other
parameters outside of those that were approved. Manufacturers may use
authentication codes or any other means to meet these requirements, and
must describe the methods in their application for equipment
authorization.[^131]

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^132]

The rules adopted in this proceeding apply equally to all entities,
including small entities. The rules streamline the approval process for
changes to the operating parameters of software defined radios and give
additional flexibility to manufacturers by permitting equipment to be
labeled electronically instead of with a physical label. The benefits of
these streamlined rules are granted to all entities in the same way,
including small entities. There is no adverse impact on any entities
large or small.[^133]

A significant alternative we considered but rejected, which if adopted
might have slightly reduced the burden on small entities, is to allow
software changes to be approved under the Declaration of Conformity
(DoC) procedure. DoC is a self-approval procedure in which the
manufacturer has the equipment tested for compliance at an accredited
laboratory. Once the equipment has been found to comply, it may be
marketed without any approval from the FCC or a TCB. Although this
alternative might have reduced the burden on small entities, we declined
to adopt it because we believe that software defined radio transmitters
require a higher level of oversight to ensure that they comply with the
rules to prevent interference and protect users from excessive RF
radiation. Certain radio transmitters are already permitted to be
self-approved, and we are not making any change in the authorization
requirements for them.

Even though the rules adopted in this *First Report and Order* affect
all entities, including small entities, equally and confer the same
benefits upon all entities, including small entities, we note that
software defined radio is an evolving technology. If issues particularly
involving smaller entities arise, these will be examined when we revisit
this area in future proceedings. On careful reflection, we note that no
commenter stated that any rule adopted herein impacts small entities in
a manner different from larger entities.

Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the *First Report
and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the *First Report and
Order*, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the *First Report and Order* and FRFA
(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
*See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^1]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(a).

[^2]: A software defined radio can also be programmed to receive
    different radio signals. The incoming radio signal is converted to a
    stream of digital data, and the software in the radio can extract
    the transmitted information from this data.

[^3]: *See Inquiry Regarding Software Defined Radios, Notice of
    Inquiry*, [ET Docket
    00-47](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dockets/et00-47/), 15 FCC Rcd 5930
    (2000). This *Notice of Inquiry* sought comments on the state of
    software defined radio technology, how it could improve spectrum
    efficiency and interoperability between radio services, and changes
    would be needed to the equipment authorization rules as a result of
    the development of software defined radios.

[^4]: *See Authorization and Use of Software Defined Radios, Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, [ET Docket
    00-47](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dockets/et00-47/), 15 FCC Rcd 24442
    (2000).

[^5]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 302.

[^6]: *See Notice* at ¶ 21.

[^7]: *See Notice* at footnote 37.

[^8]: All receivers except scanners are already under manufacturer's
    self-approval or are exempt from compliance with technical
    requirements because they have a relatively low potential for
    interference to radio services. Therefore, we did not propose
    changes to the regulatory treatment of receivers. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    15.101.

[^9]: *See* Hypres comments at 8, SDR Forum comments at 4 and AirNet
    reply comments at 3.

[^10]: *See* Motorola comments at 4 and SDR Forum reply comments at 3.

[^11]: *See* Cingular comments at 4 and SDR Forum comments at 4.

[^12]: *See* Motorola comments at 4.

[^13]: *See* Nortel comments at 4 and AirNet comments at 3.

[^14]: *See* Cingular comments at 4 and NTIA reply comments at 2-4.

[^15]: Manufacturers can still go through the regular process and obtain
    a new certification when changes to a previously approved software
    defined radio are made.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(a).

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(b)(1).

[^18]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(b)(2).

[^19]: The Commission's staff has in fact allowed certain changes in the
    frequency range of transmitters to be authorized as Class II
    permissive changes. Such changes have been permitted when the
    transmitter already had the capability of operating over the new
    frequency range, and the change could be made through the internal
    programming of the equipment without making any hardware changes.

[^20]: *See Notice* at ¶ 24.

[^21]: *See* Motorola comments at 9, Clearwire comments at 5, AT&T
    comments at 2, Cingular comments at 5, API comments at 4, SDR Forum
    comments at 6 and FLEWUG comments at 5.

[^22]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 5.

[^23]: *See* Motorola comments at 9.

[^24]: *See* API comments at 4.

[^25]: *See* Nortel comments at 3-4. Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is
    a self-approval process in which the manufacturer has the equipment
    tested for compliance at an accredited laboratory. The equipment may
    be marketed as soon as it is found to be compliant without the need
    to file an application and wait for an approval. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1071 *et. seq.*

[^26]: *See* AirNet comments at 4.

[^27]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1033.

[^28]: Any changes to a radio would have to ensure it remains consistent
    with the Commission's operating and service rules, e.g.,
    eligibility, authorized frequency bands and power levels. We
    specifically note that we are not proposing to change Sections
    80.203 and 90.203 concerning the programmability of frequencies by
    the user using external controls. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.203 and
    90.203.

[^29]: *See Notice* at ¶ 24.

[^30]: *See Notice* at ¶ 26.

[^31]: *See* Motorola comments at 8.

[^32]: *See Notice* at 10.

[^33]: The first three characters of the FCC identification number
    identify the grantee of the equipment authorization. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 2.926.

[^34]: *See* Hypres comments at 8-9, Nortel comments at 6, Elite
    comments at 2, Intel comments at 7, and SDR Forum reply comments at
    3.

[^35]: *See* Hypres comments at 8-9.

[^36]: *See* Intel comments at 7.

[^37]: *See* SDR Forum reply comments at 3.

[^38]: *See* Motorola comments at 16-18.

[^39]: *See* AT&T comments at 2.

[^40]: *See* Intel comments at 6 and SDR Forum comments at 4.

[^41]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.911(c).

[^42]: *See* Section 2.1043(a) in the attached Appendix A. This rule is
    intended to clarify that any party may install software applications
    on a device that are separate from the software that controls the
    radio frequency operating parameters. For example, a wireless device
    may be designed to run software such as a web browser that does not
    affect the radio operating parameters.

[^43]: *See Notice* at ¶ 26.

[^44]: *See Notice* at ¶ 28.

[^45]: *See* Motorola comments at 11, Nortel comments at 6 and SDR Forum
    comments at 3.

[^46]: *See* Motorola comments at 11.

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: *See* Nortel comments at 6.

[^49]: *See* Hypres comments at 9, Elite comments at 2, Cingular
    comments at 5, API comments at 6-7, AirNet comments at 4, FLEWUG
    comments at 5 and NTIA reply comments at 10.

[^50]: *See* API comments at 6-7.

[^51]: *See* FLEWUG comments at 5 and AirNet comments at 4.

[^52]: *See* NTIA reply comments at 10 and Elite comments at 2.

[^53]: *See Notice* at ¶ 28.

[^54]: *See Notice* at footnote 46.

[^55]: *See* Motorola comments at 14 and Clearwire comments at 7.

[^56]: *See* Motorola comments at 14.

[^57]: *See* API comments at 7.

[^58]: *See* API comments at 6.

[^59]: *See* Hypres comments at 9, Motorola comments at 13, Nortel
    comments at 6 and AirNet comments at 5.

[^60]: *See* Nortel comments at 6.

[^61]: *See* AirNet comments at 5.

[^62]: This could include the executable code or the source code and
    related documentation.

[^63]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1103.

[^64]: *See* AirNet comments at 4.

[^65]: *See* Nortel comments at 5.

[^66]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1033(c)(17).

[^67]: *See Notice* at ¶ 31.

[^68]: *Id.*

[^69]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 9.

[^70]: *See* Intel comments at 9-10.

[^71]: *See* Clearwire comments at 7.

[^72]: *See* Hypres comments at 11

[^73]: *See* Cingular comments at 6-7.

[^74]: *See* AirNet reply comments at 8.

[^75]: *See* NTIA comments at 6.

[^76]: *See* *ex parte* letter from the SDR Forum dated July 20, 2001.

[^77]: *See Notice* at ¶ 29.

[^78]: *Id.*

[^79]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 8.

[^80]: *See* API comments at 4.

[^81]: *See* Motorola comments at 15.

[^82]: *See* Motorola comments at 15, Nortel comments at 7 and Elite
    comments at 2.

[^83]: *See* Clearwire comments at 6.

[^84]: *See* Motorola comments at 15. A terminal would be some sort of
    display device connected to the radio but possibly located some
    distance away.

[^85]: *See* Nortel comments at 7.

[^86]: *See* Hypres comments at 10.

[^87]: *See* AirNet comments at 5.

[^88]: *See* NTIA comments at 7.

[^89]: *See* Cingular comments at 7.

[^90]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 8.

[^91]: *See* NTIA comments at 7.

[^92]: *See* NTIA comments at 7.

[^93]: The URL is [www.fcc.gov/e-file/](http://www.fcc.gov/e-file).

[^94]: *See Notice* at ¶ 18.

[^95]: *See* Motorola comments at 6.

[^96]: *See* NTIA comments at 3, Cingular reply comments at 4-5 and
    Elite comments at 1.

[^97]: *See* NTIA comments at 3.

[^98]: *See* Hypres comments at 6.

[^99]: *See* Vanu reply comments at 2.

[^100]: *See* Vanu reply comments at 4-6.

[^101]: *See* Vanu reply comments at 3.

[^102]: *See In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --
    Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 68 of the Commission's Rules to Further
    Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency
    Equipment, Modify the Equipment Authorization Process for Telephone
    Terminal Equipment, Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements and
    Begin Implementation of the Global Mobile Personal Communications by
    Satellite (GMPCS) Arrangements*, Report and Order, FCC 98-338, 13
    FCC Rcd 24687 (1999).

[^103]: *Id.* at ¶ 33.

[^104]: We currently do not allow TCBs to certify equipment requiring
    measurements of the specific absorption rate (SAR) of RF radiation
    by the body. No change in that policy is proposed.

[^105]: *See* Elite comments at 2.

[^106]: *See* NTIA comments at 7.

[^107]: *See* AT&T comments at 6.

[^108]: *See* SDR Forum reply comments at 4.

[^109]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.241(g).

[^110]: *See Notice* at ¶ 34.

[^111]: *Id.*

[^112]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 14 and AirNet comments at 6.

[^113]: *See* SDR Forum comments at 14.

[^114]: *See* AirNet comments at 6.

[^115]: *See* Hypres comments at 12-13, Elite comments at 2, AT&T
    comments at 4, Cingular comments at 6 and API comments at 8.

[^116]: *See* Elite comments at 2.

[^117]: *Id.*

[^118]: *See* Cingular comments at 6.

[^119]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(C). However the Debt Collection
    Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-358),
    states that the Commission must adjust the maximum forfeitures for
    inflation at least once every four years. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^120]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^121]: *See Authorization and Use of Software Defined Radios, Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making,* ET Docket 00-47, 15 FCC Rcd 24442, 24462
    (2000).

[^122]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^123]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^124]: *Id*. 601(6).

[^125]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. §  632). Pursuant to the
    RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless
    an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^126]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^127]: ^ ?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial
    Classification (SIC) Code 3663.

[^128]: ^ ?^ *See* U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of
    Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC
    category 3663.

[^129]: *See Order* at ¶ 14

[^130]: *See Order* at ¶ 35.

[^131]: *See Order* at ¶ 32.

[^132]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^133]: This proceeding, therefore, may also be "certified" under the
    RFA. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).