Radio Experimentation and Market Trials Under Part 5 of the Commission's Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, 6928-6956 [2011-1377]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6928-6956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1377]



[[Page 6927]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 26

February 8, 2011

Part III





Federal Communications Commission





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



47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2 et al.



Radio Experimentation and Market Trials Under Part 5 of the 
Commission's Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 6928]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 5, 22, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90 and 101

[ET Docket No. 10-236; FCC 10-197]


Radio Experimentation and Market Trials Under Part 5 of the 
Commission's Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks to promote innovation 
and efficiency in spectrum use in the Experimental Radio Service (ERS). 
For many years, the ERS has provided fertile ground for testing 
innovative ideas that have led to new services and new devices for all 
sectors of the economy. The Commission proposes to leverage the power 
of experimental radio licensing to accelerate the rate at which these 
ideas transform from prototypes to consumer devices and services. Its 
goal is to inspire researchers to dream, discover and deliver the 
innovations that push the boundaries of the broadband ecosystem. The 
resulting advancements in devices and services available to the 
American public and greater spectrum efficiency over the long term will 
promote economic growth, global competitiveness, and a better way of 
life for all Americans.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 10, 2011, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before April 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact James 
Burtle at (202) 418-2445, Doug Young at (202) 418-2440, and James 
Miller at (202) 418-7351, Office of Engineering and Technology; or via 
the Internet at James.Burtle@fcc.gov, Douglas.Young@fcc.gov, and 
James.Miller@fcc.gov, respectively.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 10-236, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [Optional: Include the e-mail address only if you 
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket 
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper, 
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office. 
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 10-236, FCC 10-197, adopted and 
released on November 30, 2010. 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, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430, interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the 
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 
May 2, 1998.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
     Paper Filers: 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, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
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, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
observes that numerous provisions for experimentation and development 
of new radio equipment and techniques that are scattered throughout 
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The ERS rules, which 
are contained in part 5 and permit a broad range of experiments in all 
services except for broadcast systems, prescribe the manner in which 
the radio spectrum may be made available to manufacturers, inventors, 
entrepreneurs, and students

[[Page 6929]]

to experiment with new radio technologies, equipment designs, 
characteristics of radio wave propagation, or service concepts related 
to the use of the radio spectrum. In order to encourage innovation, the 
part 5 rules provide great flexibility regarding allowable frequency 
range, power, and emissions. In exchange for the flexibility we give 
researchers to design and conduct experiments and tests, experimental 
operations are not protected from harmful interference from allocated 
services and they must not cause harmful interference to stations of 
authorized services, including secondary services. Additionally, 
experimental stations can be required to immediately cease operation at 
our request, and are subject to revocation without notice.
    2. There are seven additional rule parts that allow for 
developmental work within a particular service, and these rules are 
generally more restrictive than those contained in part 5. 
Specifically, parts 22, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90, and 101 of our rules 
provide for issuance of developmental licenses. Like ERS licenses, 
developmental licenses are issued on a non-interference basis. However, 
they are limited to applicants eligible for licenses in that particular 
service and on frequencies that are allocated to that service. 
Additionally, the developmental rules may require that applications be 
accompanied by a petition for rulemaking seeking changes consistent 
with the operation under investigation. Experimentation with broadcast 
radio technologies is not permitted under the ERS rules but is instead 
allowed under separate provisions set forth in parts 73 and 74 of our 
rules.
    3. The ERS program has a record of success, and there is an overall 
trend of increasing experimental activity under the part 5 rules. By 
contrast, there has been limited use of the developmental rules for 
non-broadcast experimentation.
    4. To further provide flexibility, the Commission permits limited 
market studies so that developers can assess whether their equipment 
designs show promise in the marketplace. Just like the experimental 
rules, the rules for market studies can be found in multiple rule 
parts. Under part 5, limited market studies are permitted for 
experimental operations provided that all transmitting and receiving 
equipment is owned by the licensee, the licensee informs all 
participants in the study that it is strictly temporary, and the size 
and scope of the study is limited. For devices that are beyond the 
experimental stage, but have not yet been certified (e.g. a new mobile 
phone), rules in part 2 allow exceptions to the general prohibition on 
marketing of radio frequency (RF) devices prior to equipment 
authorization, subject to disclosure and labeling requirements and 
other restrictions. The restrictions on unauthorized RF equipment also 
limit the number of devices that may be imported to conduct tests or 
market studies. Generally, up to 2,000 units are permitted to be 
imported within an authorized service for which an operating license is 
required, and up to 200 units are permitted to be imported for all 
other products.
    5. The Commission proposes rule changes in six specific areas to 
build on the experimental licensing program's record of promoting 
innovation and creating cutting-edge technologies in order to 
accelerate innovation in this space. Given the immense spectrum 
challenges created by the tsunami of broadband demand, the Commission 
seeks to find ways to use the power of experimental licensing to 
shorten the time it takes to transform concepts into consumer products 
and to bring ideas from the lab to the marketplace. The goal is to 
inspire researchers to dream, discover and deliver the innovations that 
push the boundaries of the broadband ecosystem. The resulting 
advancements in devices and services available to the American public 
and greater spectrum efficiency over the long term will promote 
economic growth, global competitiveness, and a better way of life for 
all Americans.
    6. The first three areas where the Commission proposes rule changes 
involve the creation of a new type of experimental license--a program 
experimental license--which would carry broad authority to conduct an 
ongoing program of research and experimentation under a single 
experimental authorization, and that would only be available to 
qualified institutions. The three varieties of proposed program 
experimental licenses are: (1) The research program experimental radio 
license; (2) the innovation zone program experimental radio license; 
and (3) the medical program experimental radio license. Under our 
proposed rule revisions, the Commission would continue to offer 
individual conventional experimental radio licenses to conduct research 
and experimentation related to the development of new radio 
technologies and techniques and for product development and market 
trials. These conventional experimental radio licenses would be 
available to entities not qualified to hold a program experimental 
radio license, and for those experimental activities that would not be 
authorized under program licenses.
    7. The research program experimental radio license would allow 
qualified institutions to use of a large range of radio frequencies for 
research and experimentation on a non-interference basis without having 
to obtain prior authorization for the use of specific frequencies. 
Holders of the new research program experimental radio license will be 
given broad authority to conduct any experiments that further the goals 
of innovation and efficiency in spectrum use under such a license, 
subject to limitations discussed below and ongoing reporting 
requirements through, for example, narrative filings submitted via a 
Commission web page. These institutions would still be able to continue 
to apply for conventional experimental radio licenses, as appropriate 
to the needs of the institution and type of research being conducted.
    8. Given the unique abilities of universities and research 
institutions to act as trusted stewards of the radio resource, and 
based on their track record of impressive research results, the 
Commission believes that they are well suited for this proposed new 
type of program license. The existing experimental licensing rules are 
not a good fit for the type of work being conducted at many 
universities and research institutions. By limiting experiments to a 
narrowly defined inquiry, specific frequencies, emissions and power 
levels, our current rules can prevent researchers from using the 
results of experiments to try out new ideas and make innovative changes 
unless they obtain a new or modified authorization. The time and 
process for obtaining experimental authorizations can also be a 
roadblock to innovation. The research program experimental radio 
license proposal is an attempt to find a balance that allows research 
organizations the greatest level of flexibility to experiment--
particularly in high-value bands that may host the newest generation of 
consumer devices and applications--in order to unlock enormous economic 
and social benefits, while respecting the fundamental principle that 
experiments must be designed to avoid harmful interference to existing 
services.
    9. This new research license will be limited to colleges, 
universities, and non-profit research organizations. These institutions 
typically have a record of generating the types of innovations and 
technological breakthroughs we seek to foster. The Commission 
tentatively proposes to limit applications under

[[Page 6930]]

this rule to Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) 
accredited institutions with graduate research programs in place or 
existing industry partnerships and to nationally recognized non-profit 
research laboratories. Further, the Commission proposes that these 
institutions must have defined campus settings and institutional 
processes to monitor and effectively manage a wide variety of research 
projects. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Specifically, 
it seeks comment on what criteria it should use to define a 
``nationally recognized non-profit research laboratory.'' Are there any 
standards or certifications that it should require for such 
institutions? Additionally, if commenters believe the Commission should 
incorporate a broader range of institutions, what criteria should it 
use for selection, and how does that more effectively balance the 
interests at stake here?
    10. Section 15.205(a) of our rules lists ``restricted bands'' that 
typically host sensitive operations and that warrant special attention 
to prevent possible harmful interference. Because it would not be 
appropriate to include these frequencies in a research program 
experimental radio license, the Commission proposes that the license 
not allow experiments on frequencies that are listed in Sec.  
15.205(a). The Commission recognizes that Sec.  15.205 categorically 
exclude all frequencies above 38.6 GHz. The National Broadband Plan 
observed that frequencies above 20 GHz may be modestly used in urban 
areas and may be nonexistent in most other areas. The Commission 
concludes that it would be counterproductive to exclude spectrum in the 
38-300 GHz range from the benefits of added innovation and research, 
but that it is also important to protect sensitive bands above 38.6 
GHz. Many federal agencies use spectrum above 38.6 GHz for satellite 
communication and scientific research which use extremely low received 
signal levels. Thus, the Commission proposes that a research program 
experimental radio license also allow experiments on those frequencies 
above 38.6 GHz except for those that are listed in footnote US246 of 
the Table of Frequency Allocations. Under this proposal the Commission 
would permit licensees to conduct experiments on all other frequencies. 
It seeks comment on these proposals. Are there other frequencies that 
it should categorically exclude, and if so why?
    11. All operations conducted under the authority of a research 
program experimental radio license would be restricted to the grounds 
of the license holder's campus. In this regard, the Commission proposes 
that the applicant for a research license specify a geographic area 
that is inclusive of an institution's real-property facilities, and 
that the application may be returned or a license restricted to specify 
a smaller area if necessary to ensure adequate interference protection. 
The Commission also proposes that emissions must not exceed non-
interfering levels beyond the authorized geographical area. Should it 
rely on the licensees to meet this requirement by evaluating the 
radiofrequency use in the proximity of its campus, or should there be a 
specific measure, such as a maximum measured power flux density (pfd) 
limit a set distance from the boundary? If so, at what level should 
this pfd be set? Should there be different pfd limits for different 
bands? If so, how should the pfd vary by frequency band? And finally, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether a standard method needs to be 
specified for calculating the pfd. It seeks comment on whether 
additional technical limits should be imposed. Should it restrict 
transmitters to specific sites? Should experiments be limited to 
terrestrial operations or can airborne operations also be permitted? If 
so, are there special requirements that should be imposed on airborne 
operations given the long line of site distances of these operations. 
Finally, should there be a threshold power limit above which the 
Commission would always require an individual license under our 
traditional experimental authorization procedures, and if so, what 
should this power be--100 watts, 10 watts, the limits specified for 
part 15 unlicensed operations, or some other limit? Commenters who 
advocate a specific limit should also discuss how the levels of 
interference protection that such a limit would provide would also 
allow sufficient flexibility to conduct a wide range of experiments. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should make special 
distinctions between indoor and outdoor use, either as part of the 
general terms of the research program experimental radio license grant 
or through distinct requirements associated with the testing and 
reporting requirements.
    12. The Commission also proposes to afford institutions much 
greater flexibility in choosing the frequency band(s) and technical 
characteristics associated with individual tests and experiments 
conducted under the authority of a research program experimental radio 
license. It recognizes that some types of experiments have added filing 
requirements under our existing rules. For example, Sec.  5.53(c) 
requires the submission of an environmental assessment in certain 
cases, Sec.  5.63(e) requires applicants for an experimental 
authorization involving a satellite system not already authorized by 
the Commission to submit information regarding orbital debris 
mitigation plans, and Sec.  5.63(a) sets forth procedures for 
requesting non-disclosure of proprietary information. These rules serve 
important legal and public interest purposes, and cannot be readily 
accommodated under the broad research license concept. The Commission 
therefore proposes to provide that a research program experimental 
radio license will not authorize any experiment that would require 
additional, specialized filings beyond the standard application 
requirements for an experimental radio license. Researchers proposing 
these types of experiments must apply for a conventional experimental 
radio license to obtain the necessary authorization for their tests. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In addition, are there 
other types of tests in addition to those discussed that require 
additional filings and, therefore, should not be authorized under a 
research program experimental radio license?
    13. While the Commission does not believe that it is necessary to 
impose overly prescriptive methods to control the potential for 
interference from experiments conducted under the broad authority of a 
research program experimental radio license, it emphasizes that all 
experiments must be conducted on a non-interference basis to primary 
and secondary licensees, and that the licensee must take all necessary 
technical and operational steps to avoid harmful interference to 
authorized services. Before conducting tests, a licensee must evaluate 
the propagation characteristics of the frequencies to be used in 
individual experiments, the operational nature of the services normally 
operating on those and nearby frequencies, and the specific operations 
listed within the Commission's licensing databases. On-line tools, such 
as the Commission's General Menu Reports system (GenMen), which allows 
users to search many different FCC licensing databases from one place, 
will facilitate these tasks. Experiments must be designed to use the 
minimum power necessary and be restricted to the smallest practicable 
area needed to accomplish the experiment's goals. Researchers may also 
decide to reduce the frequencies used in the experiment,

[[Page 6931]]

restrict the time of use, limit the duration of tests, or employ other 
means to address potential interference concerns. The Commission 
further proposes to require that all experiments must comply with our 
existing experimental rules involving matters such as protected areas 
and antenna structure placement, but that these issues will not be 
routinely evaluated during the grant of the research license. In 
addition, the Commission notes that our existing experimental licensing 
rules require a licensee to transmit its assigned call sign unless it 
has been specifically exempted by the terms of its station 
authorization. The Commission believes that this requirement is 
important in that it makes it easier to identify signals from 
experiments, but it also recognizes that not all experimentation lends 
itself to easy over-the-air station identification. The Commission 
proposes to require that tests conducted under the authority of a 
research license either transmit station identification as part of the 
broadcast or provide detailed testing information (such as starting 
time and duration) via a web-based reporting portal. Because of the 
nature of the research license, the Commission proposes to require the 
communication of information that is sufficient to identify the license 
holder and the geographic coordinates of the station. The Commission is 
especially interested in comments regarding how it would structure the 
web-based reporting, and whether there are other notification methods 
that it should allow that do not require use of the actual experimental 
radio broadcast. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    14. Prior to a new spectrum user's commencement of operations, 
notification is generally conducted to ensure that harmful interference 
concerns can be identified and corrected. In many cases under our 
existing experimental licensing procedures, the Commission issue grants 
that are conditioned on notifying or successfully coordinating with 
existing licensees. The Commission's diverse policies and procedures 
reflect the different operational, business, and engineering concerns 
posed by the many sharing scenarios of the multitude of spectrum uses 
possible under our rules. Under the research program experimental radio 
license concept, the Commission envisions that the nature and scope of 
individual tests will vary greatly. Some experiments will be conducted 
with the support of and in conjunction with existing licensees as part 
of research to improve existing network devices and system designs. For 
others, experimenters may opt to use short-term leasing or other 
secondary market mechanisms to secure access to spectrum bands on which 
they want to experiment. Many experiments may be confined to laboratory 
settings, or be conducted in shielded environments, such as Faraday 
cages, where the interference environment is tightly controlled. 
Because the appropriate level of notification to and coordination with 
incumbent licensees will necessarily vary for each of these 
experiments, we are not proposing to establish a specific coordination 
requirement for research program experimental radio licenses.
    15. The Commission nevertheless believes that it must make 
provisions for licensed users whose operations are geographically and/
or spectrally near ongoing experiments. First, the Commission proposes 
to require that prior to commencement of any experiment or test, 
certain information be made publicly available via a Commission 
developed web-based registration. The Commission proposes that such 
registrations contain contact information for the researcher in charge 
who can address concerns raised prior to testing as well as act as a 
``stop buzzer'' in the event that a licensee reports an unanticipated 
interference incident during the actual testing phase. In addition, the 
Commission proposes that these registrations contain the frequencies or 
frequency bands under test, the maximum effective isotropically 
radiated power (EIRP) or effective radiated power (ERP) under 
consideration (as applicable to the proposed experiment) and a 
description of the geographic area in which the test will be conducted. 
Should other information also be collected? The Commission proposes 
that these registrations be completed at least seven calendar days 
prior to commencement of any test or experiment to ensure that 
interested parties have sufficient time to assess whether they believe 
harmful interference may occur to their systems. Unlike our existing 
rules, however, experimenters would not have to await specific approval 
or authorization to conduct the test once the seven days has elapsed. 
Before conducting the experiment, the experimenter must evaluate and 
account for interference concerns raised by interested parties, and it 
must obey any instructions from the Commission to delay, modify, or 
abandon the experiment. Specifically, if any licensee of an authorized 
service raises interference concerns, the Commission proposes that the 
service licensee must contact the research program experimental radio 
license responsible party and the service licensee must post its 
concerns along with supporting documentation to the web registration 
page. The Commission proposes that the experiment not be permitted to 
commence until the parties resolve the issue. The Commission further 
proposes that the service licensee will bear the burden of proof that 
the proposed experiment will cause harmful interference. It is expected 
that parties work in good faith to resolve such concerns, including 
modifying experiments if necessary to reach an agreeable resolution. In 
making this proposal, the Commission seeks to balance the interests of 
incumbent spectrum users with the ability to conduct tests in a timely 
manner. Is seven days a sufficient timeframe? Or is it too long such 
that it may constrain testers from being able to adjust on-the-fly as 
they analyze current test results? Will the proposed method for 
resolving interference concerns prior to experimentation result in an 
efficient and fair process for identifying and addressing such 
concerns? Should the Commission require a specific dispute resolution 
process? At what point would it expect parties to raise their concerns 
directly with us?
    16. The Commission also notes that, under its existing rules, 
experiments must avoid use of public safety frequencies except when a 
compelling showing can be made that such use is in the public interest. 
Operation on public safety frequencies must also be coordinated. Should 
these provisions continue to apply to tests conducted under a research 
license? Will these requirements, in conjunction with the seven-day 
notice requirement we propose, be sufficient to protect public safety 
interests while encouraging important research and experimentation in 
this area? The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    17. Additionally, the Commission believes that the web-based 
registration can capture two reporting requirements that are currently 
part of our application process for conventional experimental radio 
licenses. In cases where the experiment is to be used for the purpose 
of fulfilling requirements of a contract with an agency of the United 
States government, or if the experiment is to be used for the sole 
purpose of developing equipment for exportation to be employed by 
stations under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, the Commission 
proposes that the registration contain the information currently 
required under Sec.  5.63(b) and

[[Page 6932]]

(c) of its rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    18. The Commission proposes to implement additional measures that 
will make it easier for incumbent licensees and other interested 
parties to become aware of pending tests and make experimenters aware 
of their concerns, and seek comment on what those measures should be. 
Should the Commission develop an automated process for distributing 
such information by RSS feeds or other means? If so, should it further 
categorize this information by frequency band, geographic location, or 
other means? Would the Commission's Tower Construction Notification 
System (TCNS) serve as a useful model? TCNS allows companies to 
voluntarily submit notifications of proposed tower constructions to the 
FCC which in turn provides this information to federally-recognized 
Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and State Historic 
Preservation Officers (SHPOs) who can then respond directly to the 
companies if they have concerns about a proposed construction. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    19. The Commission further believes that it must make special 
provisions to prevent harmful interference on the frequency bands that 
are commonly used in a campus setting and that are vital for public 
safety purposes or are used for campus security operations. For 
example, experiments on bands assigned to mobile service providers 
(e.g. the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, broadband PCS, AWS, 700 MHz) 
could have the potential to disrupt mobile telephone use on campus--at 
a minimum inconveniencing one of the most active and engaged mobile 
device user communities, and at worst, impeding the ability to reach 
911 or receive campus-wide emergency text alerts. Television and radio 
broadcast bands are used in support of the Emergency Alert System 
(EAS). In recognition of these vital interests, the Commission proposes 
to require that, for tests that affect bands used for the provision of 
commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety 
purposes on the institution's grounds, the licensee first develop a 
specific plan that avoids interference to these bands. The plan would: 
(1) Provide notice to those who might be affected by the test; (2) 
allow for the quick identification and elimination of any harm the 
experiment is causing users, and (3) in the case of vital public safety 
functions, provide an alternate means for accomplishing such tasks 
during the duration of the experiment. The Commission further proposes 
to require that the holder of the research program experimental radio 
license submit this plan to the Commission in conjunction with the 
registration it submits at least seven days prior to commencement of 
any test or experiment, as described above. The Commission would 
routinely make the entire submission publicly available. Should it also 
require that a licensee be required to specifically notify the 
commercial carrier(s) or other entit(ies) listed as the licensee for 
the affected band(s) in all of these situations, or only in situations 
where specified conditions are met (such as when the experiment will be 
conducted outside of buildings or away from controlled venues where 
access can be restricted, such as laboratories)? If so, should the 
Commission require the licensee's concurrence prior to the test? 
Ultimately, it wants to establish a process which delivers the benefits 
of experiments conducted at universities and research institutions, but 
that also prevents interference to users of wireless services and 
frequencies used for emergency and public safety purposes. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    20. The Commission seeks comment on how it should address 
noncompliance with our rules and procedures, including the failure of a 
holder of a research program experimental radio license to address and 
resolve cases of harmful interference within a reasonable amount of 
time. The Commission proposes to modify the cancellation provisions of 
our rules to make it clear that it can both deny permission to conduct 
specific tests under a research program experimental radio license and 
that we can revoke the research program experimental radio license at 
any time. As an ultimate safeguard, the Commission will not hesitate to 
revoke a research program experimental radio license in cases where we 
find that an institution has not properly managed the expanded 
privileges associated with the license.
    21. The Commission notes that many institutions have offices that 
conduct administrative functions and provide coordination and support 
on a campus-wide scale. The Commission proposes to require each 
institution to identify a single point of contact who will be 
ultimately responsible for all experiments conducted under the research 
license--including that the reporting requirements it establishes for 
this type of authorization are met and all applicable rules are 
observed. This individual will serve as the initial point of contact 
for all matters involving interference resolution, and must have the 
ability to discontinue any and all experiments being conducted under 
the license, if necessary. The Commission proposes to require a 
licensee to identify this individual along with contact information 
such as a phone number and e-mail address at which he or she can be 
reached at any time of the day, and to keep this information current. 
The Commission seeks comment on other requirements, such as whether 
this designated individual should be required to respond to inquiries 
within a set time period, or possess the ability to halt experiments 
within a certain period of time? The Commission seeks comment on these 
matters, as well as the overall concept of requiring a single point of 
contact with this level of responsibility.
    22. The Commission believes that in addition to the registration 
process described, there should be a reporting requirement associated 
with the research program experimental radio license. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that it should be as minimally burdensome as 
possible and should be narrowly tailored to ensure that experiments 
conducted under the license comply with the Commission's rules and 
procedures and to build a public record of active innovation in the 
field of radio communications that can be used to encourage and inspire 
further technological advancements. Are there additional objectives the 
Commission has overlooked? How can it meet these objectives? The 
Commission proposes to require that after completion of an experiment, 
the license holder file a brief narrative statement describing the 
results of the test, including any interference incidents and steps 
taken to resolve them. What should constitute a ``test'' and at what 
point has a test evolved sufficiently to require a supplemental filing? 
Should the holder of a research program experimental radio license be 
required to file periodic reports (e.g., a yearly report) updating the 
status of ongoing tests, or summarizing the activity conducted under a 
research license? The Commission seeks comment on these matters.
    23. The Commission seeks comment on the duration, terms, and scope 
of a research license. While such a license is intended to afford 
qualified institutions greater flexibility in how they conduct 
experiments, it intends to ensure that all other rules and limitations 
of our existing experimental procedures will continue to apply. For 
example, holders of a research license cannot deploy permanent 
facilities or offer services for

[[Page 6933]]

sale. Similarly, the Commission proposes to issue these licenses for a 
limited, five-year duration, which is consistent with the longest 
experimental license term our rules currently allow. The Commission 
would permit license renewals. Is this an appropriate timeframe? In 
this context, would it make sense to issue initial research licenses 
for a lesser period and subsequently, upon sufficient showing of 
compliance with the rules the Commission adopts, issue renewals for 
five-year periods? It also asks how research licenses should govern 
experiments conducted by multiple institutions conducted across 
different campuses. The Commission proposes to require that each 
participating institution hold a research license (or obtain an 
individual license that would authorize the experiment), but that only 
one institution would be required to fulfill the reporting requirements 
associated with the research conducted across different campuses and 
that that institution be charged with identifying and making available 
the single point of contact with authority over the experiment. The 
Commission also seeks comment on how it should address specific 
licensing issues involving individual institutions. For example, if an 
institution has multiple campuses, should it issue one research program 
experimental radio license per institution that encompasses all 
campuses, or should it issue a separate license for each campus? Are 
situations where it should routinely issue more than one research 
program experimental radio license for a single campus, and if so, what 
are they? The Commission expects to direct applicants for research 
licenses to use FCC Form 442 and attach a supplemental narrative that 
sets forth the information it needs to assess the application (e.g. a 
showing that the applicant is a qualified institution, a description of 
the campus the license will cover, etc.). As the Commission transitions 
to a new Consolidated Licensing System (CLS), it will assess whether 
there is a more effective way to collect the information it needs to 
evaluate a research license application. The Commission seeks comment 
on these proposals.
    24. The Commission also asks whether it would be appropriate to 
initiate the research license concept in the context of a pilot 
program, by which it would choose a limited number of institutions to 
which it would grant licenses and under which it would evaluate the 
program before expanding its scope. The Commission recognizes that 
while the research license concept holds great promise for promoting 
research investment and fostering wireless innovation, it also needs to 
be sensitive to questions and concerns that commenters may raise in how 
to deploy this concept. Would a pilot program be an appropriate way to 
balance our interests in promoting innovation and flexibility while 
protecting against harmful or unanticipated interference? If so, would 
ten institutions be an appropriate number, and what criteria should be 
used to select them? Are there other provisions we should adopt that 
would make such a pilot program more successful? The Commission seeks 
comment on all of these proposals.
    25. Finally, the Commission notes that the experimental licensing 
rules currently have a provision for school and student authorizations. 
These rules, last updated in 1998, are generally intended for use by 
students through high school for purposes such as science fairs, school 
projects, and participation in radio clubs. The rules provide for an 
informal application by letter and allow transmissions in limited 
frequency bands at low power levels. Given the changes in both 
technology and the Commission's processes over the last twelve years 
including those proposed herein, the Commission questions whether these 
rules are still necessary. First, it is not aware that these rules have 
seen widespread use. In addition, the Commission notes that all 
applications are now required to be filed electronically and that 
students may want to experiment in more bands than those provided for 
in this rule. Thus, it proposes to eliminate this rule and require that 
students desiring to experiment obtain a conventional experimental 
radio license using the electronic filing process. If there is a good 
reason to keep these special provisions for students, how can we 
provide for a streamlined process? Advocates for such a process should 
provide specific suggestions regarding how such streamlining should be 
implemented. Alternatively, the Commission asks if these provisions 
should be maintained, but moved to part 15 to allow for student use of 
approved equipment on an unlicensed basis. Advocates for such an action 
should also address whether certain safeguards need to be added to the 
rule to ensure proper radio usage.
    26. The second proposed program license type--the innovation zone 
program experimental radio license--would give innovators greater 
flexibility to conduct and modify the terms of their experiments 
without having to secure the additional approvals that the traditional 
experimental authorization rules would require. Licensees nevertheless 
would still be bound by the general limitations that come with an 
experimental license and would be expected to limit individual 
experiments conducted under the license to the minimum scope and size 
necessary to accomplish the test's goals. The Commission envisions that 
innovation zones, which could include isolated or protected areas, 
could become havens for enterprise and innovation because it would 
permit experimenters to explore a variety of technologies with reduced 
barriers to entry.
    27. Innovation zone program experimental radio licenses would be 
structured similar to the research program experimental radio license 
model discussed above, and would have the same types of application and 
reporting requirements, except where described differently in the NPRM 
and accompanying proposed rules. Also, the eligibility and use 
restrictions would be different from those used for the research 
program experimental radio license program. Specifically, the 
Commission proposes that each licensee must hold appropriate technical 
credentials demonstrating advanced technical competence in radio 
engineering, but emphasize that applicants will not necessarily have to 
be associated with a college, university, or non-profit research 
organization to be eligible for an innovation zone program experimental 
radio license. The Commission envisions that innovation zones would 
permit operations over large areas, and would not be appropriate for 
use by a single entity at its exclusive-use facility (such as within a 
large manufacturer's plant grounds). Innovation zones would, however, 
be ideal for universities and research institutions that wish to 
conduct research in off-campus settings. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal generally, and whether there are additional technical 
qualifications that it should require of these licensees.
    28. The Commission seeks comment on what criteria it should use to 
identify areas that are sufficiently isolated or protected to serve as 
innovation zones. What propagation, geographic or other wireless 
engineering characteristics should it look for? To be effective, the 
authorization for innovation zones must allow for access to the largest 
range of frequencies practical. The Commission proposes that the 
innovation zone program experimental radio license broadly permit 
experiments on any frequency that is not specifically listed in Sec.  
15.205(a) of its rules, except that experiments could use frequencies

[[Page 6934]]

above 38.6 GHz so long as they are not listed in footnote US246 of the 
Table of Frequency Allocations. The Commission recognizes that in 
geographically remote areas it may not be necessary to impose 
limitations on the use of the restricted frequency bands. The 
Commission seeks comment on when and how it should impose restrictions 
on individual licenses and/or in particular innovation zones that are 
located in remote areas. The Commission recognizes that certain 
geographic areas offer great potential as innovation zones, but their 
use would raise additional considerations. For example, how should the 
Commission treat geographic areas and frequencies that it considers, 
here, to be in the Commission's inventory because they are not 
licensed? These large areas could provide an excellent opportunity for 
researchers to experiment on a wide scale with different network 
topologies and advanced communications systems without fear of 
encroaching on existing spectrum use. However, such areas could be 
subject to re-auction, limiting long-term research opportunities. The 
Commission proposes to permit such areas to be licensed as innovation 
zones, but to emphasize that experimental use is subject to 
discontinuance if the bands are re-auctioned prior to the end of the 
innovation zone license term. Similarly, should the Commission ties the 
availability of an innovation zone to specific frequency bands in the 
Commission's inventory? The Commission seeks comment on these matters.
    29. The Commission seeks comment on what requirements are necessary 
to allow for proper oversight of innovation zone program experimental 
radio licenses. The Commission proposes to delegate to the Office of 
Engineering and Technology the responsibility for establishing, 
maintaining, and routinely updating the list of available innovation 
zones. What additional provisions should it adopt? Should the 
Commission first identify geographic areas that are suitable innovation 
zones and promote their use among researchers, or are there different 
ways to build the innovation zone inventory? Should it limit the number 
of applicants for a specific zone or otherwise manage the use of this 
resource among different parties? Should it provide a single license 
with a requirement to provide and manage access to all parties seeking 
to conduct an experiment at fair and reasonable terms? For example, a 
single licensee could assign different experiments to different areas 
within the larger geographic area or provide a means for time-sharing 
equipment or could manage a database providing access on an as-needed 
basis to parties. Would this be a better approach than issuing multiple 
licenses within an innovation zone? The Commission points out that in 
the single licensee case there would be a single responsible party that 
could be contacted for gaining access or in instances where 
interference may be occurring. The Commission asks that advocates of 
the single licensee model provide comment on criteria it could use to 
select such a licensee.
    30. The Commission proposes to require the responsible party to 
file an application that describes the requested geographic area of 
operation, the frequencies to be used for testing, the maximum power 
levels associated with planned operations, and any other relevant 
technical characteristics pertaining to test equipment, antennas, etc., 
that would be necessary to identify and mitigate potential 
interference. An innovation zone licensee would then be permitted, 
under the terms of its license, to design and conduct any test that 
meets these criteria. The licensee would, however, be required to 
provide the Commission on a timely basis and through a web-based 
reporting system, an up-to-date list of the testing that is being 
conducted with at least a seven-day lead time before the tests are 
performed. It would also have to report the conclusion of individual 
tests. Should the holder of an innovation zone program experimental 
radio license be required to file periodic reports (e.g., a yearly 
report) updating the status of ongoing tests, or summarizing the 
activity conducted under its license? Are additional notification or 
coordination procedures warranted for experiments conducted in certain 
bands, such as those used for public safety or EAS purposes? If so, 
should the Commission apply the same pre-test notice process that it is 
proposing for the research licensee? The Commission tentatively 
concludes that innovation zone program experimental radio licenses 
should be granted for the same five-year duration it proposes for 
research experimental licenses to encourage robust levels of 
experimentation by minimizing administrative burdens, and that the 
Commission permit license renewals. The Commission also proposes to 
require the licensee to identify a single point of contact who has 
authority to stop any tests being conducted in the innovation zone, and 
to apply the same dispute resolution procedures it adopts for research 
program experimental radio licenses. The Commission seeks comment on 
these proposals.
    31. The third type of proposed program license is the medical 
program experimental radio license. This license would be available to 
hospitals and other health care institutions, and would facilitate the 
creation of cutting-edge test-bed facilities where manufacturers and 
developers could try out new wireless medical technologies and assess 
operational readiness. A medical experimental authorization would allow 
for the testing and operation of new medical devices that use wireless 
telecommunications technology for therapeutic, monitoring, or 
diagnostic purposes that have not yet been submitted for equipment 
certification, or for devices that use RF for ablation, so long as the 
equipment is designed to meet the FCC's technical rules. The FDA's 
investigational device exemption (IDE) may be applicable when these 
experiments involve patients. In this regard, the Commission notes that 
the FDA in consultation with the FCC is exploring approaches to 
streamline IDEs for wireless medical devices, when an IDE is required.
    32. The medical experimental license program would be supervised by 
the FCC in consultation with the FDA to determine the applicability and 
approval of the license to ensure that patient safety is considered. 
This program is not intended to replace the FDA's existing oversight 
and review programs.
    33. It is important that the Commission limit eligibility of 
medical program experimental radio licenses to the right institutions. 
Should it restrict licensing to entities that meet specific criteria, 
such as accreditation by a particular certification body--or should it 
instead require an entity, as part of its submission, to make an 
affirmative showing that it is engaged in the health care field and 
that it has sufficient resources and expertise to oversee tests 
conducted under the authority of a blanket license? How might the 
Commission include federal medical institutions such as those operated 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs or military services in this 
program, where the facility itself is under the jurisdiction of the 
Executive Branch and authorizations would ordinarily be granted by the 
NTIA, but certain tests might be conducted by non-federal entities? How 
could the Commission structure the coordination process between these 
governmental entities to balance the interests of military services 
while at the same time expediting the development of new medical 
devices? The Commission seeks comment on this

[[Page 6935]]

matter. The Commission proposes to require that, in all cases, 
facilities that seek a medical program experimental radio license 
demonstrate that they possess basic expertise in radio management. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should require baseline 
qualifications for demonstrating this expertise, or if it will be 
sufficient for applicants to make an affirmative showing that they hold 
these skills. For example, the Commission believes it is important to 
have the ability to identify and correct RF related problems. In this 
regard, it recognizes that some institutions may not be well versed in 
the FCC rules or spectrum management issues and may have to collaborate 
with an industry partner to develop new devices once a specific need is 
identified. In these instances, can the requirement for basic expertise 
in radio management be satisfied by the industry partner or should it 
reside with the host institution? Alternatively, could a third party be 
used to manage spectrum under the medical experimental authorization? 
For example, the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE) was 
designated by the Commission to manage the use of medical wireless 
telemetry equipment in health care settings. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether such an approach can work for medical research 
activities.
    34. The Commission tentatively concludes that the medical program 
experimental radio license should be granted to the institution that 
creates and manages the test bed environment in which the specific 
research activities will be conducted, as opposed to the manufacturers 
and experimenters who may be conducting the actual tests. The 
Commission believes that this approach strikes the right balance 
between our goal of promoting robust radio experimentation and the 
necessity of providing safeguards against harmful interference, because 
institutions can establish a single point of contact with knowledge of 
and control over all testing that is being conducted, and because such 
institutions should have ultimate control over their facilities. To the 
extent that the Commission permits the requirement for basic expertise 
in radio management to be satisfied an industry partner or third-party 
manager, how should it structure the licensing process? Should the 
Commission, for example, issue multiple licenses but require one party 
to identify itself as the responsible party?
    35. As with the research program experimental radio license and 
innovation zone program experimental radio license proposals, above, 
the Commission proposes that a medical program experimental radio 
license will offer broad authority under which individual tests will be 
conducted, but that such tests should be limited in scope to what is 
necessary to meet a particular test's goals. For example, the tests 
conducted under a medical program experimental radio license will 
provide researchers an opportunity to assess the susceptibility of new 
devices to interference as well as whether they might cause 
interference to other devices. Such tests can be conducted in a 
controlled environment so that any electromagnetic interference issues 
can be identified and remedied prior to devices being distributed to 
the public. The Commission proposes the same limitation on use of 
frequencies for medical program experimental radio licenses as it does 
for research program experimental radio and innovation zone program 
experimental radio licenses. That is, researchers may use any frequency 
so long as it is not listed in Sec.  15.205(a), except that frequencies 
above 38.6 GHz may be used so long as they are not listed in footnote 
US242 of the Table of Frequency Allocations.
    36. The Commission seeks comment on what information it should 
require of an applicant, in addition to a demonstration of its 
qualifications to hold a license. The Commission proposes to follow the 
same general application procedures as those to be established for the 
other program experimental radio license types. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that a licensee must specify the rule parts, 
frequencies, and geographic areas in which it plans to conduct tests. 
Is there additional information that it should require at the 
application stage? The Commission proposes that the license term be set 
for an initial five-year period, and that we permit license renewals. 
What other provisions should be incorporated into our rules?
    37. How should the Commission define the scope of permissible 
operations under a medical program experimental radio license? The 
Commission tentatively concludes that experiments conducted under the 
medical experimental authorization should be limited to investigations 
and tests involving therapeutic, monitoring, and diagnostic medical 
equipment and that the institution be given broad leeway to choose the 
frequency band(s) and technical characteristics appropriate to each 
experiment without having to seek specific prior FCC approval. The 
Commission also takes a fresh look at its existing experimental 
authorization rules as applied to medical equipment. Are there any 
rules that it should relax or modify due to the unique nature of or the 
importance of promoting advancements in the medical device field? As an 
initial matter, the Commission proposes that tests conducted under a 
medical experimental authorization not be subject to our traditional 
station identification rules. Our past experience in the medical device 
field suggests that such requirements are impractical for many of the 
devices it expects to be tested under the proposed new authorization, 
and that the typical power level and deployment environment for such 
devices will serve to reduce the potential for unanticipated 
interference that cannot be readily identified and resolved. Although 
the Commission proposes to require that operations must be tailored to 
comply with applicable FCC technical rules, should it also establish a 
method by which innovators can test devices that may not completely 
conform to the rules provided they have performed a risk assessment 
that includes an evaluation of how to protect the existing base of 
devices already in use in the medical facility? Are there any standards 
for risk assessment that should be used in this regard? The Commission 
asks because the test beds it hope to foster through medical 
experimental authorizations appear to be ideal venues to conduct 
empirical testing to support assertions that devices and systems will 
operate successfully in real-world settings. Should operations 
conducted under a medical experimental authorization be limited to a 
specific geographic area--such as the licensee's medical campus--or 
will the other proposed limitations on eligibility and operations 
provide sufficient protection against unanticipated consequences? More 
specifically can testing under a medical program experimental radio 
license be expanded to include body worn or implanted devices that 
travel with the patient, or should these types of tests be governed by 
the conventional experimental radio license? The Commission seeks 
comment on all of these matters.
    38. The Commission also seeks comment on what reporting 
requirements it should impose under a medical program experimental 
radio license. In exchange for the flexibility to conduct these tests, 
it believes that a license-holding institution should bear an 
obligation to prepare and submit a report detailing the results of its 
findings for review by the FCC and for dissemination to the medical 
community at large. Thus, just as teaching hospitals provide a venue

[[Page 6936]]

where new techniques can be developed and the knowledge shared, the 
medical experimental authorization would offer medical innovators 
fertile ground in which they could nurture and develop their ideas in a 
real-world setting, and where ideas and advancements can readily 
propagate throughout the medical community. The Commission proposes to 
require that the licensee submit, through the same Web site used for 
project registration, a report within 30 days after conclusion of the 
test that briefly summarizes its findings, and that the licensee also 
file a yearly report to the experimental licensing system of the 
activity that has been performed under the license. The Commission's 
intent with these reporting requirements is not to make public 
proprietary or company confidential information, but to provide a venue 
for sharing information that researchers would find beneficial in the 
goal of patient care. It also proposes that the licensee must provide 
the Commission on a timely basis an up-to-date list of the testing that 
is being conducted with at least a seven calendar day lead time before 
the tests are performed, and include such basic information as the 
frequencies and rule parts under which the medical device is intended 
to operate, the number of units that may be employed, the duration of 
the study, and the geographic scope of the experiment. Such information 
would make it easier to identify and remedy any unanticipated 
interference that may occur during the test. The Commission also 
proposes to apply the same dispute resolution procedures it adopts for 
research program experimental radio licenses. As with our other program 
experimental radio license proposals, the Commission anticipates that 
reports would be filed via a Commission web page, and that filings 
would be posted in a public and easily accessible manner. Because one 
of our objectives is to make available findings for review and 
dissemination to the medical community at large, the Commission 
specifically seeks comment on whether these proposed reporting 
requirements are sufficient to meet our goals. Specifically, are there 
other recognized reporting policies or protocols that are used within 
the medical community that we should be aware of? Are there ways for us 
to align elements of our reporting requirements with those policies?
    39. The Commission believes that the medical experimental 
authorization will create a new path for bringing innovative broadband 
and wireless-enabled medical devices to market, and will foster 
tangible advancements in the vital area of health care. By restricting 
licenses to qualified health care entities and for therapeutic, 
monitoring, and diagnostic medical equipment will provide protection 
against unanticipated harmful interference to other medical devices and 
existing radio services. As a practical matter, the Commission observes 
that many medical devices typically operate on a shared, non-exclusive 
secondary basis and at low power levels. Moreover, because of the 
coordination of this program with the FDA, as well as with that 
agency's overall regulatory oversight of medical devices, we believe 
that the testing of new and innovative devices under medical 
experimental authorizations can be accomplished in a way that protects 
patient safety and health. The Commission seeks comment on its 
proposal, and encourages commenters to help us craft this concept into 
rules that will create test-beds for the rap