Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio 
Experimentation and Market Trials under Part 5 of 
the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other 
Related Rules
2006 Biennial Review of Telecommunications 
Regulations – Part 2 Administered by the  
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ET Docket No. 10-236
ET Docket No. 06-155
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted:  January 31, 2013                 Released:  January 31, 2013
By the Commission:  Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners McDowell, Clyburn, Rosenworcel,
                                   and Pai issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
III. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 6
A. Streamlining the Commission’s Rules for Experimentation.......................................................... 10
B. Program Experimental Radio Licenses.......................................................................................... 20
1. Eligibility................................................................................................................................. 40
2. General License Requirements................................................................................................ 47
3. Operating Frequencies and Additional Requirements Related to Safety of the Public ........... 50
4. Responsible Party and Notification Requirements.................................................................. 63
5. Use Prohibitions ...................................................................................................................... 86
6. Innovation Zones..................................................................................................................... 91
C. Compliance Testing License.......................................................................................................... 97
D. Medical Testing License .............................................................................................................. 104
E. Broadening Opportunities for Market Trials ............................................................................... 122
1. Product Development and Marketing Trials ......................................................................... 128
2. Evaluation Kits ...................................................................................................................... 139
3. Importation Limits................................................................................................................. 142
F. Modifying and Improving Rules and Procedures ........................................................................ 147
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 165
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis .......................................................................................... 165
B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.................................................................................................... 166
C. Congressional Review Act........................................................................................................... 167
V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 168
APPENDIX A – Comments and Reply Comments to NPRM
APPENDIX B – Final Rules
APPENDIX C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
2
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. By its actions today, the Commission revises and streamlines its rules to modernize the 
Experimental Radio Service (ERS).  The rules adopted in this Report and Order will update the ERS to a 
more flexible framework to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change while continuing to 
provide an environment where creativity can thrive.  To accomplish this transition, we are creating three 
new types of ERS licenses – the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing 
license – to benefit the development of new technologies, expedite their introduction to the marketplace, 
and unleash the full power of innovators to keep the United States at the forefront of the communications 
industry. Our actions also modify the market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate 
our policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification.  We believe that these 
actions will remove regulatory barriers to experimentation, thereby permitting institutions to move from 
concept to experimentation to finished product more rapidly and to more quickly implement creative 
problem-solving methodologies.  
2. This Report and Order takes the following actions:
? Consolidates rules for broadcasting experiments
1
into a new subpart within Part 5 and 
eliminates developmental licensing rules in several Commission rules parts so that all 
experimental authority will be under the Part 5 ERS Rules, providing clear and consistent 
guidelines to applicants for all types of experimentation.
? Establishes program experimental licenses for colleges and universities with an 
accredited graduate research program in engineering, research laboratories, 
manufacturers of radio frequency (RF) equipment, manufacturers that integrate radio 
frequency equipment into their end products and health care institutions to allow broad 
experimental authority under a single license.
? Creates a Commission website where program licensees will register individual 
experiments to be conducted under a program license at least ten days prior to 
commencing the experiment.
? Requires that each program licensee post on the Commission website a report for each 
individual experiment completed, including a description of its results.
? Establishes a compliance testing license, which will be available to Commission-
recognized testing laboratories that test radio frequency devices for certification 
purposes.
? Establishes a medical testing license to permit health care facilities to undertake clinical 
trials of cutting-edge wireless medical technologies.
? Establishes a process whereby the Commission can specify innovation zones where 
program licensees may operate in addition to their authorized area of operations.
? Broadens opportunities for market trials by adopting a new subpart within the ERS 
Rules
2
that contains provisions for product developmental trials, as well as market trials, 
and modifies the rules to clarify when operation or marketing of radio frequency devices 
is permitted prior to equipment certification, including the number of devices that can be 
imported for such purposes.
? Makes other targeted changes to our experimental rules and procedures.
                                                     
1
Rules for experimentation related to broadcast services are currently located in 47 C.F.R. Parts 73 and 74 (Parts 73 
and 74).
2
The ERS Rules are contained in 47 C.F.R. Part 5 (Part 5).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
3
II. BACKGROUND 
3. The Commission’s Rules contain numerous provisions for experimentation and 
development of new radio equipment and techniques.  The ERS Rules, which are contained in Part 5 and 
permit a broad range of experiments in all services except for broadcast systems (which are currently 
authorized separately under Parts 73 and 74), prescribe the manner in which the radio spectrum may be 
made available to manufacturers, inventors, entrepreneurs, and students to experiment with new radio 
technologies, equipment designs, characteristics of radio wave propagation, or service concepts related to 
the use of the radio spectrum.
3
  To encourage innovation, the Part 5 rules provide flexibility regarding 
allowable frequency range, power, and emissions.  In exchange for this flexibility, experimental 
operations are not protected from harmful interference from allocated services, and ERS licensees must 
not cause harmful interference to stations of authorized services, including secondary services.
4
  
4. In the Commission’s August 2009 Wireless Innovation Notice of Inquiry (Wireless 
Innovation NOI), the Commission sought comment on the types of experimentation that would promote 
innovation in the wireless sector, including exploring whether its current rules for the issuance of 
experimental licenses should be revised.
5
  Subsequently, Recommendation 5.14 of the March 2010 
National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission initiate proceedings to enhance research 
and development that will advance the science of spectrum access.
6
5. In November 2010, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
in this proceeding to implement Recommendations 5.14 and 7.7 of the National Broadband Plan.
7
  In that 
NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on several proposed changes to the ERS Rules to provide 
additional flexibility to innovators, so that they can more quickly transform their ideas to fully functional 
new products and services that meet consumer needs. Specifically, the Commission proposed to create a 
new program experimental license to provide greater flexibility than the conventional experimental 
license to allow experimenters to alter the course of their tests, if needed, without having to request 
specific permission from the Commission.  It targeted this proposal at specific sectors of the 
communications ecosystem, including universities and non-profit research organizations and medical 
institutions.  It also proposed to eliminate the almost unused developmental license, consolidate all 
experimental rules including broadcast experimental rules in Parts 73 and 74 into Part 5, clarify the 
market trial rules, and make targeted rule changes aimed at providing additional flexibility and clarity of 
its rules.  The Commission received 26 comments and 18 reply comments to the NPRM.
8
                                                     
3
See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 5.1, 5.3, and 5.89.
4
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.85.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 2.102(b)(2) and (3). 
5
See Fostering Innovation in the Wireless Communications Market, GN Docket No. 90-157; A National Broadband 
Plan for Our Future; GN Docket No. 09-51; Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11322, at 11343-44, para. 65 (2009).
6
See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, March 2010 (available at 
http://www.broadband.gov/plan), at Recommendation 5.14, p.96. 
7
See Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials Under Part 5 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236; 2006 Biennial Review of 
Telecommunications Regulations – Part 2, Administered by the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), 
ET Docket 06-155; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 16544 (2010); Erratum, 26 FCC Rcd 3828 (2011).   
8
A list of commenting parties may be found in Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
4
III. DISCUSSION
6. As the communications industry continues to become more competitive, development 
cycles for new devices and products continue to get shorter as manufacturers and telecommunications 
providers seek to outpace their competitors.  An integral part of that development cycle is the ability to 
test devices both for function and user acceptability.  While the Commission’s experimental licensing 
program has been successful in fulfilling this need, we believe that it can be improved to better meet the 
needs of the telecommunications industry in the current innovation environment.  As industry streamlines 
its processes, we are doing likewise.  This Report and Order revises our rules and implements a new 
process that manufacturers and communications providers can take advantage of that will allow them to 
remain competitive and keep the United States at the forefront of this industry.
7. First, we are streamlining and reorganizing the Commission’s Rules regarding 
experimentation.  We are consolidating rules for broadcast experiments, now authorized pursuant to Parts 
73 and 74, into a new subpart within Part 5 to take advantage of similarities between the ERS Rules and 
the broadcast experimental rules.  We also are eliminating the developmental licensing rules that exist in 
several Commission rule parts, and will evaluate all future applications seeking any form of experimental 
authority under the ERS Rules.  Thus, all Commission rules for experimentation regardless of the type of 
equipment and where the equipment is in the development process (from basic research and development 
to market trials) will reside in Part 5.  This consolidation will provide clear and consistent guidelines to all 
parties seeking to experiment and innovate, and will make it easier for applicants to choose the best 
approach for their specific needs.
8. Next, we are creating new experimental license types to eliminate administrative burdens 
on those who are engaged in ongoing programs of research, experimentation, and testing.  These consist 
of the program experimental license, the compliance testing license, and the medical testing license.  The 
current rules allow for an experimenter to apply for and be issued a license to cover a single or a series of 
closely related experiments – referred to hereinafter as a conventional experimental license – which 
generally limits the scope of the experiment, frequencies, emissions, and power levels.  If licensees want 
to vary any of their authorized parameters, they must apply for new or modified licenses.  While the 
current process works well for those applicants who need to undertake only a single experiment, it can be 
cumbersome for applicants who wish to pursue ongoing research and can significantly delay the 
introduction of new technologies and services into the marketplace.  We will continue to issue 
conventional experimental licenses for specific types of experimentation, but we also will issue program 
and testing experimental licenses to promote ongoing research.  Together, these new licenses will allow 
researchers and laboratories to conduct multiple non-related experiments under a single authorization over 
a longer period of time, thus eliminating regulatory delay and uncertainty. 
9. Additionally, we are modifying our rules for product and market trials and clarifying the 
rules regarding equipment operation at early stages of development, i.e., prior to receiving a grant of 
equipment certification.  We are broadening the opportunities for introducing new products into the 
market by creating a new subpart in Part 5 that contains provisions for two types of trials – product 
development trials and market trials.  A product development trial will permit parties to evaluate product 
performance in the conceptual, developmental, and design stages, whereas a market trial will permit 
parties to evaluate product performance and customer acceptability prior to the production stage.  In 
concert with this change, we are modifying the rules limiting imports to allow a greater number of RF 
devices to enter the U.S. for testing and evaluation purposes.  Finally, we are making targeted changes to 
specific rules and procedures that will augment the efficiency of the ERS. 
A.       Streamlining the Commission’s Rules for Experimentation
10. Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission noted that one goal of this proceeding was 
to examine the experimental rules, as well as associated developmental rules in various services, to reduce 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
5
duplicative and confusing requirements.  To that end, the Commission observed that licenses suitable for 
performing experimentation and development of new innovative products and services are scattered 
among various rule sections.  Most notably, the Commission observed that it offers options for obtaining 
either an experimental license or a developmental license for entities that are developing new technology 
or promoting advances in existing technology.  It further observed that the developmental licensing rules 
appear to be largely duplicative of the ERS Rules, and that the vast majority of applicants apply for 
experimental licenses under Part 5, rather than for developmental licenses under other rule parts.  In 
addition, the NPRM noted that experimental licenses are available not only under Part 5, but also under 
Parts 73 and 74, in cases in which the experiment involves broadcast technology.
9
  The Commission 
observed that many of the rules covering broadcast and non-broadcast experimental licenses, as well as 
developmental licenses, are duplicative and often lead to confusion among would-be innovators.  It 
envisioned a single “one stop shop” in Part 5 of its rules to make its experimental processes easier to 
understand, allow it to eliminate duplicative provisions, and ultimately encourage greater 
experimentation.
10
     
11. To achieve these goals, the Commission proposed to eliminate the developmental rules 
and evaluate all future applications seeking any form of experimental or developmental authority under a 
consolidated Part 5, with the relevant portions of the existing experimental broadcasting rules that are 
now in Parts 73 and 74 moved to Part 5.  In short, the Commission proposed a new framework, wherein 
all experimental applications would be evaluated under either broadcast experimental rules or non-
broadcast experimental rules.  It stated its belief that eliminating developmental licenses in favor of 
experimental licenses would have little or no impact, as experimental rules are either similar
11
or less 
burdensome.
12
  It also observed that there are very few currently active developmental licenses.
13
  The 
Commission concluded that its proposals would provide clear and consistent guidelines to all parties 
seeking to experiment and innovate, leading to increased opportunities for experimentation.
14
12. In addition to the broad proposals outlined above, the Commission made proposals 
regarding three specific developmental licensing issues.  First, because broadcast experiments pursuant to 
Parts 73 and 74 of its rules rely heavily on broadcasting-specific engineering and licensing knowledge, 
and are typically designed to support the operations of existing broadcasters, it did not propose to alter 
these processes, the ways these applications are filed or evaluated by our Media Bureau, or otherwise 
disturb existing practice.  Instead, the Commission simply proposed to create a new subpart within Part 5 
into which it would move the relevant portions of the existing rules that are now in Parts 73 and 74.
15
  It 
noted that this consolidation would remove duplicative or unneeded language and provide clearer 
                                                     
9
We note that Part 5 of our rules provides for the Experimental Radio Service (except for Broadcasting) and is 
administered by the Office of Engineering and Technology.  Broadcast experimental licenses are issued under Part 
74 of our rules and are issued by the Media Bureau.
10
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16573, at paras. 74-75.
11
Both experimental and developmental licenses were designed to provide for research, development, and 
advancements in radio.  In addition, both licensing regimes authorize operation only on a non-interference basis, and 
licenses may be cancelled at any time without the opportunity for a hearing.
12
For example, experimental applications require only the submission of a narrative statement describing the 
program of research and experimentation proposed, whereas many developmental applications must also be 
accompanied by a Petition for Proposed Rulemaking.  
13
This number stands at ten, as of October 11, 2012. 
14
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16574-75, at paras. 76-77.
15
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to move 47 C.F.R § 73.1510, and Part 74 Subpart A, to Part 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
6
guidance than is available today regarding when an applicant should file for a broadcast experimental 
license – as opposed to a more general ERS license – while retaining the necessary distinctions for 
broadcast-specific experimentation.  Further, the Commission noted that, in consolidating the Parts 73 
and 74 rules into Part 5, it did not intend to propose any change to the Section 106 historic preservation 
review applicable to broadcast experimental radio stations authorized by the Commission.  Additionally, 
the Commission proposed to cancel all existing developmental licenses and reissue them as experimental 
licenses under the Part 5 rules.
16
  
13. Finally, the Commission noted that the rules for private radio meteor burst 
communications in Section 90.250 require that new authorizations be issued subject to the developmental 
grant procedure, and that an application for issuance of a permanent authorization must be filed prior to 
the expiration of the developmental authorization.
17
  Therefore, it proposed to retain the existing rule, 
simply substituting the developmental license requirement with a requirement to instead obtain an 
experimental license to satisfy the existing “pre-license” requirement.
18
   
14. Comments.  Commenting parties strongly favored the proposals to streamline the rules 
for experimentation.  The Hewlett Packard Company (HP) states that consolidating and simplifying the 
rules that cover experimental activities is a highly desirable way to promote innovation.
19
CTIA – The 
Wireless Association (CTIA) supports eliminating the developmental licensing rules to provide additional 
clarity and regulatory certainty to innovators and promote additional experimentation.
20
CTIA also 
recommends revising Section 5.79 of the rules to provide streamlined processing for transfers of control 
and assignment applications involving experimental licenses.
21
Similarly, Lockheed Martin Corporation 
(Lockheed Martin) recommends that the Commission facilitate experimentation by streamlining 
approvals and eliminating unnecessary requirements related to existing types of authorizations, including 
removing experimental licensing requirements in areas where there is negligible risk of harmful 
interference, and omitting unnecessary restrictions on experimental license operations.
22
15. The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) agrees with the Commission that the 
developmental rules can be eliminated in their entirety without adversely affecting the objective of 
promoting expanded experimentation.  SIA argues that the developmental rules are largely redundant and 
no longer fill a need, as indicated by the very low number of developmental applications granted by the 
Commission over the past several years.  Moreover, SIA contends, the Commission eliminated former 
developmental service rules under Part 25 several years ago in favor of reliance on the ERS Rules, and 
there were no adverse or unintended consequences.  Accordingly, SIA concurs that the developmental 
rules can be subsumed by the experimental rules, as proposed.
23
16. Decision.  The Commission’s proposal to consolidate all of its experimental and 
developmental rules into Part 5 received widespread support, and we find that adopting that proposal will 
promote greater experimentation and efficiency, thus providing a significant benefit at little or no cost to 
                                                     
16
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16575-76, at paras. 79-80.
17
See 47 C.F.R. § 90.250(i).
18
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16575, at para. 78.
19
See HP Comments to NPRM at 3.
20
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 17.
21
Id. at 3.
22
See Lockheed Martin Reply Comments to NPRM at 2 and 4.
23
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
7
the public.
24
  The current rule structure involves experimental and developmental operations scattered 
across ten rule parts with varying policies and eligibility requirements.
25
  To remove the confusion among 
license applicants caused by the varying rules, we consolidate our developmental rules from various rule 
parts and our experimental rules from Parts 5, 73, and 74 into a consolidated Part 5.  As proposed, we are 
retaining all necessary distinctions for broadcast-specific experimentation in the revised rules.
17. For the reasons set forth in the NPRM,
26
we also adopt the proposal to convert the few 
existing developmental licenses to experimental licenses.  We will cancel developmental licenses and 
reissue them as Part 5 experimental licenses with the same technical parameters that they currently enjoy.  
In addition, these licenses will be freed from the specific developmental rules to which they must now 
adhere, and instead will follow the ERS Rules.  Further, because we did not receive any comments 
opposing the proposal for handling meteor burst communication systems under Section 90.250 and it is in 
the public interest to do so, we will adopt the NPRM’s proposal to require applicants for these systems to 
first obtain and operate under an experimental license prior to applying for a permanent meteor burst 
communication system under Part 90 licensing requirements.
27
   
18. Regarding CTIA’s recommendation that we provide streamlined processing for transfers 
of control and assignment applications involving experimental licenses, we observe that these transactions
already generally occur on an expeditious basis and we see no reason to alter our existing processes.  In 
cases where there may be a long lag time between application filing and grant of a transfer of control, we 
note that many of these experimental transactions are components in a much larger transaction such as a 
merger involving licenses from many Commission licensing systems.  In these cases, the experimental 
license transfer of control cannot be granted until the Commission issues a decision on the larger 
transaction.  Once that occurs, the experimental license transfer of control generally occurs very quickly, 
often within one day.
28
  We will continue to handle these types of transactions on a case-by-case basis.  
19. Similarly, regarding Lockheed Martin’s recommendation that we remove experimental 
licensing requirements in areas where there is negligible risk of harmful interference and omit 
                                                     
24
There will be little or no cost to current developmental licensees because we will automatically convert their 
licenses to experimental licenses.  Further, there will be little or no cost to our staff because such conversions will 
require minimal staff time.
25
In addition to Parts 5, 73, and 74 experimental authorizations, Parts 22, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90, and 101 of our rules 
provide for issuance of developmental licenses. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.165(2); 22.377(b); 22.401; 22.403; 22.409; 
22.413; 22.591(a); 22.599(b); 73.72; 73.1010(e)(1); 73.1510; 73.1010; 73.3500(a); 73.3533(a)(2); 73.3536(b)(2); 
73.3539(a); 74.1; 74.15; 74.16; 74.101; 74.102; 74.103; 74.112; 74.113; 74.131; 74.132; 74.133; 74.151; 74.161; 
74.162; 74.163; 74.165; 74.181; 74.182; 74.183; 74.184; 78.107(a)(2)(ii); 80.25(c); 80.33; 80.377; 80.391; 87.27(b); 
87.37; 90.35(c)(75); 90.35(c)(89); 90.35(d)(6); 90.250(i); 90.501; 90.503; 90.505; 90.507; 90.509; 90.511; 90.513; 
90.515; 90.517; 101.21(b); 101.129(a); 101.401; 101.403; 101.405; 101.407; 101.409; 101.411; and 101.413.  
Additionally, provisions contained in Part 1 set forth general rules for development licenses issued in these rule 
parts.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.913(a)(1); 1.981; and 1.2003.
26
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16574-75, at paras. 77-79.
27
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16575, at para. 78.
28
For example, Liberty Media Corporation (Liberty) filed a series of applications to transfer de jure control of Sirius 
XM Radio, Inc. in the summer of 2012.  As part of that transaction, Liberty also filed applications to transfer control 
of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Licenses and Experimental Licenses.  The Commission granted consent for 
the transfer of control on January 3, 2013 (See Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Transferor and Liberty Media Corporation, 
Transferee Applications for De Jure Control of Sirius XM Radio, Inc., IB Dkt. No. 12-282, Order (rel. Jan. 3, 2013).  
Transfer of control of experimental license WE2XSS was completed on January 4, 2013.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
8
unnecessary restrictions on experimental license operations, we note that Lockheed Martin offers no 
specific suggestions on which we can take action.  However, we believe that our actions in this Report 
and Order to provide for new program experimental licenses will serve Lockheed Martin’s stated 
recommendation to streamline our rules.  In addition, we take many additional actions in this Report and 
Order based on specific comments to further streamline, simplify, and clarify the experimental licensing 
process.
29
B.          Program Experimental Radio Licenses
20. Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission noted that research institutions already use 
its experimental licensing program to deliver impressive results, but that its existing experimental rules 
are not always nimble enough to account for the speed of today’s technological development.  Currently, 
the rules allow for an experimenter to apply for a conventional experimental license to cover a single or 
several closely related experiments for 2-5 year periods with options for renewals for up to 5 years.
30
  
Any qualified company or individual, including students, may apply for a license, and experiments cannot 
begin until the Commission grants the license.
31
  These conventional experimental licenses are 
characterized by a narrowly defined purpose and specific limitations on frequencies, emissions, and 
power levels.  If, during the course of experimentation, a licensee determines that it would be better 
served by conducting experiments using parameters that would differ from what was authorized, the 
licensee must often request a modified or new license before exploring a new line of experimentation.  
This process can delay the introduction of new technologies into the marketplace and may prevent the 
American public from expeditiously taking advantage of technological advances.
32
  
21. In pursuit of a process that could keep pace with innovation, the Commission proposed in 
the NPRM to establish a new type of experimental license – a program license – under which qualified 
institutions would be permitted to conduct an ongoing program of research and experimentation under a 
single experimental authorization for a five year period on a non-interference basis without having to 
obtain prior authorization for each distinct experiment or series of unrelated experiments.
33
  The 
Commission’s intent was to allow experimentation with limited constraints, and it proposed few 
requirements for these program licenses beyond a provision for public notice prior to each experiment and 
an obligation to report results at the conclusion of each experiment.  Its proposal was designed to establish 
a balance that allows organizations the greatest level of flexibility to experiment – particularly in high-
value frequency 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.
22. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to establish three different types of program 
licenses and further proposed that eligibility for each would require applicants to demonstrate basic 
expertise in radio management.
34
First, it proposed a research program experimental radio license under 
which colleges, universities, and non-profit research organizations would be permitted to use a broad 
range of radio frequencies for research and experimentation.  It proposed to restrict the research program 
experimental license to Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) colleges or 
                                                     
29
See Section III.F, infra.
30
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.71(a).
31
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 5.51 and 5.89.
32
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16549-51, at paras. 15-17.
33
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16548, at para. 12.
34
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16548-49, at para. 12; 16560, at para. 41; and 16564, at para. 50.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
9
universities with graduate research programs or existing industry partnerships and a defined geographic 
location, or to nationally recognized non-profit research laboratories with a defined geographic location.  
The Commission reasoned that these institutions typically have a record of generating the types of 
innovations and technological breakthroughs that it seeks to foster, and argued that this new license 
option would provide more flexibility to accelerate the rate of these innovations.  It proposed to restrict all 
research experiments to the grounds of the license holder's location and to require that licensees have 
institutional processes to monitor and effectively manage a wide variety of research projects.
35
23. Second, the Commission proposed to establish a medical program experimental radio 
license, available to hospitals and other health care institutions, to expedite the process by which medical 
equipment is approved under its equipment authorization procedures, eliminate the need to obtain 
multiple experimental licenses, and encourage the creation of test-beds for medical device innovation.  It 
proposed that this license would be limited to experiments for therapeutic and diagnostic medical 
equipment designed to comply with the Commission’s Rules for such equipment. It noted that the Food 
and Drug Administration’s (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) may be applicable when these
experiments involve patients.
36
  In this regard, the Commission noted that the FDA in consultation with 
the Commission is exploring approaches to streamline IDEs for wireless medical devices, when an IDE is 
required.  The Commission proposed that the medical program experimental license be supervised by it,
in consultation with the FDA, to ensure that patient safety is considered, and noted that the new program 
is not intended to replace the FDA’s existing oversight and review programs.
37
  
24. Finally, the Commission proposed an innovation zone experimental radio license to 
provide greater opportunities for testing and experimentation in specified geographic locations with pre-
authorized boundary conditions.  It envisioned that such zones, which could include isolated or protected 
areas, could become havens for enterprise and innovation because they would permit experimenters to 
explore a variety of technologies with reduced barriers to entry.  Its proposal to establish an innovation 
zone program license was intended to complement its research program license proposal by making a 
carefully restricted set of locations available to foster robust wireless engineering experimentation and 
development, but with different eligibility and use restrictions.  Specifically, the Commission’s proposal
stated that innovation zone licensees did not necessarily have to be associated with a college, university, 
or nonprofit research organization.  The Commission further proposed to permit operations over large 
areas that are available for use by multiple parties, and proposed to prohibit use by a single entity at an
exclusive-use facility (such as within the grounds of a large manufacturer's plant).
38
  
25. Comments.  Commenters were virtually unanimous in supporting the establishment of 
program experimental licenses as a way to promote innovation by increasing opportunities for 
experimentation.
39
  While a number of commenting parties expressed concern about operation of program 
                                                     
35
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16551-52, at paras. 20-22.
36
An approved IDE permits a device that otherwise would be required to comply with a performance standard or to 
have premarket approval to be shipped lawfully for the purpose of conducting investigations of that device.  See 
21 C.F.R. § 812.1.  IDE procedures are not applicable when testing or experimentation is done in a laboratory 
setting where patients are not exposed to RF energy.
37
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16563-64, at para. 48.
38
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16560, at para. 41.
39
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 1, 4 (program licenses would support the Commission’s overarching goal of 
promoting innovation and efficient spectrum use); TechAmerica Comments to NPRM at 3 (program experimental 
licenses can foster robust levels of experimentation); SIA Comments to NPRM at 3 (program license would
accommodate the explosive growth in innovation in telecommunications services by addressing the need for new, 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
10
experimental licenses in certain bands,
40
none recommended that we decline to adopt rules creating this 
new type of license. AT&T Inc. (AT&T) recommends a measured approach, asking that the Commission 
consider adopting a pilot program, in which we would grant new research licenses to a limited number of 
institutions and then evaluate the program before expanding its scope.
41
26. Many commenters suggested extending eligibility for research experimental program 
licenses beyond colleges, universities and non-profit research institutions, and no parties argue against 
expanding eligibility. The Boeing Company (Boeing) recommends that the Commission extend the 
availability of research program experimental authority to any proven testing entity that can demonstrate 
to our Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) that it is sophisticated in the design and operation of 
wireless systems and in the use of various forms of attenuation to minimize the possibility of harmful 
interference.
42
  Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) notes that development of radio technology includes both 
commercial and academic activities.  It argues that streamlining the work of corporate scientists, by 
providing a geographic-based authorization, would be beneficial to radio innovation and help ensure that 
U.S. industry remains at the forefront of the mobile Internet.
43
  Similarly, Q-Track Corporation (Q-Track) 
contends that a persuasive case can be made that industrial research is the prime mover of advances in 
wireless technology and recommends that the research experimental license be made available to all 
researchers without discriminating based on those researchers’ affiliations.
44
  The Telecommunications 
Industry Association (TIA) states that for-profit entities face the same burdensome and inefficient process 
of applying for multiple licenses as do non-profit entities, and contends that the majority of advances in 
technology have occurred in the private sector.
45
  
27. Mayo Clinic (Mayo) argues that it is in a unique position, as it can be considered a 
medical institution as well as a manufacturer and developer, and could be eligible for both research and 
medical program licenses.  To that end, Mayo requests clarification of the definition of “nationally 
recognized non-profit research laboratories,” stating that it employs engineering staff who were trained in 
ABET-accredited university programs, and is unclear whether that means that it would qualify for a 
research experimental program license as a nationally recognized non-profit research laboratory; i.e., 
Mayo inquires whether the NPRM’s proposal limits eligibility to Federally funded research and 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
less rigid means of conducting tests); CTIA Comments to NPRM at 2 (program license would provide additional 
experimentation flexibility).
40
See AT&T Comments to NPRM at 4 (although the Notice’s proposed rules may adequately protect non-CMRS 
licensees, the protections afforded to CMRS licensees are severely deficient); SIA Comments to NPRM at 16 (the 
Commission’s proposed experimental frequency range is over-inclusive, in that it overlooks certain bands, in 
addition to the public safety bands, that require protection at all times. These bands include designated safety-of-life 
related services (e.g., aviation, AMS(R)S, and radionavigation-satellite service); Verizon Wireless Reply Comments 
to NPRM at 1-2 (the Commission should, at a minimum amend the proposed rules to issue experimental 
authorizations in CMRS spectrum only if CMRS licensees expressly consent); V-COMM LLC Comments to NPRM
at 4 (universities, research organizations, and health care facilities should not utilize licensed CMRS spectrum to 
conduct unproven radio experiments, which can result in harmful interference to incumbent CMRS services); 
Wireless Communications Industry Association Comments to NPRM at 9 (even if the Commission does not adopt 
for all bands the adjustments WCAI proposes above, it should adopt them for mobile and public safety bands.)
41
See AT&T Comments to NPRM at 6-7.
42
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 4-5. See also Lockheed Martin Corporation Reply Comments to NPRM at 7-8.
43
See Cisco Comments to NPRM at 2. 
44
See Q-Track Comments to NPRM at 2.
45
See TIA Comments to NPRM at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
11
development centers.
46
Mayo also recommends that, for medical institutions that conduct experiments 
over multiple facilities in varying geographic regions, a single research license should apply to that
institution, as opposed to the license applying only to a single facility of that institution.  Mayo contends 
that this arrangement would permit the institution’s central engineering services to be spread across 
individual locations, and that coordination with potentially-affected spectrum users by the institution’s 
local engineers should be sufficient to avoid interference to those users.
47
28. In addition to supporting the Commission’s proposal to create a research program 
experimental license, commenters also support the proposal to establish a medical experimental radio 
license.  Mayo states that – of the three new experimental program licenses proposed – the medical 
license supports technology development activities at the individual patient-worn medical device level,
but that to enable complete system level testing, components of the innovation zone program license 
would be required so that testing could take place at multiple locations, such as the licensee’s facility and 
individual homes and continuing care facilities.
48
  The mHealth Regulatory Coalition (mHealth) observes 
that establishing a medical program license to conduct appropriate and necessary interoperability and RF 
immunity testing may complement the FDA’s IDE process.
49
  Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic) cautions that, 
while the goal of improving the speed of issuance of medical research licenses through consultation 
between the Commission and the FDA is commendable, the two agencies should first issue clear 
guidelines as to what their respective separate responsibilities are in the application, review, and approval 
processes.
50
29. Comments were mixed on the innovation zone license proposal.  Commenters offered 
differing views on where innovation zones should be located and who should be eligible for such a 
license. Boeing states that such authorizations should be permitted within the confines of exclusive-use 
facilities, such as manufacturing plants.
51
  SIA contends that, not only would permitting entities to secure 
innovation zone licenses covering exclusive-use facilities foster experimentation, but that relaxing that 
eligibility requirement would also more efficiently further U.S. policy objectives without jeopardizing 
national security.
52
Nickolaus Leggett (Leggett) recommends that we consider the potential of urban 
zones, as well as innovation zones that are in more remote and isolated regions.
53
Engineers for the 
                                                     
46
SeeMayo Comments to NPRM at 3, 5.
47
Id. at 4-5. 
48
Id. at 3.
49
See mHealth Comments to NPRM at 1.
50
SeeMedtronic Comments to NPRM at 1-5. Medtronic recommends that the process for review and approval of the 
FDA’s IDE remain exclusively with the FDA, and that the agencies delineate the responsibilities for risk 
management oversight so there will be no duplication and/or potentially conflicting opinions.
51
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 6-10. Boeing argues that the location restrictions inherent in the innovation 
zone proposal provide enough safeguards against harmful interference such that restricting the pool of eligible 
licensees is unnecessary.
52
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 17-18. SIA argues that, during the development stage of a new product or 
technology, most – if not all – private entities seek to design and test new wireless products and services on a 
proprietary basis, including the testing of defense and military related technologies, and that a failure to maintain the 
confidentiality of a new product or technology could eliminate a company’s ability to secure a patent for that 
technology once it is developed. 
53
See Leggett Reply Comments to NPRM at 2. For example, Leggett argues, an urban zone could be established 
within the city of Detroit, Michigan to attract communications development activity to that city.  Leggett 
acknowledges that an urban zone would have more interference issues than innovation zones in remote areas, but 
argues that the scope of an urban zone could be more limited than an innovation zone.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
12
Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Spectrum (EIBASS) recommends that we decide on a case-by-case basis 
what constitutes a sufficiently isolated area because such a determination involves a complex combination 
of geographic location, terrain isolation, frequency bands, and population density.
54
  The National Radio 
Astronomy Observatory (Observatory) requests that the Commission not establish innovation zones in 
areas where radio astronomy operations in any portion of the frequency spectrum could be impacted.
55
30. Several commenters expressed concern that operations in an innovation zone could cause 
interference to authorized spectrum users. V-COMM, LLC (V-Comm) recommends that innovation zone 
licenses be designated for non-auctioned or unlicensed spectrum bands only.
56
  ARRL – The National 
Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) contends that many bands allocated for the Amateur Radio 
service are unsuitable for experimentation and inclusion in an unregulated innovation zone because they 
are utilized ubiquitously and on a frequency agile, rather than a channel assignment, basis.
57
  CTIA 
recommends that the Commission hold all innovation zone experimental licensees accountable for their 
use and that it require licensees to provide detailed information in license applications and reporting 
before, during, and after testing.
58
Finally, Marcus Spectrum Solutions, LLC. (Marcus) proposes that the 
Commission work with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to 
determine areas of the country where Federal bands, particularly those identified for transfer to non-
Federal licensing, are not wholly or partially in use and can be designated as innovation zones.
59
31. Decision.  We find that adding rules for a program experimental license will augment the 
existing experimental radio license program by affording new options for experimentation that will 
reduce regulatory delay and uncertainty and promote innovation. We will continue to issue conventional 
experimental licenses under existing rules, but we also will have the ability to authorize ongoing 
experimentation and research for qualified applicants under a program license.  There are significant 
differences between conventional and program experimental licenses, thus enabling the Commission to 
satisfy different needs.  In this section, we describe the new program experimental license in general 
terms, and compare it to the conventional experimental license that is already permitted under our rules.
32. A conventional experimental license authorizes a narrowly defined single experiment or 
several closely related experiments, including product and market trials, which are discussed in more 
detail below. Any qualified company or individual, including students, may apply for a conventional 
experimental license, and experiments cannot begin until the Commission grants the license.  The 
Commission may permit experiments to be conducted in certain restricted frequency bands on a case-by-
case basis.
60
These licenses may be limited to a defined geographic area, but such limitation is not 
required.  The Commission in its discretion and on a case-by-case basis may require that the licensee 
submit a report on the results of its experimentation, and applicants and licensees can request confidential 
treatment of information that they file with the Commission.  
                                                     
54
See EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 10.
55
See Observatory Comments to NPRM at 2.
56
See V-Comm Comments to NPRM at 12.
57
See ARRL Comments to NPRM at 15.
58
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 11-12. For example, the Commission should maintain a record of 
experimentation by requiring licensees to submit applications outlining the parameters of each experiment and to file 
reports specifying the results of each experiment.
59
See Marcus Comments to NPRM at 11.
60
The restricted bands are listed at 47 C.F.R. § 15.205.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
13
33. We are adopting rules for program licenses that differ somewhat from the proposals in 
the NPRM based on comments to the NPRM and our further evaluation.  As an initial matter, we are 
reducing the categories of program licenses from research, medical, and innovation zones to a single 
category encompassing all program experimental radio licenses.  The rules that we adopt incorporate, to a 
large extent, the proposals for research and medical program licenses, but not the proposal for the 
innovation zone program license.  We believe, upon further reflection, that distinguishing separate 
licenses for general research and medical research is unnecessary.  Instead, we are creating a single 
program experimental license to encompass all basic research and experimentation. Thus, basic medical 
research and experimentation conducted by a hospital or health care institution that does not involve 
“clinical trials”
61
will be covered by the program experimental license, and we are creating a separate 
medical testing license for those experiments that do involve clinical trials – see Section III.D., infra.  
Mayo’s comments highlight the fact that there are two types of medical experiments – those involving 
basic research and those involving real-world patient testing.  Moreover, medical experiments that 
involve patient testing generally require FDA participation.  Thus, we find it more logical and 
administratively convenient to treat basic medical device research experiments under the program 
experimental license.
62
In response to Medtronic’s concerns, we do not believe that the issuance of 
further guidelines about the Commission’s and FDA’s respective roles in the application, review, and 
approval processes should serve as a precondition to or otherwise keep us from adopting the proposed 
rules.  We have an ongoing coordination process in place with FDA regarding medical 
radiocommunication device matters,
63
and will continue our practice of releasing advice and information 
as it becomes available.  Licensees seeking to test medical devices who have specific questions about the 
respective roles of the Commission and FDA regarding a planned course of experimentation should 
continue to raise these matters directly with staff at the respective agencies.  Also, in consideration of the 
comments and upon further analysis, we are adopting rules that will enable us to create innovation zones, 
but we will not create a specific innovation zone program license as proposed.  Instead we will 
periodically designate areas as innovation zones for specific experimentation, as described below.
34. The basic framework for a program license differs from a conventional license in several 
significant ways. A program license will permit innovators to conduct any number of unrelated 
experiments at defined geographic locations under the licensee’s control. Licensees will be able to 
conduct experiments within a broad range of frequencies, emissions and power levels to support ongoing 
research. These licenses will be issued for a 5-year term and may be renewed for additional 5-year 
periods. Eligibility will be limited to certain categories of researchers, as discussed below. Licensees 
will be required to provide public notice of individual experiments before they are initiated and the results 
of those experiments after they are concluded. With limited exceptions, experimentation will not be 
permitted in restricted frequency bands. We discuss all of the requirements for program licenses in detail 
below.
35. We believe that a program license will provide a more efficient way for many qualified 
institutions to conduct cutting-edge research and experimentation and accelerate innovation in RF 
technology to more quickly transform ideas into important new consumer products and services.  The new 
license will offer experimenters a wide range of flexibility to design their experiments and to change 
                                                     
61
In the context of this proceeding, clinical trials are experiments that are designed to evaluate the effectiveness and 
safety of medical devices that transmit via RF energy information regarding a patient’s condition, such as his/her 
vital signs.
62
We address Mayo’s concern regarding clinical testing outside of medical campuses in Section III.D, infra.
63
See, e.g., Joint Statement on Wireless Medical Devices (FDA and FCC, July 26, 2010) (available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300200A1.doc).  We also note that we coordinated a draft 
of this Report and Order with FDA.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
14
course with respect to frequencies, emissions, and power – subject to certain limitations – as 
experimenters conduct their research.  We believe that establishing such a license will more closely align 
our rules with the iterative nature of the learning and discovery process that occurs in laboratories today.  
Further, we note that this addition to our experimental licensing program will more closely align it with 
other licensing regimes within the Commission that have moved to a more flexible structure.
64
Experimenters taking advantage of this new option will now be free to follow their research wherever it 
leads (subject to the basic tenets of the overall experimental license framework, such as not causing 
harmful interference and operating within the scope of the authorization).  This should substantially 
reduce how often they need to engage the Commission to seek permission to make changes to a 
preconceived course of experimentation.  
36. We emphasize that this new license will build on our existing experimental license 
structure, rather than replace it.  As with existing experimental licenses, the Commission may, at its 
discretion, place special conditions on program experimental licenses to ensure that a licensee conducts it 
experimental program in a manner that ensures that no harmful interference is caused to existing licensees
and Federal Government operations as authorized by NTIA.  We could, for example, require that 
experiments be restricted to a specified portion of the program licensee’s research campus or conducted 
during specified hours; require additional coordination for experiments that exceed a certain power level, 
operate outdoors, or operate on a specific frequency band; or impose additional notification requirements 
for the first set of experiments that a new licensee conducts under its program experimental license.  We 
emphasize that such conditions, when imposed, will be narrowly tailored to address specific potential 
concerns we identify and that a program experimental licensee will be afforded the freedom to design and 
conduct a wide range of experiments under the terms of its license.
37. Individuals and institutions that do not qualify for our new program experimental licenses 
may still apply for conventional experimental licenses.  Additionally, institutions that do qualify may 
nonetheless choose to apply for conventional experimental licenses in certain instances – such as when 
the particular experiment that they wish to undertake is not permitted under the program experimental 
license rules.
65
We find that by providing both conventional experimental license and program 
experimental license opportunities, we will provide greater flexibility to experimenters and promote 
greater levels of experimentation that will serve the public interest by spurring innovation, creating new 
products and services, and ultimately leading to the creation of new jobs.  Further, we find that under the 
program license, licensees conducting consecutive experiments will accrue cost savings by filing fewer 
applications and having the ability to begin their experiments in a timelier manner.  Thus, we find that for 
these licensees the program license will be more efficient than a obtaining multiple conventional licenses.  
These efficiencies should also result in faster service for the remaining conventional license applicants.  
Accordingly creating a new program experimental license could provide significant public benefits at 
little or no cost, and so we herein adopt that proposal, as modified.  As proposed, the rules for this license 
will be contained in a new subpart E within Part 5 of the Commission’s Rules.  
38. Under the rules we adopt, conventional experimental licenses and program experimental 
licenses will co-exist under our general experimental licensing framework.  BAE Systems Information 
and Electronic Systems Integration Inc. (BAE) requests that we adopt rules to address how existing
conventional experimental licenses authorizing operations at specific geographic locations would be
                                                     
64
For example, licenses for commercial mobile radio services generally allow licensees to operate mobile and/or 
fixed stations under a single license; see, e.g. 47 C.F.R. § 22.901, pertaining to cellular radio systems. Similarly, the 
Commission’s Rules allow licensees in certain satellite bands to operate ancillary terrestrial service under their 
satellite licenses; see 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.252-25.254.
65
For example, a conventional experimental license would be needed if an environmental assessment is required.  
See para. 90, infra. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
15
impacted by newly granted research licenses authorizing operations at those same locations.  BAE 
suggests that the Commission specify that a conventional license could be renewed provided that the 
parameters of that license do not overlap with the new research license.
66
  We disagree with BAE’s 
recommendation and see no need to implement such rules.  We observe that experimental radio licenses 
do not convey any exclusive spectrum rights, and often different conventional experimental licensees 
have conducted experiments in the same general area on a non-interference basis.  If an interference 
problem is anticipated between an existing conventional experimental licensee and a new program 
experimental licensee, we see no reason why this cannot be resolved by the parties, just as is the case at 
present between two conventional experimental licensees.
67
39. Research institutions have made important discoveries via our existing experimental 
licensing program, and we foresee even greater potential under our new license.  We conclude that a 
research program experimental license has significant potential to advance the state-of-the-art in 
communications research and applied development, including medical research, thus enhancing economic 
and social welfare.  However, upon consideration of the record in this proceeding and further reflection
regarding the fundamental nature of the research program license, we are making certain modifications to 
the proposal to better align the final rules to expand eligibility and the types of experimentation that will 
be encompassed.
1. Eligibility
40. Based on the record and our decision to define a program license as one that supports all 
types of basic RF research, including medical research, we conclude that it is appropriate to expand the 
scope of eligibility for program experimental licenses beyond what was proposed in the NPRM.  Thus, 
program experimental licenses may be granted to the following qualified entities: a college or university 
with a graduate research program in engineering that is accredited by ABET; a research laboratory; a 
hospital or health care institution; a manufacturer of radio frequency equipment; or a manufacturer that 
integrates RF equipment into its end products.  This expanded eligibility will permit enhanced public 
benefits by significantly expanding the scope of RF research with no public costs.
41. Many commenters argued that the NPRM’s proposal was too limited by, for example, its 
focus on colleges, universities, and non-profit research institutions.
68
  We agree.  The Commission’s 
rationale in the NPRM for limited eligibility was that it would hasten testing efforts prior to final approval 
and marketing of new RF devices.  However, we now conclude that, by expanding eligibility under a 
revised program experimental license structure, we will help expedite the development of devices 
regardless of the setting in which the development takes place.  As several commenters observe, 
development of radio technology includes both commercial and academic activities, and the number of 
corporate facilities located in the United States where radio experimentation occurs is limited.  Therefore, 
while the NPRM proposed to exclude all manufacturers from eligibility for research program licenses, we 
will permit manufacturers that have demonstrated expertise in radio spectrum management
69
to hold such 
licenses under our revised program license structure.  By expanding program license eligibility in this 
                                                     
66
See BAE Comments to NPRM at 8-9.
67
For example, licensees can reach agreements such that they aim their antennas away from each other or transmit 
at different times.  In addition, we note that if parties are unable to reach agreement among themselves they may 
contact the Commission, which would then be the final arbiter of any dispute.
68
See AT&T Comments to NPRM at 9; Cisco Comments to NPRM at 2; Q-Track Comments to NPRM at 2; SIA 
Comments to NPRM at 9; and TIA Comments to NPRM at 4.
69
This includes non-federal as well as federal operations, as necessary for the frequency band(s) under consideration 
for experimentation.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
16
manner, we can expand the level of experimentation beyond what would have been possible under the 
NPRM’s proposal.  
42. Regarding Mayo’s question of whether the NPRM’s proposal to include eligibility for 
nationally recognized non-profit research laboratories limits eligibility to Federally funded research and 
development centers or whether it includes other non-profit institutions that have engineering staff that 
were trained at ABET-accredited university programs, we are modifying the NPRM’s proposal to permit 
any qualified research laboratory to be eligible for a program license.  Our goal is to enable a wide variety 
of laboratories to take advantage of the flexibility we are providing.  As with manufacturers, these labs 
must possess demonstrated ability to manage projects involving RF technology and will be subject to the 
same certification requirement that we mandated above for manufacturers.  We recognize that some 
institutions may not be well versed in Commission rules or spectrum management issues and may have to 
collaborate with another entity to develop new devices once a specific need is identified.  We will allow 
such arrangements so long as they are clearly articulated with the application.  In addition, we remind 
interested parties that ultimate responsibility for operations under a license grant remains with the 
licensee, whether it possesses the requisite expertise itself or partners with an entity for such services.
70
  
This action will expand the eligibility of program licenses beyond those for which we originally proposed 
and allow more institutions to take advantage of these licenses to develop innovative devices and 
applications for the public benefit.
43. We emphasize that under the eligibility rules we adopt, we will limit program 
experimental licensees to those entities that have demonstrated experience with RF technology (or have 
partnered with an entity possessing the requisite expertise) and have defined geographic areas.  By so 
doing, program experiments will be unlikely to cause harmful interference to incumbent spectrum 
licensees, but if that should inadvertently occur, the experimenter will be able to quickly remedy it.  To 
ensure that this condition is met, we will require each applicant for a program license to accompany its 
application with an explanation of how its staff possesses the expertise with RF technology to supervise 
all experiments to achieve compliance with this condition, and to so certify in its application.  
44. We find it unnecessary to take the step recommended by AT&T of requiring a pilot 
program before making experimental program licenses widely available.  The certification requirements 
that we are imposing are an appropriate method for ensuring that program licensees do not cause harmful 
interference to service licensees.  The Commission has used similar application certifications in the past 
to ensure compliance with certain requirements, and we conclude that this approach is suitable here.
71
  In 
this regard, we note that the Communications Act provides for the Commission to impose penalties, 
including fines, license revocation, and preclusion from obtaining future Commission licenses on 
applicants who willfully provide false statements on application forms.
72
  
45. Applicants for program experimental licenses must apply on FCC Form 442 
(“Application For New Or Modified Radio Station Authorization Under Part 5 Of FCC Rules -
Experimental Radio Service (Other Than Broadcast)”).  We are revising this form to include not only 
                                                     
70
In the case of medical test-beds, we believe it would provide administrative simplicity for the institution 
sponsoring the test-bed to obtain the experimental license, so that it could easily test multiple devices under identical 
conditions.  However, we also recognize that the sponsoring institution may be unwilling to take on the 
responsibility of ensuring that harmful interference is not caused to licensed spectrum users, and thus may decline to 
become a licensee.
71
For example, we note that FCC 601, “FCC Application for Radio Station Authorization: Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,” requires eight general certification 
statements; see .  
72
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(1) and 503.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
17
conventional experimental licenses, but also program experimental licenses, medical testing experimental 
licenses, and compliance testing experimental licenses.
73
  Each applicant for a program experimental 
license must specify how it meets the eligibility requirements for such a license, a certification of RF 
expertise or partnership with another entity possessing such expertise, the purpose of its proposed 
experimental program, and whether its research program includes federal frequencies, CMRS frequencies, 
public safety frequencies or medical testing.  We note that program experimental licenses may not be 
transferred without Commission approval.
74
Additionally, applications must specify, and the Commission 
will grant authorizations for, a geographic area that is inclusive of an institution’s real-property facilities 
where the experimentation will be conducted and that is under the applicant’s control.  If an applicant 
needs to conduct experiments in more than one defined geographic area, it must apply for a license for 
each location.  We are not persuaded by Mayo’s recommendation that a single license should be available 
for medical institutions that conduct experiments over multiple facilities in varying geographic regions.  
We conclude that because interference issues are unique to each area,
75
the limitation on the geographic 
scope of a program experimental license provides an appropriate way for the Commission to take these 
factors into account within the licensing process.  
46. We believe that this approach is well tailored for the experimental program license 
concept.  Unlike a conventional experimental license application, which can be filed by any party and is 
subject to case-by-case analysis, a test planned under the authority of a program license will be conducted 
by a licensee whose qualifications have already been reviewed by the Commission.  This entity will have 
already committed to design and conduct experimental testing in a way that will not cause harmful 
interference, and risks revocation of its license and other Commission sanctions if it fails to do so.
2. General License Requirements  
47. In the NPRM, the Commission made a number of proposals relating to operating 
parameters of program experimental licenses.  Many of those proposals followed directly from 
requirements already in place for conventional experimental licenses.  First, the Commission proposed 
that: (1) program licenses be granted for five year, renewable terms;
76
(2) it have the authority to prohibit 
or require modification of specific experiments at any time without notice or hearing, if in its discretion 
the need for such action arises;
77
and (3) 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.
78
  Commenters strongly support all of these 
proposals, and we adopt them.
48. Additionally, the Commission proposed that within 30 days after completion of each 
experiment, the licensee must file a narrative statement describing its results, including any interference 
incidents and steps taken to resolve them.
79
  It further proposed that, before conducting tests, a licensee 
must evaluate the propagation characteristics of the frequencies to be used in individual experiments, the 
                                                     
73
Compliance testing experimental licenses are discussed in Section III.C., infra.
74
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.79.
75
The potential to cause interference is a function of many factors including: geography, frequency, technical 
parameters such as power and bandwidth, and proximity of other licensees.
76
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16557, at para. 35; 16562, at para. 44; and 16565, at para. 53. 
77
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16597, at § 5.83(b). 
78
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16553-54, at para. 25. Section 333 of the Communications Act, as amended, prohibits willful or 
malicious interference to authorized services.  See 47 U.S.C. § 333.
79
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16607, at § 5.309(d). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
18
operational nature of the services normally operating on those and nearby frequencies, and the specific 
operations listed within the Commission’s licensing databases.
80
  The Commission noted that online tools, 
such as its General Menu Reports system, which allows users to search many different Commission
licensing databases from one place, could facilitate these tasks.  Moreover, it proposed that experiments 
be designed to use the minimum power necessary and be restricted to the smallest practicable area needed 
to accomplish the experiment’s goals, e.g., an individual laboratory, specific building, or designated 
portion of a campus.  The Commission observed that experimenters may also choose to reduce the 
frequencies used, restrict the time of use, limit the duration of tests, or employ other means to address 
potential interference concerns.  Finally, the Commission proposed to require that all experiments comply 
with its existing experimental rules involving matters such as protected geographic areas and antenna 
structure placement.
81
  All of these proposals found support in the record, and we are also adopting them.
49. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that its existing experimental licensing rules 
requires a licensee to transmit the licensee’s assigned call sign unless that call sign has been specifically 
exempted by the terms of the licensee’s station authorization.
82
  The Commission therefore proposed 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, and proposed to require the communication of information that is sufficient to 
identify the license holder and the geographic coordinates of the station.  As stated in the NPRM, this 
requirement is important for mitigating interference, should an authorized service licensee receive any.
83
  
The only commenter that addressed this issue was Mayo, who stated that station identification 
requirements must address the necessity to protect patient confidential information in medical testing 
experiments.
84
We conclude that the proposal to require station identification or testing disclosure is 
sufficiently flexible to accommodate patient confidentiality in the medical context.  In most cases, the 
testing information that must be disclosed – parameters like starting time and duration – would not 
implicate patient confidential information, and geographic information would likely identify a healthcare 
facility’s campus broadly as opposed to a specific individual’s location.  As such, we adopt the proposal 
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 on the Commission’s 
program experimental registration website.
85
  To the extent that a research program licensee believes that 
a particular test scenario creates a conflict between the requirement to provide detailed testing information 
and the necessity to protect patient confidential information, we encourage the licensee to first discuss the 
matter with Commission staff and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  If the licensee 
concludes that the information it must disclose would jeopardize the confidentiality of patient 
information, the licensee should then consider pursuing that particular test under our conventional 
experimental licensing procedures.  We find that our general program experimental rules will provide a 
public benefit at minimal cost by ensuring that program experiments can be undertaken on a non-
interference basis to incumbent operations, while protecting the confidentiality of medical information.
                                                     
80
Access to these services is made available via the Internet and other sources on the Commission website at 
http://www.fcc.gov. 
81
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16553-54, at para. 25.  
82
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.115.
83
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16554, at para. 25.  
84
SeeMayo Comments to NPRM at 6.
85
We will issue Public Notices with specific information pertaining to the location and use of the registration 
website as we progress with its development.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
19
3. Operating Frequencies and Additional Requirements Related to Safety of 
the Public
50. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that program experimental licensees be 
permitted to operate in any frequency band, except in bands exclusively allocated to passive services (as 
are conventional experimental licensees) or in certain restricted bands.  More specifically, it proposed that 
program licensees – unlike conventional experimental licensees – would not be permitted to operate on 
the restricted band frequencies that are listed in Section 15.205(a) of the Commission’s Rules,
86
except 
that they would be permitted to operate in frequency bands above 38.6 GHz unless they are listed in 
footnote US246 of the Table of Frequency Allocations.
87
  Except for these restrictions, the Commission 
proposed that program licensees be permitted to conduct experiments on all other frequencies, as are 
conventional licensees, and thus have access to the largest range of frequencies practical to enable a broad 
range of experimentation.
88
  However, for experiments that may affect bands used for the provision of 
commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes, the Commission 
proposed that the program experimental radio licensee develop a specific plan to avoid interference to 
these bands, prior to commencing operation, including providing:
(a) notice to parties, including other Commission licensees and end users, who might be affected 
by the experiment; 
(b) provisions for the quick identification and elimination of any harm the experiment may cause; 
and
(c) an alternate means for accomplishing potentially affected vital public safety functions during 
the experiment.
89
The Commission proposed applying these provisions to all experiments that implicate these critical 
service bands (i.e. bands used for the provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, 
or public safety purposes), and that they would be in addition to the notification requirements that apply 
to all program experimental licenses, which we discuss in Section III.B.4., below.  As specific examples 
of the bands that would be subject to these special provisions, the Commission cited the Cellular 
Radiotelephone Service, broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), the Advanced Wireless 
Service, and the 700 MHz band.
90
  
51. Comments.  Many commenters were supportive of the NPRM’s frequency band 
proposals, and in some cases argue for additional flexibility.  For example, Boeing recommends that 
program experimental licensees be permitted to use any spectrum, including the restricted bands listed in 
Section 15.205(a) of the Commission’s Rules and footnote US246 of the Table of Frequency Allocations, 
provided that they demonstrate that sufficient precautions have been taken to prevent harmful 
interference.  Boeing further recommends that the process for securing Commission approval for 
operations in restricted or other highly sensitive spectrum bands be largely identical to the process that 
currently exists for conventional experimental licensees seeking to secure new or modified licenses.  
Boeing argues that most experimental operations are conducted at such low power levels and in such 
remote locations that they could not interfere with other networks.
91
  BAE argues that, while it is critical 
                                                     
86
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.205(a).  The rules allow only for spurious emissions in any of the restricted frequency bands.
87
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote US246. 
88
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16606, at § 5.303.  
89
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16607, at § 5.311.  
90
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16556, at para. 31.
91
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 10-11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
20
to ensure that experimental operations do not cause interference to any licensed services, blanket 
prohibitions are not warranted.  BAE maintains that, if service licensees are permitted to object to 
conventional experimental applications based on technical demonstrations of predicted interference, and 
if such objections are required to be resolved in a timely manner, there is no reason to prohibit, or require 
prior consent for, experimental operations on any licensed frequencies.
92
52. Other commenters suggest that the NPRM’s proposals did not go far enough in protecting 
services that they identify as critical or bands with unique interference concerns.  For example, the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) recommends that our
final rules regarding program experimental licenses include safeguards against interference to public 
safety communications systems, just as they now do for conventional experimental licenses.
93
  SIA 
maintains that experimentation within some bands should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, such as 
bands including designated safety-of-life related services (e.g., aviation, Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite 
(Route) Service, and radionavigation-satellite services) and bands where interference can be expected to 
have an impact far beyond the locale of the experiment and may be difficult to identify and precisely 
locate (e.g., the Fixed-Satellite Service, Mobile-Satellite Service, Broadcasting-Satellite Service, and the 
meteorological satellite bands).
94
  Similarly, ARRL expresses particular concern about interference from 
experiments in High-Frequency (HF) bands between 3 and 30 MHz which have worldwide propagation 
capabilities and potentially very large interference contours, and thus should be much more carefully 
regulated than bands that have a high re-use capacity, such as those above 40 GHz.  ARRL also contends 
that, in some bands used by Amateur Radio operators at HF, VHF, UHF and microwave ranges, there are 
exceptionally weak-signal communications being conducted on an ongoing, daily basis which cannot 
tolerate co-channel experimental operation, even if not geographically co-located with experimental 
operations.
95
53. Several commenters contend that the rules need to provide measures to protect
commercial mobile frequencies that are more expansive than the additional procedures we proposed in the 
NPRM.  The Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI) and AT&T state that program 
experimental licenses would be problematic in mobile bands because of heavy consumer use of those 
bands – especially on university campuses – and because those bands provide vital services, such as 
E911.  To avoid widespread disruption to critical consumer services in mobile bands, WCAI recommends 
that the Commission require advance consent of service licensees prior to experiments commencing at 
least for the following services: the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, broadband PCS, Advanced Wireless 
Services, 700/800 MHz wireless services, and Broadband Radio Service (BRS)/Educational Broadband 
Service (EBS).
96
AT&T supports the Commission’s proposal to adopt special provisions where 
experiments would involve bands used to provide commercial mobile services, and recommends that, in 
areas where commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) licensees operate, experiments should be confined 
to set locations and not made mobile.
97
V-Comm argues that there should be a ban on experiments in 
                                                     
92
See BAE Reply Comments to NPRM at 15.
93
See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 5.85(d) which states, in part, that “Applicants in the Experimental Radio Service must avoid 
use of public safety frequencies except when a compelling showing can be made that use of such frequencies is in 
the public interest.”  APCO argues that the danger of harmful interference to public safety communications exists 
regardless of the nature of the experimental license.  See APCO Comments to NPRM at 1-2.
94
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 15-16.
95
See ARRL Reply Comments to NPRM at 7-8.
96
SeeWCAI Comments to NPRM at 4-9.
97
See AT&T Comments to NPRM at 4-5 & nn. 9. 12 (citing the Commission’s identification of the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service, broadband PCS, AWS, and 700 MHz bands as examples of the implicated bands).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
21
CMRS spectrum; otherwise, CMRS networks would have to avoid the use of channels on which 
experiments are being conducted to avoid experiencing losses in system capacity, reduced data 
throughputs, disruptions, and poor quality of service due to increases in noise and interference levels.
98
Clearwire Corporation (Clearwire) supports various measures to protect the incumbent licensees in the 2.5 
GHz band using BRS and EBS spectrum where it provides mobile broadband services.
99
54. Verizon Wireless (Verizon) recommends that, in the heavily used licensed CMRS bands, 
any new rules explicitly require prior approval of a CMRS licensee before an experimental licensee may 
commence operations on CMRS spectrum.
100
  Otherwise, in Verizon’s view, we would be effectively 
requiring a CMRS licensee to share its spectrum, which would violate CMRS licensees’ existing 
spectrum rights.
101
  Verizon makes a number of arguments to support its contention that allowing 
experimental licensees to operate in spectrum used for CMRS operations would violate the licensee’s 
existing spectrum rights.  In regard to spectrum bands that have been subject to auction, Verizon argues 
that the auction establishes a contract between the Commission and licensees which the Commission will 
unlawfully devalue and impair by granting experimental licensee’s the right to operate in the spectrum 
without the licensee’s consent.
102
  Verizon also claims that the proposed rules would amount to a 
modification of the CMRS spectrum licenses, which the Commission cannot do without complying with 
Section 316 of the Communications Act and, furthermore, that we cannot justify this modification under 
Section 316.
103
  Verizon also argues that the Commission’s actions in adopting the proposed rules would 
be arbitrary and capricious by fundamentally undermining CMRS licensees’ rights to exclude others from 
operating on their licensed spectrum and to use their licensed spectrum to the maximum extent 
possible.
104
  Furthermore, Verizon claims that adoption of the proposed experimental licensing rules 
would constitute an unconstitutional taking of CMRS licensees’ property rights in violation of the Fifth
Amendment.
105
55. Several commenters recommend that the Commission not exclude bands used in the 
provision of CMRS from program experiments.  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech) maintains that, with proper safeguards, such as required coordination with CMRS
licensees, it will be possible to conduct safe experimentation in those bands.
106
  However, Virginia Tech 
recommends that the Commission require these licensees to respond to all requests for coordination 
within two weeks of notification by the experimenter, and that these licensees be permitted to reject 
consent only if they deem that there is a high likelihood of interference to their subscribers based on a full 
technical evaluation.
107
  Boeing maintains that experimental operations have historically been permitted in 
CMRS spectrum bands and that, in some cases, licensees are required by law to utilize CMRS spectrum 
                                                     
98
See V-Comm Comments to NPRM at 4-12.
99
See Clearwire Ex Parte Filing, ET Docket No. 10-236, May 17, 2012.
100
See Verizon Comments to NPRM at 3-4, 7-9.
101
Id. at 7-9.
102
Id. at 8-9.
103
See Verizon Reply Comments to NPRM at 5.
104
Id. at 6.
105
Id. at 10-13.  Verizon claims this taking of property qualifies as both a taking per se and a regulatory taking.  
106
See Virginia Tech Reply Comments to NPRM at 3-4.  See also, AT&T comments to NPRM at 5.
107
See Virginia Tech Reply Comments to NPRM at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
22
to perform certain testing activities.  Boeing states that eligible entities can utilize the CMRS bands and 
still protect incumbents by establishing reasonable technical and operating requirements.
108
56. Decision.  As an initial matter, we concur with APCO that, consistent with current rules, 
experimental licenses of all kinds should avoid use of public safety frequencies
109
except when a 
compelling showing can be made that use of such frequencies is in the public interest.
110
  On the other 
hand, we believe that SIA’s concerns regarding interference to other services are unfounded.  An 
examination of the frequency bands in Section 15.205 reveals that, generally, it is the safety-of-life 
services, including aviation services, and passive services that have been designated as restricted.  
Experimenters who desire to use these bands may still do so, but they must apply for a conventional 
experimental license and be subject to the case-by-case review inherent in that process.  Thus, as 
proposed, the rules we adopt herein will not provide authority for program licensees to operate on specific 
public safety and passive frequency bands.  Parties interested in conducting experiments on these 
restricted frequency bands must apply for a traditional conventional experimental license and provide the 
required showing. 
57. Second, regarding Boeing’s and BAE’s appeal for additional flexibility by allowing 
experiments in the restricted bands at very low power with proper site selection, we do not believe that 
such a deviation from our proposal is warranted nor is there sufficient evidence to support allowing such 
experimentation under a program license at this time.  Many of the operations in these bands are Federal 
and must be coordinated with NTIA through its Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee.  We note 
that we are not foreclosing experiments of the nature suggested by Boeing and BAE; rather, they can be 
accomplished using the current process of obtaining a conventional experimental license.
58. Third, regarding operation on other frequencies, including the bands used for critical 
services that we described in the NPRM, we concur with Virginia Tech and Boeing that, in general, 
program experiments can safely be performed in these bands, provided that a specific plan is developed to 
ensure no disruption to those services.  Thus, we find no reason to bar program experiments in bands used 
by Amateur radio operators.  Again, we appreciate the concern expressed by various licensees, but we 
reiterate that harmful interference caused by program license experiments to any licensed services is 
unacceptable and will not be countenanced. 
59. For program license experiments that may affect critical service bands (i.e. bands used 
for the provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes), we 
adopt the Commission’s proposal that the program licensee must develop a specific plan to avoid harmful 
interference to operations in these bands.  For purposes of this requirement, we include the following 
bands used for the provision of various commercial mobile services (including broadband) – the Cellular 
Radio Service, Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service, broadband Personal Communications Service 
(PCS), Advanced Wireless Service (AWS), 700 MHz band, Broadband Radio Service (BRS)/Educational 
Broadband Service (EBS), and Wireless Communications Service in the 2.3 GHz band.
111
  That plan must 
be developed by the program licensee prior to commencing an experiment, and provide notice to licensees 
                                                     
108
See Boeing Reply Comments to NPRM at 2-4.
109
Public safety services include “the radio communications of governmental entities and the following categories 
of activities: Medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief 
organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated places, communications standby facilities, and 
emergency repair of public communications facilities.”  See 47 C.F.R. § 90.15. 
110
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.85(d).  
111
This list of services is illustrative only.  Licensees must ensure that they comply with these rules, including for 
frequency bands which may be designated for commercial mobile services in the future.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
23
and, as appropriate, to end users of the critical service bands who could potentially be affected by the 
experiment describing how the program licensee intends to quickly identify and eliminate any harm that 
the experiment may cause.
112
  If the experiment may potentially impact safety of the public, the program 
licensee must specify how potentially affected public safety functions will be provided during the 
duration of the experiment.  We will also require that, for these experiments, licensees supplement their 
web-based notifications described in Section III.B.4., infra, to include a list of the critical service 
licensees that operate in the affected bands in the geographic vicinity of the planned experiment.  Doing 
so will serve as an effective check that the program experimental licensee has conducted sufficient 
research to meet the requirement that it has contacted all critical service licensees who might be affected 
by the experiment, and will aid us in evaluating whether the licensee is conducting its activities with the 
high level of rigor and diligence that we will demand under the program experimental license program.   
60. We also conclude that it is not in the public interest to categorically prohibit or restrict 
experimentation in commercial mobile service bands, as suggested by V-Comm, Verizon, AT&T, and 
SIA, and we disagree with V-Comm that there should be an outright ban on experiments in these bands.  
We believe that it is desirable to support experimentation in all bands where it is practical, and observe 
that successful innovation in the commercial mobile service space has the potential to directly and 
immediately improve some of the most widespread and ubiquitous consumer services.  Many entities are 
engaged in designing products specifically for the these bands that are intended to work with various 
operators’ systems, and eliminating the ability to experiment in this spectrum would remove one of the 
avenues available for such development.  We also note that experimenters may often work with network 
providers to develop equipment, and adopting rules limiting such operations would not be to either 
party’s benefit.  This point is made by WCAI which states that “… existing licensees have an incentive to 
support harmless PERL [program experimental radio license] experiments because many radio 
experiments have the potential to enhance the operations of existing licensees.”
113
  Further, we note that 
these bands are not restricted bands under Part 15, and experimenters in these bands can already test new 
designs and prototypes on that spectrum.  We also disagree with V-Comm that CMRS providers would 
have to avoid the use of channels on which experiments are being conducted and with AT&T that 
experiments on CMRS spectrum be confined to set locations and not involve operation of mobile 
equipment.  The rules stipulate that all experimentation is on a non-interference basis and that it is 
incumbent on all experimenters to ensure that they do not cause interference to service licensees’ 
operations or risk fines and the possibility of license forfeiture.  Moreover, while many experiments will 
be fixed, devices often are built for mobility, and we do not find it in the public interest to limit the ability 
of experimenters to fully test their devices.  We further address the issues of coordination with these 
commercial mobile service licensees in the section below on notification requirements for program 
licensees.
61. Moreover, regarding Verizon’s claims regarding violation of the legal rights of licensees 
of spectrum used to provide CMRS, its arguments rest on the assumption that these licensees have had an 
                                                     
112
In this context, the notice to end users does not imply that we expect a program experimental licensee 
to contact every end user or subscriber of a CMRS or public safety system. Rather, the experimental 
licensee can contact the potentially affected Commission licensees who can act as an agent in this case on 
behalf of their subscribers or end users. Those licensees are in a position to determine if additional 
notification measures are warranted based on the specific parameters of the experiment. Or, in other 
cases, the program experimental licensee can take measures to ensure that specific end users are directly 
notified. For example, a university could use social media such as twitter or its texting or e-mail 
capability to send a message to faculty and students to alert them that a test will be in progress during 
certain times.
113
See WCAI Comments to NPRM at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
24
absolute right to exclude others from their spectrum.  This assumption is invalid.  The Commission has 
previously determined that permitting secondary use of spectrum is not a license modification.
114
  In 
addition, we point out that the Commission’s existing experimental rules already permit secondary use of 
commercial mobile service spectrum by experimental licensees.  As the Commission has noted, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has affirmed “that an exclusive licensee could not object to the 
Commission’s policy decision to permit secondary use rights where such secondary use did not cause 
harmful interference.”
115
  We emphasize that we are not proposing to alter the basic principles of the 
experimental licensing program – including the obligation of experimental licenses to avoid causing
harmful interference to incumbent service licensees.  Accordingly, we reject Verizon’s arguments that the 
rules we adopt can be construed to be a modification of these licenses, a taking of spectrum rights, or an 
undermining of these spectrum rights in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
116
  We further conclude that 
Verizon’s claim that the rules we are adopting will devalue or impair this spectrum is without merit.  
Experimental licensees not only are prohibited from causing harmful interference to commercial mobile 
service licensees, but they must alter or discontinue their experimental operations, as necessary, in light of 
any modification that such a licensee makes to its spectrum use.  Consequently, these licensees are not 
impeded in use of their spectrum and the spectrum is not devalued.
117
62. Accordingly, we adopt our proposed rules to permit program experimental licensees to 
operate in any frequency band, except for frequency bands exclusively designated as restricted in Section 
15.205(a) of the Commission’s rules, with the additional exception that program licensees would be 
permitted to operate in frequency bands above 38.6 GHz, unless these bands are listed in footnote US246 
of the Table of Frequency Allocations.  Additionally, for experiments that may affect bands used for the 
provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes, program 
experimental radio licensees must develop a specific plan to avoid interference to these bands prior to 
commencing operation.  As part of this plan, licensees must provide notice to critical service licensees
and, as appropriate, end users who might be affected by the experiment; provide for the quick 
identification and elimination of any harm the experiment may cause; and provide an alternate means for 
accomplishing potentially affected vital public safety functions during the experiment.  We emphasize 
                                                     
114
AirCell Inc. Petition, Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, for a Waiver of the Airborne Cellular Rule, or, in the 
Alternative, for a Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9622, 9633-36 paras. 25-30 
(2000) Affirmed by AT&T Wireless v. FCC, 270 F.3d 959 (D.C. 2001) (remanded to explain interference threshold 
used); See also Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems, 
ET Docket No. 98-153, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC 
Rcd 3857, 3886 para. 74 (2003) (“no basis for [licensees’] claim that cellular or PCS exclusivity prohibits the 
Commission from providing for the operation of new services” that could place emissions within the bands); See 
also AMSC Subsidiary v. FCC, 216 F.3d 1154, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 
115
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems,  ET Docket 
No. 98-153, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24558, para. 90 
(2004) (describing AT&T Wireless v. FCC, 270 F.3d 959 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). 
116
In regard to Verizon’s takings claims, courts have concluded that licensees do not have property rights in any 
license that the Commission issues to them, and so are not protected by the Fifth Amendment.  See FCC v. Sanders 
Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 395 (1981); Prometheus Radio 
Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 428 (3
rd
Cir., 2004).  
117
Therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that Verizon could have a property interest in its license that could 
be subject to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, application of the experimental rules would not constitute a 
regulatory taking because application of those rules would not deprive Verizon of all economically beneficial use of 
that theoretical property interest.  See Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2592, 2601 (2010), citing Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 
U.S. 419, 425-26 (1982), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
25
that the burden is on program licensees to contact any and all commercial mobile service, emergency 
notification, or public safety licensees who might be affected by a program experiment, even if the 
probability of harmful interference as the result of that program experiment is thought to be relatively 
low.  The proposed rules were crafted to ensure that harmful interference from program experiments 
would not occur to any service licensee, and we believe that those rules, together with additional rules 
described below, will provide a significant public benefit at minimal cost by creating an environment ripe 
for experimentation and innovation, while protecting incumbent operations.
4. Responsible Party and Notification Requirements
63. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that each program licensee register its 
experiments on a newly-created Commission program experimental registration website at least seven 
calendar days prior to the commencement of each experiment.  This seven-day period was intended to 
provide interested parties with sufficient time to assess whether they believe harmful interference may 
occur to their systems.  To ensure that such analysis could be done, the Commission proposed that 
registrations include the following information:
(1) a narrative statement describing the experiment;
(2) contact information for the researcher in charge; 
(3) technical details, including:
(i) the frequency or frequency bands;
(ii) the maximum effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP) or effective radiated 
power (ERP) under consideration;
(iii) the emission designators to be used;
(iv) a description of the geographic area in which the test will be conducted;
(v) the number of units to be used; 
(vi) a public safety mitigation plan, if necessary; and
(vii) for medical program experimental radio licenses, the rule part for which the 
experimental device is intended.
118
64. The Commission proposed that, once this seven-day notification period elapsed, an 
experiment under a program license would be permitted to commence without further approval or 
additional authorization from the Commission; however, if any licensee of an authorized service raised
interference concerns, it would have to contact the program licensee and post its complaint on the 
Commission’s program experimental registration website. In the event that a complaint is lodged, the 
Commission  proposed that the experiment would be placed on hold pending resolution of the complaint.  
Specifically, it proposed that before conducting an experiment, the program licensee evaluate and account 
for interference concerns raised by interested parties, and that it would have to obey any instructions from 
the Commission to delay, modify, or abandon the experiment.  Additionally, it proposed that the 
experiment not be permitted to commence until the parties had resolved the issue.  Moreover, it proposed 
that the complainant bear the burden of proof that the proposed experiment would cause harmful 
interference, and that the parties work in good faith to resolve the complaint.
119
  Finally, the Commission
proposed to implement measures, such as adding a Real Simple Syndication (RSS) feed, to make it easier 
for incumbent licensees and other interested parties to become aware of pending tests and make 
experimenters aware of their concerns.  The NPRM sought comment on what those measures should be.
120
                                                     
118
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16606-07, at § 5.309(a).  
119
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16607, at § 5.309 (b).  
120
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16555-56, at para. 30.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
26
65. Comments.  Commenting parties broadly supported the general proposal for program 
licensees to provide advance notice to the Commission and other licensees of the parameters of each 
experiment via a newly created Commission website.  However, several commenters stated that each 
program license should also provide a “stop buzzer” point of contact in addition to a general point of 
contact so that an experiment could be halted immediately in the event of harmful interference.
121
  In 
addition, some commenters disagreed with some specific aspects of the proposed procedures; most 
notably, the requirements that: (1) an experiment may not commence until the experimenter and any 
affected service licensees resolve an interference concern, and (2) a complainant bear the burden of proof 
that the proposed experiment will cause harmful interference.  We discuss these and other specific 
comments below.
66. BAE generally supports the proposal to not require a specific coordination requirement, 
but to instead rely on a public notification via a Commission web-based process.
122
  It further states that 
there are sufficient safeguards in the ERS Rules to ensure that licensee’s operations are protected from 
receiving harmful interference from an experiment, without requiring prior consent of those licensees.  
BAE adds that the Commission must ensure that the procedures adopted do not allow service licensees to 
stifle innovation through the objection process.
123
  To that end, BAE recommends that the Commission 
only impose coordination conditions when absolutely necessary based on a prior substantive technical 
review of the proposed experiment.  BAE also recommends that we clarify that the only valid basis for a 
service licensee’s objection to a coordination request is a fully articulated technical demonstration that 
interference will occur, and that failure to provide such showing within the timeframe requested by the 
coordinator will be deemed to constitute the licensee's consent or a waiver of the coordination 
requirement.  Moreover, BAE recommends that we adopt specific rules and procedures to allow for 
resolution of disputes between experimental applicants/licensees and service licensees on the issue of 
interference protection, in cases in which the issue cannot be resolved within a specified timeframe.  In 
this regard, BAE recommends that we allow either party to promptly schedule a Commission-monitored 
settlement conference, similar to the procedure currently set forth in our rules at Section 1.956.
124
67. Boeing generally agrees with BAE, recommending that we not impose coordination 
conditions requiring licensees to secure prior consent, unless the conditions are absolutely necessary.  
Boeing argues that such requirements unnecessarily hinder experimental operations and incentives to 
invest, thereby limiting technological advances and growth.  Boeing also argues that incumbent licensees 
have no incentive to furnish their consent to experimental testing.  In its experience, incumbent licensees 
have frequently refused consent to coordination requests – thus thwarting necessary experiments even 
when there has been no specific claim that the testing will affect commercial wireless receivers.  This
results in certification and delivery delays for new and innovative products and adds to the developmental 
costs.  Lockheed Martin concurs with Boeing on this point and urges the Commission to clarify that, in 
cases where coordination is required by the Commission, incumbent licensees may not refuse or delay 
coordination, absent legitimate concerns about harmful interference.
125
Lockheed Martin contends that 
                                                     
121
See, for example, AT&T Comments to NPRM at 6; BAE Comments to NPRM at 11; and CTIA Comments to 
NPRM at 4.
122
See BAE Comments to NPRM at 11.
123
Id. at 12.
124
Id. at 17-19.  See also, 47 C.F.R. § 1.956, which specifies that – for wireless radio services – parties are 
encouraged to use alternative dispute resolution procedures to settle disputes; and that, in any contested proceeding, 
the Commission, in its discretion, may direct the parties or their attorneys to appear before it for a conference.
125
See Lockheed Martin Reply Comments to NPRM at 3.  Lockheed Martin contends that service licensees have, on 
occasion, been unwilling to coordinate with conventional experimenters, and that – even when coordination takes 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
27
this could be accomplished by limiting coordination objections to those that involve a licensee’s existing 
operations and frequencies, establishing standard processes and reasonable time limits for resolution of 
coordination disputes, and making use of “stop buzzer” requirements for experimental licensees.  Boeing 
adds that the most important protection from harmful interference for incumbent licensees is the 
requirement that testing must be performed on a non-interference basis or the experiment must 
immediately cease.
126
  Boeing further recommends that the Commission establish an experimental 
"safe harbor" that avoids a coordination requirement for experimental operations when there are 
controlled test areas where there is no risk of harmful interference to authorized services.
127
Clearwire 
Corporation (Clearwire) supports Boeing’s safe harbor proposal.
128
Marcus offers a variation on the safe 
harbor proposal and recommends that we codify an option to permit a special technical showing of de 
minimis interference risk as an alternative to coordination between an experimental licensee and affected 
authorized spectrum users.
129
  
68. Other commenters favor greater use of coordination and consent requirements.  As we 
noted above, several commenters argue that the Commission should require either coordination with or 
the consent of service licensees in commercial mobile bands before experiments can be conducted in 
those bands.
130
  CTIA recommends that, for all tests or experiments that would affect the CMRS bands 
(i.e., experiments that are intended to operate in spectrum bands used by CMRS providers or in adjacent 
bands), the Commission require that each program experimental licensee coordinate with these affected 
licensees by filing with the Commission a specific plan to avoid interference prior to the commencement 
of any such test or experiment.
131
  CTIA argues that, under certain conditions, such as when experiments 
are conducted outside or away from controlled venues, we should require a licensee’s concurrence prior 
to a test.  AT&T advocates that the Commission should require a program licensee to provide notice to 
potentially affected commercial licensees with existing CMRS networks and subscribers and obtain 
consent from each CMRS licensee.
132
  Verizon takes a similar position and contends that such consent 
should be obtained from each potentially affected licensee including CMRS licensees operating on 
adjacent bands and adjacent markets.
133
  WCAI argues that requiring consent of service licensees before 
an experiment begins is the best way to ensure a streamlined and predictable experimental application 
process while protecting service licensees and their end users from harmful interference.
134
  
69. Several licensees argue that the NPRM‘s proposal effectively shifts the burden of 
avoiding interference from experimental licensees to service licensees.  For example, Motorola Solutions, 
Inc. (MSI) contends that the proposal unreasonably shifts experimental oversight obligations to 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
place – open-ended coordination obligations can result in significant delays before service licensees consent to 
permit the experiment.
126
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 12-14.
127
See Boeing Ex Parte Filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, May 2, 2012, at 2.
128
See Clearwire Ex Parte Filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, June 21, 2012.
129
SeeMarcus Comments to NPRM at 13.
130
See paras. 53-54, supra.
131
CTIA further recommends that all authorizations affecting the spectrum bands used by CMRS providers be 
limited to the activities described in the experimentation plan and only for the necessary duration, and that these 
activities be conducted during off-peak usage hours whenever possible.  See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 5-6. 
132
See AT&T Comments to NPRM at 2-3.
133
See Verizon Reply Comments to NPRM at 3-4.
134
SeeWCAI Comments to NPRM at 2-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
28
potentially-affected service licensees.  Similarly, ARRL expresses concern that the proposal does not 
require any advance showing or representation by the experimental applicant of compatibility with 
incumbent licensees.  ARRL argues that nothing is proposed that would obligate the qualified research 
institutions to demonstrate that interference will not be caused to licensed radio services from a broad 
experiment.
135
  Similarly, WCAI does not support the Commission’s proposal to place the burden of 
monitoring program experiments on service licensees.
136
  TIA argues that the proposal would result in 
service licensees having to dedicate increased resources to determining the source of experimental 
interference and resolving related issues.  Moreover, in TIA’s view, there would be a significant danger of 
service licensee actually experiencing interference.
137
  
70. Finally, the record reflects a wide variety of suggestions for structuring the 
responsibilities of program experimental licensees and their interactions with commercial mobile service 
licensees.  For example, some commenters contend that the proposed seven day notification period is too 
short.  CTIA and Verizon recommend that we require 30 days advance notice to affected licensees.
138
  
Clearwire, which recommends pre-filing coordination of all ERS applications with affected primary 
service licensees to alleviate the risk of harmful interference, proposes that this requirement be combined 
with both a “shot-clock” rule that requires a primary licensee to respond to a coordination notice from an 
ERS applicant within 30 days and a requirement that both the applicant and the licensee work in good 
faith to successfully coordinate the request.
139
  WCAI supports the Commission’s proposal that, if any 
service licensee raises interference concerns, the experiment not be permitted to commence until the 
parties resolve the complaint.
140
  SIA suggests an alternative approach whereby service licensees would 
register bands of interest and their geographic locations on a common Commission website and any 
proposed experiment under that license in the registered band and applicable geographic area would 
trigger a seven-day advance notice requirement.
141
  MSI recommends that we maintain our current 
policies which, among other things, impose an independent obligation on experimental licensees to:      
(1) research and assess the potential for interference to primary licensees before they conduct any 
experiment, (2) coordinate directly with primary users only when necessary to ensure against possible 
interference, and (3) submit such analyses or concurrences to the Commission, when required.  MSI 
argues that experimental licensees are better equipped than service licensees to ensure a minimum 
potential for interference, and recommends that we re-affirm the obligation of all experimenters to 
comply with the Commission’s existing policies and requirements to ensure against interference to 
primary licensees, rather than adopting a website-based notification requirement.
142
71. Decision.  Our overriding goal is to ensure that program experiments can proceed in an 
efficient and expeditious manner, without impairing or causing harmful interference to the operations of 
incumbent operations.  We conclude that, based on the comments, some modifications to the NPRM’s
proposed procedures will provide a better, more equitable way to move forward with program licenses 
and protect incumbent users.  As a baseline, we are adopting a Commission web-based notification 
                                                     
135
See ARRL Reply Comments to NPRM at 6-7.
136
SeeWCAI Comments to NPRM at 2-4.
137
See TIA Comments to NPRM at 6-7.
138
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 9 and Verizon Reply Comments to NPRM at 3-4.
139
See Clearwire Ex Parte Filing, ET Docket No. 10-236 and 06-155, May 17, 2012.
140
SeeWCAI Comments to NPRM at 2-4.
141
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 12.
142
SeeMSI Comments to NPRM at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
29
procedure with the information requirements proposed in the NPRM.  We also are expanding a program 
experimental licensee’s obligations and responsibilities in several significant ways.  
72. First, we note that commenters ask that we explicitly collect contact information for a 
“stop buzzer” point of contact who can immediately shut down an experiment if harmful interference 
occurs to services entitled under our rules to protection.  We agree.  The Commission’ s intent with the 
proposed criteria was that collecting information for the researcher-in-charge would fill this need.  
However, because this contact could be different than the person actually conducting the experiment, we 
will explicitly add a “stop buzzer” point of contact to the list of required information in Section 5.307 of 
the rules.  We will also add a new Section 5.308 to the rules requiring the “stop buzzer” point of contact 
to be available at all times during operation of each experiment conducted under a program license.
143
73. Second, while the NPRM proposed that program licensees report the specifics of their 
proposed experiments to the Commission’s program experimental registration website at least seven 
calendar days prior to commencement of the experiment, upon reflection we find ten calendar days to be a 
more appropriate period.  We note that, in some instances, holidays and weekends would shorten the 
number of business days in a seven calendar-day period.  By increasing the notification period to ten 
calendar days, we will better ensure that licensees, if so interested, have adequate time to examine and 
respond to an experimental posting in a timely manner. Additionally, the NPRM proposed that the 
incumbent licensee would have the burden of identifying interference concerns, but commenters have 
convinced us that the proposed procedures would unduly shift the burden of proof regarding interference 
from experimenters to incumbent users.  We find that this goal can be best achieved by modifying this 
proposal to better reflect the balance of license rights and interference protection afforded under the 
existing rules and to be consistent with our policies for conventional experimental licenses.  Under the 
Commission’s traditional conventional experimental license program, applicants file with the 
Commission all relevant information, and the Commission makes a determination as to whether the 
proposed experiment is: a) acceptable as proposed, due to a minimal risk of harmful interference, or
b) unacceptable as proposed, due to a significant risk of harmful interference.  The Commission may also 
impose certain requirements on granted licenses.
144
  Based on a re-evaluation of the NPRM’s proposal, we 
agree with commenters that we should not shift the burden regarding interference analysis onto incumbent 
licensees.  Therefore, we herein adopt rules that more closely adhere to current policy and procedure for 
conventional experimental licenses in this regard.
74. First, we will require that at the time of application for a program license, applicants 
indicate whether they intend to operate on CMRS or public safety frequencies.  This will provide a simple 
means for interested CMRS and public safety licensees to determine if they need to seek further 
information on a program licensee’s specific experiments from the web-based registration system.
145
  If 
we become aware of an applicant who fails to specify in its application that it will be experimenting on 
CMRS or public safety frequencies, but once licensed either reports its intent for such use or actually 
initiates such use, the Commission will take disciplinary action including, but not limited to loss of 
license and/or fines.
146
  If an experimenter alters plans after the initial application to subsequently include 
                                                     
143
We expect that, if contacted by a licensee, the stop buzzer contact will work with that licensee to resolve any 
interference issues.  If the issues cannot be resolved by the licensees then the affected licensee should contact the 
Commission.  See para. 83, infra.
144
47 C.F.R. § 5.85(e) provides that, “[t]he Commission may, at its discretion, condition any experimental license or 
STA on the requirement that before commencing operation, the new licensee coordinate its proposed facility with 
other licensees that may receive interference as a result of the new licensee's operations.”
145
See para. 84, infra. for more information regarding public access to the web-based registration system.
146
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
30
CMRS spectrum or public safety frequencies, it must file an application to amend its license.  We believe 
that this procedure, along with the web-based registration of specific experiments, will adequately protect 
critical operations from harmful interference from tests conducted under program experimental license 
while still providing for experiment flexibility for program licensees.  
75. Second, we are adopting a requirement, similar to that proposed by MSI, that each web 
posting include a document describing the planned experiment and explaining the measures being taken 
to avoid causing harmful interference to any incumbent service licensee.  We do not find that describing 
their experiments in web postings will be excessively burdensome to program licensees, as we can expect 
them to have already undertaken internal analyses regarding the interference potential of their
experiments.  Thus, this requirement is intended to provide an open and transparent method for 
potentially affected service licensees and other interested parties not only to become aware of planned 
experiments, but also to have assurance that adequate planning that has gone into such experiments.
76. We view this analysis as an essential requirement for program licensees and caution 
prospective licensees that this analysis should not be taken lightly.  We expect that in exchange for the 
flexibility we are providing through the program license, program licensees will do a thorough analysis to 
ensure that incumbent licensees are protected from harmful interference.
147
  We note, however, that in 
many instances, this explanation could be brief, such as in cases in which experiments are proposed to be 
conducted indoors, outdoors at low power, at remote locations, or on unused frequencies.  In other 
instances, where the interference risk is greater, the explanation may need more detail, such as detailed 
link budgets and propagation and interference analyses.  
77. We believe that the requirement for program experimental licensees to post their 
interference analysis to the Commission’s program experimental registration website will generally 
obviate the need for incumbent licensees to perform their own detailed analyses to ensure protection from 
interference.  In this manner, we believe that the burdens associated with preventing harmful interference 
remain the same as at present – on the potential interferer.  For that same reason, we are not adopting the 
experimental safe harbor recommended by Boeing.  Similarly, we reject Marcus’s recommendation as the 
term “de minimis interference” is undefined.  Allowing each licensee to determine what they consider to 
be “de minimis” interference to other potentially affected licensees would be ripe for abuse and could lead 
to increased instances of harmful interference.
148
78. We disagree with commenters that advocate a consent requirement on program licensees 
that plan to experiment in commercial mobile service spectrum.  Implementing a rule requiring consent 
could slow the ability for innovation without providing any substantial benefits in interference protection 
to the licensee in return.  We also believe that a formal pre-filing coordination requirement is generally 
unnecessary.  However, we concur with CTIA that there may be certain circumstances where there may 
be additional concerns about how a proposed experiment conducted under a program experimental license 
could potentially affect a commercial mobile service provider’s network.  The Commission has discretion 
to place coordination conditions on any experimental license.  We discussed supra how we may choose to 
                                                     
147
We note that the Commission has several tools available on its website for searching its various licensing 
databases.  All of the databases can be accessed from http://www.fcc.gov/online-filing.
148
Regarding harmful interference, Marcus also argues that clarifying what constitutes such interference could 
expedite resolution of interference disputes and add certainty to experimentation and encourage innovation.  See
Marcus Comments to NPRM at 12.  We note that our rules include the internationally agreed upon definition for 
harmful interference that provides flexibility, as the evaluation of whether any interference rises to the level of 
harmful is different for different radio services.  See 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.  Any consideration of modifying this 
definition, in general or in the context of experimental applications, is beyond the scope of this proceeding and is not 
considered here.  The Commission will continue its current practice of evaluating interference on a case-by-case 
basis.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
31
place special conditions on program experimental licenses, and particular licensees may already be 
operating under such conditions.  Similarly, we also have the discretion to impose conditions on a 
particular experiment performed under a program license beyond any blanket conditions that may be 
imposed on those licenses.  Historically, the Commission has generally requested that experimental 
licensees notify or coordinate with commercial mobile service licensees as a condition of the 
experimental license when the experimental licensee seeks to use commercial mobile service spectrum.  
We will continue to use our discretion to place appropriate conditions on experimental licenses in general 
and experiments conducted under a program license in particular.  We are especially concerned about 
experiments involving commercial mobile service spectrum in scenarios where we determine there may 
be an increased risk of causing interference to commercial mobile service licensees – for instance, in 
public spaces – and may require prior notification or coordination, as necessary.  As we gain experience 
with this new licensing approach, we will be better able to tailor notification and coordination 
requirements as necessary to apply only those that are most appropriate for the specific circumstances.  
We also observe that new Section 5.311 imposes additional requirements for experiments conducted in 
critical safety bands, including bands used for the provision of commercial mobile services.
149
  In 
reviewing the website posting of the planned experiment, Commission staff could determine that other 
conditions are necessary; alternately, a licensee who is concerned about a posted experiment plan and 
who has been unable to resolve its concerns with the experimental licensee could seek assistance from us.
79. We conclude that the approach we are implementing for program experimental licenses is 
both consistent with our current rules and offers additional opportunities for licensees to identify and 
resolve potential interference concerns.  Neither coordination nor consent is required under the current 
rules.  Rather, the Commission examines all applications for conventional experimental licenses and 
determines whether the proposed operations are acceptable due to the risk of harmful interference.  If we 
determine that an experimental licensee should coordinate with an incumbent licensee to reduce the risk 
of interference, we may condition the experimental licensee accordingly.  
80. Moreover, we are concerned that imposing a new coordination or consent requirement by 
rule could stifle innovation and undermine our goal of removing barriers to effective experimentation.  
For example, we envision that service licensees may not have an incentive to either quickly coordinate or 
provide consent to innovators with whom they may have not done prior business under a rule imposing a 
mandatory course of coordination.  We emphasize that it is incumbent on program licensees in all 
circumstances to conduct due diligence in their local operating environment to identify any interference 
risks, and to plan accordingly to avoid causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees.
150
  We expect 
that the nature of this due diligence will vary based on the particular experiment – taking into account its 
scope, complexity, and the licensees and operational characteristics of the affected bands.  We are, for 
example, requiring each program licensee to post an interference analysis on our program experimental 
registration website, but we recognize that the size and scope of this analysis will necessarily be driven by 
the specifics of the particular planned experiment.  In a similar vein, we conclude that coordination 
requirements, when appropriate, can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
151
  
                                                     
149
See para. 59, supra.
150
A basic tenet of our experimental licensing program is that an experiment may not cause harmful interference.  
Our rules already stipulate that all experimental operations are conducted on the basis of not causing harmful 
interference to authorized stations.  If harmful interference occurs, the experimental station is required by rule to 
cease transmissions.  See 47 C.F.R. § 5.84.
151
We note that an experimental licensee may initiate its own coordination with other Commission licensees and 
that the Commission from time to time has placed coordination and/or consent requirements on conventional 
experimental licenses for experiments that operate in commercial mobile service bands.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
32
81. For these reasons, we will not require coordination between program licensees and 
incumbent commercial mobile service providers.  We recognize that there could be situations in which we 
determine that there would be an increased possibility that a planned program experiment could have a 
greater potential to cause harmful interference to a commercial mobile service licensee, and we will 
impose additional requirements in the program licensee – or we may even prohibit the experiment in its 
entirety.  Further, we emphasize that if we become aware that a program licensee is not providing 
adequate analysis of the interference environment as required by our rules, we may place a coordination 
requirement on a particular course of experimentation, or even on all future experiments, that are 
conducted under that license.  In addition, if a violation is particularly egregious or if there are instances 
of repeat violations, we have the authority to cancel that license and deny that entity from operating under 
a program license in the future.  In cases in which we do impose a coordination requirement, we expect 
that all parties will cooperate to work in good faith to expeditiously resolve any concerns.  
82. Some commenters requested that we provide as much as 30 days between a program 
licensee’s notification of their experiment to the web-based registration system and when they could 
commence their experiment.  We note, however, that those comments were predicated on the NPRM’s
proposal, which would have placed the burden of proof for claims of harmful interference on the 
incumbent licensees.  Now, with our modified rule which places that burden on the program licensee, we 
have relieved incumbent licensees of much, if not all, of this task.  Nonetheless, as discussed in paragraph 
73, supra, we have increased the notification period by three days.  We believe that this 10-day 
notification period is a reasonable timeframe to allow incumbents to examine, if they so choose, any filing 
of interest, while not creating long delays in experimentation.
152
  In addition, we note that all license 
applications already require contact information to be provided, and we are setting forth specific 
requirements for program experimental licensees.  Service licensees who have questions about a proposed 
experiment or its accompanying interference analysis will have a ready point of contact.  
83. To recap, while a program license will be granted for a series of experiments, each 
individual experiment must be preceded by a web posting containing information required by the rules.  
We emphasize that incumbent licensees may object to a particular experiment, and they may contact the 
program licensee to try and work out any objections.  However, only the Commission has the authority to 
prevent a program licensee from beginning operations or to order the cessation of operations.  We are not 
adopting the proposal that an experiment automatically not be permitted to commence until the parties 
resolve all outstanding interference objections.  The added requirement that a program experimental 
licensee must submit an interference analyses in conjunction with its notice of proposed experimentation 
reduces any benefit from this proposed provision (which we also recognize could be used to block or 
delay important experimental work).  If an incumbent licensee believes that it will suffer interference and 
does not informally resolve the matter with the experimental licensee, the service licensee would have to 
bring its concerns to the Commission for action.
153
  In such an event, the Commission would examine the 
evidence and decide whether the experiment should proceed as planned, should not be permitted to 
                                                     
152
As we design the Commission’s program license website, we intend to include tools to allow searches by 
frequency band or geographic area, which should make it easier for incumbent licensees to easily identify 
experimentation in proximity to their own operations.
153
We note that OET, under 47 C.F.R. § 0.241(c), has delegated authority to administer the experimental radio 
licensing program.  Under this authority, OET may from time to time issue a public notice with procedural 
information for licensees.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
33
proceed, or if specific notification or coordination requirements should be imposed.
154
OET will issue 
such a public notice with instructions regarding the complaint procedure.
84. We now address the process that will be used for experiments that propose to use 
exclusive Federal spectrum or shared Federal/non-Federal spectrum.  As an initial matter, we note that 
under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Commission and NTIA, we coordinate all 
such applications for Commission operating licenses with NTIA, which is afforded 15 days to reply to the 
Commission.  Under our application procedures for program licenses, however, we will not be collecting 
specific frequency information, but rather only location information with the initial application.  As 
described, frequency information will be prior-reported by the licensee to the Commission’s website
before any experimentation may begin.  To satisfy our obligation to prior coordinate experiments that will 
be using either Federal exclusive or Federal shared spectrum, we will add a question to the application 
form where applicants for a program license can indicate if they are planning on using any spectrum that 
is allocated to the Federal government on a shared or exclusive basis and, thus, is subject to coordination 
under the MOU.
155
  An affirmative answer will trigger a location-specific coordination with NTIA and 
based on the outcome of that coordination we may place special conditions on the license which could 
include a list of frequencies or frequency bands on which the applicant would be restricted from operating 
on at the proposed location.
156
  Applicants who plan on using such spectrum should plan to ensure they 
apply with sufficient time to complete this coordination prior to the time they intend to begin transmitting 
as we will not grant authority to operate until the conclusion of the coordination process.  The 
Commission, at that time, will take any action if it deems that any is warranted.  As with the similar 
requirement that we are implementing for experiments on CMRS spectrum described above,
157
we note 
that if we become aware of an applicant indicating in its application that it will not be experimenting on 
frequencies that are part of a Federal spectrum allocation, but once licensed either report its intent for 
such use or actually initiates such use, the Commission will take disciplinary action including, but not 
limited to loss of license and/or fines.
158
  If an experimenter alters plans after the initial application to 
subsequently include Federal spectrum, it must file an application to amend its license.  We believe that 
this procedure will adequately protect Federal operations from harmful interference from tests conducted 
under program experimental license while still providing for experiment flexibility for program licensees.
85. We believe that our amended approach for prior notification of experiments in which the 
licensee provides a description of how it will avoid interference will result in more carefully planned 
program experiments, while not imposing an undue burden on experimenters.  Further, in developing the 
Commission’s new program experimental registration website, we will emphasize the importance of 
implementing additional measures to make it easier for incumbent licensees and other interested parties to 
become aware of program experiments, such as by developing an automated process for distributing 
information regarding program experiments by RSS feeds or other appropriate means.  We find that our 
overall approach balances the needs of both program licensees and service incumbents, providing a public 
benefit significantly outweighing its cost.
                                                     
154
Under the Commission’s Rules, OET has delegated authority to administer the experimental radio licensing 
program.  We envision that OET, acting under this authority, would act on such complaints in the first instance.  See 
47 C.F.R. §§ 0.241(c) and 5.85(e).
155
We will also create a web page that lists which frequency bands are Federal exclusive or Federal/non-Federal
shared so that applicants can easily determine if they are planning on using any of this spectrum.
156
We also note that we could initiate coordination depending on the distance of a proposed experiment to a Federal
facility.
157
See para. 74, supra.
158
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
34
5. Use Prohibitions
86. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that experiments could not be conducted under a 
program experimental license when the applicant requires non-disclosure of proprietary information.
159
  
Several commenters expressed disagreement with the latter proposal.  For example, BAE argues that the 
very nature of next-generation-radio research involves the testing of new systems and techniques that are 
often proprietary and that meet Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) standards for non-disclosure.  In 
addition, BAE and Lockheed Martin contend, that for radio research in the areas of public safety, 
homeland security and defense, non-disclosure of sensitive program information may be in the public 
interest or required under Department of Defense security policies.  Accordingly, BAE concludes that, 
provided the basic technical parameters (geographic location, frequencies, power levels, emissions, 
bandwidth, modulation) of the program license are made publicly available, proprietary information 
should be protected from disclosure as part of an application for a program license.
160
  Lockheed Martin 
adds that the Commission should accept program experimental applications even when those applications 
request protection for certain sensitive information.  Finally, Lockheed Martin and Boeing argue that, if 
the Commission establishes new reporting requirements, it is vital that these requirements afford program 
experimental applicants the opportunity to protect highly sensitive information from disclosure.
161
  
Boeing urges the Commission to recognize the public interest harms that would occur if experimental 
licensees are required to share certain confidential information, and concludes that any reporting 
requirement imposed should be narrowly tailored and as minimally burdensome as possible.
162
87. The NPRM also proposed that experiments could not be conducted under a program 
experimental license when an environmental assessment or orbital debris mitigation plan must be filed 
with the Commission.
163
  There is little or no objection to this aspect of the NPRM.
88. Decision.  Commenters generally request that they be permitted to maintain 
confidentiality of proprietary information and still take advantage of the flexibility we are affording 
through the program experimental license.  As we have stated throughout this proceeding, our goal is to 
enable more robust experimentation.  With that principle in mind and based on the comments and an 
examination of our current process, we are modifying the proposal related to the treatment of confidential 
and proprietary information.
89. We believe that program licensees can describe their experiments under the prior 
notification procedures discussed above and report on the results of their experiments on the 
Commission’s website in general terms that do not disclose any proprietary or confidential information.  
We will require public disclosure of frequency, power, location, emission designators and contact 
information. We observe that this information, with the exception of power and emission designators, is 
required for public disclosure today for conventional experimental licenses.  We find that also requiring 
public disclosure of power and emission designators is necessary so that potentially affected service 
licensees can assess the program licensee’s analysis of interference avoidance and mitigation, given the 
reduced level of Commission review that may occur prior to specific experiments under the program 
license.  Moreover, we observe that the Commission may have to request a program licensee to provide 
                                                     
159
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16553, at para. 24.  
160
See BAE Comments to NPRM at 10.
161
See Lockheed Martin Reply Comments to NPRM at 8-10. Q-Track, SIA, and V-Comm provide similar 
comments.  See Q-Track Comments to NPRM at 7; SIA Comments to NPRM at 13; and V-Comm Comments to 
NPRM at 8.
162
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 15.
163
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16553, at para. 24.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
35
information in addition to that required by the rules, which could include proprietary or confidential 
information.  For example, such information requests may be necessary to resolve an interference 
complaint, to gain a better understanding of new technology development, or to audit the program to 
ensure that parties are conducting actual experiments.  If confidential or proprietary information must be 
disclosed due to Commission request for additional information, we will entertain requests to keep such 
information from the public, consistent with the current rules for treating confidential information set 
forth in Section 0.459.  Failure to comply with a Commission request for additional information or, if
review of such information reveals that a licensee is not conducting a program of actual experimentation,
could result in forfeiture of the program license and loss of privilege of obtaining such a license in the 
future.  We are modifying our rules accordingly.  Finally, we reiterate that if entities believe that they 
need to disclose confidential or proprietary information as part of the justification for their license, they 
can forego the program experimental license and instead obtain a conventional experimental license.
164
90. Additionally, we adopt the NPRM‘s proposal to prohibit program experimental licenses 
when an environmental assessment or orbital debris mitigation plan must be filed with the Commission.  
We find that these prohibitions are necessary due to the required Commission review and approval of 
these filings prior to the onset of operation.
165
  Our overall approach to use prohibitions balances the need 
to reduce the costs of regulatory burdens on experimental licensees and the benefits of protecting the 
public from harmful interference to existing radio services.
6. Innovation Zones
91. As discussed above, many commenters are skeptical of the NPRM‘s proposal to create a 
discrete innovation zone program license, and we are not doing so in this Report and Order.  
Nevertheless, we believe that there is a place for designating specific areas where licensees can operate 
experimental devices to assess real world performance in the presence of other similar or dissimilar 
devices, differing terrain, and changing atmospheric conditions.  We believe that, if properly structured, 
such zones can provide equipment developers valuable insight to ensure that their products perform as 
intended when they become available to the public.  As described below, we establish a mechanism by 
which we can create innovation zones – designated geographic areas and frequency ranges – in which 
program licensees will be afforded additional opportunities to design and conduct experimentation.
92. EIBASS and others observe that establishing an innovation zone under the NPRM’s
proposed rules would have been a complex undertaking whose risks would have been difficult to evaluate 
without any experience with other types of program experimental licenses.
166
Further, because we did not 
propose any restriction on who could hold an innovation zone license, organizations and individuals not 
as well-versed in RF spectrum management as research licensees could potentially have obtained such 
licenses, thereby increasing the interference risk to licensed services.  While we have considered 
restricting eligibility for innovation zone licenses in the same fashion that was proposed in the NPRM for 
research and medical licenses, we herein decline such an approach, as it could severely limit the utility we 
envision for such zones.
93. We conclude that there is a better way to enable the type of widespread experimentation 
that we envisioned under the NPRM’s innovation zone proposal.  Accordingly, we adopt rules that allow 
us – on our own motion or in response to a public request – to designate a defined geographic area and 
frequency range(s) as an innovation zone for specific types of experiments.  An innovation zone 
                                                     
164
We note that in 2011 there were 1,563 conventional experimental applications filed with OET, and 263 of those 
requested confidential treatment of at least some of the information contained in the application. 
165
See, respectively, 47 C.F.R. §§ 5.53(c) and 5.63(e).  
166
See EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 10.   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
36
designation will not confer operating authority on the entity that owns or manages the designated site.  
Instead, under the rules that we are herein adopting, we will permit research program experimental 
licensees to operate in innovation zones within guidelines that we will establish on a case-by-case basis.  
These zones may include geographic areas beyond a program licensee’s authorized area.  Thus, we will 
effectively provide in some circumstances an extension of a research program license, without the 
licensee being required to modify that license to cover a new location.  By modifying the NPRM’s
proposal in this manner to limit operational authority within an innovation zone to program licensees, we 
can better manage the potential for harmful interference from individual experiments, while still 
providing opportunities to test potentially innovative wireless devices in real world operating 
environments. 
94. For example, the Commission has recent experience working with officials in 
Wilmington, North Carolina – first as a test-bed for the digital TV transition
167
and recently to host the 
first commercial deployment of TV broadband devices (TVBDs) operating in TV “white spaces.”
168
  If 
the rule we adopt herein had been in place, we could have designated the greater Wilmington area an 
innovation zone for testing TVBDs, and any research program licensee developing these devices could, 
under its program license, also conduct testing in the Wilmington area without modifying its license to 
specifically include this area.  Another potential use for innovation zones would be to create test-beds at 
national laboratories or other facilities for developers to test new developments in cognitive radios
169
or 
other spectrum sharing techniques
170
or at a health care institution for testing medical devices under 
actual-use conditions.  We also note that, as suggested by Marcus, the Commission working with NTIA 
may be able to designate certain area and frequency combinations within frequency bands designated for 
transfer from Federal to non-Federal use as innovation zones.  Taking such action would allow equipment 
developers to get a jump start on designing and testing new devices prior to the Commission issuing 
service licenses and therefore expedite the elapsed time from licensing to system deployment. 
95. We recognize that there must be some limits and constraints to minimize the potential of 
harmful interference due to operation under this expanded flexibility.  First, we reiterate that these 
innovation zones may be created only by specific Commission action in response to a request, or 
alternatively, on the Commission’s own motion.  An innovation zone designation will be conveyed via 
Public Notice and posted on the Commission’s new program experimental registration website, detailing 
                                                     
167
See “DTV Transition Premiers in Wilmington, North Carolina,” Public Notice, Federal Communications 
Commission, released May 8, 2008.
168
In December 2011, the Commission issued a Public Notice announcing the approval of this deployment; see 
“Office of Engineering and Technology Announces the Approval of Spectrum Bridge, Inc.,’s TV Bands Database 
System for Operation,” Public Notice, DA 11-2043, ET Docket No. 04-186, released December 22, 2011. TVBDs 
provide video surveillance, water monitoring, and some broadband services in Wilmington, including services to 
areas that cannot be reached by wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) networks.  SeeWireless Week, January 26, 2012, “White 
Spaces Go Live in Wilmington, N.C.”, by Maisie Ramsay; available at 
http://www.wirelessweek.com/News/2012/01/Technology-White-Space-Goes-Live-Wilmington-NC-Wireless-
Networks.    
169
A cognitive radio is aware of its environment and internal state, and can make decisions about and adjust its 
operating characteristics based upon predefined objectives and new information to obtain access to spectrum 
dynamically without causing harmful interference to other spectrum users.
170
As evidenced by the recent grant of experimental special temporary authority to T-Mobile for testing spectrum 
sharing techniques in the 1755-1850 MHz band (see call sign WF9XQW), spectrum sharing is becoming 
increasingly important as the Commission, along with the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA, which manages Federal spectrum use), continues its goal of identifying more spectrum for 
broadband devices and applications.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
37
the specific geographic area(s) included and the technical parameters, such as frequency bands and power 
limits, included.  In that connection, we observe that OET has delegated authority to generally administer 
the ERS, which therefore gives it the authority to designate experimental innovation zones and their 
operational conditions.
171
  Second, operation under this authority will not permit a program licensee to 
abdicate its notification and reporting responsibilities.  Prior to operating in an innovation zone, program 
licensees must provide notification of their intended operations consistent with the procedures adopted in 
this Report and Order.
172
  It is important that all licensees have full knowledge of operations in an area, so 
that, if necessary, they can remedy harmful interference.  Finally, only program licensees will be 
permitted to operate in an innovation zone under their existing authorization.  Conventional licensees will 
have to apply for and receive a license modification if they want to expand the scope of their 
experimentation to an area and frequency band that is part of an innovation zone.
96. Structuring innovation zones in this way will allow targeted experimentation in response 
to specific industry or regulatory needs.  We believe that these innovation zones hold great promise to 
enable development of robust devices that can withstand the increasingly complex communications 
environment in which they must operate.  Accordingly our revised innovation zone structure can provide 
a significant public benefit, while reducing substantially the potential interference costs of the NPRM’s
innovation zone proposal.
C.        Compliance Testing License
97. The NPRM noted that Section 2.803 of the Commission’s Rules provides for the 
operation of RF devices for compliance testing, but does not eliminate the requirement to obtain a station 
license for products that normally require a license to operate.  The NPRM therefore asked how 
laboratories engaged in the testing of equipment, but that are not themselves manufacturers or licensed 
service providers, should be authorized to conduct their work.  It also asked if the Commission should 
make specific provisions in its Part 5 experimental radio service rules to issue licenses to laboratories 
accredited by accreditation bodies that its recognizes for RF product testing and consistent with their 
approved competencies.
173
98. In a related issue,
174
the NPRM noted that the Commission’s equipment approval process 
often requires testing at an Open Area Test Site (OATS).
175
  The NPRM observed that the Commission’s  
existing rules require an experimental license for radiation emissions testing in conjunction with 
regulatory approval
176
and asked how entities engaged in open area testing, but that are not themselves 
manufacturers or licensed service providers, should be authorized to conduct their work.  The NPRM
                                                     
171
Section 0.241(c) of our rules states:  “The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated 
authority to administer the Experimental Radio licensing program pursuant to part 5 of this chapter.”  See 47 C.F.R. 
§ 0.241(c).
172
This includes the required notice to CMRS and public safety licensees if the Commission, after receiving public 
input, designates an innovation zone that includes spectrum used by those licensees.
173
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16571, at para. 68.  The Commission maintains a web search utility that provides parties 
the ability to search our database of recognized test labs.  Parties may also download the entire list.  See 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm.
174
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16576-77, at para. 83.
175
The qualifications for an Open Area Test Site are described in ANSI C63.4, American National Standard for 
Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the 
Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz.   ANSI C63.4 standard is available from the IEEE at 
http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/C63.4-1991.html. 
176
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.3(g).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
38
sought comment on whether the Commission should make specific provisions in its Part 5 experimental 
radio service rules to issue licenses to these entities patterned after the program license model.
99. Comments.  Few parties responded to the NPRM’s request for comment on these issues.  
CTIA recommends that the Commission issue licenses to such laboratories and entities testing at an 
OATS that are patterned after the proposed program experimental licenses, with similar terms, conditions, 
and renewal processes.  CTIA states that such testing facilities can provide additional avenues for 
innovators to obtain technical feedback on their products.
177
100. EIBASS recommends that any OATS testing require some type of Commission
license.
178
V-Comm recommends that experiments performed at an OATS require experimental licenses 
to operate in licensed spectrum bands, and should be required to show substantial justifications for 
operation in licensed bands and proof of non-interference to existing licensed services.  V-Comm further 
recommends that signal leakage measurements be performed on all frequency bands and power levels 
utilized in tests to confirm non-interference to existing services operating in licensed spectrum bands 
outside the facilities.
179
101. Decision.  We concur with the commenters’ assessment that it is appropriate for us to 
issue laboratories engaged in the compliance testing of equipment, including those operating an OATS 
but that are not themselves manufacturers or licensed service providers, licenses with similar terms, 
conditions, and renewal processes as we are adopting for program experimental licenses.  We will 
therefore create another type of experimental license – a compliance testing experimental license – to 
account for the work of test labs that conduct FCC rules compliance testing under our equipment 
authorization program.  This license will be available both to those test labs that we currently recognize 
for RF product testing and to any other test lab that we find has sufficient expertise to undertake such 
testing. Due to the nature of the compliance testing process, we will not impose on them most of the 
limitations and reporting requirements that we are imposing on program licenses.  Specifically, because 
compliance testing often involves emission measurements in restricted bands, compliance testing 
licensees will be exempt from the prohibition on operating in the restricted bands listed in 15.205(a) of 
the rules and from operating in the bands allocated exclusively to the passive services.  In addition, we 
will not impose the designation of a “stop buzzer” point of contact nor the ten- day notification period 
requirements on these licenses, as we do not believe that any significant interference risk exists for 
products reaching this stage of development, when operated by a test lab solely for the purposes of 
certifying equipment for compliance with our rules.  Finally, we will not require the filing of a narrative 
statement detailing the results of the testing done under this license.  By its nature, successful testing 
results in the issuance of an equipment certification grant and an entry in the Commission’s Equipment 
Authorization System.  Test labs are already required to include various test reports and other 
documentation, negating any need to mandate compliance with the more general program license 
reporting requirement.  Compliance testing experimental licensees will also be exempt from the additional 
requirements in Section 5.311 of our rules that relate to safety of the public. 
102. We do find, however, that some restrictions are necessary on these licenses.  First, while 
we received no comment regarding eligibility, we find it important to limit eligibility to Commission-
recognized testing laboratories to provide assurance to the public of the competency of the entities that are 
engaged in compliance testing and operating under this broad authority.  However, we do not currently 
require that Commission-recognized testing laboratories be accredited, and thus we will not limit 
                                                     
177
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 16-17.
178
See EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 15.
179
See V-Comm Comments to NPRM at 19.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
39
eligibility to accredited laboratories.  Rather, we will grant compliance testing experimental radio licenses 
to those laboratories recognized by the Commission as being competent to perform measurements of 
equipment for equipment authorization.
180
  
103. In addition, we will limit the authority of compliance testing experimental licenses to 
only those testing activities necessary for product certification.  Accordingly, compliance testing 
experimental licensees will not be permitted to conduct immunity testing under this license.  Such testing 
often entails high powered emissions over a very broad swath of spectrum, which could pose a significant 
risk of interference to other systems, including Federal systems.  A traditional conventional experimental 
license will be required for immunity testing to ensure that all necessary coordination is conducted and 
that all reasonable precautions against interference are taken.  Finally, consistent with our new program 
and medical testing experimental licenses, we will require compliance testing license applicants to apply
on revised FCC Form 442, and we will issue compliance testing licenses for five years and prohibit 
transfers of such licenses.  Each applicant must specify how it is eligible to receive a compliance testing 
experimental license, such as by including a description or other proof of its qualifications.  We find that 
this structure will provide public benefits by ensuring efficient compliance testing at minimal costs.  
Rules specific to this license are contained in a new subpart G within Part 5 of the Commission’s Rules.
D.        Medical Testing License
104. In this section, we establish an additional type of license to meet specific needs of the 
medical community for clinical trials – the medical testing license.  While non-clinical trial testing is 
permitted under our program license,
181
we find that the Commission can best meet medical RF 
experimentation needs by providing several different types of authorizations that can support a broad 
range of medical device research, development and testing, rather than limiting such experimentation to 
the medical program license concept that was proposed in the NPRM.
182
105. As an initial matter, we note that the medical program experimental radio license  
proposed in the NPRM was narrowly targeted for hospitals and other health care institutions.
183
  The 
Commission proposed that this license would be limited to 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 Commission’s technical rules.
184
  As we 
                                                     
180
See n.173, supra.  We note that the Commission has a program to formally recognize test laboratories for Part 15 
and 18 equipment authorizations.  See 47 C.F.R. § 2.948.
181
See para. 33, supra.    
182
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16563-64, at para. 48.   
183
We inquired whether this eligibility requirement could be satisfied by an industry partner, rather than by the host 
health care institution, or whether a third party’s expertise could be used to satisfy this requirement.  We observed 
that 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, and that information on wireless medical device 
registration is available on ASHE’s website at: http://www.ashe.org/resources/WMTS.  See NPRM at para. 50.
184
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16563, at para. 48. Medical experimentation uses RF energy for a variety of purposes, 
including ablation.  Ablation involves removal of a part of biological tissue, usually by surgery, by very precisely 
delivering RF energy to kill specific cells, such as cancer cells, without causing damage to nearby healthy cells.  RF 
ablation devices are subject to equipment verification, and are regulated under our Industrial, Scientific, and Medical 
Equipment rules (Part 18). Non-ablation RF medical devices include data transfer, device control, programming, 
power transmission, remote sensing and monitoring, and identification – see the FDA’s Radio-Frequency Wireless 
Technology in Medical Devices Draft Guidance at: 
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm077210.htm.  These 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
40
discussed above, ongoing programs of related or unrelated experiments that encompass basic research and 
experimentation – including medical research and experimentation – logically fall under the broader 
category of research experiments.  Research laboratories and manufacturers, as well as health care 
institutions, that conduct medical RF experimentation will be eligible for a program license, thus meeting 
the needs of a broad range of entities.  Accordingly, we are not creating a medical-specific program 
experimental radio license category.
106. Nevertheless, the enormous growth of medical devices that use wireless 
telecommunications technology – and the testing requirements associated with this burgeoning area –
support further action.  In the NPRM, the Commission also requested comment on whether operations 
conducted under a medical experimental authorization should be limited to a specific geographic area –
such as the licensee’s medical campus – or, alternatively, inquired whether the other proposed limitations 
on eligibility and operations provide sufficient protection against unanticipated consequences.  On a 
related point, the NPRM also requested comment on whether testing under a medical experimental radio 
license should be expanded to include body-worn or implanted devices that travel with the patient.  
Finally, while the NPRM did not propose any limitations on power and frequency use for medical 
experimenters, other than those proposed for other program licenses, it did observe that many medical 
devices typically operate on a shared, non-exclusive, secondary basis and at low power levels.  In 
addition, we note that the NPRM‘s proposals implicitly limit medical testing experimental devices 
because of the requirement that licensees specify the rule part under which their experimental device is 
intended to operate.
185
  Thus, it is assumed that such devices are designed to comply with existing rules.
107. Comments.  The comments demonstrate that the experimental licensing program needs to 
accommodate a range of activities to support medical RF experimentation.  As noted above, commenters 
state that many research laboratories and manufacturers are engaged in basic research developing medical 
RF devices and should be eligible for the proposed medical program license.
186
  Commenters also point 
out that support is needed for technology development activities not only at the individual patient-worn 
medical device level, but also to enable complete system level testing at multiple locations – such as the 
licensee’s facility, individual homes, and continuing care facilities – and to conduct appropriate and 
necessary interoperability and RF immunity testing to complement the FDA’s IDE process.
187
108. For example, Mayo argues that, for the type of research it contemplates, experiments 
need to be extended to real world non-hospital settings.  It states that some tests related to these concepts 
would include a variety of home environments and span time frames of varying lengths.  In particular, 
Mayo cites issues such as remote monitoring, device tolerance to potential interference sources, and 
patient ability to use devices without the benefit of assistance as critical aspects of experiments conducted 
outside of medical campuses.
188
  Mayo argues that a large number of medical devices are worn outside 
hospitals, and an experimental license program that fails to reflect this reality will be considerably less 
valuable to doctors, patients, and health technologists.
189
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
non-ablation devices are subject to equipment certification, and are regulated under our Wireless Medical Telemetry 
Service (Part 95, subpart H), our Private Land Mobile Radio Service (Part 90), or as unlicensed devices (Part 15).  
185
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16565, at para. 53.    
186
See para. 27, supra.
187
See para. 28, supra.  See alsoMedtronic Comments to NPRM at 1-5; EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 11.
188
SeeMayo Comments to NPRM at 6-7.
189
SeeMayo Ex Parte Filing, ET Docket No. 10-236, July 25, 2011, at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
41
109. Similarly, Medtronic argues that, at least for devices that have been designed to comply 
with either Part 15 or Part 95 of the Commission’s Rules, the Commission should allow such devices to 
be used in residential settings when operation is initiated through a clinical trial authorized by the FDA.  
Medtronic observes that most medical implant devices studied in clinical trials are implanted at medical 
facilities, but eventually will be used by participating patients outside of such facilities.  Accordingly, 
Medtronic concludes, authority to operate in residential areas without seeking a separate experimental 
authorization or certification for a device in the latter stages of development would facilitate completion 
of the clinical trial process leading to the eventual availability of new medical technologies.
190
110. Several commenters express concerns that medical device experimentation could cause 
interference to other authorized users and suggest that such experimentation be conducted only by entities 
that have demonstrated skills in basic radio systems management
191
and only at locations under the 
control of the licensee, preferably within the confines of a health care facility.
192
  Although CTIA argues 
that any device with a general medical purpose should be included for experimental testing, it and others 
express concerns about testing devices implanted or worn by patients that would allow them to move 
beyond a controlled testing site.
193
  SIA contends that allowing any device “with a general medical 
purpose” to be tested under a medical license invites abuse because it could open the door to testing 
equipment with a multiplicity of uses, only one of which may be a nominal medical use.  Accordingly, 
SIA recommends that the Commission clarify that experiments conducted under the medical program 
experimental license, as proposed in the NPRM, involve devices that are uniquely medical in nature.
194
111. Decision.  We find that the program license framework may not meet all of the testing 
needs of the medical device community.  For example, licensees that operate under a program license will 
be required to conduct tests at geographic locations under their control.  This will limit the ability of 
entities doing medical research to conduct clinical trials – particularly those involving patients or devices 
used for home care.  
112. To meet these needs, we are establishing the medical testing license.  This license will be 
available to health care facilities as defined in Section 95.1103(b) of the rules
195
so they can conduct 
clinical trials
196
of medical devices that have already passed through the early developmental stage and 
are ready to be assessed for patient compatibility and use, as well as operational, interference, and RF 
immunity issues in real world situations.  The health care facility itself will be the responsible party for all 
testing and responsible for proper operation of equipment, as well as being responsible for remedying any 
                                                     
190
SeeMedtronic Comments to NPRM at 7.
191
SeeMayo Comments to NPRM at 5; EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 11.
192
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 15; CTIA Comments to NPRM at 12-13.
193
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 12; V-Comm Comments to NPRM at 11.
194
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 15; SIA Reply Comments to NPRM at 7.
195
See 47 C.F.R. § 95.1103(b) which defines a health care facility to include , “… hospitals and other 
establishments that offer services, facilities and beds for use beyond a 24 hour period in rendering medical 
treatment, and institutions and organizations regularly engaged in providing medical services through clinics, public 
health facilities, and similar establishments, including government entities and agencies such as Veterans 
Administration hospitals; except the term health care facility does not include an ambulance or other moving 
vehicle.
196
Clinical trials are generally considered to be research studies with human beings that follow a pre-defined 
protocol. Clinical trials using RF devices may be used, for example, to test a patient’s acceptance of a device, to 
ensure that the device properly provides the necessary treatment, therapy or monitoring, or to determine RF 
interoperability in a health care or other anticipated use environment. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
42
interference issues that might arise during the trial.  We will scrutinize the qualifications of applicants for 
medical testing licenses to ensure that they have sufficient expertise in RF management so as not to cause 
harmful interference to any authorized spectrum user.  Similar to the requirement for program 
experimental licenses, we will require each applicant to submit a statement with its application detailing 
how it meets eligibility requirement relative to RF expertise. 
113. While we will not explicitly condition medical testing licenses on health care facilities 
obtaining FDA approval to conduct a clinical trial for the RF devices to be tested under a medical testing 
license, as we can envision some applications where such approval may not be necessary, we caution that 
all parties involved in clinical testing must be aware of the FDA’s jurisdiction and take all necessary steps 
to satisfy the requirements of both the FDA and the Commission prior to testing a device.
197
  Thus, 
medical testing licensees must consider that a license grant by the Commission may not by itself be 
sufficient to begin testing.  Each experimenter must determine whether the device needs specific pre-
approval from the FDA, including whether the device meets the criteria for testing under an IDE.  We 
also note that the Commission and FDA may consult from time to time if questions arise regarding the 
use of devices under the medical testing license.  If the Commission determines that FDA requirements 
have not been met for a particular device that is the subject of an experiment, we may take action up to 
and including termination of the experimental license.
114. Because medical testing licenses are primarily designed to address the needs of health 
care facilities that want to conduct their own clinical trials, they are similar to product development 
licenses.  However, medical testing licenses are targeted to a distinct user community to provide the 
flexibility needed to conduct clinical trials.  Similar to program licenses, we will issue medical testing 
licenses for five year, renewable terms, and the licensee will be authorized to conduct multiple unrelated 
experiments under just one license.  Although we proposed that medical program licenses be limited to 
investigations and tests involving therapeutic, monitoring, and diagnostic medical equipment that have 
not yet been submitted for equipment certification, or for devices that use RF for ablation, we will slightly 
modify this description to be consistent with the FDA’s definition of a medical device.  Specifically, we 
will define a medical device for the purposes of a medical testing license as a device that uses RF wireless 
technology or communications functions for diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring.
198
  Under the 
                                                     
197
EIBASS recommends that medical experimental applicants be required to hold an FDA IDE as the first step in 
demonstrating a credible program in need of a medical experimental license.  EIBASS further recommends that 
medical experimental applicants be accredited by a nationally recognized certifying body or a Federal government 
entity such as Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. military, or NTIA. See EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 11.
198
Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (21 USC § 321(h)) defines a medical device as: 
"an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other 
similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:     
recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States 
Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them, intended for use in the diagnosis of 
disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of 
disease, in man or other animals, or intended to affect the structure or any 
function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve any of 
its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of 
man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for 
the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.”  
See FDA webpage titled “Is The Product A Medical Device?” available at:
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/overview/classifyyourdevice/ucm051512.htm
(last updated on December 5, 2012).
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
43
rules adopted herein, we will permit medical testing licensees to operate in any frequency band under Part 
15 (Radio Frequency Devices), Part 18 (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment), or Part 95 
(Personal Radio Services, Subpart H – Wireless Medical Telemetry Service and Subpart I – Medical 
Device Radiocommunication Service) of the Commission’s Rules.
199
Our goal is to speed the process for 
device development to benefit the public, and we believe that goal is best served by requiring that the 
device being tested under a medical testing license comply with existing Parts 15, 18, or 95 rules, so that 
additional rulemaking efforts are not necessary.
200
  If medical devices do not comply with the technical 
limits in these rules, they must be tested under a conventional or program experimental license.
201
  While 
we are sympathetic to CTIA’s argument that this limitation may restrict the development of other 
innovative medical technologies, we find persuasive SIA’s contention that allowing any device with a 
general medical purpose to be tested under a medical testing license could result in wide-ranging
experiments involving devices with a multiplicity of uses, most of which are non-medical in nature.  For 
example, hand-held wireless phones could have software programs enabling some medical applicability, 
but are clearly not “medical equipment” that would be authorized by the Commission under Parts 15, 18, 
or 95 of its rules.
202
115. We find no need to adopt special power and frequency rules for medical testing licenses 
as some commenters suggest.  For example, although Mayo recommends that power limits imposed by 
Part 15 rules should serve as a guideline for medical experiments, it argues that dynamic power control 
could safely permit increased power in certain instances, such as medical emergencies.
203
  With respect to 
such emergencies, Mayo maintains that public safety frequencies may be the most appropriate to use, 
provided that use of such frequencies had been previously coordinated with local emergency 
communications officials.
204
  As will be the case for program experiments, each medical testing 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
We note that the FDA definition of a medical device is inclusive of the definition we adopt herein.
199
One additional difference between the general program license and medical testing licenses is that we will permit 
medical testing licensees to operate in restricted bands where authorized medical devices are already permitted to be 
deployed under our Part 95 rules.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 95.628, permitting the medical radiocommunications 
service use of the 401-406 MHz band, which is designated as a restricted band under 47 C.F.R. § 15.205.
200
As a general matter, we may authorize experiments that do not comply with current rules for frequency, power, 
or emissions, etc. to facilitate the development of new technologies. However, such experimental devices would not 
qualify for approval under our Part 2 equipment authorization rules unless we permit their manufacture and 
operation either under waiver or new rules established by rulemaking. 
201
In these situations, parties should be aware that they may need to file a petition for rulemaking or a request for 
rule wavier for the device under test.
202
In this regard, we observe that the FDA’s role and approach towards software applications on wireless devices 
differs from the Commission interest in issuing Part 5 licenses for RF experimentation.  In July 2011, the FDA 
issued for comment a document titled “Mobile Medical Applications Draft Guidance,” which informs 
manufacturers, distributors, and other entities about how it intends to apply its regulatory authority to select software 
applications intended for use on mobile platforms.  See 
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm263280.htm.  
Specifically, the document states that the FDA plans to apply its regulatory oversight only to certain types of mobile 
applications (apps) that either have traditionally been considered medical devices or that affect the performance or 
functionality of a currently regulated medical device.
202
  We will continue to coordinate with the FDA on the topic 
of mobile medical apps, but observe that the use of a software application on a Commission approved RF device 
does not constitute an RF experiment as defined by the Commission under Part 5.  Such apps fall under the 
jurisdiction of the FDA and should follow requirements pursuant to the final mobile medical applications guidance 
document.
203
SeeMayo Comments to NPRM at 4.
204
Id. at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
44
experiment will be required to use only the power level necessary to carry out that experiment.  As we 
explained above,
205
the same limitations on use of public safety frequencies will apply to all experiments, 
whether medical in nature or not.  As provided in Section 5.311 of our rules, program experimental 
applicants that propose to operate on public safety frequencies will be required to submit a specific plan 
to avoid interference to users of those frequencies.
116. Medtronic states that clinical devices that are designed for use under the MedRadio 
Service rules of Part 95 and those that would operate under Part 15 pose little risk of interference.
206
However, Medtronic recommends that the Commission limit out-of-band and spurious emissions into the 
401-406 MHz band from experimental medical radio devices, particularly when collocation of medical 
implant and peripheral devices is highly likely, e.g., within facilities under the control of a medical 
program licenses.
207
  We are not persuaded that we need to impose any specific emission limitations into 
the 401-406 MHz MedRadio Service band, and we believe that doing so could actually restrict 
experimentation in RF compatibility.  ARRL argues that, with appropriate notifications to amateur radio 
operators, medical equipment experiments could be conducted in Amateur allocations, but it also 
contends that the ubiquitous and frequency-agile nature of Amateur Radio spectrum use makes such 
spectrum largely unsuitable for any medical equipment experimentation.
208
  We note again that harmful 
interference caused by an experimental licensee to any licensed service is unacceptable, and thus we find 
no need to exclude certain Amateur Radio bands from potential use by medical testing licensees.  More 
generally, we do not find the concerns raised regarding medical experimental licenses to be 
fundamentally different than the concerns raised about research program experimental licenses, which we 
already address above.  In particular, any Part 5 licensee, including a medical testing licensee, will be 
responsible for ensuring that harmful interference is not caused to authorized spectrum users.  Similarly, 
medical testing licensees must ensure that their devices are immune to interference affects from 
authorized services sharing the same bands as their devices.  Testing under a medical testing license will 
allow for such testing.  Thus, we will not restrict medical testing licensees from operating in any of the 
specific bands noted by commenters.
117. To make the medical testing license as useful as possible for clinical trials, we will permit 
licensees to conduct these trials not only at the facilities (e.g., a hospital) under their control – a 
requirement for program licensees – but also to conduct product testing in other locations.  For example, 
we will permit licensees to conduct experiments when patients are confined to their homes as they recover 
from medical procedures or when patients, who are using implanted or body-worn medical devices, are 
ambulatory.  As Mayo noted, this flexibility is necessary to ensure critical functions for many medical 
devices – such as remote monitoring, device tolerance to potential interference sources, and patient ability 
to use devices without the benefit of assistance as critical aspects of experiments conducted outside of 
medical campuses.  Health care facilities will specify their intended area of operation when they apply for 
a medical testing license, as specified in Section 5.404 of our rules.  We recognize that some commenters 
expressed concerns about the interference potential that could be caused to authorized services if medical 
                                                     
205
See paras. 56-62, supra.
206
SeeMedtronic Comments to NPRM at 7.
207
Medtronic therefore recommends that a limit of 100 microvolts per meter at 3 meters on unwanted emissions into 
the 401-406 MHz band be a condition attendant to all medical program experimental licenses that are issued. 
Medtronic Comments to NPRM at 4.
208
See ARRL Reply Comments to NPRM at 17.  ARRL also argues that only medical facilities and not 
manufacturers should be eligible for a medical program license and that experimenters are obligated to address 
interference susceptibility issues before commencement of experimental operations and affirmatively assume all 
responsibility for such interference.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
45
experiments are conducted outside a health care facility.
209
  We believe that this concern is addressed in 
several ways.  First, a medical testing license will be used primarily for clinical trials, not basic medical 
research.  This means that the basic RF experimentation for the medical device will have already been 
completed and the device, in many cases, will already have received FDA IDE approval for such testing.  
In addition, although a health care facility could oversee a clinical trial beyond its facility, it may not want 
to assume this responsibility in some cases and instead prefer that the device manufacturer or health 
practitioner, under a conventional or product development trial license, assume responsibility for clinical 
trials outside the health care facility.  We will also require that medical testing licensees follow the same 
responsible party and designation of “stop buzzer” point of contact requirements as program licensees.  
Finally, we will require that medical testing licensees follow the same notice and reporting requirements 
as program licensees – i.e., medical testing licensees must provide both prior notification of planned 
experimentation and a report of experimental results on the Commission’s program experimental 
registration website.  This public disclosure of medical testing prior to and at the conclusion of each trial 
will notify authorized users of such testing in their geographic area.  We intend to closely monitor 
medical testing experiments and may revisit these geographic requirements as we gain some experience 
with this new type of license.
118. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that medical program experimental licensees file 
yearly reports to the experimental licensing system of the activity that has been performed under their 
licenses to provide a venue for sharing information that medical researchers would find beneficial in the 
goal of patient care.
210
  No one commented on this proposal.  We conclude that a yearly reporting 
requirement for medical testing licenses will likewise support the sharing of useful information within the 
medical community, and we adopt such a requirement.  These reports will be filed through the same 
website that will be used for registering experiments and will be available to the public.  This action will 
facilitate the dissemination of information obtained in medical testing experiments that may be beneficial 
in providing improved patient care.
119. Finally, we are adopting the NPRM‘s proposal that tests conducted under a medical 
experimental authorization not be subject to our traditional station identification rules.  As the 
Commission observed in the NPRM, its past experience in the medical device field suggests that such 
requirements are impractical for many of the devices expected to be tested under the proposed new 
authorization, and 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.
211
120. We also note that health care facilities that wish to enable medical device testing by 
program licensees under real-world conditions (including testing with patients) can instead request that 
they be designated as an innovation zone for such testing.  Thus, a health care institution that would like 
to offer its facilities as a test-bed, but lacks the expertise to oversee such operations itself, can petition the 
Commission to designate their facility as an innovation zone, so that individual developers and 
manufacturers with research program licenses can use the facility under their license.  This approach may 
be particularly useful for manufacturers who want to test medical or other types of equipment that will be 
used in a health care setting while it is in the product development stage, but who will not be eligible for 
the medical testing license.
212
  We note that under the innovation zone approach, the program licensee 
                                                     
209
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 12-13; V-Comm Comments to NPRM at 11.
210
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16566, at para. 55.  
211
Only Mayo commented on this proposal and agreed with it.  SeeMayo Comment to NPRM at 6.
212
A manufacturer of medical devices would be able to continue its product testing for clinical trials under its 
program license at a designated innovation zone without having to apply for a separate product development trial 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
46
that the health care facility permits to experiment on its premises would be the responsible party for the 
testing and operation of equipment within the innovation zone.  This is different from the medical testing 
license, in which the health care facility is the responsible party.
121. These different licensing options represent a multi-faceted approach to facilitate robust 
medical RF experimentation that responds to the record developed in this proceeding.  The medical 
testing experimental license complements the types of medical RF experimentation that parties will be 
able to conduct under either a conventional or program experimental license.  This overall approach will 
provide a significant benefit to the public at no public cost by streamlining the process by which medical 
equipment is approved under our equipment authorization procedures, thus reducing the time it takes to 
develop cutting-edge medical devices and systems.
E.        Broadening Opportunities for Market Trials
122. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that market studies and real-world trials, which 
require operation of equipment prior to authorization, can be vital to the transformation of prototypes to 
fully functional new products and services that meet consumer needs.  This observation continued from 
the more general examinations of the market study process undertaken by the Commission in the August 
2009 Wireless Innovation NOI
213
and the March 2010 National Broadband Plan.
214
  The Commission 
observed in the NPRM that its rules generally prohibit marketing or operation of equipment prior to 
authorization, but that some exceptions exist. Specifically, Section 2.803 of the Commission’s Rules 
allows for advertising and display, conditional sales and to certain businesses, outright sales of equipment 
that has not yet been authorized, so long as proper notice is provided to the prospective buyer.  This rule 
section also permits a manufacturer to operate its product for demonstration or evaluation purposes under 
the authority of a local Commission-licensed service provider so long as that equipment operates in the 
bands licensed to that service provider.  Additionally, Section 5.3(j) of the rules permits licensees 
operating non-certified equipment under experimental radio authorizations to conduct “limited market 
studies,” on a case-by-case basis subject to limitations established by the Commission.  Because these 
rules and exceptions are scattered over several rule parts, equipment manufacturers and licensees are 
often confused as to which particular rules apply to various situations.
215
  Thus, the NPRM proposed to 
bring more clarity to the rules regarding the operation and marketing of RF devices prior to equipment 
approval and also to relax the conditions under which market trials can be conducted to enable more 
robust market trial activities by a greater number of innovators.
216
  
123. As a first step, the NPRM proposed to parse the existing rule into separate rule sections –
one addressing rules for marketing devices prior to equipment authorization and one addressing operation 
of devices prior to equipment authorization.  These rule sections – Section 2.803 and Section 2.805, 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
license.  This reduces time and costs for experimenters.  See also infra para. 136 regarding product development 
trials.
213
In the Wireless Innovation NOI, the Commission sought comment on the benefits of revising its rules governing 
market studies, with particular focus on whether the requirement that experimenters own all of the transmitting 
and/or receiving equipment used in a study favors manufacturers over others who seek to conduct market studies.  
See 24 FCC Rcd 11343-44, para. 65.
214
Recommendation 7.7 of the National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission start a rulemaking 
process to establish more flexible experimental licensing rules for spectrum and facilitate the use of this spectrum by 
researchers, including evaluating whether regulatory restrictions should be relaxed to permit research organizations 
to conduct broader market studies.  See Recommendation 7.7, p.125 (discussing the rules for market studies codified 
at 47 C.F.R. § 5.93). 
215
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16567, at para 57.
216
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16568-69, at para. 60. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
47
respectively – would more clearly define the parameters for marketing and operating devices prior to 
equipment authorization.
217
  Cisco agrees with the proposals in the NPRM to expand and clarify the 
rules.
218
No other party commented directly on these proposals and we therefore adopt the proposed new 
rule structure, which we find will provide the public benefit of increased clarity at no public cost.  
124. The NPRM did not propose to alter the substance of the existing rules in Section 2.803, 
but rather proposed only to clarify them so that they would be easier to understand.  However, 
commenters raise an issue with the provision that effectively prohibits operating unauthorized devices in 
residential areas.  Under existing Section 2.803(e)(1)(iv) of our rules, RF devices may be operated, but 
not marketed, for the purposes of “evaluation of product performance and determination of customer 
acceptability, provided such operation takes place at the manufacturer's facilities during developmental, 
design, or pre-production states.”
219
  CTIA and TIA argue that the current prohibition does not allow for 
valuable testing in a residential setting during the development process, and places a burden on product 
developers to needlessly expend resources in this area when field testing could suffice.  Further, they state 
that to realistically assess pre-approved commercial products such as cell phones, smartphones, and tablet
computers, the effectiveness of such devices must be evaluated in residential areas.  CTIA and TIA
conclude that, so long as a manufacturer is working with a carrier under the carrier’s license, the risk of 
harmful interference is very slight and if any does occur, it could be remedied very quickly.
220
  
125. We agree with CTIA and TIA.  In the case of testing devices in conjunction with a 
service provider, that provider is the licensee and is ultimately responsible for operations under its license.  
Moreover, the service provider has a direct interest in not causing interference to its own customers and 
therefore has a significant incentive to take steps to minimize any risk.  We will therefore modify 
proposed Sections 2.805(b)(3)(iii) and 2.805(b)(3)(iv) of the rules to permit a manufacturer to operate 
unauthorized equipment in a residential area, so long as it is operated in conjunction with, and under the 
authority of, a service provider’s license.  Finally, the rules we are adopting require that licensees in 
market trials ensure that trial devices are either rendered inoperable or retrieved from trial participants at 
the conclusion of the trial, and that licensees notify participants in advance of the trial that operation of 
trial devices is not permitted following the trial.  These rules essentially follow existing rules and 
procedures currently available in the ERS for limited market studies.
126. In a related issue, the NPRM inquired whether the Commission should modify its rules to 
permit operation of RF devices that are not yet authorized without an experimental license, so long as the 
devices are operated as part of a trade show demonstration and at or below the maximum power level 
permitted for unlicensed devices under the Commission’s Part 15 rules.
221
  Commenters were supportive 
of this idea.  Boeing contends that devices that operate below the power levels set forth in Part 15 are not 
a threat to interfere with authorized Commission services.  Boeing therefore proposes that the 
Commission permit entities to utilize any low-power device claimed to be operating within the emission
limits of Part 15, whether or not certified, at trade show demonstrations, without securing a separate 
experimental authorization.
222
  SIA also supports such a provision and contends that demonstrations of RF 
devices under these conditions will facilitate the market for, and thus the development of, new 
communications equipment.  However, SIA cautions that it bases its support on the assumption that 
                                                     
217
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16569, at para. 61.
218
See Cisco Comments to NPRM at 5.
219
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(1)(iv).
220
See TIA Comments to NPRM at 7-8; CTIA Comments to NPRM at 15.
221
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16577, at para 84.
222
See Boeing Reply Comments to NPRM at 9-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
48
instances of non-compliance with the Part 15 power levels will be immediately addressed and, where 
necessary, resolved through strict enforcement of the Commission’s Rules.
223
  TIA argues that relaxation 
of the rules regarding uncertified RF devices should not be limited to trade show demonstrations.  TIA 
contends that testing undertaken within the envelope of Part 15 technical parameters and associated rules 
will allow innovative research to be done at power levels the Commission has already determined will not 
cause interference, without the additional requirement for licensing.
224
  
127. In consideration of the comments, we will add a provision to the rules in Section 
2.805(b)(2) to permit general operation of RF devices subject to certification that have not yet been 
certified without the need for an experimental license, provided that the devices are operated as part of a 
trade show demonstration and at or below the maximum power level permitted for unlicensed devices 
under our Part 15 rules.  Current rules provide such an exception only for devices designed to operate 
under Parts 15, 18, or 95.  Expanding this exception to devices designed to operate under any rule part, 
but capping the power level for demonstration purposes to the Part 15 levels,
225
will reduce burdens on 
manufacturers, as they will no longer need to obtain an experimental license to conduct such 
demonstrations.  Further, this expansion will increase opportunities for manufacturers to demonstrate their 
products, with little potential for increasing interference, as emissions at Part 15 levels are currently 
permitted.  We do not find it necessary to restrict such use to indoor only or to preclude in-motion 
operations.  We observe that the current exceptions do not include such restrictions, and we have not 
received any interference complaints.  However, we will not allow RF devices operating under this 
provision to be used beyond trade shows.  Trade show schedules and operating hours are known and 
generally occur in confined areas, and often have their own frequency coordinators, so any instance of 
harmful interference can be identified and remedied quickly.  In contrast, unrestricted use of uncertified 
devices at any location, even at the Part 15 levels, could increase the likelihood of interference to
authorized spectrum users without any such ability for quick remediation.  Accordingly, we find that our 
revised rules strike an appropriate balance between the benefits of enhanced opportunities for 
manufacturers of RF devices to demonstrate their products and the potential costs of harmful interference 
to authorized Commission radio services. 
1. Product Development and Marketing Trials
128. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to expand upon the existing concept of “limited 
market studies” as currently codified in our Part 5 rules.
226
  Specifically, it proposed to adopt a new 
subpart that contains provisions for two types of trials – product development trials and market trials.  As 
an initial matter, because Part 5 does not contain a definition of marketing, the Commission proposed to 
cross-reference the Part 2 definition
227
in the revised Part 5 market trial rules and sought comment on 
whether this definition meets the needs of Part 5 licensees.
228
  It then proposed that a product 
development trial be defined as an experimental program designed to evaluate product performance in the 
conceptual, developmental, and design stages, and that a market trial be defined as a program designed to 
                                                     
223
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 6.
224
See TIA Comments to NPRM at 7.
225
General requirements for Part 15 radiation emission limits are shown in Section 15.209, and restricted bands of 
operation are listed in Section 15.205(a).  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.209 and 15.205(a).
226
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.93.
227
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4). The Part 2 definition of marketing includes sale or lease of equipment, or offering 
for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of 
selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.
228
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16569, at para. 62. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
49
evaluate product performance and customer acceptability prior to the production stage.  The Commission
proposed that these trials be conducted under the authority of a Part 5 license and – because they would 
typically involve equipment that has not yet been certified – operate as an exception to the general Part 2 
rule restricting such operation.
129. The NPRM envisioned that product development trials could include equipment that 
would not be able to operate in compliance with existing Commission rules, absent an experimental radio 
authorization.  Thus, the Commission’s proposals were designed to generally track the existing rules for 
limited market studies, in that the NPRM proposed to explicitly prohibit the marketing of devices operated 
as part of a product development trial and retain the requirements that licensees retain ownership of the 
equipment and they notify users that they are part of a limited market study.
229
130. Regarding market trials, the Commission recognized that they often involve the offer for 
sale or lease of a device operated pursuant to a license, so that manufacturers and service providers can 
evaluate customer demand for new capabilities or services at various price points.  It proposed that under 
a market trial, licensees would be permitted to lease equipment to trial participants.  However, it also 
proposed to continue the prohibition on sale of equipment that has not yet been certified to market trial
participants, such as consumer end users, and require that licensees retain ownership of equipment.  To do 
otherwise, the Commission reasoned, would put the ownership of uncertified equipment directly with 
consumers and complicate the Commission’s efforts to enforce its rules when the trial ends.  The 
Commission also proposed to require that licensees ensure that trial devices are either rendered inoperable 
or are retrieved at the end of the trial.  Additionally, recognizing that two parties may plan to conduct a 
market trial together (e.g., a manufacturer working in conjunction with a service provider), it proposed 
rules that would permit it to issue a Part 5 license to more than one party, and to allow licensees to sell 
equipment to each other.
230
  In these instances, it proposed that one party must be designated as the 
responsible party for that trial.  Finally, to ensure that it would have a licensee identified as the 
responsible party for all market trials, the Commission proposed that a Part 5 license would be necessary 
for all market trials, even those for devices designed to be authorized under Parts 15, 18, or 95 of its 
rules.
231
131. Comments.  Commenting parties generally agreed with the NPRM’s premise to modify 
and provide additional flexibility to the market study rules.  In support of those proposals, Boeing 
maintains that the faster new products and services are introduced into the marketplace, the more 
innovative technologies will follow.
232
TechAmerica generally concurs and adds that the proposed rules, 
by virtue of granting experimental authorizations to a broad array of eligible entities and multiple licenses 
to parties engaged in the same market trial, will more efficiently ensure that new devices are thoroughly 
tested prior to commercial launch.
233
  CTIA also supports the NPRM‘s proposals to expand the existing 
concept of limited market studies to include both product development trials and market trials and states 
that the proposed market trial rules would create new marketing opportunities for a wide range of entities, 
including manufacturers, service providers, researchers, developers, and other innovators.  CTIA further 
                                                     
229
Id., 25 FCC Rcd 16569, at para. 64.
230
For example a manufacturer holding a Part 5 experimental license could sell uncertified equipment to a service 
provider that holds a Part 5 experimental license for a market trial.
231
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16570, at para. 66.   
232
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 15-16.
233
See TechAmerica Comments to NPRM at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
50
states that the proposed rules will help identify product concerns and any remaining design issues under 
actual customer use scenarios at an earlier stage in the development process.
234
  
132. Several commenters also expressed concern over the NPRM’s proposals.  CTIA cautions 
that any new or modified rules should not enable parties to “game” the licensing processes and undermine 
the goals of this proceeding by allowing parties to use an experimental radio service license to conduct 
“soft” product rollouts disguised as market trials.  To that end, CTIA agrees with the Commission that 
market trials should not permit sales to consumers of equipment that has not yet been certified.  Similarly, 
SIA argues that the proposals to broaden opportunities for market trials pose the risk of a proliferation of 
trials with pseudo-commercial appearances that could lead to a flood of uncertified and potentially 
interfering equipment that may be difficult to retrieve.  SIA contends that the proposal to prohibit the sale 
of uncertified devices to trial participants does not preclude those devices from causing interference
because they can be leased.  For this reason, SIA recommends that the Commission impose viable 
controls to ensure retrieval of all devices following market trials, and further recommends that we impose 
penalties with meaningful consequences against parties that fail to retrieve equipment.
235
  Likewise, 
EIBASS asserts that product development trials and market trials would be open invitations for parties to 
skirt the current requirements for the manufacturing, importation, or sale of RF devices, and could quickly 
result in the introduction of unapproved RF devices into the marketplace that could cause interference to 
licensed users.
236
  Finally, Mayo recommends that a medical device be differentiated from a more general 
commercial application, either by including in the product development definition new medical devices 
used in a clinical trial or, alternatively, providing a new category for these types of devices.
237
133. Decision.  As stated in the NPRM, we believe that the Commission’s proposals will 
expand the availability of trials, so that manufacturers and service providers can gain valuable insight to 
the needs of consumers prior to offering new products and services to the broader marketplace.  
Commenters generally agreed, and we adopt those proposals with only minor modifications, as detailed 
below.  We find that the proposed changes are in the public interest and will provide a significant benefit 
at little or no cost.  
134. We believe that these rules address the concerns that some commenters expressed.  
CTIA’s concern about a “soft” product or service rollout, and SIA’s and EIBASS’s concern regarding the 
potential for proliferation of unauthorized equipment, is addressed by our prohibition on the sale of such 
equipment to consumers.  This prohibition has been in place for market studies under Part 5 for some 
time, as has a requirement that each experimental licensee inform all participants in a market trial that the 
operation of the service or device is being conducted under an experimental authorization and is strictly 
temporary.  These rules have worked well in the past and we believe that they will continue to function as 
designed to ensure that trials do not become proxies for actual product or service offerings.
135. Regarding Mayo’s concern that the proposed definition of a product development trial in 
Section 5.5 is too narrow and should be expanded to explicitly include medical devices, we concur.  As 
we have observed in our discussions regarding medical testing licenses, above, medical devices must not 
only be evaluated in the conceptual, developmental, and design stages, but also through extensive clinical 
trials.  We envision that a party developing a medical device might seek authorization for a product 
development trial when, for example, it has developed equipment that would not be able to be operated in 
                                                     
234
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 13-14.
235
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 7-8.
236
See EIBASS Comments to NPRM at 14-15.
237
SeeMayo Comments to NPRM at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
51
compliance with existing Commission rules, absent an experimental radio authorization.
238
  To remove 
any uncertainty about the potential scope of a product development trial, we modify the definition of a 
product development trial to specifically include medical devices being used in clinical trials.  
136. The rules that we adopt differentiate between product development trials and market 
trials, as set forth in Sections 5.501 and 5.502 of our rules, respectively.  In a product development trial, 
licensees must own all of the equipment, must inform all participants of the nature of the trial, and must 
not market devices or offer services for hire.  Market trials, coming later in the development process, will 
also have a requirement that the licensee retain ownership of all equipment, but we will allow limited 
marketing of equipment.  Specifically, we will permit the sale of equipment between licensees in a market 
trial, provided that they each have an experimental license authorizing a market trial.  We will also permit 
the lease of equipment to trial participants.  As an example, a manufacturer holding an experimental 
license for a market trial may sell equipment to a similarly licensed service provider, but neither of those 
licensees may sell equipment to an unlicensed trial participant – rather, those participants may only lease 
trial equipment.  In addition, the rules require that if more than one licensee is authorized for a market 
trial, one of those licensees must be designated as the responsible party for the trial.  We will designate 
the responsible party, if the parties themselves do not submit that information to us.  Finally, the rules 
require that licensees in market trials ensure that trial devices are either rendered inoperable or retrieved 
from trial participants at the conclusion of the trial, and that licensees notify participants in advance of the 
trial that operation of trial devices is not permitted following the trial.  These rules essentially follow 
existing rules and procedures currently available in the ERS for limited market studies.
137. We find it logical to require that both product development and market trials be 
authorized under conventional – rather than a program – experimental licenses.  We do so in recognition 
of the inherent difference between product development and market trials and “regular” experimentation 
and testing – the most prominent difference being the necessity to prevent an experimental licensee from 
creating a de facto service through the experimental licensing process.  We do not believe that requiring a 
conventional license – a continuation of the Commission’s existing practice for market trials – will 
diminish either the ability of experimenters to conduct such trials or the independent value of a program 
license. 
138. We believe that these rules will enhance and build on the rules previously available to 
Part 5 licensees for market studies.  They provide additional flexibility for manufacturers and service 
providers to gain an understanding of the viability of their products in the marketplace.  We are confident 
that experimental licenses will take advantage of them and provide a substantial benefit to the American 
public at minimal cost.
2. Evaluation Kits
139. Evaluation kits typically consist of a component that a manufacturer intends to offer for 
sale, mounted on a board, with or without an enclosure, in configurations that provide connections to a 
power supply, easy access to terminals, and sometimes supporting devices or other hardware.  The NPRM
noted that in many instances, developers and system integrators seek to obtain evaluation kits from 
manufacturers to test and evaluate a component that the manufacturer intends to offer for sale to facilitate 
the purchaser’s development of hardware and software for use with that component.  The NPRM pointed 
out that, under the current rules, sales of these kits are not permitted before equipment authorization is 
granted for the component, and that this restriction delays the ability of manufacturers and system 
integrators to develop hardware and software for use with the component.  Recognizing that this 
restriction leads to inefficiency in the device development process, the NPRM proposed to modify Section 
                                                     
238
As discussed in para. 114, supra, operation under a medical testing license is limited to devices that comply with 
existing Parts 15, 18 or 95 rules.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
52
2.803 of the rules to allow the sale of these evaluation kits, so long as notice stating that the component 
has not yet been certified is provided to any buyer.
239
  
140. Comments.  Commenting parties support the NPRM’s proposal.  TIA states that such kits 
permit engineers and technicians to assess the viability of integrated circuit chips and other circuit 
components for possible inclusion in products under development, and that they also are used for 
hardware and software design and development purposes in teaching labs in engineering schools 
throughout the United States.  Additionally, TIA and the Semiconductor Industry Association maintain 
that not all evaluation kits are currently considered contrary to the existing rules because some kits qualify 
as digital device testing equipment that are exempt from most regulation.  TIA states that it welcomes the 
opportunity to work with the Commission to find ways to permit unauthorized evaluation kits to serve 
traditional roles, while not undercutting the goal of the equipment authorization program as a means of 
enabling communications without harmful interference.
240
  Finally, the Semiconductor Industry 
Association recommends that a definition of both “evaluation kit” and “end product” be added to Section 
2.1 of our rules and that language be added to Section 2.803 to specify operating and labeling 
requirements for evaluation kits; and further recommends that we incorporate language changes to 
Section 2.805 to remove inconsistent rule references.
241
                                                     
239
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16570-1, at para. 67.
240
See TIA Comments to NPRM at 8-10; see also, Semiconductor Industry Association Reply Comments to NPRM
at 2.
241
These recommended changes are as follows (italicized):
Section 2.1 is amended by inserting the following definitions: 
Evaluation Kit: An assemblage of components, subassemblies or circuitry created by or for a component maker for 
the purpose of facilitating (i) end product developer evaluation of all or some of such components or (ii) the 
development of software to be used in an End Product.
End Product: An End Product is a completed electronic device that has received all requisite FCC approvals and is 
suitable for marketing in the normal course of business to end users.
Section 2.803(iv): A radio frequency device that constitutes an evaluation kit as defined in Section 2.1 of this 
Chapter may be sold as a kit provided that:
(A) the device is designed or developed for use by product and software developers; 
(B) that the following notice is included with the device: 
FCC NOTICE: This kit is designed to allow (i) product developers to evaluate electronic components, circuitry, or 
software associated with the kit to determine whether to incorporate such items in a finished product and (ii) 
software developers to write software applications for use with the end product. This kit is not a finished product 
and when assembled may not be resold or otherwise marketed unless all required FCC equipment authorizations 
are first obtained. Operation is subject to the conditions that this device not cause harmful interference to licensed 
radio stations and that this device accept harmful interference. Unless the assembled kit is designed to operate 
under Part 15, Part 18 or Part 95 of the FCC Rules, the operator of the kit must operate under the authority of an 
FCC license holder or must secure an experimental authorization under Part 5 of the FCC Rules.” 
(C) that  the device is labeled with the following legend: For evaluation only; not FCC approved for resale; and
(D) any intentional radiator employed as part of an evaluation kit shall be designed to comply with the FCC 
frequency use, spurious and out-of-band emission limits and maximum power or field strength ratings applicable to 
final products that would employ the components or circuitry to be evaluated.
Section 2.805(3)(ii): Demonstrations at a trade show provided a notice containing the wording specified in Section 
2.803(c)(2)(iii) of this part is displayed in a conspicuous location on, or immediately adjacent to, the device; 
Section 2.805(3)(iii): Demonstrations at an exhibition conducted at a business, commercial, industrial, scientific, or 
medical location, but excluding locations in a residential environment, provided a notice containing the wording 
specified in Section 2.803(c)(2)(iii) of this part is displayed in a conspicuous location on, or immediately adjacent 
to, the device or all prospective buyers at the exhibition are advised in writing that the equipment is subject to the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
53
141. Decision.  There was no opposition to the proposal to modify Section 2.803 to allow for 
the sale of evaluation kits, provided that notification to the buyer is provided regarding the authorization 
status of the component.  Accordingly, we adopt that proposal.  In doing so, we note, as pointed out by 
TIA and the Semiconductor Industry Association, that not all sales of evaluation kits are prohibited by the 
rules.  However, our action here removes any ambiguity that may exist over which kits fell into the 
prohibited category, thus simplifying our regulations for the benefit of continued innovation.  
Additionally, we incorporate – with some edits – the changes to Sections 2.1, 2.803, and 2.805 that were 
recommended by the Semiconductor Industry Association.  In particular, we are modifying the 
Semiconductor Industry Association’s proposed definition of evaluation kits to include software, as well 
as to reference system integrators and product developers, so that the definition would read: “An 
assembly of components, subassemblies,
242
or circuitry, including software, created by or for a component 
maker, system integrator, or product developer for the sole purpose of facilitating: (i) end product 
developer evaluation of all or some of such components, subassemblies, or circuitry, or (ii) the 
development of software to be used in an end product.” 
3. Importation Limits
142. In the NPRM, the Commission also addressed rules that place limits on the quantity of 
devices that can be imported for testing and evaluation to determine compliance with the rules or 
suitability for marketing.  The current rule in Section 2.1204(a)(3) permits RF devices to be imported in 
quantities up to 2000 units for products designed solely for operation within a radio service that requires 
an operating license, and up to 200 units for all other devices.  Based on comments from HP, the Office of 
Engineering and Technology proposed in its 2006 Biennial Review Staff Report to increase the 
importation limit for devices that do not require an individual station license from 200 units to 1200 units, 
and further proposed to treat devices that contain both licensed and unlicensed transmitters as licensed, 
and therefore subject to the 2000-unit importation limit applicable to licensed devices.
243
  The 
Commission reiterated that proposal in the NPRM, stating that these limits would better reflect current 
manufacturing, design, and marketing techniques, and would also decrease the administrative burden on 
both industry and the Commission.
244
143. Comments.  Commenting parties strongly support increasing the importation limit from 
200 units to at least 1200 units for devices that do not require an individual station license.  CTIA states 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
FCC rules and that the equipment will comply with the appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer or to centers of 
distribution; or 
Section 2.805(3)((iv): Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability, during 
developmental, design, or pre-production states provided such operation takes place at a business, commercial, 
industrial, scientific, or medical location, but excluding locations in a residential environment. If the product is not 
operated at the manufacturer’s facilities, it must be labeled with the wording specified in Section 2.803(c)(2)(iii) of 
this part or, in the case of an evaluation kit the wording 2.803(c)(2)(iii) of this part or, in the case of an evaluation 
kit the wording specified in Section 2.803(c)(2)(iv)(C).  See Semiconductor Industry Association Reply Comments 
to NPRM at 5-10.
242
We note that “subassemblies” that are expected to be approved as “modular transmitters” under Section 15.212 
of our rules may be included in evaluation kits if the subassemblies are clearly marked as requiring further approval 
and are subject to the same regulations as evaluation kits. 
243
See 2006 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations – Part 2, Administered by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, ET Docket 06-155, Staff Report, 22 FCC Rcd 2930 (2007).  The Communications Act 
requires the Commission (1) to review biennially its regulations “that apply to the operations or activities of any 
provider of telecommunications service,” and (2) to “determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary 
in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between the providers of such service.”  
244
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16572, at para. 71. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
54
that a larger importation limit would provide additional flexibility for manufacturers to design effective 
market trials, especially for products that are intended to be produced and distributed on a nationwide 
basis.
245
HP argues that the proposed increase will preserve Commission resources by freeing OET staff 
from addressing waiver requests necessary under the present prototype import rules.  HP notes that it sells 
its products to a worldwide marketplace, and that the number of countries or regions it typically sells to 
act as multipliers on the number of prototypes needed to support development and marketing activities.  
Therefore, HP encourages the Commission to not only increase the importation limit on preapproved 
prototype units, but also to continue providing flexibility in those case where manufacturers need to 
import prototype units in excess of 1200.
246
  
144. Qualcomm contends that increasing the 200-unit limit will support increased wireless 
experimentation and innovation within U.S. borders and reduce the administrative burden on the industry 
and the Commission to deal with waivers of the current rule and associated border reporting 
requirements.
247
  In supplemental comments, Qualcomm recommends that the limit be raised to 3000 
units for both importation and sales of uncertified devices that do not require an individual station license.  
Qualcomm argues that this higher limit would better reflect today’s marketplace for semiconductor chips 
incorporated into broadband devices and more effectively increase wireless experimentation and 
innovation in the U.S.
248
  Advocating even more flexibility, TIA urges that the import limit be raised to 
8000 units for all devices.
249
145. Decision.  The rules limiting the importation of devices that have not yet been authorized 
are intended to strike a balance between ensuring that manufacturers have a sufficient number of devices 
available for compliance testing and market studies, while also ensuring that unauthorized devices are not 
distributed to the general public thereby reducing the risk of harmful interference to authorized devices.  
Originally, the Commission provided that unauthorized devices could be imported in “limited quantities.” 
That ambiguous designation was later clarified to a limit of 200 devices for testing and evaluation to 
determine compliance with the Commission’s Rules and Regulations or suitability for marketing.
250
  
Subsequently, in 1998, the Commission adopted the current importation limits of 2000 devices for 
services in which a license is needed and 200 devices for all other services.
251
Since the Commission last 
modified its rules, the communications market has undergone significant changes characterized by a 
proliferation of both licensed and unlicensed devices, as well as highly-sophisticated new devices – such 
as the latest mobile phones – that contain several licensed and unlicensed transmitters.  Such devices are 
being introduced to the marketplace at ever increasing rates.  These changes have led to requirements for 
extensive testing, as well as significant market research trials, to ensure that these devices will meet user 
                                                     
245
See CTIA Comments to NPRM at 16-17.
246
See HP Comments to NPRM at 2.
247
See Qualcomm Comments to NPRM at 10.
248
See Qualcomm Ex Parte filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, June 14, 2011, at 1.
249
See TIA Ex Parte filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, July 20, 2012.  See also, Letter from Brian 
Scarpelli, TIA to Marlene Dortch, August 6, 2012, which reiterates support for an importation limit of 8,000 units 
and also professes support for shifting the import compliance process to a registration system in conjunction with a 
change in the import limit.  We note that any change in the import compliance process, such as to a registration 
system, is beyond the scope of this proceeding and not addressed herein.
250
See Amendment of Part 2 of the Rules Concerning the Importation of Radio Frequency Devices Capable of 
Causing Harmful Interference, GEN Docket No. 89-349, Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 4960 (1992).
251
See In the Matter of Revision of Part 2 of The Commission's Rules Relating to the Marketing and Authorization 
of Radio Frequency Devices, ET Docket No. 94-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 12928 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
55
expectations.  Device testing is further augmented by the need for devices sold to multiple 
telecommunications providers to be tested on each provider’s network.  Thus, based on our experience –
as well as the comments – the current importation limits are no longer adequate to meet the industry’s 
needs.  The need for increased device testing, in turn, has put additional pressure on the Commission to 
issue timely waivers of the existing limits, so that manufacturers and telecommunications providers can 
meet their deadlines.
146. We therefore adopt the proposal to increase the current importation limits.  However, 
based on the comments and our experience in granting waivers of the current limits, we believe that the
proposed increase was too modest to make a significant difference to manufacturers or to Commission 
staff.  In particular, we note that several commenters – including Qualcomm and TIA – requested that the 
Commission raise the limits beyond what was proposed and that it apply a common limit for all devices.  
We agree with these commenters, and thus are adopting rules that increase the importation limit for all 
devices – those that require a license and those that do not – to 4000 units.  Adopting a single limit for all 
devices will decrease the administrative burden on both manufacturers and the Commission.  
Additionally, given the number of devices available that contain a mix of unlicensed transmitters and 
transmitters that require operation pursuant to a Commission license, we find that the current distinction 
among device types is less meaningful.  Furthermore, we do not expect that an increase in the limit will 
increase the risk of interference from devices that are solely unlicensed.  Based on our experience, we 
believe that a new 4000-unit limit – which is one-third larger than the 3000-unit limit suggested by 
Qualcomm – will be sufficient to meet industry’s needs.  We find that a 4000-unit limit strikes the proper 
balance among ensuring that sufficient devices are available for testing, protecting authorized devices 
from harmful interference, and freeing up Commission resources from addressing excessive numbers of 
waiver requests.  With respect to adoption of the 8000-unit limit recommended by TIA, we find a four-
fold increase would be excessive.  To the extent that a TIA member or other party has a specific need to 
import more than 4000 units for testing, we will continue the Commission’s past practice of providing 
reasonable flexibility on a case-by-case basis, subject to justification for a higher number of imported 
units.  Under this approach, we can still accommodate the interest of parties, such as TIA, that advocated 
for a larger importation limit.  Accordingly, we find that this balanced approach benefits the public by 
reducing administrative burdens, while guarding against the costs of harmful interference to authorized 
Commission devices.
F.        Modifying and Improving Rules and Procedures
147. Anechoic Chambers and Faraday Cages.  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to add
rules to codify existing practices regarding the treatment of experiments conducted within anechoic 
chambers
252
and Faraday cages.
253
  Specifically, it proposed to permit RF tests and experiments that are 
fully contained within an anechoic chamber or a Faraday cage to occur without the need for obtaining an 
experimental license, and inquired whether there should be a minimum standard for the shielding 
effectiveness of the chamber.
254
148. Commenters strongly supported the proposals regarding anechoic chambers and Faraday 
cages.  Qualcomm states that codifying the Commission’s policy of allowing wireless experimentation 
                                                     
252
An anechoic chamber is a room, insulated from exterior sources of noise, and designed to stop reflections of 
electromagnetic waves.  They are used to test and measure RF equipment such as antennas or radars or to conduct 
electromagnetic interference studies in isolation of external noise.  Anechoic chambers are also used to measure 
emissions from unintentional radiators, such as a radio receiver or laptop computer.
253
A Faraday cage is an enclosure usually formed by a mesh of conducting material designed to block out external 
static and to keep RF fields generated within the cage from escaping.
254
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16576, at para. 82. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
56
within such enclosures without the need for an experimental authorization will encourage greater levels of 
experimentation and relieve the Commission from the burden of responding to such inquiries from
industry.
255
  SIA maintains that operations conducted within both types of facilities have significant 
experimental value and, when conducted properly, pose no threat of harmful interference to authorized 
services.  However, SIA recommends that these operations be required to maintain RF levels outside 
anechoic chambers or Faraday cages equal to or lower than the emission and/or field strength levels that
unintentional radiators in the same frequency bands are allowed under Part 15 of the Commission’s 
Rules.
256
  V-Comm recommends that shielding effectiveness and signal leakage measurements be 
performed on all frequency bands, and that power levels utilized in tests ensure sufficient isolation and 
shielding effectiveness to prevent signals from leaking outside such facilities and causing harmful 
interference to existing services in licensed spectrum bands.
257
149. Boeing recommends that operations in RF enclosed facilities be permitted in all 
frequency bands, but that those operations be subject to maximum emissions limits as measured outside 
the facilities.  Boeing also recommends that entities be permitted to self certify compliance with the 
emissions limits.
258
Lockheed Martin observes that the Commission’s past guidance regarding RF 
enclosed facilities has never included any specific requirements regarding shielding thickness or other 
design specifications, but rather has relied on the fact that such environments are highly unlikely to cause 
harmful interference.  It therefore recommends that the Commission not mandate compliance with a 
specific standard for shielding or impose similar construction requirements.
259
150. Commenters were supportive of the NPRM’s proposal to codify the Commission’s  
existing policy of allowing RF tests and experiments that are fully contained within an anechoic chamber 
or a Faraday cage without the need for obtaining an experimental license.  We are therefore adopting that
proposal.  In doing so, we observe that all experimenters, even those operating in RF enclosed facilities, 
are required to comply with the general prohibition against causing harmful interference to other spectrum 
users.  Thus, we expect that experimenters who use these facilities will ensure proper functioning prior to 
use, including ensuring sufficient isolation of RF energy.  Further, we observe that we are codifying 
existing practice that has been in place for quite some time, and that we have received no complaints from 
other spectrum users of harmful interference.  Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to adopt 
additional standards for emission limits outside these RF enclosures.  This approach will reduce 
administrative burdens and provide cost savings to the public. 
151. Inter and Intra-Agency Coordination Procedures.  Several commenters bring up issues 
regarding the Commission’s ability to resolve objections to and concerns regarding proposed experiments 
prior to the Commission taking action.  Commenters note that these concerns and objections may be 
either from within the Commission or from other Federal agencies or both.  BAE requests that we revise 
our rules to expressly provide conventional experimental applicants (for both Special Temporary 
Authorizations, or STAs, and regular licenses) an opportunity to resolve agency concerns, objections, or 
proposed frequency carve-outs prior to an experimental grant.
260
  Specifically, BAE recommends that a 
                                                     
255
See Qualcomm Comments to NPRM at 10.
256
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 5-6.
257
See V-Comm Comments to NPRM at 19.
258
See Boeing Comments to NPRM at 21.
259
See Lockheed Martin Comments to NPRM at 5.
260
BAE similarly requests that “Qualified Homeland Security Applicants” should be permitted to address concerns 
by either rebutting the findings or modifying the proposal to mitigate the concerns to allow more flexibility for 
internal research and development in military and public safety bands.  BAE defines a Qualified Homeland Security 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
57
conventional experimental applicant be permitted to engage a technical representative of the objecting 
agency within seven calendar days of the objection being identified.
261
  In a related issue, BAE suggests 
that the Commission revise its process to allow conventional experimental license applicants greater 
access to application status details so that they can easily monitor for objections and address any that are 
identified in a timely manner.
262
SIA recommends that the Commission and NTIA jointly review 
experimental license applications that use shared Federal/non-Federal frequencies, and that such 
applications be routinely granted within 14 calendar days of submission, in the absence of an objection by 
NTIA.
263
152. We believe that our existing coordination processes and procedures are sufficient.  We 
disagree with commenters who assert that once an application is submitted it may not be readily apparent 
from checking the on-line experimental licensing system (ELS) where a specific application is in the 
process.
264
  In concert with NTIA, we have taken action to provide on-line tools for applicants.  First, we 
note that applicants can query the ELS for the status of specific applications.
265
  Second, at our 
recommendation, NTIA has made available on its website status information regarding Commission 
applications – including experimental applications – that are being coordinated between the two 
agencies.
266
  Third, applicants may, and often do, call or e-mail our OET experimental licensing staff for 
status updates, and they respond to all inquiries in a timely manner.  In that connection, we note that our 
experimental licensing staff routinely corresponds with applicants to work out mutually acceptable 
solutions for all parties.  However, we recognize that parties might find value in having access to more 
detailed information about the status of their applications and additional methods for interacting with the 
Commission.  We are working on projects to upgrade many of that Commission’s electronic filing 
systems, and we will endeavor to modify the ELS to make more detailed information available.  Finally, 
regarding the timeframe for coordinating with NTIA, the Commission and NTIA have agreed in a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordination procedures between the two agencies, including 
a requirement for coordination to be accomplished within 15 working days of such requests.  The vast 
majority of applications are coordinated within this timeframe.  In cases where complex concerns are 
raised, our staff works closely with applicants and NTIA staff to find mutually agreeable solutions.  We 
find that our current approach reduces administrative burdens and provides cost savings to the public.
153. Special Temporary Authorization.  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed changes to 
Section 5.61, which contains rules for STAs.
267
  As an initial matter, BAE points out that it appears that 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Applicant as “for-profit entities (i) whose primary RF transmission activities support public safety, homeland 
security and defense priorities, and (ii) who can demonstrate to the Commission that they are sophisticated in the 
design and operation of RF systems, and in the use of various forms of attenuation to minimize the possibility of 
harmful interference.”  See BAE Comments to NPRM at 4, 21-22.
261
See BAE Comments to NPRM at 19-20.
262
See BAE Reply Comments to NPRM at 20-21.
263
See SIA Comments to NPRM at 19.
264
The experimental licensing system is available at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els.
265
Experimental licensing system application status search is available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/ApplicationSearch.cfm.
266
See http://ntiacsd.ntia.doc.gov/webcoord/status.cfm for a status list of all Commission applications, including 
experimental applications, being coordinated with NTIA.  See also http://ntiacsd.ntia.doc.gov/webcoord/fcc_faa.cfm
for a list of frequency applications submitted by the Commission to the Federal Aviation Administration for 
processing by NTIA in the Aeronautical bands.
267
See NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd 16592-93, at § 5.61. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
58
the NPRM removed the requirement to file such requests electronically, and recommends that we modify 
the proposed rule to restore that requirement.  We agree with BAE’s recommendation. The proposed 
removal of this requirement was inadvertent, as the Commission has required electronic filing for quite 
some time.  Accordingly, we are retaining this requirement in Section 5.61 of our rules.  BAE also asks 
that we clarify the rule language in Section 5.61(c), which requires an application for a conventional 
experimental license be “consistent with the terms and conditions” of the prior-granted STA in order to 
obtain an extension of that STA.  BAE specifically asks if this means that the application for a 
conventional license must mirror exactly every technical parameter of the prior-granted STA.
268
  
Additionally, BAE asks about the situation in which a conventional license is associated with a different 
government contract than the STA or where it is for internal research and development (IR&D), rather 
than in support of a contract.
269
  We take this opportunity to state that the parameters of the conventional 
license application do not need to mirror exactly the parameters of the STA.  They may differ so long as 
any changes do not increase the interference potential of the equipment under test.  For example, a change 
to lower power or antenna height would be permissible, but an increase in those parameters would not.  
Likewise, a change in location or addition of locations would not be permissible under this rule.  Under 
this guidance, a change in contract number or change to support IR&D rather than a contract would also 
be acceptable.  We will add clarifying language to the rule, which codifies our existing practice and 
reduces regulatory burdens on some experimental applicants. 
154. Clearwire states that it has observed an increase in the number of Part 5 STAs that are 
being issued for commercial uses – such as coverage of sporting events – where the application did not 
clearly indicate a research or experimental purpose.
270
  It contends that such grants are inconsistent with 
the ERS Rules and recommend that ERS STAs be granted only for true experiments.  Clearwire 
recommends that a party desiring temporary rights for commercial use of spectrum that is licensed to 
another party should lease the spectrum from the licensee under Parts 1 and 27 of the Commission’s 
Rules.
271
  As Clearwire points out, we observe that a Part 5 authorization may be granted for a broad 
range of research and experimentation, including market trials.
272
  Additionally, an ERS applicant must 
describe the program of research and experimentation proposed and the specific objectives it seeks to 
accomplish stating “how the program of experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the 
development, extension, or expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already 
investigated.”
273
  We rely on our staff to exercise their expertise and discretion in determining whether 
particular applications meet the requirements of the Part 5 rules and find no need to modify those rules.
We find that our current approach reduces administrative burdens and provide cost savings to the public. 
155. Changes in Equipment and Emission Characteristics.  The NPRM proposed to modify 
Section 5.77(a) of the Commission’s Rules to provide additional flexibility for licensees to make changes 
to equipment without prior Commission consent provided that certain conditions are met.  Specifically, 
that proposal would require that the power output of the new equipment comply with the license and that 
the transmitter as a whole or output power rating of the transmitter not be changed.  BAE suggests
modifying these two conditions to a single one stating that changes can be made to equipment provided 
                                                     
268
See BAE Comments to NPRM, at 24-25.
269
Id. at 26.
270
See Clearwire Ex Parte filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, May 17, 2012, at 6-8.
271
Id. at 6-8.
272
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.3.
273
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.63(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
59
that the ERP and directivity comply with the license and the regulations governing the license.
274
  We 
agree that such a change would be beneficial and provide licensees with additional flexibility to alter 
equipment as necessary without increasing interference potential to authorized services.  We will 
therefore modify Section 5.77 to make this change.  BAE also requests that we alter proposed Section 
5.77(b) to retain language that states that licensees who make changes to their emissions and want such 
change to become a permanent part of their license may address such changes at the next renewal,
275
rather than adopt the NPRM’s proposal to require that an application for modification must be filed.  We 
disagree with BAE that any changes are necessary here.  The NPRM’s proposal provides more flexibility 
than the previous rule, as it allows applicants to file an immediate application for modification to make 
emission changes permanent.  We note that such a modification can also be made in conjunction with a 
renewal application as is current practice.  Thus, we will adopt the NPRM’s proposed rule change to 
Section 5.77(b).  
156. Recognition of Internal Research and Development.  BAE observes that many applicants
for experimental authorization that support homeland security, public safety, and defense priorities 
require such licenses for IR&D work, in addition to contractual work with various agencies.  Accordingly, 
BAE requests that the Commission explicitly recognize IR&D work on experimental licenses.
276
  While 
we recognize the value of IR&D in the development of new equipment and techniques, we do not believe 
that it needs to be explicitly recognized on the experimental license or within the experimental licensing 
system database.  We note that the vast majority of experimentation is for internal development rather 
than under a government contract, and so there is no need to track such instances as a separate category.  
We also note that we collect government contract information because it is needed in order to grant a non-
Federal entity the ability to conduct experiments on a Federal facility’s property.
157. Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Equipment.  Lockheed Martin observes that both 
Commission Form 442 and Section 5.61 of the Commission’s Rules (“Procedure for obtaining a special 
temporary authorization”) require applicants to identify all equipment to be used in an experiment by 
supplying the manufacturer name and model number
277
of that equipment.  Lockheed Martin argues that 
this requirement is unnecessary for COTS equipment because Section 5.77 of our rules already permits 
experimental licensees to make changes to transmitters “without specific authorization from the 
Commission provided that the change does not result in operations inconsistent” (with the terms of the 
authorization).
278
  Lockheed Martin therefore recommends that an experimental applicant or licensee not 
be required to specify manufacturer identification of any COTS equipment used as part of an experiment.  
Alternatively, Lockheed Martin recommends that the Commission clarify that COTS equipment can be 
substituted during the term of the experimental authorization, provided that it otherwise complies with the 
requirements of the license.
279
158. We agree with Lockheed Martin and note that the Commission has routinely allowed 
experimental licensees to substitute one piece of COTS equipment for another, provided it does not 
generally increase the risk of harmful interference to authorized spectrum users.  To avoid any confusion 
on this matter, we are revising the instructions to Form 442 by adding a note stating:  “Provided that 
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment used in experiments is operating in accordance with its 
                                                     
274
See BAE Comments to NPRM at 25-26.
275
Id.
276
Id. at 26.
277
Lockheed Martin refers to the model number as the “serial number.”
278
See 47 C.F.R. § 5.77(a).
279
See Lockheed Martin Comments to NPRM at 7-8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
60
certification, substituting one piece of COTS equipment for another without notifying the Commission is 
permitted so long as such equipment substitution will not result in operations inconsistent with the terms 
of the authorization.”  Licensees should be aware, however, that if they make any modifications to COTS 
equipment that would invalidate the equipment’s certification, they must modify their experimental 
license accordingly.  We believe that this added clarification will reduce regulatory burdens on 
experimenters by enabling them to more easily choose equipment for conducting their testing, while not 
increasing the potential for causing harmful interference to authorized Commission radio services.
159. Special Grant Conditions. Lockheed Martin recommends that the Commission change
its default practice of issuing special grant conditions that restrict experimentation when an applicant
discloses that its experiment supports a U.S. government contract.  Lockheed Martin argues that, while 
there are some instances where coordination requirements in Federal or shared Federal/non-Federal bands 
will necessitate restricting experimental transmissions only to those necessary to fulfill a government 
contract, there are other instances where a band can support developers who are working both toward 
meeting the specific requirements of a contract and on related independent activities designed to advance 
the state-of-the-art.
280
160. We are sympathetic to Lockheed Martin’s arguments regarding making more efficient 
use of the spectrum and reducing administrative burdens; however, we decline to make the requested 
changes, as many special grant procedures are a direct consequence of the type of experiment or location.  
For example, the Commission does not have the legal authority to allow experimentation at a defense 
facility without permission of the military.  Accordingly, the decision to impose special grant conditions 
will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis.  We note however, that the use of special grant 
conditions in some circumstances does not preclude entities from obtaining experimental licenses, either 
conventional or program, to experiment in most bands for their own internal research and development 
efforts.  We find that our approach best balances protecting the public from harmful interference to 
existing radio services and reducing regulatory burdens on experimental applicants.
161. Permanent Discontinuance of License. Clearwire contends that it is difficult for a service 
licensee to determine the source of interference to its operations if it does not know whether experiments 
have been discontinued or did not take place under an authorization listed in the Commission’s 
database.
281
  As a remedy, Clearwire recommends that we enforce Section 5.81 of our rules, which 
requires that ERS licensees who have permanently discontinued their experiments notify OET.
282
  As 
Clearwire notes, the rules already require licensees to notify the Commission if they permanently 
discontinue their experimental operations.  However, it may be that some licensees simply just allow their 
licenses to expire once they conclude their experiments.  To ensure that licensees are fully aware of their 
obligation to notify the Commission if they cease experimental operations prior to their license expiration 
date, we are adding clarifying language to explicitly state this in the rule in Section 5.81.  In addition, we 
note that if we become aware of rule violations, the Commission can take disciplinary action to include 
fines and/or loss of ability to obtain future licenses.
162. Coordination Charges.  Clearwire states that it charges ERS applicants the costs of 
coordinating requests for experimental use of spectrum that Clearwire uses on a primary basis.
283
  Boeing 
disagrees with this practice, and argues that because licensees under the Communications Act do not 
acquire an ownership interest in their licensed spectrum, the Commission has statutory authority to 
                                                     
280
Id. at 8-9.
281
See Clearwire Ex Parte Filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, May 17, 2012, at 8.
282
Id.  See 47 C.F.R. § 5.81.
283
See Clearwire Ex Parte filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, July 10, 2012 at 1-2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
61
prohibit licensees from charging fees for reviewing and approving coordination requests for experimental 
use of spectrum.
284
  Clearwire responds that while it agrees with Boeing that “payment for approval” by 
authorized licensees would be inappropriate, such licensees should be permitted to recover their costs of 
coordinating with ERS applicants.
285
We observe that, although the Commission has discretion under Part 
5 to condition a license on coordination with the primary licensee in a frequency band, our Part 5 rules do 
not address the charging issue. Further, we note that we did not address this issue in the NPRM.  Because 
we do not have proper notice of this issue, it is beyond the scope of this proceeding and we do not address 
it further.
163. Electronic Filing of Informal Objections to Experimental License Applications Pursuant 
to Section 5.95.  The Commission adopted electronic filing procedures for experimental license 
applications using the ELS in 1998,
286
and in a subsequent Order in 2003, mandated the electronic filing 
of all experimental applications.
287
In that Order, the Commission also adopted a non-substantive 
procedural rule codifying in Section 5.95 of the Rules the existing procedures for filing informal 
objections to experimental license applications, but directed filers to make submissions pursuant to the 
requirements in Sections 1.41-1.52 of the Rules without clarifying how filers should make submissions 
electronically.
288
  
164. Because the ELS did not support processing informal objections at the time Section 5.95 
was adopted, we now adopt a non-substantive procedural change to Section 5.95 to clarify that filers shall 
no longer file informal objections using the process for print mail submissions in Sections 1.41-1.52, but 
shall submit all informal objections electronically via the ELS as otherwise required in Section 5.55 of the 
Rules.  OET will release a public notice announcing the date after which no further paper filings will be 
accepted.  This change merely clarifies the requirements for mandatory electronic filing.  Thus, it is 
procedural in nature and does not substantively change the information required to be filed with the 
Commission, making the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act 
inapplicable.
289
  
                                                     
284
See Boeing Ex Parte filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, July 25, 2012, at 2.  Boeing bases its assertion 
on section 301 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 301), which states in part, “[i]t is the purpose of this 
chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; 
and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, 
under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the 
terms, conditions, and periods of the license.”
285
See Clearwire Ex Parte filing, ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, August 8, 2012, at 3-4.
286
See Amendment Of Part 5 Of The Commission’s Rules To Revise The Experimental Radio Service Regulations, 
ET Docket No. 96-256, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21391 at 21394-95, para. 12 (1998); “The Experimental 
Licensing Branch Of The Office Of Engineering And Technology Announces The Availability Of Electronic Filing 
For Experimental License Forms And Requests For Special Temporary Authorization (STA)”, Public Notice No. 
8023, released November 9, 1998.
287
See Amendment of Part 5 of the Commission’s Rules to Require Electronic Filing of Applications for 
Experimental Radio Licenses and Authorizations, FCC 03-207, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16966 (2003).
288
Sections 1.41-1.52 of the Commission’s Rules (47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41-1.51 et. seq.) sets forth the procedures for 
filing various pleadings with the Commission including informal objections.  In addition, these rules provide 
guidance on filing periods, format of pleadings, length of pleadings, etc.
289
See Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A); JEM Broadcasting Co. 
v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (affirming that the FM “hard look” processing rules are procedural in 
nature and exempt from the general notice and comment requirements of the APA, and explaining that “the ‘critical 
feature’ of the procedural exception ‘is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
62
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.        Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
165. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. § 603, the 
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in this Report and Order.  The FRFA 
is set forth in Appendix C.
B.        Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
166. This document contains modified information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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 on the modified information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding.  In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on 
how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.
C.        Congressional Review Act
167. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.                     
§ 801(a)(1)(A).
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
168. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, and 303 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 301, and 303, this Report and Order IS 
ADOPTED.
169. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 0, 1, 2, 5, 22, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90, and 101 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 0, 1, 2, 5, 22, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90, and 101, ARE AMENDED as set 
forth in Appendix B.  These revisions will take effect 30 days after publication of a summary of this 
Report and Order in the Federal Register, except for Sections 2.803(c)(2), 5.59, 5.61, 5.63, 5.64, 5.65, 
5.73, 5.79, 5.81, 5.107, 5.115, 5.121, 5.123, 5.205, 5.207, 5.217(b), 5.307, 5.308, 5.309, 5.311, 5.404, 
5.405, 5.406, 5.504, and 5.602.  These rules contain new or modified information collection requirements 
that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA), and WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to 
the agency.’”).  The electronic filing procedural requirements adopted in 2003 were not burdensome, and in light of 
current technology are in the public interest.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
63
170. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including 
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
64
APPENDIX A
Comments and Reply Comments to NPRM
Comments
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.
AT&T Inc.
BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc.
The Boeing Company
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C.
Stephen J. Crowley, P.E.
CTIA – The Wireless Association
Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Spectrum
Hewlett Packard Company
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Nickolaus E. Leggett
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Marcus Spectrum Solutions, LLC
Mayo Clinic
Medtronic, Inc.
mHealth Regulatory Coalition
Motorola Solutions, Inc. 
Q-Track Corporation
Qualcomm, Incorporated
Satellite Industry Association
TechAmerica
Telecommunications Industry Association
V-Comm, LLC
Verizon Wireless
Wireless Communications Association International
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
65
Reply Comments
The American Radio Relay League Incorporated
AT&T
BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc.
The Boeing Company
Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, P.C.
Stephen J. Crowley, P.E.
Mark Cummings
Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Spectrum
Information Technology Industry Council
Nickolaus E. Leggett
Lockheed Martin Corporation
National Association of Broadcasters
Satellite Industry Association
Semiconductor Industry Association
Leonard J. Umina
V-Comm, L.L.C.
Verizon Wireless
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
66
APPENDIX B
Final Rules
For the reasons set forth in the preamble the Federal Communications Commission amends Parts 0, 1, 2, 
5, 22, 73, 74, 80, 87, 90 and 101 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
1. The authority section of Part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 0.406 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 0.406  The rules and regulations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Part 5, experimental radio service.  Part 5 provides for the temporary use of radio frequencies 
for research in the radio art, for communications involving other research projects, for the 
development of equipment, data, or techniques, and for the conduct of equipment product 
development or market trials.
* * * * *
PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
3. The authority section of Part 1 continues to read as follows:
      Authority:  15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 303(r), and 309.
4. Section 1.77 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 1.77  Detailed application procedures; cross references.
* * * * *
(d) Rules governing applications for authorizations in the Experimental Radio Service are set forth in 
part 5 of this chapter.
* * * * *
5. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising the twenty-seventh row of the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read 
as follows:
§ 1.1307  Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental 
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
67
Table 1—Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation
Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation required if:
* * * * * *
Auxiliary and Special Broadcast and Other Program 
Distributional Services (part 74)
Subparts G and L: power > 100 W 
ERP.
* * * * * *
* * * * *
6. Section 1.913 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 1.913  Application and notification forms; electronic and manual filing.
(a) * * *
(1) FCC Form 601, Application for Authorization in the Wireless Radio Services.  FCC Form 601 
and associated schedules are used to apply for initial authorizations, modifications to existing 
authorizations, amendments to pending applications, renewals of station authorizations, special 
temporary authority, notifications, requests for extension of time, and administrative updates.
* * * * *
7. Section 1.981 is amended by removing paragraphs (a) and (b) and redesignating paragraph (c) as 
introductory text.
PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS
8. The authority section of Part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
9. Section 2.1 is amended by adding the following definitions in the appropriate places in alphabetical 
order:
End Product:  A completed electronic device that has received all requisite FCC approvals and is suitable 
for marketing.
Evaluation Kit:  An assembly of components, subassemblies, or circuitry, including software, created by 
or for a component maker, system integrator, or product developer for the sole purpose of facilitating: (i) 
end product developer evaluation of all or some of such components, subassemblies, or circuitry, or (ii) 
the development of software to be used in an end product.
10. Section 2.102 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2).
11. Section 2.803 is amended to read as follows:
§ 2.803  Marketing of radio frequency products prior to equipment authorization.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
68
(a)  Marketing, as used in this section, includes sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including 
advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or 
leasing or offering for sale or lease.
(b)  General rule.  No person may market a radio frequency product unless:
(1)  For products subject to authorization under certification, the product has been authorized in 
accordance with the rules in Subpart J of this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as 
required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter; or
(2)  For products subject to authorization under verification or Declaration of Conformity in 
accordance with the rules in Subpart J of this chapter, the product complies with all applicable 
technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements; or 
(3)  For products that do not require a grant of equipment authorization under Subpart J of this 
chapter but must comply with the specified technical standards prior to use, the product complies 
with all applicable, technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements.
(c)  Exceptions.  The following marketing activities are permitted prior to equipment authorization:
(1)  Activities under product development and market trials conducted pursuant to subpart H of 
Part 5.
(2)  Limited marketing is permitted, as described below, for products that could be authorized 
under the current rules; could be authorized under waivers of such rules that are in effect at the 
time of marketing; or could be authorized under rules that have been adopted by the Commission 
but that have not yet become effective.  These products may not be operated unless permitted by 
§ 2.805 of this part.  
(i)  Conditional sales contracts (including agreements to produce new products 
manufactured in accordance with designated specifications) are permitted between 
manufacturers and wholesalers or retailers provided that delivery is made contingent 
upon compliance with the applicable equipment authorization and technical requirements.
(ii)  A radio frequency product that is in the conceptual, developmental, design or pre-
production stage may be offered for sale solely to business, commercial, industrial, 
scientific or medical users (but not an offer for sale to other parties or to end users located 
in a residential environment) if the prospective buyer is advised in writing at the time of 
the offer for sale that the equipment is subject to the FCC rules and that the equipment 
will comply with the appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer or to centers of 
distribution. 
(iii) A radio frequency product may be advertised or displayed, (e.g., at a trade show or 
exhibition) if accompanied by a conspicuous notice containing this language: 
This product has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  This product is not, and may not be, offered for 
sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.
If the product being displayed is a prototype of a product that has been properly 
authorized and the prototype, itself, is not authorized due to differences between the 
prototype and the authorized product, this language may be used instead:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
69
Prototype.  Not for sale.
(iv) An evaluation kit as defined in § 2.1 of this chapter may be sold provided that:
(A) sales are limited to product developers, software developers, and system integrators; 
(B) the following notice is included with the product:
FCC NOTICE:  This kit is designed to allow (i) product developers to evaluate electronic 
components, circuitry, or software associated with the kit to determine whether to incorporate 
such items in a finished product and (ii) software developers to write software applications for 
use with the end product.  This kit is not a finished product and when assembled may not be 
resold or otherwise marketed unless all required FCC equipment authorizations are first obtained.  
Operation is subject to the conditions that this product not cause harmful interference to licensed 
radio stations and that this product accept harmful interference.  Unless the assembled kit is 
designed to operate under Part 15, Part 18 or Part 95 of the FCC Rules, the operator of the kit 
must operate under the authority of an FCC license holder or must secure an experimental 
authorization under Part 5 of the FCC Rules.
(C) the product is labeled with the following legend:
For evaluation only; not FCC approved for resale; and  
(D) any radiofrequency transmitter employed as part of an evaluation kit shall be 
designed to comply with all applicable FCC technical rules, including frequency use, 
spurious and out-of-band emission limits, and maximum power or field strength ratings 
applicable to final products that would employ the components or circuitry to be 
evaluated.
(d) Importation.  The provisions of subpart K continue to apply to imported radio frequency 
products.
12. New Section 2.805 is added to read as follows:
§ 2.805  Operation of radio frequency products prior to equipment authorization.
(a)  General rule.  A radio frequency product may not be operated prior to equipment authorization.
(b)  Exceptions.  
(1)  Operation prior to equipment authorization is permitted under the authority of an 
experimental radio service authorization issued under Part 5 of this chapter or in accordance with the 
following provisions; however, except as provided elsewhere in this chapter, radio frequency 
products operated under these provisions may not be marketed (as defined in § 2.803(a)):
(i)  The radio frequency product shall be operated in compliance with existing Commission rules, 
waivers of such rules that are in effect at the time of operation, or rules that have been adopted by 
the Commission, but that have not yet become effective; and
(ii)  Operation shall be conducted under the authority of a service license (only in the bands for 
which that service license holds a license) or a grant of special temporary authorization, or the 
radio frequency product is designed to operate at or below the maximum power level permitted 
for unlicensed products under Part 15 of this chapter; and
(iii)  The radio frequency product shall be operated for at least one of these purposes:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
70
(A)  Experimentation or compliance testing when fully contained within an anechoic 
chamber or a Faraday cage;
(B)  Demonstrations at a trade show, provided a notice containing the wording specified 
in § 2.803(c)(2)(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous location on, or immediately adjacent to, 
the product;
(C)  Demonstrations at an exhibition, provided a notice containing the wording specified 
in § 2.803(c)(2)(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous location on, or immediately adjacent to, 
the product or all prospective buyers at the exhibition are advised in writing that the 
equipment is subject to the FCC rules and that the equipment will comply with the 
appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer or to centers of distribution; or
(D)  Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability, 
during developmental, design, or pre-production states.  If the product is not operated at 
the manufacturer’s facilities, it must be labeled with the wording specified in                              
§ 2.803(c)(2)(iii), in the case of an evaluation kit, the wording specified in                        
§ 2.803(c)(2)(iv)(C).
(2)  Devices must either be rendered inoperable or retrieved at the conclusion of any operation 
conducted under paragraph (b). 
(c)  Demonstration or evaluation.  A manufacturer may operate its product for demonstration or 
evaluation purposes under the authority of a licensed service provider, provided that the licensee 
grants permission to the manufacturer to operate in this manner and the licensee continues to remain 
responsible for complying with all of the operating conditions and requirements associated with its 
license.
(d)  Importation.  The provisions of subpart K continue to apply to imported radio frequency 
products.
13. Section 2.811 is amended to read as follows:
Section 2.803(a) through (c) shall not be applicable to a transmitter operated in any of the Radio 
Broadcast Services regulated under part 73 of this chapter, provided the conditions set out in part 
73 of this chapter for the acceptability of such transmitter for use under licensing are met.
14. Section 2.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 2.1204  Import conditions.
(a) * * *
       * * *
(3) The radio frequency product is being imported in quantities of 4,000 or fewer units for testing 
and evaluation to determine compliance with the FCC Rules and Regulations, product 
development, or suitability for marketing.  The products will not be offered for sale or marketed.  
(i)  Prior to importation of a greater number of units than shown above, written approval must be 
obtained from the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC; and
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
71
(ii)  Distinctly different models of a product and separate generations of a particular model under 
development are considered to be separate devices. 
* * * * *
15. Part 5 is revised in its entirety, to read as follows:
PART 5—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE 
Subpart A—General
Sec.
§ 5.1 Basis and purpose.
§ 5.3 Scope of service.
§ 5.5 Definition of terms.
Subpart B—Applications and Licenses
LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
§ 5.51 Eligibility of license.
§ 5.53 Station authorization required.
§ 5.54 Types of authorizations available.
GENERAL FILING REQUIREMENTS
§ 5.55 Filing of applications.
§ 5.57 Who may sign applications.
§ 5.59 Forms to be used.
§ 5.61 Procedure for obtaining a special temporary authorization.
§ 5.63 Supplemental statements required.
§ 5.64 Special provisions for satellite systems.
§ 5.65 Defective applications.
§ 5.67 Amendment or dismissal of applications.
§ 5.69 License grants that differ from applications.
§ 5.71 License period.
§ 5.73 Experimental report.
§ 5.77 Change in equipment and emission characteristics. 
§ 5.79 Transfer and assignment of station authorization for conventional, program , medical 
testing, and compliance testing experimental radio licenses.
§ 5.81 Discontinuance of station operation.
§ 5.83 Cancellation provisions.
§ 5.84 Non-interference criterion.
§ 5.85 Frequencies and policy governing frequency assignment.
§ 5.91 Notification to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
§ 5.95 Informal objections.
Subpart C—Technical Standards and Operating Requirements
§ 5.101 Frequency stability.
§ 5.103 Types of emission.
§ 5.105 Authorized bandwidth.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
72
§ 5.107 Transmitter control requirements.
§ 5.109 Responsibility for antenna structure painting and lighting.
§ 5.110 Power limitations.
§ 5.111 Limitations on use.
§ 5.115 Station identification.
§ 5.121 Station record requirements.
§ 5.123 Inspection of stations.
§ 5.125 Authorized points of communication.
Subpart D—Broadcast Experimental Licenses
§ 5.201 Applicable rules.
§ 5.203 Experimental authorizations for licensed broadcast stations. 
§ 5.205 Licensing requirements, necessary showing.
§ 5.207 Supplemental reports with application for renewal of license.
§ 5.211 Frequency monitors and measurements.
§ 5.213 Time of operation.
§ 5.215 Program service and charges.
§ 5.217 Rebroadcasts.
§ 5.219 Broadcasting emergency information.
Subpart E—Program Experimental Licenses
§ 5.301 Applicable rules. 
§ 5.302 Eligibility.
§ 5.303 Frequencies.  
§ 5.304 Area of operations.  
§ 5.305 Program license not permitted.
§ 5.307 Responsible party.
§ 5.308 Stop buzzer.
§ 5.309 Notification requirements.
§ 5.311 Additional requirements related to safety of the public.
§ 5.313 Innovation zones.
Subpart F—Medical Testing Experimental Licenses
§ 5.401 Applicable rules. 
§ 5.402 Eligibility and usage.
§ 5.403 Frequencies.
§ 5.404 Area of operation.
§ 5.405 Yearly report.
§ 5.406 Responsible party, notification requirements, and additional requirements related to 
safety of the public.
§ 5.407 Exemption from station identification requirement.
Subpart G—Compliance Testing Experimental Licenses
§ 5.501 Applicable rules. 
§ 5.502 Eligibility.
§ 5.503 Scope of testing activities.
§ 5.504 Responsible party.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
73
§ 5.505 Exemption from station identification requirement.
Subpart H—Product Development and Market Trials
§ 5.601 Product Development Trials.
§ 5.602 Market Trials.
Authority:  Secs. 4, 302, 303, 307, 336 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 
307, 336.  Interpret or apply sec. 301, 48 Stat. 1081, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 301. 
Subpart A—General
§ 5.1  Basis and purpose.
(a) Basis.  The rules following in this part are promulgated pursuant to the provisions of Title III of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which vests authority in the Federal Communications 
Commission to regulate radio transmissions and to issue licenses for radio stations.
(b) Purpose.  The rules in this part provide the conditions by which portions of the radio frequency 
spectrum may be used for the purposes of experimentation, product development, and market trials. 
§ 5.3  Scope of service.
Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type 
of operations:
(a) Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research.
(b) Experimentations in the broadcast services.
(c) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export 
purposes.
(d) Communications essential to a research project.
(e) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(f) Field strength surveys.
(g) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of 
selling radio equipment.
(h) Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment.
(i)  Testing of medical devices that use RF wireless technology or communications functions for
diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring.
(j) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data, including field 
or factory testing or calibration of equipment, related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(k) Product development and market trials.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
74
(l) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (k) of this 
section will be considered upon demonstration of need for such additional types of experiments.
§ 5.5  Definition of terms.
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions shall be applicable.  For other definitions, refer 
to part 2 of this chapter (Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters; General Rules and 
Regulations).
Authorized frequency.  The frequency assigned to a station by the Commission and specified in the 
instrument of authorization.
Authorized power.  The power assigned to a radio station by the Commission and specified in the 
instrument of authorization.
Experimental radio service. A service in which radio waves are employed for purposes of 
experimentation in the radio art or for purposes of providing essential communications for research 
projects that could not be conducted without the benefit of such communications.
Experimental station. A station utilizing radio waves in experiments with a view to the development 
of science or technique.
Harmful interference.  Any radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radionavigation 
or safety service, or obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio service operating in accordance with the 
Table of Frequency Allocations and other provisions of part 2 of this chapter.
Landing area.  As defined by 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(28), any locality, either of land or water, including 
airdromes and intermediate landing fields, that is used, or intended to be used, for the landing and 
take-off of aircraft, whether or not facilities are provided for the shelter, servicing, or repair of 
aircraft, or for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo.
Market trial.  A program designed to evaluate product performance and customer acceptability prior 
to the production stage, and typically requires testing a specific product under expected use conditions 
to evaluate actual performance and effectiveness.  
Open Area Test Site.  A site for electromagnetic measurements that has a reflective ground plane, and 
is characterized by open, flat terrain at a distance far enough away from buildings, electric lines, 
fences, trees, underground cables, pipelines, and other potential reflective objects, so that the effects 
due to such objects are negligible.
Person.  An individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or state or 
local government.
Product development trial.  An experimental program designed to evaluate product performance 
(including medical devices in clinical trials) in the conceptual, developmental, and design stages, and 
typically requiring testing under expected use conditions.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
75
Subpart B—Applications and Licenses
License requirements.
§ 5.51  Eligibility.
(a) Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons 
qualified to conduct the types of operations permitted in § 5.3 of this part, including testing 
laboratories recognized by the Commission for radio frequency product testing.
(b) No foreign government or representative thereof is eligible to hold a station license in the 
Experimental Radio Service.
§ 5.53  Station authorization required.
No radio transmitter shall be operated in the Experimental Radio Service in the United States and its 
Territories except under and in accordance with a proper station authorization granted by the 
Commission. 
§ 5.54  Types of authorizations available.
The Commission issues the following types of experimental authorizations:
(a)(1) Conventional experimental radio license.  This type of license is issued for a specific research 
or experimentation project (or a series of closely-related research or experimentation projects), a 
product development trial, or a market trial.  Widely divergent and unrelated experiments must be 
conducted under separate licenses.
(2) Special temporary authorization.  When an experimental program is expected to last no more 
than six months, its operation is considered to be temporary and the special temporary 
authorization procedure outlined in § 5.61 must be used.
(b) Broadcast experimental radio license.  This type of license is issued for the purpose of research 
and experimentation for the development and advancement of new broadcast technology, equipment, 
systems or services.  This is limited to stations intended for reception and use by the general public.
(c) Program experimental radio license.  This type of license is issued to qualified institutions and to 
conduct an ongoing program of research and experimentation under a single experimental 
authorization subject to the requirements of subpart E of this part.  Program experimental radio 
licenses are available to colleges, universities, research laboratories, manufacturers of radio frequency 
equipment, manufacturers that integrate radio frequency equipment into their end products, and 
medical research institutions.  
(d)  Medical testing experimental radio license.  This type of license is issued to hospitals and health 
care institutions that demonstrate expertise in testing and operation of experimental medical devices 
that use wireless telecommunications technology or communications functions in clinical trials for 
diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring.
(e) Compliance testing experimental radio license.  This type of license will be issued to laboratories 
recognized by the FCC under Subpart J of this chapter to perform:
(i) product testing of radio frequency equipment, and 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
76
(ii) testing of radio frequency equipment in an Open Area Test Site.  
(f) An experimental license is not required when operation of a radiofrequency device is fully 
contained within an anechoic chamber or a Faraday cage.
General Filing Requirements.
§ 5.55  Filing of applications.
(a) To assure that necessary information is supplied in a consistent manner by applicants, standard 
forms must be used, except for applications for special temporary authorization (STA) and reports 
submitted for Commission consideration. Standard numbered forms for the Experimental Radio 
Service are described in § 5.59.
(b) Applications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter must be filed in 
accordance with § 0.401(b) of this chapter.
(c) Each application for station authorization shall be specific and complete with regard to the 
information required by the application form and this part. 
(1) Conventional license and STA applications shall be specific as to station location, proposed 
equipment, power, antenna height, and operating frequencies.
(2) Broadcast license applicants shall comply with the requirements in Subpart D; Program 
license applicants shall comply with the requirements in Subpart E; Medical Testing license 
applicants shall comply with the requirements in Subpart F; and Compliance Testing license 
applicants shall comply with the requirements in Subpart G.  
(d) Filing conventional, program, medical, and compliance testing experimental radio license 
applications: 
(1) Applications for radio station authorization shall be submitted electronically through the 
Office of Engineering and Technology website http://www.fcc.gov/els.
(2) Applications for special temporary authorization shall be filed in accordance with the 
procedures of § 5.61 of this part.
(3) Any correspondence relating thereto that cannot be submitted electronically shall instead be 
submitted to the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, DC 20554. 
(e) For broadcast experimental radio licenses, applications for radio station authorization shall be 
submitted in accordance with the provisions of §5.59 of this part.
§ 5.57  Who may sign applications.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of 
fact required by the Commission shall be personally signed by the applicant, if the applicant is an 
individual; by one of the partners, if the applicant is a partnership; by an officer or duly authorized 
employee, if the applicant is a corporation; or by a member who is an officer, if the applicant is an 
unincorporated association.  Applications, amendments, and related statements of fact filed on behalf 
of eligible government entities, such as states and territories of the United States and political 
subdivisions thereof, the District of Columbia, and units of local government, including incorporated 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
77
municipalities, shall be signed by such duly elected or appointed officials as may be competent to do 
so under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction.
(b) Applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of fact required by the Commission may 
be signed by the applicant's attorney in case of the applicant's physical disability or of his/her absence 
from the United States.  The attorney shall in that event separately set forth the reason why the 
application is not signed by the applicant.  In addition, if any matter is stated on the basis of the 
attorney's belief only (rather than his/her knowledge), he/she shall separately set forth reasons for 
believing that such statements are true.
(c) Only the original of applications, amendments, or related statements of fact need be signed; copies 
may be conformed.
(d) Applications, amendments, and related statements of fact need not be submitted under oath.  
Willful false statements made therein, however, are punishable by fine and imprisonment, U.S. Code, 
title 18, Sec. 1001, and by appropriate administrative sanctions, including revocation of station 
license pursuant to Sec. 312(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
(e) “Signed,” as used in this section, means an original handwritten signature; however, the Office of 
Engineering and Technology may allow signature by any symbol executed or adopted by the 
applicant with the intent that such symbol be a signature, including symbols formed by computer-
generated electronic impulses.
§ 5.59  Forms to be used.
(a) Application for conventional, program, medical, and compliance testing experimental radio 
licenses.
(1) Application for new authorization or modification of existing authorization.  Entities must 
submit FCC Form 442. 
(2) Application for renewal of experimental authorization.  Application for renewal of station 
license shall be submitted on FCC Form 405.  Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, 
each application for renewal of license shall be filed at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of 
the license to be renewed.
(3) Application for consent to assign an experimental authorization.  Application for consent to 
assign shall be submitted on FCC Form 702 when the legal right to control the use and operation 
of a station is to be transferred as a result of a voluntary act (contract or other agreement) or an 
involuntary act (death or legal disability) of the grantee of a station authorization or by 
involuntary assignment of the physical property constituting the station under a court decree in 
bankruptcy proceedings, or other court order, or by operation of law in any other manner. 
(4) Application for consent to transfer control of Corporation holding experimental 
authorization.  Application for consent to transfer control shall be submitted on FCC Form 703 
whenever it is proposed to change the control of a corporation holding a station authorization.
(5) Application for product development and market trials. Application for product development 
and market trials shall be submitted on FCC Form 442.
(b) Applications for broadcast experimental radio license.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
78
(1) Application for new authorization or modification of existing authorization.  An application 
for a construction permit for a new broadcast experimental station or modification of an existing 
broadcast experimental station must be submitted on FCC Form 309.
(2) Application for a license.  An application for a license to cover a construction permit for a 
broadcast experimental station must be submitted on FCC Form 310.
(3) Application for renewal of license.  An application for renewal of station license for a 
broadcast experimental station must be submitted on FCC Form 311.  Unless otherwise directed 
by the Commission, each application for renewal of license shall be filed at least 60 days prior to 
the expiration date of the license to be renewed.  
§ 5.61  Procedure for obtaining a special temporary authorization.
(a)(1) An applicant may request a Special Temporary Authorization (STA) for operation of a 
conventional experimental radio service station during a period of time not to exceed 6 months.
(2) Applications for STA must be submitted electronically through the Office of Engineering and 
Technology website http://www.fcc.gov/els at least 10 days prior to the proposed operation.  
Applications filed less than 10 days prior to the proposed operation date will be accepted only 
upon a showing of good cause.
(3) In special situations, as defined in § 1.915(b)(1), a request for STA may be made by telephone 
or electronic media provided a properly signed application is filed within 10 days of such request.
(b) An application for STA shall contain the following information:
(1) Name, address, phone number (also e-mail address and facsimile number, if available) of the 
applicant.
(2) Explanation of why an STA is needed.
(3) Description of the operation to be conducted and its purpose.
(4) Time and dates of proposed operation.
(5) Class(es) of station (e.g. fixed, mobile, or both) and call sign of station (if applicable).
(6) Description of the location(s) and, if applicable, geographical coordinates of the proposed 
operation.
(7) Equipment to be used, including name of manufacturer, model and number of units.
(8) Frequency (or frequency bands) requested.
(9) Maximum effective radiated power (ERP) or equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP).
(10) Emission designator (see §2.201 of this chapter) or describe emission (bandwidth, 
modulation, etc.)
(11) Overall height of antenna structure above the ground (if greater than 6 meters above the 
ground or an existing structure, see part 17 of this chapter concerning notification to the FAA).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
79
(c) Extensions of an STA  may be granted provided that an application for a conventional 
experimental license that is consistent with the terms and conditions of that STA (i.e., there is no 
increase in interference potential to authorized services) has been filed at least 15 days prior to the 
expiration of the licensee's STA.  When such an application is timely filed, operations may continue 
in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the STA pending disposition of the application, 
unless the applicant is notified otherwise by the Commission.
§ 5.63  Supplemental statements required.
Applicants must provide the information set forth on the applicable form as specified in § 5.59 of this 
part.  In addition, applicants must provide supplemental information as described below:
(a) If installation and/or operation of the equipment may significantly impact the environment (see § 
1.1307 of this chapter) an environmental assessment as defined in §1.1311 of this chapter must be 
submitted with the application.
(b) If an applicant requests non-disclosure of proprietary information, requests shall follow the 
procedures for submission set forth in § 0.459 of this chapter.
(c) For conventional and broadcast experimental radio licenses, each application must include:
(1) A narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation 
proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of 
experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or 
expansion, or use of the radio art, or is along lines not already investigated. 
(2) If the authorization is to be used for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of a contract 
with an agency of the United States Government, a narrative statement describing the project, the 
name of the contracting agency, and the contract number.
(3) If the authorization 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, a narrative statement 
describing the project, any associated contract number, and the name of the foreign government 
concerned.
(4) If the authorization is to be used with a satellite system, a narrative statement containing the 
information required in §5.64 of this part.
(d) For program experimental radio licenses, each application must include:
(1) A narrative statement describing how the applicant meets the eligibility criteria set forth in 
subpart E of this part. 
(2) If the authorization is to be used for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of a contract 
with an agency of the United States Government, a narrative statement describing the project, the 
name of the contracting agency, and the contract number.
(3) If the authorization 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, a narrative statement 
describing the project, any associated contract number, and the name of the foreign government 
concerned. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
80
(e) For medical testing and compliance testing experimental radio licenses, each application must 
include a narrative statement describing how the applicant meets the eligibility criteria set forth in 
Section 5.402(a) and Section 5.502 of this part, respectively.
§5.64  Special provisions for satellite systems.
(a) Construction of proposed experimental satellite facilities may begin prior to Commission grant of 
an authorization.  Such construction is entirely at the applicant's risk and does not entitle the applicant 
to any assurances that its proposed experiment will be subsequently approved or regular services 
subsequently authorized.  The applicant must notify the Commission's Office of Engineering and 
Technology in writing that it plans to begin construction at its own risk.
(b) Except where the satellite system has already been authorized by the FCC, applicants for an 
experimental authorization involving a satellite system must submit a description of the design and 
operational strategies the satellite system will use to mitigate orbital debris, including the following 
information:
(1) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and limited the amount of debris 
released in a planned manner during normal operations, and has assessed and limited the 
probability of the space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with small debris or 
meteoroids that could cause loss of control and prevent post-mission disposal;
(2) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and limited the probability of 
accidental explosions during and after completion of mission operations.  This statement must 
include a demonstration that debris generation will not result from the conversion of energy 
sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft.  Energy sources include 
chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy.  This demonstration shall address whether stored energy 
will be removed at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all fuel line 
valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, 
and removing any remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures 
specifically disclosed in the application;
(3) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and limited the probability of the 
space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other operational 
space stations.  Where a space station will be launched into a low-Earth orbit that is identical, or 
very similar, to an orbit used by other space stations, the statement must include an analysis of the 
potential risk of collision and a description of what measures the space station operator plans to 
take to avoid in-orbit collisions.  If the space station operator is relying on coordination with 
another system, the statement shall indicate what steps have been taken to contact, and ascertain 
the likelihood of successful coordination of physical operations with, the other system.  The 
statement must disclose the accuracy—if any—with which orbital parameters of non-
geostationary satellite orbit space stations will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, 
inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s).  In the event that a system is not 
able to maintain orbital tolerances, i.e., it lacks a propulsion system for orbital maintenance, a 
statement disclosing that fact shall be included in the debris mitigation disclosure.  Such systems 
shall also indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite or 
satellites.  Where a space station operator requests the assignment of a geostationary-Earth orbit 
location, it shall assess whether there are any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected 
to be located at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that location, such 
that the station keeping volumes of the respective satellites might overlap.  If so, the statement 
shall identify those parties and describe the measures that will be taken to prevent collisions;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
81
(4) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the space station at end of life, 
including the quantity of fuel —if any—that will be reserved for post-mission disposal 
maneuvers.  For geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement shall disclose the altitude 
selected for a post-mission disposal orbit and the calculations that are used in deriving the 
disposal altitude.  The statement shall also include a casualty risk assessment if planned post-
mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the space station.  An assessment shall include 
a statement as to the likelihood that portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the 
surface of the Earth, and the probability of human casualty as a result.
§ 5.65  Defective applications.
(a) Applications that are defective with respect to completeness of answers to required questions, 
execution or other matters of a purely formal character may be found to be unacceptable for filing by 
the Commission, and may be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions.
(b) If an applicant is requested by the Commission to file any documents or information not included 
in the prescribed application form, failure to comply with such request will constitute a defect in the 
application.
(c) Applications not in accordance with the Commission’s Rules, regulations, or other requirements 
will be considered defective unless accompanied either by:
(1) a petition to amend any rule, regulation, or requirement with which the application is in 
conflict; or
(2) a request for waiver of any rule, regulation, or requirement with which the application is in 
conflict.  Such request shall show the nature of the waiver desired and set forth the reasons in 
support thereof.
§ 5.67  Amendment or dismissal of applications.
(a) Any application may be amended or dismissed without prejudice upon request of the applicant.  
Each amendment to or request for dismissal of an application shall be signed, authenticated, and 
submitted in the same manner as required for the original application.  All subsequent correspondence 
or other material that the applicant desires to have incorporated as a part of an application already 
filed shall be submitted in the form of an amendment to the application. 
(b) Defective applications, as defined in § 5.65 of this part, are subject to dismissal without prejudice.
§ 5.69  License grants that differ from applications.
If the Commission grants a license or special temporary authority with parameters that differ from 
those set forth in the application, an applicant may reject the grant by filing, within 30 days from the 
effective date of the grant, a written description of its objections.  Upon receipt of such objection, the 
Commission will coordinate with the applicant in an attempt to resolve issues arising from the grant.
(a) Applicants may continue operating under the parameters of a granted special temporary authority 
(STA) during the time any problems are being resolved when:
(1) An application for a conventional license has been timely filed in accordance with §5.61 of 
this part; and
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
82
(2) The application for conventional license is for the same facilities and technical limitations as 
the existing STA.
(b) The applicant, at its option, may accept a grant-in-part of their license while working to resolve 
any issues.
§ 5.71  License period.
(a) Conventional experimental radio licenses.
(1) The regular license term is 2 years.  An applicant may request a license term up to 5 years, but 
must provide justification for a license of that duration. 
(2) A license may be renewed for an additional term not exceeding 5 years, upon an adequate 
showing of need to complete the experiment.
(b) Program, medical testing, and compliance testing experimental radio licenses.  Licenses are 
issued for a term of 5 years and may be renewed for up to 5 years upon an adequate showing of need.
(c) Broadcast experimental radio license.  Licenses are issued for a one-year period and may be 
renewed for an additional term not exceeding 5 years, upon an adequate showing of need.
§ 5.73  Experimental report.
(a) The following provisions apply to conventional experimental radio licenses and to medical testing 
experimental licenses that operate under Part 15, Radio Frequency Devices; Part 18, Industrial, 
Scientific, and Medical Equipment, Part 95, Personal Radio Services Subpart H – Wireless Medical 
Telemetry Service; or Part 95, Subpart I – Medical Device Radiocommunication Service:
(1) The Commission may, as a condition of authorization, request that the licensee forward 
periodic reports in order to evaluate the progress of the experimental program.
(2) An applicant may request that the Commission withhold from the public certain reports and 
associated material and the Commission will do so unless the public interest requires otherwise.  
These requests should follow the procedures for submission set forth in § 0.459 of this chapter.
(b) The provisions in § 5.207 of this part apply to broadcast experimental radio licenses.
(c) The provisions in § 5.309 of this part apply to program experimental licenses and to medical 
testing experimental licenses that do not operate under Part 15, Radio Frequency Devices; Part 18, 
Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment, Part 95, Personal Radio Services Subpart H – Wireless 
Medical Telemetry Service; or Part 95, Subpart I – Medical Device Radiocommunication Service. 
§ 5.77  Change in equipment and emission characteristics.
(a) The licensee of a conventional or broadcast experimental radio station may make any changes in 
equipment that are deemed desirable or necessary provided:
(1) That the operating frequency is not permitted to deviate more than the allowed tolerance;
(2) That the emissions are not permitted outside the authorized band;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
83
(3) That the ERP (or EIRP) and antenna complies with the license and the regulations governing 
the same; and
(b) For conventional experimental radio stations, the changes permitted in paragraph (a) of this 
section may be made without prior authorization from the Commission provided that the license 
supplements its application file with a description of such change.  If the licensee wants these 
emission changes to become a permanent part of the license, an application for modification must be 
filed.
(c) Prior authorization from the Commission is required before the following antenna changes may be 
made at a station at a fixed location:
(1) Any change that will either increase the height of a structure supporting the radiating portion 
of the antenna or decrease the height of a lighted antenna structure.
(2) Any change in the location of an antenna when such relocation involves a change in the 
geographic coordinates of latitude or longitude by one second or more, or when such relocation 
involves a change in street address.
§ 5.79  Transfer and assignment of station authorization for conventional, program, medical 
testing, and compliance testing experimental radio licenses.
A station authorization, the frequencies authorized to be used by the grantee of such authorization, 
and the rights therein granted by such authorization shall not be transferred, assigned, or in any 
manner either voluntarily or involuntarily disposed of, unless the Commission decides that such a 
transfer is in the public interest and gives its consent in writing.
§ 5.81  Discontinuance of station operation.
In case of permanent discontinuance of operation of a station in the Experimental Radio Service prior 
to the license expiration date, the licensee shall notify the Commission.  Licensees who willfully fail 
to do so may be subject to disciplinary action, including monetary fines, by the Commission.
§ 5.83  Cancellation provisions.
The applicant for a station in the Experimental Radio Services accepts the license with the express 
understanding that: 
(a) the authority to use the frequency or frequencies permitted by the license is granted upon an 
experimental basis only and does not confer any right to conduct an activity of a continuing nature; 
and
(b) the grant is subject to change or cancellation by the Commission at any time without notice or 
hearing if in its discretion the need for such action arises.  However, a petition for reconsideration or 
application for review may be filed to such Commission action.
§ 5.84  Non-interference criterion.
Operation of an experimental radio station is permitted only on the condition that harmful 
interference is not caused to any station operating in accordance with the Table of Frequency 
Allocation of part 2 of this chapter. If harmful interference to an established radio service occurs, 
upon becoming aware of such harmful interference the Experimental Radio Service licensee shall 
immediately cease transmissions.  Furthermore, the licensee shall not resume transmissions until the 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
84
licensee establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission that further harmful interference will not be 
caused to any established radio service.
§ 5.85  Frequencies and policy governing frequency assignment.
(a) Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service may be authorized to use any Federal or 
non-Federal frequency designated in the Table of Frequency Allocations set forth in part 2 of this 
chapter, provided that the need for the frequency requested is fully justified by the applicant, except 
that experimental stations may not use any frequency or frequency band exclusively allocated to the 
passive services (including the radio astronomy service). Stations authorized under Subparts E and F 
are subject to additional restrictions.
(b) Frequency or frequency bands are assigned to stations in the Experimental Radio Service on a 
shared basis and are not assigned for the exclusive use of any one licensee.  Frequency assignments
may be restricted to specified geographical areas. 
(c) Broadcast experimental radio stations. 
(1) The applicant shall select frequencies best suited to the purpose of the experimentation and on 
which there appears to be the least likelihood of interference to established stations.
(2) Except as indicated, only frequencies allocated to broadcasting service are assigned. If an 
experiment cannot be feasibly conducted on frequencies allocated to a broadcasting service, an 
experimental station may be authorized to operate on other frequencies upon a satisfactory 
showing of the need therefore and a showing that the proposed operation can be conducted 
without causing harmful interference to established services. 
(d) Use of Public Safety Frequencies. 
(1) Conventional experimental licenses.  Applicants in the Experimental Radio Service shall
avoid use of public safety frequencies identified in part 90 of this chapter except when a 
compelling showing is made that use of such frequencies is in the public interest.  If an 
experimental license to use public safety radio frequencies is granted, the authorization will 
include a condition requiring the experimental licensee to coordinate the operation with the 
appropriate frequency coordinator or all of the public safety licensees using the frequencies in 
question in the experimenter’s proposed area of operation.
(2) Program experimental licenses. A program licensee shall plan a program of experimentation 
that avoids use of public safety frequencies, and may only operate on such frequencies when it 
can make a compelling showing that use of such frequencies is in the public interest. A licensee 
planning to operate on public safety frequencies must incorporate its public interest showing into 
the narrative statement it prepares under Section 5.309(a)(1), and must coordinate, prior to 
operating, with the appropriate frequency coordinator or all of the public safety licensees that 
operate on the frequencies in question in the program experimental licensee’s proposed area of 
operation
(e) The Commission may, at its discretion, condition any experimental license or STA on the 
requirement that before commencing operation, the new licensee coordinate its proposed facility with 
other licensees that may receive interference as a result of the new licensee's operations.
(f) Protection of FCC monitoring stations. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
85
(1) Applicants may need to protect FCC monitoring stations from interference and their station 
authorization may be conditioned accordingly. Geographical coordinates of such stations are 
listed in § 0.121(b) of this chapter. 
(2) In the event that calculated value of expected field strength exceeds a direct wave 
fundamental field strength of greater than 10 mV/m in the authorized bandwidth of service (–65.8 
dBW/m
2
power flux density assuming a free space characteristic impedance of 120? ohms) at the 
reference coordinates, or if there is any question whether field strength levels might exceed the 
threshold value, the applicant should call the FCC, telephone 1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL 
FCC).
(3) Coordination is suggested particularly for those applicants who have no reliable data that 
indicates whether the field strength or power flux density figure indicated in (f)(2) of this section 
would be exceeded by their proposed radio facilities (except mobile stations). The following is a 
suggested guide for determining whether coordination is needed:
(i) All stations within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 statute miles);
(ii) Stations within 4.8 kilometers (3 statute miles) with 50 watts or more average ERP in 
the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the Monitoring Station;
(iii) Stations within 16 kilometers (10 statute miles) with 1 kW or more average ERP in 
the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the Monitoring Station;
(iv) Stations within 80 kilometers (50 statute miles) with 25 kW or more average ERP in 
the primary plane of polarization in the azimuthal direction of the Monitoring Station.
(4) Advance coordination for stations operating above 1000 MHz is recommended only where the 
proposed station is in the vicinity of a monitoring station designated as a satellite monitoring 
facility in § 0.121(b) of this chapter and also meets the criteria outlined in paragraphs (f)(2) and 
(3) of this section.
§ 5.91  Notification to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
In order to minimize possible harmful interference at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory site 
located at Green Bank, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, and at the Naval Radio Research 
Observatory site at Sugar Grove, Pendleton County, West Virginia, any applicant for an Experimental 
Radio Service station authorization other than a mobile, temporary base, or temporary fixed station,
within the area bounded by 39° 15' N on the north, 78° 30' W on the east, 37° 30' N on the south and 
80° 30' W on the west shall, at the time of filing such application with the Commission, 
simultaneously notify the Director, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box NZ2, Green 
Bank, West Virginia, 24944, in writing, of the technical particulars of the proposed station. Such 
notification shall include the geographical coordinates of the antenna, antenna height, antenna 
directivity if any, frequency, type of emission, and power. In addition, the applicant shall indicate in 
its application to the Commission the date notification was made to the Observatory. After receipt of 
such applications, the Commission will allow a period of twenty (20) days for comments or 
objections in response to the notifications indicated. If an objection to the proposed operation is 
received during the twenty-day period from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory for itself or 
on behalf of the Naval Radio Research Observatory, the Commission will consider all aspects of the 
problem and take whatever action is deemed appropriate.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
86
§ 5.95  Informal objections.
A person or entity desiring to object to or to oppose an Experimental Radio application for a station 
license or authorization may file an informal objection against that application. The informal 
objection and any responsive pleadings shall be submitted electronically consistent with the 
requirements set forth in §5.55 of this part. 
Subpart C—Technical Standards and Operating Requirements
§ 5.101  Frequency stability.  
Experimental Radio Service licensees shall ensure that transmitted emissions remain within the 
authorized frequency band under normal operating conditions: Equipment is presumed to operate 
over the temperature range ?20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an input voltage variation of 85% to 
115% of rated input voltage, unless justification is presented to demonstrate otherwise.
§ 5.103  Types of emission.
Stations in the Experimental Radio Service may be authorized to use any of the classifications of 
emissions covered in part 2 of this chapter.
§ 5.105  Authorized bandwidth.
The occupied bandwidth of transmitted emissions from an Experimental Radio Service station shall 
not exceed the authorized bandwidth specified in the authorization.  Each authorization will show, as 
the prefix to the emission classification, a figure specifying the necessary bandwidth.  The application 
may request an authorized bandwidth that is greater than the necessary bandwidth for the emission to 
be used, if required for the experimental purpose. Necessary bandwidth and occupied bandwidth are 
defined and determined in accordance with § 2.1 and § 2.202 of this chapter.
§ 5.107  Transmitter control requirements.
Each licensee shall be responsible for maintaining control of the transmitter authorized under its 
station authorization, including the ability to terminate transmissions should interference occur. 
(a) Conventional experimental radio stations.  The licensee shall ensure that transmissions are in 
conformance with the operating characteristics prescribed in the station authorization and that the 
station is operated only by persons duly authorized by the licensee.
(b) Program experimental radio stations. The licensee shall ensure that transmissions are in 
conformance with the requirements in subpart E of this part and that the station is operated only by 
persons duly authorized by the licensee.
(c) Medical testing experimental radio stations. The licensee shall ensure that transmissions are in 
conformance with the requirements in subpart F of this part and that the station is operated only by 
persons duly authorized by the licensee.
(d) Compliance testing experimental radio stations. The licensee shall ensure that transmissions are in 
conformance with the requirements in subpart G of this part and that the station is operated only by 
persons duly authorized by the licensee.
(e) Broadcast experimental stations.  Except where unattended operation is specifically permitted, the 
licensee of each station authorized under the provisions of this part shall designate a person or 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
87
persons to activate and control its transmitter. At the discretion of the station licensee, persons so 
designated may be employed for other duties and for operation of other transmitting stations if such 
other duties will not interfere with the proper operation of the station transmission systems.
§ 5.109 Responsibility for antenna structure painting and lighting.
Experimental Radio Service licensees may become responsible for maintaining the painting and 
lighting of any antenna structure they are authorized to use in accordance with part 17 of this chapter. 
See § 17.6 of this chapter.  
§5.110  Power limitations.
(a) The transmitting radiated power for stations authorized under the Experimental Radio Service
shall be limited to the minimum practical radiated power necessary for the success of the experiment.
(b) For broadcast experimental radio stations, the operating power shall not exceed by more than 5 
percent the maximum power specified.  Engineering standards have not been established for these 
stations. The efficiency factor for the last radio stage of transmitters employed will be subject to 
individual determination but shall be in general agreement with values normally employed for similar 
equipment operated within the frequency range authorized.
§ 5.111  Limitations on use.
(a) Stations may make only such transmissions as are necessary and directly related to the conduct of 
the licensee's stated program of experimentation and the related station instrument of authorization, 
and as governed by the provisions of the rules and regulations contained in this part.  When 
transmitting, the licensee must use every precaution to ensure that it will not cause harmful 
interference to the services carried on by stations operating in accordance with the Table of 
Frequency Allocations of part 2 of this chapter.
(b) A licensee shall adhere to the program of experimentation as stated in its application or in the 
station instrument of authorization.
(c) The radiations of the transmitter shall be suspended immediately upon detection or notification of 
a deviation from the technical requirements of the station authorization until such deviation is 
corrected, except for transmissions concerning the immediate safety of life or property, in which case 
the transmissions shall be suspended as soon as the emergency is terminated.
§ 5.115  Station identification.
(a) Conventional experimental radio licenses.  A licensee, unless specifically exempted by the terms 
of the station authorization, shall transmit its assigned call sign at the end of each complete 
transmission: Provided, however, that the transmission of the call sign at the end of each transmission
is not required for projects requiring continuous, frequent, or extended use of the transmitting 
apparatus, if, during such periods and in connection with such use, the call sign is transmitted at least 
once every thirty minutes. The station identification shall be transmitted in clear voice or Morse code. 
All digital encoding and digital modulation shall be disabled during station identification. 
(b) Broadcast experimental licenses.  Each experimental broadcast station must transmit aural or 
visual announcements of its call letters and location at the beginning and end of each period of 
operation, and at least once every hour during operation.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
88
(c) Program experimental radio licenses. Program experimental radio licenses shall comply with 
either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2):
(1)  Stations may transmit identifying information sufficient to identify the license holder and the 
geographic coordinates of the station.  This information shall be transmitted at the end of each 
complete transmission except that: this information is not required at the end of each transmission 
for projects requiring continuous, frequent, or extended use of the transmitting apparatus, if, 
during such periods and in connection with such use, the information is transmitted at least once 
every thirty minutes. The station identification shall be transmitted in clear voice or Morse code. 
All digital encoding and digital modulation shall be disabled during station identification; or
(2) Stations may post information sufficient to identify it on the Commission’s program 
experimental registration website.
§ 5.121  Station record requirements.
(a) For conventional, program, medical testing, and compliance testing experimental radio stations, 
the current original authorization or a clearly legible photocopy for each station shall be retained as a 
permanent part of the station records, but need not be posted.  Station records are required to be kept 
for a period of at least one year after license expiration.
(b) For Broadcast experimental radio stations, the license must be available at the transmitter site.  
The licensee of each experimental broadcast station must maintain and retain for a period of two 
years, adequate records of the operation, including:
(1) Information concerning the nature of the experimental operation and the periods in which it is 
being conducted; and
(2) Information concerning any specific data requested by the FCC.
§ 5.123  Inspection of stations.
All stations and records of stations in the authorized under this part shall be made available for 
inspection at any time while the station is in operation or shall be made available for inspection upon 
reasonable request of an authorized representative of the Commission.
§ 5.125  Authorized points of communication.
Generally, stations in the Experimental Radio Service may communicate only with other stations 
licensed in the Experimental Radio Service. Nevertheless, upon a satisfactory showing that the 
proposed communications are essential to the conduct of the research project, authority may be 
granted to communicate with stations in other services and U.S. Government stations.
Subpart D—Broadcast Experimental Licenses
§ 5.201  Applicable rules.  
In addition to the rules in this subpart, broadcast experimental station applicants and licensees shall 
follow the rules in subparts B and C of this part.  In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in 
this subpart and the rules set forth in subparts B and C of this part, the rules in this subpart shall 
govern. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
89
§ 5.203  Experimental authorizations for licensed broadcast stations. 
(a) Licensees of broadcast stations (including TV Translator, LPTV, and TV Booster stations) may 
obtain experimental authorizations to conduct technical experimentation directed toward 
improvement of the technical phases of operation and service, and for such purposes may use a signal 
other than the normal broadcast program signal.
(b) Experimental authorizations for licensed broadcast stations may be requested by filing an informal 
application with the FCC in Washington, DC, describing the nature and purpose of the 
experimentation to be conducted, the nature of the experimental signal to be transmitted, and the 
proposed schedule of hours and duration of the experimentation. Experimental authorizations shall be 
posted with the station license.
(c) Experimental operations for licensed broadcast stations are subject to the following conditions:
(1) The authorized power of the station may not be exceeded more than 5 percent above the 
maximum power specified, except as specifically authorized for the experimental operations.
(2) Emissions outside the authorized bandwidth must be attenuated to the degree required for the 
particular type of station.
(3) The experimental operations may be conducted at any time the licensed station is authorized 
to operate, but the minimum required schedule of programming for the class and type of station 
must be met. AM stations also may conduct experimental operations during the experimental 
period (12 midnight local time to local sunrise) and at additional hours if permitted by the 
experimental authorization provided no interference is caused to other stations maintaining a 
regular operating schedule within such period(s).
(4) If a licensed station’s experimental authorization permits the use of additional facilities or 
hours of operation for experimental purposes, no sponsored programs or commercial 
announcements may be transmitted during such experimentation.
(5) The licensee may transmit regularly scheduled programming concurrently with the 
experimental transmission if there is no significant impairment of service.
(6) No charges may be made, either directly or indirectly, for the experimentation; however, 
normal charges may be made for regularly scheduled programming transmitted concurrently with 
the experimental transmissions.
(d) The FCC may request a report of the research, experimentation and results at the conclusion of the 
experimental operation.
§ 5.205  Licensing requirements, necessary showing.
(a) An applicant for a new experimental broadcast station, change in facilities of any existing station, 
or modification of license is required to make a satisfactory showing of compliance with the general 
requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the following:
(1) That the applicant has a definite program of research and experimentation in the technical 
phases of broadcasting which indicates reasonable promise of substantial contribution to the 
developments of the broadcasting art.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
90
(2) That upon the authorization of the proposed station the applicant can and will proceed 
immediately with its program of research and experimentation.
(3) That the transmission of signals by radio is essential to the proposed program of research and 
experimentation.
(4) That the program of research and experimentation will be conducted by qualified personnel.
(b) A license for an experimental broadcast station will be issued only on the condition that no 
objectionable interference to the regular program transmissions of broadcast stations will result from 
the transmissions of the experimental stations.
(c) Special provision for broadcast experimental radio station applications.  For purposes of the 
definition of “experimental authorization” in Section II.A.6 of the Nationwide Programmatic 
Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process set forth in 
Appendix C to Part 1 of this chapter, an Broadcast Experimental Radio Station authorized under this 
Subpart shall be considered an “Experimental Broadcast Station authorized under Part 74 of the 
Commission’s Rules.”
§ 5.207  Supplemental reports with application for renewal of license.
A report shall be filed with each application for renewal of experimental broadcast station license 
which shall include a statement of each of the following:
(a) Number of hours operated.
(b) Full data on research and experimentation conducted including the types of transmitting and 
studio equipment used and their mode of operation.
(c) Data on expense of research and operation during the period covered.
(d) Power employed, field intensity measurements and visual and aural observations and the types of 
instruments and receivers utilized to determine the station service area and the efficiency of the 
respective types of transmissions.
(e) Estimated degree of public participation in reception and the results of observations as to the 
effectiveness of types of transmission.
(f) Conclusions, tentative and final.
(g) Program of further developments in broadcasting.
(h) All developments and major changes in equipment.
(i) Any other pertinent developments.
§ 5.211  Frequency monitors and measurements.
The licensee of a broadcast experimental radio station shall provide the necessary means for 
determining that the frequency of the station is within the allowed tolerance. The date and time of 
each frequency check, the frequency as measured, and a description or identification of the method 
employed shall be entered in the station log. Sufficient observations shall be made to insure that the 
assigned carrier frequency is maintained within the prescribed tolerance.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
91
§ 5.213  Time of operation.
(a) Unless specified or restricted hours of operation are shown in the station authorization, broadcast 
experimental radio stations may be operated at any time and are not required to adhere to a regular 
schedule of operation.
(b) The FCC may limit or restrict the periods of station operation in the event interference is caused to 
other broadcast or non-broadcast stations.
(c) The FCC may require that a broadcast experimental radio station conduct such experiments as are 
deemed desirable and reasonable for development of the type of service for which the station was 
authorized.
§ 5.215  Program service and charges.
(a) The licensee of a broadcast experimental radio station may transmit program material only when 
necessary to the experiments being conducted, and no regular program service may be broadcast 
unless specifically authorized.
(b) The licensee of a broadcast experimental radio station may make no charges nor ask for any 
payment, directly or indirectly, for the production or transmission of any programming or information 
used for experimental broadcast purposes.
§ 5.217  Rebroadcasts.
(a) The term rebroadcast means reception by radio of the programs or other transmissions of a 
broadcast station, and the simultaneous or subsequent retransmission of such programs or 
transmissions by a broadcast station.
(1) As used in this section, the word “program” includes any complete program or part thereof.
(2) The transmission of a program from its point of origin to a broadcast station entirely by 
common carrier facilities, whether by wire line or radio, is not considered a rebroadcast.
(3) The broadcasting of a program relayed by a remote broadcast pickup station is not considered 
a rebroadcast.
(b) No licensee of a broadcast experimental radio station may retransmit the program of another U.S. 
broadcast station without the express authority of the originating station. A copy of the written 
consent of the licensee originating the program must be kept by the licensee of the broadcast 
experimental radio station retransmitting such program and made available to the FCC upon request.
§ 5.219  Broadcasting emergency information.
(a) In an emergency where normal communication facilities have been disrupted or destroyed by 
storms, floods or other disasters, a broadcast experimental radio station may be operated for the 
purpose of transmitting essential communications intended to alleviate distress, dispatch aid, assist in 
rescue operations, maintain order, or otherwise promote the safety of life and property. In the course 
of such operation, a station of any class may communicate with stations of other classes and in other 
services. However, such operation shall be conducted only on the frequency or frequencies for which 
the station is licensed and the used power shall not exceed the maximum authorized in the station
license. When such operation involves the use of frequencies shared with other stations, licensees are 
expected to cooperate fully to avoid unnecessary or disruptive interference.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
92
(b) Whenever such operation involves communications of a nature other than those for which the 
station is licensed to perform, the licensee shall, at the earliest practicable time, notify the FCC in 
Washington, DC of the nature of the emergency and the use to which the station is being put and shall 
subsequently notify the same offices when the emergency operation has been terminated.
(c) Emergency operation undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be discontinued as 
soon as substantially normal communications facilities have been restored. The Commission may at
any time order discontinuance of such operation.
Subpart E—Program Experimental Radio Licenses
§5.301  Applicable rules.  
In addition to the rules in this subpart, program experimental applicants and licensees must follow the 
rules in subparts B and C of this part.  In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this 
subpart and the rules set forth in subparts B and C of this part, the rules in this subpart shall govern. 
§ 5.302  Eligibility.  
Program experimental licensees may be granted to the following entities: a college or university with 
a graduate research program in engineering that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for 
Engineering and Technology (ABET); a research laboratory; a hospital or health care institution; a 
manufacturer of radio frequency equipment; or a manufacturer that integrates radio frequency 
equipment into their end products, that meets the following requirements: 
(b) The radiofrequency experimentation will be conducted in a defined geographic area under the 
applicant’s control; 
(c) The applicant has institutional processes to monitor and effectively manage a wide variety of 
research projects; and 
(d) The applicant has demonstrated expertise in radio spectrum management or partner with another 
entity that has such expertise. 
§ 5.303  Frequencies.  
Licensees may operate in any frequency band, including those above 38.6 GHz, except for frequency 
bands exclusively allocated to the passive services (including the radio astronomy service) and any 
frequency or frequency band below 38.6 GHz that is listed in §15.205(a). Licensees shall avoid use of 
public safety frequencies pursuant to § 5.85(d).
§ 5.304  Area of operations.  
Applications must specify, and the Commission will grant authorizations for, a geographic area that is 
inclusive of an institution’s real-property facilities where the experimentation will be conducted and 
that is under the applicant’s control.  If an applicant wants to conduct experiments in more than one 
defined geographic area, it shall apply for a license for each location.   
§ 5.305  Program license not permitted.
Experiments are not permitted under this subpart and a conventional experimental radio license is 
required when:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
93
(a) An environmental assessment must be filed with the Commission as required by § 5.63(a) of this 
part; or
(b) An orbital debris mitigation plan must be filed with the Commission as required by § 5.64 of this 
part; or
(c) The applicant requires non-disclosure of proprietary information as part of its justification for its 
license application; or
(d) A product development or a market trial is to be conducted.
§ 5.307  Responsible party.
(a) Each program experimental radio applicant must identify a single point of contact responsible for 
all experiments conducted under the license, including 
(1) ensuring compliance with the notification requirements of § 5.309 of this part; and
(2) ensuring compliance with all applicable FCC rules.
(b) The responsible individual will serve as the initial point of contact for all matters involving 
interference resolution and must have the authority to discontinue any and all experiments being 
conducted under the license, if necessary.  
(c) The license application must include the name of the responsible individual and contact 
information at which the person can be reached at any time of the day; this information will be listed 
on the license.  Licensees are required to keep this information current.
§ 5.308  Stop buzzer.
A "Stop Buzzer" point of contact must be identified and available at all times during operation of 
each experiment conducted under a program license.  A “stop buzzer” point of contact is a person 
who can address interference concerns and cease all transmissions immediately if interference occurs. 
§ 5.309  Notification requirements.
(a) At least ten calendar days prior to commencement of any experiment, program experimental 
licensees must provide the following information to the Commission’s program experimental 
registration website.
(1) a narrative statement describing the experiment, including a description and explanation of 
measures taken to avoid causing harmful interference to any existing service licensee;
(2) contact information for the researcher-in-charge of the described experiment; 
(3) contact information for a “stop buzzer”; and
(4) technical details including:
(i) the frequency or frequency bands;
(ii) the maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) or effective radiated 
power (ERP) under consideration;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
94
(iii) the emission designators to be used;
(iv) a description of the geographic area in which the test will be conducted;
(v) the number of units to be used; and 
(vi) a mitigation plan as required by § 5.311 of this part, if necessary.
(5) for program license experiments that may affect frequency bands used for the provision of 
commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes, a list of those 
critical service licensees that are authorized to operate in the same bands and geographic area of 
the planned experiment.
(b) Experiments may commence without specific approval or authorization once ten calendar days 
have elapsed from the time of posting to the above website.  During that ten-day period, the licensee 
of an authorized service may contact the program licensee to resolve any objections to an experiment. 
It is expected that parties will work in good faith to resolve such objections, including modifying 
experiments if necessary to reach an agreeable resolution.  However, only the Commission has the 
authority to prevent a program licensee from beginning operations (or to order the cessation of 
operations). Therefore, if an incumbent licensee believes that it will suffer interference (or in fact, has 
experienced interference), it must bring its concerns to the Commission for action.  In such an event,
the Commission will evaluate the concerns, and determine whether a planned experiment should be 
permitted to commence as proposed (or be terminated, if the experiment has commenced). 
(c) The Commission can prohibit or require modification of specific experiments under a program 
experimental radio license at any time without notice or hearing if in its discretion the need for such 
action arises. 
(d) Within 30 days after completion of each experiment conducted under a program experimental 
radio license, the licensee shall file a narrative statement describing the results of the experiment, 
including any interference incidents and steps taken to resolve them.  This narrative statement must 
be filed to the Commission’s program experimental registration website and be associated with the 
materials described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 
(e)(1)  The Commission may ask licensees for additional information to resolve an interference 
incident, gain a better understanding of new technology development, or for auditing purposes to 
ensure that licensees are actually conducting experiments.  Failure to comply with a Commission 
request for additional information under this section, or if, upon review of such information, the 
Commission determines that a licensee is not actually conducting experimentation, could result in 
forfeiture of the program license and loss of privilege of obtaining such a license in the future.
(2) All information submitted pursuant to this section will be treated as routinely available for 
publicly inspection, within the meaning of Section 0.459 of this title.  Licensees are permitted to 
request that information requested by the Commission pursuant to this section be withheld from 
public inspection.  The Commission will consider such requests pursuant to the procedures set forth 
in Section 0.459 of this chapter.
§ 5.311  Additional requirements related to safety of the public.
In addition to the notification requirements of § 5.309 of this part, for experiments that may affect 
frequency bands used for the provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or 
public safety purposes, the program experimental radio licensee shall, prior to commencing 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
95
transmissions, develop a specific plan to avoid interference to these bands.  The plan must include 
provisions for:
(a) providing notice to parties, including other Commission licensees that are authorized to operate in 
the same bands and geographic area as the planned experiment and, as appropriate, their end users; 
(b) rapid identification, and elimination, of any harm the experiment may cause; and
(c) identifying an alternate means for accomplishing potentially-affected vital public safety functions 
during the experiment.  
§ 5.313  Innovation zones.
(a) An innovation zone is a specified geographic location with pre-authorized boundary conditions 
(such as frequency band, maximum power, etc.) created by the Commission on its own motion or in 
response to a request from the public.  Innovation zones will be announced via public notice and 
posted on the Commission’s program experimental registration website.
(b) A program experimental licensee may conduct experiments in an innovation zone consistent with 
the specified boundary conditions without specific authorization from the Commission.  All licensees 
operating under this authority must comply with the requirements and limitations set forth for 
program licensees in this part, including providing notification of its intended operations on the 
program experimental registration website prior to operation.
Subpart F—Medical Testing Experimental Radio Licenses
§5.401  Applicable rules.  
In addition to the rules in this subpart, medical testing experimental applicants and licensees must 
follow the rules in subparts B and C of this part.  In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in 
this subpart and the rules set forth in subparts B and C of this part, the rules in this subpart shall 
govern.  
§5.402  Eligibility and usage.  
(a) Eligibility for medical testing licenses is limited to health care facilities as defined in § 95.1103(b) 
of this chapter.
(b) Medical testing experimental radio licenses are for testing in clinical trials medical devices that 
use RF wireless technology for diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring for the purposes of, but not 
limited to, assessing patient compatibility and usage issues, as well as operational, interference, and 
RF immunity issues. Medical testing is limited to testing equipment designed to comply with the rules 
in Part 15, Radio Frequency Devices; Part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; Part 95, 
Personal Radio Services Subpart H – Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or Part 95, Subpart I –
Medical Device Radiocommunication Service.
§ 5.403  Frequencies.  
(a) Licensees may operate in any frequency band, including those above 38.6 GHz, except for 
frequency bands exclusively allocated to the passive services (including the radio astronomy service).  
In addition, licensees may not use any frequency or frequency band below 38.6 GHz that is listed in 
§ 15.205(a) of this chapter.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
96
(b) Exception: Licensees may use frequencies listed in § 15.205(a) of this chapter if the device under 
test is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in Part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and 
Medical Equipment; Part 95, Personal Radio Services Subpart H – Wireless Medical Telemetry 
Service; or Part 95, Subpart I – Medical Device Radiocommunication Service.
§5.404  Area of operation.
Applications must specify, and the Commission will grant authorizations for, a geographic area that is 
inclusive of an institution’s real-property facilities where the experimentation will be conducted and 
that is under the applicant’s control.  Applications also may specify, and the Commission will grant 
authorizations for, defined geographic areas beyond the institution’s real-property facilities that will 
be included in clinical trials and monitored by the licensee. In general, operations will be permitted 
where the likelihood of harmful interference being caused to authorized services is minimal.  
§5.405  Yearly report. 
Medical testing licensees must file a yearly report detailing the activity that has been performed under 
the license.  This report is to be filed electronically to the Commission’s program experimental 
registration website and must, at a minimum, include:
(a) A list of each test performed and the testing period; and
(b) A Description of each test, including equipment tested; and
(c) The results of the test including any interference incidents and their resolution.
§ 5.406  Responsible party, “stop-buzzer,” and notification requirements, and additional 
requirements related to safety of the public.
(a) Medical testing licensees must identify a single point of contact responsible for all experiments 
conducted under the license and  must also identify a “stop buzzer” point of contact  for all 
experiments, consistent with Subpart E, §§ 5.307 and 5.308 of this part.
(b) Medical testing licensees must meet the notification and safety of the public requirements of 
Subpart E, §§ 5.309 and 5.311 of this part.  
§ 5.407  Exemption from station identification requirement.
Medical testing experimental licensees are exempt from complying with the station identification 
requirements of § 5.115 of this part.
Subpart G—Compliance testing experimental radio licenses 
§5.501  Applicable rules.  
In addition to the rules in this subpart, compliance testing experimental applicants and licensees must 
follow the rules in subparts B and C of this part.  In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in 
this subpart and the rules set forth in subparts B and C of this part, the rules in this subpart shall 
govern. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
97
§ 5.502  Eligibility.  
Compliance testing experimental radio licenses may be granted to those testing laboratories 
recognized by the FCC as being competent to perform measurements of equipment for equipment 
authorization.
§ 5.503  Scope of testing activities.
The authority of a compliance testing experimental license is limited to only those testing activities 
necessary for product certification (including antenna calibration, test site validation, proficiency 
testing, and testing in an Open Area Test Site); i.e., compliance testing experimental licensees are not 
authorized to conduct immunity testing.
§ 5.504  Responsible party.
Compliance testing licensees must identify a single point of contact responsible for all experiments 
conducted under the license, including ensuring compliance with all applicable FCC rules:
(a) The responsible individual will serve as the initial point of contact for all matters involving 
interference resolution and must have the authority to discontinue any and all experiments being 
conducted under the license, if necessary.  
(b) The name of the responsible 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, must be identified on the 
license application, and this information will be listed on the license.  Licensees are required to keep 
this information current.
§ 5.505  Exemption from station identification requirement.
Compliance testing experimental licensees are exempt from complying with the station identification 
requirements of § 5.115.
Subpart H—Product Development and Market Trials
§ 5.601  Product development trials.
Unless otherwise stated in the instrument of authorization, experimental radio licenses granted for the 
purpose of product development trials pursuant to § 5.3(k) of this part are subject to the following 
conditions:
(a) All transmitting and/or receiving equipment used in the study shall be owned by the licensee.
(b) The licensee is responsible for informing all participants in the experiment that the operation of 
the service or device is being conducted under an experimental authorization and is strictly 
temporary.
(c) Marketing of devices (as defined in § 2.803) or provision of services for hire is not permitted.
(d) The size and scope of the experiment are subject to such limitations as the Commission may
establish on a case-by-case basis. If the Commission subsequently determines that a product 
development trial is not so limited, the trial shall be immediately terminated.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
98
(e) Broadcast experimental station applicants and licensees must also meet the requirements of §5.205 
of this part.
§ 5.602  Market Trials.
Unless otherwise stated in the instrument of authorization, experimental radio licenses granted for the 
purpose of market trials pursuant to § 5.3(k) of this part are subject to the following conditions:
(a) Marketing of devices (as defined in § 2.803) and provision of services for hire is permitted before 
the radio frequency device has been authorized by the Commission, subject to the ownership 
provisions in paragraph (d) and provided that the device will be operated in compliance with existing 
Commission rules, waivers of such rules that are in effect at the time of operation, or rules that have 
been adopted by the Commission but that have not yet become effective. 
(b) The operation of all radio frequency devices that are included in a market trial must be authorized 
under this rule section, including those devices that are designed to operate under Parts 15, 18, or 95. 
(c) If more than one entity will be responsible for conducting the same market trial e.g., manufacturer 
and service provider, each entity will be authorized under a separate license.  If more than one 
licensee is authorized, the licensees or the Commission shall designate one as the responsible party 
for the trial.
(d) All transmitting and/or receiving equipment used in the study shall be owned by the experimental 
licensees. Marketing of devices is only permitted as follows: 
(1) The licensees may sell equipment to each other, e.g., manufacturer to service provider, 
(2) The licensees may lease equipment to trial participants for purposes of the study, and 
(3) The number of devices to be marketed shall be the minimum quantity of devices necessary to 
conduct the market trial as approved by the Commission. 
(e) Licensees are required to ensure that trial devices are either rendered inoperable or retrieved by 
them from trial participants at the conclusion of the trial. Licensees are required to notify trial 
participants in advance that operation of the trial device is subject to this condition.
(f) The size and scope of the experiment are subject to limitations as the Commission shall establish 
on a case-by-case basis. If the Commission subsequently determines that a market trial is not so 
limited, the trial shall be immediately terminated.
(g) Broadcast experimental station applicants and licensees must also meet the requirements of 
§5.205 of this part.
16. The Authority section of Part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
17. Section 22.165 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
99
18. Section 22.377 is revised to read as follows:
§ 22.377 Certification of transmitters.
Transmitters used in the Public Mobile Services, including those used with signal boosters, in-building 
radiation systems and cellular repeaters, must be certificated for use in the radio services regulated under 
this part. Transmitters must be certificated when the station is ready for service, not necessarily at the 
time of filing an application. The FCC may list as certificated only transmitters that are capable of 
meeting all technical requirements of the rules governing the service in which they will operate. The 
procedure for obtaining certification is set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
19. Part 22, Subpart D is removed and reserved.
20. Section 22.591 is amended by revising  paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 22.591  Channels for point-to-point operation.
* * * * *
(a) The 72-76 MHz channels may be used in point-to-multipoint configurations. The 72-76 MHz 
channels are also allocated for assignment in the Private Radio Services (see part 90 of this chapter).
* * * * *
21. Section 22.599 is removed.
22. The authority section of Part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
23. Section 73.1510 is removed.
PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
24. The Table of Contents of Part 74 is amended by removing and reserving Subpart A:
* * * * *
(Reserved)
* * * * *
25. The authority section of Part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 309, 336 and 554.
26. Section 74.1 is revised to read as follows:
§ 74.1  Scope.
(a) The rules in this subpart are applicable to the Auxiliary and Special Broadcast and Other Program 
Distributional Services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
100
(b) Rules in part 74 which apply exclusively to a particular service are contained in that service 
subpart, as follows: Remote Pickup Broadcast Stations, Subpart D; Aural Broadcast STL and 
Intercity Relay Stations, Subpart E; TV Auxiliary Broadcast Stations, Subpart F; Low-power TV, TV 
Translator and TV Booster Stations, Subpart G; Low-power Auxiliary Stations, Subpart H; FM 
Broadcast Translator Stations and FM Broadcast Booster Stations, subpart L.
27. Section 74.5 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
§ 74.5  Cross reference to rules in other parts.
Certain rules applicable to Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and other Program Distribution services, 
some of which are also applicable to other services, are set forth in the following Parts of the FCC 
Rules and Regulations:
* * * * *
28. Section 74.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a) and revising paragraph (f) to read 
as follows:
§ 74.15  Station license period.
(a) (Reserved)
* * * * *
(f) The license of an FM translator or FM broadcast booster, TV translator or TV broadcast booster, 
or low power TV station will expire as a matter of law upon failure to transmit broadcast signals for 
any consecutive 12-month period notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to 
the contrary. Further, if the license of any AM, FM, or TV broadcasting station licensed under part 73 
of this chapter expires for failure to transmit signals for any consecutive 12-month period, the 
licensee's authorizations under part 74, subparts D, E, F, and H in connection with the operation of 
that AM, FM, or TV broadcasting station will also expire notwithstanding any provision, term, or 
condition to the contrary.
29. Section 74.16 is revised to read as follows:
§ 74.16  Temporary extension of station licenses.
Where there is pending before the Commission any application, investigation, or proceeding which, 
after hearing, might lead to or make necessary the modification of, revocation of, or the refusal to 
renew an existing auxiliary broadcast station license or a television broadcast translator station 
license, the Commission in its discretion, may grant a temporary extension of such license: Provided, 
however, That no such temporary extension shall be construed as a finding by the Commission that 
the operation of any radio station thereunder will serve public interest, convenience, and necessity 
beyond the express terms of such temporary extension of license: And provided further, That such 
temporary extension of license will in no wise affect or limit the action of the Commission with 
respect to any pending application or proceeding.
30. Section 74.28 is revised to read as follows:
§ 74.28  Additional orders.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
101
In case the rules contained in this part do not cover all phases of operation with respect to external 
effects, the FCC may make supplemental or additional orders in each case as may be deemed 
necessary.
31. Part 74, Subpart A is amended by removing and reserving it to read as follows:
Subpart A (Reserved)
32. Section 74.780 is revised by adding an entry for “Part 5 – Experimental authorizations” in numerical 
order and removing the entry for “Section 73.1510 – Experimental authorizations.”
PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES
33. The authority citation of Part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 
307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064–1068, 1081–1105, as 
amended; 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.
34. Section 80.25 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
35. Section 80.33 is removed.
36. Section 80.203 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (j).
37. Section 80.211 is amended by removing paragraph (g).
38. Section 80.377 is revised in its entirety, to read as follows:
§ 80.377  Frequencies for ship earth stations.
The frequency band 1626.5–1645.5 MHz is assignable for communication operations and 
radiodetermination and telecommand messages that are associated with the position, orientation and 
operational functions of maritime satellite equipment. The frequency band 1645.5–1646.5 MHz is 
reserved for use in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).
39. Section 80.391 is amended by removing the title “Developmental Stations” above the section and 
removing the entire section.
PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES
40. The authority section of Part 87 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307(e), unless otherwise noted.
41. Section 87.27 is revised in its entirety,  to read as follows:
§ 87.27  License term.
Licenses for stations in the aviation services will normally be issued for a term of ten years from the 
date of original issuance, or renewal.
42. Section 87.37 is removed.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
102
PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
43. The authority citation of Part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
44. Section 90.7 is amended by removing the definition for “Developmental Operation.”
45. Section 90.20 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3).
46. Section 90.35 is amended by removing the entry for “8,400 to 8,500” from the table in paragraph (b) 
and by removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(75), (d)(6) and (e)(2).
47. Section 90.129 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (f).
48. Section 90.149 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
49. Section 90.175 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (j)(4).
50. Section 90.203 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1).
51. Section 90.241 is amended by removing paragraph (e).
52. Section 90.250 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 90.250  Meteor burst communications.
* * * * *
(i) Stations employing meteor burst communications must not cause interference to other stations 
operating in accordance with the allocation table. New authorizations will be issued subject to the 
Commission's experimental licensing rules in part 5 of this chapter. Prior to expiration of the 
experimental authorization, application Form 601 should be filed for issuance of a permanent 
authorization.
53. Part 90, Subpart Q removed and reserved.
PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
54. The authority citation of Part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
55. Section 101.21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
56. Section 101.129 amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 101.129  Transmitter location.
(a) The applicant must determine, prior to filing an application for a radio station authorization, that 
the antenna site specified therein is adequate to render the service proposed. In cases of questionable 
antenna locations, it is desirable to conduct propagation tests to indicate the field intensity which may 
be expected in the principal areas or at the fixed points of communication to be served, particularly 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
103
where severe shadow problems may be expected. In considering applications proposing the use of 
such locations, the Commission may require site survey tests to be made pursuant to an experimental 
license under Part 5 of this Chapter. In such cases, propagation tests should be conducted in 
accordance with recognized engineering methods and should be made with a transmitting antenna 
simulating, as near as possible, the proposed antenna installation. Full data obtained from such 
surveys and its analysis, including a description of the methods used and the name, address and 
qualifications of the engineer making the survey, must be supplied to the Commission.
* * * * *
57. In Part 101, Subpart F is removed and reserved.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
104
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)
1
an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in this 
proceeding.
2
  The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including 
comments on the IRFA.  The comments received are discussed below.  This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
3
A.  Need for and Objectives of the Report and Order
The NPRM sought to promote innovation and efficiency in spectrum use in the Commission’s Part 5 
Experimental Radio Service (ERS).  The NPRM proposed specific steps to accelerate the rate at which 
innovative ideas transform from prototypes to consumer devices and services.  These proposals were 
designed to contribute to advancements in devices and services available to the American public by 
enabling a quicker equipment development process and promoting greater spectrum efficiency over the 
long term.
The objective of the Report and Order is to provide increased opportunities for experimentation and 
innovation.  To this end, the Report and Order establishes new program and testing experimental radio 
license that will eliminate administrative burdens on those who are engaged in ongoing programs of 
research, experimentation, and testing.  The current rules allow for an experimenter to apply for and be 
issued a license to cover a single or a series of closely related experiments – referred to hereinafter as a 
conventional experimental license – which generally limits the scope of the experiment, frequencies, 
emissions, and power levels.  If licensees want to vary any of their authorized parameters, they must 
apply for new or modified licenses.  While the current process works well for those applicants who need 
to undertake only a single experiment, it can be cumbersome for applicants who wish to pursue ongoing 
research and can significantly delay the introduction of new technologies and services into the 
marketplace.  The Report and Order allows the FCC to continue to issue conventional experimental 
licenses for specific types of experimentation, but also permits issuance of program and testing 
experimental licenses to promote ongoing research.  The testing licenses are being created to advance the 
critical areas of medical and compliance testing.  All of these new licenses will allow researchers and 
laboratories to conduct multiple non-related experiments under a single authorization over a longer period 
of time, thus eliminating regulatory delay and uncertainty.
The Report and Order also broadens opportunities for market studies by revising and consolidating the 
Commission’s existing ERS Rules, promotes greater overall experimentation by streamlining those rules 
and procedures, and opens new opportunities for experimentation by making targeted modifications to 
those rules and procedures.
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2
See Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials Under Part 5 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236; 2006 Biennial Review of 
Telecommunications Regulations – Part 2, Administered by the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), ET 
Docket 06-155; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 16544 (2010); Erratum, 26 FCC Rcd 3828 (2011).
3
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
105
B.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA  
One commenting party, Stephen Crowley, responded directly to the IRFA.  Crowley observes that the 
IRFA provided an estimate of the number of small businesses involved in a variety of radio services, but 
contends that the IRFA did not provide an analysis describing the impact of the proposed rules on small 
businesses.  Crowley further contends that the IRFA omitted a class of small business that would be 
impacted if the proposals set forth in the NPRM were adopted – namely wireless technology developers.  
Crowley notes that such developers were precluded from obtaining research program experimental 
licenses under the proposed rules, and argues that this proposal would force wireless technology 
developers to obtain conventional experimental licenses, which would impose delays and increased costs 
on them.  Crowley therefore recommends as a significant alternative to the proposed rules that the 
Commission permit wireless technology developers and other commercial entities to be eligible for 
research program experimental licenses.
4
Regarding Crowley’s contention that the IRFA did not describe the impact of the proposed rules on small 
businesses, the IRFA solicited comment on that issue, as required by the RFA.  Also, the IRFA solicited 
comment on the impact of the proposed rules on Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except 
Satellite), which includes wireless technology developers.  Finally, a number of commenting parties 
expressed the same concern as Crowley did regarding the proposed exclusion of commercial entities from 
receiving program experimental licenses.  Based on those comments, the Commission decided to modify 
its proposal to permit manufacturers that have demonstrated expertise in radio spectrum management to 
receive such licenses.
C.  Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments 
filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief 
Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules.
5
  The RFA generally defines the term “small 
entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small 
governmental jurisdiction.”
6
  In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term 
“small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
7
  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.
                                                     
4
See Crowley Comments to NPRM at 8-9.
5
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).
6
Id., § 601(6).
7
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), 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 terms which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal Register.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
106
Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that encompass 
entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.
8
  As of 2009, small 
businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.
9
  
Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
10
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 
1,621,315 small organizations.
11
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally 
as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.”
12
  Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
13
  We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761
entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
14
  Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
There is an overall trend of increasing experimental activity.  For example, disposals (grants and 
dismissals) under the ERS increased from 1,067 in 2000 to 1,235 in 2005 to 1,553 in 2011.
15
  By contrast, 
much less activity has taken place under our developmental rules, which we are eliminating in the Report 
and Order.  Since 1999 in the non-broadcast (wireless) radio services, ten developmental licenses were 
granted under Part 22 (Public Mobile Services), one was granted under Part 80 (Maritime Services), 37 
were granted under Part 87 (Aviation Services), and eight were granted under Part 90 (Private Land 
Mobile Radio Services).  None were granted since 1999 under Part 101 (Fixed Microwave Services). 
                                                     
8
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
9
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (last visited Aug. 31, 2012).
10
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
11
Independent Sector, The New NonProfit Almanac & Desk Reference (2010).
12
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
13
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, Table 427 (2007). 
14
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095. If we make the same 
population assumption about special districts, specifically that they are likely to have a population of 50,000 or less, 
and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, township, and school districts, in 2007 
there were 37,381 such special districts.  Therefore, there are a total of 89,476 local government organizations.  As a 
basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that 
there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over 
50,000.  City And Towns Totals: Vintage 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, available at 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html.  If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet 
or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.  U.S. Census Bureau, 
Statistical Abstract Of The United States 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are from 2007).
15
These figures include all Part 5 experimental application types: new licenses, modifications of licenses, 
assignment of licenses, license renewals, transfers of control, and grants of Special Temporary Authorization.  See
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GenericSearch.cfm.   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
107
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed 
wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.
16
  Prior to that time, such firms were 
within the now-superseded categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.”
17
  Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business 
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
18
  Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the 
new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data.  
For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire 
year.
19
  Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more.
20
  For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.
21
  
Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 
1,000 employees or more.
22
  Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.
Fixed Microwave Services.  Fixed microwave services include common carrier,
23
private operational-
fixed,
24
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.
25
  At present, there are approximately 22,015 common 
carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio 
licensees in the microwave services.  The Commission has not created a size standard for a small business 
specifically with respect to fixed microwave services.  For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses 
the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer employees.
26
  The Commission does not have data specifying the 
                                                     
16
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210.
17
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517212 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
18
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS).  The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations 
were 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
19
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).
20
Id.  The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 
or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
21
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).
22
Id.  The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 
or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
23
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 101 et seq. for common carrier fixed microwave services (except Multipoint Distribution 
Service).
24
Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave 
services.  See 47 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from 
common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for 
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
25
Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 C.F.R. Part 74.  
This service is available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities.  Broadcast 
auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or 
between two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile television 
pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.
26
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
108
number of these licensees that have no more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as 
small business concerns under the SBA’s small business size standard.  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that there are 22,015 or fewer common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 or fewer private 
operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be 
small and may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.  We note, however, that the common 
carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.
Unlicensed Personal Communications Services.  As its name indicates, Unlicensed Personal 
Communications Services (UPCS) is not a licensed service.  UPCS consists of intentional radiators 
operating in the frequency bands 1920-1930 MHz and 2390-2400 MHz that provide a wide array of 
mobile and ancillary fixed communication services to individuals and businesses.  The Report and Order 
potentially affects UPCS operations in the 1920-1930 MHz band; operations in those frequencies are 
given flexibility to deploy both voice and data-based services.  There is no accurate source for the number 
of operators in the UPCS.  Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within the new, 
broad, economic census category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
27
  Prior to that 
time, such firms were within the now-superseded category of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.”
28
  Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business 
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
29
  Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the 
new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data.  
For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire 
year.
30
  Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more.
31
  For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.
32
  
Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 
1,000 employees or more.
33
  Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.
Aviation and Marine Radio Services.  There are approximately 26,162 aviation, 34,555 marine (ship), 
and 3,296 marine (coast) licensees.
34
  The Commission has not developed a small business size standard 
                                                     
27
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210.
28
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517211 Paging”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517212 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
29
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS).  The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations 
were 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
30
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).
31
Id.  The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
32
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).
33
Id.  The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
34
Vessels that are not required by law to carry a radio and do not make international voyages or communications are 
not required to obtain an individual license.  See Amendment of Parts 80 and 87 of the Commission's Rules to 
Permit Operation of Certain Domestic Ship and Aircraft Radio Stations Without Individual Licenses, Report and 
Order, WT .
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
109
specifically applicable to all licensees.  For purposes of this analysis, we will use the SBA small business 
size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or 
fewer employees.
35
  We are unable to determine how many of those licensed fall under this standard.  For 
purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up to approximately 62,969 
licensees that are small businesses under the SBA standard.
36
  In 1998, the Commission held an auction of 
42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 
MHz (coast transmit) bands.  For this auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity 
that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three 
years not to exceed $15 million dollars.  In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with 
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed 
$3 million dollars.
37
  Further, the Commission made available Automated Maritime Telecommunications 
System (“AMTS”) licenses in Auctions 57 and 61.
38
  Winning bidders could claim status as a very small 
business or a very small business.  A very small business for this service is defined as an entity with 
attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years, and a 
small business is defined as an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues of more than $3 
million but less than $15 million for the preceding three years.
39
  Three of the winning bidders in Auction 
57 qualified as small or very small businesses, while three winning entities in Auction 61 qualified as 
very small businesses.
Public Safety Radio Services.  Public Safety radio services include police, fire, local government, 
forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.
40
  There are a total of 
                                                     
35
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
36
A licensee may have a license in more than one category.
37
Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).
38
See “Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Spectrum Auction Scheduled for September 15, 2004, 
Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Auction Procedures,” Public 
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 9518 (WTB 2004); “Auction of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Licenses 
Scheduled for August 3, 2005, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and 
Other Auction Procedures for Auction No. 61,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 7811 (WTB 2005).
39
See 47 C.F.R. § 80.1252.  
40
With the exception of the special emergency service, these services are governed by Subpart B of part 90 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27.  The police service includes approximately 27,000 licensees that 
serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and 
facsimile (printed material).  The fire radio service includes approximately 23,000 licensees comprised of private 
volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. The local government service 
that is presently comprised of approximately 41,000 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use the 
radio for official purposes not covered by other public safety services.  There are approximately 7,000 licensees 
within the forestry service which is comprised of licensees from state departments of conservation and private forest 
organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews.  The 
approximately 9,000 state and local governments are licensed to highway maintenance service provide emergency 
and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic.  The 
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service (“EMRS”) use the 39 channels allocated to 
this service for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment.  
47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27.  The approximately 20,000 licensees in the special emergency service include medical 
services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach 
patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency repair of public 
communications facilities.  47 C.F.R. §§ 90.33-90.55.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
110
approximately 127,540 licensees in these services.  Governmental entities
41
as well as private businesses 
comprise the licensees for these services.  All governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 
fall within the definition of a small entity.
42
  The small private businesses fall within the “wireless” 
category described supra.
E.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements  
The Report and Order establishes a new type of experimental radio license – the program experimental 
radio license – to permit qualified institutions to conduct an ongoing program of research and 
experimentation that would otherwise require the issuance of multiple individual experimental radio 
license authorizations under the Commission’s existing rules.  Program experimental radio licensees will 
have new requirements to file notification of planned experiments to be conducted under the license, 
resolve interference concerns that are raised by other licensees, and file post-experiment reports with the 
Commission.  The Report and Order also consolidates, clarifies, and streamlines existing rules to facilitate 
experimentation in the radio spectrum.  These rules will permit qualified applicants to engage in 
additional marketing activities, while streamlining existing rules to eliminate burdensome regulations.  
We project that by creating a new license type and by revising our existing rules, reporting, recordkeeping 
and other compliance requirements associated with the issuance of an experimental radio licenses will be 
reduced.  
F.  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 
final rules, 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.
43
We find that our rules in this proceeding will help alleviate burdens on small entities by simplifying 
procedures and reducing paperwork, and no alternative rules would be less burdensome.  We do not find 
it appropriate to establish different rules for small entities, as we believe that the rules that we have 
adopted are not burdensome on any entities.  
G.  Federal Rules that Might Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rules
None.
H.  Report to Congress  
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.  In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  A copy of the Report 
and Order and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) also will be published in the 
Federal Register.
44
                                                     
41
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.
42
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
43
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
44
See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
111
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
Re: Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials under Part 5  
of the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236; 2006 
Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations–Part 2 Administered by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET), ET Docket No. 06-155
For the U.S. to have strong economic growth, we need to have strong growth engines, sectors that 
hold real promise of major expansion.  
Few sectors have more growth potential than the wireless sector.  Our decision today is important 
because it helps drive growth in this sector. 
The mobile “apps economy” has already created more than 500,000 jobs, and is on a major
upward job-creation trajectory.  Thanks to massive capital investment, the U.S. is leading the world in 4G 
infrastructure, making us the world’s testbed for LTE advanced wireless innovation.  Wireless broadband 
is also key platform for innovation, investment and growth in verticals like education, health care, and 
energy.
Wireless innovation is a key to U.S. competiveness in today’s flat global economy, in which 
capital and talent can flow anywhere, and in which our global competitors are intensely focused on 
becoming innovation and job-creation hubs. 
One key tool for wireless innovation is experimental licensing.  The more experiments, the more 
innovative products and services.
Streamlining our experimental licensing process will help stimulate R&D, which is essential to 
new innovation, and reduce the time it takes for an idea to get from the lab to the market.
FCC experimental licenses have helped the U.S. become the first country in the world to deploy 
what some call Super Wi-Fi, next-generation unlicensed use which can become a powerful new platform 
for wireless innovation.  Experimental licenses have also enabled the development of mHealth 
innovations like patient monitoring equipment and Medical Micropower Networks, which could be used 
to restore functions to paralyzed limbs.  They’ve also led to robotic technology for the military and 
rockets to support commercial space launches. 
The National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission start a proceeding to establish 
more flexible experimental licensing rules for spectrum and to facilitate the use of spectrum by 
innovators.  We have taken a hard look at our rules since then, and are completing that regulatory reform 
process today.  The new licensing regime will transform the FCC’s experimental program into a more 
modern structure, and ensure that experimental licensees have greater freedom to develop new products 
and services more rapidly and efficiently, while protecting incumbent services against harmful 
interference.  Our new, more flexible rules, will stimulate R&D, drive innovation, and create jobs, 
keeping the U.S. at the forefront of the telecommunications industry, and leading the world in the 
development and use of new medical devices in particular.
Our new Program License structure will permit colleges, universities, research organizations, 
health care institutions, and manufacturers to conduct multiple RF experiments without needing prior 
approval for each experiment.  Program Licenses will significantly expedite the approval process, and 
save experimenters anywhere from a few days to a few weeks, in addition to saving associated 
administrative costs. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
112
We expect that these new rules will reduce the number of applications that must be filed with the 
Commission by up to 25 percent for large filers such as Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, and 
Motorola.
And the new Medical Testing License will allow healthcare institutions to test new RF-based 
medical devices in real world situations, including clinical trials involving patients in their homes, which 
will expedite the introduction of new life-saving devices into the marketplace.
Thank you to OET for your excellent, creative leadership on this item, and also to the Office of 
General Counsel, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Media Bureau and the International 
Bureau for your valuable input.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
113
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
RE:      Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials under Part 5  
of the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236; 2006 
Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations–Part 2 Administered by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET), ET Docket No. 06-155
I am pleased to support this order that modifies and streamlines our experimental licensing 
processes.  By creating a new framework to promote research and development, our action today 
encourages the development of innovative next-generation technologies and hastens their introduction 
into the marketplace.  Such efforts are critical to spur investment, economic growth and job creation.  
Furthermore, our actions today will help ensure that the U.S. remains the world leader in the wireless 
sector, as we have always been.  
Among the many actions we take today, our order simplifies and harmonizes the FCC’s rules for 
experimental licensing by moving all of the Commission’s rules into one section.  The ability to locate all 
of these rules in one place to provide clear and consistent guidance to innovators is the least we could do 
in the pursuit of government best practices.  
I also appreciate that we are taking steps to modernize and streamline our rules.  For instance, we 
will now apply the same limit on the number of devices that can be imported for testing regardless of 
whether the device contains licensed or unlicensed transmitters.  Our move makes common sense in 
today’s marketplace where many devices incorporate both licensed and unlicensed technologies.
Furthermore, we are promoting research and development by creating new categories of licenses 
to augment our conventional experimental licensing regime, including a program experimental license 
that will that will provide greater freedom and flexibility to qualified applicants and speed up the 
regulatory process.  I recognize that some commenters have expressed concern that this new program 
license is more likely to cause harmful interference.  These new program license rules, however, will 
impose sensible requirements to reduce the potential of harmful interference.  Additionally, experimental 
licensees must stop testing if they cause harmful interference to an incumbent licensee’s operations. 
In formulating these rules, we have tried to balance the needs of experimental and incumbent
licensees.  I am hopeful that all affected licensees will work with the Commission – and particularly the 
dedicated staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology – to improve this process, if necessary.  
I appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to incorporate edits and I thank OET for their hard work 
on this order. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
114
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Studies under Part 5 
of the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236, 2006 
Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations—Part 2 Administered by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET), ET Docket No. 06-155
Research and development, or R&D, has always been an important pillar of a country’s economy.  
It spurs innovation, which in turn, drives economic growth, and job creation.  Last year, the Department 
of Commerce, estimated that R&D accounted for more than 16 percent of our nation’s total growth.  So I 
enthusiastically support this Order, which substantially advances a policy goal, critical to maintaining the 
United States’ leadership in communications services and technology.
The evolution we are seeing in the communications field has underscored the importance of R&D
to those services.  When you consider that, in January 2008, there were no mobile apps on the market and 
now there are more than 1.3 million available, you come to terms with the fact that technological change 
in the communications industry is moving at a breathtaking pace. To promote our Nation’s global 
competitiveness in communications, the federal government must do its part to encourage industry to 
invest more in research and development.
Today’s Order furthers this goal by comprehensively updating and streamlining our experimental 
radio service rules.  We are establishing three new types of experimental licenses and are changing other 
rules to create stronger incentives for industry to innovate in service and product offerings. The program 
experimental license will allow universities, research labs, health care facilities, and manufacturers of 
radio frequency equipment to plan more broadly and creatively as they design experiments requiring an 
FCC license. By giving these entities more flexibility, these licenses will allow them to follow their 
research wherever it leads them without the administrative constraints of a conventional experimental 
license.  The compliance testing license will give laboratories authority to certify more products, which
together with changes to our market trial rules, should accelerate the delivery of new products to 
consumers.  The medical testing license will allow entities to conduct clinical trials, most notably, for 
those devices used for home care.  This could lead to technologies and innovations that offer patients 
greater mobility and independence.   
I also want to commend the staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology for the 
collaborative approach they took in arriving at the final rules for these new experimental licenses. Using 
their technical expertise, combined with decades of experience with experimental licensing, they 
presented us with creative proposals in the November 2010 NPRM that I and my colleagues unanimously 
praised.  They also carefully considered comments filed in the proceeding and incorporated those ideas 
that would improve on the proposals in the NPRM.  As a result, we are adopting a structure that will offer 
entities greater authorizations, reduced oversight, and more streamlined procedures, than our previous 
experimental license rules. In addition, this Order includes new practical notification rules that will 
further protect primary and secondary incumbent licensees from potential interference.  
Special thanks are due to Julie Knapp, Ira Keltz, Bruce Romano, Rodney Small, and the other 
talented staff members in OET, for their excellent work throughout this proceeding.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
115
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials under Part 5  
of the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236; 2006 
Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations–Part 2 Administered by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET), ET Docket No. 06-155
Our airwaves are infrastructure.  Though they are invisible, they are a national resource that we 
must put to use in ways that are smart, efficient, and—true to statute—consistent with the public interest.  
But the demands on our airwaves are growing at breathtaking speed.  Look around and the reasons why 
are obvious.  We are a nation with more wireless phones than people.  More than half of those phones are 
smartphones.  One in four households now owns a tablet computer.  We talk, write, read, listen, watch, 
and create on mobile devices.  But what we do today with mobile is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  
Because what will emerge in the next few years is a mountain of 50 billion interconnected devices and a 
whole new world of the Internet of Things.  
To respond successfully to this seismic shift and growing demand we must innovate.  Innovation 
will take three forms—spectrum, topology, and technology.  
With respect to spectrum, the Commission has new auctions, including the world’s first incentive 
auctions, on the not-too-distant horizon.
With respect to topology, the Commission has taken steps to expand the use of small cells, 
including in the 3.5 GHz band.  
Today, the Commission turns to the third component of wireless innovation—technology.  
New technologies do not arrive on the scene without exhaustive study.  Experimentation is 
important and necessary.  So we are making changes to our rules to expedite wireless experimentation, 
providing more up front and early opportunity to innovate.  We do this by creating a new type of 
license—a program license—to ease regulatory burdens that otherwise might slow down and shackle new 
studies.  We also create a new medical experimentation license to help expand the ways wireless devices 
can improve healthcare.  Finally, we facilitate downstream research by making market testing of new 
products less cumbersome.     
In practice, what does all of this mean?  It means more power to explore at research laboratories 
and universities, more ability to play with power levels, and more opportunity to dream big and create.  
Already we have seen what experimental licenses have produced—systems to support rocket launches, 
development of patient monitoring equipment, and new robotic technology for the armed forces.  Simply 
neat stuff.
But there is more we can do on the technology front to further innovation and to manage the 
growing demand for our airwaves.  That is why I want to briefly mention another action the Commission 
is considering, though not at today’s meeting.  
For the first time in over a decade, we are beginning to take a serious look at how new radio 
equipment is approved.  We have in front of our offices a proposed rulemaking designed to expedite the 
equipment authorization process.  Right now, new devices can take months to make it through our 
certification process.  Because the number of devices in this process is expanding, our systems deserve an 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
116
update to meet this demand.  By moving new devices through our approval process more quickly we can 
put them on the market sooner.  This is an initiative I support and want to work with my colleagues to 
rapidly move forward.  
Moreover, I think combining streamlined equipment authorization with new experimental 
licenses will provide a great jolt to wireless innovation.  It is an exciting time for mobile technology—and 
I thank the Office of Engineering and Technology for its efforts on both of these items.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
117
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials under Part 5  
of the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, ET Docket No. 10-236; 2006 
Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations–Part 2 Administered by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET), ET Docket No. 06-155
Experimentation is a hallmark of the American tradition.  Indeed, one might argue that it is 
America itself.  In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville famously described this country as a “great experiment.”
In the communications context, the experimental spirit is reflected in laws and regulations.  
Section 303(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, for instance, directs us to “[s]tudy new uses for radio, 
provide for experimental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more effective use 
of radio in the public interest.”  Our longstanding Experimental Radio Service rules fulfill this mandate.  
These regulations have been an unquestionable success, enabling a broad range of experiments and 
testing throughout the radio spectrum while protecting incumbent licensees from interference.  And these 
experiments have led to significant breakthroughs: from the Mayo Clinic’s development of patient 
monitoring equipment, to the development of direct sequence spread spectrum modulation techniques 
used by some Wi-Fi standards, to light-up bracelets that the band Coldplay distributed at the 2012 
Grammy Awards.
Today’s item improves the existing experimental license process.  It consolidates all the rules that 
experimenters must follow into one location: Part 5 of our rules.  It also creates new opportunities for 
innovators to more easily conduct experiments that may lead to the next technological success.  Overall, I 
believe that this order will encourage wireless research and development, and I am therefore pleased to 
support it.
To be sure, there is another side of the coin when it comes to experimental radio, and that is the 
interests of licensees and the hundreds of millions of Americans that use licensed wireless services.  
Licensees must be able to manage their spectrum without impingement, and consumers who rely on 
licensed services should not be subject to harmful interference.  The common-sense safeguards embedded 
throughout the order protect these interests.  For example, experimenters may not cause interference to 
any licensed users—primary or secondary—and must show their work in that regard prior to every 
experiment.  Experimenters that seek to use critical service bands, such as those involving Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service and public safety, must notify potentially affected licensees.  Experimenters must
post the details of their proposed experiment on the Commission’s web-based registration system.  They 
must provide a point of contact to enable an immediate shutdown of the experiment should a problem 
occur.  We also may require an experimenter at any time to coordinate with an incumbent licensee.  
Finally, we require experimenters to report on the results of their experiments, including interference.  
These safeguards, and others applicable to holders of the new medical and compliance licenses, should
promote the happy balance of robust experimentation and the unencumbered use of spectrum purchased at 
auction.
Of course, this prediction presumes general adherence to the old-fashioned virtue of good faith.  
The Office of Engineering Technology (OET) has informed us that the vast majority of experimental 
applications do not come close to threatening harmful interference.  But experimentation, by definition, 
means trying something where the outcome is not always known.  As Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos once put 
it, “It’s not an experiment if you know it’s going to work.” One unintended consequence of an 
experiment could be interference.  To address this possibility, I hope that in the coming months OET will 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-15
118
establish a formal complaint procedure
45
so that any dispute about interference can be resolved fairly and 
expeditiously.  And it goes without saying that we expect all parties involved to work together to identify 
and resolve any dispute before it gets to that point.
Finally, the thoughtfulness, institutional knowledge, and hard work that went into this item evince 
the extraordinary professionalism of OET.  I especially would like to thank Julie Knapp, Bruce Romano, 
Rodney Small, and Ira Keltz for their dedication to this effort.  I am excited to see what American 
innovation holds in store for us as a result of today’s action.
                                                     
45
Report and Order, para. 83.