2022 Assessment of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology’s
Communications Technology Laboratory
2022 Panel on Review of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s Communications Technology Laboratory
Laboratory Assessments Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
National Academies Press
Washington, DC
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contract SB134117CQ0017, order 1333ND22FNB100006, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69593-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69593-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26778
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. 2022 Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Communications Technology Laboratory. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26778.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
2022 PANEL ON REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY’S COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
CYNTHIA S. HOOD, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chair
NATHAN RAEN BROOKS, The Boeing Company
MILIND M. BUDDHIKOT, Nokia Bell Laboratories
L. JEAN CAMP, Indiana University
CHARLES CLANCY, The MITRE Corporation
ANDREW CLEGG, Google, LLC
RHONDA R. FRANKLIN, University of Minnesota
MONISHA GOSH, University of Notre Dame
THOMAS L. MARZETTA (NAE), New York University
DAVID R. ORAN, MIT Media Laboratory
MORRIS REPETA, Dell Technologies
BISHAL THAPA, Raytheon Technologies Raytheon BBN
DANIELA TUNINETTI, University of Illinois Chicago
Staff
KATIE BRATLIE, Director, Laboratory Assessments Board
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Program Officer, Study Director, Laboratory Assessments Board
JAYDA WADE, Research Associate, Laboratory Assessments Board
AZEB GETACHEW, Administrative Assistant, Laboratory Assessments Board
RENEE HAWKINS, Finance Business Partner, Laboratory Assessments Board
LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD
JENNIE S. HWANG (NAE), Case Western Reserve University and H-Technologies Group, Chair
MICHAEL I. BASKES (NAE), Los Alamos National Laboratory and University of North Texas
KEVIN MACK GATES II, Advanced Concepts Strategic Analysis, Inc.
WESLEY L. HARRIS (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
W. CARL LINEBERGER (NAS), University of Colorado Boulder
AJAY P. MALSHE (NAE), Purdue University
C. KUMAR N. PATEL (NAS/NAE), Pranalytica, Inc. and University of Central Florida
ELSA REICHMANIS (NAE), Lehigh University
FRANCISCO F. ROBERTO (NAE), Newmont Corporation
Staff
KATIE BRATLIE, Director
LIZA HAMILTON, Senior Program Officer
AZEB GETACHEW, Administrative Assistant
RENEE HAWKINS, Finance Business Partner
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Edward Frank (NAE), Brilliant Lime, Inc., and Neil Siegel (NAE), Northrup Grumman. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
2 OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
Communications Technology Laboratory Reorganization
Expiration of the Public Safety Trust Fund
Impacts of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022
Area-Wide Challenges and Opportunities
Assessment of Technical Programs
Advanced Distributed Denial of Service Attack Mitigation Techniques
Portfolio of Scientific Expertise
4 FUNDAMENTAL ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGIES AND STANDARDS
Area-Wide Challenges and Opportunities
Assessment of Technical Programs
Portfolio of Scientific Expertise
Effective Dissemination of Outputs
Assessment of Technical Programs
Millimeter Wave Instrumentation (Physical Layer)
5G New Radio Direct Mode Communication (Protocol)
Spectrum Sharing for Citizens Broadband Radio Service (Application)
Accomplishments, Challenges, and Opportunities
Collaboration with International Researchers
Portfolio of Scientific Expertise
Effective Dissemination of Outputs
6 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
Assessment of Technical Programs
Portfolio of Scientific Expertise
Effective Dissemination of Outputs
7 SMART INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING
Assessment of Technical Programs
Standards and NIST Guidance Documents
Manufacturing Standards (Smart Connected Manufacturing Systems)
Industrial Wireless Environment (Industrial Wireless Systems)
Effective Dissemination of Outputs
8 SPECTRUM SENSING AND SHARING
Assessment of Technical Programs
National Advanced Spectrum and Communications Test Network
Portfolio of Scientific Expertise
Effective Dissemination of Outputs
9 FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND PERSONNEL
Developing a Diverse Workforce
Metrology of Advanced Communication
Fundamental Electromagnetic Technologies and Standards
Public Safety Communications Research
Preface
Radio spectrum continues to be important to our nation from economic, public safety, and national security perspectives. It is a finite, and therefore extremely valuable, natural resource, and the “nearly insatiable demand for spectrum access”1 poses an ongoing challenge in allocating spectrum to the wide variety of stakeholders, each of whom need it for some vital purpose. The management and allocation of the nation’s spectrum falls to the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. In 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Communications Technology Laboratory (CTL) was established to unite wireless communications efforts and address this challenge through research and technology. CTL built on NIST’s long history of radio science and measurement with research and development capabilities centered around spectrum.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s 2019 assessment of CTL2 called for a reorganization for it to better meet its mission. In 2021, CTL, after significant strategic planning, completed this reorganization, expanding its organizational structure and the breadth of its research. Although wireless communications and spectrum remain central to CTL’s mission, other advanced communications technologies—quantum communication and applications such as Internet of Things and smart manufacturing—are now part of CTL’s purview. CTL is currently organized into five divisions that work on projects in the following six research focus areas: Core Network Technologies, Fundamental Electromagnetic Technologies and Standards, Next-Generation Wireless Systems, Public Safety Communications, Smart Infrastructure and Manufacturing, and Spectrum Sharing and Sensing. Researchers from multiple divisions work in each focus area. CTL’s expanded scope and cross-functional approach provide the foundation for innovative connections and research explorations. In addition, CTL’s recent efforts to identify workplace equity issues and take steps toward recruiting and retaining a more diverse workforce have the potential to enrich the research environment and productivity. Taken together, these initiatives could have a significant positive impact on CTL. By bringing in researchers with diverse backgrounds and perspectives and facilitating communication and collaboration across projects and divisions, CTL will be poised to further its mission in new and unique ways.
___________________
1 Developing a Sustainable Spectrum Strategy for America’s Future, Presidential Memorandum 54513, 83 Fed. Reg. 210 (October 25, 2018). Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-30/pdf/201823839.pdf, accessed October 24, 2022.
2 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019, An Assessment of the Communications Technology Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fiscal Year 2019, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25602.
This is a time of transition in CTL due to both the reorganization and the expiration of the Public Safety Trust Fund (PSTF). The PSTF was a one-time investment in the development of public safety communications technologies and standards that was included as part of The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96). This act initiated the deployment of a nationwide First Responder Network (FirstNet) and established CTL as the research and development arm of FirstNet, thus providing both direction and funding for CTL’s Public Safety Communication Research (PSCR) Division. With funding from the PSTF sunsetting in fiscal year 2022, CTL’s leadership in the public safety community and continued research and development efforts to support evolving technology, infrastructure, and first responder needs are at risk. Although PSCR will continue high-priority projects on a scaled-down basis, the public safety community has seen the possibilities and outcomes when public safety communication research is prioritized and well funded, a situation that will no longer exist. This will be a big change for PSCR, and the impact on the public safety community is unknown.
The assessment of CTL by the 2022 Panel on Review of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Communications Technology Laboratory, falling at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic when things were just beginning to open back up, was conducted entirely remotely; there were no in-person interactions. While this yielded some efficiencies, especially with there being no need for travel, it also presented challenges. The in-person meetings that are the norm for these assessments have included many opportunities for informal engagement with CTL’s personnel—such as laboratory tours, breaks, lunches, and a working dinner—which provided panels with a broader exposure to CTL’s researchers, programs, facilities, and equipment. Because there was no in-person visit to CTL, these informal interactions did not happen, and the panel was only able to make limited observations about the condition of CTL’s facilities, equipment, and personnel. Also, as is true of many remote meetings, interactions were more structured and limited; the kind of dialog that can happen when people are sitting around a table happens much less frequently, if at all, in the remote setting. On the positive side, the remote-only format allowed the entire panel to hear, and comment on, all of the presentations from CTL, providing the opportunity for a richer assessment. Historically, panels split into teams so the entire panel did not get to see each presentation and was only exposed to a portion of the work at the laboratory they were assessing.
In spite of these challenges, CTL provided the panel with a robust set of read-ahead materials and planned a meeting packed with informational presentations, responding nimbly to requests for changes from the panel and National Academies staff. When it became clear that the remote-only meeting did not provide all of the panelists with the information that they wanted, CTL readily agreed to and quickly hosted a set of follow-on meetings with the panelists to dive deeper into specific questions. Finally, they responded quickly to a number of questions and information requests as the panel drafted the report. In all, including closed panel working meetings, the panel held eight meetings to conduct its information gathering and draft the report. The National Academies staff worked closely with the chair and panel members as the report was drafted. This is another benefit of working remotely; normally, there would only have been one in-person meeting.
This report reflects the panel’s assessment based on what they learned during this study. The main source of information was provided by CTL in the course of this project. The factual material in this report was provided to CTL for a fact check. Of course, nothing reflecting panel assessments or judgments was provided to CTL in advance of the panel’s briefing of the final report. Finally, a “ghost panel” of experts was engaged to conduct a review of this report and judge whether it addressed the statement of task and whether it went beyond the statement of task, whether the report’s recommendations are supported by adequate arguments, whether the report is impartial, and whether it is clear and understandable.
The panel wants to thank Marla Dowell, the director of CTL, for facilitating this assessment and making her staff available to support the panel’s requests. They are all very busy people, and supporting this assessment was an extra demand on their time. We also want to thank Anne Lane, the CTL chief of staff, for taking on the additional assigned duty of being main contact between the panel and National Academies staff and CTL. She responded quickly to panel requests when the main meeting in May 2022 was being planned and responded quickly to questions and requests following that meeting. We also want
to thank the presenters and other CTL staff who took the time to make formal presentations to the panel and attend follow-up meetings.
Azeb Getachew, the administrative assistant for the Laboratory Assessments Board, provided excellent support to help to organize the panel and organize the meeting. Jayda Wade, a research associate, was hired late in project but jumped in with alacrity and quickly helped to make things better. Katie Bratlie, the director of the Laboratory Assessments Board, joined the National Academies well after this project was under way but quickly learned the ropes and provided strong support. James Myska, senior program officer and study director, who guided the study, provided outstanding support to the panel, kept us focused, and helped us navigate the challenges we encountered. We thank them all.
Finally, and most importantly, I’d like to thank the panel for all the time and energy they put into this report. Thank you for enduring the challenges of a remote review and staying engaged throughout the process. Your expertise and insights strengthened the review and are highly valued. It was a pleasure to work with each of you.
Cynthia S. Hood, Chair
2022 Panel on Review of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Communications
Technology Laboratory
