Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

[ET Docket No. 97-94; FCC 97-84]

Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) the Commission

proposes to amend the rules to simplify our existing equipment

authorization processes; deregulate the equipment authorization

requirements for certain types of equipment; and provide for electronic

filing of applications for equipment authorization. These actions will

greatly reduce the complexity and burden of the Commission's equipment

authorization requirements.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 21, 1997, and reply

comments August 18, 1997. Persons wishing to comment on the information

collections should submit comments July 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information collections contained

[[Page 24384]]

herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554, or

via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julius P. Knapp at (301) 725-1585 x

201 or John Reed at (202) 418-2455. Internet: [email protected] or

[email protected], Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal

Communications Commission. For additional information concerning the

information collections, or copies of the information collections

contained in this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at (202) 418-0217, or via

the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice

of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 97-94, FCC 97-84, adopted March 13,

1997, and released March 27, 1996. The item proposes to: simplify our

existing equipment authorization processes; deregulate the equipment

authorization requirements for certain types of equipment and provide

for electronic filing of applications for equipment authorization.

This Notice contains proposed or modified information collections

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-

13. The general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to

comment on the proposed or modified information collections contained

in this proceeding.

The full text of this Commission decision, including the proposed

rules appendix, is available for inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's

duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-

3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of NPRM

1. By this action, the Commission proposes to amend the rules to:

simplify our existing equipment authorization processes; deregulate the

equipment authorization requirements for certain types of equipment;

and provide for electronic filing of applications for equipment

authorization. These actions will greatly reduce the complexity and

burden of the Commission's equipment authorization requirements.

Further, these steps will improve the efficiency of the equipment

authorization process so that products can be introduced to the market

more rapidly.

2. The Commission's equipment authorization program has been a

resounding success in controlling interference. Today, hundreds of

millions of radio transmitters, consumer products and electronic

devices all share the airwaves with remarkably little interference. At

the same time, we note that the current equipment authorization

procedures have evolved over the course of more than 25 years. We

observe that the current multiplicity of equipment authorization

processes has resulted in an extensive and complicated set of

regulations. Manufacturers are often confused as to the requirements

and procedures they must follow, which can sometimes lead to delays in

introducing products to the market. Accordingly, we are initiating this

proceeding on our own motion to provide a simpler, less burdensome path

for products to be marketed in the United States. We recognize that

many parties have an interest in these rules. We intend to solicit as

broad a range of comments and alternative suggestions as possible. Our

specific proposals are discussed below.

3. The FCC rules specify technical requirements for radio and

electronic equipment to control radio frequency interference. In order

to ensure compliance with the technical requirements, the rules

generally require the equipment to be authorized in accordance with one

of the procedures in Part 2 Subpart J of the rules. The procedures are:

type acceptance, certification, notification, verification and

declaration of conformity. The type acceptance and certification

procedures are similar in many respects. Accordingly, we are proposing

to eliminate the type acceptance procedure and incorporate into the

certification procedure those requirements that continue to be

necessary for equipment used in the authorized services. We believe it

is appropriate to maintain use of the term certification because this

term is used internationally for similar procedures. We recognize that

there are several similar rule sections under the type acceptance and

certification procedures, such as the requirements for information that

must be included in an application and for permissive changes. We

propose generally to supplement the existing certification rules with

any additional information that may continue to be needed for equipment

used in the authorized radio services. We invite comments on these

proposals.

4. The notification procedure was initially established in the

1980s for equipment that no longer warranted type acceptance or

certification, but still posed sufficient risk of noncompliance to

monitor the introduction of new products. We have found little benefit

from the notification procedure. Accordingly, we are proposing to

delete the notification procedure. We are generally proposing that

equipment formerly subject to notification would instead be subject to

either the DoC or verification procedure, with our specific proposals

given below. We invite comment on the continued need for the

notification procedure.

5. We observe that the verification and DoC procedures are also

similar in that they are both manufacturer self-authorization

procedures. However, there are several important differences. We are

proposing to maintain the DoC and verification procedures. The DoC

procedure was established only recently and any further changes at this

time would be disruptive. Further, we note that the verification

procedure provides a means to authorize equipment that imposes very

little burden on manufacturers. We believe such a procedure is

appropriate for equipment that has an excellent record of compliance,

where the measurement methods are well known and understood, and it is

relatively easy to determine the party responsible for compliance.

Nevertheless, we invite comment as to whether we should maintain DoC

and verification as separate procedures or whether there may be some

benefit in combining these procedures in some fashion.

6. We recognize that these proposed changes raise a number of

additional issues. We are therefore proposing to discontinue

maintenance of the Radio Equipment List. We are proposing that under

the new combined certification procedure the fee will be $895 for

devices operating under Parts 15 and 18 of the rules and $450 for

everything else. Both charges will be applied for products that contain

devices that require certification under either Part 15 or 18 and other

rule parts, excluding telephone equipment registration under Part 68

for equipment that is widely available on the market we are proposing

to require submittal of a sample to the Commission for testing within

14 days of request. To accomplish this, we are proposing to require

manufacturers to provide a voucher upon request for purchase of a

sample equipment at a retail outlet. We would also like to take this

opportunity to clarify the rules that apply to corporate mergers,

buyouts, acquisitions, etc. involving grantees of equipment

authorization. Section 2.929 of the rules states that an equipment

authorization issued by the Commission may not be assigned, exchanged,

or in any other way transferred to a second party. Section 2.935 states

that in the

[[Page 24385]]

case of a transfer of control of the grantee of an equipment

authorization, as in the case of sale or merger of the grantee, notice

of such transfer must be received by the Commission not later than 60

days subsequent to the consummation of the agreement effecting the

transfer of control. We are proposing to combine these rules into one

and clarify that the party assuming responsibility for the equipment

may file a single application covering all the affected equipment.

Comments are invited on each of these proposals.

7. We have not reviewed the requirements for many types of

equipment for 10 years or longer. We believe that submittal and review

of equipment authorization applications to the Commission is no longer

warranted for certain equipment where the technical requirements are

met with little difficulty, the test methods are widely understood,

interpretive questions arise infrequently, and there has been an

excellent record of compliance. Accordingly, we are proposing to relax

the equipment authorization requirements for various types of equipment

based on our experience in reviewing applications and our assessment of

the appropriate procedure required to ensure continued compliance. Our

specific proposals are as follows:

a. Relax the requirements from certification or notification to the

DoC procedure for the following Part 15 unintentional radiators: CB

receivers; superregenerative receivers; all other Part 15 receivers;

and, TV Interface Devices (including video cassette recorders and TV

video games), except that we will require certification for cable

system terminal devices to ensure against marketing of such devices for

theft of cable service. We will continue to require certification for

scanning receivers to ensure that they meet the Congressionally

mandated requirement of Section 15.121 that they do not tune

frequencies allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio

Telecommunications Service.

b. Relax the requirements for Part 18 consumer ISM (industrial,

scientific and medical) equipment from certification to the DoC

procedure. This includes such devices as consumer microwave ovens, RF

lighting devices, and ultrasonic jewelry cleaners.

c. Relax the requirements for wildlife tracking and ocean buoys

operating under Part 5 from notification to verification.

d. Relax the requirements for Part 101 point-to-point microwave

transmitters from notification to the DoC procedure.

e. Relax the requirements for Part 73 standard broadcast (AM

transmitters), FM transmitters, television transmitters, and antenna

phase monitors from notification to verification.

f. Relax the requirements for Auxiliary Broadcast aural STLs, aural

intercity relays, aural STL boosters, aural intercity relay boosters,

TV STLs, TV intercity relays, TV translator relays and TV microwave

boosters from notification to the DoC procedure.

g. Relax the requirements for Part 78 Cable Television Relay fixed

transmitters from notification to the DoC procedure.

h. Relax the requirement for Part 80 INMARSAT equipment from

notification to verification.

i. Relax the requirement for Part 87 406 Mhz emergency locator

transmitters from notification to verification.

j. No changes for equipment that is currently subject to either the

DoC or verification procedures. Specifically, the following equipment

would remain subject to verification: digital devices (other than

personal computer equipment); FM and TV broadcast receivers; non-

consumer ISM equipment; and stand-alone cable input selector switches.

Personal computer equipment can continue to be authorized under the DoC

procedure.

8. We propose to retain the certification requirements for Part 15

intentional radiators, including spread spectrum devices, cordless

telephones, remote control and security devices, field disturbance

sensors, unlicensed PCS (Personal Communications Service) devices and

NII (National Information Infrastructure) devices. We are proposing to

shift all equipment currently subject to type acceptance to the

certification procedure. This is simply an administrative change and

will not lower the threshold of review for compliance with the

technical requirements. We invite comments on our specific proposals

for changing the equipment authorization requirements for various

equipment. In particular, we solicit information as to whether any

equipment currently subject to certification or notification should be

relaxed to a different procedure than we have proposed. We also invite

recommendations as to whether any equipment proposed to be subject to

certification should be relaxed to the DoC or verification procedures.

We will permit applicants to file under the existing procedures for a

period of up to two years. We will also discontinue accepting

applications for certification of personal computer equipment at that

time since such equipment can be authorized under the DoC procedure. We

solicit comments on this proposed transition plan.

9. We are committed to continually improving the processing of

applications for equipment authorization that are required to be

submitted to the Commission. We believe the existing process can be

streamlined significantly by providing for the electronic filing of

such applications. At this time we do not know precisely when we will

initiate electronic filing of applications for certification. The

Commission will issue a public notice announcing the acceptance of

electronically filed applications at the appropriate time. We are in

this notice proposing to recognize electronic signatures on

applications. There are also a number of other issues that we believe

should be examined before implementing electronic filing of

applications.

10. It appears that the most effective means to implement

electronic filing would be through the use of the Internet. Initial

system design proposes that an application would be completed via an

Internet web page located on an FCC Internet server. Attachments,

including all exhibits required by the Commission's rules such as

manuals, diagrams, photographs, etc., would be copied to a specified

FCC file server using file transfer protocol (ftp). Exhibits would

follow a standard submission format, and be submitted using tagged

image format (tif) files and/or portable document format (pdf) files.

Fees would be paid either by check or by credit card. We request

comments on this general approach.

11. We are considering whether to require that all equipment

authorization applications be filed electronically. While we recognize

that not all applicants would have on-site access to equipment that

would permit electronic filing, we believe that a majority of equipment

authorization applicants are on the ``cutting edge'' of technology, and

would have ready access to equipment and software to permit them to

file electronically. We invite comment on the possible complete

elimination of paper applications.

12. The Commission frequently receives requests to examine and copy

applications for equipment authorization after they have been granted.

If implemented, the proposed electronic filing initiative would result

in digitized storage of all equipment authorization application

information. We are considering how we can best make the applications

available to the public once they are granted. While all application

information could be made available via the Internet, we are

[[Page 24386]]

concerned that the volume of information contained in each application

could cause an overall degradation of service to users. An alternative

would be to provide via the Internet the information that users

consider most useful, such as the application Form 731, and designate

an outside contractor that could provide the remaining information upon

request. Specific comments are requested on this approach and whether

certain other basic information such as the measurement report should

be made available over the Internet. We also solicit views on the

vehicle and media that is most beneficial for distributing application

information.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

13. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act,1 the Commission has prepared an Initial Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small

entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (``NPRM''). Written public comments are requested on the

IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM but they must have a

separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the

IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

\1\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603.

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

14. Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rule. This rule making

proceeding is initiated to obtain comment regarding proposals to

improve the Federal Communications Commission equipment authorization

program for telecommunications equipment and electronics products. The

Commission seeks to simplify and streamline the equipment authorization

process for telecommunications equipment and electronics products;

deregulate the equipment authorization requirements for certain

equipment; and implement electronic filing of applications.

15. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under Sections

4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301,

302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307.

16. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to

Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply. For the purposes of this NPRM, the

RFA defines a ``small business'' to be the same as a ``small business

concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632, unless the

Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate

to its activities.2 Under the Small Business Act, a ``small

business concern'' is one that: (1) is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets

any additional criteria established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA).3

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

\2\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ``small business concern'' in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 632).

\3\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632.

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

17. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities

applicable to RF equipment manufacturers. Therefore, we will utilize

the SBA definition applicable to manufacturers of Radio and Television

Broadcasting and Communications Equipment. According to the SBA's

regulations, an RF equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer

employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.4

Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 U.S. companies that

manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications

equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees

and would be classified as small entities.5 The Census

Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available

as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of RF devices. However,

we believe that many of the companies that manufacture the RF devices

that will be affected by this rulemaking may qualify as small entities.

We seek comments to this IRFA regarding the number of small entities to

which the proposed rule pertains.

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

\4\ 13 CFR Sec. 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

\5\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.

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

18. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements. We are proposing to eliminate the equipment

authorization process called notification which requires filing of

information with the Commission. We are also proposing to eliminate

type acceptance as a separate procedure and instead incorporate the

essential requirements into our certification procedure. A number of

types of equipment that are currently subject to an equipment

authorization by the Commission will be permitted to be self-authorized

by the manufacturer. We also plan to implement electronic filing for

applications for equipment authorization that will be filed with the

Commission. We expect that these actions will result in a significant

decrease in the overall recordkeeping requirements.

19. Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rule Which Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Accomplish Stated

Objectives. The actions proposed in this proceeding will result in a

significant decrease in equipment authorization applications that must

be filed with the Federal Communications Commission. We believe that

small entities will benefit from these proposals because in many cases

they will no longer be required to file applications with the

Commission. Also, small entities will benefit from the simpler

regulations and streamlined process for equipment that continues to

require authorization by the FCC. We seek comments to this IRFA

regarding these tentative conclusions.

20. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These

Rules. None.

Paperwork Reduction Act Information

21. This NPRM contains modified information collections subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take

this opportunity to comment on the following information collections,

as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless

it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be

subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of

information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the

proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including

whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy

of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology. The following is supplementary

information regarding the modified information collections contained in

this NPRM :

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0057.

Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, Section 2.911.

[[Page 24387]]

Form No.: FCC Form 731.

Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit; Small businesses or

organizations.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 24 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 72,000 hours.

Needs and Uses: Equipment testing is performed, and data is

gathered, to provide information to aid in controlling interference to

radio communications. A completed application combined with descriptive

information, test data, and occasionally a test sample documents the

compliance of the subject equipment with the FCC Rules, and may also be

used to aid in enforcement of the Rules. This NPRM proposes a

streamlining of the equipment authorization process to provide for

approval of certain equipment under the less burdensome Declaration of

Conformity process. The number of respondents and corresponding burden

hours are therefore expected to be reduced as a result of this NPRM.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0636.

Title: Equipment Authorization--Declaration of Conformity, Parts 2

and 15.

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit; Small businesses or

organizations.

Number of Respondents: 6,600.

Estimated Time Per Response: 19 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 125,400 hours.

Needs and Uses: Data collected is used to investigate complaints of

harmful interference to radio communications, and to verify

manufacturer's or supplier's compliance with the Rules. The information

collected is essential to controlling potential interference to radio

communications. This NPRM proposes a streamlining of the equipment

authorization process to provide for approval of certain equipment

under the less burdensome Declaration of Conformity process. An

increase in the number of respondents and burden hours for this

collection is proposed, concurrent with a decrease in the respondents

and burden hours reported under OMB 3060-0057. A net decrease in burden

hours is anticipated as a result of the NPRM.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 2

Authorization, Communications equipment, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-10717 Filed 5-2-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P