# Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-10717

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** May 5, 1997
- **Citation:** 62 FR 24383

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-10717. Public record. Not legal advice.