Equipment Authorization and Electronic Labeling for Wireless Devices

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This document proposes updates to the rules that govern the evaluation and approval of RF devices. The Commission last comprehensively reviewed its equipment authorization procedures more than fifteen years ago. The RF equipment ecosystem has significantly expanded in that time, and the manner in which today's RF equipment is now designed, manufactured, and marketed—as well as the sheer number of devices subject to authorization—warrant the proposed rule modifications.

DATES:

Comments must be filed on or before September 8, 2015, and reply comments must be filed on or before September 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2702, email: Brian.Butler@fcc.gov., TTY (202) 418-2989.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 15-170; RM-11673, by any of the following methods:

• Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, Room 7-A267, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 888-835-5322.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 888-835-5322 (tty). For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 15-170, FCC 15-92, adopted July 17, 2015, and released July 21, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis

1. The telecommunications sector depends on the variety and utility of radiofrequency (RF) devices. The purpose of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is to update the rules that govern the evaluation and approval of RF devices. The proposals build on actions the Commission recently took to modify its equipment authorization processing rules.

2. The Commission proposed to combine two separate product approval programs—Declaration of Conformity and verification—into one product self-approval program. It also proposed to revise and clarify the rules that govern equipment certification, including those specifying when device changes necessitate a new FCC ID. These revisions would codify the current practices related to certification of modular transmitters for licensed services as well as the filing requirements for RF devices that incorporate multiple certified modular transmitters. They would also replace requirements that apply only to devices specifically classified as “software defined radios” (SDRs) with broadly applicable rules, based in part on the current Commission practices regarding software control of radio parameters, and would eliminate restrictions on hardware modifications of SDR devices.

3. The Commission also proposed to codify procedures related to electronic labeling, streamline the rules for the measurement procedures that are used to demonstrate device compliance, and codify existing practices that protect the confidentiality of market-sensitive information. It proposed to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative rules and consolidate rules from various specific rule parts into the equipment authorization rules in part 2 of the Commission's rules and to discontinue the requirement that importers file information associated with FCC Form 740 with Customs and Border Protection for RF devices that are imported into the United States. Finally, the Commission sought comment on how to codify any filing or notification requirements that may be necessitated by the adoption of these proposals.

4. The Commission found that its proposals would better align its equipment authorization procedures with the current state of equipment development, design, and manufacturing practices, thus promoting significant cost savings, reducing the burdens, and avoiding any unnecessary delay associated with the equipment authorization process. It invited commenters to discuss the costs and benefits of the rule changes proposed in the NPRM, and provide relevant supporting data, along with additional suggestions for enhancing the benefits or reducing the costs associated with the proposals.

Background

5. The Commission ensures compliance with its technical rules through the equipment authorization program for RF devices, which is codified in part 2 of the Commission's rules. Additionally, RF devices must comply with the Commission's technical and equipment authorization requirements before they can be imported to or marketed in the United States. The current RF equipment authorization procedures have evolved over the course of more than 40 years.

6. The NPRM is informed by the evolution of the RF device ecosystem. The development of highly integrated circuitry, software-based designs and new production procedures has resulted in the use of substantially more complex RF transmitters in increasingly compact devices. The transmitters may operate individually or simultaneously using multiple transmission modes. Certain of the transmitters may operate under rules for the various licensed radio services, while others operate under the unlicensed device rules, all within a single product. Such devices may be too small to fit a permanently attached label that includes the compliance information, particularly in the case where a finished product includes multiple modular transmitters with each one required to display certain information such as an FCC ID.

Unifying Self-Approval Procedures

7. Currently, RF devices must be authorized in accordance with one of three procedures specified in subpart J of part 2-certification, Declaration of Conformity (DoC), and verification. DoC and verification are self-approval procedures in which the responsible party is required to take specific actions to ensure that its equipment complies with the Commission's rules. Unlike certification, these procedures do not require submittal of an application to the FCC or a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) and do not require the explicit grant of certification. Also, unlike a certified device, such equipment does not have an FCC ID, and is not listed in an FCC database. Under DoC, the responsible party must use a recognized accredited test laboratory when testing devices and include a compliance information statement with the product that identifies the product and a responsible party within the United States. Verification does not require the use of FCC-recognized test laboratories or the provision of a compliance information statement with the product.

8. The number and variety of devices subject to DoC has grown significantly since the Commission last investigated the possibility of combining the DoC and verification procedures, and there are now comprehensive and widely used measurement procedures, significant testing expertise and capabilities for devices subject to DoC, and a greater comfort with the use of self-approval procedures. At the same time, the development of highly integrated circuits to implement functions which were previously performed by discrete components has resulted in lower typical RF emissions from such devices. The Commission found little benefit in maintaining two distinct procedures or in maintaining the rigor of the Declaration of Conformity procedure given these changes, and recognized the potential for reducing costs for manufacturers. It tentatively concluded that a single process would simplify the equipment authorization requirements and reduce confusion as to which process may apply to any given device, while continuing to adequately ensure compliance with the rules, and sought comment on the proposed rule revisions.

9. The Commission proposed to incorporate certain elements of the existing Suppliers Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) process now used for Telephone Network Terminal Equipment into the new single process, which would apply to all equipment currently subject to the DoC and verification procedures. Under this proposal, the responsible party for equipment subject to rules other than part 68 would test equipment for compliance to specified standards or requirements and certify compliance to the public, by way of a statement supplied with the product, without securing an independent third-party review or approval of compliance. Unlike the existing part 68 SDoC rules, the Commission did not propose to require that the RF devices be registered in any database. The use of accredited testing facilities would not be required under our proposal. The NPRM sought comment on use of the specific term “Supplier's Declaration of Conformity” or “SDoC” for this new process.

10. The Commission proposed to modify its rules to remove the ambiguous reference to “tak[ing] necessary steps” as a potential alternative to testing. It also proposed to consolidate the existing § 2.1073, “Responsibilities,” into an expanded § 2.909, “Responsible party;” and to consolidate existing § 2.1075, which addresses records retention, into a revised § 2.938 that would apply broadly to all equipment subject to our equipment authorization procedures. It proposed to otherwise retain the other DoC rules (i.e. those within §§ 2.1071 through 2.1077) and to apply them to the new approval procedure, and sought comment on proposed revisions to § 2.1077 that would require all equipment to include a compliance statement with the product literature that identifies for consumers who is responsible for the device's compliance with the Commission's technical regulations. The NPRM also asked whether the Commission should require the compliance statement to include additional information when equipment has been modified, but is nevertheless still subject to the self-approval process.

11. The proposed rules would no longer require the use of a specific logo (§§ 15.19(b) and 18.209). In lieu of the logo requirement, the NPRM proposed to expand use of the statement of compliance with the part 15 rules that currently applies to devices subject to verification and certification (§ 15.19(a)) to include its use as part of the new procedure. It asked questions about the impact of such an approach, including reliance on the logo as a mark of device approval, use of the logo on a voluntary basis, and potential effect on the identification of unauthorized devices. Under parts 15 and 18 of the rules, a responsible party can opt for the certification process in lieu of required DoC for the approval of certain unintentional radiators (e.g., Class B personal computers and peripheral devices). The NPRM asked whether the Commission should allow devices that would be subject to the new SDoC requirements to optionally be certified.

A. Updating Certification Procedures

12. Certification differs from the other equipment authorization processes in that a grant of certification signifies that a Commission-qualified party other than the manufacturer or compliance testing laboratory has found that the equipment can be marketed in compliance with the technical and administrative requirements of the rule part(s) under which it will be operated. The procedure also requires submission of compliance information to a TCB as a part of the approval process, and the grant of certification and associated FCC ID is published on the Commission's public Web site. The Commission recently streamlined its certification procedures by modifying the rules associated with the TCB review of certification applications. The NPRM focuses on simplifying and clarifying the procedures related to the filing of certification applications.

13. Traditionally, most certifications were granted for complete devices (i.e. devices that do not require additional equipment to be capable of functioning). Increasingly, devices such as personal computers, mobile wireless devices, and utility meters embody complex designs and incorporate numerous previously certified modular transmitters made by other manufacturers. Modular transmitters are not intended for standalone use, and can be designed to broadly comply with the applicable Commission rules, or be certified for operation and/or installation in a host device based on compliance with certain specific conditions. In some cases, the compliance of an end product that incorporates certified modular transmitters may be based upon the original testing of the certified modular transmitters. In other cases, particularly where the new host device or end product has significant characteristics different from the original host device, further testing may be needed to ensure compliance of the new device or product. Additionally, manufacturers are increasingly designing transmitters that use software to set the operating parameters. Such RF-controlling software can allow adjustment of individual parameters or enable a device to operate in different modes, and the manufacturer may provide software upgrades in the field to enable new capabilities. We need to be assured that such devices only operate consistent with their certification. Also, software may be designed to only be modified by the grantee of certification or may be designed to permit third parties to enable new functions or frequency bands. Such trends are testing the limits of the Commission's existing certification rules, and formed the basis for the NPRM's proposals.

14. The Commission proposed to better accommodate these developments by amending its basic certification rule to acknowledge that certification may be obtained for three types of RF devices: a device capable of independent operation, (currently addressed by our certification rules), a modular transmitter that is designed for installation into a host device or as a peripheral to another device, and a host device consisting of one or more modular transmitters certified by other parties. Additionally, the Commission proposed to permit certification of a group of related devices that are certified under a single FCC ID. It also proposed to streamline certain application procedures to reduce the need to file new applications in many cases.

a. Modular Transmitters

15. The Commission proposed to broadly apply the current rule governing certification of modular transmitters that operate in part 15 unlicensed spectrum allocations to all RF devices regulated by the Commission. This change would acknowledge the increasing reliance on modular transmitters in RF devices designed for use in licensed radio services. The Commission's proposed part 2 rule provisions are consistent with this existing guidance in KDB Publication 996369. The proposed new rules would broadly apply to modular transmitters used in any RF device and would also maintain certain specific requirements that are currently only applicable to modular transmitters used in unlicensed devices.

16. The Commission proposed to retain the concept of a “limited modular approval,” under which the manufacturer demonstrates in the certification application that the transmitter will comply with our rules only under specific circumstances. The Commission proposed to incorporate the part 15 rules and the guidance in KDB Publication 996369 for limited modular approvals into the revised part 2 rule. In light of the comprehensive RF exposure rules that apply to all devices, the Commission also proposed to no longer specify a unique RF exposure requirement for modular transmitters. It also proposed to eliminate the rule provision that permits authorization of modular transmitters that are “split” into the “radio front end” (the radio elements) and the “transmitter control element” (the hardware on which the software that controls the radio operation resides), based on its determination that such a device configuration has not been widely implemented. Additionally, the Commission proposed to permit certification of modular transmitters that consist of a single chip which has been tested to demonstrate compliance in a typical installation provided that the grantee includes detailed instructions for integration into other RF devices (i.e. host devices) to ensure that the ultimate configuration is consistent with the significant parameters for which it was tested. The Commission sought comment on all of these proposals.

17. The Commission anticipated the possible development of devices that are nothing more than physical platforms (form factors) into which individual modular transmitter components can be inserted in an almost limitless variety of combinations. The Commission proposed that an applicant for certification of a modular device or a form factor that includes its own RF characteristics provide design guidelines, interface specifications, and authentication requirements that would guarantee that a module can operate on the form factor only with other modules whose collective RF emissions meet the rules' requirements. The Commission sought comment on whether this regulatory regime would enable the development of this kind of product while ensuring compliance with the rules—including those related to interference, RF exposure, and hearing aid compatibility.

b. Devices With Software-Based Capabilities

18. The SDR rules were intended to allow manufacturers to obtain approval for changes to the RF operating parameters of a radio resulting from software changes without the need to physically re-label a device with a new FCC ID number in the field. For a device to be certified as an SDR, in addition to demonstrating that the device complies with the applicable technical requirements, the applicant must also demonstrate that the device contains security features to prevent the loading of software that would allow the radio to operate in violation of the Commission's rules. The applicant generally has the option of whether to declare a device an SDR. Once the grantee of a device that is classified as an SDR makes any hardware modifications that require approval, the rules do not permit any subsequent software changes absent the filing of an application to obtain a new FCC ID.

19. The Commission found that the existing SDR rules have proven to be insufficiently flexible to meet the growing use of software-defined control elements in RF devices, and proposed to simplify the rules by removing the SDR designation from grants of certification and incorporating any necessary requirements for software control of RF parameters and software security for all devices in the general certification rules and guidance.

20. The proposals would modify the SDR-related requirements in part 2 of its rules based in part on the current Commission practices regarding software configuration control. To minimize the potential for unauthorized modification to the software that controls the RF parameters of the device, grantees would have to implement well-defined measures to ensure that certified equipment is not capable of operating with RF-controlling software for which it has not been approved. All manufacturers of devices that have software-based control of RF parameters would have to provide specific information about the software capabilities of their devices. The Commission proposed to require that an applicant for certification explicitly describe the RF device's capabilities for software configuration and upgradeability in the application for certification. This description would include all frequency bands, power levels, modulation types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to operate, including modes not enabled in the device as initially marketed. Also, an applicant for certification would have to specify which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service provider, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. This information would be included as part of the operational description information required in the application for certification. The Commission sought comment on these proposals.

2. Changes to Certified Equipment

21. Under the current rules, the grantee of an equipment authorization may market devices having different model/type numbers or trade names without additional authorization from the Commission, provided that the devices are “electrically identical” and the equipment bears an FCC ID validated by a grant of certification. The Commission identified the concept of electrically identical as not appropriate to modern radio designs, discussed how strict application of this concept can result in outcomes that unnecessarily burden manufacturers and constrain design flexibilities, and proposed revisions to the rules.

22. Section 2.1043 categorizes three broad classes of permissive changes: Class I (changes are equipment modifications that do not degrade the characteristics associated with the initial grant of certification); Class II (changes that do degrade these performance characteristics); and Class III (modifications to devices originally specifically certified as SDRs). The NPRM noted that the proposal to eliminate an SDR-specific certification would eliminate the need to maintain the Class III category. For Class II changes (as well as Class III), the grantee can file an abbreviated application for certification under the same FCC ID. A change that falls outside the permissive change definitions requires a new FCC ID issued in conjunction with a new grant of certification based on a complete certification application.

23. The current rules require a grantee to obtain a new approval with a different FCC ID and label its equipment accordingly when minor electrical component changes are made that have no effect on the overall functionality or compliance of the device. Because modern equipment is often designed using chips with a high level of integrated functions and with the capability to use software to control and/or add functions that modify the RF parameters reported at the time of certification, a device may add a completely new set of RF operating parameters from the already approved device and still be “electrically identical” under the rules and, thus, can be authorized under one FCC ID. The NPRM proposed to replace the “electrically identical” benchmark with a new standard that considers how the device differs from what was evaluated at the time of equipment certification and whether those differences could affect how the modified device complies with our rules. The Commission sought comment on two proposed broad categories of changes—those that do not require a new FCC ID and those that do. Under this regime, a manufacturer or other responsible party would evaluate the scope of changes and potentially test its modified device to determine the applicable change category.

24. The Commission proposed that certain changes in layout, included components, operating software, or variations in overall electrical or mechanical constructions that do not substantially change the overall function of the device do not require a new FCC ID. Within this category, the Commission proposed to retain a distinction between changes that may be made without an additional filing and those changes that require an application for certification. The Commission proposed to continue to permit Class I permissive changes for those changes that do not degrade the device parameters normally reported in an equipment authorization application (including a decrease in the fundamental emissions that does not increase spurious emissions; an improved spurious emission performance; minor variations in the enclosure or components; and software changes that do not affect RF parameters). The Commission emphasized that such changes could not cause the fundamental emissions to increase, the spurious emissions to deteriorate, RF exposure to increase or HAC ratings to change. Based on the negligible risk that these types of minor changes would make the device noncompliant with the rules, the Commission proposed that the manufacturer or responsible party perform the modifications without notifying the Commission or a TCB. The Commission also asked if there were other circumstances that may be covered by the proposed Class I permissive change procedures.

25. The Commission also proposed to modify its rules for Class II permissive changes that maintain the same FCC ID, but are, nonetheless, subject to filing and approval requirements. It proposed to permit changes that would increase the fundamental emissions or degrade spurious emissions or other parameters reported to the Commission from what was evaluated at the time of certification, as long as rules compliance is maintained and the overall layout, major frequency determining components and circuitry, or function of the device have not changed. Under this proposal, any modification to component layout must have the same device circuit design as that approved initially, and the replaced components for RF determining functions must have similar capabilities. The Commission envisioned that parties would make these types of changes to enable new capabilities such as new frequency bands or transmission formats mostly through software changes. Application of this standard would allow for component changes, including depopulating certain components like power amplifiers from the RF section of a device, without requiring a new FCC ID.

26. When the grantee adds such capabilities through software changes it would be required to demonstrate the device controls that would prevent unauthorized software modifications by filing an application for certification, as a permissive change, under the same FCC ID. Such applications would need to clearly identify the changes made to the device and any revisions of the operational description associated with such changes, and demonstrate the modified device's compliance with the rules. If the grantee of a certified modular transmitter wants to use the transmitter in a manner for which it has not been approved, the grantee would have to also obtain a new grant of certification under the same FCC ID by filing an application with data that demonstrates compliance with all pertinent technical standards. The Commission also asked whether there other circumstances where changes would be allowed under the same FCC ID with the grant of a new certification.

27. The NPRM proposed to permit a group of devices that are essentially similar, based upon the overall design of the devices, their functions, components and layout, to be authorized as a “family of products” under the same FCC ID without having to obtain distinct approval from a TCB for each device. The Commission proposed to permit a manufacturer to determine what constitutes a family of products. It asked about appropriate review and oversight mechanisms, and proposed that a manufacturer include in its initial filing or updated filing specific information about the variations in the products within a family, and identify any variations due to removal of some components. It asked whether it should also require the manufacturer to specify different model numbers for each variation of the product.

28. The Commission concluded that certain device modifications (such as major changes in the design, layout or replacement of the components) would be substantial enough to require a new FCC ID that has been validated by a new grant of certification. The Commission proposed to revise § 2.1043 and remove the “electrically identical” definition from § 2.924 of the rules, and to add rules that address the modular transmitters, software-defined radio, and device change matters discussed. The Commission sought comment on these proposals.

3. Responsible Parties for Certified Equipment

29. The grantee of certification is responsible for the compliance of the certified equipment. When another party modifies a device through either hardware or software changes without the authority of the original grantee, or incorporates a certified device into another host device, that party becomes responsible for the modified device's compliance and must obtain a new FCC ID for its product. When a party other than the grantee of certification modifies a device under the authority of the original grantee, the party must obtain a new certification under either the original FCC ID with the original grantee's approval, or with a new FCC ID. The NPRM proposed to clarify the parties responsible for ensuring the compliance of devices in different scenarios, and to make sure that all devices requiring authorization have been properly tested for compliance and have a clearly-identified responsible party.

a. End Products Incorporating Certified Modular Transmitters

30. Modular transmitters are certified as compliant with the Commission's rules based upon specific data about the intended device configuration and use that are provided by the grantee in its certification application. Limitations on the grant may be required to ensure that a particular host device, modular transmitter, or combination of modular transmitters used in an end product complies with the rules. Complications can arise when a certified modular transmitter has not been certified for use with a specific host device or it is being used in a manner that was not evaluated at the time it was certified. The Commission proposed to continue to apply the general principle that a party that creates an end product is responsible for the compliance of the end product it creates, and to establish rules for two general scenarios involving end products that incorporate certified modular transmitters.

31. The NPRM outlined the following proposal for when the installation of a certified modular transmitter installed would not require a certification application: The Commission proposed to codify existing guidance, under which the party installing a certified modular transmitter (or multiple certified transmitters) into a device must follow all instructions provided by the manufacturer(s) concerning the installation of the modular transmitter(s), the type and layout of the transmit antenna(s), and any other steps that must be taken to ensure the compliance of the end product. A party using a certified modular transmitter in the authorized configuration, must first confirm that the host device was manufactured in compliance with its own equipment authorization and it must also ensure that the end product is of a type that has been tested for use under the modular transmitter's certification(s). If the host device already contains transmitters which may not have been certified separately, or the party is installing multiple certified modular transmitters, then each transmitter must have been certified for use in such a combination and the modular transmitters may only be installed in an approved configuration. If a certified modular transmitter is installed in a host and if the modular transmitter is installed in compliance with all of the conditions tested and established as part of certified modular transmitter's grant of certification, then a new certification would not be required for the resulting end product. The Commission further proposed to clarify that the installer is responsible for ensuring that the host device complies with the rules and was properly authorized prior to the installation of the modular transmitter. It also asked whether there are other conditions which should not require a new grant of certification.

32. The NPRM outlined the following proposal for governing the installation of a certified modular transmitter that would require additional certification application(s): Consistent with the Commission's current guidance, when the certified modular transmitter or the combination of certified modular transmitters would result in a configuration that is not consistent with any of the modular transmitters' certifications; or host device-specific tests are required, the installer would have to ensure that the end product is tested to demonstrate compliance with all applicable technical requirements. Such tests must be conducted with the installed configuration of certified modular transmitters including any host-based non-certified modular transmitters and the grant of certification of certified modular transmitter (or the host, when applicable) must be updated accordingly.

33. The Commission proposed to codify two filing options to ensure that an end product is properly authorized in compliance with its rules. First, the installer could apply for a grant of certification for the complete end product (i.e. the host device and the certified transmitter(s)). Under this scenario, if the installing party has obtained the consent of the original certified modular transmitter grantee(s), then its application could reference the test data associated with the modular transmitter(s)' current certification, and provide supplemental test data as necessary. The original grantee of certification would continue to be responsible for compliance of its certified modular transmitter(s) and the end product manufacturer would be responsible for compliance of the additional capabilities of the certified modular transmitter(s) approved under the new FCC ID and for the end product.

34. Under the second scenario, the grantee(s) of the certified modular transmitter(s) could modify the original grant(s) of certification to allow for such an integration into a host device under the original FCC ID(s). In this case, the original grantee of the certified modular transmitter would submit a new certification application with any supplemental data necessary to demonstrate that the previously certified modular transmitter or that certain combinations of modular transmitters would comply with the rules when appropriately installed in the specific host device. Depending on the nature and scope of the modifications, the original grantee would either retain the existing FCC ID for the certified modular transmitter and submit a new certification application pursuant to § 2.1043, or it would submit a new certification application pursuant to § 2.1033 and receive a new FCC ID.

35. This NPRM also seeks comment on how to address certified modular transmitters that are sold directly to consumers to be integrated into host devices or independently combined. The NPRM noted that application of the proposed rules would make the consumer, acting as the integrator, the responsible party for these end products, and identified practical difficulties with such an approach. It proposed to designate the certified modular transmitter grantee or the host provider as responsible for the end products that are intended for assembly by consumers, and asked whether it should place limits or conditions on grants of certification when equipment may be directly sold to consumers for assembly or integration. The Commission suggested that such conditions could require detailed instructions to the end user for proper installation and use of the device, as well as the inclusion of certain electrical or mechanical locks to limit authorized operation. It asked if there were other conditions that would help ensure compliant operation in such cases.

36. The NPRM addressed a specific scenario that may occur when a modular transmitter's authorized parameters may be modified via hardware or software changes, resulting in the filing of a permissive change application for certification for the modular transmitter. Under the Commission's proposal, when certifications have already been granted for end products that reference the original modular transmitter certification, then the existing certification for the end product would remain valid without further action. It sought comment on ways both manufacturers of certified end products and the FCC can better distinguish among the different versions of certified modular transmitters that may be incorporated into their products from that point forward, and asked if anything, short of requiring a permissive change application for certification of the end product, should be done to track whether authorized version(s) of certified modular transmitters have been incorporated in end products. The Commission also asked how it could ensure that the manufacturer of the end product is using the version of the certified modular transmitter which was approved with the original filing and whether it should continue to rely on the manufacturers of end products to make sure that their products continue to comply if there are variations in the certified modular transmitters.

37. The Commission recognized that adoption of its proposals could require parties to perform additional compliance testing on the end product with one or a combination of modular transmitters installed. However, it tentatively concluded that such costs would be outweighed by the benefits of more clearly defining responsibilities prior to certification and marketing products, which, in turn would better ensure compliance with the Commission's rules. The Commission also sought comment on whether the proposal represented the least burdensome and most efficient way to meet these goals.

b. Modification of Certified Equipment by Third Parties

38. The Commission proposed to eliminate exceptions to the principle that certified devices could not be modified by third parties unless the third party receives its own certification. It proposed to revise § 2.909(d), which allows a new party that performs device modifications without the consent of the original grantee to become responsible for the compliance by labeling the device with a statement indicating it was modified, with the requirement that the party obtain a new grant of certification. It would have to specify a new FCC ID unless the consent of the original is obtained. The Commission asked whether the new procedure should also apply to parties that currently market devices with modified certification labels.

39. The Commission proposed, for certified device operating under all rule parts, to require that any party making changes without the authorization of the original grantee of certification must obtain a new grant of certification and a new FCC ID. This would codify a uniform application process for instances where parties other than the original grantee wish to make changes to certified devices, and would remove the current distinctions in § 2.1043(d) and (f) of the rules.

40. The Commission also proposed that an application from a third party that would result in a new FCC ID for a previously-approved device must include documentation substantiating that the original grantee has given permission for the new applicant to reference its original filing, and asked what documentation should be considered sufficient for this purpose. It proposed to require the submission of a new application without references to the original grant of certification when changes are made without the original grantee's approval.

41. The Commission also proposed to permit third-party RF-controlling software modifications to previously certified devices under the same procedures that currently apply to grantee modifications of SDRs. The Commission also proposed to incorporate the technical requirements currently specified in the current SDR rule (which was proposed to be deleted) into its broadly applicable application processing rule.

c. Repaired and Refurbished Devices

42. The Commission proposed to formally adopt its current practice whereby a third party that repairs or refurbishes certified equipment to the device's original specification does not need to submit an application for certification if the equipment continues to operate as specified in its current grant. If a party does not return the equipment to its original specification, it would be considered to be a modification to a certified device. Third parties that repair or refurbish certified equipment to the device's original specification without the grantee's permission would have to file an application for certification or take other action to ensure that the Commission could readily identify the third party and confirm that the repair would not constitute an impermissible modification. The Commission further proposed that activities routinely performed by users or personnel at retail stores, such as battery pack replacement and hard drive and memory installation, would not be considered modifications of the device's grant of certification. It asked whether there were other types of refurbishing services (such as repair of broken controls) that would make its proposed requirements unduly onerous.

d. Imported Equipment

43. The Commission's rules currently prohibit the importation of devices that require an authorization, and for which no specific authorization has been obtained. Under the current rules, the importer of a certified device is not the party responsible for compliance with its rules. The Commission proposed to require that all applications for certification include the contact information of a party located in the United States that is responsible for compliance, and asked whether there were other options (including rules amendments) that would provide it with jurisdiction over the party responsible for the compliance of the equipment. The Commission also addressed the entry into U.S. markets of non-compliant devices when a foreign-based entity markets and ships a device directly to a United States customer without an intervening importer. It asked if it should consider the company that ships a non-compliant device into the U.S. as an importer under FCC rules, and questioned whether it should treat the United States customer who orders a non-compliant device as an importer in violation of its rules. The Commission proposed to enforce its importation rules against both the seller and the buyer.

4. Information Included With Applications for Certification

44. The Commission proposed to streamline § 2.1033 of the rules by combining the duplicative information requirements listed in the two sections of the rule that list the information that must be included with applications for certification and reorganizing the information required only in specific rule parts or for specific types of operation into a more logical structure. The Commission also proposed to modify its requirements for submission of device's operational description to include information about software used to control RF parameters and security to ensure unauthorized modification. It proposed to allow a third party that makes changes to certified devices or files applications that rely on pre-existing certifications to reference portions of the original grant of certification that are consistent with the device as integrated in its end product. The Commission further proposed to permit the new responsible parties to refer to test data submitted in the original grantee's filing, and sought comment on what additional portions of the original grant of certification the applicant would it be appropriate to incorporate by reference into the new application for certification. The Commission also asked if there are any portions of the application that the new responsible party always be required to submit, how to codify such requirements, and whether there are certain parts of the original application that the new responsible parties could refer to without the grantee's permission.

45. The Commission proposed to stop allowing filing of applications for certification or acceptance of requests to update documentation in their application file when such actions are not required, except as allowed under our permissive change rules. The Commission recognized that there may be interest in continuing to allow this practice. It asked questions about how it would codify rule to support such filings, including how to define the scope of permitted modifications and the role of TCBs and Commission oversight under such provisions.

5. Confidentiality of Certification Applications

46. A TCB is required to upload all the information associated with a certification application to the Commission's Equipment Authorization System (EAS). When an equipment certification is granted in EAS, all application material is generally made available on the FCC Web site. Commencement of marketing can only begin after the grant of equipment certification and associated materials have been published on our Web site. Some of this information may be held confidential, under the Commission's current rules and procedures as described in the NPRM. The Commission proposed to modify these rules and procedures.

47. Short-term confidentiality allows for the preparation for marketing of devices without disclosure of sensitive information to the public prior to actual sale, and is typically requested for information that will become discoverable once sales commence and the product and its related literature can be physically examined—e.g. external photos, internal photos, and user manuals. The Commission proposed to codify the short-term confidentiality procedure for the types of information described in the Commission's June 15, 2004 public notice, DA 04-1705, concerning short-term confidentiality requests. It would grant short-term confidentiality upon the applicant's request for 45 days or an earlier date if specified by the applicant, which may be extended with serial requests to a maximum of 180 days. The applicant would not need to provide a specific justification for its request. The Commission would immediately end the short-term confidentially period if the device is marketed to the public or otherwise publicized by the applicant or by an entity acting on the applicant's behalf prior to the expiration of this period. The Commission may nevertheless reveal the information at any time if a request for inspection is filed and granted under § 0.461 of the rules, our general provision that governs the release of information not routinely available for public inspection.

48. The Commission proposed to require an applicant to identify the specific exhibits associated with an application for certification for which short-term confidentiality is requested, and not to grant confidentiality for information such as test reports and test set-up information that demonstrates that the product complies with the Commission's technical rules. However, it asked whether there would be benefits in making all application exhibits automatically considered part of a short-term confidentiality request, and asked whether 45 days with extensions up to 180 days total is the proper length of time to allow short-term confidentiality. Furthermore, the Commission also proposed to codify its current policy that the applicant must give notice to the TCB issuing the grant of certification prior to the device being marketed to the public or otherwise publicized so that the short-term confidentiality period may be immediately terminated. The Commission asked whether, as an alternative proposal, short-term confidentiality should automatically be granted for some or all exhibits without being specifically requested by the applicant, and, if so, which application exhibits should be given short-term confidentiality.

49. Long-term confidentiality is intended to safeguard trade secrets, is intended for information that is not readily discoverable upon release of the device, and can last indefinitely. Long-term confidentiality is governed by §§ 0.457(d) and 0.459 of the rules, which provides for information to be held confidential by the Commission unless a request for inspection is filed and granted per § 0.461 of the rules, and requires a specific application seeking that material be given long-term confidential treatment. The Commission proposed to provide long-term confidentiality automatically (i.e. without specific justification), based on the fact that the vast majority of equipment authorization applications are accompanied by requests for long-term confidentiality for certain types of exhibits and that the requests are regularly granted, for the following types of exhibits: (1) Schematics, (2) block diagrams, (3) operational descriptions, and (4) parts list/tune-up information. It asked whether some of the exhibits should not be automatically be given long-term confidential treatment, and whether other exhibits beyond those listed be given long-term confidentiality. The Commission noted that its proposal is consistent with the process reform goal 5.42 in the FCC staff report in GN Docket 14-25.

50. Finally, the Commission stated that it believes that its proposals for short- and long-term confidentiality would comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Trade Secrets Act, and sought comment on that conclusion.

6. Timeframe for Requesting Review of Certification Grants

51. The Commission proposed to adopt rules to specify that the “release date” for the grant of a certification is the date that the grant is published on the Commission's Web site. It stated that it believes that the date that the grant is published on its Web site is the appropriate public notice date as it is the date that the grant of the certification becomes known to the public and is the effective date of the certification grant. While this release date should be the date that will appear on any electronic or hard copies of the grant, the Commission proposed to specify the date of publication on our Web site to avoid any confusion should a mistake or other circumstance occur in which the dates do not match.

52. The Commission stated that its proposals regarding confidentiality could affect the ability of parties to contest a certification grant, and asked whether the information that is always made immediately available provides notice to the public of the substance of a final Commission action that is adequate to determine whether and how to contest a grant. It asked whether, if it adopts the proposal to codify the current practice for granting short-term confidentiality, to require the applicant requesting confidentiality place a summary or a redacted version of the exhibits for which they are requesting short-term confidential treatment on our Web site at the time of the grant. The Commission also asked about issuance of a “provisional” certification grant for a device which otherwise is deemed to meet all the certification requirements that could be used for legal importation and distribution through the supply chain of devices prior to sale. When the device is sold to the public, the final certification grant would be made public, and that would constitute the public notice date. It asked if a different consideration should hold for determining the start of the thirty-day period in which the Commission can set aside an action on its own motion. Lastly, the Commission proposed that it could specify that a provisional grant constitutes a “grant” for purposes of its importation rules. It sought comment on all of these proposals, as well as any other options it should consider.

B. Updating Procedures Applicable to Both Certification and Self-Approval

1. Labeling

53. The Commission proposed to amend its regulations to comply with the provisions of the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses Act (E-LABEL Act), which requires it to make regulations (or take other appropriate action) “to allow manufacturers of radiofrequency devices with display the option to use electronic labeling for the equipment in place of affixing physical labels to the equipment.” In addition, the Commission proposed to amend its labeling regulations to address devices that are too small to be legibly labeled with an FCC ID. The NPRM discussed rules that impose different labeling requirements on radio devices, including § 2.925, § 15.19, and other rule sections that require warning labels or other information to be attached to particular types of devices. It also discussed how the Commission's rules and guidance already permit electronic labeling in certain circumstances, including per KDB Publication 784748.

54. Consistent with the E-LABEL Act, the Commission proposed to add a new rule to codify electronic labeling procedures. The rule would generally allow a radiofrequency device with an integrated electronic display to electronically display any labels required by our rules. This would include the FCC ID, as well as any warning statements or other information that our rules require to be placed on a physical label on the device. The rule would require that this electronic labeling information be secured in order to prevent modification by a third party. The NPRM discussed how the proposal is consistent with a 2012 petition for rulemaking filed by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) asking the Commission to permit the use of electronic labels as a substitute for physical labels, and concluded that the proposed rules would effectively satisfy TIA's request and thus makes the rulemaking petition moot.

55. The Commission noted that the E-LABEL Act applies to devices that have “the capability to digitally display required labeling and regulatory information,” and proposed that if a device cannot display the labeling and regulatory information to the intended recipient in a manner that effects its purpose, it would not be considered to be capable of “digitally displaying the required labeling and regulatory information” as required by E-LABEL Act. The Commission proposed that the user be provided with prominent instructions on how to access the required labeling and regulatory information, in either the packaging material or another easily accessible format, at the time of purchase, and that these instructions be available on the product-related Web site, if one exists. The Commission also proposed that accessing the labeling and regulatory information not require any special codes or permissions. Furthermore, the Commission proposed that accessing the labeling and regulatory information should require no more than three steps. The Commission's proposal would not allow other forms of electronic labeling such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags or Quick Response (QR) codes to substitute for the on-screen information display, or otherwise permit displays that require the use of special accessories, supplemental software, or similar plug-ins. When the labeling information is electronically displayed, it must be clearly legible without the aid of magnification. The Commission also proposed to continue to require that devices that rely on a wireless or remote connection and have no display have a physical label, and stated that it believes this conclusion is consistent with the explicit terms of the E-LABEL Act which specifically refers to devices with an electronic display. It asked whether, alternatively, it should allow such devices to use an electronic label that is accessible via the connected smartphone, web interface, or other network connection, and if so, what additional requirements on how the labeling requirement is implemented would be needed. The Commission asked whether there are any additional requirements that it should include in the rule to make the labeling and regulatory information more accessible

56. To provide information prior to purchase, to avoid a hazard or when devices are imported, the Commission proposed that devices displaying labeling and regulatory information electronically must also place this information either on the product packaging or on a (removable) physical label placed on the device at the time of importation, marketing, and sales. The Commission tentatively concluded that its proposal would comply with the E-LABEL Act because devices with electronic displays are not usually capable of electronically providing this information in an effective manner when the devices are typically inside packaging and uncharged. The devices therefore do not have “the capability to digitally display required labeling and regulatory information” in the context for which the requirement exists. The Commission sought comment on this proposal.

57. The Commission stated that its proposed rules were not intended to change existing requirements to place warning statements or other information on device packaging or in user manuals or make information available at the point of sale, and tentatively concluded that such requirements are outside the scope of the E-LABEL Act. The Commission did not propose to require parties to display any information that is not already required by the rules as part of an electronic label, nor to eliminate the ability of manufacturers to continue to physically label devices if they wish to do so. It also sought comment on the costs and benefits of its proposals.

58. The NPRM discussed other labeling rules that ensure that important safety-of-life information or warnings about illegal use of equipment is made prominently available to users of equipment, such as those contained in §§ 15.121, 87.147, and 95.1402 of rules. The Commission asked whether provision of these types of warning statements using an electronic display would provide the information to the intended recipient in an “effective” manner when safety or illegal activity is at issue, or would the size and/or makeup of displays on these devices make visual communication of these warnings ineffective. It asked whether continuing to require physical labels for these warnings would be consistent with the E-LABEL Act and, if so, which physical labeling requirements the Commission should maintain.

59. The Commission also addressed how the FCC ID may be communicated for small devices. The Commission current rules requires that the FCC ID on the label of a certified device be large enough to be readily legible, but does not specify what the device manufacturer should do if the device is too small to display a legible label. It proposed to codify the guidance in KDB Publication 784748, which states that the FCC ID may be placed in the device user manual if the device is too small for the FCC ID to be readable (smaller than 4-6 point font size).

60. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement for part 15 devices to be labeled with the FCC logo, and observed that doing so would make a pending request by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) moot. The Commission stated that it intends for its labeling rules to match the equipment authorization rules that it ultimately adopts, and invited commenters, in discussing other elements of its proposals, to identify the implications for device labeling and propose any further rule modifications that may be necessary.

61. The Commission proposed to move the existing rule concerning labeling of modular transmitters from part 15 to part 2 of its rules. It also sought comment on how its proposed modifications to the rules governing modular transmitters would affect our labeling requirements and on alternative approaches that would still accomplish the goal of providing sufficient identification of a certified modular transmitter. For example, the NPRM asked if a modified label should be allowed to be placed on the host device that reads “contains FCC ID xxxyyy changed from FCC ID aaabbb.”

2. Measurement Procedures

62. The Commission proposed to modify § 2.947(a)(3) to specifically reference the advisory information available in its online KDB publications. The Commission noted that devices increasingly have to demonstrate compliance with service-specific procedures described in other parts of our rules, stated that it intends to consolidate references to measurement procedures into part 2, to the extent practicable, and asked if, until this consolidation can occur, it should further modify § 2.947 to state that other rule parts may specify additional measurement procedures.

63. The Commission made further proposals related to the measurement procedures for RF devices operating under the part 15 rules described in §§ 15.31, 15.32, 15.33, and 15.35; and the part 18 rules as described in § 18.311, with § 18.309. The Commission proposed to revise these sections in a manner that references procedures that will be published by OET as KDB Publications and to provide clarifying text. The Commission asked about further consolidating these rules to simply cross-reference § 2.947.

64. The Commission also sought comment on whether the measurement procedures specified in § 15.31(a)(3) and (4) (referencing ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013) are sufficient to address compliance testing for devices subject to the part 15 requirements, such that it could remove specific measurement procedures in § 15.31-15.35. It proposed to modify § 15.35 to clarify the measurement detector functions and bandwidth requirements and to replace an old reference to CISPR Publication 16 in § 15.35 with an updated reference to the measurement instrumentation procedures in ANSI C63.4-2014. It proposed to eliminate the note associated with § 15.35(a) that affords specific treatment of certain pulse modulated devices and instead rely on the emission measuring instrumentation specifications in ANSI C63.4-2014. It proposed to introduce measurement procedures for the certification of composite systems in the part 2 rules that are similar to those contained in §§ 15.31(h) and 15.31(k), while retaining certain specific requirements in the part 15 rules. The Commission asked whether there are alternatives to its proposed rules for measurement procedures that would better promote clarity and accommodate future technological developments and sought comment on the relative costs and benefits its proposals and any alternatives.

65. The Commission noted the ongoing development of a new standard, ANSI C63.26, by ANSI-ASC C63, and asked whether references to the applicable measurement procedures in ANSI C63.26 could potentially replace measurement procedures in part 2 for RF power output, modulation characteristics, occupied bandwidth, spurious emissions at antenna terminals, field strength of spurious radiation, frequency stability, and frequency spectrum. It asked if references to part 2 (and, by extension, ANSI C63.26) could replace the specific measurement procedures and details that are presently contained in many of the individual service rules and whether the measurement procedures in part 2 would need to be changed in order to clarify these procedures. It asked parties to take the ANSI C63.26 standards development into account when drafting their comments and asked if there are any other actions that will help it reference the best and most up-to-date standards for making measurements on equipment used in the Commission's licensed radio services.

3. Rule Consolidation and Modification

66. The Commission proposed to delete § 2.1043(g) through (l) because these provisions address changes to previously approved broadcast equipment that are no longer necessary because such equipment is now subject to verification. It proposed to add a new paragraph to § 2.1043 advising that parties may modify previously-approved broadcast transmitters, provided the modified transmitter complies with our authorization procedures or is otherwise shown to comply with the part 73 rules. It proposed to state that a previously approved broadcast transmitter that was later modified must either be labeled with a statement indicating that it was modified after approval, or the original FCC ID number must be permanently covered or removed. The Commission proposed to retain these provisions in § 2.1043(e) (re-designated as § 2.1043(h)) because they provide a means for non-manufacturer amateur radio users to modify equipment that had previously been certified or type accepted, and sought comment on whether the rule should be amended for clarity or consistency between parts 2 and 97 of the rules.

67. The Commission proposed to delete § 2.813 of the rules, because there are no provisions in part 27 comparable to the former part 74 rules that this rule was written to govern. It also proposed to delete § 15.239(d) of the rules, which permits an educational institution to conduct experimentation in the 88-108 MHz band using a custom-built telemetry intentional radiator after submission of an operational description. It observed that the Commission's general experimental licensing rules provide an effective means for such experimentation.

C. Importation Rules

68. Subpart K of part 2 of the rules sets out the conditions under which RF devices that are capable of causing harmful interference to radio communications may be imported into the United States. The Commission identified several proposals to lessen or eliminate the filing burdens associated with the importation rules, as described.

1. Importation Declaration

69. The Commission proposed to eliminate §§ 2.1205 and 2.1203(b) to remove filing requirements that are now associated with FCC Form 740, and to discontinue that form. Section 2.1203 of the Commission's rules states that no RF device may be imported unless the importer or ultimate consignee (or their designated customs broker) declares that the device meets the conditions of entry set forth in our importation rules subpart. Section 2.1205 provides two ways to make this declaration: An electronic FCC declaration submitted to CBP in addition to the electronic entry summary required by CBP; and FCC Form 740, attached to the CBP-required entry papers. The NPRM discussed how compliance with the importation rules is implicitly addressed by the information already required by CBP, and how the Commission believes that by modifying its importation rules and procedures in this manner it will be able to reduce substantial administrative burdens while retaining sufficient enforcement tools to ensure that parties continue to comply with the Commission's equipment authorization and importation requirements. It sought comment on these proposals, as well as on additional rule modifications that would support its goals.

70. The Commission asked commenters to consider its proposals in light of the potential use of provisional grants. It asked whether there are there additional steps, such as self-certification or required recordkeeping that would be necessary to ensure that parties continue to comply with the Commission's overall part 2 importation, and how such considerations would be affected if the Commission were to require the identification of a domestic responsible party.

2. Modification of Customs Bonded Warehouse Requirement

71. The Commission proposed to remove the explicit bonded warehouse requirement in § 2.1201(c). It discussed how the issuance of provisional grants of certification (as discussed above) could reduce or eliminate the need for using bonded warehouses and, if so, whether it would effectively meet manufacturers' importation and marketing needs. The Commission asked whether it should retain the option to use a bonded warehouse for any imported devices which are unauthorized and that have not received such provisional approval; and, if not, what it should do to ensure that unauthorized devices are not widely distributed.

3. Increasing the Number of Trade Show Devices

72. The Commission proposed to modify § 2.1204(a)(4) by increasing the number of devices that can be imported for demonstration purposes at a trade show from 200 to 400 for devices that are used in licensed services and from 10 to 400 for other products, thus applying a single limit to all types of devices for trade show demonstration purposes. It stated that it believes the current limit is insufficient to accommodate the needs of modern trade shows and conventions, and that the increased limit will reduce the administrative burden on both manufacturers and importers. It sought comment on the proposal, and the relative costs and benefits.

4. Excluded Devices

73. The Commission proposed to remove the list of battery-powered unintentional radiators that are exempt from complying with the importation conditions contained in § 2.1202(a), based on its belief that the examples are outdated and that such devices are now significantly more sophisticated and often contain circuitry that increases the risk of harmful interference.

5. Devices Imported for Personal Use

74. The Commission proposed to expand its exception on devices imported for personal use by modifying its existing personal use exception for up to three devices to encompass devices that use both licensed and unlicensed frequencies. It asked if there are targeted exceptions within the Commission's existing rules that should also be updated or removed. It asked whether the three-device limit is still appropriate, and if a different limit would provide adequate protection against harmful interference without unduly restricting individuals' personal use importation.

D. Updating and Modifying Rule Sections

75. The Commission proposed to comprehensively reorganize and simplify part 2, Subpart J of the rules as shown in the proposed rule section, and to make modifications to other related rule sections, to account for the proposals in the NPRM. It recognized that there are many additional references to the equipment authorization procedures throughout the Commission's rules, and proposed to make the necessary conforming revisions, such as updating specific rule section cross-references, modifying outdated terminology. The Commission listed in a separate appendix of the NPRM, these rule sections by number, and invited commenters to identify any additional rules that would require such revisions.

E. Transition Period

76. The Commission proposed to make any rule changes adopted as a result of the NPRM effective immediately upon their publication in the Federal Register, but to permit manufacturers to continue to self-approve products using the existing DoC or verification procedures for up to one year from the effective date of the rules if they so choose.

Incorporation by Reference

77. The OFR recently revised the regulations to require that agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes ANSI standards. Copies of the standards are also available for purchase from these organizations: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee;; and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore.

78. (1) ANSI C63.4-2014: “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 approved June 13, 2014, Section 4 IBR proposed for § 15.35(a).

79. This standard, ANSI C63.4-2014, contains methods, instrumentation, and facilities for measurement of radiofrequency (RF) signals and noise emitted from electrical and electronic devices in the frequency range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz, as usable, for example, for compliance testing to U.S. (47 CFR part 15) and Industry Canada (ICES-003) regulatory requirements.

80. (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, “American National Standard of Procedures for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,” ANSI approved June 27, 2013, Section 5.7 IBR proposed for § 15.31(m) and Section 5.5 IBR proposed for § 15.33(a).

81. This standard, ANSI C63.10-2013, contains standard methods and instrumentation and test facilities requirements for measurement of radio frequency (RF) signals and noise emitted from unlicensed wireless devices (also called unlicensed transmitters, intentional radiators, and license-exempt transmitters) operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 231 GHz.

Section 15.38 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 15.38, would likewise be updated to reflect these incorporations by reference.

Procedural Matters

F. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose

82. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

84. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

85. The purpose of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is to update the rules that govern the evaluation and approval of radiofrequency (RF) devices. The Commission ensures compliance with its technical rules through the equipment authorization program for RF devices; the technical rules are the means by which the Commission carries out its responsibilities under section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which permits the Commission to make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of devices that emit RF energy and can cause harmful interference to radio communications. By updating our rules, we can continue to ensure that hundreds of millions of radio transmitters, consumer products, and other electronic devices will continue to share the airwaves successfully. Our objective is to enable innovation and growth in the development and use of RF devices by providing a clear path for products to demonstrate compliance with the FCC rules so that they may be brought to the market expeditiously.

86. The NPRM addressed the types of authorization procedures used to approve equipment, the effect of changes to authorized equipment, and the responsibilities of parties for complying with our rules. It also addresses the importation of radio devices. The Commission last comprehensively reviewed its equipment authorization procedures more than fifteen years ago. The changes in the way today's equipment is designed, manufactured, and marketed—as well as the sheer number of such devices that need to be authorized—warrant modifications to the rules that specify the equipment subject to our equipment authorization procedures and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. Our proposals complement the recent actions taken by the Commission to modify the equipment authorization rules that address the obligations of Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) that certify RF equipment and the laboratories that test equipment subject to the certification process.

Legal Basis

87. The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 332, and 622 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 332, and 622; and §§ 0.31(g), 0.31(i), and 0.31(j) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.31(g), 0.31(i), and 0.31(j).

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

88. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 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 Small Business Administration (SBA). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to RF Equipment manufacturers. The most analogous definition of small entity is that which is contained in the rules applicable to manufacturers of “Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.” This NPRM addresses the repair of devices that are subject to the Commission's equipment authorization rules. For this, we also include small entities associated with an additional category, “Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance,” in our analysis.

89. Radio and Television and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees. Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

90. Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in repairing and maintaining communications without retailing new communication equipment, such as telephones, fax machines, communications transmission equipment, and two-way radios. The SBA has developed a size standard for this industry which is that any firm whose annual receipts are $11 million or less is defined as a small business. Census Bureau data for 2007 indicated that in this industry, 1,415 firms operated for the entire year. Of these firms, 1,273 operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million dollars. Based on this date, the Commission concludes that the majority of firms operating in this industry is small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

91. Currently, the Commission ensures that RF equipment complies with its technical requirements by specifying that devices must be authorized in accordance with one of three procedures specified in subpart J of part 2 of the rules—certification, Declaration of Conformity (DoC), and verification. The NPRM proposes to update the certification process and replace the DoC and verification processes with a single process.

92. Certification is typically applied to RF equipment employing new technology for which the testing methodology is relatively complex or not well defined, or that otherwise is considered to have the highest risk of interference. TCBs approve equipment under the certification procedure based on review of an application that provides test reports and all of the other information specified in the Commission's rules. Certified devices are uniquely identified by an FCC Identifier (FCC ID), which must be included on the device label. All certified equipment is listed in a Commission database that includes the application for certification, test report and other material.

93. DoC and verification are self-approval procedures in which the responsible party is required to take specific actions to ensure that its equipment complies with our rules. DoC and verification procedures are permitted for certain types RF devices that operate under part 15 or part 18 of our rules. DoC requires the responsible party, in addition to taking the necessary steps to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards, to use a recognized accredited test laboratory when testing devices. The responsible party also must include a compliance information statement with the product that identifies the product and a responsible party within the United States. Under verification, the responsible party must also take the necessary steps to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards, but there are no requirements to use recognized test laboratories and supply a compliance information statement with the product. Unlike certification, the DoC and verification procedures do not require submittal of an application to the FCC or a TCB, the explicit grant of approval, or submission of a test device (unless specifically requested by the Commission). Also, unlike certified devices, this equipment does not have an FCC ID, and is not listed in an FCC database.

94. The Commission notes that the current state of RF equipment production makes the existing distinctions between the two self-approval processes less meaningful, and, thus, the NPRM proposes to combine elements of DoC and verification into a single self-approval process for equipment that has a strong record of compliance and for which there is minimal risk of causing harmful interference (tentatively identified as a “Supplier's Declaration of Compliance” or “SDoC”). Our objective is to recognize our increased comfort with self-approval procedures by streamlining the procedures and eliminating those elements that serve to increase the costs of complying with our rules and that provide benefits that are of only marginal utility.

95. The Commission believes that our actions will minimize the compliance costs borne by small entities by, for example, eliminating the mandate to use accredited laboratories that is currently associated with the DoC rules, removing the requirement to display the FCC logo on the equipment identification label, and, potentially, allowing devices that are currently subject to certification to be authorized under the new SDoC procedures. The Commission recognizes that manufacturers of devices currently subject to verification may be subject to some minimal additional requirements under SDoC, most notably that the manufacturers include a written compliance statement with the literature furnished to the user that serves to identify the party responsible for the device's compliance with the Commission's regulations. The Commission nevertheless believes that, on the whole, the use the SDoC process will also make it easier for manufacturers to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements because we will for the first time adopt a single, streamlined self-approval process that is easy to understand, simple to apply, and that is better aligned with existing international processes. We anticipate minimal costs associated with modifying existing processes and procedures to comply with the proposed rule, and that any such costs will be quickly recouped by the savings realized under use of the new SDoC procedures.

96. The NPRM also proposes amendments to the certification rules that are intended to provide RF equipment manufacturers with a clear understanding of the application requirements and their compliance responsibilities for a variety of design scenarios. Among other things, we propose to permit certification of modular transmitters for licensed services, and to clearly specify the rules for integration of certified modular transmitters and for when the host devices may be subject to certification. We propose to clearly codify requirements related to an RF device's capabilities for software configuration and upgradeability in the application for certification. We further propose that an applicant for certification must specify which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service provider, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. We do not anticipate that these changes will introduce new costs and, in many cases, will allow device manufacturers greater flexibility in how they comply with our rules and more certainty that their applications will not be returned or rejected.

97. We are also proposing to streamline certain application procedures which we believe will reduce the need to file new applications in many cases. In this regard, the NPRM includes proposals to revise and clarify the rules that govern equipment certification, including specifying when device changes necessitate a new FCC ID. Such actions will serve to reduce or eliminate existing compliance requirements for device manufacturers. Additionally, we are making proposals that address confidentiality, public notice of grants, the RF device importation rules, and the measurement procedures that are used to demonstrate device compliance. These proposals are designed to reduce overall compliance burdens by better aligning the production, importation and device marketing interests and practices of device manufacturers with our equipment authorization procedures and fundamental interest in ensuring that hundreds of millions of radio transmitters, consumer products, and other electronic devices continue to share the airwaves successfully.

98. Finally, recently adopted legislation (the E-LABEL Act) requires the Commission to, within nine months after the law's passing, “promulgate regulations or take other appropriate action, as necessary, to allow manufacturers of radiofrequency devices with display the option to use electronic labeling for the equipment in place of affixing physical labels to the equipment.” We propose to amend our regulations to comply with the provisions of this legislation. In addition, we propose to amend our labeling regulations to address devices that are too small to be legibly labeled with an FCC ID.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

99. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.”

100. As discussed, the overall approach we have taken is to propose to clarify, consolidate, and simplify our equipment authorization of compliance and reporting requirements where possible. Such proposals include, but are not limited to, eliminating use of accredited labs under the SDoC procedure, streamlining importation requirements by, for example, eliminating the use of FCC Form 740, and providing for confidentiality in some cases without the need to file specific confidentiality requests. Given our interest in evaluating the interference potential of devices that emit RF energy and can cause harmful interference to radio communications, we believe that these steps should apply to all device manufacturers, including small entities. In crafting this regulatory relief, we have not identified any additional steps that we could take with respect to small entities that could not also be applied to all device manufacturers.

101. The NPRM also recognizes that there may be existing processes that we have proposed to streamline or eliminate that certain device manufacturers may still find beneficial. These include, for example, filing for certification of devices that may be approved under the SDoC procedures, and placing the FCC logo on devices that would no longer require such marking. Although one approach would be to retain any requirement that has been identified as having value, we have tentatively rejected that approach. Instead, we propose to allow but not require parties to engage in such practices if they find them useful. By doing so, we will not unnecessarily burden small entities that no longer wish to retain such practices.

102. As directed by the E-LABEL Act, we proposed to add a new section to our rules to codify electronic labeling procedures. The new rule will generally allow a radiofrequency device with an integrated electronic display to electronically display any labels required by our rules. This will include the FCC ID required by our certification rules as well as any warning statements or other information that our rules require to be placed on a physical label on the device. The rule will require that this electronic labeling information is secured in order to prevent modification by a third-party. While the E-LABEL Act is not directed at small entities, we recognize that the use of electronic labeling can potentially decrease costs for all device manufacturers because it will provide a means by which manufacturers will no longer have to affix permanent labels to devices. We nevertheless recognize that small entities may not wish to incur the costs associated with changing their processes to produce electronic label displays. As such, we are not proposing to require parties to display any information as part of an electronic label not already required by our rules, nor are we proposing to eliminate the ability of manufacturers to continue to physically label devices if they wish to do so.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

103. None.

Ordering Clauses

104. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 332, and 622 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 332, and 622, and §§ 0.31(g), 0.31(i), and 0.31(j) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.31(g), 0.31(i), 0.31(j), this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

105. The Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Telecommunications Industry Association (RM-11673) on August 6, 2012 is DISMISSED.

106. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

• Organization and functions (Government agencies)
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

47 CFR Part 2

• Communications equipment
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

47 CFR Part 15

• Communications equipment
• Incorporation by reference
• Radio
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

47 CFR Part 18

• Radio
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Scientific equipment

Proposed Rules

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 18 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

1. The authority citation for 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 0.457 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

4. Section 2.1(c) is amended by revising the definition of “Software defined radio” to read as follows:

5. Remove § 2.813.

6. Section 2.901 is revised to read as follows:

7. Remove § 2.902.

8. Section 2.906 is revised to read as follows:

9. Section 2.907 is revised to read as follows:

10. Section 2.909 is revised to read as follows:

11. Remove the undesignated center heading preceding § 2.911.

12. Section 2.911 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) and by adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

13. Section 2.924 is revised to read as follows:

14. Section 2.925 is revised to read as follows:

15. Remove the undesignated center heading preceding § 2.927.

16. Section 2.927 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

17. Section 2.931 is revised to read as follows:

18. Remove § 2.932.

19. Remove § 2.933.

20. Add § 2.935 to read as follows:

21. Section 2.938 is revised to read as follows:

21. Section 2.941 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

22. Remove § 2.944.

23. Section 2.947 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

25. Remove the undesignated center heading preceding § 2.951.

26. Remove § 2.951.

27. Remove § 2.952.

28. Remove § 2.953.

29. Remove § 2.954.

30. Remove § 2.955.

31. Section 2.1033 is revised to read as follows:

32. Add § 2.1042 to read as follows:

33. Section 2.1043 is revised to read as follows:

34. The undesignated heading preceding § 2.1071 is revised as follows:

Supplier's Declaration of Conformity

35. Section 2.1071 is revised to read as follows:

36. Section 2.1072 is revised to read as follows:

37. Remove § 2.1073.

38. Section 2.1074 is revised to read as follows:

39. Remove § 2.1075.

40. Section 2.1077 is revised to read as follows:

41. Section 2.1201 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:

42. Section 2.1202 is revised to read as follows:

43. Section 2.1203 is revised to read as follows

44. Section 2.1204 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4)(i), and (a)(7) to read as follows:

45. Remove § 2.1205.

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

46. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.

47. Section 15.1 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

48. Section 15.19 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by removing and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:

49. Section 15.25 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

50. Section 15.27 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

51. Section 15.31 is amended by adding a note to paragraph (a)(4) and revising paragraphs (b), (d), (f)(4), (h), (j), (k), (l), and (m) to read as follows:

52. Section 15.32 is revised to read as follows:

53. Section 15.33 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

54. Section 15.35 is revised to read as follows:

55. Section 15.101 is revised to read as follows:

56. Section 15.102 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:

57. Section 15.123 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(5)(iii) to read as follows:

58. Section 15.201 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows:

59. Remove § 15.212.

60. In § 15.239, remove paragraph (d).

61. Section 15.615 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

PART 18—INDUSTRIAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT

62. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307.

63. Section 18.203 is revised to read as follows:

64. Section 18.209 is revised to read as follows:

65. Section 18.212 is revised to read as follows:

66. Section 18.311 is revised to read as follows: