[Federal Register: December 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 236)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71380-71383]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09de04-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 15
[ET Docket No. 01-278; FCC 04-262]
Radio Frequency Device Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document addresses three petitions for reconsideration of
various aspects of the rule changes adopted in the Second Report and
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second Report and Order) in
this proceeding. In particular, the Commission: Grants a request to
permit compliance information statements for self-authorized equipment
to be provided in alternative formats; grants a request to permit
longer duration transmissions during the setup of security systems; and
denies a requests to permit electronic labeling of self-authorized
equipment, to further relax the equipment authorization requirements
for low frequency intentional radiators and to require foreign
regulators to accept accreditations of United States laboratories.
DATES: Effective January 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh VanTuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail:
Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 01-278, FCC 04-262, adopted
November 5, 2004 and released November 9, 2004. The full text of this
document is available on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov.
It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street.,
SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563.
[[Page 71381]]
Summary of the Report and Order
1. In the Second Report and Order, 68 FR 68531, December 9, 2003,
the Commission updated certain regulations contained in parts 2, 15,
and 18 of the rules. Three parties filed petitions for reconsideration
of the changes adopted in the Second Report and Order. Cisco Systems,
Inc. (Cisco) requests that the Commission expand the scope of the rule
changes that allows manufacturers to provide part 15 information
statements in alternative forms to include the compliance information
statement supplied with equipment authorized under the Declaration of
Conformity (DoC) procedure. G.E. Interlogix, Inc. requests that the
Commission reconsider its decision on remote control devices that
prohibits installers of security systems from exceeding the five second
limit on manual and automatic transmissions in Sec. 15.231 during the
equipment set-up process. The Information Technology Industry Council
requests that the Commission: Make additional changes to the labeling
requirements for self-authorized equipment to permit electronic
labeling for equipment subject to DoC as it does for software defined
radios; allow manufacturers to provide the compliance information in
alternative forms for equipment authorized under the DoC procedure as
is now permitted for part 15 information statements; extend the relaxed
equipment authorization requirements for low-frequency, low-powered
intentional radiators to higher frequencies; and insist that foreign
regulators accept accreditations of United States laboratories,
including manufacturers' laboratories.
DoC Compliance Information Statements
2. In their petitions, Cisco and ITI note that the rule changes
adopted in the Second Report and Order that allow information
statements to be supplied in alternative forms do not apply to the
compliance information statements that are required by Sec. 2.1077 to
be supplied with equipment authorized under the DoC procedure. Cisco
states that the omission of Sec. 2.1077 from the same treatment of
other information was not recognized by the industry during the filing
of comments during the FCC proceeding. It states that in reviewing the
requirements and comparing the various types of information, it cannot
identify any good reason why the DoC compliance information statement
should not be included among the documents that manufacturers can
provide to end users over the Internet. Cisco further states that
because manufacturers cannot provide this information over the
Internet, manufacturers and users will bear the cost of providing the
information with a product with no clear regulatory benefit to anyone.
ITI requests that the Commission revise Sec. 2.1077 to make the rule
consistent with the revised part 15 rules for providing information
statements in alternative formats.
3. The exclusion of DoC compliance statements from the same
treatment as part 15 information statements was an inadvertent omission
by the Commission that, as Cisco notes, was not recognized by industry
at the time comments were filed in this proceeding. We agree with Cisco
and ITI that permitting DoC compliance information statements to be
provided in alternative formats will offer increased flexibility to
manufacturers and result in cost savings to the industry. Accordingly,
we are amending Sec. 2.1077 of the rules to allow DoC compliance
statements to be provided in formats other than paper, such as on a
computer disk or over the Internet. Consistent with the Commission's
actions in the Second Report and Order for part 15 information
statements, we will allow compliance information statements to be
provided in alterative forms only when the instruction manual is
provided in the same alternative form and the user can reasonably be
expected to have the capability to access information in that form.
These requirements will help ensure that the DoC compliance information
statement is accessible to all persons using a given device.
Remote Control Device Transmission Duration Limits
4. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission denied a request
by G.E. Interlogix to modify Sec. 15.231 of the rules to allow remote
control devices to be operated with transmission durations greater than
five seconds during equipment setup. In its petition for
reconsideration, G.E. Interlogix states that it met with Commission
representatives in January 2001 and discussed the problem of security
systems requiring a lengthier setup period for new systems than could
be accomplished within the five second period permitted under Sec.
15.231. G.E. Interlogix states that it advised the Commission staff
that while setup transmissions can, in theory, be performed in the
manual mode, in practice, systems are designed for an automatic
download of setup data and the five second transmission limitation can
be too restrictive for certain sophisticated systems. It further
advised that system setup generally occurs only once, but in rare cases
such as a property changing hands or system failure, a system must be
reinitialized. G.E. Interlogix submitted a copy of an interpretation
letter issued by staff at the Commission's Laboratory stating that a
transmission that exceeds the five second limit in Sec. 15.231 is
permissible to initiate a system, provided it occurs only once. G.E.
Interlogix states that while its comments filed in response to the NPRM
requested that the Commission codify this interpretation, it did not
supply supportive data because it considered the request to be non-
controversial. It states that setup transmissions used by all wireless
security systems are not control signals in the strict sense, nor are
they recognition codes, and the part 15 rules were never specifically
designed to account for them. It further states that setup
transmissions are not performed by the user of the security equipment
and are not transmissions that occur during the functioning of the
security system. Rather, they are transmissions that provide a system
with the initial programming required for operation. GE Interlogix
states that in a sophisticated security system the setup process can
exceed five seconds because a low data rate is required to reliably
transmit the setup information at the low signal levels permitted by
the rules. It requests that the Commission: Reconsider its decision in
the Second Report and Order and permit transmission of setup
information for security systems in excess of five seconds, provided
such transmissions are under the control of a professional installer,
and clarify that data transmissions during a setup procedure are
permitted under Sec. 15.231. G.E. Interlogix notes that none of its
systems use setup transmissions in excess of ten seconds.
5. The Commission denied G.E. Interlogix's request to modify Sec.
15.231 in the Second Report and Order because it did not provide
sufficient justification for a change to this rule section. Based upon
the additional information supplied in G.E. Interlogix's petition, we
are persuaded that there is, in some cases, a need to allow installers
of complex security systems to initiate transmissions of greater than
the five second duration permitted by Sec. 15.231. We are therefore
amending Sec. 15.231 of the rules to allow setup transmissions,
including data, of greater than the five second limit in Sec.
15.231(a)(1) and (a)(2), provided such transmissions are under the
control of a professional installer. To minimize the likelihood of
interference
[[Page 71382]]
to authorized users of the spectrum, we will limit setup transmissions
to no more than ten seconds, which G.E. Interlogix indicates is
adequate for all of its systems. This action will allow manufacturers
greater flexibility in the design of complex security systems while
resulting in a negligible increase in interference potential for these
systems because the longer duration transmissions are only five seconds
longer than the rules currently allow and will generally occur only
once per system.
Declaration of Conformity (DoC) Labeling
6. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission simplified the
labeling requirements for equipment authorized under the DoC procedure.
For most devices authorized under the DoC procedure, the changed rule
requires that the label show the FCC logo and the equipment trade name
and model number. The Commission also clarified in the Second Report
and Order that the trade name and model number may be placed on the
equipment in a location other than on the DoC label when necessary. In
addition, the Commission denied a request by ITI and other parties to
permit electronic labeling for equipment authorized under the DoC
procedure. In denying ITI's request, the Commission stated that the
part 2 rules permit electronic labeling for software defined radios
because there is sometimes a need for a third party to change the
identification number of a radio in the field when changes are made to
the software that affect the device's operating frequency, modulation
type or maximum output power. This permits the identification number to
be changed without physical re-labeling of a radio. The Commission
stated that none of the comments in this proceeding have shown that
there is a similar need to allow this capability in equipment subject
to DoC.
7. In its petition, ITI repeats its request that the Commission
permit electronic labeling for equipment subject to DoC. It states that
this change would reduce costs for products that already have displays
because the identifying marks could be maintained in memory and
displayed on startup or on demand while the product is operating. ITI
further states that electronic labeling could be used by the Commission
for product approval purposes such as the difficult administrative task
of tracking grant notices.
8. The Commission considered and rejected ITI's request to allow
electronic labeling of equipment subject to DoC in the Second Report
and Order. ITI has not provided any new information in its petition
that would lead us to change our decision on this subject. The revised
DoC labeling rules require only the FCC logo, equipment trade name and
model number on a device, and manufacturers already place a trade name
and model number on virtually all devices made. Therefore, the DoC
labeling requirement is not a significant burden. Further, there is not
a need to change the identification information for devices subject to
DoC after manufacture as there is for software defined radios where the
operating parameters and FCC identification number may be changed post-
manufacture. ITI has also not shown how electronic labeling could be
used by the Commission for product approval purposes, such as tracking
grant notices, because there is no grant notice for equipment subject
to DoC. Accordingly, we decline to allow electronic labeling for
equipment subject to DoC.
Other Matters
9. Very low power intentional radiators. In the Second Report and
Order, the Commission changed the equipment authorization requirement
from certification to verification for intentional radiators operating
below 490 kHz in which all emissions are at least 40 dB below the part
15 limit.
10. The Commission stated that because the interference potential
of such devices is extremely low, requiring certification seems to be
an unnecessary burden on manufacturers. ITI states that it supports the
Commission's decision to eliminate the certification requirement for
very low powered intentional radiators, but requests that the
Commission consider extending the verification process to higher
frequency bands. However, ITI did not provide specific information on
the operating parameters (e.g., frequency range or output signal level)
for intentional radiators that it believes should be subject to
verification or provide technical justification for making changes to
the authorization requirement for certain intentional radiators. Based
on the lack of a specific request and record on this issue, we decline
to make further changes to the authorization requirements for very low
power intentional radiators at this time.
11. Accreditation of test laboratories. In the Second Report and
Order, the Commission eliminated the requirement for an accredited
laboratory to file a description of its measurement facilities with the
Commission if the accrediting organization submitted certain
information about the laboratory to the Commission. The purpose of this
change was to reduce the burden on laboratories by eliminating the need
to file duplicate information with both the Commission and an
accrediting organization. ITI requests that in addition to this change,
the Commission insist that foreign regulators also accept similar
accreditations from U.S. laboratories, including manufacturer's
laboratories, but it did not identify any specific rule changes that
the Commission could make to accomplish this objective. This issue is
more appropriately addressed in the context of negotiating mutual
recognition agreements or arrangements (MRAs) with other
administrations than in this proceeding. We therefore decline to make
any rule changes concerning the acceptance of U.S. laboratory
accreditations by foreign regulators.
Procedural Matters
12. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),\1\ requires that a
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' \2\ The
RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \3\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et.
seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act
of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1966) (CWAAA). Title II
of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
\2\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\3\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Second Report and Order modified the rules to allow part 15
information statements to be provided to the user of equipment in
alternative forms, such as on a CD-ROM or over the
[[Page 71383]]
Internet. The Second Report and Order also denied a request by G.E.
Interlogix to allow security system setup transmissions of greater
duration than the five second limit currently in Sec. 15.231(a) of the
rules. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the
Second Report and Order.\5\ Following publication of the Second Report
and Order, Cisco and ITI filed their petitions seeking to allow the
compliance information statement for equipment authorized under the DoC
procedure to be provided in alternative forms. G.E. Interlogix filed a
petition requesting that the Commission reconsider its denial of G.E.
Interlogix's request to permit longer duration transmissions during the
setup of security systems. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order we are
amending the rules to allow DoC compliance information statements to be
included in alternative forms and to allow longer duration setup
transmissions for security systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 68 FR 68531, 68541, December 9, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. These amendments to the rules will affect manufacturers of
radio frequency devices that are authorized under the DoC procedure and
manufacturers of security systems, and it is the Commission's belief
that many of these manufacturers are small businesses. The changes in
the Memorandum Opinion and Order are deregulatory in nature because
they eliminate the need for manufacturers to supply paper statements
with equipment subject to DoC and allow greater flexibility in the
setup of security systems. For this reason, these changes will not
result in a ``significant economic burden'' on manufacturers.
Therefore, we certify that the amendments included in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
15. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996.\6\ In addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order and this
certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordering Clauses
16. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this
Memorandum Opinion and Order is adopted and parts 2 and 15 of the
Commission's Rules are amended as set forth in the attached appendix
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
17. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the
motion for partial reconsideration filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. on
September 12, 2003 is granted to the extent indicated herein.
18. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the
motion for reconsideration and clarification filed by the Information
Technology Institute on September 17, 2003 is granted in part and
denied in part to the extent indicated herein.
19. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the
petition for reconsideration filed by G.E. Interlogix, Inc. on January
8, 2004 is granted to the extent indicated herein.
20. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in Parts 2 and 15
Communications equipment.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 15 to read as
follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336 unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Section 2.1077 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1077 Compliance information.
* * * * *
(c) The compliance information statement shall be included in the
user's manual or as a separate sheet. In cases where the manual is
provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a computer disk or
over the Internet, the information required by this section may be
included in the manual in that alternative form, provided the user can
reasonably be expected to have the capability to access information in
that form.
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
3. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336 and 544a.
0
4. Section 15.231 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.231 Periodic operation in the band 40.66-40.70 MHz and above
70 MHz.
(a) * * *
0
(5) Transmission of set-up information for security systems may exceed
the transmission duration limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section, provided such transmissions are under the control of a
professional installer and do not exceed ten seconds after a manually
operated switch is released or a transmitter is activated
automatically. Such set-up information may include data.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-27048 Filed 12-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P