Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment, 25916-25938 [2013-10315]
Download as PDF
25916
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
covered by typical self-insured group
health plans.
(c) MV percentage—(1) In general. An
eligible employer-sponsored plan’s MV
percentage is—
(i) The plan’s anticipated covered
medical spending for benefits provided
under a particular essential health
benefits (EHB) benchmark plan
described in 45 CFR 156.110 (EHB
coverage) for the MV standard
population based on the plan’s costsharing provisions;
(ii) Divided by the total anticipated
allowed charges for EHB coverage
provided to the MV standard
population; and
(iii) Expressed as a percentage.
(2) Wellness incentives—(i) In general.
Nondiscriminatory wellness program
incentives offered by an eligible
employer-sponsored plan that affect
deductibles, copayments, or other costsharing are treated as earned in
determining the plan’s MV percentage
to the extent the incentives relate to
tobacco use. These wellness program
incentives that do not relate to tobacco
use are treated as not earned.
(ii) Example. The following example
illustrates the rules of this paragraph
(c)(2):
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Example. (i) Employer X offers an eligible
employer-sponsored plan that reduces the
deductible by $300 for employees who do not
use tobacco products or who complete a
smoking cessation course. The deductible is
reduced by $200 if an employee completes
cholesterol screening within the first six
months of the plan year. Employee B does
not use tobacco and his deductible is $3,700.
Employee C uses tobacco and her deductible
is $4,000.
(ii) Under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section, only the incentives related to tobacco
use are considered in determining the plan’s
MV percentage. C is treated as having earned
the $300 incentive for attending a smoking
cessation course. Thus, the deductible for
determining for the MV percentage for both
Employees B and C is $3,700. The $200
incentive for completing cholesterol
screening is disregarded.
(3) Health savings accounts. Employer
contributions for the current plan year
to health savings accounts that are
offered with an eligible employersponsored plan are taken into account
for that plan year towards the plan’s MV
percentage.
(4) Health reimbursement
arrangements. Amounts newly made
available for the current plan year under
a health reimbursement arrangement
that is integrated with an eligible
employer-sponsored plan are taken into
account for that plan year towards the
plan’s MV percentage if the amounts
may be used only to reduce cost-sharing
for covered medical expenses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
(5) Expected spending adjustments for
health savings accounts and health
reimbursement arrangements. The
amount taken into account under
paragraph (c)(3) or (c)(4) of this section
is the amount of expected spending for
health care costs in a benefit year.
(d) Methods for determining MV. An
eligible employer-sponsored plan may
use one of the following methods to
determine whether the plan provides
MV—
(1) The MV Calculator made available
by HHS and IRS, with adjustments
permitted by paragraph (e) of this
section;
(2) One of the safe harbors established
by HHS and IRS and described in
published guidance, see § 601.601(d) of
this chapter;
(3) Actuarial certification, as
described in paragraph (f) of this
section, if an eligible employersponsored plan has nonstandard
features that are not compatible with the
MV Calculator and may materially affect
the MV percentage; or
(4) For plans in the small group
market, conformance with the
requirements for a level of metal
coverage defined at 45 CFR 156.140(b)
(bronze, silver, gold, or platinum).
(e) Scope of essential health benefits
and adjustment for benefits not
included in MV Calculator. An eligible
employer-sponsored plan may include
in calculating its MV percentage all
benefits included in any EHB
benchmark (as defined in 45 CFR part
156). An MV percentage that is
calculated using the MV Calculator may
be adjusted based on an actuarial
analysis that complies with the
requirements of paragraph (f) of this
section to the extent of the value of
these benefits that are outside the
parameters of the MV Calculator.
(f) Actuarial certification—(1) In
general. An actuarial certification under
paragraph (d)(3) of this section must
satisfy the requirements of this
paragraph (f).
(2) Membership in American
Academy of Actuaries. The actuary
must be a member of the American
Academy of Actuaries.
(3) Actuarial analysis. The actuary’s
analysis must be performed in
accordance with generally accepted
actuarial principles and methodologies
and specific standards that may be
provided in published guidance, see
§ 601.601(d) of this chapter.
(4) Use of MV Calculator. The actuary
must use the MV Calculator to
determine the plan’s MV percentage for
coverage the plan provides that is
measurable by the MV Calculator. The
actuary may perform an actuarial
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
analysis of the plan’s EHB coverage for
the MV standard population for benefits
not measured by the MV Calculator to
determine the effect of nonstandard
features that are not compatible with the
MV Calculator. The actuary may certify
the plan’s MV percentage based on the
MV percentage that results from use of
the MV Calculator and the actuarial
analysis of the plan’s coverage that is
not measured by the MV calculator.
(g) Effective/applicability date. This
section applies for taxable years ending
after December 31, 2013.
■ Par. 7. Section 1.6011–8 is amended
by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 1.6011–8 Requirement of income tax
return for taxpayers who claim the premium
tax credit under section 36B.
(a) Requirement of return. A taxpayer
who receives advance payments of the
premium tax credit under section 36B
must file an income tax return for that
taxable year on or before the due date
for the return (including extensions of
time for filing).
*
*
*
*
*
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013–10463 Filed 4–30–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 2, 15 and 68
[ET Docket No. 13–44; FCC 13–19]
Authorization of Radiofrequency
Equipment
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes
certain changes to the Commission’s
equipment authorization processes to
ensure that they continue to operate
efficiently and effectively. In particular,
it addresses the role of TCBs in
certifying RF equipment and postmarket surveillance, as well as the
Commission’s role in assessing TCB
performance. It also addresses the role
of test laboratories in the RF equipment
approval process, including
accreditation of test labs and the
Commission’s recognition of laboratory
accreditation bodies, and measurement
procedures used to determine RF
equipment compliance. The
Commission believes that the changes
proposed will enable new and
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
innovative products to be brought to
market as quickly as possible, thus
promoting competition in the provision
of RF equipment, while at the same time
protecting against interference among
radio services and devices using the RF
spectrum.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before June 17, 2013, and reply
comments must be filed on or before
July 17, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418–7506, email:
Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418–
2989.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ET Docket No. 13–44 and
RM–11652, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of
Engineering and Technology, Room 7–
A162, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th 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: 202–
418–0432.
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’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No.
13–44, FCC 13–19, adopted February 12,
2013, and released February 15, 2013.
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 complete text of this
document also may be purchased from
the Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street
SW., Room, CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be
downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
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 messengerdelivered 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), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Summary of Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
1. The Commission is responsible for
an equipment authorization program for
radiofrequency (RF) devices under part
2 of its rules. This program is one of the
primary means that the Commission
uses to ensure that the multitude of RF
devices used in the United States
operate effectively without causing
harmful interference and otherwise
comply with the Commission rules. All
RF devices subject to equipment
authorization must comply with the
Commission’s technical requirement
before they can be imported or
marketed. The Commission or a
Telecommunication Certification Body
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25917
(TCB) must approve some of these
devices before they can be imported or
marketed, while others do not require
such approval. The Commission last
comprehensively reviewed its
equipment authorization program more
than ten years ago. The rapid innovation
in equipment design since that time has
led to ever-accelerating growth in the
number of parties applying for
equipment approval. The Commission
therefore believes that the time is now
right for us to comprehensively review
our equipment authorization processes
to ensure that they continue to enable
this growth and innovation in the
wireless equipment market. In May of
2012, the Commission began this reform
process by issuing an Order to increase
the supply of available grantee codes.
With this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
continues its work to review and reform
the equipment authorization processes
and rules.
2. The NPRM proposes certain
changes to the Commission’s part 2
equipment authorization processes to
ensure that they continue to operate
efficiently and effectively. In particular,
it addresses the role of TCBs in
certifying RF equipment and postmarket surveillance, as well as the
Commission’s role in assessing TCB
performance. The NPRM also addressed
the role of test laboratories in the RF
equipment approval process, including
accreditation of test labs and the
Commission’s recognition of laboratory
accreditation bodies, and measurement
procedures used to determine RF
equipment compliance. Finally, it
proposes certain modifications to the
rules regarding TCBs that approve
terminal equipment under part 68 of the
rules that are consistent with our
proposed modifications to the rules for
TCBs that approve RF equipment.
Specifically the Commission proposes
to recognize the National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST) as the
organization that designates TCBs in the
United States and to modify the rules to
reference the current International
Organization for Standardization and
International Electrotechnical
Commission (ISO/IEC) guides used to
accredit TCBs.
3. The current RF equipment
authorization procedures have evolved
over the course of more than 35 years.
The last complete review of the
equipment authorization procedures
was conducted more than 10 years ago.
In the Equipment Authorization
Procedures Order of 1998, 63 FR 36591,
July 7, 1998, the Commission reduced
and consolidated the equipment
approval processes for RF equipment to
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25918
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
three types—certification, Declaration of
Conformity (DoC), and verification;
relaxed the equipment authorization
requirement from certification to
Declaration of Conformity for certain
part 15 unintentional radiators and part
18 consumer industrial, scientific, and
medical (ISM) equipment; relaxed the
equipment authorization requirement
from notification to verification for
certain transmitters operated in licensed
services; and provided for electronic
filing of applications for equipment
authorization. These actions were
designed to reduce the burden of the
equipment authorization program on
manufacturers.
4. Subsequently, in the Streamlining
II Order, the Commission amended its
equipment authorization rules to further
streamline the equipment authorization
process by allowing accredited
independent certification bodies, called
Telecommunication Certification Bodies
(TCBs), to approve most types of
equipment that require certification.
The Commission took this action
pursuant to its authority under Section
302(e) of the Communications Act,
which permits it to delegate equipment
testing and certification to private
organizations. It established the TCB
program to provide manufacturers with
an alternative to obtaining certification
from the Commission, and to facilitate
the more rapid introduction of RF
equipment in the market. TCBs approve
equipment under the certification
procedure based on an application that
provides all of the information specified
in part 2. The TCB processes the
application to determine whether the
product meets the Commission’s
requirements and issues a grant of
equipment authorization through the
Commission’s Equipment Authorization
System (EAS). The grant identifies the
approving TCB and the Commission as
the issuing authority. While the
Commission continues to process most
types of certification applications, TCBs
now issue the vast majority of grants of
certification. In order to ensure that the
TCBs’ evaluations are properly
performed, the Commission holds
mandatory monthly conference calls
and semi-annual workshops with all
TCBs to discuss recent interpretations,
policy changes and any other issues or
concerns related to the TCB program.
The Commission also performs audits
on TCB approvals to ensure that TCBs
operate in accordance with our rules. If
such audits reveal concerns about a
particular TCB’s performance, the
Commission may initiate action to
verify the TCB’s technical competence
and may revoke the recognition of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
TCB that does not operate in accordance
with the rules.
5. TCBs, which may be located in the
United States or in certain foreign
countries, all have the same
responsibilities regardless of their
location. However, their location
dictates the method by which they are
designated. TCBs within the United
States are designated by the
Commission after demonstrating that
they are accredited to meet the
applicable requirements by NIST or its
designated accrediting organization.
Certification bodies located outside of
the United States can be recognized as
a TCB only under the terms of a Mutual
Recognition Agreement (MRA) between
a foreign country and the United States
government. Each MRA specifies an
authority, typically a government entity
that designates TCBs in the country or
countries covered by the MRA. The
Commission then recognizes the
designated TCBs. No TCBs are
designated in countries that do not have
an MRA with the United States.
Manufacturers in such countries have to
obtain product certification at a
designated TCB in another country.
6. The specific provisions of the three
current RF equipment authorization
procedures are described below.
Certification is an equipment
authorization issued by the Commission
or by a designated TCB based on an
application and test data submitted by
the responsible party (e.g., the
manufacturer or importer). The
Commission or a TCB may re-test a
sample of a device to verify that it
complies with the rules before granting
approval for the equipment to be
marketed. The certification procedure is
typically applied to RF equipment that
has a greater risk of non-compliance,
such as equipment employing new
technology for which the testing
methodology is not well defined, or that
poses a higher risk of interference.
Examples of devices subject to
certification include, but are not limited
to, mobile phones; wireless local area
networking equipment, remote control
transmitters; land mobile radio
transmitters; wireless medical telemetry
transmitters; cordless telephones; and
walkie-talkies. All certified equipment
is listed in a Commission database,
regardless of whether it is approved by
the Commission or a TCB.
Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a
procedure that requires the party
responsible for compliance to follow
certain measurement requirements and/
or take other necessary steps to ensure
that the equipment complies with the
appropriate technical standards. A
compliance information statement must
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
be supplied with the product,
identifying the product and a
responsible party within the United
States, and containing the statement
specified in § 15.19(a)(3). The
responsible party is not required to file
an equipment authorization application
with the Commission or a TCB, or to
submit a sample unit or test data unless
specifically requested. However, the
responsible party must submit to the
Commission upon request records of the
original design drawings and
specifications, the procedures used for
production inspection and testing, a
report of RF emission measurements,
the compliance information statement,
and a sample of the device. The DoC
authorization procedure is typically
required for types of RF equipment that
have a good record of compliance,
where the testing methodology is clearly
defined and recognized by the
Commission, and there is a low risk of
interference. Examples of devices
subject to a DoC include personal
computers and peripherals, consumer
ISM equipment such as microwave
ovens and RF light bulbs, radio
receivers and TV interface devices.
Equipment authorized under the DoC
procedure is not listed in a Commission
database.
Verification is a procedure under
which the party responsible for
compliance relies on measurements that
it or another party makes to ensure that
the equipment complies with the
appropriate technical standards. Under
the verification procedure, the
responsible party is not required to file
an application with the Commission.
Submission of a sample unit or
representative data to the Commission
demonstrating compliance is not
required unless specifically requested
by the Commission. The responsible
party must submit to the Commission
upon request records of the original
design drawings and specifications, the
procedures used for production
inspection and testing, a report of RF
emission measurements, and a sample
of the device. Verification, which is the
least burdensome equipment
authorization procedure, is applied to
types of RF equipment that have an
excellent record of compliance, the
testing methodology is well known and
understood, and there is low risk of
interference. Examples of devices
subject to verification include nonconsumer ISM equipment; TV and FM
receivers; and business computer
equipment. Devices subject to
verification must be uniquely identified
in a format which cannot be confused
with the FCC identifier required on
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
certified equipment. Equipment
authorized under the verification
procedure is not listed in a Commission
database.
7. RF equipment subject to any of the
equipment authorization procedures
described must generally be tested for
compliance with the Commission’s
technical rules. The Commission has
general requirements on the
qualifications of laboratories that
perform compliance testing, and certain
specific requirements on laboratories
that test equipment under particular
rule parts or authorization procedures.
For example, equipment authorized
under the DoC procedure must be tested
by a laboratory that is accredited as
meeting the requirements of ISO/IEC
Standard 17025, General Requirements
for the Competence of Calibration and
Testing Laboratories, by a Commissionrecognized accreditation organization.
Laboratories that test equipment subject
to certification under parts 15 and 18 of
the rules are not required to be
accredited, but must be on a list
maintained by the Commission.
Equipment authorized pursuant to
certification under rule parts other than
parts 15 or 18, or any equipment
authorized under verification, may be
tested by the manufacturer or by an
independent testing laboratory that is
not required to be accredited or listed
with the Commission. The Commission
may conduct post-market testing of
equipment authorized under any of the
three procedures to ensure that
equipment on the market complies with
the Commission’s technical
requirements. Additionally, TCBs are
required to perform post-market
surveillance on a certain percentage of
products they have certified.
Given the changes in RF devices,
technologies, and manufacturing
methods that have occurred since the
Commission last comprehensively
reviewed its equipment authorization
procedures, we believe that it is time to
revisit the equipment authorization
procedures to ensure that they are
appropriate for the types of equipment
being marketed today and for the
increasingly intensive use of the
airwaves. We are initiating this
proceeding to explore improvements
that can be made to our RF equipment
authorization processes to efficiently
achieve the goals of preventing
interference to communications services
without hindering the rapid
introduction of new and innovative
products to the market.
8. In particular, the Commission
proposed that it will no longer conduct
evaluations for initially approving RF
equipment requiring certification under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
the procedures in part 2 of the rules,
and that TCBs will approve all such
equipment in the first instance,
including equipment on the ‘‘exclusion
list’’ that only the Commission may
currently approve. The Commission also
proposed to clarify and modify the rules
on TCB responsibilities. Specifically, it
proposed to codify the ‘‘permit-but-ask’’
procedure that TCBs must use when
certifying new technologies when
testing protocols have not been
established, clarify the responsibility of
TCBs to perform post-market
surveillance of products they have
approved, and specify steps that can be
taken if a TCB’s performance were
found to be deficient. The Commission
also proposed to require accreditation of
all laboratories that test equipment
subject to the part 2 certification
procedure, and to codify the existing
procedure through which the
Commission can recognize new
laboratory accreditation bodies. In
addition, it proposed to incorporate the
latest versions of the industry standards
for measuring equipment into the rules
and address how to update these
standards more quickly in the future.
Finally, the Commission proposed to
modify the rules to reference the current
ISO/IEC standards used to accredit
TCBs that approve RF equipment under
part 2 of the Commission’s rules and
terminal equipment under part 68 of the
Commission’s rules. The specific issues
and proposals on which it seeks
comments are discussed in detail in the
NPRM. The Commission believes that
the changes proposed will enable new
and innovative products to be brought
to market as quickly as possible, thus
promoting competition in the provision
of RF equipment, while at the same time
protecting against interference among
radio services and devices using the RF
spectrum.
9. Many of the changes proposed
herein are administrative in nature and
the Commission believes that there
would be minimal or no costs associated
with them. It recognizes that certain
proposed changes, such as requiring
laboratories to become accredited,
would result in some increased costs.
The Commission expects that the
benefits of the proposed changes would
be greater than the additional costs that
would be incurred. The Commission
seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of the rule changes proposed, along with
data supporting commenters’
assessments.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25919
A. TCB Program
1. Certification of RF Equipment
10. One goal of the Commission in
allowing TCBs to perform equipment
approvals was to enable it to
discontinue processing routine
applications when TCBs were available
to perform the work. The Commission,
however, did not commit to ending its
role in issuing equipment authorizations
altogether. The Commission concluded
at that time that it was unnecessary for
it to continue approving certification
applications for personal computers and
peripherals, since that equipment could
be authorized through the DoC
procedure. It found that processing
these voluntarily filed applications was
not an efficient use of its resources, and
stated that once domestic TCBs were
available to process applications for
personal computer equipment for those
applicants who chose to use the
certification process rather than DoC,
the Commission would stop accepting
these applications. The Commission
issued a public notice in September
2000 announcing that it would no
longer accept applications for personal
computer equipment. However, the
Commission has continued to accept
applications for all other types of
equipment during the implementation
of the TCB program. This practice has
provided a smooth transition to TCB
certification of equipment authorization
applications, and ensured that at least
one entity is available to certify all types
of equipment.
11. Under the current rules, a TCB is
not permitted to certify equipment for
which Commission rules or
requirements do not exist or for which
the application of the rules or
requirements are unclear. In some
rulemaking proceedings, the
Commission has identified specific
categories of equipment that TCBs are
not allowed to certify, such as TV bands
devices and split modular transmitters.
OET maintains an up-to-date list of the
types of equipment that a TCB is not
allowed to certify and publishes this
‘‘exclusion list’’ on the Commission’s
Knowledge DataBase (KDB) system. To
enable TCBs to certify more types of
devices, OET has established a ‘‘permitbut-ask’’ procedure that allows TCBs to
review applications for certification of
equipment that would otherwise be
excluded from approval by a TCB.
These procedures allow the prospective
applicant and TCB to seek guidance
prior to filing the application for
certification. Based on information
submitted from the initiating party in a
permit-but-ask request, the Commission
provides guidance on test methods and
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25920
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the applicability of the Commission’s
technical requirements specific to the
device for which authorization is to be
requested. This is an electronic inquiry/
response process that is linked to the
electronic equipment authorization
system. The TCB then reviews the
application for certification based on the
guidance received from the
Commission. Once a TCB has completed
a review of equipment covered by the
permit-but-ask procedure, it confirms
with OET that appropriate measures
have been taken to demonstrate
compliance with the guidance provided
by OET prior to issuing a grant of
certification. The appropriate measures
include seeking guidance on proper test
procedures, applying interpretations of
technical rules or applying specific
review procedures as provided by the
Commission staff prior to the final
approval.
12. The Commission maintains a
database of all RF equipment certified
by the Commission and TCBs. This
database allows the Commission to
verify that a device is approved without
having to contact the TCB that approved
the device to obtain the records
demonstrating compliance with the FCC
requirements. The database also allows
the Commission to monitor the
activities of TCBs to determine how
many approvals are issued for each type
of equipment. Further, this database
provides a single publicly available
source of information that parties can
use to verify approvals and obtain
copies of applications for and grants of
certification.
13. Proposals. Now that the TCB
program is well-established, the
Commission proposes that the
Commission no longer directly issue
any grants of equipment authorization,
and instead allow TCBs to authorize all
products subject to certification. This
proposal will allow the Commission
staff to concentrate on enforcing the
rules, providing the necessary oversight
and guidance to the TCBs, performing
post-market surveillance and auditing
random samples of products approved
by the TCBs. The Commission notes that
during Fiscal Year 2011, TCBs certified
approximately 98% of the products
submitted for approval under the
Commission’s RF equipment
authorization program. It also proposes
to provide TCBs with specific authority
to dismiss equipment authorization
applications under the same
circumstances that the Commission may
dismiss applications. Specifically, the
Commission proposes that a TCB shall
dismiss an application that is not in
accordance with the provisions of
Subpart 2 or if requested by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
applicant, and the TCB may dismiss an
application if the applicant fails to
provide additional information or test
samples requested by the TCB. The
dismissal of an application would be
without prejudice to the applicant filing
a new application under the same FCC
identification number with additional or
corrected information. An applicant
could appeal a TCB’s dismissal of an
application to the Commission if it
believed that the TCB acted in error, and
the Commission could change a TCB’s
action that it finds erroneous. However,
the Commission is not proposing to
provide TCBs with authority to deny
applications, which it believes is a
function that should be reserved for the
Commission. A TCB could recommend
denial of an application to the
Commission which would determine if
such action is warranted. A TCB would
continue to have authority to rescind a
grant within 30 days as the rules
currently allow for both TCBs and the
Commission, but we are proposing to
change the term ‘‘rescind’’ to ‘‘set aside’’
for consistency with the part 1 rules.
The Commission does not expect that
this proposal will have any impact on
applicant’s costs because TCBs already
certify approximately 98% of all RF
equipment. Further, the benefits are
significant because applicants for
equipment certification would be able to
have all types of devices approved by a
TCB and obtain approvals more quickly.
The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals.
14. The Commission proposes to
eliminate the exclusion list and instead
codify a procedure that TCBs will use
when they require guidance from the
Commission to certify a product for
which the rules, requirements or
measurement procedures are not clear.
It proposes to call this the pre-approval
guidance procedure. Under this
procedure, the Commission will identify
the types of devices or types of testing
for which a TCB will be required to
consult with the Commission before
granting certification. These may
include, for example, devices operating
under the Dynamic Frequency Selection
(DFS), Ultra Wide Band (UWB) and TV
Bands Device (TVBD) rules under which
the Commission is the only equipment
approval body at the present time.
Under our proposed procedure, the
Commission would have to give its
concurrence before a TCB could grant
an application. The Commission also
would advise a TCB if additional
information or equipment testing is
required or if the equipment cannot be
approved because it does not comply
with the Commission’s rules. In this
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
manner, although ultimately the
authorization is granted by a TCB, the
Commission will continue to exercise
the necessary control and oversight of
particular areas of the rules until such
time that it determines these areas can
be considered routine and these
additional oversight procedures will not
be needed. The Commission expects
that having TCBs process applications
for equipment currently on the
exclusion list under the proposed preapproval guidance procedure will speed
processing because TCBs will perform
all of the routine application review,
while OET will need to review only
those portions of an application that
require additional oversight. We seek
comment on this proposal.
15. The current permit-but-ask
process does not fully integrate the
inquiry/response function in the KDB
with the application processing function
in the Equipment Authorization System
(EAS). This process requires a TCB to
first send a request through the KDB for
Commission guidance on processing an
application on the permit-but-ask list.
The TCB then uploads files for
Commission review using the EAS,
which is a separate system from the
KDB. Any further communications
between the Commission and a TCB are
made using the KDB. Therefore, both
the Commission and TCBs must cross
reference application files and related
communications that are stored on
different electronic systems. As a result,
the process has sometimes been time
consuming for applicants and TCBs.
The Commission intends to fully
integrate the pre-approval guidance
procedure with the EAS, thereby
improving Commission response time
while continuing to provide necessary
guidance for new equipment
representing new technologies.
16. Under the present process, the
Commission may test a sample of
certain types of equipment before it
gives a TCB permission to issue a grant
of certification. For example, for
equipment subject to the Dynamic
Frequency Selection (DFS) requirements
in part 15, subpart E, the Commission
requires a sample of the equipment
being considered for certification be
tested at the Commission’s Laboratory
prior to the grant of certification being
issued. The Commission proposes to
provide that the pre-approval guidance
procedure include the option for the
Commission to conduct pre-grant
sample testing to ensure that the
Commission is able to request samples
of devices to verify their compliance
with the rules. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
17. In summary, the proposed preapproval guidance procedure would
function as follows:
1. The Commission will issue a KDB
publication identifying the categories of
equipment or types of testing that come
under the pre-approval guidance
procedure. This list will include devices
currently on the exclusion and permitbut-ask lists.
2. The TCB will perform an initial
review of the application and determine
the issues on which it needs to obtain
guidance from the Commission. It will
then contact the Commission to obtain
guidance on those issues by
electronically submitting relevant
exhibits.
3. The TCB will review the
application in accordance with the
Commission’s guidance to determine
whether the equipment complies with
the Commission’s rules.
4. The Commission may request and
test a sample before the application can
be granted.
5. The TCB will electronically submit
all exhibits to the Commission along
with a recommendation to grant or
dismiss the application.
6. The Commission will give its
concurrence for the TCB to grant the
application if it determines that the
equipment complies with the rules. The
Commission will advise the TCB if
additional information or equipment
testing is required, or if the equipment
cannot be approved because it does not
comply with the Commission’s rules.
The Commission seeks comment on this
proposed procedure and on any
additions or modifications that may be
required.
18. Under the current rules, an
application for certification of RF
equipment is made by filing FCC Form
731 and the supporting information
required by the rules, including a
measurement report, instruction
manuals, and equipment photographs
and diagrams. For equipment certified
by the Commission, the application
form and supporting information must
be filed electronically with the EAS at
the URL specified in the rules. For
equipment certified by TCBs, the
applicant files the information required
by Form 731 and all required exhibits
directly with a TCB. The Commission’s
rules also require that applicants, to be
eligible for any instrument of
authorization from the Commission,
must certify that they comply with the
Implementation of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 and are responsible for
ensuring that statements made in an
application for authorization are true
and correct to the best of their
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
knowledge and belief. Signatures
required on the application may be in
electronic format.
19. The Commission proposes to
modify its rules to clarify the
responsibilities of applicants for
equipment authorization and of the
TCBs that will process these
applications through the Commission’s
electronic systems. It proposes to
modify § 2.911 to state that applicants
shall send a written, signed request for
equipment authorization to a TCB. The
Commission would continue to permit
signatures in electronic format. It also
proposes to modify the rule to make
explicit that applicants provide the TCB
with the information required by Form
731 in writing or electronic format,
including all exhibits that the TCB
requires to process the application and
to complete Form 731 in the
Commission electronic system. For
example, applicants would have to
provide the TCB with an FCC
Registration Number (FRN) and a
grantee code if these have already been
assigned to the applicant by the
Commission. The Commission further
proposes that an applicant must provide
the TCB with signed written
certifications stating that it complies
with Implementation of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 and that all
statements made in the application are
correct to the best of its knowledge and
belief. Additionally, the Commission
proposes that the TCB must submit the
applicant’s certifications as exhibits
when it uploads Form 731 applications
to the Commission. The Commission is
also proposing to incorporate into
§ 2.911 the requirement from § 2.913
that applications must be accompanied
by the appropriate fees since new
applicants for certification must submit
a fee to obtain a grantee code, and this
function could be handled by a TCB if
an applicant authorizes a TCB to do so.
However, because that is the only
equipment authorization fee listed in
§ 1.1103 of the rules that a TCB or an
applicant might need to submit to the
Commission, the Commission proposes
to modify § 1.1103 to eliminate
equipment authorization fees that
would no longer be collected by the
Commission if TCBs approve all
equipment subject to certification. The
Commission does not expect that these
proposals will be burdensome because
TCBs should already be obtaining the
required certifications and any other
information that they need from
applicants to complete their Form 731.
The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals.
20. The rules currently require that a
TCB supply the Commission with
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25921
electronic copies of FCC Form 731 and
the grant of equipment authorization for
each RF device certified by the TCB.
The rules do not require TCBs to submit
other supporting information from the
certification application, but they
specify that the Commission can request
the complete application and exhibits
from a TCB if it needs additional
information about a particular device. In
order for the Commission to effectively
perform its program oversight and
enforcement role, it is necessary to have
the TCB submit a complete copy of the
certification application to the database,
including all the photographs, user
manuals and test reports. The
Commission therefore routinely request
that TCBs submit complete information
for each certification application that
they approve.
21. The Commission proposes to
amend § 2.926(g)(1) of the rules to
require that TCBs provide the
Commission with a complete copy of
each certification application that they
process, including all exhibits required
by the Commission’s rules, prior to
issuance of a grant of certification or
dismissal of the application. The TCB
would grant or dismiss equipment
authorization applications through the
Commission’s electronic EAS. The
Commission also proposes to move to
this section the language concerning the
confidentiality of application exhibits
from § 2.962(g)(4) and remove the
remainder of § 2.962(g)(4) as
unnecessary since it refers to full
applications being sent to the
Commission upon request. These
proposed changes will codify the
current Commission practice of
obtaining complete information for all
equipment certified by TCBs prior to the
issuance of a grant, and will provide
notice to the Commission and other
TCBs concerning which applications
were dismissed. The changes would not
result in any significantly increased
burden for TCBs because they already
supply the complete application and all
exhibits to the Commission for
equipment that they approve, and the
Commission expects that the number of
dismissed applications that they would
have to submit to the Commission will
be small in comparison to those they
grant. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals.
22. The Commission also proposes to
make a number of minor revisions to the
part 2 rules to reflect the fact that TCBs
would approve all RF equipment subject
to the part 2 certification requirement.
In particular, the Commission notes that
the following sections refer to
certification applications being
processed by the Commission and
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
25922
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
propose to modify the language in these
sections to reflect the Commission’s
proposals that TCBs will process all
certification applications: 2.901 (Basis
and purpose), 2.907 (Certification),
2.909 (Responsible party), 2.915 (Grant
of application), 2.917 (Dismissal of
application), 2.919 (Denial of
application), 2.921 (Hearing on
application), 2.924 (Marketing of
electrically identical equipment * * *),
2.925 (Identification of equipment),
2.926 (FCC identifier), 2.927
(Limitations on grants), 2.929 (Changes
in name, address, ownership or control
of grantee), 2.932 (Modification of
equipment), 2.933 (Change in
identification of equipment), 2.947
(Measurement procedure), and 2.1043
(Changes in certificated equipment).
The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and whether there are any
other sections in part 2 or other rule
parts that need to be modified if TCBs
approve all RF equipment requiring
certification.
2. Post Market Surveillance
23. TCBs must be accredited to
demonstrate that they comply with the
Commission’s TCB qualification criteria
based on ISO/IEC Guide 65, General
requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems. Section
2.962(g)(2) states that, in accordance
with ISO/IEC Guide 65, a TCB is
required to conduct appropriate postmarket surveillance activities on
equipment that it certifies. This rule
section requires that these activities be
based on ‘‘type testing’’ (i.e., sample
testing) of samples of the product types
that the TCB has certified. Other types
of surveillance activities of a product
that has been certified are permitted
provided they are no more onerous than
type testing. This rule section also states
that the Commission may at any time
request a list of products certified by a
certification body and request copies of
product evaluation reports. In addition,
the Commission may request that a TCB
perform post-market surveillance of a
specific product it has certified. The
Commission has authority to require
grantees of certification to submit
samples for testing at the FCC
Laboratory, but there is no rule that
specifically states that a TCB may
request samples directly from the
grantee of certification.
24. OET has delegated authority
under the Commission’s rules to
develop the procedures that TCBs will
use for performing post-market
surveillance. OET has provided
information to TCBs on performing
post-market surveillance in KDB
Publication No. 610077. This
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
publication requires TCBs to develop a
sample test plan and describes the
criteria TCBs must use in selecting
samples. TCBs must perform postmarket surveillance testing on at least
five percent of the products that they
certify each year. This publication also
describes how TCBs should obtain and
evaluate samples and requires that they
submit a report on their findings to
OET.
25. Proposals. The Commission
proposes to modify the rules on postmarket surveillance to more clearly
define the responsibilities of TCBs.
Specifically, it proposes to modify
§ 2.962 to indicate that OET publishes a
KDB on TCB post-market surveillance
requirements, and that this document
provides specific information such as
the number and types of samples that a
TCB must test. The Commission also
proposes to provide TCBs with clear
authority to request samples of
equipment that they have certified
directly from the grantee of certification.
In this regard, the Commission notes
that there are currently six different
sections in part 2 of the rules that
address the submission of equipment
samples for testing, so it is proposing to
merge these and create a single rule
section that addresses equipment
sample requests.
26. OET may want TCBs to perform
post-market surveillance on specific
devices or categories of equipment due
to concerns about interference or
equipment non-compliance. In such
cases, the Commission proposes that
OET would send a sample request
directly to the grantee of certification
and request that the grantee submit the
sample directly to the TCB that
performed the original certification for
evaluation. OET will also notify the TCB
that it has requested that the grantee
submit a sample, and that the TCB must
test the device. Any equipment samples
requested by the Commission for testing
by a TCB would be included in the
minimum required post-market
surveillance testing by the TCB. The
Commission also proposes that failure
of a grantee to submit a sample to a TCB
within 21 days may be cause for the
Commission to take actions such as
suspending action on other applications
for equipment authorization submitted
by that grantee or issuing monetary
forfeitures pursuant to § 1.80 of this
chapter. The Commission may consider
extensions of time upon submission of
a showing of good cause.
27. The Commission proposes that, if
the TCB determines that the equipment
does not comply with the Commission’s
requirements for such devices, the TCB
shall immediately notify the grantee and
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Commission in writing. The
Commission also proposes that the
grantee must provide the TCB with
information on the corrective action that
it has taken to bring the equipment into
compliance and that the TCB will have
30 days to submit a report on these
actions to the Commission. It further
proposes to require that TCBs submit
periodic reports of their post-market
surveillance activities and findings by a
date determined by OET, but the
Commission is are not proposing to
specify the date in the rules to provide
OET with the flexibility to modify it if
necessary. The Commission does not
expect that these proposals will impose
any new costs on TCBs or grantees of
certification because TCBs must already
perform post-market surveillance testing
on at least 5% of the devices they
approve, and grantees are already
required to supply a test sample upon
request.
28. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals. It also seeks
comment on how we would coordinate
sample requests to ensure that the
Commission and TCBs do not send
duplicate requests for the same device
or requests for more samples than the
TCB is required to test. The Commission
further seek comment on whether there
should be cross-checking among TCBs,
so that a TCB would test some
equipment that another TCB approved.
If so, how would it determine which
sampled equipment is to be tested by
which TCB? If a TCB is required to test
a sample device approved by a different
TCB, who should bear the cost of testing
and reporting? The Commission we also
seeks comment on ways that the
Commission could obtain samples from
the retail market that are part of the
oversight process. For example, could
the grantee provide a voucher that the
Commission could use to obtain a
sample from a retail outlet of its
choosing, or could the grantee arrange
for the Commission to pick a sample at
random from a distributor? The
Commission notes that in some cases, it
may need special test software so that it
can verify a device’s compliance with
the rules. The Commission seeks
comment on how it should obtain any
special test software for use with
unmodified production devices that it
obtains from the market. The
Commission further seeks comment on
whether its proposals would impose any
new costs on TCBs or grantees, and if
so, whether the benefits of the proposals
outweigh the costs.
3. Assessing TCB Performance
29. Because the Commission is
proposing to allow TCBs to approve all
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
RF equipment that is subject to
certification, it will become increasingly
important to ensure that recognized
TCBs continue to meet all relevant
Commission requirements and that we
minimize the possibility that equipment
could be certified without fully
complying with our technical rules. For
an organization to be recognized as a
TCB, the Commission requires that it be
accredited to demonstrate compliance
with ISO/IEC Guide 65 for operating a
certification body. The rules currently
provide that TCBs within the United
States may be designated by the
Commission after demonstrating that
they are accredited in accordance with
this guide by NIST or its recognized
accrediting organization. NIST
recognizes ANSI and A2LA to accredit
prospective TCBs. TCBs outside the
United States must be accredited and
designated by an authority recognized
under the terms of an MRA, and their
designation must be recognized by the
Commission. In addition, a TCB must
demonstrate expert knowledge of the
regulations for each product type for
which it seeks recognition; recognize
when interpretations of the rules or test
procedures are necessary and
demonstrate knowledge of how to
obtain current and correct
interpretations; and participate in
consultative activities identified by the
Commission to establish a common
understanding and interpretation of the
regulations. A prospective TCB must
demonstrate its knowledge and
expertise to the organization that
performs the accreditation for
compliance with ISO/IEC Guide 65. The
Commission has prepared a checklist of
the subject areas that accreditors must
assess.
30. If the Commission has concerns
regarding the performance of a TCB, it
may initiate action to verify the TCB’s
current technical competence and
conformity with the designation and
recognition requirements. In particular,
the rules state that the Commission will
withdraw designation of a domestic
TCB if the TCB’s accreditation is
withdrawn, if the Commission
determines there is just cause for
withdrawing the designation, or if the
TCB no longer wants the designation.
The rules state that the Commission will
provide a domestic TCB with a 30-day
notice of its intention to withdraw the
TCB’s designation and provide it with
an opportunity to respond. In the case
of TCBs recognized pursuant to an
MRA, each MRA describes a procedure
for the Commission to follow to
challenge a TCB’s technical competence
with the specified designating authority.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
The Commission’s rules state that it will
provide a TCB recognized under an
MRA at least 30 days to respond in
cases of disputes with respect to its
designation or recognition and that it
will consult with the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) as
necessary. The Commission’s
Enforcement Bureau may also
investigate cases involving possible
misconduct by TCBs and will take
appropriate actions as required.
31. At present, the rules describe
procedures only for the withdrawal of
the designation or recognition of a TCB
and do not specify any less severe
actions that the Commission could take
if it has concerns about the performance
of a particular TCB. If an organization
wishes to reapply to be a TCB following
withdrawal of its designation or
recognition, it must complete a new
evaluation and accreditation process to
determine if it meets the designation
criteria, which can be a lengthy and
complex process. Based on the
Commission’s experience with the TCB
program, it has found cases where it has
had concerns about a TCB’s
performance, but did not believe that
revoking its authority to certify
equipment would be an appropriate
remedy. For example, such cases could
result when a TCB misinterpreted the
rules or measurement procedures, failed
to familiarize itself with the latest
Commission guidance documents, or
did not realize when it needed to obtain
additional guidance from the
Commission. The Commission may
discover concerns about TCB
performance when auditing granted
applications and discovering that
applications are missing required
exhibits or that the Commission can not
determine whether the equipment
complies with all requirements in the
rules. The Commission believes that
cases such as these could be
appropriately addressed in some
instances by simply having the TCB take
corrective action, such as additional
consultation with the Commission and
better staff training.
32. Proposals. As an initial matter, the
Commission proposes to modify the
rules to clarify the role of NIST in
designating domestic TCBs. By way of
background, there are three steps that an
entity must follow to become a TCB.
First, a prospective TCB must obtain
accreditation from a Commissionrecognized organization to demonstrate
that it complies with the requirements
of ISO/IEC Standard 17025 and Guide
65. Second, a prospective TCB must
apply to the government agency that has
the authority to designate TCBs
(‘‘designating authority’’) in the country
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25923
where the TCB is located and
demonstrate that it complies with all of
the Commission’s requirements to
become a TCB. Third, the designation of
the prospective TCB must be recognized
by the Commission, which places the
names of TCBs acceptable for
performing equipment certification on a
publicly available list. Under the
current rules, NIST is the accreditor for
TCBs in the United States, and the
Commission is the designating
authority. NIST may also allow other
qualified organizations to accredit TCBs.
33. The current practice for
designating TCBs in the United States is
for prospective TCBs to apply directly to
NIST after being accredited to ISO/IEC
Standard 17025 and Guide 65 by a
recognized accreditor. NIST evaluates
the qualifications of prospective TCBs to
ensure that they comply with all of the
Commission’s TCB requirements. NIST
then forwards to the Commission
information about the TCBs it found
compliant with the Commission’s
requirements. Therefore, NIST
effectively operates as the designating
authority for TCBs within the United
States. Consistent with this practice, the
Commission proposes to modify
§§ 2.960(b) and 68.160(b) of the rules to
recognize NIST as the designating
authority for TCBs within the United
States. NIST would continue to have
authority to designate other
organizations to accredit TCBs as it does
now. To ensure effective oversight of the
TCB program, the Commission proposes
that an organization designated by NIST
as a TCB would have to be recognized
by the Commission before it could
function as a TCB, and that the
Commission could withdraw its
recognition of a TCB designated by
NIST that does not operate in
accordance with the rules. This change
would make the designation and
recognition requirements for domestic
and foreign TCBs more consistent, in
that in both cases the Commission
would rely on other organizations to
accredit and designate TCBs, but the
Commission would have to recognize
the designated TCBs before they could
operate, and the Commission could
withdraw its recognition of a TCB that
exhibits serious performance problems.
The Commission does not expect that
these proposals would result in any
additional costs on TCBs or other
parties since the proposals would
merely codify the existing practices that
have evolved over time. The
Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
34. The Commission also proposes to
amend the rules to provide additional
measures that the Commission could
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25924
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
take to address TCB performance issues
that are less severe than the complete
withdrawal of a TCB’s designation or
recognition. These proposed measures
are designed to address performance
issues that can be resolved through
relatively simple corrective measures by
a TCB, and are not intended to limit the
Commission’s ability to act quickly if
serious misconduct by a TCB were to
occur. Specifically, the Commission
proposes that it will first notify a TCB
in writing when it has evidence that the
TCB is not approving equipment in
accordance with the Commission’s rules
and policies and request that it correct
any apparent deficiencies. The
Commission may monitor all grants by
a TCB during the time it provides for it
to respond to us, and the Commission
would set aside any grants found to be
in error within the 30 day time period
provided in the rules. If a TCB does not
demonstrate that it has satisfactorily
resolved the performance issues
identified by the Commission, it is
proposes that the Commission may
temporarily require that all certification
applications filed with that TCB be
processed using the pre-approval
guidance procedure for a period of at
least 30 days. This would provide the
Commission an opportunity to review
all of that TCB’s applications prior to
grant to ascertain whether it has
corrected the identified performance
deficiencies. The Commission further
proposes that it will provide a TCB with
a 30-day notice of its intent to require
that applications be processed under the
pre-approval guidance procedure unless
the Commission finds good cause to
require a more immediate
implementation of this protective
measure. A shorter time frame may be
appropriate, for example, in cases where
the Commission discovers that a TCB
has a pattern of approving equipment
that is non-compliant with the rules,
particularly equipment that has a high
potential for causing harmful
interference. The Commission also
proposed that when a TCB demonstrates
to the Commission that it is processing
equipment approval applications in
accordance with the rules, it would no
longer be required to use the preapproval guidance procedure for all
equipment, just the equipment on the
pre-approval guidance list. The
Commission further proposed that these
procedures would apply equally to both
domestic and foreign TCBs.
35. In cases where a TCB continues to
exhibit performance deficiencies after
the Commission requests that it take
corrective action, it has been proposed
that the Commission may request that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
the designating authority and
accreditation body investigate and take
appropriate steps as needed. This could
include, for example, limiting the scope
of the TCB’s accreditation, or
withdrawing the accreditation. The
Commission proposes that in such cases
it would limit the scope of equipment
that a TCB could approve if the
accrediting body limited the scope of a
TCB’s accreditation, and that the
Commission would no longer recognize
a TCB if its accreditation is withdrawn.
The Commission further proposes that it
would no longer recognize the
designation of a TCB, either foreign or
domestic, if good cause exists, e.g., a
TCB shows a pattern of approving
equipment that is clearly not in
compliance with the rules. It is also
proposed that the Commission would
provide a TCB with at least 60 days
notice of its intention to withdraw or
limit the scope of its recognition and
provide the TCB with an opportunity to
respond. During that time, the
Commission would monitor all grants
issued by the TCB and would set aside
any grants within 30 days that were
issued in error. In the case of a TCB
recognized pursuant to the terms of an
MRA, the Commission would provide
more than 60 days notice if required by
the MRA and consult with the Office of
the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) as necessary concerning any
trade issues that arise. In addition, the
Commission proposed that if a TCB’s
status is revoked, any equipment
certifications previously approved by
the TCB would continue to be valid
unless specifically set aside or revoked
by the Commission. However, a TCB
would not be permitted to act on any
certification applications that it was
processing but had not yet approved at
the time its operating status was
revoked.
36. The Commission also proposed
certain other modifications to clarify the
part 2 rules for TCBs. Specifically, it
proposed to modify § 2.962(e)(1) to
specify the recognition requirements for
both foreign and domestic TCBs. This
section currently specifies the
recognition requirements for only
domestic TCBs. The Commission also
proposed to move the text in § 2.962(h)
concerning disputes over the
recognition of foreign TCBs to § 2.962(e)
because it more appropriately fits in that
paragraph which addresses the
recognition of TCBs.
37. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals. In particular, it
seeks comment on whether the steps
being proposed are appropriate, and
whether there are other measures the
Commission could take to ensure that
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TCBs operate in accordance with the
rules. For example, should the
Commission instead prohibit a TCB
from approving any equipment for a
limited time period when performance
issues arise? If the Commission were to
prohibit a TCB from approving
equipment for a certain time, it seeks
comment on how it could determine
when the TCB has corrected its
performance problems. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether it needs
to more clearly define the circumstances
under which it would take actions such
as requiring all of a TCB’s applications
to be processed under the pre-approval
guidance procedure. If so, what should
those circumstances be?
4. TCB Accreditation
38. The Commission’s rules require
that TCBs that approve either RF
equipment under part 2 or terminal
equipment under part 68 of the
Commission’s rules meet the
accreditation standards in specific ISO/
IEC standards. An entity recognized as
a TCB must be accredited as meeting all
appropriate specifications in ISO/IEC
Guide 65, General requirements for
bodies operating product certification
systems, for the scope of equipment that
it will certify. An organization
accrediting a prospective TCB to Guide
65 must be capable of meeting the
requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC
Guide 61, General requirements for
assessment and accreditation of
certification/registration bodies. TCBs
also must be accredited as meeting the
requirements of ISO/IEC Standard
17025, General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories. The organization
accrediting a TCB or testing laboratory
to ISO/IEC 17025 must be approved by
OET to perform such accreditation
based on ISO/IEC Guide 58, Calibration
and testing laboratory accreditation
systems—General requirements for
operation and recognition. A TCB that
approves RF equipment under part 2
must be reassessed for continuing
accreditation at intervals not to exceed
two years.
39. Subsequent to the adoption of the
rules specifying these requirements,
several ISO/IEC guides were updated.
Specifically, ISO/IEC Guides 58 and 61
were updated and combined into a
single new standard, ISO/IEC 17011,
Conformity assessment—General
requirements for accreditation bodies
accrediting conformity assessment
bodies. ISO/IEC 17011 was prepared by
the ISO Committee on conformity
assessment (CASCO) because the work
performed by accreditation bodies
accrediting testing laboratories and
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
certification bodies is quite similar, and
the two separate standards had two sets
of largely repetitious but slightly
differing requirements for evaluating
laboratory and certification body
functions. In addition, ISO/IEC Guide
65 was replaced with a revised version
designated ISO/IEC 17065, Conformity
assessment—Requirements for bodies
certifying products, processes and
services.
40. Proposal. The Commission
proposes to modify the rules in parts 2
and 68 to replace the references to
Guide 58 and Guide 61 with references
to ISO/IEC 17011, and to replace the
references to Guide 65 with references
to ISO/IEC 17065. Consistent with the
revised ISO/IEC 17065, the Commission
also proposed to change the term ‘‘subcontractors’’ with ‘‘external resources’’
in the parts 2 and 68 rules. The
Commission believes that these changes
will not have any significant impact on
accrediting organizations or TCBs
because the revised guides are
substantially similar to the ISO/IEC
guides currently specified in the rules.
The Commission also proposed to
update § 68.162 to correct the outdated
references to ISO/IEC Guide 25 which is
now designated ISO/IEC 17025. The
Commission is not, however, proposing
to change the requirement that TCBs
that approve RF equipment must be
reassessed every two years. The
Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. The Commission is also
proposing to give OET delegated
authority to update references to
measurement procedures and other
industry standards in parts 2, 5, 15 and
18 of the rules in the future.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
B. Test Laboratories
1. Accreditation of Test Laboratories
41. Equipment subject to certification
under parts 15 and 18 of the rules–i.e.
unlicensed devices and industrial,
scientific and medical equipment—must
be tested at a laboratory that meets one
of two criteria: the laboratory must have
either (a) filed a description of its
facilities with the Commission in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 2.948 of the rules, or (b) been
accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 and
recognized by the Commission. The
§ 2.948 filing process requires a party to
submit a description of its facilities to
the Commission that includes the
location of the test site, a physical
description of the site that includes
drawings and photographs, a
description of the structures that
support the device being measured and
test instrumentation, the measuring
equipment used and information on its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
calibration, a statement as to whether
the site is available to do measurements
for the public for a fee, and site
attenuation data taken in accordance
with ANSI C63.4–2001. The § 2.948
listing is based solely on a Commission
review of the documentation submitted.
42. In contrast to the § 2.948 filing
process, laboratory accreditation
involves an extensive review of
documentation and onsite visits by
representative(s) of the accrediting
body. Laboratory accreditation bodies
assess a variety of aspects of a
laboratory, including the technical
competence of staff; the validity and
appropriateness of test methods;
traceability of measurements and
calibration to national standards;
suitability, calibration and maintenance
of the testing environment; sampling,
handling and transportation of test
items; and quality assurance of test and
calibration data. The accreditation of a
laboratory outside the United States is
considered acceptable only if it is
located in a country that has an MRA
with the United States or is accredited
by an organization that has entered into
an arrangement between accrediting
organizations that is recognized by the
Commission. The Commission
maintains a list of laboratories that
includes those that have filed a
description under § 2.948 and those
laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC
17025 for which the accrediting
organization has submitted information
to the Commission. An accredited test
laboratory must be reassessed at
intervals not to exceed two years.
43. Unlike parts 15 and 18 equipment
rules, the Commission’s rules do not
require that equipment authorized to
operate in licensed services be tested at
either a § 2.948 listed laboratory or at an
accredited and recognized laboratory.
However, because many of the testing
laboratories that perform measurements
on equipment operating under the
licensed radio service requirements also
test equipment subject to parts 15 and
18, their test facilities are already
accredited.
44. Proposal. The Commission
proposed to end the listing program for
laboratories that test equipment certified
under parts 15 and 18 of the rules.
Instead, it proposed to require that all
laboratories that test equipment subject
to certification and DoC under any rule
part be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025.
This would be a change from the current
rules under which only devices subject
to DoC must be tested at an accredited
laboratory. The Commission believes
that this change is appropriate for
several reasons. First, because it is
proposing to cease Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25925
certification of RF devices and rely on
TCBs to approve all such equipment,
the Commission believes that it should
at the same time take measures to
continue to ensure the quality of the
TCB program. Requiring laboratories
that perform certification testing to be
accredited will provide a higher degree
of confidence for both the Commission
and TCBs that testing was done in
accordance with the applicable
standards than the current listing
procedure provides. As noted,
laboratory accreditation is based on a
rigorous third party review of laboratory
functions and capabilities, including the
technical competence of its staff and
quality assurance methods, and
includes onsite inspections by the
accrediting organization. In contrast, the
§ 2.948 listing program is based solely
on a desk review of certain laboratory
characteristics. The Commission expects
that requiring all laboratories that
perform certification testing to be
accredited will improve both the quality
and consistency of test results. The
Commission therefore believes that
requiring laboratory accreditation is part
of a balanced approach in allowing
TCBs to certify all RF equipment while
ensuring the quality of the results.
45. The Commission is proposing to
retain the requirement in § 2.948 that
test laboratories compile a description
of their measurement facilities, and
propose to require that they supply this
information to a laboratory accreditation
body or to the Commission upon
request. This description will assist a
laboratory accreditation body in
evaluating the suitability of a
laboratory’s facilities for performing
measurements. It will also help the
Commission determine whether a
laboratory that tests equipment subject
to verification, and which is not
required to be accredited, has suitable
measurement facilities. The
Commission also proposed to retain the
requirement that accredited laboratories
must be reassessed at least every two
years to ensure continued compliance
with the accreditation requirements.
46. It is also proposed that the
Commission will maintain a list of
accredited laboratories that are
acceptable for testing equipment subject
to our certification and DoC procedures.
Under this proposal, laboratories will be
accredited to test certain scopes of
equipment, such as low power
transmitters, unintentional radiators and
transmitters used in various licensed
services. The Commission believes that
a list of accredited laboratories and the
types of equipment they can test will
assist us in our oversight of TCBs and
will assist manufacturers in selecting an
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25926
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
appropriate testing facility. The
Commission proposed to include
accredited laboratories outside the
United States on the list only if it
recognizes their accreditation under the
terms of an MRA or other agreement.
The Commission is aware that some test
laboratories are located in countries that
do not have an MRA with the United
States. In this regard, it proposes to
modify § 2.948(e)(2) to provide that if a
laboratory is located in a country that
does not have an MRA with the United
States, then it must be accredited by an
organization recognized by the
Commission for performing
accreditations in the country where the
laboratory is located. The Commission
describes proposals for Commission
recognition of additional laboratory
accreditation bodies in the following
information.
47. The Commission seeks comment
on these proposals. In particular, it
seeks comment on whether it is
appropriate and necessary to require
accreditation of laboratories that
perform certification testing and
whether such a requirement would be
unduly burdensome. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether it
should allow an accredited laboratory to
subcontract part of its work to another
laboratory. If so, is there any reason why
it should not also require the
subcontractor to be accredited? The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether it should eliminate the § 2.948
test site listing process. The
Commission further seeks comment on
the information that should be included
in the list of accredited laboratories if it
requires accreditation of laboratories
that perform certification testing. In
addition, the Commission seeks
comment on steps it could take to
recognize the accreditation of test
laboratories outside of the United States
in countries that do not have an MRA
with the United States. For example,
should the Commission recognize
accreditations made through an
organization such as the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC) for laboratories in countries
without an MRA with the United States?
48. The Commission recognizes that
there is a cost in terms of time and
money for a laboratory to become
accredited, but it believes the benefits of
increased certainty that equipment
tested by an accredited laboratory will
comply with the Commission’s
technical requirements outweigh this
burden. As noted, many laboratories
that perform certification testing of part
15 and part 18 equipment as well as
many laboratories that test equipment
used in licensed services are already
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
accredited. Thus, our proposal will not
impact those laboratories. However, the
Commission seeks comment on the
costs that its proposals would impose
on currently unaccredited laboratories,
and whether the benefits of our
proposals outweigh the costs. The
Commission furthers seek comment on
the impact of this proposal on
laboratories outside the United States,
particularly those in countries without
an MRA with the United States.
2. Selection of New Laboratory
Accreditation Bodies
49. Under § 2.948(d) of the rules, any
entity seeking recognition from the
Commission as an accreditation body
for test laboratories must obtain the
approval of OET. OET considers
recognition of entities as accreditation
bodies based on requirements
established by ISO and IEC. The rules
currently refer to requirements in ISO/
IEC Guide 58 for laboratory
accreditation, but as discussed, the
Commission is proposing modify the
rules to reference ISO/IEC Guide 17011
that superseded Guide 58. Under Guide
17011, the accrediting entity must be
competent to (1) assess a test
laboratory’s compliance with applicable
ISO/IEC standards for operating a
testing laboratory and conducting tests;
and (2) assess the laboratory’s ability to
perform testing in support of the
applicable technical regulations. The
accreditation body is required to (1)
Review the qualifications of a test
laboratory’s test personnel, management
systems, recordkeeping and reporting
practices; (2) send recognized experts to
observe testing at the laboratory; and (3)
verify the testing laboratory’s
competence to perform tests in
accordance with Commission-related
measurement procedures.
50. On August 12, 2010 OET issued a
public notice providing guidance on the
type of information that an applicant
that desires to be recognized by the
Commission as a laboratory
accreditation body should provide in
support of its application. Specifically,
OET stated that an applicant must
submit to the Chief of OET a letter
requesting such recognition and that the
letter must include information on the
applicant’s qualifications; OET further
indicated that it will make a
determination based on the information
provided in support of the letter of
request. It stated that the following
types of information would provide the
‘‘best evidence’’ of an applicant’s
credentials and qualifications to
perform accreditation of laboratories
that test equipment to Commission
requirements, consistent with the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements of § 2.948(d) of the
Commission’s rules for accreditation
bodies and for test laboratories:
1. Successful completion of a ISO/IEC
17011 peer review, such as being a
signatory to the International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC)
Mutual Recognition Arrangement or
other equivalent laboratory
accreditation agreement;
2. Experience with the accreditation
of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC),
radio and telecom testing laboratories to
ISO/IEC 17025. This can be
demonstrated by having OET staff
participate in a witness audit of the
accreditation body performing an
assessment of an EMC/Radio/Telecom
testing laboratory; or by having OET
staff review the report generated by the
NIST laboratory accreditation
evaluation program conducted to
support the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Mutual Recognition
Arrangement for Conformity
Assessment of Telecommunications
Equipment. An applicant that offers
other evidence has the burden of
demonstrating that the information
would enable OET to evaluate its
experience with the accreditation of
EMC, radio and telecom testing
laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025.
3. Accreditation personnel/assessors
with specific technical experience in the
Commission equipment authorization
rules and requirements; and
4. Procedures and policies developed
for the accreditation of testing
laboratories for FCC equipment
authorization programs.
51. Proposal. The Commission
proposes to codify the criteria from the
August 12, 2010 public notice into the
rules as the method that OET will use
to determine the acceptability of new
laboratory accreditation bodies. OET
developed these criteria during the
process of selecting a new laboratory
accreditation body, and we believe they
represent an appropriate method for
determining the acceptability of new
accreditation bodies. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
3. Test Site Validation
52. A measurement facility that is
used for measuring radiated emissions
from equipment subject to parts 15 and
18 of the rules must meet the site
validation requirements in ANSI C63.4–
2001. Radiated emission measurements
above 1 GHz are required for many
devices subject to parts 15 and 18.
However, ANSI C63.4–2001 does not
have specific site validation criteria for
test facilities used for making radiated
emissions above 1 GHz. Rather, it states
that facilities determined to be suitable
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
for performing measurements in the
frequency range 30 MHz to 1 GHz are
considered suitable for performing
measurements in the frequency range 1
GHz to 40 GHz.
53. ANSI C63.4–2009, 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, provides two options for
test site validation for facilities used to
make radiated emission measurements
above 1 GHz. Specifically, it states that
facilities suitable for measurements in
the frequency range 30 MHz to 1 GHz
are considered suitable for
measurements in the frequency range 1
GHz to 40 GHz when used with RF
absorbing material covering the ground
plane such that either: (1) The site
validation criterion called out in CISPR
16–1–4:2007 (CISPR 16) is met; or (2) a
minimum area of the ground plane is
covered, i.e., 2.4 m by 2.4 m (for a 3 m
test distance), between the antenna and
the Equipment Under Test (EUT) using
RF absorbing material with a minimumrated attenuation of 20 dB (for normal
incidence) up to 18 GHz.
54. Proposal. The Commission
proposed to require that test facilities
used to make radiated emission
measurements on equipment authorized
under any rule part meet the site
validation requirements in sections
5.4.4 through 5.5 of ANSI C63.4–2009.
The Commission also proposed that if
the measurement site will be used for
measuring radiated emissions in the
range of 1 GHz to 40 GHz, the site must
meet the first alternative specified in
§ 5.5 of this procedure which states that
RF absorbing material must cover the
ground plane such that the site
validation criterion called out in CISPR
16 is met. The Commission believes that
requiring a site to meet the CISPR 16
site validation criteria at frequencies
above 1 GHz will provide better
accuracy and repeatability of
measurements than simply covering a
minimum area of its ground plane.
Consistent with § 5.4.4.2 of ANSI C63.4–
2009 and § 2.948(a)(2), the Commission
proposed that compliance with the site
validation criterion shall be confirmed
no less than once every three years. The
Commission believes that these
proposals will ensure that a test site is
suitable for performing accurate,
repeatable measurements at all
frequencies for which measurements are
required. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals. It also
seeks comment on how many
laboratories would need to modify their
sites to comply with the ANSI C63.4–
2009 and CISPR 16 site validation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
25927
from Low-Voltage Electrical and
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9
KHz to 40 GHz. Because ANSI ASC C63
C. Measurement Procedures
developed a separate document that
contains the measurement procedures
1. Part 15 Devices
for intentional radiators (ANSI C63.10–
55. The Commission requires that
2009 as discussed above), the new ANSI
most devices subject to the part 15
C63.4–2009 addresses only
technical requirements be tested to
unintentional radiators, rather than both
demonstrate compliance with these
intentional and unintentional radiators
requirements before they can be
as did the previous version. The other
imported into or marketed within the
changes to this standard from the 2003
United States. Section 15.31(a) of the
version are discussed in more detail.
rules specifies the measurement
procedures that the Commission uses to OET issued a public notice on
November 25, 2009, indicating that it
determine equipment compliance with
the part 15 technical requirements. This would accept applications for
certification of equipment tested either
section states that the Commission will
to the ANSI C63.4–2003 procedure
measure emissions from most
currently specified in the rules or to the
intentional and unintentional radiators
revised ANSI C63.4–2009 and new
using the standard published by the
ANSI C63.10–2009 procedures.
American National Standards Institute,
58. On September 27, 2011, ANSI
Inc. Accredited Standards Committee
ASC C63 filed a petition for rule making
C63 (ANSI ASC 63), titled ANSI C63.4–
requesting that the Commission modify
2003, American National Standard for
Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise §§ 15.31(a)(3) and 15.38(b)(6) of the
rules to remove the references to C63.4–
Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical
2003 and replace them with references
and Electronic Equipment in the Range
to C63.4–2009 and C63.10–2009. It
of 9 KHz to 40 GHz (ANSI C63.4
argues that continued use of the C63.4–
standard).
2003 standard will lead to confusion,
56. The Commission has issued a
inconsistency and a lack of repeatability
number of public notices,
in product testing. It states that its
interpretations and advisories on
reasons for developing the 2009 version
measurement standards for intentional
of the standard were to remove
radiators to supplement the test
ambiguities, clarify the text in response
procedures given in the ANSI C63.4
to requests for interpretations, and to
standard. This additional guidance has
add new material concerning the
been necessitated by the growing
calibration of test equipment and testing
number of intentional radiators being
new types of devices. ANSI ASC C63
developed and the resulting number of
states that the following changes are
questions from test laboratories seeking
incorporated into the new version:
guidance on how to properly measure
these devices for FCC compliance. To
• Specifying a single method of
assist manufacturers in complying with
antenna calibration, rather than the two
the Commission’s rules, the
different methods specified in the 2003
Commission staff worked with ANSI
version. Because the method specified
ASC C63 and its members, including
in the 2009 version is different than
manufacturers, the Telecommunication
either of the previous two methods, test
Certification Body Council (TCBC),
laboratories may need to recalibrate
telecommunication industry
their antennas if the Commission
representatives and test laboratory staff, requires use of the new version.
to develop a new standard, ANSI
• Clarifying the requirements that
C63.10–2009, American National
receivers and spectrum analyzers must
Standard for Testing Unlicensed
meet and providing more detailed
Wireless Devices (ANSI C63.10–2009),
information on the proper use of
for use in the measurement of
spectrum analyzers.
intentional radiators in a wide range of
• Requiring test laboratories to
frequency bands. This new standard
document any special software used to
consolidates the various measurement
exercise the equipment under test.
procedures that the Commission staff
• Requiring test laboratories to
has already allowed for intentional
determine the effect of temperature
radiators without substantive
modification and does not add any new changes on measurement cable losses.
• Eliminating the requirement for
requirements for compliance testing.
minimum measuring equipment
57. ANSI ASC C63 also released a
sensitivity.
revised version of the ANSI C63.4
• Providing more guidance on testing
standard, ANSI C63.4–2009, American
wall-mounted and ceiling-mounted
National Standard for Methods of
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions devices.
criteria that we are proposing, and the
costs of implementing this change.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25928
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
• Moving the test site validation
procedure from the body of the
document to an appendix.
• Specifying criteria for determining
measuring site validity at frequencies
above 1 GHz.
• Updating the requirement for the
information to be displayed on a video
display during testing.
On January 12, 2012, the Commission
released a public notice inviting
comment on the ANSI ASC C63
petition. The Information Technology
Industry Council (ITI) filed comments,
and ANSI ASC C63 filed reply
comments.
59. Proposal. The Commission
proposes to incorporate ANSI C63.10–
2009 into the rules as the procedure the
Commission will use for determining
the compliance of intentional radiators
and ANSI C63.4–2009 as the procedure
the Commission will use for
determining the compliance of
unintentional radiators. The
Commission believes that the various
clarifications and improvements from
the previous version of ANSI C63.4 will
advance the Commission’s objective of
ensuring compliance with its technical
requirements as well as decreasing the
burden on equipment manufacturers,
thus promoting the timely introduction
of innovative new products. Consistent
with the Commission’s previous actions
with respect to ANSI C63.4, the
Commission is proposing to exclude the
use of the sections in C63.4–2009 that
allow the use of rod antennas for
electric field measurements below 30
MHz, an artificial hand for holding
handheld devices, an absorber clamp for
radio noise power measurements, and
relaxation of the limits for transient
emissions. The Commission previously
found that there was insufficient
evidence that rod antennas, artificial
hands or absorber clamps produce
accurate, repeatable measurements, and
it found that short duration emissions
can produce as much nuisance to radio
communications as continuous
emissions. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals.
60. The Commission is not proposing
to incorporate CISPR 22 into the rules
for measuring equipment subject to part
15 as requested by ITI. CISPR 22
addresses measurements only up to 6
GHz, whereas our rules require
measurements at higher frequencies in
some cases. Also, CISPR 22 is applicable
only to information technology
equipment (called digital devices in the
Commission’s rules), while C63.4–2009
is applicable to all types of
unintentional radiators under part 15 of
our rules, including digital devices. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Commission also believes that the
C63.4–2009 measurement procedure for
frequencies above 1 GHz is more
appropriate than the CISPR 22
procedure. Specifically, at frequencies
above 1 GHz, C63.4–2009 requires
varying the receive antenna height to
determine the maximum level of
emissions from a device under test,
whereas CISPR 22 specifies a fixed
receive antenna height that may not
determine the maximum emission
levels. However, the Commission
recognizes that ITI has raised certain
specific concerns about C63.4–2009 that
merit consideration and it seeks
comment on these concerns.
Specifically, is the 2009 version of
C63.4 more burdensome than previous
editions as ITI alleges, and if so, do the
benefits of these increased burdens (e.g.,
increased accuracy and/or consistency
of test results) outweigh their costs? Do
certain changes in the 2009 revision
cause problems for manufacturers and/
or test laboratories, such as a restriction
on the use of hybrid antennas or the 2
dB rule? Would the references to
undated standards in C63.4–2009 force
parties to comply with future changes to
those standards with no opportunity for
comment and no transition period?
Should the Commission accept the
interpretations of C63.4–2009 and
C63.10–2009 on ANSI’s Web site? Could
the Commission address ITI’s concerns
about C63.4–2009 and C63.10–2009 by
not incorporating certain sections of
these standards into the rules? If so,
which particular sections should not be
incorporated and why? In addition, the
Commission notes that ANSI ASC C63
is currently working on revised versions
to both C63.4–2009 and C63.10–2009.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether there are any significant
differences between the 2009 versions of
these standards and the latest drafts,
and whether any of the changes in these
drafts would address ITI’s concerns.
2. Delegated Authority To Update
Measurement Procedures
61. The Commission incorporates
industry standards into parts 2 and 15
of the rules for various purposes. For
example, § 15.38 lists the measurement
procedures and other standards that are
incorporated by reference into part 15 of
the rules. In addition, part 2 references
various ISO/IEC standards related to the
accreditation of laboratories and
certification bodies. Industry groups
that develop standards revise them
periodically. In some cases revisions
could contain major changes from a
previous version, while in other cases
revisions of standards may contain only
minor updates that pose no significant
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
changes for evaluation of compliance
with the rules. The Commission’s part 0
rules delegate authority to the Chief of
OET to perform certain functions, but
require that orders making non-editorial
revisions to the rules be referred to the
Commission for action. Updating a rule
to reference a revised standard is not
considered an editorial revision, so such
a change requires a Commission action.
62. The Commission proposes to
delegate to the Chief of OET the
authority to update references to
industry standards in parts 2, 5, 15 and
18 of the rules, for which OET is
responsible. It further proposes that this
authority be limited to updating
versions of standards that are already
referenced into the rules and not to
incorporate a new standard into the
rules, and that it be further limited to
the approval of changes to the technical
standards that do not raise major
compliance issues. To meet the
statutory requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
OET would first issue a notice that
would be published in the Federal
Register seeking comment on the
proposed change to the rules. The
Commission would continue to act on
rule changes that incorporate a new
standard into the rules or raise major
compliance issues. The Commission
believes that these proposals would
allow us to more quickly update the
rules to reflect the release of revised
industry standards. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals.
3. Other Issues
63. Test set-up information. The
Commission is proposing to amend
§ 2.1033 of the rules to require that
applications for certification include
photographs or diagrams of the test setup for each of the required types of tests
applicable to the device for which
certification is requested. These tests
may include, for example, radiated
emissions, AC line conducted
emissions, conducted power, RF safety
(SAR), or compliance with the hearing
aid compatibility (HAC) requirements.
The rules do not currently require that
a certification application include this
information, while test set-up
photographs or diagrams are required
with the information that responsible
parties must retain for equipment
subject to DoC or verification. The
Commission believes that photographs
or diagrams of the test set-up should be
required with an application for
certification for consistency with our
other authorization processes and to
allow us to determine whether a test
laboratory or TCB tested equipment in
accordance with the applicable
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
measurement procedures. The
Commission proposed that diagrams or
photographs must show enough detail
to confirm other information contained
in the test report, and that any
photographs must be focused originals
without glare or dark spots and must
clearly show the test configuration used.
The Commission believes that the cost
of this proposed requirement is
negligible because it merely requires a
test laboratory or TCB to take a minimal
number of additional photographs
during testing or draw some relatively
simple diagrams and include those with
the test report submitted with the
application for certification. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
64. Rule corrections. The Commission
is proposing to correct two minor
discrepancies in part 15 concerning
measurement procedures. Specifically,
it is proposing to remove § 15.109(g)(4)
as unnecessary because it merely
references former § 15.107(e) that was
deleted in 2002. The Commission is also
proposing to delete as unnecessary the
note in § 15.31(a)(3) that states digital
devices meeting the limits in
§§ 15.107(e) and 15.109(g) must be
tested using the ANSI C63.4 procedure.
As noted, § 15.107(e) is no longer in the
rules, and § 15.109(g) already makes
clear that digital devices tested for
compliance with the limits in that
section must be tested in accordance
with the ANSI C63.4 procedure. The
Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
D. Transition Period
65. Two of the proposals in this
Notice would make changes to the
requirements for test laboratories that
the Commission believes may take some
time for currently operating laboratories
to meet. These proposals are that: (1) All
laboratories must be accredited if they
test equipment authorized through the
certification procedure, and (2)
laboratories that perform measurements
at frequencies above 1 GHz must
comply with the site validation criteria
in ANSI C63.4–2009. The Commission
proposes several provisions to
implement these changes and to
facilitate the transition for currently
listed laboratories that do not meet these
proposed requirements. First, it
proposes that we will cease accepting
applications for unaccredited
laboratories under the § 2.948 listing
program as of the effective date of final
rules. After that date, any new
laboratory that wishes to be added to
our list of laboratories that can perform
testing in support of certification
applications must be accredited. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
Commission would continue processing
applications for § 2.948 listing of
unaccredited laboratories that were
pending as of the effective date of the
rules. If such applications were
approved, the laboratories would be
treated in the same manner as
laboratories that were already listed on
the effective date of the rules. Second,
the Commission proposed that
unaccredited laboratories that are listed
as of the effective date of the rules may
continue to perform testing in support
of certification applications until one
year after the publication of final rules
in the Federal Register. After that date,
they must be accredited or cease
performing testing in support of
certification applications unless they
become accredited. Third, the
Commission proposes that all
laboratories listed with the Commission
as of the effective date of the rules, both
accredited and unaccredited, must
comply with the site validation criteria
in ANSI C63.4–2009 no later than one
year after publication of final rules in
the Federal Register. New laboratories
that wish to be listed after the effective
date of the rules must comply with the
ANSI C63.4–2009 site validation
criteria, and must be accredited as
described. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
66. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),1 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).2 In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
67. The Commission operates an
equipment authorization program for
1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601–
612, has been amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat.
857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
3 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25929
radiofrequency (RF) devices under part
2 of its rules. This program is one of the
primary means that the Commission
uses to ensure that the multitude of RF
devices used in the United States
operate effectively without causing
harmful interference and otherwise
comply with the Commission’s rules.
Certain radio frequency (RF) devices
must be approved by the Commission or
a Telecommunication Certification Body
(TCB) before they can be imported or
marketed, while other RF devices do not
require approval by the Commission or
a TCB.
68. The Commission last
comprehensively reviewed its
equipment authorization program over
ten years ago. The rapid innovation in
equipment design since that time has
led to ever-accelerating growth in the
number of parties applying for
equipment approval. We therefore
believe that the time is now right for us
to review our equipment authorization
processes to ensure that they continue
to enable this growth and innovation in
the wireless equipment market.
B. Legal Basis
69. The proposed action is taken
pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
70. 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.4 The
RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ 5 In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act.6 A
‘‘small business concern’’ is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
4 See
5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
5 U.S.C. 601(6).
6 See 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.’’
5 See
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
25930
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration
(SBA).7 Radio and Television
Broadcasting 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.’’ 8 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.9 Thus, under that size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
71. RF equipment must be authorized
through one of three authorization
procedures described below. The Notice
does not propose to change these
authorization procedures, but it does
propose changes in the administrative
requirements for laboratories that test
equipment and TCBs that approve
equipment. These changes are described
in the following.
Certification is an equipment
authorization issued by the Commission
or by a designated TCB based on an
application and test data submitted by
the responsible party (e.g., the
manufacturer or importer).10 The
Commission or a TCB may test a sample
of a device to verify that it complies
with the rules before granting approval
for the equipment to be marketed.
Examples of devices subject to
7 See
15 U.S.C. 632.
NAICS Code for this service 334220. See 13
CFR 121/201. See alsohttps://factfinder.census.gov/
servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&_lang=en.
9 See https://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
10 See 47 CFR 2.907.
8 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
certification include, but are not limited
to, mobile phones; wireless local area
networking equipment, remote control
transmitters; land mobile radio
transmitters; wireless medical telemetry
transmitters; cordless telephones; and
walkie-talkies.
Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a
procedure that requires the party
responsible for compliance to follow
certain measurement requirements and/
or take other necessary steps to ensure
that the equipment complies with the
appropriate technical standards.11 A
compliance information statement must
be supplied with the product which
identifies the product and a responsible
party within the United States and
which contains the statement specified
in Section 15.19(a)(3).12 The responsible
party is not required to file an
equipment authorization application
with the Commission or a TCB, or to
submit a sample unit or test data unless
specifically requested.13 Examples of
devices subject to DoC include personal
computers and peripherals, consumer
ISM equipment such as microwave
ovens and RF light bulbs, radio
receivers and TV interface devices.14
Verification is a procedure under
which the party responsible for
compliance relies on measurements that
it or another party makes to ensure that
the equipment complies with the
appropriate technical standards.15
Under the verification procedure, the
responsible party is not required to file
an application with the Commission.
Submittal of a sample unit or
representative data to the Commission
demonstrating compliance is not
required unless specifically requested
by the Commission.16 Examples of
devices subject to verification include
non-consumer ISM equipment; TV and
FM receivers; and business computer
equipment.17 Devices subject to
verification must be uniquely identified
in a format which cannot be confused
11 See 47 CFR 2.906. The party responsible for
compliance is defined in 47 CFR 2.909.
12 See 47 CFR 2.1077 and 15.19(a)(3).
13 See 47 CFR 2.956.
14 See 47 CFR 15.101(a) and 18.203(a). Although
the Commission rules require Class B personal
computers and peripherals to be authorized under
either the DoC or certification procedure, the
Commission does not certify such equipment.
Manufacturers may only obtain certification for
Class B personal computers and peripherals
through a TCB. See FCC Will No Longer Accept
Equipment Authorization Applications For Class B
Computers and Peripherals That Can Be SelfApproved, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd. 25484 (rel.
September 29, 2000).
15 See 47 CFR 2.909(b) and 2.953.
16 See 47 CFR 2.956.
17 See 47 CFR 15.101(a) and 18.203(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with the FCC identifier required on
certified equipment.18
72. RF equipment subject to any of the
equipment authorization procedures
described above must be tested for
compliance with the Commission’s
technical rules. Equipment authorized
under the DoC procedure must be tested
by a laboratory that is accredited as
meeting the requirements of the
International Organization for
Standardization/International
Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)
Standard 17025, General Requirements
for the Competence of Calibration and
Testing Laboratories, by a Commissionrecognized accreditation organization.19
Laboratories that test equipment subject
to certification under Parts 15 and 18 of
the rules are not required to be
accredited, but must be on a list
maintained by the Commission.20
Equipment authorized pursuant to
certification under rule parts other than
Parts 15 or 18, or any equipment
authorized under verification, may be
tested by the manufacturer or by an
independent testing laboratory that is
not required to be accredited or listed
with the Commission.21 The
Commission may conduct post-market
testing of equipment authorized under
any of the three procedures to ensure
that equipment on the market complies
with the Commission’s technical
requirements.22 Additionally, TCBs are
required to perform post-market
surveillance on a certain percentage of
products they have certified.23
73. The Notice proposes that the
Commission will cease approving RF
equipment authorized under the
certification procedure and allow TCBs
to perform all equipment certification.
Equipment manufacturers would
therefore have to obtain equipment
approval through a TCB and would no
longer have the option of obtaining
equipment approval from the
Commission. The Notice also proposes
to give TCBs clear authority to request
samples of equipment from the
18 See
47 CFR 2.954.
47 CFR 2.948(a)(3), (d). DoC-authorized
devices must be tested by a test laboratory that has
been accredited by the National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or the
American Association of Laboratory Accreditation
(A2LA), or by an accredited laboratory designated
by the Commission under the terms of a negotiated
MRA. See 47 CFR 2.948(a)(3), (d), (e).
20 See 47 CFR 2.948(a)(2). To become listed with
the Commission, a testing laboratory must file a
description of its measurement facilities with the
Commission’s Laboratory. An accredited laboratory
may become listed by filing certain information
about itself, but does not need to file a complete
description of its measurement facilities.
21 See 47 CFR 2.947, 2.948(a)(1).
22 See 47 CFR 2.946 and 2.1076.
23 See 47 CFR 2.962(g)(2).
19 See
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
manufacturer, so manufactures would
be required to provide a sample of
equipment to TCBs upon request.
74. The Notice proposes that all
laboratories that test equipment that
will be approved under the certification
procedure must be accredited by a
Commission-recognized organization.
This would be a change from the current
requirement under which only
laboratories that test equipment under
the DoC procedure must be accredited.
Thus, parties wishing to obtain
equipment certification would have to
ensure that their equipment is tested at
an accredited laboratory. The
Commission plans to publish a list of
accredited laboratories that may test RF
equipment that will be certified.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
75. 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.’’ 24
76. The Commission proposed several
modifications to the administrative
requirements for test laboratories and
TCBs that it believes will make the
equipment authorization program more
efficient and effective, thus benefiting
small entities. Specifically, the
Commission proposed that TCBs will
approve all equipment, including
equipment that TCBs may not currently
approve because it incorporates new
technology or requires measurements
for which the procedures are not yet
clearly defined. To more efficiently
implement this change, it also proposes
to integrate a new procedure into our
equipment authorization system that
will enable TCBs to obtain guidance
from the Commission on testing or other
certification issues. The Commission
expects that these changes will reduce
the time required for manufacturers to
obtain equipment approval.
77. Our proposals to require
accreditation of test laboratories that
perform certification testing and
establish additional measures to address
TCB performance will ensure the
continuing quality of the TCB program.
This will benefit equipment
manufacturers by ensuring that all TCBs
operate in accordance with the
Commission’s rules, thus providing a
clear path to market and a level playing
field for all manufacturers, both large
and small.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
78. None.
Ordering Clauses
79. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7(a),
301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e) and
332 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), and 332, this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is adopted.
80. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
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,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio,
and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
47 CFR Part 68
Communications equipment and
Reporting and recordkeeping.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend parts 0,
2, 15 and 68 of Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 0—COMMISSION
ORGANIZATION
5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 0.241 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (f) to read
as follows:
■
§ 0.241
Authority delegated.
(a) * * *
(1) Notices of proposed rulemaking
and of inquiry and final orders in
rulemaking proceedings, inquiry
proceedings and non-editorial orders
making changes, except that:
(i) The Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology is
delegated authority, together with the
Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, to adopt
certain technical standards applicable to
hearing aid compatibility under § 20.19
of this chapter, as specified in § 20.19(k)
of this chapter.
(ii) The Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology is
delegated authority, by notice-andcomment rulemaking if required by
statute or otherwise in the public
interest, to issue an order amending
parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of this chapter that
reference industry standards to specify
revised versions of the standards. This
delegation is limited to modifying rules
to reference revisions to standards that
are already in the rules and not to
incorporate a new standard into the
rules, and is limited to the approval of
changes to the technical standards that
do not raise major compliance issues.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology is
authorized to enter into agreements with
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and other accreditation
bodies to perform accreditation of test
laboratories pursuant to § 2.948(e) of
this chapter. In addition, the Chief is
authorized to make determinations
regarding the continued acceptability of
individual accrediting organizations and
accredited laboratories.
*
*
*
*
*
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 2.906 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 2.906
1. The authority citation for part 0
continues to read as follows:
■
24 See
25931
Declaration of Conformity.
(a) A Declaration of Conformity is a
procedure where the responsible party,
as defined in § 2.909, makes
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
25932
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
measurements or takes other necessary
steps to ensure that the equipment
complies with the appropriate technical
standards. Submittal of a sample unit or
representative data to the Commission
demonstrating compliance is not
required unless specifically requested
pursuant to § 2.945.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 2.910 is added to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
§ 2.910
Incorporation by reference.
(a) The materials listed in this section
are incorporated by reference in this
part. These incorporations by reference
were approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and notice
of any change in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding addresses as noted,
and all are available for inspection at
the Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th St. SW.,
Reference Information Center, Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202)
418–0270, and at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) The following material is available
for purchase from at least one of the
following addresses: Global Engineering
Documents, 15 Inverness Way East,
Englewood, CO 80112, (800) 854–7179,
or at https://global.ihs.com; or American
National Standards Institute, 25 West
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY
10036, (212) 642–4900, or at https://
webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/
default.asp.
(1) ANSI C63.4–2009: ‘‘Methods of
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions
from Low-Voltage Electrical and
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9
kHz to 40 GHz,’’ 2009, sections 5.4.4
through 5.5 IBR approved for § 2.948.
(2) CISPR 16–1–4:2007: ‘‘Specification
for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods—Part
1–4: Radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus—Ancillary
equipment—Radiated disturbances’’,
IBR approved for § 2.948.
(c) The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De la VoieCreuse, CP 56, CH–1211, Geneva 20,
Switzerland; www.iso.org; Tel.: +41 22
749 01 11; Fax: +41 22 733 34 30; email:
central@iso.org. (ISO publications can
also be purchased from the American
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
National Standards Institute (ANSI)
through its NSSN operation
(www.nssn.org), at Customer Service,
American National Standards Institute,
25 West 43rd Street, New York NY
10036, telephone (212) 642–4900.)
(1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004, ‘‘Conformity
assessment—General requirements for
accreditation bodies accrediting
conformity assessment bodies,’’ IBR
approved for §§ 2.948, 2.949, and 2.960.
(2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005, ‘‘General
Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories,’’
IBR approved for §§ 2.948, 2.949, and
2.962.
(3) ISO/IEC 17065:2012, ‘‘Conformity
assessment—Requirements for bodies
certifying products, processes and
services,’’ IBR approved for §§ 2.960 and
2.962.
■ 6. Section 2.911 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 2.911
Application requirements.
(a) All requests for equipment
authorization shall be submitted in
writing to a Telecommunication
Certification Body (TCB) in a manner
prescribed by the TCB.
(b) A TCB shall submit an electronic
copy of each equipment authorization
application to the Commission pursuant
to § 2.962(f)(6) on a form prescribed by
the Commission at https://www.fcc.gov/
eas.
(c) Each application that a TCB
submits to the Commission shall be
accompanied by all information
required by this subpart and by those
parts of the rules governing operation of
the equipment, the applicant’s
certifications required in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section, and by
requisite test data, diagrams,
photographs, etc., as specified in this
subpart and in those sections of rules
under which the equipment is to be
operated.
(d) The applicant shall provide to the
TCB all information that the TCB
requests to process the equipment
authorization request and to submit the
application form prescribed by the
Commission and all exhibits required
with this form.
(1) The applicant shall provide a
written and signed certification to the
TCB that all statements it makes in its
request for equipment authorization are
true and correct to the best of its
knowledge and belief.
(2) The applicant shall provide a
written and signed certification to the
TCB that the applicant complies with
the requirements in § 1.2002 of this
chapter concerning the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(3) Each request for equipment
authorization submitted to a TCB,
including amendments thereto, and
related statements of fact and
authorizations required by the
Commission, shall be signed by the
applicant if the applicant is an
individual; by one of the partners if the
applicant is a partnership; by an officer,
if the applicant is a corporation; or by
a member who is an officer, if the
applicant is an unincorporated
association: Provided, however, that the
application may be signed by the
applicant’s authorized representative
who shall indicate his title, such as
plant manager, project engineer, etc.
(4) Information on the Commission’s
equipment authorization requirements
can be obtained from the Internet at
https://www.fcc.gov/eas.
(e) Technical test data submitted to
the TCB and to the Commission shall be
signed by the person who performed or
supervised the tests. The person signing
the test data shall attest to the accuracy
of such data. The Commission may
require such person to submit a
statement showing that he is qualified to
make or supervise the required
measurements.
(f) Each application submitted by a
TCB to the Commission shall be
accompanied by any processing fee
prescribed in subpart G of part 1 of this
chapter. Unless otherwise directed, any
fees required for equipment approval
services pursuant to § 1.1103 of this
chapter must be submitted either
electronically via the Internet at https://
www.fcc.gov/eas or by following the
procedures described in § 0.401(b) of
this chapter. The address for fees
submitted by mail is: Federal
Communications Commission,
Equipment Approval Services, P.O. Box
979095, St. Louis, MO 63197–9000. If
the applicant chooses to make use of an
air courier/package delivery service, the
following address must appear on the
outside of the package/envelope:
Federal Communications Commission,
c/o Lockbox 979095, SL–MO–C2–GL,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101.
(g) Signed, as used in this section,
means an original handwritten
signature; however, the Office of
Engineering and Technology may allow
signature by any symbol executed or
adopted by the applicant or TCB with
the intent that such symbol be a
signature, including symbols formed by
computer-generated electronic
impulses.
§ 2.913
■
[Removed]
7. Section 2.913 is removed.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
§ 2.936
■
[Removed]
8. Section 2.936 is removed.
§ 2.943
[Removed]
9. Section 2.943 is removed.
10. Section 2.945 is revised to read as
follows:
■
■
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
§ 2.945 Submission of equipment for
testing and equipment records.
(a) Prior to equipment authorization.
(1) The Commission or a
Telecommunication Certification Body
(TCB) may require an applicant for
certification to submit one or more
sample units for measurement at the
Commission’s laboratory or the TCB.
(2) If the applicant fails to provide a
sample of the equipment, the TCB may
dismiss the application without
prejudice.
(3) In the event the applicant believes
that shipment of the sample to the
Commission’s laboratory or the TCB is
impractical because of the size or weight
of the equipment, or the power
requirement, or for any other reason, the
applicant may submit a written
explanation why such shipment is
impractical and should not be required.
(4) The Commission may take
administrative sanctions against a
grantee of certification that fails to
respond within 21 days to a
Commission or TCB request for an
equipment sample, such as suspending
action on applications for equipment
authorization submitted by that party
while the matter is being resolved. The
Commission may consider extensions of
time upon submission of a showing of
good cause.
(b) Subsequent to equipment
authorization. (1) The Commission may
request that the responsible party or any
other party marketing equipment subject
to this chapter submit a sample of the
equipment to determine the extent to
which production of such equipment
continues to comply with the data filed
by the applicant or on file with the
responsible party for equipment subject
to verification or Declaration of
Conformity. The Commission may
request that a sample be submitted to
the Commission, or in the case of
equipment subject to certification, to the
TCB that certified the equipment.
(2) A TCB may request samples of
equipment that it has certified from the
grantee of certification for the purpose
of performing post-market surveillance
as described in § 2.962. TCBs must
document their sample requests to show
the date they were sent and provide this
documentation to the Commission upon
request.
(3) The cost of shipping the
equipment to Commission’s laboratory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
or a TCB and back to the party
submitting the equipment shall be borne
by the party from which the
Commission or TCB requested the
equipment.
(4) In the event a party believes that
shipment of the sample to the
Commission’s laboratory or the TCB is
impractical because of the size or weight
of the equipment, or the power
requirement, or for any other reason,
that party may submit a written
explanation why such shipment is
impractical and should not be required.
(5) Failure of a responsible party or
other party marketing equipment subject
to this chapter to comply with a request
from the Commission or TCB for
equipment samples within 21 days may
be cause for actions such as such as
suspending action on applications for
equipment authorization submitted by a
grantee or forfeitures pursuant to § 1.80
of this chapter. The Commission may
consider extensions of time upon
submission of a showing of good cause.
(c) Submission of records. Upon
request by the Commission, each
responsible party shall submit copies of
the records required by §§ 2.938, 2.955,
and 2.1075 to the Commission. Failure
of a responsible party or other party
marketing equipment subject to this
chapter to comply with a request from
the Commission for records within 21
days may be cause for forfeiture,
pursuant to § 1.80 of this chapter. The
Commission may consider extensions of
time upon submission of a showing of
good cause.
(d) Inspection by the Commission.
Upon request by the Commission, each
responsible party shall make its
manufacturing plant and facilities
available for inspection.
§ 2.946
[Removed]
11. Section 2.946 is removed.
12. Section 2.948 is revised to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 2.948
Measurement facilities.
(a) Equipment authorized under the
certification or Declaration of
Conformity (DoC) procedure shall be
tested at a laboratory that is accredited
in accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) A laboratory that makes
measurements of equipment subject to
an equipment authorization under the
certification, DoC or verification
procedure shall compile a description of
the measurement facilities employed.
(1) The description of the
measurement facilities shall contain the
following information:
(i) Location of the test site.
(ii) Physical description of the test site
accompanied by photographs of size A4
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25933
(21 cm × 29.7 cm) or 8×10 inches (20.3
cm × 25.4 cm). Smaller photographs
may be used if they clearly show the
details of the test site and are mounted
on full size sheets of paper.
(iii) A drawing showing the
dimensions of the site, physical layout
of all supporting structures, and all
structures within 5 times the distance
between the measuring antenna and the
device being measured.
(iv) Description of structures used to
support the device being measured and
the test instrumentation.
(v) List of measuring equipment used.
(vi) Information concerning the
calibration of the measuring equipment,
i.e., the date the equipment was last
calibrated and how often the equipment
is calibrated.
(vii) For a measurement facility that
will be used for testing radiated
emissions, a plot of site attenuation data
taken pursuant paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) The description of the
measurement facilities shall be provided
to a laboratory accreditation body upon
request.
(3) The description of the
measurement facilities shall be retained
by the party responsible for verification
of equipment and provided to the
Commission upon request.
(i) The party responsible for
verification of equipment may rely upon
the description of the measurement
facilities retained by an independent
laboratory that performed the tests. In
this situation, the party responsible for
verification of the equipment is not
required to retain a duplicate copy of
the description of the measurement
facilities.
(ii) No specific site calibration data is
required for equipment that is verified
for compliance based on measurements
performed at the installation site of the
equipment. The description of the
measurement facilities may be retained
at the site at which the measurements
were performed.
(c) The Commission will maintain a
list of accredited laboratories for which
the accrediting organization (or
designating authority in the case of
foreign laboratories) submits the
information listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (8) of this section to the
Commission’s laboratory. The
Commission will make publicly
available a list of those laboratories that
indicate they will perform testing on a
contract basis. Inclusion of a facility on
the Commission’s list does not
constitute Commission endorsement of
that facility. The Commission will list
the following information:
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25934
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(1) Laboratory name, location of test
site(s), mailing address and contact
information;
(2) Name of accrediting organization;
(3) Scope of laboratory accreditation;
(4) Date of expiration of accreditation;
(5) Designation number;
(6) FCC Registration Number (FRN);
(7) A statement as to whether or not
the laboratory performs testing on a
contract basis;
(8) For laboratories outside the United
States, the name of the mutual
recognition agreement or arrangement
under which the accreditation of the
laboratory is recognized.
(d) For a measurement facility that
will be used for testing radiated
emissions, the site attenuation must
comply with the requirements of
Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 of the
following procedure: American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.4–2009,
‘‘American National Standard for
Methods of Measurement of RadioNoise Emissions from Low-Voltage
Electrical and Electronic Equipment in
the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz’’
(incorporated by reference, see § 2.910).
This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. If the
measurement site will be used for
measuring radiated emissions in the
range of 1 GHz to 40 GHz, the site must
meet the first alternative specified in
Section 5.5 of C63.4–2009 which states
that RF absorbing material must cover
the ground plane such that the site
validation criterion called out in CISPR
16–1–4:2007 is met. Test site
revalidation shall occur on an interval
not to exceed three years.
(e) A laboratory that has been
accredited with a scope covering the
measurements required for the types of
equipment that it will test shall be
deemed competent to test and submit
test data for equipment subject to
verification, Declaration of Conformity,
and certification. Such a laboratory shall
be accredited by an approved
accreditation organization based on the
International Organization for
Standardization/International
Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)
Standard 17025, ‘‘General Requirements
for the Competence of Calibration and
Testing Laboratories.’’ The organization
accrediting the laboratory must be
approved by the Commission’s Office of
Engineering and Technology, as
indicated in § 0.241 of this chapter, to
perform such accreditation based on
ISO/IEC Standard 17011, ‘‘Conformity
assessment—General requirements for
accreditation bodies accrediting
conformity assessment bodies.’’ The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
frequency for re-assessment of the test
facility and the information that is
required to be filed or retained by the
testing party shall comply with the
requirements established by the
accrediting organization, but shall occur
on an interval not to exceed two years.
(f) The accreditation of a laboratory
located outside of the United States, or
its possessions, will be acceptable only
under one of the following conditions:
(1) If the accredited laboratory has
been designated by a foreign designating
authority and recognized by the
Commission under the terms of a
government-to-government Mutual
Recognition Agreement/Arrangement
(MRA); or
(2) If the laboratory is located in a
country that does not have an MRA with
the United States, then it must be
accredited by an organization
recognized by the Commission under
the provisions of § 2.949 for performing
accreditations in the country where the
laboratory is located.
■ 13. Section 2.949 is added to read as
follows:
§ 2.949 Selection of laboratory
accreditation bodies.
(a) A party wishing to become a
laboratory accreditation body
recognized by OET must submit a
written request to the Chief of OET
requesting such recognition. OET will
make a determination based on the
information provided in support of the
request for recognition.
(b) Applicants shall provide the
following information as evidence of
their credentials and qualifications to
perform accreditation of laboratories
that test equipment to Commission
requirements, consistent with the
requirements of § 2.948(e) of the
Commission’s rules. OET may request
additional information, as needed, to
determine the applicant’s credentials
and qualifications.
(1) Successful completion of an ISO/
IEC 17011 peer review, such as being a
signatory to the International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC)
Mutual Recognition Arrangement or
other equivalent laboratory
accreditation agreement.
(2) Experience with the accreditation
of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC),
radio and telecom testing laboratories to
ISO/IEC 17025. This can be
demonstrated by having OET staff
participate in a witness audit of the
accreditation body performing an
assessment of an EMC/Radio/Telecom
testing laboratory; or by having OET
staff review the report generated by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) laboratory
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
accreditation evaluation program
conducted to support the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Mutual
Recognition Arrangement (MRA) for
Conformity Assessment of
Telecommunications Equipment. An
applicant that offers other evidence has
the burden of demonstrating that the
information would enable OET to
evaluate its experience with the
accreditation of electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC), radio and telecom
testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025.
(3) Accreditation personnel/assessors
with specific technical experience on
the Commission equipment
authorization rules and requirements.
(4) Procedures and policies developed
for the accreditation of testing
laboratories for FCC equipment
authorization programs.
■ 14. Section 2.953 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows.
§ 2.953
Responsibility for compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The importer of equipment subject
to verification may upon receiving a
written statement from the manufacturer
that the equipment complies with the
appropriate technical standards rely on
the manufacturer or independent testing
agency to verify compliance. The test
records required by § 2.955 however
should be in the English language and
made available to the Commission upon
a reasonable request, in accordance with
§ 2.945.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 2.956
[Removed]
15. Section 2.956 is removed.
16. Section 2.960 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) to
read as follows:
■
■
§ 2.960 Recognition of Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs).
(a) The Commission may recognize
designated Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs) to approve
equipment for certification as required
under this part. Certification of
equipment by a TCB shall be based on
an application with all the information
specified in this part. The TCB shall
process the application to determine
compliance with the Commission’s
requirements and shall issue a written
grant of equipment authorization. The
grant shall identify the approving TCB
and the Commission as the issuing
authority.
(b) In the United States, TCBs shall be
accredited and designated by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) under its National
Voluntary Conformity Assessment
Evaluation (NVCASE) program, or other
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
recognized programs based on ISO/IEC
17065, to comply with the
Commission’s qualification criteria for
TCBs. NIST may, in accordance with its
procedures, allow other appropriately
qualified accrediting bodies to accredit
TCBs. TCBs shall comply with the
requirements in § 2.962.
(c) * * *
(1) The organization accrediting the
prospective telecommunication
certification body shall be capable of
meeting the requirements and
conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Section 2.962 is revised to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
§ 2.962 Requirements for
Telecommunication Certification Bodies.
Telecommunication certification
bodies (TCBs) designated by NIST, or
designated by another authority
pursuant to an effective bilateral or
multilateral mutual recognition
agreement or arrangement to which the
United States is a party, shall comply
with the following requirements:
(a) Certification methodology. (1) The
certification system shall be based on
type testing as identified in ISO/IEC
17065.
(2) Certification shall normally be
based on testing no more than one
unmodified representative sample of
each product type for which
certification is sought. Additional
samples may be requested if clearly
warranted, such as when certain tests
are likely to render a sample
inoperative.
(b) Criteria for designation. (1) To be
designated as a TCB under this section,
an entity shall, by means of
accreditation, meet all the appropriate
specifications in ISO/IEC 17065 for the
scope of equipment it will certify. The
accreditation shall specify the group of
equipment to be certified and the
applicable regulations for product
evaluation.
(2) The TCB shall demonstrate expert
knowledge of the regulations for each
product with respect to which the body
seeks designation. Such expertise shall
include familiarity with all applicable
technical regulations, administrative
provisions or requirements, as well as
the policies and procedures used in the
application thereof.
(3) The TCB shall have the technical
expertise and capability to test the
equipment it will certify and shall also
be accredited in accordance with ISO/
IEC 17025 to demonstrate it is
competent to perform such tests.
(4) The TCB shall demonstrate an
ability to recognize situations where
interpretations of the regulations or test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
procedures may be necessary. The
appropriate key certification and
laboratory personnel shall demonstrate
knowledge of how to obtain current and
correct technical regulation
interpretations. The competence of the
TCB shall be demonstrated by
assessment. The general competence,
efficiency, experience, familiarity with
technical regulations and products
included in those technical regulations,
as well as compliance with applicable
parts of the ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC
17065, shall be taken into consideration.
(5) A TCB shall participate in any
consultative activities, identified by the
Commission or NIST, to facilitate a
common understanding and
interpretation of applicable regulations.
(6) The Commission will provide
public notice of the specific methods
that will be used to accredit TCBs,
consistent with these qualification
criteria.
(7) A TCB shall be reassessed for
continued accreditation on intervals not
exceeding two years.
(c) External resources. (1) In
accordance with the provisions of ISO/
IEC 17065, the evaluation of a product,
or a portion thereof, may be performed
by bodies that meet the applicable
requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/
IEC 17065, in accordance with the
applicable provisions of ISO/IEC 17065
for external resources (outsourcing) and
other relevant standards.
(2) A recognized TCB shall not subcontract certification decision activities.
(3) When a subcontractor is used to
provide testing of equipment subject to
certification, the TCB shall be
responsible for the test results and shall
maintain appropriate oversight of the
subcontractor to ensure reliability of the
test results. Such oversight shall include
periodic audits of products that have
been tested and other activities as
required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a
certification body uses external
resources for evaluation.
(d) Recognition of a TCB. (1)(i) The
Commission will recognize as a TCB
any organization in the United States
that meets the qualification criteria and
is accredited and designated by NIST or
NIST’s recognized accreditor as
provided in § 2.960(b).
(ii) The Commission will recognize as
a TCB any organization outside the
United States that meets the
qualification criteria and is designated
pursuant to an effective bilateral or
multilateral MRA as provided in
§ 2.960(c).
(2) The Commission will withdraw its
recognition of a TCB if the TCB’s
designation or accreditation is
withdrawn, if the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25935
determines there is just cause for
withdrawing the recognition, or if the
TCB requests that it no longer hold its
designation or recognition. The
Commission will limit the scope of
equipment that can be approved by a
TCB if its accreditor limits the scope of
its accreditation or if the Commission
determines there is good cause to do so.
The Commission will notify a TCB in
writing of its intention to withdraw or
limit the scope of the TCB’s recognition
and provide at least 60 days for the TCB
to respond. In the case of a TCB
designated and recognized pursuant to
an effective bilateral or multilateral
mutual recognition agreement or
arrangement (MRA), the Commission
shall consult with the Office of the
United States Trade Representative
(USTR), as necessary, concerning any
disputes arising under an MRA for
compliance with the
Telecommunications Trade Act of 1988
(Section 1371–1382 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988).
(3) The Commission will notify a TCB
in writing when it has evidence that the
TCB is not approving equipment in
accordance with the Commission’s rules
and policies and request that it correct
any apparent deficiencies. The
Commission may require that all
applications for the TCB be processed
under the pre-approval guidance
procedure in § 2.964 for at least 30 days,
and will provide a TCB with 30 day
notice of its intent to do so unless good
cause exists for providing shorter notice.
The Commission may request that a
TCB’s designating authority or
accreditation body investigate and take
appropriate corrective actions as
required, and the Commission may
initiate action to limit or withdraw the
recognition of the TCB as described in
§ 2.962(e)(2).
(4) If the Commission withdraws its
recognition of a TCB, all equipment
approvals issued by that TCB will
remain valid unless specifically set
aside or revoked by the Commission
under paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(5) A list of recognized TCBs will be
published by the Commission.
(e) Scope of responsibility. (1) A TCB
shall certify equipment in accordance
with the Commission’s rules and
policies.
(2) A TCB shall accept test data from
any Commission-recognized accredited
test laboratory, subject to the
requirements in ISO/IEC 17065, and
shall not unnecessarily repeat tests.
(3) A TCB may establish and assess
fees for processing certification
applications and other Commissionrequired tasks.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
25936
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(4) A TCB shall dismiss an
application which is not in accordance
with the provisions of this subpart or
when the applicant requests dismissal,
and may dismiss an application if the
applicant does not submit additional
information or test samples requested by
the TCB.
(5) The Commission or TCB may set
aside a grant of certification within 30
days of grant. A TCB shall notify the
applicant and the Commission when a
grant is set aside. After 30 days, the
Commission may revoke a grant of
certification through the procedures in
§ 2.939.
(6) A TCB shall follow the procedures
in § 2.964 for equipment on the preapproval guidance list.
(7) A TCB shall supply an electronic
copy of each equipment authorization
application form and all necessary
exhibits to the Commission prior to
grant or dismissal of the application.
Where appropriate, the application must
be accompanied by a request for
confidentiality of any material that may
qualify for confidential treatment under
the Commission’s rules.
(8) A TCB shall grant or dismiss each
equipment authorization application
through the Commission’s electronic
system.
(9) A TCB may not:
(i) Grant a waiver of the rules.
(ii) Take enforcement actions; or
(iii) Authorize a transfer of control of
a grantee.
(10) All TCB actions are subject to
Commission review.
(f) Post-market surveillance
requirements. (1) In accordance with
ISO/IEC 17065, a TCB shall conduct
appropriate post-market surveillance
activities. These activities shall be based
on type testing a certain number of
samples of the total number of product
types which the certification body has
certified. Other types of surveillance
activities of a product that has been
certified are permitted, provided they
are no more onerous than type testing.
(2) The Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) has
delegated authority under § 0.241(g) of
this chapter to develop procedures that
TCBs will use for performing postmarket surveillance. OET will publish a
document on TCB post-market
surveillance requirements, and this
document will provide specific
information such as the number and
types of samples that a TCB must test.
(3) OET may request that a grantee of
equipment certification submit a sample
directly to the TCB that performed the
original certification for evaluation. Any
equipment samples requested by the
Commission and tested by a TCB will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
counted toward the minimum number
of samples that the TCB must test.
(4) TCBs may request samples of
equipment that they have certified
directly from the grantee of certification
in accordance with § 2.945.
(5) If during post market surveillance
of a certified product, a TCB determines
that a product fails to comply with the
technical regulations for that product,
the TCB shall immediately notify the
grantee and the Commission in writing
of its findings. The grantee shall provide
a report to the TCB describing the
actions taken to correct the situation,
and the TCB shall provide a report of
these actions to the Commission within
thirty days.
(6) TCBs shall submit periodic reports
to OET of their post-market surveillance
activities and findings in the format and
by the date specified by OET.
■ 18. Section 2.964 is added to read as
follows:
§ 2.964 Pre-approval guidance procedure
for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.
(a) The Commission will publish a
‘‘pre-approval guidance list’’ identifying
the categories of equipment or types of
testing for which TCBs must request
guidance from the Commission before
approving equipment on the list.
(b) TCBs shall use the following
procedure for approving equipment on
the Commission’s pre-approval
guidance list.
(1) A TCB shall perform an initial
review of the application and determine
the issues on which it needs to obtain
guidance from the Commission. It shall
then contact the Commission to obtain
guidance on those issues by
electronically submitting relevant
exhibits.
(2) The TCB shall complete the review
of the application in accordance with
the Commission’s guidance.
(3) The Commission may request and
test a sample of the equipment before
the application can be granted.
(4) The TCB shall electronically
submit the application and all exhibits
to the Commission along with a request
to grant the application.
(5) The Commission will give its
concurrence for the TCB to grant the
application if it determines that the
equipment complies with the rules. The
Commission will advise the TCB if
additional information or equipment
testing is required, or if the equipment
cannot be approved because it does not
comply with the Commission’s rules.
■ 19. Section 2.1033 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(13), revising
paragraph (c) introductory text and
adding paragraph (c)(19) to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 2.1033
Application for certification.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(13) Contain at least one drawing or
photograph showing the test set-up for
each of the required types of tests
applicable to the device for which
certification is requested. These
drawings or photographs must show
enough detail to confirm other
information contained in the test report.
Any photographs used must be focused
originals without glare or dark spots and
must clearly show the test configuration
used.
(c) Applications for equipment other
than that operating under parts 15, 11
and 18 of this chapter shall be
accompanied by a technical report
containing the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
(19) Contain at least one drawing or
photograph showing the test set-up for
each of the required types of tests
applicable to the device for which
certification is requested. These
drawings or photographs must show
enough detail to confirm other
information contained in the test report.
Any photographs used must be focused
originals without glare or dark spots and
must clearly show the test configuration
used.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 20. Section 2.1073 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 2.1073
Responsibilities.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The responsible party, if different
from the manufacturer, may upon
receiving a written statement from the
manufacturer that the equipment
complies with the appropriate technical
standards rely on the manufacturer or
independent testing agency to
determine compliance. However, the
test records required by § 2.1075 shall
be in the English language and shall be
made available to the Commission upon
a reasonable request in accordance with
the provisions of § 2.945.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 21. Section 2.1075 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 2.1075
Retention of records.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The records listed in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section shall be
retained for two years after the
manufacture or assembly, as
appropriate, of said equipment has been
permanently discontinued, or until the
conclusion of an investigation or a
proceeding if the responsible party is
officially notified that an investigation
or any other administrative proceeding
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
involving the equipment has been
instituted. Requests for the records
described in this section and for sample
units also are covered under the
provisions of § 2.945.
§ 2.1076
■
[Removed]
22. Section 2.1076 is removed.
§ 15.109
[Amended]
26. Section 15.109 is amended by
removing paragraph (g)(4).
■
PART 68—CONNECTION OF
TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE
TELEPHONE NETWORK
27. The authority citation for part 68
continues to read as follows:
■
PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY
DEVICES
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as
amended, 1066, 1068, 1082, (47 U.S.C. 154,
155, 303).
23. 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.
28. Section 68.160 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) to
read as follows:
24. Section 15.31 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 68.160 Designation of
Telecommunication Certification Bodies
(TCBs).
■
■
§ 15.31
Measurement standards.
(a) * * *
(3) Other intentional radiators are to
be measured for compliance using the
following procedure: ANSI C63.10–
2009: ‘‘American National Standard for
Testing Unlicensed Wireless Devices’’
(incorporated by reference, § 15.38).
This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(4) Unintentional radiators are to be
measured for compliance using the
following procedure excluding sections
4.5.2, 6.2.12, 8.2.2, 9 and 14: ANSI
C63.4–2009: ‘‘Methods of Measurement
of Radio-Noise Emissions from LowVoltage Electrical and Electronic
Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40
GHz’’ (incorporated by reference, see
§ 15.38). This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 25. Section 15.38 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) and by adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 15.38
Incorporation by reference.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) ANSI C63.4–2009: ‘‘Methods of
Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions
from Low-Voltage Electrical and
Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9
kHz to 40 GHz,’’ 2009, IBR approved for
§ 15.31 except sections 4.5.2, 6.2.12,
8.2.2, 9 and 14.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) ANSI C63.10–2009, ‘‘American
National Standard for Testing
Unlicensed Wireless Devices,’’ 2009,
IBR approved for § 15.31.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
(a) The Commission may recognize
designated Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs) to approve
equipment for certification as required
under this part. Certification of
equipment by a TCB shall be based on
an application with all the information
specified in this part. The TCB shall
process the application to determine
compliance with the Commission’s
requirements and shall issue a written
grant of equipment authorization. The
grant shall identify the approving TCB
and the Commission as the issuing
authority.
(b) In the United States, TCBs shall be
accredited and designated by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) under its National
Voluntary Conformity Assessment
Evaluation (NVCASE) program, or other
recognized programs based on ISO/IEC
17065, to comply with the
Commission’s qualification criteria for
TCBs. NIST may, in accordance with its
procedures, allow other appropriately
qualified accrediting bodies to accredit
TCBs. TCBs shall comply with the
requirements in § 68.162.
(c) * * *
(1) The organization accrediting the
prospective telecommunication
certification body shall be capable of
meeting the requirements and
conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 29. Section 68.162 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (c)(1),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (f)(2), and (g)(2) to read
as follows:
§ 68.162 Requirements for
Telecommunication Certification Bodies.
(a) Telecommunication certification
bodies (TCBs) designated by NIST, or
designated by another authority
pursuant to an effective bilateral or
multilateral mutual recognition
agreement or arrangement to which the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25937
United States is a party, shall comply
with the following requirements.
(b) Certification methodology. (1) The
certification system shall be based on
type testing as identified in ISO/IEC
17065.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Criteria for designation. (1) To be
designated as a TCB under this section,
an entity shall, by means of
accreditation, meet all the appropriate
specifications in ISO/IEC 17065 for the
scope of equipment it will certify. The
accreditation shall specify the group of
equipment to be certified and the
applicable regulations for product
evaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The TCB shall have the technical
expertise and capability to test the
equipment it will certify and shall also
be accredited in accordance with ISO/
IEC 17025 to demonstrate it is
competent to perform such tests.
(4) The TCB shall demonstrate an
ability to recognize situations where
interpretations of the regulations or test
procedures may be necessary. The
appropriate key certification and
laboratory personnel shall demonstrate
knowledge of how to obtain current and
correct technical regulation
interpretations. The competence of the
telecommunication certification body
shall be demonstrated by assessment.
The general competence, efficiency,
experience, familiarity with technical
regulations and products included in
those technical regulations, as well as
compliance with applicable parts of the
ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17065, shall
be taken into consideration.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) External resources. (1) In
accordance with the provisions of ISO/
IEC 17065, the evaluation of a product,
or a portion thereof, may be performed
by bodies that meet the applicable
requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/
IEC 17065, in accordance with the
applicable provisions of ISO/IEC 17065
for external resources (outsourcing) and
other relevant standards.
(2) A recognized TCB shall not subcontract certification decision activities.
(3) When a subcontractor is used to
provide testing of equipment subject to
certification, the TCB shall be
responsible for the test results and shall
maintain appropriate oversight of the
subcontractor to ensure reliability of the
test results. Such oversight shall include
periodic audits of products that have
been tested and other activities as
required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a
certification body uses external
resources for evaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
25938
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(f) * * *
(2) A TCB shall accept test data from
any source, subject to the requirements
in ISO/IEC 17065, and shall not
unnecessarily repeat tests.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) In accordance with ISO/IEC 17065,
a TCB is required to conduct
appropriate surveillance activities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 May 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
These activities shall be based on type
testing a few samples of the total
number of product types which the
certification body has certified. Other
types of surveillance activities of a
product that has been certified are
permitted, provided they are no more
onerous than testing type. The
Commission may at any time request a
list of products certified by the
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
certification body and may request and
receive copies of product evaluation
reports. The Commission may also
request that a TCB perform post-market
surveillance, under Commission
guidelines, of a specific product it has
certified.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–10315 Filed 5–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25916-25938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10315]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 2, 15 and 68
[ET Docket No. 13-44; FCC 13-19]
Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes certain changes to the Commission's
equipment authorization processes to ensure that they continue to
operate efficiently and effectively. In particular, it addresses the
role of TCBs in certifying RF equipment and post-market surveillance,
as well as the Commission's role in assessing TCB performance. It also
addresses the role of test laboratories in the RF equipment approval
process, including accreditation of test labs and the Commission's
recognition of laboratory accreditation bodies, and measurement
procedures used to determine RF equipment compliance. The Commission
believes that the changes proposed will enable new and
[[Page 25917]]
innovative products to be brought to market as quickly as possible,
thus promoting competition in the provision of RF equipment, while at
the same time protecting against interference among radio services and
devices using the RF spectrum.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 17, 2013, and reply
comments must be filed on or before July 17, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-7506, email: Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov, TTY (202)
418-2989.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 13-44
and RM-11652, by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Room 7-A162, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 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: 202-418-0432.
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's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 13-44, FCC 13-19, adopted
February 12, 2013, and released February 15, 2013. 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 complete text of this document
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.
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: https://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), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Commission is responsible for an equipment authorization
program for radiofrequency (RF) devices under part 2 of its rules. This
program is one of the primary means that the Commission uses to ensure
that the multitude of RF devices used in the United States operate
effectively without causing harmful interference and otherwise comply
with the Commission rules. All RF devices subject to equipment
authorization must comply with the Commission's technical requirement
before they can be imported or marketed. The Commission or a
Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) must approve some of these
devices before they can be imported or marketed, while others do not
require such approval. The Commission last comprehensively reviewed its
equipment authorization program more than ten years ago. The rapid
innovation in equipment design since that time has led to ever-
accelerating growth in the number of parties applying for equipment
approval. The Commission therefore believes that the time is now right
for us to comprehensively review our equipment authorization processes
to ensure that they continue to enable this growth and innovation in
the wireless equipment market. In May of 2012, the Commission began
this reform process by issuing an Order to increase the supply of
available grantee codes. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), the Commission continues its work to review and reform the
equipment authorization processes and rules.
2. The NPRM proposes certain changes to the Commission's part 2
equipment authorization processes to ensure that they continue to
operate efficiently and effectively. In particular, it addresses the
role of TCBs in certifying RF equipment and post-market surveillance,
as well as the Commission's role in assessing TCB performance. The NPRM
also addressed the role of test laboratories in the RF equipment
approval process, including accreditation of test labs and the
Commission's recognition of laboratory accreditation bodies, and
measurement procedures used to determine RF equipment compliance.
Finally, it proposes certain modifications to the rules regarding TCBs
that approve terminal equipment under part 68 of the rules that are
consistent with our proposed modifications to the rules for TCBs that
approve RF equipment. Specifically the Commission proposes to recognize
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) as the
organization that designates TCBs in the United States and to modify
the rules to reference the current International Organization for
Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)
guides used to accredit TCBs.
3. The current RF equipment authorization procedures have evolved
over the course of more than 35 years. The last complete review of the
equipment authorization procedures was conducted more than 10 years
ago. In the Equipment Authorization Procedures Order of 1998, 63 FR
36591, July 7, 1998, the Commission reduced and consolidated the
equipment approval processes for RF equipment to
[[Page 25918]]
three types--certification, Declaration of Conformity (DoC), and
verification; relaxed the equipment authorization requirement from
certification to Declaration of Conformity for certain part 15
unintentional radiators and part 18 consumer industrial, scientific,
and medical (ISM) equipment; relaxed the equipment authorization
requirement from notification to verification for certain transmitters
operated in licensed services; and provided for electronic filing of
applications for equipment authorization. These actions were designed
to reduce the burden of the equipment authorization program on
manufacturers.
4. Subsequently, in the Streamlining II Order, the Commission
amended its equipment authorization rules to further streamline the
equipment authorization process by allowing accredited independent
certification bodies, called Telecommunication Certification Bodies
(TCBs), to approve most types of equipment that require certification.
The Commission took this action pursuant to its authority under Section
302(e) of the Communications Act, which permits it to delegate
equipment testing and certification to private organizations. It
established the TCB program to provide manufacturers with an
alternative to obtaining certification from the Commission, and to
facilitate the more rapid introduction of RF equipment in the market.
TCBs approve equipment under the certification procedure based on an
application that provides all of the information specified in part 2.
The TCB processes the application to determine whether the product
meets the Commission's requirements and issues a grant of equipment
authorization through the Commission's Equipment Authorization System
(EAS). The grant identifies the approving TCB and the Commission as the
issuing authority. While the Commission continues to process most types
of certification applications, TCBs now issue the vast majority of
grants of certification. In order to ensure that the TCBs' evaluations
are properly performed, the Commission holds mandatory monthly
conference calls and semi-annual workshops with all TCBs to discuss
recent interpretations, policy changes and any other issues or concerns
related to the TCB program. The Commission also performs audits on TCB
approvals to ensure that TCBs operate in accordance with our rules. If
such audits reveal concerns about a particular TCB's performance, the
Commission may initiate action to verify the TCB's technical competence
and may revoke the recognition of a TCB that does not operate in
accordance with the rules.
5. TCBs, which may be located in the United States or in certain
foreign countries, all have the same responsibilities regardless of
their location. However, their location dictates the method by which
they are designated. TCBs within the United States are designated by
the Commission after demonstrating that they are accredited to meet the
applicable requirements by NIST or its designated accrediting
organization. Certification bodies located outside of the United States
can be recognized as a TCB only under the terms of a Mutual Recognition
Agreement (MRA) between a foreign country and the United States
government. Each MRA specifies an authority, typically a government
entity that designates TCBs in the country or countries covered by the
MRA. The Commission then recognizes the designated TCBs. No TCBs are
designated in countries that do not have an MRA with the United States.
Manufacturers in such countries have to obtain product certification at
a designated TCB in another country.
6. The specific provisions of the three current RF equipment
authorization procedures are described below.
Certification is an equipment authorization issued by the
Commission or by a designated TCB based on an application and test data
submitted by the responsible party (e.g., the manufacturer or
importer). The Commission or a TCB may re-test a sample of a device to
verify that it complies with the rules before granting approval for the
equipment to be marketed. The certification procedure is typically
applied to RF equipment that has a greater risk of non-compliance, such
as equipment employing new technology for which the testing methodology
is not well defined, or that poses a higher risk of interference.
Examples of devices subject to certification include, but are not
limited to, mobile phones; wireless local area networking equipment,
remote control transmitters; land mobile radio transmitters; wireless
medical telemetry transmitters; cordless telephones; and walkie-
talkies. All certified equipment is listed in a Commission database,
regardless of whether it is approved by the Commission or a TCB.
Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a procedure that requires the
party responsible for compliance to follow certain measurement
requirements and/or take other necessary steps to ensure that the
equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards. A
compliance information statement must be supplied with the product,
identifying the product and a responsible party within the United
States, and containing the statement specified in Sec. 15.19(a)(3).
The responsible party is not required to file an equipment
authorization application with the Commission or a TCB, or to submit a
sample unit or test data unless specifically requested. However, the
responsible party must submit to the Commission upon request records of
the original design drawings and specifications, the procedures used
for production inspection and testing, a report of RF emission
measurements, the compliance information statement, and a sample of the
device. The DoC authorization procedure is typically required for types
of RF equipment that have a good record of compliance, where the
testing methodology is clearly defined and recognized by the
Commission, and there is a low risk of interference. Examples of
devices subject to a DoC include personal computers and peripherals,
consumer ISM equipment such as microwave ovens and RF light bulbs,
radio receivers and TV interface devices. Equipment authorized under
the DoC procedure is not listed in a Commission database.
Verification is a procedure under which the party responsible for
compliance relies on measurements that it or another party makes to
ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical
standards. Under the verification procedure, the responsible party is
not required to file an application with the Commission. Submission of
a sample unit or representative data to the Commission demonstrating
compliance is not required unless specifically requested by the
Commission. The responsible party must submit to the Commission upon
request records of the original design drawings and specifications, the
procedures used for production inspection and testing, a report of RF
emission measurements, and a sample of the device. Verification, which
is the least burdensome equipment authorization procedure, is applied
to types of RF equipment that have an excellent record of compliance,
the testing methodology is well known and understood, and there is low
risk of interference. Examples of devices subject to verification
include non-consumer ISM equipment; TV and FM receivers; and business
computer equipment. Devices subject to verification must be uniquely
identified in a format which cannot be confused with the FCC identifier
required on
[[Page 25919]]
certified equipment. Equipment authorized under the verification
procedure is not listed in a Commission database.
7. RF equipment subject to any of the equipment authorization
procedures described must generally be tested for compliance with the
Commission's technical rules. The Commission has general requirements
on the qualifications of laboratories that perform compliance testing,
and certain specific requirements on laboratories that test equipment
under particular rule parts or authorization procedures. For example,
equipment authorized under the DoC procedure must be tested by a
laboratory that is accredited as meeting the requirements of ISO/IEC
Standard 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration
and Testing Laboratories, by a Commission-recognized accreditation
organization. Laboratories that test equipment subject to certification
under parts 15 and 18 of the rules are not required to be accredited,
but must be on a list maintained by the Commission. Equipment
authorized pursuant to certification under rule parts other than parts
15 or 18, or any equipment authorized under verification, may be tested
by the manufacturer or by an independent testing laboratory that is not
required to be accredited or listed with the Commission. The Commission
may conduct post-market testing of equipment authorized under any of
the three procedures to ensure that equipment on the market complies
with the Commission's technical requirements. Additionally, TCBs are
required to perform post-market surveillance on a certain percentage of
products they have certified.
Given the changes in RF devices, technologies, and manufacturing
methods that have occurred since the Commission last comprehensively
reviewed its equipment authorization procedures, we believe that it is
time to revisit the equipment authorization procedures to ensure that
they are appropriate for the types of equipment being marketed today
and for the increasingly intensive use of the airwaves. We are
initiating this proceeding to explore improvements that can be made to
our RF equipment authorization processes to efficiently achieve the
goals of preventing interference to communications services without
hindering the rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the
market.
8. In particular, the Commission proposed that it will no longer
conduct evaluations for initially approving RF equipment requiring
certification under the procedures in part 2 of the rules, and that
TCBs will approve all such equipment in the first instance, including
equipment on the ``exclusion list'' that only the Commission may
currently approve. The Commission also proposed to clarify and modify
the rules on TCB responsibilities. Specifically, it proposed to codify
the ``permit-but-ask'' procedure that TCBs must use when certifying new
technologies when testing protocols have not been established, clarify
the responsibility of TCBs to perform post-market surveillance of
products they have approved, and specify steps that can be taken if a
TCB's performance were found to be deficient. The Commission also
proposed to require accreditation of all laboratories that test
equipment subject to the part 2 certification procedure, and to codify
the existing procedure through which the Commission can recognize new
laboratory accreditation bodies. In addition, it proposed to
incorporate the latest versions of the industry standards for measuring
equipment into the rules and address how to update these standards more
quickly in the future. Finally, the Commission proposed to modify the
rules to reference the current ISO/IEC standards used to accredit TCBs
that approve RF equipment under part 2 of the Commission's rules and
terminal equipment under part 68 of the Commission's rules. The
specific issues and proposals on which it seeks comments are discussed
in detail in the NPRM. The Commission believes that the changes
proposed will enable new and innovative products to be brought to
market as quickly as possible, thus promoting competition in the
provision of RF equipment, while at the same time protecting against
interference among radio services and devices using the RF spectrum.
9. Many of the changes proposed herein are administrative in nature
and the Commission believes that there would be minimal or no costs
associated with them. It recognizes that certain proposed changes, such
as requiring laboratories to become accredited, would result in some
increased costs. The Commission expects that the benefits of the
proposed changes would be greater than the additional costs that would
be incurred. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of
the rule changes proposed, along with data supporting commenters'
assessments.
A. TCB Program
1. Certification of RF Equipment
10. One goal of the Commission in allowing TCBs to perform
equipment approvals was to enable it to discontinue processing routine
applications when TCBs were available to perform the work. The
Commission, however, did not commit to ending its role in issuing
equipment authorizations altogether. The Commission concluded at that
time that it was unnecessary for it to continue approving certification
applications for personal computers and peripherals, since that
equipment could be authorized through the DoC procedure. It found that
processing these voluntarily filed applications was not an efficient
use of its resources, and stated that once domestic TCBs were available
to process applications for personal computer equipment for those
applicants who chose to use the certification process rather than DoC,
the Commission would stop accepting these applications. The Commission
issued a public notice in September 2000 announcing that it would no
longer accept applications for personal computer equipment. However,
the Commission has continued to accept applications for all other types
of equipment during the implementation of the TCB program. This
practice has provided a smooth transition to TCB certification of
equipment authorization applications, and ensured that at least one
entity is available to certify all types of equipment.
11. Under the current rules, a TCB is not permitted to certify
equipment for which Commission rules or requirements do not exist or
for which the application of the rules or requirements are unclear. In
some rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has identified specific
categories of equipment that TCBs are not allowed to certify, such as
TV bands devices and split modular transmitters. OET maintains an up-
to-date list of the types of equipment that a TCB is not allowed to
certify and publishes this ``exclusion list'' on the Commission's
Knowledge DataBase (KDB) system. To enable TCBs to certify more types
of devices, OET has established a ``permit-but-ask'' procedure that
allows TCBs to review applications for certification of equipment that
would otherwise be excluded from approval by a TCB. These procedures
allow the prospective applicant and TCB to seek guidance prior to
filing the application for certification. Based on information
submitted from the initiating party in a permit-but-ask request, the
Commission provides guidance on test methods and
[[Page 25920]]
the applicability of the Commission's technical requirements specific
to the device for which authorization is to be requested. This is an
electronic inquiry/response process that is linked to the electronic
equipment authorization system. The TCB then reviews the application
for certification based on the guidance received from the Commission.
Once a TCB has completed a review of equipment covered by the permit-
but-ask procedure, it confirms with OET that appropriate measures have
been taken to demonstrate compliance with the guidance provided by OET
prior to issuing a grant of certification. The appropriate measures
include seeking guidance on proper test procedures, applying
interpretations of technical rules or applying specific review
procedures as provided by the Commission staff prior to the final
approval.
12. The Commission maintains a database of all RF equipment
certified by the Commission and TCBs. This database allows the
Commission to verify that a device is approved without having to
contact the TCB that approved the device to obtain the records
demonstrating compliance with the FCC requirements. The database also
allows the Commission to monitor the activities of TCBs to determine
how many approvals are issued for each type of equipment. Further, this
database provides a single publicly available source of information
that parties can use to verify approvals and obtain copies of
applications for and grants of certification.
13. Proposals. Now that the TCB program is well-established, the
Commission proposes that the Commission no longer directly issue any
grants of equipment authorization, and instead allow TCBs to authorize
all products subject to certification. This proposal will allow the
Commission staff to concentrate on enforcing the rules, providing the
necessary oversight and guidance to the TCBs, performing post-market
surveillance and auditing random samples of products approved by the
TCBs. The Commission notes that during Fiscal Year 2011, TCBs certified
approximately 98% of the products submitted for approval under the
Commission's RF equipment authorization program. It also proposes to
provide TCBs with specific authority to dismiss equipment authorization
applications under the same circumstances that the Commission may
dismiss applications. Specifically, the Commission proposes that a TCB
shall dismiss an application that is not in accordance with the
provisions of Subpart 2 or if requested by the applicant, and the TCB
may dismiss an application if the applicant fails to provide additional
information or test samples requested by the TCB. The dismissal of an
application would be without prejudice to the applicant filing a new
application under the same FCC identification number with additional or
corrected information. An applicant could appeal a TCB's dismissal of
an application to the Commission if it believed that the TCB acted in
error, and the Commission could change a TCB's action that it finds
erroneous. However, the Commission is not proposing to provide TCBs
with authority to deny applications, which it believes is a function
that should be reserved for the Commission. A TCB could recommend
denial of an application to the Commission which would determine if
such action is warranted. A TCB would continue to have authority to
rescind a grant within 30 days as the rules currently allow for both
TCBs and the Commission, but we are proposing to change the term
``rescind'' to ``set aside'' for consistency with the part 1 rules. The
Commission does not expect that this proposal will have any impact on
applicant's costs because TCBs already certify approximately 98% of all
RF equipment. Further, the benefits are significant because applicants
for equipment certification would be able to have all types of devices
approved by a TCB and obtain approvals more quickly. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals.
14. The Commission proposes to eliminate the exclusion list and
instead codify a procedure that TCBs will use when they require
guidance from the Commission to certify a product for which the rules,
requirements or measurement procedures are not clear. It proposes to
call this the pre-approval guidance procedure. Under this procedure,
the Commission will identify the types of devices or types of testing
for which a TCB will be required to consult with the Commission before
granting certification. These may include, for example, devices
operating under the Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS), Ultra Wide Band
(UWB) and TV Bands Device (TVBD) rules under which the Commission is
the only equipment approval body at the present time. Under our
proposed procedure, the Commission would have to give its concurrence
before a TCB could grant an application. The Commission also would
advise a TCB if additional information or equipment testing is required
or if the equipment cannot be approved because it does not comply with
the Commission's rules. In this manner, although ultimately the
authorization is granted by a TCB, the Commission will continue to
exercise the necessary control and oversight of particular areas of the
rules until such time that it determines these areas can be considered
routine and these additional oversight procedures will not be needed.
The Commission expects that having TCBs process applications for
equipment currently on the exclusion list under the proposed pre-
approval guidance procedure will speed processing because TCBs will
perform all of the routine application review, while OET will need to
review only those portions of an application that require additional
oversight. We seek comment on this proposal.
15. The current permit-but-ask process does not fully integrate the
inquiry/response function in the KDB with the application processing
function in the Equipment Authorization System (EAS). This process
requires a TCB to first send a request through the KDB for Commission
guidance on processing an application on the permit-but-ask list. The
TCB then uploads files for Commission review using the EAS, which is a
separate system from the KDB. Any further communications between the
Commission and a TCB are made using the KDB. Therefore, both the
Commission and TCBs must cross reference application files and related
communications that are stored on different electronic systems. As a
result, the process has sometimes been time consuming for applicants
and TCBs. The Commission intends to fully integrate the pre-approval
guidance procedure with the EAS, thereby improving Commission response
time while continuing to provide necessary guidance for new equipment
representing new technologies.
16. Under the present process, the Commission may test a sample of
certain types of equipment before it gives a TCB permission to issue a
grant of certification. For example, for equipment subject to the
Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) requirements in part 15, subpart E,
the Commission requires a sample of the equipment being considered for
certification be tested at the Commission's Laboratory prior to the
grant of certification being issued. The Commission proposes to provide
that the pre-approval guidance procedure include the option for the
Commission to conduct pre-grant sample testing to ensure that the
Commission is able to request samples of devices to verify their
compliance with the rules. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
[[Page 25921]]
17. In summary, the proposed pre-approval guidance procedure would
function as follows:
1. The Commission will issue a KDB publication identifying the
categories of equipment or types of testing that come under the pre-
approval guidance procedure. This list will include devices currently
on the exclusion and permit-but-ask lists.
2. The TCB will perform an initial review of the application and
determine the issues on which it needs to obtain guidance from the
Commission. It will then contact the Commission to obtain guidance on
those issues by electronically submitting relevant exhibits.
3. The TCB will review the application in accordance with the
Commission's guidance to determine whether the equipment complies with
the Commission's rules.
4. The Commission may request and test a sample before the
application can be granted.
5. The TCB will electronically submit all exhibits to the
Commission along with a recommendation to grant or dismiss the
application.
6. The Commission will give its concurrence for the TCB to grant
the application if it determines that the equipment complies with the
rules. The Commission will advise the TCB if additional information or
equipment testing is required, or if the equipment cannot be approved
because it does not comply with the Commission's rules.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposed procedure and on any
additions or modifications that may be required.
18. Under the current rules, an application for certification of RF
equipment is made by filing FCC Form 731 and the supporting information
required by the rules, including a measurement report, instruction
manuals, and equipment photographs and diagrams. For equipment
certified by the Commission, the application form and supporting
information must be filed electronically with the EAS at the URL
specified in the rules. For equipment certified by TCBs, the applicant
files the information required by Form 731 and all required exhibits
directly with a TCB. The Commission's rules also require that
applicants, to be eligible for any instrument of authorization from the
Commission, must certify that they comply with the Implementation of
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and are responsible for ensuring that
statements made in an application for authorization are true and
correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Signatures required
on the application may be in electronic format.
19. The Commission proposes to modify its rules to clarify the
responsibilities of applicants for equipment authorization and of the
TCBs that will process these applications through the Commission's
electronic systems. It proposes to modify Sec. 2.911 to state that
applicants shall send a written, signed request for equipment
authorization to a TCB. The Commission would continue to permit
signatures in electronic format. It also proposes to modify the rule to
make explicit that applicants provide the TCB with the information
required by Form 731 in writing or electronic format, including all
exhibits that the TCB requires to process the application and to
complete Form 731 in the Commission electronic system. For example,
applicants would have to provide the TCB with an FCC Registration
Number (FRN) and a grantee code if these have already been assigned to
the applicant by the Commission. The Commission further proposes that
an applicant must provide the TCB with signed written certifications
stating that it complies with Implementation of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 and that all statements made in the application are correct to
the best of its knowledge and belief. Additionally, the Commission
proposes that the TCB must submit the applicant's certifications as
exhibits when it uploads Form 731 applications to the Commission. The
Commission is also proposing to incorporate into Sec. 2.911 the
requirement from Sec. 2.913 that applications must be accompanied by
the appropriate fees since new applicants for certification must submit
a fee to obtain a grantee code, and this function could be handled by a
TCB if an applicant authorizes a TCB to do so. However, because that is
the only equipment authorization fee listed in Sec. 1.1103 of the
rules that a TCB or an applicant might need to submit to the
Commission, the Commission proposes to modify Sec. 1.1103 to eliminate
equipment authorization fees that would no longer be collected by the
Commission if TCBs approve all equipment subject to certification. The
Commission does not expect that these proposals will be burdensome
because TCBs should already be obtaining the required certifications
and any other information that they need from applicants to complete
their Form 731. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
20. The rules currently require that a TCB supply the Commission
with electronic copies of FCC Form 731 and the grant of equipment
authorization for each RF device certified by the TCB. The rules do not
require TCBs to submit other supporting information from the
certification application, but they specify that the Commission can
request the complete application and exhibits from a TCB if it needs
additional information about a particular device. In order for the
Commission to effectively perform its program oversight and enforcement
role, it is necessary to have the TCB submit a complete copy of the
certification application to the database, including all the
photographs, user manuals and test reports. The Commission therefore
routinely request that TCBs submit complete information for each
certification application that they approve.
21. The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 2.926(g)(1) of the rules
to require that TCBs provide the Commission with a complete copy of
each certification application that they process, including all
exhibits required by the Commission's rules, prior to issuance of a
grant of certification or dismissal of the application. The TCB would
grant or dismiss equipment authorization applications through the
Commission's electronic EAS. The Commission also proposes to move to
this section the language concerning the confidentiality of application
exhibits from Sec. 2.962(g)(4) and remove the remainder of Sec.
2.962(g)(4) as unnecessary since it refers to full applications being
sent to the Commission upon request. These proposed changes will codify
the current Commission practice of obtaining complete information for
all equipment certified by TCBs prior to the issuance of a grant, and
will provide notice to the Commission and other TCBs concerning which
applications were dismissed. The changes would not result in any
significantly increased burden for TCBs because they already supply the
complete application and all exhibits to the Commission for equipment
that they approve, and the Commission expects that the number of
dismissed applications that they would have to submit to the Commission
will be small in comparison to those they grant. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals.
22. The Commission also proposes to make a number of minor
revisions to the part 2 rules to reflect the fact that TCBs would
approve all RF equipment subject to the part 2 certification
requirement. In particular, the Commission notes that the following
sections refer to certification applications being processed by the
Commission and
[[Page 25922]]
propose to modify the language in these sections to reflect the
Commission's proposals that TCBs will process all certification
applications: 2.901 (Basis and purpose), 2.907 (Certification), 2.909
(Responsible party), 2.915 (Grant of application), 2.917 (Dismissal of
application), 2.919 (Denial of application), 2.921 (Hearing on
application), 2.924 (Marketing of electrically identical equipment * *
*), 2.925 (Identification of equipment), 2.926 (FCC identifier), 2.927
(Limitations on grants), 2.929 (Changes in name, address, ownership or
control of grantee), 2.932 (Modification of equipment), 2.933 (Change
in identification of equipment), 2.947 (Measurement procedure), and
2.1043 (Changes in certificated equipment). The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and whether there are any other sections in
part 2 or other rule parts that need to be modified if TCBs approve all
RF equipment requiring certification.
2. Post Market Surveillance
23. TCBs must be accredited to demonstrate that they comply with
the Commission's TCB qualification criteria based on ISO/IEC Guide 65,
General requirements for bodies operating product certification
systems. Section 2.962(g)(2) states that, in accordance with ISO/IEC
Guide 65, a TCB is required to conduct appropriate post-market
surveillance activities on equipment that it certifies. This rule
section requires that these activities be based on ``type testing''
(i.e., sample testing) of samples of the product types that the TCB has
certified. Other types of surveillance activities of a product that has
been certified are permitted provided they are no more onerous than
type testing. This rule section also states that the Commission may at
any time request a list of products certified by a certification body
and request copies of product evaluation reports. In addition, the
Commission may request that a TCB perform post-market surveillance of a
specific product it has certified. The Commission has authority to
require grantees of certification to submit samples for testing at the
FCC Laboratory, but there is no rule that specifically states that a
TCB may request samples directly from the grantee of certification.
24. OET has delegated authority under the Commission's rules to
develop the procedures that TCBs will use for performing post-market
surveillance. OET has provided information to TCBs on performing post-
market surveillance in KDB Publication No. 610077. This publication
requires TCBs to develop a sample test plan and describes the criteria
TCBs must use in selecting samples. TCBs must perform post-market
surveillance testing on at least five percent of the products that they
certify each year. This publication also describes how TCBs should
obtain and evaluate samples and requires that they submit a report on
their findings to OET.
25. Proposals. The Commission proposes to modify the rules on post-
market surveillance to more clearly define the responsibilities of
TCBs. Specifically, it proposes to modify Sec. 2.962 to indicate that
OET publishes a KDB on TCB post-market surveillance requirements, and
that this document provides specific information such as the number and
types of samples that a TCB must test. The Commission also proposes to
provide TCBs with clear authority to request samples of equipment that
they have certified directly from the grantee of certification. In this
regard, the Commission notes that there are currently six different
sections in part 2 of the rules that address the submission of
equipment samples for testing, so it is proposing to merge these and
create a single rule section that addresses equipment sample requests.
26. OET may want TCBs to perform post-market surveillance on
specific devices or categories of equipment due to concerns about
interference or equipment non-compliance. In such cases, the Commission
proposes that OET would send a sample request directly to the grantee
of certification and request that the grantee submit the sample
directly to the TCB that performed the original certification for
evaluation. OET will also notify the TCB that it has requested that the
grantee submit a sample, and that the TCB must test the device. Any
equipment samples requested by the Commission for testing by a TCB
would be included in the minimum required post-market surveillance
testing by the TCB. The Commission also proposes that failure of a
grantee to submit a sample to a TCB within 21 days may be cause for the
Commission to take actions such as suspending action on other
applications for equipment authorization submitted by that grantee or
issuing monetary forfeitures pursuant to Sec. 1.80 of this chapter.
The Commission may consider extensions of time upon submission of a
showing of good cause.
27. The Commission proposes that, if the TCB determines that the
equipment does not comply with the Commission's requirements for such
devices, the TCB shall immediately notify the grantee and the
Commission in writing. The Commission also proposes that the grantee
must provide the TCB with information on the corrective action that it
has taken to bring the equipment into compliance and that the TCB will
have 30 days to submit a report on these actions to the Commission. It
further proposes to require that TCBs submit periodic reports of their
post-market surveillance activities and findings by a date determined
by OET, but the Commission is are not proposing to specify the date in
the rules to provide OET with the flexibility to modify it if
necessary. The Commission does not expect that these proposals will
impose any new costs on TCBs or grantees of certification because TCBs
must already perform post-market surveillance testing on at least 5% of
the devices they approve, and grantees are already required to supply a
test sample upon request.
28. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. It also seeks
comment on how we would coordinate sample requests to ensure that the
Commission and TCBs do not send duplicate requests for the same device
or requests for more samples than the TCB is required to test. The
Commission further seek comment on whether there should be cross-
checking among TCBs, so that a TCB would test some equipment that
another TCB approved. If so, how would it determine which sampled
equipment is to be tested by which TCB? If a TCB is required to test a
sample device approved by a different TCB, who should bear the cost of
testing and reporting? The Commission we also seeks comment on ways
that the Commission could obtain samples from the retail market that
are part of the oversight process. For example, could the grantee
provide a voucher that the Commission could use to obtain a sample from
a retail outlet of its choosing, or could the grantee arrange for the
Commission to pick a sample at random from a distributor? The
Commission notes that in some cases, it may need special test software
so that it can verify a device's compliance with the rules. The
Commission seeks comment on how it should obtain any special test
software for use with unmodified production devices that it obtains
from the market. The Commission further seeks comment on whether its
proposals would impose any new costs on TCBs or grantees, and if so,
whether the benefits of the proposals outweigh the costs.
3. Assessing TCB Performance
29. Because the Commission is proposing to allow TCBs to approve
all
[[Page 25923]]
RF equipment that is subject to certification, it will become
increasingly important to ensure that recognized TCBs continue to meet
all relevant Commission requirements and that we minimize the
possibility that equipment could be certified without fully complying
with our technical rules. For an organization to be recognized as a
TCB, the Commission requires that it be accredited to demonstrate
compliance with ISO/IEC Guide 65 for operating a certification body.
The rules currently provide that TCBs within the United States may be
designated by the Commission after demonstrating that they are
accredited in accordance with this guide by NIST or its recognized
accrediting organization. NIST recognizes ANSI and A2LA to accredit
prospective TCBs. TCBs outside the United States must be accredited and
designated by an authority recognized under the terms of an MRA, and
their designation must be recognized by the Commission. In addition, a
TCB must demonstrate expert knowledge of the regulations for each
product type for which it seeks recognition; recognize when
interpretations of the rules or test procedures are necessary and
demonstrate knowledge of how to obtain current and correct
interpretations; and participate in consultative activities identified
by the Commission to establish a common understanding and
interpretation of the regulations. A prospective TCB must demonstrate
its knowledge and expertise to the organization that performs the
accreditation for compliance with ISO/IEC Guide 65. The Commission has
prepared a checklist of the subject areas that accreditors must assess.
30. If the Commission has concerns regarding the performance of a
TCB, it may initiate action to verify the TCB's current technical
competence and conformity with the designation and recognition
requirements. In particular, the rules state that the Commission will
withdraw designation of a domestic TCB if the TCB's accreditation is
withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for
withdrawing the designation, or if the TCB no longer wants the
designation. The rules state that the Commission will provide a
domestic TCB with a 30-day notice of its intention to withdraw the
TCB's designation and provide it with an opportunity to respond. In the
case of TCBs recognized pursuant to an MRA, each MRA describes a
procedure for the Commission to follow to challenge a TCB's technical
competence with the specified designating authority. The Commission's
rules state that it will provide a TCB recognized under an MRA at least
30 days to respond in cases of disputes with respect to its designation
or recognition and that it will consult with the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) as necessary. The Commission's Enforcement Bureau
may also investigate cases involving possible misconduct by TCBs and
will take appropriate actions as required.
31. At present, the rules describe procedures only for the
withdrawal of the designation or recognition of a TCB and do not
specify any less severe actions that the Commission could take if it
has concerns about the performance of a particular TCB. If an
organization wishes to reapply to be a TCB following withdrawal of its
designation or recognition, it must complete a new evaluation and
accreditation process to determine if it meets the designation
criteria, which can be a lengthy and complex process. Based on the
Commission's experience with the TCB program, it has found cases where
it has had concerns about a TCB's performance, but did not believe that
revoking its authority to certify equipment would be an appropriate
remedy. For example, such cases could result when a TCB misinterpreted
the rules or measurement procedures, failed to familiarize itself with
the latest Commission guidance documents, or did not realize when it
needed to obtain additional guidance from the Commission. The
Commission may discover concerns about TCB performance when auditing
granted applications and discovering that applications are missing
required exhibits or that the Commission can not determine whether the
equipment complies with all requirements in the rules. The Commission
believes that cases such as these could be appropriately addressed in
some instances by simply having the TCB take corrective action, such as
additional consultation with the Commission and better staff training.
32. Proposals. As an initial matter, the Commission proposes to
modify the rules to clarify the role of NIST in designating domestic
TCBs. By way of background, there are three steps that an entity must
follow to become a TCB. First, a prospective TCB must obtain
accreditation from a Commission-recognized organization to demonstrate
that it complies with the requirements of ISO/IEC Standard 17025 and
Guide 65. Second, a prospective TCB must apply to the government agency
that has the authority to designate TCBs (``designating authority'') in
the country where the TCB is located and demonstrate that it complies
with all of the Commission's requirements to become a TCB. Third, the
designation of the prospective TCB must be recognized by the
Commission, which places the names of TCBs acceptable for performing
equipment certification on a publicly available list. Under the current
rules, NIST is the accreditor for TCBs in the United States, and the
Commission is the designating authority. NIST may also allow other
qualified organizations to accredit TCBs.
33. The current practice for designating TCBs in the United States
is for prospective TCBs to apply directly to NIST after being
accredited to ISO/IEC Standard 17025 and Guide 65 by a recognized
accreditor. NIST evaluates the qualifications of prospective TCBs to
ensure that they comply with all of the Commission's TCB requirements.
NIST then forwards to the Commission information about the TCBs it
found compliant with the Commission's requirements. Therefore, NIST
effectively operates as the designating authority for TCBs within the
United States. Consistent with this practice, the Commission proposes
to modify Sec. Sec. 2.960(b) and 68.160(b) of the rules to recognize
NIST as the designating authority for TCBs within the United States.
NIST would continue to have authority to designate other organizations
to accredit TCBs as it does now. To ensure effective oversight of the
TCB program, the Commission proposes that an organization designated by
NIST as a TCB would have to be recognized by the Commission before it
could function as a TCB, and that the Commission could withdraw its
recognition of a TCB designated by NIST that does not operate in
accordance with the rules. This change would make the designation and
recognition requirements for domestic and foreign TCBs more consistent,
in that in both cases the Commission would rely on other organizations
to accredit and designate TCBs, but the Commission would have to
recognize the designated TCBs before they could operate, and the
Commission could withdraw its recognition of a TCB that exhibits
serious performance problems. The Commission does not expect that these
proposals would result in any additional costs on TCBs or other parties
since the proposals would merely codify the existing practices that
have evolved over time. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
34. The Commission also proposes to amend the rules to provide
additional measures that the Commission could
[[Page 25924]]
take to address TCB performance issues that are less severe than the
complete withdrawal of a TCB's designation or recognition. These
proposed measures are designed to address performance issues that can
be resolved through relatively simple corrective measures by a TCB, and
are not intended to limit the Commission's ability to act quickly if
serious misconduct by a TCB were to occur. Specifically, the Commission
proposes that it will first notify a TCB in writing when it has
evidence that the TCB is not approving equipment in accordance with the
Commission's rules and policies and request that it correct any
apparent deficiencies. The Commission may monitor all grants by a TCB
during the time it provides for it to respond to us, and the Commission
would set aside any grants found to be in error within the 30 day time
period provided in the rules. If a TCB does not demonstrate that it has
satisfactorily resolved the performance issues identified by the
Commission, it is proposes that the Commission may temporarily require
that all certification applications filed with that TCB be processed
using the pre-approval guidance procedure for a period of at least 30
days. This would provide the Commission an opportunity to review all of
that TCB's applications prior to grant to ascertain whether it has
corrected the identified performance deficiencies. The Commission
further proposes that it will provide a TCB with a 30-day notice of its
intent to require that applications be processed under the pre-approval
guidance procedure unless the Commission finds good cause to require a
more immediate implementation of this protective measure. A shorter
time frame may be appropriate, for example, in cases where the
Commission discovers that a TCB has a pattern of approving equipment
that is non-compliant with the rules, particularly equipment that has a
high potential for causing harmful interference. The Commission also
proposed that when a TCB demonstrates to the Commission that it is
processing equipment approval applications in accordance with the
rules, it would no longer be required to use the pre-approval guidance
procedure for all equipment, just the equipment on the pre-approval
guidance list. The Commission further proposed that these procedures
would apply equally to both domestic and foreign TCBs.
35. In cases where a TCB continues to exhibit performance
deficiencies after the Commission requests that it take corrective
action, it has been proposed that the Commission may request that the
designating authority and accreditation body investigate and take
appropriate steps as needed. This could include, for example, limiting
the scope of the TCB's accreditation, or withdrawing the accreditation.
The Commission proposes that in such cases it would limit the scope of
equipment that a TCB could approve if the accrediting body limited the
scope of a TCB's accreditation, and that the Commission would no longer
recognize a TCB if its accreditation is withdrawn. The Commission
further proposes that it would no longer recognize the designation of a
TCB, either foreign or domestic, if good cause exists, e.g., a TCB
shows a pattern of approving equipment that is clearly not in
compliance with the rules. It is also proposed that the Commission
would provide a TCB with at least 60 days notice of its intention to
withdraw or limit the scope of its recognition and provide the TCB with
an opportunity to respond. During that time, the Commission would
monitor all grants issued by the TCB and would set aside any grants
within 30 days that were issued in error. In the case of a TCB
recognized pursuant to the terms of an MRA, the Commission would
provide more than 60 days notice if required by the MRA and consult
with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) as
necessary concerning any trade issues that arise. In addition, the
Commission proposed that if a TCB's status is revoked, any equipment
certifications previously approved by the TCB would continue to be
valid unless specifically set aside or revoked by the Commission.
However, a TCB would not be permitted to act on any certification
applications that it was processing but had not yet approved at the
time its operating status was revoked.
36. The Commission also proposed certain other modifications to
clarify the part 2 rules for TCBs. Specifically, it proposed to modify
Sec. 2.962(e)(1) to specify the recognition requirements for both
foreign and domestic TCBs. This section currently specifies the
recognition requirements for only domestic TCBs. The Commission also
proposed to move the text in Sec. 2.962(h) concerning disputes over
the recognition of foreign TCBs to Sec. 2.962(e) because it more
appropriately fits in that paragraph which addresses the recognition of
TCBs.
37. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. In particular,
it seeks comment on whether the steps being proposed are appropriate,
and whether there are other measures the Commission could take to
ensure that TCBs operate in accordance with the rules. For example,
should the Commission instead prohibit a TCB from approving any
equipment for a limited time period when performance issues arise? If
the Commission were to prohibit a TCB from approving equipment for a
certain time, it seeks comment on how it could determine when the TCB
has corrected its performance problems. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether it needs to more clearly define the circumstances
under which it would take actions such as requiring all of a TCB's
applications to be processed under the pre-approval guidance procedure.
If so, what should those circumstances be?
4. TCB Accreditation
38. The Commission's rules require that TCBs that approve either RF
equipment under part 2 or terminal equipment under part 68 of the
Commission's rules meet the accreditation standards in specific ISO/IEC
standards. An entity recognized as a TCB must be accredited as meeting
all appropriate specifications in ISO/IEC Guide 65, General
requirements for bodies operating product certification systems, for
the scope of equipment that it will certify. An organization
accrediting a prospective TCB to Guide 65 must be capable of meeting
the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC Guide 61, General
requirements for assessment and accreditation of certification/
registration bodies. TCBs also must be accredited as meeting the
requirements of ISO/IEC Standard 17025, General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories. The organization
accrediting a TCB or testing laboratory to ISO/IEC 17025 must be
approved by OET to perform such accreditation based on ISO/IEC Guide
58, Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems--General
requirements for operation and recognition. A TCB that approves RF
equipment under part 2 must be reassessed for continuing accreditation
at intervals not to exceed two years.
39. Subsequent to the adoption of the rules specifying these
requirements, several ISO/IEC guides were updated. Specifically, ISO/
IEC Guides 58 and 61 were updated and combined into a single new
standard, ISO/IEC 17011, Conformity assessment--General requirements
for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. ISO/
IEC 17011 was prepared by the ISO Committee on conformity assessment
(CASCO) because the work performed by accreditation bodies accrediting
testing laboratories and
[[Page 25925]]
certification bodies is quite similar, and the two separate standards
had two sets of largely repetitious but slightly differing requirements
for evaluating laboratory and certification body functions. In
addition, ISO/IEC Guide 65 was replaced with a revised version
designated ISO/IEC 17065, Conformity assessment--Requirements for
bodies certifying products, processes and services.
40. Proposal. The Commission proposes to modify the rules in parts
2 and 68 to replace the references to Guide 58 and Guide 61 with
references to ISO/IEC 17011, and to replace the references to Guide 65
with references to ISO/IEC 17065. Consistent with the revised ISO/IEC
17065, the Commission also proposed to change the term ``sub-
contractors'' with ``external resources'' in the parts 2 and 68 rules.
The Commission believes that these changes will not have any
significant impact on accrediting organizations or TCBs because the
revised guides are substantially similar to the ISO/IEC guides
currently specified in the rules. The Commission also proposed to
update Sec. 68.162 to correct the outdated references to ISO/IEC Guide
25 which is now designated ISO/IEC 17025. The Commission is not,
however, proposing to change the requirement that TCBs that approve RF
equipment must be reassessed every two years. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals. The Commission is also proposing to give
OET delegated authority to update references to measurement procedures
and other industry standards in parts 2, 5, 15 and 18 of the rules in
the future.
B. Test Laboratories
1. Accreditation of Test Laboratories
41. Equipment subject to certification under parts 15 and 18 of the
rules-i.e. unlicensed devices and industrial, scientific and medical
equipment--must be tested at a laboratory that meets one of two
criteria: the laboratory must have either (a) filed a description of
its facilities with the Commission in accordance with the requirements
of Sec. 2.948 of the rules, or (b) been accredited under ISO/IEC 17025
and recognized by the Commission. The Sec. 2.948 filing process
requires a party to submit a description of its facilities to the
Commission that includes the location of the test site, a physical
description of the site that includes drawings and photographs, a
description of the structures that support the device being measured
and test instrumentation, the measuring equipment used and information
on its calibration, a statement as to whether the site is available to
do measurements for the public for a fee, and site attenuation data
taken in accordance with ANSI C63.4-2001. The Sec. 2.948 listing is
based solely on a Commission review of the documentation submitted.
42. In contrast to the Sec. 2.948 filing process, laboratory
accreditation involves an extensive review of documentation and onsite
visits by representative(s) of the accrediting body. Laboratory
accreditation bodies assess a variety of aspects of a laboratory,
including the technical competence of staff; the validity and
appropriateness of test methods; traceability of measurements and
calibration to national standards; suitability, calibration and
maintenance of the testing environment; sampling, handling and
transportation of test items; and quality assurance of test and
calibration data. The accreditation of a laboratory outside the United
States is considered acceptable only if it is located in a country that
has an MRA with the United States or is accredited by an organization
that has entered into an arrangement between accrediting organizations
that is recognized by the Commission. The Commission maintains a list
of laboratories that includes those that have filed a description under
Sec. 2.948 and those laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 for
which the accrediting organization has submitted information to the
Commission. An accredited test laboratory must be reassessed at
intervals not to exceed two years.
43. Unlike parts 15 and 18 equipment rules, the Commission's rules
do not require that equipment authorized to operate in licensed
services be tested at either a Sec. 2.948 listed laboratory or at an
accredited and recognized laboratory. However, because many of the
testing laboratories that perform measurements on equipment operating
under the licensed radio service requirements also test equipment
subject to parts 15 and 18, their test facilities are already
accredited.
44. Proposal. The Commission proposed to end the listing program
for laboratories that test equipment certified under parts 15 and 18 of
the rules. Instead, it proposed to require that all laboratories that
test equipment subject to certification and DoC under any rule part be
accredited to ISO/IEC 17025. This would be a change from the current
rules under which only devices subject to DoC must be tested at an
accredited laboratory. The Commission believes that this change is
appropriate for several reasons. First, because it is proposing to
cease Commission certification of RF devices and rely on TCBs to
approve all such equipment, the Commission believes that it should at
the same time take measures to continue to ensure the quality of the
TCB program. Requiring laboratories that perform certification testing
to be accredited will provide a higher degree of confidence for both
the Commission and TCBs that testing was done in accordance with the
applicable standards than the current listing procedure provides. As
noted, laboratory accreditation is based on a rigorous third party
review of laboratory functions and capabilities, including the
technical competence of its staff and quality assurance methods, and
includes onsite inspections by the accrediting organization. In
contrast, the Sec. 2.948 listing program is based solely on a desk
review of certain laboratory characteristics. The Commission expects
that requiring all laboratories that perform certification testing to
be accredited will improve both the quality and consistency of test
results. The Commission therefore believes that requiring laboratory
accreditation is part of a balanced approach in allowing TCBs to
certify all RF equipment while ensuring the quality of the results.
45. The Commission is proposing to retain the requirement in Sec.
2.948 that test laboratories compile a description of their measurement
facilities, and propose to require that they supply this information to
a laboratory accreditation body or to the Commission upon request. This
description will assist a laboratory accreditation body in evaluating
the suitability of a laboratory's facilities for performing
measurements. It will also help the Commission determine whether a
laboratory that tests equipment subject to verification, and which is
not required to be accredited, has suitable measurement facilities. The
Commission also proposed to retain the requirement that accredited
laboratories must be reassessed at least every two years to ensure
continued compliance with the accreditation requirements.
46. It is also proposed that the Commission will maintain a list of
accredited laboratories that are acceptable for testing equipment
subject to our certification and DoC procedures. Under this proposal,
laboratories will be accredited to test certain scopes of equipment,
such as low power transmitters, unintentional radiators and
transmitters used in various licensed services. The Commission believes
that a list of accredited laboratories and the types of equipment they
can test will assist us in our oversight of TCBs and will assist
manufacturers in selecting an
[[Page 25926]]
appropriate testing facility. The Commission proposed to include
accredited laboratories outside the United States on the list only if
it recognizes their accreditation under the terms of an MRA or other
agreement. The Commission is aware that some test laboratories are
located in countries that do not have an MRA with the United States. In
this regard, it proposes to modify Sec. 2.948(e)(2) to provide that if
a laboratory is located in a country that does not have an MRA with the
United States, then it must be accredited by an organization recognized
by the Commission for performing accreditations in the country where
the laboratory is located. The Commission describes proposals for
Commission recognition of additional laboratory accreditation bodies in
the following information.
47. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. In particular,
it seeks comment on whether it is appropriate and necessary to require
accreditation of laboratories that perform certification testing and
whether such a requirement would be unduly burdensome. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether it should allow an accredited laboratory
to subcontract part of its work to another laboratory. If so, is there
any reason why it should not also require the subcontractor to be
accredited? The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should
eliminate the Sec. 2.948 test site listing process. The Commission
further seeks comment on the information that should be included in the
list of accredited laboratories if it requires accreditation of
laboratories that perform certification testing. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on steps it could take to recognize the
accreditation of test laboratories outside of the United States in
countries that do not have an MRA with the United States. For example,
should the Commission recognize accreditations made through an
organization such as the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) for laboratories in countries without an MRA with
the United States?
48. The Commission recognizes that there is a cost in terms of time
and money for a laboratory to become accredited, but it believes the
benefits of increased certainty that equipment tested by an accredited
laboratory will comply with the Commission's technical requirements
outweigh this burden. As noted, many laboratories that perform
certification testing of part 15 and part 18 equipment as well as many
laboratories that test equipment used in licensed services are already
accredited. Thus, our proposal will not impact those laboratories.
However, the Commission seeks comment on the costs that its proposals
would impose on currently unaccredited laboratories, and whether the
benefits of our proposals outweigh the costs. The Commission furthers
seek comment on the impact of this proposal on laboratories outside the
United States, particularly those in countries without an MRA with the
United States.
2. Selection of New Laboratory Accreditation Bodies
49. Under Sec. 2.948(d) of the rules, any entity seeking
recognition from the Commission as an accreditation body for test
laboratories must obtain the approval of OET. OET considers recognition
of entities as accreditation bodies based on requirements established
by ISO and IEC. The rules currently refer to requirements in ISO/IEC
Guide 58 for laboratory accreditation, but as discussed, the Commission
is proposing modify the rules to reference ISO/IEC Guide 17011 that
superseded Guide 58. Under Guide 17011, the accrediting entity must be
competent to (1) assess a test laboratory's compliance with applicable
ISO/IEC standards for operating a testing laboratory and conducting
tests; and (2) assess the laboratory's ability to perform testing in
support of the applicable technical regulations. The accreditation body
is required to (1) Review the qualifications of a test laboratory's
test personnel, management systems, recordkeeping and reporting
practices; (2) send recognized experts to observe testing at the
laboratory; and (3) verify the testing laboratory's competence to
perform tests in accordance with Commission-related measurement
procedures.
50. On August 12, 2010 OET issued a public notice providing
guidance on the type of information that an applicant that desires to
be recognized by the Commission as a laboratory accreditation body
should provide in support of its application. Specifically, OET stated
that an applicant must submit to the Chief of OET a letter requesting
such recognition and that the letter must include information on the
applicant's qualifications; OET further indicated that it will make a
determination based on the information provided in support of the
letter of request. It stated that the following types of information
would provide the ``best evidence'' of an applicant's credentials and
qualifications to perform accreditation of laboratories that test
equipment to Commission requirements, consistent with the requirements
of Sec. 2.948(d) of the Commission's rules for accreditation bodies
and for test laboratories:
1. Successful completion of a ISO/IEC 17011 peer review, such as
being a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement or other equivalent
laboratory accreditation agreement;
2. Experience with the accreditation of electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC), radio and telecom testing laboratories to ISO/IEC
17025. This can be demonstrated by having OET staff participate in a
witness audit of the accreditation body performing an assessment of an
EMC/Radio/Telecom testing laboratory; or by having OET staff review the
report generated by the NIST laboratory accreditation evaluation
program conducted to support the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of
Telecommunications Equipment. An applicant that offers other evidence
has the burden of demonstrating that the information would enable OET
to evaluate its experience with the accreditation of EMC, radio and
telecom testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025.
3. Accreditation personnel/assessors with specific technical
experience in the Commission equipment authorization rules and
requirements; and
4. Procedures and policies developed for the accreditation of
testing laboratories for FCC equipment authorization programs.
51. Proposal. The Commission proposes to codify the criteria from
the August 12, 2010 public notice into the rules as the method that OET
will use to determine the acceptability of new laboratory accreditation
bodies. OET developed these criteria during the process of selecting a
new laboratory accreditation body, and we believe they represent an
appropriate method for determining the acceptability of new
accreditation bodies. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
3. Test Site Validation
52. A measurement facility that is used for measuring radiated
emissions from equipment subject to parts 15 and 18 of the rules must
meet the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2001. Radiated
emission measurements above 1 GHz are required for many devices subject
to parts 15 and 18. However, ANSI C63.4-2001 does not have specific
site validation criteria for test facilities used for making radiated
emissions above 1 GHz. Rather, it states that facilities determined to
be suitable
[[Page 25927]]
for performing measurements in the frequency range 30 MHz to 1 GHz are
considered suitable for performing measurements in the frequency range
1 GHz to 40 GHz.
53. ANSI C63.4-2009, 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, provides two
options for test site validation for facilities used to make radiated
emission measurements above 1 GHz. Specifically, it states that
facilities suitable for measurements in the frequency range 30 MHz to 1
GHz are considered suitable for measurements in the frequency range 1
GHz to 40 GHz when used with RF absorbing material covering the ground
plane such that either: (1) The site validation criterion called out in
CISPR 16-1-4:2007 (CISPR 16) is met; or (2) a minimum area of the
ground plane is covered, i.e., 2.4 m by 2.4 m (for a 3 m test
distance), between the antenna and the Equipment Under Test (EUT) using
RF absorbing material with a minimum-rated attenuation of 20 dB (for
normal incidence) up to 18 GHz.
54. Proposal. The Commission proposed to require that test
facilities used to make radiated emission measurements on equipment
authorized under any rule part meet the site validation requirements in
sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 of ANSI C63.4-2009. The Commission also
proposed that if the measurement site will be used for measuring
radiated emissions in the range of 1 GHz to 40 GHz, the site must meet
the first alternative specified in Sec. 5.5 of this procedure which
states that RF absorbing material must cover the ground plane such that
the site validation criterion called out in CISPR 16 is met. The
Commission believes that requiring a site to meet the CISPR 16 site
validation criteria at frequencies above 1 GHz will provide better
accuracy and repeatability of measurements than simply covering a
minimum area of its ground plane. Consistent with Sec. 5.4.4.2 of ANSI
C63.4-2009 and Sec. 2.948(a)(2), the Commission proposed that
compliance with the site validation criterion shall be confirmed no
less than once every three years. The Commission believes that these
proposals will ensure that a test site is suitable for performing
accurate, repeatable measurements at all frequencies for which
measurements are required. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. It also seeks comment on how many laboratories would need to
modify their sites to comply with the ANSI C63.4-2009 and CISPR 16 site
validation criteria that we are proposing, and the costs of
implementing this change.
C. Measurement Procedures
1. Part 15 Devices
55. The Commission requires that most devices subject to the part
15 technical requirements be tested to demonstrate compliance with
these requirements before they can be imported into or marketed within
the United States. Section 15.31(a) of the rules specifies the
measurement procedures that the Commission uses to determine equipment
compliance with the part 15 technical requirements. This section states
that the Commission will measure emissions from most intentional and
unintentional radiators using the standard published by the American
National Standards Institute, Inc. Accredited Standards Committee C63
(ANSI ASC 63), titled ANSI C63.4-2003, 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 C63.4 standard).
56. The Commission has issued a number of public notices,
interpretations and advisories on measurement standards for intentional
radiators to supplement the test procedures given in the ANSI C63.4
standard. This additional guidance has been necessitated by the growing
number of intentional radiators being developed and the resulting
number of questions from test laboratories seeking guidance on how to
properly measure these devices for FCC compliance. To assist
manufacturers in complying with the Commission's rules, the Commission
staff worked with ANSI ASC C63 and its members, including
manufacturers, the Telecommunication Certification Body Council (TCBC),
telecommunication industry representatives and test laboratory staff,
to develop a new standard, ANSI C63.10-2009, American National Standard
for Testing Unlicensed Wireless Devices (ANSI C63.10-2009), for use in
the measurement of intentional radiators in a wide range of frequency
bands. This new standard consolidates the various measurement
procedures that the Commission staff has already allowed for
intentional radiators without substantive modification and does not add
any new requirements for compliance testing.
57. ANSI ASC C63 also released a revised version of the ANSI C63.4
standard, ANSI C63.4-2009, 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. Because ANSI ASC
C63 developed a separate document that contains the measurement
procedures for intentional radiators (ANSI C63.10-2009 as discussed
above), the new ANSI C63.4-2009 addresses only unintentional radiators,
rather than both intentional and unintentional radiators as did the
previous version. The other changes to this standard from the 2003
version are discussed in more detail. OET issued a public notice on
November 25, 2009, indicating that it would accept applications for
certification of equipment tested either to the ANSI C63.4-2003
procedure currently specified in the rules or to the revised ANSI
C63.4-2009 and new ANSI C63.10-2009 procedures.
58. On September 27, 2011, ANSI ASC C63 filed a petition for rule
making requesting that the Commission modify Sec. Sec. 15.31(a)(3) and
15.38(b)(6) of the rules to remove the references to C63.4-2003 and
replace them with references to C63.4-2009 and C63.10-2009. It argues
that continued use of the C63.4-2003 standard will lead to confusion,
inconsistency and a lack of repeatability in product testing. It states
that its reasons for developing the 2009 version of the standard were
to remove ambiguities, clarify the text in response to requests for
interpretations, and to add new material concerning the calibration of
test equipment and testing new types of devices. ANSI ASC C63 states
that the following changes are incorporated into the new version:
Specifying a single method of antenna calibration, rather
than the two different methods specified in the 2003 version. Because
the method specified in the 2009 version is different than either of
the previous two methods, test laboratories may need to recalibrate
their antennas if the Commission requires use of the new version.
Clarifying the requirements that receivers and spectrum
analyzers must meet and providing more detailed information on the
proper use of spectrum analyzers.
Requiring test laboratories to document any special
software used to exercise the equipment under test.
Requiring test laboratories to determine the effect of
temperature changes on measurement cable losses.
Eliminating the requirement for minimum measuring
equipment sensitivity.
Providing more guidance on testing wall-mounted and
ceiling-mounted devices.
[[Page 25928]]
Moving the test site validation procedure from the body of
the document to an appendix.
Specifying criteria for determining measuring site
validity at frequencies above 1 GHz.
Updating the requirement for the information to be
displayed on a video display during testing.
On January 12, 2012, the Commission released a public notice inviting
comment on the ANSI ASC C63 petition. The Information Technology
Industry Council (ITI) filed comments, and ANSI ASC C63 filed reply
comments.
59. Proposal. The Commission proposes to incorporate ANSI C63.10-
2009 into the rules as the procedure the Commission will use for
determining the compliance of intentional radiators and ANSI C63.4-2009
as the procedure the Commission will use for determining the compliance
of unintentional radiators. The Commission believes that the various
clarifications and improvements from the previous version of ANSI C63.4
will advance the Commission's objective of ensuring compliance with its
technical requirements as well as decreasing the burden on equipment
manufacturers, thus promoting the timely introduction of innovative new
products. Consistent with the Commission's previous actions with
respect to ANSI C63.4, the Commission is proposing to exclude the use
of the sections in C63.4-2009 that allow the use of rod antennas for
electric field measurements below 30 MHz, an artificial hand for
holding handheld devices, an absorber clamp for radio noise power
measurements, and relaxation of the limits for transient emissions. The
Commission previously found that there was insufficient evidence that
rod antennas, artificial hands or absorber clamps produce accurate,
repeatable measurements, and it found that short duration emissions can
produce as much nuisance to radio communications as continuous
emissions. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
60. The Commission is not proposing to incorporate CISPR 22 into
the rules for measuring equipment subject to part 15 as requested by
ITI. CISPR 22 addresses measurements only up to 6 GHz, whereas our
rules require measurements at higher frequencies in some cases. Also,
CISPR 22 is applicable only to information technology equipment (called
digital devices in the Commission's rules), while C63.4-2009 is
applicable to all types of unintentional radiators under part 15 of our
rules, including digital devices. The Commission also believes that the
C63.4-2009 measurement procedure for frequencies above 1 GHz is more
appropriate than the CISPR 22 procedure. Specifically, at frequencies
above 1 GHz, C63.4-2009 requires varying the receive antenna height to
determine the maximum level of emissions from a device under test,
whereas CISPR 22 specifies a fixed receive antenna height that may not
determine the maximum emission levels. However, the Commission
recognizes that ITI has raised certain specific concerns about C63.4-
2009 that merit consideration and it seeks comment on these concerns.
Specifically, is the 2009 version of C63.4 more burdensome than
previous editions as ITI alleges, and if so, do the benefits of these
increased burdens (e.g., increased accuracy and/or consistency of test
results) outweigh their costs? Do certain changes in the 2009 revision
cause problems for manufacturers and/or test laboratories, such as a
restriction on the use of hybrid antennas or the 2 dB rule? Would the
references to undated standards in C63.4-2009 force parties to comply
with future changes to those standards with no opportunity for comment
and no transition period? Should the Commission accept the
interpretations of C63.4-2009 and C63.10-2009 on ANSI's Web site? Could
the Commission address ITI's concerns about C63.4-2009 and C63.10-2009
by not incorporating certain sections of these standards into the
rules? If so, which particular sections should not be incorporated and
why? In addition, the Commission notes that ANSI ASC C63 is currently
working on revised versions to both C63.4-2009 and C63.10-2009. The
Commission seeks comment on whether there are any significant
differences between the 2009 versions of these standards and the latest
drafts, and whether any of the changes in these drafts would address
ITI's concerns.
2. Delegated Authority To Update Measurement Procedures
61. The Commission incorporates industry standards into parts 2 and
15 of the rules for various purposes. For example, Sec. 15.38 lists
the measurement procedures and other standards that are incorporated by
reference into part 15 of the rules. In addition, part 2 references
various ISO/IEC standards related to the accreditation of laboratories
and certification bodies. Industry groups that develop standards revise
them periodically. In some cases revisions could contain major changes
from a previous version, while in other cases revisions of standards
may contain only minor updates that pose no significant changes for
evaluation of compliance with the rules. The Commission's part 0 rules
delegate authority to the Chief of OET to perform certain functions,
but require that orders making non-editorial revisions to the rules be
referred to the Commission for action. Updating a rule to reference a
revised standard is not considered an editorial revision, so such a
change requires a Commission action.
62. The Commission proposes to delegate to the Chief of OET the
authority to update references to industry standards in parts 2, 5, 15
and 18 of the rules, for which OET is responsible. It further proposes
that this authority be limited to updating versions of standards that
are already referenced into the rules and not to incorporate a new
standard into the rules, and that it be further limited to the approval
of changes to the technical standards that do not raise major
compliance issues. To meet the statutory requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), OET would first issue a notice that
would be published in the Federal Register seeking comment on the
proposed change to the rules. The Commission would continue to act on
rule changes that incorporate a new standard into the rules or raise
major compliance issues. The Commission believes that these proposals
would allow us to more quickly update the rules to reflect the release
of revised industry standards. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
3. Other Issues
63. Test set-up information. The Commission is proposing to amend
Sec. 2.1033 of the rules to require that applications for
certification include photographs or diagrams of the test set-up for
each of the required types of tests applicable to the device for which
certification is requested. These tests may include, for example,
radiated emissions, AC line conducted emissions, conducted power, RF
safety (SAR), or compliance with the hearing aid compatibility (HAC)
requirements. The rules do not currently require that a certification
application include this information, while test set-up photographs or
diagrams are required with the information that responsible parties
must retain for equipment subject to DoC or verification. The
Commission believes that photographs or diagrams of the test set-up
should be required with an application for certification for
consistency with our other authorization processes and to allow us to
determine whether a test laboratory or TCB tested equipment in
accordance with the applicable
[[Page 25929]]
measurement procedures. The Commission proposed that diagrams or
photographs must show enough detail to confirm other information
contained in the test report, and that any photographs must be focused
originals without glare or dark spots and must clearly show the test
configuration used. The Commission believes that the cost of this
proposed requirement is negligible because it merely requires a test
laboratory or TCB to take a minimal number of additional photographs
during testing or draw some relatively simple diagrams and include
those with the test report submitted with the application for
certification. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
64. Rule corrections. The Commission is proposing to correct two
minor discrepancies in part 15 concerning measurement procedures.
Specifically, it is proposing to remove Sec. 15.109(g)(4) as
unnecessary because it merely references former Sec. 15.107(e) that
was deleted in 2002. The Commission is also proposing to delete as
unnecessary the note in Sec. 15.31(a)(3) that states digital devices
meeting the limits in Sec. Sec. 15.107(e) and 15.109(g) must be tested
using the ANSI C63.4 procedure. As noted, Sec. 15.107(e) is no longer
in the rules, and Sec. 15.109(g) already makes clear that digital
devices tested for compliance with the limits in that section must be
tested in accordance with the ANSI C63.4 procedure. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals.
D. Transition Period
65. Two of the proposals in this Notice would make changes to the
requirements for test laboratories that the Commission believes may
take some time for currently operating laboratories to meet. These
proposals are that: (1) All laboratories must be accredited if they
test equipment authorized through the certification procedure, and (2)
laboratories that perform measurements at frequencies above 1 GHz must
comply with the site validation criteria in ANSI C63.4-2009. The
Commission proposes several provisions to implement these changes and
to facilitate the transition for currently listed laboratories that do
not meet these proposed requirements. First, it proposes that we will
cease accepting applications for unaccredited laboratories under the
Sec. 2.948 listing program as of the effective date of final rules.
After that date, any new laboratory that wishes to be added to our list
of laboratories that can perform testing in support of certification
applications must be accredited. The Commission would continue
processing applications for Sec. 2.948 listing of unaccredited
laboratories that were pending as of the effective date of the rules.
If such applications were approved, the laboratories would be treated
in the same manner as laboratories that were already listed on the
effective date of the rules. Second, the Commission proposed that
unaccredited laboratories that are listed as of the effective date of
the rules may continue to perform testing in support of certification
applications until one year after the publication of final rules in the
Federal Register. After that date, they must be accredited or cease
performing testing in support of certification applications unless they
become accredited. Third, the Commission proposes that all laboratories
listed with the Commission as of the effective date of the rules, both
accredited and unaccredited, must comply with the site validation
criteria in ANSI C63.4-2009 no later than one year after publication of
final rules in the Federal Register. New laboratories that wish to be
listed after the effective date of the rules must comply with the ANSI
C63.4-2009 site validation criteria, and must be accredited as
described. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
66. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA),\1\ 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).\2\ In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
67. The Commission operates an equipment authorization program for
radiofrequency (RF) devices under part 2 of its rules. This program is
one of the primary means that the Commission uses to ensure that the
multitude of RF devices used in the United States operate effectively
without causing harmful interference and otherwise comply with the
Commission's rules. Certain radio frequency (RF) devices must be
approved by the Commission or a Telecommunication Certification Body
(TCB) before they can be imported or marketed, while other RF devices
do not require approval by the Commission or a TCB.
68. The Commission last comprehensively reviewed its equipment
authorization program over ten years ago. The rapid innovation in
equipment design since that time has led to ever-accelerating growth in
the number of parties applying for equipment approval. We therefore
believe that the time is now right for us to review our equipment
authorization processes to ensure that they continue to enable this
growth and innovation in the wireless equipment market.
B. Legal Basis
69. The proposed action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
304 and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
70. 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.\4\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\6\ A ``small business concern'' is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field
[[Page 25930]]
of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by
the Small Business Administration (SBA).\7\ Radio and Television
Broadcasting 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.'' \8\ 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.\9\
Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\5\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\6\ See 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.''
\7\ See 15 U.S.C. 632.
\8\ The NAICS Code for this service 334220. See 13 CFR 121/201.
See alsohttps://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.
\9\ See https://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&-ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
71. RF equipment must be authorized through one of three
authorization procedures described below. The Notice does not propose
to change these authorization procedures, but it does propose changes
in the administrative requirements for laboratories that test equipment
and TCBs that approve equipment. These changes are described in the
following.
Certification is an equipment authorization issued by the
Commission or by a designated TCB based on an application and test data
submitted by the responsible party (e.g., the manufacturer or
importer).\10\ The Commission or a TCB may test a sample of a device to
verify that it complies with the rules before granting approval for the
equipment to be marketed. Examples of devices subject to certification
include, but are not limited to, mobile phones; wireless local area
networking equipment, remote control transmitters; land mobile radio
transmitters; wireless medical telemetry transmitters; cordless
telephones; and walkie-talkies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 47 CFR 2.907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a procedure that requires the
party responsible for compliance to follow certain measurement
requirements and/or take other necessary steps to ensure that the
equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards.\11\ A
compliance information statement must be supplied with the product
which identifies the product and a responsible party within the United
States and which contains the statement specified in Section
15.19(a)(3).\12\ The responsible party is not required to file an
equipment authorization application with the Commission or a TCB, or to
submit a sample unit or test data unless specifically requested.\13\
Examples of devices subject to DoC include personal computers and
peripherals, consumer ISM equipment such as microwave ovens and RF
light bulbs, radio receivers and TV interface devices.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 47 CFR 2.906. The party responsible for compliance is
defined in 47 CFR 2.909.
\12\ See 47 CFR 2.1077 and 15.19(a)(3).
\13\ See 47 CFR 2.956.
\14\ See 47 CFR 15.101(a) and 18.203(a). Although the Commission
rules require Class B personal computers and peripherals to be
authorized under either the DoC or certification procedure, the
Commission does not certify such equipment. Manufacturers may only
obtain certification for Class B personal computers and peripherals
through a TCB. See FCC Will No Longer Accept Equipment Authorization
Applications For Class B Computers and Peripherals That Can Be Self-
Approved, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd. 25484 (rel. September 29,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification is a procedure under which the party responsible for
compliance relies on measurements that it or another party makes to
ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical
standards.\15\ Under the verification procedure, the responsible party
is not required to file an application with the Commission. Submittal
of a sample unit or representative data to the Commission demonstrating
compliance is not required unless specifically requested by the
Commission.\16\ Examples of devices subject to verification include
non-consumer ISM equipment; TV and FM receivers; and business computer
equipment.\17\ Devices subject to verification must be uniquely
identified in a format which cannot be confused with the FCC identifier
required on certified equipment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 47 CFR 2.909(b) and 2.953.
\16\ See 47 CFR 2.956.
\17\ See 47 CFR 15.101(a) and 18.203(b).
\18\ See 47 CFR 2.954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. RF equipment subject to any of the equipment authorization
procedures described above must be tested for compliance with the
Commission's technical rules. Equipment authorized under the DoC
procedure must be tested by a laboratory that is accredited as meeting
the requirements of the International Organization for Standardization/
International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Standard 17025,
General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories, by a Commission-recognized accreditation
organization.\19\ Laboratories that test equipment subject to
certification under Parts 15 and 18 of the rules are not required to be
accredited, but must be on a list maintained by the Commission.\20\
Equipment authorized pursuant to certification under rule parts other
than Parts 15 or 18, or any equipment authorized under verification,
may be tested by the manufacturer or by an independent testing
laboratory that is not required to be accredited or listed with the
Commission.\21\ The Commission may conduct post-market testing of
equipment authorized under any of the three procedures to ensure that
equipment on the market complies with the Commission's technical
requirements.\22\ Additionally, TCBs are required to perform post-
market surveillance on a certain percentage of products they have
certified.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 47 CFR 2.948(a)(3), (d). DoC-authorized devices must be
tested by a test laboratory that has been accredited by the National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or the American
Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), or by an accredited
laboratory designated by the Commission under the terms of a
negotiated MRA. See 47 CFR 2.948(a)(3), (d), (e).
\20\ See 47 CFR 2.948(a)(2). To become listed with the
Commission, a testing laboratory must file a description of its
measurement facilities with the Commission's Laboratory. An
accredited laboratory may become listed by filing certain
information about itself, but does not need to file a complete
description of its measurement facilities.
\21\ See 47 CFR 2.947, 2.948(a)(1).
\22\ See 47 CFR 2.946 and 2.1076.
\23\ See 47 CFR 2.962(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. The Notice proposes that the Commission will cease approving RF
equipment authorized under the certification procedure and allow TCBs
to perform all equipment certification. Equipment manufacturers would
therefore have to obtain equipment approval through a TCB and would no
longer have the option of obtaining equipment approval from the
Commission. The Notice also proposes to give TCBs clear authority to
request samples of equipment from the
[[Page 25931]]
manufacturer, so manufactures would be required to provide a sample of
equipment to TCBs upon request.
74. The Notice proposes that all laboratories that test equipment
that will be approved under the certification procedure must be
accredited by a Commission-recognized organization. This would be a
change from the current requirement under which only laboratories that
test equipment under the DoC procedure must be accredited. Thus,
parties wishing to obtain equipment certification would have to ensure
that their equipment is tested at an accredited laboratory. The
Commission plans to publish a list of accredited laboratories that may
test RF equipment that will be certified.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
75. 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.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. The Commission proposed several modifications to the
administrative requirements for test laboratories and TCBs that it
believes will make the equipment authorization program more efficient
and effective, thus benefiting small entities. Specifically, the
Commission proposed that TCBs will approve all equipment, including
equipment that TCBs may not currently approve because it incorporates
new technology or requires measurements for which the procedures are
not yet clearly defined. To more efficiently implement this change, it
also proposes to integrate a new procedure into our equipment
authorization system that will enable TCBs to obtain guidance from the
Commission on testing or other certification issues. The Commission
expects that these changes will reduce the time required for
manufacturers to obtain equipment approval.
77. Our proposals to require accreditation of test laboratories
that perform certification testing and establish additional measures to
address TCB performance will ensure the continuing quality of the TCB
program. This will benefit equipment manufacturers by ensuring that all
TCBs operate in accordance with the Commission's rules, thus providing
a clear path to market and a level playing field for all manufacturers,
both large and small.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
78. None.
Ordering Clauses
79. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g),
303(r), 307(e) and 332 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), and 332, this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.
80. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 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, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
47 CFR Part 68
Communications equipment and Reporting and recordkeeping.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 0, 2, 15 and 68 of
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155,
225, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 0.241 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 0.241 Authority delegated.
(a) * * *
(1) Notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders
in rulemaking proceedings, inquiry proceedings and non-editorial orders
making changes, except that:
(i) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is
delegated authority, together with the Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, to adopt certain technical standards
applicable to hearing aid compatibility under Sec. 20.19 of this
chapter, as specified in Sec. 20.19(k) of this chapter.
(ii) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is
delegated authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking if required by
statute or otherwise in the public interest, to issue an order amending
parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of this chapter that reference industry
standards to specify revised versions of the standards. This delegation
is limited to modifying rules to reference revisions to standards that
are already in the rules and not to incorporate a new standard into the
rules, and is limited to the approval of changes to the technical
standards that do not raise major compliance issues.
* * * * *
(f) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is
authorized to enter into agreements with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and other accreditation bodies to perform
accreditation of test laboratories pursuant to Sec. 2.948(e) of this
chapter. In addition, the Chief is authorized to make determinations
regarding the continued acceptability of individual accrediting
organizations and accredited laboratories.
* * * * *
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
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.
0
4. Section 2.906 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.906 Declaration of Conformity.
(a) A Declaration of Conformity is a procedure where the
responsible party, as defined in Sec. 2.909, makes
[[Page 25932]]
measurements or takes other necessary steps to ensure that the
equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards. Submittal
of a sample unit or representative data to the Commission demonstrating
compliance is not required unless specifically requested pursuant to
Sec. 2.945.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 2.910 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 2.910 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by
reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they
exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these
materials will be published in the Federal Register. The materials are
available for purchase at the corresponding addresses as noted, and all
are available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th St. SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) The following material is available for purchase from at least
one of the following addresses: Global Engineering Documents, 15
Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, (800) 854-7179, or at https://global.ihs.com; or American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or at https://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp.
(1) ANSI C63.4-2009: ``Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise
Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the
Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,'' 2009, sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 IBR
approved for Sec. 2.948.
(2) CISPR 16-1-4:2007: ``Specification for radio disturbance and
immunity measuring apparatus and methods--Part 1-4: Radio disturbance
and immunity measuring apparatus--Ancillary equipment--Radiated
disturbances'', IBR approved for Sec. 2.948.
(c) The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1,
ch. De la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland;
www.iso.org; Tel.: +41 22 749 01 11; Fax: +41 22 733 34 30; email:
central@iso.org. (ISO publications can also be purchased from the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation
(www.nssn.org), at Customer Service, American National Standards
Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-
4900.)
(1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004, ``Conformity assessment--General
requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment
bodies,'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 2.948, 2.949, and 2.960.
(2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005, ``General Requirements for the Competence
of Calibration and Testing Laboratories,'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
2.948, 2.949, and 2.962.
(3) ISO/IEC 17065:2012, ``Conformity assessment--Requirements for
bodies certifying products, processes and services,'' IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 2.960 and 2.962.
0
6. Section 2.911 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.911 Application requirements.
(a) All requests for equipment authorization shall be submitted in
writing to a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) in a manner
prescribed by the TCB.
(b) A TCB shall submit an electronic copy of each equipment
authorization application to the Commission pursuant to Sec.
2.962(f)(6) on a form prescribed by the Commission at https://www.fcc.gov/eas.
(c) Each application that a TCB submits to the Commission shall be
accompanied by all information required by this subpart and by those
parts of the rules governing operation of the equipment, the
applicant's certifications required in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section, and by requisite test data, diagrams, photographs, etc.,
as specified in this subpart and in those sections of rules under which
the equipment is to be operated.
(d) The applicant shall provide to the TCB all information that the
TCB requests to process the equipment authorization request and to
submit the application form prescribed by the Commission and all
exhibits required with this form.
(1) The applicant shall provide a written and signed certification
to the TCB that all statements it makes in its request for equipment
authorization are true and correct to the best of its knowledge and
belief.
(2) The applicant shall provide a written and signed certification
to the TCB that the applicant complies with the requirements in Sec.
1.2002 of this chapter concerning the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
(3) Each request for equipment authorization submitted to a TCB,
including amendments thereto, and related statements of fact and
authorizations required by the Commission, shall be signed by the
applicant if the applicant is an individual; by one of the partners if
the applicant is a partnership; by an officer, if the applicant is a
corporation; or by a member who is an officer, if the applicant is an
unincorporated association: Provided, however, that the application may
be signed by the applicant's authorized representative who shall
indicate his title, such as plant manager, project engineer, etc.
(4) Information on the Commission's equipment authorization
requirements can be obtained from the Internet at https://www.fcc.gov/eas.
(e) Technical test data submitted to the TCB and to the Commission
shall be signed by the person who performed or supervised the tests.
The person signing the test data shall attest to the accuracy of such
data. The Commission may require such person to submit a statement
showing that he is qualified to make or supervise the required
measurements.
(f) Each application submitted by a TCB to the Commission shall be
accompanied by any processing fee prescribed in subpart G of part 1 of
this chapter. Unless otherwise directed, any fees required for
equipment approval services pursuant to Sec. 1.1103 of this chapter
must be submitted either electronically via the Internet at https://www.fcc.gov/eas or by following the procedures described in Sec.
0.401(b) of this chapter. The address for fees submitted by mail is:
Federal Communications Commission, Equipment Approval Services, P.O.
Box 979095, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. If the applicant chooses to make
use of an air courier/package delivery service, the following address
must appear on the outside of the package/envelope: Federal
Communications Commission, c/o Lockbox 979095, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
(g) Signed, as used in this section, means an original handwritten
signature; however, the Office of Engineering and Technology may allow
signature by any symbol executed or adopted by the applicant or TCB
with the intent that such symbol be a signature, including symbols
formed by computer-generated electronic impulses.
Sec. 2.913 [Removed]
0
7. Section 2.913 is removed.
[[Page 25933]]
Sec. 2.936 [Removed]
0
8. Section 2.936 is removed.
Sec. 2.943 [Removed]
0
9. Section 2.943 is removed.
0
10. Section 2.945 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.945 Submission of equipment for testing and equipment records.
(a) Prior to equipment authorization. (1) The Commission or a
Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) may require an applicant for
certification to submit one or more sample units for measurement at the
Commission's laboratory or the TCB.
(2) If the applicant fails to provide a sample of the equipment,
the TCB may dismiss the application without prejudice.
(3) In the event the applicant believes that shipment of the sample
to the Commission's laboratory or the TCB is impractical because of the
size or weight of the equipment, or the power requirement, or for any
other reason, the applicant may submit a written explanation why such
shipment is impractical and should not be required.
(4) The Commission may take administrative sanctions against a
grantee of certification that fails to respond within 21 days to a
Commission or TCB request for an equipment sample, such as suspending
action on applications for equipment authorization submitted by that
party while the matter is being resolved. The Commission may consider
extensions of time upon submission of a showing of good cause.
(b) Subsequent to equipment authorization. (1) The Commission may
request that the responsible party or any other party marketing
equipment subject to this chapter submit a sample of the equipment to
determine the extent to which production of such equipment continues to
comply with the data filed by the applicant or on file with the
responsible party for equipment subject to verification or Declaration
of Conformity. The Commission may request that a sample be submitted to
the Commission, or in the case of equipment subject to certification,
to the TCB that certified the equipment.
(2) A TCB may request samples of equipment that it has certified
from the grantee of certification for the purpose of performing post-
market surveillance as described in Sec. 2.962. TCBs must document
their sample requests to show the date they were sent and provide this
documentation to the Commission upon request.
(3) The cost of shipping the equipment to Commission's laboratory
or a TCB and back to the party submitting the equipment shall be borne
by the party from which the Commission or TCB requested the equipment.
(4) In the event a party believes that shipment of the sample to
the Commission's laboratory or the TCB is impractical because of the
size or weight of the equipment, or the power requirement, or for any
other reason, that party may submit a written explanation why such
shipment is impractical and should not be required.
(5) Failure of a responsible party or other party marketing
equipment subject to this chapter to comply with a request from the
Commission or TCB for equipment samples within 21 days may be cause for
actions such as such as suspending action on applications for equipment
authorization submitted by a grantee or forfeitures pursuant to Sec.
1.80 of this chapter. The Commission may consider extensions of time
upon submission of a showing of good cause.
(c) Submission of records. Upon request by the Commission, each
responsible party shall submit copies of the records required by
Sec. Sec. 2.938, 2.955, and 2.1075 to the Commission. Failure of a
responsible party or other party marketing equipment subject to this
chapter to comply with a request from the Commission for records within
21 days may be cause for forfeiture, pursuant to Sec. 1.80 of this
chapter. The Commission may consider extensions of time upon submission
of a showing of good cause.
(d) Inspection by the Commission. Upon request by the Commission,
each responsible party shall make its manufacturing plant and
facilities available for inspection.
Sec. 2.946 [Removed]
0
11. Section 2.946 is removed.
0
12. Section 2.948 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.948 Measurement facilities.
(a) Equipment authorized under the certification or Declaration of
Conformity (DoC) procedure shall be tested at a laboratory that is
accredited in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) A laboratory that makes measurements of equipment subject to an
equipment authorization under the certification, DoC or verification
procedure shall compile a description of the measurement facilities
employed.
(1) The description of the measurement facilities shall contain the
following information:
(i) Location of the test site.
(ii) Physical description of the test site accompanied by
photographs of size A4 (21 cm x 29.7 cm) or 8x10 inches (20.3 cm x 25.4
cm). Smaller photographs may be used if they clearly show the details
of the test site and are mounted on full size sheets of paper.
(iii) A drawing showing the dimensions of the site, physical layout
of all supporting structures, and all structures within 5 times the
distance between the measuring antenna and the device being measured.
(iv) Description of structures used to support the device being
measured and the test instrumentation.
(v) List of measuring equipment used.
(vi) Information concerning the calibration of the measuring
equipment, i.e., the date the equipment was last calibrated and how
often the equipment is calibrated.
(vii) For a measurement facility that will be used for testing
radiated emissions, a plot of site attenuation data taken pursuant
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) The description of the measurement facilities shall be provided
to a laboratory accreditation body upon request.
(3) The description of the measurement facilities shall be retained
by the party responsible for verification of equipment and provided to
the Commission upon request.
(i) The party responsible for verification of equipment may rely
upon the description of the measurement facilities retained by an
independent laboratory that performed the tests. In this situation, the
party responsible for verification of the equipment is not required to
retain a duplicate copy of the description of the measurement
facilities.
(ii) No specific site calibration data is required for equipment
that is verified for compliance based on measurements performed at the
installation site of the equipment. The description of the measurement
facilities may be retained at the site at which the measurements were
performed.
(c) The Commission will maintain a list of accredited laboratories
for which the accrediting organization (or designating authority in the
case of foreign laboratories) submits the information listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section to the Commission's
laboratory. The Commission will make publicly available a list of those
laboratories that indicate they will perform testing on a contract
basis. Inclusion of a facility on the Commission's list does not
constitute Commission endorsement of that facility. The Commission will
list the following information:
[[Page 25934]]
(1) Laboratory name, location of test site(s), mailing address and
contact information;
(2) Name of accrediting organization;
(3) Scope of laboratory accreditation;
(4) Date of expiration of accreditation;
(5) Designation number;
(6) FCC Registration Number (FRN);
(7) A statement as to whether or not the laboratory performs
testing on a contract basis;
(8) For laboratories outside the United States, the name of the
mutual recognition agreement or arrangement under which the
accreditation of the laboratory is recognized.
(d) For a measurement facility that will be used for testing
radiated emissions, the site attenuation must comply with the
requirements of Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 of the following procedure:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.4-2009, ``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'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 2.910). This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. If the
measurement site will be used for measuring radiated emissions in the
range of 1 GHz to 40 GHz, the site must meet the first alternative
specified in Section 5.5 of C63.4-2009 which states that RF absorbing
material must cover the ground plane such that the site validation
criterion called out in CISPR 16-1-4:2007 is met. Test site
revalidation shall occur on an interval not to exceed three years.
(e) A laboratory that has been accredited with a scope covering the
measurements required for the types of equipment that it will test
shall be deemed competent to test and submit test data for equipment
subject to verification, Declaration of Conformity, and certification.
Such a laboratory shall be accredited by an approved accreditation
organization based on the International Organization for
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)
Standard 17025, ``General Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories.'' The organization accrediting
the laboratory must be approved by the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology, as indicated in Sec. 0.241 of this
chapter, to perform such accreditation based on ISO/IEC Standard 17011,
``Conformity assessment--General requirements for accreditation bodies
accrediting conformity assessment bodies.'' The frequency for re-
assessment of the test facility and the information that is required to
be filed or retained by the testing party shall comply with the
requirements established by the accrediting organization, but shall
occur on an interval not to exceed two years.
(f) The accreditation of a laboratory located outside of the United
States, or its possessions, will be acceptable only under one of the
following conditions:
(1) If the accredited laboratory has been designated by a foreign
designating authority and recognized by the Commission under the terms
of a government-to-government Mutual Recognition Agreement/Arrangement
(MRA); or
(2) If the laboratory is located in a country that does not have an
MRA with the United States, then it must be accredited by an
organization recognized by the Commission under the provisions of Sec.
2.949 for performing accreditations in the country where the laboratory
is located.
0
13. Section 2.949 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 2.949 Selection of laboratory accreditation bodies.
(a) A party wishing to become a laboratory accreditation body
recognized by OET must submit a written request to the Chief of OET
requesting such recognition. OET will make a determination based on the
information provided in support of the request for recognition.
(b) Applicants shall provide the following information as evidence
of their credentials and qualifications to perform accreditation of
laboratories that test equipment to Commission requirements, consistent
with the requirements of Sec. 2.948(e) of the Commission's rules. OET
may request additional information, as needed, to determine the
applicant's credentials and qualifications.
(1) Successful completion of an ISO/IEC 17011 peer review, such as
being a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement or other equivalent
laboratory accreditation agreement.
(2) Experience with the accreditation of electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC), radio and telecom testing laboratories to ISO/IEC
17025. This can be demonstrated by having OET staff participate in a
witness audit of the accreditation body performing an assessment of an
EMC/Radio/Telecom testing laboratory; or by having OET staff review the
report generated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) laboratory accreditation evaluation program conducted to support
the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Mutual Recognition
Arrangement (MRA) for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications
Equipment. An applicant that offers other evidence has the burden of
demonstrating that the information would enable OET to evaluate its
experience with the accreditation of electromagnetic compatibility
(EMC), radio and telecom testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025.
(3) Accreditation personnel/assessors with specific technical
experience on the Commission equipment authorization rules and
requirements.
(4) Procedures and policies developed for the accreditation of
testing laboratories for FCC equipment authorization programs.
0
14. Section 2.953 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows.
Sec. 2.953 Responsibility for compliance.
* * * * *
(b) The importer of equipment subject to verification may upon
receiving a written statement from the manufacturer that the equipment
complies with the appropriate technical standards rely on the
manufacturer or independent testing agency to verify compliance. The
test records required by Sec. 2.955 however should be in the English
language and made available to the Commission upon a reasonable
request, in accordance with Sec. 2.945.
* * * * *
Sec. 2.956 [Removed]
0
15. Section 2.956 is removed.
0
16. Section 2.960 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.960 Recognition of Telecommunication Certification Bodies
(TCBs).
(a) The Commission may recognize designated Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs) to approve equipment for certification as
required under this part. Certification of equipment by a TCB shall be
based on an application with all the information specified in this
part. The TCB shall process the application to determine compliance
with the Commission's requirements and shall issue a written grant of
equipment authorization. The grant shall identify the approving TCB and
the Commission as the issuing authority.
(b) In the United States, TCBs shall be accredited and designated
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under its
National Voluntary Conformity Assessment Evaluation (NVCASE) program,
or other
[[Page 25935]]
recognized programs based on ISO/IEC 17065, to comply with the
Commission's qualification criteria for TCBs. NIST may, in accordance
with its procedures, allow other appropriately qualified accrediting
bodies to accredit TCBs. TCBs shall comply with the requirements in
Sec. 2.962.
(c) * * *
(1) The organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication
certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and
conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 2.962 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.962 Requirements for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.
Telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs) designated by NIST,
or designated by another authority pursuant to an effective bilateral
or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or arrangement to which
the United States is a party, shall comply with the following
requirements:
(a) Certification methodology. (1) The certification system shall
be based on type testing as identified in ISO/IEC 17065.
(2) Certification shall normally be based on testing no more than
one unmodified representative sample of each product type for which
certification is sought. Additional samples may be requested if clearly
warranted, such as when certain tests are likely to render a sample
inoperative.
(b) Criteria for designation. (1) To be designated as a TCB under
this section, an entity shall, by means of accreditation, meet all the
appropriate specifications in ISO/IEC 17065 for the scope of equipment
it will certify. The accreditation shall specify the group of equipment
to be certified and the applicable regulations for product evaluation.
(2) The TCB shall demonstrate expert knowledge of the regulations
for each product with respect to which the body seeks designation. Such
expertise shall include familiarity with all applicable technical
regulations, administrative provisions or requirements, as well as the
policies and procedures used in the application thereof.
(3) The TCB shall have the technical expertise and capability to
test the equipment it will certify and shall also be accredited in
accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 to demonstrate it is competent to perform
such tests.
(4) The TCB shall demonstrate an ability to recognize situations
where interpretations of the regulations or test procedures may be
necessary. The appropriate key certification and laboratory personnel
shall demonstrate knowledge of how to obtain current and correct
technical regulation interpretations. The competence of the TCB shall
be demonstrated by assessment. The general competence, efficiency,
experience, familiarity with technical regulations and products
included in those technical regulations, as well as compliance with
applicable parts of the ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17065, shall be taken
into consideration.
(5) A TCB shall participate in any consultative activities,
identified by the Commission or NIST, to facilitate a common
understanding and interpretation of applicable regulations.
(6) The Commission will provide public notice of the specific
methods that will be used to accredit TCBs, consistent with these
qualification criteria.
(7) A TCB shall be reassessed for continued accreditation on
intervals not exceeding two years.
(c) External resources. (1) In accordance with the provisions of
ISO/IEC 17065, the evaluation of a product, or a portion thereof, may
be performed by bodies that meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC
17025 and ISO/IEC 17065, in accordance with the applicable provisions
of ISO/IEC 17065 for external resources (outsourcing) and other
relevant standards.
(2) A recognized TCB shall not sub-contract certification decision
activities.
(3) When a subcontractor is used to provide testing of equipment
subject to certification, the TCB shall be responsible for the test
results and shall maintain appropriate oversight of the subcontractor
to ensure reliability of the test results. Such oversight shall include
periodic audits of products that have been tested and other activities
as required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a certification body uses external
resources for evaluation.
(d) Recognition of a TCB. (1)(i) The Commission will recognize as a
TCB any organization in the United States that meets the qualification
criteria and is accredited and designated by NIST or NIST's recognized
accreditor as provided in Sec. 2.960(b).
(ii) The Commission will recognize as a TCB any organization
outside the United States that meets the qualification criteria and is
designated pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral MRA as
provided in Sec. 2.960(c).
(2) The Commission will withdraw its recognition of a TCB if the
TCB's designation or accreditation is withdrawn, if the Commission
determines there is just cause for withdrawing the recognition, or if
the TCB requests that it no longer hold its designation or recognition.
The Commission will limit the scope of equipment that can be approved
by a TCB if its accreditor limits the scope of its accreditation or if
the Commission determines there is good cause to do so. The Commission
will notify a TCB in writing of its intention to withdraw or limit the
scope of the TCB's recognition and provide at least 60 days for the TCB
to respond. In the case of a TCB designated and recognized pursuant to
an effective bilateral or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or
arrangement (MRA), the Commission shall consult with the Office of the
United States Trade Representative (USTR), as necessary, concerning any
disputes arising under an MRA for compliance with the
Telecommunications Trade Act of 1988 (Section 1371-1382 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988).
(3) The Commission will notify a TCB in writing when it has
evidence that the TCB is not approving equipment in accordance with the
Commission's rules and policies and request that it correct any
apparent deficiencies. The Commission may require that all applications
for the TCB be processed under the pre-approval guidance procedure in
Sec. 2.964 for at least 30 days, and will provide a TCB with 30 day
notice of its intent to do so unless good cause exists for providing
shorter notice. The Commission may request that a TCB's designating
authority or accreditation body investigate and take appropriate
corrective actions as required, and the Commission may initiate action
to limit or withdraw the recognition of the TCB as described in Sec.
2.962(e)(2).
(4) If the Commission withdraws its recognition of a TCB, all
equipment approvals issued by that TCB will remain valid unless
specifically set aside or revoked by the Commission under paragraph
(f)(5) of this section.
(5) A list of recognized TCBs will be published by the Commission.
(e) Scope of responsibility. (1) A TCB shall certify equipment in
accordance with the Commission's rules and policies.
(2) A TCB shall accept test data from any Commission-recognized
accredited test laboratory, subject to the requirements in ISO/IEC
17065, and shall not unnecessarily repeat tests.
(3) A TCB may establish and assess fees for processing
certification applications and other Commission-required tasks.
[[Page 25936]]
(4) A TCB shall dismiss an application which is not in accordance
with the provisions of this subpart or when the applicant requests
dismissal, and may dismiss an application if the applicant does not
submit additional information or test samples requested by the TCB.
(5) The Commission or TCB may set aside a grant of certification
within 30 days of grant. A TCB shall notify the applicant and the
Commission when a grant is set aside. After 30 days, the Commission may
revoke a grant of certification through the procedures in Sec. 2.939.
(6) A TCB shall follow the procedures in Sec. 2.964 for equipment
on the pre-approval guidance list.
(7) A TCB shall supply an electronic copy of each equipment
authorization application form and all necessary exhibits to the
Commission prior to grant or dismissal of the application. Where
appropriate, the application must be accompanied by a request for
confidentiality of any material that may qualify for confidential
treatment under the Commission's rules.
(8) A TCB shall grant or dismiss each equipment authorization
application through the Commission's electronic system.
(9) A TCB may not:
(i) Grant a waiver of the rules.
(ii) Take enforcement actions; or
(iii) Authorize a transfer of control of a grantee.
(10) All TCB actions are subject to Commission review.
(f) Post-market surveillance requirements. (1) In accordance with
ISO/IEC 17065, a TCB shall conduct appropriate post-market surveillance
activities. These activities shall be based on type testing a certain
number of samples of the total number of product types which the
certification body has certified. Other types of surveillance
activities of a product that has been certified are permitted, provided
they are no more onerous than type testing.
(2) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) has
delegated authority under Sec. 0.241(g) of this chapter to develop
procedures that TCBs will use for performing post-market surveillance.
OET will publish a document on TCB post-market surveillance
requirements, and this document will provide specific information such
as the number and types of samples that a TCB must test.
(3) OET may request that a grantee of equipment certification
submit a sample directly to the TCB that performed the original
certification for evaluation. Any equipment samples requested by the
Commission and tested by a TCB will be counted toward the minimum
number of samples that the TCB must test.
(4) TCBs may request samples of equipment that they have certified
directly from the grantee of certification in accordance with Sec.
2.945.
(5) If during post market surveillance of a certified product, a
TCB determines that a product fails to comply with the technical
regulations for that product, the TCB shall immediately notify the
grantee and the Commission in writing of its findings. The grantee
shall provide a report to the TCB describing the actions taken to
correct the situation, and the TCB shall provide a report of these
actions to the Commission within thirty days.
(6) TCBs shall submit periodic reports to OET of their post-market
surveillance activities and findings in the format and by the date
specified by OET.
0
18. Section 2.964 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 2.964 Pre-approval guidance procedure for Telecommunication
Certification Bodies.
(a) The Commission will publish a ``pre-approval guidance list''
identifying the categories of equipment or types of testing for which
TCBs must request guidance from the Commission before approving
equipment on the list.
(b) TCBs shall use the following procedure for approving equipment
on the Commission's pre-approval guidance list.
(1) A TCB shall perform an initial review of the application and
determine the issues on which it needs to obtain guidance from the
Commission. It shall then contact the Commission to obtain guidance on
those issues by electronically submitting relevant exhibits.
(2) The TCB shall complete the review of the application in
accordance with the Commission's guidance.
(3) The Commission may request and test a sample of the equipment
before the application can be granted.
(4) The TCB shall electronically submit the application and all
exhibits to the Commission along with a request to grant the
application.
(5) The Commission will give its concurrence for the TCB to grant
the application if it determines that the equipment complies with the
rules. The Commission will advise the TCB if additional information or
equipment testing is required, or if the equipment cannot be approved
because it does not comply with the Commission's rules.
0
19. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(13), revising
paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(19) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1033 Application for certification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(13) Contain at least one drawing or photograph showing the test
set-up for each of the required types of tests applicable to the device
for which certification is requested. These drawings or photographs
must show enough detail to confirm other information contained in the
test report. Any photographs used must be focused originals without
glare or dark spots and must clearly show the test configuration used.
(c) Applications for equipment other than that operating under
parts 15, 11 and 18 of this chapter shall be accompanied by a technical
report containing the following information:
* * * * *
(19) Contain at least one drawing or photograph showing the test
set-up for each of the required types of tests applicable to the device
for which certification is requested. These drawings or photographs
must show enough detail to confirm other information contained in the
test report. Any photographs used must be focused originals without
glare or dark spots and must clearly show the test configuration used.
* * * * *
0
20. Section 2.1073 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1073 Responsibilities.
* * * * *
(b) The responsible party, if different from the manufacturer, may
upon receiving a written statement from the manufacturer that the
equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards rely on the
manufacturer or independent testing agency to determine compliance.
However, the test records required by Sec. 2.1075 shall be in the
English language and shall be made available to the Commission upon a
reasonable request in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 2.945.
* * * * *
0
21. Section 2.1075 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1075 Retention of records.
* * * * *
(c) The records listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
shall be retained for two years after the manufacture or assembly, as
appropriate, of said equipment has been permanently discontinued, or
until the conclusion of an investigation or a proceeding if the
responsible party is officially notified that an investigation or any
other administrative proceeding
[[Page 25937]]
involving the equipment has been instituted. Requests for the records
described in this section and for sample units also are covered under
the provisions of Sec. 2.945.
Sec. 2.1076 [Removed]
0
22. Section 2.1076 is removed.
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
23. 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.
0
24. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.31 Measurement standards.
(a) * * *
(3) Other intentional radiators are to be measured for compliance
using the following procedure: ANSI C63.10-2009: ``American National
Standard for Testing Unlicensed Wireless Devices'' (incorporated by
reference, Sec. 15.38). This incorporation by reference was approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(4) Unintentional radiators are to be measured for compliance using
the following procedure excluding sections 4.5.2, 6.2.12, 8.2.2, 9 and
14: ANSI C63.4-2009: ``Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions
from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9
kHz to 40 GHz'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38). This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
* * * * *
0
25. Section 15.38 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and by adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.38 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) ANSI C63.4-2009: ``Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise
Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the
Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,'' 2009, IBR approved for Sec. 15.31 except
sections 4.5.2, 6.2.12, 8.2.2, 9 and 14.
* * * * *
(4) ANSI C63.10-2009, ``American National Standard for Testing
Unlicensed Wireless Devices,'' 2009, IBR approved for Sec. 15.31.
* * * * *
Sec. 15.109 [Amended]
0
26. Section 15.109 is amended by removing paragraph (g)(4).
PART 68--CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK
0
27. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068,
1082, (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303).
0
28. Section 68.160 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.160 Designation of Telecommunication Certification Bodies
(TCBs).
(a) The Commission may recognize designated Telecommunication
Certification Bodies (TCBs) to approve equipment for certification as
required under this part. Certification of equipment by a TCB shall be
based on an application with all the information specified in this
part. The TCB shall process the application to determine compliance
with the Commission's requirements and shall issue a written grant of
equipment authorization. The grant shall identify the approving TCB and
the Commission as the issuing authority.
(b) In the United States, TCBs shall be accredited and designated
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under its
National Voluntary Conformity Assessment Evaluation (NVCASE) program,
or other recognized programs based on ISO/IEC 17065, to comply with the
Commission's qualification criteria for TCBs. NIST may, in accordance
with its procedures, allow other appropriately qualified accrediting
bodies to accredit TCBs. TCBs shall comply with the requirements in
Sec. 68.162.
(c) * * *
(1) The organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication
certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and
conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 68.162 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (f)(2), and (g)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.162 Requirements for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.
(a) Telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs) designated by
NIST, or designated by another authority pursuant to an effective
bilateral or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or arrangement
to which the United States is a party, shall comply with the following
requirements.
(b) Certification methodology. (1) The certification system shall
be based on type testing as identified in ISO/IEC 17065.
* * * * *
(c) Criteria for designation. (1) To be designated as a TCB under
this section, an entity shall, by means of accreditation, meet all the
appropriate specifications in ISO/IEC 17065 for the scope of equipment
it will certify. The accreditation shall specify the group of equipment
to be certified and the applicable regulations for product evaluation.
* * * * *
(3) The TCB shall have the technical expertise and capability to
test the equipment it will certify and shall also be accredited in
accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 to demonstrate it is competent to perform
such tests.
(4) The TCB shall demonstrate an ability to recognize situations
where interpretations of the regulations or test procedures may be
necessary. The appropriate key certification and laboratory personnel
shall demonstrate knowledge of how to obtain current and correct
technical regulation interpretations. The competence of the
telecommunication certification body shall be demonstrated by
assessment. The general competence, efficiency, experience, familiarity
with technical regulations and products included in those technical
regulations, as well as compliance with applicable parts of the ISO/IEC
17025 and ISO/IEC 17065, shall be taken into consideration.
* * * * *
(d) External resources. (1) In accordance with the provisions of
ISO/IEC 17065, the evaluation of a product, or a portion thereof, may
be performed by bodies that meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC
17025 and ISO/IEC 17065, in accordance with the applicable provisions
of ISO/IEC 17065 for external resources (outsourcing) and other
relevant standards.
(2) A recognized TCB shall not sub-contract certification decision
activities.
(3) When a subcontractor is used to provide testing of equipment
subject to certification, the TCB shall be responsible for the test
results and shall maintain appropriate oversight of the subcontractor
to ensure reliability of the test results. Such oversight shall include
periodic audits of products that have been tested and other activities
as required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a certification body uses external
resources for evaluation.
* * * * *
[[Page 25938]]
(f) * * *
(2) A TCB shall accept test data from any source, subject to the
requirements in ISO/IEC 17065, and shall not unnecessarily repeat
tests.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) In accordance with ISO/IEC 17065, a TCB is required to conduct
appropriate surveillance activities. These activities shall be based on
type testing a few samples of the total number of product types which
the certification body has certified. Other types of surveillance
activities of a product that has been certified are permitted, provided
they are no more onerous than testing type. The Commission may at any
time request a list of products certified by the certification body and
may request and receive copies of product evaluation reports. The
Commission may also request that a TCB perform post-market
surveillance, under Commission guidelines, of a specific product it has
certified.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-10315 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P